DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI V. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7457/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3661 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SULABH PATEL LD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 139(1); 132

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.7457/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) D CIT - 2 (2) ( 1 ) ROOM NO.545, 5 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. 1-3, GUNDECHA CHAMBERS N.M. ROAD, FORT MUMBAI-400 023. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AABCJ-2982-J ( '# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%'# / RESPONDENT ) '# / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR PODDARLD. CIT-DR $%'# / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SULABH PATEL- LD. AR / DATE OF HEARING : 09/10/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/11/2019 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER):- 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2008-09 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-50,MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT( A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- 50/IT-431/2013-14 DATED 29/08/2016 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 2 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT IMPUG NED IN THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED BELOW: GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WHICH ARE AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A WHICH CLEARLY EMPOWERS THE AO TO RE ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED WITHOUT LIMITING THE ENQUIRIES AND ADDITION TO THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE.' 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LD . CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDER SUGG ESTS THAT ASSESSEE'S GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT ALLOWED. 2. OPENING THE ARGUMENTS, LD. CIT-DR DREW OUR ATTEN TION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO SUBMIT THAT THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS HAVE WRONGLY BEEN DELETED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY REL YING UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT V/S CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD. 58 TAXMA NN.COM 78 IGNORING THE FACT THAT INCRIMINATING STATEMENT JUST IFYING ADDITIONS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE RECORDED DURING SEARCH PRO CEEDINGS AND THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING S TATEMENTS AND THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE ON THE SAID DECISION WAS MIS-PLACED. O UR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO FORTIFY THE SAID S UBMISSIONS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. 3.1 FACTS ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CRYSTAL ITEMS AND CHEMICALS, WAS ASSESSED FOR YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT ON 21/03/2013 WHE REIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH AGGREGATE QUANTUM ADDITIONS OF RS.503. 12 LACS AS TABULATED 3 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 ON PAGE-60 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ADD ITIONS WERE MADE ON THREE COUNTS-(I)ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGU S PURCHASES; (II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE PREMIUM; (III) ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE GROUP WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH PROC EEDINGS ON 04/02/2011 WHEREIN VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND & SEIZED FROM ASSESSEES PREMISES AND COMPUTER BACKUPS WERE TAKEN. IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN TAKING BO GUS BILLS OF PURCHASES AND INDULGED IN MANIPULATION OF ACCOUNT. IN RESPONS E TO NOTICE U/S 153A DATED 30/04/2012, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCO ME FOR AYS 2005-06 TO 2011-12. THE RETURN FOR AY 2008-09 WAS FILED AT NIL ON 27/06/2012 WITH A DELAY OF 27 DAYS. THE KEY PERSONS OF THE ASSESSEE W ERE ITS TWO DIRECTORS VIZ. (I) SHRI RAJENDRA G. PARIKH; (II) SHRI ADITYA G.PARIKH. THE ASSESSEE HAD FLOATED VARIOUS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES AND STATED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH MANY ENTITIES. 3.3 THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) ON 30/09/2008 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.336.76 LACS WHICH W AS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 25/11/2010 AT LOSS OF RS.306.91 LACS. 3.4 UPON PERUSAL OF ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE ROUTED HEAVY TRANSACTIONS ALONG WITH ITS S UBSIDIARIES THROUGH BANK ACCOUNTS OF NON-FUNCTIONAL / NON-EXISTENT ENTI TIES AND ULTIMATELY CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM FICTITIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING IN OBTAINING LARGE SCALE ACCOMMODATIO N BILLS TO INFLATE 4 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 EXPENSES SO AS TO BRING IN ITS UNACCOUNTED BLACK MO NEY INTO THE BOOKS THEREBY REDUCING TAXABLE INCOME. 3.5 SIMULTANEOUS SEARCHES WERE ALSO CARRIED ON THE SAME DATE IN CASE OF SOME OF ENTRY PROVIDERS, ONE OF WHICH WAS SHRI DILI P JAYANTILAL SHAH. THE SAID PERSON, IN STATEMENT U/S 132(4), ADMITTED TO H AVE GIVEN BOGUS BILLS TO VARIOUS ENTITIES AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS. THE RELEV ANT EXTRACT OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI DILIP JAYANTILAL SHAH HAS A LREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTI ON NO.9, THE SAID PERSON, INTER-ALIA, SPECIFICALLY CONFIRMED THAT ALL THE BILLS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM CERTAIN ENTITIES WERE BOGUS AND THERE WAS NO ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICES. SIMILAR STATEMENT U/S 132(4) WAS RECORDED FROM ANOTHER ENTRY PROVIDER I.E. SHRI RAJENDRA JAYANTILA L SHAH WHO CORROBORATED THESE FACTS. THE AFORESAID FACTS LED LD. AO FOR FOR M AN OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE PRACTICE OF USING BOGUS BILLS T O SIPHON OFF THE PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS THEREBY EVADING TAXES. THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS, IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND CAPACITY TO HANDLE SUCH LARGE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI DILIP JAYANT ILAL SHAH. 3.6 THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR V ARIOUS AYS HAS BEEN TABULATED ON PAGE NO.9 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT OR DER. THE TOTAL PURCHASES MADE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AMO UNTED TO RS.38.61 LACS OUT OF WHICH PURCHASES UNDER DOUBT WERE RS.35. 84 LACS. 5 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 3.7 DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS, IT TRANSPIRED THAT AN OTHER ENTITY NAMELY M/S SAI CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD., WAS BEING OWNED , CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY SHRI RAJENDRA G. PAREKH THOUGH PROXY / D UMMY EMPLOYEES NAMELY I.E. SHRI VICKY OSWAL AND SHRI NILESH PICHUL E. THE DUMMY DIRECTORS HAD APPARENTLY NO MEANS TO OPERATE ENTITY OF SUCH A MAGNITUDE. IN HIS STATEMENT, SHRI VICKY OSWAL ADMITTED THAT THE SAID ENTITY WAS CREATED ONLY WITH A VIEW TO MANIPULATE THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY. SIMILAR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED FROM SHRI HEMANDRA CHOKSI, DIRECTOR OF ANOTHER ENTITY NAMELY M/S SWISS BRAIN SYSTEMS (INDI A) PRIVATE LIMITED WHO COULD NOT ADDUCE EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSA CTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE SAID ENTITY WITH ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE. 3.8 THE STATEMENT OF DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY S HRI RAJENDRA PARIKH WAS ALSO RECORDED U/S 132(4), WHEREIN THE DIRECTOR, INTER-ALIA, CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE DE TAILS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED READILY AND FURTHER TIME WAS SOUGHT FOR S UBMISSION OF RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 3.9 IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, A DETAILED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22/02/2013 ASKING FOR REQUISITE INF ORMATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WITH RESPECT TO THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE RE QUISITE DETAILS AND ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH LED TO ISSUANCE OF ANOTHER NOTICE ON 08/03/2013 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN DIRECTED TO FILE THE REQUISITE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF 6 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 ACCOUNT AND PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COPIES OF ASSESSEES BANK STATEMENTS WERE PROCURED FROM DIFFERENT BANKS AND SUMMARIZED AND UPON PERUSAL OF THESE TRANSACTIO NS, A CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN THAT UNACCOUNTED MONEY WAS ROUTED BACK INTO T HE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO TRANSPIRED THAT SOME OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. FINALLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH AGGREGATE ADDITIONS OF RS.503.12 LACS VIZ. (I)ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FOR RS.38.61 LACS; (II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE PREMIUM RS.162.81 LACS; (III) ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS RS.301.70 LACS. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE QUANTUM ASS ESSMENT BEFORE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INTER-ALIA, BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD ATTAINED FINALITY U/S 143(3) ON 25/1 1/2010 AND SINCE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND THE ADDITIO NS WERE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT V/S CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD. 58 TAXMA NN.COM 78. THE SAID ARGUMENT FOUND FAVOR WITH LD. CIT(A), WHO DELETED THE ADDITIONS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 7.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. I N PARA 5.1 OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 12.11.2014, THE AO FAILED TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS NO SEIZURE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT RELATING TO T HE A.Y.2008-09 AND THAT ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 HAD ATTAINED FINALITY BEFORE T HE DATE OF THE SEARCH. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX-II, THANE V CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD, BHARATI VIDYAPEETH MEDICAL FOUNDATION CITED ABOVE. IN THAT CASE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT H AS HELD THAT NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE FOR UNABATED ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE ACHIEVED F INALITY AND FOR WHICH NO 7 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE ACT. 7.5 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE AO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE TH E ADDITIONS WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF GROUNDS NO.5,6,7,8,9 & 10. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUN DS 5,6,7,8,9&10 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AS ENUMERATED BY US IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO APPROACH ADOPTED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ONS. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF REMAN D REPORT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT COMPUTER BACK UP WAS SEIZED DURING TH E SEARCH OPERATION ALONG WITH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH WOULD CORROBORATE THE FINDINGS THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE TR IGGERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION PURCHASE BILLS OF HIGH MAGNITUDE SO A S TO EVADE TAXES WHICH STOOD CORROBORATED BY THE STATEMENTS OF VARIO US SUPPLIERS / ASSOCIATED PERSONS AS RECORDED U/S 132(4) ON THE DA TE OF SEARCH. NOTHING ON RECORD WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANY OF SUCH STATEMENT WAS EVER RETRACTED BY ANY ONE OF THEM SUBSEQUENTLY AND THEREFORE, THESE S TATEMENTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, HAD SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENTIARY VAL UE AND THE ONUS WAS 8 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 SQUARELY ON ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. NO SUCH ONUS WAS EVER DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FILE REQUISITE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND MERELY HARPED ON THE POIN T THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS ALWAYS TO BE SEEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S WERE NEVER PRODUCED. THE FINDINGS OF LD. AO THAT FEW BANK ACCO UNTS WERE NOT EVEN REFLECTED IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT, WOULD ALSO AS SUME IMPORTANCE, IN THIS REGARD. 7. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE DIRECTOR O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IN STATEMENT U/S 132(4), SOUGHT TIME TO FURNISH REQ UISITE INFORMATION / DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTIONS BUT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAME ALSO COULD NOT REFUTE TH E ALLEGATIONS THAT IT OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS FROM VARIOUS SUPPLIERS. THEREF ORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HENCE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET- ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO LD. CIT(A) FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTUAL MATR IX IN THE LIGHT OF INVESTIGATION BEING CARRIED OUT BY LD. AO AND RE-AD JUDICATE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE, IN TURN, IS DIRE CTED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT NO ADDITIONS WOULD BE WARRANTED FOR THE YEAR UNDER 9 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 CONSIDERATION. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2006-07, ITA NO.7456/MUM /2016 DATED 07/02/2019, IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS. HOWEVER, U PON PERUSAL, WE FIND THE FACTS OF AY 2006-07 ARE DISTINGUISHABLE SINCE N O ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WAS MADE IN THAT YEAR AND THE ADDIT IONS, WHATEVER MADE, WERE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE S AME IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE TABLE EXTRACTED BY LD. AO AT PARA 60 OF THE QUA NTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, WE FIND THE DECISION FOR AY 2006-07 INAP PLICABLE TO THIS YEAR. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 13/11/2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE $% &% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '# / THE APPELLANT 10 ITA NO.7457/MUM/2016 M/S. JIK INDUSTRIES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 2. $%'# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , -$. , . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. - /0 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.