BHAGYASHALI TEXTILES MILLS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2951/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75791 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUMIKA VORA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - B BENCH MUMBAI . . , / ! ! ! ! , BEFORE S/SH.B.R.MITTAL,JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 2951/MUM/2011, ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/S BHAGYASHALI TEXTILES MILLS PVT. LTD., 13/140, GOVARDHAN NIKETANM, CAVEL ST. GR. FLOOR, BEHIND SWADESHI MARKET, KALBADEVI ROAD,MUMBAI-02 VS. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACB5864E ( $% / APPELLANT ) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) $% $% $% $% ( (( ( ) ) ) ) / ASSESSEE BY : SMT. BHUMIKA VORA &'$% ( ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ' ' ' ' ( (( ( *+ *+ *+ *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 03 . 02 .201 4 ,-# ( *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.02 .201 4 ' ' ' ' , 1961 ( (( ( 254 )1( *.* *.* *.* *.* / / / / ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2011 OF THE CIT(A )-8,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1, 39,530/- MADE BY THE LD.A.O. BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. 2.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8, 09,747/- MADE BY THE LD.A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 3.THE APPELLANT CRAVE LEAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, MODIFY AND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO O NE ANOTHER. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.O.AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TEXTUIR SING OF YARN FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 20. 10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL.ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 31.12.2007,DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3.77 LAKHS/-. 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF T RANSPORT EXPENSES.THE DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT NO TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. JOGES - HWARI TRANSPORT SERVICES(JTS),AMOUNTING TO OF RS.1, 39,530/-.AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX ON THE S AID AMOUNT.AS A RESULT,INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA)OF THE ACT,AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.39 LAKHS. 2.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO,ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE CLA IMED THAT TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES PAID TO JTS,THAT SAME WAS DEPOSI TED TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON 04.12. 2004,02.02.2005 AND 19.03.200.ASSESSEE ENCLOSED THE COPY OF TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 24. 05.2005 ISSUED BY JTS.FAA DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE THE MA TTER AND SUBMIT THE REPORT.THE AO IN HIS REMAND-REPORT DATED 22.10.2010 SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT CLARIFY THE REASON WHAT PREVENTED IT TO PRODUCE THE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED 2 4.05.2005 SHOWING CREDIT OF VOUCHER OF RS.1, 49,565/-AND DEDUCTION OF RS.3127/-AS TAX THEREON,TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ZEROX COPY OF TDS VOUCHERS,THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM COULD BE CON SIDERED ONLY IF ORIGINAL TDS VOUCHER AND ON 2 ITA NO. 2951/MUM/2011 M/S BHAGYASHALI TEXTILES MILLS PVT. LTD. VERIFICATION OF DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF TRANSPORT CHA RGES.THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE AOS REPORT.THE ASSESSEE,AS PER LETTER DATED 14.12.2007 SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICATE WAS ISS UED TO THE TRANSPORTER WHICH COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO,THAT HE HAD VERIFIED THE TRA NSPORTATION CHARGES AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT THE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF TDS WAS NOT FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY REASON WHAT PREVENTED IT FROM FURNISHIN G THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO,THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RELY UPON THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO ESTABLIS H THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE SAME BEFORE THE AO,THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT TAX REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT HAD BEEN DEDUCTED.FINALLY,HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E AO. 2.2. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCES IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.1,49, 565/- PAID TO JTS AND TAX HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN TO THE CENTRAL GOVT. ACCOUNT ON 04-12-2004, 02-02-2005 AND 19-03-2005 RESPECTIVELY.A COPY OF TDS CERTIFICATE,DATED 24-05-2005,ISSUED TO JTS IN RESPE CT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGE PAID AND TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS ALSO REFERRED TO BY THE AR(P G.5 OF THE PAPER BOOK-PB).DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF 40(A )(IA) WERE RIGHTLY INVOKED,THAT ORIGINAL CERTI - FICATE WAS NOT PRODUCED,THAT NO REASONABLE CAUSE W AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING NEW EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FAA. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED A XEROX COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE EVIDEN CING PAYMENT OF TDS DURING THE REMAND REPORT PROCEEDINGS,THAT FAA DECLINED TO ADMIT IT AS THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT PRODUCING IT BEFORE THE AO,THAT HE HAD NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENT.IT IS TRUE THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD PRODUCE ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO,BUT IF FAA WAS OF THE OPINION THAT REMAND REPORT WAS REQUIRED IN THIS REG ARD HE SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE COMPLETE INQUIRIES-EITHER FROM THE BANK OR FROM JTS .AO COULD HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT IF HE WAS OF OPINION THAT A XEROX COPY CO ULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN EVIDENCE. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICATE CAN NEVER REMAIN WITH THE PERSON WHO DEDUCTS TAX-HE HAS TO HAND IT OVER TO THE PERSON WHO IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM CRED IT OF SUCH DEDUCTION.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,IT WAS NOT PROPER TO INVOKE PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT.CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E,WE ARE RESTORING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF T HE AO.HE IS DIRECTED TO TAKE A FRESH DECISION IN THIS REGARD AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING.ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROD UCE NECESSARY ALTERNATE EVIDENCE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX BEFORE THE AO.GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,IN PART. 3. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL (GROUND NO. 2) IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.8,09,747/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK .THE RELEVANT FACTS,AS APPEARING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,ARE THAT THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN AN INCREASE IN CLOSING STOCK IN THE P & L A/C.,THAT AS PER SCHEDULE-3 THERE WAS NO OPENING STOCK,THAT THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WAS SHOWN OUT OF PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR.THE ASS ESSEE FURNISHED QUANTITY WISE DETAILS OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK AND METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING ST OCK AS REQUIRED BY THE AO.AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF THE VALUATION OF STOCK,HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY MADE WRONG CALCULATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF POY AND FINIS HED GOODS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8.09 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN SCHEDULE-3 OF THE P & L ACCOUNT, WHEREIN INSTEAD OF SHOWING THE CLOSING AND OPENING STOCK SEPARATELY THE NET INCREASE IN STOCK WAS SHOWN AT R S.4,69,423/-,THAT ACTUALLY THERE WAS OPENING STOCK WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN SCHEDULE-E TO THE BALA NCE-SHEET,THAT SCHEDULE-E TO THE BALANCE-SHEET CLEARLY MENTIONED THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2004 AT RS.9,89,192/- WHICH WAS THE 3 ITA NO. 2951/MUM/2011 M/S BHAGYASHALI TEXTILES MILLS PVT. LTD. OPENING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AND OPENING STOCK 4,69,423/- AS SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE-3 TO THE P & L ACCOUNT, THAT SCHEDULE-L TO THE BALANCE-SHEET CONTAINED QUANTITAT IVE DETAILS WHICH SHOWED THAT THERE WAS OPENING STOCK OF TEXT YARN AT 10932 KG. VALUED AT R S.9,46,740/- AND CLOSING STOCK WAS SHOWN AT 23636 KG.VALUED AT RS.14,13,192/-,THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF POY AND FINISHED GOODS AND FINISHED GOODS WAS MADE AT RS. 59.67 AND RS 60.03 RESPECTIVE LY.FAA CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IN THIS REGARD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE REMAND REPORT,FAA ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONTROVERSY THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED BY HIM WAS AS TO THE RATE ADOPTED FOR VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF POY AND FINIS HED GOODS.HE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE QUANTITY OF CLOSING STOCK OF POY AND FINISHE D GOODS ADOPTED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE AT 15816.47 KG. AND 7819.80 KG.RESPECTIVELY,THAT AO AD OPTED RATE AT RS.92.09 FOR POY,THAT THE SAME RATE WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER ITS LETTER DATED 18.08.2007,THAT THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO COULD NOT BE FAULTED AS THE SAME HAD BEEN ADOPTED O N THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE RATE OF PURCHASE OF POY DURING THE YEAR WAS SHOWN AT RS.92.09 WHEN THE PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE RATE OF RS.59.67 AND RS.60.03 AS ON 21.03.2005 AND 22.03.20 05,THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT CLOSING STOCK WAS OUT OF PURCHASES MADE AT THE RATE OF RS.5 9.67 AND RS.60.03 WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE,THAT THE PURCHASES OF POY DURING THE YEAR HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF @ RS.92.09 OUT OF WHICH CLOSING STOCK OF POY REMAINED AS ON THE LAST DATE O F THE YEAR.AS REGARDS ADOPTION OF THE RATE OF VALUATION OF FINISHED GOODS AT RS.60.03 BY THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED TO BE ON THE BASIS OF BILL DATED 21.03.2005, FROM THIS BILL, COPY OF WHICH HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER COVER OF ITS LETTER DATED 28.07.2009,FAA HELD THAT THE BILL WAS WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF POY AND NOT FINISHED GOODS, THAT THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF THE FINIS HED GOODS WAS TO BE TAKEN AT THE COST OF RAW MATERIAL AS WELL AS MANUFACTURING COST AS HAD BEEN RIGHTLY DONE BY THE AO,IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RATE OF MANUFACTURING COST DETERM INED AT RS.5.92 BY THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT,THAT THE AO HAD CORRECTLY ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS.98.01 F OR THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS,THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY BASIS FOR ADOPTING THE RATE OF RS.60.03 FOR VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS.AS A R ESULT,THE DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF FINISHED GOODS AT RS.22,22,939/- AND ADDITION OF RS. 8,09,747/- AS DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE,ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSI NG STOCK BY THE AO,WAS UPHELD. 3.2. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBMITTED T HAT THE VALUE OF OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.03.2004 AND 31.03.2005 WAS RS.9,89,1 92/-AND RS.14,60,940/-RESPECTIVELY, THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUES OF THE OPENING AND CL OSING STOCKS I.E.RS.4,69,423/-WAS SHOWN IN SCHEDULE- 3 TO THE P & L A/C.,THAT THE AO HAD ACCEP TED THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AS THE FIFO METHOD,THAT IN THE SCHEDULE L TO THE BALAN CE SHEET QUANTITATIVE DETAILS WERE GIVEN WHICH SHOWED THAT THERE WAS OPENING STOCK OF TEXT YARN AT 10932 KG.VALUE AT RS.9, 46,740/-AND THE CLOSING STOCK WAS SHOWN AT 23,636 KG VALUED AT RS.14,13,192 /-,THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF POY WAS OUT OF PURCHASES MADE VIDE BILLS DATED 21-03-2005 AND 22-0 3-2005,WHICH WERE PURCHASED AT THE RATE RS.59.67 AND RS.60.03 RESPECTIVELY,THAT THE VALUATI ON OF POY WAS MADE AT RS.59.67 PER KG,THAT THE AO HAD TAKEN THE RATE AT RS. 92.09 PER KG,THAT IT W AS NOT UNDER -STOOD AS TO HOW THE AO HAD TAKEN THE RATE OF RAW MATERIAL AT RS.92.09 PER KG. INSTEA D OF RS.59.67 PER KG.,THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS OF 7819.810 KG WAS OUT OF POY PROCES SED IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE VIDE BILL DATED 19-03-2005 AND 21-03-2005,THAT THE SAID RAW M ATERIALS WERE PURCHASED @ RS.60.03 KG AND THEREFORE THE CLOSING STOCK WAS VALUED ACCORDINGLY, THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE AO TO ARRIVED @ RS.98.01 PER KG.FOR VALUING THE STOCK IN QUESTION,T HAT THE CLOSING STOCK WAS CORRECTLY VALUED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE FIFO METHOD,THAT THE VALUATION M ADE BY THE AO AND CONSEQUENT ADDITION WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND INCORRECT.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE(DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA.HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FAA HAD GIVEN FINDINGS AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK OF POY AND FI NISHED GOODS AT THE RATE OF RS.59.67 AND RS.60.03 RESPECTIVELY,WHEREAS THE AO HAS ADOPTED TH E RATE OF RS.92.09 AND RS. 98.09 FOR THE SAME ITEMS.THE RATE OF RS.98.09,ADOPTED BY THE AO,AS COS T OF FINISHED GOODS,WAS DERIVED BY ADDING MANUFACTURING COST(RS.5.92) TO THE COST OF GOODS PU RCHASED (RS.92.09).THIS RESULTED IN VALUATION OF 4 ITA NO. 2951/MUM/2011 M/S BHAGYASHALI TEXTILES MILLS PVT. LTD. CLOSING STOCK BY THE AO AT RS.22,22,939/-AS AGAINST THE VALUATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.14,13,192/-.THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.8,09,747/-WAS T REATED UNDER-VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY THE AO AND SAME WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE.AS PER THE ASSESSEE IT WAS FOLLOWING THE FIFO METHOD FOR VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK.AO HAD ADOPTE D THE AVERAGE COST PRICE OF POY FOR ARRIVING AT THE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT WHILE FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT,AO HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSI NG STOCK ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE FIFO METHOD. AS PER THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF TAX JURISP RUDENCE WHEN THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY DOES NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE'S METHOD OF ACCOUNTING/VALUATIO N THEN HE CAN EXERCISE POWER UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT TO MAKE SUCH COMPUTATION IN SUCH METHOD AS HE DETERMINES FIT FOR DEDUCING THE CORRECT PROFITS AND GAINS,BUT THE POWER OF THE AO TO CHOOS E THE BASIS AND MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS NOT AN ARBITRARY POWER TO ASSESS THE INCO ME-HE MUST EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION AND JUDGMENT JUDICIALLY.FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE FAA IT TRANSPIRES THAT THEY HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF STOCK WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE METHOD O F VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,WE ARE OF THE OPINION,THAT ORDER OF T HE FAA CANNOT BE ENDORSED.THEREFORE,REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 1*2'3* 4 5 /*2 ( * 6 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. / ( ,-# 9 26 1+ , 2014 - ( . . SD/- SD/- ( . . . B.R.MITTAL) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, :' /DATE: 26.02.2014 SK / / / / ( (( ( &*; &*; &*; &*; < ;#* < ;#* < ;#* < ;#* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ = > , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / = > 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ;?. &*' CH CHCH CH , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ . 1 . ';* &* //TRUE COPY// /' / BY ORDER, @ / 6 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.