M/S. V.C. METALS, MUMBAI V. DCIT-16(3), MUMBAI

ITSSA 44/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7600 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SUTARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 68; 69; 132

Judgement Text

IT(SS) NO.44 OF 2009 VC METALS MUMBAI PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS) NO. 44/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99) VC METALS DCIT 16(3) 14 TH KHETWADI LANE MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI 400004 MUMBAI VS PAN AACFV 9223 V APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: MR. A.K. SHARMA RESPONDENT BY: MR. D.K. SUTARIA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 7/3/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21/3/2012 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A)- 17 MUMBAI DATED 16.1.2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS AND AN ADDITIONAL GROUND: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITIONS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT GROSSLY NEGLECTING THE FACTS THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECOR D WHICH PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT AS CASH CREDIT FROM ANYBODY. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS SIMPLY REPEATED THE SLEN DER GROUNDS AND HAS ADDED NOTHING OF HIS OWN VIEW IN DECIDING THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE PARTY WHERE ACTION W AS UNDERTAKEN AND THE ASSESSEE NEITHER THAT PARTY KNOW S OUR ASSESSEE NOR OUR ASSESSEE HAS ANY BUSINESS CONNECTI ON OF ANY NATURE AND UNLESS THAT IS PROVED IT WOULD BE UN FAIR TO SIMPLY THOUGH THE LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE BY ACCE PTING THE THIRD PARTY AS EVIDENCE. ADDITIONAL GROUND: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD WERE IT(SS) NO.44 OF 2009 VC METALS MUMBAI PAGE 2 OF 8 WRONGLY APPLIED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CI T (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID PROVISIONS AS THESE PROVISIONS GO TO THE ROOT OF TH E MATTER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPER ATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF M/ S AMAR FERRO METALS PVT. LTD, 32-BHOIWADA, MUMBAI ON 18.2.2000. IN THE SAID PREMISES ONE MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH WAS AVAILABLE WHO IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S DHAWAL ENTERPRISES AND WAS IN POS SESSION OF CERTAIN NOTE BOOKS AND LOOSE PAPERS WHICH WERE SEIZ ED AS ANNEXURE-A IN THE PANCHANAMA OF MR. VIJAY PORU, M/S FERRO METALS CORPORATION ON 18.2.2000. CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER U NDER SECTION 158BC IN THE CASE OF M/S AMAR FERRO METALS (P) LTD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DCIT 8(1) VIDE LETTER DATED 17.7.2002 ADDR ESSED TO DCIT 16(3) MUMBAI INFORMED THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH MR . KHEM CHAND SHAH ADMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS REPRESENTED UNDISC LOSED INCOME OF VARIOUS PERSONS INCLUDING M/S VC METALS AS HE WA S IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING HAWALA ENTRIES TO SUCH PERSONS. IT WAS FURTHER INFORMED THAT SUCH ENTRIES REFLECTED BY DOCUMENTS R ELATING TO AMAR FERRO METALS (P) LTD, ITS SISTER CONCERN AND THE DI RECTORS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN THEIR BLOCK ASSESSMENTS AND THE DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO VC METALS IN (ANNEXURE) A-1 TO A-5 WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISE S. HE ALSO RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE ENTRIES RELATED TO VC METALS IN THE ABOVE SAID DOCUMENTS REFLECTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME O F M/S VC METALS. NECESSARY INFORMATION WAS PASSED ON FOR TAK ING NECESSARY ACTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER XIVB. HO WEVER, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE SENT TO ACIT 14(1) WHO HAS JU RISDICTION OVER MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH. CONSEQUENT TO THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD ON 27.9.2005 AN D THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN ON 27.12.2006. THE ORDER WAS COMPLET ED ON 29.12.2006 MAKING ADDITION OF AN UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDIT OF ` .1,07,368/-. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THERE IS IT(SS) NO.44 OF 2009 VC METALS MUMBAI PAGE 3 OF 8 NO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ADV ANCED LOANS BY CHEQUES THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT AND FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE DHAWAL ENTERPRISES AND BANK STATEMEN T IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTIONS. THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE BLOCK PERIOD. HENCE THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE CORRESPONDENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CO PIES OF PANCHANAMA PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE AS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC WERE NOT INVOKED IN THE HANDS OF MR. KHEM CHAND SHA H. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION REC ORDED IN THE HANDS OF M/S AMAR FERRO METALS (P) LTD AND THERE AR E NO DIRECT TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SAID COMPANY. IT WAS ALSO NOT ON RECORD WHETHER THERE WAS ANY SATISFACTION RECORDED IN THE CASE OF MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH, PROPRIETOR OF DHAWAL ENTERPRISES S O AS TO INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 158BD IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO ASSESSED M/S AMAR FERRO METALS (P) LTD HAS SENT A COMMUNICAT ION AS EARLY AS 17.7.2002 BUT HAS NOT FORWARDED THE SEIZED MATER IAL TO THE AO AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT INITIATED ANY ACTION IN THE ASSESSEES CASE TILL SE PTEMBER, 2005, THAT IS ALMOST FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. NEITHER SATISFAC TION RECORDED, BY THE OFFICER ASSESSING MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH NOR THE S ATISFACTION RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 158BD WERE COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS NOT ONLY TIME BARED BUT ALSO BAD IN LAW. 4. ON MERITS IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE AND REFERRED TO THE NOTINGS MADE BY MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH ON THE S EIZED IT(SS) NO.44 OF 2009 VC METALS MUMBAI PAGE 4 OF 8 DOCUMENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED EVEN THOUGH AS PER ANNE XURE-5 OF THE PAPER BOOK PLACED BY THE REVENUE, A SMALL HAND WRIT TEN NOTE WAS MADE AGAINST M/S VC METALS IT WAS FURTHER MENTIONED IN THE BRACKETS AS (UGAM RAJ). THIS INDICATES THAT THE TRA NSACTION MAY PERTAIN TO UGAM RAJ AND VC METALS IS ONLY A REFERIN G NAME. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED LOAN TO M/S DHAWAL ENTERP RISES ALL BY CHEQUES TOTALING TO ` .1 LAKHS (ON 2.9.1998 ` .50,000/- AND ON 28.11.98 ` .50,000/-) AND AMOUNT OF ` .7639/- WAS THE INTEREST RECOVERED. IN THE NOTING IT IS ALSO INDICATED THAT TDS WAS MADE ON 31.3.1999 AND THE RECEIPT OF INTEREST AS WELL AS TD S WERE CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSEE ASSESSMENT IN AY 1999-2000. HE FURTHE R EXPLAINED THAT AGAINST THESE ENTRIES WHICH WERE SUPPORTED BY THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE WERE ALSO SUPPORTED BY ENTR IES BY MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH. THE REVENUE CASE WAS THAT THE AMOUNTS W ERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AND PAID IN CASH TO ASSESSE E. ON THAT BASIS THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT WAS MADE IN THE AS SESSEES HANDS TO THE EXTENT OF ` .1,07,368/-. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THESE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO CASH WITHDRAWAL DOES NOT BELONG TO M/ S VC METALS AND EVEN IF ONE WERE TO CONSIDER THAT THESE ARE THE HAWALA TRANSACTIONS, THERE DOCUMENT ITSELF EVIDENCES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE AMOUNT BY WAY OF CHEQUES AND THAT PERSON W ITHDREW THE CASH AND PAID TO SOME 3 RD PARTY AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO CASH CREDIT FROM MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH TO THE ASS ESSEE AND IN FACT THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED MONEY TO MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH BY WAY OF CHEQUES ON WHICH INTEREST WAS ALSO RECOVERED AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX. THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE ACCOUNTED TRANSACTIO NS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE WITHDRAWAL OF C ASH IN THE HANDS OF MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OR 69 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT ALL. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HOWEVER, SU BMITTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE VALIDLY INITIATED IN THE H ANDS OF THE IT(SS) NO.44 OF 2009 VC METALS MUMBAI PAGE 5 OF 8 ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND SI NCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE CASH RECEIVED FROM MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH, THESE WERE PROPERLY TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, EXAMINED THE RECORD P LACED BEFORE US AND THE CONTENTION MADE BY LEARNED COUNSE L AND THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. APART FROM THE LEGAL I SSUES, EVEN ON MERITS WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE AMOUNT B ECOMES UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF ` .50,000/- EACH TO MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH BY WAY OF CHEQUES AND ALSO RECEIVED INTEREST F ROM THE SAID PERSON AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS, THE ENTRIES IN THE L EFT HAND SIDE OF THE SEIZWD DOCUMENT TALLIES WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. TO THAT EXTENT THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE TWO PARTIES. 7. IT IS THE REVENUES CONTENTION THAT AFTER RECEIVING THE CHEQUES FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH WI THDREW MONEY AND RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH INTEREST AN D TDS AMOUNT SO CLAIMED. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT WAS UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS LOGIC OF THE REVENUE IS NOT ACCE PTABLE. IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, EVEN IF THE TRANSACTIONS DO PE RTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS THE ASSESSEES MONEY GIVEN THROUGH BANK WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK IN CASH. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REF ERENCE TO THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY BECAUSE OF BANK TRANSACTIONS. T HERE IS NO DISPUTE FROM THE REVENUE WITH REFERENCE TO THE RECE IPT OF SAME MONEY, IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS P ERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. IF MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCO UNT IN CASH HOW IT BECOMES UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT COULD NOT UN DERSTOOD. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THERE IS NO INQUIRY OR EXAMINATION OF MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH CONCERNING TO WHOM THE MONEY WAS RETURNE D AND IT(SS) NO.44 OF 2009 VC METALS MUMBAI PAGE 6 OF 8 ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED ANY CROSS EXAMINATION ON T HE SO CALLED STATEMENT OF HAWALA ENTRIES. FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE H AVALA ENTRY WAS REQUIRED COULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED, BUT SIMPLY ADVAN CING MONEY ON INTEREST AND RECEIVING IN CASH DOES NOT SERVE AN Y PURPOSE. ONLY IT HELPS IN MAKING WHITE MONEY( ACCOUNTED) IN TO BL ACK MONEY (UNACCOUNTED). HOW THE MONEY IS A CASH CREDIT IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY REVENUE. PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 68 OR 69 OF IT ACT CAN NOT APPLY TO THIS TRANSACTION. 8. AS SUBMITTED, NEITHER THE SATISFACTION NOR THE STAT EMENT FROM MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE A ND AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A NOTICE ON 27.9.2005 AND A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND SEC TION 142(1) WERE ISSUED AS LATE AS 11.12.2006 WHICH WAS SERVED ON 12.12.2006 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.12.2006. EVE N THOUGH ASSESSEE OBJECTED AND FILED A NIL RETURN JUST BEFOR E THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, ITS CONTENTIONS WERE NEVER ACCEPTED AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAID MR. KHEM CHA ND SHAH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THE ABOVE ISSUE, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD WERE ALSO WRONGLY INITIATED. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 158BD WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO AN Y PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MAD E UNDER SECTION 132, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DO CUMENTS OR THE ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OF THE PERSON AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHA LL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. 9. AS SEEN FROM THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, THE SE ARCH WAS IN THE CASE OF M/S AMAR FERRO METALS (P) LTD IN WHO SE SEARCH DOCUMENTS OF MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH WAS SEIZED. VIDE L ETTER DATED IT(SS) NO.44 OF 2009 VC METALS MUMBAI PAGE 7 OF 8 17.7.2002, THE DCIT 8(1)MUMBAI WROTE A LETTER TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE INFORMING THE FACTS BUT NOW HERE IN RECORD, A SATISFACTION THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME PERTAINS TO AN Y OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN HIS ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED. NOT ONLY THAT THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHOM THE PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 158BD COULD BE INITIATED. AS SEEN FROM THE LETTERS , THESE WERE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF MR. KHEM CH AND SHAH, ACIT 14(1). THEREFORE, IF AT ALL THE PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 158BD COULD BE INITIATED, THEY COULD ONLY BE INITIATED AG AINST MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH BUT NOT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A TH IRD PARTY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE TWO PERSONS. AS STATED EARLI ER, THERE IS NO SEARCH IN THE HANDS OF MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH. THAT P ERSON HAPPEN TO AVAILABLE IN THE PREMISES, THE DOCUMENTS WERE SE IZED IN THE CASE OF M/S AMAR FERRO METALS (P) LTD. IF AT ALL THE PRO CEEDINGS U/S 158BD WERE TO BE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE, SUCH RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON RECORD. IT WAS INFORMED THAT NO SUCH ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE ON MR. KHEM CHA ND SHAH AND SO INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE WITHOUT COMPLETING THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE HANDS OF MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. ANOTHER IMPORTANT A SPECT IS THAT THE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY DCIT 8(1) IN THE C ASE OF AMAR FERRO METALS (P) LTD VIDE LETTER DATED 17.7.2002. IF THAT LETTER CAN BE CONSIDERED AS SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 158BD, SUCH LETTER WAS RECEIVED ON 1.8.2002, AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON RECORD ON THE SAME LETTER. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION WHY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD COU LD BE INITIATED ONLY IN SEPTEMBER, 2005 AND WHY THIS INOR DINATE DELAY ON THE PART OF AO WAS NOT EXPLAINED. IF THERE IS DELA Y FROM CONCLUSION OF ONE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC AND INITIATI ON OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD ON SUCH OTHER PERSO N, IT IS IT(SS) NO.44 OF 2009 VC METALS MUMBAI PAGE 8 OF 8 UNDERSTANDABLE IF THERE IS SOME DELAY BUT THE DELAY OF ALMOST 3 YEARS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND CAN ONLY LEAD TO A CONCLU SION THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 158BD. THEREFORE, BOTH ON MERITS AS WELL AS ON LAW, PROCEE DINGS TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE ARE SU RPRISED THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) WITHOUT EVEN EXAMINING THE CONTENTI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY AFFIRMED THE ORDER. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ARE BAD IN LAW AND FURTHER, THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF THE SO CALLED AMOUNT RETURNED BY MR. KHEM CHAND SHAH OUT OF THE WITHDRA WAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME OF ASSESSEE ON THE GIVEN FACTS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE ES GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED MARCH, 2012. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI