DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI V. SUMMIT SECURITIESLTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS KEC INFRASTRUCTURE LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 5034/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93098 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHORE J DEVANI
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHCHIDANAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Wrong claim
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 50C; 90

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 5219/M/2010 ( AY: 2006 - 2007 ) M/S. JIVANLAL & SONS, 129/131, KAZI SAYED STREET, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. ACIT - 13(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI - 20. ./ PAN : AAAFJ5154A ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHORE J. DEVANI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SACHCHIDANAND DUBEY / DATE OF HEARING : 13.5 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :30.6 .2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.6.2010 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 24, MUMBAI DATED 5.3.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES AND ADDITIONS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT: - A) DISALLOWANCE OF INCOME TAX PAID - RS. 48,90,114/ - B) ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS - RS. 2,19,981/ - C) DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) - RS. 55,882/ - 2. THE LD CIT (A) AND THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NEITHER CONCEALED THEIR INCOME NOR FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH WOULD WARRANT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). 2. BRIEFLY STATED, RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALERS, MANUFACTURERS, PROCESSORS AND EXPORTERS OF SPICES AND AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES . ASSESSEE IS ALSO A COMMISSION AGENT AND A TRANSPORTER AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 36,12,970/ - . THIS IS A CASE WHERE STATUTORY AUDITORS ARE RE QUIRED TO SUBMIT A REPORT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT 2 AND THE REPORT WAS ENCLOSED TO RETURN OF INCOME . ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 1,03,01,460/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT, AO MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS NAMELY; (I) ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME TAX PAID RS. 48,90,114/ - ; (II) ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, RECEIVED BUT NOT ACCOUNTED FOR AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,97 ,027/ - ; (III) CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,19,981/ - (IV) DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) AMOUNTING TO RS.55,882/ - . SO FAR AS THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE HEADS OF ADDITIONS IS CONCERNED , NO APPEAL WAS FILED AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE REACHED THE FINALITY. AS PER THE PROCEDURES, ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EITHER FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME , AS THE CASE MAY BE , AND LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.8.2009. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE EXPLANATION BEFORE LEVYING THE CONCEALMENT PENALTIES. AO LEVIED THE PENALTIES FOR THE SAID FOUR ADDITIONS I.E ., (I) INCOME TAX PAID; (II) INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT OFFERED TO TAX; (III) CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND (IV) PENALTY RELATABLE TO THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF 40A(3) READ WITH RULE 6D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. REGARDING THE PENALTY ON THE INVALID CLAIM OF INCOME TAX PAID , IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSSEE THAT HE SAID AMOUNT WAS INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AND THE SAME MISSED THE ATTENTION OF THE QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT (CA), STATUTORY AUDITORS TOO . CONSIDERING THE INADVE RTENCE / OVERSIGHT , THE ASSESSEE WANTS IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY ON THIS ADDITION . HOWEVER, AO HELD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AS PER THE STATUTE (U/S 40(II) OF THE ACT) AND NOTHING WAS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM TO PROVE THAT I T IS THE CASE OF INADVERTENCE. AO, ACCORDINGLY LEVIED THE PENALTY. REGARDING THE PENALTY LEVIED ON INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT ACCRUED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST FROM THE BANK AS WELL AS FROM THE ZODIAC AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,87,534/ - AND RS. 3,09,493/ - RESPECTIVELY AND THE SAME WAS NOT OFFERED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FOR THE REASONS OF OVERSIGHT AND INADVERTENCE. AO CONSIDERED THE SAME AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY ON THE SAID CONCEALED INCOME. REGARDING THE PENALTY LEVIED ON INTEREST EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE INVESTMENTS MADE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,03,52,055/ - IN SHARES AND NO INTEREST WAS EARNED ON THE 3 SAID INCOME. THE SOURC E FOR THE SAID INVESTMENT IS THE BANK LOANS AND THE INTEREST WAS DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS AN OVERDRAFT FACILITY PROVIDED BY THE BANK AND THE FIRM INVESTED THE FUNDS IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE YEAR. THE PROPORTIONATE IN TEREST FOR THE SAID PER IOD WORKED OUT TO RS. 2,19,981/ . THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED BY THE AO AS A DISALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS . AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AO LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE AFORESA ID DISALLOWANCES. FINALLY, REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(3) READ WITH RULE 6D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 (THE RULES), AO OPINED THAT THE FIRM INCURRED A SUM OF RS. 2,79,410/ - IN CASH, IN EXCESS OF T HE LIMITS PROVIDED IN THE RULES, THEREFORE, 20% OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 2,79,410/ - , WORKS OUT TO RS. 5 5 ,582/ - ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THE SAME U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 3 . DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CIT (A) NOTED THAT THE AO MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNTS OF (I) INCOME TAX PAID; (II) INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT OFFERED TO TAX; (III) CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND (IV) DISALLOWANCE ON A CCOUNT OF 40A(3) AND QUANTIFIED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. RS. 1,03,01,460/ - . REGARDING THE PENALTY RELATABLE TO THE DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME TAX PAID; INTEREST ACCRUED BUT NOT CREDITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3), CIT (A) REJE CTED THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS THAT REVOLVE AROUND THE OVERSIGHT , INADVERTENCE AND SHIFTING THE ONUS TO HIS CA RESPONSIBILITIES ON THE CA AND PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE PENALTIES ON THESE THREE ACCOUNTS. HE, HOWEVER, GAVE RELIEF WITH REGARD TO THE PENALTY L EVIED ON THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,19,981/ - . HE GRANTED RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CONSIDERING THE DISCLOSURE OF FULL DETAILS AND THE DEBATABILITY OF THE SAID ISSUE. HOWEVER, CIT (A) ADOPTED THE WRONG FIGURES AS EVIDENT FROM PARA 4 (PAGE 7) OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. DU RING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, TO START WITH, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE FIRST ISSUE OF A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME TAX PAID AND DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAGE 85 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME 4 CONSTITUTES P & L ACCOUNT WHEREIN RS. 48,90,114/ - WAS CL EARLY SHOWN AS DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT. FURTHER, BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE COMPUTATION STARTED WITH THE FIGURE OF RS. 27,96,921/ - I.E., THE F IGURE RELATING TO THE PROFITS AFTER TAX. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN AUDITED CASE AND THE CAS FAILED INADVERTENTLY IN PICKING UP THE FIGURES PROVIDED AFTER TAX. IT IS A CASE OF INADVERTENCE, AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ON THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE DELE TED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE LD DR IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BLAME THE CAS, WHO PREPARED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE RETURN OF INCOME AND WHO WAS DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. LD DR ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(II) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE EXPRESSLY CLEAR THAT NO RATES OR TAXES SHOULD BE DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. THE PROVISIONS ARE UNAMBIGUOUS IN THIS MATTER, AND THEREFORE, IT IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS I.E., DEEMED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION - 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID PAGE 49 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, I.E., COMPUTATION OF INCOME, LD DR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ADDED BACK CERTAIN INADMISSIBLES U/SS 40A, 40A(3) ETC., THE EXCLUSION OF AN INADMISSIBLE CLAIM OF TAX PAID VIDE SECTION 40(II) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTION AND NO T DUE TO OVERSIGHT OR INADVERTENCE. BOTH THE PARTIES RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IN THEIR FAVOUR AS THE CASE MAY BE. 6. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE OF LEVYABILITY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,90,114/ - (INCOME TAX PAID DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT), WE HAVE PERUSED THE PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND FIND NONE OF THESE CASES RELATES TO THE CLAIM SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE OF INCOME TAX PAID IS DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT. FURTHER, WE FIND, NO DISPUTE ON THE FACTS AND THE DISPUTE IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INADVERTENCE AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION. FURTHER ALSO, WE HAVE PERUSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(II) OF THE ACT AND FIND THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXTRACT ED FO R THE SAK E OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER. T HEREFORE, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS FOLLOWS: 40(II): - ANY SUM PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ANY RATE OR TAX LEVIED ON THE PROFITS OR GAINS OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR ASSESSED AT A PROPORTION OF, OR OTHERWISE ON THE BASIS OF, ANY SUCH PROFITS OR GAINS 5 EXPLANATION 1: - FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB - CLAUSE, ANY SU M PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ANY RATE OF TAX LEVIED INCLUDES AND SHALL BE DEEMED ALWAYS TO HAVE INCLUDED ANY SUM ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF OF TAX UNDER SECTION 90 OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, DEDUCTION FROM THE INDIAN INCOME TAX PAYABLE U/S 91. EXPLANATION 2: - FOR THE REMOVA L OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB - CLAUSE, ANY SUM PAID ON ACCOUNT OF ANY RATE OR TAX LEVIED INCLUDES ANY SUM ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF ON TAX UNDER SECTION 90A. 7. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE VERY UNA MBIGUOUS THAT THE TAX PAID IS UNDISPUTEDLY AN INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE FROM THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS . ASSESSEE IS UNDER STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO ADD BACK SUCH CLAIMS . FROM PAGE 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE ADDED BACK CERTAIN INADMISSIBLES BUT EXCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX PAID OF RS. 48,90,114/ - FROM JSUCH ADD BACK LIST . IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE CA IS UNAWARE OF INADMISSIBILITY OF SUCH CLAIMS VI DE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(II) OF THE ACT. REGARDING TH E MALAFIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE VIDE THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION - 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THAT NO MALAFIDE INTENTION EXISTS A T THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE S MIND. NEITHER ANY EVIDENCE NOR THE AFFIDAVIT OF CA ARE O N RECORDS . T HE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT , WHEN THE SAME CONSTITUTES AS INADMISSIBLE CLAIM U/S 40(II) OF THE ACT. WE CANNOT APPRECIATE THE ASSESSEES ATTEMPT TO BLAME THE CA ON THIS ISSUE OF DEBIT OF INADMISSIBLE INCOME TAX PAID TO THE P & L ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO AFFIDAVIT OR OTHERWISE FROM THE CONCERNED CAS, WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN THE RESPONSIB ILITY FOR THIS LAPSE . FURTHER, WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE, AND FIND PARA 2.2 OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAID PARA 2.2 OF THE CIT (A)S FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS FOLLOWS: 2.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COUNSEL AND IN THIS CASE THE AP PELLANT HAS PRIMA FACIE INADMISSIBLE CLAIM OF INCOME TAX PAID OF RS. 48,90,114/ - WHICH IS TOTALLY INADMISSIBLE U/S 40(II) OF THE IT ACT AND HAVING MADE TOTALLY INADMISSIBLE CLAIM, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE THE RIGOURS OF LAW BY TAKING THE P LEA THAT THE MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED BY HIS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BECAUSE THIS CLAIM IS NEVER ALLOWABLE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. THE FACTUM OF THE CA, IF AT ALL, HAVING COMMITTED THE ERROR COULD ONLY BE A FACTOR IN DECIDING THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY IMPOSED AND NOT FOR ABSOLVING THE APPELLANT FROM ESCAPING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FOR HAVING MADE A TOTALLY INADMISSIBLE CLAIM. FOR THIS, THE PENALTY WILL BE IMPOSED, BUT THE QUANTUM WOULD BE MINIMUM BECAUSE THERE IS THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THIS ERROR WAS COMMITTED BECAUSE OF WRONG ADVICE. BUT NEVERTHELESS THE APPELLANT HAVING SIGNED AND VERIFIED THE INCOME TAX RETURN IS LIABLE FOR ALL CONSEQUENCES THAT FLOW FROM MAKING A WRONG CLAIM. THUS, THE PENALTY AS REGARDS DISALLOWANCE OF INCOME TAX PAID OF RS. 48,90,114/ - IS CONFIRMED. 6 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE MALAFIDE INTENTION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. 9. REGARDING THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO OFFER INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE BANK AND THE ZODIAC AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,97,027/ - (SIC RS. 2,19,981/ - ), WE FIND, THIS IS ALSO A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INTEREST INCOME AND THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO OUT OF HIS INQUIRIES UNDERTAKEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NO PROPER EXPLANATION IS FORTHCOMING AS TO WHY THE INTEREST, RECEIVED FROM THE BANK ON THE FIXED DE POSIT KEPT AS A MARGIN MONEY, WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . SIMILARLY, THE INTEREST RECEIVABLE FROM ZODIAC WAS NOT RECOGNIZED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE INTEREST INCOME . CONSIDERING THE ABSE NCE OF SUST AINABLE EXPLANATION ON THE GROUND OF OVERSIGHT AND INADVERTENCE, WE PROCEED TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON THIS ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME . LASTLY, R EGARDING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT, WE FIND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER THESE PROVISIONS CONSTITUTE A DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE THE PROVISO TO SECTION 3 AND 3A OF THE ACT. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION IN LAW THAT THE DEEMED INCOME ADDITIONS LIKE THE ADDITION MADE U/S 50C OF THE ACT DO NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE FIND, ASSESSEE SHOULD GET RELIEF ON THIS ACCOUNT. TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSEE GETS PART RELIEF. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN ARGUMEN TATIVE GROUND. CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTATIVE NATURE OF THE SAID GROUND NO.2, THE SAME NEEDS NO SPECIAL ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 30.6. 201 5 7 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT - 4. / 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI