VAKIL & SONS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. D.C.I.T.CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2132/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75682 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S C TIWARI MS NATASHA MANGAT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F B ENCH, MUMBAI . , !'# , $% &'() , $* +, $ # BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIY A, AM ./ I.T.A. NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/MUM/2011 ( - - - - / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 M/S. VAKIL & SONS PVT. LTD 2 ND FLOOR, INDUSTRY MANOR, APPASAHEB MARATHE MARG, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400 025 / VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ,. $* ./ /0 ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACV 3591J ( .1 / APPELLANT ) .. ( 23.1 / RESPONDENT ) .1 4 $ / APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.C. TIWARI MS. NATASHA MANGAT 23.1 5 4 $ / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAVI PRAKASH 5 6* / DATE OF HEARING :18.02.2014 7- 5 6* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :21.02.2014 +$8 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PREFERRED A GAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI DT.04.01.201 1 PERTAINING TO A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2006-07. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT[A]-6 BY A COMMON ORDER , THESE WERE HEARD T OGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 2 ITA NO. 2132/MUM/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) BY RAISING FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL: , 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING APPEL LANTS CONTENTION THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OUGHT TO B E MADE AND DIRECTING THE AO TO RE-WORK THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S. 14A OF THE ACT ON A REASONABLE BASIS. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT NOT HAVING INCURRED ANY EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH EARNING DIVIDEND IN COME, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT OUGHT TO BE MAD E. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE AO IN ESTIMATING ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV) OF THE PROPERTY BEING VAKIL HOUSE AT RS. 30,00,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 25,809/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURP OSES OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ALV OF THE SAID PROPERTY OUGHT TO BE AS SESSED AT RS. 25,809/- 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDE ND INCOME WHICH IT CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE BE NOT MADE OUT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN VIEW OF THE BOARDS NOTIFICATION NO. 45/2008. THE AO WENT ON TO RELY UPON THE DECIS ION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 14A R.W. RULE 8D AND COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 2,98,889/-. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY AGI TATED THIS ISSUE BY STATING THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS DCIT 328 ITR 81 HAS HELD THAT RULE 8D IS ONLY PROSPECTIVE THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE APPLI ED FOR THE YEAR UNDER ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 3 CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT R ULE 8D IS PROSPECTIVE AND IS APPLICABLE FROM 1.4.2008. HOWEV ER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE STRONG BELIEF THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A HAS TO BE MADE ON A REASONABLE BASIS AND DIRECTED THE AO TO RE-WORK OUT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A ON REASONABLE BASIS KEEPING IN VIEW THE FINDING S OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG . CO (SUPRA) WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEE N INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A I S UNCALLED FOR. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 7. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8 D IS WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2008 I.E. A.Y 2008-09 ONWARDS. TO THIS EXTENT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, CLAUSE (2) OF SEC. 14A CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT THE AO CAN DETERMINE THE AMOU NT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME, HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESS EE, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RES PECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF T HE TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, MODIFYING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT( A), WE DIRECT THE AO TO FIRST SATISFY HIMSELF WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HEN ONLY PROCEED WITH MAKING A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE AC T. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE AO SHALL GIVE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 4 8. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE GRIEVANCE THAT THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ESTIMATING ANNU AL LETTING VALUE (ALV) OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 30 LAKHS. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT PARA-2 ON PAGE-2 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RENTAL INCOME AT RS. 25,809/- FR OM THE PREMISES SITUATED AT BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE ALV OF PROPERTY TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF MUNICIPAL TAXES. ON RECEIVING NO DETAILS, THE AO PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE THE FACTS I N THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 23(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONCE AGAIN ASKED TO FURNISH THE ALV AS PER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION TO ASC ERTAIN THE CORRECT LETTING OUT VALUE. THE ASSESSEE ONLY FILED A BREAK UP WITH REFERENCE TO THE LET OUT PROPERTY. THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY WAS ONCE AGAIN NOT FURNISHED. THE BREAK-UP OF THE PROPERTY WAS PROVIDED AS UNDER: NAME OF PARTIES RENT (IN RS.) AREA (IN SQ. FT.) MRS. BHAGIRATHIBAI K.N. KINNI PORTION OF GROUND FLOOR RS. 7,395/- 725 THE NATIONAL HINDU RESTAURANT PORT OF 1 ST FLOOR RS. 4,590/- 725 THE DY. ENGINEER P. DIV. B&C DEPT. PORTION OF 2 ND FLOOR RS.13,824/- 5637 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE RELEVANT DET AILS BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE AO OBSERVED AS UNDER: SINCE I HAVE NO SUCH DETAILS ON RECORD, I HAVE NO ALTERNATE BUT TO ESTIMATE THE FAIR OR MARKET VALUE OF RENT, W HICH MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED SINCE THE RENT SHOWN BY ASSE SSEE IS VERY MUCH BELOW THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. FURTH ER, THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER PERSONS IS VERY HIGH AS COMPARED TO THE RENT INCOME SHOWN FROM THE ABOVE SAID THREE PARTIES. FURTHER, ON THE SPOT ENQUIRES DONE BY THE ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 5 INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI HAS REVEA LED THAT THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED, IF LET OUT I.E. 7087 SQ. FT. IS EXPECTED TO GET A RENT INCOME OF OVER RS . 2.5 LACS PER MONTH. HENCE, KEEPING IN MIND THE SAME AND IN ABSENCE OF CLEAR CUT SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REG ARD, I ESTIMATE A REASONABLE RENT OF PROPERTY (7087 SQ. F T) @ RS. 2,50,000/- PER MONTH. HENCE, I ADD BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30,00,000/- TO THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FOR T HE F.Y. 2005-06 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THA T SINCE THE RENT RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN THE MUNIC IPAL RATEABLE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE BMC, THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRECTLY O FFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. 10.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIO NS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED/RECEIV ABLE IS MORE THAN THE ANNUAL VALUE DETERMINED U/S. 23(1)(A), THEN THE AO HAS TO ADOPT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE AS THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED/RECE IVABLE IS LESS THAN THE ANNUAL VALUE DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE (A), THEN SUCH VALUE HAS TO BE ADOPTED THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ANNUAL VALUE DETERMINED U/S. 23(1)(A) IS FOUND HIGHER THAN THE RENT RECEIVED U/ S. 23(1)(B) THEREFORE, IT IS MANDATORY TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL VALUE DETERMINED U /S. 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) WENT ON TO RELY ON THE DECISION OF ITO VS MAKRUPA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 110 TTJ 489 (MUM) AN D ALSO ON THE DECISION OF TIVOLI INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO. PVT. LTD VS ACIT 90 ITD 163 (MUM) AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DET ERMINING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE BASED ON THE RENT AT WHICH THE SAID P ROPERTY WAS EXPECTED TO BE LET OUT AS PER MARKET ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE AO. ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 6 11. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE HISTORY OF I NCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM A.Y. 1978-79 TO 20 03-04. THE SAID DETAILS ARE EXHIBITED AT PAGES 76 & 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT IN PAST 26 YEARS, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE INCOME SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY NOT ONLY U/S. 143(1) BUT ALSO UNDER SCRUT INY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY CALLED VAKIL HOUSE SIT UATED AT BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI IN THE YEAR 1968. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ALONGWITH THE THREE OCCUPANTS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSE E IS SHOWING RENT RECEIVABLE. THE LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OF THE PORTIONS LET OUT TO THESE TH REE PARTIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE IS AT RS. 17,230/ - AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENT RECEIVABLE AT RS. 25,809/-. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT SINCE THE RENT RECEIVABLE IS HIGHER TH AN THE MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. THE L D. COUNSEL FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSTT. ASSESSOR & COLLECTOR (A-WARD) OF BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF MUNICIPAL RATEABLE VALUE OF RS. 17,23 0/-. 12. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED T HE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. DR THA T WHERE THE PROPERTY IS NOT LET OUT DURING THE YEAR IN THAT CASE MUNICIPAL RENT CAN BE TAKEN AS ALV BUT THIS IS NOT THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CON SIDERATION. THE PROPERTY IS LET OUT AND HENCE MUNICIPAL RENT IS ONE OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN DECIDING THE ALV BUT NOT THE ONLY FACTOR. ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 7 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE AO AT PAG E-3 LAST PARA HAS OBSERVED THAT: SINCE I HAVE NO SUCH DETAILS ON RECORD, I HAVE NO ALTERNATE BUT TO ESTIMATE THE FAIR OR MARKET VALUE OF RENT, W HICH MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED SINCE THE RENT SHOWN BY ASSE SSEE IS VERY MUCH BELOW THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. FURTHER, T HE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER PERSONS IS VERY HIGH AS COMPARED TO THE RENT INCOME SHOWN FROM THE ABOVE SAID THREE PARTIES . 14. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY COMPARABLE CASE GIV EN BY THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE NAMES OF THE S O CALLED OTHER PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE RECEIVED HIGH RENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS ACTION OF THE AO WHICH WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS NOR SUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT MATERIAL EVID ENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS LET OUT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR WOULD BE THE HIGHE ST OF THE FOLLOWING THREE SUMS: (I) MUNICIPAL VALUATION (II) THE FAIR RENT DETERMINED BY THE RENT CONTROL ACT. (III) THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE OWNER 15. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE MUNICIPAL RAT EABLE VALUE FOR THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS LESSER THAN THE ACTUAL RENT RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING RENTAL INCOME PARTLY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND PARTLY UNDER THE HEAD PRO FITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS OF TH E ASSESSEE SHOW THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME UNDER THESE RESPECTIVE HEADS. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DT. 23.3.3006 AND THE INCOME SHOWN ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 8 BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSMENT HIST ORY OF THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED BY US ELSEWHERE ALSO SUGGEST THAT SINCE PAST 26 YEARS, THE REVENUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ALSO UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. WE DO NOT FIND AN Y LOGIC/REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE SAME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGL Y ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO. 2130 & 2131/M/2011 A.Y 2004-05 & 2005-06 17. IN BOTH THESE YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ALONG WITH SOME OTHER GROUNDS . THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS WE RE REOPENED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS IN A.Y. 2006-07. A PERUS AL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR BOTH THE YEARS SHOW THE FOLLOWING FINDING S OF THE AO.: THE ANNUAL LET OUT VALUE HAS DEFINED U/S. 23(1) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 30,00,00 0/- @ RS. 2,50,000/- P.M. BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I NCOME OF RS. 28,86,716/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAD ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2004- 05. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO WAS SATISFIED AND HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 28,85,716/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 9 THE ASSESSMENT WAS, THEREFORE, REOPENED U/S. 147 O F THE I.T. ACT 1961 AND NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED ON 19.3.09 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING THE ASSES SEE TO DELIVER IN THIS OFFICE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE IN PRESCRIBED FORM OF ITS INCOME FOR THE SAI D ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS HOWEVER, HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE SAME. 18. AS NO OTHER REASON WAS MENTIONED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND AS WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS IN A.Y. 2006- 07 IN ITA NO. 2132/M/2011 WHEREIN WE HAVE REFERRED TO THE PAST HI STORY OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1978-79 TO 2003-04. AS NO NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECO RD AND THE VERY BASIS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY US IN ITA NO. 2132/M/2011, WE SET ASIDE THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 14 8 FOR BOTH THE YEARS AND REASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. SI NCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE OTHER ADDITIONS MADE I N THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DO NOT SURVIVE. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2132/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 2 130 & 2131/M/11 FOR A.YRS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.2.2014 . +$8 5 - * $ 9 :+ ; 21.2.2014 5 < SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) !'# / VICE PRESIDENT $* +, / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; :+ DATED 21.2.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NOS.2130, 2131 & 2132/M/2011 10 +$8 +$8 +$8 +$8 5 55 5 26& 26& 26& 26& =$&-6 =$&-6 =$&-6 =$&-6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. .1 / THE APPELLANT 2. 23.1 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. > ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. > / CIT 5. &?< 26 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. < / GUARD FILE. +$8 +$8 +$8 +$8 / BY ORDER, 3&6 26 //TRUE COPY// ! !! ! / / / / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI