ITO 21(2)(4), MUMBAI V. SARLA SANATHKUMAR VED, MUMBAI

ITA 5611/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87904 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: V CHANDRASEKHAR; HARSHAD SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

, , , , , ,, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4687/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. SARLA VED, 202, MANGAL MILAP, 10 TH GULMOHUR CROSS ROAD, JVPD, JUHU, MUMBAI-400049 / VS. ITO, WARD-21(2)(4), C-10, INCOME TAX BLDG, BKC, BANDRA(E), MUMBAI-51 ( #$% /ASSESSEE) ( & / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AABPV5675M ITA NO.5611/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 ITO, WARD-21(2)(4), C-10, INCOME TAX BLDG, BKC, BANDRA(E), MUMBAI-51 / VS. SMT. SARLA SANATKUMAR VED, 202, MANGAL MILAP, 10 TH GULMOHUR CROSS ROAD, JVPD, JUHU, MUMBAI-400049 ( & / REVENUE) ( #$% /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO.AABPV5675M #$% ' ( ' ( ' ( ' ( / // / ASSESSEE BY) SHRI V.CHANDRASEKHAR & SHRI HARSHAD SHAH & ' ( ' ( ' ( ' ( / REVENUE BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP - DR ' %) / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 07/01/2015 *+, ' %) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 /01/2015 SMT. SARLA VED, 2 - - - - / / / / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) : THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/06/ 2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT, BY RESTRICTING THE INVESTMENT, WHEREAS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL CHALL ENGING THE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INVEST MENT OF RS.99,13,880/- MADE UP TO 15/05/2010. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SHRI V. CHANDRASEKHAR ALONG WITH SHRI HARSHAD SHAH, DEFENDE D THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS). ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI NEIL PHILIP, LD . DR, ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAI SED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ASSERTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ANIL KUMAR OMKAR SINGH AURORA VS ITO (ITA NO.4648/MUM/2013) ORDER DATED 06/11/2013 A ND MR. KISHORE H. GALIAYA VS ITO ORDER DATED 13/06/2012 ( ITA NO.7326/MUM/2010). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON T HE DECISION FROM HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N 339 ITR 610 (P & H), 137 ITD 229 (MUMBAI TRIBUNAL) AND CIT VS RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (286 ITR 274)(GUW.). IT WAS PLEADED THA T REINVESTMENT WAS MADE THROUGH AN AGREEMENT. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DECLARED INCOME OF RS.59 ,800/- IN HIS RETURN FILED ON 24/09/2009, WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1 ) OF THE SMT. SARLA VED, 3 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER THE ACT), WHICH WA S, SUBSEQUENTLY, SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. ON 14/09/2010 NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED/ SERVED. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEE DINGS AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE INCOME OF ESTATE OF DR. RAMKRISHNA MEHRA, IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH INCLUDED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF HOUSE, DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT FO R MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE NEW HOUSE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED P ERIOD, ON THE PLEA THAT THE GAINS WERE NOT DEPOSITED INTO THE CAP ITAL GAINS DEPOSIT ACCOUNT SCHEME. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IDENTICAL CLA IM WAS MADE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT ON 29/12/2009 BY PAY ING STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES. SALE WAS MADE ON 16/05/2008, THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTED TO PURC HASE THE NEW PROPERTY OR TO MAKE THE INVESTMENT UP TO 15/05/ 2010. ALTERNATIVELY, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54( 2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO INVEST/DEPOSIT THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE BANK, AS PER CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME, UP TO THE DATE OF THE FIL ING OF RETURN, IF THE AMOUNT IS NOT UTILIZED/INVESTED WITHIN THE STIP ULATED PERIOD. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DIRECT ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.38,63191/- ONLY. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESS EE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL. 2.2. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF SMT. SARLA VED, 4 KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, WE NOTE THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION(1) TO SECTION 54 OF THE A CT AND SUBJECT TO SUB-SECTION (2), THE CAPITAL GAINS AROSE FROM TH E TRANSFER OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PURCHA SE OR CONSTRUCT NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE TIME AND I F SUCH CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT APPROPRIATED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF NE W ASSET WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE TIME THEN SUCH GAIN/AMOUNT HAS TO BE DEPOSITED, BEFORE FURNISHING THE RETURN, IN ANY BAN K/INSTITUTION AS SPECIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. AS PER THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (2), IF THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED IS NOT UTILIZED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW A SSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-CLAUSE (1) THEN THE UNUTILI ZED AMOUNT SHALL BE CHARGED U/S 45 OF THE ACT, AS INCOME OF TH E PREVIOUS YEAR, WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, FROM THE DA TE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES. WE NOTE THAT THE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 26/12/1993 AS WELL AS COPY OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMEN T DATED 04/02/1999 AND SALE AGREEMENT DATED 16/05/2008 IN R ESPECT OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ADMIT THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY, O WNED BY HER LATE BROTHER AFTER 27/04/1994. ACCORDINGLY, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IT WAS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,37,77,071/-, ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF RS.25,27,929/- AS INDEXED C OST. BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT EVEN AFTER CAPITAL GAIN IS ASSESS ED, THE TAXABLE GAINS WOULD BE NIL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS.1.8 SMT. SARLA VED, 5 CRORES FOR PURCHASING NEW PROPERTY FROM M/S MAHAVIR DEVELOPERS. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT ON 29/12/2009 WHICH WAS DULY REGISTERED. THE DATE OF SALE IS 16/05/2008, THUS, AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 5 4(1), THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PURCHASE THE NEW ASSET WITHIN TWO Y EARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE I.E. UP TO 15/05/2010. EVEN AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54(2), THE ASSESSEE WAS TO INVEST THE CAPIT AL GAINS IN THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME, IN THE BANK OR ANY OTHER INST ITUTION, AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, IF THE AMOUNT IS NOT UTILIZED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBE TIME. THERE ARE VARIO US DECISIONS THAT IN VIEW OF PROVISION OF SECTION 54(2), THE TIM E LIMIT MENTIONED IN SECTION 54(2) FOR DEPOSITING THE AMOUN T IN AN ACCOUNT UNDER THE CAPITAL GAINS SCHEME HAS TO BE RE AD AS THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 139(4) AND NOT IN SECTION 139(1), MEANING THEREBY, THE EXTENDED TIME LIMIT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IS 31/03/2011. THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED/DEALT WITH AND DECIDED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN K.K.SOLANKI (39 ITR 522) (BOM.) AND HINDUSTAN BU LK CARRIERS (249 ITR 449/475)(SC) BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT BY OBSERVING THAT STATUTE OR ANY ENACTING PROVISION THEREIN MUST BE CONSTRUED SO AS TO MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE. IDENTICAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN IN 245 ITR 48 (MAD.)(FB) BY HONBLE MADRAS HIG H COURT. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED BELATED RETURN, THEREFORE , THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT, CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RIGHTLY GRANTED RELI EF FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 2.3. SO FAR AS, PART RELIEF, GRANTED TO THE ASSESSE E BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN/BELATED RET URN, THE PROFIT SMT. SARLA VED, 6 UTILIZED FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSE U/S 139(4) OF THE AC T SHALL BE THE ACTUAL DATE, THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLE TO DEDUC TION/EXEMPTION OF THE ENTIRE PROFIT. SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IS A B ENEFICIAL PROVISION, THEREFORE, WHILE INTERPRETING THE STATUT E, THE CONSTRUCTION, WHICH ADVANCES THE OBJECT OF THE STAT UTE AND SERVE THE PURPOSE, SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT I.E. LEGISLATIV E INTENTION IS THAT THE EVERY PART OF THE STATUTE SHOULD BE GIVEN EFFECT. OUR VIEW FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION IN RAJESH KUMAR JALAN (286 ITR 274)(GUW.), STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS SANTOSH SHA NKAR ACHARYA (2000) 7 SCC 463, KRISHNAMURTHY VS CIT 176 ITR 417 (SC) PALSHIKAR (R.K)(HUF) VS CIT 172 ITR 311(SC) AN D KUNAL SINGH VS UOI (2003) 4 SCC 524. HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS MS. JAGRITI AGARWAL (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P& H) HOLDING THAT FOR GETTING EXEMPTION U/S 54 R.W.S. 139(4) OF THE ACT, THE PROFIT HAS TO BE USED FOR PURCHASE OF RESI DENTIAL PROPERTY OR DEPOSITED IN SPECIFIED ACCOUNT, BEFORE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN AND DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN INCLUDES THE R ETURN FILED U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT ALSO. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN SAMB ANDAM UDAY KUMAR 345 ITR 389 (KARN.), CIT VS SARDARMAL KOTHAR I & ORS. 302 ITR 286 (MAD.), CIT VS AJIT SINGH KHAJANCHI 297 ITR 95 (MP), KISHORE H. GALAIYA (ITA NO.7326/MUM/2010) ORDER DAT ED 13/06/2012, CIT VS SMT. BHARTI C. KOTHARI 245 ITR 3 52(CAL.), ACIT VS SMT. SUNDAR KAUR SUJAN SINGH GADH (2005) 3 SOT 206 (BOM.), NARSHIMHA RAJU RUDRA RAJU VS ACIT (2013) 35 TAXMAN.COM 90 (HYD. TRIBUNAL), VED PRAKASH RAKHRA ( ITA NO.573/BANG/2012) ORDER DATED 23/08/2013 AND ANIL K UMAR OMKAR SINGH AURORA VS ITO (ITA NO.4648/MUM/2013) OR DER DATED 06/11/2013, SUPPORTS OUR VIEW. IN VIEW OF TH ESE FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SMT. SARLA VED, 7 3. GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE, BOTH THESE G ROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THUS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE PERTAINS TO GRANTING RELIEF U/S 54 OF THE ACT. WE HAVE DISPOSED OFF THIS GROUND WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (SUPRA), THEREFORE, ON IDENTICAL REASONING, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE ON THIS GROUND. 5. ANOTHER GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,77,82,880/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CRE DITS. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR IS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ADMITTED ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE IN FORM OF CHART EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THUS, THERE IS VIOLATION OF R ULE 46A OF THE RULES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. FOR REACHING TO A FAIR CONCLUSION, WE A RE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR READY REFERENCE:- I HAVE CONSIDERED ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT A.O . HAS NOT AT ALL ASKED ANY QUESTION ON THE ISSUE AND NO EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, HE HAS NOT AT ALL TRIED TO LOOK INTO THE NARRATION OF ENTRIES IN THE BANK STATEMENT WHICH WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM (IT IS SMT. SARLA VED, 8 FROM BANK STATEMENT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND THE CREDITS) WHICH BY ITSELF SUGGEST THE DEBITS ENTRIES ARE FOR PLACING FDRS FROM TIME TO TIME AND CREDITS ARE IN R ESPECT OF MATURITY OF FDRS FROM TIME TO TIME. HAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ANY QUERY TO THE ASSESSEE OR APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE NATURE OF THE CREDIT AND DE BIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT COULD HAV E EASILY INFERRED THAT SOURCE OF SUCH CREDITS WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE ALSO IN DRAWING ADVERSE CONCLUSION WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ON THE ISSUE. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND BANK STATEMENTS PLACED BEFORE ME, THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT B E TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,77,82,880/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5.1. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS THE FACTUAL FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE ASKED ANY QUESTION OR SOUGHT ANY EXPLANATIO N FROM THE ASSESSEE NOR EXAMINED THE FACTUAL ENTRIES IN THE BA NK STATEMENT WHICH WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. THE SOURCE OF CRE DIT ENTRIES WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY DREW ADVERSE INFERENCE. THE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DULY EXAMINED THE BANK STATEME NT AND OTHER FACTUAL MATRIX AND THEN REACH TO A CONCLUSION . THE ACTUAL CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS.4,06,78,925/- AND THE SMT. SARLA VED, 9 ASSESSEE GAVE A DETAILED CHART EXPLAINING THE NATUR E OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN DULY RECORDED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. S TILL FACT REMAINS, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT GRANTED OPPORTUNITY BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED ANY QUERY ON THIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENT FOR WHICH NEITHER ANY REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT FROM THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOR ANY OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS VIEW WAS GRANT ED, CONSEQUENTLY, KEEPING IN VIEW, THE PRINCIPLE OF NAT URAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENU E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 15/01/2015. - ' *+, . / 15/01/2015 + ' 4 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; . DATED : 15/01/201 5 SMT. SARLA VED, 10 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. - ' 6%7 87,% - ' 6%7 87,% - ' 6%7 87,% - ' 6%7 87,%/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 9: / THE APPELLANT 2. 6;9: / THE RESPONDENT. 3. < ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. < / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 7>4 6% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 4?# @ / GUARD FILE. - - - - / BY ORDER, ;7% 6% //TRUE COPY// A AA A/ // /B & B & B & B & (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI