KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6903/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 690319914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANVENDVA GOYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL J SHAH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA ROAD NO.8, SANSKAR, GROUND FLOOR, JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 049 VS. ITO-8(2)(4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. :- AAFPK 5229 G ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPUL J. SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI MANVENDVA GOYAL DATE OF HEARING : 19.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.06.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-17, MUMBAI DATED 04.10.2012 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPEAL (CIT-A) ERRED IN TREATING GOODWILL GENERATED ON CONVERSION OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN INTO A LIMITED COMPANY AS SHORT TERM CAPITALS GAINS WITHOUT APPRECIATION T HE PROVISIONS OF SEC.47(XIV) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT THE GOODWILL WAS SELF GENERATED AND ALSO WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND DISTINGUISHING THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL (CIT-A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPEAL (CIT-A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN CLAIMED U/S 24(B) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012 KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 3. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. OVERSEAS PLASTIC MOU LDERS (OPM), DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CONVERTED THE SAID PROPRIETARY CONCERN INTO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY NAMELY OVERSEAS PLASTIC MOULDERS INDIA PRIV ATE LTD. (OPML) AND IN THE PROCESS OF SUCCESSION, THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED EQUI TY SHARES OF THE COMPANY. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF OPM AS ON 31.03.2008, JUST BEFORE THE TAKE OVER WAS RS.4,63,95,814/- AND THE ASSESSEES C APITAL ACCOUNT IN THE CAPACITY OF THE PROPRIETOR HAD THE CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.1,16,05 ,939/-. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE OPML ALLOTTED THE ASSESSEE 33,59,064 EQUITY SHA RES OF RS.10 EACH REPRESENTING SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.3,35,90,640/-. ACCORDING TO THE AO, SINCE THE ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT HAD CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.1,16,05,939/- ONLY , IN ORDER TO COMPLY THE ACCOUNTING ENTRIES, A GOOD WILL OF RS.2,29,89,701/- WAS CREATED IN THE BOOKS OF OPMIL AND THE EQUAL AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO THE CAPI TAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS EE, THE EXCESS CREDIT NAMELY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AGREED CONSIDERATION AND THE CAPITAL BALANCE WAS ACCOUNTED AS GOOD WILL IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. OPMIL AND SUCH GO OD WILL ARISING ON SUCCESSION IS A FICTITIOUS AND NOTIONAL ENTRY WHICH HAS NO IMPACT O N THE INCOME COMPUTATION OF ANY ASSESSEE HENCE ITS CREATION IS NEITHER TREATED AS I NCOME NOR ALLOTTED AS EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE TRANSFER OF THE GOOD WILL IS COVERED BY THE EXEMPTION U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY DIRECT BENEFIT OTHER THAN THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IN LIEU OF TRANSFER OF GOOD WILL WHICH IS FI CTITIOUS AND NOTIONAL ASSET. HOWEVER, THE SAID CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO ON T HE REASON THAT THE GOOD WILL WAS NEVER CREATED IN THE BOOKS OF PROPRIETY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IT NEVER BECAME THE ASSET OF OPM. ALSO, THE GOOD WI LL WAS NOT THE PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE PROPRIETY CONCERN, M/S. OPM AND THEREFORE, T HE TRANSFER CANNOT BE EXEMPTED U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,29,84,701/- ARISING ON THE TRANSFER OF ALLEGED GOOD WILL TO OPMIL. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO AS THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 47(XI V) WAS NOT COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE GOOD WILL GENERATED WAS NOT IN THE BOOKS OF OPM AND WAS NOT A PART ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012 KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 3 OF ASSET AND LIABILITIES OF THE SOLE PROPRIETARY CO NCERN WHICH WERE SUCCEEDED BY OPMIL. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED DECISION, THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED THIS GROUND IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US. 3.1 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PROPRIETOR OF OPM AND THEN HE CONVERTED THE SAME INTO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. ALSO IT IS NOT DISP UTED THAT THE GOOD WILL GENERATED HAS NO MENTION IN THE BOOKS OF OPM AND IS NOT A PAR T OF THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE SOLE PROPRIETARY CONCERN WHICH HAS BEEN SUCCEED ED BY OPMIL. WITH THE GIVEN FACTUAL BACKGROUND, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT IN PARA 9 AT PAGE 5 OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 BETWEEN M/S. OPM LTD AND OPMIL, IT IS STATED THAT:- NEGOTIATIONS WERE HELD BETWEEN THE ASSIGNOR AND AS SIGNEES FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE ASSIGNORS RIGHT TITLE INTEREST, CLAIM AND DEMA ND IN THE SAID BUSINESS INCLUDING ITS BUSINESS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES WRITTEN AND BUSINES S RIGHTS QUOTA ALLOTMENTS RIGHTS REGISTRATION AND INTANGIBLES INCLUDING GOOD WILL TECHNICAL KNOW HOW DRAWING DESIGNS ETC. BY THE ASSIGNEE AND PERUSE TERMS AND CONDITION S IN THE SAID ASSIGNMENT WERE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF THE FIRST & SECOND SCHEDULE S AT PAGES 14-15 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT WHICH SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH THE PARTICU LARS OF IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE ASSETS TO WHICH THE ASSIGNOR IS ENTITLED DOES NOT C ONTAIN ANY DETAIL AS TO THE VALUATION OF THE GOOD WILL POSSESSED BY THE ASSIGNO R WHILE ARRIVING AT A TOTAL VALUE OF RS.3,35,90,640/- FOR WHICH THE ALLOTMENT OF 3,35,90 ,64/- SHARES OF RS.10 EACH PAID IN SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSIGNEE. THOUGH THE GENERA L WORDINGS CONTAINED IN THE RECITALS OF THE SAID AGREEMENT IN PARA 5 AS REPRODU CED ABOVE COVERS GOOD WILL FOR THE TRANSFER OF WHICH NEGOTIATION HAS TAKEN PLACE B ETWEEN THE ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE, THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DOES NOT EVIDENCE THA T A GOOD WILL, VALUED AT RS.2,29,89,701/- IS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSIGNEE. MO REOVER, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ALLEGED GOOD WILL HAS NEVER BEEN CREATED IN THE BOO KS OF THE PROPRIETY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES WO RTH EXCEEDING RS.1,16,05,939/- IS IN THE FORM OF EXCESS ASSETS OVER THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE ASSIGNOR. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED DISCUSSIONS, AFTER CONS IDERING THAT THE ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE OPM HAD THE CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.1,1 6,05,939/- ONLY AND THE ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012 KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 4 ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOTTED FULLY PAID UP SHARE CAPI TAL WORTH RS.3,35,90,640/-, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT THE ADDITIONAL SHARE CAPITAL ALLOTMENT OF RS.2,29,84,701/- WITHOUT BRINGING ANYT HING TO THE ASSIGNEE. THEREFORE, THE PRE-REQUISITE LAID DOWN IN SECTION 47(XIV) HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE CASES LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD.AR TO JUSTIFY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN THE CASES RELIED BY THE LD.AR, A PROPER VALUATION OF GOOD WILL HAS BEEN DONE PRIOR T O THE TRANSFER OF ASSETS. IN VIEW OF THAT MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REAS ON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON THIS COUNT. GROUND NO 1 IS DISMISSED. 4. APROPOS GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING T HE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAD SOLD A HOUSE PROPERTY BEING A FL AT IN PRESIDENCY CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, JVPD, MUMBAI FOR SALE CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.2,40,00,000/-. AFTER REDUCING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS.7,87,607/-, LTCG OF RS.2,32,12,393/- WAS WORKED OUT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 O F RS.98,20,083/- BEING AN INVESTMENT IN A NEW HOUSE PROPERTY PURCHASED. ON VE RIFICATION, THE AO FOUND THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED ON 26.05.2006, WHIL E THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY WAS SOLD VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 11.09.2008 AND HENCE THE ACQUI SITION OF THE PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THE AO, WAS BEYOND THE TIME PROVIDED U NDER SECTION 54. FURTHER, THE NEW PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WHILE THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE ASSESSEES NAME ONLY. IN THE AGREEMENT, THE WIFE WAS THE FIRST HOLDER OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAME WAS DONE DUE TO HIS OLD AGE AND AVOID THE UNNECESSARY FORMAL ITIES REGARDING WILL, ETC. THE AO CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO MEN TIONED IN PARA 5.4 THAT THE WIFE HAD TAKEN LOAN FOR THE PROPERTY AND SHE IS JOI NTLY HOLDING THE SAID PROPERTY AND HAD PAID RS.23,00,000/- AS HER SHARE AND HENCE, EVE N IF THIS ARGUMENT IS ACCEPTED, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WILL BE RESTRICTED TO 50 % OF THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S 54. HENCE, EVEN IF THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE, IT COULD BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF 50% ONLY. THE AO WITHOUT PREJUDICE HAS MENTIONED THAT T HE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT HAD ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012 KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 5 TAKEN A LOAN AND MADE PAYMENTS OF RS.14,50,000/- AN D RS.9,00,000/- ON MAY 24, 2008 AND DECEMBER 15, 2007 RESPECTIVELY. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE NEW PROPERTY SHOULD BE OUT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE SALE OF THE OLD PROPERTY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE E IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET FILED ON NOVEMBER 28, 2011 HAD SHOWN THE VALUE OF T HE POONA BUNGALOW AT RS.61,06,772/-. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE AO, EVE N IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ION U/S 54 OF ONLY RS.34,26120/- AS AGAINST THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF RS.98,20,083/-. FURTHER, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGEDLY PURCHASED THE NEW PROPERTY F OR RS.73,00,000/- BUT CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.98,20,083/-. WHEN ENQUIRED INTO THE ABOVE DIFFERENCE, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CERTAIN BILLS TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS SPENT ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE NEW PROPERTY. THE AO VERIFIED THE BILLS AND FOUND T HE SAME TO BE FOR PETROL REFILLING AND ACQUISITION OF PERSONAL ASSETS LIKE REFRIGERATO R, WASHING MACHINES, ETC. THESE PERSONAL EXPENSES DO NOT QUALIFY FOR COST OF IMPROV EMENT OF THE NEW PROPERTY. SOME OF THE EXPENSE, THE AO, HELD THAT CAN BE CLAIMED AT THE TIME OF THE SALE OF THE NEW PROPERTY, BUT THE SAID EXPENSES DO NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 AND HENCE THE SAME WERE DISALLOWED. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) REJE CTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT THE NEW P ROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN PURCHASED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 54 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED DECISION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS GROUND IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY, I.E., THE FLAT IN PRESIDENCY CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, JVPD, MUMBAI HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.09.2008. THE MAIN DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE DATE OF INVESTMENT IN THE NEW PROPERTY I.E., WHETHER THE DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E., 26.05.2006 OR THE DATE OF P AYMENTS HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE TIME FRA ME PRESCRIBED U/S 54 OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUBSEQUENT PAY MENTS MADE IN THE YEAR 2008 IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54 WHE REAS IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E., 26.05.2006 IS CRUCIAL. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT IN THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF DR.SMITA SWARUP IN ITA NO. 2960/DEL/2010 HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012 KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 6 DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE T OWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME PERIOD OF LIMI TATION THOUGH ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION BY VIRTUE OF THE TIME LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID SECT ION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS JUST AN D PROPER THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS MADE WITHIN TH E PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 54, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF AGREE MENT, IS TO BE ALLOWED. WE DIRECT AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO 2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN GROUND NO 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE DE CISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLA IM OF INTEREST ON HOUSING LOAN U/S 24(B) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD SHOWN A LOSS OF RS.1,50,000/- BEING THE INTEREST PAID ON THE BORROW ED CAPITAL. THIS INTEREST IS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE NEW HOUSE WHICH THE ASSES SEE HAD SHOWN AS SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN POSSESSION OF T HE PROPERTY DURING THE FY 2008- 09, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM ONLY AFTER THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) CO NFIRMED THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 5.1 HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD, I T IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT CLAUSE (B) TO SEC.24 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READS AS WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED, REPAIRED, RENEWED OR RECONSTRUCTED WITH BORROWED CAPITAL, AMOUNT OF ANY INTEREST PAYABLE ON SUCH CAPITAL.. FURTHER, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 24(1)(B) READS WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED WITH BORROWED CAPITAL IN THE SAID PRO VISIONS, THE WORD USED IS ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED AND NOWHERE IN THE SECTIO N, THE WORD POSSESSION IS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELO W ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ONLY DURING THE FY 2008-09. HOWEVER, THE A O IS DIRECTED TO ASCERTAIN THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SAID PROVISIONS AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DIR ECT AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. RESULTANTLY, GROUND NO 3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012 KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 7 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014. //SD// //SD// (P.M. JAGTAP) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 06.06.2014 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR A BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.