DAKSHA D. SHETH, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR -1, MUMBAI

ITA 287/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4395 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JI TENDRA YADAV
• Keywords: Salary income; Earning of tax free income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. PRAMOD KUMAR (A.M.) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (J.M.) ITA NO.286/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-2001 ITA NO.287/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002 ITA NO.288/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 DAKSHA D. SHETH 66/142-F, LALBAWA MANDIR, BHULESHWAR, MUMBAI 400 002. PAN :APCPS7540A VS. D.C.I.T. CEN CIR I MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JITENDRA YADAV O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.M. THESE THREE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE THREE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-XXXVI , MUMBAI DATED 18.11.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01, 20 01-02, 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM S ALARY. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECT TO SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 ON 17.03.2006 ALONG WITH THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF HER LATE HUSBAND SHRI DILIP K. SHETH. NOTICE U/S.153A WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.286/MUM/2010 ITA NO.287/MUM/2010 ITA NO.288/MUM/2010 2 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 08.10 .2007 DECLARING INCOME FROM SALARY. THIS WAS FURTHER REVISED ON 1 8.12.2007 AS FOLLOWS: 1. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ` 66,090/- 2. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ` . 65,000/- 3. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ` .1,28,500/- IT ALSO SHOWED EXEMPT INCOME FOR 1. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ` .1,37,010 2. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ` .3,74,083/- 3. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ` .2,23,551/- FROM PROPRIETARY BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NA ME AND STYLE OF D.D. CENTRE WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE EARLIER TWO R ETURNS. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A FRANCHISEE TELEPHONE EXC HANGE AT BORIVLI AND THE INCOME FROM THE SAID ACTIVITY WAS EXEMPT U/S.80IA(4 )(II) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED TO FURN ISH P & L A/C., BALANCE SHEET OF THE SAID PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND ALSO TO P RODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS, VOUCHERS ETC. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO REC ORD WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND NOR ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BIL LS VOUCHERS WERE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID BUSINESS. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE BUSINESS CONCERN WAS MANAGED BY HER LATE HUSBAND SH RI DILIP K. SHETH, WHO ALONE HAD THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRI ED OUT, DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS MAINTAINED ETC. HOWEVER, DUE O HIS SUDDEN DEATH ON 04.03.2006 THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE DET AILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED FORM NO.1 0CCB ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR WHICH VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES WE RE OFFERED TO HER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.80IA(4)(II) AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM PROPRIETARY CONCERN AT ` .2,10,000/-. HE ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). ITA NO.286/MUM/2010 ITA NO.287/MUM/2010 ITA NO.288/MUM/2010 3 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED WHETHER IT IS A CASE OF CONCEALME NT OR OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE A R STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONCEALED THE INCOME BUT OFFER ED THE INCOME AND CLAIMED 80IA ON THE SAME WHEN IT WAS NOT ICED THAT THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF FRANCHISE EXCHANGE WAS LEFT TO BE OFFERED. SINCE, THE FINANCIAL AFFAIRS AND THE BUSI NESS WERE MANAGED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WHO EXPIRED ON 04.03.2006 BARELY 15 DAYS BEFORE THE SEARCH WHICH T OOK PLACE ON 17.03.06. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME WAS OFFERED SUO MOTO BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AR RELIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: CIT VS. DEEP TOOLS PVT. LTD. [274 ITR 603 (P & H)] ALPHA ASSOCIATES VS. DCIT [66 TTJ 758 (MUM)] I.T.O. VS. STEEL INDUSTRIES OF INDIA [97 TAXMAN (MA G) 34] 7. THE CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2000-01: IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO SEE THE ENTIRE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS. * ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) DECLARING SALARY INCOME OF ` .54,000/- ON 27.06.2001. * HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE DIED ON 04.03.06. * SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS ON 17.03.06 * NOTICE U/S.153A ISSUED ON 23.07.07 AND SERVED ON 25.07.07. * ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.1 5A ON 08.10.07 DECLARING SALARY INCOME OF ` .59,000/- * ASSESSEE REVISED THE RETURN ON 18.12.2007 DECLARI NG INCOME OF ` .66,090/- IN WHICH EXEMPT INCOME OF ` .1,37,010/- FROM THE PROPRIETOR BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE (DD CENTRE) WAS SHOWN. THIS INCOME WAS NEVER SHOWN IN ANY OF THE EARLIER R ETURNS. * DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS U NABLE TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, VOUCHERS, ETC. SHE ALS O DID NOT FURNISH ANY AUDITED ACCOUNTS NOR DID SHE FILE THE P RESCRIBED FORM 10CCB ALONG WITH THE RETURN OR DURING THE PROC EEDINGS IN SPITE OF LARGE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HER . * ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 28.12.07 BY DISALLOWING T HE CLAIM OF 80IA(4) AND ENHANCING THE INCOME FROM THE SAID B USINESS ACTIVITY TO ` .2,10,000/- INSTEAD OF ` .1,37,010/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. * ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION. * ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) WH ICH IS IN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D DECLARED ONLY SALARY INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT TOO OF ` .54,000/- ONLY. THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE FIVE YEARS A FTER THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED. AFTER THE NOTICE U/S.15 3A WAS SERVED ITA NO.286/MUM/2010 ITA NO.287/MUM/2010 ITA NO.288/MUM/2010 4 ON THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INC OME DECLARING SALARY INCOME ONLY BUT REVISED THE FIGURE FROM ` .54,000/- TO ` .59,000/-. NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SALARY INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SALARY INCOME HAS BEEN REVISED UPWARD LY AND THAT TOO AFTER 6 YEARS OF THE FILING OF THE ORIGINA L RETURN. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REVISED THE RETURN TO INCREASE THE SALARY INCOME TO ` .66,090/- AND ALSO ADDITIONALLY DECLARING INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF ` .1,37,010/- AND CLAIMING THE SAME TO BE EXEMPT U/S.80IA(4) WITHOUT FILING AUDIT REPORT OR A RECEIPT IN THE FORM 10CCB [PRESCRIBED FORM OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)]. AGAIN NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN OFFER ED FOR THE UPWARD REVISION OF THE SALARY INCOME AND ALSO FOR D ECLARING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS FOR THE FIRST TIME BUT CLAIMIN G IT TO BE EXEMPT. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WH EN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE INCO ME FROM BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT NEITHER THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS, VOUCHERS ETC ARE AVAILABLE WITH HER NOR A NY SUCH RECORD MAINTAINED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFOR E DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 80IA(4) AS PRIMARY PERQUISITES OF AUDI T REPORT, ETC WERE NOT FILED AND ENHANCED THE INCOME AS NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED TO VERIFY THAT THE INCOME OF FERED FOR TAXATION IS CORRECT. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE PARAS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD INSPITE OF REVISING HER INCOME REPEATEDLY, DID NOT OFFER THE CORRECT INCOME TO TAX. SHE NOT ONLY CONCEALED THE INCOME FROM BOTH SALARIES AS WELL AS FROM BUSINESS BUT ALSO FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AS THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS SHOWN BY HER WAS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND UNVERIFIABLE. IT IS THEREFORE A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. AS REGARDS THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSE E ARE CONCERNED, THEY DO NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE ARGUMENT REGARDING MENS REA, ARE NOT MATERIAL AFTER THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ATUL BINDAL (CIVIL APPEAL NO.5769 OF 2009 ORDER DAT ED 24.08.09) WHEREIN IT HAS HELD THAT THE PENALTY SPOK EN OF IN SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NEITHER CRIMINAL NOR QUASI CRI MINAL BUT A CIVIL LIABILITY; ALBEIT A STRICT LIABILITY; SUCH LIABILIT Y BEING CIVIL IN NATURE, MENS REA IS NOT ESSENTIAL. HOWEVER, THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE EVEN CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN SPITE OF REVISING THE RETURN A NUMBER OF TIMES, EVEN AFTER A CONSIDERABLE GAP OF TIME HAD NO T DISCLOSED THE CORRECT INCOME TO TAX UNDER BOTH THE HEADS SA LARIES AD BUSINESS. THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSE E IS THOUGH MATERIAL, BUT NOT MUCH EMPHASIS COULD BE LAID ON IT AS THE RETURN WAS FILED IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE NOTICE U/S.1 53A ON 08.10.07 AFTER A GAP OF ABOUT ONE YEAR AND HALF YEA R OF THE DEATH OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.286/MUM/2010 ITA NO.287/MUM/2010 ITA NO.288/MUM/2010 5 THE CIT(A) ALSO RELIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVI ED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI VIJAY MEHTA, SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT MERELY CLAI MING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4)(II) WITHOUT FILING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT, WITHOUT FIRST PROVING THAT THE ASSESSE E DID NOT AT ALL CARRY ON BUSINESS OF RUNNING A FRANCHISEE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE AT BORIVILI. [INCOME FORM WHICH IS EXEMPT U/S.80IA;] IN FACT HE HAS ESTI MATED THIS INCOME ON UNKNOWN BASIS, WHICH PROVES THAT HE ACCEPTED THE BU SINESS ACTIVITY. 10. HE POINTED OUT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT E BENCH IN THE CASE OF I.T.O. VS. M/S. QUICK TELECOM BEARING ITA NO.1049/M/07 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: 2.2 BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO.5121/M/2006 IN CASE OF M/S. QUICK TELEPHONE IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IN WHICH IDENTICAL GROUND HAD BEEN RAISED A ND THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN CASE OF M/S.KANSAN COMMUN ICATIONS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) ALLOWED THE CLAIM. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER S UBMITTED THAT THE CASE WAS DISTINGUISHABLE. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE M ATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE RAISED IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A BASIC TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER AND THUS ENTITLE D FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(II). WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS SUE IN IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUNDS HAD BEEN RAISED IN CASE OF M/S.QUICK TELEPHONE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN ITA NO.5121/M/2006 AND T HE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN CASE OF M/S.KANSAN TELECO MMUNICATION PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAD EXTENSIVELY REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN CASE OF KANSAN TELECOMMUNICATION PVT.LTD. IN THE SAID CASE THE TRI BUNAL AFTER NOTING THE DEFINITION OF BASIC TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE U NDER SECTION 2(C ) OF TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY ORDER AND AFTER REFERR ING TO THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT HELD AS UNDER : ITA NO.286/MUM/2010 ITA NO.287/MUM/2010 ITA NO.288/MUM/2010 6 FROM THE PERUSAL OF CLAUSE 1, IT IS EVIDENT THAT TH E EPABX OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL PROVIDE DIRECT INDIALING SERVICES THROUGH THE PSTN OF THE MTNL. THUS THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSE E WOULD COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF BASIC TELECOMMUNICATION SERVIC ES AS PER THE DEFINITION UNDER SECTION 2 (C ) OF THE TELECOMMUNICA TION TARIFF ORDER, 1999. FROM THE READING OF THE ABOVE CLAUSES OF THE AGREE MENT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROVIDING THE SERV ICES AS A PCO. FROM CLAUSE 24 OF THE AGREEMENT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ST D/PCO CAN BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. ONE OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO CAN RUN THE STD/ PCO AND TO SUCH STD/PCO COMMISSION WILL BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ONLY THE NETWORK OF TRUNKING AS M ENTIONED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). AS PER CLAUSE 3 OF THE AGREEMENT, TH E ASSESSEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION, NET WORKING, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXPABX EQUIPMENTS, USER TERMINAL EQUIPMENT, CONNEC TED CABLES, ETC. AS PER CLAUSE 4, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO RESPONSIBL E FOR TREATMENT OF COMPLAINTS, ISSUE OF BILLS, COLLECTION OF BILLS, ETC. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS PROVIDING BASIC TELEPHONE S ERVICES THOUGH IN ASSOCIATION WITH MTNL. HOWEVER, MERELY BECAUSE THE S ERVICES ARE EBBING PROVIDED IN ASSOCIATION WITH MTNL, DOES NOT M EAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROVIDING THE BASIC TELECOMMUNICATI ON SERVICES AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALL OW DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. 4. THUS THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S.KANSAN COMMUNIC ATIONS PVT.LTD. HAD EXAMINED ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE A ND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING BASIC TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE AND WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4)(II). TH E DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 (SUPRA) AND IN THESE CASES UNDER APPEAL THE GROUND RAISED ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN CASE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THEREFO RE THE CASES OF THESE ASSESSEE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ALLOWING RELIEF AND THE SAME AR E THEREFORE UPHELD. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF I.T.O. VS. M/S. QUICK TELECOM. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED THE INCOME BUT OFFERED THE INCOME AND CLA IMED U/S.80IA(4) ON THE SAME WHEN IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE I NCOME FROM BUSINESS OF FRANCHISEE EXCHANGE WHICH WAS LEFT OUT WITHOUT BEIN G OFFERED. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IN M/S. KANSA N COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD. WHICH IS BONAFIDE. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT HER HUSBAND HAD EXPIRED JUST 15 DAYS BEFORE SEARCH AND HENCE THIS L APSE HAS OCCURRED ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFF ERED THE INCOME SOU MOTO AND EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE APPEARS REASO NABLE. HENCE WE ARE OF ITA NO.286/MUM/2010 ITA NO.287/MUM/2010 ITA NO.288/MUM/2010 7 THE OPINION THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT THAT OF CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR IT TO ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 12. THE FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 & 20 02-03 ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HENCE WE DELETE THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 08.10.2010 JANHAVI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- , MUM BAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY- , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH E, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI