ADDL.C.I.T.1(2), MUMBAI V. ITL TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6009/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 600919914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT SHETH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 43B; 37(1)

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - I BENCH MUMBAI . . , / ! ! ! ! , '# '# '# '# BEFORE S/SH. H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 6009/MUM/2012, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ACIT 1(2) R.NO.535,5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS. M/S ITL TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 10, NAZMI BUILDING, RAGHUNATH DADAJI STREET (D N ROAD), FORT, MUMBAI- 400001 PAN: AABCI2337L ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) () () () () /. C.O. NO. 275/MUM/2013, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S ITL TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. 10, NAZMI BUILDING, RAGHUNATH DADAJI STREET (D N ROAD), FORT, MUMBAI- 400001 VS. ACIT 1(2) R.NO.535,5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AABCI2337L ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) &' * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVI PRAKASH ()&' + * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KIRIT SHETH $ $ $ $ + ++ + ,- ,- ,- ,- / DATE OF HEARING : 06-05-2014 ./% + ,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 - 05- 2014 $ $ $ $ , 1961 + ++ + 254 )1( ,0, ,0, ,0, ,0, '1 '1 '1 '1 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER BENCH: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2012 OF CIT(A)-2, MUMBAI,ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAS FILED AN APPEAL,WHEREAS ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS FILED CROSS-OBJ ECTION(CO).GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE AO READ AS UNDER: 1.WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RELATION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE IS P RINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL AND NOT THAT OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMMISSION IS PAID IN THE FORM OF HANDLING CHAR GES.THE ASSESSEE IS ACCOMMODATING THE INTERMEDIARY BY ISSUING BILLS IN ITS NAME AND NOT I N THE NAME OF CUSTOMERS.THEREFORE, THE INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTS THE ASSESSEE? 2.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MAKE ADDITIONS, AL TERATION, AMENDMENTS, CORRECTION, MODIFICATIONS TO OR OMISSIONS, DELETION OF THE AFOR ESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN THE CO,ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING/ENH ANCING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,56,117 U/S. 40 (A) (IA) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. 2.YOUR APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE /ENHANCEMENT OF RS.13,56,117 U/S. 40 (A)(IA) IS UNJ USTIFIED AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE DELETED. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE (AR)OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS DELAY OF 30 DAYS IN FILING CO. IT WA S STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION 2 ITA NO. 6009/M/2012 & C.O. 275/M/2013 M/S ITL TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. THAT CO WAS TO BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER RECEIV ING THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA),THAT ONCE IT REALISED THAT CO WAS TO BE FILED IN 30 DAYS,IT IMMEDIATELY PREFERRED THE APPEAL. HE REFERRED TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMPANY WHEREIN SIMILAR AVERMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE.CONSIDERING THE AVERMENTS,WE ARE OF THE OPINIO N THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E STIPULATED PERIOD.THEREFORE,IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,DELAY OF 30 DAYS,IN FILING CO IS CONDONED. ITA/6009/MUM/2012- A Y.2009-10 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF AIR TIC KETING AND MONEY CHANGING, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.10.2010DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E AT RS.29.39 LAKHS.AO FINALISED THE ASSESSM -ENT ON 26.12.2011 U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMININ G THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3,33, 34,150/-. 2.1. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT PAYMENT OF COMMISSI ON.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TOURS AND TRAVELS, THAT IN THE P&L A/C IT HAD CREDITED COMMISSION RECEIPT OF RS. 3.31 CRORES. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF COMMISSION RECEIVED/PAID WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY SAID PAYMENT.AS PER THE AO,ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE EXCEPT FURNISHING A LIST OF PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION/HANDLING CHARGES HAD BEEN CLAIMED TO HAV E BEEN PAID.AO MENTIONED THAT TDS CERTIFICATES RELATING TO THE COMMISSION PAYMENT WER E ALSO PRODUCED.AO HELD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION OF RS. 2, 78,20,862/-;TO VARIOUS PERSONS INCLUDING SUB- AGENTS OF THE TICKETING BUSINESS;WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ABOVE PAYMENTS,THAT IT HAD NOT P ROVIDED ANY DETAILS OF THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS OF THE SAID COMMISSION, THAT IT HAD NOT BROUGHT ON REC ORD ANY EVIDENCE OF RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE RECIPIENTS OF THE COMMISSION. FINALLY, HE HELD THAT COMMISSION PAYMENTS OF RS. 2.78 CRORES NETTED OFF IN THE P&L A/C WAS TO BE DISALLOWED AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. 2.2. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO,ASSESSEE F ILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.BEFORE HIM IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PREVAILING BUS INESS PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE TRAVELLING AGENT, ASSESSEE-COMPANY TOO WOULD GIVE DISCOUNT(ALSO KNOWN AS HANDLING CHARGES)TO ITS CUSTOMERS ON THE AIR TICKETS BOOKED BY THEM,THAT THE AMOUNT OF D ISCOUNT VARIED ON AIRLINE INVOLVED,THAT WHILE GIVING DISCOUNT ASSESSEE WAS GIVING SIMILAR TREATME NT TO THE CUSTOMERS WHO WOULD PURCHASE TICKETS FROM THE COMPANY OR FROM THE AGENTS,THAT DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT HAD GIVEN TOTAL DISCOUNT/HANDLING CHARGES OF RS. 2.78CRORES,T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT INCLUDED DISCOUNT/ HANDLING CHARGES GIVEN TO THE INTERMEDIARIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 77,96,727/- ALSO, THAT THOUGH THE DISCOUNT/HANDLING CHARGES WERE NOT COVERED BY THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 194H YET THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS,THAT RS. 8,50,425 /-WERE DEDUCTED AS TDS AND WERE PAID IN THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY, THAT THERE WERE NO FURTHER DOCUMENTS,BESIDES THE TDS CERTIFICATS,THAT COULD PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,FAA HELD THAT FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES HAD TO BE DECIDED (A)WHETHER THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE I NTERMEDIARIES WAS A COMMISSION OR DISCOUNT (B)WHETHER TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE ON THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE INTERMEDIARIES. AS PER THE FAA BOTH THE ISSUES HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 5746/MUM/2009 DATED 09.09.2010 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.HE FURTH ER HELD THAT PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, AMOUNTING TO RS. 2.78 CRORES,WAS NOT COMMISSION BUT WAS DISCOUNT AND HANDLING CHARGES, THAT SAME HAD BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS AMOUNT RECEIV ED FROM THE AIRLINES AND WAS OFFERED AS A DISCOUNT IN THE PRICE OF THE AIR TICKETS TO THE CUS TOMERS/INTERMEDIARIES, THAT THE DISCOUNT HAD BEEN GIVEN BY WAY OF DEDUCTION FROM THE TOTAL PRICE OF T ICKETS PURCHASED BY THE CUSTOMERS/ INTERMEDI- ARIES,THAT THE NET INVOICE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS/CUSTOMERS HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS 3 ITA NO. 6009/M/2012 & C.O. 275/M/2013 M/S ITL TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE CUSTOMER WOUL D PAY ONLY THE NET AMOUNT OF THE INVOICE, THAT BESIDES DISCOUNT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID ANY OTHER CO MMISSION TO ITS CLIENTS SEPARATELY, THAT THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNPROVED COMMISSION DID NOT ARISE,THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FINALLY, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED. 2.3. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD NOT PAID ANY COMMISSION,THAT D ISCOUNT RECEIVED BY IT WAS PASSED ON THE PASSENGERS OR THE INTERMEDIARIES,THAT EVEN THOUGH T DS WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE ON THESE PAYMENTS ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX, THAT TRIBUNAL HAD,IN THE EARLIER YEARS,HELD THAT DISCOUNT CHARGES PAID BY IT WERE NOT COMMISSION PAYMENTS. 2.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT PAYMENT OF DISCOUNT/HANDLING CHARGES HAS BEEN DECIDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER YEAR(ITA/5746/MUM/ 2009-DATED 09.09.2010)AS UNDER: EVEN OTHERWISE AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 19 4H THE COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE INCLUDES ANY PAYMENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECT LY FOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ANOTHER PERSON FOR SERVICES RENDERED. WHEN THE INTERMEDIARIES ARE NOT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ONLY ACTING TO BOOK THE TICKETS FROM THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE PASSENGERS THEN THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND INTERMEDIARIES ARE NOT AS PRINCIPAL TO AGENT TRANSACTIONS, MOREOVER WHEN THE DISCOUNT ALLOWED/GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INTERMEDIARIES IS ALSO ALLOWED TO THE PASSENGER DIRECTLY TO BOOK THE TICKETS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS REC ORDING THE TRANSACTION IN ITS BOBKS OF ACTOUNT ON NET AMOUNT OF THE INVOICE THEN IT IS NOT A CASE OF COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE PAID OR PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INTERMEDIARIES.ACCORDINGLY,THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 194H ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSACTION IN THE PRESENT CASE.THIS ISSUE IS DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE.THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE 40 U/S.40(A)(I A) IS DELETED. AS THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY T HE TRIBUNAL,SO,FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DECIDE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. WE FIND THAT IN GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE YEAR 2008-09,AO HAD ALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UNDER THE H EAD HANDLING AND DISCOUNT CHARGES,AMOUNTING TO RS.1.33 CRORES,WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE WAS AGITATE D BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO.THEREFORE,IN OUR OPINION ISSUE HAS BEEN CONCLUSIVELY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN OTHER YEARS. CO. 275/MUM/2013: 3. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE CO IS ABOUT CONFI RMING/ENHANCING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,56,117/-U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD AVAILED OVERDRA FT FACILITIES OF RS. 3 CRORES FROM THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.(TSIBL),FORT BRANCH, MUMBAI AND THE BANK HAD RECOVERED ENTIRE INTEREST OF RS.25,74,190/-FROM TIME TO TIME BY CHARGING THE SAM E TO THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY, THAT THE INTEREST HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE TO TSIBL,THAT NO DISALLOWANCE. U/S 43B WAS CALLED FOR THE SAID PAYMENT,THAT TSIBL HAD CHAR GED INTEREST ON OVERDRAFT BALANCE BY CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST AND DEBITING THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY ON MONTHLY BASIS,THAT SAID PORTION OF INTEREST AMOUNTE D TO RECOVERY OF INTEREST BY THE BANK,THAT FOR SUCH PAYMENT PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3C TO SECTIO N 43B WERE APPLICABLE,THAT NO PART OF INTEREST DUE TO THE BANK WAS CONVERTED INTO LOAN OR BORROWIN G BY THE BANK AND ANY AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT WAS FIRST ADJ USTED AGAINST THE INTEREST PAYMENT,THAT DEPOSIT MADE IN EXCESS OF INTEREST PAYMENT WAS ADJUSTED AGA INST THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT,THAT BANK HAD REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PAY INTEREST SEPARATELY IN TO A SEPARATE INTEREST ACCOUNT EVEN THEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO WITHDRAW THE AMOUNT FROM O VERDRAFT ACCOUNT AND DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THE 4 ITA NO. 6009/M/2012 & C.O. 275/M/2013 M/S ITL TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. INTEREST PAYABLE ACCOUNT OF THE BANK,THAT EVEN AFTE R PAYMENT OF INTEREST, THE OVERDRAFT LIMIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXCEEDED.AS A RESULT,AN ADDITION O F RS.25,74,190/-WAS MADE BY THE AO U/S.43B OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UTILISED THE OVERDRAFT FACILITY GIVEN BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA,(SBI)TRIVANDRUM BRANCH TOP.A.SIDDEEK,(PAS)DIR ECTOR OF THE COMPANY,THAT ALL THE WITHDRA- WALS MADE FROM THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT OF PAS IN THE SBI,TRIVANDRUM BRANCH WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY IN THE SAME BRANCH,THAT THE OVERDRAFT FACILITY ENJOYED BY PAS WAS DE- FACTO UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS PURPOSES,THAT THE INTEREST PAYABLE BY PAS AMOUNTING TO RS.13,56,117/-TO THE SBI TRIVANDRUM BR ANCH WAS REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIM,THAT NO OTHER CHARGES WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO PAS FOR PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO ENJOY THE OVERDRAFT FACILITY SANCTIONED BY THE BANK IN HI S NAME AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,FAA HELD THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT OWE ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE SBI TRIVANDRUM BRANCH, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B WERE NOT APPLICABLE,THAT IT HAD PAID INTEREST TO PAS AND HAD NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON TH E INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.13,56,117/-,THAT SAID AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.(40)(A)(IA )OF THE ACT.HE DIRECTED THE AO TO DISALLOW INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,56,117/- UNDER THE SAI D SECTION. 3.2. BEFORE US,AR SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE YEAR 2008-09.DR LEFT THE ISSUE TO B E DECIDED BY THE BENCH.WE FIND THAT IN THE YEAR 2008-09 A DISALLOWANCE,AMOUNTING TORS.10.66 LAKHS,W AS MADE BY THE AO INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.(40)(A)(IA)OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO INTERES T PAYMENT.FAA CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. IN THAT MATTER ALSO THE ISSUE WAS OVERDRAFT FACILITY GIVEN TO PAS AND ITS UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE.DECIDING THE ISSUE TRIBUNAL(ITA/649/12&3312/M/12),HELD AS UN DER: 5.WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE INVO LVING IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAD ARISEN BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ONWARD E SERVICES LTD. ACIT (ITA NO. 97& 2974/MUM/2010 DATED 9-5-2012),WHEREIN A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA)OF THE ACT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST REIMBURSED BY T HE ASSESSEE TO ITS PARENT COMPANY ON THE CASH CREDIT LIMIT SANCTIONED BY THE BANK TO THE PARENT C OMPANY WHICH WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WAS HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT, REIMBURSEMENT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ELEMEN T OF PROFIT COULD NOT HE TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE PARENT COMPANY AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO STATUTORY OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EX PENDITURE REIMBURSED TO THE PARENT COMPANY.IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT WHEN THERE WAS NO SUCH STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE,THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA)OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE INVOKED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF ONWARD E SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA) ON A SIMILAR ISSUE,WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROUND ORIGINALLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS AP PEAL. FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE COORDINATING BENCHES,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF CO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED AND THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 2,3 2,3 2,3 2,3 $4, $4, $4, $4, - - - - 5 5 5 5 '6 '6 '6 '6 + ++ + 0 0 0 0 $7 + , 89 : $4, () $7 + , 89 : $4, () $7 + , 89 : $4, () $7 + , 89 : $4, () #;, #;, #;, #;, < < < < , , , , 89 8989 89. .. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH ,MAY,2014. '1 + ./% > <'$ 6, , 2014 / + 0 ? SD/- SD/- ( . . / H.L.KARWA ) ( ! / RAJENDRA ) / PRESIDENT '# '# '# '# /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, <'$ /DATE: 06 . 05.2014 5 ITA NO. 6009/M/2012 & C.O. 275/M/2013 M/S ITL TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD. SK '1 '1 '1 '1 + ++ + (,@ (,@ (,@ (,@ A@%, A@%, A@%, A@%, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / &' 2. RESPONDENT / ()&' 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / B C , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / B C 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / @D0 (,$ , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 0 2 )@, )@, )@, )@, (, (,(, (, //TRUE COPY// '1$ / BY ORDER, E / 8 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI