SULESHWARI TRUST, MUMBAI v. ADDL CIT 14(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6851/MUM/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 685119914 RSA 2012
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6851/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant SULESHWARI TRUST, MUMBAI
Respondent ADDL CIT 14(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 27-06-2013
Next Hearing Date 27-06-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 08-11-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMBAI . .. . . . . . ! '#$ ! '#$ ! '#$ ! '#$ % % % % &'. ' '' '. .. .( (( (. .. . . . . . %) %) %) %) * '#$ * '#$ * '#$ * '#$ '+ '+ '+ '+ BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN JM './ I.T.A. NO. 6851/MUM/2012 ( *) - %.- *) - %.- *) - %.- *) - %.- / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SULESHWARI TRUST 228 PRAGATI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE N.M. HOSHI MARG LOWER PAREL MUMBAI-400012 ) ) ) ) / VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE -14(3) MUMBAI $/ ! ' ./ PAN : AABA7995Q ( /0 / // / ASSESSEE ) .. ( 12/0 / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SRI J.D.MISTRY & SHRI D.J. SHUKLA 12/0 8 9 ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MAHAPATRA ' )% 8 ! / // / DATE OF HEARING : 27-06-2013 :;. 8 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 -07 -2013 # < / O R D E R PER P.M.JAGTAP : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) -25 MUMBAI DATED 31.07.2012 AND THE SOLITARY ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME RELATES TO T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLO WED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A DISCRETION ARY TRUST WHICH IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF THE MANUFACTUR ING OF DEO SPRAY(AEROSOL) IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF ITS PRO PRIETARY 2 ITA NO.6851/MUM/2012 SULESHWARI TRUST CONCERN OF M/S ASIAN AEROSOL. IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION D EDUCTION OF RS.1 50 86 269/- WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE SA ID CLAIM FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION HE FOUND THAT ALTHOUGH THE REQ UIRED REPORT FROM THE AUDITORS IN FORM 10 CCB WAS NOT FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME THE SAME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DING ALONG WITH ITS LETTER DATED 17.11.2011. ALONG WITH SAID LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED CERTIFICATE OF RENEWAL OF LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE COSMETIC FOR SALE. AS THE COSMETIC PRO DUCTS WERE COVERED IN SCHEDULE XI OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1 961 THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDU CTION U/S 80IB IN RESPECT OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINES S OF MANUFACTURING COSMETICS. WHEN THIS POSITION WAS BR OUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO THE FORMER ST ATED THAT ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS JUSTIFIED U/S 80IC OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AUDITORS CERTIFICATE IN FORM O F 10CCB TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IC AND MADE FURTHER SUBMISSIO N IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING REV ISED RETURN AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA V/S CIT (244 ITR 323) HE DENIED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80I C IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) BY THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2011. 3 ITA NO.6851/MUM/2012 SULESHWARI TRUST 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO PASSED U/S 143(3) A PPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DENYING ITS CLA IM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER FOUND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE SAM E FOR FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5 OF THE I MPUGNED ORDER:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS STATED IN ASS ESSMENT ORDER AS WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AS WELL AS PERUSED CASE RECORDS. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ASSESS EE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(4) IN ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THERE IS NO REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY FROM A.Y.2006-07. THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS FOURTH ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM INCEPTION. IT IS STRANGE THAT IN FOURTH ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(4) OF THE ACT WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE AN INADVE RTENT ERROR. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING T HE LD. AR WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF DEDUCTION AND RETUR N FROM INCEPTION WHICH WAS NOT PROVIDED TILL DATE OF THIS ORDER. AS PER SEC.80IB THE COSMETICS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION BECAUSE THE SAME FAL LS IN NEGATIVE LIST PROVIDED IN SCHEDULE XI WHEN THE FACT S WAS DISCOVERED BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE MODIFIED HIS CLA IM STATING THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED U/S 80IC. HE ALS O SUBMITTED MODIFIED REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB. AS MENTIONED EARLIER THERE WAS NO REVISED RETURN MAKIN G REVISED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THEREFORE THE AO WAS NOT INCORRECT IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 80IC RELYIN G ON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS BINDING. APAR T FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT THERE IS ANOT HER RIDER IN SEC.80A OF THE ACT. THE SUB-SECTION (5) O F SEC. 80A STATES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO MAKE A CLAI M IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ANY DEDUCTION U/S 10A OR SEC.10AA OR SEC. 10B OR SEC. BA OR UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER UNDER THE HEADING C-DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF CERTAI N INCOME NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HIM THERE UNDER . IN ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIM ED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWAB LE AS PER SCHEDULE XI OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO REVISED R ETURN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF SEC. 80A(5) OF THE ACT THE REJECTION OF ASSESSEES CLAI M IS JUSTIFIED FOR THIS ANOTHER REASON ALSO. EVEN OTHER WISE THE AUDITORS CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 10CCB DID NOT INS PIRE CONFIDENCE. THE SAID CERTIFICATE DID NOT PROVIDE IN FORMATION 4 ITA NO.6851/MUM/2012 SULESHWARI TRUST IN COLUMN 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25( C) 25(D) & 28. ALL THESE COLUMNS HAVE BEEN KEPT BLANK . THE REPORT IS INCHOATE AND PERFUNCTORY AND DID NOT PROV IDE RELIABILITY. AS STATED EARLIER THIS IS THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM COMMENCEMENT OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OR 80IC WAS CLAIMED IN PROCEEDING THREE ASSESSMENT YEA RS. IF IT WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IB IN THREE PRECE DING YEARS HOW THE SAME CAN BE AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE. IT IS NOT EXPLAINED WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR CLAIMING DEDUC TION U/S 80IB IN ORIGINAL RETURN AND PRECEDING YEARS RET URN. THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC HAS SEVERAL RIDERS DIFFERENT FRO M SECTION 80IB. IT SHOULD NOT FALL IN NEGATIVE LIST AS GIVEN IN SCHEDULE 13. THE SECTION ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE IT EM OF MANUFACTURING SHOULD FALL IN POSITIVE LIST AS APPEA RING IN PART C OF SCHEDULE 14. THE SCHEDULE 14 DID NOT ALL OW MANUFACTURING OR COSMETICS THEM WHICH IS MANUFACTUR ED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. TO SAY DEO SPRAY (AEROSOL). SIMI LARLY PART B OF SCHEDULE 13 PROVIDES BAN FOR ORGANIC AND INORG ANIC CHEMICALS IN VIEW OF SUCH FACTS AND STATUTORY PROVI SION IN VOGUE DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE ON MERIT ALSO. HA VING REGARD TO OVERALL FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE A ND STATUTORY PROVISION IN VOGUE AS WELL AS DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS RELIED UPON THE AO THE ACTION OF THE AO IS IN ORDER WHICH REQUIRES TO BE UPHELD. ACCORDING LY ALL RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REJECTED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THIS APPE AL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING OF THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURING DEO SPRAY HAD COMMENCED ON 22.06.2005 BUT SINCE THERE WAS NO POSI TIVE INCOME DURING THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF OPERATIONS RELEVANT A.Y. 2006-07 2008-08 AND 2008-09 NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PRO FITS OF THE SAID UNDERTAKING WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SU BMITTED THAT POSITIVE INCOME FROM THE SAID UNIT WAS EARNED BY TH E ASSESSEE FIRST TIME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME WAS WRONGLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN O F INCOME U/S 80IB INSTEAD OF SECTION 80IC. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E AO HOWEVER DENIED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80 IC DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE SAME WAS MA DE OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING THE VERIFIED RETURN RELYIN G ON THE HONBLE 5 ITA NO.6851/MUM/2012 SULESHWARI TRUST SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA (SUPRA). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER CONSIDERED THE CLAIM FO R THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ON MERIT AND DISALLOWED THE SAME ON SOME I RRELEVANT AND WRONG GROUNDS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INADVERTENT M ISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB INSTEAD OF 80IC WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY OBSER VING THAT IT WAS STRANGE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE CLAIMED SUCH WRONG DEDUCTION IN THE 4 TH ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS HOWE VER NO POSITIVE INCOME FROM THE ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS AND SINCE THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO CLAIM DEDU CTION U/S 80IB IN THESE THREE YEARS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH DEDUCTION WAS FIRST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE CONTENDED THAT SIMILARLY RELIANCE OF THE LD. CI T(A) ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GOETZE INDIA (SUPRA) WAS MISPLACED AS HE HIMSELF AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORI TY WAS COMPETENT TO ENTERTAIN AND DECIDE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB ON MERIT. AS REGARDS THE RELIANCE PLACED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) ON SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80A HE CONTENDED THAT T HE SAME WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUC TION U/S 80IB WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS VERY MUCH FAILING IN CHAPTER VI A. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AS PER THE VARIOUS COLUMNS CONTAINED IN THE AUDITORS CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 10CCB WAS NOT FURNISHED HE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID INFORMATION W AS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IC. HE CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 80IC THUS WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE AUDITORS CERTIFICAT E SUBMITTED IN FORM NO. 10CCB AND LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE SAID CLAIM. 6 ITA NO.6851/MUM/2012 SULESHWARI TRUST 5. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF THE SUBMISSIONS BEING MADE O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE NOT PUT F ORTH BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING DEODRA NT WHICH USES ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHEMICALS. HE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID PRODUCT THUS IS COVERED IN SCHEDULE XIII TO THE INC OME-TAX ACT AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80I C 6. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEODRANT MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE IS N EITHER ORGANIC NOR INORGANIC CHEMICAL AND IT IS THEREFORE NOT COVE RED IN SCHEDULE XIII AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. DR. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORDS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT I N THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IB WHILE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DED UCTION U/S 80IC INSTEAD OF SECTION 80IB. SINCE THE SAID CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN THE SAME WAS NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE AO RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF GOETZE INDIA (SUPRA). ALTHOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 80IC ON MERIT HE HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALL OWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IC ALSO REL YING ON THE 7 ITA NO.6851/MUM/2012 SULESHWARI TRUST DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GOETZE INDIA(SUPRA) WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS NOT CORRECT AS THE LD. CI T(A) AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS COMPETENT TO ENTERTA IN AND DECIDE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC ON MERIT AS CLARIFIED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA (SUPRA). IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THI S ISSUE ON MERIT WITHOUT GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR INSTANCE HE DENIED THE CLAIM FOR ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC RELYING ON THE PROV ISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (5) OF THE SECTION 80A WHICH STIPULATES THA T WHERE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO MAKE A CLAIM IN HIS RETURN INCOME FOR ANY DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-C NO DEDUCTION SHOULD B E ALLOWED TO HIM THEREUNDER. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED BEFORE US A CONTENTION THAT DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE SECTION 80IB ALSO FALLS UNDER CHAPTER VI-C THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 80A(5) WAS DULLY SATISFIED. THIS CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HOWEVER WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) APP ARENTLY BECAUSE NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY THE AUDITORS CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 10C CB FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC WAS HELD TO BE UNRELIABLE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ABSE NCE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION GIVEN THEREIN WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESS EE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE SAID INFORMATI ON WAS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IC. TH E LD. CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB INSTEAD OF U/S 80IC WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE FOR THE REASON THAT SIMILAR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 8 ITA NO.6851/MUM/2012 SULESHWARI TRUST THE IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDINGS THREE YEARS. AS EXPLAI NED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US NO DEDUCTION U/ S 80IB WAS ACTUALLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PROCEEDINGS THREE YEARS AS THERE WAS NO POSITIVE INCOME DERIVED FROM ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING AND THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS TH E FIRST YEAR TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DRAWN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES PRODUCT BEING A COSMETIC IS NOT COVERED UNDER SCHEDULE 14 AND THE ORGANIC AND INORGANIC CHE MICALS ARE ALSO BANNED AS PER SCHEDULE13 WITHOUT GIVING ASSESS EE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT NATURE AND CHARACT ER OF ITS PRODUCT AS WELL AS ITS COMPOSITION. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE C LAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE LD CI T(A) WITHOUT GIVING PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE CONSIDERED IT JUST AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING A PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JULY.2013 # < 8 :;. ! =#)> 31 ST JULY.2013 ; 8 SD/- SD/- ( DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN ) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) * '#$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '#$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 9 ITA NO.6851/MUM/2012 SULESHWARI TRUST MUMBAI; =#) DATED.-31-07-2013 *).'./ S.S.K PS # < 8 1*?@ A @. # < 8 1*?@ A @. # < 8 1*?@ A @. # < 8 1*?@ A @./ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. B ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED MUMBAI 4. B / CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI 5. @%E 1**) / DR ITAT MUMBAI E BENCH 6. &- F / GUARD FILE. # <) ' # <) ' # <) ' # <) ' / BY ORDER '2@ 1* //TRUE COPY// G GG G/ // /'H 'H 'H 'H (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI