HITEN NEGANDHI, MUMBAI V. DCIT 21(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2790/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79564 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHA VARDHAN NAIR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JM ./ I.T.A. NOS. 2790 & 2791/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2008-09) HITEN NEGANDHI JAYESH SANGNRAJKA & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, UNIT NO.405, HIND RAJASTHAN CENTRE, D. S. PHALKE ROAD, DADAR (E), MUMBAI-400 014 / VS. DY. CIT-21(3), PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI ./! ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAPN 5859 Q ( ' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$ ' / RESPONDENT ) ' % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARSHA VARDHAN NAIR #$ ' % & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS ' ( ) % * + / DATE OF HEARING : 23.06.2014 ,-. % * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.07.2014 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARISIN G OUT OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-32, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 22.02.2012, DISPOSING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENTS U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAF TER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.YS.) 2007-08 & 2008-09. 2 ITA NO. 2790 & 2791/MUM/2012 (A.YS. 07-08 & 08-09) HITEN NEGANDHI VS. DY. CIT 2.1 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS WEL L AS THE ISSUE ARISING FOR OUR ADJUDICATION, PER THE INSTANT APPEALS BEING THE SAM E, EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION STOOD MADE, THESE WERE POSTED FOR HEARING AND, ACCORDINGLY, HEARD TOGETHER, AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF TOGETHER VIDE A COMMON, CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2.2 AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENC H, WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) WOULD STATE TO HAVE BEEN SIMILA RLY MADE BY THE BENCH ON AN EARLIER OCCASION AS WELL, I.E., WHEN THE INSTANT APPEALS CA ME UP FOR HEARING, THAT THE SAME RAISE SEVERAL, I.E., AS MANY AS 30, GROUNDS. THE LD. AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, ON BEING QUESTIONED IN THE MATT ER; THE SAME BEING CLEARLY NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, CLARI FIED THAT HE WAS ESSENTIALLY PURSUING THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 1 BEFORE US. FURTHER, SOM E OF THE GROUNDS, AS (SAY) GROUND NOS. 5 TO 9, ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, ARE N OT BEING PRESSED. THE GROUNDS, HE EXPLAINED, ARE NUMEROUS ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED A SEPARATE GROUND FOR EACH ITEM OF EXPENSES. THE OBJECTION, NO TWITHSTANDING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, IS VALID IN PRINCIPLE. SO, HOWEVER, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT PROPER TO DWELL ON THE MATTER AT THIS STAGE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE IS AGITATING ONLY ONE OF ITS GROUNDS BEFORE US. THE HEARING IN THE MATTER WAS ACCORDINGL Y PROCEEDED WITH. 3.1 OPENING THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGN ED ORDER/S ON BOTH THE LEGAL AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL ASPECTS, I.E., ON THE LEGAL ISSUE OF RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS ON THE MERITS OF THE ADJUSTMENT/S MADE TO ITS RETURNED INC OME, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT BEEN ALLOWED PART RELIEF BY THE LD. CIT(A), AND THA T HE SHALL PROCEED WITH THE LEGAL ISSUE FIRST. CONTINUING FURTHER, HE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ARCHITECT, ASSOCIATED WITH A NOTED ARCHITECT BY THE NAME MR. HAFEEZ CONTRACTOR (HC). THE ASSESSEE OPERATES AS A SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR, I.E., HC (ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE PRINCIPAL OR THE CONTRACTOR). THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ON ON THE PRINCIPAL ON 22.01.2009, WHEREAT HE ISSUED A STATEMENT TO THE INVESTIGATING AUTHORITIES, STATING HIS MODUS 3 ITA NO. 2790 & 2791/MUM/2012 (A.YS. 07-08 & 08-09) HITEN NEGANDHI VS. DY. CIT OPERANDI , WHEREBY HE WORKS WITH THE ASSOCIATES, AS THE ASSE SSEE, INCURRING ALL THE EXPENDITURE ON THE PROJECTS ASSIGNED TO THE RESPECT IVE ASSOCIATES. THE PROFIT THUS ARRIVED AT IS SHARED BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSOCIAT ES IN THE AGREED RATIO. REFERENCE FOR THE PURPOSE WAS MADE BY HIM TO THE REASONS RECORDED, ID ENTICAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS, OF EVEN DATE (28.07.2009), AT PB PGS. 20-21 (FOR A.Y. 2007- 08) AND PGS.22-23 (FOR A.Y. 2008- 09). THE ASSESSEE HAVING BILLED THE PRINCIPAL FOR T HE AMOUNT OF WORK EXECUTED, BOOKING AND CLAIMING ALL THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY HIM IN RELATION THERETO, THE SAME WAS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN BOOKED AND CLAIM ED IN EXCESS IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE CLAIMED BY THE PRINCIPAL ONLY, W ITH THE ASSESSEE BEING ONLY ENTITLED TO HIS SHARE OF PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE EXPEND ITURE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT, AND SOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT TO TA X. THE ASSESSEE MADE A DETAILED REPRESENTATION, VIDE LETTERS OF EVEN DATE, I.E., FO R BOTH THE YEARS, PLACED AT PB PGS.24-32 (FOR A.Y. 2007-08) AND AT PGS.33-41 (FOR A.Y. 2008- 09). THE SAME WAS THEN READ OUT IN DETAIL, EMPHASIZING THE FACT THAT THE REASON/S AS R ECORDED DID NOT LEAD TO FORMATION OF ANY BELIEF AS TO ESCAPEMENT OF ANY INCOME IN-AS-MUCH AS THERE WAS NO DICHOTOMY BETWEEN WHAT WAS STATED BY THE PRINCIPAL AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN RECORDED AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, SEEKING TO CLARIFY THE SAME BY WAY OF AN EXAMPLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) DID NOT DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION/S, AND PROCEEDED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT ON MERITS. THE MATTER WAS AGAIN TAKEN UP BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, RAISING SP ECIFIC GROUND/S IN RELATION THERETO, AND WHO AGAIN DID NOT ANSWER THE SAME. IF ONLY THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW HAD ADDRESSED THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION/S, SOUGHT TO BE CLARIFIED BY W AY OF AN EXAMPLE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR TO THEM THAT THERE HAS BEEN, UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO DUPLICATION OF ANY BOOKING AND CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE , I.E., BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR, WHOSE ACCOUNTS IN FACT MATCH, AND WAS IN FACT THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE FOR THE PRECED ING YEARS, WHEREBY THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE TWO PARTIES STOOD CONFIRMED WITH REFERENCE TO EACH OTHER. AT THIS STAGE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT HE WOUL D BE SATISFIED IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DEALING WITH THE A SSESSEES PRELIMINARY OBJECTION/S, BEING 4 ITA NO. 2790 & 2791/MUM/2012 (A.YS. 07-08 & 08-09) HITEN NEGANDHI VS. DY. CIT ONLY IN TERMS OF THE MANDATE OF LAW AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). 3.2 THE LD. DR, ON BEING QUESTIONED IN THE MATTER, WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE SO CALLED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AP ART FROM THE LEGAL ISSUES, CONTESTS THE ISSUE ON MERITS AS WELL. THE SAME HAVE BEEN DULY CO NSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW PER THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH AS TO IF THE A.O., EITHER HIMSELF OR AT THE INSTANCE OF THE LD. CIT(A), BEFORE WHOM T HE SAID ISSUE WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 FOR THE TWO YEARS UNDER REFERENCE RESPECTIVELY, STOOD DISPOSED OF BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, ONLY WHICH WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO PROCEED IN THE MATTER, HE CONFIRMED IN THE NEGATIVE. BEING CONSCIOUS THAT THE EXERCISE OF RESTORATION TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WOULD BE RENDERED ACADEMIC IF THE ASSESSE ES OBJECTION HAS BEEN MET IN SUBSTANCE, HE WAS FURTHER SPECIFICALLY QUERIED AS T O IF THE ENTRIES RECORDING THE EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PRINCIPAL HAVE BEEN SOUGHT TO BE RECONCILED BY THE REVENUE WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXAMPLE PROVIDED BY T HE ASSESSEE, WHEREBY THE EXPENDITURE, THOUGH BOOKED AND CLAIMED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE PRINCIPAL, DID NOT LEAD TO ANY OVERBOOKING OR DOUBLE CLAIM OF EXPE NDITURE, IN-AS-MUCH AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE , FORMING PART OF HIS COST, STANDS INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT BILLED BY HIM TO THE PRINCIP AL CONTRACTOR, AND WHICH STANDS MET BY IT, TO NO DEFINITE REPLY BY HIM. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE MATTER, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENTS, WOU LD REQUIRE BEING RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DISPOSE OFF THE ASSESSEE S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION/S, WHICH WAS INCUMBENT ON HIM TO DO IN TERMS OF THE PROCEDURE LA ID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CLEARLY IN ERROR IN NOT DIRECTING LIKEWISE, MEETING THE ASSESSEES RELEVANT GROUNDS, BEING GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 FOR THE TWO CONSECUTIVE YEARS UNDER REFERENCE RESPECTIVELY. THE PROCEEDINGS, IT MAY BE NOTED, IN CASE OF PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCY, HAVE NECESSARILY TO BE RE STORED TO THE STAGE WHERE THE 5 ITA NO. 2790 & 2791/MUM/2012 (A.YS. 07-08 & 08-09) HITEN NEGANDHI VS. DY. CIT IRREGULARITY HAD OCCURRED. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVE R, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO, PARTICULARLY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CLARIFY CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE MATTER. FIRSTLY, THE REMISSION IS TOWARD MEETING TH E ASSESSEES PRELIMINARY OBJECTION/S TO THE NOTICE U/S.148, WHICH SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY T HE A.O. WITH AN OPEN MIND. IN THE EVENT OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OBJECTION/S, HE SHAL L DROP THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING/S. IN CASE HE FINDS THE SAME AS NOT ACCEPTABLE; ITS APPEA L/S CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT/S, INCLUDING ON THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED, HAVING BEEN A LREADY DECIDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PROS ECUTE THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS OF-COURSE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ITS CHALLENGING THE NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BY THE A.O. BEFORE A CONSTITUTIONAL FORU M IN WRIT JURISDICTION. SECONDLY, THE ONUS TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEED INGS IS SQUARELY ON THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME, IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED, ARE IN THE NATURE OF SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS, SO THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED IS IF WHAT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VALID, CAUSING TO REMOVE THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH THE REASON/S TO BELIEVE ESC APEMENT OF INCOME BY THE A.O. RESTS. CONTENTIOUS ISSUES, FACTUAL OR LEGAL, REQUIRING EXA MINATION AND DETAILED CONSIDERATION, ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS, INSTITUT ED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT SPECIFICALLY TO ENABLE THE DROPPING OF THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE MISCONCEIVED OR MISCONSTRUED, AT THE STAGE OF THE A.O. ITSELF, AS WHERE THE A.O. HAD MOV ED ON A WRONG BASIS OR PREMISE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY ITS PRINCIPAL BOTH THE AMOUNT BILLED (SAY, RS.100/-) AND REIMBURS EMENT OF EXPENSES (AT RS.10/-, SAY). ACCORDINGLY, WHILE HIS OPERATING STATEMENT BEARS BO TH THE CREDIT (FOR RS.110/-) AND DEBIT FOR EXPENSES (RS.10/-), RESULTING IN A PROFIT OF RS .100/-, THE SAID EXPENSE OF RS.10/-, HAVING BEEN IN EFFECT BORNE BY THE PRINCIPAL, ALSO GETS INCLUDED IN ITS ACCOUNTS, I.E., THROUGH THE ASSESSEES BILL, BEING AT GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.110/-. ACCORDINGLY, THOUGH THE ACCOUNTS OF BOTH THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ASSOCIATE (A SSESSEE) BEAR EXPENSES FOR RS.10/-, THERE IS NO DUPLICATION OF ANY CLAIM IN RESPECT THE REOF AND, THUS, AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON THAT ACCOUNT. THE SAID VERIFICATION BY THE A.O. MAY REQUIRE AN EXAMINATION OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HC AND, WHERE S O, SHALL BE CAUSED TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 ITA NO. 2790 & 2791/MUM/2012 (A.YS. 07-08 & 08-09) HITEN NEGANDHI VS. DY. CIT TWO, ANOTHER VITAL ASPECT WOULD ARISE FOR CONSIDERA TION, I.E., AS TO WHO SHALL RETAIN THE BILLS OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED (I.E., FOR RS.10/ - AS PER THE STATED EXAMPLE). THE EXPENDITURE, BEING, AS EXPLAINED, REIMBURSABLE IN F ULL, SO THAT IT IS IN EFFECT NOT BEING CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE VOUCHERS FOR THE SAME WOULD NECESSARILY REQUIRE BEING CONVEYED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO INCURS THE SAME, ALON G WITH AND AS A PART OF THE (CONSOLIDATED) BILL RAISED BY HIM ON THE PRINCIPAL, THERETO, WHILE RETAINING, PRESUMABLY, A COPY THEREOF FOR HIS RECORD. THE MANNER OF BOOK KEE PING AND RECORD KEEPING WOULD THUS ASSUME SIGNIFICANCE AND BE OF RELEVANCE IN THE MATT ER. THEN, AGAIN, IS THE QUESTION OF THE EXTENT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THIS IS AS THE ASSESSEE , AS AN ASSOCIATE, COULD NOT POSSIBLY CLAIM EXPENDITURE TO ANY EXTENT. WHAT, IF ANY, ARE THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE CHECKS AND RESTRICTION ON SUCH CLAIMS BY THE ASSOCIATE/S W OULD ALSO REQUIRE BEING EXPLAINED, EITHER WITH REFERENCE TO ANY WRITTEN DOCUMENT, VIZ. AGREEMENT, ETC. OR BY CONDUCT (OF THE PARTIES). WE HAVE DELINEATED THE CONTOURS OF THE EN QUIRY BY THE A.O. NOT BY WAY OF OR TOWARD PLACING ANY RESTRICTION ON ITS AMBIT, WHICH THE A.O. SHALL DETERMINE IN EXERCISE OF HIS JUDICIAL DISCRETION, BUT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE SCOPE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS IS FAIRLY LIMITED, SO THAT WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE ARRIVED AT IS A PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REASONS QUA ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT THESE REASONS, ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSE E, DO NOT OBTAIN, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE DROPPED BY THE A.O., RECORDING HIS REASONS. TO THE EXTENT, HOWEVER, THEY SURVIVE; HE SHALL DISPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES OB JECTION, STATING HIS REASON/S FOR CONSIDERING THEM AS NOT VALID OR OTHERWISE MEETING THE SAME THE SAME, WE MAY CLARIFY IS ONLY TOWARD COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURAL MANDATE O F SECTION 147 PROCEEDINGS, AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA). THIRDLY, THIS, I.E., AS ILLUSTRATED BY WAY OF AN EX AMPLE, BEING THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE REOPENING OF ITS ASSE SSMENT PRESSED BEFORE US, I.E., ON THE GROUND OF ITS NON DISPOSAL BY THE A.O.; THE OBJECTI ONS OVERLAPPING WITH ITS OTHER GROUNDS, SINCE DEALT WITH, THE A.O. SHALL CONCERN HIMSELF ON LY WITH THIS OBJECTION. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ORDER, WE MAY ADDRESS ANOT HER ASPECT OF THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAVING BEEN SET ASIDE BY US ON A JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT, IN-AS-MUCH AS AN 7 ITA NO. 2790 & 2791/MUM/2012 (A.YS. 07-08 & 08-09) HITEN NEGANDHI VS. DY. CIT ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DISPOSED O F BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE REFR AIN FROM CONSIDERING ANY OTHER GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS MEMO OF APPEAL. THIS SHALL CLEAR THE FIELD FOR THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES AND FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AS WARR ANTED BY LAW, I.E., WHERE HE DECIDES AGAINST DROPPING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON TH E BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL OBJECTION RAISED BEFORE US, AS WELL AS OPERATE NOT TO PREJUDICE THE ASSESSEES CASE BY ITS NOT PRESSING ITS OTHER GROUNDS BEFORE US, WHICH MA Y OTHERWISE, I.E., FOR THAT REASON, AS ALSO DUE TO OUR NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION THEREON, MAY STAND TO BE CONFIRMED AS DECIDED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE SHAL L, NEEDLESS TO ADD, BE ALLOWED DUE OPPORTUNITY BY THE A.O. TO STATE ITS CASE BEFORE HI M. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 0. *1 (2 0* % 3 4% 567 8 9 8/ : * % * ;< ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 31, 2014 SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' =) MUMBAI; >( DATED : 31.07.2014 .(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$ ' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' ?* ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' ?* / CIT - CONCERNED 5. B C #*(D2 , + D2. , ' =) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. C E F ) / GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ , (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' =) / ITAT, MUMBAI