MOTTA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI

ITA 4605/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 460519914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SUNDER SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PARESH SHAPARIA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4794 & 4795/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 15 & 16, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. VS. MOTTA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 17/B, DAMODAR PRASAD BUILDING, 250, TELANG ROAD, MATUNGA, MUMBAI-400 019. PAN: AACCM 3577F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 4604 & 4605/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 MOTTA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., 17/B, DAMODAR PRASAD BUILDING, 250, TELANG ROAD, MATUNGA, MUMBAI-400 019. PAN: AACCM 3577F VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 15 & 16, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARESH SHAPARIA DATE OF HEARING : 17-05-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-06-2012 ORDER PER RAJENDRA, A.M. OUT OF THE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 12-03-2010 FOR BOTH THE Y EARS, GROUND NO.1 IS EFFECTIVE GROUND AND IT READS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE NET PRO FIT @ 25% OF THE SALES ITA NO. 4794-4795/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4604-4605/MUM/2010 2 GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING A NET PROFIT OF 2 5% OF THE SALES AS AGAINST DETERMINED PROFIT OF 26.52% BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT 25% ON THE SALES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S. 40(3) WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT PROVISION FOR DISALLOWANCES AT 20% IN RESPECT OF CASH EXPENSES. FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 THERE IS ONE MORE GROUND OF AP PEAL IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 8,38,440/- BEING DIFFERENCE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FROM MRS. CHANDRI KA SHAH ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT 25 % ON THE SALES. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE : THE APPELLANT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION, BUILDERS & DEVELOPMENT. DURING THE YEAR THE PROJECT LEELA BAU G BUILDING (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NADKARNI BUILDING) WAS UNDER RED EVELOPMENT WHEREBY THE EXISTING TENANTS WERE TO BE REALLOCATED AND GIVEN AN OWNERSHIP PREMISES. THE APPELLANT HAD CONSTRCTED T OTAL AREA OF 12,498 SQ FEET OF WHICH 6,535 SQ FT WAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE TENANTS/REFUGE AREA, LEAVING SALEABLE AREA OF 5,963 SQ FT. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT U/S . 132(1) ON 22-09-2005 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF DIRECTORS /PARTNERS AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE CONCERNS BELONGING TO VIJA Y GROUP. M/S. N M ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WERE ALSO SEARCHE D WHERE THE PAPERS BELONGING TO APPELLANT WERE SEIZED AND REFER RED IN ANNEXURE A- 1, A-4 TO A-37 TO THE PANCHNAMA DATED 22-09-2005. SINCE THERE WAS NO SEARCH ACTION ON THE MOTTA GROUP THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C WERE INITIATED BY THE AO. THE AO NOTICED THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF THE SEARCH ACTION, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED WHICH CONTAINED DETAILED NOTINGS OF THE UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE INC URRED IN CASH IN ITA NO. 4794-4795/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4604-4605/MUM/2010 3 CONNECTION WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT/CONSTRUCTION OF LEELA BAUG. THESE EXPENSES WERE RECORDED IN THE SAID SEIZED DOC UMENTS A-15, A-4, A-27 ETC. 2.1 THE YEAR-WISE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES (AS PER SIZED MATERIAL) INCURRED OVER AND ABOVE ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE RE GULAR RETURN FILED OVER THE YEARS WERE AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR TOTAL EXPENSES (UNACCOUNTED) EXPENSES CLAIMED AS ALLOWABLE IN THE P&L A/C. FILED WITH THE RETURN U/S. 153C 2000-01 49,02,781 38,97,825 2001-02 23,75,693 7,74,874 2002-03 23,47,337 12,00,430 2003-04 89,62,914 34,55,356 2004-05 70,85,795 27,41,482 2005-06 7,50,000 6,00,000 2006-07 50,000 50,000 THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR LEELA B AUG BUILDING. THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS OVER AND ABOVE T HE EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN REGULAR B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MADE INQUIRIE S ABOUT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CAS H PAYMENTS MADE OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE. AO D ETERMINED THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE @ 26.52 OR THE COST OF SALE (SALES MINUS PROFIT). HE ALSO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF ` 30.17 LAKHS U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 3. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA), CIT(A). FAA DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ISSUES, WRITTEN SUBMISSION S AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS A FACT THAT THER E IS NO EVIDENCE FOUND FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE APPELLA NT GROUP TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED ANY SALES CONSIDERA TION OTHER THAN THAT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS. HOWEVER, IT IS ALS O A FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH IN THE MOTTA GROUP PREMISES OF THE APPELL ANT OR ANY OF ITS DIRECTORS, HENCE ALL THE INCRIMINATORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERV ATION OF THE A.O. THAT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLA NT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ITA NO. 4794-4795/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4604-4605/MUM/2010 4 AS SUCH CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY OF THE A PPELLANT, THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH AND NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN THE REGULAR RETURN FILED. CONSIDERING THE SAID FACTS T HE RESULTS DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE AC CEPTED, HOWEVER, THERE IS ALSO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLA NT THAT THE INCOME CANNOT BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE RATIO OF COST OF SALES TO SALES. FURTHER, THE METHOD OF DETERMINING THE RATIO BASED ON THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AS IT DOES NOT GIVE A TRUE AND CORRECT WORKING. CONSIDERING THE FACT THA T THE APPELLANTS PROJECT IS A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREIN THE OLD TENANTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN FREE OF COST PREMISES FOR WHICH THE EXP ENSES WERE TO BE BORNE BY THE APPELLANT, THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, SA LEABLE AREA AVAILABLE, THE DELAY IN PROJECT WHEREBY THERE WOULD BE ESCALAT ION IN COST, THEREFORE THE METHOD OF ESTIMATING THE INCOME BASED ON EXPENS ES INCURRED IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AN ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BASED ON THE % OF SAL ES WHICH IS MORE AUTHENTIC AND CORRECT METHOD TO DETERMINE THE PROFI TS WHEN BOOK RESULTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SINCE THE ISSUE IN APPEAL HAS IMPLICATION IN SAME FACT AND IDENTICAL ADDITION MADE IN A.Y. 2006-07, T HE DETERMINATION OF PROFIT OF THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. THE APPELLANT HAS MADE TOTAL SALES OF ` 4,59,26,250/- (A.Y. 2005-2006 OF ` 3,32,75,800 & A.Y. 2006-07 OF ` 1,26,50,450) WITH PROFIT OF THE PROJECT AS PER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INC OME BEFORE KEYMAN INSURANCE PREMIUM IS ` 77,62,432/- (A.Y. 2005-2006 OF ` 61,74,092 & A.Y. 2006-2007 OF ` 15,58,340/-). THE PROFIT RATION ON THE TOTAL PROJ ECT BEFORE KEYMAN INSURANCE PREMIUM SHOWN BY THE APPELL ANT IS 19.07%. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WAS AT ITS PEAK DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND CONS IDERING THE FACT THE APPELLANTS WORKING ITSELF COMES TO 19.07% AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THE APPELLANTS BOOKS ARE NOT RELIABLE, TO MEET THE NEEDS OF JUSTICE, I HEREBY ESTIMATE THE NET PROFIT @ 25% OF SALES AS AG AINST AVG. NET PROFIT ON THE PROJECT REFLECTED OF 19.07%. ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S. A(3) WAS DEALT BY THE FAA IN PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAID PARA READS: WITH REGARD TO ADDITION U/S. 40A (3), SINCE I HAVE FIXED THE TOTAL INCOME BY ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT AT 25% OF THE S ALES, THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE FURTHER ADDITION U/S. 40A(3) OF THE I.T.ACT . I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD. I N VIEW OF THIS, I DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. 4. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMIT TED THAT ESTIMATE MADE BY THE CIT(A) WAS ON HIGHER SIDE, THA T NO SEIZURE WAS MADE FROM THE ASSESSEES PREMISES, THAT DURING 153C PROCEEDINGS, ITA NO. 4794-4795/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4604-4605/MUM/2010 5 ASSESSEE HAD FILED FULL DETAILS OF HIS INCOME. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE FAA . AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOW N 19.27% GROSS PROFIT (GP). AO FIXED THE GP AT 26.52%. FAA REDUCE D IT TO 25%. 4.1 THUS, BASICALLY IT IS A MATTER OF ESTIMATION AN D THAT ALSO IN A SEARCH AND SEIZURE RELATED MATTER. ASSESSEE HAS AD MITTED THAT EXPENSES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS WERE INCURRED. CONSIDER ING ALL THESE FACTS, AR AGREED THAT IF RATE OF ESTIMATE OF THE FA A IS REDUCED TO A REASONABLE LEVEL, ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NO GRIEVANCE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT 2% REDUCTION IN THE FORMULA ADOPTED BY THE FAA WILL ME ET THE END OF JUSTICE. AO IS DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE @ 23% OF THE COST OF THE SALES (SALES MINUS PROFIT). AO IS DIRECTED NOT TO CONSIDER 40 A(3) DISALLOWANCES. 5. AS A RESULT ASSESSES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. EFFECTIVE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE REVENUES APP EAL ARE ABOUT REDUCTION OF ESTIMATE RATE OF PROFIT FROM 26.52% TO 25% BY THE FAA AND DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O U/S. 40 A (3) OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS GROUND NO.2 (40 A(3) DISALLOWANCE) IS CONCE RNED, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN A MATTER WHERE INCOME IS DETERMINED ON ESTIMATE BASIS, THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE FURTHER ADDITIONS INCLUDING ADDITIONS MADE U/S. 40A. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE FAA, IN THIS REGARD, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 7. IN LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION AT PARA 4 OF OUR ORDE R, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT RATE ADOPTED US (23%) IS JUSTIFIABLE C ONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, A.O. ADDED ` 8.38 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT (GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 FOR THE AY 2006-07). AO HAS DEALT THE ISSUE IN BELOW MENTIONED MANNER: PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF SALES REVEALS THAT DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALLOTTED AN AREA OF 748 SQ. FT. TO ONE OF THE TENANTS OF THE RE DEVELOPED PREMISES, MRS. CHANDRIKA K SHAH, WHO IS ALSO THE DI RECTOR OF ITA NO. 4794-4795/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4604-4605/MUM/2010 6 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. MRS. CHANDRIKA K SHAH WAS HO LDING AN AREA OF 178 SQ. FT. IN THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, BUT WAS ALLOTTED 748 SQ. FT AND A CONSIDERATION OF ` 16,50,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM HER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE RATE CHARGED FROM TH E OTHER CUSTOMERS FOR THE FLATS SOLD DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 2004 TO JUNE 2005 RANGE FROM ` 5,940/- TO ` 8,943/- PER SQ. FT WHEREAS THE RATE CHARGED TO MRS. CHANDRIKA K SHAH WORKS OUT TO ` 2,895/- (165000/570 I.E. 748-178) WHICH IS COMPARA TIVELY VERY LOW. HENCE, VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 12-04 -2007, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO W HY THE VALUE OF THE ADDITIONAL AREA ALLOTTED TO MS. CHANDR IKA K SHAH SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE S AND WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE SO ARRIVED AND THE SUM OF ` 16.50 LACK SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , THE AO HELD IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY, THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE AS PER THE STAM P DUTY RECKONER OF ` 4,660/- PER SQ. FT IS ADOPTED FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE ADDITIONAL AREA OF 534 SQ. FT WHICH WO RKS OUT TO ` 24,88,400/-. THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS SHOWN AT ` 16,50,000/-. HENCE, THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 8,38,440/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, FAA HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION AND THE ARGUMEN TS OF THE AR, THE AO HAS MADE ESTIMATIONS TAKING INTO CON SIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATIONS GRANTED T O THE TENANTS UPTO 10% AND ASSUMED FOR COMMERCIAL PREMISES THAT A DDITIONAL AREA WOULD BE 20%. IT IS A FACT THAT THE RATES FOR COMMERCIAL PREMISES ON GROUND FLOOR COMMAND HIGHER RATES THAN THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT ON GROUND FLOOR. THE VERY FACT TH AT THE STAMP DUTY RATE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ` 9830/- PER SQ FT AGAINST THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RATE OF ` 4660/- PER SQ FT ALSO SUBSTANTIATES THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE AREA HELD BY MRS. CHANDRIKA SHAH IS CERTIFIED AS COMMERCIAL AREA BY T HE GOVERNMENT AGENCY MUMBAI REPAIRS & RECONSTRUCTION B OARD. FROM THIS, IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE PREMISES HELD BY MRS. CHANDRIKA SHAH WAS A COMMERCIAL PREMIS E. ALSO FOR NON GRANTING OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION DURIN G THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD REQUIRE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ADDITIONAL AREA GIVEN TO MRS. CHANDRIKA SHAH. ALSO CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT OF ITA NO. 4794-4795/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4604-4605/MUM/2010 7 THE APPELLANT THAT IF THE COMMERCIAL AREA ORIGINALL Y HELD IS CONVERTED INTO RESIDENTIAL AREA BASED ON THE RATE P REVAILING IN THAT AREA, THE SPACE ALLOCABLE TO MRS. CHANDRIKA SH AH WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE AREA CONSIDERED BY THE AO. CONSIDE RING ALL THE ABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED AT 25% OF THE SALES, I AM OF THE VIEW THE ADDITION MAD E OF ` 8,34,440/- IS UNWARRANTED AND THEREFORE DELETED. THUS NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL VALUE DERIV ED IN AO ON ASSUMPTION & ESTIMATION BASIS. FURTHER, THERE IS N O PROVISION IN THE ACT TO TAX THE NOTIONAL PROFIT ON THE ASSUMPTIO N THAT THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE EARNED MORE PROFIT IF THE SALE IS MADE AT A HIGHER PRICE THAN THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE. 10. IN THIS REGARD, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR ) SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WERE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, HENCE AOS ORDER SHOULD BE RESTORED. AR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE FAA. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY D EFECT. AS STATED EARLIER, IN A CASE WHERE INCOME IS DETERMINED ON ES TIMATE BASIS FURTHER ADDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE. BESIDES, WE ENDORSE THE VIEW OF THE FAA THAT NOTIONAL INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 FOR THE AY 2006-07 IS DECID ED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 12. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR B OTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JUNE, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) (RAJENDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 6 TH JUNE, 2012 TNMM ITA NO. 4794-4795/MUM/2010 ITA NO. 4604-4605/MUM/2010 8 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI