PRERANA REAL ESTATES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 3(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7359/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9261 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. R.K. GUPTA (J.M.) AND SHRI. B. RAMAKOT AIAH (A.M.) ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-2006 M/S. PRERANA REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD. 101, B, MITTAL COURT, 10TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. PAN : AAACP2465R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(2)(4), RM. NO.673, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI. J.P. BAIRAGRA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S.S. RANA. O R D E R PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, MUMBAI RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005-2006. 2. FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL I.E. G ROUND NO. 1, 2 AND 3 HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,44,98, 140/- OUT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 08.08.2000 BET WEEN M/S. AKTA REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD. AND THE APPELLANT COMPANY, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS TAKEN PLACE U/S.2(47) OF THE I.T. ACT ON 08.08.2000 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND, THEREFORE, TAXABILITY OF THE INCO ME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ONLY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FURTHER ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148 O F THE I.T. ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 150 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.1,44,98,140/- OUT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT APPELLANT ENTERED INTO ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 A.Y.: 2005-2006 2 AGREEMENT WITH AKTA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., A SISTER CONCERN WITH ONE OF THE SHAREHOLDERS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BOTH TH E COMPANIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHERE APPELLANT H AD 1/4 TH SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AND AKTA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. HAD 3/4 TH SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, APPELLANT RECEIVED AN ADVANCE O F RS.1,55,00,000/- WITHOUT INTEREST TO BE ADJUSTED AT THE TIME OF SALE OF FLATS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. FURTHER IN TERMS OF THI S AGREEMENT, APPELLANT WAS TO GET SALE PROCEEDS OF 20% OF CONSTRUCTED AREA AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME, APPELLANT GOT SALE PROCEEDS OF 2 FLATS BE ING FLATS BEARING NUMBERS 1 & 2 IN THE DEVELOPED PROPERTY. IN ADDITION, APPE LLANT WAS ALLOCATED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT, 25% OF COST OF CONST RUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION HAS RESULTED INTO LOSS TO AP PELLANT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, PRIMA FACIE THE AGREEMENT IS AVE RSE TO APPELLANT AND IT IS NON-PROFITABLE VENTURE. IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT, ACC ORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, APPELLANT IS RECEIVING 20% OF THE CONSTRUC TED AREA AND, IN CONTRAST, 25% OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, IT IS GIVING A DISTORTED PICTURE OF RESULTING PROFITS. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED T HE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BRITISH PAINTS AND HAS REJECTED THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ON THE GROUND THAT TRUE PROFITS CANNOT B E WORKED OUT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER GONE TO ANALYSE THE TERMS OF AG REEMENT AND HAS ARGUED THAT THE ENTIRE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF FI NANCE, HAD TO BE MET WITH BY AKTA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD. BEING CO-DEVELOPER. IN SUCH A SITUATION ALLOCATION OF INTEREST PAID BY CO-DEVELOPER FUNDS B ORROWED FROM BANK FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT WAS BEYOND THE TERMS OF AGRE EMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM, NO CAPITAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONTRIBUTED BY T HE APPELLANT IN ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS N O QUESTION OF ALLOCATION OF INTEREST. HE HAS ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED ALLOCATION OF INTEREST TO APPELLANT AND HAS ALSO WORKED OUT 20% OF EXPENSES (AGAINST 25 % SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT) WITHOUT INTEREST AS BEING THE COSTS ALLO CABLE TO APPELLANT. THUS ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT HAD DI SALLOWED THE EXCESS APPORTIONED COST OF THE PROJECT RESULTING FORM ALLO CATION OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,44,98,140/- AND HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 A.Y.: 2005-2006 3 4. BEFORE LEARNED CIT (A), DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS WERE FILED AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES IS IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED. IT WA S ALSO CLAIMED THAT SINCE ENTIRE ALLOCATION IS IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT, THERE I S NOTHING WRONG IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED AND, THEREFORE, REJEC TION OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, ARE APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE L EARNED CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT IN PARA 7 PAGE 4 OF THE AGREEMENT, FULL AUTHOR ITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE CO-DEVELOPER, AKTA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. TO PREPARE DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND GET NECESSARY SANCTIONS, TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AN D CARRY OUT THE CONSTRUCTION. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FURTHER NOTICED THAT IN PARA 8, IT HAS BEEN AGREED THAT THE ENTIRE FINANCE FOR THE PROJECT SHAL L BE DONE BY CO-DEVELOPER AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT INVESTED ANY MONEY INTO THE DE VELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. BOTH THE ABOVE ASPECT OF THE AGREEMENT H AVE BEEN REITERATED IN THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT BEARING NO.2,3 AND 4 ON PAGE 6 O F THE AGREEMENT. THE INTEREST FROM SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.1,55,00,000/- HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AGREED UPON IN PARA NO.5 OF THE AGREEMENT. 6. ON PERUSAL OF THESE TERMS THE LEARNED CIT (A) OB SERVED THAT, IT IS APPARENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST FREE D EPOSITS OF RS.1.55 CRORES AND AS FAR AS SALE PROCEEDS OF FLAT WAS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELINQUISHED ALL ITS CONTROLS OVER NEGOTIATIONS WIT H PROSPECTIVE BUYERS. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE SALE PR OCEEDS TO BE RECEIVED BY IT. FURTHER, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE MET BY THE CO-DEVELOPER AND THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION HAS TO BE DONE BY THE CO-DEVELO PER. ASSESSEE HAS NO ROLE TO PLAY WHATSOEVER IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVIT Y. THUS, ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE COST ALLOCABLE TO IT, BEING 25% OF THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, APPELLANT HAS ABSOLUTELY RELINQUISHED ITS CONTROL OVER THE PROPER TY, OVER THE COST OF ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 A.Y.: 2005-2006 4 CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT AS WELL AS OVER THE SALES D ONE, RIGHT FROM THE DATE WHEN AGREEMENT WAS UNDERTAKEN ON 08.08.2000. ON THIS DATE, ITSELF, POSSESSION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE CO-DEVELOPERS FROM WHOM THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1.55 CRORES WAS TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION, HAS ABSOLU TELY RELINQUISHED ITS CONTROL AND RECEIVED AN ADVANCE, THEREFORE, THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, AS THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT EXISTS, IN EFFEC T, IT IS A SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY ASSESSEE TO THE SO CLAIMED CO -DEVELOPER. ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT THE SALE OF PROPERTY HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 2(47) OF THE ACT, THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AFFECTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT TAKEN ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO INITIATE RE-ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 7. COMING BACK TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). THE CIT (A) HAS STATED THAT, HE HAS ALSO HELD THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS OF AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSACTION IS ONE OF SALE UND ERTAKEN DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THEREAFTER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LEARNED CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT IF FOR ANY REASON ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THEN THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, HE TREATED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PROTECTIVE AND THEY WERE CONFIRMED ALSO. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 8. DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD, THE WRITTEN S UBMISSION FILED WERE EXPLAINED ALSO. 9. THE LEARNED D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, FIRSTLY PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE OF CO-DEVELOPER WHO HAS SHOWN 75% PROFIT HAS BEEN ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 A.Y.: 2005-2006 5 ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE THESE WERE SHOW N BY THE CO-DEVELOPER IN THEIR HAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIND THAT AS SESSEE WAS ENTITLED 25% SHARE OF PROFIT OF CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE AGREED TO ACCEPT 20% OF PROFIT WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR PROFIT OF 25% INSTEAD OF 20%. RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN 260 I TR 491. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT FACTS I N 260 ITR 491 ARE ENTIRELY DISTINGUISHABLE. THE DISTINGUISHABLE FEATURES WER E EXPLAINED ALSO. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL A LONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY LEARNED A.R. AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSES SEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED IN ITS APPEAL IN TOTO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR 25% OF SHARE IN THE PROFIT WHEREAS ASSESSEE AGREED TO ACCEPT 20% OF THE PROFIT. THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS GIVEN T O THE SISTER CONCERN AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 08.03.2000. THE ASSESSEE WAS 1/4 TH OWNER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WHICH WAS DEVELOPED BY CO-DEVELOPER M/S. A KTA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO SHARE THE PROFIT @20% WHEREAS HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN 25% AS HE WAS OWNER OF 25% OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. IN ACCEPTING 20% OF SHARE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVADED TAX EFFECT BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISI ON OF SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF BRITISH PAINTS AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS A LSO ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. NEITHER THE AGREEMENT WAS FOUND FALSE NOR IS BONAFI DE INTENTION OF ASSESSEE FOUND FALSE AS THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS HAVING A LAND I N ITS HAND SINCE LONG AS PRUDENT BUSINESSMEN. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AG REEMENT WITH SISTER CONCERN M/S. AKTA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. WHO HAS TAK EN OVER THE CHARGE TO DEVELOP THE ENTIRE PROPERTY ON ITS BEHALF. THE EN TIRE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY M/S. AKTA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. ALL EFFORTS WERE DONE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT WHICH TOOK NEARLY 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT ENTERED IN THE YEAR 2000. ALL LABOUR EXPENSES, MAT ERIAL EXPENSES WERE BORN BY SISTER CONCERN BY ARRANGING LOAN FROM BANK OR FR OM THIRD PARTY. NO EFFORTS ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 A.Y.: 2005-2006 6 HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE; NEITHER ANY FINANCI AL IMPLICATION WAS INVOLVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE RATHER THE ASSES SEE HAD RECEIVED RS.1.55 CRORES AS ADVANCE ADJUSTABLE TOWARDS THE PROFIT WHE N THE PROJECT WAS TO BE COMPLETED. THIS SUM OF RS.1.55 CRORES WAS UTILISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THIS ADV ANCE OF RS.1.55 CRORES WHICH WAS INTEREST FREE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ASSESSEE AGREES TO SHARE 20% OF PROFIT INSTEAD OF 25%. IF FINANCIAL IMPLICATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND ADVANCE OF RS.1.55 CRORES TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN IT IS FOUND THAT IT WAS A PRUDENT BUSINESSMENS DEC ISION OF SHARING THE PROFIT @20% INSTEAD OF 25% AS THERE WERE SO MANY FORMALITI ES INVOLVED IN COMPLETING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION. HOWEVER ASSESSEE WAS FREE FROM ALL THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AS CO-DEVELOPE R M/S. AKTA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD. HAVE TAKEN ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES TO CO MPLETE THE PROJECT. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, W E HOLD THAT SHARE PROFIT SHARED BY ASSESSEE @20% WAS REASONABLE AS THE SAME WAS COMMERCIALLY VIABLE AND A DECISION OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN. IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION THAT BUSINESSMEN KNOW HOW TO RUN THE BUSINESS ACTIV ITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,44,98,140/- WHICH WAS SUSTAI NED BY CIT(A) ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IS DELETED AND ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE PROFIT SHOWN BY ASSESSEE. 12. REGARDING THE GROUND IN RELATION TO ATTRACTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) WERE ATTRACTED AND THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY LEA RNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS TO ATTRACT THESE PROVISIONS. 12.1 THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ENTIRE ASSET HAS TRANSFERRED BY WAY OF SALE TO THE BUILDER WHEREAS THE FACTS ARE OTHERWISE . THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF THE 1/4 TH SHARE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AND OWNERSHIP RIGHT WAS VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE TILL THE END OF THE PROJEC T COMPLETED BY THE CO- DEVELOPER. JOINT BUSINESS VENTURE WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND CO-DEVELOPER IN THE YEAR OF 2000 AND THIS JOINT VEN TURE CONTINUED ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 A.Y.: 2005-2006 7 THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED. THE CO-DEVELOPER RET AINS 80% OF THE PROFIT AND THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR THE TAXATION BY FILING RET URN OF INCOME. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(3) AND PROFIT SHOWN BY THE CO-DEVELOPER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FROM THESE FACTS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE AGREEMENT OF DEVELOPING OF THE LAND WAS GE NUINE. 13. BEING A CO-DEVELOPER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED T HE INCOME AS BUSINESS PROFIT AND NOT OFFERED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD C APITAL GAIN. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) ARE ATTRACTED ONLY IN RELATION TO CAP ITAL ASSET WHILE WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSET IS STO CK-IN-TRADE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN FOR DEVELOPING AND OFFERED THE INCOME UND ER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THEREFORE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) ARE APPLICABLE IS WRONG, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN THE EYES OF LAW; THEREFORE THE FINDINGS OF THE L EARNED CIT (A) IN THIS RESPECT IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE THOSE FINDINGS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON BA SIS OF HIS FINDINGS BY APPLYING PROVISION OF SECTION 2(47) TO REOPEN THE A SSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE DIRECTIONS WERE ALSO UNWARRANTED AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS; THEREFORE THESE DIRECTIONS ARE ALSO LIABLE TO BE QU ASHED. ACCORDINGLY, THOSE DIRECTIONS ARE ALSO QUASHED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 22 ND JANUARY, 2010. SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22 ND JANUARY, 2010. JANHAVI ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 A.Y.: 2005-2006 8 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY-III, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH C, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO.7359/MUM/2008 A.Y.: 2005-2006 9 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 15-01-10 18-01-10 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20-01-10 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER