DCIT 5(1)(2), MUMBAI V. CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 680/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5678 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NARAYAN ATAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA NO. 680 /MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5(1)(2), ROOM NO. 568, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. OFFICE NO. 20, 2 ND FLOOR, 375/377, BABU BUILDING, LAMINGTON ROAD, GRAND ROAD (E) MUMBAI - 400026 ./ ./ PAN NO. AACCC5396G ( / REVENUE ) : ( / ASSESSEE ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJAT MITTAL, D.R / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARAYAN ATAL, A.R / DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 6 .07.2018 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 20, MUMBAI, DATED 14.10.2016, WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) R.W.S. P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 30.10.2014 FOR A.Y 2009 - 10 . 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN COMPUTER PERIPHERAL S AND OTHER ELECTRONIC ITEMS HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2009 - 10 ON 30.09.2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,35,46,240/ - . ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATI ON), MUMBAI , THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE BOGUS PURCHASE OF RS.1,01,67,848/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: SR. NO. NAME OF THE CONCERN PAN F.Y. AMOUNT (RS.) 1. SHREEJI NAKODJI IMPEX ABFPY2160B 2008 - 09 44,03,001/ - 2. SIVAMANI TRADERS PVT. LTD. AAKCS4401J 2008 - 09 57,62,647/ - 3. KELIGARE BNVPS8501 D 2008 - 09 2,200/ - TOTAL AMOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES 1,01,67,848/ - , THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SEC.147 OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION S WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE DETAILS P LACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENU INENESS OF THE PURCHASE T RANSACTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE AO. STILL FURTHER, AS THE A.O DESPITE BEST OF HIS EFFORTS CO U LD NOT OBTAIN THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS UNDER P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. SEC.133(6) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE , HE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE M FOR NECESSARY EXAMINATION. DESPITE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS , THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY FAILED TO PRODUCE THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES , BUT ALSO DID NOT PLACE ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH COU LD PROVE TO THE HILT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES CLA IMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES . THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PROVE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION S UNDER CONSIDERATION COULD ONLY PRODUCE INVOI CES, DELIVERY CHALLANS, BANK STATEMENTS, PURCHASE ORDERS AND STOCK REGISTER PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM TWO OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES VIZ. (I) SHREEJI NAKO DJI IMPEX; AND (II) SIVA MANI TRADERS PVT. LTD. HOWEVER, NO SUCH DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE THIRD PARTY VIZ. M/S KELIGARE WERE PLACED ON RECORD . THE A.O AFTER PERUSING THE INVOICES/DELIVERY CHALLANS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AS WERE FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HIM WA S HOWEVER NOT INSPIRED AS REGARD S THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAM E FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) THE VERY R EASON OF REOPENING THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUCH PARTIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE NON - GENUINE BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, AND THEIR TIN (WH ICH IS SO DEPICTED ON THE INVOICES) HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THUS, THE TIN AND ITS GENUINENESS CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE PARTY MAKING THE SALE. (II) NOTICES SENT TO T HE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE INVOICE/ DELIVERY CHALLAN HAVE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED. ALSO, THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX (AS EXPLAINED IN PARAGRAPHS ABOVE), HAS YIELDED THAT NO SUCH PARTY EXISTS AT THE DISCLOSED ADDRESS. THUS, THE ADDRESS GIVEN ON SUCH DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINE FOR THE WANT OF VERIFIABILITY. (III) WHETHER THE MATERIALS WERE REALLY SUPPLIED OR NOT I.E. WHETHER THERE WAS AN ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS OR NOT, CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED. THE INVOICES AND DELIVERY CHALLANS SO PRODUCED DO NOT CARRY THE SEAL/STAMP CHECK - POST OR THE COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT TO ENABLE THE A . O TO CONCLUDE THAT PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF GOODS ACTUALLY TOOK PLAC E. P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. (IV) DESPITE GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE PARTY WHICH MADE THE SALE. AS SUCH, THE SIGNATURES ALSO CANNOT BE VERIFIED. (V) THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS MADE ALL PAYMENTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND REFLECTED IN ASSESSEE S BANK ACCOUNTS. IT MAY BE REITERATED THAT THE REFLECTION OF THESE IN HIS BOOKS IS NOT CONCLUSIVE ON THE MATTER. THESE PURCHASES MUST ALSO BE CORROBORATED BY THE BOOKS OF THE SUPPLIER AND HIS BANK STATEMENTS. SINCE THESE PARTIES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BOGUS, THIS QUESTION DOES NOT ARISE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES IS NOT ESTABLISHED. (VI) FURTHER, THE PURCHASE AMOUNTS ARE HUGE BUT SURPRISINGLY NO PURCHASE ORDER HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THAT BEING THE CASE, IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THIS PURCHASE - ORDER WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE SUPPLIERS. THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANY CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THEM. ALL THIS ALSO POINTS TOWARDS THE PURCHASES LACKING GENUINE CHARACTER. (VII) FOR SIMILAR REASONS, THE STOCK REGISTER IS NOT CONCLUSIVE ON THE MATTER. IT THROWS NO LIGHT ON THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THIS MATERIAL/PURCHASE WAS UTILI ZED. THERE WAS NO CONFIRMATION FILED FROM THE OSTENSIBLE RECIPIENT OF THIS PURCHASE NAMELY THE CUSTOMER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT CLOTHING THIS SHAM TRANSACTION WITH A GENUINE ROBE. AN ENTRY IN A REGISTER WILL NOT SALVAGE THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WHEN ALL OTHER FACTS POINT OTHERWISE. (VIII) IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS AUDITED ACCOUNTS, HAS ASSERTED THAT HE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES MENTIONED EARLIER. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE SAME LIES ON HIM. H E HAS BEEN CONFRONTED WITH ALL EVIDENCE THAT UNDOUBTEDLY POINTS TOWARDS THE PURCHASES BEING BOGUS. HE HAS BEEN PROVIDED FULL OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME. HOWEVER, HE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THIS BURDEN BY WAY OF BRINGING ANY INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 4. IT WAS FURTHER OB SERVED BY THE A.O THAT AS NONE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PAR TIES COULD BE LOCATED, HENCE IT COULD SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER THE SAID PARTIES WERE GENUINE NOR ANY PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM THEM. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS, THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS AS WAS CAST UPON IT TO SUBSTANTIATE ON THE BASIS OF CLINCHING EVIDENCE THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACT IONS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THUS DISALLOWED THE ENTIR E P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. PURCHASES OF RS.1,01,67,848/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. 5 . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIB ERATING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE WAS PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW OF THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY GENUINE PURCHASE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES BUT HAD ONLY OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM THEM. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) RELYING ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROFIT ELEMENT INVOLVED IN MAKING OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASE S BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE OPEN/GREY MA RKET. THE CIT(A) IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID CONVICTION RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF G.P RATE OF 6% ON THE VALUE OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.1,01,67,848/ - AND RESULTANTLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,10,071/ - . 6 . THE REVEN UE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ON THE BASIS OF A NON - SPEAKING O RDER RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 6%. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE PURCHASE S WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM T HE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES, THUS THE A .O HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PURCHASES OF RS.1,01,67,848/ - WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT EVEN IF THE ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROFIT ELE MENT, THE SAME AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P. SHETH (2013) 3 56 ITR 451 (GUJ) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LESS THAN 12.5% OF THE P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. AGGREGATE VALUE OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASE S. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THOUGH IT REMAINS AS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF HAVING MADE THE PURCHASES OF THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES VIZ. (I) SHREEJI NAKODJI IMPEX; (II) SIVAM ANI TRADERS PVT. LTD; AND (III) KELIGARE, BUT THE FACT THAT THE RECEIPT OF THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS STOCK REGISTER THAT WAS PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT BEEN DISLODGED OR DISPROVED BY THE REVENUE, SUBSTANTIALLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE SAME . STILL FURTHER, THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE VIDE CHEQUES TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES TOWARDS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE GOODS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY HAVING BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE SAID MONEY HAD FOUND ITS WAY BACK TO THE POCKET OF THE ASSESSEE, ALSO EVIDENCES THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PURCHASE OF THE GOODS U NDER CONSIDERATION, THOUGH NOT FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES, BUT FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET. WE THUS, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN DISLODGED BY THE A.O, THEREFORE, AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES OF THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASE D THE GOODS UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET , THUS TH E ADDITION IN ITS HANDS WAS LIABLE TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. EXTENT OF THE PROFIT ELEMENT INVOLVED IN MAKING OF SUCH PURCHASES. WE THUS, IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE ADDITIO N IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROFIT ELEMENT INVOLVED IN MAKING OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE ARE U NABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO ACCEPT THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PROFIT ELEMENT AS CARRIED OUT BY THE CI T(A) IN R ESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS . WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAD RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 6% AS WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PROFIT ELEMENT INVOLVED IN PROCURING OF THE GOODS AT A LOWER/CONCESSIONAL RATE BY AN ASSESSEE BY SAVING O N VAT ETC . CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY ADOPTING THE REGULAR GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHET H (2013) 256 ITR 451 (GUJ) AFTER DELIBERATING AT LENGTH ON THE PROFIT ELEMENT THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN MAKING OF PURCHASES BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET, HAD ADOPTED THE SAME AT 12.5% OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. WE ARE OBLIV IOUS OF THE FACT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE DETERMINATION OF THE DISCOUNTED PRICE AT WHICH THE GOODS WOULD HAVE BEEN PROCURED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE OPEN/GREY MARKET, AS IN COMPARISON TO THE PRICE FOR WHICH THE SAME WOULD B E AVAILABLE IN THE REGULAR MARKET AND BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO A PROCESS OF ESTIMATION. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN ALL FAIRNESS THE EXTENT OF INFLATION OF THE PURCHASE PRICE BY THE ASSESSEE BY PROCURING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P. SHETH (SUPRA), CAN SAFELY BE TAKEN AT 12.5%. WE THUS, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUSTAIN THE ADDITION TO THE EX TENT OF 12.5% OF THE P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD. AGGREGATE VALUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS. 1,01,67,648/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. WE THUS, IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS SUSTAIN THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID BOGUS P URCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,70,956/ - (I.E 12.5% OF RS.1,01,67, 648/ - ). 7. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 .07.2018 S D / - S D / - (G. MANJUNATHA) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 26 .07.2018 PS. ROHIT / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI P A G E | 9 ITA NO. 680/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2009 - 10 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S CREATIVE PERIPHERALS & DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD.