ITO 6(2)(4), MUMBAI V. KARMA LOGISTICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1607/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9435 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 234B; 194C

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1607/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) ITO 6(2)(4), ROOM NO. 513, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT ) VS. M/S. KARMAL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., NO.25, 7/8, SHRINATHJI LTD., DR.M.B. RAUT ROAD, DADAR (W), MUMBAI 400028 PAN:AACCK 8259Q (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) M/S. KARMAL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., NO.25, 7/8, SHRINATHJI LTD., DR.M.B. RAUT ROAD, DADAR (W), MUMBAI 400028 PAN:AACCK 8259Q (APPELLANT ) VS. ITO 6(2)(4), ROOM NO. 513, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAK ASH G. JHUNJHUNWALA DATE OF HEARING : 16/02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 /02/2015 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEE AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-12 , MUMBAI DATED 12/12/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: ITA NO. 1607 & 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) 2 GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1607/MUM/201 2: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE EXTENT I MPUGNED IN THE GROUNDS OF ENUMERATED BELOW: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TAKING ONLY 8% OF UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.19, 82,630/- AS INCOME WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED A NY EXPENDITURE IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS ALREADY DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, NOR PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF HAVING ACTUALLY INCURRED AN Y EXPENSES WHICH ARE NOT ALREADY DEBITED. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2067/MUM/201 2: 1.10 ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/R.46A(1)(C) OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF 1 ST APPEAL BEING VERY VITAL AND AS IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE; 2.0 ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION40(A)(IA) R.W.S. 194C OF TRUCK/LORRY RENT AND HIRE CHARGES OF RS.31,65,500/-. 3.0 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLO WANCE ON IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ACTUALLY PAID THE EXPENSES AND HAD NOT DISCLOSED AS PAYABLE SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SEC. 40 (A)(IA); 4.0 THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE US 40(A)(IA), OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE UNDERSTATED VITAL FACTS, BEING ; (A) THERE IS NO ORAL OR WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED BY APPELLANT WITH ANY PERSONS; (B) THE INDIVIDUAL PAYMENTS MADE TO INDIVIDUAL TRUC K OWNERS AND DRIVERS DOES NOT EXCEED RS.20,000/- (C)THERE IS NO WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE TRUCK/LORRY OWNERS NOR BY ANY OTHER PERSON EXCEPT BY THE APPELLANT ITA NO. 1607 & 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) 3 2. TO UNDERSTAND, THE PRECISE FACTS WHICH ARE NECES SARY FOR DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEALS, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK . PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2008. PARTICULAR AMOUNT PARTICULAR AMOUNT TO BANK CHARGES 4,333.17 SERVICE CHARGES 7,985,370.00 TO CONVEYANCE CHARGES 85,750.00 DIRECTORS REMUNERATION 300,000.00 TO PRINTING & STATIONARY 66,429.00 TO SALARY & WAGES 1,050,000.00 TO SUNDRY EXPENSES 99,754.50 TO TELEPHONE CHARGES 89,680.00 TO TRANSPORTATION CHARGES 6,005,000.00 TO NET PROFIT C/D 287,423.33 7,985,370.00 7,985,370.00 2.1 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THE AMOUNT MENTIONED AS RS.31,65,000/- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA) R.W.S 194C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) AND IT IS PART AND PARCEL OF AN AGGREGATE SUM OF RS.60,05,000/- ,CLAIMED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BE EN UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX UNDER SEC TION 194C, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. AS AGAINST SUCH DISALLOWANCE UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) IT IS THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PART OF RS.31,65,500/- REMAINS TO BE PAYABLE BY THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) F OLLOWING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MERLYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT VS. ADDL. CIT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID DECISION OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH HAS BEEN SUSPENDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THEREAFTER HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ./ VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES (P) ITA NO. 1607 & 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) 4 LTD. HELD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) APPLIES TO ONLY T HOSE AMOUNTS WHICH REMAINS PAYABLE ONLY TO THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES MUMBAI TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 26/2/2014 IN ITA NO.509/MUM/2011 IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIVIL EXPORTS P . LTD. HAS ACCEPTED THIS PROPOSITION FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF V EGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD., 88 ITR 192 (SC), IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN A CASE WHER E THERE CAN BE TWO VIEWS POSSIBLE, THEN IN THAT EVENT THE ONE WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE 1 TO 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON VAR IOUS OTHER DECISIONS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY ALL OF THEM ARE NOT REFERRED. 3. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED BY LD. AR AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO.2 TO 4 ESSENTIALLY RAISED ONE ISSUE I.E. DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) OF A SUM OF RS.35,65,500/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND IN VIEW OF AFOREMENTIONED SUBMISSION, AS NO PA RT OF THE SUM WAS PAYABLE AS AT THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE DECISION OF SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE BY LD. CIT(A) IS INCORRECT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS THE CASE OF LD. DR THAT IN VIEW OF SUSPENSION OF SPECIAL BENCH DECISION, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. VIVIL EXPORTS P. LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA), WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS REL EVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL FROM THE SAID DECISION ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: ITA NO. 1607 & 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) 5 4. THOUGH NUMBER OF GROUNDS WERE URGED BEFORE US I N THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ANNEXED TO FORM NO. 36, AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING MADE TH E PAYMENT, SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE ATTRACTED BECAUSE IT SPEAKS OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AND IT DOES NOT COVER THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID. IN THIS REGARD HE RE LIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCHES WHEREIN THE B ENCH HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE ITAT SPECIAL BENC H IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT, THE ORDER OF WHICH WAS SUSPEN DED BY THE HIGH COURT BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENT O F THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. VECTOR SHIPPING SERV ICES (P) LTD. WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE A MOUNT WHICH REMAINS PAYABLE BY THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE SECTION 40(A) (IA) IS NOT ATTRACTED: - I. ACIT VS. M/S. ESKAY DESIGNS - ITA NO. 1951/MDS/2012 DATED 09.12.2013. II. ITO VS. THE EKATHIR PRESS ITA NO. 2076/MDS/2012 & CO NO. 155/MDS/2013 DATED 18.09.201 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THERE ARE CONTRARY DECISIONS OF THE OTHER HON'BLE HIGH COURTS, I.E. HON'BLE CALC UTTA HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ALLABAHAD HIGH COURT IT CAN BE SAID THE THERE CAN BE TWO VIEWS POS SIBLE IN THIS MATTER IN WHICH EVENT THE ONE WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HA S TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. 88 ITR 192. ACCORDINGLY THE CHENNAI BENCH HELD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT ATTRACTED IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, COULD NOT PLACE BE FORE US ANY CONTRARY JUDGEMENT ON THIS ISSUE. THOUGH THE LEARNED D.R. PR OMISED TO FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WITHIN ONE DAY, IT WAS NOT FILED. IN OT HER WORDS, THERE IS NO CONTRARY DECISION ON THIS ISSUE. 6. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE OTHER ASPECTS, WHICH WERE IN FACT NOT ARGUED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE REVENUE, WE HOLD THAT SECTION 40 (A)(IA) IS NOT ATTRACTED IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT ALREADY MADE BY THE END OF THE P REVIOUS YEAR. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF IT IS IN LINE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN HEREIN THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED ACCORDINGLY . AS REGARDS LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, TH E SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND NEED NOT TO BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES ITA NO. 1607 & 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) 6 6. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL ARE ALLOWED AND GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 7. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL, DURING THE C OURSE OF HEARING LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED A CHART SHOWING FOLLOWING FIGURES: DETAILS OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE: AS PER ASSESSEE AS PER LD. CIT(A) GROSS RECEIPTS M/S. ACE PIPELINE CONTRACTS PVT. LTD. RS. 3 5,00,000/- M/S. SEVEN HILLS HEALTH CARE LTD. RS. 64,82 ,497/- OTHERS RS. 23,734/- RS.1,00,06,231/- LESS: REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES (RS.20,20,861/- ) -------------------- INCOME ESTIMATED @ 8% OF RS.1,58,610/- (REVENUES APPEAL) NET-RECEIPTS CREDITED TO P&L A/C.[A] RS. 79,8 5,370/- LESS: EXPENDITURE INCURRED TRUCK/LORRY RENT/ HIRE CHARGES AND MATERIAL RS. 31,65,500/- DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) SUSTAINED OF RS.31,65,500/- (ASSESSEES APPEAL) FUEL EXPNSE RS. 15,98,450/- ADDITION DELETED (NO APPEAL) DRIVER & CLEANER SALARY RS. 9,78,770/- ADDI TION DELETED (NO APPEAL) DUTIES AND RTO TAX RS. 36,580/- ADDITION DELETED (NO APPEAL) LOADING/UNLOADING CHARGES RS. 1,89,500/- ADD ITION DELETED (NO APPEAL) OTHERS RS. 36,200/- ADDITION DELETED (NO APPEAL) EXPENSE DEBITED TO AUDITED P&L A/C. [B] RS. 60,05,000/- GROSS PROFIT [A+B] RS.19,80,370/- =========== 7.1 AS IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE CHART THE CRED IT OF RS.79,85,370/- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT IS NET AMOUNT OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSE SSEE WHICH ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,00,06,231/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.20,20,861/- TO THE AGGREGATE RECEIPTS OF RS.1,00,06,231/- AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.2 0,20,861/- IS CONSIDERED TO BE ITA NO. 1607 & 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) 7 REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, WHICH ACCORDING TO ASSE SSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS T HE AO DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED A SUM OF RS.19,82,630/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS AGITATED IN THE AP PEAL FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO WERE REITERATED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND A CL EAR CUT FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHORT CHARGED ITS PROFIT AND LOSS RECEIPT BY A SUM OF RS.19,82,630/-. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PERCENTAGE OF THE SAID RECEIPT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION AS EVERY RECEIPT HAS A CORRESPONDING EXPENSE AND IT IS ONLY THE NET THAT I S REQUIRED TO BE TAXED; THE P&L ACCOUNT SHOULD NEED TO BE RECAST. LD. CIT(A) HAS FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT AS DETAILS OF FACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS NOT AVAILABLE, RELY ING UPON THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF THE PROFIT RATE OF 8% IS TAKEN AS INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID RECEIPTS. ACCORDINGLY , HE HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.1,58,610/- IN PLACE OF RS.19,82,630/-. THE REVE NUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A). 8. AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD . DR THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT DETAILS REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE. THE EXPENDITUR E WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS, LD. CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.19,82,630/- WAS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME. THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY AO SHOU LD BE RESTORED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR TH AT ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY INCURRED THESE EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT C OPIES OF THE VOUCHERS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED AT PAGES 11 TO 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, IT WAS ITA NO. 1607 & 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) 8 SUBMITTED THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE HAVING CORRESPON DING EXPENDITURE AND THUS, LD. CIT(A) DID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR IN ACCEPTING THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND GRANTED APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTEN TIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE VOUCHERS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT EXCEPT PURCHASE OF THE SE ITEMS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO- RELATE THEM WITH THE WORK PERFORMED SO THAT IT MAY BE ASCERTAINED THAT THESE EXPENDITURE WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED IN RELATION TO T HE RECEIPTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, WE CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THIS EXTENT, T O THE FILE OF AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND PLACING ALL THE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THIS EXPENDITURE TO B E INCURRED TO THE UNCHARGED RECEIPTS TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THUS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO RE-AD JUDICATE THE SAME AS MENTIONED ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE REVEN UES APPEAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/02/2015 ! ' #$% & '() 16/02/2015 $ ' * + SD/- SD/- ( /CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL EMBER MUMBAI; '( DATED 16/02/2015 ITA NO. 1607 & 2067/MUM/2012(A.Y. 2008-09) 9 ! ! ! ! ' '' ' ,-. ,-. ,-. ,-. /.%- /.%- /.%- /.%- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 01 / THE APPELLANT 2. ,201 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 3 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 3 / CIT 5. .4* ,-( , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *5 6 / GUARD FILE. !( !( !( !( / BY ORDER, 2.- ,- //TRUE COPY// 7 77 7 / 8 8 8 8 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . ( . ./ VM , SR. PS