ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI V. ASIA VISION, MUMBAI

ITA 1868/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8288 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAV KUMAR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1868/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2004-05) THE ACIT-11 (1), ROOM NO.439, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 20. (APPELLANT ) VS. ASIA VISION ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., 33/160 & 162 LAXMI INDL. ESTATE, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400 053 PAN:AACCA 5300L (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI LAV KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DE EPAK TRALSHAWALA DATE OF HEARING : 10/12/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 /12/2014 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-3,MUMBAI DATED 9/12/2010 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) MUMBAI ERRED IN DELETING EXCESS AMORTIZATION COST DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIO NS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND INCOME- TAX RULES. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEAL S) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING V IDEO RIGHTS AND OTHER RIGHTS OF FEATURE FILMS AND SELLING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAME. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AT A LOSS OF RS.1,51,35,150/-. DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEBITING ENTIRE AMOU NT OF PURCHASE IN THE YEAR IN ITA NO.1868/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2004-05) 2 WHICH IT HAS SOME REVENUE. THE AO IDENTIFIED SUCH CASES AND THESE HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN TABLE REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AT PAGE-5, WHICH READ AS UNDER: A.Y RIGHTS SOLD REALIZATION FROM SALE OF RIGHTS TOTAL COST AMORTIZED DURING THE YEAR EXCESS COST AMORTIZED DURING THE YEAR 2003-04 VCD RIGHTS OF FILMS 71,42,363 1,53,58,00 0 82,15,637 SATELLITE RIGHTS OF 107 FILMS 291,41,875 340,26, 079 45,,84,204 SPLIT VIDE OPEN SATELLITE RIGHTS 15,00,000 60,00,000 45,00,000 SATELLITE RIGHTS OF 6 FILMS 86,28,000 1,15,50,1 11 70,77,889 2004-05 1,64,62,093 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THAT AS TO WHY AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT OF RS.1,64,62,093/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE FIRM. FOLLOWING REPLY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND THAT NO ADDITION W AS CALLED FOR. A) THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT AS APPEARING FROM COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BY YOUR GOODSELF FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT, THE REASON O F RE-OPENING SEEMS TO BE AMORTIZATION OF COST OF CERTAIN RIGHTS WHICH ACCORDING TO YOUR G OODSELF IS EXCESSIVE AS UNDER: DESCRIPTION OF RIGHTS REALIZATION OF SALE COST OF A MORTIZED DURING THE YEAR. SATELLITE RIGHTS OF 107 FILMS RS.2,91,41,875 RS. 3,40,26,079 SPLIT WIDE OPEN (SATELLITE RIGHTS) RS. 15,00,000 RS. 60,00,000 SATELLITE RIGHTS OF SIX FILMS RS. 86,28,000 RS. 1,15,50,111 B) REGARDING SERIAL NO.1 OF ABOVE STATEMENT THE ASS ESSEE STATES THAT THE SATELLITE RIGHS OF 107 FILMS WERE SOLD AT RS.2,94,41,575/- AND NOT AT RS. 2,91,41,875/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT AFTER SELLING THE SAID SATELLI TE RIGHTS, THE ASSESSSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY SATELLITE RIGHT AVAILABLE TO HIM FOR FUTURE EXP LOITATION OF THE SAID FIRMS. IN A WAY THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HIS TOTAL SATELLITE RIGHTS IN RES PECT OF SAID 107 FILMS, AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHT IN VALUING THE COST OF SAID SAT ELLITE RIGHT OF 107 FILMS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,40,26,079/- FROM STOCK. C) REGARDING SERIAL NO.2 OF ABOVE STATEMENT, THE AS SESSEE STATES THAT AFTER SELLING THE SAID SATELLITE RIGHTS OF FILM SPLIT WIDE OPEN FOR SUM OF RS.15,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY SATELLITE RIGHTS AVAILABLE FOR FUT URE EXPLOITATION OF SAID FILM SPLIT WIDE OPEN SO IN A WAY THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HIS TOTAL S ATELLITE RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FILM SPLITWIDE OPEN AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE WAS RI GHT IN VALUING THE COST OF SAID SATELLITE RIGHTS OF THE SAID FILMS AT NIL THUS WRIT ING OFF HIS COST OF SAID SATELLITE RIGHTS OF THE SAID FILMS AMOUNTING TO RS.60,00,000/- FROM STO CK. ITA NO.1868/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2004-05) 3 D) REGARDING SERIAL NO.3 OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT TH E ASSESSEE STATES THAT AFTER SELLING THE SAID SATELLITE RIGHTS OF 6 FILMS FOR SUM OF RS. 86,28,000/-, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY SATELLITE RIGHTS AVAILABLE FOR THE SAID SIX FIL MS FOR FUTURE EXPLOITATION OF SATELLITE RIGHTS OF THE SAID 6 FILM. IN A WAY THE ASSESSEE H AD SOLD HIS TOTAL SATELLITE RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID 6 FILMS AND THEREFORE THE ASSES SEE WAS RIGHT IN VALUING THE COST OF THE SAID SATELLITE RIGHTS OF THE SAID 6 FILMS AT N IL THUS WRITING OFF HIS COST OF SAID SATELLITE RIGHTS OF THE SAID FILMS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,11,50,111/- FROM STOCK. 4) YOUR GOODSELF WILL THEREFORE APPRECIATE THAT THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF ALL THE TITLES IN QUESTION WAS RIGHTLY TAKEN AT NIL BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE UPON SALE OF THE SAID RIGHTS, NO SATELLITE RIGHTS WOULD REVERT BACK TO TH E ASSESSEE AFTER CERTAIN YEARS (WHICH IS NOT IN A PRESENT CASE) IN TERMS OF RULE 9B WHICH IS APPLICABLE FOR THE FIRM RIGHTS WHETHER THEATRICAL OR NON-THEATRICAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGH T IN VALUING IN THE SAID RIGHTS AT NIL AT 31/03/2004. 5) ANY FURTHER DETAILS AND/OR EXPLANATION IN MATTE R SHALL POSITIVELY BE FURNISHED BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF UPON INTIMATION THEREOF BY YOUR GOODS ELF TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOUR GOODSELF IS REQUESTED TO ACCEPT THE ORIGINALLY ASSESSED LOSS AS PER ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 27/11/2006 3.1 THOUGH AO HAS HELD THAT RULE 9B IS NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS VIDEO RIGHTS HAVE BECOME OPERATIVE AT LEAST SIX MONTHS LATER FROM THE DATE OF THEATRE RELEASE . HOWEVER, AO HAS REJECTED THE AFO REMENTIONED CONTENTION AND ADDED THE AFOREMENTIONED AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AND BY GIVING BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES OF EARLIER Y EARS TO THE INCOME, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT NIL. 4. AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), BEFORE WH OM IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE BY THE AO. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS SEEN BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD DISCLOSED INVENTORY AS ON 31/3/2004 AT A SUM OF RS.6,44,94,247/-. AS PER AUDI T REPORT THE UNEXPLOITED FILM COPY RIGHTS ARE VALUED AT LOWER OF COST AND AIR VAL UE USING THE INDIVIDUAL FILM FORECAST COMPUTATION METHOD AS ESTIMATED BY THE MANAGEMENT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED IN THE AUDIT REPORT THAT EXPLOITED FILM COPY RIGHTS ARE CHARGED TO REVENUE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PRIMARY RIGHT WAS SOLD WHICH MEANS THAT A SSESSEE WAS VALUING ITS STOCK OF FILM COPY RIGHTS AND MAINTAINING INVENTORY ON T HE BASIS OF COST OR FAIR MARKET ITA NO.1868/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2004-05) 4 VALUE WHICHEVER IS LESS. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETEN ESS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: I) THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF VCD RIGHTS IN THE BO OKS OF APPELLANT FROM F.Y. 99-00 TO 02- 03 CLEARLY SHOW THAT FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF VCD RIGHTS IN QUESTION APPELLANT HAD NEVER REDUCED THE COST OF SAID RIGHTS IN SPITE OF T HE FACT THAT APPELLANT EARNED A SUM OF RS.27,07,656/- IN F.Y 01-02. APPELLANT BEING OF TH E VIEW THAT FMV OF THE VCD RIGHTS HAD NOT CHANGED DID NOT REDUCE THE VALUE ON 31/3/02 BUT ON 31/03/2003 APPELLANT HAD A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT NO FURTHER REVENUE WAS P OSSIBLE AND THEREFORE RIGHTLY VALUED THE STOCK OF SAID RIGHTS AT NIL. II) APPELLANT HAD A NET LOSS OF OVER RS.6 CRORES AN D IT DID NOT BENEFIT APPELLANT ANYTHING EXTRA TO REDUCE THE VALUE AT NIL AS ALLEGED BY AO. III) APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED A STATEMENT SHOWING RELATED RECEIPT AS REFERENCE. IV) EVENTHOUGH RULE 9B IS NOT STRICTLY FOLLOWED THE SAID RULE IS APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND THE MARKET VALUE IS GIVEN MORE IMPORT ANCE. V) FILM DISTRIBUTOR HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN RULE 9 B BUT BY WAY OF COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 SECTION 2(A)(F) THE DEFINITION OF CIMEMATORGRAPHY F ILM WOULD THEREFORE INCLUDE FILM DISTRIBUTOR HOLDING COPYRIGHTS OF VIDEO. VI) RULE 9B NEVER MENTIONS THE WORLD THEATRE AND TH EREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS APPLICABLE FOR THEATER DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS ONLY. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO WAS NOT APPLICABLE. 4.1 ON THESE SUBMISSIONS LD. CIT(A) ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO ESTABLISH ITS PRACTICE OF CLOSING VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. HOWEVER, EXCEPT FOR A GENERAL NARRATION AS BEING ON MARKET VALUE BY A MANAGEMENT THE SPECIFIC CLOSING STOCK VALUATION WERE NOT PROVIDED . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE COST, PE RIOD AND COPIES OF SOME AGREEMENTS. FROM THE DETAILS LD. CIT(A) HAS SUMMAR IZED THE POSITION OF 107 SATELLITE RIGHTS SALE AND HAS TABULATED THE SAME IN THE FO LLOWING TABLE: (A) BADLA DO ANJANE JAANWAR AUR LOAFER MA ROJA SAZISH RIGHTS WITH APPELLANT FROM 1.8.01 FOR 5 YEARS OR UNTIL 31-3-06. SOLD FOR PERIOD TILL 31- 10-07 (B) FIVE FILMS BOUGHT FROM TUTU RIGHTS WITH APPELLA NT TILL SOLD FOR PERIOD TILL 1-5- ITA NO.1868/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2004-05) 5 FILMS (P) LTD. INCLUDING CHAR DIWARI, AISA PYAR KAHAN, AMIRI GARIBI, ZAKHMI SHER 10-7-08 08 (C) FILM HUMSHAKAL RIGHTS WITH APPELLANT W.E.F. 10- 12- 97 FOR 8 YEARS SOLD FOR PERIOD TILL 9-12- 05 (D) FILM OPERA HOUSE RIGHTS WITH APPELLANT TILL 31- 3-06 SOLD FOR PERIOD TILL 31-3- 06 (E) FILM KAALA SONA RIGHTS WITH APPELLANT W.E.F. 9- 2-94 FOR 10 YEARS. SOLD FOR PERIOD TILL 8-2- 2004 (F) FILM DAMUL RIGHTS WITH APPELLANT TILL 30-6-05 SOLD FOR PERIOD TILL 30.6.05 2) REGARDING SALE OF SPLIT WIDE OPEN, APPELLANT HAD CABLE TV AND VIDEO RIGHTS. THESE WERE UPTO 30-9-05 AND 28-6-05 RESPECTIVELY. APPELL ANT SOLD THESE TILL 7-12-05 TO M/S. LIVEWIRE PROGRAMMING TRADING CO. LTD. 3) REGARDING SATELLITE RIGHTS OF 6 FILMS TO M/S. LI VEWIRE SUPRA AGREEMENTS WERE SEEN IN RESPECT OF ROJA, LAHU KE DO RANG, AGNICHAKRA AND JO SHILAY. REGARDING ROJA, APPELLANT HAD RIGHTS TILL 1-4-07, AGNICHAKRA TILL 30-6-05, JO SHILAY TILL 31-3-09 AND LAHU KE DO RANG TILL 31-3-05. THE DETAILS OF MUTHU MAHARAJ AND DIL HI DIL MEIN WERE NOT SEEN. AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THESE FILMS WERE FOR PERIOD W.E.F. 28-11-03 FOR 3 YEARS I.E. 28-11- 06 EXCEPT LAHU KE DO RANG WHICH WAS TILL 31-3-05. 4.2 ON THE AFOREMENTIONED FACTS LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSE RVED THAT AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS NOT VERIFIED ASSESSEES SUBMISSION. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE CONCL USION OF AO IS WITHOUT ANY BASE. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AMORTIZATION IN RESPECT OF 107 FILMS IS ALLOWABLE AS ALSO IN THE FILMS SPLIT WIDE OPEN. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF SATELLITE RIGHTS OF SIX FILMS, AMORTIZATION IN RESPECT OF LAHU KE DO RANG AND AGNI CHAKRA ARE FULLY ALLOWABLE. IN RESPECT OF ROZA AND JOSHILA A FULL WRITE OF F IS NOT ALLOWABLE AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOS ING STOCK, DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO FILMS IS SUSTAINED. IN RESPECT OF MUTHU MAHARAJ AND DIL HI DIL ME DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS AMORTIZATION IS SUSTAINED IF ASSESSEE HAD A LONGER PERIOD RIGHTS OTHER THAN PERIOD SOLD FOR W HICH THE VERIFICATION MADE BY THE AO. THUS, IN SHORT LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISA LLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF VCD RIGHTS OF 107 FILMS AND ALSO WITH REGARD TO SATELLITE RIGH TS SPLIT WIDE OPEN. ONLY IN RESPECT OF SATELLITE RIGHTS OF SIX FILMS LD. CIT(A) HAS DEL ETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF ITA NO.1868/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2004-05) 6 LAHU KE DO RANG AND AGNI CHAKRA AND UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF ROZA & JOSHILA AND IN RESPECT OF REMAINING TWO FILMS MUT HU MAHARAJAND DIL HI DIL HE THE AO IS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE PERIOD OF RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE LD. CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED AT SUCH CONCLUSION. THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED, HENC E, HAS RAISED AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS. 5. LD. DR AFTER NARRATING THE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE ABOVE PART OF THIS ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT A PROPER M ETHOD AND AO WAS RIGHT IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. D R THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE S ET ASIDE AND THAT OF AO BE RESTORED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR TH AT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE SUSTAINED DISALLOWANCE. LD. CIT (A) AFTER VERIFICATION OF FACTS HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING AND IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT NO EXCESS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON WHIC H ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO IN RES PECT OF THREE CATEGORIES WHICH HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO WHICH IS HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THIS ORDE R. THE ADDITION WAS IN RESPECT OF THREE CATEGORIES: 1. SATELLITE RIGHTS OF 107 FILMS. 2. SPLIT WIDE OPEN (SATELLITE RIGHTS) 3. SATELLITE RIGHTS OF SIX FILMS. DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT VARIOUS DETAILS AND TO THE EXTENT DETAILS WERE MAD E AVAILABLE, LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING AND TO THE EXTENT DETAILS WERE NOT AVA ILABLE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO ITA NO.1868/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2004-05) 7 TO VERIFY THE DETAILS. THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY L D. CIT(A) ARE BASED ON THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). NO DISCRE PANCY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). WI TH REGARD TO 107 SATELLITE RIGHTS, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY LD. CIT(A) THAT REALIZATION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE FILMS WERE UPTO THE DATE OF RIGHTS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE TABLE WHICH REMAINS UNCO NTROVERTED. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO SPLIT WIDE OPEN, THE CABLE TV AND VIDEO RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WERE UPTO 30/09/2005 AND 28/06/2005 RESPECTIVELY W HICH WERE SOLD UPTO 7/12/2005 AND SIMILARLY FOR OTHER FILMS ALSO LD. C IT(A) HAS RECORDED THE DATES AND THAT PORTION OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER HAS ALSO REPRODU CED IN THE ABOVE PART OF THIS ORDER. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT IN THESE FINDINGS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE W ITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND OR IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF FACTS. THE RESPECTIVE DATES ARE CLEARLY MENTIONED IN RESPECT OF RIGHTS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERIOD UPT O WHICH THOSE RIGHTS WERE SOLD. THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE RELIEF GR ANTED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/12/2014 ! ' #$ % &'( 10/12/2014 ' ) SD/- SD/- ( /SANJAY ARORA ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; &' DATED 10/12/2014 ITA NO.1868/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2004-05) 8 ! ! ! ! ' '' ' *+, *+, *+, *+, -,$+ -,$+ -,$+ -,$+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./ / THE APPELLANT 2. *0./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 1 / CIT 5. ,2) *+' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. )3 4 / GUARD FILE. !' !' !' !' / BY ORDER, 0,+ *+ //TRUE COPY// 5 55 5 / 6 6 6 6 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . ' . ./ VM , SR. PS