AMPACET (THAILAND) CO. INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, MUMBAI V. DCIT (IT) 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7459/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8363 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR JHA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 234B; 144C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH J, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) AMPACET (THAILAND) COMPANY LTD, INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, C/OAMPACET SECIALITY PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD, D-276- 278, RAJANGOAN INDUSTRIAL AREA, SHIRPUR, PUNE-412220 PAN : AADCA8661K VS DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1 (1)(1), MUMBAI , ROOM NO 119,FIRST FLOO R, SCINDIA HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400038 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT APPELLANT BY SHRI MP LOHIA AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JHA CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING 28 -02-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21-04-2020 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBR : 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER DATED 27- 10.2017 PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION (R.W.S. ) 144C (13) OF INCOME TAX ACT (ACT), PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTION OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION PENAL (DRP) DATED 01.09.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- (1) GENERAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJ USTMENT OF 1,92,11,925/- CONSEQUENTIAL TO NON-CONSIDERATION/ACCEPTANCE OF AR MS LENGTH ANALYSES. (2) NON-CONSIDERATION OF COMPARABILITY ANALYSES AS DOCU MENTED IN THE TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT. (3) NON-CONSIDERATION OF CONTEMPORANEOUS DATA. ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 2 (4) USE OF SINGLE YEAR DATA. (5) NON-CONSIDERATION OF COMBINED TRANSACTION APPROACH. (6) ERRED IN CONSIDERING FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE IS OPERATING IN NATURE. (7) ERRED IN REJECTING THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION KEY OF C OMMON COST AS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT FOR COMPUTATION OF SEGMENTAL MARGINS (WITHOUT PREJUDICE ). WITHOUT PREJUDICE GROUND 5 ABOVE, ERRED IN REJECTIN G THE GROSS MARGIN RATIO AS WELL AS AN ALTERNATE APPROACH OF GROSS TURNOVER RATIO (TOTAL U NDERLYING TURNOVER) AS AN APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION KEY FOR ALLOCATING COMMON COST FOR COMPU TATION OF SEGMENTAL MARGINS AND INAPPROPRIATELY CONSIDERING INCOMMENSURATE BASE OF ACTUAL TRADING TURNOVER AND THE ACTUAL COMMISSION INCOME FOR ALLOCATION OF COMMON C OST. (8) INAPPROPRIATE SEGMENT OF PRIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD IS CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANALYSES (WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE GROUND 5 ABOVE, FOR THE PURPOSE O F COMPUTATION OF OPERATING MARGIN OF COMPARABLE COMPANY (VIZ; PRIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD), THE OPERATING MARGIN SHALL BE COMPUTED CONSIDERING ONLY TRADING CHEMICALS SEGME NT ENLISTED OF CONSIDERING BOTH, INDENTING COMMISSION SEGMENT AS WELL AS CHEMICAL TRADING SEGMENT. (9) ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF IMPORT DUTY. (10) ERRONEOUS LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF TH E ACT. (11) INITIATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT.. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF IMPORT OF MASTER BATCHES FROM ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERP RISES IN THAILAND FOR DISTRIBUTION IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED C OMMISSION FOR THE ORDER SECURED BY IT FOR THE PRODUCTS OF ITS ASSOCIATED EN TERPRISES (AE). THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DECLARING INCOME OF 1,04,07,970/-. ALONG WITH THE RETURN THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REPORT IN FORM 3CEB AND REPORTED FOLLOWING INTERNAT IONAL TRANSACTION WITH ITS AE. ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 3 NAME OF AE NAME OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT IN RUPEES AMPACET THAILAND CO LTD PURCHASE OF TRADING GOODS 13,51,03,842/- AMPACET CORPORATION PURCHASE OF TRADING GOODS 1,25, 84,262/- AMPACET SPECIALLY THE PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED SALE OF TRADING GOODS 1,26,028/- AMPACET AUSTRALIA PRIVATE LIMITED SALE OF TRADING GOODS 21,453/- AMPACET THAILAND COMMISSION INCOME 2,25,68,759/- TOTAL 17,04,04,344/- 3. CONSEQUENT UPON REPORTING OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT ION THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (T PO) FOR COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTION REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MA RGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS APPROPRIATE METHOD FOR BENCHMARKING ITS TRANSACTION BY CONSIDERING OPERATING PROFIT/SALES AS PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (P LI). THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ITS PLI AT 9.05%. WHILE COMPUTING THE PLI FOR ASSES SEE AS WELL AS COMPARABLE THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION AS NON- OPERATING ITEM. THE ASSESSEE SELECTED 6 COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND PROVIDED MULTIPLE YEAR AS WELL AS SINGLE YEAR DATA OF COMPAR ABLES. THE MULTIPLE YEAR MARGIN OF COMPARABLE WAS 5.07% AND SINGLE YEAR MARG IN WAS 5.38%. THE PLI OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES IN MULTIPLE AND SINGLE YEAR IS AS UNDER; ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 4 S.NO. COMPARABLE COMPANIES MULTIYEAR DATA % SINGLE YEAR DATA % 1 BLACK ROSE INDUSTRIES LTD (SEG) 4.31% 5.76% 2 PESTICIDES AND BREWERIES LTD 0.17% 0.24% 3 PRIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD (SEG) 9.78% 13.22% 4 PRIYA LTD (SEG) 7.53% 8.89% 5 VIPUL DYES 5.55% 4.39% 6 NIKHIL ADHESIVE LTD 3.09% 0.77% ASTHMATIC MEAN 5.07% 5.38% 4. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE MARGIN OF ASSESSEE IS HIGHER THAN THE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF MULTIYEAR AS WELL AS SINGLE YEAR MARGIN. THE TPO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SEGMENT WISE ACCOUNT FOR TR ADING AND COMMISSION INCOME ALONG WITH ALLOCATION KEY. THE ASSESSEE FURN ISHED THE REQUIRED DETAILS VIDE REPLY DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER 2016. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBMISSIONS, VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 14 TH OCTOBER 2016 ALSO FURNISHED EXPLANATION THE RATIONALE FOR TAKING GROS S MARGIN RATION RATHER THAN TURNOVER RATIO AS APPROPRIATE ALLOCATION KEY CITIN G THAT RELATIVE REVENUE OF TRADING AND COMMISSION SEGMENT COULD NOT BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE RESPECTIVE CONSUMPTION OF COMMISSIONS EXPENSES TO T HESE SEGMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSTANTIAL PRESENCE OF COST OF GOODS SO LD IN TRADING ACTIVITY WHICH IS ABSENT IN COMMISSION ACTIVITY AND COMMON C OST SHOULD IDEALLY BE SPLIT IN GROSS PROFIT RATIO AND NOT IN THE RATION O F SALES. THE TPO DISREGARDED ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 5 THE SEGMENTAL PROFITABILITY STATEMENT AND PROPOSE T O CONSIDER SEGMENTAL PROFITABILITY BASED ON ACTUAL TRADING TURNOVER AS W ELL AS ACTUAL COMMISSION INCOME ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT IN P& L ACCOUNT A S BASE FOR ALLOCATION FOR COMMON COST. 5. THE TPO WHILE MAKING BENCHMARKING NOT CONSIDERED TH E FOREIGN EXCHANGE VARIATION AS A NON-OPERATING ITEM. THE TPO IN ITS R EPORT RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENT OF 2,00,34,286/- WITH REGARD TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSAC TION OF IMPORT OF FINISHED GOODS FOR RESALE AND SALE OF FIN ISHED GOODS. ON RECEIPT OF REPORT OF TPO THE ASSESSING OFFICER PAST DRAFT ASSE SSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) RWS 144C(3) ON 27 TH OCTOBER 2017. THE COPY OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXERCISED IT S OPTION FOR FILING OF OBJECTION BEFORE DISPUTE REGULATION PANEL (DRP). TH E DRP AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE IS OPERATING IN NATURE WHILE COMPUTING MARGIN OF COMPARABLE COMPANY AND USE OF CORRECT OPERATING MARGIN OF COMPARABLE COMPANY AND RECOMPUTE THE CORRECT TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO CONSIDERED TH E FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION AS OPERATING IN NATURE AND THE ADJUSTME NT WAS REDUCED TO 1,92,11,925/-. FURTHER, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 6 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESE NTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 1 TO 6 AND THAT THOSE GROUNDS MAY BE DIS MISSED AS NOT PRESSED. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED AR OF THE ASS ESSEE GROUND NO. 1 TO 6 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. GROUND NO. 7 RELATES TO REJECTION OF ALLOCATION KEY OF COMMON TEST AS PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTATION OF SEGMENTAL M ARGINS. THE TPO REJECTED THE GROSS MARGIN RATIO AS AN APPROPRIATE A LLOCATION KEY FOR ALLOCATING COMMON COST WHILE COMPUTING SEGMENTAL MARGIN. THOUG H, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SEGMENTAL MARGIN CONSIDERING GROSS TURNOV ER AS THE BASIS FOR ALLOCATION OF COMMON COST AS AN ALTERNATIVE APPROAC H. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS OF SEGME NTAL WORKING BY ALLOCATING THE COMMON EXPENSES BASED ON GROSS TURNO VER RATIO (I.E. RATIO OF GROSS UNDERLYING TURNOVER RESULTING FROM TRADING IN COMMISSION ACTIVITIES) AS ALLOCATION KEY. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISH ED THE COMPETITIVE CHART OF COMMON DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES AND SUBMITS THAT IF CORRECT ALLOCATION OF COMMON DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES IS ACCEPTED, THE TRANS ACTION OF ASSESSEE WOULD MEET THE ARMS LENGTH TEST. ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 7 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER SUBMIT TH AT IN CASE THE ALLOCATION OF COMMON DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES IS CONSIDERED, IN S UCH EVENTUALLY KILL THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF TPO/VERIFICAT ION. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL OF LABEL ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTED THAT WHILE MAKING BENCHMARKING THE TPO REJECTED GROSS MARGIN RATIO AS AN APPROPRIATE ALLOC ATION KEY FOR ALLOCATING COMMON COST WHILE COMPUTING SEGMENTAL MARGIN. NOW, BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALLOCATION OF COMMON DISTRIB UTION EXPENSES THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE I SSUE TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO TO EXAMINE THE ALLOCATION OF KEY OF COMMON COST BAS ED ON UNDERLYING TURNOVER FOR BOTH TRADING IN COMMISSION ACTIVITIES AND PASS THE ORDER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. GROUND NO. 8 RELATES TO ALLEGED INAPPROPRIATE SEGME NT OF PRIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT B ASED ON THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THIS COMPANY AS A COMPARABLE TO ITS DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY WHICH INCLU DES TRADING AND COMMISSION ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED INTE NDING BUSINESS AND TRADING BUSINESS OF THIS COMPARABLE TO ASSESSEES D ISTRIBUTION ACTIVITIES. ON ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 8 THE AFORESAID APPROACH, THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED OPERA TING MARGIN OF THIS COMPARABLE ON SEGMENTAL BASIS BY CONSIDERING THE RE SULT OF INTENDING AND TRADING SEGMENT TOGETHER AND CONSIDER THE SAME FOR BENCHMARKING ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO ITS DISTRIB UTION ACTIVITY. TPO ACCEPTED THIS COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, TPO REJ ECTED THE COMBINED APPROACH OF BENCHMARKING TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO TRADING IN COMMISSION ACTIVITIES TOGETHER. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT TP O CONSIDERED SEPARATE APPROACH OF BENCHMARKING WHEREIN THE OPERATING MARG IN OF ASSESSEE FROM TRADING SEGMENT COMPARED WITH THE AVERAGE OF OPERAT ING MARGIN OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THE APPROACH OF TPO WAS CONFI RMED BY DRP. THE TPO SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SEGMENTAL REVENUE OF TRAD ING ALONE IN CASE OF THIS COMPARABLE. HE HAS WRONGLY TAKEN THE ENTITY LE VEL I.E. BOTH TRADING IN COMMISSION SEGMENT. THE LEARNED AR PRAYED THAT BENC HMARKING OF THIS COMPARABLE BE MADE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO TRADING SEG MENT OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY THE AO/TPO BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ONLY THE TRADING SEGMENT OF THIS COMPARABLE FOR ANALYSES. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION ABOUT THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE TPO REJEC TED THE COMBINED ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 9 APPROACH OF BENCHMARKING TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO TRADING IN COMMISSION ACTIVITIES TOGETHER. THE DRP AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF TPO ON COMBINED APPROACH OF BENCHMARKING. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FOR BENCHMARKING OF THIS COMPARABLE IS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO TRADING SEGMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND SOUGHT APPROPRI ATE DIRECTION TO TPO/AO. WE FIND CONVINCING FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE TPO TO CONSIDER ONLY TRADIN G SEGMENT OF THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY FOR BENCHMARKING WITH RESPECT TO TRADING SEGMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE TPO IS DIRECTED TO C ONSIDER ONLY TRADING SEGMENT OF THIS COMPARABLE COMPANY FOR BENCHMARKING WITH RESPECT TO TRADING SEGMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 13. GROUND NO. 9 RELATES TO COMPUTING OPERATING MARGIN OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT GRANTING RELIEF BY FACTORING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF IMPORT DUTIES PAID BY ASSESSEE. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 14. IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT ASSESSEES PRIMARY BUSINESS FOR RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR IS THA T OF IMPORT OF MASTER BATCHES FROM ITS AE FOR DISTRIBUTION IN INDIA. THE BUSINESS MODEL OF ASSESSEE IS BASED ON ARRANGEMENT THAT IMPORTS WILL SPECIFICA LLY BE MADE FROM ITS HEAD ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 10 OFFICE AND THE SAME WILL FURTHER BE SOLD IN INDIAN MARKETS. THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTUM OF IMPORT MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE AND COMPARABLE COMPANIES. WHILE THE ASSESSEES TOTAL IMPORT IS 78. 54% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES AND AVERAGE RATIO OF IMPORTS BY COMPARABL E COMPANY HIS 34.99% OF TOTAL PURCHASES. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT IT HAS RESULTED IN A HIGHER INCIDENCE OF IMPORT DUTY BY ASSESSEE .AND ACCORDING LY INCREASED COST DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE MARGINS OF ASSESSEE. IN ORDE R TO BEING A PARITY IN COMPARISION OF THE OPERATING MARGINS OF THE ASSESSE E WITH THAT OF COMPARABLE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN ADJUST MENT ON ACCOUNT OF HIGHER CUSTOM DUTY PAID IN RESPECT OF IMPORT OF TRA DING GOODS. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER/TPO. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AR FOR THE REVENUE SO MUCH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED SUCH PLEAS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RAISE THIS PLEAS AT THIS STAGE. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION ABOUT THE PARTIES AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS SUBMISSION FOR THE FIRST T IME BY WAY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE WE ADMIT THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TPO/AO TO CONSIDER THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR ITA NO. 7459/MUM/2017 AMPACET (THAILAND) COMP ANY LTD 11 SCEPTICAL PURPOSE. NEEDLESS TO ORDER THAT BEFORE P ASSING THE ORDER THE TPO/AO SHALL GRANT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROVIDE FULL INFORMATION AND THE E VIDENCES BEFORE THE TPO/AO. 17. GROUND NO. 10 IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND GROUND NO. 11 IS PREMATURE THUS NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 18. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.04.20 20. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 21 APRIL, 2019 PK/- COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI