ASST CIT RG 10(3)(1), MUMBAI V. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7322/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8524 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7322/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) A C I T 10(3)(1) VS. M/S. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P. LTD. ROOM NO. 218, 2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 KNOWLEDGE HOUSE, OFF JOGESHWARI VIKROLI LINK ROAD, SHAYM NAGAR JOGESHWARI (E), MUMBAI 400060 PAN AAACO8406H APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI ABHISHEK SHARMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIPUL JOSHI DATE OF HEARING: 25.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.01.2017 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A)-17, MUMBAI DATED 18.09.2014 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, STATED TO BE IN THE BUSIN ESS OF RENTING OF PROPERTY, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011- 12 DECLARING LOSS OF ` 6,75,90,696/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTI ON 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THE C ASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2013, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT ` 86,16,260/-. IN DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO ); (I) TREATED THE ASSESSEES RETURNED BUSINESS INCOME FR OM LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ACCO RDINGLY RECOMPUTED THE SAME AT ` 5,55,39,292/-, AND (II) IN THIS REGARD ALSO DISALLO WED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED CAPI TAL TO THE EXTENT OF ITA NO. 7322/MUM/2014 M/S. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P. LTD. 2 ` 4,98,87,988/- TO THE EXTENT OF INTEREST FREE LOANS ADVANCED TO SISTER CONCERNS. 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 31.1 2.2013 FOR A.Y. 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A)-17, MUMBAI. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL VIDE IMP UGNED ORDER DATED 18.09.2014, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE PARTIAL RELIEF, I .E. BY (I) UPHOLDING THE AOS ACTION IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES INCOME F ROM RENTING OUT OF PROPERTY WAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND (II) IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCE OF PROP ORTIONATE INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE ADVANCES; NOT FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR BUT ONLY FOR ACTUAL NUMBER OF DAYS (I.E. 13 DAYS). 3.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-17, MUMBAI DATED 18.09.2014 FOR A.Y. 2011-12, REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF ON THE AMOUNT O F DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE BASIS OF THE BANK STATEMENT FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT GIVIN G AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME THEREBY VIOLATING RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3.2 THE LEARNED D.R. WAS HEARD IN SUPPORT OF THE GR OUND RAISED. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANC E ON THE BASIS OF A BANK STATEMENT (I.E. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), BEFORE WHOM THE SAME WAS NOT FILED, I N ORDER TO EXAMINE, VERIFY AND REBUT THE SAME; WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ATT ENTION OF THE BENCH WAS DRAWN TO PARA 2.3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ITA NO. 7322/MUM/2014 M/S. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P. LTD. 3 RECORDED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLA CED ON RECORD THE BANK STATEMENT TO PROVE THAT THE LOAN WAS SANCTIONE D ON 18.03.2011. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT NO REPORT O N THIS WAS CALLED BY THE CIT(A) FROM THE AO. THE LEARNED D.R. FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT PERUSAL OF PARAS 6 TO 6.2 OF THE ORDER OF AMOUNT FOR A.Y. 2011 -12 CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THIS BANK STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSE SSEE WAS GIVEN RELIEF WAS NEVER FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO IN ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE AVERMENTS CLEARLY ESTAB LISH THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE A SSESSEE RELIEF ON THIS ISSUE, SOLELY BASED ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PLACED B EFORE HIM IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. IT IS PRAYED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) GIVI NG RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BE SET ASIDE, FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION AND FRESH A DJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING THE AO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY UNDER RULE 46 A OF THE I.T. RULES. 3.3 THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE T O CONTRAVENE THE LEARNED D.R.S ARGUMENTS/GROUNDS RAISED THAT THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAD GIVEN THE ASSESSEE RELIEF BASED ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AD MITTEDLY FILED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSE SSEE, HOWEVER, OPPOSED THE PRAYER OF REVENUE THAT THE DECISION OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BE SET ASIDE FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATI ON. IT WAS ARGUED THAT, EVEN THEN, THE POWERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEING C O-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF THE AO, THE CIT(A) CAN DIRECT THE ASSESSEE OR AO TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS, ETC. SO AS TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL UND ER RULE 46A OR TO CAUSE ANY ENQUIRY TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 250(4) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN DONE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS ARGUMENTS, THE LEARNED A.R . PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: - (I) SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH VS. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (BOM) (II) B.L. CHOUDHARY VS. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 371 (ORI SSA) (III) CIT VS. PODDAR SWADESH UDYOG P. LTD. (2007) 2 95 ITR 252 (GAUHATI) 3.4 IN REJOINDER, THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LEARNED A.R. IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE ITA NO. 7322/MUM/2014 M/S. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P. LTD. 4 IMPUGNED ORDER ARE FACTUALLY ERRONEOUS AND UNTENABL E IN LAW. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED A.R. (SUPRA) DO NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORT OR COME TO THE RE SCUE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND SINCE IT IS CLEAR FROM THE IMPUGNE D ORDER THAT NEITHER HAS THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE TH E SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A(4) OF THE I.T. RULES NOR WAS ANY REM AND ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(4) OF THE ACT DIRECTING ANY INQUIRY IN THE MATTER BE CARRIED OUT. 3.5.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO. THE FACTS ON RECORD, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS PER HIS OWN RECORDINGS AT PARA 2.3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE BANK OF ALLAHABADS STATEMENT TO PROVE THAT THE LOAN WAS SANCTIONED AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE PART RELIEF ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSES SEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER AS REQUIRE D UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. AS ADMITTED BY THE COUNSELS FOR BOTH SI DES, THIS PIECE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NEVER FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR VIEW, RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULE S, 1962 HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS TO EXTRACT THE SAME. RULE 46A REA DS: - 46A. (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MA Y BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)], ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER], EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY : (A) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED ; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAU SE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPO N TO PRODUCE BY THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAU SE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ; OR ITA NO. 7322/MUM/2014 M/S. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P. LTD. 5 (D) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1 ) UNLESS THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TH E COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS A DMISSION. (3) THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, TH E COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT , OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOS E OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHAN CEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE [ASSESSING OFFICER]) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271. ] 3.5.2 ON A PERUSAL OF RULE 46A (SUPRA), IT APPEARS THAT SUB-RULE (1) PLACES AN EMBARGO UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING ADDITION AL EVIDENCE; EITHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY. SUCH EVIDENCE CAN ONLY BE PERM ITTED TO BE PRODUCED, IF THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED IN SUCH CLAUSES (A) TO (D) THEREOF ARE FULFILLED. SUB-RULE (3) CONTEMPLATES THAT IF ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE IS TAKEN ON RECORD, THEN IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ON MERITS, UNLESS OPPO RTUNITY IS AFFORDED TO THE AO TO EXAMINE, COMMENT AND IF REQUIRED REBUT TH E EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS OR TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THIS, THE AO SHOULD BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO AFFORD THE AO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER AND THEREFORE THE REQUIREMENTS/CONDITIONS LA ID DOWN IN SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES REMAIN UNCOMPLIED WITH BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). SUB-RULE (4) IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OTHER SUB-RULES AND AUTHORIZES THE ITA NO. 7322/MUM/2014 M/S. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P. LTD. 6 CIT(A) TO DIRECT ANY PARTY FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUME NTS OR EXAMINATION OF WITNESS TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL OR FOR ARRIVING AT A JUST CONCLUSION. WE, HOWEVER, FIND FROM A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTIONS UN DER RULE 46A(4) TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 3.5.3 IN THIS FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE FIND, AS CONTENDED BY REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS RAISED , THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE RELIEF ON THE INTEREST DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS FILED FO R THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS NEVER PLACE D BEFORE THE AO, AND WITHOUT GIVING THE AO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER AS REQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSES LAID IN RULE 46A(3) OF THE RULES. THIS HAS LED TO A GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ON THE ISSUE OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE RAISED BY REVENUE (SUPRA) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION AND AD JUDICATION, AFTER AFFORDING THE AO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HE ARD IN TERMS OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE RULES FOR EXAMINATION, VERIFICATION A ND REBUTTAL OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. WE H OLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. CONSEQUENTLY GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. BEFORE PARTING, WE REFER TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR (SUPRA). WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE S AME AND WITH ALL HUMILITY FIND THAT THEY DO NOT IN ANY WAY SUPPORT T HE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEARNE D CIT(A) CAN ACCORD THE ASSESSEE RELIEF BY TAKING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON RE CORD WITHOUT; (I) AFFORDING THE AO AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER OR WITHOUT DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES OR WOULD OTHERWISE COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE C ASE OF B.L. CHOUDHARY THE HON'BLE ORISSA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND BECAUSE IT REFERS TO AN DISCUSSES THE PROVISIONS AN D POWERS OF THE CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 250(4) OF THE ACT; WHICH POWER THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ITA NO. 7322/MUM/2014 M/S. OJAS MALL MANAGEMENT P. LTD. 7 EXERCISED IN THE CASE ON HAND. THE CITED CASE OF PO DDAR SWADESH UDYOG P. LTD. OF THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND AS IT REFERS TO SUB-RULE (4) OF RU LE 46A. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT SUO MOTO DIREC TED THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTS AS PER PROVISION S OF RULE 46A(4) OF THE RULES. SIMILARLY, THE CASE OF PRABHAVATI S. SHAH (S UPRA) ALSO DOES NOT FURTHER THE ASSESSEES CASE; FOR WHILE DISCUSSING T HE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 250(4) OF THE ACT AND UNDER RULE 46A, THE HON'BLE COURT ALSO HOLDS THAT RULE 46A IS INTENDED TO PUT FETTERS ON THE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, EXCEP T IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS LAID OUT THEREIN. THE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES IS PRECISELY AN ERROR THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED SUO MOTO, TO GIVE RELIEF BY ACTING ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE HIM WITHOUT AFFORDING THE AO DUE OPPORTUNITY AS REQUIRE D UNDER RULE 46A(3) OF THE RULES. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2017. SD/ - SD/ - (RAM LAL NEGI) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 31 ST JANUARY, 2017 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -17, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 8, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.