FIZZA PUBLICITY, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 75/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100816 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANDHIR KUMAR GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAM
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Diversion of income; Capital expenditure
• Section: 43B; 37(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER / I .T.A. NO . 75/MUM/2011 / I .T.A. NO. 4847/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 M/S. FIZZA PUBLICITY, PAREKH VORA CHAMBERS, 66, NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001 / VS. THE ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFF 8621Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAM / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RANDHIR KUMAR GUPTA / DATE OF HEARING : 04 . 0 8 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19. 0 8 .2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: TH ESE TWO APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T WO SEPARATE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 23 , MUMBAI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.190.2010 AND 21.5.2012 RESPECTIVELY. AS BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE COMMON ISSUES THEREFORE T HEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 2 ITA NO. 75/M/2011 A.Y. 2007 - 08 2. THE FIRST GROUND RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 29,16,556/ - INCURRED ON REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AS CAPITAL EXPEN DITURE. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 13.70 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF CHARGE ON INCOME IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT WAS DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLE. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 43B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SERV ICE TAX PAYABLE AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,91,417/ - AND GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES OF RS. 4,84,545/ - . 3. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING. EXHIBITING CINEMA SLIDES & SHORT FILMS IN THEATRES. WHILE SCR UTINIZING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 29.56 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE S AME. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE NECESSARY DETAILS. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO FOUND THAT THE MAJOR EXPENSES ARE WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASE OF M.S CHANNELS, G.P. SHEETS AND LABOUR CHARGES FOR FABRICATION AND FOUNDATION FOR THE HOARD ING STRUCTURES. THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR CAPITAL PURPOSE GIVING ENDURING BENEFIT AND IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT REPAIRS. DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BALIMAL NAVAL KISHORE AND ANOTHER VS CIT 224 ITR 414, THE AO TREATED THE EXPENSES OF RS. 29.56 LAKHS AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED DEPRECI ATION ON THE SAME. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT NO NEW ASSET HAVE BEEN CREATED. THE EXPENDITURE S INCURRED ARE OF REVENUE IN NATURE AND ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 3 WERE INCURRED TO PRESERVE A ND MAINTAIN AN ALREADY EXISTING ASSETS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELATED DETAILS, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 40,406/ - IS OF REVENUE IN NATURE AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS OF CAPITAL IN NATURE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSE L THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR REPLACING PARTS, IRON WHICH HAS BEEN RUSTED IN THE RAINS AND THEREFORE THE REPAIRS WERE ONLY IN RESPECT OF EXISTING ASSETS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT EVEN IF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT CONSIDERED AS ON A CCOUNT OF CURRENT REPAIRS, THE SAME NEED TO BE ALLOWED U/S. 37(1) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GIVEN A THOUGH TFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORDS. A PERUSAL OF THE BILLS EXHIBITED IN THE PAPER BOOK SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURCHASE OF G.P. SHEETS , M.S. ANGLES, M.S. CHANNELS AND M.S. BEAMS. THIS CLEARLY SHOW THAT OLD HOARDINGS WERE REPLACED BY NEW HOARDING WITH NEW STRUCTURE. OUR VIEW IS ALSO FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON FABRICATION OF HOARDING STRUCTURES ON THE TERRACE. OBVIOUSLY, THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN INCUR RED FOR OBTAINING NEW ADVANTAGES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE NEW HOARDING AND SUPPORTING FOR THE HOARDING , THE ENTIRE FRAME AND FOUNDATIONS HAVE BEEN RECONSTRUCTED WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE BILLS ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT O F THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES EXHIBITED IN THE PAPER BOOK, WE ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 4 DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 13.70 LAKHS. FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE TH AT AN AGREEMENT WAS MADE ON 11.12.2006 BETWEEN TULSIDAS DHARSIBHAI VORA (TDV) AND MAHMOOD HUSSAIN SHIRAZI (MS) AND PAREASH TULSIDAS VORA (PTV), SUKESH TULSIDAS VORA (STV) AND KALPESH TULSIDAS VORA (KTV) BEING THE SONS OF TDV AS THE PARTIES OF THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH PART IES . IN THIS AGREEMENT IT WAS RE CORDED THAT MR. KT V AND ONE MR. NEVILLE J. MISTRY (NM) WERE THE PARTNE R S OF M/S. FIZZA PUBLICITY (ASSESSEE). IN THE SAID AGREEMENT, IT IS MENTIONED THAT NM WANTED TO DISSOLVE THE FIRM AND HAVE A RECEIVER APPOINTED OR TO BE ALLOWED TO REPAIR FROM THE FIRM W. E.F. THE MIDNIGHT OF 31.3.2006 ON CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30 LAKHS IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AGAINST ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS. IN THE FIRM M/S. FIZZA PUBLICITY (ASSESSEE) PTV AND STV JOINED AS PARTNERS WITH MS & KTV W.E.F. 1.4.2006. IN THE SAID AGREEMENT, IT IS ALSO PROVIDED THAT MR. PTV, STV AND KTV DO NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE LIQUIDITY FOR MAKING THE SAID PAYMENT OF RS. 30 LAKHS TO NM, THEREFORE, TDV GAVE RS. 30 LAKHS TO BE PAID TO NM IN CONSIDERATION OF NM RETIRING FROM THE FIRM M/S. FIZZA PUBLICITY (ASS ESSEE) W.E.F. 31.3.2006. IN THE SAID AGREEMENT, IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 30 LAKHS SHALL BE GIVEN BACK BY THE 2 ND , 3 RD , 4 TH & 5 TH PARTIES TO TDV ON OR BEFORE 31.12.2007 AND THE RETURN TO TDV WAS SECURED AS A CHARGE ON THE INCOME OF M/S. FIZZA PUBLICITY (ASSESSEE). THE PAYMENT OF RS. 13.70 LAKHS WAS IN PURSUANCE TO THIS AGREEMENT AND THIS CHARGE ON THE PROFIT. 8.1. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO TDV IN EFFECTUATE DIVERSION OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SOURCE BY ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 5 OVERRIDING TITLE. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED T HAT WHEN A PARTICULAR INCOME IS DIVERTED AT SOURCE, SUCH DIVERTED INCOME WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PERSON. AFTER PERUSING THE SUBMISSION ALONGWITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE AO FOUND THAT THERE IS NO CLAUSE XI(B ) IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED NOR THERE IS ANY MENTION OF ANY SUCH OVERRIDING TITLE IN THE ENTIRE PARTNERSHIP DEED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF SUCH EXPENSE. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FURTHER SUBMISSION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS STAND REGARDING THE ALLOWABIL ITY OF THE EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY RS. 13.70 LAKHS WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID DIVERSION WAS IN PURSUANT TO THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 11.12.2006. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENT W AS ON ACCOUNT OF CHARGE OF INCOME AND HAS BEEN PAID IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT THEREFORE THE PAYMENT MADE IS DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSE RVED THAT PAYMENT MADE TO TDV IS MERELY AN APPLICATION OF THE MONEY AND NOT DIVERSION OF THE MONEY AT SOURCE BY AN OVERRIDING TITLE. STRONG SUPPORT WAS DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PROVAT KUMAR MITTER 41 ITR 624. T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE DISPOSITIONS WERE IN LAW AND IN FACT, PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSEES INCOME AFTER IT HAD ACCRUED TO HIM AND TAX WAS PAYABLE BY HIM AT THE POINT OF ACCRUAL. FURTHER SUPPORT WAS DRAWN FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 74 ITR 17 (SC) . THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT TDV HAD A PRE - EXISTING TITLE TO THE MONIES. MERELY BY INSERTING A CLAUSE IN THE DEED OF AGREEMENT ONLY INDICATES THAT THE APPELLANT HAD AN OBLIGATION TO PAY SHRI VORA A CERTAIN AMOUNT, IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT SHRI VORA HAD A PRE - EXISTING TITLE TO THE PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 6 HELD THE TRANSACTION AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A O. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US, 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO WRITTEN NOTE IN RESPECT OF THIS GRIEVANCE. 12. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN NOTE REFERRED TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL . WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT IN ORDER TO RETIRE SHRI NEVILLE J. MISTRY AND TO ADMIT PTV AND STV AS PARTNERS WITH MS AND KTV, IT WAS AGREED TO PAY RS . 30 LAKHS TO NEVILLE J. MISTRY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS, THE MONEY WAS TAKEN FROM TDV. IT WAS AGREED THAT ON PAYMENT OF SAID RS. 30 LAKHS NEVILLE J. MISTRY WILL RETIRE FROM THE FIRM. AS PER THE AGREEMENT, RS., 30 LAKHS WAS G IVEN BY TDV TO MS, PTV, STV AND KTV. A BARE PERUSAL OF THIS WOULD SHOW THAT TDV HAD GIVEN LOAN TO FOUR PERSONS. THE LOAN WAS SECURED BY A CHARGE ON THE INCOME OF M/S. FIZZA PUBLICITY (ASSESSEE). RS. 13.70 LAKHS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT THE RE PAYMENT OF LOAN FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE 4 PERSONS. IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACT AND THE LAW, THIS IS NOTHING BUT THE APPLICATION OF INCOME HAS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE U /S. 43B ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE TAX. 15. THE AO FOUND THAT AS AGAINST RS. 18,44,091/ - BILLED DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED AND PAID ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 7 11,52,674/ - . THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,91,417/ - HAS NOT BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT EVEN THE AUDITORS HAVE NOT CERTIFIED THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SAID SUM SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U /S. 43B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF SERVICE TAX ARISES ONLY ON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT AND SINCE THE AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED, THERE IS NO LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 18,44,091/ - IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THEREFORE THE UNPAID AMOUNT OF RS. 6,19,417/ - WAS DISALLOWED U/S. 43B OF THE ACT. 16. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 17. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PHARMA SEARCH VS ACIT 53 SOT 01. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THA T IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT IF LIABILITY TO PAY SERVICE TAX DOES NOT EXIST, SERVICE TAX CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PAYABLE AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43B COULD NOT ALSO BE INVOKED. 18. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 19. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 18,44,091/ - TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THEREFORE THE FACT OF THE CASE ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE TRIBU NAL HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS REAL IMAGE MEDIATECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.(CHENNAI) WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 8 LD. CIT(A) AND RIGHT LY DISTINGUISHED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD . GROUND NO. 3 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 20. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES OF RS. 4,84,545/ - . 21. WHILE SCRUTINIZING THE RETURN, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 6,46,061/ - TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO FILE DETAILS. HOWEVER, NO DE TAILED SUBMISSION WAS MADE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN A.Y. 2005 - 06, A SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE AND ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE SAME BASIS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,84,545/ - WAS DISALLOWED. 22. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 23. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE GROSSLY FAILED IN UNDERSTANDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ELECTRICITY EXPE NSES PERTAIN TO THE ELECTRICITY ON HOARDING SITES AND NOT TO THE COMPANY PREMISES USED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHERS . AS THE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RESTORE THIS IS SUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 4 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 9 ITA NO. 4847/M/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 24. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF HOARDINGS AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,64, 435/ - AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 24.1. THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO THE GRIEVANCE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 IN ITA NO. 75/M/2011 WHEREIN WE HAVE DISMISSED THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. 25. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF 16.30 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF CHARGE ON INCOME. 25.1. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY US IN ITA NO. 75/M/2011 QUA GROUND NO. 2 OF THAT APPEAL. FOR OUR DETAILED DISCUSS ION THEREIN , GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 75/M/11 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND IN ITA NO. 4847/M/11 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 IS DISMISSED. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH AUGUST , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 19 TH AUGUST , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA. NO . 4847/M/12 & 75/M/11 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI