TUSHAR M. PAREKH PROP. PAREKH ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2452/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3684 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT PRATAP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY R PARIKHI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 274; 143(2); 139(1); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E, BENCH MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2452MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 ) TUSHAR M PAREKH PROP. PAREKH ENTERPRISES 901, NELLAI CHS, SWASTIK PARK, S.T.ROAD, CHEMBUR MUMBAI-400 071 VS. ITO-17(3)(4) AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 PAN/GIR NO.AABPP4751A APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY AMIT PRATAP SINGH ASSESSEE BY SANJAY R. PARIKHI DATE OF HEARING 23/09/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/11/2019 / O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH(JM) : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)28, MUMBAI, DA TED 25/01/2018 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- A) PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE VIOLATED 1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) 28, MUMBAI [CIT(A)] ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT GIVING A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WHILE DECIDING THE APPEA L OF THE APPELLANT. 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FURNISHIN G THE VARIOUS DETAILS AND EVIDENCES CALLED FOR BY THE AO. 3) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT AS THE PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE LO THE AO TO DECIDE ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 2 AFRESH, B) REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ISSUING A SHOW CA USE NOTICE AND HENCE THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, 5) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT YOUR HONOUR HOLD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED BY THE C1T(A). C) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES RS.6,97,23,136/- 6)THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE S AMOUNTING TO RS.6,97,23,136/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPE LLANT COULD NOT HAVE SOLD THE GOODS WITHOUT PURCHASING THE SAME. 7)THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS, 6,97 ,23,136/-/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND CONFIR MED BY THE HONBLE CIT(A), MAY BE DELETED. D) GENERAL 8) THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO ONE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE LO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, DE LETE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE TRADING IN IRON AND STEEL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,64,378/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 210-11. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UND ER SECTION 143(1). THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS RE-OPENED UNDER SE CTION 147 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALE TAX DEPARTM ENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA THAT CERTAIN HAWALA OPERA TORS ARE INDULGING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MA HARASHTRA REFERRED THE LIST OF SUCH HAWALA DEALERS AND THE BE NEFICIARY TO THE DGIT (INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI. THE NAME OF ASSESSEE APPEARED IN THE LIST OF BENEFICIARY. THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY MADE T HE PURCHASES OF RS. 69723136/- FROM SUCH HAWALA DEALERS. ON THE BASIS O F INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A BELIEF THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 3 ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, RE-OPENED THE ASSESS MENT UNDER SECTION 147. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED ON 22.07.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 FILED ITS REPLY DATED 23.09.2010 AND STATED THAT O RIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 31.08.2009 UNDER SECTION 139(1) BY ASSESSEE BE T REATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AFTER SERVING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 09.10.2014 PROCEE DED FOR RE- ASSESSMENT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES, WHICH WAS DECLARED AS HAWALA DEALERS BY THE SALE TAX DEPA RTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA. NAME OF THE PARTIES BILL AMOUNT (RS.) M/S DRUV SALES CORPORATION 71,42,415 M/S NAGESHWAR ENTERPRISES 1,15,82,217 M/S ATHAPNA TRADE IMPEX PVT.LTD. 1,11,88,768 SAILEELA TRADING PVT.LTD. 1,14,55,574 MEETI TRADE IMPEX 81,76,676 NAMAN ENTERPRISES 31,94,582 OPTION MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED 48,40,590 MINDTREE MERCANTILE COMPANY 53,44,127 BHAVESH METAL PVT.LTD. 65,62,346 JUIPTER MULTITRADE PRIVATE LTD 2,45,841 TOTAL 6,97,23,136 4. DURING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUB STANTIATE THE PURCHASES AND TO FURNISH THE NAME OF DEALERS/PARTIE S, PERMANENT ACCOUNTANT NUMBER/ TIN NUMBER, BILLS, VOUCHERS, DES CRIPTION OF GOODS PURCHASED, QUANTITY, RATE AND AMOUNT, THE DAT E OF DISPATCH OF ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 4 GOODS AND THE NAME OF PLACE ALONG WITH MODE OF TRAN SPORTATION BY ROAD OR OTHER MODE, VEHICLE NUMBER, AND PAYMENT DET AILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT NO RESPONSE WAS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) R.W.S. 274 WAS ISSUED, CAL LING UPON THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PENALTY BE NOT IMPOSED FOR NON C OMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AO ALSO ISS UED NOTICE TO THE SAID HAWALA DEALERS/PARTIES U/S 133(6) ON 27.11.201 5 TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. THE AO NOTED THAT THE NOT ICES SEND TO THE PARTIES / DEALERS WERE RETURN BACK UNSERVED WITH TH E REMARK OF POSTAL AUTHORITIES NOT KNOWN , LEFT, REFUSED. THE ASSE SSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO MADE HIS COMMENT ON THE REPORT OF POSTAL AUTHORI TIES THAT PARTIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE ASSESSE E FURNISHED ITS REPLY DATED 22.02.2016. IN THE REPLY THE ASSESSEE S TATED THAT HE IS CARRYING THE BUSINESS OF IRON AND STEEL OF WHOLESAL E TRADING. THE ASSESSEE MADE GENUINE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED THE BILLS AND MADE PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING TRANSACTION. THE A SSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT THE BILLS WERE RAISED INCLUSIVE OF VAT. THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHICH MATERIAL WAS PU RCHASED NOT DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF VAT COLLECTED FROM ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE INPUT TAX CREDIT FOR THE SAID YEAR WOULD BE DISALLO WED. THE ASSESSEE HAVING LEFT NO OPTION MADE THE PAYMENT OF VAT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT AS PER HIS KNOWLEDGE THE SALES TAX DEPA RTMENT THAT TIN NUMBER OF CERTAIN PARTIES HAVE BEEN CANCELLED AND T HE INPUT CREDIT OF ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 5 VAT CLAIM BY HIM AGAINST THOSE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT IF THE SUPPLIER HAVE DEFAU LTER IN PAYMENT OF VAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT GROUND TO TREAT T HE PURCHASES AS NON-GENUINE. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT AC CEPTED BY AO. THE AO CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING TAXAB LE INCOME. NO SERIOUS EFFORTS WERE MADE BY ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE TRANSACTION WITH THESE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS FAILED TO PRODUCE TH E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. NO TRANSPORTATION BILL OR DELIVER CHALLAN OR CONFIRMATION OF TRADERS WAS FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABL E BEFORE HIM AND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALE TAX DEPARTMENT DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASE SHOWN FROM ALL THREE PARTIES WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 08.03.2016 PASSED U NDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCE OF 100% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSES SEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS ON REOPENING AS WELL AS ON ME RIT. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION DISMISS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 6 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (D R) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. GROUND NO.1 RELATES TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTIC E. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE AO MADE 100% DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRM THE ACTION OF AO WITH SIMILAR LINE. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FURNISHING VAR IOUS DETAILS AND EVIDENCES CALLED BY AO. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW, FILE D AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT EVIDENCES IN T HE FORM OF PAPER BOOKS II, CONTAINING COPY OF PURCHASES INVOICES, CO PY OF CORRESPONDING SALES, WORKING OF GROSS PROFIT ON PUR CHASES OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE WOR KING OF GROSS PROFIT (GP) ON THE PURCHASE AND SALES EXCLUDING THE ALLEGED BOGUS PARTIES. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EVID ENCES FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE ARE RELEVANT FOR PROVING THE GENUINENESS O F PURCHASES AND MAY BE ADMITTED. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT, IN THE APPLICATION THE ASS ESSEE HAS STATED THAT ENTIRE RECORD INCLUDING DOCUMENTS RELATED WITH THE PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR, WERE SEIZED BY THE SALES TAX DEPAR TMENT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE DOCUMENTS AS NARR ATED ABOVE. THE EVIDENCES COULD NOT FILE EARLIER AS THE SAME WERE N OT AVAILABLE WITH ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 7 THE ASSESSEE AND WERE IN POSSESSION OF SALES TAX DE PARTMENT. THE LD AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFI CIENT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THOSE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE AS SESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES MAY BE ALLOWED AND THE MATT ER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THE ISSU E AFRESH. 8. ON MERIT THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS VERY GOOD CASE ON MERIT AS THE LOWER AUTHORITY HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS O F TRADING IN FERROUS AND NON FERROUS METALS. THE PURCHASES SHOWN BY ASSE SSEE ARE GENUINE, THOUGH DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE LD.AR SUBMITS THAT RECENTLY, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS IN PCIT VS MOHD. HAJI ADAM & CO. IN ITA NO. 1004 OF 20 16 DATED 11.02.2019 HELD THE PURCHASES CANNOT BE REJECTED WI THOUT DISTURBING THE SALES OF TRADER. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE DISA LLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF BRINGING GP RATE ON BOGUS PURCHASES AT THE SAME RATE OF OTHER GENUINE PURCHASES IS JUSTIFIED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPO RTUNITY BY LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE DESPITES AVAILING OPPORTU NITY HAS NOT FILED SUCH DOCUMENTS EVIDENCES BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN CASE THE APPLICATION FOR AD MISSION OF ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 8 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS ACCEPTED, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERATION AFRES H. ON MERIT THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WI NG OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT MADE FULL-FLEDGED ENQUIRY. TH E PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE PURCHASES ARE BOGUS HAWALA DEALERS. THE HAWALA DEALERS ARE INDULGED IN ISSUING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT DELIVERY OF ANY MATERIAL OR GOODS. THE ASSE SSEE OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION BILLS ONLY IN ORDER TO INFLATE THE EX PENSES AND TO BRING DOWN THE PROFITABILITY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE TAX. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARE RELIED U PON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN SHORELINE HOTEL PVT.LTD. VS CIT IN I TA NO.964/MUM/2015, DATED 19/06/2015, WHICH HAS BEEN A PPROVED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA.NO.332 OF 2016, D ATED 11/09/2018. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE AO DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES OF ALLEGED BOGUS PU RCHASES BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAIL TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE BILLS, INVOICES, TRANSPORTATION OR OTHER EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRM THE ACTION OF AO ON SIMILAR LINES. BEFORE US, THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMISSION OF ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 9 DOCUMENTARY/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THE APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT DOCUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED B Y THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE DO CUMENTS AS NARRATED ABOVE. THE EVIDENCES COULD NOT FILE EARLIE R AS THE SAME WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND WERE IN POSSESS ION OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC E FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES CONSISTS OF COPIES OF PURCHASES INVOICES OF ALLEGED BOGUS PARTIES (PAGE N O.94 TO 170), THE CORRESPONDING SALES ( PAGE NO.171 TO 244), WORKING OF GROSS PROFIT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PARTIES ( PAGE NO.245 AND 246) AND WO RKING OF GROSS PROFIT FOR PURCHASES AND SALES EXCLUDING THE ALLEGE D BOGUS PARTIES (PAGE NO. 247 AND 248). WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE; THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILLED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE D IRECT NEXUS/RELEVANCE WITH THE DISPUTE UNDER ADJUDICATION . THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING SUCH EVID ENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THEREFORE; WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. SINCE, WE HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THE RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO TO CONSIDER TH E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PASS THE OR DER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO ORDER THAT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER, ITA NO.2452/MUM/2018 TUSHAR M PAREKH 10 THE AO SHALL GRANT OPPORTUNITY HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSE. 10. AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE GROUND NO.1 OF APPEAL FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THEREFORE, THE ADJUDICATION OF ON OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE BECAME ACADEMIC. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 04/11/20 19 SD/- (G.MANJUNATHA) SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 04/11/2019 THIRUMALESH SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE.