ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT (LTU), MUMBAI

ITA 1686/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6310 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K PAHWA
• Assessee Lawyers: N H SHAH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1686/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ACIT, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 6A, SHANTI NAGAR, SANTACRUZ (E) 28TH FLOOR, WORLD T RADE CENTRE-I MUMBAI 400055 VS. CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400005 PAN - AAACA 3662 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI N.H. SHAH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. PAHWA O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- XXIV, MUMBAI DATED 05.01.2010 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-24, MUMBAI ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR REJECTION OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON VA RIOUS TRIPS SCHEMES WHICH ARE NOT LIABLE FOR FBT BASED ON QUEST ION NO : 8/2005 DATED 29.08.2005. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF ` 30.58 MILLIONS WHICH WAS OFFERED ORIGINALLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF FBT UNDER SECTION 115WB MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT CLAIMED NOT INCLUDABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. EVENTHOUGH CONSIDERED ANOTHER AMOUNT FOR ADDITION W HICH WAS EXCLUDED ORIGINALLY BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 4,90,000/- TO THE TOTAL VALUE OF FRINGE BENEFITS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CL AIM FOR EXCLUSION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF ` 30.58 MILLION MADE IN THE SAME LETTER (ALSO BY LETT ER DATED 05.08.2008 EARLIER) WAS NOT CONSIDERED. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE GROUND AND ARGUMENT TO SUBMIT THAT THE C LAIM IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR 8/2005 DATED 29.08.2005 WITH REFERENCE TO THE ITA NO.1686/MUM/2010 M/S. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. 2 ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 61 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR AND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED PERTAINS TO TRIPS SCHEMES MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEA LERS AND NOT TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE DBT PROVISIONS AS PER THE CLAR IFICATIONS OF THE BOARDS CIRCULAR. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS RELYI NG ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE INDIA L TD. VS. CIT 284 ITR 323 READ WITH OBSERVATIONS IN ITO VS. DAGA CAPITAL MANA GEMENT PVT. LTD. 312 ITR 1 (AT) (MUM)(SB). 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE PA PER BOOK AND SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THIS BEHALF BEFORE THE CIT(A), SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE TRIPS SCHEME EX PENDITURE OF ` 152,91 MILLIONS AS SALES EXPENDITURE AND 20% THEREOF WAS I NCLUDED UNDER SECTION 115WB WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED BY THE PROVIS O TO SECTION 115WB(2)(D). HE THEN REFERRED TO THE BOARDS CIRCUL AR QUESTION NO. 61 TO SUBMIT THAT INCENTIVES GIVEN TO DISTRIBUTORS FOR MA KING QUANTITY TARGETS DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF CLAUSE (D) OF SUBSECTI ON (2) OF SECTION 115WB AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF THE ABO VE AMOUNT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE A.O. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED OR REJECTED THE CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE REJECTED THE CLAIM RELYING ON THE DECISION OF GOETZE INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). IT WAS HIS S UBMISSION THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ITA 5092/MUM/2007 HAS CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED A SIMILAR CLAIM OF PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH WERE NOT MADE AS PART OF THE RET URN FILED BUT CLAIMED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE REL IED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ITAT FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM AND RESTORING THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER ON ITS MERITS. 4. THE LEARNED D.R., HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A ) HAS CORRECTLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND REJECTED THE SAME. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS AND EXAMINED THE R ECORD. THE ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE MADE THE CLAIM ON 05.08.200 8 BUT IN THE PAPER BOOK THE LETTERS SUBMITTED TO ACIT DATED 05.11.2008 AND 19.12.2008 WERE PLACED WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING TO THE A.O.: ITA NO.1686/MUM/2010 M/S. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. 3 IN THE FBT RETURN FILED, INTERALIA WE HAVE INCLUDE D A SUM OF RS.152,91 MILLIONS ON ACCOUNT OF TRIP SCHEMES AND ACCORDINGLY RS.30.58 MILLIONS (20% OF RS.152.91) HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS VALUE FOR FRINGE BENEFIT. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE SUBMIT THAT OUR DEALERS ARE ENT ITLED TO LOCAL/ INTERNATIONAL TRIPS SCHEMES BASED ON TARGET BASED S CHEMES FLOATED BY THE COMPANY AT ITS VARIOUS LOCATIONS FROM TIME TO T IME. HENCE, TRIP SCHEMES ARE IN THE NATURE OF INCENTIVES AND ARE IN THE FORM OF ORDINARY SELLING COST. BASED ON QUESTION NO. 61 OF CBDT CIRC ULAR NO 8/2005 DATED 29.08.2005, WE SUBMIT THAT THE EXPENSES ON TRIP SCH EME SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PAYMENT OF FBT. AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THERE IS NO DISCU SSION ABOUT THE ABOVE CLAIM BY THE A.O., HOWEVER, AO HAS CONSIDERED AN AM OUNT OF ADDITION VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 19.12.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE CIT(A) EXAMINED THE ISSUE ONLY ON LEGAL PERSPECTIVE WITHOU T CONSIDERING THE MERITS AND REJECTED THE SAME. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE ABOV E BOARD CIRCULAR WAS ALREADY ISSUED BY THE TIME THE ASSESSEE FILED THE R ETURN INCLUDING THE ABOVE AMOUNTS ON ITS OWN. 6. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2003-04 HAS CONSIDERED A SIMILAR SITUATION OF REJECTION OF CLAI M MADE BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BY THE CI T(A) AND HELD AS UNDER: 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ........................... ..... IN THIS APPEAL, THE PRELIMINARY QUESTION THAT FALLS FOR CONSIDERATI ON RELATES TO SCOPE OF POWERS OF CIT(A) WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS HA VING POWER TO ADMIT ASSESSEES CLAIM WITHOUT FILING REVISED RE TURN OF INCOME. TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE THE ISSUE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE FINDING GIVEN BY HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN CASE OF GOETZ INDIA LTD. CITED SUPRA, READS AS UNDER:- THE DECISION IN QUESTION IS THAT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IS TO ENTE RTAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME A POINT OF LAW PROVIDED THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ISSUE OF LAW CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECIS ION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY RELATE TO THE POWER OF THE AO TO ENTERTAIN A CL AIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. IN THE C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DISMISS THE CIVIL APPEAL. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE A SSESSING AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE POWER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 21.1 FROM THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE APEX COURT, WE F IND THAT THE APEX COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE FOR A LIMITED PURP OSE IN RESPECT OF POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE APEX COURT CLARIFIED IN ITS JUDGMENT ITSELF THAT THEIR FINDING DOES NOT IMP INGE ON THE POWER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SE CTION 254 OF ITA NO.1686/MUM/2010 M/S. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. 4 THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO SIMILAR P OWER U/S 251(1)(C). THE SAID SECTION READS AS UNDER:- SECTION 251(1): IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL, THE COM MISSIONER (A) SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING POWERS- (A) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, HE MAY CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT (AA) IN AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT I N RESPECT OF WHICH THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ABA TES UNDER SECTION 245HA, HE MAY, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION ALL THE MATERIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE, OR THE RESULTS OF THE INQUIRY HELD OR EVIDENCE RECORDE D BY, THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT AND SUCH OTHER MATERIAL AS MAY BE BROUGHT ON HIS RECORD, CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT. B) IN ANY APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALT Y, HE MAY CONFIRM OR CANCEL SUCH ORDER OR VARY IT SO AS EITHER TO ENH ANCE OR TO REDUCE THE PENALTY; C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, HE MAY PASS SUCH ORDERS IN TH E APPEAL AS HE THINKS FIT.: 21.2 THE ISSUE RELATED POWER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. NIRBHERAM DELURAM 224 ITR 610(SC). THE BRIEF FACTS OF THAT CASE WERE THAT D URING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ITO MADE ADDITION TO T HE ASSESSEE'S INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,45,000 ON ACCOUNT OF OSTENSIBLE TRANSACTIONS IN HUNDI LOANS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE AAC, WHILE SUSTAINING THE AFORESAID ADDITION ALSO TOOK NOTICE OF 10 OTHER ITEMS OF OSTENSIBLE HU NDI LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,30,000 AND DIRECTED THAT THE TOT AL INCOME BE ENHANCED BY THE SUM OF RS. 2,30,000. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, DELETED THE SAID ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE AAO HAD EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION. THE HIGH COURT PLACING RELIANCE ON TH E DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN ADDL. CIT V. GURJARGRAVURES (P .) LTD. [1978] 111 ITR 1 HELD THAT THE AAC HAD NO JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE NEW ENTRIES WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL BY THE ITO AND TO ADD THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,30,000 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE HIGH COURT, THE ITEMS RE PRESENTING THE SAID AMOUNT CONSTITUTED NEW SOURCES OF INCOME W HICH WERE NOT THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE AAC IN APPEAL TO CONSIDER THE NEW SOURCES AND TO ASSESS THEM. 21.3 ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT, THE SUPREME CO URT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- (PAGES 612 TO 614) IN JUTE CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) THIS COURT HAS REFERRED TO THE EARLIER DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE [1964] 53 ITR 225, WHICH WAS ALSO A DECISION OF A THREE JUDGE BENCH WHEREIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 31(3)(A) OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 [WHICH WAS ALMOST IDENT ICAL TO SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE 1961 ACT] WAS CONSIDERED AND IT WA S HELD: ITA NO.1686/MUM/2010 M/S. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. 5 ' 'IF AN APPEAL LIES, SECTION 31 OF THE ACT DESCRIB ES THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN SUCH AN APPEAL. UNDER SECTION 31(3)(A), IN DISPOSING OF SUCH AN APPEAL, THE APPEL LATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MAY, IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER OF ASSESS MENT, CONFIRM, REDUCE, ENHANCE OR ANNUL THE ASSESSMENT; UNDER CLAU SE (B) THEREOF HE MAY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECT THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT CO MMISSIONER HAS, THEREFORE, PLENARY POWERS IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL . THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER IS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OF FICER. HE CAN DO WHAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER CAN DO AND ALSO DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO DO'.' (P. 693) AFTER REFERRING TO THESE OBSERVATIONS, THIS COURT I N JUTE CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA) HAS STATED : 'THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE DECLARATION OF LAW IS CLEAR THAT THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IS CO -TERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AND IF THAT IS SO, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON AS TO WHY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON AN ADDITIONAL GROUND EVEN IF NO T RAISED BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. NO EXCEPTION COULD BE TAKEN TO THIS VIEW AS THE ACT DOES NOT PLACE ANY RESTRICTION OR LIMITATIO N ON THE EXERCISE OF APPELLATE POWER. EVEN OTHERWISE, AN APPELLATE AUTHO RITY WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF A SUBORDINA TE AUTHORITY, HAS ALL THE POWERS WHICH THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY MAY HAV E IN DECIDING THE QUESTION BEFORE IT SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS OR L IMITATION, IF ANY, PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS VES TED WITH ALL THE PLENARY POWERS WHICH THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO GOOD REASON AND NONE WAS PLACED BEFORE US TO JUSTIFY CURTAILMENT OF THE POWER OF TH E APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN ENTERTAINING AN ADDITIONA L GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER.' (P. 693) TAKING NOTE OF THE DECISION IN GURJARGRAVURES (P.) LTD.S CASE (SUPRA), THE COURT HAS SAID : '... APPARENTLY, THIS VIEW TAKEN BY THE TWO JUDGE B ENCH OF THIS COURT APPEARS TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY TH E THREE JUDGE BENCH OF THIS COURT IN KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE CASE [ 1964] 53 ITR 225. IT APPEARS FROM THE REPORT OF THE DECISION IN THE G UJARAT CASE THAT THE THREE JUDGE BENCH DECISION IN KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE CASE [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE B ENCH IN GURJARGRAVURES (P.) LTD. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE VIEW OF THE LARGER BENCH IN KANPUR COAL SYNDICA TE CASE [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC) HOLDS THE FIELD....' (P. 694) HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION IN JUTE CORPN. OF IND IA LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA), IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS IN ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLATE POWER CONFERRED ON THE AAC UNDER SECTION 251 WAS CONFINED TO THE MATTER WHICH HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITO AND THE AAC EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,30,000 ON THE BASIS OF THE OTHER 10 ITEMS OF HUNDIS WHICH HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1686/MUM/2010 M/S. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. 6 21.4 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE F IND THAT THE AO HAS NO POWER TO ADMIT FRESH CLAIM OTHERWISE THAN RE VISED RETURN BUT APPELLATE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING CIT(A) & ITAT H AVE POWER TO ADMIT SUCH CLAIM. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE F INDING, WE ADMIT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ IND IA LTD. (SUPRA).IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND KEEP ING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GO ETZE (INDIA) LTD., 284 ITR 323, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERI T IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS POWER TO CONSIDER ASSESSEE S CLAIM ON MERITS. SINCE THE ISSUE ON MERITS HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE CI T(A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF TH E CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES . 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS CONSIDERED ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH NOVEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 24 TH NOVEMBER 2010 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) XXIV, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT LTU, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.