JYOTI H. MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ASST. CIT CEN CIR 23, MUMBAI

ITA 6155/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3139 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DANNEL SPL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 147; 148; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6155/M/2013 (AY: 2008 - 2009 ) I.T.A. NO. 6832/M/2013 (AY: 2007 - 2008 ) I.T.A. NO. 6595/M/2013 (AY: 2008 - 2009 ) JYOTHI H MEHTA, 32, MADHULI, DR. A.B. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 018. / VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020. ./ PAN : ABNPM8233B ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH / RESPONDENT BY : DR. DANNEL, SPL. COUNSEL / DATE OF HEARING : 21 .09.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .09.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE THREE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 AND THEY ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THREE APPEALS ARE INTER - CONNECTED, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND DISPOSED OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. ITA NO.6155/M/2013 (AY 2008 - 2009) 2. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.10.2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 40, MUMBAI DATED 21.1.2011. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT DATED 30.4.2010 IN MP NO. 41 OF 1999, THE ASSETS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL INCOME BELONGS TO SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA AND HENCE THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN 2 TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FA CTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO 22,02,58,059/ - . 4. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,00,000/ - . 5. THE LD CI T (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT THAT IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C. 6. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WERE SUBJECTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF TDS AND HENCE ON THE SAID AMOUNT OF TAX NO INTEREST CAN BE COMPUTED U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE NOT PRESSED. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR IN THIS REGARD, THE SAID GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 4. REFERRING TO GROUND NO.3 , LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE SAID GROUND RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITU RE OF RS. 22,02,58,059/ - . IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. GROWMORE EXPORTS LTD VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1031/M/2013 (AY 2009 - 2010), DATED 15.12.2014 AND MENTIONED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND REMANDED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN ONE OF US (AM) IS A PARTY TO THE SAID ORDER, WE FIND VIDE PA RA NOS.4 TO 6 OF THE SAID ORDER (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL ADJUDICATED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE. CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAID PARAS 4 TO 6 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER (SUPRA) AND FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 4. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,53,81,278/ - . IN THIS REGARD, AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA VS. DCIT VIDE ITA NO.7726 & 7727/M/2010 DATED 26.4.2013, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILES OF CIT (A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFRESH BY ADJUDICATING THE RESPECTIVE GROUND RELATING TO THE REJECTION / RELIABILITY OF THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT. PARA 5 FROM THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 5. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO THE ACTION OF THE LD CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE LIABILITIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,24,99,052/ - AND RS. 12,61,36,245/ - R ESPECTIVELY FOR THE AYS 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 TOWARDS INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN PARA 3.3 ABOVE IN RESPECT OF REJECTION / RELIABILITY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE PROPOSED ADJUDICATION OF THE LD CIT (A) IN VIEW OF THE SAID DIRECTION MAY HAVE DIRECT IMPACT ON THE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED LIABILITY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE CIT (A) TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH ALONG WITH THE ADJUDICATION OF THE RESPECTIVE GROUND PERTAINING TO THE REJECTION / RELIABILITY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE DUTIFULLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO/CIT (A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA). WHETHER THE INTEREST LIABILITIES OF RS. 1,53,81,278/ - CONSTITUTES ASCERTAINED ONE OR NOT IS ALSO LINKED TO THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS THE BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JA OF THE ACT. THIS IS COMMON ISSUE QUA THE ISSUE ADJUDICATED IN THE CASE OF THE HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA) AND MATTER WAS SET AS IDE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION IF ANY SHOULD BE TAKEN ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HITESH S MEHTA, (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 4 IS SET ASIDE . 5. CONSIDERING THE COMMONALITY OF THE ISSUE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE GROUND NO.3 WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING IDENTICAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE AY 2009 - 2010. 6. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 9 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. BRIEF FACTS IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT, AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 18 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. ON APPEAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE SAID ADDITION TO RS. 9 LAKHS AND GRANTE D RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9 LAKHS. AGGRIEVED AND DISSATISFIED WITH THE SAID DECISION OF THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL. 7. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN GENERAL AND PARA 21 IN PARTICULAR, WE FIND THE S AME IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAID 21 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 21. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE ORDERS OF MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF APPELLANTS FAMILY MEMBERS, VIZ SMT. DEEPIKA A. MEHTA AND SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA FOR AY 2006 - 07, WHEREIN IDENTICAL ADDITION WAS REDUCED BY 50%. FROM THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT SHE HAS NOWHERE PROVIDED DETAILS OF WITHD RAWALS, EITHER MADE BY HER OR OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, OTHER FAMILY EXPENSES AND LEGAL EXPENSES. IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT INCURRING SUCH 4 EXPENSES. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF LEGAL DISPUTES IN THE GROUP, THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE INCURRED SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURE ON LEGAL FEES , ETC. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF MY LEARNED PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF SMT. DEEPIKA A MEHTA AND SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA FOR AY 2006 - 07 DATED 27.5.201 1, I FEES THAT IT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 9,00,000/ - . THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 9,00,000/ - AND THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/ - IS SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT I S PARTLY ALLOWED . 10. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 9 LAKHS AND GRANTED A CONSIDERABLE RELIEF OF RS. 9 LAKHS. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION TAK EN BY THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NOS.5 AND 6 RELATES TO THE SOLITARY LEGAL ISSUE OF CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GROWMORE EXPORTS LTD VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.4015 TO 4019/M/2011 (AYS 1995 - 1996 TO 1999 - 2000) AND OTHERS DATED 20.11.2013, AND MENTIONED THAT VI DE THE SAID ORDER (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL ADJUDICATED THE SIMILAR ISSUE VIDE PARA 19 OF ITS ORDER. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE PERUSED SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), DATED 20.11.2013, AND FIND PARA 19 IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CON SIDERING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAID PARA 19 OF THE ITATS ORDER (SUPRA), AND FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS OF THIS ORDER, THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 19. THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE RELATING TO THE SOLITARY LEGAL ISSUE OF CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID PROVISIONS TO THE NOTIFIED PERSONS. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS, IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE , TO THE FILES OF THE CIT (A) AND DIRECTED THE CIT (A) TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER AFRESH. IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS, THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEES U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C SQUARELY DEPEND S UPON THE PROPOSED ADJUDICATION OF THE CIT (A) IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PREMATURE NATURE OF THE GROUNDS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN FOUR APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE. 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 OF THE INSTANT APPEAL SHOULD BE SET ASIDE WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER. 5 12 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.6832/M/2013 (AY 2007 - 2008) 13. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26.11.2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 40, MUMBAI DATED 12.9.2013 FOR THE AY 2007 - 2008. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT DATED 30.4.2010 IN MP NO. 41 OF 1999, THE ASSETS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL INCOME BELONGS TO SHRI HARSHAD S. MEHTA AND HENCE THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI HA RSHAD S. MEHTA AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO 22,02,58,059/ - . 4. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ESTI MATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,00,000/ - . 5. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT THAT IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AN D 234C OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT S IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WERE SUBJECTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF TDS AND HENCE ON THE SAID AMOUNT OF TAX NO INTEREST CAN BE COMPUTED. 14. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE NOT PRESSED. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR IN THIS REGARD, THE SAID GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 15. GROUND NOS. 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF THIS APPEAL ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE GROUND NOS. 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.6155/M/2013 (AY 2008 - 2009), WHICH IS ADJUDICATED BY US IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. CONSIDERING THE COMMONALITY OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE INSTANT GROUNDS, OUR DECISION GIVEN THEREIN WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO .6155/M/2013 SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL TOO. CONSIDERING THE SAME, GROUND NO.3 IS SET ASIDE; IN CONNECTION WITH GROUND NO.4, WE CONFIRM THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) AND DISMISSED THE SAID GROUND AND GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE SET ASIDE. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 6 ITA NO. 6595/M/2013 (AY 2008 - 2009) 17. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.11.2013 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 40, MUMBAI DATED 2 8.8.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 250 OF THE ACT AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 3. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO INTEREST U/S 234A OF THE ACT CAN BE CHARGED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 18. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. CONSIDERING THE GENERAL NATURE OF ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 THE SAME IS DISMISSED . 19. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RELATE TO THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST AND THEY ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL ITA NO.6155/M/2013 (AY 2008 - 2009) AND ITA NO.6832/M/2013 (AY 2007 - 2008) , WHICH ARE ADJUDICATED BY US IN THE ABOVE PARAS OF THIS ORDER. C ONSIDERING OUR DECISION GIVEN ABOVE, GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 OF THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE SET AIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 T H SEPTEMBER, 2015. S D / - S D / - (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 3 0 .9 .2015 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 7 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI