SUBSEA PRO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI v. ACIT CIRCLE-16 (3) , MUMBAI

ITA 5884/MUM/2019 | 2015-2016
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 588419914 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAPCS6354R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 5884/MUM/2019
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant SUBSEA PRO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT CIRCLE-16 (3) , MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2021
Last Hearing Date 02-07-2021
First Hearing Date 02-07-2021
Assessment Year 2015-2016
Appeal Filed On 13-09-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDCIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 5884 /MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 201 5 - 16 SUBSEA PRO ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED 509 & 510 TECHNIPLEX II OPP TECHNIPLEX COMPLEX JN. VEER SAVARKAR FLYOVER GOREGAON (WEST) MUMBAI - 400062 PAN: AAPCS6354R VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 (3) ROOM NO. 449 AAYKAR BHAVAN MAHARASHI KARVE ROAD CHURCH GATE - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VISWAS MEHANDALE (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MENON (DR ) DATE OF HEARING : 16 /07 /202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 / 08 /202 1 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2019 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 7 MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16. 2. THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONFIN ED TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED TOWARDS INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS). 2 ITA NO. 5884 / MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 5 - 1 6 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE IS A RESIDENT COMPANY. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 .09.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 96 43 520/ - . IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) WHILE VERIFYING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 12 40 902/ - TO THE PROFIT A ND LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS INTEREST ON TDS. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION HE FOUND THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED FOR DELAYED PA YMENT OF TDS AMOUNT TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. WHEN CALLED UPON TO JUSTIFY THE DEDUCTION CLAIM ED THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL I N CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPAT PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 2127/MUM/2014 DATED 30.08.2017. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS NOT CONVINCED W ITH SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. RELYING UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENT S THE AO DISALLOWED AS SESSEES CLAIM. A SSESSEE UNSUCCESSFULLY CONTESTED THE DISALLOWANCE BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED INTEREST PAID ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF TDS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION AS BUSINESS EXP ENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT . I N SUP PORT OF SUCH CONTENTION H E RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - 1. DCIT VS. NARAYANI ISPAT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) 2. ESSAR PROJECTS ( INDIA ) LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO. 1844/MUM/2015 DATED 21.06.2017 . 3. MUKAND LTD. VS. ITO (20 19) 101 TAXMANN.COM 214 (MUMBAI TRIB.) 5 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REMITTED THE TDS AMOUNT WITHIN THE ST IPULATED TIME. THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST FOR DELAYED PAYMENT OF TDS AMOUNT. HE SUBM ITTED 3 ITA NO. 5884 / MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 5 - 1 6 THE INTEREST PAID FOR DELAYED PAYMENT OF TDS IS NOT ELIGIBLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT . IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION IN ADDITION TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISION S: 1. FERRO ALLOY CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 406 (BOM) 2. CIT VS. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT LTD. 1999 105 TAXMANN.COM 346 (MADRAS). 3. VELANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. VS. DCIT (2018) 97 TAXMANN.COM 599 (BANGALORE TRIB.) 6 . IN R EJOINDER LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DECISION S RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEES CASE . ELABORATING F URTHER HE SUBMITTED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN CASE OF VEL ANKANI INFOR MATION SYSTEMS VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE AS THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED. HE SUBMITTED IN CASE OF TDS IT IS DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS EXPENDITURE PAID/PAYABLE TO THE THIRD PARTIES. WHER EA S THE GROSS EXPENDITURE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. HE SUBMITTED IN THAT SCENARIO THE INTEREST AMOUNT WOULD PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT HENCE WILL BE A DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE HE SUBMITTED INTEREST CHARGE D UNDER SECTION 201 (1 A ) CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH INTEREST CHARGE D UNDER SECTIONS 215 220 234A 234B AND 234C WHICH ARE LEVIED ON PERSONAL TAX. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. V S. CIT 230 ITR 733 (SC) WOULD NOT BE APPLI CABLE TO ASSESSEES CASE AS THE DECISION WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF INTEREST CHARGE D UNDER SECTION 139 215 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED ON THE 4 ITA NO. 5884 / MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 5 - 1 6 CONTRARY THERE ARE DEC ISIONS WHEREIN INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF SALES TAX SERVICE TAX ESI AND PROVIDENT FUN D HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. IN THIS CONTEXT HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. PRA KASH COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 201 TRR 684 (SC). 2. 2. CIT VS. MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. 196 884 (KARNATAKA) 3. LACHMANDAS MATHURADAS VS. CIT [2002] 122 TAXMAN 828 (SC) . 7 . AS REGARDS THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF FERROUS ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCERNED ASSESSEES COUNSEL NEITHER ARGUE D THE SPECIFIC POINT NOR THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS MADE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE. HE ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE . 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE SHORT ISSUE ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE INTER EST PAID FOR DELAYED REMITTANCE OF TDS AMOUNT TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT INTEREST OF RS. 12 40 90 2/ - WAS CHARGED FOR DELAY I N REMITTING THE TDS COLLECTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. A SSESSEE HAS DEBITED SUCH INTEREST TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS EXPENDITURE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE SUCH INTEREST PAYMENT IS NOT OF PENAL NATURE AND WAS PAID IN COURSE OF REGULAR BUSIN ESS IT IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 9. AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TESTED KEEPING IN PERSPECTIVE THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITED BEFORE US. I N CASE OF 5 ITA NO. 5884 / MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 5 - 1 6 BHARAT COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES T HE HONBLE APEX COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE ALLOWAB ILITY OF INTEREST PAID FOR NON - PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT HELD THAT SUCH INTEREST PAID IS FOR COMMITTI NG A DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF A STATUTORY LIABILITY. H ENCE IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH PRESERVING OR PROMOTING THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE INTEREST PAID WOULD NOT BE ALLOW ABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT . I N CASE OF ARUNA MILLS LTD. VS. CIT 1957 31 ITR 153 RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT INTEREST FOR DEFAULT TO PAY ADVANCE TAX CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. IN CASE OF CIT VS. CHENNAI PROPER TIES & INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA ) THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING IDENTICAL ISSUE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED FOR INTEREST PAID FOR DELAYED REMITTANCE OF TDS HELD THAT IT COULDNT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT. THE OBSERVATI ONS OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: - 14. AS ALREADY NOTICED THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST WHICH TAKES COLOUR FROM THE NATURE OF THE LEVY WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH SUCH INTEREST IS PAID AND THE TAX REQUIRED TO BE PAID BUT NOT PAID IN TIME WHICH RE NDERED (SIC) THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST WAS IN THE NATURE OF A DIRECT TAX AND IN SETTLEMENT OF THE INCOME - TAX PAYABLE UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT. THE INTEREST PAID UNDER SECTION 201(1A) THEREFORE WOULD NOT ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A COMPENSATORY PAYMENT AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY COMPENSATORY IN CHARACTER BESIDES RELYING ON THE CASE OF MAHALAKSHMI SUGAR MILLS CO. (SUPRA) ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASES OF PRAKASH COTTON MILLS (P.) LTD. V. CIT[ 1993] 201 ITR 684/ 67 TAXMAN 546 ; 6 ITA NO. 5884 / MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 5 - 1 6 MALWA VANASPATI & CHEMICAL CO. V. CI 1997 225 ITR 383 AND CIT VS AHMEDABAD COTTON MFG. CO. LTD. V.CI 1994 205 ITR 163. IN ALL THOSE CASES THE COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH AN INDIRECT TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND ADMISSIBLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. FURTHER LIABILITY FOR INTEREST WHICH HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS REGARDED AS COMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 16. THE RATIO OF THOSE CASES IS NOT APPLICABLE HERE. INCOME - TAX IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED AS TAX IS NOT AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE. THE AMOUNT NOT DEDUCTED AND REMITTED HAS THE CHARACTER OF TAX AND HAS TO BE REMITTED TO THE STATE AND CANNOT BE UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) REJECTED THE WOULD ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT RETENTION OF MONEY PAYABLE TO THE STATE AS TAX OR INCOME - TAX WOULD AUGMENT THE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED NAMELY INTEREST PAID FOR THE PERIOD OF SUCH RETEN TION WOULD ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE COURT HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE COULD NOT POSSIBLY CLAIM THAT IT WAS BORROWING FROM THE STATE THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE BY IT AS : .INCOME - TAX AND UTILISING THE SAME AS CAPITALIZATION IN ITS BUSINESS TO CONTEND THAT THE INTEREST PAID FOR THE PERIOD OF DELAY IN PAYMENT OF TAX AMOUNTED TO A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 17. THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US THEREFORE IS REQUIRED TO BE AND IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE A ASSE SSEE. THE REVENUE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO COSTS IN THE SUM OF RS 1 000. 10 . IN CASE OF FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING IDENTICA L ISSUE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID UNDER SEC TIONS 201(1A) 215 AND 220 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT SUCH DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE. AT THIS STAGE WE MUST OBSERVE THAT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES THE C OORDINATE BENCHES HAVE TAKEN A VIEW FAVORING TO THE ASS ESSEE BY HOLDING THAT 7 ITA NO. 5884 / MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 5 - 1 6 INTEREST PAID ON DELAYED REMITTANCE OF TDS IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. 1. DCIT VS. M/S NARAYANI ISPAT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) 2. M/S ESSAR PROJECTS INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) 3. MUKAND LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) 11 . HOWEVE R IN NONE OF THESE CASES EITHER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF BHARAT COMM ERCE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERED OR THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD. VS. C IT AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. (SUPRA) WERE CONSIDERED. IN FACT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL IN CASE OF FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT AND THAT OF THE HONBL E MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CHENNAI PROPERTIES INVESTMENT LTD. ARE THE ONLY TWO DECISIONS OF THE HIGHER COURTS AVAILABLE WHICH ARE DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 12. PERT INENTLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CHENNAI PROPERTIES INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN CASE OF VELANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) DID NOT ACCEPT THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF DCIT VS. M/S NARAYAN I ISPAT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). 13 . F OR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS AT THIS STAGE WE CONSIDER IT OUR DUTY TO DEAL WITH SOME OTHER DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US BY LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE . I N CASE OF LACHMANDAS MATHURADAS VS. CIT ( SUPRA ) TH E ISSUE WAS RE LATING TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE 8 ITA NO. 5884 / MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 5 - 1 6 ACT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST CHARGED ON ARREARS OF SALES TAX. IN THAT CONTEXT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION HOLDING THAT THE NATURE OF SUCH INTEREST IS COMPENSATORY. SIM ILARLY IN CASE OF HARSHAD SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. CU STODIAN (1998) 231 ITR 871 (SC) T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS DEALING WITH AN ISSUE CONCERNING WHETHER TAX DUE UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OFFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) ACT 1992 WOULD INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTY. THUS IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER THE SAID ACT THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T HELD THAT TAX DUE WOULD NOT INCLUDE INTEREST AND PENALTY. 14. THUS AS COULD BE SEEN THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN CASE OF HARSHAD SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. CUSTODIAN (SUPRA) IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN ANY C ASE OF THE MATTER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF FERRO ALLOYS CORPORATION LTD. V S. CIT (SUP RA) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) ARE NOT ONLY DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE BUT ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL AND HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WE HOLD THAT A SSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST CHARGED ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF TDS IS NOT ALLOWABLE . 15. THE ISSUE CAN ALSO BE LOOKED INTO FROM ANOTHER AN GLE. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS COLLECTING TDS ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE TDS COLLECTED DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAS TO BE REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. BY NOT DEPOSITING THE TDS IN TIME THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ONLY DEPRIVING THE GOVERNMENT FROM UTILIZING THE MONEY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE 9 ITA NO. 5884 / MUM/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 5 - 1 6 BUT ALSO CREATING PROBLEM FOR THE PAYEE IN GETTING TIMELY CREDIT OF TDS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE IS UTILIZING THE TDS AMOUNT FOR HIS OWN BENEFIT. THUS FOR THE DEFAULT IN DEPOSITING THE TDS AMOUNT IN TIME INTEREST IS LEVIED. THEREFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF SUCH INTEREST UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT WOULD AMOUNT TO REWARDING THE ASSESSEE FOR A DEFAULT COMMITTED . THIS IN OUR VIEW IS UNCONSCIONABLE. 16. IN THE RESULT APPE AL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 31 / 08 /202 1 ALINDRA PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI