FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I. LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 46, MUMBAI

ITA 7015/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88569 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KU MAR BEERLA
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN A KARIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 153A; 32; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAS NO. :7015 TO 7018/MUM /2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07) FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, MALKANI CHAMBERS, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 093 .: PAN: AAACF 5737 C VS ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -46, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHETAN A KARIA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA /DATE OF HEARING : 20-01-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-03-2015 ORDER , , , , PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: INSTANT APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-38, DATED 26.06.2011, COVERING ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 02-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07, SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN EACH OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED AS SESSMENT YEARS. THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER: SR. NO. ASST. YEAR PENALTY LEVIED 1 2002 - 03 1,2 5,00,000 2 2004 - 05 68,12,973 3 2005 - 06 55,00,000 4 2006 - 07 25,00,000 2. SINCE THE FACTS IN ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, W E PROPOSE TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS VIDE THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD. ITAS 7015 TO 7018/MUM/2011 2 3. THE FACTS ARE, THAT THE PRIMARY FACTS, THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY ACQUIRED IPR BY THE PROCESS OF AMALGAMATION OF A NOTHER COMPANY, CONSEQUENT TO SWAP RATIO FOR THE MERGER, AS AP PROVED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 4. IPRS AS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CAPITALIZED BY T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS BOOKS, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLA IMED DEPRECIATION. 5. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT IN THE REGU LAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO DELVED IN THE ENTIRE FACTS AND IN ORDER DATED 24.02.2005, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION O N IPRS AS ACQUIRED BY IT. 6. THE ASSESSEE TOOK LEGAL ADVICE FROM SENIOR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, WHO ADVISED THE ASSESSEE ON THE CORRECTN ESS OF THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON IPRS. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED CI T(A), AND THE CIT(A), TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL ASPECTS, BOTH ON FA CTS AND LAW, ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON IPR. 7. THE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION BY THE CIT(A) WAS TAKEN B EFORE THE ITAT BY THE DEPARTMENT. BUT DURING THE PENDENCY O F APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, ON 19.06.2007, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERAT IONS WERE CONDUCTED AND IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4), MR. JIGNESH SHAH, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, WITHDREW THE ASSE SSEES CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON IPRS TO AVOID LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE AND REMAIN OUT OF THE CONTROVERSY. 8. IT WAS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, CONSEQUENTIAL TO SEARCH A ND SEIZURE OPERATIONS, THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION ONCE AGAIN E MERGED AND THE AO INITIATED AND LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BY INVOKING EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C). FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD. ITAS 7015 TO 7018/MUM/2011 3 9. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), PERTAINING TO LEVY OF PE NALTY, THE CIT(A), SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 10. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL IN THE FOUR YEARS, IN WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. 11. IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE AR SUBM ITTED THE FACTS, AS TO HOW THE IMPUGNED APPEALS HAVE REACHED THE ITAT. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS PRIMARILY RELIED ON EXPLANAT ION 5A TO SECTION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) AND SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANAT ION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE APPLIED BECAUSE THE EXPLAN ATION STATES, WHERE, IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTIO N 132 ON OR AFTER 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE O WNER OF- I) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THEY (HEREAFTER IN THE EXPLANATION REFERRED TO AS A SSETS) AND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQ UIRED BY HIM BY UTILITY/WHOLLY OR IN PART) HIS INCOME FOR AN Y PREVIOUS YEAR, OR (II) ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENT OR TRANSACTION REPRESENTS HIS INCOME FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF S EARCH AND- A) WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR H AS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE BUT SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED THEREIN; B) THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SU CH PREVIOUS YEAR HAS EXPIRED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE D ATE OF SEARCH, HE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION , BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IF SUCH INCOME. 12. THE AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE ADDITION ITSELF. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS RESULT OF THE WITHDRAWAL O F CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, BUT, THAT BY ITSELF CANNOT BECOME AN ITEM OF A DDITION AND AN ITEM FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A. FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD. ITAS 7015 TO 7018/MUM/2011 4 13. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON IPRS CONSEQUENT TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAME, AS PER STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 1 32(4) AND INITIATED THE LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). ON SIMILAR FACTS, WHICH CAME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN THE ADDITION WAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LATE SH. RAJ PAL BAHTIA & OTHERS, REPORTED IN 333 ITR 31 5 (DEL), THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT STATEMENT COULD NOT BE CONST RUED AS MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER XIVB. 14. THE AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMJ HOUSING VS CIT, REPORTED I N 357 ITR 698 (MAD), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN IN A CASE WHERE T HE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE RETURN, AS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E PRIOR TO SEARCH, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AN Y INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SEARCH, THEN EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE ATTRACTED. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT EXPLANATION 5 IS PARI MATERIA TO EXPLANATION 5A, WHICH HAS BEEN IMPORTED BY THE CIT(A) TO SUSTAIN THE PEN ALTY ORDER. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE PENALTY, HOLDING, THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ASSISTANCE IN EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ON THE ADMITTED FACT S HEREIN THAT THE SEARCH IS ONE BEING IN THE RESIDENTIAL PRE MISES OF THE PARTNER, THERE BEING NO RECOVERY OF EITHER CASH OR ANY AMOUNT SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THERE BEING NO ALLEGATION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOWED INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS L IABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS SET ASIDE. 15. THE AR, IT MAY BE MENTIONED HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON A NUMBER OF DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE IMPUGNED, BOTH BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND BEFORE US. THE AR, BASING HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE SAME, PLEADED THAT THE PENALTIES NEED TO BE DELETED. FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD. ITAS 7015 TO 7018/MUM/2011 5 16. THE DR PRIMARILY DEFENDED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PURSUED THE ORDERS O F THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE PLETHORA OF CASE LAWS C ITED BEFORE US. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS: THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE IPRS AS ONE OF THE BENEFIT S OF THE AWARD OF ARBITRATION, SUSTAINED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIG H COURT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WITHIN THE SCHEME OF AMAL GAMATION. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE IPRS AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(II), IPRS BEING INTANGIBLE ASSETS. THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON IPRS BY THE AO IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A). THE DIRECTOR MR. JIGNESH SHAH WITHDREW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS UNDERTAKEN ON THE ASSESSEE. IN 153A PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ONCE AGAIN ADDED THE SA ME BUT IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ORDER O F THE AO. THE AO AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ORDERS IN 153A PROCE EDINGS INITIATED AND LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C). 18. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, WE HAVE TO ASCERTAIN, AS TO WHET HER AT ALL PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON THE ASSESSEE, ON THE UNDISPUTED AN D UNDISTURBED FACTS AND FIGURES, ALREADY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 19. WE FIND THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, WHEN MR. JINGNESH SHAH DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITHDREW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N ON IPRS, THE CLAIM WAS ALREADY ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A), BUT WA S SUB JUDICE BEFORE THE ITAT IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 20. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE ISSUE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN M ADE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3), BECAUSE THAT PROVISION CONTEMPLATES, ASSESSMENT OF MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL INGREDIENTS OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE IMPORTANT QUALIFICATION IS THAT THE MATERIAL MUST BE INCRIMINATING AND FOUND DURING TH E SEARCH, AND WHICH MAY HAVE THE CHARACTER OF INCREASING T HE INCOME DECLARED IN ORIGINAL ROI. FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD. ITAS 7015 TO 7018/MUM/2011 6 21. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF DEPARTMENT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WHICH WAS CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE FILING ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OR THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 153 A. IN SUCH A CASE INCIDENCE OF PENALTY AT ALL CANNOT BE COMPREHENDED. 22. REVERTING OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATION 5A OF SECTION 271(1)(C). AS MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE ORDER, THE EXPLANATION USES THE EXPRESSIONS, WHERE, IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH INITIATED UNDER S ECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS FO UND TO BE THE OWNER OF (I) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING (HEREAFTER IN THIS EXPLANATION REFERRED TO AS ASSE TS) AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILISING (WHOLLY OR IN PART) HIS INCOME FOR ANY PR EVIOUS YEAR; OR (II) ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS AND HE CLAIMS THAT SUCH E NTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTS HIS INCOME (WHOLLY OR IN PART) FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND, (A) WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YE AR HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE BUT SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED THEREIN; OR (B) THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FO R SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR HAS EXPIRED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETU RN, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, HE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY UNDER C LAUSE (C) OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONC EALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 23. WHEN WE ANALYZE THE EXPRESSIONS USED IN CLAUSE (I) TO EXPLANATION 5A, WE FIND THAT THE EXPRESSIONS USED ARE DEFIN ITE TO USE THE WORDS ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING (HEREAFTER IN THIS EXPLANATION REFERRED TO A S ASSETS) AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILISING (WHOLLY OR IN PART) HIS INCOME FOR ANY PRE VIOUS YEAR . IN THE INSTANT CASES, NO ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN MADE ON A NY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER ARTICLE OR THING FOUND IN T HE SEARCH. FACTUALLY, IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AS WELL, BECAUSE NONE OF THE ABOVE EXPRESSIONS WAS A RESULT OF THE SEARC H OR HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD. ITAS 7015 TO 7018/MUM/2011 7 24. EVEN WHEN WE ANALYZE EXPRESSIONS USED IN CLAUSE (II) TO EXPLANATION, ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS AND HE C LAIMS THAT SUCH ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTS HIS INCOME (WHOLLY OR IN PART) FOR ANY PR EVIOUS YEAR , , WE FIND THAT EVEN THIS SHALL NOT APPLY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, (A) IPRS WERE ACQUIRED AS A SCHEME AWARDED BY THE TWO HONBLE HIGH COURTS & (B) THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CHARGE OF DEPRECIATION WA S A SUO MOTO DECISION TO AVOID LITIGATION. (C) THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS DOES NOT PERTAIN TO INCOME BUT, IT WAS A LEGAL CHARGE ON THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS, AS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 25. IN SO FAR AS DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, IT IS AN ALLOWAB LE LEGAL CHARGE, WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AND ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A ) IN REGULAR ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS. SINCE IT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED N OW, IT FALLS WITHIN THE PRECINCT OF (I) CHANGE OF OPINION, AND (II) IN CASE OF A LEGAL CLAIM OF A LEGAL CHARGE. 26. A LEGAL CLAIM AND CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON A GIVEN SUBJECT, CANNOT PARTAKE THE CHAR ACTER OF CONCEALMENT AND/OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME, HENCE PENALTY IS NOT EXIGIBLE. 27. EVEN WHEN WE TRY TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF LEV Y OF PENALTY THROUGH THE WINDOW OF QUANTUM, THE INSTANT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY IS A RESULT OF SUO MOTO WITHDRAWAL OF DEPRECIATION OF AN INTANGIBLE ASSET, WHICH ARE, PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS ETC., WHICH ALREADY FIND PLACE IN THE INTANGIBLE ASSET PORTION OF S ECTION 32 ON WHICH THE DEPRECIATION WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 28. IN ANY CASE DEPRECIATION IS NOT BASED ON BOOK ENTR Y BUT ON THE BASIS OF PROVISION OF THE ACT. FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD. ITAS 7015 TO 7018/MUM/2011 8 29. COMING TO THE CORRECTNESS OF ADDITION, BASED ON STAT EMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4), WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE AR, THAT ADDITION ITSELF CANNOT BE SUSTAINED SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4), AS HELD IN THE CASE OF RAJ PAL BHATIA (SUPRA) . 30. WE ALSO AGREE THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMJ HOUSING ( SUPRA ) THAT EXPLANATION 5 CANNOT BE INVOKED, AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND FROM THE SEARCH. ALL THE FACTS WERE ON RECORD, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OR OTHERWISE PROVED TO BE ILLE GAL, EVEN IF THE CLAIM WAS NON ALLOWABLE. NON-ALLOWABLE CLAIM CANNOT, BY ITS ELF INVITE PENALTY, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 32 2 ITR 158 (SC). 31. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), SUSTAINING THE PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-0 7 AND DIRECT THE AO TO CANCEL THE FOLLOWING PENALTIES, AS LEVIED. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03, ITA NO. 7015/MUM/2011 IS ALLOWED. 2004-05, ITA NO. 7016/MUM/2011 IS ALLOWED. 2005-06, ITA NO. 7017/MUM/2011 IS ALLOWED. 2006-07, ITA NO. 7018/MUM/2011 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MARCH, 2015 SD/- SD/- ( ! !! ! ! !! ! ) ( ) ' ' ' '# # # # # # # # (R C SHARMA) ( VIVEK VARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 4 TH MARCH, 2015 FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES I LTD. ITAS 7015 TO 7018/MUM/2011 9 #/ COPY TO:- 1) / THE APPELLANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT(A) -38, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-CENTRAL IV, MUMBAI. 5) $%& ###' () , * #' , +,- / +,- THE D.R. F BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) &./ ) COPY TO GUARD FILE. *,0 / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / 1 / 2 3 * #' , 4 5 DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN, SR.PS