Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1,(2), Nagpur V. M/s. Murli Industries Limited, Nagpur

ITA 11/NAG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3925 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILIND BHUSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: M MANI
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 153A; 115JB; 32; 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR E-BENCH, NAGPUR (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT MUMBAI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.8/NAG/2012 (AY: 2003-04) I.T.A. NO.9/NAG/2012 (AY: 2004-05) I.T.A. NO.10/NAG/2012 (AY: 2005-06) I.T.A. NO.11/NAG/2012 (AY: 2006-07) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), ROOM NO.306, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, TELANGHKHEDI ROAD, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR. VS M/S. MURALI INDUSTRIES LTD., 239, EAST WARDHAMAN, NAGPUR 440 006. PAN: AACCM 1276 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. MILIND BHUSARI, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. MANI DATE OF HEARING: 06.3.2013 DATE OF ORDER: 05. 4.2013 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE FOUR APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A)- I, NAGPUR FOR THE AYS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE BEING CLUBBED AND ADJUDICATED IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE AND GROUND WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 2. IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E REVENUE ARE IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, FIRSTLY, WE SHALL TAKE UP ITA NO.8/NAG/2 012, WHICH IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-I, NAGPUR DATED 18.10.2011 FOR THE AY 2003- 2004 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON POWER PLANT OF RS. 1,33,88,895/-, WHICH IS WRONGLY CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 5(1) READ WITH APPENDIX-1 OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFI LLED THE MANDATORY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF EXERCISING THE OPTION FOR CLAIM OF D EPRECIATION UNDER RULE-5(1) 2 READ WITH APPENDIX-1 OF IT RULES, BEFORE THE DUE DA TE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003-2004. 3. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI M. MANI , LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT ALL THE APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST THE COMMON I SSUE IE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON POWER PLANT. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVA NT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURIN G OF REFINED SOYABEAN OIL, DOC,DUPLEX PAPER AND NEWSPRINT PAPER AND ALSO ESTAB LISHED A CAPTIVE POWER PLANT. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. N IL AND COMPUTED THE BOOK PROFIT AT RS. 5,49,27,994/- U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THERE WA S A SEARCH ON ASSESSEE U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND AO ASSESSED THE INCOME U/S 153A OF T HE ACT DETERMINING THE CONCEALED INCOME AT RS. 4,19,34,324/-. ACCORDING T O AO, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION UNDER RULE-5(1A) OF THE IT RULES, 1962 AND NOT UNDER RULE-5(1) READ WITH APPENDIX-1, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE AN OPTION UNDER THE 2 ND PROVISO OF RULE-5(1A). THEREFORE, AS PER THE AO, D EPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY UNDER RULE-5(1A) READ WITH APPENDIX-1 AD NOT U NDER RULE-5(1) READ WITH APPENDIX-1. THEREFORE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND THE AMOUNTS VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR N OTICE THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE FIRST YEAR OF GENERATION OF THE CAPTIVE POWER PLANT. THE CLAIM WA S ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE AO WRONGLY AS SUMED THAT NO OPTION WAS EXERCISED, ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WA S ALLOWED BY THE CIT (A) IN ALL THE YEARS AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEP RECIATION AS PER APPENDIX-1 READ WITH RULE-5(1) OF THE IT RULES, 1962. IN THE BACKGR OUND OF THE ABOVE, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THE FACTS NARRATED IN PARA 6.1, 6.3, 9 AND 9.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE SAME AND MENTIONED THAT THE SUBMISSIO NS ARE COMMON FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE FACTS PLACED BEFORE US. WE HAV E ALSO GONE THROUGH THE 3 PARAGRAPHS SPECIALLY BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY TH E LD COUNSEL. IN VIEW OF THE IMPORTANCE, THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6.1. THESE GROUNDS ARE AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF DEPR ECIATION OF POWER PLANT. ACCORDING TO AO, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATI ON UNDER RULE 5(1A). AO HAS STATED THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION UNDER RU LE 5(1) READ WITH APPENDIX 1 ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE AN OPTION UNDER SECOND PROVISO TO RULE 5(1A). AS PER SECOND PROVISO TO RULE 5(1A) ASSESSEE WAS REQUI RED TO FILE AN OPTION THAT THE DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER RULE 5(1) READ WITH APPENDIX 1. THIS OPTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH IT BEGAN TO GENERATE POWER. ACCORDING TO AO ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY OPTION WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003-2004. AO HAS STATED THAT AR OF THE APPELLANT WAS ALLOWED TO INSPECT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003-04 AND IT IS CONFIRMED THAT NO OPTION FORM IS AVAILABLE WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, DEPRECIATIN SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS PER RULE 5(1A) READ WITH APPEN DIX 1A AND NOT RULE 5(1) READ WITH APPENDIX1. AO HAS THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,11,93,638/- CLAIMED BY APPELLANT. IN ITS SUBMISS ION BEFORE ME APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXERCISED OPTION IN AY 2003-04 AND POWER WAS GENERATED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE CAPTIVE POWER P LANT. THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE AY 2003-04. AOS ASSUMPTION THAT NO OPTION WAS EXERCISED IS NOT BASED ON FACTS AND THE DISALLOWANCE IS UNJUSTIF IED. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AO HAS ONCE AGAIN REITERATED THAT NO OP TION IS AVAILABLE AS PER THE APPENDIX 1A READ WITH RULE 5(1A) AND STATED THAT TH E ISSUE THAT EMERGES IS ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON POWER PLANT AS PER APPENDIX 1A READ WITH RULE 5(1A) INSTEAD OF APPENDIX 1 READ WITH RULE-5(1). A S REGARDS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE CLAIM HAD BEEN ALLOWED EARLIER AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR ALSO AO HAS IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER STATED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE CLAIM HAD BEEN ACCEP TED IN AY 2003-04 IS NOT TENABLE AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2003-04 TO AY 2006 -07 WERE REOPENED U/S 148. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN ALLOWED AS PER THE APPENDIX 1A READ WITH RULE 5(1A) AND NOT AS PER APPENDIX 1 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.3. IN SUBMISSION BEFORE ME APPELLANT HAS STATED T HAT IN THE AY 2003-04 THE COMPANY INSTALLED A CAPTIVE POWER UNIT AT A COS T OF 10.20 CR. AS PER THE SECTION 32 READ WITH RULE 5(1) R.W. APPENDIX 1, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM A DEPRECIATION AT AN ENHANCED RATE THAN THE N ORMAL RATE OF DEPRECIATION APPLICABLE TO POWER GENERATION UNIT. THE CONDITION FOR THE ENHANCED RATE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD EXERCISE THE OPTION BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS 30.11.2003 AND THE OPTION EXERC ISED SHALL BE FINAL. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.11.2003, THE ASSESSEE DID MAKE A CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT THE ENHANCED RATE SHOWING CLEARLY W ITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT THE OPTION WAS EXERCISED WITHIN THE PERIOD. IT IS WELL SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHINDRA MILS 243 ITR 56 AND THE GUJARAT DECISION IN 192 ITR 700 AND BOMBAY DECISION IN 177 ITR 444 THAT A CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE MADE IN THE RETURN FILED. IF THE CASES OF REOPENING DECIDED EARLIER BY THE SUPREME COURT IS L OOKED INTO IT CAN BE FOUND OUT THAT THE CLAIM WAS VERIFIED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE RELEVANT COLUMN CONCERNING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WHERE I T WAS MADE VIDE 106 ITR 1 4 (SC). THE LEGAL POSITION OF THE RETURN OF INCOME M AY BE ANALYZED. UNDER SECTION 295 THE BOARD IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE RULES FO R CARRYING OUT THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT. IN PARTICULAR THE BOARD IS EMPLOWERED TO MAKE RULES WHICH MAY PROVIDE THE FORM AND MANNER IN WHICH ANY APPLICATIO N, CLAIM, RETURN OR INFORMATION MAY BE MADE OR FURNISHED VIDE 295(2)(I) . UNDER SECTION 139(1) A RETURN HAS TO BE FILED N THE PRESCRIBED FORM. RULE 12(1)(A) PRESCRIBED THE FORM OF RETURN WHICH WAS FORM NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSEE. WH EN RULES PRESCRIBE THE FORM IT BECOMES PART OF THE RULE AND RULES HAVE THE SAME FORCE OF LAW AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ITSELF. A RETURN IS DEFECTIV E IF THE COLUMNS IN RELATIONS TO COMPUTATIONS OF THE INCOME ARE NOT FILED IN. COLUM N 24 OF THE RETURN RELATES TO DEPRECIATION. THE CLAIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF A PPENDIX 1 IN THIS COLUMN. THE OPTION WAS EXERCISED IN THAT MANNER AND THAT WA S THE PROPER AND LEGAL EXERCISE WHICH HAS BEEN FILED COMPLIED. SO THE CLAI M MADE FOR PROPER DEPRECIATION IN COLUMN 24 OF THE RETURN FOR AY 2003 -04 IS THE CORRECT OPTION AS PER THE LAW AND RULE AND THERE IS NO OTHER FORM OF OPTION UNDER THE LAW. IN GOETZ INDIA LTD VS. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), THE SUPRE ME COURT STATED THAT A REVISED CLAIM SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH A RETURN OF IN COME ONLY. THUS, THE RETURN OF INCOME IS PRE-EMINENT IN THE MATTER OF CL AIM. 9. I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE RULE 5 CLEARLY STATES AS FOLLOWS:- RULE 5:- DEPRECIATION (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-RULE (2), THE ALLO WANCE UNDER CLAUSE(II)OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 IN RESPE CT OF DEPRECIATION OF ANY BLOCK OF SHALL BE CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED IN THE SECOND COLUMN OF THE TABLE IN APPENDIX 1 TO THESE R ULES ON THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF SUCH BLOCK OF ASSETS AS ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. (1A) THE ALLOWANCE UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION OF ASSETS ACQUIRED O N OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF APRIL. 1997 SHALL BE CALCULATED AT THE PERCENTAGE SPECIFIE D IN THE SECOND COLUMN OF THE TABLE IN APPENDIX 1A OF THESE RULES ON THE A CTUAL COST THEREOF TO THE ASSESSEE AS ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINE SS OF THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR: PROVIDED THAT THE AGGREGATE DEPRECIATION ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL COST OF THE SAID ASSET: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE UNDERTAKING SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT MAY, INSTEAD OF THE DE PRECIATION SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX 1A, AT ITS OPTION, BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION UNDER SUB-RULE (1) READ WITH APPENDIX 1, IF SUCH OPTION IS EXERCISED BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. (A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, IN THE CASE OF AN UNDERTAKING WHICH BEGAN TO GENERATE POWER PRIOR TO 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997; AND 5 (B) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YE AR IN WHICH IT BEGINS TO GENERATE POWER, IN CASE OF ANY OTHER UNDERTAKING ; PROVIDED ALSO THAT ANY SUCH OPTION ONCE EXERCISED S HALL BE FINAL AND SHALL APPLY TO ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 9.1. THE QUESTION HERE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATIO N IS WHETHER ANY OPTION CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION UNDER SUB RULE1 READ WITH APPENDIX 1. IT APPEARS THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS MADE A CLAIM OF THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME OF FILING OF RET URN OF INCOME APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,11,93,638/- ON THE PO WER PLANT WHICH IS 50% OF THE NORMAL CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLANT HAS W ORKED LESS THAN 180 DAYS. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY ANNEXURE TO FORM 3CD OF THE TA X AUDIT REPORT. THE AO HAS HOWEVER HELD THAT THERE IS A STATUTORY REQUIREM ENT OF THE ACT TO EXERCISE AN OPTION TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION AT THE RATES PRESCR IBED AS PER SUB RULE 1 R.W. APPENDIX 1 BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE R ETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB SECTION 1 OF SECTION 139 WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DON E BY APPELLANT BEFORE 31 ST NOVEMBER, 2003. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS IN AY 2003-04 CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS PER APPENDIX 1 AND ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THIS CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO EXERCISE OF AN OPTION. IT IS FURTHER TO BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FORM PRESCRIBED IN THE RULES. ONCE THE CL AIM IS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE FILING OF THE RETURN EXERCISE OF OPTION IS FINA L AND STATUTORY COMPLIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS IS TO BE TAKEN AS COMPLETED. 9.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. AS POINTED OUT BY APPELLANT AS PER RETURN FOR AY 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS PER APPENDIX 1. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FORM OR ME THOD PRESCRIBED FOR EXERCISE OF OPTION. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT T HAT THE OPTION EXERCISED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003- 04 WHICH IS PART OF THE RETURN ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS IS TO BE TREATED AS SUFFICIE NT COMPLIANCE. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE MADRA S TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KKSK LEATHER PROCESSORS (P) LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED I N 126 ITD 215. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATI ON ON WINDMILL AT HIGH RATE PRESCRIBED IN APPENDIX 1 IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS IT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AUDIT REPO RT FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON DUE DATE, IT IS MORE THAN EXERCISE OF OPTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECOND PROVISO TO RULE 5(1A), HENCE, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON WINDMILL AS PER APPENDIX 1 AND N OT AS PER THE RATES PRESCRIBED IN APPENDIX 1A. 9.3. SINCE, THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE E XTREMELY THE SAME, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATI ON AS PER APPENDIX 1 AS THE CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003-04 I S TO BE TREATED AS EXERCISE OF OPINION UNDER RULE 5(1). THIS GROUND IS THEREFO RE ALLOWED. 6. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CIT (A) E XAMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 5 RELATING TO DEPRECIATION AND EXAMINED IF ANY OPTION CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN 6 EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION UND ER THE SAID RULE 5 READ WITH APPENDIX 1. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ON THE FACTS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS PER APPENDIX 1, IT TANTAMOUNT TO EX ERCISE OPTION. IT IS MORE SO WHEN NO SPECIAL OPTION VIDE THE SECOND PROVISO IS N OT PRESCRIBED. WE AGREE WITH THE ABOVE ADJUDICATION OF THE CIT (A). IN FACT, SUCH A VIEW WAS ALREADY UPHELD BY THE ITAT, MADRAS BENCH IN THE CASE OF KKSK PROCESSORS ( P) LTD. VS. ITO REPORTED IN 126 ITD 215, WHICH IS ALREADY EXTRACTED BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 9.2 NARRATED ABOVE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT T HE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS VIDE ITA NOS. 8 TO 11/NAG/2012 ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDERS ARE PRONOUNCED IN THE E-COURT ON 5 TH APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (D. KARUNAKAR A RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : .4.2013 AT :MUMBAI OKK COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (A), CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR NAGPUR, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI