SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 9(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2231/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48907 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A P SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Wrong claim

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, E BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.2231/ MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD., .. APPELLANT 135, CONTINENTAL BUILDING, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-18 PA NO.AAACA 4896 K VS ACIT, CIRCLE 9(3) .. RESPONDEN T AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: B.S.SHARMA, HEMENDRA N. SHAH, FOR THE APPELLANT A.P.SINGH, FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT H AS CALLED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2011, IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: I.T.A NO.2231/ MUM/2011 SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD 2 THE LD CIT(A)-20 HAS ERRED ON FACTS, IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS 11,13,60,3 80 U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AS LEVIED BY THE ASSISTAN T COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(3), AS PER PENALTY ORDER DT.18.6.2010 FOR DISALLOWING CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS 33,08,39,806 MADE BY T HE APPELLANT. 2. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN NARROW COMPASS OF MA TERIAL FACTS. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GOLD AND SILVER REFINERY . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT YET COMMENC ED BUSINESS OF REFINING GOLD AND SILVER, AND WHILE THE ASSETS HAVE NOT BEEN PUT TO U SE AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS 33,08,39,806 ON THE SAME . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE RAW MATERIAL BEING WORK IN PROGRESS (GOLD AND SILVER) HAD REMAINED THE SAME THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND EXPENSES OF POWER AND FUEL HAVE BEEN DEBITED. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT ONLY RECEIPTS OF RS 48,68,893 WE RE ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND, INTEREST, MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT ETC. IT WAS THUS C ONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR, THAT THE ASSETS WERE NOT PUT TO USE DURING THE YEAR AND THAT, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS 33,0,39,806 AS WAS CLAIMED IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME. THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT CARRIED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSES SEE. THE MATTER, HOWEVER, DID NOT REST AT THAT. THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS. THE AO PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS 33,08,39,806 AND THEREBY HAS FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT SINCE THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOU LD NOT HAVE CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ACCORD INGLY, A PENALTY OF RS. 11,13,60,680 EQUIVALENT TO 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. IT WAS, INTER ALIA, CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT YEAR-WISE TURNOVER WITH QUANTITATIVE THAT THE OPERATIONS WERE SUSPENDED I.T.A NO.2231/ MUM/2011 SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD 3 ONLY FROM THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2006 DUE TO NON-AVAI LABILITY OF BUSINESS. IT WAS IN EFFECT ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY SUSPENDE D ITS OPERATION DUE TO NON- AVAILABILITY OF BUSINESS AND THE AO IS CLEARLY IN E RROR IN OBSERVING THAT BUSINESS HAD NEVER COMMENCED. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT YIEL D TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICE. WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NO BUSINESS OPERATION HAD COMM ENCED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD PUT UP ITS INSTALLATIONS FOR THE REFINERY, THE FACTS REMAINS THAT THE REFINERY C OULD NOT COMMENCE ITS OPERATIONS TILL THE END OF THE YEAR 2009-10 AND THAT THE ASS ETS THUS INSTALLED COULD NOT BE PUT TO USE TILL THE END OF SUCH PERIOD. THE CIT (A) W AS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ONLY WRONG B UT THE CLAIM ITSELF WAS FALSE. HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE WHERE THE PART ICULARS OF CLAIM WERE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, INCORRECT AND FALSE AND THAT IT IS NO T A CASE OF MERELY MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW. THE CIT (A) THUS CONCLUDE D THAT BY MAKING A FALSE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND SUSTAINED THE PENALTY OF RS 11,13,60,380 IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS ALSO T HE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4. WE FIND THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE REFINERY PROJECT WHICH WAS SET UP TO REFINE THE GOLD AND SILVER TO THE PURITY OF 9 9.99% OF THE INSTALLED CAPACITY OF 217 MT P.A. AND WAS SET UP IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR EN DED 31.3.2000. WHILE THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE NEVER COMMENCED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEPREC IATION. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TO US THAT NOT ONLY THE COMMER CIAL PRODUCTION HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE PAST BUT EVEN THE DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWED I N THE POST. OUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S.143(3) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, WHEREIN, THE DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN I.T.A NO.2231/ MUM/2011 SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD 4 ALLOWED. OUR ATTENTION IS ALSO INVITED TO THE FOLL OWING DETAILS SHOWING AREA-WISE TURNOVER/QUANTITY OF GOLD AND SILVER PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE: (AMOUNT IN RS) SR. NO. FINANCIAL YEAR GOLD & SILVER PRODN/TRADE KGS/POUNDS(P) GOLD & SILVER SALES KGS/POUND S TURNOVER DEPRECIATION AS PER BOOKS 1. 31.3.2000 47,975 P 47,975PT 89,61,39,355 1,09, 090 2. 31.3.2001 4,600 P 3,789P 1,89,82,89 26,6 9,767 3. 31.3.2002 8,757 KGS 8,380 KGS 276,66,50,982 2,61 ,27,025 4. 31.3.2003 4,539 KGS 4,558KGS 185,71,38,309 3,68, 61,374 5. 31.3.2004 522 KGS 521 KGS 28,17,60,632 3,11,4 3,852 6. 31.3.2005 75 KGS 79 KGS 4,63,91,666 18,19,39,709 5. THE BASIC THRUST OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE ASSETS WERE NOT PUT TO USE AND WHERE THE BUSI NESS HAD NOT COMMENCED BUT IT WAS A CASE WHERE WHILE THE ASSETS WERE READY TO USE , THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMMENCE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION DUE TO LACK OF WORKI NG CAPITAL. IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, I.E. WHERE THE PLANT AND MACHINERY HAS BEEN P UT TO USE IN PAST AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN USED FOR WANT OF FACTORS SUCH AS NON AVAIL ABILITY OF WORK-IN-CAPITAL OR NON- AVAILABILITY OF BUSINESS, BUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED CANNOT BE DENIED OUTRIGHT. A CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SRF LIMITED (21 SOT 122) HAS UPHELD THE CLAIM OF DEPR ECIATION IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND, IN DOING SO, PLACED RELIANCE ON HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CAPITAL BUS SERVICE PVT LT D VS CIT (123 ITR 404) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS, AFTER AN ELABORATE SURVEY OF JUDIC IAL PRECEDENTS, MADE THE FOLLOWING ERUDITE OBSERVATIONS : I.T.A NO.2231/ MUM/2011 SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD 5 THE WORDS 'USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS' A RE CAPABLE OF A LARGER AND A NARROWER INTERPRETATION. IF THE EXPRESSION 'USED' IS CONSTRUED STRICTLY, IT CAN BE TAKEN AS CONNOTING OR REQUIRING THE ACTIVE E MPLOYMENT OR THE ACTUAL WORKING OF A MACHINERY, PLANT OR BUILDING IN THE BU SINESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE WIDER MEANING WILL INCLUDE NOT ONLY CASES WHERE THE MACHINERY, ETC., IS ACTIVELY EMPLOYED BUT ALSO CASES WHERE THERE IS, WH AT MAY BE DESCRIBED AS, A PASSIVE USER OF THE SAME IN THE BUSINESS. THE ABOVE SURVEY OF THE DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT CL EARLY SHOWS THAT THE CONSENSUS OF JUDICIAL OPINION IS IN FAVOUR OF ADOPT ING THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. WE ARE ALSO OF OPINION THAT IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE EXPRESSION OCCURS AND ALSO HAVING REGARD TO THE VAR IOUS TYPES OF CASES THAT COULD ARISE, THE WIDER INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE PLA CED ON THIS EXPRESSION. THE DECIDED CASES, WHICH HAVE BEEN EARLIER REFERRED TO, HAVE, ARISEN IN DIFIERENT CONTEXTS WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE WIDER AND MORE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS WOULD IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 1 0(2)(VI) AND (VII) MAY BE APPROPRIATE. THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT A MACHINERY GENERALLY DEPREC IATES WITH ACTUAL USER, THE DECISIONS INDICATE THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO IMPO RT THIS CONCEPT IN INTERPRETING THE EXPRESSION 'USED' IN THE STATUTE. IN THE FIRST PLACE, A MACHINERY MAY WELL DEPRECIATE EVEN WHERE IT IS NOT USED IN THE BUSINESS AND EVEN DUE TO NON-USER OR BEING KEPT IDLE. SECONDLY, A VERY STRICT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE ACTUAL USE OF MACHINERY AND THE CONCEPT OF DEPRECIATION WOULD LEAD TO SEVERAL ANOMALIES AND DIFFICULTIES, FOR A M ACHINERY CANNOT BE USED THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND NIGHT OR EVEN THROUGHOUT THE WORKING HOURS OR EVEN DURING THE DAYS WHEN THE BUSINESS IS IN FULL SCALE OPERATION. THIRDLY, THERE WILL BE NO STRAIN ON THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE BY INTE RPRETING IT WIDELY AND NOT LIMITING IT TO THE ACTUAL WORKING OR ACTUAL EMPLOYM ENT OF THE MACHINERY IN THE BUSINESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WOULD BE MORE A PPROPRIATE TO ENVISAGE THE EXPRESSION AS COMPREHENDING CASES WHERE THE MAC HINERY IS KEPT READY BY THE OWNER FOR ITS USE IN THE BUSINESS AND THE FA ILURE TO USE IT ACTIVELY IN THE BUSINESS IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS INCAPACITY FOR BE ING USED FOR THAT PURPOSE OR ITS NON-AVAILABILITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, E.G., TH E FOUR BUSES IN QUESTION WERE ADMITTEDLY IN WORKING ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS KE EPING THEM READY FOR BEING OPERATED UPON IF AND WHEN SOME TOURIST CONTRA CT MATERIALISED. THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY RUN ON THE ROAD NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE UNDER REPAIR OR WERE UNFIT FOR USE FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH CONTRACTS DURING THE YEAR TO PLY THE BUS ES FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS EACH. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT SO FAR AS THE ASSESSE E WAS CONCERNED HE DID NOT EMPLOY THE TRUCKS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS. THEY WERE KEPT READY FOR OPERATION AND THEY- WERE THERE ONLY IN THE BUSINESS AND FOR USE IN THAT BUSINESS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, I T CAN BE SAID, WITHOUT STRAINING THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND THE CONTE XT IN WHICH IT IS EMPLOYED, THAT THE BUSES WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BU SINESS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THOUGH THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY PLIED ON THE ROA DS FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS. I.T.A NO.2231/ MUM/2011 SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD 6 WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE RULES IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS INTERPRETATION. THE AMENDMENT OF 1960 IS OF NO PART ICULAR SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE EVEN UNDER THE EARLIER RULES, MINIMUM USE O F THE ASSET FOR TWO MONTHS WAS NECESSARY. HOWEVER, THE WORD 'USED' EMPL OYED IN THE RULES SHOULD FIRST OF ALL BE INTERPRETED ONLY IN A SENSE IN WHICH IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE AND CANNOT BE GIVE N A WIDER MEANING. THAT APART, BY GIVING THE WORD THE MEANING WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED TO EARLIER, THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE IS NOT IN ANY WAY DEFEATED. IT WILL STILL BE APPLICABLE TO SEVERAL CASES. FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE A MACHINERY HAS B EEN PURCHASED ONLY IN THE LAST MONTH OR WHERE THE MACHINERY WAS UNFIT TO BE EMPLOYED AND NOT AVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE BUSINESS FOR A SPEC IFIED PERIOD, THE RESTRICTION IN THE RULE WILL OPERATE. THE CONCEPT O F PROPORTIONATE ALLOWANCE OF RATES IN THE RULES IS, THEREFORE, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION BEING PLACED ON THE WORD 'USED' EMPL OYED IN THE STATUTE AS WELL AS IN THE RULES. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT MAY BE PO INTED OUT THAT THE RULES ALSO PROVIDE FOR THE GRANT OF AN EXTRA SHIFT ALLOWANCE I N RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION WHERE A MACHINERY WORKS DOUBLE SHIFT AND TRIPLE SHI FT. THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULES MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBLE AND TRIPLE SHIFTS WILL BE AVAILABLE ONLY WHERE THERE IS AN ACTUAL WORKING OF THE MACHINERY FOR TWO SHIFTS OR MORE. BUT THE MAIN CLAUSE OF RULE 8 DOES NOT REFER TO THE WORKING OF THE MACHINERY. IT ONLY REFERS TO THE USER OF THE PL ANT, ETC., IN THE BUSINESS. THIS ALSO INDICATES THAT SO FAR AS THE ALLOWANCE FOR NOR MAL DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE IS CONCERNED, IT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE ACTUAL WO RKING OF THE MACHINERY. IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE MACHINERY IN QUESTION IS EMPLO YED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS AND FOR NO OTHER BUSINESS AND IT IS KEPT BY HIM READY FOR ACTUAL USE IN THE PROFIT MAKING APPARATUS THE MOMENT A NEED ARISES. THE TEST IS SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. FOR THE REASONS ABOVEMENTIONED, WE ARE OF OPINION T HAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS ENTITLED TO GRANT OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE FOUR BUSES WHICH WERE KEPT READY FOR USE THROUGHOUT THE PREVIO US YEAR ALTHOUGH THEY WERE NOT ACTUALLY USED FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS. THE Q UESTION REFERRED TO US IS, THEREFORE, ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IN THE LIGHT OF T HE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINAT ION, IT CAN BE SAID THAT MAKING A CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ASSETS, WHICH W ERE READY FOR USE BUT COULD NOT BE USED FOR WANT OF PARTICULARS, IS A FALSE CLAIM. W E HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY THE GRIEVANCE AGAINST NON GRANT OF DE PRECIATION CLAIMED IN APPEAL BUT THEN AS EXPLAINED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, THE ASSESSEE HAD HUGE CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES WHICH WERE UNLIKELY TO BE RECOUPED I N FORESEEABLE FUTURE FEATURE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF NON-CARRYIN G THE GRIEVANCE AGAINST I.T.A NO.2231/ MUM/2011 SHIRPUR GOLD REFINERY LTD 7 DECLINING THE DEPRECIATION DOES NOT BY ITSELF PUT T HE ASSESSEE IN ITS DIFFICULT SO FAR AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED. THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE LEGALLY TENABLE OR UNTENABLE BUT THAT EVEN ITS LEGAL INADMI SSIBILITY CANNOT RENDER THE CLAIM SO MADE AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS A S HAS BEEN HELD ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) HAS HELD THAT A MERE MAKING OF LEGAL CLAIM, WHETHER OR NOT ULTIMATELY ADMISSIBLE, CANNOT BE TREATED AS FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS MAKING A CLAIM O F DEPRECIATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN VISITED WITH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND AS AL SO BEARING IN MIND THE ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DELETE THE I MPUGNED PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY 2011. SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 31 ST MAY, 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),20, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 9 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH E, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI