ASHOK VOHRA, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 34, MUMBAI

ITA 4225/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92357 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54F; 234B; 54

Judgement Text

ASHOK VOHRA ITA 4225/M/2010 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, J UDICIAL MEMBERITA ITA NO. : 4 225 /MUM/20 10 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 6 - 07 ) ASHOK VOHRA , SOMRAJ COTTAGE, GREEN FIELD ESTATE, A B NAIR ROAD, OPP. JUHU POST OFFICE, JUHU, MUMBAI - 400 049 .: PAN: A CB P V 9 538 P VS AC IT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 4 , MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANVENDRA GOYAL /DATE OF HEARING : 15 - 01 - 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT : 21 - 04 - 201 5 ORDER , : PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 41 , MUMBAI, DATED 25. 03. 201 0, WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO GIVE HIS REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT DATED 8.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER WHEREIN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS. 35,40,060/ - WITHOUT ALLOWING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY HOLDING THAT - ; (A) NO PAYMENT IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN NOR THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER. (B) NEITHER IN THE MOU DATED 1 - 07 - 2006 NOR IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE MODE OF PAYMENT HAS BEEN INDICATED. (C) THE MOU AND THE A GREEMENT TO SELL HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED. (D) THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT PURCHASED IN DELHI TRANSPORTERS CO - OP. SOCIETY LTD. DID NOT BELONG TO THE SELLER ASHOK VOHRA HUF, BUT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. 4. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY AND NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO CONTRARY TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND IT ASHOK VOHRA ITA 4225/M/2010 2 IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BE QUASHED. \ 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234B AN D 234C OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY THE AFORESAID GROUNDS BEFORE THE SAME IS FINALLY DISPOSED OF. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED HEREINABOVE ARE ALL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2. THE FACTS ARE, DUR ING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, APPELLANT HAD SOLD HIS TENANCY RIGHT IN FLAT NO.301 IN NAMITA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.50,00,000 / - - . AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.35,40,060 / - ARISING THEREON, 'THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR A SUM OF RS.25,20,000I - ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN JOY APARTMENTS (THE DELHI TRANSPORTERS' CO - OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.), DELHI, PURCHASED FROM ASHOK VOHRA (H.U.F.). 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, BY CONTENDIN G THAT: (A) THE FLAT AT DELHI DID NOT BELONG TO ASHOK VOHRA (HUF), BUT TO THE APPELLANT; (B) THE MODE OF PAYMENTS AGAINST PURCHASE OF FLAT AT DELHI HAS NOT BEEN SPELT OUT IN THE MO. U OR IN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL; (C) THE INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSFER VIZ. M 0. U AND AGREEME NT TO SELL HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED. IN THIS CONNECTION IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE FLAT AT DELHI WAS ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED BY ASHOK VOHRA (HUF) AND THE PAYMENT FAVOURING DELHI TRANSPORTERS' CO - OP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. WAS ALSO MADE FROM THE BANK AC COUNT OF THE H.U.F. THIS FLAT HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 1 - 7 - 2005 AND 3 - 4 - 2006 RESPECTIVELY. THOUGH COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE FOR PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDE RATION HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AS A 'SHAM TRANSACTION'. FURTHER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY BASIS ASSUMED THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U NDER THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING CAPITAL GAINS, THE INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER NEEDS TO BE REGISTERED. THIS VIEW IS INCORRECT SINCE IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS OF BOMBAY AND DELHI HAVE HELD THAT EXEMPTION CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY BECAUSE THE IN STRUMENT UNDER WHICH THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED IS NOT REGISTERED . SR. NO. CASE LAW CITATION 1 CIT V. DR. LAXMICHAND N. NAGDA 211 ITR 804(BOM) 2 CIT V. R L SOOD 245 ITR 727 (DEL) 3 BALRAJ V. CIT 254 ITR 22 (DEL) 3. ON TH ESE FACTS, THE AO HELD, DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TENANCY RIGHTS IN ONE PROPERTY NAMED N AMITA FLAT FOR RS.50 LAKHS AND HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.10,20,060/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.25,20,000/ - U/S 54F. THE FLAT HAS BEEN SOLD ON 25/01 / 2006 AND ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SHOWN PURCHASE OF ONE FLAT FROM HIS HUF, NAMED ASHOK VOHRA HUF. THE PURCHASE FROM HIS HUF, HAS BEEN DONE FIRST BY SIGNING AMOUNT DT. 01/7/2005 AND THEN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DT. 03/4/2006. HOWEVER, NEITHER IN MOU NOR IN AGREEMENT TO SELL, THERE IS ANY MENTION OF MODE OF PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. IN A SEPARATE SHEET TO MOU, IT HAS BEEN SHOWN THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECD. IN CASH ON 01/7/2005. BESIDES, NEITHER OF THE SALE INSTRUMENT VIZ. MOU DT.01/70 /20 05 OR AGR EEMENT TO SALE DT. 03/4/2006 HAS BEEN REGISTERED. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE ASHOK VOHRA ITA 4225/M/2010 3 PROPERTY IS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT REGISTRATION. FROM THE DETAILS FILED WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF DELHI FLAT BY ASHOK VOHRA HUF FROM THE DELHI TRANSPORTERS C OOP. SOCIETY, IT IS SEEN THAT THE FLAT HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY ASHOK V OHRA IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND NOT IN THE STATUS OF KARTA OF HUF. NOWHERE IN THE DETAILS FILED , THE P URCHASER HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS KARTA OF HUF. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS SEEN T HAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F. THERE IS NO PROOF OF ANY SALE CONSIDERATION PASSING FROM PURCHASER TO SELLER. THE SALE INSTRUMENT HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED AND THE PROPERTY BEING SOLD IS ALREADY BEING HELD IN THE NAME OF PURCHASER I.E. AS HOK VOHRA AND NOT IN THE NAME OF SELLER I.E. ASHOK VOHRA HUF. ALL THESE FACTS SHOW THAT THE WHOLE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF FLAT OF DELHI TRANSPORTERS COOP. SOCIETY IS A SHAM TRANSACTION TO AVOID LIABILITY OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON SALE OF TEN A NC Y RIGHTS OF NAMITA FLAT. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54F IS THEREFORE DISALLOWED AND THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS WORKED OUT AT RS.35,40,060/ - . 4. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A) BEFORE WHOM THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM, HELD, THE APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED OR MOU TO ALLOW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT CORRECT AS ALTHOUGH THE REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED OR AGREEMENT TO SALE IS NOT PRECONDITION FOR ALLOWING UNDER SECTION 54F IS CONCERNED. HOWEVER, THERE MUST BE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) IN WHICH TRANS FER IS DEFINED. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF A NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PRO PERTY ACT, 1882. IT MEANS THAT THE TRANSFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CAN BE TERMED AS TRANSFER BY ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED MART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT AS REFERRED IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1982, 1.14 THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED INTO MEMORANDUM OF OUTSTANDING WITH HIS HUF TO ACQUIRE ALL THE RIGHTS, TITLES AND INTEREST OF THE VENDOR IN THE SAID LAND FOR A SUM OF RS.24,40,000/ - . AS PER PARA - 2 OF AGREEMENT, A SUM OF RS.24,40,000/ - WILL BE PAID ON EXECUTION OF THIS MEMORANDUM OF OUTSTANDING. THE APPELLANT HAS APPENDED ONE RECEIPT IN WHICH IT IS CERTIFIED THAT ASHOK VOHRA (HUF) HAS RECEIVED RS.24,40,000/ - FROM SHRI ASHOK VOHRA BY CASH AS CONSIDERATION FOR SALE / TRANSFER OF FLAT AT DELHI TRANSPORTERS COOP. GROUP HSG. SOCIETY LTD. ON 01.07.2005. THUS, IN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING NEITHER RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MENTIONED NOR POSSESSION HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER BY THE SELLER I.E. ASHOK VOHRA (HUF). MOREOVER, AS PER THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, THE SUM OF RS,24,40,000/ - HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON EXECUTION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON 01.07.2005. THUS, THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 2(47) IS NOT COMPLIED AS NEITHER PAYMENT IN PART PER FORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN, NOR THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER. 1.15 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.04.2009 IN WHICH IT IS STATED THA T THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BOOK ADJUSTMENT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE FACT AS THE APPELLANT SHRI ASHOK VOHRA HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS DEBTOR IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF ASHOK VOHRA, HUF AS ON 3103.2006 FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED JUST TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT AND ADJUSTMENT IF ANY HAS BEEN MADE AT THE TIME OF FILING THE AFFIDAVIT I.E. ON 15TH APRIL, 2009 AND NOT AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO MOU DATED 01.07.2005. ASHOK VOHRA ITA 4225/M/2010 4 1.16 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 03.04.2006 BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND ASHOK VOHRA (HUF). IN THIS AGREEMENT TO SALE AS ALSO STATED THAT THE MOU DATED 0107.2005 MAY BE CONSIDERED AS PART AND PARTIAL OF THIS AGREEMENT TO SALE. IN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE ALSO NO DETAIL OF PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION OF RS 24,40,000/ - HAS BEEN MADE WHICH SHOWS THAT NO PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO ASHOK VOHRA (HUF). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY NAMELY FLAT AT JOY APARTMENT, DELHI AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) AS NEITHER THERE IS NO PART PERFORMANCE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 NOR POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASHOK VOHRA (HUF) TO THE APPELLANT. THUS, THERE IS NO PURCHASE OF FLAT BY THE APPELLANT FROM ASHOK VOHRA (HUF) AS CLAIMED. 1.17 THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE FLAT IN JOY APARTMENTS, DWARKA PERTAIN TO ASHOK VOHRA (HUF). IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS FILED DETAIL OF PAYME NT MADE BY ASHOK VOHRA (HUF) FOR PURCHASE OF THIS FLAT AND ALSO SHOWN THE INVESTMENT IN THIS FLAT IN HIS BALANCE SHEET. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE FLAT WAS ALLOTTED TO ASHOK VOHRA IN THE CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUAL. DURING THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDING, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A LETTER DATED 01.09.1997 WRITTEN TO THE SECRETARY, DELHI TRANSPORTERS COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. IN WHICH HE STATED THAT ASHOK VOHRA (HUF) WISH TO TAKE THE FLAT IN THE SOCIETY AND REQUESTED TO INDUCT HUF AS A MEMBER IN THE SOCIETY IN THE NAME OF ASHOK VOHRA (HUF) WHOSE KARTA IS ASHOK VOHRA. AS PER THE APPELLANT, THE RESIDENT OF SOCIETY HAS GIVEN A NOTING IN THIS LETTER THAT THE APPLICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED IN SINGLE NAME ONLY, ASHOK VOHRA NOT IN THE NAME OF ASHOK VOHRA (HUF). PLEASE GIVE APPLICATION IN THE NAME OF ASHOK VOHRA. ALTHOUGH NO RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE OFFICE OF SOCIETY AS NO STAMP OF RECEIPT HAS BEEN AFFIXED, BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT PRIMA FACIE ASHOK VOHRA (HUF) WAS NOT ENTITLED F OR INDUCTION AS A MEMBER IN THE SOCIETY AND IT IS ONLY SINGLE PERSON WHO IS ENTITLED TO BE MEMBER OF THE HOUSING SOCIETY. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP ON 29.11.1997 BY THE SOCIETY, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP, THE NAME OF NOMINEE HAS BEEN GIVEN AS ASHOK VOHRA AND NOT ASHOK VOHRA, HUF. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FLAT HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE INDIVIDUAL AND NOT BY THE HUF. AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE HUF FROM ITS BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, THE SAME CAN BE CONSIDERED AS LOAN FROM ASHOK VOHRA, HUF TO ASHOK VOHRA, INDIVIDUAL, BUT THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE FLAT IN JOY APARTMENT, WHICH VESTED WITH ASHOK VOHRA (INDIVIDUAL) AND NOT ASHOK VOHRA (HUF). 1.18 THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD HIS OWN FLAT IN JOY APARTMENT TO HIMSELF FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.25,20,000/ - WITHOUT MAKING PAYMENT AS A PART PERFORMANCE AND WITHOUT GIVING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PURCHASER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SINCE, NO DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 54F IS ALLOWABLE FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY STANDING IN THE NAME OF HIMSELF, THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO CHANGING HIS STAND AND EXPLANATION TIME TO TIME JUST TO AVOID PAYMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX IN SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY IN HIS HANDS. THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN NOW BEFORE THE ITAT. 6. BEFORE US, THE AR REITERATED ALL THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THAT THE TRANSACTION HAD TO BE ROUTED THOUGH IN THIS MANNER, BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BYE LAWS OF THE HOUSING ASHOK VOHRA ITA 4225/M/2010 5 SOCIETY, WHICH DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE HUF AS A TITLE HOLDER IN THE BUILDING/SOCIETY. 7 . THE AR THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAKEN ON A W RONG PLATFORM AND IN ANY CASE THE FACTUAL PICTURE HAS TO BE ASCERTAINED; KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRE FACTS. 8 . THE DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS & THEREFORE SHOULD BE SUST AINED. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS AND PERUSED THE FACTS. THE FACT THAT THE HOUSING SOCIETY DID NOT RECOGNIZE HUF AS THE OWNER IS COMING OUT OF THE NOTINGS ON THE LETTER WRITTEN BY M/S ASHOK VOHRA (HUF). SECONDLY , HOW THERE WAS AN INTERNAL SALE A FFECTED WITH REGARD TO SALE OF FLAT AT NAMITA BUILDING. THOUGH WE DO FIND THAT IT WAS DONE AS A BOOK ENTRY, BUT HOW THE BOOK ENTR IES WERE GIVEN EFFECT TO AND ON WHAT BASIS IS NOT EMERGING FROM ANYWHERE. TO GENERATE A BOOK ENTRY, CORRESPONDING DEBITS AND CR EDITS HAVE TO BE MADE AND EXPLAINED. THIS, WE FIND HAS NOT BEEN DONE NOR IS IT EMERGING FROM ANY OF RECORDS. 10 . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER OUR OBSERVATIONS ABOVE. 1 1 . WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS. 12 . AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST APRIL , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( ) ( B R BASKARAN ) ( VIVEK VARMA ) ACC OUNTANT MEMB ER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 21 ST APRIL , 201 5 ASHOK VOHRA ITA 4225/M/2010 6 / COPY TO: - 1) / THE APPELLANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) - 4 1 , MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT CENTRAL - III , MUMBAI. 5) , , / THE D.R. A BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) COPY TO GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / / , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI * . . *CHAVAN, SR.PS