RAMHARI FOUNDATION, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 3061/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 306119914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B SENTHIL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: KUBAL; SANJEEV V JOSHI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Rule of consistency
• Section: 80G; 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, (PRESIDENT) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH,(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.3061/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : NA RAMHARI FOUNDATION ALTA BHAVAN, 532, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG DADAR MUMBAI-400 028. ..( APPELLANT ) P.A. NO. (AAATR 5239 A) VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI FLOOR PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL MUMBAI-400 012. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJEEV V. JOSHI AND SHRI M.R. KUBAL RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. SENTHIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 26.07.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 TH AUGUST, 2011 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 15.3.2010 OF DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)[DIT(E )]. THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER ON THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DIT(E) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING T HE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR GRANT OF CERTIFICATE OF EX EMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPLI CANT TRUST HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G OF T HE ACT. THE TRUST FILED APPLICATION ON 22.5.2009 FOR RENEWAL CERTI FICATE UNDER SECTION 80G. THE DIT(E) NOTED THAT THE REGISTRATION U NDER SECTION 12A HAD BEEN GRANTED IN THE NAME OF DR. RAMHARI KISAN DH OTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST BUT CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G HAD B EEN REQUESTED IN THE NAME OF RAMHARI FOUNDATION. IN RESPONSE TO TH E QUERY RAISED BY DIT(E), THE APPLICANT INFORMED THAT THE TWO TRUSTS NAMELY MRS. TARABAI RAMHARI DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND DR. R.K.DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST WERE AMALGAMATED ON 4.10.2001 AND T HE NEW TRUST WAS NAMED AS RAMHARI FOUNDATION IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 2001 OF THE ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER. THE DIT(E) OBSERVED T HAT THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER HAD ALLOWED AMALGAMATION OF THE TWO TRUSTS WITH NEW OBJECTS WHICH SHOWED THAT THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS OF THE TRUST HAD BEEN AMENDED AND NEW OBJECTS HAD BEEN INSERTED. THE APPLICANT DID NOT FILE FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WHICH WAS REQUIRED IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE OBJECTS O F THE TRUST AS THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH THE PREVIOUS REGISTRATION UNDE R SECTION 12A HAD BEEN GRANTED, NO LONGER EXISTED. HE REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALLAHABAD A GRICULTURAL INSTITUTE AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA (291 ITR 116) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTE WHICH WERE THE ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 3 BASIS FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION ARE ALTERED AFTER SUCH G RANT OF REGISTRATION, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE REGISTRATION HAVING BEEN REMOVED BY THE VOLUNTARY ACT OF ASSESSEE THE REGISTRATIO N WOULD NOT SURVIVE. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER EXPLAINED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE APPLICANT TRUST WERE SAME AS PER TRUST DEED APPROVED BY CHARITY COMMISSIONER ON 4.10.2001 AND THERE WERE NO CHANGES IN THE ACTIVITY OF THE TRUSTS. THERE WAS ONLY AMALGAMATION OF THE TR USTS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURAL INSTIT UTE AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA) REFERRED BY DIT(E) WAS DIST INGUISHABLE. THE APPLICANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80 G HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED BASED ON SAME OBJECTS AND, THEREFORE, RENEWAL SHOULD BE GRANTED TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY. 2.1 THE DIT(E) HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS R AISED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT, AFTER AMALGAMATION, THE ORI GINAL OBJECTS HAD BEEN ALTERED AND THEREFORE, THERE BEING CHANGES I N THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, THE REGISTRATION GRANTED EARLIER UNDER SECT ION 12A COULD NOT SURVIVE. THE DIT(E) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ONCE A TRUST HAD BEEN FOUNDED WITH CERTAIN OBJECTS, THOSE OBJECTS COULD NOT BE D ELETED EVEN BY THE FOUNDERS OF THE TRUST THOUGH IT WAS POSSIBLE TO A DD SOME OTHER OBJECTS WITHOUT ANY DETRIMENT TO THE ORIGINAL OBJECTS A ND THAT THE OBJECTS COULD BE AMENDED ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE HONBLE HIGH ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 4 COURT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN TH E CASE OF SAKTHI CHARITIES VS. CIT (149 ITR 624). THE DIT(E) F URTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER STATUTORY FORM 10A, THE APPLICANT WAS REQU IRED TO COMMUNICATE FORTHWITH ANY ALTERATION IN TERMS OF THE TRUST OR IN THE RULES GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DON E IN THIS CASE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE PLEA THAT IT HAD INFO RMED THE CONCERNED AO VIDE LETTER DATED 15.1.2003 BUT THE SAME WAS AFTER A LAPSE OF ABOUT 1 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CREATI ON OF THE NEW TRUST AND EVEN THE SAID INTIMATION HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY I.E. THE DIT(E). THE REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SECTION 12A EARLIER COULD NOT THEREFORE, BE CONSIDERED AS VALID. DI T(E) ALSO NOTED THAT THE RULE 11AA MANDATORILY PRESCRIBED THAT THE TR UST SHOULD HAVE A VALID REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT IN ORD ER TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G. AS REGARDS T HE ARGUMENTS BASED ON CONSISTENCY, THE DIT(E) REFERRED TO THE JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF ARSHA VIJNAN A TRUST VS. DIT(E) AND OTHERS (295 ITR 437) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD T HAT DIT(E) WAS NOT UNDER THE STATUTORY DUTY TO GRANT EXTENSION OF EX EMPTION JUST BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN GRANTED FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD IN EARLIER YEARS BY MISCONSTRUING THE LAW AND THAT THE DIT(E) WAS WELL WITH IN THE POWERS TO DENY THE SAME IN FUTURE YEARS AND THE CERTIFICATE GR ANTED IN EARLIER YEARS WOULD NOT ACT AS A BAR FOR SUCH DECISION. THE DIT( E) FURTHER ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 5 OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR CONDONATION OF ANY CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80G. HE, THEREFOR E, REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE DIT(E) THAT THERE WAS AMALGAMATION O F THE TRUST, MRS. TARABAI RAMHARI DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST WIT H DR.R.K.DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND THERE WERE NO CHANGES IN TH E OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND THAT ONLY THE NAME OF THE TRUST HAD BEEN CHA NGED TO RAMHARI FOUNDATION AFTER AMALGAMATION. IT WAS ALSO SU BMITTED THAT MAIN OBJECTS OF BOTH THE TRUSTS WERE EDUCATION, RELIEF T O POOR, ADVANCEMENT OF OBJECTS OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. EVEN THE ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER IN ORDER DATED 4.10.2001 STATED THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TWO AMALGAMATED TRUSTS WERE SAME. THERE WERE T HUS NO CHANGES IN THE OBJECTS. FURTHER EVEN AFTER THE AMALGAM ATION, THE TRUST HAD BEEN GRANTED APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G TWICE I.E. FROM 1.4.2003 TO 31.3.2006 AND FROM 1.4.2006 TO 31.3.200 9. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THE APPROVAL SH OULD BE GRANTED. THE LD. A.R FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE JUDG MENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRI CULTURAL INSTITUTE AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY DI T(E) WAS ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 6 DISTINGUISHABLE. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MEHTA JIVRAJ MAKANDAS & PAREKH GOVINDA JI KALYANJI MODH VANIK VIDYARTHI PUBLIC TRUST IN ITA NO.2212/M/2010 (O RDER DATED 11.3.2011) IN WHICH UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G HAD BEEN GRANTED. IN THAT CASE ALSO T HE DEPARTMENT HAD RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE AL LAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE A ND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA(SUPRA) WHICH HAD BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY TRIBUNAL. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY URGED THAT THE DIT(E) SHOULD BE DIRECTE D TO GRANT CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. 3.1 THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE DIT(E) REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ISSUE OF CER TIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G. IT WAS ARGUED THAT AFTER AMALGAMATION A NEW TRUST WAS FORMED WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS NOT DONE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 12 A WAS A PRE-REQUISITE CONDITI ON FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF DIT(E) SHOULD BE UPHELD. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF DIT(E). 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE RAISED IN THIS APP EAL IS REGARDING ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 7 GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE IT ACT TO T HE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DIT(E). THE BACKGRO UND OF THE CASE IN BRIEF IS THAT MEMBERS OF DHOTE FAMILY HAD CONSTIT UTED TWO TRUSTS NAMELY, MRS. TARABAI RAMHARI DHOTE PUBLIC CHARIT ABLE TRUST AND DR.R.K.DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST. BOTH THE TRUST S WERE REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE IT ACT. THE OBJECTS AS WELL AS TRUSTEES OF BOTH THE TRUSTS WERE THE SAME. SUBSEQUENTLY, FOR MORE EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL WORKING OF TWO TRUSTS, MRS. TARABAI RAMHARI DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST WAS AMALGAMATED INTO DR. R.K. DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VIDE ORDER DATED 4.10.2001 OF THE A SSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI. AFTER THE AMALGAMATION, THE NA ME OF DR.R.K. DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST WAS CHANGED TO RAMHARI FO UNDATION. THE APPLICANT VIDE LETTER DATED 15.1.2003 ADDRESSED TO DY. DIT(E) INTIMATED THE CHANGES AND ALSO SOUGHT ALLOTMENT OF NEW PAN. AFTER THE AMALGAMATION, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR RENEWAL OF 8 0G CERTIFICATE WHICH HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE DEPARTMENT TWICE I.E. FROM 1.4.2003 TO 31.3.2006 AND 1.4.2006 TO 31.3.2009. THE DIT(E) HAS HOWEVER NOT ALLOWED ANY FURTHER RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE UNDER SECT ION 80G ON THE GROUND THAT, AFTER AMALGAMATION, THE OBJECTS OF THE T RUST HAD CHANGED, AND THEREFORE, ORIGINAL REGISTRATION GRANTED UNDER SE CTION 12A DID NOT SURVIVE. AS PER DIT(E), THE APPLICANT WAS REQUIRED TO GET FRESH REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DONE AND THEREFORE, ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 8 CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G WAS NOT ISSUED. THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN OBJECTS OF THE TRUST WHICH REMAINED THE SAME EVEN AFTER AMALGAMATION AND, THEREFORE, NO FURT HER REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A WAS REQUIRED. IN ANY CASE, THE TRUST H AD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G AFTER AMALGAM ATION AND THEREFORE, FURTHER RENEWAL COULD NOT BE DENIED. 4.1 WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE VARIOU S ASPECTS OF THE MATTER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT MRS. TARABAI RAMHARI DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST WAS AMALGAMATED INTO DR.R.K.DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST. BOTH THE TRUSTS HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE SAME FAMILY AND HAVE THE SAME TRUSTEES. THERE IS ALSO NO DISP UTE THAT BOTH THE TRUSTS HAD CHARITABLE OBJECTS AS BOTH WERE REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THE AMALGAMATION HAD BEEN APP ROVED BY THE ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER FOR MORE EFFICIENT AND ECO NOMIC WORKING OF THE TWO TRUSTS. AFTER AMALGAMATION THE ID ENTITY OF MRS. TARABAI RAMHARI DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST WAS LOST AND NOT THE IDENTITY OF DR.R.K.DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST IN WHICH THE FORMER TRUST WAS MERGED. DR.R.K.DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST WAS ALREADY REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, I N CASE THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATED TRUST WAS NOT CHANGED BY TRUSTEES AN D REMAINED THE SAME I.E. DR.R.K.DHOTE PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, TH E DEPARTMENT ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 9 WOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL UNDE R SECTION 80G OF THE ACT AS THE SAID TRUST WAS ALREADY REGISTERED UNDER SE CTION 12A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER ONLY BECAUSE OF CHANGE OF NAME OF THE TRUST TO RAMHARI FOUNDATION, CAN THE APPR OVAL UNDER SECTION 80G BE DENIED. THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AS IS CL EAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT CHARITABLE COMMISSIONER REMAINS T HE SAME. THOUGH THE DIT(E) IN HIS ORDER MENTIONED THAT THE OB JECTS HAD CHANGED BUT THIS IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ORDER OF ASSISSTANT CHARITABLE COMMI SSIONER CLEARLY STATES THAT OBJECTS REMAINED THE SAME. EVEN BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT O BJECTS OF THE APPLICANT TRUST I.E., RAMHARI FOUNDATION WAS DIFFEREN T FROM THOSE OF THE TRUST WHICH HAD BEEN AMALGAMATED. THE APPLICANT T RUST HAD ALSO INTIMATED THE CHANGE IN THE NAME AS WELL AS AMALGAMAT ION VIDE LETTER DATED 15.1.2003 TO BY THE DY. DIT(E). UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, THE OBJECT AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST RE MAINING THE SAME AND THE TRUST HAVING ALREADY BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECT ION 12A OF THE ACT, APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80 G CANNOT BE DENIED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS CHANGE IN THE NAME OF TRUST PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED TW ICE IN THE NEW NAME. ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 10 4.2 THE REVENUE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF ALLAHABAD AGRICU LTURAL INSTITUTE AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA(SUPRA), WHICH IN OUR VIEW IS DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THAT CASE, THERE WERE WHOLESALE CHAN GES IN THE OBJECTS WHICH HAD BEEN INCREASED FROM 6 TO 14. THE HONB LE HIGH COURT NOTED THAT THE TRUST COULD NOT SHOW AS TO WHETHE R THE REVISED OBJECTS WERE PRACTICALLY THE SAME OR EVEN WERE CHARITABLE . IT WAS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO DENYIN G EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 WAS UPHELD ON THE GROUND TH AT THERE WAS NO VALID REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A AFTER CHANGES IN OBJECTS. THE PRESENT CASE IS DIFFERENT. IN THIS CASE THE OBJECTS REMAI NED THE SAME AND CHARITABLE AND THEREFORE, THE SAID JUDGMENT COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISE D BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE TRUST WAS REQUIRED TO COMMUNICATE FO RTH WITH ANY ALTERATION IN THE TERMS OF THE TRUST OR IN THE RULES G OVERNING THE INSTITUTION IN TERMS OF STATUTORY FORM 10A WHICH HAD NO T BEEN DONE. WE FIND THAT THE CHANGES HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED BY THE APPLICANT VIDE LETTER DATED 15.1.2003 TO DY.DIT(E) WORKING UN DER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIT(E). AS REGARDS THE DELAY OF 1 YEARS POINTED OUT BY THE DIT(E), WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO TIME LIM IT PRESCRIBED FOR INTIMATING THE CHANGE. MOREOVER, SUCH INTIMATION IS NOT STATUTORY AND HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED ONLY IN THE FORMS. WE THEREFORE, SEE NO SERIOUS ITA NO.3061/M/10 A.Y: 11 VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE TRUST SO AS TO DENY THE GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT WHEN THE STATUTORY CONDITI ONS ARE SATISFIED AND IT IS ONLY A CASE OF RENEWAL. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DIT(E) AND DIRECT HIM TO GRANT THE CERTIFICATE UNDER SE CTION 80G TO THE ASSESSEE . 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.8.2011. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (RAJENDRA SINGH ) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12.8.2011. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.