Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Marshall Produce Brokers Company ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 30 January, 2025
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "D" MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
AND
SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
ITA Nos. 4917 & 4918/MUM/2024
Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18
Marshall Produce Brokers Company Asst. CIT Circle 3(2)(1),
Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 608, Aayakar Bhavan,
22/23 Jolly Maker Chamber No. 2, Vs. M.K. Road,
225 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020.
Mumbai-400021.
PAN NO. AAACM 7312 G
Appellant Respondent
ITA No. 5092/MUM/2024
Assessment Year: 2017-18
DCIT -3(2)(1), Marshall Produce Brokers Company
Room No. 608, 6th floor, Pvt. Ltd.,
Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 22/23 Jolly Maker Chamber No. 2,
Mumbai-400020. 225 Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021.
PAN NO. AAACM 7312 G
Appellant Respondent
Assessee by : Mr. Harsh Kothari
Revenue by : Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Date of He aring : 28/01/2025 ; 18/12/2024
Date of pronouncement : 30/01/2025
Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 2
Ltd.,
ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024
ORDER
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
The captioned appeals by the assessee for assessment year 2016-17 and 2017--18 18 and cross appeal of the Revenue for 2017 18 have been preferred against two separate assessment year 2017-18 orders, both dated 02.08.2024 02.08.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income-tax Centre Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)']. As common issues in dispute are involved in these appeals, therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for sake of convenience and avoid repetition of facts.
2. Firstly, we take ke up the appeal of the assessee for assessment
17. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are year 2016-17.
reproduced as under:
Income tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)) erred in not
1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax deleting the addition of Rs. 1,69,14,269/- ing the difference in the 1,69,14,269/ being business receipts as determined under the cash system followed by the appellant and that as determined under the mercantile system of accounting without appreciating the fact that the appellant has system of accounting for determining its consistently employed cash system business income.
2. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,38,105/ - being the difference in the interest income offered to tax under the head Income system followed by the from other sources as determined under the cash system appellant and that as per the mercantile system of accounting without appreciating the fact that the appellant has consistently employed cash system of accounting for determining its business income.
and 2, the CIT(A) erred in not directing
3. Without prejudice to grounds 1 and the AO to reduce the income of the appropriate year in which the aforesaid Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 3 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 sums are offered to tax by the Appellant on cash basis so as to avoid double taxation of the same sums.
4. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 2,97,71,374 made by the the AO while computing income for the purposes of minimum alternate tax under section 115JB without appreciating the fact the appellant has already determined its book profits based on mercantile system of or the purposes of section 115JB and making an addition accounting for again results in double taxation.
5. The CIT(A) erred in not upholding the appellant's claim for depreciation on the office premises at Andheri to the extent the premises were used for the purposes of the appellant's business. The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that once the asset has entered into the block of assets on which depreciation has been allowed in the first year, depreciation cannot be denied in the subsequent years.
6. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental income of Rs. 26,94,240 made by the AO in respect of the 60 percent of the Andheri office premises without appreciating that the said premises were used by the Appellant for the purposes of its business.
busi
7. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,000 in respect of the rental income received by the appellant for the let out portion of the Andheri premises without appreciating that the said amount had already been offered to tax in the subsequent sub year.
The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance made by the AO in respect of society charges and property taxes paid by the appellant in respect of its office premises at Mumbai and Delhi.
disallowance made by the AO of
9. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance business promotion expenses aggregating to Rs. 1,51,740/ 1,51,740/- without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred for the purpose of the Appellant's business.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is mainly engaged in earning brokerage income by way of arranging charter for vessels/tankers sailing sailing in international waters for various clients like Shipping corporation of India, Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. etc. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 4 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 Rs.25,43,57,419/- under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Income Act, t, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and Rs.25,28,55,778/-
Rs.25,28,55,778/- as book profit Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') on u/s 115JB of the Income-tax 23.09.2016. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Act were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2018, the Assessing Officer made various additions/disallowances to the returned income. On further f appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) partly sustained the additions. Aggrieved with the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') before the Income-tax raising the grounds as reproduced above.
4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing ning pages 1 to 129.
5. s.. 1 to 3 of the appeal of the assessee relate to The ground Nos addition made in respect of business receipt of Rs.1,69,14,269/-
Rs.1,69,14,269/ Rs.1,28,38,105/ respectively. Before the and interest receipt of Rs.1,28,38,105/-
submitted that it was following cash Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted system of accounting for declaring its business income for income- tax purposes and said cash system of accounting was being followed consistently in the past and accepted by the Income-tax Income Department. As per the profit and loss account maintained on cash tax purposes, the assessee shown basis of accounting for income-tax Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 5 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 Rs.29,45,83,445/ , exchange gain of Rs. Nil brokerage income of Rs.29,45,83,445/-, and profit before tax of Rs.25,28,55,778/-.
Rs.25,28,55,778/ . The assessee claimed separate books of accounts following the that it also maintained a separate mercantile system of accounting for company Act purposes, where the brokerage income of Rs.31,02,70,709/ Rs.31,02,70,709/-, exchange gain of Rs.12,27,005/- and profit before tax at Rs.28,32,84,743/-
Rs.28,32,84,743/ was shown.. The relevant chart of the var various incomes shown by the assessee for year under consideration as per alleged cash and mercantile system of accounting has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order. For ready reference, the said chart is reproduced as under:
unde (Amount in Rs.) Particulars of Receipts as per Receipts as per Variation (Rs.) Amount of Income Mercantile alleged Cash Variation added System (Rs.) System (Rs.) to income head Brokerage 310270709 294583445 156872264 Business Income Interest 40655616 27817511 12838105 Other Sources Rent 2138500 2119500 19000 House Property Exchange Gain 1227005 0 1227005 Business Income Total 29771374 5.1 The Assessing Officer added the variation in brokerage income amounting to Rs.1,56,87,264/ 56,87,264/- along with variation in exchange gain of Rs.12,27,005/-
Rs.12,27,005/ and thus made total addition of Rs.1,69,14,269/- as business income under the normal provisions of the Act. Similarly, the AO made addition for the variation of the Rs.1,28,38,105/- under the head 'Income from interest income of Rs.1 other sources'. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 6 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 section 145(1) of the Act provides for income chargeable under the head 'profit and gains business or profession' profession or 'income income from other sources' to be computed in accordance with method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee and since the assessee was following cash receipt of accounting for past several years, there was no justification for adding the income as per the mercantile basis that too when expenses were allowed as per the cash system of accounting. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that receipt declared on cash basis might include advances received also. The he assessee relied on the various decisions cited in the on of the assessee reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. submission A) without giving any explicit reasons, simply held that receipt CIT(A) Rs.2,97,52,374/ was not offered to tax and rather to the tune of Rs.2,97,52,374/-
years, therefore, he upheld the same was deferred to subsequent years addition made by the Assessing Officer Officer,, both to business income as well as to Income from other sources. .
5.2 Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to Paper Book page 13, which is part of return of income prescribing other he said return of income where the method of information in the accounting implied in the previous year is mentioned as cash. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13,, which is available on Paper Book page 65, rein in para 4, the Assessing Officer 65 wherein noted that the assessee was following cash system of accounting for Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 7 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 tax purpose and same had been consistently followed year income-tax after year. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of hi High Court in the case of Cyber Media (India) Ltd. the Hon'ble Delhi v. CIT reported in 338 ITR 177 (Delhi), decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank v. CIT reported in 240 ITR 355 (SC) and decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case e of Pradip Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 344 ITR 171 (Calcutta).
5.3 On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the order of the lower authorities.
5.4 We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. The main issue under consideration pertains to whether the income of the assessee should be computed in accordance with the cash system of accounting, which has been claimed to have been consistently followed by the assessee over the years. For verification of this claim of the assessee, matter was fixed for clarification on 28/01/2025. On said date, the ld counsel for the assessee filed copies of balance sheet and profit and loss accounts for last three years claimed to have been maintained as per cash method of accounting. On perusal of the Significant Accounting and Notes to Account to the financial statements for all the three year including the assessment year involved, we find that on only ly Revenue and Expenses are Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 8 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 accounted on cash basis. Similarly, in balance sheet, current liabilities have been noted. The ld Counsel explained that those liabilities are not having impact on the income of the assessee accounting. He submitted that computed and offered as per cash accounting. AO has rejected the books of account of the assessee and only substituted the income as per mercantile method. But in our opinion, the assessee has followed cash method of accounting for d not for balance sheet recording revenue and expenses item only and items, which is evident from the submission of the ld Counsel. For ready reference relevant part of his submission is reproduced as under:
"10. During the hearing, the Hon'ble members had raised a question with respect to the item Current Liabilities and Provisions appearing in the Audited Balance Sheet tendered along with the Profit & Loss account maintained as per cash system of accounting.
11. In this regard, the appellant wishes to submit as under:
as appearing in the Balance Sheet a. The figure of provisions as as at 31st March 2016 (relevant for present appeal for AY 2016 - 17) is Rs. 31,88,94,438. The same comprises of three items namely, (i) tax provision of Rs. 31,86,44,000, (ii) Security Deposit received from Licencee - Rs. 2,50,000 ,50,000 and (iii) employees contribution to ESIC collected from staff salary - Rs.
438.
b. The Appellant humbly submits that none of these three items appearing in the balance sheet have any bearing for determination of business income as per cash system followed f by the appellant.
c. Tax provision of Rs. 31,86,44,000 - For the purpose of presentation, the tax liability for the balance sheet period is shown as Provision on Balance sheet date. Corresponding Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 9 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 tem after effect is given in Profit & Loss account as a line iitem Profit / (Loss) before Taxation. Tax paid from time to time against the above provision is reflected under the head Loans & Advances in balance sheet. The Appellant submits that the above presentation of tax provision has no bearing with respect to computation of income as per cash basis of accounting followed in accordance with section 145 of the Act. In this regard, attention is drawn to the computation of income at page 1 of the Paper book which refers to Net profit of Rs. 25,28,55,778 as per P & L Account under the head 'Income from Business & Profession' which is the figure appearing in the Cash Profit & Loss Account for financial year 2015 - 16 prior to reduction of provision for taxation of Rs 8,90,36,000 for the year under consideration. In other words, the provision for taxation is not claimed as deduction from the business income computed as per cash system of accounting.
d. Deposit received from Licencee - Rs. 2,50,000 - Appellant had rented part of its office premises to Dynacom Tankers Management Pvt. Ltd. in financial year 2013 - 14. An amount of Rs. 2,50,000 was received as Security deposit from the Licencee which is refundable and has to be paid back at the time of vacating the premises. Accordingly, the same is shown as a Current lia liability bility in the balance sheet. The Appellant submits that this item also has no bearing for determination of business income as per cash system of accounting followed by the appellant.
e. Employees Contribution to ESIC of Rs. 438 collected from staff salary - This amount is collected from employee for ESIC contribution from his March salary which is paid after the balance sheet date and, hence, shown as current liability.
f. The Appellant, therefore, humbly submits that none of the above items have any bearing bearing with respect to the income computed as per cash system of accounting followed by the appellant.
In light of the above submissions, the appellant prays that its ground on computation of income as per the cash system of accounting regularly followed by the appellant be allowed."
allowed 5.5 The section ection 145 of the Act prescribe to follow either cash or mercantile system and therefore, assessee have option to follow Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 10 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 either cash or mercantile method of accounting system and not hybrid method of accounting. The relevant provisions of section 145 are reproduced as under:
Method of accounting.
"[Method
145. (1) Income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section sub (2), be computed in accordance with either cash or mercantile system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee.
(2) The Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette from time to time [income computation and disclosure standards] to be followed by anyany class of assessees or in respect of any class of income.
(3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or sub section (1) [has where the method of accounting provided in sub-section not been regularly followed by the assessee, or income has not been computed in accordance with the standards notified under sub-section section (2)], the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner provided in section 144.]"
5.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row, CIT (61 ITR 428), has unequivocally held that Section 145 of the Income-tax Income Act is mandatory in nature. Consequently, post the amendment to Section om 1st April 1997, the assessee is obligated to 145, effective from maintain its books of account either on a cash or mercantile system of accounting. The mixed system of accounting has not been recognized or permitted under Section 145 of the Act after the said amendment. Further, in the case of McMillan & Co. (33 ITR 182),
182) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even when the Assessing Officer (AO) accepts the method of accounting followed by the assessee, the AO Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 11 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 is not bound by the profit figures reflected in the accounts. It I is incumbent upon the AO to identify and substantiate any inherent defects in the accounting system adopted and record a clear finding that such a system does not enable the computation of correct profits. However, it is not open to the AO to intervene and a substitute a different system of accounting than the one consistently followed by the assessee merely because the AO believes an alternate system is preferable as has been reiterated in CIT v. Margadarsi Chit Funds (P.) Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 442 (AP). The Delhi bench of the tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Amarpali Mercantile Income-tax (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax [1993] 45 Income-Tax ITD 386 (DELHI), held that hybrid system of accounting is not permitted. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:
ORDER
5. On consideration of the material the claim made by the assessee is not acceptable for the reasons as follows:
5.1 For all practical purposes such as recording of the business transactions, compliance with requirements of the Companies Act, Act share holders etc. and also for the presentation of the accounts before the share-holders purpose of filing returns under the Income-tax Act,, the assessee as followed cash system of accounting which was admittedly accepted in past.
However, from the current year the assessee changed over to method of mercantile system of accounting for all practical purposes other than meeting its liability under the Income-tax Act.. This is not permissible as Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 12 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 the same is not in accordance with law while interpreting the words 'method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee' it was held in the case of Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) that section related to a method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee for his own purposes, that is to say, for the purposes of his business and did not ethod of making up the statutory return for assessment to relate to a method income-tax. Similar principle was laid down in the case of CIT v. Smt. Singari Bal [1945) 13 ITR 224 (All.) (FB) where it was held that the assessee could not for the purpose of more conveniently carrying on his own business adopt the mercantile basis and then for the purpose of tax assessment adopt the cash system of accounting. See pages income-tax 1159/60 of Kanga and Palkhiwala's The Law and Practice of Income-tax, Income Eighth Edition and also pages 4231/32 of Sampath Iyengar's Law of tax, Eighth Edition. In our opinion the principle laid down Income-tax, in these two cases still hold the field of assessments. Mr. Vaish contended that the change from cash system to mercantile system was effected only to comply with the amended provisions of the Companies Act.. But the fact remains that the assessee did change over to mercantile system of accounting for all practical purposes except one for preparing the statutory return for Income Tax purpose. Mr. Vaish further contended that had the assessee continued to fol low the cash system of accounting follow then at the most there could have been only a qualification in the statutory report to be obtained from the statutory auditors under the Companies Act and there were no other ther penal provisions. Even if it is accepted that there were no other compelling reasons or penalties not envisaged under the Companies Act for not switching over to mercantile system of accounting, yet the assessee did change over in spite of this aspect and that itself clarifies the intention of the assessee to change over to mercantile system of accounting for all practical purposes though in the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors it is stated that for the purpose of Income--tax Act only, the company shall follow the cash system of accounting.
5.2 It was further submitted that there would be hardships to the assessee in case the assssees were to be taxed on income on the basis of mercantile system of accounting because in that eventthe assessee would be paying tax on interest even on sticky or doubtful loans or even where Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 13 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 interest received is deferred. Probably his submission was based on the ision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of decision Travancorev. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 102 where, by majority decision, it was held that such accrual of interest would be taxed even when the loans between the parties with are sticky since there would be an agreement between regard to the payment of interest. First of all there is no evidence brought to our notice in respect of any such amount of interest having been taken as accrued about which the assessee is not certain of recovery. No such ound from the accounts filed before us. Besides there are position is found lines in respect of such matters where if the ability to sufficient guide-lines assess the ultimate collection with reasonable certainty is lacking at the time of raising any claim the Revenue recognition is advised to be un certainty involved (See Compendium of postponed to the extent of un-certainty Guidance Notes, Vol. II, 2nd Edition issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India on pages 47-15, 47 15, consequent to amendment to Section 209 of Companies Act) and, therefore, there should not be difficulty at least on the basis of the said decision which was resting charged interest by debiting the upon the fact that the assessee itself had charged debtor's account and had taken the credit to the suspense account. Besides the Central Board of Direct Taxes also issues from time to time appropriate Circulars in this regard so as to remove the hardships of the assessees.
5.3 It was further submitted that such approach should be adopted, which shall protect the interest of Revenue and also not cause any undue hardships to the assessee. On this aspect, in our opinion, the approach adopted by the tax authorities is quite correct because apart from that being in consonance with the law, if the assessment is based on the books maintained for all purposes except for tax purpose then the assessee will not be required to maintain another set of books of necessary for the assessee to have audit under accounts, nor will it be necessary Section 44AB as otherwise, in our opinion, it would be necessary, besides detailed time consuming enquiries will not be resorted to by the Assessing Officer to find out what exactly are the amounts received by sessee and what is the element of interest/principal paid by the the assessee conciling the same with books of accounts maintained on assessee and re-conciling mercantile system of accounting. All these undue hardships will be Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 14 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 removed by the course adopted by the Assessing Officer. Offic Immediate advantage that will accrue from our this decision would be there will not be need of any modification of the assessment and if the Tribunal's Order is accepted then litigation will come to an end not only for this year but for all subsequent years. To our mind this too is a great advantage to the assessee.
5.4 While ending we would like to refer to one more aspect, the intention behind the amendment made to Section 209 of the Companies Act. har Committee, formed for reforms in the Companies Act.
Sachar Act had found that certain Corporate Bodies maintained all or certain accounts on cash basis in which event a true and fair picture of the state of affairs of the Company might not always be reflected and, therefore, it was desired by the Committee to make it obligatory on all Companies to maintain accounts only on mercantile system of accounting (Para 8.6 of the Report) and based on this recommendation recommendati Sub-section (3) to Section 209 of the Companies Act had been amended. The newly inserted Sub Sub-section (3) reads as under :
Sub sections (1) and (2) proper books of account (3) For the purposes of Sub-sections shall nott be deemed to be kept with respect to the matters specified therein:-
(a) if there are not kept such books as are necessary to give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the company or branch office, as the case may be and to explain its transactions;
transac and
(b) if such books are not kept on accrual basis and according to the double entry system of accounting.
Because of the amendment now it is obligatory on the part of all the Companies to record its business transactions only on the basis of al, that is to say, method of mercantile system of accounting and accrual, that is why as we have stated earlier the judicial principle laid down by the Privy Council and Allahabad High Court is directly applicable.
applicabl We further find on reading Section 209 of the Companies Act that Sub- Sub section (5) prescribes for compulsory compliance by the Company with the requirements of amended section and in case of wilfull defaul default by the Company the officials mentioned in Sub section (6) are punishable with Sub-section imprisonment and/or fine. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Vaish that the Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 15 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 company could invite only qualification in the report of the statutory auditors if it had not changed over to mercantile system of accounting, is incorrect.
5.5 The decision in the case of McMillan & Co. (supra) in fact supports the case of the Revenue because it was held that Section 13 which is in para materia with Section 145 does not confer a mere discretionary power but in the context it imposed a statutory duty on the Assessing Officer to examine in every case the method of accounting employed by the assessee. In this case we have already stated that the Assessing Officer examined the method of accounting employed by the assessee on the basis of decision of the Privy Council and Allahabad High Court referred to earlier and the Assessing Officer also found that the changed method had been regularly employed and he further agreed that profits and gains could appropriately be deduced therefrom. Similarly the Mudaliar (supra) it was held decision in the case of A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar that Section 13 of the Old Act did not compel the Assessing Officer to accept a balance-sheet sheet of cash receipts and out-going out going prepared from the books of accounts but he had to compute the income in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. Similarly the decision in the case of Shiv Prasad Ram Sahai (supra) also supports the case of Revenue. It was held therein that if the assessee had once chosen the mercantile system and had regularly employed that system it was not open to him unilaterally at any time during subsequent accounting year to change that system because the variation could only be byy mutual consent. In this case as we have stated earlier except for tax purposes, the assessee changed the system of accounting and Income-tax to which consent is accorded by the Assessing Officer. The learned Departmental Representative had placed reliance on the decision of Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prajatantra Prachar Samiti (supra) where it was held that the assessee was prohibited from adopting regularly one method of accounting for his own purpose and yet another method of accounting for tax purposes. Mr. Vaish did not fo Income-tax controvert this principle by showing how the decision of Cuttack Bench was not applicable to the facts of the case. Decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Salig Ram Kanhaya Lal (supra) pressed into service was totally on different point. In that case the assessee who maintained books on accrual method had received decretal amount, but the decree passed by Lower Court was subject matter of further appealappea and it was held that the amount could not be said to have accrued to the assessee. But such is not the case here. The controversy is entirely different.
Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 16 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
5.7 In view of the foregoing judicial precedents, it is evident
evi that
when an assessee partly follows the cash system of accounting and partly mercantile method, the books of accounts of the assessee are liable to be rejected and it is difficult for the Assessing officer to deduce the correct income for tax purpose.
purpose Therefore, the Revenue's contention that the entirety of cash receipts from brokerage or interest income has been properly declared by the assessee or not need also merits consideration. In facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the Assessing officer for proper verification of the profit from the business activity of brokerage income and interest income. If required, the Assessing Officer may issue commission to a tax Auditor for correct computation of income following the methods allowed as per law. The ground Nos.. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. . The ground No. 3 of the appeal being an alternative ground and same is not required to be adjudicated upon as the ground Nos.. 1 and 2 have already been restored back to the AO, therefore, the ground No. 3 is being infructuous and same is dismissed.
6. The ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee relate to Rs.2,97,71,374/ made by the AO to the book profit for addition of Rs.2,97,71,374/-
the purpose of section 115JB of the Act.
Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has noted Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 17 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 the book profit was offered as per the cash system of accounting and nd therefore, addition made by the AO was justified. Whereas before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that book profit for the purpose of provisions of section 115JB of the Act, Act has account been worked out on the basis of mercantile system of accounting followed under the Companies Act, and therefore the addition made by the AO amounts to double addition.
6.1 We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and carefully examined the material placed on record. The assessee has submitted a copy of the the financial statement prepared under the mercantile system of accounting, which is available on record at page 41 of the Paper Book. In this financial statement, the profit before tax has been reported as ₹28,32,84,743/-.. Upon reviewing me, available at pages 12 and 15 of the Paper the return of income, Book, along with the schedule of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) calculation at paper book page 36, it is noted that the deemed total Income tax Act has been income under Section 115JB of the Income-tax 25,28,55,778/-.. This figure has been computed on the declared at ₹25,28,55,778/ cash method' basis of profit determined under the 'cash method of accounting. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the return of income did not accept the figure derived as per the mercantile e system of accounting and instead automatically populated the book profit figure from other columns/schedule columns of the return of income income.. Consequently, the assessee separately Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 18 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 declared the income under Section 115JB of the Act, in accordance with the books prepared epared under the mercantile system of accounting as per the Companies Act. However, no corroborative evidence has been submitted before us to substantiate this claim. In view of the foregoing, we deem it appropriate to remand this matter back to the file off the Assessing Officer for verification. The Assessing Officer shall examine whether, in the return of income filed, the assessee has declared income under the MAT provisions, i.e., the book profit, based on the books of account prepared under the Compani Companies Act.
The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documentary evidence to support its contention that the income under Section 115JB of the Act was computed as per the mercantile system of accounting, in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Compani Act. The Assessing Officer shall consider these documents and decide the matter in accordance with law. The ground No. 4 of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
7. e appeal of the assessee relate to The grounds No. 5 to 7 of the Andheri Mumbai.. In ground No. 5, the building premises at Andheri, assessee is agitated with the 60% depreciation disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In ground No. 6, the assessee is agitated with the deemed notional rental income in respect of 60% portion of the Andheri building added by the Assessing Officer. In ground No. 7, the assessee is aggrieved with the addition of Rs.19,000/-
Rs.19,000/ in respect Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 19 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 of society charges and property taxes in respect of Andheri building premises at Mumbai.
7.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that assessee had acquired a commercial property admeasuring 3745.20 sq. ft. At Rs.7,66,75,000/ on 21.05.2013. It is the Andheri Kurla Road for Rs.7,66,75,000/- contention of the assessee that as the whole of the premises were not required for the own business, the management decided to give a part of premises on rent to minimize ideal costs.
cost The rental income from the same was offered under the head 'income ' from house property'.. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation on the let out portion i.e. 40% of the area, area which has not been disputed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer held that the balance 60% of the property which remained in the assessee's possession was not put to use for its business purpose purpose, therefore, depreciation on the same could not be availed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied on the order of the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2014-15, 2014 where the Ld. Assessing Officer had denied the depreciation on the 'Andheri building' . Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee relied on the order of the ITAT dated 2014 15. However, the Ld. CIT(A) 19.12.2019, for assessment year 2014-15. observed that assessee had not demonstrated that the remaining 60% of the asset was being put to use in the year under therefore the depreciation on 60% portion of consideration, therefore, Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 20 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 building was not allowable. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under :
6.15 | have also perused the order of ITAT and found that ITAT has "6.15 relied on finding of CIT (A) that the asset is being put to use and ITAT has not given any finding towards asset being put to use as contested by the appellant. Stepping back into CIT (a) order to find out if such finding has been given by CIT(A) or not, it is observed in the assessment order for Ay 2016 2016-17 the AO has dealt with this issue already at para no.6.4.1. It is observed that Cit (a) as well has not give any findings that asset is being put to use, he had direct eth AO to verify and allow depreciation.
6.16 The appellant has not proved that remaining 60% od od the asset is being put to use therefore depreciation is not allowable and the addition carried out by the Ld.AO is being upheld.
upheld."
7.2 We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and have carefully perused the material on record. The sole issue for adjudication before us is whether 60% of the Andheri building was used by the assessee for its business purposes during the assessment year under consideration. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 2014 15. However, the Revenue for the preceding assessment year 2014-15. has argued that, in that year, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) peals) [CIT(A)] had merely directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to verify whether 60% of the building was put to use, and such verification was not conclusively carried out while giving givin effect to the ITAT, therefore, erroneously recorded the CIT(A)'s order and the recor that the CIT(A) had verified the use of the 60% portion of the building. In our considered view, whether 60% of the building was put to use in the year under consideration is a factual matter requiring specific Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 21 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 verification. The determination of its use cannot rest solely on use whether it was used in the preceding assessment year. This is a matter of record, and it is essential to verify the actual use during the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, we find it appropriate to remand this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The assessee is directed to provide all necessary evidence to substantiate that 60% of the building was used for its business purposes during the year under consideration. This evidence may include details of brokerage activities conducted from the premises, the names and roles of employees working from the said building, and any confirmations from those employees. The AO is also at liberty to examine such employees, if necessary. Additionally, the assessee may submit supporting evidence such as records of computer installations or other items used in the brokerage business at the premises. The AO shall consider all evidence presented and adjudicate the matter in accordance with the law. The ground No. 5 of tthe he appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
8. The ground No. 6 is in respect of addition for the deemed notional rental income in respect of 60% of the Andheri office premises. Since the issue depends on whether the 60% por portion of the building was used for the business of the assessee assessee, which issue has been restored back to the Assessing Officer, while adjudicating ground no. 5 of the appeal, therefore, this issue is also restored Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 22 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding on the basis of the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee to support that building was used for the purpose of business. The ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes 8.1 The ground No. 7 relates to addition of Rs.19,000/ ,000/- in respect of rental income. The assessee declared the receipt from the rental income following the cash accounting system and the amount of Rs.19,000/-,, though pertaining to rental income for the year, it was received in subsequent year, so it was declared in the subsequent year as income under the head of 'income form house property' property'.
While declaring the income under the head 'income from house property' the assessee is required to declare the income received or receivable property.. The option of following 'Cash' or le in respect of property 'Mercantile' accounting to the assessee is available for declaring income under the head 'profit and gains of the business or profession' or 'income from other sources' only and not for the purpose se of declaring income under the 'Income form house property'. herefore, the assessee was required to declared the Therefore, ,000/- in the year under consideration. Accordingly, receipt of Rs.19,000/ we reject the contention of the assessee that no addition should be made as that income was declared in the subsequent year. However, if the assessee accepted this finding, then the assessee may file for rectification of income under house property in the Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 23 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 subsequent year. The ground No. 7 of the appeal is accordingly rejected.
8.2 The ground No. 8 relates to society charge and property tax paid by the assessee at office premises Mumbai and Delhi. The ld 1,94,825 Rs. 1,63,710) being AO disallowed Rs. 31,105(= Rs. 1,94,825- excess property operty tax deduction claimed in respect of 'Nariman Point office'. Further, the AO disallowed entire claim of Ts. 72,749/-
72,749/ in respect of property tax for 'Delhi office' as against claim of the 70,557/ was presented during assessee that property tax bill of Rs. 70,557/- d assessment proceedings. Before the ld CIT(A) the assessee claimed that amount of Rs. 31,105/ 31,105/- was actually society charges in respect of but inadvertently claimed as property tax. The Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.34 of impugned order has recorded that the assessee sessee failed to file evidence in support of its claim.
claim 8.3 We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. Both the lower authorities have recorded that such bills of society charges and receipt have not been produced before them. Before us also no such evidences have been filed. Therefore herefore, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to the assessee to file copies of bills / receipts for the exact amount amo for ich deduction has been claimed ffor verification by the Assessing which Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 24 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 he ground No. 8 of the appeal is according allowed for Officer. The statistical purposes.
9. The ground No. 9 of the appeal relate to disallowance of Rs.1,51,740/-.. The Ld. CIT(A) has business promotion expenses of Rs rejected the contention of the assessee that said expenses on gift of gold bangle (Rs. 84,166/-) 84,166/ ) to wife of one of the customer and gift of 67,574/ ) to customers, were mobile phone instruments ( Rs. 67,574/-) incurred for the purpose purpose of the assessee. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:
6.36 In the P&L A/c. the appellant has claimed expenses of "6.36 Rs.9,90,222/- under the head 'Trade Expenses'.
6.37 On perusal of the same, it is seen that one invoice issued by Tanisha pertains to purchase of One Gold Bangle worth Rs.84, 166/ 166/-
. Further the appellant had furnished bills to the extent of Rs.8,99,143/- out of the expenditure of Rs.9,66,717l-.
Rs.9,66,717l 6.38 The appellant contested that "Gold Bangle purchased from Tanishq was given as a gift to the wife of foreign principal who visited out Delhi Office for business meet regarding chartering business"
6.39 Further the appellant has also submitted another 2 bills Rs.67,574/ in respect of purchase of mobile phones. amounting to Rs.67,574/-
But on perusal of the bills for the purchase of mobiles, it is seen that Rs.33,000/ was issued on 07/04/2015, one of the bill amounting to Rs.33,000/- a good 7 months prior to Diwali in the year 2015.
6.40 The contention of the appellant are considered but not found to be acceptable.
The appellant has not provided any explanation towards nature of these expenses. In case of business promotion expense, it is pertinent to note that it is a very wide terminology being used in common parlance and it could comprise of vari eties of expenses.
varieties Having regard to the nature of expenses it is imperative to provide the explanation by the appellant that why such expenses are incurred. The appellant has also not filed the details of the person to Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 25 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 whom search expensive items are distr ibuted and how they are distributed associated with the business of the appellant.
6.41 In view of the above, I am of the considerate opinion that the appellant has not provided proper justification for incurring the underlined expenses and the expenses are not supported suppor by appropriate documentary evidences. Further, the appellant has not proved that how underlined expenses have nexus with the business carried out by the appellant. The appellant has failed grossly to discharge its primary owners to prove genuineness of expenses incurred and has also failed to establish the admissibility of said expenses as business expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by Ld. AO is found to be correct and the same is liable to be upheld.
disposed on merits and 6.42 Accordingly, Ground 7 of the appeal is disposed based on information/documents available on records."
records.
9.1 We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The lower authorities specifically asked the assessee to provide detail of persons to expensive items he assessee did not disclose the name of the were distributed , but tthe party to whom gold bangle and the mobile phones were allegedly distributed by the assessee and whether same were customer of the assessee.. If the assessee succeeds, in establishing establish that same the persons to whom those items were distributed are customer of the assessee then same can be treated as part of the business promotion expenses but unless the assessee gives name and address of those persons subject to verification n by the AO, same cannot be accepted as incurred for the business purposes merely on a statement by the assessee.
assessee. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to restore this issue also back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to assessee to provide complete name and provide Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 26 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 address and PAN numbers of the persons to whom such gifts had whom been distributed.
10. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment
18. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced year 2017-18.
as under:
1. The CIT(A) erred in not upholding the appellant's claim for depreciation on the office premises at Andheri to the extent the premises were used for the purposes of the appellant's business. The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that once the asset has entered the block of assets on which depreciation has been allowed in the first year, depreciation cannot be denied in the subsequent years.
2. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance made by the AO of society charges of Rs. 2,20,208 and office furniture expenses of Rs.
2,947 incurred by the Appellant in respect of its Andheri office premises though the said office premises were used by the Appellant for the purpose of its business.
3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of deemed notional rental ncome of Rs. 26,94,240 made by the AO in respect of 60 percent of income the Andheri office premises without appreciating that the said premises were used by the Appellant for the purposes of its business.
business meeting
4. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of business expenses of Rs. 6,93,164 and Diwali and New year expenses of Rs.10,38,490 incurred by the Appellant for the purposes of its business.
11. The ground No. 1 raised in the present appeal is identical to ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2016-17.
17. Accordingly, the issue in dispute is decided mutatis mutandis. The ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. The ground No. 2 of the appeal is identical to ground No. assessment year 2016-17 8 of the appeal of the assessee for assessment 2016 and therefore, same is also adjudicated mutatis mutandis and allowed Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 27 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 for statistical purposes. The ground No. 3 of the appeal of the assessee is identical to ground No. 6 of the appeal for assessment 17 and therefore, same is decided mutatis mutandis and year 2016-17 allowed for statistical purposes. The ground No. 4 of the appeal of the assessee is identical to ground No. 9 of the appeal of the 2016 17 and therefore, same is assessee for assessment year 2016-17 decided mutatis mutandis and allowed for statistical purposes.
12. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment
18. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced year 2017-18.
as under:
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in right in deleting the addition made on the issue of law, the Ld.CIT(A) is right Rs.2,27,48,292/-
incentive payment to the director to the extend Rs.2,27,48,292/ without considering the fact that the subject law payment is more than 5% of the net profit of the company which contravens the provisions of ection 40A(2/b) of the i. T. Act, 1961C/T(A) r.w.s. 194(1) of the Section Company's Act, 2013.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting the addition made of Rs.
as incentive to three persons without considering the fact 28,53,602/-as that the subject payment of incentive is not governed by any agreement.
Nos.. 1 of the appeal 12.1 The issue in dispute raised in ground No relate to salary/incentive payments to related person which has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer holding to be excessive value whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted observing then the market value, as under:
6.25 The contention of the appellant is found to be acceptable. The "6.25 amount paid by the appellant constitutes income for the recipient recipie and Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 28 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 the recipient is also taxable at same rate that of appellant company.
There is no revenue leakage which is observed. It is also found that the Ld.AO has not provided any adverse comment on the contractual employee. Its also the arrangement between the appellant and its employee. settled position that the assessing officer cannot step into the shoes of businessman and take calls at business arrangements."
arrangements.
12.2 Similarly, regarding disallowance of salary/incentive to 28,53,602/- has been persons other than relative amounting to Rs.28,53,602/ deleted by the ld CIT(A), observing as under:
6.30 The contention of the appellant is considered and found to be "6.30 acceptable. The underline payments are made to non related party Ld.AO contested and are in the accordance of contractual terms. The Ld.AO that the appellant has not filed the copy of contract and thus he had disallowed the payments."
payments.
12.3 We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The facts qua the issue in dispute are that the Director Mr Ashok Trehan was paid remuneration of Rs. 3,14,37,344/-
3,14,37,344/ including incentive of Rs. 2,51,37,912/-. According to the AO salary/incentive salary/incentive to Sh Trehan was excessive as compared to fair market value. The assessee explained that business of the assessee is of ship chartering and Mr Trehan is one of the best chartering broker of the company , working since 1980 and hence was promoted as director w.e.f. 2005. Mr Trehan already paid tax on the salary and incentive. The amount for the reason that section 197 AO disallowed the incentive amount company Act, does not permit incentive more than 5 % of the net profit, therefore it was excessive and he restricted the incentive to the amount prescribed as per company Act and held the balance amount of Rs. 2,27,48,292/-
2,27,48, was disallowed invoking section Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 29 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 appeal,, the ld CI(A) deleted the 40A(2)(b)) of the Act. On further appeal addition observing as under:
6.24 The appellant also submitted the agreement copy "6.24 between Mr Ashok Trahan and the appellant company, which clearly states that Mr Ashok Trah is entitled to business incentives of 10% on commission eared on vessel chartered.
6.25 The contention of the appellant is found to be acceptable.
The amount paid by the appellant constitutes income for the recipient and the recipient recipient is also taxable at same rate that of appellant company. There is no revenue leakage which is observed. It is also found that the Ld.AO has not provided any adverse comment on the contractual arrangement between the appellant and its employee. Its also the settled position that the assessing officer cannot step into the shoes of businessman and take calls at business arrangements.
6.26 In view of thee above I am of the considerate opinion that the addition carried out by Ld.AO is excessive and the same is being deleted."
deleted.
12.4 We have heard rival submission and perused the relevant alary/incentive to the director Sh material on record. As far as salary/incentive Ashok Trehan is concerned, the identical issue has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in ITA No. 7177/Mum/2017 2014 15, wherein 17 for assessment year 2014-15, w the Tribunal(supra) has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indo South Services Travels Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the said decision he held that when the payments in the hand of the director of the assessee concerned is subjected to same rate of taxation, taxation then there is no tax evasion, hence no disallowance was called for. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:
Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 30 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 "19. We note in this case the disallowance was made by the AO on the ground that the commission was excessive and unreasonable by comparing the same to the incentive paid to another director @ 0.1% and thus disallowed 8% of the commission paid to Shri Ashok Trehan.
Treha We further find that the rate applicable to the assessee and Shri Ashok Trehan was same and therefore there is no question of tax evasion. The Ld. CIT(A) has followed the Board's circular No.6P dated 06.07.1968 which clearly stated in para No.74 that the disallowance is to be made only where this payment to the related party results in tax evasion but in the present case there is no tax evasion as the rate applicable to both the parties is same. The case of the assessee is supported by the ratio laid down d in two decisions namely - CIT vs. Indo South Services Travel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Under these facts and circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss ground No.6 & 7 raised by the Revenue by upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A)."
12.5 Respectfully, following the finding the Tribunal (supra) in assessee's own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute.
12.6 Regarding the disallowance of incentive to non-related non person Rs.28,53,602/ raised in ground no. 2 of the appeal , amounting to Rs.28,53,602/-
the facts qua the issue in dispute are that incentive paid to three employees namely Sh Siddharth Trehan ( Rs. 24,98,190/ 24,98,190/-) : Sh 1,77,706/ ) and Mr Douglas Naikar (Rs.
Vijayan Balkrishan (Rs. 1,77,706/-) 1,77,706/-)) was disallowed by the AO for the reason that the assessee failed to submit agreements made with those employees. The ld CIT(A) deleted the addition observing that the assessee demonstrated onstrated that the payments made were as per contractual terms only.
12.7 We have heard rival submission of the parties. The ld CIT(A) after appreciation of the evidence filed before him held that Marshall Produce Brokers Company Pvt. 31 Ltd., ITA Nos. 4917,, 5092 & 4918/MUM/2024 payments were made as per the contractual terms between the assessee and concerned parties parties. Before us the Revenue has not been able to point out any discrepancy or evidence of non-rendering non of services by them. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in di dispute and accordingly, we uphold the same. Both the ground Nos. 1 and 2 of appeal of the Revenue are accordingly dismissed.
13. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced 01/2025.
nounced in the open Court on 30/01
Sd/
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/
(SUNIL KUMAR SINGH)
SINGH OM PRAKASH KANT)
(OM KANT
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai;
Dated: 30/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Assistant Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai