SALGAON SANMITRA SAHAKARI PATHPEDHI LIMITED, MUMBAI V. ADDL. C.I.T. WARD 17(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1799/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48801 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONGATE
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 271E; 27

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. N O. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSESSME NT YEAR : 2006-07. M/S SALGAON SANMITRA SAHAKARI ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATHPEDHI LIMITED, V S. WARD-17(3), MUMBAI. 1/11 KAMGAR SEVA SADAN, MAHADEV PALAV MARG, MUMBAI 400012. PAN AAABS 0157 Q APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARIDAS BHAT. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SONGATE. O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-29, MUMBAI DATED 21-12-2010 WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.23,29,081 IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271E. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO TH IS APPEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY. AS NOTED BY THE AO FROM THE AUDIT REPORT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID DEPOSITS IN CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- TO VARIOUS DEPOSITORS TOTALING TO RS.23,29,081/-. ACCO RDING TO HIM, THE SAID REPAYMENT OF 2 ITA NO. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. DEPOSITS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T AND ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY HIM REQUIRING TH E ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271E SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IN REPLY, T HE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 05-03-2 009 : CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES ARE REGISTERED UNDE R THE MAHARASHTRA CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960. THE CREDIT SOCIETIES ARE LIKE BANKING INSTITUTIONS. THEY CAN ACCEPT SAVINGS, DAILY RECURRING AS WELL AS FIXED DEPOSITS FROM THE PUBLIC. THEY CAN HAVE SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF MEMBERS. THE LOANS CAN BE GIVEN TO MEMBERS, I.E. THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE PERSON AS ITS MEMBER BE FORE DISBURSEMENT OF LOAN. THE SOCIETIES NORMALLY OPEN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF ITS DEPOSITORS AND ON MATURITY OF FIXED DEPOSIT CREDIT TO THE DEPOSITORS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE DEPOSITORS WITHDRAWS THE MONEY FROM HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT. AS TH EY ARE OPERATING LIKE BANKS, THEIR TRANSACTIONS ALSO COME UNDER THE BANKING PURV IEW. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BANKS AND CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IS THE BANKS ARE HAVING ADDITIONAL LICENSE FROM RESERVE BANK WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED IN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY. HENCE THE PAYMENT MADE TO DEPOSITORS OF MORE THAN R S.20,000/- IN CASH IS NOT A PAYMENT BUT IT IS THEIR WITHDRAWAL FROM SAVINGS ACC OUNT WHICH IS PERMITTED. ACCORDINGLY, AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM OUR C LIENTS, THEY HAVE NOT REPAID DEPOSIT IN CASH EXCEEDING DURING 01.04.2005 TO 31.3 .2006. THEY HAVE GIVEN A STATEMENT THAT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH ABOVE RS.20,000 DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.2005 TO 31.03.2006 BY TRANS FERRING TO THE MEMBERS SAVING ACCOUNT. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER A BA NKING COMPANY NOR A COOPERATIVE BANK AS PER THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO THE SAID TERMS IN THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 AND IT WAS, THEREFORE, NOT COV ERED WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS GIVEN IN PROVISO TO SECTION 269T. HE, THEREFORE, HE LD THAT THE REPAYMENT OF 3 ITA NO. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. DEPOSITS IN CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- TO VARIOUS DEPOSITORS TOTALING TO RS.23,29,081/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONTRAVE NTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T AND PENALTY EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF DEP OSITS SO REPAID IN CASH WAS IMPOSED BY HIM U/S 271E. 3. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271E WAS CHALL ENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). DURIN G THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), A REGISTRATION CER TIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, MUMBAI WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT IT WAS CLASSIFIED AS A COOPERATIVE BANK AS PER SECTION 12( 1) OF THE MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. RELYING ON THE SAID CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE AS PER THE PROVISO TO THE SAID SECTION. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE , HOWEVER, WAS NOT A COOPERATIVE BANK AS PER THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IN PART V OF TH E BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949 AND IT WAS ONLY A COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY. HE, THEREFOR E, HELD THAT IT WAS NOT COVERED BY THE EXCEPTIONS GIVEN IN SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 269T AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T WERE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE. HE HELD THAT S INCE THERE WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE IN MAKING REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CASH IN THE SUMS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/-, PENALTY U/S 271E WAS CLEARLY ATTRACTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271E WAS CONFIRMED BY HIM. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSES SEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTS ET INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 269T WHICH PROVIDES THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 269T SHALL APPLY TO REPAYMENT OF ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED INTER ALIA FROM A COOPERATIVE BANK. HE THEN INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO A COPY OF RE GISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, MUMBAI ON 31 ST MARCH, 1969 PLACED AT PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATED VE RSION THEREOF PLACED AT PAGE NO. 6 TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS CLASSIFIED AS A COOPERATIVE BANK AS PER SECTION 4 ITA NO. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. 12(1) OF THE MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1 960. HE CONTENDED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS COVERED BY THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 269T AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SAID SECTION WERE NOT APPLICABL E IN ITS CASE. HE THEN INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAILS OF REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS M ADE IN CASH IN THE SUMS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- PLACED AT PAGE NO. 3 AND 4 OF HIS PAPER BOOK TO POINT OUT THAT THE AMOUNTS REPAID WERE INITIALLY DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITORS MAINTAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND THE DEPOSITORS THEREA FTER HAD WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNTS SO DEPOSITED FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. HE CONTENDED TH AT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS COVERED EVEN IN THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 269T WHICH STIPULATES THAT THE REPAYMENT BY A BRANCH OF COOPER ATIVE BANK CAN ALSO BE MADE BY CREDITING THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT TO THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITORS. HE CONTENDED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THESE EXCEPTIONS PRO VIDED IN THE STATUTE COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT ALL THE REPAYMENTS IN QUESTION WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF GENUINE DEPOSITS TAKEN FROM ITS OWN MEMBERS, THE ASSESSEE E NTERTAINED A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE. HE CONTENDED THAT THIS BONAFIDE BELIEF CONSTITUTED REASONABLE CAUSE FOR TH E CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND PENALTY U/S 27 1E, THEREFORE, IS NOT ATTRACTED. 5. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY RELI ED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE THAT THERE B EING REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS IN CASH IN THE SUMS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE IN C LEAR CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T, PENALTY U/S 271E IS ATTRACTED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALS O PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IM POSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 271E F OR THE REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T WHICH READS AS UNDER : 5 ITA NO. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. 269T: NO BRANCH OF A BANKING COMPANY OR A CO-OPERA TIVE BANK AND NO OTHER COMPANY OR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND NO FIRM OR OTHE R PERSON SHALL REPAY ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT MADE WITH IT OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT DRAWN IN THE NAME OF THE PERSON WH O HAS MADE THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT IF (A) THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN OR DEPOSIT TOGETHER WITH THE INTEREST, IF ANY, PAYABLE THEREON, OR (B) THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE LOANS OR DEPOSITS HELD BY SUCH PERSON WITH THE BRANCH OF THE BANKING COMPANY OR CO-OPERATIVE B ANK OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE OTHER COMPANY OR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY O R THE FIRM, OR OTHER PERSON EITHER IN HIS OWN NAME OR JOINTLY WITH ANY O THER PERSON ON THE DATE OF SUCH REPAYMENT TOGETHER WITH THE INTEREST, IF ANY, PAYABLE ON SUCH LOANS OR DEPOSITS. IS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES OR MORE : PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE REPAYMENT IS BY A BRANCH OF A BANKI NG COMPANY OR CO- OPERATIVE BANK, SUCH REPAYMENT MAY ALSO BE MADE BY CREDITING THE AMOUNT OF SUCH LOAN OR DEPOSIT TO THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OR THE CURRENT ACCOUNT (IF ANY) WITH SUCH BRANCH OF THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH LOAN OR DEPO SIT HAS TO BE REPAID: [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO REPAYMENT OF ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED FROM- (I) GOVERNMENT; (II) ANY BANKING COMPANY, POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK OR CO -OPERATIVE BANK; (III) ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT; (IV) ANY GOVERNMENT COMPANY AS DEFINED IN SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 1956); 6 ITA NO. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. (V) SUCH OTHER INSTITUTION, ASSOCIATION OR BODY OR CLAS S OF INSTITUTIONS, ASSOCIATIONS OR BODIES WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, FOR REASONS TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, NOTIFY IN THIS B EHALF IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE.] 7. AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ADI VS. KUMARI A.B. SHANTI(SUPRA), THE UNDUE HARDSHIP OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D/271E IS SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY THE INCLUSION OF SECTION 273B PROVIDIN G THAT IF THERE IS A GENUINE AND BONA- FIDE TRANSACTION AND THE TAX PAYER COULD NOT GET LO AN OR DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DD FOR SOME BONA-FIDE REASON, THE AUTHORITY VEST ED WITH THE POWER TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY HAS A DISCRETION NOT TO LEVY THE PENALTY. T HE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KUMARI A.B. SHANTI (SUPRA) THUS MAKE S IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T AND 271E ARE TO BE READ WITH THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 273B AND AN AUTHORITY VESTED WITH THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY H AS TO USE ITS DISCRETION TO IMPOSE OR NOT TO IMPOSE THE SAME AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE REASONABLE CAUSE PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQ UIREMENTS OF SECTION 269T COUPLED WITH THE GENUINENESS AND BONA-FIDE OF THE TRANSACTIONS I N ORDER TO AVOID ANY UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 271E. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT REASONABLENESS OF CAUSE WILL DEPEND UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THE BONA-FID E BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY IT THAT THE DEPOSITS REPAID BY IT WERE NOT COVERED BY THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 269T AS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMEN TS OF THE SAID PROVISION. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WERE SUCH THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERTAINED SUCH BONA-FIDE ON VARIOUS COUNTS. 8. FIRST OF ALL, THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS CLASSIFI ED AS COOPERATIVE BANK U/S 12(1) OF THE MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1960 AS PE R THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, MU MBAI AND THE SAID CLASSIFICATION, IN OUR OPINION, WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ENT ERTAIN A BELIEF THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE AS PER THE SECOND PROVISO AND IN ANY CASE, THE 7 ITA NO. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. REPAYMENT OF DEPOSITS HAVING BEEN MADE BY IT BY CRE DITING THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS TO THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CONCERNED DEPOSITORS, TH ERE WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T AS PER THE FIRST PROVISO . ALTHOUGH THIS BELIEF ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TURNED OUT TO BE A MISTAKEN BELIEF GOING B Y THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO COOPERATIVE BANK IN PART V OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1940 AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 269T, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS SUFF ICIENT BASIS TO SHOW THAT THE SAID BELIEF WAS A BONAFIDE BELIEF. SECONDLY, ALL THE DEPOSITS IN QUESTION IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TO ITS OWN MEMBERS A ND CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS A COMPLETE MUTUALITY BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND ITS MEMB ERS, THE SOCIETY WAS OF THE BELIEF THAT THE SAID DEPOSITORS WHICH WERE ITS OWN MEMBERS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ANY OTHER PERSON WHICH CONNOTES A DIFFERENT OR A DISTI NCT PERSON TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T. A USEFUL REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DILLU CINE ENTERPRISE S (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT 80 ITD 484 WHEREIN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTE XT OF SECTION 269SS THAT THE WORDS ANY OTHER PERSON DID NOT DENOTE THE DIRECTOR OF T HE COMPANY WAS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTIO N EXPLAINED IN BOARDS CIRCULAR NO. 387, DT. 06.09.94 AND RELYING ON THE SAME, THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED FURTHER TO OBSERVE THAT THE TERM ANY OTHER PERSON IN THE CONTEXT OF INTRODUCT ION OF SECTION 269SS MEANS PERSONS WHO ARE NOT VERY INTIMATELY OR VERY CLOSELY CONNECT ED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO US, THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY THAT ITS MEMBERS BEING NOT ANY SEPARATE/DIS TINCT PERSONS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 269T, THE DEPOSITS REPAID TO THEM WERE NOT COVERED BY THE SAID PROVISIONS WAS A POSSIBLE OR CONCEIVABLE VIEW AND THE BELIEF ENTERTA INED BY IT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VIEW WAS A BONA-FIDE BELIEF. AS SUCH, CONSIDERING ALL TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAD ENTERTA INED BONA-FIDE BELIEF THAT THE DEPOSITS REPAID BY IT TO ITS MEMBERS WERE NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T AND THIS BONA-FIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE DEP OSITS WERE GENUINE AND WERE ALSO ACCEPTED AND REPAID IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINE SS CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC TION 269T. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, 8 ITA NO. 1799/MUM/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271E AND REVERSING HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO CANCEL THE SAID PENALTY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF MAY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (P.M. J AGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: MAY, 2011. WAKODE COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, E-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MU MBAI.