RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

ITA 160/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5105 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO .160/M/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 SHRI RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI 501, MAKER MANSION, 623, LADY JEHA NGIR ROAD, PARSI COLONY, DADAR (W), MUMBAI 400 014 PAN: AABPJ7137L VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 39, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAD HUR AGRAWAL, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.13 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) D ATED 05.11.10 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: GROUND NO.1: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) OF TREATING JEWELLERY WORTH RS .35,21,049/ - AS UNEXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION, JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 42,14,534/ - WAS SEIZED. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A ITA NO . 160/M/11 SHRI RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI 2 VALUATION REPORT O F JEWELLERY DATED 19.01.1995 AND ALSO STATED THAT JEWELLERY OF RS. 4,74,760/ - WAS PURCHASED DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER AND JANUARY, 1997. T HE AO CONSIDERING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE JEWELLERY OF THE VALUE OF RS. 10,00,000/ - AS EX PLAINED BUT THE BALANCE JEWELLERY OF RS. 35,21,049/ - AS UNEXPLAINED . IN FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY UPON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. DURI NG THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ISSUED LETTERS TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED. HOWEVER, THE ALLEGED SELLERS DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO . THUS IN THE REMAND REPORT LETTER DATED 13.09.2010, THE AO STAT ED THAT NO PARTY HAD CONFIRMED THE SALE OF JEWELLERY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS REMAND REPORT, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM O NE OF THE PART IES NAMELY M/S . B/DAZZLED. HOWEVER , THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE TO TAKE NOTICE OF THE S AME STATING IT TO BE A NEW EVIDENCE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SEEK ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT UN DER RULE 46 OF THE I.T. RULES. S PECIFIC OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY, HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM . KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE AO TO VERIFY TH E PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. THE AO HAS ISSUED LETTERS TO ALL THE PARTIES BUT NO ONE CONFIRMED THE PURCHASE/SALE OF JEWELLERY WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS REJECTED THE SAID EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO S UBMIT ANY COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE HIM TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF HIS JEWELLERY. HE THUS CONFIRMED T HE ACTION OF THE AO AND DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGR I E VED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO . 160/M/11 SHRI RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI 3 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE (AR) HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE JEWELLERY SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN FACT WAS THE OLD JEWELLERY OF THE FA MILY PURCHASED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SOME OF IT ALSO RECEIVED AS GIFTS FROM RELATIVES AND FRIENDS ON CERTAIN OCCASIONS FROM TIME TO TIME FOR THE PAST SO MANY YEARS. AFTER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION , THE NECESSARY DETAILS LIKE BILLS AND EVIDENCES OF PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WERE GIVEN TO THE AO. A VALUATION REPORT FOR THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY AS ON 19.1.95 AND THE EVIDENCE REGARDING PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WERE ALSO PROVIDED TO THE AO. EVEN EVERY YEAR WHILE FILI NG I NCOME T AX R ETURNS, STATEMENT OF WEALTH STATING THE JEWELLERY REPORT AND THE PURCHASES THEREOF WAS ALSO FILED . SINCE THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY DID NOT CROSS THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR FILING THE WEALTH TAX RETURN, HENCE THE WEALTH TAX RETURN WAS N OT FILED UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THERE HAS BEEN A SHARP INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF THE GOLD AFTER THE YEAR 2007. THE LD. A.R. HAS BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996 - 97 PLACED AT PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER B OOK TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY WERE MADE BY CHEQUE/BANKING CHANNEL. HE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE JEWELLERY RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE WHICH HE HAS TRIED TO SHOW THAT MOST OF THE JEWELLERY RECONCILE S WITH THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 20.01.95. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE BILLS FROM THE SELLERS WERE ALSO PRODUCED. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT D URING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS , IF , THE SELLERS/RESPECTIVE PARTIES DID NOT APPEAR OR THERE WAS ANY DELAY IN FURNISHING THE PROOF OF SALE /CONFIRMATION ETC., NO FAULT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A. O. WOULD HAVE EXERCISED HIS POWERS OF SUMMONING THE WITNESSES ETC. AS PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT EVEN THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE SELLERS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CIT(A) BUT THE CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ITA NO . 160/M/11 SHRI RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI 4 THE SAME. HE HAS FURTHER BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 17 AND 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND TABLES THEREIN UNDER THE HEADING JEWELLERY RE CONCILIATION STATEMENT. REFERRING TO THE SUB - HEADING GOLD JEWELRY, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WING QUANTIFIED THE GOLD JEWELLERY 642.900 GMS, WHICH IS VALUED AT RS. 6,02,015/ - . AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME STANDS RECONCILED WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED JEWELLERY REPORT DATED 20.1.1995 SUBSTANTIALLY. SIMILARLY, REFERRING TO THE NEXT SUB - HEADING DIAMOND JEWELRY , LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE FOUND ITEMS OF 112.11 CARATS VALUED AT RS. 33,01,034/ - AND THE SAME STANDS EXPLAINED WITH THE JEWELLERY REPORT DATED 20.1.1995 AS WELL AS THE BILLS DATED 9.12.1996 AND 9.1.1997 AND OTHERS. FURTHER, REFERRING TO THE THIRD SUB - HEADING PEARL JEWELRY LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE DEPARTMENT FOUND 22.800 CARATS, VALUED AT RS. 6 LAKHS AND THE SAME STANDS RECONCILED IF THE JEWELLERY REPORT DATED 20.1.1995 IS CONSIDERED. OF COURSE, THERE IS A ONE CARAT DIFFERENCE, WHICH MAY BE A DUE TO SOME ERROR IN MEASUREMENT. FINALLY, REFERRING TO THE SUB - HEADING SILVER JEWELRY, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE DEPARTMENT FOUND 1 KG OF SILVER JEWELLERY WHICH VALUED AT RS. 18,000/ - AND THE SAME STANDS RECONCILED IF CERTAIN GIFTS ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE ARE CONSIDERED. REFERRING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED JEWELLERY REPORT DATED 20.1.1995, LD COUNSEL RELIED HEAVILY ON THE SAID REPORT AND MENTIONED THAT THE SAID REPORT HAD BEEN AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME WAS EXISTING PRIOR TO THE EVENT OF SEARCH ACTION ON THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, REJECTION OF THE SAID REPORT BY THE AO MERELY ON FLIMSY GROUNDS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED BY THE TRIBUNAL. FURTHER, REFERRING TO THE BILLS MENTIONED ABOVE, LD COUNSEL STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS WITH REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PURCHASES AND THE PAYMENTS WE RE MADE THROUGH THE BANK ING CHANNELS AND THE REVENUE HAS NO REASON TO REJECT THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF NON - APPEARANCE OF THE SELLER. ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED OF DOING THE IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE REVENUE HAS ALL ITA NO . 160/M/11 SHRI RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI 5 THE POWERS TO SUMMON THE OFFICERS CONCERNED. REFERRING TO THE GIFTS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE SPIRIT OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT. THUS, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSES S EE THAT THE JEWELLERY REPORTS DATED 20.1.1995 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND THE ADDITIONS BE DELETED. FURTHER, LD . COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATT ENTION TO THE SAID CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT WHICH CONTAIN GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE MATTERS OF SEIZURE OF GOLD AND JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION. FROM THE SAID CIRCULAR , IT IS APPARENT THAT IN CASE OF A PERSON NOT ASSESSED TO WEALTH - TAX , GOLD JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS TO THE EXTENT OF 500 GMS. PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS. PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS. PER MALE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY NEED NOT BE SEIZED. HE HAS FURTHER BROUG HT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CLAUSE (III) OF THE SAID GUIDELINES WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY, AND THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICES OF THE COMMUNITY TO WHICH THE FAMILY BELONGS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DECIDE TO EXCLUDE A LARGER QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS FROM SEIZURE. HE HAS FURTHER BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS. 1,77,15,907/ - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 . HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 3.38 CRORE WITH INCOME TAX PAYMENT OF RS. 1.13 CRORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AS IS APPARENT FROM INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT , COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 49 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. HAS CONT ENDED THAT MORE THAN HALF OF THE JEWELLERY WAS FOUND AT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN IN THE VALUATION REPORT , NO ITEM - WISE DETAIL OF THE JEWELLERY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. AS OBSERVED ABOVE, OUT OF THE SEIZED JEWELLERY WORTH ABOUT RS. 45 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY WORTH ITA NO . 160/M/11 SHRI RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI 6 ABOUT RS. 38 LAKHS WITH THE HELP OF JEWEL L ERY REPORTS AND PURCHASE BILLS . THOUGH ITEM - WISE DETAI L WAS NOT SUBMITTED, BUT THE WEIGHT AND THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH WAS FURTHER VERIFIED BY THE AO DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND HE DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT OR SUSPICION REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE SAME. IF THE SAID REPORT IS ACCEPTED, THE SAME ACCOUNTS FOR THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,28,970/ - [RS. 8,98,060 + RS.2,94,450/ - + RS. 1,42,350/ - + RS.2,26,610/ - + RS. 7,500/ - + RS. 30,000/ - + RS.5,30,000/ - + RS. 6,00,000/ - ]. APART FROM THAT , THE ASSESSE E HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING THE PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND EVEN THE CORRELATING BILLS OF THE JEWELLERY ALSO. FURTHER, IF THE BILLS DATED 19.12.1996 AND 9.1.1997 ARE CONSIDERED, THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF TO THE TUNE OF RS. 11,20, 954/ - [RS. 5,82,124/ - + RS. 5,38,830/ - ]. THE BALANCE OF ADDITION IS EXPLAINED BY THE FACT OF RECEIVING OF GIFTS WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR SUM OF RS. 7,01,125/ - [RS. 4,57,570/ - + RS. 1,69,365/ - + RS. 9,370/ - + RS. 23,410/ - RS. 23,410/ - + RS. 18,000/ - ]. THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WERE SUFFICIENT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW ANY SUSP ICION ABOUT THE GENUINITY OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS. EVEN IF THE CONCERNED PARTIES/SELLERS DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE BILLS, IT WAS OPEN TO THE AO TO EXERCISE HIS POWERS TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND APPEARANCE OF THE CONCERNED WITNESSES. THE ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAD SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATIONS REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF THE JEWELLERY BUT THE SAME WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A) ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE SAID EVIDENCE WAS IN THE SHAPE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE ADMITTED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT UNDER RULE 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN VESTED WITH THE DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR REJECT AN APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE. ITA NO . 160/M/11 SHRI RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI 7 6. IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE DISCRETION I S VESTED WITH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO ADMIT OR REJECT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT THE DISCRETION I N THAT REGARD I S TO BE EXERCISED FAIRLY AND JUSTIFIABLY SO AS TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE CONFIRMATIONS WHICH WERE SOUGHT TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE IN THE NATURE OF CORROBORATING EVIDENCE TO THE BILLS AND BANK STATEMENTS ALREADY PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WERE NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THESE WERE NOT THE FRESH EVIDENCES R ATHER WERE IN THE SHAPE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. FROM THE RETURN OF INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARL IER YEARS , IT REVEAL S THAT ASSESSEE IS A HIGH TAX PAYER BELONGING TO A GOOD FINANCIAL STATUS. THE POSSESSION OF A JEWELLERY WORTH VALUE OF ABOUT RS. 45 LAKHS BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IMPROBABLE OR BEYOND THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE EVEN HAS PRODUCED THE EVIDENCES EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY WORTH ABOUT RS. 38 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE EVEN HAS FILED THE STATEMENTS OF JEWELLERY IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. IT IS ALSO VERY COMMON THAT AS PER THE CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES PREVALENT IN OUR COUNTRY , THE JEWELLERY/GOLD ETC. IS GIFTED BY THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS OF A PERSON AT THE TIME OF C ERTAIN OCCASIONS LIKE MARRIAGES, BIRTH OF A CHILD, BIRTHDAYS, MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARIES ETC. THE QUANTUM AND THE WORTH OF THE GIFTS ALSO DEPEND UPON THE SOCIAL AS WELL AS FINANCIAL STATUS NOT ONLY OF THE DONOR BUT OF THE DONEE ALSO. CONSIDERING THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE , IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. IT MAY BE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE , THE AO HAD TREATED THE JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 10,00,000/ - AS EXPLAINED BUT HAS IGNORED THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE RE GARDING THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE JEWELLERY. SO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE HIGH FINANCIAL STATUS OF ITA NO . 160/M/11 SHRI RUSTOM GODREJ JOSHI 8 THE ASSESSEE AND THE CU S TOM OF GIFTS ETC. P REVALENT IN THE SOCIETY , IT CAN NOT BE HELD TO BE A CASE OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON THIS ACCOUNT ARE HELD TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.12. 2013. SD/ - SD/ - ( D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 20.12. 2013. * KISHORE COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT ( A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH // TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.