UNITOP CHEMICALS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6819/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9027 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MANJUNATH KARKIHALLI
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVRAMMR RAHUL K HAKANI
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F BENCH BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.6818/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITA NO.6819/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 UNITOP CHEMICALS P. LTD., UNITOP HOUSE, EAST WEST INDL. CENTRE, SAFED POOL, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, MUMBAI-72. PA NO.AAACU 1406 F ADDL. CIT 8(3), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. K.SHIVRAM/MR RAHUL K HAKANI RESPONDENT BY: DR MANJUNATH KARKIHALLI DATE OF HEARING: 10.9.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.9.2012 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, JM: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE. THEY AR E DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A) DATED 10.8.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND DATED 12.7.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 BEING I.T.A. NO.6818/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 . 3. GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE READS AS UND ER: 1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT. ( 2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM) BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE BY A.O. HAD APPLIED RULE 8D FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A TH OUGH THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND FURTHER IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DETERMINE A REASONABLE METHOD AND HAS FURTHER NOT FOLLOWED THE PROCEDURE AS LAID DOWN BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, HENCE THE ORDER OF L EARNED CIT(A) MAY BE QUASHED. ITA NO.6818/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITA NO.6819/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 2 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT S. 14A DOES NOT APPLY WHERE NO NEXUS HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE LEARNED A.O . BETWEEN INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS AND EXEMPT INCOME ARISING ON INVESTMENTS OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND HENCE THE ORDER OF ID. CIT(A) MAY BE QUASHED. 2. WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO INVOKED SECTION 14A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AND COMPUTED THE D ISALLOWANCE WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 8D. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS.7,39 ,908 BY THE AO. THOUGH IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE LD CIT(A) RULE 8D COULD NOT BE INVOK ED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD(SUPRA) BUT LD CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND TH AT SOME DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE AND THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE DISALLOWANCE COMPUTED BY THE AO. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE UPHELD BY LD CIT(A) AND MATTER WAS RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO AT PARA 3 OF THE ORDER OF ITAT IN I.T.A. NO.2142/M/2010, CO PY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD, WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN ITS RECENT JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (ITA NO. 626 OF 2010 DTD . 12.08.2010), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT RULE 8D OF THE INCO ME TAX RULES 1962 IS APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY I.E. FROM A.Y. 2008-0 9. THE SAID RULE THUS IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVED IN A.Y. 200 6-07. AS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOY CE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA) THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A FOR THE YEARS EARLI ER TO A.Y. 2008-09 HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY ADOPTING SOME REASONABLE METHOD. KEEP ING IN VIEW THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA). AS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CONTEXT, I NVESTMENT IN THE SHARES WHICH FETCHED THE DIVIDEND INCOME HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND NOT FROM THE BORROWED FUNDS, THERE WAS NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME AND THUS THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF I NTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 14- A. IN OUR OPINION, THIS FACTUAL ASPECT REQUIRES VER IFICATION AND SINCE NEITHER THE A.O. NOR THE CIT(A) HAS DONE THE SAME DESPITE SPECI FIC SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EFFECT, WE DIRECT TH E A.O. TO VERIFY THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE RELIEF. 4. REFERRING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF LD COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT ACCORDING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NO INTEREST EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF IN TEREST SHOULD BE MADE AND TO VERIFY ITA NO.6818/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITA NO.6819/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 3 THIS FACT, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ORDER MAY BE PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS RULE 8 D IS APPLICABLE W.E.F. A.Y. 2008- 09. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF LD REPRESENTAT IVES OF PARTIES AND ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMI SSION OF LD A.R. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MAT TER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE SIMILAR DIRECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2006-07. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE APPEAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 BEING I.T.A. NO.6819/M/2011. 7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDE R: 1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.18,87,811 U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO E XPENDITURE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INCLUDING INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,1 3,530 WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND HENCE, DISALLOWANCE U/S.1 4A R.W. RULE 8D MAY BE DELETED. 2. THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT INTEREST EXPEND ITURE OF RS.4,13,530 HAS NO NEXUS WITH EARNING OF EXEMPT INC OME AS THE INVESTMENTS ON WHICH EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED IS OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W RULE 8D MAY BE DELET ED. 3. THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DISALL OWANCE U/S.14A R.W RULE 8D IS MORE THAN THE INTEREST EXPENSE AND HENCE, DIS ALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W RULE 8D MAY BD DELETED. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A MAY BE RESTRICTED TO 10% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME. 8. WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXEMPTED INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO INVOKED SECTION 14A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AND COMPUTED THE D ISALLOWANCE WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 8D. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS.18,8 7,811 BY THE AO. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT DID NOT INCUR AN Y EXPENDITURE REGARDING INTEREST, THEREFORE, INTEREST ELEMENT CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO AC COUNT WHILE COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE WITH REFERENCE TO RULE 8D. TO SUPPORT SIMILAR CONT ENTION, LD A.R PLACED BEFORE US AN ORDER DATED 30.4.2012 OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN I.T.A . NO.3185/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ITA NO.6818/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITA NO.6819/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 4 IN THE CASE OF M/S. AUCHTEL PRODUCTS LTD VS ACIT AN D OTHERS, COPY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO GIVEN TO LD D.R. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT UTILIZED ANY INTEREST BEARING DEPOSITS AND THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM WHICH EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED AND ON THIS ISS UE, THE TRIBUNAL AFTER ANALYZING ALL THE PROVISIONS HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ACC ORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) & (3) THE AO SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT DISA LLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D, IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOM E, THE AO IS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF RULE 8D IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. IN OTHER WORDS, DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS CALLED FOR WHE N THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING INCURRED NO EXPENDITURE OR SOME AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT SATISFACTION OF THE AO AS TO THE INCORRECT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS SINE QUA NON FOR INVOKING THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8. SUCH SATISFACTION CAN BE REACHED AND RECOR DED ONLY WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERIFIED. IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES BEFOR E THE AO THAT IT INCURRED A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THE AO GETS SATISFIED, THEN THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO STILL PROCEED WITH THE C OMPUTATION OF AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE AS PER RULE 8D. IT WAS NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT AO SIMPLY KEPT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ON RECORD WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG AS TO WHETHER THESE WERE CORRECT OR NOT. THE AO PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE AS IF THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D IS AUTOMATIC IRRESPECTIVE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE AS SESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. THE RELEVAN T OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FROM THE SAID ORDER ARE AS UNDER: 13. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT RULE 8 D IS APPLICABLE W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. PRESENTLY, WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND RESULTANTLY RULE 8D IS TO BE APPLIED. H OWEVER, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT SUFFICIENT MATERIAL WA S PLACED BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF NOT HAVING INCURRED ANY INT EREST EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED ASSESSEES SUBMISSIO N IS KEPT ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER ON THE SUBMISSIONS SO MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 14. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO NOTE T HAT SECTION 14A PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITUR E INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. SO THE REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE IS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ITA NO.6818/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITA NO.6819/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 5 ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS RELEVA NT TO NOTE DOWN THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A WHICH HA VE BEEN INSERTED W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 READING AS UNDER : (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOU NT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHO D AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOM E WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. (3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL ALSO AP PLY IN RELATION TO A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BE EN INCURRED BY HIM IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF T HE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. 15. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS INDICATE S THAT THE AO SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE AS PER RULE 8D, IF HE, IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RESPECT OF EXEMPT INCOME, THE AO IS SUP POSED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE OF RULE 8D IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. TO PUT IT SIMPLY, THE FURTHER DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS CALLED FOR WHEN THE AO IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING INCUR RED NO EXPENDITURE OR SOME AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. SATISFACTION OF THE AO AS TO THE INCORRECT CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RE GARD IS SINE QUA NON FOR INVOKING THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D. SUCH SATISFA CTION CAN BE REACHED AND RECORDED ONLY WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS VER IFIED. IF THE ASSESSEE PROVES BEFORE THE AO THAT IT INCURRED A PARTICULAR EXPENDI TURE IN RESPECT OF EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME AND THE AO GETS SATISFIED, THEN THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO STILL PROCEED WITH THE COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE AS PER RULE 8D. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO SIMPLY KEPT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ON RECORD WITHOUT APPRECIATING AS TO WH ETHER THESE WERE CORRECT OR NOT. HE PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE AS IF THE DISALLOW ANCE AS PER RULE 8D IS AUTOMATIC IRRESPECTIVE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE AS SESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME. IT IS AN INCORRECT COURSE ADOPTED BY THE AO. THE CORRECT SEQUENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A IS TO, FIRSTLY, EXAMINE THE AS SESSEES CLAIM OF HAVING INCURRED SOME EXPENDITURE OR NO EXPENDITURE IN RELA TION TO EXEMPT INCOME. F THE AO GETS SATISFIED WITH THE SAME, THEN THERE IS NO N EED TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE AO IS NOT SATIS FIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITUR E OR NO EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME, THAT TH E MANDATE OF RULE 8D WILL OPERATE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DIRECTLY GONE TO THE SECOND STAGE OF COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AS P ER RULE 8D WITHOUT RENDERING ANY OPINION ON THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWI SE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THIS REGARD. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO TO RE-COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AFTER DULY E XAMINING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO.6818/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITA NO.6819/MUM/2011: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 6 9. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD A.R. THAT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING IT HAS BEEN THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD NOT INCURRED INT EREST EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECIS ION BY CO-ORDINATE BENCH, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF LD CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. A UCHTEL PRODUCTS (SUPRA), TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE T O THE FILE OF AO WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS AS HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE. WE DI RECT ACCORDINGLY. THIS APPEAL IS ALSO CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 SD/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),18, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 8 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH F MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI