CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO, MUMBAI V. ITO (OSD) 15(1), MUMBAI

ITA 477/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 47719914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 1983-1984
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KUMAR CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: S S PHADKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.477/M/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1983-84 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO., ROOM NO.68, 2 ND FLOOR, SUJA MANSION, 324/330, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004 PAN: AWBPS 9403N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD)-15(1), MATRUMANDIR, GRANT ROAD, MUMBAI 400 036 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.S. PHADKAR, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHAND, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.03.2015 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2011 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) [(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 1983-84. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.L.T.(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HUNDI LOANS OF RS.3,19,000/- & INTEREST OF RS.31,900/- TH EREON AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AFTER CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BY REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE LOANS ON HUNDIES WERE NOT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND THE HUN DIES DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.L.T.(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE LOANS OF RS.2000/- AND RS.9,000/- RESPECTIVELY IN THE ITA NO.477/M/2012 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. 2 NAME OF SHRI VINODKUMAR GULABCHAND AND SHRI SHIVPRA SAD MAHADEV AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 AND IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.L.T.(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PEAK OF CASH CREDIT OF RS.52,018/- AS PER DIARY 'A-16' SEIZED IN THE ACTION U/S. 132(1) IS ASSESSABLE IN T HE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. IV) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE CO URSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS COMING OUT FROM T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACT ION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 25.3.1983. THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS MADE ON 31.01.1986 BUT IN FURTHER APPEAL, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET ASIDE VIDE ORDER DATED 17.3.1988 OF LD. CIT (A). AGAIN IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ORDER WAS PASSED U/S. 144 ON 23.3.1990, WHICH WAS AGAIN SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONTAINED IN EARLIER A PPEAL ORDER WERE NOT FOLLOWED. BUT ONCE AGAIN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS P ASSED U/S. 144 ON 22.3.1993. THIS TIME THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER DATED 22.3.1993 WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DA TED 17.01.1996. HOWEVER, VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2004, THE ITAT REST ORED THE MATTER FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO). THE PRESENT ROUND OF LITIGATION IS W ITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE AO IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.12.2004. 4. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS, THE LD. CIT(A) (IN PARA 3.1 OF THE ORDER) HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ITA NO.477/M/2012 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. 3 3.1 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THIS MATTER IS LINGERING DURING ALMOST LAST 25 YEARS AMONG VARI OUS AUTHORITIES I.E. AOS, CSIT(A) AND HON'BLE ITAT. THE APPELLATE A UTHORITIES HAVE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TIME AND AGAIN BUT PARTIC ULARLY DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE AND NON-AVAILABILITY OF ALL RECORDS WITH THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE CASUAL APPROACH OF THE AO, THIS MATTER HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN TO ANY LOGICAL END AND IN ALL SET AS IDE ASSESSMENTS, THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT HAS BEEN REPEATED AS SUCH INSPITE OF CLEAR DIRECTIONS OF THE CSIT(A) AND HON'BLE ITAT FOR MAKING FRESH ASSESSMENT BY CONDUCT ING PROPER ENQUIRIES ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED. THIS OFFI CE HAS ALSO MADE SINCERE EFFORTS IN EXAMINING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AS WELL AS BY REMANDING THE MATTER TO TH E AO FOR SPECIFIC ENQUIRIES. VIDE LETTER DATED 30.6.2008 AND REMINDER DATED 07.1.2008, MY PREDECESSOR DIRECTED THE AO TO SUBMIT A DETAILED REMAND REPORT ALONG WITH COPIES OF APPRAISAL REPORT AND KH OKHA HUNDI ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT RECORDS. BUT, VIDE LETTER DATED 16.01.20 09, THE AO SUBMITTED A VERY CRYPTIC REPORT AND THAT TOO WITHOU T THE DESIRED DOCUMENTS/ASSESSMENT RECORDS. VIDE LETTER DATED 16. 5.2011, THE AO WAS ONCE AGAIN DIRECTED TO SEND THE DESIRED DOCUMENTS A ND ASSESSMENT RECORDS SO THAT THE FINAL VIEW CAN BE TAKEN ON VARIOUS ISSU ES IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH/IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DURING THE LAST 25 Y EARS. BUT INSPITE OF THIS LETTER FOLLOWED BY TWO REMINDERS DATED 13.7.2011 AN D 05.8.2011 (MARKED AS FINAL REMINDER) THE AO HAS NOT PROVIDED EVEN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, WHAT TO SAY OF OTHER DOCUMENTS. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OR OTHER SEARCH RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT READILY AVAI LABLE WITH THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS BEING DISPOSED OF ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE AND DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS REVEAL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF WAS NOT SURE AND SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRE CTNESS OF THE ORDER HE WAS GOING TO PASS FOR WANT OF PROPER RECORD RELATIN G TO THE CASE IN HAND. HE THEREFORE DISPOSED OFF THE MATTER ON THE BASIS O F MATERIAL WHATEVER WAS AVAILABLE TO HIM. NOW COMING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: GROUND NO.1 6. THE GROUND NO.1 IS IN RELATION TO THE ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF HUNDI LOANS OF RS.3,19,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO T HE ORDER DATED 17.03.88 ITA NO.477/M/2012 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. 4 WHICH WAS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPEAL AGAINS T THE FIRST ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE, IN THAT APP EAL, HAD AGITATED THE ABOVE ADDITION AND HAD DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ALLEGED HUNDIES FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. ONE OF THE CONTENT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT AFTER THE SEARCH, THE ADI HAD TAKEN DEPOSI TIONS FROM THE THREE PARTIES WHOSE NAME WERE REFLECTED IN THE HUNDIES AN D IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAID PARTIES HAD DENIED IN THEIR DEPOSITIONS TH AT THESE TRANSACTIONS HAD EVER TAKEN PLACE. THE LD. CIT(A), HAD THEREFORE, D IRECTED THE AO TO GET HOLD OF THE PAPERS LYING WITH THE ADI IN THIS CONNE CTION AND FIND OUT IF THERE WERE OTHER MATERIAL THAN WHAT HAVE ALREADY BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. CONSEQUENCE TO THE SA ID DIRECTION, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REFRAMED ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, HOWEVER, IN THE REFRAMED ASSESSMENT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTION OF GETTING THE RECORD FROM ADI. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 7. IN THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ISSUE WAS AGAIN SET ASIDE TO AO OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS AN EXPRESS DIR ECTION IN THE APPEAL ORDER DATED 17.03.88 THAT THE AO SHOULD OBTAIN THE PAPERS LYING WITH THE ADI AND EXAMINE THEM. THE MATTER WAS AGAIN SET ASI DE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REFRAMED. HOWE VER, THE PAPERS WERE NOT BROUGHT FROM THE RECORD OF ADI BY THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE SAID ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ASSESSEE AGAIN PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN RESTORED TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR MAKING A FRESH ASSESSMENT. IN THE FOURT H ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO THE SAME ISSUE, THE AO AG AIN DID NOT COMPLY ITA NO.477/M/2012 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. 5 THE DIRECTION OF OBTAINING THE PAPERS FROM ADI AND MADE THE ADDITION. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED TH E ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 8. IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITIONS ON THIS ISSUE HAVE BE EN MADE BY THE AO IN THE 4 TH ROUND ON THE BASIS OF THAT VERY MATERIAL WHICH WA S AVAILABLE TO THE AO AT THE TIME OF FIRST ASSESSMENT AND EVEN WIT HOUT COMPLYING THE EXPRESS DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A), GIVEN NOT ONLY IN THE FIRST APPEAL BUT ALSO IN APPEAL TO THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT THE AO SHOULD OBTAIN THE RECORD FROM ADI. THE SAID DIRECTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SET ASIDE BY ANY HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND AS SUCH WERE IN VERY MUCH EXISTENCE AND THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID DIRECTI ONS. WITHOUT COMPLIANCE OF THE SAID DIRECTIONS, THE ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE AO TIME AND AGAIN ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME MATERIAL IS NOTHING BUT THE ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. ANY SUCH ADDITIONS DESPITE LINGERING OF TH E MATTER FOR ABOUT 25 YEARS AND IN DISREGARD TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HIG HER AUTHORITY ARE NOT SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE SAME ARE HEREB Y SET ASIDE. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. GROUND NO.2 9. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE CO NFIRMATION OF ADDITIONS RELATING TO THE LOANS OF RS.2000/- AND RS .9000/- RESPECTIVELY IN THE NAME OF SHRI VINODKUMAR GULABCHAND AND SHRI SHI VPRASAD MAHADEV AND AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 10. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN TH E IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER OBSERVING THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE. ITA NO.477/M/2012 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. 6 11. WE FIND THAT IN THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) DATED 17.03.88, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD STATED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS RELATING TO THE SAID LOAN AMOUNT WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND COULD BE PRODUCED AS AND WHEN CALLED F OR. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE CONCERNED PARTIES ALSO COULD BE PRODUCED, IF SUMMONED. DURING THE FOUR ROUNDS OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE IS SUE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY CONFIRMATIONS IN THIS RESPECT. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THI S ISSUE AND THE ADDITIONS ON THIS ISSUE ARE THEREFORE UPHELD. GROUND NO.3 12. GROUND NO.3 IS IN RELATION TO CONFIRMATION OF T HE ORDER OF THE AO TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PEAK OF CASH CREDIT OF RS.52 ,018/- BE TAKEN AS PER DIARY A-16 SEIZED IN THE SEARCH ACTION. IN THE F IRST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 17.03.88, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD DENIED OWNERSHIP OF THE DIARY AND CLAIMED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN ESTABLIS HED AT ANY TIME THAT THE DIARY WAS WRITTEN IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY OF THE PARTNERS. THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE FILE OF THE A O TO LOOK INTO THIS POINT. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS O BSERVED THAT SIMPLY DENYING THAT THE DIARY DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESS EE DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROPERL Y EXPLAIN THAT IF THE DIARY DOES NOT PERTAIN TO IT THEN TO WHOM IT PERTAI NS. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT TH IS DIARY PERTAINS TO SOME OTHER PERSON RELATING TO THEIR GROUP OR SOME OUTSID ER THEN IT IS A NORMAL PRESUMPTION THAT THE SAME PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DIARY. THE LD. A.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT SHRI ZAVERCHAND LAXMICHAND HAS BEEN THE PARTNER IN THE FIRM OF M/S. SHAH CHIMA NLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. WHO WAS ALSO CARRYING ON HUNDI LOA N BUSINESS. THE ITA NO.477/M/2012 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. 7 ASSESSEE AND THE FIRM OF M/S. SHAH CHIMANLAL ZAVERC HAND & CO. HAD THEIR OFFICES IN THE SAME PREMISES. UNDER SUCH CIR CUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE DIARY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM . THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD DENIED THAT THE DIARY BELONGS TO IT. IT WAS ALSO P OINTED OUT THAT ALL THREE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THE PARTNERS OF M /S. SHAH CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. STAYED TOGETHER. SHRI ZAVERCHAND LAXMICHAND USED TO WRITE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM AS WELL AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SHAH CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. THE PARTNERS OF BOTH THE FIRMS WERE STAYING TOGETHER AND IN THE SEARCH, THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS OF M/S. SHAH CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. WERE ALSO SEIZED. IT HAS, THEREFORE, BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT RELATING TO THE OWNERSHIP O F THE DIARY HAS NEVER BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO. 13. AT THIS STAGE, WE MAY POINT OUT TO THE INITIAL PARAS OF THIS ORDER WHEREIN WE HAVE RECORDED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD . CIT(A) THAT THE RECORD PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WAS NOT PROPER AND THAT SINCE THE PASSING OF 25 YEARS IN THIS RESPECT, THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN T AKEN TO ANY LOGICAL END AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT H AVE BEEN REPEATED TIME AND AGAIN DESPITE CLEAR DIRECTIONS OF THE HIGHER AU THORITIES TO MAKE INQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER. IT HAS ALSO BE EN POINTED OUT SPECIFICALLY IN THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OR OTHER SEARCH RELATED DOCUMENT S ARE NOT READILY AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO WRI TTEN SEVERAL LETTERS TO THE AO TO SEND THE DESIRED DOCUMENTS AND ASSESSMENT RECORDS SO THAT THE FINAL VIEW CAN BE TAKEN ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES IN TH E LIGHT OF MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH A ND IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DURING THE LAST 25 YEARS. H OWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DUE TO HIS INABILIT Y TO ENQUIRE AND LOOK ITA NO.477/M/2012 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. 8 INTO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIARY DID NOT BELONG TO IT AND THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE OTHER FIRM WERE ALSO RESID ING IN THE SAID PREMISES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AND DESPITE REMANDIN G THE MATTER ON THIS ISSUE FOR AT LEAST 4 TIMES TO THE AO, THE LOWER AUT HORITIES HAVE FAILED TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRIES AND GIVE FINDINGS IN THIS RES PECT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONS BY WAY OF REPEATING TH E ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION CANNOT BE ALLO WED TO BE SUSTAINED. THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT MUST GO TO THE ASSESSEE ESPECI ALLY WHEN NO PROPER RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE AND A SPECIFIC FINDING HAS BE EN RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS RESPECT. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. GROUND NO.4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT R EQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.03.2015. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 04.03. 2015. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH ITA NO.477/M/2012 M/S. CHIMANLAL ZAVERCHAND & CO. 9 //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.