ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI V. DILIP MAHABAL KULKARNI, MUMBAI

ITA 6752/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9408 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA YADAV
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 68; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 6498/M/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 ) MR. DILIP MAHABAL KULKARNI, OM NEEL SAGAR COOP SOCIETY, OPP. CARTER ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI 400 050. PAN: AGLPK6710 C VS. ITO - 19(3)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.A.NO. 6752/M/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 2009 ) ITO - 19(3)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI. VS. MR. DILIP MAHABAL KULKARNI, OM NEEL SAGAR COOP SOCIETY, OPP. CARTER ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI 400 050. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JITENDRA JAIN REVENUE BY : SHRI AKHILENDRA YADAV, DR DATE OF HEARING: 16.02.2015 DATE OF ORDER: 25 .2.2015 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEY ARE CROSS APPEALS INVOLVING THE AY 2008 - 2009. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 30, MUMBAI DATED 29.8.2011. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE CONNECTED, THEREFORE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. 2. FIRSTLY, WE SHALL TAKEN THE APPEAL ITA NO.6498/M/2012, WHICH IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A). IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE SOLITARY GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 F OF THE ACT AND THE SAID GROUND R EADS AS UNDER: THE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 MADE BY THE ITO AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,78,988/ - BASED ON THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF OFFICE PREMISES 2 FU RNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, IN COMPUTING THE APPELLANTS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ABOVE YEAR. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT SINCE A PORTION OF THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION WAS INVESTED IN A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE YEAR, THE ITO OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 TO THAT EXTENT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,35,710/ - . DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE SOLD HIS PROPERTY BEING OFFICE NO.203, 2 ND FLOOR, JOLLY BHAVAN NO.2, NEW MARINE LINE, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 20 AND REPORTED THE EARNING OF CAP ITAL GAINS OF RS. 25,10,571/ - ON SALE OF THE SAME . SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE PURCHASED A NEW ASSET ON 30.10.2007 AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS. THUS, THE ASSESSED INCOME IS DETERMINED AT RS. 1,66,36,400/ - . THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE INCREASE IN THE ASSESSED INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PROPERTY OF RS. 25,10,571/ - . IT IS THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT WHEN THE SAID CAPITAL GAINS WERE NOT INVESTED IN THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE STIPULATED DUE DATES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS MAKING A PROPORTIONATE CLAIM COMPUTING THE TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 7,38,404/ - . IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION, ASSESSEE CONSIDERED ONLY THE AMOUNT SPENT DURING THE STIPULATED DUE DATES. ASSESSEE CLAIMED REVISED DE DUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 9,78,988/ - ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. THE REVISED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT (A). AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE DENIAL OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR CONSID ERING THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK DATED 30.6.2014 AND DEMONSTRATED THE FIL ING OF THE REVISED COMPUTATION BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS PER THE REVISED COMPUTATION, THE TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WORKS OUT TO RS. 7,38,404/ - AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 PROPORTIONATELY AND THE SAME IS WORKED OUT TO R S. 9,78,988/ - . THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BEFORE EXEMPTION IS COMPUTED AT RS. 17,17,392/ - . FURTHER, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, 3 ASSESSEE FILED COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI HUMAYUN S MERCHANT VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO.5009/M/2011, DATED 17.5.2002. BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS ACTUALLY DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN PRINC IPLE THE TRIBUNAL APPROVED GRANTING OF PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION U/S 54F. FURTHER, BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 6 OF THE SAID TRIBUNALS ORDER, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS PERMISSIBLE TO THE EXTENT THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY UTILIZED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE SPECIFIED BANK ACCOUNT AS PER SUB - SECTION 4 . IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED ONLY RS. 15 LAKHS IN ACQUIRING A NEW ASSET AND THE DEDUCTION WAS RESTRICTED PROPORTIONATELY. THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS APPROVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI HUMAYUN S MERCHANT (SUPRA), IT IS THE PRAYER OF THE LD COUNSEL THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR CONSIDERING THE REVISED COMPUTATION AND GRANTING OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE PROPORTIONATE BASIS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS O F THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CITED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI HUMAYUN S MERCHANT (SUPRA). ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAID REVISED COMPUTATION PLACED AT PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO CONSIDER THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI HUMAYUN S MERCHANT (SUPRA) AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 ITA NO.6752/M/2012 (AY 2008 - 2009) ( BY REVENUE ) 8. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 5.11.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 30, MUMBAI DATED 29.8.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ADOPT COST OF INFLATION INDEX OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER F I RST HELD THE ASSET WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE ASSET IN F.Y. 2003 - 04 I . E. AFTER THE DEATH OF H I S MOTHER LATE SMT. SHEELA M KULKARN I . (2) ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE DEC I SION I N THE CASE OF MANJULA J . SHAH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,23,600/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES RECEIVED FROM SKYPAK FINANCIAL SECURITIES PVT. LTD. SOLE L Y RELY I NG ON THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS BEEN FOLLOW I NG CASH SYSTE M OF ACCOUNTING AND THE SAME IS BEING OFFERED FOR TAXAT I ON IN A . Y . 2009 - 10, I GNORING THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 AFTER THE DATE OF ASSE SSMENT AND FAILED TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND BY ITSELF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN RULE 46A(1) OF THE IT RULES WERE NOT SATISFIED. (4) ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS OF RS . 13,85 , 200/ - AND ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE IT. ACT ON ACCOUNTED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS. 1 , 10,81,320/ - RESPECT I VELY ADM I TTING NEW EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOT F I LED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , IGNORING THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE REMAND REPORT AGAINST ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED IN RULE 46A(1) OF THE IT RULE WERE NOT SATISFIED, WITHOUT GIVING AN Y FINDING THAT THE CONDIT I ONS PRESCRIBED I N RULE 46A(1) OF IT RULE 1962 HAVE BEEN FULFILLED BY THE APPELLANT TO JUST I FY PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCES NOT FI L ED DUR I NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED I N DELETING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS IGNORING THAT NON FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS PRESCR I BED FOR PRODUCING EV I DENCES NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF I CER PROHIBITS THE APPELLANT FROM PRODUC I NG SUCH EVIDENCES DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. (6) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW , THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN IGNORING THE RATIO OF DEC I SION OF HON ' BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VILJI DEORAJ & CO VS. CIT (BO M) 68 ITR 708 WHEREIN THE COURT HELD THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED IS VITAL AND IMPORTANCE DOES NOT PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE TO ALLOW ITS ADMISSION AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PA RTY AT THE INITIAL STAGE AND HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED BY HIM, IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. 9. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THESE GROUNDS RELATE TO THE ADOPTING OF THE COST OF INFLATION INDEX OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE 5 PROPERTY BY INHERITANCE FROM HIS MOTHER WHO ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BEFORE 1.4.1981. ASSESSEE INHERITED HER SHARE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE FY 2003 - 2004. IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, ASSESSEE ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE INDEXATION ONLY FROM THE FY 2003 - 2004 , THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY INHERITED THE PROPERTY. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, CIT (A) G RANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJULA J SHAH (355 ITR 474). AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID DECISION OF THE CIT (A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY MENTIONING (G ROUND NO.2) THAT THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J SHAH (SUPRA) WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. 10. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J SHAH (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INDEXATION SHOULD BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PR EVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD AND NOT THE YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE OWNER OF THE ASSET. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CITED JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAJULA J SHAH (SUPRA). ON PERUSAL OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, WE FIND PARA 3.4 IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 3.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DE CISION OF THE CIT VS. MANJULA J SHAH WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN AVAIL INDEXATION BENEFIT FOR THE PERIOD HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IN THIS CASE OF MAJULA J SHAH, THE DECISION OF KISHORE KANUNGO CITED ABOVE HAS BEEN OVERRULED. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF MANJULA J SHAH, IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR INDEXATION BENEFIT FROM 1.4.1981 WITH REGARD TO 50% SHARE OF THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY LATE MOTHER OF THE APPELLANT IN 197 3. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MAJULA J SHAH AND THE SAME IS NOW UPHELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT AS REPORTED IN 355 ITR 474. THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6 14. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 6 RELATE TO THE ADMI SSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(1) OF THE IT RULES, 1962. BEFORE US, LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,23,600/ - (PROFESSIONAL FEES) AND RS. 13, 85,200/ - (CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS). FINALLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,10,81,320/ - WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT (A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(1) OF THE IT RULES, 1962. HOWEVER, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK (LETTER DATED 8.9.2011 CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER) AND PAGE 3 TO 5 OF THE PB (THE REMAND REPORT DATED 1.8.2012) AND MENTIONED THAT THE CIT (A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, NO INJUSTICE IS DONE TO THE REVENUE BY ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THE CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND REMANDED ALL OF THEM TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND SUBMISSION OF THE REMAND REPORT. ON CONSIDERING THE SAID REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CIT (A) ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES. IN OUR OPINION, THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY THE CIT (A) IS AS PER THE SET PRINCIPLES OF THE NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION TO THE SAID RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 3 TO 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 5 T H FEBRUARY, 2015. S D / - S D / - (H.L. KARWA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 2 5 .2.2015 AT :MUMBAI OKK 7 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A), CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCER NED. 5. THE DR D, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI