M/S/ ITO, WD-12(2)(3), MUMBAI v. TARANG INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI

ITA 7024/MUM/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 702419914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AACFT1734G
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7024/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant M/S/ ITO, WD-12(2)(3), MUMBAI
Respondent TARANG INTERNATIONAL, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 12-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-07-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 11-12-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.7024/MUM/2008 & 208/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(2)(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 VS. M/S. TARANG INTERNATIONAL 5/9-A GRANT BLDG. 2 ND FLOOR ARTHUR BUNDER ROAD COLABA MUMBAI-400 005. PAN AACFT 1734G APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPEARANCES: MR. C.G.K. NAIR FOR THE APPELLANT MR. MITESH N. SHAH FOR THE RESPONDENT. O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR : ITA 7024/MUM/2008 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 26 TH SEPT. 2008 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES FACTORY AT DAM AN IS NOT A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION. WHILE DOING SO THE LEARNED CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF MANUFACTURING EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AT MUMBAI WHER E THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE ENTIRE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES EARLIER AND TILL THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THUS THE CONDITION LAID DOWN U/S.8 0IB(2)(I) OF THE ACT WAS NOT FULFILLED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE ON THE FACTS AND TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ITA NOS.7024/MUM/08 & 208/MUM/2010 - 2 - DAMAN UNIT. WHILE DOING SO THE LEARNED CIT(A) IGN ORED THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL MANUFACTURING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESS EE AMOUNTING TO RS.1 46 83 489 EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.76 02 67 7 I.E. ALMOST 52% WERE SPENT OUTSIDE BACKWARD AREA OF DAMAN THUS VIOLATING THE P ROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IB. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS . THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORTING OF GARMENTS. ON 16 TH FEB. 2004 THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED A NEW FACTORY AT DAMAN BUT SINCE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2004 THERE WAS A LOSS THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS THE FIRST ASSE SSMENT YEAR IN WHICH DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(4) IS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF DAMAN UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE BREAK UP OF SALES DISCLOSES THAT PERCENTAGE OF MUMBAI SALES TO TOTAL SALES IS 11.99% WHEREAS DAMAN SALES TO TOTAL SALES IS 88.01% WHEREAS BUSINESS AT MUMBAI AN D DAMAN IS THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT MOST OF THE EMBROIDERY CHARGES ARE PAID TO PER SONS OUTSIDE THE BACKWARD AREAS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IB. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THA T THE WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IS THE SAME AND OVERALL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SH OWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED HIS MUMBAI WORK TO DAMAN UNIT. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THERE IS HARDLY ANY SIGNIFICANT MACHINERY AT DAMAN AND AS PAYMENT FOR EMBROIDERY IS TO PERSONS OUTSIDE BACKWARD AREAS THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB I.E. PR OVISION OF EMPLOYMENT TO RESIDENTS OF BACKWARD AREAS AND ECONOMIC UPLIFTMENT OF AREA STA NDS DEFEATED. IT WAS IN THIS BACK GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.80IB(4) AMOUNTING TO RS.53 96 577. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO REVERSED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING INTER ALIA AS FOLLOWS : 5.1 WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF RECONSTRUCTIO N ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB ON THE FOLLOWING REAS ONS : ITA NOS.7024/MUM/08 & 208/MUM/2010 - 3 - I) IT IS CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION II) THERE WAS HARDLY ANY PLANT & MACHINERY III) MOST OF THE EMBROIDERY WORK WAS DONE OUTSIDE OF BAC KWARD AREA AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION IS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF SALES FROM MUMBAI AND DAMAN IN COMPAR ISON TO TOTAL SALES WHICH IS NOT MATERIAL AT ALL TO THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE. TH E CONCEPT OF RECONSTRUCTION ESSENTIALLY INVOLVE CHANGES IN THE EXISTING INDUSTR IAL UNDERTAKING. SECTION 80IB ALLOWS DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IT IS SEEN THAT A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS SE T UP BY THE ASSESSEE BY ESTABLISHING NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY. IN MY OPINIO N IT MAY PRODUCE THE SAME COMMODITY AS OF THE OLD INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OR I T MAY PRODUCE SOME OTHER DISTINCT MARKETABLE PRODUCTS EVEN COMMODITIES WHICH MAY FEE D THE OLD BUSINESS. FURTHER THE WORDS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUC TION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY EXISTENCE AS APPEARING IN 80IB(2)(I) MEANS IT MUST BE A NEWLY ESTABLISHED UNDERTAKING IN THE SENSE THAT NEW PLANT AND MACHINE RY ARE ERECTED FOR PRODUCING EITHER THE SAME COMMODITIES OR SOME DISTINCT COMMOD ITIES. ONE THING IS CERTAIN THAT THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING MUST BE AN INTEGRATE D UNIT BY ITSELF WHEREIN ARTICLES ARE PRODUCED AND LEAST A MINIMUM OF TEN PERSONS WIT H THE AID OF POWER AND A MINIMUM OF TWENTY PERSONS WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED. SUCH A NEW INDUSTRIALLY RECOGNIZABLE UNIT OF AN ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE SAID TO BE RECONSTRUCTION OF HIS OLD BUSINESS WHERE THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF A NY ASSET OF THE OLD BUSINESS TO THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WHICH TAKES PLACE WHEN T HERE IS RECONSTRUCTION OF THE OLD BUSINESS. THE DAMAN UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SET U P AT A NEW PLACE WITH NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY WHERE NOTHING HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FR OM THE OLD BUSINESS. IN THE CASE OF TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. V S. CIT 107 ITR 195 (SC) THE SUPREME COURT HELD :- REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT THAT TH E STEEL FOUNDRY DIVISION AND THE JUTE MILL DIVISION WERE NOT FORMED BY THE RECONSTRU CTION OF THE BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 15C(2)(I) A ND THAT THEREFORE THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED. FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS THER E MUST BE TRANSFER OF THE ASSETS OF THE EXISTING BUSINESS TO THE NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTA KING. A NEW ACTIVITY LAUNCHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY ESTABLIS HING NEW PLANTS AND MACHINERY BY INVESTING SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS MAY PRODUCE THE SAME COMMODITIES OF THE OLD BUSINESS OR IT MAY PRODUCE SOME OTHER DISTINCT MARKETABLE PR ODUCTS EVEN COMMODITIES WHICH MAY FEED THE OLD BUSINESS. THESE PRODUCTS MAY BE CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OLD BUSINESS OR MAY BE SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET. ON E THING IS CERTAIN THAT THE NEW UNDERTAKING MUST BE AN INTEGRATED UNIT BY ITSELF WH EREIN ARTICLES ARE PRODUCED AND ITA NOS.7024/MUM/08 & 208/MUM/2010 - 4 - AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF TEN PERSONS WITH THE AID OF P OWER AND A MINIMUM OF TWENTY PERSONS WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED . SUCH A NEW INDUSTRIALLY RECOGNIZABLE UNIT OF AN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE RECONSTRUCTION OF HIS OLD BUSINESS SINCE THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF ANY ASSETS O F THE OLD BUSINESS TO THE NEW UNDERTAKING WHICH TAKES PLACE WHEN THERE IS RECONST RUCTION OF THE OLD BUSINESS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 15C THE INDUSTRIAL UNITS SET UP MUST BE NEW IN THE SENSE THAT NEW PLANTS AND MACHINERY ARE ERECTED FOR PRODUCING EITHER THE SAME COMMODITIES OR SOME DISTINCT COMMODITIES. IN ORDER TO DENT THE BE NEFIT OF SECTION 15C THE NEW UNDERTAKING MUST BE FORMED BY RECONSTRUCTION OF THE OLD BUSINESS. IF AN UNDERTAKING IS NOT FORMED BY THE RECONSTRUCTI ON OF THE OLD BUSINESS THAT UNDERTAKING WILL NOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF SECTI ON 15C MERELY BECAUSE IT GOES TO EXPAND THE GENERAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SOME DIRECTIONS. IN CIT VS. ;PREMIER COTTON MILLS LTD. 240 OTR 434 THE MADRAS HIGH COURT REITERATED THE ESTABLISHED LAW IN A NUMBER OF DECIS IONS OF THE SUPREME COURT STARTING FROM TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT 107 ITR 195 THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR PURPOSES OF THE CONCESSION MEANT FOR NEW INDUST RIAL UNDERTAKINGS THAT IT SHOULD PRODUCE A DIFFERENT COMMODITY AND THAT WHERE THE I NDUSTRIAL EXPANSION INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL INSTALLED CAPACITY WITH SUCH EXPANSION IDENTIFIED AS A SEPARATE UNIT SATISFYING ALL THE CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION THERE SHOULD BE NO OBJECTION. IT IS ODD THAT SUCH ISSUES SHOULD CONTINUE TO COME UP TH OUGH THE LAW HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND REITERATED MORE THAN ONCE AS POINTE D OUT IN A NUMBER OF PRECEDENTS CITED IN THIS CASE WHERE THERE WAS FRESH CAPITAL SEPARATE SHEDS AND CARDING ROOM IN A SEPARATELY IDENTIFIABLE NEW PRODUCTION UNIT. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THERE ARE NO FINDINGS THAT THE MACHINERY INSTALLED AT DAMAN COMPRISED OF MACHINERY EARLIER USED BY THE AP PELLANT IN THE MUMBAI UNIT. THE PERCENTAGE OF SALES BEING HIGHER IN DAMAN UNIT THAN IN THE MUMBAI UNIT IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS DOES NOT JUSTIFY TO HOL D THAT THE MACHINERY OF THE LATTER UNIT HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE FORMER UNIT. THER E SHOULD BE A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE MACHINERY USED IN DAMAN UNIT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN TRAN SFERRED FROM THE MUMBAI UNIT. AS SUCH THE PROPOSITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THE SALES OF DAMAN UNIT HAS INCREASED THAN OF MUMBAI UNIT DOES NOT JUSTIFY THAT THE UNIT AT DAMAN IS A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION BY SHIFTING OF MACHINERIES FROM THE MUMBAI UNIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO MENTIONED THAT THER E WAS HARDLY ANY PLANT AND MACHINERY INSTALLED BY THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING A T DAMAN TO JUSTIFY THE INCREASE IN PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES. IT IS SEEN THAT THE BUSINES S OF THE APPELLANT CONSISTS OF MANUFACTURING OF GARMENTS WHERE THE FABRICS IS THE BASIC RAW MATERIAL AND CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS THE APPELLANT R EQUIRES ONLY SEWING MACHINES SCISSORS ETC. THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING OPERATED BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT REQUIRE MUCH INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY. THE APPELL ANT HAD ALSO INVESTED IN LAND ITA NOS.7024/MUM/08 & 208/MUM/2010 - 5 - FACTORY PREMISES ELECTRIC FITTINGS COMPUTERS FUR NITURE ETC APART FROM THE INVESTMENT IN MACHINERY AT ITS DAMAN UNIT. THE INVESTMENT REQ UIRED BY AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF MANUFACTURIN G BUSINESS IT UNDERTAKES. HENCE MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT MUCH INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND MACHINERY THE DEDUCTION ELIGIBLE U/S.80IB CANNOT BE DENIED ON THA T COUNT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT AN Y MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THAT THE PLANT AND MACHINERY SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CAPABL E OF PRODUCING THE VALUE OF GOODS AS SHOWN BY IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT MOST OF THE EMBROIDERY WORK WAS DONE OUTSIDE THE BACKWARD AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTIO N 80IB. IN MY OPINION THERE IS NO SUCH CONDITION FOR GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB THAT ALL THE JOB WORK MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN THE WORKSHOP OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE BACKW ARD AREA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PENWALT INDIA LTD. 196 ITR 813 THE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T HAS HELD THAT OUT OF MANY ACTIVITIES EXCEPT FOR ONE ACTIVITY NAMELY GETTING THE MACHINERY MANUFACTURED THROUGH TH ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES WERE ADMITTEDLY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF SUGAR AND TEA MACHINERY AND WAS ACCORDINGLY QUALIFIED FOR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80-I. IN THE CASE OF SUNRISE METAL INDUSTRIES VS. ITO 89 ITD 406 (MUM) T HE ITAT HELD THAT EVEN WHERE MAJOR ACTIVITY OF MANUFACTURING IS GOT DONE BY ASSE SSEE FROM OUTSIDE PARTIES ON JOB WORK BASIS STILL IT CAN BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IN ITS OWN UNITS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLAN TS FACTORY AT DAMAN IS NOT A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION THE PLANT AND MACHINERY INSTALLE D AT DAMAN IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE NATURE OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY IT AND THAT BY OUTSOURCING PART OF ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT APPELL ANT WAS NOT CARRYING OUT THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB TO THE EXTENT OF ITS PROFITS DERIVED FROM ITS MANUFACTURIN G BUSINESS AT DAMAN. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED BY THE ST AND SO TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE A PPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. ITA NOS.7024/MUM/08 & 208/MUM/2010 - 6 - 5. WE HAVE NOTED THAT EVEN THOUGH GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT IT WAS A CASE OF RECONSTRUC TION OF UNIT AT DAMAN THERE WERE NO FINDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MACHINER Y AT DAMAN UNIT WAS EARLIER USED BY THE ASSESSEE AT MUMBAI UNIT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE QU ANTITY OF PRODUCTION BEING EFFECTED AT DAMAN WAS EARLIER EFFECTED FROM MUMBAI UNIT CANNOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION. SIMILARLY THE FACT T HAT PART OF EMBROIDERY WORK IS DONE OUTSIDE THE BACKWARD AREA DOES NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(4). THE UNIT WAS SET UP AT DAMAN THE MACHINES USED AT DAMAN WERE NOT EA RLIER USED AT MUMBAI AND OUTSOURCING OF EMBROIDERY WORK PER SE DOES NOT ENTITLE THE ASSE SSEE TO THIS INCENTIVE DEDUCTION. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF T HE CASE AND PARTICULARLY LIMITED FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSION S ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A). 6. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE WE DECLINE TO INT ERFERE IN THE MATTER AND REJECT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.208/MUM/2010 8. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 21.10.2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES FACTORY AT DAM AN IS NOT A CASE OF RECONSTRUCTION. A) WHILE DOING SO THE LEARNED CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL MANUFACTURING EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AMO UNTING TO RS.1 50 84 773 EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 34 31 580 I.E. ALMOST 89% WERE SPENT OUTSIDE BACKWARD AREA OF DAMAN. THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AT MUM BAI WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON THE ENTIRE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES EARLIER AND TILL THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THUS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S.80IB(2)(I) OF THE ACT ARE NOT FULFILLED. ITA NOS.7024/MUM/08 & 208/MUM/2010 - 7 - WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DAMAN UNIT. A) WHILE DOING SO THE LEARNED CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF INSERTION OF SECTION 80IB WAS TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL GROWTH OF TH E BACKWARD AREA WHICH CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE BY GETTING THE JOB OUTSOURCED FROM THE BACKWARD AREA. 9. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FINALLY AGREE THAT WHATE VER IS DECIDED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WILL APPLY HERE AS WELL. AS A MATTER OF FA CT IN THE IMPUGNED CIT(A)S ORDER HE HAS MERELY FOLLOWED HIS PREDECESSORS STAND FOR 2005-06 . IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL OF CIT(A)S ORDER FOR A.Y. 2 005-06 EARLIER IN THIS ORDER WE APPROVE AND CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED CIT(A)S ORDER AS WELL AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 11. TO SUM UP BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-07-2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DT.22-07-2011. *GPR ITA NOS.7024/MUM/08 & 208/MUM/2010 - 8 - TRUE COPY COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. CIT(APPEALS) 4. CIT 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DY./ASST.REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI