M/s. SONPANKHI SHARES & SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO Wd. 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6551/MUM/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3913 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2004
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Speculation loss; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) I II IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH MUMBAI BENCH MUMBAI BENCH MUMBAI BENCH E EE E MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI D K AGARWAL, JM & SHRI D K AGARWAL, JM & SHRI D K AGARWAL, JM & SHRI D K AGARWAL, JM & SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI R R R R K PANDA, AM K PANDA, AM K PANDA, AM K PANDA, AM IT ITIT ITA NO A NO A NO A NO. 6551/MUM/04 . 6551/MUM/04 . 6551/MUM/04 . 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) SONPANKHI SHARES & SECURITIES P LTD 12 RAYFREDA SIR M VMARG CHAKLA, ANDHERI () MUMBAI 93 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN PAN PAN PAN AAFCS0822F AAFCS0822F AAFCS0822F AAFCS0822F ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 . 6739/MUM/04 . 6739/MUM/04 . 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(2), MUMBAI VS SONPANKHI SHARES & SECURITIES P LTD 12 RAYFREDA SIR M VMARG CHAKLA, ANDHERI () MUMBAI 93 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: MS AARTI VISANJI REVENUE BY: SHRI D SONGATE O OO O R RR R D DD D E EE E R RR R PER PER PER PER R RR R K PANDA K PANDA K PANDA K PANDA: :: : ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 & ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 ARE CROS S APPEALS, THE FIRST ONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SECOND ONE BY THE REVEN UE AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.7.2004 OF THE CIT(A) -IV, MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2006 OF THE CIT(A)-IV, MUMBAI RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 ITA NO ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) 2003-04. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (BY THE ASSESSEE) ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (BY THE ASSESSEE) ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (BY THE ASSESSEE) ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (BY THE ASSESSEE) 2 THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS U NDER: THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE DELIVERY B ASE SHARE TRADING BUSINESS AND THE SHARE BROKING BUSINESS OF THE APP ELLANT AS TWO DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES, IGNORING THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE COMPANY AND THEREBY CONSIDERED THE LOSS INCURRED IN SHARE TRADING BUSIN ESS AS SPECULATION LOSS. 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A MEMBER OF BSE AND HAS DERIVED INCOME FROM BROKERAGE. IT HAS ALSO CAR RIED OUT TRADING IN SHARES. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE TRADING IN SHARE RESULTED IN LOSS OF ` 13,99,607/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SHARE TRADING LOSS OF ` 13,99,607/- SHALL NOT BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HELD THAT THE ENTIRE LOSS RELATING TO SHARE TRADING HAS TO BE TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 OF THE I T ACT. 2.2 IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) RELYING A COUPLE OF DECIS IONS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING SUCH LOSS AS SPECULAT ION LOSS. 3 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE US. 4 THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IS OF ` 34,507/- AND THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS OF ` 62,315/- AND THE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EXEMPT DURING THE YEAR. REFER RING TO THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS CONCORD COMMERCIALS P LTD 3 ITA NO ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) REPORTED IN 95 ITD 117 (SB-MUM), SHE SUBMITTED THA T THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4.1 THE LD DR, ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED BY THE LD COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS BY BOTH THE PART IES THAT THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE SPECIAL BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CONCORD COMMERCIALS P LTD (SUPRA), THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 ( BY THE REVENUE) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 ( BY THE REVENUE) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 ( BY THE REVENUE) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 ( BY THE REVENUE) 6 ALTHOUGH A NUMBER OF GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE RE VENUE, THEY ALL RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION AM OUNTING TO `. 21,11,988/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WR ITTEN OFF. 6.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF ` 22,11,686/- UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE S IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF ` 21.11.988/- WAS SHOWN AS SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKERAGE, WHEREIN MANY PARTIES VANISH OVER NIGHT AFTER INCURRING HEAVY LOSSES AND THE BURDEN OF THE SAME COMES TO THE SHARE BROKER AS HE IS DUTY BOUND TO MAKE PAYMENT TO THE R ESPECTIVE STOCK EXCHANGE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE OUTSTANDING OF PARTIES WR ITTEN OFF RELATES TO SHARE PURCHASED/SOLD FOR THE SAID PARTIES AND BROKERAGE E ARNED THERE ON WAS SHOWN AS INCOME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E SAID WRITTEN OFF AMOUNT IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 36(1) (VII) OF THE I T ACT. 4 ITA NO ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) 6.2 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINC ED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THE VALUE OF PURCHASE OR SALE DONE ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT IS NOT CREDITE D TO P&L ACCOUNT AND ONLY THE BROKERAGE INCOME DERIVED OUT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS W ERE INCLUDED. THEREFORE, THE COST OR SALE PRICE OF SECURITIES INCLUDED IN T HE CLIENTS ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FORM PART OF DEBIT AS THE SAID ENTRIES WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF BROKERAGE CREDITED. FURTHER, DETAILS OF SUCH BROKERAGE INCOME WHAT WAS TAKEN INTO COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IN THIS CASE HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED U/S 138/14 2 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT IN MAY 2001 WHICH IS PENDING FOR DEC ISION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF DCIT VS INDIA THERMIT CORPN LTD REPORTED IN 56 ITD 307, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS. 6.3 IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEF ORE US. 7 AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH SIDES, WE FIND THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO ALLOWABILI TY OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY A SHARE BROKER WHERE THE BROKER HAS CREDITED ONLY TH E BROKERAGE INCOME AND THE PURCHASE AND SALES ARE NOT ROOTED THROUGH P&L ACCOU NT. WE FIND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE VALUE OF PURCHASE OR SALE DONE ON BEHALF O F THE CLIENTS IS NOT CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT AND ONLY THE BROKERAGE INCOME DERI VED OUT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE INCLUDED. WE FIND THE ISSUE HAS NOW BEEN DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS SHREYAS MORAKHIA REPORTED IN 131 TTJ 631 (MUM) WHEREIN IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT IF THE BROKERAGE INCOME IS OFFERED TO TAX THEN THE PRINCIPAL DEBT QUALIFY AS A BAD DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VII) R.W.S 36(2) OF THE I T ACT. HO WEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE DETAILS OF SUC H BROKERAGE INCOME WHAT WAS TAKEN INTO COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, HAS NOT BE EN FURNISHED, THEREFORE, WE IN 5 ITA NO ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO GIVE AN OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE BROKERAGE ON ACCOUNT OF PART IES WHICH HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX AND IF FOUND CORRECT, ALLOW THE AMOUNT AS BAD DEBT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE DUE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS A CCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 ( B ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 ( B ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 ( B ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 ( BY THE ASSESSEE) Y THE ASSESSEE) Y THE ASSESSEE) Y THE ASSESSEE) 8 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF OF ` . 11,64,167/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE ROUND THAT THE DEBT WHAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION AND COULD NOT BE RECOVERED DOES NOT PARTAKE THE NATURE OF BAD DEBTS 9 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.6739/MUM/2004. W E HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE AND RESTORED THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V S SHREYAS MORAKHIA( SUPRA). .. . FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AC CORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE TREATMEN T OF THE DELIVERY AS SHARE TRADING BUSINESS AND THE SHARE BROKING BUSINE SS OF THE APPELLANT AS TWO DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES, IGNORING THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE COMPANY AND 6 ITA NO ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) CONSIDERING THE LOSS INCURRED IN SHARE TRADING BUSI NESS AS SPECULATION LOSS, INVOKING THE PROVISO TO SEC. 73 OF THE I T ACT 1961 . 10.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS OF SHARES AND DECLARED LOS S OF ` 20,95,722/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THIS LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS. BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS SPECULATION LOSS WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 10.2 THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COM PUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE AY 2003-04 THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: BUSINESS INCOME BUSINESS INCOME BUSINESS INCOME BUSINESS INCOME NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT 166,145 ADD DEPRECATION AS PER ACCOUNTS 48,495 LESS DEPRECIATION AS PER I T RULES 33,577 LESS DIVIDEND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 111,482 148, 059 BUSINESS INCOME 66,581 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES DIVIDEND 114,482 TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME TOTAL INCOME 181, 083 181, 083 181, 083 181, 083 ROUNDED OFF TO ROUNDED OFF TO ROUNDED OFF TO ROUNDED OFF TO ` `` ` 181,100 181,100 181,100 181,100 SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE YEAR IS `. 66,581/- WHEREAS THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS ` 114,482/-. FURTHER, DIVIDEND INCOME DECLARED DURI NG THE YEAR IS TAXABLE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CONCORD COMMERCIALS P LTD (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HIT BY THE PROVISO TO EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73. THE L D DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7 ITA NO ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) 11 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE FILED RE TURN ON 25.11.2003 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 79,042/- WHICH DONT TALLY WITH THE PRESENT COMPU TATION OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE, T HEREFORE, DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO VERIFY THE FIGURES AND IF FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THEN, FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF CONCORD COMMERCIALS P LTD (SUPRA), ALLOW THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DECIDING THIS I SSUE SHALL GIVE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 12 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3, WHICH IS AN ALTERNATE WH ICH READS AS UNDER: THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ALLOCATION OF PROPORTIONATE BUSINESS EXPENSES, RELATED TO THE SHARE TRADING BUSINESS TO SPECULATION BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND RESULTING IN DISALLOWANCE IN THE NO RMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, AND ALLOWING THE SAME UNDER SPECULATIO N BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF THE SAME AS EXPLAIN ED IN SECOND GROUND. 13 THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT I F LOSS IS NOT TREATED AS SPECULATION THEN ALLOCATION OF THE EXPENSES DOES NO T ARISE; THEREFORE, THIS GROUND BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 14 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE DEEM IT ROPER T O RESTORE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IF IT IS FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HIT BY THE PROVISO TO EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 THEN THE QUESTION OF ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL KEEP THIS IN MIND WHILE DECIDING THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, 15 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, IS DISMISSED. 16 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUN D WHICH IS AN ALTERNATE GROUND TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 WHICH READS AS UNDE R: 8 ITA NO ITA NO. 6551/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) & ITA NO. 3068/MUM/06 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) ITA NO. 6739/MUM/04 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED A SUM OF ` . 11,18,271/- AS TRADING LOSS 17 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS GROUND AS NOT P RESSED. 18 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 4 TH , DAY OF NOV 2010. SD/- SD/- ( ( ( ( D K AGARWAL D K AGARWAL D K AGARWAL D K AGARWAL ) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( ( R K PANDA R K PANDA R K PANDA R K PANDA ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED:4 TH , NOV 2010 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI