PASHMINA HOLDINGS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1585/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79380 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL K AGARWAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Speculation loss; Wrong claim

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1585/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) PASHMINA HOLDINGS LIMITED NEW HIND HOUSE, NAROTTAM MORARJEE MARG, BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI-400 001. VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) P ERMANENT ACCOUNT N O. : AAACP 417 7 E ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNIL K. AGARWAL DATE OF HEARING : 07/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/07/2014 O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2012 OF CIT(A) ARISING FROM PENALTY ORDER PAS SED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PARTLY UPHOLDING THE AC TION OF THE LD. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HEREINAFTER REFERRE D TO AS ASSESSING OFFICER) LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT HAD FILED FULL, TR UE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND HAS NEIT HER CONCEALED ITS INCOME NOT FILED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE ITA NO.1585/M/13 AY:06-07 2 CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 27191)(C). 3. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MAD E BY AO MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE UND ER A DIFFERENT HEAD I.E. UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AS AGAINST UNDER HEAD CAPITAL GAINS A S PER THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THIS COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) . 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT AO BE DIRECTED TO DEL ETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AFTER INDEXATION OF RS.27,26,887/- ON THE ACCOUNT OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE SHAPE OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D ALONG WITH FARM- HOUSE. THE AO NOTED THAT IN THE P&L ACCOUNT THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFIT ON SALE OF ASSET RS.31,55,215/- AS BUSINESS INCOME BUT CLAIMED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME . THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF PROPERTY PURCHASED A ND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO TREATED THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF P ROPERTY AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ASSESSED TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER UP TO THIS TRIBUNAL BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE QUANTUM APPEAL HAS HELD THE INCOME FROM SALE FROM VARIOUS PROPERTI ES BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE AO INI TIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.9,85,308/- BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE C HALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BEFORE CIT(A). HOWEVER, CIT(A) HAS CONFIRME D THE LEVY OF PENALTY VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IN THE YEAR 2002 TO 2005 WHICH WERE FINALLY SOLD IN THE YEAR 2005 THEREBY TH E ASSESSEE AFTER CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION HAS CLAIMED LON G TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.27,26,887/-. THE LD. AR HAS REFERRED THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE ITA NO.1585/M/13 AY:06-07 3 OF PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PROPERTIES O N PLOTS OF LAND ALONG WITH BUILDINGS WHICH ARE ADJOINING AS IT IS CLEAR F ROM THE GAT NUMBER OF THESE PROPERTIES. HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT SALE OF T HESE PROPERTIES IS ONLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THERE IS NO SALE EITHER IN THE EARLIER YEAR OR IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THRO UGH SALE TRANSACTION THE ENTIRE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS IS NOT A REGULAR BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE, AND FURTHER, SINCE THE YEAR 2002 THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN SHOWING THESE PROPERTIES AS FIXED ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET TIL L THESE ARE SOLD IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE O F CHANGE OF HEAD OF INCOME BY THE AO ON WHICH PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED AS THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD. (215 TAXMANN 93) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS ONLY A CHANGE OF HEAD OF INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT BONAFI DE THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL . HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 11/1/2012 IN CASE OF SUKDHAM CONSTRU CTION & DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.2172/MUM/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CON SIDERED AND DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THAT TREATM ENT OF INCOME WHETHER CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME IS A DEBATA BLE ISSUE AND EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS A CAPITAL GAIN WAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAME COULD NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CLEAR FROM THE TREATMENT OF THESE PROPERTIES AS FIXED ASS ETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND FURTHER THESE PROPERTIES WERE LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ITA NO.1585/M/13 AY:06-07 4 THE INTERVENING PERIOD WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSE E INTENDED TO RETAIN THESE PROPERTIES AS CAPITAL ASSETS. SOME OF THE PR OPERTIES WERE SOLD AFTER 3 YEARS AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS FROM THE SALE OF THESE PROPERTIES IS A BONAFIDE CLAIM. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO BY RECORDING THE REASONS AND WHI CH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL. T HEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE A BONAFIDE CL AIM WHEN THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM SALE OF THESE PROPERTI ES AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND ONLY TO AVOID TAX, THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED IT AS CAPITAL LOSS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED VARI OUS PLOTS OF LAND AND IN SOME CASES ALONG WITH BUILDING FROM THE YEAR 2002 TO 2005. THERE IS NO SALE OF ANY OF THE PLOT OF LAND SINCE 2002 UP TILL 20 TH SEPTEMBER 2005 WHEN MAJORITY OF THESE PLOTS EXCEPT TWO WERE S OLD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THESE LAND AND BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET RIGHT FROM THE FIRST YEAR OF A CQUISITION AS FIXED ASSET. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY REPEA TED TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE BUT ALL THE PLOTS WERE SOLD IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE LET OUT THIS PROPERTY D URING THIS PERIOD AND OFFERED THE RENTAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY WHICH SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS BONAFIDE CLAIM THAT TH E INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO RETAIN THIS PROPERTY FOR A LONG PER IOD AND NOT TO SELL, TO EARN THE PROFIT AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OCCASION. THE ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME ARISING FROM SALE A ND PURCHASE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THOUGH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED AND THE TREATMENT OF BUS INESS INCOME HAS ITA NO.1585/M/13 AY:06-07 5 BEEN CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT A REGULAR ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HERE IS NO PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT INSTANCE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERT Y BY THE ASSESSEE THE REJECTION OF CLAIM BY TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW D OES NOT IPSO FACTO WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY WHEN THERE IS NO FINDING TH AT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS A BOGUS CLAIM OR ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE/ INACCURATE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS REGARDING PURCHASE AS WELL AS SALE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION. EVEN THE IMMO VABLE PROPERTIES WERE SHOWN AS FIXED ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE A SSESSEE RIGHT FROM BEGINNING. THEREFORE, NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE CLAIM W OULD NOT CONSTITUTE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISH INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE LET OUT SOME OF THE PROPERTY A FTER ACQUISITION WHICH SHOWS THE ASSESSEES INTENTION WAS TO RETAIN PROPER TY FOR A LONGER PERIOD AND NOT TO HOLD SIMPLY TO RESELL AT THE EARLIEST PO SSIBLE OCCASION. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DO SUPPORT THE BONAFIDE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD. (SUPRA), HAS OBSERVED IN PARA -3 AS UNDER :- 3. SO FAR AS QUESTION (II) IS CONCERNED, THE RESP ONDENT- ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED PREMIUM ON REDEMPTION OF DEBEN TURES AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OF FICER HELD THAT THE REDEMPTION OF DEBENTURES IS REVENUE RECEIPT ASS ESSABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE CIT(A ) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RESPONDENT- ASS ESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY FURTHER APPEAL ON THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. THER EAFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONFIR MED THE LEVY OF PENALTY UPON THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE . ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THAT THE AMO UNT RECEIVED AS PREMIUM ON REDEMPTION OF DEBENTURES IN ITS COMPU TATION OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL RECORDS THAT IT IS NO T THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAD CONCEAL ED ANY PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME BY STATING INCORRECT FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ONSIDERED THE SAID PREMIUM RECEIVED ON REDEMPTION OF DEBENTURES TO BE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHILE THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE SAME TO BE TAXABLE UNDER TH E HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS ONLY A CHA NGE OF HEAD OF ITA NO.1585/M/13 AY:06-07 6 INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FACTS THAT THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BONAFIDE, THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT THAT THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PE RVERSE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SEE NO REASON TO ENTERTAIN THE PR OPOSED QUESTION (II). 5.1 THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME FROM SALE OF PROPERTY AS LONG TERM /SHORT TE RM CAPITAL GAIN AND AFTER THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION CLAIMED AS CAPITAL LOSS. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SUKDHAM CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS LTD.(SUPRA), IN PARA-3 TO 3.1 AS UNDER :- 3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE DECLA RED THE INCOME OF RS.1,01.85,887/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE INCOME FROM PURCH ASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY SHOWN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1.02,42,338/-. THUS, I T IS CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS THE QUANTUM OF INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCER NED, THERE IS NO CHANGE EXCEPT SOME MINOR DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON AC COUNT OF SPECULATIVE LOSS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE REASON OF TREATMENT OF CAPITAL G AIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHICH CLEARLY SHOW S THAT AS FAR AS THE QUANTUM ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN OR EXPEND ITURE, NO MISTAKE WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE RE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF VIEW AND OPINION AS THE ASSESSEE DECL ARED SAID INCOME AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WHICH WAS TREATE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS BUSINESS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE INCOME FROM SALE AND PURC HASE OF SHARES AS CAPITAL GAIN CANNOT BE TREATED AS IMPOSSIBLE VIE W OR ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL AND INCORRECT TREATMENT OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN QUANTUM APPEAL HAS CONCLUDED IN PARAS 7 & 8 AS UNDER . 'TAKING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE INTO CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN TREATING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND ACC ORDINGLY ASSESSING THE PROFIT UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GA INS OF BUSINESS'. BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS APPEAL, IT MAY BE PERTINEN T TO MENTION THAT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE ASSESSMENT OR DER FOR THE ITA NO.1585/M/13 AY:06-07 7 SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TREATED THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF S HARES AS BUSINESS. THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN ASSE SSED BY THE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, T HE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER WILL NOT CLOUD THE FINDING OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, WHICH IS BASE D ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS PREVAILING IN THE YEAR UNDER A PPEAL. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006- 07 ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS TAKING PLACE IN THAT YEAR . THEREFORE, THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT AFFECT THE DECISION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. F INDING NO MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DISMISS THE SAME . ' 3.1 THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. AY 2006-07, THE INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAP ITAL GAIN WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE I SSUE OF TREATMENT OF THE INCOME IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL GAIN, THOUGH WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE BUT COULD NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO THE CON CLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS P LTD REPORTED IN 322 TR 158(SC), THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE; ACCORDI NGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSEE WE HOLD THAT REJECTION OF CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE DOES NOT WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DELET ED. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 10/07/2014. JV. ITA NO.1585/M/13 AY:06-07 8 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.