THE DY CIT 5(1), MUMBAI V. M/S. HETU INVESTMENT & TRADING P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 744/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48465 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT MEHTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 142(1); 147; 68; 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S V MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) DCIT 5(1), ROOM NO.568/525, AYAKAR BHAVAN M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 .. APPELLANT VS M/S HETU INVESTMENT AND TRADING P LTD., 71, PUSHPAK APT., 31, ALTAMOUNT ROAD MUMBAI-26. PAN: AAACG22041K .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATBIR SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KIRIT MEHTA O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), BOTH DATED 14. 11.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98. 2. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LAND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.24,64,900/-; MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE LOAN ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 2 SHOWN BY THE LOAN CREDITOR IN INCOME TAX RECORD DOE S NOT MATCH WITH THE LOAN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.50,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I T ACT, 1961 AND FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LAND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.22,28,000/-; MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 68 OF THE A CT AND FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT 2. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.2,63,60,444/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND THAT THE LD.. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE LOAN SHOWN BY THE CRED ITOR IN INCOME TAX RECORD DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE LOAN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE 4. FOR BOTH THE YEARS THE REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMO N GROUNDS REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENTS. 5. FACTS AS EMERGED FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.1996 DECLARING TO TAL INCOME ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 3 1,40,310/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) ON 20.3.11997 WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 AND RE-ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 147 BY DETERMININ G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.82,52,635. WHILE MAKING RE-ASSESSMEN T, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE: 1 CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT 24,64,900 2 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT 50,00,000 3 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 4,43,374 4 PRELIMINARY EXPENSES 4,050 TOTAL 79,12,324 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE RELIEF OF RS .100 IN RESPECT OF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES AND RS.3,32,530/- IN RESPECT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) CON FIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.24,64,900/- AND RS.50,00.000/- MADE UNDER SECTIONS 68 AND 69 RESPECTIVELY.. 7. ON FURTHER APPEAL THIS TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DA TED 31.1.2006 PASSED IN ITA NO.6122/MUM/2002 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECTED THE AO TO REFRAM E THE ASSESSMENT. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DIRECTED THE AO TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE SAID OR DER THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF THE AS SESSEE ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 4 COMPANY WERE ENGAGED IN NUMBER OF CASES AND HENCE T HEY WERE UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE AO. 8. THE AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON ASSESSEE ON 23.08.2006. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 5.09.2006 FOR GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EV IDENCE WITH REGARDS TO THE INCREASE IN SECURE LOAN OF RS.2 4,64,900/- AND INCREASE IN INVESTMENT OF RS.69,12,543/- EFFECT ED DURING THE YEAR ALONG WITH OTHER DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ADM INISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND PRELIMINARY EXPENSES 9. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) , THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI NIMESH B THAKJO RE, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND RAJESH BHAGA T, EMPLOYEE ATTENDED THE HEARING BEFORE THE AO AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE AO FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT AS UNDER : UNSECURED LOANS : DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN UNSECURED LO ANS RS.4,79,93,380/- AS AGAINST RS.4,55,28,480/- SHOWN IN PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR. THE DETAILS ARE AS UNDER : ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 5 1 AS ON 31.3.1996 AS ON 31.3.1997 2 FROM COMPANY 4,33,83,000 4,30,28,48 0 3 FROM OTHERS 46,10,380 25,00,000 TOTAL 4,79,93,380 4, 55,28,480 10. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE INCR EASE IN UNSECURED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.24,64,900/- TOGETHE R WITH LOAN CONFIRMATION, IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES, COPIE S OF BANK STATEMENT, COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WITH SCHEDULES THEREOF OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEA R AND COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HAVING FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME BY RESPECTIVE PERSONS IN WHOSE NAMES THE CONFIRMATI ON ARE FILED. 11. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY THE ASSESSEE FILED FOL LOWING DETAILS : 1 M/S HIGH LAND INDUSTRIES LTD. 2 OPENING BALANCE 4,30,28,480 3 ADD: AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR 6,30,54,520 TOTAL 10,33,83,000 LESS : AMOUNT PAID DURING THE YEAR 6,00,00,000 CLOSING BALANCE 4,33,83,000 ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 6 1 M/S CHARISHMA OVERSEAS LTD 2 OPENING BALANCE 13,20,000 3 ADD: AMOUNT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR 25,00,000 TOTAL 38,20,000 LESS : AMOUNT PAID DURING THE YEAR 3,89,620 CLOSING BALANCE 34,30,380 12. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DIF FERENCE BETWEEN OPENING BALANCE AND CLOSING BALANCE OF THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES REPRESENTS THE INCREASED AMOUNT SHOWN I N THE BALANCESHEET AT . RS.24,64,900/- . THE DETAILED WOR KING ARE AS UNDER : 1 M/S HIGH LAND INDUSTRIES LTD. 4,33,83,000- 4,30,28,480= 3,54,520 1 M/S CHARISHMA OVERSEAS LTD 34,30,380-13,20,000=21,10,380 TOTAL OF BOTH RS.24,64,900 13. THE LOAN CONFIRMATION REGARDING M/S HIGH LAND INDUSTRIES WAS SIGNED BY SHRI NIMESH B THAKORE, TH E DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THE WAS ALSO THE DIRECTO R OF ASSOCIATE CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE D IRECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY. 14. TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS TH E AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALSO THE COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET, PROFI T AND LOSS ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 7 ACCOUNT WITH SCHEDULES THERETO, OF THE RESPECTIVE P ERSONS IN WHOSE NAMES THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF TH E AO. THE ASSESSEE ONLY FILED A COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RE TURN IN RESPECT OF M/S HIGH LAND INDUSTRIES FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1996-97 SHOWING LOSS OF RS.62,970/- WHICH WAS WITH OUT ANY ENCLOSURES, THOUGH IT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED AND THE SAID COMPANY BELONGED TO SAME GROUP, IN WHICH MR.NIMESH B THAKORE IS HIMSELF IS A DIRECTOR. IN RESPECT OF M/ S CHARISHMA OVERSEAS LTD, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE T O PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF HE TRANSACTIONS IDENTITY OF THE PERS ONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS THEREOF. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON IT U/S 68. THE AO OBS ERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS AS LAID DOWN THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AND ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION AB OUT HE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERE D BY HIM IS NOT IN THE OPINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGES TO INCOME TAX AS INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE O F THAT OF .PREVIOUS YEAR. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS OF T HE VIEW, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE INCREASE IN UNSECURED LOANS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE UNSECURED LOANS IS NOTHIN G BUT ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 8 UNEXPLAINED CASH INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY 1996-97. THEREFOR E, HE ADDED THE SUM OF RS.24,64,900 U/S 68 BEING UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDIT AND THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT: THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE BALANCE-SHEET/SCHEDULE D THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 5,0 0,000 SHARES O F M/S VENTRON POLYMETS LTD AT RS.10/- PER SHARE TOTALING TO RS.50 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE ASKED TO F URNISH THE PROOF AND SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE AO. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, WITH REGA RD TO THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS, NON CO-RELATION COULD BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE FUNDS GENERATED AND INVESTM ENTS MADE. ACCORDINGLY THE INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS M ADE DURING THE YEAR REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, THEREFORE, T HE AO DISALLOWED RS.50,00,000/- U/S 68 AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE AO THAT EVEN IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO FURNISH BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES COMPANY IT SELF, ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 9 COPIES OF BALANCE-SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WITH SCHEDULE THERETO OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN WHOSE NAME THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR V ERIFICATION OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. SIMILARLY, IN R ESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE PROOF OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHAPE OF BANK STATEMEN T. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFY THE AO BY FURNISHIN G THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO SOURCES OF SUCH INVESTMENTS, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND TREATED THE INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 17. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DIS CHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) . 18. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY O N THE GROUND THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE CANNOT BE IGNORED AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE SUPPORTED BY THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS BECOME GENUIN E UNLESS AND OTHERWISE PROVED THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN INT RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM OTHER SOURCES . THEREF ORE, THE AO HAS DECIDED TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE BY ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 10 GIVING NEGATIVE REASONS INSTEAD OF APPRECIATING T HE EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. AS REGARDS THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THE LEAR NED DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT FINAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AND NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN FOUND BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND POINTED THAT CE RTAIN QUERIES WERE RAISED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE MATTER REQUIRE S PROPER VERIFICATION IN VIEW OF THE RECORD AND EVIDENCE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE. THE LEARNED DR HAS VEHEME NTLY COUNTER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED T HAT DESPITE TWO ROUNDS OF LITIGATION AND SPECIFIC QUERIES RAISE D BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BANK STATEMENT, BALANCE STATEMENT AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE CONCER NED PARTIES TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN SH ARES. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 11 20. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED IS PRIMARY ONUS BY FURNISHING THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN S WHICH WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEN IN A BSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FINDING OR EVIDENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED BEFOR E THE AO THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY PROVIDING PAN, LOAN CONFIRMAT ION AND COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. AR FURTHER CON TENDED THAT THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS HAS ALSO PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEN ALL THESE INVESTMENT S AND LOANS ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 21. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C ERTAIN RECORD ALONG WITH THE BANK STATEMENT AS DIRECTED B Y THE BENCH TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIM. 22. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND RE LEVANT RECORD. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODU CE THE RELEVANT RECORD AND EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF LOAN AND ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 12 INVESTMENT IN SHARES, PARTICULARLY, THE BANK STATEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AD LOSS ACCOU NT OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING NEGATIVE REASONING INSTEAD OF POSITIVE ASSERTION AND APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL AND EVIDENC E. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IS NOT PROPE R AND JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE BANK STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM BEFORE US AS DIRECTED BY THIS BENCH. THE REFORE, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED ALONG WITH THE OTH ER RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDI NGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THIS MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EVIDENCE BEFORE TH IS BENCH AND THE AO DID NOT GET PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO COUN TER THE SAME. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8TH APR IL.2011 SD SD (S V MEHROTRA) (V IJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER MUMBAI, DATED 8 TH APRIL, 2011 SRL:24311 ITA NO. 744 AND 745/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1997-98) 13 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI