MOHNA K THAKUR, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 7672/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83528 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R PATIL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Business income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 56; 133(6)

Judgement Text

, CH CHCH CH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - B BENCH. .. , ! , BEFORE S/SH.I.P.BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 7672/MUM/2011, ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 SMT. MOHNA K. THAKUR, 8, CCI CHAMBERS, DINESHA VACCHA ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020 VS ITO 12(3)(4), R.NO. 138, 1ST FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-20 PAN: AAECS1117M ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) '() '() '() '() * * * * / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI + * / REVENUE BY : SHRI V.R. PATIL ' ' ' ' + ++ + ), ), ), ), / DATE OF HEARING : 11-08-2014 -.# + ), / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-08-2014 ' ' ' ' , 1961 + ++ + 254 )1( )/) )/) )/) )/) 0 0 0 0 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED.14.09.2011 OF THE CIT(A )-23,MUMBAI, ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS APPEAL: 1.ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE TAXATION OF INTEREST INCOME AND CAPITAL GAIN UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAIN RESPECTIVELY AND THEREBY REJECTING T HE CLAIM OF SETOFF OF BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEAR AGAINST SUCH INCOME WHICH WAS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME IN THOSE YEAR. 2.THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT, THE APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING & FINANCING SINCE LAST 20 YEARS AND ALL THE RECEIPTS (INCLUDING INTEREST) WAS SHOWN AS BUSINESS RECEIPT FOR ALL THESE YEARS AND H AD BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE DEPARTMENT. 3.ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARN ED CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.9,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT BALANCE STANDING IN THE NA ME OF OM JANAK KUTIR HSG. SOCIETY LTD. OVERLOOKING TO THE FACT THAT, SAID RECEIPT PERTAINS TO SALE OF THE SHOP BEFORE 10 YEARS AND SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SECTION 41(1) CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE NON TRADE LIABILITY OR EXP ENDITURE. 4.THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T, THE FACT THAT THE AFFIDAVIT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , FURTHER, NO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION WAS EITHER CLAIMED OR ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND HENCE SECTION 4 1(1) IS NOT ATTRACTED IN SUCH CASE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ALTER, ADD, DELETE, SUBSTIT UTE, OR MODIFY AND OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.07.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.23, 910/-.ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3)OF THE ACT,ON 09.12.2010,DETERMI - NING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.16,73,260/-. 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO TAXATION OF INTE REST INCOME AND CAPITAL GAIN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAIN RESPECTI VELY AND THEREBY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEAR AGAINST SUCH I NCOME WHICH WAS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS ITA/7672/11MKT 2 INCOME.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.1,13,908/- AND INCOME FRO M BUSINESS AT RS.7,28,707/-,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.25,208/-,BA NK INTEREST OF RS.29,552/-,F.D. INTEREST OF RS. 61,287/-,INTEREST ON POSTAL DEPOSIT OF RS.51,600/-, INTEREST ON RBI BOND OF RS.1,19,200/-,SCS INTEREST OF RS.1,79,679/- AND OTHER INTEREST OF RS. 2,37,823/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT INCOME HAD BEEN SET-OFF AGAINST THE LOSS OF A.Y.200 1-02.THE AO ASKED HER TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF SET OFF OF LOSS.IN RESPONSE TO THAT,IT WAS SUBMITTE D THE SHE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING SINCE LAST 20 YEARS,THAT ALL THE RECEIPTS HAD BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT,THAT ONLY THE RESIDUARY INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF ANY OTHER INCOME WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 56 OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE,H E HELD THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN SHORT TERM FINANCING IN THE NATURE OF V YAJ BADLA,THAT THE RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE NOT OF THE SAME NATURE AND WAS O N ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS INTEREST YIELDING INSTRUMENTS LIKE FIXED DEPOSITS AND POST O FFICE SCHEMES AS WELL AS BANK INTEREST,THAT THE RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL COULD NOT BE CON SIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME,THAT IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE NATURE OF RECEIPT THAT IT WAS NOT ON ACCOU NT OF ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF FINANCING BUT INTEREST FROM INVESTMENTS MADE,THAT THE ONLY YEAR I N WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY WAS AY.2001-02 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSI NESS OF VYAJ-BADLA,THAT THE INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR WAS MAINLY IN THE NATURE O F BANK INTEREST & OTHER INTEREST,THAT THE DEFINITION OF VYAJ-BADLA AS ENUMERATED BY THE ASSES SEE DID NOT IN ANY WAY PROVE THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR WAS BUSINESS INCOME.IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINED THE FY.RELEVANT TO A.Y.2001-02 AND EARLIER YEARS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF VYAJ BADLA WHICH WA S DIFFERENT FROM THE SITUATION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.MOREOVER, THE PRINCIPAL OF RES-JUDICA TA WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDING AND CONSEQUENTLY MERELY BECAUSE IN EARLIER YEAR A C ERTAIN RECEIPT WAS ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS INCOME DID NOT ENTAIL THAT EVEN AFTER DETAILED VERIFICATIO N THE SAME VIEW SHOULD BE HELD IN OTHER YEARS ALSO.AS A RESULT,THE INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.6,79,14 1/- FOR THE YEAR WAS TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES.BESIDES,SHORT TERM CAPITAT GAIN OF RS. 25,2 08/- WAS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS.ACCORDINPLY THE ASSESSEC WAS NOT ALLOWED TO S ET OFF THE BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AGAINST SUCH INCOME WHICH WAS HELD TO BE IN THE NATURE OF I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES / SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT THAT THE AO HAD CLEARLY POINTED OUT THE NATURE OF RECEIPT THAT IT WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF FINANCING BUT INTEREST FROM IN VESTMENTS MADE,THAT MERELY BECAUSE IN THE ONE YEAR OF SCRUTINY,THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE IN TH E BUSINESS OF VYAJ BADLA,IT COULD NOT BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT SUCH BUSINESS WAS CONTINUING IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE RECEIPTS WER E FROM BUSINESS,THAT THE AO S REASONING WAS COGENT,THAT THE AO S ACTION IN TREATING THE INTERE ST RECEIPT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES & SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS WAS TO BE CONFIRMED,THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEAR S AGAINST SUCH INCOME. ITA/7672/11MKT 3 2.2. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) STATED THAT THE AO HAD IN EARLIER YEARS ACCEPTED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST INCOME WA S TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING BUSINESS OF BYAJ BADLA FOR LAST TWO DECADES,THAT THE FACTS OF THE EARLIER YEARS WERE NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDE R APPEAL.HE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE EARLIER YEARS.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ARGUED THAT THE FACTS FOR THE YEAR WERE NOT SIMILAR TO PRECEDING YEARS,THAT THE AO AND THE FAA HAD HIGHLIGHTED THE FACTS,THAT INTEREST EARNED BY HER ON FDS,RBI BONDS ETC.HAD TO BE ASSESSED UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INTEREST INCOME FROM VARIOUS SO URCES LIKE FROM FDS,FROM POST OFFICE,FROM RBI BONDS,FROM SENIOR CITIZEN SAVINGS,FROM BANK DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION(PG.3 OF THE PAPER BOOK) IN ADDITION TO THE INTEREST OF RS.2 .37 LAKHS THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS OTHER INTEREST. ON QUERY BY THE BENCH THE AR COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS T O HOW THE OTHER INTERESTS,EXCEPT THAN THE INTEREST OF RS.2.37 LAKHS,WERE RELATED TO THE BUSIN ESS OF THE ASSESSEE.THE AO HAS NOT LOOKED IN TO THE FACTS OF THE SAID INTEREST AMOUNT WHILE COMPLET ING THE ASSESSMENT.IN OUR OPINION,MATTER NEEDS FURTHER VERIFICATION.THEREFORE,IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE,WE ARE RESTORING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFO RDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE.GROUND NO.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN HER FAVOU R,IN PART. 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO MAKING OF AN ADDI TION OF RS.9,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF OM JANAK KUTIR CO-OP. HSG.SOCIETY LTD.(OJKCHS).DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT SHE HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.45,000/-IN HER B ALANCE-SHEET AS SUNDRY CREDITS FROM M/S.ORCHARD PALACE(OP)AND AMOUNT OF RS.9 LAKHS AGAI NST OJKCHS.HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS IN THIS REGARD ALONG WITH SUPPORTING D OCUMENTS.IN HER REPLY SHE STATED THAT AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AGAINST OP WAS IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE OF RENT WHICH WAS NOT REFUNDED,THAT THE CREDIT OF OJKCHS WAS IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY.INFORMATION U/S.133(6) WAS CALLED FROM THE CREDITORS BY THE AO.HOWEVER, THE NO TICE ISSUED TO OP WAS RETURNED UNSERV - ED.OJKCHS,IN ITS REPLY DATED 10TH AUGUST,2010 STATE D THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE ASSESSEE AND NO ADVANCE HAD BEEN GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF ANY PROPERTY .CONSEQUENTLY,THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 26.08.2010 AND ASKED THE A SSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HER CRYSTALISED INCOME.SHE REPLIED THAT THE CREDIT OF OP WAS OLD AND SHE DID NOT HAVE ITS ADDRESS,THAT IN THE CASE OF OJKCHSTHE TRAN SACTION WAS ABOUT SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE SAID SOCIETY BELONGING TO HER HUSBAND,THAT SHE HAD ADVAN CED A LOAN TO HER HUSBAND OF RS.8.93 LAKHS, THAT AFTER HIS DEATH THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN MAY,2 000 FOR RS. 9 LAKHS,THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS MISTAKENLY SHOWN AS CREDIT AGAINST OJKCHS.ON AN INQUIRY BY THE AO THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ACCEPTED THAT SUCH TRANSACTION WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURNS FILED FOR EARLIER YEAR INCLUDING FOR A.Y.2001 -02 WHICH WAS THE YEAR IN WH ICH THE TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE.THE AO HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO SUBST ANTIATE THAT THE CREDIT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE AS EXPLAINED BY HER,THAT HER EXPLANATION COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED.AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE,HE TAXED THE SAID AMOUNT FOR THE YE AR CONSIDERATION. 3.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO WER E REITERATED.IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ACCOUNTANT HAD ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN THE SAME IN THE AC COUNT OF OJKCHS INSTEAD OF SALE OF ITA/7672/11MKT 4 IMMOVABLE PROPERTY,THAT THERE WAS NO LIABILITY IN T HE NAME OF OJKCHS,THAT THE BALANCE APPEARING IN THE NAME OF OJKCHS WAS ACTUALLY ON ACCOUNT OF SA LE OF SHOP.THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT NO LOAN OR ADVANCE HAD BEEN TAKEN BY H ER FROM OJKCHS AND THAT THE DUE TO ACCOUNTANTS MISTAKE THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN SHOWN AS O UTSTANDING LIABILITY,THAT NO ALLOWANCE OR DEDUCTION WAS EITHER CLAIMED OR ALLOWED TO THE ASSE SSEE IN EARLIER YEARS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, THAT SAME WAS NEITHER BUSINESS RECEIPT NOT REVENUE RECEIPT WHICH COULD BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE FAA HELD THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FILE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS AS CLAIMED WERE DULY REFLECTED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE EARLIER YEAR,THAT THE AO HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT RESIDUARY HEADS OF INCOME COULD BE RESORTED TO ONLY IF NONE OF THE SPE CIFIC HEADS WAS APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME IN QUESTION AND THAT IT CAME INTO OPERATION ONLY IF TH E OTHER HEADS WERE EXCLUDED,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM WITH RE GARD TO OP. ABOUT THE TRANSACTION RELATED TO OJKCHS, THE FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TH E AMOUNTS AS SUNDRY CREDITORS IN HER BALANCE SHEET,THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE TRANSACTION W ERE NOT ENTERED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND/OR DIRECTLY TAKEN TO THE BALANCE SHEET COULD NOT RENDE R THE LIABILITY TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN A TRADE LIABILITY,THAT THE METHOD USED FOR ROUTING THE ENTR IES WAS IRRELEVANT IF SUCH LIABILITY HAD CEASED TO EXIST, OR BECAME NO LONGER PAYABLE,THAT A CONCLUSIO N COULD DEFINITELY BE DRAWN THAT BENEFIT HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUI RED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE UN-DISCHARGED LIABILITIES WERE YET ALIVE AND CONTINUING,THAT WITH FLUX OF TIM E THEY WERE NO LONGER PAYABLE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CLA IMS STILL REMAINED PAYABLE,THAT THE AO ON ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 133(6) HAD RECEIVED NO RESPONS ES OR THE RESPONSES HAD NOT MATCHED WITH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM,THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT IN TOU CH WITH THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO SHOW THAT THE PARTIES HAD MADE CLAIMS FOR REPAYM ENT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE CREDITORS HAD NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS IN ANY MANN ER,THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE THE LIABILITIES,IT WAS A CASE OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY.HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3.2. BEFORE US,AR CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE N EITHER TRADE LIABILITIES NOR WERE EXPENDI - TURE,THAT NO BENEFIT ON SUCH ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN ALLO WED TO HER AND THUS NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. DR ARGUED THAT MATT ER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE FACT OF SALE OF SHOP. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE FACT OF SELLING OF THE SHOP IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHILE FILING THE RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT AY..BUT,IT IS ALSO A FA CT THAT THE APPEAL FOR THAT IS NOT BEFORE US,SO,WE DO NOT WANT TO COMMENT UPON THE ISSUE RELATED TO THAT YEAR.WE HAVE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1)OF THE ACT WERE CORR ECTLY APPLIED OR NOT IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL.SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION JURISPRUDENCE ENVISAGE INCURRING OF ANY EXPENDITURE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN EARLIER YEARS AND RECEIVING TH E SAME IN LATER YEARS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 41(1).IN THIS MATTER THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION CANNOT BE TERMED A BUSINESS LIABILITY,AS THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SALE CONSIDE RATION IN EARLIER YEARS.IT IS TRUE THAT THE SAID FA CT WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY HER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME,BU T FOR THAT SHE CANNOT BE TAXED U/S.41(1) OF THE ITA/7672/11MKT 5 ACT AND THE TRANSACTION IS NOT CESSATION OF LIABILI TY.THEREFORE,REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE AO,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 1)2 '() + VA'KR% 3 + ) 45. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11TH AUGUST 2014 . 0 + -.# 6 7' 11 VXLR , 201 4 . + / 8 SD/- SD/- .. / I.P. BANSAL) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 7' /DATE: 11 .08 . 2014. SK 0 0 0 0 + ++ + &)9 &)9 &)9 &)9 : 9#) : 9#) : 9#) : 9#) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / $% 2. RESPONDENT / &'$% 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ ; < , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / ; < 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 9=/ &)' CH , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / 1 '9) '9) '9) '9) &) &)&) &) //TRUE COPY// 0' / BY ORDER, > / 4 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI