Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2006 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
8 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
07-12-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
12-03-2020
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (V I RTUAL COURT) , C BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM MA NO.153/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 153/ MUM/ 20 20) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 ) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 4 TH FLOOR, CHANDERMUKHI BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021 VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020 PAN/GIR NO. AAACC2498P (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI NITESH JOSHI REVENUE BY MS. SHRE EKALA PARDESHI DATE OF HEARING 04 / 12 /2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 / 12 /2020 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS UNDER: - THE APPLICANT FILES THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF ITS ORDER DATED 29.01.2020 FOR RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE, WHICH IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 1. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE SECURITIES AS HELD BY THE APPLICANT WERE ITS STOCK I N TRADE AND THE ENTIRE INCOME THEREFROM HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI), THE APPLICANT HAD TO CLASSIFY THE SECURITIES HELD BY IT, INTER - ALIA, EITHER UNDER 'AVAILAB L E FOR SALE' (A FS) OR 'HELD TO MATURITY' MA NO153/MUM/2020 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 2 (HTM) CATEGORY. CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RBI/2011 - 12/65DBODNO.BP.BC19/21.02.141/2011 - 12 DATED 01.07.2011 ENABLED SHIFTING OF SECURITIES FROM ONE CATEGORY TO THE OTHER. THE SAID CIRCULAR CATEGORICALLY DIRECTED THE BANKS TO VALUE THE SEC URITIES SHIFTED FROM AFS TO HTM CATEGORY AT THE LOWER OF BOOK VALUE (I.E., COST) OR MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF SHIFTING. 2. BASED THEREON, THE APPLICANT HAD CLAIMED A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SHIFTING LOSS OF RS. 159 , 74,79,854 (ARISING ON ACCOUNT O F SHIFTING SECURITIES FROM AFS TO HTM CATEGORY) BY WAY OF AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE CI T(A). THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE SAID DEDUCTION OF SHIFTING LOSS WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HDFC BANK LTD. [2014] 368 ITR 377. 3. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) ENHANCED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,43,236. THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS REVERSAL OF THE LOSS AS THERE WAS A RISE IN THE PRICE OF A SECURITY BETW EEN THE DATE OF SHIFTING AND THE END OF THE YEAR. THE MARKET VALUE OF 7.56% GOI 2014 AS ON DATE OF SHIFTING WAS RS.158,51,31,384 WHILE AS ON 31.03.2012, I.E., ON THE LAST DATE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR WAS RS. 158, 54,74,620. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3, 43, 236 REPRE SENTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SAID TWO VALUES (I.E., RS. 158,54,74,620 - RS.158,51,31,384). THE SAID WORKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH ALSO DISCLOSES THAT THE APPLICANT HAD FILED THE SAME AS PER HIS DIRECTIONS (NOTICES ISSU ED U/S. 251 DATED 29.12.2017 AND 08 . 01.2018 CONTAINED IN PAGE NOS. 121 - 122 AND 126 - 127 RESPECTIVELY OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS). ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), SHIFTING LOSS HAD TO BE REDUCED BY THE INCREASE IN VALUE OF THE SHIFTED SECURITIES A S AT THE YEAR END. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A)'S ORDER, THE APPLICANT HAD CHALLENGED THE ASPECT RELATING TO ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME BY WAY GROUND NO.3 IN ITS APPEAL, WHILE THE REVENUE HAD CHALLENGED THE GRANT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SHIFTING LOSS BY G ROUND NO.8 OF ITS APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.3673/MUM/2018. THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 6 AT PAGES 7 TO 11 OF ITS ORDER DATED 29.01.2020. THE ILLUSTRATION GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IN ITS APPELLATE ORDER ALONG WITH THE BA SIS OF ARRIVING AT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,43, 236 IS REPRODUCED IN PARAGRAPHS 6 AND 6.1 AT PAGES 8 AND 9 OF THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. IN PARAGRAPHS 6.2 AND 6.3 AT PAGES 10 AND 11 OF ITS ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS INTER - ALIA HELD THAT : '......... WE FIND THAT AS PER THE RBI CIRCULAR DATED 01.07.2011, SHIFTING LOSS INCURRED AT THE TIME OF SHIFTING OF SECURITIES FROM AFS TO HTM CATEGORY SHOULD BE DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS A REGULAR MA NO153/MUM/2020 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 3 EXPENDITURE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. OT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY AGREED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED VALUATION LOSS / SHIFTING LOSS TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED PURSUANT TO DUE COMPLIANCE OF RBI CIRCULAR DATED 01.07.2011. WHILE THAT BE SO HOW THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE VIOLATED THE VERY SAME RB I CIRCULAR WHEN IT COMES TO ENHANCEMENT OF RS. 3,43,236 BY WAY OF REVERSAL OF SHIFTING LOSS. HENCE, IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD TAKEN A CONTRADICTORY STAND IN HIS ORDER WITH REGARD TO COMPLIANCE WITH RBI CIRCULAR. 6.3 WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DEPRECIATION OF INVESTMENTS AT THE TIME OF SHIFTING FROM AFS TO HTM CATEGORY HAD BEEN DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EXPENDITURE IN CONSONANCE WITH RBI CIRCULAR DATED 01.07.2011 REFERRED TO SUPRA. THE SAID SHIFTING LOSS IS SQUARELY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED THE REVISED WORKINGS OF THE SAID LOSS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH RESULTED IN AN ENHANCEMENT OF RS.3,42,336. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BAD NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO COUNTER THE SA ID WORKIN GS GIVEN BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND HENCE WE DO N OT DEEM IT FIT TO INTERFERE IN THE SAID ENHANCEMENT DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.8 OF THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OF REMARKS BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS IN PRINCIPLE AGREED THAT ADDITION TO INCOME BASED ON REVERSAL OF SHIF TING LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN VALUE OF SHIFTED SECURITIES AS AT THE YEAR - END WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR MANDATE OF RBI REQUIRING BOOKING OF SUCH LOSS AT THE TIME OF SHIFTING AND RECORDING OF SUCH SHIFTED SECURITIES AT LOWER OF BOOK VALUE OR MARKET VALUE AS ON ,THE DATE OF SHIFTING. IN FACT, IT CONCLUDES THAT REMARKS IN THE CI T(A)'S ORDER TO THAT EXTENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS REMOVED. HOWEVER, GROUND NO.3 OF APPLICANT'S APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED AS, ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE APPLICANT HA S NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE TO COUNTER THE SAID WORKING GIVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . 5. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPLICANT DRAWS REFERENCE TO PAGES 106 TO 148 OF THE PAPERBOOK FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE APPLICANT PROVIDED COPIES OF THE SHOW CAUSE NO TICES ISSUED U/S. 251 BY THE CIT(A) AND THE RESPONSES FILED BY THE APPLICANT. ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE APPLI CANT'S LETTER DATED 10.01.2018 (PAGES 128 TO 140 OF THE PAPERBOOK) WHEREIN IT PROVIDED THE WORKINGS AS REQUESTED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT PREJUDICE T O ITS CONTENTION THAT THE VALUATION OF SECUR ITIES AS AT THE YEAR END AND SHIFTING LOSS IS NOT ERRONEOUS. THE APPLICANT ALSO FILED DE T AILED OBJECTIONS TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME PROPOSED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE LETTER DATED 50.01.2018 (PAGES 145 TO 148 OF THE PAPERBOOK). THE APPLICANT, THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT ALL MA NO153/MUM/2020 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 4 NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE VALUATION OF SECURITIES AS AT THE YEAR END AND SHIFTING LOSS IS NOT ERRONEOUS WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE WORKING FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,43,236 IS EXTRACTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH 6.1 OF ITS ORDER. AS AGAINST MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF SHIFTING OF RS.158,51,31,384, IN RESPECT OF 7.56% GOI 2014, ITS MARKET VALUE AS ON 31.03.2012 I.E., AT THE YEAR END STOOD AT RS.158,54,74,620. THE ADDITION OF RS.3,43,236 REPRESENTS THE INCREASE IN MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID SECURITY BETWEEN ITS DATE OF SHI FTING AND THE YEAR END (I.E., RS.1 58,54,74,620 - RS.158,51,31,384). THE SAID WORKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE CIT(A)'S AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER AND REPRESENTS REVERSAL OF SHIFTING LOSS. AS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL HEREINABOVE, THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS IT IS CONTRARY TO THE RBI CIRCULAR. THIS IS ALSO CLARIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHEN IN ITS CONCLUDING PART AT PARA 6.3 IT HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE SAID REMARKS OF THE CIT(A) ARE REMOVED. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISMISSING APPLICANT'S GROUND NO.3 IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE TO COUNTER THE SAID WORKING GIVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A). SINCE THE S AID WORKING FORMS PART OF THE CIT(A)'S AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER, IT IS URGED THAT DISMISSAL OF THE GROUND IN VIEW OF ABSENCE OF INFORMATION WHILE ALLOWING THE SAME IN PRINCIPLE DISCLOSES MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 7. IN VIEW THEREOF THE TRIB UNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO OMIT THE FOLLOWING PART FROM PARA 6.3 OF ITS ORDER AND THEREBY ALLOW GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL: 'WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO COUNTER THE SAID WORKINGS GIVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE WE DO NOT DEEM IT FIT TO INTERFERE IN THE SAID ENHANCEMENT DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A).' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO: (A) CLARIFY THE AFORESAID POSITION AND ALLOW GROUND NO. 3 IN THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL; (B) PASS SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY REQUIRE; (C) GRANT COSTS OF AND INCIDENTAL TO THIS PRESENT APPLICATION. 2. BY VIRTUE OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO EXPUNGE TH E OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6.3 OF THE ORDER AND ALLOW GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. MA NO153/MUM/2020 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 5 3. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS A BANK AND HAD HELD ITS SECURITIES AS STOCK IN TRADE BOTH IN AVAILABLE FOR SALE CATEGORY (AFS) AND AS WELL AS IN HE LD TO MATURITY (HTM) CATEGORY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH SECURITIES HAD BEEN DULY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEA D BUSINESS INCOME AND ASSESSED AS SUCH. DURING THE YEAR WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED ITS SECURITIES F ROM AFS TO HTM CATEGORY AND BY FOLLOWING THE RBI CIRCULAR DATED 01/07/2011, THE SAID SHIFTING / CONVERSION SHOULD BE DONE AT THE LOWER OF COST OR MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF SHIFTING. SINCE THE MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF SHIFTING WAS L E SS THAN THE COST OF SECURITIES , T HE ASSESSEE DEBITED THE SHIFTING LOSS OF RS.159,74,79,854/ - IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 349 ITR 336(BOM). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DULY ADMITTED THE SAME AND ALLOWED THE SHIFTING LOSS AS DEDUCTION. 4. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ACTION, THE REVENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE US VIDE GROUND NO.8. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT((A) HAD ALSO SOUGHT TO MAKE AN ENHANCEMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.3 , 43 , 236/ - BY PARTIALLY REVERSING THE SHIFTING LOSS. 5. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ISSUED ENHANCEMENT NOTICE V IDE LETTER DATED 08/01/2018 TO THE ASSESSEE BANK CATEGORICALLY CALLING FOR THE WORKINGS OF VALUATION ON SECURITIES HELD IN HTM CATEGORY AS ON 31/03/2002 IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT. THESE PAPERS ARE ENCLOSED IN PAGES 126 & 127 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE U S AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL MA NO153/MUM/2020 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 6 APPEAL LATE PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD RESPONDED TO THE SAID ENHANCEMENT NOTICE WHICH IS ENCLOSED IN PAGES 128 - 131 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE SAID REPLY LETTE R DATED 10/01/2018 ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LD. CIT(A), IN PARAGRAPH 2, IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ORIGINAL CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHIFTING LOSS ON CONVERSION OF SECURITIES IS SQUAREL Y ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AND VALUATION OF SECURITIES HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE AS ON 31/03/2012 HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE , AS DIRECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , HAD FURNISHED THE WORKINGS FOR VALUATION OF SECURITIES IN THE PRESCRIBED FOR MAT GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE PRIMAFACIE READING OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 10/01/2018 ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO LD. CIT(A) IS ABSOLUTELY UNAMBIGUOUS IN THIS REGARD. WE FIND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID LETTER THAT ASSESSEE HAD MERELY COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY FURNISHING THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF VALUATION OF SECURITIES AS ON 31/03/2012 IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAID DETAILS WERE FURNISHED ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASIS. WHILE THIS IS SO, IT WOULD BE WRO NG ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONCLUDE THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED VALUATION OF LOSSES ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITIES AND OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS.3,43,236/ - REQUIRES TO BE REVERSED THEREON. SO BASED ON THIS WORKING, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD RESORTED TO EN HANCEMENT OF RS.3,43,236/ - ON THE VALUATION DIFFERENCE OF SECURITIES BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID VALUATION WAS NOT DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RBI GUIDELINES. 5.1 AGAINST THIS ENHANCEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE US VIDE GROUND NO.3. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH 6.2 AND 6.3 OF ITS ORDER HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD FULLY COMPLIED WITH RBI CIRCULAR DATED 01/07/2011 WITH REGARD TO VALUATION OF SECURITIES AT THE MA NO153/MUM/2020 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 7 TIME OF SHIFTING OF SECURITIES FROM AFS TO HTM CATEGORY AND THIS TRIBUN AL HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE SHIFTING LOSS INCURRED WOULD BE SQUARELY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION TO THE TUNE OF RS.159,74,79,854/ - . HA VING DONE SO , THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,43,236/ - SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THIS TRIBUNAL WHI CH WAS NOT DONE. WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID WORKINGS FOR VALUATION DIFFERENCE OF RS.3,43,236/ - WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASIS BUT COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY FILLING UP THE DATA IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO COUNTER THE SAID WORKINGS AS ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF LD. CIT(A) BY FURNISH ING THE REQUISITE DETAILS ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASIS. HENCE, OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6.3 OF ITS ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US TO COUNTER THE SAID WORKINGS GIVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS INCORRECT. THIS CONSTITUTES MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WITHIN THE M EANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5.2. WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID M ISTAKE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR BEFORE US AND WE ACCORDINGLY, DEEM IT FIT TO MODIFY PARA 6.3 OF OUR ORDER AS UNDER: - 6.3. . WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DEPRECIATION OF INVESTMENTS AT THE TIME OF SHIFTING FROM AFS TO HTM CATEGORY HAD BEEN DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN EXPENDITURE IN CONSONANCE WITH RBI CIRCULAR DATED 01/07/2011 REFERRED TO SUPRA. THE SAID SHIFTING LOSS IS SQUARELY ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTI ON. 5.3. PARA NO.6.3 OF OUR ORDER SHOULD BE READ IN THE AFORESAID MANNER AND STANDS MODIFIED AS ABOVE. ALL OTHER CONTENTS OF OUR ORDER REMAIN UNCHANGED. MA NO153/MUM/2020 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 8 5.4. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.8 OF THE REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 0 7 / 12 /2020 BY WAY OF PROPER MENTIONING IN THE NOTICE BOARD. SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) SD/ - (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 0 7 / 12 / 2020 KARUNA , SR.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//
