ENTEE DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1624/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 162419914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIPDR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTAAR
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

, , , , E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . , ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '#, ,, , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUK LA, JM . / ITA NO.1624/MUM/2013 ( & ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200910, ) M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS B-2/G-11, KHIRA NAGAR, S.V. ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI-400054 .. )* / APPELLANT & V/S ITO 19(2)(1) R.NO.312, 3 RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL MUMBAI -400012 .... +,)* / RESPONDENT ) . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AACFE0921G & '.! / 0 / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA(AR) 1 / 0 / REVENUE BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP (DR) & / ! / DATE OF HEARING 09.03.2015 ' 23( / ! / DATE OF ORDER 04.03.2015 ' ' ' ' / ORDER ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '#, ,, , 4 4 4 4 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 5 TH NOVEMBER 2012, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)30, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PA SSED U/S. M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 2 143(3), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENYING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCT ION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB(10) OF THE ACT ON IRRELEVANT GROUNDS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESI DENTIAL HOUSING PROJECT. DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN SALE OF FLATS OF RS.99,11,153/- AND HAS DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.39,96,993/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB. ON GOING THROUGH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CB, AND FORM NO.10CCB HE NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TIED UP WITH THE M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS FOR DEVELOPING THE PROJECT AT KANJUR M ARG, THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 24.8.2002 FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF BUILDING UNDER THE STATE GOVERNMENTS SRA SCHEME. THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATION HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2002-03 I.E. INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE DA TE OF APPROVAL BY LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS SHOWN AS 29.4.2003. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON PERUSAL OF FURTHER DETAILS, NOTED THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WAS IN THE NAME OF M/S. AKRUTI DEVELO PERS AND M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 3 THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 24.8.2002 WITH THE M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS FOR DEVELOPING AND COMPLETING THE PR OJECT FOR A CONSIDERATION AGREED UPON. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ALONE HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT, THEREFORE, IT IS ENTITLED FOR D EDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER TAKING NO TE OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD MADE FOL LOWING OBSERVATIONS:- I) M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS GOT APPROVAL FOR SRA PROJE CT AT KANJUR MARG BY LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 29.4.2003. II) ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATE D 24.8.2002 WITH M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID SRA PROJECT. III) AS PER 10CCB REPORT, DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF CON STRUCTION ACTIVITY IS SHOW AS DURING F.Y.2002-03, WHEREAS CERTI FICATE OF COMMENCEMENT ISSUE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY IS DATED 23.6. 2009 WHICH IS MUCH AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY A ND ALSO ISSUED IN THE NAME OF AKRUTI BUILDERS ONLY. IT C AN ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS GRANTED ONLY FOR W ORK UPTO PLINTH LEVEL. THIS MEANS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY STARTED IN F.Y.2009- 10 WHICH AGAIN CONTRADICTORY TO THE STATEMENT VIDE 10CC B THAT COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AS DURING F.Y. 20 02-03 AND CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB FROM F.Y.2004-05. IV) ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E FOR APPROVAL BY LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S. M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 4 AKRUTI DEVELOPERS. MOREOVER, ASSESSEE DID NOT COPY O F RETURN OF INCOME OF M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS FOR A.Y.2009-10 WH EREBY IT IS UNABLE TO CLARIFY WHETHER M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS HAS ALSO AVAILED DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB FOR A.Y.2009-10. V) VIDE THIS OFFICER LETTER DATED 11.11.2011 ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF AREA OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS SOLD A ND AREAS OF COMMERCIAL SHOPS SOLD. ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY PL AN LAY OUT OR DETAILS CALLED FOR. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT VERIFIABLE WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS HAVING MORE THAN MAXIMUM AREA OF 1000SQ.FT. AS PER CONDITIONS PRESCRIB ED UNDER SECTION 80IB (10) OF I.T. ACT. BASED ON THE ABOVE OBSERVATION HE CONCLUDED THAT, IF THE PROJECT HAD STARTED WITH THE APPROVAL OF LOCAL AUTHORITY VIDE COMME NCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 23.6.2009, HOW THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAI M DEDUCTION U/S.80 IB(10) FROM THE A.Y. 2004-05. AGAIN, IF IT IS AGREED THAT DEDUCTION IS FOR THE PROJECT AND NOT FOR THE ASSESSEE CARRYING IT, BUT THEN ALSO THE DEDUCTION IS AVAILED BY PERSON DEVELOPI NG THE PROJECT, HOWEVER TILL JUNE 2009, THE PROJECT WAS CONSIDERED U NDER THE NAME OF AKRUTI DEVELOPERS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DEVELOPMENTS AG REEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS WAS N OT AUTHORIZED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. FURTHER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEM ENT DATED 24.8.2002, BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND AKRUTI DEVELOPER S WAS MADE ON RS. 50 STAMP PAPER WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED. IF THE AS SESSEE HAS TAKEN OVER A PROJECT FROM M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS THROU GH AN M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 5 UNREGISTERED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THIS MEANS APPRO VAL OF LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSFEROR. LASTLY, HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT I S NOT CLEAR, WHETHER M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS HAS CLAIMED SIMILAR D EDUCTION U/S.80IB FOR A.Y. 2009-10. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOW ED THE CLAIM OF RS.39,96,993/-. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE A VERY DETA IL SUBMISSIONS, CLARIFYING THE POINTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FROM PAGES 5 TO 8 OF T HE APPELLATE ORDER. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID DI SALLOWANCE AFTER OBSERVING IN HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.1 THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 24.6.2009 IS FOR 2ND BUILDING WHEREAS COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE F OR BUILDING NO.1 WAS GRANTED ON 6.4.1996 AND ACTUAL COMMENCEMENT BEGAN DURING F.Y. 2002-03. THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF M/S. AKRUTI DEVELOPERS ONLY AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE APPE LLANT THE AO HAS OBSERVE T AT M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS HAS NOT FI LE THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AFTER A.Y.2006-. THE APPELLANT HA S SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT DUE TO NON-COOPERATION BY M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS THEY COULD NOT GET E.T. ACKNOWLEDGE MENT OF M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS FOR A.Y.2009-10. THE APPELLANT HAS NEVER REQUESTED THE AO TO FIND OUT THE CURRENT STATU S OF M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS AND IT IS NOT PROBABLE THAT M/S. AKRU TI BUILDERS WILL HAVE NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE APPE LLANT SINCE THE TWO ENTITIES HAD ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPME NT AGREEMENT. COPIES OF PLAN LAYOUTS DATED 8.5.20 10 AN D 10.8.20 10 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS ALSO BEAR THE NAME OF M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS AS CLIEN T. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD TAKEN OVER THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT AND NOT THE ENTIRE M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 6 M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS AND THERE WAS NO DEED OF CONVE YANCE MADE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS . IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SAID AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS IS NOT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTER ED INTO ON A STAMP PAPER WITH 'VALUE OF RS.50/-. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT BENEFIT OF SECTION 801B IS PROJECT SPECIFIC AND NOT ASSESSEE SPECIFIC. I T IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS/CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IS APPEARING. ONLY THE NAME O F M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS IS APPEARING AS THE PERSON WHO IS UNDERTAKING THIS PROJECT. EXCEPT FOR AN AGREEMENT B ETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS THERE IS NO OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT IS REGISTERED PERSON WITH BMC TO CARRY OUT THIS PROJECTS. THE ACTION OF AO IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IS CONFIRMED. 4. BEFORE US LEARNED COUNSEL, SHRI VIJAY MEHTA GAVE THE FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGY OF DATES AND EVENTS TO CLARIFY THE FACTS:- SR. NO. DATE PARTICULARS 1. 17.01.1992 SHRI JAMNAPRASAD D. PANDEY (OWNER) EN TERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S. AKRUTI BUILDER, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO DEVELOP THE LAND. 2. 06.04.1996 M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS OBTAINED COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE. THIS HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED ON 28.04.2004 AND 19.01.2007. 3. 24.08.2002 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BE TWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS WHEREBY THE APPELLANT ACQUIRED THE RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT. 4. 29.04.2004 COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS FURTHER EXTENDED W.E.F. 29.04.2003 5. 24.06.2009 COMMENCMENT CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF WING C IN THE NAME OF M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS. M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 7 HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAME PROJECT AND C LAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10), WHICH TOO HAS BEEN ALLOWED B Y THE DEPARTMENT IN THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS, IN THE FOL LOWING MANNER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR INCOME DISCLOSE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB(10) ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 2007 - 08 9,80,960 9,80,960 143(1) 2008 - 09 21,76,645 21,76,645 143(1) 2010 - 11 1,24,48,173 51,81,491 143(3) R.W.S.147 THUS, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION HAS BEEN AL LOWED AND THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB( 10), THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE OWNER OF THE LAND OR THAT THE PROJ ECT SHOULD BE SANCTIONED IN HIS NAME. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION H E RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. CIT V. RADHE DEVELOPERS [341 ITR 403 (GUJ)] 2. KZK DEVELOPERS V CIT [113 TTJ 57 (CTK)] 3. ACIT V SHRI VIJAY MALLYA [ITA NO.2339/MUM/2008 ORDE R DATED 08.05.2013] 4. AMALTAS ASSOCIATES V ITO [131 ITD 142 (AHM)] 5. ITO V KEVAL CONSTRUCTION [354 ITR 13 (GUJ)] M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 8 6. CIT V MOON STAR DEVELOPERS [367 ITR 621 (GUJ)] 7. CIT V SAHAJANAND ASSOCIATES [367 ITR 403 (GUJ)] 8. CIT V SHITAL CORPORATION [369 ITR 476 (GUJ)] 9. CIT V SANGHVI DOSHI ENTERPRISE [214 TAXMAN 463 (MAD )] 10. DCIT V MANGALAM ESTATE [148 ITD 446 (CHEN)] LASTLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN, IF THE COMMENCEMENT CERTI FICATE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE THEN IT IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB (10), AS IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OU T THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAID PROJECT. THE ASSESSEES SAL E OF PLOTS FROM THE SAID PROJECT HAS BEEN TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S.80IB(10). 5. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND AO. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE BASIC REASON FOR DIS ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) TO THE ASSESSEE ARE TH AT; FIRSTLY, THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE, WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF TH E AKRUTI BUILDERS AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE; SECONDL Y, AKRUTI BUILDERS M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 9 HAVE NOT FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AFTER A.Y. 2006-0 7 AND WHETHER THEY HAVE CLAIMED SIMILAR DEDUCTION FOR A.Y. 2009-10 , IS NOT CLEAR; AND LASTLY, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS IS NOT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN MADE IN THE STAMP PAPER OF RS.50. AS CULLED OUT FORM THE FACTS DISCUSSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, WE FIND THAT ONE, SHRI J. D. PANDAY WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAND WHO HAD ENTERED INTO DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS, WAY BACK IN 17. 1.1992. THEREAFTER M/S. AKRUTI BUILDERS OBTAINED THE COMMENC EMENT CERTIFICATE WHICH HAD BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED ON 28.4.2004 AND 19.1.2007. ON 24.8.2002, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE AND AKRUTI BUILDERS, WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE ENTIRE RIGHTS TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT. FROM THIS DATE A ND STAGE THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE PROJECT FOR DEVELOPING THE RE SIDENTIAL FLATS. THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS IN THE NAME OF AKRUT I BUILDER WHICH WAS OBTAINED AND AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME IN RESPEC T OF VARIOUS WINGS DEVELOPED AT DIFFERENT STAGES. THE COMPLETION CE RTIFICATE WAS ALSO IN THE NAME OF AKRUTI BUILDERS. SECTION 80IB(1 0) PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION OF PROFIT OF AN UNDERTAKING DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING AND BUILDING OF HOUSING PROJECTS, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATES AS M ENTIONED IN THE SECTION. SUCH A DEDUCTION IS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDIT IONS ALSO. NO M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 10 WHERE THE SECTION ENVISAGES THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND, RATHER IT PROVIDES THAT THE UNDERTAKING M UST COMMENCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT BETWEEN THE SPECIFIED DATES. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT WHICH WAS EARLIER ALLOTTED TO AKRUTI BUILDERS, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). THE CAS E LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL SPECIFICALLY, SERIES OF THE DECISIONS OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ONLY CONDITION FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IS THAT, WHETHER AN UNDERTAKING HAS DEVE LOPED THE HOUSING PROJECT OR NOT WITHIN THE SPECIFIED DATES. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM THE SALES UNITS OF HOUSING PROJEC T, THEN THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT, THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF A DIFFERENT PERSON. THUS, IN PRINCIPLE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTE NTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL AND HOLD THAT ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). HOWEVER TO ALLAY THE APPREHEN SION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT WHETHER THE AKRUTI BUILDERS HAVE ALSO CL AIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) FOR THE SAME PROJECT, WE DIRE CT THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THE AKRUTI BUILDERS FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 AND VERIFY THE SAME HIMSELF AFTER GIVING OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IF THE AKRUTI BUILDERS HAVE NOT CLAIMED AN Y DEDUCTION, IN M/S. ENTEE DEVELOPERS 11 RESPECT OF THE SAME PROJECT, THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). 7. WITH THE AFORESAID DIRECTION THE ASSESSEES APPEA L IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DAY OF MARCH 2015. SD/- SD/- SD SD/ - . D. KRUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ! ! ! ! '# '# '# '# AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, 5& 5& 5& 5& DATED:04 .03.2015 PATEL ' / +!6 76(! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) & '.! / THE ASSESSEE; (2) 1 / THE REVENUE; (3) 8() / THE CIT(A); (4) 8 / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) 6;< +!& , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) <' = / GUARD FILE. ,6! +! / TRUE COPY '& / BY ORDER > / ? 1 / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI