Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dcit Cen Cir 8(3) Erstwhile Dcit Cc 46, ... vs Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai on 2 June, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई " जे" खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -"J"Bench Mumbai सव ी राजे ,ले लेखा सद य एवं, राम लाल नेगी, ी याियक सद य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1334/Mum/2015, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. CIT-Central Circle-8(3) M/s. JSW Energy Limited th Room No.659, 6 Floor JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051.
Mumbai-400 020. PAN:AAACJ 8109 N (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1091/Mum/2015, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. JSW Energy Limited Dy. CIT-Central Circle-8(3) Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020.
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
Revenue by: Shri Alok Johari-DR
Assessee by: Shri Rakesh Joshi
सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05.04.2017
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2017
आयकर अिधिनयम,1961
अिधिनयम क धारा 254(1)केके अ
तग त आदे श
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act)
लेखा सद
य राजे
के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Challenging the order dated 22.12.2014 of CIT(A)-47,Mumbai the AO and the assessee have filed cross appeals for the above mentioned assessment years.Assessee-company, engaged in the business of generation of power and operation and maintenance of power plants,filed its return of income on 29/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.255.08 crores,after claiming deduction of Rs.692.29 crores u/s.80IA of the Act. The original assessment was completed on 12/10/10,u/s. 143(3) determining its income at Rs.603.37 crores under the normal provisions and under the MAT provisions income was computed at Rs.976.27 crores. ITA/1334/Mum/2015 - Brief facts:
2.An action u/s. 132(1) of the Act was carried out in JSW group, including the assessee, on 16/03/2011resulting in seizure of books of accounts and documents.Thereafter, a notice u/s.
153A was issued requiring the assesse to file return of income. In response to the notice it filed return on 29/01/2011 declaring income of Rs.255.08 crores. Income u/s.115JB was disclosed at Rs.9,76,27,90,248/-.
3.First Ground of appeal is about deleting the addition made on account of capitalization, amounting to Rs.33.84 crores in respect of contract awarded to M/s.Gremach Infrastructure Equipments and Projects Ltd. (GIEPL). During the assessment proceedings the AO observed 1334& 1091/M/15(08-09)- JSW Energy Limited that the group had booked huge capital expenditure in various projects of M/s.JSW Steel Ltd., M/s. JSW Energy Ltd. and M/s.Raj West Power Ltd., that there were lot of discrepancies with regard to the contract awarded to GIEPL, that the assessee had not reversed/ written back any amount of capital work-in-progress based on the discrepancies found during the course of search and seizure proceedings.He further observed that JSW Energy Ltd.(Ratnagiri), previously a wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee had merged with it w.e.f. 01.04.2010, that it got generation of electricity from its plant at village Nandiwade, that the total capacity of the project was 1200MW, that it had invested Rs.3527.00 crores in the project till 31/3/2010, that about Rs.615.00 crores were invested in capital assets and Rs.3959.00 crores was part of capital work-in-progress.With regard to GIEPL the AO observed that during the course of search and seizure proceedings various invoices and running bills of GIEPL were seized, that scrutiny of the documents suggested that there were no entries in the inward register,that the log sheets were fabricated, that there was no proof that construction equipments had entered the factory premises,referring to the statements of the DGM recorded during the survey proceedings and from the log sheets he observed that all these documents were prepared on a particular day to serve the purpose of having some supporting evidence for the bills produced by the contractor i.e. GIEPL, that the bills were approved and passed for payment without any cross verification,that the log sheet of the contractor were manipu - lated,that the serially numbered log sheets were not issued in order, that the Log-sheet for July-August,2007 were issued after the Log sheet for the next two months were issued, that the assessee was not able to substantiate the claim that the payment to GIEPL were made for business purposes.He further observed that some of the bills submitted by GIEPL were unsigned,that such unverified bills were processed by the assessee and payments against these bills were made.
3.1.He further stated that assessee had engaged the services of GIEPL for executing part of its project during the year under consideration, that enquires with the AO of GIEPL were made about the transactions, that the AO of GIEPL had informed that during the course of hearing GIEPL had admitted that it had provided accommodation entry to JSW(E), Ratnagiri of Rs. 35.54 crores.The AO directed the assessee to file explanation as to why all the expenditure Rs.35.54 crores should not be disallowed.
3.2.After considering the submission of the assessee, the AO observed that GIEPL (New name-Sancia Global Infra Projects Ltd.)-Sancia) had admitted that it had provided entries to the assessee to the extent of Rs.35,54,88,534/-, that no work was done by GIEPL in respect of 2 1334& 1091/M/15(08-09)- JSW Energy Limited contract awarded to it by the assessee company, that no work was carried out, that the payment made by assessee to GIEPL could not be considered for the purpose of business, that the claim made by the assessee had to be rejected.Finally,he made a disallowance of Rs.33.84 lakhs in respect of the transaction entered into with GIEPL under the head capital expenses.
3.3Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA)and made elaborate submissions. After considering the assessment order and the submissions of the assessee,he held that JSW(E), Ratnagiri made payment to GEIPL, that the subsidiary got merged with the assessee w.e.f. 1.4.2010 as per the scheme arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dt.24/9/2010, that it stood dissolved without being wound up on 2/11/2010 being the date of filing of order of the Hon'ble High Court with Registrar of Companies, that survey was conducted at the business premises of the JSW(E), Ratnagiri on 16/3/2011, that JSW(E) Ratnagiri was in existence till 2/11/2010, that the AO had not alleged that the assessee had claimed any expenditure, revenue or capital on account of payment made to GEIPL during the assessment year 2008-09, that disallowance can be made only if the assessee makes claim for incurring of expenditure,that for the alleged discrepancy in claims made by JSW(E), Ratnagiri same could have been dealt with under separate proceedings initiated in its name/ in the names of its successors, that disallowance of capital expenditure of Rs.33.84 lakhs in respect of transaction between JSW(E) Ratnagiri and GEIPL.Finally, he deleted the addition made by the AO.
3.4.project carried out by Ratnagiri unit, that GEIPL had admitted to have issued bogus bill to JSW(E),Ratnagiri,that the AO had rightly made the disallowance.The Authorised Representa
-tive(AR)contended that the assessee was not connected with the bogus bills, even if the fake bills were obtained, same pertained to the erstwhile company.He referred to the order of the Tribunal for the AY.2009-10 and stated that the Ratnagiri Unit amalgamated with the assessee company in the subsequent years.
3.5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the amalgamation of the JSW(E)Ratnagiri took place on 01.04.2010, that before that date Ratnagiri Unit was an independent entity, that the alleged bogus bills were obtained by JSW(E)Ratnagiri.If any addition in that regard had to be made it could be made in the hands of Ratnagiri Unit or successor to that unit. The FAA has deleted the addition as the bills were not taken by the assessee in the year under consideration. In our opinion the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity.Therefore, confirming the same the Ground is decided against the AO.
31334& 1091/M/15(08-09)- JSW Energy Limited 3.6.We find that identical issue was dealt by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee while deciding the appeal for the AY.2009-10(ITA/1335/Mum/2015 dt.06.1.17).We are reproduc- ing paragraphs 2-5 of the order for ready reference and same read as under:
"2.First ground of appeal is about deleting the addition made on account of capitalisation of Rs. 68.15 lakhs in respect of contract awarded to Gremach Infrastructure Equipments and Projects Ltd.(GIEPL).The AO observed that during the AY.2008-09,the assessee had claimed to have engaged the services of GEIPL for exhibiting part of its projects, that it had been held during that year that no work had been done by GEIPL in respect of the contract awarded,that no work could be executed,that the payment made by the assessee could not be considered for purpose of business,that capital expenditure of Rs. 68.15 lakhs claimed by the assessee for the year under consideration could not be allowed.
3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him,it was argued that it had neither incurred not claim any expenditure for the year under consideration,that the AO was not justified in disallowing the same,that expen -diture was incurred by a subsidiary company of the assessee which amalgamated with it with effect from 01/04/2010. He referred to his order for the AY. 2008- 09 and stated that the matter pertained to capitalisation of an expenditure with regard to payment made to GEIPL by JSW Energy(Ratnagiri)Ltd.(JSWERL),that it was a subsidiary of the assessee and the amount in question was included in the capital work in progress,that JS got merged with the assessee with effect from 01/04/2010 vide an scheme of arrangement approved by honorable Bombay High Court order dated 24/09/2010 that during the search and seizure proceedings carried out in the case of assessee group certain papers were found about the contract given to GEIPL, that the AO of that company had disallowed a sum of Rs. 33.84 lakhs for the AY. 2008-09 and balance amount of Rs. 68.15 lakhs for the AY. 2009-10 claim under the head capital expenditure.
4.Before us,the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO. The Authorised Representative (AR) stated that assessee had not claimed any expenditure in its books of accounts, that disputed amount was disallowed in the case of JSWERL, that during not made by an assessee could not be disallowed.
5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee had not claimed the expenditure in question in its books of accounts for the year under appeal.For disallowing any expense,the AO should first prove the incurring and claiming of of the said expenditure in the regular books of accounts.But, without establishing the basic fact that the assessee had claimed the expenditure,the AO had made the disallowance.The expenditure was incurred by an erstwhile entity namely JSWERL and certain discrepancies were noticed about the transaction.So,if any disallowance was to be made,it should have been in the hands of that assessee or it should have been in the case of successor of JSWERL.The FAA has given a categorical finding of fact that before the amalgamation with JSWERL,the assessee had no connection with that entity,that expenditure was claimed by that company and was disallowed by the AO of that company while completing the assessment for the AY.s 2008-09 and 2009-10,that the AO had wrongly disallowed the expenditure in the hands of the assessee.Thus, there was no justification for making any addition in the case of the assessee.In our opinion,there is no legal or factual infirmity in the order of the FAA.So,confirming his order,we decide first ground of appeal against the AO."
4.Second Ground is about restricting the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the income tax Rules ,1962 at Rs.9.14 crores against Rs.44.03 crores.In the original assessment order the AO had made disallowance of Rs.29.66 crores following Rule 8D against Nil disallowance by the assessee in its return of income.In the appellate proceedings the FAA allowed partial relief and upheld the disallowance to the tune of Rs.14.34 crores.In the return filed in response to the notice u/s.153A the assessee itself disallowed an amount of Rs.9.14 crores. However,the AO enhanced the disallowance to Rs.44.03 crores on account of indirect expenses under Rule 8D(ii).
41334& 1091/M/15(08-09)- JSW Energy Limited 4.1.Before the FAA,in the appellate proceedings,the assessee made elaborate submissions regarding non applicability of section 14A and Rule 8D contending that no disallowance had been made as it had not earned any exempt income during the year.After considering the submissions of the assessee, the FAA held that disallowance of Rs.9.14 crores was made by the assessee itself in the return filed by the assessee u/s. 153A,that there was no explanation as to how the expenditure-that was identified by the assessee as being incurred with reference to investment in shares-should not be disallowed.Accordingly, he directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs.9.14 crores.
4.2.Before us,the DR supported the order of the AO and the AR supported the order of the FAA.We find that the AO had not given any justification for enhancing the disallowance to Rs.44 crores (approx.),that the FAA had restricted the disallowance to Rs.9.14 crores only, that the assessee itself had offered the disallowance in the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that there is no need to disturb the order of the FAA.Ground No.2 stands dismissed.
5.Third ground deals with allowing deduction u/s. 80IA in respect of the total disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The DR supported the order of the AO and the AR stated that issue was adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal for AY 2008- 09(ITA/463/Mum/2014 dt.31.7.15). We are reproducing para No.16-19 of the above order:
"16. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee has not seriously disputed the disallowance of Rs. 9,05,83,986/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of direct interest expenditure related to earning of exempt income. Ostensibly, the said working was provided by the assessee itself in the course of hearing before the Assessing Officer. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that the entire issue of the disallowance made by invoking section 14A of the Act is quite redundant because the CIT(A) agreed to an omnibus alternate plea of the assessee to the effect that the amount disallowed u/s 14A of the Act resulted in increased profits, which qualified for the benefits of section 80IA of the Act. The aforesaid decision of the CIT(A) is challenged by the Revenue by way of Ground of appeal No.2.
17. Pertinently, with respect to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act made by application of clauses (i) and
(ii) of Rule 8D of the Rules amounting to Rs. 24,37,66,836/- the Assessing Officer himself allowed deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on the income so enhanced. So however, in respect of the profits enhanced as a result of a disallowance under the third limb of rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules i.e. Rs. 5,29,15,000/- on account of administrative expenses, the Assessing Officer bifurcated the disallowance between 80IA unit and non 80IA unit on the basis of turnover and accordingly exemption u/s 80IA of the Act was denied on the amount of Rs. 3,11,29,566/-. In appeal, the CIT(A) has noted that the expenses debited to non-80-IA units were direct expenses pertaining to those units and insofar as the indirect expenditure was concerned, the same was debited to 80IA units, which are engaged in the business of generation of power. Thus, as per the CIT(A), the disallowance of administrative expenses u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules amounting to Rs. 5,29,15,000/- would only result in increased profits of the business of generation of power, which shall be eligible for exemption u/s 80IA of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer who had allowed the exemption u/s 80IA of the Act on a pro-rata basis with respect to the income enhanced by disallowance of administrative expenses u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. This aspect of the controversy has been agitated by the Revenue before us by way of Ground of appeal no. 2.
18. Having considered the findings of CIT(A) on this aspect, we find no reason to interfere with the same inasmuch as the same are unexceptional. The CIT (A) has factually concluded that the disallowance of administrative expenses amounting to Rs. 5,29,15,000/- u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules leads to 5 1334& 1091/M/15(08-09)- JSW Energy Limited enhanced profits of the eligible business of the generation of power and, therefore, such enhanced profits have been rightly held to be eligible for benefits of section 80IA of the Act. No material has been lead by the Revenue 12 M/s JSW Energy Limited Page 12 of 20 before us which would enable us to distract from the above finding of the CIT(A), which is hereby affirmed and Revenue fails in Ground of appeal no. 2.
19. The result of the aforesaid is that whatever income was enhanced on account of disallowance computed u/s 14A of the Act, it has been offset by the exemption available on such enhanced profit in terms of section 80IA of the Act. Thus, on facts it is quite clear that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act does not impact the net taxable profits as assessee becomes eligible to higher exemption u/s 80IA of the Act. Therefore, the dispute pertaining to the efficacy of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, r.w. rule 8D(2) of the Rules, which is manifested in Ground of appeal no. 4 of the assessee and in Ground of appeal no. 1 of the Revenue, is academic in nature. Thus, we refrain from adjudicating the same at the present."
Respectfully following the above, Ground three decided against the AO.
6.Sale of Certified Emission Reduction (CER) is the subject matter of Ground No.4.While deciding the appeal file by the assessee we have restored back the issue of sale of CER to the file of AO for fresh adjudication.Ground No.4 is decided in favour of the AO,in part.
7.Next Ground is about computation of book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. It was brought to our notice that the Tribunal in assessee's own case in 2006-07 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee, that the appeal filed by the department before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (ITA No.1468 of 2013 dt. 30/4/2015) was dismissed. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the FAA has to be confirmed. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for AY 2006-07,we decide the fifth Ground against the AO.
8.Last Ground deals with penalty proceedings.As the issue raised before us is premature so,same is not being adjudicated.
ITA/1091/Mum/2015:-
9.First Ground of appeal,raised by the assessee,is about treatment given to sale proceeds of CER while computing the book profit.It was brought to our notice that while deciding the appeal for the AY.2008-09 (ITA/463/Mum/2014 dt.31.7.2015),the Tribunal had dealt with the issue at Pg.13-para-20 onwards.We are reproducing the relevant portion of the order and it reads as under :-
"23. Both the Additional Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee relate to the manner of computation of 'Book Profit' for the purposes of section 115JB of the Act. In Additional Ground no. 1, the plea of assessee is that the CERs or Carbon Credits are in the nature of a capital receipt and, therefore, the same is liable to be reduced while computing the 'Book Profit' for the purposes of section 115JB of the Act. The point made out by the appellant is that if the receipts on account of sale of Carbon Credits are held to be capital receipts not chargeable to tax, it would automatically have the effect of altering the 'Book Profit' computable for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. Since in the earlier part of this order, we have already upheld the plea of the assessee that Carbon Credit receipts are in the nature of a capital receipt not chargeable to tax following the Judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of My Home Power Ltd. (supra), therefore, the plea of the assessee by way of Additional Grounds of appeal no. 1 springs up. Insofar as the admission of such an Additional Ground is concerned, we find that it involves a point of law and the same is also relevant in determining appropriate tax liability of the assessee and, therefore, following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of 6 1334& 1091/M/15(08-09)- JSW Energy Limited National Thermal Power Corporation (supra), the same is liable to be admitted. Nevertheless, the said Ground of appeal was not hitherto raised by the assessee before the lower authorities, therefore, the same is ought to be examined appropriately by the income tax authorities. Thus, the Additional Ground of appeal no. 1 is admitted and the same is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits as per law after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard."
Respectfully following the order for the earlier year we are restoring back the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.First Ground is allowed,in part.
10.Second Ground is about reduction of a sum of Rs.325.83 crores on account of de-merger of investment division in computing the book profits.We find that similar Ground was taken by the assessee before the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the assessee in the AY 2008-09.We are reproducing the para -24, 25, 26 and 28 of the order.
"24. The Additional Ground of appeal no. 2 also involves determination of 'Book Profits' for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act. It is canvassed that assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 3,25,83,13098/- on account of loss arising on demerger of its investment division while computing the Books Profits u/s 115JB of the Act. In this context, brief facts are that the assessee company was holding shares of its group companies in its investment division. The investment division was hived off to its subsidiary JSW Energy Investment Pvt. Ltd (JSWEIPL) during the assessment year under consideration in terms of a Scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 1.11.2007. In terms of the Scheme of arrangement, the assets and liabilities of the investment division were transferred JSWEIPL at their book values. As a consequence, a sum of Rs.3,25,83,13,098/-, being the excess of book value of assets over the liabilities transferred, was a loss suffered on demerger of the investment division. Notably, in lieu of such transfer of investment division, shares of JSWEIPL were issued to shareholders of assessee company in the ratio specified in the Scheme of arrangement. The loss of Rs. 3,25,83,13,098/- was adjusted against the balance/ surplus of the Profit & Loss Account appearing in the Balance-sheet, but was not routed through the Profit & Loss Account.
25. The claim of the appellant is that the above loss of Rs. 3,25,83,13,098/- suffered on demerger of the investment division during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration was not routed through Profit & Loss Account but it was an amount deductible while computing 'Books Profits' u/s 115JB of the Act. It is pointed out that under the Act transfer of assets/liabilities in the case of merger or demerger is a transaction of 'transfer' and liable to Capital gains tax under section 45 of the Act. So however, since section 47(vib) of the Act, exempts transfer in the scheme of demerger from the definition of 'transfer', the same is not liable to Capital gains tax. The plea set up by the assessee is that the Act recognizes transfer of shares, in the scheme of merger, as a 'transfer' but provides exemption u/s 47(vib) of the Act.
26. Before us, the Ld. Representative has placed reliance on the ratio of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Veekaylal Investment Co. P. Ltd. 249 ITR 597 (Bom.) to justify aforesaid the claim. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court noticed that for computing the total income under normal provisions, the Capital gains computed u/s 45 of the Act, has to be taken into account and, therefore it was held that capital gains could not be excluded while computing the Book Profits u/s 115J of the Act. It was noted by the Hon'ble High Court that under Clause (2) of part II of Schedule -VI of the Companies, Act 1956, where a company receives the amount on account of sale of lease hold rights, the company is bound to disclose in the Profit & Loss Account, the said amount as a non-recurring transaction or a transaction of an exceptional nature irrespective of its nature being Capital or revenue and that it would be inappropriate to directly transfer such amount to the Capital Reserve in the Balance Sheet. On the basis of the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Ld. Representative pointed out that the loss of Rs. 325.83 crores incurred on demerger of the investment division was required to be considered while computing the 'Book Profits' for the purpose of section 115JB of the Act, though assessee did not route the entry through the Profit & Loss Account.
XXXXX
28. At the time of hearing, though the Ld. DR opposed the prayer of assessee for admission of the aforesaid Additional Ground of appeal, but factually it could not be disputed that the Ground sought 7 1334& 1091/M/15(08-09)- JSW Energy Limited to be raised involves a pure point of law for which the relevant and corresponding facts required for adjudication are on record. Therefore, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances and the position of law explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation (supra) and by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Share Holders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we deem it fit and proper to admit the aforesaid Additional Ground of Appeal no. 2 also. Insofar as the merit of said ground is concerned, it would be in the fitness of things that the same is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication, since the same was not before the lower authorities. Needless to say the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in support of the aforesaid Additional Ground of Appeal and thereafter pass an order afresh as per law."
Considering the above we are restoring back the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudica
-tion.He would decide the issue after hearing the Assessee.Second Ground is partly allowed.
As a result, appeals filed by AO and the assessee stand partly allowed.
फलतः िनधा
रती और िनधा
रती अिधकारी ारा दािखल क गई अपी ल अंशतः मं जूर क जाती ह .
nd
Order pronounced in the open court on 2 June, 2017.
आदेश क घोषणा खुले "यायालय म %दनांक 2nd जून, 2017 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(राम लाल नेगी / Ram Lal Negi) (राजे / Rajendra)
याियक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद
य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबईMumbai; %दनांक/Dated : 02.06.2017.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ* 2. Respondent /+,यथ*
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब/ अपीलीय आयकर आयु0, 4.The concerned CIT /संब/ आयकर आयु0
5.DR "A " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय +ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ."याया.मुंबई
6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स,यािपत +ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.
8