HEMANG HASMUKHRAY DOSHI (PROP. OF MINOLTA CHEM), MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 27(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1117/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8899 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K BEPARI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 133(6); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM I.T.A. NO. 1117/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) HEMANG HASMUKHRAY DOSHI (PROP OF MINOLTA CHEM) C/411, KAILASH ESPLANADE, L.B.S. MARG, OPP . SHREYAS CINEMA, GHATKOPAR (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 086 VS. ITO - 27(1)(3), VASHI INCOME TAX, TOWER NO.6, 4 TH FLOOR, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI - 400 701 PAN/GIR NO. AABPD 2752 R ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. BEP ARI DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .10 .2018 O R D E R PER S HAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE LEAR N ED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 25, MUMBAI (LD.CIT(A) FOR SHORT ) DATED 22.12.2017 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2009 - 10. 2. T HE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF 12.5% OF BO GUS PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO RS.25,34,888/ - . 3. I N THIS CASE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O. FOR SHO RT) HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ACCOMMODATION BILLS FOR PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES DECLARED AS HAWALA OPERATORS BY MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF RE - ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SEEN BY THE AO THAT 2 ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2018 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.5,10,93,918 / - AND OUT OF WHICH, PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,02,79,106/ - HAD BEEN EFFECTED FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTY: SR. NO. PARTY WHO HAVE ISSUED BOGUS BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT OF SUCH BOGUS BILL (RS.) 1 PARSHVA & CO. 36,40,816 / - 2 NIKH IL ENTERPRISE 11 ,04, 1 68/ - 3 JIGAN ENTERPRISES 23,01,559 / - 4 AMAR ENTERPRISES 3,60,98 1/ - 5 DAKSHA ENTERPRISES 4 7,69,192/ - 6 HARSH CORPORATION 5,52,604 / - 7 HITECH IMPEX 11 ,88,876/ - 8 BIG TRADE AGENCY 16,11,038/ - 9 TOP SHOP TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. 25,51, 390/ 10 MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES 21,98,482/ - TOTAL 2, 0 2,79,106/ - 4. THE NAME OF THE ABOVE PARTIES FIGURED IN LIST - OF SUSPICIOUS DEAL ERS ON THE MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHO HAD ISSUED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE AO, IN HIS AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAD CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES IN THE CAS E OF EACH HAWALA OPERATOR, INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF ABOVE STATED HAWALA OPERATOR AND IT WAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THESE PARTIES/OPERATORS WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY. THESE PARTIES MOSTLY INDULGED IN FOLLOWING AC TIVITIES; 'A) ISSUING ONLY BILLS AND DOING NON - GENUINE BUSINESS (HAWALA BUSINESS); B) NOT MAINTAINING STOCK AND NOT KEEPING STOCK REGISTER C) NOT EFFECTING ANY PURCHASE; AND D) THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION OF GOODS. E) ENTRIES WERE BEING PROVIDED BY THE PARTIE S FOR COMMISSION.' 3 ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2018 5. DURING THE COURSE OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE PARTY WHICH WAS RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. THEREAFTER, THE AO BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE PARTY, BROKER OR TRANSPORTER AND ALSO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE PURC HASES MADE FROM THE AFORESAID PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RESPONSE TO THE AO'S ABOVE QUERY, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHEREIN N WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID PARTIES ARE GENUINE PURCHASE S AND PAYMENTS TO THESE PARTIES WERE ALSO MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCES, SUCH AS, DELIVERY CHALLANS, TRANSPORTATION DETAI LS ETC, TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF PURCHASES FROM THE AFORESAID PARTY. THE ASSESSEE COULD ONLY FURNISH COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS CLAIMING THAT THE PURCHASES MADE WERE GENUINE AS THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. 6. THE AO DID NOT ACC EPT ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THEREFORE, THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES BEFORE THE AO IT COULD NOT PROVIDE THE EVIDENCES OF THE PURCHASE LIKE D ELIVERY CHALLANS, TRANSPORT BILLS ETC., AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE WHICH LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASES WERE ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ABOVEMENTIONED PARTIES AND THE SAID PARTIES ACTUALLY EXISTED, AO RELYING ON VAR IOUS CASE LAWS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER, HELD THAT PURCHASES SHOWN TO HAVE 4 ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2018 BEEN EFFECTED FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES WERE NOT GENUINE TRANSACTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS, 25,34,888 / - , BEING ESTIMATED THE GP PERCENTAGE @12.5% OF RS. 2 ,02,79,106 / - AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. A GAINST THE ABOVE ORDER , THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 8. THE LD. CIT(A) CONF I RMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF 12.5% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASE. 9. AGAINST ABOVE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. NONE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. THE NOTICE HAS RETURNED UNSERVED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUES RAISED CAN BE ADJUDICATED BY HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 11. WE FIND THAT CREDIBLE AND COGENT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THIS CASE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CERTAIN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER/BO GUS SUPPLIERS WERE BEING USED BY CERTAIN PARTIES TO OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY/BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS DURING THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THE CREDIBILITY OF INFORMATION RELATING TO REOPENING REMAIN ED UN - ASSAILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 12. AS REGARDS THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSEE, ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FROM DGIT INVESTIGATION 5 ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2018 (MUMBAI) THERE ARE SOME PARTIES WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE HAWALA TRANSACTIONS AND ARE ALSO INVOLVED IN ISSUING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS FOR SALE OF MATERIAL WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS, WHICH INFORMATION WAS BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED BY REVENUE FROM MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX AUTHORITY. INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY OF HAWALA ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM ENTRY PROVIDERS BY WAY OF BOGUS PURCHASE. THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER HAS DEPOSED AND ADMITTED BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX AUTHORITY VIDE STATEMENT/ AFFIDAVIT THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WHEREIN BOGUS SALE BILLS WERE ISSUED WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS, IN CONSIDERATION FOR COMMISSION. THESE, ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS, ON RECEIPT OF CHEQUES FROM PARTIES AGAINST BOGUS BILLS FOR SALE OF MATERIAL, LATER ON WITHDREW CASH FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, WHICH WAS RETURNED TO BENEFICIARIES OF BOGUS BILLS AFTER DEDUCTION OF THEIR AGREED COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO BE ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THESE BOGUS ENTRIES OF SALE OF MATERIAL FROM HAWALA ENTRY OPERATORS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE MADE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES THROUGH THESE BOGUS BILLS ISSUED BY HAWALA ENTRY PROVIDERS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. TH ESE DEALERS WERE SURVEYED BY THE SALES TAX INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT WHEREBY THE DIRECTORS OF THESE DEALERS HAVE ADMITTED IN A DEPOSITION VIDE STATEMENTS/AFFIDAVIT MADE BEFORE THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN. ISSUING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS WITHOUT DELIVERY OF ANY MATERIAL. THERE IS A LIST OF SUCH PARTIES WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE BENEFICIARY OF BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. 13. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT TANGIBLE AND COGENT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WERE RECEIVED BY THE AO WHICH CLEAR LY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BENEFICIARY OF BOGUS 6 ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2018 PURCHASE ENTRIES FROM BOGUS ENTRY PROVIDERS WHICH FORMED THE REASON TO BELIEVE BY THE AO THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE INFORMATION SO RECEIVED BY THE AO HAS LIVE LINK WITH REASON TO BELIEVE THA T INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ON THESE INCRIMINATING TANGIBLE MATERIAL INFORMATION, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. AT THIS STAGE THERE HAS TO BE PRIMA FACIE BELIEF BASED ON SOME TANGIBLE AND MATERIAL INFORMATION ABOUT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND THE SAME IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVED TO THE GUILT. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD, 291 ITR 500: - 'SECTION 147 AUTHORISES AND PERMITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS OR REASS ESS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO LAX IF HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE WORD 'REASON' IN THE PHRASE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION. IF THE AO HAS CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNOW OR SUPP OSE (HAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE EXPRESSION CANNOT BE READ TO MEAN THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACT BY LEGAL STATUTE WITH SOLICITUDE FOR THE PUBL IC EXCHEQUER WITH AN INBUILT IDEA OF FAIRNESS TO TAXPAYERS. AS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CENTRAL PROVINCES MANAGNESE ORE CO, LTD. V. ITO(1991) 191 ITR 662, FOR INITIATION OF ACTION UNDER SECTION 147(A) (AS THE PROVISION STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME) F ULFILLMENT OF THE TWO REQUISITE CONDITIONS IN THAT REGARD IS ESSENTIAL. AT THAT STAGE, THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDING IS NOT RELEVANT. IN OTHER WORDS, AT THE INITIATION STAGE, WHAT IS REQUIRED IS 'REASON TO BELIEVE', BUT NOT THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF ES CAPEMENT OF INCOME. AT THE STAGE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON COULD HAVE FORMED A REQUISITE BELIEF WHETHER THE MATERIALS WOULD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE ESCAPEMENT IS NOT THE CONCERN AT THAT STAGE. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE FORMATION OF BELIEF BY THE AO IS WITHIN THE REALM OF SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION ITO V. SELECTED DALURBAND COAL CO, (P.) LTD. (1996) 217 ITR 597 (SUPREME COURT): RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. V. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SUPREM E COURT). 14. THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT FROM APEX COURT FULLY JUSTIFY THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN THIS CASE. SINCE, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE HONBLE APEX 7 ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2018 COURT DECISION, THE OTHER CASE LAWS REFERRED BY ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUP PORTING THE ASSESSEES CASE. 15. IN SUCH FACTUAL SCENARIO, THE ASSESSING 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 PARTY. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE PARTIES. NECESSARY EVIDENCE RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION OF THE GOODS WAS ALSO NOT ON RECORD. IN THIS FACTUAL SCENARIO, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS. MERE PREPARAT ION OF DOCUMENTS FOR PURCHASES CANNOT CONTROVERT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE PROVIDER OF THESE BILLS IS BOGUS AND NON - EXISTENT. 16. THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IN ITS ENQUIRY HAS FOUND THE PARTIES TO BE PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ALSO ISSUED 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. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY CONFIRMATION FRO M THESE PARTIES. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THESE PARTIES ARE NON - EXISTENT. WE FIND IT FURTHER STRANGE THAT ASSESSEE WANTS THE REVENUE TO PRODUCE ASSESSEES OWN VENDORS, WHOM THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE. THE 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 C OURT DECISION IN THE 8 ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2018 CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) AND CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WANTS THAT THE UNASSAILABLE FACT THAT THE SUPPLIERS ARE NON - EXISTENT AND, THUS, BOGUS SHOULD B E IGNORED AND ONLY THE DOCUMENTS BEING PRODUCED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. THIS PROPOSITION IS TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LIGHT OF HONBLE APEX COURT DECISIONS. 17. WE FURTHER FIND THAT HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES (I N WRIT PETITION NO 2860, ORDER DT. 18.6.2014) HAS UPHELD 100% ALLOWANCE FOR THE PURCHASES SAID TO BE BOGUS WHEN THE SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THAT CASE WERE DIFFERENT. FURTHERMORE, THE SALES IN THAT CASE WERE BASICALLY TO GOVERNME NT DEPARTMENTS. HENCE, THE RATIO FROM THIS DECISION IS NOT FULLY APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 18. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS REFERRED TO HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF TAX APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2003 IN THE CASE OF N K INDUSTRIES VS. DY. CIT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.06.2016, WHEREIN 100% 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. 9 ITA NO. 1117/MUM/2018 19. HOWEVER, WE N OTE THAT THIS IS NOT AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. HENCE, IT WILL NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER AND TAKE AWAY THE RELIEF ALREADY GRANTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSEE. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT WHEN SALES ARE NOT DOUBTED 100% DISALLOWANCE FOR BOGUS PURCHASE IS NOT DISALLOWABLE. HENCE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 20. SINCE THE ABOVE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED FOLLOWING THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISION, THE D ECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELEVANT. 21. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.10.2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) (S HAMIM YAHYA) J UDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 04.10.2018 ROSHANI , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT - CONCE RNED 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD F ILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI