SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD, INDORE V. ITO 7(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1533/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 153319914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIPDR
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH CHIMANANI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Search and seizure; Corroborative evidences; Block assessment; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1533/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD. 74 VIMAL UDYOG BHAVAN, SHIVAJI PARK, MATUNGA WEST MUMBAI-400016 / VS. ITO-7(2)(4), MUMBAI ( /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO. A ABC5326B / ASSESSEE BY): SHRI HITESH CHIMANANI / REVENUE BY SHRI NEIL PHILIP-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/02/2015 /DATE OF ORDER 04/03/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) : THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 20/12/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI, ON THE GROUND IN MAINTAINING THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, VEHICLE RUNNING AND M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 2 MAINTENANCE EXPENSES REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSE S (MACHINERY & BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION). 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI, CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED I SSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION D ATED 20/03/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2007-08 (ITA NOS. 8136, 8138 AND 8137/MUM/2011). THIS FACTUAL M ATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY SHRI NEIL PHILIP, LD. DR. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND T HAT IDENTICALLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 (ITA NO.8136/MUM/2011, ITA NO.8138/MUM/2011 AND ITA NO.8137/MUM/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08), THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, ITS ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED, AND THE ASSESSEE DULY MAINTAINED THE VOUCH ERS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THIS ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER FOR READY REFERENCE:- 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS. GROUND NO.1 IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS.4,69,300 OF PROVIDENT FUND AMOUNT AND RS.45,994 OF ESIC. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF AO THAT THESE AMOUNT S WERE PAID BELATEDLY AND SO CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIO N. IT WAS THE CONTENTION BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE AMOU NTS WERE PAID WITHIN DUE DATES AND FURTHER THE AMOUNTS WERE ALSO PAID WITHIN THE YEAR ITSELF. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING T HE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT, THE AMOUNTS PAID WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BE EN M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 3 ALLOWED. FURTHER ASSESSEE ALSO TOOK RECOURSE TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) FOR THE PRO POSITION THAT SINCE THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID WITHIN THE FINANCI AL YEAR/ BEFORE THE FILING OF RETURN ITSELF, THE AMOUN TS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HOWEVER, CON FIRMED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTIONS. 3.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AGREE WITH ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS. AS SEEN FROM THE CHART PREPARED IN AO'S ORDER, MOST OF THE PAYMENTS WERE PAID WITHIN THE GRACE PERIOD ITSELF OR WITHIN THE Y EAR ITSELF. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN ANY CASE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES ON THE ISSUE ESTABLISHED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE COORDINATE BENC H DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RANBAXY LABORATORI ES LTD. 7 ITR (TRIB.) 161 (DEL.) AND CIT V AIMIL LTD. 321 ITR 508 (DEL) OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION, WE DIRECT AO TO ALLOW THE AMOUNTS AS CLAIMED. GROUND IS ALLOW ED. 4. GROUND NO.2 PERTAIN TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND VEHICLE AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.45,04,642 ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND FURTHER RS.2,98,216 UNDER THE HEAD VEHICLE MAINTENANCE. AO DISALLOWED 15% OF THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AND 20% OF THE VEHICLE EXPENSES ON THE REASON THAT THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FURNISHED WAS NOT VERIFIABLE AS THEY WERE SELF SERV ING VOUCHERS. THE LEARNED CIT (A) DID NOT INTERFERE WIT H THE ABOVE FINDINGS. IT WAS THE CONTENTION THAT IT IS A CASE O F A PUBLIC M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 4 LIMITED COMPANY AND ALL VOUCHERS ARE MAINTAINED AND THE ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED. IT WAS ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS AN AGRO BASED CHEMICAL COMPANY AND ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS A LOT OF EXPENDITURE ON REPAI RS AND MAINTENANCE ON PLANT & MACHINERY AND VEHICLES AND SINCE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFEC TS IN THE EXPENDITURE IS ALLOWABLE. 4.2 THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AO. 4.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OR VEHICLE MAINTENANCE ON ADHOC BASIS. IF AO IS NOT SATISFIED EITHER ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS OR VERIFIABLE NAT URE OF THE VOUCHERS, HE SHOULD IDENTIFY THEM AND DISALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 37(1), RATHER THAN RESORTING T O ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWING ARE VERY GENERAL IN NATURE WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKES BEING POINTED OUT BY AO. CONSIDERING THAT ASSESSEE IS AN AGRO BASED CHEMICAL COMPANY AND ALSO A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, WE DO NO T CONSIDER IT NECESSARY FOR DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE O N ADHOC BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE ALLOWED FULLY BY D ELETING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES. GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 5. GROUND NO.3 PERTAINS TO WRITE OFF OF UNRECOVERED AMOUNTS TO AN EXTENT RS.1,62,646. AO ASKED FOR DETA ILS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS INFORMING THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE UNRECOVERABLE AMOUNTS AND RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT V. OMA N INTERNATIONAL BANK (313 ITR 128)(BOM). THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE SAME ON THE REASON THAT ASSES SEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERR ED TO THE M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 5 PAPER BOOK (P.B.PAGE NO. 133) AND REPLIES GIVEN TO THE CIT (A) TO SUBMIT THAT ALL THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNIS HED. CONSIDERING THE SAME AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE AMO UNTS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD VS. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 WILL APP LY. ACCORDINGLY AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AMOUNT. GR OUND IS ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO.4 PERTAIN TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON REFINERY OF RS.16,96,774. AO NOTICE D THAT THE AUDITOR IN SCHEDULE-IT PARA-4 NOTED THAT THE REFINERY OF EDIBLE OIL HAS REMAINED DISCONTINUED DURING THE YEAR AND MANAGEMENT HAS NOT PLANNED ANY REFINERY ACTIVITY. AFTER SEEKING EXPLANATION FROM ASSESSEE, AO CONCLUDED THAT THE USE OF REFINERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ONWARDS AND ASSESSEE HAS NO INTENTION TO UTILIZE THE SAME IN FUTURE ALSO. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATIO N BECAUSE IT WAS NOT USING THE REFINERY FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT ( A) THAT BOTH ACTIVE AS WELL AS PASSIVE USE ARE ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION AND USE OF NEW ASSET IN A BLOCK IS REL EVANT ONLY IN THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION AND NOT IN THE SUBS EQUENT YEARS AND SINCE SOME OF THE ASSETS IN A BLOCK ARE USED, T HE DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE ENTIRE BLOC K. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HOWEVER, RELYING ON VARIOUS CASE LA W, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. 6.1 THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE REFINERY IS KEPT IN RUNNING CONDITION AS ASSESSEE WAS CONTEMPLA TING TO DISPOSE OFF. MOREOVER, SINCE THE MACHINERY OF TH E REFINERY M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 6 IS PART OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY BLOCK OF ASSETS, A SSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON THE ENTIRE BLOCK AS OTHER UNITS ARE FUNCTIONING. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. BOSKALIS DREDGING INDIA (P.) LTD 53 SOT 17 (MUM) URO FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION. 6.2 THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION AS THE UNIT WAS NOT USED DURING THE YEAR AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) FOR VAR IOUS CASE LAW. 6.3 WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE ENTIRE CASE LAW RELIED U PON BY THE CIT (A) PERTAIN TO THE DEPRECIATION PROVISIONS BEFORE THE ADVENT OF THE CONCEPT OF BLOCK. ONCE THE CONCEP T OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN TO THE PICTURE, IDEN TITY OF ANY NEW ASSET MERGES INTO THE BLOCK. THEREFORE, EVE N IF SOME OF THE ASSETS IN THE BLOCK ARE FUNCTIONING, TH E ENTIRE BLOCK GETS DEPRECIATION. THIS PRINCIPLE WAS ACCEPTE D IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE OF DCIT VS. BOSKALIS DREDGING I NDIA (P) LTD (SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE REFINERY IS NOT PROPER. AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED. 7. GROUND NO.5 PERTAIN TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS DUE TO FIRE ATTRIBUTABLE TO BUILDING AND MACHINERY OF RS.10,82,157 TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL. THERE WA S A FIRE IN THE COMPANY'S CHEMICAL PLANT AT PITAMPUR ON 20.02.2004. THE COMPANY MADE ITS OWN ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES REQUIRING REPAIRS/ REPLACEMEN T EXPENSES AND LODGED THE CLAIM AND DEBITED TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO AN EXTENT OF RS.1.51 CRORES. T HE INSURANCE CO. APPOINTED THE SURVEYOR WHO AFTER DETA ILED ASSESSMENT RESTRICTED THE CLAIM TO RS.1,26,35,274. AFTER DISCUSSIONS, ASSESSEE AGREED FOR THE CLAIM AT THE REDUCED AMOUNT. THEREAFTER THE INSURANCE COMPANY M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 7 FURTHER REDUCED THE AMOUNT FOR VARIOUS TECHNICAL RE ASONS AND PAID ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,04,66,973. THEREFOR E, THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AGREED CLAIM WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND RECEIVED CLAIM WAS TREATED AS LOSS DUE TO FIRE. AO TREATED T HE ABOVE LOSS AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PERTAINING TO THE FIXED ASSETS, BUILDING AND MACHINERY AND THEREFORE, CAPITAL IN NA TURE. THE LEARNED CIT (A) APPROVED THE SAME. 7.1 IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL TH AT THE LOSS PERTAINING TO THE FACTORY BUILDING AND PLA NT & MACHINERY IS NOTHING BUT REPAIRS ALLOWABLE AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 30 & 31 OF INCOME TAX ACT. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE TOOK THE REINSTATEMENT POLICY WHEREBY THE INSURANCE COMPANY REIMBURSED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR RESTORING THE ASSETS TO TH E ORIGINAL SHAPE. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY ASSESSEE WAS TOWARDS REPAIRS OF THE EXISTING ASSETS AND NO NEW ASSET CAME INTO EXISTENCE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE LOSS CLAIMED AROSE ONLY DUE TO THE SHORT PAYMEN T BY INSURANCE COMPANY TO AN EXTENT OF RS.21,68,301 AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT DEBITED TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY . 7.2 THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND THE CIT (A). 7.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE AGR EE WITH THE LEARNED COUNSEL'S CONTENTIONS THAT THIS AMOUNT IS REVENUE IN NATURE. ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER REPLACED THE EXISTING ASSETS NOR BROUGHT ANY NEW ASSET IN TO EXISTENCE. THE DAMAGED FACTORY BUILDING AND PLANT & MACHINERY WERE REPAIRED AND THE INSURAN CE COMPANY ALSO GOT IT DETERMINED THROUGH THEIR SURVEY ORS. THEREFORE, WHAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED WAS ONLY TOWA RDS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTIO N 30 & 31. HOWEVER, AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF AO AND THE C IT (A) M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 8 IT IS ONLY A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLAIM MADE AGAI NST THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED. E VEN THOUGH, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SPENT TH E AMOUNTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,26,35,274 AND RECEIVE D ONLY RS.1,04,66,973, THIS ASPECT WAS NOT VERIFIED BY AO. GENERALLY ANY EXPENDITURE OF THIS NATURE WAS INCURRED AND DEBITED TO P& L ACCOUNT AND WHEN REIMBURSED THE SAM E IS CREDITED TO P& L ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. AN Y SHORT FALL WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY LOSS SEPARATELY. IF IT I S ONLY AN ENTRY PASSED AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND HAS SHORT RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT, WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS SP ENT THE AMOUNTS FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED. WHETHER THERE IS ANY CLAIM IN THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT SEPARATELY OR ASSES SEE INCURRED THE EXPENSES IN AN EARLIER YEAR AND DEBITE D TO INSURER AND PART RECEIVED THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE VERIFIED AS THE DETAILS ARE NOT ON RECORD BEFORE US . THEREFORE, FOR EXAMINATION OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS INCURRED BY A SSESSEE AND TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL LOSS DUE TO THE FIRE CL AIMED UNDER THIS HEAD, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO AO FOR EXAMINATION OF FACTS. IF THE AMOUNTS AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ARE SPENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REPAIRS AND N OT CLAIMED SEPARATELY IN P & L ACCOUNTS BUT ADJUSTED I N INSURER'S ACCOUNT, THEN SHORT RECEIPT FROM THE INSU RANCE COMPANY GIVES RISE TO REVENUE LOSS. AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE GROUND IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. GROUND NO.6 PERTAIN TO THE CLAIM FOR DEVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK TO AN EXTENT OF RS.14,25,705. AO NOTI CED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEVALUED ITS CLOSING STOCK TO RS. 1/- AS ON 31.03.2005. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE COMPA NY HAS BROUGHT FORWARD CERTAIN SLOW AND NON-MOVING ITE MS IN ITS INVENTORY VALUED AT RS.14,25,706 AS ON 1.4.2004 AS M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 9 THE SAME REMAINED UNSOLD FOR THE WHOLE OF YEAR, THE Y WRITTEN DOWN THE VALUE AND REDUCED RS.1/- AS ON 31.03.2005. AO DID NOT AGREE WITH ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS AND HELD THAT THESE ARE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A AND ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FOR VALUING THE INVENTORY. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESS EE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS PACKING MATERIALS, QUANTITY, RATE AND VALUE AS AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS AND SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE MATERIAL PERTAINS TO PAC KING MATERIAL IN WHICH BATCH NOS. PRICE ETC., WERE ALREA DY PRINTED AND THESE COULD NOT BE USED AS ASSESSEE BUS INESS AFTER LAPSE OF TIME. THEREFORE, THESE PACKING MATER IALS HAVE NO VALUE TO THE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY THEY WERE VALUED AT RS.1/ - . THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THE REASON THAT DETAILS OF ITS UTILIZATION AND SUBSEQUENT SALES THE REOF HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED, HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE 8.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BOTH THE LEARNED AO AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. EVEN UNDER TH E NORMAL ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, THE CLOSING STOCK HAS TO BE VALUED EITHER AT THE COST PRICE OR AT THE MARKET PRICE WHICH EVER IS LESS. IT WAS ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS THAT IN VENTORY OF PACKING MATERIAL WAS HAVING NO VALUE AS THE SAME CANNOT BE USED IN ASSESSEE'S PRODUCTION OF THE CURR ENT BATCHES AND HAS BECOME NOT ONLY OBSOLETE BUT ALSO U N- UTILIZABLE FOR THE LAST ONE YEAR. IN THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, IF ASSESSEE TAKES THE VALUE AT RS.1/- WHAT AO CAN ONLY EXAMINE IS WHETHER THE VALUE IS CORRECT OR NOT. HE CANNOT REJECT OUTRIGHT CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT THE VAL UATION IS NOT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A AND ACCOUNTING STANDARD. WE ARE AFRAID THAT AO HAS SIMP LY STATED THE ABOVE FOR DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT, WITHOU T UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPTS THEREIN. BE THAT AS IT M AY, EVEN THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO MISSED THE POINT. ASS ESSEE M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 10 SUBMITS THAT THE PACKING MATERIAL CANNOT BE UTILIZE D IN THE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THEY ARE DOWNWARDLY VALUED . LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED AO'S ACTION ON THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS OF UTILIZATION/ SUBSEQU ENT SALES THEREOF. WHEN ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE PACKING MAT ERIAL CANNOT BE USED, HOW ALL THE DETAILS OF THE UTILIZAT ION CAN BE FURNISHED IS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE CIT (A). THE ONLY WAY FOR SUBSEQUENT SALES WHICH CAN BE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS BY DISPOSING OFF THE PACKING MATERIAL AT THE SCRAP VAL UE. IN THAT CASE, ASSESSEE WOULD CERTAINLY ACCOUNT FOR SCRAP SA LE BUT ASSESSEE CANNOT SELL THE PACKING MATERIAL AS SUCH A ND SO THE SUBSEQUENT SALES ALSO CANNOT BE FURNISHED IN THE ABSENCE OF ITS UTILIZATION AS THE PACKING MATERIAL IN THE PRODUCTION OF ITS PRODUCTS. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AO AND THE CIT (A) WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT. ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF EMERSONS PROCESS MANAGEMENT INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 3(1), MUMBAI, 47 SOT 157 (MUM) URO AND IN THE CASE OF BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX, 98 TTJ 565. THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES WER E ACCEPTED IN THE ABOVE REFERRED COORDINATE BENCH DECISIONS AND ITEMS OF STOCK WHICH HAVE BECOME OBSO LETE OR USELESS WERE ALLOWED TO BE VALUED AT A LESSER PRICE AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED THE ABOVE PACKING MATERIAL AN D HAS TO BE DISCARDED OFF BY WAY OF DESTRUCTION OR SA LE AS SCRAPS, ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY REDUCED THE VALUE, THE REFORE, AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AMOUNT. GROUND IS ALLOW ED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED . ITA NO.8138/MUM/2011 -AY 2006-07 10. ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 IS CONTESTING THE M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 11 FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES: 1) TELEPHONE EXPENSES - RS. 50,000 2) VEHICLE EXPENSES - RS. 75,000 3) REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXP. MACHINERY -RS.9,00,933 4) REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXP. BUILDING -RS. 67,662 5) REPAIR & MAINT.EXP.ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION- RS. 71, 763 11. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO COPY THE ORDER OF THE CIT ( A) ON THIS ISSUE. '2.1 OUT OF THE TOTAL TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS.11,60,697 AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 150,000 AS NO LOG BOOK WAS BEING MAINTAINED AND PERSONAL ELEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES AND DIRECTORS ETC COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. I AGREE WITH THE REASONING OF AO. DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS CONFIRMED. 2.2 SIMILARLY, OUT OF TOTAL VEHICLE EXPENSE OF RS.7,37,212 AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.75, 000 AS PERSONAL USE OF THE VEHICLES BY THE EMPLOYEES/ DIRECTORS ETC COULD NOT BE RULED OUT . NO LOG BOOK HAS BEEN MAINTAINED. I AGREE WITH THE REASONIN G OF AO. DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS CONFIRMED. 2.3 SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ON ACCOUNT OF MACHINES/ ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION/BUILDING AS STATE D AFORESAID AO STATED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SUP PORTING EVIDENCE FOR LARGE PART OF SUCH EXPENSES. THE SAME WERE CLAI MED ON THE BASIS OF SELF- SERVING VOUCHERS. SEVERAL MISSING VOUCHERS WHILE SEVERAL OTHERS BEAR INCOMPLETE NARRATIONS ETC . AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THESE EXPENSES. I AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF AO. SINCE EXPENSES ARE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED/ VERIFIABLE; THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DI SCHARGE ITS ONUS. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHEL D. 2.4. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 12. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AND HAS DULY AUDITED ITS ACCOUNTS AND ALL THE VOUCHERS ARE MAINTAINED AND AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS O R M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 12 MISTAKES IN THE ACCOUNTS AND DISALLOWED ON ADHOC BA SIS WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) AS PER THE ORDER STATED ABOVE. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE OR DERS OF AO AND CIT(A). 12.1 WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE. ASS ESSEE BEING A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AND HAS MAINTAINED B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AUDITED, ADHOC DISALLOWANCE PER SE DOES NOT ARISE. MOREOVER ELEMENT OF PERSONAL NATURE IN A COMPANY'S CASE DOES NOT ARISE. AO SHOULD HAVE CONSI DERED WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE IS BUSINESS OR NON BUSINESS EXPENDITURE BUT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE LIKE IN THE CASES OF PROPRIETA RY CONCERNS OR FIRMS. NOT ONLY THAT THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWANCE ALSO SEEMS TO BE VERY PURILE, WITHOUT ANY BASIS. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN GROUND NO.2 IN THE APPEAL ITA NO:8136/MUM/2011 - AY 2005-06 ABOVE HERE ALSO, WE AGREE WITH ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS AND DIRE CT AO TO ALLOW THE AMOUNTS AS CLAIMED. GROUND IS CONSIDER ED ALLOWED. 13. GROUND NO.2 IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXPENDITURE ON FIRE. THIS IS A CONTINUATION CLAIM WITH REFERENCE T O THE FIRE ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION WAS MADE ON THIS SAME ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AT GROUND NO.5 IN ITA NO.8136/MUM/2011. IN PRINCIPLE, THE AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE LOSS. HOWEVER, AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE VIS--VIS CLAIMS AND ALLOW THE AMOUNT ACCORDINGLY. CONSISTENT WITH THAT DIRECTION THIS YEAR ALSO, AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIRS AND ALLOW TH E AMOUNTS AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. GROUND IS CONSIDERE D ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 13 14. GROUND NO.3 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF PP & ESIC OF RS.2,19,147 AND RS.23,620. AS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AMOU NTS WERE PAID WITHIN ONE MONTH OF DUE DATE BUT BEFORE F ILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. FOR THE REASONS STATED AGAINS T GROUND NO.1 ITA NO.8136/MUM/2011, THESE AMOUNTS ARE ALLOWABLE ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSION S LTD (SUPRA) ETC.. AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AMOUN TS AS CLAIMED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.8137/MUM/2011 -AY 2007-08 16. ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 IS CONTESTING THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES: (I) TELEPHONE EXPENSES - RS. 75,000 (II) VEHICLE RUNNING & MAINT.EXP - RS. 1,00,000 (III) REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXP. MACHINERY RS. 8,98, 385 (IV) REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXP. BUILDING - RS. 96,252 (V) REPAIR & MAINT.EXP.ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION- RS. 1,3 3,6 10 (VI) INCENTIVE TO STOCKISTS - RS. 85,055 17. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE ARE EX TRACTED AS UNDER: '2.1 OUT OF THE TOTAL TELEPHONE EXPENSES OF RS.12,42,397 AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF !75,000 AS NO LOG BOOK WAS BEING MAINTAINED AND PERSONAL ELEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLO YEES & DIRECTORS ETC COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. I AGREE WITH THE REASONING OF AO. DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS CONFIRMED. 2.2 SIMILARLY, OUT OF TOTAL VEHICLE EXPENSE OF RS.9 ,25,326 AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 1,00,000 AS PERSONAL USE OF THE VEHICLES BY THE EMPLOYEES/ DIRECTORS ETC COULD NOT BE RULED OUT . NO LOG BOOK HAS BEEN MAINTAINED. I AGREE WITH THE REASONIN G OF AO. DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS CONFIRMED. 2.3 SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ON ACCOUNT OF MACHINES/ ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION/ BUILD ING AS STATED M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 14 AFORESAID, AO STATED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT P RODUCE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR LARGE PART OF SUCH EXPENSES . THE SAME WERE CLAIMED ON BASIS OF SELF SERVING VOUCHERS. SEVERAL MISSING VOUCHERS WHILE SEVERAL OTHERS BEAR INCOMPLETE NARRA TIONS ETC. AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THESE EXPENSES. I AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF AO. SINCE EXPENSES ARE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED/ VERIFIABLE; THE APPELLANT HAS FAI LED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS UPHELD. 2.4 IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF GARDEN EXPENSES - RS.2, 05,765. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THESE EXPEN SES WERE INCURRED FOR MAINTAINING PLANTS IN OFFICE AND FACTO RY AND PROPER ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEM. 2.5 SINCE THESE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO THE PROPER UPKEEP & MAINTENANCE OF OFFICE AND THE FACTORY/ ECOSYSTEM - THE SAME ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 37(L) AS HELD IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. ITC LTD 117 TTJ 45 (CAL.) (SPI. BENCH). THE DISALLO WANCE ON ACCOUNT OF GARDEN EXPENSES IS DELETED'. 18. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AND HAS DULY AUDITED ITS ACCOUNT AND ALL THE VOUCHERS ARE MAINTAINED AND AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECTS O R MISTAKES IN THE ACCOUNTS AND DISALLOWED ON ADHOC BA SIS WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) AS PER THE ORDER STATED ABOVE. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE OR DERS. 18.1 WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE. THE ISSUES CONTESTED ARE SAME AS IN GROUND NO 1 IN ITA NO.8138/MUM/201 1 - AY 2006-07. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN GROUND NO.1 IN THE ABOVE APPEAL, HERE ALS O WE AGREE WITH ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS AND DIRECT AO TO ALLOW THE AMOUNT AS CLAIMED. GROUND IS CONSIDERED ALLOWED . 19. GROUND NO.2 PERTAINS TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF PF & ESIC OF RS.2,92,520 AND .35,136. AS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AMOUN TS WERE PAID WITHIN ONE MONTH OF DUE DATE BUT BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. FOR THE REASONS STATE AGAINST GROUND M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 15 NO.1 ITA NO.8136/MUM/2011, THESE AMOUNTS ARE ALLOWA BLE ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD (SUPRA). AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AMOUNT. 20. GROUND NO.3 PERTAINS TO THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE O F THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE . ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SOFTWARE TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 1,46,790 FOR ITS UTILIZATION. THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE WAS LI STED IN THE ORDER. IT CAPITALIZED THE SAME TO THE COMPUTERS ACC OUNT AS THE SOFTWARE CAME ALONG WITH THE HARD WARE OF COMPUTERS AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. ON THE REASON THAT PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE IS ESSENTIALLY PURCHASE O F COPY RIGHT WHICH ATTRACTS TDS PROVISIONS UNDER SECT ION 194J, AO INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AN D DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED. THE AO ANALYZE D THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT EVEN CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON A PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE ATTRACTS DISALLOWANCE U/ 40(A) (IA). THE LEARNED CIT (A), WHEN CONTESTED THAT ASSESSEE H AS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND FURTHER PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY PURCHASE OF COPY RIGHT AND NO TDS IS REQUIRED, CONFIRMED THE SAID ACTION OF AO ON THE REASON THAT THE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE AMOUNTS TO ACQUISITION OF INTA NGIBLE ASSETS THEREFORE, ITS ROYALTY AND SO THE AMOUNT IS DISALLOWABLE. 21. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT (I) ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBI TED ANY AMOUNT TO ITS PROFIT & LOSS A/C AS AN EXPENDITU RE FOR SOFTWARE PURCHASE, BUT HAS CAPITALIZED THE SAID AMOUNT TO ITS PLANT & MACHINERY (COMPONENT) BLOCK AND THUS THE QUESTION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) DOES NOT ARISE (II) WHAT HAS NOT BEEN M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 16 CLAIMED CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN THE FIRST PLACE (II I) THE AMENDMENTS MADE UNDER SECTION 9( 1)(VI) BY INSE RTION OF EXPLANATION 4 TO 6 THERETO WITH RETROSPECTIVE EF FECT - REDEFINING 'ROYALTY' IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON A RECENT DECISION (DATED 07.09.2012) OF HON'BLE MUMBA I BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SONATA SOFTWARE. 20.1 THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F AO AND THE CIT (A). 20.2 WE WERE SURPRISED ABOUT THE ACTION OF AO AND A LSO THE CIT (A). FIRST OF ALL MERE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE , A COPY RIGHTED ARTICLE, FOR UTILIZATION OF COMPUTERS CANNO T BE CONSIDERED AS PURCHASE OF COPY RIGHT AND ROYALTY. ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A SORT OF ASSET AND CAPITALIZED IT TO THE COMPUTERS A/C AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY COPY R IGHT OR ROYALTY NOR CLAIMED ANY DEPRECIATION ON ROYALTY AS INTANGIBLE ASSET. ASSESSEE DOES NOT ACQUIRE ANY RIG HTS FOR MAKING COPIES, SELLING OR ACQUIRING WHICH ARE GENER ALLY MEANT TO BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF 'RO YALTY'. THE EXPLANATION 2 OF SEC 9(1)(VI) CAN NOT BE APPLIE D TO PURCHASE OF A COPYRIGHTED SOFTWARE, WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE SAME. IT IS SIMPLY THE PRODUCT AVAILABLE ON HARD DISK ETC, FOR UTILIZATION IN THE DAY TODAY OPERATIONS OF ASSESSEE . IT IS A COPYRIGHTED ONE BUT NOT ONE INVOLVING ACQUISITION O F COPY RIGHTS. JUST BECAUSE IN THE ABOVE CASE OF SAMSUNG, PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE PRODUCTS AND DISTRIBUTION IN I NDIAN MARKET WAS CONTESTED AND HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T CONFIRMED THAT SOFTWARE PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS 'ROYALTY', IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED THEREIN WILL APPLY TO ALL OT HER CASES AND ALL SITUATIONS. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE SIMPLY PURCHASED SOFTWARE DELIVERED ALONG WITH COMPUTER HA RD M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 17 WARE FOR UTILIZATION IN THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS. TH ERE IS NO INTANGIBLE ASSET INVOLVED IN THIS AND ASSESSEE'S CL AIM OF DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40( A)(IA). AS PER SECTION 40(A)(IA,) IF AT ALL APPLICABLE, DISALL OWANCE IS ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM MADE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C TOWARDS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN OUR VIEW, PURCHASE OF ASSET AND CONSEQUENT CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED UNDER THAT SECTION. WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN DISAPP ROVING THE ACTION OF AO AND THE CIT (A). AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION AS CLAIMED. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 22. THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 2.2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO, AD HOC DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E REASONING CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (AY 2005-06 TO 2007- 08) (SUPRA), THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE, WITH RESPECT TO VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, REPAIR AND MAINTE NANCE EXPENSES OF MACHINERY, BUILDING AND TELEPHONE EXPEN SES, ON AD HOC BASIS, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF ELECTRIC AL INSTALLATION, MADE BY THE REVENUE ARE NOT PERMISSIB LE, MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN, THE ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE/CONT RARY MATERIAL TO DISALLOW THE SAME. IDENTICALLY IN ITA NO.8138/MUM/2011 (AY 2006-07), THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE FOLLOWING THE DECISION FOR AY 2005-06. IDENTICAL IS THE SITUATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 (ITA NO.8137/MUM/2011) CONSEQUENTLY, THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE, M/S SONIC BIOCHEM EXTRACTIONS LTD , 18 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE DIRECTED TO BE DE LETED, THUS, THE IMPUGNED GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED . FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN TH E PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES, AT THE CONC LUSION OF THE HEARING, ON 04/03/2015 . SD/ - (RAJENDRA) SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 04/03/201 5 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& '( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. + + , ( %& ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. + + , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. ./0 )1 , + %& %12 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 03 4 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *.& ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI