ACIT CEN. CIR. - 11, MUMBAI v. M/s. SIMONY GAMES, MUMBAI

ITSSA 747/MUM/2003 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 74719916 RSA 2003
Assessee PAN AAKFS8874S
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITSSA 747/MUM/2003
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant ACIT CEN. CIR. - 11, MUMBAI
Respondent M/s. SIMONY GAMES, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Date Of Final Hearing 05-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 05-01-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 28-10-2003
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY (A.M) & SHRI R.S.P ADVEKAR (J.M) IT(SS) 747/MUM/2003 (BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/1990 TO 17/1/2000) THE ACIT CEN. CIR. 11 8 TH FLOOR ROOM NO.804 OLD CGO ANNEXE NEW MARINE LINES MK ROAD MUMBAI 20. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. SIMONI GEMS 36 SHREEJI ARCADE OPP. PRASAD CHAMBERS 1 &2 TATA ROAD OPERA HOUSE MUMBAI 04. PAN:AAKFS 8874S (RESPONDENT) APPELLAN BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR CIT DR RESPONDENT BY : S/SHRI. P.J.PARDIWALA/NITESH JOSH I ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) C.III MUMBAI DATED 14/3/2003 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT 1/ 4/1990 TO 17/1/2000. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS IN THIS CASE INVOKED RULE- 27 O F THE ITAT RULES AND HAS TAKEN A GROUND THAT SINCE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AFTER THE LAPSE OF MORE THAN 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE BLOCK RETURN OF INCOME ON 19/7/2000 THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS TO BE DISMISSED. 3. SHRI P.J.PARDIWALA LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158 BC WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 14/6/2000 AND IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 1 9/7/2000. HE SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 142(1 ) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRES WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 15/10/2001. HE FILED TH E PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO 168 PAGES AND DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AS IT(SS) 747/M/03 2 WELL AS UNDER SECTION 142(1) WHICH IS AT PAGE 63 AND 64 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THE NOTICES ARE DATED 15/ 10/2001. ON THE DATE MENTIONED AT PARA 5 PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHRI PARDI WALA SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND INSTEAD OF MENTIONING THE YEAR AS 2001 THE A.O MENTIONED THE SAME AS 2000. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS PLEA WAS TAKE N BEFORE THE BENCH ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE DEPARTMENT WAS PUT TO NOTICE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ON 18/8/09 HAD DIRECTED THE LD. D.R TO PRODUCE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS TO VERIFY THE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 143(2). SIMILARLY THE MATTER WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 20/10/2009. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED IN ITS FAVOUR. 4. THE LD. D.R SHRI AJIT KUMAR SINGH ON THE OTHERH AND VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL A ND AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY WRITTEN GROUND OR CROSS OBJECTION OR CROSS APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT ENTERTAIN THE SAME. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE WAS NEVER RAISED BEFORE THE AO AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO E NTERTAIN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. ON MERITS HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY M ENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON 15/10/2000 AND THIS IS WITHIN ONE YEAR AN D HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE HELD AS VALIDLY SERVED. 5. IN REPLY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B.R. BAMAS I VS. CIT CITY II AND SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON SIMILAR SET OF FAC TS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RAISE A NEW GROUND PROVIDED IT IS A GR OUND OF LAW AND DOES NOT NECESSITATE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO BE RECORDED. HE PRODUCED THE ORIGINAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND POINTED OUT THAT THE DATE ON THE SAME IS 15/10/2001 AND NOT 15/10/2000. HE IT(SS) 747/M/03 3 FURTHER RELIED ON AN ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT CITY-I VS. GILBERT & BARKER MANUFACTURING CO. USA 111 ITR 529. 6. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THEY WOULD BE FI LING WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE WITHIN ONE WEEK. 7. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERA TION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAP ERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITED WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 8. THE LETTER DATED 18/5/2009 WRITTEN BY CIT DR TO THE ACIT CEN.CIR.11 READS AS UNDER:- NO.CIT(DR)/ITAT/G-BENCH/2009-10 DATE :18 TH MAY 2009 TO THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 11 MUMBAI. SUB:-DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SIMON I GEMS VIDE ITA NO. IT(SS) 747/M/03 REG. ****** PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. THE ABOVE CASE HAS BEEN ADJOURNED NUMBER OF TIMES AND THE CASE HAS BEEN FIXED FOR LAST HEARING ON 29/06/2009. THE COU NSEL OF THE APPELLANT PUT FORWARD A NEW PLEA THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED BEYOND ONE YEAR I.E. ON 15/10/2001 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS TIME BARRED . ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I FIND THAT A NOTICE IS STATED TO BE ISSUED ON 15/10/2000. PLEASE VERIFY THE RECORDS AND SEND ME A XEROX COPY OF THE NOTICE ALONGWITH ORDER SHEET NOTINGS TO THE UNDERSIGNED WITHIN 10 DA YS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS GOT A VERY GOOD CASE IN THIS APPEAL. TAKE THE MATTER SERIOUSLY AND REPLY THE SAME IN ADVANCE. YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/- (P.S. CHELLAPHAN) IT(SS) 747/M/03 4 CIT (DR) ITAT IV G-BENCH MUMBAI COPY : THE CIT (CENTRA)-I MUMBAI CIT (DR) ITAT IV G-BENCH MUMBAI 9. LETTER DATED 25/6/09 WRITTEN BY ACIT CEN.CIR.11 MUMBAI TO CIT DR ITAT G BENCH READS AS UNDER:- NO.ACIT/CC-11/SIMONI GEMS/2009-10 DAT ED 25/06/2009 TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (DR) ITAT G BENCH MUMBAI. SIR SUB: DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SIMO NY GEMS VIDE ITA NO.IT(SS)747 /M/03-REG. REF:- YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. CIT(DR)/ITAT/G-BENCH/2 009-10 DATED:18 TH MAY 2009 ****** KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE. THE CASE RECORDS OF ABOVE ASSESSEE FOR BLOCK ASSESS MENT REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN FOR BLOCK PERIOD ON 19/7/ 2000 IN RESPONSE OF NOTICE U/S. 158 OF I.T. ACT. AFTER THAT THE CASE WAS TRANSFERR ED TO THIS CHARGE FROM SPL.RANGE 48 ON 12/10/2001. THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS IS SUED ONLY ON 15/10/2001. THE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS ENCLOSED HER EWITY. SUBMITTED PLEASE. YOURS FAITHFULLY (VINOD KUMAR) ACIT CENTRAL CIR.11 MUMBAI . COPY TO: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL-I MUMBAI ACIT CENTRAL CIR. 11 MUMBAI. 10. FROM THE PAPERS ON RECORD WE FIND THAT ON 17/8/ 2009 THE CIT(DR) ITAT II G BENCH MR. PRAGATI KUMAR HAS ADDRESSED A LETTER TO C IT(CENTRAL) I WHICH READS AS UNDER:- IT(SS) 747/M/03 5 NO.CIT(DR)/ITAT/G-BENCH/2009-10 DATED 17/08/2009 TO THE CIT (CENTRAL)-I MUMBAI. SIR SUB:- DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN CASE OF M/S. SIMONI GE MS ITA NO. IT(SS) 747/M/03 HEARING FIXED FOR 18/8/2009. IT IS A VERY GOOD CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE APPE LLANT HAD DISCLOSED ONLY RS.15.00 LAKHS UNDER THE BLOCK RETURN FILED BY IT WHEREAS THE AO ASSESSED U/S. 158 BC(C) THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS. 4.71 CRORES . THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS TAKEN A PLEA BEFORE THE BENCH THAT SINCE THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 15/10/2001 I.E. AFT ER THE LAPSE OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF BLOCK RETURN ON 19/ 07/2000 THE ENTIRE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TIME BARRED AS HELD BY HIGH CO URTS. A REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AO BY MY PREDECESS OR IN THIS CONNECTION. THE AO HAS REPORTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISS UED BY HIM ONLY ON 15/10/2001. HE HAS NOT MENTIONED WHETHER BEFORE TH E TRANSFER OF THE CASE RECORDS TO HIM HIS PREDECESSOR AO I.E. JCIT SPL.RA NGE 48 HAS ISSUED ANY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OR NOT/ HE HAS ALSO NOT ENCLOSE D THE COPY OF THE COMPLETE ORDER SHEET NOTINGS ALTHOUGH ASKED TO DO SO BY MY PREDECESSOR CIT(DR). THIS REPORT OF AO IS IN SHARP CONTRAST TO HIS RECORDING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO.2 PARA NO.5 THAT NOTICES U/S. 143(2)/142(1) DATED 15/10/2000 HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED. IF THE ACTUAL DATE OF NOTICE IS 15/10/2000 THE DEPA RTMENTS CASE SURVIVES. IF THE ACTUAL DATE IS 15/10/2001 THE DEPARTMENTS CASE WILL MOST LIKELY BE DISMISSED ON LIMITATION MATTER ALONE. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO LOOK INTO THIS MATTE R URGENTLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO SEND THE XEROX COPIES OF THE ENTIRE ORDER SHEET NOT HINGS OR PREFERABLY THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT FOLDER. IT(SS) 747/M/03 6 THIS MAY BE TREATED AS THE MOST URGENT MATTER AS TH IS CASE AS A LAST CHANCE HAS BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING TOMORROW ITSELF AND THER EFORE THE REPLY/RECORDS ARE NEEDED HERE TODAY ONLY. ENCL: AS ABOVE. YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/- (PRAGATI KUMAR) CIT DR ITAT-II G BENCH COPY TO: 1. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 11 MUMBAI FOR INFORMATI ON AND IMMEDIATE ACTION. 2. THE CCIT VI MUMBAI FOR INFORMATION. 11. ON 18/8/09 THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE LD. D. R TO PRODUCE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR VERIFYING THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U NDER SECTION 143(2). TILL DATE THIS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. 12. ON THIS FACTUAL MATRIX AND IN VIEW OF THE LETT ER WRITTEN BY ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 11 MUMBAI TO THE CIT(DR) ITAT G BENCH MUMBAI DATED 2 5/6/09 WE HOLD THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 15/10/2001 AND NOT ON 15/10/2000 AND THE DATE A PARA 5 OF PAGE -2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE. 13. COMING TO THE ISSUE WHETHER THE ASSESEE CAN RAI SE THIS GROUND ORALLY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY INVOKING RULE 27 OF THE ITAT RULES WE FIND THAT THE LEGAL POSITION HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B.R. BAMASI (SUPRA). THE QUESTION FRAMED BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WHICH IS AT PAGE 231 READS AS FOLLOWS: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE REFUSAL OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE IT THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 34 WHILE CON SIDERING THE APPEAL FIELD BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE A SSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1947-48 WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW? IT(SS) 747/M/03 7 14. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ANSWERED THIS QUESTION A T PAGE 245 AS FOLLOWS: THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS ENTI TLED TO LAW TO REFUSE TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO URGE THAT GROUND IN THE APPEAL BEFO RE IT. NOW A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. HAZARIMAL NAGJI & CO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THE RELEVANT RULES MADE THEREUNDER HELD THAT THE POWERS OF THE APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL ARE SIMILAR TO THE POWERS OF AN APPELLATE COURT UNDER THE CIVIL PROCED URE CODE. IT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL IS UNDOUBTEDLY ENT ITLED TO SUPPORT THE DECREE WHICH IS IN HIS FAVOUR ON ANY GROUNDS WHICH ARE AVA ILABLE TO HIM EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION OF THE LOWER IN HIS FAVOUR MAY NOT HAVE BE EN BASED ON THOSE GROUNDS. IT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT IF THE APPELLANT IN HIS CHAL LENGE TO THE DECREE OF THE LOWER COURT IS ENTITLED TO TAKE A NEW GROUND NOT AGITATED IN THE COURT BELOW BY LEAVE OF THE COURT THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON WHY A RESP ONDENT IN SUPPORT OF THE DECREE IN HIS FAVOUR PASSED BY THE LOWER COURT SHOU LD NOT BE ENTITLED TO AGITATE A NEW GROUND AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATION. A DIVISION BENCH OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW IN KA NPUR INDUSTRIAL WORKS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. THE JUDGMENT HAS CONSI DERED THE POSITION OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT RULES AND THAT OF AN APPEAL UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER XLI RULE 22. THE JUDGMENT HOLDS THAT WHEN THE DEP ARTMENT FILES AN APPEAL FOR AN INCREASE IN THE ASSESSED INCOME THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL IS THE INCREASE CLAIMED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE CAN URGE ANY GROUND OF DEFENCE EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR SHOWING THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO IN CREASE. IT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AT A LL IS A GROUND FOR SHOWING THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO FURTHER ASSESSMENT AND THE DEPAR TMENTS APPEAL CAN THEREFORE BE RESISTED ON THAT GROUND AND THAT THER E IS NO INCONGRUITY IN MAINTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND YET REFUSING TO INCREASE IT ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AT ALL. THE JUDGEMENT POINTS OUT HOWEVER THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL A CCEPTS THE GROUND OF DEFENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED IT CAN ONLY REFUSE TO INCREASE THE ASSESSED INCOME AS ONLY SUCH AN ORDER WOULD BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ANY OTHER ORDER SUCH AS ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL . THAT JUDGMENT HOLDS THAT THE POSITION OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT AND AN APPEAL UNDER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IS IDENTICAL .. IF THE GROUND SUCCEEDS THE ONLY RESULT WOULD BE TH AT THE APPEAL WOULD FAIL. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE GROUND WOULD SHOW THAT THE ENTIR E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INVALID BUT YET THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HEARS THAT APPEAL WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO DISTURB OR TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN FAVOUR OF T HE APPELLANT AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. THE GROUND WOULD SERVE ONL Y AS A WEAPON OF DEFENCE AGAINST THE APPEAL. IF THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT HIMS ELF TAKEN ANY PROCEEDINGS TO CHALLENGE THE ORDER IN APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT SET ASIDE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST. THAT ORDER WOULD STAND AND WOULD HAVE F ULL EFFECT IN SO FAR AS IT IS IT(SS) 747/M/03 8 AGAINST THE RESPONDENT. THE TRIBUNAL REFUSED TO AL LOW THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE UP THIS GROUND UNDER AN INCORRECT IMPRESSION OF LAW TH AT IF THE POINT WAS ALLOWED TO BE URGED AND SUCCEEDED THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE NOT ONLY TO DISMISS THE APPEAL BUT ALSO TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT. THE P OINT WOULD HAVE SERVED AS A WEAPON OF DEFENCE AGAINST THE APPEAL BUT IT COULD NOT BE MADE INTO A WEAPON OF ATTACK AGAINST THE ORDER IN SO FAR AS IT WAS AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WE HAVE TO ADMIT THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS A LEGAL IS SUE. THE FACTS NEED NOT BE INVESTIGATED AND IN FACT THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED TH IS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT PARA 3 TO 4 OF HIS ORDER FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. 15. KEEPING IN VIEW THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUE WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY DISMISS THIS REVENUE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT THE A.O HAS ERRED IN NOT ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WITHIN A MANDATORY PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE DA TE OF FILING OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT RETURN. THE LAW IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUEMOON CIVI L APPEAL NO.1198 OF 2010 ORDER DATED 2/2/2010. 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED WITHOUT GOING INTO OTHER ISSUES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 23 RD DAY OF MARCH 2010 SD/- SD/- (R.S.PADVEKAR) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER MUMBAI DT. 23 RD MARCH 2010 IT(SS) 747/M/03 9 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. THE CIT CITY -CONCERNED 5. THE D.RG BENCH . (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR I TAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. IT(SS) 747/M/03 10 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 02/03/2010 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER IT(SS) 747/M/03 11 IT(SS) 747/M/03 12