DCIT 22(1), NAVI MUMBAI V. M/s. JANATA GLASS WORKS, MUMBAI

ITSSA 71/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7607 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS KU SUM INGALE
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Difference of opinion; Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K.AGARWAL(JM) AND SHRI P.M.JAGTAP(AM) IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 22(1), TOWER NO.6, ROOM NO.12B 4 TH FLOOR, VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400705. M/S JANATA GLASS WORKS, PAREKH MARKET, M.G.ROAD, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI-400077. PAN:AAAFJ1800F APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 9.2.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.2.2012 APPELLANT BY : MRS.KUSUM INGALE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.SUBRAMANIAN O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2007 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IS A DEALER OF GLASS BOTTLES, PRIMARILY SUPPLYING THEM TO PHARMACEUTICAL IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 2 COMPANIES, DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES, ETC. THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS SEARCHED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT) ON 20.2.2001. ACCORDING TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH OF RS.3,48,000/- WAS FOUND AND SEIZED AND BANK LOCKER NO.245, WITH BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD, GARODIA NAGAR BRACH, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI WAS FOUND EMPTY. THE NOTICE U/S 158BC WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS B LOCK RETURN ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1,00,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE DECLARATION OF RS.2,00,00,000/- MADE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BLOCK RETURN WAS TOWARDS INFLATED EXPENSES, VIZ. TRAVELLING, TRANSPORTATION, BREAKAGES & REJECTIONS ETC. DURING EACH OF THE YEARS IN THE BLOCK PERIOD IN RE SPECT OF MUMBAI AS WELL AS BARODA OFFICE. ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC IN WHICH THE AO MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS AGGREGATING TO RS.2,10,00,000/- I N THE ENTIRE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O ON ACCOUNT OF INFLATED EXPENSES RELATED TO TRAVELL ING, TRANSPORTATION, BREAKAGES AND REJECTIONS AND MOULDS . THE ADDITION OF RS.1,10,00,000/- WAS MADE BY THE IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 3 AO ON THE GROUND THAT, IN MOST OF THE CASES PROPER BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE NOT MAINTAINED WITH THE RESULT THAT ALL THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND VERIFIABLE /ASCERTAINABLE. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A DECLARATION VIDE AFFIDAVIT DATED 2.3.2001 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.2 CRORES TOWARDS INFLATED EXPENSES. IT IS IN THIS BACKGROU ND THAT THE AO HAS ADDED A SUM OF RS.1,10,00,000/- TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.2,10,00,000/-. O N APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDIT ION EXCEPT A SUM OF RS.3,95,305/- ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE ON AD HO C BASIS IN A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE RELYING ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED T HAT THE QUANTIFICATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.1.5 0 CRORES TOWARDS INFLATED EXPENSES HAS BEEN DONE BY T HE ASSESSEE AND NOT BY THE AO, HELD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1.50 CRORES AND HENCE IT REVERSED TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORED THE ORD ER IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 4 OF THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDIT ION OF RS.50,00,000/-, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY PRECISE DISCREPANCY IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SEIZED MATERIALS EXCEPT OBSERVING THAT THE EXPENSES WERE NOT VERIFIABLE, UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO. 3. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IN RESPONSE, IT WAS INTERALIA SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DECLARATION WAS MADE TO BUY PEACE. HOWEVER, THE AO ADDED THE SAME ON THE ESTIMATE BASIS ONLY. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AL MOST DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HA S TRIED BALANCE THE ESTIMATE BY ARRIVING AT ITS OWN ESTIMATE OF RS.50,00,000/-. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY SUCH ADDITION. THUS, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BE DROPPED. HOWEVER, THE AO IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 5 WHILE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL OBSER VED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO RS.1.50 CRORES TOWARDS INFLATED EXPENSES HAD ACTUALLY BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND NOT BY THE AO AND HENCE IT IS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND ACCORDINGLY HE IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.33,60,000/- VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2006 PASSED U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IF THE APPEL LANT GIVES AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS UNPROVED BUT NOT DISPROVED I.E. IT IS NOT ACCEPTED BUT DO NOT LEAD TO THE REASONABLE AND POSITIVE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSE ES CASE IS FALSE, THE EXPLANATION REMAINS A LEGITIMATE EXPLANATION TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BFA(3)(A) OF TH E ACT AND THE AO COULD HAVE REFRAINED FROM IMPOSIN G THE PENALTY U/S 158BFA (2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (2001) 251 ITR 009 (SC) HELD THAT SINCE IN THIS C ASE, THE DEPARTMENT ACTED UPON SOLELY ON THE DISCLOSURE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) THAT WAS TO BUY IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 6 PEACE AND AVOID LITIGATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT, DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING IN A LL THE GROUNDS THE DELETION OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1.50 CRORES SUBMITS THAT IN VIEW OF THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.1.50 CRORES TOWARDS INFLATED EXPENSES WHICH HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND NOT BY THE AO, THE AO WAS F ULLY JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT AND THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO BE RESTORED. THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED IN JRD STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. V/S ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ (DEL) 566 AND IN DCIT V/S SPARK ELECTRO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (2006) 98 ITD 237 (MUM). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH REITERATING THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 7 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A), FURTHER SUBMITS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH EXCEPT CA SH OF RS.3,84,000/- NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOU ND AND SEIZED. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN THE DEFINIT ION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 158B(B), THE EXPRESSION OR ANY EXPENSE, DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE CLAIMED UNDER THIS ACT WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 WITH RETROSPECT IVE EFFECT FROM 1.7.1995. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 20.2.2001 AND THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 20.6.2001 (WRONGLY MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER AS 20.6.2002) I.E PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002, THEREFORE, EVEN IF, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DECLARATI ON OF INFLATED EXPENSES, THE PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES DOES NOT COME UNDER TH E DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED IN CIT V /S HINDUSTAN ELECTRO GRAPHITES LTD.(2000) 243 ITR 48 (SC) WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S M/S MARS FOODS SERVICES IN ITA NO.5750 OF 2010, DATED 2.12.2011 HOLDING THAT WHERE THE ADDITIONAL LIABIL ITY IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 8 IS IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT INTRODUCED BY THE ACT, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE DISTINGUISHING THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR ALSO RELIED ON (A) SEAHORSE SHIP AGENCIES PVT.LTD. V/S DCIT IN IT(SS)A NO.107/MUM/2001 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 1.4.1989 TO 30.6.1999) DATED 15.3.2002, (B ) SHRI PRADEEP J SHAH V/S ACIT IN IT(SS)A NO.128/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD :1.4.1990 TO 26.2.2001) DATED 30.10.2009, (C ) ACIT V/S M/S AARTI INDUSTRIES LTD. IN IT(SS)A NO.297/MUM/2002 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1989-90 TO 1999-2000) DATED 24.8.2005, (E) GANDHI SERVICE STATION V/S ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ (AHD) 1143 AND (F) NEMICHAND V/S ACIT (2005) 93 TTJ (BANG) 564. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH EXCEPT THE CASH OF RS.3,48,000 /- AND EMPTY BANK LOCKER NO.245, IN THE NAME OF THE IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 9 ASSESSEE WITH BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD, GARODIA NAG AR BRACH, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. WE FURTHER FIND THA T DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DECLARATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1.50 CRORES TOWARDS INFLATED EXPENSES AND RS.50 LAKHS TO COVER ANY OTHER DISCREPANCY TOTALING TO RS.2 CRORES, SUPPORTED BY A SWORN AFFIDAVIT DATED 2.3.2001 OF SHRI UMESH J.MEHTA, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM . HOWEVER, WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF BLOCK PERIOD, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1 CROR E AS AGAINST THE DECLARATION OF RS.2 CRORES. THE AO AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF THE ACCOUNT AND THE VOUCHERS OF THE EXPENSES WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 .10 CRORES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E BLOCK PERIOD AND THEREBY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.2.10 CRORES. ON APPEAL, THE LD . CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION EXCEPT THE SUM OF RS.3,95,304/- ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SCOP E FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE ON ADHOC BASIS IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE RELYING ON IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 10 THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT RESTORED THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSE D INCOME OF RS.1.50 CRORES AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50 LAKHS . THUS FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DECLARAT ION OF RS.2 CRORES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT FULLY ACCEPTED EVEN UP TO THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN THE AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THERE WAS NO SCOPE FO R MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ADHOC BASIS IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,95,305/- WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL THE ADDITION OF T HE DISCLOSURE OF RS.1.50 CRORES IS JUSTIFIED AND BA LANCE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS OF THE SAME DISCLOSURE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. IN SPARK ELECTRO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS(SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT DISCLOSED ENTIRE INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/158BD BUT DISCLOSED THE SAME IN PIECEMEAL BASIS SUBSEQUENTLY BY SEPARATE LETTERS, PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) WAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED. IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 11 9. IN JRD STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD.(SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAD INCOME NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS HAVING BEEN FOUND DURING SEARCH AND YET THE ASSESSE E HAVING FILED NIL RETURN FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVENUE WAS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYIN G PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2). 10. WHEREAS IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE DECLARATION O F RS.2 CRORES, WITHOUT ANY SEIZED MATERIAL, WAS REDUC ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, TO RS.1.50 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.1 CRORE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AND ACCEPTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) EXCEPT RS.3,95,905/-. THUS, AT EVERY STAGE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPIN ION OR TWO VIEWS. THEREFORE, BOTH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABL E TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 11. IN CIT V/S DODSAL LTD ( 2009 ) 312 ITR 112 (BOM ), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 158BFA(2) ARE DISCRETIONARY AND NOT MANDATORY. 12. IN CIT V/S RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD (PLACITUM 12,PAGE 166): MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 12 CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPT ED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSEL F WOULD NOT, IN OUR OPINION, ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C). IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF T HE REVENUE THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAI M MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A NY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF TH E LEGISLATURE.. 13. IN ALL THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY HELD THA T NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON ESTIMATED ADDITION IN BLO CK ASSESSMENT. 14. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE ADDITION WAS BASED ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT ANY SEIZED MATERIAL AND EVEN THE DECLARATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT FULLY ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THUS THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AT EVERY STAGE, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STRICT PROVISIONS OF LAW INCLUD ING IT(SS)A NO.71/MUM/2007 (BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02) 13 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158B(B) READ WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN HINDUSTAN ELECTRO GRAPHITES LTD.(SUPRA) AND M/S MARS FOODS SERVICES (BOM)(SUPRA) AND HENCE THE PENALTY IMPOSE D BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ACCORDINGL Y, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24TH FEB.,2012. SD SD ( P.M.JAGTAP ) (D.K.AGARWAL) ACC OUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, 24TH FEBRUARY, 2012 SRL: COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI