SHABBIR E. BOXWALA, MUMBAI v. ITO 11(1)(4) NOW ITO-16(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4303/MUM/2018 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 430319914 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AABCC8160D
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4303/MUM/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant SHABBIR E. BOXWALA, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 11(1)(4) NOW ITO-16(1)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 29-08-2019
First Hearing Date 29-08-2019
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 25-06-2018
Judgment Text
P A G E | 1 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) SHABBIR E. BOXWALA 40/40 1 SHABBIR APARTMENTS SHERLEY RAJAN ROAD BANDRA (W) MUMBAI . VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) [NOW ITO - 16(1)(4) MUMBAI] PAN AABCC8160D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI DINESH ACHARYA A.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V. VINOD KUMAR D.R DATE OF HEARING: 11 .11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 2 7 .11.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 4 MUMBAI DATED 17.04.2018 WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT) DATED 20.03.2014 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER FAILED TO CONSIDER GROUND NO. 4 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM BY WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD PRAYED FOR CANCELLATION OF PENALTY SINCE EXPLANATION 4 PARA (A) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) DOES NOT APPLY TO A POSITIVE INCOME WITH SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS AND WITH TAXABLE INCOME AS NIL AND TAX PAYABLE AS 'NIL BUT APPLIES ONLY TO A LOSS RETURN AND ALSO THAT PARA (C) OF EXPLANATION 4 OF SECTION 271(1) (C) IS NOT WORKABLE IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THEREFORE THE MACHINERY PROVISIONS OF CALCULATING THE PENALTY FAIL AND HENCE 'NIL' PENALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED BY THE I.T.O. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON AN ADDITION OF RS.596085/ - MADE BY THE ITO IN HIS ASSESSMENT P A G E | 2 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) ORDER U/S.143(3) WHICH AT BEST WAS AN ADDITION OF A 26AS DIFFERENCE BUT TERMED AS EXCESS REALIZATION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE BY THE ITO AND ALSO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE REMARKS OF THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) IN QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND ALSO NOT APPRECIATIN G THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN AND EVIDENCES ADDUCED ON THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT REALIZED ANY MONIES IN ITS BOOKS IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS STATED IN THE AGREEMENT AND THAT EACH OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE REALIZATIONS WERE FULLY SUBSTANTIATED BY THE F.I.R.CS ' ISSUED BY THE BANKERS AND THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THAT THE APPELLANT BEING A SMALL FILM PRODUCER COULD NOT AFFORD FURTHER QUANTUM APPEAL. THE APPELLANT PRAYS EARNESTLY THAT THIS GROUND MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED BY CANCELLING THE LEVY OF P ENALTY ARISING OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 596085. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 94 731/ - MADE BY THE I.T.O. IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF 100% OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN TURKEY AND FULLY BORNE AS EXPENDITURE ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH FULL EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS EARNESTLY THAT THIS GROUND MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED BY CANCELLING THE LEVY OF PENALTY ARISI NG OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 194731/ - . 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEANED C.I.T. (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN R ESPECT OF INTEREST RECEIVED OF RS. 2455/ - ON INCOME TAX REFUND WHICH THROUGH OVERSIGHT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME BY THE APPELLANT SINCE IT WAS CRE DITED TO PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND BEING A SMALL AMOUNT WITH DETAILS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE GROUND MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED BY CANCELLING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY ARISING OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 2455. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO TO ALTER OR TO AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FILM PRODUCTION WAS HOWEVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY IN RECEIPT OF INCOME ONLY FROM THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WHICH WERE PROVIDED BY HIM TO M/S POPCORN MOTION PICTURES PVT. LTD. RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2008 - 09 WAS E - FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16.09.2008 D ECLARING HIS INCOME AT RS.NIL . SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2007 - 08 HAD COMPLETED THE PRODUCTION OF A FILM TITLED AS YU HOTA TO KYA HOTA . ON T HE BASIS OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 15.03.2007 ALL THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (FOR SHORT IPR) OF THE AFORE SAID FILM WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS L IMITED (UPTO 20.06.2022) FOR A CONSIDERATION OF USD 4 7 5 0 00 . ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUNTED FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 92 01 434/ - AS SALE CONSIDERATION IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2007. AS THE AMOUNT WAS P A G E | 3 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE END OF THE AFORESAID PRECEDING YEAR I.E F.Y 2 006 - 07 THEREFORE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS REFLECTED UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY DEBTORS IN HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2007. AS PER THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THA T THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2007. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WITH THE A.O A LETTER ALONGWITH A TDS CERTIFICATE AND FORM NO. 26AS (IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE) AS WAS GA THERED FROM THE NSDL PORTAL . AS PER THE FORM NO. 26AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. HAD DEDUCTED TDS AMOUNT ING TO RS.11 22 519/ - ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAD DEPOSITED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE GOV T . ACCOUNT O N 03.05.20007. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT AS PER THE FORM NO. 26AS THE AMOUNT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN CREDITED TO THE ASSESSE S ACCOUNT WAS RS.1 97 97 519/ - AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 92 01 434/ - THAT WAS ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y 2007 - 08 AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE IPR OF THE AFORESAID FILM THAT WERE SOLD TO M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THE A.O CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 97 97 519/ - WAS CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT BY M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. IN REPLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF FILING THE E - TDS RETURN IN THE YEAR 2009 HAD APPLIED TH E AVERAGE CONVERSION RATE OF RS. 41.678 ON THE PAYMENT USD 4 75 0 00. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AFORESAID RATE MAY HAVE BEEN THE PREVAILING RATE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF THE E - TDS RETURN IN THE YEAR 2009 AS A RESULT WHEREOF THE AMOUNT IN FORM NO. 26AS WAS REFLECTED AT RS.1 97 97 519/ - . ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - [RS.1 97 97 519/ - ( - ) RS.1 92 01 434/ - ] WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE RATE OF CONVERSION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE THAT W AS APPLIED BY M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF USD 4 75 000 FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF QUANTIFYING ITS TDS LIABILITY. HOWEVER THE A.O DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE . I T WAS OBSERVED BY THE A .O THAT A PERUSAL OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THAT HIS ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED AS ON 03.05.2007 WITH AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 97 97 510/ - . FURTHER IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O THAT THE AFORESAID TDS CERTIFICATE WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUE D ON 26.06.2008 AND THE DATE OF DEPOSIT O F TAX WAS SHOWN AS 05.01.2008. ON THE CONTRARY IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT AS PER FORM NO. 26AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF P A G E | 4 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) TDS WAS STATED AS 20.02.2009. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TDS CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.16A WAS ERRONEOUS INCORRECT AND INVALID. OBSERVING THAT THE TDS CLAIMED DID NOT PERTAIN TO A.Y. 2008 - 09 THE A.O WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS FULLY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HIS ACCOUNT HAD BEEN CREDITED WITH AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 97 97 519/ - WHILE FOR HE HAD ACCOUNTED FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 92 01 434/ - IN A.Y. 2007 - 08 THEREFORE HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE DIFFEREN TIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 5 96 085/ - AS HIS INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS REALIZATION DUE TO EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE. AS SUCH THE A.O CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5 96 085/ - AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ALSO BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.1 94 731/ - WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISALLOWED BY THE A.O AN D ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME . FURTHER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR A SUM OF RS. 2 455/ - THAT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM AS INTEREST UNDER SEC.244A ON THE INCOME TAX REFUND FOR A.Y 2006 - 07 THE A.O ADDED THE SAME TO HIS RETURNED INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA ASSAILED THE AFORESAID ADDITION S/DISALLOWANCES BEFORE THE CIT(A). AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPUGNED EXCESS REALIZATION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - I T WAS AVERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE QUANTUM APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT AS IT HAD NOT REALIZED ANY EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - THEREFORE THE A.O HAD ERRED IN MERELY PICKING UP THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 97 97 519/ - FROM THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. AND TAXING THE SAID DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.5 96 085/ - W ITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O TO ALLOW THE CORRESPONDING CREDIT OF TDS OF RS.11 22 519/ - THA T WAS DEDUCTED ON THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. ALSO THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1 94 731/ - AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O OF INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND OF RS. 2 455/ - WAS ALSO SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) AFTER SUSTAINING THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. A FTER RECEIVING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE A.O CALLED UPO N THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY MAY NOT BE IMPOSED ON HIM AS REGARDS THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE AS P A G E | 5 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) WERE UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). AS REGARDS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) WAS CALLED FOR IN HIS HANDS AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF RS 5 96 085/ - THAT WAS ASSESSED AS HIS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS REALIZATION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE WHICH THEREAFTER HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) THE SAME DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE A.O . ACCORDINGLY THE A.O IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) ON THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS. 5 96 085/ - . ALSO THE A.O NOT BEING PERSUADED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) WAS CALLED FOR IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING TWO ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES VIZ. (I). DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES : RS.1.94 731/ - ; AND (II). ADDITION OF INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND : RS.2 455/ - THUS SUBJECTED THE SAME TO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C). 6. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) BEFORE THE CIT(A). OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.5 96 085/ - AS HIS INCOME TOWARDS FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E A.Y. 2008 - 09 THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME TO THAT EXTENT. ACCORDINGLY NOT FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. ALSO PENALTY THAT WAS IMPOSED BY THE A.O AS REGARDS THE REMAINING TWO OTHER ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCES VIZ. (I) DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES : RS.1 94 731/ - ; AND (II) ADDITION OF INTEREST RECEIVED OF THE INCOME TAX REFUND: RS. 2 455/ - THE SAME WERE ALSO SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 7. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL TOOK US THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE IN ERROR IN IMPOSING/SUSTAINING PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O VIZ.(I) ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE : RS.5 96 085/ - ; (II) DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES : RS.1 94 731/ - ; AND (III) ADDITION OF INTEREST OF INCOME TAX REFUND: RS.2 455/ - . ADVERTING TO THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED EXCESS REALIZATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE SAME PERTAINED TO THE SALE OF IPR OF ITS FILM YU HOTA TO KYA HOTA TO M/S UTV MOTION PICTU RES P A G E | 6 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) MAURITIUS LTD. WHICH WERE DULY DISCLOSED AND ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 THEREFORE NO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID DULY DISCLOSED SALE TRANSACTION WAS CALLED FOR IN HIS HANDS . INSOFAR THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE 100% BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.1 94 731/ - WAS CONCERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE EXPENSES THERE IN INVOLVED WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE POSSIBLE T IE U PS WITH THE T EAM OF TURKISH P EOPLE FOR CARRYING OUT A CO - PRODUCTION OF A FILM WHOSE SHOOTING WAS TO BE DONE IN INDIA. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT HAD MERELY INFERRED THAT THE PERSONAL ELEMENT INVOLVED IN INCURRING OF THE AFORESAID EXPE NSES COULD NOT BE R ULE D OUT THEREFORE IT WAS IN THE BACKDROP OF SUCH PRESUMPTIONS THAT HE HAD DISALLOWED THE AFORESAID EXPENSES . I T WAS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) WAS LIABLE TO BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.2 455/ - MADE BY T HE A.O IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON REFUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO ACCOUNT FO R THE AFORESAID INTEREST INCOME THEREFORE NO PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) MERELY FOR THE SAID REASON COULD HAVE BEEN VALIDLY IMPOSED . 8. PER CONTRA THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. W E HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2007 - 08 HAD COMPLETED THE PRODUCTION OF A FILM TITLED YU HOTA TO KYA HOTA . ON THE BASIS OF AN AGREEMENT DATED 15.03.2007 THE IPR S OF THE SAID FILM WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ( FOR THE PERIOD UPTO 20.06.2022) FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF USD 4 75 0 00 TO M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED THE AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 92 01 434/ - IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2007. AS THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE END OF THE AFORESAID PRECEDING YEAR I.E UP TO 31.03.2007 THEREFORE THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS S UNDRY DEBTOR IN HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2007. AS PER THE FORM NO. 26AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT P A G E | 7 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. HAD CREDITED TO THE ASSESSES ACCOUNT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 97 97 519/ - ON WHICH THEY HAVE DEPOSITED TDS AMOUNTI NG TO RS.11 22 519/ - .OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 92 01 434/ - AS SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2007 - 08 THE A.O CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PUT FORTH AN EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE DEF ICIT AMOUNT O F RS.5 96 085/ - [RS.1 97 97 519/ - ( - ) RS.1 92 01 434/ - ]. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O THAT THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - WAS DUE TO THE VARIANCE IN THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONVERSION RATE THAT WAS APPLIED BY UTV MOTION PICTURES PRIVATE LIMITED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF ITS TDS LIABILITY. HOWEVER NOT FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THE A.O HAD ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.5 96 085/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD THEREAFTER SUBJECTED THE SAME TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. APART THEREFROM WE FIND THAT THE A . O NOT FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE CLAIM OF THE BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES WHICH WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES IN TURKEY HAD DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF SUCH EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1 94 731/ - AND HAD ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE A.O HAD IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES . ALSO THE A.O HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF THE INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND OF RS.2 455/ - FOR A.Y 2006 - 07 THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION BUT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR BY HIM IN HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A LSO THE A.O HAD IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) ON THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND OF RS. 2 455/ - . 10. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENG TH ON THE AFORESAID ISSUES AS REGARDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SADDLED WITH PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH THEREAFTER HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). WE SHALL FIRST ADVERT TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXCESS REALISATION OF FO REIGN EXCHANGE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - WHICH HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C).ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORDS WE FIND THAT I T HAS BEEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER AGREEMENT DATED. 15.03.20 07 HE HAD ONLY RECEIVED USD 4 75 00 0 [ I.E RS.1 92 01 434/ - ] VIZ. (I) USD 25 000 RECEIVED ON 04.04.2007 (AT A CONVERSION RATE OF RS.42.5133) :RS. 10 62 834/ - ; AND (II) USD 4 50 000 RECEIVED ON P A G E | 8 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) 07.05.2007 (AT A CONVERSION RATE OF RS.40.308/ - ) : RS 1 81 38 600/ - . ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WE FIND THAT AS THE AFORESAID SALE CONSIDERATION OF USD 4 75 000 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2007 - 08 THEREFORE HE HAD ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAME A S HIS INCOME O N ACCRUAL BASIS IN THE SAID YEAR. IN FACT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2007. ON REALISING ITS MISTAKE OF NOT HAVING DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT OF USD 4 75 000 (I.E RS.1 92 01 434/ - ) THAT WA S PAID TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIZ. (I) USD 25 000 PAID ON 04.04.2007 (AT A CONVERSION RATE OF RS.42.5133):RS. 10 62 834/ - ; AND (II) USD 4 50 000 PAID ON 07.05.2007 (AT A CONVERSION RATE OF RS.40.308/ - ): RS 1 81 38 600/ - M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. HAD AFTER APPLYING THE PREVAILING EXCHANGE RATE OF RS.41.67899 WORKED OUT THE RUPEE EQUIVALENT OF USD 475 000 AT RS.1 97 97 519/ - [USD415 000*41.67=RS.1 97 97 519/ - ] AND HAD DEDUCTED TDS OF RS.11 22 519/ - ON THE SAID AMOUNT. AFORESAID AMOUNT OF TDS OF RS. 11 22 519/ - WAS THEREAFTER DEPOSITED ON 05.01.2008 BY M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS PVT. LTD. IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT AND A TDS CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 16A DATED 26.06.2008 WAS ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE. IT HAS BEEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT HE HAD NOT REALISED THE EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - . ACCORDINGLY IT HAS BEEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A . O HAD MERELY PICKED UP THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 97 97 519/ - FROM THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. AND TAX ED THE DIFFERENCE I.E RS. 5 96 085/ - IN HIS HANDS OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT NO SUCH EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE WAS EVER REALISED BY HIM . BE THAT AS IT MAY WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY AC COUNTED FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF USD 4 75 000 ( I.E RS.1 92 01 434/ - ) IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E A.Y. 2007 - 08 . IN FACT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLODGE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREIN CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - WAS REALISED BY THE ASSESSEEE AS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION . ACCORDINGLY IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 5 96 085/ - WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A MATTER OF FACT WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NOT REALISED THE EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - HAD NOT BEEN DISLODGED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS WE FIND THAT AS PER F . I . R . C ISSUED BY THE ASS ESESS BANK IT CAN SAFELY BE GATHERED THAT M/S UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. WHILE MAKING THE PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS.1 92 01 434/ - TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04.04.2007 AND 07.05.2007 HAD NOT DEDUCTED ANY TAX AT SOURCE. REALISING THE FAILURE ON ITS PART IN NOT DEDUCT ING TAX AT SOURCE M/S P A G E | 9 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. HAD THEREAFTER BY APPLYING THE PREVAILING EXCHANGE RATE OF RS.41.678 O N USD 475 000 HAD AS ON 03.05.2007 DEDUCTED TDS OF RS. 11 22 519/ - O N THE INDIAN RUPEE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF RS.1 97 97 519/ - [ USD 475 000*41.678 USD ] . ACCORDINGLY TDS CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO.16A WAS THEREAFTER ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26.08.2008. AL THOUGH THE IMPUGNED EXCHANGE RATE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - SUPPLEMENTING THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 92 01 434/ - HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX HOWEVER IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THERE IS SUBSTANCE IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 96 085/ - HAD EMERGED FOR THE REASON THAT UTV MOTION PICTURES MAURITIUS LTD. WHICH HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE PAYM ENT TO THE ASSESSEE I.E ON 05.05.2007 AND 07.05.2007 HAD THEREAFTER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE APPLIED THE AFORESAID CONVERSION RATE OF RS.41.678 ON THE AMOUNT OF USD 475 000 THAT WAS ALREADY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE OF A STRON G CONVICTION THAT AS THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SAFELY FALL S WITHIN THE SWEEP OF A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISLODGED OR DISPROVED BY THE REVENUE TILL DATE THEREFORE HE COULD NOT HAVE JUSTIFIABLY BEEN SADDLED WITH LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT. ACCORDINGLY NOT FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WE SET ASIDE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) ON THE IMPUGNED EXCESS REALISATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANG E OF RS.5 96 085/ - WHICH THEREAFTER HAD BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) . 11. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.1 94 731/ - BY THE A.O. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE TH E A.O HAD DISALLOWED 100% OF THE BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH THEREAFTER HAD BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE BUSINESS AND PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS.1 94 731/ - COMPRISES OF TWO PARTS VIZ. (I) THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS IN TURKEY : RS.89 964/ - ; AND (II) THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS HOTEL BILLS IN TURKEY (THROUGH CREDIT CARDS ) : RS.1 04 767/ - . IT HAS BEEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AFORESAID EXPENSES WERE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF POSSIBLE T IE UPS WITH THE T EAM OF TURKISH PEOPLE FOR CARRYING OUT A CO - PRODUCTION OF A FILM WHOSE SHO O TING WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT IN INDIA. HOWEVER P A G E | 10 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) THE A.O WAS O F THE VIEW THAT AS THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY PRODUCTION ACTIVITY OF HIS OWN AND WAS IN FACT FULLY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO M/S POPCORN MOTION PICTURES PVT. LTD. FOR THEIR FILM MISSION ISTANBUL THEREFORE HIS AFORESAID CLAIM OF EXPENSES DID NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE . IN FACT THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT PERSONAL ELEMENT INVOLVED IN INCURRING OF THE AFORESAID EXPENSES COULD NOT BE COMPLETELY RULED OUT. APART THEREFROM THE A.O HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT JUSTIFY HIS AFORESAID CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSE S CLAIM OF BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES IS BACKED BY A PRESUMPTION THAT THE SAM E WERE IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL EXPENSES. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THOUGH THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF AN ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VERACITY OF ITS CLAIM OF EXPENSE WOULD JUSTIFY AN ADDITION IN HIS HANDS HOWEVER MERELY ON THE SAID STANDALONE BASIS HE CA NNOT BE SUBJECTED TO PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS A MATTER OF FACT WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF EXPENSES HAD BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE A.O FOR THE REASO N THAT THE SAME HAD REMAINED UNPROVED BY THE ASSESSEE . WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UPENDRA V MITHANI [ITA (L) NO. 1860 OF 2009 DATED 0.08.2009] HAD OBSERVED THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) CAN BE IMPOSED IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS T ANCES ARE EQUALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT T HE AMOUNT DOES NOT REPRESENT CONCEALED INCOME AS WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT IT DOES. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE GIVES AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS UNPROVED BUT NOT DISPROVED I.E IT IS NOT ACCEPTED BUT CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT LEAD TO THE REASONABLE AND POSSIBLE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSES CASE IS FALSE THEN NO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) COULD BE IMPOSED. ON THE BASIS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT A MERE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AFORESAID UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM OF BUSINESS AND PROMOTION EXPENSES OF THE A.O SHORN OF ANY MATERIAL / EVIDENCE DISPROVING THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH CLAIM TO THE HILT WOULD THUS NOT JUSTIFY SUBJECTING THE SAME TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C). ACCORDINGLY NOT FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WE VACATE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AGGREGATING OF RS.1 94 731/ - . 12. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) ON THE ADDITION OF INTEREST O N INCOME TAX REFUND OF RS.2 455/ - PERTAINING TO A.Y 2006 - 07 WHICH WAS P A G E | 11 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED A SUM OF RS.1 08 910/ - IN HIS C APITAL ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME TAX REFUND RECEIVED (INCLUDING INTEREST COMPONENT) FOR A.Y.2006 - 07. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OFFER THE INTEREST PORTION OF THE AFORESAID INC OME TAX REFUND AMOUNTING TO RS.2 455/ - AS HIS INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME THEREFORE THE A.O HAD ADDED THE SAME TO HIS RETURNED INCOME . SUBSEQUENTLY THE A.O HAD SUBJECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID ADDITIO N OF INTEREST O N INCOME TAX REFUND. 13. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION AND ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) ON THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.2 455/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE I NCOME TAX REFUND FOR A.Y 2006 - 07 RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE AMOUNT OF THE INCOME TAX REFUND (INCLUDING INTEREST) OF RS.1 08 910/ - . IN O UR CONSIDERED VIEW A MERE BONAFIDE OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INTEREST PORTION OF THE REFUND (WHICH THOUGH HAD DULY BEEN REFLECTED IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT) WOULD THOUGH HAVE JUSTIF IED AN ADDITION TO THE SAID EXTENT HOWEVER A LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) MERELY FOR THE SAID BONAFIDE MISTAKE WOULD BE TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). WE THUS SET ASIDE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF THE INCOME TAX REFUND OF RS.2 455/ - . 14. ON THE BASIS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS WE VACATE THE PENALTY AGGREGATING TO RS.2 44 811/ - IMPOSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) WHICH THEREAFTER HAD BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 15. RESULTANTLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 7 . 11.2019 S D / - S D / - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) (RAVISH SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 27 .11 .2019 PS. ROHIT P A G E | 12 ITA NO.4303/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2008 - 09 SHABBIR E. BOXWALA VS. ITO - 11(1)(4) / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI