GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 19(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7217/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7990 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS BEENA SANTOSH
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK TRALSHWAL A
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , G , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, A ND SHRI ASHWANITANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7217/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 6, EVEREST 21, 6 TH FLOOR, ABOCE CE LA VI CLB, NEAR HOLLY FAMILY HOSPITAL HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI-400050 / VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-19(3) R. NO. 301, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. A AGFG2929J APPELLANT BY M R . DEEPAK TRALSHWALA RE VENUE BY MRS. BEENA SANTOSH / DATE OF HEARING: 16/02/2017 / DATE OF ORDER: 28/02/2017 / O R D E R PER ASHWANITANEJA, A.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 31/10/2013 PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSME NT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DATED 30/12/2011 UNDER SECT ION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE FILED FOLLOWING REVISED GROUNDS: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN LAW , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 30 ERRED IN MA KING THE ADDITION OF I. RS. 3,81,12,345/- AS BOGUS EXPENDITURE ON LABOUR CH ARGES, 2 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES A. WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. B. MERELY ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PROFITS WERE SIPHONED OFF BY RAISING BOGUS BILLS C. ALTHOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUES D. ALTHOUGH ALL THE PARTIES EXCEPT ONE WERE EXAMIN ED ON OATH BY THE AO, AND THEY AFFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS. II. RS. 24,62,953/- AS BOGUS EXPENDITURE/PURCHASES OF S TEEL FROM MASS ENTERPRISES MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE INSPECT ORS ERRONEOUS REPORT THAT NO SUCH FIRM EXISTED, ALTHOUGH MASS ENT ERPRISES HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS WITH THE CONFIRMATION OF MATERIAL SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE F OR WHICH PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE. III. RS. 79,70,250/- AS BOGUS EXPENDITURE FOR REMOVAL OF DEBRIS PAID TO M.M. CONTRACTORS MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PART Y DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMA ND PROCEEDINGS NOR HAS FILED ANY CONFIRMATION OF TRANS ACTIONS. THEREBY MAKING A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 4,85,45,548/ - WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION ON RELACEMENT O F THESE GROUNDS WITH THE GROUNDS FILED WITH THE APPEAL MEMO. THERE FORE, THIS APPEAL SHALL BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THESE REVISED GROU NDS ONLY. THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE THREE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE PERTAIN TO DISALLOWANCE OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, WHICH REMAINED UNSUBSTANTI ATED AND UNVERIFIED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND TH EREFORE THESE WERE DISALLOWED BY THE AO. 3. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE IS THAT ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE AO 3 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES UNDER SECTION 133(6) WITH REGAR D TO THE LABOUR CHARGES PAID TO THE FOLLOWING 11 PARTIES:- 1 ATTAULLAH ANSARI 1488693 2 AZHAR AHMED 1936855 3 DANISH ANSARI 952175 4 M I ELECTRICALS 893922 5 NISHANT ANSARI 954000 6 SHABNAM ANSARI 973500 7 ZEESHAN ANSARI 908500 8 BUILDTECH GROUP 1300000 9 R A CONSTRUCTION 10800000 10 ANZ CONSTRUCTION 9000000 11 ANDAZ ENGEE & CONTRACTORS 8904700 TOTAL 38112345 4. NO SATISFACTORY RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO FR OM THESE PARTIES; THEREFORE PAYMENT MADE TO THESE PARTIES FO R AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.3,81,12,345/- WAS DISALLOWED. SIM ILARLY, THE AO MADE ENQUIRIES WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. M ASS ENTERPRISES ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF STEEL FROM THE SAID PARTY AG GREGATING TO RS. 24,62,953/-. HOWEVER, IN ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY R ESPONSE, THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. SIMILARLY, IT WAS NOTED BY TH E AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AGGREGATING AMOUNT OF RS. 79,70,250/- T O M/S. MM CONTRACTORS ON ACCOUNT OF LIFTING OF DEBRIS, HOWEVE R, IN ABSENCE OF PROPER EVIDENCE THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO DISALLOWED BY THE AO. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED THE FIRST APPEAL B EFORE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GRANT ED BY THE AO AND THE SUPPLIERS MIGHT HAVE CHANGED THE ADDRESS AND TH EREFORE PROPER VERIFICATION COULD NOT BE MADE. LD. CIT (A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AFTER CARRYING OUT DETAILED EXAMINATION FROM THE SAID PARTIES. THEREAFTER, AO CARRIED OUT DETAILED EXAMI NATION OF THESE PARTIES AND SUBMITTED ITS REMAND REPORT DATED 18/06/2013 WH EREIN HE 4 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES CONFIRMED THE FACTUM TO APPEARANCE OF VARIOUS PARTI ES, CONFIRMATION OF TRANSACTION BY THESE PARTIES AND ALSO PERSONAL APPE ARANCE AND RECORDING OF STATEMENTS OF VARIOUS SUPPLIERS. HOWEVER, LD. C IT(A) DID NOT FIND THE REMAND REPORT AS SUFFICIENT AND RELIABLE, AND THERE FORE HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO DISREGARDING THE REMAND REPORT AND RAISING VARIOUS DOUBTS AND QUERIES THAT REMAINED UN ANSWERED IN THE REMAND REPORT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE DETAILED REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO CONTAINING DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL THE ENQUIRIES DONE BY THE AO AND CLAIMED THAT THESE WERE CONCLUDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO EXPRESSED SERIOUS OBJECTION ABOUT VARIOUS DOUBTS AND QUESTION S RAISED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE REMAND R EPORT AND LACUNA AND DEFECTS IN THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT T HERE WAS GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE P ART OF LD. CIT(A), BECAUSE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE DOUBTS AND QUERIES IN HIS M IND, LD. CIT(A) DISBELIEVED THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THOSE GATHERED BY THE AO. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM TH AT LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE PUT THESE QUERIES TO THE ASSESSEE, AND ALTE RNATIVELY, LD. CIT(A) COULD HAVE CALLED FOR ANOTHER REMAND REPORT FROM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANSWERING WHATEVER FURTHER QUERIES CAME TO THE MIND OF LD. CIT(A). THUS ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) SUFFER WITH THE INH ERENT JURISDICTIONAL LACUNA AND HAS BEEN PASSED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPL ES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 7. PER CONTRA, LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVE NUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND REQU ESTED FOR UPHOLDING 5 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES THE SAME. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO OUR QUERY, SHE W AS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WHETHER THE QUERIES AND DOUBTS MENTIONE D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPEAL ORDER WERE EVER PUT TO THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS BY THE AO OR DURING T HE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES AND REMAND REPORT SENT BY THE AO AND ALSO SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES BEFORE US. IT IS NOTED THAT AO PERUSAL O F REMAND REPORT DATED 18/06/2013 SHOWS THAT DETAILED ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE AO WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE PARTIES. THE RESULT OF ENQUIRIE S HAVE BEEN SUMMARISED BY THE AO IN HIS AFORESAID REMAND REPORT AND SAME I S REPRODUCED HERE UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE:- 11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE FINDINGS OF THE REMAND RE PORT PROCEEDINGS ARE AS UNDER- 11.1. DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDING ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE VARIOUS SERVICE PROVIDERS/VENDORS ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENSEE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED/DISALLOWED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FACTS ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: LABOR CHARGES: SR. NO NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT INVOLVED WHETHER APPEARED DOCUEMNTS SUBMITTED 1. ATTAULLAH ANSARI 14,88,693/- YES A. COPY OF ASK. IT/VAT RETURNS FOR THE PERIOD B. COPY OF RUNNING BILLS ISSUED BY ATTUALLAH ASNARI. C. COPY OF AUDIT REPORT OF MASS ENTERPRISE (A PROPRIETARY CONCERN) A.Y. 2009-10 A. COPY OF BILLS ISSES BY AZHAR AHMED AND R.A. CONSTRUCTION B. CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT OF R.A. CONSTRUCTION C. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME AUDIT 2. AZHAR AHMED 19,36,855 YES 3. R.A. CONSTRUCTION PROPRIETOR: AZHAR AHMED ABOVE 1,08,00,000 YES 6 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES REPORT AND COMPUTATION A.Y. 2009-10 4. MOHD. DANISH ANSARI 9,52,175/- YES A. COPY OF BILLS ISUSES BY ANZ CONTRACTORS & MD. DANISH ANSARI. B. CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTAT OF ANZ CONSTRUCTION C. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME, AUDIT REPORT AND COMPUTATION A.Y. 2009-10 5. ANZ CONTRACTORS- PROP: DANISH ANSARI ABOVE 90,00,000 YES 6. NISHANT ANSARI 9,54,000 YES A. COPY OF BILLS ISS UES BY ANDAZ ENGEE & CONTRACTORS & NISHANT ANSARI. B. CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT OF ANDAZ ENGEE CONTRACTORS/NISHANT ANSARI. C. COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME, AUDIT REPORT AND COMPUTATION 7. 89,04,700 YES 8. ZEESHAN ANSARI 9,08,500/- YES A. COPY OF BILLS R AISED BY ZEESHAN ANSARI AND BUILD TECH ENTERPRISES B. COPY OF ACCOUNT C. ACK OF RETURN OF INCOME-A.Y. 2009-10 9. BUILDTECH GROUP- PROP ZEESHAN ANSARI-SR.8 13,00,000 10 M.I. ELETRICALS PROP. MR. MOHAMMED IDRIS MOHD. JAMIL 8,93,922/- YES A. COPY OF BILLS RAISED BY M.I. ELETRICALS. B. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF M. I. ELECTRICALS. C. COPY OF ACK OF RETURN, B/S CAPITAL A/C & P & L A/C. D. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT. 11 SHABNAME ANSARI 9,73,500 YES A. COPY OF BILL ISS UES BY SHABNAM ANSARI. B. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF SHABNAM ANSARI C. COPY OF ACK OF RETURN & COMPUTATION. D. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT TOTAL 3,81,12,345 MATERIAL PURCHASED 12 MASS ENTERPRISE- 24,62,953 YES A. COPY OF ACK IT/ VAT RETURNS 7 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES PROP. ATTUALLAH ANSARI-SR. 1 FOR THE PERIOD. B. COPY OF RENNING BILLS ISSUED BY ATTAULLAH ANSARI C. COPY OF BILLS ISSUED BY MASS ENTERPRISES DEBRIS REMOVAL CHGS 13. M.M. CONTRACTORS 79,70,250 NO TOTAL 1,04,33,203 /- 11.2. ALL THE PARTIES WHO APPEARED CONFIRMED THE TR ANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENTS OF ALL THE PARTIES WER E RECORDED. THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ALONG WITH RESPEC TIVE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS ARE ENCLOSED FOR REFERENCE. EXCE PT MR. MOHAMMED IDRIS MOHD JAMIL-PROP OF M/S. M.I. ELECTRI CAL ALL WITNESSES ARE FROM SAME FAMILY AND ALL THE PARTIES HAVE GIVEN IDENTICAL REASON OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS/NON RECEIPT O F NOTICE/SUMMONS IN TIME FOR NON APPEARANCE/NON FURNI SHING OF DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. FURTHER IT IS HIGHLIGHTED THAT NEITHER ANY PERSON ON BEHALF OF M. M. CONTRACTORS APPEARED NOR FILED ANY CONFIRMATION EVEN NOW DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDING SO THIS TRANSACTION REMAINED UNVE RIFIED . 9. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILED REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT AND ALSO PRODUC ED VARIOUS EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED W ITH REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT AND THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE. VARIOUS DOUBTS WERE RAISED BY HIM WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. IN THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE ORDER, HE SU MMARISED VARIOUS QUERIES THAT REMAINED UNANSWERED TO RESOLVE THE DIS PUTE WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: THE ABOVE DISCUSSION CAN BE SUMMARISED, AS FOLLOWS: I) THE APPELLANT OR THE ABOVE 7 PERSONS HAVE NOT PRODU CED OR FILED ANY PROOF TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED BY T HE 8 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES APPELLANT FOR THE WORK FOR WHICH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN ALLEGEDLY MADE TO THEM. II) ALL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO EXAMINE THE PROPRIETY OF PAYMENT, VIZ. QUOTATION OF RATE, OFFER LETTER ACCEP TANCE LETTER, COPY OF CONTRACT, OR THE INVOICE OR BILL EV IDENCING THE QUANTITATIVE WORK DONE BY THEM AND THE RATE WHICH I S APPLIED FOR BILLING THE WORK DONE, I.E. PER SQ. FT. OR QUANTITY WISE IN THE INVOICE OR BILL, HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED EITHER BY THE APPELLANT OR THE ABOVE 7 PERSONS. III) THERE IS NO PROOF TO SHOW CO-RELATION OF THE ALLEGE D PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE DURING THE YEAR OR EARLIER YEAR. IV) NOT ALL AMOUNTS DEBITED DURING THE YEAR HAVE BEEN P AID. SOME PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR , BUT NO DETAILS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR P ROVIDED. V) ALMOST ALL PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE MONTHS OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2009. VI) THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF ABOVE 7 PERSONS DO NOT ESTABLI SH THE RECEIPT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. IN FACT, NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO SHOW AS TO WHEN BILL OR INVOI CE WAS RAISED, FOR WHICH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN CREDITED. VII) THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ONLY USED THE CURRENT ACCOUNT , BUT ALSO SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE PERSONS TO SIPHON OFF PROFITS OF THE FIRM. IN FACT, BANK ACCOUNTS OF SOME OF THESE PERSONS HAD NOMINAL BALANCES, BEFORE HIGH VAL UE CHEQUES WERE CREDITED TO THEIR ACCOUNTS. VIII) THERE IS TRAIL OF WITHDRAWAL OF ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF SELF CHEQUES IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT S. AN INFERENCE THAT CAN BE SAFELY DRAWN FROM THIS IS THA T PROFITS OF THE APPELLANTS FIRM WERE SIPHONED OFF BY RAISIN G BOGUS BILLS AND INVOICES AND, MAKING CHEQUE PAYMENTS AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER, WITHDRAWING CASH BY WAY OF SELF CHEQUEST FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE PERSON S IN THIS CHEQUES HAD BEEN DEPOSITED. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT TRANSPIRED THAT TH ESE QUERIES OR DOUBTS WERE NOT PUT TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT( A) BEFORE DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY US THAT IN CASE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WIT H THE EXERCISE DONE BY THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAN HE WAS WITHIN ALL HIS LIBERTY TO 9 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES GET FURTHER EXAMINATION DONE THROUGH AO. HE WAS AL SO WITHIN HIS LIBERTY TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES HIMSELF FROM ASSESSEE DIR ECTLY. HOWEVER, WITHOUT CHOOSING ANY OF THESE OPTIONS HE DREW ADVER SE INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUS TICE. IN OUR OPINION SUCH AN APPROACH IS UNFAIR AND UNJUSTIFIED. THEREF ORE, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND ALL THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO SHALL GO THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND SHALL CLEAR ALL DOUBTS AS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS APPEAL ORDER BY RAI SING RELEVANT QUERIES TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT REQUISITE DETAILS, EXPLANATION A ND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO CLARIFY ALL DOUBTS/QUERIES. THE ASSES SEE SHALL ALSO BE FREE TO RAISE ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL ISSUES. THE AO SHALL DEC IDE THESE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ENTIRE MATERIAL AS MAY BE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS ALL THE GROUNDS ARE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCL USION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (ASHWANI TANEJA) /JUDICIALMEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 28/02/2017 RAHUL DHOKE , P.S/. .. 10 M/S. GRACE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES !'#$%&%'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. #$% &' , &' ) , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. %*+, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, # //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI