ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI V. NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (I) P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8579/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5082 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYANKA GADA; SUNIL M MALA
• Section: 115JB; 147; 37

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - B BENCH. . .. . . .. . , ,, , !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ , ' ' ' ' %& %& %& %& BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARVA,PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 8579/MUM/2011 , ' ' ' ' ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04 ACIT 10(1), 455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M.K.MARG MUMBAI- 400020 VS. NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (I) PVT. LTD. 303, CENTRAL PLAZA, 166, CST ROAD, KALINA, MUMBAI- 400098 PAN:AAACN3781E ( )* / APPELLANT ) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT ) +, ' +, ' +, ' +, ' /. C.O. NO. 251/MUM/2012 , ' ' ' ' ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04 (A RISING OUT OF ITA NO. 8579/MUM/2011) NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (I) PVT. LTD.(NOW AMALGAMATED WITH NEW HOLLAND FIAT (I) P. LTD. 303, CENTRAL PLAZA, 166, CST ROAD, KALINA, MUMBAI- 400098 VS. ACIT 10(1), 455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M.K.MARG MUMBAI- 400020 PAN:AAACN3781E ( )* / APPELLANT ) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT ) /. ITA NO. 5282/MUM/2011 , ' ' ' ' ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 ACIT 10(1), 455, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M.K.MARG MUMBAI- 400020 VS. NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (I) PVT. LTD. (NOW NEW HOLLAND FIAT (I) P. LTD. 303, CENTRAL PLAZA, 166, CST ROAD, KALINA, MUMBAI - 4000 98 PAN:AAACN3781E ( )* / APPELLANT ) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT ) )* )* )* )* - - - - ' '' ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL M. MALA & PRIYANKA GADA +,)* . - ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ' ' ' ' . .. . /0 /0 /0 /0 / DATE OF HEARING : 18 -12-2013 12( . /0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-12-2013 PER BENCH: CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-21,MUMBAI,ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED APPEAL/CROSS OBJECTION(CO) FOR THE AY.2003-04 . FOR THE AY.2007-08,ONLY AO HAS FILED APPEAL. FOR THE AY.2003-04,AO HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY MADE BY THE A.O. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENTS IN BOOK PROFITS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY. 2 ITA NO.8579 & 5282/MUM/2011 NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (I) PVT. LTD. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENTS IN BOOK PROFITS MADE BY THE AO ON A CCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR GRATUITY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADJUSTMENTS IN BOOK PROFITS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, OR ALTER ANY G ROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE CROSS-OB JECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN R EOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE REASSESSMENT ORDER P ASSED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE QUASHED. 3.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING ON THE ALTERNATE GROUND THAT IN THE EV ENT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY NOT BEING ALLOWED, DEDUCTION AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF PAYMENT MADE DU RING THE YEAR BE ALLOWED. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, DELETE, RECTIFY, SUBSTITUTE AND MODIFY ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G THE APPEAL. AO HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE AY .2007-08: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,79,328/- TO BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115J HOLDING T HAT THE PROVISION TOWARDS WARRANTIES REPRESENTED ACCRUED/ASCERTAINED LIABILITY.: 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, OR ALTER ANY G ROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU FACTURING AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS, COMPONENTS.DETAILS OF DATES OF FILING OF RETURNS,IN COMES RETURNED,DATES OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSED INCOMES, DATES OF ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)CAN BE SUMMAR ISED AS UNDER : DT.OF FILING OF RETURN RETURNED INCOME (RS.) DATE OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSED INCOME DT. OF ORDERS OF CIT(A) 2003-04 27.11.2003 (-) 26,75,48,290 11.11.2010 41,8 8,37,950 21.09.2011 2007-08 26.10.2007 NIL XXX 91,28,08,74 0 05.04.2011 ITA/8579/MUM/2011-AY.2003-04: FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS FOR WARRANTY MADE BY THE AO.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE WARRANTED EACH PART OF THE PRODUCT SOLD FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD.FOR THE SAID WARR ANTY OBLIGATION ASSESSEE MADE A PROVISION OF RS.1.88 CORES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON A CCOUNT OF ANTICIPATED CLAIMS FOR WARRANTY.AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AMOUNT FOR WARRANTY WAS A M ERE PROVISION ,THAT SAME WAS UNASCERTAINED AND HENCE NOT ALLOWABLE. 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 THE 3 ITA NO.8579 & 5282/MUM/2011 NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (I) PVT. LTD. ASSESSEE HAD BOOKED SALE OF ITS PRODUCTS FOR THE YE AR UNDER APPEAL AND WARRANTY EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE,THAT ASSESSEE HAD SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINE D THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR WARRANTY WAS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND PAST PRACTICE /EXPERIENCE OF THE EARLIER YEARS,THAT PROVISION FOR SUCH WARRANTY WAS DEBITED IN P&L ACCOUNT AT RS. 1.88 CRORES,THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE YEAR WAS AT RS.1.63 CRORES,THAT THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE AND THE PROVISION WERE VERY NEAR,THAT THE PROVISION MADE WAS NOT ARBITRARY IN NATURE OR WAS NOT A BLIND PROVISION,THE PROVISION WAS NOT AN UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY.REFERR ING TO THE JUDGMENT OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS DELIVERED BY THE SUPREME COURT HE ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE AO.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE WAS COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF BE CTON DICKINSON INDIA PVT.LTD.(83CCH 73). HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF INDIAN OIL TANK ING LTD.OF THE E BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL(120ITD237). 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAD GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS FOLLO WING A SCIENTIFIC METHOD BASED ON THE PAST EXPERIENCE.WE FIND THAT FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUS ION THAT A LOGICAL SYSTEM WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE,FAA HAD CONSIDERED THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE.WE FIND THAT ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF WARRANTY OF PROVISIONS WAS DEALT AN D DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA P.LTD(314ITR62) IN FO LLOWING MANNER : THE PRESENT VALUE OF A CONTINGENT LIABILITY, LIKE THE WARRANTY EXPENSE, IF PROPERLY ASCERTAINED AND DISCOUNTED ON ACCRUAL BASIS CAN BE AN ITEM OF DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 37. THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTIMATION OF THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY IS NOT THE N ORMAL RULE.IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS, THE NATURE OF SALES, THE NATURE OF THE PR ODUCT MANUFACTURED AND SOLD AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WO ULD ALSO DEPEND UPON THE HISTORICAL TREND AND UPON THE NUMBER OF ARTICLES PRODUCED. A PROVISION IS A LIABILITY WHICH CAN BE MEASURED ON LY BY USING A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE OF ESTIMATION. A PROVISION IS RECOGNIZED WHEN : (A) AN ENTERPRISE HAS A PRESENT OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF A PAST EVENT ; (B) IT IS PROBABLE THAT AN OUTFLOW OF RESOU RCES WILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE OBLIGATION, AND (C) A RELIABLE ESTIMATE CAN BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT O F THE OBLIGATION. IF THESE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, NO PROVISION CAN BE RECOGNIZED. THE PRINCIPLE IS THAT IF THE HISTORICAL TREND INDIC ATES THAT A LARGE NUMBER OF SOPHISTICATED GOODS WERE BEING MANUFACTURED IN THE PAST AND THE FACTS S HOW THAT DEFECTS EXISTED IN SOME OF THE ITEMS MANUFACTURED AND SOLD, THEN PROVISION MADE FOR WARR ANTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH SOPHISTICATED GOODS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FROM THE GROSS RECEI PTS UNDER SECTION 37 . IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAD AN OBL IGATION AS RESULT OF PAST EVENT AND A RELIABLE ESTIMATE COULD BE MADE OF THE AMOUNT OF OBLIGATION. NOT ONLY THIS HISTORICAL TREND INDICATED LARGE NUMBER OF GOODS WERE SOLD AND IN THE SOLD ITEM DEFE CT EXISTED TO SOME EXTENT.SO,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FAA HAD RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 3. NEXT THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL(GOA-2,3AND4) ARE ABOUT DELETING THE ADJUSTMENTS IN BOOK PROFITS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION OF WARRANTY, PROVISION FOR GRATUITY AND PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT ASSESSEE-COMP ANY HAD NOT ADDED PROVISIONS MADE UNDER THE ABOVE REFERRED THREE HEADS I.E.UNDER THE HEADS WARR ANTY (RS.1. 88 CRORES.),GRATUITY(14.75LACS), AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT (RS.31.68 LACS).THEREFORE,HE ADDED ALL THE PROVISIONS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT. 3.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO,ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,HE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS MADE FOR 4 ITA NO.8579 & 5282/MUM/2011 NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (I) PVT. LTD. WARRANTY WERE BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE AND SCIENTIF IC METHOD,THAT SAME WERE NOT ARBITRARY OR UNASCERTAINED OR CONTINGENT.WITH REGARD TO THE PROV ISIONS OF GRATUITY,HE HELD THAT SAME WERE MADE ON BASIS OF ACTUARIAL VALUATION AND COULD NOT BE T ERMED UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY,THAT WORD PROVISION HAD BEEN USED AGAINST THE EXPENSES INCURRED.DEALING WITH ISSUE OF PROVISIONS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT HE HELD THAT PROVISIONS WERE BASED ON UN-AVAILED CR EDIT OF LEAVE BY THE EMPLOYEES, THAT SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS CONTINGENT LIABILITY.HE HEL D THAT PROVISIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE,UNDER ALL THE THREE HEADS WERE IN THE NATURE OF ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND SAME WERE NOT LIABLE TO BE ADDED BACK TO BOOK PROFIT. 3.2. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR)RELIED UP ON THE ORDER OF THE AO.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE OF PROVISIO N FOR WARRANTY WAS ALLOWABLE U/S.115JB WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF INDIAN OIL TANKING LTD.(SUPRA),THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND DELHI HAVE HELD THAT PROV ISION FOR GRATUITY WAS ALLOWABLE U/S.115JB IN THE CASES OF INOX LEISURE LTD.(84CCH70)AND ILPEA PA RAMOUNT(P) LTD.(336 ITR54)RESPECTIVELY, THAT IN THE MATTER OF H P TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPO RATION LTD.(35 TAXMANN.COM.450)THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE H ONBLE HIGH COURT OF HP. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE ARE AWARE THAT SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE ST ATUTE WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND IT DEALS WITH SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF TAX BY CERTAIN COM PANIES.EXPLANATION TO SECTION 2 PROVIDES THE LIST OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE TO BE INCLUDED OR EXCLUD ED WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT. AS PER EXPLANATION THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS SET ASIDE TO PROV ISIONS MADE FOR MEETING LIABILITIES, OTHER THAN ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES HAVE TO BE INCLUDED WHILE C OMPUTING BOOK PROFIT.IN OTHER WORDS IF ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES ARE THERE SAME CANNOT BE AD DED WHILE COMPUTING ALTERNATE MINIMUM TAX.IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION,PROVISIONS MADE UNDER THE HEAD GRATUITY,WARRANTY AND LEAVE ENCASHMENT ARE NOT CONTINGENT/UNASCERAINED AND THER EFORE SAME CANNOT BE ADJUSTED WHILE COMPUTING BOOK-PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN OIL TANKING LTD. (SUPRA)MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT PROVISION FOR WARRANTY IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND CANNOT BE ADDED BACK FOR COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT.DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF PROV ISION FOR GRATUITY TO BE CONSIDERED FOR MAT PURPOSES,HONBLE GUJARAT HC IN THE CASE OF INOX LEI SURE LTD.(SUPRA)HAS HELD THAT ADDITION OF GRATUITY AS UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY UNDER CLAUSE (C ) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 115JB WAS NOT WARRANTED.WE FUTHER FIND THAT THE HONBLE HP HIGH C OURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE,OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE COMPUTATION OF BOO K PROFIT,IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.IN THAT MATTER AO HAD HELD THAT PROVISION TOWARDS LEAVE ENC ASHMENT OF EMPLOYEES WAS UNASCERTAINED LIABILITY AND ADDED IT BOOK PROFIT.FAA UPHELD HIS O RDER.IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE,TRIBUNAL REVERSED HIS ORDER.DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE,HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED CONTINGENT LIABILITY FOR COMPUTING BOOK- PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT.RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH C OURTS AND THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH WE DECIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2,3 AND 4 AGAINST TH E AO. CO/251//MUM/12-AY.2003-04: 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AR SUBMITTED THAT IF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO WAS DISMISSED,CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BECOME INF RUCTUOUS. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO,WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUES ON MERITS AND H AVE DECIDED ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST HIM,THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT NEED ADJUDICATION,AS THEY ARE ACADEMIC IN NATURE. ITA/5282/MUM/2011-AY.2007-08: 5 ITA NO.8579 & 5282/MUM/2011 NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (I) PVT. LTD. 5. ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE AO FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ABOUT PROVISION FOR WARRANTY,AMOUNTING TO RS.46.79LACS,TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTING BOOK-PROFIT U/S.115JB.AO HAD ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROF IT,BUT FAA DELETED IT.WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE AO WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2003-04.FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAIN ST THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEALS FILED BY THE AO FOR THE AYS.200 3-04 AND 2007-08 STAND DISMISSED.CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS TREATED AS DISMISSED . 3 &4 ' 3/ 0 5 %6 . 7 '..2 003-04 /) 2007-08 . ? '!@ . !/ AB.' / ' +, ' '!@ ' ! A AB. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. 20 TH DECEMBER,2013 . %'C . 12( ' # ? D%' 20 D% , 2013 2 . 7. SD/- SD/- ( . . - H.L.KARWA) ( !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ / RAJENDRA) / PRESIDENT ' ' ' ' %& %& %& %& /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, D%' /DATE: 20.12.2013 SK %'C %'C %'C %'C . .. . +/E +/E +/E +/E F'E(/ F'E(/ F'E(/ F'E(/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / )* 2. RESPONDENT / +,)* 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A / G H , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / G H 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / EI7 +/' , . . # . 6. GUARD FILE/ 7 J ,E/ ,E/ ,E/ ,E/ +/ +/+/ +/ //TRUE COPY// %'C' / BY ORDER, K / A ! DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI