ITO 6(1)(3), MUMBAI V. INDRRANI MUKERJEA, MUMBAI

ITA 1511/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83516 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation; Salary income; Commercial expediency
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH ES I MUMBAI , , ! BEFORE S.SH.VIJAY PAL RAO,JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJEN DRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1511/MUM/2011 ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.1690/MUM/2011 ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) ) * / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA '+, '+, '+, '+, * * * * / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK RAO ' ' ' ' ) )) ) ,- ,- ,- ,- / DATE OF HEARING : 21/08/2014 ./# ) ,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/08/2014 PER RAJENDRA,AM ' ' ' ' : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.06.12.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-1 4,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAVE FILED CROSS APPEALS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION.THE AO HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 69, 66,870/- U/S. 68 IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM HUSBAND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED I IGNORING THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS CITED IN THIS CONTEXT: ROSHAN D. HATTJ VS. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANJF VS. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (S C) RASTOGI VS. ACIT (57 LTD 295) CIT VS. M. GANAPATHI MUDALIAR (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC ) A. GOVINDARAJULU MUDALIAR VS. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) B. LAL CHAND KAIRA VS. CIT REPORTED IN 22 CTR (P&H) 135 & C. SHRI CHAIN SUKH RATHI VS. CIT REPORTED IN 185 CT R 56 (RAJASTHAN). 3.THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ITA NO.1690/MUM/201-ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08: GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,READ AS UND ER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ITO 6(1)(3), R. NO. 508, 5TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.MARG, MUMBAI-400020 VS MRS. INDRANI MUKERJEA, 18-MARLOW, 62-B, POCHKANWALA ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400025 PAN:AITPM6588N MRS. INDRANI MUKERJEA, APT.18, 4TH FLOOR, MARLOW, 62-B, POCHKANWALA ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400025 PAN:AITPM6588N VS ITO 6(1)(3), R. NO. 508, 5TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.MARG, MUMBAI-400020 ITA NO.1511 & 1690/MUM/2011 MRS. INDRANI MUKERJEA 2 UPHOLDING THE VIEW OF THE AO IN TREATING THE OFFICE RENOVATION EXPENSES OF RS.7,91,228/- AS BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE AND THEREBY DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS.7,12,106/- OUT OF THE SAME. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER THE A BOVE GROUND OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING. 2. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2007DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 73,05,249/-.THE AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143 (3) OF THE ACT,ON 24.12.2009 ,DETERMINING HER TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,58,52,700/-. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO,AMOUNTING TO RS.69,66,8701- U/S.68 OF THE ACT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR,THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS TOTALING TO R S.36,00,000/- FROM HER HUSBAND,THAT A PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AT GOA IN THE JOINT NAMES OF ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.33,66,8701-.HE CALLED FOR DETAILS FROM THE ASSES SEE IN THIS REGARD,INCLUDING THE COPY OF BALANCE-SHEET,CAPITAL A/C OF THE DONOR CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR TO GIVE GIFT OF RS.69,66, 870/-.VIDE HER LETT ER DATED 18.12.2009 SHE STATED THAT HER HUSBAND HAD NOT PREPARED HIS BALANCE SHEET & CAPITAL ACCOUN T, THAT GIFTS WERE GIVEN TO HER ON VARIOUS DATES WITHOUT ANY PARTICULAR OCCASION IN MIND.SHE F ILED GIFT CONFIRMATION AND COPY OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF GOA PROPERTY BEFORE THE AO,ALONG WITH THE COPY OF PASSPORT OF HER HUSBAND AND THE COPY OF HIS BANK STATEMENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE D OCUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE,THE AO HELD THAT IN THIS CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE WAS NEITHER ANY OCCASION FOR GIVING THE GIFT NOR THE BALANCE SHEET OR CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03. 2007 OF THE D ONOR HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT AVAILABILITY OF BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE DONOR AS ON DATE OF GIFT WAS NOT KNOWN,THAT IT WAS NOT PROPER ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND THAT THE DONOR HAD NOT PREPARED BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT,THAT GIFT CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE DONOR WAS NO A VERY SIMPLE PLAIN PAPER,THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS VERY HIGH. FINALLY,HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT BY NOT PRODUCING THE DONORS BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT,THAT AN ADDITION OF RS. 69,66,870/- HAD TO BE MADE,U/S.68 OF THE ACT,TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1511 & 1690/MUM/2011 MRS. INDRANI MUKERJEA 3 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA).IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT TH E DONOR WAS STATUTORILY NOT REQUIRED TO PREPARE A BALANCE-SHEET,THAT THE DONOR HAD INCOME U NDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS:INCOME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES,THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROF ESSION,THAT THE DONOR WAS IN POSITION TO PRODUCE THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT O F THE DONOR, THAT DURING THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT,THAT SHE HAD SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION OF G IFTS, COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THE DONOR SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,13,03,978/-FOR A.Y. 20 07-08,THAT COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTING THE AMOUNT GIFTED AND THE COPY OF PURC HASE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY PURCHASED AT GOA WERE FILED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,HE HELD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED GIFTS WORTH RS.36,00,000/-FROM HER HUSBAND, THAT A PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AT GOA, IN THE JOINT NAMES O F THE APPELLANT (FIRST HOLDER) AND HER HUSBAND FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.33,66,870/-,THAT THE PAYMENT WA S MADE BY HER HUSBAND,THAT THE AO HAD TREATED BOTH THE GIFTS AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED FOR WA NT OF COPY OF DONORS BALANCE-SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT,THAT FROM THE DETAILS OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED FOR A.Y. 2007-08 BY HER HUSBAND IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE GROSS INCOME HAD BEEN SHOWN AT RS.8, 13,03,978/- AND PAID TOTAL TAX OF RS.2,73,30,664/-,THAT SHE HAD ALSO FILED SALARY CER TIFICATE, FORM NO.16 OF HER HUSBAND,THAT THE SALARY CERTIFICATE CONFIRMED THE ABOVE FACTS,THAT T HE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS OF THE DONORS ALSO CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT MADE TO HIS WIFE,THAT IT WAS NOT VERY MATERIAL THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF THE GIFT WAS FURNISHED BY THE DONOR WAS ON PLAIN PAPER, THAT SHE HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR,SOURCE OF THE GIFTS AMOUNT AS WELL AS GENUIN ENESS OF THE GIFT TRANSACTION,THAT ANY SPECIAL OCCASION WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR MAKING GIFTS BETWEEN HUSBAND & WIFE,THAT THEY COULD MAKE GIFTS TO EACH OTHER AT ANY TIME THEY WISHED, THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO TREATING THE GIFTS AS UNEXPLAINED AND CONSEQUENTLY, MAKING THE ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT WAS UNJUSTIFIED.ACCORDINGLY,HE DELETED THE ITA NO.1511 & 1690/MUM/2011 MRS. INDRANI MUKERJEA 4 ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS COUNT. 4. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE AO.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND STATED THAT NECESSARY DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO,THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT.HE REFERRED TO THE PAGES NO.53- 59,80-86 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED BALANCE-SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF HER HUSBAND AND BECAUSE THE GIFT DEED WAS MADE ON A PLA IN PAPER.HE WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESS EE TO MAKE GIFT.IN OUR OPINION THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO IS NEITHER LOGICAL NOR LEGAL.ACT DOES NOT ENVISAGE THAT FOR MAKING SO CALLED HIGH AMOUNT GIFTS THERE SHOULD BE SPECIAL PAPER OR SPECIAL PERF ORMA.WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE LAW IS LEGAL CONFIRMATION.THE AO HAD NOT DOUBTED THE AUTHENTICIT Y OF THE GIFT DEED OR THE CONTENT OF THE DEED. HIS OBJECTION IS THE QUALITY OF PAPER.IN OUR OPINIO N,TAX LIABILITY CANNOT BE FASTENED TO AN ASSESSEE BECAUSE A DOCUMENT IS PRESENTED BY HIM IS ON A PLAI N PAPER.IT IS THE CONTENT OF THE DOCUMENT AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT DECIDE T HE ISSUE.AO HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT BOTH THESE ELEMENTS WERE MISSING.SO,IN OUR OPINION FAA HAD RIG HTLY REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED BANK ACC OUNT,COPY OF RETURN FILED BY HER HUSBAND SHOWING INCOME OF RS.8.13 CRORES.IF THE AO HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR HE COULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES.BUT,HE DID NOT PR OCEED FURTHER.BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR,HIS RETURN OF INCOME LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT HE HAD CAPACIT Y TO MAKE GIFTS.THUS,HIS CREDITWORTHINESS IS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT.HIS ENDORSEMENT OF GIFT PROVE T HE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION.FINALLY,WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THE FAA THAT NO OC CASION IS REQUIRED FOR THE SPOUSES TO MAKE GIFTS.CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY. ITA NO.1511 & 1690/MUM/2011 MRS. INDRANI MUKERJEA 5 THEREFORE,CONFIRMING HIS ORDER WE DE CIDE GROUND 1-2 OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. ITA NO.1690/MUM/201-ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08: 6. THE ONLY GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT TREATING THE OFFICE RENOVATION EXPENSES OF RS,7,91,2281-AS CAPITAL IN NATURE.DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED OFFICE RENOVATION EXPENSES OF RS.7.91 LAKHS IN THE P&L A/C.HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT MOST OF THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR RENOVATION OF OFFICE PREMISES,THAT THE RENOVATION WAS OF AN ENDURING NATURE.SO,HE ASKED TH E ASSESSEE,VIDE HIS LETTER DTD. 11.12.2009,AS TO WHY THE ABOVE EXPENDITURES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE.IN REPLY,THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WERE NOT CAPITAL IN NATURE AND HENCE HAD BEEN DEBITED TO P&L A/C.BUT, THE AO FINALLY HELD THAT THE RENOVATION WAS OF AN E NDURING NATURE,THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE,AMOUNTING TO RS.7.91 LAKHS HAD TO BE DISAL LOWED TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. HOWEVER,HE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION 10% TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE OF RS.7,12,106/-[RS. 7,91,228/-(-)79,122/-]WAS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA CLAIMING TH AT THE EXPENDITURE WAS REVENUE IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF DALMIA J AM AND CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1971), 81 ITR 754 (SUPREME COURT), CIT. VS. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 108 ITR 176 (BORN) 1977, AND CIT VS J. K. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 125 ITR 218 (CAL.).SHE ALSO FU RNISHED COPIES OF BILLS/VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE.AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE,THE FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GONE UN DER A MAJOR REPAIR WORK OF THE BUSINESS PREMISES,THAT THE BILLS RAISED WERE ALSO OF THE HIG H AMOUNT,THAT THE REPAIR WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF AN ENDURING NATURE.HE REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS OF M.N.DUSTUR AND CO. LTD. VS. DCIT (ITAT, BANG) 62 LTD 113, HUMAYUN PROPERTIES LT D. VS. CIT (CAL) 44 ITR 73 AND BALIMAL NAVAL KISHORE AND ANRS. VS. CIT (SUPREME COURT) 224 ITR 414.HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF HER CASE,THAT THE ACTION OF THE AO TREATING THE REPAIR EXPENSES AS CAPITAL IN NATURE WAS JUSTIFIED.AS A ITA NO.1511 & 1690/MUM/2011 MRS. INDRANI MUKERJEA 6 RESULT,HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 8. BEFORE US THE AR ARGUED THAT NO NEW ASSET WAS CREAT ED,THAT IT WAS A CURRENT REPAIRS FOR MAINTAINING THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY,THAT THE SA ID EXPENSES ARE REVENUE IN NATURE.HE REFERRED TO THE PAGES 62-65,80-86 OF THE PAPER BOOK.HE STAT ED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE FAA WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE MATTER UND ER APPEAL.HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF HOTEL ALANKAR(133ITR866),SHRI HARI INDUSTRIES(161ITR249). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD,INCLUDING THE PAGE 116 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK.IT IS SAID THAT IN DETERM INING WHETHER AN EXPENDITURE IS OF CAPITAL OR REVENUE NATURE WHAT IS MATERIAL IS TO CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE ADVANTAGE IN A COMMERCIAL SENSE AND IT IS ONLY WHERE THE ADVANTAGE IS IN THE CAPITA L FIELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE DISALLOWABLE. IF THE ADVANTAGE CONSISTS MERELY IN F ACILITATING THE ASSESSEES TRADING OPERATIONS OR ENABLING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE S BUSINESS TO BE CARRIED ON MORE EFFICIENTLY OR MORE PROFITABLY WHILE LEAVING THE FIXED CAPITAL UNTOUCHED, THE EXPENDITURE WOULD BE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT, EVEN THOUGH THE ADVANTAGE MAY ENDURE FOR A N INDEFINITE FUTURE.BY ENDURING IS MEANT ENDURING IN THE WAY THAT FIXED CAPITAL ENDURES AND IT DOES NOT CONNOTE A BENEFIT THAT ENDURES IN THE SENSE THAT FOR A GOOD NUMBER OF YEARS, IT RELIEVES THE ASSESSEE OF REVENUE PAYMENT OR DISADVAN - TAGE.THE WORDS PERMANENT AND ENDURING ARE ONLY RELA TIVE TERMS AND NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH PERPETUAL OR EVERLASTING. IN OUR OPINION THE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY FOR PRESERVING/MAINTAINING AN ALREADY EXISTING ASSET WH ICH DID NOT BRING A NEW ASSET INTO EXISTENCE OR DID NOT GIVE TO THE ASSESSEE A NEW OR DIFFERENT ADV ANTAGE,THAT SUCH REPAIRS HAVE TO BE ATTENDED TO AS AND WHEN THE NEED ARISES,THAT THE QUESTION AS TO WHEN A BUILDING REQUIRES REPAIRS HAS MUST BE DECIDED NOT BY ANY ACADEMIC OR THEORETICAL TEST BUT MUST BE DECIDED BY THE TEST OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY.CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDE R THE HEAD RENOVATION OF HER OFFICES AT BENGALORE AND MUMBAI WERE OF REVENUE NATURE,AS SAME WAS INCURRED FOR MAINTAIN EXISTING ASSET ITA NO.1511 & 1690/MUM/2011 MRS. INDRANI MUKERJEA 7 IT DID NOT RESULT IN NEW ADVANTAGE TO HER.CASES REL IED UPON BY THE AR ALSO SUPPORT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE.THEREFORE,REVERSING THE ORDER OF TH E FAA,WE DECIDED THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 0,1 '+, - ) '2 ) , 34 5 '+, ) 6 2 ) , 34 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON 21ST AUGUST, 2014 . 8 ) ./# 9 :' 21 VXLR ,2014 / ) 6 @ SD/- SD/- ( / VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, :'/ DATE: 21ST AUGUST, 2014 S.K. 8 ) 8 ) 8 ) 8 ) &, B#, &, B#, &, B#, &, B#,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ C D , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / C D 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / E6 &,' , ... 6. GUARD FILE/ 6 0 ', &, ', &, ', &, ', &, //TRUE COPY// 8' / BY ORDER, F/3 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI