SATYAPAL RAJPAL BAKSHI, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(2)3, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 705/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 70519914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G N MAKWANA
• Keywords: Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMB AI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 705/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SATYAPAL RAJPAL BAKSHI 1005/B, SANKESHWAR SUDHA PARK, GHATKOPAR (E) MUMBAI-400 071. PAN NO.AABPB 7508 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)(3) 4 TH FLOOR, TOWER NO.6 VASHI RAILWAY STATION BLDG. VASHI NAVI MUMBAI-400 703. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA REVENUE BY : SHRI G.N. MAKWANA DATE OF HEARING : 26/08/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 / 0 8 /2013 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI DATED 18.10.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08. 2. THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION RS.39,51,877/- MADE U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL TECHNOCRAT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EX PORT OF PHARMACEUTICAL MACHINERIES AND EQUIPMENTS IN THE NA ME AND STYLE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. DEV INTERNATIONAL ENTE RPRISES. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTOR AND SHARE HOLDER IN M/S. TAPASYA E NGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED (TEWPL). IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITOR S IN THE BALANCE ITA NO.705/M/11 A.Y.07-08 2 SHEET AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,94,131/- IN THE NAME OF M/ S. TAPASYA ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED. THEREAFTER, ASSE SSING OFFICER TOOK THE ACCOUNT COPIES OF UNSECURED LOANS AND ADVANCES AND NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,91,55,000/- FRO M THE SAID COMPANY AND REPAID THE AMOUNT TO AN EXTENT OF RS.1,73,60,86 9/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOAN FROM THE SAID COMPANY PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WERE INVOKED BY AO AND MADE AN ADDITION O F RS.39,51,877/- TO THE EXTENT OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF THE SAID COMPAN Y. 3. THIS ADDITION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS CONTESTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS I N FACT ADVANCED FUNDS FROM HIS ACCOUNT TO THE COMPANY AS AND WHEN REQUIRE D AND REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS LOANS AND ADVA NCES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF AT ALL ANY AMOUNT IT TO BE TREATE D AS LOAN, THE LOAN TO AN EXTENT OF RS.7,45,787/- AS ON 31.03.2007 ONLY CAN B E TAKEN AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT AGREE AND CON FIRMED THE AMOUNT BY STATING A UNDER :- 5.7 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, APPE LLANTS SUBMISSIONS AND HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE S ARGUMENT. THE APPELLANT IS NOT DENYING THE FACT THAT ON ACCOU NT OF FULFILLING ALL THE CONDITIONS THE LOAN GIVEN TO HIM ATTRACTS PROVI SIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E). AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT THIS SUBMISSION IS THAT ONLY THE CLOSING CREDIT BALANCE APPEARING IN HIS NAME, AT TH E YEAR END SHOULD BE TAKEN AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. FOR THIS HE IS CITING HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.K. BAD IANI (76 ITR 369) WHERE THE FACT WAS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD A CURRENT ACCOUNT THROUGH WHICH OTHER BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS LOAN T RANSACTION WERE CARRIED OUT AND IT WAS DUE TO THIS REASON HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT SAID THAT: SECTION 2(6A)(E) MUST BE SO INTERPRETED THAT ONC E AN AMOUNT GOES OUT OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS AS A LOAN AND THE LOAN IS TO BE DEEMED TO BE DIVIDEND, THE SAME AMOUNT WHEN R EPAID CANNOT AGAINST BE CAPABLE OF ATTRACTING THE FICTION AND DEEMED TO BE DIVIDEND. TO AVOI8D THE HAPPENING OF ANY SUCH EVENTUALITY, THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS MUST BE NOTI ONALLY REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF ALL LOANS ETC, WHICH ARE T O BE DEEMED TO BE DIVIDEND U/S.2(6A)(E). ITA NO.705/M/11 A.Y.07-08 3 THE ASSESSEE WAS THE MAJOR SHAREHOLDER AND THE MANA GING DIRECTOR OF THE PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY S. THE ASSE SSEE HAD A MUTUAL OPEN AND CURRENT ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AND HE HAD WITHDRAWN THROUGH THAT ACCOUNT A SUM OF RS.3,37,416/- IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR APRIL 1, 1957, TO MARCH 31, 1958 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 1958-59. THE ACCOUNT BEING A MUTUAL, OPENING CURRENT ACCOUNT, EVERY DEBIT, THAT IS, EVERY PAYMENT BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE A LOAN. TO BE TREATED AS A LOAN, EVERY AMOUNT PAID MUST MAK E THE COMPANY A CREDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT AMOUNT. IF, HOWEVER, AT THE TIME WHEN THE PAYMENT IS MADE, THE COMPANY IS ALREADY A DEBTOR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PAYMENT WO ULD BE MERELY A REPAYMENT BY THE COMPANY TOWARDS ITS ALREA DY EXISTING DEBTOR, IT WOULD BE A LOAN BY THE COMPANY ONLY IF THE PAYMENT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ITS ALREADY EXISTING D EBT AND THAT TOO ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE EXCESS. THEREFOR E, THE POSITION AS REGARDS EACH DEBIT WILL HAVE TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDERED. BECAUSE IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A LOAN. THE TWO BASIC PRINCIPLES ARE THAT ONLY A LOAN WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE OTHER PAYMENTS MENTIONED IN SEC.2(6A)(E) CAN BE DEEMED TO BE DIVID END AND THAT TOO ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMPANY HAS AT THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT ACCUMULATED PROFITS AFTER DEDUCTING T HEE FROM ALL ITEMS LEGITIMATELY DEDUCTIBLE THERE FROM. WHAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IS NOT THE BALANCE IS ACCESS BUT THE POS ITION OF EVERY PAYMENT, AND THEREFORE, THE DEBIT BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE COMPANY AT ANY POINT OF TIME COUL D NOT BE TAKEN TO REPRESENT AN ADVANCE OR LOAN BY THE COMPAN Y TO THE ASSESSEE; NOR COULD THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AT THE E ND OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR BE ALONE TAKEN AS LOAN WITHIN THE M EANING OF SEC.2(6A)(E). 5.8 HERE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE OF LOANS WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY M/S. TEWPL TO THE APPELLANT FOR NUMBER OF TIMES DURING THE YEAR. HENCE EVERY TRANSACTION OF LOANS MADE BY M/S. TEWPL HAS TO BE T AKEN AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E ). IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT APPELLANT HAS GIVEN SOME AMOUNT BACK TO M/S. T EWPL BUT THE REPAYMENT OF THESE LOANS WILL NOT REDUCE THE LIABIL ITY OF TAX ATTACHED TO THE LOANS, ADVANCES EARLIER BY VIRTUE OF SEC.2(2 2)(E) IN VIEW OF DECISION GIVEN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TARULATA SHYAM VS. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) WHICH IS DIRE CTLY ON THE ISSUE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN THE CASE TH AT FOR SEC.2(22)(E) THE LIABILITY OF TAX IS ATTACHED TO AN Y PAYMENT TAKEN AS LOAN OR ADVANCED BY THE SHAREHOLDERS OR OTHER SPECI FIED PERSON AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT AND IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER TH E LOAN OR ADVANCE WAS REPAID BEFORE THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. ITA NO.705/M/11 A.Y.07-08 4 5.9 IN VIEW OF THIS PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT I S ONLY THE CLOSING CREDIT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE NAME OF M/S. TEWPL I.E. RS.7,45,787/- WHICH IS DEEMED DIVIDEND CANNOT BE EN TERTAINED AND HENCE DISMISSED. AS REGARDS THE SECOND PLEA THAT IN THE COMBINED LEDGER SO MADE BY THE APPELLANT THERE ARE TRANSACTI ONS OF PAYMENTS MADE EVEN PRIOR TO LOANS TAKEN IN THIS YEAR AND HEN CE THE OPENING DEBIT BALANCE IN THE NAME OF M/S. TEWPL SHOULD BE S ET OFF FIRST AND ONLY WHEN THE LOAN AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR EXCEEDS T HE DEBIT AMOUNT THE SAME SHOULD BE TAKEN AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. I FIND THAT THIS ARGUMENT IS ALSO WITHOUT SUBSTANCE IN TERMS OF CLEAR WORDINGS OF SEC2(22)(E) IN THIS RESPECT WHICH SAYS: ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN W HICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM WHETHER AS REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE MADE AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 1987 BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BE NEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES NOT BEING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIXE D ARTE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICI PATE IN PROFITS HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PERCENT OF THE VO TING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBE R OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST HEREAFTER IN THIS CLAUSE REFERRED TO AS THE SAID CONCERN OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHALF OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BE NEFIT OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CO MPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS. 5.10 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY BROUGHT OUT THES E FACTS ON RECORD THAT COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S. TEWPL WA S ASKED FOR AN EXAMINED. SAME IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW: THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE WAS ASKED TO FILE TH E LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF M/S. TAPASAYA ENGG. WORKS P.LTD. AN D M/S. SAINATH BOILERS & PNEUMATICS AND THE NATURE OF TRAN SACTION. THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE FILED THE COPY OF LED GER ACCOUNT COPY OF M/S. TAPASAYA ENGG. WORKS P.LTD. AND M/S. S AINATH BOILERS & PNEUMATICS AND STATED THAT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION WAS UNSECURED LOANS, TAKEN BY MR. SATAY APAL RAJPAL BAKSHI PROPRIETOR OF M/S. DEV INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES. S PER THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, IT I S SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN AND ADVANCES OF RS.1,91,55,000/- AND REPAID DURING THE YEAR OF RS.1,73,60,869/- FROM M/S. TAYASAYA ENGGL WORKS P.L TD. AND RS.83,25,150/- FROM M/S. SAINATH BOILERS & PNEU MATICS AND REPAID DURING THE YEAR OF RS.76,45,000/- ON VAR IOUS DATES. ITA NO.705/M/11 A.Y.07-08 5 5.11 HERE IN THE CASE THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING AN A CCOUNT OF LOAN. HE WAS NOT HAVING A MUTUAL, OPEN AND CURRENT ACCOUN T WHERE ALL SORTS OF TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED OR REFLECTED. TH ERE IS NO DOUBT THAT ALL THE DEBITS ARE LOAN ONLY. IN THE BACKGROUN D OF THESE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ALREADY; THE DECISION GIVEN BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.K. BADIANI (76 ITR 369) WHICH WAS IN RELATION TO ASCERTAIN IF ALL THE DEBIT ARE L OAN IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT FOR THE REASON THAT HERE T HERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THEY WERE LOANS AND IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPT ED SO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.39,51,877/- IS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) T O THE EXTENT OF COMPANIES ACCUMULATED PROFITS AS ON 31.03.2007 IS C ONFIRMED. 3.1 LD. COUNSEL REFERRING TO THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT (A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE EITHER WITH INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OR WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACT OF DEEMED DI VIDEND. WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING IS QUANTIFICATION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT OF A CCUMULATION OF PROFITS BY SAID COMPANY TO THE EXTENT CONSIDERED BY AO. 4. REFERRING TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH TH E SAID COMPANY PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 4 AND 5, IT WAS THE SUBMI SSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBIT BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.18,99,213/- AS ON 01/04/2006. ASSESSEE FURTHER ADVANCED FUNDS TO AN E XTENT OF RS.12.00 LACS AS ON 12/04/2006 MAKING TOTAL DEBIT TO RS.30,9 9,212/-. THEREAFTER THE SAID COMPANY REPAID THE AMOUNT IN THE MONTH OF APRIL AND MAY THEREBY THE DEBIT BALANCE WAS REDUCED TO RS.19.24 L ACS, LIKEWISE TILL 27/12/2006 THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED FUNDS TO THE COMPA NY AND COMPANY REPAID THEM, WHICH CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS LOANS B Y THE COMPANY. FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 27/12/2006, ASSESSEE RECEIVED MO RE AMOUNT THAN WHAT HE HAD ADVANCED, TO AN EXTENT OF RS. 30,787/-. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE ADVANCED RS.1,50,000/- ON 30/12/2006, THEREBY A NET AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED WAS RS.1.19 LACS. THEN, LD.COUNSEL REFERRE D TO FURTHER TRANSACTIONS TO SUBMIT THAT IT WAS THE COMPANY WHIC H WAS REPAYING THE MONIES ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY THER EFORE, AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM COMPANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LOANS AND ADVANCES. IT ITA NO.705/M/11 A.Y.07-08 6 WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT ON 09.02.2007 THE PEAK AMOU NT ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE WAS AT RS.5,45,787/- WH ICH BECOME POSITIVE I.E. IT WAS ASSESSEES ADVANCE TO COMPANY ON 12/03/ 2007 TO EXTENT OF RS.14,24,213/-. THEREAFTER, ONLY ON 30.03.2007 ASSE SSEE RECEIVED RS.19,75,000/- WHICH MAKES IT CREDIT OF RS.7,45,78 7/- WHICH WAS AMOUNT ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE, INC IDENTALLY ON THE LAST DAY OF THE YEAR . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT B Y VIRTUE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 2(22)(E), BY GIVING CREDIT TO THE AMOUNT AL READY CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND, THE DEEMED DIVIDEND CAN BE CONSIDE RED AS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,45,787/- AND NOT MORE. 5. THE LD. DR HOWEVER REITERATED THE FACTS AS STATE D BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE FA CTS ON RECORD. EVEN THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) TAKES SUPPORT FROM THE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. SAINATH BOILERS & PNEUMATICS THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) TO THE EXTENT OF TRA NSACTIONS WITH THE SAID CONCERN AS ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S. TAPASYA ENGG. WORKS P. LTD. A S SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF AO AND THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WHAT WE NO TICE IS THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF TRANSACTI ONS OF THE RUNNING ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SECOND LEDGER ACCOU NT WHICH IS CONSIDERED AS PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE COMPANY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROPRIETARY CONCERN DEV INTERNATIO NAL ENTERPRISES ALSO BOTH THE ACCOUNTS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ONE. IN B OTH THE ACCOUNTS THE OPENING BALANCES ARE DEBIT BALANCES I.E. WHAT THE A SSESSEE HAS ADVANCED TO THE COMPANY AND NOT THE OTHER WAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED RS.2,10,869/- ON 01.04.2006 IN ONE ACCOUNT AND RS.1 6,88,344/- IN THE OTHER ACCOUNT MAKING A TOTAL OPENING BALANCE OF DEB IT IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT TO RS.18,99,293/-. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE ADV ANCED FUNDS AS STATED IN ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS. THUS, IT IS ASSES SEES FUNDS WHICH ARE ITA NO.705/M/11 A.Y.07-08 7 WITH THE COMPANY AND NOT THE OTHER WAY TILL 27.12.2 006 WHEREIN FOR THE FIRST TIME AN AMOUNT OF RS.30,787/- WAS ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNTS REPAID OUT OF THE EARLIER ADVANCE TO THE COMPANY BY ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSES SEE ADVANCED FUNDS IN BOTH THE ACCOUNTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,92,89,21 3/- AND RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,35,000/-. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT TH E COMPANY WHICH HAS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE REPAID BY THE AS SESSEE AS CONSIDERED BY AO AND LD. CIT(A). IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD AD VANCED FUNDS AND RECEIVED THEM BACK. THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF FUN DS REPAID OUT OF THE EARLIER ADVANCE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT CAN NOT BE CONS IDERED AS LOANS AND ADVANCES BY THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE BASIS OF W ORKING BY THE AUTHORITIES ITSELF IS WRONG. AS SUBMITTED, EVEN THO UGH THE FIRST CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE CAME ON 27.12.2006 WHICH FLUCTUATED FR OM CREDIT TO DEBIT UP TO 30.03.2007, THE FINAL CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO AN EXTENT OF RS.7,45,787/-.THIS AMOUNT WAS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE AMOUNT WHICH CAN ONLY BE CONS IDERED AS ADVANCE BY THE SAID COMPANY (TEWPL). THIS SUBMISSION WAS NOT C ONSIDERED FACTUALLY BY THE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS, WE AGREE WITH ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND RESTRICT THE DEEMED DIVID END TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,45,787/-. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED ALLOWED TO THAT EXTENT. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30/08/2013. JV. ITA NO.705/M/11 A.Y.07-08 8 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.