DCIT 20(2), MUMBAI V. KOKAN MERCANTILE CO OP BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 281/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2456 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KASHYAPSR
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Revised return; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

1 , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -EBENCH MUMBAI , . . , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND C.N. PRA SAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./281/MUM/2015, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 DCIT-20(2) ROOM NO.217, 2 ND FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL MUMBAI-400 012. VS. M/S. KOKAN MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD . 1 ST FLOOR, HARBOUR CREST MAZGAON MUMBAI-400 010. PAN:AAAAK 2527 P ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI SANJEEV KASHYAP-SR. AR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN / DATE OF HEARING: 28.07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.07.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER,DATED 31/10/2014 OF THE CIT ( A)-29, MUMBAI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE-BANK,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28/09/2 011,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3.64 CRORES.LATER ON, IT FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 11/09/2012, DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2.68 CRORES.THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28/02/2014,UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AT RS.7.53 CRORES. 3. FIRST GROUND DEALS WITH ISSUE OF AMORTISATION OF PR EMIUM ON INVESTMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE REPRESENTATIVES BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT ISSUE SINCE COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER YEARS (ITA/6058/MUM/2012/DATED 16.03.2016;AY.2008-0 9). WE FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR THE EARLIER AY, THE TRIBUN AL HAS DEALT THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 27.NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DELETION O F RS. 2,02,50,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM ON INVESTMENT AMORTIZATION BY ACCEPTING ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE. 281/M/15-(11-12) KOKAN MERCANTILE 2 28.DR OF THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT THE AO RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT DEBITED AS PREMIUM ON INVESTMENT AMORTIZATION BY CONCLUDING TH AT INVESTMENT MADE IN GOVERNMENT SECURITIES AND BONDS WHICH WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT ARE CAPITAL ASSET OF ANY EXPENSES PAID FOR SUCH ACQUISITION IS OF CAPITA L EXPENDITURE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION AND FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO IS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE GUIDELINES OF RBI DIRECTORY CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PRO VISIONS OF I.T. ACT. 29.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE WHIC H IS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS ENGAGED IN THE BANKING BUSINESS AND THE INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE ARE FORMING PART OF BANKING ACTIVITY AND ASSESSEE PURCHASED GOVERNMENT SECURITI ES AND SLR BONDS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE PAID THE PREMIUM IN ADVANCE FOR THE NEXT P ERIOD AND CLAIMED THE PROPORTIONATE PREMIUM IN THE CURRENT YEAR INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSE SSEE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISION AND TO CARRY OUT ITS BANKING BU SINESS AND THUS INVESTMENTS ARE BANKING STOCK-IN-TRADE AND THAT THE BANKING SECTOR IS COMPLETELY GOVERNS BY THE DIRECTORIES OF RBI AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE CBDT CI RCULAR NO. 665 DATED 05.10.1993 WHICH IS CLEARLY SPEAKS ABOUT THE GUIDELINES PRESCR IBED BY THE RBI THAT INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY ARE BOUND TO ADHERE THE PRESCRIBED GUIDEL INES OF THE RBI. THE CONTENTS OF CIRCULAR NO. 665 DATED 05.10.1993 ARE REPRODUCED BE LOW (GATHERED FROM IMPUGNED ORDER). THE QUESTION WHETHER A PARTICULAR ITEM OF INVESTME NT IN SECURITIES CONSTITUTES STOCK-IN TRADE OR A CAPITAL ASSET IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IN FACT T HE BANKS ARE GENERALLY GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA FROM TIME TO TIME WITH REGARD TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF ASSETS AND ALSO THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS FOR INV ESTMENTS. THE BOARD HAS, THEREFORE, DECIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOULD DETERMIN E ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AS TO WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR SECURITY CONSTITU TES STOCK IN TRADE OR INVESTMENT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK O F INDIA IN THIS REGARDS FROM TIME TO TIME.' THUS THIS AMORTIZATION WAS ALSO DONE AS PER THE RES ERVE BANK OF INDIA GUIDELINES VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO. RBI/2005-06/341/UBD (PCB). BPD.CIR.41/ 16.20.00/2005-06 DATED MARCH, 29, 2006. THUS, THE AMORTIZATION OF INVESTMENTS IS AN ALLOWAB LE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE MATTER WAS STUDIED IN VIEW IN VIEW OF SECTION 145(2) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961. IN FACT, NO OTHER TREATMENT CAN BE GIVEN FOR VALUATION OF SECURITIES THAN WHAT IS PRESCRIBED BY RESERVE BANK OF INDIA FROM TIME TO TIME. EVEN THE BANKS MAY PROVIDE FOR EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON ITS SECURITIES BY FOLLOWING MORE PRUDENT AND CONSERVATIVE APPROACH BUT FOR ITS ALLOWABILITY IN INCOME TAX WHAT IS PRESCRIBED IN THE GUIDELINES OF RESERVE BAN K OF INDIA IS REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED AND THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO ADHERE TO T HESE GUIDELINES BY VIRTUE OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 665. THUS, ACCOUNTING TREATMENT CANNOT SUPERSEDE THE LEG AL PRINCIPLES BECAUSE AS ADMITTEDLY ALL ARE SLR INVESTMENTS. FURTHER TO THAT IF THE WHOLE O F THE PREMIUM IS DEBITED IN THIS YEAR THEN IT WILL SHOW A DISTORTED PICTURE OF PROFIT, THUS IT IS SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF MATURITY. 30.ON RELYING UPON THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT AND THE OTH ER JUDGMENTS OF SUPERIOR COURTS AND CONCLUDED THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS WH ETHER A PARTICULAR ITEM OF INVESTMENT 281/M/15-(11-12) KOKAN MERCANTILE 3 IN SECURITIES AS PER THE RBI GUIDELINES CONSTITUTE STOCK-IN-TRADE OR CAPITAL ASSETS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN U NITED COMMERCIAL BANK VS. CIT REPORTED IN 240 ITR 355 AND CONSIDERED THE INVESTME NT MADE IN SECURITY AS A STOCK-IN- TRADE. 31.THE CIT(A) FURTHER RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF CO-O RDINATE BENCH IN CASE TITLED AS ACIT VS. THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. REPORTED IN 2011-TIO L 35 AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 32.WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIO N OF THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE ORDE R PASSED BY CIT(A) AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IS BASED ON SOUND REASONING AND THE CIRCULAR OF CBD T AND THE JUDGEMENTS OF SUPERIOR COURTS AND THE SAME DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFEREN CE AT OUR END. 33.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL, WE DISMISS THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL. 4. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS.7.06 LAKHS OF UNREALISED PAYSLIPS. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) AND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ADJUDICATING THE AP PEAL FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS FOLLOW: 9.THE NEXT GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DELETIO N OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 12,09,832/- OF UNREALIZED PAYSLIP. THE AR OF THE AS SESSEE HAS ARGUED IN THE SIMILAR LINE AS IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 AND RELIE D UPON THE FINDING OF AO, HOWEVER, THE DR OF THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT UNRE ALIZED PAYSLIPS ARE THE PAYSLIPS WHICH ARE ISSUED BUT NOT PRESENTED FOR PAY MENT FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX YEARS AND THIS AMOUNT IS LYING IN THE SAID ACCO UNT AND IS NOT BANK MONEY AND IT WAS NEITHER IN THE PAST NEVER TREATED AS AN INCOME NOR CREDITED TO THE P&L A/C AND THE SAME WAS WRONGLY ADDED BY THE AO. 281/M/15-(11-12) KOKAN MERCANTILE 4 10.WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND FOUND THAT THE AO MERELY CONCLUDED THAT PAYSLIPS WHICH WERE NOT RE ALIZED FOR MORE THAN SIX YEARS AND TREATED DEEMED INCOME. 11.THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THIS GROUND HAS AL SO RELIED UPON THE REASONING GIVEN FOR GROUND NO.1 AND HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THA T SECTION 41(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 12.WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE DELETION MADE BY THE CIT(A) AND FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF CIT( A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE AT OUR END, HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPE AL IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, W E DECIDE THE SECOND GROUND AGAINST THE AO. 5. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF AN IDENTIFIED DEPOSITS OF RS. 5.60 LAKHS. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SAME READS AS UNDER: 5.FIRST GROUND FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS DELETION O F UNIDENTIFIED DEPOSITS OF RS. 66,82,158/-. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT THE AO WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE DETAILS OF THE UNIDENTIFIED DE POSITS AND TO PROVE ITS LIABILITY TO PAY AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD, HENCE, RIGHTLY ADDED THE AMOUNT AS THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND WAS BROUGHT TO THE TAX U/S. 14(1) OF THE ACT. 6.ON THE OTHER HAND, AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE UNIDENTIFIED DEPOSITS ARE MONEY DEPOSITS BY THE ACCOUNT HOLDER INTO THEIR ACC OUNTS AND FURTHER DUE TO WRONGLY MENTIONS OF ACCOUNT NUMBER OR WRONG TITLE OF ACCOUN TS, THE SAME COULD NOT BE CREDITED TO THEIR ACCOUNT AND AS SUCH ALL THAT AMOUNT ARE KEPT UNDER THE UNIDENTIFIED DEPOSITS AND CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. 281/M/15-(11-12) KOKAN MERCANTILE 5 7.THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ADDITION HAS CO NSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 774/2009 DATED 23.12.2011 IN A CAS E OF M/S VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD. HAS HELD THAT ITS SUNDRY CREDITORS CONTINUED TO BE SHOWN IN THE ASSESSEES BALANCE-SHEET AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE AO PROVED THAT THE LIABILI TY SEIZED TO EXIST THAN THE AO CANNOT BE MADE THE ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 3.3.5. FURTHER IT IS TO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD. (ITA NO.774/2009 DAT ED 23.12.2011) HAS HELD THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE CONTINUED TO BE SHOW N IN THE ASSESSEE'S BALANCE SHEET AND UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROVES THAT THE LIABILITIES CEASED TO EXIST THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE AN ADDITION U/S.41 (1) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINDINGS IS AS UNDER:- WHETHER THE LD. ITAT ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION UN DER SECTION 41(1) OF RS. 1,25,46,534/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-GENUINE CREDITORS? IF, AS CONTENDED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, THE ALLEGED BENEFIT ENJOYED BY THE ASSESSEE BY UTILIZIN G THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS IN ITS OWN BUSINESS FOR A' PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS OR MORE IS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 28(IV), NOTWITHSTANDIN G THAT THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 41 (1), WHICH GOVERN THE FACTUAL SITUATION, ARE NOT SATISFIED, THEN IT WOULD RENDER THE LATTER SECTION OTIOSE OR A DEAD LE TTER. IF WE ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, IT WOULD ALSO INTRODUCE AN ELEMENT OF UNCERTAINTY OR SUBJECTIVENESS IN ASCERTA INING AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE LAPSE OF TIME THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO RENDER A L IABILITY TO PAY THE CREDITORS INEFFECTIVE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN ALLEGED BENEF IT TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IF AFTER THE TAXING OF THE AMOUNT U/S 28(IV) ON THE GROUND THAT CONSIDERABLE TIME HAS ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF THE DEBT DURING WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE MONIES IN HIS BUSINESS, IT IS FOUND THAT IN ANOTHER LATER YEAR THE CREDITOR HAS RECOVERED THE MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR SUCH PAYMENT. THE SECTION CANNO T BE MADE SUBJECT TO SUCH VAGARIES OR SUBJECTIVENESS IN ITS APPLICABILITY IT IS A WELL SETTLED RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES THAT A CONSTRUCTION THAT REDUCES ONE OF THE TWO PROVISIONS IN A STATUTE TO A USELESS LUMBER OR A DE AD LETTER WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION AND THAT A FAMILIAR APPRO ACH IN SUCH CASES IS TO FIND OUT WHICH ONE OF THE TWO PROVISIONS IS A SPECIAL PR OVISION MADE TO GOVERN A CERTAIN SITUATION AND TO EXCLUDE THAT SITUATION FRO M THE APPLICABILITY OF THE GENERAL PROVISION. IF WE APPLY THIS RULE OF INTERPR ETATION TO THE CASE BEFORE US, WE MUST NECESSARILY HOLD THAT WHILE SECTION 28(IV) WOULD APPLY GENERALLY TO ALL BENEFITS OR PERQUISITES WHICH ARISE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY HIM THE BENEFITWHICH HE OBTAINS BY WAY OF REMISS ION OR CESSATION OF A TRADING LIABILITY IN A LATER YEAR, IN RESPECT OF WH ICH HE HAS OBTAINED A DEDUCTION IN AN EARLIER YEAR IN COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME , SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY SECTION 41(1) WHICH IS THE SPECIFIC PROVISION GOVER NING THE FACTUAL SITUATION AND NOT BY SECTION 28(IV). THIS WAY THERE WOULD BE NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO PROVISIONS AND BOTH WILL BE GIVEN EFFECT TO. SECTIO N 41(1) SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH AMOUNTS THAT WERE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE PAST ASSESSMENTS AS TRADING LIABILITIES, WHICH IN A LATER YEAR CEASE OR ARE REM ITTED BY THE CREDITORS. IF AND 281/M/15-(11-12) KOKAN MERCANTILE 6 WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE IN A PARTICULAR LATER YEAR T O SHOW THAT THE LIABILITY HAS CEASED OR HAS BEEN REMITTED, THE SAME CAN BE BROUGH T TO TAX AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 41(1). IN THIS MANNER THE STATUTE PRESCRIBE S THAT A DEDUCTION FOR A TRADING LIABILITY ALLOWED EARLIER CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX ON THE GROUND THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY THE SAME HAS BEEN REMITTED OR CEAS ED. ANOTHER DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THE SUNDRY CRED ITORS CONTINUE TO BE SHOWN IN THE ASSESSEE'S BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2002. IN TH E CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. T. V.SUNDARAM IYENGAR (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE TOOK A POSITIVE STEP OF TRANSFERRING THE UNCLAIMED BALANCES IN THE DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AN ACT, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED TO B E OF CONSIDERABLE SIGNIFICANCE IN DEMONSTRATING THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO APPROPRIATE THE MONEY BELONGING TO THE DEPOSITORS AS ITS OWN MONIES '. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF HOTLINE ELECTRIC P. LTD. IT WAS HELD BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT UNLESS NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE C REDITORS AND IT IS PROVED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN UP THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ASSESS EE BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEBTS RE MAINED UNPAID IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND LIABILITI ES HAS BEEN CEASED OR HAS BEEN REMITTED, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION U/S.41(1). IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION IN PARA 3.3.1 & 3.3.2 AND RELYING ON THE CASE LAWS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8.WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AO AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) AND FOUND THAT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS MERELY CONCLUDED THAT THE LIABILITIES WHICH IS NOT CLAIMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS IS BROUGHT T O TAX U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT OF THE PRESEN T CASE AND ON RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPERIOR COURTS HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED TH AT MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT REMAINED UNPAID IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, THE LIABILITY HAS NOT BEEN SEIZED AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION U/ S. 41(1) OF THE ACT, HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE AT OUR END AND THUS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER GROUND NO.3 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT,APP EAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED . . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON 28 TH ,JULY,2016. 28 , , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . /C.N. PRASAD ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 28 .07.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 281/M/15-(11-12) KOKAN MERCANTILE 7 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.