RAMPRATAP BAIJNATH SHARMA, ULHASNAGAR V. ITO WD 2(3), KALYAN

ITA 1438/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0378 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A GOPALAKRISHNAN
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P K BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1438/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI RAMPRATAP BAIJNATH SHARMA SHIVAJI NAGAR OPP SURVEY CHAWL, SEC 32, ULHASNAGAR 421 004 PAN ACKPS5346M VS. ITO WARD 2(3) KALYAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJAT MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 09. 08 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .0 8 .2017 O R D E R PER P K BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-3, THANE, DATED 02.11.2015 FOR A.Y. 2007-08, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 271(1)(C) AMO UNTING TO ` 2,28,969/-. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 ON 06.11.2012. IN REPLY THERETO, T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FI LED ALONG SALARY CERTIFICATE FROM THE EMPLOYER AND SHOWED TOTAL INCOME OF ` 89,930/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF ` 9,14,930/- THE ASSESSING ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 2 OFFICER AFTER ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE LEVIED PENA LTY U/S. 271(1)(C) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I AM THEREFORE, FULLY SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEEA HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULAR OF HIS INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULAR OF INCOME TO RS 8,25,000/- AND COMMITTED DEFAULT. SUCH DEFAULT HAD ATTRACTED THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE IT ACT . I THEREFORE LEVY MINIMUM PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) AT RS 2,28,969/- (RS. TWO LAKH TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE ONLY) WHICH WORKS OUT 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AS AGAINST MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE AT RS 6,86,907/- (RS SIX L AKH EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVEN ONLY) WHICH WORKS OUT A T 300% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. PENALTY CALCULATION 1 TAX ON TOTAL INCOME (INCLUSIVE OF CONCEALED INCOME ) RS 2,28,969/- 2 TAX ON INCOME EXCLUDING CONCEALED INCOME RS NIL 3 DIFFERENCE OF 1 - 2 RS 2,28,969/- 4 PENALTY (MINIMUM)(100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED) RS 2,28,969/- 5 MAXIMUM PENALTY (300% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED) RS 6,86,907/- 3. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES ALONG WITH THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER THIS IS A CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 3 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY TO LOOK INTO THE PROVISIONS OF S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER : '271 (1) IF THE AO OR THE CIT(A) OR THE CIT IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY P ERSON (A) .... (B) ..... (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME O R FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, OR (D) ..... HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, EXPLANATION 1 : WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATER IAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT, (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE AO OR THE CIT(A) OR THE CIT TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIA L TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THEN, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FO R THE PURPOSES OF CL. (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED.' FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SECTION, IT IS AP PARENT THAT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS S ATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONC EALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF T HE INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 4 I AM THEREFORE, FULLY SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CONCEALED THE PARTICULAR OF HIS INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULAR OF INCOME TO RS 8,25,000/- AND COMMITTED DEFAULT. SUCH DEFAULT HAD ATTRACTED THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE IT ACT . I THEREFORE LEVY MINIMUM PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) AT RS 2,28,969/- (RS. TWO LAKH TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY NINE ONLY) WHICH WORKS OUT 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AS AGAINST MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE AT RS 6,86,907/- (RS SIX L AKH EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SEVEN ONLY) WHICH WORKS OUT A T 300% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. PENALTY CALCULATION 1 TAX ON TOTAL INCOME (INCLUSIVE OF CONCEALED INCOME ) RS 2,28,969/- 2 TAX ON INCOME EXCLUDING CONCEALED INCOME RS NIL 3 DIFFERENCE OF 1 - 2 RS 2,28,969/- 4 PENALTY (MINIMUM)(100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED) RS 2,28,969/- 5 MAXIMUM PENALTY (300% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED) RS 6,86,907/- 5. THIS IS THE SETTLED LAW THAT THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT. SECTION 271(1)(C) LAYS D OWN THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF EITHER OF THE TWO CHARGES I.E., (I) CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR (II) FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BOTH THE CHARGES ARE ENTIREL Y DIFFERENT. IF THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT, THEN PENALTY CANNOT BE ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 5 LEVIED ON THE CHARGE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND VICE VERSA. THUS, THERE / MUST BE A CLEAR FINDING ABOUT THE CHA RGE FOR WHICH PENALTY IS IMPOSED OR INITIATED. IT IS INCUMBENT UP ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO STATE WHETHER PENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDINGS, THE ORDER WOULD BE BAD IN LAW IN THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA ENGG. CO. LTD. V. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642/155 TAXMAN 513 (GUJ.) HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO STATE WHETHER THE P ENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCO ME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HELD, THAT THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) SHOWED THAT NO CLEAR-CUT FINDING HAD BEEN REACHED. THE TRI BUNAL HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THIS LEGAL ISSUE. THE RATIO IN CIT V. MANU ENGG. WORKS [1980] 122 ITR 306 (GUJ.) WAS APPLICABLE AND THE ORDER OF PENALTY COULD NOT BE UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER WAS INVALID.' 6. IN THE CASE OF CITV. RAJAN & CO. [2007] 291 ITR 340 /[2005] 146 TAXMAN 271 (DELHI), IT IS HELD THAT THE PROVISION O F S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, WOULD REQUIRE PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND AND RECORDING OF AT LEAST A BARE MINIMUM OPINION ON THE PART OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT A CASE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS/MADE AS THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR THAT INCORRECT PARTICULARS HAD BEEN FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INTENTION TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAXES. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 6 DECISIONS OF HIGH COURT THEREFORE IT IS NOT NECESSA RY TO DISCUSS THE OTHER JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE. 7. THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED FOR EI THER OF THE CHARGE. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR BOTH THE CHARGES BY CON CLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME AND CONCEALED HER INCOME ON VARIOUS ISSUES. SECTION 271(1)(C)(III) IS EXPLI CITLY CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS THE PARTICULARS OF INC OME WHICH IS THE COMMON SUBJECT MATTER OF BOTH THE CHARGES. THE WORD 'CONCE AL' AS PER WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY MEANS 'TO HIDE, WITHDRAW, OR REMOVE FROM OBSERVATION; COVER OR KEEP FROM SIGHT; TO KEEP SECRET; TO AVOID DISCLOSIN G OR DIVULGING.' THAT MEANS NON-DISCLOSURE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ON THE OTH ER HAND, WHERE PARTICULARS ARE DISCLOSED BUT SUCH DISCLOSURE IS NOT CORRECT, T RUE OR ACCURATE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. FOR EXAMPLE, IN CASE OF BUSINESSMAN, IF A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION OF SALE IS NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR S OF INCOME WHILE SALE IS SHOWN BUT AT AL LESSER VALUE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8. THE TRUST OF THE LEGISLATURE IS UPON THE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME WHICH ARE EITHER CONCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATELY BY THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORDS 'PARTICULA RS OF INCOME'. THE TRIBUNAL HAD TO CONSIDER THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESS ION 'FURNISHING OF ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 7 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' APPEARING IN SECT ION 271(1)(C) IN THE CASE OF KANBAY SOFTWARE INDIA (P.) LTD. V. DY. CIT [2009] 3 1 SOT 153 (PUNE). IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION 'PARTICULARS' REFERS TO FA CTS, DETAILS, SPECIFICS OR THE INFORMATION ABOUT SOMEONE OR SOMETHING. THUS, THE D ETAILS OR INFORMATION ABOUT THE INCOME WOULD DEAL WITH FACTUAL DETAILS OF INCOME AND CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO AREAS WHICH ARE SUBJECTIVE SUCH AS STAT US OF THE TAXABILITY OF AN INCOME ADMISSIBILITY OF A DEDUCTION AND INTERPRETAT ION OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT MERE REJECTION OF A LEGAL CLAIM WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THIS VIEW IS NOW FORTIFIED BY THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS '(P.) LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 TAXMAN 322. IN THIS CASE, THE CLAIM OF 'ASSESSEE' UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS A RESULT THEREOF, THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WAS IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE PENALTY WAS HELD TO BE ILLEGALLY IMPOSE D BY THE TRIBUNAL SINCE FACTUAL DETAILS OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THE MATTER ULTIMATELY REACHED THE SUPREME COURT AND THE HON'BLE COURT UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THAT 'ME RE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNTING TO FURNISHING INACCURATE CLAIM OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULA RS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.' ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 8 9. WE ARE OF THE OPINION EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE APPLIED WHERE CHARGE AGAINST THE 'ASSESSEE' IS FURN ISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SINCE IT PROVIDES A DEEMING F ICTION QUA CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME ONLY AND CONSEQUENTLY CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO A CASE WHERE CHARGE AGAINST THE 'ASSESSEE' IS FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WHILE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE CHARGE AGAI NST THE 'ASSESSEE 1 IS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ESTABLISH EITHER THAT 'ASSESSEE 1 HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME UNDER THE MAIN OR PROVISIONS OR THE CASE OF 'ASSESSEE' FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DEEMING FICTIONS CREATED UNDER THE EXPLANATIONS. FO R EXAMPLE, THE 'ASSESSEE' MIGHT NOT DISCLOSE PARTICULAR SALES OR DIVIDEND INC OME OR INCOME FROM ANY SOURCE. SUCH INSTANCES WOULD FALL UNDER THE MAIN PR OVISIONS ITSELF. IN SUCH CASES, THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ES TABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE CHARGE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 10. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) STATES THAT THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEES SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. THIS DEEMING PROVISION IS NOT ABSOLUTE ONE BUT IS REBUTT ABLE ONE. IT ONLY SHIFTS THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE. EXPLANATION 1 REFERS TO THE TWO SITUATIONS IN WHICH PRESUMPTION OF THE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS O F INCOME IS DEEMED. IT IS NOT APPLICABLE WHERE THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSE E IS FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME. THE FIRST SITUATION IS W HERE THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 9 OF ANY FACT MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTA L INCOME FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION, WHICH IS FOUN D BY ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT TO BE FALSE. THE SECOND SITUATION IS WHERE THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME OFFERS AN EXPLANATION, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBS TANTIATE AND ALSO FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION WAS BONA FIDE ONE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLO SED BY HIM. THE PRESUMPTION AVAILABLE UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C), CANNOT BE DRAWN UNLESS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER E ITHER OF THE CLAUSE (A) OR (B). 11. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON TH E ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE HAS NOT BROUGHT OU T WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. EVEN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANY PARTICULAR CHARGE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY SPECIFIC CHAR GE. IN CIT V. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL [2009] 317 1TR 1/183 TAXMAN 444 (SC), WHERE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE SAME PROVISION, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE SATISFIED THAT A PERSON HAS CONC EALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THUS, THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE CON CEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 10 INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF S UCH INCOME IS ESSENTIAL BEFORE LEVYING ANY PENALTY U/S..271(L)(C). THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AS IS APPARENT FROM THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF/INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. MANJUNATH COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THERE MUST BE SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY. S IMILARLY, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAMSON PERINCHERY 392 ITR 4 HAS ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW. ON THIS BASIS ITSELF WE DELETE TH E PENALTY BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (P K BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT MUMBAI; DATED: 10 TH AUGUST, 2017 SA ITA NO.1438/MUM/2016 SHRI RAMPRATAK BAIJNATH SHARMA 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APP ELL ANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. T HE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 5. DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER, #TRUE COPY # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI