DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI V. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL, MUMBAI

ITA 6327/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3948 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BEHARILAL
• Keywords: Gift; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NOS.6327 & 6328/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 & 2005-06) ASST. CIT 8(3), ROOM NO.217, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. MARG, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL 81/82, SOLITAIRE, CENTRAL AVENUE, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI-400 054 ! ./' ./PAN/GIR NO. AABPO 9324 L ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $!# / RESPONDENT ) !# % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI O. P. SINGH $!# & % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BEHARILAL ' ()* & + / DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2013 ,-. & + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.07.2013 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THESE ARE A SET OF TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARISI NG OUT OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18, MUM BAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) OF EVEN DATE, I.E., 30.06.2011, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSE ES APPEAL CONTESTING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.Y.) 2003-04 AND 2005-06. 2 ITA NOS. 6327 & 6328/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 03-04 & 05-06) ASST. CIT VS. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL 2.1 OPENING THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REVENUE (DR) THAT NO REASONABLE EX PLANATION, MUCH LESS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE V ERY FACT THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO FROM YEAR TO YEAR WOULD IMPUGN TH E BONA FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE BEYOND DOUBT. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT CASE, I.E., IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACCEPTED THE TRANSACTIONS AS REPRESENTING HER UNDIS CLOSED INCOME, IS WHETHER THE REVISED RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD BE TREATED AS REVISED RETURNS U/S.139(5), OR NOT SO, BEING NOT VOLUNTARY BUT PROMPTED BY THE ACTION OF T HE REVENUE. 2.2 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THE ASS ESSEES COUNSEL, WOULD ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMIT THAT THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE INS TANT CASE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R A.Y. 2004-05, WHEREAT LIKE PENALTY STOOD LEVIED, PLACING THE COPY OF THE SAME ON RECOR D (IN ITA NOS.1441 TO 1444/MUM/2008 DATED 23.03.2010). THE ASSESSEE, ALON G WITH HER FAMILY MEMBERS, HAD DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) ON THE SALE OF SOME SHARES, VIZ. M/S. TALENT INFOWAY LTD. AND M/S. BUNIYAD CHEMICALS LTD., AS AL SO GIFTS FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS. ON SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE BROKER, IT WA S ADMITTED BY HIM THAT THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE BOGUS TRANSACTIONS AND DID NOT RE PRESENT THE ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. A SURVEY U/S.133A OF T HE ACT WAS, ACCORDINGLY, CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES, WHEREAT SHRI RATANCHAND OS WAL, HER FATHER-IN-LAW, DEPOSED U/S.131 (ON 28.12.2006) SURRENDERING THE LTCG ON TH E SALE OF THE SHARES AS WELL AS THE GIFTS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS RECEIVED OVER THE YEARS BY DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS, INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, REVISED RETURNS WERE F ILED, DISCLOSING THE SAID INCOMES, AS ALSO THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED AGAINST LTCG, PAYING TA XES THEREON. THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, NOW SEEKS TO PENALIZE THE ASSESSEE BY LEVYING PENAL TY U/S. 271(1)(C). THE BASIS OF THE REVENUES CLAIM, I.E., QUA PENALTY, IS THAT THE REVISED RETURNS BY THE ASSESS EE, AMONG OTHERS, ARE NOT VOLUNTARY. ON THE SAME BEING CONFIR MED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR A.Y. 2004-05, THE TRIBUNAL ON A CONSIDERATION OF TH E ENTIRE FACTUAL MATRIX DELETED THE PENALTY, STATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) HAD MADE NO FURTHER ENQUIRES EXCEPT THE 3 ITA NOS. 6327 & 6328/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 03-04 & 05-06) ASST. CIT VS. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL ENQUIRY U/S.133(6). THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED TH E AMOUNTS ON A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE INITIATED, WIT H A VIEW TO AVOID LITIGATION. AS SUCH, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL [2001] 251 ITR 9 (SC) WERE APPLICABLE. THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INSTANT CASE, I.E., VIS--VIS FOR THAT YEAR, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY MAY BE DELETED, TREATING THE MATTER AS COVERED. HOWEVER , ON BEING POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE SURVEY ACCEPTED TH E LTCG AS ARISING ON THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO WITH SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI, I.E., THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS, AS BEING ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, HOW COULD THE ASSESSEE STATE OF HAVING SURRENDERED TO AVOID VEXED LITIGATION AND BUY PEACE, I.E., COULD THE SAM E BE TREATED AS BONA FIDE , ON THE BASIS OF WHICH RELIEF STOOD ALLOWED TO IT BY THE TRIBUNAL, H E WOULD REITERATE THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITH REFERENCE TO TH AT YEAR, AND THAT TO THE BEST OF HIS KNOWLEDGE THERE HAS BEEN NO SEPARATE STATEMENT BY T HE ASSESSEE PER SE ; ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS HAVING HONOURED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RATAN CHAND, THE PATRIARCH OF THE FAMILY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 BEFORE WE PROCEED TO DISCUSS THE RESPECTIVE CAS ES OF THE PARTIES QUA PENALTY, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO RECOUNT THE BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED, AND THE SAME FOR ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE SAME W OULD BE RELEVANT TOWARD A CORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS AS WELL AS UNDERSTANDING THE SA ME IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 200 4-05 FOUND THE ASSESSEE AS NOT LIABLE FOR PENALTY ON THE STRENGTH OF ITS BONA FIDES , I.E., OF HAVING AGREED FOR DISCLOSURE DESPITE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, ONLY TO SETTLE THE ISSUE WIT H THE REVENUE, SO THAT THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED IN SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA) WOULD APPLY. A SURVEY U/S.133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S. MAHASA GAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (MSPL) BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON 28.06.2006. THIS WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION WITH THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID COMPANY, AS WELL AS ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI, WERE ENGAGED IN GIVING ACCOM MODATION ENTRIES FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, BUSINESS LOSS, ETC. AS PER THE REQUI REMENTS OF THE CLIENTS, AGAINST THE RECEIPT 4 ITA NOS. 6327 & 6328/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 03-04 & 05-06) ASST. CIT VS. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL OF CASH, ON COMMISSION BASIS. ENQUIRIES WERE ALSO CONDUCTED WITH VARIOUS BANKS; SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI OPERATING SEVERAL BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES, INCLUDING MSPL. IN VIEW OF THE INCRIMINATING MATERI ALS FOUND, THE SAME WAS CONVERTED INTO A SEARCH ACTION. SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI ON BEIN G EXAMINED ON OATH THEREAT, ADMITTED TO EXTENDING ACCOMMODATION (HAWALA) ENTRIES FOR PRO FIT OR LOSS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, EXPLAINING THE MODUS OPERANDI BEING FOLLOWED FOR THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE, ALONG W ITH HER OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, VIZ. SHRI RATANCHAND J. OSWAL AND SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL, WAS FOUND TO BE AMONG THE BENEFICIARIES ON THE BASIS OF THESE ENQUIRIES. A SURVEY ACTION U/S.133A WAS, ACCORDINGLY, CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISE S OF M/S. HILDEN PACKAGING MACHINES PVT. LTD., IN WHICH THE SAID MALE MEMBERS ARE DIREC TORS, ON 28.12.2006. ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TOWARD CAPITAL GAINS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEE N TAKEN IN THE NAME OF ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND TWO HUFS, AS ALSO THROUGH OTHERS IN THE GUISE OF GIFTS. SHRI RATANCHAND J. OSWAL WAS EXAMINED ON OATH U/S.131 EXTENSIVELY ON A LL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, AND PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE COMPANIES OF SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI (COPY ON RECORD ), WHICH STATEMENT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY HIS SON, S H. RISHI OSWAL. ON BEING QUESTIONED WITH REGARD TO THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS THROUGH THESE COMPANIES; THEIR SHARES BEING NOT TRADED ON THE BOM BAY OR ANY OTHER RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE, HE EXPRESSED HIS IGNORANCE OF THE SAME, A S WELL AS OF THE ANTECEDENTS OF SUCH COMPANIES IN WHICH SHARES IN SUCH HUGE NUMBERS, AND FOR HUGE AMOUNTS, HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY HIM, EVEN AS THEIR FINANCIALS REFLEC TED THEM TO BE WORTHLESS (VIDE ANSWERS TO Q.NOS.17 TO 19). INCOME EARNED OSTENSIBLY BY WAY OF AND RETURNED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG), AGGREGATING TO RS. 790.88 LACS ( IN THE NAMES OF DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS), WAS CONCEDED TO BE ONLY INCOME, ROUTED THUS, TO A VAIL OF THE CONCESSIONAL TAX RATE AS WELL AS THE EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT ON THE SAID INCOME, WHICH CLAIMS WERE ADMITTED FOR BEING WITHDRAWN PER REVISED RETURNS. SHRI RATAN CHAND J. OSWAL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE ALSO FOUND TO BE IN RECEIPT OF GIFTS T OTALLING TO RS.1040.50 LAKHS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2005-06, WHICH STAND TABULATED AT QUESTION # 20 OF THE SAID STATEM ENT. SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI WAS HIMSELF FOUND TO HAVE GIVEN TWO GIFTS OF RS.2.5 LAK HS EACH ON 20.03.2003, BESIDES SIMILAR 5 ITA NOS. 6327 & 6328/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 03-04 & 05-06) ASST. CIT VS. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL GIFTS FROM HIS WIFE, SMT. MINAKSHI M. CHOKSI TO MAD HULIKA OSWAL, THE ASSESSEE, EVEN AS ADMITTEDLY MUKESH CHOKSI WAS NOT PERSONALLY KNOWN T O THEM (REFER ANS. TO Q. # 13). EXCEPT FOR A GIFT OF RS.10 LAKHS BY SHRI POPATLAL F ULCHAND (FATHER-IN-LAW OF DAUGHTER OF SHRI RATANCHAND J. OSWAL), ALL OTHER GIFTS WERE FOU ND AS FROM UNRELATED OR EVEN UNKNOWN PERSONS AND, THUS, NOT GENUINE, AND THEIR SUM, I.E. , RS.1030.50 LAKHS, AGAIN ADMITTED AS BEING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF SELF AND FAMILY, ROU TED THUS, ASSURING OF FILING REVISED RETURNS ADMITTING THE SAME AS INCOME FOR THE RELEVA NT YEARS AND PAYING TAX THEREON (IN ANSWER TO Q. NOS. 21 & 23). THE ADMISSION WAS IN FA CT HONOURED AND REVISED RETURNS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS FILED. THE AFORESAID FACTS EMANATE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW; THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ACCOMPANYING THE APPEALS TO THE LD. CIT(A) ; AND THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RATANCHAND J. OSWAL AND SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL, THE ASSESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW AND SPOUSE RESPECTIVELY, FOR A.Y. 2006-07 (IN ITA N OS. 4998 & 4999/MUM/2009 DATED 28.03.2013/COPY ON RECORD). THE COPY AND THE STATEM ENT OF SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI STANDS ALSO PLACED IN THE APPEAL FOLDER IN THE SAID CASES. THE SAME, THOUGH NOT ON RECORD, ITS ABSENCE WOULD BE OF NO MOMENT INASMUCH AS NOT O NLY THE TWO STATEMENTS ARE CORROBORATIVE, WITH THE ACTION ON THE SAID BROKER L EADING TO THE SURVEY IN THE CASE OF OSWALS; THE CONTENTS OF HIS DEPOSITION BEING NOT DI SPUTED, WITH HE, AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, BEING RATHER SUBSEQUENTLY BLACK LISTED BY SEBI. 3.2 IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE FINDINGS IN THE QUA NTUM PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH NOT CONCLUSIVE QUA THE LEVY OR OTHERWISE OF PENALTY, CONSTITUTE GOOD EVIDENCE TOWARD THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME (REFER: CIT VS. SOMNATH OIL MILLS [1995] 214 ITR 32 (GUJ.)). THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.03.2 013 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 (SUPRA) WOULD ALSO BE RELEVANT AS THE FACTS OF THE TWO CASES ARE THE SAME, WHICH IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2004-05, EX ONERATING PENALTY, IS COMMON FOR ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS. IN FACT, THE TRIBUNAL, AS A READING OF ITS ORDER DATED 28/3/2013 WOULD SHOW, WAS ALSO CONFRONTED WITH THE COMMON ORDER DEL ETING THE PENALTY FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THE FACTUAL FINDINGS ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE IT S SAID ORDER, EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE 6 ITA NOS. 6327 & 6328/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 03-04 & 05-06) ASST. CIT VS. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL ASSESSEE, HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS FINAL INASMUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL IS A FINAL FACT FINDING BODY. FURTHER, THIS WOULD BE MORE SO IN THE INSTANT CASE AS, AS A NARRATION OF FACTS WOULD SHOW, ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. IN VIEW THEREOF, IN OUR CLEAR V IEW IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TREAT THE MATTER AS COVERED OR EVEN TO TAKE A VIEW THAT THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (SUPRA), WHEREIN REVISED RETURNS SHOWING HIGHER IN COME WERE CONSIDERED AS AN ACT OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER IN GOOD FAITH, SO THAT IT WOULD NOT ATTRACT LEVY OF PENALTY; AS APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3.3 PENALTY, HOWEVER, BEING NOT AUTOMATIC, AND PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS BEING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, WHAT WOU LD THEREFORE NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, AND SEPARATELY, IS THE VALIDITY IN LAW OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN THIS REGARD, IN OUR VIEW THE ISSUE THAT ARISES AND WOULD REQUIRE ADJUDICATION IS AS STATED BY THE LD. DR, I.E., WHET HER THE REVISION OF ITS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE BY ADMITTING HIGHER INCOME OR HIGHER TAX L IABILITY ON HER INCOME, CAN BE SAID TO BE PER REVISED RETURN/S U/S. 139(5), OR IN ANY CASE VOLUNTARY, OR NOT SO, BEING RATHER AS A RESULT OF THE EFFORTS BY THE REVENUE. PENALTY, IT I S TRITE, IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL RETURN, SO THAT THE SAVING TO THE ASSESSEE FROM PEN ALTY, ON AN ADMISSION OF A HIGHER INCOME OR TAX LIABILITY SUBSEQUENTLY, COULD ONLY BE ON FURNISHING A REASONABLE EXPLANATION OR OTHERWISE ESTABLISHING BONA FIDES , AS WHERE THE SAME IS ON ACCOUNT OF A GENUINE MISTAKE OR THROUGH INADVERTENCE, AND NOT A RESULT OF A DELIBERATE ACTION. THIS IN FACT REPRESENTS TRITE LAW, AS EXPLAINED BY THE APEX COURT AS IN THE CASE OF G. C. AGARWAL VS. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 571 (SC). WHERE THE ADDITIONAL OFFE R WAS NOT PER REVISED RETURNS, AND ONLY UPON DISCOVERY OF THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF TH E INCOME BY THE REVENUE, THE SAME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS VOLUNTARY, SAVING PENALTY (RE FER, INTER ALIA, ADD. CIT VS. RADHEY SHYAM 1980] 123 ITR 125 (ALL) AND CIT VS. J. K. A. SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR [1977] 110 ITR 602 (MAD)). IT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF, IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C), IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE, AND NOT ON THE REVENUE, SO THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONCEALMENT, B UT IS DEEMED BY LAW WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO FURNISH AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLAN ATION WHICH IS EITHER FOUND TO BE FALSE OR 7 ITA NOS. 6327 & 6328/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 03-04 & 05-06) ASST. CIT VS. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL IT IS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE (SO THAT IT IS ONLY A BALD CLAIM), WITH THE SAME BEING BONA FIDE AND ACCOMPANIED BY DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL FACTS. 3.4 IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES, THE PENALTIE S STAND DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY FINDING/S BY HIM, BUT BY FOLLOW ING THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THE SAID ORDER, A S EXPLAINED HEREINBEFORE, WOULD NOT HOLD IN THE CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE, PARTICULARLY CO NSIDERING THE FINDINGS BY THE REVENUE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, SINCE CONFIRMED BY THE TRI BUNAL. THERE HAVING BEEN NO EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ON MERITS, WE, T HEREFORE, EVEN AS WAS THE COMMON CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US, RESTORE T HE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE MATTER ON MERITS IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF FACT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 0. 1 ) & 2 3& 456 7 ) 8 & 9: ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JULY 25, 2013 SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' */ MUMBAI ).(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' ; ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' ; / CIT CONCERNED 5. >)?@ $ (AB , + AB. , ' * / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. @CD E* / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' * / ITAT, MUMBAI