DCIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI V. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7283/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1482 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S E DASTUR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Validity of assessment; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 80IC; 143(2); 113; 80IC; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.7283 & 7282/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2010-11 DCIT/ACIT 10(2)(1), R.NO.216-A, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 VS. M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD., UJALA HOUSE, RAM KRISHNA MANDIR ROAD, KONDIVITA, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400059 PAN: AABCL3167F (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 (ITA NOS.7283 & 7282/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD., UJALA HOUSE, RAM KRISHNA MANDIR ROAD, KONDIVITA, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400059 PAN: AABCL3167F VS. DCIT/ACIT 10(2)(1), R.NO.216-A, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.E. DASTUR, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05.09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.10.2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE CR OSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 2 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2009-10.THE ASSESSE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO FRAME ASSESSMENTS WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. WE SHALL BE DECIDING THE CROSS OBJECTION FIRST IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS. CO NO.78/M/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10) 2. IN THE GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION AND VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER D ATED 24.09.2015 PASSED BY AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ W ITH SECTION1 47 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. A.R., AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE AS A RESPONDENT IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL CAN SUPPORT TH E ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON ANY OF THE GROUND DECIDED AGAIN ST HIM EVEN THOUGH NO INDEPENDENT APPEAL OR CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN FILED BY IT. THE LD. A.R. DREW OUR ATTENTION TO RULE 27 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT RESPONDENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CAN SUPPORT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS EV EN WITHOUT FILING AN APPEAL. 4. THE LD. A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SUN P HARMA INDUSTRIES LTD. (2018) 408 ITR 517 WHEREIN THE HON BLE COURT HAS AFFIRMED THE VIEW THAT RULE 27 OF THE RULES ENT ITLES THE RESPONDENT TO DEFEND THE ORDER BEFORE TRIBUNAL ON A LL GROUNDS INCLUDING THE GROUND WHICH MAY BE AGAINST HIM EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST HIM HAD OTHERWISE BEEN DECID ED IN HIS FAVOUR. THE LD. A.R. REFERRED TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 3 ON 01.04.2019 STATING THE FACT OF NON SERVICE OF NO TICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND ALSO BROUGHT TO THE N OTICE OF THE THEN HONBLE BENCH THE SAID FACT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 03.04.2019. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT EV EN THE LD. D.R. HAD PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT SOME TIME MAY BE ALLOWED AS THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS ARE TO BE CALLED FOR TO VERIFY WHETHER THERE IS A PROPER ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AS THE LD AR HAS NEVER RA ISED THE SAID ISSUE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED ON 27.03.2018 IS VIDE ENO UGH TO COVER THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEING RAISED WHICH ARE ENCLOS ED HEREWITH ON THE NON ISSUANCE AND NON SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AND A SEPARATE GROUND OF APPEAL I N THE CROSS OBJECTION IS NOT RAISED. NOW THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVE D UPON THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LD. A.R. VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BEN CH THAT THOUGH THERE IS NO NEED TO TAKE THE ABOVE ADDITIONA L GROUND SEPARATELY AS THE GROUND NO.1 TAKEN IN THE CROSS OB JECTION CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 BUT OUT OF ABUNDANT CA UTION THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE AFORESAID GROUND IS OF A LEGAL NATURE AND ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO TAKE T HE SAID GROUND AT ANY STAGE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ADMISSION OF SAID GROUND DOES NO T REQUIRE ANY VERIFICATION OF FACTS AS THE ISSUE IS ARISING O UT OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND IS PURELY OF LEGAL NATURE. THE LD. A.R. ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 4 PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADM ITTED FOR ADJUDICATION WHILE RELYING ON THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. 229 ITR 383. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND ON THE GROUND THAT THIS WAS NEVER RAISED BEFORE THE AO OR LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. FURTHER THE , LD DR ALSO REQUESTED BEFORE THE BENC H THAT FOR SOME TIME MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE REVENUE SO THAT A R EPORT COULD BE CALLED FOR ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. HAVING PERUSED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND AFTER H EARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES SR. COUNSEL SHRI S.E. DASTUR IS PURELY O F LEGAL NATURE AND CAN BE RAISED AT ANY STAGE IN THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS. WE HAVE ALLOWED SUFFICIENT TIME AS REQUESTED BY THE LD DR IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE FACT WHETHER THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED OR NOT .THE LD. DR FILED A REPORT FROM THE AO IN WHICH HE HAS STATED THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IT APPEARS THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. WITH THIS BACKGR OUND WE THEREFORE ARE INCLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSMENT IS INVALID OR NOT FOR THE WANT OF SAID NOTICE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY COV ERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE A LEGAL ISSUE AT ANY STAGE IN TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE THE POWER TO ADMIT AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME AS THE PURPOSE OF PRO VIDING THE JUDICIAL FRAME WORK, APPELLATE MECHANISM IN THE JUD ICIAL FRAME WORK IS TO AFFORD THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DE FEND ITS CASE ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 5 SO THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE DULY SATISFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS: 7. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PU BLIC LIMITED COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTU RING AND MARKETING OF FABRIC WHITENERS, SOAPS, DETERGENTS, M OSQUITO REPELLANTS, SCRUBBERS, BODY CARE AND INCENSE STICKS . THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 08.10.2010 DURING THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.52,64,25, 870/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BOOK PRO FIT OF RS.101,07,76,594/- UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.201 2 FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.52, 95,50,180/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RS.101,6 9,41,130/- UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT BY MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 21.03.2014 OF THE ACT WHIC H WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 24.03.2014. THE ASSESSEE COMPLI ED WITH THE SAID NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 26.03.2014 REQUESTING THE AO TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY THE APPLICANT ON 08.10.2010 AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED THE AO TO PROVIDE THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WHICH WERE DULY PROVIDED TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE MAIN ISSUE ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED WAS THE WRONG ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.40,14,2 4,036/- UNDER SECTION 80IC IN RESPECT OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT I N THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED ON ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 6 24.09.2015 DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IC(2)(A), 80IB(4) AND 80IB(5)(I) OF THE A CT. 8. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) DEC IDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT OF THE CAS E. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT THE EXAMINATION OF ASSESSMENT R ECORDS AND TAX FILES AND UPON SUCH INSPECTION IT WAS FOUND TH AT NO COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS AVAILABLE ON ITS RE CORD AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT NO SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON IT DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. 9. NOW THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY AND JUR ISDICTION OF THE AO IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143( 3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT DATED 24.09.2015 ON THE GROUND THAT MANDATORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUE D AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THE NON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ASSESSMENT AND IS NOT A PROCEDURAL DEFECT BUT RENDE RS THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT AS NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. IN DEFEN CE OF HIS ARGUMENT THE LD. A.R. RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDIC IAL DECISIONS: 1. CIT VS LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL (2019) 108 TAXMAN N.COM 183(SC) 2. ACIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOON: [2010] 188 TAXMAN 113 ( SC) 3. ACIT V. GENO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.: [2013] 32 TAX MANN.COM 162 (BOMBAY) 4. PCIT V. SILVER LINE: [2016] 65 TAXMANN.COM 137 ( DELHI) 5. AJAYSINGH GAJANANSINGH GOUR V. ITO: ITA NO.398/N AG./2017 (NAGPUR- TRIB) 10. THE LD. A.R., THEREFORE PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143 RE AD WITH SECTION 147 DATED 24.09.2015 BE QUASHED AS INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM THE INCURABLE DEFECTS OF ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 7 NON ISSUANCE AND NON SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 143(2) OF THE ACT. 11. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND DREW THE ATTENT ION OF THE BENCH TO THE LETTER DATED 29.07.2019 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE RAISING OF ADDITIONAL GROUND A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE AO TO CLARIFY WHETHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R. STATED THAT THE AO INFORMED THAT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) AS WELL AS PROOF OF SERVICES OF NOTICE IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD, T HEREFORE, THE LD. D.R. LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE WISDOM OF THE BENCH BY P LACING THESE FACTS BEFORE THE BENCH. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE IM PUGNED ORDER AND REPLY OF THE REVENUE DATED 29.07.2019. W E OBSERVE FROM THE FACTS BEFORE US AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US THAT THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY AS TO NON ISSUANCE AND NON SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT I N THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS BACKGROUND OF TH E CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED BY THE AO WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 O F THE ACT DATED 24.09.2015 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IS INV ALID. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED AND REFERRED TO ABOVE AS IN THE CASE OF ACI T VS. GENO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (SUPRA) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HAS BEEN ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 8 ISSUED WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147, THE ASSESSMENT SO FRAMED IS BAD IN LAW AS THE AO CAN NOT PROCEED TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY ON THE RETURN FI LED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 O F THE ACT AND THUS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY HOLDING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE OUT OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL (2019) 108 TAXMANN.COM 183 (SC) THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS EVER ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE FINDING RE NDERED BY HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CONCLUSION ARRI VED AT WERE CORRECT AND THERE IS NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT HONBLE MADHYA P RADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT AO HAD NO VALID JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NG IS BAD IN LAW AND HENCE THESE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATED IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IMPUGNED ORDER STAND QUASHED AND T HUS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 13. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS OF TH E CASE VIS-- VIS THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE CONSEQUENT REASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 24.09.2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ W ITH SECTION 147 ARE BAD IN LAW AS THE MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER S ECTION 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE P ROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 147 AND ALSO THE REASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 9 14. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ALLOWED. 15. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE ISSUE ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO NEED TO DECIDE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTI ON. THE CROSS OBJECTION IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.7283/M/2016 (2009-10) 16. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE TECHNICAL ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISM ISSED. CO NO.79/M/2018 (A.Y. 2010-11) & ITA NO.7282/M/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11) 17. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE QUASHIN G THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDE R IN CO NO.78/M/2018, OUR FINDING/DECISION IN THE SAID CO WOULD, MUTATIS MUTANDIS, APPLY TO CO NO.79/M/2018 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. SIMILARLY OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.7283/M/2016 A.Y. 2 009-10 WOULD APPLY TO ITA NO.7282/M/2016 A.Y 2010-11. CRO SS OBJECTION IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 18. RESULTANTLY, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.10.2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22.10.2019. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. ITA NOS. 7282 & 7283/M/2016 CO NOS.78 & 79/M/2018 M/S. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LTD. 10 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.