DERAJ AGROTECH LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 950/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 95019914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHWAS V MEHENDALE
• Keywords: Business income; Retrospective amendment; Reasonable cause; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMB AI - D BENCH MUMBAI . . , / !' !' !' !' , ! ! ! ! BEFORE S/SH.B.R.MITTAL,JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 950/MUM/2011, # # # # $ $ $ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DERAJ AGROTECH LTD. 26, BELL BUILDING, FORT, MUMBAI-400001 VS. ITO 2(2)(4) MUMBAI. PAN: AAAC P4727G ( %& / APPELLANT ) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT) %& %& %& %& ) )) ) * * * * ! !! ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VISHWAS V. MEHENDALE '(%& ) * ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN # # # # ) )) ) + + + + / DATE OF HEARING : 06 . 01 .201 4 ,-$ ) + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 01 .201 4 # # # # , 1961 ) )) ) 254 )1( ! !! ! +.+ +.+ +.+ +.+ !/ !/ !/ !/ ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2010 OF THE CIT(A )-5,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE HAD RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS-5, MUMBAI ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THEIR INCOME AND THEREBY ERRED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS-5, MUMBAI ERRED IN LEVYING THE P ENALTY OF RS. 2,25,017/- U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT, THE APPELLANTS HAD COMM ITTED DEFAULT UNDER EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE APPELLANTS CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROV IDING CONSULTATION, ADVICE, ERECTION, COMMISSIONING AND ENGINEERING WORK IN THE AREA OF C HEMICALS. HYDRO CARBONS, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, HORTICULTURE FERTILIZERS ETC. THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 30.10.2007SHOWING BUSINESS INCOME AT RS.10,89,377/- AND AFTER SET OFF OF CARRIED FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES,THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED AT NI L.ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ON 17.08.2009 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.15,37,487/-.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAD NOT DISALLOWED THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT: 2 ITA NO. 950/MUM/2011 DERAJ AGROTECH LTD. (I) DEFERRED TAX RS. 6,00,472 (II) FRINGE BENEFIT TAX RS. 15,697 (III) PRIOR YEAR ADJUSTMENT RS. 52, 331 TOTAL RS. 6,68,500/- AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THESE AMOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME RETURNED.AS PER THE AO,NO EXPLANATION WAS OF FERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD-EXCEPT STATING THAT THE RETURNED INCOME SHOULD NOT INCREAS ED BY ADDING THE SAID SUMS.AO HELD THAT THE SUMS WERE NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING T HE INCOME,THAT SAME COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE TAXABLE PROFITS.AS A RES ULT,THESE AMOUNTS WERE ACCORDINGLY ADDED TO THE INCOME RETURNED WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT .AO ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING IT TO SHOW AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S.271(L)(C) OF THE A CT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME.TH E ASSESSEE,VIDE ITS LETTER DATED. 26.10.2009, FURNISHED EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD.IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT OFFERED FOR TAX THROUGH AN INADVERTENT ERROR AND TH AT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE DROPPED BY TAKING A LENIENT VIEW.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE,AO HELD THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DEFAULT WAS COMMITTED THROUGH AN INADVERTENT ERROR WAS TOO GENERAL TO BE ACCEPTED AS A REASONABLE CAUSE,THAT DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE,HAD STATED THAT THE VERY SAME AMOUNTS WERE NOT DISALLOWED IN COMPUT ING THE BOOK PROFITS U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DULY CONSIDERED THESE VERY SUMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 115JB,THAT IT WAS VERY HARD TO BELIEVE AT THE SAME TIME THOSE AMOUNTS WERE NOT DISALLOWED IN THE NORMAL COMPUTATION THROUGH OVERSIGHT,THAT ASSESSEE TOOK A CHANCE AND OMITTED TO DISALLOW CERTAIN AMOUNTS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ACT, SHOUL D HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED,THAT OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT H AD THE ASSESSMENT NOT BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY,THAT EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SQUARELY APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION, THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION O FFERED,T HAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WAS BONA FIDE ,THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WAS NOT A BONA FIDE ACT.CONSIDERIN G THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RATIO OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF M/S. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS & OTHERS (306ITR277), HE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 2,25,017/- U/S. 271(L)(C) OF ACT. 3. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY(FAA).IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT THE AO HAD MISUNDERSTOOD THE EXPLAN ATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD JUSTIFIED ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION FOR DEFERRED TAX U/S.115JB OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE TAX COMPUTATION UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT,THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS RELEVANT AND N OT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT,THAT THE CLAIMS WER E INADVERTENT MISTAKE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, HE HELD THAT PATENTLY DISALLOWABLE CLAIMS WERE MADE IN THE RETURN,THAT FOR A COMPANY CONDUCTI NG BUSINESS FOR LONG, THE OMISSION TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM SUO MOTU COULD NOT BE TREATED AN INADVERTENT ERROR,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A LAME EXCUSE FOR THE MISTAKES COMMITTED BY IT,THAT TAKING OF A WRONG BASE COULD NOT BE TERMED AS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CON SIDERED THOSE VERY SUMS FOR CALCULATION TO BE MADE U/S.115JB OF THE ACT,THAT THERE WAS NO REASON WHY SAME WAS NOT DONE FOR COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME, THAT WRONG CLAIM, SO BASIC AND FUND AMENTAL, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS A REASON - ABLE CAUSE WHILE DECIDING THE CASES OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY.FINALLY,HE HELD THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN TERMS OF EXPLANA - TION (1) TO 271(1)(C). 4.BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THA T THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION FOR THE DEFERRED TAXES, THAT THERE WAS RETROSPECTIVE AMENDM ENT THAT WAS BROUGHT ON STATUTE IN AY-2007- 08, THAT THERE WAS BONAFIDE MISTAKE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDED BACK FRINGE BENEFIT TAX AND OTHER ITEMS, THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT CARRY FORWARD ITS LOSSES (HE REFERRED TO 3 ITA NO. 950/MUM/2011 DERAJ AGROTECH LTD. PAGE 4-5 OF THE PAPER BOOK.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE(DR)SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE WRONG CLAIM ABOUT TWO ITEMS, THAT THE CLAIMS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION (327 ITR 510). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE FAA IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUES TION;WITH REGARD TO FBT AND PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT; WERE NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW,THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT NOT DISALLOWING THE SAID ITEMS WA S AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE.WE FIND THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE TAX LIABILITY U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT T HE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER MAT PROVISIONS.IT CLEA RLY SHOWS AND PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS WELL VERSED WITH THE PROVISIONS AND PROC EDURE OF LAW.IT IS NOT A CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WHO IS A SMALL TIME PLAYER AND IS IGNORANT OF TAX L AWS.A KNOWLEDGEABLE CORPORATE-ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE SHELTER OF INADVERTENT MI STAKE.AS FAR AS QUESTION OF DEFERRED TAXES IS CONCERNED, IT IS CLEAR THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSME NT AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS DEDUCTIBLE ITEM AND IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO TH E SECTION THAT DEFERRED TAXES WERE TO BE DISALLOWED. IT IS A VERY WELL KNOWN LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT IF A N ASSESSEE CLAIMS ANY DEDUCTION HE HAS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BY PRODUCING POSITIVE EVIDEN CE.ACT HAS PROVIDED CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS OF INCOME AND SAME CAN BE CLAIMED ACCORDINGLY.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN A DEBATABLE CLAI M AND A PATENTLY WRONG OR FALSE CLAIM.THERE HAVE TO BE DIVERSE OPINIONS OF HONBLE COURTS ABOUT THE CLAIMS MADE UNDER THE FIRST CATEGORY AND WHERE ASSESSEE CAN ADOPT ONE OF THE VIEWS.IN SUCH C IRCUMSTANCES,ONE CAN SAY THAT ISSUE HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY AND IF ASSESSEE HAS OPTED FOR ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, HE SHOULD NOT BE VISITED BY PENAL PROVISIONS.BUT,THE CLAIMS MADE UNDER THE S ECOND CATEGORY HAVE NO LEGS OF THEIR OWN TO STAND.CLEARLY,SUCH CLAIMS ARE NOT TENABLE LEGALLY O R FACTUALLY.IF A CLAIM OF DEDUTION PUT FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LEGALLY VALID AND RESULTS IN EVASION OF TAXES,PROVISIONS OF SEC.271(1) (C) COMES IN PICTURE.THE PHRASE PARTICULARS OF INCOME APPEARING IN SECTION 271(1)(C),HAS TO BE INTERPRETED AS FACTS LEADING TO CORRECT COMPUTATION OF INCOME.SO,IT CAN BE SAFELY SAID THAT WHENEVER ANY MATERIAL FACT,FOR CORRECT COMPUTATION OF INCOME,IS NOT FILED OR IF FILED IS INACCU - RATE,THEN PENALTY HAS TO BE IMPOSED.PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO THE SECTION PROVIDE THAT SUCH PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ONLY IF TH E PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THEM TO BE FALSE O R OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE SUCH EXPLAN ATION IS BONA FIDE AND ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOM E HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DEALT THE ISSUE O F FALSE CLAIM,WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION(327ITR510).IN THAT MATTER DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS,THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD COMMITTED A BONA FIDE MISTAKE A ND ALL THE FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION WERE DISCLOSED.AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS REGARDS DISALLOWA- NCE OF THESE EXPENSES AND THE INCORRECT COMPUTATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ACT OF PAYING LESS TAX THAN WHAT WAS DUE FROM IT.FAA UPHELD THE O RDER OF THE AO.DECIDING THE APPEAL FIELD BEFORE IT,TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT DUE TO OVERSIGHT AND BONA FIDE MISTAKE, AN ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BU T SAME COULD NOT BE A BASIS TO LEVY PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT,ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THE RE LEVANT MATERIALS RELATING TO THAT ISSUE WERE DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY TRIBUNAL DELETED THE PENALTY.DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E DEPARTMENT, HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER : SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY MATE RIAL FACT OR THE FACTUAL INFORMATION GIVEN BY HIM HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, HE WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER 4 ITA NO. 950/MUM/2011 DERAJ AGROTECH LTD. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961,EVEN IF THE CLAIM MADE BY HIM IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, PROVIDED THAT HE EITHER SUBSTANTIATES THE EXPL ANATION OFFERED BY HIM OR THE EXPLANATION, EVEN IF NOT SUBSTANTIATED,IS FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE. IF T HE EXPLANATION IS NEITHER SUBSTANTIATED NOR SHOWN TO BE BONA FIDE,EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND THE ASSESSEE WILL BE LIABLE FOR THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY.IN THAT MATTER IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO OVERSIGHT CERTAIN ITEMS WERE NOT ADDED BACK TO TOTA L INCOME. THE COURT CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT ONLY A SMAL L PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS ARE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLA IM WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNIS HED BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT HE WOULD STILL NOT BE LIABLE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IF WE TAKE THE VIEW T HAT A CLAIM WHICH IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE IN LAW AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION ON WHICH IT COULD BE M ADE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, EVEN IF HE WAS NOT ACTING BO NA FIDE WHILE MAKING A CLAIM OF THIS NATURE, THAT WOULD GIVE A LICENCE TO UNSCRUPULOUS ASSESSEES TO MAKE WHOLLY UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIMS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BASIS FOR MAKING THE M, IN THE HOPE THAT THEIR RETURN WOULD NOT BE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THEY WOULD BE ASSESSED O N THE BASIS OF SELF-ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND EVEN IF THEIR CASE IS SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY, THEY CAN GET AWAY MERELY BY PAYING THE TAX, WHICH IN ANY CASE, WAS PAYABLE BY T HEM. THE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE THAT THE PERSONS WHO MAKE CLAIMS OF THIS NATURE, ACTUATED BY A MALA FIDE INTENTION TO EVADE TAX OTHERWISE PAYABLE BY THEM WOULD GET AWAY WITHOUT PAYING THE T AX LEGALLY PAYABLE BY THEM, IF THEIR CASES ARE NOT PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THIS WOULD TAKE AWA Y 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 CIRCUMS TANCES AND ON ACCOUNT OF WHOSE MISTAKE, THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIONS IN THIS CASE WERE NOT ADDED,WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY.WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT T HAT 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 F ROM THE ASSESSEE, WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE HOW SUCH DEDUCTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND HOW IT COULD ALSO HAVE ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE AUDITORS OF THE COMPANY. IF THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE REFERRED DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE;WITH REGAR D TO FBT AND PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES; WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND CLAIMS FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF FALSE CLAIM.AS FAR AS ISSUE OF DEFERRED TAXES IS CONCERNED,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT HAD NOT FIL ED ANY FALSE CLAIM.PENALTY IMPOSED/ CONFIRMED BY THE AO/FAA IN RESPECT OF DEFERRED TAXE S IS DELETED.THEREFORE, PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY, IN PART. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 0 1 #0+ 2 3 VAKR% VAKR% VAKR% VAKR% 4+ ) + 56 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JANUARY, 2014. !/ ) ,-$ ! 7 29 # , 2014 - ) . . SD/- SD/- ( . . . B.R.MITTAL) ( !' !' !' !' / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8# /DATE: 29.01.2014 SK 5 ITA NO. 950/MUM/2011 DERAJ AGROTECH LTD. !/ !/ !/ !/ ) )) ) '+9 '+9 '+9 '+9 :!9$+ :!9$+ :!9$+ :!9$+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / %& 2. RESPONDENT / '(%& 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ ; < , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / ; < 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 9=. '+# , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ . > . (9+ '+ //TRUE COPY// !/# / BY ORDER, ? / 5 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.