ACIT CC-7, MUMBAI V. SUKHRAJ M JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 5839/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56255 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUKHRAJ JAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

1 SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI E EE E BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI B RAMAKOTAIAH B RAMAKOTAIAH B RAMAKOTAIAH B RAMAKOTAIAH , ,, , AM & AM & AM & AM & SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VIJAY PAL RAO, JM ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.6071/MUM/2009 6071/MUM/2009 6071/MUM/2009 6071/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR 2006 2006 2006 2006- -- -07) 07) 07) 07) SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN SHOP NO.13/C SHAH SADAN BHAVANI SHANKAR ROAD DADRAR (WEST) MUMBAI VS THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CEN. CIR 7, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.5839/MUM/2009 5839/MUM/2009 5839/MUM/2009 5839/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR 2006 2006 2006 2006- -- -07) 07) 07) 07) THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX CEN. CIR 7, MUMBAI VS SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN SHOP NO.13/C SHAH SADAN BHAVANI SHANKAR ROAD DADRAR (WEST) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. AAHPJ1052J AAHPJ1052J AAHPJ1052J AAHPJ1052J ASSESSEE BY SH SUKHRAJ JAIN REVENUE BY SH B JAYA KUMAR DT.OF HEARING 2 ND NOV 2011 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT DEC 2011 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO VIJAY PAL RAO, , , , JM JMJM JM THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.8.2009 OF THE CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE I T ACT FOR THE AY 2006-07. 2 THERE IS A DELAY OF 14 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DE LAY AS WELL AS AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION. 2 SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN 3 WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON CONDONATION OF DELAY . THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SINCE THE DELAY IS DUE TO THE LONG LEAV E OF THE OFFICE ASSISTANT OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH WHOM THE ORDERS TO BE CHALLENGED IN THE APPEALS WERE LYING AND ONLY WHEN THE SAID OFFIC E ASSISTANT OF THE CA RETURNED FROM HIS NATIVE PLACE, THE STEPS COULD BE TAKEN IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSE SSEE. THERE IS NO DELIBERATE OR INTENTIONAL DELAY ON THE APART OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CONCERNED OFFICE ASSISTANT OF THE CA OF TH E ASSESSEE WENT ON LEAVE DUE TO SUDDEN ILLNESS OF HIS BROTHER, AS STATED IN TH E AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONCERNED PERSON FILED ALONG WITH THE PETITION, WE ARE SATIS FIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FO R NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION; ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY OF 14 DAYS IS CONDONED. 5 THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPE AL IS WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFI ED IN CONFIRMING THE RATE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF 18% AS AGAINST 24% ESTIMA TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON LOANS AND ADVANCES ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS AP PEAL IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTE D CAPITAL OF `. 9.42 LAKHS IGNORING SEIZED EVIDENCES AND STATEME NT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE I T ACT 1961 AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL P OSITION THAT EVEN IN THE HANDS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS, UNACCOUNTED CAPIT AL IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME. 6 BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS CARRYING ON MONEY LENDING ACTIVITIES, POLISHING AND REPAIRING OF OLD JEWELLERY AND BUSINESS OF ARTIFICIAL STONES, SMALL SILVER ITEMS E TC. THE ASSESSEE IS GETTING INCOME MAINLY FROM MONEY LENDING, POLISHING AND REP AIRING CHARGES AS WELL AS 3 SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN PROFIT FROM TRADING ACTIVITIES. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE I T ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 27.12.2005. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION SEVERAL BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AC TION, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2.8.2007 IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, STATEMENT U/S 132(4) WAS RECORDED ON 27.12.2005 AND ALSO ON 3.1.2006. THE ASSESSEE HAD S TATED IN THE STATEMENT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SEIZED AND MARKED AS ANNEXUR E A-1 TO A-4. A6, A12 TO A14 AND A18 WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO INCOME TAX. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDI TION INTER-ALIA ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL OF ` 9,42,818/- AND SUPPRESSION OF INTEREST INCOME OF ` 36,571/- FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL CIRCULATED IN THE MONEY LEN DING BUSINESS BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTAL ADVANCES AT THE TIME OF SEARCH W ORKED OUT AT `. 14,60,250/- AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY LENDING AND LOANS AND ADV ANCES WHERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE AY 2006-07 AT RS.5,17,432/- AND THUS, THE DIFFERENCE OF THESE TWO AMOUNTS WAS TAKEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AS UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL CIRCULATED IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE INTEREST @ 24% AND MADE THE A DDITION AS SUPPRESSION OF INTEREST INCOME. 6.1 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE RATE OF INTER EST FROM 24% TO 18%. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION MADE FOR UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, BOTH ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE AGGRIEVED B Y THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND FILED THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS BEFORE US. 7 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ENGAGED ANY CO UNSEL AND HE HIMSELF HAS 4 SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN PRESENT AND ARGUED THE MATTER BEFORE US. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS REFERRED IN ANNEXURE A-1 TO A -4, A6, A12 TO A14 AND A18 HAVE BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INC OME, BALANCE SHEET AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THE BUSINESS WHICH INCLUDES TRANSACTION OF ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN HINDI COMPRISING OF TRANSA CTION OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE MONEY LENDIN G RECEIPTS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE AND SHOP WERE FOR ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND CANNOT BE TREA TED AS ASSESSEES ALONE. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT TH E RATE OF INTEREST CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 1% TO 1.5%P.M ONLY AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED A HIGHLY EXORBITANT AND UNREALISTIC RATE OF INTEREST THAT TOO ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF NEIGHBOR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE LOANS AND ADVANCES ALREADY OFFERE D AND SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEES FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE CAPITAL CONSISTS OF THE F AMILY MEMBERS SHOWN AS LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE FAMILY M EMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE ENTIRE QUANTUM OF LOANS AND ADVANCES TAKEN WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE LOANS ALREADY OFFERED AND SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEES FAMILY MEMBERS. 7.1 THE LD DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL W HICH CLEARLY SHOWS AS LOANS AND ADVANCES DURING THE PERIOD. HE HAS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT SHOW N AS LOANS AND ADVANCES IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DISCLOSED `. 10 LACS IN HIS STATEMENT DURING THE SE ARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZ URE ACTION; THEREFORE, 5 SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN SUBSEQUENT NOT TO OFFER THE SAID INCOME IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME, IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. 8 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AS WELL AS PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE GRIEVANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RATE OF INTEREST IS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE REMAND REPORT AND CONCESSION OF THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE, REDUCED T HE RATE FROM 24% TO 18%. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) I N PARAS 2.1.1 AND 2.3.2 ARE AS UNDER; THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT DT 19.8.20-09 VIDE HIS LETTER NO.ACCC-7/REMAND REPORT/2009-10 DT HAS STATED AS UN DER: REGARDING 2 ND POINT I.E. INTEREST CHARGED @ 1% TO 1.5% BY ASSESSEE ON LOAN/MONEY LENDING AMOUNT WHILE ASSESSING OFFICE R ESTIMATED @ 2% ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY A NEIGHBOUR MR.MOHJJRI LAL JAIN WHICH SEEMS TO BE INCORRECT IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AGREED TO CALCULA TE INTEREST @ 1.5% ON THE LOAN/MONEY LENDING AMOUNT AS PER ASSESS EES STATEMENT. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER MAY PLEASE BE UPHELD ON THIS GROUND 2.3.2. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF REMAND REPORT AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE STATE MENT OF THE APPELLANT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT DATED 27/12/2005, TH E INTEREST RATE IS TAKEN AT 1.5% PER MONTH OR 18% P.A. ACCORDINGLY, LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE THE INTEREST @ 1.5% AND THEN WORK OUT SUPPRESSION OF INTEREST INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHART PREPAR ED BY HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 8 OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 8.1 WHEN THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR 18% OF INTEREST FO R AN ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE O N THE BASIS OF SUCH CONCESSION, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING CONTRAR Y BROUGHT BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), QUA THIS ISSUE. 9 NEXT ISSUE REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF `. 9 ,80,462/- AS UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 6 SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN 9.1 THE DETAILS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE VARIOUS YEARS ARE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PAG E 4 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: FY AY AMOUNT OF LOANS AD VANCED TOTAL FOUND AT RESIDENCE SHOP 99-00 00-01 - -------- 4,000 4,000 00-01 01-02 -- --- --- 01-02 02-03 64,000 10,400 74,400 02-03 03-04 39,000 27,900 66,900 03-04 04-05 1,85,500 1,25,050 3,10,550 04-05 05-06 1,95,000 2,05,400 4,00,400 05-06 06-07 2,03,100 4,00,900 6,04,000 6,86,600 7,73,650 14,60,250 9.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY WORKED OUT THE U NACCOUNTED CAPITAL AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED LOANS TOTALLING TO `. 7, 73,650/- TO THE PAWNEE, AGAINST THESE PAWNED ITEMS VALUED AT ` 13,5 4,284/-. THIS MEANS THAT THE TOTAL LOANS ADVANCED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS AT `14,60,250/- (686600 + 773650). THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN THE TOTAL MONEY LENDING LOANS ADVANCED IN THE BALANCE SHEET F OR AY 2006-07 AT ` 5,17,432,. THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 9,42,818/- (146 0250 517432) IS THE UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL CIRCULATING IN THE MONEY LE NDING BUSINESS. 9.3 THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA 3.3.1 TO 3.3.2 AS UNDER 3.3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY AND DISPASSIONATELY CONSIDE RED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT VIDE NO.ACCC-7/REMAND REPORT/09-10 DATED 19.8.2009 WHICH WAS FORWARDED BY THE ADD LC.I.T. VIDE NO.ADDI.CIT/CENT. RG.2/REPORT/09- 10 DATED 24/8/2009 HAS REPORTED AS UNDER: REGARDING 3 RD POINT THE ENTIRE QUANTUM OF LOANS AND ADVANCES IN THE ASSESSEE HAND WITHOUT EXCLUDING THE LOANS AND ADVANCES ALREADY OFFERED AND SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEES FAMILY MEMBERS ON THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME . ON VERIFICATION OF CHART SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE AND VERIFICATION OF RETURN OF INCOME OF FAMILY MEMBERS FILED, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF ASSESSEE HAS BEE N ALSO 7 SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN ENGAGED IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY LANDED BY THEM ARE SHOWN IN ENCLOSED CHART. F ROM THE CHART IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY LE NDED ASSESSED IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN WHATE VER AMOUNT IS SHOWN IN THE CHART. 3.3.2. AS PER THE SAID ENCLOSED CHART SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TOTAL FAMILY MEMBERS LOANS AND AD VANCES AS ON 3.1/3/2006 WORKED OUT AT `.19,10,972/-, WHICH INCLU DED LOANS AND ADVANCES OF ` 5,88,632/- BY SHRI SUKHRAJ M JOIN. TH IS GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED ONLY FOR AY 2006-07 AND NOT FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3.3.3 HAVING REGARD TO THE REMAND REPORT DATED 19/8 /2009 RECEIVED FROM THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER THROUGH HIS ADDL. C.I.T. AND HIS ASSERTION THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY LENT ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE HAS TO BE SEEN WITH THE LOANS AND ADVANCES MADE BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH WERE ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME, NO SUCH ADDITION CAN B E MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT ALL RELEVANT FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEIR INCOME-TAX RE TURN HAVE BEEN PERUSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICE R AND HE HAS CERTIFIED THAT ALL SUCH LOANS AND ADVANCES HAVE BEE N ASSESSED TO TAX. THEREFORE, ISSUE NO.3 OF GROUND NO.4 FOR AY 2006-07 ONLY IS ALLOWED. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO REDUCE THE ADD ITION OF RS.9,42,818/-IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REMAND REPORT F URNISHED BY HIM THROUGH HIS ADDL.CIT CENTRAL RANGE-2, MUMBAI VI DE LETTER NO.ACCC-7/REMAND REPORT/2009-10 DT 19.8.2009 AND NO.ADDL.CIT/CEN.RG 2/REPORT/2009-10 DT 24./8.2009 R ESPECTIVELY. 10 THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THIS FACT HAS COME OUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF ASSESSED AS UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL IN THE H AND OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO INCLUDES THE CAPITAL OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE A SSESSEE AND IF THE SUM TOTAL OF THE CAPITAL OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSE E, AS DISCLOSED IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THE SAME WAS FOUND AS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ASSESSED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESS EE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) AND THUS, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), QUA THIS ISSUE. 8 SHRI SUKHRAJ M JAIN 11 IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 16 TH ,DAY OF DEC 2011. SD/ SD/ ( ( ( ( B RAMAKOTAIAH B RAMAKOTAIAH B RAMAKOTAIAH B RAMAKOTAIAH ) ) ) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 16 TH , DEC 2011 RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI