SMT RAMA AGARWAL, MUMBAI V. ITO - 24(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7456/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 745619914 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JI TENDRA YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: B V JHAVERI
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.7456/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SMT. RAMA AGARWAL, C/O. M/S. ANAND ENTERPRISES, ROOM NO.4, 2ND FLOOR, 1/13, SHREE BHASKAR BHAVAN, SITARAM PODDAR ROAD, MUMBAI -400 002 ....... APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(3)(4), 7TH FLOOR, C-11, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI -400 051 ..... RESPONDENT PAN : AADPA 3404 A APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.V. JHAVERI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JITENDRA YADAV DATE OF HEARING : 27. 09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.10.201 1 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM: IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-24 MUMBAI DATED 20.9.2007 FOR TH E A.Y. 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE MULTIPLE GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY ISSUE IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF ` 50 LAKHS U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT O F THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM NRI ACCOUNT OF SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA . 2. THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE, AS PER THE RE CORDS, ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DECLARED THE INCOME OF ` SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 2 66,150/- FOR THE A.Y 2004-05. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3). IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED THE RECEIPT OF GIFT OF ` 50 LAKHS FROM ONE SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA WHO IS AN NRI LIVING IN SHARJHA (UAE). THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT, AS PER THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THE SAID GIFT WAS RECEIVE D BY DD FROM REMITTANCE MADE BY SOME M/S. SUN METALS CASTING LLC . THE DRAFT ISSUED BY ICICI BANK LTD. FOR WALL STREET EXCHANGE CENTRE LLC, UAE, TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTION, THE A.O. ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.131 AND HER STATEMENT W AS RECORDED IN PRESENCE OF HER HUSBAND SHRI ANAND AGARWAL. THE A. O. REPRODUCED SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN THE STATEMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON PAGE NOS. 2 TO 4. WE WILL DEAL WITH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN THE LATER PART OF THIS ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DEPOSITION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O. ARRIVED AT FOL LOWING CONCLUSION:- (I) SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA, ALLEGED DONOR WAS A FRI END OF HER FATHER AND SHE HAS NOT MET HER SINCE LAST 11 YEARS. SHE H AS ALSO ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT EVEN THERE IS WAS TELEPHONIC TALK TAKEN BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONEE. (II) THE ASSESSEE WAS IGNORANT ABOUT THE BASIC FACT OF L IFE OF SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA. THERE WAS CONTRADICTION IN RESP ECT OF THE MODE OF RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT AS THOUGH THE PAYMEN T WAS RECEIVED BY DD SHE DEPOSED ITS IS RECEIVED BY CHEQU E. (III) THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT BUSINESS / PROFESS IONAL ENGAGEMENT OF THE DONOR SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA. (IV) SHE STATED THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA WAS UTILIZED TO PURCHASE A FLAT AT SHREEPATI ARCADE , NANA CHOWK, MUMBAI WHICH COSTED HER FOR THAN ` 2.73 CRORE. SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 3 3. THE A.O. SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE INFERENCES/POINTS. DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING O F THE STATEMENT, SHE COULD NOT CORRECTLY ANSWER PERSONAL DETAILS OF THE ALLEGED DONOR. SHE ALSO STATED THAT DONOR SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA U SED TO TALK TO HER HUSBAND AND WAS FAMILIAR WITH HIM BUT HE NEVER TALK ED TO HER. THE A.O. NOTED THAT AS PER HER DEPOSITION THE ALLEGED D ONOR DID NOT ATTEND HER MARRIAGE NOR ATTENDED MARRIAGE RECEPTION. THE A.O. DISBELIEVED THE VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED T HE SAID AMOUNT BY WAY OF GIFT FROM SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA. THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEES HUSBAND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF METAL IMPO RT AND AMOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS A GIFT WAS REMITTE D BY M/S. SUN METALS CASTING LLC, THE COMPANY WHICH COMPANY IS IN THE METAL TRADING IN SHARJHA (UAE). THE A.O. CONCLUDED THAT DUE TO THE BUSINESS RELATIONS OF HER HUSBAND WITH THE SAID COM PANY, THE MONEY WAS SENT WHICH WAS GIVEN THE COLOUR OF A GIFT. T HE A.O. CONCLUDED THAT THE CLAIM OF GIFT WAS JUST AN ARRANGEMENT OF M ONEY AND IT WAS NOT A GENUINE GIFT AND HE ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED GIFT OF ` 50 LAKH U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT (A) IS GIVEN HEREUNDER WHEREIN THE CIT (A) GAVE REASONS FO R CONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION:- 2.4.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, CAREFULLY A GIFT IS MADE FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTIO N. IN THE DECLARATION DT. 05.11.2003 ALSO, MR. SM. SISODIA DE CLARED THAT HE WAS MAKING THE GIFT OUT OF HIS NATURAL LOVE AND AFF ECTION. BUT THE FACTS AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT, ORDER AND DISCUS SED HERE ABOVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ELEMENT OF NATUR AL LOVE AND AFFECTION WAS COMPLETELY MISSING. THE ALLEGED DONOR HAD NO BLOOD SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 4 RELATION WITH THE DONEE OR HER HUSBAND. THE APPELLA NT CONFESSED THAT SHE NEITHER MET WITH HIM NOR TALKED TO HIM EVE N ON PHONE AFTER HER MARRIAGE WHICH HAD TAKEN PLACE ABOUT 11 Y EARS BACK. THE DONOR ALSO DID NOT CONTACT HER IN THAT PERIOD. SO! IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION OF FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NO T IN CONTACT WITH THE DONOR IN THE LONG PERIOD OF AVER A DECADE, SHE WAS EVEN NOT AWARE OF HIS PERSONAL PARTICULARS LIKE FAMILY D ETAILS! PHONE/MOBILE NUMBERS, NATURE OF BUSINESS ETC. THE C LAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT TILE SAID DONOR WAS THE FRIEND OF HE R FATHER AND SHE HAD MET WITH HIM BEFORE HER MARRIAGE IS ALSO NOT SU BSTANTIATED BY ANY EVIDENCE. ANYBODY CAN GIVE SUCH STATEMENT AN D SELF SERVING EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF LETTERS OF THE PERS ONS INVOLVED. NO THIRD PARTY AUTHENTIC EVIDENCE ON ANY FRONT OR NATU RE COULD BE PRODUCED TO PROVE SUCH CLAIM. THE FACTS THEREFORE S HOW THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY STRANGERS. THERE CANNOT BE NATURAL LO VE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN STRANGERS. 2.4.2 THE APPELLANT STATED ON OATH THAT SHE HAD OF MET WITH THE DONOR AFTER HER MARRIAGE. NEITHER THE DONOR VISITED HER PLACE NOR SHE WENT TO HIS P E IN SHARJAH. BUT, THE DECLARATIO N MADE BY MR. SISODIA IS SIGNED BY HIM AND THE APPELLANT ON THE S AME DATE I.E. 05.11.2003. THE PLACE OF DECLARATION IS HOT MENTION ED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DECLARATION WAS NOT SENT BY THE SIGNING ON THE SAID DOCUMENT BY BOTH THE PERSONS ON THE SAME DATE WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE ONLY IF EITHER BOTH OF THEM WERE AT SHARJA H OR AT MUMBAI. IN THAT CASE THEY WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY MET EACH O THER PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CLAIM OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFF ECTION IS MADE AND THE AMOUNT OF GILT IS A LARGE SUM OF RS. 50 LAK HS. BUT THE APPELLANT HAS DENIED TO HAVE MET WITH HIM IN LAST 1 1 YEARS. THIS SHOWS THAT EVEN THE (COPY OF THE DECLARATION IS ENC LOSED HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE). SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 5 2.4.3 MR. SANDEEP SISODIA IN HIS LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE AO, DT. 15.12.2006 STATED THAT HE WAS FEELING GUILTY FOR NO T ATTENDING THE MARRIAGE FUNCTION OF THE APPELLANT AND SO HE GIFTED THE SUM OF RS. 50 IAKHS TO HER DURING HIS VISIT TO INDIA IN 2003. AS PER HIS CLAIM HE GIFTED THE SUM TO THE APPELLANT DURING HIS VISIT IN INDIA, THE DRAFT WAS ISSUED BY THE ICICI BANK, NARIRNAN POINT BRANCH, MUMBAI. IF HE HAD NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION HE WOU LD HAVE COLLECTED THE DRAFT FROM THE BANK, WOULD HAVE MET T HE APPE1LANT AND WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE DRAFT TO HER PERSONALLY. B UT, PERSONAL MEETING HAS BEEN DENIED. THIS AGAIN IS VERY STRANGE . IF TWO PERSONS HAVE REAL LOVE AND AFFECTION, THEY WOULD LI KE TO MEET EACH OTHER. HERE THE DONOR DID NOT MEET THE DONEE, BUT M AKES A BIG CLAIM THAT HE HAD NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION WITH H ER. THE FEELING OF GUILT AFTER 11 YEARS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE MARRI AGE FUNCTION OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO HIGHLY STRANGE. THE PERSON NE VER TALKED TO HER OR MET WITH HER IN LAST 11 YEARS. ONE FINE DAY AFTER 11 YEARS HE STARTED THE FEELING OF GUILT AND DONATED A LARGE SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS TO COVER UP SUCH GUILT. HE EVEN AID NOT TALK TO HER EVEN ON PHONE WHILE MAKING THE GIFT. THE STORY DOES NOT FIT AT ALL IN THE THEORY OF PROBABILITY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR. ONLY BEC AUSE MONEY CAME TO THE ICICI BANK, NARIMAN POINT BY FOREIGN RE MITTANCE DOES NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. THE GIFT IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHEREAS THE MONEY W AS REMITTED BY A COMPANY. THESE TWO CANNOT BE THE SAM E IDENTITIES EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DONOR W AS M.D. OF THE SAID COMPANY IS ACCEPTED, THE MONEY SENT BY THE COM PANY CANNOT BE THE GIFT BY HIM. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THIS ASPECT OF THE TRANSACTION WHEN ASKED TO DO SO DURIN G HER STATEMENT BEFORE THE A.O. SO, THIS IS THE CASE WHER E NEITHER THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR WAS ESTABLISHED BY ANY VALID DOCUMENT, NOR HIS CREDITWORTHINESS WAS ESTABLISHED, NOR THE GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS ESTABLISHED. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY KIND OF LOVE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN HER AND SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 6 DONOR. AS MENTIONED ABOVE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES SHOW THAT THEY WERE COMPLETE STRANGERS. 2.4.4 I THEREFORE FULLY SUPPORT THE VIEW OF THE A.O . THAT THIS WAS NOT A GENUINE GIFT AT ALL. THIS WAS A MANAGED TRANS ACTION FOR PURCHASING A COSTLY FLAT. THE FOLLOWING RECENT JUD GMENTS ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E: (I) CIT S P. MOHANAKALA (2007)291 ITR 278 (SC): THE GIFTS WERE REMITTED FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY THRO UGH BANKING CHANNELS. THEY COULD NOT BE PROPERLY EXPLAINED. HON BLE S.C. HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION BEING MADE THROUGH BANKING CHA NNELS CANNOT BY ITSELF BE OF ANY CONSEQUENCE. THE ADDITIO N OF THE FOREIGN GIFT U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AS DEEMED INCO ME WAS UPHELD BY HONBLE COURT. (II) JASPAL SINGH VS. CIT (2007) 290 ITR 306 (P&H) : IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED VARIOUS GIFTS INCLUDING G IFTS FROM NON- RESIDENT AND UTILIZED THEM FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HO USE PROPERTY. AS NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF COULD NOT BE SATISFACT ORILY ESTABLISHED, THE AO ADDED THEM U/S. 68. THE ADDITIO N WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) AND HONBLE ITAT. HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE MERE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONOR AND SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF THE GIFT AMOUNT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ARE NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. THE AS SESSEE IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DONOR HAD THE MEANS AND THE GIFT WAS GENUINE FOR NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. AS DISC USSED ABOVE, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE T HE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLA NT FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR, HIS CREDITWORTHINE SS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. SHE ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 7 GIFT WAS GENUINE FOR NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. I , THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HA VE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECOR D AND ALSO ANXIOUSLY CONSIDERED ALL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL AS WELL AS LD. D.R. THE LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY ASSAI LED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. HE ARGUES THAT THE BLOOD RELATIONSHIP IS NOT R EQUIRED FOR GIVING A GIFT. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 15.12.2006 ADDRESSED BY THE DONOR SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA TO TH E A.O. IN WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE HAS GIVEN THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID LETTER HE STATED THAT HE KNOWS ASSESSEES FATH ER SHRI SHYAMBIHARI GOYAL RESIDING IN DELHI FOR THE LAST 13 YEARS AND H E WAS HIS MENTOR AND FRIEND. THE ASSESSEES FATHER GUIDED HIM IN HI S CAREER. SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA SENT BALANCE SHEET OF SUN METAL C ASTING LLC TO PROVE HIS CREDITWORTHINESS. HE SUBMITS THAT SHRI S ANDIP M. SISODIA COULD NOT ATTEND ASSESSEES MARRIAGE, HENCE, HE GAV E THE GIFT OF ` 50 LAKHS TO HER. HE SUBMITS THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY CONTACT WITH THE DONOR BUT THE IDENTITY AND THE CRE DITWORTHINESS OF SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA HAS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT . HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS REPRODUCED QUESTIONS A LONG WITH HER REPLIES IN ASSESSEES STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE ACT WHICH ARE PERTAINING TO THE PERSONAL DETAILS OF THE ALLEGED DONOR. IN QUESTION NO.4 SHE STATES THAT SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA IS A FR IEND OF HER FATHER. IN QUESTION NO.5, IN REPLY, SHE STATES THAT HE IS A FRIEND OF ASSESSEES FATHER. SHE DOES NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT HIM. IN QUES TION NO.6, SHE ANSWERS THAT SHE DOES NOT KNOW IN WHICH PLACE OF IN DIA SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA BELONGS TO AND WHAT IS HIS ADDRESS IN IN DIA. SAME WAY, HER REPLY TO QUESTION NO.7 AND QUESTION NO.8 SUGGESTS T HAT SHE HAS NO SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 8 MUCH MORE ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE ALLEGED DONOR NOR S HE IS AWARE ABOUT ANY DETAILS OF SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA LIKE HI S FAMILY HISTORY, KIDS ETC. SHE ALSO DEPOSES THAT HE HAS NEVER CONTA CTED HER EITHER TELEPHONICALLY OR OTHERWISE AFTER HER MARRIAGE. 7. WE FIND THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM SHRI SANDIP M. SISODIA WAS USED FOR PURCHASE OF THE FLAT IN SRIPATI ARCAD E, NANA CHOWK, MUMBAI. EVEN IF THERE IS NO BLOOD RELATIONSHIP BUT SO FAR AS CONCEPT OF THE GIFT IS CONCERNED, MORE PARTICULARLY, THE PER SONAL GIFTS, THERE SHOULD BE PERSONAL ATTACHMENT BETWEEN THE DONOR AND THE DONEE WHEN HUGE AMOUNT OF ` 50 LAKHS IS GIVEN. THE EXPRESSION LOVE AND AFFECTION CONTEMPLATES PERSON ATTACHMENT BETWEEN T HE DONOR AND THE DONEE. ONE SIMPLE COPY OF DECLARATION IS FILED DAT ED 5.11.2003 WHICH IS EVEN NOT ATTESTED OR EVEN THERE IS NO WITNESS TO THEM. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE SON METAL CASTING LLC. BUT WE FAIL TO UNDERSTA ND HOW THE SAME IS GOING TO HELP HER THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF THE GIFT. 8 THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED HIS HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PADAM SIN GH CHOUHAN 315 ITR 433 (RAJ) WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS OBSERVE D THAT BLOOD RELATIONSHIP IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE THE GIFT BUT THE FACTS REMAINS THAT EVEN IF THERE IS NO BLOOD RELATIONSHIP THERE S HOULD NOT BE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL OF THE LOVE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN THE TWO NON-BLOOD RELATED PERSONS WHEN PERSONAL GIF T IS CLAIMED. SO FAR AS PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE IS N OT AWARE AT ALL EVEN THE BASIC DETAILS OF THE DONOR. AS PER HER OWN DEP OSITION, SHE HAS NO COMMUNICATION WITH THE ALLEGED DONOR. IN OUR OPINI ON, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE THE G IFT AND IT IS NOT A GENUINE GIFT TRANSACTION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 9 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 8TH OCTOBER 2011. SD/- SD/- ( R.S. SYAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 28TH OCTOBER 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) -XXIV, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-24, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. J BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN SMT. RAMA AGARWAL ITA 7456/M/2007 10 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 22.10.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24.10.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER