DCIT (OSD-II) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI v. LEENA H DALAL, MUMBAI

ITA 7471/MUM/2013 | 1994-1995
Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 747119914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAKPD6340K
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7471/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant DCIT (OSD-II) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI
Respondent LEENA H DALAL, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 03-11-2017
Assessment Year 1994-1995
Appeal Filed On 19-12-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O. 7471 / MUM /2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1994 95 ) DCIT (OSD 11) CENTRAL RANGE 7 ROOM NO. 413 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 . APPELLANT V/S SMT. LEENA H. DALAL 26/830 FORT FOUNDATOIN 3 RD FLOOR ROOM NO. 306 BAKE HOUSE LANE FORT MUMBAI 400001 PAN AAKPD6340K . RESPONDENT ITA N O. 7489/MUM./2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1994 95 10 ) SMT. LEENA H. DALAL 26/830 FORT FOUNDATOIN 3 RD FLOOR ROOM NO. 306 BAKE HOUSE LANE FORT MUMBAI 400001 . APPELLANT V/S DCIT (OSD 11) CENTRAL RANGE 7 ROOM NO. 413 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHR I RAJESH KUMAR YADAV ASSESSEE BY : S HRI A.L. SHARMA DATE OF HEARING 11 .10 .201 7 DATE OF ORDER 03.11.2017 2 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEALS ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE AGAINST TWO SE PARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) 40 MUMBAI FOR A SSESSMENT Y EAR 1994 95. ITA NO. 7489/MUM/2013 2 . IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED ADDITION OF ` 25 41 997/ ON ACCOUNT OF SPECULATIVE PROFIT IN SHARE TRANSACTION. 3 . BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOWING SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF ` 8 01 445/ . DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AFTER SETTING OF F LOSSES OF ` 25 41 997/ AGAINST PROFIT FROM OTHER SHARE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT LOSS WAS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF NON DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTION HENCE IN THE NATURE OF SPECULATION LOSS DID NOT ALLOW SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT ` 23 70 050/ . SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN 3 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND DURING SUCH EXAMINATION HE FOUND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT T O BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY HE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DISALLOWING CLAIM OF LOSS OF ` 25 41 997/ BY TREATING IT AS S PECULATIVE LOSS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN APPEAL PROCEEDIN GS. AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 4 . THE TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE WILL PRODUCE THE BROKER INVOLVED IN THE SAID TRANSACTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT AS FAR AS FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF LOSS IS CONCERNED SAME HAS BECOME FINAL AND BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PROCEEDING I NITIATED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR PRODUCED THE BROKER. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONCE AGAIN PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE A CT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGEMENT BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF ` 4 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL 21 45 630/ . ASSESSEE CHALLE NGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ). DURIN G THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER PERUSING THE REMAND REPORT LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRA NTED ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND HER CASE . T HEREFORE HER ALLEGATION THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. AS FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION IS CONCERNED LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE EITHER THROUGH STOC K EXCHANGE OR OTHERWISE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH WHETHER DELIVERY OF SHARES W AS ACTUALLY TAKEN/GIVEN. THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) ALLEGED THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RECONCILE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN THE BILLS OF SALE/PURCHA SE OF SHARES AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY HER CLAIM BY FURNISHING NECESSARY DETAILS/EVIDENCES LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 . THE LEARNED A UTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE . S UBMITTED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE DID PRODUCE THE BROKER PREETI N. AGARWALA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THE SAID 5 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL BROKER NOT ONLY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING T HE REMAND AND WAS EXAMINED BUT SHE ALSO PRODUCED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUCH AS HER INCOME TAX RETURN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN SHE CONFIRMED THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED W ITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE BROKER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS COMMENTED THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE BY RAISING SOME FRIVOLOUS ISSUES LIKE NON FURNI SHING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE BROKER NON FURNISHING OF DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS OF SHARES DEALT IN SA UDABAHI BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING RECEIPTS OF PAYMENTS ETC. THE LEARNED A UTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED SIMPLY RELYING UPON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND WITHOUT INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED SINCE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE NOT PROPERLY EXAMIN ED/VERIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION. 6 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED SINCE AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON R ECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DURING REMAND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE 6 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL SHARE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE THERE IS NO NEED FOR AGAIN REMITTING THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION. HE SUBMITTED THE ADDITION MADE BEING ON SOUND BASIS SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE US AS FAR AS THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNED . IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.07.2008 IN ITA NO. 3659/MUM/2007 HAS REMITTED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. FROM THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AS RE PRODUCED IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOLLOWING FACTS CLEARLY EMERGE. FIRSTLY THE TRIBU NAL HAS HELD IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT AS FA R AS THE NATURE OF LOSS ARISING FROM SHARE TRANSACTION IS CONCERNED THE ISSUE HAS BECOME FINAL AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. SECONDLY THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTION AND IN THIS CONTEXT THE TRIBUNAL HA S DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BROKER INVOLVED IN SUCH TRANSACTION AND ALSO TO FURNISH ANY OTHER DETAILS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTION. THUS IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE LIMITED ISSUE WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDE RATION BEFORE 7 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL US IS WHETHER THE SHARE TRANSACTION GIVING RISE TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS GENUINE OR NOT. UNDOUBTEDLY IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE SHARE BROKER PR E ETI N. AGARWALA IN COURSE OF THE REMAND PROC EEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THE SAID BROKER WAS NOT ONLY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT SHE ALSO PRODUCED COPIES OF HER RETURN OF INCOME COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME BALANCE SHEET ETC. IN ADDITION THE SAID BROKER ALS O FILED AN AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSESSEE AND ALSO CONFIRMING THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. SHE ALSO STATED THAT THE SHARE TRANSACT IONS WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE THOUGH V YAZ BADALA MECHANISM. THUS AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS ASSESSEE COMPLIED TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL BY PRODUCING THE BROKER ALONG WITH SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AS IT APPEARS THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS TO BE GENUINE SIN CE THE BROKER DID NOT SUBMIT HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BANK STATEMENT AND DETAILS OF DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS OF SHARE TRANSACTION BY HER. IT IS FURTHER TO BE NOTED THE BROKER ALSO CONFIRMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS ARE DELIVERY B ASED. FROM THE EXTRACT OF THE REMAND REPORT AS FIND S PLACE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CATEGORICAL FINDING AS TO WHY THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE BROKER AND THE 8 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL ASSESSEE WERE NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. MORE SO WHEN THE BROKER HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT ONLY CONFIRM ED THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSESSEE BUT HAD ALSO PRODUCED HER INCOME TAX RETURNS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE SOME MORE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR THAT REASON ALONE THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD CANNOT BE DISCARDED OR BRUSHED A SIDE UNLESS THEY ARE FOUND TO BE FABRICATED UNTRUSTWORTHY OR NON GENUINE. THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED / BROUGHT ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCES COLLECTED FROM THE WITNESS ARE CAPABLE OF BEING EXAMINED INDEPENDENTLY AND ON ITS OWN MERITS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND NOR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PROPERLY APPRECIATED/EXAMINED ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS ON THE BASIS OF EVIDE NCES BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROPER EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ANY OTHER EVIDE NCE IF AVAILABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION. AFTER PROPERLY EXAMINING/ V E R IF YING ALL THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD THE ASSESSING OFFICER 9 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL MUST ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE GIVING PROPER REASONING AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING D UE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE GROUND RAISED IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2013 8 . IN THIS APPEAL DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED DELETION OF PENALTY IMPOSED OF ` 11 51 149 / UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 1994 95. 9 . AS DISCUSSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE ORDER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 25 41 997/ BY HOLDING THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS NON GENUINE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION MADE AS AFORESAID THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY ISSUING A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY PASSED AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY OF ` 11 51 149/ UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE A SSESSEE CHALLENGED THE P ENALTY IMPOSED BY PREFERRING APPEAL BEFOR E THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS). THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE 10 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL HAS FULLY DISCLOSED ALL MATERIALS RELATING TO INCOME/LOSS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE IS SHE HAS ADJUSTED CERTAIN LOSSES FROM SHARE TRANSACTIONS WHICH IN OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT CORRECT AS SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE OF SPECULATIVE NATURE. HE ALSO TOOK NOT E OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BROKER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAID BROKER ALSO CONFIRMED THE SHARE TRANSAC TIONS TO BE GENUINE. LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) ALSO OBSERVED ONLY BECAUSE SOME FURTHER DETAILS COULD NOT BE F URNISHED BY THE BROKER DUE TO CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME FOR WHICH THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED I T CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY LEARNED COMMIS SIONER (A PPEALS ) DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHIC H PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS IMPOSED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF EVIDENCE. NOTABLY TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTION THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY PRODUCED THE CONCERNED BROKER BUT ALSO PRODUCED A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE 11 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL BROKER THROUGH AN AFFIDAVIT HAS ALSO VOUCHED FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE THE ADDITION SINCE ACCORDING TO THEM SOME MORE EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTION . A S FOUND BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THAT BEING THE CASE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED. IN ANY CASE OF THE M ATTER WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS IMPOSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE ORDER WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THUS THE AD DITION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY WAS IMPOSED SURVIVES NO MORE. FOR THIS REASON ALSO THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE DELETED. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS ) BY DISMISSING THE GROUND RAISED B Y REVENUE. 12 SMT. LEENA H. DALAL 11 . IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.11.2017 SD/ - G. S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 03.11.2017 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR ITAT MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER N. PANICKER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT MUMBAI