ACIT 20(1), MUMBAI v. ADAM EXPORTS, MUMBAI

ITA 1177/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 117719914 RSA 2009
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1177/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant ACIT 20(1), MUMBAI
Respondent ADAM EXPORTS, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 25-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-11-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 20-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. AND SHRI V. DU RGA RAO J.M. ITA NO. 1177/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-20(1) APPELLANT ROOM NO. 603 6 TH FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBER PAREL MUMBAI 400 012. VS. M/S ADAM EXPORTS RESPONDENT 33/165 LAXMI IND. ESTATE NEW LINK ROAD ANDHERI(W) MUMBAI 400 058 APPELLANT BY : MRS. USHA NAIR RESPONDENT BY : MR. VIPUL J. SHAH DATE OF HEARING : 15/11/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/11/2011 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I MUMBAI PASSED ON 20/11/2008 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY S PECIFIC FINDING REGARDING THE PURCHASES OF RS. 3 70 46 085/ - BEING GENUINE. SO MUCH SO THERE IS NO FINDING ON THIS ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ERRONEOUSLY ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT AS PER THE COMPLETE SUMMARIZED RECO NCILIATION CHART FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TOTAL DIFFERENCES WORKE D OUT AT ONLY RS. 1 78 157/-. THERE ARE NO DETAILS IN THE ORDER A BOUT THE EXPLANATION OF THE FIGURES TOTALING UPTO RS. 3 70 4 6 085/- AND AS TO HOW THEY WERE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. ITA NO. 1177/M/2009 ADAM EXPORTS 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE PU RCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF CONFIRMATIONS FILED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION OF EXISTENCE OF THE PARTIES. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING THE FINDI NGS IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES AND EXPENSES SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF TDS DEDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SOME PARTIES WHE N TDS COMES INTO PLAY IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES BUT NOT IN R ELATION TO PURCHASES. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RE STORED. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASESS SEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF READYMADE GARMENTS. THE AO BASED ON THE DETAILS AND INFORMATI ON SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME BY CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 133(6) TO AS ANY AS 28 PARTIES. THESE ARE THE PARTI ES WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED ON BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS DURIN G THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES OF RAW MATE RIAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF DYEING PRINTING AND IRONING CHARGES STITCHING JOB WORK CHARGES CONSULTANCY CH ARGES FABRIC TESTING CHARGES ETC. THE AO REPRODUCED THE PARTY WI SE LIST NAME AND ADDRESS NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND AMOUNT CLAIME D AS EXPENSE/EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN A TABULAR FORM IN PARA 4 AT PAGE 2 OF AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE AO NOTED THAT AGAINST THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 13 3(6) ONLY 11 PARTIES CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS AS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND REMAINING PARTIES INVOLVING EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1 87 73 044/- HAD NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ENQUIRY LETTERS ISSUED COULD NOT BE SERVED OR THE SAME WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS AS NOT KNOWN LEFT ETC. IN AS MUCH AS SEVEN CASES INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 8 4 58 210/-. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY EX PLANATION IN THIS REGARD. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCIL E THE ABOVE NOTED DEFECTS OR DISCREPANCIES BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE THE SAME. THE AO THEREFORE HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTED TO FURNISH CORRECT AND TRUE INFORMATION BE FORE THE AO AS WELL AS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S HOWEVER HE ITA NO. 1177/M/2009 ADAM EXPORTS 3 COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS. HENCE THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 72 31 254/- BY TREAT ING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES PERTAI NING TO ALL THE PARTIES IN WHICH CASES NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE NOT RESPONDED AND PARTIES IN WHICH CASES THE SAID NOTICES WERE RECEIV ED BACK UNSERVED THROUGH THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES TREATING T HE SAME AS BOGUS ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSE E STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE SAID ADDITIONS W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITS PROPER PE RSPECTIVE AS PER VARIOUS DETAILS AND EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY BEFORE THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS LETTER DA TED 29/04/2008 THE CONTENTS OF WHICH WERE EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 3 TO 7. THEREAFTER THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THE AFFIDAVITS AND ACCOUNT STATEMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS/OBJECTIONS IF ANY AFTER ITS DUE VE RIFICATION AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE-46A OF THE IT RULES AS THESE F RESH EVIDENCES PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 18/09/08 STATING THEREIN TH AT SINCE FULL ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS ARE NOT MENTIONED I N THE AFFIDAVITS FILED IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO CARR Y OUT FURTHER ENQUIRIES SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AO HAD ALSO STATED THAT THE LISTS WHICH CONSIST DATE BILL NO. AND AMOUNT ARE NOT SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO PROVE COR RECTNESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES/PURCHASES. FINALLY THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS RESPONSIB ILITY AND ADDITION MADE IS GENUINE AND CORRECT. THE REMAND REPORT OF T HE AO WAS FORWARDED TO ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(A) FOR HIS COMMENT S/OBJECTIONS IF ANY. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE AR OF THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE REMAND REPORT MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES IN RES PECT OF WHICH ITA NO. 1177/M/2009 ADAM EXPORTS 4 VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS AND PURCHASES AND EXPENSES ET C. WERE UNDERTAKEN AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO WERE G IVEN TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BASED ON WHICH ONLY THE AO COULD ISSUE THE SAID ENQUIRY LETTERS TO THESE PARTI ES. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT MOST OF THE PARTIES HAD FILED THEIR CON FIRMATIONS ON 24/12/2007 DIRECTLY TO THE AO WHICH SHOULD BE AVAI LABLE IN THE RECORD OF THE AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF TH E CASE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF TH E AO THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY IN HIS ORDER AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- : 2.4.8 .THE BALANCE DIFFERENCE IS FOUND TO BE ENTIRELY RECONCILED AS PER THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED AND ITS VERIFICATION FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPEL LANT AS WELL AS FROM THE ORIGINAL BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE CONC ERNED PARTIES PRODUCED AND VERIFIED IN THIS REGARD. THE PAYMENTS AGAINST THE BILLS RAISED BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED ARE FOUND TO BE DULY RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE FACTS THE FINDINGS OF THE AO I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS HIS FINDINGS GIVEN IN T HE REMAND REPORT AS MENTIONED ABOVE IS FOUND TO BE UNSUBSTANT IATED. IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY SERIOUS EFFORT S TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES FROM THE ACCOUNT CONFIRMA TIONS PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS MENTIONED. CLUED TO THESE FACTS OF THE CASE I FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER VERIFICATION POSSIBLE (IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE A DDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS PROVIDED IN THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES) IS NOT REASONABLE SINCE THE AO HIMSELF HA D ISSUED INQUIRY LETTERS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL SUCH PARTIES. THEREFORE DURING REMAND HE COULD HAVE EASILY VERI FIED THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER COULD HAVE VERIFIED THE PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST THESE PURCHASES ETC. FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. NO SU CH EFFORTS ARE MADE BY THE AO NEITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AFFIDAVITS AND ACCOUNT CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AR E NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO. THE SALES MADE AGAINST THESE PU RCHASES DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPEL LANT ARE NOT DOUBTED. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE FOUND TO BE AUDIT ED BY THE TAX AUDITORS WHEREIN NO SUCH INFIRMITIES ARE NOTED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLAN T. 2.4.9 ACCORDINGLY IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS OF THE CA SE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE NOTED IN RES PECT SR.NOS. 1 2 & 4 OF PARA 2.4.7 ABOVE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 02 530/- (I.E. RS. 95 717/- + RS. 1 900/-) IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAI NED EXPENDITURE THE SOURCE THEREOF IS NOT EXPLAINED S INCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THESE PURCHASE/EXPE NSES BUT ITA NO. 1177/M/2009 ADAM EXPORTS 5 THE PARTIES CONCERNED HAVE DULY CONFIRMED THE SAME. SIMILARLY AS PER SR.NO. 5 &6 OF PARA 2.4.7 ABOVE AN AMOUNT O F RS. 82 639/- (I.E. 47 152/- + RS. 35 488/-) IS FOUND T O BE UNEXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CO NFIRMATIONS OF THESE TWO PARTIES IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT NEC ESSARY SERVICES ARE RENDERED AGAINST SUCH CLAIM MADE IN TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO NOT ASCERTAINED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AS NOTED AB OVE THEREFORE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS FOUND TO BE NOT ALLOW ABLE. 2.4.10 THEREFORE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ENTIRE CLA IM OF APPELLANT OF RS. 1 85 169/-(I.E. RS. 1 02 530/- + R S. 82 639/-) DISALLOWED/ADDED BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED AND THE BAL ANCE ADDITION MADE IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING THE PURCHASES OF RS. 3 70 46 085/- TREATED AS GENUINE. SHE CONTENDED THA T THE CIT(A) WRONGLY ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT AS PER THE C OMPLETE SUMMARIZED RECONCILIATION CHART FILED BY THE ASSESS EE TOTAL DIFFERENCES WORKED OUT AT ONLY RS. 1 78 157/- AS TH ERE ARE NO DETAILS IN THE ORDER ABOUT THE EXPLANATION OF THE F IGURES TOTALING UPTO RS. 3 70 46 085/- AND AS TO HOW THEY WERE ACCE PTED AS GENUINE. SHE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRE D IN ACCEPTING THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF CONFIRMATIONS FILED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION OF THE EX ISTENCE OF THE PARTIES. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SELF-SERVING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN R ESPECT OF 17 PARTIES AND THE SAME HAVE TO BE VERIFIED. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTH ER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) PASSED A DETAILED ORDER A FTER CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT AND EXPLANATION FROM THE AO THEREFOR E THE MATTER NEED NOT BE REMITTED BACK TO THE AO AGAIN. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE ALSO NOT REJECTED. HE POIN TED OUT THAT THE ITA NO. 1177/M/2009 ADAM EXPORTS 6 AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS IN THE REMAND REPORT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GP RATE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION IS SAME AS LAST YEAR. HE FINALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSE D THE RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE MAINLY ON ACC OUNT OF NON- SUBMISSIONS OF CONFIRMATIONS BY THE PARTIES AGAINST ENQUIRY LETTERS ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS NOTED THAT OUT OF SUCH 28 PARTIES IN WHICH ENQUIRY LETTERS WERE ISSUED ONLY 11 PARTIES HAVE RESPONDED AND OUT OF THESE 11 PARTIES HE NOTICED A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 61 38`/- IN CASE OF TWO PARTIES. REGARDING THE BALANCE 17 PARTIES THE AO NOTED THAT IN AS MUCH AS 10 PARTIES ENQUIRY LETTERS WERE DULY SERVED BUT THE PARTIES HAVE FAILED TO RES POND TO THE SAME. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE PARTIES IS FOR A SUM OF RS. 1 87 73 044/-. REGARDING THE BALANCE 7 PARTIES THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ENQUIRY LETTERS ISSUED WERE RECEIVED BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UNSERVED MAKING REMARKS AS UNKNOWN LEF T ETC. AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT INVOLVED PERTAINING TO THESE PARTIES W ERE FOUND TO BE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1 84 58 210/-. AS PER THE AO T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME NOR IT COULD FURNISH THE RELEVANT CONFIRMATIONS OF ALL THE 17 PARTIES AS MENTIONED AB OVE. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHAR GE ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE EXTENT OF NOT PROVIDING PROPE R DETAILS AS WELL AS NOT FURNISHING CONFIRMATIONS OF THESE PARTIES. A CCORDINGLY HE TREATED THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS TO THE SAID 17 PART IES AS BOGUS ENTRIES AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 3 72 31 524/-. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS HIS FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT AS MENTIONED AB OVE IS FOUND TO BE UNSUBSTANTIATED. IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY SERIOUS EFFORTS TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES FROM T HE ACCOUNT CONFIRMATIONS PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WEL L AS REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS MENTIONED. VIEWED TO THESE FACTS OF THE CASE I FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THAT THERE IS NO FURT HER VERIFICATION POSSIBLE (IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE ADDRESS AND TE LEPHONE NUMBERS ITA NO. 1177/M/2009 ADAM EXPORTS 7 PROVIDED IN THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES ) IS NOT REASONABLE SINCE THE AO HIMSELF HAD ISSUED INQUIRY LETTERS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL SUCH PARTIES. THEREFORE DURING REMAND HE C OULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT F ROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE APPELLANT AN D FURTHER COULD HAVE VERIFIED THE PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST THESE PURCH ASES ETC. FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. NO SU CH EFFORTS ARE MADE BY THE AO NEITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS NOR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AFFIDAVITS AND A CCOUNT CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT EXAMIN ED BY THE AO. THE CIT(A) GAVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE SAL ES MADE AGAINST THESE PURCHASES DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO. HE GAVE A FURT HER FINDING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE FOUND TO BE AUDITED BY THE TAX AUDITORS WHEREIN NO SUCH INFIRMITIES ARE NOTED IN THE MAINTE NANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. WE FIND THAT THE RE IS NO CHANGE IN G.P. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FIN DINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ARE PROPER AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) THEREFORE THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. ACCOR DINGLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (V. DU RGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 25 TH NOVEMBER 2011 KV ITA NO. 1177/M/2009 ADAM EXPORTS 8 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A BENCH I.T .A.T. MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI.