ALLIANCE CAPITAL ASSET MANGT (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI v. ADDL.C.I.T.-6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6658/MUM/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 665819914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAACA4189R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6658/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant ALLIANCE CAPITAL ASSET MANGT (INDIA) P.LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ADDL.C.I.T.-6(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 21-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 21-04-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 18-11-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 6 658/MUM/2008. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06. ALLIANCE CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT A DDL. COMMISSIONER OF (INDIA) P. LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX- 6(1). WINDSOR 6 TH FLOOR 604 MUM BAI. VIDYANAGAR MARG OFF CST ROAD SANTACRUZ(EAST) MUMBAI 400 020. PAN AAACA4189R APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI FAROOKH IRANI. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANDEEP DAHIYA. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-VI MUMBAI DATED 12-08-20 08 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND IS IN THE BUSINESS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT. ON 18 TH OCT. 2004 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONG WITH ALLIANCE CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST CO. P. LTD. HAVE REACHED A DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT WITH M/S M/S BIRLA SUN LIFE TR USTEE CO. P. LTD. AND M/S BIRLA SUN LIFE ASSET MANAGEMENT CO. LTD. PURSU ANT TO WHICH THE SCHEMES OF AMF WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BIRLA SUN LIFE ASSET MANAGEMENT CO. LTD. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 31 ST OCT. 2005. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT INTER ALIA DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE CLA IMED ON ACCOUNT CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEE ON THE G ROUND THAT THEY ARE PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE WAS M ADE U/S 43B WITH REGARD TO PROVISION FOR GRATUITY. ON APPEAL THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD NOT ALLOWED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THESE P ARTICULAR ISSUES THOUGH CERTAIN OTHER GROUNDS WERE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS : 1. THE CIT(A) ON FACTS AND IN LAW ERRED IN HOLDING T HAT THE AO WAS CORRECT IN DISALLOWING THE CLUB CORPORATE MEMBERSHI P FEES OF RS.99 996/- AND HOLDING IT TO BE A PRIOR PERIOD EXP ENDITURE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO DE LETE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY HIM AND TO RE-COMPUTE ITS T OTAL INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF THE BALANCE OF THE CLUB CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP FEES W RITTEN OFF OF RS.6 00 000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS FOR WH ICH THE FEES WERE PAID HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO BIRLA AMC THE APPELLATE SUBMITS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO DE LETE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY HIM AND TO RE-COMPUTE ITS T OTAL CLAIM ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS.96 795 WHICH THE AO HAD HE LD TO BE A PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLATE SUBMITS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO DE LETE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY HIM AND TO RE-COMPUTE ITS T OTAL CLAIM ACCORDINGLY. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF R S.1 511 141 BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT AS PROVISION OF GRATUITY OVER AND ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE ALREADY MADE BY THE APPE LLANT IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR RS.251 501. 3 THE APPELLATE SUBMITS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO DE LETE THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY HIM AND TO RE-COMPUTE ITS T OTAL CLAIM ACCORDINGLY. 3. MR. FAROOKH IRANI LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 85 PAGES. MR. IRANI SUBMITT ED THAT GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 PERTAIN TO DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO AND CO NFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION IS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. ON GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 HE REFERR ED TO PAGE 3 PARA 4.2 OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE F ACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.15 LAKHS TOWARDS 15 YEARS MEMBERSH IP OF BOMBAY GYMKHANA CLUB AND HAD CLAIMED RS.1 LAKH DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 AND THEREAFTER HAD BEEN CLAIMING RS.99 996/ - EVERY YEAR AND THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS BEING ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT YEA R AFTER YEAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE BUSINESS WAS TRANSF ERRED TO BIRLA AMC AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED WITH THE THEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER WHEREBY IT WAS AGREED THAT THE CEO COULD USE THE CLUB MEMBERSH IP FOR THE REMAINDER PERIOD FOR WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 25 015 /- WAS RECOVERED FROM HIM. THE BALANCE WAS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ON THESE FACTS THE LEARNED COUNSEL S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLAIMING AN ANNUAL CHARGE OF RS.9 9 996/- BY FOLLOWING A CONSISTENT METHOD OF MATCHING EXPENDITURE WITH T HE PERIOD. HE FILED ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS W HERE NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. HE WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO POINT OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER DISCUSSED IN ANY OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMEN T YEARS. HE FURTHER FILED A COPY OF REPORT U/S 44AB FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT UNDER COL. 17(D) THIS EXPENDITURE WAS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. HE RELIED ON TH E JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS INDUSTR IAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 225 ITR 802 AND THE JUDGMENT OF TH E HONBLE SUPREME 4 COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA SWAMY SATSANG VS. CIT 19 3 ITR 321 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST CASE LAW IS RELIED UPON FO R THE PROPOSITION THAT THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE CLAIMED AS PERIOD COST BY AMORT ISATION AND THE SECOND DECISION IS RELIED UPON FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT T HOUGH RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS WHERE A FU NDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS H AS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND THE PARTIES HAVE ALLO WED THE POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO AL LOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE C ONSISTENT VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN AND THIS ANNUAL CHARGE OF RS.99 996/- SHOU LD BE ALLOWED. 4. COMING TO GROUND NO.2 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EX PENDITURE WAS BOOKED AS PRE-PAID EXPENSES AND AS ONLY AN AMOU NT OF RS.4 25 015/- WAS RECOVERED FROM THE CEO THE LOSS HAS OCCURRED T O THE COMPANY AND THIS LOSS CRYSTALLIZED DURING THE YEAR AND HENCE IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. HE RELIED ON THE LIST OF CASES CITED BEFORE THE CIT(AP PEALS) WHICH IS PART OF THE PAPER BOOK. 5. ON GROUND NO. 3 MR. IRANI SUBMITTED THAT THE B ILLS ETC. PERTAINED TO THE CURRENT YEAR AND THEY WERE NEVER P RIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. HE TOOK THIS BENCH TO ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGES 2 6 TO 28 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARG ES PERTAINED TO THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT THIS WAS NEVER MENTIONED AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. HE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DESPITE SPECIFIC PLEADINGS HAS NOT DE CIDED THE ISSUE. 6. ON GROUND NO. 4 HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING A SUBMISSION BEFO RE THE AO AND DESPITE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECTIFIED THE MIST AKE BY WAY OF FILING A REVISED COMPUTATION THE AO DID NOT VERIFY THE CORR ECTNESS OF THE FIGURES 5 AND MADE A WRONG DISALLOWANCE. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT APPLICATION U/S 154 WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO AFTER PASSING OF THIS ORDER AND THIS ALSO HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF. HE TOOK THIS BENCH THROUGH TH E PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE ACTUAL FIGURES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AO WAS WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CORRECT FIGURES AS STATED IN TH E REVISED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 7. THE LEARNED DR. MR. SANDEEP DAHIYA ON THE OTHE R HAND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE STATE THAT CLU B MEMBERSHIP FEES SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT AND T HAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED THE SAME IN THIS YEAR. AS PER THE LEARNED DR THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE ASSESSEES STAND IN ASMUCH AS ON THE ONE HAND AMORTISATION IS CLAIMED AND ON THE OTHER HAND A LOSS OF RS.6 LAKHS IS CLAIMED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS AG AINST CORPORATE PROPRIETY AND NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. HE ARGUES T HAT RES JUDICATA WILL APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE CANNOT CLAIM THE ENTIR E AMOUNT DURING THE YEAR. HE PRAYED FOR UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT( APPEAL) ON GROUND NO.1 AND 2. 8. ON GROUND NO. 3 THE LEARNED DR WANTED TO SEE T HE ENTIRE AUDIT REPORT AND DISPUTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSE SSEE. 9. ON GROUND NO. 4 HE HAS NO OBJECTION FOR SETTIN G ASIDE OF THE ISSUE. 10. JOINING THE ISSUE MR. IRANI SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THERE IS NO CORPORATE PROPRIETY ETC. AND THAT SUCH CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE RAISED BY THE LEARNED DR AS IT IS NOT PART OF THE 6 RECORD. HE FILED A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT AND POI NTED OUT THAT NOWHERE IN THE AUDIT REPORT IT STATED THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. HE PRAYED FOR RELIEF. 11. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDER ATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL O F THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 12. AS FAR GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PARA 4.2 HAS BROUGHT OUT THE FACTS WH ICH ARE EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE : THE A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN APRIL 2001 THE APPELLA NT PAID RS.15 00 000/- TOWARDS 15 YEARS MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR BOMBAY GYMKHANA CLUB. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-01 RS.10 0 000 WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND IN SUBSE QUENT YEAR UPTO FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 RS.99 996 WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AS THE BUSINESS WAS TRANSFERRED TO BIRLA AMC AN AG REEMENT WAS REACHED WITH THE THEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ( CEO) WHERE BY IT WAS AGREED THAT HE COULD USE THE CLUB MEMBERS HIP FOR THE REMAINDER PERIOD FOR WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.4 25 015 WAS RECOVERED FROM HIM. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.6 00 0 00 WAS WRITTEN OFF TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFO RE FOR THE YEAR THE FOLLOWING WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THEA.Y.UNDER REVIEW : RS.99 996 CHARGE FOR THE YEAR IN RESPECT OF CORPO RATE MEMBERSHIP FEE PAID IN THE EARLIER YEAR. RS.6 00 000 BALANCE AMOUNT AS EXPLAINED ABOVE BEI NG WRITTEN OFF IN RESPECT OF CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP FEE PAID IN THE EARLIER YEAR: THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CLAIMING 1/15 TH OF THE TOTAL MEMBERSHIP FEE OF RS.15 LAKHS AS PERIOD COST ON T HE MATCHING CONCEPT 7 PRINCIPLE YEAR AFTER YEAR. THIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE REVENUE IN THE PAST. ON THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE AO TO HAVE DISAL LOWED THIS CLAIM. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHA SWAMY SA TSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321 HELD AS FOLLOWS : STRICTLY SPEAKING RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING A U NIT WHAT WAS DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MIGHT NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWIN G YEAR; WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT C HALLENGING THE ORDER IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MADRAS IND USTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. (SUPRA) AT PAGE 803 HELD AS FOLLO WS : ORDINARILY REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS MUST BE ALLOWED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED. IT CA NNOT BE SPREAD OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN IT OFF IN HIS BOOKS OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. HOWEVER THE FACTS M AY JUSTIFY AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN A PARTICUL AR YEAR TO SPREAD AND CLAIM IT OVER A PERIOD OF ENSUING YEARS. IN FACT ALLOWING THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IN ONE YEAR MIGHT GIVE A VER Y DISTORTED PICTURE OF THE PROFITS OF A PARTICULAR YEAR. 13. APPLYING THESE TWO PROPOSITIONS TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. 15. COMING TO GROUND NO.2 THE FACT REMAINS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENT TO TRANSFER OF BUSINESS TO BIRLA AM C ALLOWED THE CEO TO TAKEOVER AND USE THE CLUB MEMBERSHIP FACILITY FOR C ERTAIN CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED A LOSS OF RS.6 LAKHS AND THIS LOSS HAS CRYSTALLIZED 8 DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS CLARIFIED BEFORE US THAT TH IS AMOUNT IS APPEARING AS A PREPAID EXPENDITURE IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE A SSESSEE. ON THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS A BUSINESS LOSS IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMEN T YEAR. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE AO COULD COME TO A CONCLUSION TH AT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION IS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE. WE FIND NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE TWO CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. ANNUAL CHARGE O F RS.99 996/- AND WRITE OFF OF RS.6 LAKHS BEING BUSINESS LOSS CONSEQUENT TO TRANSFER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. COMING TO GROUND NO. 3 WE HAVE PERUSED THE PH OTO COPIES OF THE BILLS WHICH ARE PART OF THE PAPER BOOK. ALL THESE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PERTAIN TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE STATEM ENT MADE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD HAS NOT BEEN LOOKED INT O BY HIM. THE BILLS IN QUESTION WERE RAISED BY AZB & PARTNERS ADVOCATES A ND SOLICITORS. NOWHERE IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS IT MENTIONED TH AT THESE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES PERTAINED TO A PRIOR PERIOD. IN V IEW OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION THOUGH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DESIRABLE TO SE T ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR DISPOSING OF THIS GROU ND AS THE AMOUNT IS SMALL AND TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS WE UPHOLD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW GROUND NO. 3. 17. COMING TO GROUND NO. 4 WE FIND THAT AN ERROR HAS CREPT INTO THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE CORRECTED THE FIGURES AND MADE REVISED STATEMENT WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO. IT C AN BE SEEN FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE COMM ITTED IN THE FIGURES INASMUCH AS THE PROVISION MADE DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.2 51 501/- AND WHEREAS WRONG FIGURE OF RS. 23 27 288/- WAS GIVEN TO THE A.O. 9 SIMILARLY THE PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR WAS RS. 1 73 077/- BUT A WRONG FIGURE OF RS.5 65 096/- WAS GIVEN TO THE AO. THE CORRECT FIGURES EMANATE FROM THE RECORDS. THE AO SHOULD HAVE RECTI FIED THE SAME WHEN A 154 APPLICATION WAS FILED BEFORE HIM. THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE. ON THESE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE DEEM IT PROPER TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER TAKING I NTO ACCOUNT THE CORRECT FIGURES AS PER RECORD. 18. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND I.E. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI DATED : 30 TH APRIL 2010. WAKODE COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR A-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI.