ITO 2(2)(3), MUMBAI V. MATHAKIA INVESTMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 196/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5120 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B P K
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Tax effect; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - B BENCH. . , ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' #$%& #$%& #$%& #$%& , $ $ $ $ '( '( '( '( BEFORE S/SH.D.MANMOHAN,VICE-PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.8608/MUM/2010 , ) ) ) ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 MATHAKIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. INDIAN GRADE CHAMBERS, 142 W.H.MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400001 VS. ITO 2(2)(3) 542, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACM5656K ( *+ / APPELLANT ) ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO.196/MUM/2011 , ) ) ) ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 ITO 2(2)(3) 542, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS. MATHAKIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. INDIAN GRADE CHAMBERS, 142 W.H.MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400001 PAN: AAACM5656K ( *+ / APPELLANT ) ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT ) ./ ITA NO.5864/MUM/2011 , ) ) ) ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 MATHAKIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. INDIAN GRADE CHAMBERS, 142 W.H.MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400001 VS. ITO 2(2)(3) 542, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACM5656K ( *+ / APPELLANT ) ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT ) *+ *+ *+ *+ . . . . $ $$ $ / APPELLANT BY :SH.NIT ESH JOSHI ,-*+ / . $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.P.K. PANDA / // / 0 0 0 0 / DATE OF HEARING : 12/11/2013 1) / 0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/11/2013 , 1961 / // / 254(1) $ $$ $ %020 %020 %020 %020 '$3 '$3 '$3 '$3 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, A.M. ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAVE FIL ED CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08,RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FOR THE AY.2008-09 ONLY ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL. ITA NO.8608/MUM/2010 AY.2007-08 2 ITA NO. 8608/MUM/2010 MATHAKIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY REA D AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE BELOW MENTIONED GROU NDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 1.A) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ( HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A) ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,72,284/- BEING TH E ESTIMATED INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE RIGHTS ASSIGNED BY THE BANK TO THE APPELLANT IN A P ENDING SUIT. B)THE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST AT T HE RATE OF 18%. 2.A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAID I NTEREST AMOUNT OF RS.48, 72,284/- AS BUSINESS INCOME. B)THE CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE AND/OR RESCIND ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.196/MUM/2011 AY.2007-08 AO HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT FUNDS BORROWED FOR ACQUIRING RIGHTS IN THE PRO PERTY WHICH WAS A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TAKING OVER OF SUCH LIABILITIES IS NOT ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUCH BORROWED FUNDS CAN ONLY BE CAPITALIZED TILL TH E DATE OF DISPOSAL OF THE RIGHT OR PROPERTY AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT FUNDS BEING NOT BORROWED FOR EARNING OF INTERE ST INCOME, THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BORROWED FUNDS CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AGAIN ST INTEREST INCOME, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON.BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DR. V. P. GOPINATHAN (248 ITR 449). 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O RESTORE D. ITA NO.5864/MUM/2010- AY-2008-09 FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED, BY TH E ASSESSEE, FOR THE AY-2008-09: THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE BELOW MENTIONED GROU NDS ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A) ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 15,413/- U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 2.A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,49,246/- BEING THE ESTIMATED INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE RIGHTS ASSIGNED BY THE BANK TO THE APPELLANT IN A PENDING SUIT. B)THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST AT TH E RATE OF 18%. 3.A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SAID I NTEREST AMOUNT OF RS.57,49,246/- AS BUSINESS INCOME. B)THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF B ROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE AND/OR RESCIND ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD OWNED A LIABILITY TO THE BANK OF BARODA TOWARDS REPAYMENT OF LOAN OF RS. 84.97 LACS TO THE BANK INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST, THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN BY M/S INTERNATIONAL COTTON CORPORATION P VT. LTD. AND BY M/S KONARK TRADERS, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PAY OF THE LIABILITY, THAT I T BORROWED MONEY FROM THREE DIRECTORS OF THE 3 ITA NO. 8608/MUM/2010 MATHAKIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. COMPANY @ 12% PER ANNUM, THAT IT PAID THE AMOUNT AS PER THE RIGHTS OF ASSIGNMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE BANK VIDE A DEED OF ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFE R DATED 26.02.1999. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT DIRECTORS HAD MORTGAGED THE PROPERTY TO THE BA NK AS SECURITY FOR THE REPAYMENT OF LOANS TAKEN BY OTHER TWO ENTITIES IN WHICH THE DIRECTORS OR THE DIRECTORS ALONG WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WERE INVOLVED, THAT PROPERTY MORTGAGED WAS P UT UP FOR AUCTION BECAUSE TWO ENTITIES WHO HAD TAKEN THE LOAN HAD DEFAULTED IN REPAYMENT, THAT BY DEED OF ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER ASSESSEE DID NOT ACQUIRE THE RIGHT IN PROPERTY, THAT IT HAD ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO RECOVER THE DEBT OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE DEFAULTER ALONG WITH INTEREST AND COST. AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN RESPECT OF THE DEBT ACQUIRED BY IT FROM THE BANK OF BARODA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, AO HELD THAT BY ACQUIRING DEBTS OF M/S. INTERNATIONAL COTTON CORPORATION PVT. LTD. AND M/S. KARNATAK TRADERS ASSESSEE HAD ASSUM -ED THE ROLE OF BANKERS, THAT IT SHOULD HAVE CHARGED AND RECOVERED INTEREST FROM THE PARTIES AT THE RATE AT WHICH BANKERS WERE CHARGING I.E.@18% . ACCORDINGLY, INTEREST @ 18% ON THE ACCUMULATED A SUM OF RS.2.70 CRORES WAS BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS A RESULT, AN ADDITION OF RS.48,72,284/- WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, FAA HELD THAT SIMILAR I SSUE WAS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY - 2005-06,THAT HIS PREDECESSOR,VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 1 9.02.2010,HAD UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME FOR THAT YEAR, THAT FACT S OF THE CASES FOR BOTH THE YEARS WERE SAME. FINALLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. FAA, HO WEVER, ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T EXPENSES INCURRED IN RESPECT OF FUNDS BORROWED FROM THE DIRECTORS FOR MAKING THE PAYMENTS TO THE BANK OF BARODA. HE HELD THAT WHATEVER INTEREST EXPENSE HAD BEEN INCURRED, WHICH HAD A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE, WAS ALLOWABLE U/S. 57 OF T HE ACT. HE DIRECTED THE AO TO WORK OUT SUCH INTEREST EXPENDI -TURE AND ALLOWED THE SAME TO THE EXTENT FROM INTEREST INCOME. 3. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT F BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL,VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.06.2011(ITA NOS. 2989-2993/MUM/2 010 AY-2001-02 TO 2005-06),HAD DEALT THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND HAD RESTORED BACK THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH,THAT AO HAD MADE THE SAME ADDITION WHILE PAS SING THE ORDER IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,THAT ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE FRESH ORDER OF THE AO BEFORE THE FAA, THAT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STILL PENDING WITH THE FAA. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. HERE WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.06.201 1 6.WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD.AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ,THERE ARE CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005- 06.AS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY HIM,AN APPLICATION U/S.154 HAS ALREADY BEEN MOVED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE AO ON 8 TH ,SEPT,2010 SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE SAID MISTAKES. A COPY OF THE S AID APPLICATION IS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 1 TO 4 OF TH E ASSESSECS PAPER BOOK WHEREIN FOLLOWING MISTAKES HA VE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE: X X X X AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, THE ABOVE MISTAKES COMMITTED BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO T HE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS FLIED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT HE HAD NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME.AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE,THE AO ALSO HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER DISPOSING OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.154 SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE SAID MISTAKES.AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD AND AS AGREE D EVEN BY THE LEARNED DR, THESE FACTUAL MISTAKES ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO GO TO THE ROOT OF THE M ATTER AND THE SAME HAVE A DIRECT BEARING ON THE MAIN ISSU E INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS RELATING TO ADDITION MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME STATED TO BE ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE.THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE 4 ITA NO. 8608/MUM/2010 MATHAKIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. SIDES HAVE AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER G IVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THE I SSUE OF VARIOUS FACTUAL MISTAKES CLAIMED TO BE COMMITTED WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WHICH ARE CR UCIAL TO DECIDE THE SAID ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)ON THIS ISSUE ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH ITS CONTENTION ON THE FACTUA1 MISTAKES COMMIT TED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ARE CRUCIAL AND WHICH HAVE A DIRECT BEARING ON THE ULTIMATE DECISIO N. FROM THE ABOVE ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WERE FA CTUAL MISTAKES IN THE ORDER THAT WENT TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND SAME WERE NOT DELIBERATED UPON BY THE FAA IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ON A QUERY BY THE BENCH REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDE S AGREED THAT THEY HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO THE AUTHORITIES OF THE DEPA RTMENT. WE FIND THAT FAA HAD FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSORS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE ORDERS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH A DJUDICATION. HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE T HE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL I.E.ORDER DATED 30.06.2011.GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. 5. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT NOT CONSIDERING THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS. 48.72 LACS AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORW ARD BUSINESS LOSSES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE DR AND AR AGREED THAT MATTER IS INTERLINKED WITH THE GROUND NO.1, THAT SAME COULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA. WE FIND THAT AS FAR AS SETTING OFF OF BROUGHT FORWA RD LOSSES AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 48.72 LACS IS CONCERNED,FAA HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE ASS ESSEES CLAIM AND TO ALLOW/DISALLOW THE SET OFF OF LOSSES IN TERMS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT. IN OUR OPINION HIS ORDER, WITH REGARD TO TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES DOE S NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2(B)FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ECIDED AGAINST IT. WE HAVE ALREADY SET-ASIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 TO THE FILE OF THE FAA, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE GROUND NO.2(A ) IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. AS DIRECTED EARLIER FAA WOULD AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED,IN PART,IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY F OR THE AY.2007-08 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.196/MUM/2011-AY-2007-08 6. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE AO IS A BOUT INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BORROWED FUND FOR ACQUIRING RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY. AS STATED EARLIER, FAA HAD ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENSES. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AGREED WITH THE ISSUE RAISED BY T HE AO WERE CONSEQUENTIAL AND INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E.ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME STATED TO BE ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEY AGREED THAT MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE F AA,AS THE MAIN ISSUE IS BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE FAA. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY T HE AO ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR DECIDING THEM AFRESH DEPENDING UPON THE ULTIMATE DE CISION OF THE MAIN ISSUE. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY T HE AO ARE ALLOWED, IN PART. ITA NO.5864/MUM/2011-AY-2008-09 FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15,413/- U/S. 14A OF THE ACT.DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AR SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE SMALL - NESS OF THE TAX EFFECT OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED, ASSE SSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE GROUND. 5 ITA NO. 8608/MUM/2010 MATHAKIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSES SEE AS NOT PRESSED. 8. GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3 ARE SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED FOR THE AY 2007-08.WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED BACK THE IDENTICAL ISSUES,RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE,FOR THE LAST ASSESSMENT YEAR TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. FOLLOWING T HE SAME MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA, GROUND NO.2 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED IN PART IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESS EE FOR BOTH TWO AYS. STAND PARTLY ALLOWED 4 05 40 6 40 7 '8 / 2 9 3 : $ #; / #0 < . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER,2013 . '$3 / 1) $ % 9 =' 20 , 2013 / 2 > SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN ) ( #$%& #$%& #$%& #$%& / RAJENDRA ) ! ! ! ! / VICE-PRESIDENT $ $ $ $ '( '( '( '( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, =' /DATE: 20.11 . 2013 '$3 '$3 '$3 '$3 / // / ,0? ,0? ,0? ,0? @$?)0 @$?)0 @$?)0 @$?)0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / *+ 2. RESPONDENT / ,-*+ 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / A B 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / A B 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ?C2 ,0 , . . % . 6. GUARD FILE/ 2 D -?0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// '$3 / BY ORDER, / # DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI