TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD, MUMBAI v. ADDL CIT RG 7(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) AND SHRI T.R. SOOD (AM) ITA NO.3778/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 TCE CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED MATULYA CENTRE A 1 ST FLOOR 249 SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL (W) MUMBAI-400 013. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AABCT 0772 E) VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-7(3) MUMBAI. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DINESH VYAS AND SHRI AJIT SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L. K. AGRAWAL O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 31.3.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ENGINEERING CONSULT ANCY SERVICES. THE RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13 79 53 700/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS INTERALIA OBSERVED BY THE AO ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DEBITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T BY A SUM OF RS.53.53 LACS AS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE DETAILS OF THE BAD DEBTS CLAIMED AND ALSO THE REASONS AS TO WHY THE SAME IS TREATED AS BAD. THE ASSESSEE IN REPL Y FILED THE DETAILS SHOWING THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES AND THE AMOUNT S INVOLVED THEREIN AND IN SOME INSTANCES THE PERIOD TO WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS/AMOUNTS RELATED TO WERE ALSO MENTIONED. T HE AO NOTED THAT THE SAME PERTAINED TO FINANCIAL YEARS 2002-03 A ND 2003-04 EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE PARTLY WHERE IT WAS STATED TO BE RELATED TO 1999. HOWEVER NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE SAID TRAN SACTIONS WERE TREATED AS DEBTS WHICH HAD TURNED BAD WAS EXTENDED. A CCORDINGLY ONCE AGAIN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SPELL OUT THE REA SONS FOR TREATING THE SAME AS BAD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED T O MENTION THE YEAR OF TRANSACTIONS IN EACH CASE AND TO FILE THE COPI ES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES FROM THE YEAR WHEN THE TRANSACTIO NS WERE CARRIED OUT TO WHICH THESE AMOUNTS RELATE. IT WAS ALSO PO INTED OUT THAT THE DETAILS FILED INDICATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.24.55 LACS CLAIMED AS NON-RECOVERABLE RELATED TO ASSESSEE'S GROUP COMPANIES. I N REPLY IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11.12.2007 A S UNDER (PAGE-9 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER): POINT NO.16(B) AND POINT NO.17 (ANNEXURE L) ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 3 AS A POLICY AFTER CONSTANT FOLLOW UP WITH CLIENT IF COMPANY DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY REPLY NOR MONEY THE SAME HAS BEEN TREATED AS NON-RECOVERABLE AND ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS BAD DEBTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES EXP LANATION AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR TREATING THEM AS BAD. FURTHER IT ALSO FAILED TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS Q UERY OF FILING THE YEAR WISE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF EACH OF THESE PARTIES BE CAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUSPECTED THAT THE BAD DEBTS TREATED MAY N OT BE RELATED TO ONLY ONE TRANSACTION BUT THERE MAY BE A SER IES OF TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON CIT VS. DUNLO P INDIA LTD.(1956) 209 ITR 221 (CAL) DCIT VS. INDIA THERMIT CORPN. LTD.(1996)56 ITD 307 (DEL.) AND BRITISH PAINTS VS. CI T (1991) 188 ITR 44(SC) AND NOTED THAT EVEN THE AMENDED CLAUSE OF SEC 36 (1)(VII) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) REQUIRES ONLY A BAD DEBT TO BE WRITTEN OFF AND NOT JUST ANY DEBT. IT IS NOT NECESSAR Y THAT A DEBT HAS TO BE NECESSARILY WRITTEN OFF AS BAD IN THE VERY FIRST Y EAR OF BEING BAD. IT CAN BE TREATED AS SUCH EVEN IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR AFT ER ENSURING AND TAKING AN HONEST JUDGMENT THAT IT HAD GONE BAD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO WRITTEN BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS.300.01 LACS BY CREDI TING THE SAME TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF OF EVEN A GOOD DEBT PREMATURELY WITHOUT SUCH DEBT ACTUALLY ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 4 BECOMING IRRECOVERABLE AND BAD. UNDER THE ABOVEMENTIO NED CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAI M OF BAD DEBT OF RS.53 53 078/- AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE A.O. AFTER MAKING SOME OTHER DISALLOWANCES COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.15 51 95 226/- VIDE ORDER DATED 28 .12.2007 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE OBSERVING THAT IT IS TRUE THAT NORMALLY A CLAIM WILL BE ALLOWED IF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 36(2) HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED AND NOT DOUBTED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WHILE ALLOWING A DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VII) STILL THE SAME H AS TO BE DONE NOT IN A BLIND FOLDED MANNER BUT WITH OPEN EYES AND AFTE R APPLICATION OF MIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AN HONEST JUDGMENT FOR T REATING A DEBT AS BAD AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF BAD DEBTS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS RS.45 92 278/- AND SUSTAINED TH E DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7 60 800/- IN TOTAL ( RS.2 66 800 + RS.1 75 000 + RS.1 85 000 + RS.1 34 000) AND ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US CHALLENGING IN ALL THE GROUNDS THE SU STENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS RS.7 60 800/- ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 5 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITS THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T.R.F . LIMITED VS. CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5293 AND 5294 OF 2003 DATED 9.2. 2010 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THIS POSITION IN LAW IS WELL SETTLE D. AFTER 1 ST APRIL 1989 IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT IN FACT HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE AL SO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR WHILE RELYING ON T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITS THAT THE AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.1 .75 LACS AND RS.2 66 800/- ARE RELATED TO TATA CONSULTANCY LIMITED AND TISCO RESPECTIVELY WHICH ARE GROUP COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE THE REFORE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A BONAFIDE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS. IT IS A CASE OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TWO GROUP CONCERNS. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT OTHER TWO ITEMS OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.1.85 LACS PERTAINING TO STERLITE INDUSTRIES AND RS.1.34 LACS RELATING TO HINDUSTA N LEVER LIMITED APPEAR TO BE A CASE OF MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT. AT THIS STAGE THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED ON THE OBSERVATION OF THEIR LO RDSHIPS IN DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VS. OMAN INTER NATIONAL BANK (2009) 313 ITR 128(BOM.) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN INTERALIA HELD THAT THE WRITING OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS NO DOUBT HAS TO BE BONAFIDE. IN THE LIGHT ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 6 OF THE SAID OBSERVATIONS THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE BONAFIDE OF THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN UPHE LD BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED FOR THE SAME PREPO SITION IN DCIT VS. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. IN ITA NO.1621 & 1606/M/08 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2003-04 ORDER DATED 30.7.20 09. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SHOW THAT TO PROVE BONAFIDE OF THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. HE FURTH ER SUBMITS THAT IN THE CASE OF TRF LIMITED SUPRA THE ISSUE OF BONAFIDE OF THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT WAS NOT THERE THEREFORE THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE T O THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWAN CE OF BAD DEBTS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 7. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD. SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITS THAT PRIOR TO 1.4.1989 ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT OF ANY DEBT HAS BECOME A BAD DEBT BUT AFTER 1.4.1989 IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTAB LISH THAT THE DEBT IN FACT HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSE SSEE. HE REITERATES THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TRF LIMI TED SUPRA AFTER ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 7 CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) OF THE A CT BOTH PRIOR TO 1.4.1989 AND POST 1.4.1989 HAVE HELD AS UNDER: THIS POSITION IN LAW IS WELL SETTLED. AFTER 1 ST APRIL 1989 IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT IN FACT HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENO UGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE HE SUBMITS THAT THE RELIAN CE PLACED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE BONAFIDE OF THE CLAIM IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE GROUP COMPANIES ARE INDEPENDENT COMPANIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ALSO PROVED EVEN THE BONAFIDE OF THE CLAIM WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 3.14 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN THE CASE OF TATA CONSULTANCY LIMITED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BILLED RS. 1.75 L ACS TO THE CLIENT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL TIME SPENT BY ITS ENGINEERS WHEREAS AS PER PRE-NEGOTIATED TERMS FOR THE JOBS DONE THE ASSESSE E COMPANY WAS TO BE PAID FOR ON A LUMP-SUM BASIS. SINCE THE CLIEN T REFUSED TO PAY BACK THE EARLIER BILLED AMOUNT ON ACTUAL TIME SPEN T BASIS IT WAS CLAIMED AS BAD DEBT. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF TISCO RS. 2 66 800/- WAS OUTSTANDING AGAINST THEM. BUT TISCO GAVE NEW JOBS T O THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR RS.9.50 CRORES ON THE CONDITION THAT THE ASSE SSEE SHALL FORE-GO THE CLAIM OF RS.2 66 800/- AND HENCE IT WAS CL AIMED AS BAD DEBT. IN OTHER TWO CASE I.E. STERLITE INDUSTRIES RS.1. 85 LACS AND HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED RS.1.34 LACS THE PARTIES HAVE RE FUSED TO PAY ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 8 THE ABOVE AMOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VIEW THE HIGH COST OF LITIGATION TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS BAD DEBTS. HE F URTHER SUBMITS THAT IT WAS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS DECISION THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD D EBTS OF RS.7 60 800/-. HE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.7 60 800/- BE DELETED. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE DISPUTED AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS RS.7 60 800/- MENTIONED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3.14 OF HIS ORDE R ARE AS UNDER:- I) THAT IN CASE OF TATA CONSULTANCY LTD. AMOUNTIN G RS.1.75 LACS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD COMMENCED TH E JOBS AND BILLED THE CLIENT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL T IME SPENT BY ITS ENGINEERS WHEREAS AS PER RE-NEGOTIATED TERMS FOR THE JOBS DONE THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS TO BE PAID FOR ON A LUMP SUM BASIS. THE CLIENT REFUSED TO PAY BACK THE EARLIER BILLED AMOUNTS ON ACTUAL TIME SPENT BASIS. THIS TURNED TO BE BAD. II) IN THE CASE OF TISCO AMOUNTING TO RS.2 66 800/- IT WAS STATED THAT TISCO GAVE NEW JOBS TO THE APPEL LANT COMPANY FOR RS.9.50 CRORES ON THE CONDITION THAT TH E APPELLANT WILL FORGO THE CLAIM FOR RS.2 66 800/- OUTSTANDING AGAINST THEM. THUS THIS AMOUNT TURNED TO BE BAD. III) STERLITE INDUSTRIES JUST REFUSED TO PAY RS.1.85 LA CS AND CHOSE NOT TO REPLY TO THE APPELLANTS LETTERS. IV) HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. REFUSED TO PAY RS.1.34 LACS IN RESPECT OF THE DEPUTED DESIGN ENGINEER ON THE GR OUND THAT THIS EXPENDITURE HAD TO BE BORNE BY THE APPELL ANT. THUS THIS ALSO TURNED BAD. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS IN ITS BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. THE ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 9 AO DISALLOWED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS RS.53 53 0 78/- ON THE GROUND THAT EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN LAW THE PR IMARY CONDITION STILL REMAINS THAT IT SHOULD BE BAD DEBT AND NOT ANY DEBT. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.7 60 800/- OUT OF RS.53 53 078/- OBSERVED THAT THE BAD DEBTS PERTAINING TO TISCO RS.2 66 800/- AND TCS RS.1.75 LACS THE SAME ARE ON ACCOUNT OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE TWO GRO UP CONCERNS AND NOT A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN DECISION AND WITH REGARD T O THE BAD DEBTS OF RS.1.85 LACS OF STERLITE INDUSTRIES AND RS.1.34 L ACS OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT HAVING ANY STRONG REASONS AND EFFORT HAS TREATED THE SAME AS BAD DEBT AND HENCE NOT ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN VALID REASONS FOR TREATING THE ABOVE AM OUNT AS BAD DEBTS. IT WAS THE ASSESSEE'S COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS DECISION BA SED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVEN UE THAT THE COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS DECISION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR WAS FOUND TO BE BOGUS OR UNTRUE. 9. S.A. BUILDERS VS. CIT AND ANOTHER(2007) 288 ITR 1(SC) IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS (AT PLACITUM 35 APPEAR ING AT PAGE-9 OF THE ITR ) : ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 10 ....THAT ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS N EXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSI NESS (WHICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF) THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CL AIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARM-CHAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME THE R OLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING RE GARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. NO BUSINESSMAN C AN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE HIS PROFIT. THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES MUST PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SEE HOW A PRUDENT BUSINESS MAN WOULD A CT. THE AUTHORITIES MUST NOT LOOK AT THE MATTER FROM TH EIR OWN VIEW POINT BUT THAT OF A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN... .. 10. IN TRF LIMITED VS. CIT SINCE REPORTED IN (2010) 23 0 CTR (SC) 14 (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED AND HELD BY THEIR LORDSHI PS ( PARA-4 AT PAGE-15 OF CTR) :- THIS POSITION IN LAW IS WELL SETTLED. AFTER 1 ST APRIL 1989 IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT IN FACT HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENO UGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF THE RELEVANT BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.7 60 800/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY DEBITING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND REDUCING THE EQUIVALENT AMOUNT FROM THE CORRESPONDING DEBTORS THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS FULF ILLED ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND HENCE THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE BONAFIDE OF THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT THE ITA NO.3778/MUM/09 A.Y:05-06 11 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DULY ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF A SUM OF RS.7 60 800/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS AND HENCE THE L D. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS RS.7 60 800/-. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE ALLOWE D. 12. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.4.2010. SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 30.4.2010. 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. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 21.4.10 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 21.4.10 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 30.4.10 SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.4.10 SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER