IIT INVESTRUST LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 491)(2), , MUMBAI

ITA 3420/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves IIT Investrust Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) dismissing their appeal due to a significant delay in filing. The original Rectification Order under Section 154 was passed on 11/08/2010, and the appeal against this order was filed on 09/09/2021, nearly 11 years later. The Assessee argued that the delay was due to a change in management and the discovery of an error in accounting for the cost of acquiring shares during the assessment for AY 2012-13. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found that the delay was inordinate and not justified, as the Assessee had not claimed any deduction for the cost of acquiring the shares in the return of income for AY 2008-09, and the appeal was seen as an attempt to make a new claim after a significant delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633332 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Other Referred Cases: Chamanlal Bros. Ltd. Vs The Punjab State, Sandhya Rani Sarkar Vs Sudha Rani Debi, Ashok Automobile (Ranchi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Bihar, Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return; Reasonable cause; Cost of acquisition; Capital expenditure; Capital Gains; Rectification of order; Right to appeal
• Section: 148; 144; 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3420/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) IIT Investrust Limited Office No.101A, The Capital, G Block, Plot No.C-70, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Maharashtra. [PAN:AAACI1080R] …………. Appellant Income Tax Officer 4(1)(2), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400020. Maharashtra Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Shri Aakash Kumar Ms. Vranda Matkari Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 09.04.2025 09.06.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 06/06/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Rectification Order, dated 11/08/2010, passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 2 National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in not condoning a delay of 4,046 days in filing the appeal and consequently, not admitting the appeal. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 4,046 days and admit the appeal. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have decided the grounds of appeal and ought to have disposed of the case on merits.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. We have also taken note of Letter, dated 11/04/2025 filed by the Authorized Representative for the Assessee after conclusion of hearing and the order sheet entries dated 25/02/2025, 19/02/2025, 09/01/2025, 28/11/2024, 25/11/2024, 14/10/2024, 13/08/2024. After giving thoughtful consideration to the same, we proceed to adjudicate the issues raised in the present appeal. 4. In the present case the return of income filed by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and intimation dated, 26/11/2009, was issued. Subsequently, an application filed by the Assessee on 28/07/2010, a Rectification Order, dated 11/08/2010, was passed under Section 154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer granting credit of advance tax of INR.1,06,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Assessee instituted an appeal before the CIT(A) against the aforesaid Rectification Order on 09/09/2021, after a delay of almost 11 years. In the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) it was stated as under: “1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal: ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 3 We refer to the order dated 11.08.2010 of the Assessing Officer framed under section 154 of the Act determining total income 4,46,37,540 for income-tax assessment year 2008-09. In this connection, we would like to inform you that the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was due to be filed on 10th September 2010. However, the appeal is now being filed on 8th September 2021, that is, a delay of 4,046 days. The delay has occurred for the following reasons 1. We acquired BSE card at a cost of Rs 2,86,45,000/-, pre-2001. This was shown as Fixed Assets in the audited annual accounts. 2. During the year ended 31 March 2005, we made an impairment of Rs.2,11,45,184/- on BSE Card shown under Fixed Assets As a result, net block as at 31st March 2005 was reduced to Rs. 75,00,000. 3. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued notification dated 20t May, 2005, being the BSE (Corporatisation and demutualization) Scheme, 2005. We, in lieu of the membership rights it held in the BSE, received. (i) 10,000 equity shares of the BSE Ltd, and (ii) Trading and clearing rights at the BSE, 1. We made a payment of Rs 10,000 to the BSE for application of shares by cheque no 806893 dated 12.08.2005. As a result, WDV of BSE Card was increased to Rs 75,10,000 and same was reclassified under the head Investments in the annual accounts for the year ended 31st March 2006. 2. Per section 55(2)(ab) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of the equity shares has to be considered at the cost of acquisition of the membership rights of the Exchange, that is, Rs 2,86,45,000 plus share application money of Rs. 10,000 and the cost of acquisition of trading and clearing rights at the BSE has to be considered at Rs Nil. 3. During the year ended 31st March, 2008 (that is, during the year under reference), we sold the aforesaid 10,000 equity shares of the BSE, details of which are given below- Date of sale 23.07.2007 Quantity 10,000 Sales consideration Rs.5,20,00,000 Cost of acquisition (taken at) Rs 10,000 Gain credited to profit and loss account Rs.5,19,90,000 ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 4 1. Treatment of investments in our books of account for the year ended 31st March, 2008 On sale of the equity shares of the BSE, in our books of account Opening balance Rs.75,1000 Adjusted towards cost of shares of BSE (Rs 10,000) Transferred to intangible (fixed assets) (BSE card) Rs. 75,00,000 Closing balance Nil 1. We ought to have written-off Rs 75,00.000, which we erroneously transferred it to intangible (fixed) assets (BSE Card), as mentioned in (7) above. 2. We declared the aforesaid gain of Rs.5,19,00,000 under the head long-term capital gains and paid tax @ 20% on the same. 3. The return of income for assessment year 2008-09 was processed by the Assessing Officer by passing an intimation dated 26.11.2009 under section 143(1) of the Act and later, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 1 1.08.2010 under section 154 of the Act (the impugned order). 4. For income-tax assessment year 2012-13 11.1. The intangible assets (BSE card) of Rs 75,00,000 which ought to have been written off in the accounts for the year ended 315 March, 2008, when the equity shares of the BSE were sold, was actually written-off during the year ended 3 1st March, 2012. 11.2. Our case was selected for scrutiny for assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer passed an order dated 25.11.2014 under section 143(3) of the Act and determined the refund of Rs 46, 72,720, including interest under section 244A. Our returned income was accepted without any modifications. 11.3. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 31.03.2017 under section 148 of the Act and our case was re-opened and the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 30.11.2017 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and determined the total income at Rs 2,29,88,190 after making an addition of Rs 75,00,000 in respect of write-off of intangible assets (BSE card) which is debited to the profit and loss account. 11.4. 2nd reopening for assessment year 2012-13 - The Assessing Officer once again issued a notice dated ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 5 30.03.2019 under section 148 of the Act and our case was re-opened (2nd reopening); and the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 16.12.2019 under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and surprisingly, again made an addition of Rs 75.00.000 for the reason that the intangible asset (BSE card) is written-off of and debited to the profit and loss account, which is not an allowable expense: the Assessing Officer once again determined the total income at Rs 2,29,88,190 and raised a demand of Rs 76,99,060. 1. Thereafter, in December, 2019, we appointed Messrs R.S. Khandelwal & Associates, Chartered Accountant to draft and file appeal to the CIT(A) against the second re-opening order. We also sought professional advice regarding the aforesaid disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. On their enquiry as to how this figure is arrived at, we looked up the old documents and noticed that the long term capital gains offered by us in assessment year 2008-09 was an inadvertent error inasmuch as the cost of acquisition ought to have been Rs 2,86,45,000 as against Rs 10,000 claimed in the return of income. The said inadvertent error did not come to our knowledge till February, 2020 inasmuch as we were not aware of this transaction. It is only when we sought advice on the issue that too on queries raised, we checked our old records and noticed this error. It would not be out of place to mention that there was a change in management of our company in the year 2008. 2. Thereafter, in February, 2020, Covid-19 broke out and we started working with a skeleton staff. In March, 2020, WHO declared a pandemic and a nationwide lockdown was announced which is on- going till date. We are still working with skeleton staff and hence, we were not able to seek advice on the aforesaid error and take appropriate action. Further, our aforesaid consultants Messrs R.S. Khandelwal & Associates, Chartered Accountant were completely non-functional during the initial few months of the lockdown and later, they adopted 'work from home' approach for their office, and their office was virtually non-functional.. They completely stopped coming to office for the reason that even the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was functional virtually and the Income-tax Department adopted the faceless approach for CIT(A) and assessment proceedings. They also stopped physically meeting anyone due to fears in Maharashtra, in particular, in Mumbai. They only ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 6 started coming to office after 15 th August 2021, on their staff being partially or fully vaccinated. It can be appreciated that the issue involved in the appeal required detailed examination of old records and hence, it was not possible for us or for them to virtually attend to this issue. Further, you will appreciate that there is absolutely no malafide intention on our part for the aforesaid delay. No benefit would accrue to us on account of not filing of appeal within the due date. As mentioned earlier, there was a change in management in the year 2008. The new management was not aware of this transaction at all. As such, you will appreciate that the error of not filing of appeal is, on facts, bona fide.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5. On perusal of the above application seeking condonation of delay, it is clear that the return of income for the Assessment Year 2008- 2009, the Assessee had offered to tax Long Term Capital Gains of INR.5,19,90,000/- computed as under: Date of sale 23.07.2007 Quantity 10,000 Sales consideration INR.5,20,00,000 Cost of acquisition (taken at) INR.10,000 Gain credited to profit and loss account INR.5,19,90,000 6. It is admitted position that return was processed on 26/11/2009 under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, Rectification Order under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 11/08/2010. It is the case of the Assessee that, subsequently, when the records of the Assessee was being examined by the tax professional in relation to assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 in December, 2019, it was discovered that there was inadvertent error on account of which cost of acquisition of shares sold was incorrectly taken as INR.10,000/- (instead of INR.2,96,45,000/-) while computing the Long Term Capital Gain of INR.5,19,90,000/- offered to tax in the return of income. However, on account of Covid-19 Pandemic the appeal before the CIT(A) could not be filed. Later, the Assessee instituted appeal before the CIT(A) on 09/09/2021 after a delay of about 11 years. As evident from the application seeking condonation of delay, before the CIT(A), following submission were ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 7 made: “2. xx xx Further, you will appreciate that there is absolutely no malafide intention on our part for the aforesaid delay. No benefit would accrue to us on account of not filing of appeal within the due date. As mentioned earlier, there was a change in management in the year 2008. The new management was not aware of this transaction at all. As such, you will appreciate that the error of not filing of appeal is, on facts, bona fide. We, in this regard, submit that Courts have held time and again that the jurisdiction to condone the delay must be exercised liberally. It is further held that in considering the condonation petition, it is to be remembered that statutes conferring a right of appeal must be construed in furtherance of justice and the provision limiting the time for bringing an appeal must be liberally interpreted Chamanlal Bros. Ltd. Vs The Punjab State 12 SCT 643. The word \"sufficient cause should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice Sandhya Rani Sarkar Vs Sudha Rani Debi AIR SC 537. It is held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred-167 ITR 471 (SC). Further, it is held in the case of Ashok Automobile (Ranchi) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Bihar (1988) 174 ITR 566, 567 (Pat) that the jurisdiction to condone delay should be exercised liberally and matter relating to condonation of delay should be judged broadly and not in a pedantic manner. While dealing with the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Supreme Court, in Collector, Land Acquisition Vis. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471, 472-73 (SC)], has held as under:- The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on \"merits\". The expression 'sufficient cause' in section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life purpose of the existence of institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this court has been making a justifiably liberal ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 8 approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realised that – (1) Originally, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 1. 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour 's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 2. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In view of the reasons for the delay mentioned above, we submit that we have been prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal within 30 days of receipt of notice of demand and we therefore, on the basis the decisions mentioned above, request you to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal to be disposed of on merits.” ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 9 7. The above submission did not find favour with the CIT(A) and the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the appeal preferred by the Assessee were dismissed by the CIT(A) vide Order dated, 06/06/2024, holding as under: “5. I have carefully examined the application for condonation of delay filed & the reasons stated in the case. It is noted that the appeal against the impugned order under section 154 dated 11/08/2010 was due on 10/09/2010 and the present appeal is filed on 09/09/2021 with the delay of more than 11 years. The reason cited by the appellant is that the appellant came to be aware of certain mistakes on its part in accounting for the cost of acquiring the shares of BSE Ltd and not claiming the same in computing the capital gains on sale of those shares during the assessment year 2008-09, consequent to an assessment under section 147 for AY 2012-13 made on 16/12/2019 adding Rs.75,00,000 being the cost/value written off against the shares sold earlier. Thereafter, the appellant cited the disruptions caused by COVID-19 pandemic as a reason till the date of filing this appeal. As per the stated facts, it is noted that the appellant had written off an amount of Rs.2,11,45,184 in its books towards the impairment of assets, viz, the BSE Card as on 31st March 2005, on allotment of shares of BSE Ltd consequent to SEBI notification 20th May 2005 on the BSE (Corporatisation & Demutualisation) Scheme, carrying the cost of asset @ Rs.75,00,000 only. The appellant had offered long term capital gains on sale of shares of BSE Ltd during the AY 2008-09 at Rs.5,19,00,000 after claiming the cost of acquisition of shares at Rs. 10,000 paid on allotment of shares, leaving Rs.75,00,000 being accounted as cost of BSE Card & other rights under intangible asset. The appellant having sold the shares & offered capital gains in the year 2007-08, relevant to AY 2008-09, written off the above balance of Rs.75,00,000 by debiting to its P&L account for FY 2011-12 & claimed deduction in AY 2012-13. The said claim was disallowed by the AO by taxing the same as STCG on sale of BSE membership card vide order u/s 143(3) rws 147 dated 30/11/2017 and capital expenditure written off vide order u/s 143(3) rws 147 dated 16/12/2019 for AY 2012-13. ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 10 It is further noted that the appellant had not made any claim for deduction of the alleged cost of acquiring the shares of BSE Ltd, except for Rs. 10,000 in the ITR filed for AY 2008-09 and accordingly the returned income of Rs. 4,46,37,535, which included long-term capital gains of Rs.5,19,90,000 before setting off the current year and brought forward losses was accepted by the department. Further, the subject matter of rectification in the impugned order under section 154 of the Act dated 11/08/2010 does not include any claim relating to the deduction of any cost of acquisition and it is merely on giving credit to pre-paid taxes not considered in the processing under section 143(1) of Act, which was duly rectified in the impugned order. In the above facts and circumstances, the present appeal of the appellant is filed with the ulterior motive of countering or nullifying the addition made in the re-assessments for AY 2012-13 highlighted above by making a new/fresh claim in the assessment year 2008-09, when the same does not arise from the impugned order under section 154 dated 11/08/2010 against which this appeal is instituted. It is admitted by the appellant that there was an error in not claiming the actual cost of acquiring the shares of BSE Ltd, while offering the LTCG for AY 2008-09 and accordingly, the appellant had resorted to filing this appeal with the delay of more than 11 years. The appellant had filed appeals against the re-assessment orders dated 30/11/2017 & 13/12/2019 on 22/12/2017& 13/01/2020, respectively, within 30 days of order overcoming the disruptions due to COVID-19 pandemic, at least in the second case and taking exception of the pandemic only for this appeal, which shows that the reason cited for condonation is not genuine. The appellant reason that there was an inadvertent error in making a claim or computation of income in the return of income filed for AY 2008-09, which came to light when the reassessment for AY 2012-13 was completed cannot be a bona fide reason for condonation of delay given the fact that by the time the statutory limitation to revise the return or to file the appeal has expired and no valid claim of deduction been made in the ITR or before the assessing authority. Further, a decision to file an appeal for a given assessment year based on the outcome or progress of assessment for any other year or years cannot be a reason least sufficient reason for condonation of delay. If that be the reason, the limitation prescribed in the statute would become redundant leading to endless litigation on settled assessments by the ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 11 appellants aiming to negate additions, rectify and correct their own mistakes, even after a decade as in the present case. As illustrated above, this appeal has been filed with ulterior motive of making a new/fresh claim of deduction and to negate the addition made in the other assessment, which cannot be permitted under Income tax Act and as such there is no substantial justice or cause to be served by condoning the delay of more than 4000 days or 11 years. In the above facts and circumstances and for the detailed reasoning given above, I do not find any bona fide or reasonable cause for the delay of more than 11 years in filing this appeal and accordingly, the request for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal is not acceded to and appeal is not admitted. In the result the appeal is rejected.” 8. The above order of the CIT(A) has been challenged in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. It is admitted position that in the return of income the Assessee had only claimed deduction for cost of acquisition of shares sold at INR.10,000/-. It is also evident on perusal of the Rectification Order, dated 11/08/2010, that the subject matter of rectification application was no-grant of advance tax of INR.10,06,00,000/-. Therefore, the CIT(A) had rightly hold that issue raised in the appeal filed before the CIT(A) against the Rectification Order passed under Section 154 of the Act did not arise from the said order. Therefore, the same could not have been entertained by the CIT(A) in appeal against the Rectification Order. Thus, in effect the claim made by the Assessee was a new/fresh claim of deduction in respect of cost of acquisition of shares which was raised belatedly for the first time after a delay of more than 11 years and for that reason also the same could not be entertained by the CIT(A). Further, as per the application seeking condonation of delay, the reason provided for delay in filing appeal was that there was change in the management in the year 2008 and the mistake was discovered in December, 2019. It is ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 12 admitted position that as per application seeking condonation of delay the Assessee had provided following treatment in the books of accounts for the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-2009: “Treatment of investments in our books of account for the year ended 31st March, 2008 On sale of the equity shares of the BSE, in our books of account Opening balance Rs.75,1000 Adjusted towards cost of shares of BSE (Rs 10,000) Transferred to intangible (fixed assets) (BSE card) Rs. 75,00,000 Closing balance Nil” It is also admitted for the Assessment Year 2012-2013, the Assessee had written off INR.75,00,000/- (treated as intangible/fixed asset in the books of accounts) by debiting the Profit & Loss Account and had claimed deduction for the same in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. Thus, it cannot be said that the concerned persons of the Assessee-company did not have knowledge of the correct facts. The aforesaid claim was reject in the assessment/re-assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. It is only after the aforesaid disallowance was made that a different position/stand was sought to be taken by the Assessee to claim the said amount as cost of acquisition of asset sold during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2008-2009. This was taken note of by the CIT(A) while concluding that the Assessee had failed to provide a bonafide reason for delay in filing the appeal sufficient to condone the delay of 11 years. We concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) as we do not find infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) holding that the Assessee had failed to provide a bonafide or reasonable cause for delay in filing the present appeal. The CIT(A) has correctly observed that the time for filing the revised return or appeal against the Rectification Order had expired long back. No action was taken by the Assessee for 11 years. The tax proceedings for the Assessment Year 2008-09 stood concluded. As ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 13 correctly observed by the CIT(A), the limitation prescribed as per the provisions of the Act would become redundant leading to endless litigation on settled assessments in case an Assessee is permitted to revise return or rectify its own mistake even after a decade without any sufficient cause. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) holding that the Assessee had failed to provide a bonafide or reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Accordingly, we declined to interfere in the order passed by the order passed by the CIT(A) and same is sustained. As a result all the Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed. 10. In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 09.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 09.06.2025 Milan,LDC ITA No.3420/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2008-2009 14 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "