ANANDVALLI NAMBIRAJ MUDALIAR, MUMBAI V. ITO , WARD - 2 (1), KALYAN

ITA 7164/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3177 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISH CHANDRA RAJORE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Period of limitation; Question of law
• Section: 69C; 133(6); 143(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA (A.M.) & SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) ITA NO. 7164/MUM/2018 - AY 2009-10 ITA NO. 7165/MUM/2018 - AY 2010-11 ITA NO. 7166/MUM/2018 - AY 2011-12 ANANDVALLI NAMBIRAJ MUDALIAR, 2 ND FLOOR, MOHAN PLAZA, WAYLE NAGAR, KHADAKPADA, KALYAN (W) 421 301 PAN : AGIPM4254G VS ITO, WD.2(1), KALYAN APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT APPELLANT BY SHRI PARESH SHAPARIA AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SATISHCHANDRA RAJORE SR DR DATE OF HEARING 25-02-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 25 -02-2020 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM : 1. THIS SET OF THREE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE INDEPENDENT ORDERS OF CIT(A)-3, THANE DATED 2-11-20 16, 22-06- 2016, AND 15-03-2018, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12, RESPECTIVELY. IN ALL APPEALS, THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED IDENTICAL / COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEALS EXCEPT FOR VA RIATION IN FIGURES OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 69C / BOGUS PURCHASES. FACTS IN ALL APPEALS ARE ALSO COMMON, THEREFORE, WITH THE CONSEN T OF PARTIES, ALL APPEALS WERE CLUBBED, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY CONS OLIDATED ORDER. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS, THE APPEAL FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 2009-10 IS TREATED AS LEAD CASE. IN THIS APPEAL, T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- I. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 BAD IN LAW 1. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE B EEN RE-OPENED U/S 147 OF THE I. T. ACT 1961. 2. THE REOPENING U/S 147 IS BAD IN LAW AND THE OR DER IS REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. II. ADDITION U/S 69C OF RS.15.10,042/- ON ACCO UNT OF NON GENUINE PURCHASES 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TOTAL PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,10,042/- AS NON GENUINE U/S 69C. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE TOTAL PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,10,042/-BUT G.P. ADDITION SHOUL D HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED. 3. THE ADDITION OF RS.15,10,042/- TREATING TOTAL PURCHASES AS NON GENUINE U/S 69C REQUIRED TO BE DELETED AND ESTIMATION BASED ON G.P. BE DECIDED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS PROPRI ETOR OF BALAJI ENERGY RESOURCES, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 ON 30-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,18,031/-. INITIALLY, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 31-08-2010. SUBSEQUENT LY, THE CASE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT THAT CERTAIN DEALERS WERE ENGAGED IN PRO VIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOOD S. THE SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT ALSO FORWARDED THE LIST OF SUCH DEALERS AND THE BENEFICIARIES. IN THE LIST OF BENEFICIARIES, THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS ALSO APPEARING. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INFORMATION, THE AO REOPENED T HE ASSESSMENT FOR 3 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 30-04-2013 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, T HE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES FROM FOLLOWIN G FIVE PARTIES:- S.NO NAME OF THE ENTRY PROVIDER AMOUNT THE BILLS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT IN THE BILLS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE 1 N B ENTERPRISES RS.1,99,551 2 MANIBHADRA TRADING CO RS.2,06,192 3 SIVMANI TRADERS PVT LTD RS. 52,9494 4 CHANDRANAND TRADING PVT LTD RS. 43,205 5 AMBESHWAR TRADING PVT LTD RS.33,282 TOTAL RS.5,35,179 3. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION, THE AO ISSUED N OTICES U/S 133(6) TO ALL THE PARTIES. THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNANSWE RED WITH THE REMARK BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES NOT FOUND. THE ASSESSEE WA S ALSO GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION . THE AO RECORDED THAT NO RESPONSE WAS MADE BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E ULTIMATELY FILED ITS REPLY DATED 21-10-2013 AND FURNISHED PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN SERVED NOTICE DA TED 23-12-2014 TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES, COPY OF BILLS AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHASES. THE AO NOT ED THAT NO FURTHER REPLY WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE AO DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES. 4 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER NOT ED THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES. THE ASSESSEE NEI THER REPLIED NOR PROVIDED ANY DETAILS; ONLY LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE P ARTIES WITHOUT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED. T HE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE REOPENING AS WELL AS THE ADDITION MADE B Y AO. THUS FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BE FORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR OF THE ASSESS EE AND LD. DR FOR REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. 6. GROUND I RELATES TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING. DURING THE ARGUMENT, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ARGUED ANYTHING ON T HE ISSUE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREATED AS NOT PRESSED AND DISMISSED. 7. GROUND II RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF BALAJI ENERGY RESOURCES AND ENGAGED IN TRADING AND MANUFACTURING OF TEXTILE MACHINERY AND LABOUR CONTRACTS. THE AO MAD E THE REOPENING ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES-TAX DE PARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 21-10-2013 BEFORE TH E AO. THE AO 5 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 DISREGARDED THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE. THE AO REL IED UPON THE INFORMATION OF THIRD PARTY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NO T REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR DISPUTED THE SALE OF ASSESSEE. THE SALES OF ASSESSEE WERE NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT PURCHASES. THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE AGGREGATE OF PURCHASES SHOWN FROM THE TAINTED / ALLEGED HAWALA PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT COMPLIED WITH HIS NOTICES. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHO WN GROSS PROFIT @8.7%, 8.72% AND 12.64% FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-1 0, 2010-11 AND 2011-12, RESPECTIVELY. THE LD.AR FURNISHED THE COP Y OF FOLLOWING 12 DECISIONS AND WOULD SUBMIT THAT IN ALL CASES ADDITI ONS WERE MADE ON GROSS PROFIT RATIO:- SR.NO LIST OF CASE LAWS I LIST OF CASE LAWS RELIED UPON II CASE LAWS ON GP RATIOS WHERE ADDITIONS ARE MADE ON THE BASIS OF GP RATIO : 1 SANJAY SHAH VS. ITO - ITA NO. 5063/MUM/2017 (MUM IT AT) 2 MIRAGE CREATIONS VS. DCIT ITA NO. 1901/MUM/2018 (MU M ITAT) 3 NARENDRA CHOUDHARY VS. ITO - ITA NO. 1639/MUM/2017 DATED 7.07.2017 (MUM ITAT) 4 MEHUL K MEHTA I .T.A. NO.3227/MUM/2016 (MUM ITAT) ( 2017) 6 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 5 RATNAGIRI STAINLESS STEEL PVT. LIMITED I .T.A. NO. 4463/MUM/2016 (MUM ITAT) (2017) 6 DEEPAK MEHTA I .T.A. NO.3019/MUM/2014 (MUM ITAT) (2 016) 7 YOGESH PANDYA, I .T.A. NO. 2893, (MUM ITAT) (2015) 8 M/S. GEOLIFE ORGANICS, MUMBAI AND OTHERS (MUM ITAT) (2017) 9 SUMIT JAISWAL, I.T.A. NO. 1541/KOL/2016 (ITAT KOLKA TA) (2018) 10 VAISHALI PRAKASH MUNI, I.T.A. NO. 378-380/MUM/2018 (MUM ITAT) (2018) 11 M/S STEEL LINE (INDIA), I.T.A. NO.L321- 1323/MUM/2016 (MUMBAI ITAT) (2017) 12 SUMAN GUPTA, I.T.A. NO. 4774/MUM/2014 (MUM ITAT) (2 017) 8. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT OF BOGUS PURCHASES SHOULD BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. PR.CIT VS ITO ITA NO.5063/MUM/2017 (MUM ITAT0 2. CIT VS BHOLANATH POLY FAB (P) LTD 40 TAXMANN.COM 49 4 (GUJ) 3. ACIT VS. HAWARE CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD (2019 101 TAXM ANN.COM 168 4. BATLIBOI ENVIRONMENT ENGG.LTD VS DCIT (2017) 88 TAX MANN.COM 645 5. VIJAY TRADING CO VS ITO 76 TAXMANN.COM 366 (GUJ) 6. CIT VS SIMIT P SHETH 38 TAXMANN.COM 385 (GUJ) 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE ASS ESSEE NOT PROVIDED 7 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUIN ENESS OF PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE MATERI AL PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS NO RECE IPT OF TRANSPORTATION WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHE R SUBSTANTIATED THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES BEFORE AO NOR FILED ANY SU BSTANTIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE EX-PA RTE ORDER. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT MADE FU LL-FLEDGED ENQUIRY / INVESTIGATION ABOUT THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE HAWALA TRADERS, WHO WERE INDULGING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRI ES WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENE FICIARIES OF SUCH HAWALA TRADERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES O NLY TO INFLATE THE EXPENSES TO REDUCE THE PROFIT RATIO. 10. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE TIME BARRED. IN RESPECT OF APPEAL FOR AY 2009-10, LD. C IT(A) PASSED ORDER ON 21-11-2016 WHEREAS THE APPEAL IS FILED ONLY ON 1 3-12-2018. SIMILARLY IN RESPECT OF APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11, APPE AL IS FILED ON 13-12- 2018; HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PASSED ON 22-06-2017. ALSO FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE APPEAL IS FILED ON 13-12-2018 THOUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED ON 15-03-2018. 8 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 11. IN THE REJOINDER SUBMISSION, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSES SEE SUBMITS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE RECEIVED / COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16- 10-2018. THE ASSESSEE, IN FORM 36 HAS CLEARLY MENT IONED THAT IMPUGNED ORDERS IN ALL APPEALS WERE RECEIVED ON 16- 10-2018 AND THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE FILED WITHIN THE P ERIOD OF LIMITATION. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE A LSO DELIBERATED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAW RELIED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE A SSESSEE. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IS THAT APPEALS WERE FILED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ON THE CONTRA RY, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE RECE IVED ONLY ON 16- 10-2018 AND THE APPEALS WERE FILED WITHIN THE PERIO D OF LIMITATION. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WHILE DECIDING THE CASES ON MERIT, THE TECHNICAL OBJECTION SHOULD NOT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE MERIT OF THE CASE; RATHER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN SUBSTANT IAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OT HER, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION. T HEREFORE, CONSIDERING THIS PRINCIPLE, WE, INSTEAD OF GOING INTO THE CONTR OVERSY AS TO WHEN THE ORDERS IMPUGNED WERE COMMUNICATED, IN ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE, WE TREAT THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE IN FORM 36 AS PRIM A FACIE, CORRECT. 9 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 13. NOW TURNING TO THE VALIDITY OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN THE RE-ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE A O MADE 100% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. THE AO SOLELY RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY INDEPEN DENT ENQUIRY. THE AO HAS NEITHER DISPUTED THE SALE NOR CONSUMPTION OF ASSESSEE NOR REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION UNDER THE BUSINESS PARLANCE THAT NO SALE IS POSSIBLE IN ABSEN CE OF ANY PURCHASES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO IN EX-PAR TE ORDER. THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 3 OF THE ORDER HAS RECORDED THAT DESPITE GRANTING FIVE OPPORTUNITIES, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESE NTATIVE ATTENDED. THE CASE WAS LASTLY LISTED ON 21-11-2016. HOWEVER, AT PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD.CIT(A) RECORDED THAT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT LETTER OF AUTHORITY FROM THE A PPELLANT, DIRECTOR OF SAIRAJ ACCOUNTING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD FILED PART DETA ILS IN THE TAPAL AND ALSO SOUGHT FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN TAPAL WITHOUT GIV ING ANY REASON ON WHAT CAPACITY THEY REPRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPEL LANT .. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) NEITHER CONSIDERED THE AL LEGED PA DETAIL WHILE PASSING THE EX-PARTE ORDER NOR DISCUSSED ANYWHERE T HE DETAILS OF DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED PART DETAILS AND AFFIRMED TH E ACTION OF THE AO. 10 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 NOW BEFORE US, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICA LLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THAT THEY HAVE DECLARED GROS S PROFIT AT 10.37% AND IF THE ADDITION AT 100% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS P URCHASES IS SUSTAINED, GROSS PROFIT WOULD RAISE TO 24.44% AND ULTIMATE NET PROFIT WOULD RAISE TO 20.61% WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE LD.AR FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON A NUMBER OF DECISION AS REFERRED ABOVE IN CLUDING THE RECENT DECISION OF HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN PCIT VS RISHABDEV TECHNOCABLE LTD (SUPRA) WHERE THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE, WHO WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND DEALER OF INDUSTRIAL POWER DRILLING INSTRUMENT FOR AY 2010-11, WHILE CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF LAW ON DISALLOWANCE OF SIMILAR BOGUS PURCHASES, UPHELD THE ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASIS BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS BH OLANATH POLY FAB (P) LTD 255 ITR 290 (GUJ) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN PURCHASES WERE NOT TRACEABLE, PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO TAX AND NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. 14. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT IN CASE THE TRANSACTIO N IS NOT VERIFIABLE OR THE PARTIES WERE FAILED TO PROVE THE ENTIRE TRANSAC TION, ONLY PROFIT EMBEDDED IN SUCH TRANSACTION IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AND NOT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION. THUS, CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND ACTI VITIES OF THE ASSESSEE 11 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 AND THE FACT THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RECORD ED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN ORDER TO CHECK THE POSSIBILITY OF REVE NUE LEAKAGE, A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES / AMOUNT / DIS PUTED PURCHASES WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. T HEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, THE DISALLOWANCES ARE RESTR ICTED TO 12.5% OF THE AMOUNT / DISPUTED PURCHASES. THE AO IS DIRECTED AC CORDINGLY. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED. ITA NOS. 7165 & 7166/MUM/2018 (AYS 2010-11 & 2011-1 2) 16. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THESE TWO APPEALS AR E PARI MATERIA WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED IN APPEAL FOR AY 2009-10 ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE DECISION ARRIVED AT THEREIN SHALL AP PLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THESE APPEALS ALSO. THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO PART LY ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-02-2020. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 PK/- COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 12 ITAS 7164 TO 7166/MUM/2018 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI