MILLENIUM CARIBONUM LTD., MUMBAI v. ITO-8(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2873/MUM/2009 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 287319914 RSA 2009
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2873/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant MILLENIUM CARIBONUM LTD., MUMBAI
Respondent ITO-8(2)(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 14-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 14-12-2010
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARA GHAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 2873/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 1999-2000 M/S. MILLENIUM CARIBONUM LTD. WALLACE BUSINESS CENTER COMMERCIAL UNION HOUSE 9 WALLACE STREE MUMBAI-400 001 PAN-AABCM 3970B VS. THE ITO - 8(2)(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIJAY C. KOTHARI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. SINGH O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)- VIII FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOLLOWING THE DIR ECTION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL THE AO HAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AP PELLANT TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM F OR TREATING THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR USE OF THE PREMISES LET O UT TO SBI AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE APPELLANT HAS SUB MITTED A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SBI AND CLAIMED THAT THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM SBI BY WAY OF COMPENSATION WAS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THEY HAD GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF CENTRAL AIR CONDITION ALONG WITH FUR NITURE AND FIXTURES TO ITA NO. 2873/M/09 2 THE LICENSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT TH E YIELD OF INCOME FROM A COMMERCIAL ASSET CONSTITUTES PROFITS OF BUSINESS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSET IS EXPLOITED BY THE OWNER OF THE BUSINESS. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T AND HELD THAT THIS PREMISES WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEES PARENT COMPANY M/S. KILLICK NIXON LTD. THE PREMISES WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSE E AS A LICENSEE VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 31.07.1989 AND THE SAME WAS LET OUT TO SBI VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 14.09.1989. THE AGREEMENT OF SUB-LE TTING WAS FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS EXPIRING ON 14.12.1989. THE PARE NT COMPANY SOLD THE SAME PREMISES TO NIPPON INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPAN Y PVT. LTD. DURING F.Y. 1998-99. THE AO HAS ALSO NOTICED AN INT ERESTING THING THAT PRIOR TO EVEN ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY AS A LICENSEE FROM ITS PARENT COMPANY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAD PASSED A RESOLU TION ON 21.06.1989 TO SUB-LET THE PREMISES TO SBI. THE FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE PARENT COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY VESTED INTEREST AS A LICENSEE. BY PROVIDING THE ASSET ACQU IRED ON LICENSE TO SUB- LICENSEE WITH CENTRAL AIR CONDITION FURNITURE AND FIXTURES DOES NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF PROPERTY AS BUSINESS ASSET. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS THE AO HAS HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID AS A ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON LICENSE FROM ITS PARENT COMPANY WAS A BUSINESS ASSET AS THE SAME WAS ACQUIR ED WITH THE INTENTION OF SUB-LETTING THE SAME TO SBI FOR A PERI OD OF 15 YEARS AND HENCE THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON SUB-LETTING THE SAME IS NOT A BUSINESS INCOME BUT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. THE AO HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. VS. CIT 2 37 454 MYSORE MINERALS LTD. VS. CIT 239 ITR 776 AND AMBICA TOBACC O COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ICT 172 ITR 343. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ITA NO. 2873/M/09 3 JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF HONBLE COURTS THE AO HAS HE LD IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: THE YIELD OF INCOME FROM A COMMERCIAL ASSET CONSTI TUTES PROFITS OF BUSINESS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MANNER IN W HICH THE ASSET IS EXPLOITED BY THE OWNER FOR THE BUSINESS. THE APPELL ANT IS ENTITLED TO EXPLOIT ITS COMMERCIAL ASSET TO THE BEST OF ITS ADV ANTAGE AND MAY LET IT OUT IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE. SINCE SUCH LETTING OUT IS A TEMPORARY ACT THE INCOME DERIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH LETTING OUT H AS TO BE HELD AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THE APPEL LANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMI SIL K MILLS 20 ITR 451 (SC); CIT VS. VIKRAM COTTON MILLS 169 ITR 597(SC) A ND CIT VS. NORTHERN INDIA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD 211 ITR 370 (D EL.). 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ORDER OF THE AO CAREFULLY. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AR E THAT THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEES PARENT COMPANY M/S. KILL ICK CARIBONUM LTD. THE PREMISES WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A LICENSEE VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 31.07.1989 AND THE SAME WAS LET OUT TO SBI VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 14.09.1989. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HA S PROVIDED CENTRAL AIR CONDITION FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AND C LAIMED THE PROPERTY AS BUSINESS ASSET. ON THE OTHER HAND THE AO HAS TR EATED THE INCOME EARNED FROM SUB-LETTING OF THIS PROPERTY AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED FROM SUB-L ETTING OF THIS PROPERTY CANNOT BE TAKEN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY. STRENGTH IS ALSO TAKEN FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MYSORE MINERALS LTD. 239 ITR 7 76 WHERE IT IS HELD THAT THERE CANNOT BE SIMULTANEOUSLY TWO OWNER S OF THE SAME PROPERTY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27(IIIB) CANNOT BE INVOKED TO ASSESSE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AT BEST CAN BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNVIERSAL PLAST LTD. V S. CIT 237 ITR 454 WHERE IS HELD AS UNDER :- HELD AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT THAT APPLYING THE AFOREMENTIONED TESTS IT WAS CLEAR THA T THE HIGH COURT HAD REACHED THE CORRECT CONCLUSION WHICH DID NOT W ARRANT ITA NO. 2873/M/09 4 INTERFERENCE. A PLAIN READING OF THE CLAUSES OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THAT THEY DEALT WI TH A SITUATION ARISING OUT OF THE BREACH OF THE TERMS OF THE AGREE MENT ENTITLING THE LICENSOR TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT ON THE EXPIRY O F THE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE TO THE LICENSE E. CLAUSE 16 DEALT WITH A SITUATION OF THE LICENSEE BEING WOUND UP IN WHICH SITUATION THE LICENSOR RESERVED HIS RIGHT TO DETERMINE THE AG REEMENT AND RETAKE THE POSSESSION OF THE FACTORY. THESE CLAUSES COULD NOT WHITTLE DOWN THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE HIGH COURT WI TH REFERENCE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE LESSOR COMING TO AN END ON THE EXERCISE OF OPTION BY THE LESSEE TO PURCHASE THE LICENSED PREMI SES UNDER CLAUSE 19 OF THE AGREEMENT. THE HIGH COURTS CONCLUSION WA S CORRECT. THE INCOME WAS NOT ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME. THAT IN GUNTUR MERCHANTS CASE THE TRIBUNAL HAD FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISMANTLED ITS BUSINESS AND HAD NO INTENTION OF REVIVING IT. THE INCOME FROM LEASE WAS THEREFORE NO T ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. DECISIONS OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. UNIV ERSAL PLAST LTD. [1992] 197 ITR 1 AND OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIG H COURT IN GUNTUR MERCHANTS COTTON PRESS CO. LTD. V. CIT [1985 ] 154 ITR 861 AFFIRMED. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. UNIVERSAL PLAST LTD. [1992] 197 ITR 0001 (CAL)-AFFIRMED GUNTUR MERCHANTS COTTON PR ESS CO. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [1985] 154 ITR 0861 (AP) AFFIRMED. IN THIS CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS DISCUSS ED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT I.E. CEPT VS . SHRI LAKSHMI SILK MILLS LTD. (1951) 20 ITR 451 (SC) CIT VS. VIK RAM COTTON MILLS (1988) 169 ITR 597 (SC) AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONTINUE ITS BUSINESS FOR AN UNUSUAL LONG TIME AND GAVE OUT ITS GODOWN TO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES THAN THE ONE WHICH T HE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DID NO T SUPPORT THAT IT WAS USING THE GODOWN AND MACHINERY AS BUSINESS ASSE T AND NOT AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. FINALLY THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURTS IN ANSWERIN G THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THEM IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE YIELD OF INCOME FROM AN COMMERCIAL ASSET CONSTITUTES PROFITS OF BUS INESS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSET IS EXPLOITED BY TH E OWNER OF THE BUSINESS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADES H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMBICA TOBACCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. C IT 172 ITR L343 IS VERY RELEVANT WHERE IT IS HELD AS UNDER :_ ITA NO. 2873/M/09 5 THE STAMP AND INCIDENCE OF A COMMERCIAL ASSET A RISES WHEN THE ASSET IS ACQUIRED AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. THE MERE ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET NORMALLY USED FOR BUSINESS OR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY DOES NOT MAKE TH E ASSET COMMERCIAL ASSET UNLESS IT IS USED FOR THE SAID PUR POSE. THEREFORE THE USER IS THE PRIMARY REQUISITE FOR LABELING THE ASSET AS A COMMERCIAL ASSETS. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON THAT THE SAME ASSET IS CAPABLE OF YIELDING INCOME BY PUTTING IT INTO THE S TREAM OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR LEASING IT OUT. IN SITUATION WHERE THE ASSET IS LEASED OUT WITHOUT EXPLOITING THE SAME FOR BUSINESS OR MANUFAC TURE SUCH AN ASSET CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMMERCIAL ASSET. THE ACTUAL USER ACQUIRES IMPORTANCE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSET CAN BE EXPLOITED FOR A DUAL PURPOSE I.E. BOTH BUSINESS AND LETTING OUT. IF THE ASSET IS MERELY LET OUT WITHOUT ANY TRACE OF BUSINESS ACTIVI TY THE QUESTION OF CONSIDERING THE ASSET AS A COMMERCIAL ASSET DOES NO T ARISE. IT MAY BE THAT CERTAIN SITUATIONS THE LEASING OR LETTING OUT OF THE ASSET MAY BE NECESSITATED DUE TO A LULL IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR TEMPORARY CESSATION OF MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS. THE LEASING OUT DURING THIS PERIOD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PUTTING THE COMMERCI AL ASSET TO THE BEST USE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMERCIAL ASSET TO THE BEST USE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE THE COMMERCIAL A SSET IS NOT STRIPPED OF ITS CHARACTERISTIC OF COMMERCIAL ASSET. IN THE INSTANT CASE ADMITTEDLY THE MACHINERY WAS NOT USED FOR MANUFACT URE AT ANY TIME AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF CONSIDERING TH E SAME AS A BUSINESS ASSET DOES NOT ARISE. THE ACQUISITION OF T HE ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF MANUFACTURE DOES NOT ALTER THE SITUATION AS THE MACHINERY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A BUSINESS ASSET UNLES S THE BUSINESS OR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS COMMENCED. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES A ND THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE COURTS THE ARGUM ENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROPERTY BEING LET OUT FOR A LON G PERIOD WILL BE TREATED AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THE ACTIVITY OF LETTING OUT WILL CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL EXP LOITATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF RENTAL INCOME FR OM PROPERTY SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPER TY IT CANNOT BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . SECONDLY THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY IS NOT LETTING OUT OF T HE PROPERTY AND MOREOVER IT IS NOT A COMMERCIAL ASSET THEREFORE I T CANNOT BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND P ROFESSION THEREFORE THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED THIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HENCE THE ORDER OF TH E AO IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2873/M/09 6 7. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE U S AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 8. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF PA REKH TRADERS VS. CIT AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND LD. CIT(A ). 9. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE P ROPERTY HAS BEEN LET OUT FOR A LONG PERIOD CANNOT MAKE IT A COMMERC IAL PROPERTY AND THE ACTIVITY OF LETTING OUT FOR COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATIO N WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY EVEN MORE SO SINC E THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. SECONDLY THE BUSIN ESS OF THE COMPANY IS NOT LETTING OUT PROPERTY. FURTHERMORE THE PROPERTY IS NOT A COMMERCIAL ASSET. 10. IN THE CASE OF PAREKH TRADERS VS. CIT 150 ITR 310 (MUM) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE HEADS OF INCOME ENUMERATED IN THE ACT ARE MUTU ALLY EXCLUSIVE AND EACH SPECIFIC HEAD COVERS ITEMS OF IN COME ARISING FROM THE SPECIFIC SOURCE. INCOME DERIVED AS RENT FROM PR OPERTY MUST BE COMPUTED UNDER THAT SPECIFIC HEAD REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THE` PROPERTY HAD AT ONE TIME BEEN UTILISED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. SUCH PROPERTY CANNOT BE TREATED AS A BUSI NESS ASSET AND THE RENT THEREOF AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. A DISTINC TION MUST BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE LETTING OUT OF LAND OR HOUSE PROP ERTY ON THE ONE HAND AND OF PLANT OR MACHINERY ON THE OTHER. THE LA TTER ARE COMMERCIAL ASSETS AND THEIR EXPLOITATION EVEN BY T HE MEANS OF LETTING OUT YIELDS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. INCOME YI ELDED BY LETTING OUT THE FORMER IS INCOME FROM PROPERTY.THE INCOME D ERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY LETTING OUT THE GODOWN TO THE STATE WAS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY AND NOT INCOME DERIVED FROM BUSINESS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION O F THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE DISMISS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THI S GROUND. ITA NO. 2873/M/09 7 11. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS FOLLOWS: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING IN NOT GIVI NG ANY SET OFF OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS 12. THE AO HAS NOT ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE BROUGHT F ORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AGAINST THE INCOME DETERMINED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 72(1)(I) OF THE I.T. ACT. 13. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONTESTED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE APPELLANT THE BENEFIT OF BROUGHT FORWA RD BUSINESS LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YEARS AND SET OFF THEREOF AGA INST THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOW THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ACTION IN THIS REGARD ON THE GROU ND THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS PROFIT FOR SUCH SET OFF IN THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. CLEARLY THIS GROUND IS IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE DECIS ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE LETTING OUT OF ITS LEASED PREMISES AS INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NO AS BUSINESS INCOME A DECISION WHICH HAS BEEN CONTESTED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FIRST GROUND. SIN CE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID GROUND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S BEEN SUSTAINED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWAR D BUSINESS LOSSES INT EH ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CANNOT B E ENTERTAINED. SINCE SUCH SET OFF IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 72(1)(I) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE IN THIS REGARD IS CONFIRMED. 14. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THIS GROUND I S CONSEQU8ENTIAL TO GROUND NO. 1 AND AS WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO IN ASSESSING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S SET OFF IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S. 72 (I)(I) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 2873/M/09 8 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011 SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 25 TH MARCH 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR I BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI ITA NO. 2873/M/09 9 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 17 . 0 3 .201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 21 .0 3 .2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______