Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Sachinam Travels (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "E", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (J.M.)
AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (A.M.)
ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/Mum/2009
Assessment Years : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, & 2005-06
M/s Sachinam Travels (P) Ltd. ACIT, Central Cir. 34,
24-A, Panch Ratan Building, Mumbai.
Opera House,
Mumbai - 400 004. Vs.
PAN AAACS 7530 G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri A.K. Ghosh
Department by : Shri Girija Dayal
Date of hearing 17-9-2012
Date of pronouncement 28-9-2012
ORDER
PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M.
These appeals preferred by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dtd. 16-12-2008 for assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 and dtd. 17-12-2008 for A.Y. 2005-06. Since facts are identical and common issues are involved, all these appeals are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case extracted from ITA No. 1207/Mum/2009 for A.Y. 2002-03 are that the assessee company is engaged in the business as a travel agent and VISA processing services. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 1961 (the Act) in the case of Sachinam Travels group concerns and individuals connected to the above group on 21-3-2006 and the assessee M/s Sachinam Travels (P) Ltd. is one of the concerns of this group. In response to notice issued u/s 153A, the assessee filed return for the A.Y. 2002-03 showing an income of Rs. 20,33,910/-. However, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 37,79,110/- including the disallowance of commission and unexplained cash credit, vide order dtd. 31-12-2007 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us.
4. Ground No. 1 is against the sustenance of disallowance of extra commission of Rs. 75,458/- paid to M/s Surya Travel Services.
5. Brief facts of the above issue are that, it was inter alia observed by the A.O. that from the ledger account, it is observed that the assessee has shown payment of extra commission of Rs. 75,458/- to M/s Surya Travel Services vide payment voucher No. 174 dtd. 31-5-2001. The assessee was asked to produce M/s Surya Travels along with documentary evidence for verification and genuineness of commission paid. The assessee has neither produced the person nor has filed any evidence in support of having availed any services for which the commission was paid, the A.O. disallowed the commission of Rs. 3 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 75,458/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) while observing that the details filed by the assessee did not indicate the evidence of services rendered by the party, upheld the disallowance made by the A.O.
6. At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee while reiterating the same submission as submitted before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) further submits that the assessee has duly furnished the copy of account of commission paid with complete address of Surya Travel Services appearing at page 41 of the assessee's paper book. He further submits that the assessee has also filed details of sales performance appearing at page 42 of the assessee's paper book to show the work done by M/s Surya Travels Services, which is 1.25% of the total sales for which the assessee has paid extra commission of Rs. 75,458/-. He, therefore, submits that in the light of the above evidence, the disallowance made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted.
7. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. 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 the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee has filed confirmation letter from Surya Travel Services along with performance report of the services rendered by the said party. Thus the assessee has 4 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 discharged the primary onus. In the absence of any contrary material placed on record by the Revenue to show that there is any denial by the said party or the said party does not exist or the above expenses have not been incurred by the assessee for business purpose, the disallowance of extra commission of Rs. 75,458/- made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, allowed.
9. Ground No. 2 is against the sustenance of addition of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 2,34,606/-.
10. Briefly stated facts of the above issue are that the A.O. from the ledger account of the parties inter alia observed that the assessee has shown cash receipt of Rs. 34,006/- on 2.4.2001, Rs. 1 lac on 2.4.2001 and Rs. 1 lac on 16.4.2001 aggregating to Rs. 2,34,606/- from Akash Travels. Since the ledger account of this party did not indicate any booking of ticket etc., the A.O. in the absence of any identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction treated the above cash credit entries of Rs. 2,34,606/- as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the total income of the assessee. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) while observing that there are certain defects in the confirmation certificate filed by the assessee and there is no PAN No. held that the assessee has not discharged the onus to prove the creditworthiness of 5 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 the lender and genuineness of the transaction and, hence, he confirmed the same.
11. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee while reiterating the same submission as submitted before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) further submits that the assessee has filed a copy of client statement confirming the above transaction appearing at page 44 of the assessee's paper book and in the next year the A.O. has accepted the transaction with the above party. The ld. counsel for the assessee also refers to answer to question No. 23 and 103 of the statement of Shri Mukesh Dand, Director of the company recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 26-4-2006 and 9-5-2006 appearing at page 6 & 25 of the assessee's paper book. He, therefore, submits that the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted.
12. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A).
13. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find from the statement of Shri Mukesh Dand, Director of the company recorded on 26-4-2006 in answer to question No. 23 it was stated that he will furnish the details and explanation relating to Akash Travels on Ist May, 2006 and in the statement on 9.5.2006 he stated that he will produce the confirmation of Akash Travels on 10-5-2006, however, no such confirmation was filed. 6 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 We further find from the copy of client statement appearing at page 44 of the assessee's paper book that all the credit entries are in cash from Akash Travels without mentioning the name and status of the person who signed and PAN No. In the absence of any source of cash deposited, creditworthiness of the depositor and the genuineness of the transaction, we are of the view that merely because the amount was returned back by the assessee by cheque does not mean that the amount deposited in the assessee's book in cash is genuine. Even at this stage, the assessee has failed to produce any documentary evidence in terms of section 68 of the Act and, accordingly, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,34,606/- made by the A.O. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, rejected.
14. Ground No. 3 is general in nature, therefore, the same is rejected. ITA NO. 1208/Mum/2009 (for A.Y. 2003-04)
15. Ground No. 1 is against the sustenance of disallowance of conveyance expenses Rs. 1,26,546/-.
16. Brief facts of the above issue are that it was inter alia observed by the A.O. that the assessee has claimed cash expenses of Rs. 1,26,546/- on account of conveyance expenses. It was explained by the assessee that the expenditure was incurred through out the year but was accounted for only at the end of the year. In absence of any supporting evidence, the A.O. disallowed the conveyance expenses of Rs. 1,26,546/- 7 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 and added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A) it was explained by the assessee that the Director of the company Shri Mukesh Dand in his statement dtd. 16-5-2006 recorded u/s 131 of the Act stated that about 40 staff members incurred the conveyance expenses on their own and were reimbursed @ Rs. 300/- per staff per month and the said expenditure was booked at the end of the year. It was further stated that since the bills, vouchers and other records for the year under consideration were destroyed in floods in the month of July 2005 the same could not be produced. It was, therefore, submitted that since a reasonable and bona fide explanation was given, the disallowance be deleted. The ld CIT(A) while observing that no evidence in support of the expenses has been furnished by the appellant and keeping in view that the impugned expenses have not been recorded in records in the normal course of business, upheld the disallowance made by the A.O.
17. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee while reiterating the same submission as submitted before the A.O. and ld. CIT(A) further submits that he has no objection if a partial disallowance is confirmed.
18. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A).
8 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009
19. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee has not filed any evidence to support the claim of conveyance expenses of Rs. 1,26,546/-. However, keeping in view that the assessee has surrendered the expenses of Rs. 18,28,560/- and has claimed the conveyance expenses only Rs. 1,26,546/-, we are of the view that in the interest of justice it would be fair and reasonable if 25% of Rs. 1,26,546/- is confirmed and accordingly the disallowance of Rs. 1,26,546/- is reduced to Rs. 31,636/-. The A.O. is directed to allow due relief to the assessee. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed.
20. Ground No. 2 is against the sustenance of disallowance of commission of Rs. 1,97,240/-.
21. Brief facts of the above issue are that the A.O. after considering the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of search asked the assessee to explain as to why commission shown in the name of Jyotsana Shah, Nalini Shah and Chandrika Shah aggregating to Rs. 4,35, 031/- should not be disallowed. In reply, the assessee filed affidavits from the persons who were stated to be his employees. The A.O. observed that in none of the affidavits, anyone of the person has accepted that he was employee of the assessee. On the contrary they have stated to be doing independent work. Thus, the affidavits do not 9 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 confirm the assessee's stand. Further no evidence of doing any work for the assessee has been filed to allow the commission shown in the name of these persons, therefore, the A.O. disallowed the amount of commission paid Rs. 4,35,031/-. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance of commission of Rs. 2,37,791/- upheld the disallowance of commission of Rs. 1,97,240/- on the ground that nothing has been brought on record to reconcile the two conflicting statement and no justification has been forwarded for non-production of the payees, after having agreed to do so in the statement.
22. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee submits that both parties i.e. Jyotsana Shah and Chandrika Shah have filed their confirmation of receipt of commission appearing at page 49-50 of the assessee's paper book and in support the affidavits were also filed. The A.O. without examining the affidavits has rejected the evidence filed by the assessee, therefore, the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted.
23. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A).
24. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that there is no dispute that the assessee has filed confirmation of Jyotsana Shah and 10 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 Chandrika Shah to show that the above persons have confirmed the receipt of commission from the assessee. Besides this, they also confirmed the receipt of commission through their affidavits. In the absence of any contrary material placed on record by the Revenue to show that the confirmations and affidavits filed by the payees are not genuine or merely because in the affidavits the payees have not stated that they were the employees of the assessee, we are of the view that the disallowance made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) without bringing on record that the payment of commission was not for business purpose, the disallowance of commission of Rs. 1,97,240/- is not sustainable and accordingly we delete the same. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, allowed.
25. Ground No. 3 is against the sustenance of disallowance of commission paid to Mrs. Navalbai T. Dand amounting to Rs. 4,65,238/-.
26. Brief facts of the above issue are that the A.O. observed that Mrs. Navalbai T. Dandwhose date of birth has been shown as 25-12-1932, is the mother of Mukesh Dand, Director of the company, therefore, the lady is too old to carry out any work for the assessee for which commission has been paid. The A.O. further observed that in the assessment proceeding in A.Y. 1991-92 the assessee could not produce any details of clients which were provided by this lady to earn the commission income and accordingly commission paid to the lady at Rs. 85,000/- was 11 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 disallowed in the scrutiny assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act. The A.O. following the same has observed that the assessee has failed to file any evidence in support of justification of commission paid to the lady, disallowed the commission of Rs. 4,65,238/- and added the same to the income of the assessee. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) while agreeing with the views of the A.O. confirmed the disallowance made by the A.O.
27. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the commission was paid to the lady in consideration of services rendered by her. He further submits that in the regular assessment proceeding for the A.Y. 2003-04 no such disallowance was made vide assessment order appearing at page 57 to 58 of the assessee's paper book. He further submits that Mrs. Navalbai T. Dand has shown the receipt of the same commission in her income and in support copy of acknowledgment of return, computation of income, P&L account, balance sheet of Mrs. Navalbai T. Dand have been filed appearing at page 51 to 56 of the assessee's paper book. He further submits that since no incriminating material was found during the course of search, the disallowance of commission paid to Mrs. Navalbai T. Dand is uncalled for and for this proposition the reliance was also placed in para 53 in the case of Al Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (Mumbai) [SB]. He, therefore, submits that the disallowance made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be deleted.
12 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009
28. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A).
29. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee has filed the relevant details of the commission of Rs. 4,65,238/- paid to Mrs. Navalbai T. Dand appearing at page 51 to 56 of the assessee's paper book. Besides this, the assessee has filed copy of the assessment order for the A.Y. 2003-04 wherein the A.O. has made no such disallowance in the case of the assessee vide order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 30-9-2005. We further find that the disallowance was made by the A.O. on the ground that the lady is very old and in the assessment year 2001- 02 similar disallowance of Rs. 85,000/- was made. However, keeping in view that no such disallowance made in the A.Y. 2003-04 and the payee has shown the receipt of the commission as her income which has been accepted by the Revenue and also keeping in view that no such incriminating material was found during the course of search, the disallowance of commission of Rs. 4,65,238/- made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable and accordingly we delete the same. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, allowed.
30. Ground No. 4 is general in nature, the same is, therefore, rejected. 13 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 ITA No. 1209/Mum/2009 (For A.Y. 2004-05)
31. Ground No. 1 is against the sustenance of disallowance of expenses Rs. 5 lacs.
32. The above issue has been discussed by the A.O. in para 5.3 of the assessment order as under:-
"Cash Expenses:
It is observed from the cash book that throughout the F.Y. 2003-04, the assessee has shown expenses in the range of Rs. 2,000/- to 10,000/- under the following heads:-
Sr. Particular Code No. Amount (Rs.)
1 Repair and maintenance GE-0017 5,09,497
2 Sales Promotion GE-0031 5,30,513
3 Membership, subscriptions, GE-001 3,70,958
periodicals
4 Business promotion GE-GE-0044 6,06,987
5 Miscellaneous expenses GE-0012 8,24,966
Total 28,42,921
In its statement recorded on oath on 16-05-2006, the assessee admitted that some part of this expenditure of Rs. 28,42,921/- may not be verifiable and offered additional income of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of such unverifiable expenses. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to substantiate that this amount has been included in the undisclosed income offered in the return of income filed u/s 153A. He was further asked to explain in absence of evidence, why cash expenditure shown above amounting to Rs. 28,42,921/- may not be disallowed and added to your taxable income.
In his reply filed assessee stated that these are the regular expenses incurred for the business. The records are kept at the Directors farm house for storage but due to rain on 26/07/2005, the same have been destroyed in the flood at Karjat farm house. Of the expenses amounting to Rs. 28,42,921/- part of which is not verifiable for the same additional income of Rs. 10 lakh have been offered as a part of undisclosed income.
In view of assessee's above reply and also considering the fact that some of the expenses must have been actually incurred, total disallowance of Rs. 15 lakhs is made out of which assessee has already offered Rs. 10 14 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 lakhs in returned income. Balance Rs. Five lakhs is added back to returned income."
Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed written submission stating that Shri Mukesh Dand in his statement dtd. 16-5-2006 in reply to question No. 111 admitted additional income of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of unverifiable cash expenses. The relevant question No. 111 and its answer recorded u/s 131 of the Act dtd. 16-5-2006 are reproduced as under:-
"Q. 111. While explaining the nature of expenses incurred under the following heads, in your submissions dated 09-05-06, vide point No. 32, you have stated that those expenses incurred during the period 01-04-03 to 31-03-2004 and the details for the same would be submitted within a short time:-
Sr. Particular Code No. Amount (Rs.)
1 Repair and maintenance GE-0017 5,09,497
2 Sales Promotion GE-0031 5,30,513
3 Membership, subscriptions, GE-001 3,70,958
periodicals
4 Business promotion GE-GE-0044 6,06,987
5 Miscellaneous expenses GE-0012 8,24,966
Total 28,42,921
Please furnish details for the same.
Ans.: All the above expenses are genuine. However, some of them may not be verifiable. I therefore, offer additional income of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of unverifiable expenses incurred in cash."
It was further submitted that as per admission made by Sri Mukesh Dand the assessee has offered additional income of Rs. 10 lakhs on account of unverifiable expenses. It was further submitted that the A.O. arbitrarily disallowed a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs out of expenses of Rs. 28,42,921/- instead of Rs. 10 lakhs admitted in the statement and declared in the return of income, therefore, additional disallowance of Rs. 15 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 5 lakhs on adhoc basis be deleted. However, the ld. CIT(A) while observing that the appellant has a history of inflating expenses in their books of accounts as admitted in the statements of the Director recorded during the course of search, upheld the disallowance made by the A.O.
33. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee while reiterating the same submission as submitted before the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A) further submits that since the assessee has suo moto disallowed Rs. 10 lakhs, further disallowance expenses by the A.O. amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs on adhoc basis be deleted.
34. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. while agreeing that the disallowance was made on adhoc basis, supports the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A).
35. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that there is no dispute that the disallowance of expenses of Rs. 5 lakhs was made by the A.O. on adhoc basis without bringing any material on record to show that the expenses claimed by the assessee are not for business purpose or personal in nature. Since the issue has not been properly examined by the A.O. and in the absence of details of such expenses, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter should go back to the file of the A.O. and accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities on this account and send back the matter to the file of the 16 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 A.O. to examine the same afresh in the light of our observations herein above and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purpose.
36. Ground No. 2 is general in nature, therefore, the same is rejected. ITA No. 1210/Mum/2009 (For A.Y. 2005-06)
37. Ground No. 1 is against the sustenance of addition of Rs. 11,65,565/- on account of negative cash balance.
38. The A.O. has discussed the above issue in para 5.1 of the assessment order which is reproduced as under:-
"5.1 Negative Cash Balance:
It is observed from the back up of computerized accounting data that assessee was maintaining two sets of books of account for the Financial Year 2004-05. This has resulted in generation of two Trial Balances as on 31.03.2005 one each from the two sets of books. Further the following facts are also noticed:
(1) As per Trial Balance as on 01.04.2004, there is cash in hand at Rs. 66,44,612.55 which is the same as per "cash in hand"
Statement as on 01.04.2004 (2) As per Trial Balance as on 31.03.2004, the cash in hand is shown at Rs. 38,83,984, which is the same as per "Cash in Hand"
Statement for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004. The difference of cash in hand between these two Trial Balances i.e. as on 31.03.2004 and as on 01.04.2004 is Rs.27,60,628 which suggests that there is increase in cash balance.
(3) It is observed from cash in hand statements that there was continuous negative balance from 28.07.2004 (-Rs.9,32,846) to 17-02.2005 (-Rs.53,578) with peak negative balance of Rs. 11,65,565 as on 09.10.2004. In statement recorded on 17-05- 2006, assessee had stated that on 01/05/2004 as well as on 17 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009 12/07/2004 he had instructed his accountant to deposit Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.38 lakhs respectively in the bank account and although the accountant had passed debit entries in the cash book, no cash was deposited in the bank account due to which the cash book reflected negative balance even when there was sufficient physical cash on hand and that he realized this fact only after search proceedings and the entries were accordingly rectified. At the time of search proceedings on 21/03/2006, total cash found in residence and office premises at Mumbai was at Rs.6,75,250/-. The peak of negative as on 09/10/2004 amounted to Rs.11,65,565/- If assessee's above explanation is accepted then cash amounting to Rs. 63 lakhs not deposited in bank though said to be debited in cash book should have been found at the time of search proceedings. This shows that Directors of the company have been withdrawing cash and utilizing it for their own personal use. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dt.05/l 1/2007, assessee was asked to reconcile the differences in two trial balances and to explain why the amount of Rs. 65 lakhs may not be treated as deemed dividend in the hand of directors.
Vide its reply assessee has stated that we never had two sets of books of accounts. The two results, shown in the computer data available with you, are not the result of two sets of books of account It is possible that one of the data reflects the position before conducting audit and other data would relate to final position, after carrying out necessary rectification of the entries for solving queries raised by the auditors. We also feel that, due to some other technical problem of Hardware/Software, both the data (pre and post rectification) are somehow stored in one of the computer, which has generated prints of the two sets of data.
The difference in the opening and closing balance was due to system failure due to some technical reason.
The assessee's above reply is found evasive and unsatisfactory. As stated above, from cash in hand statements that there was continuous negative balance from 28.07.2004 (-Rs.9,32,846) to 17-02.2005 (-Rs.53,578) with peak negative balance of Rs. 11,65,565 as on 09.10.2004. The peak of negative balance in cash on hand Rs.11,65,565/- is added to returned income as Income from undisclosed sources".
39. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) while agreeing with the views of the A.O. confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 18 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009
40. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the A.O. has not examined the evidence filed by the assessee appearing at page 60 to 67 of the assessee's paper book, therefore, in the interest of justice the issue may be set aside to the file of the A.O.
41. On the other hand the ld. D.R. while relying on the order of the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A) submits that he has no objection if the issue is restored back to the file of the A.O.
42. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find merit in the plea of the ld. counsel for the assessee that this issue needs further examination at the end of the A.O. as the A.O. has not properly examined the relevant entries recorded in the accounts appearing at pages 60 to 67 of the assessee's paper book. This being so, we, in the interest of justice, consider it fair and reasonable that the matter should go back to the file of the A.O. and, accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Revenue authorities on this account and send back the matter to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh in the light of our observations herein above and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purpose. 19 ITA Nos. 1207 to 1210/MUM/2009
43. Ground No. 2 is general in nature, therefore, the same is rejected.
44. In the result, assessee's appeal for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 28-9-2012.
sd/- Sd/-
(P.M. JAGTAP) (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated : 28-9-2012
RK
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Concerned, Mumbai
4. Commissioner of Income Tax - -Concerned, Mumbai
5. Departmental Representative, Bench E', Mumbai //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI