SANSUI STEELS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 7(2)(2), MUMBAI

MA 131/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4817 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JENARDHANAN
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NO. 131/MUM/2018 (ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. 401 - C, GOKUL BUILDING, 80A BARODA STREET, IRON MARKET, S.T. MARG, CARNAC BUNDER, MUMBAI - 400009 VS. ITO - 7(2)(2), ROOM NO. 621 - A, AYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020. PAN NO. AAACS8834K APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. K. GOPAL, AR REVENUE BY : MR. V. JENARDHANAN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 27/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/10/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM BY MEANS OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA), THE APPLICANT SEEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2017 PASSED BY THE ITAT A BENCH MUMBAI (ITA NO. 1403 /MUM/201 5 ) FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 2008 - 09. IN PART - I , HERE - IN - BELOW, WE MENTION THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE APPLICANT, IN PART - II, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND IN PA RT - III, THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION. SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. MA NO. 131/MUM/2018 2 I 2. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOLLOW THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 20.02.2018 . THEREFORE, WE REFER BELOW THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IT IS STATED THAT THE SAID APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON THE LEGAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS ON MERITS WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE ITS ARGUMENTS ON MERITS. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL HAS CONSIDERED CERTAIN CASE LAWS WHICH WERE NEVER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPLICANT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT DID NOT GET ANY OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ITS SUBMISSION AND DISTINGUISH THE SAME. ALSO IT IS STATED THAT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, APPLICANT HAD RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE LD. A.O. FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE NOTICE DATED 22.03.2013 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT IS NOT DISCERNABLE AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATION FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME O R FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE, THE NOTICE DATED 22.03.2013 UNDER SECTION 2 74 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT AND THE SUBSEQUENT PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED. IT IS STATED BY THE APPLICANT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT HAD FURNISHED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DAT ED 22.03.2013 ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT. AND IN THE SAID NOTICE, IT IS NOT POINTED OUT WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IS SOUGHT TO BE INVOKED I.E. WHETHER FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND TH EREFORE, THE SAID NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW. SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. MA NO. 131/MUM/2018 3 THE APPLICANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE AO HAD INITIATED THE PENALTY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON ACCOUNT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IN T HE PENALTY ORDER DATED 25.09.2013, PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY WAS ACTUALLY LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THUS THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED. IT IS STATED THAT THE APPLICANT, FURTHER, TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHER R Y [ITXA NO.: 1154 OF 2014]. ALSO IT IS STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEA RING, THE BENCH STATED THAT THE APPEAL WOULD BE DISPOSED OFF ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL GROUND ONLY AND THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT WAS UNDER IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL WOULD BE DECIDED APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI S AMSON PERINCHER R Y (SUPRA). FURTHER IT IS STATED THAT IN THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2017, THE BENCH HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE ITS SUBMISSION. THUS IT IS STATED BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE AC TION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE ITS SUBMISSION ON THE SAME IS NOTHING BUT THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE SAME MAY BE RECTIFIED. FINALLY, THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE T RIBUNAL MAY (A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2017 PASSED IN THE APPEAL NUMBER ED AS ITA NO. 1403/MUM/2015 FOR THE AY 2008 - 09 AND FIX FOR HEARING AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT, (B) DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERITS, (C) ANY OTHER RELIEF WHICH THE BENCH DEE MS FIT. SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. MA NO. 131/MUM/2018 4 II 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. III 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE GIVEN BELOW. WE FIRST DEAL WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANT THAT IN THE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOT POINTED OUT WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IS SOUGHT TO BE INVOKED WHETHER FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. WE ALSO DEAL HERE THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPLICANT ON THE DECISION IN SHRI SAMSON PERINCHER R Y (SUPRA). WE HAVE MENTIONED AT PARA 7 OF THE IMPU GNED ORDER THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.03.2013 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147, THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IN THE PENALTY ORDER DA TED 25.09.2013, THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE APPLICANT HAS MENTIONED IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 25.09.2013 PASSED U/S 271(1)(C), THE PENALTY WAS ACTUALLY LEVIE D ON ACCOUNT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. TO CLARIFY THE ABOVE ISSUE, WE EXTRACT BELOW PARA 5 OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 25.09.2013 PASSED BY THE AO AND THE SAME IS AS UNDER: SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. MA NO. 131/MUM/2018 5 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS C LEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE ON ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME LEADING TO THE CONCEALMENT OF THE TAXABLE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIABILITY BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF INCOME SOUGHT TO BE EVADED OF RS.15,00,000/ - ....... THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 25.09.2013 PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE AO, THE PENALTY WAS ACTUALLY LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS NOT A CORRECT ONE. THEN WE HAVE REFERRED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MAK DATA PVT. LTD. V. CIT (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9772 OF 2013) AND TH E JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. KAUSHALYA & ORS (1995) 216 ITR (BOM) AND SAMSON PERINCHERRY (SUPRA). FOR CLARIFICATION, AGAIN WE MENTION BELOW THE DECISION IN SAMSON PERINCHERRY (SUPRA): THEREFORE, THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO ONLY ONE OF THE TWO BREACHES MENTIONED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT WARRANT/PERMIT PENALTY BEING IMPOSED FOR THE O TH ER BREACH. THIS IS MORE SO, AS AN ASSESSEE WOULD RESPOND TO THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED/NOTICE ISSUED. IT MUST, THEREFORE, FOLLOW THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY HAS TO BE MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND OF WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED, AND IT CANNOT BE ON A FRESH GROUND OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO NOTICE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY US. SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. MA NO. 131/MUM/2018 6 4.1 THEN WE COME TO THE OTHER GRIEVANCE FOR THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE BENCH ON MERITS WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPLICANT TO MAKE ITS SUBMISSION AND THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL HAS CONSIDERED CERTAIN CASE LAWS WHIC H WERE NEVER BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE MENTION HERE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 27.09.2017, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ARGUED ON MERITS OF THE CASE AND REFERRED TO PAGE 5 AND 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK (P/B) FILED BY HIM. PAGE 5 OF P/B REFERS TO THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO CONTAINING INTER ALIA (I) COPY OF RESOLUTION PASSED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TIL. (PAN NO. AAACL3305J), (II) SHARE APPLICAT ION MONEY LETTER AND APPLICATION FORM FOR SUB SCRIPTION TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY TIL, (III) COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TIL, (IV) COPY OF RESOLUTION PASSED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF JSL (PAN NO. AAACJ2475R), (V) SHARE APPLICATION MONEY LETTER AND APPLICATION FORM FOR SUBSCRIPTION TO SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY BY JSL, (VI) COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF JSL, (VII) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, (VIII) C OPY OF RETURN OF ALLOTMENT IN FORM NO. 2. PAGE 18 OF THE P/B RELATES TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OFFERI NG RS.15,00,000/ - TO TAX BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND NOT TO LITIGATE FURTHER IN THE MATTER. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT PARA 11.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER STATING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 O F THE ACT IN THE CASE OF M/S MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD., IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WERE FRAUDULENT SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. MA NO. 131/MUM/2018 7 TRANSACTIONS. THAT LED TO THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER RS.15,00,000/ - TO TAX BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE AO ON 20.03.2013. WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION, WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN MAK DATA PVT. LTD . (SUPRA), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, AT PARA 8 HAVE HELD : 8. ASSESSEE HAS ONLY STATED THAT HE HAD SURRENDERED THE ADDITIONAL SUM OF RS.40, 74,000/ - WITH A VIEW TO AVOID LITIGATION, BUY PEACE AND TO CHANNELIZE THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES TOWARDS PRODUCTIVE WORK AND TO MAKE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. STATUTE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THOSE TYPES OF DEFENCES UNDER THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE MAKES A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED IN COME, HE HAD TO BE ABSOLVED FROM PENALTY. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN MAK DATA (SUPRA) AT PAGE 6 AND 7 OF HER ORDER DATED 23.12.2014. WE HAVE STATED AT PARA 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE LD. DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEALED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE REFERRED TO T HE RELEVANT PARA 8 OF MAK DATA (SUPRA), WHILE ARRIVING AT A FINDING. 4.2 A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T.S. BALARAM, ITO V. VOLKART BROS ., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), MASTER SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. MA NO. 131/MUM/2018 8 CONSTRUCTION CO. P. LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA , AIR 1966 SC 1047, KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (COAL SALES) LTD. V. STATE OF U.P. (1976) TAX LR 1921, 1927 (SC) AND CCE V. ASCU LTD ., (2003) 9 SCC 230, 232. IN FACT, NOT A SINGLE ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE APPLICANT. WHAT THE APPLICANT WANTS IS A REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN DECISION UNLESS IT IS PERMITTED TO DO SO BY THE STATUTE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN PATEL NARSHI THAKERSHI V. PRADYUMANSINGHJI ARJUNSINGHJI [AIR 1970 SC 1273] THAT THE POWER TO REVIEW IS NOT AN INHERENT POWER. IT M UST BE CONFERRED BY LAW EITHER SPECIFICALLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER IN THE GARB OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AS HELD IN CIT V. GLOBE TRANSPORT CORPN. [1992] 195 ITR 311 (RAJ) (HC), CIT V. ROOP NARAIN SARDAR MAL [2004] 267 ITR 601 (RAJ) (HC), CIT V. DEVILAL SONI [2004] 271 ITR 566 (RAJ) (HC), JAINARAIN JEEVRAJ V. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 358 (RAJ.) (HC), PRAJATANTRA PRACHAR SAMITI V. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 160 (ORISSA) (HC), CIT V. JAGABANDHU ROUL [1984] 145 ITR 153 (ORISSA) (HC), CIT & ANR. V. ITAT & ANR. [1992] 196 ITR 640 (ORISSA) (HC), SHAW WALLACE & CO. LTD. V. ITAT & OTHERS [1999] 240 ITR 579 (CAL) (HC), CIT V. SUMAN TEA & PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. [1997] 226 ITR 34 (CAL) (HC), ITO V. ITAT & ANR. [1998] 229 ITR 651 (PAT.) (HC), CIT & ANR. V. ITAT & ANR. [1994] 206 ITR 126 (AP) (HC), ACIT V. C. N. ANANTHRAM [2004] 266 ITR 470 (KAR) (HC). 4.3 IN THE CASE OF RAMESH ELECTRIC & TRADING CO . (SUPRA), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAVE HELD: SANSUI STEEL PVT. LTD. MA NO. 131/MUM/2018 9 UNDER S. 254(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, THE TRIBUNAL MAY, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB - S (1) WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED THEREIN. IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION THAT TH E TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDERS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL POSSESSES IS TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THIS IS MERELY A POWER OF AMENDI NG ITS ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE FIRST ORDER, THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AT ALL. THE TRIBUNAL WAS REQUIRED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.54,000 WAS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER S. 37. AFTER EXAMINING THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS NOT SO DEDUCTIBLE. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF RECTIFICATION, LOOK INTO SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION SO ARRIVED AT. THE MISTAKE THE TRIBUNA L IS ENTITLED TO CORRECT IS NOT AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT BUT A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ITSELF. THE TRIBUNAL HAS, PATENTLY, FAR EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION UNDER S. 254(2) IN REDECIDING THE ENTIRE DISPUTE WHICH WAS BEFORE IT, IN THIS FASHION, AN D THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED A GROSS AND INEXPLICABLE ERROR. FAILURE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL SCENARIO AND POSITION OF LAW DELINEATED HEREINBEFORE, THE PRESENT MA, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT, IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/10/2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 23/10/2010 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) ITAT, MUMBAI