Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Bharti Jayesh Sangani , Mumbai vs Assessee on 22 October, 2003
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "B", MUMBAI
Before Shri R.S.Syal, AM and Shri R.S.Padvekar, JM
ITA No.178/Mum/2009 : Asst. Year 2005-2006
Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani The Income Tax Officer
74 Tanay, Sky Build Village Ward 25(3)(1)
Behind Bhatia School, Kandivli (West) Mumbai.
Vs.
Mumbai - 400 067.
PA No.AAPPS4233A.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Hiro Rai
Respondent by : Shri S.K.Mahapatra
ORDER
Per R.S.Syal, AM :
This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 18.11.2008, in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006.
2. Ground no. 7 challenging not allowing set off of long term loss of Rs.72,216 against long term capital gain, was not pressed by the learned A.R. The same, therefore, stands dismissed.
3. The only other issue, raised through ground nos. 1 to 6 which requires our consideration, is against the computation of short term capital gain at Rs.85,83,430 as against Rs.2,76,250 disclosed by the assessee in respect of rights of property sold.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee purchased a flat no.11, Second floor, Roshani Apartment; Plot no. 380, 15th Road, TPS-III, Bandra West, Mumbai vide agreement dated 22.10.2003 for a total consideration of Rs.30,00,000. This property was sold by the assessee in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration vide agreement dated 29.09.2004 to Mr.Siddharth Ranjit Shahani for a total consideration of Rs.35,00,000. Short term 2 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
capital gain of Rs.2,76,250 was computed by the assessee considering the sale consideration at Rs.35 lakhs. The Assessing Officer noted that the value of flat for the purpose of Stamp duty valuation was Rs.1,18,07,180. The assessee was called upon to explain as to why the provisions of section 50C be not applied for the purposes of computing capital gain. The assessee vide reply dated 08.11.2007 stated that the property which was purchased by her on 22.10.2003 for Rs.30 lakhs had market value of Rs.24,60,523 on that date as per the Registrar. It was argued that the value of the same property sold within the period of less than one year could not be expected to be as high as Rs.1.18 crore for the purpose of stamp duty. It was further explained that the building in which flat was purchased, was old one and in dilapidated condition. Members of the building in General Body meeting resolved to construct a new building by demolishing the existing building and by consuming full development potential of FSI and TDR. Each member became entitled to a flat in new building having area of 1250 sq.ft. and at the same time each one also became liable to contribute towards construction and TDR cost. The society entered into Construction contract with M/s Sapphire Land Development Private Limited on 5th April, 2004 to construct a new building of Stilt plus 12 upper floors. As per the Construction contract each member was required to pay construction cost at the rate of Rs.1200 per sq. ft. and further Rs.1500 per sq.ft. towards purchase cost of TDR. Penalty / escalation cost was determined as payable at the rate of Rs.400 in case of delay for each six months. It was explained that as the assessee did not have money to pay to the contractor and further the property was purchased with borrowed funds in the preceding year, it was decided to sell the same the same on "as is where is " basis for a total consideration of Rs.35 lakhs. It was mutually agreed by the assessee with the purchaser that the latter will be responsible for paying construction cost and TDR cost to the contractor and / or any other charges payable to the society. The assessee also explained that on the relevant date when the property was sold, the old building was demolished and only the plinth was laid for the purpose of construction of new 3 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
building. In the light of these facts it was put forth before the A.O. that the provisions of section 50C were not applicable. Without prejudice to this main argument, the assessee requested the AO to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer as per provisions of section 50C. The A.O. referred the valuation of flat to the Departmental Valuation Officer (hereinafter called DVO) u/s.50C(2). Vide his report dated 24.12.2007, the DVO valued fair market value of the property at Rs.46,48,781. This valuation was done by taking fair market value at Rs.5700 per sq.ft. and further deductions were allowed towards TDR and construction cost to be paid to the builder.
5. The Assessing Officer did not concur with the value as determined by the DVO, as in his opinion the rate of Rs.5700 per sq. ft. was very low and further no deduction was required towards TDR and construction cost to be paid to the builder. The assessee was called upon to explain as to why the value adopted by DVO be not rejected. The assessee strongly opposed this move by arguing that the A.O. had no power or jurisdiction to reject the value determined by the DVO. Not convinced with the assessee's objections, the Assessing Officer held that the DVO was not correct in allowing such deductions and adopting a fair market rate at lower value. In para 5.2.3 of the assessment order, the A.O. went on to the extent of mentioning that the DVO had exceeded the brief accorded to him u/s.50C(2) as should have stopped just at the fair market value of Rs.85 lakhs. He further opined that the DVO had no business to step into the shoes of the Assessing Officer and to preside over other legal issues outside his jurisdiction. He also took note of the provisions of section 50C(2) and section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act and on that basis held that the Act does not expressly prohibit the A.O. from not accepting the report of DVO on its face value. In reaching this conclusion he also took into account the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as per which the valuation done by the DVO was only an estimate. He also interpreted the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 50C as not making the 4 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
report of DVO final and binding on the assessing authority. Consequently he set aside the DVO's report and adopted the value as per the stamp valuation authority for computing the amount of short term capital gain at Rs.85,83,430. The first appeal did not change the fortune of the assessee as the ld. CIT(A) chose to echo the assessment order on this point.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee purchased flat in the immediately preceding year for a total consideration of Rs.30 lakhs. After demolition, the assessee sold her right in the flat in this year for a total consideration of Rs35.00 lacs. Admittedly the stamp value of the said flat on the date of transfer was Rs.1.18 crores. The entire controversy revolves around the determination of the full value of consideration as a result of transfer of the right in the flat.
7. Section 48 contains the mode of computation of the income under the head `Capital gains'. It provides that the capital gains shall be computed by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset, (i) the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer, (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and (iii) the cost of improvement, if any. Section 50C which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 1.4.2003 contains a special provision for the determination of full value of consideration in certain cases. Sub-section (1) provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority, the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall, for the purpose of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of consideration received accruing as a result of such transfer. From the prescription of sub-section (1) of section 50C, it becomes apparent that the declared 5 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
sale consideration is not relevant for computing capital gain u/s.48 in a case where the sale consideration for transfer of capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority. In such a situation the actual sale consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer is substituted with the value adopted, assessed or assessable by a stamp valuation authority for the purpose of computing capital gains u/s 48.
8. Adverting to the facts of the instant case it is noticed that the assessee sold her property for a total consideration of Rs.35 lakhs and the value of such flat for the purpose of stamp duty valuation is at Rs.1.18 crore. Going by the mandate of sub-section (1) of section 50C, the sale consideration of Rs.35 lakhs shown by the assessee was liable to be replaced with the stamp valuation of Rs.1.18 crore for the purpose of computing capital gain u/s.48 of the Act.
9. At this stage it will be relevant to take note of the provisions of section 50C(2) of the Income-tax Act, which is as under:-
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where -
(a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-
section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer;
(b) the value so adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court of the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-section (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they 6 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of the Act.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer"
shall have the same meaning as in case (4) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957)."
10. It is apparent from a bare perusal of the above provision that the directive of sub-section (1) of section 50C is not absolute. The mechanism for redressal of grievance by the assessee in a case where such stamp valuation is on a higher side, has been enshrined in sub-section (2) of section 50C. As per this provision where the assessee claims before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the A.O. may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act along with other relevant provisions as specifically mentioned, shall apply with necessary modifications in relation to such reference made by the A.O. A cursory glance at sub-section (2) of section 50C divulges that in case of an assessee claiming the stamp valuation exceeding the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the A.O. may refer the valuation of the capital asset to the DVO. Here is a case in which the assessee purchased flat in October 2003 for a consideration of Rs.30 lakhs and at that time value as per Registrar was Rs.24,60,523. The same property, after demolition, when became subject matter of sale in September 2004 for a consideration of Rs.35 lakhs, the stamp valuation authority valued it at Rs.1.18 crore. The magnitude of difference in two values over a period of less than one year justifies the assessee's claim before the A.O. that the value as per stamp valuation authority far exceeded the fair market value of the property on the date of transfer. The Assessing Officer also got convinced to this extent when he concurred with the assessee's submission that the valuation should 7 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
be referred to DVO. On such reference, the DVO determined the fair market value of the property at Rs.46.48 lakhs, which has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer on the premise that such valuation is not binding on him.
11. The moot question is - can the Assessing Officer disregard the value determined by the DVO and proceed to compute long term capital gain in accordance with the value determined by stamp valuation authority? The answer to this question is embedded in sub-section (2) of section 50C itself which provides that : "......where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-section (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, .............of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub- section (1) of section 16A of the Act". Let us find out the directive of sub-sections (2) to (6) of section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which can be culled out from the text of the provision, as under:-
"Reference to Valuation Officer.
16A. (1) .................
(2) For the purpose of estimating the value of any asset in pursuance of a reference under sub-section (1), the Valuation Officer may serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to produce or cause to be produced on a date specified in the notice such accounts, records or other documents as the Valuation Officer may require (3) Where the Valuation Officer is of opinion that the value of the asset has been correctly declared in the return made by the assessee under section 14 or section 15, he shall pass an order in writing to that effect and send a copy of his order to the [Assessing Officer] and to the assessee.
(4) Where the Valuation Officer is of opinion that the value of the asset is higher than the value declared in the return made by the assessee under section 14 or, section 15, or where the asset is not 8 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
disclosed; or the value of the asset is not declared in such return or where no such return has been made, the Valuation Officer shall serve a notice on the assessee intimating the value which he proposes to estimate and giving the assessee an opportunity to state, on a date to be specified in the notice, his objections either in person or in writing before the Valuation Officer and to produce or cause to be produced on that date such evidence as the assessee may rely in support of his objections.
(5) On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (4), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce and after considering such evidence as the Valuation Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant material which he has gathered, the Valuation Officer shall, by order in writing, estimate the value of the asset and send a copy of his order to the [Assessing Officer] and to the assessee.
(6) On receipt of the order under sub-section (3) or sub-section (5) from the Valuation Officer, the [Assessing Officer] shall, so far as the valuation of the asset in question is concerned, proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of the Valuation Officer."
12. As per sub-section (1) of section 16A, the Assessing Officer has been empowered to refer the valuation of any asset to the Valuation Officer where the value of the asset as returned by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the registered valuer but the A.O. is of the opinion that the value so returned is less than its fair market value. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) further empowers the Assessing Officer to make reference for the valuation of any asset where the A.O. is of the opinion that the fair market value exceeds the value of the asset as returned by more than such percentage of the value of the asset as returned or by more than such amount as may be prescribed in this behalf. Apart from that, the Assessing Officer is also authorized to make reference to the DVO where he is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do considering the nature of asset and other relevant circumstances. Thus sub-section (1) of section 16A empowers the Assessing Officer to make reference to the DVO in certain circumstances. As per 9 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
sub-section (2) of section 16A, the DVO may serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to produce accounts, records or other documents as he may require. Sub-section (3) requires the DVO to pass an order accepting the value of the asset as correctly declared in the return, in a case where he is so satisfied. Sub-section (4) authorizes the DVO to proceed to estimate the value, where he is of the opinion that the value of asset is higher than that declared in the return and then call for objections of the assessee. Sub-section (5) provides that the Valuation Officer shall estimate the value of the asset considering the evidence produced by the assessee before him and then send a copy of his order to the A.O. as well as the assessee. It can be noticed that the Valuation Officer can pass order either under sub-section (3) where he agrees with the value returned by the assessee or under sub-section (5) where he is not so satisfied. In the later case, he shall pass order determining the value in the light of material and evidence before him after allowing an opportunity to the assessee. Sub-section (6) of section 16A, which is material for our purpose, provides that on the receipt of order under sub-section (3) or sub- section (5) from the Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer shall, so far as valuation of asset in question is concerned, "proceed to complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of the Valuation Officer". Sub-section (6) provides in unequivocal terms that the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment in conformity with the estimate of DVO. The term "shall" used in sub-section (6) requiring the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment, when seen in juxtaposition to the expression "in conformity with" the estimate of Valuation Officer, makes it abundantly clear that the assessment has to be done in conformity with and not in disregard to the estimate made by the Valuation Officer. The usage of the term "shall" in sub-section (6) evidences that the Assessing Officer has no option but to go by the estimate of Valuation Officer. It is naturally so for the reason that the DVOs are experts in the matter of valuation by virtue of special qualification held by them in this field. It is not open to the Assessing Officer to set aside the report of the Valuation Officer and then go by his own whims and 10 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
fancies. If the Assessing Officer is given liberty to disregard the report of DVO and substitute his own estimate for the purpose of completing assessment, then the entire set of provisions in this regard would become otiose.
13. Our view about the binding nature of the report of the DVO in the matter of framing assessment by the Assessing Officer is fortified by Circular no. 96 dated 25.11.1972. Relevant part of para 32 of the Circular reads as under:-
"32. The Valuation Officers will be associated with the valuation of assets at the stage of assessment of wealth-tax. For this purpose, the Wealth-tax Officer may refer the matter of valuation of any asset to the Valuation Officer. The latter will thereupon proceed to deal with the matter and for this purpose, he will give an opportunity to the assessee to present his case regarding valuation of the asset. The valuation will thereafter be finalised by the Valuation Officer after considering the assessee's objections and other evidence. The valuation as made by the Valuation Officer will be binding on the Wealth-tax Officer who will make the assessment in conformity with the said valuation.................."
14. It is clearly borne out from this Circular that the valuation made by the Valuation Officer is binding on the Wealth-tax Officer who will make the assessment in conformity with the said valuation. Similar view has been taken by several courts including the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in M.C.Khunnah Vs. Union of India and Others [(1979) 118 ITR 414 (All.)] which had the occasion to deal with sub-section (6) of section 16A in the following words:-
"Under sub-s.(6) of s.16A, the WTO has no option but to pass an order in conformity with the valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer. Even if the assessee succeeds in cross-examination in establishing that the valuation report is incorrect, it will not be open to the WTO to disregard the estimate of the valuation given by the Valuation Officer in his report."11 ITA No.178/Mum/2009
Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
15. In light of the above discussion, it is vivid that the report of the DVO is binding on the AO and the latter has no authority to sit over the judgment of the former. It is beyond our comprehension as to how the AO can refuse to accept the report of DVO. When the legislature has carved out specific provisions necessitating the creation of explicit wing to deal with the matter of valuation of capital assets with the tacit understanding that it is not the cup of tea of the A.O.s, it is but natural for the assessing authorities to recognize and accept this fact. Albeit the AO has every right to question the veracity of the report of the Registered Valuer, but he cannot doubt the work done by the DVO. If the AO is allowed to find faults with the report of DVO and consequently ignore it, as has been done in this case, it would have serious repercussion on the working of the Department inasmuch as it would amount to one wing of the Department doubting the reliability of the work assigned to another wing, which has been created only for this purpose.
16. When we go through the mandate of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 50C it can be noticed that where the assessee disputes the valuation of stamp valuation authority, `the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital assets to a Valuation Officer'. But when such a reference is made to the VO, `the provisions of sub- sections.... (6) of section 16A' of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 `shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act'. It is, therefore, discernible that once reference is made by the AO to the DVO, then the spirit of section 16A of the WT Act, that is, making the report of the DVO as binding on the AO, shall apply to such reference. The ambit of expression `with necessary modifications' implies striking out the inapplicable fractions of the provision which align strictly with the specifics of the W.T. Act. It does not and cannot oust the application of the soul of section 16A, which is the 12 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
process of determination of the value of capital asset by the DVO and then making such report as binding on the AO.
17. The above referred part of section 50C(2) referring to section 16A of the Wealth- tax Act is a piece of legislation by incorporation. The effect of legislation by incorporation is that the provisions of the first Act which have been referred to in the second Act, become part and parcel of the second Act. The interpretation given to such provision of the second enactment by the Courts holds good in the interpretation of the first enactment. As such, the provisions of sub-sec. (6) of sec. 16A stipulating that the report of DVO is binding on the Assessing Officer, is bodily lifted from the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and stands incorporated into section 50C(2). In that view of the matter the construction given to such provision in the context of the WT Act along with the clarifications given by the Board, as discussed above, shall automatically become applicable to the I.T Act for the limited purpose of sec. 50C. Once we read the mandate of sub-section (6) of section 16A in sub-section (2) to section 50C, there remains no doubt whatsoever that the report of DVO is binding on the Assessing Officer.
18. Now we espouse the contention made by the learned Departmental Representative accentuating that sub-section (3) of section 50C contains a provision authorizing the Assessing Officer to depart from the valuation report. It is noted that the Assessing Officer has also relied on sub-section (3) of section 50C in canvassing the view that the report of DVO is not binding on him. At this juncture it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 50C as under:-
"(3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer."13 ITA No.178/Mum/2009
Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
19. From the above provision it can be noticed that where the value ascertained in sub-section (2), that is, the value as determined by the DVO on reference made by the A.O., exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), then the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority has to be taken as the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. This sub-section applies to a situation wherein the value determined by the DVO under sub-section (2) is more than the value adopted, assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1). In such a situation, sub-section (3) of section 50C comes to the rescue of the assessee by providing that the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) shall be taken as the full value of consideration. For example, if the sale consideration of a capital asset is Rs.100 and the value as per stamp valuation is Rs.150. If the assessee objects to the stamp value of Rs.150 and eventually reference is made to the DVO u/s.50C(2), who estimates the value at Rs.160, the value under sub- section (1), namely, Rs.150 shall be considered as the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset and the computation of capital gain u/s 48 shall be made accordingly. In this situation, the higher value determined by DVO at Rs.160 shall be disregarded by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (3).
20. Sub-section (3) opens with the expression `Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2)'. The effect of this expression in the beginning of sub- section (3) is that the application of sub-sec. (2) is otherwise unbridled but for the situation visualized in the ambit of sub-sec. (3), viz., where the value as ascertained in sub-sec. (2) is higher than the value as per sub-sec. (1). Ordinarily where a reference is made to DVO under sub-section (2), the value so determined by the DVO is binding on the Assessing Officer. If such value is higher than the value adopted, assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority, then the higher 14 ITA No.178/Mum/2009 Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
value shall be ignored. In such a situation, the provisions of sub-section (3) shall override the mandate of sub-section (2). The legislature in its wisdom has contemplated only one situation in sub-section (3) in which the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 50C have been dispensed with. It is only where the value under sub-section (2) is higher than the value under sub-section (1) that the provisions of sub-section (3) shall come into play. Only in such a situation the command of sub-sec. (3) is activated to take no notice of the value as determined by the DVO. But for that, the directive of sub-sec. (2) is applicable in all other cases. In a converse situation, viz., where the value under sub-section (2) is lower than the value under sub-section (1), the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 50C have not been made applicable to. The natural corollary which, therefore, follows is that if the value determined by the DVO under sub-section (2) is lower than that of the value adopted, assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1), the value so estimated under sub-section (2) shall be binding on the Assessing Officer and the assessment shall be made accordingly. In our considered opinion both the authorities below erred in taking shelter of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 50C in disregarding the value determined by the DVO.
21. Coming back to the facts of the instant case we find that the assessee declared sale consideration of Rs.35 lakhs on which basis she declared short term capital gain at Rs.2,76,250. On the other hand the DVO determined fair market value at Rs.46.48 lakhs, which is lower than the value for the purpose of stamp duty at Rs.1.18 crore. As per the provisions of sec. 50C(2), the capital gain is required to be computed by considering the fair market value of the property at Rs.46,48,781 as the full value of the consideration received or accruing to the assessee as a result of the transfer of capital asset. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to compute capital gain accordingly.
15 ITA No.178/Mum/2009Smt.Bharti Jayesh Sangani.
22. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 4th day of November, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.S.Padvekar) (R.S.Syal)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai : 4th November, 2010.
Devdas*
Copy to :
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT concerned
4. The CIT(A) - XXVI, Mumbai.
5. The DR/ITAT, Mumbai.
6. Guard File.
TRUE COPY.
By Order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.