DADAR CLUB, MUMBAI V. ITO 17(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 721/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3773 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAJOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 56

Judgement Text

D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENC H, MUMBAI ! . '# , % &'( & BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM ITA NO.721/M/2010 (AY: 2005-2006 ) DADAR CLUB, 235, DADAR CLUB BLDG., LOKMANYA TILAK COLONY, DADAR (E), MUMBAI-400 014. / VS. ITO-17(1)(1), C-10, 7 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-14. () % & ./PAN :AAAAD 0063 H ( )* /APPELLANT) .. ( +,)* / RESPONDENT) )* - . & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBRAMANIAN +,)* - . & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAJOJ KUMAR, CIT-DR & - /% /DATE OF HEARING : 4.4.2013 01 - /% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.5.2013 '2 '2 '2 '2 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 4.4.2013 IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)- 29, MUMBAI DATED 24.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1.(A) THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN TREATING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,80,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED FOR THE PERMIT ROOM AREA. A LL THE ACTIVITIES AND THE PROCEEDS OF THE PERMIT ROOM ARE UTILIZED BY THE MEM BERS AND HENCE ANY RECEIPT IS NOT TAXABLE AND IS COVERED UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUA LITY. (B) THE LD CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT TH AT WHAT IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IS INCOME AND NOT RECEIPT. THE EXPENSES INCIDENTAL TO EARNING OF INCOME WERE NOT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS PERMITTED BY SECTION 57 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. (C) THE PERMIT ROOM COMPENSATION RECEIVED IS A MATT ER OF CONVENIENCE AND FACILITY TO THE MEMBERS. THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED GOES TO REDUCE THE OPERATING COST OF THE CLUB AND THEREBY BENEFIT THE MEMBERS IN TERMS OF TH E SERVICES AT CONCESSIONAL RATES. (D) THE LD CIT APPEAL FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,40,000/- RECEIVED FOR THE GENERAL AREA ALONG WITH THE INTEREST INCOME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. 2 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ASSE SSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 13.12.2011, RAISING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS , WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,40,000/- (COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM CANTE EN CONTRACT) IS NOT TAXABLE BEING INCOME COVERED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF MU TUALITY . 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, EVEN IF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,40,000/- IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THEN ALSO ONLY THE NET INCOME WOULD BE TAXABLE AND NOT GROSS RECEIPTS. 3.1. IN THE COVERING LETTER, ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE LEGAL IN NATURE AND THEY WOULD GO TO THE ROOT O F THE MATTER. IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SHOULD BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL AS IT DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY SORT OF INVESTIGATION INTO THE RELEVANT FACTS. 4. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE, AN AOP (ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS), FILED THE RETURN OF INCOM E DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,54,350/- AND THE SAME WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 13,34,350/-. AO MADE A DDITION OF RS. 4.8 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM THE CONTRACTOR M/S. SADAN CATERERS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO SCRUTINIZED T HE CONTRACT DEED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. SADAN CATERERS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID DEED, ASSESSEE RECEIVED (A) RS. 40,000/- PER MONTH ON ACCOUNT OF PERMIT ROOM COMPENSATION AND (B) RS. 20,000/- PER MONTH ON ACCOUNT OF CLUB PREMISES AND OTHER FACILITIES. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAID SUM OF RS. 20,000/- PER MONTH (RS. 2.4 LACS PER ANNUM) FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER, THE COM PENSATION RECEIVED @ 40,000 PM (AMOUNTING TO RS 4.8 LAKHS PA) ON ACCOUNT OF PER MIT ROOM WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX AND IT WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER THE PRINCIPLE O F MUTUALITY. AO NOTICED THAT BOTH THESE AMOUNTS ARE SIMILAR IE THE SAME CONTRACT OR M/S. SADAR CATERERS, PURPOSE IS THE SAME IE USE OF THE PREMISES AND OTHER FACILI TIES OF THE CLUB. THEREFORE, AO FIND NO REASON AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER RS . 4.8 LACS ALSO TO TAX. AS PER THE AO, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED THE AMOUNTS BY WAY OF COMPE NSATION FROM THE CONTRACTOR, WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE CLUB NOT BENEFICIARY OF THE CLUB AND THEREFORE HE STANDS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. A S PER THE AO, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THE CONTRACTOR IN THE FORM OF COMPENSATION AND HE HAS A MOTIVE TO GENERATE TO HIS BUSINESS AND NEVER HAS AN INTENTION TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON 3 FUND OF THE CLUB. IN THIS REGARD, AO RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MAKER CHAMBERS V PREMISES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. VS. I TO (2005) 2 SOT 797 (MUMBAI). AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE MUST BE COMPLETE IDENTITY BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTOR AND THE PARTICIPATORS. HE FURTHER MENT IONED THAT ALL THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE COMMON FUND MUST BE ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SURPLUS AND THAT ALL THE PARTICIPATORS IN THE SURPLUS MUST BE CONTRIBUTORS T O THE COMMON FUND. IN THIS REGARD, AO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BOMBAY OILSEEDS & OIL EXCHANGE LTD [1993] 2 02 ITR 198/71 TAXMAN 351. THUS, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMPEN SATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CONTRACTOR, FOR AVAILING THE FACI LITIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, IS A TAXABLE RECEIPT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PERMIT ROOM COMPENSATION IS COVE RED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THA T THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED GOES TO REDUCE THE OPERATING COST OF THE CLUB, THEREBY B ENEFITS THE MEMBERS IN TERMS OF THE SERVICES AT CONCESSIONAL RATES. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED IF THE SAID AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED AS A TAXABLE RECEIPT, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF VARIOUS EXPENSES OUT OF THE SAID COMPENSATION ON AC COUNT OF DEPRECIATION, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, SALARY TO STAFF, ELECTRICITY CHARG ES ETC. ON HEARING THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED BY ESSENTIALLY MENTIONING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2.4 LACS ( RS. 20 ,000/- P.M X 12) WHEN OFFERED TO TAX, HE FIND NO REASON WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4.8 LA CS RECEIVED FROM THE SAME CONTRACTOR, FOR AVAILING OTHER FACILITIES OF THE CL UB, SHOULD BE OFFERED TO TAX. AS PER THE CIT (A) ALSO, M/S. SADAN CATERERS IS NOT A MEMB ER OF THE CLUB, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENTS MADE BY HIM ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PRIN CIPLE OF MUTUALITY. REGARDING ALTERNATIVE PLEA, CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF QUANTI FICATION OF THE RELATABLE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE , SALARY TO STAFF, ELECTRICITY CHARGES ETC WHICH ARE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE , CIT (A) DISMISSED BOTH THE MAIN GROUNDS AS WELL AS THE ALTERNATIVE PLEAS. THU S, FINALLY, CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CIT(A), AS SESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUND THAT THE SUM OF RS. 4.8 LACS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE WITH DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN DENYING THE SET OFF TO THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE PERMIT ROOM U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE ALSO ARGUED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION OF RS. 2.4 LACS AND THE INTEREST EARNED ON FIXED DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,14,350/- WERE ALREADY O FFERED TO TAX AS THEY ARE COVERED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MUTUALITY. HOWEVER , IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE ASSESSEE INTENDED TO WITHDRAW FROM TAXATION, THE INCOME OF RS. 2.4 LACS, ORIGINALLY OFFERED IN THE R ETURN AND STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 2.4 LACS IS ALSO EXEMPT FROM TAX IN V IEW OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. HE MENTIONED THAT THE SA ID ISSUE, BEING LEGAL IN NATURE, CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (SC) 284 ITR 323 AND ALSO ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF THE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION (299 ITR 383)(SC ). FURTHER, SHRI SUBRAMANIAN, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED STATING THAT THE AD DITIONAL GROUNDS MUST BE ADMITTED IN VIEW OF ITS LEGAL NATURE. LD COUNSEL ME NTIONED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ORIGINALLY OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER BO NA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE SAID INCOME IS TAXABLE AND WHILE THE SAID INCOME IS COVERED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. HE ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE SAID INCOME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAXED BY THE AO WHO IS DUTY BOUND TO TAX ONLY THE TAXABLE RECEIPTS AND NOT THE EXEMPT INCOME LIKE THE SUM OF RS 2.4 LAKHS. ASSESSEE WANTS THE TRIBUNAL TO AD MIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, REFERRING TO THE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS, LD DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND S AT THIS STAGE STATING THAT IT IS CASE OF AN AFTERTHOUGHT. LD DR STATED THAT THE ASSE SSEE OFFERED THE SUM OF RS 2.4 LAKHS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR USE OF CLUB PRE MISES AND OTHER FACILITIES IN COMPLIANCE OF THE CLAUSES IN THE AGREEMENT. NOW, A SSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY BECAUSE OF THE IN TERNAL DISPUTES IN THE CLUB. 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE U S ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE OF ADMITTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IE WHETHER THE SAID COMPENSATION OF RS. 2.4 LACS IS COVERED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY OR NOT, IS IN THE NATURE OF LEGAL ISSUE AND IT DOES NOT CAL L FOR ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE BASIC FACTS. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO REJECT THE R EQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. THUS, WE ADMIT SAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US. WE SHALL NO W TAKE UP THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS. THE CORES ISSUES THAT EMANATE FROM THE ORI GINAL AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE: (A) IF THE COMPENSATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE M/S. SADAN CATERERS BY THE CLUB ARE COVERED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY OR NOT; AND (B) IF THE NET AMOUNT ONLY IS TAXABLE U/S 56 OF THE ACT OR GROSS AMOUNT IS TAX ABLE. 9. THE GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO THE TAXABILITY OF AMO UNT OF RS. 4.8 LACS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ESSENTIALLY REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THIS AMOUNT GOES TO BENEFIT THE MEMBERS OF THE CLUB AS T HE SAME REDUCES THE OPERATIONAL COST OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY PROVIDING SERVICES AT SUBSIDIZED RATES TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CLUB. LD COUNSEL ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND MENTIONED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS N OT GONE INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE OR THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUT UALITY. WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL, HE MERELY COMPARED THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON ACC OUNT OF PERMIT ROOM WITH THAT OF THE GENERAL COMPENSATION, WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING THE DIFFERENCES. FURTHER, MAKING REFERENCE TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, LD COUNSEL MEN TIONED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED, WHERE THE SUM OF RS. 2.4 LACS IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS A TAXABLE RECEIPT, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) REQUIRES THE AMENDMENT AND RE- ADJUDICATION. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR MENTIONED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS SHIFTING THE STANDS ON TAXABILITY OF THE SAID RECEIPTS TIME TO TIME, WH ICH MUST NOT BE ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS IT IS A CASE OF AFTERTHOUGHT. HE FURTH ER ARGUED STATING THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. FURTHER, LD DR RELIED O N THE LATEST JUDGMENT OF THE 6 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE CLUB VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (SC) 350 ITR 509, WHICH EXPLAINS THE HISTORY A ND THE SCOPE OF THE SAID PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. LD DR FAIRLY AGREED WITH THE LD COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE FACT THAT THE CIT (A) ESSENTIALLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.8 LACS QUA THE GENERAL COMPENSATION WHICH IS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE MENTIONED THAT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS R AISED NOW, IF THE SAME ARE ADMITTED THE WHOLE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RE-ADJUDICATED . 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E LITIGATION ON THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF RS. 4.8 LACS ON ONE SIDE AND RS. 2.4 LACS ON THE OTHER SIDE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THESE RECEIPTS. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE THERE ARE TWO AMOUNTS IE RS 4.8 LAKHS AND RS 2.4 LAKHS RECEIV ED BY THE CLUB FROM THE SAME CONTRACTOR OF COURSE FOR SPECIFIED USES OF THE FACI LITIES/PREMISES OF THE CLUB. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY OFFERED GENERAL COMPENSATION OF RS. 2.4 LACS, WHICH IS NOW BEING CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. OF COUR SE, THE SUM OF RS 4.8 LAKHS IS ALWAYS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AN D THE SAME IS REJECTED BY THE AO/CIT(A). CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM ESSENTIALLY O N FINDING HOMOLOGY OF THE BOTH THE RECEIPTS. CIT(A) IS OF THE OPINION, IF ONE RECE IPT IS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER HAS TO FOLLOW THE SAME SUIT AND FOUND NO REASON TO GIVE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO THESE OTHERWISE IDENTICAL RECEIPTS. TH IS REASONING ADOPTED BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER APPEARS TO BE REASON FOR THE GENESIS OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONAL GROUND. IN ANY CASE, AFTER OUR DECISION O N THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE BASIS OF CONCLUSION GIVEN IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER BECOMES NON EXISTANT AND THEREFORE, BOTH THE RECEIPTS IE RS 4.8 LAKHS AN D RS 2.4 LAKHS ARE OPEN FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE CIT(A). NOW HE HAS TO ADJUDICAT E GIVING REASONS AS TO HOW THESE RECEIPTS DOES NOT FALL IN THE SCOPE OF THE PRINCIP LES OF MUTUALITY. HE NEEDS TO ADOPT THE APEX COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE C LUB (SUPRA) AND MAKE USE OF THE GUIDELINES SET BY THE APEX COURT IN THE SAID JUDGME NT FOR DETERMINING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS UNDER QUESTION. FU RTHER, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION OF RS 2.4 LAKHS ALSO ON PAR WITH RS 4.8 LAKHS AND THE ALTERNATIVE ISSUE OF TAXING ONLY THE NET OR GROSS INCOME, IN QUESTION IS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US AND THE CIT (A) DID NOT HAVE OCCASION TO CONSIDER 7 THE SAME. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, TH E ISSUES RELATING TO TAXABILITY OF PERMIT ROOM COMPENSATION OF RS. 4.8 LACS AS WELL AS THE GENERAL COMPENSATION OF RS. 2.4 LACS SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF TH E CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, GR OUNDS AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SET ASIDE. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3 /4 5 63/ - &7- 89 : :2 ( ; / - '4 15/5/2013 - ? SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /VICE PRESIDENT % &'( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; >' 15/5/2013. . 5 . & ./ OKK , SR. PS '2 - +5/:@ A@1/ /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. B ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. B / CIT 5. @ C? +5/5 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ?!6 D / GUARD FILE. &,@/ +5/ //TRUE COPY// '2 & '2 & '2 & '2 & / BY ORDER, / & < (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI