J.M. BAXMI & CO., MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

ITA 5606/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62638 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY DUTT
• Assessee Lawyers: Y P TRIVEDI
• Keywords: Gift; Business expenditure; Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BE NCH, MUMBAI , , ' #$ % % % % %. . '(), * #$ #+ BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM #./ I.T.A. NO. 5606/MUM/2011 ( ' - .- ' - .- ' - .- ' - .- / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) J.M. BAXI & CO., 16, BANK STREET, FORT, MUMBAI. / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -39, ROOM NO. 32(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. $/ * #./ PAN : AAAFJ 5198E ( /0 / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( 12/0 / RESPONDENT ) #./ I.T.A. NO. 5316/MUM/2011 ( ' - .- ' - .- ' - .- ' - .- / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -39, ROOM NO. 32(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. J.M. BAXI & CO., 16, BANK STREET, FORT, MUMBAI. $/ * #./ PAN : AAAFJ 5198E ( /0 / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( 12/0 / RESPONDENT ) /0 3 4 # / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI 12/0 3 4 # / REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY DUTT # 3 5* / // / DATE OF HEARING : 28-06-2012 67. 3 5* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-07-2012 ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 2 / O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL : THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 13-05-2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) 41, MUMBAI FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF B Y THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHIPPING AGENTS AND STEVEDORES. TH E RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 36,06,10,969/-. HOWE VER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 38,42,19,370/- INCLUD ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES RS. 2,18,67,277/- AND OTHER EXPENSES RS. 1 7,41,127/-, VIDE ORDER DTD. 14-5-2010 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE BOTH ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 5606/MUM/2011 (ASSESSEES APPEAL). 4. ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINS T THE ONLY RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF RS. 3 LACS OUT OF TOTA L DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES RS.17,41,127/-. ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 3 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED GIFT EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,04,553/-, CHANDLA EXPENSE RS. 3,41,127/-, DIWALI EXPENSE RS. 21,95,51 5/- AND BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSE RS. 1,14,66,271/-. ON BEING ASKE D TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT DISTRIB UTES GIFTS AMONGST CUSTOMERS AND ASSOCIATES ON AUSPICIOUS OCCASIONS LI KE DIWALI AND CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE OUT OF COMMERCIAL EX PEDIENCY AND ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE A.O. WHILE OBSERVI NG THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE INCURRED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXPEND ITURE INCURRED FULLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH E SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE ALSO MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, RE STRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF GIFT EXPENSES RS. 5,00,000/-, CHANDLA EXPENS ES RS. 3,41,127/-, DIWALI EXPENSES RS. 3,00,000/- AND BUSINESS PROMOTI ON EXPENSES RS. 6,00,000/- AGGREGATING TO RS. 17,41,127/-. ON APPE AL THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYING ON THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07, AL LOWED THE RELIEF OF RS. 3 LACS AND CONFIRMED THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NSES MADE BY THE A.O. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS ALLOWED A RELIEF OF 50% TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A ), THEREFORE, HE HAS NO OBJECTION THE SAME RELIEF MAY BE ALLOWED TO THE ASS ESSEE. ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 4 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTS THE ORDE R OF THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND T HE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE INASMUCH AS IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS. 3 LACS HAS FOLLOWED THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2474/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ORDER DTD. 11-4-20 12 WHILE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 RESTRICTED T HE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% OUT OF DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VID E FINDING RECORDED IN PARA 7 & 8 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER:- 7 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT WAS POINTED O UT BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A ND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2006-07 IN I TA NO. 263/MUM/08 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2009 IN PARAS 8 TO 10 AS UND ER: 8 . GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 IN REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAIN ST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A)OUT OF DIWALI EXPENSES AND GIF T EXPENSES. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AG REED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEAR IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE BY 50% OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAIN ED BY THE ID. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 10. AFTER CAREFULLY HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND P ERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS DISALL OWED GIFT EXPENSES, CHANDLA EXPENSES AND DIWALI EXPENSES IN TOTO ON THE GROUND THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ON APPEAL, THE ID. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE O UT OF GIFT EXPENSES OF RS.3,00,000/- AND DIWALI EXPENSES OF RS.2,00,000/- AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF CHANDLA EXPENSES OF RS.2,57;390/-. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 5 THE- EARLIER YEARS (SUPRA) HAS REDUCED THE SAID DIS ALLOWANCE BY 50% VIDE FINDING RECORDED IN PARA-3 OF ITS ORDER AS UND ER :- 3. SINCE IT IS A QUESTION OF MAKING ESTIMATE FOR D ISALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES OR UNSUPPORTE D BY THE EVIDENCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ENDS OF J USTICE WILL MEET ADEQUATELY IN THESE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES IF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)TOWARDS THESE EXPENSES AT RS.3.74 LAKHS IS REDUCED BY 50% TO RS. I .81AKHS. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURES BROUG HT ON RECORD BY THE PARTIES, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SUPRA AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, HOLD THAT IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE ID. CIT(A) TOWARDS TH ESE EXPENSES AT RS,7,57,390/- IS REDUCED BY 50% TO RS.3,78,695/-. A CCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.3,78,695/-. WE HOLD AND ORDER A CCORDINGLY. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED , WHILE THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 8 ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) TO 50%. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF TH E TRIBUNAL RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50% OUT OF DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED B Y THE LD. CIT(A). WE HOLD AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA 5316/MUM/2011 (REVENUES APPEAL ) 9. ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SUNDRY EXPENS ES MADE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 6 10. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT THE A.O . NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED CERTAIN FEES OR SERVICE CHARGES FROM ITS CLIENTS. A PORTION OF THIS AMOUNT WAS SPENT FOR MAKING PAYMENTS TO PORT E MPLOYEES, DOCKS STAFF AND OTHER SUCH PAYMENTS WHICH OTHERWISE NOT SANCTIO NED AS PER LAW. THESE PAYMENTS ARE NEITHER CREDITED NOR DEBITED TO THE P& L ACCOUNT AND DO NOT APPEAR IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT ROUTED THROUGH THE BA LANCE SHEET. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED TH E DETAILS OF THESE EXPENSES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37 OF THE I .T. ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THE ASSES SEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAME MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THE SAME REASONING AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER, T HE A.O. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE EARLIER YEAR HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,18,67,277/- AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE TAXABLE INCOME. ON APPEA L THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE, HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25% AND DE LETED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ADDITION. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTS TH E ORDER OF THE A.O. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAME HE HAS NO OBJECTION I F THE DISALLOWANCE OF ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 7 EXPENDITURE IS RESTRICTED TO 25% OF THE EXPENSES. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FI ND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A. Y. 2007-08 (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER ORDERS I N ITA NOS. 750, 751 & 752/M/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 2002-03 A ND 2003-04 ORDER DTD. 7-3-2012 HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25 % OF THE SUNDRY EXPENSES VIDE FINDINGS RECORDED IN PARA 4 & 5 OF IT S ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 4 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 1998-99 AND 2002-02 AND 2003-04 IN ITA NO. 750 TO 752/MUM/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 7.3.2012 AND BOTH OF US ARE PARTIES TO THE SAID ORDER. IN PARA 4 OF THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBU NAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER; 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y, WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. N. JAMNADAS & CO. VS. ACIT [SUPRA] AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED VIDE PARAS 7 & 8 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE THAT AFTER THE LAPSE OF ALMOST 12 YEARS NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED I F THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O, TO MAKE FRESH ENQUIRIES WHETHER THE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AWARE THAT THEY WERE R EQUIRED TO REIMBURSE THE ILLEGAL EXPENSES. IN FACT IT IS CLEAR THAT AFTER ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE A.O. M ADE ANY EFFORT TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS ILLEGAL AND WAS BEI NG REIMBURSED BY ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 8 SUCH CLIENTS/PRINCIPALS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE WOULD LIKE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE FINALLY. 8. IN THE CASE OF A.P.L. (INDIA) P. LTD. VS. DCIT 96 ITD 227 (MUM) IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - I. SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, BUSI NESS EXPENDITURE ALLOWABILITY OF BLOCK PERIOD 1-4-19 89 TO 16-11-1999 WHETHER PAYMENT OF SPEED MONEY TO DO CK WORKERS OF PORT TRUST FOR EXPEDITING PROCESS OF LOADING/UNLOADING OF SHIPS IS A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE HELD, YES WHETHER SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT AN ILLEGA L PAYMENT OR A PAYMENT OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY AS DOCK WORKE RS ARE NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HELD, YES WHETHER, HOWEVER , WHERE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT ACTUALLY PA YMENT HAD BEEN MADE TO EXTENT INDICTED IN VOUCHERS, 25 PER CE NT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF SPEED MON EY WAS TO HE DISALLOWED ON ESTIMATE BASIS HELD, YES. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT IF IT CAN BE FINALL Y FOUND THAT MONEY WAS PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ONLY THEN THIS WOU LD BE COVERED BY THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OTHERWISE THE EXPE NDITURE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. IN THAT CASE ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF DETA ILS IT WAS ASSUMED THAT SPEED MONEY WAS PAID TO THE EXTENT OF 25% TO G OVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BECAUSE ALL THE DOCK WORKERS MAY NOT BE G OVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND SOME MONEY IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID TO UNION LEADERS, ETC. AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE UNDERWORLD. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ALL THE MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES . IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS WE FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN IN TH E CASE OF A,P.I . (INDIA) P. LTD. (SUPRA) AND HOLD THAT 25% OF THE EX PENDITURE IS HIT BY THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) AND THE SAME IS REQUIR ED TO BE DISALLOWED. THIS PROPOSAL WAS GIVEN IN THE OPEN COURT AND ACCEP TED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFOR E, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C1T(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO DISALLOW 25% OF RS.18,46,151/- AND RS.13,84,432/- FOR A.Y. 1997-98 AND 1998- 99 RESPECTIVELY BEING ALLEGED ILLEGAL EXPENSES. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO LD. SR. ADVOCATE AGREED TH AT HE WILL HAVE NO OBJECTION IF SUNDRY EXPENSES ARE DISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF THE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE CONCESSION MADE BY THE LD. SR. ADVOCATE AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF M/S. N. JAMNADAS & CO. VS. ACIT SUPRA], WE SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AD TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE O F 25% OF THE SUNDRY EXPENSES. 5. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE OF 25% O F THE SUNDRY EXPENSES. ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 9 IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF TH E TRIBUNAL, RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AT 25% OF THE SUNDRY EXPEN SES. ACCORDINGLY WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A) ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE, THEREFORE, RE JECTED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8 59 ' -85 : $ 5 ; 3 5 <( , $ 3 *8 3 5 <( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11-07-2012. 3 67. * 9 11-07-2012 7 3 B SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA) ( DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) * #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 11/ 12/2012 .'.#./ RK , SR. PS ITA NO. 5316/M/11 & 5606/M/11 10 3 1'5:E E.5 3 1'5:E E.5 3 1'5:E E.5 3 1'5:E E.5/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. F () / THE CIT(A)- 41,MUMBAI 4. F / CIT CENTRAL III, MUMBAI 5. E IB 1'5' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAIJ BENCH 6. BJ- K / GUARD FILE. #2E5 1'5 //TRUE COPY// # ## # / BY ORDER, L LL L/ // /#< #< #< #< (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI