ACIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI V. SHAHRUKH KHAN, MUMBAI

ITA 2636/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 263619914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SHASTRI
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Cost of acquisition; Wrong claim; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2636/M/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2001-02 THE ACIT, CEN. CIR 29, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 VS. MR. SHAHRUKH KHAN, MANNAT, 15J BAND STAND, BANDRA(W), MUMBAI AAHPK 3293L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI V.V. SHASTRI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HIRO RAI DATE OF HEARING :28.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.12.2011 O R D E R PER B.R. MITTAL, JM : THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DT. 01.01.2010 DISPUTIN G DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS. 6,00,000/- LEVIED BY AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL A RE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED THE FOLLOWING CL AIM OF ASSESSEE. I) RS. 5,87,000/- OUT OF SECRETARYS WELFARE EXPENSES II) PAYMENT OF RS. 3,00,000/- TO MR. SHASHILAL NAIR III) RS. 6,77,087/- OUT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCES MADE BY AO WERE DISP UTED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE TRIBUNAL BUT TH E ACTION OF AO WAS CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 2636/M/2010 2 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING S AGAINST ASSESSEE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE AO STATED THAT ASSE SSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY MAKING AFORESAID CLAIMS AN D LEVIED PENALTY @100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WHICH COMES TO RS. 5 ,47,430/-. HOWEVER, AO STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PAY PENALTY OF RS. 6,00,000/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD . CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE CANCEL LED THE PENALTY AND THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) ARE IN PARAS 3.5 & 3.6 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT ON TH E ISSUES. LOOKING INTO THE GROUNDS OF THE DISALLOWANCES, THE GROUNDS OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPELLANTS APPEAL ON THE ISSU ES BY CIT(A) AND ITAT, THE FACTS BROUGHT ON BOARD BY THE APPELLA NT ON THE CLAIMS, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271(1)(C) AND JUDICI AL EVOLUTION IN THE MATTER, I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE AO THAT TH E DISALLOWANCES INVITE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR FUR NISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. TO THIS END, IN THE FIRST PLACE, I DO NOT SEE ANY CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS IN RELATION TO THE CLAIMS MADE. AS I NO TE, THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED ALL THE REQUISITE PARTICULA RS ON ITS CLAIMS OF RS. 5,87,000/- ADVANCED TO MR. ANWAR KHAN , RS. 3,00,000/- PAID TO MR. SHAHSHILAL NAIR AND THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR. THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY FAULT WITH THESE PARTICULARS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE FAULTED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS I SEE, THESE DISALLOWANC ES HAPPENED NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE APPEL LANT AND THE AO ON THE FACTS AND PARTICULARS, BUT BECAUSE TH ESE TWO PARTIES TOOK DIFFERENT POSITIONS BASED ON THE SAME SETS OF FACTS AND PARTICULARS. DISALLOWANCES HAVING SUCH ROOTS CA NNOT INVITE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T ACT. TH AT THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THE FACTS AND PARTICULARS IS ALSO CLEA R FROM THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND THE I.T. A.T. C LUED INTO THE FOREGOING, I FIND THAT DISALLOWANCES HAVE THEIR GEN ESIS IN DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AND DEBATABLE NATURE OF THE ISSUES AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANTS CLAIMS WERE BONAFIDE. AS I SEE, ON THE PAYMENT TO MR. ANWAR KHAN, THERE WAS A DEBATE W HETHER THERE WAS AN EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND MR. ANWAR KHAN OR ANY STATUTORY OR CO NTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. THIS WILL BE CLEAR FROM THE APPELLATE ORDERS ALSO ON THE ISSUE. SIMILARLY, REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 3 LAKSH TO MR. ITA NO. 2636/M/2010 3 SHASHILAL NAIR ALSO THERE WAS DOUBT WHETHER OR NOT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR THE APPELLANTS O WN PROFESSION. IN SIMILAR VEIN, THE APPELLANTS CLAIM U/S. 80RR IS ALSO CONTENTIONS AS WILL BE CLEAR FROM THE FACT THA T FOR THE A.Y. 1995-96, THE HONBLE ITAT HAD THE OCCASION TO ACCEP T THE APPELLANTS METHODOLOGY OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE D EDUCTION. CLUED INTO THESE ISSUES OF CONFLICT, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIMS ON ALL THE THREE ISSUES WERE BONAFIDE, ALTHO UGH RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND AGAIN CONFIRMED DURING THE APPELLATE STAGES. AS I SEE, WHEN THE CLAIMS WERE MADE, THE A PPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT THEY COULD B E MADE ALTHOUGH IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS THE CLAIMS WERE FOUN D TO BE DISALLOWABLE. THAT A BONAFIDE CLAIM CANNOT ATTRACT PENALTY BEARS JUDICIAL SUPPORT. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE CIT VS T. ABDUL 232 ITR 50, HAS HELD THAT WHER E THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE THE RE IS NO CASE FOR PENALTY. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S. PADMANABHAN 2 84 ITR 535 HAS HELD THAT IN A CASE IF THE ASSESSEE GIVES AN EX PLANATION UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF AND THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE EXPLANATION IS FALSE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY. SIMILAR DECISIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CASES CIT VS NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD., 288 ITR 670 (DEL) CIT VS AGROCHEMICALS (INDIA) 288 ITR 149 (P&H) AND BTX CHEM ICAL PVT. LTD. 288 ITR 196 (GUJ). FURTHER, I ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUES ARE DEBATABLE AND NOT FREE FROM DOUBT. THEY ARE, THEREFORE, VULNERABLE T O CONTRARY VIEWS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ONE WHICH CAN ATTRACT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT WAS MERELY HOLDING A VIEW DIFFERENT F ROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. IT WAS ONLY THAT ON THE SAME SET O F FACTS, THE AO AND THE APPELLANT WERE HAVING DIFFERENT VIEWS. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THEIR DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HARSHVARDHAN CHEMICALS & MINERAL S LTD. 259 ITR 212 HAS HELD THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JU STIFIED WHEN AN ARGUABLE OR DEBATABLE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS NO T ALLOWED. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS ALSO I N THEIR DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS G.D. NAIDU (LATE), 1 65 ITR 63 HELD THAT NO QUESTION OF ANY LIABILITY TO PENALTY W OULD ARISE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY CONTENDING FOR A PA RTICULAR POSITION CONTRARY TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS ALSO IN THE CASE INDIA CINE AG ENCIES VS DCIT 275 ITR 430 STATED THAT IN THE BATTLE OF WITS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THEIR ADVISORS ON ONE HAND AND THE REV ENUE ON THE OTHER, IT IS BOUND TO RESULT IN DIFFERENT VIEW POINTS BEING PROJECTED, AND AS LONG AS THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE INCOME WITH A DISHONEST INTE NT OR HAD ITA NO. 2636/M/2010 4 FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, EITHER DELIBERATELY OF AS A RESULT OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE, WHICH WAS NOT CAPA BLE OF BEING REGARDED AS AN INNOCENT ACT, PENALTY IS NOT TO BE O RDINARILY LEVIED. I ALSO FIND THAT MY PREDECESSOR HAD THE OC CASION TO CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE APPELLANTS CLAIM U/S. 80RR OF THE I.T.ACT VIDE HIS ORDERS DT. 14.12.2005 FOR THE A.YRS 1999-00 & 2000-01. I AGREE WITH THE REASONS CITED BY MY PRE DECESSOR WHILE CANCELLING THE PENALTY FOR THE A.YRS 1999-00 & 2000-01, CLUED INTO THE FOREGOING, I FIND THAT THE GROUNDS O F DISALLOWANCES DO NOT ATTRACT PENALTY U/S. 271(1) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. ACCO RDINGLY, THE PENALTY ON ALL THE ABOVE THREE DISALLOWANCES ARE CA NCELLED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 6. HENCE DEPARTMENT IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE TRI BUNAL. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. DR SUBMITTED T HAT TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DT. 27.6.2008 CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCES MAD E BY AO. HENCE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF EXCESSIVE CLAIMS MADE BY ASSESSEE DOES N OT REMAIN DEBATABLE. LD. DR RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SPLENDOR CONSTRUCTION IN ITA NO. 1977 OF 2010 VIDE ORDER DT. 14.1.2011 SUBMITTED THAT IF THE DISALLOWANCES ARE CONFIRMED F INALLY BY ITAT AND NO FURTHER APPEAL IS FILED, LEVY OF PENALTY IS JUSTIFI ABLE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. AR SUBMITTED AS UNDER: A) HE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,87,000/- OUT OF SECRETARYS WELFARE EXPENSES, ASSESSEE ADVANCED TO HIS PART TIME SECRETARY MR. ANWAR KHAN A SUM OF RS. 7,00,000/- DU RING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1994-95. HOWEVER MR. ANWAR KHAN DIE D WHEN HE WAS ONLY 30 YEARS OLD AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE N OT IN A POSITION TO RETURN THE BALANCE AMOUNT DUE AT THAT TIME TO ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ON HUMANITARI AN GROUND CONSIDERED TO WRITE OFF BALANCE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS. 5,87,000/- AND CLAIMED IT AS DEDUCTION UNDER WELFAR E EXPENSES BONAFIDE. ITA NO. 2636/M/2010 5 B) IN RESPECT OF RS. 3,00,000/-, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF FILM SHOOTING, DIRECTOR INSISTED TO MAKE HIM PAYMEN T OTHERWISE HE WAS NOT PREPARED TO COMPLETE THE SHOOT WHICH WAS OT HERWISE READY. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE GAVE ADVANCE OF R S. 3 LAKHS TO DIRECTOR ON BEHALF OF PRODUCER TO ENABLE THE DIRECT OR TO COMPLETE THE SHOOT AS ASSESSEE DID NOT WANT TO POSTPONE THE SHOOTING ON THAT DAY, OTHERWISE ASSESSEE HAD TO COME AGAIN FOR THAT SHOOT. LATER ON ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECOVER SAID AMOUNT FRO M PRODUCER. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT ON BEHALF OF PRODUCER DUE TO COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECOVER THE SAID AMOUNT, HE CLAIMED IT AS EXPENSES BONAFIDE BECAUSE IT WAS PAID TO COMPLETE SHOOT TO A VOID TO COME AGAIN. HOWEVER, SAID CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED. C) IN RESPECT OF RS. 6,77,087/- LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE CALCULATED THE CLAIM AMOUNT U/S. 80RR BASED ON CERT AIN PRINCIPLES AND AFTER ADJUSTING CERTAIN EXPENSES THEREFROM. HO WEVER, AO MADE HIS OWN CALCULATION. THUS A SUM OF RS. 6,77,0 87/- OUT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80RR OF THE ACT WAS DISALLO WED. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTI CULARS OF HIS INCOME AND ONLY A PART OF CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ABOVE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY NOT ACCEPTING CLAIMS OF ASSESSEE BUT THERE IS NO SUCH F INDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ALL REQUISITE FACTS IN THE RETURN FIL ED OR CLAIMS MADE BY ASSESSEE WERE FALSE AND NOT BONAFIDE. LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD . 322 ITR 158 AND ALSO INTER ALIA ON THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS EAGLE IRON & METAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (2011) 11 ITR (TRIB( 38 4(MUM). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING CASES: 1) ITO VS PARIKH INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. 43 SOT 537(MUM- TRIB) ITA NO. 2636/M/2010 6 2) WALTER SALDHANA VS DCIT 44 SOT 26 (MUM-TRIB) 3) EQUEST INDIA PVT. LTD. VS ITO 136 TTJ 574(MUM-TRIB) 4) STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD. VS ACIT 40 SOT 254(MUM-TRIB) 5) HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS ACIT 41 SOT 254 (MUM-TR IB) 6) ITO VS OASIS SECURITIES LTD. 4 ITR 441 (MUM-TRIB) 7) ACIT VS VIP INDUSTRIES LTD. 122 TTJ 289 (MUM-TRIB) 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH PARTIES. THERE IS NO D ISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AB OVE CLAIMS MADE. HOWEVER, SAID CLAIMS WERE DISALLOWED BY CONSIDERING THAT (I) WRITING OFF BALANCE AMOUNT DUE FROM DECEASED SHRI ANWAR KHAN BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE IN THE NATURE OF PERSONAL NATURE, (II) THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- GIVEN BY ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF PRODUCER TO THE DIRECTOR IS N OT A DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE U/S. 37 OF THE I.T. ACT & (III) THAT TRIBUNAL ALSO HELD THAT RESTRICTING THE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO FOREIGN EARNING TO 25.5 % IS REASONABLE AND THUS RESULTED IN DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,77,087/-. WE OBS ERVE THAT NONE OF THE DISALLOWANCES MADE IS OF THE NATURE WHICH COULD BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE MADE FALSE CLAIMS OR THE SAID CLAIMS WERE WITHOUT GIVING BY ASSESSEE ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THAT MERE LY BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED O R WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ATTRACT PENALTY U /S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IF ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNIS HED BY ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUCH CLAIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF DEPARTMENT THAT CLA IM MADE BY ASSESSEE WERE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSE SSEE FOR MAKING SUCH CLAIM IS NOT BONAFIDE. HENCE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE PROVISION S OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED. THE CASE RELIED UPON BY LD. DR IN THE CASE OF SPLENDOR ITA NO. 2636/M/2010 7 CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US. IN THE SAID CASE, ASSESSEE PURCHASED LA ND IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THE SAID LAND AS STOC K-IN-TRADE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED IN CONSECUTIVE YEARS. WHEN ASSESSEE SO LD THIS LAND, IT DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER CLAIMING BENEFIT OF IN DEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE CONVERTED TO STOCK-IN-TR ADE INTO INVESTMENT BEFORE SALE AND SOLD THE SAME TO ANOTHER COMPANY AN D THE PERIOD RECKONED FROM THE DATE IT WAS CONVERTED AS INVESTMENT FROM S TOCK-IN-TRADE, WAS LESS THAN 3 YEARS THEREFORE THE GAIN WAS A SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN AND NOT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE SAID FINDING WAS ALSO CONFIR MED BY TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, PENALTY WAS LEVIED. IN THAT CONTEXT, HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT ASSESSEE UNDER THE GARB WITH LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN WANTED TO PAY LESSER TAX. THUS, ASSESSEE CLEARLY FURNISHED INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT IN T HE ABOVE CASE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BU T WAS ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUCH C LAIM WAS NOT BONAFIDE. ON THE CONTRARY, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, CLAIMS OF A SSESSEE WERE NOT WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE FOR MAKING CLAIMS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE BONAFIDE. THEREFORE, WE UPHOL D THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BY REJECTING GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 SD/- SD/- ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH DECEMBER,2011 RJ ITA NO. 2636/M/2010 8 COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR E BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI