PARLE BISLERI P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT C.C.25, MUMBAI

ITA 3135/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56313 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P ARTH SARATHI NAIK
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5522/MUM/2009 & ITA NO.3135/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08) PARLE BISLERI (P) LTD., A.C.I.T (CC) WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY AAYAKAR BHAVAN CHAKAL, ANDHERI (E) MK ROAD MUMBAI 400 099 VS. MUMBAI 400020 PAN AABCA 2056 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PARTHSARATHI NAIK, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 26/12/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: /12/2011 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE BY ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y 2006- 07 AND 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT (CENTRAL)-V, MUMB AI RESPECTIVELY DATED 21.07.2009 AND 24.02.2010. SINCE THE ISSUES A RE COMMON, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DECIDED AS UN DER. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI VIJAY MEHTA AND LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI PARTHS ARATHI NAIK. 3. ISSUE NO.1: INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF 21.96 LAKHS FOR A.Y 2006-07 AND RS. 2,52,219/- FOR A.Y 2007-08 . THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED AS GROUND NO.1 IN BOTH APPEAL S. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE PRESENT ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESS EE HAS ADVANCED CERTAIN FUNDS TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED OUT OF B ORROWED FUNDS. IN ADDITION, ASSESSEE ALSO HAD INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND THE ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 2 OF 9 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE ALSO DIVERTED TO INVESTMENTS IN SHARES. THUS TWO TYPES O F DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. 3.2 A) INTEREST DISALLOWANCE ON ADVANCES: AO LIST ED THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED AND ARRIVED AT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 4% OF T HE AMOUNTS ADVANCED OUT OF THE TOTAL FUNDS THEREBY DISALLOWING THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. THE AMOUNTS OF INTERESTS INVOLVED IN ADVAN CES TO SISTER CONCERN WERE RS. 1,58,651/- FOR A.Y 1996-97 AND 24,707/- IN A.Y 2007-08. AS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED THE FOLLOWING SUMS TO ITS SIS TER CONCERN: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07: NAME OF THE COMPANY AMOUNT( ) PARLE SOFTWARE LTD 4,00,000 PARLE PLASTIC LTD 1,08,63,631 PARLE HEALTH PRODUCTS LTD 21,00,062 PARLE FRUITS & FOODS LTD 1,10,72,751 TOTAL 2,44,36,44 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08: NAME OF THE COMPANY AMOUNT( ) PARLE SOFTWARE LTD 4,00,000 PARLE PLASTIC LTD 99,88,631 PARLE FRUITS & FOODS LTD 1,10,99,318 TOTAL 2,14,87,949 3.3 ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAS SUFFICIENT CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF MORE THAN 80/- CRORES AND THESE AMOUNTS WERE ADVANCED LONG BACK DUE TO VARIOUS BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS AND AT THE TIME THE FUNDS WERE ADVANCED, ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BOR ROWED FUNDS ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 3 OF 9 AND SO NO DISALLOWANCE WAS REQUIRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCES BY PROPORTIONATELY WORKING THE AMOUNTS WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY AROUND 4.06% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT BORROWED BY THE COMPANY. BEFORE THE CIT (A) ASSESSE E CONTENDED THAT THE FUNDS WERE ADVANCED IN EARLIER YEARS AND T HAT THE ADVANCES HAVE CAME DOWN DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS FOR A.Y 2004-05 BY THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE. 3.4 B) INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS: INVOKING RULE 8 D ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,37,325 IN AY 2006-07 AND RS.2,27,512 IN AY 2007-08 WHICH CIT(A) CONFIRMED DI FFERING FROM HIS PREDECESSOR ORDERS IN AY 2004-05 AND AY 2005-06 . 4. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE FUNDS ARE ADVANCED O UT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO ADVA NCE THE AMOUNT AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES LTD 310 ITR 340 (BOM.). FURTHER IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT (A) IN A .Y 2004-05 GAVE FINDING THAT THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO PARLE PLASTIC LT D AND PARLE HEALTH PRODUCTS LTD WERE GIVEN BEFORE THE YEAR 2000 WHEN T HERE WAS NO BORROWING AND THEREFORE, THE FUNDS WERE ADVANCED OU T OF ITS OWN FUNDS. WITH REFERENCE TO THE PARLE FRUITS & FOODS L TD, THERE ARE FUNDS THAT WERE ADVANCED OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NOT B ORROWED FUNDS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE ORDERS O F THE ASSESSMENT AND THE FINDINGS OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL IN A.Y 2005- 06 ON THE ISSUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCES ARE FROM OWN FUNDS IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE AMOUNT OF 4.00 LAKHS TO PARLE SOFTWARE LTD ALSO WAS ADVANCED OUT OF IT OWN FUNDS BUT NOT BORROWED FUNDS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE NO FRESH ADVANCES DURING THE YEAR AND THE CIT (A) DIFFERED F ROM THE ORDERS OF THE EARLIER YEARS WITHOUT GIVING ANY PROPER REASON WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE. ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 4 OF 9 5. WITH REFERENCE TO THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES, THE LEA RNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) IN THE EARLIER YEARS 2004- 05 AND 2005-06 FURTHER SUPPORTED BY THE ORDERS OF T HE ITAT IN A.Y 2005-06 TO SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUND S OF ITS OWN FOR INVESTMENT AND THERE IS NO DIVERSION OF BORROWED FU NDS TO INVESTMENT IN SHARES. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HOWEVER, RE LIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT (A) TO SUBMIT THAT WHE N ASSESSEE HAD INVESTMENT IN SHARES, DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS R EQUIRED AS PER RULE 8D WHICH AO INVOKED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) IN A.Y 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AN D THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT IN 2005-06 WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF SIMILAR NATURE OUT OF THE INTEREST CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AY 2004-05 AND AY 2005-06. THE DISALLOWANCES MADE IN A.Y 2004-05 INVOKING SECT ION 14A WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 76,76,199/-. VIDE FINDINGS IN PARA 4 & 5 OF THE CIT (A) ORDER IN THAT YEAR, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT ASS ESSEE HAD ITS OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING THE ADVANCES AND INVESTMENTS AN D THERE WAS NO DIVERSION OF BORROWED FUNDS. THERE WAS ALSO FINDING THAT THERE WERE NO BORROWALS IN THE YEAR IN WHICH FUNDS WERE ADVANC ED AND INVESTMENTS WERE MADE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SE TTLED PROPOSITION OF THE LAW, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM INTEREST OUT OF THE BORROWED FUNDS WHICH ARE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. W ITHOUT GOING INTO THE LEGAL PROVISIONS ON FACTS ITSELF IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESSEES ADVANCES SO MADE WHICH WERE IN FACT COMI NG DOWN YEAR AFTER YEAR AND THE INVESTMENT MADE WERE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS. SIMILAR FINDINGS WERE GIVEN IN A.Y 2004-05 BY THE C IT (A) ON WHICH REVENUE HAS NOT CAME IN APPEAL IN THAT YEAR AND BY THE CIT(A) AND ITAT IN A.Y 2005-06 WHEN REVENUE CONTESTED. THEREFO RE, ON MERITS THERE IS NO ISSUE FOR DISALLOWANCE OF ANY INTEREST BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ADVANCES AND INVESTMENTS IN SHARES FROM OW N FUNDS. ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 5 OF 9 CONSEQUENTLY, THE INTEREST CLAIM ON BORROWED FUNDS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 36( 1)(III). WE ALSO NOTICE THAT WITHOUT ANY PROBABLE REASON THE CIT (A) DIFFERED FROM THE FINDINGS OF HIS PREDECESSOR CIT(A), IN CONFIRMI NG THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE SE REASONS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE AMOUNTS A S CLAIMED. GROUND NO.1 IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS ALLOWED. 8. ISSUE NO.2: DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A: ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 18,35 ,874/- IN A.Y 2006-07 AND RS. 43,62,186/- IN A.Y 2007-08. INV OKING THE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D(2)(III), THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 16,44,641/- IN A.Y 2006 -07 AND RS. 18,23,631/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT INVOKING RU LE 8D IN THIS YEAR DOES NOT ARISE AS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG CO 328 ITR 81 (BOM). THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE REASONABLE AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A IS FIXED TO 5% OF THE DIVIDEND AS DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN VARIOUS DECISI ONS MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF M/S P.N. WRITER & CO. P VT. LTD., VS. ADD. CIT IN ITA NOS.4388 & 4390/MUM/2010 DATED 14 TH OCTOBER, 2011. 9. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED % OF THE AVERAGE VALUATION OF THE INVESTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THESE ARE RELATABLE TO EARNING OF I NCOME. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED FROM SURPLUS FUNDS, WE HOLD THAT NO PART OF INTEREST IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A. MOREOVER R ULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS YEAR AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG CO 328 ITR 81 (BOM). IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE ME T IF 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE IS DISALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOM E. THUS, WE ALLOW ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 6 OF 9 THESE GROUNDS IN PART AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TO DISALLOW ONLY 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS EXPENDITURE RELAT ABLE TO EARNING THAT INCOME UNDER SECTION 14A. GROUNDS NO 2 IN BOTH APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. ISSUE NO.3. DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SOFTWARE CHA RGES OF RS. 8,604/- IN A.Y 2006-07 AND RS. 11,785/- IN A.Y 2007-08 . ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE FOR PURCHA SE OF SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION TO THE BLOCK OF AS SETS EXPENDITURE ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS CAPITA L EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AT 60%. THE NET DIFFER ENCE WAS ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED. THESE AMOUNTS WERE CONFIRME D BY THE CIT (A). 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CONSIDE RING THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT AND THE FACT THAT IN OTHER A.YS SIMILAR ACTION WAS TAKEN, WE DO NOT INTEND TO DISTURB THE F INDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A). THEREFORE, THE G ROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 12. ISSUE NO.4. ADDITION OF UNUTILIZED MODVAT AS ON 31.3.2006 (RS. 3.75 LAKHS) IN A.Y 2006-07 AND RS. 1 ,272/- IN A.Y 2007-08. THE ISSUE IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE UNUTILIZED MODVA T IN WHICH SIMILAR GROUNDS WERE RAISED IN BOTH THE YEARS . FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, GROUND NO.4 IN A.Y 2006-07 ARE EXTRACTED B ELOW: GROUND NO.4.ADDITION OF UNUTILIZED MODVAT AS ON 31.3.2006 ( .3.75 LAKHS). 4.1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITI ON OF RS. 3.75 LAKHS TO THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS IN RESPECT OF UN-AVAILED CENVAT (MODAVT) BALANCE AS AT YEAR END UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE AC T. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE NET MET HOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR CENVAT (MODVAT) AND THEREBY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE TAX NEUTRAL EFFECT OF SECTION 145A . ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 7 OF 9 4.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASIS TO THE ABOVE AND WITHOU T ADMITTING, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,74,988/- WITH RESPECT TO UNUTILIZED BALANCE AS AT YEAR END COULD HAVE BEEN M ADE ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING SIMILAR UNUTILIZED OPENING B ALANCE OF RS. 10,83,012/-. THUS THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF SIMILAR UNUTILIZED MODVAT BAL ANCE OF RS. 10,83,012/- IN RESPECT OF OPENING STOCK. 4.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASIS TO THE ABOVE AND WITHOU T ADMITTING, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THAT THE EXCISE DUTY LIABILITY OF RS. 85,223/- ARIS ING AFTER ADJUSTING MODVAT CREDIT AS ON 31.3.2006 WAS ALREADY PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF IN COME, THEREFORE, IT IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 43B. 4.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND WITHOUT ADMITTING, ADDITION MADE TO CLOSING STOCK BE DIRECT ED TO BE GRANTED AS DEDUCTION BY WAY OF ENHANCED OPENING STOCK OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 13. THE ISSUE ADDITION UNDER 145A WAS DECIDED IN A.Y 20 04-05 AND ALSO IN A.Y 2005-06 INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A AND MAKING THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLOSING STOCK VALUA TION. THE GRIEVANCE IS MAINLY NOT WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITION, BUT ABOUT NOT GIVING CREDIT TO THE OPENING STOCK VALUATION WHICH WAS DISTURBED IN THE LAST YEAR BY MAKING AN ADDITION TO CLOSING STOC K. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A) REFUSED TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE RESPECTIVE A.YS AS OPENING STOCK IN THE SUCCEEDING A.YS. IF DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT, ASSESSE E HAS NO GRIEVANCE ON THE ISSUE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THIS ASPECT MAY BE RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF MODVAT . 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND EXAMINI NG THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A), WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION PE R SE UNDER SECTION 145A WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) IN A.Y 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HA S NO GRIEVANCE ON THE ADDITION ON UNUTILIZED MODVAT AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE AMOUNT ADDED IN A.Y 2005-06 AS UNUTILIZED ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 8 OF 9 MODVAT WAS NOT ALLOWED AS OPENING CREDIT IN THE A.Y 2006-07 WHILE CALCULATING THE ADDITION FOR THIS YEAR. SIMILARLY T HE AMOUNT ADDED IN THE YEAR AY 2006-07 WAS NOT GIVEN CREDIT IN A.Y 200 7-08 WHILE WORKING OUT THE ADDITION FOR THAT YEAR. AS MENTIONE D BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE WORKING OF THE MODV AT CREDIT WAS NOT CLEAR IN THE SENSE THAT WHETHER THE OPENING STO CK WAS TAKEN AS PER THE BOOK VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK OR AS PER T HE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE CLOSING STOCK VALUA TION IN ASSESSMENTS. SINCE THE ORIGINAL ADDITION WAS MADE I N A.Y 2040-05, WHICH WAS IN FACT FOLLOWED IN A.Y 2005-06, WE DIREC T THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE RECORD AND ALLOW THE CONSEQUE NTIAL BENEFIT OF CREDIT OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS SUSTAINED IN A.Y 200 5-06 WHILE WORKING OUT THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 145A IN AY 2 006-07. SIMILARLY IF ANY ADDITION ON VALUATION WAS MADE TO THE CLOSING STOCK IN A.Y 2006-07, THE SAME HAS TO BE GIVEN CREDIT IN A.Y 2007-08. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ISSUE OF WORKING IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO ACCORDINGLY. ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY BEFORE DECIDING ISSUE. THE GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2011. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) ITA NOS.5522 OF 09 AND 3135 OF 2010 PARLE BILERI PVT LTD MUMBAI PAGE 9 OF 9 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.12.11 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.12.11 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 27.12.11 JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 27.12.11 AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS 28.12.11 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30.12.11 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 30.12.11 SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER