Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd, V. ACIT Cir - 4(1),

ITA 6818/MUM/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49067 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SONGATE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV M SHAH
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Onus to prove
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (A.M.) AND SHRI. VIJAY P AL RAO (J.M.) ITA NO.6818/MUM/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 CHICAGO PNEUMATIC INDIA LTD. [NOW MERGED WITH ATLAS COPCO INDIA LTD.] CHEMTEX HOUSE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, MAIN STREET, POWAI, MUMBAI 400 076. PAN : AAACC5667L VS. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD., MUMBAI 400 020 . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.5225/MUM/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD., MUMBAI 400 020. VS. CHICAGO PNEUMATIC INDIA LTD. [NOW MERGED WITH ATLAS COPCO INDIA LTD.] CHEMTEX HOUSE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, MAIN STREET, POWAI, MUMBAI 400 076. PAN : AAACC5667L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJIV M. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. SONGATE (DR) O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2003 BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ITA NO.6818/MUM/03 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROU NDS IN THIS APPEAL. 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF ` 31,28,443/-, BEING COMMISSION PAID TO BUSINESS AGEN TS.. ITA NO.6818/MUM/2003 ITA NO.5225/MUM/2003 2 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80I, MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AMOUNTING TO ` 41,41,835/-. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF ` 31,28,443/- BEING COMMISSION PAID TO BUSINESS AGENTS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR AS WELL AS LEARNED DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT T HIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AS WELL AS IN THE EARLIER Y EARS. THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARA 43 AND 44 OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 IN ITA NO.4335/MUM/04 HELD AS UNDER: 43. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FO LLOWS: THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN UP HOLDING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS STAND IN NOT ALLOWING A SUM OF ` 8,94,369/- INCURRED BY YOUR APPELLANT AS AGENCY COMMISSION PAID TO VARIOUS BUSINESS AGENTS IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SERVICES RENDERED BY SUCH BUSINESS AGEN TS. 44. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US THAT SIMILAR ISS UE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986-87, 88-89, 91-92, 92-93, 93-94 AND 95- 96 IN ITA NOS. 5141 & 5142/BOM/94, ITA NOS. 7280 TO 7282/BOM/95, 1978/BOM/97, 3315/BOM/2003 AND THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT COMMISSION EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. IT IS A LSO NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6. GROUND NO.2 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA, IN RESPECT OF INCOME ON WHICH THE DEDUCTION U/S.80 HHC OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR AS WELL AS LEARNED DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ITA NO.6818/MUM/2003 ITA NO.5225/MUM/2003 3 IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CAPSULES P. LTD. VS. D.C .I.T. [2011] 332 ITR 42 (BOM). AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT RECORD AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ADJUDICATED T HE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CAPSULES P. LTD. (SUPRA) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: IN THE RESULT, WE HOLD THAT SECTION 80IA(9) DOES NOT AFFECT THE COMPUTABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS UNDER HEADING C OF CHAPTER VI-A, BUT IT AFFECTS THE ALLOW ABILITY OF DEDUCTIONS COMPUTED UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS UNDER HEADING C OF CHAPTER VI-A, SO THAT THE AGGREGATE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA AND OTHER PROVISIONS UNDER HEADING C OF CHAPTER VI- A DO NOT EXCEED 100 PER CENT. OF THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR ABOVE VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES CIRCULAR NO.772 DATED DECEMBE R 23, 1998 [(1999) 235 TR (ST.) 35], WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT SECTION 80IA(9) HAS BEEN INTRODUCED WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT THE TAXPAYERS FROM CLAIMING REPEATED DEDUCTIONS IN RESP ECT OF THE SAME AMOUNT OF ELIGIBLE INCOME AND THAT TOO IN EXCE SS OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS. THUS, THE OBJECT OF SECTION 80IA (9) BEING NOT TO CURTAIL THE DEDUCTIONS COMPUTABLE UNDER VARIOUS PRO VISIONS UNDER HEADING C OF CHAPTER VI-A, IT IS REASONABLE T O HOLD THAT SECTION 80-IA(9) AFFECTS ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION AND NOT COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION. TO ILLUSTRATE, IF ` 100 IS THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE UNDERTAKING, ` 30 IS THE PROFITS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(1) AND THE DEDUCTION COMPUTED AS PER SECTION 80HHC IS ` 80, THEN, IN VIEW OF SECTION 80IA(9), THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC IS WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ` 70, SO THAT THE AGGREGATE DEDUCTION DOES NOT EXCEED THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IA WITHOUT REDUCING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE HEAD VI-A DOES NOT EXCEED 100% OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ITA NO.5225/MUM/03 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 10. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROU NDS IN THIS APPEAL. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC. ITA NO.6818/MUM/2003 ITA NO.5225/MUM/2003 4 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY NOT INCLUDED IN CLOSING S TOCK. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MODVAT CREDIT IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE D EDUCTION OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO ` 40,93,371/-. 11. GROUND NO.1 IS REGARDING EXCLUSION OF EXCISE DU TY AS WELL AS TAX OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80H HC. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS LEARNED AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD. AT THE OUTSET WE NOTE THAT T HIS ISSUE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS (SC) 290 ITR 667. ACCORDING LY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 13. GROUND NO.2 & 3 ARE REGARDING ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY AND MODVAT CREDIT. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS LEARNED AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A N ADDITION ON ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE EXCISE DUTY PAID ON THE FINISHED GOODS LYING IN THE BONDED WAREHOUSE IN THE CLOSING STOCK. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MODVAT CREDIT. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAYMENT PROOF. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND RELEVANT RECORD. THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHALAXMI GLASS WORKS P. LTD. [2009] 318 ITR 116 (BOM) HAS HELD IN PARA 3 AS UNDER: WE MAY REPRODUCE HERE, HE RELEVANT OBSERVATION IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . AHMEDABAD NEW COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. REPORTED IN AIR 1930 PC 5 6 WHICH ITA NO.6818/MUM/2003 ITA NO.5225/MUM/2003 5 WAS RELIED UPON BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT AND WHICH I S AS UNDER (PAGE 56): IF THE METHOD OF ALTERING BOTH VALUATION IS NOT ADO PTED IT IS PERFECTLY PLAIN THAT THE PROFIT WHICH IS BROUGHT FORWARD IS NOT THE REAL ONE. IT MAY BE MORE OR IT MAY BE LESS, BUT IT HAS NO RELATION TO THE TRUE PROFIT IF THE STOCK IS VALUED ON ONE BASIS WHEN IT GOES OUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE VA LUE OF THE STOCK WHEN IT COMES IN. WHEN, THEREFORE, THERE IS UNDERVALUATION AT ONE END, THE EFFECT IS TO CAUSE BOTH A SMALLER DEBIT IN RESPECT OF THE STOCK I NTRODUCED INTO THE NEXT ACCOUNT AND A LARGER SUM FOR PROFITS REALISED BY THE SALE, CHANGE IN MARKET VALUE BEING IMMEDIATELY REFLECTED IN THE PRICE OBTA INED FOR THE GOODS THAT ARE SOLD; IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONTEND THAT THERE S HOULD BE UNDERVALUATION AT ONE END AND NOT AT THE OTHER IS TO RAISE AN ARGUMENT WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS CANNOT ACCEPT . 15. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE OF EXCISE DUTY ON CLOSIN G STOCK HAS TO BE DECIDED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHALAXMI GLASS WORKS P. LTD. (SUPRA). TH E LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXCISE DUTY HAS TO BE INCLUDED ONLY WHEN THERE IS A SALE AND OUTWARD MOVEMENT OF THE GOODS. HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT GOODS WERE BONDED IN THE WAREHOUSE; THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY ON THE SAID GOODS WILL ARISE ONLY WHEN IT IS DEBOUNDED FROM THE WAREHOUSE. WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER LAW SPECIFICALLY IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE. AS REGARDS MODVAT CREDIT IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNTS HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN, THE SAME HAS TO BE EXCLUDED AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME. THIS FACT HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ALREADY DIRECTED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A) TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THE SAME, AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DECIDE THE SAME AS PER LAW. 16. GROUND NO.4 IS REGARDING THE BAD DEBTS. THE A SSESSEE DEBITED THE SUM OF ` 40,93,371/- AS BAD DEBTS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE REQUISITE INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED BREAK- UP OF THE BAD DEBTS HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF BASIC DETAILS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BAD DEBTS IS REJECTED. ITA NO.6818/MUM/2003 ITA NO.5225/MUM/2003 6 ON APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS LEARNED AR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT RECORD BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ONUS CAUSE ON THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. HE HAS R EFERRED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONL Y BREAK-UP OF BAD DEBTS BUT NO OTHER DETAILS WERE FILED TO SHOW THAT WRITTE N OFF THE SAID DEBTS IS BONAFIDE AND THE AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE EARLI ER YEARS AS INCOME AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION 36(II). THE LE ARNED DR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING FINDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOU LD HAVE BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBTS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACTUALLY GONE BAD. WHEN THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRE COVERABLE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T. R.F. LTD. VS. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS F URTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FILED RELEVANT DETAILS WHICH WER E ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, AFTER LAPSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT BE PUT TO ANY SITUATION WHICH WILL BE A HARASSMENT IF THE ASSESSE E IS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE RECORD PERTAINING TO THE PARTIES AT THIS STAGE. T HE LEARNED AR HAS EMPHASIZED THAT AFTER THE GAP OF LONG PERIOD THE AS SESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ASKED TO PRODUCE THE RECORD OTHERWISE IT WOULD CAUS E UNNECESSARY HARASSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND REL EVANT RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT ITA NO.6818/MUM/2003 ITA NO.5225/MUM/2003 7 DETAILS OF THE BAD DEBT ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF TH E ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ONLY BREAK UP OF THE BAD DEBTS PARTIES. IT IS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THE COVERING LETTER I T WAS STATED THAT THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS ARE ATTACHED WITH THE DETAILS OF THE BAD D EBT BUT THE BASIC INFORMATION/DETAIL OF THE CLAIM WAS NOT FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE AR HAS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE SAID DETAIL BEFORE US WH ICH SHOW ONLY BREAK UP OF THE BAD DEBT WITHOUT OTHER DETAILS OF THE DEBTORS R EGARDING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING BAD DEBTS WERE TAKEN INTO P ROFIT & LOSS A/C., THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES TO SHOW THE GENUINENESS OF T HE TRANSACTION AND ALSO NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED TO SHOW THE CASE OF BONAFID E DECISION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO WRITE OFF THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING T HE DEBTORS. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT THESE AM OUNTS WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS A/C. OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN T HE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT AT THIS STAGE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD N OT BE ASKED TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DETAIL AND IT WILL CAUSE UNNECESSARY H ARASSMENT. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT THESE APPEALS WERE FILED IN THE YEA R 2003 AND THEREAFTER THE APPEALS BEING ADJOURNED MOST OF THE TIME ON THE REQ UEST OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE LAPSE OF TIME, WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERA BLE, IN DISPOSITION OF THE APPEALS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKEN THE PLEA THAT AFTER THE CONSIDERABLE TIME ASS ESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ASKED FOR PRODUCTION OF RELEVANT RECORD. 20. SINCE THE ISSUE REQUIRES PROPER VERIFICATION AN D EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME AFTE R VERIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT RECORD. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PR ODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT AND NECESSARY RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS. ITA NO.6818/MUM/2003 ITA NO.5225/MUM/2003 8 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 20 TH , DAY OF MAY, 2011. SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 20 TH MAY 2011 JANHAVI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- , MUM BAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY- , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH E, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI