FOOD PHARMA INDIA P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(2)(3), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member: The Present Appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, dated 22.01.2014 on the grounds of appeal mentioned herein below.

2 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in upholding disallowance of below mentioned expenses of Rs. 4,95,185/ - u/ s 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being alleged expenses on which TDS was required to be deducted ignoring the submission and explanations made by Assessee.

i. Rent expenses of Rs.3,00,000/-. ii. Accounting Charges of Rs.65,000/- paid to two employees by allegedly terming them as Professional Fees. iii. Salary paid of Rs.45,000/- by allegedly terming them as Legal Expenses. iv. Accounting Charges of Rs.55,185/-. v. Transport Charges of Rs.30,000/-

i. Water Charges of Rs.79,078/-. ii. Warehousing Expenses of Rs.60,000/-. iii. Transport Charges of Rs.1,79,100/-. iv. Repairs & Maintenance Expenses of Rs.88,466/- v. Professional Expenses of Rs.29,750/-. vi. Processing Expenses of Rs.3,67,406/- vii. Packaging Expenses of Rs.31,170/- viii. Motor Car Charges of Rs.14,118/- ix. Brokerage /Commission Expenses of Rs.32,436/-

5 . The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

trading and processing of food grains, spices, natural gums etc. assessee has also

developed a property at New Mumbai. The return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 was

filed on 02.10.2008 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s

143(1) and the case was selected for scrutiny. After serving statutory notices and

seeking reply of the assessee, the AO passed order of assessment dated 30.12.2010

thereby making additions/ disallowances u/s 40(ia) of Rs.4,95,185/-, u/s 37(1) of

Rs.8,51,774/-, cash payment u/s 37(1) of Rs.4,93,570/- and addition on account of

unsecured loan of Rs.7,72,001/-.

and the CIT(A) after considering the case of the assessee dismissed the appeal of

the assessee vide order dated 22-01-2014.

before us on the grounds mentioned herein above.

appeared on behalf of assessee and on the perusal of order sheet we have noticed

that nobody was appearing on behalf of assessee. or dates were being sought by

moving applications. Even today the assessee has not preferred to appear and even

no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand ld. DR is present in

the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with

4 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the ld. DR and the material

on record.

Ground No.1

record as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Before we decide

the merits of the case it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by CIT(A) while

dealing with the issue the operative para is reproduced below:

“3.2 Findings & decision thereon- From Ground No.1, it is noticed that the appellant has challenged the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of rent, professional charges and legal charges. Thus, in its 1st Ground of Appeal, the appellant has not agitated the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of accounting charges of Rs.55,185/- and transport charges of Rs.30,000/-, which are also a part of the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, in the Additional Grounds of Appeal filed in complex manner, which are in the form of general averments, the appellant has stated in a general manner that the A.G. had erred in making the disallowances of the expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the learned A.R. has net brought on record any material to rebut the findings of the learned A.O. It is undisputed that in spite of two opportunities provided by the learned A.O., as specifically mentioned in the impugned order, the appellant did not care to explain the queries raised by the A.O. Even during the appellate proceedings, the learned A.R. failed to explain the same. In his Paper Book, the learned A.R. furnished no deduction certificate in the name of some other assessee and pleaded that the rent of Rs.3,00,000/- paid to Kalyanji Walji Private Limited did not fall within the purview of the provisions of Section 194-I of the Act, The contention of the learned A.R.' is not acceptable for the reason that the said Certificate did not pertain to the appellant and also not furnished before the A.O. in spite of sufficient opportunities. Regarding professional expenses of Rs.65,000/- paid to Mr.Vikram Gaikwad, the learned A.R. relied upon page No.81 & 82 of his Paper Book, which reveals appointment letter of Mr.Vikram Gaikwad and that of his wife. The learned AR. could not establish that these evidences were furnished before the A.O. Moreover, as per the appointment letter relied upon by the learned AR., Mr.Vikram Gaikwad was appointed OR 01.02.2008 (i.e. only for the last 2 months of the financial year) at a monthly salary of Rs.17,500/- whereas the instant payment involves amount of Rs.65,OOO/-. The

5 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO learned A.R. was asked to furnish necessary evidence as to professional tax payment to Maharashtra Government in respect of employment of Mr.Vikram Gaikwad, if any. The learned A.R. could not furnish any evidence as to payment of professional tax, which can establish that the impugned payment was made as and by way of salary. Moreover, page No.94 of the Paper Book, the ledger account clearly establishes that the payments to Mr.Vikram Gaikwad were on account of professional expenses. In the said ledger account titled as 'professional expenses', there are various payments made to advocates / professionals, which also includes the instant payment made to Mr.Vikram Gaikwad. Therefore, the contention of the learned AR is false in so far as it .Is evident from the ledger account itself, which is relied upon by the learned A.R., that this payment of Rs.65,OOO/ - is in the form of 'professional fees' only and not 'salary'. Accordingly, disallowance on this count is also justified. The same facts apply in case of legal expenses of Rs.45,OOO/- paid to Mr.Vijay Devji, which is evident from the ledger account titled as 'legal expenses'. Accordingly, disallowance on this count is also justified. Similar facts apply to accounting charges of Rs.55,185/- paid to Mr.Gangaram. The ledger account titled 'accounting expenses' clearly reveals that they are in the nature of professional fees for accounting services. Accordingly, disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is justified for the reason of non- deduction of tax qt source on these payments. Needless to say, as revealing from the impugned order, the appellant did not furnish any evidence before the A.G. in this regard and also did not justify the reasons for not availing the opportunity before the A.O. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant attempted to treat these payments as salary payments on the basis of untenable and false evidences in the form of 'appointment letters'. As discussed hereinabove, the ledger accounts clearly reveal true nature of payments. During the appellate proceedings, the learned A.R. was specifically asked to furnish evidences in respect of professional tax payments and return of professional tax in respect of employment of these persons, which he could not furnish. Having regard to all these facts, the disallowance made by the A.D. invoking the provision of .Section 40(0)(ia) of the Act, is sustained. It would be worth to mention here that by virtue of non- cooperation by the appellant before the A.O., the appellant had prevented the A.G. to examine the genuineness of these expenses in detail and also as to whether these expenses were incurred for the purpose of business of the appellant company. These facts as a whole lead' to an adverse inference as' to genuineness of expenses and also as to whether such expenses were incurred for the purpose of business at all. For this reason also, the expenses claimed by the appellant are not allowable per se.

6 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO No new circumstance have been brought on record before us in order to

controvert or rebut the findings recorded by learned CIT (A). Moreover, there are

no reasons for us to deviate from the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A).

Therefore, after hearing the DR and analyzing the impugned order we are of the

considered view that the findings recoded by the learned CIT (A) are judicious and

well reasoned. Accordingly, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of appeal.

Ground No.2

reproduced below for the sake of reference:

“4. Point No.2 - Ground No.2-Disallowance u/s.37(1) amounting to Rs.8,51,774/- “4.1 The A.O. made the disallowance u/s.37(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,51,774/-, which includes expenses claimed in respect of water charges of Rs.79,078/-, warehousing expenses of Rs.60,OOO/-, transport charges of Rs.1,79,100/-, repairs & maintenance of Rs.88 ,466/ -, professional expenses of Rs.29 ,750/ -, processing expenses of Rs.3,67,406/-, packing charges of Rs.31,170/-, motor car charges of Rs.14,118/- and brokerage / commission of Rs.32,436/-. 4.1.1 Vide para 6 of the impugned order, the A.O. observed that on being asked to produce the original books of account and original bills and vouchers for verification, the appellant's A.R. produced self-made vouchers only and that no original bills and vouchers were produced. The A.O. observed that except for electricity and telephone expenses, no 'bills in respect of any other head of expense were available with the appellant. The appellant had only self-made vouchers where the cash payment was made and some of those vouchers were either signed or thumb-impressed by the receiving parties, veracity of which was not at all verifiable and that most of them were even not signed or vouched. The A.O. further observed that all were computer generated vouchers, giving short narrations and amount of cash paid. 4.1.1 Water charges-

7 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

The A.O. observed that the appellant had made cash payment of Rs.79,078/- to a private party viz. Kalyanji Walji & Co. towards water charges. The A.G. observed that the appellant could not explain as to how the payment on account of water charges has been made to a private part'!. Therefore, the A.G. disallowed the same u/s.37(l) of the Act as having been incurred not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.

4.1.2 Warehousing expenses-

The A.O. observed that the appellant had claimed warehouse expenses of Rs.85,028/- in which the appellant had included a sum of Rs.60,OOO/- on account of repairs & maintenance charges, for which the appellant could not produce any original document(s)/ bill(s), except for ledger account and that the appellant could not even explain this journal entry of Rs.60,OOO/-. Therefore, the A.G. disallowed the sum of Rs.60,OOO/- u/s.37(1) of the Act as having been incurred not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.

4.1.2 Transport charges-

The appellant could not produce the original bills in respect of transport charges shown as 'payable'. The A.O. observed that these amounts ought to have been accounted for under the head 'sundry creditors', however, it was explained by the appellant before the A.O. that it was erroneously. shown under the head 'unsecured loans'. On being asked to produce the original bills, it was stated that there are no actually not been paid during the year and moreover all the payments are just below the amount applicable for TDS. Therefore, the A.O. drew an adverse inference as to non-genuine character of such expenses. Hence, the A.O. made a disallowance @ 50% of these expenses, invoking the provision of Section 37(1) of the Act.

4.1.3 Repairs & maintenance-

The A.O. observed that the appellant had claimed to have incurred a sum of Rs.1,13,862/- under this head. However, the appellant could not produce any original document / bills, except for ledger account. The appellant could not explain as to how and why the sum of Rs.80,OOO/- has been paid under this head to Kalyanji Walji Private Limited. Therefore, the A.O. made disallowance of the said sum of Rs.8O,OOO/- for non-verifiability of this expenditure and also for noncompliance of TDS provisions. Further, out of the balance sum of Rs.33,862/- [1,13,862 - 8O,OOO], the A.O. mad disallowance @ 25% thereof, amounting to Rs.8,466/-. Thus, the A.O. made the disallowance totaling Rs.B8,466/- on this count.

8 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4.1.4 Professional expenses-

The A.O. observed that out of the expenditure of Rs.1,77,850/-, the appellant has incurred the sum of Rs.30,OOO/- only by cheque and the balance expenditure of Rs.1,47,850/- has been incurred in cash only and the appellant could not even produce any original bill(s) or any other supporting documentary evidence so as to clarify the reason of making such payment of RS.1,47,850/-.

Therefore, the AO. made the disallowance @ 20% of these expenses, amounting to Rs.29,5701-, for want of due verification.

4.1.5 Processing expenses-

The AO. observed that the appellant had claimed to have made payment under this head amounting to Rs.7,34,812/- to 16 different persons, which are just below the minimum amount applicable for TDS provisions. The A.O. observed that these payments have not been actually made during the year but the same are shown as payable under the head 'unsecured loans' instead of 'sundry creditors'. The appellant could not bring on record any documentary evidence in original, except for ledger account. Therefore, the A.O. made the disallowance on this count @ 50% of the expenses claimed, amounting to RS.3,67,406/-, for want of due verification.

4.1.6 Packing charges-

The AO. observed that out of the sum of Rs.1,66,777/- claimed under this head, the appellant had made only the payment of Rs.10 ,927/ - and the balance sum of Rs.1,55 ,850/ - was payable. The A.O. observed that the appellant could not produce the original bills to substantiate the claim. Therefore, 'the A.O. made disallowance on this count @ 20% of such expenses, amounting to Rs.31,170/- for want of verification of the original documents.

4.1.7 Motor Car expenses-

The A.O. observed that as no bills could be produced by the appellant in respect of its claim of motor car expenses of Rs.70,589/-, he made the disallowance @ 20%, amounting to Rs.14,118/-.

4.1.8 Brokerage & commission expenses-

The A.O. observed that the appellant could not file any details with regard to these expenses amounting to Rs.1,62,182/- and that all these payments remain

9 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO unpaid as at the end of the year. Therefore, in absence of any detail or documentary evidence in support thereof, the A.O. made the disallowance on this count @ 20% of these expenses, amounting to Rs.32,436/-. Thus, the A.O. made the total disallowance of Rs.8,51,774/- u/s.37(1) (including Rs.80,OOO/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for the expense claimed under the head 'repairs & maintenance expenses'), which comprised of the disallowances under different heads discussed heretofore. 4.2 The A.O. has made partial disallowances in respect of appellant's claim under different heads of expenses. The A.O. has categorically stated in the impugned order that the appellant could not substantiate its claims by producing relevant original documentary evidences. Even during the present proceedings; the appellant has brought on record merely ledger accounts, which cannot be stated to be the primary evidences to justify claims made by the appellant, especially when all these payments are stated to have been made in cash only. Further, the appellant also could not bring on record the documentary evidence with regard to deduction of tax at source in respect of disallowance of Rs.8O,OOO/- claimed under the head ‘repairs and maintenance expenses'. Thus, the appellant could not rebut the findings of the learned A.O. in the course of the present proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the action of the A.O. of making disallowance of various expenses totaling Rs.8,51,774/- u/s.37(1) of the Act. Thus, Ground No.2 of Appeal stands dismissed.”

No new circumstance has been brought on record before us in order to

controvert or rebut the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A). Moreover, there

are no reasons for us to deviate from the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A).

Therefore, after hearing the DR and analyzing the impugned order we are of the

considered view that the findings recoded by the learned CIT (A) are judicious and

are well reasoned. Accordingly, we uphold the same. Resultantly, this ground

raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.

10 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Ground No.3

reproduced below for the sake of reference:

“5. Point No.3 - Ground No.3 - Disallowal1ce u/s.37{1) of Rs.4,93,570/- in respect of labour charges paid in cash-

5.1 The A.O. observed that the appellant had claimed direct expenses under labour charqes of Rs.14,88,040/-, lobour charges balance of Rs.7,72,471/- and labour expenses of Rs.2,52,340/-. The appellant filed only ledger account of all these expenses. The appellant could not produce original bills / vouchers for the same. The appellant merely produced computer generated vouchers, some of which are signed / thumb impressed and most of them are blank. All these payments are stated to have been paid in cash. Except for contending that the appellant has to incur such expenses and that the payment to labour is an essential and vital for its business, the appellant could not substantiate its claim with any cogent piece of evidence. The A.O., therefore, concluded that it is difficult 1'0 verify as to how the appellant keeps control over incurrence of such expenditure and as to how these expenses could be verified by their auditor or by the revenue authorities. The A.O. observed that the appellant, having gross turnover of more than RS.5 crore, has to have some checks and balances so far as such expenses are concerned, Therefore, the A.O. made the disallowance of Rs.4,93,570/- being 20% of the total expenses of Rs.24,67,851/- claimed by the appellant under this head.

5.2 This is an adhoc disallowance @ 20% of the expenses of Rs.24,67,851/- claimed under the head 'labour charges'. On being specifically asked for by the A.O., the appellant could not substantiate its claim with documentary evidence in the form of original bills / vouchers. Even during the appellate proceedings, the appellant merely furnished ledger accounts to substantiate its claim. Moreover, the ledger accounts reveal the payments in cash for a" the payments. If the payments are made on account of labour charges, there has to be statutory registers / records, which are required to be maintained under the provisions of Labour Laws, viz. Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In the given facts and circumstances, the genuineness of these claims cannot be verified in absence of the relevant documentary evidence. However, the A.O. has taken a lenient view by making only partial disallowance on this count. Thus, the appellant could not rebut the findings of the learned A.O. in the course of the present proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any reason to

11 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO interfere in the action of the A.O. of making disallowance on this count. Thus, Ground No.3 of Appeal stands dismissed.”

No new circumstance have been brought on record before us in order to

controvert or rebut the findings recorded by learned CIT (A). Moreover, there are

no reasons for us to deviate from the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A).

Therefore, after hearing the DR and analyzing the impugned order we are of the

considered view that the findings recoded by the learned CIT (A) are judicious and

well reasoned. Accordingly, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of appeal.

Ground No.4

reproduced below for the sake of reference:

“6. Point No.4 - Ground No.4 - Addition of Rs.7, 72, 001/- on account of unexplained loans u/s.68 of the Act- The A.O. observed that the appellant had claimed 'unsecured loans at Rs.2,63 ,24,893/·. The A.0., asked the appellant to substantiate the claim, having regard to the identity end creditworthiness of the lenders vis-a-vis genuineness of transactions. The appellant was specifically asked to furnish copy of the lenders' acknowledgement of returns of income filed for the year as well as for the year in which such loans had been brought in the books, certified cop)' of their Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Capital Account, Income & Expenditure Account of the year as well as of the year in which such amount was brought to books, copy of bank statements with bank book I narration of entries of the complete financial year in which the amount was given by them to the appellant. In response, the appellant merely filed certain confirmations and stated the names of 119 persons with the respective amounts of unsecured loans. The appellant contended before the A.G. that amounts due to certain parties were for supply of goods and services and not for any financial dues but these were wrongly taken under the head 'unsecured loons'. The appellant further contended that all these creditors are genuine and bonafide and have

12 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO been fully paid in the succeeding year and that there are no-balances outstanding in their names.

6.1.2 The A.O. did not find- the explanation of the appellant as satisfactory and, therefore; made the addition of Rs:7,72,OO/- being unexplained unsecured loans, invoking the provision of Section 68 of the Act. The A.O., vide para 6.3 of the impugned order, observed that out of the unsecured loans of Rs.2,63,24,8921-, fresh loans during the year stood at Rs.52,38,206/-, out of which Rs.31,78,452/- were bank loans during the year. Thus, there remained the balance sum .otRs.20,59,754/- out of which the appellant had claimed sundry expenses wrongly claimed under the head 'unsecured loans' amounting to Rs.12,87,753/-. Thus, considering this plea of the appellant, the A.O. made the net disallowance at Rs.7,72,001/- [20,59,754 - 12,87,753]. The relevant portion of the A.O’s finding in para 6.2 of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder; "As can be seen instead of filing proof as called for, the assessee has made an empty statement of genuineness of the loans. To top it all, it has on the second last date of the time limit, submits that it be conveyed of any further information or explanation which may be required It is a travesty. It has been explained that certain expenses debited in the P&L A/c and are not paid has wrongly been shown as unsecured loans instead of the same being shown as sundry creditors. The details filed during the assessment proceeding - although not verifiable for absence or non-production of original bills - confirm the explanation of the assessee. Hence, the same is considered.” Thus, the A.O. made the net addition of Rs.7,72,001/- u/s.68 of the Act.

6.2 During the appellate proceedings, the learned A.R. of the appellant furnished photocopies of the confirmations of the loan parties, which were also brought on record before the A.O. However, the A.O. held that merely furnishing 'the confirmations of the loan parties does not suffice as the genuineness of transactions 'Vis-a- vis creditworthiness of the loan parties cannot be verified merely on the basis of the confirmations of the loan' parties e , During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has contended that its business compels it to raise such immediate cash loans from immediate business circle and that generally these loans are hand loans from the close circles and are repaid in due course when the fund is available with it. The learned A.R. of the appellant emphasized that all these loans are raised for the genuine business need of the appellant and the same are of the amount not exceeding Rs.20,OOO/- each. It is undisputed that the appellant had raised such loans in cash from different parties, for which the appellant could not produce the relevant documentary evidences called for by the A.O., such as loan parties' acknowledgement of returns of income filed for the year as well as for the year in which such loans had been brought in the books, certified copy of their Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Capital Account, Income

13 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO & Expenditure Account of the year as we" as of the year in which such amount was brought to books, copy of bank statements with bank book / narration of entries of the complete financial year in which the amount was given by them to the appellant. The appellant also could not bring on record any documentary evidence with regard to interest paid / payable to any of such parties during the year or subsequent year(s), despite specific query raised during the present proceedings. In response, the appellant merely filed certain confirmations and stated the names of 119 persons with the respective amounts of: unsecured loans. Even, in the present proceedings, the appellant could not bring on record the relevant documentary evidences, which it could not produce before the A.O. Thus, in absence of the same the identity and creditworthiness of the loan parties vis-a-vis genuineness of transactions cannot be verified even at the appellate stage. All these facts as a whole clearly establish that neither the financial capacity of the alleged lenders nor the genuineness of transactions stand proved. On the contrary, it immensely transpires that it is used as a tool of money laundering to camouflage the unaccounted income of the appellant under the garb of "loans". It is an established proposition of law that for a valid credit, financial capacity of the contributor / giver has to be established beyond doubt. Similarly, the genuineness of such transactions has to be established which can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances and financial capacity of the creditors. Thus, in light of the .aforesaid facts, r do not find any reason to interfere in the action of the A.O. of making an addition of Rs.7,72,OO1/- treating the cash loans as unexplained cash credits purported to have been sourced through cash loans obtained from various parties. I, therefore, uphold the addition of Rs.7,72,OO1/-. Thus, Ground No.4 of Appeal stands dismissed.”

No new circumstance have been brought on record before us in order to

controvert or rebut the findings recorded by learned CIT (A). Moreover, there are

no reasons for us to deviate from the findings recorded by the learned CIT (A).

Therefore, after hearing the DR and analyzing the impugned order we are of the

considered view that the findings recoded by the learned CIT (A) are judicious and

well reasoned. Accordingly, we uphold the same and dismiss this ground of appeal.

14 ITA No. 1804/Mum/2014(A.Y. 2008-09) M/s. Food Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 10. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th October, 2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (Jason P. Boaz) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated :07.10.2016 Ps. Ashwini 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) 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT - concerned 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard File आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai