M/S. SANGHI MOTORS (BOMBAY) P. LTD., MUMBAI v. THE ACIT 7(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7293/MUM/2007 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 729319914 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AABCS5977Q
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7293/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant M/S. SANGHI MOTORS (BOMBAY) P. LTD., MUMBAI
Respondent THE ACIT 7(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 20-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 05-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 05-04-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 06-12-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ( AM ) ITA NO. 7292/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 ITA NO. 7293/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 06 SANGH I MOTORS (BOMBAY) PVT. LTD. 1 - 2 TURF VIEW SETH MOTILAL G. SANGHI MARG WORLI MUMBAI - 400 0 18 . ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. ( AABCS 5977 Q) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI FARROKH IRANI RESPONDENT BY : MS. M. KHARE O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THESE TWO APPEALS PREFER RED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 24.9.07 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 04 - 05 AND 20 05 - 06. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.7292 /MUM/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04 - 05 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURING AND TR ADING O F INDUSTRIAL GAS PLANT AND GASES. IT FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16 79 880/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR S I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 01 - 02 AND 20 02 - 03 HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME WAS RE - COMPUTED BY ADOPTING A NNUAL L ET TING V ALUE(ALV) AT RS.2 16 00 000/ - . ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT EXPLANATION AS TO WHY ALV SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AT RS.2 16 00 000/ - AS WAS DONE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR S. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS EXPLANATION WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCE D BY THE AO IN PARA 4.2. OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE WE ARE FURNISHING THE DETAILS ON THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY AS RS.60 00 000/ - . THE ABOVE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN ON RENT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR A M ONTHLY RENT OF RS.5 00 000/ - AND AS THE MUNICIPAL VALUATION OR STANDARD VALUE WAS NOT MORE THAN RS.5 00 000/ - PER MONTH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RIGHTLY OFFERED THE ANNUAL RENT RECEIVED WHICH WAS RECEIVED FOR THE YEAR AS RENTAL INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTI ON 23(1) AND (2) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. IN THE ITAT ORDER OF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 ABOVE CAPTIONED SUBJECT HAS FIXED THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE AS RS.6 00 000/ - . THE SAME IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 3 HOWEVER THE AO WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE DECISION OF ITAT IN A SSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01 - 02 HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEP ARTMENT AND THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN THE SAME AL V OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY I.E. RS.2 16 00 000/ - AND DETERMINED THE NET INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS.1 19 76 957/ - AND THEREBY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.71 95 910/ - VIDE ORDER DATED 26.6.2006 PASSED U/S.143 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(TH E ACT). 3. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ITAT CLEARLY SHOW THAT ESTIMATING THE ALV ON THE BASIS OF RENT RECEIVED BY ONE OF THE ULTIMATE USERS IS NOT REASONABLE WHEREAS IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THE RENT REC EIVED FROM ALL T HE UNITS ARE AVAILABLE . THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) AND 23(1)(B) OF THE ACT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHARGED VERY LOW RATE OF RENT FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN BECOMES VERY CLEAR WHEN IT IS SE EN THAT THE SISTER CONCERN M/S. SANGHI UDYOG INDIA LTD. IMMEDIATELY HAS SUB - LET THE PROPERTY TO VARIOUS MULTINATIONALS AND BLUE CHIP CO MPANIES AND HAS REC EIVED RENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 17 54 500/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER DEDUCTING RS.4 92 903/ - BEING 5% RET URN ON THE INVESTMENT BY M/S. SANGHI UDYOG INDIA LTD. ON FURNISHING AND DECORATION OF THE PROPERTY OUT OF RENT OF RS.2 17 54 500/ - DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT RS.2 12 61 597/ - (RS. ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 4 21754500 - RS.492903 ) AS ALV AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE ALV OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAKEN AT RS.60.00 LACS. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 5. GROUND NO.1 TO 5 AND AGAIN 5 ARE AGAINST THE DETERMINATION OF ALV AT RS.2 12 61 597/ - BY THE LD. CIT(A) A S AGAINST RS.60.00 LACS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITS THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN SANGHI M OTORS (BOMBAY) PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.9086/MUM/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 ORDER DATED 17.1.2006 AND THE ORDER IN ITA NO.2787/MUM/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 ORDER DATED 12.1.2009. IN SUPPORT HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF TH E SAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL . HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE TAX RATE IN THE A SSESSEE'S CASE AND IN THE CASE OF SANGHI UDYOG INDIA LTD. ARE THE SAME AND IN SUPPORT HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S ALONG WITH COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN S AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF M/S. SANGHI UDYOG INDIA LTD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 04 - 05 AND 20 05 - 06. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN JCIT VS. M/S. KEDARESHWAR INVESTMENT & ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 5 TRADING CO. LTD. IN ITA NO.3285/MUM/1999 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994 - 95 ORDER DATED 30.4.2004 AND IN MANISH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.2394/BOM/93 AND 5109/BOM/93 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989 - 90 AND 1990 - 91 ORDER DATED 22.7.2002 TO SUBMIT THAT THE ALV HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT WHAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY ITS TENANTS FROM THE ULTIMATE USER. IN SUPPORT HE ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL . HE THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE DELETED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPU TE THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2001 - 02 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ALV OF THE SAID PROPERTY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 01 - 02 SHOULD BE RS.60.00 LACS. THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A HAS DISTINGUISHED THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING IN PARA 6.3 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE ITAT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 6 ESTIMATING THE ALV ON THE BASIS OF THE RENT RECEIVED BY ONE OF THE ULTIMATE USER IS NOT REASONABLE. IT IS IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR THAT THE RENT RECEIVED FROM AL THE UNITS ARE AVAILABLE . HOWEVER WE FIND THAT T HE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE - 4 OF ITS ORDER DATED 17.1.2006 (SUPRA) HAS GIVEN A CHART SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF MONTHLY RENT CHARGED FROM THE PARTIES BY THE LESSEE COMPANY M/S. SANGHI UDYOG INDIA LTD. FOR THE F . Y . 2001 - 02 AND 2002 - 03 THEREFORE THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE SAME PARA THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO DID NOT GIVE ANY FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE WOULD BE FAIR RENT OR NOT IN TERMS OF SEC .23(1)(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE TENANT AND THE ASSESSEE BECAME INTERESTED PARTIES BY VIRTUE OF TRANSFER OF INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS. HOWEVER WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA - 7 APPEARING AT PAGE - 4 OF ITS ORDER DATED 17.1.2006 SUPRA HAS OBSERVE D AS UNDER : 7. BASED ON THE ABOVE INFORMATION THE A.O. CALCULATED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 23(1)(A) AS UNDER: - RS.1 50 000 (PER MONTH) X 12(NUMBER OF UNITS) X 12 =RS.2 16 00 000 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A). T HE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS CASES HAS HELD VIDE PARA - 21 OF ITS ORDER DATED 17.1.2006 SUPRA AS UNDER : ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 7 21. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE PREMISES TO THE LESSEE ON 21.03.2000 WHAT HE INTENDED TO HAND OVER FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 00 000/ - LICENCE FEE PER MONTH FROM THE LESSEE BUT DEFERRED THE RECEIPT OF THE SAME FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN SAYING THAT THE LICENCE FEE SHAL L BECOME PAYABLE ONLY ON THE LICENSOR RECEIVING THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE PREMISES. HENCE IN OUR VIEW THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE SAID PROPERTY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 SHOULD BE RS.60 00 000/ - . WE DIRECT THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE SAME IN PLACE OF RS.2 16 00 000/ - . 9 . THE TRIBUNAL IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02 - 03 IN M/S. SANGHI MOTORS (BOMBAY) P. LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD VIDE PARA - 6 OF THE ORD ER DATED 12.1.2009 AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH PARTIES MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. SANGHI MOTORS (BOM) P. LTD. HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE IN - GENUINE HENCE IN OUR OPINION THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LICENSEE IS THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED IN ITS HANDS AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS TO BE TAKEN AS ANNUAL LETTING VALUE FOR ASSESSING INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) S ORDER IS CORRECT IN LAW HENCE WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. THUS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY U/S.23(1)(A) HAS BEEN DETERMIN ED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT RS.60.00 LACS. WITH REGARD TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT CLAUSE( B) OF SECTION 23 (1) HAS BEEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2001 W.E.F. ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 8 1.4.2002 WE FIND THAT IT HAS BEEN ELABORATED IN THE DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 2001 WHICH READS AS UNDER : 29.2 THE SUBSTITUTED SECTION 23 RETAINS THE EXISTING CONCEPT OF ANNUAL VALUE AS BEING THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR I.E. ANNUAL LETTING VALUE (ALV). HOWEVER IN CASE OF LE T OUT PROPERTY THE CONCEPT OF ANNUAL RENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE NEW SECTION PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY IS LET AND THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS IN EXCESS OF THE ALV THE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE SHA LL BE THE ANNUAL VALUE. THIS WILL BE THE CASE EVEN IF THE PROPERTY (OR PART OF THE PROPERTY) WAS VACANT FOR A PART OF THE YEAR BUT THE ACTUAL RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE YEAR IS STILL HIGHER THAN THE ALV. WHERE THE PROPERTY OR ANY PART OF THE PR OPERTY IS LET AND WAS VACANT DURING THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND OWING TO SUCH VACANCY THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS LESS THAN THE ALV THE SUM SO RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE SHALL BE THE ANNUAL VALUE. IN CASE THE ACTUAL RENT RE CEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE YEAR IS LESS THAN THE ALV BUT NOT BECAUSE OF VACANCY IT IS THE ALV WHICH SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE ANNUAL VALUE. 1 0 . IN THE CASE BEFORE US IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ACTUAL RENT REC EIVE D OR RECEIVABLE IS IN EXCESS OF THE ALV I.E. MORE THA N RS.60.00 LACS AS DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER S FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 01 - 02 AND 2002 - 03 THEREFORE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT REMAINS SAME I.E. RS.60.00 LACS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF DECISION IN RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321(SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ... IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE JUSTIFYING THE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THAT TAKEN IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS... WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 9 ADOPT RS.2 12 61 597/ - AS ALV OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM THAT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE TAKEN AT RS.60.00 LACS. ACCO RDINGLY WE DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE ALV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.60.00 LACS ONLY. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE ALLOWED. 1 1 . GROUND NO.6 IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 1 2 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ARGUE THE ABOVE GROUND VIS - A - VIS HE HAS PLACED NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 1 3 . GR OUND NO.7 IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B AND 234D OF THE ACT. 1 4 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO SUPPORTING MATERIAL WAS PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE GROUND. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF WITH REGARD TO THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234B OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234D OF THE ACT WE FIND T HAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 10 THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. EKTA PROMOTERS P. LTD. (2008) 305 ITR(AT)1(DEL. ) (SB) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD (PAGE - 33 OF THE ITR ). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION OUR ANSWER TO QUESTION REFERRED TO US IS THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D IS CHARGEABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AND IT COULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR EARLIER YEARS EVEN THOUGH REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THESE YEARS ARE FRAMED AFTER JUN E 1 2003 OR THE REFUND WAS GRANTED FOR THOSE YEARS AFTER THE SAID DATE. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT S INCE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2004 - 05 THEREFORE WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE INTERES T U/S.234D IS CHARGEABLE. HOWEVER THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CHARGE THE INTEREST AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER AND ACCORDING TO LAW. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.7293/M/07 (A .Y. 2005 - 06 ) (ASSESSEE S APPEAL): 1 5 . A T THE TIME OF HEARING BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE ISSUES ARE THE SAME AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 4 - 05 THEREFORE THE PLEA TAKEN BY THEM FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR MAY BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE GR OUNDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 05 - 06. ITA NO. 7292 & 93/M/07 A.Y: 04 - 05 & 05 - 06 11 1 6 . THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE PARTIES WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW OUR FINDING RECORD ED IN PARA S - 10 12 AND 14 OF THIS ORDER. WE HOLD AND ORDER ACCORDING LY. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 7 . IN THE RESULT ASSESSEE'S APPEALS STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.4.2010. SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( D. K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 20.4. 20 10 . JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED M UMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.