SVG FASHION LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1217/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2280 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KARDA M
• Keywords: Capital asset; Question of law; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI ( JM) ITA NO 1217/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. SVG FASHION LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK SUITING LTD.), 235,SHREE VENKATESHWAR BHAWAN, 3 RD FLOOR, KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI- 400 002. PAN:- AAACD1621K VS. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE - 4(3), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.K.KARDAM DATE OF HEARING: 1 8 /10 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/10/20 16 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 05/12/2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-9 MUMBAI FOR THE ASST. Y EAR 2011-12, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMEMT ORDER DATED 03/01/2014 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, HOWEVER, NEITHE R THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE HIMSELF NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON HIS BEHALF. WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND WE LL IN TIME BEFORE THE DATE 2 ITA NO 1217/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 OF HEARING. HENCE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT APPEARED DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE DECIDED TO PROCEED EX-PARTE AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AFTER HEARING THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. A.O U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY DISALLOWI NG A SUM OF RS. 89,01,767/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE A PPELLANT COMPANY FORM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER THE TEC HNOLOGY UPGRADATION FUND SCHEME (TUF SCHEME) WITHOUT APPREC IATING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME IS CAPITA L RECEIPT INSTEAD OF A REVENUE RECEIPT AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE EXCLUD ED FROM THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF THE RELEVANT YEAR. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT REFERRING TO THE CITED J UDGMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IN LIGHT OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF DATTANI AND CO VS. ITO IN TAX APPEAL NOS. 847 TO 84 9 OR 2013. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10,43,19,210/-. T HE A.O AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 89,01,767/- CLAIMED A S INTEREST SUBSIDY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,580/- U/S 14A R.W.S 8D AND RS . 48,916/- AS AIR UN- RECONCILED THEREBY ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 11,34,10,893/-. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PERTAINING TO INTEREST SUBSIDY 3 ITA NO 1217/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 GRANTED UNDER TECHNOLOGY UP-GRADATION FUND SCHEME A ND THE ISSUE TO BE ADJUDICATED TO INTEREST SUBSIDY IS REVENUE RECEIPT OR CAPITAL RECEIPT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR WHO RELYING ON THE FINDING S OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE WHICH RESULTED INTO REDUCTION IN THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WHICH IS REVE NUE IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY IN TREATING THE INTEREST SUBSIDY AS REVENUE RECEIPT RATHER THAN CAPITAL RECEIPT. 6. WE NOTICE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2005- 06, 2007-08 TO 2009-10 HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL IS SUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING AS UNDER:- 14. THE ISSUE OF SUBSIDIARY RECEIPT UNDER TUF SCHE ME IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LTD. {2014) 33 ITR (TRIB) 322 (KOL), WHE REIN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SUBSIDY FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION FUND SCHEME BY WAY OF INTE REST REFUND. IN COMPUTING THE ASSESSABLE INCOME THE ASSESSEE DEDUCT ED THE AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUBSIDY WAS CAPITAL IN NATUR E. THE AO HELD THAT THE SUBSIDY WAS REVENUE IN NATURE AND HAD TO B E ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS A REVENUE RECEIPT. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THIS. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HEL D THAT IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN COMPETITIVENESS IN THE DOMESTIC AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL MARKETS AND OVERALL LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF THE INDU STRY, THE MINISTRY ADOPTED THE TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION FUND SCHEME EN VISAGING TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION OF THE INDUSTRY. THEREFORE, THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED IN THAT REGARD WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE BENCH WAS AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT 4 ITA NO 1217/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 VS.- SH. SHAM LAL BANSAL IN ITA NO. 472 OF 2010, WH EREIN IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT INTEREST SUBSIDY RECEIVED UNDER TUF SCHEME IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- PONNI SUGAR S & CHEMICALS LTD. REPORTED IN (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE INCENTIVE W HICH DECIDES ITS NATURE AND NOT THE MODALITY OR THE SOURCE THEREOF. THAT THISISSUE IS ALSO FAVOURABLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- RASOI LTD. (201 1) 335 ITR 438 (CAL.), WHEREIN IT HAS HELD THAT SUBSIDY RECEIVED F OR EXPANSION OF CAPACITIES, MODERNIZATION AND IMPROVING THE MARKETI NG CAPABILITIES TO TIDE OVER THE CRISES FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY I N THE STATE IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THAT SIMILARLY, THE I SSUE IS COVERED IN THE CASE OF SHREE BALAJI ALLOYS & ORS. VS.- CIT (2 011) 333 ITR 335 (J&K) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EXCISE DUTY REF UND AND INTEREST SUBSIDY RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ERADICATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE STATE BY ACCELERATION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REMOVING BACKWARDNESS OF THE AREA THAT LAGGED BEHIND IN INDU STRIAL DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. 8. LD. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR VIEW WAS G IVEN IN FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- DCIT VS.- RELIANCE INDUSTRIES (2004) 88 ITD 273 (M UM.)(SB); CIT VS.- CHAPHALKAR BROTHERS (2013) 351 ITR 309 (B OM.); CIT VS.- BIRLA VXL LTD. (2013) 90 DTR 376 (GUJ.)(H C); HYDRO CARBONS & CHEMICALS VS.- ACIT (ITA NO. 1982- 86/KOL/09 DATED 29.04.2011); INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD. VS.- ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 526 (DEL.)(ITAT). ITA NOS.5644/11, ITA NO.8565/M/10 & I TA NOS.296&4154/12 13 9. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER H AND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. W E FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE UNDER THE TE CHNOLOGY 5 ITA NO 1217/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 UPGRADATION FUND SCHEME (IN SHORT TUFS ) OF MINISTRY OF TEXTILES WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 472 OF 2010 VIDE DECISION DATED 17.01.2011. HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED AND HELD THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF WOOLEN GARMENTS. IT RECEIVED SUBSIDY FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN FOR BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY UNDER THE C REDIT LINKED CAPITAL SUBSIDY SCHEME UNDER TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION FUND SCHEME (TUFS) OF MINISTRY OF TEXTI LES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAID SUBSIDY TO BE CAPITAL RECEIPT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE SAME TO BE REVENUE RECEIPT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH V IEW HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE SUBSIDY SCHEME WAS TO ENH ANCE THE TECHNOLOGY APPARATUS OF THE ASSESSEE BY ASSISTING I N ACQUIRING MACHINERY AND FURTHER THAT THE SUBSIDY SO RECEIVED WAS UTILIZED FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE TO SET UP THE NEW UNIT, AS WAS THE INTENTION OF THE SU BSIDY. 10. CONSIDERED IN THE AFORESAID LIGHT, IN OUR VIEW, THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE ON ALL FOURS COMPARABLE TO THOSE C ONSIDERED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PONNI SUGARS & CHE MICALS LTD. (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE, A NATURAL COROLLARY IS THAT THE NATURE OF THE SUBSIDY IN QUESTION IS CAPITAL. THEREFORE, BOTH ON THE ISSUE OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE SCHEME AND ON THE UTILIZATION OF T HE FUNDS RECEIVED AS SUBSIDY, THE SUBSIDY IS TO BE VIEWED AS CAPITAL IN NATURE HAVING REGARD TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PONNI SUGARS & CHEMICAL LTD. (SUPRA). 11. RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVENUE ON THE CASE OF S AWHNEY STEELS AND PRESS WORKS LTD. & OTHERS (SUPRA), IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT APPROPRIATE HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID FEATURES OF THE SCHEME, 6 ITA NO 1217/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 WHICH ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. MOREOVER, IN THE CASE OF SAWHNEY STEELS AND PRESS WORKS LTD. & OTHERS (SUPRA), IT WAS FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN TO MEET RECURRING EXPENDITURE AND WAS NOT FOR ACQUIRING A CAPITAL ASSET. WHEREAS IN THE INSTA NT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE SCHEME TO GRANT SUBSIDY TO MEET ANY RECURRING EXPENDITURE AND NEITHER SUCH A C ASE HAS BEEN SET UP BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ONLY OBJECTIONS OF TH E DEPARTMENT ARE THAT THE SUBSIDY HAS BEEN GIVEN AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION AND, SECONDLY THAT IT WAS FOR REPAYMENT OF LOANS. B OTH THESE FACTORS DO NOT DISTRACT FROM THE NATURE OF THE SUBSIDY BEIN G TREATED AS CAPITAL, AS EXPLAINED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PONNI SUGARS CHEMICALS LTD. [2008] 306 ITR 392 (SC). 3. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT T HE SUBSIDY WAS NOT GIVEN AT HTE TIME OF SETTING UP OF THE INDUSTRY BUT AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION FOR REPAYMENT OF LOAN. I N SUCH SITUATION, THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS R EVENUE RECEIPT AS PER JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD. & ORS. V. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253. 5. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION. 6. THE PURPOSE OF SCHEME UNDER WHICH THE SUBSIDY IS GIVEN, HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. TO SUSTAIN AND PROV E THE COMPETITIVENESS AND OVERALL LONG TERM VIABILITY OF THE TEXTILE INDUSTRY, THE CONCERNED MINISTRY OF TEXTILE ADOPTED THE TUFS SCHEME, ENVISAGING TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION OF THE INDUSTRY. UNDER THE SCHEME, THERE WERE TWO OPTIONS, EITHER TO REIMBURSE THE INTEREST CHARGED ON THE LENDING AGENCY ON PURCHASE OF TECHNO LOGY UPGRADATION OR TO GIVE CAPITAL SUBSIDY ON THE INVES TMENT IN COMPATIBLE MACHINERY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS TAKEN TERM LOANS FOR TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION AND SUBSIDY W AS RELEASED UNDER AGREEMENT DATED 12.7.2005 WITH SMALL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA. THE RELEVANT CLAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN IS AS UNDER:- 7 ITA NO 1217/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PARA 8. - TO PREVENT MISUTILIZATION OF CAPITAL SUB SIDY AND TO PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR REPAYMENT, THE CAPITAL SUB SIDY WILL BE TREATED AS A NON INTEREST BEARING TERM LOAN BY THE BANK/FIS. THE REPAYMENT SCHEDULE OF THE TERM LOAN HOWEVER WIL L BE WORKED OUT EXCLUDING THE SUBSIDY AMOUNT AND SUBSIDY WILL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TERM LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE BENEF ICIARY AFTER A LOCK IN PERIOD OF THREE YEARS ON A PRO-RATE BASIS IN TERMS OF RELEASE OF CAPITAL SUBSIDY. THERE IS NO APPARENT OR REAL FINANCIAL LOSS TO A BORROWER SINCE THE COUNTERVAILI NG CONCESSION IS EXTENDED TO THE LOAN AMOUNT. 7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE VIEW TAKEN IN SAHNEY STEEL & PRESS WORKS LTD. & ORS., COULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CA SE, AS IN SAID CASE THE SUBSIDY WAS GIVEN FOR RUNNING THE BUSINESS. FOR DETERMINING WHETHER SUBSIDY PAYMENT WAS REVENUE RECEIPT OR CAPITAL RECEIPT , CHARACTER OF RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD TO BE DETERMINED WITH RESPECT TO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SU BSIDY IS GIVEN BY APPLYING THE PURPOSE TEST, AS HELD IN SAHNEY STE EL & PRESS WORKS LTD. & ORS. ITSELF AND REITERATED IN LATER JUDGMENT IN CIT V. PONNI SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD. & ORS. (2008) 306 ITR 392, REFERRED TO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. PONNI SUGARS & CHEMICAL S LTD. & ORS. [2008] 306 ITR 392(SC) AGAINST THE REVENUE, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 11. THUS WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AS HELD HEREINABOVE IN ORDER TO SUSTAI N COMPETITIVENESS IN THE DOMESTIC AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL MARKETS AN D OVERALL LONG- TERM VIABILITY OF THE INDUSTRY, THE CONCERNED MINIS TRY ADOPTED THE TUFS SCHEME ENVISAGING TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION OF TH E INDUSTRY. HENCE, THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED IN THIS REGARD FALLS IN TO CAPITAL FIELD. HENCE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS ABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DECIDE THE IS SUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO 1217/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TREATING THE SUBSID Y SO RECEIVED AS REVENUE RECEIPTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED T O TREAT THE SUBSIDIARY IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE CAPITAL IN NA TURE. 7. SINCE, THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ABO VE REFERRED, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AND SE T ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE A.O TO TREAT INTEREST SU BSIDY AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 2011-12 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SD/- SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED:26/10/2016 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. ! , # !$ , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. %& ' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA