INDIA MACHINE TOOLS, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1643/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9096 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

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. 1643/MUM /2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S INDIA MACHINE TOOLS, 301A, RIDHI, CHIKUWADI, CHAR RASTA, SIMPHOLI LINK ROAD, BORIWALI (W), MUMBAI 400 092. PAN AAAFI9123N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -12(3)(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIRO RAI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 11-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14-12-2012 O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DTD. 16-12-2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)- 23, MUMBA I FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FIRM IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RESALE OF INDUSTRIAL TOOLS AND MACHINER Y AND EARNS COMMISSION/BROKERAGE FROM SUCH BUSINESS, FILED RETU RN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,33,060/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN ITA NO. 1643/ MUM/2010 2 INCOME OF RS. 35,14,710/- VIDE ORDER DTD. 30-11-200 7 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF RENT AL RECEIPTS OF RS. 3,15,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 2,25,000/- SHOWN BY THE A SSESSEE, GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3754/- OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST THE SUS TENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF ACQUISITION/IMPROVEMENT RS. 2,00,000/-, RS. 40,938/- AND RS. 9,16,535/- AND GROUND NO. 7 IS GEN ERAL IN NATURE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THE ABOVE GROUNDS WH ICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. D.R. 6. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTI NG MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ABOVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED BEING NOT PRESSED. 7. GROUND NOS. 3, 4 & 6 READ AS UNDER:- 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL 23 ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SALES CONSIDERATION AT RS. 55,86,200 /- AS AGAINST RS. 39,00,000/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOT REF ERRING THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. ITA NO. 1643/ MUM/2010 3 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL 23 ERRED IN NOT REPLACING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON 1/4/1981 OF RS. 4,10,000 INSTEAD OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS. 13,500/-. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL 23 ERRED IN NOT REFERRING THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO DEPARTME NTAL VALUATION OFFICER AS PER SECTION 50C TO VALUE THE PROPERTY INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE VALUE AT RS. 39,00,000. 8. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE THAT THE A.O . OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE NET LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N ON SALE OF OFFICE PREMISES AT RS. 20,83,473/- [NET CONSIDERATION RS. 38,87,520/- (-) INDEXED COST RS. 18,04,027/- ]. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH VARIOUS DETAILS, DOCU MENTS ETC. WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER COMPLIANCE, THE A.O. FROM THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OBSERVED THAT THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS RS. 55,86 ,200/-, THEREFORE, THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C O F THE ACT, ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS. 55,86,200/- AS HA S BEEN ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AS AGAINST RS. 39,00,00 0/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN AT RS. 33,21,400/- AS PER THE WORKING APPEARING AT PAGE 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN VI EW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT, THE MATTER OF VALUATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE DVO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ON 27-6-1975 FOR RS. 13,500/- AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AT THE COST PRICE I.E. RS. ITA NO. 1643/ MUM/2010 4 13,500/- AS AGAINST THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4 -1981 AS PER LAW. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF REFERENCE T O THE VALUATION OFFICER OBSERVED IN PARA 5.5.5 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THER E IS NO DISCRETION VESTED IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 50C REGARDING T HE FACT WHETHER THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES ARE TO BE ADOPTED OR NOT. THE WORD SHALL MEANS IT IS MANDATORY U/S 50C(1) F OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPTED THE VALUATION DONE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. 9. ON THE ISSUE OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 THE LD. CIT(A) HELD IN PARA 5.7.4 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THE APP ELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAD THE CHANCE TO EXERCISE OPTION BY CONSIDERING THE COST OF ASSET AS COST OF ACQUISITIO N INSTEAD OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01-04-1981 AND THE APPELLANT CONSCIOUSL Y CHOSE THE FORMER. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT OMITTED TO CLA IM A DEDUCTION AND THUS THE CIRCULARS AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON ARE NO T OF ANY HELP TO THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REASONS ARE COG ENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN TREATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT WHEN FILING THE RETURN IS CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND FAILS. 10. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED BOTH THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, READ OUT PARA 2 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT HAD FILED LETTER DATED 06/03/2009 RE QUESTING FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE STATING THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THE ONLY TWO REMAINING PARTNERS W ERE RASIKLAL SHAH (FATHER) AND PRADIP SHAH (ELDEST SON). THE FIRMS PA RTNER RASIKBHAI SHAH WHO WAS THE FOUNDER AND THE MAIN MANAGING PARTNER W AS VERY ILL AND WAS BED RIDDEN WITH ASTHMA AND SEVERE ARTHRITIS. TH E SON WAS ALSO NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE MATTERS AS HE WAS REQUIRED TO LO OK AFTER THE FATHER AND ITA NO. 1643/ MUM/2010 5 ALSO TO GO ON THE JOB. THE AFFAIRS OF THE SCRUTINY WERE HANDED OVER TO THE ITP MR. SHREYAS SHAH WITH ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND EVI DENCE, HOWEVER, THE ITP ON ACCOUNT OF A DISPUTE IN FEES DID NOT ATTEND THE MATTER NOR INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO APPE AR. THE PARTNER EVEN ON THE LAST SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAD CALLED UP THE ITP TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS AS HE WAS ILL AND WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. THE ITP N EITHER ATTENDED NOR SUBMITTED THE DETAILS AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED EX-P ARTE. THE PARTNER SHRI RASIKBHAI SHAH DIED OF THE ILLNESS. IN VIEW OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES A REQUEST WAS MADE TO ADMIT FOR ADMIS SION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, HE SUBMITS THAT THERE WA S A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT REPRESENTING THE CASE PROPERLY BEFORE THE A.O. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT BOTH THE ISSUES ARE LEGAL ISSUES, THEREFORE, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTS THE OR DER OF THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FI ND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIE NT CAUSE IN MAKING PROPER COMPLIANCE/REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE A.O. AN D THE SAID REASONABLE CAUSE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT . IN VIEW OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT TH E MANAGING PARTNER WAS SERIOUSLY ILL AND ULTIMATELY DIED, THE ADDITION AL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT UNDER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 50C(2) OF ITA NO. 1643/ MUM/2010 6 THE ACT, THE A.O. ON THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS TO THE VALUATIO N OFFICER. 14. IN N. MEENAKSHI VS. ACIT (2010) 326 ITR 229 (MA D.) THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF K.R. PALANISAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA (2008) 306 ITR 61 (MA D.) HELD IN PLACITUM 24 & 25 AT PAGE 241 OF 326 ITR AS UNDER:- ' THEREFORE, THE RIGHT OF AN ASSESSEE CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS A VALUABLE STATUTORY RIGHT AVAILABLE TO PROT ECT HIS INTEREST AGAINST ANY ARBITRARINESS WHICH MAY CREEP IN WHILE FIXING THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THAT IS THE SAFEGUARD GIVEN TO THE ASSESS EE. THE SAID RIGHT IS MORE EFFECTIVE IN CASES WHERE THE PARTIES TO THE DO CUMENT HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY STEPS TO DEFEND OR TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 47A OF THE INDIAN STAMP ACT. A COMBINED READING OF THE ENTIRE PROVISIONS SHOW TH AT IN RESPECT OF THE VALUATION OF THE REGISTERED PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE CAN EITHER USE THE VALUATION WHICH HAS BEEN FINALLY DECIDED, INCLUDING THE APPEAL UNDER SECTION 47A OF THE INDIAN STAMP ACT OR THE VALUATI ON WHICH HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER AS PER SECT ION 50C OF THE ACT. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE , INASMUCH AS THE PURCHASER, WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT CONCERN, HAS NOT TAKEN ANY STEPS UNDER THE INDIAN STAMP ACT AS PER SECTION 47A, IT IS REALLY THE VALUABLE RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER, WHO IS STATED TO HAVE SOL D THE PROPERTY FOR A SUM OF RS. 99 LAKHS WHILE THE STAMP DUTY PAID BY THE P URCHASER UNDER THE SALE DEED WAS ON THE VALUATION OF RS.3,92,68,800, WHICH IS INVOLVED. IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER, THE MATTER H AS BEEN REFERRED FOR VALUATION. THEREFORE, THE ONLY AVAILABLE REMEDY TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF HER CAPITAL GAIN IS UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHICH CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH MERELY DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS NOT CHOSEN TO PASS ORDERS REGARDING THE VALUATI ON IN TIME. 15. IN MEGHRAJ BAID VS. ITO (2008) 114 TTJ 84 (JODH .) : (2008) 4 DTR (JD)(TRIB) 509 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN CASE THE AO DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO LOWER SA LE CONSIDERATION THAN ITA NO. 1643/ MUM/2010 7 THE VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY, HE SHOULD REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO UNDER SUB-SECT ION (2) OF SECT IO N 50C. 16. IN AJMAL FRAGRANCES & FASHIONS (P. ) LTD. VS. ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 57 (MUM) IT HAS BEEN HELD (PAGE 63 & 64): 11. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS RAISING OBJECTION NO HARM WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IF THE MATTER I S REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR THE PROPER VALUATION OF THE P ROPERTY. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO REFER THE VALUATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND THEN ADOPT THE VALUE A CCORDINGLY. 17. WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE ABOV E DECISION IN N. MEENAKSHI (SUPRA) AND THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TR IBUNAL HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO DISCRETION VESTED WITH THE A.O. AND IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE A.O. TO A DOPT THE VALUATION DONE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ACC OUNT AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFR ESH WITH A DIRECTION TO REFER THE MATTER OF VALUATION TO THE DVO AND ADOPT THE VALUE AS ASCERTAINED BY THE DVO AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 18. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUE FOR NOT ADOPTING FAI R MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT BEFO RE THE A.O. THE CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTED. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 MAY BE TAKEN AS AGAINST THE PURCHASE PRICE ON 27-6-1975 FOR RS. 13,500/-. IT ITA NO. 1643/ MUM/2010 8 WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CONCISELY CHOSE THE FORMER I.E. COST PRICE. 19. IN P.N.B. FINANCE LTD. VS. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 4 91(DEL.) IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND HELD VIDE PAGE 501-502 AS UNDER:- COMING TO THE LAST QUESTION, TO APPRECIATE THE CON TROVERSY INVOLVED, IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO NOTICE THE RELEVANT PROVISION. S UB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 55 DEFINES THE EXPRESSION COST OF ACQUISIT ION IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSETS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 48 AND 49 OF THE ACT. NORMALLY, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF A CAPITAL ASSE T IS THE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR ITS ACQUISITION BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, CLAUSES (I) AND (II) OF SECTION 55(2) ENACT AN EXCEPTION TO THE NORMAL RULE . SECTION 55(2)(I) PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTIONS 48 AND 4 9 THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, OTHER T HAN GOODWILL OF THE BUSINESS, WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET BECAME THE PROPER TY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1954, WOULD MEAN THE COST OF ACQ UISITION OF THE ASSET AT ITS ORIGINAL PRICE TO THE ASSESSEE OR THE FAIR M ARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET ON JANUARY 1, 1954, AT THE OPTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAID PROVISION GIVES AN OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO T AKE ADVANTAGE OF THE APPRECIATION IN PRICE AS ON JANUARY 1, 1954, AND CL AIM THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT SUCH APPRECIATED VALUE OR, CHOOSE TO COMPUTE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT ITS ORIGINAL PRICE, IF THE PROPERTY HAS DEPRECIATED SINCE ITS PURCHASE. FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RIGHT OF CHOICE IS CONFERRED ON THE ASSESSEE SOLELY FOR I TS BENEFIT AND UNLESS THERE IS ANYTHING IN THE ENACTMENT TO THE CONTRARY, WHICH WE DO NOT FIND TO BE THERE, THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE SO CONFERRED , TO CHOOSE ONE OF THE MODES TO DETERMINE THE COST OF ACQUISITION, CANNOT BE CURTAILED. THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TILL THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS IS COMPUTED. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CAN JUSTIFIABLY CONTEND THAT HE CAN EX ERCISE HIS OPTION ONLY AFTER BOTH THE FIGURES, NAMELY, THE ORIGINAL COST A ND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON JANUARY 1, 1954, ARE AVAILABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, OUR ANSWER TO THE FOURTH QUESTION IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 20. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONCISELY CHOSEN THE COST OF ASSET AS COST OF ACQUISITION INSTEAD OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4- 1981. THEREFORE, WE ARE ITA NO. 1643/ MUM/2010 9 OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THIS IS SUE MAY ALSO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ACCOUNT AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO HIS FILE TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVAT ION HEREINABOVE AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AR E, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 21. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14-12-2012 SD/- ( B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 14-12-2012 RK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23, MUMBAI 4. CIT- XII, MUMBAI. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH I, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI