ANTHONY SERRAO, MUMBAI v. ITO 21(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7090/MUM/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 709019914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABPS5022R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7090/MUM/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant ANTHONY SERRAO, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 21(3)(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 21-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 12-08-2014
Next Hearing Date 12-08-2014
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 19-10-2011
Judgment Text
A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. : 7090/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ANTHONY SERRAO FLAT NO. 3&4 ROSA VILLA 247-A FR. PETER PEREIRA ROAD KURLA (WEST) MUMBAI -400 070 .: PAN: AABPS 5022 R VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(3)(1) BKC BANDRA MUMBAI (APPELLANT-CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. : 7453/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(3)(1) BKC BANDRA MUMBAI VS ANTHONY SERRAO KURLA (WEST) MUMBAI -400 070 (APPELLANT-CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT-ASSESSEE BY : SHRI REEPAL TRALSHWALA RESPONDENT-REVENUE BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS /DATE OF HEARING : 12-08-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-11-2014 O R D E R PER VIVEK VARMA J.M. : THE CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-32 MUMBAI DATED 12.08.2011. SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS EM ANATE FROM THE ORDER WE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY ARE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEALS THROUGH A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NO. : 7090/MUM/2011 : ASSESSEES APPEAL : ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 2 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE: BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER ISSUED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE CIT(A)-XIII THIS APPEAL PETITION IS BEIN G SUBMITTED ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH IT IS PRAYED MAY BE C ONSIDERED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 01. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 91 71 260/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 1 25 332/- AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29. 07.2008 02. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE ACTUAL SALE VALUE AS REFLECTED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE A S THE VALUE FOR CAPITAL GAINS PURPOSE. A SMALL DIFFERENCE BETWEE N DVO VALUATION AND ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS ALSO ON ESTIMATION. 03. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN DISALLOWING EXEMPTIO N U/S 54EC OF THE ACT. THEY OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE F ACT THAT DELAY IN INVESTMENT WAS DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE SAID BONDS UNDER SECTION 54EC DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE TIME LIMIT OF INVESTMENT WAS EXPIRING. CONSIDERING THE R ELEVANT FACT THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN APPELLANT TO CO MPLY WITH THE TIME PERIOD LAID DOWN U/S 54EC HENCE BENEFIT S HOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. 04. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/ S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 05. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD TO AMEND ALTER DELE TE AND /OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE FINAL DATE OF HEARING. 3. THE BASIC FACTS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED APPEA LS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD INHERITED 1/5 TH SHARE IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES FROM HIS MOTHER SOLD HIS SHARE. AS PER THE SALE AG REEMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE ENTIRE PROPER TY ADOPTED BY STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS RS. 1 36 47 000/- WHEREAS THE S ALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS. 81 45 000/-. ACCORDINGLY THE VALU E OF HIS SHARE CAME AT RS. 16 29 000/-. ON THE OTHER PROPERTY AT K IROL VILLAGE THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS AT RS. 70 02 500/- WHEREA S THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 40 00 000/- GIVING THE SHARE VALUE OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 8 00 000/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE OBJECT TO THE VALUATION OF PROPERTI ES SOUGHT TO BE ADOPTED AND THE AO REFERRED THE VALUATION OF PROPER TIES TO DVO. INSPITE OF REGULAR REMINDERS THE DVO DID NOT SUBMI T THE REPORT AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING BARRED THE AO PAS SED THE ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 3 ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT THE DVOS REPORT AND IN AC CORDANCE WITH STAMP DUTY VALUATION U/S 50C ON 27.12.2010. 5. HOWEVER ON 29.12.2010 DVOS REPORT WAS FINALLY SUBMITTED & ACCORDING TO DVOS REPORT THE VALUE TAKEN OF THE FI RST PROPERTY WAS RS. 94 11 908/- AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 81 45 000/- AND RS. 46 00 000/- AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 40 00 000/- ON THE SECOND PROPERTY. 6. THE ASSESSEE MOVED THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF MARGINAL DIFFERENCE THE SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS HELD BY THE COORDI NATE BENCH AT PUNE IN THE CASE OF RAHUL CONSTRUCTION VS DCIT RE PORTED IN 38 DTR 19. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) T HAT SINCE THE DVOS REPORT WAS FOUND AVAILABLE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF LIM ITATION PERIOD DVOS VALUATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN. 7. THE CIT(A) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARGUME NTS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT UNDOUBTEDLY DVOS REPORT WA S MADE AVAILABLE ON 29.12.2010 WHICH WAS AFTER THE AO ALREADY HAVIN G FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT HENCE IT COULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO COGNIZ ANCE. 8. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE AO THA T THE VALUE TAKEN BY DVO SHOULD ALSO BE REJECTED AS THE DIFFERENCE WA S QUITE SMALL AND THEREFORE ADOPT ASSESSEES SALE CONSIDERATION. 9. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) AFTER MUCH DELIBERATION CO NCLUDED THAT VALUE AS TAKEN BY DVO SHOULD BE TAKEN AND HE THERE FORE DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT DVOS VALUATION TO COMPUTE LTCG. 10. AGAINST THIS DECISION ON THE ISSUE THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 4 11. BEFORE US THE AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE DIFF ERENCE BETWEEN DVOS VALUATION AND ASSESSEES SALE CONSIDERATION I S QUITE LESS THEN THE ASSESSEES SALE CONSIDERATION SHOULD ONLY BE RE STORED TO COMPUTE LTCG. 12. THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALREADY SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE HENCE NO FURTHER RELIEF SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PERUSED TH E MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE INFIRMITY IN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE GOOD BY THE CIT(A) BY TAKING THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE DVO. A DOPTION OF VALUATION REPORT IS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO. NO DOUBT THE REPORT OF THE DVO WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THIS DOES NOT BY ITSELF PLAC E THE JURISDICTION WITH THE CIT(A) WHO HAS CONTERMINOUS POWERS. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE THE CIT(A) SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE CALLED FOR R EMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WHO COULD HAVE SHARED THE VIEWS AND OBJECTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REPORT. BUT THIS WAS NOT DONE. EVEN THE AO IN VOLITION OF HIS POWERS DID NOT RECTIFY HIS OWN ORDER U/S 154 WHICH HE COULD HAVE LEGALLY DONE. ALL THIS NOT HAVING NOT DONE ONLY C ULMINATED THE PROCEEDINGS INTO THE REALM OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BEING VIOLATED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TIN BOX CO. VS CIT REPORTED IN 249 ITR 216 (SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RESTORED THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO BECAUSE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL FORA CANNOT MAKE ILLEGAL PROCEEDINGS INTO A LEGAL PROCEE DINGS AS THERE WAS A GROSS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE BEFORE THE AO. ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 5 14. ON THE ABOVE OBSERVATION WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE OF LTCG BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE LTCG IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 15. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THE ISSUE AND RESTORE THE CASE TO THE AO WHO SHALL ALLOW ALL ARG UMENTS AND OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RECOMPUTED TH E LTCG AS PER LAW. 16. GROUND NO. 2 IS THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 17. GROUND NO. 3 PERTAINS TO ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 54EC. 18. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXEMPT ION U/S 54EC PURCHASED NHAI BONDS AT RS. 8 50 000/- AND REC BOND S AT RS. 17 50 000/- ON 30.06.2008. 19. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE TRANSFER OF C APITAL ASSETS WERE ON 19.10.2007 AND 22.11.2007. THE AO CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE EXEMPTION U/S 54EC SHOULD NOT BE DENIED. 20. THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE AO THAT AT THE RELEVA NT TIME BONDS AS SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND HENC E THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT TAKE THE BONDS WITHIN THE STIPULATED SIX MONTHS PERIOD. 21. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AS SOON AS THE BON DS WERE RELEASED IN THE MARKET CBDT INSTRUCTED THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THEIR INVESTMENT IN THOSE BONDS EVEN AFTER THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD. 22. THE AO REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND DENIED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54EC. 23. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A) AND REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE DELAY ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 6 IN INVESTMENT IN THE BONDS AS SPECIFIED IN THE ACT COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THOSE BONDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. 24. THE CIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKING NOTE OF THE BOARS CIRCULAR AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR. ONC E THERE IS A SPECIFIC TIME LIMIT UNDER THE ACT U/S 54EC THE TIME LIMIT HAS TO BE STRICTLY ADHERED. THE POWERS TO EXTEND THE TIME LIM IT ARE WITH CBDT IN CASE THERE ARE GENUINE HARDSHIPS TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADHERE ANY TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED. THE AO OR THE CIT(A) DO NOT HAVE A NY POWER TO EXTEND THIS TIME LIMIT ON THE GENUINE HARDSHIPS. THE APPEL LANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT EXT ENDING THE TIME LIMIT FOR SUBSCRIPTION OF THESE BONDS FOR THE FY 2007-08 ALSO AS IT WAS DONE BY THE CBDT DATED 22.12.2006 WAS EXTENDING TIME LIM IT FOR THE SPECIFIC PERIOD FROM 26.12.2006 TO 31.03.2007 THE APPELLANT CANNOT AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF THIS NOTIFICATION FOR THE INVESTMENT MAD E IN THE SUBSEQUENT FY ENDING ON 31.03.2007 BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIM IT OF 30.4.2007. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE LOGIC THAT FOR ANY REASON IF THE TIME FOR FILING RETURN U/S 139(1) IS EXTENDED BY CBDT FOR ONE FY S UCH BENEFIT OF EXTENSION CANNOT BE AVAILED AUTOMATICALLY IN NEXT Y EAR ALSO WITHOUT A FRESH NOTIFICATION AGAIN EVEN IF IN THE NEXT YEAR A LSO SIMILAR REASONS HAVE RE-OCCURRED. HENCE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54EC HAVING BEING NOT FULFILLED THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION BY THE AO U/S 54EC IS CONFIRMED. 24. THE CIT(A) THUS SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE BY H OLDING THAT THE SAID CIRCULAR WAS ONLY GOOD FOR SPECIFIC PERIOD BET WEEN 26.12.2006 TO 31.03.2007. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE PUT FORTH IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 25. ON THE ISSUE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 26. BEFORE US THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS HELPLESS BECAUSE THE NOTIFIED BONDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE THER EFORE HE COULD NOT INVEST THE FUNDS IN THOSE BONDS. SINCE THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE THE ASSESSEE COULD ONLY WAIT TILL THE RELEASE OF TH E BONDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID. AS SOON AS THE BONDS WERE RELEASED T HE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN THEM AND WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT AS PE R THE BOARDS CIRCULAR F. NO. 142/09/2006 DATED 26.12.2006 ALLOW ED THE ASSESSEE ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 7 TO INVEST. THIS LEE WAY AS PROVIDED BY THE CBDT T HE ASSESSEE UTILIZED THE INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION. 27. THE DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND BEFORE THE AO. 29. THE FACTUM OF NON AVAILABILITY OF BONDS IS NOT DISPUTED. 30. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED ONLY TWO PSUS WHERE THE ASSESSEE COULD MAKE THE INVESTMENT. THIS BE SO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AT FAULT IN CASE OF NON AV AILABILITY OF THE BONDS. 31. SINCE THERE IS NO DENIAL BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES THAT THE BONDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN OUR OPINION NEITHER I T CAN BE CALLED AS A FAULT NOR THE DELAY IN INVESTMENT IN THOSE BONDS CO ULD BE ATTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE ASSESSEE. 32. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 54EC AS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 33. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. 34. GROUND NO. 4 PERTAINS TO CHARGE OF INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C. THE CHARGE OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL ON THE FINA L DETERMINATION OF INCOME. THE AO IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO COMPUTE TH E EXIGIBILITY OF INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C AS PER LAW. 35. GROUND NO. 4 IS HELD ACCORDINGLY. ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 8 36. GROUND NO. 1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 37. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TR EATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. : 7453/MUM/2011 : REVENUES APPEAL : THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE DEPAR TMENT: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO GRANT INDEX ATION FROM 01.04.1981 WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN O N SALE OF PROPERTIES. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER BE RESTORED 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR TO ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 38. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWANCE OF INDEXATION FROM 01.04.1981 TO COMPUTE THE LTCG. 39. THE FACTS IN THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO HELD THE COST TO BE TAKEN SHALL BE THE DATE OF PROPERTY DEVOLVING ON THE ASSESSEE I.E. 03.05.2002 AND NOT THE COST AS ON 01.04.1981 AS THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN. 40. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A) AND PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF SB OF ITAT AT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF MAN JULA J SHAH REPORTED IN 35 SOT 105. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOUGHT TO RELY ON CIR CULAR NO. 636 DATED 31.08.1992 AND THE CASE OF PUSHPA SOFAT REPORTED I N 89 TTJ 499 RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AT CHANDIGARH WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY HELD THAT IN CASE OF SALE OF HOUSE INHERITED FROM FATHER THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF COST TO ORIGINAL OWNER O R FMV AS ON 01.94.1981. 41. THE CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED WHETHER IT IS A CASE OF GIFT OR INHERITANCE THE PROPERTY GETS TRANSFERRED AS PER SECTION 2(47). THIS WOULD M AKE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE CASE OF TRANSFER THEREFORE THE SB CASE OF MANJULA J SHAH HAS FULL RELEVANCE. 42. THE CIT(A) THEREFORE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO COMPUTE THE INDEXED COST OF THE PROPERTIES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 9 43. AGAINST THIS THE DEPARTMENT IS BEFORE THE ITAT . 44. BEFORE US THE DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE AO WHEREAS THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE DEC ISION OF THE SB RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANJULA J SHAH (SUPRA) AND BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF PUSHPA SOFAT ( SUPRA ). 45. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE IS FULLY COVERED ON FACTS AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 46. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS AND ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FR OM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND SB DECISION AND THE DECISI ON TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. WE THEREFORE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE & REJECT THE GROUND AS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 47. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE THEREFORE REJECTED. 48. GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 49. THE APPEAL AS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS THEREF ORE DISMISSED. 50. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 7090/MUM/2011 BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 7453/MUM/2011 BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST NOVEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- (B R BASKARAN) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATE: 21 ST NOVEMBER 2014 !/ COPY TO:- ANTHONY SERRAO ITA 7090 /M/2011 ITA 7453/M/2011 10 1) / THE APPLICANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-32 MUMBAI. 4) '' # CITY -21 MUMBAI / THE CIT-CITY -21 MUMBAI. 5) $%&!!'( A ''( ) * THE D.R. A BENCH MUMBAI. 6) &+ - COPY TO GUARD FILE. './ / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / [ 0/1 2 ''( ) * DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI ` *561 .!. * CHAVAN SR. PS