ADVANCED ENZME TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIR 1, MUMBAI

ITA 2562/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3360 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S J SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA BHATT
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Additional depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 80HHC; 32; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI , !!' , # BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, A. M. AND SHRI SANJAY GA RG, J. M. ./ ITA NO. 2562/MUM/2009 ( $' $' $' $' %' %' %' %' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) ADVANCED ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES LTD. SUN-MAGNETICA, 5 TH FLOOR, A WING, NEAR LIC SERVICE ROAD, LOUISWADI, THANE (W)-400 604 $ $ $ $ / VS. ASSTT. C.I.T.-I, VARDHAN BUILDING, THANE & ./ ' ./ PAN/GIR NO. AABCA 4555 E ( &( / APPELLANT ) : ( )*&( / RESPONDENT ) &( + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIPUL JOSHI & SHRI ADITYA BHATT )*&( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. J. SINGH $ , -. / DATE OF HEARING : 14.03.2013 /% , -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.05.2013 0 / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, THANE (CIT FOR SHORT) DATED 17.03.2 009, IMPUGNING THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2004-05 VIDE ORDER DATED 29. 12.2006. 2. THE ONLY QUESTION IN THIS APPEAL IS THE SUSTAINA BILITY IN LAW OF THE MODIFICATION TO THE ASSESSMENT IN REDUCING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AS ALLOWED U/S. 32(IIA) IN ASSESSMENT BY RS. 25,91,800/- BY THE LD. CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2562/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) ADVANC ED ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT 2 3. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WAS COMPLET ED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 29-12-2006 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 281.66 LAKHS, ALLOWI NG ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(IIA) AT THE CLAIMED SUM OF RS. 60,40,798/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ASSAILED BY THE LD. CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS REVISIONARY JURIS DICTION ON TWO COUNTS, VIZ. ALLOWANCE OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC (AT RS. 21,26, 530/-) AS ALSO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION (AT RS. 25,91,800/-). WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED WITH TH E MODIFICATION QUA THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN THE SECTION 263 PROCEEDINGS WAS THAT THE DEDUCTION IN ITS RESPECT WAS SUPPORTED BY, AS REQUIRED BY LAW, A REPORT (IN FORM 3AA) AND, FURTHER, DISCUSSED DURING THE COURSE OF T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREAT THE SAME FINDS EXP LICIT MENTION. THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN RIGHTLY CLAIMED ON ALL PLANT AND MACHINERY WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE INCREASE IN THE INSTALLED CAPACITY (OF AN EXIST ING UNIT), I.E., AS AT 31-03-2002, IS TO BE RECKONED. THAT IS, THE ENTIRE INCREASE IN PLANT AND MACHINERY SINCE 31-03-2002, OR OVER THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 (RELEVANT T O AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY), WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF A DDITIONAL DEPRECIATION FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, WHEREAT THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE, IN TERMS OF THE P ROVISION, HAS TAKEN PLACE . IN VIEW OF THE LD. CIT, HOWEVER, ONLY THE INCREASE IN PLANT AND MACHINERY EFFECTED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR (F.Y. 2003-04) IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIO NAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(IIA), AND THAT ACQUIRED DURING THE EARLIER YEAR, I.E., F.Y. 2002-0 3, WOULD NOT BE. HE DREW SUPPORT FROM THE COMMENTARY ON THE SAID PROVISION, WHICH WAS INT RODUCED EARLIER BY FINANCE ACT, 1980 (THOUGH WITHDRAWN SUBSEQUENTLY, I.E., IN 1986) AS APPEARING IN CHATURVEDI AND PITHISARIA (PAGE 1569), STATING THAT ADDITIONAL DE PRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF INSTALLATION OF THE PLANT AND MACH INERY OR, IF PUT TO USE IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR, IN THAT YEAR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 THE MATTER BEING ARGUED EXTENSIVELY BEFORE US, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE ASSESSEES RELEVANT GROUNDS, SO AS TO DELINEATE THE SCOPE OF THE CONTROVERSY WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADDRESS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, ADJUDICA TE UPON: ITA NO.2562/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) ADVANC ED ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT 3 I RE.: JURISDICTION : 1.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-I, THAN E (THE LD.CIT) ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) AND ALSO RE-COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT . 1.2 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (THE AO) PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, SO FAR AS THE ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM U/S.3 2 AND 80 HHC OF THE ACT WAS CONCERNED, AND, AS SUCH, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 1.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ASSUMING-BUT NO T ADMITTING-THAT THE LD. CIT DID HAVE JURISDICTION, THE LD. CIT ERRED IN EXCEEDI NG THE JURISDICTION IN AS MUCH AS HE HIMSELF RECALCULATED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT INSTEAD OF GIVING DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO RE-EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF TH E APPELLANT AND REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. II RE.: DEDUCTION U/S.80 HHC: N.A. III RE.: DEPRECIATION: 3.1 THE LD. CIT ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE APPELLANT S CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATON AMOUNTING TO RS.25,91,800/-. 3.2 WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S.32 OF THE ACT WAS A GENUINE CLAIM, BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR. 3.3 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS CALLED FOR. 4.2 THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE HAVING BEEN EFFECTED U/S. 263, THE MATTER WOULD AT FIRST BE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED FROM THE STAND-POI NT OF THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ASPECT (CLAIM) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER (PARA 3, PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER): AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENTS UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS T HE GROSS TAXABLE BUSINESS INCOME IS ARRIVED AT RS.3,11,98,499/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY H AS CLAIMED CHAPTER DEDUCTIONS U/S.80HHC OF RS.30,32,550/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY H AS SUBMITTED REPORT U/S.32(1)(IIA) OF THE I.T. ACT IN FORM NO.3AA. THE TOTAL DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER CLAUSE (IIA) OF SUBSECTION 1 OF SECTION 32 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ITA NO.2562/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) ADVANC ED ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT 4 RS.60,40,798/-. THE AMOUNT OF RS.60,40,798/- HAS BE EN DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF NEW MACHINERY AND PLANT ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED BY THE A SSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES BY WAY OF INCREASE IN INSTALL CAPACITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING EXISTING BEFORE 01.04.2002. THE FIRM INSTALL CAPACI TY HAS BEEN INCREASED BY 56% FROM THE BASE DATE I.E. 01.04.2002. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF PLANTS AND MACHINERY ACQUIRED BY THEM TO CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPR ECIATION UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 32(1)(IIA) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELEVANT PROVISION (SEC. 32(IIA)) READS AS UNDE R: (IIA) IN THE CASE OF ANY NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT (OTHER THAN SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT), WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002, BY AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTIO N OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING, A FURTHER SUM EQUAL TO FIFTEEN PER CENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF SUCH MACHINERY OR PLANT SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (II): PROVIDED THAT SUCH FURTHER DEDUCTION OF FIFTEEN PER CENT SH ALL BE ALLOWED TO (A) A NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ANY AR TICLE OR THING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002; OR (B) ANY INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING EXIST ING BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2002, DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH IT ACHIEVES THE SUBSTANT IAL EXPANSION BY WAY OF INCREASE IN INSTALLED CAPACITY BY NOT LESS THAN TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF (A) ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT WHICH, B EFORE ITS INSTALLATION BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS USED EITHER WITHIN OR OUTSIDE INDIA BY ANY OTHER PE RSON; OR (B) ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT INSTALLE D IN ANY OFFICE PREMISES OR ANY RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION, INCLUDING ACCOMMODATION IN THE NATUR E OF A GUEST HOUSE; OR (C) ANY OFFICE APPLIANCES OR ROAD T RANSPORT VEHICLES; OR (D) ANY MACHINERY OR PLANT, THE WHOL E OF THE ACTUAL COST OF WHICH IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION OR OTHERW ISE) IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS OR PROFESSION OF ANY ONE PREVIOUS YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, CLAUSE (B), OF THE FIRST PROVISO UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES THE DETAILS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT AND INCREASE IN THE INSTALLED CA PACITY OF PRODUCTION IN SUCH FORM, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, AND THE REPORT OF AN ACCOUNTANT, AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288 CERTIFYING THAT THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CL AUSE, (1) NEW INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ME ANS AN UNDERTAKING WHICH IS NOT FORMED, (A) BY THE SPLITTING UP, OR THE RECONSTRUCTION, OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE; OR ITA NO.2562/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) ADVANC ED ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT 5 (B) BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUSIN ESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE; (2) INSTALLED CAPACITY MEANS THE CAPACITY OF PR ODUCTION AS EXISTING ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002 . IT IS APPARENT THAT THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM VIEW THA T THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, BOTH PROCEDURALLY AS WELL AS SUBS TANTIALLY. THE REQUIRED DETAILS, INCLUDING OF THE PLANT AND MACHINERY ON WHICH THE C LAIM HAD BEEN MADE, AS WELL AS THE AUDIT REPORT CERTIFYING THE STIPULATED INCREASE IN THE INSTALLED CAPACITY (SINCE 31-03-2002), HAD BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. A READING OF THE SECT ION CLARIFIES THAT THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION IS IN RESPECT OF OR INVOLVE S THE FOLLOWING: A) QUALIFYING MACHINERY, I.E., NEW MACHINERY (NOT P UT TO USE EARLIER) INSTALLED ON OR AFTER 01-04-2002; B) QUALIFYING CONDITION, I.E., INCREASE IN THE INST ALLED CAPACITY AFTER 31-03-2002 BY 25% (10% WITH EFFECT FROM AY 2005-06), WITH REFEREN CE TO THE INSTALLED CAPACITY AS AT 31-03-2002; AND C) QUALIFYING YEAR, I.E., THE YEAR IN WHICH QUALIFY ING CONDITION IS MET OR SATISFIED. THE SECTION WAS INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 2002 WIT H EFFECT FROM 01-04-2003, I.E., AY 2003-04. IT IS, AS SUCH, APPLICABLE FOR AY 2004-05, THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, WITH IN FACT THE CONDITION OF THE INCREASE IN THE INSTALLED CAPA CITY BEING RESTRICTED TO 10% (FROM THE EARLIER 25%) FROM AY 2005-06 ONWARDS. NO DOUBT, AN ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, WOUL D INCLUDE BOTH AN ERROR OF FACT OR OF LAW, SO THAT THERE IS AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW. T HE LD. CIT HAS NOT STATED HIS VIEW WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT PROVISION (AS IT STANDS F OR THE RELEVANT YEAR) OR POINTED OUT ANY ERROR IN THE AOS UNDERSTANDING OR APPLICATION OF T HE PROVISION, WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROVISION, SO AS TO INVOKE JURISDICTION U/S. 263. T HE AO MAY NOT HAVE DILATED ON THE MATTER IN HIS ORDER, BUT THAT IS NOT A PREREQUISITE ; IT BEING CLEAR THAT HE ENTERTAINED NO DOUBT IN THE MATTER; THE LANGUAGE OF THE RELEVANT P ROVISION OF LAW BEING CLEAR, AND WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH NO ERROR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT, BUT ONLY SUBSTITUTED HIS ITA NO.2562/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) ADVANC ED ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT 6 VIEW FOR THAT HELD BY THE AO. IN OUR VIEW, THEREFOR E, THE IMPUGNED ORDER FAILS ON THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT. 4.3 ON MERITS, AGAIN, WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE T HE REVENUES CASE. THE ENTIRE MACHINERY WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE INCREASE IN T HE (INSTALLED) CAPACITY IS TO BE RECKONED QUALIFIES FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE, BEGINNING AY 2003-04, IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE QUALIFYING CONDIT ION OF THE STIPULATED SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE (IN THE INSTALLED CAPACITY) IS SATISFIED, SUBJECT TO THE RELEVANT PLANT AND MACHINERY HAVING BEEN PUT TO USE, SO THAT IF NOT, I N THE YEAR OF ACTUAL USER. IT IS NOT THE REVENUES CASE THAT THE RELEVANT MACHINERY HAS NOT BEEN PUT TO USE. IN FACT, DEPRECIATION HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED THEREON, SO THAT IT HAS BE EN ADMITTEDLY PUT TO USE. NO DOUBT, THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FROM THE S TAND-POINT OF ELIGIBLE CONDITION HAVING BEEN MET BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YE AR RELEVANT TO THE AY 2003-04, THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE D IFFERENT ITEMS BEING PRODUCED. IF SO MET; THE LAW BEING UNAMBIGUOUS, IT WOULD NOT ENTITL E THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE SAME FOR AY 2004-05. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DATA ON THE INSTALLED CAPACITY AS ON 31-03-2002 AND 31-03-2004 (PB PAGE 9), SO THAT THIS ASPECT, THOUGH RELEVANT, HAD NOT CROSSED THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHILE F RAMING THE ASSESSMENT. ON A QUESTION IN THIS RESPECT BEING POSED BY THE BE NCH TO THE LD. AR DURING HEARING, HE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THESE ARE SEC. 263 PR OCEEDINGS, SO THAT THEIR SCOPE IS LIMITED TO THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE OBJECTI ON/S RAISED BY THE REVISIONARY AUTHORITY. WE AGREE. THIS ASPECT, I.E., WHETHER THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION UNDER THE EXTANT LAW WAS ELIGIBLE ON THE WHOLE OR PART OF THE MACHIN ERY ACQUIRED DURING F.Y. 2002-03, I.E., RELEVANT TO AY 2003-04, SO AS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM B EING RECKONED FOR THE SAID CLAIM FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE OBJECTI ON/S TO THE ASSESSMENT AS RAISED BY THE LD. CIT. THE COMMISSIONERS ONLY RESERVATION TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS OF IT BEING VALID ONLY FOR THE MACHINERY ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED OR PU T TO USE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR, AND NOT DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR, I.E., F.Y. 2002-03. WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME HAS NO BASIS IN LAW; THE LANGUAGE OF THE EXTANT PRO VISION, WHICH ALONE IS RELEVANT, BEING ITA NO.2562/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 2004-05) ADVANC ED ENZYME TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT 7 UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR. THE PROVISION AS INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 1980, OR ITS UNDERSTANDING, IS, TO OUR MIND, NOT GERMANE. AGAIN, ANY INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE READ WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSUMPTION OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS , TO WHICH THERE IS NO REFERENCE. AS SUCH, THE SAME WOULD NOT BE OF MUCH ASSISTANCE IN T HE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4.4 IN VIEW OF FOREGOING, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT SURVIVE BOTH THE TEST OF JURISDICTION AS WELL AS ON THE MERITS OF THE OBJECT ION/S RAISED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 1 -2 $'1- , 3- , - 45 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MAY, 2013 0 , /% 7$2 , ! SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) ( SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 7$ DATED : 17.05.2013 0 0 0 0 , ,, , )-8 )-8 )-8 )-8 98%- 98%- 98%- 98%- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*&( / THE RESPONDENT . 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. : / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 8 ;! )-$ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. !<' = / GUARD FILE 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ / BY ORDER, > >> > / 4 4 4 4 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI