PERMANENT MAGNETS LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT - CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

ITA 6436/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5739 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Question of law; TDS; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO S . 6436 TO 6442 /MUM/201 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R S : 2015 - 16 ) PERMANENT MAGNETS LTD. C/O JAYESH SANGHRAJKA & CO LLP CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS UNIT NO. 405, HIND RAJASTHAN CENTRE, D.S. PHALKE ROAD, DADAR (E), MUMBAI - 400014 . / VS. DCIT - CPC (TDS) TDS CPC, AAYAKAR BHAWAN SECTOR - 3, VAISHALI NAGAR, GHAZIABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACP2231M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 05 / 0 8 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT : 07 /08 /2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL S HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06 .0 8 .2018 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEV ANT TO THE A.Y. 2015 - 16 . SINCE THE COMMON QUESTION OF LAW AND FACTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEAL S ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION . ASSESSEE BY: MS. MANASVI CHHEDA (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI MALLIKARJUN UTTURE (DR) ITA. NO S . 6436 TO 6442/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2015 - 1 6 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. ON THE GIVEN FACTS, CIRCUMST ANCES, AD JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS HON. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF LD. AO OF LEVYING LATE FILING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E, SUCH CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. ON THE GIVEN FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES, AND JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENTS HON. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMATION THE PENALTY FOR LATE FILING UNDER SECTION 234E, FOR A PERIOD RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2014 - 15, EVEN THOUGH NO POWER WAS CONFERRED ON THE AO AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A, HENCE LEVY OF SUCH FEE/PENALTY IS W ITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, AMEND AND ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE FILED ITS QUARTERLY TDS STATE MENT IN FORM NO. 24Q (1 ST , 2 ND AND 3 RD QUARTER) AND 26Q(1 ST , 2 ND , 3 RD AND 4 TH QUARTERS) LATE FOR WHICH THE DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD, UP HAD IMPOSED LATE FILING FEE AND PENALTY AS PER DETAILS MENTIONED BELOW: - 4 . AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL FOR ALL SEVEN QUARTERS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FI L E D THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA. NO S . 6436 TO 6442/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2015 - 1 6 3 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE QUARTERLY TDS AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE TDS STATEMENT WAS FILED AND THE DELAY OF DAYS HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE TABLE MENTIONED ABOVE. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY U/S 234E OF THE ACT HAS ALSO BEEN REF LECTED THERE. AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENT, THE PENALTY /FEE IS LEVIABLE U/S 234E OF THE ACT FOR EACH DAYS DEFAULT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE LATE FEE U/S 234E OF THE I.T. ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E, 2 00A (A,B,C,D,E AND F) AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200 (3) OF THE ACT. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT SPEAKS THAT FOR LATE FILING OF THE TDS STATEMENT OF EACH QUARTER , THE FEE IS LIABLE TO BE IMPOSED W.E.F. 01.04.2005 AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT PROVID ES FOR LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.100 PER DAY FOR EACH DAY OF DEFAULT IN FILING TDS INSERTED W.E.F. 01.04.2005 . IT IS CONTENDED THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WH EN THE TDS STATEMENT HAS BEEN FILED UPTO 29.05.2015, THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, NO LATE FEE IS LEVIABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF TITLED AS FATHERAJ SINGHVI VS. UNION OF INDIA (2016)(73 TAXMANN.COM 252) (KAR) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN ITA. NO. 3324/M/2015 DATED 31.03.2017 TITLED AS KAMALA ENTERPRISES VS. ITO (TDS) AND THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE ITAT IN ITA. NO. 652/M/2016 DATED 18.01.2019 TITLED AS M/S. BATHIJA INTERNATIONAL VS. DCIT - CPC - TDS, MUMBAI. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ITA. NO S . 6436 TO 6442/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2015 - 1 6 4 ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. T HE FACTUAL POSITION IS N OT IN DISPUTE WHICH HAS BEEN REFLECTED ABOVE IN THE TABLE WHILE DISCUSSING BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ONLY QUESTION ARISES BEFORE US WHETHER THE FEE U/S 234E IS NOT LEVIABLE EARLIER TO 01.06.20 1 5 OR SUBSEQUENT TO 01.06.2015. HERE, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISCUSS THE FINDING BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. BATHIJA INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) AND THE RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA NO, 6 WHICH IS HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S. THE LATE FEE ENVISAGED IN SECTION 234E OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CHARGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT ON 14.06.2013, WHICH IS INDEED PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. OSTENSIBLY, A PERUSAL OF BARE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A OF THE ACT SHOW THAT PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, IT DID NOT EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY THE FEE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT OF TDS. THUS, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS BORNE OUT OF THE B ARE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. OUR COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. DHAMI FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. IN FACT, THE MUMBAI BENCH HAS NOTED AND FOLLOWED AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GAJANAN CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS, ITA NOS. 1292 & 1293/PN/2015 DATED 23.09.2016. IN SO FAR AS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS QUITE MISPLACED. IN TH E SAID CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS MERELY UPHELD THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT; AND, AS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY NOTED BY THE PUNE BENCH, THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WAS NOT DEALING WITH THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER PRIOR TO 01.06.2015, WHILE PROCESSING THE TDS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT, THE LATE FEE ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT, COULD BE LEVIED OR NOT. THUS, RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. D.R. ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHMIKANT KUNDALIA (SUPRA) IS MISPLACED, AS IT HAS BEEN RENDERED IN AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT CONTEXT. 6. THE HONBLE ITAT HAS ALSO TAKEN THE VIEW IN CASE OF TITLED AS KAMALA ENTERPRISES VS. ITO (TDS) IN ITA. NO.3324/M/2015 DATED 31.03.2017 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE FILING OF THE TDS STATEMENT ITA. NO S . 6436 TO 6442/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2015 - 1 6 5 SUBSEQUENT TO 01.06.2015 IS LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED. THE RELEVANT FINDING IS HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE CASE LAW RELIED UP ON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE LATE FILING FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND WAS WRONGLY LEVIED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE FAA. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTIONS 234E, 200A (A,B,C,D,E AND F) AND ALSO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200 SUBSECTION (3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR ARGUED BEFORE US THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200(3) OF THE ACT REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A STATEMENT WITHIN A PRESCRIBED PERIOD FOR EACH QUARTER WHICH WAS INSERTED FROM 1.4.2005 AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272A(2)(K) PROVIDING FOR LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.100 PER DAY FOR EACH DAY OF DEFAULT IN FILING TDS ALSO CAME TO BE INSERTED FROM 1.4.2005. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ON 1.4.2010 S ECTION 200A WAS INSERTED PROVIDING FOR THE PROCESSING OF THE TDS STATEMENT AND THE CONSEQUENT ISSUANCE OF THE INTIMATION TO THE DEDUCTOR, DETERMINING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE OR REFUNDABLE BY IT. BUT IN THE INITIAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A, THERE WAS NO REFERE NCE FOR FEE PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 234E. ON 1.7.2012, SECTION 234E PROVIDED FOR LEVYING OF FEE OF RS.200/ - PER DAY FOR EACH DAY OF DEFAULT IN FILING THE TDS. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.AR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200A(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE RE WAS NO AUTHORITY OR COMPETENCE OR JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE CONCERNED OFFICER OR DEPARTMENT TO COMPUTE OR DETERMINE THE FEE UNDER SECTION 234E IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT WHICH FALLS PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 AS THE SAID PROVISIONS WAS ALSO BROUGHT ON THE ST ATUTE BOOK W.E.F. 1.6.2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY NO DEMAND U/S 234E SHOULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AND RAISED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI V/S UNION OF INDIA 2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 (KARNATAKA), THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED A N IDENTICAL ISSUE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO FEE UNDER SECTION 234E WAS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF PERIOD WHICH RELATES TO OR FALLS PRIOR TO 1.6.2015. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED BELOW : 27. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION, T HE IMPUGNED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTATION AND INTIMATION FOR PAYMENT OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E AS THEY RELATE TO FOR THE PERIOD OF THE TAX DEDUCTED PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 ARE SET ASIDE. IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT WOUL D NOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT EVEN IF THE PAYMENT OF THE FEES UNDER SECTION 234E ALREADY MADE AS PER ITA. NO S . 6436 TO 6442/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2015 - 1 6 6 DEMAND/INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR THE TDS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.04.2015 IS PERMITTED TO BE REOPENED FOR CLAIMING REFUND. THE JUDGMENT WILL HAVE PROSPECTIVE EFFECT ACCORDINGLY. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 234E SHALL REMAIN OPEN TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE DIVISION BENCH AND SHALL NOT GET CONCLUDED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SIN GLE JUDGE. 28. THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT. WE FIND THAT THE RELEVANT PERIOD IS 31ST MAY, 2015 THE LAST DATE FOR FILING TDS STATEMENT AND HENCE PERIOD FALLS PRIOR TO 1.6.2015. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME RATI O AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE AND OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE LA TE FILING FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT OF RS.8,200/ - . WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS RENDERED ON DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF LATE FILING UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPEALABLE AN D THEREFORE NOT ONEROUS. SINCE THE AO HAS NO POWER TO IMPOSE ATE FILING FEE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE FEE OF RS.8,200/ - . 7. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE ITAT HAS ALSO PASSED THE ORDER IN ITA. NO. 442/AGRA/2017 DATED 09.0 4.2015 TITLED AS SUDARSHAN GOYAL VS. DCIT (TDS) GHAZIABAD IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT THE TDS STATEMENT FILED EARLIER TO 01.06.2015 NOWHERE FALLS FOR LEVY THE FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PARA NO. 4, 5 & 6 WHICH IS HEREBY REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 4. WE DO NOT FIND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE CORRECT IN LAW. AS AGAINST RAJESH KAURANI (SUPRA), SHRI FATEHRAJ SINGHVI AND OTHERS VS.UOI, 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 (KER), AS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) H IMSELF, DECIDES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS THAT THIS DECISION AND OTHERS TO THE SAME EFFECT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHILE PASSING RAJESH KAURANI (SUPRA). HOWEV ER, WHILE OBSERVING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE THERE IS A CLEAVAGE OF OPINION BETWEEN DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON AN ISSUE, THE ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED. IT HAS SO BEEN ITA. NO S . 6436 TO 6442/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2015 - 1 6 7 HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD., 88 ITR 192 (SC). IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE WHERE THE DECISION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT QUA THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN SHRI FATEHRAJ SINGHVI AND OTHERS (S UPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS: 22. IT IS HARDLY REQUIRED TO BE STATED THAT, AS PER THE WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE, UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED OR IMPLIEDLY DEMONSTRATED, ANY PROVISION OF STATUTE IS TO B E READ AS HAVING PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT SUBSTITUTION MADE BY CLAUSE (C) TO (F) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A CAN BE READ AS HAVING PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND NOT HAVING RETROACTIVE CHARACTER OR EFFECT. RESULTANTLY, THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 200A FOR COMPUTATION AND INTIMATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF FEE UNDER SECTION 234E COULD NOT BE MADE IN PURPORTED EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 200A BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR PRIOR TO 1.6.2015. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, IF ANY DEDUCTOR HAS ALREADY PAID THE FEE AFTER INTIMATION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 200A, THE AFORESAID VIEW WILL NOT PERMIT THE DEDUCTOR TO REOPEN THE SAID QUESTION UNLESS HE HAS MADE PAYMENT UNDER PRO TEST. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING SHRI FATEHRAJ SINGHVI AND OTHERS (SUPRA), SIBIA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (TDS), ORDER DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.90/ASR/2015, FOR A.Y.2013 - 14, BY THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND SHRI KAUR CHAND JAIN VS. DCIT, CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD, ORDER DATED 15.09.2016, IN ITA NO.378/ASR/2015, FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED AS JUSTIFIED. THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS REVERSED. THE LEVY OF THE FEE IS CANCELLED. 8. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED JUDGMENTS IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TDS STATEMENT S WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED EARLIER TO 01.06.2015 THEN NO FEE IS LEVIABLE U/S 234E OF THE ACT. ALL THE JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN PASSED ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI(SUPRA). IN VIEW OF THE SAID DISCUSSION AND BY RELIED UPON THE DECISION MENTIONED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ITA. NO S . 6436 TO 6442/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2015 - 1 6 8 I N ALL THE APPEALS AND DELETE THE FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT . ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 /08 /2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( M. BALAGANESH ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBA I DATED : 07 /08/ 2019 VIJAY/ SR. PS ITA. NO S . 6436 TO 6442/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2015 - 1 6 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / / (DY./ASSTT. REGI STRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI