SUJEER PROPERTIES, MUMBAI v. ITO 13(2)3), MUMBAI

ITA 2386/MUM/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 238619914 RSA 2010
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2386/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant SUJEER PROPERTIES, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 13(2)3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 29-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 29-12-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 26-03-2010
Judgment Text
I.T.A NO.2386 / MUM/2010 SUJEER PROPERTIES(AOP) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH MUMBAI. [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] I.T.A NO.2386 / MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SUJEER PROPERTIES(AOP) .. APPELLANT A-207/208 BHAVESHWAR ARCADE OPP. SHREYAS CINEMA LBS MARG GHATKOPAR (W) KUMBAI-86 PA NO.AADFS 2752 A VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(2)(3) . RESPONDEN T MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: N.B.GANDHI FOR THE APPELLANT MALTHI SRIDHARAN FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED COR RECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 11 TH FEBRUARY 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 INTER ALIA ON THE GROUND THAT VERY INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. I W ILL TAKE UP THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FIRST . 2. VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE WHILE DEALING WITH IDENT ICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 I HAVE INTER ALIA OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 2. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME IS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERS ONS (AOP) CONSISTING OF FIVE PERSONS CO-OWNING A PROPERTY. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 26 TH JULY 2002 DISCLOSING NIL INCOME AND CLAIMING THAT INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE CO-OWNERS OF THE BUILDING AS SHARE OF EA CH CO-OWNER IS PREDETERMINED. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) AND ACCEPTED AS SUCH. HOWEVER SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID MUNICIPAL TAXES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06 EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE HAS I.T.A NO.2386 / MUM/2010 SUJEER PROPERTIES(AOP) 2 CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS IN COMPUTATION OF HOUSE PROPERT Y IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. IT WAS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED. IN APPEAL ALSO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH CHALLENGED FOR DIF FERENT REASONS THAT THE REASONS BEFORE ME WERE UPHELD. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFI ED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE A PPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL HAS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT TO S UPPORT HIS CASE. HE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP WHI CH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THAT THE PROPERTY INCOME TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS O F THE CO-OWNERS IS NOT DEPENDENT ON QUANTIFICATION OF THE SAME IN THE CASE OF THE AOP. HE POINTS OUT THAT IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 WHERE PROPERTY CONSISTI NG OF BUILDINGS OR BUILDINGS AND LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO IS OWNED BY TWO OR MORE P ERSONS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES ARE DEFINITE AND ASCERTAINABLE SUCH PERSONS SHALL NOT IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROPERTY BE ASSESSED AS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS BUT THE SHARE OF EACH SUCH PERSON IN THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AS COMPUTED IN ACCORDA NCE WITH SECTIONS 22 TO 25 SHALL BE INCLUDED IN HIS TOTAL INCOME. AS A RESULT ACC ORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL QUANTIFICATION OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE INCOME BEING TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE CO-OWNER. TH E ENTIRE EXERCISE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE AOP FOR THIS REASON IS AN ENTIRELY INFRUCTUOUS EXERCISE AND IT HAS NO INCOME TAX IMPLICATIONS AT ALL. THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE COURSE OF SUCH AN INFRUCTUOUS EXER CISE. WHEN LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS QUESTIONED ON THIS ARGUMENT SHE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW QUANTIFICATION OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP WI LL HAVE ANY LEGAL BEARING ON THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 IN THE HANDS OF THE CO- OWNERS. SHE HOWEVER AS SOME OTHER DEFENCE FOR TH E IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT. SHE CONTENDS THAT AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUN ENGG WORKS PVT LTD 198 ITR 297(SC) A CLAIM WHICH HAS NOT BEE N RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EITH ER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE UP THIS PLEA OF NON TAXABILITY WHILE FILING THE ORI GINAL RETURN AS ALSO WHEN FILING RETURN IN RESPONSE TO REASSESSMENT NOTICE SHE CANNOT TAKE UP THE PLEA BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE PLEA AS HAS BEE N RAISED NOW GIVES A COMPLETELY NEW TWIST TO ASSESSEES CASE AND IT HAS BEEN RAISED BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AT THIS STAGE WILL RESULT IN A SITUATION THAT THERE WILL BE NO BASIS F OR CHARGING THE RESPECTIVE SHARE OF CO- OWNERS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS. LEARNED DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PRAYS THAT IN THE EVENT OF MY HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP WAS INFRUCTUOUS AND WITH A VIEW TO SAFEGUARD THE LEGITI MATE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE I SHOULD ALSO GIVE A DIRECTION FOR REOPENING THE ASS ESSMENTS OF CO-OWNERS AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 150 OF THE ACT. ON MERI TS IT IS ARGUED THAT THE VERY INSERTION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 26 SHOWS THAT T HE INCOME IS TO DETERMINED FIRST IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP AND THEN BENEFIT UNDER SECT ION 23(2) IS TO BE GIVEN FOR INDIVIDUAL SHARE OF INCOME OF THE CO-OWNER. IT IS S UBMITTED THAT IF ONLY ONE COMPUTATION IN THE HANDS OF THE CO-OWNER WAS CONTEMPLATED THER E WAS NO NEED OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 26. A REFERENCE IS ALSO MADE TO HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHYAM SUNDER ( 122 ITR 541) IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE ARGUMENTS LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E URGES US TO UPHOLD THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE I N THE MATTER. I.T.A NO.2386 / MUM/2010 SUJEER PROPERTIES(AOP) 3 5. LET ME FIRST TAKE THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. NO DOUBT THE PLEA THAT NO INCOME HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASON THAT THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME COULD NOT BE TAXED AS AN AOP INCOME ANYWAY HAS BEEN TAKEN UP FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE ME BUT THEN IT IS A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE AND THERE IS NO BAR ON MY DEALING WITH ANY LEGAL PL EA AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT WARRANT EXAMINATION OF NEW FACTS AND AS LONG AS I HAVE HEAR D THE OTHER PARTY ON THE SAME. NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE VIOLATED ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 6. SECTION 26 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE AT THIS STAGE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: PROPERTY OWNED BY CO-OWNERS. 26. WHERE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF BUILDINGS OR BUILD INGS AND LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO IS OWNED BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS AND THEIR RESPECTIV E SHARES ARE DEFINITE AND ASCERTAINABLE SUCH PERSONS SHALL NOT IN RESPECT OF SUCH PROPERTY BE ASSESSED AS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS BUT THE SHARE OF EACH SUCH PERSON IN THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 22 TO 25 SHALL BE INCLUDED IN HIS TOTAL INCOME. [EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 23 FOR COMPUTING THE SHARE O F EACH SUCH PERSON AS IS REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION SUCH SHARE SHALL BE COMPUTED AS I F EACH SUCH PERSON IS INDIVIDUALLY ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF PROVIDED IN THAT SUB-SECTION .] 7. I SEE MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT THAT WHEN THE VERY A CT OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP IN THE CASE OF CO-O WNERSHIP OF HOUSE PROPERTIES HAS NO INCOME TAX IMPLICATIONS BECAUSE ASSESSMENT OF AOP OR NO ASSESSMENT OF AOP INCOME OF THE CO-OWNERS OF A HOUSE PROPERTY IS TO TAXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF SECTION 22 TO 25 AND ON THE BASIS OF FICTION ENVISA GED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 26 WHICH PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 26 IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SU B-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 23 FOR COMPUTING THE SHARE OF EACH SUCH PERSON AS IS REFER RED TO IN THIS SECTION SUCH SHARE SHALL BE COMPUTED AS IF EACH SUCH PERSON IS INDIVI DUALLY ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF PROVIDED IN THAT SUB-SECTION. SO FAR AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED THE SCHEME OF THE ACT DOES NOT ENVISAGE THAT ANNUAL VALUE OF THE CO-OWNED PROPERTY UPON BEING DETERMINED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE AOP IS TO BE D IVIDED AMONGST THE CO-OWNERS IN THE PRE-DETERMINED RATIO. IN OTHER WORDS QUANTIFICATI ON OF ANNUAL VALUE OF THE CO-OWNED PROPERTY IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OF AOP CONSIST ING OF CO-OWNERS IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR TAXABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL SHARE OF SUC H INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE CO- OWNERS. NO DOUBT AS NOTED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN SHYAM SUNDERS CASE (SUPRA) THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPE RTY IN THE HANDS OF THE CO-OWNER INVOLVES TWO STEPS FIRST THAT ANNUAL VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY IS TO BE DETERMINED AS A SINGLE UNIT; AND SECOND THAT ANNUAL VALUE SO DET ERMINED IS TO BE APPORTIONED IN THE RATIO OF OWNERSHIP. HOWEVER BOTH OF THESE STEPS AR E TO BE TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CO-OWNER AND IN ANY EVENT JUST BECAUSE TWO S TEPS ARE TO BE TAKEN IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE STEPS ARE TO BE TAKEN IN TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT UNITS; THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE MANNER OF COMPU TATION OF INCOME AND ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. THERE IS NO SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSITION THA T ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT OF TH E AOP ITSELF. QUITE TO THE CONTRARY AS THIS VERY JUDICIAL PRECEDENT NOTES SECTION 26 LAYS DOWN THAT WHEN THE SAME I.T.A NO.2386 / MUM/2010 SUJEER PROPERTIES(AOP) 4 (PROPERTY) IS OWNED BY SEVERAL CO-OWNERS WHO HAVE D EFINITE AND ASCERTAINABLE SHARES THEY ARE NOT TO BE ASSESSED AS AN AOP. I THEREFOR E REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF AOP ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE HAS IMPLICATIONS ON ASSESSMENT OF CO-OWNERS SHARE OF ANNUAL VALUE. 8. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES REQUEST FO R DIRECTION UNDER SECTION 150 IS ALSO DEVOID OF LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE MERITS. S ECTION 150 (1) PROVIDES THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 149 THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 MAY BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT T O ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY IN ANY PROCEEDI NG UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL REFERENCE OR REVISION OR BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEEDI NG UNDER ANY OTHER LAW. SECTION 150 DOES NOT ENABLE OR REQUIRE AN APPELLATE AUTHORI TY TO GIVE ANY DIRECTIONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BUT IT DEALS WITH A SITUAT ION IN WHICH A REASSESSMENT IS TO BE INITIATED TO GIVE EFFECT TO FINDINGS OR DIRECTIONS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR THE COURT. THAT IS A CALL TO BE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT BY ME. HAVING SAID THAT LET ME ALSO ADD THAT IN TERMS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RAJINDER NATH VS. CIT (120 ITR 12) AN APPELLATE AU THORITYS POWERS TO GIVE FINDINGS OR DIRECTIONS ARE NOT UNFETTERED SO AS TO GIVE ANY SUC H FINDINGS OR DIRECTIONS AS APPELLATE AUTHORITY DEEMS DESIRABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BUT IN THEIR LORDSHIPS CONSIDERED OPINION AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN GIVE ONLY SUCH FINDINGS OR DIRECTIONS AS ARE NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF AN APPEAL. AS I UNDERSTAN D SCHEME OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS VISUALIZED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN RAJINDER NAT HS CASE (SUPRA) DOES NOT PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS OF SAFEGUARDING THE INTERESTS OF REV ENUE TO HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY IN MY GIVING SUCH FINDINGS OR DIRECTIONS. TO THE EXTENT SAFEGUARDING OF THESE INTERESTS IS NOT IMPLICIT IN THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IT IS NOT FOR ME TO SUPPLEMENT THE SAME EITHER. I AM NOT THEREFORE INCLINED TO CONSIDER T HE PLEA OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT WITH A VIEW TO SAFEGUARD THE I NTERESTS OF THE REVENUE I MUST GIVE A FINDING SO AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE OPEN THE ASSESSMENTS OF CO-OWNERS. I HAVE GIVEN SUCH FINDINGS AS IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW ARE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL. WHETHER THESE FINDINGS NECESSITATE OR JUSTI FY REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS OF CO- OWNERS THAT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMIN E. 9. COMING TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE THAT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IS FIRST TO BE DETERMINE D IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP AND THEN SHARE OF CO-OWNERS IS TO BE ALLOCATED IN MY VIEW THIS ARGUMENT IS ALSO CONTRARY TO THE CLEAR LEGAL POSITION. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW IT IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR BRINGING TO TAX HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME IN THE CASES OF CO-OWN ERS THAT FIRST HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME FOR DETERMINED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP AND T HEN THE SAME IS APPORTIONED TO THE CO-OWNERS IN PREDETERMINED RATIO. DESPITE MY SPECIF IC REQUISITION TO POINT OUT LEGAL PROVISIONS WHICH SUPPORT THIS APPROACH LEARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANYTHING IN THE STATUTE. IN MY CONSID ERED OPINION THEREFORE THE VERY EXERCISE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF CO-OWNED HOUSE PROPERT Y INCOME WITH PREDETERMINED SHARES IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP IS WHOLLY ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS IN THE FACE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 OF THE ACT. NO I NCOME CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ESCAPED IN THE COURSE OF SUCH AN ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS EXER CISE. ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME MAY AT BEST BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE HANDS O F THE CO-OWNERS BUT RIGHT NOW I AM NOT IN SEISIN OF INCOME OF THE CO-OWNERS AND THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER WILL HAVE NO BEARING ON ADJUDICATION OF THIS APPEAL. IN THIS VI EW OF THE MATTER THE VERY INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP OF CO-OWNERS I.E. ASSESSEE BEFORE ME IN THIS APPEAL IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. I.T.A NO.2386 / MUM/2010 SUJEER PROPERTIES(AOP) 5 10. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE AS BEING OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE BEFORE ME I QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IMPUGNED IN THIS APPEAL. A S THE REASSESSMENT ITSELF IS QUASHED FOR WANT OF VALID REASONS OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL WHETHER ON THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BEYOND PERMISSIBLE TIME LIMIT OR ON THE QUESTION OF MERITS OF ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH REASSESSMENT ARE RENDERED ACADEMIC AND DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TER MS INDICATED ABOVE. 3. I HAVE NO REASON TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW THAN THE VIEW TAKEN IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. IN ANY EVENT LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES AGREE THAT THAT WHAT IS DECIDED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WILL FOLLOW IN THIS YEAR AS WELL. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND FOLLOWING THE LINE OF REASO NING ADOPTED BY ME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 I UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND QUASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IMPUGNED IN THIS APPEAL. AS THE R EASSESSMENT ITSELF IS QUASHED FOR WANT OF VALID REASONS OF REOPENING THE ASSESSM ENT ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL WHETHER ON THE QUESTION OF VA LIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BEYOND PERMISSIBLE TIME LIMIT OR ON THE QUESTION OF ME RITS OF ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH REASSESSMENT ARE RENDERED ACADEMIC AN D DO NOT CALL FOR ANY ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDIC ATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JANUARY 2011 SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 24 MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH SMC MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI I.T.A NO.2386 / MUM/2010 SUJEER PROPERTIES(AOP) 6 I.T.A NO.2386 / MUM/2010 SUJEER PROPERTIES(AOP) 7