SANDEEP BHATIA, MUMBAI v. DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2625/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 262519914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAAPB9823A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2625/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant SANDEEP BHATIA, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT 12(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted I
Date Of Final Hearing 29-06-2010
Next Hearing Date 29-06-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 24-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN (JM) & RAJENDRA SINGH (A M) I.T.A.NO. 2625/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-0 6) SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 5/7A-8 GRANT BUILDING ARTHUR BUNDER ROAD COLABA MUMBAI-400 005. VS. DCIT 12(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : AAAPB9823A ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SHIVARAM & SHRI AJAY SINGH DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN JM :- THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 2.2.2009 OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XII MUMBAI RELATING TO A.Y. 2005 -06. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS FOLLOWS :- 1) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED BY UNILATERALLY APPO RTIONING THE EXPENSES BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE W HEN ACCOUNTS ARE SEPARATELY MAINTAINED AND AUDITED FOR EACH UNIT. THE TAX AUDIT REPORTS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF BOTH THE UNITS WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE FORM NO. 58G CL AIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 10B. THE NECESSARY DETAILS REQUIRED WERE ALREADY FILED WITH ASSESSING OFFICER. REFER ANNEXUR E-2. 2) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED RESTORING TO PROVISI ON OF SECTION 145(3) WHEN THERE IS NO CHANGE IN METHOD OF ACCOUNT ING. ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND ACCEPTED IN ALL PRECEDING AND SUCCESSIVE PREVIOUS YEARS. 3) UNILATERAL APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES BE SET ASIDE A ND AUDITED ACCOUNTS BE ACCEPTED FOR DETERMINING THE TA XABLE INCOME. SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE CARRIES ON BUS INESS AND PROFESSION OF SOFTWARE SALES CONSULTANCY MAINTEN ANCE AND DEVELOPMENT. THE ASSESSEE OWED TWO PROPRIETARY CONC ERNS NAMELY THE LANGUAGE(TL) AND THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE(TGL). BOTH UNITS ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME BUSINESS IN SOFTWARE RELATED WORK. THE UNIT TL DOES WORK IN INDIA WHILE UNIT TGL DOES WORK OUTSIDE INDIA I.E. S OFTWARE EXPORT AND MAINTENANCE. THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM TGL IS EXEM PT U/S. 10B OF THE ACT WHILE INCOME FROM UNIT TL IS TAXABLE. THE BUSIN ESS TURNOVER EXCEEDED RS. 40 LAKHS IN BOTH THE UNITS. THE ITEMWI SE TURNOVER CREDITED TO THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT WAS AS UNDER :- LANGUAGE (RS.) THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE (RS.) SALE OF SOFTWARE 40 27 250 10 93 495 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 34 60 046 47 43 056 INTEREST - 490 FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION - 56 148 TOTAL 74 78 296 58 93 189 AGAINST THE SAID REVENUE FOLLOWING EXPENSES HAVE B EEN DEBITED TO THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT UNITWISE. LANGUAGE (RS.) THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE (RS.) PURCHASE/DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF SOFTWARE 4 01 208 - ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 28 46 928 12 36 199 DEPRECIATION 4 82 214 13 200 TOTAL 37 30 350 12 49 399 NET PROFIT 37 56 946 46 43 790 4. FROM THE ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED TH AT EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE UNIT TL WAS ABNORMALLY HIGHER WHEN C OMPARED TO UNIT TGL. THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN TL WAS 300% HIGHER TH AN THE EXPENSES IN THE UNIT TGL EVEN THOUGH THE INCREASE IN REVENUE HA S BEEN ONLY 127% MORE THAN TGL. THE COMPARATIVE NET PROFIT MARGIN SH OWN IN RELATION TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER IS 78.79% FOR TGL AS AGAINST 50. 17% FOR TL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OVERLOADED EXPENSES IN THE UNIT TL SO AS TO SHOW LESSER INCOME FROM TL WHICH SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 3 INCOME IS FULLY TAXABLE. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD LISTED OUT THE UNIT-WISE MAJOR ITEMS OF EXPENSES DEBITED T O INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT OF THE TWO UNITS. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT MOST OF THE EXPENSES WERE COMMON AND INEVITABLE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO OF THE VIE W THAT THE NATURE OF WORK INVOLVED IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SALES AND MA INTENANCE IS SUCH THAT THESE ARE SO INTERLINKED AND DIFFICULT TO MAKE A CLEAR DEMARCATION BETWEEN THE TWO UNITS. THE EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT NA MELY TGL WAS LOCATED SEPARATELY AND WAS UNDER CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS SPECIFIED AREA. THE ASSESSEE HAD ARGUED THAT THE UNIT TGL WAS OCCUP YING SMALLER AREA COMPARED TO OTHER UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWE VER HELD THAT THE EXPENSES DO NOT DEPEND ON THE SIZE OCCUPIED BY A PA RTICULAR UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO P RODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR VERIFICATION. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO NOTICES DATED 21. 8.2007 U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT AND LETTER DATED 25.10.2007 AND 27.11.2007. THE ASSESSEE ULTIMATELY FILED COPIES OF INCOME EXPENDITURE ACCO UNT BALANCE SHEET SCHEDULE ETC. OF BOTH THE UNITS. THE ORDER OF ASSES SMENT MENTIONS THAT LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACC OUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE KEPT WITH THE ASSESSEE WHO WA S STATIONED ABROAD MOST OF THE TIME AND IT WAS DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN THE SE DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIM FOR UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF EXPEN SES BETWEEN TWO UNITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE ABOVE REAS ONS HELD THAT HE HAD TO REJECT RESULTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAKE AN AS SESSMENT OF INCOME UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE RECAST THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLO CATING EXPENSES BETWEEN TWO UNITS ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. THE EXPENSES TH AT CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINES S REQUIREMENTS OF ONE CONCERN IS THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS. 8 99 118/- INCURRED IN THE UNIT TGL AND THE LOSS ON SALE OF ASSET DEBITED TO I NCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT RS. 14 694/- IN THE UNIT TL. THE AO HELD TH AT ALL OTHER EXPENSES SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 4 HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS COMMON AND ALLOCATED BETWE EN THE TWO UNIT IN PROPORTION TO THEIR BUSINESS TURNOVERS. (RS.) (RS.) TOTAL EXPENSES DEBITED TO INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT IN LANGUAGE AND THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE 49 79 749 LESS : ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY (I) DISALLOWANCE CONSIDERED BY ASSESSEE OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES OF PERSONAL NATURE 14 694 (II) DEPRECIATION AS PER BOOKS 4 95 414 (III) LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 19 130 (IV) FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 8 99 118 14 28 356 35 51 393 ADD : DEPRECIATION AS PER I.T. RULES 5 43 271 COMMON EXPENSES 40 94 664 ALLOCATION OF COMMON EXPENSES : (A) LANGUAGE : TURNOVER IN LANGUAGE X COMMON EXPENSES TOTAL TURNOVER OF LANGUAGE + THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE = RS. 74 87 296 X 40 90 664 1 33 80 485 = RS. 22 91 244 (B) THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE : TURNOVER IN THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE X COMMON EXPENSES TOTAL TURNOVER OF LANGUAGE + THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE = RS. 58 93 189 X 40 94 664 1 33 80 485 = RS. 18 03 420 THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TWO UN ITS WERE COMPUTED AS UNDER :- SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 5 A) THE LANGUAGE BUSINESS TURNOVER RS. 74 87 296 LESS : EXPENSES : (I) PROPORTIONATE COMMON EXPENSES RS. 22 91 244 ADD : TDS INTEREST FOR F.Y. 2003-04 RS. 199 22 91 045 BUSINESS INCOME 51 96 2 51 B) THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE BUSINESS TURNOVER 58 93 189 LESS : PROPORTIONATE COMMON EXPENSES DISCUSSED 18 03 420 EXPENSES RELATED FOREIGN TRAVEL AS DISCUSSED 8 99 118 27 02 538 31 90 651 EXEMPTION U/S. 10A 90% OF RS. 31 90 651 28 71 58 6 THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME P ROFITS OF THE UNIT THE LANGUAGE AT RS.37 43 112/- AND THE UNIT THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE AT RS.46 43 790 AT 90% OF IT AMOUNTING TO RS.41 79 411 /- WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S.10-B OF THE ACT. 5. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIR MED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARA GRAPH 2.3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THE APP ELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT WAS SPECIFICALLY AS KED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING DOCUMEN TS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM THAT TWO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED B Y THE APPELLANT IN ITS BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT MAINTENANC E ETC. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE CLAIM IN SPITE OF HAVING GIVEN NEARLY FIVE MONTHS TIME. JUST BY PRODUCING THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE TWO UNITS AND WITHOUT A LLOWING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME RAISES JUSTIFI ABLE DOUBTS IN THE VERACITY OF THE ACCOUNTS PRODUCED. THE RELEVANT DOC UMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS JUSTIFYING THE CLAIMS WERE ALSO N OT FILED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCOUNTS O F THE APPELLANT ARE NOT CORRECT AND COMPLETE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MAT ERIALS TO SUPPORT THE CLAIMS OF THE APPELLANT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 6 JUSTIFIED IN APPORTIONING THE EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF THE TURNOVER OF THE TWO UNITS. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED REASONS FOR ALLOCATING V ARIOUS EXPENSES BETWEEN TWO UNITS IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACC OUNT. THE SAME IS AT PAGE NO. 253 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND WH ICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- NATURE OF EXPENSES LANGUAGE THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE REMARKS PURCHASE/DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF SOFTWARE 401 208 - ONLY SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE IS DONE IN THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE SO NO PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES IS DEBITED IN GLOBAL LANGUAGE ACCOUNT DEPRECIATION 482 214 13 200 IN GLOBAL LANGUAGE THE ONLY ASSET I.E. LAPTOP AND THAT IS USED BY PROPRIETOR HIMSELF AND RATE OF TAXATION IS CHARGED AS PER INCOME ACT WHILE IN LANGUAGE THERE ARE MANY ASSETS REQUIRED FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS THEY ARE MOTOR CAR FURNITURE COMPUTERS REFRIGERATOR AND EQUIPMENTS. HENCE THE LANGUAGE ACCOUNT IS CHARGED MORE DEPRECIATION THAN THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE. DETAILS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. PROFESSIONAL CHARGES 772 934 158 159 IN THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE SERVICES PROVIDED BY PROFESSIONALS ONLY WHEN PROPRIETOR IS NOT IN MUMBAI AND THIS IS TOTALLY ON NEED BASED BASIS EXPENSES WHILE THE CLIENTS ARE ATTENDED BY PROFESSIONALS ATTENDANTS. EXPENSES ON MAINTENANCE OF SOFTWARE SALES 209 316 AS PER SOFTWARE SALES AGREEMENT WITH CLIENTS LANGUAGE HAVE TO INCUR AND MAINTAIN THE MAINTENANCE OF SOFTWARE TOO. CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELING 473 865 40 CONVEYANCE IS REIMBURSED BY CLIENT OF THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE TELEPHONE EXPENSES 80 710 - SAME AS ABOVE MEMBERSHIP AND SUBSCRIPTION 95 355 - EXPENSES NOT APPLICABLE TO GLOBAL LANGUAGE ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES 136 316 - EXPENSES NOT APPLI CABLE TO GLOBAL SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 7 LANGUAGE SALARY 118 302 - EXPENSES NOT APPLICABLE TO GLOBAL LANGUAGE STAFF WELFARE 95 807 - EXPENSES NOT APPLICABLE TO GLOBAL LANGUAGE REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 288 220 41 007 BASED ON THE AC TUAL REPAIRS UNDERTAKEN MISCELLANEOUS AND OFFICE CHARGES 105 357 - EXPENSES NOT APPLICABLE TO THE GLOBAL LANGUAGE ELECTRICITY 179 653 18 966 BASED ON THE AREA OCCUPA NCY. TOTAL AREA 2400 SQ.FT. (APPROXIMATELY). GLOBAL LANGUAGE OCCUPIES 789.68 SQ.FT. ONLY SO PROPORTIONATE IS CHARGED TO LANGUAGE AND THE SAME IS OCCUPIED BY PROPRIETOR WHEN HE IS IN MUMBAI. MOTOR CAR EXPENSES 73 469 - FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES NOTE APPLICABLE 899 118 EXPENSES NOT APPLICABLE TO THE LANGUAGE AS NO FOREIGN BUSINESS PURPOSE TOUR IS REQUIRED. 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN COMPUT ERIZED FORM AND THAT HE HAD GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS WITH REFERENCE EACH OF THE EXPENSES. ACCORDING TO HIM HE HAD GIVEN LEDGER ACCOUNT OF VA RIOUS EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF EXTRACT OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE UNITS SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T WERE MAINTAINED AND WERE DULY AUDITED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT WAS ALSO FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2004-05 & 2006-07 ORDERS OF ASSESS MENT WERE PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IDENTICAL ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE COPIES OF THE AFORESAID ASSES SMENT ORDERS ARE AT PAGE NO. 260 TO 262 & 263 TO 268 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE NO CHANGE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THERE IS NO REASON IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR TO MAKE AN ALLOCATION OF EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NO DEFECT PO INTED OUT IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OR ANY OTHER DEFECTS IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 8 MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY EVENT IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 9. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTING DOC UMENTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES APPORTIONMENT OF THE EXPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE UPHELD. IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. PERUS AL OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR APPORTIONMENT DONE BY HIM IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDE RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US IN WRITING THAT THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS E XPLAINING BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER; BUT NOT CONSIDERED BY HIM. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BEFORE US BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD PRODUCE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS IT WOULD G IVE A DISTORTED PICTURE OF THE PROFITS. THE APPORTIONMENT HAS TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF THE NEXUS OF A PARTICULAR ITEM OF EXPENDITURE WITH THE CONCERNED UNIT. ON THE OTHER HAND WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES AS DONE BY I T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO EXAMINE SUCH APPORTIO NMENT AND DECIDE WHETHER THE SAME IS PROPER OR NOT. IN CASE HE FIND S APPORTIONMENT TO BE NOT PROPER HE HAS TO MAKE APPORTIONMENT ON A REASO NABLE BASIS; BUT CERTAINLY NOT ON THE BASIS OF TURNOVER OF THE TWO U NITS AS DONE BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SHRI SANDEEP BHATIA 9 LEARNED CIT(A) AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE. 11. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON 9 TH DAY OF JULY 2010. SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 9 TH JULY 2010 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR CONCERNED MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI PS