V-TEX WVG & MFG MILLS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1393/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2133 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M B SANGHVI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3); 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1393/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) M/S. V - TEX WVG & MFG MILLS LTD. VS. D C I T 4(3)(2) OFFICE NO. A 313, AHURA CENTRE 82, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400093 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 PAN AABCV7931K APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI M.B. SANGHVI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VINOD KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 25.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.10.2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- 9, MUMBAI DATED 16.01.2015 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND DEALING IN TEXTILE GOODS, FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,39,79,566/-. TH E CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, 'THE ACT') VIDE ORD ER DATED 03.02.2014, WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED A T RS.1,62,01,223/- IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES: - (I) DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR VEHICLE ` 11,71,849/ - (II) DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ` 9,36,128/ - (III) ADDITION OF BOGUS PURCHASES ` 1,13,678/ - ITA NO. 1393/MUM/2015 M/S. V-TEX WVG & MFG MILLS LTD. 2 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2 011-12 DATED 03.02.2014 THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-9, MUMBAI, WHO DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 16.01.2015. 3. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A)-9, MUMBAI DATED 16.01.2015 FOR A.Y. 2011-12, HAS PREFERRED TH IS APPEAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N CLAIMED ON MOTOR CAR OF RS.11,71,849/- STATING THAT VEHICLES ARE NOT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY; 1.2 THAT THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE VEHI CLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; 2.1 THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOANS OF RS.9,36,1281 -TO NON-BANKING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON AC COUNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS; 2.2 THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT DEEMED TO BE A N ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX ON INTEREST PAID TO N ON-BANKING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS THE TAX ON THE SAID INTER EST HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE SAID FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS; 3.1 THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S. SHREE AMAAY A ENTERPRISES OF RS.1,13,678/- AS BOGUS PURCHASE MER ELY BECAUSE DELIVERY CHALLANS/LORRY RECEIPT OF RESPECTIVE PURCH ASES ARE NOT AVAILABLE; 3.2 THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PARTY IS GENUINE AND M ERELY BECAUSE DELIVERY CHALLANS OF CERTAIN BILLS ARE NOT AVAILABL E, THE SAID PURCHASES OUGHT NOT TO BE TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASE ; 4. THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GROUND THAT CREDIT FOR SELF ASSESSM ENT TAX PAID ON 27.09.2011 OF RS.9,96,790/- IS NOT ALLOWED; 4. GROUND NO. 4 : AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESSED SINCE THE GRIEVANCE RAISED THEREIN HAS SINCE BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER (AO); BY GIVING ITA NO. 1393/MUM/2015 M/S. V-TEX WVG & MFG MILLS LTD. 3 THE ASSESSEE FOR SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF ` 9,96,790/- PAID ON 27.09.2011. AS THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESSED, THE SAME IS DISMISSE D AS INFRUCTOUS. 5. GROUND NO. 1 (1.1 & 1.2): DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR 5.1 IN THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR AMOUNTING TO ` 11,71,849/- AS THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE CAR FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 6572/MUM/2013 DATE D 01.12.2015. 5.2 ON HIS POINT, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 5.2.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDING THE JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE OF THE ASSE SSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR WA S CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 6572/MUM/2013 DATED 01.12.2015, THE COORDINATE BENC H AT PARAS 2 AND 3 THEREOF HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEP RECIATION CLAIMED ON MOTOR VEHICLE WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED I N THE NAME OF THE COMPANY BUT WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECT OR. 3. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY US IN ITA NO. 6571/M/2013 WHEREIN WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION O F THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. PADMSHREE WEAVIN G & MFG. MILLS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 6570/M/2013 WHEREIN THE TRIBU NAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF ICDS LTD VS CIT 350 ITR 527. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING OUR OWN DE CISION, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5.2.2 FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE COORD INATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-1 1 (SUPRA), WHICH FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ICDS LTD. VS. ITA NO. 1393/MUM/2015 M/S. V-TEX WVG & MFG MILLS LTD. 4 CIT (350 ITR 527); WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE AS SESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 (2.1 & 2.2): DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) 6.1 IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID ON CAR LOANS AMOUNTING TO ` 9,36,128/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR N ON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, AS THE TAX ON THE SAID INTEREST HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE SAID NON-BANKING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED A ND ADJUDICATED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 6572/MUM/2013 DATED 01.12.2015 AND THERE FORE THE SAME DECISION WOULD APPLY IN THIS YEAR ALSO. 6.2.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED AND CA REFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENTS CITED. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED AND AD JUDICATED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 6572/MUM/2013 DATED 01.12.2015. IN THIS ORDER (SUPRA), AT PARAS 5 AND 6 THEREOF THE COORDINATE BE NCH CONSIDERED AND HELD AS UNDER: - 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEH EMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) HAS BEEN HELD TO BE DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE IN NATURE AND THEREFORE HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT BY THE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS DR. JAID EEP KUMAR SHARMA 34 ITR 0565 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS A NSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD IN ITA NO. 160 & 161 OF 2015. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THUS IF THE PAYEES HAVE OFFERED THE INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURN AND HAVE PAID THE TAXES, NO ADVER SE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE PAYER I.E. THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUN SEL. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM T HAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE PAYEES IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURNS AND HAVE PAID TAXES THEREON. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE IS SUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT ITA NO. 1393/MUM/2015 M/S. V-TEX WVG & MFG MILLS LTD. 5 OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AFTER GIVING FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6.2.2 FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 6572/MUM/ 2013 DATED 01.12.2015; WHEREIN IT FOLLOWED THE DECI SION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 160 & 161 OF 2015, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIM/HER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AFTER AFFORDING THE AS SESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FURNISH DETAILS I N SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE INTEREST PAID BY IT HAS BEEN DECLARED BY T HE PAYERS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME AND HAVE PAID TAXES TH EREON. IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUND NO. 3: ADDITION ON BOGUS PURCHASES 7.1 IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S. SHREE AM AAYA ENTERPRISES OF ` 1,13,678/- AS BOGUS PURCHASES MERELY BECAUSE THE DE LIVERY CHALLANS/ LORRY RECEIPTS OF THESE PURCHASES WERE NOT AVAILABL E. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED AND PLACED STRONG RELIA NCE ON THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BEFORE THE AO DATED 14.01.2014 AT PARA 6 .1 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH ARE EXTRACTED AT PARA 4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7.2 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED D.R. PLACED STRONG RELI ANCE ON THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS IS SUE. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONS IDERED AND DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES AS UNDER IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER: - 4.1 DURING THE COURSES OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS :- 'APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT, THEY ARE MANUFACTURER AND DEALERS IN TEXTILES. PURCHASES ARE MAINLY FROM LOCAL PARTIES. FABRIC IS CUT IN PIECES, EACH PIECES BEING OF EITHER 75 CENTIMETER. 80 CENTIMETER, ITA NO. 1393/MUM/2015 M/S. V-TEX WVG & MFG MILLS LTD. 6 ONE METER DEPENDING ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CUST OMER. EACH PIECE IS PACKED IN GELATIN PAPER BAG. AS PER THE RE QUIREMENT OF THE BUYER THESE PIECES ARE PACKED IN BUNDLE OF SAY 25 PIECES, 50 PIECES, 75 PIECES ,100 PIECES, ETC. IN BIGGER BAG O F EITHER SONATA BAG, KADIWALA BAG, MILLENNIUM BAG, NETWALI BAG, LAD IES BAG, ETC AND ARE DISPATCHED TO THE BUYER/AGENT. PURCHASES OF BAGS ARE REQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT IN REGULAR COURSE OF BUSI NESS. APPELLANT HAVE MADE PURCHASES OF THESE BAGS FROM SH REE AMAAYA ENTERPRISES. THE PAYMENTS FOR ALL PURCHASES ARE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHREE A MAAYA ENTERPRISES REFLECTING ENTRIES AND PAYMENT MADE WER E SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE APPELLANT. THE PURCHASES MADE FROM SHREE AMAAYA ENTERPRISES ARE RE CORDED IN THE BOOKS, PAYMENTS TO THEM ARE ALSO MADE BY ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUES. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2010-11, APPELLANT HAVE MA DE PURCHASES OF PACKING MATERIALS FROM SHREE AMAAYA EN TERPRISES OF RS.4,75,129/-. PHOTOCOPIES OF THE INVOICES ALONG WITH DELIVERY CHALLANS (WHEREVER READILY AVAILABLE)/TRANSPORT REC EIPT ISSUED BY THE ABOVE PARTY FOR THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THEM WE RE SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BILL W ISE DETAILS OF PURCHASES MADE FROM ABOVEMENTIONED PARTY ALONGWI TH THE DATES, QUANTITY (IN NOS.), RATE AND AMOUNT AS MENTI ONED IN THE PURCHASE BILLS WERE SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED PHOTOCOPIES OF RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS WHEREIN THE PAYMENTS MADE BY APPELL ANT TO THE SAID PARTY WERE REFLECTED. THE APPELLANT SUBMIT TED THE PROOF OF DELIVERY OF GOODS RECEIVED BY WAY OF DELIVERY CH ALLANS/ TRANSPORT RECEIPTS IN ALL THE CASES EXCEPT IN TWO C ASES OF PURCHASES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PARTLY DIS ALLOWED PURCHASES MADE FROM SHREE AMAAYA ENTERPRISES. SINCE THE PARTY IS GENUINE AND THE PURCHASES MADE FROM SHREE AMAAYA ENTERPRISES IS GENUINE, MERELY BECAUSE THE DELIVERY CHALLANS ARE NOT READILY AVAILABLE IN CASE OF TWO PURCHASES THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASE.' 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT CAREF ULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT MADE PURCHASES FROM M/S. DEV ENTERPRI SES AND SHREE AMAAYA ENTERPRISES FOR RS.1,96,687/- AND RS.4,75,12 9/- RESPECTIVELY. CERTAIN DETAILS OF THESE PURCHASES WERE CALLED FOR BY THE AO. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVIDE PROOF REGARDING DELIVERY OF GOODS AND DELIVERY CHAL LAN AND LORRY RECEIPTS WERE NOT FURNISHED IN SOME OF THE CASES. T OTAL PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF WHICH COMPLETE EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE FUR NISHED BY THE APPELLANT AMOUNTED TO RS.1,13,678/-. AS THE APPELLA NT FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,13,678/- EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE ME. I AM OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SAID PUR CHASES. IN VIEW OF ITA NO. 1393/MUM/2015 M/S. V-TEX WVG & MFG MILLS LTD. 7 THIS AND FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE ADDITION MADE IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7.3.2 AFTER A CAREFUL APPRECIATION OF THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS AND THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS EMANATE FROM THEI R ORDERS, WE FIND THAT APART FROM RAISING THESE GROUNDS AND RELYING ON SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO B RING ON RECORD ANY PROOF TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO/LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASE D BY IT FROM SHREE AMAAYA ENTERPRISES AMOUNTING TO ` 1,13,678/-. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO/LEARNED CIT(A) AND THEREFORE UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011- 12 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED:28 TH OCTOBER, 2016 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -9, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 4, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.