SHRI. NASRUDDIN A. JESANI, MUMBAI V. I.T.O.(INT TAX)-3(1), MUMBAI

CO 206/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7240 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JI TENDRA YADAV
• Keywords: Residential status; Double taxation relief; Wrong claim
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4132, 4133, 4134, 4135, 4136, 4137/MUM./200 8 (A.YS : 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003- 04, 2004-05 ) ITA NO. 2961, 2962/MUM./2010 (A.YS : 2005-06, 2006-07 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER (I.T) WARD-3(1), SCINDIA HOUSE BALLARD PIER, MUMBAI 400 038 .. APPELLANT V/S MR. NASIRUDDIN A. JESANI ALMAS IMPEX 13/6, KIDWAI NAGAR MARG WADALA (WEST) MUMBAI 400 031 PAN AABPJ3352K .... RESPONDENT C.O. NO.203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208 /MUM./2008 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 4132, 4133, 4134, 4135, 4136 , 4137/MUM./2008 (A.YS: 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-0 4, 2004-05 ) MR. NASIRUDDIN A. JESANI ALMAS IMPEX 13/6, KIDWAI NAGAR MARG WADALA (WEST) MUMBAI 400 031 PAN AABPJ3352K ... CROSS OBJECTOR V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER (I.T) WARD-3(1), SCINDIA HOUSE BALLARD PIER, MUMBAI 400 038 .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MR. JITENDR A YADAV ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING 03.05.2012 DATE OF ORDER 18.05.2012 MR. NASIRUDDIN A. JESANI 2 O R D E R PER BENCH THE PRESENT APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE, ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31 ST MARCH 2008, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)XXXIII, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999 -2000 TO 2004-05, AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6 TH JANUARY 2010, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)X, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS PREFERRED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2004-05. AS THE ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE COMMON, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE WERE HEA RD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSE OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER . 2. THESE APPEALS WERE POSTED BEFORE THE BENCH FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER 2009. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. ON 7 TH DECEMBER 2010, AND ON 3 RD OCTOBER 2011, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS. ON 20 TH FEBRUARY 2012, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE MRS. AARATI SATHE, ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT, FILED A LE TTER DATED 9 TH MARCH 2012, STATING THAT SHE, ALONG WITH MR. S.S. PHADKAR, ARE DESIROUS OF WITHDRAWING THEIR NOTE OF APPEARANCE ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF POW ER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. NAJMUDDIN A. JESSANI. MR. NAJMUDDIN A. JASSANI, WAS PRESENT IN THE COURT. HE IS THE DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FILED A LETTER WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE:- THE UNDERSIGNED IS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FOR MR.NASRUDDIN AIIBHAI JESSANI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S AMAS IMPEX, GARD EN POT, SHASHTRI NAGAR, WADALA, MUMBAI 400 031 AND WHO IS A RESIDENT OF CANADA. THE CAPTIONED MATTER IS PENDING AT THE HONBLE I.T. A.T. AND I HAVE BEEN REPRESENTING AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. HOWE VER, MR. NASRUDDIN ALIBHAI JESSANI, WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO BE M Y BLOOD BROTHER MR. NASIRUDDIN A. JESANI 3 HAS BEEN NOT CO-OPERATING IN THE MATTER AND OFF LAT E, HIS WHEREABOUTS IS ALSO NOT KNOWN TO THE UNDERSIGNED AND REPEATED A TTEMPTS TO CONTACT HIM HAS PROVED FUTILE. UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO REPRESENT THE MATTER IN THE HONBLE I.T.A.T. DUE TO THE NON-C OOPERATION OF MY BROTHER MR.NASRUDDIN ALIBHAI JESSANI (THE APPELLANT ). FROM HIS BEHAVIOR, I FEEL THAT HE DOES NOT WANT ME TO REPRES ENT HIM BEFORE THE HONBLE I.T.A.T . 4. THE BENCH ENQUIRED FROM THE DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AS TO WHETHER HE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE THIS FACT OF WITHDRAWAL OF VAKALATNAMA AND THEIR WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS INFORMED THE ASSESSEE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HE SUBMITTED THAT HIS ADDRESS IS THE ONLY ADDRESS AVAI LABLE ON WHICH NOTICES CAN BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE RES IDES ABROAD AND THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF SERVING NOTICES ON THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, MR. JITEND RA YADAV, REPRESENTING THE REVENUE, BY WAY OF A LETTER DATED 8 TH MAY 2012, SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE ABOVE CASES CAME UP FOR HEARING AND WERE ADJ OURNED FOR A NUMBER OF TIMES AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. SOM E OF THE DATES AS APPEARING ON THE APPEAL FOLDER ARE 1.8.1.10, 2.3.10 , 25.6.10, 1.9.10, 7.12.10, 22.2.11, 2.6.11, 3.10.11, 29.11.11 AND 29. 2.12. THE HONBLE MEMBERS HAD ACCORDED THE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE C OUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ON 3.10.11 AND 29.2.11I. HOWEVER, WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING FINALLY ON 3.5.12, THE COUNSEL FOR ASSE SSEE FILED THE LETTER WITHDRAWING THE VAKALATNAMA, ON THIS DAY SHRI NAJMU DDIN JASANI, THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A LETTER (NOT DA TED ). ON THIS DATE, SHRI NAJMUDDIN JASANI CATEGORICALLY TOLD THE HONBL E BENCH THAT HE HAS BEEN REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE AS A POWER OF ATTORN EY HOLDER. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT OF LATE THE ASSESSEE (WH O IS RESIDING IN CANADA),HAS NOT BEEN COOPERATING IN THE MATTER AND HIS WHEREABOUTS ARE ALSO NOT KNOWN. REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT HAVE PROVED FUTILE HEN CE HE SUBMITTED HIS DIFFICULTY TO REPRESENT THE MATTER BEFORE THE H ONBIE ITAT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE FEELS THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT HIM TO REPRESENT THE MATTER BEFORE THE ITAT. ON THESE GROU NDS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE WITHDRAWN. MR. NASIRUDDIN A. JESANI 4 2. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE UNDERSIGN ED THAT THE ASSESSEES BROTHER HAS BEEN HOLDING THE POWER OF AT TORNEY OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE 24.1.86, FOR CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF M/S. ALMAS IMPEX AT BOMBAY. IN ALL THESE YEARS THE ENTIRE BUSINESS WAS RUN AND RETURNS WERE FILED CLAIMING THAT THE AS SESSEE IS THE RESIDENT OF INDIA AND CLAIMING BENEFITS UNDER SEC. 8OHHC. THEN ON 16.12.2005 THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED A SURVEY ON THE ASSESSEE AND INCRIMINATING EVIDENCES WERE FOUND, DURING THE COUR SE OF THE SURVEY ACTION THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NAJMUDDIN JASANI, POA HOLDER FOR THE ASSESSEE, WAS RECORDED ON OATH. HERE IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SETTLED DOWN IN CANADA AND THE ENTIRE BUSINESS IS MANAGED BY HIS BROTHER ON THE STRENGTH OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNE Y DATED 24.1.1986. THE COPIES OF THE PASSPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POWER O F ATTORNEY HOLDER REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A RESIDENT OF IND IA AND HENCE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR BENEFITS U/S.8OHHC. THE REASONS WERE R ECORDED. AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR A.Y 1999-2000 TO 2004-05 WERE REOPENED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE ASSESSEE KEPT ON LITIGATING AND CHALLENGING THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT STATING THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS NON-RESIDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE COPIES OF PASSPORT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NON RESIDE NT THEN AS PER PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CANADA DTAA THERE IS NO PE IN INDIA, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS MERELY MA KING PURCHASES IN THE COURSE OF EXPORTS AND HENCE THERE IS NO PE IN I NDIA. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO NOTE THAT A NUMBER OF LETTER HAVE BEE N SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT HE IS A CITIZEN OF CANADA BU T THERE IS NO TRACE OF ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TAX RESIDENT OF CANADA . IT IS THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM BENEFITS OF THE CANADA DTAA . 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CONTENTION IN PARA 3 AB OVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON THE FILE IN THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A PE IN INDIA, IN ALL THESE YEARS THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A FULL FLEDGED BUSINESS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE NUMBER OF BALANCE SHEETS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK THE PURCHASES WERE I N INDIA, THE SALES WERE BOOKED FROM INDIA AND THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE PRO CEEDS WERE RECEIVED IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING EXPORT INCENTIVES AND REP LICENSES. IT HAS CLAIMED SUBSIDY FROM APEDA. IT HAS MAINTAINED PROPERTY, PAID PROPERTY TAX, MANAGED BANK ACCOUNTS AND CARRIED OUT A FULL FLEDGED BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ON GOING THROUGH TH E POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF HIS BROTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS WHICH IS RUN IN THE NAME OF ALMAS IMPEX. ALL THESE DOCUME NTS EVIDENCING THE ABOVE FACTS ARE A PART OF THE PAPERBOOK SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE UNDERS IGNED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO PE IN INDIA AND TH AT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES IN INDIA ARE RESTRICTED TO MAKING OF PUR CHASES, IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND NEEDS TO BE REJECTED. FOR THE SAME REASON S, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. MR. NASIRUDDIN A. JESANI 5 5. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80HHC BEING RESTRICTED TO THE RESIDENTS OF INDI A ARE DISCRIMINATORY UNDER ARTICLE 24(2) OF THE CANADA DTAA. THIS CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SP L.BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAEEV SURESHHHAI GAJWANI. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THE CANADA DTAA IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TAX RESID ENT OF CANADA UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE INDO-CANADA DTAA. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ONLY ONE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND THAT IS THE CERTIFI CATE OF CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA DATED 12.04.2000 ON PAGE 7 OF HIS PAPER BOOK . HOWEVER, IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE TREATY BENEFITS, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE IS THE TAX RESIDENT OF THE CANADA. IT IS CLEAR THAT BEING A CITIZEN OF CANADA AND BEING THE TAX RE SIDENT OF CANADA ARE TWO DIFFERENCE THINGS AND ONE DOES NOT MEAN THE OTHER. ARTICLE 4 OF THE CANADA DTAA SPECIFIES THAT A RESIDENT OF THE CO NTRACTING STATES MEANS, ANY PERSON WHO UNDER THE LAWS OF THAT STATE, IS LIABLE TO TAX THEREIN BY THE REASON OF HIS DOMICLE, RESIDENCE, PL ACE OF MANAGEMENT OR ANY OTHER CRITERIA OF SIMILAR NATURE. IT IS THER EFORE, CLEAR THAT BEING A CITIZEN OF CANADA DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE IS A TAX RE SIDENT OF CANADA. HENCE IN ABSENCE OF THE TAX RESIDENCY CERTIFICATE T HE BENEFITS OF THE CANADA DTA.A WILL NOT HE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SPL BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV SURE SHBHAI GAJWANI 129 LTD 145(SB) (AHD) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SUBMISSIONS IN THE AFOR EMENTIONED PARAGRAPHS, IT IS STATED THAT THE TREATY PROVISIONS ARE THERE ONLY FOR BONAFIDE TAX PAYERS. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE WAS FILING RETURN OF INCOME YEAR AFTER YEAR CLAIMING THE BENEFITS OF SEC . 8OHHC, REP LICENSES, APEDA SUBSIDY AND RUNNING OF FULL FLEDGED BUSINESS. ONCE HE WAS SURVEYED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS FOUND THA T HE IS NOT A RESIDENT OF INDIA, HE STARTED LITIGATING THE REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENTS, HE ALSO LITIGATED THE CLAIM OF BEING A NON RESIDENT WITHOUT SUBMITTING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE RESIDENCY IN INDIA. THEN FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF HE IS A NON RESIDENT, THEN UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE CANADA DTAA THERE IS NO PE IN INDIA, WHEN THAT CLAIM WAS REBUTT ED, HE CLAIMED THE BENEFITS OF DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE. IT IS ALREADY SU BMITTED THAT IN CLAIMING THE TREATY BENEFITS, HE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE TAX RESIDENCY OF CANADA. THE MATTER DOES NOT END HERE. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT A NUMBER OF ADJOURNME NTS TO DELAY THE DECISION AT ITAT AND WHEN THAT DID NOT YIELD A RESU LT, IT HAS NOW CLAIMED THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BEING WITHDRAWN. THE PRETEXT FOR WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE POWER OF ATTORNE Y HOLDER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COOPERATING AND THAT HIS WHEREA BOUTS ARE NOT KNOWN. SO THE MATTER AS IT STANDS TODAY IS THAT SO LONG AS THE BENEFITS WERE AVAILABLE THEY WERE CLAIMED BY MAKING A WRONG CLAIM OF BEING A RESIDENT OF INDIA. NOW THAT THE BENEFITS UNDER SEC. 80HHC ARE .NO LONGER AVAILABLE, THE ENQUIRIES WITH THE A.O HAVE R EVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO LONGER FILING THE RETURN IN INDIA. MR. NASIRUDDIN A. JESANI 6 7. LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND THE CIR CUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. ON THIS COUNT ALONE NO TREATY BENEFIT SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER DOES NOT. END HERE. BY WITHDRAWING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS UNDER THE PRETEXT OF NON COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE WHEREABOUTS NOT BEING KNOWN, THE POA HOLDER IS PLAYING THE LAST CARD OF THWARTING THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE. BECAUSE, NOW THE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE NO PLACE TO EVEN SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE AS FOR ALL THESE YEARS THE BUSINESS WAS BE ING CONDUCTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOW THROWN HIS HANDS UP FOR THE R EASONS ALREADY STATED. THE FACT HOWEVER, REMAINS THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IS VALID EVEN TODAY AND HAS NOT YET BEEN WITHDRAWN. THE POA HOLDER HAS FAILED TO CLARIFY AS TO WHAT IS THE MATTER IN WHICH HIS BR OTHER (THE ASSESSEE) IS NOT COOPERATING. THUS THE INABILITY TO REPRESENT THE MATTER ON BEHALF OF HIS BROTHER, AS EXPRESSED BEFORE THE HON BENCH B Y NAJMUDDIN JASSANI, ON 3.5.12 SHOULD BE READ AS HIS INTENTION NOT TO PURSUE THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, THE APPEALS OF THE R EVENUE NEEDS TO HE DISPOSED OFF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 8. IT IS THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS OF T HE REVENUE MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED . 6. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND ON A PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY ADJOURNING THE MA TTER, AS THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THE NOTICES SERVED ON THE AS SESSEE WHEN THE DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ACKNOWLEDGES T HE RECEIPT OF NOTICE BUT REFUSED TO COOPERATE FOR THE REASONS SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER. WE, THUS, HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THESE APPEALS ON MERITS. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE GIST OF THE SUBMIS SIONS ARE REPRODUCED IN PARA5 OF THIS ORDER. DUE TO LACK OF ASSISTANCE FRO M THE ASSESSEE IN DEFENDING REVENUES APPEALS AND AS WE ARE CONVINCED AND AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. 8. INSOFAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE CONCERNED, DUE TO NON-PROSECUTION, THE SAME ARE DIS MISSED. MR. NASIRUDDIN A. JESANI 7 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AND AS SESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MAY 2012 SD/- B.R. MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18 TH MAY 2012 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, L BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI