DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI V. CHANDRALOK FABRICS, MUMBAI

ITA 5027/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83724 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C TEJPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H P SHAH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND N.K. BILLAIYA, AM , . . , !./ I.T.A. NO.4723 /MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 CHANDRALOK FABRICS, 203, TIRUPATI UDYOG, I.B. PATEL ROAD, OFF. W.E. EXPRRESS HIGHWAY, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 063. / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24(3), BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051. # ! ./ PAN : AABFC8002D ( #$ / APPELLANT ) .. ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT ) !./ I.T.A. NO.5027 /MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24(3), BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051. / VS. CHANDRALOK FABRICS, 203, TIRUPATI UDYOG, I.B. PATEL ROAD, OFF. W.E. EXPRRESS HIGHWAY, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 063. # ! ./ PAN : AABFC8002D ( #$ / APPELLANT ) .. ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI H.P. SHAH DEPARTMENT BY SHRI A.C. TEJPAL & SMT. PARMINDER ' ( ) * + / DATE OF HEARING : 11-9-2014 ,-./ ) * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-9-2014 [ ITA 4723/M/12 & 5027/M/12 2 0 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M . : . . , THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 34, MUMBAI DA TED 17-05-2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGET HER AND DISPOSE OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 4723/MUM/12 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) & ITA NO. 5027/MUM/12 (REVENUES APPEAL) 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 3 & 4. THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGL Y DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE SURVIVING GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 1.6 ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE RATIO FOR BIFURCATION OF SALES CONSIDERATION IN THE RATIO OF 69:31 AS TAKEN BY AO (I.E. LAND 69% & BUILDING 31%) IGNORING THE RATIONA L GIVEN IN 2 JUDGMENTS THAT WHEN LAND & BUILDING IS SOLD AT COMP OSITE PRICE & BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED IN SUCH CASES RATIO OF LAND SHOULD BE HIGHER. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 5 PARA 1.10 ERRED IN CON SIDERING VALUATION RATE AT RS. 160 PER SQ. FT. (AO HAS TAKEN RS. 40 PE R SQ. FT. ) INSTEAD OF REGISTERED VALUER RATE OF RS. 350 PER SQ. FT. 4. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ARRIVING AT THE RATE OF RS. 160/- PER SQ. FT. OWING TO ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO R AILWAY STATION AND EXPRESS HIGHWAY, WHEN THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS SUNDER DEVELOPED LAND WITH NO PRE-APPROVED BUILDING PLAN OR HABITABLE SURROUNDINGS ? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE RA TE OF RS. 40/- PER SQ. FT. ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INDIAN ITA 4723/M/12 & 5027/M/12 3 VALUERS DIRECTORY, WHEN THE APPROVED VALUER M/S J. J. KIKANI HAD ADOPTED RATE OF RS. 90/- PER SQ. FT. IN THE ARE A MUCH BETTER THAN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY ? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ADJUDICATING TH E RATE OF RS. 160/- PER SQ. FT. WHEN CORRECT VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS COULD HAVE BEEN ASCERTAINED I F THE MATTER WAS REFERRED BACK TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUER ? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION OF RS. 50,00,000/- PAI D TO M/S EMPIRE DEVELOPERS FOR CANCELLATION DEED, WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO MERE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND NOT A S ALE AGREEMENT AND M/S EMPIRE DEVELOPERS HAD NOT INCURRE D ANY FINANCIAL COST SINCE THERE WAS NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIV ITY?. 5. THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 26-11-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,03,448/-. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COU RSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE A SSESSEE FIRM HAS SOLD ITS FACTORY SHED AND LAND DURING THE YEAR. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTICED THAT A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.50 CRORES WAS DISCLOSED AS CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF FACTORY SHED ALONG WITH LAND. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE SAME. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS. 4.15 CRORES. THE BOOK VALUE OF THE SAME ON THE DATE OF SALE WAS RS. 1,52,63,394/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARN ED A BOOK PROFIT AT RS. 2,62,36,606/- AND THE SAME IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT WHAT WAS OFFERED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS CAPITAL GAIN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE IND EXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES WAS AT RS. 4,23,80,500/-. THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY STAMP DUTY VALUE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FO R THE PURPOSES OF ITA 4723/M/12 & 5027/M/12 4 CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. ON RECEIVING NO EXPLAN ATION, THE A.O. PROCEEDED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50- C OF THE ACT. THE A.O. TOOK STAMP DUTY VALUE OF RS. 4,23,80,500/- AND PROPORTIONATELY ALLOCATED THE SAME TO THE FACTORY SHED AND THE LAND IN PROPORTION OF THE AREA. THE AREA OF THE LAND WAS 18093 SQ.FT. AND THA T OF FACTORY SHED IS 7980 SQ. FT. THE RATIO DETERMINED BY THE A.O. COMES TO 2.267 : 1. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY ALLOCATED STAMP DUTY VALUE. THE V ALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN FOR LAND WAS TAKEN AT RS. 2,94,08,2 01/- AND FOR FACTORY SHED WAS TAKEN AT RS. 1,29,72,299/-. FOR COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF LAND, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 AT RS. 350/- PER SQ. FT. BASED ON THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE GOVT. APPROVED VALUER. THE A.O. QUESTIONED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE A.O ., IN MANY OTHER CASES THE SAME VALUER HAS ADOPTED THE RATE AT RS. 9 0/- PER SQ. FT. THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO VIDE LETTER DATED 9- 12-2010. AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31-1 2-2010, THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE VALUATION OF LAND AS ON 1-4-1981 BASE D ON THE INDIAN VALUERS DIRECTORY AND THE SAME WAS TAKEN AT RS. 40/ - PER SQ. FT. ACCORDINGLY, THE COST OF LAND AT THIS RATE WAS TAKE N AT RS. 7,23,720/- AFTER INDEXING THE COST OF ACQUISITION, THE LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 2,53,91,555/-. THE SHORT TERM CAPI TAL GAIN ON SALE OF FACTORY SHED WAS COMPUTED BY REDUCING THE WRITTEN D OWN VALUE OF THE FACTORY SHED FROM THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED BY THE A.O. IN PROPORTION OF THE LAND AREA AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE SHORT TERM CAPITA L GAIN WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 1,25,41,052/- AND ASSESSMENT WAS CO MPLETED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGGRIEVED BY THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE A.O. A S PER THE INDIAN VALUERS DIRECTORY AT RS. 40/- PER SQ. FT. AND FURTH ER AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN BIFURCATING THE SALE CONSIDER ATION OF LAND AND FACTORY SHED IN THE RATIO OF LAND AREA. THE ASSESS EE WAS ALSO AGGRIEVED ITA 4723/M/12 & 5027/M/12 5 WITH THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPE NDITURE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS. 67,10,357/-. 6. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE TAKEN AT RS. 350/- PER SQ. FT. BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE VALUATION REPORT OF GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALU ER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF VACANT LAND ADOPTED AT R S. 40/- PER SQ. FT. BY THE A.O. IS AGAINST THE FACT OF THE CASE. AFTER CO NSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE AREA WAS DEVELOPED INTO A RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, THE RATE OF RS. 160/- PER SQ. FT. AS INDICATED IN THE INDIAN VALUERS DIRECTORY SH OULD BE ACCEPTED AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE RATE OF RS. 160/- PER SQ. FT. IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE, THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT RS. 50/- LACS WAS PAID TO M/S EMPIRE DEVELOPERS, HE OBSERVED THAT PREVIOUSLY THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEME NT WITH M/S EMPIRE DEVELOPERS WHICH COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AND T HEREFORE WAS CANCELLED. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS. 50 LACS TO THE SAID DEVELOPER. WITHOUT MAKING SUCH PAYMENT, THERE WOULD BE AN ENCUMBRANCE TO THE PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE SOLD THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS. 50 LACS. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BOTH ASS ESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUBM ITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS TOTALLY ERRED IN ALLOCATING THE STAMP DUTY VALUE BETWEEN THE LAND AND FACTORY SHED AT THE LAND AREA RATIO. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTORY SHED IS N OTHING BUT A STRUCTURE WITH AC SHEET ROOF SUPPORTED BY MF RCC CO LUMN. THEREFORE, THE RATIO ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IS NOT ACCORDING TO T HE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THA T THE FAIR MARKET ITA 4723/M/12 & 5027/M/12 6 VALUE RATE AS ON 1-4-1981 TAKEN BY THE A.O. IS THE RATE FOR UNDEVELOPED LAND AS PER INDIA VALUERS DIRECTORY WHEREAS THE RAT E TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE RATE OF RS. 160/- PER SQ. FT. WHICH I S FOR DEVELOPED VACANT LAND WHICH ARE NOT USED FOR INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE L AND WITH FACTORY SHED WHICH ITSELF PROVES THAT IT WAS OCCUPIED FOR I NDUSTRIAL PURPOSE, THEREFORE, THE RATE ADOPTED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES ARE AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONCLUDED BY SAYING THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN COMPUTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES IS NOT AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE A SSESSEE AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 8. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THE A.O. HAS VER Y CORRECTLY TAKEN THE RATE AT RS. 40/- PER SQ. FT. WHICH IS AS PER THE IN DIAN VALUERS DIRECTORY. THEREFORE, THE RATE TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS. 160/- PER SQ. FT. NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. SHOULD B E CONFIRMED. 9. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE CARE FULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE RELEVAN T DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US. THE UNDISPUTE D FACTS ARE THAT THE TOTAL LAND AREA IS 18092 SQ. FT. ON WHICH THERE WAS A FACTORY SHED WHICH HAS TOTAL CONSTRUCTED AREA OF 7980 SQ. FT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ON FACTORY SHED, THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING DEPRECIA TION AND THEREFORE THE LAND IS SUBJECTED TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND FACTORY SHED IS SUBJECTED TO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF LAW. THE A.O. HAS ALLOCATED THE STAMP DUTY VALUE IN THE RATI O OF LAND AREA THOUGH THE TRANSFER DEED DOES NOT MENTION ANY ALLOCATION O F CONSIDERATION BETWEEN THE LAND AND THE FACTORY SHED. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO A DEVELOPER AND ANY STRUCTURE ON THE ITA 4723/M/12 & 5027/M/12 7 LAND WAS IMMEDIATELY ERASED. WE FIND THAT THE SUBJE CT MATTER OF TRANSFER IS NOT ONLY LAND BUT ALSO FACTORY SHED WHI CH MEANS THAT THE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BOTH FOR LAND AS WE LL AS THE DEPRECIABLE ASSET STANDING ON THE SIDELINE. THE RATIO ADOPTED B Y THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE FACTORY SHED AS ON 1-4-2007 WAS RS. 4,31,247/-. IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION, THE ALLOCATION OF RS. 6 LACS SHOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JU STICE. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOCATE RS. 6 LACS TOWARDS THE FACTORY SHED AND RECOMPUTE THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 10. IN SO FAR AS THE VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1-4-1981 A DOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE @ RS. 350/- PER SQ. FT. AND TAKEN BY THE A .O. AT RS. 40/- PER SQ. FT., BOTH THE PARTIES ARE RELYING UPON THE INDI AN VALUERS DIRECTORY. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SAID DIRECTORY. WE FI ND THAT SEPARATE RATES ARE GIVEN FOR UNDEVELOPED/DEVELOPED RESIDENTI AL UNIT/INDUSTRIAL OFFICE/COMMERCIAL SHOP UNDER THE HEAD RATE OF LAND PLUS BUILDING FOR INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE. THE RATE MENTIONED IS RS. 600/- PER SQ. FT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN RS. 350/- PER SQ. FT. WE FIND TH AT THE A.O. HAS ADOPTED THE RATE FOR VACANT LAND UNDER THE HEAD UN DEVELOPED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE RATE OF RS. 160/- PER SQ. FT. UNDER THE HEAD VACANT LAND/DEVELOPED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PROPE RTY IN QUESTION WAS LAND PLUS BUILDING AND WAS IN USE FOR INDUSTRIAL PU RPOSE. ON PERUSING THE DVOS REPORT, WE FIND THAT THE DVO HAS ADOPTED RS. 49/- PER SQ. FT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN VALUE AT RS. 160/- PER SQ. FT. THE AVERAGE OF LD. CIT(A)S VALUE AND THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE DVO COMES TO RS. 105/-. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED TH AT IF THIS RATE IS ADOPTED THEN HE HAS NOTHING TO AGITATE ON THIS MATT ER. AFTER CAREFULLY PERUSING THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND TO PUT AN END TO TH E PROLONGED LITIGATION, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE RATE OF RS. 105/- PER SQ. FT. IF TAKEN AS FAIR MARKET VALUE RATE AS ON 1-4-1981 WOUL D MEET THE ENDS OF ITA 4723/M/12 & 5027/M/12 8 JUSTICE. WE ACCORDINGLY MODIFY THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO RECOMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TA KING FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1-4-1981 AS RS. 105/- PER SQ. FT. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL O N THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 11. THE ONLY SURVIVING GROUND IN REVENUES APPEAL R ELATE TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATIO N OF RS. 50 LACS. 12. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE A. O. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHA T HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DI SPUTE IN RELATION TO AN EARLIER AGREEMENT WITH M/S EMPIRE DEVELOPERS. IT AL SO A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT COULD NOT GO THROUGH AND TH E ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A FRESH AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE IMPU GNED PROPERTY. THERE WAS AN ENCUMBRANCE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS P AID A COMPENSATION OF RS. 50 LACS TO M/S EMPIRE DEVELOPER S TO FREE THE PROPERTY FROM ENCUMBRANCE. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIN D ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE SE COND GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. 0 ) ,-./ ' 1 2!3 17-9-2014 - ) 4( SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (N.K. BILLAIYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' !( MUMBAI ; 2! DATED 17-09-2014 [ ITA 4723/M/12 & 5027/M/12 9 .../ R.K. , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&#$ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' @* ( ) / THE CIT(A) 34, MUMBAI 4. ' @* / CIT- -24, MUMBAI 5. C4 %*DE , + DE / , ' !( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI C BENCH 6. 4FG H( / GUARD FILE. ! ( / BY ORDER, &* %* //TRUE COPY// )/(* + ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' !( / ITAT, MUMBAI