A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2074 /MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) KUMAR LAKSHMAN CHINTLAPUDI, FLAT NO. 5, IST FLOOR, COSMOS BLDG., KHAR (WEST), ABOVE VRINDAVAN HOTEL, MUMBAI -400052. / V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(1)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI. ./ PAN : ACWPC3651M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI B.N. RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI A. RAMACHANDRAN / DATE OF HEARING : 20-10-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-12-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO. 2074/MUM/2014, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 2014 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 18, M UMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 13 TH DECEMBER, 2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HE REINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). 2 ITA 2074/MUM/2014 2. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBA I (HEREINAFTER CALLED 'THE TRIBUNAL') READ AS UNDER:- '1. THE LD. CIT(AL ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION TO TOTAL INCOME OF A SUM OF RS.11,798/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE BILL WHICH WAS NOT RE ALIZED. 2. THE LD. CIT(AL ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F A SUM OF RS.69,713 / - OUT OF EXPENSES FOR WANT OF JUSTIFICATION. 3. THE LD.CIT (AL ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS. 8000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS RENT PAID. 4. THE LD.CIT (AL ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDING TO TOTAL INCOME A SUM OF RS.50,000/ - WHICH IS SHOWN AS SUNDRY DEPOSITS IN THE BALANCE SHEET.' 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS PROPRIETOR OF M/ S GLOBAL TECH SOLUTION, ENGAGED N THE PROFESSION OF S OFTWARE AND HARDWARE CONSULTANT AND DERIVES TOTAL INCOME FROM PROFESSION AND OTHER SOURCES. 4. THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE ITS DETAILS OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 11,7981 - FROM KAAPI MACHINES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND THE SAME WAS NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF TDS OF -KAAPI MACHINES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED APPEARING IN AIR INFORMATION, THE BILL WAS RAISED BUT NO PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KAAPI MACHINES(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, AND THE BILL WAS CANCELLED LATER ON. BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE AO CANCELLATION LETTER FROM KAAPI MACHINES (INDIA) PRI VATE LIMITED. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN THAT WHY FEES RECEIVED FROM KAAPI MACHINES (INDIA) P. LTD. OF RS. 11,7981- BE NOT ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.12.2011 PASSED U/S 143(3) OR THE ACT. 3 ITA 2074/MUM/2014 ON APPEAL BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE LEAR NED CIT(A), THE ID. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AS NO EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTE D DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO, VIDE APPELL ATE ORDER DATED 30-01-2014 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30-01-2014 P ASSED BY THE ID. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NEITHER ANY SATISFACTORY E XPLANATION NOR ANY EVIDENCE COULD BE OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY SUBMISSI ON WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS DIS PUTE WITH THE PARTY AND THE BILL WAS CANCELLED. THE ID. D.R. ON THE OTHER H AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO P ERUSED THE 'MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS EARNED CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 11,798/ - FROM KAAPI MA CHINES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. WHO DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.11, 798/ - WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN ITS DETAILS. THE SAID RECEIPTS HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE CANCELLED THE BILL D UE TO DISPUTE WITH THE PARTY BUT THE PARTY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE WHICH IS REFLE CTED IN FORM NO 26AS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT T HE DISPUTE WITH THE CLIENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE BILL. SINCE THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HIM WITH RESPECT THERETO, THE ASSESSEE 'S CONTENTIONS ARE REJECTED AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. THIS DISPOSES OF THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH STAND DISMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4 ITA 2074/MUM/2014 5. COMING TO THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE TRIBU NAL, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF ADV ERTISEMENT, BUSINESS PROMOTION, TELEPHONE & MOBILE EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, TOTALING RS. 2,78,851/-. THE A.O. ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS LIKE BILLS, VOUCHERS ETC. FOR VERI FICATION AND ALSO TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SAME WERE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUCH DETAILS/ EXPLANATION. AC CORDINGLY, THE A.O. ADDED RS. 69,713/- BEING 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,78,851/- TO TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF JUSTIFICATION AN D SUPPORTING BILLS, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.12.2011 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. ON FIRST APPEAL BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH TH E LEARNED CIT(A) , THE ID. CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE A.O . ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENDITURE W AS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS AND ALSO T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE COMPLETE DETAILS AND BILLS/VOUCHERS, VIDE A PPELLATE ORDERS DATED 30- 01-2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 30-01-2014 PASSED BY THE ID. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 69,713/ - HAS BEEN MADE @ 25% OF THE TOTAL E XPENSES OF RS. 2,78,851/- TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT, BUSINESS PROMOTION, TELEPHON E & MOBILE EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES WHILE NO DEFI CIENCY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE BILLS/VOUCHERS SUBM ITTED. THE ID. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW. 5 ITA 2074/MUM/2014 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS INCURRED TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2,78,851/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEM ENT, BUSINESS PROMOTION, TELEPHONE & MOBILE EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE AND MISCELL ANEOUS EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PROPER AND SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE/EXPLANATIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO PROVE THAT THE EXPE NSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. AD-HO C ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE @ 25% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE BY THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW ON THE GROUND THAT PERSONAL USAGE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HOWEVER, NO DEF ICIENCY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO ANY BILL/VOUCH ER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT KEEPING IN VIEW SATISFACTORY DETAILS ABOUT EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERSONAL USAGE WITH RESP ECT TO THESE EXPENSES BEING INCURRED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES INSTEAD OF BUS INESS PURPOSES CANNOT BE COMPLETELY RULED OUT. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSI ONS AND REASONING, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE BEST SE RVED IF THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AFORE-STATED EXPENSES IS RESTRICTED TO 10% OF THE T OTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,78,851/- WHICH COMES TO RS. 27,885/-, AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 69,713/-MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THUS, GROUND NO. 2 IS DISPOSED OF BEING PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. WE ORDER A CCORDINGLY. 6. COMING TO THE THIRD GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL, THE A.O. OBSERVE D THAT THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY OF RS. 8000/- RELATING TO THE EXCESS RE NT PAID AS PER ASSESSEE'S P& L A/ C OF GLOBAL TECH SOLUTIONS VIS-A-VIS RENT A GREEMENT, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDED BY THE A.O. TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. ASKED FOR THE EXPLANATION BU T THE ASSESSEE OFFERED NO EXPLANATION AND HENCE THE AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME 6 ITA 2074/MUM/2014 OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.12. 2011 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE ID. CIT(A) FILED BY THE ASSESS EE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AN OLD AGREEMENT OF RENT WHILE THE L ANDLORD HAS NOT ENTERED INTO NEW RENT AGREEMENT AFTER THE RENT WAS INCREASE D AND THE EXCESS RENT OF RS.8,000 / - WAS AS PER NEW RENT AGREED BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH THE LANDLORD ALBEIT THERE IS NO WRITTEN RENT AGREEMENT BUT THE R ENT WAS PAID BY BANKING CHANNEL THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE ID. CIT( A) REJECTED CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY EXPL ANATION AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSES SMENT ORDER OF THE A.O. WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 30-01-2014 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30-01-2014 P ASSED BY THE ID. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 8000/- TOWARDS RENT WHICH IS AN INCREASED RE NT PAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RENT AGREEMENT WAS OLD AN D THE LANDLORD HAD NOT BOTHERED TO MAKE ANY FORMAL AGREEMENT AS PER NEW RE NT AGREED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH LANDLORD, AND THERE IS EXCESS PAYMENT OF RS. 8000/- TOWARDS RENT. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO NEW AGREEMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO WITH THE LANDLO RD FOR REVISED RENT. THE ID. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 8000/- IS NOT A GENUI NE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE SAME. 7 ITA 2074/MUM/2014 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS ENTERED INTO RENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD WHICH IS AN OLD AGREEME NT AND NO REVISED AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE LANDLORD FOR INCREASED RENT, AND THE ASSESSEE IS CONTENDING THAT THE RENT HAS BEEN REVISED UPWARD BUT THERE IS NO WRITTEN RENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE LANDLORD FOR INCREASED RENT. THE ASSESEE IS CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID EXCESS PAYMENT OF RS. 8000 J - TOWARDS INCREASED RENT VIDE BANKING CHANNEL THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE ALTHOUGH NEW RENT AGREEMENT DO ES NOT EXISTS AS THE SAME WAS NEVER EXECUTED WITH THE LANDLORD FOR INCRE ASED RENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE WORKING OF INCREASED RENT BEING EXCESS PAYMENT OF RS.8,000 J - OVER AND ABOVE THE SUBSISTI NG RENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS STATED TO BE AN OLD AGREEMENT. IN OUR CONSIDERE D VIEW, THIS ENHANCED RENT OF RS.8,000/- IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF RE NT AGREEMENT OR SOME OTHER EVIDENCEJ SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION TO CORROBORATE A ND SUBSTANTIATE THE INCREASED RENT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DET AILS, EXPLANATION OR EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTIONS ABOUT INCR EASED RENT AND THIS ENHANCED RENT OF RS.8,000/- CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DE DUCTION WHILE COMPUTING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VIEW FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON THE ASSESSEE, AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AS CONF IRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A) IS HEREBY UPHELD/CONFIRMED, AS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFI RMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(AL WHICH WE AFFIRM. THIS DISPOSES OF GR OUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBU NAL, WHICH STOOD DISMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. COMING TO THE LAST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RAI SED VIDE GROUND NO 4, THE A.O. OBSERVED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S GLO BAL TECH. SOLUTIONS AND OTHER BALANCE SHEET OF GLOBAL TECH. SOLUTIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SUNDRY DEPOSIT OF RS. 25,000 J - EACH IN BOTH THE B ALANCE SHEETS'. WHEN ASKED 8 ITA 2074/MUM/2014 BY THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY SATI SFACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE/EVIDENCE THEREOF THESE SUNDRY DEPOSITS OF RS.50,000/-. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY TREATED IT AS UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.12.2011 PASSED BY THE AO U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.12.2011 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE ID. CIT(A). THE ID. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O. A S THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE/ SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WITH RESP ECT THEREOF THESE TWO SUNDRY DEPOSITS OF RS. 25,000/- EACH APPEARING IN I TS BALANCE SHEETS VIDE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 30-01-2014 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 30-01-2014 PASSED BY THE ID. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BUT MERELY STATED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE B EEN MADE TO THE EMPLOYEES. THE ID. COUNSEL ALSO COULD NOT EXPLAIN/P RODUCE THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS OF RS.50,000 / -. THE LEARNED DR REL IED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT P RODUCE ANY EVIDENCE/ SATISFACTORY EXPLANATIONS TO EXPLAIN THESE DEPOSITS APPEARING IN ITS BALANCE SHEET, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE DECISION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS QUITE JUSTIFIED AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME AS WE DONOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE APPELLATE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH WE AFFIRM. THIS DISPOSES OF THE GROUND NO 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE T RIBUNAL WHICH STOOD DISMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9 ITA 2074/MUM/2014 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2074/MUM/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH DECEMBER, 2016. # $% &' 07-12-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 07-12-2016 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI A BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI