TOSHIBRO MEDICALS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT (OSD) 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1642/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 164219914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAVED AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MIHIR NANIWADEKAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80C; 194C

Judgement Text

, ,P ,P,P ,P INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - H BENCH. . . , , BEFORE S/SH.I.P.BANSAL, JUDICIAL M EMBER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 1642/MUM/2011, ! ! ! ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 TOSHIBRO MEDICAL PVT.LTD. 8,MOHATA BHAVAN,OFF DR.E.MOSES ROAD,WORLI,MUMBAI-400018 PAN:AABCT4483C VS DCIT(OSD)1(1) AAYKAR BHAVAN,M K ROAD, MUMBAI-20 ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# / RESPONDENT) &' &' &' &' ( ( ( ( / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MIHIR NANIWADEKAR ) ( / REVENUE BY : SHRI JAVED AKHTAR ) )) ) '* '* '* '* / DATE OF HEARING : 25-08-2014 +,! ) '* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-08-2014 , 1961 ) )) ) 254 )1( '-' '-' '-' '-' . . . . ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 27.12.2010 OF THE CIT(A)- 24,MUMBAI,ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) C OMMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACT IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,12,000/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 194C ON THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPEL LANT TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATION FOR ADVERTISEMENT IN THEIR JOURNAL MAGAZINE. 2.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO A CONTRACTOR AS EN VISAGED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C SO AS TO DEDUCT THE TAX THEREON. 3.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) COMMITTED A GROSS ERROR LAW AND FACT IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 194J ON THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPEL LANT TO ITS FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR SERVICE RENDERED BY HIM. 4.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO FEES PAID BY THE APPELLANT FOR ANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE OR TECHNICAL SERVICE RENDERED BY THE PAYEE SO AS TO DEDUCT TAX THEREON UNDER SECTION 194J. 5.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) COMMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACT IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,15,869/- BEING SEMINAR AND EXHIBITION EXPENSES AND RS.9,00,686/- BEING STALL CHARGES FOR PARTICIPATING IN EXHIBITIONS UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 194C ON THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. 6.THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO A CONTRACTOR AS EN VISAGED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194C SO AS TO DEDUCT THE TAX THEREON. 7.THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS)) IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, ITA/1642/MUM/TMPL,-07-08 2 EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE. 8.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN MEDICAL EQUIPMENT,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2007,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 .19 CRORES.ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 04.12/2004, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,40,80, 650/-. 2. FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL(GOA1-2)PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,12,000/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S.1 94C.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS.2.12 LAKHS TO T HREE ORGANIZATIONS,NAMELY NEUROLOGY INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF OPTHALOMOGY AND DELHI OPTHALMOLOG Y SOCIETY.AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OR HAD NOT PRODUCE TAX-NON-D EDUCTIBLITY-CERTIFICATE,SO THE AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE REFERRED AMOUNT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40(A)(IA)R.W.S.194C OF THE ACT. 2.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION AS ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVERTISEMENT TO BE PUBLISHED IN JOURNALS OF THE DIFFERENT MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS,THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACT WORK ASSIGNED BY IT TO SUCH ASSOCIATION FOR SUCH PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENTS,THA T THE PRIMARY WORK FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE WAS ADVERTISEMENT,THAT IT WAS CLEARLY COVE RED AS PER EXPLANATION (IV) OF SECTION 194C OF THEACT,THAT IT WAS NOT IMPERATIVE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S.L94C OF THE ACT THAT A CONTRACT AGREEMENT HAD TO BE ENTERED IN WRITING,T HAT CONTRACT WORK COULD BE ASSIGNED WRITTEN OR ORAL,THAT THE BASIC FACT WAS THAT THE WORK OF ADVER TISING HAD BEEN DONE, FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,12,000/-HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT PAY MENT MADE BY IT TO PUBLISH THE ADVERTISEMENT WOULD BE COVERED U/S.194C OF THE ACT, AS THE SAID PAYMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISING.HE REFERRED TO THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 08.08.1995,WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO TDS AND HELD THAT AS PER THE CLARIFICATION TAX WAS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON ADVERTISEMENTS IN SOUVENIRS,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE SOUVENIR. 2.2. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) OF THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR ADVERTISEMENTS IN THE MEDICAL JOURNALS ,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ADVERTISEMENT ONLY, THAT IT DID NOT RESULT IN FINAL OUTCOME,THAT THE ADVERTISEMENTS WERE NOT IN THE SOUVENIRS.HE REFERRED TO THE QUESTION NO.19 ISSUED BY THE CENTRA L BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES WITH REGARD TO TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (PAGE NO.16 OF THE PAPER BOOK).D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FACT ABOUT T HE ADMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS ASSOCIATIONS FOR PUBLISHIN G ADVERTISEMENTS IN SOUVENIR.THE CLARIFICA - TION ISSUED BY THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.715(SUPRA)CLEAR LY MANDATES THAT ADVERTISEMENTS IN SOUVENIR ARE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX.IN THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY.THEREF ORE,CONFIRMING HIS ORDER WE DECIDE GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3. NEXT EFFECTIVE GROUND (GOA3-4)IS ABOUT PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ONE OF ITS EX EMPLOYEE.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO F OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RS.1 LAKHS TO H.M.SHAH(HMS)UNDER THE HEAD CONSULTANCY CHARGES.AS THE PAYMENT WAS MORE THAN RS.20,000/- THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DETAILS OF DE DUCTION OF TAX.HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE INCOME OF THE SHAH WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMITS.AS THE ASSESSE E DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE INCOME ITA/1642/MUM/TMPL,-07-08 3 OF SHAN BEING LESS THAN THE TAXABLE LIMIT,SO,INVOKI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIN 194 J OF ACT, HE DISALLOWED RS.1 LAKHS AND ADDED SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). 3.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAA,THE ASS ESSEE FILED A CERTIFICATE DATED 21/07/07 WHEREIN IT HAD BEEN STATED THAT TDS WAS NOT MADE ON PAYMENT OF RS.1 LAC TO HMS TOWARDS CONSULTING CHARGES ONLY BECAUSE NO TDS WAS APPLICAB LE AS PER IT RULES.IT WAS ARGUED THAT HMS WAS A SENIOR CITIZEN HAVING AGE MORE THAN 65 YEARS. BESIDES,THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A XEROX COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HMS FOR A.Y.-07-08,WHE RE TAX PAYABLE WAS SHOWN AS NIL. A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,HE HELD THAT FROM THE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF HMS IT TRANSPIRED T HAT HE HAD INCOME OF RS.2,26,000/- FROM CONSULTING CHARGES,THAT HE HAD CLAIMED 1/3RD LUMPSUM EXPENSE OF RS.75,333/- OUT OF THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES,THAT HE HAD OTHER INCOME OF RS. 1.27 LAKHS, THAT GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF HMS WAS EXCEEDING THE TAXABLE LIMIT FOR YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION,THAT HE HAD TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3, 53,165/-,THAT HIS TAX LIABILITY WAS SHOWN AT NIL ME RELY AFTER CLAIMING STATUTORY DEDUCTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT,THAT HMS HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.75,333/- ON ESTIMATE BASIS ONLY,THAT NO EVIDENCE OR PROOF HAD B EEN ANNEXED WITH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR INCURRING SUCH EXPENDITURE,THAT ASSESSEES EFFO RTS ON BOTH COUNTS;I.E. FURNISHING COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO ISSUING THE SELF SERVING CERTIFICATE;WERE OF NO HELP TO IT,THAT THE DUTY OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AS PER SECTION 194J WAS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND NOT ON THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR AT THE TI ME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME HMS,THAT IT HAD ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY INFORMATION THAT UNDER WHICH IT RULES IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX ON PAYMENT OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES,THAT THE DUTY OF DED UCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE LIES ON DEDUCTOR ON DAY OF PAYMENT,THAT THE DEDUCTOR COULD NOT MAKE BASIS OF T AX LIABILITY OF DEDUCTEE FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNLESS UNTIL ANY SUCH DE CLARATION IS MADE BY THE DEDUCTEE UNDER PRESCRIBED FORM,THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS LIAB LE TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT IN VIEW OF THE EXPLICIT PROOVISION OF SECTION 194 J OF THE ACT,THAT THE AO WAS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT IT HAD FAILED IN ITS DUTY.HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3.2. BEFORE US,THE AR STATED THAT HMS HAD RENDERED THE H R SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE,THAT HE WAS A SENIOR CITIZEN,THAT HIS INCOME WAS NOT TAXABLE.DR S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS.WE FIND THAT AR HAS NOT CHALL ENGED THE FINDING OF FACT THAT HMS HAD TAXABLE INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL.SECONDL Y,RENDERING OF SERVICES BY HMS IS NOT THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY US.THE ONLY QUESTION IS DEDU CTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FOR THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO HMS.AS A PERSON MAKING PAYMENT,I T WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIN 194J OF THE ACT .TO DECIDE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE RECEIVER OF THE PAYMENT IS A TAXABLE ENTITY OR NOT IS THE JOB OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PLAY THE ROLE OF THE AO AND DECIDE THAT THE RECIPIENT IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY TAX.ACT HAS PROVIDED THAT IN CASE THE RECEIVER OF A PAYMENT IS NOT HAVING TAXABLE INC OME HE HAS TO FURNISH A PARTICULAR FORM.NO SUCH FORM WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A O /FAA OR BEFORE US.THEREFORE,IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT HMS WAS HAVING BELOW TAXABLE INCOME A ND TDS PROVISIONS WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO HIM.CONVERSLY,THE FAA HAD FOUND THAT HMS WAS HAV ING TAXABLE INCOME AND THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE WITHOUT BASIS . THEREFORE,CONF IRMING HIS ORDER WE DECIDE GROUNDS NO.3-4 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL(GOA-5-6)IS ABOUT DI SALLOWANCE OF RS. .DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS.7.25 LAKHS AS SEMINAR AND EXHIBITION EXPENSES AND RS.10.88 LAKHS AS STALL CHARGES FOR PA RTICIPATING IN EXHIBITION.HE HELD THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE LIABLE TDS U/S.194 OF THE ACT,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE SAID ITA/1642/MUM/TMPL,-07-08 4 AMOUNTS. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(I A)R.W.S.194C OF THE ACT,HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 18.14 LAKHS. 4.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT IT HAD MADE PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF STALL CHARGES OR SPONSORSHIP FEES OR PAID FOR DIFFERENT MEDICAL ASSOCIATION FOR MAKING THE PARTICIPATION,THAT SOME OF THE PAYME NTS HAD ALSO BEEN MADE BY IT FOR PUTTING THE STALL IN DIFFERENT CONFERENCES ORGANISED BY THE DIF FERENT MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,THAT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HIRING STALLS WAS ADVERTISING ITS PRODUCT OR BRA ND,THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SAID FACT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLANTS REPRESEN TATIVE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MADE PAYMENTS FOR PUTTING STALL OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND ALSO FOR PUTTING THE DISPLAY OF PRODUCT AND THE EXHIBITION OF THE APPELLANT COMPANYS PRODU CT,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT THE TAX ON PAYMENT ON THIS ACCOUNT EXCEEDING RS.20,000/ -,THAT IT HAD TAKEN STALL AT AIOS HYD 2007 AND ICON-06 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE,PANVEL FOR WHI CH IT HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.2, 38,186/- & RS.4,50,000/-RESPECTIVELY,THAT THE STALLS WERE TAKE N BY IT EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVERTISEMENT.HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTI FIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ALL SUCH PAYMENTS MADE EXCEEDING RS.20,000/-WHEREIN TDS WAS NOT MADE,THAT PAYMENT MADE BELOW RS.20,000/- WERE NOT BE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX. ACCORDINGLY,HE DELETED THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.3,98,054/- AND CONFIRMED THE REMAIN ING AMOUNT I.E.RS.14.16 LAKHS. 4.2. BEFORE US,THE AR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HIRED STALLS FOR DISPLAYING GOODS,THAT IT HAD PARTICIPATED IN SEMINAR SPONSORSHIPS,THAT PROVISION S OF SECTION 194 C WERE NOT APPLICABLE,THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BU SINESS.THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE FAA THAT STALLS WE RE HIRED FOR ADVERTISEMENT.ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH ABOUT CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE INSTITUTIONS ORGANISING THE EXHIBITIONS,THE AR ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE THE SAME.WITHOUT SOME AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING NO STA LL CAN BE HIRED BY ANYBODY IN TRADE FAIR OR EXHIBITIONS. ORGANISERS INVITE THE PARTICIPANTS FOR HIRING STALLS AND AGREEMENTS ARE ENTERED IN TO FOR MAKING PAYMENTS,FOR PERIOD OF DISPLAY AS WELL A S RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF BOTH THE SIDES.SUCH DOCUMENTS IF PRODUCED WOULD HAVE PROVED THAT PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 194 C WERE APPLICABLE WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER T HE HEADS SEMINAR AND EXHIBITION EXPENSES AND STALL CHARGES.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE THAT WERE BELOW 20,000/- .THUS,HIS ORDER IS QUITE BALANCED.BECAUSE OF FAILUR E OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FOR THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION,THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE SAME.THE FAA HAD RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE.IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO DEDUCT THE TAX,BUT IT DID NOT.SO,UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE FA A,WE DECIDE GROUNDS NO.5-6 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. /'0 &' 1 3 ) - 4 ) ' 56 . ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH,AUGUST 2014 . . ) +,! 7 8 25 -' , 201 4 , ) - 9 SD/- SD/- . . / I.P. BANSAL) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8 /DATE: 25.08 . 2014. ITA/1642/MUM/TMPL,-07-08 5 SK . . . . ) )) ) $': $': $': $': ;:!' ;:!' ;:!' ;:!' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / '# 2. RESPONDENT / $%'# 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ < = , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / < = 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / :>- $' ,P ,P,P ,P , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ - / %:' %:' %:' %:' $' $'$' $' //TRUE COPY// . / BY ORDER, ? / 5 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI