SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT LTD., MUMBAI V. PR CIT 4, MUMBAI

ITA 1077/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7838 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEK SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJNISH K VOHRA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Period of limitation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1077/M/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT. LTD., 501/502, MAKHIJA CHAMBERS PREMISES CSL, 196, TURNER ROAD, BANDRA WEST, MUMBAI 400 050 PAN: AANCS6614C VS. THE PR. CIT-4, ROOM NO.629, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAHARSHI KARVE MARG, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJNISH K. VOHRA, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEK SAHU, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 23.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :01.09.2021 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2020 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PR IVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING I N SHARES AND SECURITIES. A RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR TH E INSTANT YEAR ON 19.09.2010 DECLARING AN INCOME AT RS.7,956/-. TH E ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 11/03/2013 AFTER CALLING FOR DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM BY THE AO. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE ITA NO.1077/M/2020 M/S. SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT. LTD. 2 WAS RE-OPENED BY THE AO BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 O F THE I T ACT ON 31.03.2017, WHICH WAS APPARENTLY BEYOND FOUR YEA RS TO VERIFY TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WI TH M/S BHAVANI ENTERPRISES AND M/S ASHER VENTURES PVT. LIM ITED IN RESPECT OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM THESE TWO COMPANIES WHICH BELONGED TO AND CONTROLLED BY SHRI PRAVEEN AGGARWAL . IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS N OT REOPENED IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF SHARE PREMIUM. THE ASSES SING OFFICER VERIFIED THE ISSUES FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS REOPE NED AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ADD ITIONS WERE MADE IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE CONCERNS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. SUBSEQUENTLY LD. PCIT, ON THE BASIS O F LETTER DATED 31/01/2018 RECEIVED FROM AO THAT ISSUE OF SHA RE CAPITAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR COULD NOT BE VERIFIED DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME, INITIATED REVISIONARY PROCEED INGS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT DATED 26.02.2019 TO THE A PPELLANT ASSESSEE. 3. THE SAID NOTICE WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 11.03.2019 AND AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE LD. PCIT PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 14 3(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 29/12/2017 WHICH HAS BEEN CHAL LENGED BEFORE US RAISING SEVERAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE REPRODU CED AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE EXACT ERROR IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE MATTER AND DID NOT APPRECIATE THE MATERIAL AND CASE LAW RELIED UPON WHICH WERE BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING. 2. IN DOING SO, THE LD. PR. CIT ERRED IN HOLDING TH AT AO HAS NOT MADE ENQUIRIES WHICH IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD AND DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE AO BUT , AT THE MOST, A CASE OF INADEQUATE ITA NO.1077/M/2020 M/S. SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT. LTD. 3 ENQUIRY WHICH BY ITSELF DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ACTI ON U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GA BRIEL INDIA LTD. [(1993) 203 ITR 108(BOM)]. 3. FURTHER IN DOING SO, THE LD. PR. CIT DID NOT APP RECIATE THAT THE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION CANNOT BE EXERCISED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO INDEPENDENTLY ENQUIRE TO ESTABLI SH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS RAISED AT A PREMIUM AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION THOUGH THE FULL DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WHICH WERE ALSO FURNISHED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND W ERE EXTENSIVELY EXAMINED BY THE THEN AO. 4. THE LD. PR.CIT FURTHER DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT T HE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BASED ON REAS ONS RECORDED IS BAD IN LAW AND THERE WAS NO OCCASION EARLIER FOR THE APPELLANT TO CHALLENGE THE SAME AS THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER ULTIMATELY WAS NOT ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT. 5. IN ANY EVENT, THE LD. PR. CIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF CREDITS AGGREGATING TO RS. 1 CR. REFERRED TO IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS THE GROUND FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASS ESSMENT, WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WITH RE GARD TO ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AT A PREMIUM, THE SAME WAS NOT THE GROUND ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND, THEREFORE, THE REVISIONARY POWER WITH REGARD T O ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL WAS HOPELESSLY TIME BARRED AS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PROVIDED FOR UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WOULD BEGIN TO RUN FROM T HE DATE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT FROM THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT AS HE LD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD. [(2007)] 162 TAX MAN 465 (SC)]. 6. THE LD. PR. CIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE FACT S IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT, CENTRAL -1 VS. NRA IRON & STEEL PVT. LTD. [103 TAXMANN.COM 48(SC)] RELIED UPON BY HIM ARE DISTINGUISHABLE WITH THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT. 4. WE WOULD LIKE TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND NO.5 WHIC H CHALLENGES THE JURISDICTION OF THE LD PCIT TO PASS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE 263 PROCEEDINGS A RE HOPELESSLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISIO NARY PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT IS INVALID AND NULLITY AS THE SAME IS BARR ED BY LIMITATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 263(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE LD. PCIT DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT ISSUE OF GENUINENE SS OF CREDITS AGGREGATING TO RS. 1.00 CR FROM TWO PARTIES REFERRE D TO IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS THE GROUND FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT , ITA NO.1077/M/2020 M/S. SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT. LTD. 4 WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AT A PREM IUM, THE SAME WAS NOT THE GROUND ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOP ENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE REVISIONARY POWE R WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL WAS HOPELESSLY TIME BARRE D AS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PROVIDED FOR UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WOULD BE COUNTED AND RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 11.03.2013 AND NOT FROM THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT DATED 29.12.2017. THE LD AR STATED THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 11/03/2013 AND DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT LD AO HAS VERIFIED ENTIRE DETAILS OF SHA RE CAPITAL ALONG WITH SHARE PREMIUM ISSUED DURING THE INSTANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE LD AR, WHILE REFERRING TO THE NOTICE DAT ED 15.10.2012, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 1 42(1) OF THE ACT, AO HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF SHARES ISSUED ON PREMIUM. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DE TAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO QUA 1,00,000 SHARES ISSUED @ RS.200/- PER SHARE INCLUSIVE OF SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.190/- PER SH ARE. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.10,0 0,000/- BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RS.1,90,00,000/- BY OF SHA RE PREMIUM AGGREGATING TO RS.2,00,00,000/- IN A.Y.2010-11 FRO M FOUR COMPANIES. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AL LOTTED SHARES TO FOUR COMPANIES AT PREMIUM AND IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED VIDE NOTICE DATED 15.10.2012, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 13.12.2012 FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF SHAR ES ISSUED AT PREMIUM. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE VIDE LETTER DATED 20.12.2012 SUBMITTED COPIES OF ALL THE BANK STATEMENTS WITH LEDGER ACCOUNTS. THE AO THEREAFTER ALSO ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, WHICH WERE ALSO ITA NO.1077/M/2020 M/S. SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT. LTD. 5 COMPLIED WITH BY THE ALLOTTEE COMPANIES. SUBSEQUENT LY, AO HAD ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.02.2013 MADE FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND OBJECTED TO PROPOSED ADDITIONS. HAVING CONSIDERED AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TA X ACT ON 11.03.2013 BY ASSESSING INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE LD A R SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 31/03/2017 AFTE R RECORDING REASONS TO BELIEVE, COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED ON PA GE 108 OF PAPER BOOK. THE LD AR STATED THAT AS PER THESE REAS ONS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS WITH TWO PARTIES NAMELY BH AWANI ENTERPRISES AND ASHER VENTURES PVT. LTD. WHICH WERE DULY VERIFIED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SH ARE PREMIUM WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, HENCE TIME LIMIT FOR REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF T HE ACT HAS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF TH E ACT AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 29.12.2017. AS PERIOD O F TWO YEARS OF LIMITATION GOT OVER ON 31.03.2015, HENCE NO ORDER U NDER SECTION 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED ON 03. 02.2020. THUS, ORDER PASSED BY LD. PR. PCIT UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF INCOME TAX ACT DATED 03.02.2020 MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED BEIN G AN ORDER PASSED BEYOND TIME LIMIT OF 31.03.2015. THE LD AR I N DEFENSE OF HIS ARGUMENTS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD. [(2007)] 162 TAXMAN 465 (SC)].THE LD AR ALSO RELIES ON A SERIES OF DEC ISIONS NAMELY ITA NO.1077/M/2020 M/S. SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT. LTD. 6 CIT VS ICICI BANK LTD (343 ITR 74)(BOMBAY), SKYLINE BUILDERS VS CIT (412 ITR 182)(KERALA) AND L.G. ELECTRONICS I NDIA (P.) LTD VS PCIT (388 ITR 135)(ALLAHABAD). 6. THE LD DR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT TWO Y EARS HAVE TO BE TAKEN FROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 29.12.2017 AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 11.03.2013.THE LD DR RELIED ON THE REVISIONARY ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD PCIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORDS INCLUDING THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF LD. PCIT. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSE SSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2013 IN WH ICH THE ISSUE OF SHARES CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM WAS SPECI FICALLY ASKED AND REPLIED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. THE DATE OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN STATED HEREINABOVE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS R E-OPENED U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 31.3.2017 IN WHICH THE REASONS RECORDED U /S 148(2) OF THE ACT STATE THAT THE VERIFICATION OF TRANSACTION S OF THE ASSESSEE WITH TWO PARTIES NAMELY BHAWANI ENTERPRISES AND ASH ER VENTURES PVT. LTD. WHICH WERE CONTROLLED BY PRAVEEN AGARWAL A WELL KNOWN ENTRY PROVIDER. THE LD PCIT EXERCISED RE VISIONARY POWERS U/S 263 OF THE ACT AFTER RECEIVING A PROPOSA L FROM THE AO THAT INQUIRIES QUA IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH E PARTIES FROM WHOM SHARE PREMIUM WAS RECEIVED COULD NOT BE CONDUC TED DUE TO SHORTAGE OF TIME. THE LD. PCIT FINALLY PASSED T HE ORDER UNDER ITA NO.1077/M/2020 M/S. SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT. LTD. 7 SECTION 263 OF THE ACT SETTING ASIDE THE REASSESSME NT FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE AS THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM WERE NOT V ERIFIED BY THE AO. THE REVISIONARY ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT WA S PASSED ON 03.02.2020. NOW THE ISSUE BEFORE US WHETHER THE RE VISIONARY ORDER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION U/S 263(2) OF THE ACT . WE ARE QUITE CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAS TO BE TAKEN FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 11.03.2013 AND NOT FROM RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER D ATED 29.12.2017. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ISSUE WHICH W AS SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE AC T WAS NOT AT ALL SUBJECT MATTER OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT NOR ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE ITEMS OF ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME AS RECORDED U/S 148(2) OF THE ACT. WE ARE THEREFORE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REVISIONARY ORDER IS BARRED BY LIMITA TION AND ACCORDINGLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALID AND NULLITY. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DEC ISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE VERY SAME ISSUE OF LIMITATION H AS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SIMILAR FAC TS. THE OPERATIVE PART IS EXTRACTED BELOW: WE, THEREFORE, ARE CLEARLY OF THE OPINION THAT KEE PING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND, IN PARTICULAR, HAVI NG REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXERCISING ITS REVISION JURISDICTION REOPENED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ONLY RELATION TO LEASE EQUALIZATION F UND WHICH BEING NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE PERIOD OF LIMI TATION PROVIDED FOR UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WOULD BEGIN T O RUN FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND NOT FROM THE ORDER OF REASSESSMEN T. THE REVISION JURISDICTION HAVING, THUS, BEEN INVOKED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, IT WAS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION R ENDERING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING NULLITY. ITA NO.1077/M/2020 M/S. SPECTRUM VENTURE PVT. LTD. 8 8. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE APEX COURT DECISION, WE HOLD THAT TH E REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LD PCIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263(2) OF THE ACT AND IS NULL ITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED UNDE R SECTION 263 DATED 03.02.2020 ARE QUASHED. 9. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON LIMITATION, OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E NOT BEING ADJUDICATED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.09.2021. SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 01.09.2021. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.