M/S. SAT PRAKASH GOYAL, MUMBAI V. THE ITO 12(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5081/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1350 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S P GOYAL SELF
• Keywords: Deemed dividend; Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, G BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE S/SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA, AM & V.DURGA RAO,JM I.T.A NO.5081/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 SAT PRAKASH GOYAL, V. THE I.T.O. 12(2)(1), 109, CHURCHGATE CHAMBERS, R.NO.137/123, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-20. M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI. PA NO.AACPG 2988 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S .P.GOYAL (ASSESSEE SELF) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA O R D E R PER S.V.MEHROTRA, AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 25.6.2007 OF LD CIT (A)-XII, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE PARTLY CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITIO N OF RS.2,45,42,112/- U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT, TRADING IN HOSIE RY GOODS, STATIONERY ITEMS, WOOLEN ITEMS AND TEA IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. CHIRAG EXPORTS & IMPORTS, HAVING HIS OFFICES AT MUMBAI AND LUDHIANA. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.57,610/- ALONGWITH DULY AUDITED ACCOUN TS U/S.44AB. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT A TOTA L INCOME OF RS.1,69,71,250/- ON 28.3.2002 , INTER ALIA, MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,44, 16,367/- U/S.2(22)(E) AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. THIS ADDITION WAS MADE AS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTOR IN M/S. MERTINZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD., WHEREIN, THE AS SESSEE HELD 2,21,000 SHARES, OUT OF ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 2 2,49,000 BEING TOTAL SHARES OF M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASE AND SALES WITH M/S. MERT INEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD., AND IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. MERTINZ ENTE X INDUSTRIES LTD., WAS SUNDRY CREDITOR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,24,75,522/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SHAREHOLDING OF MORE THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER, THE AO HELD T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WERE ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE PURCHASES, SALES, OPENING BALANCES ETC, HE COMPUTED THE DEEMED DIVIDEND AS UNDER: OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1.4.98 - RS. 95,89,094/- ADD: PURCHASES FROM COMPANY - RS. 87,88,461/- RS.1,83,77,555/- LESS: SALES TO COMPANY - RS. 33,28,400/- DUE TO COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES RS.1,50,49 ,555/- AND SALES. BALANCE AS ON 31.3.99 IN NAME OF M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD., AS SUNDRY CREDITOR - RS.2,94,65,222/- LESS: DUE ON ACCOUNT AS ABOVE - RS.1,50,49,155/- BALANCE DEEMED DIVIDEND _ RS.1,44,16,367/- 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS ORDER NO.CWT(A)-V/12(2)/41/2002-03 DT 30.3.2004 DIRECTED THE AO AS UNDER:- THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE ACCOUNTS AND RECOM PUTE THE DIVIDEND IF ANY ON THE BASIS OF TRANSACTIONS HAVING THE CHARACTER OF L OANS AND ADVANCES OTHER THAN THOSE ENTERED INTO IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE BU SINESS OF THE COMPANY WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE APPELLANT ALSO TO CO-OPERATE W ITH THE AO IN THIS REGARDS. 4. IN CONSEQUENCE TO THESE DIRECTIONS, THE AO PASSE D THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 10.2.2006. IN THIS ORDER, THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE OF HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE FILED SUBMISSIONS ON 3.1.2005 GIVING VARIOUS BILLS AND COPY OF LEDGER OF M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA AND M/S. CHIRAG EXPO RTS & IMPORTS FOR THE A.Y. 1999- 2000 TO 2003-04. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATT END TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. THEREFORE, AGAIN THE CASE WAS FIXED ON 24.3.2005, WHEN ALSO TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO OBTAINED THE COPY OF BALANCE SH EET OF M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE ACCUMULATED P ROFIT OF M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 3 LTD. HE FOUND THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAD RS.5.65 CR ORES OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS A SHAREHOLDER HAVING MORE THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL SHARES OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, AGAIN ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE AOS LETTER DATED 11.11.2005, THE CON TENTS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 2,3 & 4 . IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS REPLY ON 21.12.2005, THE RELEVAN T PORTION FROM WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGES 4 TO 5 OF THE ORDER. AFTER EXA MINING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA A S WELL AS MUMBAI, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD ON VARIOUS DATES AS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER DATED 11.11.2005. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE MONEY SO TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TOWARDS TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN LOAN. RELYING ON VARIOUS J UDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ADVANCE/LOAN TAKEN FROM M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD FROM LUDHIANA OFFICE OF RS.1,31,12,221/- AND FROM MUMBAI OFFICE OF RS.1,26,25,891.20 TOTALLING TO RS.2,57,38,112.20 WAS TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.2(22)(E). 5. THE CIT (A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL , INTER ALIA, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,45,42,112/- U/S.2(22)( E). THE CIT (A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE ASSESS EE, CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE CON TENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT AND THE ASSESSEES COMMENTS ON THE SAME, DECIDED THE ASSESS EES APPEAL ON TECHNICAL GROUND AS WELL AS ON MERITS. HE NOTED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAD POINTED OUT THAT IN FORM NO.35, THE ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED SECTION 2 64 IN STEAD OF 246A. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION ON THIS COUNT FROM PAGES 20 TO 26 OF HIS ORDER, HE HELD THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.35 U/S.264 WAS NOT A VAL ID APPEAL AND HENCE, NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THUS, DISMISSED ON THIS POINT. HO WEVER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THESE FINDINGS, HE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT S. HE DISCUSSED THE ASSESSEES ASSERTIONS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS IN A BAD FAITH AND AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION FROM PARAS 39 TO 51, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES ASSERTIONS IN THIS REGARD COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THIS REGARD, THE CIT (A) ALSO REFERRED TO THE ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 4 OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN VIZ; SANJEEV WOOLEN MILLS, 264 ITR 68 AT PAGES 30 T O 33 OF HIS ORDER. 6. ON MERITS ALSO, IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAD CONSIDERED VARIOUS DETAILS AND HELD THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE CIT (A) EXAMINED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS WHICH ARE DISCUSSED HERE INAFTER. THE FIRST CONTENTION BEFORE THE CIT (A) WAS THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY M/S. MERT INEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD(MEIL) TO M/S. CHIRAG EXPORT SHOW THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS RECEI VED WERE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES BY THE SAID COMPANY AGAINST THE PURCHASE ORDERS.. THE CIT (A) OBSERVED FROM PARAS 64 TO 79 AS UNDER:- 64. THE PERUSAL OF THESE EVIDENCES SHOW, RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS AT LUDHIANA THAT THE PURCHASES BY MEIL, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ADVANCE PAYMENTS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE APPE LLANT DURING THE YEAR, WERE EFFECTED ALMOST AFTER A GAP OF THE PERIO D OF 2-3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ADVANCES. 65. FOR INSTANCES, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE EVIDENCES FI LED BY THE APPELLANT ON 8.8.2006, THE GOODS WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS ORDERED F OR PURCHASE BY MEIL VIDE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 1.3.99, WERE ACTUALLY OFF ERED TO TAX AS SALES VIDE SALE BILL DATED 31.7.2001. THUS, ALTHOUGH THE PAYM ENT WAS REPORTEDLY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE SALES IN RESPECT OF THE SAID FUNDS WERE OFFERED ONLY ON 31.7.2001. 66. SIMILARLY, EVEN IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER PURCHASE ORDE R DATED 1.3.99, THE SALE BILL WAS EFFECTED ON 31.7.2001. 67. AS REGARDS THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 26.2.1999, AGAI NST WHICH THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE ADVANCES DURING THE YE AR, THE SALE WAS EFFECTED ON 18.1.2002, I.E. AFTER A PERIOD OF 3 YEA RS. 68. IN ALL THE 9 PURCHASE ORDERS, FILED BY THE APPELLAN T PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT IS OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THE SAID 9 INSTANCES, 5 PURCHASE ORDERS WERE IN RESPECT OF THE SALES, WHICH WERE OFF ERED SUBSEQUENTLY DURING A.Y. 2002-03. 69. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS ALSO THROW LIG HT ON OTHER REMARKABLE ASPECT REQUIRING DISCUSSION AS THE SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IT IS SEEN THAT VIDE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 1.3.99, MEIL RE QUESTED FOR CERTAIN ITEMS OF GARMENTS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FILED BY T HE APPELLANT AS REGARDS TO THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS AND HENCE, IT IS NO T KNOW AS ON WHAT EXACT DATE THE SAID GOODS WERE DELIVERED. 70. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT FILED THE S TOCK STATEMENT AS ON 31.3.99 SHOWING THE QUANTITY AND THE VALUE OF GOODS LYING I N THE CLOSING STOCK. THE STOCK STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT (CHIRAG EX PORTS) HAD SUFFICIENT STOCK WITH IT AS ORDERED FOR VIDE THE ABOVE PURCHAS E ORDER DTD.1.3.99 BY MEIL AND THAT THE STOCK REQUESTED FOR VIDE THE SAID PURCHASE ORDER WAS READY FOR DISPATCH. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 5 EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT MADE THE SALE BILL AS LATE AS ON 31.7.2001. WHEN THE GOODS/STOCK WERE READY, WHY THEIR DELIVERY WERE MADE AFTER MORE THAN 2 YEARS. 71. SIMILARLY, VIDE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 26.2.1999, 300 0 TRACK SUITS WERE ORDERED AND VIDE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 1.3.99, 1000 PIECES WERE ORDERED. THE APPELLANT HAD THE CLOSING STOCK OF 10.720 PIECE S. HOWEVER, EVEN IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE SALES BILL ON 31.7 .2001 AND 18.1.2002 RESPECTIVELY. 72. IN ALL SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY HE HAD TO HOLD BACK THE SALES FOR 2 TO 3 YEARS WHEN THE ST OCK WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND HE HAD ALSO RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS AGAINST THESE SALES. 73. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICED BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RATES MENTIONED IN THE PURCHASE ORDERS AND THE COST OF TH E GOODS AS MENTIONED IN THE STOCK STATEMENT IS VERY NOMINAL AND IN SOME CASES IT IS NIL. AS PER THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 26.2.1999, MEIL BOOKED 100 0 PCS OF PULLOVERS @ RS.660/- PER PIECE WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME PRICE AS MENTIONED IN THE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE STOCK OF 5000 PCS OF PULLOVER S. SIMILARLY, VIDE ANOTHER PURCHASE ORDER DATED 26.2.1999, TRACKS SUITS WERE O RDERED FOR 3000 PCS @ RS.648/- PER PIECE WHICH IS THE COST OF THE STOCK O F THE TRACK SUIT AS ON 31.3.99. SIMILARLY, IN SOME CASES, THE APPELLANT H AS STATED TO HAVE SOLD THE GOODS AT A VERY NOMINAL MARGIN. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 1.3.99 WHEREBY 2436 PCS OF SHIRTS WERE AGREED TO BE PURCHASED BY MEIL @ RS.24.70 PER PIECE AS AGAINST THE COST TO TH E APPELLANT @ RS.24.50 PER PIECE. AS SUCH, THE GOODS WERE AGREED TO BE SO LD AT A MARGIN OF 20 PAISE PER PC WHICH IS VERY NEGLIGIBLE AND UNREALIST IC AS NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD SELL THE GOODS AT SUCH A NOMINAL MARGIN OF 20 PAISE PER PIECE. 74. ALL THE ABOVE INSTANCES SHOW THAT THE STOCK IS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT TO MEIL AT EITHER EXACTLY THE COST PRICE ITSELF OR JUST A L ITTLE ABOVE THE COST PRICE, AN ACT WHICH NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD DO. 75. INCIDENTALLY, IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED T HAT ALL THE PURCHASE ORDERS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT ARE IDENTICALLY DRAFTED AND IDENTICALLY WORDED. NONE OF THE PURCHASE ORDERS BEAR ANY SPECIFIC REFER ENCE NUMBER. 76. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT ON THE SAME PARTICULAR DAY, TWO PURCHASE ORDERS WERE PLACED AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE TWO PURCHASE ORDERS B OTH DATED 26.2.99 AND AGAIN TWO ORDERS BOTH DATED 1.3.99. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY MEIL HAD TO PLACE TWO DIFFERENT PURCHASE ORDERS ON THE SAME DATE, NOT ONCE BUT ON MORE THAN ONCE OCCASION. MOREOVER, IT I S A REMARKABLE FACT THAT OUT OF A TOTAL 9 PURCHASE ORDERS FURNISHED BEFORE T HE UNDERSIGNED PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES/DEF ICIENCIES AS NOTED ABOVE WERE NOTICED. 77. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT OF ONE SHRI BHARAT BHUSHAN MANAGER OF MEIL STATING THAT THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S. CHIRAG EXPORTS AND IMPORTS (THE APPELLANT) ARE ONLY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THE C OMPANY (MEIL) HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY LOAN TO CHIRAG EXPORTS AND IMPORTS. IT ALSO MENTIONS THAT M/S. CHIRAG EXPORTS HAS GIVEN LOAN TO MEIL, WHICH W AS REPAID BACK TO THE COMPANY. A REFERENCE IS ALSO MADE TO THE CAS CERT IFICATE DATED 27.12.2004. ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 6 78. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED CAS CERTIFICATE DATED 27. 12.2004 AND 4.6.2007 IN WHICH THE CA AT LUDHIANA HAD CERTIFIED THAT THERE W AS A RUNNING ACCOUNT BETWEEN CHIRAG EXPORTS AND MEIL, AND THAT THERE WER E SALES BY CHIRAG TO MEIL. 79. THE EVIDENCES WERE PERUSED THROUGH CAREFULLY. THEY ONLY SUPPORT THAT THERE WERE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO EN TITIES. HOWEVER, THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE MONEYS RECEIVED , AND THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL, WEE SAL ES PROCEEDS. THESE PAYMENTS BY MEIL ARE ISOLATED ONES AND NO SATISFACT ORY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT EXPLAINING THE RECEIPT OF RS.2,57,38,112/- AS PART OF SALES PROCEEDS. THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF AS DISCUSSED ABOVE ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS ARE ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE OF LOANS/ADVANCES AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF T RADING RECEIPTS. THE CIT (A) FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN IF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE TREATED AS TRADE ADVANCES, THEY WERE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(22)(E). THE CIT (A) AFTER FURTHER DETAILED DISCUSSION HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 97 THAT THERE IS NO CASE THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE A DVANCES ALREADY GIVEN BY HIM OR AGAINST ANY EXISTING LIABILITY. THE CIT (A), ACCOR DINGLY, REJECTED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS COUNT. 7. SHRI S.P.GOYAL, THE ASSESSEE PERSONALLY APPEARED AND HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE WHICH ARE ON RECORD. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH MEIL. THE ASSESSEE W AS TO PAY THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS WITHIN THREE YEARS TO MEIL AGAINST PURCHASE OF THEI R IMPORT LICENSES DUTY FREE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING A.Y. 1998-99: I) DEBIT NOTES DATED 1.8.1996 FOR SALE OF LICENCE NO.1496443 @ 92% PREMIUM VALUING RS.35,32,800/- (PB NO.1000) AND SUB JECT TO ADJUSTMENT AFTER 3 YEARS FROM THE SUPPLIES. II) DEBIT NOTE DATED 5.1.1998 FOR SALE OF LICENCES NO.1 495808 @ 100% PREMIUM VALUING RS.9770702/-(PB PAGE 993) AND SUBJE CT TO ADJUSTMENT AFTER 3 YEARS FROM THE SUPPLIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN DETAILS OF CLOSING STO CK AS ON 31.3.1999, WHICH WAS RS.6,39,03,515.19. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER, AS DI RECTED BY THE BENCH, COMPILED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND MEIL CONTAINED IN PB, FROM WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 7 LUDHIANA (RS. PURCHASE ORDER DT. PB PAGE VOUCHER OF MEIL DT PB PAGE INVOICE AMOUNT & DT(RS) PB PAGE 900000.00 22.2.1999 1012 22.2.09 1010 2096000 DT.31.7.01 1111 975000.00 1.3.99 1014 1.3.99 1013 1023000/31.7.01 1 113 612221.00 26.2.99 1016 4.3.99 1015 660000/18/1/02 1 119 950000.00 26.2.99 1018 4.3.99 1017 1944000/2.8.01 1 114 975000.00 1.3.99 1024 6.3.99 1019 996000/7.3.02 113 4 975000.00 1.3.99 1024 6.3.99 1020 963812/9.3.02 113 6 975000.00 1.3.99 1024 6.3.99 1021 834124/11.3.02 11 37 975000.00 1.3.99 1024 8.3.99 1022 834124/11.3.02 CORRECT(705600/12.3.02) 1138 975000.00 1.3.99 1024 8.3.99 1023 1660000/12.3.02 1 139 990000.00 8.3.99 1026 8.3.99 1025 625629/1.3.02 603136/2.3.02 1130 1131 975000.00 8.3.99 1030 9.3.99 1027 972000/10.8.01 11 15 990000.00 8.3.99 1030 9.3.99 1028 2403000/31.7.01 1 112 930000.00 8.3.99 1030 9.3.99 1029 2403000/31.7.01 1 112 15000.00 THIS PAYMENT IS RETURNED AGAINST PAYMENT RECEIPT FROM CHIRAG EXPORT & IMPORT. RS.13118881.00 MUMBAI (RS. PURCHASE ORDER DT. PAPER BOOK PAGE VOUCHER OF MEIL DT PB PAGE INVOICE AMOUNT & DT(RS) PB PAGE 1500000.00 27.5.98 1007 27.5.98 1006 95492/23.2.02 664000/5.3.02 1129 1133 1000000.00 2.6.98 1009 2.6.98 1008 598666/17.1.02 1 118 200000.00 .. 8.9.98 1039 PAYMENT RETURNED OF DT.13.5.98 .. 200000.00 .. 15.9.98 1040 PAYMENT RETURNED OF DT.13.5.98 .. 60000.00 .. 12.11.98 1041 PAYMENT RETURNED OF DT.13.6.98 .. 25000.00 .. 4.1.99 1042 PAYMENT RETURNED OF DT.18.12.98 .. 5000000.00 .. 21.1.99 1043 PAYMENT RECEIVED AGAINST BILL NO.73,74,76 & 83 1088 1090 1092 1102 2000000.00 21.1.99 1044 PAYMENT RECEIVED AGAINST BILL NO.78 & 79 1094 1096 2000000.00 2.2.99 1045 PAYMENT RECEIVED AGAINST BILL NO.1038 DT.15.12.98 1105 11985000.00 TOTAL ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 8 8. SHRI S.P.GOYAL ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF N.H. SECURITIES V DCIT, 11 SOT 302(MUM) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BADIANI (P.K) 76 ITR 369(MUM). SHRI GO YAL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION, T HEREFORE, THE ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V RAJ KUMAR (2009) 23 DTR 304 (DEL), WHEREIN, I T HAS BEEN HELD THAT TRADE ADVANCES WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF MONEY TRANSACTE D TO GIVE EFFECT TO COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE ALSO IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE WORD ADVA NCE WHICH APPEARS IN THE COMPANY OF THE WORD LOAN IN SECTION 2(22)(E) COULD ONLY MEAN SUCH ADVANCES WHICH CARRIES WITH IN AN OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT. TRADE ADVANCES WHICH A RE IN NATURE OF MONEY TRANSACTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). 9. SHRI GOYAL SUBMITTED THAT ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE B USINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THERE IS NO LOAN OR ADVANCE. HE REFERRED TO PAGES 461-476 O F PB, WHEREIN, THE C.A. CERTIFICATE IS CONTAINED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CA CERTIFICATE CO NFIRM THE SAME. FURTHER IN THE PAPER BOOK, DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN ALONGWITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS WHICH SHOWS THAT ALL ARE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. HE ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE 665 OF PB, WHEREIN, CIT (A) ORDER DATED 30.3.2001 IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS IS CONTAINED, AND POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT (A) HAD, INTER ALIA, OBSER VED THAT ANY OUTSTANDING CREDIT ARISING OUT OF ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS WOULD NOT FALL W ITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(22)(E) AND DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE ACCOUNTS AND RE-C OMPUTE THE DIVIDEND, IF ANY, ON THE BASIS OF TRANSACTIONS HAVING THE CHARACTER OF LOANS AND ADVANCES OTHER THAN THOSE ENTERED INTO IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. SHRI GOYAL ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE 143 OF PB, WHEREIN, ACCOUNT OF MEI L IN THE BOOKS OF CHIRAG EXPORTS AND IMPORTS FOR F.Y. 1998-99 IS CONTAINED TO DEMONSTRAT E THAT THERE WERE OPENING BALANCES OF RS.95,09,094.18 PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MEIL WHICH WAS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF IMPORT LICENCES DUTY FREE. WITH REFERE NCE TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT (A) REGARDING LATE SUPPLIES, HE REFERRED TO PAGES 1011 TO 1012 OF PB TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A SAMPLE PAYMENT OF RS.9 LAKHS HAD BEEN RECEIVED AGAI NST THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 26.2.99 OF MEIL. HE POINTED OUT THAT AGAINST THIS PURCHASE ORDER, GOODS WERE SUPPLIED ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 9 AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY MEIL. HE SUBMITTED THAT DE TAILED CHART IN THIS REGARD, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EARLIER, TO LINK THE VARIOUS SU PPLIES MADE AGAINST VARIOUS PURCHASE ORDER, THE RELEVANT PAPERS ARE IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO LEDGER ACCOUNT OF MEIL IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONTAINED AT PAGES 136 TO 170 OF PB FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL YEARS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WERE REGULAR COURSE OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MEIL AND THESE WERE NORMAL BUSINESS TR ANSACTIONS. HE FURTHER RAISED OBJECTION THAT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, SPECIFIC A MOUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED OTHERWISE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E. SHRI GOYAL FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGES TO 670 TO 677 OF PB, WHEREIN, ASSESSEES REPL Y DT.21.11.05 IS CONTAINED. HE REFERRED TO THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER TO SUBMIT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED TO SUMMON THE RECORDS OF THE MEIL IN ORDER TO VERIFY T HE PAYMENTS MADE BY THEM AGAINST THE SUPPLY OF GOODS TO THEM. SHRI S.P.GOYAL REFERR ED TO LETTER NO.ITO-12(2)-1/ITAT- HEARING /2009-10 DATED 15.3.2010 OF INCOME TAX OFFI CER 12(2)-1, MUMBAI ADDRESSED TO THE CIT (DR), ITAT-VI H BENCH, MUMBAI, WHEREIN, I T WAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT IS F OUND THAT THE DETAILS AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONITAT, I.E. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S. MERTINEZ ENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD., AS APPEARING I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. CHIRAG EXPORTS & IMPORTS, WERE SUBMITTED AT THE TIM E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EXCEPT SOME OF THE DISCREPANCIES AS MENTIONED HEREI N. IT IS NOTED THAT THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.95,89,094/- AS SHOWN IN THE D OCUMENTS SUBMITTED NOW DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE OPENING BALANCE SUBMITTED A T THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ALSO, THE DEBIT ENTRY SHOWN AT THE TIM E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR R.S9,35,000/- ON 24.3.1999 DOES NOT APPEAR IN T HE DETAILS SUBMITTED NOW. IN THIS REGARD, SHRI GOYAL REFERRED TO REPLY DATED 12.4.2010 FILED ON 13.4.2010 AND POINTED OUT THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,98,000/- BE TWEEN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF CHIRAG EXPORTS AND IMPORTS, LUDHIANA IN THE BOOKS OF MEIL AND OF MEIL IN THE BOOKS OF CHIRAG EXPORTS AND IMPORTS WAS DULY RECONCILED AS THE ACCO UNTS OF MEIL, MUMBAI IN THE BOOKS OF CHIRAG EXPORTS AND IMPORTS IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 15 6 WAS TRANSFERRED TO LUDHIANA ON 1.4.1998 AS PER ENTRY IN THE RELEVANT PAGE OF LEDGE R PAPER BOOK PAGES 143 AND 156. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TALLIED WITH THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ALLEGATION TO THE CONTRARY IS NOT CORRECT. HE FURT HER REFERRED TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT (A) REGARDING NO EVIDENCE OF THE DELIVERY BEING THERE AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES AND THAT OF MEIL WAS SITUATED IN THE SAME COMPOUND AND, THEREFORE, ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 10 THE DATE OF DELIVERY WAS THE DATE OF INVOICE. HE S UBMITTED THAT DELIVERY WAS MADE AS PER THE PURCHASE ORDER. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THA T NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DISPUTE THE SALES PRICE. HE REFERRED TO SUBMISS IONS DT.6.6.2008 FILED ON 6.10.2008 AND REFERRED TO PAGE 286 ONWARDS OF THE SAID WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS AND FURTHER REFERRED TO PAGE 296 OF THE SAID SUBMISSIONS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS. 10. LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MEIL IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN DECIDING THE PRESENT ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD 88% SHARES IN THE COMPANY AND, THEREFORE, WAS SUBST ANTIALLY HELD THE SHARES OF THE SAID COMPANY. WITH REGARDS TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE OPENING BALANCE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT DUE FOR IMPORT LICENCE DU TY FREE, LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THESE FACTS DO NOT GIVE CREDIBILITY TO THE TRANSACT IONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MEIL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE OBJECT CLAUSE WHICH CREATES A DOUBT ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TRA NSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECT CLAUSE DOES NOT GO WITH THE THEORY THAT THES E WERE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THE SUBSTANCE WHICH DECIDE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS. LD D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SUPPLIES WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE AFTER TWO YEARS WHICH IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE BILLS DO NOT CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF DELIVERY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE AS SESSEE TO PROVE THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. WITH REFERENCE TO PAGE 296 OF THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS, LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW THIS HAS BEEN SEPARA TELY SHOWN. 11. SHRI GOYAL, IN HIS REJOINDER, SUBMITTED THAT TH E DELIVERY WAS MADE LOCALLY SINCE THE BUSINESS PREMISES MEIL AND CHIRAG EXPORTS AND I MPORTS WERE IN THE SAME VICINITY, THEREFORE, THIS COULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR TREATING T HE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION AS NON- BUSINESS TRANSACTION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS THE ALLEGATION OF THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING VIOLATION OF THE OBJECT CLAUSE BY THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONCERNED OF THE SAME. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WHICH A RE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 11 1. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND NOT VALID. 2. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL ON TECHNICAL POINT MENTIONED IN FORM NO.35 I.E. MENTIONING SECTION 264 INSTEAD O F 246 OF I.T.ACT INSPITE IT WAS CLARIFIED BEING TYPICAL MISTAKE ONLY. 3. THE SECTION ACTUAL APPLICABLE 246 WHEREAS IT IS MENTIONED 264 WHICH IS ACTUALLY TYPICAL MISTAKE AND THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERR ED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL EVEN AFTER HAVING CLARIFICATION THAT IT IS A TYPICAL ERR OR. 4. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING ASSESS EES PLEA THAT IT IS A TYPICAL MISTAKE BECAUSE FORM 35 IS WITH REFERENCE TO SECTIO N 246. 5. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED KNOWING FULLY THAT TYPO GRAPHIC MISTAKE WOULD NOT PER SE TANTAMOUNT TO AN OFFENCE OR CRIME, THUS ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL ON A GROUND THAT FORM 35 CONTAIN 264 INSTEAD OF 246. 6. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED THAT THE FORM NO.35 REP RESENT TO RULE 45 AND APPEAL TO THE CIT (A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPEAL KNOWIN G THAT FORM 35 UNDER RULE 45 REPRESENT TO APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) AND NOT REVISION OF OTHER ORDERS TO REGULAR CIT UNDER SECTION 263. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE S IDES AND CONTENTS OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT IT IS PURELY A CASE OF TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE IN FORM NO.35 IN MENTIONIN G THE SECTION 264 INSTEAD OF 246A. HENCE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEING PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT FIND MUCH SUBSTANCE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS COUNT AND, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL ON THIS COUNT. 14. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE MOOT POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSES SEE AND MEIL WERE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OR NOT. THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN MA INLY DOUBTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUPPLIES WERE MADE APPROXIMATELY AFTER TWO YEARS FR OM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF AMOUNT AGAINST THE PURCHASE ORDER. LD CIT(A)S FINDINGS I N THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS THAT TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS LOANS AND ADVANCES HAS NOT BEEN CH ALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, ENQUIRY WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THIS LIMITED FIELD. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPILED THE DETAILS REGARDING SUPPLIES MADE AGAINS T VARIOUS PURCHASE ORDERS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED EARLIER IN PARA 7 ABOVE. NO DI SCREPANCY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THEREIN. THE ASSESSEE HAD STOCK OF MORE THAN RS.6 CRORES AS ON 31.3.99 AND WAS IN A ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 12 POSITION TO MAKE THE SUPPLIES IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIP T OF PURCHASE ORDER. HOWEVER, THE SUPPLIES WERE MADE AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE P URCHASER AND, THEREFORE, UNLESS THE SUPPLIES AS SUCH ARE DISPUTED, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN . NOWHERE, IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE POSITI ON REGARDING SALES MADE TO MEIL HAS BEEN DOUBTED. THE SALES HAVE BEEN LINKED WITH THE PURCHASE ORDER AS NOTED EARLIER. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MERELY BECAUSE THE SUPPLI ES HAVE BEEN MADE AFTER A CONSIDERABLE LONG PERIOD, IT WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE WERE NOT BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT PREROGATIVE OF THE BUSINESSMAN HOW TO CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH. IN OUR OPINION, THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MEIL WAS PURE LY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND COULD NOT BE BRANDED AS LOAN OR ADVANCE. WE HAVE REPRODU CED THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BUT IN OUR OPINION THE SAID OBJECTIONS CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. . FURTHER, HOW MUCH MARGIN IS TO BE CHARGED IN THE SALES IS TO BE DECIDED BY THE BUSINESSMAN AND THERE IS NO PROHI BITION OF EVEN SELLING THE GOODS ON LOSS. 15. IN THE CASE OF NH SECURITIES LTD V DCIT, 11 SOT 302 (SUPRA), IT WAS, INTER ALIA, HELD IN PARA 37 AS UNDER: IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSION MADE IN PARAGRAPHS ABOVE, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT PAYMENTS MADE BY A COMPANY THROUGH A RUNNING ACCOUN T IN DISCHARGE OF ITS EXISTING DEBTS OR AGAINST PURCHASES OR FOR AVAILING SERVICES, SUCH PAYMENTS MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY BO TH THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTI ON 2(22)(E). THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN SECTION 2(22)(E) APP LY IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE COMPANY PAYS TO A RELATED PERSON AN AMOUNT AS ADVAN CE OR A LOAN AS SUCH AND NOT IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT. THE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBI T BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN RELATED CONCERNS, AND, THEREFORE, PAYMENTS MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS CANNOT BE TREATED AS LOANS AND ADVANCES . THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF T HE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CONSIDERED ABOVE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF DECISI ON OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGINDAS M KAPADIA (SUPRA), WE HOLD THA T PAYMENTS MADE BY A COMPANY IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON OF ITS REGULAR BUSINESS THROUGH A MUTUAL, OPEN AND CURRENT ACCOUNT TO A RELATED PARTY DO NOT COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 13 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH JUNE, 2010 SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 30 THJ JUNE, 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY-, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH G, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 14 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 22 .6.10 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28.6.2010 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ITA NO.5081/M/2007 S.P.GOYAL 15