DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI v. EPCOT SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 395/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 39519914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACE9168A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 395/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI
Respondent EPCOT SECURITIES P. LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 18-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 19-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-01-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 19-01-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP AM AND SHRI N.V. VASUDEV AN JM I.T.A.NO. 395/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX-1(1) ROOM NO. 579 AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 020. VS. M/S. EPCOT SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 609 MAKER CHAMBER 221 NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN: AAACE 9168 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. SONGATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHENDER SINGH DAGAR O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP AM : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I MUMBAI DAT ED 10.10.2008 AND THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS PROJECTED IN THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS RAISED THEREIN : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKER AGE AND COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.3 65 408/- MADE BY THE A. O. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROFES SIONAL FEES EXPENSES OF RS.8 90 000/- MADE BY THE A.O. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8 0 0 000/-TOWARDS LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF AUCTION BIDDING MADE BY THE A.O. AS NOT HAVING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOS E. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO T HE EXTENT OF 3% OF DIVIDEND INCOME I.E. RS. 4 47 000/- U/S.14A OF THE ACT HOLDING ITA NO.395/M/2009 M/S. EPCOT SECURITIES PVT.LTD. 2 THAT 3% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME IS DISALLOWABLE U.S. 14A OF THE ACT WHICH IS WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE BASIS. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1 IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AND TRADING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCO UNT OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EXPENSES PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION AMOUNTING TO RS.36 54 081/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID EXPENSES WERE F OUND TO BE IN-COMPLETE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DE TAILS OF THE SAID EXPENSES HE MADE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3 65 408/- BEING 10% OF THE TOTAL BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EXPENSE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEF ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DE TAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE FULLY FURNISHED BY IT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO EXPLAINED IN ORDE R TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENTS OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT T HAT THERE WAS NOTING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE SAID EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE INFLATED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY M ENTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER ABOUT THE EXACT NATURE OF DETA ILS AND EVIDENCES CALLED FOR BY HIM WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE LEARN ED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O UT OF COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED BEING WITHOUT AN Y BASIS. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING ITA NO.395/M/2009 M/S. EPCOT SECURITIES PVT.LTD. 3 THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OUT OF COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THERE WAS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSE E ON PAYMENT OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. AS A MATTER OF FACT EVEN THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT DISPUTE THIS POSITION AND ALLOWED 90% OF THE BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HOWEVER DISALLOWED THE BALANC E 10% OF THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT COMPLETE DETAILS THEREOF WERE NOT FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW AS TO WHAT DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS WERE EXACTLY CALLED FOR BY HIM WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH. THERE IS ALSO NOTHING BROUGHT ON BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE WERE EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE. THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES THUS WAS NOT SUST AINABLE AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 5. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.91.01 500/ - TO ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AS AGAINST RS. 29 28 313/- CLAIMED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. IN ORDER TO SUPPORT AN D SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR THE SAID EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FURNISHED THE R ELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT OF RS.7 50 000/- PAID TO M/S. STOCK CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD. HOWEVER WERE NOT FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF OTHER P AYMENT OF RS. 1 40 000/- WAS ITA NO.395/M/2009 M/S. EPCOT SECURITIES PVT.LTD. 4 ALSO NOT FILED. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE EXPE NSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PROFESSIONAL FEES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 8 90 000/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT PR OPER CASE WAS NOT MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO JUSTIFY THE SAME. HE NOTE D FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION AS TO W HAT EVIDENCE WAS NEEDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM FOR THE RELEVANT PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES. HE FOUND THAT COMPLE TE DETAILS OF THE SAID PAYMENTS ALONG WITH INVOICE AND RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE CONCE RNED PARTIES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY POINTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SAID DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS HE DELET ED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES HOLDING THAT THE SAME WAS NOT WELL FOUNDED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 8 90 000/- WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH INVOICES AND R ECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED PAYEES AS FOUND BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FRO M THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORDS. AS FURTHER FOUND BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TH ERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY WHATSOEVER WHICH WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SAID DETAILS AND EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS C LAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS.8 900 000/- PAID TO TWO PARTIES. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RE BUT/CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THIS BE ING SO WE FIND NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF P ROFESSIONAL FEES HOLDING THAT THE SAME WAS NOT WELL FOUNDED. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.395/M/2009 M/S. EPCOT SECURITIES PVT.LTD. 5 7. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3 IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS. 8 00 000/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF LOSS ON AUCTION BIDDING. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLAIM IT WAS SUBMITTED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT WAS PLANNING TO DO PROPER TY RELATED BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY BIDED FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN A UCTION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID BIDDING AMOUNT HOWEVER WAS FORFEITED AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INCURRED A LOSS OF RS. 8 00 000/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS BUSINESS LOSS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SAID LOSS CLAIMED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER WAS NOT RELATED TO ITS BUSINESS OF INVESTM ENT IN TRADING AND SECURITIES AND THE SAME THEREFORE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUC TION. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE AUCTION OF PREMISES IT HAD PAID EARNEST MONEY OF R S. 10 00 000/- TO THE CUSTODIAN OF THE SPECIAL COURT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HOWEVER COULD NOT BECOME THE HIGHEST BIDDER FOR THE PROPERTY AND COUL D RECOVER ONLY A SUM OF RS. 2 LAKHS OUT OF RS. 10 LAKHS PAID AS EARNEST MONEY RE SULTING IN A LOSS OF RS. 8 00 000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LOSS SU FFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS THUS WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS BUSINESS LOSS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSEE AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR LOSS OF RS. 8 LAKHS OBSERVING T HAT THERE WAS NO REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE SAME LOSS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OF MAKING INVESTMENT AND TRADING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. THE LOSS CLAIMED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AUCTIO N BIDDING WAS RELATED TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND ALTHOUGH IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PLANNING TO DO PROPERTY RELATED BUSINESS NEITHER T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE ITA NO.395/M/2009 M/S. EPCOT SECURITIES PVT.LTD. 6 LEARNED CIT(A)HAS GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THIS ASPECT WHICH IS RELEVANT. INCIDENTALLY THE SAID LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT RELATED TO THE BUS INESS OF THE ASSESSEE OF MAKING INVESTMENT AND TRADING IN SHARES AND SECURIT IES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION THEREFORE WAS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AUCTION BIDDING. IN OUR OPINION IT IS PERTINENT TO ASCERTA IN AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN HE PROPERTY RELATED BUSINESS SO AS TO CONSIDER THE ALLOWABILITY OF ITS CLAIM FOR LOSS ON AUCTION BIDDING AND SINCE NEI THER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GONE INTO THIS ASPECT WE RESTOR E THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTE R VERIFYING THIS RELEVANT ASPECT. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED. 9. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 4 RELA TING TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A IT IS OBSERVED THAT DIVIDEND INC OME OF RS. 1 48 96 982/- EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT U/S.10(33). ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF THE SAID EXEMPT INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.14A. HE THEREFORE WOR KED OUT THE QUANTUM OF SUCH EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EARNING OF DIVIDEND IN COME ON PRO RATA BASIS AT RS. 45 93 047/- AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THE EXPENSE S INCURRED BY IT WERE MAINLY ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN I NCURRED FOR THE DAY-TODAY ACTIVITIES OF THE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE SAID EXPENSES AND EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. 10. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE LEARNED CIT(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARAGRAPH 7.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: ITA NO.395/M/2009 M/S. EPCOT SECURITIES PVT.LTD. 7 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED A.R. IT IS A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHIC H AS EARNED THE DIVIDEND INCOME. INVEST DECISIONS ARE VERY COMPLEX AND IT REQUIRES ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGERIAL EXPERTISE TO PURCHASE MAINTAIN AND DISPOSE OFF SUCH INVESTMENTS. IN VIEW OF THIS SAME AMOUNT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGERIAL EXPENSES ARE DEFINITE LY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EXEMPTED DIVIDEND INCOME. HOWEVER THE A.O. IS NOT CORRECT IN THE METHOD APPLIED BY HIM TO WORK OUT THE EXPENDITU RE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.14A. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF A LL FACTS IT WILL BE REASONABLE DISALLOW 3% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 4 47 000/- AS ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING OF SUCH INCOME. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4 4 7 000/- IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT WOULD GET RELIEF OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THUS SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14A TO THE EXTENT O F RS. 4 47 000/- BEING 3% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME TREATING THE SAME TO BE REASONA BLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT I N ITS RECENT JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. ( IT APPEAL NO. 626 OF 2010 DATED 12.8.2010) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962 IS APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIV ELY THAT IS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14 A FOR THE YEARS EARLIER TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY ADO PTING SOME REASONABLE METHOD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THIS REGARD THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS TO SHOW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY HIM TO THE EXTENT OF 3% OF THE DIVIDEN D INCOME IS REASONABLE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISS UE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO DEC IDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA). 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RE GARD HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON A CCOUNT OF INTEREST AND SINCE ITA NO.395/M/2009 M/S. EPCOT SECURITIES PVT.LTD. 8 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS OF ITS OW N TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WHICH FETCHED THE DIVIDEND INCOME INTEREST EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE QUANTIFYING THE DISALLOWAN CE TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THIS CLAIM OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALLOW APPROPRIATE RELIEF IF ANY AFTER VERIFYING THE RELEVANT ASPECTS. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS A CCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TRE ATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011. SD. SD. (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE 18 TH MARCH 2011. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DCIT-1(1) MUMBAI 3. THE CIT-I MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-I MUMBAI 5. THE DR E BENCH MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI