DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI V. TUSHACO PUMPS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1409/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9020 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK P TIKEKA R
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 142(1); 37(1); 143(1); 37

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, E MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2010-11 DCIT-14(1)(1), ROOM NO.475, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), A-601, RAHEJA PLAZA, LBS MARG, GHATKOPAR (WEST), MUMBAI-400086 ( / REVENUE) ( #$%& ' /ASSESSEE) PAN. NO . AABCT7703K ( ) ' * / DATE OF HEARING : 30/10/2018 ) ' * / DATE OF ORDER: 11/12/2018 ! / REVENUE BY SHRI D.G. PANSARI-DR #$%& ' ! / ASSESSEE BY SHRI DEEPAK P TIKEKAR ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH(VICE PRESIDENT) THESE TWO APPEALS ARE BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/12/2015 OF THE LD. FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 (ITA NO.1409/MUM/2016), WHEREIN, THE PENALTY IMPOSED UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER THE ACT) WAS DELETED WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE ON AC COUNT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. DR, SHRI D. G. PANSARI, DEFENDED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADVANCING ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI DEEPK P. TIKEKAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THA T THE QUANTUM ADDITION WAS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 25/11/2016 (ITA NO.1264/MUM/2012). THIS FACTUAL MAT RIX WAS CONSENTED TO BE CORRECT THE LD. DR. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 3 WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION O F THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25/11/2016 FOR READY RE FERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 23.12.2011PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)6, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y.2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS, IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENSES AMOU NTING TO RS.1,47,45,000/- MAD BY D.CIT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HIS E- RETURN ON 10.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,66,67,146/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) AND BOOK PROFITS OF RS.8,45,53,093/-. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT ON 27.02.2010. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U NDER COMPULSORY SELECTION. NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 28.08.2009 AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SUBSE QUENTLY, NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 20.05.20 10 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24.06.2010 CALLING UPON VARIOUS D ETAILS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVE LOPMENT, MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION, TRADING, SERVICE AND S UPPORT OF PUMPING AND FLUID-HANDLING SYSTEM. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,47,45,000/- UNDER THE HEAD OF C OMMISSION. ON ASKING, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF CO MMISSION TO THE AGENTS INTERCONNECTED WITH THE NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION, BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS, NATIONAL FER TILIZERS, POWERTECH CORPORATION, BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS, NA TIONAL FERTILIZERS, POWERTECH CORPORATION, NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GOA SHIPYARD, INS GOMATI, CONTROLLER O F PROCUREMENT, GUJARAT STATE ENERGY CORPORATION AND V ASANTRAO DADA PATIL SAHAKARI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF T HE VIEW THAT NO MIDDLE MAN WAS PERMITTED FOR THE TRANSACTION WIT H GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND PUBLIC SECTOR, THEREFOR E, THE SAID COMMISSION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE HENCE ADDED TO THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 4 THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION, THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. ISSUE NO.1:- 4. AT THE VERY OUT SET THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO ADDUCE THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THEREFORE, THE AS SESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. HOWEVER THE LD REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO THE ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF COMMISSION EXPENCES HAS BEEN DECLINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A ). THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BELOW AS AT THAT TIME HE WAS UNABLE TO PROCURE THE EVIDENCE. NOW TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM HE THE WANTED TO PROD UCE THE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM DENETTO INTERNATIONAL NA TURE OF SERVICE LIES AT PAGE 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND DENET TO COLLECTING ENQUIRY FROM BHEL LIES AT PAGE 48 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMISSION OF OFFER TO BHEL WITH CC TO MR. BHALLA ( DENETTO) LIES AT PAGE 49 TO 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMISSION O F PRICE BID TO BHEL WITH CC TO MR. BHALLA (DENETTO) LIES AT PAG E 51 TO 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS TO BHEL WITH CC TO MR. BHALLA (DENETTO) LIES AT PAGE 53 OF THE PAPER B OOK. NO DOUBT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A). BURT THESE DOCUMENTS SEEMS RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY AND TO ACHIEVE THE TARGET OF JUSTICE, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SAID C IRCUMSTANCES WE ALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY B Y GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE SET ASIDE AND ISSUE IS DIRECTED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE MATTER A FRESH IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID OBSERVATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. WE FIND THAT WHILE DELIBERATING UPON THE QUANTUM AD DITION, THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BE FORE THE ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 5 LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), WHICH WERE RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE MATTER AND IN THAT SITUATION , THE QUANTUM ADDITION WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. SO FAR AS, THE PENA LTY IS CONCERNED, IT DEPENDS UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE QUANT UM ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASS ESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE PENALTY AP PEAL IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER F OR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, THIS AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. NOW, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 (ITA NO.1410/MUM/2016), WHEREIN, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO AGENTS FO R OBTAINING ORDERS FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAS BEEN CHALLENGED ON THE PLEA THAT SUCH PAYMENTS TO THE GOVERNMENTS AGENCIES IS PROHIBITED BY LAW AND THUS NOT ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT SUCH PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS AGA INST THE PUBLIC POLICY, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS THE SAME IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS FOR AS SESSMENT ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 6 YEAR 2007-08 (ITA NO.7250/MUM/2010) VIDE ORDER DATE D 15/02/2013, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE SAME AS BUSINE SS EXPENDITURE IN THE CASE OF M/A ARCO ELECTRO TECHNOL OGY PVT. LTD. VS ACIT. THE LD. COUNSEL FURNISHED THE COPY OF THIS ORDER. 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING O F DISPLACEMENT PUMPS DECLARED INCOME OF RS.14,33,84,7 00/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDE R CASS, THEREFORE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND SUBSEQUE NTLY 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE SAME AND FILED DETAILS. T HE ASSESSEE IS SUPPLYING ITS GOODS TO GOVERNMENT AGENC IES/PSUS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIM TO HAVE PAID COMMISSIO N TO AGENTS FOR GETTING SALES CONTRACT FROM BHELS. THE D ETAILS OF WHICH ARE SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER:- SR. NO. NAME OF THE AGENT/PARTY AMOUNT PAI D 1 BHALLA ASSOCIATES 45,00,984 2. DENETTO INTERNATIONAL 66,66,651 3. SHREEJI SALES 6,43,010 4 KOMAL ENTERPRISES 3,34,381 TOTAL 1,21,45,026 ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 7 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE FOR JU STIFICATION OF THE ABOVE PAYMENTS AND DISALLOWED THE SAME UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT ON THE PLEA THAT PAYING COMMI SSION TO OBTAIN SALES FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IS PROHIBITED . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11/03/2012 TRY TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS OF COMMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING P URPOSE. 1. TO SUBMIT TENDERS AND REPRESENT COMPANY AT TENDER O PENING MEETINGS. 2. ATTEND CUSTOMER SITE DEPUTE COMPETENT PERSONAL FOR SUPPORT SERVICES. 3. ATTEND TO INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF PRODUCT SUPPLIES. 4. FOLLOW UP REGARDING INVOICE COLLECTION AND VARIOUS FORM UNDER INDIRECT TAXES AS PER VARIOUS INSTRUCTION GIVEN . 3.3. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSION PAYMENT W AS VARYING BETWEEN 7.5% TO 13% OF THE BASIC VALUE OF T HE SALES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE BILL PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTLY ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY BHE L AND THERE WAS NO MENTION OF SERVICES BEING CLAIMED. HOW EVER, THE COMMISSION WAS PAID ON THE VALUE OF SALES. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO PROFESSIONAL SERVI CE BY SUCH AGENTS AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF ANY AGENT IN TH E PARTICULAR ORDER OF BHEL. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ENGAGING AGENTS TO OBTAIN SALE ORDER FROM THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IS PROHIBITED AND THUS PAYMENT MADE TO ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 8 ANY MIDDLE MEN IS ALSO PROHIBITED. THUS, IT IS NOTH ING BUT KICKBACK AND VIOLATION OF LAW, CONSEQUENTLY, THE CL AIMED EXPENSES WERE DECLINED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER . ON THE OTHER HAND, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEAL), THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE PLEA THAT THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO WHICH PUBLIC POLI CY WAS VIOLATED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEAL) THAT IN FACT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THESE AGENTS AND THUS THE COMMISSION PAID TO THEM WAS JUS TIFIED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ALS O MENTIONED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ARCO ELECTRO TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.7250/MUM/ 2010) AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT SUCH COMMISSION PAYMENT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER H AS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPLYING ITS GOODS T O GOVERNMENT AGENCIES/PSUS AND COMMISSION HAVE BEEN P AID TO AGENTS FOR GETTING SALES CONTRACTS FROM BHEL. TH E ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS OF SUCH PAYMENTS VIDE LETTER DATED 11/03/2012. SO FAR AS, THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCER NED IS ALSO NOT CONVINCING AND ALSO BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 9 INCOME TAX (APPEAL) A DIFFERENT PLEA WAS RAISED AND ON THAT BASIS, THE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWED. THE PUR CHASES SO MADE ARE DIRECT DEALING WITH SUCH PSUS. THE RATI O LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RAMANAND SAGAR VS DCIT 256 ITR 134, 140(BOM.), SHREE CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT COMPAN Y VS ACIT 262 ITR 73, 77 (GUWAHATI), ASPINWALL & COMPANY (TRAVANCORE) LTD. (2007)295 ITR 553, 560 (KERALA) S UPPORTS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED T O PROVE THE ACTUAL SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE AGENTS FOR BU SINESS PURPOSES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE ASSES SEE IS DIRECTED TO PROVE THE NEXUS AND THE COMMERCIAL EXPE DIENCY FOR SUCH CLAIM. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO D IRECTED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS PROH IBITED BY LAW AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY HIM. THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SU CH EXPENSES ARE LEGITIMATE AND ALSO WHETHER PAYMENT OF SUCH COM MISSION IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE ASS ESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN WHETHER SUCH AGENTS ARE RE GISTERED WITH THE RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT/PSUS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PAID COMMISSION. SECTION 37(1) CONTA INS THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF ALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSEE IS DI RECTED TO ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 10 PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CL AIM BECAUSE AS PER SECTION 37(1) EXPLANATION-1, ANY EXP ENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSES, WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND SHALL NOT BE ALLOWABLE. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. FINALLY, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 30/10/2018. SD/- SD/- ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '!# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT ( MUMBAI; , DATED : 11/12/2018 F{X~{T? P.S/. #. . $%&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./ / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. 01./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 2 2 3' ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 2 2 3' / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, ITA NOS.1409 & 1410/MUM/2016 M/S ALLWILER INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUSHACO PUMPS PVT. LTD.), 11 5. 56 0#'#$ , 2 * $ 7 , ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8% 9( / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, /! (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( / ITAT, MUMBAI