Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “H” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3227/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Mehul K. Mehta, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Prop. Vaishnavi Enterprises 15(1)(3), v. Room No. 23, Mumbai. Building No. 18, Kapolwadi Building 3 rd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : ACJPM 9707 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)
Assessee by : Mrs. Mamta Parmar Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist, DR
सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 06-03-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 14-03-2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member
This appeal, filed by the assessee, being ITA No. 3227/Mum/2016, is directed against the appellate order dated 14th December, 2015 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2010-11, the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) arising from the assessment order dated 28th March, 2013 passed by learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter called “ the AO”) u/s 143(3) (ii) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter called “the Act”).
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 2
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called “the tribunal”) read as under:-
“1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in estimating GP at 17.5% as against 7.5% as declared by the appellant in respect of purchases from two parties i.e. BPT Tube Corporation and National Sales Corporation. 2. The learned CIT (Al erred in not understanding business of assessee before making such a huge addition. 3. The learned CIT (Al erred in law and/or facts in not considering the submissions and explanations filed by the assessee during the appeal proceedings before passing the order. 4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not following Article 227 of The Constitution Of India 1949, which states the High Courts have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout its territories which means the decision of high court is binding on all lower authority within its territories which, inter alia, includes Income Tax Officers etc.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business as dealers in M.S. Pipe and Structures and runs a proprietary concern under the name and style of M/s Vaishnavi Enterprises.
At the outset, we find that this appeal is filed by the assessee late by 54 days, beyond the period stipulated u/s 253(3) of 1961 Act for filing an appeal before the tribunal. The assessee has duly filed an affidavit dated 05-05-2016 and application dated 29-04-2016 praying for condonation of delay in filing appeal late by 54 days. It is averred in afore-stated affidavit by the assessee that his father died on 2-12-2015 and his brother had left the country and never came back leaving the responsibility of his wife and children on the assessee, which reasons caused disturbances in the affairs of assessee family
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 3
as well led to death of his father on 02-12-2015. In the afore-stated affidavit, the assessee submitted that due to the above said family problems, the assessee was very much disturbed and shattered . It was submitted that the appellate order dated 14-12-2015 passed by the ld. CIT(A) was received by office staff of the assessee on 13th January, 2016 which were kept by them in the cabin of the assessee on his table. The same was not informed to the assessee by office staff of the assessee. The assessee averred in the afore- stated affidavit that he resumed his duties in or about second week of April 2016 and then became aware about the appellate order dated 14-12-2015 passed by learned CIT(A) , being received by his office on 13-01-2016 . It is stated that the assessee took action for filing of the appeal before the tribunal, which was filed belatedly by 54 days on 06-05-2016. Thus, the assessee prayed for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing this appeal beyond time stipulated u/s 253(3) of 1961 Act before the tribunal. The assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector , Land Acquisition v. Mst Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 0471(SC) and several other judicial decisions of the Hon’ble Courts which are detailed in application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee with the tribunal.
Ld. D.R. opposed the condonation application and affidavit filed by the assessee and submitted that this appeal should not be admitted.
We have considered contentions of the assessee and of the ld. D.R. and perused the material on record including case laws relied upon. We have observed that ld. CIT(A) has passed an appellate order on 14th December, 2015 which is stated to received by the assessee on 13th January, 2016. As per affidavit of the assessee filed by the assessee, the family of the assessee was disturbed as his brother had left the country leaving his wife and children which are now looked after by the assessee and due to this sad incident in the family of his brother leaving the country leaving behind his
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 4
wife and children, father of the assessee also died on 2nd December, 2015 due to the shock of leaving of his one son country leaving his son’s wife and their children. The assessee has contended that these events shattered and disturbed his normal family and business life, which in our considered view is a sufficient cause which prevented the assessee for filing appeal in time before the tribunal as stipulated u/s 253(3) of 1961 Act being a genuine cause for delay in filing appeal and under these circumstances keeping in view substantial interest of justice vis-à-vis technicalities , we are inclined to condone delay of 54 days in filing this appeal with the tribunal by the assessee late beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of 1961 Act in the interest of justice. Thus, we admit this appeal and proceed to decide this appeal on merits. We order accordingly.
During the relevant previous year under consideration, the assessee had reported sales of Rs. 4.90 crores and purchases of Rs. 4.61 crores, in his proprietory concern M/s Vaishnavi Enterprises. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(2) of 1961 Act, the assessee duly submitted list of purchase parties, sale parties, creditors and debtors, etc. .The A.O. issued notices u/s 133(6) of 1961 Act to various parties at the addresses provided by the assessee by registered post to verify genuineness of the purchases . In respect to following parties, notices u/s 133(6) of 1961 Act sent by the AO could not be served to the following parties and these notices were returned back being unserved:- Sl No. Name of the party Transaction Amt. 1. Bharat Forge 26,40,944 2. BPT Tube Corporation 17,47,051 3. National Sales 14,29,227 Corporation 4. Veerkripa Enterprises -
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 5
The assessee was asked by the AO to produce these afore-said four parties along with their books of accounts and prove genuineness of purchases made from these four parties. The assessee produced only sample photocopies of purchase bills for material purchased from these parties as well ledger extract of these parties from its books of accounts. The assessee could not produce all details called for by the AO and also could not produce these parties except M/s Bharat Forge who was produced by the assessee before the AO , from whom the assessee had made purchases . The stock register was also not produced by assessee before the AO . The assessee submitted that payments for purchases from these parties were made by account payee cheque. The A.O. observed that these parties are suspected sales tax hawala operators as per Maharashtra VAT Department and these parties were non- existent and never supplied material to the assessee rather they provided accommodation entries to the assessee and issued bogus invoices , hence, the purchases made from the said parties could not be genuine, was the observation of the AO. The AO observed that material has not been received by the assessee from these parties and the material shown to have been purchased from the said parties was actually purchased in cash from some other parties . The assessee issued cheques to these parties who provided accommodation entries by way of bogus bills and received back cash from these parties. The AO observed that quantitative details of stock tallies. The AO observed that the assessee has taken accommodation entries from these bogus parties. The AO observed that purchases from these parties are not verifiable. The assessee could not prove the delivery of the material said to have been purchased from these parties. The AO observed that delivery documents for the material especially the transportation receipt were not produced. The AO observed that assessee has not come out with details from where the material has been purchased and the purchases were held by the AO to be not genuine. The A.O. made additions to the tune of Rs. 28,57,208/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of 1961 Act by holding the same to be ITA 3327/Mum/2016 6
deemed income of the assessee u/s 69C of 1961 Act, by working out disallowance based on peak calculation of purchases , of which details are provided by the AO as per working chart at page 11 of the assessment order dated 28-03-2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 28-03-2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A).
In appeal before learned CIT(A), the assessee contended that these four parties were listed as suspicious dealers by Maharashtra VAT authorities. The Maharashtra VAT authorities have recorded statement of these four parties whereby they confessed that they have not done any business and invoices issued are only accommodation entries wherein bogus bills were issued . It was submitted that copies of statement of these parties recorded before Maharashtra VAT Authorities were not given to the assesssee by the AO during the assessment proceedings. It was submitted that these parties did not deposit VAT with government and hence they were put in the list of suspicious dealers by Maharashtra VAT department and the assessee cannot be burdened under Income-tax proceedings due their failure to deposit VAT unless there is direct nexus of the assessee being proved in these bogus transactions which the assessee contended that it was not proved. It was submitted that assessee is stockist / dealers and importers of M. S. Pipes fittings and other M S products. The pipes are purchased in bulk Quantity in Kg. and then sold to customers in feet, kgs., pcs. etc. in small quantities . The assessee submitted that payments are made for these purchases by account payee cheque. It was submitted that the assessee was not allowed by the AO to cross examination these parties. The statements were recorded at the back of the assessee by Maharashtra VAT authorities was the contention of the assessee before learned CIT(A) and hence the same cannot be used against the assessee without allowing cross examination of these parties. The ITA 3327/Mum/2016 7
assessee submitted that Maharashtra VAT department has not initiated any action against the assessee. There is no incriminating material which could suggest that the assessee received back cash against account payee cheques issued towards payment made for purchase of these material. It was submitted that the additions have been made based on surmises, conjectures and presumptions which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The assessee submitted that details of purchase and sales were submitted, invoices were submitted, sales were accepted by the AO , details of PAN, VAT/TIN number of these parties etc. were submitted and payments were made by account payee cheques . Thus, it was submitted that the assessee has discharged its primary onus.
The ld. CIT(A) based upon several case laws, observed that in the present case, the assessee has failed to produce Purchase order , transportation bill, octroi receipt, goods receipt note and subsequent sales/manufacturing details . The Maharashtra VAT department had classified these four parties as Hawala dealers and has subsequently forwarded the information to the Income-tax department that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries . Thus, onus is very heavy on the assessee to prove with infallible evidence that the purchases are genuine and material was actually received by the assessee from these parties. No evidence is produced by the assessee that the material as to quantity and quality as stipulated in invoices from these four parties were actually received by the assessee. There are no vehicle numbers in the invoices to prove delivery of material. The documents such as Purchase order, transportation bill, octroi receipt, goods receipt note were not submitted by the assesse. It was observed by the learned CIT(A) that A.O. has held that the parties from whom the purchases were made by the assessee was found to be bogus and non-existent . The AO also observed that the assessee purchased the goods from other parties in cash but not from these four non-existent parties , as sales were shown by the assessee against
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 8
purchases on which income was offered for taxation. The motive behind obtaining bogus bills thus, appears to be inflation of purchase price so as to suppress true profits. The ld. CIT(A) held that profit as embedded in the bogus purchases is to be estimated instead of determining peak balance of such purchases as was done by the AO to make addition to income of the assessee, as the assessee had purchased material from some un-know parties. It was observed by learned CIT(A) that since the assessee is offering GP of around 7.5%, the ld. CIT(A) estimated GP of 17.5% on these alleged bogus purchases from the parties. The learned CIT(A) refer to decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT v. Simit Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com385(Guj), wherein on the identical facts, the tribunal upheld additions to the tune of 12.5% being the probable profit on such alleged bogus purchases, which was upheld by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court by holding that in such cases profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee’s income. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly directed the A.O. to estimate profit of 17.5% on the total alleged bogus purchases from these parties as the profit element embedded in such purchases, while the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee has already offered for taxation GP of 7.5% which shall be reduced from such estimated profit and only net additions were sustained to the tune of 10% of total purchases from said parties, vide appellate order dated 14-12-2015 passed by learned CIT(A).
Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 14-12-2015 passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the assessee had made purchases from two parties namely BPT Tube Corporation and National Sales Corporation which were in the list of suspicious dealers by Maharashtra VAT authorities wherein additions to the tune of Rs. 28,57,208/- based on peak calculation of purchases were made by the AO.
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 9
These parties were suspected to be hawala dealers by the Maharashtra VAT authorities. The A.O. added the entire amount treating them as bogus purchases based on peak amount of purchases . It is submitted that the payments were made by account payee cheques. The A.O. issued notices u/s 133(6) of 1961 Act which has been returned unserved with respect to four parties as mentioned in AO order. However, M/s Bharat Forge appeared before the AO as the assessee produced the said party, while rest three parties could not be produced as they are not available on their known addresses as mentioned in their invoices. It was submitted that all details were submitted. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating GP @ 17.5% on purchases from these parties. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that stock register could not be produced as the material has been purchased on ‘Kg.’ basis while sold in pieces, feet or kg in small quantities and it was not possible to reconcile the stock. It was submitted that GP rate of 7.11% was declared in the books of account. The ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating GP @ 17.5% on purchases from these parties. The ld. Counsel submitted that last four years GP ratio’s are as under:-
Asst. year Sales Purchase Gross Profit GP% 2007-08 15347933 15280241 1214130 7.91 2008-09 25904000 28720381 1790221 6.91 2009-10 33736536 31002944 2417746 7.17 2010-11 49026761 46123112 3486031 7.11
The ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT(A) erred in applying GP ratio at 17.5% on purchases from these parties. It is submitted that in Iron & Steel Industry, the profitability ratios for the four quarter for previous year 2009-10 is as under(Ref csimarket.com relied upon by the assessee –PB/page 1), while average comes to 8.82% Gross Margin Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 in %age
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 10
15.26% 11.69% 5.4% 2.94%
The ld. D.R. submitted that the Revenue has not filed appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), wherein the learned CIT(A) had given relief to the assesseee wherein GP rate of 17.5% was adopted for purchases from these parties instead of addition made by the AO based on peak calculation of purchases. The GP ratio of 17.5% is applied by learned CIT(A) on bogus purchases which is quite reasonable, while the assessee had only declared GP ratio of 7.11% in its books of accounts. The ld. CIT(A) has only added 10% to GP w.r.t. bogus purchases from these accommodation entry providers. It was submitted that learned CIT(A) rightly relied on decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit Sheth(supra).Ld DR submitted that assessee has not submitted any transport challan for actual delivery of material allegedly purchased from these four bogus parties. It was submitted that from the details of bills, the column for vehicle number was left blank in each of the invoice. It was submitted that no stock register was maintained by the assessee.
We have considered rival contentions and also perused the material available on record. We have observed that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business as dealers in M.S. Pipe and Structures and runs a proprietary concern under the name and style of M/s Vaishnavi Enterprises. During the year under consideration, the assessee had recorded sales at Rs. 4.90 crores and purchases were to the tune of Rs. 4.61 crores. The Revenue got information from Maharashtra VAT department that assessee is beneficiary of bogus purchases made from hawala dealers who were not engaged in business but issuing bogus bills and providing accommodation entries. The AO issued notices to parties u/s 133(6) of 1961 Act to verify genuineness of purchases and notices from below mentioned four parties were returned back un-served:
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 11
Sl No. Name of the party Transaction Amt. 1. Bharat Forge 26,40,944 2. BPT Tube Corporation 17,47,051 3. National Sales 14,29,227 Corporation 4. Veerkripa Enterprises -
These parties have also given statement before Maharashtra VAT department that they were not engaged in business but were issuing bogus bills which were in the nature of merely accommodation entries , of which the assessee was also beneficiary. The AO asked the assessee to produce these four parties wherein the assessee could not produce three parties except Bharat Forge who appeared before the AO at the behest of the assessee. The assessee had contended that payments were made by account payee cheque, however, the assessee could not produce stock register and consumption of material details etc. , while sample copies of purchase bills were produced . The assessee contended that the material has been purchased on kg. basis while the same is sold in pieces, feet or kgs in small quantities and it was submitted that it is not possible to quantitatively reconcile the same. The stock register was also not produced . The assessee has not maintained stock records, delivery challans, goods received notes , octroi receipt , lorry numbers etc to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases to prove that there was actual delivery of material to the assessee , more so in light of incriminating statements of these alleged bogus entry providers. The AO brought to tax income computed by way of peak calculation of purchases by considering the three parties which could not be produced by the assessee before the AO as stated above wherein fourth party Bharat Forge was not considered by the AO for computing peak purchases vide page 11 of AO assessment order dated 28-03-2013 passed u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act, wherein additions to the tune of Rs. 28,57,208/- was made by the AO towards bogus
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 12
purchases based on peak calculation of purchases. The ld. CIT(A) estimated GP at the ratio of 17.5% on alleged bogus purchases as against 7.11% declared by the assessee in its return of income filed with the Revenue , wherein it was held by the learned CIT(A) that profit embedded in purchases which were purchased from hawala operators are to be estimated as the assessee did purchased these material although from other dealers in cash, as sales were accepted , but the purchases were made from other parties by making payment in cash, while bogus bills were only sourced from these four parties. The assessee has produced four years GP ratio as declared to Revenue in return of income filed with Revenue, which is as under:-
Asst. year Sales Purchase Gross Profit GP% 2007-08 15347933 15280241 1214130 7.91 2008-09 25904000 28720381 1790221 6.91 2009-10 33736536 31002944 2417746 7.17 2010-11 49026761 46123112 3486031 7.11
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in Iron & Steel Industry, the profitability ratios for the four quarter for previous year 2009-10 is as under(csimarket.com), wherein average GP comes to 8.82% for financial year 2009-10 , as under:-
Gross Margin Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2009 in %age 15.26% 11.69% 5.4% 2.94%
In view of incriminating information received by Revenue from hawala dealers who are merely entry operators providing accommodation bogus invoices, the onus has shifted back to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction of purchase of material as incriminating information has been ITA 3327/Mum/2016 13
received by Revenue that the assessee is beneficiary of bogus purchase bills/ accommodation entries provided by Hawala operators . The purchases are made by the assessee and amounts are standing in the books of the assessee and onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchase transaction. We have observed that the assessee could not produce these three parties except Bharat Forge despite being called by the AO . The notices issued u/s 133(6) of 1961 had returned un-served as these parties do not exist on the addresses given by them. The assessee could not produce stock register and also could not prove actual delivery of material being purchased from these hawala dealers as octroi receipts, goods receipt note, lorry receipts, purchase orders could not be produced nor invoices had any details of movement of goods to assessee from the alleged hawala dealers,, however, the assessee did produced the sample copies of purchase invoices and also submitted that payments were made by account payee cheque . Under the factual matrix of the case , we have observed that the learned CIT(A) rightly held that profit embedded in these purchases are to be estimated wherein the learned CIT(A) estimated GP @ 17.5% on alleged bogus purchases as against 7.11% declared by the assessee. We are in principle agreeable with the approach of learned CIT(A) that profits are to be estimated as embedded in these alleged bogus purchases which view is consistent with the view of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT v. Simit Sheth(supra) . Similar view was taken by Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Sh. Ashwin Purshottam Bajaj v. ITO in ITA no. 4736/Mum/2014 vide orders dated 14-12-2016 ( wherein one of us being Accountant Member was party to said order) , wherein tribunal held as under :
“9. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record. We have observed that the assessee is an individual running a proprietorship firm namely M/s The Shoe Box INC Retail Store of footwear, bags, belts, wallets and leather goods,
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 14
boutique etc. having shops at different places , and office at Mumbai. Information was received by the AO from the Sales Tax Authorities, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 1.13 crores from following four parties who are in the list of hawala dealers giving accommodation entries without supplying any goods:- S No. Name of parties TIN Financial Amount year 1 Rohit Enterprises 27020680974V 2009-10 Rs. 8,84,584 2 Deep Enterprises 27750595164V -do- Rs. 18,09,710 3 Kwality Enterprises 27790284742V -do- Rs. 60,33,496 4 V3 Enterprises 27860613194V -do- Rs. 26,16,988 Total Rs.1,13,44,778/-
The AO issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the above stated parties to seek relevant information/documents but the notices were returned un- served. The assessee was asked by the AO to produce these four parties but the assessee could not produce the parties from whom the purchases were made. The AO made additions u/s 69C of the Act of the peak credit outstanding to be payable to these four parties during the year to the tune of Rs.1,31,88,227/- as against purchases of Rs.1,13,44,778/- . The credit for purchases from these four parties of Rs.1,13,44,778/- are appearing in the books of accounts of the assessee. The assessee has to discharge the primary onus as to the genuineness and bonafide of the transaction of purchase of goods. It is observed that the A.O. has made addition of the entire purchases amount to Rs. 1.13 crores by making additions of Rs. 1,31,88,227/- being peak credit payable during the year for purchases to these parties which included balance of Rs.18,43,451/- for purchases made in the earlier year, while the AO has , however , not doubted the sales made by the assessee against these purchases. The assessee has reconciled the quantitative details of the stock reflected in these purchases with quantitative details of stock as per sale invoices. The A.O. has doubted the purchases from these four alleged accommodation entry providers being hawala dealers as concluded by Sales Tax Department of Government of Maharashtra to be bogus purchases, that these four parties only provided accommodation bills and the goods were never supplied by these parties and the assessee allegedly made purchases from some other parties for which payments were made through undisclosed income. Thus, the A.O. observed that the assessee has purchased the material from someone else while bogus bills were organized by these hawala dealers, hence, section 69C of the Act was invoked by the AO and additions were made by the AO. The conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has purchased material from some other dealers but quantitative reconciliation of the stock was duly done by the assessee of the sale and purchase and hence the profit element in this accommodation entries are to be added to the income
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 15
cannot be faulted . The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition by estimating GP ratio of 12.5% of Rs. 1,13,44,778/- being purchases from these alleged four accommodation entry providers. We do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A) whereby net profit was estimated which was a reasonable estimation made by learned CIT(A) and we sustain/affirm the order of learned CIT(A). In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue. We order accordingly” We donot find any infirmity in the well reasoned appellate order of learned CIT(A) which we are inclined to affirm/sustain except that , in our considered view , the end of justice will be met in the instant case if GP is estimated to tune of 12.5% of the purchases from these alleged hawala operators which will cover any leakage of Revenue by way of VAT, commission etc. . Thus, as compared to the GP ratio at 7.11% declared by the assessee, we are estimating GP ratio at the rate of 12.5% on the said bogus purchases wherein the assessee will be allowed credit of declared GP ratio of 7.11% and net addition to GP ratio shall be to the tune of 5.39% on bogus purchases, hence , we allow partial relief to the assessee.We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 3227/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th March, 2017. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांकः 14-03-2017 को क" गई । sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated 14-03-2017 व."न.स./ R.K. R.K. R.K., Ex. Sr. PS R.K.
ITA 3327/Mum/2016 16
आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned, Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT- Concerned, Mumbai "वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai H” Bench 5. 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.