FEMSTEX TRADING CO. LTD, MUMBAI V. I.TO. -8(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1834/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88216 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KU MAR BEERLA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL K HAKANI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income
• Section: 14A; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 1834/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) FEMSTEX TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. 228, SANJAY BLDG. NO. 5B, MITTAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, M.V. ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 059 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-8(1)(4) 2 ND FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 ./! ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACF 0582 D ( ' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$ ' / RESPONDENT ) ' % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAHUL K. HAKANI #$ ' % & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA ' ()* % +, / DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2014 -./ % +, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2015 0 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-16, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 11.01.2011, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2009. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED PER GROUND # 1 OF THE APPEAL IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF LOSS ON THE SALE OF INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS AT R S.11.59 LACS, CLAIMED AS BUSINESS LOSS. 2 ITA NO. 1834/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) FEMSTEX TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED TO HAVE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.11,59,047/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON MUTUAL FUND THROUGH ITS PROFIT AND LOSS FOR THE YEAR, UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (SCHEDULE XII TO ANNUAL ACCOUNTS/PB PGS. 1-24, AT P G.19). THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, A MERCHANT EXPORTER, SINCE 1990, EXPLAINED THAT ITS B USINESS OF EXPORTS, WHICH WAS PRINCIPALLY TO WESTERN AFRICAN COUNTRIES, HAD SUFFE RED AND STOOD CONSIDERABLY REDUCED DUE TO DEPRESSED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND RECESSION IN THE WORLD MARKET. THE IDLE FUNDS OF ITS BUSINESS HAD BEEN THEREFORE DEPLOYED FOR INV ESTMENT PURPOSES, IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS, VIZ. SHARES, FDRS, ETC. HOWEVER, AS THE MUTUAL FUND/S DID NOT PERFORM AS ANTICIPATED, THEY WERE LIQUIDATED, YIELDING THE IMPUGNED LOSS. THE SAME, THEREFORE, BEARS THE CHARACTER OF A BUSINESS LOSS, AND FOR WHI CH REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO PARA 22 OF PART IIIA OF ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION (MOA), D EFINING ITS OBJECTS, AND WHICH PERMIT INVESTMENT OF THE COMPANYS FUNDS, NOT IMMED IATELY REQUIRED, FOR INVESTMENT IN OR OTHERWISE DEALING IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, SHARES, ST OCKS, BONDS, DEBENTURES, ETC. IN FACT, GAIN ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS (RS.1.08 LACS) HAD BEE N ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AS BUSINESS INCOME. FURTHER, GAIN OF RS.7,8 4,064/- FOR A.Y. 2008-09 HAD BEEN SIMILARLY ACCEPTED AS PART OF BUSINESS INCOME. THIS SUMS UP THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE SAME DID NOT FIND ACCEPTANCE WITH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER (A.O.), IN WHOSE VIEW, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A WOULD APPLY IN-AS-MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED ITS IDLE FUNDS FOR THE TIME BEING TO EARN INCOME; IN FACT, E ARNING DIVIDEND INCOME FOR THE YEAR AT RS.25,74,134/-, WHICH HAD BEEN CLAIMED AND ALLOWED AS TAX-EXEMPT. IN VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A), I.E., IN APPEAL, THE FACT OF CESSATION OF T HE ASSESSEES BUSINESS, AND THE CONCOMITANT INVESTMENT OF ITS SURPLUS FUNDS, WAS CO NSIDERED AS DECISIVE OF THE MATTER. THE INCOME ON THE SALE OF INVESTMENT/S COULD NOT TH EREFORE BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME, BUT WOULD ONLY STAND TO BE ASSESSED UNDER T HE HEAD OF INCOME CAPITAL GAINS, BEING A SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR ASSESSING SUCH INCOM E, WHICH WOULD, THEREFORE, PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER, GENERAL PROVISIONS, VIZ. SECTION 56 , RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GOVINDA CHOUDHARY & SONS [1993] 203 ITR 881 (SC). THE DECISION OF THE A.O., ALBEIT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, WAS ACCORDINGLY UPHEL D. 3 ITA NO. 1834/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) FEMSTEX TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 3. BEFORE US, THE CASES OF BOTH THE PARTIES WERE AL ONG WITH SOME LINES. FURTHER, ON A QUERY BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING, IT HAS BEEN, VID E LETTER DATED 12.12.2014, CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THAT THE TENURE OF THE FD RS WAS FOR ONE YEAR; ONE MONTH; AND ANOTHER FOR 46 DAYS, SO THAT THESE WERE FOR SHORT P ERIODS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD, GIVING OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER. WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE CONTROVERSY ARISING , OR RATHER THE REASON/S THERE- FOR, IN THE INSTANT CASE, I.E., GIVEN THAT THE PRIM ARY FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED AS WELL AS THE CLEAR POSITION OF LAW. WE FIND NO CESSATION OF BUSINESS, AS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A), EVEN AS WE OBSERVE SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE BUSINESS OPERA TIONS, THE TURNOVER/ OTHER INCOME FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, REFERRED TO DURING HEARING B EING AS UNDER: (AMT. IN RS. LACS) YEAR ENDING TURNOVER/OTHER INCOME PURCHASE REFER 31.03.2006 444.81 362.21 PB PG. 2,18 31.03.2007 722.60 599.11 PB PGS.2,18, 93 31.03.2008 38.98 NIL PB PGS. 18,77, 93 THE ASSESSEE CARRYING ZERO INVENTORY (OF STOCK-IN-T RADE) FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS AFORE-STATED, THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASES HAVE ALSO BEEN TABULATED TO HIGHLIGHT THE VALIDITY OF THE TURNOVER FIGURES; THE OTHER INCOME BEING ONLY MARGINAL. FURTHER, THE VALUE OF ITS GROSS BLOCK OF FIXED ASSETS AS WELL AS THAT OF THE OTHER DOMINANT CONSTITUENTS OF ITS NET WORKING CAPITAL, ARE AS UNDER (REFER: PB PGS. 1 2, 16, 87 & 91): (AMT. IN RS. LACS) YEAR ENDING FIXED ASSET (GROSS BLOCK) DEBTORS SECURED LOAN 31.03.2006 131.92 262.59 126.00 31.03.2007 33.43 19.02 NIL 31.03.2008 22.40 NIL NIL THE ONLY UNMISTAKABLE CONCLUSION FROM THE FOREGOING FIGURES, WHICH ARE SELF SPEAKING, IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN LIQUID ATION OF AND EXITING ITS REGULAR BUSINESS OF A MERCHANT EXPORTER. THERE IS, THUS, FIRSTLY, NO , CESSATION OF ITS BUSINESS DURING THE 4 ITA NO. 1834/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) FEMSTEX TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO RELEVANT YEAR. THE SAME IS, IN OUR VIEW, THOUGH INC ONSEQUENTIAL, IN-AS-MUCH AS THERE IS NO DISPUTE QUA THE ALLOWANCE OF ANY OF THE EXPENSES, INCLUDING ON ADMINISTRATION, CLAIMED AT RS.45.89 LACS (I.E., EXCLUDING THE IMPUGNED LOSS OF RS.11.59 LACS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR), AND IN FACT ALSO FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS. THUS, FROM ALL AVAILABLE ACCOUNTS, THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN LIQUI DATING ITS ASSETS, SUPPLYING, AS IT APPEARS, ONLY OUTSTANDING ORDERS, OR PERHAPS PURCHA SING ONLY GOODS THAT IT PERCEIVES IT CAN READILY SUPPLY. THERE IS NO INDICATION AS TO TH E FUTURE COURSE OF THE ACTION TO BE PURSUED BY THE COMPANY EVEN IN THE DIRECTORS REPOR T FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2007 (PB PG. 2-3) OR 31.03.2008 (PB PGS. 52-53), ON RECO RD. TWO, THE LIQUIDITY THUS REALIZED IS BEING INVESTED IN VARIOUS INVESTMENT AVENUES, INCLU DING MUTUAL FUNDS, SO AS TO PROFITABLY USE THESE FUNDS, IDLE FOR THE TIME BEING. THE INCOM E ARISING BY WAY OF INTEREST OR DIVIDEND WOULD, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ONLY STAND TO BE AS SESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, EVEN AS DIVIDEND IS BY LAW (S.56(2)(I)) A SSESSABLE UNDER THE SAID HEAD OF INCOME. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEES AVOWED AND STATED POSITION IS OF THE SAME REPRESENTING INVESTMENT OF FUNDS, IDLE FOR THE TIME BEING, WHICH A READING OF ITS ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ONLY CONFIRMS. THE AUDITORS, VIDE PARA 14 OF THEIR REPORT U/S.227( 4A) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 FOR THE CURRENT AND THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING YEAR, HAVE CL EARLY STATED OF THE COMPANY BEING NOT A DEALER OR TRADER IN SHARES, SECURITIES, DEBENTURE S AND OTHER INVESTMENTS (PB PGS. 10-11; 80,86). WE ARE, THEREFORE, UNABLE TO FATHOM AS TO H OW THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS OR OTHER SECURITIES COULD BE REGARDED AS THE ASSESSEE S TRADING ASSETS. REFERENCE TO PARA 22 OF PART IIIA OF ITS OBJECT CLAUSE IS AGAIN MISPLACED. THE SAME ONLY AUTHORIZES THE COMPANY TO INVEST ITS FUNDS, SURPLUS FOR THE TIME BEING, IN CERTAIN SECURITIES, IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE SAME IS ADMITTEDLY NOT AN OBJECT BEING PURSUED BY THE COMPANY, BUT ONLY AN ENABLING PROVISION. THE GAIN OR LOSS ARISING ON THE SALE OF SUCH INVESTMENTS WOULD THUS BE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS CAPITAL GAINS; THE INVESTMENTS, IN CLUDING IN MUTUAL FUNDS, BEING ONLY CAPITAL ASSETS, WITHIN THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO THE TERM UNDER THE DEFINING CLAUSE (S.2(14)). THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THE LOSS ON THEI R TRANSFER AS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS IS, AGAIN, INCORRECT. LOSS, AS EXPLAINED TIME AND A GAIN BY THE APEX COURT, IS ONLY NEGATIVE INCOME, SO THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY QUA THE QUANTITATIVE, AND NOT THE QUALITATIVE ASPECT 5 ITA NO. 1834/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) FEMSTEX TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (REFER: CIT VS. HARPRASAD & CO. (P.) LTD. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC)). THE INTENT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS ONLY TO PARK THE SURPLUS FUNDS FOR THE TIME BEING PROFITABLY. WE ARE THEREFORE UNABLE TO SEE AS TO HOW THE INCOME ACCRUI NG COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS BUSINESS INCOME OR THAT ON TRANSFER OF AN ASSET, WHERE FOUND AS NOT QUALIFYING AS A TRADING ASSET, MUCH LESS AS STOCK-IN-TRADE OF ITS BUSINESS, AS OTH ER THAN UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS, AND WHICH WOULD OBTAIN IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE GAIN ARISING IS POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, I.E., A LOSS. THE LOSS ON THE SALE OF INVESTMENT (IN MUTUAL FUNDS ) FOR A.Y. 2006-07, AT RS.48,43,750/-, STANDS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTING ITS BUSINESS INCOME U/S.28 FOR THAT YEAR (PB PGS. 13, 50). RATHE R, IT BEING SO DONE, AND WHICH STANDS ADMITTEDLY ACCEPTED IN ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3), THE N ON-ADJUSTMENT, LIKEWISE, OF THE GAIN ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENT (WHICH, THOUGH, A T RS.1.08 LACS IS ONLY MARGINAL) BY THE ASSESSEE, WOULD THEREFORE BE OF NO MOMENT; RATH ER, POINTS TO AN INHERENT CONTRADICTION IN ITS STAND. THERE HAS BEEN NO ASSESSMENT U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2008-09. IN FACT, EVEN FOR THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED A LOSS OF RS.157.35 LACS ON THE SALE OF INVESTMENTS. NO ASSERTION OR CONTENTION OF THE SAME BEING CLAIMED AS BUSINESS LOSS, EVEN PER THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THAT YEAR, STANDS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE PR EVIOUS AND SUCCEEDING YEARS IS, THUS, APART FROM THE CLEAR POSITION OF LAW THAT THE PRINC IPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, MISPLACED IN THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THERE IS, IN ANY CASE, NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW, SO THAT THE ISSUE/S ARISING IS TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH, UPON APPRECIATION OF THE F ACTS OF THE CASE. IN FACT, OUR DECISION, BEING BASED ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD. [1965] 57 ITR 306 (SC), CLARIFYING, AS WELL AS PER ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. VS. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 172 (SC), THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH T HE INCOME IS DERIVED IS INDICATIVE OF THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE INCOME FALLS . WE, ACCORDINGLY, FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF THE IMPUGNED LOSS ON THE SALE O F MUTUAL FUNDS AS A BUSINESS LOSS, AND UPHOLD ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 45 OF THE ACT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY, AND THE ASSESSEE FAILS. 6 ITA NO. 1834/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) FEMSTEX TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 5. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO THE DISA LLOWANCE OF SALARY IN THE SUM OF RS.35,000/-, BEING THE SALARY PAID DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2006, TDS IN RESPECT OF WHICH WAS PAID ON 31.01.2007, I.E., AS AGAINST T HE DUE DATE OF 07.01.2007. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED AS THE SUBSEQUENT AMENDM ENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA), SO THAT NO DISALLOWANCE WOULD ARISE WHERE THE TAX DEDUCTED WAS PAID BY THE DEDUCTOR BY THE DUE DATE OF THE FILING THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR WAS NOT RETROSPECTIVE AND CAME INTO EFFECT ONLY FROM 01.04.2010 AND, THUS, INAPPLICABLE FOR THE CUR RENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE DECISIONS BY THE HIGHER COURTS OF LAW, AS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAJINDER KUMAR [2014] 362 ITR 241 (DEL), HAVE READ DOWN THE SAID AMENDMENT, HOLDING I T AS RETROSPECTIVE ON THE GROUND OF IT BEING ONLY CLARIFICATORY AND TOWARD MITIGATING THE HARDSHIP BEING CAUSED AND, FURTHER, OF THE PAYMENT BY DUE DATE QUA THE DEDUCTIONS EFFECTED FOR THE FIRST ELEVEN MONTH S OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISION. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE STANDS TO BE DELETED. WE DECIDE ACCORD INGLY. 6. THE THIRD AND THE FINAL GROUND CHALLENGES THE AS SESSMENT OF THE INTEREST ON BANK FDRS, EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR AT RS.27. 88 LACS, BESIDES OTHER INTEREST AT RS.0.58 LACS, AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AS AG AINST BUSINESS INCOME. WE HAVE, WHILE DISCUSSING THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 1, RENDE RED OUR DECISION THAT THE INCOME ON THE FUNDS PARKED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT INVES TMENT AVENUES, PENDING THEIR DEPLOYMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS, WOULD S TAND TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT HAVE INFO RMED THE SAID DECISION; THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEING THE SAME, WE CONFIR M THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. REFERENCE FO R THE PURPOSE MAY BE MADE TO PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. LOK HOLDINGS [2009] 308 ITR 356 (BOM), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISH ABLE ON FACTS. IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE DEPOSITS, ON WHICH INTEREST SOUGHT TO BE CLASSI FIED AS TO ITS CHARACTER WAS EARNED, AROSE DURING AND IN THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINES S. THE INVESTMENT IN THE BANK FDRS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARISES ON THE LIQUIDATION OF ITS B USINESS BY THE ASSESSEE, SO MUCH SO THAT THE REVENUE REGARDS IT, THOUGH INCORRECTLY, TO BE A CASE OF CESSATION OF BUSINESS. FURTHER, 7 ITA NO. 1834/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) FEMSTEX TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO THE INVESTMENT IS FOR SHORT TENORS, WITH A VIEW TO EARN INCOME ON THE FUNDS, IDLE FOR THE TIME BEING. RATHER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DISTINGUISHES THE RELIANCE BY THE REVENUE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD . (SUPRA), BINDING ON IT, AND SINCE FOLLOWED BY THE A PEX COURT IN CIT V. COROMANDAL CEMENTS LTD . [1998] 234 ITR 412 (SC), STATING THAT THE INVESTM ENT BY WAY OF LOANS IN THAT CASE WAS NOT A PART OF THE BUSINESS, SO THAT I NTEREST THEREON WAS THEREFORE NOT BUSINESS INCOME. THE SAID DECISION, THUS, IN PRINCIPLE, ONLY FOLLOWS THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT, AND IS IN RATIO, WHICH ONLY IS BINDING, SUPP ORTIVE OF OUR DECISION. RELIANCE THEREON WOULD THUS BE OF NO MOMENT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. 1/+2 (341+ % 0 ) 5 + % + 6 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 19, 2015 SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' 7* MUMBAI; 8( DATED : 19.02.2015 ).(. ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS !' # $%&' (!'% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$ ' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' 9+ ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' 9+ / CIT CONCERNED 5. <)= #+(3 , , 3/ , ' 7* / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ?4 @* / GUARD FILE !' ) / BY ORDER, */)+ , (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' 7* / ITAT, MUMBAI