ACIT CIR. 23(2), MUMBAI V. M/s. ANAND AUTOMOBILES, MUMBAI

ITA 5241/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: 524119914 RSA 2004
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: B K KHARE; SANTOSH L PARAB
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts; Difference of opinion; Notional interest; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 147; 27; 148; 143(3); 37(1); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (J.M.) AND SHRI PRAMOD KUM AR(A.M.) ITA NO. 4151/MUM /2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ANAND AUTOMOBILES, C/O B.K. KHARE & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 706/708, SHARDA CHAMBERS, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 020. PAN : AAD FA 9171 D VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 23(2), PRATYAKHSAKAR BHAVAN, C-12, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 4057/MUM /2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 23(2), PRATYAKHSAKAR BHAVAN, 202, C-10 BLDG., BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI. 51 VS. ANAND AUTOMOBILES, S-304, LBS MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080. PAN : AAD FA 9171 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5284/MUM /2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 ANAND AUTOMOBILES, C/O B.K. KHARE & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 706/708, SHARDA CHAMBERS, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 020. PAN : AAD FA 9171 D VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 23(2), PRATYAKHSAKAR BHAVAN, C-12, 7 TH FLOOR, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5241/MUM /2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 2 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 23(2), 701/C-12 BLDG., PRATYAKHSAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI. 51 VS. M/S ANAND AUTOMOBILES, S-304, LBS MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080. PAN : AAD FA 9171 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 4152/MUM /2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 ANAND AUTOMOBILES, C/O B.K. KHARE & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 706/708, SHARDA CHAMBERS, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 020. PAN : AAD FA 9171 D VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 23(2), PRATYAKHSAKAR BHAVAN, C-12, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 4058/MUM /2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 23(2), PRATYAKHSAKAR BHAVAN, 202, C-10 BLDG., BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI. 51 VS. ANAND AUTOMOBILES, S-304, LBS MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080. PAN : AAD FA 9171 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MR.B.K. KHARE & MR. SANTOSH L. PARAB DEPARTMENT BY : MR. SATBIR SINGH O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL, J.M. ALL THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 3.3.2006, 8. 3.2004, & 2.3.2006 ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 3 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A.YRS. 1999-2000, 2001-02 & 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND CO MMON GROUNDS ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THESE WERE HEARD TOG ETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CO NVENIENCE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE LEAD CASE (AGREED BY BOTH THE PARTIES) EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO. 5284/M/2004 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF FILTERS, INVESTMENTS AND BUSINESS OF LETTING OUT OF PROPERTIES, FILED RE TURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT ` 14,35,976/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED BY THE A. O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME UNDER THE HEAD COMPENSATION WHICH I S IPSO FACTO RENT RECEIVED FOR LETTING OUT A PROPERTY SITUATED AT 1, SRI AUROBINDO MARG, NEW DELHI TO ASSOCIATE COMPANY. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDE RING THE AGREEMENTS DTD. 1.2.96 AND 1.9.2000 OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING THE LESSOR HAS RECEIVED AN INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT AGGREGAT ING TO ` 55,23,00,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT ` 55,93,47,276/- AS UNSECURED LOAN AND AGAINST THE SA ME THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD APPLICATION OF FUNDS HAS SHOWN INV ESTMENT OF ` 49,84,20,301/- BEING INVESTMENT IN ITS ASSOCIATED C OMPANIES AND RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME THEREON TO THE EXTENT OF ` 33,96,925/- CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF ` 7,94,400/- AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS WHEREAS THE SAME, IN FACT, COMPRISED OF RENT RECEIVED FROM ASSO CIATE COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUS E AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS SUBMISSION DATED 22.1.2003, INT ER ALIA, MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF A PART OF T HE PROPERTY THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AS PROPERTY INCOME. I T WAS FURTHER ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 4 SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME POSITION IS PREVAILED OVER DECADES WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND HENCE NO DIFFERENT V IEW IS POSSIBLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE A.O. WA S OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS UNDER LONG AND ANCESTRAL LEASE, THEREFO RE, IT IS A DEEMED OWNERSHIP OF SUCH PROPERTY IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. PODAR CEMENT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS (226 ITR 625) AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE A. O. TREATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DERIVED FROM LEASED PROPERTY AS INC OME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23 TO 25 SHALL APPLY. ON THE ISSUE OF QUANTIFICATION OF RENT IN TE RMS OF SECTION 23(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE INTEREST FOREGONE BY THE LESSEES ON THE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF ` 63,00,00,000/- SHOULD NOT BE TERMED AS FORMING PART OF RENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 23(1) OF THE ACT BY ADOPTING THE PREVALENT RATE OF BANK INTEREST. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE WHILE RELYING ON THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF J.K. INVESTORS (BOMBAY) LTD., IN THE CASE OF SATYA COMPA NY LIMITED (75 TAXMAN 193) (CAL) IN THE CASE OF SUPER LEASING LTD. (56 TTJ 258) (BOM) AND IN THE CASE OF P. KRISHNA MURTHY (131 TAXATION 395) (KARN.), SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DEVIAT ING FROM THE PAST ACCEPTED POSITION AND ASSESSING INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AT A FIGURE DIFFERENT FROM THAT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OR A HEAD DIFFERENT FROM THAT SHOWN THERE AND CERTAINLY NOT FOR BRING TO TAX NOTI ONAL INCOME OF ` 4,69,45,500/- AS SUGGESTED IN THE NOTICES. HOWEVER , THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE SECURITY DEPOSIT RECEIVED WAS INVESTED IN SHARES OF FAMILY CONCERNS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTERE ST. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTION WAS OF A COLLUSIVE NATURE. FURTHER BY I NVESTING FUNDS IN SHARES THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED NON TAXABLE INCOME. THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF J.K. INVESTOR THAT INCOME EARNED OUT ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 5 OF THE DEPOSIT HAD ALREADY BEEN TAXED AND FURTHER I NCLUSION IN THE RENT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION, WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. FINALLY, THE A.O. TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE RENT ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND ADDED TO THE SAME 10% OF THE DEPOSIT AMOUNT AS THE NOTIONAL INTEREST AND ASSESSED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT AS THE RENT AT WH ICH THE PROPERTY COULD REASONABLY BE LET. IN SHORT THE INCOME WAS AS SESSED UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY AT THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED A ND 10% OF THE SECURITY DEPOSIT AS THE NOTIONAL RENT. THE A.O. AFTER ALLOWI NG DEDUCTION U/S 24, COMPUTED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` 3,69,38,400/- AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF ` 3,75,79,980/- VIDE ORDER DATED 24.3.2003 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. ON AP PEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE HOLDING THAT THE PORTION OF INCOME RELATED TO THE HOUSE PROPERTY IS ASSESSED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY, HELD THAT THE PORTION RELATED TO THE LAND LEASED OUT SHOULD NOT B E INCLUDED UNDER THIS HEAD. THE LD. CIT(A) CALCULATED THE TOTAL AREA LEAS ED OUT AT 8722 SQ. METERS AND AFTER APPLYING COMMERCIAL RATE ` 24,150/- PER SQ. METERS TO THE LEASED OUT PORTION I.E. 8722 SQ. METERS OF THE PROPERTY WORKED OUT THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AT ` 21,06,36,300/- AND AFTER APPLYING RATE OF 8.5% ON THE ABOVE VALUE WORKED OUT TO MAINTAINABLE RENT AT ` 1,79,04,085/- BEING FAIR RENT U/S 23(1)(A) AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECT ED THE A.O. TO ASSESS ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY PORTION AT ` 1,79,04,085/- LESS THE PROPORTIONATE RENT RECEIVED FOR THE 8722 SQ. ME TERS AND COMPUTE THE INCOME OF HOUSE PROPERTY AFTER ALLOWING NECESSARY D EDUCTIONS AND BALANCE RENT WOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING LEASE RENT FOR LAND. 3 . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE BOTH ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 5284/M/2004, A.Y. 2001-02 (ASSESSEES APPEA L) ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 6 4. GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN BRINGING TO TAX THE COMPENSATION F OR GRANTING LICENCE TO ASSOCIATE COMPANIES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AS RETURNED BY T HE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2001-02. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE ENTIRE PROP ERTY AND HENCE THE INCOME THERE FROM IS NOT TAXABLE U/S 22 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THE ABOVE GROUND WHI CH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. D.R. 6. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTI NG MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED BEING NOT PRESSED. 7. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 READ AS UNDER:- 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CI T(A) ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE FAIR RENT U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, BY APPLYING THE NOTIONAL RATE OF 8.5% IN THE CONTEXT OF FALLING INT EREST RATES ON THE TOTAL MARKET VALUE WHICH WAS COMPUTED @ ` 24,150/- PER SQ. MT. FOR THE AREA TOTALLING TO 8722 SQ. MTS. (COMPRISING OF BUILT UP AREA OF 4361 SQ. MTRS. PLUS OPEN SPACE AREA OF 4361 SQ. MTS.) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN VALUING THE SAID PROPE RTY BY APPLYING THE RATE OF ` 24,150/- PER SQ. MT. WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO NEW CONSTRUCTIONS AND IS TOTALLY ARBITRARY. HE OUGHT T O HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY VALUE IN THE OPEN MARKET SINCE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FIND A WILL ING BUYER FOR THE SAME DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, DEFECTIVE TIT LE AND RESTRICTIONS/LIMITATIONS ON TRANSFER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN TREATING 4361 SQ. MTS. AS LAND APPURTENANT TO THE SAID BUILDING AND APPLYING THE S AME FLAT RATE OF ` 24,150/- PER SQ.MT. WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE BUIL T-UP AREA. ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 7 FURTHER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN COMPUTING THE FAIR RENT U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITH REFERENCE TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY INSTEAD OF THE VALUE OF THE INVES TMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE SAID PROPERTY AS PER THE MUMBAI IT AT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CHEM MECH (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 83 ITD 427. IN ANY EVENT, THE ANNUAL VALUE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE E XCEEDED THE VALUE FIXED BY THE MUNICIPALITY FOR PAYING RATES AN D TAXES, ETC. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE BALANCE RENT RECEIVED AFTER DEDUCTING THE TOTAL RENT RECEIVED THE PROPORTIONATE RENT RECEIVED FOR 8722 SQ. MTS. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA NO. 5241/M/2004, A.Y. 2001-02 (REVENUES APPEAL ) 8. GROUND NOS. (I) TO (III) TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: - (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DETER MINING THE ANNUAL VALUE OF PROPERTY AT ` 1,79,04,085/- AS AGAINST ` 3,69,38,400/- DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 23(1)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. (II). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN D IRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS A PART OF THE RENT RECE IVED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING LEASE RENT FOR LAND. (III). ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DETER MINING THE ANNUAL VALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR 8,722 SQ. MTS. AS AGAINST 24,279 SQ. MTS. OF PROPERTY LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUES IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE COMMON, THER EFORE, ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE TREATED AS COMMON GROUND FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 8 10. THE FACTS RELATED TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS HAVE ALR EADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA NO.2 OF THIS ORDER, HENCE, NOT REPEATED HER E. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE A GREED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT IS NOT RENT LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS SINCE BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (FULL BENCH) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MONI KUMA R SUBBA AND OTHERS IN ITA NO. 499 OF 2008 WITH ITA NO. 803 OF 2007, IT A NO. 1113 OF 2008, ITA NO. 388 OF 2010, ITA NO. 516 OF 2010, ITA NO. 1 034 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 1240 OF 2010, DTD. MARCH 30, 2011. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS NO CASE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF NOTIONAL INTERE ST ON INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT WHICH IS NOT THE RENT LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. ON THE OTHER ISSUES RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF AREA LET OUT AND OPEN SPACE AND APPLICATION OF RATE AT 8 .5% ON THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT SINCE THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL IS NOT ON RECORD, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, T HE ISSUE TO THAT EXTENT MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. 12. HAVING CAREFULLY HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND MERIT IN PLEA OF THE PARTIES THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO NOTIONAL INTERES T ON THE INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT IS NOT RENT LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY UNDER THE ACT IS FULLY COVERED BY TH E JUDGMENT OF FULL BENCH OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MONI K UMAR SUBBA (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD VIDE PARA 20 OF THE JUDGME NT AS UNDER:- ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 9 20. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A.O. ADDED NOTIONAL IN TEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE SECURITY FOR ARRIVING AT ANNUAL LETTI NG VALUE. SINCE THAT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE, THE EFFECT WOULD BE THAT SUCH ASSE SSMENT WAS RIGHTLY SET ASIDE BY THE CIT (A) AND THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE ORDERS WOULD NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THESE APPEALS ARE, THUS , DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND. ONCE WE HOLD THIS, THE VERY BASIS ADOPTED BY THE AO TO FIX ANNUAL LETTING WAS WRONG AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER EXERCISE IN FACT IS REQUIRED BY US IN THESE APPEALS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, WE HOLD THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INCLUDING THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON THE INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT IN THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ACCOR DINGLY THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER ISSUES, WE FIND THAT T HE LD. CIT(A), FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN T HE CASE OF CHEM MECH (P) LTD. 83 ITD 427 HAS CALCULATED THE RENT AT 8.5% OF THE TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, WE FIND THA T IN THE SAID CASE THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER BOMBAY RENT CONTROL ACT WHEREAS THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY IS AT DELHI WHICH FALLS UNDER THE DELHI RE NT CONTROL ACT, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPL YING RATE AT 8.5% OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND WORKED OUT THE ANN UAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` 1,79,04,085/- LESS PROPORTIONATE RENT RECEIVED. SINCE THE RELEVANT MATERIAL WITH REG ARD TO THE OCCUPIED SPACE AND OPEN SPACE AND THE BASIS OF COMMERCIAL RA TE APPLIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT ` 24,150/- ON THE LET OUT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OF 8722 SQ. MTR. IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE SAME WAS NE ITHER BEFORE THE A.O. NOR THERE IS ANY FINDING OF THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD AND ALSO THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CI T(A) HAS PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 46-A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. A ND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ACCOUNT AND ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 10 SEND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WHO SH ALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS HEREINABOVE AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE IN TH IS REGARD ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO. 4151/M/2006, A.Y. 1999-2000 (ASSESSEES APP EAL). 14. GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE-OPENING AND RE-ASS ESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/148. 15. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 31.12.1999 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT ` 24,06,500/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 ON 5.9.2000. THEREAFTER, NOTICE DTD. 30.3.2004 U/S 147/148 OF TH E ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE ISSUE O F NOTICE ARE AS UNDER:- IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2001-02, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) BY ADDING A HUGE AMOUNT TO THE INCOME DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS DUE TO THE NOTIONAL REN T FOR THE PROPERTY AT DELHI. DURING THIS FINANCIAL YEAR, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING ALSO THE SAME PROPERTY INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AT DELHI. BUT, I T IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE PROPER/ACTUAL RENT RE CEIVED/RECEIVABLE BY HIM. THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REASONS TO BEL IEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESCAPED. THEREFORE, ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. 16. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE F ILED RETURN DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS ORIGINALLY FILED. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT INTER ALIA STATING THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF CLAIMING EXCE SSIVE LOSS OR DEDUCTION OR RELIEF AS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS ACCEPTED OV ER LAST UMPTEEN YEARS ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 11 AND THE ADDITION MADE IN A.Y. 2001-02 IS CONTESTED UNDER APPEAL. . HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES OBJ ECTION AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN RE-OPENED U/S 147/1 48 OF THE ACT. ON MERIT, THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT OR DER FOR THE A.Y. 2001- 02 DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT ` 4,49,55,247/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE AGREEING WITH THE VIEW S OF THE A.O. UPHELD THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND ON MERITS THE LD. C IT(A) FOLLOWING THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2002-03, PARTLY DECIDED TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IT IS A CASE OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION , THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U /S 148/147 OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2001-0 2 MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ADDING A HUGE AMOUNT TO THE INCOME DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE, FURTHER, SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO E RRED IN UPHOLDING THE RE-ASSESSMENT U/S 148/147 OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE SAME BE CANCELLED. 18. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTS THE O RDERS OF THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A). 19. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FI ND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. AFTER RECORDING REASON S ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THIS BEING SO AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 12 [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVE D AND HELD (PAGE 502 HEAD NOTES):- ... TAXING INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE O F AN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) IS COVERED BY THE MAIN PROV ISION OF SECTION 147 AS SUBSTITUTED WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1989, AND INI TIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF INTIMATION WOULD BE COVE RED BY THE MAIN PROVISION OF SECTION 147 AND NOT THE PROVISO THERET O. ONLY ONE CONDITION HAS TO BE SATISFIED. FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS UNDER S ECTION 143(3) WILL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER POWERLESS TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) HA S BEEN ISSUED. HELD ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD J URISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 FOR BRINGING TO TAX INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT IN AN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A ) ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACC EPTABLE AS THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 36(1) (VII) AND (2) WERE NOT FULFILLED.... IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGH T ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND IN CO MPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE GROUND TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 20. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 3 ARE AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 21. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE A GREED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 , THEREFORE, THE PLEA TAKEN IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR MAY BE C ONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 13 22. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE PARTIES, WE KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR FI NDINGS RECORDED IN ASSESSEES AND REVENUES APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2001-02 I N PARA NO. 12 AND 13 OF THIS ORDER DIRECT THE A.O. TO FOLLOW OUR ORDER/D IRECTIONS (SUPRA) AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 23. GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DISAL LOWANCE OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES ` 1,56,500/-. 24. THIS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND T HAT THE EXPENDITURE FOR MANAGEMENT OF ESTATE IS RELATABLE T O THE RENTED PROPERTY AND IS IN THE NATURE OF COLLECTION CHARGES, THEREFO RE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND NO SEPARATE DED UCTION IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR COLLECTION CHARGES U/S 24(1) OF THE A CT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEGAL A ND PROFESSIONAL FEES ` 66,500/- FOR THE SAME REASONS AS IN THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO WORK OUT THE PORTION OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON MANAGEMENT OF ESTATE OF ` 90,000/- IN RESPECT OF LEASED OUT VACANT LAND AND RENTAL INCOME FROM WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND GRANT APPROPRIATE DEDUCTION U/S 57(III ) OF THE ACT. 25. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL AND THE LD. D.R. S UPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A). 26. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 14 WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ACC OUNT AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ITA NO. 4057/M/2006, A.Y. 1999-2000 (REVENUES APPE AL) 27. ALL THE GROUNDS I.E. (I) TO (III) ARE AGAINST T HE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. 28. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREE D THAT THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 , THEREFORE, THE PLEA TAKEN IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR MAY BE C ONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 29. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE PARTIES, WE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR F INDINGS RECORDED IN ASSESSEES AND REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IN PARA NO. 12 AND 13 OF THIS ORDER, DIRECT THE A.O. TO FOLLOW OUR ORDER/ DIRECTIONS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENU E ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO. 4152/M/2006, A.Y. 2002-2003 (ASSESSEES APP EAL) 30. GROUND NO. 1 READS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN BRINGING TO TAX THE COMPENSATION F OR GRANTING LICENCE TO ASSOCIATE COMPANIES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME AS RETURNED BY T HE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2002-03. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE ENTIRE PROP ERTY AND HENCE THE INCOME THERE FROM IS NOT TAXABLE U/S 22 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 15 31. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THE ABOVE GROUND WHI CH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. D.R. 32. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORT ING MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED BEING NOT PRESSED. 33. GROUNDS I.E. 2 TO 3 ARE AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF PROPERTY INCOME. 34. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREE D THAT THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02, THEREFORE, THE PLEA TAKEN IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR MAY BE C ONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 35. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE PARTIES, WE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR F INDINGS RECORDED IN ASSESSEES AND REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IN PARA NO. 12 AND 13 OF THIS ORDER, DIRECT THE A.O. TO FOLLOW OUR ORDER/ DIRECTIONS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 36. GROUND NO. 4 IS AGAINST SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWA NCE OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES AMOUNTING TO ` 2,69,200/-. 37. IT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THA T NO SEPARATE DEDUCTION OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES AMOUNTING TO ` 2,69,200 IS ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 16 AVAILABLE WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME/DEDUCTION UNDE R THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE SU STAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES ` 1,79200/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 24 OR 37(1) OF T HE ACT, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO WORK OUT THE PORTION OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE I NCURRED ON MANAGEMENT OF ESTATE OF ` 90,000/- IN RESPECT OF LEASED OUT VACANT LAND AND RENTAL INCOME FROM WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND GRANT APPROPRIATE DEDUCTION U/S 57(III ) OF THE ACT. 38. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL AND THE LD. D.R. S UPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A). 39. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ACC OUNT AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 40. GROUND NO. 5 IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DISAL LOWANCE OF REPAIR EXPENSES OF ` 11,690/-. 41. IT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THA T SINCE THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED U/S 24(1) OF THE ACT , NO SEPARATE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE SAME REASONS, UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. 42. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL AND THE LD. D.R. S UPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE A.O. LD. CIT(A). ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 17 43. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ACC OUNT AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ITA 5241/M/2004, A.Y. 2001-2002 (REVENUES APPEAL) 44. ALL THE GROUNDS (I) TO (III) WRONGLY MENTIONED AS GROUND NO. (IV), (V) & (VI) ARE AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IN COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. 45. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREE D THAT THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 , THEREFORE, THE PLEA TAKEN IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR MAY BE C ONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 46. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE PARTIES, WE, KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR F INDINGS RECORDED IN ASSESSEES AND REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IN PARA NO. 12 AND 13 OF THIS ORDER, DIRECT THE A.O. TO FOLLOW OUR ORDER/ DIRECTIONS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENU E ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 47. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES AND REVENUES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.04.2011. SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 20.04.2011 ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 18 RK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- CONCERNED , MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH J, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA 4151/M/06, 4057/M/06, 5284/M/04, 5241/M/04, 4152/M/06 & 4058/M/06 ANAND AUTOMOBILES . 19 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 11 .4.11 SR PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE A UTHOR ON 12 .4.11 SR PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACE BEFORE THE 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY 2 ND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR PS SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 DATE OF DESPATCH SR PS