DCIT - 12(3), MUMBAI V. M/s. SUMER VILLE INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

ITA 2657/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 265719914 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B JAYA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL B JOSHI
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Opportunity of being heard; Competent authority; Notional interest

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E BEFORE SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM/07 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TRIBUNAL TAX 12(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-20. VS. M/S. SUMER VILLE INVESTMENTS, 201, COMMERCE HOUSE, 140, NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400 023 PAN AAAFS2828G APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. ITA NO.3882/MUM/08 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-20. VS. M/S. SUMER VILLE INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI-400 023 PAN AAAFS2828G APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. JAYAKUMAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIPUL B. JOSHI. O R D E R PER SHRI R. S. PADVEKAR : THESE BATCH OF THREE APPEALS ARE FILE D BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE RESPECTIVE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05 AN D 2005-06. THE ISSUES AND THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THESE APPEALS, HENCE THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS IN RESPECT OF DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (IN SHORT ALV) U/S.23(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). THE FACTS IN BRIEF ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER : ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM//07 & 3882/MUM/08 - 2 - 3. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUC TION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS LET OUT THE PROPERTY TO M/S.DANFOSS INDL. PVT. LTD. AND M/S. BIRLA SUNLITE INSURANCE CO. LTD. RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RENT FROM THESE TWO TENANTS WHICH WAS DULY DECLARED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT OF RS.7.73 CRO RES FROM THESE TENANTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE THE LEASE RENT AND CORRECT ALV U/S.23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH EREFORE, WORKED OUT 15% OF THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT AS A NOTIONAL INTEREST AND MA DE THE ADDITION TO THE RENT RECEIVED AND DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE TH REE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID AD DITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD S. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI FULL BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MONI KUMAR SUBBA (2011 ) 53 DTR (DEL)(FB) 289. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. RECLAMATION REALTY INDIA PV T. LTD. IN ITA NOS.1411-1413 AND 1733 1734/MUM/07 DT.26.11.2010. 5. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A), THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS TO DETERMINE THE ALV BY CONSIDERING THE SUM FOR WHICH, THE PROPERTY MIGHT R EASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IN THE CASE OF MONI KUMAR SUBBA (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE DELHI ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM//07 & 3882/MUM/08 - 3 - HIGH COURT HELD THAT NOTIONAL INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ALV U/S.23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE FULL BENCH HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DE TERMINING THE ALV U/S.23(1)(A) OF THE ACT AS UNDER : 20. THE ABOVE DISCUSSION LEADS TO THE FOLLOWIN G CONCLUSIONS : (I) ANNUAL LETTING VALUE WOULD BE THE SUM AT WHICH THE PROPERTY MAY BE REASONABLY LET OUT BY A WILLING LESSOR TO A WILLING LESSEE UNINFLUENCED BY ANY EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. (II) AN INFLATED OR DEFLATED RENT BASED ON EXTRANE OUS CONSIDERATION MAY TAKE IT OUT OF THE BOUNDS OF REASONABLENESS. (III) ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED, IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES , WOULD BE A RELIABLE EVIDENCE UNLESS THE RENT IS INFLATED/DEFLATED BY RE ASON OF EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION. (IV) SUCH ANNUAL LETTING VALUE, HOWEVER, CANNOT EX CEED THE STANDARD RENT AS PER THE RENT CONTROL LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO T HE PROPERTY. (V) IF STANDARD RENT HAS NOT BEEN FIXED BY THE REN T CONTROLLER, THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO DETERMINE THE STANDARD RENT AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF RENT CONTRACT ENACTMENT. (VI) THE STANDARD RENT IS THE UPPER LIMIT, IF THE FAIR RENT IS LESS THAN THE STANDARD RENT, THEN IT IS THE FAIR RENT WHICH SHALL BE TAKEN AS ANNUAL LETTING VALUE AND NOT THE STANDARD RENT. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT FIT TO RESTORE THIS ISSU E TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE GUIDELINES/PRIN CIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF MONI KUMAR SUBBA (SUPRA). THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE RENT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.23(1)(A) OF THE ACT IS HIGHER THAN THE PRINCIPLE RENTAL VALUE. IN OUR OPINION, IF THE MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 IS APPLICABLE TO THE SAID PROPERTY, THEN THE STANDARD RENT DETERMINED UNDER T HE ACT SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS ALV U/S.23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. IF THE STANDARD RENT I S NOT APPLICABLE, THEN THE ALV SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE GUIDELINES GIVEN BY THEIR LORDSHIP IN THE CASE OF MONI KUMAR SUBBA (SUPRA). NEEDLESS TO SAY, A. O. SHOULD GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM//07 & 3882/MUM/08 - 4 - 6. IN THE RESULT THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY TH E REVENUE ARE ALLOWED IN ALL APPEALS FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IS THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,02,06,75 0 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF UNDER STATEMENT OF TH E SALE CONSIDERATION OF FIVE COMMERCIAL UNITS AND THIS ISSUE RAISES FROM GROUND NO.3 IN THE ASST. YEAR 2005- 06. 8. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAK EN A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT KNOWN AS CORPORATE PARK AT CHEMBUR IN MUMBAI. THE A SSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PR OJECT AND WAS DECLARING THE PROFIT. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 5 UNI TS TO VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS CHARGED THE SALE PRICE AS PER THE SUPER BUILT UP AREA @ RS.3340 RS. 4729 PER SQ. FT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERE D INTO AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF UNITS WITH VARIOUS PARTIES IN THE YEAR 1995. MOST OF THE PARTIES WERE MULTI-NATIONAL COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD UN ITS AT RS.10,150 PER SQ. FT. OF THE SUPER BUILT UP AREA AND RS.3383 PER SQ. FT. IN SOME OTHER CASES. IN CASE OF SOME OF THE COMPANIES, THE ASSESSEE ;CHARGED RS.8,1 00 PER SQ. FT. OF SUPER BUILT UP AREA AND ALSO RS.8,000 PER SQ. FT. IN RESPECT OF SO ME OF THE OTHER PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ATTACHED THE STATEMENT THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, SHOWING THE ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM//07 & 3882/MUM/08 - 5 - SALE PRICE AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE UNITS TO DIFFERENT COMPANIES IN THE YEAR 1995 AS WELL AS THE PRICE IS DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE IN RESPECT OF COMMERCIAL UNITS SOLD IN THE SAME PROJECT IN THE F. Y. 2004-05 RELEV ANT TO THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE NOTED THAT EVEN IF THERE IS A GAP OF ALMOST TEN YEARS I.E. BETWEEN 1995-96 TO 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE HAD S HOWN THE DIFFERENCE IN SALE PRICE BY 40 TO 50% WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE AS SESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SALE PRICES OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS AT PAR WITH THE MARK ET PRICE PREVAILING DURING THE PERIOD WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY VALUE ADOPTED BY THE R EGISTRAR OF STAMPS FOR DETERMINATION OF STAMP DUTY UNDER THE BOMBAY STAMP ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE YEAR 1995 THAT THE STAMP DUT Y RECEIVED WAS VERY LOW BUT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE COMMERCIAL UNITS AT VERY HIGH PRI CE WHICH WAS ALMOST FIVE TIMES OF THE STAMP DUTY RATE. IN THE ASSESSEMENT YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE MORE EMPHASIS IN RESPECT OF THE RATES ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IN THE YEAR 1995 AS WELL AS I N THE F. Y. 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORREC TNESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE AVERAGE SALE RATE FOR THE ASST. YEAR 19 95 WHICH WORKED OUT AT RS.8050 PER SQ. FT. FOR 16,915 SQ. FT. SUPER BUILT UP AREA SOLD DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,61,65,7 50. THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUNTED FOR RS.7,53,00,000 IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SUCH PRICE OF THE SAID AREA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,08,65,7 50. ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM//07 & 3882/MUM/08 - 6 - 9. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6 ,59,000 AND BALANCE ADDITION MADE OF RS.6,02,06,750 WAS DELETED. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER : 2.20 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE F OLLOWING PICTURE EMERGED ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT :- 1. THE AO HEAVILY RELIED ON A FEW SALE INSTANCES WHERE IN THE APPELLANT COULD SELL HIS OFFICE UNITS AT MUCH HIGHER PRICES T HAN THE OTHER OFFICE UNITS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE APPELLANT WAS SUCCESSF UL IN GETTING MUCH HIGHER SALE PRICES, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WOULD BE ABLE TO SELL ALL OTHER UNITS AT THE SAME PRICE. SIMILARLY WHILE SELLING A T A LOW PRICE, THERE MAY BE AN URGENT NEED OF FUNDS TO THE APPELLANT FIR M COMPELLING IT TO SELL THE UNITS AT LOWER PRICES TO THE PURCHASERS WH O WERE READY TO MAKE DOWN PAYMENTS. IT IS ALSO A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON EVERY TAX PAYER TO MAKE MAXIMUM PROFI TS. 2. THE SAME AO ACCEPTED THE RATES OF SALES OF OTHER UN ITS IN THE SAME BUILDING AT LOWER CONSIDERATIONS IN THE IMMEDIATELY EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2004-05. 3. THE 9 COMPARABLE CASES ON WHICH THE AO RELIED UPON, WERE NOT MATCHING THAT CAN BE COMPARED WITH THE OFFICE UNITS OF THE APPELLANT FOR TWO REASONS: THE FIRST BEING THAT THE ATTRIBUT ES/CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WERE DIFFERENT I.E. THE SHOPS CA NNOT BE COMPARED WITH OFFICES AND AREAS OF ALL THOSE INSTANCES WERE DIFFERENT THAN THE AREA IN WHICH THE APPELLANT PROJECT CORPORATE PARK WAS LOCATED. 4. THE AO DID NOT CONDUCT ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY AND GATHER INDEPENDENT EVIDENCES EXCEPT RELYING ON THE COMPARA BLE CASES AS ABOVE RECEIPT OF EXTRA SALE CONSIDERATION BY THE AP PELLANT FIRM. 5. THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS ONLY ON THE GROUND OF THE REASONS OF SALES OF THE OFFICE UNITS BELOW THE MARKET PRICE. IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE SALES MADE BELOW THE MARKET PRICES WERE SH AM TRANSACTIONS OR THAT THE MARKET PRICES IN FACT WERE PAID BY THE PURCHASERS. THE MERE FACT THE GOODS WERE SOLD AT CONCESSIONAL RATES WOULD NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE MARKET PRICE AND THE PRICE PAID BY THE PURCHASER, AS PROFI T OF THE APPELLANT. THERE IS PLETHORA OF COURT DECISIONS ON THIS POINT. THE FIRST IS CIT VS. ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM//07 & 3882/MUM/08 - 7 - RAMAN AND CO. (1968) 67 ITR 11, 17 (SC) AND SMT. NA NDINI NOPANY (1998) 230 ITR 679, 682 (CAL). 6. THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY COGENT EVIDENC E TO SHOW THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BEING MORE THAN THAT RECORDED IN THE SALE AGREEMENTS. 7. THE SALE AGREEMENTS HAVE DULY BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE STAMP AUTHORITIES ON PAYMENT OF APPROPRIATE STAMP DUTY WH ICH IMPLIED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED IN THE SALE AGREEMENTS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITY. 8. THE SALES HAD DULY BEEN APPROVED BY THE THEN PREVAILING COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTER XX-C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS CLEARLY PROVED THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE ABOVE BOARD. 2.21 HOWEVER ON A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT I S NOTICED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN FOLLOWING ONE CASE BECAUSE THE VALUAT ION ADOPTED BY THE STATE STAMP AUTHORITIES IS HIGHER. IN VIEW OF THES E FINDINGS, I HOLD THAT THERE IS SUPPRESSION OF INCOME TO THIS EXTENT ON TH IS COUNT :- 2.22 THE ADDITION OF RS.6,59,000 MADE ON THIS COUNT AS PER THE DETAILS IN THE ABOVE TABLE IS UPHELD. 2.23 IN VIEW OF ABOVE FINDINGS THESE G ROUNDS ARE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY THE ACTION OF REJECTING THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT U/S.145 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DECLARED TO BE INVALID AND BALANCE ADDITION MADE OF RS.6,02,06,750 ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SAL E CONSIDERATION IS DELETED. THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,59,000 IS CONFIRMED. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE CO MMERCIAL UNITS IN THE SAME PROJECT IN THE YEAR 1995 AT VERY HIGHER RATE BETWEE N RS.8,000 TO RS.11,000 PER SQ. FT. BUT SOME UNITS SOLD IN THE YEAR 2004-05 AT MUCH MORE OF LESSER RATE. AS PER THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT IN THE YEAR 199 5 THERE WAS A BOOM IN THE REAL ESTATE MARKET AND MOST OF THE BUYERS WERE INTERNATI ONAL COMPANIES. HE FURTHER ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM//07 & 3882/MUM/08 - 8 - SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONVENIENTLY DISCARDED SOME SALE TRANSACTIONS OF 1995 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHAR GED BETWEEN RS.2,450 TO RS.4,50 PER SQ. FT. SUPER BUILT UP AREA. HE FURTHE R ARGUED THAT EXCEPT THE PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED HI GHER SALE PRICE THAN DECLARED IN THE AGREEMENT AND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . THE LD. COUNSEL STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT IT IS THE SAME PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE AND PART OF THE COMMERCIAL UNITS ARE SOLD IN THE YEAR 1995 AND BALA NCE UNITS ARE SOLD IN THE YEAR 2004-05, THERE IS VARIATION OF SALE PRICES OF UNIT S AND HAVE COME DOWN. THOUGH THERE IS SOME LOGIC IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT, D.R, AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN TO BRING O N RECORD AT LEAST FEW INDEPENDENT SALE TRANSACTIONS TO SUPPORT HIS CONCLU SION AND FINDINGS. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE BY DIFFERENT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEME NTS THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RE CEIVED MORE THAN WHAT IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE TAKEN SOME PAIN AND MADE SOME ENQUIRY TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHARGED MORE PRICE BUT LESSER AMOUNT IS RECORDED. MOREOVER, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE SALE PRICE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E IS HIGHER THAN VALUATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND HENCE THE SAME ALSO CANNOT BE DISCARDED. IN THIS CASE, EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT MADE REFERENCE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER U/S.142A OF THE ACT. AFTER GIVING UTMOST CONSIDERATION AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY O F THE FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO ITA NOS.367 & 2657/MUM//07 & 3882/MUM/08 - 9 - INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCOR DINGLY, THE GROUND NO.3 IN THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06 IS DISMISSED. 11. OTHER GROUNDS IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FOR ASST. YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND APPEAL FOR ASST . YEAR 2005-06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (R.S. PADVEKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DT.17 TH JUNE, 2011. *GPR TRUE COPY COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. CIT(APPEALS) 4. CIT 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DY./ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI