HDFC BANK LTD ( SUCCESSOR TO BUSINESS OF CENTUIRION BANK ;LTD ), MUMBAI V. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3843/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54970 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRUDUL D INAMDAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 32; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 3843/MUM/2010. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. HDFC BANK LIMITED, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (SUCCESSOR TO BUSINESS OF VS. 2(1)(1), MUMBAI. CENTURIAN BANK LTD.), HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400013. PAN AAACC 2272R APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI MRUDUL D. INAMDAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAVAN VED. DATE OF HEARING : 09-08-2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-08-2011 O R D E R. PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-4, MUMBAI DATED 11-03-2010 AND THE SOL ITARY ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME RELATES TO THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATIVE CLAIM FO R DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF LOANS WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS.28,69,02,377/- WHICH HA S BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WA S NOT MADE EITHER IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OR BY FILING THE REVISED RETURN. 2 ITA NO. 3843/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A BANKING CO MPANY WHICH FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 30-10 -2002 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.29,10,98,475/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 28- 03-2005, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETER MINED BY THE AO AT RS.8,32,57,720/-. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND IN GROUND NO. 6 RAISED THEREIN, THE ISSUE RELATING TO ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF L OAN WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS.28,69,02,377/- WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE F ACTS RELEVANT TO THIS CLAIM AS STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS WERE AS UNDER : DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR T HE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE APPELLANT COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 15, 20 05, MADE A WITHOUT PREJUDICE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF LOAN WRITTEN OFF R S.28,69,02,377/-. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE SAID CLAIM OF THE APP ELLANT COMPANY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE DEPARTMENT HAS IN THE PAST ASSESSMENTS OF TCFC (SINCE MERGED WITH THE APPELLANT BANK EFFECTIVE FROM JANUARY 1, 1998) TREA TED THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS AS FINANCE / LOAN TRANSACTIONS AND CONSEQUENTLY DIS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION CLAIM UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT ON THE ASSET LEAS ED OUT. TCFC/BANK HAS CONTESTED SUCH TREATMENT OF THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAS TREATED LEASE TRA NSACTIONS AS FINANCE TRANSACTIONS AND DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION, WITHOUT P REJUDICE TO TCFC/BANKS CONTENTION THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE LEASE TRANSAC TIONS, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED TO GRANT A CONSEQUENT RELIEF OF LOSS ARIS ING ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN WRITE OFF U/S. 36(1)(VII) R.W. SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISSUE RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 6 VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 19 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER W HICH READS AS UNDER : I HAVE ONLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY. THE CLAIM WAS MADE ONL Y DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED. HON . SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS CIT (284 ITR 323) THAT NO CLAIM 3 ITA NO. 3843/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. CAN BE ALLOWED WITHOUT FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME OR REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALLOWED. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THUS DID NOT RENDER ANY DECISION ON MERIT ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISSED THE RELEVANT GROUND NO. 6 OF TH E ASSESSEES APPEAL AT THE THRESHOLD ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIO N IN RESPECT OF LOAN WRITTEN OFF WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED OR BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION, HE R ELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. 2 84 ITR 323. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FR ANCO-INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL S (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 195 TAXMAN 30 (MUM.) (MAG.) WHEREI N IT WAS HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) DOES NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUN AL TO ADMIT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OR ADDITIONAL CLAIM WHEN ALL THE FACTS OF TH E CASE ARE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE DE CISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), T HE AO CANNOT ENTERTAIN ANY CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN UNLESS THE SAME IS MADE BY WAY OF FILING A REVISED RETURN. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT IF THE AO HAS NO POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE NEW CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT FILING A REVISED RETURN AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD., THE TRIBUNAL A LSO CANNOT DO SO SINCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE HIERARCHY CREAT ED BY THE ACT IS NO HIGHER THAN 4 ITA NO. 3843/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AS HELD BY HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MURLIDHAR BHAGWANDAS REPORTED IN 52 ITR 335 . 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR BHAGWAN DAS (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LEARNED DR. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A FIRM CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN DIF FERENT LINES. IT WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX U/S 23(4) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1949-50 ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) AND (4 ) OF SECTION 22 OF THE ACT HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. ON SEPTEMBER 27, 1955, THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS CANCELLED UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE ACT. BUT BEFORE THE SAID CA NCELLATION IT WAS FOUND THAT AN INTEREST INCOME OF RS.88,737/- IN THE SHAPE OF U.P. ENCUMBERED ESTATES ACT BONDS RECEIVED BY HIM IN DISCHARGE OF THE DEBTS DUE FROM THIRD PARTIES HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE S AME. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 34(1)(A) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1949-50 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.88,737/- HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. AFTER THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT YEAR WAS SET ASIDE U/S 27 OF THE ACT, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IGNORING THE NOTICE ISSUED B Y HIM U/S 34(1)(A) OF THE ACT, INCLUDED THAT AMOUNT IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT MADE B Y HIM. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORDER AND THAT WAS DISPOSED BY THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ON DECEMBER 4, 1957. THE APPELLATE ASS ISTANT COMMISSIONER IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE BONDS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE PREVIOUS ACCOUNTING YEAR AND, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THAT THE SUM REPRESEN TING INTEREST ON THE BONDS SHOULD BE DELETED FROM THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 1948-49. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSI ONER THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 34(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPE CT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1948- 49. THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER THAT SECTION WAS SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT ON DECEMBER 5, 1957. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION UND ER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 5 ITA NO. 3843/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. CONSTITUTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALL AHABAD FOR QUASHING THE SAID PROCEEDINGS, MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROCEEDI NGS WERE INITIATED BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 34 OF THE ACT. THE HIGH COURT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION AND QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER. THE DEPARTMENT WENT IN APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE TO THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT AND THE QUESTION RAISED THEREIN WAS WHETHER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SE CTION 34(3) OF THE ACT COULD BE INVOKED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE SAID PROVISO READ AS UNDER : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS S ECTION LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION MAY BE TAKEN, OR ANY ORDER, ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MAY BE MADE, SHALL APPLY TO A REASSESS MENT MADE UNDER SECTION 27 OR TO AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MADE ON THE ASSESSEE OR ANY PERSON IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY F INDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 31, SECTION 33, SECTION 33A, SECTION 33B, SECTION 66 OR SECTION 66A. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ANSWERED THE QUESTION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : (I) THAT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE YEAR WAS THE UNI T OF ASSESSMENT. THE DECISION OF AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER GIVEN IN A P ARTICULAR YEAR DID NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN THE MATTER OF ASSESS MENT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNALS IN THE HIERARCHY CREATED BY THE ACT WAS NO HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE I NCOME-TAX OFFICER: IT WAS ALSO CONFINED TO THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT. (II) THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT CO MMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 31 WAS STRICTLY CONFINED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE PARTICULAR YEAR UNDER APPEAL. (III) THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MADE IN CONSEQU ENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED I N AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 31, SECTION 33, SECTION 33A, SECTION 33B, S ECTION 66 OR SECTION 66A MUST NECESSARILY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL, REVISION OR REFERENCE, AS THE CASE MIGHT BE . (IV) THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 34(3) ONLY LIFTE D THE BAN OF LIMITATION AND DID NOT ENLARGE THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNALS UNDER THE RELEVANT SECTIONS. (V) THAT THE EXPRESSIONS FINDING AND DIRECTION, IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 34(3), MEANT RESPECTIVELY, A FINDING NEC ESSARY FOR GIVING 6 ITA NO. 3843/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION, AND THE DIRECTION WHICH THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORI TY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS EMPOWERED TO GIVE UNDER THE SECTIONS MENTIO NED IN THAT PROVISO. A FINDING, THEREFORE, COULD ONLY BE THAT WHICH WAS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF AN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A PARTICULAR YEAR. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSI ONER MIGHT HOLD, ON THE EVIDENCE, THAT THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT THE INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND THEREBY EXCLUDE TH AT INCOME FROM THE ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE FINDING IN THAT CONTEXT WAS THAT THE INCOME DID NOT BELONG TO THE RELEVANT YEAR . HE MIGHT INCIDENTALLY FIND THAT THE INCOME BELONGED TO ANOTH ER YEAR, BUT THAT WAS NOT A FINDING NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF AN APPEAL IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION. (VI) THAT THE EXPRESSION ANY PERSON IN THE SECOND PROV ISO TO SECTION 34(3) REFERRED TO ONE WHO WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE ASS ESSED FOR THE WHOLE OR A PART OF THE INCOME THAT WENT INTO THE ASSESSM ENT OF THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL OR REVISION. (VII) THAT, THEREFORE, THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 34(3 ) DID NOT SAVE THE TIME-LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 34(1) IN RESPEC T OF AN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT OF A YEAR OTHER THAN THAT WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL OR REVISION, AS THE CASE MIGHT BE, AND A CCORDINGLY THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34(1)(A) IN THIS CASE WAS BARR ED BY LIMITATION AND WAS NOT SAVED BY THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 34(3 ). 7. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR BHAGWAN DAS (SUPRA) WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ISSUE INVOL VED IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TO TH E EFFECT THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE HIERARCHY CREATED BY THE ACT WAS NO HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS RECORDED IN THE DIFFERENT CO NTEXT I.E. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS THAT OF THE AO WAS ALSO CONFINED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION WHICH WAS RENDERED I N A DIFFERENT CONTEXT THUS CANNOT BE EXTENDED AND APPLIED TO THE ISSUE INVOLVE D IN THE PRESENT CASE WHICH IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE C ASE OF MURLIDHAR BHAGWAN DAS (SUPRA) DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 7 ITA NO. 3843/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. 8. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FRANCO-INDIAN PHARMACEUTICA LS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) ON THE OTHER HAND, IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E RELEVANT YEAR DECLARING CERTAIN INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER MAKING AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED DUE TO CLERICAL/ARITHMETICAL ERROR. THE AO REJECTED THE SAID CLAIM. ON APPEAL, T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) BY OBSERVING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD TO FILE A SEPARATE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME TO MAKE SUCH CLAIM. ON FUR THER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE POWERS OF THE TRIBU NAL AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. CIT 229 ITR 383 ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE SAID DECISION. IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE POW ER TO ADMIT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OR CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEN ALL THE FACTS A RE ON RECORD. IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE BEFORE IT HAD B EEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LETTER ITSELF AND THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WAS TO BE ADMITTED KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT 187 ITR 688. SINC E THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED ON ME RIT EITHER BY THE AO OR BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE SAM E TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERIT AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FRANCO INDIAN PHARM ACEUTICAL (SUPRA), WE ADMIT THE 8 ITA NO. 3843/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF L OAN WRITTEN OFF AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECI DE THE SAME ON MERIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. \. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR)) (P.M . JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19 TH AUGUST, 2011. COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, I-BENCH. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENC HES, MUMBA I. WAKODE