Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3908 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
18-02-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
14-01-2016
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
28-09-2011
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R AMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06) LATE SMT. KANCHANBEN J. SHAH (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. JAGDISH H. SHAH) 1683/16- A KINJALK APARTMENT DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, MULUND(W) MUMBAI 400 080. / V. ITO (3)(2) ROOM NO. 259, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAEPM3325L ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : DR. K. SHIVARAM / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GANESH BARE (SR. DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2016 !'#$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.02.2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 22, MUMBAI ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 2 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) 16/08/2011 , THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS A SSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER FOR SHORT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING REVISED GROUND S OF APPEAL IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL:- 1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING SALE CON SIDERATION OF RS.9,19,015/- ON SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE TRADE LTD. AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL G AINS BY HOLDING THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION OF SAID SHARES AS NOT GENUINE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SAID SHARES WERE SOLD THROUGH REGISTERED BROKER AND SALE OF SA ID SHARES IS CONFIRMED BY BSE, SAID SHARES WERE ENDORSED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESS EE IN PHYSICAL FORMAT BY THE COMPANY & THE SAID SHARES WERE DEMATTED AND SUCH S ALE TRANSACTION IS NOT TREATED AS NOT GENUINE BY A.O. & CIT(A). 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING PURCHASE TRANSACTION OF SHARES OF M/S. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE TRADE LTD. AS NOT GENUINE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT A.O WAS UNABLE TO AFFORD CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. RAJKUMAR MASALIA TO ASSESSEE, MR RAJKUMAR MASALIA HAD RETRACTED HIS ST ATEMENT AND ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED AFFIDAVIT OF MR PRATIK C SHAH DIRECTOR OF BROKING COMPANY WHO HAD EXECUTED PURCHASE TRANSACTION FOR ASSESSEE. 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTE R OR DELETE ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, BUSINESS, CAPITAL GAINS AND INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) ENQUIRED THE DETAILS OF PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED TH E DETAILS OF SUCH PROFIT AND FILED COPIES OF PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS, BROKERS NOTES A ND SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM WHICH IT PURCHASED THE SHARES ON WHICH CAPITAL GAINS WERE EA RNED. FROM THE DETAILS , IT WAS SEEN BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF 10,000 SHARES OF ROBINSON WORLDWIDE TRADE LTD. [FORMERLY K NOWN AS ROBINSON IMPEX 3 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) (INDIA) LTD]. AS PER THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, THE ASSE SSEE HAD PURCHASED THESE SHARES @ RS. 1.30 PER SHARE FOR THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF R S. 13,210.43 INCLUDING BROKERAGE AND TAXES, WHICH WAS PURCHASED AGAINST THE PROFIT ON TH E INTRA-DAY SALE / PURCHASE TRANSACTION IN 950 SHARES OF MASTEK ON WHICH THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE MADE PROFIT OF RS. 13,168.67. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CLAI MED TO HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH A BROKER, NAMELY, M/S. DPS SHARES & SECURITIES PVT. L TD.. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, THE AO SENT THE LET TER TO BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE ON 13/08/2007 TO CONFIRM THE FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS:- ' DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SMT. KANCHANBEN J. SHAH FOR A.Y. 2005-06 I.E. F.Y. 2004-05, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE I.E. SMT. KANCHANBEN J. SHAH HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PURCHA SE AND SALE OF SHARES THROUGH M/S. DPS SHARES & SECURITIES PVT. LTD., WH O IS A MEMBER OF THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 414-B, ROTUNDA, BOMBAY SAMACHAR MARG, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 (SEBI REGN. IN B 010986539 CLG. NO. 151) AS UNDER: NAME OF THE SCRIP PURCHASE SALE DATE QUANTITY RATE DATE QUANTITY RATE MASTEK LIMITED 04/04/2003 475 542.55 MASTEK LIMITED 04/04/2003 475 543.05 04/04/ 2003 950 556.70 ROBINSON LIMITED 04/04/2003 10000 1.32 YOU ARE' REQUESTED TO CONFIRM IF THE ABOVE TRANSAC TIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE THROUGH THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE OR IF THE SAME W ERE OFF MARKET TRANSACTIONS. COPIES OF THE CONTRACT NOTE IN FORM A AND THE CORRESPONDING BILLS ISSUED BY M/S. DPS SHARES & SECURITIES PVT. LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR PERUSAL AND REFERENCE. THE SURVEILLANCE AND SUPERVISORY DEPARTMENT OF BOMB AY STOCK EXCHANGE VIDE LETTER DATED 20/08/2007, INTER ALIA, STATED AS UNDER:- 4 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) ON VERIFICATION OF THE TRADES MENTIONED IN THE CON TRACT NOTES IN THE SCRIP MASTEK LTD. WITH THE TRADES EXECUTED BY THE MEMBER AT THE EXCHANGE, MANY DISCREPANCIES WERE OBSERVED IN THE CLIENT CODES AND THE QUANTITY OF SHARES TRADED ETC. HENCE, PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED HEREWITH TR ADE LOG IN RESPECT OF THE TRADES EXECUTED BY THE SAID MEMBER IN THE SCRIP MAS TEK LTD. ON THE DATES MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT NOTES. ALSO, NO TRADES WERE FOUND TO BE EXECUTED BY THE M EMBER DSP SHARES & SECURITIES (151) IN THE SCRIP ROBINSON WORLDWIDE L TD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROBINSON IMPEX (532154) ON THE DATES MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT NOTES.' THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE ENCLOSED THE COPIES OF TH E TRADES CARRIED OUT BY THE DPS SHARES & SECURITIES LTD AS UNDER, WHEREBY THERE WAS DISCREPANCIES IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES OF MASTEK LTD. AS PER THE BROKERS NOTES AND THE TRADE LOG OF THE BROKER AS PER BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE OF 04/04/2003 AS DETAILED BELOW:- AS PER THE BROKERS NOTE AS PER THE TRADE LOG OF T HE BSE SALE OF SHARES OF MASTEK TIME OF SALE 15:11:45 15:11:45 TRADE NO. 0022525 22525 NO. OF SHARES 95 184 RATE IN RS. 556.70 556.70 CLIENT CODE AA/NG59 P125 PURCHASE OF SHARE OF MASTEK TIME OF PURCHASE 10:27:47 10:27:47 TRADE NO. 0002824 2824 NO. OF SHARES 4 75 500 RATE IN RS. 542.50 542.5 CLIENT CODE AA/NG56 D009 5 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) TIME OF PURCHASE 10:44:30 10:44:30 TRADE NO. 0004292 4292 NO. OF SHARES 475 182 RATE IN RS. 543.00 543.00 CLIENT CODE AA/NG59 D009 PURCHASE OF SHARE OF ROBINSON IMPEX LTD. TIME OF PURCHASE 15:22:22 THE BSE VIDE ITS LETTER NO. DOSS/INV/RD/510/2007/653 DT. 20/08/2007 HAS STATED THAT NO TRADES WERE FOUND TO BE EXECUTED BY THE NUMBER DSP SHARES & SECURITIES (151) IN THE SCRIP ROBINSON WORLDWIDE LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROBINSON IMPEX (532154) ON THE DATES MENTIONED IN THE CONTRACT NOTES. TRADE NO. 0034598 NO. OF SHARES 10000 RATE IN RS. 1.30 CLIENT CODE AA/NG59 THUS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE CONTRACT N OTE ISSUED BY THE BROKER AND SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE T RADE LOG OF THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE. THE SAID CONTRACTS NOTES AND THE BILLS DI D NOT CONTAIN PAN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ISSUED THE SUMMONS U/S. 131 OF THE ACT TO TH E PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF M/S. DPS SHARES & SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WHICH ISSUED THE CONT RACT NOTES. WHEREBY, SHRI RAJKUMAR MASALIA, THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF DPS SHA RES AND SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 05-12-2007 AND V IDE STATEMENT DATED 05-12-2007 RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT THAT M/S DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED ISSUED THE ACCOMMODATION BILLS AND NO TRANSACTION WAS DONE ON THE FLOOR OF THE BSE ON BEHALF OF SMT. KANCHANBEN J. SHAH. HE FURTHER CO NFIRMED THAT SHARE OF ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LTD. ARE LISTED ON THE BOMBAY STOCK E XCHANGE BUT WERE SUSPENDED OR 6 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) THINLY TRADED ON 04/04/2003 , THE CAPTIONED PERIOD . HE SUBMITTED THAT NO TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED ON WITH THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THA T THESE BILLS ARE ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND ARE NOT ACTUAL TRANSACTIO NS , THUS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE BOGUS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LTD. ON 04.04.2003 FROM M/S. DSP SHARES AND SECURITIES LTD. WHICH WAS THEN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 414 B ROTUNDA, MUMBAI SAMACHAR MARG, FORT MUMBAI-400 001. THEY ARE REGISTERED STOC K BROKERS WHO ARE REGISTERED WITH BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE HAVING THEIR SEBI REGIST RATION NUMBER. ALL THE SHARES ARE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PHYSICAL FORM. THE REASON FOR PURCHASE IN PHYSICAL FORM WAS THAT THE BROKER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVISE D HIM TO DO SO. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE SHARE WERE PHYSICAL LY PURCHASED THEN IT WOULD COST HIM A LITTLE LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE. THE INFORMATIO N OR TIP OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED SCRIP I.E. ROBINSON IMPEX LTD. WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY HIS COMMON FRIENDS WHO SPECIALIZES IN TRADING OF SHARES. SINCE IN THE PAST MANY OF THE ASSESSEES FRIENDS HAD BENEFITED FROM THE ADVICE OF THEIR COMMON FRIEND TH E ASSESSEE TOOK AN OPPORTUNITY TO FOLLOW THE ADVICE OF HIS FRIEND SO AS TO MAKE PROFI T IN THE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES. DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE AS SESSEE SOLD THE ABOVE SHARES. BEFORE SELLING THE SHARES, THE ASSESSEE GOT THEM DE MATED. AFTER DEMATING THE SHARES THEY WERE SOLD THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK BROKERS WHO ARE REGISTERED MEMBERS OF THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE. THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS SINCE ALL THE SHARES WERE PURCHASE D AND SOLD THROUGH BROKERS WHO WERE REGISTERED WITH BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE. ALSO TH E COMPANY UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS LISTED IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE WITH BOTH BSE AND NSE. THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS; THE SHARES THAT ARE PURCHASED WERE TRADED IN THE STOCK MARKET. RATES OF THESE SHARES WERE, REFLECTED IN THE BHAV C OPIES AND ALSO IN ALL LEADING NEWSPAPERS AND THEY ARE EXISTING COMPANIES FILING T HEIR BALANCE SHEETS REGULARLY WITH THE ROC, AND ARE LISTED IN THE STOCK MARKET AND ARE BEING TRADED. THE SALE TRANSACTION 7 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) IS THROUGH BROKER AND PAYMENTS FOR SALE HAVE BEEN EFFECTED THROUGH THE CHEQUE TRANSACTIONS AND CHEQUE WERE ISSUED BY THE BROKERS THEMSELVES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF ANY DISCREPANCY IS REPORTED BY BS E, IT IS DUE TO MISTAKE OF THE BROKER FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PENALIZED. THE ASS ESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE MUKESH MAROL IA V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . A LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR OF DPS S HARES AND SECURITIES PVT. LTD DATED 19/12/2007 WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO WHICH CLEARLY STATED THAT THE EARLIER STATEMENT MADE BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVE ON 05-12-200 7 WAS INCORRECT AND TRANSACTIONS IN THE SHARES ARE GENUINE TRANSACTION. IT WAS ENCLO SED BEFORE THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE REPRESENTATI VE OF M/S. DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PVT. LTD TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS AND V ALIDITY OF STATEMENT AND HENCE REQUESTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THAT TH E PURCHASE OF SHARE OF M/S. ROBINSON IMPEX LTD. AS A GENUINE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES THER E BY TREATING THE INCOME AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN . THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED THE LETTE R DATED 19-12-2007 FROM DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PVT. LTD TO T HE AO WHICH READ AS UNDER:- DEAR SIR SUB:- CONFIRMATION OF 1000 SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPE X LTD. SOLD TO MR. JAGDISH H. SHAH (F.Y.- 2003-04)_ I UNDERSIGNED, HAVE TO STATE THAT MR. JAGDISH H. SH AH WAS A FAMILY FRIEND OF OUR DIRECTOR WHO IN TRADING IN SHARES EARNED A SPECULAT ION PROFIT OF RS. 15156.56 DURING THE F.Y.- 2003 AS WE WERE IN RELATION WE HAD RECOMMEND HIM TO PURC HASE 1000 SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPEX LTD. AT THE PRICE AROUND RS.1.50 PER SHARES, SINCE THE SHARES WERE NOT TRADED IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND WERE SOLD IN PHYSICAL MODE B Y US OFF MARKET AND BILLS WERE ISSUES. 8 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) WE FURTHER CONFIRM THAT 10000 SHARES OF ROBINSON IM PEX LTD. WERE HANDED OVER IN THE PHYSICAL MODE AGAINST OUR OFF MARKET TRANSACTIONS O NLY WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED TO BSE. WE FURTHER STATE THAT ANY STATEMENT/LETTER MADE EAR LIER TO THE CONTRARY TO THIS IS BY MISTAKE AND NOT RELEVANT TO ALL. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY FOR DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PVT. LTD. SD/- DIRECTOR THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF REPRESE NTATIVE OF M/S DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS AND VALIDITY O F THEIR STATEMENT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT MR. RAJKUMAR MASALIA WAS AUTHORIZED BY DIRECTO RS OF DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED VIDE LETTER DATED 05/12/2007 TO DI SCUSS AND GIVE STATEMENT BEFORE THE REVENUE WHICH WILL BE BINDING ON DPS SHARES AND SE CURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED .IN RESPONSE , MR RAJKUMAR MASALIA APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND STATED ON OATH THAT CONTRACTS BILLS IN RESPECT OF SPECULATION PROFIT AN D PURCHASE OF SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPEX LIMITED ARE ONLY ACCOMMODATING ENTRIES AND NO ACTUAL TRANSACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND NOW THE DIRECTOR OF THE DPS SHARES AND SE CURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED HAS STATED THAT TRANSACTION FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES OF R OBINSON IMPEX LIMITED WAS MADE OFF MARKET IN PHYSICAL FORM WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED TO BSE. THE AO HELD THAT NO PROOF OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DIRECTOR OF DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED HAS DEV IATED FROM ITS STATEMENT AND HAS NOW STATED THAT THESE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF ROBINS ON IMPEX WAS IN OFF MARKET FORM AND SHARES WERE GIVEN IN PHYSICAL FORM AND REQUEST FOR CROSS EXAMINATION IS BEING MADE AT FAG END WHEN THE MATTER IS GETTING TIME BAR RED AND THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE 9 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) SHAM AND BOGUS. EVEN IN RESPECT OF SALE AND PURCHAS E OF SHARES OF MASTEK LIMITED, THE TRADE LOG IS NOT TALLYING WITH BSE RECORDS. EVE N PROCEDURE FOR CARRYING OFF MARKET TRANSACTIONS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE BSE AND SEBI HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THUS, THE AO TREATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF 10000 SHARES O F ROBINSON IMPEX LIMITED OF RS.9,19,015.00 AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS THE TRANSACTION FOR PURCHASE OF 10000 SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPEX LIMITED WERE NOT PROVED TO BE GENUINE AND THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION IS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2007 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/12/20 07 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AO WHICH ARE NOT REP EATED FOR SAKE OF BREVITY. THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM AO WHICH WAS S UBMITTED BY AO. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORT, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THERE ARE M ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE RECORDS WITH RESPECT TO CLIENT CODE AND QUANTITY OF SHARES TRADED WITH THE RECORDS OF BSE. THE ASSESSEE EVEN DURING APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS HAVE SUB MITTED THAT THE SAME IS DUE TO MISTAKE OF THE BROKER.THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THER E IS NO PAN IN CONTRACT NOTES NOR IN BILLS ISSUED BY BROKERS WHICH IS MANDATORY. THE STATEMENT OF MR RAJKUMAR MASALIA, THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF DPS SHARES AND S ECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED HAS BEEN RECORDED WHO ACCEPTED THAT BILLS/CONTRACT NOTES WER E ISSUED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND NO TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE. THE CIT(A) NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT THE STATEMENT OF MR RAJKU MAR MASALIA STOOD RETRACTED AND SAME COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS CORRECT AS HE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION ON THREE DIFFEREN T DATES. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PERSON DULY AUTHORIZED HAS GIVEN THE STATEMENT ON O ATH THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE BOGUS AND ANY SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT APPEAR TO BE AN AFTER-THOUGHT AND STATEMENT OF 10 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) MR. RAJ KUMAR MASALIA RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT H AS EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT EVEN THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE O F BSE/SEBI REPORTING MECHANISM WITH RESPECT TO OFF MARKET PURCHASE OF 10000 SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPEX LIMITED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY TERMED IT AS MISTAKE OF BRO KER WHICH IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT. THUS, THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDERS DATED 16.08.2011 UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO BY TREATING THE INCOME OF RS.9,19,015/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 16.08.2011 OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH ARE NOT REP EATED FOR SAKE OF BREVITY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE US THAT THE 10000 SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LIMITED WAS PURCHASED ON 04-04-2003 VIDE P HYSICAL DELIVERY FROM DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED WHO ARE SEBI APPROVED REGISTERED BROKER WITH BSE WHICH ARE DULY EVIDENCED BY CONTRACT NOTES ISSU ED BY THE SAID BROKER WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 29-30 PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL . THE LD. COUNSEL STATED BEFORE US SAID SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30-04-2003 VIDE SHARE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMPANY WHICH IS PL ACED AT PAGE 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED BE FORE US THAT PAYMENT OF THE SAID 10000 SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA ) LIMITED AGG REGATING TO RS.13210.43 WAS SETTLED THROUGH SPECULATIVE PROFIT OF RS.13168.67 E ARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHARES OF MASTEK LIMITED ON 04-04-2003 WHICH IS ALSO SUPPO RTED BY CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED BY DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 27- 28. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED BEFORE US THAT THE SPECU LATIVE PROFIT OF RS 13168.67 EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY DECLARED AND DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FI LED WITH THE REVENUE WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 42-46 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE LD. COUNSEL 11 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) STATED BEFORE US THAT PURCHASE OF 10000 SHARES OF R OBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LIMITED WERE DULY DECLARED AND DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 42-46 OF PAPER BOOK. THE SAID 10000 SHARES OF ROBIN SON IMPEX (INDIA) LIMITED WERE DEMATTED IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2004 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 32 OF PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT THE T RANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES ARE GENUINE ALTHOUGH THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES IN TRADE LOG WITH BSE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE AS DETAILED BY AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WHICH IS A MISTAKE OF BROKER. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT THE SALE OF 10000 ROBIN SON IMPEX INDIA LIMITED WAS ALSO UNDERTAKEN THROUGH REGISTERED SHARE BROKER AND CONT RACT NOTES ARE PLACED AT PAGE 21- 26 OF PAPER BOOK AND PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQ UE , THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS ARE PLACED AT PAGE 11 OF PAPER BOOK WHER E SALE PROCEED CHEQUES WERE CREDITED . THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO TO THE CIT(A) WHEREBY MR RAJKUM AR MASALIA DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO FOR CROSS EXAMINATION THREE TIMES ON 18.2.2009, 29.04.2009 AND 09.11.2009 WHILE THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTATIVE WAS DU LY PRESENT BEFORE THE AO ON THOSE DATES. THE AO IN REMAND REPORT HAS CONFIRMED THAT B SE HAS CONFIRMED THE SALE TRANSACTION OF 10000 ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LIMITED WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10-06-2004. THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. JAGDISH H.SHAH IN ITA NO. 6557/MUM/201 1 VIDE ORDERS DATED 05/09/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHEREBY ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS , INCOME EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES OF ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LIMITED HAS BEEN ACCEPTED TO BE INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN . THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO FILED A TABULATION SHOWING SIMILARITY OF FACTS BETW EEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF JAGDISH H SHAH(SUPRA). THE TABULATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DEPICTS THE SIMILARITY IN SCRIP INVOLVED, ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOL VED,THE BROKER INVOLVED , ENQUIRIES BY THE AO FROM BSE , ETC. . APART THERE-FROM ,IT HA S ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE 12 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) SAME AO AS WELL AS THE SAME CIT(A) HAVE RENDERED TH E DECISIONS ON THE SAME DATES IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H SHAH(SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE AS SESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE UNSUSTAINABLE AND THAT INCOME FROM SALE OF THE SHAR ES OF ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LIMITED BE ACCEPTED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS RE TURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE SIMILAR CASE ON IDENTICAL FAC TS IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ J SHAH V. ITO IN ITA NO. 6545/MUM/2011 WHEREBY MUMBAI TRIBUNAL VI DE ORDERS DATED 31/07/2015 HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES OF ROBI NSON IMPEX (INDIA) LIMITED AS INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS RETURNED. 5. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES IN APRIL 2003 WERE SHAM TRANSACTIONS . THE BROKERS HAV E NOT REPORTED OFF MARKET TRANSACTIONS TO BSE/SEBI AS PER REQUIREMENTS OF LAW . THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN CLIENT CODE IN TRADE LOG OF BSE WHICH EVIDENCES THAT THE T RANSACTIONS ARE SHAM. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT THAT SIMILAR CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN CONSIDERE D BY OUR CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL ITA NO S.6557/MUM/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE ORDERS DATED 05-09-201 2) AND NIKUNJ J SHAH (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL - ITA NO. 6545/MUM/2011 VIDE ORDER S DATED 31-07-2015).THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H.SHAH (SUPRA) WHICH REVEAL THAT THE DISCUSSION CONTAINED THEREIN IS ALMOST SIMILAR TO THE DISCUSSION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEFORE US. THE EN QUIRIES MADE BY THE AO IN CASE OF JADISH H. SHAH (SUPRA) ARE ON SIMILAR LINES TO T HOSE MADE IN THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH(SUPRA) THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED FROM THE SAME BROKER NAMELY D PS SHARES AND SECURITIES 13 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) PVT. LTD. IT IS ALSO EMERGING THAT THE AO CARRIED O UT A VERIFICATION EXERCISE WHICH INVOLVED RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI RAJ KUM AR MASALIA, PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF DPS SHARES & SECURITIES LTD.; SIMILAR ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH (SUPRA) ALSO. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS QUITE C LEAR THAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ON S IMILAR FOOTING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH (SUPRA). HAVI NG REGARD TO THE AFORESAID SIMILARITIES, WHICH ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REV ENUE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RELY UPON THE REASONING TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH(SUPRA) AND HOLD THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORI TIES HAVE ERRED IN TREATING THE SALE CONSIDERATION ON THE SALE OF SHARES OF ROBINSO N WORLDWIDE TRADE LTD. AS AN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IDENTICAL DECISION WAS ALSO RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MR NIKUNJ J. SHAH(SUPRA) BY MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN I TA NO. 6545/MUM/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 VIDE ORDERS DATED 31-07-201 5 , RELEVANT EXTRACTS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 6. HAVING PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BEFORE US, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SIMILAR CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY OUR CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CAS E OF JAGDISH H. SHAH (SUPRA).THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH(SUPRA) WHICH REVEAL THAT THE DISCUS SION CONTAINED THEREIN IS ALMOST SIMILAR TO THE DISCUSSION IN THE IMPUGNED OR DERS BEFORE US. THE ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE AO IN CASE OF JADISH H. SHAH (SUPRA) ARE ON SIMILAR LINES TO THOSE MADE IN THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH(SUPRA) THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED FROM THE SAME BROKER NAMELY DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PVT. L TD. IT IS ALSO EMERGING THAT THE AO CARRIED OUT A VERIFICATION EXERCISE WHI CH INVOLVED RECORDING OF 14 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI RAJ KUMAR MASALIA, PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF DPS SHARES & SECURITIES LTD.; SIMILAR ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH (SUPRA) ALSO. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ON S IMILAR FOOTING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH (S UPRA). HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID SIMILARITIES, WHICH ARE NOT CONTROVER TED BY THE REVENUE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RELY UPON THE REASONING T AKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH(SUPRA) AND HOL D THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN TREATING THE SALE CONSIDE RATION ON THE SALE OF SHARES OF ROBINSON WORLDWIDE TRADE LTD. AS AN INCOM E FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. NEVERTHELESS IN ORDER TO IMPART COMPLETENE SS TO THIS ORDER, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REPRODUCE HEREAFTER THE RELEVA NT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH H. SHAH(SUPRA), WHICH IS AS UNDER: 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES AND ALSO THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN PHYSICAL FORM IN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SHARES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DEMATTED AND THE SALES HAVE TAKEN PLAC E OUT OF THE DMAT A/C. THE ONLY DISPUTE RELATES TO THE GENUINENE SS OF THE PURCHASES' AS DOUBTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE PURCHASES. ARE SUPPORTED BY PURCHASE BILLS ISSUED B Y M/ S. DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PVT. LTD., EXHIBITED AT PAGE S 28 TO 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SHARES SO PURCHAS ED WERE TRANSFERRED TO DMAT A/C WITH HDFC BANK. COPY OF WHI CH IS 15 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) EXHIBITED AT PAGE NO. 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE LETTER OF THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. DPS SHARES & SEC URITIES PVT. LTD., ADDRESSED TO THE AO BY WHICH THE. DIRECTOR HAS CONF IANED 'THE OFF- MARKET TRANSACTION IN PHYSICAL MODE OF SHARES OF TH E 11,500 SHARES OF M/S.ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LTD (ROBINSON WORLDWIDE TRADE LTD.,). WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE RETRACTION LETTER OF SH RI RAJKUMAR MASALIA ADDRESSED TO THE AO BY WHICH HE ACCEPTED TH AT HE. WAS NOT AWARE OF THE TRANSACTION AND HE HAS STATED WRONG FA CTS DURING THE COURSE OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE A.O. 12. WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO R ELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF 11500 SHARES OF M/S. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE TRADE LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LTD.]. WE HAVE PERUSED THE REMAND REPORT OF ITO 10(3)(2) MUMBAI DT. 11.4.2 011. IN HIS REMAND REPORT, THE AO STATES THAT AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI RAJKUMAR MASALIA WAS GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE ON 18-02-2009, 29-04-2009 AND 09-11-2009. HOWEVER, DES PITE OF GIVING AFORESAID OPPORTUNITIES, SHRI RAJKUMAR MASALIA DID NOT ATTEND THOUGH ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED ON ALL OF ABOVE DATES AND WHOSE ATTENDANCE WAS DULY RECORDED ON THE ATTENDANCE SHEE T. IN HIS REMAND REPORT, THE AO FURTHER STATES THAT THE SAID SHARES OF M/S. ROBINSON WORLDWISE TRADE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ROBINSON IM PEX (INDIA) LTD.] WERE PURCHASED ON 05-04-2003 FOR A CONSIDERAT ION OF RS.15191.99 FROM M/S. DPS SHARES AND SECURITIES PVT . LTD. AS PER RECORD OF THE SAID COMPANY, THE SHARES WERE ENDORSE D IN FAVOUR OF THE 16 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) ASSESSEE ON 30-04- 2003 IN PHYSICAL FORMAT ONLY. TH E AO FURTHER STATES THAT AS PER INVESTIGATION MADE, THESE SHARES WERE SENT FOR DEMATERIALIZATION TO HDFC BANK ON 03-05-2004 AND WE RE CONVERTED INTO DE-MAT FORM ON 22-05-2004. IN HIS REMAND REPOR T, THE AO HAS FURTHER CONFIRMED THE SALE TRANSACTION MADE THROUGH BROKER, M/S. AJMEERA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE STATED FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON OR LOGIC IN TREATING THE PURCHASE O F 11,500 SHARES AS BOGUS. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES COULD HAVE DIRECTLY VE RIFIED THE TRANSACTION FROM THE COMPANY ITSELF, WHOSE SHARES W ERE QUESTIONED TO BE BOGUS BUT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DID NOT DO THIS EXERCISE. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO ITSELF SHOW THAT THE TRANSA CTIONS HAVE BEEN TREATED AS GENUINE SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE AO HIMSELF W HILE SENDING THE REMAND REPORT TO THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION OF 11,500 SHARES OF M/S.ROBINSON IMPEX (INDIA) LTD. (R OBINSON WORLDWIDE TRADE LTD.) HAS BEEN DOUBTED OR QUESTION BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. A SIMPLE LOGICAL QUESTION ARISES IF TH E SHARES WERE NEVER PURCHASED, HOW CAN THEY BE SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY? 14. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS , WE FIND THAT BOTH THELOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN TREATING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS INCOMEFROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 15. WE, THEREFORE, REVERSE HT FINDING OF LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS RET URNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 17 I.T.A. NO. 6544/MUM/2011 ( A.YRS.:2005-06) KANCHANBEN H SHAH VS. ITO10(3)(2) 6.1 FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT WE HEREBY ALL OW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT WE HEREBY ALLO W THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND DIRECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 18 TH , 2016 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (RAMIT KOCHAR) %& ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; *' DATED : 18.02.2016 PS:- POOJA K. !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. + / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ./0 &&12 , 12$ , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 045 6 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI
