R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI V. ITO 11(30(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4768/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2749 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T T JACOB
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJA B SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 40(b)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP & SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM I.T.A. NO. 4768/MUM/08 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) M/S. R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES 402, REGENT CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 PAN:AADFR9496A VS. THE I.T.O.-11(3)(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJA B. SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T.T. JACOB O R D E R DATE OF HEARING: 16.09.2009 DATE OF ORDER: 15.12.2009 PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 11 TH JUNE, 2008 OF THE CIT(A), CENTRAL-VII, MUMBAI RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 AND 9 BEING GENERAL IN NAT URE ARE DISMISSED. 3. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 TO 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.99,788 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF 20% RENTAL VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN HILL CREST FLAT. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT AN A MOUNT OF RS.4,98,942 IS APPEARING IN BALANCE SHEET AS INVEST MENT IN HILL CREST. ON BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM OR PARTNERS OF THE FIRM, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT I.T.A. NO. 4768/MUM/08 M/S. R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES ====================== 2 INVESTMENT IN HILL CREST OF RS.4,98,942 REPRESENTS PAYMENTS MADE IN SOME EARLIER YEARS FOR FLAT NO. 11, HILL CREST, JVP D SCHEME, MUMBAI-49. THE SAID FLAT WAS OCCUPIED BY PARTNER OF THE FIRM M R. RAJA B. SINGH. ON BEING FURTHER ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER THE FLAT WAS OCCUPIED BY THE PARTNER IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AN D SINCE THE FIRM HAS NOT CHARGED RENTAL INCOME WHY FAIR RENT APPLICABLE TO THE SAID PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE WORKED OUT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 10.11.2006 SUBMIT TED AS UNDER: WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RENTAL INCOME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF US BEING ASSESSED FOR INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ITEM INVESTMENT IN HILL CREST APPEARING IN OU R BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31 ST MARCH, 2004, DOES NOT REPRESENT THE COST OF THE FLAT IN HILL CREST SOCIETY. THE FLAT IN HILL CR EST SOCIETY IS NOT OWNED BY US. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE SAID FLAT WAS NEITHER IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM NOR IN THE NAME OF ANY OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. THE FLAT WAS ALSO NOT OCCUPI ED BY ANY OF THE PARTNERS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE AMOUNT SHOWN AGAINST INVESTMENT IN HILL CREST ONLY REPRESENTS SOME OF THE MONTHLY DUES PAID TO THE SOCIETY IN THE YEARS MORE THAN 5 YEARS BACK, WHEN THE FLAT WAS ALSO OCCUPIED BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS, MR. RAJA B. SINGH. AS PER THE CONSENT TERMS EXECUTED BETWEEN MR. RAJA B. SINGH AND MRS. INDU R. KHANNA & OTHERS ON 1 ST DECEMBER, 1999 (WHICH IS ALREADY ON RECORD BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF), THE SAID FLAT WAS TRANSFERRED TO MR. RAJA B. SINGH AND THIS HAS BEEN EFFECTED IN 2005-06. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNTS AGAI NST INVESTMENT IN HILL CREST HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO T HE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF MR. RAJA B. SINGH IN OUR ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2006. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACT, YOU WOULD APPRECIAT E THAT NO NOTIONAL INCOME COULD BE ASSESSED IN OUR HANDS IN R ESPECT OF THE FLAT IN HILL CREST SOCIETY. 5. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WI TH THE ABOVE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THA T IT IS APPARENTLY CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,98,942 PERTAINS TO THE FIRM . THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN ITS ORIGINAL SUBMISSION HAD STATED THAT THE INVESTM ENT IN THE HILL CREST SOCIETY BELONGS TO THE FIRM AND THE SAID FLAT IS US ED BY THE PARTNERS OF THE I.T.A. NO. 4768/MUM/08 M/S. R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES ====================== 3 FIRM. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO CHANGE IT S CONTENTION STATING THAT THE FLAT IN HILL CREST SOCIETY IS NOT OWNED BY IT A ND THE INVESTMENT REPRESENTS SOME OF THE MONTHLY DUES TO THE SOCIETY IN THE YEAR MORE THAN 5 YEARS BACK WHEN THE FLAT WAS OCCUPIED BY ONE OF T HE PARTNER MR. RAJA B. SINGH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E IS GIVING MISLEADING SUBMISSIONS. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AREA OF THE FLAT BEING A SINGLE BEDROOM FLAT, HE CALCULATED NOTIONAL RENTAL VALUE OF THIS FLAT AT RS.99,788 BEING 20% OF THE INVESTMENT OF RS.4,98,94 2. HE CONSIDERED THIS AMOUNT AS INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE PARTNER OUT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE FROM THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM AND ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENT IN H ILL CREST OF RS.4,98,942 REPRESENTED PAYMENTS BY WAY OF SOCIETY CHARGES MADE IN SOME OF THE EARLIER YEARS EARLIER THAN 31 ST MARCH, 1998, FOR FLAT NO. 11, HILL CREST, JVPD SCHEME, MUMBAI 400 049. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT THIS FLAT WAS OCCUPIED BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM, MR . RAJA B. SINGH. THUS, NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR OR DURING THE 5 YEARS PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31 ST MARCH, 1998 AND THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C. FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON THAT DATE, THIS FIG URE HAS REMAINED THE SAME AT RS.4,98,942 AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 1998 WHICH IN FACT REPRESENTS DRAWINGS BY MR. RAJA B. SINGH, A PARTNER OF THE FIR M, IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO TH E CURRENT ACCOUNT OF MR. RAJA B. SINGH IN FIRMS ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEA R ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2006. 7. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY CLUMSY AND CONFUSING WITH REGARD TO THE FACT. THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING DIVERSION OF BUSINESS F UNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN T HE EXPLANATION GIVEN TO I.T.A. NO. 4768/MUM/08 M/S. R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES ====================== 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FOUND TO BE MISLEADING. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FLAT IN QUESTION BELONGS TO ONE MR. K. SURYANARAYAN IYER WHO BEQUEATHED THE SAID FLAT TO ONE MR. RAJKUM AR KHANNA BY A WILL DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER, 1995. SUBSEQUENTLY, MR. RAJKUMAR KHANNA VIDE HIS WILL DATED 20 TH JULY, 1997 BEQUEATHED THE FLAT TO HIS WIFE MRS. IN DU KHANNA. REFERRING TO CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONSENT TERM S IN SUIT NO. 6525 OF 1995 IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT BETWEEN RAJA B. SINGH (THE PLAINTIFF), AND MRS. INDU R. KHANNA AND OTHERS (THE DEFENDANTS) , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS T O PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,500,000 TO THE DEFENDANTS IN FULL AND FINAL SE TTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS OF THE DEFENDANTS AND A SUM OF RS.25 LAKHS SHALL BE PA ID BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE DEFENDANTS IN 5 EQUAL ANNUAL INSTALMENTS. HE S UBMITTED THAT AS PER CONSENT TERMS EXECUTED ON 1 ST DECEMBER, 1999 THE AMOUNT AGAINST INVESTMENT IN HILL CREST HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO TH E CURRENT ACCOUNT OF MR. RAJA B. SINGH IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM DURING TH E YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2006. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT BELONGS TO THE FIRM, THE PRINCIPLE OF NOTIONAL VALUE WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. IN HIS ALTE RNATE CONTENTION, HE SUBMITTED THAT 20% AD HOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON THE INVESTMENT IS ON HIGHER SIDE SINCE THE INTEREST PAID DURING THEY YEAR ON ALL THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY AT 12%. 9. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE VAR IOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE I.T.A. NO. 4768/MUM/08 M/S. R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES ====================== 5 BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WEL L AS THE CIT(A) AND BEFORE US, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN HILL CREST AMOUNTING RS.4,98,942 REPRESENTS PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS SOCIET Y CHARGES ON ACCOUNT OF THE FLAT AT HILL CREST, JVPD SCHEME WHIC H WAS OCCUPIED BY ONE OF THE PARTNER MR. RAJA B. SINGH. THEREFORE, THE Q UESTION OF CALCULATION OF NOTIONAL RENT DOES NOT ARISE. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF A PARTNER, THE PARTNER HAS TO PAY INTERE ST ON THIS AMOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUES IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SUCH INTEREST SHOULD BE AT 12% PER ANNUM SINCE THE INTEREST PAID DURING THE YEAR ON ALL OTHER LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE I S AT 12%. WE THEREFORE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS LIABLE TO RECOVER INTEREST @ 12% ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.4,98,942 AS INTEREST INCOM E AS AGAINST 20% HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.53,300 B EING 20% OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. AFTER HEARING 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND OUT OF THE TO TAL EXPENSES OF RS.2,66,504 DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENS ES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.53,300 ON AD HOC BASIS AT 20% OF THE AMOUNT BEING PROBABLE PERSONAL USE BY THE PARTNERS. 13. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE SAME. 14. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDES MOBILE EXPENSES OF THE PARTNERS AND THREE PERSONS, THERE I S SOME RECOVERY IN CASH FROM STAFF AND PARTNERS. FROM THE VARIOUS DET AILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THERE IS RECOVERY ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE CHARGES FROM PARTNER MR. VIJAY JACOB, PARTNER MRS. MANJU GEORGE, RECOVERY FROM STAFF, ETC. WE, THEREFORE, F IND MERIT IN THE I.T.A. NO. 4768/MUM/08 M/S. R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES ====================== 6 SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE TELEPHONE EXPENSES DEBITED IS FOR OFFICIAL PURPOSES AND SINCE NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE PAST OR FUTURE AND WHA TEVER PERSONAL EXPENSES ARE THERE HAVE BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE PAR TNERS, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ACCOUNT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 5,529 BEING 20% OF THE VEHICLE EXPENSES AS PERSONAL EXPENSES. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 7 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.28,100 BEING 20% OF DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES AS PERSONAL EXPENSES. 16. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES O F RS.3,77,644 DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD VEHICLE EXPENSES THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.75,529 BEING 20% OF THE VEHICLE EXP ENSES AS PROBABLE PERSONAL USE OF THE VEHICLES BY THE PARTNERS IN ABS ENCE OF LOG BOOK AND IN ABSENCE OF PROOF THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR PROFESSIONAL PURPOSES. SIMILARLY HE ALSO DISAL LOWED 20% OF THE DEPRECIATION ON MOTORCAR OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS.1,40,502. THE ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS WERE UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THERE IS NO D ISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY LOG BOOK F OR THE USE OF VEHICLES. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME THE USE OF VEHICL ES EITHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR OFFICIAL USE CANNOT BE DETERMINED. THEREFOR E, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VEHICLES ARE USED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF PROFESSION. THEREFORE, SOME DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE ON ACCO UNT OF ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE OF MOTORCARS BY THE PARTNERS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHER SID E. WE, THEREFORE, I.T.A. NO. 4768/MUM/08 M/S. R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES ====================== 7 RESTRICT SUCH DISALLOWANCE TO 10%. THE DISALLOWANC E OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTORCAR ALSO IS ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED TO 10%. TH E ABOVE TWO GROUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 18. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 8, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING THE PRAYER OF THE ASS ESSEE TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION FOR REMUNERATION OF PARTNERS ALLOWABLE U/ S. 40(B). 19. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A REQUEST BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTIO N FOR REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS ALLOWABLE U/S. 40(B) TAKING INTO CONSID ERATION THE ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E TERM BOOK PROFIT U/S. 40(B)(V) IS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION 3 TO THE SA ID SECTION. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GR OUND THAT THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT LAY DOWN CLEARLY THAT IN THE E VENT OF ANY ADDITION TO THE BUSINESS INCOME, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR E NHANCED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS. FURTHER T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY JUDICIAL DECI SION. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATT ER. 20. BEFORE US ALSO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH ANY JUDICIAL DECISION AS TO HOW T HE FIRM IS ENTITLED FOR ENHANCED REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS ALLOWABLE U/S. 40 (B) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 40( B)(V) READ AS UNDER: EXPLANATION 3.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, B OOK- PROFIT MEANS THE NET PROFIT, AS SHOWN IN THE PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, COMPUTED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN CHAPTER IV-D AS INCREASED BY THE AGGRE GATE AMOUNT OF THE REMUNERATION PAID OR PAYABLE TO ALL T HE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM IF SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEDUCTED WHILE COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT. 21. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT BOOK PROFIT DOES NOT INCLUD E ANY ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. THEREFORE, WE DO I.T.A. NO. 4768/MUM/08 M/S. R.K. KHANNA & ASSOCIATES ====================== 8 NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ABOVE GROUND BY THE ASSES SEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009 COPY TO: (1) THE APPELLANT, (2) THE RESPONDENT, (3) THE CIT(A), CENTRAL-VII, THANE, (4) THE CIT-XI, THANE, (5) THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI TPRAO