JST REALTY P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 10(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3974/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83777 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHA KALA CHANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: JIGNESH P SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUM BAI , BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM I.T.A. NO. 3974/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) JST REALTY PVT. LTD. 6 TH FLOOR, HDIL TOWER, ANANT KANEKAR MARG, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 VS. DY. CIT-10(1), MUMBAI ! ' ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCD 0500 D ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%!# / RESPONDENT ) !#&' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JIGNESH P. SHAH $%!#&' / RESPONDENT BY : SMT ABHA KALA CHANDA ( )*&+, / DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2014 -./&+, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.09.2014 0 O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-21, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 07.02.2011, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2009. 2 ITA NO. 3974 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) JST REALTY PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 2. THE APPEAL, BEARING AS MANY AS FIVE GROUNDS, RAI SES A SINGLE ISSUE, I.E., THE ASSESSMENT OF THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS.934.34 LACS U NDER THE HEAD OF INCOME INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, AS AGAINST AS BUSINESS INCOME , AS BEING CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE SHALL BEGIN BY RECOUNTING THE BACKGROUND FACT S OF THE CASE. RETURN OF INCOME, OFFERING THE SAID RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, AT RS.9,34,33,782/-, AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS U/S.24( A) AND 24(B), WAS FURNISHED ON 31.10.2007, AT A FINAL, NET LOSS OF RS.34,29,749/-. PENDING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT, WHICH STOOD INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) ON 29 .09.2008, A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 04.06.2009. THE SAME BEING OUTSIDE THE TIME LIMIT P RESCRIBED U/S.139(5), THE ASSESSEES REVISED CLAIM WAS FOUND UNTENABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) IN VIEW OF THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), SO THAT ITS ORIGINAL RETURN WAS THE ONLY VALID RETURN. HE, ACCORDINGLY, DECLINED TO MAKE ANY MODIFICATION IN ASSESSMENT OF THE RENTAL INCOME FRO M THAT AS ORIGINALLY RETURNED, ASSESSING IT U/S.22, ALBEIT AT RS.1,00,91,712/- , I.E., AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS U/S.24(A) (@ 30%) AND SECTION 24(B) (AT NET OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A). THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A), WHO EXAMINED THE MATTER IN DETAIL. THE APPELLANT HAD ACQUIRED A MULT I-STORIED BUILDING JAYABHERI SILICON TOWERS, AT HYDERABAD VIDE AN AGREEMENT DATED 27.12 .2005. THE ENTIRE PREMISES WAS PUT ON LEASE VIDE SEPARATE LEASE DEEDS. THE UNITS IN TH E SAID COMPLEX COULD ONLY BE USED FOR RENDERING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) AND IT ENABLE D SERVICES AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WAS LEASED TO TENANTS REGISTERED UN DER THE SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS SCHEME. AMENITIES/SERVICES BY WAY OF STANDBY POWER (DG SET), AIR CONDITIONING, WATER STORAGE AND SUPPLY (BOTH FOR DRINKING AND GENERAL P URPOSES), FIRE FIGHTING, LIFTS, CABLES FOR COMMUNICATION AND CCTV, WERE ALSO PROVIDED BY THE A SSESSEE. IT WAS NOT A SIMPLE CASE OF LETTING BY A LANDLORD, RENT RECEIVED UNDER WHICH ARRANGEMENT IS LIABLE FOR ASSESSMENT U/S.22 AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AMALGAMAT ED AND NON-SEGREGATED INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE ACT IVITIES, CONSTITUTE A REAL, SUBSTANTIVE, SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED ACTIVITY, QUA LIFYING TO BE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO. 3974 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) JST REALTY PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT HAD 20 EMPLOYEES ON ITS ROLLS, LOOKING AFTER VARIOU S OPERATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS. THE SAID INCOME WAS THUS RIGHTLY ASSESSA BLE AS BUSINESS INCOME, AND THE POWER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE TH E MATTER, I.E., ON MERITS, IS NOT CONSTRAINED BY THE FACT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT CLAIMED PER THE ORIGINAL OR THE REVISED RETURN. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE RENT AL INCOME BE ASSESSED U/S.56 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE AGREEING (WITH THE A.O.) THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 04.06.1999 WAS NOT A VALID RETURN UNDER LAW AND, THUS, A NON EST RETURN, WAS OF THE VIEW, FOLLOWING UNIVERSAL SUBSCRIPTION AGENCY (P.) LTD. VS. JT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX [2007] 293 ITR 244 (ALL), RENDERED AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA), THAT THERE IS NO BAR ON THE A.O. IN NOT ENTERTAINING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, WHICH WAS THEREF ORE ADMISSIBLE AND LIABLE TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. QUA MERITS, IN HIS OPINION, THE ASSESSEES INTENTION WA S TO ACQUIRE A PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING RENTAL INCOME. THE APPEL LANT HAD NOT DEVELOPED THE STP PARK, BUT ONLY ACQUIRED A BUILDING THEREIN, SO THAT THE L OCATION OF THE BUILDING CANNOT BE DECISIVE OF THE MATTER. THE EQUIPMENTS, VIZ. DGP, A C CHILLER, LIFTS, WATER STORAGE TANKS, ETC. WERE ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE LEASING OF THE PRO PERTY, BEING IN FACT THE BARE MINIMUM FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF THE PREMIS ES. THIS WOULD NOT MAKE IT AS A SEPARATE ACTIVITY. THE PREMISES WERE ALSO NOT A COMMERCIAL C OMPLEX/MALL. THE A.O.S ACTION IN ASSESSING THE RETURNED INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, ALLOWING DEDUCTIONS AS EXIGIBLE THEREFROM U/S.24, WAS, ACCORDINGLY, UPHELD . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER, EVEN AS PO INTED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONFIRMED BY US DURING HEARING, IS THAT THIS TH E FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THIS ISSUE ARISES IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. SECONDLY, THE ISSUE OF MAINTAI NABILITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, INASMUCH AS THE SAME STANDS NOT MADE OR PRESSED PER AN ORIGINAL OR REVISED RETURN, DOES NOT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME STANDS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AND AGAINST WHICH DECISION THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL . IN FACT, SUFFICE IT TO ADD THAT IT IS THE 4 ITA NO. 3974 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) JST REALTY PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT CORRECT LEGAL POSITION THAT IS RELEVANT, AND WOULD PREVAIL, AND NOT THE VIEW THAT AN ASSESSEE MAY TAKE OF ITS RIGHTS ( CIT VS. PARAKH AND CO. (INDIA) LTD . [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC)), SO THAT WHERE IT INADVERTENTLY FAILS TO MAKE A CLAIM, ARISING FROM THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, IT WOULD NOT BE FATAL TO ITS CASE FOR DEDUCTION/EXE MPTION ON ITS BASIS. 4.2 THE ONLY ISSUE, THEREFORE, BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE INCOME BY WAY OF LEASE RENTAL IS, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY U/S.22, OR AS BUSINESS INCOME, ASSESSABLE U/.28. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS OF AN INSEPARABLE AND INTEGRATED LETTING, I.E., OF PLANT AND MACHINERY ALONG WITH THE BUILDING. FURTHER, THE SAME, I.E., THE VARIOUS FACILITIES AND AMENITIES BEING PROVIDED, IS ONLY TOWARD OPERATING AND MAINTAINING AN INDUSTRIAL PARK, BY WA Y OF AN ORGANIZED ACTIVITY, EXEMPT U/S.80-IA(4)(III) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUES CASE, O N THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT THE PRINCIPAL AND PREDOMINANT OBJECT AND INTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E IN ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY IS TO GENERATE INCOME BY WAY OF LEASE RENT OF THE PREMISE S. THE SAME, THEREFORE, HAS TO BE NECESSARILY CONSIDERED AS ASSESSABLE U/S.22. THE PR OVISION OF WATER, LIFT, POWER, COMMUNICATION FACILITIES, ETC. WOULD NOT ALTER THIS IN-AS-MUCH AS THESE ARE INTEGRAL TO AND NECESSARILY REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER USER AND ENJOYM ENT OF THE BUILDING. FURTHER, THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, BEING LOCATED IN AN INDUS TRIAL PARK, WOULD NOT ALTER THE NATURE OF THE RENTAL INCOME. 4.3 THE ESSENTIAL OR THE BASIC QUESTION THAT WE ARE , THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO ADDRESS AND ANSWER IS AS TO THE SOURCE THAT THE IMPUGNED INCOME CAN PROPERLY BE ASCRIBED TO. IF, IT IS TO THE BUILDING PER SE , THE SAME WOULD ONLY BE IN THE NATURE OF THE RENTA L INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, ASSESSABLE U/S.22. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT CAN BE SAID TO ARISE OUT OF THE COMPOSITE ARRANGEMENT OF LETTING OF PLANT AND MACHI NERY, ETC. AS WELL AS BUILDING, THERE WOULD BE A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE INCOME IN -AS-MUCH AS THE SOURCE THEREOF IN THAT CASE IS NOT LOCATED IN ONLY THE BUILDING, A HOUSE P ROPERTY. THE FACILITIES BEING PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WOULD, IN OUR VIE W, HOWEVER, NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE SOURCE OF ITS INCOME TO THAT OTHER THA N BUILDING THE SAME BEING ONLY TOWARD AND NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER USER AND ENJOYM ENT OF THE BUILDING ITSELF. COULD, FOR 5 ITA NO. 3974 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) JST REALTY PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT EXAMPLE, A BUILDING BE USED WITHOUT POWER OR WATER ? THE LIFTS, AGAIN, SUBSTITUTE THE STAIRWAYS IN PROVIDING (EASY) ACCESS TO THE DIFFERE NT PARTS OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS AKIN TO A LANDLORD LETTING HIS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH WATER, ELECTRICITY, GAS SUPPLY CONNECTIONS OR OTHER AMENITIES. WE AGREE WITH THE REVENUE THAT THE STATED FACILITIES ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUOUS AND UNDISTURBED ENJOYMENT OF THE PROP ERTY. THE LEASE OR THE RENTAL ARRANGEMENT IS FOR THE DIFFERENT PREMISES IN THE BU ILDING. THAT THE BUILDING IS, WHERE SO, COVENANTED TO PROVIDE THOSE AMENITIES, IT WOULD ONL Y BE TOWARD QUALIFYING THE HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT OPERATE TO CHANGE THE VERY NATURE OR THE SOURCE OF INCOME TO OTHER THAN FROM A BUILDING. 4.4 CONTINUING FURTHER, THE BUILDING IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF A COMPLEX, ENTAILING A NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES, SO THAT IT MAY HAVE THE EFFEC T OF CHANGING THE SOURCE TO WHICH THE INCOME IS PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO. IN THIS REGARD WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN SULTAN BROTHERS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC). FACED WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPERTY UNDER REFERENCE WAS A CO MMERCIAL ASSET, IT EXPLAINED THAT A THING IS BY ITS VERY NATURE NOT A COMMERCIAL ASSET, WHICH IS ONLY AN ASSET USED IN A BUSINESS, AND BUSINESS MAY BE CARRIED ON WITH PRACT ICALLY ALL THINGS. COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF A HOUSE PROPERTY, AS LONG AS IT IS BY WAY OF ITS LETTING, WOULD NOT THEREFORE OPERATE TO BE REGARDED AS BUSINESS UNDER THE ACT, WHICH CLASSIFIES OWNERSHIP OF A HOUSE PROPERTY AS A SOURCE OF INCOME, SO THAT WHERE NOT U SED FOR OWN BUSINESS, ITS FAIR RENTAL VALUE NOTIONAL OR ACTUAL, IS BROUGHT TO TAX AS AN NUAL LETTING VALUE THEREOF. THIS SHALL ALSO ANSWER THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF IT BEING ENGAGED IN BUSINESS IN-AS-MUCH AS IT IS ENGAGED IN A SYSTEMATIC, ORGANIZED ACTIVITY, EMPLOYING STAFF. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO FINDING WITH REGARD TO THE EMPLOYEE STRENGTH, I.E., BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE MOOT QUESTION IS WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF INCOME. TH E SAME BEING ESSENTIALLY RENTAL INCOME FROM A HOUSE PROPERTY, THE FACT OF IT BEING CARRIED ON IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER, BY AN ENTITY WHICH IS INCORPORATED, AND PERHAPS FOR THAT PURPOSE , WOULD BY ITSELF BE OF NO MOMENT; THE SAID ACTIVITY OR BUSINESS BEING CATEGORIZED AS A SE PARATE SOURCE OF INCOME, I.E., FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, UNDER THE ACT. THE RATIO OF THE DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . SHAMBHU 6 ITA NO. 3974 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) JST REALTY PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT INVESTMENTS P. LTD. [2001] 249 ITR 47 (CAL.), SINCE UPHELD BY THE APEX COURT IN [2003] 263 ITR 143 (SC), WOULD SQUARELY APPLY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE IMPUGNED INCOME, THUS, IN OUR VIEW IS ASSESSABL E U/S.22 OF THE ACT. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT MAY ALSO BE USEFULLY MADE TO THE DE CISION BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ATMARAM PROPERTIES LTD. VS. JT. CIT (2006)102 TTJ 345/8 SOT 741(SB)(DEL.), AS WELL AS OTHERS, AS IN THE CASE OF ANIK FINANCIAL SERVICES (P.) LTD. V. ITO [2013] 144 ITD 151 (MUM A). 4.5 WE, NEXT, CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT AS T O THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE SAID INCOME U/S.80-IA(4)(III). THIS IN OUR VIEW SHOULD BE OF LI TTLE CONSEQUENCE. AN INCOME HAS TO BE FIRST ASSESSABLE U/S.28, FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED FO R BEING EXIGIBLE TO DEDUCTION, OR NOT SO, TO WHICH THE SAID CLASS OF INCOME IS SUBJECT TO, AS SE CTION 80-IA(4), AND IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE, WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO PUTTING THE CART B EFORE THE HORSE. THE ARGUMENT IS THUS NOT MAINTAINABLE AT THE THRESHOLD. EVEN ON ITS MERI TS, I.E., ASSUMING ITS MAINTAINABILITY, THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING, AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A), WOULD BE OF LITTLE RELEVANCE IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF THE INCOME THERE-FROM, OR ITS ASSESSABILITY UNDER THE ACT, SO THAT THE FACT OF ITS LOCATION IN A NOTIFIED INDUSTR IAL PARK, OR BEING LET TO ENTITIES FALLING IN A PARTICULAR CLASS OR INDUSTRY/S, IS BY ITSELF LARGE LY IRRELEVANT AND OF LITTLE MOMENT. AT THIS STAGE, HOWEVER, THE LD. AR WOULD INFORM US THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OWNING A BUILDING, BUT OF THE SAID BUILDIN G ITSELF BEING A NOTIFIED PARK, TOWARD WHICH DEDUCTION U/S.80-IA(4)(III) STANDS PROVIDED F OR BY THE STATUTE, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID NOTIFICATION (NO. 191/2006 DA TED 24.07.2006) ISSUED BY THE CBDT U/S.80-IA(4)(III) TO THE ASSESSEE (PB PGS. 1-3), AN D THE LETTER BY THE CBDT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONVEYING THE SAID NOTIFICATION (PB PGS. 4- 8) AS WELL AS THE COMMUNICATIONS IN ITS RESPECT TO THE ASSESSEE DATED DECEMBER 5 AND 20 , 2006 (PB PGS. 9-12). WHILE THE FOREGOING (PARAS 4.1 THROUGH 4.4 SUPRA) REPRESENT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW IN THE MATTER AS WELL AS OUR VIEW IN THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I.E., AS PROJECTED PER THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE SAID DOCUMENTS PROVIDE AN 7 ITA NO. 3974 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) JST REALTY PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT ALTOGETHER NEW AND DIFFERENT COMPLEXION TO THE ASSE SSEES CASE. IF THE ASSESSEES BUILDING IS ITSELF A NOTIFIED PARK, WHICH IT IS OPERATING AN D MAINTAINING, AS CLAIMED, THE MATTER WOULD HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY EXAMINED IN THAT LIGHT . THERE HAVING BEEN NO SUCH EXAMINATION, WHICH HAS ALL THROUGH BEEN CONSIDERED AS A CASE OF BUILDING LOCATED IN A SOFTWARE PARK LET TO SOFTWARE UNITS, I.E., PROVIDIN G IT AND IT ENABLED SERVICES, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER THAT THE MATTER IS RESTO RED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICATION IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS BEING NOW EXH IBITED BEFORE US. IN FACT, WE CONSIDER THIS AS UNFORTUNATE IN-AS-MUCH AS THESE DOCUMENTS, FORMING PART OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER- BOOK DATED 02.05.2014, BEARS A CERTIFICATE TO THE E FFECT THAT THE SAME WERE FURNISHED BEFORE AND, ACCORDINGLY, A PART OF THE RECORD OF BO TH THE ASSESSING AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHILE THEIR ORDERS BEAR NO REFERENCE THE RETO. THE SCHEME FRAMED AND NOTIFIED BY THE CBDT COULD NOT PRESUMABLY BE LIGHTLY INFERRE D AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW, SO THAT, AS IT APPEARS, THERE ARE SOME GAPS IN THE APP RECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RELEVANT SCHEME, AND THEIR POSI TIVE SATISFACTION, WOULD REQUIRE BEING EXAMINED AND ADJUDICATED UPON. 5. WE ACCORDINGLY RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO SHALL DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AF TER CONSIDERING THESE OR ANY OTHER MATERIALS THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY DEEM FIT TO RELY UP ON OR MAY BE CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF, BY ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FAC T/S AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE HIM. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 1/+23451+& 6& 789:) ; +&+< ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (SANJAY ARORA) / VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( =* MUMBAI; > DATED : 10.09.2014 8 ITA NO. 3974 /MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) JST REALTY PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT )3 ROSHANI , SR. PS !' # $%&' ('% COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ?+ @ A / THE CIT(A) 4. ( ?+ / CIT - CONCERNED 5. B)CD$3+3E4 ,E4/ ( =* / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. D5F* GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( =* / ITAT, MUMBAI