M/S. PREM ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V. I.T.O. WARD 22(2)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 5678/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 567819914 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: DHIRENDRA M SHAH
• Section: 145; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4189/M/2008 (AY: 2005-2006) I.T.A. NO. 5678/M/2009 (AY: 2006-2007) M/S. PREM ENTERPRISES, 1, SUKH SAGAR, D.K. SANDU MARG, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400 071. PAN: AAGFP1420K VS. ITO 22 (2) - 2, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. DHIRENDRA M. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : MR. P.C. MAURYA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 12.07.2012 DATE OF ORDER:25.07. 2012 O R D E R PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT (A)-XXII, MUMBAI, DATED 22.04.2008 AND 26.08.2009 RESPECTIVEL Y FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005- 2006 AND 2006-2007. 2. THE COMMON ISSUE IN BOTH YEARS INVOLVED IS THE E STIMATED PROFIT TAKEN AT 8% ON TOTAL COST, INSTEAD OF PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AD OPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON A PROJECT AND WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHO D AND THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ITS PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-200 8, ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT AND THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TH E BMC ON 22.09.2006. 2 ITA NO. 4189/M/2008 ITA NO. 5678/M/2009 4. THE CIT(A), IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS REPRODUCE D THE AOS OBSERVATIONS, AGAINST THE DECLARED RESULTS AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHO D FOR DETERMINING THE PROFIT OF THE PROJECT. THE PROFIT SHOWN IN THE PROJECT WAS O FFERED FOR TAXATION FOR THE AY 2007-2008 ON THE BASIS OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE B.M.C. ON 22.09.2006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT TO THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE OF ACCOUNTING STA NDARD W.E.F 01.04.2003. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT ACCOUNTIN G AS-9 IS APPLICABLE TO THE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND AS-7 IS MEANT FOR CIVIL CONTRACTORS. ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-9 GIVES THE OPTION OF PROPORTIONATE COM PLETION METHOD AND COMPLETED SERVICE CONTRACT METHOD. PROPORTIONATE CO MPLETION METHOD IS DEFINED AS PERFORMANCE CONSISTS OF THE EXECUTION OF MORE TH AN ONE ACT. REVENUE IS RECOGNIZED PROPORTIONATELY BY REFERENCE TO THE PERF ORMANCE OF EACH ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETED SERV ICE METHOD IS RELEVANT TO THIS PATTERN OF PERFORMANCE AND ACCORDINGLY REVENUE IS R ECOGNIZED WHEN THE SOLE OF FINAL ACT TAKES PLACE AND SERVICE BECOMES CHARGEABL E. WITH THESE ARGUMENTS THE APPELLANT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT HE HAS OPTION AND HE CAN OPT THE ACCOUNTING METHOD OF SERVICE-COMPLETED ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE APPEL LANT THAT THE PROFIT ARISES ONLY WHEN POSSESSION OF THE CONSTRUCTED BUILDING IS GIVE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT REVENUE IS TO BE RECOGNIZED IN THE YE AR IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN EARNED AND THE SAME CANNOT BE POSTPONED ON FUTURE ON THE G ROUND OF FOLLOWING PROJECTION COMPLETION METHOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT IS NOT EXECUTING A LARGE PROJECT CONSISTING OF SEVERAL BUILDINGS WHERE THE PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT CANNOT BE DETERMI NED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HE APPELLANTS PROJECT WAS OF CONSTRUCTING SECOND FLOOR ON A ONE PLUS BUILDING B Y PURCHASING AN EXISTING BUILDING AND UTILIZATION OF TDP IN THE PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED DURING THE PERI OD RELEVANT TO AY 2003-2004. AS PER THE WORKING OF THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT, THE TOTAL COST INCLUDING LAND COST, CONSTRUCTION COST, MUNICIPAL TAX AND ADMINIST RATIVE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,58,07,762/- AS AGAINST THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF RS. 5,69,18,846/- AND FINAL PROFIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 WAS SHOWN AT RS. 3 ITA NO. 4189/M/2008 ITA NO. 5678/M/2009 52,75,919/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THA T 80% OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COSTS INCLUDING LAND COST, CONSTRUCTION COST AND AD MINISTRATIVE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED UP TO THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RE LEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. HENCE, HE HAS CONCLUDED THAT BY FOLLOWING THE WORK COMPLETION METHOD, THE APPELLANT IS CREATING LOSS TO THE REVENUE AND ESTIM ATED THE PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 8% OF THE TOTAL COST INCLUDING LAND COST, CONSTRUCT ION COST AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS. 4,58,07,762/- AND DETERMINING THE P ROFIT AT RS. 36,64,620/-. 5. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO, THE AS SESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT (A), BEFORE WHOM, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL REITERATED THE FACTUAL POSITION AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: OUR CLIENT HAS PURCHASED LAND ALONG WITH TENANTED G ROUND AND FIRST FLOOR STRUCTURE SITUATED AT MADAN MALVIYA ROAD, MULUND (W ), MUMBAI 400 080 FOR M/S. PRESSURE PACK PVT. LTD. OUR CLIENT HAS PURCHA SED TDS ON THE SAID PREMISES AND CONSTRUCTED SECOND FLOOR ON THE SAID PROPERTY. OUR CLIENT FOLLOWED THE ACCOUNTANCY METHOD OF WORK COMPLETION BASIS AND ACCORDINGLY CARRIED FORWARD THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS AC COUNT TILL THE WORK IS COMPLETED. THE POSSESSION WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE PUR CHASERS AFTER OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE FROM THE AUTHORITY IS RECEIVED. THE WO RK IS COMPLETED IN FY 2006-2007 I.E. AY 2007-2008 AND OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE IS ALS O OBTAIN DURING HE SAID PERIOD. MOREOVER THE POSSESSION IS ALSO PARTED TO THE PURCH ASER IN FY 2006-2007 IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. THE ACCOUNTING AS-9 IS APPLICABLE TO BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS I.E. RENDERING OF SERVICES. THIS ACCOUNTANCY GIVES THE O PTION I.E. PROPORTIONATE COMPLETION METHOD AND COMPLETED SERVICE CONTRACT ME THOD. PROPORTIONATE COMPLETE METHOD IS DEFINED AS PERFOR NMANCE3S CONSISTS OF THE EXECUTION OF MORE THAN ONE ACT. REVENUE IS RECO GNIZED PROPORTIONATELY BY REFERENCE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH ACT. WHEN SERV ICES ARE PROVIDED BY AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER OF ACT OVER A SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME, REVENUE IS RECOGNIZED ON A STRAIGHT LINE BASIS OVER THE SPECIFIC PERIOD U NLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SAME OTHER METHOD BETTER REPRESENTS THE PATTERN OF PERFO RMANCE. COMPLETED SERVICES CONTRACT METHOD IS PERFORMANCE CONSISTS OF THE EXECUTION OF A SINGLE ACT. ALTERNATIVELY, SERVICES ARE PERFORMED IN MORE THAN 4 ITA NO. 4189/M/2008 ITA NO. 5678/M/2009 SINGLE ACT AND THE SERVICES YET TO BE PERFORMED ARE SO SIGNIFICANT IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTION TAKEN AS A WHOLE THAT PERFORMANCE CANNO T BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNTIL THE EXECUTION OF THOSE ACTS. THE CO MPLETED SERVICE CONTRACT METHOD IS RELEVANT TO THIS PATTERN OF PERFORMANCE A ND ACCORDINGLY REVENUE IS RECOGNIZED WHEN THE SOLE OR FINAL ACT TAKEN PLACE A ND THE SERVICES BECOMES CHARGEABLE. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR CLIENT CAN OPT THE ACCOU NTANCY METHOD OF COMPLETED SERVICE CONTRACT. THE PERFORMANCE IS TO C ONSTRUCT THE UNITS IN THE BUILDING AND GIVING POSSESSION OF THE SAID CONSTRUC TED UNIT TO THE PURCHASERS. THIS IS THE SOLE AND SINGLE ACT OF OUR CLIENT AND T HE SAID ACT TAKES PLACE WHEN POSSESSION IS GIVEN TO THE PURCHASERS. OUR CLIENT HAS COMPLETED THE PROJECT AND GIVEN THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID UNITS DURING AY 2007-2008 AFTER OBTAINING OCCUPATIO N CERTIFICATE FROM AUTHORITY. THUS OUR CLIENTS SOLE AND FINAL ACT I.E. GIVING PO SSESSION, TAKEN PLACE IN AY 2007- 2008 AND AS SUCH THE SERVICES BECOMES CHARGEABLE IN AY 2007-2008 AND OUR CLIENT HAS OFFERED INCOME OF RS. 52,75,919/- AFTER DEDUCTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES SUCH AS AUDIT FEES, LEGAL FEES, ACCOUNT WR ITING CHARGES ETC. ON TOTAL ACCOST OF PROJECT RS. 569,18,846/- AND HAS PAID THE TOTAL TAXES OF RS. 18,46,087/- INCLUDING INTEREST U/S 234C RS. 70,212/- COMPRISING ADVANCE TAX OF RS. 15,00,000/- AND SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS. 3,46,087 /-. WE FURTHER, STATE THAT ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS-7 WH ICH HAS BEEN REVISED BY ICAI IS APPLICABLE TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. T HE REVISED AS-7 RECOGNIZED ONLY THE PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD AND IS TO BE APPLI CABLE ONLY TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND NOT BE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS DOING ACTIVITY IN THEIR OWN ACCOUNT. THESE BUILDERS WILL HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE AS AS-9 REVENUE RECOGNITION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS STATED ABOVE, WE REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY ADOPT THE ACCOUNTING METHOD AS FOLLOWED BY OUR CLIE NT AS STATED ABOVE AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND OBLIGE. 6. THE CIT (A), WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RECOGNIZED THE FACT THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF AS-7 AND AS-9 ARE DEBATABLE ISSUES. HOWEVER, THE CI T(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AO WAS CORRECT IN BRINGING TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF DEEMED PROFIT IN THE CURRENT YEARS 5 ITA NO. 4189/M/2008 ITA NO. 5678/M/2009 AND NOT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, WHICH ACCORDI NG TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS POSTPONEMENT OF TAX LIABILITY. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT IN BOTH THE YEARS. 8. BEFORE US, THE AR POINTED OUT THAT BEING A BUILD ER, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING AS-9, WHICH GAVE OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ADOPTIO N OF PROPORTIONATE COMPLETION METHOD AND COMPLETED SERVICE CONTRACT METHOD AND AC CORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ITS PROFIT AND PAID TAXES WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A POSITION OF HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION, I.E. AFTER THE RECEIPT OF OCCUPATION CE RTIFICATE FROM B.M.C. ON 22.09.2006, WHICH FELL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008. THE AR ALS O POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE COMPUTATION AT 8%, WHICH IS IN ACCORD ANCE WITH SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT AND ALSO MADE A PASSING REFERENCE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145, WHEREIN THE ACT GIVES INHERENT POWER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. BUT IN REALITY, THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING ITS BOOKS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE OR NOT GIVING OUT PROPER RESULTS . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 8% IN BOTH THE YEARS WAS NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE, THE I NCOME SO ESTIMATED SHOULD BE DELETED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9. WE HAVE GONE THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 6 ITA NO. 4189/M/2008 ITA NO. 5678/M/2009 10. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE OCC UPATION CERTIFICATE ON 22.09.2006, FALLING IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, WHERE THE ASS ESSEE DECLARED ITS PROFIT AND PAID THE TAXES THEREON. 11. IF WE STRICTLY GO INTO THE COMPUTATION OF PROFI TS FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, APPLICABILITY OF 8% IS ACCEPTABLE IF THE PROFIT IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS PER SECTION 44AE, WHERE NO BOOKS ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEE N MAINTAINED. THE AO NEITHER IGNORED THE BOOKS NOR REJECTED THE BOOKS, BUT HE AP PLIED 8% OF THE PROFIT AS ESTIMATED/ COMPUTED, WHICH ACCORDING TO US IS NEITHER LEGAL NO R PERMISSIBLE. WE ALSO CANNOT ENDORSE THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT (A), WHEN HE HOL DS THAT THE AO HAS INHERENT POWER GIVEN IN SECTION 145 TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE , IF HE IS NOT SHOWING THE CORRECT PROFIT BY APPLYING THE PARTICULAR METHOD. S ECTION 145(3) IS VERY CLEAR, WHERE IT PROVIDES AS UNDER: SEC.145 (3) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SAT ISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR WH ERE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR ACCOUNTIN G STANDARDS AS NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVID ED IN SECTION 144 . 12. IN THE INSTANT CASES, IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS THAT APPLICATION OF AS-7 OR AS-9 IS DEBATABLE ISSUES, BE SIDES THIS, AT NO POINT OF TIME; THE AO MAKES ANY ATTEMPT TO REJECT THE BOOKS, WHICH IN THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED. THE AR HAS REFERRED TO THE CASE OF CIT VS ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION CO. P. LTD., REPORTED IN 275 ITR 30 (GUJ), WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERV ED THAT, THE PROVISION, THEREFORE, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE CHOICE OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE 7 ITA NO. 4189/M/2008 ITA NO. 5678/M/2009 ONLY CAVEAT BEING THAT IT HAS TO SHOW THAT THE CHOS EN METHOD HAS BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED. THE SECTION IS COUCHED IN MANDATORY TERMS AND THE DEPARTMENT IS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CHOICE OF METHOD AND REGULARL Y EMPLOYED, EXCEPT FOR THE SITUATION, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PERMITT ED TO INTERVENE, IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT TRUE INCOME, PROFITS AND GAINS CANNOT BE ARRIV ED AT BY THE METHOD EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CA TEGORICALLY FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWED THE STANDARD ACCOUNTING METHOD AS THIS BEING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINESS IT WAS THE SOLE CHOICE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ADOPT A PARTICULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE AC T. THE AR ALSO REFERRED TO THE CASE OF ACIT VS DHARTI ESTATE 129 ITD 1 (MUM)(TM), W HEREIN IT WAS HELD (HEAD NOTES), ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE, I.E., PERCENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD, WAS I N CONSONANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARD NO. 7 ISSUED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACC OUNTANTS OF INDIA. ON REVENUES APPEAL, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FOLLOWED PER CENTAGE COMPLETION METHOD CONSISTENTLY SINCE ITS INCEPTION AND HAD BEEN DECLA RING INCOME / LOSS FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND SAME WAS ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEARS MOREOVER, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT REJECTED BOOK RESULTS BY POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN BOOKS MA INTAINED BY ASSESSEE IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT CATEGORICAL FINDING OF COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS) HIGHLIGHTING THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEVIATED FROM GUIDELINES ISSUED BY INSTITUT E OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (UNDER AS-7), WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY REVENUE BY PRODUCING A NY EVIDENCE THEREOF WHETHER, ON FACTS, COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN U PHOLDING METHOD OF VALUATION OF STOCK ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO. 4189/M/2008 ITA NO. 5678/M/2009 13. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT S OF THE AR, THAT WHEN AN OPTION HAS BEEN STATUTORILY PROVIDED FOR MAINTENANC E OF BOOKS IN AS-9, WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING. THIS IS, BESIDES THE FACT T HAT THERE WAS NO OBSERVATION FROM EITHER OF THE TWO REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT THE RESU LTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW CORRECT RESULTS. HAD THERE BEEN REJECTION OF B OOKS, THAT COULD HAVE, POSSIBLY AND CONSEQUENTLY, AMOUNTED TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME UNDE R SECTION 44AE, WHICH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DID APPLY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND SUBSTITUTING THE SAME, AND ADOPTING AS-7 AND THEN FOLLOW IT UP BY ES TIMATION. WE REJECT THE THEORY ADOPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. MOREOVER, AS PER THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE PROFIT OF THE PROJECT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. 14. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) A ND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN BOTH THE IMPUGNED YEARS AND ACCEPT THE RESULTS, DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.07.2012. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (VIVEK VA RMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATE : 25.07.2012 AT :MUMBAI 9 ITA NO. 4189/M/2008 ITA NO. 5678/M/2009 OKK COPY TO : 1. M/S. PREM ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI. 2. ITO-22(2)(2), MUMBAI. 3. THE CIT (A), CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR C, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI