JHP SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6490/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0722 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V G GINDEKUMAR KALE
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; TDS; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 201; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC , MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & . ,#$#% SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . 6490 / /2018(. 2012-13 ) ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018 (A.Y.2012-13) JHP SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 201,DEV NEO VIKRAM, B WING, 2 ND FLOOR, SAHAKAR NAGAR CHS, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400 053 PAN: AAACJ2847H ...... - / APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3)(1) ROOM NO.648, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 ..... .// RESPONDENT -0/ APPELLANT BY : S/ SHRI V.G.GINDE/KUMAR KALE ./0/ RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. KAVITHA 1/ / DATE OF HEARING : 20/02/2020 234 1/ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/06/2020 #/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, MUMBAI (IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 30/08/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13) 2. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON TWO GROUNDS: (I) DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) R.W.R. 8D; (II) DISALLOWANCE OF CLIENT REFERRAL FEES RS.27,93 ,401/-. 3. SHRI V.G.GINDE, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SHARE BROKER. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30/09/2012 DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.9,59,865/-. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD THE ASSE SSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,21,155/-. THE ASSESSEE MADE SUO-MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,57,180/- AS DIRECT EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962.( IN SHORT THE RULES). TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEMAT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSES SEE ARE IN RELATION TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DEMAT ACCOUNT IS HELD BY THE ASSESSE E UNDER BROKER POOL ACCOUNT, CONNECTED WITH ASSESSEES SHARE BROKING BU SINESS AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED THAT APART FROM ABO VE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.18,610/- UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AS INTE REST EXPENDITURE AND RS.26,333 UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III). THUS, THE TOTAL D ISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R.8D WAS MADE AT RS.10,02,123/-. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MUCH M ORE THAN THE INVESTMENT MADE, THEREFORE, NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSE FOR 3 ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13) MAKING THE INVESTMENT. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENT IONS, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/3/2012 AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS AGAINST THE INVESTMENT OF RS.55.5 1 LAKHS, OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPRISING OF SHARE CAPITAL A ND RESERVES AND SURPLUS ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS.33.53 CRORES. THE LD.AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT O F INDIA IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 379 ITR 3 47 HAS UPHELD PRESUMPTION THEORY THAT WHERE BOTH, INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND OWN FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE, THAT OWN FUNDS ARE UTILIS ED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) IS CONCE RNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUO-MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/-. THE CIT (A) HAS ENHANCED DISALLOWANCE TO DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) MAY BE RESTRICTED TO SUO- MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.2, THE LD.AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CLIEN T REFERRAL FEES OF RS.45,52,399/- AS AGAINST TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.3,28 ,17,19/- DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE CLIENT REFERRAL FEES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEA L IS 13.87% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE CLI ENT REFERRAL FEE TO 5.36% I.E. THE RATIO OF FEES PAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REFERR ED TO THE DETAILS OF CLIENT REFERRAL FEES PAID AT PAGES 32 AND 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE DETAILS INCLUDE; 4 ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13) THE NAMES OF THE SUB-BROKERS ALONGWITH THEIR ADDRES S, PAN, AMOUNT PAID AND AMOUNT OF TDS. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM CLIENT REFERRAL FEES WAS PAID WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO, HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW BRUSHED ASIDE THE SAME WITHOUT CONSIDERING. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FIL ED A CHART GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE BROKERAGE INCOME EARNED AND THE CLIENT REFER RAL FEES PAID DURING THE PRECEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD.AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10 THE PERCENTAGE OF CLIENT REFERRAL FEE TO THE BROKERAGE INCOME WAS 29. 26%. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IT WAS 15.85% AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2 IT WAS 11.61%. THUS THE AVERAGE FEE PAID IN THE LAST THREE PRECEDING YE ARS WAS 17.24%, WHICH IS STILL MORE THAN THE FEE PAID DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER APPEAL. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF CLIENT REFERRAL FEES PAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS LESS, DISALLOWANCE CA NNOT BE MADE IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, MS. R. KAVITHA, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED F OR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDE S AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS QUA DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,21,155/-. THE ASSESSEE MADE SUO-MOTU DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,92,123/-. IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE 5 ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13) DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT TO THE TO TAL EXEMPT INCOME EARNED. AFTER ANALYSING THE FACTS, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIE W THAT IN SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) AND (II), THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNWARRANTED. THE DEMAT CHARG ES WERE RELATED TO ASSESSEES SHARE BROKER BUSINESS AND WERE UNRELATED TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. AS REGARDS INTEREST EXPENDITURE, THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/3/2012, THAT OWN FUNDS OF TH E ASSESSEE WERE MUCH MORE THAN THE INVESTMENTS MADE. IT IS A WELL SETTL ED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT WERE BOTH, INTEREST BEARING AND OWN INTEREST FREE F UNDS ARE AVAILABLE, IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT INVESTMENTS ARE MADE FROM OWN FUND S. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER RULE 8D (2)(I) & (II) WERE UNCALLED FOR. IN SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D (2)(III) IS CONCERNED, T HE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUO- MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,000/- AS AGAINST DIVIDEN D INCOME OF RS.1,21,155/-. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT V. STATE BANK OF PATIALA REPORTED AS 259 TAXMAN 314 (SC) HAS APPROVED THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R. W. RULE 8D(2)(III) CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME EAR NED. WE FIND NO MERIT IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, THE SAME IS DISMISSED, A CCORDINGLY. 6. IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS A SSAILED DISALLOWANCE OF CLIENT REFERRAL FEES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURI NG THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CLIENT REFERRAL FEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.45,52,399/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTE R TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION QUANTUM OF FEES PAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING A SSESSMENT YEAR HAS RESTRICTED THE PAYMENT OF CLIENT REFERRAL FEE TO 5. 36% IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CIT (A) HAS UPHELD THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE BROKERAGE INCOME EARNED AN D THE CLIENT REFERRAL FEES 6 ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13) PAID DURING THE IMMEDIATE THREE PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T YEARS. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: PARTICULARS AY 2009 - 10 AY 2010 - 11 AY 2011 - 12 AY 2012 - 13 RS. RS. RS. RS. BROKERAGE INCOME AS PER P&L A/C. 3,21,35,055 4,98,14,411 5,00,61,333 2,74,97,389 CLIENT REFERRAL FEE S 94,02,213 78,96,349 33,10,533 45,52,399 PER CENT (B) TO (A) 29.26% 15.85% 6.61% 16.56% AVERAGE FOR LAST 3 YEARS : 17.24% THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED DETAILS OF SUB-BROK ERS TO WHOM CLIENT REFERRAL FEES HAS BEEN PAID DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD (PAGE S 32 AND 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THESE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HOWEVER, THE SAME WER E NEITHER CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BY THE CIT (A). WE OBSER VE THAT THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS REMARKED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE FACTUAL DATA OF THE LIST OF REFERENCE MADE, AMOUNT PAID TO THEM, MODE OF PAYMENT AND THEIR INCOME TAX DETAILS, ETC. THE OBSERVATIONS MA DE BY CIT(A) ARE CONTRARY TO THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE LETTER D ATED 09/01/2015 AT PAGES 30 AND 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT THE DETAILS OF CLIENT REFERRAL FEES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN NOTE OF THE SAME AND NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO VERIFY GENUINENESS OF THE DETAILS QUA CLIENT REFERRAL FEES FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE REASON FOR DISALLOWING CLIENT REFERRAL FEES THAT THE PERCENTAG E OF FEES PAID IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS COMPARATIVELY LOWER AND HENCE, THE SAME HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE SAME PERCENTAGE IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. A PERUSAL OF THE TABLE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY INDICATES T HAT PERCENTAGE OF THE FEES PAID IN EACH YEAR VARIES AND THERE IS NO FIXED PATT ERN OF PAYMENT OF CLIENT 7 ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13) REFERRAL FEES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE EX AMINED GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE RATHER THAN ESTIMATING BY APPLYING PE RCENTAGE OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHILE VERIFYING GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS, SHALL GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE GROUND NO .2 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS AFORESAID. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 20/02/2020. AS PER RUL E 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, (ITAT RULES, 1963), THE ORDER WAS REQUIRED TO BE ORDINARILY PRONOUNCED WITHIN A PER IOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING OF APPEAL. THE IN STANT APPEAL WAS HEARD PRIOR TO THE LOCKDOWN DECLARED BY THE HONBLE PRIME MINIS TER ON 24-03-2020 IN VIEW OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. THE LOCKDOWN WAS FORCED DUE T O EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES CAUSED BY WORLD WIDE SPREAD OF COVID- 19. THEREAFTER, THE LOCKDOWN WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. THEREFORE , THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING IS NOT UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD., ITA NO.6264/MUM/2018 FOR A.Y 201 3-14 DECIDED ON 14/05/2020, UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AFTER CO NSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 34(5) OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963, JUDGEMENTS REND ERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON THE ISSU E TIME LIMIT FOR 8 ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13) PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CIR CUMSTANCES LEADING TO LOCKDOWN HELD:- 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQUIRING P RONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTI RE COUNTRY WAS IN LOCKDOWN, WE SHOULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING A T LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND RE ALITIES IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETING THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMNIPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS A PRAGMATIC TOOL OF THE SOCIAL OR DER. THE TENETS OF LAW BEING ENACTED ON THE BASIS OF PRAGMATISM, AND THAT IS HOW THE LAW IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRETED. THE INTERPRETATION SO ASSIGNED BY US IS NOT ONLY INCONS ONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A PRAGMATIC APPROACH AT A TI ME WHEN A DISASTER, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2005, IS CAUSING UNPREC EDENTED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM. UNDOUBT EDLY, IN THE CASE OF OTTERS CLUB VS DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (BOM)], HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DID NOT APPROVE AN ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS, BUT THEN IN THE PRESENT SITUATION HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VID E JUDGMENT DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED WHILE CALCULATING THE TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME- BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY . THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUO MOTU BY HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIO D OF LOCKDOWN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE NORMAL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN IN FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS ORDINA RILY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING W HICH ITA NO. 6103 AND LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIME LIM ITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EX CEPTION, TO 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, INHERENT IN RULE 34(5)(C), WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN NINETY DAYS, CLEARLY COMES INTO PLAY IN THE PRESENT CASE. OF COURSE, THERE IS NO, AND THERE CANNOT BE A NY, BAR ON THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BEC AUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE HEARING IS CONCL UDED AND THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ORDER THEREON IS BEING FINALIZED, BUT THEN, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THUS, IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF C OORDINATE BENCH, THE PRESENT ORDER IS PRONOUNCED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. 9 ITA NO.6490/MUM/2018(A.Y.2012-13) 9. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE B OARD. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020. SD/- SD/- (G.MANJUNATHA) (VIKAS AW ASTHY) #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, 6'/ DATED 12/06/2020 VM , SR. PS(O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. - / THE APPELLANT , 2. ./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 7/ ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 7/ CIT 5. 89 ./' , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9:; <= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI