ITO 5(2)4), MUMBAI V. P.M. RUNGTA (HUF), MUMBAI

ITA 7955/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2473 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOMNATH UKKAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.7955/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO 5(2)(4) R.NO.571, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020. / VS. P.M. RUNGTA (HUF). 66 ALI CHAMBERS, TAMARIND LANE, MUMBAI-400023 (REVENUE) (RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. AAFHP2630C REVENUE BY SHRI SOMNATH UKKAL (DR) RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY NITESH JOSHI (AR) ! ' # / DATE OF HEARING : 2/11/2015 ' # / DATE OF ORDER: 18/11/2015 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 9, MUMBAI {(IN SHORT LD. CIT(A)} DATED 15.09.2010 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 2 2007-08, DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DIRECTING TO ALL OW THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AS A MARKET VAL UE AS ON 01.04.1981 AND INDEXATION ALLOWED ON THAT COST WITH OUT APPRECIATING OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSET WAS NOT ACQ UIRED ON DISTRIBUTION OF ASSET ON PARTITION OF HUF BUT COST WAS INCURRED FOR ACQUIRING SUCH ASSET AS IN EVIDENT FRO M T HE COPY OF AWARD GRANTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RETORED. 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY SHRI SOMNATH UKKAL, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR ) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI NITESH JOSHI, (LD COUNSEL) ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. 3. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED HERE IS TH AT WHETHER THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE YEAR WAS ACQUIRED, AS PER LAW AND FACTS, BY THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY BEFORE 01.04.1981 OR AFTER THAT. IN THIS REGARD, TH E LD. DR HAS ARGUED AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF AWARD NO. 70 OF 1 986, ISSUED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY VIDE ORD ER DATED 21 ST JANUARY 1987, AND THAT TOO BY INCURRING A COST, AN D THEREFORE, AS PER LAW THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN 1987, AND THEREFORE, THE PROPERTY SHOUL D BE DEEMED TO BE HELD FROM 1987, AND THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF INDEXATION SHOULD BE GRANTED FROM THE SAID DATE ONL Y. P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 3 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE MATTER IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHEREIN IT WAS INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY THROUGH HIS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP FIRM SINCE 1963 AND THEREFORE, PERIOD OF HOLDING SHOULD BE COUNTED SINC E 1963, AND THEREFORE, VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 SHOULD BE TAKEN A S COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE BENEFIT OF IND EXATION SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN FROM THE SAID DATE. LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY INTER ALIA HOLDI NG THAT FAMILY SETTLEMENT CANNOT BE TERMED AS TRANSFER, AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHANTHI CHANDRAN AND ANOTHER 241 ITR 371. IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SINCE 1963. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY HIM, RELYING UPO N THE JUDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CAS E OF SMT. MANJULA SHAH (ITA NO.7315/MUM/2007) THAT INDEXATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED W.E.F. 01.04.1981 I.E. THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER HELD THE ASSETS. 5. BEFORE US, DETAILED ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND HA S SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE RE VERSED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DREW OUR ATTENTION ON VARIO US PAGES OF PAPER BOOK, CONTAINING COPY OF RETURN FILED, COPY OF DEED OF FAMILY ARRANGEMENT DATED 15 TH NOVEMBER 1985 AND COPY OF AWARD ISSUED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY DATED 21 ST JANUARY 1987. P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 4 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH TH E SIDES, THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS JUDGMENT S RELIED UPON BEFORE US. 6.1. THE BRIEF FACTS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWE R AUTHORITIES, WHICH REMAINED UNDISPUTED BEFORE US, A RE THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED IN THE FA MILY PARTNERSHIP M/S. KRISHNAGOPAL RUNGTA IN 1963. THE F IRM WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS TWO SONS WAS 50% PARTNER IN THE FIRM. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE FAMILY MEMBERS DECIDED TO SEPARATE, SETTLE AND DISTRIBUTE THE FAMILY ASSETS AMONGST THEMSELVES TO AVOID ANY DISPUTE IN F UTURE THEREOF. THE UNDERSTANDING WAS RECORDED IN AGREEMEN T DATED 15 TH NOVEMBER, 1985. A COPY OF AGREEMENT IS PLACED AT P AGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REGARDING SOME OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, A CONSENSUS WAS NOT ARRIVED AT AMONGST THE FAMILY MEMBERS, AND THEREFORE IT WAS MUTUALLY DECIDED BY A LL TO APPOINT A RELATIVE SHRI L.B. RUNGTA TO DECIDE THE I SSUE. THE FAMILYS IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WERE SETTLED AS PER A WARD NO. 70 OF 1986. THE AWARD WAS FILED WITH HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF BOMBAY FOR ITS APPROVAL. A COPY OF AWARD IS PLACED AT PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE PROPERTIES WERE HELD BY INDI VIDUALS, FIRMS AND HUF, AND BY THIS ARRANGEMENT HUF ASSETS W ERE PARTITIONED AND OTHER ASSETS WERE ALSO DISTRIBUTED. TO FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS AGR EED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE ASSETS WILL BE TRANSFE RRED AT THEIR ORIGINAL COST AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AND PAYABLE BY EACH P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 5 PARTY TO THE OTHER WILL ACCORDINGLY BE DEBITED/CRED ITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NO ACTUAL AMOUNT WAS PAID BY ONE PARTY TO OTHER. 6.2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THESE FACTS. IT IS NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED AFORESAID RIGHTS IN THE I MPUGNED LAND IN PURSUANCE TO A FAMILY ARRANGEMENT, ARISING AS A RESULT OF PARTITION OF FAMILY, WHICH HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO AMONGST THE FAMILY MEMBERS VIDE ITS FAMILY SETTLEMENT DATED 15 TH NOVEMBER, 1985 AND AWARD OF THE HIGH COURT DATED 21 ST JANUARY 1987. NOW, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING H OLDING PERIOD, TO COMPUTE TAXABLE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF THE SAID LAND, AND ACC ORDINGLY HOLDING PERIOD OF THE LAND WOULD BE RECKONED FROM T HAT DATE. 6.3. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AFORESAID FAMILY ARRANGEMENT/SETTLEMENT (WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN LEGAL RECOGNITION BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THROUGH AWARD DATED 21 ST 1987), SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS AN EVENT GIVING R ISE TO TRANSFER AS ENVISAGED U/S 45 OF THE ACT. WE CAN HER E MAKE REFERENCE TO SECTION 47, WHICH INTER-ALIA PROVIDES THAT ANY DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSETS ON THE TOTAL PARTITI ON OF HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY SHALL NOT BE REGARDED AS TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 45. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT IF THE SAID FAMILY PARTITION/SETTLEMENT/DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE BEEN REGARDED AS TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC TION 45 BY THE DEPARTMENT, IN THAT CASE, APPLYING PROVISIONS O F SECTION 45, IT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT TO TAX SOME AMOUNT OF CAP ITAL GAIN P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 6 IN THE HANDS OF FIRM OF HUF ETC. IN THE YEAR 1987 I .E. WHEN HIGH COURT PASSED THE ORDER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE ALLE GEDLY BECOMING OWNER, AS HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT NO SUCH ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, UNDER THE LAW, NO SUCH ACTION COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN EITHER, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE. THE FAMILY MEMBERS WERE TRANSFERORS, AND FAMILY MEMBERS GOT THEIR RESPECTIV E SHARES IN THE PROPERTIES AND ASSETS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN 1987. AS PER LAW, THE RIGH TS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY HAVE BEEN ONLY RE INSTATED OR RE-DETERMINED. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY FRESH RIGHTS HAVE TAKEN BIRTH. IT WAS JUST RE-FIXATION OF THE RIGHTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY HAVING, IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHE R. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIAL OWNER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY SINCE 1963, BEING 50% PARTNER IN THE FIRM WHICH WAS OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IMPLIEDLY, IT CAN ALSO BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE PROPERTY AS BENEFICIAL OWNER SINCE 1963. 6.4. WITH A VIEW TO SIMPLIFY THIS ISSUE FURTHER, WE HAVE ANALYSED THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'HELD BY THE ASSESSEE', AS HAS BEEN USED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN SECTION 2(42 A). IN CIT VS FRICK INDIA LTD 369 ITR 328 (DELHI), HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT GOT AN OCCASION TO ELUCIDATE AND EXPLAIN THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THIS EXPRESSION. RELEVANT PARAS ARE R EPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY: P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 7 10. WE WOULD LIKE TO ELUCIDATE AND EXPLAIN THE EXPRESS ION, 'HELD BY THE ASSESSEE' IN SOME DETAIL. GENERAL WORDS SHOULD NORM ALLY RECEIVE PLAIN AND ORDINARY CONSTRUCTION BUT THIS PRINCIPLE IS SUBJECT TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE WORDS ARE USED AS THE WORDS REFLECT THE INTENTION O F THE LEGISLATURE. THE WORDS HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED TO EFFEC TUATE THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION, WHEN THEY ARE CAPABLE OF MULTIPLE MEANINGS OR ARE AMBIGUOUS. ISOLATED READING OF WORDS CAN ON OCCASIO NS NEGATE THE VERY PURPOSE. LORD DIPLOCK HAD REFERRED TO THE TERM, 'BU SINESS' AS AN 'ETYMOLOGICAL CHAMELEON', WHICH SUITS ITS MEANING T O THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS FOUND. THE BACKGROUND, THEREFORE, HAS TO BE GIVE N DUE REGARD AND NOT TO BE IGNORED, TO AVOID ABSURDITIES. THIS PRINCIPLE IS APPLICABLE WHEN WE INTERPRET THE WORD, 'HELD' IN SECTION 2(42A) OF THE ACT, FOR THE SAID WORD IS CAPABLE OF DIVERGENT AND DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS AND UNDERSTANDING. 11. THE WORD, 'HELD' AS USED IN SECTION 2(42A) OF THE ACT IS WITH REFERENCE TO A CAPITAL ASSET AND THE TERM, 'CAPITAL ASSET' IS NO T CONFINED AND RESTRICTED TO OWNERSHIP OF A PROPERTY OR AN ASSET. CAPITAL ASSETS CAN CONSIST OF RIGHTS OTHER THAN OWNERSHIP RIGHT IN AN ASSET, LIKE LEASEH OLD RIGHTS, ALLOTMENT RIGHTS, ETC. THE SEQUITUR, THEREFORE, IS THAT THE W ORD 'HELD' OR 'HOLD' IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH RIGHT OVER THE ASSET AS AN OWNER AN D HAS TO BE GIVEN A BROADER AND WIDER MEANING. IN BLACK'S LAW DICTIONAR Y, SIXTH EDITION, THE WORD 'HOLD' HAS BEEN GIVEN A VARIETY OF MEANINGS UN DER NINE DIFFERENT HEADINGS. FOUR OF THEM, I.E, 1, 4, 8 AND 9 READ AS UNDER: '1. TO POSSESS IN VIRTUE OF A LAWFUL TITLE; AS IN T HE EXPRESSION, COMMON IN GRANTS, 'TO HAVE AND TO HOLD,' OR IN THAT APPLIED T O NOTES, 'THE OWNER AND HOLDER.' ** ** 4. TO MAINTAIN OR SUSTAIN; TO BE UNDER THE NECESSIT Y OR DUTY OF SUSTAINING OR PROVING; AS WHEN IT IS SAID THAT A PARTY 'HOLDS THE AFFIRMATIVE' OR NEGATIVE OF AN ISSUE IN A CAUSE. ** ** 8. TO POSSESS; TO OCCUPY; TO BE IN POSSESSION AND A DMINISTRATION OF; AS TO HOLD OFFICE. 9. TO KEEP; TO RETAIN; TO MAINTAIN POSSESSION OF OR AUTHORITY OVER.' AS PER CLAUSE 8, THE WORD 'HOLD' MEANS TO POSSESSS OR OCCUPY, TO BE IN POSSESSION AND WOULD ALSO INCLUDE TO KEEP, RETAIN A ND MAINTAIN POSSESSION OR AUTHORITY OVER AN ASSET. 12. THE WORD 'HELD' THUS CAN BE INTERPRETED TO EMBRACE THE IDEA OF ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN BUDHAN SINGH V. BABI BUX AIR 1970 SC 1880 P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 8 (AT PAGE 1884) THE WORD 'HELD' WAS INTERPRETED TO M EAN 'LAWFULLY HELD, TO POSSESS BY LEGAL TITLE'. THE TERM 'LEGAL TITLE' HER E NOT ONLY INCLUDES OWNERSHIP, BUT ALSO TITLE OR RIGHT OF A TENANT, WHI CH WILL MEAN ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND A RIGHT TO HOLD THE SAME AND CLAIM POSSESSION THEREOF AS A TENANT. 6.5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. VED PRAKASH & SONS (HUF) 207 ITR 148 FURTHER EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THIS EXPRESSION AS UNDER: AS IS CLEAR FROM A BARE READING OF SECTION 2(42A) OF THE ACT, THE WORD 'OWNER' HAS DESIGNEDLY NOT BEEN USED BY THE LEGISLA TURE. THE WORD 'HOLD', AS PER DICTIONARY MEANING, MEANS TO POSSESS , BE THE OWNER, HOLDER OR TENANT OF (PROPERTY, STOCK, LAND.). THUS, A PERSON CAN BE SAID TO BE HOLDING THE PROPERTY AS AN OWNER, AS A LESSEE, A S A MORTGAGEE OR ON ACCOUNT OF PART PERFORMANCE OF AN AGREEMENT, ETC. C ONVERSELY, ALL SUCH OTHER PERSONS WHO MAY BE TERMED AS LESSEES, MORTGAG EES WITH POSSESSION OR PERSONS IN POSSESSION AS PART PERFORM ANCE OF THE CONTRACT WOULD NOT IN STRICT PARLANCE COME WITHIN THE PURVIE W OF 'OWNER'. AS PER THE SHORTER OXFORD DICTIONARY. EDITION 1985, 'OWNER ' MEANS ONE WHO OWNS OR HOLDS SOMETHING; ONE WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO C LAIM TITLE TO A THING' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 6.6. IN CIT VS RAMA RANI KALIA 358 ITR 499 , HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS DRAWN DISTINCTION BETWEEN HOLDING OF AN ASSET AND THE NATURE OF TITLE OVER THE PROPER TY AND IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT PERIOD OF HOLDING WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAXED AS A SHORT-TERM C APITAL GAINS OR LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THUS, CONVERSION OF LEASEHOLD RIGHT INTO FREEHOLD BY WAY OF IMPROVING THE TITLE O VER THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT AFFECT THE TAXABILITY OF THE GAI N FROM SUCH PROPERTY, WHICH IS RELATABLE TO THE PERIOD OVER WHI CH THE PROPERTY IS HELD. P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 9 6.7. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. K. RAMAKRISHNAN 225 TAXMAN 123 HAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING PERIOD OF HOLDING, ONE HAS TO LOOK AND TAKE INTO AC COUNT THE DATE SINCE THE ASSESSEE GOT 'BENEFICIAL INTEREST' I N THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THI S CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIAL OWNER OF IMPUGNED ASSET, AN D IN ANY CASE, ON THE EVENT OF FAMILY PARTITION, THERE WAS A T THE BEST IMPROVEMENT IN TITLE OF THE ASSESSEE OVER THE PRO PERTY, WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY HAVING. THUS, FROM THE ABO VE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TERM HELD, USED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 2(42A) IS OF WIDE AMPLITUDE AND SCOPE. T HE ASSET NEED NOT BE NECESSARILY HELD AS OWNER BY THE ASSE SSEE. THUS, IN VIEW OF AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION AND FACTS OF TH E CASE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THIS PROPERTY SINCE 1963. 6.8. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD FAL L IN THE SITUATIONS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 49(1). THEREFORE, I N OUR VIEW, IN ANY CASE, THE COST INCURRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER S HALL BE ADOPTED WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ALSO, THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE AS SETS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO BE RECKONED FROM 1963, AND ACCORDINGLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING COST OF ACQUI SITION, THE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING TAXABLE AMOUN T OF CAPITAL GAIN. THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION SHOULD ACCO RDINGLY BE PROVIDED W.E.F. 01.04.1981. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE P.M. RUNGTA (HUF) 10 FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE CORRECT AS PER LAW AND F ACTS, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR THEREIN, AND THE SAME AR E UPHELD. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! MUMBAI; % DATED ; 18 /11/2015 CTX? P.S/. .. #$%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '() / THE APPELLANT 2. *+() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. , , - ( ' ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. , , - / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 01 *2 , , '# 2 3 , ! / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 45 6! / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, +0' * //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ! / ITAT, MUMBAI