Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for assessment year 2009-10, raising following grounds:
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 1218/M/2019
1. The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on The learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in confirming the order of assessment passed us 144 r.w.s. 147 facts in confirming the order of assessment passed us 144 r.w.s. 147 facts in confirming the order of assessment passed us 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 21.12.2016 determining the income of the appell of the Act on 21.12.2016 determining the income of the appell of the Act on 21.12.2016 determining the income of the appellant at Rs. 8,00,05,000/ Rs. 8,00,05,000/- as against the income returned at NIL.
The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that initiation of the reassessment facts in failing to appreciate that initiation of the reassessment facts in failing to appreciate that initiation of the reassessment proceedings us 147 of the Act is without satrsfying the statutory proceedings us 147 of the Act is without satrsfying the statutory proceedings us 147 of the Act is without satrsfying the statutory preconditions as envisaged us 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of preconditions as envisaged us 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of preconditions as envisaged us 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings itself is bad in law. the reassessment proceedings itself is bad in law.
2.1 The Ld. Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that learned AO has initiated the reassessment failing to appreciate that learned AO has initiated the reassessment failing to appreciate that learned AO has initiated the reassessment proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation proceedings without having any tangible material for the formation of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped of reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law. assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law. assessment, and hence assumption of jurisdiction is bad in law.
2.2 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts 2.2 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts 2.2 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that proceedings us 147 of the Act has been in failing to appreciate that proceedings us 147 of the Act has been in failing to appreciate that proceedings us 147 of the Act has been initiated only for the purpose of verification of the s initiated only for the purpose of verification of the source of loan, ource of loan, and to make roving and fishing enquiry, and hence initiation of the and to make roving and fishing enquiry, and hence initiation of the and to make roving and fishing enquiry, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings is without jurisdiction. reassessment proceedings is without jurisdiction.
2.3 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both an in law and on 2.3 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both an in law and on 2.3 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both an in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that since no notice u/s 148 facts in failing to appreciate that since no notice u/s 148 facts in failing to appreciate that since no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served on the appellant as such, order passed us 144 r.w.s. 147 was served on the appellant as such, order passed us 144 r.w.s. 147 was served on the appellant as such, order passed us 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act is vitiated in law. of the Act is vitiated in law.
3. The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,00,05,000/ facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,00,05,000/- as unexplained as unexplained investment made investment made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 1218/M/2019 3.1 That the learned CIT(A) while upholding the addition made w/s 3.1 That the learned CIT(A) while upholding the addition made w/s 3.1 That the learned CIT(A) while upholding the addition made w/s 69 of the Act has completely failed to comprehend that the 69 of the Act has completely failed to comprehend that the 69 of the Act has completely failed to comprehend that the aforesaid sum represents an amount purportedly given as loan to aforesaid sum represents an amount purportedly given as loan to aforesaid sum represents an amount purportedly given as loan to M/s Faith Finstock Pvt. Ltd M/s Faith Finstock Pvt. Ltd. by account payee cheques and is duly . by account payee cheques and is duly reflected in the books of account of the appellant, and hence the reflected in the books of account of the appellant, and hence the reflected in the books of account of the appellant, and hence the provisions of section 69 of the Act has no application. provisions of section 69 of the Act has no application.
3.2 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that 3.2 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that 3.2 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in failing to appreciate that appellant has proposed to g appellant has proposed to grant the aforesaid loan to MIs Faith rant the aforesaid loan to MIs Faith Finstock Pvt. Ltd by issuing account payee cheque, and such a Finstock Pvt. Ltd by issuing account payee cheque, and such a Finstock Pvt. Ltd by issuing account payee cheque, and such a transaction was duly reflected in its books, however since the transaction was duly reflected in its books, however since the transaction was duly reflected in its books, however since the appellant could appellant could not arrange the funds in its bank and hence not arrange the funds in its bank and hence aforesaid transaction was duly rev aforesaid transaction was duly reversed in its books of account, ersed in its books of account, hence addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is unsustainable in hence addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is unsustainable in hence addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is unsustainable in law.
3.3 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts 3.3 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts 3.3 The Learned CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that under section 69 of the Act burden is on in failing to appreciate that under section 69 of the Act burden is on in failing to appreciate that under section 69 of the Act burden is on the revenue to the revenue to establish that the assessee has made unexplained establish that the assessee has made unexplained investment and hence addition made without discharging such investment and hence addition made without discharging such investment and hence addition made without discharging such burden is unsustainable in law. burden is unsustainable in law.
4. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of interest amounting to Rs.72,00.450/ interest amounting to Rs.72,00.450/- u/s. 234A of the In u/s. 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
5. The Ld. Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of interest CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of interest amounting to Rs.2,52,90,141/ amounting to Rs.2,52,90,141/- u/s. 234B of the Income Tax Act, u/s. 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 1218/M/2019
The order passed by the learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law, The order passed by the learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law, The order passed by the learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law, ultra vires and contrary to the prov ultra vires and contrary to the provisions of law and facts and is isions of law and facts and is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. of natural justice. The above grounds of appeal
s are independent of, and without The above grounds of appeals are independent of, and without The above grounds of appeals are independent of, and without prejudice to each other. prejudice to each other.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at ₹ Nil. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, on the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, on the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, on receipt of information from the Investiga receipt of information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai, the tion Wing, Mumbai, the case of the assessee was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 case of the assessee was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 case of the assessee was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The reassessment proceedings reassessment proceedings are completed u/s 147 completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 21.12.2016 after making addition of r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 21.12.2016 after making addition of r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 21.12.2016 after making addition of ₹800,00,000/- treating the loan given by treating the loan given by the assessee to M/s Faith the assessee to M/s Faith Finstock Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained investment. as unexplained investment. The assessment was The assessment was completed ex-parte due to non parte due to non-compliance of various notices issued compliance of various notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. u/s 142(1) of the Act.
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 1218/M/2019
Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged legality of Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged legality of Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged legality of reassessment proceedings as well as addition made on merit. proceedings as well as addition made on merit. The proceedings as well as addition made on merit. Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee challenging the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee challenging the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee challenging the reassessment proceedings as well as confirm reassessment proceedings as well as confirmed the addition on the addition on merit.
Aggrieved, the assessee is Aggrieved, the assessee is by way of appeal before the appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above. the grounds as reproduced above.
Despite notifying none attended on behalf of the assessee. We Despite notifying none attended on behalf of the assessee. We Despite notifying none attended on behalf of the assessee. We may note that notices issued to the assessee at the address provided may note that notices issued to the assessee at the address provided may note that notices issued to the assessee at the address provided in the Form No. 36 filed by the assessee returned un in the Form No. 36 filed by the assessee returned un in the Form No. 36 filed by the assessee returned un-served by the postal authorities with the remark ‘incomplete/insufficient address’. rities with the remark ‘incomplete/insufficient address’. rities with the remark ‘incomplete/insufficient address’. In earlier occasions also notices sent were returned back with In earlier occasions also notices sent were returned back with In earlier occasions also notices sent were returned back with similar comments. In the circumstances, we proceeded to hear the similar comments. In the circumstances, we proceeded to hear the similar comments. In the circumstances, we proceeded to hear the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the arguments of the qua the assessee after hearing the arguments of the qua the assessee after hearing the arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR). Ld. Departmental Representative (DR).
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 1218/M/2019 5.1 As far as challenging validity of the reassessment is concerned, As far as challenging validity of the reassessment is concerned, As far as challenging validity of the reassessment is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.4.1 of the appeal has held as under: the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.4.1 of the appeal has held as under: the Ld. CIT(A) in para 4.4.1 of the appeal has held as under:
“4.4.1 I have considered the appel 4.4.1 I have considered the appellant's contention. The appellant lant's contention. The appellant has contended that the AO did not apply his mind to the information has contended that the AO did not apply his mind to the information has contended that the AO did not apply his mind to the information received from the investigation. I find that the appellant has not received from the investigation. I find that the appellant has not received from the investigation. I find that the appellant has not furnished copy of the reasons for reopening recorded by the AO. I furnished copy of the reasons for reopening recorded by the AO. I furnished copy of the reasons for reopening recorded by the AO. I find that the appellan find that the appellant did not furnish its return of income in t did not furnish its return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 and, therefore, it was not entitled to response to the notice u/s. 148 and, therefore, it was not entitled to response to the notice u/s. 148 and, therefore, it was not entitled to the reasons recorded u/s.
148. As per the decision of the Hon'ble the reasons recorded u/s.
148. As per the decision of the Hon'ble the reasons recorded u/s.
148. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an assessee becomes entitled to a copy of the Supreme Court, an assessee becomes entitled to a copy of the Supreme Court, an assessee becomes entitled to a copy of the reasons recorded reasons recorded after filing its return of income in response to after filing its return of income in response to notice us.
148. Since, in this case the appellant did not file its return notice us.
148. Since, in this case the appellant did not file its return notice us.
Since, in this case the appellant did not file its return of income in response to the notice us. 148, it was not entitled to the of income in response to the notice us. 148, it was not entitled to the of income in response to the notice us. 148, it was not entitled to the copy of reasons recorded. Therefore, the appellant's allegat copy of reasons recorded. Therefore, the appellant's allegat copy of reasons recorded. Therefore, the appellant's allegation that the AO failed to apply his mind before reopening the assessment is the AO failed to apply his mind before reopening the assessment is the AO failed to apply his mind before reopening the assessment is totally baseless. The appellant does not even know what reasons totally baseless. The appellant does not even know what reasons totally baseless. The appellant does not even know what reasons were recorded by the AO and, therefore, it is not in a position to were recorded by the AO and, therefore, it is not in a position to were recorded by the AO and, therefore, it is not in a position to comment on the reasons recorded. In view of the a comment on the reasons recorded. In view of the above, the ground bove, the ground of appeal
is dismissed. of appeal is dismissed.”
6. We find that assessee did not even file return of income, in We find that assessee did not even file return of income, in We find that assessee did not even file return of income, in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, the objection of response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, the objection of response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and therefore, the objection of the assessee that no reasons were provided are without any basis. In the assessee that no reasons were provided are without any basis. In the assessee that no reasons were provided are without any basis. In terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of cision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of cision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 7 ITA No. 1218/M/2019 Driveshaft (India) Ltd. v. ITO 259 ITR 19 Driveshaft (India) Ltd. v. ITO 259 ITR 19 for obtaining the for obtaining the reasons recorded, the assessee is required to file return of income in reasons recorded, the assessee is required to file return of income in reasons recorded, the assessee is required to file return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the circumstances, we do response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the circumstances, we do response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in- find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue dispute and accordingly dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same.
6.1 As far as the grounds raised relating to merit of the addition is As far as the grounds raised relating to merit of the addition is As far as the grounds raised relating to merit of the addition is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer issued concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer issued concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer issued various notices to the assessee to substantiate claim however, no compliance was ssessee to substantiate claim however, no compliance was ssessee to substantiate claim however, no compliance was made and assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. made and assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. made and assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) examined the evidence filed during the course of appellate CIT(A) examined the evidence filed during the course of appellate CIT(A) examined the evidence filed during the course of appellate proceedings, however, he rejected the contention observing as proceedings, however, he rejected the contention observing as proceedings, however, he rejected the contention observing as under:
“5.4 Decision on ground of appeal No. 2 & 3: Decision on ground of appeal No. 2 & 3: 5.4.1 I have considered the rival contentions. The appellant has 5.4.1 I have considered the rival contentions. The appellant has 5.4.1 I have considered the rival contentions. The appellant has contended that the loan given is reflected in the appellant's books of contended that the loan given is reflected in the appellant's books of contended that the loan given is reflected in the appellant's books of accounts. However, it was found that the payment was not reflected accounts. However, it was found that the payment was not reflected accounts. However, it was found that the payment was not reflected in the appellant's bank statement (Axis Bank). When a in the appellant's bank statement (Axis Bank). When a in the appellant's bank statement (Axis Bank). When asked to explain why the transaction is not reflected in the bank statement, explain why the transaction is not reflected in the bank statement, explain why the transaction is not reflected in the bank statement,
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 8 ITA No. 1218/M/2019 the AR stated that the appellant had issued a cheque to M/s Faith the AR stated that the appellant had issued a cheque to M/s Faith the AR stated that the appellant had issued a cheque to M/s Faith Finstock Private Limited with instruction to not the present the Finstock Private Limited with instruction to not the present the Finstock Private Limited with instruction to not the present the cheque in the bank unless advised by the appellan cheque in the bank unless advised by the appellant. As per the t. As per the appellant's contention, it did not advise M/s Faith Finstock Private appellant's contention, it did not advise M/s Faith Finstock Private appellant's contention, it did not advise M/s Faith Finstock Private Limited to present the cheque during the P.Y. 2008 Limited to present the cheque during the P.Y. 2008-09. This means 09. This means that, the appellant was aware that the cheque was not presented by that, the appellant was aware that the cheque was not presented by that, the appellant was aware that the cheque was not presented by M/s Faith Finstock Private Limited in th M/s Faith Finstock Private Limited in the bank. That being the case, e bank. That being the case, the appellant had no reason to debit the account of M/s Faith the appellant had no reason to debit the account of M/s Faith the appellant had no reason to debit the account of M/s Faith Finstock Private Limited and credit the account of Axis Bank. In Finstock Private Limited and credit the account of Axis Bank. In Finstock Private Limited and credit the account of Axis Bank. In fact, considering the mutual understanding between the appellant fact, considering the mutual understanding between the appellant fact, considering the mutual understanding between the appellant and M/s Faith Finstock Private Limi and M/s Faith Finstock Private Limited, the cheque did not exist, so ted, the cheque did not exist, so to say. The appellant was well aware that no loan was, in effect, to say. The appellant was well aware that no loan was, in effect, to say. The appellant was well aware that no loan was, in effect, given to M/s Faith Finstock Private Limited. given to M/s Faith Finstock Private Limited.
5.4.2 The appellant's letter to Faith Finstock Private Limited 5.4.2 The appellant's letter to Faith Finstock Private Limited 5.4.2 The appellant's letter to Faith Finstock Private Limited confirming that Rs. 8 Crores confirming that Rs. 8 Crores was receivable from Faith Finstock Faith Finstock Private Limited as on 31.03.2009 on account of Unsecured Loan has Private Limited as on 31.03.2009 on account of Unsecured Loan has Private Limited as on 31.03.2009 on account of Unsecured Loan has to be examined in the light of the facts mentioned in para 5.4.1 to be examined in the light of the facts mentioned in para 5.4.1 to be examined in the light of the facts mentioned in para 5.4.1 above. Both the appellant and Faith Finstock Private Limited were Both the appellant and Faith Finstock Private Limited were Both the appellant and Faith Finstock Private Limited were aware, as per appellant's version, that loa aware, as per appellant's version, that loan transaction through n transaction through cheque had not taken place; that neither was the money debited to cheque had not taken place; that neither was the money debited to cheque had not taken place; that neither was the money debited to appellant's bank account nor was the money credited to the bank appellant's bank account nor was the money credited to the bank appellant's bank account nor was the money credited to the bank account of M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited. Therefore, both the account of M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited. Therefore, both the account of M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited. Therefore, both the appellant and M/s. Faith Finstock Pr appellant and M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited were aware that ivate Limited were aware that the sum of Rs. 8 crores was not due from M/s. Faith Finstock Private the sum of Rs. 8 crores was not due from M/s. Faith Finstock Private the sum of Rs. 8 crores was not due from M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited.
5.4.3 In the confirmation issued by the appellant stated as under: 5.4.3 In the confirmation issued by the appellant stated as under: 5.4.3 In the confirmation issued by the appellant stated as under:
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 9 ITA No. 1218/M/2019 "We hereby confirm that balance receivable from Faith Finstock "We hereby confirm that balance receivable from Faith Finstock "We hereby confirm that balance receivable from Faith Finstock Private Limited as Limited as on 31.03.2009 is Rs. 8 Crores on account of on 31.03.2009 is Rs. 8 Crores on account of Unsecured Loan Unsecured Loan given. PAN of our company is AADCC 3116H." given. PAN of our company is AADCC 3116H." 5.4.4 Thus, the appellant has confirmed that the amount of Rs.8 5.4.4 Thus, the appellant has confirmed that the amount of Rs.8 5.4.4 Thus, the appellant has confirmed that the amount of Rs.8 Crores was receivable from M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited. Crores was receivable from M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited. Crores was receivable from M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited. This implies that the app This implies that the appellant had paid the sum of Rs.8 Crores. The Rs.8 Crores. The mere issue of cheque, with instruction not to present it in the bank, mere issue of cheque, with instruction not to present it in the bank, mere issue of cheque, with instruction not to present it in the bank, does not amount to a loan given and the amount does not become not amount to a loan given and the amount does not become not amount to a loan given and the amount does not become due to the person who issues the cheque. Therefore, the issue of the due to the person who issues the cheque. Therefore, the issue of the due to the person who issues the cheque. Therefore, the issue of the result in any cheque to M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited did M/s. Faith Finstock Private Limited did not result in any loan to that party. loan to that party. 5.4.5 Therefore, only inference that can be drawn is that the loan 5.4.5 Therefore, only inference that can be drawn is that the loan 5.4.5 Therefore, only inference that can be drawn is that the loan referred to in the confirmation issued by the appellant arose from referred to in the confirmation issued by the appellant arose from referred to in the confirmation issued by the appellant arose from some transaction other than the cheque trans some transaction other than the cheque transaction recorded in the action recorded in the appellant's books. Since, by appellant's own admission no such loan appellant's books. Since, by appellant's own admission no such loan appellant's books. Since, by appellant's own admission no such loan was paid through the bank account, it is implied that Rs. 8 crores was paid through the bank account, it is implied that Rs. 8 crores was paid through the bank account, it is implied that Rs. 8 crores was paid by cash which was not recorded in the appellant's books of was paid by cash which was not recorded in the appellant's books of was paid by cash which was not recorded in the appellant's books of accounts. Therefore, the addit accounts. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 8 crores made by the A0 is ion of Rs. 8 crores made by the A0 is confirmed. Accordingly, I dismiss grounds of appeal No. 2 confirmed. Accordingly, I dismiss grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3.” & 3.” 6.2 In view of the detailed finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of In view of the detailed finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of In view of the detailed finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of loan transaction and non loan transaction and non-rebuttal of the same by the assessee, tal of the same by the assessee, we find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue r of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue r of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute is justified and accordingly uphold the same. The grounds raised by justified and accordingly uphold the same. The grounds raised by justified and accordingly uphold the same. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed. the assessee are accordingly dismissed.
Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 10 ITA No. 1218/M/2019
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.