KIRAN SHAH, MUMBAI v. ACIT 15 & 16, MUMBAI

ITA 3168/MUM/2009 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 316819914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN IORTO1999I
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3168/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant KIRAN SHAH, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT 15 & 16, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 30-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 14-12-2011
Next Hearing Date 14-12-2011
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 14-05-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIALMEMBER SR. NO. I.T.A.NO. A.Y APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 3168-M-09 2000-01 KIRAN SHAH 4/5 AMRUT TOWER 248 TELANG ROAD MATUNGA (CR) MUMBAI 400 019 PAN: AACPSO379N ASST. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 & 16 MUMBAI. 2 3169-M-09 2001-02 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI. ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI. 3 3170-M-09 2002-03 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI 4 2654-M-10 2000-01 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI 5 2655-M-10 2001-02 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI 6 2656-M-10 2002-03 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI 7 2657-M-10 2003-04 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI 8 2658-M-10 2004-05 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI 9 2659-M-10 2005-06 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI 10 2660-M-10 2006-07 KIRAN SHAH MUMBAI ACIT CC 15 & 16 MUMBAI APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K.NAYAK. DATE OF HEARING: 15-12-2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30-12-2011. O R D E R PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSOLIDATED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER. 2. I.T.A.NOS.3168 TO 3170-M-09 : THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO WITHDRAW THESE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PRESENT IN ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 2 THE COURT AND HE MADE ENDORSEMENT TO THIS EFFECT ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF. THE LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTION. THEREFO RE THESE THREE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 3. IN THE RESULT I.T.A.NOS.3168 TO 3170-M-09 ARE D ISMISSED BEING WITHDRAWN. 4. I.T.A.NOS.2654 TO 2660-M-10 : IN ALL THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 BY THE C.I. T. (CENTRAL)-II MUMBAI. IT WAS STATED THAT GROUND NO.2 IS EFFECTIVE WHICH GROUND READS AS UNDER: THE LEARNED CIT CENTRAL II ERRED IN TREATING THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S.143[3] R.W.S. 153C DATED 4-5-2007 AS ERR ONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH WAS CO NDUCTED IN THE PREMISES BELONG TO VIJAY GROUP OF CASES ON 22-9-200 5. IN THE SAID PREMISES AN OFFICE OF ONE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT M/S. N.M. ASSOCIATES WAS ALSO LOCATED WHICH WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER SEARC H. IN THE OFFICE OF THE C.A. CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS BELONGING TO THE ASSE SSEE WERE SEIZED. ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C WERE INITIATED. T HE ASSESSEE DECLARED SOME ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE RETURNS FILE D AND ULTIMATELY ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S.143[3] R.W.S. 153C. THESE ASSESSMENTS WERE EXAMINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER. IT WAS NOTED BY HIM THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED BY MOTT A CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN FINANCED BY SHRI KIRAN H. SHAH I.E. THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH SOME UNDISCLOSED WAS DEC LARED BY SAID MOTTA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. ALSO BUT THE SAME WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL THE EXPENSES. IT SEEMS ASSESSEE HAD PREPA RED A CASH FLOW ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 3 STATEMENT TO EXPLAIN ALL THE OUT GOINGS. THE LD. CO MMISSIONER THOUGH NOTED THAT AO HAD MADE A SPECIFIC QUERY IN RESPECT OF THE SOURCE OF THE OPENING BALANCES OF THE FUND FLOW AMOUNTING TO RS.2.33 CRORES AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAD MADE A REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 24-4-2007 AS UNDER: THE OPENING SOURCE PRIOR TO A.Y. 1999-2000 OF RS.2 .33 CRORES WAS WORKED BASED ON THE APPLICATION PRIOR TO 1999 I.E. BOOKING ADVANCES GIVEN TO RAVI GROUP OF RS.27.00 LACS (ANNEXURE A-23 PAGE 204) HO TEL SHEETAL SURAJ BUSINESS ADVANCES OF RS.26.00 LACS (ANNEXURE A-23 P AGE 209) LOANS OF RS.75.00 LACS (RS.65 .00 LACS ANNEXURE A-22 PAGE 18 3 INTEREST THEREON OFFERED TO TAX FROM A.Y.1999-2000 RS.10.00 LACS A NN. 23 PAGE 155) BUSINESS DEBTORS OF APPROX RS.90.00 LACS (ANN. A-13 ) AND WORKING CAPITAL IN THE FORM OF CASH OF RS.15.OO LACS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER FOUND CERTAIN PROBLEM WITH THE ABOVE REPLY AND OBSERVED THAT AO HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME WITHOUT MAKI NG DETAILED ENQUIRIES. ACCORDINGLY A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 [1] WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE IT WAS MA INLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S.143[3] R.W.S. 153C WER E NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE. THESE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED AFTER VERIFYING THE SE IZED MATERIAL AND REPLY TO THE SAME BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE REGARDING OP ENING BALANCES OF THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT. THE AO HAD RAISED A SPECIFIC Q UERY REGARDING OPENING BALANCE IN THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT VIDE LET TER DATED 12-4- 2007 VIDE POINT NO.21 AND ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED TH E SOURCE VIDE LETTER DATED 24-4-07. 6. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT A LETTER DATED 5-12-0 5 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) UNIT VIII (2) MUMBAI WHEREIN BREAK UP OF THE OFFER OF THE INCOME ALONG WITH THE SOURCES OF FUNDS ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 4 INCLUDING THE AVAILABILITY OF RS.2.33 CRORES PRIOR TO 31-3-1999 WAS EXPLAINED ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE ESPECIALLY WITH R EGARD TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL AT ANNEXURE A-22 & A-23. SOME CASE LAW WAS ALSO RELIED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS DI D NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SAME. IN RESPECT PAGE-204 ANNEXURE A-23 LD. CO MMISSIONER NOTED THAT THIS IS A LETTER OF ALLOTMENT DATED 2-2- 2000 ISSUED BY RAVI GROUP OF BUILDERS SHOWING ALLOTMENT OF FLAT NO.402 IN THE PROJECT GAURAV YASH BUILDING. THE BOOKING AMOUNT PAID WAS RS.5000/- ON 11- 9-1998 WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER. ON REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE A REFERENCE IS MADE TO RS.27 LACS TO BE RECOVERED. TH E ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT UPFRONT MONEY IS ALWAYS PAID AT THE TIME OF ALLOTMENT AND SINCE THE ALLOTMENT WAS MADE ON 11-8-98 THEREF ORE THE SUM OF RS.27 LAKHS PERTAINED TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1999. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT THE FLAT WAS ALLOTTED FO R RS.9 50 000/- AND ASSESSEE HAS PAID ONLY A SUM OF RS.5 000/- WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER. ON THE BACK-SIDE OF THE PAGE IN THE HANDWRI TTEN ENTRY IT WAS MENTIONED- TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED RS.27 LACS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS TO BE PAID AFTER 20-4-2000 AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BEFORE 31-3-1999. THERE WA S NOTHING TO PROVE FROM THE SAID PAPER THAT RS.27 LACS WERE PAID PRIOR TO 31-3- 1999. 7. IN RESPECT OF PAGE-209 OF ANNEXURE A-23 IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE PAGE PERTAINED TO HOTEL SHEETAL SURAJ. MR. NARE NDRA KHETSHI SHAH ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 5 AND GALA GROUP HAD TAKEN MONEY FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AND ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE PARTIES AND HAD ADVANCED RS.26 LACS TO MR. NARENDRA KHETSHI SHAH PRIOR TO 1999. THERE WERE CERTAIN FINA NCIAL PROBLEMS FACED BY MR. NARENDRA KHETSHI SHAH AND GALA GROUP A ND THEY FAILED TO MEET THE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT. AFTER CONSIDERABLE E FFORTS AND GAP ON 20 TH AUGUST 2002 THE TOTAL ADVANCES OF RS.2.33 CRORES WERE SETTLED AT RS.1.50 CRORES FOR WHICH PARTLY PAID UP SHARES OF H OTEL SHEETAL SURAJ PVT. LTD. WERE ALLOTTED. THIS PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CHEQUES AFTER THE SETTLEMENT WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAD SO URCES IN RESPECT OF THIS MONEY AND AO HAD NO REASON NOT TO ACCEPT THE S AME. THE LD. COMMISSIONER NOTED THAT IN THIS AGREEMENT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE SUM OF RS.26 LACS FROM THE SALE AND THERE WAS O NLY A MENTION OF RS.25 LACS WHICH WAS THE BALANCE TO BE PAID AFTER T HE AGREEMENT DATED 20-8-02. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING T O RELATE THIS PAPER SIGNED ON 20-8-2002 WITH ANOTHER PAPER AT PAGE 128 OF ANNEXURE A- 23 BUT A CLOSE SCRUTINY SHOWED THAT NOTHING WAS WR ITTEN ON THAT THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.26 LACS. 8. IN RESPECT OF PAGE NO.183 AT ANNEXURE A-22 IT WA S EXPLAINED THAT THIS SHOWED ADVANCES GIVEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR S AMOUNTING TO RS.65 LACS AND INTEREST CALCULATED SHOWN IS AT RS.1 92 625/- WHICH HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN A.Y 1999-2000 AND WAS ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. FURTHER PAGE 135 AT ANNEXURE A-23 CLE ARLY SHOWS THAT AN ADVANCE OF RS.65 LACS AND WORKING OF INTEREST AMOUN TING TO RS.2 97 375/- OFFERED FOR TAX IN A.Y 2000-01 HAS B EEN ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. THIS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE SUM OF RS .65 LACS WAS ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 6 AVAILABLE PRIOR TO 1999 AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE AO NOT TO ACCEPT THE SAME. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE YEAR AND ONLY DATES AND MONTHS WERE MENTIONED. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THA T THE SUM OF RS.65 LACS WAS GIVEN AS ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PERSONS . PAGES 1 TO 262 OF ANNEXURE 13 IS A DIARY PERTAINING TO PARTY ACCOUNTS FOR OUTSTANDING COLLECTIONS I.E. SUNDRY DEBTORS WITH OPENING BALANC ES AS ON 31-3-2000 OF APPROXIMATELY RS.90 LACS FOR PETROLEUM BUSINESS. THERE WERE VARIOUS OTHER DIARIES FOR SUBSEQUENT TWO YEARS WHIC H WERE ALSO SEIZED. IN THE CASE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING PROOFS FOR OUTSTANDING DEBTORS WERE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTER DATE D 5-12-2005. THESE PROOFS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE PETROLEUM BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE NO PENDING DEBTS. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD IT SELF OFFERED INCOME FROM THE PETROLEUM BUSINESS OF THE EARLIER YEARS EV EN THOUGH NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OBSERVED THAT THIS DIARY INDICATED BALANCES FROM VARIOUS PER SONS FOR UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS STARTING FROM 1-4-2000 AND THE SUCCEED ING PAGES INDICATE THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS AFTER 1-4-2000. THOUGH THIS DIARY SHOWS THE BALANCE OF THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS AS ON 1 -4-2000 AND DETAILS OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS AFTER THAT DATE HOWEVER THESE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE BALANCE OF APPROXIMATELY R S.90 LACS WAS OUTSTANDING BEFORE 31-3-1999. ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 7 9. PAGE NO.155 OF ANNEXURE A-23 PERTAINS TO INTERES T @ 1.25% ON LOAN OF RS.10 LACS GIVEN TO SHRI SHAMJI H. GALA OF WHICH RS.3 LACS WERE RECEIVED ON 15-12-2001. THE SAID LOAN WAS GIVEN BEF ORE 31-3-99 AND EVEN A CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY WAS FURNISHED. T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OBSERVED THAT THIS PAGE IS THE WORKING OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE PERIOD 1-4-2001 TO 31-3-2002 AND IT WAS ONLY A PRESUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE PRINCIPAL A MOUNT WHICH WAS BEFORE 31-3-2000. 10. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION LD. COMM ISSIONER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH AO HAD ASKED ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCE OF RS.2.33 CRORES BUT ASSESSEE NEVER BOTHERED TO GIVE ANY PROPER EXPLANATION ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT TH E BALANCE WAS AVAILABLE AS ON 31-3-99. THEREFORE THIS AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED M ATERIAL. IN THIS BACKGROUND LD. COMMISSIONER SET ASIDE THE ORDER FO R FURTHER EXAMINATION VIDE PARA-14 WHICH IS AS UNDER: 14. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE REASONS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE I AM OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153C ON 4.05.2007 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND DESERVES TO BE CACELLEDJ SET ASIDE AND ACCORDINGLY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR PASSING DENOVO ASSESSMENT AFTER AFFORDING REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CRITICALLY ANALYZING THE CON TENTS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND ITS EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT BEFORE GOING TO THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS HE WOULD LIKE TO P OINT OUT THAT IN SEARCH PROCEEDINGS VARIOUS DOCUMENTS ARE GENERALLY SEIZED WHICH CAN LEAD TO VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS SOME OF WHICH MAY NOT BE CONCLUSIVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT IS A NORMAL PRACTICE TO EX PLAIN THE VARIOUS ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 8 INVESTMENTS AND OTHER OUTGOINGS THROUGH A FUND FLOW STATEMENT AND IN THE CASE BEFORE US ALSO A FUND FLOW STATEMENT WAS P REPARED AND FURNISHED. HE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND VARIOUS OTHER BUSINESSES INCLUDING THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE AND BUILDING PROPERTIES ETC. CE RTAIN INCOMES WERE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PETROLEUM AND RESTAURANT BUSINESS ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS WEL L AS ON ESTIMATED BASIS WHERE NO SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND. THE AO HA D MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON SUCH INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD MADE A SPECIFIC QUERY VIDE LETTER DATED 12-4-07 VIDE POINT NO.21 RE GARDING THE OPENING BALANCES IN THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT. IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO PAGES 27 TO 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY O F THE LETTER AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO POINT NO.21. THEN HE REFER RED TO THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO ASST. DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 22 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK THROUGH WHICH A SU M OF RS.2.47 CRORES WAS OFFERED TO COVER ALL ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ISSUES REGARDING LOAN OF RS.65 LACS A ND HOTEL SHEETAL SURAJ ETC. WERE EXPLAINED TO THE INVESTIGATION DEPA RTMENT AND COPY OF THIS LETTER WAS FURNISHED TO THE AO. FURTHER THROU GH LETTER DATED 24-4-07 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 30 TO 3 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK DETAILS REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WERE GIVEN. THEN HE REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAGES 1 TO 6 AND EXPLAINED HOW VARIOUS SOURCES WERE AVAILABLE AND MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 9 12. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THEN REFERRED T O PARA-12 OF THE REVISION ORDER PASSED U/S.263 AND POINTED OUT THAT ULTIMATELY LD. COMMISSIONER HAS MERELY OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.33 CRORES IS TO BE ASSESSED IN VARIOUS YEARS WHICH CLEARLY S HOWS THAT EVEN HE WAS NOT VERY SURE IN WHICH YEAR IT IS TO BE ASSESSE D. IN OTHER WORDS NO DEFINITE FINDING OF ANY ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DEFINITE ERROR THE ORDER CANNOT BE CALLED ERRONEOUS. HE ALSO REFERRED TO PARA-14 OF THE COMMI SSIONER ORDER WHEREIN HE ULTIMATELY RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FI LE OF THE AO FOR PASSING DENOVO ASSESSMENTS. THAT MEANS THE COMMISSI ONER WANTED THE AO ONLY TO CONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES AND FRAME NEW ASSESSMENTS WHICH IS MUCH BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SEC.263. IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO PAGE-11 OF THE PAPER BOOK II WHICH IS A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF REVISION ORDER WHERE IN TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.5 11 35 000/- HAS BEEN MADE. THE LD. COMMISSIONE R HAS DISCUSSED ONLY ONE ISSUE REGARDING THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.2.33 CRORES BY DIRECTING THE AO TO DO DENOVO ASSESSMENTS WHICH GOT EXPANDED BECAUSE OF TH E EXPRESSION DENOVO AND THAT IS WHY ADDITIONS OF RS.5.11 CRORE S HAVE BEEN MADE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER ARGUED THAT AS POINTED OUT ABOVE BY RAISING A QUERY IN RESPECT OF THE SUM OF RS.2.33 CRORES WHICH WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO HAS DEFINITELY TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS. WHEN A PARTICULAR ASPECT IS OPEN FOR VARIOUS INTERP RETATIONS THEN IF AO APPLIES HIS MIND AND TAKES A PARTICULAR VIEW THEN N O FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAD DEFINITELY C ONDUCTED ENQUIRIES ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 10 AND AT BEST IT CAN BE DESCRIBED AS A CASE OF INADEQ UATE ENQUIRY. IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. [201 0] 235 CTR 336. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. [295 ITR 283] AND CI T VS. VIKAS POLYMER (DEL) [194 TAXMAN 57]. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S VIJAY GRIH ANIRMAN PVT. LTD. I.T.A.NOS.3514 TO 3520/M/09 WHEREIN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF C.AS OF INDIA VS. DIRECTOR OF I.T. [137 TTJ 448] IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ONCE DETAILED REPLY W AS FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSIONER SHOULD HAVE DETERMIN ED THE EXACT OBJECTION FOUND BY HIM OTHERWISE SHOULD HAVE DROPP ED THE PROCEEDINGS. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS HIMSELF ADMIT TED IN PARA-5 THAT A QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE SUM OF RS.2.33 CRORES WHICH WAS SHOWN AS OPENING BALANCE IN THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT WHICH WAS RAISED BY THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 12-4-2007 AN D READS AS UNDER: IN THE CHART OF SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS F ILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OPENING APPLICATION OF F UNDS SHOWS A SUM OF RS 2 33 00 000/- WHICH IS ALLOCATED INTO FOUR SU B HEADS SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE. IN THE CHART OF SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS OPENING ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 11 APPLICATION OF FUNDS SHOWS A SUM OF RS 2 33 00 000/ - WHICH IS ALLOCATED INTO FOUR SUB HEADS SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CL AIM WITH EVIDENCE. AGAINST THE ABOVE QUERY REPLY WAS ALSO GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER AT P ARA 5.1 WHICH WAS EXTRACTED BY US EARLIER AND READS AS UNDER: THE OPENING SOURCE PRIOR TO A.Y. 1999-2000 OF RS.2 .33 CRORES WAS WORKED BASED ON THE APPLICATION PRIOR TO 1999 I.E. BOOKING ADVANCES GIVEN TO RAVI GROUP OF RS.27.00 LACS (ANNEXURE A-23 PAGE 204) HOTEL SHEETAL SURAJ BUSINESS ADVANCES OF RS.26.00 L ACS (ANNEXURE A- 23 PAGE 209) LOANS OF RS.75.00 LACS (RS.65 .00 LAC S ANNEXURE A-22 PAGE 183 INTEREST THEREON OFFERED TO TAX FROM A.Y.1 999-2000 RS.10.00 LACS ANN. 23 PAGE 155) BUSINESS DEBTORS OF APPRO X RS.90.00 LACS (ANN. A-13) AND WORKING CAPITAL IN THE FORM OF CASH OF RS.15.OO LACS. THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE QUERY WAS RAISED A ND THE REPLY WAS GIVEN. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE A LETTER DT. 5-12- 2005 ADDRESSED TO THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF I.T. (INV.) UNIT VIII (2) WAS ALS O FURNISHED WHEREIN THE BREAK UP OF THE OFFER OF SURRENDER AS WELL AS EXPLA NATION REGARDING SOURCES OF RS.2.33 CRORES WERE EXPLAINED. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT AO HAS DEFINITELY APPLIED HIS MIND TO THIS QUE STION. IT IS NORMAL IN CASE OF SEARCH MATTERS THAT TO COVER UP VARIOUS SOU RCES AND INVESTMENTS A FUND FLOW STATEMENT IS PREPARED AND W HATEVER CANNOT BE EXPLAINED IS OFFERED FOR TAX. ULTIMATELY A SUM OF RS.2.47 CRORES WAS OFFERED BY WAY OF AN ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE RETUR NS FILED AFTER THE SEARCH. THE OTHER UNDISCLOSED OUTGOINGS/INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED THROUGH FUND FLOW STATEMENT. THIS IS VERY MUCH A POSSIBLE VIEW. IF AO AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS HAS ACCEPTE D ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS THEN SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE CALLED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 12 15. THE HEAD NOTE OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HO N'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODU CTS LTD. [SUPRA] READS AS UNDER: REVISIONERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL ORDERA 0 TAKIN G A POSSIBLE VIEWIN CASES WHERE THE AO ADOPTS ONE OF THE COURSE S PERMISSIBLE IN LAW OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW THE CIT CANNOT EXERCISE HIS POWERS UNDER S. 263 TO DIFFER WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO EVEN IF THERE HAS BEEN A LOSS OF REVENUE -IN THE INSTANT CASE CIT EXERCISED HIS POWERS UNDER S. 263 ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAD NOT APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF S.80-18(13)/GO-IA (9) AND HAD WRONGLY CALCULATED THE DEDUCTION UNDER S. 8OHHC WIT HOUT REDUCING FROM THE PROFITS AND GAINS THE CLAIM ALREADY ALLOWE D AS DEDUCTION UNDER S. 80-LB -NOT JUSTIFIEDMERE ABSENCE OF DISCU SSION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80-1B(13) R.W S. 80-IA(9) WOULD NO T MEAN THAT THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE SAID PROVISIONSTHE RE IS NO MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO TH E PROVISIONS OF S. 80- IB(13) R.W S. 80-IA(9) -PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESS MENT ORDERS UNDER S. 143(3) HAD BEEN PASSED UPON APPLICATION OF MIND HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUEIT CANNOT ALSO BE SAID THAT THE AO FAILED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY AS NO FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS NECESSAR Y AND ALL THE FACTS WERE BEFORE THE AO NO ADDITIONAL FACTS WERE NECESS ARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80-IB(13 ) R.W S. 80-IA (9) VALIDITY OF AN ORDER UNDER S. 263 HAS TO BE TESTED ON THE BASIS OF THE POSITION OF LAW AS ITS EXISTS ON THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH AN ORDER IS MADE BY THE CITVIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IN THIS CASE WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE VIEWS TAKEN BY SEVERAL BENCHES OF THE TRIB UNAL ON THE DATE WHEN THE CIT PASSED HIS ORDERS UNDER S. 263THEREFO RE CIT COULD NOT HAVE INVOKED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER S. 263ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER S. 263 RIGHTLY CANCELLED. SIMILARLY THE HEAD NOTE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. [SUPRA] READS AS UNDER: THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE IN SECTION 23 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 HAS TO BE READ IN CONJ UNCTION WITH THE EXPRESSION ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS/ A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS O F THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTS ONE OF T WO COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF R EVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TA KEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE PHRAS E PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE IN SECTION 23 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT 2961 HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXPRESSION ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVE NUE AS A ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 13 CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CA NNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EX AMPLE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTS ONE OF TWO COURSES PERMISS IBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOU S ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS [SUPRA] HAS O BSERVED AT PARA-14 AS UNDER: FROM THE ABOVE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IT IS CL EAR THAT IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS IT IS A PRE-REQUISITE THAT THE CO MMISSIONER MUST GIVE REASONS TO JUSTIFY THE EXERCISE OF SUO MOTU REVISIO NAL POWERS BY HIM TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT. A BARE REITERATION B Y HIM THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOFA R AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WILL NOT SUFFICE. T HE EXERCISE OF THE POWER BEING QUASI- JUDICIAL IN NATURE THE REASONS MUST BE SUCH AS TO SHOW THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OR MODIFICATION OF THE AS SESSMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DIRECTIONS ISSUED FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT WERE CALLED FOR AND MUST IRRESISTIBLY L EAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WAS NOT ON LY ERRONEOUS BUT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THU S WHILE THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER IS NOT CALLED UPON TO WRITE AN ELABORAT E JUDGMENT GIVING DETAILED REASONS IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY DISAL LOWANCE DEDUCTION ETC. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER NOT TO EXERCISE HIS SUO MOTU REVISIONAL POWERS UNLESS SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE REASONS FOR DOING SO. ALL THESE AUTHORITIES MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT ONCE AN ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE AND MIND HAS BEEN APPLIED BY THE AO AND HE HAS TAKEN A ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS THEN SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE CALLE D ERRONEOUS AND THE SAME IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR REVISION. THE HON'BLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. [SUP RA] HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT MERELY ABSENCE OF DISCUSSION IN T HE ORDER WOULD NOT INDICATE THAT AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS [SUPRA] FROM THE HEAD NOTE QUOTED ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT LD. COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED TO GIVE REASONS TO JUSTIFY THE EXERCISE OF SUO MOTU REVISIONAL POWERS BY HIM TO REOPEN A CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT. AS ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 14 POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS NOT SURE WHEN THE ACTUAL MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVE D AND THAT IS WHY HE HAS MENTIONED IN PARA-12 THAT A SUM OF RS.2. 33 CRORES IS TO BE ASSESSED IN VARIOUS YEARS. MOREOVER TOWARDS THE EN D IN PARA-14 HE HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR PASSING A DE NOVO ASSESSMENT WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT LD. COMMISSIONER WAS DOUBTFUL ON CERTAIN ISSUES AND HE WANTED THE AO TO CONDUCT FRESH ENQUIR IES ON ALL ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IN OUR OPINION THE AO HAS AFTER MAKING ENQUIRIES ACCEPTED ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE CALLED ERRONEOUS OR PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 16. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS VERY MUCH POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE V IEW THAT FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE PRIOR TO 31-3-1999. ON PAGES 1 & 2 IS THE DOCUMENT REGARDING BOOKING OF THE FLAT WITH RAVI GROUP OF BU ILDERS. IN THE LETTER IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT TOTAL VALUE OF THE FLAT R ECEIVED IS RS.9 50 000/- AGAINST WHICH THE BUILDER HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 5000/- IN CASH ON 11-8-1998. THOUGH ON BACK THE SIDE IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED IS RS.27 LACS IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS AMOUNT WAS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE BUILDER. OTHERWISE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE CORRECT THAT A VESTED RIGHT WOULD COME TO THE ASSESSEE ON BOOKIN G OF THE FLAT AND NOBODY WOULD GIVE SUCH A VESTED RIGHT UNLESS PREMIU M OR ON MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY SUCH BUILDER. THEREFORE THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A SUM OF RS.27 LACS WAS PAID ON 11-8- 98 SEEMS TO BE ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 15 QUITE PLAUSIBLE. THE NEXT DOCUMENT IS PAGE NO.209 O F ANNEXURE A-23 RELATING TO HOTEL SHEETAL SURAJ. THIS DOCUMENT TALK S OF SOME SETTLEMENT BUT NO AMOUNTS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR P AID BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE RELATED DOCUMENT CLEARLY MEN TIONS THAT A SUM OF RS.26 LACS AGAINST WHICH = 12.38% IS ALSO MENTIO NED WHICH ONLY INDICATES THAT SOME MONEY WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THIS GROUP. THE REPAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE BY THIS GROUP TO THE ASSES SEES FAMILY MRS RAHHI KIRAN SHAH AND MR. DEVCHAND H. SHAH WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS NOT BE EN DENIED. IF NO MONEY WAS PAID THEN HOW THIS MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVE D. THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING PAYMENT O F RS.26 LACS SEEMS TO BE PLAUSIBLE. THE THIRD DOCUMENT IS ANNEXED AT P AGE-5 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND MENTIONS CERTAIN AMOUNTS AND CALCULATION O F INTEREST. THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS CORRECT THAT NO YEAR HAS BEEN MENTI ONED BUT FIGURES AT SERIAL NUMBERS (1) TO (8) ARE MENTIONED AS UNDER : 1. (5) 11/10 TO 31/03 172 DAYS 21 500/- 2. (10) 24/10 TO 31/03 159 DAYS 39 750/- 3. (15) 18/10 TO 31/03 165 DAYS 61 875/- 4. (5) 28/10 TO 31/03 155 DAYS 19 375/- 5. (10) 21/02 TO 31/03 39 DAYS 9750/- 6. (5) 29/10 TO 31/03 154 DAYS 19 250/- 7. (5) 02/01 TO 31/03 29 DAYS 11 125/- 8. (10) 20/02 TO 31/03 40 DAYS 60 000/- 1 92 625/- ====== THE CALCULATION SHOWS AGAINST THESE AMOUNTS AT 0.75 % TOTAL OF RS.1 92 625/-. THIS ONLY SHOWS THAT IT IS AN AMOUNT OF INTEREST. THE INTEREST FIGURE CAN LEAD TO INTERPRETATION OF FIGUR E SAY (5) INTO RS.5 LACS ONLY THEN THE CALCULATION WOULD MATCH. THE SUM TOTA L OF FIGURES ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 16 MENTIONED AGAINST THE VARIOUS OF ITEMS IS RS.65 LAC S. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS INCOME OF RS.1 92 625/- WAS OFFERED A S INTEREST INCOME IN A.Y 1999-2000 WHICH WAS REOPENED COPY OF THE ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM PARA-20 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT IN 1999-2000 THE INCOME ESTIMATED ON ACCOUNT OF PETROLEUM AND RESTAURANT BUSINESS WAS RS.12 LACS AN D THE BALANCE INCOME OF RS.1 93 000/- [ROUNDED OFF] ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS ASSESSED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.13 93 000/-. THUS INCOME OF RS.1 93 000/- HAS BEEN CLEARLY ASSESSED A S INTEREST INCOME IN A.Y 1999-2000 AND ONCE INTEREST INCOME IS ASSESS ED THEN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. THE NEXT DOCUM ENT IS PAGES 1 TO 262 ANNEXURE A-13 A SUMMARY OF WHICH HAS BEEN ENCLO SED AT PAGES 8 TO 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PAGE 8 IS SOME TOTAL OF SUNDRY BALANCES OF RS.89 10 737/- IS REFLECTED. THIS WAS STATED TO BE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1-4-2000 AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. TH E ADMITTED POSITION IS THAT ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON PETROLEUM AND OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS AND IN FACT AN ADDITIONAL I NCOME OF RS.12 LACS HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.1 43[3] R.W.S. 147. IF THERE WERE DEBTORS AS ON 1-4-2000 NATURALLY THER E WOULD BE SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE EARLIER PERIOD ALSO AND THERE IS A R EFERENCE OF EARLIER DIARY BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING. THEREFORE IT IS VERY MUCH POSSIBLE THAT ASSESSEE HAS APPROXIMATELY RS.90 LACS IN THE F ORM OF SUNDRY DEBTORS BEFORE 31-3-1999. THESE DOCUMENTS AND DISCU SSION CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS ONE OF THE PO SSIBLE VIEWS AND AS DISCUSSED EARLIER ONCE AN ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND HE ITA NOS.3168 TO 3169 & 2654 TO 2660 17 HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS THEN SUCH ORDE R CANNOT BE CALLED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED U/S.263. 17. IN THE RESULT APPEALS IN I.T.A.NOS.2654 TO 266 0/MUM/2010 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 3 0-12-2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 30-12-2011. P/-*