NANDITA KHOSLA, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1660/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48811 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VANDANA SAGAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Rectification of order; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K.AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.NO. I.T.A.NO. A.Y APPELLANTS RESPONDENT 1 1660-M-2010 2006-07 MRS.NANDITA KHOSLA, 407, EMCA HOUSE, 289 S.B. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 001. PAN:AABPV 5646 E INCOME-TAX OFFICER 12(1)(1), MUMBAI. 2 2738-M-2010 2006-07 MRS.NALINI V. VAZIRANI, 152, SHEWA SADAN, SINDHI SOCIETY, MUMBAI 400 071. PAN:ABWPV 2114 R INCOME-TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXN.) TDS-3, MUMBAI. 3 1659-M-2010 2006-07 MRS. INDU RANJIT VAZIRANI, FLAT NO.402, AMIT APT., RAUT LANE, NEAR ISCON JUHU, MUMBAI 400 049 PAN: AAMPV 1777 F ASST. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. 21 (1), MUMBAI. ASSESSEES BY : SMT. ARATI VISSANJI. REVENUE BY : SMT. VANDANA SAGAR. O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS ARE CONSOLIDATED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. I.T.A.NO.1660/M/10 : IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT[APPEALS] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VA LUE UNDER SECTION 50C AS PER VALUATION OF STAMP VALUATION AUT HORITIES. FURTHER HE HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT T HE VALUATION AS PER DVO IS ALSO HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT[APPEALS] HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DVO HAVE BECOME UNFRUCTUOUS ALTH OUGH ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED SUBJECT TO RECTIFICATIO N OF DVOS VALUATION REPORT AND UNDER SECTION 50C(2) THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 2 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 1/3 RD SHARE OF FLAT NO.21-C, 2 ND FLOOR, MITTAL TOWERS, C WING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBA I. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS SHOWN AT ` `` ` .1.72 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE. THE ASSE SSEE FILED A COPY OF THE LETTER OF MULLA & MULLA & CRAIGIE BLUNT CAROE A DVOCATES, SOLICITORS AND NOTARIES ADDRESSED TO M/S. T. T. ENTERPRISES PVT. L TD., THE PURCHASERS, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT STAMP OFFICE HAS VALUED THE SAID PROPERTY AT ` `` ` .2,80,14,000/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SEC.50-C WAS C LEARLY APPLICABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE VALUATION FROM M/ S. K. C. GANDHI, REGISTERED VALUER, IN WHICH VIDE VALUATION REPORT D ATED 29-12-2005 THE PROPERTY WAS VALUED AT ` `` ` .1,65,64,000/-. SINCE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE WAS ` `` ` .2,80,14,000/-, THE AO ADOPTED THIS VALUE AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINED THE CAPITAL G AINS ACCORDINGLY. 5. BEFORE THE CIT[A] IT WAS STATED THAT THE DVO HAS VALUED THE SAID PREMISES AT ` `` ` .2,39,32,000/- AND THE COPY OF THE DVOS REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE HIM. IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED A REQUEST FOR RECTIFICATION U/S.154 TO RECTIFY THE ORDER AFTER CO NSIDERING THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. HOWEVER, NO RECTIFICATION OR DER HAS BEEN PASSED. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT DVO HAS MADE THE VA LUATION AT ` `` ` .10,060/- AGAINST THE LOWER SALE INSTANCE REFERRED BY HIM AT ` `` ` .8464/- PER SQ.FT. AND, THEREFORE, UNDER SALE CONSIDERATION OF VALUATION MA DE BY THE DVO WAS ON 3 THE HIGHER SIDE. THE LD. CIT[A] AFTER CONSIDERING T HE SUBMISSIONS OBSERVED THAT SEC.50-C WAS APPLICABLE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED T HAT REFERENCE TO DVO WAS MADE ON 3-11-2008 AND DVOS REPORT WAS NOT RECE IVED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT. SINCE DVOS REPORT WAS DATED 24-3-2008 WHILE THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED ON 31-12-2003, THEREF ORE, DVOS REPORT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE JUTE INDS. LTD. VS. ITO [150 ITR 643]. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, VALUATION PROCEEDINGS HAV E BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 6. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MANDATORY TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO WHENEVER T HE VALUATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY DETERMINED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AND IN THIS REGARD SHE RELIED O N THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AJMAL FRAGRANCES & FASHIONS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 34 SOT 57 [MUM.]. SINCE AO HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER, THEREFORE, EVEN IF VALUATION REPORT WAS RECEIVED LA TER, SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IN FACT, IN THE CASE OF MRS. NANDI TA KHOSLA, AO HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AT ` `` ` .2,39,32,000/- AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO IN THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PA SSED U/S.154. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT FROM ONE OF THE APPROVED VALUERS M/S K. C. GANDHI & CO., COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLAC ED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 4 TO 12. SHE ALSO CARRIED US THROUGH VARIO US CONTENTS OF THE REPORT AND POINTED OUT THAT REGISTERED VALUER HAD T AKEN VARIOUS INSTANCES 4 AND ONE OF THE INSTANCES AT PARA 6(B) IS OF THE SAM E BUILDING. HE THEN REFERRED TO PAGE-11 WHICH IS THE LAST PAGE OF THE V ALUATION REPORT WHEREIN THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VALUED AT ` `` ` .8000 PER SQ.FT. THEN SHE REFERRED TO THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO AND POINTED OUT THAT DV O AT PAGE-7 OF HIS REPORT, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 21 OF THE PAPER BOO K, HAD ALSO TAKEN INSTANCES OF THE SAME BUILDING, BUT THE LAST INSTAN CE WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SOLD AT ` `` ` .16,131/- IS OF THE GROUND FLOOR WHICH WAS SOLD TO THE JET AIRWAYS. THE GROUND FLOOR ALWAYS FETCHES MUCH H IGHER VALUE THAN THE HIGHER FLOORS. SHE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THREE INST ANCES TAKEN BY THE DVO, THE 3 RD INSTANCE IN THE SAME BUILDING ITSELF SHOWS THE VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY AT ` `` ` .8464 PER SQ.FT. WHICH IS NEARER TO THE VALUE ADOPT ED BY THE APPROVED VALUER. IN ANY CASE, DVO HAS TAKEN THE INSTANCE OF A WING WHICH HAD MUCH BETTER VIEW THAN THE C WING SOLD BY THE ASSE SSEE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO HAS CLEARLY DEALT WITH THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER AT PAGE-4 OF HIS REPORT, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AND H AS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT THE APPROVED VALUER HAS CONSIDERED THE INSTANC ES OF OTHER BUILDINGS. FURTHER, THE DVO HAS ALSO DEALT WITH THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DVO AT PAGE-5 OF HIS REPORT. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPROVED VALUER HAS ULTIMATELY VALUED THE PROPERTY ON CARPET AREA BASIS, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. CARPET AREA IS GENERALLY LOWE R IN COMPARISON TO THE SUPPER AREA OR AREA MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT BY 2 0% TO 40% DEPENDING ON THE BUILDING, BECAUSE CARPET AREA MEAN S THE NET AREA AVAILABLE INSIDE THE WALLS OF THE PREMISES, WHEREAS SUPPER AREA MEANS 5 INCLUDING THE AREA OF WALLS, BALCONIES, STAIRCASES AND OTHER OPEN AREA IN A BUILDING WHICH ARE CHARGED BY THE BUILDER TO THE OC CUPANTS OF THE FLATS/SHOPS. THEREFORE, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AP PROVED VALUER IS NOT CORRECT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. NO DOUBT, ALL MOST ALL BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE HELD THAT SEC .50-C IS APPLICABLE IN CASE OF A LAND AND BUILDING AND WHEREVER THE RATE F OR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE IS HIGHER THEN AO IS REQUIRED TO REFER THE MATTER T O THE DVO. SECTION 50-C READS AS UNDER: 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING L AND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [ OR ASSESSABLE ] BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFER RED TO AS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [ OR ASSESSABLE ] SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FUL L VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1), WHERE ( A ) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [ OR ASSESSABLE ] BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; ( B ) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [ OR ASSESSABLE ] BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT B EEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BE FORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF T HE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS M ADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE ( I ) OF SUB- SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTIO N 23A, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICA TIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A RE FERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. [ EXPLANATION 1 ] . FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, VALUATION OFFICE R SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE ( R ) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). 6 [ EXPLANATION 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE EXPRESSION ASSESSABLE MEANS THE PRICE WHICH THE STAMP VALUAT ION AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONT AINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, ADOPTED OR ASSESSED, I F IT WERE REFERRED TO SUCH AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. ] (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [ OR ASSESSABLE ] BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SU B-SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED [ OR ASSESSABLE ] BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER.] A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SECTION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT WHATEVER CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY A SELLER OF A LAND AND BU ILDING IS LESSER THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR STAMP DUTY PURP OSES, THEN THE VALUE SO ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE SHALL BE DE EMED TO BE TAKEN AS FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, WHERE ASS ESSEE OBJECTS, THEN SUCH VALUATION HAS TO BE REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER BECAUSE AS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AJMAL FRAGR ANCES & FASHIONS (P) LTD. [SUPRA], AO IS NOT TECHNICALLY EQUIPPED TO PUT A CORRECT VALUE. BUT THIS WOULD FURTHER MEAN THAT ONCE THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO THE DVO, THEN VALUATION GIVEN BY THE DVO HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS THE DEEMED CONSIDERATION. IN THE SAID CASE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER: A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION CLEARLY SHO WS THAT NORMALLY THE SALE CONSIDERATION CAN BE TAKEN ON THE SAME AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED FOR THE STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. HOWEVER, SUB-S ECTION [2] MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT WHENEVER ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND SALE CONSIDERATION IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF VALID REASON, THEN THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO REFER THE MATTER TO VALUATION OFFICER. WITHOUT GOIN G INTO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD MAY WHETHER IT SHOULD BE TAKEN ONLY A S MANDATORY OR NOT THE PLAIN LOGIC SEEMS TO BE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS N OT EXPERT ON VALUATION AND THAT IS WHY THE LEGISLATURE HAS MANDATED THAT I F THERE IS STRONG OBJECTION FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE WITHOUT CHALLENG ING THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION, THEN VALUATION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO VAL UATION OFFICER, WHO IS AN EXPERT AND WHO CAN DO CORRECT VALUATION. 7 THUS, FROM ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT IN SOME CASES WHE RE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT STRONG REASONS THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS LESS THAN THE VALUE DETERMINED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, THEN SUCH CASES HAVE TOBE REFERRED TO THE DVO. OBVIOUSLY, IN SUCH CASES THE SALE CONSI DERATION WHICH HAS BEEN DEEMED TO BE THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AS PER THE MAIN PROVISION, WOULD BE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE D VO. THEREFORE, IN THIS CASE THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO WOULD BE THE D EEMED SALE CONSIDERATION. IN ANY CASE, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE V ALUE ADOPTED BY THE APPROVED VALUER CANNOT BE ADOPTED BECAUSE AS POINTE D OUT BY THE LD. DR., DVO HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE INSTANCES WHICH ARE OF O THER BUILDINGS, EXCEPT FOR ONE INSTANCE AT 6(B) WHICH IS OF SAME BUILDING. FURTHER, THE APPROVED VALUER HAS CALCULATED THE FINAL VALUE ON CARPET ARE A BASIS, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE IT IS A COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT BUIL DINGS ARE PURCHASED AND SOLD THROUGH SALE DEED OR OTHER AGREEMENTS WHIC H CLEARLY REFER TO THE TOTAL AREA, WHICH IS ONLY OF SUPER AREA WHICH INCLU DES WALLS, BALCONIES, PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF COMMON CORRIDORS, STAIRCASES , LIFT AREA AND OTHER OPEN SPACES. WE ALSO FIND THAT DVO HAS CLEARLY SHOW N THE VALUE OF THREE SALE INSTANCES WHICH IS AS UNDER: DATE OF AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY CONSIDERATIO N AREA RATE TRANSFEROR/ TRANSFEREE 19.10.2005 142/A, 14 TH FLOOR, A-WING, MITTAL TOWERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21 (2 CAR PARKINGS) ` `` ` .85,00,000/ - 957 SQ.FT. ` `` ` .8464/- PER SQ.FT. THE GROUNDNUT EXTRACTION EXPORTS DEV. ASSOCIATION AMIT NALIN SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 23.11.2005 74/A, 7 TH FLOOR FLOOR, A-WING, MITTAL TOWERS, ` `` ` .78,00,000/ - 657 SQ.FT. ` `` ` .11,872/- PER SQ.FT. MEHTA MODY & CO. MICROSE INDIA LTD. 8 NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21 19.09.2005 1/A, GROUND FLOOR, FLOOR, A-WING, MITTAL TOWERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21 ` `` ` .30,00,000/ - 1835 SQ.FT. ` `` ` .16,131/- PER SQ.FT. ISHWAR H. THADANI & ORS. JETAIR PVT. LTD. THERE IS SOME FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE GROUND FLOOR COULD FETCH HIGHER RATE BECAU SE OF BETTER ACCESS, BUT THEN GROUND FLOOR HAS BEEN SOLD AT ` `` ` .16,131/-, WHEREAS DVO HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF ` `` ` .10,060/-. BUT OTHER INSTANCES OF 14 TH FLOOR WHICH IS VERY HIGH AND EVEN THAT HAS BEEN SOLD AT ` `` ` .8464/- PER SQ.FT. ASSESSEES OFFICE IS LOCATED ON 2 ND FLOOR WHICH MAY COMMAND BETTER PRICE THAN AN OFFIC E SITUATED ON THE 14 TH FLOOR. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE VALUE ADOPT ED BY THE DVO IS VERY REASONABLE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT[A] AND DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE SALE CONSIDER ATION AT THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO.16 60/M/10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. I.T.A.NOS.2378 & 1659/M/10 : SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL BECAUSE THESE TWO ASSESSEES ARE ALSO 1/3 RD SHAREHOLDERS OF THE SAME PROPERTY SOLD BY MRS. NANDITA KHOSLA WHOSE CASE HAS BEEN ADJUDICA TED BY US IN I.T.A.NO.1660/M/10 IN THE ABOVE NOTED PARAS. FOLLOW ING THE ABOVE ORDER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT[A] IN THESE CASES ALSO AND DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT THE VALUE DET ERMINED BY THE DVO. 9 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS IN I.T.A.NOS.2378/M/10 & 1659/M/10 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 3/5/2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 13/5/2011. P/-*