Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLEShri Pradip Chopra v.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra v. Pr. CIT – (C)-3 19th Floor, Air India Building 23, Maheshwar Niketan Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 PAN: AACPC0068J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri R.S. Khandelwal Department by : Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam
Date of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022
O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-3, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld. Pr.CIT”] dated 30.08.2019 for the A.Y. 2011-12.
Brief facts of the case are, Search and Seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1963 (in short ‘Act’) was carried out in the case of
2 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra Swastik Group on 31.07.2014. Ld Pr CIT observed that from the records seized in the case of Swastik Group, incriminating evidence was found regarding unrecorded transactions of the entities of Swastik Group with the assesse. Subsequently, a search action was carried out in the case of Cosmos Group on 24.09.2014, wherein one of the premises covered was the residence of the assesse, against whom a warrant of search was issued. Accordingly, notice 153A was issued and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act was passed accepting the returned income declared by the assesse.
Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, after recording the reasons for reopening. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and order dated 28.12.2018 was passed determining the total income at Rs. 123,60,510/- Ld Pr CIT observed that the above order did not take cognizance of the documents found in the Swastik Group wherein cash loans of Rs. 6,13,89,930/- by the assesse was found to have been given to Swastik Group @ 1.50% interest p.a. He observed that this information was available at the time of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147. After considering the submissions of the assesse, he held that the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue insofar that no inquiry was
3 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra conducted to ascertain the correct income of the assesse in this assessment year.
Aggrieved the assesse preferred an appeal before us with the delay of 62 days and filed an affidavit with the reasons for filing the appeal in delay. The reasons given in the affidavit are on the medical grounds. Ld.AR prayed that the delay may be condoned. On the other hand, Ld DR objected to the name mentioned in the Affidavit as Pradip whereas in the search proceedings, the assesse submitted that the correct name is Pradeep. The mismatch in the name are relevant owing to the stand taken by the assesse in the search proceedings. In this regard, the Ld AR agreed to file proper affidavit in this regard and filed the same. Considering the medical grounds, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
At the time of hearing, Ld AR submitted that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) – 3, Mumbai issued various show cause notices under section 263 of the Act dated 16.11.2018, 05.03.2019, 12.03.2019 and the last one dated 01.08.2019 by which, based on the request of the assessee, the Pr CIT provided the following – (a) Copy of communication between Investigation Wing and Assessing Officer (Deputy /Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -6(4)).
4 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra (b) Copy of seized document Page no 26 of Swastik Group reflect in the amount of Rs. 6,13,89,930, unsecured loan statement upto 31.05.2014 – refer page no 17 of the paper book. (c) Copy of another seized document of Swastik Group reflecting sales details of Rs. 1,35,00,000 in cash for the land in Vashind – refer page no 18 of the paper book.
Ld. AR submitted that the Pr CIT in the said notice inter alia mentioned that on perusal of the seized documents, it is noted that Swastik Group had entered into cash transactions with the assessee for sale of land at Vashind. The land was sold by Swastik Group to the assessee for a total consideration of Rs 18.37 crores out of which, the assessee had paid Rs. 1.35 crores by cash and Rs 6.25 crores by cheque, and the balance amount payable by the assessee is Rs 10.77 crores. Also, as per these seized documents, cash loan of Rs 6,13,89,930/- were given by the assessee to Swastik Group at an interest rate of 1.50 % p.a. The copies of these documents, seized during the course of search action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act carried out in the case of Swastik Group on 31.07.2014, and proposed to be used as evidence against the assessee, alongwith the official communication vide which information was received by the Assessing Officer.
Ld. AR submitted, thus, the notice under section 263 is issued as per the Pr CIT, the order of the Assessing Officer dated 28.12.2018 framed
5 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on following two counts for the reason that cognizance of incriminating documents seized in the case of Swastik Group was not taken into consideration while passing the said order – (a) as regards advancing a cash loan of Rs 6,13,89,930 at an interest of 1.50% p.a. and (b) investment of Rs 1.35 crores for the purchase of land in Vashind
With regard to above, he submitted, the assessee is an individual earning income from salary, house property, business/profession, capital gains and other sources. Return of income for the year under consideration was filed under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs 13,60,510. Thereafter, return was processed 143(1) of the Act and the assessment was not selected for scrutiny.
He submitted, subsequently, Search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on Cosmos Group of cases on 24.09.2014. The assessee's residential premise was also covered in the search operations. There was no seizure of any relevant or incriminating document/ material relating to the assessee in the course of search at his residential premises (refer copy of the Panchnama at page nos 1 to 15 of the paper book)
6 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra 10. Consequent to aforesaid search action, notice under section 153A of the Act dated 26.08.2016 was served on 06.09.2016 on the assessee and the assessee filed his return of income, declaring total income at the same figure as declared in the original return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer by notice dated 30.11.2016 (refer page nos 16 to 19 of the paper book) required the assessee to explain – (a) the source of cash loan of Rs. 6,13,89,930 and; (b) the source of cash paid Rs 1.35 crores for purchase of land.
The enclosures to the aforesaid notice are the same as provided by the Pr CIT in the proceedings under section 263 of the Act.
Ld AR brought to our notice that the assessee by letters dated 06.12.2016 and 20.12.2016 responded to the notice of the Assessing Officer and explained that the document referred to and the notings on the document do not evidence any transaction entered into by the assessee or any investment made by him (page nos 20 to 32 of the paper book). He submitted that the main contentions in these replies are reproduced below –
7 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra Relevant extract of letter dated 06.12.2016 is: “(i) The documents annexed to the said Show cause Notice does not belong to me nor I am in any way personally concerned with these documents/papers. Just because the name Pradip Chopra is mentioned against some of the entries in the said seized documents out of many other entries, it cannot automatically mean that the transactions reflected therein represents my undisclosed income. (ii) I specifically deny any transaction as mentioned in the said show cause notice nor any loan/s much less, cash loan/s were given/ advance to Swastik group as alleged in the show cause notice” Relevant extract of letter dated 20.12.2016 is: “2) Without prejudice to the above, we would like to state as below:- 2.1) With regard to A.Y. 2013-14, it is stated in the said Annexed statement to the Show Cause Notice that our client has Purchased Land at Vashind and has paid a sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- in cash for the Purchase of said Land. In the said statement, it is also stated that our client has given a cheque amount of Rs.6,25,00,000/- for the Purchase of the said Land. 2.2) In this respect, we would like to state that during the said Assessment Year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 our client has not entered into any transaction for Purchase of the said land i.e. Land at Vashind for which your goodself has alleged that our client has paid a sum of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- in cash and a cheque amount of Rs. 6,25,00,000/- 2.3) As regards the reliance on the statement of Shri Deepak Shah in the said show cause notice is concerned, it is not clear as under what context or circumstances such statement was given by him. 2.4) Further, we have already submitted to your goodself the copy of Bank Statements and the Bank Book in respect of all the Bank accounts of our client during the course of assessment proceedings. On perusal of such Bank Statements and Bank Book your goodself would observe that during the year under consideration i.e. AY. 2013-2024. our client has not paid any amount by way of cheque amounting to Rs.0,25,00,000/- as alleged by your for goodself in the said Show Cause Notice.
8 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra 2.5) Further, on perusal of the A.I.R. statement it is also being brought to your goodself notice that no such Land at Vashind has been Purchased and registered in the name of our client. 3) Thus, it is very clear from the above 3.1) That during the year under consideration, our client has not entered into any transactions for acquisition of Land at Vashind by way of Cash/ Cheque with the Swastik Group as alleged by your goodself in the said Show Cause Notice. 4) Further, with regard to the A.Y. 2014-15, it is stated in the said Annexed statement to the Show Cause Notice that our client has given Cash loan / advances to the Swastik Group amounting to Rs. 6,13,89,930.00 4.1) In this respect, we would like to state that on going through the statement recorded of Shri Deepak Shah wherein he has been authorized to state the replies on behalf of various concern of swastik group and their individual Members, Partners and companies of s- wastik group, particularly Q.No. 15 &16 (which is being reproduced as below) the following observations are being brought to your goodself notice: 4.2) Q15. 1 am showing you the loose papers nos, 17-26 of bundle No. 4 seized from this premises. These papers are the printouts of excel spread sheets printed from path location: (omitted in this order). These papers show the working of cash and cheque transaction of the specific dates of each of the month. In the last column of these sheets, the RATE is written. In the fourth column of this sheet MODE OF INTEREST is written. These features show that these transactions are in receipt of loans taken from different points of time. The amounts are accepted in cheque as Well as cash. Please explain whether these amounts are reflected in the regular hooks of accounts of different concerns of Swastik Group. Ans. I have perused the said loose papers and documents and carefully and have also discussed the issues with Shri Kishor Naik, Shri Hemantillhatre, I must say and state that we are engaged in the business of land dealings, building and construction. The nature of business activities requires the generation of cash including unaccounted cash At times such cash may be huge. We partners cannot on our own managed each and everything and we have to depend upon our employees and business associates for managing and overlooking certain aspects of this business. If such employees
9 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra and associated acquire the knowledge of the fact that were are generating and are in possession of huge cash at times or certain times of the period, it may create embezzlement problems for the group. It is also pertinent to state that this may create security problems for the partners/directors and their family members. In order to take care of this we have decided to keep the accounts of such cash as cash loans and maintained the details of the same in such manner. Hence such accounts of unaccounted cash are maintained in this format. This cash represents the unaccounted income of the concerns /persons of the Swastik Group. Therefore on this issue I am offering /declaring this entire amount shown as cash loans as the unaccounted income of the various concerns/ persons of Swastik Group. Thus, on this account I am declaring amount of Rs. 72,17,23,391/- in the hands of different concerns/persons of Swastik Group for different financial years . The distribution of such income in the hands of different concerns/persons for different financial years shall be submitted within a week./1 say. and state that we have offered this undisclosed to tax voluntarily in order to buy peace of mind and avoid vexed litigation. I request that in no penal consequences should fellow on such disclosure of undisclosed income. 4.3) Q. 16 Please again peruse the seized documents referred above. These documents clearly reveal the names of the persons against whom these amounts are shown and the title of the excel spread sheet is loans. There are interest rates and amounts of interest and terms of payments of interest are also written/ mentioned on these documents Therefore please explain as to why these should not be considered as cash loans. Ans: We have perused the said documents very careful. I say and state that the names of the person appearing on these sheets are our close friends, business associates and relatives. We have accepted cheque loans from some of them which are reflected in the regular books of account. Such names of the close friends/relatives and business associates were handy and easy to be identified with the amounts which were shown as cash loans. Such names are used only in order to give a perfect resemblance to these cash amounts belonging to us so that there should not be any doubts in the minds of employees/business associates about the ownership of such cash amounts. Further it must be mentioned that the interest rates and amounts are in correlation with the interest rates and amounts paid for cheque loans. I again request you to consider such cash amounts as our undisclosed income and not our cash loans
10 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra 4.4) Shri Deepak Shah himself has stated that:- a) " the cash represents the unaccounted income of the concerns/persons of the Swastik Group. b) Thus, on this account I am declaring amount of Rs. 72,17,23,391f- In the hands of different concerns\persons of Swastk Group for different financial years c) and such names of the close friends /relatives and business associates were handy and easy to be identified with the amounts which were shown as cash loans . Such names are used only in order to give a perfect resemblance to these cash amounts belonging to us so that there should be any doubts in the minds of employees/business associates about the ownership of such cash amounts d) I again request you to consider such cash amounts as our undisclosed income and not our cash loans" 5) Thus it is very clear from the above :- 5.1) That our client has not entered into any financial transactions- more so as cash loans for the said Assessment Year i/e/ AY 2014-15 with Swastik Group as alleged by your goodself in the said Show Cause Notice . 5.2 The said Swastik Group has used our client name against the said cash loan entries as per the annexed statement to the Sow cause to give perfect resemblance to the cash amounts belonging to Swastik Group. 5.3) The said Swastik Group have admitted a sum of Rs. 72,17,23,391/- as their undisclosed income on account of unaccounted cash loans as undisclosed income of Swastik group. 6) In view of the above submission we would like to state that our client has not made any cash payments for acquisition of land as stated by your goodself in the said show cause notice for A.Y. 2013- 14 and /or has not given any cash loans as stated by your goodself in the said show cause notice for AY 2014-15 which should be treated as undisclosed income of our client for the respective Assessment Years"
11 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra 12. Ld. AR submitted, thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 accepting the submission made by the assessee in connection with the cash loan of Rs. 6,13,89,930 but went on to make addition of Rs 1,35,00,000 in assessment year 2013-14 (page nos 33 to 38 and 40 to 47 of the paper book).
. Aggrieved by this order for the A.Y. 2013-14 (page nos 39 to 47 of the paper book), assesse preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) (page nos 48 to 57 of the paper book).
Ld. AR submitted that the assessment for AY 2011-12 (the year under reference) was reopened by notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2018 (reasons recorded @ page nos 58 and 59 of the paper book)
Further, he submitted that the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.12.2018 after making an addition of ₹.1,10,00,000 under section 69 of the Act (refer assessment order dated 28.12.2018 @ page nos 68 to 75 of the paper book)
12 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra 16. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) (page nos 60 to 67 of the paper book) for both the Assessment Years i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2011-12. Ld. AR submitted that in both the appeals preferred by the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee by quashing the additions.
On the basis of the above facts, the Ld.AR of the assessee argued that the allegation of the Pr.CIT is misconceived that cognizance of the documents seized as mentioned in the notices/ order not taken into consideration while passing order dated 28.12.2018 framed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
On the other hand, Ld DR brought to our notice para 5 and 7 of the revision order u/s 263 and submitted that the Pr CIT is only revising order passed u/s 147 not order passed u/s 153A. He briefly explained the search proceedings and he also submitted that the assesse rejected the unrecorded transactions as did not pertain to him because of the name spelling i.e., Pradip or Pradeep. Hence Assessee has consistently failed to declare his correct income. Rest, he relied on the order of the Pr CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act.
13 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra 19. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed from the Ld AR submissions that search was conducted in case of Swastik Group at Virar on 31.07.2014. During the course of search conducted on Swastik Group, certain materials were found and seized. In another Search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act was carried out on the Cosmos Group of cases on 24.09.2014. The assessee's residential premises was covered in the search operations on the basis of the warrant issued in the name of the "M/s. Cosmos Prime Project Limited and other entities/persons". There was no seizure of any relevant or incriminating document/ material relating to the assessee and no Panchnama was drawn in assessee's specific name. Consequential to aforesaid search action, notices under section 153A of the Act dated 26.08.2016 were served on 06.09.2016 on the assessee for A.Y.2009-10 to AY 2014-15 and returns of income were filed.
we observe that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was served with the show cause notice dated 30.11.2016 by the AO requiring him to explain the nature and source of funds utilized for executing the land deal and providing loan to the third party, details of which are as under: -
14 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra (a) One of the seized documents showed that one Pradeep Chopra had made cash payment to Swastik Group for purchase of land at Vashind for total consideration of Rs. 18.37 crore. Out of total consideration of Rs. 18.37 crore a sum of Rs. 1.35 crore was paid in cash and a sum of Rs. 6.25 crore was paid in cheque and an amount of Rs. 10.77 crore was still payable. (b) Another seized document showed that the said Pradeep Chopra had given cash loan of Rs. 6,13,89,930 to Swastik Group.
We observe from the letters dated 06.12.2016 and 20.12.2016 filed by the assessee in response to the aforesaid show cause notice, and noticed that assessee has stated that the Assessing Officer considered the above explanation and on the basis of the statement on oath of Mr Deepak Shah, director/promoter of Swastik Group who stated that the loan amounts represented funds belonging to the Swastik Group and the receipt of those funds had no link with the persons whose names were mentioned against them in seized sheets of paper, did not make any addition in respect of the alleged cash loan paid by the assessee of Rs 6,13,89,930 to Swastik Group. Thus, the explanation was accepted by the Assessing Officer and hence, no addition was made on this count. However, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 1,35,00,000 under section 69B as unexplained investment in A.Y. 2013-14 by passing an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A dated 26.12.2016. In rest of the assessment years i.e., from A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y 2012-13 and A.Y. 2014-15, no addition was made.
15 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra 22. We observe from the relevant portion of the assessment order for AY 2013-14 wherein the Assessing Officer has taken cognizance of the amount under consideration, which for the purpose of ready reference is reproduced below – "8.1 A search action was carried out in the case of M/s Swastik Group on 31.07.2014. During the course of search certain documents were seized. On perusal of seized documents, it was noticed by the DDIT (Inv), Unit-IV(1), Thane that Swastik group had entered into cash transaction with Shri Pradeep Chopra for sale of land at Vasind. On further investigation it has also emerged that the total land consideration was Rs. 18.37 crores, out of which Rs. 1.35 crores had been paid by the assessee in cash and Rs. 6.25 crores was paid in cheque. The balance payable was Rs. 10.77 crores. 8.2 During the Course of assessment proceedings a letter was written to DCIT CC-2, Thane for submission of further details regarding payment made by Shri Pradeep Chopra and copy of statement of Shri Deepak Shah, director in Swastik Group. 8.3 In view of reply received by DCIT CC-2, Thane and the information available on record the assessee was show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1.35 crores should not be added to his total income on account of unexplained investment. The assessee vide letter dated 20.12.2016 submitted his reply which is carefully perused and placed on record, however the same is not acceptable. The assessee had stated that there is no data in AIR information about sale of land."
Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) on 27.01.2017 against the addition of Rs 1,35,00,000.
Before us, Ld. AR took us through the remand report of the AO where he states that the Assessing Officer, Thane, in the case of M/s. Viva Swastik Estate has agreed that the amount of ₹.1,10,00,000 allegedly
16 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra received from Pradeep Chopra in AY 2011-12 was part of receipt of ₹.1,35,00,000 which the same amount has been considered in the case of the assessee in AY 2013-14. We observe that the above additions were challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) in both the Assessment Years and Ld.CIT(A) deleted the same.
The Ld.AR then as a second proposition against the impugned order of the Pr CIT stated that the AO has framed the reassessment order for A.Y. 2011-12 under section 147 of the Act on 28.12.2018 making an addition of Rs 1,10,00,000. This order is under revision by the Pr CIT under section 263 of the Act by his order dated 30.08.2019. This ground has been allowed by the CIT(A) by his order dated 20.08.2019 which is prior to the date of the order of the Pr CIT. He further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) by his order dated 20.08.2019 has deleted the addition of ₹.1,35,00,000 also made by the Assessing Officer in his order for A.Y. 2013-14. The Ld. AR therefore, argued that the Pr CIT loses his right to pass the impugned order by virtue of the Explanation 1(c) to section 263 of the Act and hence, needs to be quashed. However, we observed that the issue raised by the Pr CIT in the revisional order is different i.e., two materials were found during search, one is the above issue of land dealings and other one is the loan transaction of Rs. 613,89,930/-. Ld
17 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra Pr.CIT raised the issue of second i.e. loan transaction. With regard to first issue, it reached the finality because of the first appellate order. Therefore, we are in agreement with the Ld AR.
Coming to the second issue raised by Pr CIT relating to the loan transaction, we observed from the submissions made by the Ld AR that this issue was raised by respective assessing officers in both the assessment proceedings i.e., 153A and 147, the assesse has submitted the relevant statement of Mr Deepak Shah, promotor of the Swastik Group who stated that the loan amounts represented funds were belongs to Swastik Group and there is no link with the persons whose names were mentioned in the seized documents, he submitted in reference to the question no 15 put before him. This explanation was submitted before AO in 153A and 147 proceedings, and the respective Assessing Officers accepted the same. In our considered view, from the above facts, it is clear that the allegation of the Pr CIT that the Assessing Officer in framing the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 has not taken cognizance of the incriminating material seized during the course of search at the premises of Swastik Group is incorrect. In both the proceedings, the respective AO's has agreed and taken one of the possible view and now Ld Pr CIT cannot impose his another possible view.
18 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra 27. Further, in order to accept the propositions of the Ld Pr CIT for revision, it is the duty of the Pr CIT to bring on record the relevant material to substantiate the claim that there is a transaction between the assesse and the Swastik Group. In two proceedings conducted by the respective AOs has accepted the stand of the assesse, without there being any material linking the transactions with the assesse and the Swastik Group, the Pr CIT cannot once against direct the AO to further investigate. Hence, the Pr CIT has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 263 of the Act, without there being any material or clear finding by him. Thus, the basic premise that cognizance of the seized material was not taken by the Assessing Officer is patently incorrect and the revision action under section 263 of the Act is not proper and hence, the order of the Pr.CIT is set aside and quashed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27.04.2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 27.04.2022 Giridhar, Sr.PS
19 ITA NO. 8064/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) Shri Pradip Chopra Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file.
//True Copy// BY ORDER
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum