HABIBUR RAHEMAN F ANSARI, THANE V. DCIT CIR 1, KALYAN

ITA 2800/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79355 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LALCHAND CHOUDHARY
• Section: 10(10D); 37(1)

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. NO. 2800/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) HABIBUR RAHEMAN F. ANSARI 1130, LUCKY COMPOUND, V. P. NAKA, NASIK ROAD, BHIWANDI, DIST. THANE 421 302, MAHARASHTRA / VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1, 2 ND FLOOR, RANI MANSION, MURBAD ROAD, KALYAN, DIST. THANE 421 301 ./! ./PAN/GIR NO. AEMPA 6499 M ( ' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$ ' / RESPONDENT ) ' % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI LALCHAND CHOUDHARY #$ ' % & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS ' ( ) % * + / DATE OF HEARING : 26.06.2014 ,-. % * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.07.2014 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 17.02.2012, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2008. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PER ITS T WO GROUNDS, IS THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE AS KEYMAN INSURANCE PREMIUM, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. 2 ITA NO. 2800/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) HABIBUR RAHEMAN F. ANSARI VS. DY. CIT 3. WE SHALL BEGIN BY STATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CLOTH I N HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN BY THE NAME HABIB TEXTILES. HIS BROTHER, MUJEEBUR RAHEMAN F. ANSARI, LIKEWISE, RUNS HIS PROPRIETARY BUSINESS IN THE SAME TRADE FROM THE SAM E BUSINESS PREMISES, I.E., 1130, LUCKY COMPOUND, V. P. NAKA, NASIK ROAD, BHIWANDI, THANE. BOTH THE BROTHERS EXECUTED A (COMMON) POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE OTHER O N 01.02.2001, MUTUALLY AUTHORIZING THE OTHER TO, IN HIS ABSENCE, TAKE CARE OF THE BUSI NESS ACTIVITY, INCLUDING ACTS INCIDENTAL THERETO (PB PGS.1-4) . KEYMAN INSURANCE (KMI FOR SHORT) POLICY STOOD TAK EN BY EACH ON THE LIFE OF THE OTHER, TREATING HIM AS AN INVALUABL E RESOURCE (PERSON) FOR AND A DEEMED EMPLOYEE OF HIS BUSINESS, CLAIMING THE SAME AS BU SINESS EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, THE TWO BROTHERS WERE RUNNING THE IR INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES, WITH NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THAT OF THE OTHER. IN FACT , IT WAS ONLY A MUTUALLY CONVENIENT ARRANGEMENT TO AVAIL TAX BENEFIT. THE SAME WAS, ACC ORDINGLY, DISALLOWED, AND ON CONFIRMED FOR BEING SO IN FIRST APPEAL, AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS OF ITS CASE AS BEING COVERED IN HIS FAVOUR BY THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEES BROTHER, MUJEEBUR RAHEMAN ANSARI (IN ITA NOS. 7549 TO 7551/MUM(B)/2010 DATED 02.07.2013/COPY ON RECORD). THE FIRST ISSUE, THEREFORE, THAT CONFRONTS US IS TO EXA MINE THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSEES SAID CLAIM, I.E., OF ITS CASE AS BEING SO COVERED IN-AS- MUCH AS IF IT IS INDEED SO, WE SHALL ORDINARILY NOT BE INCLINED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. THE FINDINGS BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE CONTAINED AT PARAS 3 & 4 OF ITS ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE A ND WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS NO MORE RES-INTEGRA AS THE ISSUE IS COVERE D BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. EXPORTS , 323 ITR 178 (BOM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT KEYMAN INS URANCE POLICY HAS NOT CONFINED TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A CONTRACT O F EMPLOYMENT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10(10D), A KEYMAN INSURANCE POLI CY MEANS A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY TAKEN BY A PERSON ON THE LIFE OF A NOTHER PERSON WHO IS OR WAS IN EMPLOYMENT AS WELL AS ON A PERSON WHO IS OR WAS CONNECTED IN ANY 3 ITA NO. 2800/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) HABIBUR RAHEMAN F. ANSARI VS. DY. CIT MANNER WHATSOEVER WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE SUBSCRIB ER. THE WORDS IS OR WAS CONNECTED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER WITH THE BUS INESS OF THE SUBSCRIBER ARE WIDER THAN WHAT WOULD BE SUBSUMED UN DER A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT. THE LATTER PART MAKES IT CLEAR THAT KEY MAN INSURANCE POLICY FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (10D) TO NOT CONFINE TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT. CIRCULAR NO.762 DATED 18/ 2/1998 ISSUED BY THE CBDT CLARIFIES THE POSITION BY STIPULATING THAT THE PREMIUM PAID FOR A KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EX PENDITURE. THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY IS TO PROTEC T THE BUSINESS AGAINST FINANCIAL SET BACK WHICH MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF P REMATURE DEATH TO THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION. THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS TO CONFINE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE PRE MIUM PAID TOWARDS SUCH A POLICY ONLY TO A SITUATION WHERE THE POLICY IS IN RESPECT OF THE LIFE OF THE EMPLOYEES. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS LAID OUT FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM ON SUCH POLICY IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLU SIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 4. THOUGH THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF A PARTNER WH O WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED AS AN EMPLOYEE BY THE DEPARTMENT BUT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WILL EQUALLY APPLI CABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE AS ACCORDING TO SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE AO, THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHOM SUCH PREMIUM HAS B EEN PAID WAS ASSISTING THE ASSESSEE IN THE SALE, COLLECTION PRODUCTION OF THE FACTORY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXECUTED A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN HIS FAVOUR, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN SPECIFIED THAT THE SAID BROTHER OF THE ASS ESSEE WILL TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE WORDS FOUND IN SECTION 10(10D) I.E. IS OR WAS CONN ECTED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER WITH THE BUSINESS ARE WIDER THAN WHAT W OULD BE SUBSUMED UNDER A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, THEREFORE, THOSE WO RDS WILL COVER THE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS BROTHER WHO WA S LOOKING AFTER THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT AN Y ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THOSE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE AS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA-6 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05, ARE EITHER INCORRECT OR FALSE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEAR ING BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF ALL THE THREE YEARS OF KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY PREMIUM IS NOT CALLED FOR. WE DELETE THE DIS ALLOWANCE FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS AND ALLOW THIS COMMON ISSUE. WE MAY CAPSULE THE FINDINGS BY THE TRIBUNAL PER THE SAID CASE, RENDERED FOLLOWING THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N CIT VS. B. N. EXPORTS [2010] 323 ITR 4 ITA NO. 2800/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) HABIBUR RAHEMAN F. ANSARI VS. DY. CIT 178 (BOM). IT STANDS HELD THAT KEYMAN INSURANCE IS NOT NECESSARILY CONFINED TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, BUT COULD BE IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OR WAS CONNECTED IN ANY MANNER WITH THE ASSESSEES BUS INESS, A PARAMETER DEFINITELY WIDER IN SCOPE THAN A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT. IN FACT, KM I POLICY IS ALSO GENERALLY TAKEN ON THE LIFE OF THE PARTNERS, WHO ARE NOT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PARTNERSHIP, AS WAS THE CASE IN B. N. EXPORTS (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED A POWER OF ATTO RNEY IN FAVOUR OF HIS BROTHER, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) HAD NOT BROUGHT AN Y ADVERSE MATERIAL TO DISPROVE OR DISLODGE THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF HIS BROTHER A CTIVELY ASSISTING HIM IN HIS TRADE. THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSEES B ROTHER BEING ENGAGED FULL TIME IN HIS OWN BUSINESS AND, FURTHER, OF HAVING EXECUTED, LIKE WISE, A POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . CLEARLY, THEREFORE, THE ASPECT THAT THE PURCHASE OF KMI POLICY IS BY WAY OF A MUTUAL ARRANGEMENT, WHICH STANDS CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AS MUTUAL ACCOMMODATION, SO THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE ITSELF I S IN SERIOUS DOUBT, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE PRINCIPAL REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE EFFECTED AND SUSTAINED U/S. 37(1) IN THE INSTANT CASE, HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AT ALL BY THE TRIBUNA L PER THE SAID ORDER . 4.2 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) WAS AT T HIS STAGE REQUIRED TO EXHIBIT THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE POA HOLDER, THE ASSESSEES BROTHER. HE WOULD ADVERT TO THE COPIES OF THE VARIOUS PURCHASE BILLS AND EXPENSE VO UCHERS AS RECEIVED, AS WELL AS THE SALES BILLS ISSUED, BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAD BEEN PASS ED BY THE LATTER, I.E., THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. ON BEING ASKED OF ANY EVIDENCE THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE RELEVANT DATES, AS IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD, LIKEWISE, AUTHORIZED OR PASSED THE PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS IN RESPECT OF THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER, FOR WHICH HE HOLDS A POWER OF ATTORNEY, FOR THE SAME DATES, T HE LD. AR WOULD SUBMIT THAT IT MAY NOT BE THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE ON T HAT DATE/S, AS ON ACCOUNT OF INDISPOSITION OR UNDER TRAVEL, BUT WAS SO AT THE RELEVANT TIME, I .E., AT THE TIME THE PURCHASE OR SALE TRANSACTION WAS MADE OR THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. T O A QUERY BY THE BENCH THAT THAT WOULD BE ONLY ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER - WHICH ARRANGEMENT IS EVEN OTHERWISE MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL, FOR THE BRIEF PERIOD THAT ONE IS AWAY FROM HIS OFFICE, I.E., ASSUMING 5 ITA NO. 2800/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) HABIBUR RAHEMAN F. ANSARI VS. DY. CIT SO, AND WHICH WOULD THOUGH NOT MAKE THE OTHER PERSO N A VALUABLE RESOURCE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ARRANGEMENT IS TO MUTUAL BENEFIT, HE HAD N O DEFINITE OR SATISFACTORY ANSWER. THE PURCHASE AND SALES BILLS, OR QUA THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED, AS RAISED, BY EITHER CON TRACTING PARTY, WOULD ONLY BE IN TERMS OF THE UNDERLYING CON TRACT, AND WHICH WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES PRIOR TO THE TRA NSACTION BEING EXECUTED, IN EVIDENCE OF WHICH THE SAID DOCUMENT/S STANDS GENERATED. AS SUC H, NOTHING BY ITSELF WOULD TURN ON THE SAID PASSING OF BILLS. AGAIN, WHAT PREVENTS THE B ROTHER FROM CONTACTING THE ASSESSEE ON PHONE, SAY, AND SEEKING HIS SANCTION PRIOR TO THE T AKING OR GIVING DELIVERY OF THE GOODS UNDER REFERENCE OR RAISING THE BILL IN TERMS OF THE UNDERLYING CONTRACT? THEN, AGAIN, ONE COULD JUST LEAVE INSTRUCTIONS, I.E., INSTRUCT THE O THER AS TO THE TRANSACTIONS LIKELY TO TAKE PLACE IN HIS ABSENCE. A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY COULD ONLY BE UNDERSTAN DABLE, IN BUSINESS PARLANCE, WHERE THERE ARE VALID REASONS FOR ANTICIPATING A PR OLONGED ABSENCE FROM BUSINESS, OR EVEN REGULARLY, ALBEIT UNANTICIPATED, SO THAT IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE ANOTHER AS AN ATTORNEY, AUTHORIZING HIM TO UNDERTAKE THE TRANSACT IONS. EVEN AS THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO VALIDATE THE SAID CASE, THE SAME DOES NOT STAND AT THE VERY THRESHOLD IN-AS-MUCH AS THE VERY PERSON WHO GRANTS THE POWER OF ATTORNEY - IN VIEW OF THE UNCERTAINTY ATTENDING HIS PRESENCE, HAS HIMSELF BEEN SIMILARLY GRANTED PO WER OF ATTORNEY BY THE ONE IN WHOSE FAVOUR HE HAS GRANTED THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. THAT IS, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BY HIS SAID ACT SIGNIFIES THAT HIS PRESENCE IS EQUALLY UNC ERTAIN . THE TWO BROTHERS ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS FROM THE SAME PLACE, SO THAT EACH HAS HIS OWN BUSINESS (WHICH, GOING BY THE FACT OF THE ISSUE OF POA, IS ON THE SAME SCA LE) TO ATTEND TO, AND WE SEE NO REASON THAT HE DOES NOT DO SO AND, FURTHER, ON A FULL TIME BASIS. CONTINUING FURTHER, EVEN ASSUMING VALID AND GENUINE GROUNDS FOR EXECUTION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE SAME WOULD BY ITSELF NOT CON STITUTE THE POA HOLDER AS A KEY PERSON OF ONES BUSINESS. A BRIEF INTERLUDE OR ABSENCE WOULD NOT IN ANY MANNER MAKE THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A KEY PERSON OF THE BUSI NESS. IN FACT, NO REASON/S FOR THE ABSENCE, MUCH LESS ON A REGULAR BASIS; THE POA BECO MING OPERATIVE ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE EXECUTOR, HAS BEEN STATED. THAT APART, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FACT ACTUALLY NOT IN A 6 ITA NO. 2800/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) HABIBUR RAHEMAN F. ANSARI VS. DY. CIT POSITION TO ATTEND TO HIS BUSINESS AT THE RELEVANT TIMES IS NOT AT ALL EVIDENCED. ON THE CONTRARY, AS IT APPEARS, THE TWO BROTHERS HAVE REGU LARLY, AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE, PASSED THE VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE OTHE RS BUSINESS, CREATING THUS DOCUMENTARY OR PAPER EVIDENCE OF HAVING TAKEN CAR E OF EACH OTHERS BUSINESS. THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ABSENCE, ONLY WHEREUPON THE POA WOULD BECOME OPERATIVE, IS CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE. THE ARRANGEMENT IS CLEA RLY COLLUSIVE; THE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID BY ONE BROTHER ON THE LIFE OF THE OTHER BEING A QUID PRO QUO FOR THE OTHER. GENUINENESS OF AN EXPENSE IS A PRIMARY CONDITION FO R ITS ALLOWANCE INASMUCH AS IT IMPUGNS ITS VERY EXISTENCE AS SUCH, I.E., QUESTIONS IT BEING CONSIDERED AS AN EXPENDITURE, MUCH LESS BEING INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BU SINESS. CASE LAW IN THE MATTER IS LEGION, THOUGH WE MAY FOR READY REFERENCE ADVERT TO THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT(IT) VS. OMAN INTERNATIONAL BANK SAOG [2009] 313 ITR 128 (BOM), WHEREAT, SPEAKING IN THE CONTEXT OF A BAD DEBT WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE, IT UNDERLINED THE ASPECT OF GENUINEN ESS OF THE WRITE OFF IN ACCOUNTS, SO THAT THE A.O. COULD FOR GOOD REASONS HOLD IT AS NOT BONA FIDE , DISALLOWING THE CLAIM. CONCLUSION 5. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CITED CASE HAS NOWHERE DISCU SSED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE, SO THAT THE SAME STOOD EITHER NOT RAIS ED IN THE SAID CASE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AS MADE OUT CLEARLY BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE INSTANT CASE, OR STOOD NOT BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE, SO THAT IT DECIDED THE MATTER BASED ON THE LAW ATTENDING THE MATTER, MOVING ON THE PREMISE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INDEED INCURRE D BONA FIDE AS A KMI PREMIUM, SO THAT IT FOUND NO LEGAL OBJECTION THERETO, FINDING T HE OBJECTIONS RAISED, AS FOR EXAMPLE THAT THE INSURED WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE, TO NO MOMENT. BE T HAT AS IT MAY, OUR CONCERN WITH THE SAID ORDER ONLY EXTENDS TO DETERMINING AS TO WHETHE R THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT CASE STANDS COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER, AND WHICH WE FIND AS NOT; THE SAID DECISION NOT BEARING ANY REFERENCE TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE , WHICH WE DISCERN TO BE THE PRINCIPAL OBJECTION BY THE REVENUE IN THE INSTANT CASE (REFER PARA 4.1). THE SAME WOULD THUS NOT OPERATE TO CONSTRAIN US FROM CONSIDERING THE INSTAN T APPEAL ON MERITS. THE ASSESSEES CASE 7 ITA NO. 2800/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) HABIBUR RAHEMAN F. ANSARI VS. DY. CIT FAILS ON THE BASIS OF AN INABILITY TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS TO EXHIBIT THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE STOOD INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY F OR THE PURPOSES OF HIS BUSINESS, WHICH CONSTITUTES THE PRIMARY CONDITION FOR DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 37(1), I.E., ON FACTS. ON THE CONTRARY, FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS CITED, ITS GENUINENESS IS IN SERIOUS DOUBT (REFER PARA 4.2). WE, ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOIN G, FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, AND DISMISS ITS RELEVANT GROUNDS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 0. *1 (2 0* % 0 % * 34 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 11, 2014 SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' 5) MUMBAI; 6( DATED : 11.07.2014 .(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$ ' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' 7* ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' 7* / CIT CONCERNED 5. : ; #*(<2 , + <2. , ' 5) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ; = > ) / GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ , (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' 5) / ITAT, MUMBAI