The Buldhana District Central Co-Op.Bank Limited, Buldhana V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,Akola Circle-Akola, Akola

ITA 13/NAG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 1323914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRITI JAIN DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT LOHIYA
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-E-BENCH, NAGPU R ! ! ' ! /THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT MUMBAI # # # # $ $$ $ % %% % . . , '& '& '& '& $ $$ $ '!() '!() '!() '!() , ! !! ! . . BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT AND RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.13/NAG/2012 # # # # *# *# *# *# / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO - OP. BANK LTD., SAHAKAR BHAVAN, BHONDE CHOWK, BULDHANA. PAN:AAAAT9375N V/S. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MURTIZAPUR ROAD, AKOLA. NAGPUR-444005 ( +, / APPELLANT) ( -.+, / RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRASHANT LOHIYA REVENUE BY : SHRI PRITI JAIN DAS / 0 / DATE OF HEARING : 22-01-201 4 1* / 0 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-03-201 4 , 1961 254 )1( ! !! ! (/#/ (/#/ (/#/ (/#/ 2!3 2!3 2!3 2!3 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM - ! ! ! ! 24 24 24 24 , '!() '!() '!() '!() ! !! ! : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 16-11-2011 OF THE CIT(A )-I,NAGPUR ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO AMOUNT HAS SUFFERED TAX IN THE EARLIER YEARS VIZ.A.Y. 2005-06. ON ACCOUNT OF THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OF OVERDUE INTEREST NOT BEING ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AS THE ENTI RE INCOME WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80P. 2.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT DISALLOWANCE OF THESE AMOUNTS HAD NOT RESULTED IN ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME BEING BROUGHT TO TAX AS A DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S 80P HAS THE EFFECT OF EXEMPTING ENTIRE INCOME FOR TAX. 3.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISAL LOWING THE REVERSAL OF OVERDUE INTEREST ON NPA ACCOUNTS AT RS. 98839000/-, WHICH WAS CREDITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 4.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT C ONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN A.Y. 2005-06 AND EARLIER YEARS, THE CLAIM OF OVERDUE INTEREST ON NPA A/CS WAS NOT ALLOWED AND THEREFORE TAXING THE SAME ON REVERSAL AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. 5.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 98839000/- IS BROUGHT TO TAX IN A.Y. 2007-08 IT WOULD AMOUNT TO D OUBLE TAXATION, IS FALLACIOUS. 6.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE UPTO A.Y. 2006-07 WAS EXEMPT U/S 80P AND THE AMOUNT HAS CONSE QUENTIALLY NOT SUFFERED ANY TAX. 7.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT C ONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN EARLIER YEARS PROVISION FOR OVERDUE INTEREST ON NPA A/CS HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME AND THEREFORE REVERSAL FOR THE SAME IN THE C URRENT YEAR CANNOT BE TAX,ELSE IT WILL AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. 2. ASSESSEE,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING,FILED I TS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.10.2007.IN THE RETURN ASSESSEE HAD ADJUSTED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS,D ECLARED AS PER RETURN OF FOR AY.2006-07, 2 ITA NO. 13/NAG/2012 THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO- OP. BANK LTD. AND DISALLOWED BY ORDER DATED 03.11.2008 PASSED U/S .143(3) OF THE ACT. LATER ON,ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN,ON 25.11.2008,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.NIL, AFTER CLAIMING A DEDUCTION OF REVERSAL OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL D EBTS OF RS.13, 59,65,000/-.IN THE REVISED RETURN AND BALANCE-SHEET PROFIT HAD BEEN ADJUSTED A GAINST BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF RS.5,66,75,761/- AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY. 2006-07.AFTER PROCE SSING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT ON 23.09.2009,AO SELECTED THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY .ASSESSMENT WAS FINALISED ON 31.12.2009 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.19,26, 40,760/-. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF THE REVERSAL OF OVERDUE INTEREST ON NON PERFORMING ASSETS (NPA) ACCOUNTS, AMOUNTING TO RS.9 ,88,39,000/-.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HELD THAT ASSESSE E-BANK HAD REVISED THE RETURN OF INCOME ONLY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.13, 59,65,000/-FROM TH E TAXABLE INCOME,THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE;THAT OUT OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS (NPA)TH E AMOUNT WAS REALISED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; WAS LEGALLY NOT TENABLE,T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER WRITTEN OFF SO CALLED LOANS,THAT IT HAD MADE MERE PROVISION ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBTFUL DEBTS.HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA)THAT DISPUTED SUM (RS.9.88CRORES)WAS PART OF THE TOTAL A MOUNT(13.59 CRORES) DISALLOWED BY THE AO, THAT IT CONSISTED OF TWO ACCOUNTS I.E.EXCESS OVER D UE INTEREST PROVISION(RS.9,88,39,000/-)AND EXCESS NPA PROVISION REVERSED(3,71,26,000/-),THAT T HE AMOUNTS CREDITED TO THE P&L A/C WERE REVERSAL OF EARLIER PROVISIONS OUT OF NPAS,THAT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED FOR THE AY.2005-05 AND 2006 - 07,AS OVERDUE INTEREST AND BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS, WERE DEBITED TO P&L A/C. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,F AA HELD THAT FOR AY 2005-06 THE AMOUNT OF RS.20,42,40, 000/-WAS DEBITED AS OVERDUE INTEREST O N NPA,THAT PROVISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT OF RS.2,09,39,000/- WAS NOT ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION, THAT INCOME CONSEQUENTLY DETERMINED AT RS.5,54,65, 246/-HAD BEEN TREATED AS EXEMPT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P (2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT,THAT FINALLY INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.NIL,TH AT FOR AY.2006-07 THE OVERDUE INTEREST OF RS.1,52, 08,000/ - WAS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION,THAT THE NPA RESERVE ACC OUNT OF RS.28,57,40,000/- HAD BEEN DISALLOWED,THAT FOR AY.2006-07 INCOME WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO AT RS.1,01,13,480/- ,THAT IN APPEAL DEDUCTION U/S.80P (2)(A)(I) HAD BEE N ALLOWED BY THE FAA,THAT ENTIRE INCOME WAS TREATED AS EXEMPT,THAT NO AMOUNT HAD SUFFERED TAX I N EARLIER YEARS.AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF PROVISION OF NPA FOR AY.2005-06(RS.2,09,39,000/-)AN D AY.2006-07(RS.28,57,40,000/-),FAA HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF THOSE AMOUNTS HAD NOT RESULTED IN ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME BEING BROUGHT TO TAX AS THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED U/S.80- P AND IT HAD THE EFFECT OF EXEMPTING THE ENTIRE INCOME FROM TAX. 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,AO WAS REQUIRED TO VERIFY THE FACTUAL BASIS OF OFFERING THE OVERDUE INTEREST ON NPAS IN EARLIER YE ARS.IT WAS CLARIFIED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CREDITING THE ACCRUED INTEREST ON ALL DEPOSITS, INCLUDING NPAS ON MERCANTILE BASIS,THAT THE UNREALI -ED PORTION OUT OF THE ACCRUED INTEREST CRE DITED TO THE P&L A/C.WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS INTEREST RECEIVABLE,THAT INTEREST RECEIVAB LE AS ON 31.03.2007 WAS OF RS.100.54 CRORES AS COMPA -RED TO RS. 107.70 CRORE AS AT 31.03.2006 WHI CH HAD DULY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET,THAT NPA HAD NOT BEEN SEPARATE LY BIFURCATED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FIGURES BUT IN THE ANNUAL REPORT THERE WAS A MENTION OF NPA AMO UNT.ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS ABOUT THE VERIFICA -TION DONE BY THE AO. 3.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE VERIFICATION MADE BY THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,FAA HELD THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE;THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,88,39,000/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE AY.2007-08 IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION;W AS FALLACIOUS,THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UP TILL AY.2006-07 WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.8 0P OF THE ACT,THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAD 3 ITA NO. 13/NAG/2012 THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO- OP. BANK LTD. CONSEQUENTIALLY NOT SUFFERED ANY TAX,THAT AS PER T HE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY CREDITING THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON DEP OSITS INCLUDING NPA TO THE P&L A/C.,THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE AMOUNT OF OVERDUE INTEREST OF NPA WAS DEBITED,AS PER RULE 49A(1) OF THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP ACT,THAT THE ACT OF REVERSI NG THE INCOME ACCRUED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20, 42,40,000/- FOR AY. 2005-06 AND RS.1,58,08,000/- HA D THE EFFECT OF NULLIFYING AND NEUTRALISING THE INCOME RECOGNISED,THAT INCOME WAS REQUIRED TO BE RE COGNISED ON RECEIPT BASIS AS PER THE BOARD CIRCULAR,DATED 09-10-1984.FAA REPRODUCED THE RELEVA NT PORTION OF THE SAID CIRCULAR,THAT READS AS UNDER: IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT INTEREST IN RESPECT OF DO UBTFUL DEBTS CREDITED TO SUSPENSE ACCOUNT BY THE BANKING COMPANIES WILL BE SUBJECT TO TAX BUT INTERE ST CHARGED IN AN ACCOUNT WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO RECOVERY FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE ACCOUNTING YEARS WILL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE FOURTH YEAR AND ONWARDS. HOWEVER, IF THERE IS ANY RECOVERY IN T HE FOURTH YEAR OR LATER, THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RECOVERED ONLY WILL BE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE RESP ECTIVE YEARS. THIS PROCEDURE WILL APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1979-80 AND ONWARDS. THE BOARDS IN STRUCTION NO. 1186 DATED 20-06-1978 IS MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. FAA FURTHER HELD THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD S ABOVE CIRCULAR THE RECOVERY OUT OF THE AMOUNT EARLIER CLASSIFIED AS NPAS WAS REQUIRED TO B E BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE YEAR WHEN THE ACTUAL AMOUNT WAS RECOVERED,THAT TAXING THE INCOME IN THAT MANNER WAS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF BRINGING TO TAX THE REAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT REASONS TO BRING THE DISPUTED AMOUNTS TO TAX FOR AY.2007-08,THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD ADMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,88,39,000/-WAS REALISED DURING THE YEAR 2006-07,THAT AS PER THE RECORDS FOR THE AY 2005-06 THE AMOUNT OF OVERDU E INTEREST,WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED,DID NOT SUFFER ANY TAX,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCT ION ON RS. 20,42,40,000/- U/S. 80-P OF THE ACT IN THAT YEAR,THAT FOR AY.2006-07AO HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PROVISION OF OVERDUE INTEREST ON NPA OF RS.1,58,08,000/-,THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM THE TA XABLE INCOME FOR THE REASON THAT THE AMOUNTS HAD ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION,THAT UPTO AY 2006- 07 THE ENTIRE INCOME ASSESSEE WAS EXEMPTED FROM TAX BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 80-P(2),THAT IMPUGNED INTEREST AMOUNT ON NPAS OFFERED AND REVERSED WAS ONLY A HYPOTHETICAL OFFER OF INCOME,TH AT THE RESERVE BANK HAD INTRODUCED INCOME RECOGNITION ASSET CLASSIFICATION NORMS BY VIRTUE OF WHICH BANKS WERE REQUIRED TO BE RECOGNISED THE INCOME ON NPA ON RECEIPT BASIS,THAT THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI STIPULATED THAT WHEN INCOME WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED ON NPAS IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE RECOGNISED IN PARTICULAR YEAR,THAT SECTION 45Q OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HAD AN OVERRIDING EF FECT OVER THE INCOME RECOGNITION PRINCIPLE FOLLOWED BY THE COOPERATIVE BANKS,THAT THE VALIDITY OF INCOME RECOGNITION BASED HAD BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF SOUTH ERNTECHNOLOGIES (320ITR577),THAT SUCH INCOME BEING INTEREST INCOME ON NPAS;THE RECOGNITIO N OF WHICH HAD BEEN POSTPONED BY ASSESSEE BY CREATION OF A PROVISION OF OVERDUE INTEREST ON N PAS IN ACCOUNTS OF THE EARLIER YEARS; WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME IN AY 2007-08,WHEN SUCH INCOME W AS RECEIVED.FINALLY,FAA HELD THAT RS.9.88 CRORES WERE REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX A S PER THE CONCEPT REAL INCOME AND IS THEREFORE WERE TO BE TAXED ON RECEIPT BASIS. 4. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)SUBMITTED TH AT DURING THE FY.RELEVANT TO AY.2005-06 WHEN PART OF INTEREST INCOME ON NPA BECAME DOUBTFUL OF RECOVERY ASSESSEE-BANK HAD MADE A PROVISION OF TO RS.988.39 LACS AS INTEREST INCOME B EING UNREALISABLE,THAT CLAIM OF SUCH PROVISION WAS DISALLOWED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF AY. 2005-06,THAT SAID AMOUNT WAS REALISED DURING THE AY.2007-08,THAT SINCE THE SAME WAS ALREA DY OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN PRIOR YEARS AND WAS DISALLOWED DURING THE A.Y. 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ITS DEDUCTION DURING THE AY. 2007- 08 AFTER ACTUAL REALISATION,THAT SECTION 80P DID NO T GIVE ANY EXEMPTION BUT ONLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION,THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2 TO THE SECTION 5 OF THE ACT INCOME TAXED ONCE CANNOT BE TAXED AGAIN,THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME BEFOR E ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA WAS THE TOTAL INCOME AND SAME WAS TO BE TAXED,THAT INCO ME DERIVED AFTER DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID CHAPTER COULD NOT BE TAXED,INCOME HAD SUFFERED TAXE S.HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF 4 ITA NO. 13/NAG/2012 THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO- OP. BANK LTD. KRIBHCO,DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELH I(349ITR618).DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE AMOUNT RELATING TO RECOVERY OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF R S. 3,71,26,000/-,BEING REVERSAL OF NPA PROVISION,WAS ALLOWED BY THE FAA IN THE APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS,WHEREAS CLAIM OF RS.9.88 CRORES WAS REJECTED.WE FIND THAT FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGORIC AL FINDING OF FACT THAT AMOUNTS UNDER THE HEAD OVERDUE INTEREST WERE NEVER TAXED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THAT WHEN INCOME HAD NOT SUFFERED TAXATION ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE ANY CLAIM IN THIS REGARD.IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.80P OF THE ACT IN EARLIER YEARS.BEFOR E THE AO OR FAA ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT AMOUNTS IN DISPUTE HAD BEEN TAXED IN PREVIOUS ASSES SMENT YEARS.FAA HAD RELIED UPON THE REGULATIONS OF THE RBI AND THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY T HE CBDT.FROM THE CIRCULAR, MENTIONED IN EARLIER PARAGRAPHS,IT IS CLEAR THAT FAA HAD NOT COM MITTED ANY MISTAKE IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN PART.AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF TAX ATION OF THE DISPUTED AMOUNT IN EARLIER YEARS,SO,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT FAA WAS JUSTIFI ED IN HOLDING THAT ONLY REAL INCOME CAN BE TAXED AND IN THE MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION RS.9.88 CRORES WERE TO BE TAXED ON RECEIPT BASIS.AS FAR AS THE CASE OF KRIBHCO IS CONCERNED,IN OUR OPIN ION,SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE.IN THAT MATTER,HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE OF INTEREST ON NPAS.HONBLE COURT HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE OF SECTION 14A AND DEDUCTION AVAILABLE UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OF THE ACT AND HELD THAT SEC.14 A WAS NOT APPL ICABLE IN CASES OF SPECIAL DEDUCTIONS OF THE SAID CHAPTER. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY.THERERFORE, CONFIRMING HER ORDER,WE DECIDE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 5 /6 #5/ 7 2 8 '9 ' / : . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON MARCH,2014. 2!3 1* ! ( %# , 2014 . SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA/ % %% % . . ) ( '!() '!() '!() '!() / RAJENDRA) PRESIDENT/ '& ! ! ! ! 24 24 24 24 /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 2 /DATE: 13.03.2014 SK 2!3 2!3 2!3 2!3 -/ -/ -/ -/ ;!*/ ;!*/ ;!*/ ;!*/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / +, 2. RESPONDENT / -.+, 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ < = , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / < = 5. DR ITAT,NAGPUR BENCH/ > -/ , . . ( . - . 6. GUARD FILE/ # ? . . / -/ //TRUE COPY// 2!3 / BY ORDER, @ / ' DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.