PATEL MINERALS, MUMBAI V. ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3202/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9063 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGH; PORAS S SAVLA
• Keywords: Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . . !'# , $ %& BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM ./I.T.A. NO. 3202/MUM/2011 ( ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. PATEL MINERALS, 465/4, MUKUND CO. OP. HSG. SOC., 1 ST FLOOR, 14 TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI-400 052 / VS. THE ITO 20(2)(3), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI-400 012 &( $ ./ )* ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAJFM 1965B ( (+ /APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY: SHRI AJAY R. SINGH & SHRI PORAS S. SAVLA ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJARSHI DWIVEDY / 01$ / DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2012 23' / 01$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2012 %4 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI DT.8.2.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 20 07-08. 2. IN ITS REVISED GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED 3 GROUNDS. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN ESTIMATING 20 % OF PROFIT BASE D ON THE ESTIMATED ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 2 VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE COURSE OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS . 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LIME MA NUFACTURING. THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NET TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL WAS FILED ON 31.7.2007. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASS ESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICES U/S. 142(1) AND 143(2) ALONGWIT H QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AS THE BUSINE SS WAS SUFFERING LOSS, ON 9.5.2000, THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE ENTIRE PROJECT O F CONSTRUCTION TO ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. PRIOR TO GIVING THE PROJECT TO ANOTHER CONCERN, THE ASSESSEE HAD BOOKED CERTAIN OFFICES/GA LAS AND RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS. 2,49,64,539/-. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED BUILT-UP AREA OF 2 2,630 SQ.FT AND THEREAFTER AS PER AGREEMENT DT. 9.5.2000, THE ENTIR E PROJECT WAS HANDED OVER TO MAP BUILDERS PVT. LTD., WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY CONSTRUCTED 26,281SQ.FT. BUILT UP AREA TOTALING TO 48.911 SQ. F T. THE AO OBSERVED THAT MAP BUILDERS COMPLETED THE ENTIRE PROJECT AND POSSE SSION ALSO WAS GIVEN TO ALL BUYERS. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT PART OCCU PANCY CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM BMC IN THE YEAR 2003. THE AO FU RTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECOGNIZED PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT NOR OFFERED TO TAX ON THE PROJECT TILL DATE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THA T AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MAP BUILDERS PVT. LTD. ON 9.5.2000, ASSESSEE WAS TO GET 20% ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTED AREA AND NET AMOUNT OF RS. 32,50,000/- OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS. 31,00,000 /- WAS RECEIVED AND WAS SHOWN AS ADVANCE IN THE YEAR 2001. THE AO ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE PROFIT ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT. THE AS SESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY AS UNDER (PARA 7 TO 9 ASSESSMENT ORDER): - ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 3 IN THE YEAR 2000, WE GAVE THE ENTIRE PROJECT TO AN OTHER DEVELOPERS TO FURTHER CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING AND COMPLETED THE CONTINUED PART OF THE BUILDING AGAINST WHICH HE WAS SUPPOSED TO CO MPENSATE IN THE AREA OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTED BUILDING. HENCE THE DEVELOPER HAD DONE MANY ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND WE PATEL MINERA LS MOVED THE HIGH COURT FOR JUSTICE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS STARTED. D UE TO THIS THERE WAS FURTHER DELAY THE PROJECT DUE TO WHICH THERE WA S TREMENDOUS LOSS IN THE PROJECT. THE DEVELOPERS HAD TO FULFILL CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS PER THE AGREEMENT DONE WITH HIM IN THE YEAR 2000 . THE DEVELOPER HAD TO BRING COMPLETE OCCUPATION CERTIFIC ATE. HE DID NOT DO IT, HE DID NOT FULFILL ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE I.O.D. OF THE B.M.C. DUE TO THIS DISCREPANCIES IN THE PART OF THE DEVELO PER. WE HAD TO MOVE THE COURT FOR MY RIGHT AND COMPENS ATION IN LIEU OF THE AGREEMENT DT 2000 IN HIGH COURT MUMBAI. AFTER MANY ARGUMENTS AND HEARINGS THE HONBLE JUDGE APPOINT AR BITRATOR FOR THE ABOVE MATTER. SIX YEAR HAVE PASSED, THE JUDGE NOT YET GIVEN JUD GMENT BECAUSE THE ARBITRATOR JUSTICE PALKAR EXPIRED, THER EFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT MUMBAI HAD TO APPOINT ANOTHER ARBITRATOR. DUE TO THE ABOVE FACT THERE WAS NO PROFIT GENERATED IN THE ABOVE PROJECT AND ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUME NTS :- 1. COPY OF SUIT NO.816 OF 2002 2. COPY OF ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 27 OF 2005 3. COPY OF PART OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE 4. COPY OF DETAILS OF WORK IN PROGRESS 1995-96 TO 2 005-06. 3.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, THE AO ASKED WHY INCOME WAS NOT SHOWN AGAINST THE ADVANCES RECEI VED ON SALE PROCEEDINGS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,49,64,539/- AS POS SESSION OF PREMISES HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ALL THE OCCUPIERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F CHAMPION CONSTRUCTION CO. IN ITA NO. 2089/BOM/1981. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAI NED THAT SINCE IT HAS ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 4 MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ARBITRATION AND AS THE SAI D APPLICATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT RECOGNIZE INCOME TILL ARBITRATION AWARD IS RECEIVED BY IT AND ACCORDINGLY THE INCOME WILL BE S HOWN IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT RECEIVE THE ARBITRATION AWARD. THE SUBMIS SIONS WERE REJECTED BY THE AO WHO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PREMISES HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN ALL RESPECT, THE OCCUPATION CERTI FICATE HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND POSSESSION HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN. THE AO FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A VALUATION REPORT DURING THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO THE AO, AS PER THE AGREEMENT DT. 9.5.2 000, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE 20% OF RS. 12,98,55,735/-[ FMV OF FSI ] WHICH THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE SHOWN AS ITS INCOME. 3.3. THE AO WENT ON TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS TAKING ADVANCE AGAINST BOOKING OF PREMISES/GALAS/SHOPS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,49,64,539/-, 20% OF THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE VA LUER OF RS. 12,98,55,735/- = RS. 2,41,71,147/- TAKING TOTAL REC EIPTS AT RS. 4,91,35,686/-.THEREAFTER THE AO DEDUCTED THE EXPENS ES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT RS. 1,54,08,884/- A ND FURTHER DEDUCTED THE COST OF THE LAND AT RS. 2,12,71,890/- AND COMPL ETED THE ASSESSMENT AT NET INCOME OF RS. 1,24,54,912/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY AGITATED THIS MATTER BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO H AS GROSSLY ERRED IN ESTIMATING 20% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION FROM MAP B UILDERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,41,71,147/- BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS . IT WAS EXP LAINED THAT DUE TO LITIGATION AND DISPUTE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND TH E ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE PROJECT GOT DELAYED RESULTING INTO LOSSES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO MOVE TO THE HIGH COURT FOR APPOINTM ENT OF AN ARBITRATOR. ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 5 IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AS PE R THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE STILL PENDING, THEREFORE, TH ERE BEING NO PROFIT GENERATED IN THE SAID PROJECT AND NO INCOME CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATED 20% OF THE ESTIMATED VALUE TAKEN BY THE VALUATION OFFICER AT R S. 12,98,55,735/-. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT NO SUCH CLAIM OF RS. 2,41,71,147 /- WAS MADE TO MAP BUILDERS PVT. LTD. BY THE ASSESSEE. NO SUCH CLAIM H AS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEVELOPER M/S MAP BUILDERS PVT. LTD. IT WAS C ONTENDED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT DT. 9.5.2000, THE DEVELOPER M/S. MAP BUILDERS PVT. LTD. WAS TO GIVE 20% OF THE ADDITIONAL FSI CONSTRUCTED T O THE ASSESSEE, AS THE SAID DEVELOPER HAS NOT GIVEN THIS FSI , THE ASSESSE E WAS FORCED TO FILE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SAID DEVELOPER. IT IS ONLY BECAUSE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS TH E ARBITRATOR WANTED TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF THE CLAIM AND FOR THIS PURPOS E, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED A VALUATION REPORT DT. 15.5.2006. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IN THE SAID REPORT, THE VALUER HAS ONLY ESTIMATED THE MARKET VALUE OF 2 0% SHARE OF THE ADDITIONAL FSI. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT IN ANY WAY T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ESTIMATING 20% OF THE VALUATION DONE BY THE VALUER IS GROSSLY UNJUSTIFIED AND IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND AGAINST TH E CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS MORE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE VIEWS OF THE AO MAINLY BECAUSE THE BUILDING WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED AND TH E UNITS ARE ALREADY SOLD AFTER RECEIVING FULL SALE CONSIDERATION EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY OR BY THE DEVELOPER AND ALSO THE UNITS SO SOLD HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE RESPECTIVE BUYER AFTER OBTAINING OCCUPANCY CERTIFIC ATE FROM THE BMC. ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 6 THE CIT[A] ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT IT IS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THE LD. CIT( A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHAMPION CO NSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT AFTER TH E COMPLETION OF BUILDING, ASSESSMENT COULD VALIDLY BE MADE ON THE A SSESSEE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH 80% OF THE FLATS HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT. FURTHER , REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ARBITRATION PROCEE DINGS ARE PENDING , THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDING S ARE ONLY FOR THE DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO THE CAR PARKING SPACE AND N OT WITH REGARD TO THE 20% OF THE ADDITIONAL FSI. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ONLY CONVINCED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CHAMPION CONSTRUCTION C O. SQUARELY APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSE E IS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF 20% ON THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE VALUER. THE COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PENDING ARBITRATION AWARD, NO INCOME CAN BE AT TRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE COUNSEL THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCE AGAINST BOOKING IN THE YEAR 2002 -03, 2003- 04 AND 2004-05. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED A SINGLE RUPEE AS ADVANCE. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES ARE ACCEPTED, THEN THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY SHOULD EITHER BE YEAR E NDING 2003 OR 2005. BUT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, THE SAME CAN BE TAXED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DISPUTE WITH THE DEVELOPER M/S. MAP BUILDERS HAS BEEN FINALLY SE TTLED AS PER THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SETTLEMENT BY WHICH THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 65,40,750/- TOWARDS FULL AND FINAL SE TTLEMENT IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIMS UNDER ARBITRATION. THE LD. COUNSEL STAT ED THAT THIS SETTLEMENT ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 7 HAS BEEN ARRIVED IN THE MONTH NOVEMBER 2010 PERTAIN ING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. NOW THAT THE ARBITRATION HAS BEEN SETTLED AT RS. 65,40,750/- IN F.Y. 2010-11, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF FGP LTD. VS CIT 326 ITR 444. THE LD. COUNSEL PLEADED THAT CONS IDERING THE FACTS FROM ALL POSSIBLE ANGLES THE INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND CLAIMED THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHAMPION CONSTRCTION CO. (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISION RELIED UP ON BY THE RIVAL PARTIES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ADVANCE AGAINST BOOKING IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 RS. 1,92,33,700/-, F.Y. 2 003-04 RS. 2,08,13,874/-, F.Y. 2004-05 RS. 2,49,64,539/-. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AFTER 31.3.2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT AS ADVANCE. THEREFORE EVEN IF THE RATIO OF THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHAMPION CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) IS APPLIE D, THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY CAN BE EITHER F.Y. 2002-03 OR F.Y. 2004- 05 BUT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION IT CAN BE F.Y. 2006-07 I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH IS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DISPUTE RELATING TO THE TAXABILITY OF 20% OF THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE CLAIM BASED ON TH E VALUATION REPORT TAKEN AT RS. 2,41,71,147/- IS ALSO UNWARRANTED. IT IS A FACT THAT DURING THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A VALUATION REPORT TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. IN T HE SAID VALUATION REPORT, ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 8 THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE ADDITIONAL FSI HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS. 12,98,55,735/- OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED F OR 20% AS PER AGREEMENT DT. 9.5.2000. THIS BEING ONLY AN ESTIMATE D FIGURE AND NOT THE FINAL AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR. IT IS ALSO A FACT T HAT THE DISPUTE HAS BEEN FINALLY SETTLED AT RS. 65,40,750/- AND THAT TOO IN NOVEMBER, 2010. ON THESE FACTS, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF FGP LTD. (SUPRA) SQUARELY APPLY WHEREIN THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE REAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ASSESSED AN D THE TEST BEFORE THE INCOME CAN BE TAXED IS WHETHER THERE IS REAL ACCRUAL OF INCOME. HOLDING FURTHER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT O BSERVED THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH WAS PENDING I N ARBITRATION, DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED ONLY AFTER THE PASSING OF AN AWARD. 9. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE DISPUTE HAS BEEN FINALLY SETTLED IN NOVEMBER, 2010. THEREFORE 20% OF THE ESTIMATED VALUE AS TAKEN BY THE AO AND HAS CONFIRME D BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY , IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN O UR CONSIDERATE VIEW, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN TAXIN G THE INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE FI NDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). AS THE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ONLY UP TO F.Y. 2004-05 AND NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED THEREAFTER, EVEN IF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHAMPION CONSTRUCTION CO. I S APPLIED, THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY CAN ONLY BE A.Y.2005-06 AND NOT THE IMPU GNED YEAR. 10. SO FAR AS GRIEVANCE RELATING TO ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF 20% OF VALUE OF FSI IS CONCERNED AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, DISPU TE HAS ULTIMATELY SETTLED IN NOVEMBER, 2010 THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 9 BOMBAY HIGH COURT (SUPRA), THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,41,71,147/-. 11. GROUND NO. 3 IS CONSEQUENTIAL THEREFORE NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5 06 50 / 7 &80 / )0 9' ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.12.2012 . %4 / 3' $ 7 :%6 21.12.2012 3 / ; SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) ( N.K. BILLAIYA) /PRESIDENT $ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; :% DATED 21.12.2012 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS %4 %4 %4 %4 / // / ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 < '0 < '0 < '0 < '0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. = / CIT 5. >; ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;? @ / GUARD FILE. %4 %4 %4 %4 / BY ORDER, - 0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// A AA A / 9 9 9 9 ) ) ) ) (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO. 3202/M/2011 10 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON: 18.12.2012 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 18.12.2012 SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: SR. PS/PS 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: SR. PS/PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: