ARIHANT CORPORATION, THANE v. ACIT CIR-1,

ITA 363/MUM/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 36319914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAIFA5613P
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 363/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
Appellant ARIHANT CORPORATION, THANE
Respondent ACIT CIR-1,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 16-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 14-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 14-01-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 16-01-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.363/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. ARIHANT CORPORATION SHREE ARIHANT COMPOUND RETI BUNDER ROAD KALHER BHIWANDI THANE. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AAIFA 5613 P) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 INCOME TAX OFFICE RANI MANSION MURBAD ROAD KALYAN(W). ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MALAY H. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SH ANTAM BOSE DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 TH NOVEMBER 2011 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 14.10.2008 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDIN G ADDITION OF RS.60.00 LACS MADE BY THE AO TO THE TOTAL INCOME. ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT O F GODOWNS GALAS AND SHOPS. IT FILED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06 ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9 70 040/-. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM WHO WAS HAVING THREE PARTNERS HAVING EQUAL SHARE IN PROFITS WHO HAD STARTED BUSINESS FROM 1.7.2001. THE SURVEY UNDER SE CTION 133A HAD BEEN CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE ON 30.9.2005. THE PARTN ER OF THE FIRM SHRI HASMUKH DODHIA WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF SUR VEY EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAKING OUTRIGHT PURCHASE O F LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WAREHOUSES. ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO DEVELOPME NT AGREEMENT WITH THE FARMERS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAN D AND FARMERS WERE GIVEN WAREHOUSES IN THE RATIO OF 40:60 IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPUTER INSTALLED ON TH E GROUND FLOOR HAD BEEN AFFECTED BY FLOODS IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2005 . THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN EXACTLY THE CONSTRUCTION OF WAREHOUSES. THE PARTNERS ALSO HAD ANOTHER FIRM IN THE NAME OF ARIHANT DEVELOP ERS. BOTH THE FIRMS HAD NOT PAID ANY ADVANCE TILL THE DATE OF SURVE Y WHICH SHOWED THAT THEY DID NOT INTEND TO DISCLOSE ANY TAXABLE INC OME. THE STATEMENT OF THE PARTNER WAS RECORDED. IN RESPONSE TO Q .NO.12 IN WHICH IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT RATE DISCLOSED IN THE AGRE EMENTS FOR SALE VARIED FROM RS.166 TO 250/- WHICH SHOWS THAT SALE PROCEED S WERE NOT ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 3 FULLY DISCLOSED THE PARTNER ADMITTED THAT TO SOME EXT ENT FULL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE PARTNER DECLARED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1.10 CRORES IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND RS .65 00 000/- IN CASE OF ARIHANT DEVELOPERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SUBSEQUENTLY VIDE LETTER DATED 1.10.2005 THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE DISCLOSU RES MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF LETTER IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR SURVEY FOLLOWING DISCREP ANCIES WERE BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-04 & 2005- 06. 1. EVEN THOUGH WAREHOUSING CHARGES RECEIVED WERE MO RE THAN THE RETURNED INCOME 2. THE PARTNERS HAVE INVESTED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOS ED SOURCE IN THE BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THE FIRM. THE ABOVE DISCREPANCIES ARE ADMITTED AND TO COVER T HE SAME WE INTENDED TO OFFER ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 2004-05. FOR A.Y. 2005-06 NO ADVANCE TAX IS PAID BY THE FIRM ASSESSMENT YEAR ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ARIHANT CORP ORATION 2003-04 46 72 000 NIL 2004-05 60 32 000 25 00 000/- 2005-06 65 00 000 1 10 00 000/- WE SHALL REVISE OUR RETURNS FOR AY 2003-04 2004-0 5 OF INCOME AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. FOR THE AY 2005-06 THE INCOME RETURNED WILL BE AS ABOVE. NECESSARY TAXES WILL BE PAID ACCORDINGLY. 2.1 HOWEVER THE AO NOTED THAT IN THE RETURN FILED T HE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ONLY INCOME OF SUM OF RS.50.00 LACS IN PLACE OF A SUM OF ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 4 RS.1.10 CROES DECLARED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE AO TH EREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO EXPLAIN THE REDUCTION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME AND ALSO TO FILE DETAI LS REGARDING YEAR- WISE ACQUISITION OF LAND AND NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LAND O WNERS AREA LOCATION AND CONSIDERATION PAID SANCTIONED PLAN OF THE PROJECT OR PLAN CERTIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION CA RRIED OUT YEAR WISE AND YEAR WISE DETAILS OF TOTAL SALES AND EXPENSES. T HE ASSESSEE HOWEVER DID NOT GIVE ANY REPLY DESPITE THE EXPLANATI ON BEING SPECIFICALLY CALLED BY THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 20.12.2 007. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER GAVE ANY REASONS FOR RETR ACTION IN THE REVISED INCOME NOR GAVE ANY REASONS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ASSESSEE HAD BEEN POINTED OUT DIS CREPANCIES IN THE SALE RATES AND ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.13 H AD ADMITTED DISCREPANCIES AND DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME WHI CH WAS FOLLOWED BY CONFIRMATION VIDE LETTER DATED 1.10.2005 . THE AO THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO COGENT REASON S OR ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL FOR RETRACTING THE DISCLOSURE MADE A T THE TIME OF SURVEY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60.00 LACS. HE THEREFORE A DDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE DECISION OF AO AND SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT DIFFERENT RATES NOTED BY THE AO WERE FOR DIFFERENT STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 5 INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND THEREFORE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF THE PARTNER ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE ADDITION MADE WAS NOT J USTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO SAME DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE. CIT(A) WAS HOWEVER NOT SATISFIED BY THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN. IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT AGREEMENT FOR SALE ENTERED INTO WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES SHOWED SALE RATES VARYING FROM 166 TO 250 PER SQ.FT. FOR SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWNS GALAS AND SHOPS. I T WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS WAS MOST PROFITABLE BUT ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED LOSS IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE PARTN ER HAD DECLARED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1.10 CRORES WHEN HE WAS ASK ED TO EXPLAIN THE GLARING DISCREPANCIES. THE ASSESSEE NEVER RETR ACTED FROM THE DECLARATION MADE. HOWEVER IN THE REVISED RETURN M ADE ON 17.3.2006 THE ASSESSEE REDUCED THE DISCLOSURE BY RS.60.00 LA CS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THAT INCOME DECLARED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY HAD BEEN OVER STATED BY RS.60.00 LACS. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ASSESSEE HA D STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE TOTALLY DESTROYED IN THE UNPR ECEDENTED FLOODS IN JULY 2005. HOWEVER THE RETURN OF INCOME WA S FILED ONLY ONE MONTH AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E. 31.10.2005 WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY A TAX AUDIT REPORT IN WHICH THE AUDITORS MAINTAINE D THAT BOOKS OF ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 6 ACCOUNT WERE KEPT AT HEADQUARTERS AND THEY HAD EXAMINE D THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE SIGNING AUDIT REPORT. CIT(A) OBSERVE D THAT THE REPORT OF THE AUDITORS WAS OBVIOUSLY FALSE AS IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO WRITE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND GET IT AUDITED WITHIN A MONTH PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THAT THE COMPUTER PLACED ON THE GROUND FLOOR HAD BEEN AFFECTED BY THE UNPRECEDENTED FLOODS. MOREOVER NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH ALSO SUPPORTS THE FINDING THAT THE REPORT OF THE AUDITORS WAS FALSE. CIT(A) ALSO DISTINGUISHED THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE OF ITO VS. SATYANARAYAN AGARWAL (91 TTJ 481) TH E ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS UP TO THE DATE OF SUR VEY AND THEREFORE ADDITION MADE HAD BEEN DELETED AND IN CASE OF A.C. KARVE VS. ITO NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAD BEEN FOUND DUR ING THE SURVEY AND NO DEFECTS WERE NOTICED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ASSESSE E HAD ALSO NOT SOLD ANY FLATS DURING RELEVANT YEAR. IT WAS U NDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN DELETED. EVEN IN THAT CASE TRIBUNAL HAD OBSERVED THAT RETRACTION WAS NOT POSSIBLE A FTER LONG GAP. CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE DISTINGUISHABLE. HE ACCORD INGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AGGRIEVED BY W HICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 7 3. BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED ON COMPUTER HAD BEEN DESTROYED IN JU LY 2005 LATER ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN RECONSTRUCTED AND BOOKS HAD BEEN AUDITED. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTED THE SURRENDE R MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY VIDE LETTER DATED 24.12.2007 AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT CORRECT TO STATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RETRACTED TH E STATEMENT. IT WAS REITERATED THAT NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ONL Y ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE LD. AR HOWEVER ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH ADMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE AO. 3.1 THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE PARTIES BELOW. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME ONLY AFTER BEING POINTE D OUT THE DISCREPANCIES. NO CASE OF ANY COERCION OR PRESSURE BY SURVEY PARTY HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY MADE DISCLOSURE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY BUT ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY AFT ER THE SURVEY VIDE LETTER DATED 1.10.2005 CONFIRMED THE DISCLOSURE I N WHICH IT WAS ADMITTED THAT WAREHOUSE CHARGES RECEIVED WERE NOT DECLAR ED IN THE RETURN AND THAT PARTNERS HAD INVESTED INCOME FROM UNDI SCLOSED ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 8 SOURCES IN THE BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. TH E ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN REDUCED THE INCOME BY RS.60. 00 LACS BUT DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE AS TO H OW THE INCOME WAS LOWER BY RS.60.00 LACS. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF S.C. GUP TA VS. CIT (248 ITR 782) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE SURREN DERED ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING T HE SURVEY BURDEN LAY ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ADMISSION MADE I N THE SAID STATEMENT WAS WRONG AND IN FACT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL INCOME. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD FOLLOWED TH E JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. (91 ITR 18) IN WH ICH IT WAS HELD THAT ADMISSION MADE WAS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVI DENCE AND THOUGH IT WAS NOT CONCLUSIVE THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD FORM BASIS OF ASSESSMENT. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY URGED T HAT ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION SHOULD BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING ADDITIO N MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORI GINAL RETURN FILED ON 31.10.2005 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HAD DECL ARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.97 04 040/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINE SS OF ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 9 CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF GODOWNS GALAS WORKSHOPS ETC. A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133A ON 30.9.2005 IN W HICH THE SURVEY TEAM NOTICED FROM THE AGREEMENTS FOR SALE THAT RATE OF CONSTRUCTION VARIED FROM RS.166 TO 250 SQ.FT. IN RESPECT O F SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION. ON BEING CONFRONTED THE PARTNER OF THE A SSESSEE FIRM ADMITTED THAT FULL SALE/CONSIDERATION WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1.10 CRORES F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THERE IS NO MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE STATEMENT HAD BEEN GIVEN U NDER COERCION OR UNDER PRESSURE. IN FACT EVEN AFTER SURVEY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 1.10.2005 HAD CONFIRMED ADDITIONAL INCOM E OF RS.1.10 CRORES. IN THE SAID LETTER ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED THAT WAR EHOUSING CHARGES RECEIVED WERE MORE THAN RETURNED INCOME AND THA T PARTNERS HAD INVESTED INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06 AND THAT TO COVER THESE DISCREPANCIES ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE REVISED RETURN AND REDUCED ADDITIONAL INCOME BY RS.60.0 0 LACS. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE AO NOR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED OF RS.1. 10 CRORES AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS HIGHER BY RS.60.00 LACS. ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 10 4.1 THE ASSESSEE NEVER MADE ANY RETRACTION. THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTED VIDE LETT ER DATED 24.12.2007 A COPY OF WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE-31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CERTIFIED IN THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE SAID LETTER WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE AO. IN ANY CASE RETRACTION MADE AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF DISCLOSURE HAS NO EVIDEN TIARY VALUE AND IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT PARTICUL ARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER SURVEY HAD CONFIRMED DISCLOSURE OF ADDI TIONAL INCOME BY WRITING A LETTER TO THE AO AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED WAS MORE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DISCREPANCY HAD BEEN FOU ND IN THE SURVEY HAS NO MERIT AS THE ASSESSEE EVEN IN THE REVISED RE TURN ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.50.00 LACS. AS HELD BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. (SUPRA) ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN HELD IN THE SAID CASE THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE STATEMENT HAD BEEN RETRACTED IT COULD NOT MA KE THE STATEMENT UNACCEPTABLE. THE BURDEN LAY ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS WRONG AND IN FACT THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL INCOME. FO LLOWING THE SAID JUDGMENT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CA SE OF DR. SC GUPTA VS. CIT [248 ITR 782(ALL.)](SUPRA) HAVE HELD THAT IN CASE THE ITA NO.363/M/09 A.Y:04-05 11 ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS WRONG AND IN FACT THER E WAS NO ADDITIONAL INCOME THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED HAD TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD DECL ARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1.10 CRORES WHICH WAS LATER REDU CED TO RS.60.00 LACS AND NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR EVEN BEFORE US TO SHOW AS TO HOW INCOME DISCLOSED WAS LOWER THAN RS.60.00 LACS. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS JUSTIFIED. WE ACCORDI NGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11.2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 16.11.2011. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.