PIGMENTS, LAKES & CHEMICALS MFG, CO.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 2(2)-4, MUMBAI

ITA 4774/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83785 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADIP N KAPASI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Business income; Depreciation; Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . , . . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) PIGMENTS LAKES & CHEMICALS MFG. CO.LTD., MAHEN MERCHANTILE CORPORATION, GOOL MANSION, 2 ND FLOOR, HAMJI STREET, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 PAN:AAACP 3376M (APPELLANT) V/S. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI. . (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRADIP N. KAPASI RESPONDENT BY : MS. PARMINDER DATE OF HEARING : 01 /09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/09/201 4 ORDER PER N.K.BILLAIYA, A.M : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) DT. 29.5.2012 AND 23.7.2009 RESPECTI VELY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 2 2. FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE MATTER TRAVELED UPTO TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL V IDE ITA NO. 4774/M/2009. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUES, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED TH E MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE I N RESPECT OF THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS LEFT TO BE DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL OVERLOOKED THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH REMAINED UNADJUDICATED. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 154/M/2012 STATING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE DESERVE TO BE RECALLED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONT ENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONVINCED THAT CERTAI N GROUNDS REMAINED UNADJUDICATED. THE ORDER WAS RECALLED. IN THE MEANTIME, THE LD. C IT(A), FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS REMAINED UNADJ UDICATED AT THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL AND DECIDED IT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST TH IS ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ITA NO. 5436/M/12 WHEREAS ITA NO. 4774/M/09 IS THE RECALLED ORDER FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE UNADJUDICATED GROUNDS. WITH TH IS BACKGROUND, WE PROCEED WITH ITA NO. 5436/MUM/2012. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 9 SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH GROUND NO. 1 ONLY BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AS THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 14 3(2) ISSUED AND SERVED BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE TIME. ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 3 3.1. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE FILED PHYSICAL RETURN IN THE APPROPRIATE FORM NO. 1 ON 12.9.2006. THE ASSES SEE FILED ELECTRONIC RETURN ON 3.11.2006. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS SESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 17.10.20 07. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF THE SERVI CE OF NOTICE WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN MUST BE CONSIDERED FRO M THE DATE OF FILING OF THE PHYSICAL RETURN WHICH IS ON 12.09.2006. HOWEVER, THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES STAND IS THAT THE E- RETURN WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY SELECTION THEREFOR E THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WOULD START FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE E-RETURN I.E. 3.11.2006 AND AS THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON 17.10.2007, IT IS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIM ITATION OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. 3.2. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, LET US UNDERSTAND T HE PROCEDURE OF FILING OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN. AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIA L YEAR, THE CBDT NOTIFIES THE RETURN OF INCOME TO BE FILED BY THE PERSONS. THE CBDT HAS CATEGORIZED THE PERSONS AS FOLLOWS: A) PERSONS WHO HAVE TO FILE RETURNS MANDATORILY, ELECT RONICALLY WITH DIGITAL SIGNATURE. B) PERSONS WHO CAN OPT FOR FILING RETURNS ELECTRONICAL LY IN SUCH CASES AFTER TRANSMITTING THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY THE PERSON H AS TO SUBMIT THE ITR-V WITHIN 120 DAYS TO THE CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, B ANGALURU. ONCE THE ITR-V IS RECEIVED BY CPC BANGALURU, THE RETURN IS T REATED AS FILED. 4. WE ARE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE FILED PHYSICAL RETURN ON 12.9.2006. VIDE NOTIFICATION DT. 24.7.2006 ALL CORP ORATE TAXPAYERS ARE NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY. HOW EVER, FOR THE YEAR, IT WAS PROVIDED ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 4 THAT A COMPANY CAN FILE E-RETURN EITHER UNDER DIGIT AL SIGNATURE AND IF THE RETURN IS NOT FILED UNDER DIGITAL SIGNATURE, THEN THE ITR-V HAS T O BE SUBMITTED TO THE CPC BANGALURU WITHIN 120 DAYS. IN ANY CASE, IT WAS MAN DATORY FOR THE CORPORATE TAXPAYERS TO FILE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY AFTER 24.7. 2006. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PHYSICAL RETURN ON 12.9.2006 I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF THE NOTI FICATION. BECAUSE OF THIS FAULT, THE ASSESSEE FILED E-RETURN ON 3.11.2006. THE CBDT VID E ITS CIRCULAR NO. 9 OF 2006 DT. 10 TH OCTOBER, 2006 286 ITR (ST)53 HAS CLARIFIED AT CLAU SE-8 AS UNDER: IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD THA T SOME TAXPAYERS HAVE FILED THE RETURNS IN THE OLD FORMS (OTHER THAN FORM NO. 2D) EVEN AFTER THE NOTIFICATION OF THE NEW FORMS. SINCE THE OLD RETUR N FORMS ARE INVALID FORM AFTER THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF NEW FORMS, THE TA XPAYERS SHOULD RESUBMIT THE RETURN IN THE NEW FORMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEW PROC EDURE 5. SINCE THE E-RETURN FILED ON 3.11.2006, THIS WAS THE VALID RETURN AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE NOTI CE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(2) IS WELL WITHIN THE TIME. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED IN PURSUANCE TO THE PHYSICAL RETURN FILED BY IT ON 12.9.2006. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRO NGLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF GEMINI COMMUNICATIO N LTD. VS ACIT IN IT APPEAL NO. 1252 (MDS) OF 2012 DT. 28.8.2012. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS WISDOM HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BELIEF THAT NOWHERE IN THE ACT OR RULES THERE IS A MANDATORY PROVISION THAT THE RETURN MUST BE FILED O NLY ELECTRONICALLY. THIS COMPULSION HAS BEEN MADE AS A RESULT OF THE DIRECTI ON ISSUED BY THE CBDT. WITH UTMOST RESPECT TO THE CHENNAI BENCH, WE FIND THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAS NEITHER CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RULES OF THE I.T. RULES NOR IT HAS GIV EN ANY OBSERVATIONS/FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATION OF RULES IN SO FAR AS FILING OF THE RE TURN IS CONCERNED. IT IS VERY MUCH ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 5 PROVIDED IN THE ACT THAT THE RETURN HAS TO BE FILED AS PER THE RULES. THE RULES ARE MADE AND ARE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE IN RESPECT OF FILING OF THE RETURNS EVERY YEAR. THE CBDT NOTIFY THE RET URNS. SUCH DIRECTIONS/INSTRUCTIONS OF THE CBDT CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE LIGHTLY OTHERWI SE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION WOULD GO IN THE DRAIN. 7.1. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN TOTALITY, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ELECTRONIC RETURN FILED WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE THE NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED THEREIN. WE, THEREFORE, D O NOT FIND ANY ERROR OF LAW OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. THE OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL ARE NOT R ELEVANT HENCE NOT TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 4774/MUM/2009 (RECALLED APPEAL) 9. THE GROUNDS REMAINED UNADJUDICATED IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION. GROUND NOS. 3,4,5 & 6 ARE INTER-LINKED AND RELATE TO THE S AME SET OF FACTS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH A GROUP OF THREE PERSONS FOR SA LE OF A PLOT OF LAND. THE THREE PURCHASERS ARE AS UNDER: I) SHRI SANJESH GOPAL PATKAR II) SHRI SANJAYKUMAR HIRALAL DARGAR III) SHRI AVINASH DATTATREY PATKAR CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL LOSS A S UNDER: ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 6 SALE OF FLAT ALONG WITH STRUCTURES AT VILLAGE KHARWA, AT BADLAPUR RS. 33,51,000/- INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION RS.15,09,000 X 497 100 = RS. 74,99,730/- LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS = RS. 41,48,730/- =============== 9.1. THE AO HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A BUILDING ALSO ON THIS LAND ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS ALSO ALLOWED. THE AO MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES FROM THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 133(6). ON INQUIRY IT WAS REVEALED THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A SUM OF RS.2,44,40,000/- ON 17/04/08. THE AO MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES AND HE WAS INFORMED THAT THIS PROPERTY IS WORTH RS.2,11,56,080 /- AS ON APRIL, 2005. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS BIFURCATED THE SALE CONSIDE RATION BETWEEN THE LAND AND THE BUILDING IN THE SAME PROPOSITION ASSIGNED T O THE VALUE OF LAND AND BUILDING AS UNDER: SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAND RS.2,0 3,09,837/- SALE CONSIDERATION OF BUILDING RS. 8,46,243/- ACCORDINGLY, HE COMPUTED THE LONG TERM AND SHORT T ERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UNDER: SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (BUILDING): FAIR MARKET VALUE RS. 8,46,243 /- (AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) LESS: WDV AS ON 1/4/05 RS. 6,217/- RS. 8,40,000/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LAND) FAIR MARKET VALUE RS. 2,03,09,8 37/- (AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) LESS: INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION (AS PER RETURN) RS. 74,99,730 /- RS. 1,28,10,107/- ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 7 10. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A SMALL FACTORY OF MANUFACTURING DYES. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS CLOSED, THE STRUCTURE ON THE LAND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ERASED BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF THE PLOT OF LAND. THE LAND WAS UNDER A GREEN ZONE AND THEREFORE THE MAJOR PART OF THE LA ND WAS NOT DEVELOPABLE. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PROPER TO RECKON THE VALUE AS PER THE READY RECKNOR RATES. AS THE READY RECKNOR RATES DO NOT CONSIDER ENCUMBRANCES AN D OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS NUISANCE BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 10.1. THESE SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT SEC. 50C IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) ON SALE OF PLOT OF LAND AN D SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN(STCG) ON SALE OF BUILDING. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMI TTED THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO SALE DEED EXECUTED, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE SALE WAS DURESS SALE THEREFORE THE READY RECKNOR RATE ADOPTED BY THE AO IS NOT REFLECT ING THE PROPER MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT OF LAND. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN BIFURCATING THE CAPITAL GAINS INTO LTCG AN D STCG AS THERE WAS NO BUILDING WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED WITH THE PLOT OF LAND THE SAM E WAS ERASED BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND. ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 8 13. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SALE DEED WAS NOT EXECUTED , THE TRANSFER WAS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AN AGREEMENT. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SEC. 50 C W.E.F. 1.10.2009, THE STAMP DUTY VALUE WAS TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERA TION ONLY WHEN SUCH VALUE IS ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOV ERNMENT. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRANSFER IS PRIOR TO 1.10.2009, THEREFORE , THE STAMP DUTY VALUE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PU RPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. HOWEVER, IF THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE VALUE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, HE SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OF FICER U/S. 55A OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THI S ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OF FICER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER THE VALUATION AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN SO FAR AS COMPUTATION OF STCG IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL ADMITTED THAT DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED ON THE BUILDING BUT I T IS THE CLAIM OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE BUILDING WAS ERASED AND ONLY PLOT OF LAND WAS SOLD. HOWEVER, GOING THROUGH THE AGREEMENT DT. 10.11.2001, CLAUSE (D) PROVIDES T HAT IN CONSIDERATION OF RS. 33.51 LAKHS, THE NON AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS CONVEYED TO TH E PURCHASER AND THE GRASS, TREES, STONES, WELLS, CONSTRUCTIONS, PATHS AND PASSAGES, A DVANTAGES AND EASEMENTS WERE ALSO CONVEYED TO THE PURCHASER. THIS CLAUSE SHOWS THAT THERE WERE SOME CONSTRUCTIONS ON THE PLOT OF LAND AND IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT TH ERE WAS A BUILDING ON THIS PLOT OF LAND ON WHICH AT SOME POINT OF TIME DEPRECIATION WAS CLA IMED, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION OF STCG. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS TO RECOMPUTE THE ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 9 BIFURCATION AFTER DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE PLOT OF LAND AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. GROUND NO. 3,4,5 & 6 ARE ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSE. 16. GROUND NO. 7 RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF INTERE ST ON FDR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THEREBY DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 17. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST ON FIXED DEPO SIT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME FROM WHICH IT FURTHER CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPEN SES AMOUNTING TO RS. 73,404/-. THE AO TREATED THE INTEREST ON FDR AT RS. 2,33,642/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE . 17.1. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 18. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REI TERATED ITS CLAIM. 19. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY BUS INESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN IS THAT THERE IS LULL IN THE BUSINESS. EVEN IF THERE IS LULL IN BUSINESS, INTEREST ON FDR CANNOT B E CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION UNLESS FIRST D EGREE NEXUS IS ESTABLISHED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO SUCH FIRST DEGREE NEXUS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN TREATING THE INTEREST ON FDR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 19.1. IN SO FAR AS EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED, THE DETA ILS OF THE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD, TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE SAME HA VE BEEN INCURRED TO MAINTAIN THE ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 10 CORPORATE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW O NLY THOSE EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR MAINTAINING THE CORPORATE STATUS OF T HE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 7 IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 20. GROUND NO. 8 RELATES TO THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/ S. 234B, 234C & SEC. 220 OF THE ACT. THE LEVY OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY THOUGH CONS EQUENTIAL. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO LEVY INTEREST AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/09/2014 # $ %&' ( )* 10. 09/2014 & $ + ' SD/- SD/- ( /VIJAY PAL RAO) ( . . /N.K.BILLAIYA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; ) DATED 10 / 09/2014 RJ ITA NO.4774/MUM/2009(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.5436/MUM/2012(A.Y.2006-07) 11 # # # # $ $$ $ ,- ,- ,- ,- .'- .'- .'- .'- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /0 / THE APPELLANT 2. ,1/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 2 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 2 / CIT 5. 3+ ,- , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +4 5 / GUARD FILE. # # # # / BY ORDER, 1- ,- //TRUE COPY// 6 66 6 / 7 7 7 7 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI