SHRI JANAK JAYANT DALAL, MUMBAI V. THE ITO 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6965/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3937 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUM EET KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN A KARIA
• Keywords: Business income; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN (JM) ITA NO.6965/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05 JANAK JAYANT DALAL, 612, ROTUNDA, MUMBAI SAMACHAR MARG, MUMBAI-400 023 PAN-AAGPD5097G THE ITO 4(3)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI CHETAN A KARIA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUMEET KUMAR O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.9.2007 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS FOLLO WS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ITO-4(3)(1) MUMBAI & CIT(A) MUMBAI ERRED I N DISALLOWING RS. 34,892/- OUT OF EXPENSES U/S. 14A. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ITO-4(3)(1) MUMBAI & CIT(A) MUMBAI ERRED I N DISALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS OF RS. 45,09,41 4/-. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ITO AND CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 45,09,414/- AS BUSINESS INCOME. ITA NO.6965 /M/07 2 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 1 THEREFORE IT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A STOCK BROKER AND MADE A CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AT RS. 45,87,652/- IN RESPECT OF OVERDUES OF TWO PART IES VIZ., M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD. OF RS. 45,09,414/- AND SHRI PANKA J SHAH OF RS. 78,238/-. THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE CLAIM OF DEDU CTION OF BAD DEBTS ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS OF SEC. 36(1)(VII) AND 36(2) AS THE SAME RESULTED OUT OF THE STATUTORY OBLIGATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AS BROKER IN SHARE TRADING BUSINESS. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES C LAIM WAS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 36(1)(VII) AS THE CONDITIONS REQUIRE D U/S. 36(2) THAT UNLESS SUCH DEBT OR PART THEREOF SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS NOT FULFILLED. THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 28 WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT SEC. 29 CLEARLY LAYS DOWN THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 28 WAS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 30 TO 44D AS BAD DEBTS. SINCE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC SEC. 36(1)(VII), THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FOLLOW ED THE REGULATIONS OF STOCK EXCHANGE WITH REGARD TO THE CONDUCT OF DEALIN G AND TAKING OF MARGIN MONEY WHICH WERE FRAMED IN PUBLIC INTEREST. THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE SAID LOSS HAD RESULT ED ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF NOTIFICATIONS AND REGULATIONS ISSUED B Y SEBI FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BROKERAGE IN STOCKS AND SHARES. 6. THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE BAD DEBT CLAIM HAS ARI SEN IN RESPECT OF THE TWO PARTIES VIZ., PANKAJ SHAH OF RS. 78,238/- A ND M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD. OF RS. 45,09,414/-. IT WAS EXPLA INED THAT SHRI PANKAJ SHAH WAS A BROKER AND THAT 200 SHARES OF CADBURY IN DIA LTD. DELIVERED ITA NO.6965 /M/07 3 BY THE ABOVE BROKER TURNED OUT TO BE DUPLICATE SHAR ES. SINCE THE BROKER SHRI PANKAJ SHAH DID NOT REPLACE THESE SHARES AND W AS THEREAFTER DECLARED AS DEFAULTING BROKER, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO MAKE AN INSURANCE CLAIM. THE INSURANCE CLAIM WAS FOR RS. 1,29,386/- BUT THE SAME WAS SETTLED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR RS. 51,277/- RESULTING IN NON RECOVERY OF RS. 78,109/- + RS. 129 ON ACCOUNT OF OL D BALANCE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD PAY ONLY WHEN THE MONEY WAS NOT RECOVERED FROM THE DEFAULTING MEMBERS. THU S, THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE SAID BALANCE OF RS. 78,238/- HAD BECOME IRRECOVERABLE IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH EREFORE, THE SAME WAS WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT U/S. 36(1)(VII) OF THE I.T. ACT. WITH REGARD TO M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DUES OF RS. 45,09,414/- WERE ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHAS E AND SALE OF SHARES ENTERED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE TOT AL VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTED TO RS. 55,20,211/- AND THE ABOVE PARTY PAI D RS. 10,10,797/- ONLY, SINCE DESPITE THE BEST EFFORTS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECOVER ANY FURTHER AMOUNT; IT WAS FOUND THAT THE COMPANY WAS H AVING NEGATIVE WORTH AND THERE WERE NO CHANCES OF RECOVERY AND HEN CE FILING A SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED NOT PRODUCTIVE AN D THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO WRITE OFF THE DEBT U/S. 36(1)(II). THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANTS CASE WAS FULLY COVERED U/S. 36(1)(II) R.W.S. 36(2), REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 36(2) WAS THAT THE DEBT OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, SI NCE THE BROKERAGE WAS CHARGED TO THE CLIENTS, THE AMOUNT DUE FROM THE CLIENT WOULD INCLUDE COST OF SHARES PLUS BROKERAGE THEREON. FURTHER, PA RT OF MONEY IN BOTH THE ABOVE DEBTS HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND THE BROKERAGE EARNED FROM THE TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE DEBTS STOOD CRE DITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION THAT THE DEBT OR PART THEREOF HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE STOOD SATISFIED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS CORRECT ON THE PART OF THE AO TO HOLD THAT SEC. 36(2) WOULD BE APPLICAB LE ONLY WITH REGARD TO ITA NO.6965 /M/07 4 THE DEBT PERTAINING TO BROKERAGE AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF PURCHASE OF SHARES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXPRESSIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND TAXED AS INCO ME. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS T. VEERABHADRA RAO, 155 ITR 152. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS OMAN INTERATIONAL BANK SAOG WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE RE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT HAD REALLY B ECOME BAD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE B AD DEBTS WERE ALSO ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS U/S. 28 OF THE I.T. ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS SPL. RANGE 22 VS. V. VRIJLAL LALLOOBHAI & SONS AND THE THREE H IGH COURTS JUDGEMENTS VIZ CIT VS ABDUL RAZZAK & CO. (GUJ) 136 ITR 825, VASSANJI SONS CO. PVT. LTD VS CIT 135 ITR 462 AND CIT VS V.W . HORAH & CO. PVT. LTD. (CAL) 194 ITR 345. THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE WERE ALMOST SIMILAR TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE IN V. VRIJLAL LALLOOBHAI & SONS. THE AR PLEADED THAT THE APPELLA NT WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII) OR AS BUSINESS LOSS U/S. 28 OF THE I.T. ACT. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRE D TO FILE THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF BOTH THE DEBTORS AND ALSO PROVE T HAT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD. WAS WEAK AND FURNISH A COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE AFORESAID PARTY. IT WAS NOTICED THAT ANOTHER ENTITY UNDER THE NAME OF PUNEET ADVISORY SERVICES P VT. LTD WAS ALSO MAKING SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE RE WAS ONE COMMON BROKER AS DIRECTOR IN BOTH THESE COMPANIES VIZ., M/ S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD. WHEN THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE OTHER CON CERN OF THE SAME GROUP WERE GOING ON SMOOTHLY. THE AR EXPLAINED THA T ALL DUES IN BOTH THE CASES WERE ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AN D THAT COMPANY. SINCE THERE WAS NO CHANCE OF RECOVERY AND THAT COMP ANY WAS HAVING ITA NO.6965 /M/07 5 NEGATIVE WORTH, THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF THE BA D DEBTS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SRI RAM GUPTA WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE CLAIM FO R BAD DEBTS CANNOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY BECAUSE NO LEGAL ACTION WAS TA KEN TO RECOVER THE SAME. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF AUTOMETERS LTD. VS CIT, 292 ITR 345 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT HAD BECOME BAD ONLY TO WRIT E IT OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN ITS ACCOUNTS WAS ENOUGH TO CLAIM D EDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(VII) OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISS IONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE AR. IT IS EVIDENT FROM PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS IN THE CASE OF MR. PANK AJ SHAH THAT THE DEBT HAD ARISEN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND SINCE AFTER RECEIVING THE INSURANCE CLAIM THE BALANCE AMOUNT WA S IRRECOVERABLE, THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT. THER EFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE BAD DEBT OF RS. 78 ,238/- FROM SHRI PANKAJ C. SHAH IS ALLOWABLE. IN RESPECT OF THE DEB T OF RS. 45,09,414/- FROM M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD., THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF M/S. PUNEET D EALERS PVT. LTD WERE DULY ACCEPTED AND ACCOUNTED FOR BY THAT PART I N ITS BOOKS. THE CLAIM THAT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF M/S. PUNEET DE ALERS PVT. LTD WAS REALLY WEAK HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE AR WH O HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY COPY OF BALANCE SHEET, P&L ACCOUNT OF THAT COMPANY. IT ALSO LOOKS STRANGE THAT ANOTHER CONCERN CONTROLL ED BY A COMMON DIRECTOR VIZ., M/S. PUNEET ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. L TD WAS DOING REGULAR SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE AS CLI ENTS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABSENCE OF CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD AND THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE OTHER CONCERN CONTROLLED BY A COMMON DIRECTOR WERE STILL BEING ENTERED INTO, BONAFIDE OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE APPELLANT FO R WRITING OFF THE DEBT AS IRRECOVERABLE APPEARS TO BE DOUBTFUL. THE VARIOUS COURT JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE AR SUPPORT THE STAND THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE D EBT HAD BECOME IRRECOVERABLE DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, IT IS STIL L REQUIRED TO BE PROVE THAT THE APPELLANTS DECISION IN TREATING THE AMOUNT AS IRRECOVERABLE WAS BASED ON AN HONEST AND FAIR JUDGE MENT. IN THE ITA NO.6965 /M/07 6 INSTANT CASE, THE BASIC PRECONDITION THAT THE DEBT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 45,09,414/- STOOD OUTSTANDING AGAINST M/S. PUNEET D EALERS PVT. LTD WAS NOT CONFIRMED BY THAT PARTY. THUS, EVEN THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE DEBT WAS UNCONFIRMED. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION W ITH REGARD TO THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD WAS AGAIN DOUBTFUL AS ANOTHER COMPANY M/S. PUNEET ADVISORY SE RVICES CONTROLLED BY THE COMMON DIRECTOR WAS HAVING SMOOTH SHARE TRANSACTION WITH THE APPELLANT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THAT CONCERN WAS GOOD. SO IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THAT PARTY, ANY SUPPORTING EVIDEN CE TO SHOW THAT FINANCIALLY M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD. WAS HAVIN G NEGATIVE WORTH, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO P ROVE THAT ITS DECISION IN WRITING OFF THE DEBT OF M/S. PUNEET DEA LERS AT RS. 45,09,414/- WAS BASED ON AN HO NEST AND FAIR JUDGEM ENT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 45,09,414/- EXIS TED AGAINST M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD, THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THAT CONCERN WAS REALLY WEAK, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR WRITE O FF WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON T HE JUDGEMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTH INDIA SURGIC AL CO. LTD. VS. ACIT 201 CTR 239. AS REGARDS THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR CONSIDERING IT AS BUSINESS LOSS U/S. 28, I AM O F THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DEBT ITSELF WAS NOT PR OVED BY THE APPELLANT, THE QUESTION OF ITS DEDUCTION U/S. 28 A S BUSINESS LOSS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF BA D DEBT IN RESPECT OF M/S. PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LTD AT RS. 45,09,414/- HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO. THUS, THE APPELLANT GETS A R ELIEF OF RS. 78,238/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ SHAH. THUS, TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED.' 9. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US . 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI CHETAN A KARIA CONTENDED AS FOLLOWS: BAD DEBTS BUSINESS LOSS PUNEET DEALERS PVT. LT D.- RS.4509414 THESE DUES ARE ON ACCOUNT OF BONAFIDE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ENTERED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ABOVE COMPANY . THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTED TO RS. 55, 20,211/- AND THE ABOVE COMPANY PAID RS. 10,10,797/- ONLY. D ESPITE ITA NO.6965 /M/07 7 BEST EFFORTS THE ABOVE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO REC OVER THE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE MADE ALL THE INQUIRIES AND FO UND THAT THE COMPANY IS HAVING NEGATIVE WORTH HENCE THERE AR E NO CHANCES OF ANY RECOVERY. ONCE THE ASSESSEE IS OF T HE OPINION THAT THERE ARE NO CHANCES OF RECOVERY THERE IS NO Q UESTION OF FILING A SUIT TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT THEREFORE THE A SSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OF THESE DEBTS TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOU NT AS REQUIRED U/S. 36(1)(VII) OR S. 28. ALL THE FACTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE AO AND ARE ON RECORD. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF TRF LTD VS CIT (2010- TIOL-15-SC-IT). 12. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SHRI SUMEET KUMAR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO C LAIM THE DEBT TO BE BAD MERELY ON THE BASIS OF WRITING IT OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE WORD BAD HAD BEEN USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH TH E WORD DEBT AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT USED THE WORD DEBT ONLY IN TH E OPERATING SECTION. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO TAKE RECOURSE TO SEC. 36(1)( VII) OF THE ACT BEFORE WRITING IT OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AO HAS TO BE CONVINCED THAT THE DEBT HAS BECOME BAD. THE BONAFIDE ASSESSMENT B Y THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF TO THE FACT THAT THE REALISATION OF DEBT IS NOT POSSIBLE IS DEFINITELY TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE WRITING IT OFF IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE AGREED THAT THE MATTER SH OULD BE RESTORED TO THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE CLAIM FOR WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBT IS A BONAFIDE CLAIM. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE REMIT THE ISSUE T O THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE WHETHER IT IS A BONAFIDE ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF THAT THE DEBT IS IRRECOVERABLE AND HAS THEREFORE WRITTEN OFF THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO SHALL GIVE REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. ITA NO.6965 /M/07 8 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010 SD/- SD./- ( S.V. MEHROTRA) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR J BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO.6965 /M/07 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 29.10.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 29.10.2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______