BHAVYA MANOJ DHUPELIA, V. DCIT CIR 1(1),

MA 5/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3277 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVRAM
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H, MUMBAI , ! ..'(),*!,+ BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.04/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3545/MUM/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI AMBRISH MANOJ DHUPELIA, 12-13, ESPLANADE, 3 RD FLOOR, AMRIT KESHAV NAYAK MARG, MUMBAI-400001 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO. AAIPD2710L MA NO.05/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3546/MUM/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 MS. BHAVYA MANOJ DHUPELIA (NOW MRS. BHAVYA S. SHANBHAG), 12-13, ESPLANADE, 3 RD FLOOR, AMRIT KESHAV NAYAK MARG, MUMBAI-400001 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO.AAHPD2422N MA NO.11/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3544/MUM/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 SHRI MOHAN MANOJ DHUPELIA 12-13, ESPLANADE, 3 RD FLOOR, AMRIT KESHAV NAYAK MARG, MUMBAI-400001 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBAI / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO.AAIPD4113F M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 2 ,- / ASSESSEE BY DR. K. SHIVRAM & SHRI RAHUL HAKANI ,- / REVENUE BY SHRI GIRISH DAVE-DR / DATE OF HEARING 24/04/2015 / DATE OF ORDER: 22/06/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT) ARE BY T HE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE CO NSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31/10/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 3544, 3545 AND 3546/MUM/2011). 2. DURING HEARING OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DR. K.S HIVRAM, ALONG WITH SHRI RAHUL HAKANI, ADVANCED THEIR ARGUME NTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY TH E DIFFERENT ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI GIRISH DAVE, LD. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION AR RIVED AT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE, THE APPEALS OF THESE ASSESSEES WERE DISPOSED OFF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER , BEING ON IDENTICAL ISSUE/FACTS, THEREFORE, THESE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ALSO BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IF THE OB SERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, LEADING TO ADDITION M ADE TO M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 3 THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL, IF KEPT IN JUXTA POSITION AND ANALYZED, WE FIND THAT IN ALL THE APPLICATIONS, FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES, IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED. ESSENTIALLY, THE APPLICATIONS INVOLVES THREE MAIN CONTENTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS BENCH, WHICH ARE DISCUSSED AS UNDER:- A. WRONG OR ERRONEOUS RECORDING AND CONSIDERATION O F FACTS THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPLIED ENGLISH TRANSLATION O F ALL DOCUMENTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (PARA 2.4 PA GE 27) (PARA 3.2 PAGE 32-33). (II) THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPLIED WITH ALL THE DETAILS AS CONTAINED IN ASSESSING OFFICERS LETTER DATED 23/09/2009 (PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE PAGE-21) (III) INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS VOUCHED AND CORROBORATED (PAGE-12-13 OF MA) (PAGE- 20 OF PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE) (IV) AMBRUNOVA TRUST WAS ESTABLISHED ON 21/02/1997 AND STATUS OF ACCOUNT IS ACTIVE (PAGE-13 OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION) B. NON-ADJUDICATION/NON-CONSIDERATION OF CLAIM/ ARGUMENT / SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT:- (I) DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SHOW THAT ANY AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NO ADDITION CAN BE M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 4 MADE IN RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR (PAGE-14 OF MISC. APPLICATION) (II) TRUST IS DISCRETIONARY TRUST, THERE IS NO TAXA BLE EVENT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR (PAGE-15 OF MISC. APPLICATION) (III) TRUST IS A NON RESIDENT TRUST, TRUSTEES ARE N ON RESIDENTS AND INCOME IS RECEIVED OUTSIDE INDIA, HEN CE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE (PAGE-16 OF MISC. APPLICATION) (IV) ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION (PAGE-17 OF MISC. APPLICATION). C. ALL CASE LAWS CITED AND RELIED BY ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORD ER (PAGE-17 OF MISC. APPLICATION). 2.2. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ANALYZE THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY T HE TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE EXPECTED TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS AS UNDE R:- (A) ON THE FIRST ISSUE OF PROVIDING ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS FORMING THE BASES OF THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASES OF ALL THE TH REE APPLICANTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DOCUMENTS FORMING THE BASIS OF THE REOPENING OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THEM. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE RECEIVED M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 5 UNDER THE ARTICLE DEALING WITH EXCHANGE OF INFORMAT ION WITH THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT UNDER A STANDARD PROCEDURE LAID DOWN AMONG THE TWO CONTRACTING STATES. THESE WERE PROVIDED IN THE SAME WAY AND MANNER IN WHICH THERE WERE RECEIVED. AS IS EVIDENT AGAIN THERE IS NO GRIEVANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANTS THAT THE GISTS OF THE CONTENTS WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM. THE APPELLANT WERE CONVEYED AS TO WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THESE DOCUMENTS. FURTHER IT I S NOT THE CASE THAT NOTHING COULD BE UNDERSTOOD FROM THESE DOCUMENTS. IN FACT, VITAL AND INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE APPELLANT WERE CLEARLY AVAILABLE AN D WERE COMMUNICATED TO THEM FOR THEIR EXPLANATIONS. THE APPELLANTS MAY BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT IT IS THE WHO GOT CERTAIN PARTS OF THE DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRANSLATED FROM MAXMULLER BHAVAN. BUT THE FACT IS THAT NOTHING TURNS OUT FROM THOSE P ARTS AS THE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE APPELLANTS WAS CLEARLY READABLE FROM THE DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THE CONTENTION THAT THE APPELLANTS WERE NO T PROVIDED DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE DOCUMENTS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY THE ARTICLE OF EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION. RATHER THE APPELLANTS OPTED TO HIDE THE RELEVANT FA CTS WHICH WERE WITHIN THEIR KNOWLEDGE. SECTION 106 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 OBLIGATES THE APPELLA NT THAT WHEN ANY FACT IS ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE KNOWLED GE OF ANY PERSON, THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT FACT IS U PON HIM. IN A SITUATION THAT IN CERTAIN ACCOUNT HELD I N M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 6 FOREIGN BANK, THE NAMES OF THE APPELLANTS APPEAR CONTAINING PERSONAL DETAILS INCLUDING THEIR FULL AN D COMPLETE ADDRESSES, DATE OF BIRTH ETC EITHER IT WAS OPEN TO THEM TO LODGE THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAIN ST THE BANKERS. OPPOSED TO THIS, THE APPELLANTS WITH OUT PROVIDING ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION HAVE OPTED TO CHALLENGE THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VALIDLY U NDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THUS, THERE IS NO MISTAK E APPARENT FROM RECORD, REQUIRING ANY RECTIFICATION, THUS, THE APPLICATIONS ON THIS ACCOUNT DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. (B). THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPLICATIONS RELATES TO ACCOUNTS IN THE NAMES OF THE APPELLANTS AND THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE THAT (I) DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED DO NOT SHOW ANY AMOUNT HAVING BEEN DEPOSITED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T YEAR. (II) TRUST IS DISCRETIONARY TRUST : THERE IS NO TAX ABLE EVENT. (III) TRUST BEING A NON-RESIDENT TRUST, TRUSTEES BE ING NON-RESIDENTS AND INCOME BEING RECEIVABLE OUTSIDE INDIA, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE, AND (IV) ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION. AND THUS NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED WITH WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS AND SUCH A PLEA CANNOT BE SAID M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 7 TO RESULT IN A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS TO HOW AND WHAT BASIS THE APPELLANT ARE CLAIMING THE TRUST A DISCRETIONARY TR UST, WHEN NO TRUST DEED WAS MADE AVAILABLE. ONE DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT THE EXPRESSION OF THE INTENTION OF THE SETTLER. WHO WAS THE SETTLER? THE REVENUE NEVER ARGUED THAT THE TRUST WAS DISCRETIONARY TRUST. RATH ER, IT PLACED EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE TYPES OF STRUCTURES WHICH ARE PREVALENT IN THESE JURISDICTIO NS AND WHAT ARE SALIENT FEATURE OF VARIOUS ENTITIES THROUGH WHICH INVESTMENTS TRUST AS DISCRETIONARY TRUST. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE YEAR OF ACCOUNT RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE ACCOUNT, THERE IS NO MENTION THAT IT IS A CREDIT BALANCE BEING CARRIED FORWARD FROM PAST. EVEN OTHERWISE, SUCH A CONTENTI ON CANNOT BE TAKEN AS GROUND TO ARGUE THAT IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. WE FIND NO MISTAK E APPARENT ON RECORD, THUS, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. (C). THIRD MAIN GROUND FOR SEEKING RECTIFICATION IS THAT VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT WERE NOT DEALT WITH BY THE BENCH. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT I T IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EACH AND EVERY CASE LAW WOULD BE DISCUSSED AND DISTINGUISHED BY THE BENCH ONCE ALL CASES LAWS ARE DULY NOTED AND CONSIDERED BY THE BENCH BEFORE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION. ADMITTEDLY, M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 8 THE RELEVANT CASE LAWS HAS TO BE DISCUSSED AND NOT WHICH ARE NOT ON THE ISSUE OR ON THE DIFFERENT FACT S. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE CASE LAWS WHICH WERE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASE LAWS CITED BY ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERE D IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. (D). THE APPELLANTS HAVE POINTED OUT A MISTAKE IN FACT THAT THE DATE OF CREATION OF AMBRUNOVA TRUST I S RECORDED AS 21/03/1997 BY THE BENCH IN THE ORDER. SUCH A MISTAKE CANNOT MATERIALLY ALTER THE CONCLUSI ON DRAWN BY THE BENCH. YES THERE APPEARS A MISTAKE IN RECORDING THE DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST. BUT O NE LOOKS AT THE CORRECT DATE OF CREATION OF THE AMBRUN OVA TRUST FROM THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION RECEIVED THROU GH EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION, THE TRUST WAS SET UP MUCH EARLIER ON 14/02/1989 AND AS PER INFORMATION IT WAS ACTIVE TILL DATE BY WHICH COPY OF THE ACCOUNT WAS M ADE AVAILABLE. EVEN IF DATE OF CREATION OF THE TRUST I S EARLIER TO THE DATE AS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. (E). ANOTHER ISSUE/CONTENTION POINTED OUT IN THE APPLICATION IS THAT THE BENCH HELD THAT THE DOCUMEN TS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE WERE VOUCHED AND CORROBORATED WITH THE EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF US SENATE REPORT AND TAX EXCHANGE TREATY, SUCH A CONTENTION IS UNTENABLE AS US SENATE REPORT HAS NOT BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE BENCH ALONE BUT THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN REFERRED AND DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSIN G M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 9 OFFICER IN HIS ORDER, THOUGH IN BRIEF. HE HAS BASE D HIS FINDINGS PARTLY ON THE BASIS OF SAID REPORT. EVEN OTHERWISE, IF THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANY GRIEVANCE NOTHING PREVENTED HIM TO TAKE THIS GROUND BEFORE TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ALSO BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BEFORE HEARING OF THESE APPEAL S. THE APPELLANTS CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE THE ADVANTAGE OF ACTS OF THEIR OWN OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS. IT IS WORTH MENTIONING HERE THAT SO F AR AS RELIANCE BY THE LD. DR UPON THE US SENATE PERMANENT SUB COMMITTEE REPORT IS CONCERNED, NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. NO APPLICATION WAS EVER FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST ADMISSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE AND EVEN DID NOT ASK THE BENCH TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROVERT THE REPORT OR EVEN OBJECTED NOT TO ADMIT THE SAME. ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER FROM THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH THES E MISC. APPLICATIONS, NOW THE ASSESSEE SUDDENLY WOKE UP AND TOOK THE PLEA THAT THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED. WE ARE NOT AGREEING WITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING T HAT THE CASE LAWS WHICH WERE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE WERE DULY CONSIDERED. 2.3. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF APPLICATION U/S 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED. ONLY A MIST AKE APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED AS WAS H ELD IN 293 ITR 118 (DEL.), CIT VS K.D. WIRES PVT. LTD. (20 10) 323 ITR 257 (MP), APEX METCHEM P. LTD. VS ITAT 318 ITR 48 (RAJ.). IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE MAIN APPEAL OF THE M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 10 ASSESSEES WERE DISPOSED OFF WITHOUT GRANTING OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, RATHER THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL BY OBJECTIVELY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THAT TOO AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO GET THE O RDER REVIEWED, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF TH E ACT. THE EXPRESSION MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD , IT IS WELL SETTLED, MEANS A MISTAKE EITHER CLERICAL, GRAMMATIC AL, ARITHMETICAL OR OF LIKE NATURE, WHICH CAN BE DETECT ED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NECESSITY TO REARGUE THE MA TTER OR TO REAPPRAISE THE FACTS AS APPEARING FROM THE RECOR D CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED. LIKEWISE, THE POSSIBILITY OF FO RMING OF A DIFFERENT OPINION THEN THE ONE EXPRESSED IN THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 254(1) CANNOT BE TREATED AS GROUND FOR ENTERTAINING THE APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD, POSSIBLY, THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES. ONCE TH E POSSIBLE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN, ON THE BASIS OF MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT CANNOT BE SAID THERE IS APP ARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254 (2). OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN POPULAR ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. VS ITAT 248 ITR 577( PUNJ & HAR.) AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CIT VS ANAMIKA BUILDER PVT. LTD. 117 TAXMAN 356 (CAL.). TOTALITY OF FACTS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN OTHERWISE , THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 11 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED FROM BOTH SIDES WITH HIGH SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND AS MENTIONED EARLIER THROUGH THE SE APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY TRYING TO GET THE ORDERS REVIEWED/RECALLED, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254 (2) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE ARGUMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE RATHER THE ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND, CONSIDERING T HE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL A S THE ORDER OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THEREFO RE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE RESPECTIV E ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, FILED BY T HE ASSESSEES, ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE S IDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 22 ND JUNE 2015. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) *! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 22/06/2015 F{X~{T? P.S / ,0 123241 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$%!' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. &% &% ' ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. &% &% ' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. *+, % # , &% % . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI M.A. NOS.4, 5 & 11/MUM/2015 12 6. ,/ 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, $%* # //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI