AKSHDEEP AGARWAL, NEW PANVEL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-22(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1242/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0474 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2018
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SH. B. R. BASKARAN , A M & HONBLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1242/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) AKSHDEEP AGARWAL PROP. ASTHVINAYAK HOSPITAL, PLOT NO. 10, SECTOR - 6, KHANDA COLONY, MUMBAI - 410206 / VS. ITO 22(2)(1 ) 419, 4 TH FLOOR, TOWER - 6, MUMBAI - 400703 ./ ./ PAN NO. A HJPA5099D ( / ASSESSEE ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : NONE / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV , D R / DATE OF HEARING : 27.11 .2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2018 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : THE P RESENT APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS ) - 26, MUMBAI 2 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL DATED 15.12.17 FOR AY 2010 - 11 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW: - THE APPELLANT INDIVIDUAL IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 12/04/2013 PASSED BY ID. CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL: 1. BECAUSE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.99,000/ - AS DISCREPANCY IN OPENING CASH BALANCE ALTHOUGH THE SAME IS CORROBORATED BY CLOSING BALANCE IN THE PREVIOUS BALANCE SHEET. 2. BECAUSE, THE ID. CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.58,979/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED NON GENUINE PURCHASES ALTHOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTY ALONG WITH DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD.. 3. BECAUSE , THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS, IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,64,000/ - RECEIVED AS LOAN BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS WIFE ALTHOUGH THE SOURCE OF THIS LOAN IN THE FORM OF SALARY RECEIVED AND LOAN REPAYMENT FROM THE APPELLANT WAS ALREADY ON RECORD. 3 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, ADD, MODIFY, DELETE ANY OF THE GROUND. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SEVERAL CALLS AND EVEN NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. FROM THE ORD ERSHEET, WE NOTICED THAT EVEN ON 08.10.18, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND THEREFORE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 09.10.18. ON THAT DAY, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED, THEREFORE MATTER WAS AGAIN ADJ OURNED TO 27.11.18. TODAY AGAIN NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, O N THE OTHER HAND L D. DR IS PRESENT IN THE COURT AND IS READY WITH ARGUMENTS. THEREFORE WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE CASE EX - PA RTE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE L D. DR AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING RENATAL INCOME AND CARRYING ON A HOSPITAL AND A NURSING HOME. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 29.09.10 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 9,23,780 FOR AY 2010 - 11. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED 4 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT , BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT REP O RT U/S 44 - AB. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE CASE WAS S ELECTED OF SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND AFTER SERVING STATUTORY NOTICES AND SEEKING REPLY OF ASSESSEE, THE AO PASSED ORDER OF ASSESSM ENT U/S 143(3) THEREBY MAKING ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE H AS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL. GROUND NO. 1 4 . THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.99,000/ - AS DISCREPANCY IN OPENING CASH BALANCE ALTHOUGH THE SAME IS CORROBORATED BY CLOSING BALANCE IN THE PREVIOUS BALANCE SHEET. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD , JUDGMENT CITED BY THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUAT E THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN PARA NO. 4.1 TO 4.4 OF ITS ORDER. THE OPERATIVE P ORTION OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ) IS CONTAINED IN PARA NO. 4 .4 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 4.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE IN CASH BALANCE OF RS.245,792/ - AS ON 18.02.20.10 IS ACCEPTED AS THE EXPLANATION THAT NOT ALL ENTRIES WERE UPDATED AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY IS REASONABLE. HOWEVER, THE SAME EXPLANATION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE DISCREPANCY IN CASH BALANCE OF RS. 99,000/ - AS ON 01.04. 2009 WHICH IS BUT THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2009. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS, THE REFORE, SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 99,000/ - . AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES , WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN CASH BALANCE OF RS. 245792/ - WAS ACCEPTED AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, ALL THE ENTRIES WERE NOT 6 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL UPDATED. HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF 99,000 WERE ALSO RIGHTLY SUSTAINED BY CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS DISC REPANCY IN CASH BALAN CE OF RS. 99,000/ - AS ON 01.04.2009. MOREOVER, N O NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THESE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . GROUND NO. 2 6 . THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.58,979/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED NON GENUINE PURCHASES ALTHOUGH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES AND THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PA RTY ALONG WITH DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD.. 7 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL 7 . WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, JUDGMENT CITED BY THE PARTIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN PARA NO. 9.1 TO 9.3 OF ITS ORDER. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ) IS CONTAI NED IN PARA NO. 9.3 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 9.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF ANY EXPENSES CLAIMED LIES ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD SPECIFICALLY INFORMED THE APPELLANT THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED TO M/S ABHIRAJ ENTERPRISES HAD COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK 'NOT FOUND'. IN RESPONSE THE APPELLANT HAD SIMPLY STATED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED VARIOUS ITEMS PURCHASED FROM THE PARTY AND HAD SUBMITTED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASHTAVINAYAK HOSPITAL ( APPELLANT'S PROPRIETORY CONCERN) IN THE BOOKS OF M/S ABHIRAJ ENTERPRISES FOR THE PERIOD 01 - 04 - 2009 TO 31 - 03 - 2011. NO RELEVANT DETAILS SUCH AS PURCHASE INVOICES, DELIVERY CHALLANS, LORRY R ECEIPTS, CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY, 8 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL ETC. WERE FURNISHED. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, NO SUCH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED. THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY STATED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. HOWEVER, PAYMENTS BY CHEQUE DOES NOT PER SE P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES CONSIDERING THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ASHTAVINAYAK HOSPITAL ( APPELLANT'S PROPRIETORY CONCERN) IN THE BOOKS OF M/S ABHIRAJ ENTERPRISES FOR THE PERIOD 01 - 04 - 20 09 TO 31 - 03 - 2011 AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER 26.03.2013 ALSO SHOWS THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT,HAS NOT EVEN BEEN SIGNED BY THE CONCERNED PERSON. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF P ROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S ABHIRAJ ENTERPRISES AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHO RITIES, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THAT THE ONUS FF ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES CLAIMED LIES ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT 9 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DETAILS SUCH AS PURCHASE INVOICES, DELIVERY CHALLANS, LORRY RECEIPTS, CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY, ETC. AND THUS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. MOREOVER, N O NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND AR E WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . GROUND NO. 3 8 . THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,64,000/ - RECEIVED AS LOAN BY THE APPELLANT FROM HIS WIFE ALTHOUGH THE SOURCE OF THIS LOAN IN THE FORM OF SALARY RECEIVED AND LOAN REPAYMENT FROM THE APPELLANT WAS ALREADY ON RECORD. 10 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL 9 . WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, JUDGMENT CITED BY THE PAR TIES AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN PARA NO. 10.1 TO 10.3 OF ITS ORDER. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CONTAINED IN PARA NO. 10.3 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 10.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. MRS. RUCHEE BANSAL IS STATED TO BE THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED HER LOAN CONFIRMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, HER BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS WERE NOT SUBMITTED. DURING APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS, A COPY OF HER BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. EXAMINATION OF THE LOAN CONFIRMATION SHOWS THAT MR S RUCHEE BANSAL HAD AN OPENING CREDIT BALANCE OF R S. 2,00,000/ - AS ON 1.4.2009. DURING THE YEAR SHE HAD MADE THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS: 18.01 .2010 RS. 30,000/ - 11 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL 13.02.2010 RS. 84,000/ - 17.02.2010. RS. 50,000/ - 09.03.2010 RS. 50,000/ - 19.03.2010 RS. 50,000/ - TOTAL RS. 2,64,000/ - EXAMINATION OF HER BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS SHOWS THE FOLLOWING: 1. PAYMENT OF RS. 30,000/ - TO ASHTVINAYAK HOSPITAL ( APPELLANT'S PROPRIETORY CONCERN) ON 18.01.2010 WAS PRECEDED BY TRANSFER OF SALARY OF RS. 30,951/ - FROM ASHTVINAYAK HOSPITAL ON 08.01.2010 WHICH WAS THE FIRST ENTRY IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THERE WAS NO OPENING BALANCE. 2. PAYMENT OF RS. 84,000/ - TO ASHTVINAYA K HOSPITAL ON 13.02.2010 WAS PRECEDED BY A CASH DEPOSIT OF THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE SAME DATE AND TRANSFER OF SALARY OF RS.25,726/ - ON 08.02.2010. . 3. PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/ - TO ASHTVINAYAK HOSPITAL ON 17.02.2010 WAS PRECEDED BY A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 50,000/ - ON 16.02.2010. 12 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL 4. PAYMENT OF RS.50,000/ - TO ASHTVINAYAK HOSPITAL ON 10.03.2010 WAS PRECEDED BY A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 50,000/ - ON 26.02.2010. 5 PAYMENT O.F RS.50,000/ - TO ASHTVINAYAK HOSPITAL ON 19.03.2010 WAS PRECEDED BY TRANSFER OF SALARY OF RS. 30,831/ - FROM ASHTVINAYAK HOSPITAL ON 10.03.2010 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT RUCHEE BANSAL HAD MADE THE PAYMENTS TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,84,000/ - AND SALARY OF RS. 87,508/ - FROM ASHTVINAYAK HOSPITAL WHOSE PROPRIETOR IS HER H USBAND. ADMITTEDLY, SHE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME AS SHE HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME. CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF CREDITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, HER CREDITWORTHINESS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ESTABLISHED SIMPLY BECAUSE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL S. THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,64,000/ - SHOWN AS LOAN GIVEN BY RUCHEE BANSAL IS NOTHING BUT AN ARRANGEMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO PLOUGH BACK HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS BOOKS AND GIVE THE COLOUR OF LEGITIM ACY TO IT. THE FACT OF LOAN BEING REPAID TO HIS WIFE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR IS IMMATERIAL AS THE BENEFIT OF HAVING BROUGHT IN UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD REMAIN IN THE FAMILY. IN 13 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL VIEW OF ALL THESE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,64,000/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. T HE APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAD RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY CONCLUDING THAT RUCHEE BANSAL HAD MADE THE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF CASH DEPOSITS, WHEREAS SHE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, C ONSIDERING THE NATURE OF CREDITS IN HER BANK A CCOUNT, HER CREDITWORTHINESS COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE ESTABLISHED SIMPLY BECAUSE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. CONSIDERING T HE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,64,000/ - SHOWN A S LOAN GIVEN BY RUCHEE BANSAL WAS NOTHING BUT AN A RRANGEMENT MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PLOUGH BACK HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS BOOKS AND GIVE THE COLOUR OF LEGITIMACY TO IT. MOREOVER, N O NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US I N ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED 14 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO REASON S FOR US TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUDICIOUS AND ARE WE LL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THESE GROUND S RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . 10 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH NOV , 2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( B. R. BASKARAN ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 28 . 11 .201 8 SR.PS . DHANANJAY 15 I.T.A. NO. 1242 /MUM/201 8 AKSHDEEP AGARWAL / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE ASSESSEE 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI