INDUS ELECTRONICS, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT CIR 20(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8615/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3802 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K BOTHRA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Source of fund; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 45(2); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.: 8615/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 INDUS ELECTRONICS INDUS HOUSE, B-53, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI 400 053 PAN : AACFI 0670 E ADDL. CIT., CIR 20(1), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. K. BOTHRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.04.2013 ORDER PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) 31, MUMBAI DATED 15.09.2010 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO INCREASING THE RENT RECE IVED FROM THE PROPERTY AT MUMBAI FROM RS.6,00,000/- TO RS.24,00,000/- BY THE AO AND THE SAME CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 2.1 BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE, A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS HAD SHOWN A RENTAL INCOME OF RS.6,00,000 /- (@ RS.50,000/- PER MONTH) AS RENT RECEIVED FROM M/S INDUS THE CO. PVT. LTD. IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3), THE A O DETERMINED THE RENT AT RS.24,00,000/- (@ 2,00,000/- PER MONTH) ON THE BASI S OF THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 18.06.2005 . ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ITA NO.: 8615/MUM/2010 INDUS ELECTRONICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGN ED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.2 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR HAS STATED THAT IN THE YEA R 2004-05, A SMALL PART OF THE BUILDING HAS BEEN GIVEN ON THE RENT TO M/S INDU S THE CO. PVT. LTD. ON A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.1,50,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN SUBSEQ UENTLY INCREASED TO RS.2,00,000/- PER MONTH AS IT HAS REQUIRED A BIGGER SPACE. HOWEVER, IN MARCH, 2005 THE TENANT INFORMED THAT THEY WOULD VACATE THE PREMISES WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2005 AND HAS AGREED TO OCCUPY SMALLER PLACE O N A MONTHLY RENT OF RS.50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR A NEW AGRE EMENT AND ALSO REFUNDED THE EXTRA SECURITY DEPOSIT. TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTION, THE LD.AR HAS DRAWN OWN ATTENTION TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE TENANT AND THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE TENANT REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF RENT PAID. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE LD.DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND AO IN SUPPORT OF TH E REVENUES CASE. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE LEDGER-OFFICE RENT ACCOUNT OF THE TENANT, INDUS THE CO. PVT. LTD, AVAILABLE AT PAGES 54-56 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TENANT DURING THE PREVIOUS YE AR TO THE RELEVANT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ONLY RS.6,00,000/- (@ RS.50,000/- PER MONTH). ALSO, THE PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C OF THE TENANT AVAILABLE AT PAGES 58 & 60 CONFIRMS THAT THE RENT PAID FOR THEIR OFFICES IS ONLY RS.6,00,000/-. THE ENTIRE CONFUSION THAT HAS CAUSED THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DETERMINING THE RENT AT RS.24,00,000/-, IN OUR VIEW, MIGHT BE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TENANT HAS PAID RS.1,50,000/- PER MONTH DURING 2004 & THE SAME INCREASED IN 31.03.200 5 TO RS.2,00,000/- PER MONTH. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS GOT REVISED TO RS.50,0 00/- PER MONTH THEREAFTER. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE TENANT COMPANY IS A PROFI T MAKING COMPANY AND HAS BEEN PAYING THE SAME RATE OF TAX AS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE . AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE TOTAL TAX WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER HAD IT BEEN A RENT AMOUNT OF RS.24.00 LACS. WHEN THE FACTS REMAIN SO, SIMPLE RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 01.04.2005 FOR DETERMINING THE RENT BY THE AO AND LD.CIT(A) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT REASONABLE AND JUST IFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE ITA NO.: 8615/MUM/2010 INDUS ELECTRONICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 3 THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND AO DETERMINING TH E RENT AT RS.24,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.6,00,000/-. THUS GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. 3. GROUND NO. 2 IS PROCEDURAL IN NATURE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DECISION OF THE LD.C IT(A) THAT RATEABLE VALUE OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST THE AO DETERMINING THE NOTIONAL RENT AT RS.1,00,000/-. 4.1. BRIEFLY, STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED TH E BOOK VALUE OF TWO PROPERTIES AT DELHI AND MADRAS AT RS.3,65,439/- AND RS.2,50,00 0/- RESPECTIVELY IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHILE NO RENTAL INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTI ES WAS DISCLOSED. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3), THE AO DETERMINED THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF BOTH THESE PROPERTIES AT RS.1,00,000/- (RS.50,00 0/- FOR EACH OF THE PROPERTY) U/S 23 OF THE ACT AND THUS ADDED BACK THE SAME TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 4.2 ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE RELYING ON VARIO US DECISIONS DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE MUNICIPAL VALUE AS THE ALV OF BOTH THE PROPERTIES AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESS THE SAME AS ITS HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. AGGRI EVED BY THE IMPUGNED DECISION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS GROUND IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.3 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS ONE OFFICE PREMISES IN DELHI WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OTHER OFFICE PREMISES IS SITUATED IN CHENNAI. HOWEVER, DU E TO SOME REASONS, THE OFFICES ARE NOT REGULARLY FUNCTIONING. THESE PREMISES HAVE NOT BEEN LET OUT TO ANYBODY. THESE PROPERTIES ARE BUSINESS ASSETS AND THERE IS N O QUESTION OF CALCULATING ANY RENT THEREON. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.DR HAS RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE. 4.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS GROUND A ND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT U/S 22 OF T HE ACT, THE PROPERTY THAT AN ASSESSEE OCCUPIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY BUSINESS O R PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM ITA NO.: 8615/MUM/2010 INDUS ELECTRONICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 4 IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS KEPT THE PROP ERTIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. ALSO IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE PROPERTY HAS NEVER BEEN LET OUT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING EITHER THE NOTIONAL RENT OR COMPUTING THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF ALV SINCE THE FACTS DO NOT A TTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 22 AND 23. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE DECISIONS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS COUNT AND GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. 5. GROUND NO. 4 RELATE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF VARIO US EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.15,45,982/- 5.1 BRIEFLY SATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED RENTAL I NCOME AND PROFIT ON SALE OF UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN INDUS HOUSE DURING THE RELEV ANT ACCOUNTING YEAR AGAINST WHICH IT CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.22,52,600/-. HOWEVE R, IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3), THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF PROFE SSIONAL FEES (RS.2,67,129/-) REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE (RS.3,85,332/-), B.M.C. (RS .2,79,181/-), LABOUR CHARGES (RS.3,83,933/-) AND NET OF RECEIPT FROM MEMBERS (RS .2,33,407/-) TOTALLY AMOUNTING TO RS.15,45,982/- AS THESE EXPENSES INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINED TO THE UNSOLD STOCK WHICH HAD TO BE CAPIT ALISED AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5.2 ON APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DISMISSING THE RE LEVANT GROUND OF APPEAL ALLOWED THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REL EVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 6.2 OF HIS ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: 6.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. FROM THE SAME, AS I FIND THE APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUI LDING CALLED INDUS HOUSE. A PART OF THE CONSTRUCTED PORTION IS SOLD B Y THE APPELLANT AND THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE SHOWN AS ITS REVENUE RECEIPTS. TH EREFORE, DULY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THESES FACTS, I FIND THAT THE AP PELLANT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE NOT RELATED TO ITS INCOME ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPELLANT HAD ONLY TWO SOURCES OF INCOME I.E INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY AND INCOME FROM SALE OF UNITS IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED. THE REFORE, THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO.: 8615/MUM/2010 INDUS ELECTRONICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 5 ORDER, TO MY CONSIDERED OPINION IS REQUIRED TO BE P ROPORTIONATELY CAPITALIZED AS PART OF UNSOLD STOCK IN TRADE OR WOR K IN PROGRESS. THE CONTENTION OF THE AR THAT A PART OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS IN THE NATURE OF MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING WHICH IS PART LY REIMBURSED BY THE PARTIES TO WHOM A PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS ALREAD Y SOLD OUT, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT NO SUCH INCO ME OR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES RECEIVED IS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO NOT ASCERTAINED ON WHAT BAS IS THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING THE PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE EXPENSE TO THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING WHICH IS ALREADY SOLD OUT BY IT. FURTHER, THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT NO SOCIETY IS FORMED FOR THIS PURPOSE ARE NOT REBUTTED BY THE AR. THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT IS DIRECT LY CONNECTED TO ITS CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, ON ACCOUNT OF T HESE UNDISPUTED FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS DISCUSSED ABOVE,, THE ALTERNAT IVE SUBMISSION OF THE AR; BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF PROPORTIONATE EXPENSE TO BE CAPITALIZED AGAINST THE UNSOLD PORTION OF THE BUILDING, IS ACCE PTED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO TO THIS EXTENT IS C ONFIRMED BY TREATING THE SAME AS PART OF ITS CLOSING STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE REFORE, THE MAIN GROUND RAISED IS DISMISSED BUT THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION MADE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IS ALLOWED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFOR E, PARTLY ALLOWED. 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN TOTO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS COUNT AND THU S THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 4 IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 3,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AS A GAINST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. 6.1 BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A TOTAL O F 4415 SQ.FT. OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,94,38, 250/- AGAINST WHICH IT HAD SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS.1,40,35,278/- DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD SHOWN RS.23,0 4,916/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AGAINST WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.2 3,00,000/- U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED, THE AO HAD REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON PROPORTIONATE S ALE OF LAND U/S 45(2) OF THE ACT AND HELD THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME CONTENDING THA T THE ASSESSEE FIRM RECEIVED THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND NOT A S A PIECE OF LAND WHICH HAD TO BE COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT (A) UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE ITA NO.: 8615/MUM/2010 INDUS ELECTRONICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 6 AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED DECISION, THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED THIS GROUND IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US. 6.2 THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE SAID LAND ON WH ICH INDUS HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THE UNITS THEREON WERE SOLD WAS PUR CHASED BY THE RUIA TRUST CREATED OR SETTLED BY THE GRANDMOTHER OF THE BENEFI CIARIES OF THE TRUST IN THE YEAR 1977. HOWEVER, DUE TO CERTAIN DISPUTES THE PROPERTY WAS NOT CONVEYED OR REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE TRUST. OUT OF THE TOT AL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,25,000/- ONLY A SUM OF RS.70,000/- WAS PAID AN D BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,55,000/- WAS PAID LATER ON AS PER THE NEW AGRE EMENT DATED 31.08.1981 AS NOTED IN THE LEGAL OPINION GIVEN BY SHRI VIJAY PATE L FOUND AND IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CARRIED OUT U/S 133A OF THE AC T AS ON 09.10.2007. ULTIMATELY, AS PER THE CONSENT TERMS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE M UMBAI HIGH COURT, THE SAID PROPERTY AS REGISTERED AND THE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 30.08.1987. THEREAFTER, THE SAID LAND WAS HELD AS CO-OWNER PROP ERTY BY THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST. THE TRUST WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF TRADING OF AIR CONDITIONING SPARES AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. LAT ER ON, THE PROPERTY OF THE LAND WAS DEVELOPED BY CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING CALLED IN DUS HOUSE BY THE CO-OWNERS STARTED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 AND IT WAS CO MPLETED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. ON COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE B UILDING, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD CERTAIN UNITS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND CER TAIN UNITS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. MAJOR PART OF THE BUILDING WAS UNSOLD. DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IT HAD SOLD 4415 SQ.FT. OF SPACE FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,94,38,240/- OUT OF WHIC H THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED AS ITS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 45(2) OF RS.23,04,916/- AND BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.1,36,10,362/-. 6.3 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR HAS TAKEN THE SAME CONTENT IONS AS RAISED EARLIER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN PARA 7.2 AT PAGE NO. 16 OF ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.DR HAS DRAW N OUR ATTENTION TO THE ITA NO.: 8615/MUM/2010 INDUS ELECTRONICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 7 RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND AO AND RELIE D ON THEIR ORDERS IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 6.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS GRO UND AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE WHETHER THE INCOME ON SALE OF UNITS IN THE BUILDING CALLED INDUS HOUSE IS TO BE ASSESSED AS ITS BUSIN ESS INCOME AS HELD BY THE AO & THE LD.CIT(A) OR TO BE ASSESSED PROPORTIONATELY AS BUSINESS INCOME AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DEPENDS ON THE PROOF OF TWO ALLEGED EVENTS NAMELY, THE SETTING UP OF THE FIRM AND CONVE RSION OF CAPITAL ASSET IN TO STOCK IN TRADE. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF THE LD.AR T HAT THE FIRM HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE BY WAY OF ORAL AGREEMENT ON 01.04.1992, I N OUR VIEW IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY ANY EVIDENCE HENCE THE SAME RESULTS IN THE PRESU MPTION THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE ONLY ON 30.11.2005 AS HELD BY THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE CONSEQUENTIAL RESULT FROM THE SAID PRESUMPTION NEGATIVES THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT HAS CONVERTED THE CA PITAL ASSET INTO STOCK IN TRADE ON 01.04.1999. IN VIEW OF THAT MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN HOL DING THE IMPUGNED INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. ACCO RDINGLY, GROUND NO. 5 IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 10.04.2013 RASIKA* COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T., CONCERNED MUMBAI ITA NO.: 8615/MUM/2010 INDUS ELECTRONICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 8 4. CIT (A) CONCERNED MUMBAI 5. THE DR, I - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI