NARSINGSAHAY MUDUNGOPAL, MUMBAI V. DCIT 14(2)), MUMBAI

ITA 5371/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8570 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY R PARIKH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B MUMBAI . , BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT /AND !'# , !$ %& SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.TA. NO. 5371/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. SHREE NURSINGSAHAY MUDUNGOPAL, 45/47, SARDAR GRIHA BLDG, LOHAR CHAWL, MUMBAI 400 002. PAN: AAMFS 3162 K VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI-400 020. ( '( / APPELLANT) ( )*'( / RESPONDENT) '( + ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY R. PARIKH )*'( , + ! /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN , -$ / DATE OF HEARING : 17-09-2012 ./ , -$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-10-2012 %!0 / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER DT. 09-04-2010 OF THE CIT(A)-25, MUMBAI ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: A) PENALTY U/S. 271(1)( C ) 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS-25) MUMBAI [CIT(A)]ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED B Y THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 14(2), MUMBAI (AO) ON THE APPELLANT U/S. 271 (1)( C ) WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES: A) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,300/- OUT OF REPAIRS AND EXPE NSES B) ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.22,2 9,351/- AS AGAINST RS. 15,29,687/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT. I.TA. NO. 5371/MUM/2010 M/S. SHREE NURSINGSAHAY MUDUNGOPAL 2 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)( C ) WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES AND AS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. A) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,300/- OUT OF REPAIRS AND EXPE NSES B) ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.22,2 9,351/- AS AGAINST RS. 15,29,687/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT. B. GENERAL 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE T O ONE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE-FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WAREHOUSI NG AND LETTING OUT PROPERTIES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,30,73,950/-. ASSESSMENT WAS FINALISED ON 23.12.2008 U/S.143(3) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DETERMINING TOTAL INC OME AT RS. 1,37,76,910/- 2.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT AS SESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 64.49 LAKHS BY WAY OF RENT. IN THE STATEMENT OF TOT AL INCOME, ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD OFFERED THE RENT RECEIVED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND AFTER DEDUCTING ALLOWABLE EXPENSES OFFERED TO TAX AT RS. 15.29 LAKH S. FROM THE DETAILS GATHERED FROM THE ASSESSEE, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT TH E PROPERTIES SITUATED AT KURLA AND ANDHERI S N M ELECTRICALS LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS AS KED TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF RENT/ TENANCY AGREEMENTS. COPIES OF AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF KURLA PROPERTY AND GALA NOS. 401 TO 406 AT ANDHERI WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E, BUT DETAILS IN RESPECT OF GALA NOS.407 AND 408 AT ANDHERI WERE NOT SUBMITTED. AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING RENT AT RS. 65 PER SQ.FT., OF THE CHARGEA BLE AREA AND THE AVERAGE RENT PER MONTH PER GALA WAS RS. 67.936. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF GALA NOS.407 & 408, HE ADOPTED THE SAME FIGURE TO ARRIVE AT THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET OUT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, INCOME, IN RESPECT OF GALA NOS. 407 & 408 WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 16.30 LAKHS (67,936 X 2 X 12). 3. WHILE EXAMINING THE ASSESSESS RENT AGREEMENT WITH S N M ELECTRICALS FOR LETTING OUT GALA NOS. 401-406 HE FOUND THAT AS PER AGREEMEN T DT. 15-07-2005, ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING RS.1,000/- P.M. FOR EACH OF THE SIX PARKI NG SPACES PROVIDED BY IT. HE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS. 72,000/-(1000 X 6 X 12) RECEIVED AS RENT FROM THE CAR-PARKING SPACES. HE A DDED RS.72,000/-TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IN P& L A/C RELATING TO THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE DISALLOWED RS. 50.68 LAKHS BECA USE IN HIS OPINION, THE SAID EXPENSES DID NOT RELATE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSE SSEE. 4.1. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AO VIDE HIS ORDER DT.29.06.2009 IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS .17,99,240/-FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME WITHIN THE MEA NING OF EXPLANATION 1TO THE SECTION 271(1)(C )OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON T HE BASIS OF ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT I.E., DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPEN DITURE THAT RELATED TO THE PROPERTIES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, RENT R ECEIVED FROM GALA NOS. 407 AND I.TA. NO. 5371/MUM/2010 M/S. SHREE NURSINGSAHAY MUDUNGOPAL 3 408 AND RENT RECEIVED FOR CAR PARKING. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA). AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE PENALTY ORDER P ASSED BY THE AO, HE HELD THAT PENALTY LEVIED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50.68 LAKHS FOR THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS NOT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD DISALLOWED RS. 50.68 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENS ES RELATING TO PROPERTY INCOME, INTEREST ON BANK TERM LOAN, DEPRECIATION AND GENERA L REPAIRS ETC., AND HAD ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME, THA T AGAINST RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 1.30 CRORES INCOME DETERMINED BY THE AO WAS RS. 1.3 7 CRORES, THAT DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS RS. 7.02 LAKHS, THAT, THEREFORE, THE PEN ALTY IF ANY WAS REQUIRED TO BE LEVIED IT COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED FOR RS.7.02 LAKHS ONLY, T HAT ADDITION MADE BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, PENALTY LEVIED O N RS. 50.68 LAKHS WAS DELETED. 5.1. AS FAR AS THE OTHER TWO ADDITIONS WERE CONCERNED, H E DISCUSSED THE ISSUES IN DETAIL AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1) C) OF THE ACT. HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE TRIED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION ABOUT NON-DI SCLOSURE OF RENTAL INCOME FROM CAR PARKING SPACES@ 1,000/- P.M., THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE THAT SAID AMOUNT WAS UN-REALISED RENT EITHER, THAT FINDING OF THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF RENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 72,000/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY NOT FILING ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA, THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED I NTO AN EXECUTED ON 15.07.2005, AS PER CLAUSE11,IT WAS STATED THAT THE LICENSOR SHALL PROVIDE TO THE LICENSEE SIX CAR PARKING SPACE FOR THE LICENSEES EXCLUSIVE USE AND SHALL PAY A SUM OF RS. 1,000/- P.M. FOR EACH CAR PARKING SPACE, THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED THE LIABILITY OF THE LICENSEE TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR SIX C AR PARKING SPACES, THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE APPELLANT HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM C AR PARKING CHARGES ONLY FOR TWO CAR PARKING SPACES INSTEAD OF SIX, THAT THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED FOR NOT DECLARING THE CAR PARKING CHARGES WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT ERRONEOUS A ND FALSE IN VIEW OF THE MATERIAL DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE A PPELLANT FIRM AND THE LICENSEE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT LICENSEE HAD NEVER DENIED HAVI NG NOT PAID THE CAR PARKING CHARGES FOR REMAINING CAR PARKING SPACES. FINALLY, HE HELD THAT PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO FROM THIS ACCOUNT WAS JUSTIFIED. 5.2. WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITION MADE ABOUT RENT RECEIVED FROM GALA NOS. 407 & 408, HE HELD THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY MATERIA L FOR THE CLAIM THAT IT HAD RECEIVED ONLY RS. 55/- PER SQ.FT., AS RENT FOR GALA NOS. 407 & 408 WHERE AS FOR GALS NOS. 401 TO 406 RENT RECEIVED WAS AT RS. 65 PER SQ. FT., THAT T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO UN-FURNISHING OF GALA NOS. 407 AND 408 WAS NOT SUBS TANTIATED WITH ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THAT THE FINDING OF THE AO HAD BEEN ADMIT TED BY THE APPELLANT BY NOT CONTESTING THE SAME. HE UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED F OR RENT RECEIVED FOR CAR-PARKING. 5.3. REGARDING THE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF MAINTENANCE CHARG E, SECURITY EXPENSES, ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AGAINST THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, HE HELD THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE COVERED WITHIN THE ST ATUTORY DEDUCTION AT 30% OF THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE APPELLANT FIRM HAD MADE A F ALSE CLAIM, THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD CLAIMED THAT SAID CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WAS SUPP ORTED BY SOME CASE LAWS, THAT IN THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, NONE OF THE EXPENSES WERE FOUND TO I.TA. NO. 5371/MUM/2010 M/S. SHREE NURSINGSAHAY MUDUNGOPAL 4 HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE ADMISSIBLE OVER AND ABOVE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION U/S. 24 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PR ODUCTS PVT. LTD., WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE.FAA UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO RELYING UPON THE CASES OF MADANLAL KISHORILAL (277ITR 209) AND COROM ANDAL INDAG PRODUCTS P.LTD. (265 ITR 611). 6. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT NECESSARY DETAILS OF THE INCOME WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO, THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT OUT OF THE SIX CAR-PARKI NG PLACES RENT WAS RECEIVED FOR TWO PARKING PLACES ONLY, THAT GALA NO.407-08 WERE UNFUR NISHED, THAT RENT RECEIVED FOR THOSE GALAS WAS NOT RECEIVED AT THE SAME RATES OF OTHER G ALAS. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT ASEESSEE-FIRM HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE RENT RECEIVED FOR FOUR PARKING PLACES, THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE THAT RENT WAS NOT RECEIVED @ OF RS.65/- PER SQ.FT. FOR THE GALA 407-08,THAT QUANTUM ADDITIONS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PUT BEFORE US. 6.1. IT IS CLEAR FROM A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THAT IF THE FAA OR THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDING I S SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. HOWEVER, UNDER EXPL ANATION 1 SUCH PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED, ONLY IF THE PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLA NATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE FAA/AO TO BE FALSE OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE SUCH EXPLAN ATION IS BONA FIDE AND ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ONUS PLACED ON THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS REMAINED UN-DISCHARGED. IT WAS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT RENT FOR GALA 407-408 WAS RECEIVED RS.55/-AND NOT @ 65/- PER SQ.FT. SIMILARLY IT COULD HAVE PROVED THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE RENT FOR 4 CAR- PARKING SPACES. HOWEVER, NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA TO SHOW THAT CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO WERE WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCES OR PERVERSE. TH E PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE THUS NOT COMPLETE, AND WERE, THEREFOR E, INACCURATE. SIMILARLY, CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES , AGAINST THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, WAS A FALSE CLAIM BECAUSE SAID EXPENSES W ERE COVERED WITHIN THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION PROVIDED IN THE ACT. 6.1.1. AN INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL OF THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE COURSE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE-F IRM HAD FURNISHED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THAT WERE NOT ACCURATE. IT WAS NOT A CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS RELATING TO BOTH THE CLAIMS-RECEIVI NG LESS RENT FOR GALA 407-8 /NOT RECEIVING CAR-PARKING SPACE RENT FOR 4 CARS- AND TO OK A LEGAL CONTENTION /POSITION WITH WHICH THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES HAD NOT AGREED. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD FURNISHED SOME EXPLANATION WHICH WAS NOT BONA FIDE BECAUSE CLAIM MADE BY IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RE CORD AND EXPLANATION WAS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED ANY AFFIDAVIT OF THE TENANTS TO WHOM GALA S/CAR-SPACES WERE RENTED OUT. IN OUR OPINION DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL DEFAULT. AO AS WELL AS THE FAA HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE I.TA. NO. 5371/MUM/2010 M/S. SHREE NURSINGSAHAY MUDUNGOPAL 5 PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AS PER THE ESTABLISHED PRIN CIPLE OF CONCEALMENT-PENALTY- JURISPRUDENCE IF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE IS NEITHER SUBSTANTIATED NOR SHOWN TO BE BONA FIDE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271 (1)(C) COMES INTO PLAY AND THE ASSESSEE BECOMES LIABLE FOR THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY. 6.1.2. AS STATED EARLIER, IT WAS NOT A CASE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OR ADDITIONS ON LEGAL OR TECHNICAL GROUNDS. IT AMOUNTED TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON IT BY TH E EXPLANATION 1TO THE SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS COVERED UNDER THE CLAUSE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHICH IN TURN TACITLY PROVE CONCEALMENT OF THE TRUE INCOME ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6.1.3. LASTLY, EXISTENCE OF DISHONEST INTENTION AND DELIBE RATE FAILURE TO GIVE CORRECT PARTICULARS IS NOT NECESSARY FOR INVOKING SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE EXPLANATIONS APPENDED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT INDICATE THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GI VING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING THE RETURN. WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ES SENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING PENAL PROVISIONS AS ENVISAGED BY THE ACT. ANY CONCEALMEN T COMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 271(C) AUTOMATICALLY RENDERS THE ASSESSEE L IABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER THE SAID SECTION OF THE ACT U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ALTH OUGH WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME, YET PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED FOR THE DISALLOWANCE (AMOUNTING TO RS.3,300/-) MAD E BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS AND EXPENSES. AS PER THE DETAILS AVAILAB LE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS NOT RELATED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. AO IS DIRECTED TO RECALC ULATE THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY ACCORDINGLY. AS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME, THEREFORE, PENALTY LEVIE D BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE FAA IS UPHELD. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 3 ARE DECI DED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OCTOBER, 2012 SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN) ( !'# / RAJENDRA) / VICE PRESIDENT !$ %& /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, 1% DATE: 10 TH OCTOBER, 2012 TNMM I.TA. NO. 5371/MUM/2010 M/S. SHREE NURSINGSAHAY MUDUNGOPAL 6 %!0 %!0 %!0 %!0 , ,, , )-2 )-2 )-2 )-2 3!2/- 3!2/- 3!2/- 3!2/- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE *2- )- //TRUE COPY// %!0 %!0 %!0 %!0 / BY ORDER, / DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI