PRAVI DRUGS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1232/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9433 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HASMUKH SHAH
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM ./ I.T.A. NOS. 1235 & 1232/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2009-10) PRAVI DRUGS PVT. LTD. OBEROI GARDEN ESTATE, C WING 4101, OFF. SAKI VIHAR ROAD, CHANDIWALI, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 072 / VS. ITO-8(2)(4), MUMBAI ! ./ ' ./PAN/GIR NO. AADCP 8442 P ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) !# & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HASMUKH SHAH $%!# & ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PREMANAND J () * & + / DATE OF HEARING : 18.11.2014 ,-. & + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.02.2014 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E., FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.YS.) 2007-08 AND 2009-10, AGITATING THE DISMISSAL OF ITS APPEALS CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENTS U/S.143(3) AND 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (TH E ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS RESPECTIVELY. THE ISSUES ARISING IN BOTH THE APPEALS BEING COMMON, THE SAME WERE POSTED FOR AND HEARD TOGETHER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THE APPEALS, FILED ON 13.12.2013 AND 12.02.2013, ARE, IN VIEW OF THE COMMON DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, I.E., 13.09.2012, OUT OF TIME BY 93 DAYS AN D 92 DAYS FOR THE TWO SUCCESSIVE YEARS 2 ITA NOS. 1235 & 1232/M/13 (A.YS. 07-08 & 09-10) PRAVI DRUGS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO RESPECTIVELY. THE REASON FOR THE DELAY STANDS EXPLA INED BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.12.2013 BY SHRI PRADEEP R. KAMAT, DIRECTOR OF TH E ASSESSEE-COMPANY, AVERRING THAT HE IS LOOKING AFTER THE AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY; FURTHE R STATING THE SAID REASON AS ON ACCOUNT OF BEING IN ATTENDANCE OF HIS AILING MOTHER, NAMELY SM T. SHANTABAI R. KAMAT, WHO WAS SERIOUSLY ILL AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, ALSO E NCLOSING ALONG WITH HER DEATH CERTIFICATE FOR 20.10.2012. THE PAPERS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING THE APPEALS HAD IN FACT BEEN DULY FORWARDED TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOU NTANTS, M/S. GMJ & CO., THOUGH THE MATTER WAS NOT FOLLOWED UP WITH THEM, RESULTING IN THE DELAY. WE ARE ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, SATISFIED THAT THE DELAY STAND S CAUSED BY GENUINE AND BONA FIDE REASONS, EVEN AS THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E (DR) ALSO DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE ASSESSEES CONDONATION PETITION. THE DELAY WAS, ACCORDINGLY, CONDONED AND THE HEARING IN THE MATTER PROCEEDED WITH. AS REGARDS THE INTERVENING YEAR, I.E., A.Y. 2008-0 9, AS EXPLAINED TO US DURING HEARING BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, NO APPEAL FOR THAT YEAR ARISES IN-AS-MUCH AS THE RETURN FOR THAT YEAR WAS NOT SELECTED FOR THE SCRUTINY UNDER THE VERIFICATION PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT. BACKGROUND FACTS 3. THE PRINCIPAL AND THE PRIMARY FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE, THOUGH WOULD BEAR MENTION, AND FOR WHICH PURPOSE WE SHALL ADOPT THE FIGURES FOR A.Y. 2007-08, THE FIRST YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS DURING THE COURSE OF T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) TO HAVE CLAIMED TRADIN G LOSS AT RS.2,58,61,310/- ON SALE OF TWO CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, I.E., ATV-1 (AT RS.50.42 LA CS) AND DCMIC CCHLORIDE (AT RS.208.19 LACS); THE ASSESSEE BEING A TRADER IN CHE MICALS AND DRUG INTERMEDIATES. THE SAME WAS INEXPLICABLE, BEING IN FACT AS HIGH AS 24% AND 43.55% OF THE SALE VALUE OF THE SAID TWO PRODUCTS. NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME, I.E., IN TERMS OF THE ABNORMAL CONDITIONS, IF ANY, ATTENDING THE SALES THEREOF, BEING IN FACT MADE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND, FURTHER, OUT OF PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR, ETC. WERE FURNISHED . HE, ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED 25% OF THE SAID LOSS, I.E., RS.64.65 LACS, ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.66.26 LACS, AS AGAINST THE RETURNE D INCOME OF RS.1,60,840/-. 3 ITA NOS. 1235 & 1232/M/13 (A.YS. 07-08 & 09-10) PRAVI DRUGS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF THE PU RCHASE AND SALE BILLS. TO VERIFY THE SAME, AS WELL AS TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO STATE ITS CASE, A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY, I.E., FROM THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE SA LES BILLS ADDUCED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDED THAT FROM TWO PARTIES, I.E., STANDARD DRUG AND PHARMA AND CLASSIC PHARMA INDUSTRIES , FOR SALES AT RS.130.83 LACS AND RS.30.74 LACS RES PECTIVELY, WHOSE NAMES DID NOT APPEAR IN THE DETAILS OF THE TOTAL SA LES (AT RS.23.29 CRORES FOR THE YEAR) FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NO TICES U/S.133(6) WERE ISSUED TO ALL DEBTORS, SAVE TWO, I.E., EVEN INCLUDING THE TWO PAR TIES AFORE-MENTIONED. ONLY ONE PARTY NAMELY, M/S. CHROMATO LAB PVT. LTD ., WHOSE MAJORITY SHARE-HOLDER, VINOD NARSIMHA SHENOY, APPEARED TO BE THE BROTHER OF THE MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER IN THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, VIJAY NARSIMHA SHENOY, RESPONDED, FURNISHING PARTIA L DETAILS, EVEN AS IT CONFIRMED SALES TO IT BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.611.37 LACS, THE FIGURE AS PER THE ASSESSEES BOOKS. THE NOTICES CAME BACK UNSERVED IN ALL THE OTHER CASES , SO THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL SALES, THAT FOR RS.9.74 CRS. REMAINED UNCONFIRMED, WHILE THE CONFIRMED SALE OF RS.6.11 CRS. WAS ALSO NOT BACKED BY DELIVERY CHALLANS OR PROOF OF DELIVERY. THE PURC HASES FROM THE MAJOR SUPPLIER, M/S. ARCH PHARMA LABS LTD ., AT RS.26.79 CRS., COULD NOT SIMILARLY BE PROVED, SO THAT THE SAME ALSO REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. MEANWHILE, THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2009-10 HAD ALSO BEEN INITIATED, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD S IMILARLY CLAIMED TRADING LOSS AT RS.205.78 LACS, AND FOR WHICH AGAIN NO EXPLANATION WAS FORTHCOMING, EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED INCOME AT RS.1,34,270/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE, WHICH WAS IN FACT AT VAR IANCE WITH ITS TRADING PARAMETERS; FOR EXAMPLE, GODOWN RENT HAD BEEN PAID AT A MEAGER AMOU NT OF RS.84,325/-, WHILE THE OPENING AND THE CLOSING STOCK, I.E., AT THE BEGINNI NG AND END OF THE YEAR, WAS AT OVER RS.400 LACS AND RS.300 LACS RESPECTIVELY. THE MOOT QUESTION WAS WHY WOULD IT REGULARLY PURCHASE GOODS AT A HIGHER RATE, ONLY TO SELL THEM AT A LOWER RATE . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN ALLOWED QUALITY REBATE AT RS.1 04.25 LACS WOULD ALSO BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME WOULD ONLY OPERA TE TO REDUCE THE QUANTUM OF THE 4 ITA NOS. 1235 & 1232/M/13 (A.YS. 07-08 & 09-10) PRAVI DRUGS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO TRADING LOSS, WHICH WOULD THUS BE RECKONED AT RS.15 4.36 LACS, I.E., AS AGAINST THE APPARENT LOSS OF RS.258.61 LACS. IT WAS THUS IMMINENTLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ACTUAL TRADING, BUT ONLY IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BY WAY OF PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN, M/S. VIPRA D RUGS PVT. LTD. (VDPL), WHEREIN AGAIN UNEXPLAINED TRADING LOSS STOOD SIMILARLY CLAIMED, I NCOME HAD BEEN ASSESSED, AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AT 2% OF THE PURCHA SES, ESTIMATING THE SAME AS THE COMMISSION OR INCENTIVE EARNED BY UNDERTAKING ACCOM MODATION BUSINESS. THE LD. CIT(A) MODIFIED THE ASSESSMENT TO ONE OF THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME, AT 1% OF THE PURCHASES AND SALES, I.E., AS WAS DONE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE A SSESSEES SISTER CONCERN, VDPL, ALBEIT AT 2% OF PURCHASES, AND HAD IN FACT BEEN ADOPTED IN TH E ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009- 10. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL FOR BOTH T HE YEARS. ARGUMENTS 4. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS FOR A REASONA BLE ESTIMATE OF ITS INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF VDPL, MADE AT 2% OF THE P URCHASES, HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT 1% THEREOF, PLACING A COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-08 DATED 18.01.2011 ON RECORD. IN ADDITION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED ITS CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE, MADE AT RS.8,01, 370/- AND RS.15,36,384/- FOR THE TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS RESPECTIVELY, IN-AS-MUCH AS THE E XPENSES HAD IN ANY CASE TO BE INCURRED. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD RELY ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. FINDINGS AND DECISION 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. WE FIRSTLY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 200 9-10 HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S.144 R/W S. 145(3) OF THE ACT, WHILE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT FOR BOTH THE YEARS ON THE SAME BASIS, I.E., BY ESTIMATING THE IN COME, UPON REJECTION OF THE ASSESSEES BOOKS, AT 1% OF THE AGGREGATE OF THE PURCHASE AND S ALES FOR THE YEAR. OUR SECOND OBSERVATION IS THAT IN THE FACTS OF AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INFERENCE OF THE PURCHASES AND SALES BEING BOGUS IS UNMISTAKABLE; THE WHOLE GAMUT OF 5 ITA NOS. 1235 & 1232/M/13 (A.YS. 07-08 & 09-10) PRAVI DRUGS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO OPERATIONS POINTING TO THE TRANSACTIONS BEING NOT G ENUINE. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE MARKET RATES, OR THE TRADING PROFIT EARNED BY THE O THER DEALERS IN TRADING, ETC., I.E., IN EXPLANATION OF THE TRADING LOSS. THE ASSESSEE, IN F ACT, ITSELF DOES NOT SERIOUSLY DISPUTE THE SAME, PLACING EXTENSIVE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VDPL. THE ISSUE THUS BOILS DOWN TO ESTIMATING THE QUANTUM OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE BY INDULGING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS. THE SAME WOULD THUS STAND TO BE CONSIDERED AS BEING MADE SO AS TO DERIVE SOME BENEFIT UNDER THE VAT REGIME IN-AS-MUCH AS THE BUYER OF THE GOODS WOULD STAND TO BE ALLOWED CREDIT THEREFOR, WHILE THE ASSESSEE WOULD CLAIM THE CREDIT VAT ON ITS PURCHASES. WHAT IS THE VAT RATE ? A PERUSAL OF THE VAT RETURNS SUGGESTS IT TO BE AT 4%? THIS ASSUMES SIGNIFICANCE AS IT IS ONLY THE BENEFIT THEREOF WHIC H APPEARS TO BE THE SOLE DRIVER OF THE SAID ACTIVITY, THAT WOULD STAND TO BE SHARED AMONGST THE PARTIES. WHAT IS THE MODUS OPERANDI ? IT IS RATHER SAD THAT THE REVENUE RESTS CONTENT IN ASSESSING THE INCOME BY ESTIMATING IT, INSTEAD OF PURSUING THE INVESTIGATION TO ITS LOGICA L END, ALSO TAKING SUPPORT OF THE SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT IN-AS-MUCH AS SUCH CLAIMS COULD LEAD TO SYPHONING OFF/LEAKAGE OF REVENUE OR THE LEGITIMATE RESOURCES OF THE STATE. BE THAT AS I T MAY, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS AS TO THE REASONABLENESS OF THE ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME AS M ADE BY THE REVENUE. TOWARD THIS, FIRSTLY, WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE DISALLOWANCE AT 2 5% OF THE LOSS AMOUNT, EVEN IF THE SAME IS UNEXPLAINED? THE SAME ONLY SHOWS THAT THE REVENU E, WHICH IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE US, IS ITSELF NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT S, I.E., OTHER THAN QUA THE IMPUGNED LOSS, WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE GET DISALLOWED IN FULL, INDIC ATING AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE BOOK RESULTS FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES. DISALLOWANCE OF LOS S, THUS, WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE. THE SAME IS ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH THE INFERENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT ENGAGED IN ACTUAL TRADING, BUT ONLY IN ACCOMMODATION BUSINESS, I.E., FOR ITS ENTIRE PURCHASES AND SALES, AND NOT ONLY THE SALES MADE AT A LOSS, SO THAT ITS ACC OUNTS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, BOOK RESULTS, WARRANT REJECTION, AS INDEED WAS DONE FOR A.Y. 2009 -10, ESTIMATING THE INCOME. THEN, AGAIN, WHAT IS THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT AT 2% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES, I.E., THE MEASURE ADOPTED FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF VDPL, ON WHICH ASSESSMENT, AS MODIFIED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY, THE ASSESSEE RELIES. AS WE 6 ITA NOS. 1235 & 1232/M/13 (A.YS. 07-08 & 09-10) PRAVI DRUGS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO UNDERSTAND, AND WHICH IS ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH OUR OBSERVATION THAT THE VAT CREDIT ON PURCHASES WOULD STAND TO BE SHARED AMONGST THE PART IES, THE SAID CREDIT, THE APPLICABLE VAT RATE ON THE RELEVANT PRODUCTS BEING 4%, WOULD S TAND TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE SELLER. WHAT, THEN, IS THE BASIS FOR IT BEING SCALED DOWN BY HALF TO 1%. WE FIND NO REASON, MUCH LESS COGENT, OR BASED ON AN Y MATERIALS, THAT COULD BE SAID TO INFORM THE SAID DECISION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY IN THE CASE OF VDPL (FOR A.Y. 2007-08). THE A.O. IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR A.Y. 200 9-10 HAS, HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF 2% OF PURCHASES, ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 1% OF PURCHASES AND SALES. WE FIND THIS TO BE, WHILE BEING MATHEMATICALLY EQUIVALENT, SUPERIOR, IN-AS-MU CH AS, UNDERSTANDABLY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD ALSO STAND TO GAIN BY RAISING SALE BILLS ON CUSTOMERS AND, THUS, PASS THE BENEFIT OF VAT CREDIT (@ 4%) THERETO. HOW COULD SALES BE GENUINE WHEN THE PURCHASES ARE N OT ? RATHER, INASMUCH AS THE SALES WOULD BE LOWER THAN T HE PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF THE UNSOLD STOCK, AS IN FACT ARGUED BY THE APPELLANT-VD PL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN ITS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08, INCLUSION OF SALES AS A BASE FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME, IS, TO OUR MIND, SURELY A REFINEMENT IN THE ESTIMATION PRO CESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS, APART FROM MAKING BALD STATEMENTS, NOT ADVANCED ANY MATERIAL O R SET UP ANY CASE TO EXHIBIT OR SHOW THAT THE ESTIMATION AT 1% OF THE AGGREGATE OF PURCH ASES AND SALES FOR THE YEAR IS NOT REASONABLE OR IS EXCESSIVE, WHICH, FOR THE FOREGOIN G REASONS, WE FIND IT AS NOT. WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED QUALITY REBATE BY ITS SUPPLIER/S, EFFECTIVELY REDUCING THE TRADING LOSS C LAIMED BY IT. THAT, HOWEVER, WOULD HAVE NO BEARING OR IMPACT IN-AS-MUCH AS THE LOSS OR ITS QUANTUM IS NOT IN ISSUE; THE QUALITY REBATE BEING NOT A FACTOR FOR VAT CREDIT. RATHER, T HE ASSESSEE STANDS TO GAIN DIRECTLY, I.E., TO THE EXTENT OF VAT CREDIT, IN CASE OF LOSS IN-A S-MUCH AS ITS STANDS TO BE ALLOWED CREDIT ON ITS PURCHASES, WHICH ARE THEREFORE HIGHER THAN T HE SALE VALUE, ON WHICH VAT CREDIT WOULD STAND TO BE PASSED ON BY IT, AND WHICH ALSO E XPLAINS, OR PERHAPS SO, THE REASON FOR THE UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNEXPLAINED TRADING LOSS BE ING REGULARLY BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS. FINALLY, AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES PLEA FOR BEING A LLOWED EXPENSES, REFERENCE TO ITS BOOKS, WHICH STAND REJECTED, IS WHOLLY INAPPOSITE. WHAT, ONE MAY ASK, WOULD BE THE 7 ITA NOS. 1235 & 1232/M/13 (A.YS. 07-08 & 09-10) PRAVI DRUGS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO EXPENDITURE FOR AN ACTIVITY OF RAISING FAKE BILLS ? AS, HOWEVER, SOME EXPENSES WOULD INEVITABLY BE INCURRED, WE CONSIDER IT PROPER THAT THE SAME BE ALLOWED; REASONABLENESS BEING THE ESSENCE OF ANY ASSESSMENT, ON AN AD HOC , ESTIMATE BASIS, AT RS.1 LAC AND RS.1.20 LACS FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY, SO AS TO COVER ALL SUNDRY EXPENSES THAT MAY BE INCURRED IN THE ACTIVITY OF RAISING BILLS. B EFORE PARING, WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT U/S.23(5) OF MVAT, 2002 DATED 22.03.2013 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 (COPY OF THE ORDER ON RECORD, AT PB PGS. 3- 7) SHOWS THE ASSESSMENT OF TAX PAYABLE UNDER THE SAID ACT AT RS.15,98,735/-. THE S AME, THOUGH ALLOWABLE, BEING A TAX, ITS DEDUCTIBILITY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SECTION 43B. WE D ECIDE ACCORDINGLY, AND THE ASSESSEE GETS PARTIAL RELIEF. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. /. 0 (1 2/ & 3 ) 4 & 56 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 16, 2015 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 7* MUMBAI; 8( DATED : 16.02.2015 ).(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. ;)< = $(>1 , + >1. , 7* / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. = @2 A * / GUARD FILE !' / BY ORDER, )/* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , 7* / ITAT, MUMBAI