RASILA S. MEHTA, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 23, MUMBAI

ITA 3890/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2498 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P DANIEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay
• Section: 234B; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 RASILA S. MEHTA . , 32, MADHULI, DR. A.B.ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI- 400018. PAN:- ABNPM8219R VS. THE DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23 , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI- 400020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. DHARMESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. DR. P. DANIEL. DATE OF HEARING: 17 /0 6 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/07/20 16 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 18/01/2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-40, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92. 2. BRIEF FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE I SSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IS THE M OTHER OF LATE SHRI. HARSHAD S. MEHTA INVOLVED IN THE SECURITIES SCAM. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT A T THE PREMISED OF THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ON 27/09/1990. DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH A LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. A SECOND S EARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT AT THE APPEL LANTS PREMISES ON 28/02/1992. DURING THE COURSE OF SECOND SEARCH ALSO A LARGE 2 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS AND VALUABLES WERE SEIZED. SINC E THE APPELLANT/ ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HER RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHIN A PRESCR IBED TIME, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE AO. IN REPLY TO WH ICH, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS, HOWEVER, NO RETURN OF IN COME WAS FILED. ULTIMATELY, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144/143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON 24/03/1994 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 4,78,03,164/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25/02/2003 GRAN TED PARTIAL RELIEF ONLY. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ITAT AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES, CONSIDERED IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER ADMITTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDE R DATED 31/03/2006 PASSED IN BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 2804/M/ 04. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING VALIDITY O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PRINCIP LES OF NATURAL JUSTICE EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 3 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT DETERMINING THE IN COME BASED ON THE FINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREBY CONFIRM ING THE NET ACCRETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED BOOK RESULTS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCO ME OF APPELLANT BY CONSIDERING NET ACCRETION TO VARIOUS A SSETS AS UNDER IS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE. PARTICULARS AMOUNT S (RS.) NET ACCRETION TO THE OTHER ASSE TS (-) 3,65,93,656 NET ACCRETION TO SHAREHOLDING 8,29,86,623 DECLARATION BY LATE SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA 24,00,000 TOTAL .... 4,87,92,967 ADD: PERSONAL EXPENSES 1, 45,647 TOTAL NET ACCRETION TO THE NON-REVENUE ACCOUNTS 4,89,38,614 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING T HAT THE CORRECT QUANTITY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES SHO ULD BE ADOPTED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHILE DETERMIN ING THE INCOME BASED ON THE NET ACCRETION METHOD ADOPTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDINGS OF THE APPELLANT IN ANNEXURE A-1 BASED ON THE SEIZED DATA OF THE BROKER S. 4 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS AS PER ANNEXURE A-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT RS. 4,34,46,164/- ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION COLLE CTED FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES ALLEGEDLY SHOWING THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE COPIES OF THE SAID LETTERS/INFORMATION WAS NEIT HER PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS NOR DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE VAL UE OF THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AS PER ANNEXURE A-3 BASE D ON THE AVERAGE OF THE MARKET RATES AS ON 1.4.1990 A ND 31.3.1991 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AT THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION BASED ON THE DATES OF PURCHASE. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 11. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT GRANTING DEDUC TION U/S. 48 OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT. 12. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ALTERNATE WORKING OF TH E TOTAL 5 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 INCOME AS GIVEN BELOW, AS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) REVENUE RECEIPTS AS PER SEIZED BOOKS 25,21,616 ADDITIONAL INCOME BEING PART OF RS.100 CRORES DECLARATION 2,18,62,000 TOTAL ......... 2,43,83,616 LESS: EXPENSES 95 0 TOTAL INCOME AS PER REVENUE ACCOUNTS 2,43,82,666 13. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE LEV Y OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 4. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 55 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR WILLFUL ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSEE BUT IT HAS HAPPENED DUE TO THE REASON THAT ALL ASSETS OF THE A SSESSEE HAD BEEN ATTACHED AND THE APPLICANT HAD TO MOVE AN APPLICATI ON FOR SANCTION AND RELEASE OF STATUTORY FEES IN TERMS OF SECTION 3 (4) OF THE SPECIAL COURTS ACT AND AFTER OBTAINING ORDER FROM THE COURT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE ALLOWED THE APPLICATION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE HOLDING THAT THE AFORESA ID CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUFFICIENT TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE P RESENT APPEAL. HENCE, WE ALLOWED THE LD. COUNSEL TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERITS. 6 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 5. ON MERITS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA, ITA NO 8023/ M/2011 DECIDED ON 04.12.2013 BY THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, TH E PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE ITAT MUMBAI IN CASE HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA). ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELYING ON THE FIN DINGS OF THE AUTHORITY BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD A ND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. LD. CIT(A). 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL. HENCE , WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED. 7. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED IN CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA) WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THE SAME DOES NOT NEED SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS NOT ADJUDICATED. 8. THE LD. SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE A PPEAL IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE NET ACCR ETION METHOD ADOPTED BY THE AO FOR DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME REJECTING THE FINAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT ISSUE DI RECTION TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF AC COUNTS HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 ., WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON WHY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS. AS THE ADMISSION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. C IT(A) IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. GROUND NO 3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE LD. CIT (A) FOLLOW ING ITS EARLIER FINDING IN THE CASE OF SHRI. HITESH S. MEHTA FOR A. Y. 1991-92), ON THE SAME ISSUE, HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEE N DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FIN DING OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. GROUND NO. 3 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. GROUND NO. 4, 5 & 6 PERTAIN TO DETERMINATION O F THE TOTAL INCOME BY CONSIDERING NET ACCRETION TO VARIOUS ASSE TS. THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI. HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA) HAS ALLOWED THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS HOLDING AS UNDER: 11. AS WE HAVE DIRECTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO COMPUTE T HE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE QUA IN GROUND NO. 3, ADDITIONS CONTESTED FOR GROUND NO. 4,5, & 6 ARE DELETED. GROUND NO 4 TO 6 ARE ACCORDIN GLY ALLOWED. 11. SINCE, WE HAVE DIRECTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO COMPU TE THE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DELETE THE ADDITIONS CONTESTED VIDE GROUND NO 4,5 & 6 OF THIS APPEAL. GROUND NO. 4, 5 & 6 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 12. GROUND NO. 7 IS ALSO IDENTICAL TO THE CORRESPO NDING GROUND NO. 7 RAISED IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA). TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS ALLOWED THE GROUND NO.7 OF THE APPEAL HOL DING AS UNDER:- ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS THAT NO EVIDENCE COLLECTED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE A SSESSEE COULD BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNLESS AN OPPORT UNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE SAME. AS THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE EVIDENCES COLLECTED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ADDITIONS BASED ON SUCH MATERIALS DESERVES TO BE DE LETED. WE, ACCORDINGLY REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT( A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,79,42 ,133/- WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATIO N COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS COMPANIES BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLO WED. 13. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ANY INVESTMENT IS DI SCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OR NOT CAN BE ANSWERED ONLY AFTER EXAMINING T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS, WE HAVE DIRECTED THE LD CIT(A) TO DETERMINE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE THE AO HAS DETERMINED CERTAIN INVESTMENTS AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL COLLECTED BY HIM AND SINCE THEY WERE NOT COMPARED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO E XPLAIN HER CASE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) W ITH THE DIRECTION TO CAUSE COMPARE THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS W ITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT (A) MAY GET A REMAND REPORT FROM AO IN THIS 9 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 REGARD. IF ANY INVESTMENT IS FOUND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TO SEEK EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE. 14. SINCE, GROUND NO. 8 OF THE APPEAL IS CONSEQUEN TIAL TO THE FINDING OF THE GROUND NO. 7 OF THE APPEAL, THE SAME IS ALSO ALLOWED. 15. GROUND NO. 9 PERTAINS TO CONFIRMATION OF DISALL OWANCE OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIM BY THE APPELLANT. AS URGED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IDENT ICAL ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN DEALT BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF SHRI. HITESH S. MEHTA, ITA NO 9158/M/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 996-97 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2013. FOLLOWING THE DECISION REN DERED IN THE SAID CASE, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH RESTORED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW THE DIR ECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2006-07. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH WE RESTORE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE T RIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO. 9158/M/2010 (SUPRA). GROUND NO. 9 IS ACCOR DINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. GROUND NO. 10 OF THIS APPEAL IS ALSO IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND NO. 10 IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA). THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH HAS ALLOWED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL HOLDING AS UNDER: 20. AS WE HAVE DIRECTED THE CIT(A) TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, ALL THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE ALLOWED BY THE AO AS PER OUR FINDI NGS 10 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 GIVEN IN GROUND NO. 3 OF THIS ORDER. GROUND NO. 10 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 16. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDI NATE BENCH PASSED IN HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA), WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 10 OF THE APPEAL AND DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO COMPUTE TH E INCOME AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHILE ALLOWING GROUND NO 3 OF THIS APPEAL . 17. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 11 & 12 ARE C ONSEQUENTIAL TO OUR FINDINGS GIVEN FOR GROUND NO. 3 OF THIS APPEAL. AS WE HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THESE GROUNDS WILL BE DECIDED A FR ESH. GROUND NO. 11 & 12 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 18. GROUND NO. 13 RELATES TO THE CHARGEABILITY OF I NTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. LEVY OF INTEREST IS MANDA TORY BUT CONSEQUENTIAL. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 20/07/2016 11 ITA NO 3890/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1991-92 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. !' , $ !'% , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &' ( / GUARD FILE. / YORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA