SHRI SURESH R. SHAH, V. THE ITO WD 24(2)(2),

ITA 3012/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2238 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 30-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L K AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIIPUL B JOSHI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69C; 40A(3); 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGRAWAL, (JUDICIAL MEMBER), AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 DATE OF HEARING 30.3.2010 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH, C-14/14, BHADRAN NAGAR S.V. ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI 400 097 PAN AAGPS6593Q .. APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, 24(2)(2), C-13, R.NO. 604 PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051 RESPONDENT ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER, 24(2)(2), C-13, R.NO. 604, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051 .. APPELLANT VS SHRI SURESH R. SHAH, C-14/14, BHADRAN NAGAR S.V. ROAD, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI 400 097, PAN AAGPS6593Q RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI L.K. AGRAWAL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIIPUL B. JOSHI ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [2] O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR A.M. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A)S O RDER DATED 16 TH MARCH 2007, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE PARTIES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- BY THE ASSESSEE 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDI TION OF RS.28,75,017/- ON THE BASIS OF AN ASSUMED GROSS PRO FIT WHILE CANCELING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF AL LEGED BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.33,85,515/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AN D OF RS.36,65,423/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO PARTIES FOR DISCHARI NG LIABILITIES FOR PURCHASES AND OTHER LIABILITIES TREATING THE SAME A S UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C TOTALING TO RS.70,50,938/-. 1.2 WHILE THERE WAS NO OPENING AND/OR CLOSING STOCK AND THE SALES WERE ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. WHILE PASSING THE ORIGINA L ORDER AND THE PURCHASES WERE FULLY ACCEPTED BY HIM IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION BY APPLY ING AN ASSUMED GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 30% OF TOTAL TURNOVER. 1.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO CONTENTION IN PARA 1.2 THA T NO ASSUMPTION COULD BE MADE IN RESPECT OF GROSS PROFIT, THE ASSUM PTION MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO AT 30% IS ABNORMALLY HIGH WHEN THE MEAN RATE OF GROSS PROFIT PREVAILING THE LINE OF BUSINESS THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN AND WHICH IS NORMALLY E ARNED BY SIMILAR SIZED BUSINESS IS IN THE RANGE OF 1.00% TO 1.25%. 1.4 WHILE DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF U NEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING T HE PAYMENTS MADE TO THIRD PARTIES AS PER THE MARKET PRICE AS THE BASIS FOR SUPPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE EVEN WHEN EACH AND EVERY PAYMENT MADE T O THIRD PARTIES WAS CORRELATED TO PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANTS. ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [3] BY THE REVENUE 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT GROSS PROFIT AT 30% AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 3. THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS LIT IGATION, ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF NYLON, POLYES TER, BLENDED COTTON AND RAYON YARN ON 27 TH NOVEMBER 2003, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF IN COME DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.62,980/-. THIS INCOME TAX RETURN WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). IN THE ENSUING ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 133(6) TO THE VENDORS FR OM WHOM PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THER E WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE SAME AS THESE WERE RETURNED UNDELIVERED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD LOST ALL BOOK S OF ACCOUNT, INCLUDING PURCHASE BILLS AND SALES INVOICES, STATEMENT OF EXPENSES AND OTHER VOUCHERS, AND A POLICE CERTIFICATE TO THAT EFFECT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUISITIONED DETAILS OF PAYM ENTS, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, DIRECTLY FROM HIS BANKER I.E., MALAD, SAH KARI BANK LTD. (MALAD WEST BRANCH). A LIST OF THE PERSON TO WHOM PAYMENTS WERE MADE BUT WHOSE NAMES WERE NOT APPEARING IN LIST OF PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASE S WERE MADE, SHOWED PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS.36,65,423/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQ UIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THESE PAYMENTS NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPEND ITURE, AND, ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION BE MADE U/S 69C. ONCE AGAIN, THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WAS THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE LOST DUE TO HEAVY RAINFALL AND WATER LOGGING AND SUBMITTED POLICE CERTIFICATE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION. ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [4] 5. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO, INTER-ALIA, MAKE ADDITION BY TAKING GROSS PROFIT AT RS.34,46,49 5/- (AFTER DISALLOWING BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.33,83,515/-) AND BY ADDING UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,65,423/-. AGGRIEVED BY, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, THE ADDITIONS NARRATED ABOVE, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A). THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.28,75,017/- ON THE FO LLOWING BASIS:- 5.1 GROUND NOS.5.1 TO 5.6 ARE TAKEN AGAINST DISALL OWANCE OF PURCHASES OF RS.33,85,515/-. GROUND NOS.7.1 TO 7.6 ARE TAKEN AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.36,65,423/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITU RE. THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.98,75,972/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.33,85,515/- OUT OF THE ABOVE AS THE G ENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE PROVED BEFORE HIM. THE EX PENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS MAINLY ON PURCHASES. HE HAD INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.62 ,980/- ONLY APART FROM THE PURCHASES OF RS.98,75,972/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT PAYMENTS OF RS.36,65,423/- WERE MADE TO VARIOUS PAR TIES WHOSE NAMES WERE NOT FIGURING IN THE LIST OF PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASE WERE MADE. AS PROPER EXPLANATION WAS NOT GIVEN BEFORE HIM, HE ADDED IT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 5.2 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINING THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING OPP ORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. HE REPORTED VIDE REMAND REPORTS DATED 18 /01/2007 AND 19/02/2007 THAT THE APPELLANT FILED CONFIRMATIONS O F PURCHASES BEFORE HIM. HE DID NOT MADE ANY COMMENT ON THE AUTHENTICIT Y OF SUCH CONFIRMATIONS. ON PAYMENTS HE REPORTED VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 18/01/2007 THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE ANY CO NFIRMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS:- KANTILAL & CO. RS.1,02,500/ - NALIN SYNTEX RS.4,13,220/ - SARAF TRADERS RS. 37,800/ - LALIT SILK MILLS RS.1,76,379/ - MUKTESHWAR YARNS RS. 97,924/ - ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [5] BACHUBHAI SALES RS. 45,000/ - RAJESHWARI TEX RS. 50,000/ - SONAIN SILK MILLS RS.13,000/ -- BALAJI EBOIRDER RS.70,101/ - SATYAM ENT. RS.10,000/ - MAHIM TRADERS RS.76,897/ - RAJENDRA TRADERS RS.27,500/ - RAHUL TRADERS RS.19,876/ - RAM ENTERPRISES RS.47,500/ - AMAN TEX. RS. 4,500/ - ANYAR ENT. RS.39,975/ - SUMER ENT. RS.32,500/ - UARSHI ENT. RS.51,475/ - RASUL TRADERS RS.30,000/ - GAURAV SYNTEX RS.15,534/ - ERS. EINM SYNTEX RS.87,771/ - TIMIR TRADING RS.47,900/ - HAMID ENT. RS.38,254/ - T LATI TRADERS RS.47,335/ - HASAN TRADERS RS.38,783/ - THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT HE DID NOT MAKE PAYMENTS TO THEM DIRECTLY. HE GAVE CHEQUES TO PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE. THE CHEQUES WERE ENDORSED TO AND ENCASHED BY THIRD PARTIES. HE REQUESTED SOME MORE TIME TO FIND OUT THE EXACT PART ICULARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY OPINED THAT THE NATURE AN D PARTICULARS OF TRANSACTIONS OF RS.16,21,724/- COULD NOT BE EXAMIN ED BY THE APPELLANT. HE AGAIN REPORTED VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 19/02/20 07 THAT THE APPELLANT GAVE ONLY BLANK CHEQUES TO PURCHASE PARTI ES AND THE CHEQUES WERE ENCASHED BY THIRD PARTIES. THE APPELLANT FILED LIST OF PARTIES WHO ENCASHED THE CHEQUES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND D ISCREPANCIES THEREIN. THE PURCHASE FROM GEE PEE ENTERPRISES AMOUNTED TO R S.3,15,437/-. ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [6] IT WAS CLAIMED THAT CHEQUES WERE ENCASHED BY KANTI LAL & CO. (RS.1,02,500/-), RAJENDRA TRADERS (RS.27,500/-) AND ANJAR ENTERPRISES (RS.39,975/-) IN RESPECT OF THAT PURCHASE. THE TOTA L PAYMENT CAME TO RS.1,69,975/- ONLY AS AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF RS.3, 15,437/-. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT W AS REQUESTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO FURNISH THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF GOODS PURCHASED AND SOLD WITH PROPER EVIDENCE. HE COULD NOT FURNISH SO ON THE PLEA THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS WERE DESTROYED IN RA INS OF 28/07/2005. 5.3 LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CROSS CHEQUES DRAWN IN THE NAMES OF PURCHASE PARTIES. MANY A TIME S, THE CHEQUES WERE ENDORSED BY SUCH PARTIES IN FAVOUR OF THIRD PARTIES AS PRE PREVALENT PRACTICE. SO, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO KEEP TRACK OF SUC H PAYMENTS. THIRD PARTY PAYMENT WOULD NOT EQUAL TO VALUE OF PURCHASES IF AL L CHEQUES WERE NOT ENDORSED. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE DISCR EPANCY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH ANY EVIDENCE. HE FURT HER STATED THAT ALL PAYMENTS WERE GENUINE AND SO SECTION 69C CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THEM. 5.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUB MISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. IN THE CASE OF GENUINE PURCHAS ES, GOODS ARE TAKEN FROM THE SELLERS AND PAYMENTS ARE MADE TO THEM. IN CASE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY CHEQUES, NORMALLY THE AMOUNTS ARE DEBITED T O THE BANK AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY ARE CREDITED IN THE BANK A CCOUNTS OF THE SELLERS. HERE, GOODS ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM SOME PARTIES AND CHEQUES ARE ENCASHED BY THIRD PARTIES, NOT HAVING A NY BUSINESS RELATIONS WITH HIM. THIS WAS NOT IN ONE OR TWO CASES. THIS HA D HAPPENED IN DOZENS OF CASES. THE PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS COULD NOT BE P ROPERLY RECONCILED EITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT ALSO FAILED TO FILE THE QUANTITATIVE TALLY OF PURCHASES AND SALES. HE COULD NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SO, HE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRADING TRANSACT IONS. HOWEVER, I AGREE WITH LD. A.R., MR. VASA THAT THE ADDITIONS MA DE ON THESE ACCOUNTS WERE VERY HIGH AND GAVE ARBITRARY PROFIT. IN MY OPI NION, THE GROSS PROFIT @ 30% OF SALES WILL BE QUITE REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND NATURE AND VOLUME OF BUSINES S. THIS COMES TO RS.30,00,030/-. THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PUR CHASE AND PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.70,50,938/- IS REDUCED TO RS.28,75,017/- [RS.30,00,030/- LESS DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.1 ,25,013/-]. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.41,75,921/-. ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [7] 6. NONE OF THE PARTIES IS SATISFIED BY THE STAND SO TA KEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND BOTH OF THEM, I.E., THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE AS SESSING OFFICER, ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED OF THE G ROSS PROFIT RATE OF 30% HAVING BEEN ADOPTED, WHICH IS SAID TO BE HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND WHICH DISREGARDS ACTUAL PROFITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN D ELETED BY THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION AS AL SO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. 8. WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL BUT FOUR PARTIES FROM WHOM P URCHASES WERE MADE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE CONFIRMATI ONS SO FILED. HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOTED THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT MADE PAYMENTS FOR MANY OF THESE PURCHASES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES DRAWN ON A BANK OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT EVEN AS THE PAYMENTS EXCEED RS.20,000/-. EVEN ACCO RDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY CROSSED CHEQUES WHICH HAVE, HOWEVER, NOT BEEN MARKED AS ACCOUNT PAYEE . THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE PURCHASES ARE HELD TO BE GENUINE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) WILL, NEVERTHE LESS, HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CROSSED CHEQUE PAYMENTS WHICH WERE ENDORSED BY THE RECIPIEN TS, BUT A MERE CROSS CHEQUE DOES NOT SAVE ASSESSEE FROM DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) ; IT HAS TO BE AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. HOWEVER, SINCE ALL THESE ASPECTS HAVE NOT B EEN EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS THE DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED FOR OTHER R EASONS, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON THE DISALLOWANCES OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN T HE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [8] WE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE FRESH ADJUDICATION W ILL BE CONFINED TO ONLY SUCH ACCOUNTS AS WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO EX PAND THE SCOPE OF DISALLOWANCES AT THIS STAGE. WE ARE ALIVE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO ENHANCE THE SCOPE OF DISALLOWANCES, THOUGH, AS HELD BY SPEC IAL BENCH, IN THE CASE OF TATA COMMUNICATION LTD. VS JCIT, 121 ITD 384 (SB), ONCE THE TRIBUNAL IS CALLED UPON TO EXAMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE DUTY TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE REQUIRE MENT OF DEDUCTION ARE FULLY COMPLIED WITH. A USEFUL REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT O F HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HUKUMCHAND MILLS LTD. VS CIT, 63 ITR 232, M AY ALSO BE MADE IN THIS REGARD. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO RECONSIDER THE DISALLOWANCES FOR BOGUS PURCHASES. 9. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT, THE PAYMENTS ADDED BACK AS U NEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT EVEN ON MERITS, ASS ESSEE HAS RECONCILED THE PAYMENTS. THESE PERSONS HAVE COME INTO PLAY ONLY BE CAUSE CHEQUES WERE ENDORSED TO THEM BY THE RECIPIENTS. NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS ARE POINTED OUT IN THE RECONCILIATIONS. BEARING IN MIND ALL THESE FACTORS, AS ALSO ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE UPHOLD THE DELETION OF THIS ADDITION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). NO INTERFERENCE IS THUS CALLED FOR ON THIS COUNT. 10. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, THE MATTER IS REMITT ED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES SET OUT ABOVE. ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [9] 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 7 TH DAY OF MAY 2010. SD/- (D.K. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 7 TH DAY OF MAY 2010 COPIES OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT, MUMBAI (4) CIT(A), MUMBAI (5) DR, J BENCH (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ETC. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY MUMBAI BENCHES SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITA NO.4054/MUM./2007 ITA NO.3012/MUM./2007 SHRI SURESH R. SHAH [10] DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 3.5.2010 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 4.5.2010 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4.5.2010 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 4.5.2010 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 4.5.2010 SR.PS/PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 7.5.2010 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER