ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI V. SKYLARK BUILD, MUMBAI

ITA 4307/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49387 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B JAYA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: UTTAM CHAND BOTHRA
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR,(JM) AND SHRI RAJENDRA S INGH ,(AM) ITA NO.4307/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 ITA NO.4308/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 ROOM NO.1103, 11 TH FLOOR OLD CGO ANNEXE BLDG. MUMBAI-400 020. ..( APPELLANT ) VS. M/S. SKYLARK BUILD 402, SAGAR AVENUE PLOT NO.54-B S.V. ROAD & LALLUBHAI PARK JN. ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI-400 058. ..( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. (AAZFS 0404 K) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. JAYA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI U TTAM CHAND BOTHRA O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 06.5.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2007-08. THE DISPUTES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS IS RELATED TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF TDR AND REGARDING COMPLETION OF PROJECT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE WHO IS A BUILDER HAD TAKEN UP A SLUM REHABILITATION PROJECT AT WORLI, MUMBAI. HE STARTED THE PROJECT WITH CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSIT BU ILDING ON THE LAND PROVIDED BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI (MCGM) A T WORLI. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, MCGM CAME UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT IF ASSESSEE WAS READY TO ITA NO.4307 & 4308/M/09 A.Y:06-07 & 07-07 2 HANDOVER THE POSSESSION OF TRANSIT BUILDINGS IT WOU LD GRANT TDRS. IN TERMS OF THE SAID SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TDR MEASURIN G 15308 SQ.M. VIDE CERTIFICATE NO.SRA526 DATED 2.10.2005 AND ANOTHER T DR MEASURING 4690 SQ.M. VIDE CERTIFICATE NO.SRA594 DATED 3.6.2006. THE TDR DATED 2.10.2005 HAD BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A SUM OF RS.9,92, 04,469/- AND THE TDR DATED 3.6.2006 HAD BEEN SOLD FOR RS.5,55,86,123/-. BOTH TDRS WERE SOLD DURING THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THESE WERE RECEIVED I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESS EE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TDRS HAD BEEN RECEIVED I N LIEU OF HANDING OVER OF FORMAL POSSESSION OF THE BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR SLUM DWELLERS. SINCE THE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF THESE RECEIPTS AGAINST WORK-IN-PROGRESS. THE ASSESSEE WA S FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING ON PROJECT COMPLETION BASIS AN D THEREFORE, THESE RECEIPTS HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN AS SEPARATE ITEM OF INC OME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIV EN. IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT TDR WAS NOTHING BUT FSI GRANTED BY SRA WHI CH COULD BE USED BY RECIPIENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS /PREMISES IN MU MBAI. THEREFORE, THE INCOME HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF TD R WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. THE TRE ATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OF SET OFF OF TDR AGAINST WORK-IN-PROGRESS (WIP) WAS ONLY MEANT TO PROLONG THE PAYMENT OF ULTIMATE TAX, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, REJECTED THE METHOD FO LLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SA LE OF TDR AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE DECISION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT TDRS HAD BEEN RECE IVED IN EXCHANGE OF TRANSIT BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED FOR SLUM DWELLERS AS PART OF ON GOING PROJECT. THEREFORE, RECEIPTS FROM TDRS COULD NOT BE CONSIDE RED AS CAPITAL GAIN. IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ASSESSED INCOME FROM TDR SALE AS BUSINESS INCOME. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES HA D BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSIT CAMPS FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007-2008 ITA NO.4307 & 4308/M/09 A.Y:06-07 & 07-07 3 WHICH HAD BEEN ADDED TO WIP. THE COST OF CONSTRUCT ION OF TRANSIT CAMPS WAS COST OF TDR AS LATTER HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE OF TRANSIT CAMPS. THE COST INCURRED WAS MORE THAN TDR RECEIPTS AND THEREF ORE THERE WAS NET INCOME AND RATHER IT WAS LOSS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FU RNISHED THE YEAR-WISE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 T O 2007-08 IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEA RAISED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO T HE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JETHLAL MEHTA VS. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 422 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT IN CASE ANY TDR WAS G ENERATED IN LIEU OF PLOT OR BUILDING, THEN COST OF SUCH LAND OR BUILDING WIL L BE COST OF BUILDING OR TDR. 4. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT NATURE OF INCOME FRO M SALE OF TDR WAS IN LIEU OF HANDING OVER OF TRANSIT CAMP BUILDINGS. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD WH ICH HAD BEEN FOLLOWED BY IT IN THE PAST AS WELL AS IN FUTURE AND THEREFOR E, THE METHOD FOLLOWED COULD NOT BE REJECTED. IN SUCH CASES, THE EXPENSES INCUR RED HAVE TO BE SHOWN AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS AND ANY INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE E XECUTION OF THE PROJECT HAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST WORK-IN-PROGRESS TILL PR OJECT WAS COMPLETED. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD WAS AN ACCEPTED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND W AS IN LINE WITH THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-7 PRESCRIBED BY THE ICAI. HE REFERRED TO SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN WHICH PROJECT COMPLETI ON METHOD HAD BEEN ACCEPTED SUCH AS DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V.S. DEMPO AND CO. P.LTD. (1996)[131 CTR 203(BO M.)]. HE OBSERVED THAT THE TDRS WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO PROJECT UNDE RTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SALE PROCEEDS COULD BE TAXED ONLY IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION WHICH WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. CIT(A) ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. CHEMBUR TRADING COR PORATION(2009) IN ITA NO.2593/MUM/2006 DATED 21.1.2009 IN WHICH IT WAS H ELD THAT TDRS HAVE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE RECEIPTS IN THE YEAR IN WH ICH THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDI TION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TDR RECEIPT IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07. THE CIT(A) ITA NO.4307 & 4308/M/09 A.Y:06-07 & 07-07 4 ALSO HELD THAT SINCE PROJECT OF TRANSIT CAMP WAS CO MPLETED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL WORK OUT T HE INCOME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 BY CONSIDERING ENTIRE INCOME AND EXPEN DITURE PERTAINING TO THE PROJECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. AGGRIEVED BY SAID DECISION THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 5. BEFORE US THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IMPLEMENTING A SL UM REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AS PART OF THE PROJECT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO CONS TRUCT THE TRANSIT BUILDINGS FOR SHIFTING THE SLUM DWELLERS ON THE LAND PROVIDED BY MCGM. SINCE THIS WAS LONG TERM CONTRACT ALL THE EXPENSES INCURRED HAD TO BE SHOWN AS WORK-IN- PROGRESS. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLE TION METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF INCOME AND, THEREFORE, DURING THE PER IOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT IN CASE THERE WERE ANY RECEIPTS FROM THE AC TIVITIES RELATED TO THE PROJECT IT HAD TO BE REDUCED FROM WORK-IN-PROGRESS. MCGM HAD COME UP WITH A SCHEME THAT IN CASE TRANSIT BUILDING AFTER FULL C ONSTRUCTION WERE HANDED OVER TO THEM THEY WOULD ISSUE TDR AND THUS TDR RECE IVED IN THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP OF PROJECT COULD NOT BE DECLARED AS INCO ME SEPARATELY BECAUSE INCOME COULD BE COMPUTED ONLY IN THE YEAR OF COMPLE TION OF THE PROJECT. IN THIS CASE, THE TRANSIT BUILDINGS WERE HANDED OVER T O MCGM ON 1.6.2006 BEFORE FINALIZATION OF BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR E NDED 31.3.2006 AND THEREFORE, THESE HAD BEEN REDUCED FROM THE WORK-IN- PROGRESS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND NOT SHOWN SEPARATELY. IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08, THE TDR RECEIPTS HAD BEEN SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF CHEMBUR TRADING (SUPRA) IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT TDR RECE IPTS HAD TO BE SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TDRS HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN LIEU OF HANDING OVER OF C ONSTRUCTED TRANSIT BUILDINGS AND THEREFORE, COST OF TDRS WOULD BE THE COST OF EXPENDITURE ON TRANSIT BUILDINGS. IN THIS CASE THE EXPENDITURE WA S MORE THAN THE INCOME FROM TDR AND THEREFORE, EVEN ON THIS GROUND NO INCO ME COULD BE ASSESSED. IT WAS ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORREC T IN ASSESSING THE INCOME ITA NO.4307 & 4308/M/09 A.Y:06-07 & 07-07 5 FROM TDR WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT FOR EXPENSES INCURRE D. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE INCOME FROM THE COMPLETION OF TRANSIT BUILDINGS FOR WHICH TDRS HAD BEEN RECEIVED WERE COMPUTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ENTIRE EXPENSES SINCE THE BEGINNING HAD TO BE HELD AS ALLO WABLE AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT(A). 6. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN R ECEIVING AMOUNTS FROM TIME TO TIME AND THEREFORE THE INCOME HAS TO BE COM PUTED ON THE BASIS OF PARTIAL COMPLETION METHOD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE TDRS HAD BEEN SOLD TO THIRD PARTIES AND THEREFORE, INCOME FROM TH E SAME HAD TO BE ASSESSED AS INDEPENDENT ITEMS OF INCOME. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FROM SALE OF TDRS. THE ASSESSEE WAS IMPLEMENTING A SLUM REHABILITATION PROJECT. IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO CONST RUCT TRANSIT BUILDINGS TO SHIFT SLUM DWELLERS ON THE LAND PROVIDED BY MCGM. UNDER THE SCHEME FORMULATED BY MCGM, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN OFFERED T DR IN LIEU OF HANDING OVER POSSESSION OF THE CONSTRUCTED TRANSIT BUILDING S. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED NINE TRANSIT BUILDINGS SEVEN OF WHICH H AD BEEN HANDED OVER TO MCGM ON 1.6.2006. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE TD R IN TWO INSTALLMENTS PART OF WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE BY ORDER DATE D 2.10.1995 AND THE SECOND PART BY ORDER DATED 3.6.2006. BOTH TDRS WER E SOLD IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IN WHICH THESE WERE RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASSESSED THE INCOME FROM SALE OF TDRS DURING THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AS INDEPENDENT ITEM OF INCOME AND THUS MADE ADDITIONS OF RS.9,92,04,469/- AND RS.5,55,86,133/- RESPECTIVELY IN THE TWO YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD ON ACCOUNTING OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, TILL THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED, ANY INCOME ARISING FROM ACTIVITIES RELATING TO EXECUTION OF PROJECT HAD TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST WORK-IN- ITA NO.4307 & 4308/M/09 A.Y:06-07 & 07-07 6 PROGRESS. THE ASSESSEE HAD THEREFORE NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME. ALTERNATIVELY, IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT TDRS HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN LIEU OF HANDING OVER OF CONSTRUCTED TRANSIT BUILDINGS TO MCGM AND THEREFORE, COST OF TDRS WERE THE COST OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTED BUIL DINGS WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE INCOME FROM TDR, AND THEREFORE ON THIS GRO UND ALSO THERE WAS NO NET INCOME FROM THE TDR. 8. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM TDR INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES INCURRED IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD WHICH IS AN ACCEPTED METHOD OF AC COUNTING IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND ALSO RECOMMENDED AS PER A CCOUNTING STANDARD AS- 7 OF ICAI. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CASES THE INCOME FRO M THE PROJECT HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION. THE TDRS RECEI VED ARE DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT AND THEREFORE, BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT THE INCOME FROM TDR OR ANY OTHER RECEIPT IN EXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE PROJECT WILL ONLY GO TO REDUCE COSTS OF THE PROJECT . THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY SET OFF TDR RECEIVED AGAINST W ORK-IN-PROGRESS. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN 2006-07 O N ACCOUNT OF TDR RECEIPT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. FURTHER EVEN IF TDR RECEIPT IS A SSESSED AS INDEPENDENT ITEM, DEDUCTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPEN SES INCURRED. THE TDRS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN LIEU OF HANDING OVER OF CONST RUCTED TRANSIT BUILDINGS AND THEREFORE, COST OF THOSE BUILDINGS HAS TO BE DE DUCTED AGAINST INCOME FROM SALE OF TDR. THE COST OF THE BUILDINGS IS CLA IMED TO BE MORE THAN INCOME FROM TDR, FULL DETAILS OF WHICH WERE GIVEN T O THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, EVEN ON THIS GROUND NO INCOME CAN BE ASS ESSED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE PROJ ECT WAS NOT COMPLETE AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THIS FACT. THEREFORE , IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07, TDR RECEIVED HAS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST WIP AND CANNOT BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY AS INCOME. WE THEREFORE, CONFIRM ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE POSI TION REGARDING ITA NO.4307 & 4308/M/09 A.Y:06-07 & 07-07 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS NOT CLEAR. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING REGARDING THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THOUGH THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS OF SUCH FINDING NOT ANY SUCH SPECIFIC PLEA WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A). THIS ASPECT T HEREFORE REQUIRES VERIFICATION. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRANSIT BUIL DINGS WAS ONLY A PART OF THE PROJECT. THE ACTUAL YEAR OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJ ECT IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED. WE THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ASPECT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ORDER. IN CASE ON VERIFICATION IT IS FOU ND THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN 2007-08, ASSESSING OFFICER WILL COMPUT E THE INCOME FROM PROJECT AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ENTIRE EXPENDITUR E AND THE RECEIPTS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR INCLUDING THE TDRS S DIRECTED BY CIT(A). HOWEVER, IN CASE THE PROJECT IS NOT FOUND COMPLETE, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WILL SET OFF TDR RECEIPTS AGAINST WORK IN PROGRESS AND NO INCOME WIL L BE ASSESSED ON ACCOUNT OF TDR RECEIPTS SEPARATELY. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE ORDER ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.6.2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 17.6.2011. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ITA NO.4307 & 4308/M/09 A.Y:06-07 & 07-07 8 MUMBAI BENCH E : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR,(JM) AND SHRI RAJENDRA S INGH ,(AM) ITA NO.4307/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 ITA NO.4308/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 ROOM NO.1103, 11 TH FLOOR OLD CGO ANNEXE BLDG. MUMBAI-400 020. ..( APPELLANT ) VS. M/S. SKYLARK BUILD 402, SAGAR AVENUE PLOT NO.54-B S.V. ROAD & LALLUBHAI PARK JN. ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI-400 058. ..( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. (AAZFS 0404 K) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. JAYA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI U TTAM CHAND BOTHRA CORRIGENDUM PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE WERE DISPOSED OF VIDE ORDE R DATED 17.6.2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN PARA-8 OF THE SAID OR DER, THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHICH MEANT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THAT YEAR WAS DISMISSED. IN THE SAME PARA THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE I SSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH MEANT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL ITA NO.4307 & 4308/M/09 A.Y:06-07 & 07-07 9 PURPOSES. HOWEVER, IN PARA-9 BY MISTAKE IT WAS WRITTEN THAT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALLOWED WHEN IN FACT THE APP EALS WERE FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE MISTAKE IS CORRECTED AND PAR A-9 WILL BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE FOLLOWING:- 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED WHEREAS THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12.7.2011. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.