YES POWER & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD ( FORMERLU YAMUNA ENGINEERS & SUPPLIERS LTD), MUMBAI V. ITO 4(3)-3, MUMBAI

ITA 2228/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84461 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KU MAR BEERLA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY MEHTA
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts; Bonafide belief; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI R.C. SHARMA, (AM) AND VIVEK VARMA, (JM) . . , , , ./I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) YES POWER AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD., (FORMERLY YAMUNA ENGINEERS AND SUPPLIERS LIMITED) 201, NEELKANTH COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, PARSI WADA, SAHAR ROAD, ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI-400099 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 4(3)(3), MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT) ./ ! ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAACY1055A ' / APPELLANT BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA # ' /RESPONDENT BY SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA $ % # &' / DATE OF HEARING : 18.11.2014 () # &' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.12.2014 / O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.1.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (THE ACT). 2. AT THE OUT SET, WE FOUND THAT THERE IS A DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, ... VS MST . KATIJI & ORS REPORTED IN (167 ITR 471)(SC)(SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OT HER, CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2010 2 JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELI BERATE DELAY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONS ADVANCED FOR DELAY AND A PPLYING THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, ... VS MST. KATIJI & ORS (SUPRA), WE FOUND THAT T HE DELAY WAS CAUSED DUE TO BONAFIDE BELIEF. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SUBSTANTIAL IN TEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND HEAR D THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ESTIMA TING THE INCOME AT 2% OF THE GROSS SALES AND FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS.15,19,908/- IN RESPECT OF THE FOUR PRODUCTS TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PE RUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF STEEL AN D OTHER ENGINEERING ITEMS. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR S CRUTINY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT ON SALES OF RS.52,17,03,417/- THE ASSESSEE HA D DECLARED GP OF RS.26,08,347/- THE AO CALLED FOR THE RECORDS AND D ETAILS RELATING TO TRADING ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION AS THE REASONS FOR LOW PROFITS : OUR COMPANY. IS A CONCERN MAINLY ENGAGED IN TRADIN G OF STEEL & ENGINEERING PRODUCTS. WE PURCHASE AND SALE THESE GOODS ON VERY COMPETITIVE LOW MARGIN BUT OUR VOLUME ARE VERY HIGH. WE NORMALLY PURCHASE THE GOODS AND RESALE TH EM AT THE MINIMUM TIME GAP. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT RATES OF STEEL KEEP FLUCTUATING AND IT IS A VERY VOLATILE ITEM. TO AVOI D ANY RISK DUE TO MARKET PRICE FLUCTUATION. WE HAVE TO TAKE THE FAST DECISION TO SELL OUT OF PURCHASE, THE STEEL AT THE AVAILABLE RATE RECEI VED FROM THE MARKET, SOME TIME IT MAY BE SOLD ON A LOW PRICE OR SOME TIM ES AT A HIGHER PRICE. DURING THE YEAR SOME OF THE TRANSACTI ONS ARE SOLD AT LOWER PRICE BECAUSE OF THE EXPECTATION OF THE RATE OF STEEL GOING LOWER AND LOWER. MORE OVER DUE TO FACT THAT WE WORK WITH A VERY SMALL CAPITAL AND NO BORROWING FROM BANKS, WE DO NO T HAVE CAPACITY TO HOLD STOCK FOR A LONGER PERIODS. HENCE, WE HAVE TO TAKE DECISION OF SELL AND PURCHASE KEEPING THE TIME GAP AT THE MINIMUM' 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAI M THAT SOME OF THE SALES WERE EFFECTED AT LESS COST PRICE. IN REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 17/12/2007 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALES AB OVE RS.5,00,000/- I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2010 3 AND AN ITEM WISE, MONTH WISE COMPILATION OF PURCHAS ES AND SALES. THE ASSESSEE VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 19/ 12/2007 STATE D AS UNDER : PURCHASES AND SALES MADE FROM AND TO THE SAME PAR TIES :- AS EXPLAINED TO YOU WE DEAL IN VARIOUS ITEMS SUCH AS M S PLATES, M.S. ANGLES, CHANNELS, BEAMS, TUBES, PIPES, MOTORS, PUMP S, GEARS ETC. WE HAVE ACCEPTED SEPARATE ORDERS FOR PURCHASE OF SOME ITEMS TO THESE PARTIES. AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE SUPPLIED THEM S OME GOODS UNDER A SEPARATE CONTRACT. IN BOTH THE CASES, THE ITEM OF P URCHASE AND THE SALE IS NOT THE SAME, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE EXECUTED SEPARA TE SALES AND PURCHASE ORDER OF THE SAME PARTY DURING THE SAME YE AR. THESE DEALS ARE SOLELY DEPEND UPON THE NEED OF THE CORRESPONDING PA RTY TO BUY THE MATERIAL AND AVAILABILITY OF MATERIAL AT COMPETITIV E PRICES. IN YOUR NOTICE YOU HAVE REPRODUCED THE FOLLOWING TABLE: S. NO NAME OF THE PARTIES PURCHASES IN CRORES CRORES SALES IN CRORES NET PROFIT/LOSS 1 JORD ENGINEERS INDIA LTD. 15.66 16.13 0.53 2 SATYEN ENGINEERING PVT LTD. 8.11 8.45 0.34 3 MAN INDUSTRIES LTD. 7.52 7.50 -0.02 4 JYOTI STRUCTURES 17.40 17.51 0.11 5 G.M.S. TECHNOLOGIES LTD. - 2.50 2.50 0.00 IN THE ABOVE, WE HAVE ADDED A COLUMN WITH NET PROFI T,/ LOSS FOR EACH OF THE PARTY. EXCEPTING IN ONE CASE (SR. NO. 3) WHERE WE H AVE MADE A SMALL LOSS OF RS. 2.00 LAKHS. WE HAVE MADE SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT IN EACH OF THE CASES. THIS JUSTIFIES OUR BUSINESS ACUMEN. THIS REPLIES Y OUR QUERY AT SR. NO. 2 ALSO. WE WOULD ALSO SUBMIT THAT THE LINK OF SALES I NVOICE TO THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASE INVOICE IS NOT POSSIBLE BECA USE WE DO NOT NECESSARILY SALE THE SAME ITEM AS IT IS TO ANOTHER PARTY AS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET ORDER OF EXACT QUANTITY AND SPECIFI CATION. HOWEVER, WE ARE SUBMITTING OUR STOCK REGISTER, WHICH GIVES ALL THE STOCK OF ALL ITEMS DEALT IN BY US 6. VIDE LETTER DATED 20.12.2007, THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED AS UNDER : UNDER INSTRUCTION OF OUR CLIENT, WE ARE ENCLOSING H ERE WITH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS AS PER THEIR LETTER DATED 19/12/2007 AND WO ULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS UNDER: 1. JUSTIFICATION OF PURCHASES AND SALES FROM SAME P ARTIES: A. .THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOU NTING AS PER THE TAX A AUDIT REPORT; I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2010 4 B. THE STOCK IS ACCOUNTED ON FIFO BASIS AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETUR N. THE VALUATION OF STOCK AS PER THE REGULAR PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE A SSESSEE OVER THE YEARS. C. THE ASSESSEE HAS OPENING .STOCK OF VARIOUS ITEMS AS PER THE QUANTITATIVE STATEMENT ANNEXED TO TAX AUDIT REPORT . D. IN VIEW OF THE MARKET CONDITIONS AND COMMERCIAL DECISION THE STOCK HAS BEEN SOLD AT BELOW COST IN SOME OF THE PRODUCT S. HOWEVER, THE SALE PROCEEDS ON THE AVERAGE COST INCLUDING THE OPENING SOCK IS SOLD HAS RESULTED IN PROFIT AND RETURNED AS INCOME BY THE AS SESSEE. E. THE STOCK IS SOLD OUT OF THE AVERAGE INVENTORY H ELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAY NOT CONSIDER DIFFERENTIAL BASIS OF ARRIVIN G THE PROFITS. 7. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURTS TO SUBSTANTIATE REASONS FOR LOWER GROS S PROFITS : THE AO CONCLUDED AS UNDER : THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTRIBUTED THE LOW GROSS PROFIT RATE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. ,GOODS ARE PURCHASED AND SOLD ON COMPETITIVE LO W MARGIN AS THE VOLUMES ARE HIGH ; 2. GOODS ARE SOLD AT THE MINIMUM TIME GAP; 3. PRIES OF STEEL KEEP FLUCTUATING AS IT IS VERY VO LATILE AND HENCE IT IS SOME TIMES SOLD BELOW COST; 4. GOODS HAVE BEEN SOLD BELOW COST BECAUSE OF THE EXPECTATION OF PRICES OF STEEL GOING LOWER; 5. LIMITED CAPITAL ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH CAPACITY TO HOLD STOCK IS LIMITED 6. IF THE SALE PROCEED ARE CALCULATED ON THE AVERAG E COST I.E. INCLUDING THE OPENING STOCK, IT WOULD RESULT IN AN INCOME; 7. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELYING ON THE CHART LISTING PURCHASES AND SALES HAS STATED THAT SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT HAS BEEN M ADE IN RESPECT OF MOST OF THE PARTIES. I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2010 5 8. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT OUT OF TOTAL TURNO VER 99% TURNOVER WAS IN RESPECT OF 4 ITEMS, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS INCUR RED GROSS LOSS. 9. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF LOW MARGIN BUT THE GOODS HAVE BEEN SOLD BELOW COST PRICE. WITH REGAR D TO THE VERY LOW CAPITAL RESULTING IN LOW MARGIN, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE RECEIVABLE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PAYABLE, THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT REQUIRE WORKING CAPITAL TO FINANCE ITS TRADING ACTIVITIES. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TRADER CARRIES ON A BUSINESS WITH THE INTENTION OF MAXIMIZING PROFITS, WHEREAS FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE, GOODS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY SOLD AT RATES LOWER THAN THE PURCHASE COST AND NO COGENT EX PLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN JUSTIFYING THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE AO ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT AT 2% OF THE GROSS SALES AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GP WAS MAD E. AS PER ITS AUDITED ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A LOSS OF RS.15,1 9,908/-, THE SAME WAS ALSO DECLINED BY THE AO. 10. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN PART RELIEF AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS .20,57,568/- AS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, HE SUSTAINED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF GP, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FUR THER APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT A ND BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED ENTIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH VOUCHERS, BANK ST ATEMENT ETC. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT FINDING ANY FAULT IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE SAME AND ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT AT 2% OF THE TURNOVER. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE JUSTIFICATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LOWER GROSS PROFIT OF RS.26,08,347/-, WHICH WAS DECLINED BY TH E AO. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE MONTH-WISE PURCHASES AND SALES WITH INVENTORY DETAILS WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. THE DETAILS OF ITEMS-WISE AND MONTH-WISE STOCK MOVEMENT WAS ALSO FILED INDICATING QUANTITY OF OPENING STOCK , QUANTITY OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF PURCHASES VIS A-VIS QUANTITY OF SALES AND CLOSING STOCK. AS PER LD. AR NO DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT NOR IN THE DETAILS FILED I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2010 6 BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO EACH AND EVERY ITE MS PURCHASED AND SOLD BY ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REJECTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 2% OF THE GROSS SALES WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GIRI SH M MEHTA (296 ITR 125) (AT). 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EST ABLISH THE REASONS FOR LOW GROSS PROFIT IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ITEMS DEALT WITH BY IT. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED RECORD, WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND DELIBERATED ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED UPON BY LD. AR AND DR . WE FOUND THAT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A UDITED ACCOUNT ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. DURING T HE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO FILED ITEM-WISE, MONTH-WISE PURCHASE AND SALES WITH QUANT ITATIVE DETAILS OF PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING INVENTORY. HOWEVER, NO DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR ANY FAULT WAS FO UND WITH REGARD TO QUANTITY WISE DETAILS OF PURCHASES, SALES OPENING AND CLOSI NG STOCK OF INVENTORY OF VARIOUS ITEMS DEALT WITH, AS FILED BEFORE THE AO. STOCK WAS ACCOUNTED FOR ON FIFO BASIS AND VALUATION OF STOCK WAS DONE AS PER R EGULAR PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER THE YEARS. IN THE CASE OF ITO V/S GIRISH M MEHTA ((2008) 296 ITR (AT)125 (RAJKOT), IT WAS HELD THAT WHILE REJ ECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TH E ONUS WAS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT EITHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE OR TH E METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED WAS SUCH THAT THE TRUE PROFIT COULD NOT BE DEDUCED THEREFROM. AS THE ONUS TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WAS ON THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BURDENED WITH THE RESPONS IBILITY OF PROVING A NEGATIVE ASPECT OF THE MATTER MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT HAVING EARNED PROFITS AT A PART ICULAR RATE. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT BEFORE REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE DEP ARTMENT HAS TO PROVE THAT ACCOUNTS ARE UNRELIABLE, INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE. THE ACCOUNTS REGULARLY MAINTAINED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, DULY AUDITED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2010 7 AND FREE FROM ANY QUALIFICATION BY THE AUDITORS, SH OULD NOT BE REJECTED UNLESS THERE ARE STRONG AND SUFFICIENT REASONS TO INDICATE THAT THEY ARE UNRELIABLE. EVEN THOUGH, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO LAY DOWN THE EXACT CI RCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE REJECTED AS UNRELIABLE OR INCORRECT, YET THE ACCOUNTS MAY BE REJECTED AS UNRELIABLE IF IMPORTANT ENTRIES AND TRANSACTIONS AR E OMITTED THEREFROM OR IF PROPER PARTICULARS AND VOUCHERS, BILLS, ETC. ARE NOT FORTH COMING OR IF THEY DID NOT INCLUDE ENTRIES RELATING TO PARTICULAR CLASS OF BUSINESS TR ANSACTION. THUS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED LIGHT-HEARTEDLY. 14. APPLYING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THE AFORE SAID CASE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FOUND THAT I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY MISTAKE IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS NOR I N THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALES AND CLOSING STOCK NOR IN THE QUANTITATIVE DE TAILS OF SUCH STOCK. MERELY BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING LOW GROSS PROFIT OR LOSS IN RESPECT OF ITS TRADING ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH DUE REASONS WERE GIVEN BEFORE THE AO WITHOUT FINDING FAULT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE AO REJECTED AUDI TED ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED PROFIT ON SALES. NO WHERE, THE AO HAS STATED THAT PARTICULAR ITEMS WERE SOLD AT A PRICE BELOW THE MARKET PRICE NOR IT IS A CASE OF AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GOODS AT HIGHER PRICE. IT WAS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF AO THAT THE GOODS WERE SOLD FOR LOW PRICE THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE. NOR IT IS THE CASE OF AO THAT GOODS WERE SOLD AT LOWER PRICE TO THE RELATED PARTY NOR THERE WAS ANY PURCHASES FROM RELATED PARTY. MERE SELLING OF GOOD S AT LOW MARGIN CANNOT BE MADE THE REASON FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF AO THAT THE IMPORTANT ENTRIES WER E OMITTED FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ANY EVIDENCE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE R EVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN ANY UNACCOUNTED SALES OR PU RCHASES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ADHOC ESTIMATION OF PROFIT ON SALES. ACCORDING LY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE GP ADDITION MADE BY HIM. I.T.A. NO.2228/MUM/2010 8 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH DEC , 2014. () $ * + , 17TH DEC, 2014 ) # -% . SD SD ( / VIVEK VARMA ) ( . . , / R.C. SHARMA, AM ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ /% MUMBAI 17TH DEC,2014. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS !'#$ %$&' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ 0& ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. $ 0& / CIT CONCERNED 5. 1- &2 , ' 2 , $ /% / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. -3 4% / GUARD FILE. $ / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 5 (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ' 2 , $ /% /ITAT, MUMBAI