ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 16(1), MUMBAI

CO 124/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7702 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Speculation loss; Speculative transactions
• Section: 143(3); 43(5); 6

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . .. . . .. . , ,, , ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' # $% # $% # $% # $% , ,, , & ! & ! & ! & ! ' ' ' ' BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 2742/MUM./2011 ( &( ) '*) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200708 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE16(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400 020 .. +, / APPELLANT ( V/S MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 10, 5 TH FLOOR, KAMAL MAHAL CAMICHAEL ROAD, MUMBAI 400 026 .... -.+, / RESPONDENT !+ . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AADPN7053L -.' . / C.O. NO. 124/MUM./2011 ( . 2742/MUM./2011 01 2 ) (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2747/MUM./2011 ( &( ) '*) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200708 ) MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 10, 5 TH FLOOR, KAMAL MAHAL CAMICHAEL ROAD, MUMBAI 400 026 .. -.' / CROSS OBJECTOR ( V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE16(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI 400 020 .... -.+, / RESPONDENT !+ . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AADPN7053L !' 3 4 / REVENUE BY : MR. MOHIT JAIN &( )5 3 4 / ASSESSEE BY : MR. KAMLESH T. MODY MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 2 (' 3 / DATE OF HEARING 31.07.2012 $ 67* 3 / DATE OF ORDER 12.09.2012 $ $ $ $ / ORDER # $% # $% # $% # $% , ,, , & ! & ! & ! & ! 8 8 8 8 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE, IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31 ST JANUARY 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)XXVIII, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUAN TUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ), FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200708. 2. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO LO SS INCURRED ON DERIVATIVE TRADING OF ` 77,63,237, AS SPECULATION LOSS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREBY DISALLOWING THE SET-OFF AS BUSI NESS LOSS. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DER IVATIVE TRADING IN COMMODITY AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BUSINESS LOSS OF ` 77,63,237 FROM DERIVATIVE TRADING, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF ` 92,08,889, AND LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF ` 32,46,619. BESIDES THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAD INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES AT ` 3,83,383. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED LOSS IN DER IVATIVE TRADING IN COMMODITY OF ` 77,63,237, AS NORMAL BUSINESS LOSS AND HAS SOUGHT SET-OFF AGAINST SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN VIEW OF THE CLAUSE (D) TO SECTION 43(5) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS BROUGHT IN THE STATUTE W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 2006, HAD EXCLUDED ONLY THOSE DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS FROM ITS AMBIT WHICH WERE C ARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E, AS TO WHY LOSS IN DERIVATIVE TRADING SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SPECULA TION LOSS, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED AS UNDER:- MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 3 A. DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS ARE TREATED AS BUSINESS INC OME / LOSS PARTICULARLY SO WHEN THEY ARE PART OF REGULAR BUSIN ESS TRANSACTION. B. DEALINGS IN DERIVATIVES BEING A SEPARATE KIND OF TR ANSACTION DONT INVOLVE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND THERE FORE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DERIVATIVE TRADING CANNOT BE SPECULATION LOSS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S SSKI INVESTORS SERVICES P. LTD. (113 TTJ 5 11) AND RB SECURITIES PVT. LTD. V/S ITO. C. DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS ARE NON SPECULATIVE AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE EXCHANGES HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAID CONTENTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RENDER ED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, WHICH BECOMES INAPPLICABLE FROM THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07, BECAUSE OF SPECIFIC INSERTION OF CLAUSE (D) IN SECTION 43(5), WHEREIN THOSE DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE PURVIEW OF SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE AND ARE CARRIED ON AT A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE. THE ASSESSEES TRANSACTION ON DERIVATIVE TRADING IN COMMODITY IN MCX WERE NOT RECOGNIZED IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(5) R/W RULE-6DDA, 6DDB OF THE I.T. RULES, AND NOTIFICATION NO.SQ 89(E). HE FURTHER HELD THAT MCX IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ITS DERIVATIVE TRADING HAS BEEN NOT IFIED AS RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 43(5) ONLY BY N OTIFICATION NO.46/2009 DATED 22 ND MAY 2009, WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES DERIVATIVE TRADING IN MCX HAS A SPECULATION BUSINES S IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 4. THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DERIVATIVE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PART OF THE BUSINESS AND, HENCE, THE L OSS INCURRED SHOULD BE TREATED AS NON-SPECULATIVE BUSINESS LOSS AND THE DE FINITION OF SPECULATION TRANSACTION UNDER SECTION 43(5), DO NOT INCLUDE DER IVATIVE, LEAVE ALONE THE COMMODITY DERIVATIVE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 2006, IN CLAUSE (D) OF THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 43, SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT ELIGIBLE TRANSACTIONS IN TRADING MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 4 DERIVATIVE CARRIED OUT IN RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION EVEN THOUGH THE TRADING IN MCX HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AS RECOGNIZED EXCHANGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 4 3(5) FROM 22 ND MAY 2009. SINCE THE SAME BEING CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSTRUED RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DERIVATIVE IS A FINANCIAL IN STRUMENT AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A SPECULATION TRANSACTIONS IN A STRICT SENSE IN TERMS OF SECTION 43(5). IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH, IN P.S. KAPOOR V/S ACIT, RE PORTED IN 29 SOT 587, AND THE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH DECISION IN DCIT V/S PA TERSON SECURITIES P. LTD. REPORTED IN 127 ITD 386. 5. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AGREED WITH THE CONTENTI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER RELYING UPON THE DECISION CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF LOSS IN DERIVATIVE TRADING IS TO BE AL LOWED AS SET-OFF FROM BUSINESS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES GROUND WAS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRADING IN MCX HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AS RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 43(5) ONLY FROM 22 ND MAY 2009, WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND THE SAME WIL L NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE WHICH IS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT IN SECT ION HAS COME FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, HOWEVER, THE BOARD HAS NOT IFIED THE MCX ONLY IN THE YEAR 2009, THEREFORE, THE DERIVATIVE TRADING IN MCX CANNOT BE HELD TO BE NON-SPECULATIVE BUSINESS INCOME IN THIS YEAR (I.E., A.Y. 200708) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TREATED AS SPECULATIO N BUSINESS. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH THAT TRADING IN DERIVATIV E CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SPECULATIVE LOSS IS INCORRECT. OTHERWISE THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR BRINGING A SPECIFIC CLAUSE (D) IN PROVISO TO SECTIO N 43(5). MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 5 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT CLAUSE (D) OF PROVISO TO SECTION 43(5), WHICH IS APPLICABLE FROM 1 ST APRIL 2006, IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND WILL BE APPLICAB LE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ONWARDS AS HELD BY KOLKATA SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SHREE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. V/S ACIT, REPORTED IN 121 ITD 498 (SB) (CAL.). THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22 ND MAY 2009, IS BY WAY OF SUBORDINATED LEGISLATION WH ICH CANNOT OVERRIDE THE PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION ENACTED B Y THE PARLIAMENT. IT ONLY CLARIFIES THE MANDATE OF STATUTE AND WILL NOT OVERR IDE THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT T HAT THE TRANSACTION IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IN FUTURE AND OPTION SEGMENT WERE T HE ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE I.E., MC X, THE LOSS IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE TERMED TO BE LOSS IN SPEC ULATION BUSINESS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLO WING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS:- 1. ACIT V/S HIREN JASHWANTRAI SHAH, 12 TAXMAN.COM 55 ( AHD.), 46 SOT 276; 2. SMT. SEEMA JAIN V/S ACIT, 49 SOT 30; 3. PRADEEP KUMAR HARLALKA V/S ACIT, 47 SOT 204; 4. ACIT V/S PARIMAL D. NATHWANI, 9 TAXMAN.COM 284 5. G.K. ANAND BROS BUILDWELL P. LTD. V/S ITO, 34 SOT 4 39 (DEL.) 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. THE ASSESSEE WHO IS CARRYING OUT DERIVATIVE TRADING IN COMMODITY THROUG H MCX STOCK EXCHANGE HAS INCURRED A LOSS OF ` 77,63,237. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED SUCH AS A LOSS AS SPECULATION LOSS MAINLY ON THE GROUND THA T NOTIFICATION NUMBER 46 OF 2009, ISSUED BY THE CBDT, ON 22 ND MAY 2009, RECOGNIZING MCX AS RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTIO N 43(5), ONLY FROM THE SAID DATE AND HAS PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND, THEREFORE , SUCH A DERIVATIVE TRADING IN COMMODITY THROUGH MCX PRIOR TO THE SAID DATE WIL L AMOUNT TO SPECULATION BUSINESS. BY FINANCE ACT, 2005, CLAUSE (D) WAS INSE RTED IN THE PROVISO TO MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 6 SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 43 W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 2006, WHICH PROVIDED THAT AN ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF TRADING IN DERIV ATIVE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION (2) OF SECURITIES CONTRACT (REGULATI ON) ACT, 1956, CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. THUS, FROM 1 ST APRIL 2006, TRADING IN DERIVATIVE CARRIED THROUGH THE RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE WAS TREATED AS NON-SP ECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (D), RULE 6DDA AND 6DDB O F I.T. RULES, 1962, PROVIDED THAT NOTIFICATION OF RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCH ANGE HAS TO BE DONE BY THE CENTRAL GOVT. (CBDT). IN PURSUANCE TO THIS RULE , THE CBDT HAS NOTIFIED THE MCX STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. BY S.O. 1327(E) DATED 22 ND MAY 2009 . 9. NOW, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUCH A NOTIFICATION GIVEN ON 22 ND MAY 2009, THORUGH WHICH MCX STOCK EXCHANGE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZE D, CAN BE HELD TO BE APPLICABLE FOR THE TRANSACTION UNDERTAKEN IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.E., AFTER 1 ST APRIL 2006. FROM THE COMBINED READING OF CLAUSE (D) OF PROVISO TO SECTION 43(5), RULE 6DDA, 6DDB AND EXPLANATION ( II) TO SECTION 43(5), IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT THE RULES WHICH HAS BEEN PRESCRI BED ARE ONLY PROCEDURAL IN NATURE, AS IT PRESCRIBES THE METHOD AS TO HOW TO APPLY FOR NECESSARY RECOGNITION AND CONSEQUENT NOTIFICATION. HENCE, THE SE ARE PURELY PROCEDURAL MECHANISM. WHEN A RULE OR PROVISION DOES NOT EFFECT OR EMPOWER ANY RIGHT OR CREATE AN OBLIGATION BUT MERELY RELATES TO PROCE DURAL MECHANISM, THEN IT IS DEEMED TO BE RETROSPECTIVE UNLESS SUCH AN INFERE NCE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO AN ABSURDITY. IF THE AMENDMENT IS MADE IN PROCEDURAL M ECHANISM, IT WILL APPLY TO ALL THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING OR TO BE INITIATED. ONCE IN THE STATUTE, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 2006, AN ELIGIBLE TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN A RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE WILL NOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATION TRANSACTION, THEN SIMPLY BECAUSE PROCEDURAL MECHANISM HAS TAKEN A LONG TIME TO RECOGNIZE THE STOCK EXCHANGE, IT WILL NOT LEAD TO A N INFERENCE THAT THE SAME WOULD BE APPLICABLE FROM THE DATE WHEN THE STOCK EX CHANGE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE CENTRAL GOVT. THE NOTIFICATION IS SUED UNDER RULE 6DDB, DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY RIGHT OR CREATE OBLIGATION BUT ONLY RECOGNIZES WHAT IS ALREADY PROVIDED IN STATUTE. THUS, THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT THROUGH MCX STOCK EXCHANGE AFTER 1 ST APRIL 2006, WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR BEING TREATED AS MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 7 NON-SPECULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (D) OF PROVISO TO SECTION 43(5). VARIOUS CASE LAWS, AS HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO, SUPPORT THIS VIEW THAT RECOGNITION BY THE CENTRAL G OVT. OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE FROM A LATER DATE WILL NOT DEBAR THE TRANS ACTION AS NON-SPECULATION, ESPECIALLY AFTER 1 ST APRIL 2006. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSE ES DERIVATIVE TRADING THROUGH MCX STOCK EXCHANGE IN TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS NON-SPECULATION TRANSACTION AND, THEREFO RE, THE LOSS INCURRED IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS IS TO BE TREATED AS NORMAL BUSINE SS LOSS AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), TO THIS EXTENT, IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. 10. 5 9 !' 3 5 3 :; < 10. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. WE NOW TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.124/MUM./2011 , ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE CROSS OBJECTOR PRAYS THAT DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIO NS ARE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS SPEC ULATIVE TRANSACTION WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2005. 2. THE CROSS OBJECTOR PRAYS RULE 6DDB IS ONLY PROCEDUR AL IN NATURE AND HENCE IT IS DEEMED TO BE RETROSPECTIVE UNLESS S UCH INFERENCE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO ABSURDITY. 3. THE CROSS OBJECTOR PRAYS THAT THE POWER TO NOTIFY T HE STOCK EXCHANGE IS GRANTED UNDER THE STATUTE AND HENCE ONC E THE STOCK EXCHANGE IS NOTIFIED THE SAME WILL APPLY IN RESPECT OF ALL THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN RELATION TO FINANCIAL Y EAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607 ONWARDS EVEN IF THE NOTIFIC ATION IS FROM A PARTICULAR DATE . 11. AFTER HARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE GROU NDS RAISED IN THIS CROSS OBJECTION ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION RA ISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THUS BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME ARE BEING DISMISSED AS INFRU CTUOUS. MR. ARNAV AKSHAY MEHTA 8 12. 5 9 &( )5 3 -.' 5 3 :; < 12. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS DI SMISSED. 13. &( )= $!'>, !' 3 ' ' ' ' &( )5 3 -.' 5 3 :; < 13. TO SUM UP, REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. $ 3 7* ? @ (9 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 7 3 < ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 SD/- . .. . . .. . ! ! ! ! P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- # # # # $% $% $% $% & ! & ! & ! & ! AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, @ ( @ ( @ ( @ ( DATED: 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 $ 3 -&#A BA* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) &( )5 / THE ASSESSEE; (2) !' / THE REVENUE; (3) C () / THE CIT(A); (4) C / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) A'F -&&( , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) G) H / GUARD FILE. .A -& / TRUE COPY $( / BY ORDER - . IJ / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY '5K &( I' / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY 0 / : / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI