RAMA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 12(3)(2), MUMBAI

CO 193/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5131 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J EHANGIR D MISTRY
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMUI KUMAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 AND 2001-02) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(30)(2) R NO.102, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 APPELLANT VS RAMA ENTERPRISES, 51-52,FREE PRESS HOUSE, 215, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. PAN:AABCR1772J RESPONDENT CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 AND 2001-02) RAMA ENTERPRISES, CROSS-OBJECTOR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(30)(2) RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUMUI KUMAR REVENUE BY : SHRI JEHANGIR D MISTRY O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS THERETO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS DATED 30.01.2009 OF THE CIT(A)-XII, MUMBAI F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02. SINCE ISSUE INVOLVED ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 2 IN THESE APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS IS REGARDING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS C OMPOSITE ORDER. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GRO UNDS IN THESE APPEALS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 IN RESPECT OF 783 SQ.FT OF PREMISES WHICH ARE OCCUPIED BY PARTNERS OF THE ASESEEE AND NOT BY THE ASESEEE AND FURTHER DIRECTIN G THE AO SHOULD NOT COMPUTE ALV IN RESPECT OF THE PORTION OF THE PREMISES BECAUSE THE SAME WAS SELF OCCUPIED BY THE ASESEEE 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 23(1) (A) FOR THE AREA OF 2673 SQ. FT AND VALUING THE ALV ON THE BAS IS OF RENT REALIZED IN RESPECT OF BALANCE UNIT AT `.9 0/- PER SQ. FT 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT THE AO BE RESTORED 3. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETI NG THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ANNUAL VALUE OF THE 1890 SQ. FT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WH ICH WAS VACANT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS THE LEAR NED AR ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD. SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IS ARISING FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND NO N EW FACTS, RECORDS, MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ARE REQUIRED TO BE EX AMINED OR CONSIDERED, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE NATIONAL THERMAL P OWER COMPANY LTD. (229 ITR 383), WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 5. THE GROUNDS NO.1,2 AND 3 ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS REGARDING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PORT ION OF THE PREMISES OCCUPIED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS REMAINING PORTION. THE ASSESSEE OWNS A PROPERTY AT 812, RAHEJA CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. THE AO COMPUTED THE ALV UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF 783 SQ.FT WHICH WAS SELF O CCUPIED BY THE ASESEEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THEIR COMMON BUSINE SS. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO EXCLUDE THE AREA OF 783 SQ.FT WHILE DETERMINING THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY I N VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 OF THE ACT. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AREA WHICH IS OCCUPIED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE ASESEEE CA NNOT BE TREATED AS SELF OCCUPIED BY THE ASESEEE AND THEREFO RE THE AVERAGE RENT PER SQ. FT AREA COMES OUT FROM THE AR EA LET OUT ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 4 BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE APPLICABLE FOR ADOPTING THE ALV REGARDING THE AREA WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY THE PARTNE RS OF THE ASESEEE. THE ASESEEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME U NDER SECTION 23(1) OF THE ACT REGARDING THE SAID AREA. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AREA LET OUT BY THE ASE SEEE IS A SEPARATE IDENTIFIED UNIT AS PER THE AGREEMENT AND T HE PLANE OF THE PROPERTY, THEREFORE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CANNOT BE TREATED AS ONE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A), THE ALV FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 22, THE ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERT Y MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. T HE ASESEEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE AREA W HICH IS CLAIMED TO BE OCCUPIED BY THE ASESEEE BUT IN FACT T HE SPACE OCCUPIED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE ASESEEE IS CAPABLE OF FETCHING THE RENT. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A). 7. AS REGARDS REMAINING AREA OF 2673 SQ.FT., THE LE ARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE AT RA HEJA CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21 WERE TO THE TUN E OF ` .92 PER SQ. FT PER MONTH. AS THE AO MADE NECESSAR Y INQUIRY IN THIS RESPECT, THE RENTAL RATE AT NARIMAN POINT V ARIES FROM 90 TO 100 SQ.FT. BASED ON THE SITUATION OF THE BUILDI NG AND LOCATION ETC. THUS, THE ANNUAL RENT RECEIVABLE PER SQ. FT AREA COMES AT ` 100 PER SQ. FT.. AS PER THE INFORMATION WAS ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 5 GATHERED ON THE LOCAL INQUIRY. THE PROPERTY IS LE T OUT TO THE GROUP OF COMPANIES AND RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS LESS THAN REASONABLY EXPECTED, THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIG HTLY TAKEN THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) AT T HE RATE OF 100 PER SQ.FT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANGALDAS H VERMA V/S CIT REPORTED IN 124 ITR 185 (BOM). 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1999-2000, VIDE ORDER DATED 20.1.2010. 9. THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN Q UESTION FIRST AROSE IN THE YEAR 1998-1999. THE MATTER CAME TO THIS TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL REMANDED THE MATER TO THE RECORD OF THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO ACCEPTED THE PROP ERTY AS ONE AND APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. THE DEPARTMENT RAISED T HIS ISSUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL AGAIN REMIT TED THE MATER TO THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO FURTHER PASSED T HE ORDER WHICH WAS AGAIN TRAVELED TO THIS TRIBUNAL AND FIN ALLY DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE ORDER DATED 20.1.2010. ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 6 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND RELEVANT RECORD. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED AND ADJUDICATE D UPON THIS ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE ORDER DATED 20.1.2010 I N ITA NO.6709/M/2007 (AY 1999-2000) AS UNDER : 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 AND IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO FIRST GIVE A FINDING AS TO WHETH ER THE PROPERTY INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 23(1) (A) OR SECTION 23(1)(B) AND TO DETERMINE THE SAME AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASESEEE. IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99, THE AO, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS O F THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION AND SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE TREATED AS PROPERTY INCOME UNDER SECTION 23(1)(B). IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BEFORE US THAT THIS ORDER DATED 7.03.2005 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE OR REVISED OR MODIFIED IN ANY MANNER BY A PROCESS KNOWN TO LAW. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, ALSO, SIMILAR DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE AO, IT WAS THEREFORE NOT PERMISSIB LE FOR HIM, HAVING REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AFTER THE TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR THAT YEAR, TO TAKE A DIFFERENT STAND AND APPLY BOTH SECTION 23(1) (A) AND SECTION 23(1)(B) F OR THE PROPERTY AND COMPUTE THE ALV AT ` .48,38,380/-. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED B Y THE ASESEEE FROM THE PROPERTY WAS ONLY ` .21,44,000/-. UNDER SECTION 23(1)(B), WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT AND THE RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE ASESEEE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANYTHING MORE THAN ` .21,44,000/- FROM THE PROPERTY. THIS AMOUNT WAS THEREFORE RIGHTLY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 23(1)(B). THIS IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 7 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON 07.03.2005 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 254 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THIS IS WHAT THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO DO AND WE ARE UNABLE TO FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS DECISION. IT IS HEREBY CONFI RMED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS 11. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASESEEE LET THE PROPERTY AN D RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS MORE THAN THE SUM FOR WHI CH THE PROPERTY IS REASONABLY TO EXPECT TO LET FROM YEAR T O YEAR, THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS ALV OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(B). THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE.. IN VIEW O F THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DECIDE TH IS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASESEEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 12. IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY RENTAL INCOME FOR THE PORTION ADMEASURING ABOUT 1890 SQ. FT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AS SESSEE ASKED TO EXPLAIN. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE AO AS UNDER : 3. IT MAY ALSO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT WHILE DURING 1987-88 THERE WERE 6 OCCUPANTS FOR THE PREMISES I N 1998-99 AND 1999-00 THERE REMAIN ONLY 4, AND HENCE, A LARGE PORTION OF THE OFFICE PREMISES REMAINED UNDER UTILIZED OR VACANT. WE HAD SUBMITTED A SKETCH OF THE PREMISES SHOWING THE ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 8 PORTION, WHICH WAS VACANT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND THAT OCCUPIED BY THE VARIOUS SISTER CONCERNS, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 1998-99. THE SAME POSITION CONTINUES THIS YEAR ALSO. ALSO MARKED WAS THE PORTION, WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. SINCE OUT OF THE TOTAL CARPET AREA 4797 SQ. FT ABOUT 1890 SQ.FT. WAS UNOCCUPIED AND ABOUT 783 SQ. FT WAS IN THE OCCUPATION OF THE PARTNERS, THE RENT WAS RECEIVABLE ONLY IN RESPECT O F 2124 SQ.FT WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY THE 4 TENANT SISTE R CONCERNS 13. THE AO HAS HELD THAT SECTION 23(1)(B) IS NOT AP PLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE AREA WHICH WAS REMAINED UNOCCUPIE D AND THE AREA WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE ASES EEE BECAUSE THE UNITS COVERING THE AREA ARE SEPARATE AN D IDENTIFIABLE. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CANNO T BE TREATED AS ONE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO APPLIED THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 23(1)(A) AND COMPUTED THE ALV OF THE ENTIRE AREA A T THE RATE OF ` .100 PER SQ.FT PER MONTH. THUS, THE AO ADOPTED THE ALV OF THE UNOCCUPIED AREA UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A). 14. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE FINDINGS O N THIS ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 5.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER : 5.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24 AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT W.E.F.01.04.2002 GRANTED DEDUCTION ON INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(1)(I X) READS AS UNDER WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LET AND WAS VACANT DURING A PART OF THE YEAR, THAT PART OF THE ANNUAL VALUE WHICH IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE PROPERTY IS WHOLLY ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 9 UNOCCUPIED OR, WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT IN PARTS, THAT PORTION OF THE ANNUAL VALUE APPROPRIATE TO ANY VACANT PART, WHICH IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE PERIOD DURING WHICH SUCH PART IS WHOLLY UNOCCUPIED THE ABOVE SAID PROVISIONS CONTEMPLATES FOR DEDUCTION OF PROPERTY WHICH ARE NOT ONLY VACANT BU T IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS PARTLY VACANT AND PARTLY LET OUT. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE ;PROPERTY WHICH WAS VACANT WAS 1890 SQ. FT AND IS PART OF THE COMPOSITE PROPERTY AND THERE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 24(1)(IX) AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS VACANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVEN PROPORTIONATE RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE VACANT PROPERTY ADMEASURING 1890 SQ. FT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED 15. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24(1)(IX) OF TH E ACT AS EXISTS AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME BUT THE AO AS SESSED THE RENTAL INCOME BY ADOPTING THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE O F THE UNOCCUPIED PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A). THUS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THERE WAS NO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 24(1)(IX) IN THE PRESENT CASE. HOWEVER, AS WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE WHILE DECIDING THE IMPUGNED GROUND OF AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE THAT WHEN THE RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS MORE THAN THE STANDARD RENT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY IS RE ASONABLY EXPECT TO LET OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR, THE AMOUNT ACT UALLY RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE T REATED AS ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 10 ALV OF THE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 23(1)(B). ACCORD INGLY, WHEN THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASESEEE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS MORE THAN THE STANDARD RENT THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY SEPARATE COMPUTATION OF THE ALV FOR T HE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY REMAINED UNOCCUPIED. IN VIEW OF TH E ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1999-2000, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 16. THE ASESEEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS IN THE C ROSS- OBJECTIONS, HOWEVER, THE MAIN ISSUE IS IN RESPECT O F COMPUTATION OF ANNUAL VALUE U/S 23(1)(A) OR 23(1)(B ) OF THE ACT. 17, WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR AS WELL AS THE LEA RNED DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD. IN VIEW OF OU R ORDER IN THE REVENUES APPEALS, THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED B Y THE ASESEEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND HENCE NO SPECIFIC F INDINGS ARE REQUIRED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THESE CROSS -OBJECTIONS AS INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO. 2458 AND 2459/MUM/2009 CO NO.193 AND 194/ MUM/2009 IN ITA NO. 2459/MUM/2009 11 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE D ISMISSED AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ALSO STAN D DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.09.2010 SD SD (P.M.JAGTAP) (V IJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22ND SEP 2010 SRL:20910 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMB AI