M/S. NARROTAM DASS GOEL, MUMBAI v. THE AC 12(3), MUMBAI

CO 117/MUM/2007 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11719923 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AAEPG5649P
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number CO 117/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant M/S. NARROTAM DASS GOEL, MUMBAI
Respondent THE AC 12(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 28-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 22-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 22-11-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 07-06-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.181/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) ACIT -12(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN R. NO.121 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI -400 020 ...... APPELLANT VS SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 124 NCPA APARTMENTS NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI -400 021 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AAEPG 5649 P APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.K. B. MENON RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SALIL KAPOOR C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.181/MUM/2006 A.Y. 2002-03 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 124 NCPA APARTMENTS NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI -400 021 ...... CROSS OBJECTOR VS ACIT -12(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN R. NO.121 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI -400 020 ..... RESPONDENT APPELLANT- CROSS OBJECTOR BY: SHRI SALIL KAPOOR RESPONDENT-REVENUE BY: SHRI P.K. B. MENON DATE OF HEARING: 22.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.12.2011 ITA 181/MUM/2006 C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 2 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGING TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) -12 MUMBAI DATED 31.10.20 05 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE CROSS OBJ ECTION RAISING GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR NOT CONSIDERING THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER SERVED THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) WHICH IS ONE OF THE MANDATES BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3). 2. WE FIRST TAKE REVENUES APPEAL IN WHICH THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O . TO TREAT THE LOSS OF ` 31 02 090/- AS BUSINESS LOSS AND ERRED IN DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORW ARD AS BUSINESS LOSS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN TREATING THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 8 60 446/- AS AN EXPENDITURE FOR SPECULATIVE BUSINESS AND THER EFORE DISALLOWING THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT APPO RTIONMENT OF INTEREST OF ` 1 61 563/- AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME HAS NO MERIT AND IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 10 22 009/- HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ERRED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF INTERE ST OF ` 10 22 009/-. ITA 181/MUM/2006 C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 3 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSE SSEE IS RUNNING A BUSINESS CENTRE IN THE NAME OF STYLE AS M/S. BHARAT SALES & SERVICES AND ALSO CARRYING ON SHARE TRADING ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 DECLARING TOT AL LOSS OF ` 23 42 845/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S.143(2). THE ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS WHILE TRADING IN THE SHARES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 23 13 217/-. THE A.O. EXAMINED THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND HAS DIS CUSSED THE SAME IN PARA 4 & 4.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PAST RECORD SOME INSTANCES HAVE BEEN PR OVED IN THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGED INTO SP ECULATION TRANSACTIONS. THE A.O. ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2001- 02. THE A.O. ALSO ASKED THE SCRIPT-WISE DETAILS OF ALL THE SHARE TRADING TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE DENIED HAVING ANY SPECU LATIVE TRANSACTIONS IN THE SHARE DEALING. THE ASSESSEE FU RNISHED BROKERS NOTE AND A COPY DMAT ACCOUNT. THE A.O. PROCEEDED T O TREAT ENTIRE LOSS IN THE SHARE TRANSACTION AS A SPECULATIVE ONE REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02. THE A.O. HA S ALSO NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE A.Y. 20 01-02 EXCEPT FOR THE SCRIPT FOR WHICH THE A.O. PROVED THE SAME AS SPECUL ATIVE IN NATURE. THE A.O. RELIED ON THE PRECEDING YEARS MORE PARTIC ULARLY A.Y. 2001- 02 AND TREATED THE LOSS IN THE SHARE TRADING AMOUNT ING TO ` 31 02 090/- AS A SPECULATION LOSS AND IN CONSEQUENC E THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THE SET OFF AGAINST OT HER INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE SHARE TRADING LOSS IS BUSINESS LOSS AND NOT A SPECULATION LOSS. R ELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT . I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAREFULLY. I FIN D THAT THE ONLY POINT IN ISSUE IS THE TREATMENT OF LOSS INCURRED IN SHARE TRADING BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED A LOSS O F ` 31 02 090/- IN SHARE BUSINESS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ITA 181/MUM/2006 C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 4 APPELLANT AS BUSINESS LOSS WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OF FICER TREATED THIS LOSS AS SPECULATIVE LOSS. THERE IS NO DISPUT E ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS DEALING IN SHARES FOR THE LA ST MANY YEARS AND WAS FOLLOWING A CONSISTENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S USPECTED THAT THIS LOSS WAS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE BECAUSE TH ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DE LIVERY OF SHARES OR WAS IN RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT IN RESPECT O F SALE OF SHARES AFFECTED BY HIM. THIS SUSPICION WAS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BEFORE HIM THE COPIES OF BAN K ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWED THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE BROKERS AT VAR IOUS POINT OF TITHE. THESE WERE THE BROKERS THROUGH WHOM THE A PPELLANT WAS DEALING IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND WAS MAIN TAINING THE CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH THEM. THESE BROKERS WERE THE A GENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND WERE HOLDING SHARES IN THE DMAT FORM RATHER THAN HOLDING THE PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF SHARES. A REVIEW OF THE DMAT SCHEME SHOWS THAT THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PHYSICA L DELIVERY OF THE SHARES ON PURCHASE OR SALE AND THUS THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLAN T ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CERTIFICATE OF LETTERS OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE BROKERS THROUGH WHOM THE APPE LLANT WAS CARRYING OUT HIS SHARE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD NOT EXAMINED ANY OF THESE BROKERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD AL SO FURNISHED THE INFORMATION ABOUT BROKERS IN THIS REGARD. THE CERTIFICATES FROM THE BROKERS CONFIRM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE DELIVERY OF SHARES IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES AND SALES AND THUS THE ONUS IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN CLEARLY DISCHARGED. SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT DEFINE THE TERM SPECULATIVE TRANS ACTION TO BE TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF SHARES IS PERIODICAL OR ULTIMATELY SETTLED OTHERWIS E THAN BY THE ACTUAL DELIVERY OR TRANSFER OF COMMODITY OR SCRIPTS . THE CONTRACT IN RESPECT OF STOCK IN SHARES ENTERED INTO BY THE DEAL ER OR INVESTOR THEREIN TO GUARD AGAINST THE LOSS IN HIS HOLDING OF THE STOCK AND ITA 181/MUM/2006 C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 5 SHARES THROUGH PRICE FLUCTUATION IS NOT TO BE DEEME D AS A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE WHERE THE LOSS IS EARNED B Y THE APPELLANT WERE THROUGH CONTRACTS WHICH WERE SPECULA TIVE IN NATURE. HOWEVER FOR THIS ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OR SAL E OF THESE SHARES WERE SETTLED OTHERWISE THEN BY ACTUAL DELIVE RY OF TRANSFER OF SHARES. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED NUMEROUS DETAILS SUCH AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DMAT ACC OUNT NUMBER CERTIFICATE FROM THE BROKERS COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT ETC TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT IS DEALING IN SHAR ES ON DELIVERY BASIS AND NO SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN NOT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE DOCUMENTS / DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCL UDED THAT THE APPELLANTS SHARE DEALING IS SPECULATIVE IN NATURE IS BASED ON A LETTER GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PREVIOUS ASSES SMENT YEAR WHERE HE ADMITTED THAT HIS SHARE TRANSACTIONS @15% COULD BE HELD AS SPECULATIVE NATURE. HIS ADMISSION FOR A.Y.2 001-02 CANNOT BE HELD GOOD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHICH IS U NDER APPEAL. EACH ASSESSMENT IS AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMEN T AND WHATEVER ADMITTED IN ANOTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT BE APPLIED BLINDLY IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS. EVEN HIS ADMISSI ON FOR A.Y.2001-02 THAT NS SHARE TRANSACTIONS @15% WAS SPE CULATIVE WAS WITH QUALIFICATION IN AS MUCH AS THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR MADE FURTHER SUBMISSION REITER ATING THAT THOSE TRANSACTION DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 43(5) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE SAID ADMISSION BY THE AP PELLANT FOR A.Y.2001-02 WAS GIVEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNABLE TO DECIDE TH E EXACT NATURE OF THE APPELLANT SHARE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFF ICERS RELIANCE ON THE SAID ADMISSION FOR A.Y.2001-02 IS THEREFORE CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR TREATING THE LOSS FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEA R AS SPECULATIVE LOSS. I FIND THAT CIT CLTY-12 RELYING ON THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT REPORTED AT 203 ITR 108 AND THE D ECISION OF ITA 181/MUM/2006 C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 6 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED AT 243 ITR 82 HA D DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR A.Y.199 8-99. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WAS BE ING DEBITED OR CREDITED TO THE DMAT ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THIS ASP ECT OF THE MATTER WHILE EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF BUSINESS LOSS OR SPECU LATIVE LOSS. THE DMAT ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED BY THE BROKERS AS WELL AS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SHARES WERE RECEIVED IN DMAT A CCOUNT AND DELIVERY GIVEN FROM DMAT ACCOUNT. THESE SHARES WERE HAD IN THE DMAT ACCOUNT OF THE BROKERS WHO WERE ACTING AS AGEN TS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO TRADING ACTIVITIES ON VARIO US EXCHANGES. THE SHORT DELIVERIES IN ANY CASE WERE AUCTIONED BY THE BROKERS AND DEBITED TO THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT AND THUS THE BROKERS AS PER ASSESSEES OWN ADMISSION WERE TAKING THE DELIVE RIES ON THE ASSESSEES BEHALF OR DELIVERING THE SHARES IN THE M ARKET AS AND WHEN PURCHASE AND SALES WERE DONE. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CONCORDE COMMERCI AL PVT. LTD PROVES THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE APPELLAN T IS A TRADER IN SHARES AND PROFIT/LOSS ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT SHO ULD BE TREATED AS LOSS FROM THE BUSINESS. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS I FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EST ABLISH THAT THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS LOSS IN SHARE TRANSACTION AMOU NTING TO ` 31 02 090/- IS A SPECULATIVE LOSS. I THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE SAID LOSS IS A BUSINESS LOSS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT D URING THE YEAR WHILE DOING TRADING BUSINESS OF SHARES. ASSESSING O FFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO TREAT THIS LOSS OF ` 31 02 090/- AS BUSINESS LOSS AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED F ORWARD AS BUSINESS LOSS TO BE SET-OFF AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. BOTH THE PARTIES PLACED HEAVY RELIANC E ON THE DIFFERENT ITA 181/MUM/2006 C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 7 PRECEDENTS. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN SHARES FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND FO LLOWING CONSISTENT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE PRODUCED THE COPIES OF THE DMAT ACCOUNT AND AS PER THE NEW SYSTE M OF DMAT ACCOUNT THE CONCEPT OF PHYSICAL DELIVERY HAS BEE N DONE AWAY WITH AND HENCE NO DISTINCTIVE NUMBERS ARE GIVEN IN RESP ECT OF THE SHARES WHICH ARE HELD IN THE DMAT ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE P RODUCE THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE BROKER THROUGH WHOM TH E ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT HIS SHARE TRANSACTIONS. NOTHING IS ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT A.O. EXAMINED THE BROKER WHO GAVE A CONFIRMATION CE RTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS PLACED THE RELIANCE ON A.Y. 2001-02 BUT IN THIS YEAR NO EVIDENCE IS ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THE TRAN SACTIONS WAS WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE BUSINESS LOSS AND A.O. PROCEEDS TO TREAT THE SAME AS A SPECULATIV E LOSS THEN BURDEN IS ON THE A.O. TO BRING SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO DISC ARD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE. ON THE ANXIOUS PERUSAL OF THE REASONS GIVE N BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHAT WE FIND THAT FINDINGS O F THE A.O. ARE BASED ON THE SUSPICION AND NOT ON ANY SUPPORTIVE EV IDENCE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE A.O. DID NOT HAVE EVEN PRIMAR Y KNOWLEDGE OF THE DMAT ACCOUNT. IN OUR OPINION THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS A BUSINE SS LOSS. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT ( A) AND SAME IS CONFIRMED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE IS DISALLOWANCE OF THE INTEREST E XPENDITURE OF ` 8 60 446/- AS PERTAINING TO THE EXPENDITURE FOR SPE CULATION BUSINESS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. THIS ISSUE IS INTERL INKED WITH THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1. AS WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE OF BUSINESS LOSS VIS-A-VIZ. SPECUL ATION LOSS HENCE AS THE INTEREST IS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND ACCORDI NGLY GROUND NO.2 IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA 181/MUM/2006 C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 8 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IS DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO TH E EXTENT OF ` 1 61 563/- PERTAINING TO THE EARNING OF THE TAX-FRE E / EXEMPT INCOME. 9. THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 10 22 009/-. IN THE OPINION OF THE A.O. AND IN VI EW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A THE PART OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED. THE A.O. ALSO REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEES BALANCE-SHEET AND OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE HEAD INV ESTMENT AND STOCK-IN-TRADE OF SHARES AND DEBENTURES A SUM OF ` 5 00 51 520/- HAD BEEN SHOWN AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE DI VIDEND INCOME OF ` 10 33 994/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. THE A.O. MADE THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1 61 563/- U/S.14A OF THE ACT BY APPLYING THE FORMULA. THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING THAT NO NEXUS HAS BEEN ESTAB LISHED BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT. MOREOVER THE DIVIDE ND WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND WHOLE BORROWINGS WERE U TILIZED FOR THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS ONLY. THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CI T (A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BEFORE US. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SAME IS CONFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE AND GROUND NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO.4 IS ONLY THE REPETITION OF GROUND NO .2 & 3. AS WE HAVE DISMISSED GROUND NO.2 & 3 HENCE GROUND NO.4 DO ES NOT SURVIVE AND ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS GROUND NO.4 ALSO. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT A S PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HE IS NOT PRESSING CRO SS OBJECTION BEING C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007. AS CROSS OBJECTION IS NOT PRE SSED SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 12. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSE SSEES C.O. ARE DISMISSED. ITA 181/MUM/2006 C.O. NO.117/MUM/2007 SHRI NAROTAMDAS GOEL 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 2 8TH DECEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- ( G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA ) PRESIDENT ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATE : 28TH DECEMBER 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) -XII MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT- XII MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. A BENCH MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI *CHAVAN ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.12.2011 SD/- SD/- ( JSR ) ( RSP )