DCIT RG. 7(2), MUMBAI V. M/s. SUPREME TELECOMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

ITSSA 396/MUM/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3111 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPKANT PRASAD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business expenditure; Loose papers; Period of limitation; Block assessment; Time period of passing order
• Section: 37(1); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 (BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1989 TO 03.03.2000) M/S. SUPREME TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. 107, B-WING, MHATRE PEN BUILDING, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR(W), MUMBAI 400 028 PAN:AAACS 9792A ...... AP PELLANT VS. THE DCIT- 7(2), MUMBAI .... RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 (BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1989 TO 03.03.2000) THE DCIT, RANGE 7(2), ROOM NO.602, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .... APPELLANT VS. M/S. SUPREME TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. 107, B-WING, MHATRE PEN BUILDING, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR(W), MUMBAI 400028 ...... RESPO NDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIRO RAI REVENUE BY : SHRI DEEPKANT PRASAD DATE OF HEARING : 25/11/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/11/20 16 2 IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-VII, MUMBAI DATED 14/02/2003, P ERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD, WHICH IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28/03/2002 UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WEL L AS REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL:- GROUND NO. 1 THE LEARNED DCIT, ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT, DATED 28TH MARCH, 2002, WHICH IS BEYOND, THE TIME LIMIT P RESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. THE SEARCH ACTION ON THE APPELLANT STARTED ON 5TH JANUARY, 2000 AND WAS COMPLETED IN ALL RESPECTS IN FEBRUARY. 2000 ITSELF. THEREAFTER, NO FURTHER DOCUMENTS/VALUABLES WERE FOUND AND NEITHER WAS ANY STATEMENT PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT RECORDED. THE SEARCH WAS EXTENDED UPTO 3R D MARCH, 2000, PERFUNCTORILY, NOT FOR ANY BONAFIDE OR VALID REASONS, AS IS EVIDEN T FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. THE SEARCH ACTION THUS TECHNICALLY AND FACTUALLY WAS CO MPLETED IN FEBRUARY, 2000 ITSELF AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE OF THE A CT, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DCIT, DATED 28TH MARCH, 2002 IS INVALID AND THUS VOID AB INITIO. GROUND NO. 2 THE LEARNED DCIT HAS LEVIED SURCHARGE ON INCOME TAX ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) . THE TAX ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS TO BE LEVIED AT THE RATE SPECIFIED -IN SECTION 113 OF THE ACT, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BA OF THE ACT. THE RATE OF TAX SPECIF IED IS 60% AND NO SURCHARGE IS LEVAIABLE THEREON, WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL LEVY AS P ER THE FINANCE BILL, FOR EACH PARTICULAR YEAR INDIVIDUALLY. GROUND NO. 3 THE LEARNED DCIT HAS MADE ADDITIONS TO THE CONCEAL ED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OUT OF PURCHASES WHICH WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND WERE DULY DISCLOSED TO TAX OVER THE BLOCK PERIOD, O N THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE BOGUS SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(AP PEALS). IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY SUCH ADDITIONS, THE LEARNED DCIT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON CE RTAIN INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE DDI DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEE DINGS/ACTION, AT THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT. THE INFORMATION RELIED UPON WAS NOT FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ACTION AND THE SAME ANY WAY PERTAINS TO TRANSACTION S RECORDED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS 3 IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RETURNED TO TAX. THE PAYMENTS WERE FOR GENUINE EXPENSES RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. IN MAKING SUCH ADDITIONS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, GRAVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ER RORS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE LEARNED DCIT AND HAVE BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LE ARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND THE SAME MUST THEREFORE BE DELETED. GROUND NO.4 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADDIT IONS TOWARDS PURCHASES, HAS MADE ADDITIONS TO THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT, TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF PAYMENTS, BY COMPARING THE PA YMENTS AS RECORDED IN THE DIARIES AND THE LOOSE SHEETS, WITH THE PURCHASES FO R THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THE ADDITION IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND IS CONTRAR Y TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MUST BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 5 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADDITI ONS OF THE LEARNED DCIT, TOWARDS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, HAS NOT AL LOWED DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF REVENUE EXPENSES WHICH WERE RECORDED IN THE DIARIES AND LOOSE PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH ACTION AND BEING RELATED T O THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT ARE DULY ALLOWABLE. GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE OF 7% COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS.64,96,977 FOR DISCOUNTING THE CHEQUES PERTAINING TO THE BOGUS PUR CHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE CASH GENERATED BY BOOKING BOGUS PURCHASES WAS M OSTLY DEPLOYED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING KICKBACKS WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) AND FOLLOWING THE S AME PRINCIPLE, THE AMOUNT OF 7% COMMISSION FOR GENERATING UNACCOUNTED CASH FOR THE ILLEGAL PAYMENTS OF KICKBACKS IS ALSO NOT AN ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A} ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LE AVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH A ND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE VA RIOUS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BETWEEN 05/01/2000 AND 03/03/2000. CONSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 16/05/2000 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK P ERIOD 01/04/1989 TO 03/03/2000. IN COMPLIANCE, ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 03/04/2001 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME A T NIL. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 158BC OF THE ACT ON 4 IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 28/03/2002, WHEREIN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS.93,24,70,257/-. THE ASSESSEE COM PANY CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2002 ON FACTS AND ALSO ON THE POINTS OF LAW. ONE OF THE POINT OF LAW RAISED WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED SINCE IT HAS BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD STIPULATED IN SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS ADDITIONS BUT REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS BEING BARRED BY LI MITATION. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A PRELIMINARY POINT CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28/03/2002 IS BARRED BY LIMITA TION IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE SAID PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE RELEVANT. IN THIS CASE, SEARCH WAS COMMENCED ON 05/01/2000 AND FOUR PREMISES WERE COVERED NAMELY, MHATRE PEN BUILDING, PRABHU DARSHAN PREMISES, K.C.MILL COMPOUND AND WOOD STOCK PREMISES. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE SEARCH CONCLUDED ON 03/03/2000 IN TERMS OF THE PANCHNAMA OF THE SAID DA TE, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 19-20. HOWE VER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SEARCH WAS COMPLETED ON 02/02/ 2000 ITSELF WHEN THE PANCHNAMA WAS DRAWN UP AND THAT ON 03/03/2000 NO SE ARCH ACTION TOOK PLACE. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH ON 02/02/2000 NO DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND NEITHER WAS ANY STATEMENT RECORDED TO JUSTIFY THAT THE SEARCH HAS B EEN EXTENDED UPTO 03/03/2000 AND, THEREFORE, THE LIMITATION FOR COMPL ETING THE ASSESSMENT COULD 5 IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 NOT BE COUNTED FROM 03/03/2000. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE SEARCH HAVING BEEN COMPLETED ON 02/02/2000 ITSELF, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2002 WAS CLEARLY BEYOND THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER SECT ION 158BE OF THE ACT. IN THE COURSE OF THE SUBMISSIONS, ASSESSEE HAD RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ACIT VS. SHREE RAM LIME PRODUCTS LTD., 147 TTJ 121(JODH.-TRIB.SB) 2. CIT V. PLASTIKA ENTERPRISES, 180 TAXMAN 293 (BO M) 3. CIT V. S.K.KATYAL, 308 ITR 168 (DEL) 4. CIT V. DEEPAK AGGARWAL, 308 ITR 116(DEL) 5. CIT V. T.S.CHANDRASHEKAR, 221 CTR 385 (KAR) 6. CIT V. WHITE AND WHITE MINERAL P. LTD., 330 IT R 172(RAJ) 7. RAKESH SARIN V. DCIT, 333 ITR 451 (MAD) 8. CIT V. D.D. AXLES P LTD.,323 ITR 558 (DEL) 9. CIT VS. OM PRAKASH MANDORA, 262 CTR 646 (RAJ) 10.DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN LEGAL HEIRS OF L ATE MR. V.L. PRABHU IT(SS)A NO.515/M/04 DATED 19/1 2/2014. 4.1 IN PARTICULAR, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF V.L.PRABHU(SUPRA), WHICH IS A RELATED P ERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE PANCHNAMA DATED 02/03/2002 AS INVALID FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSIDERING THE LIMITATION OF ASSES SMENT PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 158 BE OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE EXPLAINED THAT THE SEARCH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED ON 03 /03/2000 ON THE STRENGTH OF THE FACT THAT LAST PANCHNAMA WAS DRAWN ON THE SA ID DATE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/200 2 HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. 6 IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, TH E SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INITIATED ON 05/01/2000 AND THUS, IN TERMS OF CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT, THE ORD ER UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WAS REQUIRED TO BE PASSED WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORISATION FOR SEARCH U NDER SECTION 132 WAS EXECUTED. EXPLANATION-2 TO SECTION 158BE CLARIFIES THAT THE AUTHORIZATION REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 158BE SHA LL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN THE CASE OF SEARCH, ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE SEARCH AS RECORDED IN THE LAST PANCHNAMA DRAWN IN RELATION TO ANY PERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN ISSUED. IN THE P RESENT CASE , THE LAST PANCHNAMA DRAWN IS DATED 03/03/2000 AND, THEREFORE, AS PER THE REVENUE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER UNDER SECTION 158BC EXPIRES ON 31/3/2002 AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2002 IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. HOWEVER, THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PANCHNAMA DATED 3/3/2000 IS NOT AN PANCHNAMA OF THE TYPE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION -2 TO SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. NOTABL Y, THE PANCHNAMA REFERRED TO IN EXPLANATION -2 TO SECTION 158BE IS THE ONE W HICH RECORDS THE CONCLUSION OF THE ACT SEARCH. IN THIS BACKGROUND, NOW WE MAY EXAMINE THE PANCHNAMA DATED 03/03/2000, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED I N THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 19-20. IN THE SAID PANCHNAMA, ITEM 2, RECORDS T HAT THE SEARCH WAS IN CONTINUATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS TEMPORARILY CONCLUD ED ON 02/02/2000. IN ITEM-8, IT RECORDS THAT THE SEARCH COMMENCED ON 03/ 03/2000 AT 12.30 PM AND FINALLY CONCLUDED ON 03/03/2000 AT 5.25PM. FURTHER , IN ITEMS-5(A)& 5(B) PERTAINING TO ITEMS FOUND AND SEIZED AND ITEMS FOU ND BUT NOT SEIZED 7 IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 RESPECTIVELY, THERE IS NO ENTRY. QUITE CLEARLY, ON 03/03/2000, THE DEPARTMENT NEITHER FOUND AND SEIZED AND NOR FOUND AND NOT SEIZ ED ANY MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT. FURTHER, IN ITEM -6, REQUIRING THE DETAI LS OF STATEMENTS RECORDED, THE SAME IS BLANK IMPLYING THAT NO STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON WAS RECORDED ON THAT DATE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT ON 03/03/2000, THE PANCHNAMA ITSELF REVEALS THAT NO SEARCH WAS AT ALL CARRIED OUT AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED IN SAYING THAT THE PANCHNAMA DATED 03/03/2000 IS NOT A PANCHNAMA OF THE TYPE MENTIONED IN EXPLANATION-2(A) SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED IN ASSERTING THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE SEARCH ACTION INITIATED ON 05/01/2000 WAS CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF THE PANCHN AMA DATED 03/03/2000. EVEN THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING BEFORE US COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWING OUT T HE PANCHNAMA ON 03/03/2000, AS OSTENSIBLY NOTHING WAS CARRIED OUT A ND, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE FACTUALLY CORRECT TO INFER THAT THE SEARCH CONCLUDE D ON THE EARLIER DRAWING UP OF THE PANCHNAMA I.E. ON 02/02/2000 ITSELF, WHICH W OULD IMPLY THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 158BE OF THE AC T TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BC EXPIRED ON 28/02/2002. 6.1 APART FROM THE ABOVE THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE HAD REFERRED TO THE PANCHNAMA DATED 03/03/2000 DRAWN UP WITH RES PECT TO THE WOODSTOCK PREMISES. THE SAME HAS BEEN REFERRED TO JUSTIFY TH AT THE SEARCH COULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED BASED ON SUCH PANCHNAMA. ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REF ERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK TO POINT OUT THAT THE SAID PANCHNAMA WAS NOT WITH RESP ECT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT IS IN THE NAME OF SHRI V.L.PRABHU, WHO WAS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACT-SITUATION, THE SAID 8 IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 PANCHNAMA IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE LIMITATION FO R MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT. 6.2 CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION, CONTAINED IN TH E JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PLASTICA E NTERPRISE(SUPRA) AND THAT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.K.KATY AL(SUPRA) IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE PANCHNAMA DATED 03/03/2000 IS NOT A PANCHN AMA, WHICH DOCUMENTS THE CONCLUSION OF THE SEARCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXP LANATION -2 TO SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2002 IS HELD TO BE PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEYOND T HE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, THE SAME IS SET-ASIDE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED ON THIS POINT ITSELF. 7. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWE D ON THE POINT OF LIMITATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 158BC R.W.S. 158BE OF THE ACT, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS- APPEALS RELATING TO THE CONSEQUENT ADDITIONS ARE RE NDERED ACADEMIC AND ARE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 8. IN THE RESULT, WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED, AS ABOVE; THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2016 SD/- SD/- ( PAWAN SINGH) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOCUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 30/11/2016 VM , SR. PS 9 IT(SS)A NO.377/MUM/2003 IT(SS)A NO.396/MUM/2003 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI