MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI v. ITO 27(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 3789/MUM/2019 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 378919914 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AYCPS3587J
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3789/MUM/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
Appellant MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 27(2)(5), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 16-11-2020
First Hearing Date 16-11-2020
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 30-05-2019
Judgment Text
ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) LATE PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH (THROUGH L/HEIR MRS. BHARTI PANKAJ SHAH) BLDG. NO. 59 ROOM NO.1754/59 PANT NAGAR SANGAM CHS GHATKOPAR (EAST) MUMBAI 400 075 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(2)(5) ROOM NO. 421 4 TH FLOOR 6 TH TOWER VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX NAVI MUMBAI 400 703 PAN NO. AYCPS3587J (ASSESSEE) (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY : MS. KINJAL BHUTA A.R REVENUE BY : MS. SMITA VERMA D.R DATE OF HEARING : 02 /03/2021 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /03/2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD J.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 25 MUMBAI DATED 11.04.2019 WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT) DATED 10.11.2018. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 REA D WITH SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT 1961 ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON THE COMPLETELY INCORRECT ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH RULE 127 OF THE IT RULES I.E. TO EXAMINE THE PAN DATABASE TO ASCER TAIN THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE APPELLANT. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE ASSES SMENT/REASSESSMENT COMPLETE IN MECHANICAL ORDER BY THE LD. AO BE QUASHED AS BEING NULL AND VOID. ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 2 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 148 AND U/S 142(1) WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE HE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF THE AFORESAID NOTICES. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT COMPLETED WITHOUT SERVING THE NOTICE U/S 148/142(1) BE QUASHED AS BEING NULL AND VOID . 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMP TION OF THE BASIC INCOME AT RS. 1 60 000/ - AND ADDITION OF RS. 16 74 860/ - THERETO MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69A ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. YOUR APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY THE LD. AO MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS BE QUASHED. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 16 74 860/ - IS MADE OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS AS WELL AS CASH SALES DURING THE YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF SMALL CLOTH TRADING BUSINESS BEING OPERATED FROM APPELLANT'S HOUSE ONLY. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT BEING A SENIOR CITIZEN AND A SMALL CLOTH DEALER OPERATING FROM HIS HOUSE ONLY HAVING SMALL SALES TURNOVER OF AROUND RS. 16 LAKHS IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A NY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 44AD OF THE IT ACT AND HIS BUSINESS INCOME COULD HAV E BEEN ASSESSED U/S 44AD AT RS. 1 34 000/ - BEING 8% ON THE GROSS SALES AT RS. 16 74 ; 860/ - CONSIDERED AS CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT'S TOTAL INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2010 - 11 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 NEVER EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT CHARGEABLE TO INCO ME TAX AND HENCE HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE IT ACT. 1961. 7. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AND DEALING WITH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. CIT APPEAL. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ALTER OR DELETE OR ADD TO ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR FURNISH FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND MAKE THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON EACH OF THE GROUNDS ON OR FINAL HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. I NFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE A .O THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION HAD MADE CASH DEPOSIT S OF RS.16 74 860/ - IN HIS SAVING BANK ACC OUNT WITH COSMOS CO - OPERATIVE BANK BRANCH : GHATKOPAR MUMBAI . AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION THUS THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT REOPENED HI S CASE UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. N OTICE UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WAS RETURNED UN SERVED. SUBSEQUENTLY A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 142(1) DATED 28.08.2018 WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON T O FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS LATEST BY 12.09.2018 . HOWEVER THE SAID NOTICE TOO WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THE A . O ISSUED A LETTER ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 3 UNDER SEC. 133(6) TO THE BRANCH MANAGER COSMOS CO - OPERATIVE BANK LTD. BRANCH : GHATKOPAR M UMBAI AND CALL ED FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION. HOWEVER AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE BANK UPTO THE DATE OF FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018. AS THE NOTICES ISSUED U/SS. 148/142(1) COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THUS THE A.O IS STATED TO HAVE EFFECTED SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE S THROUGH AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER AS THE ASSESSEE DESPITE HAVING BEEN AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FAILED TO PUT UP AN APPEARANCE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 144 R. W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018 AND TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.16 74 860/ - IN THE ASSESSEES SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AS HIS UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SEC. 69A OF THE ACT . 3 . AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A ) THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018 ON THE GROUND THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 PRIOR TO FRAMING OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS SERVED UPON HIM. ALSO IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICE S STATED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE A.O WERE ALSO NOT RECEIVED BY HIM . ALTERNATIVELY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS ASSAILED THE ADDITION OF RS.16 74 860/ - MADE BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.69A . IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.16 50 860/ - IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS PRIMARILY SOURCED OUT OF THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION . AS SUCH IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ON MERITS ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 48 460/ - WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE IN HIS HANDS. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) NOT FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH AS REGARDS THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION THAT WAS ASSUMED BY THE A.O FOR F RAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018 ; AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE ADVANCED BY HIM AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE CASE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 4 . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. AS THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE US HAD EXPIRED ON 22.06.2019 THUS HIS LEGAL HEIR I.E SMT. BHARTI PANKAJ SHAH (WIDOW OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE) VIDE A LETTER DATED 23.12.2020 (ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT) HAD SOUGH T FOR BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD AS ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 4 THE L/HEIR OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND HAD FILED A REVISED MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ASSAILED THE VALIDITY O F THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PRECEDED BY ANY SERVICE ON THE ASSESSEE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT THUS THE ASSESSMENT THEREIN FRAMED WAS INVALID AND VOID AB - INITIO. ELABORATING ON HER AFORESAID CONTENTION IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS A SENIOR CITIZEN (SINCE DECEASED) WAS A SMALL TIME CLOTH MERCHANT WHO DURING HIS LIFE TIME WAS TRADING IN CLO TH FABRIC. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WAY BACK FILED HIS L A ST INCOME - TAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND THEREAFTER AS HIS ANNUAL INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THE BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT THUS NO RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SAID YEARS WAS FILED BY HIM . IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VIZ. BUILDING NO.59 ROOM NO. 1764 SAGAR HOUSING SOCIETY PANT NAGAR GHATKOPAR - (W) MUMBAI 400075 AND IT WAS NEVER CHANGED DU RING HIS LIFE TIME. I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THOUGH THE ADDRESS BORNE ON THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 (AS GATHERED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS) WAS CORRECTLY STATED HOWEVER THAT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE OTHER NOTICES VIZ. GOSWAMI 1 - 2 SAPNA APARTMENT 3 RD FLOOR LBS MARG GHATKOPAR (W) MUMBAI 400 086 WAS AN INCORRECT ADDRESS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE LD. A.R THAT ALTHOUGH IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 WAS UPLOADED ELECTRONICALLY ON THE PORTAL OF INCOME - TAX HOWEVER THE SERVICE OF THE SAME BY THE SAID MEANS WAS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY E - MAIL ADDRESS. IN ORDER TO FORTIFY HER AFORESAID CLAIM THE LD. A.R HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION T O THE SCREENSHOT OF THE INCOME - TAX PORTAL PAGE WHEREIN THOUGH THE DATE OF ISSU ANCE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 WAS MENTION ED BUT THE COLUMN REFERRING TO THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE WAS FOUND BLANK. IN ORDER TO DISPEL A NY DOUBTS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS AUTO GENERATED BY THE ITD SYSTEM THUS THE FACT THAT COLUMN REFERRING TO THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN THE INCOME - TAX PORTAL PAGE WAS FOUND BLANK PROVED T O THE HILT THAT NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS INCOME - TAX BUSINESS APPLICATION (FOR SHORT ITBA) . IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT DE HORS SERVICE OF A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 UPON THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 5 10.11.2018 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND WAS LIABLE TO BE VACATED ON THE SAID COUNT ITSELF. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEES BANK VIZ. COSMO S COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. B RANCH : GHATKOPAR HAD IN PURS UANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 133(6) DATED 11.07.2018 THEREIN VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 30.07.2018 FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS ( INCLUDING THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE ) HOWEVER DESP ITE THE SAID FACT NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE A.O TO EFFECT SERVICE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE . ALTERNATIVELY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS A SMALL TIME CLOTH MERCHANT AND THE CASH DEPOSIT S OF RS.16 74 860/ - IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION WAS SOURCED FROM THE PETTY CASH SALES AND REDEPOSIT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION FROM THE VERY SAME BANK ACCOUNT THUS ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O BEING HIGHLY ARB ITRARY WAS LIABLE TO BE VACATED. 5 . PER CONTRA THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. L D. D.R DRAWING SUPPORT FROM A LETTER DATED 21.01.2021 THAT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE A.O HAD THEREIN CLAIMED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITBA ON 21.03.2018. I T WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 WAS SERVED UP ON HIM. ON MERITS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT THU S THE A.O HAD RIGHTLY ADDED THE SAME AS HIS UNEXPLAINED MONEY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.69A OF THE ACT. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. AS THE ASSESSEE HA S ASSAILED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASON THAT DE HORS SERVICE ON THE ASSESSEE OF A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS LIABLE TO BE VACATED WE SHALL THUS FIRST ADVERT TO AND THEREIN DEAL WITH THE SAID ISSUE FIRST. AS PER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT THE A.O BEFORE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT REA SSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION UNDER SEC.147 SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE A RETURN OF HIS INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR CORRESPONDING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER A ND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 6 PRESCRIBED. ADMITTEDLY THE VERY JURISDICTION FOR FRAMING OF AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.147 OF THE ACT PRESUPPOSES A VALID SERVICE ON THE ASSESSEE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.148 OF THE ACT. B EFORE US IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT AS PRIOR TO FRAMING OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT NO NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THUS THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS LIABLE TO BE VACATED. 7. BEFORE PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER WE DEEM IT FIT TO CULL OUT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 282 OF THE ACT WHICH THEREIN CONTEMPLATES THE MANNER OF SERVICE OF A NOTICE AND READS AS UNDER: 282 (1) THE SERVICE OF A NOTICE OR SUMMON OR REQUISITION OR ORDER OR ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION UNDER THIS ACT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS COMMUNICATION) MAY BE MADE BY DELIVERING OR TRANSMITTING A COPY THEREOF TO THE PERSON THEREIN NAMED: - (A) BY POST OR BY SUCH COURIER SERVICES AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD; OR (B) IN SUCH MANNER AS PROVIDED UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 (5 OF 1908) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS; OR (C) IN THE FORM OF ANY ELECTRONIC RECORD AS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER IV OF TH E INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 (21 OF 2000); OR (D) BY ANY OTHER MEANS OF TRANSMISSION OF DOCUMENTS AS PROVIDED BY RULES MADE BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF. (2) T HE BOARD MAY MAKE RULES PROVIDING FOR THE ADDRESSES (INCLUDING THE ADDRESS FOR ELECTRONIC MAI L OR ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE) TO WHICH THE COMMUNICATION REFERRED TO IN SUB - SECTION (1) MAY BE DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED TO THE PERSON THEREIN NAMED. EXPL ANATION - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION THE EXPRESSIONS ELECTRONIC MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL ME SSAGE SHALL HAVE THE MEANINGS AS ASSIGNED TO THEM IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 66A OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 (21 OF 2000). FURTHER RULE 127 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 CONTEMPLATES THE ADDRESS (INCLUDING THE ADDRESS FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL OR ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE) TO WHICH A NOTICE OR SUMMONS OR REQUISITION OR ORDER OR ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATION UNDER THE ACT MAY BE DELIVERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SEC. 282 AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: (SERVICE OF NOTICE SUMMONS REQUISITION ORDER AND OTHER COMMUNICATION. 127 (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 282 THE ADDRESSES (INCLUDING THE ADDRESS FOR ELECTRONIC MAIL OR ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE) TO WHICH A NOTICE OR SUMMONS OR REQUISITION OR ORDER OR ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION UNDER THE ACT (HEREAFTER IN THIS RULE R EFERRED TO AS COMMUNICATION) MAY BE DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED SHALL BE AS PER SUB - RULE (2). (2) THE ADDRESSES REFERRED TO IN SUB - RULE (1) SHALL BE ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 7 (A) FOR COMMUNICATIONS DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (5) OF SUB - SEC TION (1) OF SECTION 282 (I) THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE IN THE PAN DATABASE OF THE ADDRESSEE; OR (II) THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN TO WHICH THE COMMU NICATION RELATES; OR (III) THE ADDRESS AVAILABLE IN THE LAST INCOME - TAX RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ADDRESSEE; OR (IV) IN THE CASE OF ADDRESSEE BEING A COMPANY ADDRESS OF REGISTERED OFFICE AS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS: P ROVIDED THAT THE COMMUNICATION SHALL NOT BE DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED TO T HE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN ITEMS (I ) TO (IV) WHERE THE ADDRESSEE FURNISHES IN WRITING ANY OTHER ADDRESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMMUNICATION TO THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY OR ANY PERSON AUTHORISED BY SUCH AUTHORITY ISSUING THE COMMUNICATION: [ PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE COMMUNICATION CANNOT BE DELIVE RED OR TRANSMITTED TO T HE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN ITEMS (I) TO (IV) OR ANY OTHER ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ADDRESSEE AS REFERRED TO IN FIRST PROVISO THE COMMUNICATION SHALL BE DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: (I) THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AVAILABLE WITH A BANKING COMPANY OR A CO - OPERATIVE BANK TO WHICH THE BANKING REGULATION ACT 1949 (10 OF 1949) APPLIES (INCLUDING ANY BANK OR BANKING INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN SECTION 51 OF THE SAID ACT); OR (II) THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AVAILABLE WITH THE POST MASTER GENERAL AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (J) OF SECTION 2 OF THE INDIAN POST OFFICE ACT 1898 (6 OF 1898); OR (III) THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AVAILABLE WITH THE INSURER AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (9) OF SECTION 2 OF THE INSURANCE ACT 1938 (4 OF 1938); OR (IV) THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS FURNISHED IN FORM NO. 61 TO THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) OR TO THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) UNDER SUB - RULE (1) OF RULE 114D; OR (V) THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS FURNISHED IN FORM NO. 61A UNDER SUB - RULE(1) OF RULE 114E TO THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) OR TO THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION); OR (VI) THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT; OR (VII) THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF A LOCAL AUTHORITY AS REFERRED TO IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (20) OF SECTION 10 OF THE ACT;] (B) FOR COMMUNICATIONS DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY : - (I) EMAIL ADDRESS AVAILABLE IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ADDRESSEE TO WHICH THE COMMUNICATION RELATES; OR (II) THE EMAIL ADDRESS AVAILABLE IN THE LAST INCOME - TAX RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ADDRESSEE; OR (III) IN THE CASE OF ADDRESSEE BEING A COMPANY EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY AS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS: OR (IV) ANY EMAIL ADDRESS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ADDRESSEE TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY OR ANY PERSON AUTHORISED BY SUCH INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY. ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 8 (3) THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME - TAX (SYSTEMS) OR THE DIRECTO R GENE OF INCOME - TAX (SYSTEMS) SHALL SPECIFY THE PRO CEDURE FORMATS AND STANDARD FOR ENSURING SECURE TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AND SHALL AL SO RESPONSIBLE FOR FORMULA TING AND IMPLE MENTING APPROPRIATE SECURITY AND RETRIEVAL POLICIES IN RELAT ION TO SUCH COMMUNICATION.] IN THE BACKDROP OF THE MODE AND MANNER OF SERVICE OF A NOTICE CONTEMPLATED IN SEC. 282 R.W RULE 127 WE SHALL NOW TEST AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 WAS VALIDLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W E FIND THAT IT IS A MATTER OF FACT BORNE FROM THE RECORD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 AND THAT ISSUED UNDER SEC. 142(1) DATED 28.08.2018 WERE BOTH RETURNED U N SERVED. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE IT IS STATED BY THE A.O THAT AS THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THUS THE SAME WAS SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. REBUTTING THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE A.O IT IS STATED BY THE LD. A.R THAT NO NOTICE UNDER S EC. 148 WAS EVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE AFORESAID COUNTER CLAIMS OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDRESS MENT IONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER VIZ. GOSWAMI 1 - 2 SAPNA APARTMENT 3 RD FLOOR LBS MARG GHATKOPAR (W) MUMBAI 400 086 WAS NOT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R HAD NEITHER REBUTTED THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NOR PL ACED ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WHICH WOULD IRREFUTABLY PROVE TO THE HILT THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 WAS VALIDLY SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. RATHER IN THE BACKDROP OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDRE SS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER VIZ. GOSWAMI 1 - 2 SAPNA APARTMENT 3 RD FLOOR LBS MARG GHATKOPAR (W) MUMBAI 400 086 IS NOT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE THUS THE AFORESAID UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM OF THE A.O OF HAVING EFFECTED A VALID SERVICE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 THROUGH AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE AND CANNOT BE SUMMARILY ACCEPTED ON THE VERY FACE OF IT. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT SEC. 282(1)(B) CONTEMPLATES SERVICE OF A NOTICE UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT IN A MANNER AS PROVIDED UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 (5 OF 1908) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS. AS PER ORDER V - RULE 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (5 OF 1908) WHERE THE COURT IS SATISFI ED THAT FOR ANY REASON THE SUMMONS CANNOT BE SERVED IN THE ORDINARY WAY IT SHALL ORDER THE SUMMONS TO BE SERVED BY AFFIXING A COPY THEREOF IN SOME CONSPICUOUS PLACE IN THE COURT - HOUSE AND ALSO UPON ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 9 SOME CONSPICUOUS PART OF THE HOUSE (IF ANY) IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS KNOWN TO HAVE LAST RESIDED OR CARRIED ON BUSINESS OR PERSONALLY WORKED FOR GAIN OR IN SUCH OTHER MANNER AS THE COURT THINKS FIT. ACCORDINGLY IN CASE SUBSTITUTED MODE OF SERVICE I.E SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH AFFIXTURE IS TO BE RESORTED BY TH E DEPARTMENT THEN AS PER SEC. 282 R.W ORDER V - RULE 20 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (5 OF 1908) THE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE IS MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO BE AFFIXED AT SOME CONSPICUOUS PART OF THE HOUSE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS KNOWN TO HAVE LAST RESIDED OR CARRIED ON BUSINESS O R PERSONALLY WORKED FOR GAIN. HOWEVER IN THE CASE BEFORE US NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD WHICH WOULD REVEAL THAT THE A.O HAD GOT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN AD DRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE FACT THAT THE A.O HAD REFERRED TO AN INCORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF MILITATES AGAINST THE AFORESAID UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM OF THE A.O OF HAVING CARRIED OUT A VALID SERVICE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 THROUGH AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE S ERVICE BY AFFIXTURE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 AS HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE A.O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8 . INSOFAR THE CLAIM OF THE A.O THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITBA ON 21.03.2018 I S CONCERNED THE SAME IS FOUND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS BORNE FROM THE RECORD. BEFORE US THE REVENUE HAD RELIED UPON A LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE ITO - 27(2)(1) MUMBAI DATED 21.01.2021 AND THEREIN CLAIMED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 21.03.2018 THROUGH ITBA. HOWEVER ON A PERUSAL OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE INCOME - TAX PORTAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS HAD BEEN PLACED ON OUR RECORD AT PAGE 16 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK (FOR SHORT APB) WE FIND THAT THE SAME THOUGH REVEAL S THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 WAS ISSUED ON 21.03.2018 [DOCUMENT ID NO. ITBA/AST/S/148/2017 - 18/1009359143(1)] HOWEVER THE COLUMN REFERRING TO THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE IS FOUND TO BE BLANK. IN FACT WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED DID NOT HAVE ANY E - MAIL ADDRESS THEN HOW THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON HIM BY THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ELECTRONIC MODE . NOTH ING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON OUR RECORD BY THE LD. D.R TO DISLODGE THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THAT AS PER THE SECOND PROVISO TO RULE 127 A NOTICE COULD BE DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED BY THE A.O AT AN E - ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 10 MAIL ADDRESS GATHERED BY HIM FROM THREE SOURCES VIZ. (I). E - MAIL ADDRESS AVAILABLE IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ADDRESSEE TO WHICH THE COMMUNICATION RELATES; (II). THE E - MAIL ADDRESS AVAILABLE IN THE LAST INCOME - TAX RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ADDRESSEE; OR (III). ANY E - MAIL ADDRESS M ADE AVAILABLE BY THE ADDRESSEE TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY OR ANY PERSON AUTHORISED BY SUCH INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY. NOW IN THE CASE BEFORE US AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION I.E A.Y 2011 - 12 THUS THE OCCASION OF F URNISHING OF ANY E - MAIL ADDRESS IN SUCH NON - EXISTENT RETURN OF INCOME DOE NOT ARISE. INSOFAR THE LAST INCOME - TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED THE SAME AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y 2005 - 06 ON 29.08.2005 (COPY ON R ECORD). ON A PERUSAL OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2005 - 06 WE FIND THAT NO E - MAIL ADDRESS WAS THEREIN MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. LASTLY IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EVER MADE AVAILABLE ITS E - MAIL ADDRESS EITHER T O THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY OR TO ANY PERSON AUTHORISED BY IT. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE CONCUR WITH THE LD. A.R THAT THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY ELECTRONI C MODE BEING DEVOID OF ANY FORCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY ON THE BASIS OF OUR AFORESAID DELIBERATIONS WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.148 DATED 21.03.2018 HAD ALSO NOT BEEN SERVED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY ELECTRONIC MOD E. 9 . AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD FILED HIS LAST INCOME - TAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 HAD THEREIN IN HIS SAID RETURN CLEARLY STATED HIS ADDRESS VIZ. BLDG 59 R. NO. 1764 SANGAM HOUSING SOCIETY PANT NAGAR GHATKOPAR MUMBAI - 400 075. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACT THE A.O AS PER SEC. 282 R.W RULE 127(2) (A)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 WAS OBLIGATED TO HAVE SERVE D THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 AT THE AFORESAID RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WAS DULY AVAILABLE WITH HIM . APART FROM THAT AS PER SEC. 282 R.W RULE 127(2)(A)(I) THE A.O COULD HAVE VALIDLY SERVED THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 DATED 21.03.2018 AT THE AFORESAID ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WAS ALSO AVAILABLE IN HIS PAN DATABASE. FURTHER ON A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE US WE FIND THAT PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 133(6) DATED 11.07.2018 TO THE ASSESSEES BANK VIZ. COSMOS COOPERATIVE BANK LTD BRANCH : GHATKOPAR (W) MUMBAI THE LATTER VIDE ITS LETTE R DATED 30.07.2018 HAD FURNISHED WITH HIM THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ. COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OPENING FORM; COPY OF THE KYC DOCUMENTS PAN CARD OF ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 11 THE ASSESSEE; COPY OF KYC DOCUMENTS PAN CARD AND PASSPORT OF MRS. PANKAJ BH ARTI SHAH ( WIDOW OF THE ASSESSEE); AND THE CONTACT NUMBER OF THE ASSESSEE/WIDOW OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT NOW WHEN THE ACTUAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O FROM THE AFORES AID THREE SOURCES VIZ. (I) LAST INCOME - TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE I.E FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06; (II) PAN DATABASE; AND (III) DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE BANK ; THEN WHAT HAD STOPPED HIM FROM SERVING THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 AT THE SAID ADDRESS . ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT AS THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018 WAS NOT PRECEDED BY A SERVICE ON THE ASSESSEE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 THUS NO VALID ASSESSMEN T COULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT DE HORS SERVICE ON THE ASSESSEE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.148 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 10.11.2018 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS LIABLE TO BE VACATED. 10 . AS WE HAVE QUASH ED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND OF INVALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE A.O THUS WE HEREIN REFRAIN FROM ADVERTING TO AND THEREIN ADJUDICATING UPON THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A.O WHICH ARE LEFT OPEN. 1 1 . RESULTANTLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS . ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 . 03.2021 SD/ - SD/ - RAJESH KUMAR RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI DATE: 30 .03.2021 PS: ROHIT ITA NO.3789/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2011 - 12 MR. PANKAJ SHANTILAL SHAH VS. ITO - 27(2)(5) 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR SMC BENCH ITAT MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI