ITO 10(2)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. MALCHAND DINDAYAL SALTS PVT. LTD., MUM

ITA 6908/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2268 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM / I.T.A. NO. 6908/M/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 1 1 ) ITO - 10(2)(3) R. NO. 216 - A, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 . VS. M/S. MALCHAND DINDAYAL SALTS PVT. LTD., GROUND FLOOR, SHRI AGARWAL BHAVAN, MODI PATEL ROAD, BHAYANDER (W), THANE (W), MUMBAI - 401101. / I.T.A. NO. 7097 /M/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) M/S. MALCHAND DINDAYAL SALTS PVT. LTD., GROUND FLOOR, SHRI AGARWAL BHAVAN, MODI PATEL ROAD, BHAYANDER (W), THANE (W), MUMBAI - 401101 . VS. ITO - 10(2)(3) R. NO. 216 - A, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 . ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAGCM2416D ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 03 /1 1 /2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01 /1 2 /2020 / O R D E R ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL REVENUE BY: SHRI VIJAY KUMAR G. SUBRAMANYAM (SR. A R) ITA. NOS. 7097 /M/201 8 & 6908/M/2018 A.Y.2010 - 11 2 PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE HAVE F ILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 07 .0 9 .201 8 PASSED BY THE COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 17 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 . ITA. NO. 7097 /M UM /201 8 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT A PPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.09 .201 8 PASSED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 17 , MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)) RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) AND ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FROM FLORENCE MULTIMEDIA PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.28,00,000/ - . 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF YOUR HONOURS TO ADD TO ALTER, AMEND AND/ OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4 . THE BRIEF F ACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29 . 0 9.20 10 DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,22,160 / - FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED . THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPEN ED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.03.2015 AND ITA. NOS. 7097 /M/201 8 & 6908/M/2018 A.Y.2010 - 11 3 WAS CONCLUDED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 28.03.2016 BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF RS.2,62,2 6,960/ - . AGGRI E VED BY THE ORDER , ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 2,53,04,800/ - AND RETAINED THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 28,00,000/ - IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE FLORENCE MULTIMEDIA PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION OF RS.28,00,000/ - WHEREAS THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,53,04,800/ - . ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE PARTIES ARE UND ER APPEAL. ISSUE NO. 1 5 . UNDER THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO NOWHERE PERMITTED HIM TO REOPEN THE CASE U/S 14 7 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE FORMS REASON TO BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT FETCH THE CERTAIN PREMIUM WHICH IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE R EASONS THAT THE SHARE S WERE OVER VALUE D OR WHAT AMOUNT THE PREMIUM EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE SHARES WHICH LEADS TO ESCAPE ASSESSMENT S, THEREFORE, THE NOTICES U/S 147 IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF ITA. NOS. 7097 /M/201 8 & 6908/M/2018 A.Y.2010 - 11 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KHUBCHANDANI HEALTHPARKS (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(4), MUMBAI (2016) 68 TAXMANN.COM 91 (BOM) AND BALBIR ISPAT PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA. NO. 6953/MUM/2016 DATED 28.01.2019. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTIONS. BEFORE GOING FURTHER, WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ON RECORD.: - 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ELECTRONICALLY ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A. Y. 2010 - 11 ON 29.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 9,22,160. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED. 2. FROM THE PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET FILED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN THE SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.2,12,66,700/ - . IT IS GATHERED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ISSUED 4,03,810/ - SHARES HAVING FACE VALUE OF RS.10 / AND AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 70/ - PER SHARE TOTAL SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IS RS.2,12,66,700/ - 3. AT THIS BACKDROP, FINANCIALS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE BEEN ANALYZED. FROM THE PERUSAL OR COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN TAXABLE INCOME OF PS. 9,22,160/ - . FIXED ASSETS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS. NILL. CASH AND BANK BALANCES ARE SHOWN AT RS. 2004/ - . BUSINESS ACTIVITY ALSO DOES JUSTIFY CHARGING OF SUCH PREMIUM. 4. THUS, AFTER ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIAL S OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DO NOT QUALITY TO FETCH A PREMIUM AND HENCE, THE NATURE OF SUCH CAPITAL INCOME IS NOT JUSTIFIED. S.68 OF THE I. T. ACT REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOU RCE OF THE CREDIT ENTRY ITA. NOS. 7097 /M/201 8 & 6908/M/2018 A.Y.2010 - 11 5 5. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MAJOR METAL LTD. VS UOI (2012) 19 TAXMANN.COM 176 (BOM) UPHELD THE ADDITION U/S. 68 MADE BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE PREMIUM HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ES TABLISH THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ISSUING SHARES AT SUCH PREMIUM. 6. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. HAS HOLD THAT SECTION 147 AUTHORIZES AND PERMITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS OR RE - ASSESS INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX, IF HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE WORD REASON IN THE PHRASE REASON TO BELIEVE WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNOW OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ON INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE EXPRESSION CANNOT BE AND TO MEAN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED THE (ACTS BY LEGAL EVIDENCE OR CONCL USION. THIS JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE, A VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CASE WAS ONLY PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) AND NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE RE - OPENING WAS HELD TO BE VALID. 7. MOREOVER, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ECGC VS. ADDL. CIT WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2012 DATED 10 - 11 JANUARY, 2013, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. T HEN WHAT IS REQUIRED IS REASON TO BELIEVE BUT NOT ESTABLISHED FACT THAT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. AT THIS STAGE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHERE THERE IS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH THE REASONABLE PERSON CAN FORM A REQUISITE BELIEF. WHEN AN AS SESSMENT IS SOUGHT O BE REOPENED WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS, THE TEST TO BE APPLIED IS WHETHER THERE IS TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO DO SO. SOMETHING WHICH IS TANGIBLE NEED NOT BE SOMETHING WHICH IS NEW. 8. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE NATUR E OF SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.2,12,66,700/ - IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. HENCE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AN INCOME IN EXCESS OF RS.1 LAC LIABLE FOR TAXATION HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U /S 148 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. ITA. NOS. 7097 /M/201 8 & 6908/M/2018 A.Y.2010 - 11 6 6. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO REOPEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL IS ON RECORD FOR REOPENING THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AO FORMED REASON TO BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. MERE MENTIONING THE FACTS AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SHARES PREMIUM OF RS. 2,12,66,700/ - NOWHERE GIVES THE PLAUSIBLE REASON TO THE AO TO REOPEN THE CASE U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. NOTHING IS ON RECORD TO WHICH IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT UNDER WHICH CIRCUMSTANCES THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING WHICH CAME INTO NOTICE THAT ON THE BASIS OF SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE ITAT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN CASE TITLED AS BALBIR ISPAT PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA. NO. 6953/MUM/2016 DATED 28.01.2019 IN WHICH THE NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT NOWHERE JUSTIFIED. IN THE SAID CASE T HE RELEVANT FINDING HAS B EEN GIVEN IN PARA NO. 11 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND FROM THE REASONS RECORDED REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT HIM TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT UNLESS HE HAS TANGIBLE M ATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE FORMS REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED SHARES AT A CERTAIN PREMIUM ITSELF CANNOT BE A REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME HASESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE AO HAS NEITHER MEN TIONED BY HOW MUCH THE SHARES ARE OVERVALUED I.E. BY WHAT AMOUNT THE PREMIUM EXCEEDS THE INSTINCT VALUE OF THE SHARES NOR THE AMOUNT, WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS ARE REPRODUCED ABOVE BUT FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY THE RELEVANT PART OF REASONS ARE THAT, FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF HUGE SHARE PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO 4,56,00,000 DURING THE F.Y. 2008 - 09 RELEVANT TO AY 2009 - 10. AS THERE ITA. NOS. 7097 /M/201 8 & 6908/M/2018 A.Y.2010 - 11 7 WAS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT DONE FOR THIS YEAR, THE SO - CALLED S HARE PREMIUM HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE IS AN UNLISTED COMPANY AND THE SOURCE OF THE SHARE PREMIUM SO RECEIVED AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF THE SHARE APPLICATION RECEIVED (THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE SHARE IN COMPARISON TO THE EXCESS PREMIUM RECEIVED) IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE AO STATED THAT INCOME IN THE GRAB OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED IN THIS CASE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BUT HE COULD NOT POINT OUT ON WHAT BASIS / MATERIAL DOES H E BELIEF THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL IS NOT GENUINE. IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KHUBCHANDANI HEALTHPARKS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME WAS ASSESSED BY INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS DONE. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CHARGING SHARE PREMIUM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT CHARGING OF SHARE PREMIUM OVER AND ABOVE THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE SHARE IS INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE NOTICE ITSELF DOES NOT INDICATE THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF INCOME, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT NOR DOES IT QUANTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED WAS IN E XCESS OF INTRINSIC VALUE, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT GIVES NO REASONS TO INDICATE THE BASIS OF COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHARE PREMIUM IS EXCESSIVE AND, THEREFORE, INCOME.MOREOVER, THE NOTICE ALSO DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THIS IS A SHARE PREMIUM BUT SEEK JUSTIFICATION FOR CHARGING THE SHARE PREMIUM OVER AND ABOVE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE SHARE PREMIUM. 7. IN THE BASIS OF SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN CASE TITLED AS KHUBCHANDANI HEALTHPARKS (P.) LTD. VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(4), MUMBAI (2016) 68 TAXMANN.COM 91 (BOM) . : - REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME WAS ASSESSED BY INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS DONE. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE AND THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CHARGING SHARE PREMIUM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT CHARGING OF SHARE PREMIUM OVER AND ABOVE THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE SHARE IS INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE NOTICE ITSELF DOES NOT INDICATE THE ITA. NOS. 7097 /M/201 8 & 6908/M/2018 A.Y.2010 - 11 8 APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF IN COME, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT NOR DOES IT QUANTIFY THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED WAS IN EXCESS OF INTRINSIC VALUE, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT GIVES NO REASONS TO INDICATE THE BASIS OF COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHARE PREMIUM IS EXCESSIVE AND, THEREFORE, INCOME. MOREOVER, THE NOTICE ALSO DOES NOT DISPUTE THAT THIS IS A SHARE PREMIUM BUT SEEK JUSTIFICATION FOR CHARGING THE SHARE PREMIUM OVER AND ABOVE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE SHARE PREMI UM. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE BALBIR ISPAT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF KHUBCHANDANI HEALTHPARKS (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(4), MUMBAI (2016) 68 TAXMANN.COM 91 (BOM) . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT AS WELL AS HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS ABSOLUTELY NO MATERIAL TO EVEN SUSPECT, FORGET BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HENCE, WE QUASH ED THE REOPENING AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ON JURISDICTION IS HEREBY ALLOWED. SINCE, WE HAVE ALREADY QUASH ED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WE NEED NOT TO GO INTO THE MERIT OF THE CASE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA. NO. 6908 /MUM/201 8 8. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN QUASHED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA. NO.7097/MUM/2018, THEREFORE, THE CHALLENGE BY REVENUE ON MERITS OF DELETION BY LD. CIT(A) IS INFRUCTUOUS, HENCE, REVENUE APPEAL IS TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED AS SUCH . ITA. NOS. 7097 /M/201 8 & 6908/M/2018 A.Y.2010 - 11 9 9 . IN RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 1 / 1 2 / 20 20 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 0 1 / 1 2 /20 20 VIJAY PAL SINGH( 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// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI