ACIT 6(1), MUMBAI V. HITESH C VEDANT, MUMBAI

ITSSA 21/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0075 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

H IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI .. , . ... BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM ./ I.T.(SS) A. NO. 21/MUM/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1-4-1996 TO 12-12-2012 DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR. 6(1), ROOM NO. 506, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. HIESH C. VEDANT, 5 SHREE BLDG., OPP. VIJAYA BANK, R.C. MARG, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI -71. . / PAN : AAFPV5033M ( % / APPELLANT ) .. ( &'% / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI K.C.P. PATNAIK ASSESSEE B Y : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA * / DATE OF HEARING : 27-01-2014 * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-02-2014 [ / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : .. , THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 14, MUMBAI DATED 29-03-2012 WHEREBY HE DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION MADE IN THE PARTNE RSHIP FIRM OF M/S ASHAPURA GARMENTS GLOBAL MARKETING (IN SHORT AGGM ). 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L WHO IS PARTNER IN THE FIRM OF AGGM. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S ASHAPURA GARM ENTS PVT. LTD., DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH CERTAIN COMPUTER BACK UP DATA W AS ALLEGEDLY RECOVERED IT(SS)A 21/M/2012 2 SHOWING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 22,50,000/- M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF M/S AGGM. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 158 BC OF THE A CT ON 18-1-2005, THE A.O. ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ON CONFIRMATION OF THE SAI D ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 5-11-2009 PASSED IN IT(SS) A N O. 16/MUM/08 RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. AFTER RECORDING ITS OBSERVATIONS AS UNDER:- WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASHAPURA GROUP WAS COVERED BY A SEARCH ACTION DURING WHICH COMPUTER DATA BACKUP WAS TAKEN FROM THE COMPUTER AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. ASHAPURA GARMENT L TD. AMONGST THE VARIOUS FILES TAKEN AS BACKUP, THERE WAS A FOLDER I N THE NAME SYS/D/TALLY/54, WHICH WAS A TALLY DATABASE FOLDER C ONTAINING ACCOUNTING DATA RELATING TO SEVERAL CONCERNS OF ASH APURA GROUP INCLUDING M/S. AGGM. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF DATA AVA ILABLE ON THIS FOLDER THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO, BEING CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN THE M/S AGGM. WE FURTHER FIN D THAT BEFORE THE ID. CIT(A) IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT NO COPY OF COMPUTER BACKUP DATA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDI TION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO APPELLANT. HOWEVER, VIDE LETTER DATED 26.10.2007, IT WAS INFORMED BY THE A.O THAT COPY OF THE COMPUTER BACKU P DATA WHICH CONTAINED THE FOLDERS SYS/D/TALLY/54 ON THE BASIS O F WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. IN REPLY, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DESPITE ATTEMPTS, TH E PARTICULAR FILE COULD NOT BE OPENED AND THEREFORE THE APPELLANT WAS IN NO POSITION TO GIVE ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMPLETE MATERIAL WHICH WAS USED AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND REASONABLE THAT TH E MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SEND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O WHO SHALL DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS HEREINABOVE AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 3. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE RELEVANT DETAILS TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE A.O. REOPENED THE CD SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND FOUND THAT THE RELEVANT DATA FILE IN THE BACK UP COULD NOT BE IT(SS)A 21/M/2012 3 REOPENED AS THE SAME WAS PROTECTED BY THE PASSWORD. WHEN THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE A.O . TO PROVIDE THE PASSWORD, THE FORMER EXPRESSED HER HELPLESSNESS TO DO SO. KEE PING IN VIEW THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED PASSWORD TO OP EN THE RELEVANT FILE AND RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ORIGINALLY MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 158 BC OF THE ACT, THE A.O. TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22,50,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT MADE IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S AGGM IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158 BC R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE AS WELL AS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 5-11-2009 (SUPRA) PASSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND, THE LD. CIT(A) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO HIM TO SEND THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE IN HER P OSSESSION IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ANY CAPITAL INTRODUCTION ALLEGEDLY MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF M/S AGGM. THE A.O. WAS ALSO DI RECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CONCERNED D DIT(INV.) AND ALSO COPY OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT WHERE THE DETAILS OF ENTRIES R EGARDING CAPITAL INTRODUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE WERE GIVEN. IN THE REMAND REPORT SU BMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE A.O. DID NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION OR MATERIA L SOUGHT BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND MERELY REPEATED HIS COMMENTS MADE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER THAT THE CONCERNED FILE COULD NOT BE REOPENED DUE TO FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED PASSWORD. 5. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REMAND REPOR T SUBMITTED BY THE A.O. AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD, FOR TH E FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA NO. 2.9 TO 2.13 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE:- IT(SS)A 21/M/2012 4 2.9 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE AO VIDE HER REMAND REPORT. I HAVE AL SO GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE ITAT THAT THE APPELLANT ALLEGEDLY WAS NOT PROVIDED THE COMPUTER BACK UP DAT A IN RESPECT OF THE FILE FOLDER NAMED SYS/D/TALLY/54. HOWEVER, THE AO HAD INFORMED THAT THE COPY OF COMPUTER BACK UP DATA CONTAINING T HE FOLDER SYS/D/TALLY/54 HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. IN REPLY, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT DESPITE SEVERAL ATT EMPTS, THE PARTICULAR FILE COULD NOT BE OPENED AND THEREFORE THE APPELLAN T WAS IN NO POSITION TO GIVE ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION. UNDER THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, THE ITAT HELD THAT COMPLETE MATERIAL, WHICH WAS USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT, HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT AND IN VIEW OF T HE SAME, THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH A FTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELL ANT. IT IS THUS OBVIOUS THAT IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, THE AO WAS DUTY BOUND TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED EVIDENCE TO THE APPEL LANT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- HAD BEEN MADE . 2.10 HOWEVER, FROM THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT NO SUCH MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE AO TO THE APPELLA NT. NOR THE AO HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT SHE IS IN POSSESSION OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INTRODUCED SUCH UNACCOUNTED CAPITAL OF RS. 22,50,000/- IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S AGGM. THEREFORE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS NOT FOLL OWED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONORABLE ITAT AND HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- WITHOUT HAVING ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, AND WIT HOUT PROVIDING ANY SUCH EVIDENCE TO THE APPELLANT. THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMAND THAT NO ADDITION SHALL BE MADE BEHIND THE BA CK OF AN ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY, AND S HALL BE PROVIDED THE MATERIAL, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE USED AGAINST THE AS SESSEE. THEREFORE IN THE INTERESTS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, I CONSIDER IT FAI R AND REASONABLE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE SHOULD BE DELETED. 2.11 COMING TO THE CONTROVERSY REGARDINGJ THE SAID COMPUTER FOLDER SYS/D/TALLY/54, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO IN THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER H AS TRIED TO SHIFT THE BLAME ON THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID FOLDER COULD N OT BE OPENED BECAUSE IT IS PASSWORD PROTECTED AND THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVIDED THE REQUIRED PASSWORD. IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY BE NO TED THAT THE COMPUTER FROM WHICH THE BACKUP DATA WAS TAKEN WAS F OUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE FIRM M/S. AGGM AND NOT AT THE APPEL LANTS RESIDENCE. HENCE, STRICTLY SPEAKING, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE B LAMED AS THE COMPUTER/ COMPUTER DATA WAS NOT RECOVERED FROM HIS POSSESSION. FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE APPELL ATE ORDER OF THE THEN LD. CIT(A), IT IS ALSO GATHERED THAT APPARENTLY SUC H DATA COULD BE VIEWED DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTER DURING THE POST- SEARCH INVESTIGATIONS. IT IS HOWEVER NOT KNOWN AS T O WHY THE PRINTOUT OF IT(SS)A 21/M/2012 5 SUCH DATA, IF ANY, WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE INVESTIGATI ON WING OR ELSE WHY THE SAME WAS NOT DEMANDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2.12 IF THE FILE COULD BE VIEWED IN THE INVESTIGATI ON WING, IT WAS EITHER NOT PROTECTED BY THE PASSWORD OR ELSE THE PASSWORD, IF ANY, WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUP. IT IS THEREFORE AL SO POSSIBLE THAT THE PASSWORD WAS INTRODUCED LATER AND ALL-THROUGH THE R ECORDS REMAINED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE DEPARTMENT. THUS THE BLAME, IF A NY, CANNOT BE PUT ON THE APPELLANT OR THE ASSESSEE GROUP. THE BLAMES HAS TO BE FOUND SOMEWHERE ELSE. TO TOP IT, THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO WHY ANY PRINTOUT OF THE DATA WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE INVESTIGATION WING DURING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRIES WHEN THE FILE WAS OPENED, VIEWED AND Q UESTIONS IN THIS REGARD WERE ASKED FROM THE ASSESSEE GROUP AND ALSO, WHY AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE THEN AO HAD NO T DEMANDED THE PRINTOUT OF SUCH DATA FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING. 2.13 THE FACT IS THAT NEITHER THE AO AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL AND PRESENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOR THE THEN CIT(A) EVER SA W ANY SUCH DATA; NOR IT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT. STILL, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BOTH DURING THE ORIGINAL AND PRESENT ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. SUCH ENTRIES, IF ANY EXISTED IN THE COMPUTER BACK-U P, HAVE NOT BEEN ENUMERATED IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OR THE A PPELLATE ORDER. AFTER THE MATTER WAS SET-ASIDE BY HONBLE ITAT, THE AO HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO ASCERTAIN/ RETRIEVE SUCH DATA, IF ANY AND P ROVIDE IT TO THE APPELLANT, WHICH THE AO HAS NOT DONE. FURTHER-MORE, THE MATTER OF ASCERTAINING AND PROVIDING SUCH ENTRIES WAS REMANDE D TO THE AO TWICE BY CIT(A); ONCE DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THEN DURING THE PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND AGAIN THE AO WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT APPE AL, THE AO WAS REQUESTED TO SEND THE RECORDS IN HER POSSESSION IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S AGGM. THE AO WAS ALSO REQUESTED FURNISH THE RE LEVANT FINDING OF DDIT (INV.) UNIT III(4), MUMBAI AND ALSO THE COPY O F THE APPRAISAL REPORT WHERE THE DETAILS OF SUCH ENTRIES REGARDING CAPITA L INTRODUCTION BY THE APPELLANT WERE GIVEN. HOWEVER, NO SUCH DETAILS/DOCU MENTS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED AND THE STORY HAS REMAINED THE SAME. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVEN UE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IT(SS)A 21/M/2012 6 WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY S UPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE S CASE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL SPECIFIC ALLY BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT T HE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY HIM BY WAY OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM OF M/S AGGM RELYING ON THE DATA AV AILABLE IN THE FILE OF THE COMPUTER BACK UP FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S ASHAPURA GARMENTS PVT. LTD. SINCE THIS DATA REL IED UPON BY THE A.O. TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION RESTORED THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING THE SAID D ATA TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O., HOWEVER, COULD NOT OPEN THE RELEVANT FILE IN THE COMPUTER BACK UP AND PUTTING THE ENTIRE BLAME ON THE ASSESSEE OF NOT GIV ING THE PASSWORD TO OPEN THE SAID FILE, HE AGAIN MADE THE SAME ADDITION OF R S. 22,50,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT. AS RIGHTLY NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD, THE RELEVANT COMPUTER BACK U P WAS NOT FOUND FROM THE COMPUTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE COULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR NOT GIVING THE REQUIRED PASSWORD TO OPEN THE RELEVA NT FILE AS THE CONCERNED COMPUTER WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF SOME OTHE R PARTY AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IF SUCH DATA WAS ACTUALLY EXIST ED EITHER AT THE INVESTIGATION STAGE OR EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE PRESERVED THE SAM E WHICH WAS UTILIZED BY HIM TO FASTEN THE TAX LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD. CIT(A), IN FACT, AFFORDED THE A.O. ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ON RECORD AN Y RELEVANT MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH OR ATLEAST THE IT(SS)A 21/M/2012 7 COPY OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT TO SHOW THAT THE ALLEG ED INVESTMENT OF RS. 22,50,000/- WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E CAPITAL OF M/S AGGM. THE A.O., HOWEVER, FAILED TO AVAIL THIS OPPORTUNITY AND COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ALLEGED I NVESTMENT WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPITAL OF M/S AGGM. HA VING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THA T THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,50,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTME NT ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPITAL OF M/S AGGM WAS NOT SUS TAINABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OR DOCUMENTS BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SU PPORT AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON TH IS ISSUE AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. . * 0 1 07-02-2014 * SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (P.M. JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 1 DATED 07-02-2014 .../ RK , SR. PS !#$ %$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % / THE APPELLANT 2. &'% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4 () / THE CIT(A)14, MUMBAI. 4. 4 / CIT VI, MUMBAI 5. 7 &9 , 9 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI H BENCH 6. ; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI