BHALCHANDRA BAMNE, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 26(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5285/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88672 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN V P
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Condonation of delay; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 528 5 /M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 BHALCHANDRA BAMNE , 2/2, SAHAJEEVAN CHS LTD., SHANTIWADI KAJUPA DA, GHATKOPAR (W) MUMBAI 400 0 8 4 PAN: AHEPB 1410A VS. ASST. CIT 26(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5286/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 VISHNU D. CHILE , ROOM NO.12, MISKITA CHAWL, WESTER N EXPRESS HIGHWAY, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI 400 0 99 PAN: AACPC 9954H VS. ASST. CIT 26(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5287/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 MANOHA R ANANT TARI, ROOM NO.2, NEAR RATIONING OFFICE, NEHRU NAGAR, KURLA (WEST), MUMBAI 400 024 PAN: AACPT 1516E VS. ASST. CIT 26(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL SATHE, C. A. REVENUE BY : SHRI ASGHARZAIN V.P., D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 15.01. 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03. 2015 ITA NO.5285, 5286 & 5287/M/2014 BHALCHANDRA BAMNE, VISHNU D. CHILE & MANOHAR ANANT TARI 2 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE TITLED THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. ALL THE TH REE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 260 DAYS. THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF CITING IDENTICAL REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 2. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT ALONG WITH THE PRESENT TH REE ASSESSEES, THE IDENTICAL CASE OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE NAMELY MR. PRADEEP P AND H ARE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY THE AO . THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS WERE EMPLOYEES WITH COLGATE PALMOLIVE INDIA LTD. AND THEY TOOK VOLUNTARILY RETIREMENT. THEY CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON (10)(10 C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS WHICH WAS ALLOWED AND REFUND WAS ISSUED. HOWEVER, THE CASE S W ERE REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES WAS DEN I ED AND IMPUGNED DE MAND WAS RAISED. 3. THE ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] WHICH WERE DISMISSED. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEES WERE ADVISED BY THEIR C OUNSEL THAT SINCE THE CLAIM OF ALL THE AS ESSSEES WAS IDENTICAL, HENCE THE DECISION IN THE APPEAL OF ONE OF THE ASSESSEES WILL BE FOLLOWED IN OTHER CASES . THE PRESENT ASSESSEES , BEING RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE COST OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, DID NOT PREFER T HE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WHATEVER THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WILL BE THERE IN THE CASE OF THE ANOTHER ASSESSEE NAMELY MR. PRADEEP PANDHARE , WHO HAD ALREADY PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY B E APPLIED TO THE CASES OF THE ASSESSEE S . HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEES APPROACHED THE CHARTERED ITA NO.5285, 5286 & 5287/M/2014 BHALCHANDRA BAMNE, VISHNU D. CHILE & MANOHAR ANANT TARI 3 ACCOUNTANT WITH A REQUEST THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. PRADEEP PANDHARE BE ALSO REQUESTED TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES, THEN THE CONCERNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT INFORMED THEM THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THEIR CASE UNLESS THE PRESENT ASSESSEES PREFER SEPARATE APPEAL S . 4. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER COLLEAGUE NAMELY MR. PRADEEP PANDHARE WILL BE FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES AND DUE TO THIS, THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 5. THE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. CONSIDER ING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEES , ARE RETIRED SENIOR CITIZENS AND THEY WERE UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THEM WILL BE APPLIED IN THE CASES OF ALL , HENCE, COULD NOT PREFER THE APPEAL S IN TIME . CONSIDERING THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEES, WE CONDONE THE DELAY IN PREFERRING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 6. THE DISPUTE IS RELATING TO THE ENTITLEMENT OF EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEES UNDER SECTION (10)(10C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, A T THE OUTSET, HAS STATED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION BASED ON IDENTICAL FACTS HAS BEEN RAISED BY ONE OF THE COLLEAGUES OF THE ASSESSEES NAMELY MR. PRADEEP PANDHARE. THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN HIS APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.6055/M/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 DECIDED ON 18.07.14 AND THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION (10)(10C) OF THE ACT UP TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAK HS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUANAL. ITA NO.5285, 5286 & 5287/M/2014 BHALCHANDRA BAMNE, VISHNU D. CHILE & MANOHAR ANANT TARI 4 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.07.14 (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER: 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COLGATE PALMOLIVE INDIA LTD. AND TOOK VOLUNTARILY RETIREMENT FOR WHICH HE WAS PAID COMPENSATION OF RS. 20,59,0 07/ - . INITIALLY THIS COMPENSATION WAS OFFERED TO TAX BUT THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN CLAIMING EXEMPTION OF RS.5 LAKHS U/S 10(10C). DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE EMPLO YER DID NOT SATISFY CONDITIONS OF RULE 2BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND THE PAYMENT WAS MORE THAN THE STIPULATED LIMITS AS PER CLAUSE - (VI) OF THE RULE 2BA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN BUT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION FROM THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE SCHEME DID NOT FULFIL THE CONDITIONS OF RULE 2BA INCLUDING CLAUSE (VI) OF THE SAID RULE. THE EMPLOYER ALSO PROVIDED THE CALCULATI ON OF COMPENSATION PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT ONE OF CONDITIONS UNDER SUB RULE (VI)HAS BEEN THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED UNDER VRS SHOULD NOT EXCEED AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THREE MONTHS SALARY FOR EACH COMPLETED YEARS OF SERVICE OR SALARY AT TIME OF RETIREMENT MULTIPLIED WITH BALANCE NUMBER OF MONTHS OF SERVICE LEFT. THE TENURE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE COMPANY WAS FOR 21.7 YEARS AND HIS AGE AT TIME OF RETIREMENT WAS 46.95 YEARS AND NUMBER OF YEARS LEFT FOR RETIREMENT WAS 13 YEARS. HIS ELIGIBLE SAL ARY AT TIME OF RETIREMENT WAS RS.12,741 PER MONTH. ACCORDINGLY, AMOUNT SPECIFIED UNDER RULE 2BA WAS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS: - THREE MONTHS SALARY FOR EACH COMPLETED YEAR OF SERVICE COMES TO RS. 8,30,605 (RS. 12,741X21.7X3) - SALARY FOR THE BALANCE MONTHS OF SERVICE WAS RS. 19,94,623 (RS. 12.741 X 12X 13) HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID TO ASSESSEE UNDER VRS WAS RS. 20,59,007 WHICH WAS HIGHER THAN ELIGIBLE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF VRS COMPENSATION ON GROSS SALARY BY THE COMPANY. 3. ACCORDINGLY, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE THE SCHEME DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULE 2BA ESPECIALLY CLAUSE (VI), THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C). ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL I NCOME RETURNED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE/PAID EXCEEDED BOTH THE LIMITS SET OUT IN CLAUSE (VI) OF RULE 2BA. THE CALCULATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ERRONEOUS. H E THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 10(10C) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS WAS CORRECT AND ITA NO.5285, 5286 & 5287/M/2014 BHALCHANDRA BAMNE, VISHNU D. CHILE & MANOHAR ANANT TARI 5 ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD . REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE COMPANY HAD CLEARLY FRAMED THE VRS AS TAX COMPLIANT AND THE WORKMEN HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE VRS FRAMED WAS EXEMPTED U/S 10(10C) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. ONLY ON THIS UNDERSTANDING THE WORKERS HAD RETIRED FROM THE COMPANY VOLUNTARILY. THE LD. AR FURTHER REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE SCHEME WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE UNDER THE SCHEME WAS EXEMPT ONLY TO THE EXTENT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 READ WITH RULE 2BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 UP TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/ - (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS ONLY). THE TAX BENEFIT REFERRED TO ABOVE WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY TO AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE COMPANY OR 40 YEARS OF AGE AND HAS NOT AVAILED OF BENEFIT OF SIMILAR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME IN THE PAST. IT HAS BEEN A CONDITION OF THE SCHEME THAT THE VACANCY CAUSED BY VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE F ILLED UP NOR WOULD THE RETIRING ASSOCIATE BE EMPLOYED IN ANOTHER UNIT OR CONCERN BELONGING TO THE COMPANY. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A READING OF THE CLAUSES OF THE SCHEME REVEALS THAT THE SCHEME FRAMED WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 10(10C) ARE INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE THE VO LUNTARY RETIREMENT AND PROVIDES AN EXEMPTION FROM TAX UP TO THE AMOUNT OF RUPEES FIVE LAKHS TO EACH EMPLOYEE RETIRED UNDER VRS. IT BEING BENEFICIAL PROVISION HENCE REQUIRES LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. KOLKATA TRIBUNAL (THIRD MEMBER DECISION) IN THE CASE OF KR ISHNA GOPAL SAHA (2009) 125 TTJ (KOL) (FM) (577) WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NAGESH DEVIDASS KULKARNI (2007) 210 CTR(BOM.) 471, HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP VR EMPLOYEES ASSOCI ATION VS. UNION OF INDIA (2003) 181 CTR (CAL) 367 AND OF HONBLE KARNATKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P. SURENDRA PRABHU(2005) 198 CTR (KAR)209 HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C) BEING BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS ARE TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERA LLY. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 10(10C) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 LAKHS, EVEN IF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED EXCEEDS THE LIMITS AS PRESCRIBED BY RULE 2 BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. FURTHER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. KOODATHIL KALLYATAN AMBUJAKSHAN (2008) 219 CTR (BOM) 80, HAS HELD THAT THE GUIDELINES/RULE 2BA IS PROCEDURAL IN NATURE AND IS TO BE READ IN HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF SALE DSPVR EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT SECTION 10(10C) WAS INSERTED IN ORDER TO MAKE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT ATTRACTIVE SO AS TO REDUCE HUMAN COMPLIMENTS FOR SECURING ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF CERTAIN COMPANIES. THIS HAS TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER BENEFICIAL TO THE OPTED FOR RETIREMENT, EVEN IF THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY. ITA NO.5285, 5286 & 5287/M/2014 BHALCHANDRA BAMNE, VISHNU D. CHILE & MANOHAR ANANT TARI 6 7. WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE SECTION 10(10C) STARTS WITH THE WORDS ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY AN EMPLOYEE WHEREAS THE RULE 2BA CLAUSE 6 HAS PRE SCRIBED AS LIMIT OF SUCH AMOUNT. IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 10(10C) THAT THE SCHEMES UNDER THIS SECTION ARE TO BE FRAMED BY THE VARIOUS INSTITUTES/COMPANIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH GUIDELINES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C) WHEN READ WITH RULE 2BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES SHOWS THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DO NOT PRESCRIBE ANY LIMIT RELATING TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY AN EMPLOYEE ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FOR EX EMPTION UP TO RS. 5 LAKHS UNDER THE SCHEME WHICH IS TO BE FRAMED AS PER GUIDELINES AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 2BA. IT IS EVIDENT BEFORE US THAT THE VRS SCHEME IN CONSIDERATION AND ITS VARIOUS CLAUSES WERE INCONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C ), EXCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAD RECEIVED AMOUNT ON HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT MORE THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 2BA. AS PER SECTION 10(10C), THE SCHEME IS TO BE FRAMED AS PER THE GUIDELINES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. FURTHER A PERUSAL OF THE HEADING OF RULE 2BA SHOWS THAT IT PRESCRIBES THE GUIDELINES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 10(10C). THE GUIDELINES, AS ITS NOMENCLATURE SUGGESTS, ARE JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF GUIDANCE, WHILE FRAMING THE SCHEME OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT BY THE INSTITUTES/COMPANIE S AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE MANDATORY IN NATURE BUT ONLY PROCEDURAL OR GUIDING IN NATURE. IF THE SCHEME AS A WHOLE, OTHERWISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C) AND AS PER THE GUIDELINES UNDER RULE 2BA EXCEPT AS TO SOME DEPARTURES FROM T HE GUIDELINES, BUT NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE GUIDELINES AS A WHOLE OR OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C), ITS OBJECT AND PURPOSES, THEN, IN SUCH AN EVENT, MERELY BECAUSE THE SCHEME DIFFERS AT ONE OR TWO POINTS FROM THE GUIDELINES IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DENY THE BENEFITS GRANTED UNDER THE SECTION 10(10C) TO AN EMPLOYEE IN VIEW OF THE BENEFICIAL NATURE OF THE PROVISION KEEPING IN VIEW THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED THROUGH SUCH A PROVISION. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DENIAL OF EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY BECAUSE HE HAS RECEIVED COMPENSATION ON HIS RETIREMENT A LITTLE MORE THAN THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY RULE 2BA, WILL BE AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 10(10C), ESPECIALLY, WHEN NO SUCH LIMIT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED UNDER S ECTION 10(10C) AND ALSO IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS THAT PROVISIONS OF RULE 2BA ARE NOT MANDATORY BUT IN THE SHAPE OF GUIDELINES WHICH ARE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE FRAMING THE SCHEME. 8. IN VIEW OF OUR DISCUSSION ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(10C) UP TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID SECTION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. THE FACTS AND ISSUES UNDE R CONSIDERATION BEING IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, THE SAME ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTI ON UNDER SECTION (10)(10C) OF ITA NO.5285, 5286 & 5287/M/2014 BHALCHANDRA BAMNE, VISHNU D. CHILE & MANOHAR ANANT TARI 7 THE ACT UP TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.03. 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( B.R. BASKARAN ) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 31.03.2015 . * KISHORE , SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT ( A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.