GEMPLUS JEWELLERY (I) LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT,8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6551/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: 655119914 RSA 2008
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBASHIS CHANDA
• Section: 143(3); 10

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI G BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PARTHAS ARATHY CHOUDHURY,JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO. 6551 /MUM/20 08 , / ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2005 - 06 GEMPLUS JEWELLERY (I) LTD. UNIT NO.1, PLOT NO.61, GEM & JEWELLERY COMPLEX, SEEPZ ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI - 400 092. PAN: AAACG 1284 D VS DCIT - 8(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : MS. AARTI VISSANJI / REVENUE BY : SHRI DEBASHIS CHANDA / DATE OF HEARING : 27 - 08 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 7 - 08 - 2015 , 1961 2 54 ( 1 ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 12.9.2008 OF CIT(A) - 8, MUMBAI THE ASSESSEE , HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L : 1.THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST EQUITY AND JUSTICE. 2.THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN TAKING F.D. INTEREST OF RS.186,53,590/ RECEIVED ON AMOUNT KEPT AS MARGIN MONEY WITH B ANKS FOR AVAILING EXPORT CREDIT FACILITIES FOR UNITS CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT ALLOWING THE NETTING THEREOF AGAINST INTEREST PAYMENT TO BANKS ON AFOREMENTIONED EXPORT CREDIT FACILITIES, FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADJUSTMENT WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.10A BY REDUCING ELIGIBLE EXPORT BY RS.843,81 ,935/ BEING EXPORT NOT RECEIVED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT R EDUCING FREIGHT ON EXPORTS AMOUNTING TO RS.23,94,037/ FROM TOTAL TURNOVER FOR CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A EVEN THOUGH THE SAME HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM EXPORT TURNOVER FOR CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKIN G ADDITION OF RS.4,20,700/ BEING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR INCREASE IN SHARE CAPITAL. 6.YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING . ASSESSEE - COMPANY, ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING EXPORT AND TRA DING O F DIAMOND STUDDED GOLD JEWELLERY ETC. , FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 .10.05 , DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME OF RS. 91,07,772/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( AO ) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 27 .12.200 7 U / S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE AT RS. 4 ,06,13 ,520/ - . ITA/6551/MUM/2008 - AY.05 - 06,GEMPLUS 2 2. F IRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO THE INTEREST INCOME AND ENTITLEMENT OF BENEFIT U/S. 10 A OF THE ACT.DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED FINANCE COST TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.44 CRORES T O THE P&L ACCOUNT ,THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT AFTER NETTING OF INTEREST OF 3.14 CR ORES RECEIVED ON FD WITH BANK, THAT OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT AN INTEREST OF RS.1,86,53,590/ - WAS RECEIVED FOR THE 10A UNIT AND RS.1,27,51, 545/ - PERTAIN TO N ON - 10A UNITS. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INTER E ST INCOME WAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES.VIDE HIS LETTER, DT.2.11.2007 , THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD .IN ITS RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT HAD OUTSTANDING CREDIT FACILITY IN THE BANKS, THAT IN TERMS OF SANCTION LETTER IT WA S R EQUIRED TO PLACE FIXED DEPOSITS FOR CASH MARGIN,THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS WE RE KEPT UNDER LI EN IN TERMS OF SANCTION LETTER, THAT THE FDS HAD BEEN PLACED DUE TO BUSINESS CO MPULSION AND NOT AS INVESTMENT OF SURPLUS FUNDS, THAT THE INTEREST ON THE FD FORMED PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE , THAT IT WAS PART OF EXPORT BUSINESS, THAT IT HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U / S.10A IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM SEEPZ , THAT THE INTEREST HAD TO BE C ONSIDERED AS PART OF PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR CALCULATION OF PROFIT EXEMPT U/S.10A IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SUB SECTION 4.IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT INTEREST RECEIVED ON FD WAS TO BE NETTED AGAINST INTEREST EXPENSES .ALTERNA TIVELY, IT WAS ARGUED THAT IF THE INTEREST RECEIVED WAS CONSIDER E D AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THEN INTER E ST PAID ON BORROWINGS MADE FOR PLACEMENT OF SUCH DEPOSITS HAD TO BE ALLOWED AND HAD TO BE REDUCED FROM SUCH RECEIPTS.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO HELD THAT IT HAD RECEIVED THE INTEREST F R OM THE BANKS AGAINST THE DEPOSIT MADE, THAT THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF INCOME WAS FROM BANK AND NOT THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY IT, THAT RECEIPT OF INTEREST WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY ESTABLISH THAT THE INTER E ST INCOME IS DERIVED FROM THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, THAT INTEREST HAD TO BE TREATED FROM OTHER SOURCES .THE AO REFERRED TO THE CASES OF MONARCH TOOLS PVT. LTD. (260 ITR 258), SISCO (240 ITR 24), JOSE THOMAS (253 ITR 553) AN D PAREKH BROTHERS (25 3 ITR 43).W ITH REGARD TO THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT THE AO REFERRED TO THE CASE S OF TUTICORIN ALKALI C HEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD.(227 ITR 172) , V.P. GOPINATHAN (248 ITR 449), K.S. SUBBAIAH PILLAI & CO. (I)PVT. LTD.(260 ITR 304) AND HELD THAT THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS, AMOUNTING TO RS.3,1 4,05,135/ - HAD TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THAT THE INTEREST OF RS.1.86 WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10A OF THE ACT. 2.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY ( FAA ) AND MADE THE IDENTICAL SUBMISSION S THAT WERE MADE IN THE EARLIERAY.S. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSORS, THE FAA DID NOT ALLOW THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF TREATMENT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTI ON U/S.10A OF THE ACT.THE FAA RELIED UPON THE CASES OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS LTD. (262ITR 278) AND BAKELITE HYLAM LTD.(287 ITR75 ).FINALLY , HE REJECTED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F OR GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A. REGARDING THE NETTING OF INTER E ST PAID AND INT EREST RECEIVED, HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF LIBERTY FOOTWEAR CO.(287 ITR 339) AND HELD THAT THE NETTING OFF OF INTEREST COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. 2.2. BEFORE US, THE AR CONTENDED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS IMPORTING GOLD, THAT IT HAD TO KEEP MARGIN MONEY WITH THE BANK, THAT IT WAS AVAILING CREDIT FACILITY, THAT IT HAD ASKED ONLY FOR NETTING OF INTEREST.SHE REFERRED TO PG - 12 OF THE APPEAL PAPER FILED BEFORE THE FAA AND RELIED UPON THE CASES OF MOTOROLA(265 CTR 94) AND JEWEL M ARK INDIA PVT. LTD.(ITA/ 5036/MUM/2012 AY.20 07 - 08, DATED 21.03.2014)THE DR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE DIRECT NEXUS OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED WITH THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY IT. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD.WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISS UE OF NETTING OFF OF INTEREST HAD ARISEN IN THE CASE OF JEWEL M ARK INDIA PVT. LTD. ITA/6551/MUM/2008 - AY.05 - 06,GEMPLUS 3 (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATTER ON RECORD. THE FIRST ITEM OF DISALLOW ANCE IS REGARDING BANK INTEREST RS.1,02,022/ . THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST EARNED HAD A DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE BUSMESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE FIXED DEPOSIT WERE KEPT UNDER LIEN WITH BANK FOR SANCTION OF LOANS .ALTERNATIVELY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY NET RECEIPT WAS TO BE DISALLOWED KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. VS. CIT. WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE ON PARA 2.3 AS UNDER: I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. AS FAR AS INTEREST INCOME IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE BY DECISION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CORNET I NTERNATIONAL 304 ITR 322, WHEREIN THE COURT HAS HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME HAS NO DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND HENCE, WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 10A. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MENON IMP EX PVT. LTD. 259 ITR 403. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TRICOM INDIA LTD. 36 SOT 302. HOWEVER; WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF SETTING OFF EXPENSES AGAINST THE SAID INCOME, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE RATIO OF DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES P. LTD. CITED SUPRA, AND ALLOW INTEREST INCOME HAVING DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE INTEREST INCOME . 5. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FINDING OF CIT(A) THAT THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER TH E NETTING OF EXPENSES IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES VS. CIT (SUPRA), HENCE NO GRIEVANCE IS LEFT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE,WE DECIDE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . 3. GROUND NO.2 IS ABOUT ADJUSTMENTS TO BE MADE FOR CALCULATING DEDUCTION US/ 10A OF THE ACT. D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO FOUND THAT THE RBI HAD EXTENDED T HE TIME FOR EXPORT REALISATION FOR A MONTH. VIDE HIS LETTER DT.4 .11.2007 THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF EXPORT AND EXPORT REALIZATION.IN ITS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE INFORMED HIM THAT SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.8.43 CR ORES I N RESPECT OF 10A UNIT WAS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT.THE ASSESSEE HAD TREAT ED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION AS A PART OF EXPORT TURN OVER A ND HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. R EFERRING TO THE SEC.10A(3), THE AO HELD THAT PROVISION OF THE SAID SECTION WERE APPLICABLE ONLY IF THE SALE PROCEEDS FOR EXPORT OUTSIDE INDIA WERE RECE I VED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTH FROM THE END OF FY . OR WITHIN SUCH FURTHER PERIOD EXTENDED BY RBI, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF OF REALIS ATION/ EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE RBI, THAT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY IT ON UNREALIZED EXPORT WAS TO BE DISALLO WED. 3.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAA , THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RBI HAD PERMITTED IT TO REALIS E THE EXPORT PROCEEDS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT.HE DIRECTED THE AO TO KEEP ON RECORD THE PERMISSION LETTERS ISSUED BY THE RBI AND TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CORRESPONDING EXPORT RECEIPTS,IF RECEIVED, WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT ALLOWED BY THE RBI. 3.2. BEFORE US,THE AR STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNIT IN SEEPZ, THAT EX - POST FACTO PER MISSION WAS GRANTED BY THE RBI.S HE REFERRED TO THE LETTER OF R BI DT.15.6.2009. SHE RELIED UPON THE CASE OF WIPRO LTD.(34DTR493)OF THE BANGALORE TRIBUNAL. THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FA A. 3.3. WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAD GIVEN SPECIFIC DIRECTION ABOUT UN REALISED THE EXPORT SALE PROCEEDS. IN OUR OPINION,HIS ORDER DOES NOT SUF FER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY.IF THE AO HAS NOT MADE ITA/6551/MUM/2008 - AY.05 - 06,GEMPLUS 4 VERIFICATION TILL DATE,HE SHOULD VERIFY AS TO WHETHER THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE REALISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME OR NOT.GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. NEXT G RO UND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT NOT REDUCING FREIGHT ON EXPORT, AMOUNTING TO RS.23,94,037/ - FROM TOTAL TURNOVER FOR CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT. DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REDUCED THE FREIGHT AND INSURANCE RE LATABLE TO EXPORTS OF 10A UNITS FROM CIF VALUE, THAT THE EXPORT TURNOVER WAS NOT TAKEN AT FOB VALUE OF EXPORT.HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE FOB VALUE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS EXPORT TURNOVER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E THE A O REDUCED THE FREIGHT AMOUNT OF RS.23.94 LACS FROM THE EXPORT TURN OV ER FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S. 10A. 4.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE FAA FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR AY 2003 - 04 AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 4 .2. BEFORE US,THE AR STATED THAT ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT,DELIVERED IN ASSSESSEES OWN CASE(330ITR175).THE DR LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH.WE FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING TH E APPEAL FILED FOR AY.2003 - 04 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 10A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, A DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS AS ARE DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKI NG FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING BEGINS MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION. SUB SECTION (4) OF S ECTION 10A PROVIDES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE SHALL BE COMPUTED. UNDER SUB SECTION (4) THE PROPORTION BETWEEN THE EXPORT TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF THE ARTICLES OR THINGS, OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, COMPUTER SOFTWARE EXPORTED, TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED OVER BY THE UNDERTAKING IS APPLIED TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINES S OF THE UNDERTAKING ARE MULTIPLIED BY THE EXPORT TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF THE ARTICLES, THINGS OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND DIVIDED BY THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE UNDERTAKING. THE EXPRESSION TOTAL TURNOVER HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED AT ALL BY PARLIAMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 10A . HOWEVER, THE EXPRESSION EXPORT TURNOVER HAS BEEN DEFINED. THE DEFINITION OF EXPORT TURNOVER EXCLUDES FREIGHT AND INSURANCE. SINCE EXPORT TURNOVER HAS BEEN DEFINED BY PARLIAMENT AND TH ERE IS A SPECIFIC EXCLUSION OF FREIGHT AND INSURANCE, THE EXPRESSION EXPORT TURNOVER CANNOT HAVE A DIFFERENT MEANING WHEN IT FORMS A CONSTITUENT PART OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA. A CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTORY PROVISION WHICH WOULD LEAD TO AN ABSURDITY MUST BE AVOIDED. MOREOVER, A RECEIPT SUCH AS FREIGHT AND INSURANCE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY ELEMENT OF PROFIT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER. FREIGHT AND INSURANCE DO NOT HAVE AN ELEMENT OF TURNOVER. FOR THIS REASON IN ADDITION, THESE TWO ITEMS WOULD HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER PARTICULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF A LEGISLATIVE PRESCRIPTION TO THE CONTRARY. RESPECTFULLY,FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.4 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E. 5. THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS.4.02 LACS, BEING THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR INCREASE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL. DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE AR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS TO BE DECIDED ITA/6551/MUM/2008 - AY.05 - 06,GEMPLUS 5 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGH T OF THE DECISION DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BROKE BOND INDIA (225 ITR 798) . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT WE DECIDE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH , AUGUST ,2015. 27 , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( / PARTHASARATHY CHOUDHURY ) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, /DATE:27.08. 2015 . . . JV . SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI.