ROLTA LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2125/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4377 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MISHRA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Bonafide mistake; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 14A; 147; 148; 132; 154; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ITA NO.2125/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06 M/S ROLTA LTD. 21 ST FLOOR, MAKER TOWER F CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI-400005 / VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), OLD CGO BUILDING, ANNEXE, 9 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.903, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN NO. AAACR6820J ( / ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) / ASSESSEE BY SHRI SHEKHAR GUPTA / REVENUE BY SHRI S. K. MISHRA / DATE OF HEARING : 06/05/2019 / DATE OF ORDER: 09/05/2019 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A)-47, MUMBAI, DATED 08/02/2018 AND PERTAIN S TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER:- 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 2 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER REJECTING THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 154 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DISALLOWING EXPENSES U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D UNDER NORMAL PROVISIO NS AND U/S 115JB. 3. THE BRIEF, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RELATED SERVICES T O VARIOUS COMPANIES. THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 29.04.2015 SUBMITTED THE COPY OF PETITION FOR RECTIFICATION FILED BY THEM IN ITS CASE FOR AY 2005 -06. THE APPELLANT VIDE THIS LETTER STATED THAT THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW SINCE THE YEAR FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ALREA DY BEFORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (ITSC) AND ITSC HAS PASSED THE ORDER FOR AYS 1999-2000 TO 200506, VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2008. THE APPELLANT VIDE ITS ABOVE RECTIFICATION ORDER HAS PRAYED TO CA NCEL THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS FOUND THAT THE SECTION 154 DOES EMPOWER ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS AND CANCELLATION OF ORDER IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE HIS ORDE R U/S. 154 OF THE I T ACT, 11.05.2015. 4. AGAINST ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION S AS UNDER:- THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 03-05-2005. SUBSEQUENTLY, PURSUANT TO THE ACTION U/S. 132, THE ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 3 ASSESSEE MADE A FRESH COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON NIL INCOME (COPY ENCLOSED) (PAGE 10 TO 15) DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED RS. 38,076191- U/S. 14A OF THE ACT BEING PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE MOVED APPLICATIONS DATED 09-042013, 16-07-2013 U/S. 154 FOR RECTIFICATION OF ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A TO CANCEL THE ASSESSMENT SINCE THE SAME WAS BAD IN LAW . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ORDER U/S. 2451)(4) DATED 19-02-2008 WAS PASSED 'BY THE HON'BL E INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 TO 2005-2006, (PAGE NO. 16 TO 29) THE SAID ORDER WAS CONCLUSIVE AND FINAL U/S.245-I AND ANY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED YEARS WAS STATUTORILY PROHIBITED TO BE REOPENED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE APPLICATION AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL. WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD IN LAW AND REQUIRES TO BE REVERSED. SECTION 245-1 READS AS UNDER: 'EVERY ORDER OF SETTLEMENT PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 245D SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE MATTERS STATED THEREIN AND NO MATTER COVERED BY SUC H ORDER SHALL, SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER, BE REOPENED IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT OR UNDER, ACT OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TI ME BEING IN FORCE.' THUS, AS PER THE PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SECTION ANY MATTER BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION CANNOT BE REOPENED UNDER ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT. THE ISSUE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A WAS BEFOR E THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IN PARA 7.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (PAGE 18). FURTHER, THE ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 4 HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 14.4 OF THEIR ORD ER (PAGE26). THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'REGARDING ROLTA LTD, THE DEPARTMENT HAS RAISED SEVERAL ISSUES IN RULE-9 REPORT WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE AR IN DETAIL. REGARDING THE TREATM ENT OF INCOME, DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES CLAIMED U/S. 14A INCLUDING INTEREST U/S. 57 (III) AND EXPENSES O F MANPOWER COST, TRAVELLING, LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL FEE S ETC., WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THESE SHOULD BE DISALLOWED AS MAJOR INCOME IS FROM DIVIDEND ON SHARES AS IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THE COMPANY IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINES S OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARE AND PROVIDING IT RELATED SERVICES AND IS THUS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.' FURTHER, WE WISH TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. NEERU AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS QUOTED IN 330 ITR 422 WHEREIN IT HAS HELD AS UNDER: PARA 29 'IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT AFTER PASSING OF THE ORDER DATED MARCH 31, 200 8 BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, NO POWER VESTS IN THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD AND INCOME COVERED UNDER THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IN CASE OF FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION O F FACTS, THE REMEDY IS TO APPROACH THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, BY PARAGRAPH 7 OF ITS ORDER, HAS NOT AND COULD NOT HAV E EMPOWERED THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES TOP FRAME ANOTHER ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHILE SETTLING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD COVERED BY ITS ORDER, IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN B OND ETC'. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DECISION, ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO POWER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT. FURTHER YOUR GOODSELF'S ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F KARAM CHAND THAPPAR VS. STATE OF U.P.(1976) 4 SCC 257 WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED 'APPARENT ERROR' MEANS 'PATENT MISTAKE, ERROR WHICH ONE CAN POINT OUT WITHOUT ELABORATE ARGUMENT.' ERROR MEANS A MISTAKE IN JUDGEMENT /ASSESSMENT IN A PROCESS OR PROCEEDINGS; SOME WRONG DECISION TAKEN INADVERTENTLY; UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE; SOMETHING INCORRECTLY DONE THROUGH IGNORANCE OR INADVERTENCE; MISTAKE OCCURRED FROM AN ACCIDENTAL SLIP, DEVIATION FROM STANDARD OR COURSE OF RIGHT OR ACCURACY, UNINTENTIONALLY; TO BE WRONG ABOUT; TO THINK OR UNDERSTAND WRONGLY; AN OMISSION MADE NOT BE DESIGN, BUT BY MISTAKE. (SEE CAUVERY TRADERS VS. HORNOR RESOURCES (INTERNATIONAL) CO. LTD., (2011) 10SCC 42 0.) AN APPARENT ERROR OF FACT OR LAW CAN BE RECTIFIED B Y AN OFFICER. IF THE MISTAKE OF LAW HAS TO BE ESTABLISHE D BY CONSTRUING THE WORDS OF A SECTION TO FIND ITS PROPE R MEANING, THEN SUCH AN ERROR CANNOT NORMALLY BE A RECTIFIABLE ERROR UNDER SECTION 36. IF TWO VIEWS AR E POSSIBLE, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE ERROR WILL NOT BE AN E RROR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. HOWEVER, IF THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSTRUED THE MEANING OF A SECTION, THEN ANY DECISION TO THE CONTRARY GIVEN BY ANY OTHER AUTHORITY MUST BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND SUCH ERR OR MUST BE TREATED AS AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD. (SEE POOTHUNDU PLANTATIONS (P) LTD. VS. AGRICULTURA L INCOME TAX OFFICER, (1996) 9SCC 499) ERROR MEANS THAT MUST BE SUCH AS WOULD BE APPARENT ON MERE LOOKING OF THE RECORD WITHOUT REQUIRING ANY LONG-DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING. AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD MUST BE SUC H AN ERROR WHICH MUST STRIKE ONE ON MERE LOOKING AT T HE RECORD AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY LONG-DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS WHERE THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 6 TWO OPINIONS. (SEE MEERABHANJA VS. NIRMALA KUMAR CHOUDHURY, (1955) 1 SCC 170) THE EXPRESSION 'ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD' OCCURRING IN SECTION 154(1) OF THE ACT HAS A WIDER CONTENT THAN THE EXPRESSION 'ERROR APPARENT O N THE FACE OF THE RECORD' OCCURRING IN ORDER XL VII, RULE I OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. IN ITO VS. BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD. (1958) 34 ITR 143 (SC) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE FORMER COVERS ALL MISTAKES DISCOVERABLE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE WHOLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, OR FROM AN OMISSION TO APPLY CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE ACT TO THE CASE, OR MISTAKE DUE TO AN OVERLOOKING OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE CASE, OR A MISTAKE ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF A WRONG CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. REFERENCE IS INVITED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT 317 ITR 241 'RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES-ONLY OBVIOUS MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFIED- CALCULATION OF BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 15C- COMPUTAITON OF DEBTS ON BASIS OF BALANCE SHEET- COMPUTATION WAS A DEBATABLE QUESTION- COMPUTATION COULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 154-INDIAN INCOME TAX (COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS) RULES, 1949,R. 3- INDIAN INCOME TAX ACT, 1922, S. 15C-INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, S.154.' WE HAVE TO FURTHER SUBMIT THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF IN THE CASE OF M/S. ADITYA INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE A. Y. 2005 - 06 (PAGE NO.30-34) AND YOUR GOODSELF HAS HELD THAT A. 0. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION'. ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 7 5. THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(A) REFERRED TO SEVERAL CA SE LAWS. HE PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE AND HENC E CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MIS TAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION U/ S 154 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO REVIEW, REVISE OR RE-CO NSIDER THE SUBSTANTIAL DECISIONS, TAKEN AFTER DUE CONSIDERATIO N OF LAW AND FACTS. IN A NUT-SHELL, MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD , U/S 154 OF THE ACT MUST BE SELF EVIDENT, OBVIOUS AND PATENT MI STAKE OF FACTS OR LAW, WHICH IS FLOATING ON THE SURFACE OF T HE RECORD AND NOT THE MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE DISCOVERED OR DISCERNE D OR ESTABLISHED BY WAY OF DISCUSSIONS, DEBATE AND INVES TIGATION INTO THE ISSUE. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE US. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED SUBMISSION PERUSED THE RECORDS. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE NOTE THAT T HE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER 153A OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT EARLIER THE SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED AN ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. IN THE SAID ORDER, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE SAID ORDER WA S CONCLUSIVE & FINAL. SECTION 245-I, WHICH CLEARLY ST ATES AS UNDER:- EVERY ORDER OF SETTLEMENT PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 245D SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE MATTE RS STATED THEREIN AND NO MATTER COVERED BY SUCH ORDER SHALL, SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER, BE REOP ENED IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 8 8. SECTION 153A WHICH HAS A NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE DOE SNT MENTION SECTION 245-I. THE SECTION STATES AS UNDER: - 153A. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 1 39 , SECTION 147 , SECTION 148 , SECTION 149 , SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 , IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTI ON 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISIT IONED UNDER SECTION 132A AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2003, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SHALL ( A ) ISSUE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FUR NISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, THE RETU RN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSME NT YEARS 96 [AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS] REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE ( B ), IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANN ER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS I F SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 ; ( B ) ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSES SMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITI ON IS MADE 96 [AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS] : THUS, REOPENING U/S 153A IN CASE OF ASSESSEE COVERE D U/S 245-I IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE ACT. IN THESE CIRC UMSTANCES, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT IT DEBATABLE IN CO MING TO CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN REOPE NING U/S 153A IS ILLEGAL AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE LAW. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER INITIATES A PALPABLE ILLEGAL ACTION AND IF THE ASSESSEE DOESNT DISPUTE IT BY WAY OF AN APPEAL THE SAME CAN BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION BE SAID TO BE TAKING THE ORD ER OF ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF THE AMBIT OF A MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM RECORD BEING AN EX-FACIE ILLEGAL ORDER. 9. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, AS PER THE MAN DATE OF ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 9 THE ACT, ONCE WHEN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY TH E SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AND CONSIDER THE ISSUE AGA IN. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IS NOT EVEN JUSTIFIED BY THE EXCEPTION IN THE NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE MIS TAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS APPARENT AND PALP ABLE WHICH LEADS TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IS EX- FACIE LEGAL. HENCE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL B Y HOLDING THAT IT IS UPON A DEBATABLE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, SIN CE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT FORTIFIED TO MAKE AN ADDI TION, QUA SECTION 14A AS THE MATTER STOOD ALREADY CONCLUDED B Y IT SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDER, THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVED TO BE CANCELLED/QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) & DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/05/2019 SD/- S D/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHYA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09/05/2019 ITA NO.2125MUM/2018 M/S ROLTA LTD. 10 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. !'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $# $# % ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. $# $# % / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. ( )*# !+ , $# # +- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '#( ! //TRUE CO// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) $%&', / ITAT, MUMBAI