KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 1 THANE, PUNE

ITA 1312/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4272 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL K JHADR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBODH RATNAPARKHI; SUNIL U PATH AK
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 153A; 80IB; 263; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2008-2009 & 2009-10 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA PROP: M/S HEMAL BUILDERS, 4 A-9, SIDDHI GROUP, LAKE CITY MALL, KAPURWADI JUNCTION, MAJIWADE NAKA, THANE (W)-400607 / VS. CIT - CENTRAL, ROOM NO.309, C WING, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE-411037 PAN NO. AGLPG2012M ( / ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) / ASSESSEE BY SHRI SUNIL U. PATHAK & SHRI SUBODH RATNAPARKHI / REVENUE BY SHRI SUNIL K. JHA-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 04/04/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 05/04/2016 ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) BOTH THESE APPEAL ARE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BOTH DATED 26/12/2011 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, CHALLENGING INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTIONAL U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80I B(10) OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.8,02,85,320/- (A.Y.2008-09 ) AND RS.9,95,748/- (A.Y. 2009-10) IN RESPECT OF PROFITS ARISING FROM HOUSING PROJECT. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SUNIL U. PATHAK ALONG WITH SHRI SUBO DH RATNAPARKHI, CONTENDED THAT THE ELIGIBLE HOUSING PR OJECT WAS CONSISTED OF BUILDING C (OCHANA) AND D (ALLAMAN DA) AND FOUR THE OTHER BUILDINGS, NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, MEANING THERE BY, THE OTHER BUILDINGS NOT PART OF ELIGIBLE PROJECT AND TH E ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE S ECTION. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE LAY O UT PLAN WAS FOR THE ENTIRE LAND, WHICH WAS COMMON FOR VARIO US BUILDINGS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TERM HOUSING PRO JECT MEANT ALL THE BUILDINGS MENTIONED IN THE LAY OUT PL ANS. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT THE ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE A ND WENT TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE WHICH FAVOURS THE ASSESSEE, HAS TO BE ADOPTED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE BUILDING, WHI CH WAS ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 3 COMMERCIAL USE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM U/S 80IB(10). OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 58 OF T HE PAPER BOOK AND PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH PAGE 30. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER A FTER DUE EXAMINATION OF FACTS ALLOWED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE-3, PARA 10. 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SIDDHI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS VS CIT (ITA NOS. 2630 TO 2635/MUM/2012) ORDER DATED 13/05/2014, MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT VS MAX INDIA LTD. 295 I TR 282 (SC). ON THE ISSUE OF CLUSTER OF BUILDINGS FROM O UT OF LARGE LAYOUT AND ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) O F THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION I N CIT VS VANDANA PROPERTIES 353 ITR 36 (BOM.), DCIT VS KARUN AL P. GALA (ITA NO.7724/MUM/2010) ORDER DATED 03/08/2012, MADHUR M. GUPTA VS ACIT (51 DTR 217)(MUM.)(2011), DCIT VS MAGARPATTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION CO. 141 ITD 682 (PUNE)(2012), M/S RAHU L CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS ITO (ITA NO.1250/PN/2009 AN D 707/PN/2010) ORDER DATED 30/03/2012 OF THE PUNE BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL, ITO VS COSMOS ENTERPRISES (ITA NO.6744/MUM/2010) ORDER DATED 15/10/2013, ACIT VS COSMOS REALTORS & ORS. (ITA NO.5360/MUM/2010) ORDER DATED 28/02/2014 AND CBDT NOTIFICATION NO.205/3/2001/ITA II DATED 04/05/2011. FURTHER THE LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT FOR THE PROJECTS APPROVED PR IOR TO ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 4 31/03/2005, THE RESTRICTION OF COMMERCIAL AREA IMPO SED BY SUB-SECTION (D) TO SECTION 80IB(10) IS NOT APPLICAB LE, FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION IN CIT VS SARKAR BUILDERS (119 DTR 241)(2015)(SC) AND CIT VS BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (333 ITR 289) (BOM.)(2011). 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI SUNIL K. JHA, DEFENDED THE INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION BY INVITING OUT ATTENTION TO PAGE-3 (PARA-7) OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTIONS 80IB(10) AND THE REMAINING BUILDINGS ARE PART OF THE SAME PROJECTS, THEREFORE, IT IS A SINGLE PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS I N SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IF THE OB SERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSER TIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF KEPT IN JUXT APOSITION AND ANALYZED, THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT M/S GAL A LIFESTYLE SIDDHI GROUP, AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERC IAL PROJECT AT THANE. SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION WAS CA RRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE ACT AT GALA SHARMA SIDDHI GROUP OF CASES ON 28/08/2008 AND SIMULTANEOUSLY SURVEY U/S 1 33A WAS CONDUCTED AT VARIOUS BUSINESS PREMISES OF GROUP ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 5 ENTITIES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED U/S 132 OF THE ACT AS THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESID ENTIAL PREMISES AT 401, PRINCE PALACE, THANE ON 28/08/2008 . SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSIN ESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT B-103 ALLMANDA, PRIDE P ARK, THANE (W) AND A-WING, NORITA BUILDING, PRIDE PARK, THANE (W). NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 16/07/2009 TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 17/08/2009, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,63,000/-, AFTER CLAIMING RS.1,05,29,951/- AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, VI DE LETTER DATED 11/11/2010, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, AUDIT REPORT U/S 44A B(IN FORM 3CB AND 3CD) ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSURE. THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED/SERVED NOTICE U/S 143(2) D ATED 20/08/2009. ANOTHER NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) A LONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE ON 22/10/2010. THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO AFORESAID NOTICES, ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED NECESSARY DETAILS AS IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 4 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROJ ECT NAMELY PRIDE PARK PHASE-II AND PHASE-III AND CHIT HALSAR, MANPADA, THANE(W). THE ASSESSEE PREPARED SEPARATE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WITH RESPECT TO SALES EFFECTED FROM PHASE-II FOR OCHANA AND ALLMANDA BUILDINGS. IN A SEPARATE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PROFIT OF ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 6 RS.1,02,85,320/- AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DULY EXAMINED THE EVIDENC ES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BASES OF CLAIM AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 80I B(10) OF THE ACT AND ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS I S OOZING OUT PARA 10.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR READY RE FERENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 10.2. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR SALES WERE AFFECTED FROM PHASE-II FOR OCHANA AND ALLAMANDA BUILDINGS. A SEPARATE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HAS BEE N PREPARED AND A NET PROFIT OF RS.8,02,85,320/- WAS DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED THIS PROFIT AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE CASE HAS BEEN EXAMINE D ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS FOUND THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN U/S 80IB(10) ARE SATISFIED AND FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IS ACCEPTABLE. 2.3. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE AFFECTED SALES OF PARKING U NITS OF PHASE-I (NORITA OF PRIDE PARK) FOR WHICH SEPARATE P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,15,000/- WAS ALSO CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 80I B(10), WHICH WAS DENIED AS DEDUCTION WITH A REASONING AS I S EVIDENT FROM PARA 11 TO 11.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND THEREAFTER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 7 2.4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE EASILY INFERRED THA T THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT FRAMED IN A MECHANICAL MAN NER AND WAS PASSED AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND AND ON APPRECIATION OF FACTS, CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.5. NOW, WE SHALL ANALYZE, INVOCATION OF REVISION AL JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER, WHERE IN, THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB(10) OF THE ACT ARE ENUMERATED HEREUNDER:- A. THE HOUSING PROJECT INCLUDED SHOPS AND COMMERCIAL E STABLISHMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 17,445 SQ. FT. WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY LIMIT AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO C LAIM THE DEDUCTION. B. THE HOUSING PROJECT COMPRISED OF BUILDINGS A, B, C, D, E AND F AND SINCE SOME OF THE BUILDINGS WERE COMPLETED AFTER 31 ST MARCH, 2008, THE CONDITION OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WAS NOT FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT AND HENCE, THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT. C. THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE ELIGIBLE PROJECT PRID E PARK II CONSISTED OF BUILDINGS C (OCHANA) AND D (ALLAMANDA) WAS NOT J USTIFIED AND THE PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 801B(10) MEANT ALL THE BUILDINGS PROPOSED IN THE LAYOUT PLAN. D. THE ENTIRE LAND UNDER DEVELOPMENT AT CHITALSAR-MANP ADA, THANE, ON WHICH SEVERAL BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED CONSTITUTE D A SINGLE PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 801B(10) OF THE I. TAX ACT. E. THE THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAD ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT COMPRISED OF BUILDINGS A, B. C, D, E AND F AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ELIGIBLE HOUSING PRO JECT CONSISTED ONLY OF BUILDINGS C AND D ONLY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2.6. IF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER ARE ANALYZED WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 8 APPEAL, THE LD. CIT IGNORED THE FACTUAL MATRIX THAT THE ELIGIBLE HOUSING PROJECT, FOR WHICH CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS MADE, WERE CONSISTING OF BU ILDING C (OCHANA) AND D (ALLAMANDA) AND THE REMAINING BUILDI NGS WERE NOT PART OF THE ELIGIBLE PROJECT. IT IS ALSO N OTEWORTHY THAT EVEN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFICALL Y MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SECT ION WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO BUILDINGS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION, SIMPLY, BECAUSE, THE LAYOUT PLAN WAS ENTIRE LAND WHICH WAS COMMON FOR VA RIOUS BUILDINGS BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT FOR THE REMAINI NG BUILDINGS, NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO INCLUDE BUILDINGS, A, B, E AND F AS PART OF THE PROJECT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS, THE LETTER FROM THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THANE, IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOT RELEVA NT BECAUSE FOR THE REMAINING BUILDING, NO DEDUCTION WAS CLAIME D U/S 80IB(10) BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.7. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2 005- 06, VIDE ORDER DATED 03/08/2012 (ITA NO.7724/MUM/ 2010) IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA G ALA (PRESENT ASSESSEE) ON THE ISSUE OF EXISTENCE OF COM MERCIAL AREA IN THE HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED PRIOR TO 01/04 /2005 AND CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) DISMISSED THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER I S REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 9 THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 13-8-2010, PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-II, THANE FOR THE Q UANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005- 2006 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXISTENCE OF COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE HOUSIN G PROJECT APPROVED PRIOR TO 01/04/2005 CANNOT COME IN THE WAY OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT PRIDE PARK OF THE ASSESSEE IS EL IGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ON STAND ALONE BASIS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN HOLDING THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION ON COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING PROJECT THR OUGH ITS PROPRIETORY CONCERN M/S HEMAL BUILDERS. THE SAID FIRM HAS DEVELOPED A CLUSTER OF BUILDINGS AT VILLAGE CHITALS AR-MANPADA, DISTRICT THANE. THE SAID CLUSTER OF BUILDING INCLUD ES ONE BUILDING PRIDE PLAZA WHICH HOUSES COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT S AND OTHER BUILDINGS WERE FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS/\ UNDER THE PR OJECT NAME PRIDE PARK. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN A NET PROFIT OF RS.12 ,89,205/- ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.49,96,960/- WHICH INCLUDES GAINS ON TRA NSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF RS.10,00,000/- WHICH WAS SEPA RATELY SHOWN AS NET PROFIT. ON THE BALANCE SALES OF UNSOLD FLATS OF PHASE I OF THE HOUSING PROJECT PRIDE PARK, AMOUNTING TO RS.39,96 ,960/-, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, A NET PROFIT OF RS.12 ,89,205/- WAS WORKED OUT AND HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SEC TION 80IB(10). ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 10 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE APPROVED PLAN OF HOUSING PROJECT PHASE 1 OF THE PRIDE PARK, THE COMMERCIAL UNITS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND SOL D ALONG WITH THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS HAVING AREA OF 1598 SQ.MT THE ASS ESSEES CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN THAT BOTH THE PROJECTS WERE INDEPENDENT A ND DISTINCT EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE COVERED UNDER THE SAME SANCTIONED PLAN OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. BOTH PROJECTS WERE LOCATED AT A DISTANCE AND THE ACCOUNT OF BOTH THE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY MAINTAINED. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAIL SUBM ISSION HIGHLIGHTING THE PROJECT WORK DETAILS, ACCOUNTS FOR BOTH THE PROJECTS WHICH WERE SEPARATELY MAINTAINED, PURCHASE BILLS OF MATERIAL, WHICH WERE SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED AND THE AGREEMENTS FOR S ALE OF PREMISES IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PROJECTS. THE SAID SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE CIT(A) FROM PAGE 4 TO 10 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS COUNTS , FIRSTLY, THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005; SECONDLY, ON THE FACT, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE COMMERCIAL A REA OF THE PROJECT PRIDE PARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY CLAIM UNDER SEC TION 80IB(10), HENCE, THERE WAS NO POINT OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH CLAIM BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB (10) PERTAINS PURELY FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH SATISFIED ALL T HE CONDITIONS AND THIRDLY, THE ASSESSEES CASE, OTHERWISE ALSO, IS CO VERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES , AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, LIKE M/S. SAROJ SALES CORPORATION VS. ITO, REPORTED IN 3 DTR (TRIB.)(MUM) 494. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT TH IS ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 11 CASE OF CIT VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES, REPORTED IN (201 1) 333 ITR 289, WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS BEEN UPHELD. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED SENIOR DR FAIRLY AGREED THAT TH E ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 5. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT ON THE FACTS OF TH E CASE ITSELF, AS HELD BY THE CIT(A), THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWING THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT APPROVAL WAS GRANTED FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES TOGETHER. IN FA CT, THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED TWO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I B(10) ONLY IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. FURTHER, THERE IS N O OTHER ALLEGATION THAT VARIOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTIO N 80IB(10) DOES NOT FULFILL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN ANY CASE, TH IS ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT EXISTENCE OF COMMERCIAL UNITS IN A PROJECT COMMENCE D AND COMPLETED PRIOR TO 01-04-2005, WILL NOT HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPA CT ON THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). IN THIS CASE, IT IS AN UND ISPUTED FACT THAT HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN COMMENCED ON 23.1.2003 AND WAS COMPLETED ON 12-2-2004 I.E. MUCH BEFORE 1-4-2005. T HUS, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT F IND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IS ACCO RDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS D ISMISSED. 2.8. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER WHILE COMING TO A PARTICULAR CONCLUSION, THE BENCH DULY ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 12 CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES AND OTHER DECISION LIKE M/S SAROJ SALES CORPORATION AND FURTH ER WHICH WAS DULY AFFIRMED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN CIT VS BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (2011) 333 ITR 28 9, HOLDING THAT EXISTENCE OF COMMERCIAL UNITS IN A PRO JECT COMMENCED AND COMPLETED PRIOR TO 01/04/2005 WILL NO T HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB(10), THUS, FROM THIS ANGLE, THE ASSESSEE IS HA VING A CASE IN ITS FAVOUR. 2.9. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION IN SIDDHI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS VS CI T (ITA NO.2630 TO 2635/MUM/2012) ORDER DATED 13/05/2014 AN D CIT VS VANDANA PROPERTIES (2012) 353 ITR 36 (BOM.) AND VARIOUS DECISIONS (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESS EE. 2.10. IF THE ISSUE OF SECTION 263 IS ANALYZED WITH THE HELP OF VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, THE LANDMARK DECIS ION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IS MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LT D. VS CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); (2000) 109 TAXMAN 66 (S C) HOLDING THAT BEFORE INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S 263 O F THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT IF THE REVENUE IS LOSING TAX LAWFULLY PAY ABLE BY A PERSON, IT WILL BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. HOWEVER, EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ORDER ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 13 OF ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE REVENUE. 2.11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE DATED 11/10/2010 (PAGE 26 OF THE PAPERBOOK) TO THE ASSESS EE, WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18/10/2010 (PA GES 27 & 28 OF THE PAPERBOOK). IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT BEFORE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE A SSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 20/12/2010, (PAGE 29 TO 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK), ADDRESSED TO THE LD. DCIT, FURNISHED THE FOL LOWING REPLY:- TO, THE DEPUTY, COMM. OF I.TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE IN THE MATTER OF KUNAL PRAVIN GALA PROP: M/S HEMAL BUILDERS, ASSESSMENT YEARS; 2008-09 TO 2009-10 P.A. NO.;AGLPG 2012M RESPECTED SIR, I HAVE VIDE MY LETTER DT. 18.10.2010 EXPLAINED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) VIS-A-VIS THE VARIOUS PHASES OF THE PROJECT PRIDE PARKAT GHODBUNDER ROAD, THANE. IN SUPPORT O F MY CLAIM FOR THE SAID DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PHASE II OF THE PR OJECT, I SUBMIT THE NECESSARY EXPLANATION SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES AS UND ER:- (I) NAME OF THE HOUSING PROJECT & LOCATION PRIDE PARK PHASE II BUILDINGS NAMES OCHNA & ALLAMANDA OPP. LAWKIM, GHODBUNDER ROAD, THANE (II) AREA OF PROJECT PLOT OF 7293 SQ. MTRS (LAYOUT OF TH E PLOT ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 14 PHASE II ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE A) (III) DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OCHNA -28.4.2006 ALLAMANDA- 05.03.2004/29.03.2007 (COPY OF COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES FROM TMC ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE B1 TO B3 (IV) DATE OF COMPLETION OCHANA-19.06.2007 ALLAMANDA-24.08.2007 (OCCUPATION CERTIFICATES FROM TMC ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE C1 TO C2) (V) BUILT UP AREA OF UNITS LESS THAN 1000 SQ. FEET. (A S PER STATEMENT GIVING FLAT WISE BUILT UP AREA ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE D1 TO D2) (VI) COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT NIL-ENTIRE PROJECT IS RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT (VII) LAYOUT PLAN COPY OF LAYOUT PLAN SANCTIONED BY TMC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE E APART FROM THE ABOVE, I SUBMIT THAT I HAVE MAINTAIN ED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS GIVING PHASE WISE DETAILS OF INCOME AND EX PENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY THE PHASE WISE PROFIT OF THE PROJECT CA N BE COMPUTED. THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ALSO PROVIDE THE E XACT PHASE WISE PROFIT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PHASES DISTINCTLY. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND NECESSARY AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. A COPY OF THE LAYOUT PLAN SANCTIONED BY THE TMC FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 'OCHNA' & 'ALLAMANDA' IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE 'E'. IN THE SAID REGARDS, WE CLARIFY THAT AS PER THE REG ULATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. IT IS MANDATORY TO REFLECT E XISTING BUILDINGS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED ON ANY PLAN PUT UP FOR NEW CONS TRUCTION. IT IS ACCORDINGLY THE CASE THAT THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED B UILDINGS I.E. TYPE B (PRIDE PLAZA) AND TYPE A (NORITA) ARE ALSO REFLEC TED IN FIGURED DIMENSIONS I.E. SHADED COLOUR AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT B UILDING B 1 HAVING AREA OF ONLY 945 SQ. MTRS, THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS O F WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD BY ME IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-0 6 IS ALSO REFLECTED ON THE SAID PLAN INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID BUILDING IS ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 15 NOT PART OF MY PROJECT 'PRIDE PARK' AND IS CONSTRUC TED BY A THIRD PARTY. A CERTIFICATE FROM ARCHITECT, M/S. ARCHETYPE CONSULTATIONS (1) LTD. CONFIRMING THE ABOVE FACT IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE 'F'. I FURTHER CLARIFY THAT THE V.P.NO. FOR EACH PLOT IS COMMON AND THE SAME NUMBER CONTINUES IN THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICA TE ALWAYS. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT ALL SUBSEQUENT BUILDING SAN CTIONS ARE TERMED AS AMENDED PERMISSIONS BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THIS IS AS PER THE PROCEDURE OF MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.-80IB-{-W) ARE CONCERNED, .THE ONLY REQUIREM ENT IS THAT-THE PROJECT FOR. WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 80LB (10) IS CLAIMED COMPLIES WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE SAID SECTION. I F URTHER SUBMIT THAT A 'PLOT OF LAND' IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A 'PROJEC T' REFERRED TO U/S 80LB (L0) OF THE LT. ACT. A PLOT OF LAND IS A WIDER TERM WITH A SPECIFIC PROJECT BEING LIMITED TO A BUILDING OR CLU STER OF BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED ON SUCH PLOT OF LAND WHICH MAY HAVE OTH ER BUILDING/S ALSO AS SEPARATE PROJECT/S. THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF THANE ARE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT. 2.12. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS ARE ANALYZED, WE AR E SATISFIED THAT REQUISITE DETAILS WERE DULY FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW, THAT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LACK OF ENQUIR Y AND INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSES SING OFFICER COLLECTED NECESSARY DETAILS, EXAMINED THE S AME AND THEN FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A SITUATION THE DECISION FROM HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA (2 011) 335 ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 16 ITR 83 (DEL.)(SUPRA), CLEARLY COMES TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE . THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER :- HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE PRESENT CASE WOULD NOT BE ONE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY EVEN IF THE ENQUIRY WAS TERMED INADEQUATE. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT HE APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND FACT, ALTHOUGH SUCH APPLICATION OF MIND WAS NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 ALSO HAD ALL THESE DETAILS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM BUT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT DEFECTS CONCLUSIVELY IN THE MATERIAL, FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION THAT PARTICULAR INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT AND THE ORDER OF REVISION WAS NOT VALID. 2.13. THE AFORESAID ORDER CLEARLY FITS INTO THE FA CTS BEFORE US . WHILE COMING TO THE AFORESAID CONCLUSIO N THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DULY CONSIDERED THE DECISION IN CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (DEL.) (PARA-6 & 7). WE ARE EXPECTED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INVESTIGATED THE ISSUE AND APPLIED HIS MIND TOW ARDS THE WHOLE RECORD MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. UNCONTROVERTEDLY, NECESSARY DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED BY THE ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 17 ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF L ACK OF ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IDENTICAL RATIO W AS LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE GAS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. VS. CIT (2014) 1 00 DTR (MUM.) (TRB.) 1 , ORDER DATED 10/1/2014. IN ANOTHER CASE FROM HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LIMITED (2010) 323 ITR 206 , ON IDENTICAL FACT WHEREIN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING ALL DETAILS CALLED FOR AND FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER INVOKED REVISIONAL JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT ENQUIRY WAS NOT CON DUCTED, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE LD. COMMISSION ER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IDENTICAL IS THE SITUATION FROM HON'BLE HIGH COURT PUNJAB & HARYANA IN HARI IRON TRADING COMPANY VS. CIT (263 ITR 437) ORDER DATED 23/5/2003 . THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIT VS. EICHER (294 ITR 310) (DEL .) WHEREIN THE ENTIRE MATERIAL WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL AND ACCEPTED THE VIEW CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MER E FACT ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 18 THAT HE DID NOT EXPRESS THIS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, CANNOT BE A GROUND TO CONCLUDE THAT INCOME HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT, FURTHER SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE. IDENTICALLY, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIT VS. ASHISH RAJPAL (320 ITR 674) VIDE ORDER DT.14/5/2009, DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (203 ITR 108) HELD THAT THERE MUST BE MATERIAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER TO S ATISFY HIMSELF THAT TWO REQUISITE PROVIDED U/S. 263 ARE PR ESENT, OTHERWISE POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED AT THE WHIMS AN D CAPRICE OF THE COMMISSIONER. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THE FACTUAL FINDING RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (REPRODUCE D HEREINABOVE) BEFORE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT AND ARE SATISFIED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER MADE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES, ASKED FOR DETAILS, WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATI ON MADE BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AS HAS BEEN ALLEGED IN THE REVISIONAL ORDER. 2.14. ADMITTEDLY, AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACT OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WOULD SATISFY THE REQU IREMENT OF ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 19 ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS U/S. 263. THE PHRASE PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE U/S. 263, HAS TO BE RE AD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXPRESSION ERRONEOUS ORDER B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER . EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONS EQUENCE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE TERMED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE . MEANING THEREBY PREJUDICE M UST BE PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE ADMINISTRATION. AT THE SAM E TIME, IF ANOTHER VIEW IS POSSIBLE REVISION IS NOT PERMISS IBLE. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION FROM HIMACHAL PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPN. (186 TAXMANN 105)(HP), BISMILLAH T RADING CO. (248 ITR 292)(KER.) AND CIT VS. GREEN WORLD COR PN. (314 ITR 81)(SC) . FOR INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S. 263 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MUST CONTAIN GRIEVOUS ERROR WH ICH IS SUBVERSIVE OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF REVENUE . FURTH ER, EXACT ERROR MUST BE DISCLOSED BY THE COMMISSIONER AS WAS HELD IN CIT VS. G.K. KABRA (211 ITR 336)(AP) . TOTALITY OF FACTS, CLEARLY INDICATES THAT ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF TH E ACT WAS FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER OBTAINING NEC ESSARY DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE SAME WERE EXAMINED BY HIM. THEREFORE, EVEN IF, THE SAME HAS N OT BEEN ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 20 SPELT ELABORATELY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY OR PREJUDICE HAS BE EN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED VARIOUS CASE L AWS IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO T HE FACTS BEFORE US. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT FROM HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER HOLDING THAT INVOKING OF REVISIONS JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IN BOTH THE ASSESS MENT YEARS, BEING THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SAME, IS NOT WIT HIN THE PARAMETER OF LAW, THEREFORE, DECIDE THE APPEALS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 04/04/2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 05/04/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& '( / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) ITA NO.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 KRUNAL PRAVINCHANDRA GALA 21 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. + + , ( %& ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. + + , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. /01 )2 , + %& %23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 14 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, */& ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI