INCOME TAX OFFICER-13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VIJAY VISION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Sh-2आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ ITO -13(3)(3) M/s. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2nd Floor Spec House, v. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAACV2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR) Assessee by: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member: This appeal, filed by Revenue, being ITA No. 4813/Mum/2017, is directed against appellate order dated 24.04.2017 in appeal no. CIT(A)-21/ITO-13(3)(3)/IT-107/2016-17, passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for assessment year 2010-11, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 17.03.2016 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”) for AY 2010-11.

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

vi. "The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary."

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

Sr. Amounts (Rs.) Name of the party from whom assessee shown No purchases 1. Lahree Impex 14,60,369/- 2. Siddhivinayak Corporation 1,456/- 14,61,825/- Total

b). The name(s) of the above person(s) was also appearing in the list of Hawala Dealers who provided the bills without delivery of actual goods, made available in the public domain in the official website of the Maharasthtra Sales Tax Department. Before the Sales Tax Authorities the Proprietor/Partner/Director of the supplier concerns have stated on Oath that they have not physically purchased or sold any goods and they have merely issued bogus bills of purchase/sale. In view of the above facts, I have a reason to believe that the income to the tune of Rs. 14,61,825/- has escaped assessment". 3.2. The AO during course of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the 1961 Act, observed that the assessee had availed accommodation entries from the persons indulging in issuing bogus purchases and sales bills without actual delivery of goods. The AO also observed that the sales tax department has further stated that the purchases made by the assessee from various hawala dealers amounting to Rs. 14,61,825/- were bogus purchases. The AO also observed that these hawala dealers have confirmed before Maharashtra Sales Tax Department vide affidavits filed /statements recorded therein that they were involved in issuing invoices for bogus purchases and sales without supplying/delivering any goods. The AO was of the view that parties to these transactions had only provided accommodation entries and issued bogus bills without supplying/delivering goods. The payments were made by the parties who obtained bogus bills without delivery of material, to these hawala dealers through banking channel to route the funds and show that transactions as genuine. It was observed that merely payments being made from account payee

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

cheque and bills for these goods being received does not authenticate the transactions. The AO was of the view that the assessee procured the goods from someone else whose particulars , mode and sources of payments, the assessee does not wish to disclose to Revenue. The assessee was confronted with this incriminating information by the AO during reassessment proceedings. The assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings was asked by the AO to prove genuineness of these purchases made from alleged hawala dealers.

3.3 The assessee submitted before the AO during reassessment proceedings that purchases from M/s Lahree Impex to the tune of Rs. 14,60,369/- were debited to Machinery Maintenance Material A/c wherein material procured were used for machinery maintenance. It was submitted that all the payments to M/s Lahree Impex were made through account payee cheques. It was submitted that purchases from M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation were debited to Repair and Maintenance General Account wherein acrylic sheets were purchased which were used for general repairs. The assessee claimed that payments were made in cash to M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation from petty cash account. It was claimed that the purchases made from both these parties were genuine purchases. The assessee furnished before the AO copies of bills issued by these parties which also carried their VAT/CST/TIN details w.r.t. their registrations with Sales Tax/VAT department. The extract of ledger accounts of these parties as were appearing in assessee‟s books of accounts were also submitted. The copies of bank statement evidencing payment by cheques to M/s Lahree Impex were enclosed . Similarly copies of petty cash book extracts wherein payment to Siddhivinayak Corporation was reflected was enclosed. The assessee also submitted note on utilisation of the material received from these parties for its business. The assessee also claimed that auditors of the assesssee has not given any adverse remarks while certifying its accounts. The prayers were made that these are genuine purchases and hence no disallowance be made. The

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

assessee also relied upon case laws which found mentioned in assessment order to contend that no additions are warranted on the factual matrix of the case.

3.4 The AO after considering the submissions of the assessee was of the view that these parties are listed on web site of Maharashtra VAT department as hawala dealers who are issuing bogus bills without supplying any material. These parties have filed affidavits or given statements before the Maharashtra VAT authorities averring that they were indulging in bogus/hawala activities of issuing bogus bills without supplying any material. These parties have also averred before Maharashtra VAT authorities that they used to withdraw cash from bank and give cash back to the parties from whom cheques were received against paper/hawala bills issued by them without supplying/delivering any material, after deducting their commission . The AO also observed that in searches conducted by Maharashtra VAT authorities, there were seizure of huge cash from these alleged hawala dealers which were withdrawn by these hawala dealers from their bank accounts to return the same back after deducting their commission to the parties from whom cheques were received against bogus bills. The AO observed that the assessee had failed to discharge onus cast on it to prove that purchases made by it were genuine. The assessee could not produce these parties before the AO. The AO issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the 1961 Act and it was found by the AO that most of these parties were not traceable or did not responded to notices issued u/s 133(6) of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that the onus lies on the assessee to prove genuineness of these purchases and to prove that these suppliers are genuine suppliers of the material. The assessee also did not submitted evidences of purchases like delivery challans, transport bills etc.. The AO was of the view that purchases have been made by the assessee from undisclosed parties in the open market in cash at much lower prices , and the assessee obtained invoices from these hawala dealers. The AO observed that these

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

hawala dealers did not pay VAT/Sales Tax and /or income tax on sale of the unaccounted goods which resulted in lower purchase price for the assessee. The payment were made by the assessee to these hawala dealers by cheque and cash has been received back from these hawala dealers by the assessee , after deducting their commission. The AO also observed that payments have been made after substantial delays which also shows that back dated bills were arranged from these hawala dealers without getting any delivery of material. The AO confirmed the additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of 25% of these alleged bogus purchases which were added to the income declared by the assessee, by summarising his findings by holding as under, vide reassessment order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act:

“ a). The primary onus is no(sic. on) the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchases claimed by it. As per section 101,102 and 106 of Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the claims including purchases to satisfaction of the AO. Which was not discharged by the assessee as it failed to produce the parties from whom purchases were made. Since the primary facts are in knowledge of the assessee, it is its duty to provide the correct address or contact modes of' the alleged suppliers. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Raj High Court of India (2002) 178 CTR (Raj) 420 MP High Court in the case of VISP (P) Vs. CIT Indore(2004) 186 CTR 218 (MP). b). Mere filing of copies of purchase bills without any documentary evidence in support of purchases and payment through account payee cheque cannot be conclusive in a case where genuineness of transaction is in question. c). The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prashant (P) ( 1994) 121 CTR (Cal)20, has held that even payment of account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. d). In the case of CIT Vs. Golcha properties Pvt Ltd. ( in liquidation ) (1996) 136 CTR 222 (Raj) , is(sic. it) was held that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

on the basis of primary farts on records and the revenue is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchase are bogus. e). In this case, there is uncontroverted evidence from an impeccable sources which has the primary duty of taxing a purchase-sale transaction in the form of admission of the so-called seller about issuing bogus bills of purchases. f). The Hon'ble I.T.A.T, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems. Vs. JCIT No. 134/JP/202 dt 10.12.2003 affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems vs. JCIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC)585, 288 ITR 10(SC) has held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of purchases. g). It is well-settled law that strict rules of evidence do not apply to I.T.Act and the real test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is Preponderance of Probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt". Reliance is placed on C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs.CIT (1962) (SC) and Sumti Dayal Vs. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). h). The purchases from hawala operator falls within tie ambit of the term 'Colorable devices” and the Supreme Court observed in the case of Mc Dowell and Co. Ltd Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148 that "Tax planning may be legitimate provide it is within the framework of law. Colorable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is hononble to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges". i). Since the information available on Maharashtra Sales tax Department's Website leads to doubt regarding genuineness of the purchases, it is incumbent on the assessee to produce these parties along with their necessary documents to establish the genuineness of the transaction as these parties were not found at the given address. It is really surprising that all the parties were not found in existence on the given addressee nor was it produced by the assessee before the undersigned to get the claim of purchases verified.

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

j), There is a specific finding of Maharashtra Sales Tax Department that these parties had issued false bills without delivery of goods. Such findings cannot be overlooked. k). Thus, undisputed fact is that the purchases claimed to have been made for these parties remained unverified. l). Reliance is also placed on the following judgments in favour of Revenue a). CIT vs. La Medico, 177 Taxman 628 (2001) (Delhi) b). Sumati Dayal Vs.CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC)(1995) c). CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 1973 CTR (SC) 500: (1971) 821 ITR 540 (SC). m). Further, in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd Vs. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (1996) /55 TTJ 76 (AHD), the Hon'ble I.T.A.T, Mumbai have stated as under: " it is well know that purchases are made from open market without insisting for the genuine bills, the suppliers may be willing to sell those products at a much lower rate as compared to the rate which they may charge in case the dealer has to give a genuine sale invoice in respect of that sale and supply the goods. There may be various factors due to which there is bound to be a substantial difference between the purchase of accounted for goods. There may be a saving on account of sales-tax and other taxes and duties which may be leviable in respect of manufacture or sale of goods in question. The suppliers or the manufacturer make a substantial saving in the income tax in respect of income from sale of unaccounted goods produced and sold by them. This may also be one on the factors due to which the seller may be willing to charge lower rates for unaccounted goods as compared to accounted for goods. Keeping all these factors in mind and also keeping in view of the decision of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T, Mumbai in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (Supra) we hold that 25% the purchase price accounted for in the books of accounts through such fictitious invoices in the name of 33 bogus parties should be disallowed out of the amount of purchases shown to have been made from those 33 bogus suppliers. We direct the Assessing Officer to disallow 25% of the aforesaid amount on account of inflation of purchase prices.

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

alleged bogus purchases as were made by learned AO /CIT(A). The learned DR would rely on decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of N K Protiens Limited v. DCIT reported in (2017) 250 taxman 22(SC) to contend that additions be enhanced to 100% as when the said AO framed assessment,he was not having benefit of the aforesaid judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court. It was submitted by learned DR that notices issued u/s 133(6) of the 1961 Act returned un-served and these parties are untraceable. It was submitted by learned DR that even the assessee could not produce these parties before the authorities below for verification. 5.2 The assessee has filed written submissions through its counsel which are placed in file. It is claimed that the assessee had accepted additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases as was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and no appeal is filed by the assessee with tribunal against the appellate order dated 24.04.2017 passed by learned CIT(A). It is also claimed that Ld. CIT(A) for earlier year AY 2009-10 has also confirmed additions to the tune of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases while the AO made additions to the tune of 100% of alleged bogus purchases. It was submitted that Revenue has not filed any appeal against the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 so far as this issue is concerned , which attained finality. The appellate order of learned CIT(A) is placed in file. It is claimed that while granting part relief for the impugned assessment year 2010-11, the learned CIT(A) relied upon decision of learned CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 wherein additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases were upheld. It is claimed that while upholding additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases for AY 2009-10, the learned CIT(A) has relied upon the ratio of decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth pronounced on 16.01.2013 in tax appeal no. 5531 of 2012. The appellate order dated 26.05.2016 passed by learned CIT(A)-21,

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

Mumbai for AY 2009-10 in appeal number CIT(A)-21/ITO-13(3)(3)/IT- 11/2015-16 is placed in file. The grounds of appeal mentioned in tribunal order in ITA No. 4961/Mum/2016 dated 17.04.2018 in assessee‟s own case for AY 2009-10 in Revenue‟ s appeal which clearly shows that the Revenue did not challenge upholding of additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases by learned CIT(A) as against additions to the tune of 100% of alleged bogus purchases as were made by the AO for AY 2009-10. The said order of the tribunal is placed in file. 6. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of spectacle lenses. The assessee filed its return of income on 05.10.2010 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act. The assessment of the assessee was reopened by the AO u/s. 147 of the Act vide issuance of notice dated 24.03.2015 u/s 148 of the 1961 Act. It is pertinent to mention that reopening of the concluded assessment was done by Revenue by invocation of provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act within four years from the end of the assessment year and originally no scrutiny assessment was framed by the Revenue u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. So far as reopening of the concluded assessment u/s 147 is concerned, the assessee has not raised any challenge to reopening of concluded assessment u/s 147 which has attained finality. The reasons as were recorded by the Revenue stipulated that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from persons indulging in issuance of bogus purchase and sale bills without actual delivery of goods. The sales tax department has stated that purchases to the tune of Rs. 14,61,825/- made by the assessee are bogus purchases. This led to reopening of the concluded assessment by AO u/s 147 of the 1961 Act. The reasons for reopening were recorded by the AO which were furnished to the assessee by the AO vide letter dated 18.08.2015, which are reproduced hereunder:-

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

" The assessee has e-filed the return of income on 02.04.2015 declaring income of Rs. Nil/-. a). The details and information available on record shows the assessee entered into purchase transactions with the following persons during the year who are involved in the providing accommodation entries: Sr. Name of the party from whom assessee shown Amounts (Rs.) No purchases 1. Lahree Impex 14,60,369/- 2. Siddhivinayak Corporation 1,456/- Total 14,61,825/-

b). The name(s) of the above person(s) was also appearing in the list of Hawala Dealers who provided the bills without delivery of actual goods, made available in the public domain in the official website of the Maharasthtra Sales Tax Department. Before the Sales Tax Authorities the Proprietor/Partner/Director of the supplier concerns have stated on Oath that they have not physically purchased or sold any goods and they have merely issued bogus bills of purchase/sale. In view of the above facts, I have a reason to believe that the income to the tune of Rs. 14,61,825/- has escaped assessment". These alleged hawala operators have filed affidavits and/or their statements were recorded before Maharashtra Sales Tax Department wherein they averred that they were indulging in issuing bogus bills without supplying any material. The sales tax department had further stated that the purchases made by the assessee from various hawala dealers amounting to Rs. 14,61,825/- were bogus purchases. The searches were conducted by Maharashtra Sales Tax Authorities on these alleged hawala dealers wherein huge cash was found which were withdrawn by these hawala dealers from their banks against cheques received from the parties who had obtained bogus bills from these hawala dealers to be returned to them against cheques received from these parties , after deducting their commission. The assessee had

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

made alleged purchases from two accommodation entry providers namely Lahreee Impex and M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation, aggregating to Rs. 14,61,825/-. The payments to Lahree Impex was made through account payee cheques while payment to M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation was made in cash through petty cash book. The material were claimed to be procured for Machinery Maintenance from Lahree Impex , while on the other hand material was allegedly procured for General Repairs and Maintenance from M/s Siddhivinayak Corporation . The AO asked assessee to produce these parties for verification which could not be produced by the assessee. The notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the 1961 Act to these parties for verifying purchases returned unserved and verification could not be done by the AO from these parties. The assessee did provide copies of bills received from these parties before the AO . The assessee also produced bank statements and petty cash book from where the payments were made as well copies of ledger extracts of these parties in the books of accounts of the assessee were also produced by the assessee before the AO. The assessee has consistently claimed that these purchases are genuine. The assessee however could not produce delivery challans, transport bills, octroi receipts etc to prove delivery of goods. It was also observed by the authorities below that in order to complete books of accounts , accommodation bills were procured from these parties. In the opinion of the authorities below , the cheques were issued by the assessee to these parties wherein cash was returned back by these parties to the assesssee after deducting their commission. As per authorities below, the cash so received back by the assessee from these hawala dealers is utilised for procuring material from grey market in cash. The authorities below also observed that payments have been made after substantial delays which also shows that back dated bills were arranged from these hawala dealers without getting any delivery of material and these are all bogus purchases. It is also observed by the authorities below that the parties from whom the assessee procured material from grey

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

market does not pay any sales tax/income-tax etc to government and hence the prices of the product are low which advantage assessee obtained by procuring material from grey market. The authorities below also held that in such circumstances in income tax proceedings, the liability to tax is to be fastened on the assessee based on preponderance of probabilities as strict evidence may not be available. It was concluded by authorities below that the assessee had failed to discharge onus cast on it to prove that purchases made by it were genuine. The assessee could not produce these parties before the authorities below and notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) to these parties returned un-served. This led to estimation of profits embedded in these bogus purchases , wherein the AO estimated profits @ 25% of alleged bogus purchases to be brought to tax as income over and above income declared by the assessee in its return of income filed with Revenue , while learned CIT(A) was of the view that fair and reasonable estimate of profit should be 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases as an income to be brought to tax over and above income declared by the assessee. The view taken by the authorities below to estimate profits embedded in bogus purchases as an income to be brought to tax instead of bringing to tax entire bogus purchases is a plausible view based on the entire factual matrix of the case and cannot be considered as a perverse view . Reference is drawn to decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kachwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC). The contention of learned DR to bring to tax as income the entire alleged bogus purchases based on the Hon‟ble Apex Court decision in the case of N K Proteins Limited(supra) cannot be acceded to. There are no clinching and conclusive evidences available on record which could justify disallowing 100% of the bogus purchases. The AO has not made any in-depth verification and analysis of Machinery Maintenance Material Account nor of the General Repairs Account vis-a-vis preceding years expenses to find out any unusual or abnormal variations. No indepth verifications or analysis of these expenses were done by the AO vis-a-

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

vis machineries installed and material used for repairs and maintenance. No statements of the assessee‟s employees were recorded confronting the incriminating information as well to unearth truth. Thus, in nut-shell no cogent , clinching and conclusive evidences is on record to justify adding entire alleged bogus purchases. The Revenue has itself accepted holding of additions to the tune of income of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases as held by learned CIT(A) for AY 2009-10 and no appeal was filed by Revenue with tribunal on this issue for AY 2009-10. It is pertinent to mention that the AO made additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of 100% of alleged bogus purchases for AY 2009-10 which was reduced to 12.5% by learned CIT(A). The learned DR is asking us to enhance income to 100% of alleged bogus purchases as against additions to the income to the tune of 25% made by the AO for the impugned assessment year , for which learned DR is obliged to show perversity in the assessment order of the AO with clinching, conclusive and cogent incriminating material on record which in our considered view the learned DR failed to show. The AO took a plausible view which is not a perverse view. At this stage based on the material on record and a plausible view taken by authorities below, we are not inclined to relegate assessee to another round of litigation . Thus, based on our above discussions ,we are in agreement with the authorities below that under these circumstances profits embedded in purchases is to be estimated which has to be a fair and reasonable estimate as an income to be brought to income-tax over and above income declared by the assessee in return of income filed with Revenue. Even for AY 2009-10, additions were made by the AO disallowing alleged bogus purchases to the tune of 100% which was then reduced to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases by learned CIT(A). The Revenue did not file any appeal with tribunal on this part relief granted by learned CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The assessee has also accepted additions to the tune of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases for both AY 2009-10 and for impugned assessment year i.e. AY 2010- 11 with a view to buy peace and to end dispute/litigation with

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

department. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems v. JCIT reported in (2007) 288 ITR 10(SC) has held that in best judgment assessment an honest and fair estimate of income is to be made . We at this stage do not want assessee to be relegated to pains of another round of litigation based on material on record. In our considered view based on facts and circumstances of the case, we find that estimation of profit by Ld. CIT(A) to the tune of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases as income of the assessee over & above what was declared by the assessee in his return of income , is considered to be a reasonable and fair estimate , which we confirm/affirm. In the result , the appeal of the revenue on this ground stood dismissed. The ground no.(iv) filed by revenue in its appeal with tribunal stand dismissed. We order accordingly.

The assessee has sought to set off the loss of Rs. 1,24,09,517/- in this year and set off it against business income of Rs. 1,24,09,517/- and filed „Nil‟ Return of income. The AO observed that these set off loss was already claimed as set off in AY 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The AO asked the assessee to provide list of un-absorbed 18

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

depreciation brought forward , set off and carry forward since 1998-99 till AY 2010-11. The assessee submitted the details as under:-

7.2. The AO observed that the revenue has already disallowed set off of un-absorbed depreciation in the earlier years as per orders of the AO are as under:-

7.3 The AO observed that as per provisions of Section 32 of the Act, unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward for indefinite period and can be set off against any heads of income except income under the head salaries. The AO observed that but for assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02, unabsorbed depreciation cannot be carried forward for more than eight years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed and set off against any other heads of income except income under the head business or profession. The AO observed that the assessee company had carried forward „unabsorbed depreciation‟ of AY 1998-99 of Rs. 28,08,998/- , AY 1999-00 of Rs. 72,46,077/- and AY 2000-01 amounting to Rs. 23,54,442/- which cannot be adjusted against income of impugned assessment year as more than eight years have already elapsed, vide reassessment order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 8. Aggrieved by the reassessment order dated 17.03.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, the 19

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

assessee filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) after relying upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Private Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 354 ITR 244(Guj.HC) was pleased to grant relief to the assessee , by holding as under:- “5.1. Grounds of Appeal No.2 is in respect of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward of Rs.1,24,09,517/- pertaining to A.Yrs 1998-99, 1999-99 and 2000-01 in computation of taxable income. This issue has been discussed in para 5 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer noted that the Appellant had claimed carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation of AY 1998-99 , 1999-2000 and AY 2000-2001 of Rs 210,04,962 against which an amount of Rs 124,09,517 was set off in the current year. The assessing further noted that such claim of set off had been disallowed in earlier years also. He noted that 'Unabsorbed Depreciation' of AY 1998-99, 1999- 2000 and 2001-01, the same cannot be adjusted against the income for AY 2010-11 as 8 years have already elapsed. He therefore disallowed the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from AY 1998- 99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. 5.2. The appellant submitted that the issue of set off of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 has to be dealt with in accordance with section 32(2) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act 2001 which allowed the carry forward of depredation indefinitely and not by section 32(2) as it stood during the period AY 1997-98 to AY 2001-02 which restricted the carry forward' for eight years. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. 354 ITR 244 and other decisions which followed this decision. 5.3. I have considered the facts of the Assessing Officer, the submissions of the appellant and case laws cited carefully. The first issue is whether unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2001-02 and earlier years can be carried forward and adjusted as part of current depreciation in AY 2010-11. No doubt the special bench of the ITAT in the case of Times Guarantee Ltd. (2010) 40 SOT 14 (Mum) hold that the unabsorbed depreciation for AY 2001-02 and earlier years are governed by the extant law and cannot be carried forward beyond 8 years, the same was over ruled by the Gujarat High Court. The view 20

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

that it can lie carried forward without this restriction has now been followed in several decisions, some of which are listed below. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DC1T(354 ITR 244) Abacus Distribution (India) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 159 TTJ 156 (MUM) Confidence Petroleum India Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1937/Mum/2011) (Mum ITAT) Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. ACIT 22 ITR (Trib.) 737 (Mum) Arch Fine Chemicals v. SCIT (IT Appeal Nos. 2414 & 2415/Mum/2012) (Mum ITAT) 5.4. In the case of Confidence Petroleum, the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in their order dated 24-07-2013 held as under "2.2.Before us, Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that provisions of section 32(2) were amended by Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 1st April 2002, that by the said amendment position as existed prior to 01.04.1997 was restored, that up to AY 1996-97 unabsorbed depreciation of the previous year was treated as current years depreciation that same was allowed to be set off against the income from any other head, that only a limited period the carrying forward was restricted to eight years, that assessee was entitled to set off unabsorbed depreciation as mentioned in the application filed u/s.154 of the Act. He relied upon the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras delivered in the case of Craigmore Plantations India Limited(253 ITR 447). He also relied upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat delivered in .the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. dated 3.08.2012. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO and FAA. He relied upon the order of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Times Guaranty Ltd. (ITA No. 4917 &4918/Mum/2008-AY 2003-04 & 20W-05 (131 TTJ) (Mum) (S.B. 257). 2.3. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material before us. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It appears that while deciding the issue of un-absorbed depreciation, AO and the FAA have not considered the amended provisions of the Sec 32(2) of the Act in right perspective. Perusal of provisions of section 32 show that prior to 01-04-1997, un- absorbed depreciation of the previous year used to be claimed as current depreciation and would be allowed to be set-off against income from any other head. By an

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

amendment to the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act, w.e.f. 01-04-1997,treatment of un-absorbed depreciation underwent a change-because as per the amended provision un-absorbed depreciation was no longer deemed to be part of current deprecation and the period available for set-off of such unabsorbed depreciation from profits of subsequent years was restricted to eight years. It is noteworthy that during earlier period (up to 31.03.1997) no such time limit was prescribed. Vide finance Act, 2001 the provisions of Section 32(2) were once again amended and a result the position as it existed prior to 01-04-1997 was restored back. From the amendments to Finance Act, 2001 it is clear that legislative intent was to allow un-absorbed depreciation to be carried forward beyond period of eight yeas. For the AY under consideration, correct law applicable was the law that prevailed as on the first day of April of that AY. In our opinion during the assessment year under consideration, amended provisions were applicable and AO was supposed to calculate the un-absorbed depreciation as required by the Act. In our opinion, there was no bar to allow the un-absorbed depreciation of the earlier years in the AY 2007-08. We find that similar issue has been discussed and decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat on 23.08.2012.,i n the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. in following manner : " "30. The last question which arises for consideration is that whether the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY. 1997-98 could be allowed to be carried forward and set off after a period of eight years or it would be governed by Section 32 as amended by Finance Jet 2001? The reason given by the Assessing Officer under section 147 is that Section 32(2) of the Act was amended by Finance Act No.2 of 1996 w.e.f. AY. 1997-98 and the unabsorbed depreciation for the A.Y. 1997-98 could be carried forward up to the maximum period of 8 years from the year in which it was first computed. According to the Assessing Officer, 8 years expired in the A.Y. 2005-06 and only till then, the assessee was eligible to- claim unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y.1997-98 for being carried forward and set off against the income for the AY 2005-06. But the assessee was not entitled for unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.43,60,22,158/- for A.Y. 1997-98, which was not eligible for being carried forward and set off against the income for the A.Y. 2006-07. 31. Prior to the Finance Act No.2 of 1996 the unabsorbed depreciation for any year was allowed to be carry forward

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

indefinitely and by e deeming fiction became allowance of the immediately succeeding year. The Finance Act No.2 of 1996 restricted the carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and set-off to a limit of 8 years, from lthe A.Y.I997-98. Circular No.762 dated 18.2.1998 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the form, of Explanatory Notes categorically provided, that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance for any previous year to which fill effect cannot be given in that previous year shall be carried forward and aided to the depreciation allowance of the next year and be deemed to be part thereof. 32.So, the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of A.Y. 1996-97 would be added to the allowance of A.Y. 1997-98 and the limitation of 8 years for the carry-forward and set- off of such unabsorbed depreciation would start from A.Y. 1997-98. 36.The purpose of this amendment has been clarified by Central Board of Direct Taxes in the Circular No. 14 of 2001. The relevant portion of the said Circular reads as under:- "Modification of provisions relating to depreciation. 30.1 Under the existing provisions of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation is allotted for 8 assessment years. 30.2 With a view to enable the industry to conserve sufficient funds to replace plant and machinery, specially in an era where obsolescence takes place so often, the Act has dispensed with the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation. The Act has also clarified that in computing the profits and gains of business or profession for any previous year, deduction of depreciation under section 32 shall be mandatory. 30.3 Under the existing provisions, no deduction for depreciation is allowed on any motor car manufactured outside India unless it is used (i) in the business of running it on hire for tourists, or (ii) outside in the assessee's business or profession in another country. 30.4 The Act has allowed depreciation allowance on all imported motorcars acquired on or after 1st April, 2001.

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

30.5 These amendments will take effect from the 1st April, 2002, and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002-03 and subsequent years." 37.The CBDT Circular clarifies the intent of the amendment that it is for enabling the industry to conserve sufficient funds to replace plant and machinery and accordingly the amendment dispenses with the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation. The amendment is applicable from assessment year 2002-03 and subsequent years. This means that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April, 2002{A.Y. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and not by the provisions of section 32(2) as it stood before the said amendment. Had the intention of the Legislature been to allow the unabsorbed depreciation allowance worked out in A.Y. 1997-98 only for eight subsequent assessment years even after the amendment of section 32(2) by Finance Act, 2001 it would have incorporated a provision to that effect. However, it does not contain any such provision. Hence keeping in view the purpose of amendment of section 32(2) of the Act, a purposive and harmonious interpretation has to be taken. While construing taxing statutes, rule of strict interpretation has to be applied, giving fair and reasonable construction to the language of the section without leaning to the side of assessee or the revenue. But if the legislature fails to express clearly and the assesses becomes entitled for a benefit within the ambit of the section by the clear words used in the section, the benefit accruing to the assessee cannot be denied. Howsoever, Circular No. 14 of 2001 had clarified that under Section 32(2), in computing the profits and gains of business or profession for any previous year, deduction of depreciation under Section 32 shall be mandatory. Therefore, the provision of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 would allow the unabsorbed depreciation allowance available in the A.Y. 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 ad 2001-02 to be carried forward the succeeding years, and if any unabsorbed depreciation or part thereof could not be set off till the A.Y. 2002-03 then it would be carried forward till the time it is set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years. 38. Therefore, it can be said that, current depreciation is deductible in the first place from the income of the business to which it relates. If such deprecation amount is larger than the amount of the profits of that business, then such excess comes for absorption from the profits and

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

gains from any other business or business, if any, carried on by the assessee. If a balance is left even thereafter, that becomes deductible from out of income from any source under any of the other heads of income during that year. In case there is a still balance left over, it is to be treated as unabsorbed depreciation and it is taken to the next succeeding year. Where there is current depreciation for such succeeding year the unabsorbed depreciation is added to the current depreciation for such succeeding year and is deemed as part thereof. If, however, there is no current depreciation for such succeeding year, the unabsorbed depreciation becomes the depreciation allowance for such succeeding year. We are of the considered opinion that any unabsorbed depreciation available to an assessee on 1st day of April 2002 (A.Y. 2002-03) will be dealt with in accordant with the provisions of section 32(1) as amended by Finance Act, 2001. And once the Circular No. 14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with, the unabsorbed depreciation from A.Y 1997-98 up to the A. Y.2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 and became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and ware available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever." Therefore, reversing the order of the FAA, effective Ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee-company." 5.5. Same view was taken by the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in their order dated 9-10-2013 in the case of Arch Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd. In these decisions, the Hon’ble ITAT followed the decision of the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and did not follow the ITAT Spl Bench Mumbai decision in the case Times Guaranty Ltd. on this issue. 5.6. Since the decisions of ITAT Mumbai on this issue is in favour of the appellant, the grounds of appeal in this regard is allowed and the AO is directed to allow the adjustment of unabsorbed depredation and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation claimed for AY 2000-01 and earlier years by assessee as current depreciation and allowed to be set off against the business income in the current year. However, from the details called regarding the amount adjusted in earlier assessment years in the returns filed and especially after the change in assessed

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

income as per assessment orders, it is seen that there are certain amounts that have already been adjusted and thus the quantum mentioned in the return of income in AY 2010-11 has to modified. The assessing officer is directed to verify and explicitly tabulate the amount of bought forward unabsorbed depreciation assessment year wise and the adjustment in the current year. Subject to above, the ground of appeal no 2 is allowed. 6. In the result, appeal is partly allowed.”

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

however, fairly submitted by learned DR that Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the General Motors India P. Ltd.(Supra), has held that unabsorbed depreciation for AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 can be allowed to be carried forward for unlimited period even for this intervening period. It is fairly brought to our notice by learned DR that ITAT Mumbai in Confidence Petroleum India P. Ltd., v. DCIT in ITA no. 1937/Mum/2012 did not follow the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Times Guarantee Limited (2010) 40 SOT 14 (Mum) and chose to follow the decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India P Ltd.(supra) and granted relief to the tax-payer.

9.2 The assessee has filed written submissions and claimed that Mumbai-tribunal in assesse‟s own case for AY 2009-10 has granted relief to the assessee by allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation for the said period AY 1997-98 to 2001-02 beyond period of eight years by relying on judgment of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Private Limited (supra) , in ITA no. 4961/Mum/2016 , vide orders dated 17.04.2018 , by holding as under:-

“6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment denied the setoff of unabsorbed depreciation relevant to Assessment Years 1997-98 and 2000-2001 for the reason that such unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward only to eight Assessment Years immediately succeeding Assessment Year for which the loss was first computed and setoff against any other heads of income. Therefore, he held that unabsorbed depreciation for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999- 2000 cannot be adjusted against the income for Assessment Year 2009-10 as eight years have already lapsed. Accordingly, the unabsorbed depreciation of ₹.55,54,310/- brought forward from Assessment Year 1999- 2000 was disallowed. 7. On appeal Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Arch Fine Chemicals v. ACIT in ITA.No. 2414 and 2415/Mum/2012, where the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India Pvt Ltd., the Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee to adjust the unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward unabsorbed depreciation for Assessment Year 2000-01 and earlier years as current depreciation and allowed to be set-off against business income in

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

the current Assessment Year. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and find that the issue has been covered in favour of the assessee. The question raised before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is as under:

“7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in directing to allow the set off of brought forward depreciation losses of amalgamating company for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 i.e. for the period prior to amendment in sub section (2) of Section 32 of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2002?”.

The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court with regard to this question held as under: “6. Regarding question No. 7 (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the respondent - assessee's appeal on the issue of allowing unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Year 1996- 97 and 1997-98 which was carried forward to be set off in the subject Assessment Year.

(b) The grievance of the Appellant is that in view of the fetter (of eight years) in carrying forward depreciation for Assessment Year 1997-98 upto Assessment Year 2002-03, The set off of the same cannot be allowed in this Assessment year.

(c) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal while allowing the Assessee - respondents' claim follows the decision of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors India (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2013] 354 ITR 244/[2012] 210 Taxman 20/25 taxmann.com 364 wherein on identical facts it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation for the Assessment Year 1997-98 upto Assessment Year 2001-02 could be allowed to be set off, if it was still unabsorbed on 1st April, 2001 The above decision also placed upon the CBDT circular No. 14 of 2001 dated 22nd November 2001 to hold that any unabsorbed depreciation which is available on 1st day of April, 2001 would be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act of 2001. Moreover, the Circular No. 14 of 2001 issued by The CBDT clarifies that restriction of eight years to carry forward and set off the unabsorbed depreciation has been dispensed with Consequently, unabsorbed depreciation for the intervening periods between assessment 1997-98 upto 2001 -02, if available in the assessment year 2002-03 would be allowable as part of carried forward depreciation from Assessment Year 2002-03 onwards No decision contrary to the decision of the Gujarat High Court has been shown to us. It is clarified that although the decision of the Gujarat High Court was rendered in context of re- opening notice it has also examined the issue on merits and drew support from the CBDT circular which is beneficial to the

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

assessee to conclude as aforesaid. Nothing has been shown to us to indicate why the decision of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors (India) Ltd. should not be followed in the present facts. (d) In the above view question No.7 as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.” 8. Therefore, as could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that no substantial question of law arises against the Tribunal order in allowing set-off of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 beyond eight years against the income of the assessee in subsequent years. While holding so the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [354 ITR 244]. Therefore, in view of the above discussion we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. .”

“6. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment denied the setoff of unabsorbed depreciation relevant to Assessment Years 1997-98 and 2000-2001 for the reason that such

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward only to eight Assessment Years immediately succeeding Assessment Year for which the loss was first computed and setoff against any other heads of income. Therefore, he held that unabsorbed depreciation for the Assessment Years 1998-99 and 1999- 2000 cannot be adjusted against the income for Assessment Year 2009-10 as eight years have already lapsed. Accordingly, the unabsorbed depreciation of ₹.55,54,310/- brought forward from Assessment Year 1999- 2000 was disallowed.

“7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in directing to allow the set off of brought forward depreciation losses of amalgamating company for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 i.e. for the period prior to amendment in sub section (2) of Section 32 of the Act w.e.f 01.04.2002?”.

The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court with regard to this question held as under: “6. Regarding question No. 7 (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal has allowed the respondent - assessee's appeal on the issue of allowing unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Year 1996- 97 and 1997-98 which was carried forward to be set off in the subject Assessment Year.

(b) The grievance of the Appellant is that in view of the fetter (of eight years) in carrying forward depreciation for Assessment Year 1997-98 upto Assessment Year 2002-03, The set off of the same cannot be allowed in this Assessment year.

(c) We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal while allowing the Assessee - respondents' claim follows the decision of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors India (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2013] 354 ITR 244/[2012] 210 Taxman 20/25 taxmann.com 364 wherein on identical facts it was held that the unabsorbed depreciation for the Assessment Year 1997-98 upto Assessment Year 2001-02 could be allowed to be set off, if it was still unabsorbed on 1st April, 2001 The above decision also placed upon the CBDT circular No. 14 of 2001 dated 22nd

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

November 2001 to hold that any unabsorbed depreciation which is available on 1st day of April, 2001 would be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act of 2001. Moreover, the Circular No. 14 of 2001 issued by The CBDT clarifies that restriction of eight years to carry forward and set off the unabsorbed depreciation has been dispensed with Consequently, unabsorbed depreciation for the intervening periods between assessment 1997-98 upto 2001 -02, if available in the assessment year 2002-03 would be allowable as part of carried forward depreciation from Assessment Year 2002-03 onwards No decision contrary to the decision of the Gujarat High Court has been shown to us. It is clarified that although the decision of the Gujarat High Court was rendered in context of re- opening notice it has also examined the issue on merits and drew support from the CBDT circular which is beneficial to the assessee to conclude as aforesaid. Nothing has been shown to us to indicate why the decision of the Gujarat High Court in General Motors (India) Ltd. should not be followed in the present facts.

(d) In the above view question No.7 as raised does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.” 8. Therefore, as could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that no substantial question of law arises against the Tribunal order in allowing set-off of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 beyond eight years against the income of the assessee in subsequent years. While holding so the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court considered the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of General Motors India (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [354 ITR 244]. Therefore, in view of the above discussion we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. .”

Respectfully following the decision of Mumbai-tribunal in assessee‟s own case for AY 2009-10, we hold that the assessee is entitled for set off of unabsorbed depreciation for AY 1998-99,1999-00 and 2000-01 , aggregating to Rs. 1,24,09,517/- against the income of the impugned assessment year. We have also noted that the AO has observed that assessee has already sought set off of this un-absorbed deprecation against the income of years prior to the impugned assessment year which was not allowed by the AO for those years. However, since the claim of the assessee is now allowed by the tribunal as above, the AO is directed to make necessary verification while allowing set off of un- absorbed deprecation for AY 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01 against

I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

income of the impugned assessment to ensure that the same was not allowed for earlier years to avoid duplications. The learned CIT(A) has also given similar directions to the AO for verifications to avoid duplication of the same claim. We donot find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) granting relief to the assessee for the impugned assessment year. The Revenue fails on these grounds (i) to (iii) . We order accordingly. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2019. आदेश की घोषणा खुऱे न्यायाऱय में ददनांकः 22.03.2019 को की गई

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, dated: 22.03.2019

Nishant Verma Sr. Private Secretary

copy to… 1. The appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) – Concerned, Mumbai 4. The CIT- Concerned, Mumbai 5. The DR Bench, 6. Master File // Tue copy// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI