VIJAY B SHAH (HUF), Mumbai V. ITO 17 (3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 667/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3773 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K GUBGOTRA J
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rejection of books of accounts; Opportunity of cross examination; Third party statement; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 195; 208; 72

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) VIJAY B SHAH (HUF), PROP.- OF M/S VIJAY ENTERPRISES, 12A, GIRIRAJ BUILDING, S.T. ROAD, CARNAC BUNDER, MUMBAI- 400009. VS. I.T.O.-17(3)(5) ROOM NO. 137, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN/GIR NO. AABHV 7438 J (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI R.K. GUBGOTRA (JCIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING 05/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/03/2020 / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 28/11/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-28, MUMBAI FOR THE A.Y. 20 09-10 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. NO BODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE I N SPITE OF ISSUE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE. ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO AP PEAL WAS FIXED ON 30/01/2020 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOU RNMENT AND ADJOURNMENT WAS GRANTED WITH OBSERVATION LAST OPPO RTUNITY AND APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FOR HEARING ON TODAY I.E. ON 0 5/02/2020. ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 VIJAY B SHAH (HUF) VS ITO 2 HOWEVER, NEITHER ANY BODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED, THEREFORE, THE BENCH DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON REC ORD. 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND FOUND THAT THE A.O. HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON GETTING INFORMATION REGARDING ASSESSEE TAKING ACCOMMODATION PURCHASE BILLS. THE A.O. MADE ENQUIRY AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS TAKEN PURCHASE BILLS WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS. ACCORDING LY, HE ADDED 12.5% OF SUCH ALLEGED PURCHASES IN ASSESSEES INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF T HE A.O. AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6.7 IN 'THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, IT S OBSERVED THAT THE AFORESAID PURCHASES ARE SUPPORTED BY DUBIOUS BI LLS WITH SUBSEQUENT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PAY MENT HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUES. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN . MADE BY THE A/C PAYEE CHEQUE ALSO DOES NOT MAKE HIS CLAIM I AS' BONAFIDE IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT MADE BY HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE PVT. LTD. 208 ITR 465 CAL. (1 994). IT WAS HELD THAT TRANSACTION THROUGH BANK IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE TRANSACTION AS BONAFIDE. MERELY BECAUSE THE MONEY IS TRANSFERR THR OUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE MONEY IS EXPLAINED. IT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERS ONS OR GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. MERELY FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS IS NOT ENOUGH. IT WAS HELD THAT MERE PAYMENT BY ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUE IS NOT SACROSANCT NOR CAN IT MAKE A NON- GEN UINE TRANSACTION ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 VIJAY B SHAH (HUF) VS ITO 3 GENUINE. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF PRECISI ON FINANCE IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL WHICH IS COMM ENSURATE WITH THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE INVESTIGATI ON WING. IT IS A FACT THAT PAYMENT IS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS BUT I T IS ALSO A FACT THAT ON DEPOSIT OF SUCH MONEY IN THESE SO CALLED SU PPLIER'S BANK ACCOUNTS CASH IS WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DAY OR IMMED IATELY THEREAFTER. 6.8 IT IS FURTHER PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE VERAC ITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, IS NOT A SINE-QUA-NON TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTION MUST INDEED BE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOU BT AND ALSO THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE SAME. JUDICI AL DECISIONS HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THIS ASPECT AND STARTED RECOGNIZING T HAT MODERN INSTRUMENTS OF TAX EVASION ARE INGENIOUS ENO UGH TO SHAPE THEM IN SUCH A MANNER THAT ON THE SURFACE, THEY APP EAR GENUINE ENOUGH. THE ABOVE IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING CAS E LAWS I.E.:- 1. CIT VS. JANSAMPARK ADVT. DEL. COURT/ITA NO.525/2 014. RATIO 'THE FACT THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHA NNEL, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT SATISFACTION AS TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF PARTIES OR GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION HAS BEEN E STABLISHED. 2. CIT VS. VIR BHAN & SONS, 273 ITR, 206(P&H)-HIGH COURT. 'MERE FACT THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE, BY I TSELF, DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTION, 6.9 FURTHER, IT IS THE LEGAL POSITION THAT THE ONU S IS ON THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE IDENTITY OF THE SO CALLED SUPPLIERS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS, WHEN HE HAS CLAIMED THE PURCHASES TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THEM. THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE PRODUCED B Y THE APPELLANT TO ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 VIJAY B SHAH (HUF) VS ITO 4 PROVE DELIVERY OF GOODS THROUGH INDEPENDENT AGENCY / THIRD PAY IN THE CASE OF THE PURCHASES. 6.10 FURTHER, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SHOW T HAT APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE EITHER CONFIRMATION OR THE PARTY FROM WHOM GOODS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT. THE SUPPLIER IN QUESTIO N HAS FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT ACTUALLY D EALING IN GOODS AS PER THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITI ES. HOWEVER, THIS IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE SALES OF THE APPELLANT HAVE NO T BEEN DOUBTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, IF SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED OR PROV ED TO BE NOT GENUINE BY THE AC, THEN THE LOGICAL COROLLARY, IS T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEFINITELY MADE THE PURCHASES OR ELSEWHERE FROM WHAT HE COULD HAVE AFFECTED THE SALES. THEREFORE WHAT IS UNDER DI SPUTE IS THE PURCHASES FROM THE VARIOUS HAWALA PARTIES FROM WHOM BILLS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND CHEQUES HAVE BEEN ISSUED. THEREFORE, THE PURCHASES OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES IS NOT ESTABLISHED . HENCE THE PURCHASES PER SE BY THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE DOUB TED IN THEIR ENTIRETY AS SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE A.O. 6.11 FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE FACT REMAINS TH AT THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT NOR IT IS HIS CASE THAT CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E SUPPLIERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED NOR HE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY OTHER MATERIAL TO STRENGTHEN HIS CASE TH AT THE PURCHASES ARE BOGUS. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME IT CANNOT BE DENIE D THAT THE ABOVE VARIOUS PARTIES FROM WHOM BOGUS BILLS ARE TAKEN HAVE INDEED BEEN DECLARED AS A HAWALA PARTIES BY THE SALES TAN/VAT DEPARTMENT, SIN CE, THE HAWALA PARTIES IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN FOUND, TO BE ENGAGED IN PROVIDIN G BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT A CTUALLY D EALING IN GOODS. 6.12 IN THE BACKDROP OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DEDUCED THAT THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS SUCH WH ERE THE APPELLANT ONLY TOOK BILLS FROM VARIOUS HAWALA PARTI ES TO EXPLAIN THE ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 VIJAY B SHAH (HUF) VS ITO 5 PURCHASES MADE ALBEIT FROM OPEN MARKET. IDENTICAL I SSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE EAS E OF CIT VS. BHOLANATH POLY FAB PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 355 ITR 290 (GUJ). T HE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FINISHED FABRICS. THE AO DIS ALLOWED PURCHASES AS BOGUS/UNEXPLAINED. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL W HICH CONCURRED WITH THE FINDING OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT S UCH PURCHASE WAS MADE FROM BOGUS PARTIES. AFTER ADVERTING TO THE FAC TS AND DATA PLACED BEFORE IT, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE ENTI RE CLOTH OF 1,02,514 METRES WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE, ACCE PTED THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE FINISHED GOODS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT MAY NOT BE FROM THE PARTIES SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNTS BUT FROM OTHER PARTIES. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE HON'BLE ITAT WAS OF T HE VIEW THAT ONLY PROFIT MARGIN EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES WOULD BE SUBJECTE D TO TAX. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S SAKET STEEL TRADERS VS ITO (ITA NO. 2801/AHD/2008 D ATED 20/05/2008) AND ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA PROTEIN VS CIT 58 MD 428 (AHD). ON APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT FILED IN THE CASE OF BHOLAMATH POLY FAB PVT. LTD, T HE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONCURRED WITH THE FINDING S OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL THAT NOT ENTIRE PURCHASE PRICE BUT PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES WOULD BE LIABLE TO TAX. VIEWED FR OM THE ABOVE ANGLE IT IS AMPLY EVIDENT THAT THE DECISION OF THE AO STANDS UP TO THE TEST. 6.13 IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD.AR THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION ON THE PART OF THE AO AND ALSO THAT SUSPICION, HOWSOEVER STRONG CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT. SEVERAL CASE LAWS ALSO ARE RELIED UPON BY AR FOR THIS PROPOSITION. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE, BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION CAN IT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE AO HAS FRAMED THE ASSE SSMENT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION. THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS CLEAR CUT EVIDENCE WHICH EXISTS ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 VIJAY B SHAH (HUF) VS ITO 6 TO THE EFFECT T HAT THE NAMES OF THE SO CALLED SELLER PARTIES I.E. VARIOUS HAWALA PASTIES FORMALLY AND CLEARLY APPEARS IN THE WEBSITE OF THE SALES TAX/VAT DEPARTMENT, WHEREIN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE VARIOUS HAWALA PARTIES ARE INDULGING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT EVIDENCE BASED ON FACT AND NOT ON SUSP ICION. MOREOVER, THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE KEY EVIDENCE AS TO TRANSPORTATION OF THE MATERIALS ALSO POINTS OUT TO AN IMPORTANT FA ILURE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE AO HAS NOT ADDED THE WHOLE TRANSAC TION BUT HAS RATHER ONLY TAXED THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED AND THIS ALS O IS SUPPORTED BY NUMEROUS DECISIONS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HENCE, THE CASE LAWS, CITED BY THE AR MAY BE OF LITTLE ASSISTA NCE TO FURTHER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 6.14 IT IS ALSO CANVASSED THAT THIRD-PARTY STATEME NTS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE APPELLANT. WHEREAS, THIS MAY BE SO BUT THE FACT REM AINS THAT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE ADDITION WAS MADE, INTER-A/IN, NOT MERELY ON THIRD PARTY STATEMENT BUT RATHER ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAILUR E OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF EAST ON IT TO ESTABLI SH THE VERACITY AND THE GENUINENESS OF I.E. TRANSACTION. IN EFFECT, THE AO MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE TRANSACTION. 6.15 IT IS ALSO THE SAY OF THE AR THAT COMPARABLE INSTANCES HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO. THIS IS RATHER A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT BECAUS E EACH ASSESSMENT IN A PARTICULAR CASE STANDS ON ITS OWN PEDESTAL, GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE. RATHER THAN COMPARABLE CASE WHAT HAS TO B E SEEN IS WHETHER THE AO ARRIVED AT A LEGALLY TENABLE DECISION BASED ON THE CASE BEFORE HIM WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. THIS IS INDEED THE CA SE HERE. 6.16 IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF C ROSS EXAMINATION IS AFFORDED TO THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THAT THE SOLE RE LIANCE ON SALES TAX/VAT IS NOT CORRECT. ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 VIJAY B SHAH (HUF) VS ITO 7 IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION MAY NOT BE SACROSANCT AND FATAL TO THE ASSESSMENT AS HELD BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GTC INDUSTR IES LTD VS ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 380/60 TTJ 308(BOM). IN THE PRESENT A PPEAL, AT THE COST OF REPETITION IT IS OBSERVED THAT AO DID NOT BASE H IS DECISION SOLELY ON THE SALES TAX/VAT AND CAME TO AN INDEPEND ENT CONCLUSION AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF A MYRIAD OF FACTORS AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE INABILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAST ON IT. 6.17 IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED POSITION AT LAW, THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF VAT INVESTIGATION CANNOT BE IN ANY MANNER TRIVIALIZED. FURTHER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO APPRECIATE THAT IT IS NOT PROPER TO SA Y THAT SALES TAX RECORDS/INVESTIGATION HAS NO VALUE I S NOT CORRECT. IT HAS STRONG CORROBORATIVE VALUE. FURTHER , THE SIGNIFICANCE OF VAT INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY NOTED IN THE CASE OF ARUN SHIMPI VS. ITO (2016)48 CCH 195 (MUM). 6.18 IN CONTEXT OF CENTRAL EXCISE (A SIMILAR LAW) RECORDS MAINTAINED WERE HELD TO BE IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE AS HELD IN MOTIPU R SUGAL FACTORY (P) LTD. V. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 401 (PAT.)(HC)(409)(PRO A SSESSE JUDGMENT OTHERWISE ACTUALLY) AND IN SHANKER RICE CO. V. ITO (2000) 72 ITD 139 (ASR.) (SB)(TRIB.) (158). BY PARITY OF REASONIN G THE SAME APPLIES TO SALES TAX TAW AS WELL IN CONTEXT OF DETERMINATION O F TAXABLE INCOME IN IT LAW. 6.19 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RENDERED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT EACH JUDICIAL DECISION IS RENDERED IN THE VERY PECULIAR AND FACTUAL MATRIX OF THAT CASE AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT EITHER JUDICIALLY EXPEDIENT OR PRUDENT TO SUPERIMPOSE THE FACTS OF THE CASE CITED BY THE AR TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS SENSE, EACH CASE IS UNDIS PUTEDLY UNIQUE AND STANDS ON DIFFERENT PEDESTAL. ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 VIJAY B SHAH (HUF) VS ITO 8 6.20 FURTHER, IT WOULD BE VERY MUCH GERMANE TO NOT E THAT IN VARIOUS DECISIONS, THE HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI HAS HELD THAT IN SUCH CASE S WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY OF TRADING, ESTIMATION OF 12.5% PROFIT AS HAVING BEEN EMBEDDED IN THE BOGUS PURCHASE TRANSACTION WAS HELD TO BE A FAIR AN D JUST OUTCOME. SOME OF THESE DECISIONS ARE QUOTED BELOW:- A) MERU IMPEX EX IN ITA NO.2660/MUM./2017. B) MP RECYCLING CO. IN ITA NO.6858/MUM./2016. C) Y.A MAMAJI FURNISHING & CO. IN ITAS 4756,4757 & 4758/MUM/2014 D) MANISH M SHAH IN ITA 2975/MUM/2015 6.21 IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, BASED ON THE ABOVE ELABORATE DISCUSSION AND AFTER GIVING CONSCIOUS THOUGHT AND WEIGHTAGE TO THE ATTENDANT FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS APPEAL AND ALSO TO THE CRUX OF THIS VASTLY LIT IGATED ISSUE, I HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING 1 2.5% AS EMBEDDED PROFIT IN THE TRANSACTION IS NOT ONLY LEGALLY TENAB LE BUT ALSO FAIR AND JUST. ACCORDINGLY, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME AND HENCE, THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. DR AND C AREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF IRON AND STEE L. AFTER MAKING ENQUIRY, THE A.O. FOUND THE ALLEGED PURCHASES AS NO N-GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE A.O. UPHELD ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTEN T OF 12.5% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND DID NOT DISTURB THE SAL ES. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING VA RIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE AND THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE ITA NO. 667/MUM/2019 VIJAY B SHAH (HUF) VS ITO 9 CASE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AFTER GIVING DETA ILED FINDING AT PARA 6.7 TO 6.21 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. NOTHING WAS PLA CED BEFORE ME SO AS TO PERSUADE ME TO DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDE D BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 RD MARCH, 2020. SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 03/03/2020 *RANJAN COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//