ITO 28(2)(3), NAVI MUMBAI v. NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 824/MUM/2015 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 82419914 RSA 2015
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 824/MUM/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant ITO 28(2)(3), NAVI MUMBAI
Respondent NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN, NAVI MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 08-11-2017
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 06-02-2015
Judgment Text
ITA NO.824/M/2015 NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL AM ./I.T.A. NO. 824/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(2)(3) 3 RD FLOOR TOWER NO.6 VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX VASHI MUMBAI 400 703 / VS. NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN (PROP. M/S SNK TRADING & EXPORTS) 336 GROHITAM BUILDING PLOT NO.14B SEC-19 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI 400 703 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AFJPK-4775-N ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : SU BODH L.RATNAPARKHI LD.AR RE VENUE BY : SUMAN KUMAR LD.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 04/10/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/11 /2017 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR [AY] 2011- 12 CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 26 [CIT(A)] MUMBAI APPEAL NO.CIT(A)33/IT/616/13-14 DATED 25/11/2014 QUA CERTAIN RELIEF PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ITA NO.824/M/2015 NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 2 DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 19 61. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(2)(3) MUMBAI U/S 143(3) ON 31/12/2013. 2.1 FACTS LEADING TO THE SAME ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED AS GARMENT TRADERS AND EXPORTER OF ENGINEERING ITEMS UNDER PROPRIETARY CONCERN NAMELY SNK TRADING & EXPORTS WAS ASSESSED FOR IMPUGNED AY U/S 143(3) ON 31/12/2013 AT RS.1 25 40 290/- AFTER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 15 07 972/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN COMMISSION AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.11 49 510/- FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13/09/2011. THE SOLITARY ISSUED INVOLVED IN THE APP EAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN FOREIGN COMMISSION PAYMENT U/S 40(A)(I) FOR WANT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. 2.2 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE MADE IMPUGNED COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.1 15 07 972/ - TO A FOREIGN CONSIGNEE NAMELY GHANA ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AGAINST CERTAIN EXPORT SALES MADE TO STANDARD TOOLS & HARDWARE BUT DID NOT DEDUCT ANY TAX AT SOURCE AGAINST THE SAME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 195. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSION INCOME OF FO REIGN ENTITY ACCRUED OUTSIDE INDIA AND SINCE THAT ENTITY DID NOT HAVE ANY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT [PE] IN INDIA THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. HOWEVER NOT CONVINCED LD. AO PLACING RELIANCE ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND EXP LANATION-2 TO SECTION 195 CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DE DUCT TAX AT SOURCE AGAINST THE SAME AND FAILURE TO DO THE SAME ATTRACT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). ITA NO.824/M/2015 NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 3 2.3 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE SAME SUCC ESSFULLY BEFORE LD.CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/11/2014 WHER E THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAID CONTENTIONS AND PLACED RELIANCE ON SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE SAME CONCURRED WITH THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED THE ISSU E IN ASSESSEES FAVOR IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUB MISSION MADE FOR THE APPELLANT IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT AS PER SECTION 195 THE ASS ESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON COMMISSION PAID TO FOREIGN AGENT M/S. GH ANA ENGINEERING CO. LTD. FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCORDING TO THE AO A TTRACTED DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA). 3.4 THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUES THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE AGENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED ABOARD WAS NOT 'CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA' AND THEREFORE HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 195 ON SUCH CO MMISSION PAYMENTS. 3.5 EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS OF THE TRANSACTION INC LUDING THE DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED IN IN DIA AND EXPORTED TO GHANA WEST AFRICA MANGANESE STEEL CAST ARTICLES TO ONE M/S. STANDARD TOOLS & HARDWARE TRADING F.Z.E THROUGH THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT M/S. GHANA ENGINEERI NG CO. LTD. THE COMMISSION AGENT IS BASED AT ACCRA GHANA AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERMANE NT ESTABLISHMENT OR BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA. 3.6 THE MATERIAL SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE UTILIZED IN MANUFACTURE OF AUTOMOBILE AND OTHER ENGINEERING PRODUCTS IN GHANA AND OTHER W EST AFRICAN NATIONS. SUBSEQUENTLY THE COMMISSION AGENT DEDUCTS HIS COMMISSION FROM THE IN VOICE VALUE AND REMITS THE NET AMOUNT TO ASSESSEE IN INDIA. THUS THE COMMISSION T O THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND THE NET AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE. IT IS THUS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE NON-RESIDENT AGEN T ARE ABOARD AND THE PAYMENT TO THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT IS ALSO MADE ABOARD. THAT THE NO N-RESIDENT COMMISSION AGENT DOES NOT RENDER ANY SERVICE OR PERFORM ANY ACTIVITY IN INDIA THESE BEING THE UNDISPUTED FACTS. 3.7 ON THE BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INCOME OF THE NON- RESIDENT AGENT CAN BE STATED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA PARTICULARLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(1) OF THE 1. T. ACT 1961. I N THE INSTANT CASE THE NON-RESIDENT COMMISSION AGENT DID NOT CARRY ANY BUSINESS OPERATI ON IN INDIA BUT MERELY ACTED AS SELLING AGENTS OUTSIDE INDIA. THE NON-RESIDENT AGENT HAS AL SO NOT PROVIDED SAY SERVICES WHICH CAN BE TERMED AS TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THE AGENT HAS ONL Y ACTED AS COMMISSION AGENT FOR PROCURING SALES ORDERS ABOARD. 3.8 THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SECTION 195 HAS BEEN EXP LANATION BY THE HON. SUPREME COURT IN GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. - VS - CIT & ANR 327 ITR 456 (SC) (210). IN THE SAID CASE THE TERM ANY OTHER SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISION OF ACT' IN SECTION 195 IS EXPLAINED. THE HON. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IF PAY MENT IS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT TDS IS NOT LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED. 3.9 THE HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S- EON TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD.343 ITR 366 (DELHI) (2012) FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. (SC) HELD THAT PAYMENT OF SATE COMMISSION TO A NON- RESIDENT AGENT OPERATING OUTSIDE INDIA WOULD NOT ATTRACT LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 195 AND DISALLOWANCE U/A 40(A)(I) WAS NOT CALLED FOR. ITA NO.824/M/2015 NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 4 3.10 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON. MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT RECLAIM & RUBBER PRODUCTS LTD. VS-ADDL.CIT ITA NO. 8868/MUM/2010 DATED 09.04.2013 K BENCH ITAT MUMBAI. 3.11 THE AO HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF SKF BOILERS AND DRIERS (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 343 ITR 385 (AAA-NEW DELHI). HOWEVER I N THE SAID CASE THE ORDERS WERE EXECUTED IN INDIA AND THEREFORE RIGHT TO RECEIVE TH E COMMISSION AROSE IN INDIA. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ORDERS ARE EXECUTED ABOARD BY WAY OF EXPORT OF MATERIAL. THE RELIANCE ON THE SAID DECISION IS THEREFORE NOT APPROPRIATE. 3.12 THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 02 OF 2014 ISSUED ON 26.02.2014 SUPERSEDING ALL EARLIER CIRCULARS ON THE ISSUE ALSO DIRECTS THAT TDS IS RE QUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ONLY ON THE APPROPRIATE PORTION OF SUM CHARGEABLE TO TAX' WHICH AMOUNT IS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS NO PART OF THE INCOME OF THE NON- RESIDENT AGENT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA EVEN AS PER THIS CBDT INSTRUCTION TAX LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 195 IS NOT ON THE ASSESSEE. 3.13 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS OF THE MATTER AN D THE PROVISIONS OF LAW PARTICULARLY AS ELABORATED IN THE ABOVE RELIED DECISIONS I HOLD TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 195 OF THE 1. T. ACT 1961 ON PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO NON- RESIDENT AGENT FOR SERVICES PERFORMED ABOARD. ACCOR DINGLY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S 40(A)(IA) IS RIOT JUSTIFIED. THE ADDITION OF RS 1 15 07 972/- MADE BY THE AO BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT U/S 40(A)(IA) IS DELETED. GROUND NO. 1A IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR] PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STAND OF LD. AO WHEREAS LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE [A R] PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STAND OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL IT IS NOTED THAT FAILURE TO DEDUCT TDS ON FOREIGN PAYMENT ATTRACTS DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(I) WHEREAS THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE AT MOST OF THE PLACES REFERRED TO THE SAME AS 40(A)(IA). HOWEVER ASSUMING THE SAME TO BE TYPOGRA PHICAL ERROR WE PROCEED FURTHER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 5. THE ADMITTED FACTS ARE THAT THE FOREIGN ENTITY D OES NOT HAVE ANY PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN INDIA. SECONDLY THE COMMISSION PAYMENT RELATES TO SERVICES PERFORMED OUTSIDE INDIA ON ACCO UNT OF EXPORT SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSI TION THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION FIRST OF ALL SHOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA BEFORE THE ITA NO.824/M/2015 NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 5 PROVISIONS OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE [TDS] COULD B E APPLIED TO THE SAME. IN OTHER WORDS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 COULD BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS AT THE FIRST INSTANCE WERE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA. IF THE SAME ARE NO T CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA THE SAME DO NOT ATTRACT TDS PROVISIONS. THIS VIEW OF OURS IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT REN DERED IN THE CASE OF GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P) LTD. VS. CIT [327 IT R 456] WHERE THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT IF THE INCOME IS NOT CH ARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA THERE IS NO LIABILITY OF TDS U/S 195 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 195 IT IS FIRST ESSENTIAL TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE SUM PAID TO NON-RESIDENT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS O R NOT. IF THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS ARE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO THE SAME. 6. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION ON EXPORT SALES TO FOREIGN ENTITY WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY PERMANENT ES TABLISHMENT IN INDIA AND THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA. THE SA ID PAYMENT COULD NOT BE TERMS AS MANAGERIAL / PROFESSIONAL / TECHNICAL SERVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 9(I)(VII). THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIE D BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CIT VS. EON TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD. [343 ITR 366] WHERE THE HONBLE COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEV ANT CBDT CIRCULARS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'CIRCULAR NO. 23 DATED JULY 23 1969 FOREIGN AGENT S OF INDIAN EXPORTERS.- A FOREIGN AGENT OF INDIAN EXPORTER OPERATES IN HIS OWN COUNTR Y AND NO PART OF HIS INCOME ARISES IN INDIA. HIS COMMISSION IS USUALLY REMITTED DIRECTLY TO HIM AND IS THEREFORE NOT RECEIVED BY HIM OR ON HIS BEHALF IN INDIA. SUCH AN AGENT IS NOT LIABLE TO INCOME- TAX IN INDIA ON THE COMMISSION. ITA NO.824/M/2015 NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 6 CIRCULAR NO. 786 DATED FEBRUARY 7 2000 AS CLARIFI ED EARLIER IN CIRCULAR NO. 23 DATED JULY 23 1969 (SEE UNDER SECTION 5) WHERE THE NON- RESIDENT AGENT OPERATES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY NO PART OF HIS INCOME ARISES IN INDIA AND SINCE THE PAYMENT IS USUALLY REMITTED DIRECTLY ABROAD IT CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE AGENT IN INDIA. SUCH PAYMENTS WERE THEREFORE HELD TO BE NOT TAXABLE IN INDIA. THIS CLARIFICATION STILL PREVAILS. IN VIEW OF THE F ACT THAT THE RELEVANT SECTIONS (SECTION 5(2) AND SECTION 9) HAVE NOT UNDERGONE AND CHANGE I N THIS REGARD. NO TAX IS THEREFORE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 195 FROM EXPORT COMMISSION AND OTHER RELATED CHARGES PAYABLE TO SUCH A NON-RESIDENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA.' 7. THE ABOVE POSITION HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE VIDE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 02/2014 DATED 26/02/2014 WHICH IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- INSTRUCTION NO. 2/2014 [F.NO. 500/33/2013-FTD-I] D ATED 26-2-2014 SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (HEREAFTER REFERR ED TO AS ' THE ACT') PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A NON-RESIDEN T NOT BEING A COMPANY OR TO A FOREIGN COMPANY ANY SUM CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH INCOME TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF WHICHEVER IS EARLIER DEDUCT INCOME-TAX TH EREON AT THE RATES IN FORCE. SECTION 201 OF THE ACT INTER ALIA PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT D OES NOT DO SO SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND SHALL ALSO BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST AT THE SPECIFIED RATE. 2. REFERENCES WERE RECEIVED FROM FIELD OFFICERS ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 195 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 196 1 IN THE TIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF GE IND IA TECHNOLOGY (P.) LTD. V. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 156 (SC) AND TRANSMISSIO N CORPORATION OF AP LTD. AND ANOTHER V. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 587 (SC) AND THE DECI SION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT V. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER TAX CASES APPE ALS NOS.500-501 OF 2005 WITH A REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER THE TAX I S TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 195 ON THE WHOLE SUM BEING REMITTED TO A NON-RESIDENT OR ONLY THE PORTION REPRESENTING THE SUM CHARGEABLE TO TAX PAR TICULARLY IF NO APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE UNDO SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 195 OF TH E ACT TO DETERMINE THE SUM. 3. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED IN THE BOARD AND ACCO RDINGLY IN EXERCISE OF POWERS VESTED UNDER SECTION 119 OF THE ACT THE BOA RD HEREBY DIRECTS THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER SECTIO N 195 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE PROPORTION OF THE SUM CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 195 TO ASCE RTAIN THE TAX LIABILITY ON WHICH THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAU LT UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE ACT AND THE APPROPRIATE PROPORTION OF THE SUM WILL DEPEND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT NATU RE OF REMITTANCES INCOME COMPONENT THEREIN OR ANY OTHER FACT RELEVANT TO DET ERMINE SUCH APPROPRIATE PROPORTION. ITA NO.824/M/2015 NATRAJ MOHAN KANCHAN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 7 4. THE UNDERSIGNED IS DIRECTED TO STATE THAT THE ABOV E POSITION MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL OFFICERS CONCERNED. 8. THE ABOVE DISCUSSION / OBSERVATIONS LEAD US TO INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WAS NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE PAY EE AND THEREFORE DID NOT REQUIRE ANY TDS U/S 195. THEREFO RE WE ARE INCLINED TO CONFIRM THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE REV ENUES APPEAL. 9. RESULTANTLY THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH NOVEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 08.11.2017 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. * / CIT CONCERNED 5. '%- - / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. ./ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI