BIJAY SINGH BAID, MUMBAI V. ACIT RG 14(3),

ITSSA 58/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8881 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN VARMA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A 58/MUM/2010 (BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1995 TO 17.08.2001) SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID ACIT, RANGE 14(3) CHANDRA MAHAL, 1ST FLOOR MUMBAI 241 PRINCESS STREET, MUMBAI 400002 VS. PAN - AACPB 4721 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.L. JAIN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PRAVIN VARMA DATE OF HEARING: 23.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.03.2013 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL, FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2010 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-25, MUMBAI. 2. THE AO COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOC K PERIOD 01.04.1995 TO 17.08.2001 AT ` 8,32,790/- IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC R.W.S. 254 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHICH WAS C ONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. THE ASSESSEE WAS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. UNIFLEX CABL ES LTD. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 O F THE ACT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. UNIFLEX CABLES LTD. AS WE LL AS AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID ON 17.08.2001. DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN ITEMS OF JEWELLERY AND CASH WAS FOUN D. WE ARE CONCERNED HEREIN WITH THE CASH FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMI SES OF THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF ` 5,68,600/- FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAIN A SUM OF ` 1,45,000/- REFERABLE TO THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIS FAMILY MEMBERS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE IN DIVIDUAL BANK ACCOUNTS ON 16.08.2001. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE BALANCE SUM OF ` 4,23,600/- COULD IT(SS)A 58/MUM/2010 SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID 2 NOT BE EXPLAINED AND HENCE IT DESERVES TO BE TREATE D AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC R.W.S. 254 O F THE I.T. ACT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM 01.04.1995 TO 17.08.2001, BY HIMSELF AND BY FAMILY MEMBERS, AND ALSO TO SUBMIT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING TH AT PERIOD. HE WAS ALSO ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF TH E ASSESSEE HAD TO WITHDRAW CASH ON 16.08.2001 WHEN THERE WAS SUFFICIE NT CASH AVAILABLE TO THE TUNE OF AROUND ` 5,00,000/-. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE FAMILY TO KEEP ` 5-6 LAKHS SEPARATELY FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSE. HOWEVER, NO SPECIFIC DETAILS COULD BE FURN ISHED. 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS THE AO NOTICED THAT AS PE R THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEETS AS ON 31.03.2001 OF ASSESSEE AND 14 FAMILY MEMBERS (INCLUDING 5 MINORS) THE CASH BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2 001 WAS ` 7,08,800/- WHEREAS THE CASH FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE WAS ` 5,68,600/- ONLY, WHICH SHOWS A DEFICIT OF ` 1,40,200/- AND THROUGH HIS EXPLANATION THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO CLAIM THAT NO UNDISCLOSED CASH WAS FOUND AT THE RES IDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE AO WAS THAT TO D ETERMINE THE EXACT CASH POSITION IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF CAS H GENERATED AFTER 31.03.2001 TILL 15.08.2001 AS WELL AS THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN THI S REGARD IT DESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE FAMILY HAS AGR ICULTURAL INCOME AND THE REGULAR WITHDRAWALS ARE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REQU IREMENTS OF THE FAMILY. IN THIS REGARD THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENT OF T HE YEAR-WISE WITHDRAWALS OF 10 FAMILY MEMBERS DOES NOT MAKE PURPOSE AS THE A SPECT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE REMAINS SILENT. IF THE CASH BALANCE AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET IS ` 7,08,800/- AND ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS CLAIMS TO BE LIVING JOINTLY, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THEM TO WITHDRAW FURTHER CASH OF ` 1,45,000/- ON 16.08.2001. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD CASH BALANCE OF ` 7,08,800/- THEN IT IS INTRIGUING THAT AN AMOUNT OF ` 5,68,600/- ONLY WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE AND THIS FACTUAL MATRIX INDICATES THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TRUE. HE THEREFORE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ORDINA RILY THE FAMILY MAINTAINS A SUM OF ` 6 LAKHS FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO CASH OF ` 4,23,600/- THE AO ADDED IT(SS)A 58/MUM/2010 SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID 3 THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINE D CASH AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTICED THAT IN ADDITION TO ` 4,23,600/- THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 4,09,190/-, PRESUMABLY REFERABLE TO THE JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSE SSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THA T THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF ` 4,09,190/- IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAME STOOD DELETED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BUT T HE AO ERRED IN INCLUDING THE SAME IN THE TAXABLE INCOME. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE GROUND REFERABLE TO THE ADDITION OF ` 4,09,190/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ONLY GROUND THAT REMAINS FOR CONSIDERATION WAS WITH REFERENCE TO ` 4,23,600/-. 6. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY THAT FOLLOWING CASH WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF FOUR MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY: - I) SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID ` 2,55,700 II) SHRI SANJAY SINGH BAID ` 51,500 III) SHRI AJAY SINGH BAID ` 10,850 IV) SHRI JAY SINGH BAID ` 2,50,000 ` 5,68,000 ========== IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CASH FOUND FROM THE POSSE SSION OF SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID SHOULD ONLY BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION IN HIS INDIVIDUAL BLOCK ASSESSMENT SINCE THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. HE, HOWEVER, FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE SUM FOUND FROM TH E POSSESSION OF THE REMAINING FAMILY MEMBERS WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS NOR HAVE THEY CLAIMED, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS, THAT THE SAID SUM BELONGS TO THEM. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT TH E OTHER THREE FAMILY MEMBERS HAD CLAIMED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT BELONGS TO THEM NOR HAVE THEY DECLARED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS. THE OTHER FACT THAT EACH IT(SS)A 58/MUM/2010 SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID 4 FAMILY MEMBER HAD TO WITHDRAW SOME AMOUNT, FROM THE IR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS, ON 16.08.2001, I.E. ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH, SHOWS THAT NO CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE FAMILY MEMBERS. IT I S NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY AND CHAIRMAN & M ANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. UNIFLEX CABLES LTD. AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCT ED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS THE MAIN PERSON HANDLING THE BUSIN ESS AFFAIRS OF THE FAMILY AND THE COMPANY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE CONCL UDED THAT BEING THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY AND FAMILY BUSINESS IT IS PROPER TO PRESUME THAT THE CASH FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE RESPECTIVE FAMILY MEMBERS IS RESULT OF DISTRIBUTION OF CASH BETWEEN VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. HE ALSO STRESSED UPON THE FACT THAT THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE SEARCH WOULD CON CLUSIVELY PROVE THAT EARLIER CASH, IF ANY AVAILABLE, WAS EXHAUSTED AND H ENCE IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF ` 4,23,600/-. 8. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE URGED BEFORE US: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.4,25,600/- OF CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH FROM THE POSSESSIO N OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE THERETO. 2. LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,09,190/- THAT CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY ` 2,55,700/- WHICH IS BEING EXPLAINED AS CASH IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLA NT AND HIS WIFE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND OUT OF THE WI THDRAWALS FROM THE BANK, A DAY PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH, B Y THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. 9. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS ONL Y ` 4,23,600/- WHEREAS IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE CLAIM S THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED ADDITION OF ` 4,25,600/-. VIDE GROUND NO.2 IT WAS STATED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 4,09,190/- WHEREAS THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW THE GROUND AND HENCE IT WAS NOT ADJUDICATED. IT COULD THUS BE SEEN THAT THIS GROUND HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE AND IN FACT SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS WERE NOT MADE ON THIS ISSUE IT(SS)A 58/MUM/2010 SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID 5 EVEN BEFORE US. WE THEREFORE CONFINE TO THE ISSUE C ONCERNING TO ` 4,23,600/- ONLY (I.E. THE TOTAL CASH OF ` 5,68,600/- FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE DURING THE SEARCH MINUS WITHDRAWALS OF ` 1,45,000/-). 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ADVERTED OUT ATTENTION TO PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SUBMIT THAT AS PER THE INVENTORY OF THE CAS H FOUND, ONLY A SUM OF ` 2,55,700/- WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF SHRI BIJA Y SINGH BAID AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF SHRI SANJAY SINGH BAID, AJAY SINGH BAID AND JAY SINGH BAID. THEREFORE ONLY THE CASH FOUND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION, IF ANY. HE ADVERTED OUT ATTENTION TO PAGES 18 & 19 TO SUBMIT THAT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS SUFFICIENT CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THEM AND HENCE I T SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH TH E PANCHAMA HAS BEEN ISSUED JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TWO OTHERS AND CASH OF ` 5 LAKHS WAS SEIZED AND ORIGINALLY PROTECTIVE ASSESSME NT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT NO C ASE WAS MADE OUT TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVE N BY INVOKING SECTION 292C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, CASH FOUND IN THE POSSE SSION OF A PARTICULAR PERSON CAN BE PRESUMED TO BELONG TO THAT PERSON WHE REAS IN THE INSTANT CASE ONLY A SUM OF ` 2,55,700/- WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSES SEE AND HENCE THE BALANCE CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A OF T HE ACT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON IN WHOSE POSSESSION CASH WAS NOT FOUND: - I) ASHOK KUMAR VS. CIT 160 ITR 497 (MP) II) CIT VS. SOORAJMALL NAGARMAL 181 ITR 340 (CAL) III) BIMAL KUMAR DAMANI VS. CIT 261 ITR 634 (CAL) THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT UNDER SECTION 69A R.W.S. 292C OF THE ACT WHENEVER CASH IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION A PERSON I T IS PRESUMED THAT THE CASH BELONGS TO THAT PERSON UNLESS ANY COGENT EXPLA NATION IS GIVEN BY THE PERSON IN POSSESSION OF THE CASH TO SHOW THAT SOMEO NE ELSE WAS THE OWNER OF THE MONEY. IN OTHER WORDS THE ONUS IS ON THE DEP ARTMENT TO PROVE THAT IT(SS)A 58/MUM/2010 SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID 6 THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE MONEY THOUGH IT W AS NOT IN HIS POSITION. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE MEMBERS ARE MEN OF ME ANS AND THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE CASH FOUND IN THEIR POSSESSION BE LONG TO THEM. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE SAID PLEA . THEY WERE ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX AND FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS. HE THUS STRO NGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO CASE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE WARRANT OF SEARCH WAS SEPARATELY ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SHRI BI JAY SINGH BAID AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE CASH FOUND WAS INVE NTORISED AND IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT CASH OF ` 5 LAKHS WAS SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE, SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID (PAGES 16 & 17 OF PAPER BOOK). HE FURTHE R CONTENDED THAT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE NOT MEN OF MEANS AN D THE VERY FACT THAT THEY HAVE WITHDRAWN ` 10,000/- TO ` 25,000/- ONE DAY PRIOR TO SEARCH SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNTS STATED TO BE AVAILABLE AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET DO NOT REFLECT THE CORRECT POSITION OF CASH AVAILABILITY. AT ANY RATE THE CASH WITHDRAWN ON 16.08.2001 WAS NOT ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY AND CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. UNIFLEX CABLES LTD., IT WAS CORRECTLY ASSUMED BY THE AO THAT THE CASH BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE OTHER FAMILY MEMB ERS DO NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE TO EARN SUCH INCOME. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT T HOUGH UNDER SECTION 69A R.W.S. 292C OF THE ACT THE INITIAL ONUS IS UPON THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE CASH FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF OTHER MEMBERS O F THE FAMILY, THERE IS SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION ON RECORD TO HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE CASH IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE NOT ME N OF MEANS. 12. JOINING THE ISSUE THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEES SONS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEY ARE AGED ABOUT 40 YEAS AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THEY ARE TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON THE ASSESSE E. HOWEVER, THE NATURE OF INCOME EARNED AND WHAT IS TAXED IN THIS YEAR AND IN THE PRECEDING YEARS WAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SECTION 69A R.W.S . 292C RAISES A PRESUMPTION THAT ANY CASH FOUND IN THE POSSESSION O F A PERSON SHOULD BE IT(SS)A 58/MUM/2010 SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID 7 CONSIDERED AS BELONGING TO HIM UNLESS THERE IS JUST IFICATION TO PROVE THAT IT DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. THE CASE OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE FAMILY MEMBERS DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT MEANS AND THE MAIN EARNING MEMBER WAS THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IF ONE W OULD GO WITH THE CASH AVAILABLE AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT WOULD RESU LT IN EXCESS CASH WHEREAS NO SUCH EXCESS CASH WAS FOUND. ON THE CONTRARY, ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE SEARCH, SOME OF THEM HAVE WITHDRAWN CASH WHICH SHOW S THAT THEY HAD NO CASH AVAILABLE AS ON THAT DATE AS OTHERWISE IT DEFI ES LOGIC AS TO WHY THEY HAD TO WITHDRAW SMALL AMOUNTS THOUGH BOOKS/BALANCE SHEE T SHOW AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT CASH. FOR EXAMPLE, CASH FOUND IN THE POS SESSION OF SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID WAS ` 2,55,700/- WHEREAS HE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE WITHDRAWN ` 25,000/- ON 16.08.2001. IT IMPLIES THAT THERE WAS N O MONEY AVAILABLE PRIOR TO THAT. THE FAMILY CONSISTED OF 19 PERSONS INCLUDI NG 5 MINORS AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) STATED THAT THE NATURE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES WERE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED. EVEN BEFORE US NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED TO SHOW AS TO WHAT IS THE NATURE OF INCOME EARNED BY THE OTHER ME MBERS OF THE FAMILY. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT T HOUGH SOME CASH WAS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAM ILY THEY DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT MEANS TO EARN SUCH INCOME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE DISTRIBUTED HIS MONEY. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHEL D. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MARCH, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 15 TH MARCH, 2013 IT(SS)A 58/MUM/2010 SHRI BIJAY SINGH BAID 8 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 25, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 14, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.