Mohan Bhawnani, Indore V. ITO (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing), Bhopal

ITA 78/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5264 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S AMBEDKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA A RS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Transfer pricing; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause; Tax effect; Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 13; 69

Judgement Text

SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 78 TO 80/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI, C/O PUROHIT & JOSHI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 305-307, ROYAL DIAMOND, 3, Y.N. ROAD, OPP. STATE BANK OF INDIA, INDORE VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING), BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN: BWZPB9928E REVENUE BY S HRI R.S. AMBEDKAR , SR.DR ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI ASHISH GOYAL & N.D. PATWA, ARS DATE OF HEARING 05.02 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 .0 2 .2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE O F THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE VARIOUS ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX(APPEALS)-13 (IN SHORT LD. CIT(A)), AHMEDABAD ON 02.05.2018 WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/271(1 )(C) & 154 OF THE SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 2 INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 16.12.20 16, 20.12.2016 & 22.05.2017 FRAMED BY ITO (INTL. TXN.), BHOPAL(IN SHORT LD. A.O). 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- APPEAL NO.ITA/78/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) IS INVALID, WITHOUT JURISDICTION, BARRED BY LIMITATION, ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE QUA SHED. (TAX EFFECT :20,88,985/-) 2. THAT THE LD, CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN PASSING AN EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPEL LANT. (TAX EFFECT :20,88,985/-) 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDONIN G THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AND NOT CONSIDERING THE CASE ON MERITS. (TAX EFFECT :20,88,985/-) 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINI NG ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/ S 69 OF THE ACT.{TAX EFFECT :1,85,400/-) 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINI NG ADDITION OF RS. 61,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U /S 69 OF THE ACT. (TAX EFFECT :18,84,900/-) 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINI NG ADDITION OF RS. 60,470/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. (TAX EFFECT :18,685/-) 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. APPEAL NO.ITA/79/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE:- SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 3 1. THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IS INVALID, UNJUSTIFIED A ND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. (TAX EFFECT :20,28,200/-) 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDON ING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL (TAX EFFECT :20,28,200/-) 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSI NG AN EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. (TAX EFFECT :20,28,200/-) 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAI NING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS VOID- AB-INITIO (TAX EFFECT :20,28,200/-) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. APPEAL NO.ITA/80/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 154 IS INVALID, BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. (TAX EFFECT :10,45,950/-) 2. THAT THE IL, CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN PASSING A N EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPEL LANT. (TAX EFFECT : 10,45,950/-) 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN NOT CONDON ING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL (TAX EFFECT : 10,45,950/-) 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 WHERE THE ONLY REASON FOR PAS SING SUCH ORDER WAS CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B, WHICH IS DEBTABLE IN NATURE (TAX EFFECT 10,45,950/-) 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIE D IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IF THE INTEREST U/S 234A & 234B IS N OT CHARGED WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT MEANS THAT ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD WAIVED THE INTEREST (TAX EFFECT :10,45,950/-) SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 4 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTA INING INTEREST U/S 234A TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,55,623/- (TAX EFFECT: 3,5 5,623/-) 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTA INING INTEREST U/S 234B TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,90,327/- (TAX EFFECT: 6,9 0,327/-) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON A ND PERTAINS TO THE SAME ASSESSEE THEY WERE HEARD TOGET HER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE. 4 . AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED ASSESS EES APPEALS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE DELAY WAS FOR 4 91 DAYS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY GIVI NG REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PROVIDED IN SECTION 249 SUB SECTION (2) OF THE ACT, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED AND HE REJ ECTED THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND DISMISSED ALL THE THRE E APPEALS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT PRIMARILY G ROUND NO. 2 & 3 MAY PLEASE BE TAKEN WHICH PERTAINS TO PASSING OF EX -PARTE ORDER BY LD. CIT(A) BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 5 5. WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIRST TAK E UP GROUND NO. 2 & 3 COMMONLY RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS; 1. ASSESSEE MIGRATED TO SPAIN IN 1986. HE DID INVESTME NT IN INDORE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SERVED ON WATCHMAN, WHO USED T O RESIDE IN THE BUNGALOW OF APPELLANT. WATCHMAN GAVE IT TO MR. PAHUJA AFTER 15 DAYS AND AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER, SHRI PAHUJA CON TACTED THE CA. SHRI NARENDRA BHANDARI AND HANDED OVER THE ORDER TO HIM TO FILE THE APPEAL. 3. THAT AFTER HANDING OVER THE PAPERS, MR PAHUJA WAS U NDER THE IMPRESSION THAT APPEAL WILL BE FILED. 4. THEREAFTER, SINCE THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED, LA TER MR. PAHUJA APPROACHED SHRI N. PURANDRE CA. IN THE NOTICE OF DE MAND ISSUED U/S 156, IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT APPEAL OF THE O RDER MAY BE FILED TO CIT(A}, BHOPAL WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT O F THE NOTICE. AS THE MATTER RELATES TO A NRI, THE CIT(A), BHOPAL HAS GOT NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL. 5. ULTIMATELY, WHEN MR. PAHUJA APPROACHED MR SOURABH P UROHIT, THE APPEAL WAS F ILED. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE 27 TH JANUARY 2017, BUT IT COULD BE FILED ONLY ON OZ'' MAY 2018. 6. IN ALL THIS, THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE FILED. THE DELAY WAS CAUSED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON-RESIDENT AND IMPROPER COMMUN ICATION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND EARLIER COUNSEL. THERE WAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION. IT IS, THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILI NG APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED AND THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY ENTERTAINED. I F THE DELAY IS NOT SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 6 CONDONED, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF JUSTI CE. FURTHER A CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHALL BE DEFEATED. HE REL IED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS; (I) COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & 05 1 67 ITR 471(SC) (II) VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI VS DCLT 86 TAXMANN.COM 98 (BOM .) (III) IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2395 O F 2008 (SC) 7. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMEN TLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND OPPOS ED TO THE REQUEST MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS PLACED BEFORE US AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE JUD GMENTS PLACED AND RELIED BEFORE US. THE ISSUE COMMONLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE INSTANT APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE AP PEAL BEFORE HIM AND DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN LIMINE WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. 9. AS REGARDS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REASONS IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS WHICH INTENDS TO EXPLAIN THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A NON RE SIDENT WAS DEPENDENT ON HIS COUNSEL FOR THE LEGAL REMEDIES AVA ILABLE IN THE ACT SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 7 AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.O. SINCE T HE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING OUTSIDE INDIA THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SER VED TO THE WATCHMAN THEREAFTER HANDED OVER TO THE COUNSEL FOR TAKING NECESSARY ACTION. HOWEVER THE COUNSEL FAILED TO TA KE ANY ACTION DURING THE TIME PERMITTED FOR FILING THE APPEAL WHI CH CAUSED THE DELAY. ASSESSEE WAS IN BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DUE DATE BUT WHEN IT CAME TO HIS NOTICE THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE COUNSEL APPOINTED BY HIM, HE CHANGED T HE COUNSEL WHO FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 10. PRIMARILY IT SEEMS THAT THE DELAY WAS NOT INTENTIO NAL AND THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE PREVENTING THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND IF THE ISSUES ARE NOT ADJUDIC ATED ON MERITS, JUSTICE WILL BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & 05 1 67 ITR 471 DEALING WITH SIMILAR ISSUE OF DELAY IN FILING APPEAL HELD A S UNDER:- '(1) ORDINARILY, A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING ON APPEAL LATE. (II) REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BE ING SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 8 THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTI CE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS, WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED THE HIGHEST TH AT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. (III) 'EVERY DAY'S DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED' DOES NO T MEAN THAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE MADE. WHY NOT EVERY HOUR'S DELAY , EVERY SECOND'S DELAY? THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPLIED IN A RATION A' COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. (IV) WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDE RATION ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESER VES TO BE PREFERRED, FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON DELIBERATE DELAY. (V) THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONE D DELIBERATELY, OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE OR ON ACCOUNT OF MAL A FIDES. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESTORING TO DELAY. IN FACT, HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. (VI) IT MUST BE GRASPED THAT THE JUDICIARY IS RESPE CTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALISE INJUSTICE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS, BUT BECAUS E IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUSTICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO' 12 . SIMILAR VIEW WERE ALSO TAKEN BY VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS IN THE CASE OF VIJAY VISHIN MEGHANI VS DCLT 86 TAXMANN.COM 98 (BOM.) & IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2395 OF 2008 (SC). 13 . FURTHER HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF IMPROVEMENT TRUST, LUDHIANA VS UJAGAR SINGH & ORS IN CIVIL APPEALS NO.2395 OF 2008 HELD AS UNDER:- SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 9 2 AFTER ALL, JUSTICE CAN BE DONE ONLY WHEN THE MAT TER IS FOUGHT ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW RATHER THAN TO DISPOSE I T OF ON SUCH TECHNICALITIES AND THAT TOO AT THE THRESHOLD. BOTH SIDES HAD TRIED TO ARGUE THE MATTER ON MERITS BUT WE REFRAIN OURSELVES FROM TOUCHING THE MERITS OF THE MATTER AS THAT CAN BEST BE DONE BY THE EXECUTIN G COURT WHICH HAD DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO LEAD EVID ENCE AND TO PROVE THE ISSUES SO FORMULATED. 3 IN OUR OPINION, ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET BY S ETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE EXECU TING COURT TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF APPELLANT'S OBJECTIONS FILED UNDER O RDER 21 RULE 90 OF CPC ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AT AN EARLY D ATE. IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT UNLESS MALAFIDES ARE WRIT LARGE ON T HE CONDUCT OF THE PARTY, GENERALLY AS A NORMAL 1 RULE, DELAY SHOULD BE CONDO NED. IN THE LEGAL ARENA, AN ATTEMPT SHOULD ALWAYS BE MADE TO ALLOW T HE MATTER TO BE CONTESTED ON MERITS RATHER THAN TO THROW IT ON SUCH TECHNALITIES. 2 APART FROM THE ABOVE, APPELLANT WOULD NOT HAVE GA INED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, BY NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PER IOD OF LIMITATION. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTICING THAT DELAY WAS ALSO NOT THAT HU GE, WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDONED, WITHOUT PUTTING THE RESPONDENTS TO HARM OR PREJUDICE. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO SEE, TO I T THAT JUSTICE SHOULD BE DONE BETWEEN THE PARTIES, 3 FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS TH E IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY APPELLATE COURT, AND ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT, ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE AND QUASHED.' AS A CONSEQUENCE, TH E MATTER STANDS REMITTED TO THE EXECUTING COURT FOR DECIDING THE AP PELLANT'S APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 90 OF CPC AT AN EARLY DAT E ON MERITS. SINCE THERE ARE ONLY TWO CONTESTING PARTIES TO THE LITIGATION T HAT IS TO SAY THE APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT NO.5, BOTH WOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE E XECUTING COURT ON 20/7/2010. BEING AN OLD CASE AN ENDEAVOUR WOULD BE MADE BY THE EXECUTING COURT TO TAKE UP THE CASE AS FAR AS POSSI BLE, ON DAY-TO-DAY BASIS SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 10 AND NO PARTY WOULD SEEK AN UNDUE ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE EXPRESSED NO OPINION, ON THE MER ITS OF THE MATTER AND ANY OBSERVATION MADE HEREIN WOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON MERITS. 4 WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT T HAT RESPONDENT NO.5 HAS BEEN PUT TO INCONVENIENCE AND HARASSMENT AS ADMITTE DLY IT HAD DEPOSITED A HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.22,6S,000/- IN THE YEAR 1992 BU T HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET ANY FRUITS THEREOF TILL DATE. THEREFORE THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED SUBJECT 1 TO PAYMENT OF RS.5O,OOO/- (RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND) TO RESPONDENT NO.5 WITHIN THREE WEEKS HEREOF. PAYMENT OF COST IS CONDITION PRECEDENT, WITHOUT WHICH THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROSECUTE ITS OBJECTIONS. THE APPEAL THEREFORE STANDS ALLOWED TO THE AFORESAID EXTENT. THE APPELLANT TO BEAR THE COST THROUGH OUT. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS ORDER, OTHER CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2397/2008 STANDS ALLOWED TO THE AF ORESAID EXTENT ONLY. 14. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS AND AFTER EXAM INING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) NEEDS T O BE CONDONED. WE ACCORDINGLY ORDER SO AND ALLOW COMMON GROUND NO.2 & 3 OF THE INSTANT APPEALS. ALL THE REMAINING GROUNDS RAISED O N MERITS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES ON MERITS AND DECIDE ACCORDINGLY BY WAY OF PASSING A S PEAKING ORDER. SHRI MOHAN BHAWANI ITA NOS 78 TO 80/IND/2019 11 15. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2014-15 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.02.20 20. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 20 FEBRUARY, 2020 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE