The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, V. M/s. Evergreem Shipping Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

ITA 163/RJT/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9125 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN SATHE
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (J.M.) AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH (A.M.) ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER - (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), PLOT NO. 32, SECTOR 3, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH. VS. M/S EVERGREEN SHIPPING AGENCY (INDIA) PVT. LTD., ARIHANT COMPLEX, PLOT NO. 341, WARD NO. 12/B, GANDHIDHAM. PAN : AABCE4797Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 42/RJT/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S EVERGREEN SHIPPING AGENCY (INDIA) PVT. LTD., ARIHANT COMPLEX, PLOT NO. 341, WARD NO. 12/B, GANDHIDHAM. PAN : AABCE4797Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), PLOT NO. 32, SECTOR 3, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI P.K. SHUKLA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARUN SATHE DATE OF HEARING 11-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.12.2012 O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M. BY AN ORDER DTD. 24-8-2012 PASSED BY THE HONBLE P RESIDENT, ITAT, THE ABOVE APPEAL AND C.O. HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED FRO M ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH TO MUMBAI BENCH. ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 2 2. THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-1-2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GANDHIDHA M, AHMEDABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO FILED C.O. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED, THE REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES C.O. ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDE R FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE EVERGREEN SHIPPING AGENCY (INDIA) (P) LTD. (ESA) AS AN AGENT OF EVERGREEN MARINE CORPORATION (TAIWAN) LTD. (EMC) FILED THE RETURN U/ S 172 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) FOR FAR SINGAPORE 003E VOYAGES SAILED FROM MUNDRA PORT ON 25-4-2008 WITH ASST. DIR ECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), GANDHIDHAM ON 15-5-2008 S HOWING TOTAL FREIGHT AND THC RS. 4,19,82,717.88 WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY TH E A.O. AS SHOWN VIDE ORDER DTD. 7-7-2009 PASSED U/S 172(4) OF THE A CT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DTD. 5-3 -2010 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 172(4) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPLICATION IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- I N THE CASE VESSEL: FAR SINGAPORE-003 WHILE SUBMITTI NG EXPORT VESSEL TAX RETURN U/S 172(4) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OUR COLLEAGUE SHOWN TOTAL FREIGHT & THC AS 4,19,82,717.88 INSTEAD OF RS . 2,06,66,514/-. SO AS PER CORRECT TOTAL FREIGHT & THC OF RS. 2,06,66,5 14/- THE TAX LIABILITY WE CALCULATE COMES TO RS. 654571/-, WHICH WE HAVE A LREADY PAID & ALSO CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 172(4 ) BY YOUR GOOD OFFICE. SIR, THIS IS TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR DONE BY O UR PERSON IN CHARGE. ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 3 HOWEVER, THE A.O. VIDE ORDER DTD. 12-3-2010 REJECTE D THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME READS AS UNDER:- PLEASE REFER TO YOUR RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATE D 05-03-2010. 2. THIS IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS OFFICE HAD RIGHTLY PASSED ORDER U/S 172(4) OF THE ACT 07-07-2009 THEREFORE, YOU APPLICA TION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS HEREBY REJECTED , TREATED AS FILED. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF REJECTION, THE ASSESSE E FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL AGAINST THIS REJ ECTION OF THEIR CLAIM. THE ORDER U/S 172(4), THE APPLICATION U/S 154, THE AOS ORDER REJECTING THE APPLICATION AND THE SUBMISSION BEFORE ME HAVE B EEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT TAX IS TO BE PAID BY THE MASTER OF THE SHIP. AS PER SECTION 172(3) ITSELF, THE RETURN IS TO BE FILED OF THE FU LL AMOUNT PAID OR PAYABLE TO THE OWNER OR CHARTERER OR ANY PERSON ON HIS BEHA LF, ON ACCOUNT OF THE CARRIAGE OF ALL PASSENGERS, LIVESTOCK, MAIL OR GOO DS SHIPPED AT THAT PORT SINCE THE LAST ARRIVAL OF THE SHIP THEREAT. THE PROVISIONS ARE VERY CLEAR. THE AMOUNT PAYABLE HAS TO BE GOODS ETC., SHIPPED AT THAT PORT ONLY. NO OTHER AM OUNT FOR SHIPMENT AT OTHER PORTS IS TAXABLE UNDER THIS RETURN. SO, ANY MATHEMATICAL MISTAKE COULD NOT BRING INTO TAX ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT TAXA BLE UNDER THIS SECTION. FURTHER, FROM THE READING OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR T HAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR FILING OF REVISED RETURN. AS ASSESSEE COULD NO T BE SUBJECT TO TAX UNDER A SECTION BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THAT SECTION. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY WHETHER TH E MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS BRINGING INTO TAX SOMETHING BEYOND THE AMBIT OF THE PARTICULAR RETURN U/S 172(3) ASSESSED U/S 172(4 ) SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. IF SUCH IS THE CASE, THEN SUCH AMOUNT W HICH SHOULD NOT HAVE FORMED PART OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR THE PARTICULA R VOYAGE SHOULD BE REDUCED. THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE BOTH ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 4 ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 (BY REVENUE) 6. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE GRA NTING TAX RELIEF OF RS. 6,75,129/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY IGNORIN G FINAL RETURN FILED U/S 172(3) OF THE ACT AS FREIGHT & THC INCOME DECLARED TO RS. 4,19,82,817/-. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE DETAILS CALLED BY TH IS OFFICE LETTER DATED 24- 03-2011 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE FREIGHT AND THC D ECLARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING DETAILS I N TIME BEFORE THE AO IN RESPECT OF INCOME DECLARED AS FREIGHT & THC OF RS. 2,06,66,514/- BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED OR IGINAL FINAL RETURN U/S 172(3) FILED BEFORE THE A.O. BEING TAXABLE INCOME F REIGHT & THC IS RS. 41,982,817/-. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE AB OVE EXTENTS. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. D.R. SUBMITS THAT THE A.O. HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 172(4) OF THE ACT ON THE INCOM E SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORD ER OF THE A.O. IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION. HE FURTHER SU BMITS THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172(3) AND 172(4) OF THE ACT THERE IS NO PROVISION TO REVISE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHE R SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORTING DETAI LS IN TIME, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY VERIFICATION AFTER THE SHIP IS S AILED, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE A .O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW DU E RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 5 AFTER VERIFICATION. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 172(4) BE RESTORED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITS THAT IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A TY POGRAPHICAL ERROR IN MENTIONING THE TOTAL FREIGHT AND THC RS. 4,19,82,717.88 INSTEAD OF RS. 2,06,66,514/-, THEREFORE, THE SAME BEING AN APPAREN T MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE WHILE REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 172(7) OF THE ACT SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 172 (4) OF THE ACT DTD. 7-7-2009 WA S A PROVISIONAL ORDER AND IN THE FINAL ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DTD. 21-12-2011, THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 32,23,97,891/- IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2, 06,66,514/- IS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT MUNDRA BRANCH RS. 28,7 2,03,305/-, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 172(4) OF THE ACT BEING A PROVISIONAL ORDER DOES NOT SURVIVE. THE RELIANCE W AS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION IN A.S. GLITTRE D/5 I/S GARONNE AND OTHER S VS. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 739 (SC) TO SHOW THAT AFTER THE REGULAR ASSESSM ENT IS MADE THE ADHOC ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 172(4) OF THE ACT IS SUSP ENDED. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O . U/S 172(4) OF THE ACT STANDS SUSPENDED AND, HENCE, NOT ENFORCEABLE. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FI ND THAT THE FACTS ARE ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 6 NOT IN DISPUTE INASMUCH AS IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUT E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN U/S 172(4) OF THE ACT SHOWING TOTA L FREIGHT AND THC AT RS. 4,19,82,717.88 INSTEAD OF RS. 2,06,66,514/-. THE AS SESSEE VIDE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DTD. 5-3-2010 CONTENDED T HAT AGGREGATE TOTAL OF FREIGHT AND THC IS RS. 2,06,66,514/- AND DUE TO TYP OGRAPHICAL MISTAKE THE SAME HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS RS. 4,19,82,717.88. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. ON APPEAL, TH E LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF SUCH IS THE CASE, THEN, SUCH AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD NO T HAVE FORMED PART OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE FOR THE PARTICULAR VOYAGE SHO ULD BE REDUCED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THIS CASE THE FINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) DTD. 21-12-2011 WAS ALSO COMP LETED WHEREIN THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE RS. 32,23,97,891/- AS THE ASSESSED INCOME. WE FURTHER F IND THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 32,23,97,891/- WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- BRANCH TOTAL FRT/THC/MISC. CHARGES(RS) COCHIN 186,431,308 CHENAI 596,109,953 KOLKATTA 258,319,029 HALDIA 96,215,545 TUICORINE 936,608,207 MUNDRA 287,203,305 KANDLA 19,172,971 NAVA SHEVA 1,043,651,498 IMPORT & MISC 825,434,787 TOTAL 4,249,146,604 ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 7 COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FREIGHT & THC 4,298,638,541 .. TOTAL 4,298,638,541 .. DEEMED INCOME @ 7.5% 322,397,891 TAX PAYABLE ON DEEMED INCOME @ 42.23% 136,148,629 LESS: ADVANCE TAX PAID 134,583,258 TDS DEDUCTED 5,081,056 139,664,314 . REFUND DUE 3,515,685 ================================================== = 10. IN A.S. GLITTRE D/5 I/S GARONNE AND OTHERS (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER (HEADNOTE) : SECTION 172(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, GIVES A RIGHT TO THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER TO LEVY AND RECOVER TAX IN THE CASE OF ANY SHIP BELONGING TO A NON-RESIDENT IN A SUMMARY MANNER (AD HOC ASSESSMENT ) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE A CT. IT IS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT CONFERRED ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE ASS ESSEE HAS NO RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SAME. NORMALLY, THIS WILL BE THE ASSE SSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR. BUT, UNDER SECTION 172(7) OF THE ACT, A RIGHT IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN WHICH THE DATE OF DEPARTURE OF TH E SHIP FROM THE INDIAN PORT FALLS, THAT AN ASSESSMENT ACCORDING TO THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT, IN A REGULAR MANNER, BE MADE. THUS A RIGHT IS GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE TO OPT FOR A REGULAR ASSESSMENT ALTHOUGH A 'SUMMARY ASSESSMENT ' HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 172(4) OF THE ACT. IF THE A SSESSEE EXERCISES THE RIGHT CONFERRED ON HIM UNDER SECTION 172(7) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS BOUND TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE BASIS THEREOF 'SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT' AND ANY PAYMENT MADE UNDER THE SECTION EARLIER 'SHALL BE TREATED AS A PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF THE TAX' LEVIABLE FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR, AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUM SO PAID AND THE AMOU NT OF TAX FOUND PAYABLE BY HIM ON SUCH ASSESSMENT SHALL BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OR REFUNDED TO HIM. THE 'AD HOC' ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 172(4) OF THE ACT IS SUSPENDED AND A 'REGULAR ASSESSMENT' IS MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN SUCH A CASE, IT IS ONLY P ROPER AND APPROPRIATE TO HOLD THAT ALL 'THE PROVISIONS' OF THE ACT IN THE DE TERMINATION OF THE TAX LIABILITY, INCLUDING THE ANCILLARY OR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL MATTERS PERTAINING TO IT, ARE NECESSARILY ATTRACTED. SECTIO N 172(7) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT PAYMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE T REATED AS A PAYMENT IN ADVANCE OF THE TAX LEVIABLE FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SUCH PAYMENTS ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 8 ARE TREATED ON PAR WITH ADVANCE INCOME TAX PAYMENTS . IT IS IMPLICIT FROM THE TENOR AND PHRASEOLOGY EMPLOYED IN SECTION 172(7 ) THAT, IN SUBSTANCE, A LEGAL FICTION IS CREATED BY WHICH THE PAYMENTS HA VE BEEN TREATED AS ADVANCE TAX. IN CONSTRUING THE SAID LEGAL FICTION, IT WILL BE PROPER AND NECESSARY TO ASSUME ALL THOSE FACTS ON WHICH ALONE THE FICTION CAN OPERATE. SO, NECESSARILY, ALL THE PROVISIONS IN THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX WILL APPLY. ON EFFECTING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT, IF THERE IS ANY EXCESS PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE , THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE EXCESS AMOUNT PA ID AND ALSO INTEREST, FOR PAYMENTS MADE IN EXCESS OF THE TAX ASSESSED. 11. SINCE IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE EVEN A T THIS STAGE HAS NOT FILED THE BREAK UP OF THE AMOUNT OF MUNDRA BRANCH S HOWN AT RS. 287,203,305/- IN WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,06,66,514/- IS INCLUDED AND THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF RS. 4,19,82,717.88 INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL FREIGHT, THC & MISC. CHARGES OF MUNDRA BRANCH, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECIS ION HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF SUCH IS THE CASE , THEN, SUCH AMOUNT WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE FORMED PART OF THE AMOUNT PAY ABLE FOR THE PARTICULAR VOYAGE SHOULD BE REDUCED. ACCORDINGLY TH E GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 12. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C.O. READ AS UNDER:- 1. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUPREME COU RT OF INDIAS DECISION IN THE CASE OF GLITTRE D/5 I/S GARONNE (A. S.) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, REPORTED IN 225 ITR PAGE 739 AND FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE EXERCISES ITS RIGHTS U/S 172(7) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ORDER U/S 172(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ST AND SUSPENDED AND HENCE NOT ENFORCEABLE. 2. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER U/S 154 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL A SPECT WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE COMPUTATION OF THE TAX PAYABLE W AS RS. 654,571/- AND ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 9 NOT THE AMOUNT RAISED BY A.O. AND HENCE THE MISTAKE WAS APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH DESERVES TO BE RECTIFIED. 13 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE PLEA TAKEN IN THE REVENUES APPEAL MAY BE CONSIDERED WHI LE DECIDING THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO FOLLOW OUR FINDING RECORDED IN REVENUES APPEAL (SUPRA). WE HOLD AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. TH E GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDI CATED ABOVE. 15. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AN D ASSESSEES C.O. ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14.12.2012 SD/- ( B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 14.12.2012 RK ITA NO. 163/RJT/2011 & C.O. 42/RJT/2011 10 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GANDHINAG AR 4. CIT- CONCERNED. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH I, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI