Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AAKASH DEEP JAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
1 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI AAKASH DEEP JAIN (VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
I.T.A. No.178/Mum/2012 (Assessment year 2007-08)
ACIT-10(1), Mumbai vs Fiat India Pvt Ltd (now known as New Holland Fiat India Pvt Ltd) 303, Central Plaza, 166 CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400 098 PAN : AAACI3922Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT
C.O. No.269/Mum/2012 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.178/Mum/2012) (Assessment year 2007-08)
Fiat India Pvt Ltd (now known as vs ACIT-10(1), Mumbai New Holland Fiat India Pvt Ltd) 303, Central Plaza, 166 CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400 098 PAN : AAACI3922Q CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT
Revenue represented by Shri Deepakant Prasad, CIT-DR Assessee represented by Shri Ajit Jain, Siddesh Choughule
Date of hearing 21-12-2021 Date of pronouncement 31-01-2021
2 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 O R D E R Per Bench :
This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 03/10/2011 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2007-08.
The grounds raised by the Revenue in appeal are reproduced as under:- "1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs.25,96,99,302/-without appreciating the fact that expenses for shifting the plant & machinery to Rangangaon plant, Pune were claimed by M/s.FIAL which proves beyond doubt that they were used by FIAL, its sister concern. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of provision for warranty expenses amounting to Rs.1,57,04,500/- without appreciating the facts that these expenses are not actual expenses but only provision on estimate basis. " 3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.ClT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of reimbursement of expenses of Rs.71,96,539/-u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating the facts that these were paid by assessee to its sister concern, M/s.Fiat India Automobile Pvt. Ltd. based on mutual understanding and which comes under the provisions of u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the miscellaneous income of Rs.9,62,62,341/- as business income without appreciating the fact that these income were not derived from business activity of assessee's company."
The Revenue has also filed additional ground on 17/08/2018 as under:
3 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences during the appellate proceedings without recording reasons for doing so and without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify/examine the said evidences as per the provisions of IT Rule 46A(2) and 46A(3)?” 4. The cross objection filed by the assessee along with form No. 36A on 19/12/2012 are reproduced under:
As regards Ground No. 2 of the Learned Assessing Officer ('AO') against the disallowance of warranty expenses, if need be, the Hon'ble Tribunal may consider the allowability of actual amount of Rs.1,17,94,570/- paid / incurred during the year, which ground was before the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ['CIT (A)'] as an alternative ground, but not adjudicated upon by him. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed during the course of proceedings, despite taking the same on records and confirming the disallowance made by the AO in case of bad debts written off amounting to Rs. 4,93,06,433/- under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act').
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in observing that the assessee did not file any evidence with regard to research and development expenses amounting to Rs.37,69,006/- despite the fact that the assessee did file various submissions and he further erred in not considering the same.
Without prejudice to Ground No. 3 above, and in the alternative and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in not considering details and documents filed during the course of proceedings and the said claim for allowance as normal business expenditure under section 37 of the Act.”
The assessee also filed an additional cross objections received in the office of the Tribunal on 03/04/2017), which is reproduced as under:
“3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the incorrect billing of Rs.48,03,517/- pertaining to sale of assets, may be added back to the block of assets and corresponding depreciation be granted.
4 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012
The Ld. counsel of the assessee did not press additional cross objection before us and therefore same is dismissed, as withdrawn. 7. Regarding the additional ground raised by the Revenue, we have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of the admissibility. We are of the opinion that issue raised in additional ground is purely legal in nature and no further investigation of fresh facts is required and therefore same is admitted relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC).
Briefly stated facts of the case are that during relevant period , the assessee company was engaged in business of manufacturing and selling of passenger cars. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30/10/2007 declaring nil income. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)(ii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and assessed the loss at (-) ₹73,05,32,080/-under the regular provisions of the Act and book profit (loss) under section 115 JB at (-) ₹ 83,99,856/-. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed part relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue and assessee are before the Tribunal by way of appeal and cross objection respectively.
The assessee has filed a paperbook in the appeal of the Revenue consisting of pages 1 to 44. The assessee has also filed paperbook in the cross objection raised, which consists of pages 1 to 100. The assessee has also filed copy of various judgements relied upon.
5 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 10. In support of the additional ground raised, the ld. departmental representative referred to various pages of the Ld. CIT(A) on each issue of the addition and submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not followed the procedure laid down in rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 ( in short, ‘the Rules’) and impugned order has been passed without providing any opportunity to the Assessing Officer for commenting on the informations, which are in the nature of additional evidence. The learned departmental representative submitted that in view of the violation of rules and principles of natural justice , the issues in-dispute in the grounds raised by the Revenue need to be restored back either to Ld. CIT(A) or to Ld. Assessing Officer .
The learned counsel of the assessee submitted that information called for by the Ld. CIT(A) was not in the nature of additional evidence and therefore Rule 46A do not apply in case of the additional information filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), however, he didn’t object for restoring the matter to lower authority for verification of information provided by the assessee.
We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record.
The Rule 46A(3) of Rules prescribe that the Ld. CIT(A) shall not take into account any evidence produced as additional evidence unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity:
(a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross examine the witness produced by the assessee; or
6 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 (b to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the assessee.
In the additional ground, the revenue has raised that Ld.CIT(A) has not allowed an opportunity to the Assessing Officer as mandated under Rule 46A(3) of the Rules, in respect of additional evidences produced by the assessee related to issues raised in grounds of the Revenue’s appeal.
We find that in ground-1 of the appeal, the Revenue has challenged, deletion of disallowance of depreciation amounting to ₹ 25, 96, 99, 302/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.38.19 crores including depreciation of Rs.6.43 crores on buildings. The learned Assessing Officer noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold its factory land and shifted the plant and machinery from its “Kurla” plant to “ Rajangoan, Pune ” plant of M/s FIAL, which is a sister concern. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not answer the queries raised during the assessment proceedings, and therefore he was of the opinion that the assessee did not use the plant and machinery for the purpose of the business after the date of memorandum of understanding entered for transfer of Land i.e. 28.7.2006. Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of the assessee of depreciation on plant and machinery for proportionate period which was worked out to Rs.25,96,99,302/-. On perusal of page 5 of the impugned order i.e. order of Ld.CIT(A), we find that following documents were filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), which were not filed before the Assessing Officer:
(a) Sample copy of tax invoices filed with the Excise authorities in respect of the capital goods shifted from ‘Kurla’ to ‘Rajangaon’ to
7 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 support that ownership of the machinery continued with assessee. (b) Annual VAT audit report, which was filed before the sales-tax authority to support that business was fully operational during the year. (c) Details of relocation and assembling expenses on account of shipping of machinery from “ Kurla” to “ Rajangaon” , which were shared by the assessee and its holding company i.e. Fiat India Automobiles P Ltd (FIAL).
We also find that Ld. CIT(A) admitted above evidences, which were filed for the first-time by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), for deciding the issue in dispute of disallowance of depreciation. The relevant part of the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
2.3(b) During the year the appellant company started removal of machinery from Kurla plant to Ranjangaon, Pune plant. The A.O. disallowed/restricted appellant's claim of depreciation holding that it was not possible to use that machinery, premises or any other fixed asset for the purpose of business. A.O. also based his decision on the ground that appellant’s plant & machinery was used by its sister concern M/s. FIAL for production of cars and spare parts from 13.02.2007. The A.O. held that the assets of appellant could not have been used for the purpose of its business and therefore, depreciation was not allowable. However, on the other hand the appellant has submitted that during the year only a part of machinery was transferred from its Kurla Plant to Rangangaon plant for use of manufacture of appellant's finished goods namely passenger cars. In support of its argument that the entire plant & machinery of Kurla Plant was not transferred to Rangangaon plant, Pune and the balance plant & machinery, building and other assets at Kurla were used for the purpose of its business, the appellant has filed copies of excise return in respect of production carried out during the entire year at Kurla plant. The appellant has also filed copy of information dtd.06.11.2007 intimating the excise authorities regarding stoppage of production at appellant's Kurla premises. It was intimated to the excise authorities that Registration Certificate will be surrendered after disposal of capital goods. The appellant has also stated that the "paint shop" at Kurla premises was used for temporarily doing job work for Tata Motors as was
8 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 evident from notes to the accounts. The appellant's this claim was also supported by excise returns filed by appellant. The appellant has also filed annual return in VAT. All these documents and evidences supports the appellant's claim that the balance machinery at Kurla plant and other assets and building at Kurla were utilized by the appellant for the whole year for the purpose of its business. Since the building, assets and machinery lying at Kurla plant were utilized by the appellant for the purpose of its business, therefore, the appellant was entitled for depreciation thereon for the whole year.”
There is nothing on record, which could show that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed any opportunity, much less the reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Thus, it is clear that Ld. CIT(A) has admitted these additional evidences without following the procedure laid down in Rule 46A(3) of Rules.
In respect to ground 2 of the appeal of the Revenue, which is related to provision for warranty expenses amounting to ₹ 1, 57, 04, 500/-is concerned, the learned departmental representative referred to 1st para on page 10 of the impugned order and submitted that assessee furnished details of annual provisions and actual expenses incurred from year to year in order to prove reasonable accuracy of the provisions. He submitted that this information was not filed before the Assessing Officer and was filed first-time before the Ld. CIT(A), however the Ld. CIT(A) did not forward said documentary evidences to the Assessing Officer, which is in violation of Rule 46A(3) of I.T. Rules.
Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee could not controvert this fact that above information in relation to the disallowance of warranty expenses was filed first-time before the Ld. CIT(A) and no opportunity was given to the Ld.Assessing Officer for verification of the same.
9 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 19. In ground No.3, the Revenue has challenged deletion by Ld. CIT(A) of ₹ 71, 96, 539/-, which was added by the Assessing Officer disallowing of reimbursement of expenses to its sister concern namely M/s FIAL India Automobile Private Limited. The Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.3 of the impugned order has adjudicated the issue as under:
“6.3 I have considered the facts of the case. The A.O. considered that the appellant paid amount of Rs.71,96,539/- to its sister concern on account of utilization of common facilities based on mutual understanding. However, there was no base for A.O. for making such assumption. The appellant has explained that sister concern was not in its vicinity and hence there was no question of common utilization of facilities. The appellant has filed certificate from its sister concern stating that the said sister concern had paid excise duty of Rs.71,96,539/- during the month of February, 2007 and March, 2007 on 131 Palio cars as and when these cars cleared from their factory. The appellant has also filed copy of debit note of payment of excise duty on behalf of appellant. In the facts and circumstances, the provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act were not applicable on such reimbursement of excise duty by appellant to its sister concern. Since the amount of excise duty had already been paid during the year, therefore, the provisions of sec.43B were also not applicable. In view of the above, the disallowance made by A.O. is deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.”
Thus, it is evident that Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue relying on certificate of payment of excise duty and debit note filed by the assessee before him, which was not filed before the Assessing Officer and therefore same are in the nature of additional evidence. Those additional evidences are clearly admitted in violation of rule 46A(3) i.e. without providing opportunity to the Assessing Officer for raising objection as well as for giving comments on the additional evidences.
10 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 21. The ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue relates to tax liability of miscellaneous income under relevant head of income. According to the assessee it is part of ‘business income’, whereas according to the Assessing Officer it is part of ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer has held that the assessee did not explain the exact details of miscellaneous income and therefore, on the basis of nomenclatures only, he assessed the said income under the head “Income from other sources”. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed breakup of miscellaneous income. The said breakup has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 8.2 of the impugned order. For ready reference, said para is extracted is under:
“8.2 During appellate proceedings, the appellant explained that it had considered miscellaneous income under the head business income as the same had been earned out of normal business activity. The appellant furnished the break-up of such miscellaneous income as under:- Sundry Income Amount Scrap sale 7,26,33,821 Overriding commission 15,62,500 Paint Shop modification charges recovered from 1,00,00,000 TATA Motors Octroi Refund 72,86,552 Refund MTNL 11,065 Recovery from dealers 3,07,109 Recovery of Labour Cost – IDLE TIME 68,056 Sales tax Refund 2,431 Transfer Fees from UNO Car 3,000 Warranty Recovery - Vendors 5,02,443 Sale of Right of Way (shown in computation 3,00,00,000 under Long Term Capital Gain) Royalty 22,16,260
11 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 Recovery from Employees 22,16,260 Other Misc 16,03,104 TOTAL 12,62,62,341
In view of the above, it is evident that on the issue of miscellaneous income also the assessee filed additional information before the Ld. CIT(A) which was not available before the Assessing Officer and therefore Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in adjudicating the issue without resorting to procedure under rule 46A(3) of the Rules.
Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee did not object to the request of the learned departmental representative to send the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for following due procedure under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issues raised in grounds 1 to 4 of the appeal for deciding afresh after following the due procedure under rule 46A of I.T. Rules in respect of additional evidences furnished by the assessee. The additional ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed. In view of the additional ground allowed in favour of the Revenue the regular grounds 1 to 4 of the appeal of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Now we take up the cross objection raised by the assessee. 25. In cross objection No. one, the assessee has requested that on the issue of warranty expenses, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the alternative prayer of the assessee of allowability of actual amount of ₹ 1, 17, 94, 570/-incurred by the
12 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 assessee during the year. We find that the issue of disallowance of provision of warranty expenses has been restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh following the procedure of rule 46A of I.T.Rules. The allowability of actual warranty expenses is an alternative prayer of the assessee and therefore we feel it appropriate to direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the alternative prayer of the assessee in accordance with law while adjudicating, ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue related to the issue of provision of warranty expenses.
The cross objection No. two of the assessee relates to disallowance of bad debts written off of Rs.4,93,06,433/-. The assessee challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidence while adjudicating the issue of disallowance of bad debts. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under:
“4.3 I have considered the facts of the case. The appellant claimed bad debts of Rs.4,93,06,433/-. During assessment proceedings, the A.O. provided sufficient opportunities to the appellant to justify the claim of bad debt and as to whether the conditions specified in sec.36(2) were fulfilled. Even after opportunities provided the appellant did not prove with documentary evidences before A.O. that such bad debt were offered as income in the PL& account for the under consideration or in earlier years. Though as per decision of Supreme Court and CBDT Circular as relied upon by the appellant, it was not necessary to prove that the debt had become bad. It was also explained that by making claim in the P&L account, the condition of writing off of such bad debt in the books of account was satisfied. However, the conditions laid down in sec.36(2) is that such bad debt should have been offered in the P&L account of year under consideration or in any earlier years. During assessment proceedings, the appellant filed list of such parties against which bad debt was claimed but it was not proved by appellant before A.O. that such bad debt were offered to tax in any assessment year. In the appellate proceedings, the appellant has again filed list of such parties in respect of which bad debt had been claimed. The appellant has also furnished the
13 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 date of invoice in support of its claim that such bad debt was included in the sale of that particular year. However, such additional evidences cannot be entertained in the appellate proceedings. The appellant has failed to explain as to why such evidences were not filed before A.O. during assessment proceedings. In the facts and circumstances appellant's claim cannot be entertained at this stage that such amount were offered to tax in the P&L account of year under consideration or in any earlier years. In the facts and circumstances the A.O. was justified in disallowing appellant's claim on the ground that the conditions specified u/s. 36(2) was not fulfilled by the appellant. This ground of appeal is therefore, dismissed.” 27. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that for rendering justice and execution of adjudication of the issue in dispute, additional evidence might be admitted. The learned departmental representative objected to the admissibility of the additional evidence.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the pinion that in the interest of substantial justice, the additional evidence produced by the assessee on the issue of bad debt is required to be admitted. We are of the view that by way of withholding the evidences, assessee does not gain or benefit. We are also of the view that for determining whether the corresponding debt amount was taken into consideration as income in earlier years, verification of relevant invoices filed by the assessee is crucial. In view of above discussion, we feel it appropriate to direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences in the form of invoices, etc on the issue of allowability of bad debt and adjudicate the issue in dispute in accordance with law.
In cross objection No. 3 the assessee has contested the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that no evidences were filed by the assessee with regard to research and development expenses amounting to ₹ 37, 69,006/-. In cross objection No. four,
14 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012
the assessee has taken alternative prayer of considering the research and development expenses for allowance as normal business expenditure under section 37 of the Act. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is reproduced as under :
“5.1 The facts of the case were that the appellant claimed expenses amounting to Rs.37,69,006/- u/s. 35(l)(i) of the Act. The A.O. asked appellant to furnish details of Revenue expenditure on scientific research. The appellant vide letter dtd.03.12.2010 explained to the A.O. as under:
"The company has paid expenses amounting to Rs.20,51,876/- to regulatory authorities i.e. ARAI for approval of various requirements under the Motor Vehicle Act. The copy of invoices raised by the ARAI is enclosed. Further the balance amount of Rs.17,17,130/- is incurred towards inhouse expenses on research of testing of cars and spare parts."
The A.O. held that ARAI was not an institute or organization or association , amount given to which was eligible for deduction u/s.35 of the Act. The Central Government had not given any such approval to ARAI. Therefore, the amount of Rs.20,51,876/- paid to ARAI was disallowed by A.O. In respect of balance expenses of Rs.17,17,130/- the A.O. held that the appellant did not give any documentary evidences to prove that the amount was spent on inhouse research and testing. The A.O. therefore, disallowed the appellant's total claim of Rs.37,69,006/- and added the same to the total income of the appellant.
5.2 During appellate proceedings, the appellant explained that a sum of Rs.20,51,876/- had been paid to regulatory authority i.e. Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) for approval of various requirements under the Motor Vehicle Act which was a recurring expense. The said expenses was incurred in the routine course of business and hence the same should be allowed as deduction in the computation of income. This expenditure being normal course of business expenditure if not allowable u/s.35 was clearly allowable u/s.37 of the Act.
For the balance expenditure of Rs. 17,17,130/-, the appellant explained that the sum was incurred towards in-house expenses on research and testing of cars and spare parts and was also business expenditure incurred in the routine course of business and hence ought to be allowed as deduction u/s.37 of the Act if not allowable u/s.35. The appellant admitted that it had claimed the above two expenses u/s.35 of the Act. There was no debate on the issue that expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of business of the appellant company and
15 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 hence allowable as normal business expenses. The appellant explained that just because it had claimed expenditure u/s.35 instead of sec.37 was no reason why the expense should not be allowed in computing business income. The appellant relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Chokshi Metal Refinery vs. CIT 107 ITR 63 . In view of the above submissions, the appellant requested that the expenditure of Rs.37,69,006/- may be allowed u/s. 37(1) of the Act.
5.3 I have considered the facts of the case. The appellant claimed payment of Rs.20,51,876/- paid to ARAI and other expenses of Rs.17,17,130/- as deductible u/s. 35(1) of the Act. However, as per facts discussed in above paras there was no doubt that the said expenditure was not allowable u/s.35(1) of the Act.
The next question for consideration is as to whether the appellant's expenditure was allowable as business expenditure u/s.37(l) of the Act. During assessment proceedings, the appellant simply claimed the expenditure u/s.35(l) of the Act without furnishing any details, explanation and documentary evidences as to how the said expenditure was also allowable u/s.37(l) of the Act. During appellate proceedings, the appellant's claim can not be examined as to whether such expenditure also qualify for deduction u/s.37(l) of the Act. Without prejudice to this fact, during appellate proceedings also the appellate has not filed any evidences that such expenses were necessarily incurred for the purpose of business. In the facts and circumstances the appellant's claim of deduction of these expenses u/s.37(1).” 30. Thus, it is evident that claim of the assessee for deduction has been denied by the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Before us the learned counsel of the assessee has given undertaking for producing necessary evidence in support of its claim of justification of expenses under relevant provisions of the Act. In view of the undertaking given by the Ld. counsel and in the interest of substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore this issue back to him for deciding afresh in the light of additional evidences filed, if any by the assessee in this regard. The cross objection No. 3 and 4 of the assessee are accordingly allowed, for statistical purpose
16 ITA 178/Mum/2012 C.O. 269/Mum/2012 31. In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are allowed, for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31/01/2022. Sd/- sd/- (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) (OM PRAKASH KANT) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 31/01/2022 Pavanan Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT concerned 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File /True copy/ By Order
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai