RAJESH L. BABLADI, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

ITA 2108/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5647 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K SHIVARAM
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Search and seizure; Onus to prove
• Section: 69C; 69; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 2108/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) RAJESH L. BABLADI A/16, NAVSHILPAVANI CHS, LALLUBHAI PARK, ROAD NO.1, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI-400 003 / VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-36, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ! ./' ./PAN/GIR NO. AABPB 8008 J ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $!# / RESPONDENT ) !# % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. SHIVARAM $!# & % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR ' ()* & + / DATE OF HEARING : 13.11.2013 ,-. & + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2014 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-41, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 05.01.2010, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3)/153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R (A.Y.) 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2008. 2.1 OPENING THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THAT THE APPEAL RAISES ONLY A SINGLE ISSUE, I.E., THE MAINTAINABILITY IN LAW OF T HE ADDITION OF RS.14.50 LACS U/S.69 OF THE 2 ITA NO. 2108/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) RAJESH L. BABLADI VS. DY. CIT ACT, SINCE SUSTAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, I.E., AS PROJECTED PER ITS GROUND NOS. 2 TO 4; THE ASSESSEE NOT PRESSING ITS GROUND NO. 1 AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. CONTINUING FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDIT ION UNDER REFERENCE IS IN RESPECT OF ADMITTED CASH PAYMENTS, WHICH FIND DUE REFLECTIO N IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AND TOWARD WHICH HE WOULD DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO PAG ES 86, 87, 114-118 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER-BOOK (PB). THE SAME HAVING BEEN DULY DEBITED TO THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT (PB PGS. 3, 113), THOUGH NOT CLAIMED AS EXP ENDITURE, INASMUCH AS THE SAME WERE MADE NOT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT TO THE PR OJECT OF ONE, M/S. SIDDHAYA DEVELOPERS (SD), A PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF SHRI SATISH L. BABLADI (SB), THE ASSESSEES BROTHER, AND HIS WIFE SMT. JYOTI BABLADI, THE ASSESSEES SISTER-IN-L AW. IN FACT, EVEN SD HAD NOT CLAIMED THE PAYMENT/S AS EXPENDITURE, AS THE SAME WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS BROTHER BY WAY OF ASSISTANCE. SD HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT, DULY REGISTERED, WITH ANOTHER DEVELOPER, M/S. VRUSHALI DEVELOPERS (VD), ON 15.07.2005 TOWARD ACQUIRING PROPERTY/LAND AT MULUND, MUMBAI. THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MA DE TO THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS OF THE LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAVING EXPLAINE D BOTH THE NATURE AND THE SOURCE OF THE PAYMENT, SECTION 69 WOULD NOT APPLY, FOR WHICH REFERENCE WAS MADE BY HIM TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TIPS INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. [2010] 321 ITR 154 (BOM). 2.2 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) WOULD, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTEND THAT THE ENTIRE EXPLANATION OF THE EXPENDITURE HAVING BE EN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, AN UNRELATED PARTY, IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT, AS DISCUSSED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE SAME WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE ASS ESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BOTH BEFORE AS WELL AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. EVEN THE RETURN F OR THE RELEVANT YEAR (F.Y. 2005-06), I.E., DURING WHICH A PART (RS.5.50 LACS) OF THE TOTAL PAY MENT IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE, DUE ON 31.07.2006, WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED AS ON THE DAT E OF THE SEARCH, I.E., 10.08.2006, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 1.22 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE COURT IS IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT; THE DISALLOWANCE I N THAT CASE BEING U/S.69C, WHICH THE HONBLE COURT FOUND NOT PROPER AS THE A.O. HAD HIMS ELF FOUND THE UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE OF THE BUSINESS TO HAVE BEEN MET OUT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT THEREOF. 3 ITA NO. 2108/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) RAJESH L. BABLADI VS. DY. CIT 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 THE BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN AKRUTI GROUP OF CASES, INCLUD ING THE ASSESSEE, ENGAGED IN UNDERTAKING CIVIL JOB WORK, ON 10.08.2006 . ON THE SAME DAY, A SURVEY WAS MADE AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF SB, WHEREAT A LOOSE PAPER CONTAI NING NOTINGS IN HIS HAND WAS FOUND (MARKED AS PAGE10 OF ANNEXURE A-2/PB PG.33). THE SA ME WAS, ON QUESTIONING, EXPLAINED BY HIM TO BE ROUGH NOTINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, HE OWNED THE SAID LOOSE PAPER (PG.10 OF ANNEXURE A- 2), EXPLAINING THE CASH PAYMENTS LISTED THEREIN AS TOWARD REMOVING THE UNAUTHORIZED TENANTS FROM THE PREMISES, SINCE ACQUIRED BY HIS FIRM SD, IN WHICH HE AND HIS WIFE W ERE PARTNERS. THE DATES OF THE PAYMENTS WERE FURNISHED AS UNDER, WHICH WERE STATED TO BE SOURCED FROM HIS BROTHER, SHRI RAJESH L. BABLADI (RB), THE ASSESSEE: DATE AMOUNT 15.07.2005 RS.2,75,000/- 23.10.2005 RS.2,75,000/- 28.04.2006 RS.9,00,000/- IT IS ACCEPTABILITY OF THIS EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE ADMITTED PAYMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE LOOSE PAPER, ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND ON WHICH WOULD HINGE THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ADDITI ON AS MADE QUA THE SAME; THAT IS THE ISSUE BEFORE US . 3.2 WE SHALL BEGIN BY REPRODUCING THE CONTENTS OF T HE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER (AT PG. 10 OF ANNEXURE A-2) AS UNDER: 9C 1CH AGREEMENT 2.75 C TENENTS SHIFTING 2.75 C 4 CH PLINTH AT BOTH BUILDING 14.5 C 7.5 CH. 1 ST SLAB SELL 7.5 CH. 2 ND SLAB SELL 7.5 CH. 3 RD SLAB SELL 7.5 CH. 4 TH SLAB SELL 4.00 CH. 5 TH SLAB SELL 2.00 CH. CONVENCE 41.00 4 ITA NO. 2108/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) RAJESH L. BABLADI VS. DY. CIT THE SAME, AS APPARENT, LISTS THE VARIOUS PAYMENTS T O BE MADE ALONG WITH THE TIME/EVENT ON THE OCCURRENCE OF WHICH THE PAYMENT/S IS TO BE R ELEASED AS WELL AS ITS MODE; C REPRESENTING A PAYMENT IN CASH AND CH. DENOTING P AYMENT BY CHEQUE (THE BANKING CHANNEL). THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE SAME BEING ON LY ROUGH NOTINGS AND, THEREFORE, OF NO CONSEQUENCE; THE LAW ITSELF PROVIDING FOR A PRESUMP TION AS TO THE TRUTH THEREOF (PER SEC. 292 C), SO THAT THE ONUS TO PROVE TO THE CONTRARY I S ON THE ASSESSEE, WHO RATHER ADMITS THE SAME IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE S AID DOCUMENT STANDS THUS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT. 3.3 THE NEXT STEP IS TOWARD THE NATURE AND SOURCE O F THE CASH PAYMENTS, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS OBLIGED TO FURNISH A SATISFACTORY EXPLA NATION TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS, AGGREGATING TO RS.41 LACS, ARE TO BE MADE BY SD (AND NOT THE ASSESSEE) TO THE OWNERS OF THE LAND IN PURSUANCE TO AN AGREEM ENT DATED 15.07.2005. WHILE THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF SD, THE CASH PAYMENTS ARE NOT, AND WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED AS SOURCED FROM THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ADMITTEDLY AN UNRELATED PARTY, WHO THOUGH COULD HAVE EITHER FI NANCED OR FINANCIALLY ASSISTED HIS BROTHER, SB, ALSO IN THE SAME BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IR RESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE EXPLANATION AS TO THE ASSESSEE BEING THE SOURCE OF THE CASH PAI D BY SD IS ACCEPTABLE OR NOT, HOW WE WONDER, EVEN AS EXPRESSED DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING ITSELF, COULD THE SAME BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS ? THE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE BY SD, THE NON- ACCEPTANCE OF ITS EXPLANATION, FURNISHED ON ITS BEH ALF BY SB, PARTNER, AS OF THE SAME BEING SOURCED FROM HIS BROTHER, THE ASSESSEE, COULD ONLY LEAD TO AN ADDITION IN ITS HANDS; WHICH, RATHER, WOULD BE U/S.69C INASMUCH AS THE PAYMENT IS ONLY TOWARD ACQUISITION/DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPERTY WHICH REPRESE NTS ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE REVENUE CLAIMS OF THE SAME AS REPRESENTING ON-MONEY THAT EX CHANGED HANDS IN THE TRANSACTION. THAT MAY WELL BE TRUE AND, FURTHER, PROVISO TO SECTION 69C (INSERTED ON THE STATUTE BY FINANCE ACT, 1998 W.E.F. 01.04.1999) MAY ESTOPP THE PAYER FROM CLAIMING THE SAME AS A DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSE, BUT COULD IN NO MANNER LEAD TO AN ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALL THE MORE SO AS HE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE AMOUNTS TO HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT 5 ITA NO. 2108/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) RAJESH L. BABLADI VS. DY. CIT AND NOT CLAIMED THEM AS RECEIVABLE. THIS WOULD IN F ACT ALSO ESCHEW ANY SCOPE FOR THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT, WHICH MAY OTHERWISE COME INTO PLAY. 3.4 CONTINUING FURTHER, WE ARE NO LESS UNIMPRESSED BY THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ON MERITS. THE CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS WEL L AS THE MATERIAL FURNISHED IN SUBSTANTIATION BETRAYS THE CASE AS MADE OUT TO BE C LEARLY AN AFTER-THOUGHT. THE NOTING IS IN THE HAND OF SB, WHOSE FIRM, SD, HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS (OF THE LAND) ON 15.07.2005, JOINTLY WITH VD (PB PGS.42-67) . VD HAD EARLIER ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS ON 31.01.2002, PAYING RS. 6 LACS AS DOWN PAYMENT THERETO. HOWEVER, AS VD HAD DELAYED PAYMENTS (TO BE MADE UND ER THE EARLIER AGREEMENT), SD ENTERED THE FRAY, AGREEING TO PAY FURTHER RS.40 LAC S TO THE OWNERS, AS PER THE DEFINED EVENTS. THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.07.2005 SPELLS OUT T HE SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT TO THE OWNERS (AT AN AGGREGATE OF RS.46 LACS), OF WHICH RS.7 LACS IS TO BE PAID ON OR BEFORE THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, ONLY RS.1 LAC IS PAI D BY SD TO THE OWNERS, THE BALANCE RS.6 LACS BEING ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PAYMENT ALREAD Y MADE TO THEM BY VD, THE SECOND DEVELOPER. APART FROM A DIFFERENCE OF RS.1 LAC IN T HE FIRST INSTALLMENT (TO BE PAID ON THE COMPLETION OF PLINTH LEVEL), BEING STATED AT RS.3 L ACS IN THE AGREEMENT AND AT RS.4 LACS IN THE LOOSE PAPER, ALL THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS AND THE SP ECIFIED EVENTS WHEREAT THE SAME ARE TO BE MADE, AS MENTIONED IN THE TWO DOCUMENTS, I.E., T HE SAID AGREEMENT AND THE LOOSE PAPER, AGREE. THE SAID DIFFERENCE IS EVEN OTHERWISE TO NO MOMENT AS THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS ARE DULY REFLECTED AND, IN FACT, NOT IN DISPUTE. THE CASH PAYMENTS ARE, ACCORDINGLY, ALSO TO BE MAD E AS PER THE SCHEDULE MENTIONED, THOUGH WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT FIND MENTION IN THE AGREEMENT. ONE THING, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR: THAT VD HAD NOT MADE THE ENTIRE PAYMENT, SO THAT TO THE EXTENT IT HAD, IT HAS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY, WHICH IT RETAINS OR W OULD NEED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR. THE CASH PAYMENTS WOULD THUS BE TO THE OWNERS OR PARTLY TO VD AND PARTLY TO THE OWNERS. FURTHER, IT COULD WELL BE THAT THE CASH COMPONENT O F THE DOWN PAYMENT, TO BE PAID ON OR BEFORE THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT, SPECIFIED AT RS.9 LACS, HAS BEEN SIMILARLY ADJUSTED, I.E., AS IS THE CHEQUE COMPONENT OF THE DOWN PAYMEN T, SO THAT SD IS ALLOWED CREDIT IN ITS 6 ITA NO. 2108/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) RAJESH L. BABLADI VS. DY. CIT RESPECT, I.E., UPON PAYMENT TO VD, THOUGH THE DOCUM ENT ONLY RECORDS THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO THE OWNERS. THERE COULD BE A REVISION IN PRICE OVER THE PERIOD OF OVER THREE YEARS BETWEEN THE TWO AGREEMENTS, SO THA T THE ON-MONEY (ALSO) GETS REVISED UPWARDS, AND THAT VD MAY HAVE PAID A LOWER AMOUNT O N DOWN PAYMENT, EVEN AS SOME PAYMENT BY HIM IS CERTAIN OR ELSE HE COULD HAVE NO INTEREST OR LOCUS STANDI . ALL THIS IS THOUGH OF NO MOMENT, AS WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH PAYMENTS REPRESENTING THE CASH COMPONENT OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH IS TO BE PAID BY SD AND, FURTHER, AT RS. 14.50 LACS ONLY. ALSO, AS APPARENT FROM THE LOOSE PAPER, ONLY RS. 2.75 LAC IS TO BE PAID TO THE OWNERS TOWARD UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS. THE PAYMENT THERETO, AS HELD BY THE REVENUE, IS ONLY BY THE OWNERS. THE AUTHORIZED TENANTS/OCCUPANTS ARE TO RECEIVE ACCOMMODATION IN THE PREMISES TO BE CONSTRUCTED; THE PROPERTY BEING DEVE LOPED UNDER A SLUM REHABILITATION PROGRAM. FURTHER ON, THE CASH PAYMENTS WERE NOT TO BE RECORD ED, AS WOULD ALSO BE APPARENT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR RETURNS OF VD AND/OR T HE OWNERS, INASMUCH AS THE SAME COULD BE PRODUCED TO PROVE THE SAME, AND WHICH WOUL D DIRECTLY EVIDENCE THE PAYERS CLAIM. IN FACT, NO AVERMENT TOWARD THE SAME STANDS MADE AT ANY STAGE. THE REASON IS SIMPLE; THAT THE SAME WERE NOT TO BE RECORDED OR AC COUNTED FOR, AS OTHERWISE THERE IS NO PURPOSE OF MAKING THE PAYMENTS IN CASH, WHICH WOULD ALSO ATTRACT SECTION 40A(3), BESIDES LOOSING THE TAX BENEFIT THEREON, BEING TAX DEDUCTIBLE. WHY, EVEN THE SD HAS NOT RECORDED THE CASH TRANSACTIONS IN ITS BOOKS; IN FAC T, NOT BEEN OBTAINING THE RECEIPTS FOR THE CASH PAYMENTS TO THE OWNERS ? THE PAYMENTS MADE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THE BUSINESS WOULD WARRANT BEING ACCOUNTED AND CLAIMED, AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF BEING NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE BECAUSE THE MONEY IS SOU RCED BY WAY OF A PERSONAL LOAN OR A GIFT. THE SOURCE OF MONEY IS A MATTER DIFFERENT AND IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF ITS DEDUCIBILITY. IN FACT, EVEN THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH THE ASS ESSEE, EVEN AS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) (REFER PARAS 1.25 TO 1.28 OF HIS ORDER), IS HARDLY ESTABLISHED. THE DATES AND THE AMOUNTS OF CASH PAYMENTS PER THE TWO DOCUMENTS, I.E ., THE LOOSE PAPER AND AS PER THE ASSESSEES BOOKS, PRODUCED MUCH LATER, DO NOT MATCH AT ALL. FURTHER, NOBODY WOULD 7 ITA NO. 2108/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) RAJESH L. BABLADI VS. DY. CIT ACCUMULATE CASH IN LAKHS BY WITHDRAWING IT IN THE S UMS OF RS.2,000/- TO RS.5,000/- AT A TIME, EVEN AS STATED DURING THE HEARING, BEING INCR EDULOUS (PB PGS. 86-137). THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NEITHER FOUND DURING SEARCH NOR EVEN STATED TO BE THE SOURCE OF CASH AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH, WITH IN FACT THE PERSON RESPONS IBLE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT, SB, DENYING THE TRANSACTION ON BEING SHOWN THE NOTING, STATING IT TO BE ONLY A ROUGH NOTING. 4. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THOUGH WE HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS WITHOUT MERIT AND ONLY DESERVES TO B E REJECTED, THE SAME WOULD BE OF NO AVAIL INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME IN THE PICTURE AT ALL. NEITHER WAS THE LOOSE PAPER SEIZED FROM HIS PREMISES NOR IS HE IN ANY MAN NER INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES SD, VD AND THE OWNERS OF LAND. PER THE DOC UMENT FOUND; THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS; AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED, IT IS SD WHICH IS THE PAYER, AND HAD INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE TOWARD WHICH THE IMPUGNED CASH PAYM ENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. IT IS ONLY IT, OR SB, ITS PARTNER, WHO THUS COULD BE CALLED UPON T O EXPLAIN THE SAME, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION BROUGHT TO TAX IN ITS HANDS. INCOME, IT IS TRITE, CAN OR OUGHT TO BE ONLY SUBJECT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE RIGHT PE RSON. THE REVENUE, IN FACT, IN ASSESSING RB, THE ASSESSEE, IS ACTUALLY ACTING CONTRARY TO IT S CLAIM, I.E., OF THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF CASH, BUT ONLY A NAME LENDER, WHOS E NAME IS TAKEN IN VIEW OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HIS BOOKS, AND THAT THE ENTIRE EXPLANATI ON IS A MAKE-BELIEVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 0. 1 (230 & ) 4 & 56 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 23 RD , 2014 SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' * MUMBAI; 7( DATED : 23.01.2014 ).(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 ITA NO. 2108/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) RAJESH L. BABLADI VS. DY. CIT !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' 8 ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' 8 / CIT CONCERNED 5. ;)<= $ (>2 , + >2. , ' * / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. =?3 @* / GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ , (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' * / ITAT, MUMBAI