APLAB LTD, THANE V. ACIT CIR 1, THANE

ITA 3313/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 331319914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SHASTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Proportionate interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI D.K.AGARWAL, JM ITA NO.3313/MUM/2010 : ASST. YEAR 2006-2007 M/S.APLAB LIMITED APLAB HOUSE A-5, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE THANE 400 604 PAN : AAACA1030H. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE I THANE. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.SUBRAMANIAM RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.V.SHASTRI DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2011 O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON 04.01.2010 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. 2. GROUND NOS.1 TO 4 WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNE D A.R. WHICH HEREBY STAND DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NO.5 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISAL LOWANCE OF ` 20,08,103 U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE QUESTION OF MAKING DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. MFG. CO. VS. DCIT [(2010) 328 I TR 81 (BOM)] HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICABLE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AS ARE PREVAILING PRESENTLY AND THE DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE AO ON SOME `REASONABLE BASIS AND NOT RULE 8D. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ITA NO.3313/MUM/2010. M/S.APLAB LIMITED. 2 ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE, AS PER THE AF ORE-NOTED JUDGMENT, AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND WHICH SURVIVES FOR OUR CON SIDERATION IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ` 5,36,520 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN LOANS AND ADVANCES TOTALING TO ` 11.95 CRORE WHICH INCLUDED A SUM OF ` 21,58,000 ADVANCED TO M/S.INTEL INSTRUMENT & SYSTEM S LIMITED AND ` 23,13,002 TO M/S.APLAB SEBA ELECTRONICS. BOTH THESE COMPANIES HAPPENED TO BE THE GROUP CONCERNS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED CERTAIN LOANS ON INTEREST AND THE INTEREST COST DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ` 2.42 CRORE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE LOANS OF ` 44.71 LAKH WERE ADVANCED TO THE SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT INTERE ST, THE A.O. MADE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.36(1)(II I) AT THE RATE OF 12% WHICH RESULTED INTO AN ADDITION OF ` 5,36,520. NO RELIEF WAS ALLOWED IN THE FIRST APPEAL . 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNED A.R. HAS HEAVILY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A.BUILDERS LTD.VS. CIT(A) & ANR. [(2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC)] TO BUTTRESS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE INTEREST BE AL LOWED AS DEDUCTION AS THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIE S. HOWEVER NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED ON RECORD TO INDICATE AS TO HOW SUCH AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED BY THE SISTER CONCERNS. 7. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE S UMMIT COURT IN S.A.BUILDERS LTD. (SUPRA) TRANSFERRED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO ITS SUBSIDIARY CO MPANY OUT OF ITS CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT IN WHICH THERE WAS A HUGE DEBIT BALANCE. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DIVERTED ITS BORROWED FUNDS TO A S ISTER CONCERN WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST. PROPORTIONATE INTEREST RELAT ING TO THE SAID AMOUNT, OUT OF ITA NO.3313/MUM/2010. M/S.APLAB LIMITED. 3 THE TOTAL INTEREST PAID BY THAT ASSESSEE TO THE BAN K, WAS DISALLOWED. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF BUT THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED TH E ACTION OF THE AO IN SUSTAINING COMPLETE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. THE HIGH COURT D ISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT INTEREST WAS TO BE ALLOWED IN FULL AS MAKING OF INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY IS A BUSINESS PURP OSE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT APPRECIATED THE AMBIT OF THE EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS USED IN SECTION 36(1)(III) AND HELD THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH THE NARROWER EXPRESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING IN COME, PROFITS OR GAINS. IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH OBSERVATION, THE HONBLE APEX COU RT REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR A FRESH DECISION BY CONSIDERING DEDUC TIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF INTEREST AFTER EXAMINING WHETHER THE FUNDS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING COMPANY TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WERE USED BY THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSE OR NOT. 8. FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, IT CAN BE NOTICED TH AT THE RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE JUDGMENT IS THAT INTEREST ON BORROWED LOANS ADVANC ED TO A SISTER CONCERN WITHOUT INTEREST IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION, IF THER E IS A COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN ADVANCING SUCH LOAN. TO DECIDE THE COMMERCIAL EX PEDIENCY IN THE HANDS OF HOLDING COMPANY, IT IS VITAL TO EXAMINE THE PURPOS E FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED THE MONEY TO THE SISTER CONCERN AND WHAT T HE SISTER CONCERN DID WITH THIS MONEY. THUS, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN A HOLDING COMPANY HAS ADVANCED BORROWED MONEY TO ITS SUBSIDIARY, WHICH IS USED BY THE SUBSIDIARY FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSE, THERE CANNOT BE DENIAL OF DEDUCTI ON ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. 9. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THIS CASE, AFT ER LAYING DOWN THE BROAD PARAMETERS HELPFUL IN TAKING DECISION ABOUT THE DED UCTIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF INTEREST IN THE HANDS OF THE HOLDING COMPANY, BEING THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE FUNDS WERE ULTIMATELY USED BY THE SUBSIDIARY COMPAN Y, REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NOT GRANTED DEDUCTION AT ITS OWN. IT IS NOT CRUX OF THE ITA NO.3313/MUM/2010. M/S.APLAB LIMITED. 4 JUDGMENT THAT IN EACH AND EVERY CASE OF THE HOLDING COMPANY ADVANCING LOAN TO THE SISTER CONCERN, ENTITLES IT TO DEDUCTION OF IN TEREST PAID ON THE FUNDS BORROWED AND IN TURN ADVANCED TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS WHICH REQUIRE ANSWERS. FIRST IS THE ADVAN CING OF LOAN TO THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND SECOND IS THE UTILIZATION OF SUCH FUNDS BY THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. THE CRUCIAL CRITERIA FOR DECIDING THE SECOND QUESTI ON IS THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY, THAT IS, THE USER OF SUCH FUNDS BY THE SUBSIDIARY FOR BUSIN ESS PURPOSE . IT IS ONLY WHEN ANSWER TO BOTH THE QUESTIONS IS IN AFFIRMATIVE THAT THE HOLDING COMPANY QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION OF INTEREST PAID. IF ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS IN POSITIVE, THE STAGE OF FINDING OUT THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION COMES. ONLY WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST AS WELL AS THE SECOND QUESTIONS IS GIVEN IN POSITIVE THAT THE RATIO OF THIS JUDGMENT APPLIES AND THE HOLDING COMPANY BECOMES ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF INTEREST. 10. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT, ON NOTING THAT THE FUNDS WERE ADVANCED AS LOAN BY THE HOLDING COMPANY TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY, BEING THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION IN POSITIVE, DID NOT STRAIGHTWAY PROCEED TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF INTEREST. AS THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION WAS NOT AVAILABLE FROM FACTS ON RECORD, IT RESTORED THE MA TTER TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR EXAMINING IT AND THEN TAKING FINAL DECISION. THAT IS WHY IT CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED : WE WISH TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT OUR OPINIO N THAT IN EVERY CASE INTEREST ON BORROWED LOAN HAS TO BE ALLOWED IF THE ASSESSEE ADVANCES IT TO A SISTER CONCERN. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE RESPECTIVE CASE . THEREAFTER, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT : FOR INSTANCE, IF THE DIRECTORS OF THE SISTER CONCERN UTILIZE THE AMOUNT ADVANCED TO IT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THEIR PERSONAL BENEFIT, OBVIOUSLY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SUCH MONEY WAS ADVANCED AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY . THE GIST OF THE JUDGMENT FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE HANDS OF HO LDING COMPANY IS THE USER OF FUNDS BY THE SUBSIDIARY FOR SOME BUSINESS PURPOSE . UNLESS BUSINESS ITA NO.3313/MUM/2010. M/S.APLAB LIMITED. 5 PURPOSE IS PROVED, THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED . THAT APPEARS TO BE THE SOLE REASON FOR THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TO REMIT THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERING THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OR BUSINESS PURPOSE IN THE HANDS OF THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. IF THE MERE FACT O F ADVANCING LOAN BY HOLDING COMPANY TO SUBSIDIARY COMPANY HAD BEEN SUFFICIENT E NOUGH FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION OF INTEREST TO THE HOLDING COMPANY, THERE WAS NO NEED TO RESTORE THE MATTER. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN SUCH A SITUAT ION, WOULD HAVE ITSELF GRANTED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST IN THE HANDS OF HOLDI NG COMPANY. 11. FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, IT IS MANIFEST THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR ADVANCING THE LOANS TO IT S SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE BUSINESS USEFU LNESS. IT IS THE PRIMARY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE, ON INQUIRY BY THE AO, TO LEAD EVIDE NCE DEMONSTRATING THE USER OF FUNDS BY THE SUBSIDIARY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. ONLY WHEN SUCH INITIAL BURDEN IS DISCHARGED, THAT IT BECOMES INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO ACCEPT OR REJECT SUCH EVIDENCE WITH COGENT REASONS. PRINCIPAL DUTY IS ALW AYS OF THE ASSESSEE. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A) TO PROVE THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY BY DEMONSTRATING AS TO HOW TH E FUNDS RECEIVED BY THE SUBSIDIARY FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE UTILIZED. POSITION IS SAME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL SINCE THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY PROO F TO ESTABLISH THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE SITUATION WOULD HAVE B EEN DIFFERENT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF BUSINESS PURPOSE IN ADVANCING THE AMOUNT TO ITS SISTER CONCE RN BY PROPERLY DOCUMENTING ITS CLAIM AND THE AO WOULD HAVE FAILED TO CONTROVER T SUCH MATERIAL. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM IN THIS R EGARD BY ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE TO SUCCEED ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.3313/MUM/2010. M/S.APLAB LIMITED. 6 12. NOW WE WILL COME TO THE SECOND CONTENTION RAISE D BY THE LEARNED A.R. TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUN DS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADVANCE TO THE SISTER CONCERNS. THE ASSESSEES BALA NCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2006 HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US WHICH SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT O F SHAREHOLDERS FUND AT ` 27,52,14,000 COMPRISING OF SHARE CAPITAL OF ` 5,00,00,000 AND RESERVES AND SURPLUS OF ` 22,52,14,000. AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADV ANCED ONLY A SUM OF ` 44.71 LAKH TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT INTEREST. 13. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. [(2009) 313 ITR 340 (BOM)] CONSIDERED ALMOST SIMILAR FACTS. IN THAT CASE THE AO RECORDED A FINDING THAT A SUM OF RS.213 CRORES WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THEIR OWN FUNDS AND RS.1.74 CRORES OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST WAS MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS.2.40 CRORES. IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT NO PART OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAD GONE INTO INVESTMENT IN THOSE TWO COMPANIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT INCOME FROM OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY WAS RS.418.04 CRORES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAISED CAPITAL OF RS.7.90 CRORES, APART FROM RECEI VING INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT OF RS.10.03 CRORES. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATELY D EPICTED THAT THERE WERE ENOUGH INTEREST FREE FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL FOR MAKI NG INVESTMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) GOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND D ELETED THE ADDITION. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF ITS ASSETS AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH NO RESERVE OR OWN FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE SISTER CONCERN. THUS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS HAD BEEN UTIL IZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE SISTER CONCERN AND THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS RIGHTLY CALLED FOR. THE TRIBUNAL, ON APPRECIATION O F FACTS, RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS OF ITS OWNS FOR M AKING INVESTMENT WITHOUT ITA NO.3313/MUM/2010. M/S.APLAB LIMITED. 7 USING THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS UPHELD. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUNDS STOOD UTILIZED IN THE PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS AND HENCE COULD NOT BE CON STRUED AS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN SISTER CONCERN. REPELLING THIS CONTE NTION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT : IN OUR OPINION, THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH THE REVENUE HAD SOUGHT TO CONTEND OR ARGUE THEIR CASE THAT THE SHAREHOLDER S FUND TO THE TUNE OF OVER RS.172 CRORES WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXE D ASSETS IN TERMS OF THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON MARCH 31, 1999, IS FALLACIOUS . IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT : IF THERE BE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT TO MEET ITS INV ESTMENT AND AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED A LOAN, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE FROM THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE . THEREAFTER, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. VS. CIT [(1997) 224 ITR 627 (SC)] AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN WOOLCOMBERS OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT [(1981) 134 ITR 2 19 (CAL)] WERE CONSIDERED. IT WAS FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT : THE PRINCIPLE, THEREFORE, WOULD BE THAT IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST FRE E AND OVERDRAFT AND/OR LOANS TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT THE INV ESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENT . CONSEQUENTLY THE INTEREST WAS HELD TO BE DEDUCTIBLE IN FULL. 14. FROM THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, IT IS MANIFEST THAT T HERE CAN BE NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUND OF A COMPANY IS UTILIZE D FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST FREE FUNDS AS WELL AS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS AT ITS DISPOSAL, THEN THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT IN VESTMENTS WERE MADE FROM INTEREST FEE FUNDS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ABUNDANTLY SHOW THAT THE SHAREHOLDERS FUND IS MUCH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ITA NO.3313/MUM/2010. M/S.APLAB LIMITED. 8 ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY INTEREST TO IT S SISTER CONCERNS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT( A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION UNDER THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE S. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION. GROUND NO.5 IS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 23 RD DECEMBER, 2011. DEVDAS* SD/- (R.K.PANDA) AM (NOMINATED) COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-II, THANE. 5. THE DR/ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.