ITO 20(1)(2), MUMBAI V. CRAVE CLOTHING COMPANY, MUMBAI

ITA 89/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3670 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
• Section: 143(3); 80IB

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENC H, MUMBAI . . , , . , ! ' BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM ./I.T.A. NO.8816/M/2010 (AY: 2007-2008) ./I.T.A. NO.89/M/2012 (AY: 2008-09) ITO - 20(1)(2), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI 400 012. # / VS. M/S. CRAVE CLOTHING COMPANY, 705, AMARNATH TOWERS, OFF. YARI ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400 061. $ ! ./PAN : AAEFC 2377 C ( $% /APPELLANT) .. ( &'$% / RESPONDENT) $% ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJARSHI DWIVEDY, SR. DR &'$% ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.R. LAKSHMINARAYANAN # ( *! /DATE OF HEARING :16.4.2013 +,- ( *! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :08.05.2013 . . . . / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BOTH OF THEM ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A)-31, MUM BAI DATED 28.10.2011 AND 25.10.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS IDENTICAL IN THESE APPEALS AND TH EREFORE, THEY TWO APPEALS ARE BEING CLUBBED AND ADJUDICATED IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE AND GROUND WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 2. GROUNDS IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE I DENTICAL AND THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPE AL ITA NO.8816/M/2010 FOR THE AY 2007-08 ARE REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN INTERPRETING THE PROCESS OF ASSEMBLING BY THE ASSESSEE AS MANUFACTURING HOLDING IT IS HALF FINISHED PANTS, JACKETS AND ACCESSORIES FURTHER PROCESSED INDULGING IN MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AT ITS INDUSTRI AL UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN DAMAN. 2. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE CONTENTION THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, NO DISALLOWANCE W AS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT DOES NOT 2 ACKNOWLEDGE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN CURRENT YE AR AS GENUINE. VARIOUS ENQUIRIES AND MATERIAL FOUND ON RECORD REVEALED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PURCHASED TRADED GOODS. THEREFORE, THE AO CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE DEDUC TION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EXCESSIVE PROPORTIONATELY TO THAT EXTENT . 3. THE LD CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE CONTENTION THAT PURCHASE BILLS / INVOICES OF EIGHT DIFFERENT PARTIE S DO NOT PROVE THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED IS FINISHED GOODS READY FOR SALE WITHOUT MAKING FURTHER PROCESSES IS NOT CORRECT. AS AFORESAID, THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS MEANS THE END PRODUCT IS DIFFERENT FROM RAW MATERIAL OR SEMI FINISHED GOODS. HERE THE ASSESSEES RAW-MATERIAL / SEMI FINISHED G OODS IE PURCHASE OF DENIM JEANS-SEMI FINISHED, IS NOT DIFFERENT ALTOGETHER TO THE FINAL PRODUCT. ASSESSEE IS ONLY DOING ACTIVITY OF ASSEMBLING / LABOUR JOB OF STITCH ING ZIPPER, BUTTONS, RIVERTS, IRONING & PACKING THE PRODUCT. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS RELATES TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF TH E BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE AY 2007-0 8 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING / TAILORIN G OF READYMADE GARMENTS. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING THE INCOME OF R S. NIL ON THE RECORDED SALES OF RS.10,17,55,573/-. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS RELATABLE TO THE TRADING ACTIVITY ALSO. AC CORDINGLY, AO SEGREGATED THE PROFITS RELATABLE TO THE ALLEGED TRADING ACTIVITY AND DISAL LOWED THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROFIT IS ON SALE OF TRADING OF FINISHED A ND SEMI-FINISHED GOODS. THE DEDUCTIONS DISALLOWED ARE RS. 54,25,262/- AND RS. 50,52,263/-FOR THE AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-2009 RESPECTIVELY. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FIL ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY, ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WAS NO PURCHASE OF FINISHED GOODS BY THE ASSESSEE AND FILED COPIES OF THE PURCHASE BILLS AND INVOICES. W HAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EITHER RAW MATERIAL OR SEMI-FINISHED GOODS. AF TER PURCHASING OF SUCH SEMI- FINISHED GOODS, ASSESSEE UNDERTAKES THE MANUFACTURI NG OF FINISHED GOODS BY EMPLOYING HUGE LABOURERS. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT OF THE CASE. FURTHER, ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. KWAL PRO EX PORTS (33 SOT 24) (JODH) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE SEMI-FINISHED GOODS / RAW MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MANUFACTURING OF THE ITEMS, THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS EARNED ON SUCH SALES. ASSESSEE ALSO 3 SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK BEFORE HIM TO DEMONSTRATE TH E SALES TAX REGISTRATIONS, FACTORY LICENSES AND CENTRAL EXCISE REGISTRATION AS A MANUFACTURER OF READYMADE GARMENTS. ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS ELECTRICITY BILLS, SALES BILLS ETC IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AS A MANUFACTURER OF THE READY MADE GARMENTS. AFTER EXAMINING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES, CIT (A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED NOT THE READYMADE / FINISHED PRODUCTS RATHER HE HAS PURCHASED ONLY THE RAW MATERIAL AND SEMI-FINISH ED PRODUCTS. FURTHER, CIT (A) NOTICED THAT ON THE SAME FACTS, ASSESSING OFFICER W AS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. CIT (A) ALSO EXAMIN ED THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURR ED HUGE EXPENDITURE UNDER MANUFACTURING EXPENSES ACCOUNT IE LABOUR CHARGES, W AGES, ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, FACTORY EXPENSES, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, STORAGE C HARGES ETC WHICH ARE SYMPTOMS OF THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. REGARDING THE ALLEG ED PURCHASES FROM SPECIFIED PARTIES, 18 PARTIES, CIT (A) HELD THAT THE PURCHASE S MADE BY THEM ONLY RAW MATERIALS AND ARE IN THE NATURE OF SEMI-FINISHED GO ODS. CIT (A) ALSO NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NO DIRECT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/EVIDENCES T O IMPLICATE THE ASSESSEE AND TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80-IB OF THE AC T. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A NUMBER OF MAN POWER AND THE ELECTRIC ITY EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO INDICATES THE MANUFACTURING STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD DR ESSENTIA LLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. HOWEVER, HE HAS NO ARGUMENTS TO COUNTER THE CO NCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE B ROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER BOOK AND MENTIONED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING CLAIMS U/S 80-IB OF THE ACT OVER THE YEARS AND THE S AME WAS BEING ALLOWED BY THE REVENUE. ON FACTS RELEVANT FOR THESE AYS UNDER CON SIDERATION, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE ITEMS PURCHASED ARE MERE EITHER THE RAW MATERIALS OR SEMI- FINISHED PRODUCTS AND AFTER PURCHASE, THEY WERE USE D TO FINALLY TO 4 MANUFACTURE/PRODUCE AN ARTICLE OR THING. IN THAT CA SE, THE PROFITS EARNING ON THE SALE OF SUCH MANUFACTURED/PRODUCED ARTICLES, CONSTITUTES AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF TH E ACT. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL ARGUED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER REGISTERED A NY PURCHASE OF FINISHED PRODUCTS FOR TRADING AND HE HAS NOT INCLUDED PROFITS ATTRIBU TABLE TO THE TRADING ACTIVITY U/S 80- IB OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OU R ATTENTION TO VARIOUS DECISIONS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. FURT HER, LD COUNSEL ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE MANUFACTURING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTINUOUS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE AO OVER THE YEARS IN THE PAST AND ALSO IN THE SUBSEQUENT PE RIODS. OTHERWISE, HE RELIED ON THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER A UTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE U S IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR BOTH THE AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE TO INDI CATE WHAT IS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THE FINISHED AND THE SAME WERE TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EARN PROFITS AND FINALLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF TH E ACT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRADING ORIENTED PROFITS. ON THE CONTRARY, THERE IS AN AMP LE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT WHAT WAS PURCHASED IS EITHER THE RAW MATERIAL OR SEMI-FI NISHED PRODUCTS. THE BOOKS ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE USED SUCH SEMI-FINISHED P RODUCTS FOR FINALLY PRODUCING THE FINISHED PRODUCT. THE EVIDENCES BY WAY OF MANUFACT URING EVIDENCES, ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, LABOUR CHARGES ETC INDICATES THE PROCESSI NG AND MANUFACTURING OF THE TEXTILES AND SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. I T IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE O VER THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. ASSESSEE IS DULY REGISTERED A S A MANUFACTURER OF READYMADE GARMENTS WITH BOTH THE SALES TAX AND EXCISE DEPARTM ENT. FURTHER, WE HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF THE PARA 4.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE REASONING FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ITS IMP ORTANCE, WE REPRODUCE THE SAID PARAGRAPHS HERE AS UNDER: 5 4.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK FILED B Y THE AR WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF READYMADE GARMENTS INVOLVING THE PROCESS OF DESIGNI NG, CUTTING, STITCHING, PACKING OF SHIRTS, PANTS, T-SHIRTS, JACKETS ETC. AT ITS FACTOR Y LOCATED IN DAMAN WHICH IS AN INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD AREA. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M AINTAINED ARE DULY AUDITED AND THE AUDIT REPORT CONFIRMING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB WAS FILED ALONG WITH ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED. FURTH ER, AS PER THE DETAILS FILED, I FIND UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE THE CLAIM OF T HE APPELLANT FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB IS ALREADY ALLOWED IN ITS CASE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. NO NEW FACTS OR EVI DENCES ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE PURCH ASE BILLS/INVOICES OF EIGHT DIFFERENT PARTIES AS PRODUCED BY THE AR DO NOT PROV E THAT THE MATERIAL PURCHASED IS FINISHED GOODS READY FOR SALE WITHOUT MAKING FURTHE R PROCESSES. RATHER, FROM THESE BILLS PRODUCED AND THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS EXPLAI NED BY THE AR, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ITEMS PURCHASED ARE IN THE NATURE OF RAW MATERIALS BEING FABRIC OR SEMI-FINISHED MATERIAL; WHICH ARE FURTHER PROCESSED TO MANUFACTUR E READYMADE GARMENTS BY THE APPELLANT, BEFORE ITS FINAL ORDER. THEREFORE, IN V IEW OF THESE FACTS, I FIND CONSIDERABLE MERITS IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR THAT FROM THE P URCHASE BILLS/INVOICES; IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED FINISHED G OODS FROM THESE EIGHT PARTIES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, FROM THE PURCHASE BILLS PRODUCED IN THE CASES OF CRAVE CLOTHING CO., NIDHI & ASSOCIATES , FOCUS CLOTHING CO., AND GOOD GOOD WEAR IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHAS ED EITHER SEMI-FINISHED GOODS OR RAW MATERIAL BEING HALF FINISHED PANTS, JACKETS AND ACCESSORIES BEING IN THE NATURE OF BAGS, BELTS ETC WHICH ARE FURTHER PROCESSED BY THE APPELLANT AT ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING LOCATED IN THE DAMAN. THE BELTS AND BA GS ARE STATED TO BE IN THE NATURE OF FASHION ACCESSORIES SOLD AS PART OF OVERALL READ YMADE GARMENTS BEING TROUSERS JACKETS ETC. FURTHER, THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE GOODS PURCHASED FROM RESOURCE APPARELS AS PER THE BILLS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER (AT PAGE NO.3) ARE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF DENIM JEANS BUT FROM THE OR IGINAL BILLS PRODUCED BY THE AR; COPIES THEREOF ARE PLACED ON RECORD I FIND THE CORR ECT NARRATION GIVEN IN THE BILLS READ AS DENIM JEANS (SIMI FINISHED). BESIDES, FROM THE PURCHASE BILLS PERTAINING TO MILANO FASHIONS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SAME ARE REC ORDED WITH THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS FROM THE DESTINATION OF THE SELLER TO THE DESTINATION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THESE GOODS ARE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES BORNE BY THE SELLER OF THESE GOODS. IN OTHER CASES THE BILLS DESCRIBE THE ITEMS ARE HAND D ELIVERED BY THE RESPECTIVE SELLERS. MOREOVER, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE GOODS ARE NOT BROUGHT TO THE FACTORY PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT AT DAMAN OR NO MANUFACTURING PROCESS WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ON SUCH GOO DS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT. IN FACT, NO SUCH ENQUIRIES ARE MADE BY THE AO. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO MY CONSIDERED OPIN ION DOES CAST A GENUINE DOUBT BUT THE SAID DOUBT IS NOT PROVED BY THE AO; SO AS T O ESTABLISH, THAT NO MANUFACTURING PROCESS WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AT ITS INDU STRIAL UNDERTAKING LOCATED AT DAMAN. OR IN OTHER WORDS NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED FINISHED GOODS WHICH WERE SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AS SUCH. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN VARIOUS MANUFAC TURING EXPENSES INCURRED AT ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING VIZ., LABOUR CHARGES, WAGES, ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, FACTORY EXPENSES, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, STORES AND SPARES , REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ETC WHICH PROVES THAT THE MANUFACTURING WAS UNDERTAKEN AT ITS INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING BY THE APPELLANT. BESIDES, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE D ULY AUDITED AND NECESSARY AUDIT CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT IS ENCLOSED T O ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN WHICH THE TAX AUDITOR HAS DULY CERTIFIED THAT THE APPELLA NT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE ACT. FURTHER, I FIND CONSIDER ABLE MERITS IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR THAT THE GOODS PURCHASED FROM THESE EIGHT PARTIE S ARE EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF RAW 6 MATERIAL OR IN THE NATURE OF SEMI-FINISHED GOODS; A S DISCUSSED ABOVE, WHICH ARE FURTHER PROCESSED TO MANUFACTURE READYMADE GARMENTS BY THE APPELLANT. 8. THUS, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS BROUGHT IN BE FORE US AND FIND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHA SED RAW MATERIAL/SEMI FINISHED PRODUCTS OF TEXTILES FOR TRADING AND THE CLAIMED DE DUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE RELATED TRADING PROFITS. NEXT, WE HA VE CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE BUSINESS INVOLVING PURCHASE OF THE SEMI-FINISHED GOODS FOR USE IN MANUFACTURING/ PROCESSING OF THE ARTICLE OR THINGS IN THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT IT IS A UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AO HA S ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT IN THE PAST WITHOUT ANY DISTURBA NCE. THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE P AND L ACCOUNTS ALSO SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 4.3 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER INDICATES THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A) FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED . 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVE NUE ARE DISMISSED. / *0 1 ( !/1 ( 1* 23 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08.05.2013. . . ( +,- ! 4#0 08/05/2013 , ( 5 SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4# DATED :08/05/2013 . # . ./ OKK , SR. PS . . . . ( (( ( &*67 &*67 &*67 &*67 87-* 87-* 87-* 87-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'$% / THE RESPONDENT. 7 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. 7:5 &*# , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5; < / GUARD FILE. '7* &* //TRUE COPY// .# .# .# .# / BY ORDER, = == = / 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI