SHRINIVAS MITTAPALI, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 18(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7333/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3812 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAMACHANDRAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80IB; 147; 131; 68; 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.7333 /MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) SHRI SHRINIVAS MITTAPALI, ROOM NO. 69, B.D.D. CHAWL, ACHARYA DHONDI BABA, NARAYAN V. MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018. / V. ITO 18(1)(3), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AIWPM7694J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI A. RAMACHANDRAN ,DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22-2-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-05-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO. 7333/MUM/2010, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9-8-2010 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 29, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLE D THE CIT(A) ), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17-12-2008 PASSED B Y THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 7333/MUM/2010 2 2. THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ITA NO. 7333/MUM/2010 FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READS AS UNDER: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S 144. THE CASE WA S ATTENDED BY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN INVOKING SECTION 68 WHEN THERE IS NO CASE OF CREDIT ENTRY . 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) , THEREBY RENDE RING ENTIRE ASSESSMENT NULL AND VOID. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 131 OF THE ACT, THE A SSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE HAS ACCEPTED CASH ADVANCED BY HIS FATHER OF RS. 8 L ACS FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY E VIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO RECEIPT OF ADVANCE OF RS 8 LACS FROM HIS FATHER. T HIS AMOUNT WAS INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL AMOUNT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR TAXATION. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 30-4-2 008. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 4TH MAY, 2008 REQUES TED TO TREAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT ON 30.6.2003 AS RET URN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE AND ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME WHILE NO D ETAILS AS SOUGHT BY THE AO WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUM STANCES, THE A.O. PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 READ W ITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA 7333/MUM/2010 3 THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR O F M/S PRERNA INDUSTRIES AND STARTED BUSINESS WITH AN OPENING CAPITAL OF RS. 9,26,611/- FOR THE FIRST YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE SET UP INDUSTR IAL UNIT AT MAPUSA AT GOA FOR ASSEMBLING OF UNIT WATCHES ON JOB WORK BASIS AN D STATED TO BE PARTLY FOR SALE IN LOCAL MARKET. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED 100 % DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 131 OF THE ACT WHEREBY HE ADMITTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 8 LACS IN CASH FR OM HIS FATHER IN JANUARY, 2002 WHICH WAS LYING WITH HIM. IT WAS STATED THAT THE MONEY WAS GIVEN BY HIS FATHER TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS M OTHER, BROTHERS AND HIS WIFE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE RECOR DING STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ACT THAT HIS FATHER WAS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE WHETHER HIS FATHER FILED INCOME TAX RETURNS OR NOT. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE CAPITAL AMOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. I T WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CAPIT AL AMOUNT INTRODUCED IN THE BALANCE SHEET WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THUS, THE A.O. TREATED THE ENTIRE CAPITAL OF RS. 9,26,611/- INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BUSINESS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT, VIDE ASSESSME NT ORDERS DATED 17.12.2008 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 READ WITH SECTI ON 147 OF THE ACT. 4.AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.12.200 8 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS GIFT FR OM HIS FATHER. THE FATHER WAS MAN OF SCANT MEANS AND HAD GIFTED HIS SAVINGS O F 35 YEARS TO HIS SON I.E. THE ASSESSEE. ITA 7333/MUM/2010 4 HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEES FATHER HAS SO MUCH OF CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.8,00,000/- TO GIFT SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT T O THE SATISFACTION OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE OR DERS OF THE A.O. VIDE ORDERS DATED 09-08-2010. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 09-08-2010 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . AS PER THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES SINCE 2012, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES FROM THE YEAR 2012 TO 2016 AS SEVERAL TIMES ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE OR THERE W ERE NON-APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 06- 01-2014 OF M/S PARESH SHAH AND ASSOCIATES , CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANTS FILED WITH THE REGISTRY ON 06-01-2014 VIDE DIARY NUMBER 3 31 , WHICH ARE DULY CONSIDERED BY US. THEREFORE, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO D ISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE AFOR E-STATED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 06-01-2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. 8. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE EX PARTE ASSESSMENT U/S 144/147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,00,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER IN CASH AS GIFT IN JANUARY 2002 BUT NO EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN PRODUC ED. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS AND THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WHEN RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE REVENUE. THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED OF RS. 9,26,611/- IN THE BUSINESS AS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH ITA 7333/MUM/2010 5 THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 FOR THE FIRST TIME IS AN UN- EXPLAINED CAPITAL AS NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS . 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D. R., THE AFORE-STATED WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CASH OF RS. 8,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED F ROM HIS FATHER IN JANUARY 2002 AS GIFT. THIS AMOUNT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD IN T HE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND UTILIZED AS CAPITAL TO START THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE BALANCE S HEET AS AT 31-03-2003 WHEREIN THIS AMOUNT OF CAPITAL OF RS. 9,26,611/- IS DULY REFLECTED. THE REVENUE CANNOT TAX THE SAME AMOUNT TWICE AND THE TA X IMPLICATION WOULD FALL ON THE ASSESSEES FATHER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY SUBMITTED WHEREBY OPENIN G BALANCE OF RS. 8,98,601/- WHICH IS RECEIVED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. IT IS AN OPENING BALANCE AND NOT A CREDIT ENTRY AND HENCE SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS WRONGLY INVOKED AND THERE IS NO INTRODUCTION OF FRESH CAPITAL DURING TH E YEAR. IF THE ADDITIONS BE MADE, SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 , NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THIS ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE A.O. NEVER REQUIRED ANY DETAILS AS TO HOW THE OPENING BALANCE WAS ARRIVED AT. THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN DUTY BOUND TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION AND THE A.O. DID NOT ASK DETAILS REGARDING THE SAME. THE A.O. H AS IGNORED ALTOGETHER THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND MERELY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. WHILE THE A.O. WAS SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER ALL THE MATERIAL FACT S AVAILABLE WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AS SESSMENT IS NULL AND VOID LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT THE A.O. HAS, HOWEVER, TREATED THE SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER AS INCOME OF THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHI LE THE AMOUNT WAS ITA 7333/MUM/2010 6 RECEIVED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HENCE, SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS N OT APPLICABLE. THE A.O. HAS TREATED THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT A S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A. O. HAS CHOSEN CONVENIENT PARAS FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE A CT AND INTERPRETED AS PER HIS OWN ASSUMPTIONS AND SURMISES. THE A.O. HURRIED LY PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ALTHOUGH THERE WERE TIME OF 13 DAYS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO BEFORE M ATTER WAS GETTING TIME BARRED AND THE AO SHOULD HAVE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUN ITY. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF LOAN TAKEN FROM THE FATHER WAS BUSINESS ADVANCE. THE FA THER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A LABOURER. THE FATHER EARNED THE MONEY OVER 35 YE ARS OF HIS WORKING AND THE SAME WAS HANDED OVER TO HIS SON IN JANUARY 2002 AND THE FATHER DIED IN THE YEAR 2004. THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT AV AILABLE AS THE INCOME WAS BELOW EXEMPTION LIMIT. THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE NEVER BELIEVED IN BANKING SYSTEM AND KEPT CASH WITH HIM AS HE TRUSTED NO ONE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PAN OF THE FATHER AVAILABLE WITH H IM. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT, [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) AND HONBLE GAUHATI HI GH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NEMI CHAND KOTHARI V. CIT (2004) 136 TAXMAN 213(GAU.). 10. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH THE REVENUE WITH OPENIN G BALANCE OF RS. 8,98,601/. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CAPITA L ACCOUNT WITH THE REVENUE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND CLAIMED THAT THE OPENING BAL ANCE IS RS. 8,98,601/- AND NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY WITH COGENT EVID ENCE AS TO HOW THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 8,98,801/- BEING OPENING CAPITAL HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT AND THE SOURCES THEREOF. THE AMOUNT IS CREDITED IN THE CAP ITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ITA 7333/MUM/2010 7 ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE REVENUE FOR THE FIRST TIME AND HENCE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ARE ATTRA CTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS . 8 LACS IN JANUARY, 2002 FROM HIS FATHER WHICH WAS GIVEN AS GIFT TO HIS SON IN THE PRESENCE OF BROTHERS, MOTHER AND ASSESSEES WIFE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HIS FATHER WAS A LABORER AND A MAN OF SCANT MEANS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE STATEMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS TO THIS EFFECT BUT NO CO GENT EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AND DIS CHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CAPITAL AMOUNT OF RS. 9,26,611/- INTRODUCED IN THE BUSINESS BY WAY OF GIFT OF RS.8,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER IN JANUARY 2002 I.E. PRECE DING YEAR, SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT I.E. IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE GIFT OF RS.8, 00,000/- BY HIS FATHER TO HIM. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS MATTER NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. F OR DE-NOVO DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE BY THE AO ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FACTS AND ON LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE NECESSARY SUPPORTING MATERIAL, EVI DENCES AND EXPLANATION BEFORE THE A.O. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF HAVING INTRODUCED CAPITAL IN THE BUSINESS TO SATISFY THE MANDATE OF THE ACT. NEEDLES S TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO OF BEING HEARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO 1 REGARDING CHALLENGE TO THE FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT, I T IS OBSERVED THAT NO DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES OF THE AO AND HENCE EX-PART E ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE AO AS PER THE FACTS AS ARE EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND MATERIAL BEFORE US ITA 7333/MUM/2010 8 WHILE THE ASSESSEE ONLY SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS WHILE N O DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AO HAS R IGHTLY PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 17.12.2008 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THUS, WE REJECT THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO 1 OF THE ASSESSEE .WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO NON ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 17.12.2008 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 READ WITH SECTI ON 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED TO RAISE THE SAME BEFORE THE AO AS IT REQUIRES EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS AND RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPE ARED BEFORE US WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR THE HEARING NOR ANY FURTHER D ETAILS /SUBMISSIONS/ EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER ARE SUBMITTED IN THE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE US WITH RESPECT TO THIS GROUND OF APPEAL NO 3 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS KEP T OPEN AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED TO RAISE THE SAME DURING THE SET ASIDE PROC EEDINGS FOR FRAMING OF DE- NOVO ASSESSMENT AND SHALL ALSO BE ADJUDICATED BY TH E AO ON MERITS AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N0. 7333/MUM/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH MAY , 2016. # $% &' 06-05-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 06-05-2016 [ ITA 7333/MUM/2010 9 .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI