UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS, MUMBAI V. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

ITA 506/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3656 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH MEENA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Non-deduction of tax; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F MUMBAI . . , / , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 506/MUM/2011 ! ! ! ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/S. UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS, B-11, ARCHANA JUHU, VERSOVA LINK ROAD, MUMBAI. VS. A.C.I.T. - 20(3) MUMBAI. PAN: AAAFU 1384 K ( '# / APPELLANT ) ( $%'# / RESPONDENT ) '# & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NISHIT GANDHI $%'# ' & /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA ' () / DATE OF HEARING : 08-04-2013 *+! ' () / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-04-2013 , / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT . 29-10-2010 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAV E BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 1,MUMBAI [THE LD. CIT (A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSISTANT I NCOME - TAX-20 (3), MUMBAI, [THE A.O.] WITHOUT NOT GIVING SUFFICIENT, PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. 1.2.WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN N OT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT; 1.3.IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BE HELD AS BAD AND ILLEGAL, HAVING FRAMED IN BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE : 2.1THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,44,237/-, MADE BY THE A.O. COMPRISING OF PAYMENTS BY WAY OF COMMISSION, P ROFESSIONAL FEES AND CONTRACTOR / SUB - CONTRACTOR CHARGES, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT]. 2.2.WHILE DOING SO, THE A.O. FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HAT, THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE ABOVE PAYMENT WAS PAID INTO GOVERNMENT TREASURY BEF ORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 (1) OF THE ACT. 2.3.IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. ITA NO. 506/MUM/2011 M/S. UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS 2 3.1.THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WHEREBY THE A.O. MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,37,510/- BEING THE CLEARING AND FORWARDING EXPENSES PAID BY THE APPELLANT, BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT. 3.2.IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 4.1.THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WHEREBY THE A.O. MADE A DISALL- OWANCE OF RS. 5,17,328/-, BEING THE ALLEGED DIFFERE NCE ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO ON ACCOUNT OF M/S. D. H. CLEARING & FORWARDING AGEN CY, BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 40 (A) (IA) OF THE ACT. 4.2.IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 5.1.THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WHEREBY THE A.O. MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCES OUT OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES WHILE COMPUTING BUSIN ESS INCOME. EXPENSES AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE BASIS BUSINESS P ROMOTION EXPENSES RS. 49,130/ - 10% MOTOR CAR EXPENSES (INCLUDING DEPRECIATION) RS. 1,21,377/- 10% 5.2. WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN: (I) BASING HIS ACTION PURELY ON SURMISES, CONJECTU RE AND SUSPICION; AND (II) BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IRRELEVANT AND EXTRANEO US CONSIDERATIONS WHILE IGNORING RELEVANT AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS. 5.3. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 5.4.WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, AND IN THE ALTE RNATIVE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCES ARE ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE. 6.1.THE ID. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WHEREBY THE A.O. MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT MADE TO THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: COMMISSION PAID (I) SHRI JANET D.SOUZA RS. 9, 48,687/- (II) VERINICA JOHN RODRIGUES RS. 75,894/- (III) ANIL V. PATE L RS. 19,268/- ---------------------- TOTAL 10,43,849/- 6.2.WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT (A): (I) ERRED IN MAKING ERRONEOUS AND MISLEADING AVERME NTS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER; AND (II) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SO UGHT TO PRODUCE TWO PARTIES BEFORE THE A.O. AND SOUGHT TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THE THR EE PARTIES. 6.3.WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE CIT (A) ERR ED IN: (I) BASING HIS ACTION PURELY ON SURMISES, CONJECTUR E AND SUSPICION; AND (II) BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IRRELEVANT AND EXTRANEO US CONSIDERATIONS WALE IGNORING RELEVANT AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS. 6.4.IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELET E OR MODIFY ALL OR ANY THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 2. ASSESSEE-FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CARGO CLE ARING AND FORWARDING SUB- AGENT, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 11-10-2005 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. ITA NO. 506/MUM/2011 M/S. UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS 3 24,50,902/-. ASSESSMENT WAS FINALISED U/S.143(3) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(ACT) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ON 26-12-2007 DETERMI NING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 82.48 LAKHS. 2.1. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 WAS GENERAL IN NATURE. HE DID NOT PRESS GROU ND NO.5. SO, WE DISMISS BOTH THE GROUNDS I.E., GROUND NOS. 1 & 5. 3. GROUND NOS. 2, 3 & 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE ABOUT DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S.40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE (TDS) LATE IN CERTAIN CASES, THAT PAYMENT OF TDS IN SOME CASES TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCO UNT HAD BEEN MADE AFTER THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR (FY), THAT THE AMOUNTS OF EXP ENSES CORRESPONDING TO THE TDS WORKED OUT TO RS.6,51, 947/- WHICH HAD BEEN DEBITED TO P&L A/C. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THESE AMOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. AO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,51, 947/- U/S. 40A (IA) OF THE ACT. 3.1. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT PAYMENT OF RS.24,37,510/- HAD BEEN MADE TO M/S. D.H. CLEARING & FORWARDING AGENCY (DHCFA) THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, THAT TAX OF RS. 37,358/- HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON 31-03-2005 FOR THESE PAYMENTS, THAT TAX WAS DEPOSITED IN GOVT. ACCOUNT ON 27-05-2005, THAT TDS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE 07-04-2005, THAT IT WAS NOT A PROVISION O F PAYMENT BUT ACTUAL PAYMENT TO THE PARTY, THAT DURING THE YEAR AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT DHCFA WAS OF RS.29,54,838/- WHEREAS THE TDS WAS MADE ON PAYMENT MADE ONLY OF RS. 24,37,510/- ONLY, THAT NO TDS WAS MADE ON BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,17,328/-. THEREFORE, AO DISALLOWED RS. 37,350/- (WITH RESPECT TO LATE PAYME NT OF TDS) AND RS.5,17,328/- (ON WHICH NO TDS WAS MADE) IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TO DH CFA. AS A RESULT TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.36,06,785/- (R S. 6.51 LAKHS + 24.37 LAKHS + 5.17 LAKHS) WAS MADE BY THE AO U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 3.2. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT THE AO WAS FULLY JUST IFIED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 3,44,237/- (I.E. 6,51,947-1,89,830-1,17,880) BY INV OKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION, PROF ESSIONAL FEES AND CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR CHARGES PAID BY THE APPELL ANT AS THE TDS ON THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED LATE INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT, THAT CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE TDS DEDUCTED AND PAID ON TIME IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT S OF RS. 1,89,830/- AND RS. 1,17,880/- WAS CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AS PER THE CHA RT PREPARED BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD, THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THIS EXTENT WERE ALREADY SUBJECTED TO TDS AND THE TAX DEDUCTED WAS PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WITHI N THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWI NG THE SAME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE AO TO THAT EXTENT WAS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3.3. REGARDING CLEARING AND FORWARDING CHARGES PAID OF R S. 24,37,510/-, HE HELD THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT THE TDS DEDUCTED AND PAID INTO THE LOAN ACCOUNT WAS BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBE D UNDER THE ACT, THAT FINDINGS OF ITA NO. 506/MUM/2011 M/S. UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS 4 THE AO WERE NOT REBUTTED BY THE APPELLANT BY FURNIS HING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THAT THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SAME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THAT NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT MADE IN RESPECT TO RS. 5,17,328/- WAS ALSO NOT REBUTTED BY FILING ANY DETAILS OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. FINALLY, HE HELD THAT ENTIRE ADDITION M ADE ON THAT ACCOUNT WAS JUSTIFIED. 4. BEFORE US, AR SUBMITTED THAT TAX DEDUCTED WAS DEPOS ITED IN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INC OME, THAT AO AND THE FAA DID NOT CONSIDER THE AMENDED PROVISION OF THE SECTION 40(A) (IA), THAT MATTER NEEDED TO BE LOOKED INTO AFRESH DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE FAA. 4.1. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PUT BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT TDS WAS NOT DEPOSITED BEFORE THE END OF THE AY. UNDER CONSIDE -RATION. BUT IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT SAME W AS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE FIND THAT AMEND ED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF D EDUCTION/DEPOSIT OF TAX AS PER THE TDS PROVISIONS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE, MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN LIGHT OF TH E AMENDED PROVISIONS. HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO TH E ASSESSEE. GROUND NOS. 2-4 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT MADE TO THREE PARTIES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS 49,26,2 74/- ON TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS 1,06,97, 288/-, THAT THERE WAS DISPROPORTIONATE INC REASE IN THE COMMISSION PAID AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF COMMISSION PAID. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF CLAIM MADE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF ALL THE PARTIES TO WHOM COMMISSION WAS PAID AND PRODUCE THREE PARTIES NAMEL Y, SHRI JANET DSOUZA,VERINICA JOHN RODRIGUES AND ANIL V. PATEL TO WHOM COMMISSION OF RS.9,48,687/-, RS. 75,894/- AND RS.19,268/- WAS PAID. AS PER THE AO, ON THE S TIPULATED DATE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ABOVE PARTIES. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQU ESTED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE PARTIES / FILE CONFIRMATION. ACCO RDINGLY, AO GRANTED TIME UP TO 24- 12-2007. ON THAT DATE CONFIRMATIONS IN RESPECT OF SOME PARTIES, TO WHOM COMMISSION HAD BEEN PAID, WERE FILED, BUT THE AR DID NOT PRODU CE THE ABOVE PARTIES AND CONFIRMATION OF SHRI JANET DSOUZA,VERINICA JOHN RO DRIGUES WERE ALSO NOT FILED.AO HELD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE SERVICES WERE ACTUALLY RENDERED FOR WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN PAID, THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR QUANTIFICATION OF SUCH COMMISSION ,THAT THERE WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT ALSO TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM MADE, THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN FORM OF ANY EVID ENCE TO PROVE THE ALLOWABILITY OF DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASED CLAIM; ESPECIALLY WHEN T HE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD REMAINED ALMOST THE SAME AS THAT OF LAST YEAR. CON SIDERING THE DISPROPORTIONATE INCREASE IN THE CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM, THE COMMISSION PAYMENT MADE TO T HE ABOVE THREE PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,43,849/- PLUS 20% OF BALANCE COMMISSION P AYMENT WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS 7,76,485/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. 5.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERR ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. HE ITA NO. 506/MUM/2011 M/S. UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS 5 REQUESTED THE FAA TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN T HIS REGARD. HE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO FURNISH EITHER THE CONFIRMATIONS OR TO PRODUCE T HE PARTIES CONCERNED, THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS PURPOSE WAS GIVEN TO IT BY THE AO. HE REFUSED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FINA LLY HELD THAT THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE ALLEGED COMMISSION PAID OF RS.10,43,849/- TO THREE PARTIES I.E. SHRI J ANET DSOUZA, VERINICA JOHN RODRIGUES AND ANIL V. PATEL. 5.2. BEFORE US, AR SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOUGHT TO PRODUCE TWO PARTIES BEFORE HIM AS WELL AS SO TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATIONS FROM ALL THE THREE PARTIES, THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE WAS PURELY ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICIONS, THAT BECAUSE OF FESTIVAL SEASON OF CHRISTIANS TWO OF THE THREE PARTIES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED DURING T HE LAST WEEK OF DECEMBER, THAT AO HAD ALLOWED ONLY TWO DAYS TIME TO PRODUCE THE PARTI ES, THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IRRELEVANT AND EXTRANEO US CONSIDERATIONS WHILE IGNORING RELEVANT AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATION, THAT ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED THE CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE THE AO IN ALL SUCH CASES WHERE 20% DISALLOWA NCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT WAS MADE, THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE WERE SUBJECTED TO TDS, THAT NO CONTRARY OR ADVERSE EVIDENCES WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO HOLD THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS EITHER BOGUS OR IN-GENUINE. DR SUPPOR TED THE ORDERS OF THE FAA. 5.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE FAA IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSES SEE WAS GIVEN ONLY TWO DAYS TIME AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM BEFORE THE FAA WERE REJECTED. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH THE ISSU E OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT TO THREE PARTIES-SHRI JANET DSOUZA, VERINI CA JOHN RODRIGUES AND ANIL V.PATEL. HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE- FIRM. GROUND NO. 6 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT-FIRM STAN DS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH APRIL, 2013 , ' *+! - . 19 $/,2013 + ' 5 6 SD/- SD/- ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, . / DATE: 19 TH APRIL, 2013 TNMM ITA NO. 506/MUM/2011 M/S. UNITED FREIGHT CARRIERS 6 , , , , ' '' ' $(7 $(7 $(7 $(7 87!( 87!( 87!( 87!( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE %7( $( //TRUE COPY// , , , , / BY ORDER, 9 99 9 / : : : : DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI