MANMOHAK PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 1(2)-4, MUMBAI

ITA 3605/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71267 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133A; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, A.M. AND SHRI AMIT SHUKL A, J.M. ./ I.T.A. NO. 3605/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) MANMOHAK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. C/O. EMGEE CORPORATION, 1 ST BABUBALI BLDG., 17/17 TH CAWASJI PATEL, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001 / VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 ' ./# ./PAN/GIR NO. AADCM 8371 N ( '$ /APPELLANT ) : ( %&'$ / RESPONDENT ) '$ ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARIOM TULSYAN %&'$ ( ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PREETAM SINGH )* + ( , / DATE OF HEARING : 31.07.2013 -./ ( , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2013 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CONTESTING THE OR DER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, MUMBAI (CIT FOR SHORT) DATED 24.03. 2011 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) PASSED IN ITS CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2006-07. 2 ITA NO. 3605/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) MANMOHAK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 2.1 OPENING THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), ITS COUNSEL, THAT THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE IMPUGNED ORDER BOTH ON JURISDICTION AS WELL AS ON M ERITS. THE ASSESSEE WAS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REQUIRED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT (VIDE ORDER SHEET ENT RY DATED 04.11.2008), AS ALSO THE DETAILS OF THE SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX (STT) AND SERVICE T AX (ST), WHICH WAS DULY DONE. IT WAS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE B USINESS OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF SHARES, I.E., RS.21,26,627/-, WAS ASSESSED AS SUCH U/S.111A OF THE ACT; THE ENTIR E GAIN BEING ON THE TRANSFER OF EQUITY SHARES, BEING SHORT TERM CAPITAL ASSETS AND, THUS, ASSESSABLE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (STCG); THE TRANSACTIONS HAVING SUFFERED STT, VIDE ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 12.12.2008. HE WOULD ALSO TAKE US TO THE SCRIP-WISE DETAILS OF THE INVESTMENT HELD AS AT THE YEAR-END (31.03.2006), AS ALSO AT THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR-END (31.03.2005), FORMING PART OF THE ASSESSEES BALANCE-SHEET (PB PGS.39-40); THE DETAILS OF THE STT (PB PGS.41-43); AND ST (PB PGS.44-46), AS ALSO THE SCRIP-WISE SUMMA RY OF THE TOTAL GAIN FOR THE YEAR (PB PGS.50-52), ALL OF WHICH WERE DULY FILED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR DRAWIN G AN INFERENCE THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER AT THE END OF THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE A.O. HAVING TAKEN ONE OF THE REASO NABLE VIEWS POSSIBLE, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR INTERFERENCE U/S.263, WHICH ASPECT IS WEL L SETTLED. NO DOUBT, AS STATED BY THE LD. CIT, THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION WITH REGARD THERE TO IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT THE PRESUMPTION IN LAW WOULD ONLY BE THAT THERE HAS BEEN DUE APPLICATION O F MIND, REFERRING TO THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF PAUL MATHEWS AND SONS VS. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (KER) AND CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [2002] 256 ITR 1 (BOM). THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY SHOWN ITS SHARE-HOLDING AS BY WAY OF INVESTMENT. IN FACT, THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAD TAKEN THE ONLY VIEW POSSIBLE UNDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES. 2.2 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR), ON TH E OTHER HAND, WOULD TAKE US TO THE FINDINGS BY THE LD. CIT AT PARAS 6 TO 9 (PGS.16-17) OF HIS ORDER. IT WOULD BE APPARENT 3 ITA NO. 3605/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) MANMOHAK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT THERE-FROM THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN SPECULAT IVE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH COULD BY NO MEANS BE TREATED AS INVESTMENTS, WHETHER SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM. THE A.O. HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE TRAN SACTIONS ENTERED INTO, VIZ. THE NATURE AND VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS; THE PERIOD OF HOLDING, AND THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE SAME, AS HE WAS IN FACT REQUIRED TO. THE MATTER HAVING BEEN DEC IDED WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRY/INVESTIGATION, THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS. CIT [ 1968 ] 67 ITR 84 (SC) AND SMT. TARA DEVI AGARWAL VS. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FURTHER, THE L D. CIT HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH, IN LIGHT OF THE CBDT CIRC ULAR NO. 4/2007 DATED 15.06.2007, ALSO IDENTIFYING THE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS, I.E. , WHICH ARE NOT DELIVERY BASED, AND WHICH WAS EVEN OTHERWISE INCUMBENT ON HIM. IN OTHER WORDS , TO DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSE. NO PREJUDICE STANDS THUS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSE IN ANY CASE, SO THAT HIS ORDER MERITS ACCEPTANCE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 THE REVENUE HAS RELIED ON TWO DECISIONS BY THE APEX COURT (REFER THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL), AND WHICH WOULD THEREFORE NEED TO BE EXAMINED FOR THEIR APPLICABILITY. IN THE CASE OF RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI (SUPRA), THE ASSESSMENT WAS FOUND TO BE MADE IN UNDUE HURRY, WIT HOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES, SO THAT IT WAS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HELD TO BE ERRO NEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, SO AS TO BE LIABLE FOR REV ISION U/S.33B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, WHICH IS PARA MATERIA TO S.263 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF SMT. TARA DEVI AGARWAL (SUPRA), THE OTHER CASE RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE, DESPITE THERE BEING MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT SHOULD HAVE PUT THE A.O. ON INQUIRY HE DID NOT CAUSE PROPER VERIFICATION AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING THE INCO ME AS RETURNED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD AS RIGHTLY SUBJECT TO REVISION. 3.2 IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE MAY BEGIN BY DELINEATING THE ISSUE(S) THAT ARISE BEFORE US FOR ADJUDICATION. THE SAME, OR THE FOREMOST AMONG T HEM, IN OUR VIEW, IS THE VALIDITY OF 4 ITA NO. 3605/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) MANMOHAK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I.E., THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT. THE APEX COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), EXPLAINED THE PARAMETERS FOR AND C ONDITIONS UPON EXISTENCE OF WHICH THERE IS A VALID ASSUMPTION OF REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S.263. THE SAME IS BY WAY OF A FOUR-WAY TEST, WHICH, SUCCINCTLY PUT, IS: INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS; INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW; WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT STANDS IMPUGNED UNDER THE FOURTH CATEGORY AFORESAID. THE LAW IN THE MATTER IS WELL-SETTLED, A ND TOWARD WHICH WE MAY, APART FROM THE DECISION IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, CITE A FEW DECISIONS, AS RAMPYARI DEVI SAROGI (SUPRA); CIT V. MCMILLAN & CO . (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC); JAI BHARAT TANNERS V. CIT , 264 ITR 673 (MAD.); ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. V. CIT , 260 ITR 599 (MAD.); DUGGAL & CO. V. CIT , 220 ITR 456 (DEL.); SWARUP VEGETABLE PRODUCTS V. CIT , 187 ITR 412 (ALL.); THALIBAI F. JAIN V. ITO , 101 ITR 1 (KAR.); GEE VEE ENTERPRISES V. CIT (ADDL.) , 99 ITR 375 (DEL.), TO NAME SOME. NOT CONDUCT OF PROPER ENQUIRY, I.E., AS WARRANTED I N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, GIVEN THE POSITION OF LAW IN THE MATTER, WOULD MAKE AN ORDER PER SE ERRONEOUS IN-SO-FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. THE PRINCIPLES AND PREMISES STAND ENUMERATED LUCIDLY IN GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VS. ADDL. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (DEL). RELYING ON THESE TWO VERY DECISIONS BY THE APEX COU RT, VIZ. RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI (SUPRA) AND SMT. TARA DEVI AGGARWAL (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US, IT STANDS EXPLAINED THAT THE POSITION AND FUNCTION/S O F AN INCOME TAX OFFICER IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A CIVIL COURT. IN ITS WORDS, THE STATEMENTS MADE IN A PLEADING PROVED BY THE MINIMUM OF EVIDENCE MAY BE ADOPTED BY A CIVIL COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REBUTTAL. THE CIVIL COURT IS NEUTRAL. IT SIMPLY GIVES A DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE PLEADING AND THE EVIDENCE WHICH COMES BEFORE IT. THE INCOME-TAX OFFI CER, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE COULD NOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF A RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN ENQUIRY. IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT O N THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO FURTHER 5 ITA NO. 3605/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) MANMOHAK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT INVESTIGATE THE FACTS CITED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIRC UMSTANCES WOULD MAKE SUCH AN ENQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD ERRONEOUS U/S.263 INCLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN ENQUIRY . THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUCH AN ENQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER IF A LL THE FACTS THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT . THIS HAS, OVER THE YEARS, TRANSLATED INTO A SERIE S OF DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE COURTS OF LAW, TO SOME OF WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED TO EARLIER, AND WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF OUR STATING OF IT AS BEING TRITE LAW. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ITS FAVOUR CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED IN THE FACTS OF TH E CASE. IN PAUL MATHEWS & SONS (SUPRA), THE BASIS OF THE REVISION BY THE CIT WAS A DISREGARD OF THE ASSESSEES STATEMENT U/S.133A BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS FOUN D BY THE HONBLE COURT AS NOT A VALID BASIS. THIS WAS AS SEC. 133A DID NOT EMPOWER THE A. O. TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HIS ADMISSION DURING S URVEY TO BE A MISTAKE BY COGENT MATERIAL DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM/S QUA ITS STATEMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE A.O. WAS FOUND TO HAVE FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT, PARTLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CASE. IT IS IN VIEW OF THESE FINDINGS, WHICH ARE FINDINGS OF FACT, THAT THE HONBLE COURT FOUND NO CASE FOR REVISION, RELYING IN FACT FOR LEGAL SUPPOR T ON THE SAME DECISIONS AS BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US, I.E., IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD . (SUPRA) AND TARA DEVI AGARWAL (SUPRA). THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD . (SUPRA) WOULD NOT APPLY INASMUCH AS THE SAME IS QUA REASSESSMENT, SO THAT A CHANGE OF OPINION WOULD IN VALIDATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS IS AS THE LAW DOES N OT PROVIDE FOR REVIEW OF HIS ORDER BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHILE SECTION 263 SPECIFIC ALLY CONFERS POWER OF REVIEW OF ITS ORDER BY THE CIT, AND ON THE BASIS OF RECORD AS AVA ILABLE WITH THE LATTER. THE ONLY CONDITION THOUGH FOR AN INTERFERENCE BY HIM IS THAT THE SAME MUST EXHIBIT THE ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. AS SUCH, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE AS 6 ITA NO. 3605/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) MANMOHAK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT TO HOW THE SAID DECISION IS APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH WOULD STANDS TO BE DECIDED BY US ON THE FINDING OF EXISTENCE OR OTHERW ISE OF PROPER ENQUIRY BY THE A.O. 3.3 CONTINUING FURTHER, THE ABSENCE OR LACK OF ENQU IRY, OR NOT SO, IS A MATTER OF FACT. AS SUCH, ABSENCE OR LACK OF ENQUIRY, RESULTING IN AN O RDER BEING PER SE ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, WOUL D NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ONUS FOR WHICH IS CLEARLY ON THE REVENUE, SO THAT THE MATTER TURNS ESSENTIALLY ON THE FACTS AS BROUGHT ON RECORD. COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE OBSERVE THAT TH E LD. CIT HAS, ON AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD, ISSUED DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT, AS UN DER, WHICH CLEARLY EXHIBIT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE TRADING IN SHARES, AND THAT HE COUL D NOT BE REGARDED AS AN INVESTOR WITHOUT FURTHER ENQUIRY IN THE MATTER, BRINGING FUR THER MATERIAL ON RECORD: - THE ACTIVITY CODE AND THE DESCRIPTION PER THE ASS ESSEES RETURN OF INCOME IS: 0204 - TRADING (OTHERS) AND TRADING IN INVESTMENT IN SHA RES & SECURITIES (PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER); - INSTANCES OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WITHOUT DELIVERY, THOUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ON THESE TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AND RETURNED AS STCG BY THE ASSESSE, AS GATHERED FROM THE SCRIP-WISE, DATE-WISE DETAILS (PARA 6 OF T HE IMPUGNED ORDER); - THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD ALL THE SHARES BROUGHT FORW ARD BY IT AS ON 01.04.2005, AGAIN BUYING THE SAME STOCK (PARA 8); - THE VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS, A NUMBE R OF SCRIPS TRADED IN (PARA 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER). ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTIONS WERE ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT VIDE PARA 10 OF HIS ORDER TO THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF THE IMPUG NED GAINS AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, KEEPING THE CBDT CIRCULAR/S IN VIEW, BY IS SUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT AND AFTER ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD. DECISION 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO C ONTROVERT CLEAR FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE LD. CIT IN ANY MANNER. IN FACT, AS ALSO OBSERVE D DURING HEARING, THE SCRIP-WISE, DATE- 7 ITA NO. 3605/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) MANMOHAK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT WISE DETAIL, AS REPRODUCED AT PARA 5 (PGS.6-15) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WERE NOT BEFORE THE A.O., IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH NO MEANINGFUL ANALYSI S COULD IN FACT HAVE BEEN MADE OR CARRIED OUT BY HIM. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT AN ABSENCE OR EVEN LACK OF PROPER ENQUIRY, SO THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND IN TH E MATTER, WOULD LEAD TO A VALID ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT, INCLUDING HIS DIRECTIONS PER PARA 10 OF HIS OR DER. THE ONLY MODIFICATION OR RESERVATION WHICH WE MAY EXPRESS IS THAT, EACH CASE BEING RENDERED ON ITS FACTS, THE REFERENCE BY HIM TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. SADHANA NABERA (IN ITA NO.2586/MUM/2009 DATED 26.03.3010) TO THE A.O., WOU LD ONLY BE WITH REGARD TO ITS RATIO. SUBJECT TO THIS, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS U PHELD. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ORDER, WE MAY ALSO CLARIFY THAT THE ASSESSEES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT [2011] 336 ITR 287 (BOM) IN THE MATTER IS MISPLACED; THE ISSUE, AS AFORE-STATED, BEING BAS ED PRINCIPALLY ON FACTS, SO THAT IT GETS TO BE DECIDED THEREON, WITH THE LAW IN FACT BEING WELL SETTLED. THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS EVEN OTHERWISE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS UN DER THE ACT, WITH FURTHER THERE BEING NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW, SO THAT THE RULE OF CONSIS TENCY, AS ADVOCATED THEREIN, IS SUBJECT TO CONSTRAINTS, EVEN AS EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT ITSELF IN GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (BOM). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 0/ 1 )2 30 ( 0 ( 45 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 6+ MUMBAI; 7) DATED : 27.09.2013 *.)../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 ITA NO. 3605/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) MANMOHAK PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&'$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. :*; < %)=2 , , =2/ , 6+ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. < >3 ? + / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , 6+ / ITAT, MUMBAI