K GIRDHARILAL INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 300/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 30019914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K SHIVRAM
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest; Speculation loss
• Section: 69; 5(2); 14A; 43(5)

Judgement Text

, , ,, , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L MUMBAI - A BENCH MUMBAI . . , / ! ! ! ! , BEFORE S/SH.B.R.MITTAL,JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 300/MUM/2013, ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 K.GIRDHARILAL INTERNATIONAL LTD. 1003, PANCHRATNA MAMA PARMANAND MARG, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI- 400004 VS. ADDL. CIT RG 5(2) R.NO. 518, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AACCK6101F ( $% / ASSESSEE ) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) $% $% $% $% ( (( ( ) ) ) ) / ASSESSEE BY :SHRI K. SHIVRAM &'$% ( ) / RESPONDENT BY :SHRI K.SINGH ' ' ' ' ( (( ( +, +, +, +, / DATE OF HEARING : 07 . 11 .2013 -.# ( +, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 11 .2013 ' ' ' ' , 1961 ( (( ( 254 )1( +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ 0 0 0 0 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DTD.17.10.2012 OF THE CIT(A)- 9,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.0. GROUND NO.1 THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 9 MUMBAI [CIT (A)] HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,78,48, 433/- UNDER SECTION 14A A F THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (THE ACT) BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE INC OME TAX RULES, 1962 (THE RULES). 2.0.GROUND NO. 2 THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.1,50,755 UNDER SECTION 36(I)(III) OF THE ACT ON THE BORROWED FUNDS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NOT FOR INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. 3.0.GROUND NO. 3 THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OF RS.2,80,168 UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE O F BUSINESS AND NOT FOR INVESTMENT IN WINDMILL PROJECT. 4.0.GROUND NO.4 THE HONBLE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN C ONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,21,055 ON ACCOUNT OF MARK TO MARKET LOSS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SAME ARE NOT NOTIONAL LOSS. 5.0. THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CO NFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,827 TOWARDS REGISTRATION CHARGES OF SCOOTER, UNDER SECTION 69 O F THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAI D CHARGES WERE PAID BY DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY FROM H IS PERSONAL FUNDS. 2 ITA NO. 300/MUM/2013 K.GIRDHARILAL INTERNATIONAL LT D. YOUR ASSESSEES CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO AND/OR TO AME ND AND/OR TO MODIFY AND/OR TO CANCEL ANY ONE OR MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TI ME OF HEARING. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFAC TURE AND EXPORT OF DIAMONDS,FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2008,DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.20,09,53,178/-.ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT,ON28.12.2011.U/S.,143( 3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.25,17,059,641/-/.FIRST THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL A RE ABOUT DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO UNDER SEC.14A AND SEC.36 OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO DISALLOWED RS. 4,87,92,981/- IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES,1962(RULES). 2.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY(FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,FAA HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE WAS WIDENED BY SECTION 14A TO INCLUDE EVEN THE APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE BETWEEN TAXABLE AND NON TAXABLE INCOME OF A INDEFINABLE BUSINESS,THAT THE BASIC PRI NCIPLE OF TAXATION WAS TO TAX NET INCOME AND SAID PRINCIPLE WAS APPLICABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT.REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.(234DTR1),HE HELD THAT NO EXPENDITURE COULD BE A LLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME,THAT TH E EXPRESSION EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN SEC.14A REFERRED TO EXPENDITURE OF RENT,TAX,SALARIES,INTERE ST ETC.IN RESPECT OF WHICH ALLOWANCES WERE PROVIDED FOR,THAT SUB-SECTION(2)AND(3) OF SEC.14A WERE INTEN DED TO ENFORCE AND IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION(1),THAT THE OBJECT OF SUB SECTION(2)WAS TO PROVIDE UNIFORMITY TO A METHOD WHERE THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF THE T OTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT,THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE NEXU S BETWEEN THE ENTIRE CAPITAL WOULD HAVE GONE IN TO INVESTMENTS BEING INVESTED IN SECURITIES,THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT OUT OF THE COMMON HOTCH POTCH OF THE FUNDS THE ENTIRE CAPITAL WOULD H AVE GONE INTO THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WITHOUT A PART OF THE SHARES GOING TO THE BUSINESS, THAT IT W AS ALSO NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME HAD BEE N INVESTED IN SHARES AND DEBENTURES AND SHARE APPLICA TION MONEY,THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS NOT CATEGORICAL AS TO HOW MUCH OF THE SUM HAD BEEN INV ESTED IN BUSINESS.HE REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA AND KERALA HIGH C OURTS IN THE CASES OF DHAPA & SONS(54DTR 345)AND LEENA RAMACHANDRAN (45DTR372)RESPECTIVELY I N THIS REGARD.HE DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER NET INTEREST DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT FOR CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES.WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES FEES,HE HELD THAT THE AO HAD RI GHTLY HELD THAT SAME WERE PART OF THE DIRECT EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME.HE UPHE LD THE DECISION OF THE AO IN COMPUTING THE FEES AS PART OF THE 14A DISALLOWANCE. FINALLY,HE HE LD THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION OF ACT THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE TA X FREE INCOME.HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/.14A R.W.R.8D OF THE RULES,AMOUNTI NG TO RS.1,95,92,992/-. 3. NEXT TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ABOUT PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST,AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,50,755/- AND RS.2,80,168/-,UNDER SECTION 36(1)(II I) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CAPITAL BORROWED FOR PURCHASE AND ACQUISITION OF A PROPERTY AT BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE AND PURCHASE OF A WINDMILL RESPECTIVELY.AS PER THE AO THE PROPERTY WA S NOT PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.AO ALSO HELD THAT INTEREST FOR THE PE RIOD 01.04.2008 TO 26.08.2008,EVEN AFTER CAPIT - ALISATION,WOULD FORM PART OF COST OF FIXED ASSETS F OR CALCULATION OF ACTUAL COST. 3.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,FAA HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF RS.6,13,15, 092/- FOR BUYING AN OFFICE PREMISES AT BHARAT DIAMOND BOU RSE,THAT ON 14/2/2007 ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED WIND MILL BUT SAME WAS NOT PUT TO USE TILL 20.07.20 07, THAT IT HAD OBTAINED INTEREST BEARING LOANS FROM BANKS TO THE TUNE OF RS.353.17 CRORES,THAT IT HAD PAID INTEREST ON THE INTEREST BE ARING LOANS, THAT IT HAD NEVER PUT THE BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE OFF ICE TO USE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007- 08,THAT FINANCE ACT,2003 HAD BROUGHT OUT AN AMENDME NT W.E.F.01.04.2004CONSEQUENT TO WHICH NO DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAPITAL WAS BORROWED FOR THE ACQU ISITION OF THE ASSET TILL THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH ASSET WAS FIRST PUT TO USE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F AILED TO FURNISH THE FUND FLOW /CASH FLOW STATEMENT 3 ITA NO. 300/MUM/2013 K.GIRDHARILAL INTERNATIONAL LT D. OR THE PERIODICAL PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN SUPPOR T OF ITS PROPOSITION THAT INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE GIVEN OUT OF APPELLANTS OWN FUNDS OUT OF INTERNAL ACCRUALS,THAT THE AO HAD NOT TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE AND INTEREST FREE FUNDS ADVANCED BY IT,THAT BURDEN WAS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE CONCERNS CAME OUT OF APPELLANTS OWN FUNDS.HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF M OTOR GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED (254TR449) INDIAN METAL AND FERROUS ALLOYS LIMITED (193 ITR 34 4),VARDHMAN POLGTEX LIMITED (214 CTR 561)AND POWER DRUGS LIMITED (245 ITR623).FINALLY,HE HELD THAT THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SEC.36(L)(III) R.W. EXPL.8 TO SEC.43(1) WERE CLEARL Y APPLICABLE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION,THAT INTEREST OF RS.L,50,755/- AND RS.2,80,168/- PAID FO R THE INITIAL IDLE PERIOD WAS INADMISSIBLE. 3.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING,BEFOR US,THE AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FAA,THE ASSESSEE WILL FUR NISH BEFORE FAA THE REQUISITE DETAILS OF DAY TO DAY AVAILABILITY OF FUND TO ESTABLISH THAT SAID FUN D AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES/PFM WAS INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND INTEREST BEARING, BORROWED FUND WAS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WE ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE F AA WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL FURNIS H REQUISITE DETAILS TO THE FAA OF DAY TO DAY AVAILABI LITY OF FUND TO ESTABLISH ONLY INTEREST FREE FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS INVESTED IN INVESTM ENT IN SHARES/PFM AND THE BORROWED FUND WAS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY, TO THE SATISFACTIO N OF THE FAA.HE SAID THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS OF INVESTMENT AND AVAILABILITY OF FUND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE FAA THAT NO INTEREST BEARING FUND WAS USED FOR INVESTMENT IN SH ARES/PFM, THE LEARNED FAA WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D AND/OR SUCH DISALL OWANCE, AS HE MAY CONSIDER APPROPRIATE AS PER LAW.HENCE,GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES BY RESTORING THE SAME TO FAA FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDERATION. 4. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER T HE HEAD MARKED TO MARKET LOSS OF RS.15,21,055/-.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO HELD THAT SAID LOSS WAS A SPECULATIVE LOSS, THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION WERE SETTLED BY THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN BY ACTUAL DELIVERY,THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TREATED SPECULATIVE LOSS.AO RELIED ON THE PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION 5 OF SECTION 43 OF THE ACT AND THE PROVISION OF SECTION 73 R.W.INSTRUCTION NO.3 OF 2010 DATED 23.03 .2010 ISSUED BY THE CBDT AND HELD THAT THE DISPUTED LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF FORWARD EXCHANGE CONTRACT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE BUSINESS LOSS.HE FINALLY HELD THAT IT WAS NOTIONAL AND CONTI NGENT IN NATURE. 4.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,FAA HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED A LOSS OF RS.15,21,055/-ON ACCOUNT OF EXCHANGE RATE FLUCTUATION OF OUTSTANDING DEBTORS AND CREDITORS FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF FOREIGN CURRENCY CONSIDERING THE EXCHANGE RATE AS O N 31.3.2008 ,THAT IT HAD CANCELLED FORWARD CONTRACTS IN US DOLLARS WHICH WERE BOOKED DURING A CCOUNTING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WHICH HAD RESULTED INTO NET LOSS,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN DEED ENTERED INTO SEVERAL FORWARD CONTRACTS WHICH WERE CANCELLED DURING THE YEAR,THAT FORWARD CONTRAC T WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A BUYER AND SELLER IN WHICH A SELLER HAD TO DELIVER A SPECIFIED ASSET OF SPECIFIED QUALITY AND QUANTITY TO THE BUYER ON A SPECIFIED DATE AT A SPECIFIED PLACE AND THE BUYER I N TURN WAS OBLIGATED TO PAY THE SELLER PRE- NEGOTIATED PRICE IN EXCHANGE OF THE DELIVERY.HE FUR THER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF DIAMONDS,THAT IN RESPECT OF EXPORT OF DIAMONDS ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO FORWARD CONTRACT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE,T HAT SAME WAS DONE TO AVOID THE RISK OF LOSS DUE TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION,THAT THE ASSESSEE,A T THE TIME OF AGREEING TO EXPORT,TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION ITS COST IN RUPEES AND ALSO CONSIDERE D THE SPOT PRICE OF RUPEE AGAINST FOREIGN EXCHANGE,THAT WHEN THE ACTUAL EXPORT WAS MADE SPOT PRICE COULD BE DIFFERENT AS AGAINST THE SPOT PRICE ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPECTED AN EXPORT ORDER,THAT ON THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE IF THE SPOT PRICE OF RUPEE AGAINST FOREIGN EXCHANGE INCREASED THE APPELLANT WAS BOUND TO BE BENEFITED, THAT IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 2 TO THE SECTION 28,THE PROFIT FROM THE FORWARD CONTRACT HAD TO BE ASSESSED AS PROFIT FROM SPECULAT ION BUSINESS,THAT NEITHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND NOR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM,IT WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT LOSS SHOWN WAS EXCLUSIVELY DUE TO FORWARD CONTRACTS AGAINST WHICH NO ACTUAL DELIVERY OF FOREIGN EXCHANG E WAS MADE,THAT THE FORWARD CONTRACT WAS TO BE 4 ITA NO. 300/MUM/2013 K.GIRDHARILAL INTERNATIONAL LT D. SETTLED EITHER BY DELIVERY OR THE DIFFERENCE WAS EI THER CREDITED OR DEBITED BY THE BANKER,THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ALL FORWARD CONTRACTS WERE CANCELLED, THAT SAME WERE NEVER SETTLED BY ACTUAL DELIVERY NOR BY TRANSFER OF THE COMMODITY.RE FERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(5)OF THE ACT,HE HELD THAT SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS WERE TRAN SACTIONS IN WHICH A CONTRACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OF ANY COMMODITY INCLUDING STOCK AND SHARES WA S PERIODICALLY OR ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN BY THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF THE COMM OD -ITY OR SCRIPS.HE REFERRED TO THE CASES OF V.N.SARSETTA(163ITR727),BHIKARNCHAND JARIKILAL (131 ITR 554) IN THIS REGARD.REFERRING TO THE CIRCULAR NO. 23 OF 1960 ISSUED BY THE CBDT,HE FURTH ER HELD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALL CONTRACTS HAD BEEN SETTLED WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS IN US DOLLARS ONLY,THAT IN THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOU NTING THE QUESTION TO BE ASKED WAS WHETHER THE LIABILITY WAS CRYSTALLISED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR .RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF KAMANI METAL PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.(208ITR107),INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,( 151ITR446),MOLASSES CO.LTD.(37ITR66),NAINITAL BANK LTD(62ITR638),TATA I RON & STEEL CO.LTD (231 ITR 285),HE HELD THAT WHERE THE LIABILITY HAS NOT CRYSTALLISED DURIN G THE PREVIOUS YEAR,THE LOSS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE,THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING MARK-TO-MARKET LOS S RS.15,21,055/-. 4.2. BEFORE US,AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FAA HAD NOT APPRECI ATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE CORRECTLY,THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH THE FLUCTUATION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE, THAT MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA.DR ALSO AGREED THAT MATTERS NEEDED FURTHER VERIFICATION BY THE FAA.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER SHOULD BE RE STORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US,GROUND NO.5 WAS NOT PRESSED,HENCE,SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 1 2 '1+ 3 4 0 5+ ( + 67. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. 0 ( -.# 9 29 UOACJ UOACJ UOACJ UOACJ .2013 . ( /. SD/- SD/- ( . . . B.R.MITTAL ) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, :' /DATE: 29.11.2013 SK 0 0 0 0 ( (( ( &+; &+; &+; &+; < ;#+ < ;#+ < ;#+ < ;#+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ = > , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / = > 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ;?/ &+' . , ,, , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / @ . ';+ &+ //TRUE COPY// 0' / BY ORDER, A / 6 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.