ACIT., CENTRAL CIR.-32, MUMBAI V. KALE ENTERTAINMENT & RESORT PVT.LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4561/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 456119914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: R C JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Loose papers; Document seized; Additional evidence; Documents seized; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, A ND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAS NO. 4558 AND 4561/MUM./2011 (A.YS : 2008-09 AND 2006-07 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE32, AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .. APPELLANT V/S KALE ENTERTAINMENT & RESORTS P. LTD. S/4, 101, SUNDER NAGAR, S.V. ROAD MALAD (W), MUMBAI 400 064 PAN AACCK6915H .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MR. PRA VIN VERMA ASSESSEE BY : MR. R.C. JAIN DATE OF HEARING 22.03.2012 DATE OF ORDER 25.04.2012 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE, ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 3 RD MARCH 2011, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)XXXXI, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006- 07 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 29 TH NOVEMBER 2009. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT FOR BOTH THE YEARS ON 31 ST DECEMBER 2009. ON KALE ENTERTAINMENT AND RESORT 2 APPEAL, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DELETED THE A DDITION. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL, ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS:- 1. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE IN SPITE OF THE THAT ASSESSEE HAS N OT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN RULE 46A(3) OF INCOME TAX R ULES AND CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED ORDER TO THIS EFFECT IN WRITING. 2. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING PARTLY THE AP PEAL OF RS. 2,50,000/- WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE THREE BILLS OF EXCHANGE DOES NOT BELONG TO APPELLANT COMP ANY . 3. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 62,00,000/- WHEN IT IS NOT PROVED THAT THE ENTRIES MADE PAGE 64 OF ANNEXURE A-8 (SUNDAR NAGAR) ARE ONLY ESTIMATE OF BU DGET EXPENSES AS CLAIMED. 4. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 81,03,924/- WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY DETAILS AS T O HOW EXPENSES ENTERED IN THESE PAPERS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN REGULA R BOOKS SPECIALLY CASH EXPENSES. FURTHER, COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE EXP ENSES ARE NOT FILED. 5. WHETHER ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.23,25,708/- WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED BILL AND VOUCHERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THESE EXPENSES AND SOURCES OF EXPENSES ARE NOT EXPLAINED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL, MR. R.C. JAIN, R EPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E, MR. PRAVIN VERMA, REPRESENTING THE REVENUE. WE FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07. 4. GROUND NO.1, IS AGAINST ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT SURVIVE. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO.2, IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 2,50,000. KALE ENTERTAINMENT AND RESORT 3 7. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION O F ` 2,00,000, AND DELETED THE BALANCE. THIS WAS DONE BASED ON THE REM AND REPORT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT OUT OF EIGHT BILLS OF EXCHAN GE, FIVE BILLS OF EXCHANGE AMOUNTING TO ` 2,50,000, ISSUED BY ONE M/S. NITESH TRANSPORT CO. AND THEY FAIRLY RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON THE BALAN CE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTED TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT NO DIRE CT BENEFIT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THIS REPORT, TH E ADDITION WAS DELETED. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER AS SUCH. THIS GR OUND IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.3, IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ` 62,00,000. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THIS A DDITION IS BASED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AT PAGE-5, IS EXTRACTED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- .. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , IT IS HELD THAT IT IS ONLY THE PROJECT REPORT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING THE LOAN FROM THE BANK WHICH WAS NOT MATURED AND COST INCURRED SHOWN IN THIS PROJECT REPORT IS FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BALAN CE SHEET FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN A ND THE COST TO BE INCURRED HAS NEVER BEEN INCURRED TILL DATE. THUS, T HE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIS PROJECT REPORT IS ONLY BASED ON T HE PRESUMPTION THAT COST TO BE INCURRED IN THE FUTURE WILL BE UNEXPLAIN ED WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THERE FORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE DELE TED. GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE AFORESAID FINDI NGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. THIS GROUND IS, THUS, DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.4, IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 81,03,924, MADE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 12. THIS GROUND IS BASED ON THE DIARIES MAINTAINED BY T HE SUPERVISOR OF THE ASSESSEE ON CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL PROJECT AT VASHI. THE FIGURE MENTIONED WAS ` 3,44,48,000, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S HOWN EXPENDITURE OF ONLY ` 2,62,94,076, THE DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED. KALE ENTERTAINMENT AND RESORT 4 13. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE DEM ONSTRATED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ` 3,80,72,840, WHICH IS MADE IN EXCESS OF THE ROUGH NOTINGS MADE BY MR. RAC HIT THAKKAR, IN HIS NOTE BOOK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THIS FACT IN T HE REMAND REPORT AND BASED ON SUCH FINDINGS, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONTRARY TO HIS OWN FINDINGS IN THE REMAND REPORT, FILED THIS APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DISMISS THE SAM E AS DEVOID OF MERIT. 14. GROUND NO.5, IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 23,25,708, UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT THIS IS AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 15. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED THE EXPENDITURE PARTLY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AT PARA -8.3/PAGES-12 AND 13, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 8.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT, ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FACTS OF THE CASE CAREFULLY. REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO CALLED FOR. COPY OF WHIC H WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE AO HAS SUBMITTED IN THE REMAND REPORT AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO V ERIFY ITS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED EVEN BOOKS AND VOUCHE RS FOR THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED . FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS NOTICE D THAT THE AC HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS PRODUCED DURING THE REMA ND PROCEEDINGS AND ENTRIES ARE VERIFIABLE WHICH WERE IGNORED BY TH E AC. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THESE SEIZED PAPERS, IT IS NOTICED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT HAS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS MENTIONED ON THESE LOOSE PAPERS WHIC H IS PARTLY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PARTLY OUTSI DE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. REGARDING THE ENTRIES OF EXPENDITURE IN R ESPECT OF JODHPUR, AHMADABAD AND KERALA TRAVELLING EXPENSES AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 2 LAKHS, 2 LAKHS AND 1 LAKH RESPECTIVELY. OUT OF THIS EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5 LAKHS, RS. 3,81,869/- HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED IN THE B ALANCE SHEET BEING TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE PRIOR TO OPERATION. THUS THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,18,131, WHICH IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS AGREED THAT IT CAN BE ADDED BACK TO T HE TAXABLE INCOME. REGARDING THE ENTRY OF RS.12,51,200/-, THE APPELLAN T HAS SUBMITTED KALE ENTERTAINMENT AND RESORT 5 THAT THIS WAS DETAIL OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY RACHIT THAKAR, SUPERVISOR TO VARIOUS SUPPLIERS OF BUILDING MATERIA L AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,22,419/- HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED AND ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 28,782, IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED T HUS THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. NEXT ENTRY IS RELATING TO RS.1 LAKH INCU RRED FOR ELECTRICITY CHARGES UNDER THE HEAD PREOPERATIVE OPERATION CHARG ES. AGAINST THIS ENTRY THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS 1,37,710!- UNDER TH IS HEAD WHICH PROVES THAT THIS ENTRY HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS. RS. 85000/- ENTRY IS SHOWN AS GENERATOR AS ALSO DECLARE D IN THE BALANCE SHEET IN THE FIXED ASSETS THUS NO ADDITION IS CALLE D FOR. NEXT ENTRY OF RS.2 LAKH MADE BEING CEMENT CHARGES, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS COVERED UNDER THE HEAD ADDITION OF FIXED ASSETS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF RS.1,82,63,016/- UNDER THE HEAD OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE CEMENT IS REL ATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL WHICH IS ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFORE, THIS ENTRY CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAI NED, HENCE ALLOWED. NEXT ENTRY IS RELATING TO BOLERO EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,90,000/- THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO JUSTIFY FOR THE ADDITION THUS THE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND THE ADDITION MADE IS CONFIRMED. NET ENTRY OF PAYMENT TO MAHALAXM I OF RS.5,625/-, ARIHANT CERAMICS RS.14,273/- AND DHIRUBHAI D SHAH R S.1,15,423/-. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ENTRIES WERE CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION MATE RIAL AND PAYMENTS COPIES OF THE RESPECTIVE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WERE ALSO ENCLOSED WHICH PROVES THAT THESE ARE THE EXPENDITURE ENTRIES AND N O ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. TO SUM UP, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,56,913/- IS CO NFIRMED AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 16. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTR ADICT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS AND, HENCE, WE DISMISS THIS GROU ND OF REVENUE. 17. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. WE NOW TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 18. GROUND NO.1, IS AGAINST ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE. 19. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT SURVIVE. THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 20. GROUNDS NO.2 AND 3, ARE AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITIO N OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. KALE ENTERTAINMENT AND RESORT 6 21. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), VIDE PARA-5.3/PAGES-3, 4 AND 5 OF HIS ORDER, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT, ORDER OF THE A.O. AND FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AND THE ENTRIES ON THE SE PAPERS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT. BUT NOBODY APPEARED NO R SUBMITTED ANY WRITTEN REPLY, THUS THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS ADDITION . ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY WAS NOT PROVIDED BEFORE THE COMPLETING OF ASSESSMENT. KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE FACTS, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE MY PREDECESSOR, WHICH WERE ADMITTED AND SENT BACK TO THE AD FOR REM AND REPORT. THE GIST OF THE REMAND REPORT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS IS MARE A PRO JECT REPORT, AND NO WORK HAS EVEN STARTED. HOWEVER, IT IS BROUGHT NOTIN G ON RECORD TO PROVE ITS CLAIM. COPY OF THIS REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE AR OF THE APPELLANT FOR HIS COMMENTS AND THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS SU BMITTED REPLY AS STATED ABOVE. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBM ITTED THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. FROM THE PERUS AL OF THESE DOCUMENTS IT IS CLEAR THAT IT WAS A PROJECT REPORT PREPARED BY THE COMPANY TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BANK FOR OBTAINI NG\ LOANS FOR THE NEW PROJECTS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT IS CLEAR AND BEYOND DOUBT THAT IT IS A PROJECT REPORT PREPARED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING, LOAN FROM THE BANK. IT IS CLEARLY MENTIO NED ON THESE PAGES REGARDING THE CO INCURRED ON THE PROJECT AND COST TO BE INCURRED FOR THE FURTHER EXPANSION AND TOTAL,, COST. THE AO HAS COMPUTED THE COST INCURRED AND COST TO BE INCURRED THAT MEANS TOTAL C OST AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE SHAPE OF UNSECURED LOANS, PURCH ASE OF LAND AND PROPERTY. BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED TH E PHOTOCOPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN. FROM THE PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET, IT IS CL EAR THAT UNDER THE HEAD OF FIXED ASSETS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INV ESTMENT OF RS. 3,80,72,839/- AS COMPARED TO THE VALUE OF FIXED ASS ETS OF RS.2,24,13,000/- SHOWN IN THE PROJECT REPORT.. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMP ANY WITH THE BHARAT CO-OP. BANK LTD., MUMBAI OUT OF WHICH ALL THESE TRA NSACTIONS HAVE BEEN SHOW AND ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF BANK CONFIRMAT ION TO PROVE THE TERM LOAN OF RS.2,53,56,000/- AND WORKING CAPITAL T ERM LOAN OF RS.21,44,000/- AND ALSO THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM FAMI LY MEMBERS WHO ARE ASSESSED WITH THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER. ALL T HESE DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN THE FIXED ASSETS IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2006 AT ` 3,80,72,839/- AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THESE ASSETS HAS ALSO BEEN PROVED BY SUBMITTING TERM LOAN TAKEN FROM THE BANK AND UNSECURED LOANS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THUS THE AMOUNT OF COST INCURRED SHOWN IN THIS PROJ ECT REPORT HAS BEEN PROVED FULLY. HOWEVER, THE COST TO BE INCURRED WAS THE PROJECTION GIVEN IN THIS REPORT FOR OBTAINING BANK LOANS. THE AO HAS TOTALED THE COST INCURRED AND COST TO BE INCURRED AND MADE AN ADDITI ON OF RS.2,24,13,000/- AS UNSECURED LOAN, RS.1,19,85,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF KALE ENTERTAINMENT AND RESORT 7 PURCHASE OF LAND AND RS. 4,02,28,500/- ON ACCOUNT O F PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. BUT THE BASIS OF MAKING ADDITION IS ONLY THE PROJECT REPORT AND COST TO BE INCURRED IN THIS PROJECT WHICH WAS N EVER INCURRED TILL DATE. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , IT IS HELD THAT IT IS ONLY THE PROJECT REPORT PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R OBTAINING THE LOAN FORM THE BANK WHICH WAS NOT MATURED AND COST INCURR ED SHOWN IN THIS PROJECT REPORT IS FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SH EET FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND T HE COST TO BE INCURRED HAS NEVER BEEN INCURRED TILL DATE. THUS TH E ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIS PROJECT REPORT IS ONLY BASED ON T HE PRESUMPTION THAT COST TO BE INCURRED IN THE FUTURE WILL BE UNEXPLAIN ED WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THERE FORE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE DELETE D. GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 22. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTR ADICT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS AND, HENCE, WE DISMISS THIS GROU ND OF REVENUE. 23. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH APRIL 2012 SD/- SATBEER SINGH GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25 TH APRIL 2012 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI