HARISH K. ALIMCHANDANI, MUMBAI V. JTCIT RG 23(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4480/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3482 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN KUMAR
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA, JM & SHRI P.M.JAGTAP , AM ITA NO. 4480 /MUM/20 1 0 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 5 - 0 6 ) HARISH K. ALIMCHANDANI, SAICO ENGINEERS & FABRICATORS, 515, MARATHON MAX, MULUND GOREGAON LINK R OAD, MULUND (W), MUMBAI - 400 080. VS. JCIT, RG.23(2), MUMBAI PAN NO. : AA DPA 6436 F ( APP ELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 15 TH APRIL , 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH JUNE , 2013 O R D E R PER SHRI R.K.GUPTA, JM : TH IS APPEAL HA S BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 33 , MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 0 6 . 2 . GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS APPEAL ARE IN REGARD TO CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CONFIRMING THE GP RATE AT 10% AGAINST GP RATE OF 7.83% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE AO NOTICED THAT TH E AUDITOR HAS POINTED OUT G.P OF 7. 8 3%. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF SALES EXCLUDING OTHER INCOME AND DIRECT EXPENDITURE. AS PER SCHEDULE 13, 14 AND 15 THE G. P RATE COMES TO 6% WHICH IS LESS THAN THE GP WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF SIMILA R WORKING FOR THE EARLIER YEAR I.E. 10%. HERE ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 2 AGAIN THE NET PROFIT DECLARED DURING THE YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE WERE COMPARED WITH THE EARLIER YEARS RESULTS. THERE ALSO IT IS NOTICED THAT THE NP LAST YEAR WAS 5% ON THE SALES COMPARED TO 3% DURING THE YEAR ON T HE SALES DECLARED. WITH REGARD TO THE FALL IN THE NP RATIO ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE WHICH HAS PULLED DOWN THE PROFITS AS COMPARED TO THE EXPENDITURE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THUS, THERE IS A FALL IN THE NET PROFIT ALSO AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. IN CONNECTION WITH THE FALL IN GP THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR SHOWING CLOSING STOCK UNDER THE HEAD WORK IN PROGRESS AT RS.4.37 CRORES. HE WAS ALSO ASKED TO FURNISH THE BREAK UP OF THE VALUATION OF RAW MATERIALS SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE IS VARIATION IN VALUING THE RAW MATERIALS AND ELECTRIC MOTORS WHICH ARE MAIN ITEMS IN THE CLOSING STOCK AS COMPARED TO THE RATE APPLIED FOR VALUATI ON OF THE SAID ITEMS IN TILE PRECEDING YEARS. IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRADING RESULTS, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT IN THE AUDITORS REPORT WITH REGARD TO MATERIAL CONSUMPTION AND FINISHED GOODS, THE RATIO HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS 93.22 % . WHETHER THE BALANCE 7% IS L OSS DURING PRODUCTION OR WHETHER IT IS SCRAP AND WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS REGARD WHEN COMPARED TO THE EAR L IER YEAR WAS QUESTIONED TO THE ASSESSEE. REPLY WAS ALSO FILED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED AND THE DEFICIENCY POINTED OUT ABOVE IN THE ASSES SEE'S TRADING ACCOU N T, THE AO WAS INCLINED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WAS INCLINED TO ESTIMATE THE GP AT 10% (AS ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 3 THAT OF LAST YEAR) . ACCORDINGLY, HE APPLIED THE GP RATE OF 10%, WHICH RESULTED AN ADDITION OF RS. 83,70,468/ - . 4 . BEING AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) , BEFORE WHOM DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED, WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 4.2. THEREAFTER THE CIT(A) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT. COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, REPLY WAS FILED. THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS REPLY IN RESPONSE TO REMAND REPORT IS ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 4.3 TO 4.5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS, LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 4.6 OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE DECLINE IN GP RATE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONVINCE THE AO REGARDING THE REASON FOR THE FALL IN GP, THEREFORE, THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND RECALCULATED THE GP OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CALCULATION DONE BY THE AO WAS ALSO NOT CORRECTLY MADE. THE COMPUTATION OF G.P MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT I T IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO ALLOW A PART AND DISALLOW THE REST, IF, IN LAW, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED NOT TO TAKE ANY OF THE ITEMS INTO CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT THE G.P. G.P APPLIED SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WI TH THE FINDINGS ON THE RECORD AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REASONABLE AND FAIR, ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD EXERCISE HIS JUDGMENT REASONABLY AND NOT ARBITRARILY OR CAPRICIOUSLY. THE FINDING GIVEN BY HIM SHOULD TAKE INTO ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 4 ACCOUNT THE CONDITIONS OF TRADE, OBTAINING T HE AVERAGE MARGIN OF PROFIT IN A PARTICULAR LINE OF BUSINESS, WHERE NO BASIS WAS GIVEN FOR FIXATION OF THE TURNOVER, AND NO MATERIAL UPON WHICH THE FLAT RATE WAS ARRIVED AT FURNISHED THE ESTIMATED G.P WOULD NOT STAND. AFTER THESE OBSERVATIONS, LEARNED CIT (A) THEN ANALYZED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE NESS IN SHOWING THE GP RATE ON LOWER SIDE. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONCLUDED THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLIED THE GP RATE AT THE RATE OF 10%. HOWEVE R, LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK - IN - PROGRESS AT RS.1 CRORE. 5 . NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT WHILE REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NEITHER THERE WAS ANY DISCREPANCY IN MAINTAINING THE RECORD. ALL THE PURCHASES, SALES AND EXPENSES ARE VOUCHED. NO DEFECTS WHATEVER HAVE BEEN FOUND BY THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES. FOR DETERMINING THE GROSS PROFIT, EXPENSES HAVE TO BE SEEN AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE SIMILAR TO EARLIER YEAR OR THEY ARE DIFFERENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY WHEREAS THE SALE PRICE HAS NOT BEEN INCREASED DUE T O TOUGH COMPETITION IN THE MARKET. THOUGH THE TURNOVER HAS BEEN INCREASED, HOWEVER, THE GP RATE IS DECLINE D BECAUSE OF REASON OF INCREASE IN PURCHASE COST AS WELL AS NOT INCREASING THE SALE PRICE IN THE SAME PROPORTION. THEREFORE, APPLYING THE GP RATE OF 10% ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 5 AGAINST GP RATE OF 7.83% SHOWN IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AT ONE HAND , LEARNED CIT(A) SAYS THAT THE AO SHOULD EXERCISE HIS JUDGMENT REASONABLY AND NOT ARBITRARILY OR CAPRICIOUSLY, HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF A O, WHICH IS CONTRADICTORY ITSELF. 7 . PER CONTRA , LEARNED DR STRONGLY PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN WORK - IN - PROGRESS AND THIS WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLYING A HIGHER GP RATE. 8 . IN REPLY, LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED IT IS WRONG TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS ANY DEFICIENCY/DIFFERENCE IN WORK - IN - PROGRESS BECAUSE AS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK - IN - PROGRESS HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) BY ASCERTAINING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE OR DEFICIENCY IN THE RECORD. 9 . W E HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED AT THE HANDS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE PARTIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISS ION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREAFTER APPLYING THE GP RATE OF 10% IS NOT JUSTIFIED. O N THE BASIS OF LOW GP RATE, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO SUMMARILY. THERE SHOULD BE SO ME COGENT MATERIAL OR DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS . I F THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT RELIABLE AND THE PRO FIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT CANNOT BE D EDUCED PROPERLY ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 6 ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS ARE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED, THEN ONLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS C OULD BE REJECTED AND , THEREFORE, THE BEST JUDGMENT HAS TO BE PASSED. WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING CRANES AND OTHER MACHINES HANDLING EQUIPMENT IN THE NAME OF M/S SAICO ENGINEERS & FABRICATORS AND ANOTHER CONCERN IN THE NAME OF M/S 2 B TECHNOLOGIES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE GP RATE AS WELL AS NET PROFIT RATE HAS BEEN DECLINED. HOWEVER, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECOR D THAT WHAT DEFECTS WERE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR HOW THE VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELIABLE. EACH AND EVERY DETAIL HAS BEEN KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE. QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK AS WELL AS CLOSING STOCK HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED. MA NUFACTURING ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED. NOWHERE THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR VOUCHERS. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE AO FOR APPLY ING GP RATE OF 10%, THE EXPENSES ON WHICH BASIS THE GP RATE DEPENDS WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,63,69,729/ - , WHEREAS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THESE EXPENSES WERE INCREASED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,57,65,520/ - . THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION BY THE AO WHILE REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DISTURBING THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INCREASED MORE THAN TWICE AS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 12,20,36,697/ - , WHEREAS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 7 TURNOVER HAS BEEN INCREASED TO RS. 27,07,39,890/ - . THIS FACTOR HAS ALSO NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION EITHER BY THE AO OR B Y THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR DETERMINING THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO. IN EVER Y TRADE, IT IS SEEN THAT WHERE TURNOVER HAS BEEN INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY THEN THE MARGINAL GP RATE IS DECLINE. IN THE PARTICULAR CASE IN HAND, IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY, WHEREAS SALE PRICE HAS NOT INCREASED IN THE SAME RATIO IN WHICH THE EXPENSES ARE INCREASED. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR DECLINE IN GP RATE BUT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TAKEN ITS EXPLANATION IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. ON ONE HAND, LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVES IN HIS ORDER THAT, I T IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO ALLOW A PART AND DISALLOW THE REST, IF, IN LAW, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED NOT TO TAKE ANY OF THE ITEMS INTO CONSIDERATION IN ARRIVING AT THE G.P. G.P APPLIED SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FINDINGS O N THE RECORD AND THE SAME SHOULD BE REASONABLE AND FAIR, ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD EXERCISE HIS JUDGMENT REASONABLY AND NOT ARBITRARILY OR CAPRICIOUSLY. THE FINDING GIVEN BY HIM SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDITIONS OF TRADE. WHILE OBSERVING THESE OBSERV ATIONS, LEARNED CIT(A) THEREAFTER CONSIDERED THE FINDING OF THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE SAME. THESE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CONTRADICTS ITSELF. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPOR T OF THE AO AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASON IN DECLINE IN GP RATE, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , ARE REASONABLE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , WE HOLD THAT THE REJECTION OF ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 8 BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT JUSTIFIE D AS THEY CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE GP RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DECLINE. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO DEFECT EITHER IN PURCHASE ACCOUNT OR IN SALE ACCOUNT OR M AINTAINING VOUCHERS, THEREFORE, THE DISTURBANCE OF GP RATE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THAT GP RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON LOWER SIDE, IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED AS THERE ARE SO MANY FACTORS IN DECLINE OF GP RATE, WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, TH E GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE ALLOWED. 1 0 . GROUND NO.4 IS IN REGARD TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ADDITION TO THE BUILDING. 1 1 . THE AO DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,60,766/ - IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE TO THE BUILDING. I N APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DENIED THE ADDITION MADE TO THE BUILDING AS HE SIMPLY REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NECESSITY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. IN REMAND REPORT, THE SAME OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO, WHO HAS STATED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE OFFERS THE NECESSARY EXPLANATION, SHOWING COMMERCIAL USAGE OF THE BUILDING, DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED. LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN PART AS THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ALTERNATE SUBMISSION THAT IF T HE DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWED THEN DEPRECIATION SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED ON ENTIRE BUILDING AS CAN BE DISALLOWED ONLY ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 9 ON ADDITION MADE DURING THE YEAR TO THE BUILDING. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO RECTIFY THE ADDITION. 1 2 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVE TO SUCCEED ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT DENIED THAT THERE WAS NO ADDITION MADE TO THE BUILDING. HE SIMPLY DENIED THE DEPRECIATION FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO NECESSITY TO MAKE THE AD DITION TO THE BUILDING. IT IS THE BUSINESSMAN, WHO KNOWS WHAT ADDITIONS HAVE TO BE MADE AND HOW THE BUSINESS HAS TO BE RUN. IF THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT THAT SOME ADDITIONS ARE REQUIRED THEN THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE. THOSE ADDITIONS TO THE BUILDING WERE NOT CLAI MED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ONLY THE DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE TO THE BUILDING. THUS, GROUND NO. 4 IS ALLOWED. 1 3 . GROUNDS NO . 5 TO 10 RELATE TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AT THE RATE OF 10% ON VARIOUS EXPENDITURE I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS, SUCH AS ADVERTISEMENTS, CARRIAGE OUTWARD, REPAIRS ETC., OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON CAR, I NTEREST ON CAR LOAN ETC., OUT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON CAR, ON ACCOUNT OF STAFF WELFARE AND ALSO DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF M/S 2B TECHNOLOGIES. 1 4 . THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON ADHOC BASIS, WHICH H AS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ITA NO . 4480 /201 0 10 1 5 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH IS SUSTAINED, THEN THAT WILL MEET THE END OF JUSTICE AS THE SOME OF THE ADDITIO NS WERE MADE FOR WANT OF PROPER VOUCHERS AND WHETHER THEY ARE FOR USAGE OF THE BUSINESS OR NOT. THEREFORE, WE SUSTAIN THE ADDITION TO RS. 1 LAKH AGAINST VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE, WHICH ARE RAISED THROUGH GROUNDS NO. 5 TO 10. 1 6 . FOR THE REASONS AFOREMENTIONED , APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF JUNE 2013 . SD/ - SD/ - ( P.M.JAGTAP ) ( R.K.GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 19/06 / 2013 . PKM , PS COP Y OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - X, MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI