Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Hansa M. Mehta, Mumbai vs Assessee on 25 February, 2013
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण "एच " यायपीठ मंब
ु ई म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" BENCH, MUMBAI
ी पी.एम. जगताप, लेखा सद य एवं डॉ. एस.ट .एम. पवलन या यक सद य के सम ।
BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND Dr. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.215 & 216/Mum/2009
( नधारण वष / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2004-05)
Income Tax Officer, बनाम/
बनाम Smt.Hansaben M. Mehta,
Ward 21(10(2), Vs.
5, Sahyadri,
6 t h floor, Room No. 604, Road No. 9,
Pratyakshakar Bhavan, JVPD scheme.
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (West),
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 049.
Mumbai - 400 051.
थायी ले खा सं . /PAN : ABIPM1837G
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
या ेप सं/C.O. No.122/Mum/2009
Arising out of ITA No. 215/Mum/2009
Assessment year 2002-03
Smt. Hansaben M. Mehta, बनाम/
बनाम Income Tax Officer,
5, Sahyadri, Ward 21(10(2),
Vs.
Road No. 9, 6 t h floor, Room No. 604,
JVPD scheme. Pratyakshakar Bhavan,
Vile Parle (West), Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai 400 049. Bandra (E),
Mumbai - 400 051.
थायी ले खा सं . /PAN : ABIPM1837G
Cross objector .. ( यथ / Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Shah
Department by : Shri Amol Kamat
सनवाई
ु क तार ख / Date of Hearing :25-02-2013
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 23-04-2013
2 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 &
C.O. 122/M/2009
आदे श / O R D E R
PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. :
These two appeals are preferred by the Revenue against two separate orders dtd. 23-10-2008 and 21-10-08 passed by the ld. CIT(A) -XXI, Mumbai for assessment years 2002-03 & 2004-05 respectively and the same have been heard together and are being disposed of along with Cross Objections filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2002-03 by this single composite order for the sake of convenience.
2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2002-03 being ITA No. 215/Mum/2009 which involve a solitary issue relating to the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54F of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A).
3. The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed her return of income for A.Y. 2002-03 on 1-8-2003 declaring total income of Rs. 85,360/-. The said return was initially accepted by the A.O. u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25-11-2003. Subsequently during the course of assessment proceeding for A.Y. 2003-04, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee has made a claim of having converted her capital asset being lease rights in a plot of land into stock-in-trade as on 17-4-2001 and long term capital gain arising from such 3 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 conversion worked out to Rs. 1,47,00,882/- was claimed to be exempt u/s 54F of the Act on account of investment made in construction of house. Since the said construction of house claimed to be made by the assessee was only an extension to the existing bungalow, the A.O. was of the opinion that the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Act. It was also noticed by the A.O. that the assessee had also shown capital gain of Rs. 24,33,481/- arising from sale of equity shares in the year under consideration and the same was also claimed as exemption u/s 54F of the Act on account of investment made in the construction of the same house which according to him was only an extension of the existing house. He therefore reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2002-03 and issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28-2-2006 in response to which a letter was filed by the assessee requesting inter alia that the original return of income filed by her may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of re-assessment proceeding, the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F of the Act in respect of capital gain of Rs. 24,33,481/- arising from the sale of equity shares was examined by the A.O. and on such examination, he found that the assessee and one Shri Jaswantrai Parikh were joint lease holders of the plot of land No. 5 in Presidency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The area of the said plot of the land was about 1254.5 sq. mtrs. of which the assessee's share was 627.25 sq. mtrs. Somewhere in the year 1975, the assessee and Shri Jaswantrai Parikh had jointly constructed the twin bungalow on the said plot of land. During the year under consideration, they 4 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 jointly began the construction of multistoried structure by way of addition to the existing bungalow at the rear side of the bungalow. The said construction was permitted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and plan for the same was approved as "proposed addition and alteration to the existing building". As noted by the A.O., extended structure was a seven storied building comprising of two residential flats in each floor and the same was so designed that the first two floors were in level with the already existing bungalow. Accordingly the residential units No. 102 & 202 on the Ist and 2nd floor were unified with the existing bungalow of the assessee and the same was claimed by the assessee to be the investment in new house having retained by her. Exemption u/s 54F of the Act was accordingly claimed by the assessee in respect of long term capital gain arising from sale of shares on account of investment made in the said construction. According to the A.O., the new structure constructed by the assessee however was only an addition to the existing bungalow meaning thereby that the existing bungalow was extended by additional floors. He held that such new structure in the form of extension of the existing bungalow therefore could not be considered by any stretch of imagination as a new house constructed by the assessee and the investment made therein thus was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Without prejudice to this finding and conclusion, the A.O. also held that the units No. 102 & 202 on the Ist and 2nd floor even otherwise were two independent residential houses and the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act if she was owner of more than one residential 5 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 house other than the new asset. He therefore disallowed the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54F of the Act in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide an order dtd. 26-12-2006.
4. Against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. was not correct in holding that investment in two residential houses was made by her. It was submitted that the residential units No. 102 on the Ist floor and 202 on the 2nd floor were used by the assessee as one residential house. It was submitted that there was only one kitchen in the said house and both the units were having unity of structure. In this regard, attention of the ld. CIT(A) was drawn by the assessee to para No. 15 of the assessment order wherein it was stated by the A.O. himself that the interiors of the two residential units were merged by removing the partition walls and the two residential flats did not give appearance of two separate units. It was submitted that the new structure constructed by the assessee was not a vertical expansion but horizontal and vertical expansion without modifying the existing twin bungalows on the vacant plot. It was submitted that as per the BMC Rules, the construction carried out in the form of horizontal and vertical expansion without adding or modifying the existing building but without effecting sub- division of plot is termed as "additions & alterations" and the A.O. was not justified in relying on the said expression used by the BMC to draw an 6 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 inference that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of the structure was not the investment made in the new house.
5. The submissions made on behalf of the assessee on this issue found favour with the ld. CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F of the Act for the following reasons given in para 6 of his impugned order:-
"6. I have carefully considered the, issue and perused the assessment order. The eligibility of the appellant for claim of deduction u/s. 54F is based in the following two facts:
a) Investment in new residential house and
b) Amount invested in new residential house.
Firstly, let us examine issue of Investment in new residential house. There is no doubt that the appellant has constructed an independent structure of Stilt plus 7 storied building. It is independent building having separate entry, staircase, separate lift, lobby, separate water and electricity meter etc. etc abutting the old structure. The area constructed in new building is 12859 sq. ft and old bungalow area is 2750.8S sq ft. The appellant has retained two floors in the new construction for residence which is 3674 sq.ft. The structure is so designed that the first two floors are in level with the already existing bungalow. The appellant has kept common kitchen and interiors have been merged by removing the partition walls and does not give an appearance of two separate units. The issue of investment in more than one residential unit was dealt with in the case ITO V/s Ms. Susheela M. Jhaveri 14 SOT 394(MUM). The Special Bench of Hon'ble MUMBAI ITAT have held that for the purpose of exemption u/s 54 and 54F when a person purchases more than one unit which are adjacent to each other and are converted into one house for the purposes of one residence by having common passage, common kitchen etc., then it would be investment in one residential house and consequently the assessee would be entitled to exemption. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Chaudhari v. CWT (1977) 103 ITR 104 wherein it was held that several self-contained dwelling units which are continuous and situate in the same compound and within common boundaries and having unity of the structure could be regarded as one house. Therefore, the view taken by the Assessing Officer that that appellant has invested in more than one residential house is not supported by provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961."
7 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue, the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
6. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that a similar issue relating to assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54F of the Act in respect of investment made in a residential house which was treated by the A.O. as two separate residential units has been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gita Duggal (ITA No. 1237/2011 dtd. 21-02-2013) cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee in favour of the assessee. A copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said case has been placed on record before us and a perusal of the same shows that the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 54F of the Act has been held to be allowable by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after discussing all the relevant aspects in detail in para No. 8 which is reproduced below:
"......Section 54/54F uses the expression "a residential house". The expression used is not "a residential unit". This is a new concept introduced by the assessing officer into the section. Section 54/54F requires the assessee to acquire a "residential house" and so long as the assessee acquires a building, which may be constructed, for the sake of convenience, in such a manner as to consist of several units which can, if the need arises, be conveniently and independently used as an independent residence, the requirement of the Section should be taken to have been satisfied. There is nothing in these sections which require the residential house to be constructed in a particular manner. The only requirement is that it should be for the residential use and not for commercial use. If there is nothing in the section which requires that the residential house should be built in a particular manner, it seems to us that the income tax authorities cannot insist upon that requirement. A person may construct a house according to his plans and requirements. Most of the houses are constructed according to the needs and requirements and even compulsions. For instance, a person 8 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 may construct a residential house in such a manner that he may use the ground floor for his own residence and let out the first floor having an independent entry so that his income is augmented. It is quite common to find such arrangements, particularly post-retirement. One may build a house consisting of four bedrooms (all in the same or different floors) in such a manner that an independent residential unit consisting of two or three bedrooms may be carved out with an independent entrance so that it can be let out. He may even arrange for his children and family to stay there, so that they are nearby, an arrangement which can be mutually supportive. He may construct his residence in such a manner that in case of a future need he may be able to dispose of a part thereof as an independent house. There may be several such considerations for a person while constructing a residential house. We are therefore, unable to see how or why the physical structuring of the new residential house, whether it is lateral or vertical, should come in the way of considering the building as a residential house. We do not think that the fact that the residential house consists of several independent units can be permitted to act as an impediment to the allowance of the deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither expressly nor by necessary implication prohibited".
7. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. D.R. has neither cited any case law in support of the Revenue's case on this issue nor pointed out any distinguishing feature in the facts involved in the present case as compared to the case of Gita Duggal (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. We therefore respectfully follow the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gita Duggal (supra) and uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act in respect of investment made in the new residential house. The appeal of the Revenue for A.Y. 2002-03 is accordingly dismissed.
8. In the C.O. filed for A.Y. 2002-03, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of reassessment made by the A.O. u/s 143(2) 9 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Since the addition made in the said assessment by disallowing the claim for deduction u/s 54F of the Act has already been deleted by us while disposing of the appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue raised by the assessee in her C.O. has become infructuous or academic. We therefore do not find it necessary to adjudicate upon the same and dismiss the C.O. filed by the assessee as having become infructuous.
9. In the solitary ground raised in its appeal for A.Y. 2004-05, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,53,21,430/- made by the A.O. by way of disallowance of proportionate cost of land claimed by the assessee in respect of area sold while computing the business income.
10. As already noted, her capital asset being lease hold rights in the plot of land was converted by the assessee in stock-in-trade as on 17-4-2001. The fair market value of this entire plot of land admeasuring 627.25 sq. mts. as on date of conversion i.e. 17-4-2001 was taken by the assessee at Rs. 2,14,50,000/- on the basis of the valuation report of the Registered Valuer who had taken into account the potential of the plot of land to receive TDR and applied circular rates prescribed in the Ready Reckoner 2001 adopted by the sub-registrar for the purpose of levy of stamp duty. The total constructed area after availing TDR was 12859 sq. ft. out of which area retained by the assessee for the purpose of her residential house was 3674 sq. ft. (two flats of the area 1837.sq.ft. each). The remaining area of 9185 sq. ft. i.e. about 72% 10 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 (approx) thus was utilized for the purpose of business of construction and sale of residential flats. The market value attributable to the said area amounting to Rs. 1,53,21,430/- (approx. 72% of Rs. 2,14,50,000/-) was claimed by the assessee as expenditure while computing her business income. From the perusal of the agreement entered into by the assessee with the allottees of the residential flat, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee as the owner of the flats had represented to the allottees the following facts for their knowledge:-
"(a) as per the bye-laws of the society, no society/condominium of Apartments / Limited Company or any other organization can be formed or incorporated in respect of the said building and the said plot or part thereof and the Allottee/s shall not call upon the Owner and the Confirming Party to form the same nor the Allottee/s shall attempt to form the same;
(b) the Owner and the Confirming Party alone shall always remain the members of Presidency C-operative housing Society Ltd. and the title of the said plot and the said shares even after the entire development is complete shall always remain vested with the Owner and the Confirming Party;
(c) the Allottee/s shall not be entitled or any Sale Deed / Conveyance / Assignment or any transfer or vesting document in respect of the said plot and the said building;
(d) the Allottee/s right is restrict ed to the use and occupation of the said premises and at no time the Allottee/s shall have any right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever in the said plot or any other benefits pertaining to the said plot;
(e) the Owner and the Confirming party alone shall be liable to pay the lease rent to the society;"
According to the A.O., the above portion of the agreements was sufficient to show that the assessee had not extinguished her right, title and interest in the plot of land in any manner and continued to hold on to the lease rights of 11 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 the property jointly along with Jaswantria Parikh. As noted by the A.O., this position was confirmed even by the Presidency Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. which certified that Shri Jaswantrai B. Parikh and the assessee were the lease rights holders of plot No. 5 vide letter dtd. 24-2-2006. The A.O. therefore held that the assessee had not transferred or extinguished her rights in the plot of land in any manner and she therefore was not entitled to deduction on account of proportionate cost of land attributable to the area sold while computing the business income. Accordingly, he disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,53,21,430/- claimed by the assessee in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide an order dtd. 26-12-2006.
11. Against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) disputing the addition of Rs. 1,53,21,430/- made therein. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee strongly objected to the conclusion drawn by the A.O. that the buyer/allottees of the land had no right in the plot of land of the assessee on which the flats sold to them were constructed. Attention of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard was drawn by the assessee to the following clauses i.e. clause No. 13 & 14 of the agreement entered into with the flat purchasers:-
"ULAUSE 13:
It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that on the allottee/s paying the full consideration and all other amounts due and payable under this agreement to the owner, the allotee/s shall from time to time and at all times be entitled to deal with dispose off, assign, 12 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 let, give on leave and license basis and/or otherwise transfer the said premises and/or benefit of this agreement to any third party of person and/or part with possession of the said premises to any third party or person (subject the bye-laws of the society) for such consideration and on such Items as the allotee/s may think fit and proper without any reference or resources to concurrenence of the Owner. The allottee/s shall be entitled to appropriated the consideration monies so received on transfer of the said premises in such manner as they may deem fit. The new purchaser or occupant shall have the same rights as that of the allotee/s under this agreement and shall discharge the like obligation, here by intended to be discharge by allottee/s. PROVIDED HOWEVER that any such prospective allottee/s be a Hindu and vegetarian.
CLAUSE 14 In the event said building is demolished or destroyed by fire, earthquake or any Act of god. Than the Allottee or their nominee/s or assign or transferees shall have a right to construct, use and occupy the same area as the said premises is the new building that shall be constructed on the said plot PROVIDED that the Allottee/s shall contribute the proportionate cost of construction.
12. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that the above clauses of the agreement were sufficient to show that the buyers of flat had got right on FSI and potential use of the area arising from the plot of land in proportion to the area of the respective flats. It was pointed out that the said buyers also had an authority to create charge on the flats sold to them. It was contended that the construction of flats on the plot of land consuming FSI as well as utilizing right to use TDR was to the detriment of the land used by the assessee as builder and therefore fair market value of the land on the date of conversion ie. 17-4-2001 attributable to the areas sold was rightly claimed as deduction while computing her business income by the assessee.
13 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009
13. The ld. CIT(A) found merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee on this issue and directed the A.O. to allow the deduction of Rs. 1,53,21,430/- claimed by the assessee on account of proportionate cost of land attributable to the area sold while computing her business profits for the following reasons given in para 7, 7.1, 7.2 & 7.3 of his impugned order:-
"7. I have carefully considered the issue and perused the assessment order. There is no doubt that the appellant has consumed the balance FS of the plot. It can not be denied that right to construct additional floors was also consumed. In fact, the- entire balance development potential of the plot is consumed by the appellant on completion of the project and no part of the balance development potential of the plot is leftover. The appellant was not carrying on business as builder and developer before A.Y.2002-03. The appellant started the business on 17.4.2001 and carried out various business activity related to development of property. The buyer of the flat has got unlimited right in the flats purchased by them which includes right "at all times to deal with dispose off, assign, let, give on leave and license basis and/or otherwise transfer the said premises and/or benefit of this agreement to any third party of person and/or part with possession of the said premises to any third party or person (subject the bye-laws of the society) for such consideration and on such items as the allotee/s may think fit and proper without any reference or recources to concurrence of the Owner.
Even in the event said building is demolished or destroyed by fire, earthquake or any Act of god. Than the Allottee or their nominee/s or assign or transferees shall have a right to construct, use and occupy the same area as the said premises in the new building that shall be constructed on the said plot." The buyers of the flat had also authority to create charge on the flats.
7.1. The above facts clearly indicate that the buyer of the flat has got right on FSI, potential to use TDR and TDR which I has gone to construct his flat. While dealing with the issue of right to lease being embedded in the right of ownership, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.R.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS V/S CIT 176 ITR 417(S.C.) held as follows:
"The entire ownership of the property means the ownership of a bundle of rights and a limited interest which can be severed and disposed of for a specified period in the form of lease or mortgage or the like is part of that bundle.
14 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 The purchase price paid by the assessee for the land includes therein a component of purchase price attributable to various kinds of interests embedded in the said land.
7.2. While dealing with the issue of transfer of property, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUNIL SIDHARTHBHAI V/S CIT 156 ITR 509 observed as under:
"In its general sense, the expression " transfer of property"
connotes, the passing of rights in property from one person to another. In one case, there may be a passing of the entire bundle of rights from the transferor to the transferee. In another case, the transfer may consist of one of the estates only out of all the estates comprising the totality of rights in the property. In a third case, there may be a reduction of the exclusive interest in the totality of rights of the original owner into a joint or shared interest with other persons. An exclusive interest in property is a larger interest than a share in that property."
7.3. Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bafna Charitable Trust V/s CIT 230 ITR 809 Mumbai high court held that "transfer of interest in a property amounts to transfer of capital asset within the meaning of Section2(14)"
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue, the Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
14. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that the conclusion was drawn by the A.O. that there was no transfer of proportionate right in the land of the assessee to the allottees of the flats on the basis of clause 3 of the agreement. While doing so, he read the said clause in isolation without referring to other clauses of the agreement especially clause No. 13 & 14.
Clause No. 3 of the agreement basically stipulated the conditions based on the bye-laws of the Presidential Co-Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. which provided that the assessee and the joint owner of the plot which were the original members 15 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 of the society shall continue to remain as members and the rights of the allottees shall be restricted to the use and occupation of the plots without any right, title or interest in the plot of land. Clause 13 of the agreement however provided that the buyer of the flat have got unlimited right in the flat purchased by them including the right to deal with, dispose off, assign, let, give on leave and licence basis or otherwise transfer the flat to any third party or person for such consideration and on such consideration and on such terms as the allottee may think fit and proper without any reference or recourse to concurrence of the owner. It was further stipulated in clause No. 14 that in the event of the building being demolished or destroyed, the allottee or their nominee/s shall have a right to construct, use and occupy the said area in the new building that shall be constructed on the said plot of land. It was also stipulated that the buyers of the flat shall have an authority to create charge on the flats. In our opinion, these terms and conditions stipulated in the relevant agreements were sufficient to show that the proportionate rights in the plot of land on which the flats were constructed were transferred to the allottees of the flats and the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of proportionate cost of land attributable to the flats sold in computing the business income of the assessee relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Krishnamurthy and Others (supra) and in the case of Sunil Sidharthbhai (supra). At the time of hearing before us, the ld. D.R. has not been able to raise any material contention to dispute this legal 16 ITA 215 & 216 /Mum/2009 & C.O. 122/M/2009 position clearly emerging from the terms and conditions of the relevant agreements and the case laws relied on by the ld. CIT(A). We therefore find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and upholding the same, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2004-05.
15. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23-04-2013. . आदे श क घोषणा खले ु यायालय म दनांकः 23-04-2013 को क गई ।
Sd/- sd/-
(Dr. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (P.M. JAGTAP)
या यक सद य JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मंुबई Mumbai; दनांक Dated 23-04-2013
व. न.स./ RK , Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy
षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)--Concerned, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आयु / CIT - Concerned, Mumbai
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai H Bench
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
ु / BY ORDER,
आदे शानसार
स या पत त //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
उप/ Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,
धकरण, मंुबई / ITAT, Mumbai