DCIT-1(1), MUMBAI v. M/S. BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 6506/MUM/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 650619914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAACB2976M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6506/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant DCIT-1(1), MUMBAI
Respondent M/S. BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LTD., MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 15-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 12-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-07-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 10-11-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL AM AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO JM ITA NO.6506/MUM/2008 : ASST.YEAR 2005-2006 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1) MUMBAI. VS. M/S.BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LIMITED 10 JASVILLE 9 NEW MARINE LINES OPP : LIBERTY CINEMA MUMBAI 400 020. PAN : AAACB2976M. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K.GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : S/SHRI RAKESH JOSHI & ADITYA B.NEMANI O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON 27.08.2008 IN RELATI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. 2. FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7 97 787 BEING INTEREST U/S.14A OF THE ACT. THE A.O. H AS COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AT RS.7 97 787. IN THE FIRST APPEAL THE LEARNE D CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED THEREBY THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE QUESTION OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. MFG. CO. VS. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM) HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE APPLICAB LE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AS ARE PREVAILING PRESENTLY AND THE DISALLO WANCE HAS TO BE WORKED OUT BY THE AO ON SOME `REASONABLE BASIS AND NOT RULE 8D. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ITA NO.6506/MUM/2008 M/S.BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LIMITED. 2 QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE AF ORE-NOTED JUDGMENT AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.5 15 000 BEING DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS SOLD BUT NOT DEDUCTED FROM BLOCK OF ASSETS FOR WANT OF BILL NOT ISSUED. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED FROM SCHEDULE 5 OF THE COMPANY AUDIT REPORT ENCLOSED WITH THE BALA NCE SHEET THAT ASSETS TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.18 98 170 I.E. NET OF DEPRECIATION WERE NOT IN USE AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE SAME AS ASSETS AWAITING DISPOSAL SINCE SOLD. NOTE 3 OF THE REPORT READS AS UNDER:- 3. DEDUCTION TO PLANT AND MACHINERY INCLUDES FIXED ASSETS (COST RS.21710550/- ACCUMULATED DEPR ECIATION RS.19812380/-) BEING ASSETS AWAITING DISPOSAL SINCE SOLD. 5. FROM THE ABOVE NOTE THE A.O. OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSETS WER E ACTUALLY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER FROM THE DEPRECIATION CHART FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME-TAX ACT AS GIVEN IN ANNEXURE 5 TO TAX AUDIT REPORT IT WAS SEEN THAT REDUCTION IN THE VALUE OF PLAN T AND MACHINERY ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THIS PLANT WAS NOT DE PICTED. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NOT DEDUCTING THIS AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAL E OF THE SAID PLANT AND MACHINERY TOOK PLACE ON 05.05.2005 FOR RS. 20 60 000 AND THE EFFECT FOR THE SAME WAS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION NOTE 3 TO THE BALANCE SHEET THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 60 000 WAS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM BLOCK OF ASSET UNDER THE HEAD PLANT AND MACHINERY AS THE SAME REPRESENTED THE ASSETS SOLD IN THE YEAR. RESULTANTLY DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME AMOUNTING TO RS.5 15 000 WAS DISALLO WED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OVERTURNED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS SCORE BY NO TING THAT THE ASSETS WERE SOLD IN MAY 2005 ITA NO.6506/MUM/2008 M/S.BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LIMITED. 3 I.E. DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND HENCE DEPRECIATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE ALLO WED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE AUDITOR REPORTED IN NOTE 3 THAT THE ASSETS WERE ACTUALLY SOLD BUT AWAITING DISPOSAL. IF THIS POSITION IS CORRECT THEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTE D FROM THE VALUE OF BLOCK OF ASSET OR MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING DEPRECIATION THERE ON. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE SALE OF ASSETS T OOK PLACE ACTUALLY IN THE NEXT YEAR. IF THE SALE ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE IN THE NEXT YEAR TH EN THERE WAS NO WARRANT FOR REDUCING THE SAID SUM OF RS.20 60 000 FRO M THE BLOCK OF ASSETS FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME-TAX RULES. THERE IS A CONFLICT IN TWO STATEMENTS VIZ THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE ASSERTION MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION IT IS NOT PROPERLY ESTABLISHED AS TO WHICH VERSION IS CO RRECT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE A ND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR TAKING A FINAL DECISION AFTER VERIFYING THE ACTUAL DATE OF SALE AND THEN ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION ACCORDINGLY AS PER OUR OBSERVATIONS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AFFORDED ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. THIRD GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETI ON OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.4 686 U/S.50C R.W.S. 50 OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF THREE SHOPS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE SHOWED SALE OF THR EE SHOPS AT THE RATE OF RS.1 50 000 EACH AND REDUCED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.4 50 000 FROM THE BLOCK OF ASSETS UNDER THE HEAD `RESIDENTIAL BUILDIN G. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRAR FOR STAMP DUTY. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT STAMP DUTY OF RS.10 500 WAS PAID AND AT THE RATE OF 7% THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE REGISTRAR SHOULD BE RS.1 50 000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID STAMP DUTY OF RS.12 686 RS.12 691 AND RS .12 684 FOR THESE THREE S HOPS. THE TOTAL STAMP DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 38 061 WAS CONVERTED AT THE RATE OF 7% TO THE VALUE AT ITA NO.6506/MUM/2008 M/S.BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LIMITED. 4 RS.5 43 729. THIS AMOUNT WAS THEREFORE S UBSTITUTED AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.4 50 000 BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. SINCE THIS BLOCK WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 5% THE A.O. DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.4 686 BEI NG THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.93 729 (5 43 729 4 50 000). THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE FIGURES OF RS.12 686 RS.12 691 AND RS.12 684 TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACTUALLY REPRESENTED SERIAL NUMBER OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT. HE HELD THAT THE STAMP DUTY FOR EACH AGREEMENT WAS AT RS.12 600. GOING BY THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS .1 50 000 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF ST AMP DUTY ON THEM BY THE REGISTRAR CANNOT BE DIFFERENT FIGURES. HE THEREFORE ORDERED FOR THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSING RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER TOOK NOTE OF STAMP DUTY OF RS.12 686 RS.12 691 AND RS.12 684 FOR THE THREE SHOPS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AT RS.1 50 000 EACH. HE ADOPTED THE RATE OF 7% AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO WORK OUT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY U/S.50C AT RS.5 43 729. THE LEARNED A.R. HAS ARGUED THAT THE CORRECT STAMP DUTY PAID WAS RS.10 500 FOR EACH PROPERTY. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE SHOWED COPIES OF SALE DEEDS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SAID CONTENTION IS INCORRECT IN ASMUCH AS THE STAMP DUTY IS MORE THAN RS.12 500 IN EACH CASE. EVEN IF WE GO BY THE STAMP DUTY RATE AT 7% OF THE VALUE THE AMOUNT U/S.50C DOES NOT TU RN OUT TO BE RS.1 50 000. IT SHOULD BE IN THE RANGE OF RS.1 80 000 EACH. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MA TTER WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS PROPERLY. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR VERIFYIN G THE EXACT AMOUNT OF STAMP DUTY PAID VIS-- VIS THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUT HORITY AND THEN SUBSTITUTE IT WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION U/S.50C. IT IS ONLY THER EAFTER THAT THE EFFECT ON THE DEPRECIATION WOULD BE WORKED OUT. ITA NO.6506/MUM/2008 M/S.BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LIMITED. 5 9. FOURTH GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 30 000 AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLANT. TH E ASSESSEE SHOWED SALE OF ONE FLAT AT RS.1 95 000 BY PROPORTIONALLY DISTRIBUTING THE SAME BETWEEN COST OF LA ND AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION THEREBY ARRIVING AT PROFIT OF RS.2 302 FO R LAND AND RS.28 136 FOR CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS SEEN THAT FROM THE PROFIT OF RS.28 136 ON THE COST OF CONSTR UCTION THE ASSESSEE SET OFF THE CAPITAL LOSS ON MUTUAL FUND. TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND SOLD ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAME AND ALSO THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRAR FOR THE ST AMP DUTY PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL SAL E DEED TO ASCERTAIN THE VALU E ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS .3 25 000 AS AGAINST RS.1 95 000 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN A DDITION OF RS.1 30 000. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ORDERED FOR THE DELETION OF ADDITION. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SH OWED SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.1 95 000 WITHOUT PRODUCING THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED FO R ASCERTAINING THE VA LUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSEN CE OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TH E A.O. WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTIO N. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION WITHOUT ACTUALLY VERIFYING THE VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOS E OF THE CAPITAL ASSET SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION CALLE D FOR BY THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD. 11. NEXT GROUND IS AGAINST DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 20 400 REPRESENTING PACKING MATERIAL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.1 20 04 034 UNDER THE ITA NO.6506/MUM/2008 M/S.BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LIMITED. 6 HEAD `PACKING MATERIAL EXPENSES AS AGAINST RS.78 70 354 SPENT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME IT WAS NOTICED THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE LIKE BILLS ETC. THE THEREFORE MADE AD HOC A DDITION AT THE RATE OF 1% AMOUNTING TO RS.1 20 040 WHICH CAME TO BE DE LETED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT CE RTAIN EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR WERE NOT BACKED BY SUPPORTING EV IDENCE LIKE BILLS ETC. BUT WERE ON THE BASIS OF SELF-MADE VOUCHERS. WH EN THIS FACT IS SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF INCREASE IN PACKING MATERIAL EXPENSES FROM RS.78.70 LAKHS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR TO RS.1.20 CRORES IN THE CURRENT YEAR IT BECOMES EVIDENT TH AT SUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BOOKED AT A HIGHER RATE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND FAIR IF AN ESTIMATED ADDITION IS MADE TOWARDS SUCH CASH EXPENSES AT RS.50 000. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 13. LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST TH E DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9 31 391 AND RS.34 69 217 U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FR OM THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ATTACHED WITH THE INCOME-TAX RETURN THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT A SUM OF RS.9 31 391 WAS INADMISSIBLE U/S.40(A) ON ACC OUNT OF LATE PAYMENT OF DE DUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON JOB CHARGES. THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT THER E WAS DELAY OF FOUR DAYS IN DEPOSITING THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. NOT CONVINCED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ORDERED FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.9 31 391 IN VIEW OF THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DE LETED THE ADDITION. 14. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT CLAUSE (IA) HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED IN SECTION 40(A) WITH EFFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-20 06 WHICH PROVIDES THAT IF ANY PAYMENT ON WHICH TAX ITA NO.6506/MUM/2008 M/S.BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LIMITED. 7 IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII -B AND SUCH TAX HA S NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR AFTER DEDUCTION HAS NOT B EEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 THE DISALLOWAN CE CAN BE MADE OF TH E SAID EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD `PROFITS AND GAIN S OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2005-2006 AND ADMITTEDLY THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS DE POSITED LATE BY FOUR DAYS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED UNDER THE BENEFICI AL PROVISION OF SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) AS PER WHICH NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE OF ANY EXPENDITURE IF THE AMOUNT OF TAX AFTER DEDUCTION HAS BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNE D ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 15. THE SECOND SEGMENT OF THIS GROUND IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.34 69 217. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSU E ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON RS.34 69 217 BUT DID NOT DEDUCT EDUCATIONAL CESS OF RS.1 866. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 34.69 LAKHS. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HE HELD THAT NON-DEDUCTION OF ED UCATION CESS AMOUNTING TO RS.1 866 WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE DISALLO WANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.34.69 LAKHS ON WHICH TAX OF RS.93 305 WAS DEDUCTED AND PROMPTLY PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. HE DIRECTED THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON WHICH TDS OF RS.1 866 WAS PAYABLE AND ONLY DISALLOW THAT MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF ADDITION WAS DELETED. 16. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO DE FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE EXCEPT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 866 REPRESENTING EDUCATION CESS ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO TH E TUNE OF RS.93 305 WH ICH WAS DEPOSITED IN TIME. IN ANY CASE IT IS ON LY A SUM OF RS.1 866 WHICH RE MAINED TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND DEPOSITED TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALCULATE THE ITA NO.6506/MUM/2008 M/S.BEEKAYLON SYNTHETICS LIMITED. 8 AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE DISALLOWABLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OF RS.1 866 AS HAVING B EEN NOT PAID. WE TH EREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS GR OUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- ( V.DURGA RAO ) ( R.S.SYAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 15 TH JULY 2011. DEVDAS*` COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - I MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.