SETH CHUNILAL MEMORIAL TRUST, MUMBAI V. D.I.T. (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 7279/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78834 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRIJA DAYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH R MODI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Competent authority
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM ./I.T.A. NO. 7279/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: N.A.) SETH CHUNILAL MEMORIAL TRUST 31, VIJAY DEEP, 31, B. G. KHER MARG, MUMBAI-400 006 / VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) ROOM NO. 616, 6 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400 012 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAATS 0283 M ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) ! $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATISH R. MODI '#! $ % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GIRIJA DAYAL &' $ ( / DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2014 )*+ $ ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.05.2014 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 80-G R/W S. 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI (DIT(E) FOR SHORT) DATED 28.9 .2011, REJECTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION DATED 04.11.2009 FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL U/S.80-G OF THE ACT. 2.1 THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE INSTANT CASE IS WHETHE R THE APPROVAL U/S.80-G STOOD RIGHTLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE OR NOT, I.E., IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL; IT DE CIDING THE MATTER IN THE FIRST ROUND THUS (IN ITA NO. 4151/MUM/2010 DATED 08/10/2010/COPY ON RECORD): 2 ITA NO. 7229/MUM/2011 SETH CHUNILAL MEMORIAL TRUST VS. DIT(E) 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CARE FULLY AND FIND THAT IT WAS STATED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CONSTRUC TED A SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL WHICH WERE HANDED OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT. THIS SHOW S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. 6. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D DIT(E) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE. IF ASSESSEE HAS REALLY CONSTRUCTED THE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL WHICH WERE ULTI MATELY HANDED OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT THEN CERTIFICATE U/S.80G SHOULD BE G RANTED. SUBSEQUENTLY, AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254 (2) WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE, STATING THAT WHILE THE SCHOOL WAS HANDED OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE HOSPITAL WAS IN FACT GIVEN TO A TRUST FOR RUNNING. THE TRIBUNAL, AD MITTING THE MISTAKE TO THAT EXTENT, VIDE PARA 4 OF ITS ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 (2) (IN MA NO . 637/MUM/2010 DATED 01/7/2011/COPY ON RECORD), MODIFIED PARA 6 OF ITS O RDER, WHICH NOW READS AS UNDER: 6. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED DIT(E) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS ISSUE PARTICULARLY AFTER VERIFYING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS REALLY CONSTRU CTED THE SCHOOL WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR RUNNING AND ALSO THE HO SPITAL WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO A TRUST FOR RUNNING. AFTER VE RIFICATION OF THIS FACTS, CERTIFICATE U/S.80G SHOULD BE GRANTED. 2.2 THE LD. DIT(E), HOWEVER, DENIED APPROVAL ON THE GROUND THAT NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITY HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT-TRUST FOR A P ERIOD OF OVER A DECADE, I.E., PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION DATED 04/11/2009 . THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GRANTED SECTION 80-G APPROV AL FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/1995 TO 31/03/1998. THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF THE SCHOOL, FOR WHICH SECTION 80-G CERTIFICATE HAD BEEN GRANTED, WAS IN FACT COMP LETED DURING F.Y. 1995-96. NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITY HAS ADMITTEDLY BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING THE PERIOD 01/04/1997 ONWARDS. SECTION 80-G IS A BENEVOLENT PROVISION, WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGE CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. NO CHARITABLE WORK HAVING BEEN ADMITTEDLY UNDERTAKEN S INCE 01/04/1997, I.E., UP TO 04/11/2009, THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION, THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRUST ITSELF IS IN DOUBT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPROVAL OR ITS RENEWAL WAS DENIED . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 3.1 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THAT THE LIM ITED ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E) IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS WAS AS TO IF THE ASSESSEE HAD INDEED CONSTRUCTED THE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL AND, FURTHER, HANDED IT OVER TO GOVERNMENT AND A CHARITABLE TRUST RESPECTIVELY FOR 3 ITA NO. 7229/MUM/2011 SETH CHUNILAL MEMORIAL TRUST VS. DIT(E) RUNNING, SO THAT, WHERE SO, IT BE GRANTED APPROVAL UNDER SEC.80-G. THE REVENUE HAD, ACCORDINGLY, EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN EXAMINING OTHER ASPECTS OF THE MATTER; ITS PURVIEW BEING GOVERNED/RESTRICTED BY THE TERMS OF T HE SET ASIDE. 3.2 THE REVENUES CASE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS THAT THE ACTIVITY, WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE INFERENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST IS DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL, I.E., CONSTRUCTION OF A SCHOOL, EXTENDS T O THE PERIOD UP TO 31/03/1997. THE SAID ORDER THEREFORE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING THE E FFECT OF RESTRAINING THE REVENUE FROM LOOKING AT OTHER ASPECTS GERMANE TO THE MATTER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERI AL ON RECORD, GIVING OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER. THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE READ IN FULL, I N LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE IT, AND ONLY IN VIEW WHEREOF THE IMPUGNED OR DER CONSTRUED. THE REVENUES SOLE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT NO CHARITABLE ACT IVITY HAVING BEEN UNDERTAKEN DURING THE PRECEDING THREE YEARS, THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 8 0-G COULD NOT BE RENEWED. THE TRIBUNAL WAS THEREFORE CONSCIOUS THAT NO CHARITABLE ACTIVITY HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN OVER THE THREE YEAR PERIOD PRECEDING THE YEAR IN WHICH APPLI CATION FOR RENEWAL WAS MADE, I.E., THE PERIOD FOR WHICH AUDITED ACCOUNTS ARE REQUIRED TO B E SUBMITTED TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN TERMS TO RULE 11 AA, WHICH PRESCRIBES THE RELEVA NT PROCEDURE/CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80-G (5). HOWEVER, IT DID NOT FIND THE SAME AS DETERMINATIVE OF THE ISSUE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE ASSESS EE HAD IN THE PAST CONSTRUCTED A SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL, GIVING IT TO ANOTHER FOR RUNNING THOU GH. ACCORDINGLY, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION QUA THE SAME, APPROVAL U/S. 80-G OUGHT TO BE GRANTED T O THE ASSESSEE - NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. IT WAS CERTAINLY OPEN FOR IT (THE REVENUE) TO BRING FACTS ON RECORDS, DISTURBING THE FINDING OF THE APPELLANT BEING NOT A GENUINE TRUST. WE ARE THEREFORE NOT PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE REVENUE WAS, POST THE ORDER BY TRIBUNAL, REQUIRED TO PROCEED WITH CLOSED EYES IN-AS-MUCH AS IT COULD NOT TAKE CO GNIZANCE OF ANY FACT OTHER THAN ASSESSEE HAVING BUILT A SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL IN THE PAST. ITS ORDER, OR ANY OTHER JUDICIAL 4 ITA NO. 7229/MUM/2011 SETH CHUNILAL MEMORIAL TRUST VS. DIT(E) ORDER FOR THAT MATTER, IS REQUIRED TO READ AS WHOLE , HOLISTICALLY, AND NOT PEDANTICALLY OR IN FACT NOT EVEN IN A MANNER AS ONE WOULD READ A STATU E. WHY, WE FIND VARIATION IN THE LANGUAGE OF PARA 6 IN THE ORIGINAL AND THE RECTIFIC ATION ORDER ITSELF, I.E., OTHER THAN THE SUBSTITUTION OF WORD TRUST FOR GOVERNMENT, WHIC H WAS THE ONLY PRAYER BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. TO THIS EXTENT WE ARE IN AGREE MENT WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. DR BEFORE US. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, APART FROM SEEKING TO EL ICIT THE TRUE IMPORT OF AN ORDER, IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO IN ITS GARB PROCEED DE HORS THE SAME, AS THE REVENUE HAS. AN ASPECT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE ACCORDE D THE STATUS OF ITS FINDING, AND GIVEN EFFECT TO. THE SAME CANNOT BE QUESTIONED EXCEPT THR OUGH A JUDICIAL REVIEW BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY, SO THAT THE SAME BINDS US AS WELL. IT WA S PERMISSIBLE FOR IT (THE REVENUE) TO, WHILE RECONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CASE, BRING ADDI TIONAL FACTS ON RECORD, CONSIDERING WHICH MAY RENDER THE EARLIER FINDING, BASED AS IT W AS ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE CASE OF THE PARTIES BEFORE IT, AS NOT VALID. WHETHE R, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOSPITAL, WHICH WOULD CONTINUE TO APPEAR ON THE ASSESSEES BOOKS AND, THU S, FORM A PART OF THE PROPERTY HELD BY IT UNDER TRUST, IS BEING RUN BY THE OTHER TRUST ON CHARITABLE LINES, OR IS ON A PROFIT MAKING BASIS, AS ARE VARIOUS PRIVATE HOSPITALS. HOW DOES THE ASSESSEE ENSURE THIS ? WHAT ARE THE OBJECTS OF THE SAID TRUST ? WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS IN FACT GEARED TO UNDERTAKE CHARITABLE WORK, OR ALL THAT IT DOES IS TO CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS FOR BEING TAKEN OVER AND MANAGED BY OTHERS ? IS THERE ANY PROFIT ELEMENT OR OTHERWISE COMMERCIAL ASPECT TO THE TRANSACTION ? WE SAY SO AS, AS IS APPARENT, THIS IS ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE PAST, AND THROUGHOUT THE MANY YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE. MOBILIZ ING FUNDS FOR AND ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTING BUILDINGS, EVEN IF IT IS A SCHOOL BUIL DING OR A HOSPITAL, COULD ONLY BE REGARDED AS CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IF THERE IS ACTUALLY A USER OF THE BUILDING AS A SCHOOL OR HOSPITAL, ELSE NOT. ALL THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, HARPS ON IN THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, IS THE NON- UNDERTAKING OF ANY CHARITABLE WORK BY THE ASSESSEE- TRUST FOR THE SEVERAL YEARS PRECEDING ITS APPLICATION U/S. 80-G; SOMETHING, WHICH THE TRI BUNAL IS ALREADY AWARE OF IN-AS-MUCH AS THE ORIGINAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 80-G (5) DATED 10/ 03/2010 CLEARLY STATES OF NO SUCH WORK 5 ITA NO. 7229/MUM/2011 SETH CHUNILAL MEMORIAL TRUST VS. DIT(E) HAVING BEEN EXECUTED FOR THE PRECEDING THREE YEARS, I.E., REPRESENTS AN ASPECT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. INCREASING THE NUMBER OF THE SAID YEARS WOULD BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE AS IT IS THE LATEST YEARS THAT WOULD BE THE MOST RELEV ANT. THE APPROVAL, IT IS TO BE NOTED, IS TO BE GRANTED ONLY FOR THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE AP PLICATION, AND THE REFERENCE TO SUCH ACTIVITY IS ONLY TOWARD ASCERTAINING AND AN ASSESSM ENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEES CASE, AND NO MORE, IN-AS-MUCH AS THE GRANT OF AN AP PROVAL UNDER SECTION 80-G IS AN OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF AN ENTITY AS A PUBLIC CHARI TABLE BODY, I.E., OPERATES AS AN OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION TO THAT EFFECT TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE . THE TRIBUNAL, AS IT APPEARS TO US, CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES PAST CONDUCT AS A REASONA BLE ASSURANCE TOWARDS ITS CREDIBILITY. IN OUR VIEW, THIS COULD BE CONTESTED ONLY BY BRINGI NG FACTS SUGGESTING OTHERWISE ON RECORD, AND NOT OTHERWISE. IT IS NOT THE REVENUES CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC WHICH WAS NOT UTILIZED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. NON -UNDERTAKING OF CHARITABLE WORK IS BY ITSELF NO MEASURE OR BAROMETER THAT IT WILL NOT DO SO ALSO IN FUTURE, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT IT HAD UNDERTAKEN SUCH WORK IN THE PAST. IN FACT, SECTION 80-G IS A GOOD INCENTIVE FOR MOBILIZING MONEY (RESOURCES) IN-AS-MU CH AS IT AT ONCE GIVES A TAX BREAK TO THE DONOR AS ALSO INSTILLS CONFIDENCE IN HIM QUA THE DONEE INSTITUTION. NON-MOBILIZATION OF FUNDS FOR UNDERTAKING CHARITABLE WORK COULD RATHER ITSELF BE A REASON FOR NOT UNDERTAKING CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. WHY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF STATES OF S. 80-G HAVING BEEN GRANTED IN THE PAST TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE UNDERTAKE ITS PR OJECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A SCHOOL. IT IS PERHAPS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE LAW HAS PROVIDED D EFINITE, OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR ACCORD/DENIAL OF APPROVAL, I.E., IN TERMS OF THE CO NDITIONS OF CLAUSES (I) TO (V) OF SECTION 80-G(5), NON-FULFILLMENT OF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ALLE GED OR CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE. TRUE, A FINDING AS TO NON-GENUINENESS COULD ALSO OPERATE TO DENY APPROVAL, BUT THE NON- UNDERTAKING OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY CANNOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE FINDING OF THE INSTITUTION BEING NOT GENUINE, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT RE GISTRATION AS A CHARITABLE TRUST STANDS GRANTED BY THE REVENUE, AND WHICH IS NOT SOUGHT TO BE DISTURBED. IN FACT, THIS IS WHAT HAD LED THE HONBLE COURT TO IN SONEPAT HINDU EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS . CIT [2005] 278 ITR 262 (P&H) TO HOLD THAT APPROVAL U/S. 80-G COULD NOT BE DENIED WHERE 6 ITA NO. 7229/MUM/2011 SETH CHUNILAL MEMORIAL TRUST VS. DIT(E) REGISTRATION STANDS GRANTED IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME IS A SUFFICIENT PROOF OF IT BEING ESTABLISHED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. WE ARE CONSCIO US AS WELL AS AWARE THAT THE APPROVAL, THOUGH NORMALLY FOLLOWS REGISTRATION, CANNOT HOWEVE R BE CONSIDERED AS CONSEQUENTIAL. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO RELIED ON DECISIONS, AS IN THE CASE OF MADANI MUSAFIR KHANA WELFARE SOCIETY VS. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 481 (PAT) AND VISHWA BUDHA PARISHAD VS. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 357 (PAT). WE HAVE ALREADY CLARIFIED THAT THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, SO THAT WE ARE BEING GUIDED PRINCIPAL LY BY THE EARLIER ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS SINCE ATTAINED FINALITY; FURTHER ONLY MEE TING THE REVENUES CASE AS SOUGHT TO BE MADE BEFORE US. THE APPLICATION BEING MOVED ON 04/1 1/2009, THE GRANT OF APPROVAL WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT THERETO, SO THAT THE NON-UNDERTAKING OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY IN THE PAST IS OF LIMITED SIGNIFICANCE. IN FACT, THE TRIBUNAL HAVING EXPRESSED ITS VIEW, WHICH STOOD ACCEPTED, THE SAME WOULD HOLD, UN LESS, AS AFORE-STATED, ADDITIONAL FACTS IMPINGING ON THE MATTER ARE BOUGHT ON RECORD. BEFORE US, MUCH WAS MADE QUA THE GRANT OF APPROVAL BEING IN/FOR PERPETUITY. WE CAN HARDLY AGREE. EVEN AS CLARIFIED DURING HEARING, REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A/12AA IS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER S ECTION 80-G, WHICH COULD BE WITHDRAWN UNDER SECTION 12AA (3). IN FACT, AS AFORE-NOTED, AC CORDING REGISTRATION OR NOT WITHDRAWING THE SAME, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS ITSELF INCONSISTEN T WITH THE NON-GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80-G IN-AS-MUCH AS A SATISFACTION AS TO THE GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE IS ALSO A CRITERIA FOR ACCORDING OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WITH DRAWING REGISTRATION. IN FACT, ANY AUTHORITY GRANTING AN APPROVAL HAS AN INHERENT POWE R TO WITHDRAW IT IF THE CONDITION/S OF THE APPROVAL ARE NO LONGER MET OR STAND VIOLATED AT ANY STAGE. SECTION 292C, BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 01/10/2009, SPECIFICAL LY PROVIDES FOR POWER OF SUCH WITHDRAWAL. RATHER, ALL THAT THE LEGISLATURE, IN SO DOING, HAS DONE IS TO BRING THE LAW AS TO THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT AND APPROVA L U/S. 80-G AT PAR, SO THAT, ONCE GRANTED, THE SAME WOULD CONTINUE TO OBTAIN UNLESS T HE CONDITION/S OF ITS GRANT ARE FOUND TO BE VIOLATED OR BREACHED. FURTHER, THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 23 (BOM) HAS CLARIFIED THAT ONLY BECAUSE A POWER OPERATES WITH RESPECT TO PAST TRANS ACTIONS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE 7 ITA NO. 7229/MUM/2011 SETH CHUNILAL MEMORIAL TRUST VS. DIT(E) RELEVANT PROVISION IS RETROSPECTIVE. ACCORDINGLY, P OST 01/10/2009, SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF S. 292C, SECTION 80-G APPROVAL COUL D ALSO BE WITHDRAWN FOR A PERIOD PRIOR TO 01/10/2009, I.E., WHERE THE ACTIVITIES LEADING T HERETO, I.E., THE SAID WITHDRAWAL, STAND UNDERTAKEN PRIOR THE SAID DATE. IN THE PRESENT CASE , IN FACT, THE APPROVAL WOULD ONLY BE OPERATIVE W.E.F. 04/11/2009, SO THAT THE SAID DECIS ION WOULD BE OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW , THE REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GRANTING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80-G(5) TO THE ASSE SSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE COMPETENT AUT HORITY TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S. 80-G(5) TO THE ASSESSEE FORTHWITH, I.E., WITH EFFECT FROM 0 4/11/2009. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ,+ - &. /, $ ' 0 $ 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MAY 02, 2014 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 3 MUMBAI; 4& DATED : 02.05.2014 ' . & . ./ROSHANI , SR. PS !'#$ %$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 5'6 7 '&8. , ( 8.+ , 3 / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7 9/ : / GUARD FILE & / BY ORDER, ' / &( ) (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , 3 / ITAT, MUMBAI