I.T.O. 17(1)(4), MUMBAI V. ELEGANT ENGINEERING, MUMBAI

ITA 4545/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78973 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Onus to prove; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 4545/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) I.T.O. 17(1)(4), ROOM NO. 112, 1 ST FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012 / VS. ELEGANT ENGINEERING 211/5; KOLSA BNDER, DARUKHANA, MUMBAI-400 010 ' ./# ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAFE 8049 B ( '$ /APPELLANT ) : ( %&'$ / RESPONDENT ) '$ ' ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. K. SAHU %&'$ ' ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIMAL PUNMIYA )* + ' , / DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2014 -./ ' , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.05.2014 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 16.04.2012, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2009. 2 ITA NO. 4545/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) ITO VS. ELEGANT ENGINEERING 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS THE MAINTAINABILITY IN LAW OF THE ADDITION U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT QUA TRADE CREDITS IN THE SUM OF RS.12,16,920/- REFLECTE D AS LIABILITIES IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE PRIMARY FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED. LIABILITY IN FA VOUR OF FOUR TRADE CREDITORS, FOR AN AGGREGATE SUM OF RS.53.76 LACS, WERE OBSERVED AS OU TSTANDING IN THE ASSESSEES FINAL ACCOUNTS. THE SAME BEING SO FOR LONG, THE ASSESSEE, ON BEING CALLED UPON TO PROVE THE SAME, I.E., OF THE LIABILITY EXISTING IN THE STATED SUM AS AT THE YEAR-END (31.03.2007), COULD PRODUCE CONFIRMATIONS FROM ONLY TWO PARTIES, SO THA T THE LIABILITY QUA THE OTHER TWO, AT THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS.12.17 LACS, AS UNDER, CAME TO BE ADDED U/S.41(1) OF THE ACT; THE SAME BEING IN RESPECT OF THE LABOUR CHARGES, TOWARD WHICH DEDUCTION HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST: A) KHANDELWAL ENGINEERING RS. 3,77,800/- B) SAWANT ENGINEERING RS. 8,39,120/- RS.12,16,920/- IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A), RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HOTLINE ELECTRONICS LTD. [2012] 18 TAXMANN.COM 365 DATED 23.12.2011(PB PGS.3 9-40), WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING ON RECORD TO S HOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CESSATION OR REMISSION OF LIABILITY OR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GA INED IN ANY MANNER QUA THE SAID LIABILITY, NO ADDITION TOWARD THE SAME COULD BE MADE U/S.41(1) OF THE ACT. THE FACT THAT THE LIABILITY HAD BEEN OUTSTANDING SINCE LONG, EVEN EXCEEDING THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, SO THAT IT COULD NOT BE LEGALLY ENFORCED BY THE CREDIT OR, IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IN FACT, THE SAME BEING REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS (BA LANCE-SHEET), YEAR AFTER YEAR, THERE WOULD BE AN EXTENSION OF LIMITATION IN VIEW OF SECT ION 18 OF THE LIMITATION ACT. THE ADDITION CONSEQUENTLY STOOD DELETED BY HIM. AGGRIEV ED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT WHE THER A LIABILITY REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS INDEED SO, I.E., REP RESENTS THE ASSESSEES LIABILITY TO THE 3 ITA NO. 4545/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) ITO VS. ELEGANT ENGINEERING CREDITOR CONCERNED IN THE STATED SUM AT THE RELEVAN T POINT OF TIME, IS A MATTER OF FACT AND NOT OF LAW. TWO, APPARENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS R EAL, SO THAT THE LIABILITY HAVING BEEN CLAIMED AND ALLOWED IN THE PAST, IT CONTINUING TO B E REFLECTED AS SO IN THE ASSESSEES REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH HAVE EVIDENTIARY VA LUE U/S.34 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, THE PRESUMPTION IN LAW WOULD ONLY BE THAT THE OUTSTANDI NG LIABILITY INDEED CONTINUES TO OBTAIN AS AT THE RELEVANT YEAR-END. SO, HOWEVER, WHEN THE LIABILITY CONTINUES TO SUBSIST YEAR AFTER YEAR, FOR SEVERAL YEARS, SERIOUS AND VALID DOUBTS A S TO ITS EXISTENCE OR AS REPRESENTING AN EXTANT LIABILITY, WOULD ARISE. THIS IS AS IN THE VE RY NATURE OF EVENTS NOBODY WOULD ORDINARILY, I.E., WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE REASON, NOT C LAIM HIS DUES, REPRESENTING HIS HARD EARNED MONEY OR CAPITAL BUILT UP OVER YEARS. THEN, AGAIN, WHY WOULD ONE NOT AGITATE THE MATTER OR TAKE LEGAL RECOURSE TO EFFECT RECOVERY. THAT IS, THE SAID PRESUMPTION FAILS ON THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. OF COURSE, THERE COULD BE GENUINE AND VALID REASONS OBTAINING IN A PARTICULAR CASE, SO THAT A CREDIT THOUGH OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS FOR LONG, REPRESENTS A GEN UINE LIABILITY. WHY, LOANS ON INTEREST- FREE BASIS OR TOWARD RISK OR SEED CAPITAL BY WAY OF SUBSCRIPTION TO SHARES, IS GIVEN WITH NO TIME PRESCRIBED FOR ITS RETURN BACK OR EVEN ANY STI PULATION WITH REGARD TO RETURN THEREON. AGAIN, IN A GIVEN CASE IT COULD BE THAT THE LIABILI TY REMAINS TO BE RECOVERED FOR WANT OF TIME OR RESOURCES WITH THE CREDITOR, I.E., TO PURSU E THE LEGAL RECOURSE. IF SO, THE RECALCITRANT DEBTOR STANDS BENEFITED TO THAT EXTENT. IN OTHER WO RDS, THE MATTER IS PRIMARILY AND ESSENTIALLY FACTUAL. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT PER ITS LATER DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHIPSOFT TECHNOLOGY (P.) LTD. [2012] 26 TAXMANN.COM 109 (DEL)/ 210 TAXMAN 173 (DEL) DATED 20.07.2012, EXAMINING THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THE MATTE R, HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE VIEW THAT MERELY BECAUSE A LIABILITY OUTSTANDS IN BOOKS, AND THAT LAPSE OF TIME BARS THE REMEDY BUT DOES NOT EFFACE THE LIABILITY, IS AN ABSTRACT AND T HEORETICAL ONE WHICH DOES NOT GROUND ITSELF IN REALITY. THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW, PARTI CULARLY FISCAL AND COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION, IS TO BE BASED ON PRAGMATIC REALITIES. IT WOULD BE INDEED PARADOXICAL, IF NOT ILLOGICAL, TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE-DEBTOR TO, WHILE AVOIDING A LIAB ILITY ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS NO LONGER ENFORCEABLE IN LAW, YET CLAIM HIS STATUS AS A DEBTO R, SO THAT HE WAS INDEED LIABLE FOR THE 4 ITA NO. 4545/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) ITO VS. ELEGANT ENGINEERING AMOUNT REFLECTED AS LIABILITY IN ACCOUNTS. FURTHER, EXPLANATION 1 TO THE PROVISION INSERTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1996 W.E.F. 01.04.1997 PROSC RIBES AN ASSESSEE TO CLAIM AN INDEBTED STATUS WHILE WRITING BACK THE AMOUNT IN BO OKS, EVEN IF UNILATERALLY, IN ITS RESPECT. THE WORD EMPLOYED IN THE SAID EXPLANATION IS INCLUDE AND NOT MEANS, SO THAT IT IS NOT TO BE READ IN A RESTRICTIVE MANNER. THE TRIBUNAL EX PLAINED THE SCOPE OF THE SAID EXPLANATION IN THE CASE OF KALYANI MAAN SINGH VS. ITO (IN ITA NO. 6500/MUM(A)/2011 DATED 14.11.2013) TO MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE, EVEN AS THE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT SACROSANCT, CANNOT ASSUME A STAND CONTRARY TO HIS OWN ACCOUNTS. EXPLANATION 1, ACCORDINGLY, COULD NOT BE INTERPRETED TO CONCLU DE THAT THERE IS OR COULD BE NO REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY UNLESS THE S AME IS WRITTEN BACK IN ACCOUNTS. THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS NO PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN RESPECT OF A LIABILITY BEING DISPUTED UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT WAS ALSO REPELLED BY THE HONBLE COURT ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN THE NEDUNGADI BANK LTD. VS. K. P. MADHAVANKUTTY AIR 2000 SC 839, HOLDING THAT A STALE DISPUTE OUSTS ITS ELF FROM BEING ENTERTAINED AND ADJUDICATED. AS WOULD BE SEEN, THE HONBLE COURT HA S SOUGHT TO READ THE PROVISION CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND NOT ON T HE BASIS OF A THEORETICAL CONSTRUCT ALONE, DIVORCED FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE. REFERENCE WAS MADE BOTH BY THE HONBLE COURT AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORE-REFERRED DECISION S TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KESORAM INDUSTRIES & COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 845 (CAL.) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE NON-DISCHARGE OF A LIABILITY OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, COUPLED WITH ABSENCE OF ANY DISPUTE AND/OR OF LEGAL RECOURSE, WOULD LEAD TO A F IRM BASIS TO INFER REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILITY. REFERENCE, WITH APPROVAL, WAS ALSO MA DE BY THE HONBLE COURT, WHICH STANDS FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHAILESH D. SHAH (IN ITA NO.7012/MUM/2010 DATED 11.12.2013) AND YUSUF R. TANWAR VS. ITO (IN ITA NO.8408/MUM/2010 DATED 28.02.2013), TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AGARPARA CO. LTD. [1986] 158 ITR 78 (CAL.). ACCORDINGLY, AN OMISSION TO PAY COULD GIVE RISE TO THE LEGAL INFERENCE OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY. IN OUR C LEAR VIEW, THEREFORE, EVEN AS OBSERVED DURING HEARING, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HOTLINE ELECTRONICS LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD NOT BE 5 ITA NO. 4545/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) ITO VS. ELEGANT ENGINEERING OF MUCH ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WOUL D, THEREFORE, HAVE TO BE DECIDED IN LIGHT OF THE CONSPECTUS OF THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. 3.2 CONTINUING FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FAILING TO FUR NISH CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE TWO CREDITORS UNDER REFERENCE, THE A.O. INFERRED THE SA ID CREDITS, NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR BEING REFLECTED AS PAYABLES, AS NOT REPRESENTING THE ASSE SSEES LIABILITY THERETO AS ON THE RELEVANT DATE (31.03.2007), SO THAT THERE WAS A CESSATION OF LIABILITY THERETO DURING THE YEAR, ATTRACTING SECTION 41(1). AS AFORE-NOTED, THE BASIS OF RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS AN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL WITH THE REVE NUE TO EXHIBIT A REMISSION OR CESSATION OF THE IMPUGNED LIABILITY. THAT, IN OUR V IEW, IS REQUIRING IT (THE REVENUE) TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. THE PRIMARY ONUS TO PROVE ITS RET URN, AND THE CLAIMS PREFERRED THEREBY, IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE (REFER: CIT V. CALCUTTA AGENCY LTD . [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)). WHAT WOULD, ACCORDINGLY, BE REQUIRED OF US IS AN EX AMINATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO DRAW A FINDING OF FACT , BASED THEREON, AS TO THE EXISTENCE OR OTHERWISE OF A LIABILITY. TOWARD THIS, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE, FIRSTLY, STATES THE AMOUNTS, WHICH ARE IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES, TO BE OUTSTANDING ON ACC OUNT OF RATE DISPUTE AND MATERIAL REJECTION. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS IN ITS RESPECT NOR SUBSTANTIATES ITS CLAIM/S IN ANY MANNER AT ANY STAGE. EVEN ASSUMING A RATE DISPUTE, THE SAME WOULD ONLY EXPLAIN THE NON-PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT CORRESPONDING TO THE EXCESS RATE APPLIED BY THE CREDITOR. THEN, AGAIN, THE LABOUR CHARGES AVAILED O F FROM SAWANT ENGINEERING BEING PER THREE SEPARATE BILLS (PB PGS.27-28), WHY WOULD, ONE MAY ASK, THE ASSESSEE CONTINUE TO AVAIL OF THE SERVICES AFTER THE FIRST TRANSACTION W ITHOUT SETTLING THE RATE, WHICH IN FACT WOULD BE AGREED UPON PRIOR TO THE TRANSACTION? SIMI LARLY, IF THE AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING ON ACCOUNT OF THE MATERIAL REJECTION, AS WHERE THE MAT ERIAL SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR JOB WORK STANDS NOT PROPERLY PROCESSED OR WORKED UPON, RENDERING IT IN UNFIT FOR CONSUMPTION/SALE, THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS WOULD REF LECT THAT MATERIALS/GOODS, IF NOT ALSO THE LOSS THUS SUSTAINED. WHY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD RA THER RAISE A CLAIM FOR THE SAID LOSS ON THE PARTIES, ADJUSTING THE SAME AGAINST THE BILLS R AISED ON IT BY THE CREDITORS. THERE IS IN 6 ITA NO. 4545/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) ITO VS. ELEGANT ENGINEERING FACT NO IOTA OF ANY DISPUTE ON RECORD QUA BOTH THE SUMS UNDER REFERENCE, CONTRACTED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR (F.Y.) 2003-04 (AT RS.6.8 8 LACS) AND F.Y. 2004-05 (RS.1.50 LACS) FOR SAWANT ENGINEERING AND DURING F.Y. 2004-05 FOR KHANDELWAL ENGINEERING (PB PG.31). COULD A LIABILITY CONTINUE TO OUTSTAND FOR YEARS WI THOUT ANY REASON, AND REASONS FOR WHICH COULD ONLY BE EXPLAINED OR FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE, THE DEBTOR ? SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILS TO FURNISH ANY CO NFIRMATION FROM THE SAID PARTIES TOWARD THEIR OUTSTANDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHO RITY, EVEN AS IT DOES SO IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER TWO CREDITS, ALSO OBSERVED AS OUTSTANDING FOR OVER THREE YEARS, AND WHICH THEREFORE STOOD DELETED BY HIM. ON SUCH QUESTIONS B EING RAISED TO THE LD. COUNSEL DURING HEARING, RAISING GENUINE DOUBTS AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE LIABILITIES, HE WOULD DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT OF BOTH THE PARTIES FOR F.Y. 2008-09 (PB PGS.29-30, 32), WHICH REFLECT DISCHARGE OF THE TOTAL LIABILITY THERETO DURING THE SAID YEAR IN CASH, ALBEIT IN SMALL SUMS RANGING FROM RS.10,000/- TO RS .18,000/- EACH. THE SAID DOCUMENTS ARE CERTIFIED (BY THE LD. AR) TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHE D BEFORE BOTH THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A). THIS IS QUIZZICAL INDEED. THE PAYMENTS TO T HE PARTIES HAVING BEEN MADE DURING F.Y. 2008-09, WHY DID THE ASSESSEE NOT STATE SO TO THE A.O., BEFORE WHOM THE PROCEEDINGS WERE ON AT THE RELEVANT TIME, PARTICULARLY DURING T HE LATTER PART OF THE YEAR 2009. RATHER, THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST THING THAT ANY PERSON CALLE D UPON TO CONFIRM A LIABILITY, STATE. THE PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE, EVIDENCE IN ITS RESPECT, COUPLED WITH THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FROM THE CONCERNED CREDITOR REFLECTING THE PAYMENTS, WOULD AT ONCE ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE LIABILITIES AT THE RELEVANT YEAR-E ND, I.E., ON 31.03.2007. NO DOUBT, THE A.O. COULD OR WOULD HAVE BEEN AT LIBERTY TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS, BUT THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISCHARGED, SO THAT UNLESS SOME MATERIAL CONTROVERTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM STANDS BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE REVE NUE COULD NOT VALIDLY DISPUTE THE EXISTENCE OF THE TRADE LIABILITY OR THE AMOUNT OUTS TANDING AS REPRESENTING ONE. IT IS INDEED INEXPLICABLE THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ON BEING FURNISHED POSITIVE MATERIAL BY THE ASSESSEE, AND WHO IN FACT HAD VERY FAIRLY DROPPED T HE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER TWO CREDITORS, I.E., FROM WHOM CONFIRMATIONS WERE F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, NOT ACTED THEREON; HIS ORDER BEING IN FACT SILENT IN THE MATT ER. AGAIN, LIKEWISE, BY THE FIRST APPELLATE 7 ITA NO. 4545/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) ITO VS. ELEGANT ENGINEERING AUTHORITY, BEFORE WHOM IN FACT THIS WOULD BE OR OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN THE FIRST OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO WE FIND HAS RATHER RAIS ED GENERAL GROUNDS. THAT IS, BOTH THE ASSESSEES CONDUCT AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW, BEING SUB SILENTIO IN THE MATTER, ARE INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER , HAVING FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE WITH REGARD TO THE SAID ACCOUNT STATEMENTS BEING FURNISH ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY (AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A)), AND WHICH COULD BE FALSE O NLY AT THE RISK OF PERJURY AND, OF- COURSE, CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITIONS BEING ADJUDIC ATED, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER IN LIGHT THEREOF THAT THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF THE A.O., AS INDEED WAS ALSO DONE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF YUSUF R. TANWAR (SUPRA), FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS AS REGARDS THE TWO CREDITORS UNDE R REFERENCE, AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ARISING AFRESH BY ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT , PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS CLAIMED TO BE MADE DURI NG F.Y. 2008-09, AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 0/ 1 * ' 2' 345 6 * 7 ' 89 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MAY 23, 2014 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :+ MUMBAI; ;) DATED : 23.05.2014 *.)../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&'$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. >*? @ %)AB , , AB/ , :+ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. @ CD E + / GUARD FILE 8 ITA NO. 4545/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) ITO VS. ELEGANT ENGINEERING ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , :+ / ITAT, MUMBAI