KOLON INVESTMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI V. CIT 8, MUMBAI

ITA 2870/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3607 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H N SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KADAMBARI DAVE
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA , A M AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 2870/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) KOLON INVESTMEN T PVT. LTD. 417 - 419, 4 TH FLOOR, M. V. ROAD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400 059 / VS. CIT - 8, ROOM NO. 259, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAACK 9118 L ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDEN T ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI GIRISH DAVE & MS. KADAMBARI DAVE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H. N. SINGH / DATE OF HEARING : 16.5.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .8.2016 / O R D E R PE R SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: TH E INSTANT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATES THE REVISION U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 31.3.2014 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 8 , MUMBAI (CIT FOR SHORT) QUA ITS ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) DATED 01.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2009 - 10. 2. THE BASIS OF THE REVISION I N THE PRESENT CASE IS THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ( STCG ) ON THE NON - EXERCISE OF THE OPTION TO SUBSCRI BE TO THE (EQUITY) SHARE CAPITAL IN S I NTEX INDUSTRIES 2 ITA NO. 2870/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) KOLON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT LTD. (SIL) AT THE OFFERED PRICE OF RS.454.74 PER SHARE, INCLUDING SHARE PREMIUM OF RS.452.74 PER SHARE. SHARE W ARRANTS , 66 LAC S IN NUMBER, WER E SUBSCRIBED TO BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IN SIL ON 18.1.2008 BY MAKING A PAYMENT OF RS.3001 . 284 LACS , BEING 10% OF THE VALUE OF SAME NUMBER OF SHARES AT THE SUBSCRIPTION PRICE OF RS.454.74 PER SHARE. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUBSCRIBED TO ONLY 13.44 LAC SHARE S , PAYING THE BALANCE 90% SHARE PRICE. THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,8 9,90,320/ - , I.E., CORRESPONDING TO THE BALANCE 52.56 (I.E., 66 13.44) LAC SHARES WAS DECIDED NOT TO BE SUBSCRIBED TO IN VIEW OF THE DECLINE IN THE SHARE PRICE OF SIL AND, ACCORDINGLY, WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMED AS SHORT - TERM CAPITAL LOSS (STCL) PER ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIAT ED ITS CLAIM IN ASSESSMENT B Y FILING THE RELEVANT DETAILS, INCLUDING IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE PRICE OF SIL AS ON 31 .3. 2009; THE WRITE OFF AS IT APPEARS, BEING IN M ARCH, 2009 ( S CHEDULE 8, N OTES TO A C COUNTS/PB PAGE 40 ) . EXTRACT OF FINAL ACCOUNTS OF SIL W AS ALSO FURNISHED TO EXHIBIT THAT THE AMOUNT FORFEITED, WHICH INCLUDED THAT IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER PARTY O PEL S ECURITIES P RIVATE L IMITED WHO HAD BEEN SIMILARLY ALLO TTED SHARE WARRANTS, WAS CR E DITED BY IT TO CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT. AND, FURTHER, THAT THE 10% AMOUNT PAID WAS IN TERMS OF THE S EBI GUIDELINES IN THE MATTER. THE LD. CIT W AS OF THE VIEW THAT, EVEN SO, THE CLAIM WAS NOT EXAMINE D FROM THE STAND POINT O F THE LOSS BEING A SHORT - TERM CAPITAL LOSS. THE SAME , IN HIS VIEW , WAS M ERELY A CAPITAL LOSS, THE AMOUNT RE PRESENTED BY SHARE WARRANTS BEING ONLY IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE PRICE PAYABLE ON THE PURCHASE OF SHARES. THE RIGHT THAT I NURES T O THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SHARES (AT A PRICE), WITHIN A DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME, SO THAT IT GETS LAPSED ON THE EXPIRY OF THE STIPULATED PERIOD. THE SHARE WARRANT, THUS, IS ONLY A LONG - TERM OPTION, AND THE AMOUNT PAID THEREFO R IN THE NATURE OF AN OPTION PREMIUM. FURTHER STILL, THE CONTRACT BEING SETTLED OTHERWISE THAN BY DELIVERY OF THE UNDERLYING ASSET, I.E., THE SHARES IN SIL, THE TRANSACTION IS A SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION AND THE OPTION PREMIUM P A I D AND LOST, A SPECULATIVE LOSS , W HICH COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST S PE CU LATIVE INCOME , 3 ITA NO. 2870/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) KOLON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT DIRECTING THE AO ACCORDINGLY . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL, RAISING BOTH JURISDICTIONAL AS WELL AS LEGAL ISSUES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3.1 THE ASSESSEES CASE HAS TWO LIMBS TO IT. FIRSTLY, THAT THE IMPUGNED CLAIM WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER DUE VERIFICATIO N, AND THAT THEREFORE HIS ORDER CANNOT BE REGARDED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE R EVENUE, SO AS TO WARRANT A R EVISION U /S. 263. ON MERITS, ITS CASE IS THAT THE SHARE WARRANT IS A CAPITAL ASSET, WHICH STAND S EXTINGUISHED ON THE NON - EXERCISE OF THE OPTION. AN EXTINGUISHMENT OF A RIGHT I S A TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE A CT. THE LOSS ARISING IS THUS A SHORT - TERM CAPITAL LOSS (STCL ), AS CLAIMED, AND AS ALLOWED BY THE AO. BEFORE US , THE THRUST OF THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS W AS ON THE SAME LINES, I.E., OF THE SHARE WARRANT BEING A CAPITAL ASSET , AND ITS EX TINGUISH MENT , THUS , A TRANSFER RESULTING IN A CAPITAL GAIN OR , AS THE CASE MAY BE , LOSS . 3.2 WE, AFTER GIVING A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSES SEES CLAIM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE , AND FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON. TO BEGIN WITH, WE MAY THOUGH CLARIFY THAT THE RIGHT TO EXE RCISE T HE OPTION AT A PRICE, AND DURING THE P ARTICULAR PERIOD, IS WITHOUT DOUBT A CAPITAL ASSET , WHICH STANDS VERY BROADLY DEFINED U /S. 2 (14) OF THE A CT TO MEAN ANY PROPERTY BARRING SOME SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS, HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS, WE MAY ADD, WOU LD BE SO EVEN WHERE THE SHARE WARRANT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE AND, THUS, NO MORE THAN A N ADVANCE (NON - ASSIGNABLE), TOWARD SUBSCRIPTION OF A SHARE, AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. CIT . THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THAT CASE WOULD BE THAT BEING NON - TRANSFERABLE, LOSS ON IT S F ORFEITURE WOULD BE A LOSS OF CAPITAL, O R A CAPITAL LOSS (REF ER: HASIMARA INDUSTRIES LTD . VS. CIT [1998] 23 0 ITR 9 2 7 (SC) ) . 3.3 OUR FIRST REASON FOR HOLDING THE LOSS TO BE NOT A STCL, IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE RIGHT (OR OPTION) AS ON 31.3. 2009. THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE SHARES (CAPITAL ASSET), A CAPITAL ASSET ITSELF, WOULD LAPSE BY TIME OR EXPIRE ONLY ON 17 .7. 2009 4 ITA NO. 2870/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) KOLON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (DAY - END) , AND NOT EARLIER . THE LOSS BOOK ED BY THE ASSESSEE, STATED TO BE IN VIEW OF THE LOSS IN THE VALUE OF THE SIL SHARE S THE CAPITAL ASSET TO BE ACQUIRED , AND THE CONSEQUENT LOSS OF VALUE OF THE CORRESPONDING SHARE WARRANTS (THE RIGHT OR THE OPTION ATT ACHED THEREWITH) IS THUS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF A FALL IN ITS VALUE. THAT IS, FROM WHATEVER VALUE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PERCEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY WHEN THE VALUE OF THE SIL SHARES WAS HIGHER. THERE IS NO EXPIRY OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE RIGHT AND, THEREFORE, NO TRANSFER , B Y 31 . 3 . 2009. THERE IS, WE MAY EMPHASIZE NO FORFEITURE OF THE AMOUNT PAID DURING THE CURRENT YEAR . THE IM PUGNED LOSS, WHICH CAN IN FACT ALSO BE SAID TO BE NOTIONAL IN - AS - MUCH AS IT IS NEITHER CONTRACTUAL NOR INCURRED, BUT ANTICIPATED, I.E., WHERE THE SHARE PRICE OF SIL DOES NOT RECOVER BY 17 .7.2 009, IS ON ACCOUNT OF ITS VALUATION (I.E., OF THE SHARE WARRANT) AND, THUS, A CAPITAL LOSS. 3.4 THE SECOND REASON FOR SO HOLDING IS THAT THE LOSS, EVEN ON THE EXPIRY OF THE RIGHT - WHICH WOULD ONLY BE ON 1 8 .7. 2009 , I.E., ON THE EXPIRY OF THE STIPULATED 18 MONTH PERIOD OVER WHICH THE RIGHT /OPTION COULD BE EXERCISED - AN D, THUS, FALL S IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR ONLY , IS IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL LOSS. THE REASON IS SIMPLE. THE ASSET IS A RIGHT CONFERRED BY A CONTRACT, WHICH EXTENDS TO A PARTICULAR PERIOD. THAT IS , THE RIGHT, WHICH IS REGARDED AS A CAPITAL ASSET, IS ITSELF DEFI NED TO EXIST OVER A PRESCRIBED PERIOD, SO THAT IT CEASES TO EXIST ON ITS LAPSE. PUT DIFFERENTLY, IS A CAPITAL ASSET ONLY FOR SUCH PERIOD OF TIME , AND NO FURTHER. THERE IS AS SUCH NO QUESTION OF ITS TRANSFER AFTER 17 .7. 2009 , BY WHICH DATE IT COULD BE EITHE R EXERCISED OR TRANSFERRED IN - AS - MUCH AS AN ASSET CAN BE TRANSFERRED ONLY DURING ITS SUBSI STENCE. WHAT WE WISH TO EMPHASIZ E IS THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHT OR OF IT BEING A CAPITAL ASSET BY DEFINITION OVER A LIMITED PERIO D, I.E., FROM 18 .1. 2008 TO 1 7 . 7 . 2009, AFTER WHICH IT CAN NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS A CAPITAL ASSET DUE TO THE LIMITED PERIOD FOR WHICH THE RIGHT WAS CONFERRED AND ITS EXTINGUISHMENT PER SE . THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF A RIGHT IN A CAPITAL ASSET, ON THE OTHER HAN D, WOULD BE WHERE THE RIGHT GETS DESTROYED OR ANNIHILATED, AS BY THE ACT OF GOD OR LAW OR BY THE ACTION OF THIRD PARTY. REFERENCE IN 5 ITA NO. 2870/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) KOLON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT THIS CONTEXT MAY BE MADE TO THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD EXTINGUISHMENT IN P. RAMANATHA AIYARS THE LAW LEXICON 3 RD EDI TION 2012 , READS AS UNDER: EXTINGUISHMENT: THE EXTINCTION OR ANNIHILATION, OF A RIGHT, ESTATE, ETC., BY MEANS OF ITS BEING MERGED IN, OR CONSOLIDATED WITH ANOTHER, GENERALLY A GREATER OR MORE EXTENSIVE, RIGHT OR ESTATE. WHEREVER A RIGHT, TITLE OR INTERES T IS DESTROYED, OR TAKEN AWAY THE ACT OF GOD, OPERATION OF LAW, OR ACT OF THE PARTY THIS IN MANY BOOKS IS CALLED AN EXTINGUISHMENT. (CO. LIT. 147 B. RO. ABR. 933). H ERE , HOWEVER, IS A CASE OF SELF DESTRUCTION OF THE RIGHT AS IT WERE; THE RIGHT LAPSING ON ACCOUNT OF ITS NON - EXERCISE OR NON - TRANSFER, I.E., BY THE UNILATERAL A CT OF THE SUBSCRIBER (RIGHT HOLDER), OVER THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE RIGHT EXISTS OR I S CONTRACTED TO SUBSIST . IT IS IN THIS RESPECT , I.E., ON ITS NON - TRANSFER, N O DIFFERENT THAN AN ADVANCE WHICH COULD BE SET OF F ONLY AGAINST THE COST OF THE ASSET FOR THE PURCHASE OF WHICH IT WAS GIVEN. THE LOSS, THUS, IS A LOSS OF CAPITAL, OR A CAPITAL LOSS. OUR THIRD REASON FOR R EGARDING IT AS SO IS BY VIEWING THE AMOUNT PAID AS AN OPTION PREMIUM. T HE SUBSCRIBER , AS THE ASSESSEE , IS, A T THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONTRACT, AWARE THAT IN THE EVENT OF IT FAILING TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SHARES WITHIN THE CONTRACTED PERIOD, IT STANDS TO LO O SE THE AMOUNT PAID, WHICH COULD BE ADJUSTED ONLY AGAINST THE VALUE OF TH E SHARES TO BE SUBSCRIBE D . SO CONSIDERED, THE AMOUNT BE A RS, APART FROM THE NATURE OF AN ADVANCE, A COST FOR ACQUIRING THE RIGHT, I.E. , IN THE EVENT OF THE SHARES BEING NOT SUBSCRIBED TO/THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT . WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THE RIGHT (OR OPTION) TO BE A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH , THUS , IS AT COST. THE LOSS IN VALUE ( OF ITS PURCHASE COST) ON THE LAPSE OF THE RIGHT, THUS, REPRESENTS ONLY A LOSS OF VALUE A CAPITAL LOSS , I.E., REPRESENTS A SUNK COST, BEING NOT ACCOMPANIED BY CREATION OF ANY FRESH RIGHTS. 3.5 WE MAY FURTHER , BY WAY OF ABUNDANT CLARIFICATION , ALSO STATE THAT THE R EASONS 2 & 3 DELIBERATE THE NATURE OF THE LOSS ARISING WHILE R EASON 1 IS WITH REGARD TO AS TO WHY THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAV ING BEEN INCURRED AND, THUS, NOT ARISING DUR ING THE CURRENT YEAR. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE LOSS IN ANY CASE, WOULD ARISE ONLY IN THE 6 ITA NO. 2870/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) KOLON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR . FURTHER, REASONS 2 & 3 , WHICH EMPHASIZE THE ABSENCE OF THE ELEMENT OF TRANSFER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE RIGHT BEING CONCEIVED FOR A DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME ONLY, SO THAT IT IS A SUNK COST THEREAFTER , ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REASON 1 , WHICH DISQUALIF IE S THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THE GROUND OF THE IMPUGNED LOSS BEING NOT INCURRED OR SUSTAINED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR , OUSTING THE SAME AT THE THRES HOLD. 4. WE HAVING TRAVELLED DIRECTLY TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE ASSESSEES GD. NO. 1 , AGITATING THE JURISDICTIONAL A SPECT. THERE IS NO WHISPER OF TH IS AS PECT, I.E., OF THE ASSESSEE SUBSCRIBING TO THE SHARE WARRANTS OR OF PROVIDING FO R LOSS BY WRITING OF F THE AMOUNT PAID , IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVEN NO MATERIAL WAS L ED BEFORE US DURING HEARING TO SHOW ITS CONSIDERATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE DETAILS IN ITS RESPECT CALLED FOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH W ERE ADVERTED TO DURING HEARING, ARE TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM AS WELL AS THE REASON FOR NOT SUBSCRIBING TO THE SHARES, I.E., QUA THE QUANTIFICATION AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOSS, OVER WHICH THERE IS NO DISPUTE, AND NEITHER ARE THE SAME THE SUBJECT M ATTER OF THIS APPEAL , WHICH IS QUA THE NATURE OF THE LOSS ARISING ON THE NON - EXERCISE OR NON - TRADING OF THE RIGHT , IF ANY, ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR . THE REVISION STANDS MADE BY ALLEGING NON - VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF STC L BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY QUA WHICH WE OBSERVE NO INQUIRY OR APPLICATION OF MIND WHATSOEVER BY HIM . THAT LACK OF ENQUIRY, WHERE WARRANTED, GIVES RISE TO REVISION IS A PART OF WELL SETTLED LAW. THE HONBLE A PEX C OURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) HAS LAID DOWN A FOUR - WAY TEST TOWARD AN ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS. SUCCINCTLY PUT, THESE ARE: INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS; INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW; WITHOUT APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MI ND. IT IS THE FOURTH CATEGORY WHICH ARISES IN THE INSTANT CASE, AND WITH WHICH WE ARE THEREFORE CONCERNED WITH. T HE LAW IN THE MATTER IS WELL - SETTLED A N D THE CASE LAW , L EGION, AND TOWARD WHICH THE LD. CIT HAS HIMSELF REFER RED TO SOME DECISIONS, VIZ. CIT V S. BHAG W AN D AS [2005] 272 ITR 3 67 (ALL) AND P. T. LAS HKARI RAM VS. CIT 7 ITA NO. 2870/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) KOLON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (ALL) ; AND ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. VS. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (MAD) . N O WONDER, THE THRUST OF THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS BEFORE US, AS AFORE - STATED, WAS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. WE ARE ALSO CONSCIOUS THAT WHILE WE HAVE HELD THE IMPUGNED LOSS TO BE A CAPITAL LOSS , T HE LD. CIT HAS REGARDED IT AS A SPECULATIVE LOSS. WE DISAPPROVE OF THE SAME IN - AS - MUCH AS THERE IS NO SETTLEMENT OF THE CONTRACT, MUCH LESS DURING THE CURRENT YE AR, AND DESPITE THE ASSESSEES UNILATERAL ACTION IN WRITING OF F THE IMPUGNED SUM, SIL IS CONTRACTUALLY BO UND TO HONOUR ITS OBLIGATION WERE THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSCRIBE TO ITS SHARES BY 17/7/2009. IT IS THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION THAT IS RELEVANT, AND NOT TH E VIEW THAT THE PARTIES MAY TAKE OF THEIR RIGHTS IN THE MATTER [ CIT V. C. PARAKH & CO. (INDIA ) LTD . (1956) 29 ITR 661 (SC) ; KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. V. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) ] . FURTHER, L E ST WE BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING TRAVELLED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE O F THIS APPEAL, WE MAY ADVERT TO THE DECISIONS , INTER ALIA , IN THE CASE OF KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL V. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 ( SC) AND AHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. V. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (BOM)(FB). 5. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY (REFER PARAS 3.1 THROUGH 3.5 , AND 4). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 23 , 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) (S ANJAY ARORA) / J U DICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 23 . 0 8 .201 6 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 ITA NO. 2870/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2009 - 10) KOLON INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. VS. CIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI