KISHORE M. NAGRECHA, MUMBAI v. DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI

ITA 190/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 19019914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAAPN7273L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 190/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant KISHORE M. NAGRECHA, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 16-09-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 08-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.K. PANDA A.M. ITA NO.190/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA C/O. RAJSI BROS. FERN HOUSE COLABA CAUSEWAY SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD OPP ELECTRIC HOUSE MUMBAI-400 039 PAN NO: AAAPN7273L VS. THE D.C.I.T 12(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. N. VASANI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P. C. MAURYA O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-23 MUMBAI RELATING TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 TO 7 FOR WHICH THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRES SED. 3. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF LOSS OF GOODS IN TRANSIT AMOUNTING TO ` 99 75 614/-. ITA NO: 190/MUM/2010 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA 2 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN I TS PROPRIETARY CONCERN NAMELY M/S. SANDHREERE EXPORTS HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.99 75 614/- WHICH WAS DEBITED TO THE P & L A/C TOWARDS GOODS L OST IN TRANSIT. THE SAME AMOUNT ALSO APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDE R THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS IN THE NAME OF ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL IN SURANCE CO. LTD. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAI N THE ABOVE ENTRIES THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE EFFECTED EXPORT SALES O F CEMENT FROM KAKINADA PORT BY CHARTERED SHIP TO HIS CUSTOMERS ABROAD AT M ORONI COMERS UNDER CONSIGNMENT THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- SR. NO. DT/INVOICE NO. PARTYS NAME QUANTITY SHIPPING BILLS NO. AMOUNT (EURO) 1 21/01/2006 SE/006/2005- 06 M.V. ABASSE S/C HACHIM FRERES 1500 MT/ 30000 BAGS 6100069/ 25.01.2006 121050 2 21/01/2006 SE/004/2005- 06 ETS AMIR MINIHADJI MBECHEZI 1500 MT/ 30000 BAGS 6100067/ 25.01.2006 121050 3 21/01/2006 SE/009/2005- 06 MAGASIN CHARJJ HOUSSEN 2500 MT/ 50000 BAGS 6100100/ 31.01.2006 201750 4.1 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE ABOVE CONSIGNMEN TS DISPATCHED REACHED THE PORT OF DESTINATION EITHER PARTLY IN DA MAGED CONDITION OR IN SHORT-SHIPMENT. THE VALUE OF THE GOODS LOST IN TRA NSIT AMOUNTING TO ` 99 75 614/- DEBITED TO THE P & L A/C. WAS ON ACCOUN T OF THIS SHORT SHIPMENT OF CEMENT. ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LOSS IN SHIPMENT WAS ASSESSED ABROAD BY INSURANCE AGENT AND ON RECEIVING THE SAID INFORMATION ASSESSEE LODGED HIS CLAIM FOR INSURANCE MONEY WITH ICICI LOMBARD GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD. THE ORIGINAL CLAIM MADE BY THE A SSESSEE WITH ICICI LOMBARD VIDE CLAIM BILL DT. 10.05.2006 WAS FOR ` 1 61 49 525/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REDUCED TO ` 1 03 80 245/- IN HIS CLAIM DT.12.06.2006. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REDUCED THE CLAIM FOR INSURANCE TO RS.99 75 614/- WHICH IS THE FIGURE APPEARING IN THE P & L A/C. ITA NO: 190/MUM/2010 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA 3 5. THE A.O. NOTED FROM THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE SHIPMENT LOSS THAT THE TOTAL SHIPMENT OF CEMENT MADE FROM KAKINADA PORT IN WHICH ASSESSEES CONSIGN MENT TO THE 3 CUSTOMERS OF MORONI ALSO CARRIED 22500 M. TONS OF C EMENT OR 450000 BAGS OF 50 KG EACH. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES SHIPPIN G AGENT WAS M/S. OCEANTRANS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING AGENCIES INDIA P VT. LTD. AND NAME OF THE CHARTERED SHIP MV JADI MUHIDDINE. IN THE CEME NT SHIPMENT OF 225000 M.TONS ASSESSEES CONSIGNMENT TO THE THREE CUSTOME RS REFERRED TO WAS 5500 M TONS OR 1 10 000 BAGS OF CEMENT. THE LOSS ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE INSURANCE AGENTS ABROAD AND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BI LL TO ICICI LOMBARD GIVEN AN ACCOUNT OF THE SHIPMENT LOSS IN WEIGHT BY WAY OF HARDENED CEMENT BAGS FALLEN INTO SEA MISSING ON BOARD EMPTY BAGS STOLEN ETC AT 1899.270 M.TONS OR 8.44% OF THE TOTAL SHIPMENT MADE. ASSESSE E DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THIS LOSS IN WEIGHT IN THE SHIPMENT OF 1899.270 M TONS OF CEMENT AT ` 1 03 80 245/- IN HIS CLAIM BILL TO ICICI LOMBARD WH ICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REDUCED TO ` 99 75 614/-. THE A.O. NOTED THAT ASSESSEE ATTRIBUT ED THE ENTIRE SHIPMENT LOSS TO 5500 M TONS CARRIED FOR THE 3 CUST OMERS ALONE AT MORONI THOUGH THEIR SHARE OF THE SHIPMENT WAS ONLY 24.44% OF THE TOTAL SHIPMENT OF 22500 M.TONS CARRIED BY THE SHIP. 6. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS EXPLANATION FOR THE DEBIT EN TRY OF ` 99 75 614/- IN THE TRADING PROFIT & LOSS A/C. TOWARDS GOODS LOST IN TRANSIT CONFIRMED IN HIS LETTER DT. 08.09.2008 THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE FULL PAYMENT FROM CUSTOMERS TOWARDS THE CEMENT EXPORTED SINCE THESE WERE ADVANCE PAYMENTS MADE BY THEM. HENCE THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO THE TRADING PROFIT & LOSS A/C. THIS WAS ONLY THE BOOK L OSS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO SHORT SHIPPING OF EXPORTS UP TILL N OW. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE I N SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SHORT SHIPMENT OF GOODS. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE LODGED HIS CLAIM FOR INSURANCE MONE Y FOR GOODS LOST WITH THE ICICI LOMBARD BASED ON THE LOSS ASSESSMENT REPO RT OF AN INSURANCE AGENT ABROAD. THE ICICI LOMBARD HOWEVER HAVE REJECT ED THE ASSESSEES ITA NO: 190/MUM/2010 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA 4 CLAIM ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. THE A.O. OBSERVED FROM THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A COMPLA INT AGAINST THE DECISION OF ICICI LOMBARD WITH THE MAHARASHTRA STA TE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION. THE RESULT OF THIS COMPLAINT IS STILL AWAITED. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTS THE A.O. OBSERVED THA T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE TRADING PROFIT & LOSS A /C. WAS IN CORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOT ICE CALLING FOR THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN THE MATTER. 7. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE IS FOLLOWING MERC ANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF GOODS LOST I N TRANSIT NEEDS TO BE CLAIMED AND ALLOWABLE IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR ITSELF. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE FULL PAYMENT FR OM CUSTOMERS AND HE HAD NEITHER ACKNOWLEDGED THE LIABILITY IN HIS BOOKS TOWARDS THE CUSTOMERS NOR PAID THEM THE AMOUNT. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT F OREGONE HIS INSURANCE CLAIM AND THE MATTER IS STILL TO BE DECIDED. THE AM OUNT DEBITED TO THE TRADING PROFIT & LOSS A/C. IS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE CLAIMED. NO LIABILITY ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIO US YEAR BUT MAY ARISE IN FUTURE WHICH WOULD BE A CONTINGENT LIABILITY. THE A MOUNT DEBITED TO THE P & L A/C WAS NOT AN ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND IT COULD AT BEST BE CALLED ONLY A RESERVE MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF A CONTINGENT LIABILITY. EVEN FOR SETTLEMENT OF THE CONTINGENT LIABILITY THE INSURAN CE CLAIM OUTSTANDING WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR INSURANCE HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED SO FAR BY THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSU MER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE AMO UNT OF ` 99 75 614/-. 8. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE A.O.S ACTI ON. WHILE DOING SO HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPORTED GOODS (CEMENT) WH ICH WAS REPORTEDLY LOST (AT SEA) IN TRANSIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FUL L PAYMENT FROM THE CUSTOMERS TOWARDS THE CEMENT EXPORTED AS ADVANCE PA YMENT AND NO MONETARY LOSS HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE REPORTEDLY LODGED A CLAIM WITH AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH WAS REJECTED AND AGAINST ITA NO: 190/MUM/2010 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA 5 SUCH ORDER OF REJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CO MPLAINT WITH THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMIS SION WHICH IS PENDING. AS SUCH THERE HAS BEEN NO REAL LOSS TO T HE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FULL PAYMENT FROM HIS CUSTOMERS A ND NO AMOUNT WAS RETURNED TO THEM. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENT SUCH AS DEBI T NOTE LETTER CORRESPONDENCE FROM HIS CUSTOMERS CLAIMING THE DUES FROM THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THREE LETTERS OF MAY 2009 IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS STATING THAT THE CUSTOMERS IN THESE LETTERS HAVE PR ESSED FOR THEIR PENDING AMOUNT. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FOREG ONE HIS INSURANCE CLAIM. FURTHER WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE DOUBTFUL N ATURE OF THE CLAIM THE ASSESSEES JUSTIFICATION IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS Y EAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING HAS ALSO BEEN RIGHT LY HELD AS UNTENABLE SO FAR THE LOSS HAS BEEN BORNE BY THE CUSTOMERS WHO HA VE PAID IN ADVANCE AND NOT RECEIVED EITHER THE GOODS OR PAYMENT IN LIEU TH EREFORE. THE CUSTOMERS HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE ONLY FOR FOLLOWING UP THE I NSURANCE CLAIM AND THAT TOO BELATEDLY. AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACT ION FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN HIS SPEAKING ORDER IS CONFIRMED. 9. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO P APER BOOK PAGE 38 & 39 SUBMITTED THAT THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. VIDE THEIR LETTER DT. 14 TH JULY 2006 HAVE REJECTED THE INSURANCE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 40 TO 42 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT. 5.11.20 08 ADDRESSED TO THE A.O. HAS INFORMED HIM ABOUT THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM B Y THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR WHICH A CASE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE INSURANCE COMPANY BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER COURT WHICH MAY TAKE A N YEAR FOR THE FINAL OUTCOME. WHILE JUSTIFYING THE CLAIM OF LOSS DEBITE D IN THE P&L ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID LETTER HAS FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE EVENT THE ASSESSEE ITA NO: 190/MUM/2010 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA 6 RECEIVES INSURANCE CLAIM IN THE FUTURE YEAR THE SA ME MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME AND SHALL BE OFFERED AS INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CLAIM IS RECEIVED. SINCE THE LOSS HAD BEEN INCURRED DURING T HE YEAR AND THE SURVEYOR HAD DETERMINED THE LOSS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THEREFORE THE CLAIM WAS JUST IFIED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 4 3 AND 44 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). REFERRING T O PAGE NO. 27 TO 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE ALSO DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE REPORT OF THE SURVEYOR. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TULSI RAM KARAM CHAND REPORTED IN [1964] 052 ITR 0180 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPER YEAR FOR CLA IMING THE LOSS IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LOSS OCCURRED AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHIC H THE CLAIM WAS SETTLED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DT. 8 TH SEPT. 2008 HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. CONFIRMING THE RECEIPT OF FULL PAYMENT FROM THE CUSTOMER TOWARDS THE CEMENT EXPORTED SINCE THEY WER E MADE ADVANCE PAYMENT TO THEM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTRIES PAS SED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT FINAL. SINCE THE CONSIGNMENT WAS LO ST IN TRANSIT AND THE GOODS WERE DESTROYED THEREFORE THE LOSS SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH IS NOT A CONTINGENT LOSS. 11. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ENTIRE MONEY THEREFORE THE ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE CORRECTLY. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO CORRESPONDENCE FROM HIS CUSTOMERS WAS PRODUCED AND THE ASSESSEE TI LL DATE HAS NOT REFUNDED THE MONEY TO THE PERSONS FROM WHOM IT WAS RECEIVED. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS NOT SUR E AS TO THE DEBTOR TO WHOM THE MONEY HAS TO BE REFUNDED THEREFORE THE C LAIM OF LOSS PROPOUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A VAGUE ONE. THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. WHO HAS DI STINGUISHED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT CASE. REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE A.O . AS PER PAGE 7 & 8 OF THE ITA NO: 190/MUM/2010 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA 7 ASSESSMENT ORDER HE SUBMITTED THAT THOSE CASES ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE REJOIN DER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE LODGED THE CLAIM THE SAME WAS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. SUBSEQUENTLY THE SURVEYOR REDUCED THE SAME. HE SU BMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION CITED BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF LOSS. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) A ND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE FIND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FULL PAYMENT FROM THE CUSTOMER IN ADVANCE TOWARDS THE EX PORT OF CEMENT WHICH WAS DESTROYED OR LOST IN TRANSIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS LODGED THE CLAIM BEFORE THE INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN REJECTED . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUM ER DISPUTE REDRESSEL COMMISSION WHICH IS STILL PENDING. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS RECEIVED FULL PAYMENT TOWARDS THE GOODS EXPORTED WHICH WERE ALLEG EDLY LOST IN TRANSIT THEREFORE THERE IS NO REAL LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE SO FAR AS THE VALUE OF CEMENT EXPORTED IS CONCERNED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT R EFUNDED TILL DATE THE AMOUNT TO THE CUSTOMERS FROM WHOM THE ADVANCE PAYME NT WAS RECEIVED FOR EXPORT OF CEMENT. SINCE THE CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE PAID ADVANCE PAYMENT HAVE NEITHER RECEIVED THE GOODS NOR RECEIVED THE PA YMENT EVEN TILL TODAY THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. FURTHER THE ASSES SEE IN THE BALANCE SHET HAS NOT SHOWN THE CUSTOMERS AS CREDITORS. IN OUR O PINION THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ESP ECIALLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS STILL SHOWN AS RECEIVABLE FROM THE INSURA NCE COMPANY SINCE THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE CONSUMER COURT. THE DE CISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ITA NO: 190/MUM/2010 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA 8 OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE THERE WAS NO RE CEIPT OF MONEY IN ADVANCE FROM THE PARTIES WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AS SESSEE HAS RECEIVED FULL PAYMENT IN ADVANCE FROM THE PARTIES AND THE ASSESSE E HAS NEITHER SUPPLIED THE GOODS NOR REFUNDED THE MONEY. THEREFORE THERE IS NO REAL LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE GOODS LOST IN TRANSIT. THE GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- ( D. MANMOHAN ) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED : 16.9.2011. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T. XII MUMBAI 4. CIT (A)-23 MUMBAI 5. THE DR A - BENCH ITAT MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI RK ITA NO: 190/MUM/2010 SHRI KISHORE M. NAGRECHA 9 DATE INITIALS DRAFT DICTATED ON 29/06/2011 12.9.11 14.9.11 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 30/06/2011 15.9.11 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE OF DISPATCH