SMITA ASHOK CHANSIKAR, THANE V. ITO 4(4), MUMBAI

ITA 8717/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71948 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption; Revised return

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BEN CH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.8717/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2007-08 SMITA ASHOK CHANSIKAR ASMITA BUNGALOW, SAVARKAR MARG, NEAR DAYA SMRUTI MARG, VIRAR (E), THANE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4) PAN:- AAVPC5178M APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI MANDAR VAIDYA RESPONDENT BY SMT. PARMINDER ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) DATED 26 TH AUGUST 2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. GROUNDS O F APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING EXISTING BINDING JUDGMENT OF MUMBAI INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL F BENCH IN THE CASE OF VILAS SUDAM SAWANT SBI EOS EMPLOYEE ITA NO. 6016 /M/07 DATED 6.10.2008. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING JUDGMENT OF PUNE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F MARUTI S. GHEJI SBI EOS LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING 17-12-2013 ?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17-12-2013 - 2 - EMPLOYEE ITA NO. 578/PN/2010 DATED 28.9.2010 AND IN THE CASE OF HARIBHAU SALI SBI EOS EMPLOYEE ITA NO. 1429/PN/2009/07-08 DATED 2 5.3.2011. THE CLAIM U/S 10(10C) SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING JUDGMENT OF AHAMADABAD INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PANDYA VINOD SBI EOS EMPLOYEE ITA NO. 1492/AHD/2010 DATED 30.7.2010 AND IN THE CASE OF BIKRAMJIT PASSI SBI EOS EMPLOYEE ITA NO. 925/CHD/20 11 DATED 9.11.2011. THE CLAIM U/S 10(10C) SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT DECISION IN SLP (CIVIL) NO. 7717 OF 1990 WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY LAID DOWN THAT THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED UNR ESERVEDLY BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE CLAIM U/S 10(10C) SHOULD BE ALLOWE D ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 5. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF RBI OERS EMPLOYEES R EPORTED 309 ITR 113 WHICH CLEARLY HELD THAT THE PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS VRS SCHEM ES ARE COMPLYING RULE 2BA R.W. SEC. 10(10C). THE CLAIM U/S 10(10C) SHOULD BE ALLOW ED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 6. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ORDER ISSUED BY CIT II THANE ON THE DIRECTIONS OF T HE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WRIT PETITION NO. 1051 OF 2010 THAT ALLOWED SEC. 10(10C) EXEMPTIONS TO THE SBI EXIT OPTION EMPLOYEES. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ORDER IS BAD ON FACTS SINCE HONBLE CIT II THANE ISSUED A CLARIF ICATION IN THE ABOVE CASE CONFIRMING ALLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIM U/S 10(10C). T HE CLAIM U/S 10(10C) SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 7. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ON MERIT ALSO EACH AND EVERY CLAUSE OF RULE 2B A IS COMPLIED IN THE CASE OF SBI - 3 - EXIT OPTION SCHEME. THE CLAIM U/S 10(10C) SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE CONTENTIONS BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND I S AN EX EMPLOYEE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HE OPTED FOR EXIT OPTION SCHEME OF SBI. ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN AT AN INCOME OF RS. 7,83,520/-. SUBSEQUENTLY BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN, EXEMPTION OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS CLAIMED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(10C) . ACCORDING TO THE AO THE VRS FLOATED BY THE BANK WAS NOT AS PER THE PRESCRIB ED GUIDELINES LAID DOWN IN RULE 2BA OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THEREFORE, THE AO DID NOT ALLOW EXEMPTION OF RS. 5,00,000/-. 3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) WHO HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF CIT( A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER SIMILAR CASES. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL DATED 11/9/2013 IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- I). ITA NO. 8719/MUM/2011 IN THE CASE OF MRS. NIRMA LA S. SHETTY VS. ITO 1(2) THANE II) ITA NO. 8720/MUM/2011 IN THE CASE OF MRS. MRUDU L S PARULKAR VS. ITO 1(2) THANE III) ITA NO. 8764/MUM2011 IN THE CASE OF MANMOHAN D KELKAR VS. ITO 1(2) THANE IV) ITA NO. 8765/MUM/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRABH AKAR T CHAVAN VS. ACIT CIR 4, THANE V) ITA NO. 8766/MUM/2011 IN THE CASE OF MRS. MANASI W KULAKARNI VS. ITO 1(2) THANE - 4 - VI) ITA NO. 8825/MUM/2011 IN THE CASE OF MRS. NATAL AUGUSTINE DMELLO VS. ITO 1(2) THANE (COPY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER WAS PLACED ON REC ORD AND WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE LD. DR.) 5. THE ISSUE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS WAS DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPE ALS IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS BIKRAM JIT PASSI IN ITA NO.925/CHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 09.11.2011 PANDYA VINODCHANDRA BHOGILAL 133 TU 2513, ORDER DA TED 30.07.2O10 VILAS SUDAM SAWANT IN ITA NO.6016/M/2007 FOR AY 2006- 07, ORDER DATED 06.10.2008 MARUTI SOMAPPA GHEJI IN ITA NO. 578/PN/2010 FOR AY 2007-08, ORDER DATED 28.09.2010 SHRI ROHITKUMAR KANTILAL IN HA 969/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2008- 09, ORDER DATED 05.05.2011 3 ASAPU BABU RAO IN ITA NO.516/VIZAG/2010 FOR AY 2007- 08, ORDER DATED 05.01.2011 KEERTI SAWA VEERABHADRA RAO IN ITA NO.491/VIZAG/2010 FOR AY 2007-08, ORDER DATED 24.01.2011 UMA SUBRAMANIAN IN 1TA NO. 3120/MUMF2OLZ FOR AY 2008-09, ORDER DATED 10.08.2012 THE DECISIONS REFERRED HEREINABOVE ARE FULLY APPLIC ABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE - 5 - PRESENT CASE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION RENDERE D BY THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PANDYA VINODCH ANDRA BHOGILAL VS. ITO (2010 45 DTR 105, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 2. THUS THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ABOUT ALLOWABILLTY OF EXEMPTION UNDER S.10(IOC) OF THE ITACT, 1961. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A DEP UTY MANAGER IN SBI AND HAS TAKEN VRS ON 31ST MAY 2006 UNDER EXIT OPT/ON SCHEME INTRODUCED BY THE BANK OF INDIA W.E.F 7 MAY, 2005. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALARY AND PENSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,81,894 (INCLUDING EX GRATIA) ON EXAMINATION OF FORM NO.16 THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED EX GRATIA OF RS.3,07 ,236 ON VRS . HE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER S.10(10C) OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM BY FOLLOWING CIRCULAR NO. CHIEF CTR, BARODA LETTER BRD/CHIEF CIT/TECH/MICS/10(1OC)/2009- 10 DT 17 TH JUNE , 2006. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF DY CIT VS. KRISHNA GOPAL SAH A (2009) 29 DTR (KOL) (TM) (TRIB) 385 BUT THE LEARNED AO DID NO T AGREE AND MADE ME ADDITION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE BY TRYING TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF THIRD MEMBER IN DY. CIT VS. KRISHNA GOPAL SAHA S CASE (SUPRA). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE DISTINCTION CITE D BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT SOUND AND DOES NOT STAND TO REASON. T HE ONLY BASIS FOR NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM HAS BEEN THAT SCHEME FOR VRS IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.28A. HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT BEEN POI NTED OUT HOW THE EMPLOYER HAS NOT FRAMED THE SCHEME IN ACCORDANC E WITH R.2BA. EARLIER TILL 2002 SCHEMES WERE REQUIRED TO BE APPRO VED BY THE CHIEF CIT BUT THEREAFTER SUCH REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN DISPEN SED WITH AND, THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY FOR THE EMPLOYER TO FRAME THE SCHEME FOR VRS OR FOR EARLIER EXIT OPTION. IF AO HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SCHEME HE COULD HAVE ENQUIRED FROM THE EMPLOYER. SO FAR AS TH E ASSESSEE EMPLOYEE IS CONCERNED, HE CANNOT BE PENALIZED AND T AX WILL BE LEVIED ON HIM ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SCHEME FRA MED BY EMPLOYER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R. 2BA. IN ANY C ASE, THE - 6 - JUDGMENT OF THIRD MEMBER IN DY. CIT VS. KRISHNA GOP AL SAHA (SUPRA) IS DEARLY APPLICABLE AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REFER TO FOLLOWING PARA FROM THE THIRD MEMBER JUDGMENT IN KRISHNA GOPA L SAHAS CASE (SUPRA) AS UNDER: 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT. I HAVE THEREFORE, HEARD THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L PLACED BEFORE ME. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY TH E HON OLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAIL DSP V P EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 VS, UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) IN WHIC H THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER SEC. 10(1OC) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, USES THE EXPRES SION ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED BY AN EMPLOYEE.., AT THE TIME OF HI S .VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY SCHEME OR SCHEMES OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT. IF A PLAIN LITERAL INTERPRET ATION OF STATUTORY PROVISION PRODUCED A MANIFESTLY ABSURD AND UNJUST R ESULT, WHICH THE LEGISLATURE COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED, THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO MODIFY THE LANGUAGE USED BY THE LEGISLATURE EVEN TO DO SOME VIOLENCE TO IT SO AS TO ACHIEVE THE OBVIOUS INTENTI ON OF THE LEGISLATURE AND PRODUCE A RATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AN ~. EXPRESSION USED IN THE STATUTE IS NOT ALWAYS TO BE INTERPRETED LITERALLY OR GRAMMATICALLY. SOMETIMES IT HAS TO BE INTERPRETED H AVING REGARD TO THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE EXPRESSION IS USED AND HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAME IS ENA CTED. SEC. 10(1OC) WAS INSERTED IN ORDER TO MAKE VOLUNTARY RE TIREMENT ATTRACTIVE SO AS TO REDUCE HUMAN COMPLEMENTS FOR SE CURING ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF CERTAIN COMPANIES. THIS OBJEC T WAS ELABORATED BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULARS AND EX PLANATORY STATEMENTS ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME. SIMILARLY, R.2 5A OF THE IT RULES, 1962, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY IT (SIXTEENTH AM ENDMENT) RULES, 1962, WAS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. ALL THE SE GO TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO MAKE VOLUNTARY RETIR EMENT MORE ATTRACTIVE AND BENEFICIAL TO THE EMPLOYEE OPTING FO R VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT THEREFORE, THIS HAS TO BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER BENEFICIAL FOR THE OPTEE FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT, IF THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY - 7 - SUMS PAID ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RUPEES FIVE LAKHS ARE EXEMPTED FROM BEING CHARGED TO TAX BY REASON OF S.10(10C). EVEN IF THE PAYMENT IS STRETCHED OVER A PERIOD OF Y EARS, THE SAME WOULD NOT BECOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN ANY SUBSEQUEN T ASSESSMENT YEAR. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THEIR LORDSHIPS O F THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE, WHO TAKES VOLUNTA RY RETIREMENT, IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCT/ON UNDER S. 10(10C) EVEN IF THE PAYMENT IS STRETCHED OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. THEY HAVE ALSO HELD THAT PR OVISION OF S. 10(10C) SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER BENEFICIAL TO THE OPTEE FOR VOLUNTARY IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CASE , THE EMPLOYER I.E. SAIL WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S.10(10C) AND ACCORDINGLY, SAIL HAD BEEN DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT PAID UNDER THEIR VOLUNT ARY RETIREMENT SCHEME. THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN THE ASSESSEES CAS E, BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, THE EMPLOYER BELIEVING T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER S. 10(10C) HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT PAID ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT THE FACT S BEING IDENTICAL, THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON VIE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. SIMILARLY, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAGESH DEVIDAS KULKAMI (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION UNDER S. 10(1OC) OF THE ACT AND ALSO REBATE UNDER S. 89 OF THE ACT IN RESPE CT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF RS.5,00,000 ON ACCOUNT OF VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT THUS THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE, W HO OPTS FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT, IS NOT ONLY ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S. 10(10C) BUT ALSO REBATE UNDER S.89 OF THE IT ACT. SIMILAR VIEW IS TA KEN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.SUREN DRA PRABHU (SUPRA,I WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- THAT THE ASSESSEE, EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENT BANK WAS NOT ONLY ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER 10(1CC) OF THE AD- TO THE EXTENT PRESCRIBED IN THE PRO VISION ITSE LF BUT FOR ANY - 8 - AMOUNT OVER ARID ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT; UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER S . 89(1) OF THE ACT R/W S.21A. 7. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT WHILE THE LEA RNED AN! RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. M.CHELLADURAI & ORS (2008) 5 DTR (MAD) 201, HE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISIONS OF OTHER HIGH COURT UNDER IDE NTICAL FACTS HELD THE ASSESSEE, L E., THE RETIRED EMPLOYEE, TO BE ENTITLE D TO DEDUCTION UNDER S. 10(10C). SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY HONBLE BOMBAY AS WELL AS KARNATAKA HIGH COURTS. THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING UPON US AND MOREOVER IF TOW VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE, WHI LE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS, A VIEW WHICH IS FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSES SEE HAS TO BE ADOPTED. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE A BOVE REFERRED CASE OF SAIL DSP VP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 1998 VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE PRO VISIONS OF S.10(10C) ARE TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY IN A MANNER WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO RETIRE D EMPLOYEES IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE. I RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS O F HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT AGREE WITH THE LEARNED JM AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITL ED TO EXEMPTION UNDER S . 10(10C) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED ARE SIM ILAR TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE CASES. THE AS SESSEES/APPELLANTS ARE ALSO EX-EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA. R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RENDERED ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS.5 LACS RECEIVED BY EACH ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 1O(1OC) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. 6. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS COV ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE - 9 - BY THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. FOLLOW ING THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER IN WHICH ONE OF US (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IS A P ARTY, WE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DE LETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/-. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 -12-2 013. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (I.P. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SKS SR. P.S, MUMBAI DATED 17-12-2013 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI