M/S. ALAG SECURITIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI V. THE CIT (a) -22, MUMBAI

ITA 68/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1157 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC-1
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HIMANSHU SHARMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries
• Section: 153A; 260A; 13; 22

Judgement Text

Page | 1 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year 2004-05) M/s A la g S e cu rit ie s P vt. L td . B lo ck H, S h ri S a d a sh i v CHS L td ., 6 t h Ro a d , S a n ta c ru z (E a s t), Mu m b a i 4 0 0 0 5 5 Vs. The CIT(A)-22 Room No. 513, 5t Floor, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAICA0101F Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Choksi, AR Revenue by : Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR Date of hearing: 26.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by M/s Alag Securities Pvt Ltd, which is claimed by assessee to be part of one of the group companies of one Accommodation entry Provider Mr. Mukesh Chokshi, for assessment year 2004-05 against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (The Learned CIT (A)) dated 29/11/2021 raising following grounds of appeal:- Page | 2 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 “1. The learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in determining the income of the appellant at Rs. 36,79,940/-. 2. The learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order without complying with the principals of natural justice by the various decision ignoring delivered by the various benches of the ITAT - Mumbai having similar facts and circumstances. 3. The learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts ignoring the Bombay High Court judgments which has been decided in favor of the assessee itself and according to the Bombay High Court judgments (copy of the judgments attached) the income should be taken @0.15% of the turnover and 50% expenses should be allowed of the expenses claimed against the income. 4. The learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in applying 2% income on entire bank deposit as against 0.15% offered by the appellant. 5. The learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts by ignoring the direction given by Honorable ITAT that income should be calculated @0.15% of the net turnover (after deducting transfer entries). 6. The learned Assessing Officer and 6. the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in Page | 3 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 estimating the income on gross receipts without reducing the transfer entries amount in bank account on which no income is earned. It is a transfer to the sister concerns and entities under the same management. 7. The learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts by ignoring the direction given by ITAT that 50% expenses claimed should be allowed against income estimated @0.15%. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, 8 amend and / or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal” 02. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a private limited company. As claimed by assessee, it is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entry to beneficiaries by accepting a cash and issuing cheques of lesser amount and earning commission. It belongs to Mr. Mukesh Chokshi who operates many such companies. 03. Assessee filed return of income declaring Nil income. Consequent to that assessment order u/s 143 (3) read with Section 153A of the act was passed on 8/12/2011 assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹ 3,679,940/–. This assessment was framed consequent to the search action carried out in Mahasagar group of cases. 04. As Assessee is found to be a hawala/accommodation entry provider, commission income of the assessee was assessed taking 2 % of the sum of credit Page | 4 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 entries appearing in all the bank accounts of the assessee at ₹ 183,997,040/– . 05. This was challenged before the learned CIT – A where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by an order dated 31/7/2012 passed for assessment year 2004 – 05 to assessment year 2010 – 11. 06. The assessee preferred an appeal before the coordinate bench, as per order dated 7/7/2017 in ITA number 6049- 6055/M/2012 the issue was set- aside to the file of the learned assessing officer for giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 07. Therefore following the directions contained in that order the learned assessing officer proceeded to pass an order. 08. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee was granted an opportunity of hearing. After several adjournments, directors of the assessee company Mr. Mukesh M Choksi submitted a letter dated 22/2/2018 wherein he has stated that taxable income of commission after setting off the transfer entries and reverse payments, his gross receipt comes to ₹ 77,335,956/– and his commission income should be taken @ 0.15% on the gross income. Such commission income he estimated at ₹ 116,004/–. Therefrom he claimed deduction of expenses of 50 % of expenses of ₹ 212,058/– . Page | 5 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 Accordingly it is submitted that its taxable income is merely ₹ 9975/–. 09. The learned assessing officer considered the explanation of the assessee and questioned him on various adjustment made by him. His claim of expenses was also verified, he was also asked to substantiate the claim of the expenses, the rate of commission and the transfer entries and reverse payments. 010. With respect to the evidence, Assessee submitted that assessee does not have any further evidence as the income tax department during the course of search on 15/11/2009 has seized all the documents. With respect to the rate of commission, it was stated that coordinate bench has considered the rate of commission @ 0.15 %. 011. The learned assessing officer rejected the same stating that for adopting commission @ 2% in this year, the learned assessing officer has given enough reasons in the original assessment order and further the orders of the coordinate bench are contested before the honourable Bombay High Court. Accordingly, the commission income was estimated at 2%. With respect to the transfer entries, the claim of the assessee was rejected as assessee could not submit any evidence nor the names of the companies to whom such transfer entries are given. With respect to deduction of expenses, the learned Page | 6 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 assessing officer rejected stating that in the case of the assessee net commission income is estimated therefore, there is no reason of granting further deduction of the expenditure. Accordingly, the learned assessing officer reiterated the commission income of the assessee at ₹ 3,679,940/– as originally taken in the assessment order dated 8/12/2011. Such assessment order is passed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 254 of the income tax act 1961 dated 27/3/2018. 012. Assessee preferred an appeal before the National faceless appeal Centre, who disposed of the appeal of the assessee dismissing the same. Therefore, assessee aggrieved with that is in appeal before us. 013. Before us the assessee submitted the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in PCIT versus Alag securities private limited in ITA number 1512 of 2017 dated 12 June 2020 wherein the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the coordinate bench for assessment year 2003 – 04 wherein in paragraph number 21 honourable High Court held that commission income at the rate of 0.15 percent disclosed by the assessee is reasonable percentage of commission in similar type of transactions. Therefore, assessee submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and the commission rate is required to be adopted for this year also at 0.15%. He further submitted that in Page | 7 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 case of Goldstar Finvest Pvt limited for assessment year 2003 – 04 and 2004 – 05 the coordinate bench in ITA number 887 and 2699/M/2012 and 2013 dated 30/11/2015 has also upheld that the commission income should be computed by adopting the rate of 0.15%. He further referred to the ITA number 2699/M/2013 filed by the assessee where assessee is allowed 50% of the expenses incurred as deduction from the income of accommodation entry commission. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Goldstar Finvest private limited in ITA number 6114 – 6124 for AY 2004 – 05 to 2010 – 11 dated 1/6/2016 wherein the commission income is adopted at 0.15%. He further referred to the decision in case of Mihir Agencies private limited in ITA number 6435 – 6441/M/2012 for assessment year 2004-05 to 2010 – 11 wherein also as per order dated 6/1/2016 the rate of commission is to be adopted at 0.15% and expenses are to be allowed to the extent of 50% of expenses incurred. Thus, he submitted that these are the orders of the honourable Bombay High Court and coordinate benches where the commission income is held to be chargeable at the rate of 0.15%. In the case of the assessee by the honourable High Court and in other cases of the same group of accommodation entry provider where the coordinate benches have also applied the same rate, the coordinate bench in this appeal is duty-bound to Page | 8 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 follow the same. Therefore, he submitted that rate of commission of accommodation entry is to be considered at the rate of 0.15% and assessee must be allowed deduction of expenses to the extent of 50% of expenses claimed. He specifically said that the issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 014. The learned departmental representative vehemently opposed the submission of the assessee stating that assessee is part of Mr Mukesh Chokshi group as an entry provider where several companies have provided millions of Rs of accommodation entries to the large beneficiaries. Assessee is providing huge accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries by money laundering as it accepts the cash from the various beneficiaries and in turn issues cheques for converting the Black money of the parties through various layers. He further submitted that as it is apparent from the various orders submitted by the assessee, this scam is going on for the last more than a decade. He submitted that decision cited by the director of the assessee company Mr. Mukesh Chokshi himself does not apply for this year. He has not given any details of what kind of accommodation entries assessee has provided, what is the amount of commission charged by it on each of the entry and whether the beneficiaries are identified or not. It was submitted that if beneficiaries are not identified by the assessee then no benefit of application of percentage should be granted to the assessee. For Page | 9 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 this year, there is no finding that in similar type of business the rate of commission is 0.15%. It was further stated that the coordinate bench in deciding the rate of commission for assessment year 2003 – 04 and 2004 – 05 relied on the order in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002 – 03 stating other cases. During this year, there is no comparative evidence available. It was further stated that in those years the coordinate bench has merely followed the orders of the earlier year. He therefore submitted that for this year the learned assessing officer has given a detailed reasoning for estimating the commission income at the rate of 2%, which has also been upheld by the learned CIT – A therefore, same cannot be reduced further in absence of any comparative evidences given by the assessee or details and manner of providing accommodation entries with identification of beneficiaries. He therefore supported the orders of lower authorities. 015. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the order of the honourable High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003 – 04 as well as the orders of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case and orders of the coordinate bench in other cases. The assessee has raised several grounds of appeal. Page | 10 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 016. As per ground number [1] assessee has challenged the determination of the total income of the assessee at ₹ 3,679,940/– [being 2% of the total turnover amounting to ₹ 183,997,040/–]. No specific arguments were advanced and therefore this ground of appeal is dismissed. 017. As per ground number 2, the assessee has challenged that the orders have been passed by violating the principles of natural justice and ignoring several decisions of the coordinate benches having similar facts and circumstances. No such arguments were advanced before us. However, we find that lower authorities have considered the decisions cited before it, those are discussed, and thereafter the issue is decided. Therefore, this argument is dismissed. 018. As per ground number 3, the assessee has challenged that the honourable High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by considering the commission rate at the rate of 0.15% of the turnover and deduction of 50% of the expenses, which has been ignored. Claim of the assessee is that these two issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench which has been affirmed by the honourable High Court in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003 – 04. Page | 11 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 019. We find that the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2003 – 04 in ITA number 886/M/2012 relying on the decision of coordinate benches in case of [1] Mr. Mukesh Chokshi, [2] M/s Mihir Agencies private limited, [3] M/s Alliances intermediaries and network private limited and [4] Gold Star finvest private limited upheld the order of the learned CIT – A of accepting the commission income offered by the assessee at the rate of 0.15% for that year. When the matter reached before the honourable High Court, in paragraph number 18 of the order of the honourable High Court, it upheld the order of the coordinate bench for following reasons:- i. Tribunal relied upon its own decision in case of Goldstar Finvest private limited for assessment year 2003 – 04. The honourable High Court examined the facts of that case and held that the tribunal pose the question to itself as to what would be the reasonable percentage of commission on the total turnover. The coordinate bench observed that in all similar cases the average percentage of commission was between 0.15% to 0.25%. In some of the cases, tribunal considered even 0.1% as reasonable percentage of commission earned. ii. The assessee itself has offered percentage of commission at 0.15% for that year which was more than the percentage of commission Page | 12 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 considered to be reasonable having similar type of transactions iii. the coordinate bench also held so holding that in the light of the assessment orders in the case of beneficiaries and in the light of the fact that assessee was only concerned with commission on providing accommodation entries. iv. Before Tribunal, no distinguishing feature could be brought on record by revenue with respect to the decision of Gold Star finvest private limited. v. The tribunal held that assessee is also part of the group of entities controlled by Mr. Mukesh chokshi and assessee was part of that group and for maintaining uniformity that commission rate was acepted. vi. Honourable High Court noted that cash deposits by the customers i.e. beneficiaries has been accounted for in the assessment order of these beneficiaries vii. with respect to the percentage of commission in paragraph number 21 honourable High Court held as Under:- “ 21. Coming to the percentage of commission, tribunal had already held 0.1% Page | 13 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 commission is similar type of transactions to be a reasonable percentage of commission. Therefore, tribunal accepted the percentage of commission at 0.15% disclosed by the assessee itself. This finding is a plausible one and it cannot be said that the rate of commission was arrived at in an arbitrary manner. The same does not suffer from any error or infirmity to warrant interference, that too u/s 260A of the act.” 020. Further all other tribunal decisions merely followed the earlier decisions without mentioning what type of transactions assessee has undertaken and whether the amount has been considered in assessment of beneficiaries or not. 021. For this year coordinate bench has set aside the issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer to give assessee an opportunity of hearing. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to justify the commission income charged by him. He stated that in the original assessment proceedings it submitted all the details and further all relevant details are now seized by the income tax department during the search and survey operations carried out on 25/11/2009. The assessee did not care to obtain the copies of such evidences, which have been taken by the income tax department. Had those been obtained by the Page | 14 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 assessee, it would have been in a position to justify what kind of commission it has earned and what kind of transactions it has entered into. However, it choose to take shelter under the guise of seizure of all the documents by the income tax department. If the assessee makes an application for the copies of such records, there is a provision in the law which the assessee is very much aware of, as it has faced many searches, that the copies can be obtained. However, for the reasons best known to the assessee no such efforts were made. Thus, nothing was produced before the AO with respect to the commission income earned by it. In all the earlier years where the honourable High Court or the coordinate benches have accepted the commission at the rate of 0.15%, the same was accounted for and shown by the assessee. However, in the present case, nothing is shown by the assessee to the learned AO. Therefore, this is a distinguishing feature from the various judicial precedents cited before us. 022. In the decision of the honourable High Court, it has been held that assessee used to charge 0.15% as commission and it was an admitted fact. In the present case, in absence of any information what is the commission charged by the assessee and on what type of transactions, those judicial precedents cited before us do not help the case of assessee. Page | 15 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 023. Assessee has not shown what type of accommodation entries it has provided, to whom, in what manner, on which date, in what form, at what rate. Further, it is also not the case of the assessee that for all these years spending for more than one- decade assessee is providing accommodation entries of all forms only at the commission of 0.15% for all these years. It is very strange, unusual and unbelievable. 024. As assessee has not given any details of what kind of accommodation entries he has provided i.e. a. whether he has provided the bills of expenses where beneficiaries have claimed that as a tax-deductible an expenditure b. whether the bills of expenses or capital assets have been provided where the beneficiaries have claimed amount/depreciation of the same c. whether the accommodation entries in the form of accommodation loans were provided to the beneficiaries d. whether the accommodation entries in the form of share capital is provided to the beneficiary companies e. where tax exempt income is provided to the beneficiaries Page | 16 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 In all these forms of accommodation entry transactions, naturally the income of commission cannot be the same. It varies based on the benefit derived by beneficiaries. Therefore, if the assessee does not disclose what type of accommodation entries he has provided for, to which beneficiary and how much cash is received against that and what is the comparative commission being charged, it is matter of an estimation of income in the hands of the assessee which is best left to the learned assessing officer. 025. There are no similar transactions available/produced before the assessing officer as were mentioned in those orders of coordinate benches. For all earlier years for which several judicial precedents cited before us, there is a finding of similar transactions. It is lacking in this year. 026. Further, for determination of commission income at the rate of 2% the assessing officer has given a detailed explanation in the assessment order, none of them is rebutted by the assessee by producing any cogent evidence. 027. Assessee has even not care to explain that total credit appearing in all the bank accounts is ₹ 183,997,040/– which assessee has scale down as per paragraph number 2 of the order only to ₹ 125,583,003/–. Therefore, it is apparent that assessee is not willing to give the correct detail of Page | 17 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 the bank account transactions/credits in its bank account, leave aside the nature of such credit; therefore, the learned assessing officer is justified in estimating the commission income at the rate of 2 % of gross credits. 028. Further, the learned AO relying on various statements recorded and documents found in the course of search and post search operation has concluded that the appellant company was earning commission in the range of 1.5% – 3.5% on various kinds of accommodation entries provided by it. Thus, there is no instance shown by the assessee for this year that it has charged commission income only at 0.15%. Further AO found contrary evidence that the rate of commission for accommodation entries charged by the assessee is in the range of 1.5% to 3.5%. Thus ld AO on most reasonable basis adopted it @ 2 %. 029. In view of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities in estimating the commission income of the assessee at reasonable rate of 2% on the credits in the bank account. 030. Further with respect to the expenditure claimed by the assessee, there is no evidence produced of the expenses incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. Further, when the net commission income of the assessee is estimated there is no question of Page | 18 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 granting any further deduction of expenditure claimed by the assessee. 031. Even otherwise, there is no evidence available that such expenditure are recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee did not produce any evidence. 032. Looking to the nature of expenditure where the assessee has claimed directors remuneration of ₹ 60,500, there is no evidence that who are the directors and whether those directors are involved in providing the business of accommodation entries to the various beneficiaries are not. Assessee has also not named those directors were involved in this money laundering business carried on by the assessee. 033. Merely filing the table of expenditure incurred without showing any evidences that those are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of the business, it cannot be allowed as deduction to the assessee. 034. There is nothing shown by producing the memorandum and articles of association of the company that it is engaged in business of providing accommodation entries and that is the business of the assessee, what is the relationship of these expenditure incurred with the actual business carried Page | 19 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 on by the assessee whereas the memorandum also shows a different business. 035. It is also not shown to us that Ministry of corporate affairs allows the companies to carry on the business of accommodation entry provider, which is proudly claimed by the assessee before the lower authorities and before us. Therefore, if the assessee failed to show the business carried on by it in terms of its MOA and AOA, we do not find any reason that any expenditure should be granted as deduction to the assessee. The fact clearly proclaimed by the assessee is that it is accommodation entry provider company, even the director Mr. Mukesh Chokshi , who appeared before us also proudly claim so, could not show that MOA and AOA of the assessee provides for carrying on such business. 036. Thus, there is no evidence that the assessee has any expenditure incurred for the self-professed business of accommodation entry provided by assessee. 037. In view of the above startling facts, which were not there in the orders of the coordinate benches produced before us, the ratio laid down by those decisions cannot apply to the facts of the assessee for this assessment year. 038. In the result, we uphold the order of the lower authorities in not granting any deduction to the assessee of expenditure. Page | 20 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 039. In the result, we dismiss ground number 3 & 4 of the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the action of the lower authorities in charging commission income at the rate of 2% on gross deposits in the bank account of the assessee and not allowing deduction of any expenditure to the assessee. 040. Ground number 7 is repetition of the above grounds, in view of our decision above, it is dismissed. 041. As per ground number 5 and 6 assessee has claimed that income shall be calculated at the rate of 0.15% of the net turnover after deducting the transfer entries. Before the assessing officer the assessee has stated that his total receipts is only ₹ 125,583,003/– out of which there are transfer entries of Rs 4 29,82,965/– and further there are reversed Payments and cheque return of Rs 52,64,082/–. Therefore the commission income should be computed only on ₹ 77,335,956/–. In the original assessment proceedings the total gross receipt credited in the bank account of the assessee was found at ₹ 183,997,040/–. There is no justification that how the assessee has computed the total credit in the bank account of ₹ 183,997,040/– to only ₹ 125,583,003/–. Further there is no evidence produced with respect to the transfer entries amounting to Rs 4, 29,82,965/–. It was also not shown to which entities these transfer entries have been made, who is the beneficiary and what Page | 21 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 kind of accommodation entries provided. Therefore the learned lower authorities, in absence of any details produced by the assessee even in the second round of appeal, are justified in not granting deduction of Rs 4,29,82,965/–. Similarly, no evidences produced with respect of reversal of the payments or return of cheques. In the result ground number 5 and 6 of the appeal are dismissed. 042. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 043. Before parting, we are astonished to note that various companies controlled by director of this company, who represented this case before us, are in the business of providing accommodation entries of hundreds of crores in each of the entities for more than a decade. In layman’s term, these entities have either fuelled huge tax evasion by the beneficiaries or creating artificial assets through money laundering and creation of Benami Properties. Damage caused by such transactions to the fabric of society is immeasurable. We cannot accept these transactions blindfolded. Audacity of the assessee can be measured when before the courts and all Government authorities i.e. Income tax Authorities it can proudly proclaim that it is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries that too for decades and in multiple cases. Income Tax Authorities are empowered to invoke the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act Page | 22 ITA No. 68/Mum/2022 M/s Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 04-05 1988 as well as Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. We advise the learned assessing officer to identify such companies/ individuals of the group along with beneficiaries and take necessary actions under these respective laws. We also advise the respective commissioner of Income Tax to supervise and advice the ld AO in this regard for necessary action so that such economic menace do not occur in future. Concerned authorities may also be informed for taking necessary action in this regard in time bound manner. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 30.06.2022 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS 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// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai