Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Ritu Sanjay Mantry, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(4), ... on 4 April, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
M.A. no.408/Mum./2018
(Arising out of ITA no.2003/Mum./2017)
(Assessment Year : 2008-09)
Ritu Sanjay Mantry
C-24, Padma Nagar
................ Applicant
Andheri Kurla Road
Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 099
PAN - AGHPM2569F
v/s
Income Tax Officer
................ Respondent
Ward-24(3)(4), Mumbai
Assessee by : Shri Nishit Gandhi
Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari
Date of Hearing - 18.01.2019 Date of Order - 04.04.2019
ORDER
By way of this misc. application, the assessee seeks rectification of mistake under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in the order dated 9th February 2018, passed by the Tribunal in ITA no.2003/Mum./2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09.
2. Before us, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee are as under:-
2Ritu Sanjay Mantry "4. Under the above circumstances, the Applicant most respectfully submits that certain inadvertent errors have crept in, in the order passed by the Hon‟ble Tribunal which are as under:-
i. While affirming the order of the CIT(A), the Hon‟ble Tribunal has observed that Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd., the registrar authority for Cable Corporation of India Ltd. had stated in their reply dated 27.02.2015 to the AO that as per the details available with them the Appellant was not holding any shares in Cable Corporation of India Ltd. on 21.02.2008 and 31.03.2008 (Ref.pg.4 of Assessment Order). Based on this reply, the Tribunal has observed that the transaction entered into by the Appellant was bogus (Ref.pg.10,11 of Ex.A). However, the Appellant had actually sold all the shares of Cable Corporation India Ltd. by 04.02.2008 which were moved out of the demat account by 06.02.2008. In this regard, the demat statement issued by HDFC Bank Ltd., the depository participant with whom the Appellant held its demat account, reflecting the sale was also produced and pointed out at the time of hearing before the Tribunal (Ref. pg.20 of Ex. B). The Appellant not only relied on the said demat statement at the time of hearing but also categorically pleaded before the Tribunal that, the reply from Link Intime India P. Ltd. did not hold anything against the Appellant since, the Appellant sold all the shares of Cable Corporation by 06.02.2008 whereas as per the reply of Link Intime, the Appellant did not hold any shares of Cable Corporation on 21.02.2008 and 31.03.2008 i.e. days after the shares were actually sold by the Appellant. The Appellant therefore, respectfully submits that, this observation of the Tribunal at para.16 pg.11 of its order holding the sale of the shares by the Appellant as bogus on the basis of the reply from Link Intime India P. Ltd. is in fact contrary to the facts on record since Link Intime has nowhere said that the Appellant was never holding the shares or that it had never sold the shares of Cable Corporation of India Ltd. as reflected in its demat statements issued by HDFC Bank. Further the dates on which the Appellant did not hold shares are in fact of a period after the shares sold by the Appellant and as such the reply does not hold anything against the Appellant. It is therefore pleaded that this observation at para 16 pg.11 be accordingly reversed and rectified.
ii. The Tribunal has further observed at para 17 pg.11 of its order that the shares of an unknown company were sold. This observation is again factually incorrect since Cable Corporation of India Ltd. is a reputed company incorporated since 1957 and was also highly traded during the period when the Appellant sold the shares. In fact, the networth of the said company had almost 3 Ritu Sanjay Mantry tripled in 2008-09. The said scrip is not among those companies allegedly run by Mr. Mukesh Chokshi, In fact, the entire details of Cable Corporation were also pointed out and furnished before the Hon'ble Tribunal at the time of hearing (Ref.pg. 3 of Ex. B) which is in fact also reproduced by the CIT(A) in his order at pg.7 but it seems that has inadvertently skipped the attention of the Tribunal. As such, it seems that the Hon'ble Tribunal has inadvertently erroneously held that Cable Corporation of India Ltd. is an unknown company since such observation is erroneous and even not borne out of the records.
iii. The Tribunal further observed that the shares of the said company were sold in an off-market deal. This observation is again factually incorrect in as much as the sale has been made by the Appellant on the National Stock Exchange (NSE) through its depository participant HDFC Bank with whom the Demat account was held by the Appellant. As such the sale was not an off-market deal as erroneously observed. In fact, elaborate details evidencing the sale were furnished, relied on and pointed out at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal. More particularly, the broker notes evidencing sale and SIT paid (Ref. pg. 11 to 18 of Ex.B), the bank statement reflecting receipt of consideration for sale (Ref. pg. 19 of Ex.B) and copy of demat statement of the Appellant evidencing the transfer of the shares from her account (Ref.pg.20 and pg.32 of Ex.B). Not only that, it was also pointed out that the entire transaction is verifiable on the official website NSE (Ref.pg.4 of Ex. B). However, while making the above observation that the shares were sold in an off-market deal, the Hon'ble Tribunal has inadvertently not considered the above documents. As such based on the above records / documents, it is apparent that the Hon'ble Tribunal has inadvertently made an erroneous observation that the shares were sold off-market. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant had even relied on and furnished a copy of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of ACIT vis Shri Ravinder Kumar Toshniwal - ITA No. 5302 I M 108 stating that a particular transaction could not be treated as bogus merely because it is an off-market transaction. As it appears from the order, the said judgement has also not been considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal before making the said observation to treat the transaction as bogus.
iv. After making the abovementioned observations, the Tribunal has further observed that the prices of the shares of Cable Corporation jumped manifold without any apparent reason and there is no economic or financial basis for such astronomical appreciation in a short span of time. In this regard, the Appellant submits that, the shares were sold at the prevailing market price at which the shares were actually traded on the NSE. Copy of the 4 Ritu Sanjay Mantry historical price data of Cable Corporation on NSE was also furnished and specifically relied upon at the time of hearing (Ref.pg.33 to 37 of Ex. B) which has inadvertently not been considered by the Hon 'ble Tribunal. It was also stated that Cable Corporation is a reputed company and no investigation had been carried on against it by SEBI or any authority whatsoever, so as to even remotely suggest that the prices were rigged. As such, it is humbly submitted that, even this observation is erroneous in as much as the astronomical rise in prices was due to the fact that its networth had almost tripled in 2008-09. As such, the said observation is also contrary to the evidences produced and relied on by the Appellant at the time of hearing which have inadvertently skipped the attention of the Hon'ble Tribunal.
v. The Tribunal has while coming to its conclusion relied on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v/s Pri.CIT. In this regard, it is worth noting that the hearing in the case of the Appellant was concluded on 30.11.2017 whereas the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court relied on by the Tribunal was passed on 16.12.2017. The Appellant therefore, did not have any opportunity whatsoever to deal with the said judgement, since the same was not available at the time of hearing nor was the Appellant made aware of the same post the hearing. Without prejudice to the above and in any case, the said judgement is not applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case since the facts in that case are completely different as compared to the case of the Appellant. In that case there was a negative finding as regards the net-worth of the company basis which apprehensions were raised stating that the rise in price of the shares was unbelievable and unjustifiable. Such findings are completely missing in the present case. Further, the Appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to furnish additional points of distinction at the time of hearing of this Miscellaneous Application.
vi. The Appellant further submits that the Hon'ble Tribunal at para 13 of the order has affirmed the observations of the Respondent, that the Assessee (the Applicant herein) had paid cash of equivalent amount and received back by cheque and bogus contract notes and bills for the transactions not actually routed through stock exchange. The Respondent made these observations without any evidence whatsoever. This fact was categorically pointed out to the Tribunal. However, it seems this fact has remained unnoticed at the time of passing the order and the observation of the Respondent has been affirmed without any evidence to support the same.
vii. The Appellant further submits that as apparent from the order, various factual and legal contentions as raised by the 5 Ritu Sanjay Mantry Appellant have inadvertently not been dealt with by the Tribunal at the time of hearing. They are as follows:
a. The Applicant most respectfully submits, at the outset, that the Hon'ble Tribunal has upheld the jurisdiction of the AO to frame the Assessment u/s 148 on the ground that there was prima-facie information on the basis of which assessment was re-opened and in order to uphold the same the Hon'ble Tribunal relied on the judgement in the case of A CIT v/s Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers - (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). However, the plea raised at the time of hearing was not whether there was tangible material or not before the AO. Rather, the plea raised at the time of hearing was that the AO has not applied his mind to the said information before recording reasons and initiating the re-assessment proceedings. As such, the said contention of the Appellant remained unaddressed by the Hon'ble Tribunal and the re-assessment was affirmed without considering the plea of the Appellant as stated above.
b. The Appellant had pointed out that the Department relied on certain information and statements of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi gathered at the back of the Appellant. The said statements as well as all information received from the investigation wing remained unconfronted to the Appellant. The Appellant categorically argued that an opportunity to rebut the said information / statements and also to cross examine Mr. Mukesh Chokshi was not granted to the Appellant despite specific request right from the stage of Assessment [Ref.pg.49 of Ex.B and pg.10 of the CIT(A)'s Order]. As such the same could not be used against the assessee. For this proposition, the Appellant had even relied on and filed copies of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H. R. Mehta v/s ACIT-ITXA No.58 of 2001 wherein it has been held that the denial of an opportunity to cross examine the deponent and to provide the documents/information relied on by the Department goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the reassessment. The Appellant further relied on and furnished copies of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Kan Singh Rathore - D.B. Income Tax Appeal 192 of 2014 wherein it was held that when Shri Mukesh Choksi was not confronted to by the assessee, the Department could not use his statement against the assessee. Further, the appellant had also relied on the Judgement of the division bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Kamladevi S. Doshi v/s ITO - ITA No. 1957/Mum./2015 alongwith ITA Nos.3018 and 3019/ Mum./2015 on the same proposition wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal had deleted the additions made in the hands of the assessee since she was not granted cross-examination of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi before making the additions in respect of Long 6 Ritu Sanjay Mantry Term Capital Gains on shares purchased through concerns run by Mr. Mukesh Chokshi. This specific argument and the judgements relied on therefor, have inadvertently, not been considered by the Tribunal as apparent from the order.
c. The Appellant had further argued that no addition could have been made in its hands merely on the basis of statements of some Mr. Mukesh Chokshi. More so, particularly, when the Capital Gains earned by it were explained and proved by a plethora of evidences substantiating both the purchases (Ref.pg. 21 to 29 of Ex. B) and sales (Ref.pg.ll to 20 and 32 to 37 of P8). In fact, the purchases made by the Appellant have been accepted by the Respondent himself as investments in earlier year which was specifically stated before the Hon'ble Tribunal. It was therefore argued that once purchases are accepted sales could not have been doubted. In order to further bolster her submissions, the Appellant had relied on and furnished copies of the Judgement of the co-ordinate benches of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the following cases where additions made on the basis of statement of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi and the documents / information received from the Investigation Wing were deleted:
Ulka Vijay Salvi v/s ITO, ITA No.2069/Mum./2015; Shri Chandrakant G. Patel v/s ITO, ITA 2705/Mum./2004; Shri Sunil Prakash v/s ACIT, ITA No.6494/Mum./2014; ACIT v/s Ravinder Kumar Toshniwal, ITA No.5302/Mum/2008.
These judgements as apparent from the order have inadvertently not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
d. The Appellant further submits that one of the reasons for dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant was that in the opinion of. the Tribunal there was astronomical rise in prices of the shares of Cable Corporation of India Ltd. which were sold by the Appellant and on which capital gains were earned. It is worth noting that as already mentioned earlier, the shares were both bought and sold at the prevailing market rates at NSE (Ref.pg.33 to 37 of Ex. B). In fact, the sale was made through NSE at the prices ruling at NSE. In fact, the networth of the said company had almost tripled in 2008-09. As such, there was no reason which could lead to suspicion as regards the said transaction. Further, the Appellant had relied on and furnished a copy of the Judgement of the co-ordinate division bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Surya Prakash Toshniwal v/s ITO, ITA No.1213/Kol./2016, wherein it has been held that when transactions were carried out at the prices prevailing on the Stock Exchange, the same could not be treated as bogus merely because there is a substantial appreciation in the prices or 7 Ritu Sanjay Mantry that the Appellant failed to justify the prices at which the shares are sold. Further, the Appellant had also relied on and furnished copy of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Dolarrai Heman v/s ITO, ITA No.19/Kol./2014, wherein it was held that Capital Gains as earned by the Assessee could not be treated as bogus merely on the ground that at the time of sale the prices of stocks has substantially / astronomically appreciated and the difference between the purchase price and sale price was unusually high. The above facts as well as the Judgements, as apparent from the order, were inadvertently not considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
e. Further, as apparent from the order, the Hon'ble Tribunal has not considered a plethora of evidences (apart from and in addition to those specifically mentioned above) furnished in the form of paperbook (Ex.B) by the Appellant at the time of hearing and which was relied upon and even pointed out before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
5. In fact, there are a plethora of judgements even by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court wherein on similar facts the exemption on Long Term Capital Gains claimed by the Assessee has been allowed and the addition made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68/69 has been deleted even in cases where Mr. Mukesh Chokshi and his related concerns were a party to the transaction [Ref. CIT v/s Mukesh Ratilal Marolia-ITXA 456 of 2007 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.20146 of 2012, CIT v/s Rajnidevi Chaudhary-ITXA 1333 of 2008, CIT vis Ravinderkumar Toshniwal, ITXA(L) 1739 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, etc.]. As is apparent from the order, the same has been passed without considering these binding jurisdictional high court judgements.
6. In the above circumstances, the Applicant most respectfully urges that the impugned order be rectified on the errors as pointed out above. Without prejudice to the same and in the alternative, it is submitted that in the interest of justice and fair play the appeal be restored for hearing on merits on all the issues as pointed out above and one more opportunity of being heard be given to the Applicant."
3. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal has passed an elaborate order placing reliance upon case laws from the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional 8 Ritu Sanjay Mantry High Court on the impugned issues. He submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the Tribunal as submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee. the learned Departmental Representative pleaded that the assessee is seeking a review of the order which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act.
4. Upon hearing rival parties and on a perusal of materials on record, we find that the Income Tax Appeal related to re-opening of the case pursuant to the information received from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus long term capital gain claim in which the assessee was involved pursuant to Shri Mukesh Choksi Group scam cases. The Tribunal has passed an elaborate order operating part of which is reproduced below:-
"13. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. I find that cogent and credible information was received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has indulged in manipulated bogus accommodation entries in shares for showing LTCG. The information was received that such manipulated transactions was done through companies run by Shri Mukesh Choksi. The Assessing Officer has given a finding that the assessee has taken entries from Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. involved in the shares scam case for Rs.10,39,289/- for bogus speculation profit during the financial year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer has found the assessee has paid cash of equivalent amount and received back by cheque and bogus contract notes and bills for the transactions not actually rooted through stock exchange. The Assessing Officer has also noted that these facts are established by reply by Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 27.2.2015 which mentions as under:9
Ritu Sanjay Mantry "We wish to inform you that the said shareholder is not holding any shares under demat account no.
IN301151/22161785 in the above mentioned company as per the details available with us as on 21st February 2008 and 315t March 2008."
14. On the above factual background, the Assessing Officer has held that it is clear that the assessee through Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. has shown transactions which are colorable devise using forged and fabricated bills and contract notes for the purpose of evasion of tax. On these transactions, the Assessing Officer has also estimated 2% commission and, accordingly, he has made the above said disallowance.
15. Upon the assessee‟s appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has given a finding that dealing in shares by the assessee in the above script has to be taken as dealing in penny stock which was in the form of accommodation entries and hence the entire sale consideration of this scrip has to be treated as unexplained cash credit within the menaing of section 68 of the Act.
16. I find that the facts of the case indicate that the assessee has claimed to have purchased share from Cable Corporation of India Ltd. through Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Alliance Intermediateries & Network Pvt. Ltd. These intermediateries are companies operated by Shri Mukesh Choksi and are involved in providing bogus entries. On enquiry, the Assessing Officer has found that for the said company Cable Corporation of India Ltd., Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. is the registered authority. The Assessing Officer asked for information u/s. 133(6) of the Act vide letter dated 25.2.2015 from Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. regarding the genuineness of the transaction. The said Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 27.2.2015 stated that the assessee (shareholder) is not holding any shares in DEMAT account in the above mentioned company. In these factual backgrounds, the above transaction of the assessee has been held to be bogus accommodation transaction. The above factual scenario clearly indicates that the assessee has indulged in bogus transaction to show his undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain.
17. Now the facts of the case as noted above shows that the shares of unknown company in an off market deal has jumped manifold without any apparent reason. There is no economic and financial basis for the astronomical appreciation involved in the short span of time. In the identical situation, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT vide order dated 16.12.2017 has held as under:
10Ritu Sanjay Mantry
(i) The assessee had on the advice of an income tax consultant purchased shares of two penny stock Kolkata based companies i.e., 8000 shares at the rate of Rs.5.50 per share on 08.08.2003 and 4000 shares at the rate of Rs.4/per share on 05.08.2003 from Syncom Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and of Skyzoom Distributors Pvt. Ltd. the payments were made by the assessee in cash for acquisition of shares of both the companies. The address of both the companies was interestingly, the same. The authorized signatory of both the companies was also the same person. The purchase of shares of both the companies was done by the assessee through Global Stock and Securities Ltd and the address of the said broker was incidently the address of the two companies. Both the companies intimated the assessee on 07.04.2004 regarding the merger of the companies with another company, viz. Khoobsurat Limited, Kolkata and the assessee received the shares of the new company in the ratio of 1:4 of the number of shares of the previous two companies held by the assessee. The assessee sold 2200 shares at an exorbitant rate of Rs.486.55 per share on 07.06.2005 and 800 shares on 20.06.2005 at the rate of Rs.485.65. The shares were sold through another broker, viz. Ashish Stock Broking Private Limited. The proceeds from the aforesaid sale transaction were directly credited by the broker in the Savings Bank Account of the assessee in the Union Bank of India. The assessing officer did not accept the case of the assessee that she was entitled to exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The assessing officer held that the aforesaid transactions of purchase of two penny stock shares for Rs.60,000/, the merger of the companies with a new company and the sale of the shares for Rs.11,58,930/fell within the ambit of adventure in the nature of trade and the assessee had profited by Rs.13,98,930/. The assessing officer, therefore, brought the aforesaid amount to tax under the head „business income‟.
(ii) Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed and so was the subsequent appeal filed by the assessee against the 11 Ritu Sanjay Mantry order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(iii) On hearing the learned counsel for the assessee and on a perusal of the orders of the income tax authorities, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the said orders in this appeal. By referring to the aforesaid facts, which are narrated in the earlier part of this order, the authorities found that the assessee had made investment in two unknown companies of which the details were not known to her. It was held that the transaction of sale and purchase of shares of two penny stock companies, the merger of the two companies with another company, viz. Khoobsurat Limited did not qualify an investment and rather it was an adventure in the nature of trade. It was held by all the authorities that the motive of the investment made by the assessee was not to derive income but to earn profit. Both the brokers, i.e. the broker through whom the assessee purchased the shares and the broker through whom the shares were sold, were located at Kolkata and the assessee did not have an inkling as to what was going on in the whole transaction except paying a sum of Rs.65,000/in cash for the purchase of shares of the two penny stock companies. The authorities found that though the shares were purchased by the assessee at Rs.5.50 Ps. Per share and Rs.4/per share from the two companies in the year 2003, the assessee was able to sell the shares just within a years time at Rs.486.55 Ps and Rs.485.65 Ps per share. The broker through whom the shares were sold by the assessee did not respond to the assessing officer‟s letter seeking the names, addresses and the bank accounts of the persons that had purchased the shares sold by the assessee.
(iv) The authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. While so observing, the authorities held that the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5/had jumped to Rs.485/in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a 12 Ritu Sanjay Mantry share worth Rs.5/of a little known company would jump from Rs.5/to Rs.485/. The findings recorded by the authorities are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. While recording the said findings, the authorities have followed the tests laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. The findings do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The judgments reported in (2012) 20 Taxman.com 529 (Bombay) (CIT Versus Jamnadevi Agrawal), (1957) 31 ITR 294 (Bombay) (Puranmal Radhakishan Versus CIT), (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) (Raja Bahadur Versus CIT) and (2015) 235 Taxman 1 (Bom) (CIT Versus Smt.Datta M. Shah) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand.
18. From the above, I find that identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court against the assessee. Furthermore, the plethora of judgements referred by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in his order also supports the case of the assessee. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the orders of the authority below. Accordingly, I uphold the same.
19. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed."
5. On careful consideration, I find that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any mistake apparent from record, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee. The learned Counsel is seeking a review of the order which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee, inter-alia, finds fault with the order passed by the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue. I also find that the non-consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court can give rise to the apparent mistake in the 13 Ritu Sanjay Mantry order passed by the Tribunal, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC). It is not the other way around that the consideration for Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision can give rise to a mistake apparent from record, when there is no case that the same is not applicable on the facts of the present case. Consequently, I hold that the present misc. application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, misc. application stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.04.2019 /- Sd/-
SHAMIM YAHYA
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED: 04.04.2019
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Revenue;
(3) The CIT(A);
(4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned;
(5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai;
(6) Guard file.
True Copy
By Order
Pradeep J. Chowdhury
Sr. Private Secretary
(Sr. Private Secretary)
ITAT, Mumbai