ROSELIN MERCANTILE LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5290/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7592 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V RAVI NAMBOODIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY R PARIKH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business expenditure; Wrong claim; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI T.R. SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NOS. 5290, 5291 & 5292/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS-2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S. ROSELIN MERCANTILE LTD., VITHAL SADAN, 342, KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002 PAN-AABCR 4977K VS. THE ITO 4(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJAY R. PARIKH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.V. RAVI NAMBOODIRI DATE OF HEARING :22.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:28.3.2012 O R D E R PER B.R. MITTAL, JM : THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2002- 03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) ALL DT. 10.7.2009. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT RE LEVANT FACTS AND SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THESE APPE ALS. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OFF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. FIRSTLY WE TAKE UP APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02-03 BEING ITA NO. 5290/M/09. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PRIVAT E LTD. COMPANY AND DERIVES INCOME FROM 4 HOUSE PROPERTIES VIZ. , ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 2 1) BADRIKA ASHRAM BUILDING, 1 ST & LIND KHETWADI, 1 ST PARSIWALA, MUMBAI-400 004 2) VITHAL SADAN BLDG., 342, KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI -400 002 3) SHIV PRASAD BLDG., 73/IIND CAVEL CROSS LANE, MUMB AI-400002 4) BHAGATWADI BLDG., 132 BHULESHWAR ROAD, KABUTAR KHANA, MUMBAI-400 002. II) THESE 4 BUILDINGS ARE HAVING 546 TENEMENTS, WHI CH ARE LET OUT TO VARIOUS TENANTS. THE ONLY ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE COM PANY IS COLLECTING RENT FROM TENANTS AND NO OTHER BUSINESS IS CARRIED OUT BY ASS ESSEE COMPANY IN ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. III) THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS. 3,21,832/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1). IN THE RETUR N FILED, ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED LOSS FROM BUSINESS WHICH RELATES TO PROVIDING VARIOUS SE RVICES LIKE RUNNING LIFT, PROVIDING LIFTMAN AND WATCHMAN AND CLEANING ALL BUI LDINGS AGAINST WHICH SERVICE CHARGES, ELECTRICITY CHARGES, STAFF WELFARE , GENERAL EXPENSES AND REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AGGREGATING TO RS. 5,52,151 /- WAS CLAIMED. IV) SINCE RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/ S. 143(1) OF THE ACT, ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT CLAIMING OF EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS. 5,52,151/- AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE WAS NOT ALLOWA BLE DEDUCTION FROM THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AN D THEREFORE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 147. THE AO AFTER RECORDING THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF T HE ACT WHICH WAS SERVED UPON ASSESSEE ON 10.2.2006. V) THE AO STATED THAT ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED RETURN OF INCOME NOR A LETTER STATING THAT RETURN FILED EARLIER MAY BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN OF INCOME AGAINST NOTICE U/S. 148. IN ORDER TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT, A O ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH WAS SERVED ON ASSESSEE. THE AO ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 3 ASSESSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF MUNICIPAL TAX AND STANDARD DEDUCTION U/S. 24 OF I.T. ACT AND H AS ASSESSED THE INCOME OF RS. 13,13,350/- AGAINST TOTAL RETURNED INCOME AT RS. 3,21,832/- FILED BY ASSESSEE EARLIER. VI) BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISPUTING INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D ALSO DISALLOWANCES MADE BY AO. 5. LD. CIT(A) BY HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DISMISSED APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. 6. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN 18 G ROUNDS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. 7. IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2, ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE R EOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY AO. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ALL THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE RETURN FILED AND NO NEW FACTS CAME TO THE NOTICE OF AO. HENCE, INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING I S NOT VALID IN LAW. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS INITIATED REASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS OF SERVICE CHARGES OF RS. 5,52, 151/- FROM RENTAL INCOME. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS R.J WOOD PVT. LTD. 334 ITR 358 AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS HEL D THAT MAINTENANCE AND OTHER CHARGES WHICH WERE PAID BY ASSESSEE ARE DEDUC TIBLE FROM RENTAL INCOME AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WHI CH WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. HENCE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING I S NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E SUPPORTED ACTION OF AO TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUB MITTED THAT ASSESSEE DERIVED RENTAL INCOME FROM THE PROPERTIES LET OUT T O VARIOUS PERSONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT SO CALLED MAINTENANCE CHARGES ARE NO T ALLOWABLE FROM THE ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 4 RENTAL INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NO ASSESSMENT MADE BY AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER EXPLANATION 2 OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE BUT NO ASSESSMENT HAS BE EN MADE AND THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS EXCESSIVE OR THE INCOME STATED IS UNDER STATED, IT WILL BE DEEMED THAT INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND AO AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS COULD INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT R.W.S 148 OF THE AC T. HE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE STAGE OF INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, O NLY REQUIREMENT IS THE BELIEF OF AO THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS RECORDED THE REASONS AND THER EAFTER NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED. THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING HAS BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE CASE OF R.J. WOOD PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) CITED BY LD. AR. WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE SAID CASE, THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND TENANTS AND THE TENANTS CLAIME D THAT RENT PAYABLE BY THEM TO ASSESSEE INCLUDED MAINTENANCE CHARGES BUT A SSESSEE WANTED THE TENANTS TO PAY THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES EXCLUSIVE OF CONTRACTUAL RENT. THE TENANT FILED SUIT IN THE SMALL CAUSES COURT FOR FIX ATION OF STANDARD RENT AND THE COURT FIXED THE INTERIM RENT. SINCE THE RENT WAS FI XED ON A LUMP SUM BASIS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES, WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED CLAIM O N THE GROUND THAT AS PER LEASE AGREEMENT, MAINTENANCE CHARGES WERE TO BE BOR NE BY TENANTS. HOWEVER LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM WHICH WAS AFFI RMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER, THE SUIT WAS FINALLY DECIDED AND THE CO NTRACTUAL RENT AS AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TENANTS WAS FIXED AS THE STANDARD RENT BY THE COURT. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SUIT SINCE AS SESSEE RECEIVED THE RENT AT A LESSER RATE THAN THE CONTRACTUAL RATE, THE ASSESS EE RECEIVED THE ARREARS OF RENT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 WHEN SUIT WAS DECIDED IN NOVEMBER, ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 5 1999. THE ASSESSEE HAS SPREAD ARREARS OF RENT FOR V ARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 AND HAD S HOWN THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE UNDER SECTION 23 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF RENT FIXED BY SMALL CAUSES COURT WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY IT UNDE R THE INTERIM ORDERS OF THE COURT I.E. RS. 30,000/- PER MONTH. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR MAINTENANCE AND OTHER CHARGES PAID BY IT WERE HELD TO BE DEDUCTABLE FROM THE RENT WHILE COMPUTING THE ANN UAL LETTING VALUE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAID CASE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. ON TH E OTHER HAND, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ONLY CRITERIA OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT FULL DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL IS ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSE D U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND IF AO IS OF THE VIEW THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HIS ACTION U/S. 143(1) IS VALID AS THE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT INCLUDES BOTH NON ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS UNDER ASSES SMENT. THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF MATERIAL IS NOT A THING TO BE CON SIDERED AT THE STAGE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS HELD BY HONBLE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD. VS ITO 236 ITR 34 (SC). FURTHER REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT CAN ALSO BE INITIATED WHEN THERE IS AN A PPARENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF RECORD OR AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS WHICH LEADS T O UNDER ASSESSMENT OR EXCESSIVE CLAIM OF LOSS. THE HONBLE APEX COURT HA S ALSO HELD IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKER PVT. LTD. 291 I TR 500 THAT SO LONG AS CONDITIONS OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT ARE FULFILLED, AO IS FREE TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF ACT AND FAILURE TO TAKE STE PS FOR REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) WILL NOT RENDER THE AO POWERLESS TO INI TIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN SUMMARY ASSESSMENT WITH INTIM ATION U/S. 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN ISSUED. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THA T UNDER SUBSTITUTED SECTION 147 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 1999, EXISTENCE OF ON LY THE CONDITION THAT IF AO FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT I NCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, CONFERS JURISDICTION IN REOPENING THE A SSESSMENT. ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 6 11. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ACTION OF AO TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. HENCE, WE UPHOLD HIS ACTION TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS BY REJECTING GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE. 12. IN GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS DI SPUTED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF AO TO TAX RENTAL INC OME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 13. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE WHILE FILI NG THE RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSED THE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, AO STATED TO ASSESS THE SAID INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINES S AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. THE AO, AFTER CONSI DERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY A ND IS ONLY RECEIVING THE RENTAL INCOME FROM TENANTS OF 4 BUILDINGS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER, HELD THAT TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE IS TO BE COMPUTE D UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 14. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ASSESS EE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE LIKE ELECT RICITY, TELEPHONE POSTAGE, CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, AUDIT FEES, FILING FEES AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,12,096/-. L D. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AGAINST THE I NCOME OF HOUSE PROPERTY AND PROVISIONS OF LIFT, CLEANING OF BUILDING AND EM PLOYMENT OF WATCHMAN CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO BE RELATED WITH ANY SORT OF B USINESS OF LETTING OUT PROPERTY. LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT IN FACT, IT IS A WILLFUL WRONG CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. HENCE, LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTI ON OF AO TO ASSESS THE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY. 15. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL, LD. AR CONCEDED THAT RENTAL INCOME DERIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM LETTING OUT OF 4 BU ILDINGS, DETAILS MENTIONED ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 7 HEREIN ABOVE AT PARA-4 IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND REFERRED THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENT VS CIT 263 ITR 143. IN VIEW OF AB OVE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR, GROUNDS NOS. 3 TO 5 OF APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 16. IN GROUNDS NOS. 6 TO 8 OF APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS DI SPUTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS CESS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,72,834/-. 17. THE AO HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON OF REPAIRS CESS U/S. 24(1)(VII) ON THE GROUND THAT SAID EXPENSES WA S INCURRED BEING REPAIR- CESS LEVIED BY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI. HOWEV ER, AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE F ILED APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 18. ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT TH E CESS WAS PAID AS TAX LEVIED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND AS SUCH IT IS ALL OWABLE AS PER PROVISO TO SEC. 23(1). IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE REPRESENTATIV ES OF ASSESSEE BY MISTAKE GAVE A WRONG CLAUSE OR SECTION FOR CLAIMING THE SAI D CESS AND THAT SHOULD NOT MEAN DISENTITLE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION. THE A SSESSEE ALSO FILED COPIES OF BILLS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A ) VIDE PARA-9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WHICH READS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION FINDING OF AO AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE PAPER BOOK AND EVIDENCES. AP PELLANT HAS SHOWN DEDUCTION IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,67,389/- IN P AGE NO. 2 OF PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHEREAS IN SCHEDULE 8 OF P&L A/C FILED BY APPELLANT ON PAGE NO. 12 OF PAPER BOOK REVEALS THE PROPERTY R EPAIR CESS OF RS. 4,72,834/-, WHICH REFLECTS THE DISCREPANCY. TH E PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED IN APPEAL REVEALS THE COMPUTATION SHOWING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 4,59,459/- AND LOSS OF P ROFIT & GAINS OF RS. 1,37,627/-. THEREAFTER, LOSS FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY INCOME CARRIED FORWARD HAS BEEN REDUCED TO THE EXTENT OF G ROSS TOTAL INCOME I.E. RS. 3,21,832/-, THUS TAXABLE INCOME IS SHOWN AT RS. NIL. AO HAS NOT ALLOWED THIS PROPERTY REPAIR CESS A GAINST THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 24(1)(VII) BUT IN APPEA L IT IS CLAIMED ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 8 THAT THIS IS ALLOWABLE U/S. 23(1) OF I.T. ACT. THIS CLAUSE (VII) OF SECTION 24(1) PROVIDES DEDUCTION OF ANY SUMS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF LAND REVENUE OR ANY OTHER TAX LEVIED BY THE STAT E GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY. HENCE, THE PROVISION OF LAW UNDER REFERENCE WAS WITH REFERENCE TO LAND REVENUE AND AN Y OTHER TAX WHICH DID NOT COVER ANY SUCH REPAIR CESS HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS APPARENTLY N OT ALLOWABLE. NOW, IN APPEAL PROVISION OF LAW U/S. 23 HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS CHANGED AND ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS WH ICH IS ALSO OF NO AVAIL BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT EARLIER PROV ISION OF LAWS U/S. 23 WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2001 W. E.F. 1.4.2002 WHICH MEANS THE ANNULA VALUE WAS TO BE DETERMINED U /S. 23 IN F.Y. 2002-03 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2003-04, WHEREAS THIS DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN F.Y./P.Y. 2001-02 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2002-03 IN WHICH NO SUCH LAW WAS IN ENACTMENT. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR ARE NOT TENABLE. FURTHERMORE, ALL THIS R EPAIRS-CESS BILLS CONTAINS NAME OF OTHER PARTIES AND NOT OF THE APPE LLANT, HENCE CONSIDERING THE FULL FACTS AND PROVISION OF LAW UND ER ISSUE DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIR-CESS MADE BY AO IS CONFIRMED . HENCE, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUN AL. 19. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COPIES OF BILLS OF PAYMENT OF REPAIR CESS PAID TO MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER MUMBAI ARE PLACED AT PAGES 45 TO 53 OF PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT SAID PAYMENT WAS PAID TO BOARD WHO WAS ASSIGNED THE ACTIVITY TO COLLECT R EPAIRS UNDER MUMBAI HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ACT, 1976. HE SUB MITTED THAT IT IS A STATUTORY DUTY AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DE DUCTION AS PER PROVISO TO SEC. 23(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 20. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTIES. WE H AVE ALSO PERUSED PAGES 45 TO 53 OF PAPER BOOK TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAW N AT THE TIME OF HEARING THAT ASSESSEE PAID REPAIR CESS TO MUNICIPAL CORPORA TION WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AS PER PROVISO TO SEC. 23 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. AR COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE FACT AS RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R THAT ALL THE REPAIR CESS BILLS CONTAINS NAME OF OTHER PARTIES AND NOT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FULL FACTS AS OBSERVED BY LD. CIT(A ), WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION ON REPAIR CESS ALLEG EDLY PAID BY ASSESSEE AS THE ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 9 SAID BILLS WERE NOT RAISED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE BUT ARE IN THE NAME OF OTHER PARTIES. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 6 TO 8 ARE REJECTED. 21. GROUND NOS. 9 TO 11 OF APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS DI SPUTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES A GGREGATING RS. 5,52,152/- CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE FOR RENDERING SERVICES TO THE T ENANTS. 22. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED RS. 5,52,152/- UNDER THE F OLLOWING HEADS AS EXPENSES AND CLAIMED ITS DEDUCTION FROM RENTAL INCO ME: 1. SERVICE CHARGES RS. 2,40,260/- 2. ELECTRICITY CHARGES RS. 95,846/- 3. STAFF WELFARE RS. 60,587/- 4. GENERAL EXPENSES RS. 37,703/- 5. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE RS. 1,17,755/- ------------------ TOTAL RS. 5,52,151/- ========== 23. THE AO STATED THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES ARE NOT A LLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S. 23, 24 OR ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT WHE N THE RENTAL INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT RENT RECEIVE D BY ASSESSEE IS THE COMPOSITE RENT FROM TENANTS AND IT INCLUDES ANCILLA RY SERVICES. THE SERVICES GIVEN BY ASSESSEE TO TENANTS FOR SECURITY, LIFTMAN, LIFT MAINTENANCE, ELECTRICITY FOR OPERATING LIFT AND FOR COMMON PASSAGE AND STAIR CASE, SWEEPER FOR CLEANING BUILDING, COMMON PASSAGE, TOILETS ETC AND THEREFORE THE SERVICE CHARGES SHOULD BE DEDUCTED OUT OF COMPOSITE RENT RE CEIVED FROM TENANT. THE AO HAS STATED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF RENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ITS TENANTS, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS NOT CHARGED ANY EXTRA AMOUNTS FROM TENANTS FOR ANY OF SERVICES RENDERED BY IT. HE HAS STATED THAT ONLY EXPENSES WHICH ARE ALLOWED TO BE D EDUCTED FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME ARE GOVERNED BY SEC. 23 AND 24 OF I. T. ACT. HE HAS FURTHER ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 10 STATED THAT THE BUILDINGS SITUATED ARE GOVERNED BY RENT CONTROL ACT AND ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT CHARGE RENT IN EXCESS OF ST ANDARD RENT AS GOVERNED BY RENT CONTROL ACT. THEREFORE, AO ADDED BACK THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 5,52,152/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. BE ING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 24. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO VIDE PARA-15 OF IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE CAREFULLY AND PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN THIS CASE IT IS FOUND BEYON D DOUBT THAT APPELLANT HAS OWNED FOUR BUILDINGS AND HAS GIVEN TO 546 TENANTS, WHICH INCOME IS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS THERE IS NO SERIES OF ACTIVITIES LIKE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. AS APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT APPELLANT COMPANY HAS ACQUIRED LAND AN D BUILT HOUSE AND LET IT OUT TO THE TENANTS, HENCE APPELLAN T DERIVES INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY VIDE COMMERCIAL PROPERTI ES LTD. AIR 1928 (CAL) 456, BALLIGANGA BANK LTD. VS CIT (1946) 14 ITR 409 (CAL) AND INDIAN CITI PROPERTY LTD. VS CIT (1965) 5 5 ITR 262 (CAL.). SIMILARLY, IN SUCH SET OF FACTS CASE OF EA ST INDIA HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENT TRUST LTD. VS CIT (1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) IS ALSO RELEVANT. APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED AS TO H OW RENTAL INCOME IS A COMPOSITE RENT COMPRISING OF CHARGES FO R VARIOUS SERVICES, WHICH IS NOT INCIDENTAL TO LETTING OUT TH E HOUSE PROPERTY. IN FACT, NO SUCH INDEPENDENT AND ADDITION AL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED WHICH HAS GOT ADDITIONAL ELEMENT OF CH ARGES OR INCOME, ON THE CONTRARY IT IS A VERY OBVIOUS FACT T HAT APPELLANT RECEIVES RENTS FROM THE TENANTS WHICH DOES NOT REVE AL ANY EVIDENCE OF ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF SERVICES SO CLAIM ED. WITH A VIEW TO MAKE THIS POINT CLEAR IT SEEMS NECESSARY TO POINT OUT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,52,151/- COMPRISES OF SERVICE CH ARGES OF RS. 240260/-, ELECTRICITY CHARGES OF RS. 95846/-, STAFF WELFARE OF RS. 60587/-, GENERAL EXPENSES OF RS. 37,703/- AND REPAI RS & MAINTENANCE OF RS. 1,17,755/-. THIS CLEARLY REVEAL S THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE RELATED WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF BUILDI NG FOR WHICH RENTAL INCOME IS RECEIVED. THE PROVISION OF LAW OF SEC. 29(6) OF MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999 REFERRED TO BY L D. AR GOES AGAINST THE APPELLANTS CLAIM AS ACCORDING TO THIS LAW APPELLANT EITHER HIMSELF OR THROUGH ANY PERSON ACTING ON HIS BEHALF SHALL NOT WITHOUT JUST AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE CUT-OFF OR WI THHOLD ANY ESSENTIAL SUPPLY OR SERVICES ENJOYED BY THE TENANTS IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES LET TO THEM. IN FACT, THIS LAW PROHIB ITS APPELLANT FROM DISRUPTING ANY SUCH SERVICE OR ESSENTIAL SUPPL IES RELATED TO THE FUNCTIONAL PART OF THE BUILDING. THEREFORE, RE LIANCE PLACED BY ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 11 LD. AR ON THIS LAW IS UNTENABLE. SIMILARLY, THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE C ASE BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT APPELLANT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY OTHE R ADDITIONAL SERVICES WHICH REQUIRES ADDITIONAL CHARGES OF THE R ENT AND MOREOVER, APPELLANT IS NOT ENGAGED IN DOING SUCH LE TTING OUT BUSINESS WHICH IS RELATED WITH COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, SUPER MARKETS OR BUSINESS CENTERS WHERE AN ELEMENT OF SER VICE IS PREDOMINANT AND RENTAL INCOME IS OF COMPOSITE NATUR E. APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT SHOWN SPLITTING UP OF RENTAL INCOME WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO COMPOSITE RENT BUT AN EXCLUSIVE R ENTAL INCOME FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY IS THERE, THEREFORE THERE I S NO PROPERTY TO CLAIM SUCH EXPENDITURE IN ADDITION TO THE STANDA RD DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED AND ALLOWED BY THE AO. HENCE, ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUN AL. 25. LD. AR, AT THE TIME OF HEARING MADE HIS SUBMISS IONS ON THE LINES OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER SEC. 29 OF MAHARASHTRA RENT CONTROL ACT, 1999, ASSE SSEE HAS TO PROVIDE FACILITIES LIKE LIFT FACILITY, WATCHMAN AND TO PROV IDE ELECTRICITY IN THE COMMON PASSAGE AND THEREFORE THESE EXPENSES ARE TO BE ALLO WED AS DEDUCTION FOR SERVICES RENDERED. HOWEVER, LD. AR ALSO REFERRED TH E CASE OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAIF ALI KHAN VS ACIT 201 1-TIOL-525-ITAT-MUM FOR CLAIMING EXPENSES OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED AND DECI SION IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSAL TEXTILE WATER PROOF CO.(INDIA) VS ACIT 20 SOT 275. HOWEVER, LD. DR IN HIS SUBMISSION SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). HE SUBMITTED THAT NO INDEPENDENT AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES HAVE BEEN PROVI DED BY ASSESSEE AND WHATEVER THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ARE THE NECESSAR Y SERVICES PROVIDED AND FOR WHICH 30% DEDUCTION HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN AS P ER SEC. 24 OF I.T. ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BE NCH ITAT IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSAL TEXTILE WATER PROOF CO.(INDIA) VS ACIT (S UPRA) RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE AS IN THAT CASE THERE WE RE BUSINESS SERVICE CENTRE IN PREMISES AND ASSESSEE PROVIDED INFRASTRUCTURE F ACILITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SAID CASE, RENTAL INCOME WAS SEGREGATED INTO RENT AND SERVICE CHARGES AS ASSESSEE PROVIDED INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AS BUSINESS WAS CONDUCTED BY THE TENANTS IN THE PREMISES LET OUT BY ASSESSEE UNLIKE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HEREIN. ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 12 26. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH CASES CITED BY LD. AR (SUPRA). WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED FACILITIES OF ELECTRICITY, LIFT, SECURITY ETC. WHICH IS ESSENTIAL IN A MULTISTORY BUILDING WHEN THE PREMISES ARE LET OUT T O VARIOUS TENANTS. IT IS NOT THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY ASSESSEE WHICH IS AN ADDITI ONAL SERVICE TO TENANTS. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. GUPTA (H.G.) & SONS 149 ITR 253 THAT W HEN RENTAL INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, DEDUCTION TO BE ALLOWED ARE SPECIFIED IN SEC. 24 OF THE ACT AND THE Y ARE EXHAUSTIVE. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER EXPENSES COULD BE CLAIMED AS TAKEN SAVE AND EXCEPT THE EXPENSES SPECIFIED IN SECTION 23 OR 24 OF I.T. ACT. IN RESPECT OF CASE RELIED UPON BY LD. AR OF UNIVERSAL TEXTILE WATER P ROOF CO.(INDIA) VS ACIT (SUPRA), WE AGREE WITH LD. DR THAT THE FACTS OF THA T CASE TO SEGREGATE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE INTO SERVICE CHARGES AN D RENT ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THAT CASE, ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAD AN OFFICE PREMISE WHICH WAS GIVEN ON RENT TO ITS SISTER CONCE RNS. IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE PROVIDED INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES LIKE EL ECTRONIC INSTRUMENT AND GADGETS, AIR CONDITIONERS, EPBX SYSTEM, TELEPHONE I NSTRUMENTS, TELEFAX ETC. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE LEASE AGREEME NT THAT PREMISES HAD BEEN PROVIDED ALONGWITH ALL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITI ES TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO SUCH AG REEMENT SPECIFYING THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED ANY OTHER FACILITIES TO THE T ENANTS AND THE COMPOSITE RENT, AS ALLEGED BY ASSESSEE, WAS RECEIVED BY IT. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED IN THE ABOVE CASE THAT ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT ITS ACTIVITY I N AN ORGANIZED MANNER UNLIKE IN THE CASE BEFORE US. HENCE, SAID CASE OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH OF UNIVERSAL TEXTILE WATER PROOF CO.(INDIA) VS ACIT (SU PRA) DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US. 27. FURTHER, THE CASE OF SHRI SAIF ALI KHAN VS ACI T 2011-TIOL-525-ITAT- MUM(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY LD. AR IS ALSO NOT APPLI CABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 13 CASE, AS IN THAT CASE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE HOUSE W AS USED ALSO FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND ASSESSEE HIMSELF DISALLOWED 25% OF EL ECTRICITY EXPENSES AS AGAINST 50% ALLOWED BY AO. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, T HERE IS NO SUCH CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT PREMISES UNDER CONSIDER ATION ARE USED BY ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSES. ON THE OTHER H AND THERE IS A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT CARRYING OUT A NY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND IT DERIVES ONLY RENTAL INCOME FROM TENANTS. IN VIEW O F ABOVE FACTS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND NOS. 9 TO 11 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 28. IN GROUND NOS. 12 AND 13, ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO NOT TO ALLOW SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AGAINST CURRENT YEARS INCOME. 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF ASSESS EE AND HAVE CONSIDERED ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE OBSERVE THAT AO HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY BUSINESS ACT IVITY. HENCE, LOSS COMPUTED BY ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS OR PRO FESSION IS NOT ACCEPTED. 30. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ONLY AND DOES NOT HAVE A NY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. WE CONSIDER IT PRUDENT TO REFER PARA-18 OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION CAREFULLY, AND FOUND THAT AO HAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO POINT FOR SETTING-OFF OF BUS INESS LOSSES OF A.Y. 1991-92 OF RS. 27,136/-, 1995-96 RS. 1,02,419/ -, 2000-01 RS. 58,283/-, A.Y. 2001-02 RS. 99,257/- AND LOSS FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME RS. 54,957/-. IT APPEARS THAT LOSS FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF A.Y. 2001-02 IS NOT THE ACTUAL LOSS BUT IT IS BECAUSE OF CLAIM OF VARIOUS CHARGES OF SERVICES CLAIMED AS RENDERED WHICH IN FACT IS NOT THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES HAVING CONSEQ UENTIAL ADDITIONAL RENTAL INCOME, BUT, AS HELD ABOVE IS AN INCIDENTAL SERVICES RELATED WITH MAINTENANCE OF HOUSE PROPERTY FOR WHICH STANDARD DEDUCTION IS DULY PROVIDED UNDER THE I.T. A CT. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR ARE NOT CONVI NCING ONE. WHEN INCOME UNDER REFERENCE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AND I S APPROVED IN APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FULL FACT S AND ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 14 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT AO IS RI GHT NOT TO SETTING-OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD NON ALLOWABLE LOSS I N THIS YEAR. 31. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER FACTS BEFORE US, W E FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HENCE WE U PHOLD HIS ORDER NOT TO ALLOW SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AGAINST RENTA L INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE GROUND NOS. 12 AND 13 ALSO REJECTED. 32. IN GROUND NOS. 14 & 15 ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A OF I.T. ACT. 33. WE OBSERVE THAT NO INTEREST U/S. 234A HAS BEEN LEVIED BY AO. FURTHER, CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL. HENCE, GROU ND NOS. 14 & 15 DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 34. IN GROUND NOS. 16 & 17, ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED LE VY OF INTEREST U/S. 234B. SINCE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234B IS CONSEQUE NTIAL, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 35. GROUND NO. 18 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 36. ITA NO. 5291/M/09 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2002-03 BEING ITA NO. 5290/M/09 EXCEPT AMOUNT OF REPAIRS CESS AND SERVIC E CHARGES ARE OF RS. 5,47,475/- AND RS. 4,09,677/- RESPECTIVELY. 37. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF B OTH PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER DECISION IS TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2002-03 WILL APPLY TO APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. SINCE WE HAVE REJECTED ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND FOLLOWIN G THE REASON MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 ARE REJECTED. ITA NOS. 5290 TO 5292/M/09 15 38. IN RESPECT OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 BEING ITA NO. 5292/M/09, WE OBSERVE THAT THIS APPEAL IS ARISING O UT OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, REST OF THE GROUNDS ARE ID ENTICAL SAVE AND EXCEPT THAT AMOUNT OF REPAIRS CESS IS OF RS. 7,56,252/- A ND SERVICE CHARGES IS OF RS. 4,06,952/-. FOLLOWING THE REASONS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05 ARE ALSO REJECTED. 39. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY A SSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH MARCH, 2012 SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2012 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR D BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI