ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD., MUMBAI V. A.D.I.T. (I.T.) 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7365/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3405 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS RUPINDER BRAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL M LALA; VARUN SANKHESARA
• Keywords: Presumptive income
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN , JM ./I.T.A. NO. 7809/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08) & ./I.T.A. NO. 7365/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09) ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD. C/O OOCL (I)P. LTD. ICC CHAMBERS 5 TH FLOOR ASKI VIHAR ROAD, OPPOSITE SANTAOGEN SILK MILLS, MUMBAI-400 072 / VS. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), RANGE 4, 1 ST FLOOR, SCINDIA HOUSE, BALARD PIER, MUMBAI-400 038 ./PAN : AAACO5679E ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL M LALA & SHRI VARUN SANKHESARA. / RESPONDENT BY : MRS. RUPINDER BRAR. /DATE OF HEARING : 09.05.2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :17.05 .2013 ITA NO.7809 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 7365 OF 2012 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD . 2 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ONE FOR A Y 2007-08 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NAMELY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) RANGE-4, MUMBAI DATED 06.09.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144C OF THE ACT AND THE OTHER FOR AY 2008- 09 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER NAMELY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)4(2) MUMBAI DATED 23.12.2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 READ WITH SECTION 147 AND 144C, INVOLVE SOME COMMON ISSUES AND THE SAME THEREFORE HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGET HER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE CONSOLIDATES ORDER. 2. THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AS RAIS ED IN GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2007-08 AND IN GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 IS WHETHER THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM THE CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF ITS G ROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY WH ICH IS INCORPORATED IN HONG KONG. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF OPERATI ON OF SHIPS IN INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC AND ITS INCOME COMPRISES OF FREIGHT INCOME AND ANCILLARY CHARGES SUCH AS TERMINAL HANDLING CHARGES, INLAND HAULAGE CHARGES, DEMURRAGE AND DETENTION CHARGES ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AVOI DANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIA AND HONG KONG, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO TAX IT S ENTIRE INCOME IN INDIA IN ITA NO.7809 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 7365 OF 2012 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD . 3 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B ON PR ESUMPTIVE BASIS AT THE RATE OF 7.5% ON FREIGHT AND ANCILLARY INCOME. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS COLLECTED SERVICE TAX ALSO FROM THE CUSTOMERS ON FREIGHT INCOME AND ANCIL LARY CHARGES, BUT THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX SO COLLECTED WAS NOT INCLUDED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS WHILE COMPUTING ITS TOTAL INCOME TAXABLE IN INDIA BY ADOP TING THE NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 7.5%. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE INCOME WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 44B AND SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH PART OF SUCH GROSS RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN INDIA ON ACCOUNT OF TRAN SPORTATION CHARGES. HE THEREFORE REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WH Y ITS INCOME SHOULD NOT BE COMPUTED BY INCREASING THE GROSS RECEIPTS BY THE AM OUNT OF SERVICE TAX COLLECTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SERVICE TAX REPRESENTED COLLECTIO N MADE BY IT ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND SINCE THERE WAS NO PROFIT EL EMENT INVOLVED IN THE SERVICE TAX AS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT COLLECTED WAS REMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT, THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECE IPTS FOR APPLYING THE NET PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 7.5% IN ORDER TO DETERMINE ITS TOTAL IN COME CHARGEABLE IN THE TAX IN INDIA AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B. RELIANC E IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF HONB LE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICE LTD. 317 ITR 156. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO HIM, INCOME WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED AS THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 44B ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FORMING PART OF SUCH GROSS RECEIPTS, HE HELD THAT T HE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF 7.5% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. AS REGARDS THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH ITA NO.7809 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 7365 OF 2012 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD . 4 COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERV ICE LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVE D THEREIN WAS DIFFERENT INASMUCH AS THE SAME WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CUSTOM DUTY WHICH WAS THE LIABILITY OF THE IMPORTER AND SINCE THE ASSESSE E WAS NEVER LIABLE TO PAY THE CUSTOM DUTY AND THE PAYMENT OF CUSTOM DUTY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING SERVICES UNDER THE CONTRA CT, THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CUSTOM DUTY WAS DIRECTED TO BE EXCLUDED BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT FROM THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS COVERED BY SECTION 44BB. THE AO HELD THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. (299 ITR 238) AND IN THE CASE OF TRANS- OCEAN OFFSHORE I NC. (299 ITR 248), ON THE OTHER HAND WAS RELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT WHER EIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE MOBILISATION W AS LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44BB. ACCORDINGLY RELYING ON THE SAID DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, THE AO INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF THE SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER C ONSIDERATION IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF 7.5% IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 4B. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED B EFORE US THAT THIS ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICE LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COURT IN THE CASE OF SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. (SUPRA) AND TRANS- OCEAN OFFSHORE INC (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE AO HAVE BEE N DISTINGUISHED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS HOLDING THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CUSTOM DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING STATUTORY IN NATURE CANNOT FORM PART OF GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE ITA NO.7809 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 7365 OF 2012 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD . 5 PURPOSE OF DEEMED PROFIT UNDER SECTION 44BB UNLIKE THE OTHER AMOUNTS RECEIVED TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOW ING DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ON THE ISSUE AND SUB MITTED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ALL THESE CASES IN FAVAOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SR. NO. JUDICIAL PRECEDENT CITATION 1. DDIT VS. HANJIN SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED (AY 2008-09) ITA NO. 7010/MUM/2011 2. HANJIN SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED VS. ADDNL. DIT (AY 2007-08) ITA NO.8672/MUM/2010 3. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES VS. DCIT [2011] 11 TAXMANN.COM 349 (MUM. ITAT) 4. SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL DRILLING INC. VS. ADIT [2012]24 TAXMANN.COM 390 (DELHI ITAT) 5. DDIT VS. M/S MITCHELL DRILLING INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD. ITA NO. 698/DEL/2012 (DELHI ITAT) 6. DIT VS. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICE LTD. [2009] 31 7 ITR 156 [UTTARAKHAND] 5. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT:- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TA XATION) VS. TECNHIP OFFSHORE CONTRACTING B.V. (29 SOT 33) (DELHI), 2. CIT VS. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC. 169 TAXMAN 138 (UTTARAKHAND), 3. SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL VS. CIT (170) TAXMAN 459 (UTTARAKHAND), 4. CIT VS. TRANS OCEAN OFFSHORE INC. 173 TAXMAN 429 (UTTARAKHAND). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THR OUGH THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL ITA NO.7809 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 7365 OF 2012 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD . 6 PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE S OF BOTH THE SIDES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS ON THE ISSUE. IT IS OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDERS AND LD. DR AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG BEFORE US HAVE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC. (SUPRA), SEDCO F OREX INTERNATIONAL INC. (SUPRA) AND TRANS OCEAN OFFSHORE INC. (SUPRA) IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES THAT THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B. IT IS OBSERVED THAT RELIANCE ON THE SAID DECISIONS WAS PLACED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICE LTD. (SUP RA) WHERE THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS WHETHER THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CUSTOM DUTY PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE COULD FORM PART OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETER MINING THE DEEMED PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44BB AND THE HONBLE UTTARAK HAND HIGH COURT FOUND THE SAID CASES TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS OBSERVING THAT IN NONE OF THESE CASES THE ISSUE OF REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CUSTOM DUTY WAS INVOL VED, THE NATURE OF WHICH WAS STATUTORY PAYMENT. THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT REIMBUR SEMENT TOWARDS THE CUSTOM DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEING STATUTORY IN NATURE COULD NOT FORM PART OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEEMED PR OFIT UNDER SECTION 44BB. 7. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF DE LHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. TECHNIP O FFSHORE CONTRACTING B.V. (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS JUSTIFIED IN INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES OR FACILITIES OR SUPPLY SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 44BB P ROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PRESU MPTIVE PROFIT OF 10% UNDER SECTION 44BB. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAID DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. TECHNIP O FFSHORE CONTRACTING B.V. ITA NO.7809 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 7365 OF 2012 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD . 7 (SUPRA) WAS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE IN SUPPORT O F ITS CASE ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LI NES (SUPRA) BEFORE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE SUDARSHAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES 242 ITR 769 AND THAT OF HONBLE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. SCHLU MBERGER ASIA SERVICE LTD. (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD BY THE MUMBAI BENCHES THAT THE SERVICE TAX, WHICH IS A STATUTORY LIABILITY, WOULD NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMENT OF PROFITS AND SINCE THE SERVICE PROVIDER HAS COLLECTED THE SAME FROM ITS CUSTOMERS ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT, IT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FOR DETERMINING T HE PRESUMPTIVE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44B. THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES (SUPRA) HAS BEEN SU BSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT LEAST IN THREE CASES CITED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE CASE OF SIDCO FOREX INTT. DRILLING INC. (SUPRA) WHEREIN DELHI BENCH OF THE ITAT HAS DECIDED A SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE HOLDING THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF SERVICE TAX, BEING A STATUTORY LIABILITY, WOULD NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMENT OF PROFIT AND THE SAME THEREFORE COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL R ECEIPTS FOR DETERMINING PRESUMPTIVE INCOME UNDER SECTION 44BB. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT D ISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF JUDICIAL OPINION IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAME, WE DECIDE T HIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX, BE ING IN THE NATURE OF STATUTORY PAYMENT WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMENT OF PROFI T, CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE PRE SUMPTIVE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 44B. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL FOR AY 2007-08 AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2008-09 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.7809 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 7365 OF 2012 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD . 8 9. OTHER COMMON ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT APPEALS RELATED TO THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C. A S REGARDS THE LEVY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B, THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CAS E IS ADMITTEDLY A NON RESIDENT IN INDIA AND ITS ENTIRE INCOME IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCT ION OF TAX AT SOURCE. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT (I NTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VS. NGC NETWORK ASIA LLC[2009]313 ITR187(BOMBAY), WHEN A DUTY IS CAST UPON PAYER TO PAY TAX AT SOURCE, ON ITS FAILURE TO DO S O, NO INTEREST CAN BE IMPOSED UPON PAYEE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 234B. RESPECTIVELY FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT INT EREST UNDER SECTION 234B CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE ON FAILURE OF PAYER TO D EDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER THE ISSUES RELATING TO LEVY OF UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C ARE CONSEQUENTIAL AND THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THESE ISSUES. 10. IN THE REMAINING GROUND RAISED AS GROUND NO.1 I N THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09, A PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 147 IS RAISED. THIS ISSUE H OWEVER HAS BECOME VIRTUALLY INFRUCTUOUS AS A RESULT OF DELETION BY US THE ENTIR E ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE SAID REASSESSMENT BY INCLUDING THE SERVICE TAX IN T HE GROSS RECEIPTS FOR COMPUTING THE PRESUMPTIVE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 44B. WE THEREFORE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ITA NO.7809 OF 2010 & ITA NO. 7365 OF 2012 ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINE LTD . 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY 1 7 TH MAY.2013 ! ' # $ % 17 TH MAY. 2013 & ' SD/- SD/- ( DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ( P.M.JAGTAP) ! ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' ) MUMBAI; $ DATED 17 TH / MAY/2013 . ( . . / ASHISH PS !'#$ %$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * ( ) / THE CIT(A)-II, MUMBAI 4. * / CIT MUMBAI 5. +, & ((-. , -. , ' ) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI H 6. & /0 1 / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, + ( //TRUE COPY// ' / &( ) (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' ) / ITAT, MUMBAI