ACIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI v. RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2300/MUM/2019 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 230019914 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AADCR2730G
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2300/MUM/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 1(3)(1), MUMBAI
Respondent RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 18-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 24-11-2020
First Hearing Date 24-11-2020
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 11-04-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13) ACIT 1(3)(1) RM NO. 540 5 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN MK ROAD MUMBAI. VS. RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 7 TH FLOOR B WING TRADE WORLD KAMLA MILLS COMPOUND SB MARG LOWER PAREL MUMBAI - 400013 PAN/GIR NO. : AADCR2730G APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHARAT ANDHALE DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JITENDRA SANGHAVI AR DATE OF HEARING 28 .0 1 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 .0 3 .2021 / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -3 MUMBAI PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 263 AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS: 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ANN ULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF T HE ACT ON 06.12.2017 ON THE GROUND THAT THE H'BLE ITAT HAS QU ASHED ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 2 - THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DECISION OF THE H'BLE ITAT QUASHI NG THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT IS NOT ACCEPTED BY T HE DEPARTMENT AND APPEAL U/S.260A HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE SAID ORDER. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALSO RAISED: 3 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHEREIN IT HAS REDUCED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION FROM RS.8 66 52 484/- TO RS.8 0 25 356/- . BY CLAIMING HIGHER DEPRECIATION ORIGINALLY AND SU BSEQUENTLY REDUCING IT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHICH WOULD ATTRACT THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 4'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD.C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHEREIN IT HAS REDUCED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.34 86 256/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCENTIVE PAID IN F.Y. 2011-12 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 201 1-12. BY CLAIMING WRONG CLAIM OF EXPENSES IN ORIGINALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY REDUCING IT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHICH WOULD ATTRAC T THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.27 1(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 5 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E HAS ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 3 - FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHEREIN IT HAS REDUCED THE PROFIT ON SALE OF ASSETS OF RS.5 17 82 414/- CREDIT ED TO THE P&L A/C. UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS AS N OT LIABLE TO TAX AND CORRESPONDINGLY REDUCED SALE PROCEEDS TH EREOF AMOUNTING TO RS.5 86 19 472/- FROM THE BLOCK OF ASS ETS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRECIATION AND REDUCED THE DEPRECIATIO N CLAIM ACCORDINGLY. BY CLAIMING WRONG CLAIM IN ORIGINALLY AND SUBSEQUENTLY REDUCING IT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHICH WOULD ATTRAC T THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 6. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PR.CIT IN THE ORDER U/S.263 HAD OBSE RVED THAT HEADGING AND TRANSPORTATION COST IS ROUGHLY 1072% O F THE COST OF GOODS SOLD IS UNSUALLY HIGH EXPENDITURE ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143(3). 7. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IN THE PR.CIT IN THE ORDER U/S.263 H AD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED EQUITY SHAR E CAPITAL OF M/S. RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE P. LTD. AT PAR FOR RS.5.25 CRORES FROM M/S. EMERGING MONEY MALL LT D. WHICH WAS ITSELF PURCHASED FROM RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. WHI CH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMEN T COMPLETED U/S.143(3). 8. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PR.CIT IN THE ORDER U/S.263 HAD OBSE RVED THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR DEMERGER EXPENS ES U/S.35DD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143(3). 9. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.C.I.T. (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 4 - THE FACT THAT THE PR.CIT IN THE ORDER U/S.263 HAD OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR EXCESS PAYMENT OF INCENTIVE OVER PROVISION AMOUNTING TO RS.1 40 72 956/- SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETE D U/S 143(3). 10. THE APPELLANT CAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GRO UND OR AD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2.THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCIAL SER VICES AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2012 WITH T OTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL AND CURRENT YEAR LOSS OF RS.11 93 01 363/-.THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.03.2014 WITH HIGHER CLAIM OF TDS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143( 3 OF THE ACT ON 24.03.2015 WITH ASSESSED TOTAL LOSS OF R S. 8 89 70 396/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE PR.CIT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT AND REVISION ORDE R DATED 31.03.2017 WAS PASSED SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2015 AND DIRECTED THE A.O TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH WITH DIRECTIONS. AGAINST THE ORDE R U/S 263 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WI TH THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. WHEREAS THE A.O. AS PER THE DIRE CTIONS OF THE PR.CIT HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 1 43 (3) R.W.S 263 OF THE ACT ON 6-12-2017. ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 5 - 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FI LED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A) WHEREAS THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO DEALT ON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT AND OBSERVED AT PAGE 5 PARA 5.2 TO 5.6 OF THE ORDER AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE APPEAL WHICH IS READ AS UNDER; 5.2 I FIND THAT EVEN BEFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT . THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT HAD CEASED TO EXIST BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER W HICH WAS PASSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT IS VOID. I THEREFORE ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT U/S 251(1) 1 (A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONNECTION RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF C IT'VS. ADIT DEETOPERS [2013] 39 TAXMANN.COM 109 (BOMBAY) WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHERE ORDER OF REVISION PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT HAD BEEN SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W. S. 263 OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH REVISION ORDER AUTOMATICAL LY BECAME INFRUCTUOUS. 5.3 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SARAVANA DEVELOPER [2016 ] 68 TAXMANN.COM 148 (RAR.) THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT: '21. THE ITAT HAVING CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE IT RIGHTLY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT AS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE'S APP EAL IS ALLOWED AS THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SURVIVE FOR CO NSIDERATION AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. NO EXCEPTION CAN BE FOUN D WITH THE REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT.' 5.4 IN THE CASE OF YES BANK LTD. VS. DCIT (I.T.A. NO. ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 6 - 1100/MUM-2014) (ORDER DATED 28.09.2015 THE HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT: '2. THE SECTION AND THE SUBSECTION UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE MAKES .Z!DEAR THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CIT INVOKING THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. WE FIN D THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT MADE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS APPEA LED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO.23/MUM/2012 QUA PARE 27 AND 28 OF ITS ORDER HAS HELD THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS INFIRM AND ILLEGAL AND CON SEQUENTIALLY RESTORED THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT DATED 31.10.2009. 3. 'SUBLATO FUNDAMENT CADIT OPUS' MEANING THEREBY THAT IN CASE THE FOUNDATION IS REMOVED SUPER STRUCTURE FAL LS. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE FOUNDATION I.E. ORDER MADE U/ S. 263 HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.23/MUM/2012 HENCE THE STRUCTURE I.E. THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 143(3) RW.S- 263 OF THE ACT FALLS. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE BECOMES OTIOSE.' 5.5 FURTHER IN THE APPELLANT OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2011 -12 THE PR.CIT HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. TH E HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD QUASHED THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT JR I.T .A. NO. 3330/MUM/2016 DATED 23.12.2016. THE ORDER OF PR.C1T HAD CEASED TO EXIST SINCE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS QUAS HED THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT. HOWEVER THE AO HAS PASSED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PR.CIT AFTER QU ASHING THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. IN THA T CASE MY PREDECESSOR HAS HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS PASSED PURSU ANT TO THE ORDER OF THE PR.CIT IS VOID. THEREFORE MY PREDECES SOR ANNULLED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT. 5.6 IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN PARA 5.1 TO- PARA 5.5 I ANNUL THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W. S. 263 OF THE ACT DATED 06.12.2017 U/S 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 7 - 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE LD.CIT(A) ORDER THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/ S 143(3) R.W.S 263 OF THE ACT RELYING ON THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DECISION. FURTHER THE LD.DR EMPHASIZED TH AT THE REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION AND THE O RDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IS CONTESTED BEFORE THE H IGHER FORUMS. CONTRA THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) AND FILED THE PAPER BOOK AND FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y 2012-13 AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF REVENUE APPEAL. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SOLE CRUX OF THE DISPUTED I SSUE THAT THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/SEC143(3) R.W.S 263 OF THE ACT BASED ON THE DECI SION OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR W ERE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS TREATED THE REVISION ORDER PASSED U/SEC263 OF THE ACT AS INVALID. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.DR ARE THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND APPEAL U/SEC260A OF THE ACT WAS FILED BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE HIGH CO URT. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA.NO.3259/MUM/2 017 ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 8 - DATED 6-10-2017 HAS OBSERVED AT PAGE 54 PARA 26 AND 27 OF THE ORDER WHICH IS READ AS UNDER; 26. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER OBTAINING AND CALLING FOR DETAILS/CLARIFICATIONS OF ALL THE SEVEN ISSUES RAISED BY THE PR CIT IN THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTE R FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT WHEREAS THE LD PR.CIT HAS NOT SPECIF IED IN HIS ORDER AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS SO AS TO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE PR. CIT HAS EVEN MADE ROVING DIRECTION THAT THE AO MAY EXAMINE ANY O THER ISSUE WHICH MAY COME TO HIS NOTICE IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. THUS EVIDENTLY IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO INQUIRY OR WRONG APPLICATION OF LAW OR WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FAC TS AND THEREFORE THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION EXERCISED BY THE PCIT IS NOT PROPER AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ITSELF. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE PRESENT C ASE THE AO HAS SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR EXPLANATION FROM THE AS SESSEE ON ALL POINTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING A ND THEREAFTER HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW. MOREOVER IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE AO TO GIVE DETAILED FINDINGS OR E LABORATE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON EACH AND EVERY ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN EXAMINED DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. BESIDES THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS REFERRED TO BY THE LD AR DISCUSSED BRIEFLY HEREINABOVE WHILE A SERIES OF CAS ES RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY PERUSED AND ARE FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND ARE NOT AP PLICABLE. THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 263 IS ALSO PROSPECTIVE. T HUS THE REVERSIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT ARE NOT VALIDLY INITIATED IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE ISSUES RAKE D UP BY THE PR.CIT STAND EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE LD PR CIT HAS FAILED TO STATE A S TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS ERRONEOUS AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR SETTLED LEGAL POSITION. EVEN ON MERIT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE DEDUCTIONS/CLAIMS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY AND RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE VARIOUS DECISI ONS OF THE ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 9 - JURISDICTIONAL AND OTHER HIGH COURTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE JURISDICTION BY THE PR.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS INVALIDLY ASSUMED. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE PRO CEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS BEING INVALID AND ALSO CONSEQ UENT ORDER OF PCIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 27. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 6. WHEN THE REVISION ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT WA S SET-ASIDE BEING INVALID AND ANY SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDI NGS SHALL BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THE LD.DR COULD NOT CONTR OVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) WITH ANY NEW COGENT M ATERIAL OR INFORMATION BUT RELIED ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER ORDER. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS RELIED ON THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL D ECISION AND PASSED A REASONED ORDER AND WE UPHELD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.03.2021 SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 18.03.2021 KRK PS ITA NO. 2300/MUM/2019 M/S RELIANCE MONEY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. MUMBAI - 10 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A) 4. ( ) / CONCERNED CIT 5. !!' $ % / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. () * + / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER ! //TRUE COPY// 1. ( ASST. REGISTRAR) ITAT MUMBAI