SI INVESTMENT 7 BROKING PVT.LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT. CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI

CO 35/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8803 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MAHAPATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH SHETTY F
• Keywords: Business income; Bonafide belief; Bad and doubtful debts; Condonation of delay; Reason to believe
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI .. , ! '#$ % % % % &'. '.(.. %) * '#$ '+ BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM './ I.T.A. NO. 6444/MUM/2009 ( *) - %.- *) - %.- *) - %.- *) - %.- / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIR. 4(2), ROOM NO. 642, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. ) ) ) ) / VS. M/S S.I. INVESTMENTS & BROKING PVT. LTD., 402, ROTUNDA BUILDING, B.S. MARG, FORT, MUMBAI 400 023. $/ ! './ PAN : AABCS5547AG ( /0 / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( 12/0 / RESPONDENT ) 12+ '/C.O. NO. 35 /MUM/20 11 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6444 /MUM/200 9 M/S S.I. INVESTMENTS & BROKING PVT. LTD., 402, ROTUNDA BUILDING, B.S. MARG, FORT, MUMBAI 400 023. ) ) ) ) / VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIR. 4(2), ROOM NO. 642, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. $/ ! './ PAN : AABCS5547AG CROSS OBJECTOR .. ( 12/0 / RESPONDENT ) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. MAHAPATRA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUBHASH SHETTY ')% F ! / // / DATE OF HEARING : 26-06-2013 GH. F ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-07-2013 ITA 6444/MUM/09 & CO 35/M/11 2 # I / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : .. , ! '#$ THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 8, MUMBAI DTD. 14-09-2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND THE SAME IS BEING DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.O. NO. 35/MUM/2011. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEA L READS AS UNDER:- 1. (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN OF RS. 4,47,37,552/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 6,0 4,00,296/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CONVERSION OF STOCK- IN-TRADE INTO INVESTMENT WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO DURING AY: 200 5-06. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CO NVERTED ITS STOCK IN TRADE IN INVESTMENT AND HAD ALREADY PAID TAX ON CON VERSION WHICH WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.1,33,28,497/- WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT IT WAS SUO-MOTO ACTION OF THE ASSESSE E. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND A LSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 4,47,47,552/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N OF RS. 6,04,00,296/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED BY THE A.O. AS AS SESSEES BUSINESS INCOME FOLLOWING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR A.Y. 2005-06. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE RELYING ON HIS APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN ASSESSEES CASE . THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2005-06 GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON T HIS ISSUE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DTD. 7 TH MARCH, 2012 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1547/MUM/2009 HAS UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE IN A .Y. 2005-06. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD AND A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT A SIMILAR ITA 6444/MUM/09 & CO 35/M/11 3 ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA NO. 8 & 9 OF ITS OR DER:- 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOT H THE PARTIES. IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF CONVERSION OF STOCK IN TRADE TO INVEST MENT IS CONCERNED, THE LAW ITSELF HAS GIVEN THE LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHA NGE AND/OR CONVERT ITS PORTFOLIOS FROM STOCK IN TRADE TO INVESTMENT OR VIC E VERSA, BUT WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS, LIKE THE CONVERSION ATTRACTED INCIDENCE OF TAX, THAT IT IS NOT FREQUENT AND IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY COLOURABLE DEVICE . IF THE RIDERS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LAW ACCEPTS THE CHANGE. IN THE PRESENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHO IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING SEPARATE SETS OF PORTFOLIOS, BUT IN THE CURRENT YEA R, PROPOSED TO CHANGE, WHEN THE LAW PERMITS IT, AND THE BOARD ALSO ACCEPTS THE FACTUM OF ASSESSEES HAVING DISTINCT PORTFOLIOS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRES ENT CASE HAD BEEN MAINTAINING. THE CHANGE PROPOSED BY THE BOARD OF DI RECTORS TO CONVERT THE STOCK IN TRADE TO INVESTMENT WAS APPROVED VIDE AN A PPROPRIATE RESOLUTION AS PER COMPANIES ACT, 1956. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS C ONVERSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID TAXES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. TAKING INTO THE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION, WE FIN D NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) WHEREIN, HE H AS ACCEPTED THE CONVERSION OF STOCKS FROM STOCK IN TRADE TO INVESTMENTS.. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL THUS IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 (SUPRA) AND THIS POSITION HAS NOT BEEN DISP UTED BY THE LD. D.R. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER OF THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ACCE PTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL. 4. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,33,481/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF V-SAT, LEASELINE AND TRANSACTION CHARGES U/S 40(A)( IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA 6444/MUM/09 & CO 35/M/11 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS AGREED B Y THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES, THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF V-SAT & LEASELINE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANGEL CAPITAL AND DEBIT MARKET LTD. (IT APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2007) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT V-SAT AND LEASELINE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO STOCK EXCHANGE BEING MAINLY REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CHARGES PAID/PAYABLE BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATI ONS, THE SAME DO NOT HAVE ANY ELEMENT OF INCOME AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTING ANY TAX FROM THE PAYMENT OF SUCH CHARGES. RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANGEL CAPITAL DEBIT MARKET LTD. (SUPRA) WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF V-SAT AND LEASELINE CHARGES. 6. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE, IT IS OB SERVED THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. WAS DELETED BY THE LD . CIT(A) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF KOT AK SECURITIES LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 25 SOT 440. IT IS OBSERVED THAT T HE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (SUPR A) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY OVERRULED BY THE HONB LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ITS JUDGMENT DATED 21 ST OCTOBER, 2011 PASSED IT APPEAL NO. 3111 OF 2009 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT STOCK EXCHANGE PROVIDES RI SK MANAGEMENT AND SURVEILLANCE TO THE STOCK BROKERS TO ENSURE THE SAF ETY OF THE MARKET WITH A VIEW TO REGULATE THE TRADING IN SECURITIES. IT WAS HELD THAT THE SURVEILLANCE FUNCTION INVOLVES PRICE MONITORING, EXPOSURE OF THE MEMBERS, RUMOUR VERIFICATION ON A DAILY BASIS AND TAKE REMEDIAL ACT IONS LIKE REDUCTION OF FILTERS, IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL MARGIN, TRANSFERRING SCRIPS O N A TRADE TO TRADE ITA 6444/MUM/09 & CO 35/M/11 5 SETTLEMENT BASIS, SUSPENSION OF SCRIPS / MEMBERS, E TC. IT WAS HELD THAT THESE ARE SOME OF THE IDENTIFIED MANAGERIAL SERVICES REND ERED BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE FOR WHICH TRANSACTION CHARGES ARE LEVIED AND THE AS SESSEE BEING S STOCK BROKER WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHILE CRE DITING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-C OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE THUS NOW STANDS COVERE D IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. AND THIS POSITION HAS BEEN AC CEPTED EVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS THIS ASPECT O F THE MATTER IS CONCERNED. HE HOWEVER HAS CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSAC TION CHARGES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HAS BEEN FI NALLY UPHELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES L TD. (SUPRA) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BONAFIDE REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENT OF TRANSACTIO N CHARGES U/S 194-C OF THE ACT. HE HAS URGED THAT THE MATTER MAY THEREFOR E BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AND ESTABLISH THE BONAFIDE BELIEF. ACCORDINGLY WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSACTIO N CHARGES WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AND ESTABLISH THE BONAFIDE BELIEF IN THE LIGHT OF THE D ECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (SU PRA). GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS PARTLY A LLOWED. 7. IN ITS C.O., THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) COMMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACT IN CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS. 9,29,636/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECT ION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF S ECTION 14A WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2007 AND RULE ITA 6444/MUM/09 & CO 35/M/11 6 8D WAS NOTIFIED BY THE CBDT ONLY ON 24-3-2008 AND C ONSEQUENTLY THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-2007. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) COMMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACT IN DIRECTING THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF BROKERAGE E ARNED WITH RESPECT TO EACH PARTY AND NOT THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF RS. 44,16.42 8/- WRITTEN OFF AND CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAVING FULFILLE D THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTIONS 36(1)(VII) AND SECTION 36(2). I TS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 44,16,428!- SHOULD HA VE BEEN WHOLLY ALLOWED. 8. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A DE LAY OF 266 DAYS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING ITS C.O. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY O N THE GROUND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG.CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM.) AS W ELL AS THAT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT VS. SHRI SHREY AS S. MORAKHIA [(2010) 5 ITR (TRI.) 1 (MUM.) (SB)] DECIDING THE SIMILAR ISSUES AS RAISED IN THE C.O. CAME TO BE RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER BECOMIN G AWARE OF THE SAID DECISIONS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE C.O. WHICH RESULT ED IN DELAY. SINCE THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING ITS C.O. WE, THEREFORE, CONDONE THE SAID DELAY AND PRO CEED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE C.O. ON MERIT. 9. AS REGARDS THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND N O. 1 & 2 OF THE ASSESSEES C.O. RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, B OTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF RUL E 8-D HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. C. LTD. VS. DCIT (2010 328 ITR 81 (BOM.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT RULE 8D IS APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY I.E. FROM A.Y. 2008-09. AS FURTH ER HELD BY THE HONBLE ITA 6444/MUM/09 & CO 35/M/11 7 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FOR THE YEARS PRIOR TO A.Y. 2008-09 HAS TO BE MADE ON SOME REASONABLE BASIS. W E, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14-A OF THE ACT BY FOLLOWING SOME RE ASONABLE BASIS. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF ASSESSEES C.O. ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATE D AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEES C.O. RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS A SHA RE BROKER, FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS. 4 4,16,428/-, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHREYAS S. MORAKHI A REPORTED IN 40 SOT 432 (SB) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS A SHARE BROKER, FROM HIS CLIENTS AGAINST THE TRANSACT IONS OF PURCHASE OF SHARES ON THEIR BEHALF CONSTITUTES DEBT WHICH IS A TRADING DEBT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE BROKERAGE/COMMISSION INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH TRANS ACTIONS VERY MUCH FORMS PART OF THE SAID DEBT AND WHEN THE AMOUNT OF SUCH BROKERAGE/COMMISSION HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR OR AN Y EARLIER YEAR, IT SATISFIES THE CONDITION STIPULATED IN SECTION 36(2)(I) AND THE AS SESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) BY WAY OF BAD DEBTS AFTER HAVING WRITTEN OF THE SAID DEBTS FROM HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS IRRECOVERABLE. T HE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEES C.O. THUS IS SQU ARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF MUMBAI SPECIAL BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA (SUPRA), WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR BAD DEBTS AFTER QUANTIFYING THE EXACT LOSS SUFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS TAKING IN TO ACCOUNT THE MARGIN MONEY OR SHAR ES, IF ANY, HELD AS ITA 6444/MUM/09 & CO 35/M/11 8 SECURITY. GROUND NO. 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSEES C.O. ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE C.O. OF ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19-0 7-13. . # I F GH. ! J#)K 19-07-13 H F SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (P.M. JAGTAP ) * '#$ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '#$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; J#) DATED 19-07-13 . %.*).'./ RK , SR. PS # I F 1*LM N M. # I F 1*LM N M. # I F 1*LM N M. # I F 1*LM N M./ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. O () / THE CIT(A)8, MUMBAI. 4. O / CIT 4, MUMBAI 5. M%R 1**) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI H BENCH 6. &- S / GUARD FILE. # I)' # I)' # I)' # I)' / BY ORDER, '2M 1* //TRUE COPY// T T T T/ // /'U 'U 'U 'U ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI