PRECISION ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(2)4, MUMBAI

ITA 2349/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8782 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Bonafide mistake
• Section: 80IB; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2349/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S. PRECISION ELECTRICAL WIRING INCOME TAX OFFICE R - 9(2)(4) SYSTEM P. LTD., C/O. N.M. JAIN AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K . ROAD 34 VIJAY BLDG., A.K. ROAD VS. MUMBAI 400020 SAKINAKA , MUMBAI 400072 PAN - AABCP 9168 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI HARIDAS BHAT RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. SINGH O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- VIII, MUMBAI DATED 17.02.2009 AGAINST THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF ` 18,51,900/- FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 2. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AT 100% OF INC OME TO THE TUNE OF ` 61,14,268/-. FROM THE AUDIT REPORT IT WAS NOTED THA T THE FACTORY HAS COMMENCED ITS PRODUCTION ON 24.12.1999 AND THE INIT IAL ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING 2000-01, THE 5 YEAR PERIOD ELIGIBLE FOR 100% DEDUCTION WAS OVER BY 2004-05 AND CLAIM OF 100% IN A.Y. 2005-06 WAS NOT C ORRECT. ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEDUCTION WAS C LAIMED AT 100% UNDER SECTION 80IB VIDE LETTER DATED 17.12.2007. TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT WAS 24.12.1 999 AND AS THERE WAS ONLY THREE MONTHS PERIOD AND ACTIVITIES WERE ALSO V ERY SMALL, THE FIRST FULL FIVE YEARS OF DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED INCLUDING A.Y. 2005-06 WITHOUT ANY WILFUL INTENTION OF CLAIMING EXCESS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO WITHDREW THE EXCESS CLAIM AND PAID TAX IMMEDIATELY. THE A.O. COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY BUT INITIATED PENALTY PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 2349/MUM/2009 M/S. PRECISION ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS P. LTD. 2 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE ISSUE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF ` 9,92,010/- IN THE POWER AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES. T HE A.O. NOTICED THAT THIS AMOUNT PERTAINS TO ELECTRICITY BILL PERTAINING TO 2003 AND EARLIER PERIOD. SINCE THE BILLS WERE OF EARLIER PERIOD THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BEING P RIOR PERIOD CLAIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DISPUTED LIABILIT Y AND AFTER THE DISPUTE WAS SETTLED THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED IN A.Y. 2005-06. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE AS TO WHY THE SAME WAS DISPUTED LIABILITY AND ON NOTICING THA T THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID IN JANUARY 2004 ITSELF, HE DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT AS LIABILITY PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEAR AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C). THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO FINALISED BY THE A.O. VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH JUNE 2008 AND LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 18,51,900/- BEING THE MINIMUM PENALTY. WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY THE A.O. ALSO INCLUDED TW O MORE ISSUES ON WHICH THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT AND IN AP PEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON ONE ISSUE BEING A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THUS THE PENALTY STANDS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE TOTAL THREE I SSUES. THE ASSESSEE IN THE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL CONTESTING ONLY TWO ISSUES, T HE ISSUES OF 80IB IN GROUND NO. 1 AND PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES IN GROUND NO . 2. 3. WITH REFERENCE TO GROUND NO. 1 ASSESSEES SUBMISSIO NS ARE AS UNDER: - A) THE MISTAKE CLAIMING OF 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80IB IN THE SIXTH YEAR WAS AN INADVERTENT ERROR, WHICH WAS APPA RENT FROM RECORDS. B) THE ERROR WHEN POINTED OUT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE AUTHORITIES AND PAID THE TAXES ON THE SAME. C) THE CLAIM OF WRONG RATE WAS AN INADVERTENT ERROR AN D DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - I) NITON VALVE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 30 SOT 236 (MUM) II) MAYA RAM JIYA LAL VS. CIT 152 ITR 608 (P&H) ITA NO. 2349/MUM/2009 M/S. PRECISION ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS P. LTD. 3 III) CIT VS. PHI SEEDS INDIA LTE 301 ITR 13 (DEL) IV) CIT VS. INTERNATIONAL AUDIO VISUAL 288 ITR 570 (DEL ) V) UDAYAN MUKHERJEE VS. CIT 291 ITR 318 (CAL) VI) CIT VS. SUMERPUR TRUCK OPERATORS UNION 203 ITR 204 (RAJ) VII) PMS PARAPPA NADAR & SONS VS. 3 RD ITO 10 TTJ 203 (MAD) VIII) COLOUR HOUSE VS. ACIT 53 TTJ (COCH) 255 IX) LOTUS LEARNING PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 7 SOT 540 (MUM) X) CIT VS. S. DHANABAL 309 ITR 268 (DEL) XI) CIT VS. SRI SARADHA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (P) LTD. 286 ITR 499 (MAD) XII) CIT VS. SUMERPUR TRUCK OPERATIONS UNION 203 CTR (RA J) 205 XIII) CIT VS. FREEMENTLE INDIA TELEVISO 295 ITR 88 (DEL) XIV) CIT VS. MANIHBAI & BROS 295 ITR 501 (GUJ) XV) CIT VS. KHODAY ESHWARA & SONS 83 ITR 369 (SC) 4. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: - A) THE SAID ELECTRICITY CHARGES WAS PAID IN THE EARLIE R YEAR UNDER PROTEST AND CHARGED TO REVENUE DURING THE YEAR BASED ON THE EVENTS OCCURRED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. B) THE SAID ELECTRICITY CHARGES ALTHOUGH PERTAINS TO E ARLIER YEAR IT IS ACCEPTED AS LIABILITY DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON LY. C) THE SAID ELECTRICITY CHARGE WAS NOT CLAIMED AS EXPE NSES IN THE EARLIER YEAR. D) THE SAID ACCOUNTING IS BASED ON ACCRUAL BASIS, AND AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. E) THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. IS MERE REJECTION OF EX PLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO FILING OF INACCURATE PARTI CULARS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - I. CIT VS. KHODAY ESHWARA & SONS 83 ITR 369 (SC) II. CIT VS. MSTV NEETHIMOHAN & CO. 107 ITR 585 (MAD) III. CIT VS. NAV BHARAT AUTOMOBILES 102 ITR 278 (ALL) IV. CIT VS. TEZPUR ROLLER & FLOUR MILLS 103 ITR 259 (GA U) ITA NO. 2349/MUM/2009 M/S. PRECISION ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS P. LTD. 4 V. CIT VS. DALMIA AGENCIES (P) LTD. 29 DTR (DEL) 332 VI. CIT VS. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD. 226 CTR (DEL) 105 THE LD.COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE PRINCIPLES ESTABL ISHED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT S 322 ITR 158(SC) 5. THE LEARNED D.R. REITERATED THE STAND OF THE REVENU E AND ALSO FILED THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION P. LTD. 327 ITR 510 WHEREIN THE DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) W AS DISTINGUISHED TO SUBMIT THAT THE CLAIM BESIDES BEING INCORRECT IN LA W IS ALSO MALAFIDE. THEREFORE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) WILL COME INTO PLAY. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THE E XCESS CLAIM OF 80IB AND ON CLAIM OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE IN THIS YEAR. IT WAS ASSESSING OFFICERS CONTENTION THAT THESE CLAIMS ARE MADE WITH A VIEW T O REDUCE TAX LIABILITY THEREBY CONCEALING INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSE E THE EXCESS CLAIM OF 80IB IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND ASSESSEE HAS FI LED COMPLETE PARTICULARS ALONGWITH AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB AND IN FO RM NO. 10CCB AND ONLY ON THAT BASIS THE A.O. CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXCESS DEDUCTION. WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF PRIOR PER IOD EXPENSES IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THERE WAS PAYMENT IN EARLIER Y EAR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE CLAIMED BUT FOR THE DISPUTE WITH THE ELE CTRICITY DEPARTMENT AND ON NOTICING THAT THERE WAS NO WAIVER OF THE AMOUNT THE SAME WAS CLAIMED IN THIS YEAR. EVENTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR THE A BOVE MISTAKE/CLAIM BEING DISALLOWED, IN OUR VIEW THE SAME DOES NOT CAL L FOR ANY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IT WAS ASSESSEES EXPLANATION TH AT THE INDUSTRY WAS STARTED IN END OF DECEMBER 1999, BEING ONLY A PERIOD OF THR EE MONTHS AND IN VIEW OF SMALL OPERATIONS THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE IN A.Y. 200 0-01 AND WAS CLAIMING FROM AY 2001-02. SINCE THERE IS A DISPUTE WITH REFE RENCE TO EXCESS CLAIM OF 80IB, IN OUR VIEW THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A BONAFIDE CLAIM. ON BEING POINTED OU T THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY WITHDREW THE CLAIM BUT ALSO PAID TAX IMMEDIATELY. W ITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ITA NO. 2349/MUM/2009 M/S. PRECISION ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS P. LTD. 5 ALLOWABILITY OF THE AMOUNT IN THE EARLIER YEAR OR I N THIS YEAR. SINCE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION AT 100% OF THE 80IB IT WOULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EITHER WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXPENDITURE IN THE EARLIER YEAR OR IN THE LATER YEA R. ONLY AFTER BEING POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON OF 30% ONLY THE A.O. CAME TO THE OPINION THAT THERE IS AN INTENTION TO C LAIM MORE DEDUCTION BY BOOKING THE AMOUNT IN THIS YEAR. THIS LOGIC OF THE A.O. IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY FACTS. ASSESSEE COULD HAVE POSTPONED MANY OTHER EXPENSES ALSO IF IT WAS OF THE INTENTION OF SHIFTING THE EXPENDITURE TO THI S YEAR. EVEN THOUGH THE AMOUNT WAS PAID IN EARLIER YEAR, THE SAME WAS NOT C LAIMED AS IT WAS A DISPUTED AMOUNT IN THAT YEAR. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE THE DISPUTE WAS RESOLVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEREB Y THE EXPENDITURE WAS BOOKED. JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS EXPENDITURE CLAIM IN THIS YEAR AND THAT BEING DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. UNDER THE HEAD PRIOR P ERIOD EXPENDITURE, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO CONCEAL INCOME BY CLAIMING AN EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE TO THE AS SESSEE, BEING ELECTRICITY CHARGES IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN A RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN C IT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) THE IR LORDSHIPS, AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING DILIP N. SH ROFF VS. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) AND UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARAMENDRA TEXT ILE PROCESSORS (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC) HAVE OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: - A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, T HERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MA DE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCO RRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PE NALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENA LTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKIN G AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULA RS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RE TURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PA RTICULARS ARE ITA NO. 2349/MUM/2009 M/S. PRECISION ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS P. LTD. 6 FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCU RATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOU S OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDI NG THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANN OT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 8. IN SIDHARTHA ENTERPRISES,322 ITR 80(P&H), THEIR LOR DSHIPS WHILE DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION IN UNION OF INDIA VS. D HARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC) HAVE HELD: - HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT PENALTY ORDER UN DER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WAS IMPOSED ONLY WHEN THERE WAS SOME ELEMENT OF DELIBERATE DEFAULT AND NOT A ME RE MISTAKE. THE FINDING HAD BEEN RECORDED ON THE FACTS THAT THE FUR NISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WAS SIMPLY A MISTAKE AND NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUN AL COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE PERVERSE. 9. RECENTLY IN CIT VS. ARISUDANA SPINNING MILLS LTD. ( 2010) 326 ITR 429 (P&H) IT HAS BEEN HELD: - HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT WHEN THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED, THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ENTITLEMENT OF DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM TRADING TURNOVER, I.E. TRADING IN RAW WOOL AND KNITTED CLOTH WAS DEBATABLE AND THIS ISSUE WAS LATER SETTLED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 520 (P&H) UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN LIBERTY IN DIA VS. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RI GHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DELIBERATELY O R CONSCIOUSLY CONCEAL THE TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE DELETION OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. 10. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION P. LTD. 327 ITR 510 IN WHICH THE HIGH COURT DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS P. LTD. 222 ITR 158 AND HEL D THAT THE COURT CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF T HE IT RETURNS ARE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH I S NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE EXPLAN ATION FURNISHED BY HIM ITA NO. 2349/MUM/2009 M/S. PRECISION ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS P. LTD. 7 FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONA FID E, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT HE WOULD STILL NOT BE LIABLE TO PENALTY UN DER S. 271 (1)(C). WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE ASSE SSEE SEEMS TO HAVE MADE A BONAFIDE MISTAKE AND AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CLAIM BEING A BONAFIDE ONE AND AS ASSESSEE WITHDREW IMMEDIATELY AFTER BEING POINTED OUT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NEITHER FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS NOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. W E RELY ON THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS P. LTD (SUPRA) TO HOLD THAT IT IS A MERE D ISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS WHICH DOES NOT ATTRACT ANY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C). ACCORDINGLY A.O. IS DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE PENALTY ON THE ABOVE TW O GROUNDS. TO THAT EXTENT ASSESSEES GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19 TH JANUARY 2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) VIII, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT VIII, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.