SAMBHAVANATH INVESTMENT, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

ITA 3109/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72014 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK SURI
• Assessee Lawyers: F V IRANI
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 133A; 131; 148; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E B ENCH, MUMBAI . . , , !'# , $ % BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAI YA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.3109/MUM/2011 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 M/S.SAMBHAVNATH INVESTMENT SHOP NO. 213, 2 ND FLOOR, KAKAD MARKET, 306, KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-46, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ' $ ./ () ./PAN/GIR NO. : ( '* /APPELLANT ) .. ( +,'* / RESPONDENT ) '* - / APPELLANT BY : ` SHRI F.V. IRANI +,'* . - /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHOK SURI . /0$ / DATE OF HEARING :19.12.2013 12& . /0$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :31.12.2013 3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-38, MUMBAI DT. 17.1.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 3 SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITH SUB GROUNDS. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 2,53,33,000/- MADE ITA NO.3109/M/2011 2 BY THE AO TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DISALLOWING LOSSES INCURRED IN TRADING IN COMMODITIES FUTURES TREATING THE TRANSACTIONS AS NOT GENUINE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER AND SPECULATOR IN SHARE S, SECURITIES, DERIVATIVES AND COMMODITIES FUTURES FOLLOWING MERCA NTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE RETURN WAS FILED U/S. 139(1) ON 23.10.2006 DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 39,95, 520/-. A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN CO MMODITY MARKET GROUP OF CASES ON 19.6.2007. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND DATA PERTAINING TO TR ADE MODIFICATIONS AND CLIENT CODE CHANGES OF THE BROKERS. THESE DATAS WE RE COLLECTED FROM M/S. MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE INDIA LTD. (MCX) AND M/S. NATIONAL COMMODITY EXCHANGE OF INDIA (NCDEX) IN COMMODITY TR ADE. SUBSEQUENT TO THESE SEARCH OPERATIONS, SURVEY PROCE EDINGS U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE ON 25.3.2008. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 35,22,000/-. ACCORDING LY, NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPON SE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING T OTAL INCOME AT RS. 75,17,520/- WHICH INCLUDED THE ORIGINAL RETURNED IN COME PLUS THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 35,22,000/- OFFERED FOR TA XATION DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CLIENT OF M/S. RIDDI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD (RSBL) W HO IS A MEMBER OF MCX. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE DATA COLLECTED DURING THE SURVEY CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISE S OF RSBL, IT WAS ITA NO.3109/M/2011 3 FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED THE PRACTICE OF PURCHASING LOSSES BY INDULGING IN PURCHASE OF COMMODITY AT HIGH PRICES AND SELLING IT IMMEDIATELY AT LOW PRICES. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE LARGE NUMBER OF CLIENT CODE MODIFICATIONS IN R ESPECT OF THE TRADES OF COMMODITY FUTURES IN MCX LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS ENTERED WITH MCX A LONGWITH THE DETAILS OF CLIENT CODE AND TRADE MODIFICATIONS IN THE COMMO DITY TRADE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF CONTRACT NOTES WERE COLLECTED FROM RSBL. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A LOSS OF RS. 2,88,55,000/-. 3.2. THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE HUGE CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION DURING THE YEAR RESULTING INTO LOSS OF RS. 2,88,55,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO PROVIDED THE LIST OF TRADES AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO SH OW CAUSE AS TO WHY ADDITION OF RS. 2,88,55,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED LOSS PURCHASED SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE M ADE ON RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE I.E. MCX THROUGH AUTHORIZED BROKER M /S. RIDDI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD (RSBL). THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED T HE CODE OF THE CONTRACT NOTE. TAKING A LEAF OUT OF THE SURRENDER OF RS. 35,22,000/-, THE AO WENT ON TO TREAT THE ENTIRE LOSS OF RS. 2,88,55, 000/- AS BOGUS AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STRONG LY CONTENDED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE E NGAGED IN TRADING OF ITA NO.3109/M/2011 4 COMMODITIES FUTURES IN GOLD AND HIGH DENSITY POLYET HYLENE (HDPE) THROUGH M/S. RIDDI SIDDHI BULLIONS LTD (RSBL) WHO I S AN AUTHORIZED BROKER OF MCX. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE PRICES OF COMMODITIES CAN CHANGE ON A WEEKLY OR EVEN DAILY BASIS. IF THE PRI CE GOES UP, THE BUYER OF THE FUTURES CONTRACT MAKES MONEY AND IF THE PRICE G OES DOWN, THE SELLER MAKES MONEY. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THE CI RCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE PARTNER SHRI KAPIL SHAH AGREED TO OFFER A SUM OF RS. 35.22 LAKHS AS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNTS SO OFFERED WERE SHOWN IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. ALL TH E DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE MCX ALONG WITH COPY OF CONTRA CT NOTE, BILL OF TRANSACTION AND BANK STATEMENTS WERE FILED. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE REGUL AR COURSE OF BUSINESS IN THE RECOGNIZED EXCHANGE THROUGH AUTHORIZED BROKER M /S. RSBL. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BE EN CONFIRMED BY RSBL AND ARE APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE BR OKER RSBL AND THE MCX. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DENIED THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MANIPULATED THE CLIENT CODE TO PURCHAS E LOSS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSE SSEE TO MODIFY THE CLIENT CODE BECAUSE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE BY THE AUTH ORIZED BROKER RSBL AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO POWER AND AUTHOR ITY TO MODIFY THE CLIENT CODE OF MCX. 4.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION S, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MODIFIED CLIENT CODE BY EXPLOITING THE WINDOW OF CLIENT COD E MODIFICATIONS AND TRADE MODIFICATIONS SO AS TO SET OFF SUCH LOSSES A GAINST THE PROFITS EARNED IN THE TRADES CARRIED OUT. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO CONVINCED THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE LOSS OF RS. 2,88,5 5,000/-. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO QUANTIFY THE DISALLO WANCE AT RS. ITA NO.3109/M/2011 5 2,53,33,000/- AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY ADDED RS. 35.22 LAKHS THE AMOUNT OFFERED DURING THE SURVEY IN ITS REVISED RET URN OF INCOME. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATION S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ENTIRE LOSS IS A BOGUS LOSS I S BASELESS. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT MERELY BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON ONE OF THE PARTNERS SHRI KAPIL SHAH OFFERED RS. 35.22 LAKHS AS ADDITION AL INCOME WOULD NOT IN ITSELF MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE LOSS OF RS. 28,85,73 8/- WOULD BECOME BOGUS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE D ETAILS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH RSBL HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE T HE AO ALONGWITH CONTRACT NOTES AND BANK STATEMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE REVOLVES AROUND THE ALLEGED T RANSACTION MADE ON 23.3.2006. HOWEVER, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER DONE ANY TRANSACTION ON 23.3 .32006. DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTRACT NOTE EXHIBITED AT PAGE-33 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS CONTRACT NOTE IS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ISSUED BY THE REGISTERED AUTHORIZED BROKER RSBL. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ALLEGATION THAT CLIENT COD E WAS MODIFIED IS BASELESS BECAUSE THE TRANSACTION WAS DONE IN THE NA ME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH ASSESSEES CODE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COU NSEL THAT IF FOR SOME REASON CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR T AXATION WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO MAKE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION A COLOURABLE DEV ICE. THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF KERALA VS C. VELUKUTTY 60 ITR 239 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF CERTAIN ADDITIONS ARE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SECRET BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE HEAD OFFICE RESULTING INTO A REASSESSMENT BY ADDING 135% OF THE TURNOVER WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT THE BRANCH PROFI T SHOULD ALSO BE INCREASED BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE BECAUSE THE DISCOV ERY OF SECRET ACCOUNT ITA NO.3109/M/2011 6 IN THE HEAD OFFICE DID NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT A CORRESPONDING SET OF SECRET ACCOUNTS WILL MAINTAIN IN THE BRANCH OFFICE. THE LD. COUNSEL CONCLUDED THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS ARE SUPPORTE D BY PROPER CONTRACT NOTES, BILLS AND BANK STATEMENTS AND THE REVENUE AU THORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY COGENT MATERIAL EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO DISBELIEF THESE TRANSACTIONS EXCEPT MERELY BY SURMISES AND CONJECTU RES, THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SU PPORTING THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO COMMODITY MARKET ONLY IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2 006 I.E. FAG END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND BOOKED A LOSS OF MORE THAN 2.88 CRORES ONLY TO SET OFF ITS PROFITS. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. DR THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS FINANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSESSEE STOPPED CARRYING OUT A NY BUSINESS OF TRADING IN DERIVATIVES AND COMMODITIES FUTURES. THIS CLEAR LY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE BUSINESS ONLY IN THE MONTH OF 200 6 TO BOOK HEAVY LOSSES BY MODIFYING THE CLIENT CODE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. DR THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US. THE AO HAS ANNEXED TH E TRANSACTIONS OF RSBL WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ENTIRE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES REVOLVES AROUND THE MODI FICATION IN CLIENT CODE BY THE ASSESSEE SO THAT IT COULD BOOK LOSSES. AT T HIS STAGE, WE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND HOW CAN THE ASSESSEE MODIFY THE CLIENT C ODE OR THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSACTED BY THE AUTH ORIZED BROKER RSBL ON MCX. A PERSON TRANSACTING THROUGH A REGISTERED BROKER CANNOT HAVE ANY EXCESS TO THE TERMINAL OF THE REGISTERED BROKER WITH THE EXCHANGE BE IT ITA NO.3109/M/2011 7 STOCK EXCHANGE OR COMMODITY EXCHANGE. THUS THE ALL EGATIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MODIFIED THE CLIENT CODE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BASIS. ON THE CONTRARY, THE TRANSACTI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RSBL WHO IN TURN HAS TRANSACTED WITH MCX ARE SUPPOR TED BY VARIOUS CONTRACT NOTES. WE ALSO FIND THAT HEAVY RELIANCE H AS BEEN PLACED ON THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS SHRI KAPIL SHAH WH O HAS OFFERED RS. 35.22 LAKHS IN THE COURSE OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS ARE QUESTION NO. 9 AND 10 WH ICH READ AS UNDER: Q.9. HAVE YOU EVER REQUESTED RSBL TO CHANGE THE CLI ENT CODES OF TRANSACTION FROM ONE TO ANOTHER? ANS. NO, I HAVE NOT REQUESTED FOR ANY CHANGE. Q.10. I AM SHOWING YOU THE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS CLA IMED TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY YOU IN HDPEHM ON 23.3.2006, RESULTING IN LOSS OF 35.22 LAKHS. KINDLY GO THROUGH THE SAME AN D GIVE YOUR COMMENTS. PLEASE TELL ME THE SEQUENCE OF EVE NTS LEADING TO THIS TRANSACTION. ANS. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS S HOWN BY YOU. THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE BY ME IN THE DEALING R OOM OF RSBL. HOWEVER, I AM UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THEM FULLY A ND SUBSTANTIATE THESE TRANSACTIONS. IN ORDER TO BUY P EACE, AVOID LITIGATION AND PENALTIES, I OFFER THE SUM OF RS. 35 .22 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 8. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN A LEAF OUT OF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 10 AND HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THA T THE ENTIRE LOSS IS OUTCOME OF A COLOURABLE DEVICE. HOWEVER, AT THE SA ME TIME, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE COMPLETELY IGNORED THE ANSWER TO Q UESTION NO. 9 WHEREIN THE PARTNER HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED OF HAVING MADE ANY REQUEST FOR ANY CHANGE IN CLIENT CODE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CAN NOT BLOW HOT AND COLD IN THE SAME BREATH. IF THEY BELIEVE TO ANSWER ONE QUESTION, THEY MUST ALSO BELIEVE TO ANSWER ANOTHER QUESTION IN THE SAME STAT EMENT. EVEN IF FOR THE ITA NO.3109/M/2011 8 SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONE ACCEPTS THAT THESE TRANSACTION S ARE COLOURABLE DEVICE THAN ALSO ONE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS PAID A MARGIN MONEY OF RS. 2.90 CRORES TO RSBL WHICH IS EVIDENT F ROM THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF RSBL EXHIBITED AT PAGE-52 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE LOSSES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A LLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THIS LINE OF BUSINESS ONL Y IN THE MONTH OF MARCH TO BOOK BOGUS LOSSES ALSO DOES NOT STAND ON ITS OWN FOOT BECAUSE IT IS THE WISDOM OF A PERSON THAT WHEN HE WANTS TO ENTER INTO COMMODITY MARKET AND WANT TO EXIT AND IF THE PERSON MAKES HEAVY LOSS ES, IT IS HIS PRUDENCE TO CONTINUE OR EXIT. ONE MORE IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THIS TRANSACTION IS THAT ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH RECOG NIZED EXCHANGE. NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DEF Y THESE TRANSACTIONS BY ANY DENIAL FROM THE EXCHANGE AUTHORITIES NOR THE RE IS ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE BROKER RSBL HAS DENIED TO H AVE ENTERED INTO THESE TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF KERALA VS C. VELUKUTTY(SUPRA) IS WELL FOUNDED INASMUCH AS MERELY BECAUSE THE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN RES PECT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO MAKE ALL OTHER TR ANSACTIONS WHICH ARE WELL SUPPORTED BY CONTRACT NOTES AS BOGUS. CONSIDE RING ALL THE FACTS AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE US, W E HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY E RRED IN DISCARDING THE CLINCHING EVIDENCES ON RECORD. THE ENTIRE ADDITION S HAVE BEEN MADE ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WHICH ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,53,33,000/- IS TO BE DELETED . THE AO IS DIRECTE D ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO. 1 AND ITS SUB GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.3109/M/2011 9 9. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 2 34B AND 234C OF THE I.T. ACT. THE LEVY OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY THOUGH CONSEQUENTIAL. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO CHARGE INTEREST AS PE R PROVISIONS OF LAW. 10. THE NEXT GROUND RELATES TO THE INITIATION OF PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THIS GROUND IS PREMATURE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.12.2013 . 3 . 2& $ 4 56 31.12.2013 2 . 7 SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL ) (N. K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 5 DATED 31.12.2013 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS 3 3 3 3 . .. . +/ +/ +/ +/ 8 &/ 8 &/ 8 &/ 8 &/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,'* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. :7 +/ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7; < / GUARD FILE. 3 3 3 3 / BY ORDER, , / +/ //TRUE COPY// = == = / > > > > ( ( ( ( (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI