K.K. MOTWANI HUF, MUMBAI V. ACIT 12(3), MUMBAI

ITA 8782/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5115 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Bonafide belief; Revised return; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) K.K.MOTWANI (HUF) 501, TULSIANI CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 12(3), MUMBAI. ( & / APPELLANT) .. ( ' & / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAEHM3362F & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH JOTWANI ' & * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR * - / DATE OF HEARING : 5.11.2013 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 3.11.2011 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF TH E AO FOR LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME/ CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, IN RESPECT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. ASSESSEE FILED RE TURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2004 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) ON 22.12.2006 ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.5,65,16,270 /- AS AGAINST DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,64,27,080/-. LATER ON, AO RE-OPENED THE A SSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 25.3.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 2 ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. PURSUANT THERETO, THE AO MAD E ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.5,99,16,270/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.34,00,000/- TOWARDS COST OF FIVE RE-PURCHA SED FLATS IN THE CLOSING STOCK. AO STATED IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD RE-PURCHASED FIVE FLATS AND THEY REMAINED UNSOLD DURING THE YEAR. ALTHO UGH THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.34,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RE-PUR CHASE OF THE FIVE FLATS IT HAD NOT INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE CLOSING STOCK VALU ATION. HENCE, AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.34,00,000/- RELATING TO RE-PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SAID FIVE UNSOLD FLATS ( FLAT NO.406 OF DEEP APARTMENTS AND FLAT NO.203,204,404 AND 704 OF DEEP TOWERS) TO THE CLOSING STOCK, THEREBY MAKING ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTI CE U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 DATED 17.6.2010 4. ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY STATING INTERALIA THAT THERE WAS NO CONSCIOUS AND DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF FIVE FLATS WHICH WERE CANCELLED AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE PAID COMPENSATION OF RS.34,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SHOWN THE VALUE OF FLATS AT THE COST + REPURCHASED PRICE INST EAD OF SHOWING THEM AT COST PRICE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAID FLATS WERE SOLD IN SUBSEQ UENT YEARS AND WHILE CALCULATING PROFIT, THE COST OF THE FLATS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AT COST AND NOT AT COST + REPURCHASED PRICE, THEREFORE, PROFIT ARRIVED AT H AD BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS VIZ ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CONCEALED INCOME NOR HAS EVEN MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL INCOME. 5. AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE, DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT ASSESSE E WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE SAID FIVE FLATS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2004 BUT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT SHOWN THE COST OF THESE FLATS AT REPURCHASED PRICE IN THE CLOSING STOCK WHI CH WAS MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO REFLECT IN THE CLOSING STOCK AND THUS U NDERVALUED THE CLOSING STOCK. HE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEES ACT OF NOT DISCLOSING TH E REPURCHASE PRICE OF THE FIVE FLATS IN THE CLOSING STOCK LED TO UNDERVALUATION OF THE CL OSING STOCK AND SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT AND THUS DID NOT SHOW THE TRUE PICTURE OF THE BUSI NESS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ACT OF ASSESSEE LED TO REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL INCO ME OF ASSESSEE AND THEREBY REDUCING HIS TAX LIABILITY WHICH AMOUNTS TO FILING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY CONCEALING THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF NON-INCLUSIO N OF THE REPURCHASE PRICE OF THE FIVE I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 3 FLATS INTO THE CLOSING STOCK. HE HAS STATED THAT T HE ASSESSEE AGREED THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY HIM IN HIS STATEMENT, WHICH, CONFIRM S ABOUT HIS FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO CONCEAL THE INCOME TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.34,00,000/-. AO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V/S DHARMENDRA PROCESSORS (306 ITR 277) AND HAS STATED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT IS A CIVIL LIABILITY AND WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING A CIVIL LIABILITY AS IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION U/S 276C OF THE ACT. 6. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 OF THE ACT OF RS.11,22,000/- WHICH IS 100% OF T HE TAX ON THE CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.34,00,000/-. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED APP EAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 7. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON THE LINES OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS CONTENDED INTERALIA THAT ASSESSEE WHEN SOLD THE SAID FIVE FLATS IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, IT CALCULATED PROFITS BY CONSIDERING T HE COST OF FLATS AT COST AND NOT AT COST + REPURCHASED PRICE. THUS, THE PROFITS ARRIVED AT HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE FLATS ARE SOLD. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A GENUINE MISTAKE WITHOUT INTENTION TO CONCEAL OR SUPPRESS THE TAXABLE INCOME AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TREATED AS BONAFIDE ASSESSEE AND THE PENALTY SHOU LD NOT BE LEVIED. THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE MISTAKE THAT IT WAS NOT DELIBERATE OR WILLFUL. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE WORD FALSE INVOLVES AN ELEMENT OF DELIBERATENESS AND THEREFORE THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPLANATION F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE FALSE. THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL THE INCOME AND ONLY BY OVERSIGHT THE RE-PURCHASED PRI CE WAS NOT INCLUDED WHILE VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.3.2004. THAT THE MIST AKE WAS DUE TO LACK OF ACCOUNTING EXPERTISE. NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY T HE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME BY UNDERVALUING THE CLOSING STOCK AND THEREBY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME OR FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING DE CISIONS : I) CIT V/S NEELANI TRADING AUTOMOBILE AGENCY (2007) 2 88 ITR 557 (MAD) II) H.P.STATE FOREST CORP.LTD V/S DCIT 94 TTJ 792 III) CIT V/S ROSE LOCK FACTORY (1993) 204 ITR 753 (ALL) IV) CIT V/S INDIA SEA FOODS (1996) 218 ITR 629 (FB) V) ACIT V/S AKASH INDUSTRIES VI) ALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS PVT.LTD V/S DCIT VII) GODHWANI BROTHERS V/S ACIT (1994) 48 TTJ (DEL) 403 I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 4 8. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO VIDE PARA 2.3.1 AND 2.3.2 WHICH A RE AS UNDER : 2.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD REPURCHASED 5 FLATS WHICH HAD REMAINED UNSOLD DURING THE YEAR AND HAD D EBITED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 34 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF REPURCHASE OF THE FLATS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS EXPENSES. THEREFORE, AS PER LAW, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31/03/2004, WHICH THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO DO. AS A RESULT, THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK WAS SUPPRESS ED BY THE AMOUNT OF RS.34 LACS, THEREBY LEADING TO SUPPRESSION OF INCOME TO T HE EXTENT OF THE SAID AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED TO THE NON-INCLUSION OF T HIS AMOUNT IN THE CLOSING STOCK ONLY AFTER THE SAME WAS DETECTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. HENCE, IT IS NOT IN DOUBT THAT INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.34 LACS AS ABOVE LEADING TO CONCEALMENT OF IN COME TO THE EXTENT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT. WITHOUT DOUBT, THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT AND INACCURATE. 2.3.2 IN RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. REPORTE D IN 322 ITR 158, IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY, THE CASE IS REQUIRED TO BE STRICTLY COVERE D BY THE PROVISIONS AND IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) EXIST BEFORE THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WO ULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T HAS FURTHER HELD THAT READING THE WORDS INACCURATE AND PARTICULARS IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT A CCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS ADVERTING TO TH E PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE COR RECT VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE DECI SION IN RELIANCE PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD., IT IS WITHOUT DOUBT CLEAR THAT THE DETAI LS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURNS WERE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING T O TRUTH. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF THE REPUR CHASE OF THE FLATS, AND THE SAID FLATS HAD NOT BEEN SOLD, AS PER THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND LAW, THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THAT THE SAME WAS OMITTED TO BE DONE BY MISTAKE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE, THE NEXT LOGI CAL AND SIMULTANEOUS ENTRY WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE BOOKS WAS TO G IVE CORRESPONDING EFFECT IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE OF N OT DOING SO, THEREBY SHOWING LESSER VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WAS TOTALLY UNTENABLE IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ALSO CLAIM THAT WHILE IT CLAIMED THE COMPENSATION A S A DEDUCTIBLE EXPENDITURE, IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE COST ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK UNDER SOME BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE SAID AMOU NT WAS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THIS MISTAKE COULD HAVE BEEN COMMITTED WH EN SIMPLE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTANCY WERE INVOLVED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD THE BENEFIT OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WHO HAVE ALSO AUDITED ITS ACCOUNTS. BEF ORE BEING DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE FILED A REV ISED RETURN NOR REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INCREASE THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK BY FILING REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUN ICATION LTD REPORTED IN 327 1TR 510, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS, AFTE R CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE P ETROPRODUCT PVT LTD (SUPRA) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 5 THE COURT CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT ONLY A SMA LL PERCENTAGE OF THE IT RETURNS ARE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. IF THE ASSES SEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WIT HOUT ANY BASIS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAI M IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT HE WOUL D STILL NOT BE LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). IF ONE TAKES THE VIEW THAT A CLAIM WHICH IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE IN LAW AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION O N WHICH IT COULD BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITIO N OF PENALTY, EVEN IF HE WAS NOT ACTING BONAFIDE WHILE MAKING A CLAIM OF THIS NATURE, THAT WOULD GIVE A LICENSE TO UNSCRUPULOUS ASSESSEES TO M AKE WHOLLY UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIMS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BA SIS FOR MAKING THEM, IN THE HOPE THAT THEIR RETURN WOULD NOT BE PICKED U P FOR SCRUTINY AND THEY WOULD BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF SELF ASSESSMENT U /S 143(1) AND EVEN IF THEIR CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEY CAN GET A WAY MERELY BY PAYMENT THE TAX, WHICH IN ANY CASE, WAS PAYABLE BY THEM. TH E CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE THAT THE PERSONS WHO MAKE CLAIMS OF THIS N ATURE, ACTUATED BY A MALAFIDE INTENTION TO EVADE TAX OTHERWISE PAYABLE B Y THEM WOULD GET AWAY WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX LEGALLY PAYABLE BY THEM , IF THEIR CASES ARE NOT PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THIS WOULD TAKE AWAY TH E DETERRENT EFFECT WHICH THESE PENALTY PROVISIONS IN THE ACT HAVE. AT PARA 23 AND 24, IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD AS FOLL OWS : IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TELLING THE AO AS TO WHO COMMITTED THE OVERSIGHT RESULTING IN FAILURE TO AD D THIS AMOUNT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER WHAT CI RCUMSTANCES THE OVERSIGHT OCCURRED AND WHY IT WAS NOT DETECTED BY T HOSE WHO CHECKED THE IT RETURN BEFORE WAS FILED AND LATER BY THE AUD ITORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, ONE CANNOT ACCEPT THE GENERAL VIEW TAKEN B Y THE TRIBUNAL. NO SUCH VIEW COULD HAVE REASONABLY BEEN TAKEN, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THIS CASE AND, THEREFOR E, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF PE RVERSITY. ONE CANNOT ACCEPT THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT NO PERSON WOULD EVER CLAIM THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX AS A DEDUCTION WITH A VIEW TO A VOID PAYMENT OF TAX. NO HARD AND FAST RULE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE L AID DOWN AND EVERY CASE WILL HAVE TO BE DECIDED CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SUCH A DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED, COUPLED WITH AS TO WHE THER THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE CLAIM, IS SH OWN TO BE BONAFIDE OR NOT. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE ERRED IN LAW IN DELETIN G THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAKH CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAX AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,24,539/- DEB ITED UNDER THE HEAD EQUIPMENT WRITTEN OFF IN THE P&L A/C OF THE ASSESS EE. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS ON RECORDS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSE E OF NOT INCLUDING THE REPURCHASE VALUE OF THE FLATS IN QUESTION IN THE CL OSING STOCK IS NOT ONLY COMPLETELY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WIT HOUT ANY BASIS FOR WHICH NO BONAFIDE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESS EE. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS LTD. (SUPRA), THE PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) IS REQUIRED TO BE LEVIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME LEADING I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 6 TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS.34,00,000/-. THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF LEVYING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE LT.ACT 1961 IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE CASE LAW IN SUBSEQUENT PARAS WHICH WERE RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AN D HAS STATED THAT THE SAID CASES ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ASSESSEE . WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THOSE CASES AND THE DISTINCTION MADE BY L D. CIT(A) IN PARAS 2.3.4 TO 2.3.11 SAVE AND EXCEPT REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTION FR OM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) (PAGE 16) WHICH IS A UNDER : SINCE THE FACTS IN THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REL IANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THESE CASES IS MISPLACED HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO TO LEVY PENALTY OF RS.11,22,000/- U/S 271(1)( C ) OF ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS I N FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR MADE HIS S UBMISSIONS ON THE LINES OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. TH E LD. AR REITERATED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN O F INCOME ON 31.10.2005 BY TAKING COST PRICE OF THE FLATS WHICH WERE SOLD IN THAT A SSESSMENT YEAR INSTEAD OF TAKING THE COST +RE-PURCHASE PRICE WHILE CONSIDERING THE PRO FIT FOR THE THREE FLATS SOLD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REMAINING TWO FLATS WERE SOLD IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2006 AND AGAIN HAD SHOWN COST PRICE OF THE FLATS INSTEAD OF TAKING COST + RE-PURCHASE PRICE WHILE COMPUTING PROFIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR BOTH THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HE SU BMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIDE ANY PROFIT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT TAKEN DOUBLE BENEFIT WHILE C ONSIDERING THE ORIGINAL COST PRICE OF THE FLATS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING COST +RE- PURCHASE PRICE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO EXCESSIVE D EDUCTION WAS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE PAID THE TAXES IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSES SMENT YEARS AS AND WHEN SALE OF FLATS FINALLY TOOK PLACE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE FLATS RE-PURCHASED A ND THUS THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. LD. AR REFERRED THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S H.P.STATE FOREST CORPORATION LTD (2012)340 ITR 204(HP) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH DATED 30.7.2010 IN THE CASE OF SPARK DEVELOPMENT P.LTD V/S DCIT (AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-0 9) AND FILED A COPY OF SAID ORDER, I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 7 WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW CORRECT VALUE OF FLATS WHILE COMPUTING THE CLOSING STOCK. THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO CO NCEAL HIS PROFIT BY UNDERVALUING HIS CLOSING STOCK WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION. THE LD. DR FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA PROCE SSORS (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT INTENTION IS NOT RELEVANT. LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT BEFORE AO DETECTED THE UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY ISSUING NOTICE U /S 148 OF THE ACT, NEITHER ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN NOR REQUESTED THE AO TO INC REASE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK BY FILING REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 2.3.2 CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158 AND SUBMITTED THAT W ORDS INACCURATE AND PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND STATED THAT THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT A CCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED CATEGORIC ALLY THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE CORRECT VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN HIS RETURN OF IN COME. HENCE, ASSESSEE FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. LD. DR ALSO REFERRED THE DE CISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P) LTD (2010) 327 I TR 510(DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT CASE SQUARELY APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) BE CONFIRMED. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALS O CASES RELIED UPON BEFORE US AND ALSO CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW IN THEIR ORDERS. 12.1 THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT. THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED TWO BUIL DINGS VIZ DEEP TOWERS AND DEEP APARTMENTS. BOTH ARE SITUATED IN BOMBAY. WE O BSERVE THAT COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER FLAT IS RS.1137.76 PER SQ. FT WHICH IS RS.1 2,51,536/- PER FLAT . WE OBSERVE THAT IN RESPECT OF DEEP TOWER BUILDING SALE OF FOUR FLA TS WERE CANCELED AND THEY REMAINED UNSOLD DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.24 ,00,000/- COMPENSATION. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF DEEP APARTMENTS ONE FLAT REMAINED U NSOLD OUT OF THE CANCELLED FLATS AND THE ASSESSEE PAID COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE PAID TOWARDS COMPENSATION FOR THE SAID FIVE FLATS WHICH REMAINED UNSOLD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF RS.34,00,000/-. THERE IS NO I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 8 DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.34, 00,000/- WERE DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT WHILE FILING CLOSING STOCK A S ON 31.3.2004, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REFLECT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.34,00,000/- IN THE V ALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AND SHOWED ONLY ORIGINAL COST PRICE OF THE SAID FLATS. AO, WH EN INITIATED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED HIS MISTAKE AND STATED THAT IT WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE MADE BY HIM. IT WAS CON TENDED THAT THERE WAS NO WILLFUL, DELIBERATE INTENTION TO UNDERVALUE THE CLOSING ST OCK OF THE UNSOLD FLATS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE SAID FIVE FLATS WERE SOLD IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. THREE FLATS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND T WO FLATS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE ORIGINAL COST PRICE WHI LE CALCULATING THE PROFITS INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE RE-PURCHASE PRICE I.E. COST + AMO UNT OF COMPENSATION PAID. THUS, THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL T HE INCOME AND IT WAS ONLY A GENUINE MISTAKE. 12.2 WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FAC T THAT WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE CORRECT VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AND IT HAS RESULTED INTO ES CAPEMENT OF INCOME WHICH WAS LIABLE TO TAX TO THE EXTENT OF NON-INCLUSION OF RE-PURCH ASE PRICE OF THE FIVE FLATS I.E. RS.34,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY DEB ITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.34,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RE -PURCHASE PRICE OF THE SAID FIVE FLATS , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED IN TH E CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.3.2004 THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT OF RS.34,00,000/-. THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO MADE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT TAX ON THE S AID AMOUNT OF RS.34,00,000/- COULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX ONLY IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. PRIOR TO THAT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, T HE YEARS IN WHICH THE SAID FIVE FLATS WERE SOLD AND THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED PROFIT ON SALE OF THOSE FLATS . WE AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED THE ORI GINAL COST PRICE WHILE COMPUTING THE PROFIT BUT THE SAID FACTS DO NOT ESTABLISH THAT T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REVEAL EVEN AT THAT STAGE THAT IT HAD VALUED LESS COST OF CLOSING STOCK ON 31.3.2004 PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TO BE AUDITED AND THE SAID FACT HAS BEEN ADMITTED ONLY WHEN THE AO INITIATED RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IT IS A FACT THAT THE INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS NOT BEEN ASSESSED CORRECTLY DUE TO NOT FURNISHING THE CORRECT VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT IT WAS A BONAFIDE MIS TAKE AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO CONCEAL OR SUPPRESS THE TAXABLE INCOME AND THEREFOR E, THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD IN THE CA SE OF DHARMENDRA PROCESSORS I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 9 (SUPRA) THAT THE OBJECT BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SE CTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION IS TO PROVIDE FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE AND PENALTY UNDER THE SAID PROVISION IS CIVIL LIABILITY. THAT WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTI ON U/S 276C OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF REL IANCE PETRO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THAT THE WORDS INACCURATE AND PARTICULARS MUS T MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORREC T, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. IF WE CONSIDER THE SAID OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY DID NOT DISC LOSE THE CORRECT VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE ACCURATE, OR CORRECT PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.34 ,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF THE FLATS AND WHEN THE SAID FLATS HAD NOT BEEN S OLD AT THE END OF ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE COST OF FLATS WAS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK. WE AGREE WITH LD. CIT(A) T HAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THAT THE SAME WAS OMITTED DUE TO BONAFIDE MISTAKE CONSIDERI NG THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE AND THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE AUDITED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND THEREFORE, SIMULTANEOUS ENTRY HAS TO BE MADE IN THE BOOKS TO GIVE CORRESPONDING EFFECT IN THE CLOSING STOCK TO PREPAR E A TRUE AND CORRECT BALANCE SHEET. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DEALT WITH SIMIL AR ISSUE WHILE CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE COMMITTED BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN THE CASE O F ZOOM COMMUNICATION LTD (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE, THE TRIBUNAL CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY ACCEP TING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO OVERSIGHT BONAFIDE MISTAKE AN ERROR WA S COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE THE BASIS TO LEVY PENALTY U/ S 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT, SPECIALLY WHEN ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL RELATING TO THAT ISS UE WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE APPE AL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY MAT ERIAL FACT OR THE FACTUAL INFORMATION GIVEN BY HIM HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE I NCORRECT, HE WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, EVEN IF THE CLAIM MADE BY HIM IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN L AW, PROVIDED EITHER HE SUBSTANTIATES THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM OR THE EXPLANATION, EVEN IF NOT SUBSTANTIATED, IS FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE. IF THE EXP LANATION IS NEITHER SUBSTANTIATED NOR SHOWN TO BE BONA FIDE, THE EXPLAN ATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C ) WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND THE ASSESSEE WILL BE LIABL E FOR THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY. IN THAT MATTER IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO OVERSIGHT CERTAIN ITEMS WERE NOT ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME. I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 10 THE COURT CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT ONLY A SMAL L PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME- TAX RETURNS ARE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. IF THE ASSE SSEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW, BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT A NY BASIS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT FOU ND TO BE BONA FIDE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT HE WOULD STILL NOT BE LIAB LE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. IF ONE TAKES THE VIEW THAT A CLAIM WHICH IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE IN LAW AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION O N WHICH IT COULD BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF P ENALTY, EVEN IF HE WAS NOT ACTING BONA FIDE WHILE MAKING A CLAIM OF THIS NATUR E, THAT WOULD GIVE A LICENCE TO THE UNSCRUPULOUS ASSESSEES TO MAKE WHOLLY UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIMS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BASIS FOR MAKING THEM, IN T HE HOPE THAT THEIR RETURN WOULD NOT BE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THEY WOULD BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND EVEN IF THEIR CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEY CAN GET AWAY MERELY BY PAYING TH E TAX, WHICH, IN ANY CASE, WAS PAYABLE BY THEM. THE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE THAT THE PERSONS, WHO MAKE CLAIMS OF THIS NATURE, ACTUATED BY A MALA FIDE INTE NTION TO EVADE TAX OTHERWISE PAYABLE BY THEM, WOULD GET AWAY WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX LEGALLY PAYABLE BY THEM, IF THEIR CASES ARE NOT PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY . THIS WOULD TAKE AWAY THE DETERRENT EFFECT, WHICH THESE PENALTY PROVISIONS IN THE ACT HAVE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US DID NOT EXPLAIN EITHER TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES OR TO THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS TO IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON ACCOUNT OF WHOSE MISTAKE, THE AMOUNTS CLAIME D AS DEDUCTIONS IN THIS CASE WERE NOT ADDED, WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH MUST BE HAVING PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IN COMPUTATION OF IT S INCOME, AND ITS ACCOUNTS ARE COMPULSORILY SUBJECTED TO AUDIT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE, WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE HOW SUCH DEDUCTIONS COULD HAV E BEEN LEFT OUT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND HO W IT COULD ALSO HAVE ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE AUDITORS OF THE COMPAN Y. 12.3 HENCE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIO N AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OF NOT INCLUDING THE RE-PURCHASE VALUE OF THE FLATS IN QUESTION IN THE CLOSING STOCK IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT THE EXPLANAT ION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ESCAPED BY EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME LEADIN G THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS.34,00,000/- WE MAY STATE THAT THE CASE CITED BY LD. AR VIZ. H.P.STATE FOREST CORP.LTD(SUPRA) IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACT OF THE CASE BEFORE US BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS NOT ACC EPTED BY REVENUE AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE IT WOULD NOT ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THE CASE OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SPARK DEVELOPMENT P.LTD (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL WAS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE ON THE FACT OF THE CASE AND THERE WAS NO REVENUE LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER BUT THE CASE BEFORE U S, FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE MISTAKE WAS BONAFIDE. HENCE THE SAID CASES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF ASSESSE E BEFORE US. I.T.A. NO.8782/MUM/2011 11 12.4 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF AO OF LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT AT T HE 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON RS.34,00,000/- WHICH IS RS.11,20,000/- . 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 * 1 2 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 * SD/- SD/- ( / RAJENDRA) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: 20/11/2013 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & / THE APPELLANT 2. ' & / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 6 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 7 '9 , - 9 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY / BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - 9 , /ITAT, MUMBAI