ACIT OSD2(1), MUMBAI V. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATION LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 273/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 27319914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN VARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Commercial expediency; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B BENCH BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.273/MUM/2010: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 -05 ACIT (OSD) 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, R. NO. 575, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATIONS LTD. 17/19, WADIA BLDG, 2 ND FLOOR, DALAL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001 PAN NO: AAACB 4739 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1738/MUM/2010: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 -05 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATIONS LTD. 17/19, WADIA BLDG, 2 ND FLOOR, DALAL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001 PAN NO: AAACB 4739 Q VS. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, R. NO. 575, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & CO NO.144/MUM/2010: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 -05 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATIONS LTD. 17/19, WADIA BLDG, 2 ND FLOOR, DALAL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001 PAN NO: AAACB 4739 Q VS. ACIT (OSD) 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, R. NO. 575, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVIN VARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. MOHAN DATE OF HEARING: 18.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.7.2012 ORDER PER RAJENDRA,A.M.: 2 I.T.A. NO.273/M/2010, 1738/M/2010 & C.O. NO.144/M/2010 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATION LTD. FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUND OF APPEALS AND GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO): ITA.NO.273/M/10 (APPEAL BY THE AO) : 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS.92,75,880/ BEING INTERE ST PAYABLE TO HDFC BANK BY HOLDING THAT SUCH INTEREST PAYABLE WAS NOT COVERED U/S. 43B(E) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SUCH INTEREST OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED SINCE IT WAS PAYABLE ON TERM LOAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE PREMISES BU ILDING. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING BAD DEBTS OF RS.2,58,62,963/-BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT FURNISH THE PROOF OF DEBTS HAVING BECOME BAD WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.36(1)(VII) OF THE IT ACT AND THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK (AS REPORTED IN 313 ITR 128) (2009) (BOM) WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT THE WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBT HAS TO BE A BONAFIDE COMMERCIAL DECISION. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPE NSES OF RS.2,30,74 , 218/ - PAYABLE ON BORROWED FUNDS WHICH WAS NOT USED FOR THE ASSESS EES OWN BUSINESS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REFUND OF SALES TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF THE DEMAND WHICH WAS AN INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. ITA.NO.1738/MUM/2010 (APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE) 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF INTEREST DUE TO GLOBAL TRUST BANK OF RS. 11,55,698. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF INTEREST ON DEBENTURES OF RS. 15,00,000. 3 I.T.A. NO.273/M/2010, 1738/M/2010 & C.O. NO.144/M/2010 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATION LTD. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF PAYMENTS TO BUSINESS INDIA PROVIDENT TRUST OF RS.75,L2,292. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF PAYMENT TO SECUREX CAPITAL MARKET TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS. 16, 99,226. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF PAYMENTS OF RS.1,68,000 TO RIGHT CLICK TOWARDS PURCHASE OF TWO COMPUTERS FOR THE WINNERS OF SUBSCRIPTION SCHEME. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF PAYMENTS TO MARG PUBLICATIONS OF RS.16,500. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF PAYMENTS TO MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL F RS.L,49,813. CO/144/10 (CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE) 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.25,45,74 3 BEING PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.62,041 BEING EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESIC. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER THE EXI STING GROUNDS OR RAISE FRESH GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA 273/M/10 THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, BEING GENERAL IN NATURE , NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DEDUCTION AMOUNTIN G TO RS.92.75 LAKHS BEING INTEREST PAYABLE TO HDFC.AS PER AO THE SAID INTEREST WAS COV ERED BY SEC.43B(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (ACT). ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS .92.75 LAKHS WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 I.T.A. NO.273/M/2010, 1738/M/2010 & C.O. NO.144/M/2010 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATION LTD. 2. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (FAA) HELD THAT HD FC WAS NOT A PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION OR A SCHEDULE BANK AS REFERRED TO THE S EC.43B(E) OR THE ACT.HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INTEREST CLAIMED, BUT NOT PAID, DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ALLOWABLE. 3.BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) S UBMITTED THAT HDFC WAS A SCHEDULE BANK,HENCE, PROVISION OF SECTION 43B(E) WERE APPLIC ABLE TO IT.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE LIST ISSUED BY THE R BI, HDFC WAS NOT A PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION OR A SCHEDULE BANK, THAT OTHER ENTITY O F HDFC GROUP WAS A BANK. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT HDFC, INSTITUTION IN QUESTION, IS NOT A SCHEDULE BANK/ PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION- IT IS NON-BANKING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT COVERED BY PROVIS ION OF SEC. 43B(E). 4. GROUND NO. 2 FILED BY THE AO STANDS REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND GR OUNDS NO. 1TO 7 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INTERCONNECTED.AO HAS DISCUSSED TH E ISSUE AT PARAGRAPH B (PAGE 3 TO 5) OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS.AS PER AO PRIOR PERIOD EXPENS ES AMOUNTING TO RS.2.58 CRORES WERE NOT ALLOWABLE. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED LE DGER ACCOUNTS OF 7 PARTIES IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM MADE, BUT DID NOT FILED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO OTHER PARTIES FOR WHICH EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED AS PER THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. AO HELD THAT THE SAID EXPENSES PERTAINED TO PRIOR PERIOD AND, HENCE, WERE NOT ALLOWABLE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE BAD DEB TS, BUT IN THE ACCOUNTS SAME WERE DISCLOSED AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SAID AMOUNTS WERE NOT RECOVERABLE AND WERE WRITTEN OFF.FAA HELD THAT EXPE NSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) OF THE ACT. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF STAR CH EMICAL DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI. 5 I.T.A. NO.273/M/2010, 1738/M/2010 & C.O. NO.144/M/2010 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATION LTD. 7. AFTER PASSING THE ORDER HE NOTICED THAT HE HAD N OT GIVEN ANY FINDING WITH REGARD TO FOLLOWING ITEMS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED AS BAD DEBTS :- A) INTEREST DUE TO GLOBAL TRUST BANK RS.11,55,698/- B) INTEREST ON DEBENTURES RS.15,00,000/- C) PAYMENT TO BUSINESS INDIA PF TRUST RS.75,12,292/ - D) PAYMENT TO SECUREX CAPITAL MARKET TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL FEES RS.16,99,226/- E) RIGHT CLICK (PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF TWO COMPUTERS FOR THE WINNERS OF THE SUBSCRIPTION SCHEME) RS.1,68,000/- F) MARG PUBLICATION RS.16,500/- G) MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL RS.1,49,813/- RS.1,22,01,529/- AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE U/S.154 OF THE NOTICE FAA HE LD THAT ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNTS CANNOT BE ALLOWED U/S.36(1)(III) R.W.S. 36( 2) OF THE ACT.THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO.1731/ MUM /2010) IS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE REFERRED DISALLOWANCES. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE FAA HAD BY HIS 154 ORDER UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1.22 CRORES, YET NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO ABOUT BALANCE AMOUNT, THAT CLAIM WAS MADE BY FILING A REVISED RETURN, THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF DEBTS BECOMING BAD, THAT AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AND THE FAA ALLOWED THE SAME AS BAD DEBTS. AR SUBMITTE D THAT ACTUALLY SUMS IN QUESTION WERE BAD DEBTS, THAT SAME WERE MISCLASSIFIED IN THE REVISED RETURN THAT FAA HAD DISALLOWED THE SAME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS. 9. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MATTER SHOULD BE RESTRICTED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE AO. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN ALSO HAD NOT CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT AS BAD DEBTS.AO HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT EXCEPT FOR 7 PARTIES DETA ILS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE HIM. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT FAA FIRST ALLOWED THE SAME AS BAD DEBTS A ND LATER ON PASSED AN ORDER U/S.154 WITH REGARD TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.22 CRORES. IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE A.O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECT ED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO BAD DEBTS/PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BEFORE THE A.O. 6 I.T.A. NO.273/M/2010, 1738/M/2010 & C.O. NO.144/M/2010 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATION LTD. 10. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A.O. AND GR OUND NOS. 1-7 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDI CATED ABOVE. 11. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE AOS APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETI ON OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2.30 CRORES. 12. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENSES AMOUNTIN G TO RS.5.33 CRORE ON BORROWED FUNDS THAT WERE ADVANCED AS INTEREST FREE LOANS TO GROUP CONCERNED. AS PER AO THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT USED FOR THE ASSESSEES OWN BUSINESS, SO INTEREST ON THE FUNDS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. OUT OF THE TOTAL INTEREST OF RS.5.33 CRORES, HE HAD ALREADY DISALLOWED RS.3.02 CRORES U/S.43B OF THE ACT.BALANC E AMOUNT OF RS.2.30 CRORES WAS ALSO DISALLOWED BY HIM VIDE PARAGRAPH D OF HIS ORDER ( PAGE 6 & 7 OF THE ORDER). ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. IN REMAND REPO RT SUBMITTED TO THE FAA, AO AGAIN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT USED THE BORROWED FUNDS FOR HIS OWN BUSINESS, HENCE, INTEREST PAID BY IT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. 13. FAA AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THOUGH THE ADVANCES WERE MADE TO GROUP CO NCERNS FROM THE BORROWED FUNDS, YET SAME WERE ADVANCED FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, THAT ADVANCE WERE IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED PERMISSION TO PUBLISH A MAGAZINE WITHOUT PAYMENT OR ROYALTY AND REDUCED PAYMENT OF ASSETS US AGE CHARGES. HE ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON BORR OWING. 14. BEFORE US, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT FAA HAD NOT MENTIO NED AS HOW THE PAYMENT OF RS.2.33 CRORES COMMENSURATE WITH ASSET USAGE CHARGE S, THAT AGREEMENT OF ROYALTY REDUCTION AND USAGE CHARGES WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO TH E AO.AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNA L FOR THE AYS 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001- 02 AND 2002-03. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID ORDERS BUT FIND THAT FACTS OF THOSE APPEALS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN EARLIER YEARS MATTER WAS RELATED TO PURCHASE OF SHARES OF THREE COMPANIES. PRESENT CASE IS ABOUT AN AGREEMENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE 7 I.T.A. NO.273/M/2010, 1738/M/2010 & C.O. NO.144/M/2010 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATION LTD. MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED BACK TO THE A.O. THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD FILED NECESSARY DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. 15. GROUND NO. 4 IS ALLOWED PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE REV ENUE. 16. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF REFUND OF SALES TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXCESS OF DEMAND. AS PER THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SALES TAX REFUND AMOUNT TO RS.14.31 LAKHS AND THAT SAME WAS TAXABLE. FAA IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HELD THAT SALES TAX REFUND DI D NOT CONTAIN ANY INTEREST PAID BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. HE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE ADDITION AND DELETE THE ADDITION IF THERE WAS NO PART OF INTEREST PAYMENT ON THE REFUND . FROM THE ORDERS AVAILABLE IT IS FOUND THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE FAA HAS EXAMINED THE IS SUE OF REFUND WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(B) OF THE ACT.SO, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER IS BEING REMITTED BACK TO AO FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION AND TO TAKE A FINAL DECISION. 17. GROUND NO. 5 IS ALSO ALLOWED PARTLY. 18. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE(ITA NO.1738/MUM/2010)H AS BEEN DEALT BY US WHILE DECIDING THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO. PARAGRAPHS 5 TO10 OF THE PRESENT ORDER DEAL WITH THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT- COMPANY IN THE SAID APPEAL.SO,WE ARE NOT PASSING A SEPARATE ORDER IN THIS REGARD.AS HELD IN PARA 10,GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1-7 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND PARTIALLY ALLOWED 19.NOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ISSUES RAISED IN T HE CROSS OBJECTION [CO] RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 OF CO IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 25.45 LAKHS TO PROVIDENT FUND, WHEREAS, GROU ND NO. 2 IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESIC AMOUNTING TO RS.62, 041/-.AS PER AO CONTRIBUTION ON BOTH THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PAID ON DUE DATES, HENCE SAME WERE NOT ALLOWABLE.DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING FAA CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE .AR SUBMITTED THAT CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND AND ESIC WERE MADE BEFORE THE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF C BENCH OF ITAT ORDER DATED 27.01.20 10 IN THE CASE OF PIK PEN PRIVATE LTD. (ITA NO.6847MUM/2008 AY 2005-06). AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE 8 I.T.A. NO.273/M/2010, 1738/M/2010 & C.O. NO.144/M/2010 M/S. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATION LTD. OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO AO FOR VERIFICATION OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS AND CO FILED BY THE REVENUE / ASSESSEE STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JULY , 2012 SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (RAJENDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 18 TH JULY, 2012 ROSHANI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),XIV, MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 14 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH J MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI