ACIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI V. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2823/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5712 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOURYA PRATAP
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV M SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 2823 /MUM./ 2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 05 06 ) ASSTT . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(2), MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD , MUMBAI 400 0 07 .. / APP ELLANT V/S MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATI A 9, ASHIANA BUILDING 5, ALTA MOUNT ROAD MUMBAI 400 026 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AABPB9818L . / ITA NO. 2124 /MUM./ 2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 06 ) MRS. MALTI RAHUL BH ATIA 9, ASHIANA BUILDING 5, ALTA MOUNT ROAD MUMBAI 400 026 .. / APP ELLANT V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(2), MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AABPB9818L MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 2 . / ITA NO. 3887 /MUM./ 2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 07 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(2), MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 .. / APP ELLANT V/S MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 9, ASHIANA BUILDING 5, ALTA MOUNT ROAD MUMBAI 400 026 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AABPB9818L . / ITA NO. 2125 /MUM./ 2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 07 ) MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 9, ASHIANA BUILDING 5, ALTA MOUNT ROAD MUMBAI 400 026 .. / APP ELLANT V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(2), MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AABPB9818L . / ITA NO. 177 /MUM./ 2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 08 ) MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 9, ASHIANA BUILDING 5, ALTA MOUNT ROAD MUMBAI 400 026 .. / APP ELLANT V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(2), MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AABPB9818L . / ITA NO. 1414 /MUM./ 2011 MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 08 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(2), MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 .. / APP ELLANT V/S MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 9, ASHIA NA BUILDING 5, ALTA MOUNT ROAD MUMBAI 400 026 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AABPB9818L / ASSESSEE BY : MR. SANJIV M. SHAH / RE VENUE BY : MR. MOURYA PRATAP / DATE OF HEARING 2 3 .0 1 .201 4 / DATE OF ORDE R 31.01.2014 / ORDER / PER BENCH THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11 TH JANUARY 2010, CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 , ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12 TH FEBRUARY 2010 AND CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08 , ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2 ND NOVEMBER 2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) XXVII, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ). 2 . SINCE THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RIVAL PARTIES IN ALL THESE CROSS APPEALS BEING COMMON , THEREFORE, AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THESE WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 4 BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. H OWEVER, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS, W E FIRST PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06 , NARRATING THE FACTS AS THEY APPEAR IN REVENUES APPEAL I N ITA NO.2823/MUM./2010 , THE DECISION OF WHICH WOULD BE APPLICABLE MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO OTHER CROSS APPEALS WHEREVER IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED . GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2823/MUM./2010, FOR THE A.Y. 2005 06 : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERR ED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO TREAT 15% OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE BALANCE INCOME TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE MAJOR SOURCE OF ASSESSEES INCOME WAS FROM TRADING IN SHARES, WHERE THE FREQUENCY AND VOLUME OF TRANSITION CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEES PURPOSE WAS TO EARN PROFIT RATHER THAN DIVIDEND. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2124/MUM./2010, FOR THE A.Y. 2005 06 : ON THE FACTS A ND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING 15% OF THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE BALANCE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE GROUND THAT SHORT TERM SALE PURCHASE OF SHARES WITHIN A WEEK / 10 DAYS WOULD CONSTITUTE TRADING OF SHARES IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMENTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE ACT THAT THE INTENTION OF APPELLANT WAS TO HOLD SHARE IN THE INDIAN COMPANIES AS AN INVESTMENT AND NOT AS STOCK IN T RADE. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING 15% OF THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE BALANCE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIO N IN WHOLE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE MAGNITUDE AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSACTION DOES NOT ALTER THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION. 3 . FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS BEEN MAINLY ENGAGED IN TRADING OF DERIVATIVES IN STOCK E XCHANGE . O N TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH DERIVATIVES, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED SPECULATION LOSS OF ` 54,25,841 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 5 UNDERTAKEN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IN HUGE SCALE AND PROFIT / GAIN ARISING OUT OF SUCH TRANSACTIO NS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN . HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STOCK OF SHARES OF ` 30,54,557 AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2005 AND THE SOURCE OF SUCH STOCK HAS BEEN OUT OF OPENING CAPITAL OF ` 1,32,27,344 AS ON 1 ST APRIL 2004 AND THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED DURING THE YEAR AT 1,20,67,672. BESIDES THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS A LIABILITY OF ` 2.59 CRORES INCLUDING ONE FROM OM SECURITIES OF ` 1,73,15,029 WHICH WERE DUE TO THEM AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2005. AFTER MAKING THESE OBSERVATIONS, HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE ARE TWO TYPES OF TRANSACTION S, ONE INVOLVING THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OF SHARES AND OTHER , WHERE NON DELIVER Y OF SHARES WAS INVOLVED. THE FORMER TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE LATER UNDER THE HEAD SPECULATION BUSINESS / BUSINESS INCOME . IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE PURCHASE OF SHARES (IN WHICH ACTUAL DELIVERY HAS TAKEN) IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT. IN THE EARLIER YEAR, THE INVEST MENT WAS UP TO ` 1,55,13,654 AND INVESTMENTS AT THE YEAR END I.E., 31 ST MARCH 2005 WERE AT ` 3,05,45,571. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY AN INVESTOR. THE SAID INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF OWN CAPITAL AND INTEREST FREE FUNDS RECEIVED FR OM THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED WITH THE MOTIVE OF INVESTING THE SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE EQUITY MARKET TO GET BETTER RETURNS AND NOT TO EARN QUICK PROFITS. THE VARIOUS OTHER ASPECTS WERE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINLY AN INVEST OR AND NOT TRADER OF SHARES. 4 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS I.E., THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05, THE ASSESSEE HAD TOTAL CAPITAL OF ` 1,26,99,029, AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2003 OUT OF WHICH ` 51.80 LAKHS WERE INVESTED IN THE SHAR ES. THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES INCREASED TO ` 1.55 CRORES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05, WHEREAS HER CAPITAL MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 6 REMAIN ALMOST THE SAME I.E., ` 1.32 CRORES. FROM THIS, HE ANALYSED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES HAVE BEEN MADE ALSO FROM BORROWED FUNDS . MOREOV ER, THERE WAS LIABILITY TOWARDS THE BROKER OM SECURITIES , TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE AND LIABILITY TO PAY BY THE YEAR END. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A MERE INVESTOR BUT INTENDED TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES TO OBTAIN MAXIMUM PROFIT. AFTER ANA LYSING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ` 7,72,603 AND 1,20,67,671 IS ACTUALLY A PROFIT FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ANALYSED THAT THE SHARES WHICH WERE HELD FOR THE LONG TERM HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY EARMARKED WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT SOME OF THEM KEPT FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS , BUT THE MAJOR ITY OF TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES WERE MAI NLY FOR EARNING BUSINESS PROFIT, AS THEY WERE BOUGHT AND SO LD FOR A VERY LESS PERIOD. 5 . BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE MADE A VERY DETAIL SUBMISSION S WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FROM PAGE - 2 TO 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , WITHOUT MUCH ANALYSIS OF SCRIPWISE TRANSACTIONS, PERIOD OF HOLDING , HAS SIMPLY REITERATED THE EXPLANATION AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INVESTING IN SHARES FOR THE LAST THIRTEEN YEARS AND HAS BEEN CARRYING HER STOCKS IN THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98. EVEN IF THERE WAS LARGE MAGNITUDE OF TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR, IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF INCOME AND THE SAME WILL REMAIN CAPITAL GAIN ONLY. HOWEVER, HE ALSO HELD THAT THERE W ERE C ERTAIN SHARES IN WHICH NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SEVEN DAYS AND WITHIN TEN DAYS WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. WITHOUT ANALYSING THE ENTIRE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND PURELY ON AD - HOC BASIS, HE HELD THAT 15% OF THE INCOME SHOULD BE MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 7 TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE BALANCE INCOME MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 6 . BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN HUGE SPEC ULATION TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE NON - DELIVERY BASED, GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MERELY AN INVESTOR BUT MAINLY DOING TRADING OF SHARES WITH A MOTIVE TO EARN BUSINESS PROFIT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING TO THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS AND FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS, INCLUDING THE PERIOD OF HOLDING IT CAN BE SAFELY INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN INVESTOR SIMPLICITOR. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAIL TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES WHICH WERE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN , WHEREIN HUGE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN UNDER TAKEN IN SEVERAL SCRIPS WHICH WERE ENTERED FO R A VERY SHORT PERIOD. THUS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOR MAKING AD - HOC ALLOCATION OF 15% TOWARDS BUSINESS INCOME IS WHOLLY MISCONCEIVED A ND COMPLETELY DIVORCED FROM THE FACT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS NOT ANALYSED THE BASIC CRITERIA OF TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES , WHETHER THEY CAN BE TERMED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS . THUS, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS WERE GIVEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY AN INVE STOR FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENTS ARE THAT , IF THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED WITH HER OWN SURPLUS FUNDS AND NOT FROM THE BORROWED FUNDS FROM THE OUTSIDERS, THEN IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR. FURTHER, VOLUME AND FREQUENCY CANNOT BE MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 8 SOLE CRITERIA FOR JUDGING A TRANSACTIONS TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING BUSINESS INCOME , BECAUSE TRANSACTIONS CAN BE ENTERED FOR A SHORT PERIOD IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD FR OM LOSS IN THE VOLATILE MARKET AND TO EARN MAXIMUM GAIN. IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT THE VARIOUS CRITERIA BASED ON JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE FULFILLS ALL SUCH CRITERIA WHICH CAN GO TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR AND GAIN DERIVED FROM TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES IS NOTHING BUT CAPITAL GAIN. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GOPAL PUROHIT V/S CIT, [ 2011 ] 33 6 ITR 287 (BOM.). BEFORE US, H E ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF ENTIRE SCRIPWISE PURCHASE AND SALE AND PERIOD OF HOLDING S OF THE SHARES. 8 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. FROM THE FINDINGS AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), IT IS SEEN THAT NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE ACTUALLY ANALYSED THE SCRIPWISE TRANSACTIONS AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING. FROM THE DETAILS AS SUBMITTE D BEFORE US, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN MAJORITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE DELIVERY BASED RANGING BETWEEN ONE DAY TO THIRTY DAYS. BESIDES THIS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR CRITERIA HAS APPORTIONED 15% OF THE PROFIT AS BUSINESS INCOME AND BALANCE AS CAPITAL GAIN , PURELY ON AD - HOC BASIS AND WITHOUT ANALYZING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND OTHER RELEVANT CRITERIA WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT , WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR OR IT S TRA NSACTIONS ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE FOR EARNING BUSINESS INCOME. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 9 EXAMINE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AS SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ANALYSE THE VARIOUS CRITERIA AS LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT , WHETHER THE PROFIT / GAIN DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR CAPITAL GAIN. THE ENTIRE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW , AFTER GIVING DUE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HER CASE. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ANY PLEA OR SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9 . SINCE THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER APPEAL RELATES TO THE SAME ISSUE CHALLENGING THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S) , THAT HE HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING 15% OF THE INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME, THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE MATTER WOULD BE EXAMINE D AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL CITED SUPRA. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10 . THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE ALSO TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. MRS. MALTI RAHUL BHATIA 10 11 . 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 31 ST JANUARY 2014 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY 2014 SD/ - RAJENDRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - + AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 31 ST JANUARY 2014 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) / THE ASSESSEE ; ( 2 ) / THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) ( ) / THE CIT(A ) ; ( 4 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; ( 5 ) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ; ( 6 ) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY ./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI