CONALD J. BAPTIST, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

ITA 201/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3519 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHUBHASH SHETTY
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income
• Section: 142(1); 145; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJ ESH KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 201 /MUM/2 0 14 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2010 - 11 ) CONALD J BAPTIST, UXMAL MARINE SERVICES, 301/304, VYAPAR BHAVAN, P D MELLOW ROAD, CARNAC BUNDER, MUMBAI - 400009 / VS. DY. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 6(2) 5 TH FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 . ./ PAN : AACPB5581B ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHUBHASH SHETTY / RESPONDENT BY : DR.S PANDIAN / DATE OF HEARING : 23.3 . 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25. 5. 2016 / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR , A CCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2013 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) - 12 MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.54 , 32 , 279/ - BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF FOR M NO. 26AS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ITA NO. 2 01 / MUM/ 2014 2 SHOWED THE GROSS HIRE CHARGES FROM PUNJ LLOYD LTD OF RS.6,10,41,854/ - WHEREAS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE THE AMOUNT WAS RS.5,56,09,575/ - . 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.55,85,540 - /. INITIALLY THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SEC TION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (THE ACT) AND THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS S ELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL , WHILE HAVING SALARY INCOME FROM FALCON CARGO SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD AND FALCON OFFSHORE SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.42,00,000/ - , WAS ALSO PROPRIETOR OF M/S UXMAL MERRINE SERVICES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CHARTERING OF SHIPS AND BARGES AND WAS RECEIV ING HIRE CHARGES . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED FROM THE FORM NO 26 AS THAT THE GROSS HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S PUNJ LLOYD LTD WAS RS.6,10,41,854/ - , WHEREAS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE HIRE CHARGES FROM M/S PUNJ LLOYD LTD WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,56,09,575/ - ONLY AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESS RECEIPT BY RS.54,32,279/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE AO CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CONCEALED INCOME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER D ATED 17.1.2013 ITA NO. 2 01 / MUM/ 2014 3 CONTENDED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.54,32,279/ - WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR AS BILL S RAISING HIRE CHARGES UPON M/S PUNJ LLOYD LTD WERE ISSUED IN THE NEXT YEAR , WHEREAS THE PARTY M/S PUNJ LLOYD LTD TO WHOM TH E SERVICES WERE RENDERED ACCOUNTED FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF HIRE CHARGES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 AND DEDUCTED TDS THEREON ACCORDINGLY. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INCORPORATED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. THE AO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSEE ADDED THE RS.54,32,279/ - BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HIRE CHARGES AS PER FORM 26A S AND AS PER BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME WHICH ACCRUED DURING THE PARTICULAR YEAR SHOULD HA VE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR ACCORDINGLY R EGARDLESS OF THE FACT, WHETHER THE BILLS RAISED OR NOT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY CONSIDERING AND REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AS HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 3. 1 TO 4 ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ORAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE BASED ON MERCANTIL E SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. SIMILARLY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF PUNJ LLOYD LTD. WOULD BE BASED ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING BEING A CORPORATE ENTITY. THUS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IN THE CASE OF PUNJ LLOYD LTD. AND THE INSTANT ASSESSEE WOULD BE THE ITA NO. 2 01 / MUM/ 2014 4 SAME . IF THE M ETHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS THE SAME, THERE SHOULD BE CONSISTENCY IN RESPECT OF CORRESPONDING ENTRIES WHICH MAY BE EXPENDITURE IN THE CASE OF PUNJ LLOYD LTD. AND WOULD BE INCOME IN THE CASE OF INSTANT ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TD S ON IMPUGNED RECEIPTS WHICH IS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE INSTANT YEAR. WITH A VIEW TO APPRECIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE SAID RECEIPTS PERTAINS TO INSTANT YEAR OR SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE SALE INVOICES WERE EXAMINED DURING THE COURSE OF AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ON PERUSAL OF SAID INVOICES, IT IMMENSELY TRA NSPIR ES - T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RENDERED SERVICES DURING THE INSTANT YEAR ONLY. AS AN EXAMPLE INVOICE DT. 18.3.201O REPRESENTING AMOUNT OF RS.20,68,125 / - CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PERIOD OF HIRE IS F ROM 11.3.2010 TO 25.3.2010 . THUS IN THIS INSTANCE, DATE OF INVOICE AS WELL AS PERIOD OF HIRE B OTH FALLS IN THE INSTANT YEAR . ANOTHER INVOICE DATED 1.4.2010 REPRESENTING AMOUNT OF RS.5,51,500/ - SHOWS THE PERIOD OF HIRE FROM 26.3.2010 TO 30.3.2010 . THUS THE SERVICES RENDERED BY WAY OF PROVIDING VESSELS FALLS IN THE INSTANT YEAR ITSELF. THIRD INVOICE DATED 31.5.2010 CLEARLY SHOWS THE PERIOD OF HIRE FROM 18.9.2009 TO 27.9.2009 AND REPRESENTS AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,33,900/ - . THUS PERIOD OF HIRING OF VESSEL BY P UNJ LLOYD LTD. AND PROVIDING CONSEQUENT SERVICES FALLS IN FIRST HALF YEAR OF INSTANT A.Y. ALTHOUGH INVOICE IS DT.31.5.201O. IT IS VERY MUCH SURPRISING THAT INSPITE OF HIRING PERIOD FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2009, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVOICE DT.31.5.201O . SIMILARLY LAST INVOICE DT.2.4.201O REPRESENTS PERIOD OF HIRE FROM 26.3 . 2010 TO 9.4.2010 AND IS REPRESENTED BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,68,125/ - . THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT INSPITE OF PROVIDING SERVICES IN THE INSTANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD PREPARED INVOICE AS PER ITS CONVENIENCE AND NOT ACCORDANCE WITH PRINC IPLES OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . ON PERUSAL OF COPY OF TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PUN J LLOYD LTD. IS ENCLOSED WITH FORM. NO.35 SHOWS THAT PUNJ LLOYD LTD. H AD MADE PAYMENTS FROM 31.12.2009 TO 28.2.2010 WHICH INVARIABLY FALLS WITHIN THE INSTANT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HA D TAK EN ANOTHER PLEA THAT CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED IN SUBSEQUENT YE AR AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN S UBSEQUENT YEA R. THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AS WELL FA CTS FOR THE REASON THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED VESSELS TO PUNJ LLOYD LTD. IN THE INSTANT YEAR, HOW IT IS POSSIBLE FOR ASSESSEE TO HIRE VESSELS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO PROVIDE SERVICES (I. E. VESSELS) TO PUNJ LLOYD LTD. THE CLAIM IS CONTRADICTORY PERSE. THIS FACT NEITHER MATCHES WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING I.E. TO SAY MATCHING OF EXPENSES WITH REVENUE NOR LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (I.E HIRING VESSELS) INCURRING OF EXPENSES ITA NO. 2 01 / MUM/ 2014 5 SUBSEQUENT TO THE E VENT OF PROVIDING SERVICES OF VESSELS TO PUNJ LLOYD LTD. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TDS FOR IMPUGNED AMOUNT IN THE INSTANT YEAR ITSELF. HAD THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS GENUINE AS TO ACCOUNTING OF THE SAID RECEIPTS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IT SHOULD HAVE CL AIMED CORRESPONDING TDS CREDIT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS PER RULE 37BA. BE THAT AS IT MAY, FACT OF RENDERING SERVICES IN THE EXTANT YEAR ITSELF ESTABLISHES THAT SAID RECEIPTS ARE TAXABLE IN THE INSTANT YEAR AND MORE SO THE SAID FACT IS REVEALED FROM THE S ALE INVOICES AND ALSO TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PUNJ LLOYD LTD. IN THIS REGARD DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF SMT. J.RAMA V. CIT (KAR.)[201O] 194 TAXMAN 37(KAR.) SUPPORTS THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE A.O. F OR EASE OF REFERENCE, RELEV ANT CAPTION NOTE OF SAID DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREWITH A S UNDER : - 'SECTION 28{ I }, READ WITH SECTION 14 5 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 - BUSINESS INCOME - CHARGEABLE AS - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 - ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM HIRING OF VEHICLES - DU RING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT AMOUNT OF TDS CERTIFICATES ENCLOSED WITH RETURN WAS MORE THAN RECEIPTS DISCLOSED IN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT - ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT A PORTION OF SAID TDS DEDUCTIONS WAS CLAIMED IN SUBSEQU ENT YEAR AND EXCESS AMOUNT WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY HER IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND EXCESS AMOUNT WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY HER IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR - ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, SAID EXCESS AMOUNT WAS TO BE AS SESSED IN RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR - WHETHER ADDITION MADE BY - . ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED - HELD, YES. 4. IN VIEW OF LEGAL POSITION AND FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE, ACTION OF THE A.O. IS CORRECT AND THEREFORE REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE. IN OTH ER WORDS, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS UPHELD IN TOTO 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING S ERVICES OF CHARTER IN G OF VESSELS AND BAR DGES UNDER HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN TO M/S PUNJ LLOYD LTD AND WAS CHARGING ITA NO. 2 01 / MUM/ 2014 6 HIRE CHARGES IN L IEU OF THESE SERVICES FOR WHICH THE BILLS WE R E U SED TO BE RAISED REGULARLY . DURING THE YEAR, T HE ASSESSEE ACCOUNTED FOR HIRE CHARGES FROM M/S PUNJ LLOYD OF RS. RS.5,56,09,575/ - W HEREAS THE SAID COMPANY BOOKED HIRE CHARGES AT RS.6,10,41,854/ - AND DEDUCTED TDS ACCORDINGLY AND HENCE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.54,32,279/ - . THE LD., AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL AS THE S O CALLED DIFFERENCE OF RS. 54,32,279/ - WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS BILLS WERE RAISED FOR THE SUPPLYING SERVICE S IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AFTER COMPLETION OF SHIPMENT OF THE GOODS WHICH EXTENDED TO THE NEXT YEAR I.E THE SERVICE OF THE HIRING THE SHIPS SPANNED AND OVERLAPPED TILL THE BEGINNING THE NEXT YEAR AND ALSO CORRESPONDING BILLS OF EXPENDITURE WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT YEAR. THE LD. AR ALSO ARGUED THAT HAD THE BILLS OF HIRE CHARGES ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE CURRENT YEAR , CREDIT OF SERVICE TAX ON THE SAID HIRE CHARGES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT IF BOTH THE YEARS WERE TAKEN TOGETHER I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 2012, THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS RENDERED FUTIL E AND WASTE OF TIME AS IT BECA ME TAX NEUTRAL FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE INCOME TAX IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH WAS NOT IN DISPUTE AND VIRTUALLY AND FACTUALLY THERE WAS HARDLY ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE GROSS RECEIPT OF HIRE CHARGES AS MENTIONED IN THE FORM NO.26A AND ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO , BY G OING INTO THE TECHNICALITIES OF THE ITA NO. 2 01 / MUM/ 2014 7 ISSUE WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG T HE FACT THAT THE WHOLE EXERCISE HAS BECOME TAX NEUTRAL, WRONGLY ADDED THE SAME IN THE CURRENT YEAR RESULTING INTO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME . FINALLY, THE LD.AR PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A ) DESERVED TO BE DELETED OTHERWISE IT W OULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF TAXING THE SAME RECEIPT TWICE W HICH IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX LAW. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FOLLOW ED THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN TRUE AND CORRECT SPIRIT AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION MAD E BY T HE LD.AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BE UP HELD A S THESE AUTHORITIES HAVE JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION AS PER SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND AS PER LAW. 7 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US INCLUDING THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE FORM 26AS , THE GROSS HIRE CHARGES ON WHICH THE TDS WERE DEDUC T ED BY THE RECIPIENT OF SERVICE I.E. M/S PUNJ LLOYD LTD AMOUNT ED TO RS.6,10,41,854/ - W HEREAS UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE ACCOUNTED ONLY RS.5 ,56,09,575 / - THEREBY RESULTING INTO SHORT ACCOUNT ING OF THE SAID INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.54,32,279 / - . THE SAID DIFFERENCE WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASONS THAT THE BILLS FOR HIRE CHARGES WERE RAISED IN THE NEXT YEAR 2010 - 11 RELEVANT TO THE AY 20011 - 12 WHEREAS M /S PUNJ LLOYD LTD ACCOUNTED THE ITA NO. 2 01 / MUM/ 2014 8 EXPENDITURE IN THE CURRENT YEAR I.E F.Y. 2009 - 10 RELEVANT TO AY 2010 - 11 AND A LSO DEDUCTED TDS THEREON . WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR AND ALSO NOTE TH AT THE WHOLE EXERCISE BY THE AO I S NEUTRAL TAX UNIT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.54,32,279/ - IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR AND ALSO BOOKED THE CORRESP ONDING EXPENDITURE IN THAT YEAR AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ACCORDINGLY AND WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE AO. WE ALSO FIND MERITS IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR THAT THE CREDIT OF SERVICE TAX ON THE HIRE CHARGES WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAD HE BOOKED THE SAID HIRE CHARGES UNDER THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. LOOKING T O THE TOTALITY OF FACTS OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF HE OPINION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED THE FULL AMOUNT OF HIRE CHARGES AS PER FORM NO.26AS INTO TWO YEARS AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION THOUGH THE CLAIM OF TDS ON THE ENTIRE HIRE CHARGES WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. IN ANY CASE, IF THE HIRE CHARGES AS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.26AS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE CURRENT YEAR THEN THE CORRESPONDING INCOME AS SHOWN IN THE NEXT YEAR WITH THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE ARE TO BE DE LETED FROM THE NEXT YEAR WHICH SEEMS TO BE MEANINGLESS AND UN - PRO DUCTIVE AT THIS STAGE. EVEN WORTH NOTING IS FACT THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SINCE THE FULL AMOUNT OF HIRE CHARGES STOOD OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO YEARS , ADDITION OF RS.54,32,279/ - CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AS IT WILL RESULT IN DOUBLE ITA NO. 2 01 / MUM/ 2014 9 TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO D ELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,32,279/ - . 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH MAY, 2016. 25TH MAY , 2016 S D SD ( / SANJAY GARG) ( / RAJESH KUMAR ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 25/ 5/ 2016 . . ./ SRL , S R. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MU MBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, T RUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI