M/s. WARRIOR INVESTMENT LTD., MUMBAI v. I.T.O. Wd. 1(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4991/MUM/2004 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 499119914 RSA 2004
Assessee PAN AAACW0347B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4991/MUM/2004
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant M/s. WARRIOR INVESTMENT LTD., MUMBAI
Respondent I.T.O. Wd. 1(3)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 22-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 28-09-2010
Next Hearing Date 28-09-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 17-06-2004
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) AND SHRI B. RAMAKO TAIAH (AM) ITA NO.4991/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 ITA NO.1889/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 WARRIOR (INVESTMENT) LIMITED GROUND FLOOR FORBES BUILDING CHARANJIT RAI MARG FORT MUMBAI-400 001. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AAACW 0347 B) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3)(4) MUMBAI. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : MS. CHARUL TOPRANI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S HRAVAN KUMAR O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THESE TWO APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 17.2.2004 AND 3.2.2006 PAS SED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVE LY. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND GROUNDS ARE COMMON BOTH THESE APPEAL S ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004-05 MAY BE HEARD PRIOR TO THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01-02 WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. DR . ITA NO.1889 & 4991/M/06 & 04 A.Y:04-05 & 01-02 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE AS EXTRACTED FR OM ITA NO.1889/MUM/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT F ILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.31 49 630/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS INTERALIA OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS S HOWN INCOME OF RS.59 59 372/- (GROSS) WHICH INCLUDES DIVIDEND INCO ME OF RS.19 72 457/- AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS TOTALLY EXEMPT U/S .10(33) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(THE ACT) WITHOUT DEDUCTING EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS REQUIRED AS TO WHY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED. IN RESPONSE IT WAS INTERALIA SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS ARE RS.3 24 03 704/- AS AGAINST THIS THE TOTAL SHARE CAPITAL AND FREE RESERVES AMOUNT TO RS. 8 21 44 128/-. THEREFORE THIS IS A CLEAR CASE WHERE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MA DE ENTIRELY OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IT WAS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT ALL THE EXPENSES ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HAVE BEEN INCURRED AS A F IXED OVERHEAD EXPENSES WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WH ETHER THERE IS ANY INVESTMENT IN SHARES OR WHETHER THERE IS ANY DIVIDE ND INCOME OR NOT AND HENCE NO PORTION OF SUCH EXPENSES CAN BE REGARDED T O HAVE ANY NEXUS OR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWING ANY PORTION THEREOF AS EXPENSES IN RELATION TO DIVI DEND INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A HENCE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER F URTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME OF RS.34 90 293/- DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.19 72 457/- AND HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITUR E OF RS.4 64 501/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPORTION OF DI VIDEND INCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME COMES TO 35.44% . APPLYING THE SAME RATIO H E TREATED THE EXPENSES OF RS.1 64 620/- (35.44% OF RS.464501) AS ATTRIBUTA BLE TOWARDS EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.19 72 457/- AND ACCORDINGLY H E ADDED RS.1 64 620/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THI S THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.1889 & 4991/M/06 & 04 A.Y:04-05 & 01-02 3 WITHOUT ANY REASON OR FINDING RECORDED IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER HAS TREATED THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. NIL AND ASSESSED THE SAME INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AFTER ADDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 64 620/- MADE UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.36 54 910/- VID E ORDER DATED 25.10.2005 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS PURSUANT TO THE OBJECTS STATED IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND HAS ALSO BEEN RECOGNI ZED AND REGISTERED AS SUCH I.E. AS A NBFC BY THE RBI BY ITS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 15.9.1998. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER STATED THAT THE EXP ENDITURE DEBITED BY THE COMPANY IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT INCLUDES PAYMENT TO AND FOR PROVISION FOR EMPLOYEES [RS.3.90 LACS] WHICH IS ENTIRELY IN RESPE CT OF THE COMPANY SECRETARY EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY AS IS STATUTORILY REQUIRED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956; AUDITORS REMUNERATION [RS.12 2 25/-] WHICH IS A NECESSITY SINCE THE CORPORATE ENTITY HAS TO HAVE IT S ACCOUNTS AUDITED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AS WELL AS THE INCOME-TAX A CT 1961; PROFESSIONAL TAX [RS.2 500/-] WHICH IS THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA TAX ON PROFESSION ETC. AND HENCE HAS NO RELATION TO ANY SOURCE OF INCOME; DIRECTORS FEES [RS.30 000/-] WHICH IS RE QUIRED FOR CONDUCTING DIRECTORS MEETING AT LEAST ONCE IN A QUARTER UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES [RS .26 557/-] WHICH ARE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF THE COMPANY . I T WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO P & L ACCOUNT IS NO T RELATED TO ANY PARTICULAR SOURCE OF INCOME WHETHER EXEMPT UNDER THE ACT OR N OT AND WHETHER ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME OR OTHER WISE AND IF AT ALL ANY EXPENDITURE WOULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR EARNING DIV IDEND INCOME IT IS ONLY THE COST OF RECEIVING AND DEPOSITING THE DIVIDEND C HEQUES WHICH WOULD LESS THAN NOMINAL EXPENSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REITER ATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CI T(A) WHILE RELYING ON THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE APPELLATE ORDER ITA NO.1889 & 4991/M/06 & 04 A.Y:04-05 & 01-02 4 AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF RHYTHM EXPORT S LTD. VS. ITO (2005) 2 SOT 429(MUM.)(SMC) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE EXPENSES IN PROPOR TION OF DIVIDEND TO THE TOTAL INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE INT EREST INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N THE SHARES AS STOCK IN TRADE SINCE 31.3.1998 AND THERE IS NO OTHER STOCK I N TRADE THE INTEREST INCOME IS IN RESPECT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES ONLY. TH E CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BY THE RBI ON 15.9.1998 TO CARRY ON TH E BUSINESS OF NBFC WITHOUT ACCEPTING PUBLIC DEPOSIT CANNOT MEAN THAT T HE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE PRESENT CASE IS ONLY ON E OF MERE HOLDING OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AND THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED THEREON ONLY ARISES OUT OF INVESTMENT OF THE SURPLUS FUND AVAILABLE WITH THE A PPELLANT AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. WITH REGARD TO TH E DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE THE INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIO N CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B AND 234C DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. GROUND NO. I IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALL OWANCE OF RS.1 64 620/- U/S. 14A OF THE ACT. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN GODREJ & ITA NO.1889 & 4991/M/06 & 04 A.Y:04-05 & 01-02 5 BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT THEREFORE THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 9. HAVING CAREFULLY HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIV AL PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND MERIT IN PLEA OF THE PARTIES THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE RECENT JUDGMEN T OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.626 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO.758 OF 2010 DATED 12.8.2010 WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. (117 ITD 169 (MUM)(SB) WHILE HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTIONS ( 2) AND (3) OF SEC.14A OF THE ACT ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID HAVE HELD VIDE PARA -74 (VI) OF THE JUDGMENT AS UNDER : 74(VI) EVEN PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 WHEN RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTIO N (1) OF SECTION 14A. FOR THAT PURPOSE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS DUTY BOUND TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS B EEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MUST ADOPT A REASONABLE BASIS OR METHOD CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER FURN ISHING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL GERMANE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD; RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WE SET AS IDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ACCOUNT AND SEND BA CK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1889 & 4991/M/06 & 04 A.Y:04-05 & 01-02 6 10. GROUND NO. II IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AT RS. NIL AND ASSESSED TH E SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 11. GROUND NO. III IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED AND 12. GROUND NO.IV IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF INTEREST AG AINST SEC. 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 13. ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE DECIDED AS COMMON GRO UND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 14. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER SUBMITS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FURTHER LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN FORBES SERVICES LTD. AND FORVOL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED AND HAS S HOWN THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 20 050/- AND RS.18 50 500/- RESPECTIVELY THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS N O OTHER STOCK IN TRADE SHOWN SINCE 31.3.1998 AND IN SUPPORT SHE REFERS AUDITED B ALANCE SHEETS AND ITS ANNEXURE APPEARING AT PAGE 1 TO 7 OF ASSESSEE'S PA PER BOOK. SHE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NBFC AND AS PER DEFINITION PROVIDED UNDER SEC. 45 I OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1934 MEANS THE FINANCING IS ONE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE NBFC AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY I NSTITUTION WHICH CARRIES ON AS ITS PRINCIPLE BUSINESS (A) AGRICULTURAL OPERA TIONS; OR (AA) INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY; OR (B) PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY GOODS OTHE R THAN SECURITIES OR THE PROVIDING ANY SERVICES; OR (C) THE PURCHASE CONSTR UCTION OR SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ETC. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS DOIN G THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS AND REGISTERED UNDER THE RBI ACT V IDE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.9.1998 TO CARRY ON BUSINESS OF NBFC THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ASSES SEE'S BUSINESS INCOME AS ITA NO.1889 & 4991/M/06 & 04 A.Y:04-05 & 01-02 7 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SHE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME FROM DIVIDEND INTEREST AND PROFIT FROM SALE OF INVESTMENTS MAY BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. SHE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B AND 234C BE ALSO ALLOWED. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2004-05 THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD O N ALL THE ABOVE ISSUES. 16. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS FINANCE AND IN VESTMENTS AS PER OBJECTS STATED IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION RECOGNISED AND REGISTERED AS SUCH AS A NBFC BY RBI BY ITS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DA TED 15.9.1998. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE TREATING THE BUSINESS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HAS NOT GIVEN ANY RE ASON OR FINDING AS TO WHY HE HAS TREATED THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE FURTHER FIND TH AT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT EXAMINING THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE INVESTMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NO OTHER STOCK IN TRADE SHOWN SI NCE 31.3.1998 WHEREAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 .3.2004 IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE FRESH INVESTMENT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR INASMUCH AS IT HAS ALSO SHOWN PROFIT ON SALE ON INVESTMENT RS.1 03 086/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THIS BEING SO WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED IN T HE LIGHT OF THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET P&L ACCOUNT AND ITS SCHEDULES. THER EFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE CONSIDER IT FAIR AND REASONABLE THAT TH E ISSUES PERTAINING TO GROUND NOS. II III AND IV SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON ITA NO.1889 & 4991/M/06 & 04 A.Y:04-05 & 01-02 8 THIS ACCOUNT AND SEND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL DECIDED THE SAME AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF OUR O BSERVATIONS HEREIN ABOVE AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E ARE THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.4991/MUM /2004 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) 17. GROUND NO. I IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.3 67 885/- U/S. 14A OF THE ACT AND 18. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND NO. II (2) IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AT RS. NIL AND ASSESSED THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 19. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER PLEA OF THE PARTIES WE KEEPING IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING RECORDED IN PARA 9 AND 16 OF T HIS ORDER RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHA LL DECIDE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF OUR FINDING RECORDED THEREIN. WE HOLD AND ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE'S APPEAL STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.10.2010. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 22.10.2010. JV. ITA NO.1889 & 4991/M/06 & 04 A.Y:04-05 & 01-02 9 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.