Star Auto Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee

सर्वश्री आय.सी.शभमव, रेखम सदस्म एवुं सश्र ु ी सष ु भम चमर्रम, न्ममयमक सदस्म BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.5372/Mum/2013 ( नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai-20 Vs. M/s Star Auto Industries Pvt.

Ltd., G-2,3&8 Ansa Industrial Estate, Sakivihar Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400072

स्थममी रेखम सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAJCS 6077 M (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

Cross Objection No.226/Mum/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.53 72/Mum/2013) ( नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s Star Auto Industries Pvt. Vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai-20 Ltd., G-2,3&8 Ansa Industrial Estate, Sakivihar Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai-400072 स्थममी रेखम सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAJCS 6077 M (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Neil Philip यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R.C.Jain

सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date of Hearing : 08/06/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date of Pronouncement 29/07/2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):

The revenue has filed appeal and the assessee has filed cross

objection against the order CIT(A), for the assessment year 2010-2011.

The revenue in its appeals has taken the following grounds :-

2 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14 "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of the commission expenditure made- by the A.O., treating it as genuine, merely on the grounds that the payments were made through banking channels after complying with TDS provisions without appreciating the fact that the assessee and the payee witness had both failed to prove that services were actually rendered by the payee to warrant the impugned payments."

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the A.O. had failed to prove that the payment made by cheques was subsequently received back in cash by the assessee, without appreciating that no such onus is cast on the A.O. under the law whereas the assessee is required to prove that the expenditure claimed by it qualifies for deduction in terms of the provisions of section 37( 1) of the Act."

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance/addition of Rs.l0,28,319/- on account of allocation of packing expenses by accepting the assessee's claim that the spare parts were directly supplied on the racks to the assembly line of Tata Motors by Rudrapur Unit without appreciating that the said claim of the assessee was not backed by requisite corroborative evidence."

"The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored."

The assessee in its cross objection has raised the following grounds :-

"1. The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the allocation of director's remuneration of Mumbai unit to Rudrapur Unit on proportionate basis at Rs.10,50,000/-.

2. The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition in respect of unexplained purchases u/s.69C of Rs.45,808/-."

2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in

brief are that the assessee company is engaged in manufacturing of auto

parts and it has two manufacturing units one in Mumbai and another in

Rudrapur, Uttaranchal. In respect of its unit at Rudrapur the assessee had

intended to claim deduction u/s.80IC, however, during the previous year it

had not earned profits from the unit at Rudrapur and had not claimed any

deduction u/s.80IC. The AO asked the assessee regarding expenses of 3 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

Rs.57,51,099/- towards commission and brokerage debited in the P& L

account of the Mumbai unit. The AO did not convince with the explanation

of assessee and observed that the payment of commission was made

without rendering any services by the company M/s Premium Paper &

Board Industries Ltd., and, therefore, disallowed the amount of

Rs.57,51,099/- and added back to the taxable income of the assessee.

The AO also disallowed director's remuneration of Rs.10,50,000/- debited

in Mumbai unit, packing charges of Rs.10,28,319/- and sales promotion

expenses of Rs.2,19,625/- as unexplained and also made addition of

Rs.45,808/- u/s.69C of the Act.

3. By the impugned order the CIT(A) upheld the addition made on

account of director's remuneration allocated to both the units, and

directed the AO to allow packing charges and commission expenses. The

CIT(A) also upheld the addition so made u/s.69C of Rs.45,808/- on

account of purchases from concerned parties. Against this order of

CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal and the assessee has filed cross

objection before us.

4. From the record we found that the expenditure incurred on

commission and brokerage was deleted by the CIT(A) after having the

following observation :-

"From the perusal of submissions and facts of the case, it is observed that the assessee has made payment of commission to M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. The AO. has recorded the statement of Shri Mitesh Gandhi, Director of M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. u/s '131 of the I.T. Act. In the statement recorded, Shri Mitesh Gandhi has confirmed that he has received commission from the assessee company and rendered 4 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

services in relation to procurement of raw-materials i.e ensuring un- interrupted supply of raw-material, assessing market conditions and ensure that raw-material was procured at the competitive rates. Shri Mitesh Gandhi has also confirmed that all payments were received through account payee cheques and declared in the return of income. However, the AO. has held that Shri Mitesh Gandhi, Director of M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. has no experience of steel products because his company is engaged in the business of paper products The AO. has also argued that M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. has not received any commission from any other party except from the assessee company. Further, the AO. has argued that Shri Mitesh Gandhi has failed to tell the names, telephone number of the parties with whom he has carried out transactions. On the basis of the statement recorded', the A.O. has held that Shri Mitesh Gandhi has failed to prove the services rendered to the assessee company and disallowed the commission received. From the perusal of the statement and facts, it is clear that the assessee company had made payment as commission to M/s Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. which was not denied by Shri Mitesh Gandhi in his statement recorded u/s 131. The payments have been made through account payee cheques which duly reflected in the accounts of both the companies and also reflected in the return of income filed by M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. The assessee company has no relation with M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of I.T.

Act. The AO. has no adverse material against the assessee except the interpretation of statement of Shri Mitesh Gandhi, Direction of M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. The presumption of the AO. that Shri Mitesh Gandhi could not submit the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the parties during the statement is not based on any solid material which can disprove the statement because he has submitted that at present he do not remember the names and telephone numbers of the parties, but he will submit later on. Thus, it cannot be presumed that he did not tell the names and telephone numbers of the parties. Moreover, it cannot be taken a conclusion that the services were not rendered and the commission was bogus, until & unless there is any specific information or material in the hands of the AO. Merely on the basis of presumptions and conjectures, the disallowance cannot be made because the payment has never denied by the assessee company and Shri Mitesh Gandhi, Director of M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. Both the companies have made payment of taxes under MAT and it cannot be held that it was only to adjust the brought forward losses.

The A O. has also not having any material to prove that cheque payment has been made for the commission to M/s. Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. and cash has been taken back by the assessee company. Since, the genuineness and receipt of payment of commission is not in doubt, therefore, merely on the basis of presumptions, the disallowance cannot be made Moreover, TDS was deducted and service tax was also paid on the 5 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

commission income. In view of the facts & circumstances, it is held that the commission payment has been made through banking channel and duly reflected in the books of account of both the company, therefore, the disallowance made by the AO. is not sustainable; hence deleted. Ground of appeal is allowed."

5. The disallowance of packing expenses and sales promotion

expenses by apportioning the same between Bombay unit and Rudrapur

unit were deleted by CIT(A) whereas proportionate allocation of director's

remuneration was upheld by CIT(A) after having the following

observation:-

"From the perusal of submissions and facts, it is observed that the assessee company has two units, one is at Mumbai and the second is at Rudrapur. The AO. has made proportionate expenses in both the units on the basis of turnover under the head remuneration of Director, packing expenses and sales promotion expenses. The Rudrapur unit started in the year under consideration and is eligible for claim deduction u/s 80IC, therefore, the AO .. has held that to maximise the profit in the exempt unit, the assessee has shown less expenditure in Rudrapur unit and maximum expenditure in Mumbai unit. The remuneration paid to Director he has proportionately distributed on the basis of turnover of both the units because the Director is same for both the units. The AR has argued that General Manager is only looking after the Rudrapur unit and Director's salary should not be proportionately distributed on the basis of turnover of the both units. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances, I am of the view that the AO. has rightly allocated the remuneration of the Director in both the units on the basis of turnover because Director is same for both the units. The assessee cannot debit the whole expenses of Director's remuneration to the Mumbai unit which has not claimed deduction u/s 80lC, To maximise the profit of one unit, the assessee has not debited any expenditure on account of Director's remuneration to the Rudrapur unit. In view of these facts & circumstances, I agree with the decision of the AO. and proportionate expenditure on account of Director's remuneration distributed in both the units is upheld Regarding the proportionate distribution of packing expenses and sales promotion expenses, the AR has submitted that the Rudrapur unit is located in the same vicinity of M/s. Tata Motors factory premises and the parts Manufactured are directly supplied to M/s. Tata Motors who is the lone customer of the Rudrapur unit. It was, therefore, argued that no packing material was used at Rudrapur unit nor any sales promotion expenses are incurred because M/s. Tata Motors is the only customer for Rudrapur unit. From the facts & circumstances, it is true that the Rudrapur unit is located 6 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

adjoining to M/s. Tata Motors and no packing material is used because the spare parts are directly supplied on racks to assembly line of Tata Motors. The sales promotion expenses are also not required because the unit has been started with the agreement with Tata Motors to purchase of the spare parts produced at Rudrapur unit. In view of these facts & circumstance, the proportionate distribution of packing expenses and sales promotion expenses is not as per the factual location of Rudrapur unit. Thus, the action of the AO. is not sustainable and he is directed to allow the packing expenses and sales promotion expenses to be claimed in the Mumbai unit only as claimed by the appellant in its books of account. This ground of appeal is partly allowed."

6. The addition made u/s.69C on account of purchases of Rs.45,808/-

was confirmed by the CIT(A) after having following observation :-

"3. I have considered the submissions of the appellant, order of the AO and facts of the case carefully, it is noticed that the AO. has received information from Sales Tax authorities that M/s. Jain Corporation and M/s. Surat Tube Corporation has admitted that they were issuing accommodation bills and not actual sales. On the basis of the statements recorded by the sales tax authorities, the AO. has asked the assessee company why the purchases made from these two parties amounting to Rs. 45,808/- may not be treated as bogus. In response to the show-cause notice, the AR of the appellant did not submit any explanation but argued that the assessee has made payment by account payee cheques to these parties. The AO. has not accepted the argument and treated this amount as unexplained u/s 69C of the I.T. Act.

On the other hand, the AR has submitted that the AO. has not brought any evidence that the parties in question had admitted before the sales tax authorities that they had issued accommodation bills to the appellant. Moreover, the said-purchases have been made for consumption in respect of its manufacturing business and in the absence of any adverse inference with regard to mismatch in the quantitative records, the A O. could not have made such an addition as an unexplained expenditure."

7. Rival contentions have been considered and record perused. From

the record we found that the assessee has two units, one at Mumbai and

the other at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. The assessee has debited the

Director's remuneration of Rs 70 lakhs in respect of Mumbai unit and NIL

for Rudrapur unit. Similarly, packing charges at Rs.68,65,132/- for 7 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

Mumbai Unit and Rs 1,45,875/- for Rudrapur unit and sales promotion

expenses of Rs. 14,64,178/- for Mumbai unit and NIL for Rudrapur unit.

The AO. has asked the assessee to explain why the expenses may not be

proportionately distributed in both the units on the basis of sales of each

unit. The AR has submitted its reply. After considering the same, the AO.

has distributed the Director's remuneration, packing charges and sales

promotion expenses in both the units on the basis of sales of each unit.

8. The contention of ld. AR was that the second unit at Rudrapur had

started in the month of July and worked only for nine months in the year

under consideration. Regarding the Director's remuneration, the AR has

submitted that Rudrapur unit is exclusively managed by General Manager

and the Director's remuneration was paid by Mumbai unit as in the past.

Secondly, the assessee has not required to incur any expenditure for

packing expenses at Rudrapur unit as manufacturing goods were

supplied in the racks directly to assembly line of Tata Motors in the same

vicinity. Tata Motors being the alone customer of Rudrapur unit situated in

the same locality no sales promotion expenses are required to be

incurred, The AR has relied on of honble Madras High Court in the case

of Hindustan Levers Ltd. and the decision of ITAT Jodhpur In the case of

M/s. PI. Industries. Thus, it was argued that the AO. has made

disallowance by wrongly distributing proportionate expenses on the basis

of turnover without any basis.

9. With regard to disallowance of bogus purchase the AO. has noticed

that the assessee has claimed purchase from M/s Jain Corporation of 8 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

Rs.29,768/- and M/s. Surat Tube Corporation of Rs.16,040/- amounting to

Rs. 45,808/- and debited to the profit & loss account. In respect of

purchases from these parties, the sales tax authorities has noticed that

these parties were issuing only accommodation bills and not making any

actual purchases or sales of goods and these parties were declared as a

hawala traders and the statements of the concerned partners were

recorded on oath by the sales tax authorities wherein they have admitted

to have issued accommodation bills. In view of these facts, the

representative of the assessee was asked to explain as to why the

purchases made from these authorities may not be treated as

unexplained and added back to the total income. The AR did not submit

any explanation in writing and argued that the assessee has made

payment by account payee cheques to the parties. The AO. has not

accepted the argument of the assessee and treated the purchases from

these parties as unexplained and added to the total income u/s 69C of the

I.T. Act.

10. Rival contentions have been considered and record perused. The

assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of auto part. During the year

under consideration the AO found that the assessee has claimed

commission and brokerage expenses of Rs.57,51,099/- in its Mumbai

unit, in respect of purchases made by it. For examining the genuineness

of the claim of commission expenses, summons u/s.131 dated

27.11.2012 were issued the Principal Officer, M/s Premium Paper &

Board Industries Ld. At A-701/2, Koldongri CHS, Parsiwade, Sahara 9 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai-53, being the address given by the assessee

company. However, summons could not be served at the given address

since the party was not present at the said premises. Shri Hitendra

lakhani, C.A. was asked to provide new address of M/s Premium Paper

Board Industries Pvt. Ltd. as the summons were unsaved. Subsequently,

Shri Sanjay Arjun Chobchi from M/s Premium Paper Board Industries Ltd.

attended and gave address of M/s Premium Paper Board Industries Pvt.

Ltd. at 1st floor John Robert Compound, Sewri Fort Road, Sewri (East),

Mumbai-400015. The summons were again issued to the new address at

Sewri. However, again the same was unserved since the party was not

present at the given address. Subsequently, the assessee was asked to

produce the said party. The assessee had produced Shri Mitesh Gandhi,

Director of M/s Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. on 26.12.2012

whereupon he was served summons u/s.131 dated 26.12.2012 to submit

details and attend personally on 02.01.2013. Shri Mitesh Gandhi attended

on 02.01.2013 and made submissions letter dated 01.01.2013. Statement

of Shri Mitesh Gandhi was recorded on oath u/s.131 of the I.T.Act, 1961

at 201, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020.

During the process of recording the statement of Mr. Mitesh Gandhi,

Director of M/s Premium Papr & Board Industries Ltd., he was asked

various questions. It was replied that M/s Premium Paper was arranging

for procurement of materials on behalf of assessee. On the basis of the

answers given by Mr. Mitesh Gandhi, the AO inferred that he could not tell

the name of the persons and their designation with whom Shri Mitesh 10 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

Gandhi had liaisoned/dealt for procurement of material for the assessee

company. The AO also observed that Mr. Mitesh Gandhi could not even

furnish any name of the supplier of M/s Star Auto Industries Ltd., who has

transacted through him. On enquiry it was stated by Shri Gandhi that he

was contacting the suppliers on phone only and no personal meeting

were there. Accordingly, the AO further asked to give phone numbers of

the persons with whom he has dealt with, in reply of which he stated to

furnish the same later on. By considering the entire questionnaire and

their replies, the AO inferred that on perusal of the statement recorded of

Shri Mitesh Gandhi director of M/s Premium Paper Board Industries Ltd.,

it is evident that Mitesh Gandhi did not know the names of any of the

suppliers from who he had claimed to have arranged for purchases on

behalf of the assessee company neither did he know the names of any of

the persons/officials of the supplier companies from who he had claimed

to arranged for purchase of goods on behalf of the company. The AO also

observed that business of M/s Premium Paper & Board Industries was

manufacturer of paper and board and that of the assessee company was

manufacturer of auto parts and that the assessee was dealing mainly in

steel. So there was no direct nexus in the product of both the companies.

The AO also observed that -

"the list of details of purchases made for the assessee company M/s Star Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. given by M/s Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. vide letter dated 01.01.2013 contains name of the parties with whom frequent transactions/dealings have been made over a consideration span of time and almost on a regular basis and having a substantial quantum of money involved. Furthermore, the number of transactions in many a case varies 11 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14

from 35 to 70 times in a period of three months and the dealings were made throughout the year."

As per the statement of Mr. Mitesh Gandhi to Q.No.4, he himself and no other person used to co-ordinate with suppliers for their requirements of M/s Star Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. from time to time. But in spite of the frequency of above mentioned transactions, he was unable to recollect even a single name of the company, person dealt with or produce any of the contact numbers. In the statement Mr. Mitesh Gandhi to Q.No.12 has said that he had never met anybody personally and all the transactions were made through phone but at the same time was not even able to produce a single name or a contact number of any such person. To avoid the damage caused because of his incapacity to establish a direct nexus between the transactions so claimed to be effected through him, he restored to vague answers like "The list of supplier parties have already been submitted vide letter dtd.01.01.2013. All the suppliers were known to us though our market and business contracts. Details of their names can also be provided because they all are large companies. Ï will check and provide the information. At present no because the transactions were done three years before".

If the Director Shri Mitesh Gandhi was in contact with the list of suppliers produced by him vide letter dated 01.01.2013 which effected the turnover in crores, he would have fetched business from other companies as well and not just from single assessee company. And to effect a sale of such high quantum he would have had to indulge in regular contracts with the suppliers but neither he could recollect the names of the companies he had dealt with or furnish the names of the persons of the companies with whom he interacted in the respect of transactions of M/s Star Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.. All these facts prove beyond doubt that M/s Premium Paper Board did not render any services to the assessee and no evidence of performing any services has been submitted.

"The statement of Shri Mitesh Gandhi, Director of M/s Premium Paper Board Industries Ltd. was shown to the representative of the assessee vide order sheet dated 4.1.2003 and was asked to explain as to why commission expenses should not be disallowed. The representative of the assessee did not ask for copy of statement. In response to the same, the representative of the assessee filed a letter dated 07.01.2013 wherein it is argued by the representative of the assessee that commission is actually paid and the same is reflected in the audited accounts of M/s Premium Paper & Board Industries Ltd. The fact that the payment has actually been made does not necessarily mean that the payment has been made for the purpose of business and allowable under section 37 of the I.T.Act as the claim for payment is not towards any services rendered as claimed by the assessee.

12 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14 On the basis of the above observations, the AO concluded that the

assessee is unable to establish that payment made wholly and exclusively

for the purpose of business, no direct nexus between the services

rendered and commission paid is established. As per the AO, in fact no

services were actually rendered by M/s Premium Paper Board Industries

ltd. for which the commission is paid. Thus, the onus laid on the assessee

to prove beyond doubt that the commission was actually paid for the

services rendered for the purpose of its business. The AO further referred

to the Income Tax Return filed by M/s Premium Paper Board Industries

Ltd. for A.Y.2010-11 at Nill income as it had brought forward losses and

even after crediting commission received from the assessee, it was set

off by the brought forward losses resulting in Nil income.

11. By the impugned order the CIT(A) without controverting the above

findings of the AO, had reached to the conclusion that since payment was

made by account payee cheque and the director of M/s Premium Paper

Board Industries Ltd. Mr. Mitesh Gandhi was not supposed to know the

name and phone numbers of the persons contacted, deleted the

disallowance. Nowhere the CIT(A) has mentioned that the information

asked by the AO from Mitesh Gandhi with regard to name and address

and telephone numbers of the persons, who were contacted by Mr.

Mitesh Gandhi was provided to him and he had verified the same so as

to reach to the conclusion that expenses were incurred for the purpose of

business and genuineness of the expenses were not in doubt.

13 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14 12. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of CIT(A)

and restore the matter back to his file for deciding afresh the genuineness

of the commission expenses vis-à-vis expenses having been incurred for

the purpose of business. The assessee is directed to file before the

CIT(A), the detailed information asked by the AO from Shri Mitesh Gandhi

u/s.131 statement, which he could not supply at that time before the AO.

The CIT(A) is also directed to record his finding with regard to

genuineness of expenses having been incurred for the purpose of

business. We direct accordingly.

13. The AO has also disallowed part of the packing charges debited in

Bombay units'account on the plea that no packing expenses having been

debited to the Rudrapur unit. By the impugned order the CIT(A) deleted

the disallowance after observing that Rudrapur unit is located n the same

vicinity of M/s Tata Motors Factory premises and the parts manufactured

by it at Rudrapur are directly supplied to M/s Tata Motors, which is alone

customer of the Rudrapur unit. The CIT(A) has also recorded a finding to

the effect that no packing material was used at Rudrapur unit, no any

sales and promotion expenses are incurred because M/s Tata Motor is

the only customer of the Rudrapur unit. The finding recorded by the

CIT(A) has not been controverted by ld. DR by bringing any positive

material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of

CIT(A) for disregarding the allocation of packing expenses and sale

promotion expenses.

14 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14 14. The AO has allocated Director's remuneration of Rs.70 lakhs both

for Bombay unit and Rudrapur unit on the plea that Directors were serving

both Bombay and Rudrapur units. Since the directors were rendering

services both for Bombay and Rudrapur unit, the CIT(A) confirmed the

action of the AO for proportionate distribution of the expenses on the

basis of sales of Rudrapur and Bombay unit. Nothing was placed before

us to persuade us to deviate from the findings recorded by lower

authorities. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the

CIT(A) for upholding the allocation of directors remuneration to both the

units.

15. The AO has also disallowed the entire purchases of Rs.45,808/-. By

the impugned order the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO.

16. We have considered rival contentions and found that even though

the supplier of material was found to be involved in issuing bogus bill but

at the very same time, the AO has not disputed the corresponding sales

shown by assessee in respect of items so purchased. Quantitative

purchases and sales were not disturbed nor doubted by the AO. We,

therefore, direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to the extent of 10% of

such purchases, insofar as goods have actually been purchased and

used in the manufacturing process. The assessee has purchased goods

from one party but taken bill from other party so as to have some saving in

the taxes. Retaining 10% addition will compensate the same. Accordingly,

we restrict the addition to the extent of 10% in place of entire purchases

so added by the AO.

15 ITA No.5372/13 And CO No.226/14 17. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

purposes, whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 29/07/2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (सष ु भम चमर्रम) (आय.सी.शभमव) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भंफ ु ई Mumbai; ददनमंक Dated 29/07/2015 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, यन.स/ PS

आदे श की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अऩीरमथी / The Appellant

2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.

3. आमकय आमक् ु त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai.

4. आमकय आमक् ु त / CIT

5. वर्बमगीम प्रयतयनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai आदे शािसार/ BY ORDER,

6. गमर्व पमईर / Guard file.

सत्ममवऩत प्रयत //True Copy/ उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, भुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai