ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI V. JYOTI STEEL INDUSTRIES, MUMBAI

ITA 5712/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75263 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ISHWAR RATHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69C; 80HHC; 69

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - J BENCH MUMBAI , , / , BEFORE S/SH. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMB ER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 5712/M/2012, ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 A.C.I.T. 19(3)(2) R.NO. 305, 3 RD FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 VS. M/S JYOTI STEEL INDUSTRIES, KAKAD BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, OPP. GAIETY FALAXY CINEMA, 30 TH ROAD, BANDRA (WEST) MUMBAI-400050 PAN: AAAF J3489J ( #$ / REVENUE ) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT) #$ #$ #$ #$ ' ' ' ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P .SINGH %&#$ ( ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ISHWAR RATHI ! ! ! ! ( (( ( )* )* )* )* / DATE OF HEARING : 02-12-2013 +,' ( )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 - 01- 2014 ! ! ! ! , 1961 ( (( ( 254 )1( )-) )-) )-) )-) . . . . ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2012 OF THE CIT(A )-30,MUMBAI,ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : (1)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN RESPECT OF EXCISE REFUND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF M/S SUPER TR ADING CO. IN ITA NO.4249 & 42501M/06 DATED 17.11. 2009 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THA T IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2001-02 & 2002-03, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC WAS DISALLOWED RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF KALPATARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS (2010) 328 ITR 451 (BOM). (2)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,91,73,223/- U/S. 6 9 OF THE I.T. ACT BEING STOCK DIFFERENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AFTER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT PROVIDE INVENTORY OF ANY PHYSICAL STOCK THERE CANNOT BE ANY GROUND FO R WORKING OUT ANY EXCESS STOCK AS IT HAS NOT BEEN QUANTIFIED BY THE SURVEY PARTY AS TO WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL STOCK LYING ON THE DAY OF SURVEY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS: (A)DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEES STAT EMENT ON OATH WAS RECORDED IN WHICH THE 2 ITA NO. 5712/MUM/2012 M/S JYOTI STEEL INDUSTRIES ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THE DIFFERENCE IN S TOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1.91,73,2231- AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR TAKING PHYSICAL INVENTORY ANY MORE. (B)DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 13.11.2006 TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY U NEXPLAINED DIFFERENCE IN STOCK SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX U/S.69 OF THE I.T ACT 1961 WHICH HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY IGNORED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION PUT TO HIM IN THE SAID NOTICE AND IN THE REPLY,NOT EVEN REMOTELY MADE A MENTION ABOUT THE SECTION 69 OF THE IT. ACT WHICH I S A PIVOTAL SECTION FOR WHICH ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS SOUGHT. (C)SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY SATISFACT ORY EXPLANATION, THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE IT ACT 1961 BEING THE DIFFE RENCE IN STOCK TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,91,73,223/-. (3)THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND MAY BE NECESSARY. 2.ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURE AND EXPORT OF BRIGHT BAR,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.10.2004,DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT RS. NIL.AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3)OF THE ACT ON 11.12.2006,DETERMININ G THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,72,78,407/-. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DEDUCTION U/S. 8 0HHC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXCISE REFUND. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED RS.5.24 CRORES UNDER THE HEAD EXCISE REFUND IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF T HE ACT.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE HELD THAT THE CONCESSION UNDER THE STATUTE COULD BE ALLOWED WHEN THEY WERE SPELT OUT IN THE PROVISION,THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 80HHC RECOGNISED ONLY ALLOWANCES COVERED BY SEC.28 (IIIA) TO 28 (IIIE), THAT NONE OF THE CLAUSES OF THE SECTION 28 HAD REMOTE CONNECTION WITH EXCISE REFUND. FINALLY,HE HELD THAT EXCISE REFUND WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. 2.1 .AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY.2002-03 TRIB UNAL HAD HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN RESPECT OF EXCISE REFUND WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF M/S. SUPER TRADING COMPANY(ITA/4249-50/MUM/2006,DTD .17.11.2009).HE DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT IN RES PECT OF EXCISE REFUND IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF M/S.SUPER TRADING COMPANY. 3 ITA NO. 5712/MUM/2012 M/S JYOTI STEEL INDUSTRIES 2.2. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTE D THAT MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF M/S.SU PER TRADING COMPANY,THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESS EE IN THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF KALPTARU COLOURS & CHEMICALS(328ITR451).AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE APEX COURT HAD REVERSED THE DECISION OF KAL PTARU COLOURS AND CHEMICALS,THAT ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS(342ITR49). 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND HONBLE APEX COURT HAD REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF KALPTARU CO LOURS AND CHEMICALS(SUPRA)IN THE MATTER OF TOPMAN EXPORTS(SUPRA).FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT WE DECIDE GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE AO. 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,91,73,223/- U/S. 69 OF THE ACT BEING STOCK DIFFERENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT IN THIS CASE AN ACTION U/S.133A OF TH E ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 13/2/2004.AS PER THE AO,DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY INVENTORY OF STO CK WAS TAKEN BY THE SURVEYING PARTY AND STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS.6,35,13,075/-WAS FOUND.HE FUR THER MENTIONED THAT THE STOCK AS PER STOCK REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WORTH RS.4. 43 CRORES,THAT THE PHYSICAL STOCK FOUND WAS IN EXCESS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,91,73,223/-,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK OF RS.1.91 CRORES.CONSIDERING THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPORT OF THE SURVEY PARTY,HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE D IFFERENCE TO THE TUNE OF R.S1.91 CRORES,THAT SAME WAS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/ S.69C OF THE ACT. 3.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO,HELD THAT FROM THE PRINT OUTS OBTAINED FROM THE COMPUTER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THE FIGURE OF OPENING STOCK AND THE CLOSING STOCK,AT RS.4,43,39,9 52/-,WAS ONE AND THE SAME FIGURE WHICH IN ITSELF WAS A VERY BIG COINCIDENCE-CONSIDERING THAT YEARLY TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY HIM IS MORE T HAN RS.40 CRORES.HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY DEPOSED ABOUT NOT MAINTA INING THE STOCK REGISTER,THAT THE FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK AS PER PRINT OUTS COULD NOT BE RS.4,4 3,39,952/-,THAT THE FIGURES OF CLOSING STOCK HAD TO BE ARRIVED AT ONLY AFTER INVENTORY OF STOCK WAS TAKEN ON 31ST MARCH,THAT ON THE DAY OF SURVEY AN EXERCISE WAS MADE TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK,THAT CLOSING DID NOT CONTAIN ANY MENTION OF PHYSICAL INVENTORY STOCK ON THE DAY OF SURVEY,THAT WORKING ADOPTED BY 4 ITA NO. 5712/MUM/2012 M/S JYOTI STEEL INDUSTRIES THE AO ALSO SHOWED THAT THE FIGURE INCORPORATED THE REIN WERE TAKEN FROM BOOKS & ACCOUNT AND NO FIGURE OF ANY ACTUAL PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF STOCK WAS INCORPORATED THEREIN,THAT THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 6,35,13,075/-APPEARED TO BE VA LUE OF CLOSING STOCK AS PER BOOKS AND NOT OF THE PHYSICAL STOCK LYING IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASS ESSEE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED ON UMPTEEN OCCASIONS TO THE AO TO FURNISH IT THE LIST OF INVENTORY OF STOCK TAKEN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY,THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO GIVE ANY SUCH INVE NTORY, THAT LIST OF INVENTORY WAS ALSO NOT PROVIDED TO HIS OFFICE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS THOUGH THE SAME WAS SPECIFICALLY DEMANDED BY HIS PREDECESSOR.HE FURTHER NOTED THAT T HE AO HAD NOT OFFERED ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE STOCK INVENTORY IN HIS REMAND REPORT NOR HAD FURNISHED ANY SUCH STOCK INVENTORY.THEREFORE,HE DIRECTED THE THEN AO,VIDE HI S LETTER DATED 7-6-2012 TO PRODUCE THE SURVEY FOLDER AND SUBMIT A COPY OF STOCK INVENTORY TAKEN DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY.AS PER THE FAA,ON 14-06-2012,AO APPEARED BEFORE HIM ALONG WITH THE SURVEY FOLDER,BUT HE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY STOCK INVENTORY FROM THE S URVEY FOLDER.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES FAA HELD THAT THERE WAS NO STOCK INVENTORY AVAILABLE WI TH THE AO,THAT DURING THE SURVEY ACTION NO PHYSICAL STOCK INVENTORY WAS CARRIED OUT,THAT IT WA S INCORRECT TO HOLD THAT PHYSICAL STOCK OF RS. 6,35,13,075/- WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ,THAT THE AO,IN HIS REMAND REPORT,HAD NO WHERE STATED THAT ANY PHYSICAL STOCK OF THE GOODS W AS TAKEN BY THE SURVEY PARTY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS.HE FURTHER HELD THAT I T WAS BEYOND COMPREHENSION THAT SURVEY PARTY ACCEPTED THE OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF AD DITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1 CRORE THOUGH THE DIFFERENCE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.1.91 CRORES.HE FINA LLY HELD THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. 3.2. BEFORE US,DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITT ED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK,THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BASED ON THE CONFESSIONAL STAT EMENT OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT IT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK,THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C WERE RIGHTLY INVOKED BY THE AO.AR SUBMITTED THAT STOCK INVENTORY WAS NOT PREPAR ED BY THE SURVEY PARTY,THAT AO HAD NOT SUPPLIED THE COPY OF THE INVENTORY OF PHYSICAL STOC K TO THE ASSESSEE, THAT COMPUTER GENERATED SHEETS WERE RELIED UPON BY THE SURVEY PARTY TO ARRI VE AT CLOSING STOCK, THAT COMPUTER PROGRAMME WERE DESIGNED TO GIVE THE SAME FIGURE OF CLOSING AND OPENING STOCK IF ACTUAL FIGURE OF PHYSICAL STOCK WAS NOT FED IN IT,THAT AO HAD NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.3 .WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL BEFORE US.FROM THE ORDER OF THE FAA ONE THING CLEARLY EMERGES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF THE GOODS FOUND ON THE DAY OF SURVEY WAS NOT PREPARED.W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WITHOUT 5 ITA NO. 5712/MUM/2012 M/S JYOTI STEEL INDUSTRIES PREPARING THE INVENTORY OF THE STOCK/CASH ACTUALLY FOUND ON THE DAY OF SURVEY,FIGURES OF THE STOCK/CASH ON THE DAY OF SURVEY CANNOT BE ARRIVED A T. OPENING STOCK OF GOODS AS ON FIRST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR,PURCHASES MADE TILL THE DAY OF SURVEY, GROSS PROFIT(GENERALLY ADOPTED AT THE RATE DISCLOSED FOR THE LAST AY.),SALES MADE TIL L THE DAY OF SURVEY ARE THE BASIC VARIABLES THAT ARE CONSIDERED FOR ARRIVING AT THE STOCK ON THE DAY SURVEY.FOR ARRIVING AT THE COST OF THE STOCK FOUND ON THE DAY OF SURVEY,COST IS TAKEN ON THE BA SIS OF THE COST PRICE TAKEN FOR VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK OF LAST AY.EXERCISE CARRIED OUT IN TH IS MANNER IS CALLED BOOK STOCK OF GOODS.BESIDES,MEMBERS OF THE SURVEY PARTY ARE SUPPO SED TO PREPARE AN INVENTORY OF THE STOCK FOUND AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AS I F SURVEY DAY WAS THE LAST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR AND FIGURE ARRIVED IS TERMED PHYSIC AL STOCK.SIMILAR EXERCISE HAS TO BE DONE FOR THE CASH ALSO-OPENING BALANCE OF CASH ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR AND ALL THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE TILL THE DATE OF SURVEY HA VE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION AS WHETHER THE CASH APPEARING IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS TALLIES WITH THE CASH FOUND DURING THE SURVEY.TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE IS ANY EXCESS OR DEFICIT IN THE STOCK FIGURES OF BOTH THE STOCKS ARE COMPARED I.E.BOOK-STOCK AND PHYSICAL STOCK ARE COMPARED.SIMILAR EXERCISE HAD TO BE DONE FOR THE CASH.IF THE PHYSICAL STOCK IS FO UND TO BE EXCESS OF THE BOOK STOCK IT IS TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT,WHEREAS SHORTAGE OF PHYSI CAL STOCK AS COMPARED TO BOOK STOCK IS CONSIDERED UNRECORDED SALES.CASH FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SURVEY IS ALSO INVENTORISED AND IS COMPARED WITH THE CASH APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS ON THE DAY OF SURVEY.EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF STOCK/CASH ON THE DAY OF SURVEY HAS ITS OWN CONSEQUENCES FOR TAX PURPOSES.BUT,AS FAR AS DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF THE STOCK/AVAILABI LITY OF CASH ON THE CONCLUSION OF SURVEY ACTION IS CONCERNED,PREPARATION OF AN INVENTORY OF CASH/PHYSICAL STOCK IS A MUST-WITHOUT IT WHOLE EXERCISE OF CARRYING OUT AN ACTION U/S.133A W ILL BE FUTILE.IN OTHER WORDS FOR ARRIVING AT THE CORRECT POSITION OF THE STOCK/CASH ON THE SURVE Y DAY,PHYSICAL STOCK/CASH AS WELL AS BOOK STOCK AND CASH AS PER BOOKS HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT.IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION FAA HAD CALLED FOR THE INVENTORY OF PHYSICAL STOCK,BUT SAME WAS NO T PRODUCED BEFORE HIM.LATER ON WHEN THE AO APPEARED BEFORE HIM WITH THE SURVEY FOLDER HE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAME.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,IF HE HELD THAT INVENTORY OF THE PHYS ICAL STOCK WAS NOT PREPARED THEN HIS STAND IS TOTALLY JUSTIFIED.IT IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION AS TO WHY THE SURVEY PARTY ACCEPTED THE ADMISSION OF RS.1 CRORE ONLY,WHEN IT HAD FOUND THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1.91 CRORES.AN ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OR UNRECORDED SA LES IN ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH TO FASTEN TAX LIABILITY TO AN ASSESSEE.SOMETHING MORE THAN THE ME RE STATEMENTS IS REQUIRED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE IN SUCH CASES.IN OUR OPINION INVENTOR Y OF PHYSICAL STOCK IS THE FOUNDATION,IF THE ADDITION TO BE MADE U/S.69C OF THE ACT IS TO BE COM PARED WITH A BUILDING.AS IN THE PRESENT CASE 6 ITA NO. 5712/MUM/2012 M/S JYOTI STEEL INDUSTRIES FOUNDATION ITSELF IS MISSING,SO EXISTENCE OF A BUIL DING CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGA L OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY,THEREFORE,WE DO NOT WANT TO INTERFERE WITH IT.UPHOLDING HIS ORDER AND C ONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAI NST THE AO. AS A RESULT,A PPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. 0 1 !0) 0 1 !0) 0 1 !0) 0 1 !0) VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH 2 2 2 2 3 ( - 3 ( - 3 ( - 3 ( - UK UKUK UK 45 ( ) 67 45 ( ) 67 45 ( ) 67 45 ( ) 67. .. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 TH JANUARY, 2014 . . . . ( (( ( +,' +,' +,' +,' 9 99 9 :! :! :! :! 8 TUOJH TUOJH TUOJH TUOJH 2014 , ,, , ( (( ( - -- - ; ;; ; SD/- SD/- ( / VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, :! /DATE: 08 TH JANUARY,2014 SK . . . . ( (( ( %) %) %) %) = ') = ') = ') = ') / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / #$ 2. RESPONDENT / %&#$ 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / > ? , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / > ? 5. DR J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / @- %)! , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ - A &) &) &) &) %) %)%) %) //TRUE COPY// .! / BY ORDER, B / 6 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI