DCIT CIR 15(1), MUMBAI V. TARUN MAFATLAL SHAH PROP M/S. KALYAN METAL SYNDICATE, MUMBAI

ITA 5225/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88401 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - E BENCH , !' , ! BEFORE S/SH.JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEM BER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.5225/MUM/2011, # # # # $ $ $ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 DCIT CIRCLE 15(1 ), R.NO.104, 1ST FLOOR, TARDEO ROAD,MUMBAI-400007. # VS. SHRI TARUN MAFATLAL SHAH, PROP. M/S. KALYAN METAL SYNDICATE, 134/50, SHOP NO.1, KIKA STREET, GULALWADI, MUMBAI-400004. PAN: AAIPS4102M ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT) ) * ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP #+, #+, #+, #+, * * * * ! !! ! / BY :SHRI K.GOPAL & JITENDRA SING H # # # # ) )) ) ,- ,- ,- ,- / DATE OF HEARING :11 -02-2015 .$ ) ,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :11 -02-2015 # # # # , 1961 ) )) ) 254(1) ! !! ! ,, ,, ,, ,, !/ !/ !/ !/ ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, A.M. ! !' ! # : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2011 OF THE CIT(A )-26, MUMBAI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 01 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,92,198/- WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED TH E GP @ 4% AS IN THE ASSESSEE'S THE AVERAGE PRICE OF SALES IS MUCH BELOW THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE. 02 ON THE FACTS' AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,85,924 /- U/S14A OF THE I.T.ACT,1961. 03 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TREAT THE INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING OF RS . 28,81,965/- AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS, TIME DEVOTED BY THE ASSESSEE, FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS AND MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSE E. 04 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AMEND AND TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,TRADING IN BRASS AND COPPER, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.10.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 27,61,500/-.THE AO COMPLETE D THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 11.12.2009,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A T RS.71,21,590/-. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 6.92 LAKHS. THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145(3) ON T HE GROUND THAT THERE WAS AN UNDERSTATEMENT OF SELLING PRICE WITH REFERENCE TO SELLING RATE OF COP PER AND BRASS. HE OBSERVED THAT AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE OF COPPER IS OF RS.520.78 PER KG. WHEREAS, AV ERAGE SELLING RATE WAS OF RS.479.37PER KG. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT AS COMPARED TO G.P. RATIO OF 2. 98% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR,GP FOR THE YEAR HAD GONE DOWN TO 2.58%. FURTHER,HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE OPENING STOCK BRASS PURCHASE PRICE WAS SHOWN @161.20 PER KG.,THAT AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE CAME TO RS.220.29 PER KG.THAT COPPER PURCHASE PRICE 2 ITA NO. 5225/MUM/2011 SHRI TARUN MAFATLAL SHAH WAS RANGING FROM 263.00 PER KG. TO 377.52 PER KG AN D AVERAGE OF WHICH CAME TO RS.243.15 PER KG., THAT SALE OF BRASS ON 03.04.2006 HAD BEEN SHOWN @ 1 50 KG. AND ON 04.04.2006 TO 295.00 PER KG.HE REFERRED TO SIMILAR INSTANCE ABOUT SALE AND PURCHAS E OF COPPER AND BRASS.ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE VAR IATION EXCEPT STATING THAT IT WAS DUE TO MARKET FLUCTUATION. ACCORDING TO THE AO,IF ASSESSEE'S ARGU MENT FOR MARKET FLUCTUATION WAS ACCEPTED THEN ALSO WHEN THE PURCHASE RATE WAS GOING UP WHY SALE R ATE HAD GONE DOWN,THAT EVEN ON SAME DAY THE PURCHASES WERE OF HIGH VALUE THAN THE SALE VALUE.HE HELD THAT EITHER THERE WAS OVER INVOICE OF PURCHASE OR UNDER INVOICE OF SALE OR THE QUALITY OF GOODS SOLD WAS NOT THE SAME,THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) WERE CLEARLY APPLICABLE.FINALLY,H E APPLIED G.P. RATIO OF 4% AGAINST THE G.P. OF 2.58% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMAT ED ADDITIONAL PROFIT OF RS.6,92,198/-.HE ADDED THE SAID SUM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AO DID NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE OR IRREGULARITY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE GROSS PROFIT WAS LOW NO ADDITIONS COULD BE MADE,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN TH E BUSINESS OF TRADING IN BRASS AND COPPER FOR LAST 30 YEARS,THAT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SUBJECT TO TAX AUDIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT, THAT HE WOULD PURCHASE THE BRASS AND COPPE R AND BULK AND SELL THE SAME TO DIFFERENT TRADERS IN SMALLER LOTS,THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO SELL THE GOODS AT A LOWER PRICE BECAUSE OF THE DEFECT CAUSED DUE TO LONGER HO LDING PERIOD OF GOODS, THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOLVING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 5(3) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,THE FAA HELD THAT THE AO HAD CHOSEN FEW EXAMPLES FOR MAKING ADDITION, THA T HE IGNORED BASIC FACT THAT SOME OF THE GOODS WERE ALSO SOLD FROM THE OPENING STOCK THAT HAD LESS ER/HIGHER PRICES WHICH COULD BE MATCHED WITH SELLING PRICES OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR,THAT ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING CONSISTENT GP WITH MINOR VARIATION, THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2005-06,HE HAD SHOWN GP@ RS.2.83, 2.58 AND 2.98 RESPECTIVE -LY,THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AS SESSEE HAD SHOWN GP @ 2.84%, THAT THE AO HAD NOT ANALYZED FACTS LIKE DAY TO DAY FLUCTUATION IN M ARKET AND SPECIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL ITEMS, THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED BRASS ITEMS @ RS. 360 TO 460 PER KG, THAT PURCHASE RATE OF COPPER RANGED BETWEEN RS. 430 TO RS. 550 PER KG., THAT SELLING PR ICE RANGED BETWEEN RS. 334 TO RS. 370, THAT GP RATE COULD NOT BE ALTER ON THE BASIS OF FEW EXAMPLE S, THAT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW A PARTICULAR ITEM HAD PURCHASED OR WEIGHT AT A PARTICULAR DATE AND SAME HAD BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE SAME HAD BEEN SOLD OUT ON LOWER PRICE, THAT UNLESS THERE WAS VISIBLE EVIDENCE NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THIS REGARD, THAT THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBJECT TO TAX AUDIT,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAI NTAINED AND FURNISHED THE STOCK DETAILS ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF SALES AND PURCHASE QUANTITY-WISE AND ITS VALUE, THAT SAME WERE RECORDED AS PER ACCOUN -TING POLICY REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH AT THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNT,THAT GP RATE DISCLOSED IN THE EARLIER Y EARS AND FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS CONSISTENT, THAT THERE WAS NO VALID REASON TO ENHANCE THE GP.TH E FAA RELIED UPON THE CASES OF JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS (324 ITR 95 OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT), OM OVERSEAS (173 TAXMAN 185 (PUNJ & HAR.),WISWANATH PRASAD GUPTA (32 DTR 346).FINALLY , HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) STA TED THAT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS,THAT AUD ITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE REJECTED IN A 3 ITA NO. 5225/MUM/2011 SHRI TARUN MAFATLAL SHAH SUMMARY MANNER WITHOUT INDICATING THE SHORTCOMINGS FOUND IN THE AUDIT REPORT,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENTLY SHOWING GP BETWEEN 2.5% TO 3% APPR OXIMATELY, THAT THE GP RATE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER AYS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT AO HAD TAKEN A FEW INSTANCES OF PURCHASE AND SALES OF BRAS S AND COPPER TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO ENHANCE GP RATE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE FAA,THE AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR ENHANCING THE GP RATE.IN OUR OPINION, NO ADDITI ON CAN BE MADE TO INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE WITHOUT ASSIGNING REASONS.THE RATE OF GP MAY VARY FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND BUSINESS TO BUSINESS.BUSINESS IS NOT RUN OR GUIDED BY ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS ONLY .IT IS NOT ALWAYS THAT TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY AN ASSESSEE WILL RESULT IN PROFIT ONLY,SOMETIMES HE MAY INCUR LOSSES WHILE CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,WHAT IS TO BE SEEN IS THE TR ANSACTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR.AFTER ANALYSING THEM ONE CAN ARR IVE AT RATE OF GROSS PROFIT.THE AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION UNDE R THE HEAD ENHANCEMENT OF GP RATE.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA HAS TO BE ENDORSE D,AS IT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY. WE DECIDE GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE AO. 6. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2.85 LAKHS MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CAPITAL OF RS. 12.08 LAKHS AND UNSECURED LOA N OF RS. 56.52 LAKHS AS ON 31.03.2007, THAT GENERAL ADVANCES IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE STOOD AT RS. 1.56 CRORES.HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2. 85 LAKHS.HE HELD THAT THE LOAN AND ADVANCES WERE UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF TH E SHARES ON WHICH DIVIDEND INCOME HAD BEEN EARNED. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLA RED LTCG AND STCG. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE SHARE BUSINESS HAD TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME.ACCORDINGLY, CORRESPONDING INTEREST UTILISED FOR ALLEGED PURCHAS E AND WAS NOT HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE.A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2.85 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE AO U NDER THE HEAD INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON BORROWED FUNDS. 7. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAA,THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED ENTIRELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES, THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE NOT USED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES, THAT THE AO HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES)TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE,THAT TH ERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, THAT AO WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING BOOK RESULTS AND THEN AGAIN DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE ON AD-HOC BASIS.IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE TOTAL DIVIDEND INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS RS. 2.3 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE AS HIGH AS RS. 2.85 LAKHS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,THE FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILISED BORROWED FUNDS FOR BUSINESS P URPOSES AS WELL AS FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES, THAT THERE WAS NO POINT FOR PRESUMING THAT INTEREST BEAR ING FUNDS WERE NOT UTILISED IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE AO HAD INVOLVED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D, THAT RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE AY.UNDER APPEAL,THAT THE AO HIMSE LF HAD TAXED THE CAPITAL GAINS AS BUSINESS INCOME,THAT THERE WAS NO PROPRIETARY TO DISALLOW TH E ENTIRE INTEREST EXPENDITURE.THE FAA HELD THAT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT,DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.(322ITR81),A REASONABLE DISAL LOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. 4 ITA NO. 5225/MUM/2011 SHRI TARUN MAFATLAL SHAH HE FOUND IT PROPER TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE @ 2 5% FROM THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE RELATED TO THE INVESTMENT. HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 71,481/-. 8. BEFORE US, DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO.THE A R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D O F THE RULES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.THE FAA HAS, IN OUR OPINION, RIGHTLY HELD THAT RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THAT REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT HAD TO BE MADE.IN OUR OPINION,DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE FAA IS REASONABLE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERVENTION FROM OUR SIDE. THEREFORE, CONFIRMING H IS ORDER,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE AO. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT TREATING THE SHARE T RADING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LTCG,AMOUNTING TO RS.28.81LAKHS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 6 LAKHS SHARES AND HAD SOLD OUT 4.72 LAKHS SHARES. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE DETAILS OF THE CAPITAL GAIN,STCG AND DIVIDEND SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE,THE AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS BUSY IN CARRYING OUT A SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANISED BUSINESS OF SHARES, THAT MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EARN PROFIT AND NOT TO MAKE INVESTMENT,THAT THE TOTAL MO NEY INVOLVED IN SHARES WAS OF RS. 1.05 CRORES AND RS. 2.44 LAKHS AS ON 31.03.2006 AND 31.03.2007, THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'BUSINESS INCOME' AND NO T AS CAPITAL GAINS,THAT THE TURNOVER OF SHARES WAS MORE THAN THE TURNOVER OF HIS REGULAR BUSINESS. 9. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAA,THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRADING OF COPPERS AND BRASS, T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES IN THE FY 2004-05,THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES, THAT AO HAD WRONGLY CHANGED THE HEAD OF THE INCOME, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME ON THE INVESTMENT,THAT THE SHARES WERE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE- SHEET,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAKING INVESTMENT IN SH ARES FOR LAST 5-6 YEARS, THAT HE HAD SHOWN STCG AND LTCG FOR PAST MANY YEARS,THAT HE WAS REGULARLY MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN SHARE MARKET TO ENJOY SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND LONG TERM CAPITA L PROFITS, THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE SHARES WITH A CLEAR INTENTION OF MAKING INVESTMENT. THE FAA PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT AS WELL AS TRADING IN SHARES,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A REGULAR I NVESTOR RIGHT FROM AY 2005-06, THAT THE ISSUE OF LTCG HAD BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,THA T IN THE EARLIER AY.S.,THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS AN INVESTOR.HE HELD THAT C APITAL GAIN OF RS. 28,81,965/- WAS TO BE REGARDED AS LTCG.HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF J.M. SHARE A ND STOCK BROKER PVT. LTD. (22 ITA NO. 2801/ MUM AND GOPAL PUROHIT (228 CTR 582).WITH REGARD TO THE STCG OF RS. 27.2 LAKHS,HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS A TRADER.HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD. 10. BEFORE US,THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AR I NFORMED THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL WITH REGARD TO STCG. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAD ANALYSED THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS IN RIGHT DIRECTION. ASFTER CONSIDERING THE INVESTMENT AND BUSINESS PORTFOLIOS,HE HAD HELD THAT PROFIT ARISING OUT OF L TCG WAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAIN'.THE CBDT HAS,IN ITS CIRCULAR,ACCEPTED THAT A PERSON CAN BE A TRADER AND AN INVESTOR AT THE SAME TIME.CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN VESTING IN SHARES FOR LAST 3-4 YEARS AND HAS SOLD THE SHARES DURING THE AYS PURCHASED EARLIER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA BASED ON SOUND LEGAL FOOTING. CONFIRMING HIS ORDER, WE DE CIDE THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. 5 ITA NO. 5225/MUM/2011 SHRI TARUN MAFATLAL SHAH AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. 0,1 #+, VF/KDKJH 3 4 ) #5 ) , 6 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH ,FEBRUARY,2015. !/ ) .$ ! 7 8# 11 , 0- , ,, , 201 5 ) = SD/- SD/- ( /JOGINDER SINGH) ( !' / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8# /DATE:11.02.2015 SK !/ !/ !/ !/ ) )) ) ',> ',> ',> ',> ?!>$, ?!>$, ?!>$, ?!>$, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / %& 2. RESPONDENT / '(%& 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ @ A , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / @ A 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / >B ',# , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 0 (>, ', //TRUE COPY// !/# / BY ORDER, C / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI