ITO 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI V. HEMANT R. TANDEL, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 1934/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0576 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAVAN KUMAR BEER LA
• Assessee Lawyers: K GOPAL SHRI NEHA PARANJPE
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER / I .T.A. NO. 1934/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 THE ITO - 22(3)( 1 ), NAVI MUMBAI / VS. SHRI HEMANT R. TANDEL, C/O K.K. DAND & CO., 411, CENTRE SQUARE, S.V. ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400 058 / I .T.A. NO. 1835/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 SHRI HEMANT R. TANDEL, C/O K.K. DAND & CO., 411, CENTRE SQUARE, S.V. ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400 058 / VS. THE ITO - 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEBPT 0013P / I .T.A. NO. 193 5 /MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 THE ITO - 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI / VS. SHRI GANESH R. TANDEL, 49, KARAVE DHARAVE, NERUL (W), NAVI MUMBAI - 400 076 / I .T.A. NO. 183 6 / MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 SHRI GANESH R. TANDEL, 49, KARAVE DHARAVE, NERUL (W), NAVI MUMBAI - 400 076 / VS. THE ITO - 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 2 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEBPT 0012N / I .T.A. NO. 19 41 /MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 THE ITO - 22(3)(3)), NAVI MUMBAI / VS. SHRI NITIN R. TANDEL, 49, KARAVE DHARAVE, NERUL (W), NAVI MUMBAI - 400 706 / I .T.A. NO . 1 837 /MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 SHRI NITIN R. TANDEL, 49, KARAVE DHARAVE, NERUL (W), NAVI MUMBAI - 400 706 / VS. THE ITO - 22(3)(1), NAVI MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEBPT 0014L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / A SSESSEE BY: SHRI K. GOPAL SHRI NEHA PARANJPE / REVENUE BY : SHRI PAVAN KUMAR BEERLA / DATE OF HEARING : 16 . 0 4 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .0 4 .2015 / O R D E R PER BENCH : ITA NOS. 1934 & 1835/MUM/12, ITA NOS. 1935 & 1836/M/12 & ITA NOS. 1941 & 1837/M/12 ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DT. 25.1.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. THESE THREE APPEALS AND CROSS APPEALS ARE IN RESPECT OF THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSES. HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 3 2. AT THE V ERY OUTSET, BOTH PARTIES AGREED THAT FACTS OF ALL THE THREE ASSESSES ARE IDENTICAL, ON SUCH AGREEMENT, WE PROCEEDED BY TAKING UP THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF SHRI HEMANT R. TANDEL. ON A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FACTS OF REMAINING TWO ASSESSES ARE IDENTICA L TO THE FACTS OF SHRI HEMANT R. TANDEL. 3. THE CONTENTIOUS ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS CAN BE SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. I) WHAT IS THE DATE OF ACQUIS ITION OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY? II) WHAT IS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY? III) WHAT IS THE SALE CONSIDERATION? IV) HOW MANY CO - OWNERS ARE THERE FOR THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY? 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ONE SHRI RAMCHANDRA MAHADU TANDEL WHO WAS THE HEAD OF TANDEL FAMILY HAD RIGHT ON LANDED PROPERTY AT VILLAGE NERUL PRIOR TO 1972. BY NOTIFICATION NO. LAW/C/3369 DT. 3.12.1970 UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE L.A. ACT 1894 AND NOTIFICATION NO. LAQ/C/9404 DT. 3.5.1972 UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE L.A. ACT, THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HAD DECIDED TO ACQUIRE THE GAOTHAN LAND AT NAVI MUMBAI AREA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP BY CIDCO LTD. BY VIRTUE OF THE AFORESTATED NOTIFICATION, THE FOLLOWING LAND OWNED BY SHRI RAMCHANDRA MAHADU TANDEL WERE ACQUIRED BY CIDCO. SURVEY NO. AREA IN SQ. MTR. AWARD NO. LOCATION CASE NO. DATE OF ACQUISITION 75/3 126 452 NERUL VILLAGE 212 29.8.1986 58/1 784 291 NERUL VILLAGE 212/72 28.12.1982 HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 4 58/3 1214 291 NERUL VILLAGE 212/72 28.12.1982 58/12 202 291 NERUL VILLAGE 212/72 28.12.1982 58/16 3364 291 NERUL VILLAGE 212/72 28.12.1982 58/18 809 291 NERUL VILLAGE 212/72 28.12.1982 143/A3 20007 42 NERUL VILLAGE 195 5.8.1982 138A/4 18008 42 NERUL VILLAGE 195 14.12.1981 TOTAL AREA 44514 5. IN PURSUANCE TO SUCH LAND ACQUISITION, THE STATE GOVERNMENT BY ITS RESOLUTION NO. LQN/1985/1710/CR/217/85/NAVI - 10 DT. 6.3.1990 AND SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTION NO. CID/1094/2094/287/NAVI - 10 DT. 28.10.1994 ORDERED TO GRANT LAND @ 12% OF THE LAND ACQUIRED. THUS THE RIGHT OF SHRI RAMCHANDRA MAHADU TANDEL IN HIS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT VIDE NOTIFICATION ON 3.5.1972. HOWEVER, THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS DT. 28.10.1994 THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TANDEL FAMILY WAS AWARE WHETHER THEY WILL GET A COMPENSATION FOR THE ACQUIRED LAND OR NOT. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT AFTER THE NOTIFICATION DT. 28.10.1994, TANDEL FAMILY KNEW THAT THEY WILL BE COMPENSATED BY THE LAND UNDER 12.5% GAOTHAN EXPANSION SCHEME. 5.1. SHRI RAMCHANDRA MAHADU TANDEL EXPIRED ON 22.11.1997 AND THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS INHERITED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS. IN PURSUANCE TO THE SCHEME LAUNCHED BY CIDCO LTD., APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF LAND FROM ALL THE CO - OWNERS WHOSE LANDS WE RE ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT WERE INVITED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS MAD E AN APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF LAND UNDER THE SCHEME ON 12.10.1998 BY PAYING A SUM OF RS. 1,72,568/ - TO CIDCO LTD. IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS DT. 12.10.1998, HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 5 CIDCO LTD. ISSUED LETTER OF INDENT FOR ALLOTME NT OF PLOT UNDER THE SCHEME VIDE LETTER DT. 22.7.2003 AND THE INTENTION FOR ALLOTMENT OF PLOT NO. 23B AND 23C WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS VIDE TWO LEASE AGREEMENTS DT. 3.11.2007 WHICH WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN CIDCO LTD. AND FOUR F AMILY MEMBERS OF THE TANDEL FAMILY. 5.2. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF THE IMPUGNED PLOT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS 3.5.2007 WHICH IS THE DATE OF POSSESSION RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE CIDCO AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE RIGHTS BY TRIPARTITE A GREEMENT WITH CIDCO LTD AND M/S. SEA QUEEN DEVELOPERS DT. 19.7.2007 THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF SUCH TRANSACTION IS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE AO FURTHER ADOPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS THE COST ON 3.5.2007 WHEN THE FAMILY MEMBERS TO OK THE POSSESSION OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTIES AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN TAKEN AS THE STAMP DUTY VALUE R ATE AND THE CAPITAL GAINS HAVE BEEN COMPUTED BY INVOKING SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. 5.3. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE ON 29.8.2003 AND 8.9.2003. ON 19.7.2007, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED ITS RIGHT THEREFORE THE SAID TRANSACTION HAS RESULTED INTO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERT Y WAS ALLOTTED IN PURSUANCE TO THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERN MENT AND THE PROPERTY SO ACQUIRED WAS THE PROPERTY OF THE TANDEL FAMILY PRIOR TO 1972 THEREFORE , COST AS ON 1.4.1981 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW SHOULD BE TAKEN AS COST OF ACQUISITION . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT STAMP DUTY VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO IS NOT CORRECT AS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION. HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 6 5.4. ALL THE SUBMISSIONS/CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED BY THE AO. 6. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SURESH VASUDEO GORE IN ITA NO. 1197/M/09 AND SHRI ATUL G. PURANIK IN ITA NO. 3051/M/10. IN SO FAR AS THE YEAR OF ACQUISITION IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE - 16 PARA - VI FULLY DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ATUL G. PURANIK (SUPRA) CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME ONE OF THE CO - OW NER ON THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT WHICH IS AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 2003 FOR THE IMPUGNED TWO PLOTS. THE HOLDING PERIOD BEING MORE THAN THREE YEARS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS HAVE TO BE TAXED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 6.1. IN SO FAR AS THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION IS CONCERNED, AGAIN DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF ATUL G. PURANIK (SUPRA), THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 1,63,212/ - WHICH INCLUDES TOTAL LEASE RENT OF RS. 120/ - BEING @ RS. 1/ - PER YEAR FOR EACH PLOT FOR 60 YEARS. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THESE TWO PLOTS. 6.2. IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 50C IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED LEASE HOLD RIGHT WHICH IS NOT AKIN TO IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY THEREFORE SEC. 50C CANNOT BE APPLIED. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO 1999 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED, AT THE SAME TIME MARKED VALUE ALSO CANNOT BE APPLIED THEREFORE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEES VALUOR HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. CIT(A) HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 7 OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE VALUE AT RS. 5,72,94,000/ - AND THEREFORE THE SAME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATI ON. 6.3. IN SO FAR AS THE NUMBER OF CO - OWNERS IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ONLY 4 PERSONS HA VE SIGNED THE DEAL WHICH MEANS THAT THE OTHER MEMBERS HAVE BEEN OUSTED ALTOGETHER. THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS ARIS EN I N THE HANDS OF ONLY FOUR CO - OWNERS , ASSESSEES SHARE BEING 25% HAS TO BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) BOTH REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL. 8. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY BOTH PARTIES. I) DATE OF ACQUISITION - IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT ACQUIRED THE LAND BELONGING TO THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY HIM PRIOR TO 1972. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A), LAND WAS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS AS COMPENSATION IN LIEU OF THE LAND ACQUIRED. THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT IS ISSUED BY CIDCO LTD. DATED 29.8.2003 AND 8.9.2003. WITH THIS LETTER OF ALLOTMENT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED A RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE LA ND WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED ON 19.7.2007 BY WAY OF TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT WITH CIDCO LTD. AND M/S. SEA QUEEN DEVELOPMENTS. RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF SHRI ATUL G. PURANIK (SUPRA) IS WELL FOUNDED. THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF LEASEHOLD LAND IS RIGH TLY TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION RESULTING INTO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS THE TRANSFER HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 8 TOOK PLACE ON 19.7.2007 I.E. AFTER MORE THAN 36 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NIRMAL TEXTILES 224 ITR 378, HIGH COURT OF PATNA IN THE CASE OF SMT. RAJ RANI DEVI RAMNA VS CIT 201 ITR 1032. BOTH THESE DECISIONS ARE MISPLACED AS IN BOTH THESE DECISIONS, THE ISSUE RELATED TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER WHEREAS THE ISSUE BEFORE US RELATES TO THE DATE OF ACQUISITION. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 1 & GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL ARE ACCORDIN GLY DISMISSED. II) COST OF ACQUISITION - IN THE CASE OF SHRI ATUL G. PURANIK (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ACTUAL COST OR ALTERNATIVELY THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LEASEHOLD RIGHT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS COST OF ACQUISITION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COST TOWARDS THESE IMPUGNED 2 PLOTS AT RS. 1,63,212/ - WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ASCERTAIN ED BY THE AUTHORITIES AND CONFIRMED BY THEM. AS ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR GETTING THE LEASEHOLD RIGHT IN THESE PLOTS IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD , W E DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY FOR ADOPTING MARKET VALUE OF THE SAME. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THIS VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI ATUL G. PURANIK (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, RS. 1,63,212/ - IS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE TWO PLOTS RIGHTLY TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1 (A) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 9 III) SALE CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF TAKING THE CONSIDER ATION AS PER AGREEMENT ENTERED IN 1999 DOES NOT HOLD ANY WATER AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THE LEASEHOLD RIGHT HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY IN THE YEAR 2003. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FURNISHED VALUORS REPORT WHICH STATES THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT R S. 5,72,94,000/ - . WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED ASSESSEES VALUORS REPORT ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1(B) OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IV) CO - OWNERS FO R THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WERE 9 LEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI RAMCHANDRA MAHADU TANDEL, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAINS HAS ARISEN IN 9 HANDS AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE SAID CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE TAKEN ONLY 1/9 TH . TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT ONLY FOUR MEMBERS HAVE SIGNED THE DEAL THEREFORE ASSESSEES SHARE COMES TO 25%. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SISTERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE B EEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN THE AFFIDAVIT IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE SISTERS HAVE ALSO RECEIVED CONSIDERATION FROM THE SALE OF LEASEHOLD RIGHT. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) . WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 10 V) APPLICABIL ITY OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT - IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED LEASEHOLD RIGHTS IN THE TWO PLOTS. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI ATUL G. PURANIK (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT SEC. 50C APPLIES ONLY TO A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO LEASE RIGHTS IN A LAND. AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US BY THE L D. DR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 3 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10 . AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, THE FACT OF OTHER ASSESSES IN APPEAL BEFORE US ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO DISPOSED OF IN LINE WITH OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI HEMANT R. TANDEL. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND APRIL , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( JOGINDER SINGH ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 22 ND APRIL , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS HEMANT , NITIN & GANESH R. TANDEL 11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI