UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1730/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55115 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K NAYAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Capital receipt

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 1730/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH MUMBAI 400002 PAN AAJPS8985K VS. ITO, WARD 14(1)(1) MUMBAI 400 021 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI JAYESH DADIA FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K.NAYAR DATE OF HEARING : 02-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : -08-2011 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-14, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004- 2005. FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE RAISED BEFORE US. 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ASSUMING AND PRESUMING THAT PROPER, REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVI DED TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE A.O. FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THE FACT THAT SECTION 51 WAS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANTS CASE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAV E ALLOWED INDEXATION OF COST AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE A.O. WERE NOT JUS TIFIED IN DISALLOWING GENUINE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND CLAIME D AGAINST INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. ITA.NO.1730/MUM/2009 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH 2 2. FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ARE STATED IN BRIEF. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HIS INCOME CONSIS TED OF CAPITAL GAINS, COMMISSION AND RENTS ON HOUSE PROPERTY. IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 IT DECLAR ED TOTAL INCOME OF ` 92,840/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A NET INCOME OF ` 23,85,900/-. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS A 50% SHAR E HOLDER IN THE PROPERTY HEREINAFTER KNOWN AS MALAD PROPERTY. HE AND THE CO-OWNER I.E., BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,30,00,000/-. THUS, ASSESSEES SHARE WORKS OUT TO ` 65 LAKHS. SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY THEM FROM THE PERIOD PRIO R TO 31-3-1981 THE COST OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1-4-1981 WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND BY APPLYING INDEXATION COST, ASSESSEE OFFERED LONG TER M CAPITAL GAINS OF ` 3,09,208/-. OWNERS HAVE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 1994 WHEREBY THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS FIXED AT ` 1.30 CRORES OUT OF WHICH ` 7 LAKHS WAS PAID ON OR BEFORE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENTS, ` 8 LAKHS THEREAFTER AND BALANCE CONSIDERATION OF ` 1.15 CRORES TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF SALE . ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE AND THE CO-OWNER RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION IN SEV ERAL INSTALLMENTS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1998-99 TO 2003-2004. FO R THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THOUGH INSTALLMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS, THE ACTUAL TRANSFER TOOK PLACE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 2005 AND HENCE UNDER EXPLANATION (III) TO SECTION 48 OF THE ACT IN DEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE APPLIED BY TAKING INTO CONSID ERATION THE INDEXATION APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. 3. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE ONLY IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. DEED OF CONVEYANCE DATED 16 TH JUNE, 2003 AS WELL AS THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 25-11-94 DOES NOT INDICATE THA T POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND ITA.NO.1730/MUM/2009 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH 3 PRESUMABLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID FACT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE PARTIES CLAIMED IT AS A TRANSFER IN THE PRECEDI NG YEARS. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE ASSE SSEE ADMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS OTHERWISE THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY LIABILITY TO PAY CAPITAL GA INS TAX IN THIS YEAR. 4. HOWEVER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT UNDER SECTION 51 OF THE I.T. ACT ANY ADVANCE RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF AN ASSET SHALL BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAINS HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT AC CORDINGLY. IN HIS OPINION, ANY COST INCURRED ON IMPROVEMENT HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE COST OF THE ASSET, FOR APPLYING INDEXATION COST, FROM THE D ATE OF IMPROVEMENT AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET. ON T HE SAME LINES, PAYMENT RECEIVED IN ADVANCE HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM COST OF CAPITAL ASSET WHILE COMPUTING LTCG. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY WORKE D OUT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THEREAFTER COMPUTED CAPITAL GAINS. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE POSSESSI ON OF THE LAND WAS NEVER PARTED UNTIL THE SALE DEED WAS EXECU TED AND HENCE TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE ONLY IN THE YEAR 2003. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT INDEXATION COST APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-2005 SHOULD BE APPLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE WITHOUT REDUCING THE ADVANCE MONEY FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION I.E., IN THE INSTANT CASE A S ON 1-4-1981. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE OWNER OF THE AMOUNT TILL THE COMPLETION OF SALE. UNDER THE CIRCU MSTANCES APPLICATION OF SECTION 51 OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE APPLY ING SECTION 51 OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THIS COUNT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ITA.NO.1730/MUM/2009 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH 4 7. AS REGARDS APPLICATION OF SECTION 51 OF THE I.T . ACT THE LEARNED CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT THE RECEIPT OF ADVANC E ON VARIOUS DATES WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS ALSO NO D ISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO SELL THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 19 94 AND RECEIVED PART CONSIDERATION AS ADVANCE AND FURTHER INSTALLMENTS W ERE RECEIVED THEREAFTER. AS AGAINST THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF ` 1.30 CRORES ASSESSEES SHARE WAS ` 65 LAKHS. SALE WAS COMPLETED AND EXECUTED DURING T HE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 2005. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX, IN THE OPINION OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A), ADVANCES RECEIVED AND RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DED UCTED FROM THE VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981, IN COMPUTING THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N. SECTION 51 USES THE EXPRESSION SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COST FOR WHI CH THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED OR WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OR THE FAIR MARKET V ALUE ----- IN COMPUTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION WHICH LEAVES NO AMBIGUITY TO HOLD THAT THE ADVANCE AMOUNT RECEIVED HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION. HE, ACCORDINGLY, UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LEARNED COUNSEL FILED 69 PAGES PAPER BOOK CONSISTING OF AGR EEMENT OF SALE, APPROVAL OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, AGREEMENT WITH M /S. DEVASISH DEVELOPERS LTD. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE LE ARNED CIT (A) ETC., ADVERTING OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 51 OF THE ACT, L EARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPRESSION ON ANY PREVIOUS OCCA SION THE SUBJECT MATTER OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR ITS TRANSFER POSITIVELY INDICATES THAT THE SAID SECTION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE CASE OF ABORTED T RANSACTION AND IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO A TRANSFER WHICH HAD TAKEN PLACE IN T HE NORMAL COURSE. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO COMMENTARY OF CHATURVEDI AND PITHISARIA TO SUBMIT THAT AN EFFECTIVE TRANSFER IS NOT COVERED BY SECTION 51 OF THE ACT AND ADVANCE RECEIVED IN THE CASE OF AN E FFECTIVE TRANSFER IS TAXABLE ONLY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH TRANSFER TAKES PL ACE AND SUCH ADVANCE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUI SITION. LEARNED ITA.NO.1730/MUM/2009 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH 5 COUNSEL HAS ALSO FILED FRESH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BE FORE US WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER SI MILAR CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY PROCESSING THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 143 (1) OF THE ACT AND NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE TO REOPEN THE CASE. IN OTHERWORDS, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEAR NED COUNSEL IS THAT WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAME TRANSFER, THE REVENUE HA VING ACCEPTED THE CASE OF A CO-OWNER THERE IS NO EQUITY IN CHALLENGIN G THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 9. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SECTION 51 COMES INTO PLAY ONLY IN THE EVENT OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH WAS NEGOTIA TED ON A PREVIOUS OCCASION AND IN THE EVENT OF CANCELING OF SUCH TRAN SACTION IF THE VENDOR HAS A RIGHT TO FORFEIT THE AMOUNT OR RETAIN THE AMO UNT BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT, ADVANCE SO RECEIVED AND RETAINED HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE TH ERE WAS NEITHER CANCELLATION NOR FORFEITURE OF ANY DEPOSIT AND HENC E SECTION 51 HAS NO APPLICATION. HE HAS ALSO SOUGHT TO TAKE SUPPORT FRO M THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA CO. LTD. 243 ITR 158 WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT HAS VERY CLEARLY HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 51 RETENTION OF ANY MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TA XABLE AT ALL AND IT IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. HOWEVER, IT HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ASSET SO THAT AT THE TIME OF SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE SAID ASS ET NET COST WOULD BE CONSIDERED AND NOT THE ORIGINAL COST. HE THUS CONTE NDED THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 4 8 OF THE ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE COST INFLATION INDEX APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THEREFORE, DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. IT MAY BE NOTICED THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FIL ED CONCISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHEREIN THE CORRECT CALCULATION OF INDEX COST APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 WAS ALSO CONTESTED BUT AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS, HAVING REALIZED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR SUCH ITA.NO.1730/MUM/2009 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH 6 ARGUMENTS AND THOSE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES, LEARNED COUNSEL, APPEARING ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT RAISE ANY ARGUMENT ON THIS ISSUE AND IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS NO SUCH PLEA WAS TAKEN. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 51 NOWHERE SPECIFIES THAT IN ORDER TO APPLY THE SAID SECTION A TRANSACTION HAS TO FAIL. IN EVERY TR ANSACTION, THERE IS A CHANCE OF RECEIVING ADVANCE MONEY AND BEFORE A TRAN SACTION IS FINALIZED IT WOULD BE SUBJECT MATTER OF NEGOTIATION AND HENCE TH E EXPRESSION ON ANY PREVIOUS OCCASION THE SUBJECT MATTER OF NEGOTIATION FOR ITS TRANSFER HAS TO BE READ IN THE SAID CONTEXT, IN WHICH EVENT ADVA NCE RECEIVED HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE INST ANT CASE THAT THE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR R ELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EXPLANATION (I II) TO SECTION 48 OF THE I.T. ACT CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSI DERATION I.E. THE COST OF THE ASSET FOR THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST YEAR OF APRIL 1 981, WHICHEVER IS LATER, SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR INDEXATION P URPOSE. REDUCTION OF THE ADVANCE AMOUNT FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SAID EXPLANATION. HOWEVER, SUB-CLAUSE (IV) THER EOF, WHICH EXPLAINS INDEXED COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT, IN CONTRAST, STA TES THAT THE COST INFLATION INDEX FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE IMPROVEME NT TO THE ASSET TOOK PLACE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE BASIS. SECTION 51 OF THE ACT IS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR REDUCTION OF THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION. IN THE CASE OF TRAVANCORE RUBB ER (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ANY ADVANCE RECEIVED AND FO RFEITED BY AN ITA.NO.1730/MUM/2009 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH 7 ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER AND THE SAME HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQ UISITION BY APPLYING SECTION 51 OF THE ACT. 12. IN THE CASE OF STERLING INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 123 ITR 441 THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION T O CONSIDER THE PLEA OF A PURCHASER WHEREIN PAYMENT BY WAY OF EARNEST MO NEY WAS CLAIMED AS A CAPITAL LOSS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS FORFEITED BY THE VENDOR. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION AND IT CANNOT EVEN BE TREATED AS CAPITAL LOSS. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE AFORECITED TWO DECISIONS, THE EXPRESSION PREVIOUS OCCASION REFERS TO AN ABORTED SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND IT DOES NOT APP LY TO A TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET AS PER THE AGREED TERMS. 13. IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TRAVANCORE RUBBER TEA CO. LTD. AN ADVANCE RECEIVED, UPON CANCELLATION OF A SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET, SHOULD BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT AND BY APPLYING SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 51 OF THE I .T. ACT, 1961 THE SAME HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN T HE EVENT OF A SUBSEQUENT SALE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF AN ASSET IS PURCHA SED IN 1990 FOR A SUM OF ` 1 LAKH AND IN THE YEAR 2000 IF THE ASSESSEE ENTERS INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE AND RECEIVES AN ADVANCE AMOUNT OF ` 60,000/- AND THEREAFTER THE AMOUNT IS FORFEITED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE TERMS OF SALE THE INTENDING PURCHASER CANNOT CLAIM IT AS A CAPITAL LO SS AND IN THE HANDS OF INTENDING SELLER IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION WHEREBY THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION BECOMES ` 40,000/- AS PER EXAMPLE GIVEN ABOVE. IF THE OWNER S ELLS THE SAME PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2002 FOR A SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHAT HAS TO BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION BY APP LYING THE COST INFLATION INDEX METHOD. ASSUMING THAT THE INFLATION WITH REFE RENCE TO THE BASE YEAR OF 1990 IS 200% THE COST OF ACQUISITION WOULD WORKED OUT TO ITA.NO.1730/MUM/2009 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH 8 ` 1,20,000/- ( ` 40,000 X 3 = ` 1,20,000/-). IF THE ADVANCES WERE NOT REDUCED FROM THE COST OF ACQUISITION, BY APPLYING T HE INDEXATION METHOD THE COST OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN ` 3 LAKHS. AT THE SAME TIME, AT THE TIME OF NEW SALE, FULL AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION WOULD BE SUBJECT MATTER OF TAX SUBJECT TO DEDUCTIONS CONTEMPLATED UN DER SECTION 48 ETC., 14. ON A CONSPECTUS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT SECTION 51 OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO AN ABORTED T RANSACTION ONLY. TO SUM-UP WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO WORK-OU T THE CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT AFTER CONSIDERING THE C OST INFLATION INDEX APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. 15. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO NOTICE HERE THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER CO-OWNER HAS ACCEPTED SIMILA R COMPUTATION AND NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO REOPEN THE CASE. UNDER THE CIRC UMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASS ESSEE. IN OTHERWORDS, COST INFLATION INDEX AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE BASIS TO WORK-O UT THE CAPITAL GAINS. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-08-2011. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE 30 TH AUGUST, 2011. VBP/- ITA.NO.1730/MUM/2009 SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH 9 COPY TO 1. SHRI UPENDRAKUMAR SHAH, ANAND SAGAR BUILDING, 14 , GAZDER STREET, J.SHANKERSHETH ROAD, MUMBAI 400002 PAN AAJPS8 985K 2. ITO, WARD 14(1)(1), EARNEST HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 3. CIT(A)-XIV, MUMBAI 4. CIT-14, MUMBAI. 5. D.R F BENCH 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI.