METROPOLITAN TRADING COMPANY, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIGT RG 18(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2343/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100959 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIYOGESH KAMAT
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 14A; 133(6); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000 -01) METROPOLITAN TRADING COMPANY, 10/76 OFF.HINES ROAD,WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 PAN: AAAFM 1474C ... APPELLANT VS. ADDL. COMM OF I. TAX. 18(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI 400 013 .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. VASANTI PATEL REVENUE BY : SHRIYOGESH KAMAT DATE OF HEARING : 08/06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/08/2015 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU,AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-29, MUMBAI DATED 10/12/2010 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, WHICH IN-TURN HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29/12/2008 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( I N SHORT THE ACT). 2 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 AND MAKING OF R E-ASSESSMENT U/S.147. THE REASSESSMENT IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ACTION OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT TO REDUCE 90% OF SUNDRY C REDIT BALANCE OF RS.59,04,330/- WRITTEN BACK FROM TAXABLE BUSINESS I NCOME TO ARRIVE AT PROFITS OF BUSINESS WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC. 4. A) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT 3RD AND 4TH PROVISO TO SECTION 8O HHC(3) WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND IT HAD ONLY RECEIVED DUTY DRAWBACK OF RS. 1,8L,19,435/- AND HAD NOT RECEIVED INCENTIVES R EFERRED TO IN SECTION 2S(IIID) AND 2S(IIIE). B) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LEARNED ADDL. CIT DID NOT CONSIDER EFFECT OF 5TH PROVISO OF SECTION 8OHHC(3). 5. A) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING INTEREST OF RS.2,32,590/- HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ADVANCED INTEREST FR EE FUNDS TO RELATED PARTIES OF RS.23,25,899/- . B) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ADVANCE HAS BEEN COVERED BY INTEREST FREE CAPITAL AND RESERVES IGNORING THE FACTUAL POSITION OF LARGE AMOUNT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLATE FIRM. 3. THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WH ICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF WEARING A PPARELS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES INCIDENTAL THERETO. THE PRIMARY GRIEVAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE IN 3 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY O F THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. NOTABLY, THE ASSESSEE FIRM FIL ED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/10/2000 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,52,6 3,859/-, WHICH INTER-ALIA, INCLUDED A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80HHC OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS,1,52,82,867/- WITH RESPECT T O THE PROFITS FROM THE BUSINESS OF EXPORTS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT ON 30/03/2007 AFTER RECORDING REASONS, ON THE GROUND T HAT CERTAIN INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN THE E NSUING ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT DAT ED 29/12/2008 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3 ,09,68,400/-, AFTER MAKING DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF DENIAL OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT, INTEREST DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTI ON 14A OF THE ACT, AND DISALLOWANCES OUT OF JOB WORK CHARGES. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 147/148, AS ALSO THE ADD ITIONS MADE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON T HE QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS, BUT SO FAR AS THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSME NT UNDER SECTIONS 4 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) 147/148 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN AFFIRMED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE HAS REFERRED TO A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY CIT(A) DATED 29/ 3/2007, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 31. 10.2000 SHOWING RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,52,63,859/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESS ED U/S. 143(3) ON THE SAME INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY COMPL ETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, ON 27.03.2003 ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.1,52,63,859/-. 2. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE RETURN AND OTHER DET AILS, IT IS SEEN THAT ONLY PROFIT FROM EXPORT OF MANUFACTURED GOODS HAS BEEN C ONSIDERED WHILE THE LOSS FROM EXPORT OF TRADING GOODS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERE D. IF LOSS ON TRADING GOODS OF RS.1,05,67,857/- IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, TH E RESULTANT PROFIT FROM EXPORT WOULD BE NEGATIVE AND ASSESSEE WOULD NOT B E ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC BECAUSE PROFITS FROM EXPORT INC ENTIVES CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PROFIT DERIVED FROM EXPORTS. 3. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS FOR A.Y. 2002-03, WHILE VERIFYING THE PURCHASES, NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT WERE SENT TO VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS SEEN THAT IN THE CASE OF S ALBHA GARMENTS, ENQUIRY LETTER ISSUED U/S.133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS RETURN ED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK NOT FOUND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY INFORMED THAT GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE PURCHASES HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED AND THEREFORE , ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE PAN OR FURNISH THE CONFIRMATIONS OF TRA NSACTIONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE PAN OR CONFIRMED COP Y OF LEDGER A/C. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS IN RESPECT OF GEN UINENESS OF THE PURCHASES FROM THIS PARTY AND ALSO ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF T HE PARTY, PURCHASES FROM THIS PARTY WERE HELD AS NOT GENUINE AND AN ADDITIO N WAS MADE. IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, PURCHASES /J OB WORK ABOVE RS.1 LAKH HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE MADE FROM THIS PARTY. SINCE GENUINENESS OF THE PARTY IS NOT PROVED; THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON A/C. OF PURCHASES/JOB WORK FROM THIS PARTY. 4. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVAN CED LOANS OF RS.25,47,609/- FREE OF INTEREST TO RELATED PERSONS FOR NON-BUSINE SS PURPOSE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OFRS.63,8 37/- IN ITS P&L A/C. HENCE, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST BEING F UNDS TO THE EXTENT THEY HAVE BEEN USED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE IS NOT GENU INE BUSINESS 5 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE THE INCOME TO THAT EXTENT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AN ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN MAD E IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. TAKING 10% TO BE THE AVERAGE RATE AT WHICH ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON RS.25, 47,609/- WOULD BE RS.2,54,760/-. THEREFORE, THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT TO THAT EXTENT. 5. THE FACT THAT THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED FR EE OF INTEREST FOR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSE WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OR EVEN SUBSEQUENTLY. BESIDES, THE FACT THAT M/S. SALBHA G ARMENTS WAS NOT A GENUINE JOB WORKER HAS BEEN FOUND SUBSEQUENTLY AND HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, INCOME TO THAT EXTENT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BECAUSE OF ASSESSEES FAILURE TO FURNISH TRUE MATER IAL PARITUCLARS. 6. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME ABOVE RS.1 LAKH CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHI N THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT 5.1 THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, SO FAR AS THE REASON RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF TH E ACT IS CONCERNED, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE SAME IS FACTUALLY INCORREC T. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE AFORESAID PLEA, A PERUSAL OF PARA-2 OF THE REASONS RECORDED REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOR MED A BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80HHC OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID BELIEF IS FOUNDED ON THE BASIS THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT, AT TH E TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ONLY THE PROFIT FROM EXPORT OF MANUFACTU RED GOODS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND IF THE LOSS FROM EXPORT OF TRA DING GOODS OF RS.1,05,67,857/- WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THERE WOUL D BE A NEGATIVE PROFIT, WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTI TLED TO THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. FURTHERMORE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER 6 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) NOTED THAT THE PROFITS FROM EXPORT INCENTIVES CANNO T BE CONSIDERED AS PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORT. 5.2 IN THIS CONTEXT, WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE US THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE REASONS RECORDED ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN AS MUCH AS THAT THE PROFIT FROM THE EXPORT OF MANUFACTURED GOODS IS POSITIVE FIGURE EVEN AFTER CO NSIDERING THE LOSS FROM THE EXPORT OF TRADING GOODS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE PAP ER BOOK FILED WHICH, INTER-ALIA, CONTAINS THE FORM NO.10CCAC ANNEXED TO THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, WHEREIN THE DETAILS REGARDING THE COMPUT ATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DULY CERTI FIED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. IN TERMS OF THE CALCULATION THEREIN, I T IS POINTED OUT THAT EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE LOSS FROM THE EXPORT OF TRADING GOODS THERE REMAINS A POSITIVE FIGURE OF ADJUSTED PROFITS OF B USINESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. FURTHERMORE, ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN VIEW OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT MAD E TO SECTION 80- HHC OF THE ACT BY THE TAXATION LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT 2005 BY WAY OF INSERTION OF 5 TH PROVISO W.R.E.F. 1/4/1992, EVEN IF, THERE IS A NEG ATIVE PROFIT BEFORE CONSIDERING THE EXPORT INCENTIVES, TH E ASSESSEE WOULD STILL BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS 7 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) OF THE AFORESAID FACT POSITION AS ALSO THE POSITION OF LAW APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS SE T UP A CASE THAT THE REASON RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITI ATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147/148 OF THE ACT, QUA THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. 6. ON THIS ASPECT, THOUGH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE REITERATED THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER, SO HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DENIAL TO THE FACTUAL ASSERTIONS MADE B Y THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IN FACT , SIMILAR OBJECTION WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AT THE TIME OF RAISING OBJECTION TO THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AN D SUCH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT P AGES 45 TO 49. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO REBUTTAL OF THE AFORESAID POS ITION CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH T HE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REASON RECORDED TO INITIATE PROCE EDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 147/148 OF THE ACT QUA THE ENTITLEMENT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT IS UNFOUNDED AND CANNOT B E SUSTAINED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) 6.1 IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OTHER TWO REASONS RECORDE D, NAMELY GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES EFFECTED FROM M/S. SALPHA GARMENTS AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO INTEREST F REE ADVANCES MADE TO THE RELATED PERSONS, BOTH ARE BASED ON THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SU BSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2002-03. ON THESE ASPECTS, FACTUALLY SPEAK ING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y 2002-03, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.3189/MUM/2006 DATED 21/1/2009 HAS DELETED THE AD DITIONS. 7. IN SO FAR AS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 89,084/- O N ACCOUNT OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. SULPHA GARMENT IS CONCERNED, T HE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE SURVIVING FOR CONSI DERATION RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,32,590/- ON THE GROUND THAT AS SESSEE HAS ADVANCED INTEREST-FREE FUNDS TO RELATED CONCERNS AM OUNTING TO RS.23,25,899/- WHICH TANTAMOUNTS TO DIVERSION OF I NTEREST BEARING FUNDS TOWARDS NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. 7.1 ON THIS ASPECT, THE PLEA OF THE LD. REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND APPROPRI ATELY IN AS MUCH AS 9 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) THE AMOUNT OF PARTNERS FUND I.E. FIXED CAPITAL CONT RIBUTION PLUS THE CURRENT ACCOUNT BALANCE IN THE CURRENT YEAR IS RS.1 4,73,21,801/- WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO THE RELATED CONCERNS. IT WAS POINTED O UT THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM DOES NOT PAY INTEREST TO ITS PARTNERS AND, TH EREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS CAN BE SAID TO HAVE B EEN AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO COVER THE IMPUGNED INTEREST FREE AD VANCES TO SISTER CONCERNS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE AO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AS WELL AS IN A.Y. 2002-03, WHICH WERE DELE TED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.6213/MUM/2003 DATED 10/10/2006 AND 21/0 1/2009(SUPRA) RESPECTIVELY. BY REFERRING TO THE DISCUSSION IN TH E RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE DISALLOWA NCE HAS BEEN DELETED BY CONSIDERING SIMILAR ARGUMENTS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE HAS JUSTIFIED THE STAND OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY POINTING OUT THAT SINCE THE FUNDS WERE DIVERTED TOWARDS NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE CO RRESPONDING INTEREST HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DISALLOWED. 10 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) 9. WE HAVE CORRECTLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. AT THE OUTSET, IT HAS TO BE NOTED THAT NONE OF THE DISCUS SION IN THE ORDERS OF AO OR CIT(A) MAKES A REFERENCE TO ANY NEXUS BETWE EN THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AND THE IMPUGNED INTEREST FREE ADVAN CE MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS . MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINT ED OUT THAT IT HAS ENOUGH INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO COVER THE IMPUGNED I NTEREST FREE ADVANCE MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS, AND THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340(BOM) CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DELET ION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. THE PREC EDENTS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ALSO SUPPORT THE STAND OF THE A SSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS.2,32,590/- THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31/08 /2015. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER MUMBAI,DATED 31/8/2015 11 ITA 2343/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-01) 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, MUMBA I VM , SR. PS