NURUDDIN B. AJANI, MUMBAI v. ACIT CEN CIR-20, MUMBAI

ITA 2435/MUM/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 243519914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAFPA4493C
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2435/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant NURUDDIN B. AJANI, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT CEN CIR-20, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 20-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 04-10-2010
Next Hearing Date 04-10-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 16-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT A.M. AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKA R J.M. SR.NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 2980/M/08 2003-04 LATE SHRI BADRUDDIN AJANI L/H NURUDDIN B. AJANI 11/A ALIABAD AGAHALL NESBIT ROAD MAZAGAON MUMBAI 10 (PAN AAFPA4493C) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 20 MUMBAI. 2. 2981/M/08 2004-05 -DO- -DO- 3. 2982/M/08 2003-04 NURUDDIN B. AJANI (PAN AACPA0161A) -DO- 4. 2983/M/08 2004-05 -DO- -DO- 5. 2984/M/08 2005-06 -DO- -DO- 6. 2435/M/09 2006-07 -DO- -DO- ASSESSEE BY : MR. ADITYA B. NMANI REVENUE BY : MR. SANJEEV DUTT. ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT A.M.: ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY TWO ASSESSEES ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A). SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER THEREFORE A COMMON ORDER IS PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMM ON THEREFORE TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS WE REFER THE FACTS FR OM ITA NO. 2984 FOR AY 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF NURUDDIN B. AJANI. THE GR OUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 2980 TO 2984/M/08 & 2435/M/09 LATE SHRI BADRUDDIN AJANI AND NURUDDIN AJANI 2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 25 20 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TAXING THE NOTIONAL RENT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY AND DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAID WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSEQUENT ARBITRATION AWARD. THE LIA BILITY OF THE PAYER (SEBI) HAD BEEN DISCHARGED WITHOUT ANY PAYMEN T RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD RETURNED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURC ES. THE ASSESSEE OWNS A HOUSE PROPERTY AT 1-A/A GROUND FLOOR MITTA L COURT MUMBAI FROM SEBI AND HAD ENTERED INTO A LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THEM. THE ASSESSEE HIS MOTHER AND FATHER WERE THE CO-OWNERS OF THE SAID PROPERTY. HOWEVER THE OTHER CO-OWNER I.E. HIS MOTHER SMT. GOOLBANOO B. AJANI WHO WAS 25% SHAREHOLDER IN THE S AID PROPERTY AND THE BALANCE 50% SHARE BEING WITH THE ASSESSEES FAT HER SHRI BADDRUDDIN AJANI EXPIRED ON 26/01/2000 AND ACCORDIN G TO WILL PREPARED BY HER THE SHARE OF LICENSE FEE WAS TO GO TO HER SON AFTER HER DEATH. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 50% SHA RE OF LICENSE FEES OF THE PREMISES. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS LET OUT ON L EAVE AND LICENSE BASIS VIDE AN AGREEMENT DATED 27/08/1997 FOR A PERI OD OF 5 YEARS. AS PER THE SAID AGREEMENT THE LICENSEE SEBI HAD GIVE N A DEPOSIT OF RS. 7.25 CRORES TO THE CO-OWNERS AND MONTHLY LEASE RENT AL/COMPENSATION OF RS. 1 30 000/- WAS FIXED AS LICENSE FEE OR COMPE NSATION. THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS RENEWED BY A FRESH LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 19/04/2003 WHICH WAS FOR 33 MONTHS. AS PER THE AMEN DED TERMS THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT WILL BE FOR A PERIOD OF 33 MONTHS W.E.F. FROM 01/09/2002 TO 31/05/2005. AS AGREED BY THE LIC ENSORS AND THE LICENSEE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4.00 CRORES OUT OF RUPEE S 7.25 CRORES ALREADY WITH THE LICENSORS BY VIRTUE OF LEAVE AND L ICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 27/08/1997 WOULD BE WITH THE LICENSORS AS AN INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT DURING THE EXTENDED LEAVE AND LICE NSE PERIOD FOR DUE PERFORMANCE OF THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DATE D 27/08/1997. THEREAFTER IT WAS AGREED THAT BESIDES THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT OF RS. 4.00 CRORES THE MONTHLY LICENSE FEE WOULD BE RS. 3 .00 LACS. VIDE ITA NOS. 2980 TO 2984/M/08 & 2435/M/09 LATE SHRI BADRUDDIN AJANI AND NURUDDIN AJANI 3 CLAUSE 5 6 & 7 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 19/04/2003 I T WAS MUTUALLY DECIDED THAT SINCE THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 7.25 CRORE IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE WITH THE CO-OWNERS INCLUDING ASSESSEE RS. 4.00 CR ORE WAS TO BE RETAINED BY THE LICENSORS AS INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR THE LEAVE AND LICENSE PERIOD AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 3.25 CRORES SHALL BE REFUNDED BY THE LICENSORS TO THE LICENSEE I.E. S EBI WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE LEAVE AND L ICENSE PERIOD I.E FROM 01/09/2002 AND INTEREST @ 8% P.A. WILL BE CHAR GED DURING THE SAID PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS ON RS. 3.25 CRORE UNTIL T HE LICENSORS PAY THE ENTIRE AFORESAID AMOUNT WITHIN THE SAID PERIOD. THE AFORESAID INTEREST CHARGED ON RS. 3.25 CORES OR ON THE OUTSTANDING AMO UNT FROM 01/09/2002 SHALL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MONTHLY CO MPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE CO-OWNERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE VID E CLAUSE 6 OF THE AGREEMENT SUPRA. CLAUSE 7 STIPULATED THAT IN CASE T HE LICENSOR FAIL TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3.25 CRORES OR REFUND A P ART OF THE SAID AMOUNT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS INTEREST @ 12% SHALL BE CHARGED ON THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT FROM 01/03/2003 TILL THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE SAME. THE AFORESAID INTEREST @12% CHARGED ON RS. 3.25 CRORES OR ON THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT FROM 01/03/2003 SHALL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MONTHLY COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE LIC ENSORS. 4. LATER ON THE CO-OWNERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE D EFAULTED IN REFUNDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3.25 CRORES WHICH LED TO A PROTRACTED LITIGATION AND APPOINTED OF AN ARBITRATOR. THE CIVI L DISPUTE RESULTED IN AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN SEBI AND MR. BADURDDIN AJANI AND OTHERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DECIDED ON 19/04/ 2006. AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT AND ARBITRATION SEBI HANDED OVE R VACANT POSSESSION TO THE CO-OWNERS AND THE CO-OWNERS WERE TO SIMULTANEOUSLY REFUND THE ENTIRE SECURITY DEPOSIT O F RS. 3.25 CRORES. NO INTEREST WAS TO BE LEVIED ON THE SAID SECURITY D EPOSIT THAT IS TO BE REFUNDED BACK AND THE CO-OWNERS WILL NOT CHARGE THE RENT OTHER THAN ALREADY PAID TILL DATE OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD. ITA NOS. 2980 TO 2984/M/08 & 2435/M/09 LATE SHRI BADRUDDIN AJANI AND NURUDDIN AJANI 4 5. THE AO IN RESPECT OF TAXING NOTIONAL INCOME UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OBSERVED AS UNDER:- I) THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSSES. BESIDES HE HAS SHOWN LOSS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT HE HAS SHOWN INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTYAT NIL. II) ON A SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED BY THE AO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RENTAL INCOME DECLARED WAS ON NOTIO NAL BASIS OF HIS SHARE AS WELL AS THE SHARE OF HIS LATE MOTHER R ECEIVED UNDER WILL FROM THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVABLE FROM SEBI FO R THE PROPERTY 1A/A GROUND FLOOR MITTAL COURT NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE RENT BECAUSE OF CIVIL DISPUTE WITH THE TENANT VIZ. SEBI. III) THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING THE REFUND OF SECURI TY DEPOSIT TO SEBI. IV) THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE INTEREST CHARG ED BY SEBI FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PAYMENT OF SECURITY DEPOS IT RELATES TO THE LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY AS PER THE TERM OF AGRE EMENT DATED 19/04/2003. V) IN RESPONSE TO THE AOS LETTER THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT AS PER THE ARBITRATION AWARD RECEIVED DATED 19/04/2006 TH E RENT NOT PAID BY SEBI SHALL NOT BE PAYABLE ANYMORE. ALSO THE INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SEBI ON OUTSTANDING SECU RITY DEPOSIT WAS ALSO WAIVED. VI) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE BEING NO RENT AL INCOME EARNED NOR INTEREST PAID THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCO ME MAY BE ACCEPTED AT RS. NIL. VII) THE AO SOUGHT A SPECIFIC REPLY FROM THE ASSESS EE AS TO WHY THE HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISE LET OUT TO SEBI SHOULD NOT BE TAXED SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF SEBI AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SECU RITY DEPOSIT IN HIS HANDS AS A BENEFIT THOUGH THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY RENT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR. TO THI S THE ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 2980 TO 2984/M/08 & 2435/M/09 LATE SHRI BADRUDDIN AJANI AND NURUDDIN AJANI 5 REPLIED THAT THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT ENTERE D INTO WITH SEBI WAS GENUINE AND AT ARMS LENGTH. FURTHER THE L D. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT OWING TO THE ARBITRATION AWARD THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WAS CANCELLED AND THE SAME W OULD SERVE NO PURPOSE FOR INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT. 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE LEARNED AR OF ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY IS UNWARRANTED UNJUSTIFIABLE AND BAD IN LAW AS THE NE W AGREEMENT FOR LEAVE AND LICENSE ENTERED INTO COULD NOT BE COMPLIE D WITH BY BOTH THE PARTIES THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE NOTIONAL RENTAL INCOME AS THE SAME WO ULD STAND CANCELLED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PERFORMANCE OF THE COND ITIONS. THE LEARNED AR OF ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IF AT ALL THE ANNUAL MUNICIPAL VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY HAS TO BE DETE RMINED THE DETERMINATION OF RENTAL INCOME TO BE CHARGED SHOULD BE THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NIL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS AN INDISPUTABLE FACT THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT ENTERED ON 19/04/2003 THE OTHER CO-OWNERS WERE REQUIRED TO RE TURN 3.25 CORES OUT OF 7.25 CRORES ALREADY WITH THEM BY VIRTU E OF LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT DT. 27/08/1997. CLAUSE 5 6 & 7 C ATEGORICALLY STATE THAT RS. 4.00 CRORE OUT OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 7.25 CRORES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE WITH THE LICENSORS WAS TO BE RE TAINED BY THE LICENSORS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT TO BE REFUNDED WIT HIN 6 MONTHS. AN INTEREST OF 8% WAS CHARGED DURING THE PE RIOD OF 6 MONTHS ON RS. 3.25 CRORES UNTIL THE LICENSORS PAY T HE ENTIRE AMOUNT BACK TO SEBI. THE AFORESAID INTEREST WAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MONTHLY COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE LIC ENSORS. IN CASE THE LICENSORS FAIL TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3.25 CRORES OR REFUNDED ONLY PART OF THE SAID AMOUNT WITHIN A PERI OD OF SIX MONTHS INTEREST @ 12% P.A. WAS TO BE CHARGED ON TH E OUTSTANDING AMOUNT FROM 01/03/2003 TILL THE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE SAME. THE AFORESAID INTEREST WAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MONTHLY COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE LICENSORS. 11. SINCE THE LICENSORS DEFAULTED IN THEIR COMMITME NT SEBI TOOK RECOURSE TO ADJUSTING THE SAID INTEREST AGAINS T THE MONTHLY ITA NOS. 2980 TO 2984/M/08 & 2435/M/09 LATE SHRI BADRUDDIN AJANI AND NURUDDIN AJANI 6 COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE LICENSORS. THIS DOES NO T MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RENT DURING THESE MONTHS. SECTION 22 AND 23 MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WH AT IS TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 22 IS A DEEMED INCOME OF THE AP PELLANT OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY HIM. THE RENT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ALTHOUGH DUE TO AN INTERNAL ARRANGEMENT E NTERED INTO BY BOTH THE PARTIES THE INTEREST CHARGED BY SEBI WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE RENT PAYABLE TO THE CO-OWNERS. THE CIVI L PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE CANNOT IN ANY WAY OVERRIDE THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. I AM OF THE FIRM OPINION AFTER CAREFULLY CONS IDERING THE LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT ARB ITRATION AWARD DATED 2006 THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT OVER RIDE THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AO HAS RIGHTFULLY CHARGED TO TA X THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY AS PER THE TERMS SPEL T OUT IN THE AGREEMENT. SINCE THE AO HAD A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WITH HIM ENTERED INTO BY THE CO-OWNERS WITH SEBI HE HAD NO D IFFICULTY IN ASSESSING THE MONTHLY COMPENSATION RECEIVABLE BY TH E CO-OWNERS AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT. I THEREFORE SEE NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT HERE AND UPHOLD THE AD DITION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 7. THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT RECEIVE ANY RENT THEREFORE NOTHING IS TAXABLE AS RENTAL IN COME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE PROPERT Y. THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT. THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY IS ASSESS ABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY U/S.23(1)(B) OF T HE ACT. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE EVEN AS PER THE ARBITRATOR ALSO. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T EVEN THOUGH THE RENT IS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE INTEREST PAYMENT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE RENT CONSTRUCTIVELY THEREFORE THE SAME IS TAX ABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITT ED THAT IF THE RENT IS NOT RECOVERED THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE SAME U NDER THE EXPLANATION AS PROVIDED IN SEC. 23 OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECI SIONS : D.M.VAKIL VS. CIT 14 ITR 298 (BOM.) SIR CURRIMBHOY EBRAHIM BARONETCY TRUST VS. CIT 48 I TR 507(BOM) CHELMSFORD CLUB V. CIT 243 ITR 89(SC) SWAIKA OIL & PRODUCE CO.(P) LTD. V. CIT 201 ITR 520 (CAL.) ITA NOS. 2980 TO 2984/M/08 & 2435/M/09 LATE SHRI BADRUDDIN AJANI AND NURUDDIN AJANI 7 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PAR TIES AND RECORD PERUSED. THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SAME HAS BEEN LET OUT . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RENTAL INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC . 23 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE SUB MISSION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT INCOME IS NOT ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE RENT. THE RENTAL INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 23(1) OF THE ACT. SEC. 23(1)(A) REQUIRES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 22 THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHALL B E DEEMED TO BE THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPE CTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. SEC. 23(1)(B) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND ACTUAL RENT RECEIVE D OR RECEIVABLE BY THE OWNER IN RESPECT THEREOF IS IN EXCESS OF THE SUM RE FERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN THE RENT AMOUNT AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN EAR LIER YEARS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ARBITRATION AWARD WAS ALSO THERE. WE THEREFORE FI ND THAT THE AMOUNT TAKEN BY THE AO IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 23 ( 1) OF THE ACT. THE DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON AL L THESE FACTS INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION AWARD EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPLANATION PROVIDED IN SEC. 23(1) ARE R EQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED. SINCE IN THIS REGARD COMPLETE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT ON RECORD WE THEREFORE FIND IT PROPER TO SEND BACK THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRE SH KEEPING IN VIEW OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFT ER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. ITA NOS. 2980 TO 2984/M/08 & 2435/M/09 LATE SHRI BADRUDDIN AJANI AND NURUDDIN AJANI 8 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED: 20 TH OCTOBER 2010 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE I BENCH I.T .A.T. MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI. KV