J.K. HELENE CURTIS LTD, THANE V. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83589 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: Y P TRIVEDI
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI BENCH ES I MUMBAI , , ! BEFORE S.SH.VIJAY PAL RAO,JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJEN DRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.5139/MUM/2010 ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) '() '() '() '() * * * * / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI Y.P.TRIVEDI & MS. USHA DALAL + * / REVENUE BY : SHRI SUMIT KUMAR ' ' ' ' + ++ + ), ), ), ), / DATE OF HEARING : 28/07/2014 -.# + ), / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/08/2014 PER RAJENDRA,AM ' ' ' ' : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.06.04.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-5 ,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)' ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,00 ,000 ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS OFF ICE BUILDING DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND BILLS SETTLED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 2.WHILE UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,00,000 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE REPA IR WORK COMMENCED AND COMPLETED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3.THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE PROVISIONS FOR R EPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF RS.14,00,000/-AS 'CONTINGENT LIABILITIES'. 4.THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT TREATING THAT THE APPELLA NT WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. 5.THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE RELIEF ON THE AFORES AID GROUNDS BE ALLOWED AND APPELLATE ORDER BE SET ASIDE/MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN COSMETICS AND TOILETRIES,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S.3,29,91,998/-.ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, ON 09.09.2009, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,43,91,998/-. J.K.HELENE CURTIS LIMITED, POKHRAN ROAD NO.1, JEKEGRAM, THANE -400606 PAN: AAACJ2511L VS DCIT 2(2) MUMBAI. ITA NO. 5139/MUM/2010 J.K.HELENE CURTIS LIMITED 2 2.1. THOUGH ARE FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL,BUT THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR REPAIRS AND MAINT ENANCE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS OFFICE BUILDING. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.14, 00,000/-UNDER THE HEAD .HE CALLED FOR AN EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD.BY A LETTER DATED 30.07.2009 THE ASSESS EE COMPANY PLEADED AS UNDER '......AS REGARDS PROVISION FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTEN ANCE, WE HAD COMPLETED THE WORK DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO HAD MADE THE PAYMENT AS ADVANCES .....WE ARE NOW ENCLOSING HEREWITH COPIES OF THE BILLS WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SETTLED FOR YOUR REFERENCE.. AFTER CONSIDERING THE COPIES OF BILLS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,THE AO HELD THAT M/S. SACHIN ENTERPRISES (SE)HAD SUBMITTED A BILL ('FINAL BILL) FOR RS.10,44 .168/- AS LATE AS 1ST OCTOBER 2007, I.E., 6 MONTHS AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANTAY.,THAT THE BILL RELA TED TO PLASTERING, PAINTING, WATERPROOFING ETC. TH AT THE ANOTHER BILL,DTD.16.01.2007,FOR RS.4,21,816/- F ROM M/S.SPACE HVAC SYSTEMS P,LTD.(SHSPL) RELATED TO AIR-CONDITIONING WORK.IT WAS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14 LAKHS NARRATED AS 'PROVISION FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE' RELATE TO THE AFORESAID BILLS. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CONSISTE NTLY FOLLOWING THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR EXPENSES BASED ON RECEIPT OF THE BILLS,THAT BILL F ROM SE REVEALED THAT THE WORK OF PLASTERING/ PAINTING/WATERPROOFING ETC.WAS A PROLONGED ONE CULM INATING IN THE FINAL BILL RAISED IN FY 2007-08, THAT THE EXPRESSION 'PROVISION FOR EXPENSES', USED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF BETRAYED THE NATURE OR THIS DEBIT,THAT THE LIABILITY HAD NOT ACCRUED IN THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL,THAT AMOUNT OF RS.14 LAKHS DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT AND INCLUDED UNDER THE HEAD 'REP AIRS & MAINTENANCE' HAD TO DISALLOWED. 2.2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM,IT IS STATED THAT THE AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS 14 LAKH IN RESPECT OF PROVISION MADE FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENAN CE,THAT HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SIMILAR PROVISION MADE EARLIER HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO,THAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LIABILITY DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR AND DID N OT APPRECIATE THAT THE FINAL BILL WAS RECEIVED IN T HE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2007 AND THE LIABILITY HAD ALREADY ACCRUED DURING THE YEAR, THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS REVENUE IN NATURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE, IT IS CONTENTED THAT ENTIRE REPAIR WORK WAS COMPLETED BY THE END OF MARCH 2007,THAT TOTAL REPAIR WORK CAME TO RS 14.65 LAKH AND AS SUCH PROVISION OF RS 14 LAKH WAS CORRECTLY MADE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CONT ENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,THE FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PROVISION AS THE BILLS WERE NOT R ECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION,THAT ITA NO. 5139/MUM/2010 J.K.HELENE CURTIS LIMITED 3 THE LIABILITY HAD NOT CRYSTALLISED DURING THE YEAR, THAT IT WAS FINALISED BUT ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AFTER RECEIPT OF THE FINAL BILL,THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING,THAT ANY DEDUCTION THAT COULD BE ALLOWE D U/S 37(1) COULD BE IN RESPECT OF ASCERTAINED LIABILITY ONLY,THAT THE PROVISION MADE CANNOT BE AL LOWED AS A DEDUCTION,THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT REPRESENTED AN AD VANCE WHICH COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN ANY CASE,THAT THE CLAIM THAT THE WORK WAS COMPLETED DURING THE YEAR ITSELF HAD NOT BEEN SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, THAT THE EXPENDITUR E WHICH WAS DEDUCTIBLE FOR INCOME-TAX PURPOSES WAS ONE WHICH WAS TOWARDS LIABILITY ACTUAL LY EXISTING AT THE RELEVANT TIME,THAT PUTTING ASIDE OF MONEY WHICH MIGHT BECOME EXPENDITURE ON TH E HAPPENING OF AN EVENT WAS NOT AN ALLOWABLE ITEM,THAT CONTINGENT LIABILITIES DID NOT CONSTITUTE EXPENDITURE AND COULD NOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF DEDUCTION EVEN UNDER THE MERCANTILE SYSTE M OF ACCOUNTING.HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF INDIAN MOLASSES CO. P. LTD.(3 ITR 66) AND SHREE SAJ JAN MILLS LTD.(156ITR585).FINALLY,HE CONFIR - MED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 2.3. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)STATED THAT LIABILITY OF EXPENDITURE HAD CRYSTALLISED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION,THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE IN ANY OTHER YEAR, THAT RAISING OF THE BILLS WAS NOT SO SACROSAN CT,THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT CONTINGENT.HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS (24 5 ITR 428)DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION HINDUSTAN F ERTILIZERS CORPORATION LTD. (140 ITD 221). DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)STATED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL,THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL WAS PROOF OF WORK DONE DURING THE YEAR, THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUT HORITY ABOUT THE WORK DONE DURING THE YEAR, THE BILLS DID NOT GIVEN THE PERIOD WHEN THE WORK WA S ACTUALLY DONE, THAT THE BILLS DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR-EXCEPT ONE.IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT CASES C ITED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT. 2.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM OF RS.14 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD PROVISION FOR REPAIRS AND MAIN TENANCE,THAT THE BILLS FOR REPAIRS WERE RECEIVED BY IT IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR,THAT THE AO HAD DISALL OWED THE EXPENDITURE. AS PER THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION JURIS PRUDENCE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR.IF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S ABOUT INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AO HAS TO ALLOW IT, BUT IF IT FAILS TO LEAD SUCH EVIDENCES TH EN EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED.BECAUSE IT WILL ITA NO. 5139/MUM/2010 J.K.HELENE CURTIS LIMITED 4 BE A CASE OF SPENDING OF CERTAIN AMOUNT AND EVERY O UTGOING OR SPENDING OF MONEY CANNOT BE TERMED AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE S.AS EVERY INCOMING CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME, SIMILARLY EACH AND EVERY OUTGOING CANNOT BE TERMED BUSINESS EXPENDITURE.WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY, THE TWO ADVERBS USED IN THE SECTION 37 OF THE ACT SIGNIFY QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE AND THE MOTIVE/OBJECT/PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURE RESPEC TIVELY.IN THE CASE BEFORE US,THE FACTUM OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE DURING THE YEAR HAS NOT BE EN PROVED AT ALL AT ANY STAGE.NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE FAA,THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED TH E BASIC DOCUMENT THAT COULD PROVE THAT REPAIRING WORK WAS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR.BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF NEXT YEAR AND THEY DO NOT PROVE THAT EXPENDITURE WAS NO T INCURRED BEFORE THE YEAR END.A LETTER FROM SE OR SHSPL COULD HAVE PROVED THAT REPAIRING WAS ACTUA LLY CARRIED OUT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA - TION.EVEN AFTER THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO ,THE ASSESSEE CHOOSE NOT TO PRODUCE ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FAA TO ESTABLISH THE FACT OF REPAIRING.BEFORE US ALSO,NO EVIDENCE,TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF REPAIRING,WAS PRODUCED.IT IS SAID NO STRUCTURE CAN BE MADE WITHOUT A FOUNDATION.IN THE CASE BEFORE US,THE FOUNDATION ITS ELF IS MISSING.BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT PROOF OF REPAIRING AND MAINTE NANCE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS NOT EXISTING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT LED EVIDENCE THAT COULD PROVE THAT FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.IN THESE CIRCUMS TANCES,IN OUR OPINION,THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY. NOW,WE WOULD DEAL WITH THE ARGUMENT OF MAKING PROVI SION.THE CONCEPT OF MAKING PROVISIONS IS NOT NEW TO THE TAXATION LAWS.AFTER A SERIES OF DECI SIONS BY THE COURTS,LAW ABOUT PROVISION HAS ALMOST TAKEN FINAL SHAPE. IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CON TROLS INDIA P. LTD.(314 ITR 62),THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT A PROVISION IS A LIABILITY WHICH CAN BE MEASURED ONLY BY USING A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE OF ESTIMATION,THAT A PROVISION I S RECOGNIZED WHEN : (A) AN ENTERPRISE HAS A PRESENT OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF A PAST EVENT ; (B ) IT IS PROBABLE THAT AN OUTFLOW OF RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE OBLIGATION, AND (C) A RELIAB LE ESTIMATE CAN BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT OF THE OBLIGATION,THAT IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, NO PROVISION CAN BE RECOGNISED.IN THAT MATTER THE HONBLE COURT SPOKE OF HISTORICAL TREND ALSO.FROM T HE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT PROVISION CAN BE MADE AN ALLOWED IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS.DEDUCT IONS ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR ANTICIPATED LOSSES OR CONTINGENT LIABILITIES, EVEN IF THEY ARE INEVITA BLE.IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS I N THE BUSINESS OF REPAIRING AND MAINTENANCE AND CONSIDERI NG LAST MANY YEARS EXPERIENCE IT HAS TO SET APART SOME AMOUNT EVERY YEAR FOR UNFINISHED PROJECT S.IT IS ALSO NOT PROVED THAT PROVISION WAS BASED ON ANY HISTORICAL TREND.MERELY BECAUSE AN E XPENSE IS CLAIMED TO BE RELATING TO A TRANSACT - TION OF A PATICUALR YEAR,IT DOES NOT BECOME A LIABI LITY PAYABLE OF THAT YEAR;UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS ITA NO. 5139/MUM/2010 J.K.HELENE CURTIS LIMITED 5 ESTABLISHDED THAT THE LIABILITY WAS DETERMINED AND CRYSTALLISED IN THE YEAR IN QUESTION ON THE BASIS OF MAINTAINING ACCOUNTS ON THE MERCANTILE BASIS.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF NO HELP. NOW,WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE.FIRST AMONG THEM IS THE MATTER OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS(SUPRA). FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TWO SETS OF EMPLOYEES, ONE SET OF EMPLOYEES WAS COVERED BY THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE SCHEME AND WAS GENERALLY KNOWN AS STAFF, THE OTHER SET OF EMPLOYEE S NOT SO COVERED WERE GENERALLY KNOWN AS OFFICERS,THAT THE COMPANY HAD FLOATED BENEFICIAL SC HEMES FOR ITS EMPLOYEES FOR ENCASHMENT OF LEAVE,THAT THE STAFF WAS ENTITLED TO ENCASE THE EAR NED LEAVE ACCUMULATED UP TO PARTICULAR MAXIMUM DAYS. THE COMPANY CREATED A FUND BY MAKING PROVISIO N FOR MEETING ITS LIABILITY ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF ACCUMULATED/EARNED/VACATION LEAVE. CERTAIN SUM W AS SET APART IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT AS PROVISION FOR ENCASHMENT OF ACCRUED LEAVE.MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.REVERSING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT THE APEX COURT HELD THAT THE PROVISION MADE BY THE APPELLANT-COMPANY FOR MEETING THE LIABI LITY INCURRED BY IT UNDER THE LEAVE ENCASH - MENT SCHEME PROPORTIONATE WITH THE ENTITLEMENT EAR NED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE COMPANY, INCLUSIVE OF THE OFFICERS AND THE STAFF, SUBJECT TO THE CEILI NG ON ACCUMULATION AS APPLICABLE ON THE RELEVANT DATE, WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OUT OF THE GROSS R ECEIPTS FOR THE ACCOUNTING YEAR DURING WHICH THE PROVISION IS MADE FOR THE LIABILITY,THAT THE LIABI LITY WAS NOT A CONTINGENT LIABILITY.IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN FERTILIZERS CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7.95 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF PAYME NT MADE TO EMPLOYEES UNDER VOLUNTARILY SEPARATION SCHEME (VSS) AND APPLICABILITY OF SECTIO N 35DDA(1) OF THE ACT.IN THAT CASE ISSUE OF NO INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND CLAIMING IT AS PROV ISION .THE AR HAD ALSO REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA (ITA NO. 1106/HYD/ 2011-AY-2007-08) DATED 25.09.2012.WE FIND THAT IN THAT CASE, IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.26 CRORES TOWARDS PROVISION FOR CISF SECURITY EXPENSES , RS. 1,07,84,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF WAGE REVISION ARREARS.WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND THAT LIABILITY TO SHARE THE CISF EXPENSES HAD ARISEN BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO SHARE THE EXPENSES, THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT FOR FIRST TWO QUARTERS FOR THE RELEVAN T YEARS,THAT FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD BILLS WERE NOT RECEIVED, THAT ASSESSEE HAD TO MAKE PROVISION F OR THE SAID EXPENDITURE, THAT THE LIABILITY WAS NOT CONTINGENT UPON ANY OTHER HAPPENING.IN OUR OPIN ION FACTS OF ALL THE THREE CASES ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE FOR REPAIRING WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND SO-CALLED PR OVISIONS MADE BY IT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE ITA NO. 5139/MUM/2010 J.K.HELENE CURTIS LIMITED 6 CRITERIA AS LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS FOR ALLOWING PR OVISIONS,WE ARE REJECTING THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. AS A RESULT,APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS REJECTED. 0)1 '() 2 3 + 4 5) + ) 67. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON 20TH AUGUST, 2014 . 9 + -.# : ;' 20 VXLR VXLR VXLR VXLR , 201 4 . + 4 < SD/- SD/- ( / VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, ;' / DATE: 20.08.2014 S.K. 9 9 9 9 + ++ + &) &) &) &) =#) =#) =#) =#) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ > ? , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / > ? 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / @4 &)' , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 4 0 ') ') ') ') &) &)&) &) //TRUE COPY// 9' / BY ORDER, A / 6 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI