WALL STREET FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI

CO 130/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1770 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 14-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAILASH C KANOJIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: JIGAR SAIYA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOS AIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 127 /MUM/ 20 09 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995 - 96 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(3), ROOM NO. 229 , 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. M/S WALL STREET FINANCE LTD., UN IT NO.101 - 112, 1 ST FLOOR, CHINTAMANI PLAZA, ANDHERI - KURLA ROAD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI, MUBMAI - 400099 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) CROSS OBJECTION NO.130/MUM/2009 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 127/MUM/2009 ( / ASSESSM ENT YEAR : 1995 - 96) M/S WALL STREET FINANCE LTD., UNIT NO.101,112, 1 ST FLOOR, CHINTAMANI PLAZA, ANDHERI - KURLA ROAD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI, MUBMAI - 400099 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(3), ROOM NO.229, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN. : AAACW1258P / REVENUE BY : SHRI KAILASH C KANOJIYA / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JIGAR SAIYA / DATE OF HEARING : 1 4 .12. 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 4 .1 2 . 2015 ITA NO .127/MUM/2009 AND CO NO.130/M/2009 . 2 O R D E R PER BENCH: - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS - OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 23.10.2008 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 9, MUMBAI AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 - 96. 2. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2.92 CRORES MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 , BY DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING, LEASING AN D MANAGING THE MONEY CHANGES. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 100 % DEPRECIATION ON CERTAIN LEASED ASSTS WHICH WERE IN THE FORM OF CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS , GAS CYLINDER ARETON AND TUBE MILL EQUIPMENT. SUBSEQUE NTLY, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVEST IGATION) THAT CERTAIN COMPANIES ARE INVOLVED IN ISSUING BOGUS SALES BILLS OF ASSETS (ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEPRECIATION) WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE PURCHASERS TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION AT TH E RATE OF 100%. THE ASSESSEES COVERED BY SEARCH OPERATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION INCLUDED M /S GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LTD, M/S RAJINDER PIPES LTD AND M/S GOLDE N FINALEASE PVT LTD. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE ASSETS ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEPRECIATION AND LEASED OUT THEM TO THE ABOVE SAID THREE COMPANIES. BASED ON THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY IT AT THE RATE OF 100%. THE DETAILS OF THE LEASED ASS ET AND VALUE AND LEASE RENTAL IS TABULATED BY THE AO AS UNDER : ITA NO .127/MUM/2009 AND CO NO.130/M/2009 . 3 S.NO. NAME OF THE LESSEE DESCRIPTION OF LEASED ASSET LAND VALUE AMOUNT IN RS. LEASE RENTAL IN RS. 1 M/S RAJINDER PIPES LTD TUBE MILLS EQUIPMENT 49,87,500 11,44,634 2 M/S GOLDEN FINALEAS E PVT LTD CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS 1,77,07,200 1, 4 9,75,232 3 M/S GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LTD GAS CYLINDER ARCTOR 1,02,66,600 23,56,182 TOTAL 1 , 84 , 76 , 046 DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION ON THESE ASSET AS UNDER S.NO. NAME OF THE ASSETS RATE OF DEPRECIATION TOTAL DEPRECIATION 1 TUBE MILL EQUIPMENT @ 25% ON VALUE OF RS. 49,87,500 RS.12,46,875/ - 2 CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS @100% ON VALUE OF RS. 1,77,07,200 RS. 1,77,07,200 / - 3 GAS CYLINDER ARCTOR @100% ON VALUE OF RS. 1,02,66,600 RS. 1,02,66,600 / - TOTAL RS.2,92,20,675/ - 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER UP TO THE TRIBUNAL AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE MATERIAL S USED AGAINST IT . HENCE THE TRIBUNAL , VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22.6.2006 , RESTORE D THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL DIRECT THE AO TO CONTROVERT THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID MATERIAL S AND OBTAIN A REMAND REPORT FROM HI M BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY , THE LD.CIT(A) R EMANDED THE MATTER TO THE AO , WHO , VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 18.3.2008 , G AVE THE REMAND REPORT. FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT ARE RELEVANT YEAR : - .THE. 3. EFFORT TO OBTAIN RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM A COUPLE OF VENDOR PARTIES REGARDING ASSETS SAID TO BE LEASED, PROVED FUTILE AS THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED /AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AS NO SEIZED MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE , THE REQUIRED ITA NO .127/MUM/2009 AND CO NO.130/M/2009 . 4 REPORT IS SUBMITTED HEREUNDER AFTER CLOSELY PERUSING THE M ATERIAL FORWARDED BY YOUR GOOD SELF THE ASSESSEE GAVE A DETAILED REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO . CONSIDERING THE CONTEN TION S OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVA TIONS: 11. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THAT OF THE AO. AT THE OUTSET IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF REMAND WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER THE INSTRUCTION OF ITAT MUMBAI WHERE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO H AD ACTE D MERELY ON THE BASIS OF FINDINGS IN SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN CASE OF GUJARAT PIPAVAV AND OTHER ENTITIES. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ALLOWED THE' COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL ON WHICH THE ENTIRE P ROCEEDINGS WERE BASED. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS HA S BEEN STATED BY THE AO IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HIMSELF COULD NOT LAY HAND ON SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF SAME BEING PITTED BEFORE THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO DEFEND THE ALLEGATION MADE BY THE AO. THE RELEVANT PARA OF AO IN HIS REMAND PROCEEDINGS READS AS UNDER: 3. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM A COUPLE OF VENDOR PARTIES REGARDING ASSETS SAID TO BE LEASE D PROVED FUTILE AS THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED / AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THESE CIRCU MSTANCES AND AS NO SEIZED MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE, THE REQUIRED REPORT IS SUBMITTED HEREUNDER AFTER CLOSELY PERUSING THE MATERIAL FORWARDED BY YOUR GOODSELF. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IS MERELY BASED ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THAT THE SAME WAS ALREADY DEALT WITH IN DETAIL BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER APPEALED AGAINST AND THEREFORE WHATEVER IS STATED IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IS NOTHING NEW BUT THE REPETITION OF WHATEVER WAS ALREADY APPRECIATED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE MADE ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISE BUT SHOULD BE BASED ON CONCRETE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD OR FOR THAT MATTER BY BRINING THERETO ENOUGH DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH COULD IN ALL IT S PROBABILITIES POINTER TOWARDS NON GENUINENESS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT ITS CLAIM AND IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO APPRECIATE THOSE DOCUMENTS IN LETTER AND SPIRIT IN JUDICIOUS MANNER WITHOUT ANY BIAS OR PREJUDICE. ITA NO .127/MUM/2009 AND CO NO.130/M/2009 . 5 11.1 THE COURTS HAVE TIME AND AGAIN REITERATED THAT WHERE THE AO'S DECISION IS PRIMARILY BASED ON MATERIAL WHICH ARE PARTIALLY RELEVANT AND PARTIALLY IRRELEVANT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND OUT AS TO WHAT EXTENT THE AO'S MIND WAS COLOURED BY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL. IN THIS REGARD, THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF LA LCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM V/S CIT 37 ITR 288, HOMI JEHANGIR GHEESTA V. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 135, SREELEKHA BANERJEE V. CIT (1963] 49 ITR 112. THUS, RELYING ON THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS , THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THE AO'S FINDINGS SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON CONJECTURES OR SURMISES. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BY MERE LY REJECTING GOOD EXPLANATION UNREASONABLY CONVERT GOOD PROOF INTO NO PROOF. 11.2 LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ON APPRECI ATION OF JUDICIOUS PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD RECEIVED LEASE RENT FROM EACH PARTIES AND HAD OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX THE FA C T WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DENIED NOR REFUTED. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CA S E OF THE AO THAT NONE OF ASSETS W ERE FOUND AT ITS PLACE SINCE THE AO HAS NOT REFUTED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE ASSETS WERE IN EXISTENCE AND THAT PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUCH ASSETS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH WERE APPRECIATED IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THAT ENTIRE AND LEASE RENT WAS ALSO RECEIVED BARRING 15% OF RECEIPTS FROM ONE PARTY WHICH HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO BE BAD DEBT BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY SO ALSO IT IS NOT DISPU TED THAT ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF LEASE RENT WAS OFFERED FOR TAX AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT A CASE THAT ENTIRE EXERCISE WAS TO EVADE TAX MAY IT BE DEFERRED FROM ONE YEAR TO THE OTHER BUT IS NOT A CASE THAT THE SAME IS EVADED ALL TOGETHER . FURTHER SALE AND LEASE BA CK TRANSACTIONS COULD ALSO NOT BE CONSIDERE D AS SHAM OR NON - EST MERELY BECAUSE THE SELLER AND THE LESSEE H APPENE D TO BE ONE AND THE SAME PARTY. IT IS T RUE THAT THIS OFFICE HAD REJECTED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION BASED ON ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO WHICH WAS THEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE !TAT MUMBAI WHERE IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THIS OFFICE HAD NOT CONSIDERED ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED SEIZED MATERIAL HAVING NOT BEEN FORWARDED BY THE AO TO THE APPE LLANT BEFORE COMING TO ADVERSE CONCLUSION. IT IS IN THIS PERSPECTIVE THAT THE MATTER WAS PRECISELY REMANDED BACK TO THE AO AND SINCE THE AO COULD NOT PROVIDE THE SAID MATERIAL WHICH WAS THE SOLE BASIS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT TO THE APPELLANT FOR I TS REBUTTAL THE MATTER REMAINS IN LIMBO AND NATURAL JUSTICE TILT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY FRESH ITA NO .127/MUM/2009 AND CO NO.130/M/2009 . 6 MATERIAL TO SHOW UNDISPUTEDLY THE TRANSACTIONS WERE SHAM BUT WHATEVER IS QUESTIONED IN THE ORDER FOR MAKING SUCH DISALLOWANCES ARE ONLY DOUBTS. NOW COMING TO INDIVIDUAL FACTS OF THE CASE AS REGARD LEASE TO RAJENDRA PIPES IT IS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT STAMP RECEIPTS WAS DATED 6 - 7 - 1994 WHERE AS DELIVERY CHALLAN WAS DATED 15 - 9 - 1994 AND THE MACHINERY WAS INSTALLED ON 17 - 9 - 1994 AND THAT LEASE AGREEMENT WAS DATED 7 - 7 - 1994 I.E. MUCH BEFORE THE MACHINE WAS INSTALLED. IN THIS REGARD APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PARTY HAD ASKED FOR 100% ADVANCE AND THAT AND THAT ACTUAL MACHINE WAS SUPPLIED ON 15 - 7 - 1994 THERE WAS NO R EASONS FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE ON SUCH ACCOUNT. FURTHER AS REGARD LEASE AGREEMENT IS DATED 7 - 7 - 1994 IT IS STATED THAT THE FIRST INSTALMENT WAS TAKEN IN ADVANCE AND THAT IS NORMALLY THE TRADE PRACTICE FOLLOWED. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE MATERIAL RELIED UPON WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DRAW THE ADVERSE INFERENCE. 11.3 IN RESPECT OF GOLDEN FINLEASE P LIMITED IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE CASE OF WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD. VS. JC I T(MUM), THE HON'BLE I TAT 'A' BENCH HAS ALLOWED DE PRECIATION ON SALE AND LEASE BACK TRANSACTION WITH GOLDEN FINLEASE PVT. LTD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID PARTY HAS CHANGED ITS NAME TO M/S. GOLDEN PARADISE TIRUMANA KOODAM PVT. LTD. AND HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS AT NO.10, 80 FEET ROAD, SATHY A GARDENS, SALIGRAMAM,CHENNAI - 600 093. 1 1 . 4 IN CASE OF GUJARAT PIPAVAV PORT LIMITED ACCORDING TO THE AO LETTER DATED 30 - 1 - 2008 WAS RETURNED UNSERVED AND WARD INSPECTOR HAD REPORTED THAT THE PARTY HAD LEFT THE PREMISES 2 - 3 YEARS B ACK MEANING THEREBY THAT THE PARTY WAS IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THAT TIME AND MORE SO DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE DEAL WAS STRUCK. SIMILARLY ACCORDING TO THE AO THE SAID COMPANY WAS DEALING IN SUPPLY OF MARINE EQUIPMENTS WHEREAS LEASED ASSET WAS GAS CYLINDERS, WHEREAS, A CCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THE GAS CYLINDERS ARE USED IN SUPPLYING GAS TO EQUIPMENTS USED IN SHIP BREAKING BUSINESS AND HENCE THE SAME WAS PART AND PARCEL OF MARINE EQUIPMENT AND THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN . THE AO HAS ALSO POINTED OUT CERTAIN ANOMALIES IN INVOICE WHERE THERE WAS CERTAIN SCRATCHING DONE ON SUCH INVOICE WHERE AS ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT THE SCRATCHING WAS DUE TO MISTAKE IN FAXING THE INVOICE WHERE AS ORIGINAL INVOICE DID NOT HA VE ANY SUCH SCRATCHING. 11.5 THUS, ON OVERALL C ONSIDERATION OF FACTS IT IS SEEN THAT MAJOR PART OF AOS OBSERVATIONS WAS BASED ON MATERIAL WHICH WERE PARTLY RELEVANT AND PARTLY IRRELEVANT AND THEREFORE IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT ITA NO .127/MUM/2009 AND CO NO.130/M/2009 . 7 THE AO HAD POSITIVELY LAID DOWN EVIDENCE WHICH COULD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THA T THE TRANSACTIONS WERE BOGUS OR ASSETS WERE NON - EXISTING. HO WEVER SINCE THE ENTIRE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS HAS BEEN SEEN IS NOTHING BUT REPLICA OF THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS AND NOTHING MORE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE I AM OF THE CONSTRAINED VIEW THA T APPELLANT'S CASE FIND FAVOUR IN THIS CASE AND SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY DECLARED INCOME IN RESPECT OR LEASE RENTAL YEAR AFTER YEAR AND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE SAME. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION AS PER THE RATES PREVAILING UNDER THE LA W . 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE EARLIER ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS, HAD SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD CIT(A) ONLY TO PROVIDE A N OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE MATERIALS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPORTED THAT HE COULD NOT LAY HIS HANDS ON THOSE MATERIALS. IT IS WELL SE TTLED PRINCIPLE THAT THE NATURAL JUSTICE CALLS FOR CONFRONTATION OF THE MATERIALS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE USED AGAINST A PERSON. IF THE PERSON IS DENIED THAT OPPORTUNITY, THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE SHALL FAIL. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL H AS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SAID OPPORTUNITY AND HAS ALSO EXPRESSED THAT THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED TH AT THE VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE COULD NOT BE MADE GOOD, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER. 5. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND HENCE THE SAME DOES NOT REQUIRE ADJUDICATION. ITA NO .127/MUM/2009 AND CO NO.130/M/2009 . 8 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.12. 2015. SD SD ( / SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ( . . / B.R.BASKARAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 14TH DEC,2015 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUM BAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI