ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI V. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATIONS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3804/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 380419914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Revised return; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - B BENCH. . .. . . .. . , ,, , !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ , ' ' ' ' %& %& %& %& BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARVA,PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 3804/MUM/2012 , ' ' ' ' ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04 ASST. CIT 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO. 575, 5 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI- 400020 VS. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATIONS LTD. 17/19, WADIA BUILDING, DALAL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI- 400001 PAN:AAACB4739Q ( )* / APPELLANT ) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT ) /. ITA NO. 3805/MUM/2012 , ' ' ' ' ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05 ASST. CIT 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO. 575, 5 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI- 400020 VS. BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICATIONS LTD. 17/19, WADIA BUILDING, DALAL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI- 400001 PAN:AAACB4739Q ( )* / APPELLANT ) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT ) )* )* )* )* - - - - ' '' ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR +,)* . - ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.MOHAN ' ' ' ' . .. . /0 /0 /0 /0 / DATE OF HEARING : 17 -12-2013 12( . /0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-12-2013 PER RAJENDRA, A.M. CHALLENGING THE ORDERS DATED 12.03.2012 OF THE CIT( A)-4,MUMBAI, ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAS FILED SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE AYS.: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, WHETHER CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WHERE THE ASSESSE E DELIBERATELY MADE A WRONG CLAIM OF AMORTIZATION DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR INSPITE OF HAVING MADE THE CLAIM FOR ENTIRE EXPENSES IN THE INITIAL YEAR? 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, WHETHER CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) BASED ON THE JUDGMEN T OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IT WAS A CASE OF WRONG CLAIM AND AN ISSUE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT A CLAIM? 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PUBL ISHING OF MAGAZINES.DETAILS OF DATES OF FILING OF RETURNS,DATES OF ASSESSMENT,DATES OF PENA LTY ORDERS,AMOUNT OF PENALTY LEVIED AND DATES OF ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)CAN BE SUMMARISED AS UNDER : AY. DT. OF FILING OF RETURN ASSESSMENT-DT. PENALTY ORDER DT. PENALTY LEVIED (RS.) 2003-04 25/11/2003 30/08/2010 25/02/2011 10,00,000/ - 2004-05 30/10/2004 30/08/2010 25/02/2011 10,00,000/ - 2 ITA NO. 3804 & 3805/MUM/2012 BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICAT IONS LTD . EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C)OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.99,22,40 6/-REGARDING A SUBSCRIPTION CAMPAIGN DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO AY.2001-02 AND TREATED IT AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.99.22 LACS ASSESSEE-COMPANY CLAIMED RS.30, 70,145/- FOR THAT AY.AND BALANCE WAS CLAIMED IN THREE EQUAL INSTALLMENTS OF RS.22,84,087/-IN SUBSEQUENT THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. IN 2002-03,2003-04 AND 2004-05.SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE REVISED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY.2001-02 AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.99,22,406/- WAS CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THAT YEAR.AO DISALLOWED THE SAME,BUT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA)ALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT O F EXPENDITURE.THE DECISION OF FAA WAS CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE ITAT.THOUGH TRI BUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO,BUT THE ISSUE OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE WA S NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. MEANWHILE,RETURNS OF INCOME FOR AYS.2003-04 AND 2004-05 HAD BEEN FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH EXPENDITURE OF RS.22,84,087/-WAS CLAIMED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPEN DITURE.CLAIMING THAT DEPARTMENT HAD CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE FAA BEFORE THE ITAT,ASS ESSEE DID NOT FILE REVISED RETURN FOR BOTH THE AYS.AND DID NOT WITHDRAW THE CLAIM.ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IT INTENDED TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE TILL THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE ISSUE.AO REOPENED THE ASSE SSMENTS FOR THE AYS.2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE.BESIDES,HE ALSO LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C)OF THE ACT,AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY HAD CONCEALED THE INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 2.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO,ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PENALTY ORD ER,HE HELD THAT IN THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT I.E. AY.01-02,ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE COMPLETE FACTS OF I TS CLAIM IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THAT YEAR,THAT IN THE AYS.03-04 AND 04-05 ALL THE DETAIL S WERE FURNISHED BY IT,THAT IT WAS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE CA SES HAD BEEN REOPENED BY THE AO,THAT IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT ASSESSEE CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FILED ANY WRONG OR INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME,THAT IT COULD NOT BE PENALISE D FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS,THAT IT WAS MERELY A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY THAT HAD BEE N DISALLOWED,THAT MERE DISALLOWANCE OR REJECTION OF CLAIM DID NOT LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY. HE FURTHER HELD THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO TREAT ANY EXPENDITURE AS DEFERRE D REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR AS ONE-TIME-REVENUE EXPENDITURE THEN THE AO COULD TAKE A DIFFERENT STAN D,THAT IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE CONSEQUENTIAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS COULD BE AFFECTED,THAT IF ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE A CLAIM ON DEFERRED REVENUE BASIS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS IT MI GHT BE NOT ALLOWED THE CLAIM AT ALL BECAUSE THE TIME FOR FILING REVISED RETURN MIGHT PASS BY THE TI ME THE ISSUE WAS FINALLY SETTLED.HE ALSO HELD THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION WHEN EVEN FAAS ORDER WAS NOT A VAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IT WAS RIGHT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM IN SUBSEQUENT YE ARS BECAUSE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM IN THE INITIAL YEAR,THAT EVEN AFTER FAAS ORDER THE IS SUE WAS NOT FINAL BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT HAD GONE IN APPEAL.HE OBSERVED THAT THAT ON THE SAME IS SUE IN AY.2002-03,AO HAD MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BUT NEITHER ANY PENALTY WAS INITIATED OR LEVIED.FINALLY,HE DELETED THE PENALTY FOR BOTH THE AYS.,LEVIED BY THE AO FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME . 2.2. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME,THAT IT DID NOT FILE REVISE R ETURNS FOR THE AY.2003-04 EVEN AFTER CLAIMING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED FOR THE AY.2001-02,THAT NON LEVY PENALTY FOR THE AY.2002-03 WAS A SEPARATE ISSUE.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE COMPANY HAD MADE FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF AL L THE MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.22,84,087/-IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEME NTS AND RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2004-05,THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR WAS THERE AN Y FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME,THAT THE PENALTY OF RS.10,00,000 LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS,THAT 3 ITA NO. 3804 & 3805/MUM/2012 BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICAT IONS LTD . IN THE DETAILS OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES(SCHEDULE- 21)ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,84,087/-TOWARDS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENSES,THA T IN THE NOTES TO THE ACCOUNTS (CLAUSE 13),IT WAS MENTIONED THAT EXPENSES RELATING TO THE SUBSCRI PTION CAMPAIGN CARRIED OUT IN THE EARLIER YEAR WERE BEING AMORTISED OVER A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS.HE RE LIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF NALIN P SHAH-HUF (ITA-LOD-NO.49OF 2013 DTD.04.03.2013). 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN EXPE NDITURE OF RS.99.22 LACS UNDER THE HEAD SUBSCRIPTION CAMPAIGN DURING THE AY.2001-02,THAT IN ITIALLY RS.30.75 LACS WERE CLAIMED IN THE AY.2001-02, THAT BALANCE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED IN EQUA L INSTALLMENTS OF RS.22.84 LACS IN THE SUBSEQUENT THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS,THAT LATER ON ASS ESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF THE AY.2001-02 AND CLAIMED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.99.22 LACS AS R EVENUE EXPENDITURE,THAT IN NOTES ON ACCOUNTS ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE FACTS ABOUT THE DEFERMEN T OF CLAIM,THAT AO HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM,THAT FAA ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE,T HAT AO CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE FAA BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THAT MEANWHILE ASSESSEE HAD FI LED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE AYS.2002- 03,2003-04 AND 2004-05,THAT IN THE RETURNS OF INCOM E FOR THOSE YEARS CLAIMS WERE MADE FOR ALLOWING EXPENDITURE OF RS.22.84 LACS,THAT TILL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AO HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ALL THE THREE AYS., THAT HE I NITIATED AND LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C)OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING INCOME AND FILING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS FOR THE AY.2003-04 AND 2004-05,THAT FAA DELETED THE PENALTY.WE FURTHER FIND THAT ORIGIN AL ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS PASSED ON 30.03.2004 WHEREIN THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM, AMOUNTING TO RS.99.22 LACS,MADE BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE FAA ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM ON 27.08.2004,THAT TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED ORDER ON 27.09. 2007.FROM THE ABOVE CHRONOLOGY IT IS CLEAR THAT BY THE TIME ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PRONOUNC ED TIME DUE DATES OF FILING OF RETURNS FOR THE AYS.2003-04 AND 2004-05 HAD ALREADY LAPSED.IT IS A FACT THAT FAA HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE,BUT DEPARTMENT HAD NOT ACCEPTED HIS ORDER. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD TO FILE ITS RETURNS OF INCOME,IT WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO CLAIM PROP ORTIONATE EXPENDITURE FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS INCLUDING THE TWO YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION.HAD TRI BUNAL ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE CLAIM IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ,IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO FORGO THE CLAIM OF RS.68.52 LACS(RS.22.84 LACS PER YEAR FOR THE AY.2002-03TO 2004-05).ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED THESE FACTS IN THE NOTES ON A CCOUNT.AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE.THE BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWE EN THE AO AND ASSESSEE IS WHAT TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND IN WHICH Y EAR/YEARS IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED.WE ARE AWARE THAT PRINCIPLES OF RES-JUDICATA ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME-TAX MATTER,EVEN THAN IT IS NOT CLEAR TO US AS WHY THE AO DID NOT INITIATE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS FOR THE YEAR 2002-03,SPECIALLY WHEN THE FACTS AND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WERE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE AY.2003-04,2004-05. AFTER CONSIDERING ABOVE FACTS,NOW,WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION GENERAL PRINCIPLES THAT DEAL WITH NON IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER THE ACT: A).IMPOSITION OF PENALTY,INCLUDING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS NOT AUTOMATIC.BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY IT HAS TO BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONTRAV ENED THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XXI OF THE ACT.NOT ONLY THE PROVISIONS OF LEVY OF PENALTY ARE DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE,BUT THE DISCRETION IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY. B).CONFIRMATION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITION DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE BASIS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. C).CLAIMING OR NOT CLAIMING PARTICULAR ITEM UNDER A PARTICULAR HEAD OF INCOME IS NOT A VALID BASIS FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER CONCEALMENT PROVISIONS. D).A DISPUTED CLAIM CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH FURNISHI NG OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS PENAL PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INVOKED BECA USE CLAIMS,INCLUDING CLAIMS FOR SPECIAL DEDUCTIONS,MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO. 4 ITA NO. 3804 & 3805/MUM/2012 BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICAT IONS LTD . E).IF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT N OT IMPOSING PENALTY IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE AO, PROVISIONS OF CONCEALMENT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. F).A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM,WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABL E IN LAW,BY ITSELF,WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. G).WHERE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPLACED BY THE ESTIMATE OF AN AO PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. H).THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FALSE/BOGUS CLAI M AND A GENUINE CLAIM.IN THE FIRST CASE,THE FACT OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE IS MISSING,WHERE AS IN THE SECOND SITUATION, INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE IS NEVER IN DISPUTE.IN SUCH A CASE,PENALTY CANNOT BE I MPOSED U/S. 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT. I).FOR IMPOSING PENALTY ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FAILED T O PROVE THAT EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM IS NOT BONAFIDE.APART FROM HIS EXPLANATION BEING NOT B ONA FIDE,IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND AS A FACT THAT HE HAD NOT DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS WHICH WERE MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME. IF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES ;CULLED OUT FROM THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE COURTS;ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER IT BECOMES CLEAR THA T ASSESSEE-COMPANY CANNOT BE VISITED WITH PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT.HERE,WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE CASE OF NALIN P SHAH-HUF (SUPRA).HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DEALT THE FAC TS OF THE CASE AND LAW AS UNDER : 4.IN THIS CASE, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD DECLARE D LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.4.39 CRORES WHICH WERE INCLUSIVE OF LOSS INCURRED ON THE SALE O F US 64 UNITS.THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE LOSS ON SALE US 64 UNITS ON THE GROUND THAT WHE RE INCOME FROM PARTICULAR SOURCE WAS EXEMPT FROM TAX THEN THE OSS FROM SUCH SOURCE COULD NOT BE SET OFF FROM ANOTHER SOURCE COULD NOT T BE SET OFF FROM ANOTHER SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCO ME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING AND IMPOSED PENALTY UN DER SECTON 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. 5.IN APPEAL, CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER PENALTY. 6.ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED A NOTE WITH ITS COMPUTAT ION OF INCOME DISCLOSING ALL DETAILS ABOUT THE SALE OF US 64 UNITS, THE LOSS AND RESULTANT CARRY FORWAR D. FURTHER, ALL DETAILS WERE DISCLOSED IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER GATHERED INFORMATION ABOUT THE CARRY FORWARD LOSS AND SALE OF UNITS FROM RETUR N FILED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE.THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS AT THE HIGHE ST IT CAN SAID SAID THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW,BUT THERE WAS NO FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT O OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE.TH US, THE PENALTY WAS SET ASIDE. WE FIND THAT THE SAME VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT V/S. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD.REPORTED IN [2010]322 ITR 158 (SC). AS THE ASSESSE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE NECESSARY INFO RMATION AND INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE AO,TH EREFORE,UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE FAA WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO FOR BOTH THE AYS. AS A RESULT,APPEALS FILED BY THE AO FOR THE AY.2003-04 AND 2004-05 STAND DISMISSED. 3/4' 5/ 0 6 %7 . 8 '.. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 . 9 '!: . !/ ;<. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH DECEMBER,2013 . %'= . 12( ' # 9 >%' 24 FNLACJ FNLACJ FNLACJ FNLACJ , 2013 2 . 8. SD/- SD/- ( . . - H.L.KARWA) ( !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ / RAJENDRA) / PRESIDENT ' ' ' ' %& %& %& %& /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 5 ITA NO. 3804 & 3805/MUM/2012 BUSINESS INDIA PUBLICAT IONS LTD . / MUMBAI, >%' /DATE: 24 TH DECEMBER,2013 SK %'= %'= %'= %'= . .. . +/? +/? +/? +/? @'?(/ @'?(/ @'?(/ @'?(/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / )* 2. RESPONDENT / +,)* 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A)/ A B , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / A B 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ?C8 +/' CH CHCH CH , . . # . 6. GUARD FILE/ 8 3 ,?/ ,?/ ,?/ ,?/ +/ +/+/ +/ //TRUE COPY// %'=' / BY ORDER, D / ; ! DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI