PRAMA INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD., NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6536/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0229 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 37(1); 148

Judgement Text

G IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 6536/ MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S PRAMA INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD., R-80, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC, RABALE, NAVI MUMBAI 400 701. / V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13(1)(2), ROOM NO. 218, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. ./ PAN : AAACP 6136F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE B Y : SHRI V. VIDHYADHAR / DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2017 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO. 6 536/MUM/2016, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2016 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 21, M UMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ARISEN FROM THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER DATED 28.03.2015 ITA 6536/MUM/2016 2 PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ( HEREINAFTER C ALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) . 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBA I (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS. 4,13,49,294/- WHICH IS MOST UNJUST IFIED AND ARBITRARY AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) OF THE 1961 ACT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 75,29,594/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED IN PURSUANCE TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT THE ASSES SEE IS BENEFICIARY OF TAKING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS AND ROUTING IT THROUGH THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED BY REVENUE FROM THE S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT , WHEREIN THE EIGHT HAWALA ENTRY OPERATORS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS HAVE ADMITTED BEFORE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THEY HAVE ONLY ISSUED BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT SUPPLYING GOOD S PHYSICALLY. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED B OGUS PURCHASE BILLS FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- 1. BALAJI TRADERS RS.98,99,901/- 2. DHARMESH TRADING COMPANY RS.15,66,488/- 3. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES RS.10,80,000/- 4. JAIN CORPORATION RS.12,15,000/- 5. OMKAR TRADING COMPANY, RS.83,72,252/- ITA 6536/MUM/2016 3 6. MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES RS.67,15,188/- 7. YASH IMPEX RS.1,13,50,528/- 8. SHIVRAJ TRADERS RS.11,46,937/- --------------------- RS.4,13,46,294/- --------------------- THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO PRODUCE THE ABO VE EIGHT PARTIES TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION AS THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESEE TO SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIO NS, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO. THE AS SESSEE DID NOT PRODUCED THE COPIES OF BILLS/INVOICES, DELIVERY CHALLANS AND TRA NSPORTATION RECEIPTS ETC BEFORE THE AO. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE SAID PARTIES HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THEY HAVE IND ULGED IN THE PRACTICE OF ISSUANCE OF BOGUS SALES/PURCHASES AND ACCORDINGLY A CCOMMODATION BILLS WERE ISSUED WITHOUT SUPPLYING GOODS PHYSICALLY AND THE A SSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY OF THESE BOGUS BILLS. THUS, THE AO OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS BY NOT SUBSTANTIATING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THESE PARTIES BUT THE SAID NOTICES WERE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONCE AGAIN ASKED BY THE AO TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, DELIVERY CHALLANS, TRANSPORTATIO N BILLS IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES BOOKED IN THE NAME OF SUCH HAWALA PARTIE S, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES AND AS ALSO THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO PROVIDE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE ASKED FOR BY THE A.O. . THE REVENUE ALSO TRIED TO LOCATE THE PARTIES BUT THESE PARTIES COULD NOT BE T RACED BY REVENUE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO GIVE PRESENT ADDRESSES OF THESE PARTIES. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALS O FAILED TO PROVE MOVEMENT OF GOODS ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED FROM THESE EIGHT PARTI ES. BASED UPON THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE SAID PURCHAS ES WERE BOGUS AND CONSEQUENTLY AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE . THE AO MA DE ADDITION OF RS. ITA 6536/MUM/2016 4 4,13,46,294/- U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE SAME WERE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS BEING AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE , VIDE AS SESSMENT ORDER DATED 28- 03-2015 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF T HE 1961 ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-03-20 15 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE 1961 ACT, THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLEN GE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 BY THE AO, BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) . THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ME RITS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE BANK STATEMENT OF THE SE 8 PARTIES FROM WHOM ALLEGEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASE D GOODS VIDE ALLEGED BOGUS BILLS ISSUED BY THESE 8 PARTIES TO DEMONSTRA TE RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE AND ALSO LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED T HE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE 8 PARTIES BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE DID FILE STATEMENT AS TO PURCHASE AND SALES BUT BANK STATEMENTS OF THESE 8 P ARTIES WERE NOT PRODUCED NOR THESE 8 PARTIES COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CURRENT ADDRESSES OF THESE 8 PARTIES BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT THESE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND SALES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LE ARNED CIT(A) CONSTITUTE AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS AO ASSESSMENT ORDER STATED THAT NO DETAILS WERE FILED AND IT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIL E ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE LEARNED CI TA(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED F ROM TAX AUDIT REPORTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED QUANTITATIVE DETAIL S IN RESPECT OF ITS MANUFACTURING AND TRADING ACTIVITIES. THE LEARNED C IT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FR OM THE ABOVE PARTIES WERE CONSUMED FOR MANUFACTURING OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD ITA 6536/MUM/2016 5 NOT PROVE UTILIZATION/CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL FOR M ANUFACTURING OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE LEAR NED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THESE PURCHASES THROUGH BROKERS AND P ARTIES COULD NOT BE LOCATED AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATI ON ABOUT THESE PARTIES.THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE IN THE SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED ADDITIONS W. R.T. BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 8 PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROD UCE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AS WELL THE UTILIZATION/CONSUMPTION OF T HE MATERIAL COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE, VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 01-09-2016 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 01-09-201 6 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE BEING ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE WE PR OCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. 7. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD MADE 10 0% DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT( A). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE UTILISATION/C ONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL FOR MANUFACTURING THE FINISHED GOODS AS NO QUANTITATIVE RECORDS ARE MAINTAINED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER AND RESELLER OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS. IT IS ON RE CORD THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THIS MATERIAL FROM 8 ALLE GED ENTRY PROVIDER WHO PROVIDED BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT SUPPLY OF MATERIAL PHY SICALLY OF WHICH THE UTILIZATION/CONSUMPTION COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA 6536/MUM/2016 6 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD. D.R. AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURER AND RESELLER OF THE LABORATORY EQUIPME NT. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) ON 30-09-2009 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT INFORMATI ON WAS RECEIVED BY THE REVENUE FROM MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF CERTAIN BOGUS PURCHASES WHEREB Y CERTAIN PARTIES WHO WERE HAWALA DEALERS HAVE PROVIDED BOGUS ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES TO THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT ACTUALLY SUPPLYING M ATERIAL. . THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS FROM T HE FOLLOWING PARTIES:- 1. BALAJI TRADERS RS.98,99,901/- 2. DHARMESH TRADING COMPANY RS.15,66,488/- 3. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES RS.10,80,000/- 4. JAIN CORPORATION RS.12,15,000/- 5. OMKAR TRADING COMPANY, RS.83,72,252/- 6. MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES RS.67,15,188/- 7. YASH IMPEX RS.1,13,50,528/- 8. SHIVRAJ TRADERS RS.11,46,937/- --------------------- RS.4,13,46,294/- -------------------- WE OBSERVED THAT THE AFORE-SAID HAWALA PARTIES HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THEY WERE INDULGING IN THE PRA CTICE OF ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT SUPPLYING MATERIAL AND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS STATED BY THE AFORESAID EIGHT PARTIES TO BE BENEFICIARY OF BOGUS ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 4,13,46,294/- . BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION, TH E A.O. INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT , WHEREBY NOTICE DATED 30 -03-2014 U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED , WHICH WAS ISSUED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF ITA 6536/MUM/2016 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPLIED BY THE A O WITH REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE 1961 ACT WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT EITHER BEFORE THE A O NOR BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH ATTAINED FINALITY. THE ASSESSEE DID NO T RAISE GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/ S 147 OF THE 1961 ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMITTED PURCHASE BILLS , DEL IVERY CHALLANS, TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS NOR MOVEMENT OF GOODS/MATER IAL WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O.. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVED UTILIZATION/CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL FOR MANUFACTURI NG OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED T HAT THE SAID MATERIAL PROCURED FROM THESE EIGHT PARTIES WERE UTILIZED FOR MANUFACTURING OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE U TILIZATION/CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL FOR MANUFACTURING OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS BEFORE THE AO AS NO QUANTITATIVE RECORDS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCED THE PARTIES BEFORE THE A.O. NOR LATEST ADD RESS OF THESE EIGHT PARTIES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. IT IS AVERRED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT THE MATERIAL WERE PROCURED THROUGH BROKERS AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT KNEW THESE PARTIES. NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THESE E IGHT PARTIES BY THE AO BUT THE SAME WERE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE EFFORTS TO LOC ATE THESE PARTIES BY REVENUE ALSO DID NOT YIELD ANY RESULTS. THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BUT THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND SALE AS WELL ATTEM PTED TO RECONCILE THE UTILIZATION / CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL BEFORE LEARNE D CIT(A) BY SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) , WHEREI N HOWEVER NO APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A MANUFACTURER OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PR OVE THAT THE MATERIAL SO PURCHASED FROM THESE ALLEGED HAWALA ENTRY OPERATORS HAS BEEN UTILIZED/CONSUMED FOR MANUFACTURING OF THE LABORATO RY EQUIPMENTS AS WELL ITA 6536/MUM/2016 8 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PUR CHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(A) WHEREIN NO APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF UTILIZATIO N/CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL SO PURCHASED FROM THESE ALLEGED EIGHT ENTR Y PROVIDERS BEING PROVED FOR MANUFACTURING OF FINISHED GOODS, THERE IS ALWAY S POSSIBILITY OF MANIPULATIONS TO SUPPRESS PROFITS AND EVADE TAXES A ND HENCE IT IS CRITICAL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE UTILIZATION/CONSUMPTION OF TH ESE MATERIAL SO PURCHASED FOR MANUFACTURING OF FINISHED GOODS DEALT WITH BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW KEEPING IN VIEW FACTUAL MATRIX OF T HE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO BOTH THE PARTIES, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO FILE OF A.O. FOR DENOVO DETERMINATION OF THIS ISSUE BY THE AO ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DIRE CTED TO PROVE THE CONSUMPTION/UTILIZATION OF THE MATERIAL SO PURCHASE D FROM THESE ALLEGED ENTRY PROVIDERS FOR MANUFACTURE OF THE LABORATORY EQUIPME NTS SO DEALT WITH BY THE ASSESSEE WITH COGENT EVIDENCES BEFORE THE A.O. INCL UDING PRODUCTION OF EXCISE RECORDS CONCERNING STOCKS AND ALSO TO PROVE THAT TH ESE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,13,46,294/- FROM THESE ALLEGED EIGHT ENTRY OPERATORS WERE GENUINE . THE AO SHALL ADMIT ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCES /MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DE-NOVO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE A.O. SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. AT THIS STAGE WE ARE REMINDED OF THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N. K. PROTEINS LTD. V. DCIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT). WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 6536/MUM/2016 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 6536/MUM/2016 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH AUGUST 2017. # $% &' 18.08.2017 ( ) SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 18.08.2017 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI G BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI