Smt. LEONIE M. ALMEIDA, MUMBAI v. ACIT - 18(2), MUMBAI

ITSSA 142/MUM/2007 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14219916 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AADPA7839Q
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITSSA 142/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Smt. LEONIE M. ALMEIDA, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT - 18(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 27-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 31-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 31-03-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 12-11-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 (BLOCK PERIOD: 1.04.1987-06.11.1987) LEONIE M ALMEIDA GANESH NIWAS VEER SAVARKAR MARG MUMBAI-400025. PAN: AADPA7839Q APPELLANT VS ACIT -18 (2) MUMBAI. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATISH MODY REVENUE BY : SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 01.08.2007 OF CIT(A)_XVIII FOR THE BLO CK PERIOD 1.04.1987-06.11.1987. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : I. .THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TAXES LEVIED BY AO WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER OF CIT(A) AGAINST PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND I N VIOLATION OF ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION U/S 245D(4) OF THE ACT 2. .THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 158 BFA (1) OF RS.3 40 032/- IN VIOLATION OF ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM PENALTIES.; IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE AO IMPOSING INTEREST OF RS.69 320/- U/S 220(2) OF THE ACT 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER : ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158 BFA(1) IS BA D IN LAW AS NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158 BC IS INVALID. HEN CE ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PURSUANT THAT TO ARE INVALID AND VOID 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASS ESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND THE SAME MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ADDITIONAL G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS/REJECT THE ADDITIONAL GR OUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. 7. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 ARE REGARDING L EVY OF INTEREST U/S 158 BFA (1). 7.1 THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.11.1997. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158B D ON 18.01.2000. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE BLOCK IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 3 PERIOD ON 28.9.2000 DISCLOSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON 11.05.2001. THE SETTLEMEN T COMMISSION PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 245D(1) TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16. 09.2002. HOWEVER IN THE MEAN TIME THE AO PASSED THE ASSES SMENT ORDER FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 30.1.2002. THE SETTLE MENT COMMISSION PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 245D(4) O N 30.09.2005. THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER GIVING EFFE CT TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONS ORDER ON 14.12.2005. THE AS SESSEE CHALLENGED THE GIVING EFFECT ORDER DATED 14.12.200 5 BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 220(2) FROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.1.2002 TO ORDER O F THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 30.11.2005. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INTEREST U/S 220(2) FROM THE DATE OF ASSES SMENT ORDER TILL THE DATE OF ORDER PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO WI THDRAW THE SAME VIDE ORDER DATED 05.07.2006. WHILE GIVING EFF ECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 05.07.2006 THE AO PASSE D THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2006 WHEREBY INTERALIA LEVIED THE INTEREST U/S 158BFA(1) OF RS.3 40 032/- THE AO AFTER GIVING RELIEF AS PER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE INTEREST OF RS.69 320/- U/S 220(2). THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE INTEREST LEVIED BY THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) REJ ECTED THE IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 4 GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE INTERES T LEVIED U/S 158 BFA(1) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED THAT LEVY OF INTEREST BY THE AO IS AGAINST THE PR OVISIONS OF LAW AS WELL AS IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION U/S 245D(4) OF THE ACT. HE H AS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS GRANT ED IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DATED 30.9.2005. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HA S POINTED OUT THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORIGINAL GIVING EFFECT ORDER BY THE AO ON 14.12.2005 HE DID NOT LEVY ANY INTEREST OR P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 158BFA(1) THEREFORE WHILE PASSING T HE GIVING EFFECT ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 05.07.2006 THE AO CA NNOT LEVY THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158BFA(1) OF THE ACT. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 158BFA(1) IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE AO IS BOUND TO LEVY THE INTEREST. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) T HE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION GRANTED IMMUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE FROM PENALTY AND PROSECUTION THEREFORE NO IMMUNITY WAS GRANTED FROM LEVY OF INTEREST WHICH IS MANDATORY. H E HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 5 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND RE LEVANT RECORD. AS FAR AS THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 158 BFA (1) IS CONCERNED THE SAME IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AS PROVID ED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BFA(1) WHICH IS REPRODUCE D BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE : LEVY OF INTEREST AND PENALTY IN CERTAIN CASES. 158BFA. (1) WHERE THE RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OT HER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 1997 AS REQUIRED BY A NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 158BC IS FURNISHED AF TER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUCH NOTICE OR I S NOT FURNISHED THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMP LE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF [ONE] PER CENT OF THE TAX ON UNDISCLOSE D INCOME DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC FOR E VERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH COMPRISED IN THE PERIOD CO MMENCING ON THE DAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE AND (A)WHERE THE RETURN IS FURNISHED AFTER THE EXPIRY O F THE TIME AFORESAID ENDING ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RET URN; OR (B)WHERE NO RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED ON THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTIO N 158BC. (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER M AY DIRECT THAT A PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM WHI CH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF TAX LEVIABLE BUT WHI CH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE MADE IN RESPECT OF A PERSON IF (I) SUCH PERSON HAS FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER CLAUS E (A) OF SECTION 158BC; IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 6 (II) THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN H AS BEEN PAID OR IF THE ASSETS SEIZED CONSIST OF MONEY THE ASSE SSEE OFFERS THE MONEY SO SEIZED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX PAYABLE; (III) EVIDENCE OF TAX PAID IS FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN; AND (IV) AN APPEAL IS NOT FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT PART OF INCOME WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRECEDING PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERM INED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME SH OWN IN THE RETURN AND IN SUCH CASES THE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOS ED ON THAT PORTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED WHICH IS I N EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RE TURN. 11. APART FROM THE LEVY OF INTERESTS UNDER SECTION 158BFA(1) THE PENALTY MAY ALSO BE DIRECTED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 158BFA. HOWEVER THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS DI SCRETIONARY AS MANIFEST BY THE SUB-SECTION (2) WHEREIN THE WO RDS MAY DIRECT IS USED. SINCE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS GRANTED THE IMMUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND PROSECUTION THEREFORE WE FIND NO FORCE AND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 158BFA(1). THE ASSESSEE TIME AND AGAIN HAS CONTENDE D THAT THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S 158BFA(1) IS A PENALTY AND THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE SAME CANNOT BE LEVIED AS IMMUNITY WAS GRANTED. WE DO NO T AGREE WITH THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTER EST U/S IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 7 158BFA(1) IS A PENALTY BECAUSE THERE IS A SEPARATE PROVISIONS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 158BFA. THUS WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW AND FINDINGS OF THE LE ARNED CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO IMMUNITY PROVIDED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF INTEREST WHICH I S MANDATORY IN NATURE. THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED T HE ISSUE IN PARAGRAPH 6 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER : 6. THE GROUND OF APPEAL CONCERNING LEVY LF PENALTY U/S 158BFA(1) RELATES TO DEMAND OF RS.3 40 032/- UNDER THIS HEAD. THE AR HAS ARGUED THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER THE HON. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD GRANTED IMMUNITY FROM ALL PENALTIES UNDER THE ACT TO THE APPELLANT. HE HAD ENCLOSED A COPY OF THE ORDER IN THIS REGARD. I HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION . PARA-II ON PAGE NO.60 GRANTS IMMUNITY FROM PENALTIE S AND PROSECUTION UNDER THE IT ACT AND OTHER CENTRAL ACT. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS O F THE AR I FIND THAT THE CONTENTS ARE MISLEADING. TH E CHARGE UNDER THE HEAD 158BFA(1) IS NOT PENALTY BUT IS IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST. I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY AR HAS TERMED IT AS PENALTY. AS FAR AS THE INTERES T U/S 158BFA(1) IS CONCERNED THERE IS NO IMMUNITY PROVIDED BY THE HON. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CHARGES OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AND ALSO NON-PENAL IN NATURE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES I HOLD THAT THE SUBMISSION S OF THE AR ARE WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE LEVY UNDER THIS SECTION AMOUNTING TO RS.3 40 032/- 12. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED AR TH AT WHEN THE AO DID NOT LEVY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158BFA( 1) WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMM ISSION AT THIS STAGE OF GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) THE AO CANNOT LEVY THE INTEREST IS CONCERNED WHEN THE LEV Y OF INTEREST IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 8 U/S 158BFA(1) IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AND THE AO HA S NO DISCRETIONARY POWER THEN EVEN THOUGH THE AO HAS NO T LEVIED INTEREST WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE SE TTLEMENT COMMISSION THE SAME CAN BE LEVIED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154. HOWEVER NON-DISCRETIO NARY BUT MANDATORY MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFIED AS HAS BEEN HEL D BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE OF ADDL.CIT V/ S INDIA TIN INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.REPORTED IN 166 ITR 454. S IMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HON. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT V/S DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK REPORTED I N 119 ITR 144. WHEN THE AO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION TO LEVY IN TEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BFA(1) BY INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 THEN THERE IS NO BAR FOR LEVY OF INTEREST WHICH IS MANDATORY IN NATURE UNDER THE SAI D PROVISIONS. AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 158BFA(1) IN CASE WHERE THE RETURN OF TOTAL INCOM E INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IN RESPECT OF SEARCH U/S 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS OR AN Y ASSETS REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A AS REQUIRED BY A NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE ( A ) OF SECTION 158BC IS FURNISHED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUCH NOTICE OR I S NOT FURNISHED THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMP LE INTEREST AT THE RATE PRESCRIBED OF THE TAX ON UNDISCLOSED I NCOME DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE ( C ) OF SECTION 158BC. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE INCOME IN THE R ETURN FILED IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 9 AND THEREAFTER HE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 245 C FOR SETTLEMENT OF CASE ON 11.05.2001. AFTER AN APPLIC ATION ONCE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PASSED THE ORDER FOR ADMI TTING THE APPLICATION FOR FURTHER PROCESS THE SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION HAS EXERCISED ITS JURISDICTION ON THE INCOME DISCLO SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PETITION U/S 245C. THE PROCEEDING S FOR ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OR APPEAL OR REVISION WHICH MAY BE PENDING BEFORE THE ANY INCOME TAX AUT HORITY ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION U/S 245C(1) IS M ADE ARE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCLOSED INCOME TILL THE DATE THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO PROCEED WITH THE PETITION WHICH IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOM E. THUS THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION MADE UNDER SECT ION 245C(1) WAS ACCEPTED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE DISCLOSER OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE A SSESSEE AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BLOCK RETURN FI LED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC. THEREF ORE THE INTEREST U/S 158BFA(1) WILL BE LEVIABLE FROM THE E XPIRY OF THE TIME GIVEN IN THE NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE(A) 158BFA TI LL THE ORDER PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 245 C(1). SINCE IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD FOR WHICH P ERIOD THE AO HAS LEVIED THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158BFA(1) WE DIRECT THAT THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158BFA CANNOT BE LEVIED AFTER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 245 C WAS IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 10 ACCEPTED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BY PASSING THE ORDER U/S 245D(1). THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY DEC IDED. 13. GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISALLOWED . 14. REGARDING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) OF THE ACT 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR AS WELL AS THE LE ARNED DR AND CONSIDERED RELEVANT RECORD. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE PASSIN G THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2006 DIRECTED THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) IN FULL. THEREFOR E THE LEVY OF INTEREST OF RS.69 320/- U/S 220(2) IS IN CONTRAVEN TION OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 16. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTE NT OF RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE INTEREST UNDER SECTI ON 220(2) WAS LEVIED ONLY FOR THE PERIOD WHICH WAS NOT IN DIS PUTE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND RE LEVANT RECORD. THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY CHALLENGED THE ORD ER OF THE AO DATED 14.12.2005 GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. ONE OF THE GROUND WAS AGAINST THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2). THE CIT(A) WHILE DE CIDING THE ISSUE VIDE ORDER DATED 05.07.2006 HAS HELD THAT TH E LEVY OF IT(SS)A NO. 142/MUM/2007 11 INTEREST IS NOT JUSTIFIED FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDE R OF THE AO TILL THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. A CCORDINGLY HE DIRECTED THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE LEVY OF INTERES T FOR THE DISPUTED PERIOD. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER O F CIT(A) THE AO WITHDRAWN THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 220(2) FOR THE DISPUTED PERIOD AND LEVY THE INTEREST ONLY AFTER THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND A NY MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS REJECTED. 18. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTE D. 19. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.08.2010 SD SD (P.M.JAGTAP) (V IJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 27 TH AUG 2010 SRL:11810 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)XXXII 5. DR E BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI