DCIT - 9(3), MUMBAI v. M/s. WALL STREET FINANCE LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7022/MUM/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 702219914 RSA 2008
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7022/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant DCIT - 9(3), MUMBAI
Respondent M/s. WALL STREET FINANCE LTD., MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 09-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 09-04-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 11-12-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE S/SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA AM & V.DURGA RAO JM I.T.A. NO.7022 /MUM/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 THE DCIT CENT. CIRCLE-9(3) V. WALL STREET FINAN CE LTD. AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD NATASHA 52 HILL ROAD BANDRA(W) MUMBAI. MUMBAI-50 PA NO.AAACW 1258 P C.O.NO.80/MUM/2009 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7022/M/2008) WALL STREET FINANCE LTD. V. THE DCIT CENT. CIRC LE 9(3) MUMBAI. MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MILIND KOTHARI REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA O R D E R PER S.V.MEHROTRA AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2008 OF LD CIT (A)-CENTRAL-I MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.242.08 LAKHS BEING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF HIRE PURCHASE/LEASE FINANCE U/S .36(1)(VII) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE PRE-CONDITION LAID DO WN IN SECTION 36(2)(I) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 IS NOT SATISFIED AS SUCH DEBT HAS N OT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 2 COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NEITHER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS BANKING NOR MONEY LENDING. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF BAD DEBT OF RS.242.08 LAKHS MENTIONED ABOVE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTH INDIA SURGICAL CO. 287 ITR 62 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT MERE UNILATERAL WRITE OFF OF DEBT IS NOT SUFFICIENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THAT THE DEBT INDEED BECAME BAD DEBT. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY CHANGING MONEY TRANSFER LOANS & INVESTMENTS BACK OFFICE OPERATION & CONSULTANCY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME DECLARING TOTAL LOSS AT RS.7 07 41 114/-. THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE COM PRISED OF FOREX AND REMITTANCES OF RS.1641.59 LAKHS FEE BASED INCOME OF RS.49.93 LACS AND OTHER INCOME OF RS.605.33 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD INTER ALIA CLAIMED WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.1 82 05 330/-. HE ALSO NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF OF NPA WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTING TO RS.4 76 14 931/-. HE REQU IRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE PARTY- WISE AND YEAR-WISE DETAILS OF THE BAD DEBTS CLAIM O F RS.4.76CRORES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE STATEMENTS SHOWING PARTY WISE AND YE AR WISE BREAK UP IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM. FROM THESE DETAILS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE WRITE OFF IN RESPECT OF EACH PARTY COMPRISED OF FOUR PARTS VIZ; I) COST OF HIRE PURCHASE STOCK/ADVANCE II) INCOME BOOKED III) INCOME REVERSED IV) N.P.A. PROVISION MADE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE FIRST PART WAS THE WRITE OFF I N RESPECT OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF HIRE PURCHASE. HE HAS REPRODUCED THE DETAILS OF WRITE O FF CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ONE PARTY TO DEMONSTRATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAD CLAIMED WRITE OFF WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- PRINCIPAL HIRE PURCHASE AMOUNT RS.36 47 164/- ADD: INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN EARLIER YEARS RS.19 18 408/- RS.55 65 572/- LESS: INCOME REVERSED NIL ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 3 NPA PROVISION MADE 5 56 557/- RS. 5 56 557/- AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION: RS.50 09 015/-: HE EXAMINED IN DETAIL THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN REGAR D TO WRITE OFF OF THE PRINCIPAL HIRE PURCHASE AMOUNT GIVEN TO PARTIES. HE NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TWO BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WRITE OFF OF ANY AMOUNT OF BAD DEBTS WERE AS UNDER:- I) THE DEBTS SHOULD BE A TRADE DEBT AND II) THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN E ARLIER YEARS. HE OBSERVED THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE HIRE P URCHASE SCHEME OR THE LEASE FINANCE SCHEME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHE R A BANKING COMPANY NOR A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING. HE OBSER VED THAT THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN CURRENCY BUSINES S WHICH HE CONCLUDED FROM THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS DATED 3.7.2006 OF THE ASSESSE E:- REGARDING THE BRIEF NOTE ON THE NATURE OF THE COMPA NYS BUSINESS WE WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT THE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF MONEY CHANGING LOANS AND INVESTMENTS MONEY TRANSFER BACK OFFICE OPERATION & CONSULTANCY. HE ALSO EXAMINED THE RATIO OF HIRE PURCHASE AND LEA SING TRANSACTIONS VIS--VIS TOTAL TURNOVER AND NOTED THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 TOTAL TURNOVER 1896.62 1884.93 2229.07 1792.23 1425.09 1600.88 LEASING 512.85 353.82 526.42 292.95 193.48 8.41 HIRE PURCHASE 456.16 222.01 89.21 23.07 - - FROM THE ABOVE HE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND THE NATURE OF TRADE WAS THAT OF HIRE P URCHASE AND LEASING WHICH WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT FROM THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING OR BANKING BUSINESS. HE ACCORDINGLY REWORKED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND ALLOWED THE BAD DEBTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 34 05 948/- DETAILED AS BELOW:- INCOME OFFERED IN EARLIER YEARS AS PER ANNEXURE A TO THIS ORDER RS.9 16 18 551 LESS: INCOME REVERSED RS.2 86 64 737 ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 4 LESS: PROVISION MADE FOR NPA RS.3 95 47 866 RS.6 82 12 603 BAD DEBTS ALLOWED RS.2 34 05 948 3. LD CIT (A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OMAPRAKASH B SALECHA DATED 12.3.2008 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF TULIP STAR HOTEL LTD V ACIT 17 SOT 108 (DEL) DELET ED THE ADDITION. 4. LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE BASIC ISSUE IS WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING OR MONEY LENDING SO AS TO BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IN REGARD TO HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASING TRANSACTION WRITTEN OFF O R NOT. HE REFERRED TO PAGE 4 OF LD CIT (A)S ORDER WHEREIN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONTAINED AND POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH THE COMPANY HAD BEEN REGISTERED AS HIRE PURCHASE AND LE ASING COMPANY BUT SUBSEQUENTLY CLASSIFIED AS LOAN COMPANY VIDE RBI LETTER NO.DNBS MRO NO.1562/BM (MH)LC(W)45/1999-2000 DATED AUGUST 30 1999. LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY ACTIVITY OF NON BANKING FINANCE COMPANY AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 36(1)((VII) ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THE WRITE OFF DID NOT PERTAIN TO NBFC ACTIVITY. HE SUB MITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF TULIP STAR HOTEL (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT THE INTER CORPORATE DEPOS IT WAS MONEY LENDING AND NOT LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE TRANSACTION. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD (SB) IN THE CASE OF GUJRAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICE V ACIT 115 ITD 218 (A HD)(SB) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT INTER CORPORATE DEPOSIT WAS NOT TO BE TREATED AS LOANS AN D ADVANCE AND THUS IMPLIEDLY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TULIP STAR HOTEL (SUPRA) IS OVERRULED. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF JCIT V. WALCHAND CAPITAL LTD. 17 SOT 258(MUM) AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SAID DECISION THE LEASE RENTAL AND PENAL CHARG ES WHICH WERE TAKEN AS ASSESSEES INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS BUT COULD NOT BE RECOVERED WERE CLAI MED AS BAD DEBTS. HE SUBMITTED THT IN LINE WITH THE FINDINGS OF SAID DECISION THE AO HIMSELF HAS A LLOWED THE INTEREST COMPONENT WHICH WAS TAKEN AS INCOME IN EARLIER YERS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS NO CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS AND WHETHER THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS REGARDING THE SAME ARE SAT ISFIED OR NOT HAVE TO BE EXAMINED IF THE SAME IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS LOSS. 5. IN THE ALTERNATIVE HE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE D ECISION OF ITAT (SB) IN THE CASE OF GUJRAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICE (SUPRA) AND POINTED OU T THAT SINCE INCOME FROM MONEY LENDING ACTIVITY WAS LESS THAN 50% IT WAS HELD THA T PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MONEY LENDING. HE REFERRED TO PAGE 4 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INCOME FROM LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE WAS NEVER MOR E THAN 50% AND IN THE YEAR UNDER ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 5 CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EVEN ENGAGED IN THE SAID ACTIVITY. THE INCOME FROM THESE TWO ACTIVITIES WAS VERY MINUSCULE AS COMPARED TO TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE HE SUBMITTED THAT MERE CLASSIFIC ATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN COMPANY IN VIEW OF THE RBI GUIDELINES IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING. . THE ASSESSEE SHOULD H AVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING TO GET THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 36(1)(V II). THE HIRE PURCHASE IN ANY CASE IS NOT A BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING. IN THE ALTERNATIV E HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE EVEN IF THE HIRE PURCHASE ACTIVITY AMOUNTS TO MONEY LENDING ST ILL THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS WAS NOT OF HIRE PURCHASE ACTIVITY THEREFORE IN ANY VIEW OF T HE MATTER THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2)(I) WERE NOT SATISFIED. 6. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE N AME OF THE COMPANY IS WALL STREET FINANCE LTD. WHICH ITSELF INDICATES THAT TH E PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS MONEY LENDING. HE SUBMITTED THAT NBFC CERTIFICATE IS THE PRIMA FAC IE REQUIREMENT FOR CONDUCTING THIS BUSINESS. HE POINTED OUT THAT BECAUSE OF RECURRING LOSSES ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASING BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. BUT THE SAME IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE BECAUSE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO COMPOSITION OF INCOME. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECLASSIFIED AS A LOAN COMPANY AS PER RBI LETTER DATED 30.8.1992. THE IMPLICATION OF THIS IS THAT HIRE PUR CHASE AND LEASING FINANCE BUSINESS COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF GRANTING OF LOAN ACTIVITY BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS NON BANKING FINANCE COMPANY. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ALLOWED THE INTEREST PART OF THE HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASING FINANCE AS BAD DEBTS AND THE ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT GIVEN IN HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASE FINANCE. IN THE CASE OF TULIP STAR HOTEL LTD (SUPRA) IT WAS HE LD THAT MONEY LENDING ACTIVITY IS PART OF NON BANKING FINANCE BUSINESS. LD D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT THIS DECISION IS APPLICABLE WITH REFERENCE TO INTER CORPORATE DEPOSIT. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS INTER ALIA NOTED AS UNDER:- ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 6 THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY SINC E ITS INCORPORATION IN 1987 AND MAINLY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING FUNDS AND NON-FUND BASED FINANCIAL SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONDUCTS MONEY CHANGING BUSINESS AS FULL-FLEDGED MONEY CHANGER. THE FUND BASED BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES GIVING OF LOANS PROVIDING FUNDS FOR LEASING AND HIRE PURCHAS E ACTIVITIES PROVIDING FUND FOR BILL DISCOUNTING FACILITIES PROVIDING FUNDS TO ENT ITIES WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A PROMOTER. ACQUISITION OF SECURITIES FOR FUNDING/TR ADING PURPOSE AND ALSO LENDING OF FUNDS IN DIFFERENT MANNER IS A FINANCIAL CONTRAC T. THUS THE LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE ACTIVITY BEING FUND BASED ACTIVITIES WAS ALSO CONSIDERED AS MONEY LENDING BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE INTER CORPORATE DEPOSIT WAS MEANT FOR EARNING INTEREST AND THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL OBSER VED THAT THE SAME HAD TO BE TREATED AS ADVANCING UNDER MONEY LENDING ACTIVITIES. THUS ALL FUND BASED ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NBFC FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME ARE TO BE CONSIDER ED AS PART OF MONEY LENDING ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THIS CASE I S APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. LD D.R. HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TH E ITAT (SB) IN THE CASE OF GUJRAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICE (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS INT ER ALIA HELD THAT INTER CORPORATE DEPOSIT WAS NOT TREATED AS LOANS AND ADVANCES AND THEREFOR E THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TULIP STAR HOTELS (SUPRA) STANDS OVERRULED. THE SAID DE CISION HAS BEEN RENDERED WITH REFERENCE TO INTEREST TAX ACT AND THE DEFINITION OF FINANCE C OMPANY WAS CONSIDERED IN SECTION 2(5B) OF THE INTEREST TAX ACT. IN THAT CONTEXT TH E PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY WAS DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO INCOME DERIVED FROM LE ASING BUSINESS. THIS DECISION IN OUR OPINION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE . 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE ISSU E IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NON BANKING FINANCE COMPANY. THE COM POSITION OF INCOME CANNOT BE A DECIDING FACTORY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF SHO ULD REPRESENT MONEY LENDING IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS OF BANKING OR MONEY LEN DING WHICH IS FULFILLED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS A NBFC AND CARRIED ON FUND BASED ACTIV ITIES FOR EARNING INTEREST. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF GUJRAT GAS FINANCIAL SERVICE (SUPRA) T HE PRINCIPAL OBJECT WAS DISTRIBUTION OF GAS. THE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SREI IN TERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD. 10 SOT 722 (DEL) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 7 THERE IS NO QUALIFICATION IN SECTION 36(2) THAT TH E BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD ONLY IN A TRADITIONAL SENSE. THE BUSINESS OF NON-BANKING FINANCE COMPANY APART FROM LEASING DEFINITELY INVOL VES LENDING OF MONEY. THIS ACTIVITY OF MONEY LENDING AND DERIVING INCOME THERE FROM IN THE FORM INTEREST IS THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING. ACCORDINGLY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S.36(1)(VII ) R.W.S 36(2)(I) WERE FULFILLED. IN VIEW OF THIS WE REJECT GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE . 10. AS FAR AS SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS CONCERNED SINCE THE AO HAS HIMSELF ALLOWED INTEREST PART THEREFORE THERE CAN NOT BE ANY DISPUTE REGARDING WRITE OFF OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD TO PROVE THAT THE DEBTS INDEED BECAME BAD DEBTS. EVEN OTHERWISE THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LIMITED V. CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.5294 OF 2003 HAS HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT IN FACT HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. IT IS ENOUGH IF THE BAD DEBT IS WRIT TEN OFF AS IRRECOVERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 11. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A). SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THEREFORE THE SA ME IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH APRIL 2010 SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (ACCOUNTANTMEMBER) MUMBAI DATED 30 TH APRIL 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 8 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY- MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH G MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 9 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26.4.2010 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28.4.2010 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ITA NO.7022 /MUM/2008 C.O.NO.80/M/09 10