GRAUER & WELL (I) LTD, MUMBAI V. D.C.I.T. RANGE 9(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1896/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8181 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK A PERAMPURNA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Retrospective amendment; Tangible material; Bad and doubtful debts; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'J' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1896/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S. GRAUER & WEIL (I) LTD. VS. DCIT, RANGE 9(1) 151, GROWEL HOUSE, AKURLI RD. KANDIVALI (E), MUMBAI 40001 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AAACG3741K APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI NITESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIVEK A. PERAMPURNA DATE OF HEARING: 16.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.10.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-19, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO AY 2 004-05. 2. ASSESSEE RAISED FIVE GROUNDS, IN THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL ANNEXED TO FORM NO. 36, AND ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF GROUND NO. 1 IS DISPOSED OF IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT THERE MAY NOT BE ANY NEED TO ADDRESS ON THE OTHER ISSUES CONCERNI NG ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE ON MERITS. 3. GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 4. ADMITTEDLY, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2004-05 WAS MADE ON 1 9.12.2006 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AND BOOK PROFIT WAS DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 115JB AT ` 4.44 CRORES. IN THE OPINION OF THE AO ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 1896/MUM/2011 M/S. GRAUER & WELI (I) LTD. 2 COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) RESULTED IN ESCAPEME NT OF INCOME IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT PROVISION OF DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF ` 13,62,545/- AND PROVISION FOR GRATUITY OF ` 13,03,409/- ARE INADMISSIBLE AND ARE TO BE ADDED WH ILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB IN VIEW O F EXPLANATION 1(C) THERETO. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE COM PANY SUBMITTED THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CAN BE INI TIATED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS OF THE INCOME NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. IN TH E INSTANT CASE FULL AND COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE FURNISHED AND H ENCE A CHANGE IN OPINION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME ESCAPING ASS ESSMENT. 5. THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURES ELECTROPLATING CHEMICALS AND ETHONE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS. ASSESSEE DECLARED BOOK PROFIT OF ` 4.33 CRORES. AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN, IN FORM NO . 29B, ASSESSEE HAD WORKED OUT THE BOOK PROFIT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND PROVISION FOR GRATUITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT THOUGH THEY ARE BEING INAD MISSIBLE ITEMS AND ARE ADDED BACK TO THE BUSINESS PROFIT. ASSESSEES SUBMI SSION BEFORE THE AO WAS THAT PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS ARE DIMINUTION I N THE VALUE OF ASSET AND IT IS ASCERTAINED LIABILITY. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE 1(C) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM AY 2001-02 THE SAME HAS T O BE ADDED BACK TO THE BOOK PROFIT. SIMILARLY THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY L IABILITY WAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED AND WAS ADDED BACK TO THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THA T REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AUD ITED ACCOUNTS AND THE ISSUES CONCERNING HEREIN WERE DULY DISCUSSED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION, AS STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, SPECIFIES THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT IS NOT A PROVISION TOWARDS UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND AS SUCH WAS NOT TO BE A DDED BACK TO BOOK PROFIT. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE JUDGEME NT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ECHJAY FORGINGS (P) LTD. 251 ITR 15 AS WELL AS THE ITA NO. 1896/MUM/2011 M/S. GRAUER & WELI (I) LTD. 3 DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HCL COMNE T SYSTEM & SERVICES LTD. 304 ITR 409. 7. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED CI T(A) THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS DATED 24 TH MARCH, 2009 WHEREAS THE AMENDMENT WAS INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 2009 ON 19 TH AUGUST, 2009; THROUGH IT HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2001, AT THE TIME O F ISSUANCE OF NOTICE THE SAID AMENDMENT WAS NOT INTRODUCED AND HENCE THE REA SONS GIVEN FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AT THE RELEVA NT POINT OF TIME. IN OTHER WORDS, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT LAW OF LAND AND MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF AN AMENDMENT WHICH WAS INTRODUCED SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSME NT. 8. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE IN T UNE WITH THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT AND HENCE THE REASONS ARE V ALID IN LAW. FOR THE SAKE OF IMMEDIATE REFERENCE THE OPERATIVE PORTION O F THE CIT(A)S ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREIN: - 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY TH E A.O. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE REASONS AS RECORDED BY THE A.O. FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER S. 147/148. AS PER THE REASONS RECORDED, WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER S. 115JB THE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS HAD BEEN ALLOWED. WHAT IS TO BE TAKE N INTO ACCOUNT HERE THAT CLAUSE (I) WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED BELOW EXPLA NATION TO S. 114JB(2) BY THE FINANCE ACT 2009 IS WITH RETROSPECT IVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2001. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT TH E A.O. HAS ERRED IN NOT ADDING BACK THE PROVISION, SINCE, THIS IS THE C ORRECT POSITION OF LAW W.E.F. FROM 1.4.2001, THEREBY RESULTING IN ESCAPEME NT OF INCOME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS TO BE INFERRED THAT THE A .O. HAS TAKEN RECOURSE TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE INCOME UNDER S. 115JB IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS AGREED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER S. 148 ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS WITHIN TIME. MOREOVER, THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE A.O. HAD ALREADY TAKEN ONE VIEW AND SUBSEQUENTLY, TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS CANNOT BE VIEWED AS A CHANGE OF OPINION OR REVIEW O F WHAT HAD BEEN EARLIER CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAWS AS REL IED ON BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. HENCE, IT I S HELD THAT THE A.O. ITA NO. 1896/MUM/2011 M/S. GRAUER & WELI (I) LTD. 4 WAS WELL WITHIN JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDI NGS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE REOPENED PROCEEDINGS A RE THEREFORE HELD VALID. 9. IT ALSO DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT DESPITE HOLDING THAT THE REASONS RECORDED ARE VALID VIS-A-VIS THE GRATUITY LIABILITY , THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE LIABILITY ON THE BAS IS OF ACTUARIAL VALUATION AND HENCE IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ASCERTAINED LI ABILITY, IN WHICH EVENT CLAUSE (C) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB(2) IS NOT APPLICABLE, AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE ADDED TO BOOK PROFIT. PARA 16 OF THE O RDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH IS RELEVANT IN THIS CONTEXT, IS EXTRACTED FOR IMMEDIATE REFERENCE: - 16. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT BASED ON ACTUARIAL VALUATION, A SUM OF RS.13,03,409/- WAS DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C TOWARDS GRATUITY LIABILITY. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE S C IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LTD. VS. CIT 245 ITR 428 (SC) IT IS SU BMITTED THAT THE GRATUITY LIABILITY COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUARI AL VALUATION IS ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND AS SUCH CLAUSE (C) OF EXP LANATION 1 GO S. 115JB IS NOT ATTRACTED. ON A CONSIDERATION OF MATTE R IT IS HELD THAT THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY BASED ON ACTUARIAL VALUATION IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PROVISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (C) OF EX PLANATION 1 TO S. 115JB(2) OF THE ACT AND HENCE CANNOT BE ADDED TO TH E BOOK PROFITS. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITH R EGARD TO NON- ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTENTION THAT REOPENING OF ASSE SSMENT IS BAD IN LAW, ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVERTED OUR A TTENTION TO PAGE NO. 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK, I.E. REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, TO SUBMIT THAT THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSM ENT SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO BY CONSIDERING THE REASONS RECORDED AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENT VIEWS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN SUPPORT OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. THE AO SOUGHT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND PROVISION FOR GRATUITY SHOULD BE ADDED BACK TO THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTI ON 115JB OF THE ACT WHEREAS AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FINANCE ( NO. 2) ACT OF 2009 WAS NOT EVEN INTRODUCED AND HENCE THE AO HAD NO BENEFIT OF THE SAID AMENDMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME TH E HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF RALLIES INDIA LTD. 332 ITR 54 AT PAGES 66 AND 67, ITA NO. 1896/MUM/2011 M/S. GRAUER & WELI (I) LTD. 5 OBSERVED THAT CLAUSE (C)OF EXPLANATION 1 CAN BE INV OKED ONLY FOR PROVISIONS MADE FOR MEETING LIABILITIES BUT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES. UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT SET ASIDE AS PROVISION FOR DIMINUTI ON IN VALUE OF ASSET CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LIABILITY, AND MERELY BECAU SE THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT OF 2009 HAS BROUGHT OUT AN AMENDMENT WITH RETROSPEC TIVE EFFECT, THE SAME CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THE REASON GIVEN BY THE AO AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO HAVE TO BE C ONSIDERED IN THE BACKDROP OF THE LAW AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE REASONS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SUBSTITU TED ON THE BASIS WHICH WERE NOT PRESENT IN THE MIND OF THE OFFICER AND COU LD NOT HAVE BEEN SO PRESENT ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE POWER TO REOPEN TH E ASSESSMENT WAS EXERCISED. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE T HE COURT OBSERVED THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE REASSESSMENT IS SOUGHT TO BE MA DE WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS OF EXPIRY OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE AO IN SEEKING RECOURSE TO THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND THERE MUST BE TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEFORE AO TO PROVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ONCE T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BEFORE THE AO THAT THE DOUBTFUL DEBTS ARE ASCERTAIN ED LIABILITY AND IT WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE MA TERIAL, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT COULD HAVE BEEN REOPENED, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF OPINION AND HENCE REOPENING IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 12. HE ALSO ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ECHJAY FORGINGS (P) LTD. 251 ITR 15 TO SUBMIT THAT PROVISION FOR GRATUITY ON THE BASIS OF ACTUARIAL VA LUATION CAN BE SAID TO BE ASCERTAINED LIABILITY IN WHICH EVENT IT CANNOT BE A DDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT. ADVERTING TO THE NOTE IN THE AUDIT REPORT THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT T HE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY WAS BASED ON ACTUARIAL VALUATION AND IT WAS NOT DIS PUTED BY THE AO BUT MERELY SOUGHT TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GIVI NG ANY SPECIFIC REASON. THAT APART, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS BASED ON ACTUARIAL VALUATION TH E REVENUE OUGHT TO HAVE ITA NO. 1896/MUM/2011 M/S. GRAUER & WELI (I) LTD. 6 PREFERRED AN APPEAL, IF THEY ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE D ECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMUNICATION WITH REGARD TO FILING OF APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE VIEW T AKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT, THUS, SUPPORTS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE LEARN ED COUNSEL ALSO RELIED UPON THE LATEST JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IOT INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY SERVICES LTD. 322 ITR 587 IN SUPPORT OF HIS STAND THAT VALIDITY OF REASONS RECORDED SHOULD BE C ONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE REASONS WERE RECORDED. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. MERELY RELIED U PON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES AND DID NOT CONTRADIC T THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. I T IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN OTHER WORDS, THE F INDING THAT PROVISION FOR GRATUITY IS BASED ON ACTUARIAL VALUATION IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IN FACT THE NOTE TO THE ACCOUNTS SPECIFIES THAT PROVISION FOR GRATUITY IS BASED ON ACTUARIAL VALUATION AND THIS WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AO AT TH E TIME OF MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3); EVEN AT THE TIME O F ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 NO SUCH CASE WAS MADE OUT BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. SIMILARLY, PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT ALSO WAS CLA IMED TO BE AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN 143(3) PROCEEDINGS AFTER BEING SATISFIE D BY THE CLAIM AND NO MATERIAL, WHATSOEVER, WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD PRIOR T O RECORDING HIS REASONS UNDER SECTION 148 TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IT DESERVES TO BE ADDED TO THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT AND NON-INCLUSION OF THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE RECORD. FACTUAL MATRIX AS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE LEARNED D.R. WITH REGARD TO THE V ALIDITY OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THE POSITION AS IT STOOD AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE REASONS HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH ITA NO. 1896/MUM/2011 M/S. GRAUER & WELI (I) LTD. 7 COURT HAD CONSISTENTLY TAKEN A VIEW THAT SUBSEQUENT EVENTS SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR VALIDATING REASONS RECORDED BY T HE AO. IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT COULD HAVE BEEN REOPENED. SINCE THE AO DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT EITHER THE GRATUITY OR PROVISION FOR DEBTS ARE NOT ASCERTAINED LIABILITY, WE HOLD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IN THE I NSTANT CASE IS BAD IN LAW AND, CONSEQUENTLY, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. SINCE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ARE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE OTHER ISSUE S ON MERITS. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 16 TH OCTOBER, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 19, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 9, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.