DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI V. DECCAN ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 3193/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0863 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

1 DECCAN ENTERPRISES IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA ( ACCOUNT MEMBER) ITA NO. 3193/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) DY.CIT 19(3), MUMBAI V/S DECCAN ENTERPRISES FLAT NO.1A, HILL TOP SOCIETY PALI HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W) MUMBAI PAN : AAAFD2751M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 3153/MUM/2013 - AY 2001-02 ITA NO. 3610/MUM/2013 - AY 2001-02 DECCAN ENTERPRISES FLAT NO.1A, HILL TOP SOCIETY PALI HILL ROAD, BANDRA (W) MUMBAI V/S DY.CIT 19(3), MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI K GOPAL REVENUE BY MS NEHA PARANJAPE / SHRI PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 17.04.2017 DATE OF ORDER 26 .04.2017 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, AM:- 2 DECCAN ENTERPRISES THESE CROSS APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESS EE INVOLVING COMMON AND OVERLAPPING ISSUES, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOG ETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THESE APPEALS ARE ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF APPEAL EFFE CT ORDERS PASSED IN THE SECOND ROUND BY THE AO, AS A RESULT OF ISSUES S ET ASIDE BY THE ITAT TO THE FILE OF AO IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION. IN T HE FIRST ROUND, TWO SEPARATE ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISPOSING OF REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS DISPOS ED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 03-02-2009 IN ITA NO.3805/MUM/2005 WHER EAS ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 14 -02-2010 IN ITA NO.4112/MUM/2005. IN PURSUANCE TO THESE ORDERS TWO SEPARATE ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE AO GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOTED BY US THAT OVERLAPPING HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO WHIL E PASSING APPEAL EFFECT ORDERS. THEREFORE, LOT OF CONFUSION HAD ARISEN WHI LE APPRECIATING THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID THREE APPEALS BEFORE US. HOWEVER, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNSELS OF BOTH THE SIDES REQUIR ED FACTS HAVE BEEN RETRIEVED AND THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS UNDER:- 3. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL IN ITA NO.3153/MUM/20 11 FILED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL A ND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING FULL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD I N THE MATTER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL A ND THAT TOO WITHOUT 3 DECCAN ENTERPRISES FULLY AND PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CA SE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.32,55,100/- AS 'GROSS PFIT FROM ADVANCES'. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS. 10,00,000/- AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN DISALLOWING INTEREST EXPENSE AMOUNTING TO RS. I,80, 000/- 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN NOT DEALING WITH THE GR OUND OF APPEAL NO. 8 OF THE APPEAL. 4. GROUNDS 1, 2, 3 & 7 ARE GENERAL AND NOTHING HAS BEEN ARGUED BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO THESE GROUNDS, THEREFORE, THESE ARE DISMISSED. 5. GROUND 4 : IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.32,55,10 0 BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE FIRST ROU ND, THIS ISSUE WAS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER D ATED 03-02-2009 BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 16. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE ABOVE FINDINGS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ONCE THE BASIC COST INVOLVED IN ANY PRO JECT IS RECOVERED THE SURPLUS WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY INCOME WHICH IS TO B E TAXED AS SUCH. MOREOVER, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT ACC ORDING TO ANY PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATION S OF THE LD. CIT(A) MADE ABOVE WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, AS SUCH FROM THE RECORD THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY OF THE AS PECTS BEFORE THE A.O. AND AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER THERE IS NON FURNISHING OF INFORMATION BEFORE THE AO. CONSEQUENTLY HE RESORTED TO ESTIMATION OF I NCOME. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO CAN BE RESTORED BACK TO THE AO TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRE SH BY GIVING 4 DECCAN ENTERPRISES ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ITS STAND ON METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND HOW INCOMES HAVE BEEN OFFERED. ACCOR DINGLY THE GROUND IS CONSIDERED ALLOWED AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BA CK TO THE AO TO CONSIDER IS AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE S HOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIMS. GR OUNDS ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 6 . IN PURSUANCE TO THE ABOVE SAID ORDER, THE AO PASS ED ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S. 254 DATED 29-12-2009. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO DECI DED THIS ISSUE EXPARTE REPEATING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE FIRST ROUND WITH OUT BRINGING ANY FRESH MATERIAL ON RECORD OR WITHOUT MAKING ANY DETAILED R EASONING AT ALL. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) A ND LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO WITHOUT GIVING ANY PROPER REASONING . IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND L D. CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, ON MERITS. IN ADD ITION TO THAT WHEN THE THIRD ORDER WAS PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 19-0 2-2013, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SECOND APPEAL EFFECT ORDER P ASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT DATED 29-12-2011, LD.CIT(A) D ECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT HERE ALSO, NO PROPER REASONING H AS BEEN GIVEN AS TO WHY RELIEF WAS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED ON THE SAME ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE COMMON THING BETWEEN THESE ORD ERS HAS BEEN THAT NO PROPER REASONING HAS BEEN GIVEN AND NO FACTUAL MATE RIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE PROPERLY. THUS, THE DI RECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER WHILE SENDING THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE F ILE OF AO HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED IN TRUE SPIRIT. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE SHALL EXTE ND REQUISITE COOPERATION TO THE AO AND SHALL FILE ALL NECESSARY DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE AO SHALL JUSTIFY HIS ACT ION OF ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF 5 DECCAN ENTERPRISES THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING A PART ICULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONSISTENTLY, THEN THE ACTION OF ESTIMATING THE INC OME SHALL BE RESORTED TO ONLY WHEN METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED DUE TO SOME COGENT REASONS. IN CASE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLO WED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF CONSISTENCY OR DU E TO ANY OTHER REASON, THEN THE AO SHALL HAVE NO POWERS TO COMPUTE THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ESTIMATION. IN ANY CASE, THE ISSUE SHALL BE DECIDE D BY THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE MATERIAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON OBJECTIVE BASIS. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THIS ISSUE IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND BE TREATED AS ALLOWED, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. GROUNDS 5 & 6 : IN THESE GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE ACTION OF LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.10 LAKHS AND CORRESPONDING AMOUNT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,80,000. 8. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND IS THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO SE NT BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN T HE SECOND ROUND, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE S HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. I N THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ALSO, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIR MED WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 6 6.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY LO AN CREDITORS FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, HE HAD PRODUCED THE BANK PAS SBOOK OF MS. AMINA S. MERCHANT. AS STATED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS NEI THER PRODUCED THE PARTIES FROM WHOM LOANS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIV ED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION, NOR FURNISHED BANK PASS BOOK OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND G ENUINENESS. IT WILL BE WORTHWHILE TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUALLY THE CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE LENDERS: (I) AMINA S. MERCHANT - RS.1,00,000/- : THE CREDITW ORTHINESS OF THE LENDER HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. (II) H.U. MERCHANT & K.H. MERCHANT RS.2,00,000/- AND RS.3,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY : CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. THE CREDITORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. FOR VER IFICATION / EXAMINATION. (III) ARIF FREED 2,00,000/- : CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. (IV) SUVERNA R PARANJAPE RS.2,00,000/- : CREDITWO RTHINESS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. 6.6 FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLA NT HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON THE CAPACITY, CREDITW ORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LENDERS. THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.10 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. SINCE THE ADDITION FOR THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THE INTERE ST @18% WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.1,80,000/- IS ALSO CONFIRMED. THIS TAKES CARE OF GROUND NO.5 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THEREFORE, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL I.E. GROUND NO.5 & 7 ARE DISMISSED. 9. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US ALSO, LD.COUNSEL CONT ESTED THE ADDITION VEHEMENTLY. HOWEVER, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO DRAW OUR A TTENTION ON ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THESE LOANS. IT IS THE CASE WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THESE LOANS AND THUS ASSESSEE FAILE D IN DISCHARGING ITS BURDEN U/S 68 OF THE ACT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE F IND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY 7 THE LD.CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AN D THUS, GROUND 5 & 6 ARE DISMISSED. 10. AS A RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS PARTLY IS ALLOWED. 11. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.3193/MUM/2013 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE FOLLOWING A DDITIONS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT FROM THE SERIES OF EVENT A S DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED FOR FURNISHING THE DETAILS A LONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF LOAN TRANSACTIO NS AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY MADE THE A DDITIONS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE I TAT (A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.13,50,000/- AS AGAINS T OF RS.47,60,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNPRO VED LOAN AND THEREBY DIRECTING TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST DISALLO WANCE ON BASIS OF ADDITION TO INCOME CORRESPONDING TO NON GEN UINE UNSECURED LOANS CONFIRMED. (B) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.32,55,100/- BEING GROSS PROFIT FROM ADVANCES @10%. 12. GROUND 1 IS GENERAL AND NO ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY T HE LD.DR AND, THEREFORE,DISMISSED. 13. IN GROUND 1(A), THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE A CTION OF LD.CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN OF RS.13,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS.47,60,000/-. 14. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND IS THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND, AO MADE AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS.47,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE WAS SE NT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO PERTAINING TO RS.13,50,000/- ONLY. HOWEVER, IN THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER PASSED 8 BY THE AO WRONGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.47,60,000/-. IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,50,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE REPEATED THE ENTI RE ADDITION OF RS.47,60,000/- SINCE THE ISSUE SENT BACK BY THE ITA T TO THE FILE OF THE AO WAS CONFINED TO ONLY A SUM OF RS.13,50,000/-. THEREFOR E, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,50, 000/-. THUS, GROUND 1(A) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15. IN GROUND 1(B), THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACT ION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION O RS.32,55,100/-. WE HAVE AL READY DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN ITA NO.3153/MUM/2011 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN SE NT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING OUR ORDER IN ITA NO.3153/ MUM/2011, GROUND 1(B) OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS E AND THIS ISSUE IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN VIEW OF DIRECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE. 16. OTHER GROUNDS ARE GENERAL AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SP ECIFIC ADJUDICATION AND, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 17. S A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. 18. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I N ITA NO.3610/MUM/2013 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CU E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT, WHICH IS INVALID AND BAD IN LA W. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CUE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF UNAPPROVED LOANS OF RS.13,50,000/-. 19. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH RE GARD TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS OF RS.13,50,000/-. IN THE FIRS T ROUND, THIS ISSUE WAS SENT BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR GIVI NG OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REQUISITE EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THESE L OANS. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT REQUISITE EVIDENCES, THEREFORE, 9 ADDITION WAS AGAIN MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) ALSO. 20. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US ALSO THOUGH LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THIS ADDITION, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE LOAN IN VIEW OF THE O NUS AS HAS BEEN CAST BY SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF R EQUISITE EVIDENCES, WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF MAKING ADDITION BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A). NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ORDER PA SSED BY LD.CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 21. AS A RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 22. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 3153/MUM/2011 IS P ARTLY ALLOWED, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 3610/MUM/2013 IS DISMISSED AND APPEAL IN ITA NO.3193/MUM/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 26 .04.2017 PK/- COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE , DBENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES