BALYAYA SEA & AIR LOGISTIC P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ACIT OAD 8(3), MUMBAI

CO 199/MUM/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 19919923 RSA 2010
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number CO 199/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant BALYAYA SEA & AIR LOGISTIC P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT OAD 8(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 10-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 10-03-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 12-11-2010
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI J JJ J BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R K PANDA AM BEFORE SHRI R K PANDA AM BEFORE SHRI R K PANDA AM BEFORE SHRI R K PANDA AM & & & & SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JM SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JM SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JM SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN JM ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 2412/MUM/2010 2412/MUM/2010 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR (ASST YEAR2007 2007 2007 2007- -- -08 0808 08 ) )) ) THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX OSD 8(3) MUMBAI VS M/S BALYAYA SEA & LOGISTICS P LTD 6 ROSE COTTAGE ROAD NO.1 SAHAR VILLAGE ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 59 ( (( (APPELLANT APPELLANT APPELLANT APPELLANT) )) ) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 CO NO.199/MUM/2010 CO NO.199/MUM/2010 CO NO.199/MUM/2010 M/S BALYAYA SEA & LOGISTICS P LTD 6 ROSE COTTAGE ROAD NO.1 SAHAR VILLAGE ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 59 VS THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX OSD 8(3) MUMBAI (APP (APP (APP (APPLICANT LICANT LICANT LICANT) )) ) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO. PAN NO.AAAC14998N AAAC14998N AAAC14998N AAAC14998N A SSESSEE BY SHRI HIRO RAI REVENUE BY SHRI A K NAYAR PER R K PANDA AM PER R K PANDA AM PER R K PANDA AM PER R K PANDA AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJ ECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.1.2010 OF T HE CIT(A)-16 MUMBAI RELATING TO AY 2007-08. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 ( BY THE REVENUE) ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 ( BY THE REVENUE) ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 ( BY THE REVENUE) ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 ( BY THE REVENUE) 2 IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS 1 & 2 THE REVENUE HAS C HALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 63 87 4/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE. 2 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENTS. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE INCOME SHOULD N OT BE DISALLOWED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME IS PAID TO SOLICIT THE BUSINESS WHICH IS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF BUSINESS PROCURED FROM T HE PARTY AT AN AGREED PERCENTAGE FOR THOSE PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN INTRODU CED BY THEM. THERE WERE NO WRITTEN AGREEMENTS FOR THE SAME AND THE AMOUNT IS P AID ON THE BASIS OF AMOUNT DUE TO THEM AS PER THE CALCULATION STATED ABOVE THR OUGH CHEQUE PERIODICALLY DEDUCTING TDS. THERE WERE NO OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES. 2.2 HOWEVER NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATI ON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE T O JUSTIFY THE CLAIM THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 6 3 874/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE. 3 BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING AND COMMISSION PAYMENT IS UNAVOIDABLE TO PROCURE BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH TYPE OF EXPEN SES ARE BEING INCURRED SINCE INCEPTION OF THE BUSINESS. GIVING CHART OF YEAR WI SE COMMISSION IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION PAID DURING THE YEAR COMES TO RS. 4.39% OF THE TURNOVER AS AGAINST 5.07% FOR THE AY 2006-07 AND 4. 18% FOR THE AY 2005-06. 3 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 3.1 BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS TDS CERTIFICATES XEROX COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS AND THE DETAILS OF THE BUSIN ESS PROCURED BY THE AGENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH WERE FURNI SHED BEFORE HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 4 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE US. 5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT IN ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF ANY DETAILS OTHER THAN THE GENERAL REPLY THE ASSES SING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 11 63 874/-. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS WHICH WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUCH DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE. WE FIND WHEN THE DETAILS WERE BEFORE THE CIT(A) NEITHER HE CALLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REMAIN PRESE NT BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITI ON OF LAW THAT FOR CLAIMING ANY EXPENDITURE THE ONUS IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SATISFY WITH EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPE NDITURE IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 4 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 5.1 IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROU ND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6 IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 30 753/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF CLIENT DURING THE NORMAL COU RSE OF BUSINESS. 6.1 FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE NEGATIVE (OTHER OPERATING INCOME) SHOWN SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ARE EXPENSES I NCURRED DURING THE COURSE OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING OF IMPORT OR EXPORT OF GOOD S ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE GENERALLY BEI NG RECOVERED FROM THE CUSTOMERS AS THE SAME ARE INCURRED ON THEIR BEHALF. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF THE PECULIARITY OF THE BUSINESS IT IS ALWAYS NOT POSSI BLE TO DETERMINE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF EXPENSES THAT THE COMPANY HAS TO INCUR TO COMPLETE THE CLEARING OF 5 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 GOODS IN THE COURSE OF EITHER IMPORT OR EXPORT. THE COMPANY TRIES TO RECOVER IN ADVANCE SUCH SUM OF EXPENSES FROM ITS CLIENTS AND S AME IS BEING NULLIFIED WHEN IT IS SPENT ON THEIR BEHALF AS IT IS NEITHER ITS IN COME NOR EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER SOME TIME THERE IS SOME DEFICIT OR SURPLUS ON ACCO UNT OF SUCH PRACTICE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHENEVER THERE IS ANY INCOME THE SAME IS OFFERED TO TAX AND WHENEVER THERE IS NEGATIVE INCOME THE SAME IS CLAI MED AS EXPENDITURE. 6.2 HOWEVER THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO HIM WHEN THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EX CESS EXPENDITURE ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN T HE BALANCE SHEET ON THE ASSET SIDE AND CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPEND ITURE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH THOSE PAR TIES; THEREFORE IT SHOULD HAVE RECOVERED THE AMOUNT FROM THOSE PARTIES. . AC CORDINGLY HE DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 15 30 753/-. 6.3 IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS OFFERED POSITIVE INCOM E AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 69 651/-. SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 RS. 11 51 192/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 RS. 7 67 615/- WAS DEC LARED AS POSITIVE INCOME. THEREFORE WHEN THE ASSESSEE INCURRED MORE EXPENDI TURE THEN THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO R S. 15 30 753/- THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET OFF FROM THE COMMISSION/INCENT IVE INCOME IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. 6 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 6.4 BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE APPELLANT I S ENGAGED IN THE CLEARING AND FORWARDING OF IMPORT AND EXPORT BUSINESS AND TH E ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED ARE SOMETIME MORE THAN THE RATE FOR WHICH THE DEAL IS UNDERTAKEN AND SOME TIME LESS THAN THE RATE BARGAIN ED IN ADVANCED. THE DIFFERENCE OF ACTUAL COST AND THE RATE NEGOTIATED I S ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY BUT THE DIFFERENCE EITHER EXCESS OR DEFICIT WAS NOT REFUNDED OR CLAIMED FROM THE CUSTOMERS. AS PE R THE BUSINESS COMMITMENT THE APPELLANT FOLLOWED THE SAME SYSTEM AND SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS POSITIVE INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEA RS AS STATED ABOVE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REPLY OF THE APPELLANT IT S SEEN THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 2005-06 AND 2006-07 THE AP PELLANT HAS SHOWN POSITIVE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 7 67 615/- RS. 11 51 192/ AND RS. 2 69 651/- RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN NEGATIVE INCOME OF RS. 15 30 75 3/-. IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE POSITIVE INC OME; HOWEVER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NEGATIVE INCOME WAS D ISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT EXPENSES INCURRED IN EXCESS ON BEHALF OF THE SHIPPER SHOULD APPEAR IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS A LIA BILITY. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FOLLOWING THE SAME SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG AS IN EARLIER YEARS. WHEN IN EARLIER YEAR POSITIVE INCOME HAS BEEN ACCE PTED THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO REJECT THE NEGAT9VE INCOME IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY BOGUS EXP ENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY NOR HAVE ANY COMMENTS HAS BEEN GI VEN REGARDING THE INFLATED EXPENSES. IT SHOWS THAT THE GENUINENESS OF INCOME & EXPENSES IS NOT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HENCE DELETED. THE GROU ND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE US. 7 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 8 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUT E TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CLEARING AND FORWARDING OF IM PORT AND EXPORT OF GOODS ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15 30 753/- AS NEGATIVE OTHER OPERATING INCOME. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME ON T HE GROUND THAT EXCESS AMOUNT INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN S HOWN IN THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE CLIENTS AS THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH THEM. WE FIND THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST YEARS WAS SHOWING POSITIVE INCOME AND THEREFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE Y EAR WHEN THERE IS NEGATIVE (OTHER OPERATING INCOME). IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE BARGAINED WITH THE CLIENTS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT THAT WILL BE SPENT TOWARDS CLEARING AND FORWARDING; THEREFORE THE CLIENT WILL NOT REPAY IF ANY EXCESS AMOUNT IS SPENT ON THEIR BEHALF. SOMET IMES THEY ALSO CANNOT CLAIM ANY REFUND FROM THE ASSESSEE IF THERE IS A SURPLUS OUT OF THAT. FURTHER IT IS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE T HAT WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAXED SURPLUS ARISING OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT IN THE PAS T NOW THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT DENY THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION WHEN THERE IS NEGATIVE OTHER OPERATING INCOME. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD COUNSEL. HOWEVER THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PROFIT OF RS. 2 69 615/- RS.11 51 192/- AND RS. 7 67 651/- AS POSITIVE OP ERATING INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY W AS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE 8 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT CA LLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT OR CLARIFICATION ON THIS ISSUE FROM THE ASSESSING OF FICER . 8.1 CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CA SE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT. IN CASE THE A SSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS HAVE SHOWN SOME POSITIVE OPERATING INCOME AND OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE CLAIM O F THE NEGATIVE OTHER OPERATING INCOME OF RS. 16 30 753/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE YEAR. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSU E AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9 REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NATU RE ARE DISMISSED. CO NO.199/MUM/2010( BY THE ASSESSEE) CO NO.199/MUM/2010( BY THE ASSESSEE) CO NO.199/MUM/2010( BY THE ASSESSEE) CO NO.199/MUM/2010( BY THE ASSESSEE) 10 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE HAVE ALREADY RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. THEREFORE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN IT S CROSS OBJECTION BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY THE CROSS OBJECTION IS DI SMISSED. 9 ITA NO. 2412/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2007-08) CO NO.199/MUM/2010 11 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE WHEREAS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 23 RD DAY OF MAR 2011. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) )) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( (( ( R K PANDA R K PANDA R K PANDA R K PANDA ) )) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED:23 MAR 2011 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR ITAT MUMBAI