ADDL CIT RG 11(1), MUMBAI V. SAGAR FILMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 170/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75433 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K GOPAL IZRFKHZ DH LS

Judgement Text

- 1 - VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K BZ U;K;IHB EQACBZ ESAA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI JH ,U JH ,U JH ,U JH ,U- -- - DS DS DS DS- -- - LSUH] YS[KK LNL; LSUH] YS[KK LNL; LSUH] YS[KK LNL; LSUH] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH ,OA JH ,OA JH ,OA JH VFER 'KQDYK VFER 'KQDYK VFER 'KQDYK VFER 'KQDYK] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K /ITA NO. 170/MUM/2011 FU/KKZJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ACIT RG. 11(1), ROOM NO. 194, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI -400 020. CUKE@ VS. M/S SAGAR FILMS PVT. LTD. 194, NATRAJ STUDIO, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 069. PAN: AAICS 3918 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VIHYKFKHZ DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.GOPAL IZR;FKHZ DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY SHRI PITAMBER DAS VKNS'K@ VKNS'K@ VKNS'K@ VKNS'K@ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, AM. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2010 OF CIT(A)-3, MUMBAI. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) MUMBAI ERRED IN IGNORING THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE EMPLOYEES ON ITS ROLL, YET THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DEEMED TO BE LIABLE FOR FBT DUE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO ISSUED NOTI CE U/S 115WEB (2) DATED 18.10.2007 FOR TAKING UP THE FBT (FRINGE BENEFIT TAX) RETURN FOR SCRUTINY. ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 19.11.2007 WAS ISSUED VIDE WHICH DETAILS REGARDING NON DECLARATION OF FRINGE BENEFIT FOR TAXATION WERE CALLED FOR. THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED BEFORE AO THAT UNLESS ASSESSEE, EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP EXISTS AND TH E EMPLOYER HAS EMPLOYEES PLACED IN INDIA, HE IS NOT LIABLE FOR FBT. IT WAS FUR THER STATED THAT THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT CLARIFIED THAT AN ENTITY WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY EMPLO YEES WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO FBT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY EMPLO YEES, PROVISIONS OF FBT WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE INDEED DID NOT HAVE ANY EMPLOYEE OF ITS OWN EVEN THOUGH SEVERAL EXPENDITUR E WHICH WERE NORMALLY INCURRED BY EMPLOYEES LIKE TRAVELLING, COMMUNICATION AND OTHERS WERE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. AO ALSO CALLED FOR THE DETAILS O F THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN M/S SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT AND COMPARED THE P&L ACCOUNT AND PRODUCTION AND OTHER LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING 06-02-2014 ?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14-02-2014 - 2 - EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID CONCERN, IN TH E BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME IS NOT REPROD UCED HEREIN. AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE TWO SETS OF PAPER, THE AO OBSERVED AS UNDER: A) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE ANY REGULAR EMPLOYEES ON ITS ROLLS AND IT HAS ENSURED THAT MANPOWER REQUIRED FOR THE COMPOSITE BU SINESS CONDUCTED ARE ON THE ROLLS OF M/S. SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. B) THE EXPENDITURE OF M/S. SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. WERE BEING SHARED BY IT UPTO A.Y. 2005-06 WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN FACT FOR A.Y. 2005-06 EXPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF RS. 27 LACS INCURRED BY M/S. SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. WERE SHARED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. C) EXPENDITURE WHICH ATTRACT SUBSTANTIAL DISALLOWA NCE UNDER FRINGE BENEFIT PROVISIONS ARE DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HESE EXPENDITURE INCLUDE TRAVEL AND CONVEYANCE, COMMUNICATION, FOREIGN TRAVEL AND THE L IKE. THE EXPENDITURE WHICH DO NOT ATTRACT SUBSTANTIAL FRINGE BENEFIT TAX PROVISION LI KE SALARY, WAGES TO TECHNICIANS AND SUCH EXPENDITURE ARE ENSURED TO BE KEPT IN THE BOOK S OF SISTER CONCERN M/S. SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. D) SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE OTHERWISE REQ UIRED TO MAINTAIN DAY TO DAY FUNCTIONS OF EMPLOYEES LIKE COMMUNICATION, TRANSPORTATION, OF FICE MAINTENANCE, TRAVEL AND THE LIKE HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE GIVING A CL EAR EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE IS INDEED EMPLOYEES BY PROXY. E) IT MAY FURTHER BE NOTED THAT OTHER ADMINISTRATI VE EXPENSES HAVE COME DOWN IN THE HANDS OF SISTER CONCERN, WHERE AS THEY HAVE GONE UP IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CONCERN. G) ADDITIONALLY, THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES DEBITED H AVE A DEFINITE ELEMENT OF SALARY/WAGES IN THEM ON ACCOUNT OF REGULARITY, LONG DURATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND PERIODIC SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT. I CAMERA DEPARTMENT EMOLUMENTS 30,82,907 II COMPUTER DEPARTMENT EMOLUMENTS 30,50,643 III DIRECTION DEPARTMENT EMOLUMENTS 58,15,060 IV EDITING DEPARTMENT EMOLUMENTS 26,72,750 V MAKE UP MAN EMOLUMENTS 10,43,588 VI PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT EMOLUMENTS 54,06,996 VII SOUND RECORDING DEPARTMENT EMOLUMENTS 20,08,356 3. THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT D ID NOT HAVE EMPLOYEES ON ITS ROLLS AND TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS DEEMED TO HAVE HA D EMPLOYEES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IT WAS HIS DUTY TO LIFT CORPORATE VEIL AND UNEARTH TRUTH OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS FAILING TO DO THIS DUTY WOULD ENCOURAG E TAX EVASION IN THE GARB OF LEGITIMATE TAX AVOIDANCE. HE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFIT TAX AT RS. 48,36,743/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO L D. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- A) NOTICES U/S. 115WEB(2) DATED 18.10.2007 AND 19.11. 2007 WERE SERVED ON APPELLANT. HOWEVER, FBT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT CATEGO RICALLY CARRIED OUT SEPARATELY. NO PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT WERE .NOTED AND EXCEPT TH E SAID NOTICES NO PARTICULAR DETAILS/EXPLANATION WERE CALLED FOR. ONLY AN ORAL C OMMUNICATION WITH THE AR WAS MADE AND IT WAS ORALLY AND EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT PROVISION S OF FBT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A Y 06-07 IT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE AO THAT FBT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO APPELLANT COMPANY BY LETTER DT 21.10. 2008 APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON M/S SAGAR ENTERTAINMENTS LETTER DT. 21.11.2008 FILED D URING INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF APPELLANT, DENYING THAT ANY ADMINIST RATIVE EXPENSES PERTAIN TO APPELLANT. B) APPELLANT STATED THAT IT WAS INCORRECT TO STATE THA T SHRI BHARAT TALATI ATTENDED ON VARIOUS DATES AND FILED INFORMATION CALLED FOR AND TO SAY T HAT FULL DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED AND DENIAL OF LIABILITY BY APPELLANT, THE ASSESSMENT WA S CONCLUDED U/S. 115WF. THIS WAS - 3 - INCORRECT AS NO FBT PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT AN D NONE WERE NOTED, NOBODY APPEARED SEPARATELY FOR FBT ASSESSMENT AT ANY DATE AND NO FU RTHER SPECIFIC DETAILS OR INFORMATIONS IN THAT CONTEXT. CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN 1 15WF HAV E NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND THE AO NEVER SERVED NOTICE UPON APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. C) THERE WAS NO NOTICE ISSUED BY ADDL. CIT. RANGE 11(1 ). CONSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ATTENDANCE BEFORE HIM AND NO OCCASION T O FILE ANY DETAILS OR INFORMATION BEFORE HIM. D) THE AO HAVING ACCEPTED THAT APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES AND WITHOUT CALLING FOR ANY DETAILS, BUT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATI ON COLLECTED BY HIM IN ASSESSMENT OF SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT LTD. AND WITHOUT ANY LOGICAL RE ASON CONCLUDED THAT; I) APPELLANTS MANPOWER WAS ON THE ROLLS OF SAGAR E NTERTAINMENT LTD. II) THAT APPELLANT ENSURE TO KEEP EXPENSES LIABLE F OR FBT ARE BOOKED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT LTD. III) APPELLANT HAD EMPLOYEES BY PROXY. IV) APPELLANT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE EMPLOYEES. E) APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO SPECIFIC QUESTI ON WAS RAISED IN RESPECT OF SHARE OF EXPENSES 5. THE LD. CIT(A) SENT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO FOR HIS REPORT. THE AO VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 16.07.2010 HAS STATED AS U NDER:- GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS IT IS FOUND THAT AS PER ORDER SHEET NOTINGS DT. 5.12.2008, IT IS MENTIONED AS UNDER.~ MR. BHARAT TALATI CA APPEARED. THE TAXABILITY OF F RINGE BENEFIT IN THE HANDS OF M/S. SAGAR FILMS IS DISCUSSED. A.R. STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF NOT HAVING ANY EMPLOYEE ON ITS ROLLS. HEARD AND ADJOURNED FOR ADJUDICATION. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 115WR OF I T. ACT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 10.12.2008. HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE DO ES NOT HAVE ANY REGULAR EMPLOYEES ON ITS ROLLS AND THE MANPOWER REQUIRED FOR THE COMPOSITE BUSINES S CONDUCTED ARE ON THE ROLLS OF M/S. SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. THE EXPENDITURE OF M/S. SAGAR ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD WERE BEING BY IT UPTO A. Y. 2005-06 WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON DETAILE D REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE EMPLOYEES ON ITS ROLLS WAS REJECTED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD EMPLOYEES ON ACCOUNT OF FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE ORDER. THE PROVISIONS OF FBT DEALS IN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYER COVERED U/S. 115WB TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE EMPLOYEE (TO THE EXTENT MENTIONED THEREIN) OF THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. BUT THERE I S NO DEEMING PROVISION WHICH ENTAILS THAT IN CASE THERE IS NO EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, TH E EXPENSES OF THE KIND INCURRED U/S. 115WB WOULD BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE FBT. IN TH E ASSESSEEES CASE, THERE WAS NO EMPLOYEES IN ITS ROLL AS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SERIALS ON CON TRACT BASIS AND PROCURED ITS MANPOWER ON CONTRACT BASIS. AS SUCH, PRIMA FACIE, THERE BEING N O EMPLOYEES ON THE ROLL OF ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE DEEMING PROVISION OF FBT ARE NOT APPLICABLE BUT AS MENTIONED BY AO IN PARA 4(G) OF THE ORDER, THE CORPORATE VEIL HAS TO BE LIFTED AND THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS TO BE UNEARTHED AND THIS WAS EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE VIDE ORDER U/S. LL5WFDT. 10.12.2008. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BY OBSE RVING IN PARA 2.4 TO 2.4.2 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 2.4 FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE CONSIDERED. THE REQUISITE FOR CONSIDERING CHARGEABILITY OF FBT IS THE EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYEE-E MPLOYER RELATIONSHIP AND THE FACT THAT AN ASSESSEE HAS EMPLOYEES IN INDIA. IN THE IMP UGNED APPEAL SUCH IS NOT THE CASE. AO HAS CONSIDERED APPELLANT AS BEING DEEMED EMPLOY ER AND ON CONSIDERING DEEMED EMPLOYEES WORKED OUT THE FBT LIABILITY. AP PELLANTS SUBMISSION THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY IN RESPECT OF FBT ASSESSMENT N OT BEING GIVEN ALSO SEEMS VALID. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF A F ORMAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD NOR OF AO CONFRONTING HIM WITH HIS CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT OF DETAILS OBTAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF M/S. SAGAR EN TERTAINMENT LTD. 2.4.1 AOS STAND OF LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL REMA INS UNESTABLISHED, PARTICULARLY AS NO SHOW - 4 - CAUSE NOTICE IN THIS REGARD WAS ISSUED TO APPELLA NT NOR APPELLANT CONFRONTED ON THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE AO FROM THE FACTS OF A S EPARATE THOUGH RELATED ASSESSEE. 2.4.2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE LIABLE FOR FBT BASED ON AOS VIEWS OF APPELLANT BEING DEEMED EMPLOYER AND LIABLE FOR SAME IN RESPECT OF DEEMED EMPLOYEES. T HE VALUE OF TAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT WORKED OUT IN APPELLANTS CASE AT RS. 48,36,743/- I S, THEREFORE, DELETED 7. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.12.2 008. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). IT WAS STATED THAT FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF TAXABLE FRIN GE BENEFIT, THERE SHOULD BE ANY EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AND SINCE THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT HAVING EMPLOYEE WHICH WAS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE AO IN HIS REMA ND REPORT DATED 16.07.2010, COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE 5 AND 6 OF THE ASSES SEES PAPER BOOK, LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TO DECIDE TH E PRESENT CONTROVERSY, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 115WB OF THE ACT ARE R ELEVANT WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, FRINGE BENEF ITS MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT PROVIDE D BY WAY OF (A) ANY PRIVILEGE, SERVICE, FACILITY OR AMENITY, D IRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, PROVIDED BY AN EMPLOYER, WHETHER BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OR OTHERWISE, TO HI S EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING FORMER EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES); (B) ANY FREE OR CONCESSIONAL TICKET PROVIDED BY TH E EMPLOYER FOR PRIVATE JOURNEYS OF HIS EMPLOYEES OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS; (C) ANY CONTRIBUTION BY THE EMPLOYER TO AN APPROVE D SUPERANNUATION FUND FOR EMPLOYEES AND] [D) ANY SPECIFIED SECURITY OR SWEAT EQUITY SHARES A LLOTTED OR TRANSFERRED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, BY THE EMPLOYER FREE OF COST OR AT CONCESSIONAL RATE T O HIS EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING FORMER EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES). EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, (I1) SPECIFIED SECURITY MEANS THE SECURITIES AS D EFINED IN CLAUSE (H) OF SECTION 2 OF THE SECURITIES CONTRACTS (REGULATION) ACT, 1956( 42 OF 1956) [AND, WHERE EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION HAS BEEN GRANTED UNDER ANY PLAN OR SCHEME THEREFORE, INCLUDES THE SECURITIES OFFERED UNDER SU CH PLAN OR SCHEME]; (II) SWEAT EQUITY SHARES MEANS EQUITY SHARES ISSU ED BY A COMPANY TO ITS EMPLOYEES OR DIRECTORS AT A DISCOUNT OR FOR CONSIDE RATION OTHER THAN CASH FOR PROVIDING KNOW-HOW OR MAKING AVAILABLE RIGHTS I N THE NATURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OR VALUE ADDITIONS, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED.] (2) THE FRINGE BENEFITS SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEE N PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER TO HIS EMPLOYEES, IF THE EMPLOYER HAS, IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROF ESSION (INCLUDING ANY ACTIVITY WHETHER OR NOT SUCH ACTIVITY IS CARRIED ON WITH THE OBJECT OF DERIVING INCOME, PROFITS OR GAINS) INCURRED ANY EXPENSE ON, OR MADE ANY PAYMENT FOR, THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES, NARNE 1Y ..: 9. FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT FO R THE PURPOSES OF FRINGE BENEFIT, THERE MUST BE ANY CONSIDERATION FOR EMPLOYMENT, SO, THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE IS PREREQUISITE CONDITION, BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AO HIMSELF ADMITTED IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 16.07.2010, THAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THERE WAS NO EMPLOYEES ON ITS ROLLS, AS ASSESSEE HA S PRODUCED SERIALS ON CONTRACT BASIS AND PROCURED ITS MANPOWER ON CONTRACT BASIS. AS SUCH PRIMA FACIE, THERE BEING NO EMPLOYEES ON THE ROLL OF ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE DEE MING PROVISION OF FBT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARE OF THE - 5 - VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR FBT. ACCORDINGLY, WE, DO NOT SEE ANY VAL ID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND HOLD THAT THREE IS NO MERI T IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 /02/20 14 SD/- SD/ - (AMIT SHUKLA) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 14 /02/2014 SKS SR. P.S COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI