HARESH N. SACHDEV HUF, MUMBAI V. I.T.O. 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2574/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100873 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Reason to believe
• Section: 148; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH ( JM ) , AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM) , . . , ./ I.T. A. NO. 257 4 /MUM/ 2 012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 ) HARESH N SACHDEV , HUF, 301,VINAYAK HEIGHTS, NARGIS DUTT ROAD, PALI HILL, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400050 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(3), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN : AADHH3815F / APPELLANT BY S/ SHRI RAJIV KHANDELWAL AND NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL / RSPONDENT BY SHRI JEETENDRA KUMAR / DATE OF HEARING : 9.7. 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26. 8 . 201 5 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02 - 01 - 2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A ) - 30, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. THE ASSESSEE IS ASSAILING THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF RS.40,68,404/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, BUT THE SAME WAS NOT PRESSED BY LD A.R AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HENCE THE GROUNDS RELATING TO THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSM ENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR I.T.A. NO . 2574/M/2012 2 2007 - 08, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO BE POSSESSING CASH BALANCE OF RS.40,68,404/ - AS ON 31.3.2004. HENCE HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF AY 2004 - 05 WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS: - THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE AY 2004 - 05. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELEVANT TO A.Y 2007 - 08, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CASH IN HAND OF RS.40,68,404/ - AS ON 31.3.2004. HOWEVER NO RETURN OF INCOME OR WEALTH TAX RETURN HAVE BEEN FILED FOR AY 2 004 - 05, EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH IN HAND NOR HAS THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED OR FILED BALANCE SHEET FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE SAME I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.40,68,404/ - HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2004 - 05, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PORTION OF CASH THROUGH THE WILL OF HIS FATHER SHRI NAVINCHAND R SACHDEV, WHO EXPIRED ON 28.12.2002 AND ALSO THROUGH THE WILL OF HIS AUNTY SMT. GANGA TARANCHAND AHUJA, WHO EXPIRED ON 14.6.2003. THE AO PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.40,68,404/ - BY WAY OF INHERITANCE THROUG H WILLS. ACCORDINGLY HE EXAMINED THE COPY OF WILLS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE WILLS DO NOT STATE THE DETAILS OF ASSETS BEQUEATHED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN BEQUEATHED THROUGH THE WILL TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND NOT TO THE HUF. THE AO FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS RELATIVES DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME OR RETURN OF WEALTH FOR AY 2004 - 05 UNDER REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH WAS NOT PROVED. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE PERSONS WERE SENIOR CITIZENS AND HIS INCOME AND THEIR INCOME WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, FOR WHICH REASON RETURNS OF INCOME WERE NOT FILED, YET THE AO REJECTED THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY HE ASSESSED THE ENTIRE CASH BALANCE OF RS.40,68,404/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO . 2574/M/2012 3 4. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD FURNISHED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998 - 1999 ONWARDS. ACCORDINGLY HE FURNISHED FOLLOWING CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. CASH IN HAND AS ON 1.4.2003 31,67,664 LESS: - DRAWINGS 25,470 ---------------- 31,42,194 CASH RECEIVED FROM THE ESTATE OF GANGA TARACHAND AHUJA, AUNTY OF THE KA RTA, WHO EXPIRED ON 14.6.2003 8,77,000 CASH GENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS FOR THE YEAR 2003 - 04 49,210 ---------------- CASH IN HAND AT THE END OF THE YEAR 31.3.2004 40,68,404 = ======= THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.31,67,664/ - COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED IN AY 2004 - 05. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR, I.E., RS.49,210/ - HAS BEEN SEPARATELY ASSESSED AND HENCE IT WAS INCLUDE D IN THE CASH BALANCE OF RS.40,68,404/ - . ACCORDINGLY IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE CASH BALANCE ASSESSED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE RELATIVES HAVE BEQUEATHED THE ASSETS TO THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IT WAS RIGHTLY TAKEN IN THE ACCOUNT OF HUF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE RELATIVES WERE HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME, FROM WHICH THEY HAVE ACCUMULATED THE CASH BALANCE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE WILLS EXECUTE D BY BOTH THE PERSONS CLEARLY STATE THAT AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE IS BEING BEQUEATHED. 5. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE WILL EXECUTED BY BOTH THE RELATIVES DID NOT QUANTIFY THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THEM AND THEY HAVE ALSO NOT FILED RE TURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY HE HELD THAT THE QUANTUM OF THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE RELATIVES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. I.T.A. NO . 2574/M/2012 4 FURTHER THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE RELATIVES WAS NOT MADE BEFORE TH E AO. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTIFICATES OBTAINED FROM GROUP GRAMAPANCHAYAT KHANDPE, YET THE LD CIT(A) REJECTED THEM BY OBSERVING THAT IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. ACCORDINGLY, HE UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ONLY TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH BALANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PREPARED AND SUBMITTED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO FY 1997 - 1998 ONWARDS. THOUGH THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2006 - 07 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 (I.E., SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS), HE IGNORED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR FY 1999 - 2000 TO 2002 - 03 (PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS). THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.31,67,664/ - AS ON 31.3.2003 AND THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED FOR AY 2004 - 05. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED THE INCOME PERTAINING TO AY 2004 - 05 AMOUNTING TO RS.49,210/ - ALSO IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE SET OFF OF THE SAME, EVEN THOUGH THE SAID INCOME WAS ASSESSED SEPARATELY. HE SUBMITTED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSESSING THE ENTIRE C ASH AVAILABLE AS ON 31.3.2004 HAS RESULTED IN DOUBLE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF RS.49,210/ - . 7. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED COPIES OF WILL EXECUTED BY HIS FATHER AND AUNTY IN SUPPORT OF THE RECEIPT OF CASH ON THEIR DEATH. HE SUBM ITTED THAT BOTH THE WILLS HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT THEY POSSESSED CASH AND THE SAME IS BEQUEATHED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH BALANCE IS NOT A STATIC FIGURE AND THE SAME WOULD KEEP CHANGING. FURTHER, THE EXECUTORS OF WILL A LSO DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEIR EXACT DATE OF DEATH AND THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE I.T.A. NO . 2574/M/2012 5 AVAILABLE WITH THEM AT THAT POINT OF TIME. HENCE THEY COULD NOT QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT OF CASH. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES DID NOT CONSIDER THESE PRACTICAL DIFFICU LTIES AND HENCE ADVERSE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THEM AGAINST THE WILL IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED CERTIFICATES OBTAINED FROM GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT BOTH THE RELATIVES HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HENCE THEY COULD HAVE ACCUMULATED CASH BALANCES. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THEM WITHOUT PROPER REASONS. 8. THE LD D.R, ON THE CONTRARY, SUBMITTED THAT THE CERTIFICATES OBTAINED FROM PANCHAYAT OFFICER TOWARDS AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT ONLY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE RELATIVES HAVE FILED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE THE CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT BE CROSS VERIFIED. HENCE THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF CASH BALANCE CLAIMED TO BE AVAILABLE AS ON 31.3.2004 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED FILING RETURN OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ONWARDS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2007 - 08 WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HE ASSESSEE FILED CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 ONWARDS AND ACCORDINGLY SUBSTANTIATED THE CAPITAL BALANCE DECLARED IN AY 2007 - 08. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO RE - OPEN THE ASSESSMENT P ERTAINING TO AY 2004 - 05 FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2005 - 06 ALSO, THE AO DID NOT PREFER TO RE - OPEN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR. I.T.A. NO . 2574/M/2012 6 10. WE HAVE NOT ICED EARLIER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR AY 2006 - 07. HENCE, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE OPENING CAPITAL DECLARED IN AY 2006 - 07, I.E., THE CAPITAL BALANCE AVAILABLE AS ON 1.4.2005. HOWE VER, THE AO DID NOT MAKE ENQUIRIES ABOUT THE SAME, MEANING THEREBY HE HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE AO ALSO DID NOT REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT PERTAINING TO AY 2005 - 06 ALSO, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THAT YEAR ALSO. WE HAVE NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS WELL AS THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 ONWARDS. THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE THEM AND HENCE DID NOT COMMENT ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHOSE TO AS SESS THE ENTIRE CASH BALANCE SHOWN AS AVAILABLE ON 31.3.2004 AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2004 - 05 WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS. ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS WOULD SHOW THE INFIRMITY IN THE APPROACH FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. NOW COMING TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR AY 2004 - 05, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT PERTAINING TO THAT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.31,67,664/ - . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FINAN CIAL STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 ONWARDS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.31,67,664/ - WITHOUT REJECTING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR VARIOUS EARLIER YEARS. THIS IS PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR AY 2005 - 06, EVEN THOUGH NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DUE CRED ENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.31,67,664/ - AVAILABLE AS ON 1.4.2003 IN I.T.A. NO . 2574/M/2012 7 ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004 - 05. THE CASH CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEES FATHER IS INCLUDED IN THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AND HENCE THE SAME DOES NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. 12. THE INCOME PERTAINING TO AY 2004 - 05 AMOUNTING TO RS.49,210/ - HAS BE EN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE THE EQUIVALENT CASH SHOULD BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE CLOSING CASH BALANCE OF RS.40,68,404/ - ASSESSED BY THE AO INCLUDES THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.49,210/ - AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT OF ABOVE SAID CA SH BALANCE HAS RESULTED IN DOUBLE ASSESSMENT OF RS.49,210/ - . HENCE THE SUM OF RS.49,210/ - SHOULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE CLOSING CASH BALANCE. 13. NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF CASH OF RS.8 ,77,000/ - FROM THE ESTATE OF SMT. GANGA TARACHAND AHUJA. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE COPY OF WILL EXECUTE BY THE ABOVE SAID PERSON. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE SAID WILL HAS BEEN REJECTED ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE DECEASED PERSON DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME AND FURTHER THE CASH BALANCE HAS NOT BEEN QUANTIFIED IN THE WILL. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LD A.R, THE WILL IS EXECUTED DURING THE LIFE TIME OF THE PERSON AND NONE CAN BE SURE ABOUT THE QUANTUM OF CASH THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF HIS D EATH. NO ONE COULD BE SURE OF THE DATE OF HIS DEATH ALSO. HENCE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT OF CASH BALANCE. HENCE THE SAID REASONING GIVEN BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES FAIL. THE NEXT REASON CITED IS THAT THE DECEASED PERSON DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE THE SAID CASH BALANCE COULD NOT BE CORROBORATED. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A WRITTEN A LETTER DATED 10 - 12 - 2010 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ASKING FOR DET AILS OF THE INCOME OF THE DECEASED PERSON AFTER EXPIRY OF ABOUT SIX YEARS SINCE THE DEMISE OF THE EXECUTOR OF THE WILL. THOUGH THE SAID LETTER WAS WRITTEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WILL EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE I.T.A. NO . 2574/M/2012 8 ASSESSEE, THE SAME REASONING EQUALLY APPLIE S TO THE WILL WRITTEN BY SMT. GANGA TARACHAND AHUJA. THE SAID LADY DIED ON 14.6.2003 AND THE INFORMATION RELATING TO HER INCOME WAS BEING SOUGHT IN DECEMBER, 2010, I.E., AFTER EXPIRY OF ABOUT SEVEN YEARS. HENCE, THE DIFFICULTY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN NECESSARY DETAILS, IN OUR VIEW, SHOULD BE APPRECIATED. HOWEVER, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED CERTIFICATE ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE EXECUTORS OF THE WILL, WHICH IN A WAY SUBSTANTIATES THE AVAILABIL ITY OF INCOME. HENCE, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF CASH THROUGH WILLS, ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID C LAIM REQUIRES TO BE ACCEPTED. 14. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH AS ON 31.3.2004 SHOULD BE ACCEPTED IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO JUSTIF ICATION IN ASSESSING THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPUGNED CASH BALANCE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 26TH AUGUST , 2015. 26TH AUGUST , 2015 SD SD ( / JOGINDER SINGH ) ( . . , / B.R. BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 26TH AUGUST , 2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS I.T.A. NO . 2574/M/2012 9 / COPY OF TH E ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI