SILVER LAND DEVELOPES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 10(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 8444/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1709 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBODH RATNAPARKHI
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Retrospective amendment; Revised return; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (A.M.) AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, J.M. ITA NO. 8444/MUM /2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S SILVER LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 333, KAILASH PLAZA, VALLABH BAUG LANE, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI 400 077. PAN AAGCS9765H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2)(4), 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SUBODH RATNAPARKHI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN DATE OF HEARING 09-01-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08-03-2013 O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) -22, MUMBAI DTD. 9-9-2010 WHEREBY HE CONFIRM ED THE PENALTY OF RS. 13,31,915/- IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY WH ICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTIO N OF BUILDING. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION W AS FILED BY IT ON 31-10-2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,79,610/- AFTER CLAIMING ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 2 DEDUCTION OF RS. 81,99,000/- U/S 80IB(10) OF THE AC T. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED VARIOUS EXPENSES TO THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WERE ACTUALLY NOT RELATED TO TH E PROJECT, INCOME OF WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX. THE SAID EXPENSES WERE R ELATED TO THE PROJECTS WHICH WERE YET TO COMMENCE. WHEN THIS POSITION WAS CONFRONTED BY THE A.O. TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LATER ADMITTED THE SAME A ND OFFERED TO TAX A SUM OF RS. 31,58,467/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE O F SUCH EXPENSES BY FILING THE REVISED RETURN. THE A.O. HOWEVER FURTHER FOUND THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN OTHER EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,47,000/- WHICH WERE NOT RELATED TO THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE AT KALYAN, I NCOME OF WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX, BUT THE SAME WERE RELATED TO THE PR OJECTS WHICH HAD NOT COMMENCED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE THER EFORE MADE A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,47,000/- IN ADDITION TO THE DISALLOWANCE ORIGINALLY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED I NCOME, THUS MAKING A TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 38,05,470/-. IN ADDITION, THE A.O. ALSO DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 81,99,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM PROC EEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HE, HOWEVER, CONFIRMED TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,47,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATING TO THE PROJECT NOT COMMENCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 3 3. AS A RESULT OF DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES PERTAINING TO THE PROJECTS WHICH HAD NO T COMMENCED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY THE A.O. AND SINCE THERE WAS NO E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE A.O. IN RES PONSE TO THE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SAID P ROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY OF RS. 13,31,915/- U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 38,05,470/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES RELATING TO THE PROJECTS YET TO BE COMMENC ED HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IT S INCOME TO THAT EXTENT. 4. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED ON ITS BEHALF BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) T HAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE DUL Y FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED ALONG WI TH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EXPENSES WAS NOT DOUBTED OR DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE ALLOWA BLE NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ON COMMENCEMENT OF THE CORRESPONDING PROJECTS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE PURELY OF REVENUE NATU RE AND THE SAME WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE BONAFIDE BEL IEF THAT THE SAME ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 4 WERE ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE B EFORE HIM AS ABOVE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. CIT(A) A ND HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA NO. 5 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PERUS ED THE PENALTY ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO DISC USSED THE CASE WITH THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT. A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED VARIOUS EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT RELATED TO THE PROJECT INCOME WHICH WAS OF FERED FOR TAXATION OR WERE RELATED TO THE PROJECT WHICH WERE YET TO COMME NCE AND ALSO EXEMPT PROJECTS. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE P ROFESSIONAL FEES, TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND INTEREST ON LOAN HAS NOT BEE N FULLY OFFERED FOR TAX. ON BEING POINTED OUT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED AND OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 31,58,463/- FOR TAXATION BY WAY OF FILING A REVISED RETURN. THIS REVISED RETURN WAS BEYOND TIME AND HENCE WAS TREATE D AS PIECE OF INFORMATION BY A.O. FURTHER, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,3 7,000/- WAS MADE WHICH INCLUDES RS. 4 LAC, RS. 2 LAC AND RS.47,000/- OUT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES RELATABLE TO THE PROJECTS, INCOME OF WHICH WERE NOT TAXABLE. BEFORE ME IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS S EEKING APPROVAL FOR JAYCOACH PROJECT FOR EXEMPTION REGARDING WHICH THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INDIRECT EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE CLAI MED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, I DO NOT FIND THIS FACT AS HA VING BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER PARA 51 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. SINCE THE SA ME NOT FOUND ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE AT ALL TO WHICH THE ASSESS EE ALSO AGREED AND FILED REVISED RETURN. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 6,4 7,000/-, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE ADDITION IS ON AD-HOC BASIS. HOWEVER, I FI ND THAT THIS EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND ALLOWABLE BY THE A.O . SINCE THE PROJECTS DID NOT COMMENCE AT ALL. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SU BSTANTIATE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS RELATABLE TO THE PROJECT AS GENUINE EXPENDITURE OR RELATED TO A PARTICULAR PROJECT. THE APPELLANT FURT HER CLAIMED THAT THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HOWEVER, IN T HE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA V. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (2008) 306 J TR 277, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THEIR ORDER DATED 29.9.2008 HAVE H ELD THAT THE OBJECT BEHIND ENACTING SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANA TION INDICATES THAT THE SAID SECTION HAS BEEN ENACTED TO PROVIDE A REME DY FOR LOSS OF ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 5 REVENUE. PENALTY U/S. 271(L)(C) IS A CIVIL LIABILI TY. WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING A CIVIL LIA BILITY AS IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION U/S. 276C. IF RECORD BEFORE A.O CAN SUS TAIN THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN TH E PENALTY. IN VIEW OF THIS OBSERVATION OF HONBLE COURT, THE A0. WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CLAIMS THAT HE W AS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS REVENUE EXPEND ITURE. HOWEVER, BY WAY OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE PRO JECTS WHICH WERE EXEMPT OR WHICH HAS NOT COMMENCED AT ALL THE ACTION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE BONAFIDE. IN VIEW OF THIS, I A GREE WITH THE A.O. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET I NVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143( 3) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED BY THE A.O. SPECIFICALLY IN RESPEC T OF ADDITION MADE BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH SATISFACTION, HOWEV ER, WAS SPECIFICALLY RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH SATISFACTION , THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS VOID AB IN ITIO. ON MERIT, HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE COMMON EXPENSES OF GENERAL A ND ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIBLE AS PER THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED REGULARLY BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE SAID EXPENSES, ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 6 HOWEVER, WERE RELATED TO THE PROJECTS WHICH HAD NOT COMMENCED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WHEN THIS POSITION WAS BROUGHT BY THE A.O. TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LATER ACCEPTED T HE DISALLOWANCE BY FILING REVISED RETURN KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTION O N ACCOUNT OF THE SAID EXPENSES WAS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ON THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CORRESPONDING PROJECTS. HE CON TENDED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EXPENSES, HOWEVER, WAS NOT DOUBTED OR DISPUTED BY THE A.O. AND THE SAME WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF AS PER THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED REGULA RLY. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (201 0) 322 ITR 158 SC), HE CONTENDED THAT ALL THE MATERIAL PARTICULARS RELA TING TO THE SAID EXPENSES HAVING BEEN FULLY AND TRULY FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSEE ATTRACTING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. 7. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES HAVING BEEN SPECIFICALLY MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THERE BEING A DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE SAID ORDER FOR I NITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE SATISFACTI ON TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDING IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES W AS DEEMED TO BE RECORDED BY THE A.O. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 271(1B) OF THE ACT INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT (2008) IN THE STATUTE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 7 FROM 1-4-1989. ON MERIT, THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ABOUT TH E LACK OF SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O. FOR INITIATING PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID DISALLOWANCE HAVING BEEN SPECIFICALLY MADE BY THE A .O. IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THERE B EING A SPECIFIC DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE SAID ORDER TO ISSUE NOTI CE U/S 271(1)(C), THE SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS EVEN IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WAS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN RE CORDED BY THE A.O. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1B) OF SECTIO N 271 INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT (2008) WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 -4-1989. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND OVERRULING THE SAME, WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT. IN THIS REGARD I T IS OBSERVED THAT ALL THE ROUTINE EXPENSES OF GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE NATU RE SUCH AS ADVERTISEMENT AND SUBSCRIPTION, ARCHITECT FEES, PRO FESSIONAL FEES, TELEPHONE CHARGES, INTEREST ON LOAN ETC. INCURRED D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUC TION. ACCORDING TO ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 8 THE A.O., THE SAID EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT RELATING TO THE PROJECTS NOT YET COMMENCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION WERE ALLOWABLE ONLY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHEN THE CORR ESPONDING PROJECTS WERE TO COMMENCE. HE THEREFORE WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THAT EXTENT WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THIS POSITION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY OFFERING THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE REVISED RETURN. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE GENUINENESS OF THE SA ID EXPENSES, HOWEVER, WAS NOT DOUBTED OR DISPUTED BY THE A.O. AND THERE I S NOTHING IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO DOUBT THE BONAFI DE OF THE ASSESSEE IN CLAIMING THE SAID EXPENSES AS PER THE PRACTICE CONS ISTENTLY FOLLOWED. MOREOVER, ALL THE MATERIAL PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE SAID CLAIM MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION MADE BY THE A.O. THAT ANY SUCH PARTICULA RS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND MERELY BECAUSE THUS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED, PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(C) CANNOT BE ATTRACTED ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO ALLEGATION TH AT ANY PARTICULARS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO HIS CLAIM WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 9 EXPENSES WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT TH E SAME WERE NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT WERE ALLOWABLE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ON COMMENCEMENT OF THE CORRESPONDIN G PROJECTS WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE DISPUTE WAS ONLY RELATING TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE AND NOT ABOUT THE VERY DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE SAID EXPENSES AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME WAS NE ITHER DISPUTED NOR DOUBTED AT ANY STAGE. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE F ACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1(C) OF THE ACT AND THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. AND CON FIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. ACCORDINGLY WE C ANCEL THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08-03-2013. SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 08-03-2013. RK ITA NO. 8444/MUM/2010 10 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 22, MUMBA I 4. CIT 10, MUMBAI. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH E, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI