GLORIA SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 6(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 680/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4971 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K NAYAK
• Keywords: Speculation loss; Condonation of delay
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, (JM) AND SHRI A.L. GEHL OT,(AM) ITA NO.680/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 GLORIA SECURITIES P. LTD. 8/29, GURUKRIPA BUILDING N.C. KELKAR ROAD, DADAR (W) MUMBAI-400 028. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AABCG 3410 G) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(3)(1) MUMBAI. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. K. NAYAK O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 17 DAYS. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE DELAY OF 17 DAYS HAS OCCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT ON RECEIPT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER THE SAME WAS FORWARDED TO SHRI PRAKASH R. PATIL, PARTNER OF M/S. KOTHARI AND KENIA, CA FOR FURTHER ACTION AS HE WAS ATTENDING TO THE ITA NO.680/M/2010 A.Y:06-07 2 TAXATION MATTERS OF THE COMPANY. HOWEVER, DUE TO IL LNESS OF MR. PATIL IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2010 HE COULD NOT ATTEND TO THE PR EPARATION OF 2 ND APPEAL AND THE DELAY OF 17 DAYS IN FILING THE SECOND APPEA L WAS SOLELY FOR THIS REASON WHICH MAY BE CONDONED AND IN SUPPORT HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.6.2010 OF SHRI RAHUL VASANT SHAH , DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AFFIDAVIT DATED 7.6.2010 OF SHRI PRAKAS H R. PATIL, CA. THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLU DING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR. DID NOT SER IOUSLY OBJECT TO THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. THIS BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE AND KEEPIN G IN VIEW THAT IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THA T IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY A LIBERAL AND PRAGMATIC VIEW S HOULD BE TAKEN, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT FO R THE DELAY APPEARS TO BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IS CON DONED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN SHARES AND DE RIVATIVES, FILED RETURN DECLARING NIL INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS INTERALIA OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN SPECULATION PROFIT OF RS.30,72,875/-. FROM THE COM PUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADJUSTED CARRY FO RWARD SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.30,54,278/- AGAINST THE SPECULATION PROFITS OF T HE CURRENT YEAR. FROM THE RECORDS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT WAS OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.40,78,981/- FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2000-01 AND SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.4,15,955/- FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2001-02. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE SPECULA TION LOSS OF RS.40,78,981/- AND RS.4,15,955/- BEING THE SPECULAT ION LOSSES FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S.73(4) OF THE A CT WHEREIN IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE SPECULATION LOSS CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD FO R ONLY FOUR YEARS AND THAT TOO FOR THE SUCCEEDING FOUR YEARS IN WHICH THE LOSS WAS FIRST COMPUTED. THE EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE FINANCE ACT, 2005 ALSO EXP LAINS THIS AMENDMENT ITA NO.680/M/2010 A.Y:06-07 3 WHICH IS EFFECTIVE FROM THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. EVEN ON GOING THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WORDS EIGHT HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY FOUR. T HEREFORE, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS O F THIS SECTION THAT THE SPECULATION LOSS CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD ONLY FOR FO UR SUCCESSIVE YEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SUCH LOSS WAS FIRST COMPUT ED AND ACCORDINGLY HE DECLINED TO SET OFF OF SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.40,78 ,981 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND RS.4,15,955/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02 AS MORE THAN FOUR YEARS HAVE LAPSED AND THEREBY COMPLETED THE ASSESSM ENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.30,54,280/- VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 PASSED U /S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN RELIANCE JU TE & INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (1979) 2 TAXMANN 417 HELD THAT THE LAW APPLICAB LE TO CARRY FORWARD OF SET-OFF LOSSES ON THE FIRST OF APRIL OF THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE INCOME OF WHICH IS BEING ASSESSED TO HOLD THE GRAPH, CONFI RMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSSES , AS PERIOD OF 4 YEARS HAS LAPSED AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. GROUND NO.1 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC PLEA THE SAME ARE THEREFORE, REJECTED BEIN G NOT PRESSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLO WANCE OF BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.30,54 ,278/- AND IN GROUND NO.3 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND IN NOT A LLOWING THE SET OFF OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.11,26,728/- U/S .72(1)(I) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE SPECULATION PROFIT. ITA NO.680/M/2010 A.Y:06-07 4 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1009/MUM/201 0 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ORDER DATED 31.5.2010, WHEREIN THE TRI BUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO ALLOW SET OFF OF SPECULATION LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02 AGAINST THE SPECULATION PROFITS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL I .E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE SAID O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY B E DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE BROUGHT FORWARD SPECULATION LOSS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN VIEW OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEC OMES INFRUCTUOUS. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT FOR TH E REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE UPHELD. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.40,78,981/- FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.4,15,955/- FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02 WAS ALLOWED TO BE CARRY FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS U/S.73 (2) OF THE ACT. IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SPECULATION LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 SHOULD BE SET OFF AGAINST SPECULATION PROFITS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.73(4) OF THE ACT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE S PECULATION LOSS CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR ONLY FOUR YEARS AND THAT TOO FOR THE SU CCEEDING FOUR YEARS IN WHICH THE LOSS WAS FIRST COMPUTED. THE EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE FINANCE ACT, 2005 ALSO EXPLAINS THIS AMENDMENT WHICH IS EFF ECTIVE FROM THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. EVEN ON GOING THROUGH THE ITA NO.680/M/2010 A.Y:06-07 5 LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WORDS EIGHT HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY FOUR. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION THAT THE SPECULATION LOS S CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD ONLY FOR FOUR SUCCESSIVE YEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR I N WHICH SUCH LOSS WAS FIRST COMPUTED AND ACCORDINGLY HE DECLINED SET OFF OF SPECULATION LOSS OF RS.40,78,981 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND RS.4,1 5,955/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AS MORE THAN FOUR YEARS HAV E LAPSED. ON APPEAL LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN RELIANCE JU TE & INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (1979) 2 TAXMANN 417 ; (1979) 120 ITR 921(SC). THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SET OFF OF UNABSORBED LOSS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1950-51 AGAINST THE INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1960 -61 ON THE GROUND THAT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 24(2)(III) OF THE INDIAN I.T. ACT, 1922, AS IT STOOD BEFORE ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 195 7, IT HAD VESTED RIGHT TO HAVE THE UNABSORBED LOSS CARRIED FORWARD FROM YEAR TO YEAR UNTIL IT WAS COMPLETELY ABSORBED. AND THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT M ADE BY THAT ACT LIMITING THE PERIOD FOR CARRYING FORWARD TO EIGHT Y EARS COULD NOT DIVEST THE APPELLANT OF THAT VESTED RIGHT WHICH HAD ACCRUED TO IT. IT HAS BEEN HELD (HEADNOTE) : HELD, REJECTING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM, THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1960-61 WAS TO B E MADE AND SECTION 24(2) WAS INVOKED, IT WAS SECTION 24(2) AS IN FORCE IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR, VIZ., SECTION 24(2) AS AME NDED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 1957, WHICH HAD TO BE APPLIED: THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE POSSESSING ANY ACQUIRED RIGHT UNDER THE LAW AS IT STOOD BEFORE THE AMENDMENT. INA SMUCH AS SECTION 24(2) AS AMENDED IN 1957 GOVERNED THE ASSES SMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1960-61, THE UNABSORBED LOSS FO R 1950-51 COULD NOT BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR MORE THAN EIGHT YE ARS AND COULD NOT THEREFORE BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME O F THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1960-61. 11. IN CIT VS. SHAH SADIQ & SONS (1987) 166 ITR 102 (SC) WHICH IS ON SET OFF OF SPECULATION LOSSES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1960- 61 AND 1961-62 AGAINST SPECULATION PROFITS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1962-63. IT HAS BEEN HELD (HEADNOTE): ITA NO.680/M/2010 A.Y:06-07 6 HELD ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE RIGHT OF THE RESPONDENT UNDE R SECTION 24(2) OF THE 1922 ACT TO CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF SPECULATION LOSSES OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1960-61 AND 1961- 62 WAS AN ACCRUED RIGHT AND A VESTED RIGHT: IT COUL D HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION. T HIS HAD NOT BEEN DONE EITHER BY SECTION 75 OR BY SECTION 297 OF THE 1961 ACT. THAT VESTED RIGHT WAS PRESERVED BY SECTION 6(C ) OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. THE RESPONDENT WAS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO THE SET-OFF CLAIMED. 12. IN VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN SUPRA, THE TRIBUNAL DEA LING WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE WHILE RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT IN SHAH SADIQ & SONS SUPRA, HAS OBSERVED AND HELD VIDE PARA-5 (PAGE-5), 6 AND 8 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER:- .IN OUR OPINION, THIS JUDGEMENT COVERS THE PRES ENT CASE ENTIRELY. IN SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 73 OR IN A NY OTHER PROVISION, THERE IS NO EXPRESS LANGUAGE OR ANY IMPL ICATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO CARRY FORWARD THE SPECULATION LOSS FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT SUBSEQUENT A SSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY. THE AMENDMENT MADE BY TH E FINANCE ACT, 2005 WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2006 IS ME RELY TO SUBSTITUTE THE WORDS FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR T HE WORDS EIGHT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSES SEES CONTENTION THAT ANY SPECULATION LOSS COMPUTED FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND LATER ASSESSMENT YEARS ALONE WOULD BE HIT BY THE AMENDMENT AND SUCH LOSS CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD ONLY FOR FOUR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS I S CORRECT. THE VESTED RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN AWAY. 6. IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 73 RE FERS ONLY TO THE LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YE ARS. IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SET OFF OF THE SPECULATI ON LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEARS. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEA RS AND A LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE SUB- SECTION DEALS ONLY WITH THE SPECULATION LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND IN THE VERY NAT URE OF THINGS IT CANNOT APPLY TO SPECULATION LOSS QUANTIFI ED IN ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE INCOME TAX RULES WHICH PRESCRIBE THE RETURN FORM FO R INDIVIDUALS HAVING PROPRIETARY BUSINESS (ITR 4) ALS O MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD AND LO SS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO PAGE 1.36 9 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES BY TAXMAN (2009 - 46 TH EDITION). IN SCHEDULE BFLA, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO GIVE DETAILS OF INCOME AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS . SCHEDULE CFL REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE DETAILS OF LOSSES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO FUTURE YEARS. HEREIN WE ARE CONCERNED W ITH THE ITA NO.680/M/2010 A.Y:06-07 7 ASSESSEES RIGHT TO SET OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD SPE CULATION LOSSES AGAINST THE SPECULATION PROFITS FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 73 DOES NOT DEA L WITH THIS SITUATION. HENCE, IT HAS NO APPLICATION. .. .. .. . . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS ARE UP HELD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW SET OFF OF THE SPECULATION LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02 AGAINST THE SPECULATION PROFITS FOR THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO C OSTS. 13. THERE IS NO QUARREL ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN RELIANCE JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD. SUPRA, WHI CH IS ON THE SET OFF OF UNABSORBED LOSS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1950-51 AGAINST INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1960-61. HOWEVER, THEIR LORDSHIPS IN SHAH SADI Q & SONS SUPRA, HAVE CONSIDERED THE SET OFF OF SPECULATION LOSSES FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 1960-61 AND 1961-62 AGAINST SPECULATION PROFITS OF ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1962-63 WHICH IS EXACTLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOR TH E REASONS AS MENTIONED IN SHAH SADIQ & SONS CASE SUPRA, THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VIRENDRA KUMAR JAINS CASE SUPRA HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF OF SPECULATION LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND 2001-02 AGAINST THE SPECULATION PROFIT FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN FULL. THE GROUND NO.2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, AL LOWED AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN GROUND NO.2, GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED BEING NOT PRESSED. 14. GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S . 234B AND 234C. 15. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSUE IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. DR. ITA NO.680/M/2010 A.Y:06-07 8 16. THAT BEING SO WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O ALLOW CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND TA KEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.8.2010. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 31.8.2010. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.