JANZEB AMIRKAMAL KHAN, MUMBAI V. ACIT 13(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4175/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83950 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK A PERAMPURNA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'J' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4174 & 4175/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2008-09) SHRI JANZEB AMIRKAMAL KHAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER/ACIT-13(3)(2) A BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, AYESHA MANZIL, 136/38 SAIDA MARG MUMBAI 400009 ROOM NO. 428, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AEQPK0486C APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIVEK A. PERAMPURNA DATE OF HEARING: 20.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.10.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI AND THEY PERTAIN TO ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. 2. ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A ) UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE US BY THE ASS ESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD AND IN FACT THERE WAS NO MENTION IN THE LETTERS THAT THE NRI BROTHER HAS GIVEN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE AND DESPITE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DEPOS ITS IT WAS NOT APPRECIATED IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. 3. THOUGH NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME BY REGISTERED POST, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS EXPARTE, QUA AS SESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R., WHO RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY TAX AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUG H THE RECORD. ITA NO. 4174/MUM/2012 SHRI JANZEB AMIRKAMAL KHAN 2 5. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, THE TAX AU THORITIES HAVE NOTICED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, CRA WFORD MARKET BRANCH, MUMBAI AND WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE O F ACQUISITION OF THE CASH IT WAS STATED THAT HE WAS MAINTAINING TWO SEPA RATE ACCOUNTS, ONE IN ICICI BANK AND THE OTHER IN HDFC BANK, AND HE HAD T AKEN UNSECURED LOANS WHICH WERE UTILISED EXCLUSIVELY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BUSINESS. THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE IN HDFC BANK WAS WITHDRAWN FROM TI ME TO TIME AND ADVANCED TO OTHER PARTIES AND UPON REPAYMENT THE SA ME WAS REDEPOSITED. THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM TH E AO, BASED ON THE DETAILED SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, AND EXHAU STIVELY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER IN COMING TO THE CONCL USION THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHI LE CONSIDERING STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THEM ; THEY ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE. HE HAD ALSO APPLIED THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801 WHILE CONCLUD ING THAT THE ASSESSEE MERELY MADE VAGUE SUBMISSIONS WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO REBUT THE DISCREPANCIES AS NOTICED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) THUS SUSTAINED THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE AO. 6. THOUGH AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED CHALLENGING THE ORDE RS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) NO MATERIAL, WHATSOEVER, WAS PLACED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THOUGH SEPARATE ORDERS WERE PASSED FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE COROLLARY OF EVENTS BEING SAME , FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE WE EXTRACT PARA 3.3.1 TO 3.3.5 OF THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR AY 2007-08, WHICH IS SELF-EXPLANATORY AN D HIGHLIGHTS THAT ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS VAGUE: - 3.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS, THE LD. AR HAS FURNISHED A DATE WISE SUMMARY OF THE CASH WITHD RAWN AND CASH DEPOSITED IN THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT IN QUESTION WHIC H IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-'A' WITH THIS APPELLATE ORDER. FROM THE SAID ANNEXURE-A , IT IS SEEN THAT THE TOTAL CASH WITHDRAWN DURING THE PE RIOD 01/04/2006 TO 29/03/2007 (THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL YEAR) IS RS, 8,56, 600/- WHEREAS THE ITA NO. 4174/MUM/2012 SHRI JANZEB AMIRKAMAL KHAN 3 TOTAL CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IS RS. 15 ,39,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 19,1 1,020/- AS ON 01/04/2006. FROM THE PATTERN OF WITHDRAWALS AND DEP OSITS AS PER THE SAID ANNEXURE-'A', IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWALS OF SMALLER AMOUNTS ON VARIOUS DATES ON WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE HAD HUGE CASH IN HAND ALREADY AS PER THE DETAI LS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. SIMILARLY ON VARIOUS DATES, HE HA S MADE ONLY SMALL DEPOSITS OF CASH IN BANK A/C THOUGH ON THE SAID DAT ES HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE HUGE CASH BALANCE WITH HIM. SUCH A BNORMAL PATTERN OF WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSIT OF CASH SUGGESTS THAT TH ERE WAS NOT ENOUGH CASH BALANCE LYING PHYSICALLY WITH THE ASSES SEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT ONE WOULD WITHDRAW FROM BANK ONLY WHEN THE CASH ALREADY LYING WITH HIM IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ME ET HIS NEEDS ON THAT DAY OR CONVERSELY A PERSON WOULD NOT DEPOSIT ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE CASH-IN-HAND AVAILABLE WITH HIM IN THE BANK A/C LEAVING LARGE AMOUNTS AS CASH IN HAND EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS NO T REQUIRED TO BE USED. THIS CAN BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD BY ANALYZING SO ME OF THE ENTRIES IN SPECIFIC AS SAMPLE. FOR EG., AS PER THE ANNEXURE-'A', AS ON 01/4/2006, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE CASH IN HAND OF RS. 19,11,020/-. STILL HE KEPT ON WITHDRAWING SMALL AMO UNTS MOSTLY IN THE RANGE OF RS. 3,000/- TO RS. 5,000/- DURING THE PERI OD 01/04/2006 TO 16/04/2006. THIS DEFIES ANY LOGIC SINCE THE AMOUNTS WITHDRAWN AND ACCUMULATED AS CASH-IN-HAND WAS NOT SPENT FOR ANY P URPOSE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS AS CASH-IN-HAND, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY HE WOULD WITHDRAW SUCH SMA LL AMOUNTS WHEN THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED FOR ANY PURPOSE. ON 16/ 04/2006 THE ASSESSEE HAD CASH-IN-HAND OF RS. 19,90,020/-. OUT O F THIS, HE DEPOSITED RS. 1,00,000/- ON 24/04/2006 AND AGAIN DE POSITED RS. 50,000/- EACH TWICE ON 25/04/2006. IT IS NOT UNDERS TANDABLE AS TO WHY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD DEPOSIT SMALL AMOUNTS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT IN STAGES AND ON DIFFERENT DATES. ON 27/04/2006, TH E ASSESSEE HAD CASH-IN-HAND OF RS. 17,90,020/-, BUT HE STILL WITHD REW A SMALL AMOUNT OF RS. 3,000/- ON 27/04/2006. AGAIN AN AMOUNT OF RS . 2,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DATE AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,0 00/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 01/05/2006. THEREAFTER, AMOUNTS OF RS. 50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED ON 03/05/2006 AND TWO AMOUNTS OF RS. 1,00 ,000/- AND RS. 50,000/- EACH WERE DEPOSITED SEPARATELY ON THE SAME DATE ON 04/05/2006. IF HE ACTUALLY HAD THE OPENING CASH IN HAND OF SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS, THEN IT WAS NOT PRUDENT ON THE PART OF ANY ONE TO WITHDRAW FURTHER CASH OF SMALL AMOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE COULD H AVE UTILIZED THE CASH IN HAND ITSELF WITHOUT RESORTING TO WITHDRAWAL S FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN CASH. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILIZED THES E AMOUNTS FOR GIVING LOANS TO HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AS CLAIMED BY HI M, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO WITHDRAW THE CASH FROM THE BANK FOR TH IS PURPOSE SINCE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT CASH WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE WIT H HIM IN HAND AS CLAIMED BY HIM. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE H AD GIVEN TEMPORARY LOANS TO HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AND THESE LOANS, ON BEING REPAID, WERE REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT TENABLE AND IS MERELY A SELF SERVING STATEMENT AND THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ITA NO. 4174/MUM/2012 SHRI JANZEB AMIRKAMAL KHAN 4 MERELY SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS WHEN SEEN IN THE CONT EXT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE CONFIRMATIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SO CALLED FRIENDS AND RELATIVES ARE STANDA RD CONFIRMATIONS WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS :- 'TO WHOMSOEVER IT MA Y CONCERN I HAVE TAKEN TEMPORARY LOAN OF RS. 10,000/- TO RS. 15,000/- FREQUENTLY FROM SHRI JANZEB AMIR KAMAL KHAN. I HAVE REPAID THESE LOANS PROMPTLY TO MR. JANZEB AMIR KAMAL KHAN. AT PRESENT THERE IS NO AMOUNT DUE TO HIM. I AM NOT INCOME TAXPAYER.' FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SO CALLED FR IENDS AND RELATIVES HAVE GIVEN A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN TEMPORARY LOAN OF RS. 10,000/- TO 15,000/- FREQUENTLY FROM THE ASSESS EE. WHEN THE LOANS WERE TAKEN AND WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN ON EACH OCCASION HAS NEITHER BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR BY THE SO CALLED RECIPIENTS OF THE ALLEGED LOAN. THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THESE PERSONS IS, IN MY OPINION, JUSTIFIED SINCE TH ESE CONFIRMATIONS OR STATEMENTS MADE BY THE SO CALLED LOAN RECIPIENTS AR E ONLY AN ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE TO SOMEHOW TRY AND EXPLAIN THE SOUR CE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DI SCLOSED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. 3.3.2 THERE IS ALSO ABNORMALITY WITH RESPECT TO TH E DEPOSIT OF CASH ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE STATEMENT F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANNEXURE-'A'. SOME OF THE ENTRIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. IT IS VERY ABNORMAL THAT A P ERSON WOULD DEPOSIT CASH OF ONLY SUCH SMALL AMOUNT OF RS. 50,00 0/- OR RS. 1,00,000/- OR RS. 13,000/- WHEN HE HAD CASH IN HAND OF MORE THAN RS. 12 TO 14 LACS WHICH WAS NOT BEING USED. 3,3.3 THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE CASH SUMMARY, IS CA RRYING HUGE CASH IN HAND FOR ALMOST THE ENTIRE YEAR. THERE IS NO JUS TIFICATION OF HOLDING SUCH HUGE CASH IN HAND FOR ENTIRE YEAR WHEN NO EXPE NDITURE/ INVESTMENT HAS BEEN ACTUALLY MADE OUT OF THE CASH A VAILABLE WITH HIM. THIS IS MORESO WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO BE A BUS INESSMAN AND HAS AT LEAST TWO BANK ACCOUNTS. NO PRUDENT BUSINESS MAN WOULD KEEP SUCH HUGE CASH WITH HIM WHEN HE HAS THE FACILITY OF BANK ACCOUNTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CASH WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR ANY P URPOSE. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN ONLY A GENERAL EXPLANATION THAT THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES IN CONNECTION WITH T HE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW BUSINESS AND THE SAME WERE REDEPOSITED IN THE SE ACCOUNTS ON NON FULFILLMENT FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME A S TO WHICH TRANSACTIONS WERE SOUGHT TO BE ENTERED INTO BUT DID NOT MATERIALIZE. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TENABLE BECAUSE I T IS SURPRISING THAT DURING THE FULL YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SPENT A S INGLE RUPEE FOR THE SAID PURPOSES. NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED EVEN AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A FEW YEARS AFTER THE CASH DEPOSITS. FURTHER, ITA NO. 4174/MUM/2012 SHRI JANZEB AMIRKAMAL KHAN 5 THERE IS NO CORRELATION IN AMOUNTS OF DEPOSITS WITH ANY OF THE WITHDRAWALS MADE. MERE WITHDRAWALS MADE ON EARLIER DATES DOES NOT PROVE THE PHYSICAL AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND UNL ESS THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO JUSTIFY THAT SUCH CASH WITHDRAWN WAS AVAILA BLE WITH HIM AND NOT SPENT ANY WHERE FOR OTHER PURPOSES. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN PHYSIC AL POSSESSION OF THE CASH WITH HIM WHICH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY HIM ON EA RLIER DATES. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD CASH-IN-HAND OF RS. 19,11,020/- AS ON 01/04/200 6 AND THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE CASH-IN-HAND AVAILABL E WITH HIM, OR THAT LOANS GIVEN TO FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WHEN REPAID WE RE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OR THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BUSINESS WAS REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE DEFIES ANY LOGIC. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT D ISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3.3.4 IN THE CASE OF ASHOK MAHINDRU & SONS (HUF) 1 73 TAXMAN 178 (DEL), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THERE IS ENOUGH MAT ERIAL TO RAISE A STRONG SUSPICION REGARDING NATURE OF TRANSACTION, THE AUTH ORITIES CAN REJECT THE DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION IS ABOVE BOARD. THERE CAN BE NO METERS TO JUDGE TRUTH. THE SAME HAS TO BE CULMINATED OUT OF THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND HAVE TO BE INFERRED. THERE MAY NOT BE CLINCHING EVIDENCES BUT IF AT VARIOUS PLACES THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DOUBTFUL, THE NATURAL COROLLA RY IS THAT SUCH TRANSACTION WAS ONLY PAPER TRANSACTION AND CANNOT A CCORD ACCEPTABILITY OF SUCH MAKE BELIEF TRANSACTIONS. IN THE CASE OF SMT VASANTIBAI N. SHAH 213 ITR 805(BOM), THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND TO DRAW HIS OWN INFERENCE ON THE BASIS THEREOF. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUCH CASES IS NOT IMPERMISSIBLE. IN CAS ES LIKE THIS, IT IS ONLY THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH WILL BE AVAI LABLE. NO DIRECT EVIDENCE CAN BE EXPECTED IN THE CASE OF DURGA PRAS AD MORE 82 ITR 540(SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE TA XING AUTHORITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHI LE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. THEY ARE ENTITLED T O LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY O F THE RECITALS MADE. THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AND THE LIABILITY THEREFORE CAN BE FASTENED ON THE BASI S OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO, AS HELD IN THE CASE SMT SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801(SC). IN CASE OF J S PARKER 94 ITR 616 (BOM) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 'THE TAX LIABILITY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS OF CIVIL NATU RE. TO FASTEN A TAX PAYER WITH SUCH A LIABILITY, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TH AT THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF 'BEYOND DOUBT' AS IS REQUIRED T O FIX A CRIMINAL LIABILITY. TAX LIABILITY CAN BE FASTENED ON THE BAS IS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES'. 3.3.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ONLY VAGUE SUBMISSIONS WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY BRINGING ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THE DIS CREPANCIES AS NOTED ITA NO. 4174/MUM/2012 SHRI JANZEB AMIRKAMAL KHAN 6 ABOVE. HENCE, THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 15,39,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK ON VARIOUS D ATES IS HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS, THEREFO RE, UPHELD AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEV ANT TO THE A.Y. 2007- 08. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF THE MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN QUESTION DURING T HE F.Y. 2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y 2007-08, THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEP OSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . 7. SINCE NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE US TO CONTRADIC T THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEA RNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE THE CASH DE POSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND CORRECTLY BROUGHT TO TAX THE AMOUNT DEP OSITED UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, AFFIRM THE ORDERS PA SSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 20 TH OCTOBER, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 24, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 13, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.