DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(2), MUMBAI v. SKM REAL INFRA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7025/MUM/2017 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 702519914 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN EYEAR2005A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7025/MUM/2017
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(2), MUMBAI
Respondent SKM REAL INFRA LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 07-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 23-01-2019
First Hearing Date 09-09-2019
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 11-12-2017
Judgment Text
ITA NO.7025 /MUM/2012 PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL AM ./ I.T.A. NO.7025/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES L TD. A-401 BUSINESS SQUARE SOLITAIRE CORPORATE PARK CHAKALA ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI-400 093. / VS. D CIT - RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI. :; ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AADCP-5181-D ( ;= /APPELLANT ) : ( >?;= / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIRAJ SHETH- LD. AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJNEESH YADAV - LD.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/09/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/11/2019 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER):- 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2008-09 CONTEST CERTAIN ADJUST MENTS MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER [AO] IN FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 26/09/2012 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) PURSUANT TO THE DI RECTIONS OF LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-II MUMBAI [DRP] U/S 144C (5) DATED 31/07/2012. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: - ITA NO.7025 /MUM/2012 PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 2 1. GENERAL GROUNDS 1.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (AO ) HAVE ERRED IN PROPOSING AND THE HON'BLE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE APPELLANT'S TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 2 8 51 551 BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER X OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ('THE ACT'). 2. CONDITIONS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 92C(3) 2.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED TPO AND THE AO HAVE ERRED IN PROPOSING AND THE DRP HAS FURTHER ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE PROPOSED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOT STATING ANY REASONS TO SHOW THAT EITHER OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT WER E SATISFIED BEFORE MAKING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 3. DISALLOWANCE OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES PAID TO ASSO CIATED ENTERPRISE 3.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED TPO AND THE AO HAVE ERRED IN PROPOSING AND THE DRP HAS FURTHER ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE PROPOSED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT DISREGARDING THE CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMEN TATION MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT AS PER RULE 10D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962 ('THE RULES') AND THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT REASONS THEREOF. 3.2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED TPO AND THE AO HAVE ERRED IN PROPOSING AND THE DRP HAS FURTHER ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE PROPOSED ADDITION VIS-A-VIS THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES PAID TO THE ASSOC IATED ENTERPRISE CITING THE REASONS OF NON-DEMONSTRATION OF NECESSITY OF PAYMENT BENEFITS ACCRUING TO THE APPELLANT COSTS INCURRED BY THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD APTLY DEMONSTRATED THE NECESSITY OF INCURRING SUCH EXPENSES THE BENEFITS ACCRUING TO THE APPELLANT THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE AE THEREOF. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADJUSTMENT IN RELATION TO TRANSFER PRICING MATTERS MADE BY THE AO BE DELETED . THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS WAS DETERMINED AT RS.63.70 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES AS AGAINST RETURNED LOSS OF RS.72.02 LACS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30 /09/2008. THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT CORPORATE ASSESSEE WAS STAT ED TO BE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES IN PROPERTY /LEAS E MANAGEMENT. 2.1 FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS STATED TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) SITUAT ED AT SOUTH AFRICA WAS REFERRED U/S 92CA(1) TO LD. TRANSFER PRICING OF FICER-II(8) MUMBAI FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE [ALP]: - ITA NO.7025 /MUM/2012 PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 3 TRANSACTION ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION IN RS. METHOD ADOPTED PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY FEE OLD MUTUAL PROPERTIES (PTY.) LTD 90 95 964/- TNMM REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL COMMUNICATION AND OTHER EXPENSES OLD MUTUAL PROPERTIES (PTY.) LTD. 37 55 587/- CUP WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY FEES THE AS SESSEE IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY REPORT SELECTED ITS AE AS T HE TESTED PARTY AND ARRIVED AT MEAN PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI=OP/TC) OF 8.35% REFLECTED BY 12 COMPARABLES AS AGAINST 10% MARK-UP OF TESTED PAR TY I.E. ITS AE. DURING THE HEARING THE ASSESSEE FORTIFIED ITS STAN D BY FURNISHING NCP MARGIN OF 4 COMPARABLE ENTITIES WHICH WAS STATED TO BE HIGHER THAN NCP MARGIN OF TESTED PARTY. FOR REIMBURSEMENT THE ASSE SSEE USED COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE (CUP) METHOD AND SUBM ITTED THAT THESE WERE PAYMENT TO THIRD PARTIES AND ACCORDINGLY NO T RANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED. 2.2 HOWEVER LD. TPO OPINED THAT THE APPLICATION OF ALP PRINCIPAL WOULD REQUIRE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD REFLECT THE SAME CHARGES THAT WOULD REASONABL Y BE EXPECTED TO BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN INDEPENDENT PARTIES DEALING AT AR MS LENGTH. FURTHER THE EXPECTED BENEFIT MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY DIRECT AND SUBSTANTIAL WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT. IF NO BENEFIT WAS PROVIDED THE CONSULTANCY FEES COULD NOT BE CHARGED. THEREFORE T HE RECIPIENT MUST PROVE THAT THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED AND FURTHER THE QUANTIFICATION THEREOF WAS COMMENSURATE WITH BENEFITS DERIVED THER EFROM. UNLESS IT WAS SHOWN THAT SOME TANGIBLE AND DIRECT BENEFIT WAS DERIVED FROM SUCH PAYMENT THE PAYMENT OF INTRA GROUP SERVICES WOULD BE TREATED EITHER AS ITA NO.7025 /MUM/2012 PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 4 NIL OR TO THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL BENEFIT DERIVED. ACC ORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FULFILLMENT OF T HESE INGREDIENTS. 2.3 IN DEFENSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE YEAR 2005 AND IT WAS A NEW PLAYER IN ITS BUSINESS D OMAIN WHEREAS ITS AE WAS A WELL-ESTABLISHED PLAYER IN THE FIELD OF ASSET / PROPERTY MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICAN MARKET. THEREFORE IT WAS FELT NEC ESSARY TO UTILIZE THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE WITH ITS AE WHO COULD PROVIDE C ONSULTANCY SERVICES TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY IN HIGH STANDARDS SET B Y THE GROUP. THE ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO D UPLICATION OF SERVICES AND NO SUCH SERVICES WAS BEING AVAILED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM ANY OTHER SERVICE PROVIDER. 2.4 HOWEVER LD. TPO OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH EXACT DETAILS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY ITS AE AND NO EVIDE NCE OF RENDERING OF SUCH SERVICES WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PERSONNEL WHO PROVIDED SUCH SERVICES AND ALSO COULD NOT FURNISH THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT AND BAS IS OF ARRIVING AT THE COST THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT FURNISH M ANY OTHER DETAILS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN ENUMERATED IN PARA 1.1 TO 1 .16 OF THE ORDER OF LD. TPO. FINALLY LD. AO ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION T HAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE FACTUM OF RENDERING OF SERVICES BENEF ITS DERIVED THEREFROM AND JUSTIFICATION OF QUANTIFICATION OF THE FEES. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT BASIS OF PRICING ALSO COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. FURTH ER ITS AE WAS RENDERING SERVICES TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SELECTED HIMSELF AS TESTED PARTY. FINALLY THE ALP OF THE STATED TRANSACTIONS WAS DETERMINED AT NIL AND AN ADJUSTMEN T OF RS.128.51 LACS ITA NO.7025 /MUM/2012 PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 5 WAS PROPOSED AGAINST THE SAME. THE FINAL OBSERVATIO NS OF LD. TPO WERE AS FOLLOWS: - THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE INFORMATION WILL B E SUBMITTED IN DUE COURSE. HOWEVER EVEN AFTER 15 DAYS TIME PROVIDED NO REPLY WAS FURNISHED. THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED RETURN OF THE INCOME FILED BY AE IN SOUTH AFRICA. IN ABSENCE OF THESE I T IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY WHAT TREATMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS REQUESTED TO THE AE FOR PROVIDING ANY SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT DEMONSTRATED AS TO WHAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE AE AND RECEIVED BY THE AE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNI SHED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THESE SERVICES WERE ACTUALLY AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PROVED THAT ANY BENEFIT IS DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM CONSULTANCY SERVICE AND REIMBU RSEMENT RELATED TO THESE SERVICES. FURTHER THE BASIS OF PRICING OF THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. EVEN THE COST TO AE IS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH MARKUP HAS BEEN CALCULATE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED THE FOREIGN PARTY AS A TE STED PARTY FOR MAKING COMPARISON. THE FOREIGN PARTY IS PROVIDING CONSULTANCY TO MANY PARTIES WHIC H IS A COMPLEX FUNCTION. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SELECTED ITSELF AS A TESTED PARTY. HENC E THE TP REPORT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED. BUT SINCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TRANSACTI ON IS BEING DISALLOWED IN THIS CASE THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT BEING TAKEN FORWARD. THE TP STUDY REPORT PRE PARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AS THE VERY BASIC DETAIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IS NO T FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES TWO INDEPENDENT PARTIES WOULD NOT BE WILLING TO PAY AT ALL FOR SUCH SERVICES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THAT T HE ACTUAL SERVICES ARE RENDERED WITH COMMENSURATE BENEFITS AND ALSO NOT GIVEN THE COST W HICH IS IDENTIFIABLE BY WAY OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE BY THE AE THE ARM S LENGTH PRICE IS TREATED AS NIL . AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ALP OF THE CONSULTANCY FEE OF RS. 90 95 964/-AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE RELATED TO THE SERVICES OF RS. 37 55 587/- (TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS 1 28 51 551/-) IS DETERMINED AS NIL. ACCORDINGLY A TOTAL ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1 28 51 551/- IS MADE. IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE ARM'S LENGTH PRIC E DETERMINED IS APPLICABLE FOR THE AY 2008-09 ONLY AN D NOT TO SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 2.5 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW MATERIAL THE LD. DRP CONFIRMED THE STAND OF LD. TPO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 8. ON PERUSAL OF THE TPOS ORDER WE FIND TH AT THE FOLLOWING DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE TPO WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE: 1) EXACT DETAILS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE AE. 2) BASIC DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE AE FOR THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES PROVIDED. 3) WHAT BENEFITS WERE DERIVED BY THE AS SESSEE FROM THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES? 4) MANNER OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES. 5) DETAILS OF DESIGNATION SALARIES AND PERIOD OF E MPLOYMENT WITH THE AE BEFORE THE PERSONNEL WERE DEPUTED TO SERVE THE TAXPAYER 6) TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SERVICES OF THE AGRE EMENTS IF ANY 7) PERIOD OF STAY IN INDIA WITH RESIDENTIAL ADDRES S DURING THE STAY. 8) NO EVIDENCES OF ACTUAL COST TO AE WERE MADE AVA ILABLE TO THE TPO WITH REGARD TO THE CONSULTANCY SERVICES. 9. THE DRP HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S CONT ENTION IN SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTION FILED AGAINST TPO'S ORDER. THE DRP HAS AL SO PERUSED THE WRITTEN ITA NO.7025 /MUM/2012 PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 6 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE TAXPAYER ARGUMENTS PUT FOR TH BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TAXPAYER AND THE ORDER OF TH E TPO/AO. THE TAXPAYER IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CONSULTANCY AN D SERVICES IN THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND LEASE MANAGEMENT. DURING THE RELEVAN T YEAR THE TAXPAYER HAS ENTERED INTO THE FOLLOWING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIO NS: PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY FEE : RS 90 95 964/- REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE: RS. 37 55 587/- 10. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT UNLESS IT IS SHOWN T HAT TANGIBLE AND DIRECT BENEFIT IS DERIVED BY THE PAYMENT OR THE PAYMENT MADE IS COMME NSURATE WITH THE BENEFIT THAT IS DERIVED OR EXPECTED TO BE DERIVED THE ARMS LENG TH PRICE FOR SUCH PAYMENT WOULD BE EITHER NIL OR TO THE EXTENT IT IS SHOWN THAT THE BENEFIT ACTUALLY DERIVED FROM SUCH PAYMENT. FURTHER THE TAXPAYER IS REQUIRED TO SUBST ANTIATE THE FACT THAT THE ACTUAL SERVICES ARE RENDERED WITH COMMENSURATE BENEFITS AN D ALSO GIVES THE JUSTIFICATION ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE BY THE AE. IT IS AL SO TO BE SEEN WHETHER TWO INDEPENDENT ENTERPRISES ACTING UNDER THE SIMILAR CI RCUMSTANCES WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR SUCH KIND OF SERVICES. 11. IN VIEW OF DISCUSSION MADE ABOVE AND ON THE BAS IS OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO/TPO HAS CORRECTLY DETERMINED THE ARRN'S-LENGTH PRICE OF THE CONSULTANCY FEE AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSE AS NIL AND THE ACTION OF AO/TPO IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY THE SAID ADJUSTMENT WAS INCORPORATED W HILE FRAMING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS UND ER FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVE AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD. 4. THE PRIME ARGUMENT OF LD.AR WOULD REVOLVE AROUND THE FACT THAT SINCE ALP OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS DETERMINED AT NIL WITHOUT FOLLOWING ANY PRESCRIBED METHOD THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT WOUL D BE BAD IN LAW. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS DETAILS WERE F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHICH WERE NOT FULLY APPRE CIATED. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT NO SUCH ADJUST MENTS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE REVENUE IN ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEA R. HOWEVER AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACT AS ENUMERATED BY US IN THE P RECEDING PARAGRAPHS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNABLE TO FURNIS H PROPER EVIDENCES / ITA NO.7025 /MUM/2012 PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 7 EXPLANATION AGAINST VARIOUS QUERIES RAISED BY LD. T PO. THE COPIES OF AGREEMENT / TERMS OF ARRANGEMENT AND COST ALLOCATIO N KEYS WAS NEVER FURNISHED BEFORE LD. TPO. THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT / ARRANGEMENT IN OUR OPINION WOULD BE VITAL FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND ESTABLISH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER AS NO TED BY LD. TPO EVEN THE BASIC DETAILS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. FROM THE PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS PLACED ON PAGE NOS. 72 TO 415 OF THE PAPE R-BOOK WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA FURNISHED COPIES OF INVOICES INVOICE WISE BREAK UP PER HOUR SALARY COST ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACTUM OF RENDERING OF SERVICES. FURTHER DETAILS WERE FILED B EFORE LD. DRP WHICH ARE PLACED ON PAGE NOS. 416 TO 1099 OF THE PAPER-BO OK. THESE DETAILS WOULD INCLUDE DETAILS OF EMPLOYEES WHO RENDERED THE SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE EXPLANATION FOR AVAILING THE STATED SERVI CES EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF REPORTS AND E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS IN SUPPO RT OF RENDERING OF SERVICES. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS LEND CERTAIN CREDENCE TO THE ARGUMENT OF LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED VARIOUS EXPL ANATION / DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE PAYMENT. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND IN VIE W OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. TPO / LD. AO TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF ALP OF THE STATED TRANSACTIONS DE-NOVO WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH FURTHE R EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 6. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.7025 /MUM/2012 PIONEER PROPERTY ZONE SERVICES LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 8 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/11/2019 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 07/11/2019 SR.PS JAISY VARGHESE !'# ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ;= / THE APPELLANT 2. >?;= / THE RESPONDENT 3. F ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. F / CIT CONCERNED 5. GH >AI I / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. HJKL / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI.