VIKRANT AUTO SUSPENSION, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 22(2), MUMBAI

ITA 779/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 77919914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH RANJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ANUJ KISNADWALA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Assessment record; Non passing of speaking order; Capital expenditure
• Section: 263; 194C

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , , BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEM BER . / ITA NO. 779 /MUM./ 2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 07 0 8 ) M/S. VI K RANT AUTO SUSPENSION 205, SAHAKAR BHAVAN, NARAYAN NAGAR BOMBAY CO. OP. INDL. ESTATE GHATKOPAR (W), MUMBAI 400 086 .. / APP ELLANT V/S ADDL . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22 (2), MUMBAI .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAAFV1062B / ASSESSEE BY: MR. ANUJ KISNADWAL A / REVENUE BY : MR. RAJESH RANJAN / DATE OF HEARING 2 0 .0 1 .201 4 / DATE OF ORDE R 24.01.2014 / ORDER , / PER AMIT SHUKLA , J.M. TH E PRESENT APPEAL HA S BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER 23 RD NOVEMBER 2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX X X I I, MUMBAI, UNDER SECTION 263 M/S. VIRANT AUTO SUSPENSION 2 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007 08. 2 . FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF AUTOMOBILE LEAF SPRINGS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 08 RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 27 TH OCTOBER 2004, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,82,62,200. T HE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1), THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS. AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURN INCOME AND COM PLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT ` 1,82,62,200, VIDE ORDER DATED 19 TH NOVEMBER 2009. THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 ON 4 TH OCTOBER 2005, AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORDS ON THE FOLLOWING POINTS : ' I) ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECO RDS, IT IS SEEN THAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED LABOUR CHARGES UNDER THE HEAD MANUFACTURING EXPENSES OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF RS. 59,73,178/ - WHEREAS IN THE SUBMISSION YOU HAVE MADE, YOU HAVE SHOWED LABOU R CHARGES OF RS. 7,83,925/ - . LIKEWISE , UNDER THE HEA D FREIGHT CHARGES, A SUM OF RS;6,65,876/ - HAVE BEEN CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHEREAS IN THE DETAILS FILED YOU HAVE SHOWED RS. 4,47, 115/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WITH THAT OF SUBMISSION MA DE BY Y OU. THE NON - VERIFICATION OF' THIS ISSUE COULD POSSIBLY LEAD TO DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM MADE BY YOU. II) SECONDLY, IT IS SEEN THAT YOU HAVE SHOWED EXPENSES OF RS.8,83,915/ - AND RS.50,81,721/ - UNDER THE HEAD JOB WORK AND RAW MATERIAL PURCHASED RESPEC TIVELY FROM ONE OF ITS SISTER CONCERN. THE ALLOWABILITY OF THESE EXPENSES IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(2)(B) AND THE ASPECT OF DEDUCTION OF TDS AND ITS PAYMENT TO GOVERNMENT TREASURY HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ISS UE NEEDS RECONSIDERATION AND COULD POSSIBLY LEAD TO THE DISALL OWANCE OF THE CLAIM MADE BY YOU. III) THIRDLY, IT IS NOTICED FROM THE SUBMISSION MADE BY YOU THAT YOU HAVE SHOWED PURCHASES OF RS.22,52,585/ - FROM DYNATCH FURNACES BOMBAY (P) LTD. AND FROM THE INVOICE SUBMITTED BY YOU, M/S. VIRANT AUTO SUSPENSION 3 IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE PURCHASED' FURNACE FOR RS. 1 1,49,242/ - . AS FURNACE FORMS PART OF CAPITAL ASSET AND EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND ACCORDINGLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDIT URE. IV) LASTLY, IT APPEARS FROM THE NATURE OF ACTIVITY, THAT YOU UNDERTOOK WORK CONTRACT RATHER THAN. CONTRACT FOR SALE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RECEIPTS YOU HAD SHOWED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND AS SUCH TDS SHOULD H AVE BEEN DEDUCTED BY YOUR CLIENTS SUCH AS GENERAL MOTORS, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA ETC. THIS DETAILS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INTIMATED BY THE AO TO THE TDS SECTION FOR NECESSARY ACTION. 3 . THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, SUBMITTED AND STATED AS UND ER: 3 . IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTE R DATED 09/11/2010 STATING AS UNDER: 1A) DISCREPANCY IN THE LABOUR STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO A.O.: THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.59, 73, 178. . DURING. THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENTS OF LABOUR CHARGES WERE SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, DUE TO TOTALING ERROR, FIGURES OF L$T THREE ROWS GOT OMITTED WHILE TOTALING THE AMOUNT COLUMN. THIS ERROR WAS POINTED OUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE TOTAL FIGURE IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT REMAINED TO BE CORRECTED. A COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED' TO THE A. O. IS SUBMITTED. AGAIN WHEREIN IT COULD BE OBSERVED THAT IT WAS AN APPARENT COMPUTER ERROR. B) DISCREPANCY IN THE FREIGHT CHARGES S TATEMENT SUBMITTED TO A.O THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED FREIGHT CHARGES OF RS.6,65,876/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES WAS SUBMITTED. HOWEVER, DUE TO TOTALING ERROR, FIGURES OF LET THREE ROWS GOT OMITTED WHILE TOTA LING THE AM OUNT COLUMN. THE ERROR WAS POINTED OUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE TOTAL FIGURE IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT REMAINED TO BE CORRECTED. A COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. IS SUBMITTED AGAIN W HEREIN IT COULD BE OBSERVED THAT IT WAS AN APPARENT COMPUTER ERROR. 2. A) RS. 8.33. 915/ - PAID TO MOFLEX SUSPENSION PVT. LTD . THE LABOUR CHARGES ARE PAID TO SISTER CONCERN FOR THE JOB WORK DONE BY THEM ON ASSESSEE'S BEHALF. OUT OF THE ABOVE PAYMENT. TD S ON RS.7,05,214/ - WAS DEDUCTED ON 07/06/2007. SELF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,05,214/ - WAS DONE U/S.40{A){IA). A LEDGER M/S. VIRANT AUTO SUSPENSION 4 COPY OF JOB WORK AND DISALLOWANCE U/ S. 40(A)(IA) IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. B) RAW MATERIAL PURCHASED (ROM SISTER CONCERN THE R AW MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM SISTER CONCERN HAS BEEN AT COMMERCIAL TERM AND THIS PURCHASE IS HARDLY 3% OF TOTAL STEEL PURCHASE. MOFLEX SUSPENSION (P) LTD IS ALSO TAX PAYING COMPANY IN HIGHEST TAX BRACKET. THUS, BOTH HAVE NO APPARENT TAX BENEFIT IN THE TRANSA CTIONS. A LEDGER COPY AND INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MOFLEX SUSPENSION PVT. LTD. ALONGWITH COMPUTATION ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. 3. PURCHASE OF FURNACES DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASES FURNACE OF RS.11,49,242/ - FROM DYNATCH FURNACE S BOMBAY (P) LTD. THE SAME HAS BEEN CAPITALIZED IN PLANT & MACHINERY AFTER NETTING OUT THE CENVAT AND EXCISE - CREDIT AS PERMISSIBLE BY THE LAW. A LEDGER A/ C OF DYNATCH FURNACES BOMBAY (P) LTD IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. IN YOUR OBJECTION YOU HAVE ST ATED THE FIGURE OF RS.22,52,585/ - WHICH IS GROSS TOTAL OF LEDGER OF DYNATCH FURNACE BOMBAY (P) LTD AND IT INCLUDES A CHEQUE TRANSACTION OF RS.1 0,46,235/ - WHICH WAS A CONTRA TRANSACTION IN THE BOOKS TOWARDS CHEQUE ISSUED BUT NOT GIVEN TO THE PARTY. ALSO ENC LOSED ARE DETAILS OF ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS AS SUBMITTED TO THE A. 0. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT.' 4 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DISCREPANCY IN LABOUR CHARGES AND DISCREPANCY IN FREIGHT CHARGES ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE VERY FACT THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN FIGURES OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES AND JOB WORK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED OR EXAMINED THE SAME. WITH REGA RD TO THE PURCHASE MADE FROM THE SISTER CONCERN M/S. MOFLEX SUSPENSION PVT. LTD., HE OBSERVED THAT SUCH HUGE PURCHASES MADE BY THE SISTER CONCERN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY EXAMINATION OR VERIFICATION. EVEN THE LABOUR CHARGES PAID TO THIS CONCERN, HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MERE FACT THAT THE SAID SISTER CONCERN IS PAYING TAX DOES NOT PRECLUDE FROM EXAMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) AND 40(A)(IA). BESIDES THIS, CERTAIN OTHER DISCREPANCIES HAVE ALSO BEEN POINTE D OUT WITH REGARD TO THE M/S. VIRANT AUTO SUSPENSION 5 PURCHASES OF FURNACES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DYNATCH FURNACES BOMBAY PVT. LTD., WHICH HAS BEEN ELABORATED AT PAGE 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSM ENT, HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OR HAS CARRIED OUT ANY ENQUIRY WHATSOEVER. HE HAS ALSO NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE FRAMED AFRESH AFTER EXAMINING EACH AND EVERY ISSUE AS HIGHLIGHTED BY HIM IN DETAIL. 5 . BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS GIVEN UNDER SECTION 263, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED MOST OF THE ISSUES AFTER EXAMINING IN DETAIL , EXCEPT FOR THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIA LS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 25% AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B). THUS, FOR MOST OF THE ISSUES, IT CAN BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST R OUND WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. MOREOVER, THE COMMISSIONER, IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HAS MERELY INTENDED TO CARRY OUT ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING SOME DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT , WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE . ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS ACCEPTED THE GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF EXAMINING EACH AND EVERY DETAIL OF EXPENSES. IN ANY CASE, ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN EXAMINED, IT IS PRESUMED THAT ALL THE ENTRIES MADE THEREIN HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY. THEREFORE, SUCH AN ASSESSMENT M/S. VIRANT AUTO SUSPENSION 6 ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH, IN LEISURE WARE EXPORTS LTD. V/S ITO, [2007] 13 SOT 184 (DEL.). 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263, HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AFTER EXAMINATION, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SECTION 263 , WHICH HAS BEEN DONE AFTER EXAMINING THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IS NOT CORRECT. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A NON SPEAKING ORDER AND DOES NOT REFLECT IN ANY MANNER THAT HE HAS EXAMINED ANY OF THE EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE COMMISSIONER HAS MERELY BROUGHT OUT APPARENT DEFECTS IN SOME OF THE EXPENSES WHICH COULD NOT BE CLARIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER. IF, ON EXAMINATION OF RECO RD, PRIMA FACIE, IT IS FOUND BY THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED A PARTICULAR ISSUE OR HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY REQUISITE ENQUIRY, THEN IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY ERRO NEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V/S CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION, PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE M/S. VIRANT AUTO SUSPENSION 7 RETURN OF INCOME AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE , AS TO WHAT WERE THE NATURE OF QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SPECIFICALLY ON THE ISSUE S WHICH HA S BEEN RAISED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER. IF THERE IS APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CALLING FOR THE DETAILS AND EXAMINING OF RECORD, THEN IT CAN BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT PROPERLY AND IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE LAW . IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE COMMISSIONER HAS POINTED OUT SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES I N CERTAIN HEADS O F EXPENSES , ON WHICH APPARENTLY THERE SEEMS TO BE NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT LEAST IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN BEFORE US THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED A QU E RY OR CARRIED OUT ANY ENQUIRY FOR EXAMINING THESE DETAILS. IF THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS NO ERROR ON THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS UNABLE TO POINT OUT ANY SUCH ERROR ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY HIM THAT THEY ARE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, THEN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT SO, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE SPECIFIC DEFECT S POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER WHICH REMAINED UN RECONCILED AT THE STAGE OF REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 . AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT MOST OF THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SET ASID E THE PROCEEDINGS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAME WILL NOT MAKE A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE AS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THE ORDER , SO AS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CARRIED OUT PROPER EXAMINATION OR ENQUIRY AND HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED QUERIES ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE LEARNED M/S. VIRANT AUTO SUSPENSION 8 C OMMISSIONER AND CALLED FOR THE DETAILS FOR EXAMINING THE RELEVANT ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD OR OTHERWISE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263 . ON CE THAT IS SO, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263. THE FACTS AND THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER FOR CANCELING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER INASMUCH IS ERRONEOUS INASMUCH IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE APPEARS TO BE JUSTIFIED . WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS MERELY FOR CA RRYING OUT ROVING AND FISHING ENQUIRY, AS THE COMMISSIONER HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM IN PARA 4 AND 5. ACCORDINGLY, WE AFFIRM THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE TREATED AS DISMISSED. 8 . 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 24 TH JANUARY 2014 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JANUARY 2014 SD/ - . . R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 24 TH JANUARY 2014 M/S. VIRANT AUTO SUSPENSION 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) / THE ASSESSEE ; ( 2 ) / THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) ( ) / THE CIT(A ) ; ( 4 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; ( 5 ) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ; ( 6 ) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI