ITO 14 (3)(2), MUMBAI V. M/S TRENDSETTER CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6901/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5196 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR MENON
• Assessee Lawyers: F B ANDHYARUJINA
• Keywords: Business income; Tax effect; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3); 201; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , E BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE : SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA N O. 6901 /MUM/ 201 9 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 1 4 ) THE ITO - 14(3)(2) 4 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.458 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 VS. M/S. TRENDSETTE R CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 1, RAJKAMAL, OPP. UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, CS T ROAD KALINA, MUMBAI 400 098 PAN /GIR NO. AAACT2606C (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MENON ASSESSEE BY SHRI F.B. ANDHYAR UJ INA DATE OF HEARING 15 / 04 /202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 / 04 / 202 1 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : THIS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6901 /MUM/2009 FOR A.Y. 20 1 3 - 14 ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2 2 , MUMBAI IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 22 / ACIT - 14(1)(1)/10168/2017 - 18 DATED 30/08/2019 (LD. CIT(A) IN SHORT) AGA INST THE ORDER OF ASSESS MENT PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) DATED 28/ 03/2016 BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICE R - 1 4(3)(2) , MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD. AO). ITA NO . 6901/ MUM / 2019 M/ S. TRENDSETTER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 2 2. THE REVENUE HAD RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAX EFFECT 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A ) ERRED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.4,82,00,000/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PRO FESSIONAL FEES FOR RENDERING THE SERVICES TO M/S. A.A. ESTATE P. LTD DURING THE YEAR, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ON LY A SERVICE PROVIDER. THE LD. CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT BY ADOPTING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SHOWING PROFIT IN A PART ICULAR YEAR THEREBY POSTPONING THE TAX LIABILITY. RS .1,25,58,545/ - 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, VARY, O MIT, OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AF ORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME O F HEARING OF APPEAL 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE O RDER OF CI T(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TOTAL T AX EFFECT R S.1,25,58,545/ - 3. WE HA VE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD CITA HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSOR F OR THE ASST YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS. WE FIN D THAT THE LD CITA HAD STATED THAT THE ORDER OF OF THE LD CITA WAS UPHELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 7579/MUM/2011 DATED 18.12.2015. FURTHER THE LD CITA ALSO STA TED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASST YEAR 2006 - 07 HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1673 OF 2016 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NOS. 1679,1681 & 1691 OF 2016 DATED 4.2.2019. WE FIND THAT BY FOLLOW ING ALL THE AFORESAID ORDERS, THE LD CITA HAD GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO . 6901/ MUM / 2019 M/ S. TRENDSETTER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 3 3.1. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALREADY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE FOR THE LATEST ASST YEAR 2012 - 13 IN ITA NO. 2539/MUM/2017 DATED 16.11.2018. THE ENTIRE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE WHICH ADDRESSES THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BEFORE US FOR THE ASST YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO : - 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2012 - 13 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 22 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, A PPEAL NO.CIT(A) - 22/IT/288/2015 - 16 DATED 18/01/2017 BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,55,00,000/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE ON A/C OF PROFESSIO NAL FEES U/S 194 J OF THE I.T. ACT FOR RENDERING THE SERVICES TO M/S. A.A. ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED DURING THE YEAR WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A SERVICE PROVIDER. BY ADOPTING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT SHOW ING PROFIT IN A PARTICULAR YEAR THEREBY POSTPONING THE TAX LIABILITY WHICH IS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] WAS FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER 14 (3)(2) , MUMBAI [AO] U/S 143(3) ON 06/03/2015 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.81.19 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS AS AGAINST NIL RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24/09/2012. DURING IMPUGNED AY, THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ENTITY WAS ENGAGED AS B UILDER AND DEVELOPERS. 2 . DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REFLECTED ANY INCOME FROM BUSINESS WHEREAS IT HAD INCURRED ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE OF RS.74.68 LACS OUT OF WHICH IT HAD TRANSFERRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.74.34 L ACS TO WORK - IN - PROGRESS AA EPL PROJECT ACCOUNT. THE PERUSAL OF FORM 26AS REVEALED RECEIPTS OF RS.155 LACS STATED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM AN ENTITY NAMELY A.A.ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [AAEPL] AS ADVANCE AMOUNT AGAINST THE PROJECTS. THE SAME WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING TO OFFER THE PROJECT INCOME TO TAX. HOWEVER, UPON PERUSAL OF TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, LD. AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY RENDERING PROFESSIONAL / TE CHNICAL SERVICES TO THE AF ORESAID ENTITY AND THEREFORE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAME WAS REJECTED IN PRECEDING YEARS ALSO AND THE MATTER FOR THOSE YEARS WAS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FINALLY, THE AFORESAID RE CEIPTS WERE TREATED AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AGAINST WHICH THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.74.34 LACS AS TRANSFERRED BY THE ITA NO . 6901/ MUM / 2019 M/ S. TRENDSETTER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 4 ASSESSEE TO WIP ACCOUNT WAS ALLOWED AND THE NET DIFFERENTIAL I.E. RS.80.65 LACS WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTE STED THE SAME WITH SUCCESS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18/01/2017 WHEREIN LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS BY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF ITS PREDECESSOR FOR AYS 2006 - 07 TO 20 10 - 11 AS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. IT IS SEEN THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY MY ID. PREDECESSORS IN THE APPEALS FOR A.Y.S 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12. IN THE APPEAL FOR A .Y. 2006 - 07, MY ID. PREDECESSOR HAD OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: 'THUS AS PER MOU, M/S. A.A. ESTATE P. LTD. WAS THE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS WHO OBTAINED THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT FOR WORKS AS MEN TIONED ABOVE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ACTI NG AS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER BUT WAS ONLY RENDERING PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES IN RESPECT OF ABOVE IDENTIFIED WORK/ACTIVITIES TO M/S. A.A. ESTATE P. LTD. THE TERMS AND CONDITION OF THE MOU S HOWS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO RENDER CERTAIN S ERVICES IN RESPECT OF PARTICULAR PROJECT OR PROJECTS AND THE APPELLANT WAS TO RECEIVE REMUNERATION (FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED) NOT IN PROPORTION TO SERVICES RENDERED BUT IN PROPORTION TO CERTAIN PERCE NTAGE (I.E. 20%) OF THE PROFITS OF THE PROJECT. SINCE TH E EXECUTION/COMPLETION OF PROJECT WAS SPREAD OVER TO NUMBER OF YEARS, THEREFORE, THE PROFIT ON SUCH PROJECTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT IN PARTICULAR EACH YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S REMUN ERATION (FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT IN EACH PARTICULAR YEAR. THE APPELLANT'S REMUNERATION COULD ONLY BE WORKED OUT/ASCERTAINED ONLY ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. IT IS ALSO WORTH TO MENTIONED HERE THAT AS PER CLAUSE 9 OF THE MOU, REMUNERATION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PAYABLE IN THE EVENT OF LOSSES IN RESPECT OF PROJECT. THUS, EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE RENDERED SERVICES FOR A PARTICULAR PROJECT, NO REMUNERATION WAS PAYABLE TO APPELLANT IN THE EVENT OF LOSSES IN THE PRO JECT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT'S CL AIM APPEARS TO BE CORRECT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR (THOUGH THE PAYER I.E. M/S. A.A. ESTATE P. LTD. SHOWS THE SAME IN THE TDS CERTIFICATE AS FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERV ICES), THE SAME WAS IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE ONLY.' TH E ABOVE DECISION OF MY ID. PREDECESSOR WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 18.12.2015 IN ITA NO.7579/M/2011 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO . 6901/ MUM / 2019 M/ S. TRENDSETTER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 5 '8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENT IONS AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ID. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A VERY DETAILED AND ELABORATIVE ORDER WHEREIN AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INCLUDING THE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS PAID BY M/S. A .A. ESTATE PVT. LTD. THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE M/S. A.A. ESTATE PVT. LTD. AS EXPEN DITURE BUT HAS ONLY BEEN SHOWN AS WORK IN PROGRESS. SO THERE WAS A CONSISTENCY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF BOTH THE PAYER AND THE PAYEE. THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND AS PER THE MOU, TH E QUANTIFICATION OF THE REMUNERATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPENDANT ON THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESS EE WAS JUSTIFIED TO FOLLOW THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. ON THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE AMOUNT QUANTIFIED AS THE REMUNERATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TAXATION AND THE SAME WAS ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE BY THE BUILDER. TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE AMOUNT WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE BUILDER AS EXPENDITURE. THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ACCOUNTING METHOD IN RELATION TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND IT WAS FOUND THAT WHEREIN THERE WAS A RESULTANT LOSS, NO INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE; AND WHERE THERE WAS A PROFIT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME BEING THE REMUNERATION RECEIVED BY HIM ON CERTAIN FIXED PERCENTAGE OUT OF THE PROFITS OF THE PROJECT. THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY EITHER IN TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR OF THE BUILDER. THE LD.CIT(A) THEREFORE AFTER PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON THE FILE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS AN ADVANCE AND THE ACTUAL REMUNERATION WAS TO BE QUANTIF IED AT THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT OFFERING THE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR. HE THEREFORE UPHELD THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE AO. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SINCE THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN ALL THE OTHER APPEALS IS ALSO IDENTICAL, HENCE IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE ALL THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED.' FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT APPEAL BEING IDENTICAL WITH THAT O F THE EARLIER YEARS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF MY ID. PREDECESSORS AND THE HON'BLE ITAT, THE APPELLANT'S GROUNDS OF APPEAL AR E ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR ASSESSEE, SH RI F.B.ANDHYARUJINA, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STOOD SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOR ITA NO . 6901/ MUM / 2019 M/ S. TRENDSETTER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 6 BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR AYS 2006 - 07 TO 2011 - 12, THE COPIES OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION, LD. SR. C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES, RESORTS, MALLS AND CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDI NGS. IT HAD ALL THE NECESSARY EXPERTISE, KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION AND UTILIZATION OF DEVELOPMEN T RIGHTS AND TO RENDER RELATED SERVICES. ACCORDINGLY, IT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO RENDER SERVICES OF VARIED NATURE VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 12/06/2002, SUPPLEMENTARY AG REEMENT DATED 13/06/2002 WITH AN ENTITY NAMELY AAEPL. THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WERE RENEWED FROM TIME TO TIME UP - TO 10/06/2017. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE REMUNERATED WITH A COMMISSION EQUIV ALENT TO 20% OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM THE PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY HIM WITH AAEPL AND NO COMMISSION WAS PAYABLE TO ASSESSEE, IN THE EVENT OF LOSSES. THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO RENDER THE SERVICES TO AAEPL AND PENDING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE AS SESSEE WAS RECEIVING ADHOC PAYMENT S EVERY MONTH FROM AAEPL FOR THE VARIOUS PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN. THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE MERE ADVANCE PAYMENTS WHICH NEVER ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME DURING IMPUGNED AY. OUR ATTE NTION IS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT TH E AFORESAID PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE BY AAEPL AND SIMILAR TREATMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY AAEPL TO THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT PROFITS / LOSSES ARISING FRO M THE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN CHARGED T O PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], SHRI D.G.PANSARI ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE STAND OF LD. AO BUT COULD NOT BRING ON RECORDS ANY CONTRARY JUDGME NT. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS EXPLAINED BY LD. SR. COUNSEL IS NOT IN DISPUTE SINCE SIMILAR FACTS HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. UPON PERU SAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PROVIDED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR AYS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10. NOTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTS THAT THE A FORESAID ORDER HAS EVER BEEN OVER - RULED OR NEGATED B Y THE ORDERS OF ANY HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. FURTHER, FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUBSEQUENT AYS 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 VIDE ITA NOS. 7022 - 23/M UM/2014 DATED 24/06/2016, THE COPIES OF WHICH ARE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE SAME AND INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HOWEVER, THE SAME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF THE FACT THAT SIMILAR TREATMENT HAS BEEN GI VEN TO THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS BY AAEPL IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE STATED PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE THEREIN. THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS AFTER VERIFYING THE AFORESAID FACT, IF FOUND CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. ITA NO . 6901/ MUM / 2019 M/ S. TRENDSETTER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 7 6. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED . 3.2. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CITA GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE D ISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 / 04 /202 1 BY WAY OF PROPER MENTIONING IN THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) SD/ - (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER MUMBAI ; DATED 20 / 04 / 2 021 KARUNA , SR.PS 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//