M/s. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT SPL. Rg. - 20, MUMBAI

ITA 4597/MUM/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2934 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHISHIR DHAMIJA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Notional interest; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GO SAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 4597 /MUM/20 05 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999 - 2000 ) MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MAFATLAL HOUSE, 1 ST FLOOR, BACKBAY RECLAMATION , MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(4), DCIT, 6( 3), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ./ PAN : AAACM2813L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI GIRISH DAVE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHISHIR DHAMIJA / DATE OF HEARING : 22.9. 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.1 0.2015 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM : T H IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DAT ED 29.3.2005 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - 2 5, MUMBAI AND IT RELATE S TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000. 2 . IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS : THE APPELLANT OBJECTS TO THE ORDER DATED 29 MARCH 2005 OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), XXV I, MUMBAI ON THE FOLLOWING AMONG OTHER GROUNDS: ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 2 INTEREST IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES TO COMPANIES/OTHER CONCERNS 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.L,63,12,256 BEING ESTIMATED INTEREST @ 15 P ERCENT ON THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: SR. PARTIES AMOUNT NO. (RS.) (A) IBIZA INDUSTRIES LTD 25,50,000 (B) MAYESH CHEMICALS P. LTD. 33,25,000 (C) MAFATLAL S .A. INTEX LTD. 2,04,20,095 (D) MAFATLAL V.K. INT EX LTD. 38,00,000 (E) REPAL APPAREL P. LTD. 75,76,557 (F) SILVIA APPAREL LTD. 80,00,000 (G) MEIL BY MAFATLAL FINE SPG. 2,77,50,000 (H) MEIL 3,91,15,000 TOTAL 11,25,36,65 2 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGH T TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT INTEREST ON ADVANCES TO MEIL WAS TO ACCRUE ONLY AFTER ALL THE DUES OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS HAD BEEN PAID AND THAT THE QUESTION OF COMPARING THE INTEREST PAID WITH THE INTEREST RECEIVABLE FROM MEIL DID NOT ARISE IN THE PRESE NT YEAR. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ADVANCES TO IBIZA INDUSTRIES LTD., MAYESH CHEMICALS P. LTD., SILVIA APPAREL LTD., MAFATLAL S.A. INTEX LTD., MAFATLAL V.K. INTEX LTD. AND REPAL APPAREL P. LTD. WERE FOR THE P URPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CHARGING TO TAX NOTIONAL INTEREST OF RS.1,63,12,256 WHICH HAD NOT AT ALL ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AS THE AMOUNT DUE FROM MEIL HAD BEEN WRITTEN OFF BY THE APPELLANT AS ON MARCH 31, 1991, THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE NOT OUTSTANDING DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR 1999 - 00, HENC E NO DISALLOWANCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN THE EARLIER YEARS. DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 3 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE TO THE EXTENT OF 1/5 TH IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 AND THE BALANCE 4/5 TH SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35DDA: S .NO PARTICULARS AMT. (RS.) 1 VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME 1,77,62,095 2 RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION 19,15,35,170.39 3 EX - GRATIA 1,28,11,377.30 TOTAL 22,21,08,642.69 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 00 AND WAS WHOLLY ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 00. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 35DDA AND HOLDING THAT ONLY 1/5 T11 OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SECTION 35DDA WAS NOT ON THE STATUTE BOOK DURING THE PREV IOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 00 AND THEREFORE THE SAME COULD NOT BE APPLIED. VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF RS. 25,00,000 ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION O F CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS. STAMP DUTY PAYABLE ON AMALGAMATION 12. THE LEA RN ED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION FOR STAMP DUTY PAYABLE ON AMALGAMATION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME HAS BE EN PAID. EXCHANGE GAIN 11. THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING THE EXCHANGE GAIN OF RS. 985.52 LACS FROM THE TOTAL INCOME. ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 4 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 11. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ON SCIENTIFIC RE SEARCH OF RS.74,51,457. INTEREST ON SECURITIES 13. THE LEA RN ED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX A SUM OF RS.15,840 AS INTEREST ON GOVE RNMENT SECURITIES. IMPORT DUTY BENEFIT 14. THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE FROM THE INCOME THE ESTIMATED IMPORT DUTY BENEFIT OF RS.422.93 LACS. POOJA EXPENSES 15. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF POOJA EXPENSES OFRS.2,30,445. 16. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING FACT THAT IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED JUNE 9, 1998 IN THE CASE OF ERSTWHILE MAFATLAL FINE AND SPG. & MFG. CO. LTD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 1987 - 88, SUCH EXPENSES ON POOJA WERE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. PAYMENT TO RELATIVES OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES 17. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RS.3,49,027 BEING PAYMENT MADE TO RELATIVES OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES. 18. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF RS.3,49,027 IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT TO RELATIVES OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES WAS ALLOWABLE IF THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN PURSUANCE OF WRITTEN AGREEMENTS WITH THE EMPLOYEES. ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 5 19. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1987 - 88, 1988 - 89, 1991 - 92 AND THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CAS E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1985 - 86 AND 1986 - 87 HAD IN FACT DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT TO RELATIVES OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES. SALE OF MICRO MACHINE DIVISION 19 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN REDUCING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY RS. 2,49,99,735 ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF IF S MICRO MACHINE DIVISION DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 20. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THA T THE SALE IS TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 41(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 21. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT TREATING THE SALE AS A LUMP - SUM SALE. CLOTH COUPONS 22. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF 50 PER CENT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.77.66 LACS INCURRED IN RESPECTOF CLOTH COUPONS ISSUED TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. 23. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE EXP ENDITURE INCURRED ON CLOTH COUPONS WAS A NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. SETTING OFF THE EXPENSES AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME 25. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ESTIMATING & DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS. 3,50,98,649 AND SETTING OFF THE SAME AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME. 26. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ESTABLISHED ANY NEXUS AND THEREFORE THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,50,98,649 CANNOT ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 6 BE SET OFF AGAINST THE DIVIDEND IN COME . EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF HOUSE PROPERTY. 27. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESTRICTING THE APPE LLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AT 25 PER CENT OF RS.34,76,882 AS AGAINST 25 PER CENT OF RS.67,86,676 CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES 28. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT SP ECIFICALLY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO QUANTIFY AND CARRY FORWARD UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 AND THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS . 3 . AT THE OUTSET THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DO NOT WANT TO P RESS FOLLOWING GROUNDS : I ) GROUND NO.10 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.25,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS; II ) GROUND NO.12 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF STAMP DUTY PAYABLE ON AMALGAMATION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAME HAS BEE N PAID; III ) GROUNDS NO. 11 AND 12 , REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXCHANGE GAIN OF RS.985.52 LAKHS; IV ) REPEAT GROUND NO.11 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OF RS.74,51,457/ - ; V ) GROUND NO.28 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF CARR Y FORWARD UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS AND DEPRECIATION OF THE AY 1998 - 99 AND THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. VI ) THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. GROUNDS NO.29 AND 30 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE THEREFORE DISMISSED 5 . NOW WE ARE DEALING WITH THE REMAINING GROUNDS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 7 6 . BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THESE ISSUES ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.12.1999 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.1,55,86,44,104. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND TRADING OF FABRICS AND DYES AND CHEMICALS. 7 . THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES TO THE COMPANIES RS.1,63,12,256/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHARGED INTEREST ON THE LOANS GIVEN TO SUBSIDIARY AND OTHER COMPANIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,56,71,652/ - . THE AO CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ON BEING SCRUTINY THE SAME, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND CALCULATED INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN TO THE SUBSIDIARIES AND OTHER COMPANIES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,63,12,256/ - AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 8 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991 - 92 TO 1998 - 99, AY 2003 - 04 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO F OR FRESH ADJUDICATION FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN S.A.BUILDERS, REPORTED IN 288 ITR 1(SC). THEREFORE, THIS BEING IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE SAME VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AS TAKEN EARLIER BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 9 . THE LD. DR DID NOT OB JECT TO THE PLEA PUT FORTH BY THE LD.AR. 10 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTOR ED THIS ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 8 ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE DENOVO. GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11 . THE SECOND ISS UE PERTAIN TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF BALANCE 4.5 TH DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35DDA; DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION DE FERRED REVENUE EXPENSES OF RS.2,22,21,08,642/ - ON ACCOUNT OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME, RETRENCHMENT COMPENSATION AND EX - GRATIA PAYMENT. THE AO CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ON BEING SCRUTINY THE SAME, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXP LANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED THE ABOVE MENTIONED EXPENSES AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE 1/5 TH OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND REST 4.5 TH TO THE SUCCEEDING F OUR YEARS. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 1 2 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 AND THE TRIBUNAL FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BHORE INDUSTRIES LTD (264 ITR 180) (BOM) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 3 . THE LD. DR DID NOT BRING ANY COGENT MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL PROPOSITION SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR. 1 4 . AFTER HEA RING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 9 ISSUE IN F AVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT(SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW GROUNDS NO.7,8 AND 9 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 1 5 . THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON SECURITIES OF RS.15,840/ - ARE THAT T HE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST ON SECURITIES OF RS.15,840/ - AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE RECEIPT THEREOF FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MENTIONED IT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION THEREOF AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT LAID DOWN FOR THE AYS 1991 - 92 TO 1993 - 94, 1997 - 98 AND 1998 - 99 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 1 6 . BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL, THE LD.AR COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AND CONFIRMED THE LD.CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998 - 99, 1997 - 98,1995 - 96, 1994 - 95,1993 - 94 AND 1991 - 92 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE VIEWS TAKEN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, WE GROUND NO.13. 1 7 . APROPOS THE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPORT DUTY BENEFIT , THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.422.93 BEING ESTIMATED IMPORT DUTY BENEFIT. THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE PAST IN ASSESSEES OWN CASES. 18 . IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE L D.CIT(A) ADMITTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO ALLOW THE SAME IN THE YEARS IN QUESTION A WHEN CLAIMED BY THE ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 10 ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL. 19 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF JAMSHRI RAJITSINGHJI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED V/S INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REPORTED IN 41 ITD 142)(MUM) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS BEING THE SAME AND CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW SO TAKE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEAR, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR TOO. GROUND NO .14 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED. 20 . THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,30,445/ - BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEING POOJA EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE REVENUE WAS DISALLOWING THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME FOR THE AY 19 87 - 88 IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER GROUP COMPANY NAMELY, THE MAFATLAL FINE SPG.AND MFG CO.LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO BY UPHOLDING HIS OBSERVATIONS. 21 . BEFORE US, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.AR ARE THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUED HAS BEEN DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04, 1998 - 98 AND 1997 - 98 AND THEREFORE PRAYED THAT SIMILAR VIEW BE TAKEN FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. 22 . ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.DR COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE LD.AR SO WE CAN TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS. 23 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD.AR, WE ARE OF THE CONFIRMED VIEW THAT THIS IS AN ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 11 ALLOWAB LE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUNDS NO.15 AND 16 ARE ALLOWED. 2 4 . THE NEXT ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE PAYMENT TO RELATIVES OF DECEASED EMPLOYEES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,49,027/ - . THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN LOB THEATRE P LTD (122 ITR 240) AND SIRUR AND CO.P LTD (109 ITR 421) . THE LD. CIT(A) SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION OF FACT S IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2 5 . BEFORE US, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991 - 92, 1994 - 95, 1995 - 96, 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99 AND 2003 - 04 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR. 2 6 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSAL OF THE RECORD ON THIS ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE GROUNDS STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY WITH THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEARS, WE ALLOW GROUND S NO.17 , 18 AND 19 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR ALSO AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION . 2 7 . IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.20.21 AND 22, THE ASSESSEE RAISED AN ISSUE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO REDUCE THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY RS.2,4 9,99,735/ - . ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 12 28. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD MICRON DIVISION FOR A SLUMP CONSIDERATION OF RS.1546.24 LACKS. PROFIT OF RS.264.09 WAS REDUCED FROM THE SAME. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO REDUCED THE WDV OF THE ASSETS TRA NSFERRED RS.5,46,25,060/ - FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.15,46,24,000/ - AND AGAIN REDUCED 25% OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.99,99,89,940/ - I.E. RS.2,49,99,735/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED FOR TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT VALUE OF THE ASSETS FORMING THE PART OF THE BLOCK ASSETS AND THEN CLAIM DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SATISFY THE AO AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REDUCED THE DEPRECIATION AS MENTIONED ABOVE. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A), BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN M/S ARTEX MANUFACTURING COMPANY REPORTED IN 227 ITR 260 (SC) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 9 . BEFORE US, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : A) PREMIER AUTO MOBILES LTD V/S ITO (264 ITR 193)(BOM); B) M/S ARTEX MANUFACTURING COMPANY REPORTED IN 227 ITR 260 (SC) ; C) CIT V/S ELECTRIC CONTROL GEAR MFG.CO. 227 ITR 278 (SC); AND D) CIT V/S ASEA BROWN BOVERI LTD 11 TTJ 502 (MUM). AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS. 30 . THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PLEA PUTFORTH BY THE LD.AR. 31 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSAL OF THE RECORD ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON TOTAL SCRAP ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 13 SALES WHICH COMPRISES DIFFERENT TYPE OF THE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE VALUE OF EACH ASSETS ON WHICH IT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. THEREFORE, THIS FACTS NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED TO COME TO AN EXACT PRICE OF E ACH ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS AND CITATION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH APPLICATION OF MIND. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO.20 TO 22 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 32 . GROUNDS NO.23 AND 24 PERTAINS TO EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CLOTH COUPONS ISSUED TO THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.77.66 LACS TOWARDS BUSI NESS EXPENSES CONTENDING THAT IT WAS INCURRED TOWARDS PROMOTION OF BUSINESS. THE AO WITHOUT CALLING EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE OUTRIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 3 . IN THE FIRST APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE ABSENCE OF PERSONAL DETAILS, THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF 50% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM. 3 4 . AGAINST THE REDUCTION OF DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF 50%, THE REVENUE DID NOT FILE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS REACHED FINALITY TO THE ISSUE . THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A), HENCE, IT HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 35 . BEFORE US, THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS AS MENTION ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES INCURRED IS WHOLLY AND FULLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 14 PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO BE ALLOWED. 3 6 . ON THE CONTRARY, TH E LD. DR STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE PLEA RAISED BY THE LD. AR AND PRAYED THAT ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW BE UPHELD. 3 7 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY THELD.CIT(A) IS WELL REASON AND ACCORDIN GLY WE CONFIRM HIS ACTION. GROUNDS NO.23 AND 24 ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3 8 . THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO SETTING OFF THE EXPENSES AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND AMOUNTING TO RS.3,50,98,649/ - . FOR EARNING THIS DIVIDEND INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF BORROWED FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS . THEREFORE, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INTEREST INCURRED ON BORROWED FUNDS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, THE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED INTEREST EXPEN SES OF RS.13,165.63 LACS. THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, THE AO DISALLOWED RS.3,50,98,649/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 3 9 . BEFORE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE FROM ITS OWN FUNDS AND ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE NEXUS WITH OWN FUNDS OR BORROWED FUNDS COMPLETELY. THEREFORE, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUE THOROUGHLY, THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50%. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 15 40 . BEFORE US THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT AND EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME. THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY TAKING FUNDS FROM OUTSIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PA ID INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE AND BE ALLOWED. THE LD.AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION [2010] 328 ITR 81(BOM) IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V/S DCIT AND CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 41 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT HAS MADE INVESTMENT BY BRINGING FUNDS FROM OUTSIDES AND PAID INTEREST THER E OVER AND CLAIMED EXPENDITURE U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT FROM HIS OWN FUND. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE ITS CASE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO CLAIM SETTING OFF EXPENSES AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME. 42 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME AND CLAIMED THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IS EXPENDITURE. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 A THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME WHICH IS NOT FORMING PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. OBVIOUSLY , THE ASSESSEE BORROWED THE FUNDS FROM OUTSIDE AND INVESTED IT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME AND CLAIMED EXPE NDITURE AS DEDUCTIBLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. ON PERUSAL OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AND HELD THAT : EVEN PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, WHEN RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 14A. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER T HE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 16 CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURNISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD; THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 SHALL STAND REMANDED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE (DIRECT OR INDIRECT) IN RELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME/INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS WHICH DOES NO T FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS FOR EFFECTING THE APPORTIONMENT. WHILE MAKING THAT DETERMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE OF PRODUCING ITS ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT OR GERMANE MATERIAL HAVING A BEARING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR THE LD.CIT(A) OR THE TRIBUNAL PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTS HOW THE ASSESSE E IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF THE EXPENDITURES INCURRED FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE CLAIM TO 50%. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT THIS FACTS REQUIRES DETAILS INVESTIGATION AND VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF AO TO DETERMINE THE EXACT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD (SUPRA). RESULTANTLY, GROUNDS NO. 25 AND 26 ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 43 . THE LAST ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF HOUSE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.8,69,220/ - . 4 4 . THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES TOWARD REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.67,86,676/ - , AND THE ASSESSEE ON OWN DISALLOWED 25% THEREOF. THE AO RESTRICTED THE CLAIM 25% OF RS. 34,76,882/ - . THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT 1/4 TH OF THE ANNUAL VALUE OF MAFATLALS HOUSE OF RS.34,76,882/ - . ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 17 4 5 . THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE HOUSE REFERRED ABOVE BE ALLOWED FULLY AND THIS IS AN ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIA NCE IN VERMA FAMILY TRUST V/S ITO (71 ITD 392) AND VASWANI CHAMBERS (AOP) V. DCIT (MUM). 4 6 . THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 98 DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME STATUS QUO BE MAINTAIN FOR THIS YEAR ALSO. 47 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL EARLIER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. AR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL TO COMPEL US TO COME TO THE DIFFERENT CONCLUSION AS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL EARLIER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.27 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 48 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST OCT, 2015 SD SD ( . / D. KARUNAKAR RAO) ( / SANDEEP GOSAIN ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 21ST / OCT /2015 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 18 / COPY OF THE OR DER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 19 , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.4597/MUM/2005 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999 - 2000 ) MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MAFATLAL HOUSE, 1 ST FLOOR, BACKBAY RECLAMATION , MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(4), DCIT, 6(3), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ./ PAN : AAACM2813L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI GIRISH DAVE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHISHIR DHAMIJA / DATE OF HEARING : 22.9.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.05.2016 CORRIGENDUM THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED ORDER IN THIS APPEAL ON 21.10.2015 AND IN THE SAID ORDER FOLLOWING MISTAKES HAVE BEEN CREPT OUT : IN PARA 11 PAGE 8 THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN TYPED OUT : RS.2,22,21,08,642/ - PARA 17 PAGE 9 THE AMOUNT HAVE BEEN TYPED OUT : RS.422.93 PARA 28 PAGE 12 THE AMOUNT HAVE BEEN TYPED OUT RS.264.09 BY WAY OF THIS CORRIGENDUM, WE REPLACE THE SAME AS UNDER : IN PARA 11 PAGE 8 THE AMOUNT BE READ AS: RS.22,21,08,642/ - PARA 17 PAGE 9 THE AMOUNT BE READ AS : RS.422.93 LACS PARA 28 PAGE 12 THE AMOUNT BE READ AS RS.264.09 LACS ( . /D. KARUNAKAR RAO) ( / SANDEEP GOSAIN ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 31 ST MAY,2016 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ITA NO. 4597 / MUM/20 05 20 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI