ITO WD 2(1)(4), MUMBAI V. MANJULA S. GARODIA, MUMBAI

ITA 900/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 90019914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: D S SUNDER SINGH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business expenditure
• Section: 37(1); 68; 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH J,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (A M) & SHRI S.S. GODARA (JM) I.T.A.NO. 6583/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA, 5, JOLLY BHAVAN NO.2, 7, NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020. PAN: AASPG3054 VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(4), R.NO.575, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.RD., MUMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO.900/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2004-05) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(4), R.NO.575, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.RD., MUMBAI-400 020. VS. SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA, 5, JOLLY BHAVAN NO.2, 7, NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020. PAN: AASPG3054 APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY S/SHRI PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA & S.C. GUPTA. RESPONDENT BY SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH. DATE OF HEARING 01-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11-04-2012 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, JM : BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE IMPUNGED ORDER DATED 27-11-2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.6583/MUM/2010: ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 2 2. THE ASSESSEE, WHILE CHALLENGING THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER, HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1.0 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.23,65,688/- U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF MATERIALS MADE FROM UNDER STATED PARTIES :- A) M/S. VIKRANT ENTERPRISE S RS.3,33,287/- B) M/S. PRAKASH TRADING CO. RS.8,55,456/- C) M/S. BHANJI HIRJI PATEL RS.2,95,113/- D) M/S. ARTEX ENTERPRISES RS.8,81,832/- TOTAL RS.23,65,688/- ----------------- 2.0 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 37(1) OF RS.23,65,688/- ON GROSSLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED SU CH COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS REVENUE EXPENSE, RATHER HAD CAPITALIZED IT TO THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS. 3.0 THE LD. CIT(A), BEFORE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.23,65,688/- OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT : A) THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL BY A/C. PAYEE CHEQUE; B) THE APPELLANT HAD DEDUCTED TDS ON CONTRACTS AND DEPOSITED IN TIME TO THE CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT; C) THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT HAD BEEN FILED ON RECORD; D) THE BILLS, SALES TAX REGI STRATION NUMBERS, LEDGER A/C. OF SUCH SUPPLIERS AND BANK STATEMENT HAD BEEN FILED ON RECORD; E) THE LD. A.O. HAD NOT REJECTED APPELLANTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS; THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE LD. AR HAS VERY FAIRLY STATED BEFORE US THAT HE WOULD BE AGITATING ONLY GROUND NOS. 1 & 2. GROUND NO. 3 IS ONLY IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVESAID GROUNDS. AS SUCH, WE ARE ONLY ADJUDICATI NG GROUNDS NOS.1 & 2 TOGETHER. ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 3 BRIEF FACTS AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ON 10-10-2004, THE ASSESSEE HEREIN FILED RETURN BEFORE THE LD. AO. DEDUCED HER TO TAL INCOME AS RS.4,17,500/-. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO PROCESSED THE CASE U/S. 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER TO BE REFERRED AS THE ACT). THE SAME LED TO RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IT WAS DURING THIS EXERCISE THAT THE LD. AO RESORTED TO PROCEEDINGS U/S. 133(6). SENT NOTICES TO 5 PARTIES, NAMELY,M/S.VIKRANT ENTERPRISE S, M/S. PRAKASH TRADING CO., M/S. OTIS ELEVATORS CO.(I) LTD., BHANJI HIRAJI PATE L AND M/S. ARTEX TRAN SPORT CO. TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS OF RS.23,65,688/-. THE LD. AO SOUGHT THE FOLLOWING DETAILS FROM THE SAID PARTIES : I) LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR F.Y. 2004-05 & 2003-04. II) NATURE OF TRANSACTION I.E. MATERIAL SOLD OR SERVICES RENDERED. III)COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FROM F.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06. WHEN NONE OF THE PARTIES EXCEPT M/S. OT IS ELEVATORS CO. (I) LTD. RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES SENT BY THE AO, THE LD. AO VI DE LETTER DATED 3-12-2008, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES BY 11-12-2008. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THIS LETTER ON 4-12-2008. IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID LETTER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE ABOVESAID PARTIES TO PROVE THAT SHE HAD PAID THE AMOUNT AS STATED IN HER RETURN. HOWEVER, SHE DULY PRODUCED ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF THE SAID PARTIES. BUT THE LD. AO DISBELIEVED THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS BOGUS BY HOLDING THAT NEITHER THE PAN NUMBER OF ANY OF THE PARTIES HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANY CROSS VERIFICATION NOR THE PARTIES THEMSELVES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM TO ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 4 PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS. THE LD. AO FURTHER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE NOTICES SENT TO THE SA ID PARTIES ALSO COULD NOT BE SERVED. EVEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE NEW ADDRESSES OF THE SAID PARTIES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LD. AO HELD THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE SAID PARTIES WITHOUT ANY PAN DETAILS WERE BOGUS. UNRELIABLE AS THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAME DESPITE TAKING AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES. THE LD. AO PASSED THE SAID ORDER ON 26-12-2008. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE AS SESSEE HEREIN PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL ON THE GROUND THAT NONE OF THE PARTIES HAD NEITHER A PAN CARD NOR ANY OTHER DETAILS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSS VERIFICATION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A), WHILE UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS IN VERBATIM, ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE NEW ADDRESSES OF THE SAID PARTIES. IN THIS REGARD, THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27-11-2009. IT IS IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE INSTANT GROUNDS BEFORE US. WE ALSO FIND IT RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT ALONG WITH THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE LD. AR HAS ALSO FILED PAPER BOOK COMP RISING DOCUMENTS AT SERIAL NOS.1 TO 5 WITH NECESSARY CERTIFICATION. OPENING THE ARGUMENTS, THE LD. AR APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE NOTICE IN QUESTION DATED 3-12-2008 (COPY PRODUCED BEFORE US TODAY) PROVIDED TOO SHORT A TIME TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTI ON. THE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED ON 4- 12-2008. SINCE THE TIME PROVIDED TO SHOW CAUSE WAS TOO SHORT, THEREFORE, THE ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 5 ASSESSEE, WHO IS AN OLD LADY, COULD ONLY PRODUCE THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION BEFORE THE LD. AO. WITHIN THE SHORT SPAN OF TIME, SHE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAID PAYEES/PARTIES THEMSELVES TO SUPPORT THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE LD. AR ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE RECORD OF THE CASE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF BO TH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE REFERRED TO PAGE-8 OF THE PAPER BOOK (DETAILS OF CHEQUE PAYMENTS TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED), PAGES 10 & 11 COMPRISING TDS PAYMENT DETAILS WITH PAN NUMBERS DULY MENTIONED AS WELL AS PAGES 37 ONWARDS CONTAINING THE PARTICULARS OF BANK STATEMENTS. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME, HE ARGUED THAT SINCE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS TO THE EFFECT ARE AGAINST THE RECORD. THEREFORE PERVERSE. HENCE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE LIABLE TO SET ASIDE BEING CO NTRARY TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. REBUTTING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD . AR, THE LD. DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS ARGUED THAT THE PAPER BOOK COMPRISING OF THE DETAILS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN DULY REFERRED BY THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCURRENT. HENCE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, BY REFERRING TO THE ORDERS OF THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A), HE PRAYED THAT THE GROUND MAY BE REJECTED. THE FINDINGS OF HE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVE S. ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LD. AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A). THE PAPER BOOK REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AR HAS ALSO BEEN DULY PERUSED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE RECORD, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, SINCE THE LD. AO HAD PROVIDED ONLY A WEEKS TIME TO ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 6 PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS, SO WHATEVER MATERIALS COULD THE ASSESSEE GATHER, WERE PLACED BEFORE THE LD. AO. SO FAR AS THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT PAN NUMBERS OF THE PAYEES IN QUESTION WERE NOT PROVIDED IS AGAINST THE RECORD AS THE SAME ARE DULY MENTIONED IN PAGES STATED ABOVE . REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD IS MADE TO PAGE-11 CONTAINING PAN NUMBER OF BHANJI HIRAJI PATEL (SUPRA). REGARDING M/S. PRAKASH TRADING CO., PAN NUMBER IS AT PAGE 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SO FAR AS THE OTHER PARTY I.E. M/S. ARTEX ENTERPRISES IS CONCERNED, ITS PAN NUMBER DULY FINDS MENTIONED AT PAGE 62 AND SO ON. THEREFORE WE FIND THAT INSTEAD OF QUESTION NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, THE CASE IN HAND IS ONLY REGARDING FACTUAL VERIFICATION OF THE PAYMENTS MADE. SO, IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS; IN OUR OPINION, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFFO RDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.900/MUM/2010: 6. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.70,86,956/- BEING PAYMENT MADE TO A THIRD PARTY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT IN RESPECT OF SUCH PAYMENTS. ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 7 BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT IN RESPECT OF SUCH PAYMENTS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS REPRESENTED BOGUS/FICTITIOUS TRANSACTION AND WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENSES BECAUSE SHRI MEHTA WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL TENANT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. SINCE GROUND NO. 4 IS GENERA L IN NATURE, WE ARE ONLY DECIDING GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 TOGETHER. FACTS GIVING RISE TO FILING OF THE INSTANT APPELLANT BY THE REVENUE ARE THAT THE LD. AO HAD MADE AN ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.70,86,956/- ON THE GROUND THAT REGARDING THE ABOVESAID ALLEGED PAYMENT MADE BY HER TO HER ALLEGED TENANT SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR MEHTA IN LIEU OF GETTING VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES IN QUESTION LEADING TO SURRENDER OF TENANCY WAS BONUS. THE LD. AO ALSO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION BY TAKING RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 68 OF THE ACT THAT THE SAID SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR MEHTA WAS NOT IN FACT TENANT OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN FACT, THE TENANT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE MR. SACHDEO. SO, IN THE OPINION OF THE LD. AO, ONCE SHRI MEHTA WAS NOT EVEN THE TENANT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN SHE CANNOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI MEHTA. HOWEVER, IN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SHRI MEHTA WAS, IN FACT, BROUGHT BY SHRI SACHDEO IN HIS PLACE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER UPHELD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD PAID THE AMOUNT TO SHRI MEHTA FOR ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 8 GETTING VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY. AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TENANT OF THE ASSESSEE/DEVELOPER, SHE AL SO AGREED TO GIVE HIM A FLAT COSTING RS.70,86,956/- I.E. THE COST OF THE FLAT INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, TO THIS EXTENT , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE APPEAL. SO, THE SAID FINDING IS BEING CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. THE LD. DR APPEARING FOR THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT IT WAS MR. SACHDEO WHO WAS THE ORIGINAL TENA NT OF THE ASSESSEE. NO AGREEMENT REGARDING TENANCY EXISTED EVER BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI MEHTA. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TENANCY CAN ONLY BE CREATED BY WAY OF AN AGREEMENT. THE SAME DOES NOT EXIST IN THE INSTANT CASE. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT AND ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THE RELATI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SHRI MEHTA AS LANDLORD AND TENANT, HER APPEAL HAS BEEN WRONGLY ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HE PRAYED THAT THE INSTANT GROUND BE ACCEPTED. FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THIS EFFECT MAY BE SET ASIDE TH EREBY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO BE UPHELD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR APPEAR ING FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK COMPRISING OF THE ENTIRE RECORD OF THE CASE WHICH HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE RENT RECEIPTS OF SHRI SACHDEO UPTO THE YEAR 2000. STAT ED THAT UNDISPUTEDLY SHRI SACHDEO WAS THE ASSESSEES TENANT FROM THE YEAR 1950 TO 2000. IT WAS IN THE YEAR 2000 THAT SHRI SACHDEO INDUCTED SHRI MEHTA AS SUB- TENANT. AS A RESULT, SINCE 2000 TILL THE AGREEMENT OF SURRENDER OF TENANCY DATED 22-10-2003, SHRI MEHTA WAS THE ASSESSEES TENANT. THE AGREEMENT OF SURRENDER OF TENANCY IN THIS REGARD IS A DULY REGISTERED AGREEMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF REGISTRATION ACT BEFORE THE REGISTRAR. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF SHRI MEHTA ARE THERE AT ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 9 PAGE 24 AND DETAILS ARE ON THE RECORD. HE FURTHER ELABORATED THE FACT THAT WHETHER IT IS MR. MEHTA OR MR. SACHDEO IS A FACT IMMATERIAL FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT, IN ANY CASE, HER MAIN PURPOSE OF MAKING PAYMENT WAS TO GET HER PREMISES VACATED. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD MAY BE UPHELD THEREBY DISMISSING THE INSTANT APPEAL. 7. AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FROM THE REGISTERED AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN MR.MEHTA AND THE ASSESSEE, IT STANDS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE TENANCY OF THE PREMISES IN QUESTION SURRENDERED FROM THE HANDS OF SHRI MEHTA. THE FACT THAT THE SAID AG REEMENT IS A DULY REGISTERED DOCUMENT, ALWAYS CARRIES PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS, CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT OF. SO FAR AS THE PLEA OF THE LD. DR THAT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT OF TENANCY AS SUCH BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND HER SO-CALLED TENANT IS CONCERNED, IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT TENANCY COULD BE A CONTRACT WRITTEN AS WELL AS ORAL. IT IS THE INTER-SE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES I.E. LANDLORD AND TENANT IN PARTICULAR CASE WHICH IS THE RELEVANT FACTOR TO DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP OF TENANT AND LANDLORD. HEREIN, IN THE INSTANT CASE, AMPLE MATERIAL IS THERE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR. BE THAT AS IT MAY, ONCE THE LANDLORD IN QUESTION I.E. THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT THE VACANT PREMISES BY WAY OF AN AGREEMENT WHICH SHE IS CLAIMING AS BUSINESS EXPE NDITURE, IT IS NOT FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO DECIDE THE BILATERAL TIES BETWEEN THE LAND LORD AND THE TENANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE INSTANT GROUND FAILS. ITA NOS.6583/M/09 & 900/M/10 SMT. MANJULA S. GORADIA. 10 8. CONSEQUENTLY, ITA NO.6583/MUM/2009 FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.900/MUM/2010 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 11 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (P. M. JAGTAP) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: 11 TH APRIL, 2012. NG: COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2. DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A)4,MUMBAI. 4 CIT-2.MUMBAI. 5.DR,J BENCH,MUMBAI. 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.