DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI V. SUMMIT SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7513/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0294 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR A K NAYAK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 263; 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH E, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7513/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2002-03) DCIT 8(3), ROOM NO.217, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS. M/S SUMMIT SECURITIES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KEC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.) CEAT MAHAL, 463, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400030 PAN: AAACS9779H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : DR. A.K. NAYAK (DR) ASSESSEE BY : MR. MANISH V. SHAH WITH MS. IKSHU SHAH (AR) DATE OF HEARING : 14.06.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.06.2017 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE U/S. 253 OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT (THE ACT) IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18 [THE CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 08.10.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2-03. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.2,33,42,096/- I MPOSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO MIS TAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS NOT COVERED U/S 15 4 OF THE IT ACT.' II. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE D ROPPED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. (289 ITR 83) (SC), WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVE RSED VIDE JUDGEMENT ITA NO.7513/M/2013- M /S SUMMIT SECURITIES LTD. 2 DELIVERED BY THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD (PVT.) LTD. (304 ITR 308) (SC) AND THEREFORE, THE DROPPING OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD.' III. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE RULING OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LT D. (305 ITR 227) (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT A JUDICIAL DECISION ACTS RETROSPECTIVELY AND THAT EVEN WHERE IN AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE COURT OPERATED FOR QUITE SOME TIME, THE DECISION RENDERED LATER ON WOULD HAVE RETROSPEC TIVE EFFECT, CLARIFYING THE LEGAL POSITION WHICH WAS EARLIER NOT CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD .' IV. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS WHICH WERE CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATIONS THERETO.' 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT AY ON 31.10.2002. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 28.03.2003. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.0 4.2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 73,85,20,038/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.07.2004. WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) INITIATED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOW EVER, THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2008 DROPPED THE PENALTY PROCEEDING HOLDING T HAT RETURN INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME, BOTH BEING LOSS FIGURE, BY FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LIMITED [289 ITR 83]. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 DATED 12. 11.2009 HOLDING THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN VIRTUAL SOFT S YSTEMS LIMITED (SURPA) BY A SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S. GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD. [304 ITR 308] IS NO LONGER A GOOD LAW AND THAT PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED IN CASES OF LOSSES. THUS, THE LD. CIT-8 ISSUED A SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE ON THE PREMISES ITA NO.7513/M/2013- M /S SUMMIT SECURITIES LTD. 3 THAT AS TO WHY THE ORDER PASSED BY AO FOR DROPPING THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE CANCELLED. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SHOW-CAUSE NO TICE AND FILED REPLY DATED 09.12.09. AFTER CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF THE AS SESSEE, THE LD. CIT-8 DROPPED THE PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT VIDE OR DER DATED 21.01.2010. HOWEVER, LATERON ON 28.03.2012, THE AO PASSED THE PENALTY OR DER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY HOLDING THAT THE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF SUPRE ME COURT IN GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON REC ORD. THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,33,42,096/- BEING MINIMUM PENALTY ON THE T AX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEVY OF PENALTY, THE ASSE SSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY IN THE O RDER IMPUGNED BEFORE US. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE H AS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ( DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACT WHICH ARE NOT IN DISPUTE ARE TH AT THE PENALTY INITIATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 30.07.2014 WA S DROPPED BY AO VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2008. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED NO TICE U/S 263 FOR REVISING THE ORDER OF AO FOR DROPPING THE PENALTY. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE REPLY FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE, THE PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 263 WAS DROP PED VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2010. THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY BY INVOKING T HE POWER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154(1A) TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE PRESENT CASE. ITA NO.7513/M/2013- M /S SUMMIT SECURITIES LTD. 4 RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE. 154. (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 116 MAY, ( A ) AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ; ( B ) AMEND ANY INTIMATION OR DEEMED INTIMATION UNDER S UB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143 ; ( C ) AMEND ANY INTIMATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A ; ( D ) AMEND ANY INTIMATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 206CB .] (1A) WHERE ANY MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECID ED IN ANY PROCEEDING BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REVISION RELATING TO AN ORDER REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE AUTHORITY PASSING SUCH ORDER MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CO NTAINED IN ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, AMEND THE ORDER UNDER THAT SUB-SECT ION IN RELATION TO ANY MATTER OTHER THAN THE MATTER WHICH HAS BEEN SO CONSIDERED AND DE CIDED. (2).. (3)... 4. A CAREFUL READING OF SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 15 4 MADE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN ANY MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN ANY PROCE EDING BY WAY OF APPEAL OR REVISION RELATING TO AN ORDER REFERS IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 154 IS NOT A RECTIFIABLE. WE MAY OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AL READY HELD THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DROPPED BY AO WAS NEITHER ERRO NEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HOWEVER, THE AO LEVIED THE PEN ALTY HOLDING THAT THE RELIANCE ON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN GOLD COIN H EALTH FOOD PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) AFT ER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE, PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER: FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS OF T HE CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DROPPED BY THE AO VIDE ORDE R DATED 28.3.2008 WHICH IS UNDISPUTED FACT, SECONDLY THE CIT-8, MUMBAI HAS INI TIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 BY ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12.11.2009 BY CO NSIDERING THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD (P) LTD (SUPRA) HAS REVERSED ITS EARLIER ORDER IN THE CASE OF VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTE MS LTD. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO FOR DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. BUT AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT THE C.I.T-8 HAS DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS U /S. 263 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.1.2010 WHICH SHOWS THAT WHEN THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER HAS SETTLED THIS ITA NO.7513/M/2013- M /S SUMMIT SECURITIES LTD. 5 ISSUE THAT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) DROP PED BY THE AO WAS NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE. BUT LATER ON THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 28.3.2012 HAS PASSED PENALTY ORDER U/S, 271 (1)(C) R.W.S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT BY HOLDING THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOLD COIN HEALTH FOOD (P) LTD IT IS A MISTA KE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND LEVIED PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.2,33,42,096/-. NOW T HE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH CAN BE RECT IFIED U/S.154 OF THE I.T. ACT. TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE A NUMBER OF DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT CITED ABOVE THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM RECORD AND THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271 (1)(C) WHICH WAS EARLIER DROPPE D CANNOT BE LEVIED U/S.154 OF THE I.T. ACT. RELEVANT DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: (1)SURAT SINGH V. ITO (14 SOT 16) : 'THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 154, WAS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT WAS FOR THE REASON THAT SECTION 154 MERELY EMPOWERS AN INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY TO AMEND ANY ORDER SO AS TO RE CTIFY AN APPARENT MISTAKE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RE CORD IS ONE WHICH MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING, WH ICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHIC H THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE THE INCOME-T AX AUTHORITY HAS FORMED AN OPINION ON A LEGAL PROPOSITION, TAKING ONE VIEW, TH E SAME CANNOT TO UPSET BY RESORTING TO SECTION 154 FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT. IN ANY CASE IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COM MISSIONER WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 NOTED THAT INTEREST ON ENHA NCED COMPENSATION WAS TO BE TAXED ON ACCRUAL BASIS I.E. ON A YEAR-TO-YEAR BA SIS AND THIS, DECISION WAS BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. RAMA BAI V. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 400/[1991] 54 TAXMAN 496 (SC). HAVIN G TAKEN A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT, THE COMMIS SIONER WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO REVERSE SUCH AN OPINION BY RESORTING T O THE LIMITED SCOPE OF SECTION 154 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE W HICH HAD BEEN MADE OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER IN HIS ORIGINAL ORDER. THEREFOR E, IT WAS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 154 AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE INTEREST ON ENHANCED C OMPENSATION ON ACTUAL RECEIPT BASIS IN THY YEAR OF RECEIPT IN CONTRAST TO HIS DIRECTION IN THE ORDER PASSED ORIGINALLY UNDER SECTION 263 TO TAX INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION ON ACCRUAL BASIS, I.E., ON A YEAR-TO-YEAR BASIS, TH EREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS IMPERMISSIBLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 154 AND WAS THEREBY TO BE CANCELLED. (2) CIT VS. INDIAN AUTO STORES (4 TAXMAN 332)(MAD): ITA NO.7513/M/2013- M /S SUMMIT SECURITIES LTD. 6 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAVE HELD THA T IN THE CASE WHERE THE AAC HAVE CANCELLED THE INITIAL PENALTY LEVIED BY TH E ITO, THE ITO HAVE NO POWER LEFT WITH HIM TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL ORDER BEC AUSE THE ORDER OF PENALTY HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE AAC AND THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 154(1A) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. (3) P. DAS & CO. DCIT (87 TEAXMAN 28)(GAU.) 'THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 154(1)(A) MAKE IT ABUNDANT LY CLEAR THAT THE MATTER WHICH WAS CONSIDERED OR DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE AU THORITY COULD NOT BE REOPENED OR RECTIFIED. THE MATTER MEANS ALL FACETS OF THE MATTER WHICH COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL IF THE APPEAL IS FIL ED RELATING TO MATTER AND THE SAME IS CONSIDERED OR DECIDED OR TO BE TREATED TO H AVE BEEN CONSIDERED OR DECIDED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT IS NO LONGER OPEN FOR THE ASSESSING, AUTHORITY TO REOPEN OR RE-AGITATE OR RECTIFY THE SA ID ISSUE OR MATTER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AN APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE IMPOS ITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 251, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THE MATTER AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C). THEREFORE, IT WAS NO LONGER OPEN FOR ITO TO PASS AN ORDER OF RECTIFICATI ON. THEREFORE, THE ITO COULD NOT SIT ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH HAD DECIDED THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HOLDING THE SAME TO BE COR RECT AND JUSTIFIED.' (4) ROHTAK & HISSER DISTRICTS ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. ( P) LTD. V.CIT (5 TAXMANN 116)(DEL.) '..ONCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED IN A PPEAL, IT MERGED IN THE AAC'S ORDER BY APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF MERGE R. ALTHOUGH THE AAC'S ORDER WAS SILENT QUA THE MATTERS OF DEPRECIATION AN D DEVELOPMENT REBATE WHICH WERE AGITATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE BASIC G ENERAL PRINCIPLE IMBEDDED IN THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA APPLIED. THE OPERAT IVE ORDER IN THE FIELD WAS THE ORDER OF THE AAC AND NOT OF THE ITO. EVEN IF IT WAS SAID THAT THE AAC HAD NOT CONSIDERED AND. DECIDED THE IMPUGNED GROUNDS, IT WO ULD BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE DEPARTMENT) TO MOVE THE AAC. (WHO HAS POWERS TO ENHANCEMENT) UNDER SECTION 154 TO DEAL WITH THESE G ROUNDS. THAT WOULD, IN EFFECT, MEAN THAT BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE AAC COUL D RECTIFY THE POSITION QUA THE SAME MATTER. THE POSITION WAS INTENDED TO BE OB VIATED BY SECTION 154(1A) [INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 6-10-1964] TO GIVE STA TUTORY RECOGNITION TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT EVEN AFTER AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER H AD BEEN PREFERRED AND DECIDED, A MISTAKE IN THAT PART OF THE ORDER, WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND WAS LEFT UNTOUCHED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, COULD BE RECTIFIED BY THE AUTHORITY WHICH PASSED THE ORDER. THEREFORE, AFTER THE AAC'S ORDER, THE ITO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE ACTION UNDER SECTIO N 154. ITA NO.7513/M/2013- M /S SUMMIT SECURITIES LTD. 7 KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND T HE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURTS IT IS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM RECORD AND THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT COVERED U/S 154 OF THE I.T. AC T. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AO IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BY CROSSING THE LIMITS LAID DOWN U/S. 154 OF THE I.T. ACT. HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS HELD AS BAD IN LAW. THUS THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.2,33,42,096/.- IS NOT SUSTAINABLE, HENCE DELETED . THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE SEEN THAT LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154(1A) OF THE ACT. THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS WELL-REASONED. THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER IN CONSONANCE WITH THE VARIOUS DECISION OF TRIBUNAL AND HONBLE MADRAS HIG H COURT ON SIMILAR ISSUES. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY REVENUE HAS NO FORCE AND THE SAME ARE REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH DAY OF JUNE 2017. SD/- SD/- (P.K.BANSAL) (PAWAN SINGH) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 14 /06/2017 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/