UNI TEX PRODUCTS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 2(3)-2, MUMBAI

ITA 2487/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 248719914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: Y P TRIVEDI AW MRS USH A DALAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2487/MUM./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 05 ) DATE OF HEARING: 10.3.2011 UNI TEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. SAPT BUILDING, J.N. HEREDIA MARG BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400 001 PAN AAACU0760G .. APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MRS. ASHIMA GUPTA ASSESSEE BY : MR. Y.P. TRIVEDI A/W MRS. USH A DALAL O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22 ND JANUARY 2009, PASSED BY THE CIT(A) XXX, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 05. THE SOLE DISPUTE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL FOR OUR ADJUDICATION IS THAT, WHETHER OR NOT, THE LEARNED C IT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FROM SAPT BUILDING AT ` 43,71,352, AS AGAINST ` 9,18,122, OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN COTTON WASTE. IT HAD TAK EN LOAN ON 99 YEARS LEASE FROM BOMBAY PORT TRUST AND HAS CONSTRUCTED THEREON A BUILDING KNOWN AS UNI TEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2487/MUM./2009 2 SAPT BUILDING . THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PART OF THIS BUILDING ON L EASE TO ITS SISTER CONCERN. THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING RENTAL I NCOME FROM THE SISTER CONCERNS UPTO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: NAME OF COMPANIES AREA IN SQ.FT. FLOOR # MONTHLY RE NT ANNUAL RENT RECEIVED ARYA OFFSHORE 6,000 BASEMENT ` 3,00,000 ` 36,00,000 U.L.A. OF INDIA PVT. LTD. 6,685 FIRST FLOOR ` 1,34,200 ` 16,10,400 GERMAN EXPRESS SHIPPING AGENCIES LTD. 7,500 THIRD FLOOR ` 75,000 ` 9,00,000 3. THE TOTAL ANNUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UPTO THE YEAR 2002 IS ` 65,10,400. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THIS INCOME UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E., UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 03. THE REVENUE DISPUTED THE SAME AND ASSESSED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . WHEN THE MATTER TRAVELED TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL, IN ITA NO.153 AND 154/MUM./ 2003, VIDE ORDER DATED 25 TH JANUARY 2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 97 AND 1997 98, AS WELL AS IN ITA NO.155 AND 156/MUM./2003, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 998 99 TO 2002 03, HELD THAT INCOME IN QUESTION SHOULD BE ASSESSED UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS . 4. ON 20 TH AUGUST 2000, THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED A LEGAL OPI NION FROM B.K. SOLANKI, ADVOCATE, BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WHO OPIN ED THAT UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LEASE, THE LESSEE IS PROHIB ITED FROM SUB LETTING WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE BOMBAY PORT TRUST. THUS , HE ADVISED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT CHARGE ANY RENT OR SERVICE CHAR GES. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE STOPPED CHARGING RENT FROM THE SISTER CONC ERNS. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 03, NIL INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX UNDER THE HE AD INCOME FROM BUSINESS , AS THERE WAS NO RENTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ASSESSED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS FIXED AT ` 15,39,360, WHICH WAS BASED ON A VALUATION UNI TEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2487/MUM./2009 3 REPORT. THEREAFTER, FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04 TO 2007 08, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OFFERING THE INCOME IN QUESTION U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS OFFERED AS PER VALUA TION REPORT DATED 4 TH SEPTEMBER 2000, UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06 AND AS PER VALUATION REPORT DATED 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AND 2007 08. FOR THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE OFF ERED TO TAX THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS FIXED AT ` 15,39,360. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE VALUATION REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THA T THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN THIS REPORT. AT PAGE 9, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS FOLLOWS:- THIS VALUATION IS GROSSLY UNDERSTATING THE INHEREN T CAPACITY OF THE BUILDING TO YIELD INCOME. AS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE VALUATION REPORT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS IT IS FLAWED, MISLEADING AND INCORRECT AND DOES NOT RE VEAL THE TRUE PICTURE REGARDING THE RENT RECEIVED / RECEIVABLE. THIS VIEW IS FURTHER EMBOLDENED BY THE FACT THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS TH E ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS RECEIVING RENT OF ` 65,10,400 FROM THE OCCUPYING COMPANIES AND AREA OCCUPIED BY THESE THREE COMPANIES IS JUST 45.5% AND IN CONTRAST THE VALUATION REPORT PUTS THE RENT OF 97% AREA OF BUILD ING AT ` 16,57,980. THE SECTION 23 IS CLEAR ON THE ISSUE THAT FAIR RENT AL VALUE HAS TO BE CHARGED. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN THE EARLIER Y EARS WAS CHARGING RENT FOR THE PREMISES AND FOR VARIOUS SERVICES REND ERED BY IT TO THE LESSEE COMPANIES BUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, IT HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS REGARDS SAP T BUILDING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I PROCEED TO COMPUTE THE FAIR MARKET RENT OF THE PROPERTY RENTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS COMP ANIES WHICH IS AS UNDER: THE RENT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ABOVE FI RMS IN THE YEAR 2000, WAS AS UNDER: NAME OF COMPANIES AREA IN SQ.FT. FLOOR # MONTHLY RE NT ANNUAL RENT RECEIVED ARYA OFFSHORE 6,000 BASEMENT ` 3,00,000 ` 36,00,000 U.L.A. OF INDIA PVT. LTD. 6,685 FIRST FLOOR ` 1,34,200 ` 16,10,400 GERMAN EXPRESS SHIPPING AGENCIES LTD. 7,500 THIRD FLOOR ` 75,000 ` 9,00,000 TOTAL : ` 65,10,400 UNI TEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2487/MUM./2009 4 THE SAME AMOUNT OF ` 65,10,400 IS TAKEN AS THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM SAPT BUILDING AND PROPORTIONATE MUNI CIPAL CHARGES ARE ALSO ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. RENT AS PER SECTION 23 65,10,400 MUNICIPAL TAXES 2,33,166 ANNUAL VALUE 62,77,234 LESS: DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24 30% OF REPAIRS ` 18,83,170 LEASE RENT ` 22,712 19,05,882 INCOME FROM SAPT BUILDING 43,71,352 I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HENCE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) ARE SEPARATELY INITIATED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L AND RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AT PARA 7, HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS, ASSESSME NT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. THE APPELLANT HAD ALLOWED USER OF PORTION OF SAP T BUILDING TO THREE PARTIES SINCE LONG AND WAS RECEIV ING PAYMENT FOR THE SAME EARLIER. NO REASON HAS BEEN GI VEN AS TO WHY IT DECIDED NOT TO COLLECT ANY AMOUNT FROM THE USER COMPANIES, AS STATED IN NOTE NO.6 WITH THE RET URN OF INCOME. NONE WILL FOREGO DUE INCOME WITHOUT ANY REA SON WHATSOEVER. IN ANY CASE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO WAIVER OF INCOME AFTER IT BECOME DUE AND THUS WOULD BE TAXABL E. 2. THE REPORT OF THE APPROVED VALUER ESTIMATING REN T FROM SAPT BUILDING AT ` 16,57,980 P.A. AS AGAINST ` 65,10,400 P.A. ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT I N EARLIER YEARS WAS BASED ON RATE OF RENT PAID BY GOV T. OF INDIA FOR GROUND TO SECOND FLOORS AS A TENANT FROM PRIOR TO 1975 AND TILL 30.9.1992. THIS CAN NOT BE BASIS FOR RENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN MUCH HIGHER RENT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED IN EARLIER YEARS. UNI TEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2487/MUM./2009 5 3. THE APPELLANTS LETTERS DATED 10.11.2006 AND 26.12.2006, VARIED IN DETAILS OF AREA RENTED OUT AN D THAT OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THESE DETAILS D ID NOT TALLY WITH THOSE IN VALUATION REPORT. AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CONFERENCE ROOMS, LIFTS, STAIR CA SE AND MAIN ENTRANCE AREAS ALSO FORM PART OF OFFICE AREA. 4. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE A LL IN CASES WHERE THE QUESTION WAS DETERMINATION OF R ENT. THE QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT OF FACTUAL LY RECEIVING AN AMOUNT AS RENT EARLIER AND THEN STOPPI NG TO RECEIVE THE SAME WITHOUT ANY REASON, BUT ALLOWING U SER OF PREMISES TO THE TENANTS AS BEFORE. THUS, THE CASE L AWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE INAPPLICABLE IN ITS CASE . 7.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED. HENCE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THUS, REJECTED THE ASSESSEES C LAIM, AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. Y.P. TRIVEDI, SR. ADVOCATE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY RE NT FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LET OUT THE PROPERTY. HIS MAIN I NTENTION IS THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS BASED ON A VALUATION REPORT AND THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BOTH IN EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS IN THE LATER YEARS AND, THUS, DISTURBING THE FAI R MARKET VALUE ONLY IN THE CURRENT YEAR IS NOT APPROPRIATE. HE PLEADS THAT THE VALUER HAS ARRIVED AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS BY CONSIDER ING THE RATE OF RENT PAID BY GOVT. OF INDIA FOR THE 1 ST AND 2 ND FLOOR AS A TENANT AS WELL AS THE PROVISIONS OF THE RENT ACT. HE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE VALUER AND THE VALUERS REPORT SH OULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ENTIRE EXPORT ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE. HIS CASE IS THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE @ ` 65,10,400, IS EXCESSIVE AND AGAINST THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF VALUATION. ALTERNATIVELY, HE SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION IS ASSESSA BLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY RENT NOR IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING ANY R ENT, THE RATIO OF THE UNI TEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2487/MUM./2009 6 JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN CIT V /S A. RAMAN AND CO., (1967) 67 ITR 1 (SC), APPLIES AND INCOME CAN BE BRO UGHT TO TAX AS THERE IS NO ACCRUAL AT ALL. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN INDIA FINANCE & CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V/S DCIT & ORS., (1993) 200 ITR 710 (BOM.), HAS APPLIED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUP REME COURT RENDERED IN A. RAMAN AND CO. (SUPRA), AND HELD THAT INCOME CANN OT BE TAXED WHEN THERE IS NO ACCRUAL OF INCOME. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, HE SUBMITS THAT THIS GROUND WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE, THEREFORE, P RAYS THAT THE RELIEF, AS PRAYED FOR, MAY BE ALLOWED. 8. THE LEARNED DR, MRS. ASHIMA GUPTA, ON THE OTHER HAN D, SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS IN THIS CASE JUST RELIED ON THE ACTUAL R ENT THAT WAS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR THE VERY SAME PREMISES FROM THE VERY SAME TENANTS AND ARRIVED AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ESTIMATION WHATSOEVER INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. HE REF ERRED TO PAGE 7 PARA 7 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER AND STRESSED ON THE POI NT THAT THE RENT ESTIMATED BY THE APPROVED VALUER IS MUCH LESSER THAN THE RENT ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE RATE OF RENT PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FOR GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR AS A TENANT, WAS THAT WHICH WAS PAID PRIOR TO 1975 AND TILL 1992 AND HENCE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE RENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT CAN BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS , THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PRIOR TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUO MOTU DECLARED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ONWARDS AND IN S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRESENT CLAIM THAT THE INCOME IN QUESTION CAN BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS DOES NOT ARISE. UNI TEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2487/MUM./2009 7 9. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPE RS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE HOLD AS FOLLOW. 10. FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , AS FAR AS THIS SOURCE OF INCOME IS CONCERNED. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN A STAND THAT THE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. THEREAFTER THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN FILING RETURNS OF INCOME DECLARING THIS SOURCE OF INCOME U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, FOR ALL T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS DETERMIN ED BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT I.E. AT THE RATE OF ` 15,39,360 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 AND 2005-06 AND AT THE RATE OF ` 16,57,980 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIV ED ANY RENTAL INCOME AND THE INCOME IS TAXED BY INVOKING DEEMING PROVISI ONS OF 23(1)(A). THUS ON PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE REVENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED ITS STAND FOR THIS ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR . FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS EVEN WHEN THE ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S 143(3), THE REVENUE OFFICERS HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE STAND TAKEN BY THEM DURING TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ON THIS SOLE GROUND, THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS TO BE ALLOWED. 11. NEVERTHELESS, THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE LEGAL OPINIO N SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED FROM GIVING PROPERTY ON SUB- LEASE. ON THE FACE OF SUCH A PROHIBITION AND THE LIKELY ADVERSE EFFECTS O F THE PROPERTY IS GIVEN ON SUB-LEASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS STOPPED CHARGING RENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RENT CHARGED EARLIER CANNOT BE T HE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN FACT IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER THESE PREMISES ON LEASE TO ANY PARTY. WHEN THE QUESTION OF OFFERING THE PREMISES ON SUB LEASE TO ANY PARTY DOES NOT ARISE, THE DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VA LUE HAS TO BE DONE TAKING THESE DEPRESSING FACTORS AND LIMITATIONS INTO CONSI DERATION. THE PREVIOUS RENT UNI TEX PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2487/MUM./2009 8 IS NOT INDICATIVE OF ALV AS THE CONSTRAIN OF NOT BE ING ABLE TO LET OUT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT KNOWN. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE VALUATION FO ALV BY A RECOGNIZED VALUER ASSUMES IMPORTANCE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND AS THERE IS A V ALUATION REPORT BY AN EXPERT IN THAT FIELD WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED, WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AT ` 15,39,360 AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27.4.2011. SD/- D.K. AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 27.4.2011 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED (5) THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI