Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Windsor Machines Ltd., Thane vs Dcit Cir. - 3, Thane on 6 November, 2018
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "H" न्यायपीठ मुंबई में ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11)
Windsor Machines Ltd., बिाम/ DCIT, Range -3,
102/103, Devmilan CHS, 'B'Wing, U2, 6 t h floor,
Next to Tip Top Plaza, v. Ashar IT Park
L.B.S. Road,
Wagle Estate,
Thane(W)- 400604
Thane-400604
स्थायी ले खा सं . /PAN: AAACD4302P
(अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri. Pradip N. Kapasi
Revenue by: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
सन
ु वाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2018
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2018
आदे श / O R D E R
PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member:
This appeal, filed by assessee, being ITA No. 6164/Mum/2016, is directed against appellate order dated 29.08.2016 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane (hereinafter called "the CIT(A)"), for assessment year 2010-11, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from assessment order dated 26.03.2013 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act") for AY 2010-11.
I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter called "the tribunal") , read as under:-
"1.0 Ground No. 1The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2,Thane [The Ld. CIT (A)'] has erred in law and on facts and in circumstances of the case erred in confirming on ad hoc basis the repairs and maintenance expenses totaling to Rs.61,51,749 as capital in nature.2.0 Ground No. 2
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.61,18,000 incurred through banking channels in the course of business and further made enhancement of Rs.90,82,000 on the premise that genuineness of the expense is not established.
Your Appellants craves leave to add to and/or to amend and/or modify and/or to cancel any one or more grounds of appeal any time before or at the time of hearing."
3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic processing machinery and looms . During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) , it was observed by the AO that the assessee has debited Rs. 41,33,290/- for factory building of Chattral Unit and Rs. 41,79,155/- for factory building of Vatva Unit as repairing expenses. In the opinion of the AO, this large amount of expenditure towards repairs vis-a-vis value of building comes to the tune of 40% of the value of factory building which was very high. The assessee was asked as to why these expenses should not be considered as capital in nature. The assessee submitted that the units at Vatva was located in two plots and there is one factory at Chattral. It was explained that these buildings were purchased more than 2 decades ago. It was explained by the assessee that the factory building located at Gujarat were heavily affected because of un-seasonal cyclonic rains . The factory building were severally damaged due to cyclone struck in Gujarat in financial year 2008-09. It was submitted that the assessee has incurred huge 2 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 building repair expenses in financial year 2008-09 and 2009-10 . It was also submitted by assessee that quality of material used in repairs was also of high quality to strengthen the building and sustain against future occurrence of natural calamity and no new assets was created and these are repairs and maintenance expenses on the existing assets which did not resulted into creation of any new assets and the same should be treated as revenue in nature.
4. The AO observed that building was two decades old and also in a dilapidated condition which was affected by cyclone so even if no new structure was created but these expenses were in the nature of renovation of building from which enduring benefit will be derived in years to come and unless these expenses were incurred , the old building severally affected with cyclone could not have been in condition to be used for business activities. The AO made the additions by holding the said expenditure to be of capital in nature on which however depreciation at the rate of 10% was allowed by the AO, vide assessment order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act.
5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) , the assessee filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A) . The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) as under:-
" 1.1.1 on perusal to the statement it can be observed that expenses are in the nature of plastering and painting of external and internal walls, painting, water- proofing, floor surfacing /re-surfacing floors, furniture and fixtures repairing, civil work like partition/sliding doors and windows, tiles replacement, plumbing, electric repairing, false ceiling repairs, repairs to fire fighting systems , repairs to water tank and water pumps, maintenance of wash room, washbasins and toilets at factories and canteen expenses, expenses on cleaning of premise etc. 1.1.2 The Appellant submits before Your Honour that above expenses are recurring expenses and not one time expenses. The appellant has not derived any enduring 3 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 benefit from the expenses. The expenses are required for the smooth functioning of the business manufacturing process. Since the expenses are recurring expenses, die Appellant has claimed it as revenue expenses.
1.1.3 ..... Based on the above, the Appellant submits before Your Honour that the repairs and maintenance expenses are revenue expenses incurred in the course of business and the same should be allowed as revenue expenditure.
1.1.4 In support of the contention, the appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncements:
In the case of CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd.(2007) 293 ITR 201, (SC), the Hon'ble court has held that repairs expenditure incurred to "preserve and maintain" an already existing asset, and not with the object of the expenditure to bring a new asset into existence or to obtain a new advantage is an allowable revenue expenses. The relevant para of die observation is reproduced under:
In the case of CIT v. Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 590, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that expenses related to repairs of beams, pillars, walls etc. of the existing building that has not brought into existence any new asset over and above the existing building are in the nature of revenue expenses 1.1.5 The Appellant further submits before your Honor that during the financial Year 2008-09 Appellant's factory buildings located in Gujarat were heavily affected because of unseasonal cyclonic rain. The factory buildings were severally damaged due to the cyclone struck Gujarat and hence in addition to the recurring expenditure, the Appellant has incurred huge building repair expenses in financial year 2008-09 and 2009-10. Further to that the quality of material used in repairs is also of high quality considering the uncertainty and its strength to sustain future occurrence of any natural calamity The repairs and maintenance expenses on the existing assets, have not yet result into existence of any new asset. Thus, the expenses are claimed as revenue expenditure.
In this regard, reliance is placed on decision pronounced by Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Sarat Chatterjee & Co. (VSP) (P.) Ltd. (Date of order 31st 4 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 May 2012) ([2012]) 22 taxmann.com 11 [Kol.]. In the said case, assessee's business was severally affected due to Tsunami (natural calamity )which stuck in India in December 2004. The assessee carried out heavy repair expenses to bring back the working of the business in normal condition. However Ld AO capitalized the repair expenses. The matter went up to Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT wherein the ITAT confirmed that in case of natural disasters and considering the WDV of the asset higher spending on assets to make them usable should be considered as current repairs. ...
1.6 The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of CIT v Porriis & Spencer(A) Ltd.(257 ITR 49 (PUNJ & HAR)) has defined the term renovate and held that the process of renovation involved expense and amount spent on renovation cannot be sole measure for deciding the nature of expense.
1.1.7 We submit based on the above that building repairs and maintenance expenses Rs. 83,12,445/- should be allowed as revenue expenses as claimed by the Appellant."
6. The learned CIT(A) considered the contentions of the assessee and rejected the same by holding as under:-
" 6. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, findings of the Ld. AO, submissions of the Ld. AR, case laws relied by the Ld AR and material placed on record. From the facts of the case it is noticed that, the appellant company had incurred expenditure amounting to Rs 83,12,445/-, under the head "renovation / repairs and maintenance" and claimed the same as revenue expense. The AO, keeping in mind the nature and quantum of expenses incurred, as compared to the earlier years, treated the above expenses, as capital expenditure, therefore, disallowed the same. However, the depreciation @10% was allowed en the same. Accordingly, the AO after allowing the depreciation @ 10%, i.e. Rs 8,31,244/- , disallowed the balance expenditure of Rs 74,81,201/- (83,12,445/- [-] Rs 8,31,244/-) and added to its income.
6.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld A.R. had claimed that in the financial year 2008-09, the appellant's factory buildings, located in Gujarat, were heavily damaged because of unseasonal cyclonic rain and were in dilapidated condition. The appellant had incurred 5 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 huge one-time expenses in plastering and painting of external and internal walls, painting of structures like cranes, beams, machinery, water-proofing, floor surfacing/re-surfacing floors, maintaining factory compound walls, gates, furniture and fixtures, civil work like partition/sliding doors and windows, tiles replacement . plumbing, electric, false coiling, internal roads, maintaining gardens in the factory premises,fire fighting systems, water tank and water pumps, wash rooms, washbasins and toilets and canteen, cleaning of premise, etc. during the financial year 2008-09 and 2009- 10, to make thorn fit for use The Ld AR claimed that the above expenses are recurring and not one time expenses and that the appellant has not derived any enduring benefit from these expenses. In support of its claim that the said expenditure is revenue expenditure, the Appellant has placed its reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court m the case of CIT v Saravana Spinning Mills (P ) ltd. ([2007] 293 ITR 201) (SC). Hon'ble Kolkatta Tribunal in the case of Sarat Chatterjee & Co. (VSP) (P.) Ltd. (Date of order 31 May 2012) (|2012| 22taxmann.com 11 [Kol].etc. 6.2 In order to ascertain the genuineness / reasonableness of the above contention, the details of expenditures incurred, along-with bill/vouchers, were examined and noticed that the appellant had incurred huge expenditures, which, were not recurring in nature and major alterations/changes were made to renovate the entire factory buildings/premises, as the same heavily damaged due to cyclone. The cyclonic rain had left the entire factory building/premises unfit for use, therefore, required huge one time expenditure for renovating them fit for use. During the course of verification of bills/vouchers and nature of expenditures incurred, the ld. AR duly admitted the fact that the majority of expenses were capital in nature namely building of new flooring, new doors, new windows, now roads, new boundary wall, etc. However, it is further noticed that the part thereof was actually incurred for repairing and maintenance of buildings. In support of this claim the Ld. AR has submitted comparative details of repair and maintenance expenditure incurred in the current year (Rs. 83.12 lakh) and earlier two years (AY 2009-10 Rs. 28.21 lakhs, AR 2008-09- Rs. 33.01 lakhs). Accordingly, vide order sheet noting dated 11/07/2016, the ld. AR requested to allow 15% against factory buildings (Rs.36.,29,237/-), 20% against gate, doors and windows(Rs.9,47,382/-) and 15% against furniture and fixtures (Rs.27,16.154/-), and 100% expenditures against canteen/guest house/underground 6 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 water tank repairs, as revenue expenditure and balance may be treated as capital expenditures, and further requested that the depreciation @10% may also be allowed. After examining the details of expenditures and bills produced by the ld. AR, the contention of the Ld. AR appears to be logical therefore, liable to be accepted. On perusal of the bills it is noticed that the appellant had incurred huge expenses on plywood, on bricks, on cement, on glass doors, glasses, pavers, renovation, etc. .Considering the facts in entirety, and ld. AR's above request, ie. Rs 5,44,385/-(15%) against factory building, Rs.1,89,476/-(20%) against doors / gates and windows and Rs.4,07,468/- (15%) against furniture and fixtures, Rs. 6,29,044/- against canteen repairs, Rs 2,10,912/- against GH repair and Rs. 1,79,416/- against underground water tank repairs, totalling to Rs 21,60,696/- are allowed as repairing expenditures and balance amount of R.s.30.84,857/- plus Rs.7,57,906 and Rs.23,08,986/- totalling to Rs.61,51,749/- , is hereby capitalized, being capital / one time / first time / enduring in nature. However, the depreciation (a) 10% i.e. Rs.6,15,175/- is hereby allowed on same. This will result into disallowance of Rs.55,36,574/-, as against Rs.74,81,201/-, disallowed by the A.O. The appellant will get relief of Rs.19,44,627/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed."
7. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 29.08.2016 passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee filed second appeal before the tribunal . The assessee filed paper book with the tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that these expenses are Revenue in nature and it was submitted that these are normal repair and maintenance expenses of factory building. It was submitted that there was a cyclone storm in Gujarat in the financial year 2008-09 which led to the damage to the factory building and to repair the same , the expenses were incurred. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that authorities below have disallowed these expenses on the grounds that these are capital in nature but it was submitted that these expenses are revenue in nature and the same should be allowed. The assessee has placed on record details of expenses which are placed in paper book /page no. 13 to 23. It was submitted that the assessee has turnover of more than Rs. 200 crores and these are expenses of 7 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 around Rs. 83 lakhs which were incurred for repairing and maintenance of factory building which was hit by cyclone. It was submitted that the object was to restore the building to original level and no additions were made to the building . Our attention was drawn to para 6.2 of Ld. CIT(A) appellate order and it was submitted that these are genuine expense although the same were treated as capital in nature. it was submitted that if these expenses are allowed as revenue expenses then in that case depreciation which was earlier allowed can be reversed by Revenue.
8. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that these are capital expenses and the authorities below have rightly treated them so . It was submitted that huge expenses were incurred which were one-time expenses as these factories were hit by cyclonic storm. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) restricted disallowance to Rs. 61,51,749/- of which depreciation was allowed to the tune of Rs. 6,15,175/- and disallowance Rs. 55,36,574/- was confirmed by learned CIT(A), as against disallowance of Rs. 74,81,021/- made by the AO.
9. We have considered rival contentions and have perused the material on record . We have observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic processing machineries and looms. The assessee was running an industrial unit's one at Vatva and other at Chatral in Gujarat . These factory buildings owned by the assessee were more than 2 decades old. There was a cyclone in Gujarat in financial year 2008-09 and the assessee factory buildings at Chattral and Vatva , Gujarat were damaged in the said cyclonic storm . The assessee undertook repairing of the said factory buildings which were damaged in cyclonic storm which led to the expenses to the tune of Rs. 83,12,445/-. The Ld. AO was of the view that these expenses are on the higher side vis-a-vis book value of the factory building as is appearing in the books. The assessee was claiming depreciation on these factory buildings. These expenses were in the nature of repairs and maintenance such as plastering and 8 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 painting of external and internal walls, painting , water proofing, floor surfacing , resurfacing floors, furniture and fixture repairing , civil work like partition/sliding doors and windows, tiles replacement, plumbing, electric repairing , false ceiling repairs, repairs to fire fighting systems , repairs to water tank and water pumps, maintenance of wash rooms, washbasins and toilets at factories and canteen expenses , cleaning of premises expenses, etc. . We have gone through the details of expenses incurred and we have observed that these may be one time expenses for repairing/renovation to the factory buildings but they are in the nature of current repairs and cannot be treated as capital in nature as no new asset of enduring nature has come into existence . These expenses are incurred only to make factory building operational after it was hit by cyclone and could be classified at major repairs but still it does not losses the character of current repairs being revenue in nature. In our considered view these expenses cannot be treated as capital in nature more-so the assessees has discharged its onus by brining on record cogent evidences to substantiate that these expenses were in the nature of bringing the factory building to working/running condition which was otherwise hit by cyclone and no new addition of capacity/extension of building was undertaken by the assessee. It was for the revenue to have brought on record cogent evidences to substantiate that the assessee has got benefit of enduring nature by way of additions to factory building which could be classified as capital in nature but in the instant case , no incriminating material is brought on record to substantiate that there is any extension of building or addition in the capacity of the factory building by way of extension etc. . Thus, Revenue merely saying that the amount spent on repairs are on the higher side vis-a-vis the book value of the building is not sufficient to prejudice the assessee in the absence of cogent material to discredit the version of the assessee. Hence this ground is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The depreciation allowed 9 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 earlier by the authorities shall consequently be reversed for all the affected years. We order accordingly.
10. The second issue concerns itself with commission expenses paid by the assessee to M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd. and Mr. Pabba Upendra Guptha. The assessee was asked by the AO to submit details of share holding of M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd. and party wise details for which commission was paid to these two aforesaid parties. The assessee was asked by the AO to submit details of these commission expenses along with shareholding of M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd.. The assessee did not submitted copy of agreement with M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd., and Mr. Pubba Upendra Gupta . The AO observed that the assessee appointed M/s. Maitry Exports P Ltd. as marketing consultant with effect from 01.04.2009 for the gross consultant fees of Rs. 60,00,000/- per annum for which payments were to be made on monthly basis to M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd. and they were to ensure additional annual turnover of Rs. 5 crores though their efforts. It was also observed by the AO that wife and the daughter of the Director Shri Prakash Kundlia of the assessee company are having 80% of the share holding in M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd. . The AO observed commission of Rs. 60 lakh vis-a-vis additional new turnover of Rs. 5 crores lead to commission @ 12% which is on the higher side as against prevailing rate of 1 to 2% . It was also observed by the AO that the total turnover of assessee is Rs. 206 crore and commission payment was only Rs. 2.09 crore which come to 1%. The AO allowed commission to M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd. to the tune of 1% of Rs. 5 crores and balance amount of Rs. 61,18,000/- was disallowed by the AO and added to the income of the assessee , vide assessment order dated 26.03.2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. The AO was of the view that the assessee has paid commission expenses on earlier years also and in this year sales have not jumped because of appointment of Maitry Exports Private Limited and thus 10 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 excess amount was added back to the income of the assessee by the AO.
11. The assessee company filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A) with regard to the disallowance of commission expenses paid to the tune of Rs. 61.18 lakhs to M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd., and the assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) as under:
"2.1.1 The Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of injection Moulding Machines, Extrusion Machine. The sale of machinery depends on the market demand and order received. The Appellant manufacture the goods as per the order received from its Clients. During the captioned year, the Appellant's sales have increased substantially in comparison to the last year (i.e. from Rs. 121 crores to Rs. 206 crores) The increase in sales is due to receipt of several orders from new and existing clients and also due to the introduction of new range of machines in the category of the extrusion and injection moulding machinery business.
2.1.2 Amongst the specific consultants, the Appellant has appointed Maitry Exports P. Ltd., ('Maitry') as marketing consultant for the marketing services. As per the appointment letter, the gross consultancy fees payable was Rs. 60.00 lacs per annum exclusive of service tax , payable on monthly basis. The said fees was subject to the Appellant achieving turnover of Rs. 5 Crores due to efforts of the consultant. In case, if the Appellant fails to achieve the requisite turnover, then the terms may be discussed and mutually agreed.
2.1.3 The aforesaid marketing exercise has helped in enabling the Appellant's requirements of collecting and analyzing data on customer demographics, preferences, needs and buying habits to identify potential markets and factors affecting product demand and exploiting the various markets.
2.1.4 Maitry had procured sales of Rs. 5.55 crore, against which the Appellant has paid commission of Rs. 66.18 lacs (inclusive of service tax). The commission was 11 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 paid as per the terms and understanding of the appointment letter.
2 .1 5. The Learned AO has re-calculated and allowed commission payment at 1% on the sales of Rs. 5 crores to Maitry and disallowed the balance amount of Rs. 61,18,000/-( Rs. 66,18,000/- - Rs. 5,00,000/-).
2.1.6 The Appellant humbly submits before your goodself that the commission and brokerage expenses are incurred wholly und exclusively in the course of business.
2.1.7 The Appellant had appointed Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd. as a marketing consultant for developing marketing strategy of the products and other related services. Basically Maitry's scope of work was not restricted to sales hut included gathering data research on competitor and analysing their prices and method of marketing and distribution thereby leading in increase in the sales of the Appellant. As mentioned above , the strategy developed had helped to procure substantial orders from the new and existing Clients for the Appellant.
2.1.8 The Appellant humbly submits before your Honor that the commission expenses has incurred under the normal trade parlance and looking at its commercial expediency the same should he allowed as business expenses.
2.19 The Appellant submits before Your Honor that the Learned AO has made the addition merely by observing that wife and daughter of the director of the Appellant are having 80% of shareholding in the Maitry Exports P. Ltd., and had applied arbitrary rate of commission @1% on turnover without appreciating the fact that by incurring the commission expenditure, the Appellant's sale have increased substantially in comparison to the last year (i.e. from Rs. 121 crore to Rs. 206 crores).
Without prejudice to above, it is expressly staled that M/s. Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd is a domestic company which is liable to pay tax at the same rate at which Appellant is liable to pay the tax. Nevertheless even if no commission would have been paid, still the Appellant was not liable to pay taxes due to sufficient unabsorbed brought forward losses. As such, the commission was not paid with the intention to claim excess expenditure or to evade any tax.12
I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 Based on the above, the Appellant humbly submits before Your Honor that the commission payment, of Rs 66,18,000 made to Maitry Exports Pvt Ltd. is incurred in the course of business. The expenses ought to be allowed as business expenses and the Learned AO be directed to delete addition of Rs.61 18,000 of commission paid."
12. The learned CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee by holding as under:
"9. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, findings of the AO, submissions of the Ld. AR and material placed on record. From the facts of the case it is noticed that, the appellant had paid commission of Rs 66,18,000/- @ 12% to M/s. Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd and Rs 21,10,000/- @12.47%. to Mr Pabba Upendra Guptha. M/s Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd, in which wife and daughter of Mr Prakash Kundalia, Director of M/s Windsor Machines Ltd. are holding 80% shares, was appointed as marketing consultant, who would ensure turnover of Rs. 5 Crores, through its efforts as consultants, for which gross consultancy fees of Rs 60 lakhs per annum @12% was fixed. In compliance, the Ld. AR could not prove the genuineness/authenticity of payment of commission @12% with credible evidences to M/s. Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd. therefore, the AO disallowed the excess commission of Rs. 61,18,000/-, i.e. commission paid Rs. 66,18,000/- Less Rs. 5,00,000/- - [1% on Rs. 5 crores]) and added to the total income of the appellant. 9.1 Before me, Ld AR has claimed that the company had appointed Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd., as a marketing consultant for developing marketing strategy of the products and other related services. !t is further claimed that the scope of work of M/s. Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd was not restricted to sales only but also included the gathering of data, research on competitors, analyzing their prices and method of marketing and distribution. Accordingly, it is claimed that the strategy developed by M/s Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd had helped to procure substantial orders from the new and existing Clients for the appellant and the appellant's sales have increased substantially in comparison to the last year (i.e. from Rs.121 crs to Rs.206 crs). It is further claimed that rate of commission differs under various circumstances and arbitrary rate of 13 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 commission cannot be applied to all levels of the transaction.
9.2 In view of above arguments and in order to ascertain the genuineness of appellant's claim, during the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld. AR was requested to furnish credible documents, i.e. nature of research and development carried out correspondence made by the daughter and wife of the director of M/s. Windsor Machines Ltd. to find out the new clients, for procuring orders, party-wise details of commission paid, etc. In compliance the Ld. AR could not furnish the credible documents, in support of above various claims. The Ld. AR. however, submitted the list of parties to whom commission was paid (copy of the said list is annexed with the appeal order for ready reference).
9.3 The perusal of the same reveal that the appellant had paid commission of Rs. 2,09,31,005/- @ 7.21% on the total sale of Rs. 23,68,74,400/-, to various parties at various rates ranging from 0.43% lo 20%. In compliance, the Ld. AR could not substantiate the reason for variation with credible documents. The Ld. AR also could not produce the copies of agreements, entered into, with each party, for enforcing their services and also for determining their commission, if any to be paid. On perusal of amounts of commission paid to various parties, it is noticed that in number of cases the commission has been paid in round figures, i.e., Rs. 25,000/- @ 0.43% paid to Bahadur (against sale of Rs. 67,54,990/-). Rs.3,00,000/- @ 2.86% to Deepak Tiwari (against sale of Rs. 1,05,00,000/-). Rs. 60,000/- @ 0.7% to Franincis Exim (sale 81,00,000/-) Rs. 50,000/- @ 0.85% to G C Bose (sales-Rs. 58,51.000/-). Rs 4.45,000/- @ - to Ginnidevi (sales nil). Rs 4.45,000/- @ 15.10% to Mahendra Pal (Sales 64,61,000/-] 50,000/- @ 1.03% to Gopakumar V G (sales 48,50,000/-). Rs. 4,40,000/- @ 10.54% to Gyanesh Agarwal (sales 41,75,163/-). Rs 10,75,000/- @ 17.92% to Kalyankumar Sama./ L Swaroopa Rani (Sales 60,00,000/-), 66,18,000 @ 12.00% to Maitry Exports P. Ltd., (Sales 5,51,50,000/-. Rs 4,95,000/- @ 9.35% to Malik Industries (sales 52,95,000/-. 1,00,000/- @ 0.68% to Nirmalkumar Jain (sales 1,47,00,000/-. 20,000/-@ 0.65% to Navin Suthar (sales 30,84,318/-. Rs 7,95,000/- @ 20% to P 14 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 Srikanlhbahu (sales 39,75,000/-). 7,10,000/- @ 8.39% to Pabba Anitha (sales 84,60,000/-). 15,00,000/- @ 9.32% to Sarita Soni (sales 1,61,00,000,-). Rs 21,10,000,/- @12.47% 10 Pabba Puender Gupta (sales 1,69,20,000/- Rs 41,000/- @ 0.78% to Shashikant Patil (Sales 52,55,000/-). Rs 25,000/- @ 0.58% to Tapankumar Nag (sales Rs 42,90,000/-) and Rs 3,00,000-/ @ 10.34% to Venkateswara Rao Atluri (sales Rs 29,00,000/-). From these details it is seen that the payments to these parties have been made, in lump sum without any basis and without establishing the nature of services rendered by them in procuring the order from the respective parties. The perusal of the list further reveals that in most of the cases, the huge amount of commission i.e. Rs. 10,75,000/- to Saroopanmi. Rs 7,10,000/- to Pabba Anitha, Rs. 15,00,000/- to Sarita Soni, Rs. 21,100,000/- to Pabba Guptha Rs. 4,45,000/- to Mrs. Ginnidevi, Rs. 2,13,581/- to Mrs Kavitha, mainly to ladies had been paid. In addition to above, it is further noticed that the payment of commission of Rs. 7,95,000/- @ 20% to P Sirkantbabu, Rs. 15,00,000/- @ 9.32% to Smt. Sarita Soni, Rs. 7,10,000/- @ 8.39% to Pabba Anitha and Rs. 21,10,000/- @ 12.47% to Pabba Puender Gupta, is also not commensurate with the rate prevailing in the market vis-a-vis nature of business and appears to have been given for other than business needs, for which the appellant could not offer any valid explanation.
9.4 On perusal of details submitted by the Ld. AR in support of above payments, it is noticed that in most of the cases, the stereo type of confirmation letters i.e. "kindly release my commission amount Rs. ...., as discussed with you, against machinery.... supplied to M/s. ..... vide invoice no....."Likewise the perusal of details of list of TDS deducted and deposited, it is noticed that in most of the cases, the appellant had not deducted/deposited the tax, namely Maitry Exports P. Ltd., (total commission Rs. 66,18,000/- AVA Satish (Rs. 1,22,544/-, Shivaji Rao Sambhaji Deshmukh (Rs. 3,56,326/-), Edwunwu David (Rs. 3,58,827/-). Addex Plastic & Machinvery (Rs. 18,21,507/-), Hussain Mohammed Mansoar (Rs. 1,28,360/-). Suju Daniel (Rs 3,31,996/-). Plastic Poly Ltd (Rs 1,72,095/-)- totalling to Rs 99,09,655/-. on which TDS has not been deducted/deposited, therefore, the same is 15 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 liable to be disallowed as per provisions of Sec 40a(ia) of the Act. In addition to above, the appellant has claimed an amount of Rs 4,97,482/- under the head "Provisions against exchange difference", under the head "Commission Expenses", which is also not an allowable expenditure. It is further noticed that in compliance, the ld AR shown his reluctance in producing this parties for verification , along with credible documents, to establish the genuineness of payment of commission to these persons. From the facts of the case, it is difficult to believe that the appellant had paid huge amount of commission to various parties, mainly ladies, without appointing them as commission agents and also without entering into an agreement for setting terms and conditions, with regard to their responsibilit, and accountability. The Ld AR could not explain the basis of commission paid and reasons for variation in the rate of commission from 0.43% to 20%. The commission of Rs. 66.18 lakh claimed to have been paid to M/s. Maitry Exports P. Ltd, in which wife and daughter of the director are major shareholders. It is further noticed that the appellant had paid commission of Rs 2,09,31,005/-, against sale of Rs 28.64 cores only, as against total sale of Rs 206 crores. From these facts it is inferred that the appellant was able to harvest the major part of the turnover of Rs. 177.36 Crores, without paying even single penny of commission, therefore, the payment of commission of Rs. 2.09 Crores against sale of Rs. Rs. 28.64 Crores has no logic, in the absence of valid explanation/credible documents.
9.5 As regards other aspects such as payment made through banking channels, justification for increase in the turnover, etc., I would like to place the reliance on finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v. CIT (1972)86 ITR 439 (SC) wherein it is held that even if there is an agreement, between the assessee and its agents for payments of certain amounts as commission, assuming there was such payments, that does not bind the Income-tax Officer to hold that the payment was made exclusively and wholly for the purposes of the assessee's business. In this case, the Supreme Court observed as under :-16
I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 "Although there might be such an agreement in existence and the payments might have been made, it is still open to the Income-Tax Officer to consider the relevant factors and determine for himself whether the commission said to have been paid is properly deductible. In this case absolutely no material on record has been brought by the assessee to suggest that the commission agents had procured any orders for the assessee. The production of bills or payments having been made by account-payee cheques cannot by itself show that the commission agents had procured any order for the assessee. No correspondence.............."
9.6 In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it very clear that by creating documents and making payment through banking channel to give colour, does not sacrosanct/ establishes the genuineness of the transaction. In view of these facts, an enhancement notice u/s 251(2) of the Act dated 24.08.2016 was issued as under:
"2. On perusal of material available on record, it is seen that during the year you have paid commission of Rs. 2.09 Crores, ranging from 0.43% to 20%, mainly to ladies/relatives/ others on ad-hoc/lump sum basis. The Appellant could not substantiate the basis and genuineness of commission of Rs 2.09 Crores paid and also failed to file the confirmations to this effect. Accordingly on 11.07.2016, during the course of appellate proceedings, you were required to file the copies of agreement for payment of commission nature of services rendered, bills raised, business handled, party wise, continued copy of ledger account, mode of payment & TDS made and comparative details of commission paid in last 3 years and subsequent 3 years. The appellant was also required to produce them for verification in person However, you have squarely failed to furnish these details till date. I accordingly, propose to take a view in the matter resulting into enhancement of assessment. You are therefore, requested to show-cause as to why the commission of Rs 2.09 Crores should not 17 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 be disallowed and added to your income. You are therefore, required to submit your say, if any, in the matter, on or before 29.08.2016 positively. Failure to comply with above will lead to finalization of proceeding on merit."
9.7 In compliance, the Id. AR could not substantiate the genuineness of above payments with credible documents and also failed to produce these agents before the department for verification. In view of these facts, the genuineness of payment of commission could not be established. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant had paid commission of Rs. 99,09,655/-, on which TDS has not been deducted / deposited, therefore, the same is otherwise liable to be disallowed, as per provisions of Sec 40a(ia) of the Act. Considering the facts in entirety as discussed above, in my considered view the appellant could not establish the genuineness/reasonableness of payment of commission in round figures, to its relatives and other parties. Accordingly, all such payments of commission, totalling to Rs. 1,52,00,000/- as against Rs 61,18,000/- disallowed by the AO, is liable to be disallowed and balance amount of Rs 57,31,005/- which is almost 2% (Rs 57,27,486/-) of the total commission sales paid lo the parties other than above parties, is allowed. This appeal, is decided accordingly.
Thus, the learned CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee by disallowing commission expenses to the tune of Rs.1,52,00,000/- . As could be seen , Ld. CIT(A) had issued notice of enhancement which ultimately led to disallowance of Rs. 1,52,00,000/- as against disallowance of Rs. 61.18 lakhs made by the AO, vide appellate order dated 29.08.2016 passed by learned CIT(A).
13. The matter has now reached the doors of the tribunal at the behest of the assessee who has filed second appeal with the tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that total commission expenses paid were Rs. 2.09 crores as against total turnover of the assessee of Rs. 206.57 crores. It was submitted that preceding year turnover was Rs. 121 crores and there has been an 18 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 substantial increase of turnover in the year under consideration vis-a- vis preceding year. It was submitted that commissions were paid to marketing consultants/agents for generating orders in favour of the assessee. It was submitted that an agreement was entered into with Maitry Exports Private Limited wherein it was agreed to pay fixed consultancy fee of Rs. 60,00,000/- per annum exclusive of service tax thereon and they were to assure additional new business of Rs. 5 crores or more. It was submitted that it is true that relatives of Directors of the assessee company are shareholders in this company namely Maitry Exports Private Limited holding approx. 80% of shares of Maitry Exports Private Limited. It was submitted that no enquiry was conducted by the AO and no summons u/s 131 or notices u/s 133(6) of the 1961 Act were issued by the AO to these commission agents or to the buyers who had placed the orders on which commission was paid. It was submitted that out of total commission of Rs. 2.09 crores paid by the assessee, the commission to the tune of Rs. 1.52 crores was disallowed by learned CIT(A) which led to enhancement of assessment. It was submitted that it is true that learned CIT(A) gave notice of enhancement dated 24.08.2016 to the assessee before enhancing the assessment. It was submitted that learned CIT(A) allowed commission to the tune of 2% of the sales which were generated through these marketing agents/consultants. It was submitted that the assessee complied with the provisions of deduction of income-tax at source while making payments for commission to Maitry Exports Private Limited and also to other marketing consultants/agents. It was submitted that it is only in the case of foreign agents , income-tax was not deducted at source. Our attention was drawn to the list containing details of commission expenses paid by the assessee, name of the payee, amount of commission , income-tax deducted at source , net commission paid, product sold etc which is placed in paper book /page 240-243. It was submitted that learned CIT(A) also observed that wrt commission of Rs. 99,09,655/- paid by the assessee, no income-tax was deducted 19 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 at source, making such expenses liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). Our attention was drawn to para 9.1 of learned CIT(A) order. It is claimed that such finding of facts recorded by learned CIT(A) is a perverse finding as in all the case , income tax was deducted at source except for payments made to foreign agents. It was submitted that the AO did not issue summons u/s 131 of the 1961 Act nor any notice were issued u/s 133(6) of the 1961 Act to Maitry Exports Private Limited and other commission agents. It was submitted that disallowance of commission paid to Maitry Exports Private Limited was upheld by learned CIT(A). It was submitted that total commissions actually paid were to the tune of Rs. 2.09 crores on the sale of Rs. 28.64 crores generated through these marketing agents/consultants which comes to 7.31%. It was submitted that income-tax was not deducted at source on commissions paid to foreign agents owing to CBDT circular of 1969 but it was fairly admitted by learned counsel for the assessee that the said circular number 23 dated 23.07.1969 stood withdrawn by another CBDT circular number 7/2009 dated 22.10.2009 concerning provisions of Section 9 of the 1961 Act. The assessment year under consideration before us is AY 2010-11 and the CBDT circular of 1969 was withdrawn on 22.10.2009. It was submitted that no proceedings were initiated against the assessee u/s 201 read with Section 195 of the 1961 Act . It was submitted that complete details of the commission/marketing agents/consultants were submitted to whom overseas commission was paid but no enquiry was conducted by the AO/CIT(A) . It was also submitted that complete details of sales is available. It was submitted that learned CIT(A) took an adverse view on the grounds that these commissions paid to agents were in round figures. The another reason why learned CIT(A) took adverse view is that commissions were paid to ladies which in view of learned CIT(A) is not correct. The said adverse view was taken by learned CIT(A) without conducting any enquiry and hence the said view is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was submitted that the learned 20 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 CIT(A) took adverse view on the ground that substantial commission were paid while no enquiry was preferred by learned AO . It was submitted that learned CIT(A) allowed 2% commission on additional sales for all 37 parties. It was submitted that the assessee is a sick company registered with BIFR in June 2006 while it was referred to BIFR in June 2003. It was submitted that complete details were furnished and the assessee had discharged its onus. It was claimed by learned counsel for the assessee that at one point of time , turnover of the assessee was Rs. 1000 crores which came down to Rs. 121 crores in preceding year and which now stood increased to Rs. 206 crores in the year under consideration. The assessee relied upon decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Stallion Laboratories Private Limited v. ITO in ITA no. 1981 & 2404/ Ahd./2015 for AY 2011-12, dated 06.01.2017 reported in (2016) 53 ITR(T) 633(Ahd.). It was submitted that in cases where the payments are to related parties, the onus is on the AO to prove that the payments are excessive for which comparables are to be brought by the AO.
The learned DR submitted that M/s Maitry Exports were paid commission of Rs. 66.18 lacs which comes to 12% of committed additional sales. It was submitted that Rs. 61.18 lacs was disallowed , while Rs. 5 lacs commission was allowed by learned AO. It was submitted that 80% shares of Maitry Exports Private Limited were held by wife and daughter of Director of the assessee company. It was submitted that learned CIT(A) gave notice of enhancement and thereafter enhanced assessment by disallowing commission expenses to the tune of Rs. 1.52 crores while allowing commission @2% on Rs. 28.64 crores on which commission was payable. The learned DR drew our attention to para 9.5 of learned CIT(A) order. The learned DR would rely on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachminarayan Madan Lal v.CIT (1972) 86 ITR 439(SC). It was submitted that learned CIT(A) vide enhancement notice dated 24.08.2016 issued u/s 251(2) asked the assessee to produce these 21 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 parties to whom commission expenses were paid but the assessee did not produce these parties.
14. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws , relevant orders of authorities and paper book filed before the tribunal. We have observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic processing machineries and looms. The assessee has claimed to have engaged services of marketing agents/consultants for giving support services for generating sale orders, day to day co-ordination / liaison with buyers, successful conclusion of the orders leading to supplies of machineries by the assessee to its customer and collection of payments for which commission payments were made. The assessee's industrial units for manufacturing of plastic processing machineries and looms are located in Gujarat and Thane, Maharashtra. As could be seen from chart of sales orders claimed to be generated by these marketing agents/consultants as are placed in paper book filed by the assessee, the buyers are spread all across country as well in foreign countries. The assessee turnover was Rs. 121 crores in the AY 2009-10 which increased to Rs.206.56 crores during the year under consideration. The commission which is claimed to be paid by the assessee was Rs. 2.09 crores on the sale of Rs. 28.64 crores which was stated to be organised by these marketing agents/consultants, while on the rest of the sale , the assessee did not pay any commission to any agent. The AO in the instant year under consideration allowed the commission expenses except commission of Rs. 61.18 lacs paid to Maitry Exports Private Limited. The Maitry Exports Private Limited is a company in which wife and daughter of one of the Director Shri Prakash Kundalia of the assessee company are shareholder holding more than 80% shares. The terms of agreement with Maitry Exports Private Limited entered by the assessee wef 01-04-2009 stipulates fixed amount of annual consultancy fee of Rs. 60 lacs exclusive of service tax and the said 22 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 company assured minimum additional turnover of Rs. 5 crores per annum to the assessee translating into commission @12% on sales to the assessee. The said Maitry Exports Private Limited had claimed that it provided additional turnover of Rs. 5.51 crores to the assessee during the year under consideration. The names of such parties whose sales orders were claimed to be generated by said Maitry Exports Private Limited are available in the paper book filed by the assessee(pb/page 66-70) namely S V Agro Products, Metador Ballpen Industries, Appollo Pipes Industries, Salem Balhamer Plastic Factory, Radiant Agro Allied Ventures, Poyasha Packaging Private Limited, Misurata Factory for Plast, Duke Plasto Technique Private Limited, Shruti Print Pack Private Limited. The invoices were raised by said Maitry Exports Private Limited for Rs. 66.18 lacs against which the AO allowed commission of Rs. 5 lacs and rest of the amount of commission expenses to the tune of Rs. 61.18 lacs was disallowed. This is the first year when Maitry Exports Private Limited was engaged to render marketing consultancy services vide agreement dated 01-04- 2009. The wife and daughter of Director of the assessee company is majority shareholder in the said company holding 80% shares. There is no material on record brought by the assessee as to the background and relevant experience of the personnel who were incharge of the affairs of said Maitry Exports Private Limited to generate fresh orders in favour of the assessee as well to discharge other contractual obligations per agreement to prove their competency to render these contractual marketing services. It is also not brought on record by the assessee that these parties claimed to be brought in by Maitry Exports Private Limited are new customers who placed orders with the assessee for the first time with the efforts and initiative of Maitry Exports Private Limited. The terms of the agreement with Maitry Exports Private Ltd is in variance with the terms and conditions agreed with the other agents/consultants as in the cases of other agents/consultants, they claimed their payment for commission after realisation of sale proceed by the assessee , while only in the case of 23 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 Maitry Exports Private Limited, the payments were made to the tune of Rs. 60 lacs per annum + service tax payable on monthly basis based on the assurance that atleast new business of Rs. 5 crores is generated by said Maitry Exports Private Limited in favour of the assessee, which also translated into commission rate of 12% on sales generated by them. The conditions in the agreement prima-facie appeared to be tilted in favour of Maitry Exports Private Ltd . No such special reasons for entering this agreement with Maitry Exports Private Limited with favourable terms tilted towards agent is brought on record by the assessee. Thus, burden was very heavy on the assessee to prove that payments to Maitry Exports Private Limited were genuine commission payments for generating additional sales orders satisfying mandate of Section 37(1) , which did not get discharged in the instant case based on material which is available on record. The rest of the commission were allowed by the AO. The matter went in first appeal before learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) gave notice of enhancement to the assessee and the commission expenses to the tune of Rs. 1.52 crores stood disallowed as against total commission expenses of Rs. 2.09 crores booked by the assessee and learned CIT(A) was pleased to allow commission expenses to the tune of 2% of the sales of Rs. 28.64 crores which were said to be generated by the efforts of commission / marketing consultants . The learned CIT(A) has given a finding of fact that the commission amounting to Rs. 99,09,655/- paid by the assessee was paid without deducting income-tax at source which is now claimed by the assessee to be a perverse finding of the fact recorded by learned CIT(A). There is a dispute between rival parties as to this factual finding of fact and which requires verification of facts. Unfortunately, the assessee did not filed any application with learned CIT(A) u/s 154 of the 1961 Act for rectification of the said so called mistake in the order of the learned CIT(A) with respect of payments to the tune of Rs. 99,09,655/- made without deduction of income-tax at source. The assessee has placed an chart of commission paid to various commission/marketing 24 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 consultants/agents wherein it is claimed that all resident agents were paid commission after deduction of income-tax at source while only foreign agents were claimed to be paid commission without deduction of income-tax at source keeping in view CBDT circular no. 23 / dated 23.07.1969 , which CBDT circular incidentally however stood withdrawn by another CBDT circular 7/2009 dated 22.10.2009 which is not noticed by both the parties while passing impugned orders. The year under consideration is AY 2010-11. This aspect of withdrawal of CBDT circular of 1969 by another CBDT circular of October 2009 was inadvertently skipped the attention of both the rival parties. There is no estoppels against law. The learned CIT(A) asked assessee to produce various persons before him vide notice of enhancement dated 24.08.2016. The assessee did not produce these parties before learned CIT(A). The powers of learned CIT(A) are coterminous with powers of the AO. The commission expenses were claimed by the assessee as deduction for expenses from income and these expenses were appearing in assessee's books of accounts. The primary burden/onus is on the assessee to place all relevant records and cogent material before the authorities below in order to prove that these expenses are genuine and were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business of the assessee satisfying the mandate of Section 37(1). Once the assessee discharges its primary burden, then the burden/onus will shift to the Revenue to bring on record cogent material to demolish the contentions of the assessee. As detailed above, the primary onus/burden which fell on the assessee was not completely discharged. However, The findings of learned CIT(A) that payments were made to ladies and hence it cannot be allowed is erroneous and violates Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which needs to be discarded at threshold, unless cogent material is brought on record by Revenue to prove that these commission expenses claimed were sham/bogus expenses claimed only to reduce the tax- liability or these expenses were infact not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee or the said 25 I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016 expenses were either personal or capital in nature , thus not satisfying the mandate of Section 37(1) of the 1961 Act. Similarly, commission payments cannot be simply discarded on the grounds that it is of higher amount as was done by learned CIT(A) unless the said commission is held to be unconscionably high for which finding of fact has to be brought on record backed by cogent incriminating material to discredit the version of the assessee . The doctrine of commercial expediency will set in and the Revenue cannot be allowed to sit in the arm chair of the businessmen unless the boundaries of commercial expediency are transgressed . Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Limited v. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) and also recent decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case E-baotech India Private Limited v. DCIT in ITA no. 549/Mum/2016(para 14). Under these circumstances keeping in view totality of the circumstances as detailed above as also that the facts itself are disputed by both the parties which need verification by authorities as to whether deduction/payment of Income-tax at source was undertaken with respect to payment of commission of Rs. 99,09,655/- being hit by provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) , non consideration of CBDT circular no. 7/2009 dated 22nd October 2009 withdrawing CBDT circular no. 23 dated 23.07.1969 so far as payments of commission expenses to foreign agents, we are of the considered view that in substantial interest of justice and in all fairness to both the parties, the matter need to be set aside and restored to the file of the AO for denovo determination of the issue on merits in accordance with law. We have not commented on the merits of the issue but however our above observations shall be considered by the AO while adjudicating the issue's. Needless to say that the AO shall grant proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law. The AO shall admit all evidences/contentions submitted by the assessee in its defence in de-novo proceedings. We order accordingly.
26I.T.A. No.6164/Mum/2016
15. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.11.2018.
आदे श की घोषणा खल
ु े न्यायालय में ददनांकः 06.11.2018 को की गई
Sd/- Sd/-
(SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, dated: 06.11.2018
Nishant Verma
Sr. Private Secretary
copy to...
1. The appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A) - Concerned, Mumbai
4. The CIT- Concerned, Mumbai
5. The DR Bench,
6. Master File
// Tue copy//
BY ORDER
DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR
ITAT, MUMBAI
27