PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION P. LTD, V. ASST CIT 3(2),

MA 308/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4558 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND SONTAKKEDR
• Assessee Lawyers: HARESH G BUCH
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Rectification of order; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3123/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6331/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) PEGASUS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD., 55-56, 5 TH FLOOR, FREE PRESS HOUSE, FREE PRESS JOURNAL ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021. / V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AADCP3334Q ( / APPLICANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI HARESH G. BUCH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ARVIND SONTAKKE,DR / DATE OF HEARING : 29-04-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-07-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING MA NO.308/MUM/2015 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL BEARING ITA N O. 3123/MUM/2013 AND MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6331 /MUM/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY, TH E ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT ) IN THE COMM ON ORDER DATED 30 TH MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 & MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 2 OCTOBER, 2015 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL , C BENCH , MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) FOR THE BOTH THE YEARS. 2. IN THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL , THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED EXPENSES INCURRED FOR REALIZATION OF NON-PERFORMING ASSETS (NPA) AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AS AGAINS T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHERE SUCH EXPENSES ARE ADDED TO/CARRIED AS CURREN T ASSETS AND WERE CHARGED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ONLY ON SUBSEQUE NT REALIZATION OF THE NPAS, WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL BY REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY THE ASSESSEE APPEAL WAS DISMISS ED. THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OF THE ABOVE ISSUE AS UNDER:- 5 ..... IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO CLAI M THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE RECOVERY AND MAINTAINING OF SUCH NP AS TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ASSESSEE H AS PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN VALUING SUCH NPA BECAUSE IT IS NOT CERTAIN AS TO HOW MUCH WILL BE THE REALISATION AND WHEN. IT MAY B E DIFFICULT TO EVEN PARTIALLY REALISE THE REVENUE AND TO DETERMINE THE PROFIT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CREDITING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WITH RECOVERY AS AND WHEN MADE WHEREAS THAT IS TRAN SFERRED TO NPA A/C AND ONLY AT THE END, NET PROFIT AND LOSS IS TRANSFERRED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE EXPENDI TURE INCURRED DURING THE RECOVERY PROCESS RELATES TO THE RECOVERI ES WHICH ARE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE NPA ACCOUNT EITHER IN THIS YEAR OR IN FUTURE WHENEVER THE RECOVERIES ARE MADE. THEREFORE, AS PER MATCHING PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTANCY THEY ARE NOT MATC HING WITH THE REVENUE REALISED BEFORE THE NPA IS SETTLED. SUC H EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE TREATED AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS WITH EACH NPA AND TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ONLY WHEN TH E NPA IS FINALLY SETTLED. ACCORDINGLY, CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIES IN REJE CTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THIS REASONED FINDING S OF CIT (A) NEED NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE BECAUSE SUCH EXP ENSES SHOULD BE RELATED AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS WITH EACH NPA AND TR ANSFERRED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ONLY WHEN THE NPA IS FINALL Y SETTLED ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ' MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 & MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 3 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT DURING THE TIME OF HEA RING ON 14-10-2015 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED V. ACIT (2015) (CIVIL APPEAL CODE NO. 6946-6948 OF 2004) WHEREBY THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T HELD THAT THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED. IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WANTS TO SPREAD THE EXPENDITURE OVER A PERIOD OF ENSUING YEARS ,IT CAN BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE PRINCIPLE OF MATCHING CONCEPT IS SATISFIED. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT THAT MERELY BECAUSE A DIFFERENT TREATMENT WAS GIVEN IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE A FACTOR WHICH WOULD DEPRIVE THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE AS A DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT DETERMINATIVE OR CONCLUSIVE AND THE MATTER IS TO BE EXAMINED ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO HELD THAT ONCE A RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED, THE AO IS BOUND TO CARRY OUT THE ASSESSMENT BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT TO GO BEYOND THE RETURN.IT IS TH E SAY OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED (SUPRA) WAS NOT DISCUSSED BY THE TRIB UNAL IN ITS ORDERS DATED 30-10-2005. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DETAILED CHAR TS WERE SUBMITTED TO SUPPORT VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASS ESSEE DULY SUPPORTED BY AUTHORITIES DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 14-10-2 015. IT WAS THE SAY OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THESE PROPOSITIONS WERE NOT DI SCUSSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDERS.IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 31 -10-2015 BE RECALLED AND RULING MAY BE GIVEN IN THEIR FAVOUR. THE ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN APEX THERM PACKAGI NG PRIVATE LIMITED V. ITO IN (2014) 42 TAXMANN.COM 98(GUJ.),HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT DECISION IN DSP INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED V. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO 2342 OF 2013,HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF R.M.EXPORTS V. CIT IN (2014) 48 TAXMANN.COM 58(P&H HC),HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 & MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 4 ACIT V. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED IN (2008) 173 TAXMAN 322(SC). THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS WELL REASONED ORDER AND A PLAUSIBLE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CANNOT BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT OTHERWISE IT WOULD LEAD TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 30-10- 2015 OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 AND OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON REC ORD INCLUDING CASE LAWS. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE SUBMISSION MADE DURING TH E COURSE OF HEARING AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED (SUPRA). WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE RECORDS W ITH THE TRIBUNAL CHART OF PROPOSITIONS ALONG WITH LIST OF SEVERAL CASE LAWS W AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE COPY OF CASE LAW OF HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF TAPARIA TOOLS(SUPRA) WAS ONLY FURNISHED AND ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL VID E ITS ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE FACTUA L MATRIX SURROUNDING THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUIRING AND DEALING I N NPAS AND LEVEL OF UN- CERTAINTY W.R.T. LENGTH OF PERIOD OF RECOVERY AND A MOUNT OF RECOVERIES TO BE MADE OUT OF THESE NPA ACCOUNTS AND THERE-AFTER THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN THE CONSCIOUS AND WELL REASONED DECISION TO CONSIDER TH ESE EXPENSES INCURRED WHICH ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE NPAS SO ACQUI RED WHICH NPAS WERE ALREADY TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS AND HENCE THE EXPENSES SO INCURRED BEING INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO NPA WERE H ELD BY THE TRIBUNAL TO BE THE PART OF THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS WITH EACH NPA AND TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ONLY WHEN THE NPA IS FINALLY SETTLED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ARRIVED AT A DECISION LOOKING INTO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 & MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 5 ASSESSEES CASE. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUN AL ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- A2. ITA NO. 3123/MUM/2013 : THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ACQUIRING NON PERFORMING ASSETS (HEREIN AFTER CALLED NPA) FROM BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND TH EN RECOVER OR REALIZE THE MONEY FROM SUCH LOAN ACCOUNTS OR FROM T HE ASSETS ACQUIRED WITH NPA AS SECURITY. THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ACQUIRING NPA IS CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ANY EXPE NDITURE SUBSEQUENT TO IT, RELATING TO ANY PARTICULAR NPA, I S ALSO CAPITALIZED WITH IT AND THE SAME IS CARRIED FORWARD AS CURRENT ASSET, WHEREAS, NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENSES OF MAINTAINING OFFICE, ETC . ARE CHARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. BUT IN THE RETURN OF INC OME ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT ALL EXPENSES WHICH ARE INCURRED RELATI NG TO ANY NPA SUBSEQUENT TO ITS ACQUISITION WERE IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE THE SAME WERE CLAIMED AGAINS T THE BUSINESS INCOME, WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD IT A S PART OF WORK- IN-PROGRESS WITH THE INITIAL COST OF THE NPA AND TO BE CHARGED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR WHEN THE NPA IS FINALLY REALIZED, WHICH HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN FIRST APPEAL ASSESSEE RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTI ON BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE IT LETTERS DATED 20.12.2012 AND 07.02.2 013 WHICH ARE DETAILED ON PAGES 2 & 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A), HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE SAME STAND HAS BEEN TAKEN BEFORE US BY, INTE R ALIA, SUBMITTING THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING REVENUE EXPENDITU RE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,93,93,293/- INCURRED TOWARDS REALIZATION OF NP A ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME BE TREATED AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS WITH EACH NPA AND CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY WHEN SUCH NPAS ARE FINA LLY SETTLED. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE SAME WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIAL BEFORE US WE FIND THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVES ACQUIRING NPAS FROM BANKS OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS . THESE NPAS ARE LOAN AMOUNTS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF PARTIES WHERE LOSS IS MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 & MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 6 OUTSTANDING AGAINST THE PARTY AND SUCH PARTY HAS AL SO GIVEN CERTAIN ASSETS AS SECURITY TO THE BANK/ FINANCIAL I NSTITUTIONS. THE CHARGE OF SUCH SECURITIES ALSO COMES TO THE ASSESSE E WITH NPAS. EITHER THE NPA LOAN IS RECOVERED FROM THE PARTY AND AUTOMATICALLY THE CHARGE OF THE ASSTS BY WHICH THE LOAN WAS SECUR ED COMES TO AN END. BUT GENERALLY SUCH LOANS ARE BAD ACCOUNTS THER EFORE ASSESSEE HAS TO REALIZE THE MONEY BY DISPOSING OF THE ASSETS SECURED AGAINST SUCH LOAN. ANY PROFIT OR LOSS AT THE END OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF RECOVERY AND DISPOSING OF THE ASSETS IS CHARGED/CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS IS A LONG DRAWN PROCESS AND MAY INVOLVE A FEW YEARS. THERE IS UNCER TAINTY ABOUT THE AMOUNT TO BE REALIZED AND THE PERIOD DURING WHI CH IT WOULD BE REALIZED. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO CLA IM THE EXPENSES RELATING TO RECOVERY AND MAINTAINING OF SUCH NPAS T O PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. ASSESSEE HAS PRACTI CAL DIFFICULTIES IN VALUING SUCH NPAS BECAUSE IT IS NOT CERTAIN AS T O HOW MUCH WILL BE THE REALIZATION AND WHEN. IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO EVEN PARTIALLY REALIZE THE REVENUE OR DETERMINE THE PROFIT. THEREF ORE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CREDITING PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WITH RECOVER Y AS AND WHEN MADE WHEREAS THAT IS TRANSFERRED TO NPA A/C. AND ON LY AT THE END, NET PROFIT OR LOSS IS TRANSFERRED TO THE PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED DURING THE RECOV ERY PROCESS RELATES TO THE RECOVERIES WHICH ARE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE NPA ACCOUNT EITHER IN THIS YEAR OR IN FUTURE WHENEVER T HE RECOVERIES ARE MADE. THEREFORE, AS PER MATCHING PRINCIPLE OF ACCOU NTANCY THEY ARE NOT MATCHING WITH THE REVENUE REALIZED BEFORE THE N PA IS SETTLED. SUCH EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE TREATED AS WORK-IN-PROGR ESS WITH EACH NPA AND TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ONLY W HEN THE NPA IS FINALLY SETTLED. ACCORDINGLY CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED I N REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THIS REASONE D FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) NEED NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE BECAUSE S UCH EXPENSES SHOULD BE TREATED AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS WITH EACH NPA AND TRANSFERRED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ONLY WHEN THE NPA IS FINALLY SETTLED. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED (SUPRA) HAS NOT B EEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN IMPLICITLY DULY TAKEN CARE OF KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES AND FACTUAL MATRIX SURROUNDING THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AS SET O UT IN THE AFORE-STATED MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 & MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 7 TRIBUNALS ORDER. WE HAVE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TH E DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED (SUPRA) WAS GIVEN IN CONTEXT OF ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST ON DEBENTURES UNDER PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WHILE THE ASSESSEES CASE IS WITH RESPECT T O ACQUISITION OF NPAS FROM BANKS WHICH NPAS ARE TREATED AS WORK-IN-PROGRESS B Y THE ASSESSEE AND INCURRING OF EXPENSES THEREAFTER BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE SAID NPAS WHOSE RECOVERY AS TO THE LENGTH O F PERIOD OF RECOVERY AS WELL AMOUNT OF RECOVERY IS HIGHLY UNCERTAIN AND HENCE TH E DECISION OF TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED(SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTU AL MATRIX OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THUS, WE CONCLUDE THAT NO ERROR HAS CREP T IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30-10-2015 WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UN DER THE MANDATE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. THUS, IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6331/MUM /2013 4. OUR DECISION IN MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 ON MERITS SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO THIS M .A. NO. 309/MUM/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6331/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ON MERITS ARE IDENTICAL. WE ORDER ACC ORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEI NG MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL NO ITA NO. 3123/ MUM/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 ARI SING ITA NO. 6331/MUM/2013 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. MA NO. 308/MUM/2015 & MA NO. 309/MUM/2015 8 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JULY, 2016 . # $% & ' 13-07-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 13-07-2016 [ !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. 9 / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. <=( >>?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI C BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, < > //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI