DAMASK PROJECTS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 6(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6216/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2694 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 63

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .TA NO.6216/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 / I .TA NO.2775/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 M/S. DAMSAK PROJECTS PVT. LTD. 167, READY MONEY TERRACE, DR. ANNIE BESAANT ROAD, WORLI NAKA, MUMBAI 400 018 / VS. THE DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 6(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK RAOD, MUMBAI 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. :AACCD 5994P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI FIROZ ANDHYARUJINA / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.K.SRIVASTAVA / DATE OF HEARING :26.10.2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : .11.2015 '# / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PREFERRED AGAINS T TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)/CIT FOR ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10. AS BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETH ER, THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 6216/MUM/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ISSUES IN BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE INTER-LINKED A ND RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PR OPERTY AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE UNDER THE HEAD BUS INESS INCOME AND SIMULTANEOUSLY DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS, 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPE RTY LEASING. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED INCOME OF RS. 23,49, 497/- WHICH AS PER SCHEDULE J OF THE P&L ACCOUNT CONSISTS OF RENT R ECEIVED OF RS. 22,50,000/- AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS. 99,497/ -. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER FOUND THAT THE RENTAL INC OME HAS BEEN SHOWN FROM LETTING OUT OFFICE SPACE AS PER LEAVE AN D LICENSE AGREEMENT. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT INTEREST FREE SE CURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 7.05 LAKHS HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN AND IN RESPECT O F ANOTHER PROPERTY INTEREST FROM SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 60 LAKHS HAS BEEN TAKEN. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM LETTING OUT THESE OF FICE PREMISES AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND AFTER DEDUCTING VARIOUS E XPENSES AND DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY, NET BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 84.07 LAKHS HAS BEEN SHOWN. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY, S INCE THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY, RECEIPTS FROM LETTING OUT PROPER TY MAY NOT BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESS EE IN ITS REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 5.10.2010 EXPLAINED THAT THE MAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES, DEVELOP T HE SAME AND GIVE THEM ON RENT. STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE MA IN OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. IT WAS EXPLAINED TH AT BECAUSE OF ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 3 THIS MAIN OBJECT INCOME EARNED BY WAY OF RENT IS UN DER INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BUT BUSINESS INCOME. 3.2. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE. DRAWING SUPPORT FROM VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS DISCUSSED B Y THE AO AT PARA- 4.4. OF HIS ORDER, THE INCOME WAS TREATED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY DEPRECIATION AND OT HER RELATED EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHE MENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DISC USSED AND DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD VS CIT 373 ITR 0673. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HE LD THAT DECIDING FACTOR IS NOT OWNERSHIP OF LAND OR LEASES BUT NATUR E OF ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE AND NATURE OF OPERATIONS IN RELATION TO TH EM. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HIGHLIGHTED AND STRESSED THAT OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY MUST ALSO BE KEPT IN VIEW TO INTERPRET THE ACTIVITI ES. THE LD. COUNSEL CONCLUDED THAT IN THAT CASE LETTING OF PROPERTIES I S INFACT IS BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE INCOME WAS TAXED UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE LD. COUNSEL REFERRED T O THE MAIN OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE MAIN OBJECT IS TO ACQUIRE PROPERT IES, DEVELOP THE SAME AND GIVE THEM ON RENT. THEREFORE, THE INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS. ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 4 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HA ND. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSE. IN THE CASE RELI ED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT HAS LAID EMPHASIS OF THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY AS THE DECID ING FACTOR. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND AS IDENTI CAL TO THE FACTS OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES (SUPRA), WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE T O THE FILE OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN TH E LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TAKEN IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. GROUND NO. 1 IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 2 AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, IS INTER-LINKED WITH THE OUTCOME OF GROUND NO. 1. THE REFORE, THE SAME IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN THE LINE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN FOR GROUND NO. 1 HEREINABOVE. GRO UND NO. 2 IS ALSO TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO. 2775/M/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 10. VIDE GROUND NO. 1,2 & 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE CIT-6, MUMBAI U /S. 263 OF THE ACT. ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 5 11. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON 7.12.2011 U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IN WHICH T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS A LOSS OF RS. 30,11,340/- WA S CONVERTED INTO A PROFIT OF RS. 11,59,696/- BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 41,71,036/-. 11.1. INVOKING THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON HIM U/S. 2 63 OF THE ACT, THE COMMISSIONER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1 0.2.2014 BY WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) ALLEGED THAT THE AO FAILED TO CARRY OUT ALL THE RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL ENQUIRY WHICH WERE WARRANTE D BY THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS FAILURE OF TH E AO TO MAKE RELEVANT AND MEANINGFUL ENQUIRY MADE THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WI TH THESE ALLEGATIONS, THE LD. CIT SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO REDO THE SAME. 11.2. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THIS SHOW C AUSE NOTICE OF THE CIT. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT ALL THE RELEVA NT DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS/DOCUMEN TS, THE AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH IS A POSSIBLE VIEW AND ACCORDING LY TAXED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. IT WAS RE QUESTED TO DROP REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 AS THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE AO WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F THE REVENUE. 11.3. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FA VOUR WITH THE CIT WHO PROCEEDED BY INVOKING THE POWER CONFERRED UPON HIM BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE AO TO FRAME FRESH ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER DENOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIO NS OF LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WH AT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT VIDE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT, THE AO CALLED FOR EV ERY RELATED INFORMATION WHICH WERE DULY COMPLIED BY FILING NECE SSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, THE AO MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 14. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT. IT IS THE SAY OF T HE LD. DR THAT THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY OVERLOOKING A VERY IMPORTANT FACT THAT OF FILING OF REVISED RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR CONTINUED BY ARGUING THAT SINCE THE AO HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE REVISED RETURN, THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT HAS BECOME ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THERE IS NO ERRO R IN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 15. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AT LENGTH, W E HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE C OMMISSIONER WITH RELATED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECOR D. THE FIRST THING WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY ASSUMED THE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD . 243 ITR 83 HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING RATIO:- ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 7 A BARE READING OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCI SE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUO MOTU UNDER IT, IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO B E SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS ; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJ UDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IS PREJUDICIA L TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT . THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ONL Y WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS 16. NOW, LET US SEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE RATIO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW. THE FIRST OBJECTION IS THAT THE AO WORKED OUT THE ASSESSABLE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF ORIGINAL RETURN ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 30.9.2009 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 30,11,340/ -. IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE AO REMAINED TOTALLY SILENT ON THE OBSERVAT IONS OF THE AUDITORS THAT PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ONLY AS STOCK-IN-TRADE BUT I NADVERTENTLY SHOWN AS FIXED ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED. IT IS ALSO ALLEGED THAT NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TH ERE WAS COMPOSITE RENTAL AGREEMENT AND THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY TREATING RENTAL IN COME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. 16.1. LET US NOW EXAMINE THESE ALLEGATIONS IN THE L IGHT OF THE QUERY RAISED VIDE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT. BY Q. NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 8 AND EXPLAIN WHY THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE ASS ESSED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . Q.4. `COPY OF PURCHASE DEED OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIE S PURCHASED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10. Q.8. COPY OF ORIGINAL AND REVISED RETURN FILED ALO NGWITH COPY OF P&L ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, AUDITORS REPORT FRO M A.YRS 2008-09 & 2010-11. Q.9. PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING FIXED ASSETS TO STOCK AND STATING WHETHER SUCH TRANSFER ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF CA PITAL GAIN? Q.13. PRODUCE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1. 4.2007 TO 31.3.2009. 16.2. A DETAILED REPLY WAS FILED ON 9.8.2011 BY WHI CH THE ASSESSEE EXTENSIVELY EXPLAINED WHY THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. COPIE S OF LEASE AGREEMENT WERE FILED. THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING FIXED ASSETS AS STOCK-IN-TRADE WAS EXPLAINED ALONGWITH COPIES OF PU RCHASE DEED OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTIES. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE BOA RD RESOLUTION WAS ALSO FILED BY WHICH THE ACCOUNTING ERROR OF TREATIN G THE PROPERTIES UNDER THE HEAD FIXED ASSETS WAS RECTIFIED AND THE S AME WAS RESOLVED AND TREATED AS UNDER THE HEAD INVENTORY AND ACCOR DINGLY THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS REVERSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACC OUNTS WERE REVISED AND THE REVISED ACCOUNTS WERE ADOPTED BY TH E COMPANY. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGH T OF THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 9 OFFICER FOR TAXING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINE SS INCOME AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW OF THE LD . COMMISSIONER AND ASSUMING THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS A LOS S TO THE REVENUE BUT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE A S A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, FOR E.G. WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RE SULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER DOES NOT A GREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDER WHICH IS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 16.3. MOREOVER, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS NOW WEL L SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TAKEN IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT LTD 373 ITR 0673. THUS, EV EN IF THE REVISED RETURN HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE AO THAT WOULD ONLY MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS BUT BY ANY STRETCH O F IMAGINATION, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENT LTD (SUPRA). CONSI DERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RE FERRED TO HEREINABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDIC TION BY THE COMMISSIONER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 17. WITH THIS THE GRIEVANCE RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 4 BECOME OTIOSE. ITA. NO. 2775/M/2014 ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 10 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2775/M/14 IS ALLOWED AND ITA NO. 6216/M/2013 IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) $% ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ' MUMBAI; (' DATED :4 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+, %%-. , -.! , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ,/0 1 / GUARD FILE. $ / BY ORDER, * % //TRUE COPY// % / $& ' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI