DCIT-10(3), MUMBAI V. M/S CIDCO LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4383/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84533 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR JAIN VP
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI SANJAY GARG , J M ITA NO. 4378, 4379 & 4383 / MUM /20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 4 - 05, 2005 - 06 & 2003 - 04) DCIT 10(3) , MUMBAI VS. M/S CIDCO LTD., NIRMAL, 2 ND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 PAN/GIR NO. : A A CC C 3303 K ( APPE LLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) /REVENUE BY : SHRI ASGHAR JAIN VP /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUR AGRAWAL DATE OF HEARING : 18 TH DECEMBER , 201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 TH DECEM BER , 201 4 O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : TH E SE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2005 - 06, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT . 2 . COMMON GROUNDS ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS. CRUX OF THE ARGUMENTS WAS WITH REFERENCE TO TAXABILITY OF CIDCO AS ASSESSEE LIABLE TO TAX. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AR PLACED ON RECORD ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, DATED 8 - 8 - 2012, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS A STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING. WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA UNDERTAKING HAVING 100% BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF EQUITY SHARES. IT IS ITA NO S . 4378,4379&4383 / 1 3 2 ENTRUSTED WITH THE WORK OF DEVELOPMENT OF CITY VIZ. IN NAVI MUMBAI , NEW AURANGABAD, NASHI, NANDED, NAGPUR, TARAPUR AND OROS, FROM TIME TO TIME. THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HAS ISSUED SEPARATE RESOLUTIONS IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THESE PROJECTS. THE DEVELOPMENT OF CITY INCLUDES PROVIDING PHYSICAL INFRAS TRUCTURES LIKE SEWERAGE , WATER SUPPLY, SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTERS , HOSPITALS ETC. TH E RE ARE SIMILAR NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES/OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA RESOLUTION, HEREINAFTER ARE MENTI ONED AS GRS FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY . BY VIRTUE OF ALL THE RELEVANT GRS T HE ASSESSEE IS EMPOWERED TO CARRY OUT ITS ACTIVITIES AS PER THE SCOPE OF THE RELEVANT GR, WHICH IS ISSUED FOR DIFF ERENT PROJECTS. 4. THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON V ARIOUS COUNTS WERE DELETED BY CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LEARNED DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 8 - 8 - 2012, PASSED IN ITA NO. 2985/M/2012 (A.Y.2006 - 07) WHEREIN FOLLOWING WAS THE CONCLUSION : - 37. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FROM EITHER SIDE AT LENGTH AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL BROUGHT AND PLACED BE FORE US FOR CONSIDERATION. 38. COMING TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE SENIOR COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE TREATED AS GOVERNMENT OR SURROGATE OR AN AGENT, HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED AT FIRST. TO CONSIDER THE TAXATION POINT OF VIEW, WE HAVE TO REFER TO ARTICLE 289 OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHEREIN ARTICLE 289(1) SAYS, THE PROPERTY AND INCOME OF A STATE SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM UNION TAXATION. ARTICLE 289(2) READS, NOTHING IN CLAUSE (1) SHALL PREVENT THE UNION FROM IMPOSING OR AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION OF, ANY TAX TO SUCH EXTENT, IF ANY, AS PARLIAMENT BY LAW PROVIDE IN RESPECT OF A TRADE OR BUSINESS OF ANY ITA NO S . 4378,4379&4383 / 1 3 3 KIND CARRIED ON BY, OR ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OR STATE, OR ANY OPERATION CONNECTED THEREWITH, OR ANY PROPERTY USED OR OCCUPIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUC H TRADE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND ARTICLE 289(3) READS, NOTHING IN CLAUSE (2) SHALL APPLY TO ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS, OR TO ANY CLASS OF TRADE OR BUSINESS, WHICH PARLIAMENT MAY BY LAW DECLARE TO BE INCIDENTA L THE ORDINARY FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. 39. TO OUR MIND, THE ENTIRE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE, HINGES ON CLAUSE (2) OR CLAUSE (3) OF ARTICLE 289 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE BASIC PURPORT OF ARTICLE 289(2) IS TO NEUTRALIZE CLAUSE (1), BUT WITH A RIDER THAT, IF THERE IS ANY TRADE OR BUSINESS , DONE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OPERATIONS CONNECTED THEREWITH OR ANY PROPERTY ISSUED OR OCCUPIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUCH TRADE OR BUSINESS, OR ANY INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING IN CONNECT ION THEREWITH. TO MAKE THIS CLAUSE EFFECTIVE, EVEN FOR GOVERNMENT / STATE, CONDUCT OF TRADE OR BUSINESS IS NECESSARY, WHICH SIMPLY MEANS INVOLVEMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND PROFIT MOTIVE FOR THE VENDOR. THIS IS IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COUR T OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF APSRTC (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE DR, WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD OBSERVED, .THE FACTS THAT THE TRADING ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT MAY BE COVERED BY ARTICLE 289(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REALLY ASSIS T THE APPELLANT'S CASE. EVEN IF A TRADING ACTIVITY FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (2) OF ARTICLE 289 OF THE CONSTITUTION, IT CAN SUSTAIN A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FROM UNION TAXATION ONLY IF IT IS SHOWN THAT THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE SAID TRADING ACTIVITY IS THE INCOME OF THE STATE. THEREFORE, WHENEVER, THERE IS AN ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR BUSINESS, CLAUSE (2) SHALL COME TO LIFE, WHICH ACCORDING TO CLAUSE, SHALL BE APPLICABLE TOWARDS THE STATE I.E. IF AN ACTIVITY WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR BUSINESS, C ONDUCTED BY THE STATE ITSELF, THE LIABILITY FOR TAX SHALL EMERGE, A TYPICAL EXAMPLE IS THAT OF SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE STATE ON EVENTS BEING CONDUCTED BY THE VENDORS, HAVE TO BE DEPOSITED BY THE STATE, IN THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER, MAKING THE STATE AN ASSESSEE UNDER SERVICE TAX AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD. VS DEWAN CHAND RAM SARAN (CA NO. 3905 OF 2012). THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHERE THERE IS AN ACTIVITY OF TRADE OR BUSINESS, BUT, IF, CONFINED TOWARDS DEV ELOPMENT, EITHER OF A NEW TOWNSHIP OR BETTERMENT OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, 289(2) SHALL REMAIN IN THE OBLIVION AND SHALL NOT COME INTO PLAY. IN THIS CONTEXT WHEN IN THE CASE OF APRTC, REPORTED IN 52 ITR 524 (SC), THE ADVOCATE GENERAL SOUGHT TO INCLUDE ACTIVITIES IN CLAUSE (2) IN CLAUSE (1), THE HONBLE APEX COURT NEGATED THE SAME BY SAYING NO EXCEPTION CAN BE TAKEN. THEREFORE, THE FUNCTIONS AND / OR ACTIVITY HAS TO BE SEEN PRIMARILY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THUS OBSERVES, READING THE T HREE CLAUSES TOGETHER, ONE CONSIDERATION EMERGES BEYOND ALL DOUBT AND THAT IS THAT THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH EXEMPTION IS CLAIMED UNDER CLAUSE (1) MUST BE THE PROPERTY AND INCOME OF THE STATE, AND ITA NO S . 4378,4379&4383 / 1 3 4 SO, THE SAME QUESTION FACES US AGAIN : IS THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM ITS TRANSPORT ACTIVITIES THE INCOME OF THE STATE ? IF A TRADE OR BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON BY THE STATE DEPARTMENTALLY AND INCOME IS DERIVED FROM IT, THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFICULTY IN HOLDING THAT THE SAID IN COME IS THE INCOME OF THE STATE. IT MAY BE THAT THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH A NOTIFICATION HAS BEEN ISSUED CONSTITUTING THE APPELLANT CORPORATION MAY PROVIDE EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION THAT THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE CORPORATION FROM ITS TRADING ACTI VITY WOULD BE THE INCOME OF THE STATE. THIS OBSERVATION READ TOGETHER WITH SECTION 113(3A) OF MR&TP ACT, 1966, SHALL EMERGE THAT THE ACTIVITY SO PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT AN ACT OF STATE WITHOUT ANY PROFIT OR COMMERCIAL MOTIVE ATTACHED WIT H IT. THE ONLY CLAUSE LEFT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION THEN WOULD BE CLAUSE (3), WHICH SHALL COME INTO PLAY ONCE CLAUSE (2) IS DISBANDED AND AS SOON AS IT BECOME DISBANDED, CLAUSE (3) COME TO LIFE, WHICH OPERATES ONLY IF, PARLIAMENT MAY BY LAW DECLARE TO BE INC IDENTAL TO THE ORDINARY FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT. HERE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE HAVE TO READ PARLIAMENT AS STATE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS AUTHORIZED THE ASSESSEE TO PERFORM THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AT NAVI MUMBAI, VASAI VIRAR, WALUJ AND SUCH OTHER PLACES. 40. WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE DR THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENT WHICH HAS DRAWN OUT THE AGENT - PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIP, BECAUSE THE VERY FIRST RESOLUTION DATED 18TH MARCH, 1970 MENTION IN PA RA NO. 2 THAT WHICH WOULD ACT AS AN AGENT OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREAS WITH A VIEW TO SECURE THE ABOVE OBJECTIVE, AND IN PARA NO. 3 OF THIS RESOLUTION CLEARLY SAY, THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WILL WORK UNDER THE CONTROL AND SUPERVIS ION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE FIRST RESOLUTION ITSELF MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE AN AGENT, BUT FUNCTIONS AS AN ARM OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE, IF THE ASSESSEE CAN ONLY WORK U NDER THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE / TAKE ANY DECISIONS SUO MOTO, THEN, IN SUCH A CASE AUTHORITY FOR PERFORMANCE OF ALL ACTIVITIES LIE SOMEWHERE ELSE. IN ANY CASE, AS PER THIS RESOLUTION, IT CLEARLY MAKES THE ASSESSEE AN AGENT OF THE STATE. 41. WHEN WE LOOK INTO THE FINANCIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT ALL DEALINGS HAVE TO BE ROUTED THROUGH AUTHORIZATIONS BY THE GOVERNMENT AND ALL FUNDS RECEIVABLE SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE AN D WITH INTIMATIONS TO : TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. BOMBAY. THE INDUSTRIES COMMISSIONER, BOMBAY THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, MAHARASHTRA, BOMBAY THE PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BOMBAY THE RESIDENT AUDIT OFFICER, PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, BOMBAY THE SENIOR DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, NAGPUR ALL DEPARTMENTS OF SECRETARIAT THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BOMBAY DIVISION, BOMBAY THE BUDGET BRANCH, INDUSTRIES & LABOUR DEPARTMENT, BOMBAY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICITY, BOMBAY ITA NO S . 4378,4379&4383 / 1 3 5 42. WE FIND THAT ACCORDING TO MR&TP ACT, 1966, THE MACHINERY SECTIONS, I.E. SECTIONS 113 & 113A TALK OF APPOINTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND LOCAL AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY, THROUGH VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS, IN COMPLIANCE OF THESE SECTIONS, MR&TP ACT HAS APPOINTED THE ASSESSEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT TO NEW TOWNSHIPS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR STREAMLINING THE FUNCTIONS OF ALREADY EXISTING TOWNS LIKE AURANGABAD, NASHIK, NAGPUR ETC. THIS, ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ACTING TOT ALLY ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT. ANOTHER DISTINGUISHING FEATURE THAT CAN BE SEEN IN THAT AS SOON AS THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE, THE PROJECT GETS HANDED BACK TO THE STATE, I.E. WHEN THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AS PER PHASES, AND IN THE CASE OF LOCAL AUT HORITY, AS AND WHEN THE AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED, THE REINS ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE MUNICIPAL BOARDS, FROM WHOM, THE PROJECT WAS TAKEN OVER, AS WE HAVE SEEN FROM RESOLUTION NO. 10375 DATED 06/08/2010. 43. IN TUNE WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, READ WIT H SECTIONS 113 & 113A OF MR&TP ACT ALONG WITH ARTICLES 289(1) & 289(3) AND HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION IS NOT DOING ANY TRADE ACTIVITY ON ITS OWN ACCORD, WE HOLD, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE , IN THE WRIT PETITION, FOLLOWING THE DECISION PERCIVAL CASE (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD, THAT CIDCO, THE ASSESSEE HEREIN, IS AN AGENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF PERCIVAL (SUPRA), AND HOLD, THE ASSESSEE TO BE THE AGENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, READ WITH THE ENTIRE OVERWHELMING DOCUMENTS, SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS NO INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH, AND WHATEVER IS, GEN ERATED, IT GETS DEPOSITED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FUND OF THE STATE. WE ALSO CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN ASSESSING THE ASSESSEE AS A STATE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, THEREFORE, EVEN THIS CANNOT BE CALLED AS AN AFT ERTHOUGHT AND APPLYING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, WE HOLD THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE A DISTINCTIVE APPROACH IN THE CURRENT YEAR . 44. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE THUS, CLEARLY IN ERROR, IN ASSESSING THE BUSINESS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE AT RS. 63,786.58 LACS. WE DELETE THIS INCOME, AS NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. 45. GROUND NO. X TO XXIV. WE HAVE HELD THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN AND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HOLD ANY ASSETS IN ITS OWN NAME, A S IS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE QUESTION OF TREATMENT OF THE SAME DOES NOT ARISE, BESIDES THAT ALL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER CAPITAL OR REVENUE ARE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND WHICH ARE REIMBURSED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE CANNOT BE ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE. IN THAT CASE, ALL THE IMPUGNED GROUNDS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, HENCE THESE ARE DISMISSED . ITA NO S . 4378,4379&4383 / 1 3 6 47. GROUND NO. XXV THE GROUND IS TAKEN ON CONTINGENCY THAT IN CASE GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 9 WERE NOT ALLOWED. SINCE WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE RECORDS AND ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OWN ANY ASSETS, PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, THE GROUND IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. 48. WE HOWEVER, ARE AWARE THAT THERE IS AN INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF REMUNERATION RECEIVED FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT AT RS. 5.00 LACS PER YEAR, THIS HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE OBSERV ATIONS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS WITH REGARD TO INCOME OF RS. 5.00 LACS, RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR ANY EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNI NG THE SAID INCOME. 49. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7 . FROM THE PERUSAL OF AFORESAID OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, WE FOUND THAT ALL THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO HAVE BEEN DELETED EXCEPT INCOME OF ASSESSEE BY WAY OF REMUNERATION RECEIVED FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT. IN THIS REGARD, THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 48 HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME OF RS. 5 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION FOR ANY EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THE SAID INCOME. IT IS CLEAR THAT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO REMUNERATION FROM STATE GOVERNMENT, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO . ALL OTHER ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DELETE ALL THE ADDITIONS EXCEPT THE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION, IF ANY RECEIVED FROM THE STATE GOVERNEMNT AND DIRECT THE AO TO DECIDE THE TAXABILITY OF SUCH REMUNERATION AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N FOR ANY EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THE SAID INCOME. ITA NO S . 4378,4379&4383 / 1 3 7 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL S OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 /12 / 201 4 . 18 /12 / 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( SANJAY GARG ) ( ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 18 /12 /2014 /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//