LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT CC-I, MUMBAI

ITA 492/MUM/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 49219914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACL0829R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 492/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT CC-I, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 20-01-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.492 TO 495/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2005-06) M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 225-227 J. DADAJI ROAD TARDEO MUMBAI -400 034 ....... APPELLANT VS DCIT CC 1 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI -400 020 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AAACL 0829 R APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY: NONE O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR JM THIS BATCH OF FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSE E CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A) -36 MUMBAI D ATED 9.12.2009 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S.271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.YS. 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 AND 2005-06. A S THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN ALL THESE APPEALS HE NCE THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. THE SOLITARY IS SUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE L D. CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S.27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS WHICH REVEALED FROM THE RECORDS ARE AS UNDER. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AG AINST THE ASSESSEE U/S.132 OF THE ACT ON 12.9.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRAP IN ITA 492 TO 495/MUM/2010 M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 2 THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A.O. ISSUED THE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.153A AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.153A THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCO ME DECLARING THE LOSS AS UNDER:- AMT. IN RUPEES SR. NO. A.YS. DT. OF RETURN U/S.153A INCOME/LOSS DECLARED IN THE RETURN U/S.153A LOSS/INCOME DECLARED IN THE ASSESSMENT STATEMENT 1 2002-03 14.09.2007 -7 79 84 630 -7 79 84 630 2 2003-04 14.09.2007 -6 39 19 031 -6 39 19 031 3 2004-05 14.09.2007 -42 87 787 -42 87 787 4 2005-06 14.09.2007 -2 96 22 831 -2 96 22 831 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH THE ASSESSEE OF FERED THE FOLLOWING INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF SCRAP AS UNDER:- AMT. IN RUPEES A.YS. 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 AMT IN RUPEES 5 41 732 50 130 1 30 99 890 9 20 324 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY TH E A.O. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR AS THE ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT ADMITTEDLY THE IN COME WAS DISCLOSED ON THE BASIS OF SOME NOTINGS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. HE ARGUED THAT NO MONEY BULLION JEWELLER Y OR ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR ASSET WAS NOT FOUND HENCE EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 20 04-05 AND 2005- 06 NO REGULAR RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE FIRST TIME THE RETURNS WERE FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.15 3A ONLY DECLARING THE LOSS. SO FAR AS A.Y. 2002-03 IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.12.2004 WHICH WAS BEYON D THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED U/S.139(4) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE RETURN FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 WAS NON EST RETURN. ITA 492 TO 495/MUM/2010 M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 3 5.1 THE LD. COUNSEL TOOK US THROUGH EXPLANATION 3 T O SECTION 271(1)(C) AND SUBMITS THAT AS THE ASSESSEE FILED TH E RETURN OF INCOME FOR ALL THESE FOUR YEARS AND FOR THE FIRST TIME NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED BY INVOKING EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUES THAT THE LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY TH E A.O. WITHOUT A SINGLE RUPEE VARIATION IN ALL THE YEARS AND SAID LO SS CANNOT BE CARRIED FORWARD OR SET OFF IN FUTURE IN VIEW OF THE PAYMENT IMPOSED U/S.80 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITS THAT AS THERE WAS NO ADDITION OR REDUCTION IN THE LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE NO PENALTY CAN BE LEV IED. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON SOME DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SE ARCH AND THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A MONEY BULLION JEW ELLERY OR ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED IN EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE F OLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) SOUTH INDIAN FINANCE VS. ITO - 39 ITD 370 (COCH) II) T. KODEESWARAN L/H OF LATE A. THANGAM VS. ITO - 123 TTJ (CHENNAI) 230 III) CIT CENT. II VS. M/S. GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. - ITA 675 OF 2008 DT.10.02.2009 IV) SHRI AMIT N. SHAH VS. DY. CIT - ITA 908/MUM/2009 DT. 24.11.2010 6. PER CONTRA THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE FACTS ARE IN VERY NARROW COMPASS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. DURING THE COURSE OF THE S EARCH SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS NOTED ABOVE. THERE IS NO DI SPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT NO MONEY JEWELLERY GOLD OR ANY VALUABLE ARTICLE OR ASSET WAS ITA 492 TO 495/MUM/2010 M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 4 FOUND. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 14.9.200 7 AND AS NOTED ABOVE THE LOSS WAS DECLARED. WE FIND THAT IN THE A SSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE LOSS DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION OF RUPEE ONE. 7.1 THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURNS IN RESPECT OF THESE FOUR ASSE SSMENT YEARS AND IF THE RETURN FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 WAS FILED NON EST HENCE EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT APPLICABL E. EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) READS AS UNDER:- EXPLANATION 3.WHERE ANY PERSON FAILS WITHOUT REA SONABLE CAUSE TO FURNISH WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153 A RETURN OF HIS INCOME WHICH HE IS REQU IRED TO FURNISH UNDER SECTION 139 IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 1989 AND UNTIL T HE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID NO NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO HIM UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS SATISFIED THAT IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR SUCH PERSON HAS TAXABLE INCOME THEN SUCH PERSON SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THI S SUB-SECTION BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INC OME IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH PERSON FURNISHES A RETURN OF HIS INCOME AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148. 8. ADMITTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE IN ALL THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS THE A.O. HAS FINALLY DETERMINED THE LOSS AND ASSESSEE F ILED THE RETURNS FOR THE FIRST TIME. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2002-03 THAT WAS BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PERMISS IBLE U/S.139(4) WHICH IS IN THE NORMAL PARLANCE CALLED BELATED RET URN AS THE SAID RETURN WAS NOT FILED WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT. IT IS AS GOOD AS NON- ITA 492 TO 495/MUM/2010 M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 5 FILING OF THE RETURN. THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO TAXABLE INCOME AND HENCE THERE WAS NO STATUTORY APPLICATION TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NEVER ISSUED ANY NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE (I) TO SE CTION 142(1) OR SECTION 148. NOW WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE APPLICABI LITY OF EXPLANATION 5 BELOW SECTION 271(1)(C). EXPLANATION 5 READS AS UNDER:- EXPLANATION 5.WHERE IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH INI TIATED UNDER SECTION 132 BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2007 THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY BUL LION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING (HEREA FTER IN THIS EXPLANATION REFERRED TO AS ASSETS) AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILISING (WHOLLY OR IN PART) HIS INCOME (A) FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE T HE DATE OF THE SEARCH BUT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH YEAR HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE OR WHERE SUCH RETUR N HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED THEREIN ; OR (B) FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS TO END ON OR AF TER THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS D ECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER T HE DATE OF THE SEARCH HE SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME UNLESS (1) SUCH INCOME IS OR THE TRANSACTIONS RESULTING IN SUCH INCOME ARE RECORDED (I) IN A CASE FALLING UNDER CLAUSE (A) BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH ; AND (II) IN A CASE FALLING UNDER CLAUSE (B) ON OR BEF ORE SUCH DATE ITA 492 TO 495/MUM/2010 M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 6 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IF ANY MAINTAINED BY HI M FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME OR SUCH INCOME IS OTHERWISE DISCLO SED TO THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] BEFORE THE SAID DATE ; OR (2) HE IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH MAKES A STATE MENT UNDER SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132 THAT ANY MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING FOUND IN HIS POSSES SION OR UNDER HIS CONTROL HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OUT OF HIS INCOME WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED SO FAR IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME TO B E FURNISHED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 AND ALSO SPECIFIES IN THE STATEMENT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND PAYS THE TAX TOGE THER WITH INTEREST IF ANY IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME. 9. THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE EXPLANATION 5 WILL BE APPLICABLE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ITAT COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF SOUTH INDIAN FINANCE (SUPRA) AS THE IDENTICAL VIEW HAS BEEN TAKE N BY THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF T. KODEESWARAN L/H OF LATE A. THANGAM VS. ITO (SUPRA):- 20. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MAIN ITEM OF ADDITION OF ` 15 15 284 REPRESENTING INCOME FROM ARRACK SHOPS W AS WORKED OUT BY THE A.O ON THE BASIS OF PURE ESTIMATI ON. THE INCOME FROM OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WAS ALSO ESTI MATED IN A SIMILAR MANNER. 20.1 ONE CAN SEE FROM A PLAIN READING OF EXPLN. 5 T HAT IT IS APPLICABLE TO A SITUATION WHERE IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER S. 132 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO B E THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VAL UABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ASSETS HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILISING WHOLLY OR IN PART HIS INCOME FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH HAD ALREADY ENDE D ITA 492 TO 495/MUM/2010 M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 7 BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH OR WHICH IS TO END ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. 20.2 MANIFESTLY THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS TO WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLN. 5 HAVE BEEN APPLIED BY THE CIT (A0 DO NO T REPRESENT MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUAB LE ARTICLE OR THING OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION THE CIT (A) ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIO NS OF EXPLN. 5 TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED INCOME FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. 21. THE EXPLN. 5 ENACTS A DEEMING PROVISION HAVING APPLICATION TO A PARTICULAR SITUATION. A DEEMING PROVISION IS A LEGAL FICTION WHICH ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF A FACT WHICH DOES NOT REALLY EXIST. A DEEMING PROVISION MAY BE INTEN DED TO ENLARGE THE MEANING OF A PARTICULAR WORD OR TO INCL UDE MATTERS WHICH OTHERWISE MAY OR MAY NOT FALL WITHIN THE MAIN PROVISION. IN CONSTRUING A LEGAL FICTION IT I S NECESSARY TO ASSUME ALL THOSE FACTS ON WHICH ALONE THE FICTIO N CAN OPERATE. BUT IT CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED OR BEYOND THE LANGUAGE OF THE S ECTION BY WHICH IT IS CREATED. IT CANNOT BE EXTENDED BY IMPO RTING ANOTHER FICTION. 21.1 A LEGAL FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED FURTHER BY SO INTERPRETING IT AS TO GO BEYOND THE LEGISLATURES I NTENTION IN CREATING THE FICTION. THIS IS BECAUSE LEGAL FICTIO NS ARE CREATED ONLY FOR A DEFINITE PURPOSE AND THEY ARE LI MITED TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE CREATED AND SHOULD N OT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THEIR LEGITIMATE FIELD. A LEGAL FI CTION NO DOUBT HAS TO BE CARRIED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION BUT THAT MUST BE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHI CH IT IS ITA 492 TO 495/MUM/2010 M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 8 CREATED. A LEGAL FICTION HAS TO BE CARRIED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION AND NOT TO AN ILLOGICAL LENGTH. ONE SHO ULD NOT ALLOW ONESELF TO BE SO CARRIED AWAY BY A LEGAL FICT ION AS TO IGNORE THE WORDS OF THE VERY SECTION WHICH INTRODUC ES IT OR ITS CONTENT OR SETTING IN THE STATUTE WHICH CONTAIN S THAT SECTION. ALSO ONE SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH THE LEGAL FICTION WAS INTRODUCED. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER THE FACTS ON RECORD EXCEPT SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOTHING WAS FOUND. IN OUR HUM BLE OPINION THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF SOUTH INDIAN FI NANCE (SUPRA) AS WELL AS T. KODEESWARAN L/H OF LATE A. THANGAM (SUPR A) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AND HENCE EXPLANA TION 5 CANNOT BE APPLIED. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PLACED HI S RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD (TM) IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. KIRIT DAYABHAI PATEL 121 ITD 159 (AHD)(TM). IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAYABHAI PATEL (SUPRA) THE IMMUNITY WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE BY TAKING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE ADDITIONA L INCOME U/S.131(4) IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCH AND ALSO PAID THE TAXES AND INTEREST THERE ON AND OFFERED THE SAID INCOME FOR T AXATION IN THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S.153A AND SINCE THE RETUR NS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S.15 3A THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR THE IMMUNITY IN VIEW OF THE EXPLAN ATION 5(2) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. EVEN IN REFERENCE MA DE TO THE THIRD MEMBER THE ISSUE OF THE APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATI ON 5 WHEN NO MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE FOUND WHETHER IN THAT SITUATION ALSO EXPLANATION 5 CAN BE APPLIED WAS NOT THE ISSUE. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION WE UNDERSTAND TH E DECISION IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAYABHAI PATEL (SUPRA) IS ON THE INTE RPRETATION OF CLAUSE (2) TO EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T AND HENCE THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS MISPLACED. ITA 492 TO 495/MUM/2010 M/S. LALLUBHAI AMICHAND LIMITED 9 11. ADMITTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A.O. FINAL LY ASSESSED THE LOSS ACCEPTING AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENC E THE FICTION CREATED BY EXPLANATION 4 (AS AMENDED) IS ALSO NOT A PPLICABLE. 12. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE AS ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO T AX LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS. WE THEREFORE CAN CEL ALL THE PENALTY ORDERS IN ALL THE APPEALS AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF .. JULY 2011. ( J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATE : . JULY 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)39 MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-CENTRAL-II MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. A BENCH MUMBAI. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI *CHAVAN SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 19.07.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20.07.2011 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/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER