DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI V. DIGHI PORT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 287/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2886 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Earning of tax free income; Condonation of delay; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 69; 154

Judgement Text

1 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.286/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI VS M/S DIGHI PORT LTD 6 TH FLOOR, NEW EXCELSIOR A.K. NAYAK MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-1 PAN : AABCD2607A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.287/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI VS M/S DIGHI PORT LTD 6 TH FLOOR, NEW EXCELSIOR A.K. NAYAK MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-1 PAN : AABCD2607A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.270/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.287/MUM/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S DIGHI PORT LTD 6 TH FLOOR, NEW EXCELSIOR A.K. NAYAK MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-1 VS ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI PAN : AABCD2607A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 I.T.A. NO.738 /MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S DIGHI PORT LTD 6 TH FLOOR, NEW EXCELSIOR A.K. NAYAK MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-1 VS ITO, WD.2(1)(2), MUMBAI PAN : AABCD2607A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY SHRI RAKESH RANJAN, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI SUNIL NAHTA DATE OF HEARING :13-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-06-2016 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, AM THESE CROSS APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE HAVING IDENTICAL ISSUES AND, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD T OGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT APPEAL FILED FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IS LATE BY 18 DAYS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION ON THE PETITION FILED SEEKING CO NDONATION OF DELAY WHICH WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE MANAGIN G DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DEPOSING THE FACTS ON OATH. WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AS WELL AS HE AFFIDAVIT. NO S ERIOUS OBJECTION WAS MADE BY 3 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 TH4E LD.DR IN THIS REGARD AND NOTHING WRONG WAS POI NTED OUT IN THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WE FIND THAT IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE THE APPEAL SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND, THEREFORE, DELAY OF 18 DAYS IS CON DONED AND HE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP OR ADJUDICATION. ITA NOS. 286& 287/MUM/2012 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-0 9 3. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 20 06-07 IN ITA NO. 286/MUM/2012 AND FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN ITA NO.287/MUM /2012 AND GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.738/MUM/2011 FO R A.Y. 2007-08. IN THESE REVENUES APPEALS AND GROUND 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08,AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED WITH REGARD TO DISA LLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND IS THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED D EPRECIATION, BUT THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CAPITAL WORK-IN-PROGRESS. BUT NO INCOME ON A CCOUNT OF PROJECT WAS OFFERED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AND CAPITALISED THE SAME. 4. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HA D COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. A.Y . 2005-06 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION V IDE ITS ORDER DT. 16-0-7-2014 IN ITA NO.609/MUM/2010. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF A. O. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN A .Y. 2005-06, THE RELEVANT FACTS NEED TO BE EXAMINED IN THE YEARS BEFORE US. 4 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITI ES AS WELL AS ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06. IT IS NOTED THAT IN A.Y. 2005-06 THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVA TIONS: 24. THROUGH GROUND N0.2 OF ITS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS AGITATED THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.IO,12,500/- MAD E BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND VIDE GROUND NO.3, THE R EVENUE HAS AGITATED THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE BY THE ID. CI T(A) WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. 25. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR RS.L 0, 12,5001- AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.29,341/-. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION, THE A.O. NOTED THAT MMB HAD WRITTEN A LETTER TO BLICL F OR PAYMENT OF RS.10,12,500/- FOR PURCHASE OF RADAR BASED AIS EQUI PMENT FROM ELECTRONIC LAB. THE A.O. THUS CONCLUDED THAT THE P LANT AND MACHINERY BELONGED TO BLICL AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE HAD SIMPLY BROUGHT THE ASSET IN BALANCE-SHEET AND CLAIMED DEPR ECIATION WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,12,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 AN D ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAI M OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID MACHINERY. 26. THE ID. CIT(A), AS OBSERVED ABOVE, HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD STEPPED INTO THE SHOES OF BLICL. THE ASSESSEE HAD M ADE THE PAYMENT OF THE SAID PLANT & MACHINERY AND HAD INCLUDED THIS PLANT IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCES THEREOF ALSO. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR U/S 69 AND ACCORDIN GLY DELETED THE SAME. 27. WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ID. CIT(A), AS PER OUR DISCUSSION IN THE PARAS ABOVE, THAT IT WAS THE ASS ESSEE WHO AS SPV WAS CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MANAGING THE PORT. WE DO NOT FIND 5 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) HOLDIN G THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A). 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD.COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT FACTS IN THESE YEARS MAY BE VERIFIED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SENT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH TH DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO V ERIFY THE ORDER OF A.Y. 2005-06 AFTER MAKING REQUISITE VERIFICATION OF FACT S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL SUBMIT REQUISITE DETAILS AN DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY THE BENEFITS GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2005-06. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE LD.COUNSEL T HAT IN A.Y. 2008-09 THERE WAS NO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AND, THEREFORE, QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE DID NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSEE IS FREE T O RAISE ALL LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE A SSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL AND OTHER FACTUAL MATERIAL AS MAY BE BROUG HT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THUS REVENUES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL MAY ALSO BE TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP REMAINING GROUNDS IN ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 6 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 10. GROUND NO.2: IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACT ION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF PREO PERATIVE EXPE3NSES O RS.5,77,901/- BY TREATING IT AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE . IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH IS CLAIM WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN .Y. 2004-05 WHEREIN IT WAS ALLOWED IN ORDER U/S 154 VIDE ORDER DT 14-2-2007. IT WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A.Y. 2005-06 ALSO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DT 29-03-2007. IT WAS DISA LLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A.Y. 2006-07,BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CIT(A ) ALLOWED IT AS PREOPERATIVE EXPENSES U/S 35D VIDE ORDER DT 3-10-2011. IT HAS B EEN FURTHER STATED AT BAR THAT NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE LD. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.COUNSEL. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITI ES. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED BY TH E REVENUE IN ALL THE PRECEDING YEARS. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) A LLOWED THIS CLAIM IN A.Y. 2006- 07 VIDE HIS ORDER DT 3-10-2011 WITH THE FOLLOWING O BSERVATIONS:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. A.O. HAS GIVEN THE REASON THAT THESE ARE CAPITAL EXPENSES,WHEREAS, FOR THE EXPENDITURE TO BE COVERED U/S. 35D NEED NOT BE NECESSARILY REVENUE EXPENDITURE, WHEREAS, AS PER THE BALANCE SHEETS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THESE EXPENSES ARE PR EOPERATIVE EXPENSES AND 1/5TH OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES ARE CLAIME D EVERY YEAR AND NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS ISSUE IN THE PAST. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR A.Y. 05-06. 7 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 12. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AS THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING DISPOSED OF BY U S IN THIS COMMON ORDER. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE RELIEF. WE FIND THE CLAIM AS PER LAW AND FACTS. NOTHING WRONG COULD BE POINTED OUT BY THE L D.DR IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THUS, NO CONTRARY DECISION SHOULD BE TA KEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AND THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF PREOPERATIVE EXPENSES U/S 35D AMOUNTING TO RS.5,77, 901 AND THUS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELET ED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 13. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED I N A.Y. 2007-08 PERTAINING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,28,376/- BY APPLYING RULE 8D. 14. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL THAT RULE 8D WA S NOT APPLICABLE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN VIEW OF JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG CO LTD 328 ITR 81 ( BOM). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR EARNIN G EXEMPT INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT IN FACT NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE EXPENSES DEDUCTED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ARE MAIN LY PREOPERATIVE 8 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 EXPENSES OF RS.53,914. OTHER EXPENSES ARE ONLY RS. 20,000 ON ACCOUNT OF AUDIT FEE. THUS, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN M ADE AS NO EXPENSES PERTAINED TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. 15. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. WE F IND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL. THE PERUSAL OF PROFI T & LOSS ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINLY DEBITED PREOPERATIVE A ND PRELIMINARY EXPENSES. THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR MAKING DISALLOWANC E U/S 14A. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIREC TED TO BE DELETED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 16. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 2187/MUM/2012. 17. GROUNDS 1 & 2 WITH REGARD TO DEPRECIATION HAVE ALRE ADY BEEN DECIDED IN EARLIER PART OF OUR ORDER. 18. IN GROUNDS 4 TO 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING DISALLOWANC3E U/S 14A. IT IS NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE U/ S 14A FOR AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.21,47,578 COMPRISING OF THE FOLLOWING THREE COMPONENTS: I. DIRECT EXPENSES RS. 1,658,016 II. INDIRECT INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE 9 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 TO EXEMPT INCOME RS.124,16,036 III. INDITRECT EXPENSES COMPUTED RS. 5,73,476 @0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) NO RELIEF WAS GIVEN AND DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. 19. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS FACTUALLY INCO RRECT AND CONTRARY TO LAW. ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.CO UNSEL WE FIND THAT DIRECT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,58,016 HAS BEEN D ISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF SUO MOTTO IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET . THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEAD TO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE; HENCE DISALLOWANCE WITH REGARD TO DIR ECT EXPENSES IS DELETED. 20. WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST , IT HAS BEEN SEEN THAT THE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MORE THAN RS .177 CRORES WHEREAS INVESTMENTS MADE IN TAX FREE SECURITIES IS AROUND R S.10.22 CRORES. IN THE LAST YEAR THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT WAS AROUND RS.12 .71 CRORES. THUS, INVESTMENT IN THIS YEAR HAS DECREASED AND NO FRESH INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN TAX FREE SECURITIES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE FIND THAT DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEN MADE I N VIEW OF JUDGEMENT OF RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD 313 ITR 340 (BOM) AND HDFC BANK LTD (ITA NO.330 O 2012). THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN D ISPUTED BY THE LD.DR. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THIS CASE A ND LAW CLARIFIED BY THE 10 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 21. WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANC4E ON ACCOUNT OF INDI RECT EXPENSES COMPUTED @0.5% IT IS NOTED BY US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUO MOTTO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES WHICH, ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSEE, PERTAINED TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS, NOWHERE, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RECORDED ANY FINDING THAT EXPE NSES ALLOCATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT. NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CO RRECT. IT HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ACT UAL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME WERE MORE TH AN THE AMOUNT SUO MOTTO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND FACTS AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE ON A CCOUNT OF INDIRECT EXPENSES IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 22. GROUND 7 HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BEFORE US, AND THEREF ORE, THE SAME IS DIMISSED. 23. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED , FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 11 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 ORDER PRONOUNVCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 24 TH JUNE, 2016 PK/- COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE , D-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES 12 ITA 286/MUM/2012 ITA 287/MUM/2012 CO 270/MUM/2012 ITA 738/MUM/2012 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 14-6 SR PS / PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15-6 SR PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED / APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM / AM 5 APPROVFED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR PS / PS SR PS / PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR PS / PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR PS / PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER