PATEL PLASTICS CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR-24, MUMBAI

ITA 914/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79353 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MA YUR KISHNADWALA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 147; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 914/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) PATEL PLASTICS CORPORATION 4-5, NANDU INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI-400 093. VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 24 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) P ERMANENT ACCOUNT N O. : AAAFP 4659 G ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAYUR KISHNADWALA REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL DATE OF HEARING : 09/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/07/2014 O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2008 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- 1.ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY THE AO U/S.148 IS BA D IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITIONS MA DE BY AO OF RS.8,35,000/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT. ITA NO.914/M/09 AY:03-04 2 2. GROUND NO.1 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF RE-OPENIN G UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 30/12/2005 AT A L OSS OF RS.8,48,370/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U NDER SECTION 148 ON 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2006 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOL D A PLOT OF LAND AND SHOWN SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.8.00 LACS AS PER CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 25/03/2003. HOWEVER, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS RS.1 6,35,000/- AS PER RECEIPT OF THE SAID AUTHORITY DATED 26/03/2000. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C THE VALUE ADO PTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE CON SIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE RE-OPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT BY FILING LETTER DATED 30/12/2006. THE AO REJECTED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE RE-ASSESSMENT WHEREBY AN ADDITION TO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.8,35,000/- WAS MADE. THE AS SESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF AO BEFORE CIT(A) INCLUDING VALIDITY O F THE RE-OPENING BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) N O NEW MATERIAL OR INFORMATION CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO TO BELI EVE THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE HAS PO INTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN OF THE INCOME. THE RE- OPENING IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 50C WHEREAS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE SALE CONSIDE RATION AS SHOWN IN CONVEYANCE DEED WAS ACCEPTED BY AO. THUS, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FORCEFULLY CONTENDED THAT THE RE-OPENING IN THIS CA SE IS BAD AND BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION AS NOTHING NEW CAME TO THE KNOWLE DGE OF THE AO ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE BELIEVED THAT THE INCO ME ASSESSED TO TAX HAS ITA NO.914/M/09 AY:03-04 3 ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 1. CIT VS. EICHER LTD. (294 ITR 310) (DEL.); 2. CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 187 TAXMANN 312(SC )/320 ITR 561; 3. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. VS. DCIT (308 ITR 195) (BOM.) AN D 4. INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. HARESH CHAND AGARWAL HUF IT A NO.282/AGRA/2013 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ENQUIRY IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ISS UE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AND PARTICULARLY INVOKING OF SECTION 5 0C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE RE-OPENING IS NOT BASED ON CHAN GE OF OPINION AS THERE WAS NO OPINION IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ON THIS I SSUE. HE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR DEEP THOUGHT ON THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE SOLD LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.39 SITUATED AT BARWAI VILLAGE, PANVEL FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.8. 00 LACS VIDE CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 25/03/2003. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 30/12/2005 THE AO HAD ACCEP TED THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED. SUBSEQU ENTLY THE AO PROPOSED TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTIC E U/S. 148 ON 30/11/2006 BY RECORDING THE REASONS AS UNDER :- DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SO LD A PLOT OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.39, HISSA NO.1B SITUATED AT BARWAI VILLAGE, PANVEL AND SHOWED THE SALE CONSIDERATION A T RS.8,00,000/- AS PER CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 25/03/20 03. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY DETERMINED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS RS.1 6,35,000/- AS PER THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID AUTHORITY DATED 26/03/2 003> AS PERTHE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THE VALUE ADOPTED ITA NO.914/M/09 AY:03-04 4 BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY (HEREIN REFERRED T O AS THE SAID AUTHORITY) IS TO BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SAID AUTHORITY. 5.1 IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY AO THAT THE RECORD CONSISTING OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS CONVEYA NCE DEED AND THE VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES WAS AVAILABLE O N RECORD AS IT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) NEITHER ANY MATERIAL NOR ANY NEW INFORMATION CAME TO THE KNOWLE DGE OF THE AO WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INCOME ASSESS ABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DUE TO THE REASON OF UNDER -STAT EMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION. EVEN IN THE REASONS RECORDED OR IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED BECAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE AO DID NOT CONDUCT ANY ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 50C AND ADOPTION OF THE VALUE OF STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF A BOGUS OR ABS OLUTELY ILLEGAL CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW BUT IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE OF ADOPTION OF VALUATION OF STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY HAS TO BE EXAMINED AND DECIDED AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE THE VALUATI ON HAS TO BE REFERRED TO THE DVO. THEREFORE, THE NON CONDUCT OF ENQUIRY BY T HE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT DOES NOT GIVE IT AN AUTHORITY AND JURISD ICTION TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY IN THE ASSESSMENT ON HIS PART IN THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT. THE AO IS NOT PERMITTED TO REVIEW OR REVISE HIS OWN ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON THE REASON THAT HE HAS NOT CONDUCTED A PROPER ENQUIRY IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS MADE APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS TO DEAL WITH EACH AND EVERY SITUATION SEPARATELY AND THE NON-CONDUCT OF ENQUIRY AND NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART ITA NO.914/M/09 AY:03-04 5 OF THE AO IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IS A SUBJECT M ATTER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 AND NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF REVIS ION BY AO ITSELF BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 148/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASIAN PAINTS LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA), IN PARA 7 TO 10 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR BOTH SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS ON WHICH RE LIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR BOTH SI DES. 8. IN THE ORDER REJECTING THE OBJECTION FILED BY TH E PETITIONER TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, RESPONDENT NO.1 HAS OBSER VED 'VERIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORD REVEALS THAT THE SAID DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR BUT INADVERTENTLY THE SAME WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A CHANGE OF OPINION.' ACCORDING TO RESPONDENT NO. 1, THUS, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, BUT HE FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THAT MATERIAL IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE QUESTION IS, CAN RESPONDENT NO. 1 TAKE R ECOURSE TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 147 FOR HIS OWN FAILURE TO APP LY HIS MIND TO THE MATERIAL WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIM, IS RELEVANT A ND WHICH WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THIS SITUATION HA S BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. [2002] 256 ITR 1 AND THE FULL BENCH HAS OBSERVED THUS (PAGE 19 ) : 'THE SAID SUBMISSION IS FALLACIOUS. AN ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT CAN BE PASSED EITHER IN TERMS OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143 OR SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143. WHEN A REGUL AR ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS PASSED IN TERMS OF THE SAID SUB-SE CTION (3) OF SECTION 143 A PRESUMPTION CAN BE RAISED THAT SUC H AN ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON APPLICATION OF MIND. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT A PRESUMPTION CAN ALSO BE RAISED TO THE EFFECT THAT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 114 OF THE I NDIAN EVIDENCE ACT JUDICIAL AND OFFICIAL ACTS HAVE BEEN R EGULARLY PERFORMED. IF IT BE HELD THAT AN ORDER WHICH HAS BE EN PASSED PURPORTEDLY WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WOUL D ITSELF CONFER JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO R EOPEN THE PROCEEDING WITHOUT ANYTHING FURTHER, THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING A PREMIUM TO AN AUTHORITY EXERCISI NG QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION TO TAKE BENEFIT OF ITS OWN WRONG.' 9. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE THA T THE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT IN A SITUATION WHERE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE FAILED TO APP LY HIS MIND TO THE RELEVANT MATERIAL IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, HE CANNOT ITA NO.914/M/09 AY:03-04 6 TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG AND REOPEN THE ASSE SSMENT BY TAKING RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147. W E FIND, OURSELF, IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. 10. IT IS FURTHER TO BE SEEN THAT THE LEGISLATURE H AS NOT CONFERRED POWER ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REVIEW ITS OWN OR DER. THEREFORE, THE POWER UNDER SECTION 147 CANNOT BE USED TO REVIE W THE ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS USED THE PHRASE 'REASON TO BELIEVE', ADMITTEDLY BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED AND THE D ATE OF FORMATION OF OPINION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOTH ING NEW HAS HAPPENED, THEREFORE, NO NEW MATERIAL HAS COME ON RE CORD, NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED, IT IS MERELY A FRESH APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND THE REASON THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN IS THAT THE SOME MAT ERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHILE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE WAS INADVERTENTLY EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION. THIS WIL L, IN OUR OPINION, AMOUNT TO OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS CHANGE OF OPINION. THE FULL BENCH OF THE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR [2002] 25 6 ITR 1 REFERRED TO ABOVE, HAS TAKEN A CLEAR VIEW THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS A CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, IN TH E PRESENT CASE ALSO, IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 T O ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. 5.2 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HEL D THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT CONFERRED POWER ON THE AO TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. THEREFORE, THE POWER UNDER SECTION 147 CAN NOT BE USED TO REVIEW T HE ORDER WHEN NOTHING NEW HAD HAPPENED AND NO NEW MATERIAL OR INF ORMATION HAS COME ON RECORD OR RECEIVED BY THE AO BETWEEN THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RE-OPENED AND THE DATE OF FORMATION OF OPINION. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW OF THE FULL BENCH OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR INDIA WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT (187 TAXMA NN 312). 5.3 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EICHER (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN CASE OF KELVINATIOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), OBSERVED IN PARA 16 TO 18 AS UNDER :- ITA NO.914/M/09 AY:03-04 7 .........APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE FULL BENCH OF THIS COURT AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT IF THE ENTIRE MATERIAL HAD BEE N PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME W HEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLI ED HIS MIND TO THAT MATERIAL AND ACCEPTED THE VIEW CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN MERELY BECAUSE HE DID NOT EXPRESS THIS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT GIVE HIM A GROUND T O CONCLUDE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE A SSESSMENT NEEDED TO BE REOPENED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE AS SESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND AND COMMITTED A LAPSE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE MADE TO SUFFER THE CONSE QUENCES OF THAT LAPSE. IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNED, WE FI ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ALL THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHERE THERE WAS A DOUBT, EVEN THAT WAS CLARIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1995. IF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE PASSING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDE R, CHOSE NOT TO GIVE ANY FINDING IN THIS REGARD, THAT CANNOT GIVE H IM OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE A REASON TO REOPEN THE ASSESSME NT OF THE ASSESSEE OR TO CONTEND THAT BECAUSE THE FACTS WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE WAS NOT MADE. SINCE THE FACTS WERE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AT TH E TIME OF FRAMING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, AND LATER A DIFFERENT VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HIM OR HIS SUCCESSOR ON THE SAME FACTS, IT CLEARLY AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION. THIS CANNOT FORM THE BASIS FOR P ERMITTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR HIS SUCCESSOR TO REOPEN THE AS SESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THIS WAS THE DECISION REN DERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT IN THE VI EW TAKEN. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE CAS E IS ONE OF A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THE APPE AL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS AS REFERRED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RE-OPENING IN TH IS CASE IS BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE RE-ASSESSMENT IS QUASHED. ITA NO.914/M/09 AY:03-04 8 6.1 SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE RE-ASSESSMENT ON TH E GROUND OF VALIDITY, THEREFORE, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 16/07/2014. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.