KUNJBALA N. PARIKH, MUMBAI v. ITO 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6198/MUM/2018 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 619819914 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN ACWPP8038K
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6198/MUM/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant KUNJBALA N. PARIKH, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 27 (2)(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 06-11-2019
First Hearing Date 06-11-2019
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 31-10-2018
Judgment Text
P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6198/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 1 1 ) SMT.KUNJBALA N.PARIKH A - 9 GREEN LAND VALLABHAUG LANE GHATKOPAR (E AST ) MUMBAI 400 075 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) 3 RD FLOOR TOWER NO.6 RAILWAY STATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX VASHI NAVI MUMBAI 400 703 PAN ACWPP8038K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: MS. RUCHI M. RATHOD A.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI V. VINOD KUMAR D.R DATE OF HEARING: 06 .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) - 26 MUMBAI DATED 10.09.2018 WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC.143(3) R.W.S 147 DATED 20.11.2015. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUG NED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US: 1. LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 512636/ - (12.5% OF RS. 4101088/ - ) AND ERRED IN TREATING THE SAME AS BOGUS PURCHASE. 2. LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PROFIT @12.5% ON THE ALLEGED PURCHASES EVEN THOUGH DETAILS OF SALES RECONCILIATION ALONGWITH LORRY RECEIPTS DETAILS VAT RETURNS & PAYMENTS FILED BY MIS SHRADDHA TRADING CO WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD. P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) 3. LEARNED CIT (A PPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING @12.5% ON THE ALLEGED PURCHASES IGNORING THE JUDICIAL PRO NOUNCE MENTS BROUGHT AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING. 4. LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING @12.5% ON THE ALLEGED PURCHASES IGNORING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAS ALREADY DEPOSITED THE VAT BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE TO AMEND ALTER TO VARY OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IRON & STEEL GOODS HAD E - FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 ON 28.08.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 58 682/ - . ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION SHARED BY THE DGIT(INVESTIGATION) MUMBAI THAT THE ASSESSEE AS A BENEFICIARY HAD OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BIL LS OF RS.41 01 088/ - HER CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICED ISSUED UNDER SEC. 148 IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HER O RIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 28.08.2010 MAY BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPO NSE TO THE SAID NOTICE . 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASES AGGREGATING TO RS.41 01 088/ - WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY HER TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM M/S SHRADDHA TRADI NG COMPANY. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY THEREIN FILED COPIES OF THE PURCHASE BILLS ALONGWITH THE CORRESPONDING SALE BILLS. I N ORDER TO BUTTRESS HER CLAIM OF HAVING MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTAIN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS VIZ. STOCK REGISTER PURCHASE INVOICES DELIVERY CHALLANS AND LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY. A LSO IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PART Y WAS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. INTERESTINGLY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO DISPEL ALL DOUBTS AS REGARDS THE AUTHENTIC I TY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION S UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF THE MVAT RETURNS AND THE MVAT CHALLANS OF THE AFORESAID PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY. ALSO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE FACT THAT THE TIN OF THE SAID SUPPLIER PARTY WAS ACTIVE WAS FILED WITH THE A.O . I N THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY. IN THE MEANTIME THE A.O IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION ISSUED NO TICE UNDER SEC. 133(6) TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT FOUND TO BE EXISTING AT THE P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) GIVEN ADDRESS. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE A FOR ESAID FACTS THE A.O HELD A CONVICTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFORESAID PART Y AND HAD ONLY OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM IT . OBSERVING THAT AS THE MATERIAL /GOODS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PART Y WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN HER SALES THE A.O DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIMIT P. SHETH (2013) 356 ITR 451 (GUJ ) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 12.5% OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS. 41 01 088/ - . RESULTANTLY THE A.O MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5 12 636/ - AND ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.7 71 320/ - . 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIE D THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER THE CIT(A) NOT FINDING FAVOUR WITH THE CONTENTION S ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 5. 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 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFORESAI D SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY . I T WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE PURCHASES AGGREGATING TO RS. 41 01 471/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFORESAID PARTY WERE SOLD TO M/S IPHC PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ITSELF . IN ORDER TO SUPPORT HER AFORESAID CONTENTION THE LD. A.R HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSE S PAPER BOOK (FOR SHORT APB) WHEREIN THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY AND ITS CORRELATING SALES WERE FOUND MENTIONED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD DULY SUBSTANTIATED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION S BY PLACING ON RECORD SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE VIZ. PURCHASE BILLS CORRESP ONDING SALES BILLS STOCK REGISTER DELIVERY CHALLANS LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY COPIES OF MVAT RETURNS OF THE SUPPLIER PARTY COPIES OF MVAT CHALLAN S EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF TAX BY THE SUPPLIER PARTY TIN DETAILS OF THE SUPPLIER PARTY AND ALSO THE DOWNL OADED EXTRACT FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAHARASHTRA WHICH REVEALED THAT THE TIN OF THE SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY WAS ACTIVE. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT COMPLETE DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS WERE FILED WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE LATTER HAD P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) HOWEVER WHIMSICALLY IN A STEREOTYPE MANNER CHARACTERISED THE SAID PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS AS BOGUS TRANSACTIONS AND DISALLOWED 12.5% OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE PURCHASES . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE SOLE BASIS FOR DRAWING OF ADVERSE INFERENCES AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY VIZ . M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY WAS THE INFORMATION THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE A.O FROM THE S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAHARASHTRA WHEREIN IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY HAD ONLY ISSUED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS TO VARIOUS PARTIES OF MUMBAI. IT WAS S UBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT NOW WHEN THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PART Y WAS DULY BACKED AND SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THEREFORE NO PART OF SUCH PURCHASES COULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE BOGUS BY THE A.O . IN SUPPORT OF HER AFORESAID CONTENTION THE LD. A.R HAD RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - 7 NEW DELHI VS. ODEON BUILDERS PVT. LTD. [REVIEW PETITION (C) DIARY NO. 22394 OF 2019] IN [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9604 - 9605 OF 2 018] DATED 21.08.2019 . THE LD. A.R TAKING US THROUGH THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD AP PROVED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HAD THEREIN CONCLUDED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD PRIMA FACIE DISCHARGE D THE INITI AL BURDEN OF SUBSTANTIAT ING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IT WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE FOR THE REVENUE TO DISALLOW THE PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF A THIRD PARTY INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEP ARTMENT SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE SAME WAS NEITHER INDEPENDENTLY SUBJECTED TO FURTHER VERIFICATION BY THE A.O NOR THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SUCH THIRD PARTY WAS MADE AVAILABLE OR ITS CROSS - EXAMINATION FACILITATED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE BACKDROP OF HER AFORESAID CONTENTION IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH WOULD EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE REVENUE TO HAVE D RAWN ADVERSE INFERENCES AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS AND CHARACTERIS E THE SAME AS BOGUS. AS SUCH IT WAS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O WERE BACKED BY FLIMSY OBSERVATIONS THEREFORE THE SAME COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AND WERE LIABLE TO BE VACATED. 6. 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 AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS BY PLACING ON RECORD ANY IRREFUTABLE DOCUMENT EVIDENC ING THE AUTHENTICITY OF SUCH PURCHASES THEREFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT NO GENUINE PURCHASES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFORE MENTIONED PARTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE SALES CORRESPONDING TO THE AFORESAID PURCHASES UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEREFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ALREADY ADOPTED A LIBERAL APPROACH AND IN ALL FAIRNESS HAD RESTRICTED THE ADDITION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN MAKING OF SUCH PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES OPERATING IN THE O PEN/GREY MARKET. IT WAS THUS AVERRED BY THE LD. D.R THAT AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DEVOID AND BEREFT OF ANY MERIT THEREFORE THE SAME DID NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE AND WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BO TH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THEM. ADMITTEDLY THE GENESIS OF THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE HINGES AROUND THE INFORMAT ION THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE DGIT(INV.) MUMBAI FROM THE S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAHARASHTRA AS PER WHICH THE A.O IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCURED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS OF RS.41 01 088/ - FROM M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY . IN FA CT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SEC. 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID INFORMATION. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AGG REGATING TO RS.41 01 088/ - WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY HAD PLACED ON RECORD OF THE A.O SUPPORT ING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE VIZ. (I) COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS; (II) COPIES OF THE CORRESPONDING SALES BILLS; (III) STOCK REGISTER; (IV) DELIVERY CHALLANS; AND (V) COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER PARTY. APART THEREFROM THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O THAT THE PAYMENT S OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY ON ALL THE OCCASIONS WER E MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRELATED THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY AND WERE SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD 02.04.2009 TO 26.02.2010 (21 PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS) AS AGAINST THE CORRESPONDING SALES MADE TO M/S IPHC PVT. LTD. (21 SALE TRANSACTIONS ) . AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE C HART FILED AT PAGE NO. 8 OF HER APB ON 10 P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) OCCASIONS THE GOODS WERE COLLECTED BY M/S IPHC PVT. LTD . FROM THE ASSESSEE WHILE FOR ON THE REMAINING 11 OCCASIONS THE GOODS WERE DELIVERED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH M/S KHAN I Q BAL TRANSPORT AND M/S MAROL JANTA TRANSPORT . FURTHER THE FACT THAT ON 10 OCCASIONS THE GOODS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S IPHC PVT. LTD. WERE LIFTED BY THEIR TRANSPORTER IS ALSO DISCERNIBLE FROM THE CONFIRMATION OF THE AFORESAID PARTY AT PAGE 10 OF APB. ON ALL THE OCCASIONS THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE GOODS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES DRAWN ON J ANKALYAN SAHAKARI BANK LTD. GHATKOPAR (EAST). ACCORDINGLY THE FACT THAT THE GOODS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY WERE THEREA FTER SOLD TO M/S IPHC PVT. LTD. CAN SAFELY BE GATHERED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID DETAILS AND NO DOUBTS AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS DOES EMERGE. 9. NOW WE SHALL DELIBERATE ON THE ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PART Y I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY . THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY VIZ. M/S SHRADDHA TRADING CO MPANY CAN BE GATHERED FROM A PERUSAL OF PAGE 9 OF THE APB WHEREIN THE COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS BILL NUMBERS MODE OF PAYMENT ETC. ARE FOUND MENTIONED. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO DRIVE HOME HER CLAIM OF HAVING MADE GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PART Y HAD FURNISHED/PRODUCED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES VIZ. (I) PURCHASE BILLS; (II) CORRESPONDING SALE BILLS; (III) STOCK REGISTER; (IV) DELIVERY CHALLANS; AND (V) COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER PARTIES. ALSO THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY WAS MADE BY CHEQUES WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. IN THE CASE BEFORE US WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE A.O HAD OBSERVED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY (P AN NO. AOTP M8042B) WAS NOT EXISTING AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER THE SAID OBSERVATION CLEARLY MILITATES AS AGAINST THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORDS. A S PER THE DETAILS DOWNLOADED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27.0 7.2011 FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAHARASHTRA I.E WWW.MAHAVAT.GOV.IN THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY VIZ. M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY IS SHOWN TO BE ACTIVE WAS AND FILING ITS SALES TAX RETURNS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) WELL AS IN THE IMMEDIATELY TWO SUCCEEDING YEARS I.E F INANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 AND F INANCIAL YEAR 2011 - 12. ALSO WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID SUPP LIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY HAD FILED ITS 6 MONTHLY RETURN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF S ALE S TAX FOR THE PERIOD 01.10.2009 TO 31.03.2010. FURTHER THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY HAD AS ON 20.04.2010 AND 20.10.2010 DEPOSIT ED THE MVAT WITH THE GOVER NMENT TREASURY . ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTS WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRA DING COMPANY HAD PLACED ON RECORD SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE AUTHENTICITY OF WHICH HAD AT NO STAGE BEEN DISLODGE D OR DISPROVE D BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH HAD WEIGHED IN THE MIND OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES WHILE CONCLUD ING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY GENUINE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY WAS THE INFORMATION THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE S ALES T AX DEPARTMENT [THROUGH DGIT(INV.) MUMBAI ] . AS PER THE AFORESAID INFORMATION IT WAS CONVEYED TO THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROCURED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY AND HAD NOT MADE ANY GENUINE PURCHASES . A S OBSERVED BY THE A.O THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTY IS CLAIMED TO HAVE ST ATED BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITY IN ITS STATEMENT RECORDED ON O ATH THAT IT HAS NOT DONE ANY GENUINE BUSINESS AND HAD NOT MADE ANY SUPPLIE S OF GOODS TO THE PURCHASER PARTIES . H OWEVER MOST SURPRISINGLY WE FIND THAT NEITHER THE COPY OF SUCH STATEMEN T OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE SAID SUPPLIER PARTY WAS FACILITATED TO HER . IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS IT CAN SAFELY BE CONCLUDED THAT ADVERSE INFERENCES ON THE BASIS OF THE SO CALLED STATEMENT OF THE SUPPLIER PARTY HAD BEEN DRAWN BY THE A.O BY NEITHER CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE NOR AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HER TO DISPROVE THE ALLEGATIONS IF ANY THEREIN RAISED BY FACILITATING A CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PARTY . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS HAD BEEN CULLED OUT BY US HEREINABOVE IT CAN SAFELY BE GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ON RECORD SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND VERACITY OF THE PURCHASES WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY VIZ. M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY. AT THIS STAGE IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY WAS NOT EXI STING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS CLEARLY MILITATES AS AGAINST THE FACTS AS HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. A.R ON THE BASIS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN FILING ITS VAT RETURNS WITH THE S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT FROM F.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2011 - 12. APART THEREFROM AS CAN SAFELY BE GATHERED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE DOWNLOADED E XTRACT FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE SALES TAX D EPARTMENT GOVE RNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA I.E WWW.MAHAVAT.GOVE.IN IT STANDS REVEALED THAT THE TIN NO. 274606 24763 V OF THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY WAS ACTIVE EVEN AS ON 27.09.2011. FURTHER THE AFORES AID SUPPLIER PARTY HAD ALSO FILED ITS RETURN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SALES TAX FOR THE PERIOD 01.10.2009 TO 31.03.2010 I.E T H E PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US. ALSO PAYMENT OF MVAT ON 20.04.2010 AND 20.10.2010 BY THE AFOREMENTIONE D SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY IN ITSELF PROVE S THE EXISTENCE OF THE SAID SUPPLIER PARTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AT THIS STAGE WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT ALL OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHO THOUGH HAD CHOSEN NOT TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THOUGH IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION SHARED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAHARASHTRA IT WAS GATHERED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY HAD PROVIDED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS OF RS.41 01 088/ - TO THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO DISLODGE AND IN FACT DISPEL ALL DOUBTS AS REGARDS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASES MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AFORESAID PARTY PLACED ON RECORD SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BOTH IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . 10. WE FIND THAT THOUGH A VERY HEAVY RELIANCE HAD BEEN PLACED ON TH E STATEMENT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PART Y I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY THAT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAHARASHTRA WHERE THE SAID PARTY IN ITS STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH IS STATED TO HAVE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD NOT D ONE ANY GENUINE BUSINESS AND HAD NOT DELIVERED ANY GOODS TO THE PURCHASER PARTIES HOWEVER WE ARE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND AS TO WHY THE COPY OF THE SAID STATEMENT WHICH WAS USED BY THE REVENUE FOR DRAWING OF ADVERSE INFERENCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO HER . AT THIS STAGE WE WOULD NOT HESITATE TO OBSERVE THAT THE FACT AS TO WHAT WAS THE ALLEGATION THAT WAS RAISED BY THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY VIZ. M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY IN CONTEXT OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINS A MYSTERY TILL DATE . ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE A.O IN NEITHER MAKING AVAILABLE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER P A G E | 9 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) PARTY NOR FACILITATING ITS CROSS - EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE HAD THUS DIVESTED LATTER OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISPROVE THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS IF ANY WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE SAID SUPPLIER PARTY AGAINST HER . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW NOW WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SATISFACTORILY SUBSTANTIATED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY ON THE BASIS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE HAD NOT BEEN DISPROVE D OR DISLODGE D BY THE REVENUE TILL DATE THEREFORE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED THIRD PARTY INFORMATION TH AT WAS GATHERED BY THE INVESTIGATION W ING OF THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE S ALES TA X AUTHORITIES WHICH HAD NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY SUBJECTED TO ANY FURTHER VERIFICATION BY THE A.O NO ADVERSE INFERENCES COULD HAVE BEEN VALIDLY DRAWN AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES S EE. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT THOUGH THE EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION RE CEIVED BY THE REVENUE COULD JUSTIFY REOPENING OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE HOWEVER THE SAME ON A STANDALONE BASIS COULD NOT HAVE JUSTIFIED DRAWING OF ADVERSE INFERENCE S AS REGARDS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - 7 NEW DELHI VS. ODEON BUILDERS PVT. LTD. [REVIEW PETITION (C) DIARY NO. 22394 OF 2019] IN [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9604 - 9605 OF 2018] DATED 21.08.2019 . IN THE AFORESAID CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE REVIEW APPL ICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE HAD OBSERVED THAT AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF IMPUGNED BOGUS PURCHASES WAS MADE BY THE A.O ON THE BASIS OF A THIRD PARTY INFORMATION WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE SAME TO ANY FURTHER SCRUTINY THEREFORE NO INFIRMITY DID EMERGE FROM TH E ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH HAD VACATED THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DECLINING TO RECALL THE ORDER HAD IMPLIEDLY CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER : WE HAVE PERUSED THE REVIEW PETITION AND FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS ABOVE RS. 1 CRORE THAT IS RS. 6 59 27 298/ - . ORDINARILY THEREFORE WE WOULD HAVE RECALLED OUR ORDER DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2018 SINCE THE ORDER WAS PASSED ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS LESS THAN RS. 1 CRORE. HOWEVER ON GOING THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIT ITAT AND HIGH COURT WE FIND THAT ON MERITS A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 19 39 60 866/ - WAS BASED SOLELY ON THIRD PARTY INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT SUB JECTED TO ANY FURTHER SCRUTINY. THUS THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STATING : THUS THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS CASE IS BASED ON THIRD PARTY INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN I NDEPENDENTLY P A G E | 10 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) SUBJECTED TO FURTHER VERIFICATION BY THE A.O WHO HAS NOT PROVIDED THE COPY OF SUCH STATEMENTS TO THE APPELLANT THUS DENYING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION TO THE APPELLANT WHO HAS PRIMA FACIE DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN OF SUBSTANTIATING THE PURCHASES THROUGH VARIOUS DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING PURCHASE BILLS TRANSPORTATION BILLS CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNTS AND THE FACT OF PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES & VAT REGISTRATION OF THE SELLERS & THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN TOTALITY THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S PADMESH REALTORS PVT. LTD. IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND THE CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCE RESULTING IN ADDITION TO INCOME MADE FOR RS. 19 39 60 866/ - IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE ITAT BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED 16 TH MAY 2014 RELIED ON THE SELF - SAME REASONING AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. LIKEWISE THE HIGH COURT BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 5 TH JULY 2017 AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIT AND ITAT AS CONCURRENT FACTUAL FINDINGS WHICH HAVE N OT BEEN SHOWN TO BE PERVERSE AND THEREFORE DISMISSED THE APPEAL STATING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED. AS SUCH THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD APPROVED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAD OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD PRIMA FACIE DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN AND THEREIN SUBSTANTIATED THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THE SAME THEREAFTER COULD NOT BE STAMPED AS BOGUS PURCHASES AND DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. I N THE CASE BEFORE US WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ON THE BASIS OF SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATED NOT ONLY THE AUTHENTICI TY OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS B UT ALSO THE FACT THAT THE SUPPLIER PARTY VIZ. M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY WAS ON DATE EXISTING OPERATING AND FILING ITS VAT RETURNS FROM THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 1 . AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O THAT THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY HAD FAILED TO COMPL Y WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.133(6) OF THE ACT WE FIND THAT A PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS REVEALS THAT THE A.O HAD CARRIED OUT THE AFORESAID EXERCISE BY ADOPTING A HALF - HEARTED APPROACH. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US VIZ. (I). THAT THE VAT RETURNS WERE FILED BY THE SUPPLIER PARTY WITH THE SALES TAX DEPARTME NT FROM F.Y. 2007 - 08 TO 2011 - 12 MENTIONING THE SAME ADDRESS AT W HICH THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS SENT BY THE A.O; (II). THAT THE DOWNLOADED EXTRACT FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA I.E WWW.MAHAVAT.GOVE.IN REVEALED THAT THE TIN NO. 2746062476 3 V OF THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY WAS ACTIVE EVEN AS ON 27.09.2011; P A G E | 11 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) (III). THAT THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY MENTIONING THE SAME ADDRESS HAD ALSO FILED ITS RETURN WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF SALES TAX FOR THE PERIOD 01.10.200 9 TO 31.03.2010 I.E THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US ; AND (IV). THAT THE PAYMENT OF MVAT ON 20.04.2010 AND 20.10.2010 BY THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY I.E M/S SHRADDHA TRADING COMPANY CLEARLY DISLODGES THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O THAT THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) THAT WAS ISSUED TO THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY WAS RETURNED UNSERVED FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT FOUND TO BE EXISTING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW NO SERIOUS EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE A.O TO LOCATE THE AFORESAID PARTY WHICH AS OBSERVED BY US HEREIN ABOVE WAS VERY MUCH EXISTING AND OPERATING FROM THE AFORESAID ADDRESS. IN FACT AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER DIRECTED BY THE A.O TO PR ODUCE THE AFORESAID PARTY FOR NECESSARY EXAMINATION BEFORE HIM. BE THAT AS IT MAY WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SOLELY ON THE BASIS THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE AFORESAID SUPPLIER PARTY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BACKDROP OF THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE NEGATED. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF VIZ . CIT VS. ORCHID INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD (2017) 397 ITR 136 (BOM). AS SUCH WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NOW WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY SUBSTANTIATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY THEREFORE THERE W AS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE TO HAVE CHARACTERISED THE SAME AS BOGUS ON THE BASIS OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED STATEMENT OF THE SAID SUPPLIER PARTY WHICH THE A.O IN ALL HIS WISDOM HAD CHOSEN TO KEEP TO HIMSELF AND NOT SHARE D WITH THE ASSESSEE T HEREIN DIVEST ING HER OF ANY OPPORTUNITY OF MEETING OUT THE ALLEGATIONS IF ANY THAT WERE RAISED AGAINST HER . WE THUS IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE US ARE UNABLE TO PERSUADE OURSELVES TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LOWER A UTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE BOGUS PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED SUPPLIER PARTY. ACCORDINGLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH WOULD SUFFICE FOR DRAWING OF ADVERSE INFERENCES AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACT ION UNDER CONSIDERATION WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND VACATE THE ADDITION OF RS.5 12 636/ - SUSTAINED BY HIM BY GIVING THE AFORESAID PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS THE COLOUR AS THAT OF BOGUS PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. P A G E | 12 ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2018 A.Y. 2010 - 11 SMT. KUNJBALA N. PARIKH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (27)(2)(1) 1 2 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. AS REGARDS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5 THE SAME BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 1 3 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIO NS. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 7 . 11.2019 . S D / - S D / - ( N.K. PRADHAN ) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 27 .11 .2019 PS. ROHIT / 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