THE ITO 17(2)(2), MUMBAI v. SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL, MUMBAI

ITA 4580/MUM/2007 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 458019914 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN ABSPR2169N
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4580/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant THE ITO 17(2)(2), MUMBAI
Respondent SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 06-01-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 21-12-2009
Next Hearing Date 21-12-2009
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 18-06-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P M JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R S PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO 4580/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(2)(2) ROOM NO. 211 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI -400 012 VS SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL PROP KRISHNA AND CO BLOCK NO.2 SAB SWAMI HINDU COLONY DADAR MUMBAI -400 014 PAN: ABSPR 2169 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI N K BALODIA / SMT CHANDRA RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J V CHHABRIA ORDER PER P M JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) XVII MUMBAI DATED 2.4.2007 WHEREBY HE DELETED THE A DDITIONS OF RS 76 14 302/- AND RS 6 78 659/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NEGATIVE WORK-IN-PROGRESS (WIP) AND UNDE R-STATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L WHO IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS AS A BUILDER AND CONTRACTOR UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S KRISHNA AND COMPANY. THE RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 27.10.2004 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 20 08 170/-. IN THE SAID YEAR THE CONSTRUCTION CO NTRACT ASSIGNED BY ONE M/S M K BUILDERS WAS UNDER EXECUTION AND IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME RECEIPTS FROM THE SAID CONTRACT W ERE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS 2 89 81 519/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS PER RUNNING BILL NO.9 RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE TOTAL ITA 4580/M/2007 SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL 2 CONTRACTUAL WORK AMOUNTING TO RS 2 96 60 250/- WAS COMPLETED FOR M/S M K BUILDERS UPTO 31.3.2004 AS AGAINST THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS 2 89 81 519/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT O F THE SAID DIFFERENCE HOWEVER COULD BE OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. THE SAID DIFFERENCE THERE FORE WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATIN G THE SAME AS UNDER-STATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 3. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS WELL AS IN THE BALANCE-SHEET FILED ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME NEGATIVE CLOSING WIP AT RS 76 14 302/- WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE REQUIR ED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE CLOSING WIP WAS SHOWN AS NEGATIVE? IN A RE PLY IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ESTIMATED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS BEING FOLLOWED BY HIM AND EVEN THE ADVANCE RECEIPT AGAINST CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS CREDITED TO THE PROJECT TRADING ACCOUNT. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE VAGUE AND BASELESS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HI M WHEN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPECT OF HIS CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS THERE WAS NO NEED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM THE SAID BUSINESS. HE ALSO FOUND FROM THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M /S M K BUILDERS THAT THERE WAS NO STIPULATION AS REGARDS ANY ADVANCE PAYMENT T O BE GIVEN BY M/S M K BUILDERS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE EXACT F ACTUAL POSITION A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT OF M/S M K BUILDERS ON 27.9.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IT WAS CONFIRMED ON BEHALF OF M/S M K BUILDERS THAT THERE WAS NO ADV ANCE PAID BY THE SAID CONCERN TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RECORD MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID DISCREPANCIES. EVEN AFTER THE SURVEY NEITHER ANY EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY EVIDENCE PRODUC ED BY HIM TO CLARIFY THE DISCREPANCIES NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION WHICH COULD BE O FFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ITA 4580/M/2007 SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL 3 THE NEGATIVE CLOSING WIP SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS WELL AS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND TREATING THE SAME AS A FICTITIOUS LIABI LITY THE AMOUNT THEREOF WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE A SSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 31.10.2006. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S 143(3) AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) CHALLENGING BO TH THE ADDITIONS OF RS 76 14 302/- AND RS 6 78 659/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT (A) IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CONTRACT T AKEN FROM M/S M K BUILDERS WAS COMPLETED BY HIM IN A SPAN OF THREE YEARS FORM 1.4. 2002 TO 31.3.2005 AND THE RECEIPTS OF THE SAID CONTRACT AS WELL AS PROFIT THE REON WERE DECLARED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME ON ESTIMATED BASIS. THE DETAILS OF SUCH CON TRACT RECEIPTS AND PROFITS THEREON IN ALL THE THREE RELEVANT YEARS I.E. PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003- 04 2004-05 AND 2005-06 WERE ALSO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S M K BUILDERS AS WELL AS PROFIT ARISING THE RE FROM WERE DULY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND THERE WAS NO UNDER-STATEMENT OF EITHER THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND THE PROFITS SO AS TO WARRANT ANY ADDITION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE RELEVANT THREE YEARS WAS 12.86% OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF THE SAME B EING MORE THAN 8% AS STIPULATED IN SECTION 44AD NO FURTHER ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS WAS CALLED FOR. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DECLARE THE INCOME FROM CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS TH US WAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ADDITIONS WERE MAD E BY HIM MERELY ON THE BASIS OF IMPROPER PRESENTATION OF ASSESSEES ACCOUNT SHOWING NEGATIVE CLOSING WIP. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOUND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND ACCEPTING SAME HE DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS 76 14 302/- AND RS 6 78 659/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 3.3 AND 4.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER : ITA 4580/M/2007 SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL 4 3.3 THE APPELLANT IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S KRISHNA & CO AND IS A BUILDING CONTRACTOR. THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN ONLY ONE CONTR ACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 41 500 SQ.FT. OF BUILDING FORM M/S M K BUILDERS. T HE PROJECT WAS TO BE EXECUTED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2002 TO 31.3. 05. DURING THE PERIOD THE APPELLANT WAS TO CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING AND HAND IT OVER TO THE CONTRACTEE M/S M K BUILDERS. ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATE T HE APPELLANT WAS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT TO THE EXTENT OF 25% BEFORE 31.3.03 AN OTHER 65% BY 31.3.04 AND THE BALANCE 10% BEFORE 31.3.05. THE ESTIMATED SALE S WAS AT THE RATE OF RS 750 PER SQ FT FOR 41 500 SQ FT AND THE TOTAL ESTIMA TED RECEIPTS WERE RS 3 11 25 000/- AND THE ESTIMATED COST WAS AT THE RAT E OF RS 647/- PER SQ.FT. (TOTAL ESTIMATED COST = 2 68 51 000/-) RESULTING IN AN INCOME OF RS 42.75 LAKHS (ROUNDED OFF). HOWEVER THE ACTUALS DIFFERED AND IN THE FIRST YEAR THOUGH THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS WAS ALMOST ON PAR WITH THE ESTIMATION THE GROSS PROFIT WAS ONLY RS 7 78 000/- FOR THE YEAR ENDING 3 1.03.03. SIMILARLY THE ACTUALS DIFFERED FROM ESTIMATED FIGURES IN THE OTHE R YEARS ALSO. BY 31.3.03 THEY REVISED THE ESTIMATED WORK COMPLETION TO 50% A ND 25% IN THE REMAINING TWO YEARS. EITHER WAY AT THE END FO 31.3.04 THEY W ERE ABLE TO FURNISH THE WORK AS ESTIMATED TO THE EXTENT OF 90% FIRST YEAR IT WAS 25% AND THE NEXT YEAR IT WAS 65%. BASED ON THIS THEY HAD WORKED OU T AND RAISED THE BILL DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2003-04 TO THE EXTENT OF RS 290 LAKHS. THE EXACT AMOUNT BEING RS 2 89 81 591/-. HOWEVER ACCORDING TO THE BILLS RAISED ON 31.3.04 THEY HAD MENTIONED THAT 95% OF THE WORK WAS COMPLETED AMOUNTING TO RS 2 96 60 250/- BEING 95% OF RS 3 11 25 000/-. CONSIDERING THE AMOUNTS OFFERED IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OFFE RED BY THEM DURING 31.3.03 AND 31.3.04 WORKED OUT TO RS 3 13 00 491/- (23 18 9 00 + 2 89 81 591) ON THE RECEIPT BASIS THOUGH THEY HAD RAISED BILL FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS 298 LAKHS STATING THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED ONLY RS 2 77 6 3 125/- TILL THEN. ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNTS SHOWN BY THEM INCLUDING PROFITS THE SAME WAS RS 3 13 00 491/-. FROM THE ABOVE IT WAS CLEAR THAT T HROUGH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THEM IN SHOWING NEGATIVE WOR K IN PROGRESS WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THEM IN ALL THE THREE YEARS PUT TOGETHER WAS RS 3 39 36 391/- AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATED RECEI PTS OF RS 3 11 25 000/-. COMING TO THE PROFITS SHOWN BY THEM THEY HAD SHOWN PROFITS OF RS 43 65 451/- (EXCLUDING INTEREST OF RS 11 04 092/-) ON TOTAL REC EIPTS OF RS 3 39 35 291/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO 12.86% WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN IN THE TRADE. ONLY THERE WAS A LITTLE CONFUS ION IN THEIR PRESENTATION OF ACCOUNTS AND THE AO SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT BETTE R BEFORE MAKING HEFTY ADDITION OF RS 76 14 302/-. APPARENTLY IF SUCH A PROFIT IS ASSUMED AS ESTIMATED BY AO OVER ALL GROSS PROFIT IN THE CONTR ACT WORKS OUT TO MUCH HIGHER THAN 40% WHICH IS VERY HIGH AND UNREASONABLE AND CA NNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT DURING THREE YEAR PERIOD OF THE PROJECT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS 43 65 45 1/- (EXCLUDING INTEREST OF RS 11 04 092/-) ON TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS 3 39 35 291/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS 12.86% AND DURING THE AY 2004-05 ITSELF THEY HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS 30 69 000/- ON TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS 2 89 81 591/ - WHICH IS ABOUT 10.6% THERE WAS NO REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION UNDER T HIS HEAD UNDER WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. ADDITION OF RS 76 14 302/- IS DELETED. ITA 4580/M/2007 SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL 5 4.3 THE TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS OF THE PROJECT WAS RS 3 11 25 000/- TO BE RECEIVED OVER A PERIOD OF THREE FINANCIAL YEARS 200 2-03 2003-04 AND 2004-05. AS AGAINST THE SAME THEY HAD RECEIVED RS 3 39 35 29 1/-. BEFORE MAKING THE FINAL BILL BASED ON THE ESTIMATION ITSELF STATING THAT THEY HAD COMPLETED 95% OF THE WORK THEY HAD RAISED BILL FOR 95% OF RS 3 11 25 000/- AMOUNTING TO RS 2 96 60 250/-. THIS WAS ONLY ON APPROXIMATION BASI S. BUT ACTUAL AMOUNT ACCOUNTED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE THREE YEARS ARE AS UNDER: YEAR ENDING ACTUAL AMOUNT ACCOUNTED 31.03.03 23 18 900/- 31.03.04 2 89 81 591/- 31.03.05 26 34 800/- FROM THE ABOVE IT CAN E SENT HAT AS AGAINST THE AO S CONCLUSION THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE ACCOUNTED RS 2 96 60 250/- AS ON 31.3.0 4 SINCE THEY HAD ALREADY SHOWN RS 3 13 00 491/- (23 18 900 + 2 89 591) FOR T WO YEARS 31.03.03 AND 31.03.04 THERE WAS NO REASON TO INFER THAT THEY HA D SHORT ACCOUNTED THEIR RECEIPTS. HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS 6 78 659/- IS DE LETED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) DELETI NG BOTH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED TH IS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A DIFFEREN CE WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS 6 78 659/- IN THE CONT RACT RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE OF CONTRACT WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE RUNNING BILL RAISED ON M/S M K BUILDERS. THE ASSES SEE HOWEVER COULD NOT EXPLAIN THIS DIFFERENCE SATISFACTORILY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HA VING BEEN AFFORDED TO HIM. SIMILARLY NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION COULD BE OFF ERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CLOSING WIP WHICH WAS SHOWN AS NEGATIVE IN THE BALA NCE-SHEET. THE ATTEMPT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SOMEHOW EXPLAIN THE SAID NEGATIV E CLOSING WIP BY STATING THAT ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM M/S M K BUILDERS AGAINST CONT RACT WAS DIRECTLY CREDITED TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT WAS ALSO PROVED TO BE UNSUCCESSFUL WHEN IT WAS DULY ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH ADVANC E ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA 4580/M/2007 SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL 6 8. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CERTAIN ANOMALIES A ND DISCREPANCIES WERE ALSO NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT AND OTHER RECORD MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HIS CONSTRUCTION BUSI NESS AND NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLARIFY T HE SAID ANOMALIES AND DISCREPANCIES WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT NO PR OPER AND RELIABLE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT A LL THESE GLARING AND PATENT DEFECTS AND DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HOWEVER WERE CLEARLY OVERLOOKED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE DELETED BY HIM RELYING ENTIRELY ON THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE FIGURES OF RECEIPTS AND PROFIT THEREON DECLARED DUR ING THE RELEVANT THREE YEARS I.E. 2003-04 2004-05 AND 2005-06. THESE FACTS AND FIGU RES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID THREE YEARS FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM WERE RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CASE WITHOUT EVEN GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. HE NEITHER C ALLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXP LAIN DISCREPANCIES SPECIFICALLY POINTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT AND OTHER RECORD MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. HE ALSO ACCEP TED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND PROFIT THEREON WERE DECLARED BY HIM ON ESTIMATED BASIS. 9. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US WHEN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF HIS CON STRUCTION BUSINESS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE ALSO G OT AUDITED THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DECLARING THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND PRO FIT THEREON BY THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. THE LEARNED CIT (A) MERELY TOOK N OTE OF THE FACT THAT THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE OF CONSTRUCTION BUS INESS FOR THE RELEVANT THREE YEARS WAS REASONABLE AND DELETED THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SPECIFIC ISSUES WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND FIGURES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM OR WITHOUT CALLING FOR ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC DEFECTS AND DEFICIENCIES POINTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RECORD MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. HA VING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A ) ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS ITA 4580/M/2007 SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL 7 APPEAL AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAID ISSUES AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS AND FIGURES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN AND CLARIFY THE DEFECTS AND DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORIGINAL LY COMPLETED. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 6 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (R S PADVEKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (P M JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATE: 6 TH JANUARY 2010 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) - XVII MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY-17 MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. C BENCH ITAT MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR CHAVAN* I.T.A.T. MUMBAI ITA 4580/M/2007 SHRI PANKAJ RUPAREL 8 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 22.12.09 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 23.12.09/ 5.01.10 SR.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 SR.PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER