ACIT CIR. - 4(2), MUMBAI V. M/s. ROSY BLUE SECURITIES P. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6411/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6206 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B SENTHIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 131; 263

Judgement Text

ITA N O . 6030 AND 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI D BENCH, MUMBAI [CORAM : N V VASUDEVAN JM, AND PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO: 6030/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ROSY BLUE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED .. APPELLANT VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... RES PONDENT CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI ITA NO: 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI .. APPELLANT VS. ROSY BLUE SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED ... RESPONDENT P J PADIWALA, ALONG WITH NITESH JOSHI, FOR THE ASSE SSEE B SENTHILKUMAR, FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 15 TH SEPTEMBER 2006, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. ITA N O . 6030 AND 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAGE 2 OF 8 2. AS FAR AS ASSESSING OFFICERS APPEAL IS CONCERNE D, THE ONLY GRIEVANCE RAISED THEREIN IS AGAINST CIT(A)S HOLDING THAT DEP RECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE IN RESPECT OF BSE (BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE) MEMBERSHI P CARD. 3. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT THE IS SUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LIMITED VS CIT (327 ITR 323), EVEN AS LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RATHER DUTIFULLY RELIED UPON THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TECHNO SHARES (SUPRA), WE APPROVE TH E CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MA TTER. 5. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THU S DISMISSED. WE NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.6030/M/2006. 6. IN THE FIRST GROUND APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAI SED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLO WANCE OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO ` .1,75,95,285/- WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR. 7. SO FAR AS THIS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONC ERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO, INTER ALIA, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLA IMED BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO ` .1,75,95,285/-. IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSING OFFICERS REQUISITION TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENT ERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SHRI MAYANK KHANDWALA ON 23.12.1999 FOR PROVIDING SERVICES OF BUYING AND SELLING SHARES AND SECURITIE S ON HIS BEHALF. WHILE THE SAID KHANDWALA WAS REGULARLY MAKING THE PAYMENT S OF THE BILLS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME, IT WAS AROUND 27 .2.2001, THAT THE SAID CUSTOMER STARTED DEFAULTING OF PAYMENTS. THE OUTST ANDING DUES ON THE SAID ITA N O . 6030 AND 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAGE 3 OF 8 CUSTOMER AS ON 31.3.2003 WAS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOV ERABLE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE ASSESSEES BEST EFFORTS TO R ECOVER THE AMOUNT FROM THE SAID CUSTOMER, HE FAILED TO DO SO AND FOR THIS REASON THE AMOUNT HAD TO BE WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS. ON THESE BASIC FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER POSED BEFORE HIMSELF TWO QUESTIONS -1) WHETHER THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT IS ALLOWABLE AS A BAD DEBT OR 2) WHETHER THE SAID CLAI M, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IS ALLOWABLE AS LOSS INCIDENTAL TO THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ON THE GIVEN FACTS, IT WAS NOT POSSIB LE TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AMOUNT HAD ACTUALLY BECOME BAD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE SAID LOSS HA D NOT CRYSTALISED IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SAME COULD NOT BE ALLOW ED AS A BUSINESS LOSS EITHER. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS WAS DECLINED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L BEFORE THE CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE VI EW THAT IN THE APPELLANTS CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, ONLY THE BROK ERAGE PAT HAVING BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF A PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF BILLING CANNOT BE REGARDED AS BAD DEBTS. ON THE QUESTION OF ALTERNATE CLAIM AS BUSINESS LOSS, THE CIT (A) WAS O F THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE LOSS HAD NOT CRYSTALISED IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS Y EAR, THE DEDUCTION ON THAT ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED EITHER. THE ASSE SSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE CIT (A), IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AS FAR AS THE MAIN PLEA OF TH E ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI (SB) IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS SHRI SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA, 131 TTJ 641 (BOM), WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THE AMOUNT CREDITE D IN THE ACCOUNT OF BROKER IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF BROKERAGE/COMMISSION. SINCE THE SAID BROKERAGE/COMMISSION VERY MUCH FORMS PART OF THE SAID DEBT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTI ON VALUE, IT SATISFIES THE CONDITION STIPULATED IN SECTION 36(2)(I) AND THUS T HE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) BY WAY OF BAD DEBTS AFTER HAVING WRITTEN OF THE SAID DEBTS ITA N O . 6030 AND 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAGE 4 OF 8 FROM HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS IRRECOVERABLE. IN THI S VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE OBJECTION TAKEN BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW I.E. ENTIRE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS BAD DEBTS HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED AS INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR OR EARLIER YEARS IS DEVOID O F ANY LEGAL SUSTAINABLE MERITS. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ANOTHER OBJECTION BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE ESTABLISH THAT THE A MOUNT CLAIMED AS BAD DEBTS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BAD. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD VS CIT (323 ITR 397), IT IS NOW WELL SETTL ED IN LAW THAT THE AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS W RITTEN OFF AND DOES NOT REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT HAS ACTUALLY BECOME BAD. ACCORDINGLY, THE SECOND OBJECTION TAKEN BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS EQ UALLY DEVOID OF ANY MERITS AND CANNOT BE UPHELD. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW INDEED ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE BAD DEBTS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ADDRESSED AT LENGTH THE AL TERNATIVE CLAIM TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ALSO DEDUCTIBLE AS BUSINESS LOSS AND LOS S HAD CRYSTALISED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT WAS IN THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE HOPE OF RECOVERING THE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS RELEVANT ONLY IN THE EVENT FOR DECIDING THE BASIC GROUND I.E. THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF T HESE DISCUSSIONS, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE AND ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GRIEVANCE: THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` .1,00,000/- BEING TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID TO THE SEBI ON THE GROUN D THAT IT RELATES TO EARLIER YEAR. 10. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTION OF ` .1 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES, WHICH, I N THE AUDIT REPORT, HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. WHEN THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD PAID ` .7 LAKHS TOWARDS MEMBERSHIP OF THE DERIVATIVES SEGMENT IN F.Y. 2000 -2001 OF WHICH, ` . 1 LAKH WAS PAID AS ADVANCE TRANSACTION CHARGES. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE DEMAND ADVICE WAS RECEIVED BY ITA N O . 6030 AND 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAGE 5 OF 8 THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 2000-2001 ITSELF. HOWEVER, SI NCE THE SAID EXPENSES WERE NOT CLAIMED BY DEBITING IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE R ELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE PRIO R PERIOD EXPENSES AS THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESS EE AGGRIEVED AND CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. THE CIT (A) HELD THAT AMOUNT DEFINITELY DID NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION NOR THE LIABILITY CRYSTALISED DURING THE YEAR. HE, THUS, CONFIRMED THE ACTION O F THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES GRIE VANCE IS JUSTIFIED. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` .1 LAKH WAS ADMITTEDLY ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE TRANS ACTION CHARGES AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE AO HIMSELF AND WAS PAID IN TH E F.Y. 2000-2001. IT CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT, WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS ADVANCE TRANSACTION CHARGES IN F.Y. 2000-2001 ALLOWED ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR PERTAINING TO THAT FINANCIAL YEAR. AS A MATTER OF FACT BY THE DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANS ACTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR. HOWEVER, THE V ERY OBJECTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THIS DEDUCTION BEING ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR IS THAT I T WAS ALLOWABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED 31.3.2001. THI S ASSUMPTION, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERTAKING, IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR THAT AMOUNT WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE BUSINESS INTEREST. MERELY BECAUSE THE AMO UNT HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN EARLIER YEAR, PARTICULARLY, IN THE YEA R IN WHICH, IT IS TERMED AS TRANSACTION CHARGES PAYMENT, THE DEDUCTION FOR WHICH EXPENDITUR E CANNOT BE DECLINED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSION AND BEARING IN M IND THE ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE IMPUG NED DISALLOWANCE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 12. BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASS ESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: 1. THE APPELLANT IS A SHARE BROKER. DUE TO TURMOI L IN SHARE MARKET IN 2001, ONE OF THE SUB-BROKERS OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN A POSIT ION TO HONOUR ITS FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO RECOVERI ES WERE POSSIBLE FROM THE SAID ITA N O . 6030 AND 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAGE 6 OF 8 SUB-BROKER, AN AMOUNT OF ` .2,61,09,809/- DUE FROM M/S. KIRAN CONSULTANTS PVT LTD., SUB-BROKER, WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2001, AND THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS BAD DEBTS/B USINESS LOSS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR BAD DEBT/BUSINESS LOSS IN A.Y. 2001-02 IS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT CONTINUE HAVING BUSIN ESS TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SAID SUB-BROKER TILL FEBRUARY/MARCH, 2001 AND AS SUCH TH E CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS BUSINESS LOSS IS PREMATURE. 3. THE APPELLANT RECEIVED AN ARBITRATION AWARD IN N OVEMBER, 2002 AND, THEREFORE, EVEN AS PER THE STAND OF THE AO THE CLAIM FOR BAD D EBTS/BUSINESS LOSS THUS CRYSTALLIZED IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003-04. 4. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE CLAI M FOR THE AFORESAID BAD DEBTS/BUSINESS LOSS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04, AS THE SAID CLAIM WAS ACCEPTED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND IS NOW WITHDRAWN BY TAK ING RECOURSE TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 5. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ARE PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT. 13. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD O RIGINALLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS OF ` .2,61,09,809/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND T HE SAME WAS DULY ALLOWED. HOWEVER, BY WAY OF REVISION ORDER, THE SA ID ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND THE AO HAS BEEN ASKED TO RECONSIDER THE ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AND ALSO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REVISION ORDER SO PASSED BY THE CIT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT T HE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH HA S BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AS BAD DEBTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, CANNOT BE ALL OWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE YEAR 2001-02 BECAUSE THE LOSS IF ANY HAS BEEN CRYSTALLISED IN TH E YEAR 2003-04, WHICH IS THE YEAR BEFORE US. LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NO REASON TO MAKE THIS CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE CLAIM WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND DULY ALLOWED BY THE AO HIMSELF. HOWEVER,, IN THE F ACTUAL SCENARIO NOW, THE ASSESSEE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE THAT THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT S BEING ALLOWED IN THE CURRENT YEAR I.E. 2003-04 MAY ALSO BE ADJUDICATED SO THAT THE REVENUE S STAND REGARDING NON-DEDUCTIBILITY OF DEDUCTION IN A.Y. 2001-02 IS UPHELD, THE ASSESSE E IS NOT PUT TO UNDUE HARDSHIP BY ITA N O . 6030 AND 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAGE 7 OF 8 DISALLOWING IN ANY OF THE YEARS. HE THUS PRAYS THA T THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS MAY BE ADMITTED AND REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR ADJ UDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSES THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE WHICH IS SHORT TO BE RAISED NOW DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN HIS BRIEF REJOINDER, LEARNED COUNSEL INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO FULL BENCH DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT REPORTED IN 199 ITR 351,WHEREIN, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAS HELD THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND EVEN THOUGH THE GROUNDS COULD NOT BE ARISEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 14. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVI NG PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER THAT ON THE GIVEN PECULIA R FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DEVELOPMENTS WHICH TOOK PLACE POST FINANCIAL YEAR 2 001-02, IT WOULD BE INDEED BE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, TO LET THE ASSESSEE RAISE THE ALTERNATE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND LET THE MATTER BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR ADJUDI CATION ON MERITS AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, TH EREFORE, ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND REMIT THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR ADJUDI CATION AFRESH BY WAY OF SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS I NDICTED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEM BER, 2010. (N V VASUDEVAN) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER MUMBAI :______ DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2010 . COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER -4,, MUMBAI ITA N O . 6030 AND 6411/MUM/06 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 PAGE 8 OF 8 4. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - IV , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, D BENCH, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ETC . ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER