DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI V. DEEPAK S MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 5007/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9108 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL MODY
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. S.NO. ITA NO. ASSTT. YEAR. 1. 5007/MUM/2011 1997-98. 2. 5008/MUM/2011 1998-99 3. 5009/MUM/2011 1999-2000 4. 5010/MUM/2011 2000-01 5. 5011/MUM/2011 2001-02 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DEEPAK S. MEHTA, 24(3), MUMBAI. VS. PROP. MOTIRAM POLYMERS, C-13, LAGHU UDYOG B HAVAN, I.B.PATEL ROAD, GOR EGAON (E), MUMBAI - PAN AEGPM 9040N APPELLANT. RESPONDENT . APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.B. KOLI. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI & SHRI VIPUL MODY. DATE OF HEARING : 03-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-12-2012. O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE FIVE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST A COMMON ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-34, MUMBAI DATED 28-04-2011 FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 TO 2001-02 AND SINCE A COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED THE REIN, THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SI NGLE COMPOSITE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 ITA NOS.5007 TO 5011/MUM/2011 2. THE SOLITARY COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPE ALS RELATES TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO U/S 43B ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO.OP. BANK LTD. (MMC BANK IN SHORT) WHI CH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L WHO IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING UREA FORMAL DEHYDE MOULDI NG POWDER UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S MOTIRAM PO LYMERS. IN THE ASSESSMENTS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE TO MMC BANK WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO IN ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRM ED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE FIRST ROUND. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWE VER, SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ITS ORDER DA TED 31-10-2008 PASSED IN ITA NO. 280 TO 284/MUM/2007 AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER EXAMINING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXP ENDITURE. AS PER THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL, IF SUCH METHOD WAS FOUND TO BE MERCANTILE THEN NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST COULD BE MADE U/S 43B BUT IF THE SAME WAS FOUND TO BE CASH THEN THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE BANK S TATEMENT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THERE WAS ANY AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE DEBIT OF INTEREST SO AS TO SAY THAT THE INTEREST WAS ACTU ALLY PAID. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE COPIES OF RELEVANT BANK STATE MENTS HIGHLIGHTING THEREIN THE INTEREST DEBITED BY MMC BANK ON QUARTERLY BASIS. AC CORDING TO THE AO, THE SAID BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING DEBIT OF INTEREST WAS NOT S UFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS ACTUAL PAYMENT OF SUCH INTEREST BY THE ASSESSEE . AS REGARDS THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE NOTED FROM THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCAN TILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR 3 ITA NOS.5007 TO 5011/MUM/2011 MOST OF THE ITEMS EXCEPT FEW ITEMS FOR WHICH CASH S YSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE, ACCOR DING TO THE AO, WAS NOT CORRECT IN FOLLOWING BOTH THE METHODS OF ACCOUNTING SIMULTA NEOUSLY AS PER THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED WAS REJECTED BY THE AO AND THE INTEREST PA YABLE TO MMC BANK WAS AGAIN DISALLOWED BY HIM IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENTS COMPLETE D U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 254 FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R EAD WITH SECTION 254 FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE AG AIN PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S), IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE NEVER FOLLOWED CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND THE COMMENT MADE IN THE AUDIT REPORT TO THE CONTRARY WAS FACTUALLY WRONG. IN THIS REGARD, ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEREIN INTEREST PAYABLE TO MMC BANK WAS DEBITED. ATTENTION OF THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE CORRESPONDING BALANCE SHEET TO SH OW THAT LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INTEREST PAYABLE TO MMC BANK ALONG WITH PRINCI PAL AMOUNT WAS DULY SHOWN ON THE LIABILITY SIDE. IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS ACCOUNTING TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFICIENT TO S HOW THAT THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND THE SAID INTEREST BEING RELATED TO CASH CREDIT LIMIT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MMC BANK, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B COU LD BE MADE IN RESPECT OF SUCH INTEREST AS PER THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRI BUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31-10- 2008 (SUPRA). 5. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOUND MERIT IN THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST 4 ITA NOS.5007 TO 5011/MUM/2011 PAYABLE TO MMC BANK U/S 43B FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5 OF HIS I MPUGNED ORDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) OR 143(3) R.W.S. 147, ITATS ORDER (SUPRA),I MPUGNED ORDERS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254, THE ARGUMENTS & SUBMISSIONS OF T HE APPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE BANK STATEMENTS OF MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO.OLP . BANK LTD. WHERE THE INTEREST DEBITED BY BANK IS ON EVERY QUARTERLY BASI S. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THESE BANK STATEMENTS AND IT IS QUITE APPARENT FROM THESE BANK STATEMENTS THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED IS WITH RESPECT TO THE CR EDIT LIMIT UTILIZED BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT AGAINST ANY LOAN OR TERM LOAN. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO S UGGEST THAT THIS INTEREST PAYMENT IS NOT IN RESPECT OF CC LIMIT BUT WITH SOME OTHER LOAN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE SAME BANK. NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN ANY FINDING OF FACT IN HIS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS T HAT THE INTEREST DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNTS PERTAIN TO SOME LOAN TAKEN FROM THE SAID MADHAVPURA MERCANTILE CO.OP BANK LTD. BUT THE CC LIMIT IN ANY OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATIO N IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43B WITH RESPECT TO THE UNPAID AMOUNT OF IN TEREST IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN PARA 5 WHEREIN CLEARLY THE HONBLE ITAT HAS TAKEN OUT CC LIMIT OUT OF THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF FACT AS T O WHETHER THE APPELLANT FOLLOWS CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING OR MERCANTILE SYS TEM OF ACCOUNTING IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED INTEREST IS CONCERNED, I FIND T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY EXPRESSED HIS OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT CAN NOT FOLLOW BOTH METHODS OF ACCOUNTING JOINTLY AND HAD NOT EXAMINED THE ISSU E AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE ITAT IN PARA 7 OF THEIR IMPUGNED ORDER DATE D 31/10/2008 (SUPRA) THAT GIVES THE JURISDICTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO. I HAVE EXAMINED THIS FACT AND I FIND THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COLUMN 8 HAS MENTIO NED THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AS MERCANTILE IN ALL THE YEARS AND THE E NTRIES IN THE RESPECTIVE P & L ACCOUNTS & BALANCE-SHEETS WITH RESPECT TO THE INT EREST CHARGED AND SHOWN IN THE LIABILITIES CLARIFY THE FACT THAT APPELLANT, IN FACT, FOLLOWS ONLY 5 ITA NOS.5007 TO 5011/MUM/2011 MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN RESPECT OF INTER EST TOO. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED A DDITIONS U/S 43B IN ANY OF THE YEARS FOR WHICH APPEALS ARE BEFORE ME. HENCE , THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE DELETED IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INS TANT CASE IN ALL THE YEARS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH BEFORE THE AO SATISFACTORILY THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOL LOWED BY HIM IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS MERCANTILE. HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE AUDIT REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD CONTAINED A CLEAR COMMENT T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR INTEREST EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH A CERTIFICATE OF THE CONCERNED AUDITOR WAS FILED BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TO THE CONTRARY, THE SAME WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO FOR HIS CONSIDERATION. HE CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, A CCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWE D IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE BEING MERCANTILE RELYING ON THE SAID CE RTIFICATE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAME. HE URGED THAT THIS MATER MAY, THEREFORE, BE SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR GIVING HIM AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO VERIFY THE SAID CERTIFICATE AND FOR ASCERTAINING THE EXACT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTH ER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING ON THE ISSUE OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FO LLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AFTER VERIFYING THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEETS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS AND NOT MERELY ON T HE BASIS OF AUDITORS CERTIFICATE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID C ERTIFICATE WAS ACTUALLY FILED BY THE 6 ITA NOS.5007 TO 5011/MUM/2011 ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE FIR ST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. HE CONTENDED THAT A SPECIFIC FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED FOR INTEREST WAS MERCANTILE AND THERE IS N OTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED DR TO REBUT THE SAID FINDING. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT FACILITY AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MMC BANK IN RESPECT OF WHICH T HE IMPUGNED INTEREST WAS RELATED HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE THE CASH CREDIT LIMIT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31-10-2008 (SUPRA) AND THE ISSUE WAS SENT BACK BY T HE TRIBUNAL TO THE AO JUST TO ASCERTAIN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INTEREST WITH A DIRECTION THAT IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE MERCANTIL E QUA THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 43B SHOULD BE MADE. HE CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AFTER HAVING FOUND ON VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG QUA THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE, HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCO UNT OF INTEREST U/S 43B AND THERE BEING NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNE D DR TO DISPUTE THE SAID FINDING RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31-10-2008 (SUPRA) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE DURING ALL TH E YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTIN G BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THERE IS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED D R TO DISPUTE OR REBUT THE SAME. HE HAS MERELY RELIED ON THE AUDIT REPORT WHEREIN TH ERE WAS A COMMENT MADE BY THE 7 ITA NOS.5007 TO 5011/MUM/2011 AUDITORS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTE M OF ACCOUNTING FOR INTEREST EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HAS FILED A CER TIFICATE DATED 4 TH MAY, 2006 ISSUED BY THE AUDITORS CONFIRMING THAT INTEREST PAY ABLE TO MMC BANK WAS CONSISTENTLY CHARGED AND DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT FOR ALL THE FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION ITSELF. MOREOVER, AS PER THE FINDING CLE ARLY RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ON THE BASIS OF VERIFICATION OF THE PR OFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEETS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDER ATION, MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAYABLE TO MMC BANK AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS S UCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US FROM THE RELEVANT COPIES OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T AND BALANCE SHEETS THAT THE SAID FINDING RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS FAC TUALLY CORRECT. 9. THE ONLY ASPECT WHICH NOW REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHI CH IS RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE NATURE OF LOAN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MMC BANK. ALTHOUGH, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31-10-2008 (SUPRA) HAS NOTED FROM THE COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED BY THE AO FR OM THE BANK THAT CASH CREDIT LIMIT OF RS.1.95 CRORES WAS SANCTIONED TO THE ASSES SEE ON 15-03-2000 AND THAT THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY TERM LOAN HAVING BEEN SANCT IONED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED BY THE BANK, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXACT POSITION OF THE NATURE OF LOAN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MMC BANK NEEDS TO BE ASCERTAINED IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDER ATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997- 98 TO 2001-02. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND FROM THE BAL ANCE SHEETS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2000 AND 31 ST MARCH, 2001 PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US THAT HYPOTHECATION LOAN TAKEN FROM MMC BANK OUTSTANDING AS ON 31-03-2000 AND 31- 8 ITA NOS.5007 TO 5011/MUM/2011 03-2001 WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3.15 CRORES AND 4. 24 CRORES AS AGAINST THE STOCK AND DEBTORS OF RS.1.34 CRORES AND RS.1.48 CRORES RE SPECTIVELY WHICH RAISES A DOUBT THAT THE ENTIRE LOAN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M MC BANK MAY NOT BE IN THE NATURE OF CASH CREDIT. EVEN THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OFFER ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO CLEAR THIS DOUBT. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE NATURE OF LOAN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MMC BANK IN EACH OF TH E FIVE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE IN THE NA TURE OF CASH CREDIT, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENDI TURE SHOULD BE MADE AS HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31-10-2 008 (SUPRA). HOWEVER, IF THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE IN THE NATURE OF TERM LOAN TO A NY EXTENT, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE INTEREST PAYABLE ON SUCH TERM LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE T REATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF DEC., 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 14 TH DEC., 2012. 9 ITA NOS.5007 TO 5011/MUM/2011 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, D-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORD ER ASSTT. REGI STRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI. WAKODE