ACIT CIR 15(1), MUMBAI V. PANKAJ S SAMDHANI, MUMBAI

ITA 2952/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8338 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV LALAN SHRI
• Keywords: Business income; Transactions in derivatives; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68; 6; 2

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDI CIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 2952/MUM./2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 09 ) JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCLE 15(1), MUMBAI .. / APPELLANT V/S SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI ROOM NO.16, 1 ST FLOOR HABIB BUILDING 65 73, C.P. TANK ROAD MUMBAI 400 004 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AVBPS1014L . / C.O. NO. 94/MUM./2013 ( . 2952 /MUM./20 12 ) ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO . 2952 /MUM./20 12 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 09 ) SHRI PANKAJ S. SAMDHANI ROOM NO.16, 1 ST FLOOR HABIB BUILDING 65 73, C.P. TANK ROAD MUMBAI 400 004 .. / CROSS OBJECTOR V/S JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CIRCL E 15(1), MUMBAI .... / RESPONDENT . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AVBPS1014L / REV E NUE BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJEEV LALAN SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 2 / DATE OF HEARING 11 .08.2014 / DATE OF ORDE R 22.08.2014 / ORDER , / PER AMIT SHUKLA , J.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13 TH FEBRUARY 2012, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) XXVI , MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 . WE FIRST PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE REVENUE S APPEAL IN ITA NO.2952/MUM./ 2012 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09 , VIDE WHICH, FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE NOTION L OSS ON TRADING IN DERIVATIVES OF ` 23,04,247 AND NOTIONAL LOSS OF TRADING IN COMMODITIES OF ` 4,45,999, AS NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON FERROUS META L AND SHARE TRADING. IT HAS ALSO SHOWN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND LOSSES ON DERIVATIVE TRADING AND COMMODITY MARKET TRADING. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOSS OF ` 23,04,427 , ON ACCOUNT OF DERIVATIVE TRADING AND LOSS OF ` 4,45,99 9, ON ACCOUNT OF SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 3 COMMODITY MARKET TRADING. T HESE LOSSES HAVE BEEN SET OFF AGAINST TAXABLE INCOME EARNED FORM THE BUSINESS OF PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD MADE PAYMENT TO THE BROKER TOW ARDS THE DERIVATIVE TRADING AND ALSO SHOWN DETAILS OF SUCH PAYMENT MADE THROUGH BANK OF INDIA , THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 27.09.2007 BANK OF INDIA ` 3,00,000 19.10.2007 BANK OF INDIA ` 5,00,000 30.01.2008 BANK OF INDIA ` 1,00,000 THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT OF ` 10 LAKHS FROM THE BROKER ON 16 TH APRIL 2007 AND BESIDES THIS NO OTHER PAYMENTS WERE MADE. THUS, THE PROFIT OR LOSS WERE ACTUALLY SETTLED TO THE EXTENT OF ABOVE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ONLY AND S INCE NO OTHER PAYMENTS WERE MADE, THEREFORE, THE LOSS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNSETTLED. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT NO DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS AND PAYMENTS WERE FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF COMMODITY, TRADING LOSS OF ` 4,45,999. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ALL THE DERIVATIVE AND COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY ACTUAL CASH SETTLEMENT. THUS, HE DISALLOWED THE LOSS OF ` 23,04,247, INCURRED ON DERIVATIVE TRADING AND ` 4,45,999, ON ACCOUNT OF C OMMODITY TRADING. SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 4 3. DURING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE , VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 22 ND DECEMBER 2010 , TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS RELATING TO DERIVATIVE F&O TRADING AND COMMODIT Y TRADING ALONG WITH THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND BR OKERS LEDGER ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALL THESE DETAILS AND CONTENDED THAT IT HAD FOUR ACCOUNTS WITH THE BROKERS ANGLE BROKING LTD. , WHO USUALLY SETTLED THE TRANSACTIONS AS PER THE MERGED ACCOUNT BALANC E OF THE CLIENTS IN THEIR BOOKS. HENCE, IN ANY CASE OF DEBIT BALANCE IN A PARTICULAR, THE BROKER IMMEDIATELY PASSES A TRANSFER ENTRY FROM THE OTHER ACCOUNTS HAVING CREDIT BALANCE. THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD OPENING RECEIVABLE BALANCE O F ` 25,06,715, IN THE NAME OF ANGLE CAPITAL AND DEBT MARKET LTD. F&O, WHICH IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE PREVIOUS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE BROKER WAS ALSO SHOWN BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY CASH SETTLEMENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR , AS HE HAD SUFFICIENT CREDIT BALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF THE BROKER. SIMILARLY, HE WAS DOING DERIVATIVES TRADING BUSINESS WI TH THE BROKER EDELWEISS SECURITIES LTD. WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD THREE ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS TRANSFER ENTRIES FROM THE ASSESSEES OTHER ACCOUNTS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE BROKERS AND ALSO THE ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES PASSED BY SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 5 THE BROKERS IN THE SIMILAR MANNER. THE ENTIRE WORKING OF SUCH BALANCE ALONG WITH THE DETAIL SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS BEEN INCORPORATED FROM PAGE 14 TO 21 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. 4. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ENTIRE MATERI AL PLACED ON RECORD AND ALSO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDI NGS OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I CANNOT APPRECIATE THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A O HAS NOT AT ALL DISCUSSED AND REBUTTED THE SUBMISS IONS DATED 15.12.2010 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, WHEREIN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS IN FUTURE AND OPTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH REGISTERED BROKER; WHICH . CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE FROM THE NATIONAL STOCK EX CHANGE. SECONDLY IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AD THAT JUST AFTER THE CLOSE OF ACCOUNTING . YEAR, ON 01 . 4.2008, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DUE I .E . RS. 27,50 , 426/ - , WA S FULLY ADJUSTED BY THE BROKER. 5 .2.1 IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AO HAS TREATED THIS LOSS AS NO TIONAL SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BROKER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ADJUSTMENT ENTRY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAID ADJUSTMENT ENTRY WAS PASSED ON THE NEXT DAY OF THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR I . E. 01 . 4.2008. SOLELY ON THIS BASIS THE F& D TRANSACTIONS OF TH E APPELLANT, WHICH WERE DULY ROUTED THROUGH THE RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE, CANNOT BE HELD AS NOTIONAL TRANSACTIONS. THE A O HAS ALSO OVERLOOKED THE MATERI A L FACTS THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THE A O HAS TREATED PROFIT/LOSS ON THESE TRANSACTIONS A S NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. HE HAS ALSO OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THERE WERE CREDIT BALANCE IN OTHER ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WITH THE BROKERS; THAT IS WHY THEY WERE NOT PRESSING FOR IMMEDIATE CASH SETTLEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 6 A.OS DECISION IN SUMMARI LY TREATING THIS LOSS AS NOTIONAL LOSS DOES APPEAR CORRECT, THEREFORE HE IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE SAME AS NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS LIABLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ALSO THE CONCLUSION DRAWN B Y HIM, WHEREAS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO ON A PERUSAL OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE LOSS MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SETTLEMENT IN CASH O F THE DERIVATIVE AND COMMODITY TRADING, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE CREDIT BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE BROKERS AND H OW THEY HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AFTER APPRECIATING THE ENTIRE EVIDENCES, SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, APPEARS TO BE FACTUALLY CORRECT AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM SUCH FINDING WITHOUT ANY REBUTTAL FROM THE SIDE OF THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) IS AFFIRMED AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 7 7. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. WE NOW TAKE UP ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO. 94/MUM./2013 , VIDE WHICH, FOLLOWING G ROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1(A) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT HOLDING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) AS BEING BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO AND IN APPRECIATING THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW. (B) THE LEARNE D CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT EXPRESSIVE OBJECTION WAS RAISED AGAINST CARRYING ON WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ABSENCE OF VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2). (C) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT WHEN NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEAR WERE SERVED, THERE IS NO REASON WHY SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT WHEN DETAILS OF ALL THE ADDRESSES OF THE APPE LLANT WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND NO.(1), THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 1,11,500 MADE U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH LOANS OF LESS THAN 20,000 RECEIVED FR OM VARIOUS PARTIES. 8. GROUND NO.2, RELATES TO ADDITION OF ` 1,11,500, MADE UNDER SECTION 68, ON ACCOUNT OF CASH LOAN. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN CASH LOAN OF LESS THAN 20,000, WITH SIX PERSONS AGGREGATING TO ` 1,11,500, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 8 NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT ( ` ) 1. DIMPLE SAMDANI 19,500 2. ASHA PATEL 19,000 3. SANTOSH SAMDANI 18,000 4. SHASANK SAMDANI 18,000 5. ROHAN SAMDANI 18,000 6. VAISHALI SAMDANI 19,000 TOTAL: 1,11,500 10. THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE LOSSES WERE RECEIVED IN CASH AND CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SAID PARTIES ALONG WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER WERE SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANA T ION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOANS WERE TAKEN. 2. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THESE PERSONS. 3. THE ASSESSEE GROSSLY FAILED I N DISCHARGING THE ONUS IN PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED THE ENTIRE LOAN OF ` 1,11,500, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 11. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION FILED AFFID AVIT S OF THESE PERSONS AND SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 9 SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME, ADDRESS AND INCOME TAX PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN GIVEN. BESIDES THIS, M OST OF THESE PERSONS WERE DIRECT RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAVE GIVEN PETTY CASH LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE ALSO DULY AFFIRMED THE SAME , THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN SHOULD BE ACCEPTED . 12. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SIX PERSONS FROM WHOM HE HAS TAKEN CASH LOANS EITHER DURING THE CO URSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT OUT OF SIX PERSONS FIVE PERSONS WERE RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO COULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. THUS, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE CREDITW ORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN AND , THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. 13. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT FOR ONE PERSON, ALL THE PARTIES WERE STAYING IN AHMEDABAD AND NOT ONLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ALSO BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAID LOAN, ALONG WITH THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS AND ALSO THEIR PARTICULARS OF PAN. SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS PETTY AND MOST OF THESE PERSONS WERE STAYING FAR AWAY IN AHMEDABAD, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE THEM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALL THESE PERSONS ARE WELL KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ONCE THEY HAVE SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 10 CONFIRMED THE LOAN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THE SAME EITHER BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OR BY CARRYING OUT FURT HER ENQUIRY FROM THEM . IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ADVERSE MATERIAL TO REBUT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION , NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE EITHER ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE , NOT ONLY TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS BUT ALSO THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. SIMPLE CONFIRMATION OR AN AFFIDAVIT CANNOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE LOAN. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE AFFIDAV IT FILED BY SIX PERSONS, WE FIND THAT FIVE PERSONS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE BEING BROTHER, BROTHER IN LAW OR WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. SOME OF THEM WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OR SOME KIND OF PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES. THEY HAVE DULY CONFIRMED THE G IVING OF THE CASH LOAN S WHICH WERE BELOW ` 20,000. ONCE THIS PRIMARY DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT SOME SORT OF ENQUIRY BY ISSUING NOTICES WHETHER THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION OR CLAIM IS CORRECT OR NOT. IN SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 11 THE ABSEN CE OF ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL TO REBUT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN IS BELOW ` 20,000, AND THAT TO BE COMING FROM DIRECT RELATIVES, WHO HAVE CONFIRMED THE LOAN, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION INSOFAR AS T HE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE LAND IS CONCERNED, THE SAME APPEARS TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 1,11,500, AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). GROUND NO.2, IS THUS ALLOWED. 16. I NSOFAR AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 (A), (B) AND (C) ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE SAME HAS BECOME PURELY ACADEMIC AS WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CROSS OBJECTION IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 17. 1 7 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. 22 ND AUGUST 2014 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 22 ND AUGUST 2014 SD/ - . D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 22 ND AUGUST 2014 SHRI PANKAJ S . SAMDHANI 12 / 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