YES ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 15(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 831/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75264 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K SHIVARAM; RAHUL K HAKANI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH G , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 831/M/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES SHREE SAI DHAM, R. NO.209, 2 ND FLOOR, TI LAK ROAD, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI 400 0 77 PAN: AAAFY4230E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(1)(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/ SHRI K. SHIVARAM & RAHUL K. H AKANI REVENUE BY : SHRI ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29.11 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.01.2014 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 16.12.09 RELEVA NT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: ORIGINAL GROUND NO.1 TO 3 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,10,58,909/ - BEING DIFFERENCE IN SALE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE AGREEMENT AND THE PRICE AS ADOPTED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF 12 FLATS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE LAW TO ADOPT STAMP DUTY VALUATION FOR SALE OF STOCK IN TRADE AND NO EVIDENCE OF WHATSOEVER NATURE WAS ADDUCED TO PROVE THAT MONEY HAS PASSED FROM THE BUYER OF THE FLATS TO THE DEVELOPER IN EXCESS FOR THE SALE ITA NO. 831/M/10 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES 2 PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT AND HENCE ADDITION OF RS.1,10,58,909/ - . ORIGINAL GROUND NO.4 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF ASSESSING OF FICER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.4,01,800/ - U/S. 68 BEING LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/ - FROM ARUNA J. KOTHARI AND RS.3,00,000/ - SATISH ARORA WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID LOAN AMOUNTS ARE GENUINE AND THE DETAILS REQUIRED AS PER NOTICE U/S. 133(6) WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,01,800/ - MAY BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OR AL L THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUND NO.1 2. THE ASSESSEE, BEING IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDE RS AND DEVELOPERS , HAD BEEN ENGAGED IN DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AT GHATKOPUR AND WAS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. ASSESSEE ACCOUNTED SALE OF FLATS AT RS.322,33,750/ - INCLUDING THE VALUE OF UNSOLD FLAT AT RS. 6600,000/ - . AFTER DEBITING CONSTRUCTION E XPENSES, THE NET PROFIT WAS DISCLOSED AT 67,528/ - . 3 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FROM THE SALE AGREEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T HE SALE PRICE AS PER AGREEMENT AND STAMP DUTY VALUATION. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AREA WAS TAKEN 20% HIGHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY CALCULATION BY THE AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT WHATEVE R METHOD MIGHT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES, THE PURPOSE WAS TO CALCULATE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE FLATS AT THE TIME OF SALE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE VALUE SHOWN VIDE SALE AGREEMENT WAS ABOUT 30% LOWER THAT WA S ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS A KNOWN FACT THAT IN THE SUBURBS, THE BUILDERS ITA NO. 831/M/10 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES 3 GENERALLY SELL THEIR FLATS TO THE BUYERS AT A PRICE WHICH CONSISTS OF BOTH CHEQUE COMPONENT AND CASH COMPONENT. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT IT WAS A CASE OF SUPPRESSION OF SALE PRICE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ADOPTED THE SALE PRICE ASCERTAINED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES AND ADDED BACK INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE T HE DIFFERENCE OF PRICE BETWEEN THAT OF SALE AGREEMENT AND STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES AR RIVED AT RS. 1 , 10 , 58 , 909/ - . 4. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE L D. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SELLING PRICE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES WAS NOT CONFINED ONLY TO THE ACTUAL VALUE OR MARKET VALUE BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE OF CARPET AREA OF THE FLATS. THE CARPET AREA SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS AS COMPARED TO THE CARPET AREA ASCERTAINED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES. THE SALE PRICE WAS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES ON THE BASIS OF SPECIFIC CALCULATION OF CARPET AREA RELATED TO THE INDIVIDUAL FLATS. EVEN IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT ITSELF THAT CARPET AREA MENTIONED IN THE DEED WAS EXCLUSIVE OF AREA OF BALCONIES, NICHES AND DOOR JAMBS, WHICH MEANT THAT THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES INCLUDED THE SAID AREAS WHILE CALCULATING THE SALEABLE CARPET AREA OF THE FLATS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO SUPPRESS. BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SALE PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSE S SEE WAS THE ACTUAL AND CORRECT SALE PRICE AND THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF THE INCOME. THE STAMP AUTHORITIES WHILE CALCULATING THE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY, BY WAY OF A READY RECKONER ISSUED AS PER DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR CALCULATING THE STAMP DUTY WHICH PROVIDES FOR CONVERTING THE CARPET AREA INTO THE BUILT UP AREA BY WAY OF ADOPTING A FORMULA. AS PER THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS, THE STAMP AUTHORITIES COMPULSORILY C ONVERT THE ITA NO. 831/M/10 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES 4 CARPET AREA INTO THE BUILT UP AREA AND THEREAFTER LEVY THE STAMP DUTY AND THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE TO THE ASSESSEE/PURCHASER OTHER THAN TO PAY THE STAMP DUTY CALCULATED BY THE STAMP DUTY/REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES , AS PER THE SAID READY RECKONER. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOLD THE FLATS AT THE RATE ASCERTAINED BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES BUT AT THE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE AGREEMENT ONLY. 6. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED THE FORTH, FIFTH, SIXTH AND SEVENTH FLOOR ON THE EXISTING BUILDING WHICH WAS OLD. IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE LAND LORD, NO AREA APPURTENANT TO THE BUILDING IN THE COMPOUND WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PURCHASER OF THE ADDITIONAL FLOORS, CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO PARKING SPACE WAS P ROVIDED TO THE PURCHASERS. MORE OVER THERE WERE CERTAIN OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS NOISE OF TRAINS, TWO DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS IN THE SURROUNDINGS, WHICH ALSO CONTRIBUTED FOR THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT ABLE TO FETCH THE HIGHEST MARKET VALUE OF THE SOLD FLATS. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED SECTION 50C OF THE I NCOME T AX A CT WHILE ADOPTING THE SALE PRICE AS DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUE AUTHORITIES WHICH IN FACT CAN BE APPLIED IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASS ETS WHILE CALCULATING CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE FLATS IN QUESTION WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK IN TRADE AND THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM WAS COMPUTED UNDER TH E HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR P ROFESSION, TO WHICH SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND , THE LD. D . R . HAS STATED THAT WHILE ADOPTING THE VALUE OF STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPLIED SEC TION 50 C OF THE A CT BUT THE STAMP VALUE WAS ADOPTED ON THE REASONABLE FOOTING THAT THE SAME WAS THE FAIR AND CORRECT MARKET VALUE OF THE FLATS AT THE TIME OF SALE. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 831/M/10 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES 5 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES. 9. SO FAR THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF OR RESORT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, S INCE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE, THAT SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE OR HAS BEEN APPLIED I N THE PRESENT CASE, HENCE, NEITHER THERE IS ANY NECESSITY NOR WE THINK IT PROPER TO FURTHER DELIBERATE ON THIS ISSUE AS TO THE APPLICABIL I TY OF SECTION 50 C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME BEING NOT CONTESTED BY THE R EVENUE. 10. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED THE VALUE OF STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES WHILE ADOPTING THE SALE PRICE OF THE FLATS IN QUESTION. THE CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT TH E STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES CALCULATED THE AREA OF INDIVIDUAL FLAT AFTER VERIFICATION AND THUS IT WAS A CASE OF SALE OF MORE CARPET AREA THAN THAT WAS ACTUALLY MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT. HOWEVER , A PERUSAL OF THE READ RECKONER/ DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUC TIONS PRODUCED BEFORE US BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REVEALS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORIT I ES CALCULATE THE SALEABLE AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING OF STAMP DUTY IN A MECHANICAL MANNER ADOPTING THE FORMULA PROVIDED THEREIN, AND TH ERE REMAINS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT OR DENY THE SAME BUT TO PAY THE STAMP DUTY ARRIVED AFTER CALCULATIONS MADE ACCORDING TO THE SAID FORMULA. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID INSTRUCTIONS IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: STAMP DUTY TRUE MARKET VALE R EADY - RECKONER, 2009 IMPORTANT VALUATION GUIDELINES IMPORTANT DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR VALUING AREA AS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MUNICIPALITY AND VILLAGES AS PER THEIR MARKET VALUE. .... 6. CARPET AREA, BUILT - UP - AREA ITA NO. 831/M/10 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES 6 IF THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES F OR CARPET AREA THAN THE AUTHORITY SHALL CONVERT CARPET AREA TO BUILT - UP AREA. IF CARPET HAS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAN SUCH MENTIONED CARPET AREA SHALL BE TAKEN FOR CALCULATING STAMP DUTY, BUT IF VALU ATION PERTAINS TO OPEN PARKING AND TERRACE THAN MENTIONED AREA SHALL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. BUILT - UP - AREA = 1.2 X CARPET AREA OR CARPET AREA = BUILT UP AREA ____________ 1.2 THERE WAS MADE NO ACTUAL VERIFICATION OF THE CAR PET AREA OF THE FLATS IN QUEST ION BUT THE SAME WAS INCREASED/ CONVERTED INTO BUILT UP AREA IN A MECHANICAL MANNER ON THE BASIS OF FORMULA AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE/PURCHASER HAD TO PAY THE STAMP DUTY AS PER THE DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTI ONS AT A HIGHER RAT E ON THE BASIS OF SO INCREASED SALEABLE AREA CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTION/FORMULA, THAT ITSELF CAN NOT BE A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO HOLD THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE FLAT S WAS MORE THAN THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT, ESPECIALLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE/INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSE E HAD GIVEN JUSTIFICATION AS TO WHY THE FLATS COULD NOT FETCH THE HIGHEST MARKET P RICE SUCH AS NO PARKING SPACE AVAILABLE TO THE PURCHASERS AND OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS LIKE NOISE OF TRAINS AND TWO DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS IN THE SURROUNDINGS. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO SUPPRESS THE ACTUAL CARPET AREA OF THE FLAT AS IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT THAT CARPET AREA MENTIONED IN THE DEED WAS EXCLUSIVE OF AREA OF BALCONIES, NICHES AND DOOR JAMBS , IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT WELL FOUNDED. WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT THAT THE VALUE/COST OF BALCONY A REA WAS INCLUSIVE IN THE SALE VALUE OF THE CARPET AREA AND THE SAID AREA WAS EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE CARPET AREA, THEN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REASONABLE INFERENCE CAN BE THAT THE COST OF BALCONY AREA HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION AND EMBEDDED INTO, WHILE FIXING THE RATE ITA NO. 831/M/10 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES 7 OF CARPET AREA EXCLUSIVE OF AREA OF BALCONIES. THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND NOT BASED ON ANY PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE. 11. IT MAY BE FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF 'K.P. VARGHESE' (1981) 131 ITR 597 (S.C . ) HAS HELD THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT ACTUAL CONSIDERATION WAS MORE THAN THAT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN THIS CASE THE REVENUE HAS FAI LED TO DISCHARGE . THE R EVENUE COULD NOT BRING OUT ANY COGENT AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY EXTRA CONSIDERATION HAD CHANGED HANDS OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT . 12. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVEN ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALE PRICE OF THE AGREEMENT AND STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES IS HEREBY SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITIONS SO MADE ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELET ED. GROUND NO.2 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 25977235/ - . LETTERS WERE ISSUED TO THE CREDITORS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS CAME B ACK UNSERVED: A) ARUNA J KOTHARI : RS.100000/ - B) SATISH ARORA : RS.300000/ - T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE ABOVE PERSONS ALONG WITH IT RETURN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, BALANCE SHEETS, LEDGER ACCOUNT AND BANK STATEMENT ETC. BUT IT FAILED TO DO SO. HENCE , THE LOAN AMOUNT PERTAINING TO ABOVE PERSONS ALONG WITH INTEREST THEREON WAS ADDED INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS S ESSEE THAT ITA NO. 831/M/10 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES 8 THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE SAME. HOWEVER , THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT MERE FILING OF DETAILS LIKE COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME OR CAPITAL ACCOUNTS WITH THE RECEIPT CLERK/DAK WAS NOT SUFFICIENT RATHER THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS GROUND. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE, BEFORE US, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NECESSARY DETAILS LIKE CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS FROM THE CREDITORS, COPIES OF THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS, LEDGER ACCOUNT ETC WERE FILED. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER , VIDE LETTER DATED 15.11.2008 , WAS ALSO REQUESTED TO SU MMON THE CREDITORS TO FIND OUT THE GENUINE NE SS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPIES OF THE ABOVE SAID LETTERS AND CONFIRMATIONS ETC. PLACED AT PAGES 52, 53, 54, 120, 131 & 132 OF THE PAPER BO OK FILE D BEFORE US. THE LD. D . R . HAS RELIED UPON THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORD, WE FEEL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE SAME. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION A FRESH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GIVE PROPER OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE AND TO FILE ANY ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ETC. AND TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON MERITS AFTER MAKING THE REQUIRED VERIFICATION ETC . AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESS E E REGARDING THE GENUINE NE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. HE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO CALL FOR THE RECORD/SUMMON THE ITA NO. 831/M/10 M/S. YES ASSOCIATES 9 WITNESSES/PARTIES ETC. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.01. 201 4 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 08.01. 201 4 . * KISHORE COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT ( A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.