ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI V. MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH, MUMBAI

ITA 4727/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55087 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALKRISHNA MENON
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4727/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ACIT -19(2), ROOM NO.315, 3RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI -400 012 ....... APPELLANT VS SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH, 603, 6TH FLOOR, SILVER COIN, GAVDEVI ROAD, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI -400 055 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: ACWPS 5313 C APPELLANT BY: SHRI BALKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HIRO RAI DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.07.2011 30.08.2011 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM: IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-19, MUMBAI DATED 2.06.2009 FOR T HE A.Y. 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUN DS IN THE APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF ` 9,64,826/- CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS. ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALL OWANCE SO MADE TO ` 60,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS MORE T HAN EVEN THE SALE PRICE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, AND TH ERE IS SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE OF PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEARS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT T HAT THE EXPENSES SUCH AS PESTICIDES AND SALARY AND WAGES AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AR E ON THE LOWER SIDE AND UNACCEPTABLE CONSIDERING THE AREA AN D LIST OF PESTICIDES IN THE MARKET. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARISES FROM GROUND NOS.1, 2 & 3. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM REC ORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HE IS AN ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION AND HAVING ACTIVE PRACTICE. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RET URN FOR THE A.Y. 2006- 07 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 13,81,550/- AND ALSO DECLARED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 13,68,197/-. THE A.O. EXAMINED THE PAST RECORD AND HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN THE LAND OF 6.27 ACRES AT KASEGAON, MAHARASHTRA WHICH I S INHERITED BY HIM AND THERE WAS DOUBT ABOUT THE HIGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. ASKED PROOF TO THE ASSES SEE IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSES SEE FILE SOME BILLS FROM THREE PARTIES, SHOWING SALE OF AGRICULTURE ITE MS AT ` 13,68,197/-. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS PRODUCING AND SELLING THE DRY GRAPES. ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 3 3.1 AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CROP OF GRAPES IS VERY SENSITIVE WHICH REQUIRES CON SISTENT CARE AND PESTICIDE AND A GREAT DEAL OF LABOUR AND LOT OF EXP ENDITURE IS REQUIRED. IN THE OPINION OF THE A.O., AFTER SPENDING THE EXPE NDITURE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT HAVE THE PROFIT OF MORE THAN 10% TO 20% BUT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN 100% SALE PROCEEDS AS AN INC OME. THE A.O. ALSO CONSIDERED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HIS BROT HERS NAMELY SHRI M.T. SHEIKH WHO IS HOLDING 5 ACRES OF LAND AND SHRI T.K. SHEIKH WHO IS ALSO HOLDING 5 ACRES OF LAND AND BOTH THE BROTHE RS HAVE DECLARED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE A.O. ARRIVED AT A CON CLUSION THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INF LATED AND AFTER MEETING OF THE EXPENDITURE, AGRICULTURAL INCOME CAN NOT BE MORE THAN 25% OF THE GROSS SALE. THE A.O., THEREFORE, WORKED OUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT ` 3,41,609/- (25% OF ` 13,66,437/-) AND BALANCE OF ` 10,24,827/- WAS TREATED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAID ADDITION BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE A.O.S VIEW THAT 75% EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED. HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED T O THE A.O. TO TREAT EXPENDITURE AT ` 60,000/- PER ACRE AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD BE TAKEN AT ` 13,08,097/-. BEING AGGRIEVED NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PROOF OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IS LOOK ED AFTER BY HIS FATHER. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE FOLLOWING YEARLY APPROXIMATE EXPENDITURES ARE INCURRED TO EARN THE AGRICULTURE INCOME:- I) SALARY & WAGES ` 2,500 PER MONTH II) PESTICIDES & SEEDS ` 1,500 PER MONTH ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 4 III) MISCELLANEOUS ` 1,000 PER MONTH IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT, EXCEPT THE PESTICIDE, SEED S AND SUPERVISORY EXPENDITURE, THERE IS NO OTHER EXPENDITURE AS DRIPP ED IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS UTILISED. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER R ECORD ARE PRODUCED BEFORE US SHOWING EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. AT THE SAME TIME, WE FIND THAT ` 60,000/- EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS AT A VERY LOW SIDE AND AT SAME TIME, 75% EXPEND ITURE DETERMINED BY THE A.O. IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. WE ARE, THEREFOR E, OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE 1/3RD AMOUNT OF THE GROSS SALE IS TREATED AS AN EXPENDITURE, THAT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE, ACCORDING LY, DIRECT THE A.O. THAT 1/3RD SALE PROCEEDS OF ` 13,66,435/- SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE FOR GROWING THE GRAPES OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS TO BE WORKED OUT AND REMAINI NG AMOUNT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDING LY, GROUND NOS.1 TO 3 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING GIFT OF ` 3,00,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER AND THIS ISSUE ARISES FROM GROUND NO.4 6. AS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUN T THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A GIFT WORTH ` 3,00,000/- FROM HIS FATHER. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTION, CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR-FATHER. 6.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE GIFT CONFIRMATION LETTER . THE A.O. DISBELIEVED THE GIFT CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. WE FIND THAT SOME OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE FOR DISBELIEVING THE CON FIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BAN K STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THA T THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO GIVE GIFT TO THE WEALTHY SON LIKE THE P RESENT ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, DISBELIEVED THE FACTUM OF THE GIFT AND M ADE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 5 6.2 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND FOUND FAVOUR. THE LD. CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEES FATHER DECLARED AND HAS CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN GIFT OF ` 3 LAKH AND MOREOVER, THE FATHER IS HAVING SUFFICIENT INCOME SOURCE FROM AGRICULTURAL. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE REASONS GI VEN BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE AS UNDER:- (VIII) I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE PAPER BOOK BY THE APPELLANT. T HE ADMITTED FACTS, IN THIS CASE, ARE (A) THAT THE APPE LLANTS FATHER HAS CONFIRMED AS HAVING GIFTED ` 3 LAKH TO HIS SON. (B) HE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT TO SUB STANTIATE ITS SUBMISSION. THE APPELLANT HAD VOLUNTEERED TO PRODU CE THE FATHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY EXAMINA TION. THE 7/12 EXTRACT DENOTING THE AGRICULTURE HOLDING O F THE FATHER WAS ALSO FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HI S ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS REJECTED THE GIFT ON MERE CONJ ECTURES AND SURMISES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED T O INVESTIGATE FURTHER IF HE FEELS SO BUT HE CANNOT SI MPLY STICK TO HIS SUSPICIONS AND MAKE AN ADDITION WHEN THE APP ELLANT HAD NOT ONLY FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BUT ALSO VOLUNTEERE D TO PRODUCE THE DONOR I.E., FATHER FOR ANY VERIFICATION OR EXAMINATION. THE GIFT IS FROM THE FATHER TO THE SO N, WHO IS A FULL TIME AGRICULTURIST AND THE ONUS SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS DISCHARGED. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE GIFT IS IN CASH WILL NOT IPSO FACTO MAKE IT FAKE. A FULL TIME AGRICULTURIST MAY OR MAY NOT KEEP ITS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN BANK. THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE AGRICULTURE FILED ARE GENERALLY IN CASH. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE A.O. WHICH COULD H AVE LED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENU INE. NO SUCH PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN BY THE A.O. MERELY OR SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CO GENT ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 6 MATERIAL THE AO CAN NOT MAKE THE ADDITION. AS SUCH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF ` 3,00,000/- IS DELETED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD S AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THERE IS CLOSE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONEE AND FACTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE A.O. AL SO. MERELY GIFT GIVEN IN CASH CANNOT BE THE REASONS TO DISBELIEVE T HE SAME. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T (A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.4 IS DISMISSED. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF ADVANCES OF ` 5,00,000/- PLUS ` 5,00,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM BROTHERS AND THIS ISSUE ARISES FROM GROUND NO.5 & 6. 9. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM MR. M.T. SHEIKH AND MR. T.K. SHEIKH AMOUNTING TO ` 5 LAKH EACH. THE A.O. SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE. HE STATED THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE SHOWN TO HAVE RE CEIVED IN CASH AND THAT WAS ADVANCE TOWARDS SALE OF 25% OF RIGHT IN T HE PLOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT/ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY NO T REGISTERED. THE A.O. DID NOT BELIEVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAI D MOU, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO REAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE BROTHERS AND THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE BRO THERS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND ARE STAYING IN MUMBAI AND IT IS NOT BELIEVABLE THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS RECEIVED IN CAS H. BOTH THE BROTHERS ARE SHOWN AS EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SALARY IS ALSO SHOWN AT ` 19,000/- AND ` 1,20,000/- PER ANNUM RESPECTIVELY. THE A.O., THEREFORE, TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS NON-GEN UINE DEPOSIT AND MADE THE ADDITION OF ` 10 LAKH. ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 7 10. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED A LAND ALONG WITH HIS WIFE FOR ` 22,52,800/- WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS 75% VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 28.9.2008 AND TH E ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED 25% OF HIS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AT ` 5,62,500/- EACH TO HIS TWO BROTHERS. THE BOTH BROTHERS ARE HAVING SUFFICIE NT AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND BESIDE HELPING THEM IN THE PROFESSION TH EY ARE ALSO INVOLVING IN THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. IT WAS A LSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE CONVEYANCE WAS SUBSEQUENTL Y EXECUTED ON 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 AND WHICH WAS DULY REGISTERED AT SERIAL NO.1922/08 DATED AND THE STAMP DUTY WAS PAID THEREO N. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE TITLE IN THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN FI NALLY CONVEYED TO THE BROTHERS AND THE ASSESSEE WHO RECEIVED THE AMOUNT A S PER THE MOU. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION AND OPERATIVE PART OF HIS FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER:- (VII) I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND THE PAPER BOOK, AND OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT TRANSFERRED 25% OF HIS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AT ` 5,62,500/- EACH TO HIS TWO BROTHERS VIDE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING UNDER STAMP PAPER DATED 20.09.2005 AN D CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 12.09.2008. THE AGREEMENT DA TED 20.09.2005 IS PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE RETURN AND MUCH BEFORE THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS ARE STARTED. BOTH THESE HAVE REMAINED UN-IMPEACHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HE HAS MERELY DISMISSED THESE DOCUMENTS AS AN AFTERTHO UGHT WITHOUT REALIZING THE FACT THAT THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WAS IN 2005 MUCH BEFORE THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS HAVE COMMENCED. THESE DEPOSITS ARE REF LECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE BROTHERS ALSO. BOTH THE BROTHERS ARE ALSO AGRICULTURISTS AND IT WAS AT THE BEHEST OF THE FATHER THAT ALL THE BROTHERS STAY TOGETHER THAT THE ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 8 APPELLANT PARTED WITH HIS 25% SHARE. THE FACT THAT THE BROTHERS ARE AGRICULTURISTS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INC OME IS BORNE OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE AO HAS REF ERRED IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. BOTH BROTHERS HAVE BEEN F ILING THEIR RETURNS AND THIS AMOUNT AS REFLECTED IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME OF BROTHERS AND THE ACCOMPANYING STATEMENTS. THUS MERELY BECAUSE THE RECEIPT IS IN CASH WILL NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY ARE NON GENU INE. MORE SO WHEN THE BROTHERS ARE ALSO AGRICULTURIST WH ERE TRANSACTIONS ARE MAINLY IN CASH. AS STATED EARLIER NO SUCH PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN BY THE AO MERELY ON SURMIS ES AND CONJECTURES. THERE HAS TO BE SOME COGENT MATER IAL IN AOS POSSESSION. SIMPLY BEING SUSPICIOUS IS NOT EN OUGH. THE MATERIALS AND PAPERS FILED AT THE ASSESSING STA GE AND THE APPELLATE STAGE REMAIN UNCONTROVERTED AND SO TA KING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS HELD THAT ADD ITION OF ` 10,00,000/- ON MERE SUSPICION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. TH US, TAKING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REJECTI ON OF AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM BROTHERS AMOUNTING TO ` 10,00,000/- IS BASED ON MERE SUSPICION, WHICH CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH PROOF. TAKING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION SO MADE IS DELETED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND ALONG WITH HIS WIFE. IT A PPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE DESIRE OF HIS FATHER, DECIDED TO TRANSFER 25% OF HIS SHARE IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHERS. AS PER THE FACT S ON RECORD, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CONVEYANCE IS ALSO REGISTERED. T HE A.O. HAS A RESERVATION IN RESPECT OF MOU AS IT WAS NOT REGISTE RED. AS THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE THREE BROTHERS, IN OUR OPIN ION, THERE CAN BE GOOD BRIDGE OF TRUST. IT HAS ALSO SEEN THAT, SUBSEQ UENTLY, THE AGREEMENT TO SALE IS REGISTERED BY THE PAYMENT OF T HE STAMP DUTY. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE BROTHERS ARE HAVING AGRICULTU RAL INCOME AND THEY ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 9 ARE ALSO FILING THE REGULAR RETURNS. IN OUR OPINIO N, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMA FACIE BURDEN PUT ON HIM U/S.68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND SOURCE AND TH E LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLE D FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 & 6 ARE DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.7 & 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO CO MMENTS ARE REQUIRED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 3 0TH AUGUST 2011. SD/- SD/- ( T.R. SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 30TH AUGUST 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)19, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-19, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. H BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA 4727/MUM/2009 SHRI MOHEDDIN K. SHAIKH 10 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 18.08.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18.08.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER