HORIZON INVESTMENTCO. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1593/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79200 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 1593/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) HORIZON INVESTMENT CO. LTD. 4, GARDEN APARTMENT, ABDUL GAFFARKHAN ROAD, WORLI SEAFACE (NORTH), MUMBAI-400 025 / VS. CIT 6, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO. 507, 5 TH FLOOR, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020 ./! ./PAN/GIR NO. ( ' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$ ' / RESPONDENT ) ' % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI J. P. BAIRAGRA #$ ' % & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. C. P. PATNAIK ' ( ) % * + / DATE OF HEARING : 27.05.2014 ,-. % * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.06.2014 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 24.01.2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2008-09 PASSED U/S.263 OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER). 2 ITA NO. 1593/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) HORIZON INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT 2. THE SOLE ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THE MAINTAINABILITY IN LAW OF THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE COMPETE NT AUTHORITY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. A SUBSIDIARY QUESTION, W HERE THE ANSWER TO THE FOREGOING ISSUE IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IS WHETHER ANY MODIFICATION, IF ANY, TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) IS REQUIRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3.1 WE SHALL PROCEED BY DELINEATING THE LAW IN THE MATTER. THE SAME IS TRITE, AND FOR WHICH WE MAY FOR REFERENCE ADVERT TO DECISION IN TH E CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), A LOCUS CLASSICUS ON THE SUBJECT. THE HONBLE APEX COURT THEREIN LAID DOWN A FOUR-WAY TES T FOR INVOCATION OF A PROVISION. SUCCINCTLY PUT, THESE ARE: (A) INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS; (B) INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW; (C) WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE; AND (D) WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. WE SHALL, FOR THE REASON THAT THE PRESENT CASE INVO LVES THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 263 ON GROUND (D) ABOVE, DWELL ON THIS ASPECT IN SOME DETA IL. AN ORDER, AS EXPLAINED IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA), IS IN SUCH A CASE SUBJECT TO REVISION UNDE R SECTION 263 NOT FOR THE REASON THAT SOME ERROR MAY BE FOUND UPO N ENQUIRY, BUT BECAUSE OF NON- APPLICATION OF MIND PER SE . DECADES EARLIER, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, PE R ITS LANDMARK DECISION IN ADL. CIT V . GEE VEE ENTERPRISES [1975] 99 ITR 375 (DEL) (CITED BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR), RELYING ON TWO CELEBRATED DECISIONS BY THE APEX COU RT [REPORTED AT 67 ITR 84 AND 88 ITR 323], EXPLAINED THAT AN ASS ESSING AUTHORITY IS BOTH AN ADJUDICATOR AND INVESTIGATOR. THAT IS, HE IS, BESID ES ADJUDICATION, ALSO CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROBING THE MATTER AND UNEARTHING FACTS. AS SUCH, WHERE HE FAILS TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY, I.E., AS WARRANTED BY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, HIS ORDER IS RENDERED ERRONEOUS IN-SO-FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN ITS WORDS: 3 ITA NO. 1593/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) HORIZON INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO MAKE F URTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX O FFICER. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON T HE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER SH OULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE REASON IS OBVIOUS. THE POSITION AND FUNCTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A CIVIL COURT. THE S TATEMENTS MADE IN A PLEADING PROVED BY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE M AY BE ACCEPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL. THE CIV IL COURT IS NEUTRAL. IT SIMPLY GIVES DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND EVIDENCE WHICH COMES BEFORE IT. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FA CE OF A RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY. IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD MAKE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT TH AT THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' IN SECTION 263 INCLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN INQUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUCH AN INQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE OR DER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT . [EMPHASIS, OURS] THIS REPRESENTS THE WELL-SETTLED LAW, FOLLOWED BY T HE HONBLE HIGH COURTS THROUGHOUT, AS IN CIT (ADDL.) VS. MUKUR CORPORATION [1978] 111 ITR 312 (GUJ.); SWARUP VEGETABLE PRODUCTS VS. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (ALL); TARAJAN TEA CO. (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (GAU); CIT VS. ACTIVE TRADERS (P.) LTD. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (CAL); CIT VS. MAHAVAR TRADERS [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); DUGGAL & CO. VS. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 456 (DEL); K.A. RAMASWAMY CHETTIAR VS. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (MAD); MOFUSSIL WAREHOUSE & TRADING CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (MAD.); CIT VS. EXPORT HOUSE, AMRITSAR [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H ) ; PT . LASHKARI RAM VS. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (ALL.); CIT VS. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT VS. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPN. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (DEL) (AFFIRMED BY THE APEX COURT , VIDE ITS JUDGMENT AT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)); CIT VS. ARUNABEN SUMANKUMAR [2003] 259 ITR 386 (GUJ); BESIDES BY THE LARGER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RAJALAKSHMI MILLS LTD. VS. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (CHEN) (SB), SIGNIFYING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONC EPT IN A VARIETY OF FACT SITUATIONS. 4 ITA NO. 1593/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) HORIZON INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT 3.2 A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO WHAT ENQUIRY IS CONS IDERED ENOUGH, FOR SURELY ONE COULD POSSIBLY ARGUE FOR SCOPE OF DEEPER ENQUIRY IN ALMOST EVERY CASE, AND WHICH DEFINITELY COULD NOT BE THE LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL INTENT, HOW-SO-EVER WIDE THE REVISIONARY POWER UNDER SECTION 263 MAY BE ENVISAGED AS. THIS I S OFTEN REPRESENTED BY SAYING THAT THOUGH LACK OF ENQUIRY WOULD JUSTIFY REVISION, INAD EQUATE ENQUIRY WOULD NOT (REFER THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. GUPTA SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. (IN ITA NO. 410/2013 DATED 13.09.2013 REPORTED AT 2013- TIOL-761-HC-DEL-IT)). AT THE SAME TIME, A SUPERFICIAL ENQUIRY WOULD BY ITSELF NO T QUALIFY TO BE A PROPER INQUIRY, PRECLUDING REVISION. IN OUR VIEW, A RESOLUTION TO T HIS VALID CONCERN OR ISSUE LIES IN BEARING IN MIND TWO GUIDE POSTS IN THE MATTER, WHICH SERVE AS A CHECK AGAINST AN ARBITRARY OR MECHANICAL APPLICATION OF SECTION 263 ON THIS GROUN D: A) THE EXTENT OF ENQUIRY, SIGNIFIED VARIOUSLY BY THE E XPRESSION/WORDS: ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY, LACK OF ENQUIRY, INADEQUATE ENQUIRY, ETC., IS ONLY THE MANIFESTATION OF THE ERROR, I.E., NON-APPLICATION OF MIND, PER SE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, WHICH PERMEATES OR CHARACT ERIZES THE ENQUIRY, THOUGH WOULD NEED TO BE SHOWN TO EXIST DESPITE THE ENQUIRY TO THE EXTENT MADE; B) THE A.O. HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW, WHICH HAS THOUGH RESULTED IN A LOSS TO THE REVENUE, OR WHERE TWO VIE WS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE A.O. HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW, WHICH THOUGH IN VIEW OF THE LD. CIT IS NOT CORRECT. 3.3 THE MATTER, THUS, BECOMES PRIMARY FACTUAL, SO T HAT IT WOULD, IN EACH CASE, BE REQUIRED TO BE SEEN IF THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE MATERIALS, OR THAT THERE HAS BEEN A PROPER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION BY HIM, DEMONST RATING APPLICATION OF MIND, IN ADOPTING A CONSIDERED VIEW AND, THUS, ESCHEW THE CH ARGE OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. IT IS THIS VARIATION IN THE FACT-SITUATION OF DIFFERENT C ASES, WHICH ALSO EXPLAINS THE DIVERGENT RESULTS OF THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE COURTS, I.E ., IN THE WAKE OF THE WELL SETTLED LAW. WHAT, THEN, IS REQUIRED IS AN EXAMINATION OF THE FA CTS OF THE CASE TO ARRIVE AT A FINDING OF FACT AS TO AN APPLICATION OR OTHERWISE OF MIND BY T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER, MAKING INQUIRY AS WARRANTED, WHILE FRAMING THE ASSE SSMENT. IN THIS REGARD, OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IS THAT THE LD. CIT HAS ASSAILED THE AS SESSMENT AS FRAMED (ON THIS ASPECT) ON TWO GROUNDS: 5 ITA NO. 1593/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) HORIZON INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT A) NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT; AND B) NON-REQUISITION AND, THUS, NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS/VOUCHERS. 3.4 WE SHALL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF TH E SAID FINDING BY THE LD.CIT QUA THESE GROUNDS. CLAUSE 6 OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT READ S AS: 6. ALL THE OUTGOINGS SUCH AS PROPERTY TAX, MAINTEN ANCE CHARGES, ETC. WILL BE BORNE BY THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART. THE LD. AR WOULD BEFORE US CONTEND THAT WHAT IS MEA NT BY THE SAID CLAUSE IS THAT WHILE ALL THE REGULAR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE WOU LD BE BORNE BY THE LESSOR, NON- REGULAR REPAIRS, BEING IN THE NATURE OF ACCUMULATED REPAIRS, REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED AFTER 4- 5 YEARS , AND WHICH HAVE IN FACT BEEN INCURRED, WOULD BE TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE- LESSEE. WE ARE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE ASSESSEES CASE IN THE MATTER. FIRSTLY, THE VERY FACT THAT NO QUERY IN THIS REGARD WAS RAIS ED BY THE A.O. AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NO EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITSELF PROVE S THE REVENUES CASE, CONFIRMING AN ABSENCE OF PROPER INQUIRY, I.E., AS WARRANTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND, THUS, NON, OR IN ANY CASE LACK OF DUE, APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO . IT IS THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND NOT EITHER THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN WE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHO CAN SUBST ITUTE THE ENQUIRY THAT SHOULD HAVE PROPERLY ARISEN FROM OR OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. THAT IS, IT IS ONLY THE LATTE R WHICH IS RELEVANT OR MATERIAL. AS SUCH, THE OCCASION TO EXPLAIN THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF TH E SAID CLAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT, WHICH WITHOUT DOUBT IS EXTREMELY RELEVANT IN-AS-MUCH AS I T DETERMINES THE SCOPE OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE, I.E., IN-SO- FAR AS THE CHARGE OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A.O. IS CONCERNED, IS BEFORE THE LATTER AND NOT SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE REVIEW PROCEEDINGS. THA T IS, THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EXPLANATION PROVES THE REVENUES CASE OF NON-APPLIC ATION OF MIND IN MATTER BY THE A.O. 6 ITA NO. 1593/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) HORIZON INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT 3.5 WE MAY AT THIS STAGE ALSO CONSIDER, EVEN THOUGH PRIMA FACIE , THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION. THOUGH IN OUR VIEW IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO, I.E., STRICTLY SPEAKING, GIVEN THE LEGAL POSITION AS DELINEATED HEREINABOVE, SO TH AT NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ITSELF CONNOTES THE RESULTING ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, LIABLE TO REVISION, WE DO SO AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON CASE LAW TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REVISION IS IN SUCH A CASE, I.E., NON-APPLICATION OF MIND, S UBJECT TO IT BEING FURTHER SHOWN THAT A PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN C AUSED OR SUFFERED THUS. (REFER: CIT VS. MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD. [2007] 294 ITR 121 (MAD)). THE SAME, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE, IS SELF-EVIDENT. THE DEDUCTION OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE, ALLOWED BY T HE A.O, HINGES CRUCIALLY ON THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEA SE AGREEMENT LIABLE FOR THE SAME. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED TO US, AND EVEN TO THE REVISI ONARY AUTHORITY BY THE ASSESSEE, POSITS ON THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE, EVEN AS THA T IS PRECISELY WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO; RATHER, EXHIBITS LACK OF ENQUIR Y BY HIM. IN FACT, OTHER COLLATERAL AND PERTINENT QUESTIONS ARISE ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SAI D CONTRACT, VIZ. WHY WOULD THE ASSESSEE CONTRACT TO INCUR NON-REGULAR - CAPITAL OR QUASI CA PITAL - EXPENDITURE (GOING BY THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION), PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING T HAT THE CONTRACT IS FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS , EXPIRING WITH THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE LE SSEES ARE, RATHER, GENERALLY REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE TENANTED PREMISES IN A STA TE OF GOOD (CURRENT) REPAIRS, WITH THE VIEW TO DELIVERING POSSESSION IN A CONDITION IN WHI CH IT WAS TAKEN. THEN, THE AGREEMENT CONFERS A PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LEASE PERIOD. AS IT WOULD SEEM TO US, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISLOCATI ON OF THE ASSESSEES OPERATIONS DURING THE PERIOD THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO RENOVATION. WE STATE SO AS IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE LESSOR IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. AR, ON BEING POSED SUCH RELEVANT QUERIES ISSUING FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE CONTRACT, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED BY A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND NOT BY US. BUT THEN THA T IS PRECISELY THE REVENUES CASE IN THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS, I.E., THAT A PROPER ENQUI RY, TO ENABLE A PROPER AND INFORMED VIEW, WAS NOT MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. 7 ITA NO. 1593/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) HORIZON INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT 3.6 WITH REGARD TO THE REVENUES SECOND OBJECTION, THE SAME MAY ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE EVENT OF THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDI NG ON THE FIRST GROUND, OR EVEN IN THE ALTERNATIVE. WE FIND THE SAME TO THE PERTINENT TO T HE ISSUE AT HAND, I.E., THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE UNDER REFERENCE. IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT THE A.O. COULD BE SATISFIED WITH THE FACTUM OF THE INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE PER SE , SO THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT IN DOUBT. THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, IS: HOW COULD HE BE SO WITHOUT EVEN AS MUCH AS CALLING FOR THE DETAILS, MUCH LESS EXAMI NING THEM FOR THEIR VERACITY AND NATURE. THE ISSUE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE, EXPL AINED AS NON-REGULAR OR ACCUMULATED REPAIRS, MAY BE RELEVANT FROM THE STAND-POINT OF IT S ALLOWABILITY, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF LAW UNDER WHICH IT IS. A FINDING OF A BUSINESS P URPOSE AS WELL AS THE PROVISION UNDER WHICH IT IS ALLOWABLE MUST PRECEDE AND INFORM THE A SSESSMENT, AND ON WHICH WE OBSERVE NO ENQUIRY BY THE A.O. 4. THE INSTANT CASE, IN OUR CLEAR VIEW IS THEREFORE A CASE OF LACK, NAY, ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY THE A.O., SO THAT THE REVISION JURISDICT ION IN RELATION THE DEDUCTION OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE IN ASSESSMENT STANDS VALIDLY ASSUMED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. FURTHER, HIS DIRECTION FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER EXAMININ G THE FACTS, AND UPON ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE, IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS FINDING OF THE NON- APPLICATION OF MIND, NECESSITATING FRESH DETERMINAT ION OF THE MATTER, SO THAT WE DO NOT FIND ANYTHING AMISS OR OTHERWISE ANY INFIRMITY THER EIN. WE, ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS SUCH. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 0. *1 (2 0* % 0 % * 34 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 27, 2014 SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' 5) MUMBAI; 6( DATED : 27.06.2014 .(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 ITA NO. 1593/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) HORIZON INVESTMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$ ' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' 7* ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' 7* / CIT - CONCERNED 5. : ; #*(<2 , + <2. , ' 5) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ; = > ) / GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ , (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' 5) / ITAT, MUMBAI