ASST CIT 4(3), MUMBAI V. RELIANCE SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1273/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 127319914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS SHEEL CHITLANGIA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business expenditure; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

, ' INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - D,BENCH . , , BEFORE S/SH. D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDEN T & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 1273 /MUM/201 4 , / ASSESSMENT YEAR - 20 10 - 11 A CIT - CIRCLE - 4 - (3) ROOM N O. 64 9 , 6TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI - 400 020 . VS M/S. RELIANCE SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LTD. RELIANCE CORPOR ATE PARK GROUND FLOOR BUILDING NO.4 C - WING, THANE BELAPUR RD. GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 701. PAN:AA GCA 6369 K ( / ASSESSEE ) ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : MRS. SHEEL CHITLANGIA (AR) / REVENUE BY :SHRI SANJAY KUMAR - (DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 0 8 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 13 - 08 - 2015 , 1961 254 ( 1 ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 05.12.2013 OF CIT(A) - 14 , MUMBAI , THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO), HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES' OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO D ELETE THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS.39,79,354/ - OF REJECT DEVELO PMENT EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE AO CONSIDERING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BUT WRONGLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE U/S.37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW,THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO D ELETE THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS.2,97,42,700/ - CONSISTING OF LEAVE ENCASHM ENT PAID, LEAVE ENCASHMENT REVERSED, GRATUITY PAID AND GRATUITY REVERSED OUT OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO CONSIDERI NG IT AS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BUT WRONGLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E AS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE TO BE ALLOWED U/S.43 B AND 40A(7) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961.' 3. 'THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ASSESSEE - COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND LOGISTICS BUSINESS,FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.09.2010,DECLARING INCOME OF RS.( - )19,70,64,951/ - .THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 23.02.2013 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSE AT RS.( - )16,44,96, 510/ - . 2. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3.73 CRORES(RS.39.79 LAKHS + RS.2.97 CRORES),MADE BY THE AO,WITH REGARD TO P ROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO F OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.39.79 LACS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER THE HEAD PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.H E DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY AS TO HOW IT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE DT.12.12.2012 AND 15.2.2013, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCURRED THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION FOR THE ROUTINE OPERATIONS, 1273 /1 4 - R ELIANCE SUPPLY 2 THAT IT HAD CONSIDERED THE EXPENSES AS CAPITAL IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THAT CLAIMING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FINALLY, HE HELD THAT FOLLOWING A CONSISTENT APPROACH SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR S THE CLAIM OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE WAS BEIN G TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE.AS A RESULT, HE ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.39.79 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 3. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENSES U/S. 43B AND 40A(7) IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER THE HEA D PROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES. HE FOUND THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED LEAVE ENCASHMENT PAY DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL (RS.1.40 CRORES), LEAVE ENCHASHMENT REVERSED DURING THE YEAR (RS.1.29 CRORES), GRATUITY PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL (RS.7.96 LACS) AND GRATUITY REVE RSED D URING THE YEAR (RS.19.24 LACS). THE AO HELD THAT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.2.97 CRORES (RS.1.40 CRORES+1.29 CRORES+7.96 LACS+19.24LACS) FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED HEADS OF EXPENSES WAS NOT A LLOWABLE U/S. 37(1)OF THE ACT. IN S HORT, THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TREATING THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE FAA REFERRED TO ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY. 2008 - 09 WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF TREATING CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND LATER ON CLAIMING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE .FOLLOWING THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY.2008 - 09, THE FAA DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.39.79 LACS ,MADE BY THE AO . SIMILARLY, FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,SHE DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITUR E INCURRED BY IT, AMOUNTING TO RS.2.97 CRORES ,INCURRED UNDER THE HEADS LEAVE ENCASHMENT AND GRATUITY . 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)STATED THAT THE IDEN TICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE TWO EARLIER AY.S., THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE MATTER OF ONE OF THE SISTER CONCERNS NAMELY RELIANCE FOOTPRINT LTD.,THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE.WE FIND THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL,FILED BY THE AO,FOR AY.2008 - 09(I TA/5759/MUM/2012 DATED 27.11. 2013),THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELIBERATED UPON AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DISTRIBUTION AND LOGISTIC BUSINESS. THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION AND THE COMPANY HAD A TURNOVER OF RS.26,22,30,201/ - ON WHICH NET LOSS OF RS.4,42,981/ - IS SHOWN IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THE BALANCE SHEET, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.7,69,22,617/ - , WHICH HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDIT URE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT THE AO STATED THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,80,50,176/ - U/S 40A(7) /43B OF THE ACT. THUS, OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT, THE 1273 /1 4 - R ELIANCE SUPPLY 3 ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,88,72,441/ - IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 29.11.2010 SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENDITURES ARE MAINLY SALARY, TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE, TELEPHONE EXPENSES, PROFESSIONAL FEES, AUDIT FEES AND THOSE ARE APPEARING IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER THE HEAD PROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE SINCE THEY ARE OF REVENUE NATURE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS : A) DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY STARTED ITS ACTIVITY OF SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT. THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS EXPANDING ITS ALREADY STARTE D LINE OF BUSINESS BY EXPANDING ITS SCALE OF OPERATION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY; B) THAT ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY ARE APPROPRIATELY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE - SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALL THE OPERATIONS ARE ACCOUNTED THROUGH ONE SINGLE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; C) THAT ALL SOURCING OF FUNDS IS DONE AT THE COMPANY LEVEL. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAS SOURCED FUNDS BY WAY OF UNSECURED LOANS AND OTHER SHORT TERM LIABILITIES ALONG WITH ITS SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS. ALL THE ACTIVITIES ARE OPERATED AND EXPENDED OUT OF THIS COMMON POOL OF FUND; D) THAT THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY ASSESSEE CONSTITUTES ONE INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS AS ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY ARE DIRECTLY OPERATED AND MANAGE D BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR ITS EMPLOYEES. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CENTRALIZED AND THE MAJOR POLICIES ARE FRAMED AT THE CENTRAL LEVEL. HENCE, THERE EXISTS INTER - CONNECTION, INTER - LACKING, INTER DEPENDENCE, COMMON MANAGEMENT, COMM ON BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, COMMON FUND, COMMON ADMINISTRATION AND COMMON CENTRAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; E) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES TOWARDS SALARY, ELECTRICITY, AUDIT FEES AND LIKES. FOR EXPANSION OF THE EXISTIN G LINE OF BUSINESS OR FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE ALREADY ESTABLISHED OPERATIONS. F) THAT WHERE THE EXPENSES ARE DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE WITH THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING OPERATIONS, THE SAME HAVE BEEN EXPENSED OUT DURING THE YEAR AND WHERE THE EXPENSES ARE NOT DIRECTLY IDENTIFIABLE WITH THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING STORES, THE SAME HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE PENDING CAPITALIZATION. THAT WHAT IS BEING REFLECTED BY ASSESSEE, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE AND NOT CAPITALIZATION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL CAPITAL ASSET. G) THAT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IS ALLOWABLE IN ENTIRETY AND DEFERMENT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE COMING YEARS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.; H) THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) DURING THE YEAR AS ONCE BUSINESS IS COMMENCED, EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE A CT AND WHICH ARE NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE, SHOULD BE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE BUSINESS PLAN IS IMPLEMENTED IN PHASED MANNER. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) KEDARNATH JUTE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC); II) JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. V/S CIT (2008) 166 TAXMANN 115 (DELHI); 1273 /1 4 - R ELIANCE SUPPLY 4 III) CIT V/S PRIYA VILLAGE ROADSHOWS LTD (2009) 185 TAXMANN 44 (DELHI) IV) BANSIDHAR (PVT) LTD. V/S CIT (127 ITR 65)(GUJ) V) CIT V/S RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (115 ITR 519) HOWEVER, THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED SUCH EXPENSES FOR THE ROUTINE OPERATIONS. THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS C ONSIDERED SUCH EXPENSES AS CAPITAL AND HENCE CLAIMING THE SAME WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME AS REVENUE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, AO HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED RS.4,80,50,176/ - U/S 40A(7) /43B OF THE ACT WHILE CLAIMING PROJ E CT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITUREIN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THEREFORE RESTRICTED THE DIS ALLOWANCE TO RS.2,88,72,441/ - . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE ON IDENTICAL FACTS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY ITAT IN SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE M/S RELIANCE FOOTPRINT LTD V/S ACIT IN ITA NO.5997/MUM/2011 (AY - 2008 - 09) ORDER DATED 23.10.20 13 AND FILED A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. LD. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF M/S RELIANCE FOOTPRINT LTD (SUPRA). 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 23.10.2013 IN M/S RELIANCE FOOTPRINT LTD (SUPRA). WE AGREE THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE I.T.A. NO.5759/MUM/2012 6 BEFORE US ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CASE OF M/S RELIANCE FOOTPRINT LTD (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANSION OF ITS BUSINESS IN RELATION TO ITS STORES WHICH WERE MA DE OPERATIONAL DURING THE YEAR AT BANGALORE AND HYDERABAD. IN THE SAID CASE, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE DUAL STATUS TO THE EXPENDITURES I.E. AS CAPITAL IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A ND AS REVE NUE FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES. THE TRIBUNAL H AS HELD THAT SUCH VIEW OF AO COULD NOT BE UPHELD IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT TH E QUESTION THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A PARTICULAR DEDUCTION OR NOT WILL DEPEND ON THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING THERETO AND NOT ON THE VIEW WHICH THE ASSESSEE MIGHT TAKE OF HIS OWN RIGHTS; NOR CAN THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BE DECISIVE OR CONCLUSIVE IN THE MATTER. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT WHEN THE EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANSION OF BUSINESS WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AND WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE THEN THE SAME IS ALLOWA BLE AS REVENUE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH EXPENDITURE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTHARI AUTO PARTS MA NUFACTURERS PVT. LTD. (109 ITR 333) AND THE DECISION OF DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD. (103 ITR 715). IN THE CASE OF KOTHARI AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD.(SUPRA), THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD STARTED SELLING AUTO PARTS AND INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING OF AUTO PARTS. NOTING FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING R ELATED TO SAME BUSINESS AND MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY EMPOWERED THE COMPANY TO MANUFACTURE THE ITEMS 1273 /1 4 - R ELIANCE SUPPLY 5 IN WHICH IT WAS PERMITTED TO DEAL IN AND THUS THESE TWO ACTIVITIES WERE TWO SEPARATE STAGES OF THE SAME BUSINESS AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUS TIFIED IN ALLOWING THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. FURTHER THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THAT THE EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT BANGALORE WERE ALL OWABLE DESPITE THE FACT THAT UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT BANGALORE DID NOT START PRODUCTION AS THE NEW UNIT AT BANGALORE WAS NOTHING BUT EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS AND THERE WAS COMPLETE INTER - CONNECTION, INTER - LACING AND INTER - DEPENDENCE OF BOTH UN ITS. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO ON SIMILAR GROUND (ITA/6342/MUM/2013 - AY.2009 - 10,DATED 25.03.2015 )WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF T HE EARLIER AY.S.,SO, RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH AUGUST,2015. 13 TH , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( . , / D.MANMOHAN) ( / RAJENDRA) / VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, /DATE: 13 .08.2015 . . . JV . SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI.