FORTRAN STEEL P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

ITA 11/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0609 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: MATHURIA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Accommodation entries
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 11/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) FORTRAN STEEL PV T. LTD. 35 - A, CARNAC SIDING ROAD, SAKAR GALLI, IRON MARKET, MUMBAI - 400 009 / VS. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 10(2), 432, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACF 4202 A ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. S. MATHURIA / RESPONDENT BY : MS. POOJA SWAROOP / DATE OF HEARING : 06.11.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.01 .2018 / O R D E R PER S HAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: THIS A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 02.09.2015 AND PERTAINS TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 22 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SAID CIT(A)] HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AT RS.19,06,501/ - (BEING 12.5% OF PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,52,52,011/ - FROM 8 SUPPLIERS). 2 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AT RS.6,250/ - UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AT RS.4, 26,684/ - FROM FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. APROPOS ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASE: 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES OF MUMBAI HAD CARRIED OUT AN INVESTIGATION IN THOSE CASES WHERE THERE WERE DEFAULTS OF VAT SET OFF CREDITS. DURING THE C OURSE OF INVESTIGATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN PARTIES WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING BILLS AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CUSTOMER, NO GOODS WERE TRANSACTED IN THESE TRANSACTIONS AND ONLY BILLS WERE ISSUED AS PER DEMAND AND REQUI REMENT OF THE CUSTOMER. THESE PARTIES WERE SURVEYED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES AND STATEMENTS OF THE AUTHORIZED PERSONS WERE RECORDED. THESE PERSONS HAD AGREED DURING INTERROGATION THAT THEY HAD NOT SUPPLIED ANY MATERIAL TO THEIR CUSTOMERS AND HAD ISSUED BILLS AS PER THE DESIRE AND REQUIREMENT OF THE CUSTOMERS. THIS INFORMATION WAS PASSED ON BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES TO THE INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME TAX DEPT, MUMBAI. IN THE INSTANT CASE, INFORMATION OF PARTIES CLAIMED TO BE ASSESSEE 'S SUPPLIERS WERE RECEIVED FROM THE MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT INDICATING THAT PURCHASES SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,52,52,011/ - WERE NOT GENUINE IN AS MUCH AS SUCH PERSONS HAD ONLY GIVEN ACCOMMODATION BILLS AND HAD NOT SUPPLIED GOODS TO IT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 4. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 27.01.2014 TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THESE P ARTIES WITH NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE INCLUDING PURCHASE ORDER, COPIES OF INVOICES, PAYMENT DETAILS, DETAILS OF RECEIPT AND TRANSPORTATION SUCH AS LR/RR RECEIPT, VEHICLE NUMBER, GATE PASS RECORDS, OCTROI RECEIPTS, CRN, DELIVERY CHALLANS , WEIGHMENT SLIPS, DETAILS OF ISSUE AND UTILIZATION OF THE ALLEGED PURCHASES. IT WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY IN THE ABSENCE OF GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE BEING ESTABLISHED, WHY THE PURCHASES SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THESE PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 28.02.2014 HAD SUBMITTED YEAR WISE STOCK SUMMARY OF THE TRADING DIVISION OF THE COMPANY AND CONFIRMED THAT THE PURCHASES HAD BEEN MADE FROM THE SAID SUSPICIOUS PARTIES AND ITS CORRESPONDING SALE HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE STOCK REGISTER OF TRADING DIVISION. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY HAD EARNED PROFIT FROM THE SAID PURCHASES AND SALE TR ANSACTIONS THAT HAD BEEN ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL TAXABLE PROFITS AND NO FURTHER ADHOC ADDITIONS SHOULD BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 6. THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT IT HAD PURCHASED THE MATERI AL FROM THE ALLEGED HAWAL A DEALERS AND HAD BEEN ACTUAL LY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID 4 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT NOT FIND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTABLE AS DISCUSSED IN PAGES 2 & 3 OF HIS ORDER AND ADDED BACK RS.39,94,858 / - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING THE PEAK OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE ALLEG ED HAWALA DEALERS PLUS 10% OF THE PURCHASE VALUE MADE FROM THESE DEALERS. 7. UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REFERRED TO HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SIMIT P. SHETH [2013] 356 ITR 451 ( GUJ.) AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE. 8. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. W E FIND THAT CREDIBLE AND COGENT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THIS C ASE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CERTAIN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER/BOGUS SUPPLIERS WERE BEING USED BY CERTAIN PARTIES TO OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS, ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY/BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS DURING THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEA R FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THE CREDIBILITY OF INFORMATION RELATING TO REOPENING HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND BY ITAT AS ABOVE. FURTHERMORE IT IS NOTED THAT IN SUCH FACTUAL SCENARIO ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS MADE THE NECESSARY ENQUIRY. THE ISSUE OF NOTICE TO ALL THE PARTIES HAVE RETURNED UNSERVED. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM ANY OF THE 5 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT PARTY. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE PARTIES. THE NECES SARY EVIDENCE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS FACTUAL SCENARIO IT IS AMPLY THAT ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. MERE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR PURCHASES CANNOT CONTROVERT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE PROVIDER OF THESE BILLS ARE BOGUS AND NON - EXISTENT AND THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE OF TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS. THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IN ITS ENQUIRY HAVE FOUND THE PARTIES TO BE PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUE D NOTICES TO THESE PARTIES AT THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE NOTICES HAVE RETURNED UNSERVED. ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE OF THE PROVISION OF G OODS. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PARTIES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THESE PARTIES ARE NON - EXISTENT. 1 0 . HENCE PURCHASE BILLS FROM THESE NON - EXISTENT/BOGUS PARTIES CANNOT BE TAKEN AS COGENT EVIDENCE OF PURCHASES, IN LIGHT OF THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT PUT UPON BLINKERS AND ACCEPT THESE PURCHASES AS GENUINE. THIS PROPOSITION IS DULY SUPPORTED BY HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801 AND DURGA PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE WANTS THAT THE UNASSAILABLE FACT THAT THE SUPPLIERS ARE NON - EXISTENT AND THUS BOGUS SHOULD BE IGNORED AND ONLY THE DOCUMENTS BEING PRODUCED SHOULD BE 6 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT CONSIDERED. THIS PROPOSITION IS TOTALL Y UNSUSTAINABLE IN LIGHT OF ABOVE APEX COURT DECISIONS. 1 1 . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS REFERRED TO HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF APEX APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2003 IN THE CASE OF N K INDUSTRIES VS DY CIT , ORDER DATED 20.06.2016, WHEREIN HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES WAS HELD TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TRIBUNALS RESTRICTION OF THE ADDITION TO 25% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES WAS SET ASIDE. IT WAS EXPOUNDED THAT WHEN PURCHASE BILLS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BOGUS 100% DISALLOWANCE WAS REQUIRED. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION AGAINST THIS ORDER ALONG WITH OTHERS HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.1.2017. 1 2 . WE NOTE THAT THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES (IN WRIT PETITION NO 2860, ORDER DT. 18.6.2014) HAS EXPOUNDED THAT WHEN SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED, 100% DISALLOWANCES FOR BOGUS PURCHASE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HOWEVER, FACTS OF THAT CASE WERE A LITTLE DIFFERENT INASMUCH AS SALES WERE TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. 1 3 . WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIMIT P. SHETH (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT 12.5% DISALLOWANCE OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE IN SUCH SITUATION MEETS THE END OF JUSTICE. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE CATENA OF ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. 7 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DIRECT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS CASE BE RESTRICTED TO 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE. 1 4 . SINCE WE HA VE DECIDED THE ABOVE ON THE BASIS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELEVANT HERE. 1 5 . APROPOS TO GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.90,000/ - AS DIVIDEND INCOME AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXEMPT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY EXPENDITURE INC URRED FOR EARNING OF THIS DIVIDEND INCOME CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. 1 6 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D AMOUNTING TO RS.55,337/ - . 17 . UPON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER: THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WORKED OUT THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AS UNDER: 1. UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) NIL 2. UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) RS.49,087/ - 3. UNDER RUL E 8D(2)(III) RS, 6,250 / - TOTAL RS. 55,337/ - 8 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT REGARDING DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II), IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INTEREST FREE FUNDS IN EXCESS OF THE EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING INVESTMENTS . IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE UTILITIES AND POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340(BOM) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ' THE PRINCIPLE, THEREFORE, WOULD BE THAT IF THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE BOTH INTEREST - FREE AND OVER DRAFT AND/OR LOANS TAKEN, THEN A PRESUMPTION W OULD ARISE THAT INVESTMENTS WOULD BE OUT OF THE INTEREST - FREE FUNDS GENERATED OR AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, IF THE INTEREST - FREE FUNDS WERE SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE INVESTMENTS' , THIS DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) IS DELETED. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANC E UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III), VARIOUS COURTS HAVE TIME AND AGAIN, HELD THAT MAKING OF INVESTMENTS AND EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME REQUIRES EFFORTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE FORMULA PROV IDED IN SUB CLAUSE (III) OF RULE 8D(2) AND THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. 18 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 19 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSELS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ALREADY GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES ON THIS ISSUE. A MARGINAL ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.6,250/ - . NO THING HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE WHATSOEVER ON THIS SUBJECT ON THE EARNING OF THE EXEMPT INCOME. HENCE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. A PROPOS GROUND RE LATING TO DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES 2 0 . ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED RS.12,80,050/ - TOWARDS FOREIGN TRAVEL. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS INCURRED BY THE 9 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT TWO DIRECTORS FOR VISIT TO SOUTH AM ERICAN COUNTRIES FOR HOLDING DISCUSSION FOR BUILDING RELATIONSHIP WITH COUNTERPARTS IN THOSE COUNTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THIS EXPLANATION ACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM TO SHO W THE NEXUS OF THE EXPENDITURE WITH THE BUSINESS. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECTORS HAVE ALSO TRAVELLED ALONG WITH THE DIRECTORS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS.12,80,050/ - . 2 1 . U PON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 1/3 RD AND GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.8,53,366/ - . 2 2 . AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 3 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION , WE FIND THAT WHEN THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ACCEPTING THAT THE TRAVELLING IS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, THERE CANNOT BE AN Y OCCASION FOR ADHOC DISALLOWANCE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTED THAT APART FROM THE DIRECTORS, THE EXPENDITURE INVOLVES THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECTORS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS EXPENDITURE O N FOREIGN TRAVEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPANY. HENCE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE ISSUE AND DISALLOW THE PORTION OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH RELATE TO FOREIGN TRAVEL BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECTORS. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 10 ITA NO. 11/MUM/2016 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) FORTRAN STEEL PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 2 4 . IN THE RESULT, TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.01.2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / J UDICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 24.01.2018 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI