WELEX LABORATORIES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 5(3)-4, MUMBAI

ITA 3150/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48558 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 271(1)(c); 80HHC; 10B; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R V EASWAR, HONBLE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3150/MUM/10 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 WELEX LABORATORIES PVT LTD .. APPELL ANT 120, TV INDUSTRIAL ESTATE 248/A, S K AHIRE MARG WORLI, MUMBAI 400 025 PAN : AAACW0756A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (3)(4), MUMBAI .. RESPONDENT APPEARANCES: D V LAKHANI, FOR THE APPELLANT ASHIMA GUPTA, FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR : 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.2.2010 PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-9, MUMB AI IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE SHORT ISSUE BEFORE US FOR OUR ADJUDICATION I N THIS CASE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING, IN P RINCIPLE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.18, 48,416. 3. THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS I.T.A NO.3150/ MUM/2010 WELEX LABORATORIES PVT LTD 2 CLAIMED EXEMPTION, UNDER SECTION 10B, AMOUNTING TO RS 32,00,721 IN RESPECT OF ITS UNIT AT PLOT NO. J 134, MIDC, NAVAPUR ROAD, TARAPUR. THE SAID UNIT WAS ORIGINALLY A DTA ( DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA) UNIT, AND WAS CONVERTED INTO 100% EOU ( EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING) VIDE LICENCE NO. VIII/ CUS(40)6/ WELEX/ EOU/BSR/02 DATED 7 TH MAY 2002. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW TH AT THE VERY FACT THAT A DTA UNIT WAS CONVERTED INTO AN EOU CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE UNIT IS NOT A NEW UNIT, AS IS THE CONDITION PRE CEDENT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 B NOT BE DECLINED, THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE REJECTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS AND ALSO RELYING UPON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1/ 2005 DATED 6 TH JANUARY 2005 WHICH STATED AS FOLLOWS: CERTAIN CLARIFICATION REGARDING TAX HOLIDAY UNDER S ECTION 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING 1. SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT PROVIDES FOR 1 00% DEDUCTION OF PROFITS DERIVED BY A HUNDRED PER CENT EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING, FRO M EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED BY IT. T HE DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEGINNIN G WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAK ING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE. HO WEVER, NO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B IS AVAILABLE AFTER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B IS AVAILABLE TO AN UNDERTAKING WHICH FULFILS ALL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (I) IT MANUFACTURES OR PRODUCES ANY ARTICLE OR THI NG OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE; (II)IT IS NOT FORMED BY THE SPLITTING UP, OR THE R ECONSTRUCTION, OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE EXCEPT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 33B OF THE IT ACT. (III)IT IS NOT FORMED BY THE TRANSFER TO A NEW BUS INESS OF MACHINERY OR PLANT PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE. 3. REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS QUARTERS AS TO WHETHER AN UNDERTAKING SET UP IN DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA, WHICH I S SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED AS 100% EOU BY THE BOARD APPOINTED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE INDUSTRIES (DEVEL OPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1951, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION10B OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT. 4. THE MATTER HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND IT IS HEREBY CL ARIFIED THAT AN UNDERTAKING SET UP IN DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA (DTA) AND DERIVING PROFIT F ROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED BY IT, W HICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED INTO A EOU, SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 10B OF THE IT ACT, ON GETTING APPROVAL AS 100% EXPORT ORIENTED UNDERTAKING. IN SU CH A CASE, THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE I.T.A NO.3150/ MUM/2010 WELEX LABORATORIES PVT LTD 3 AVAILABLE ONLY FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH IT HAS GOT TH E APPROVAL AS 100% EOU AND SHALL BE AVAILABLE ONLY FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF TEN C ONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, BEGINNING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE ARTICL ES OR THINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE, AS A DTA UNIT. FURTHER, IN THE YEAR OF AP PROVAL, THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORTS, FRO M AND AFTER THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE DTA UNIT AS 100% EOU. MOREOVER, THE DEDUCTION T O SUCH UNITS IN ANY CASE WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE AFTER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 5. TO CLARIFY THE ABOVE POSITION, CERTAIN ILLUSTRAT IONS ARE GIVEN AS UNDER: (I) UNDERTAKING A IS SET UP IN DOMESTIC TARIFF A REA AND STARTS MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1 999-2000 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. IT GETS APPROVAL AS 100% E OU ON 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2004 IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ACCORDINGLY, IT SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 10B FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 I.E., THE YEAR IN WHICH IT FULFILS THE BASIC CONDITION OF BEING A 100% EOU. FURTHER, THE DEDUCTION SHALL BE AVAILABLE ONLY FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF TEN YEARS I.E. FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THIS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORTS, FROM AND AFTER TH E DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE DTA UNIT AS 100% EOU. (II) UNDERTAKING B SET UP IN DOMESTIC TARIFF ARE A, BEGINS TO MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCE COMPUTER SOFTWARE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1996 -97 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. IT GETS APPROVAL AS 100% EOU IN FINAN CIAL YEAR 2007-08 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. NO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE TO UNDERTAKING B AS THE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS EXPIRES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRIOR TO ITS A PPROVAL AS 100% EOU. (III) UNDERTAKING C IS SET UP IN DOMESTIC TARIFF AREA IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND ENG AGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING COMPUTER RELATED SERVICES, OTHER THAN THO SE NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 10B. IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 -03, IT ACQUIRES MORE THAN 20% OF OLD PLANT AND MACHINERY AND STARTS MANUFACTURING COMPUTER SOFTWARE. IT ALSO GETS APPROVAL AS 100% EOU IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 . UNDERTAKING C SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B, AS THE RE HAS BEEN TRANSFER OF OLD PLANT AND MACHINERY. (IV) UNDERTAKING D IS SET UP AND STARTS PRODUCIN G COMPUTER SOFTWARE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IT GETS APPROVAL AS 100% EOU IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IT SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B F ROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HOWEVER, THE DEDUCTION SHALL NOT BE AVAILABLE AFTER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. (V) UNDERTAKING E IS SET UP AND STARTS PRODUCING COMPUTER SOFTWARE PRIOR TO 31-3-1994. IT GETS APPROVAL AS 100% EOU IN FINAN CIAL YEAR 2004-05 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. UNDERTAKING E SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AS THE PERIOD OF DEDUCTION OF 10 YEARS EXPIRES PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 4. THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10B WAS AC CORDINGLY DECLINED TO THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS DENIAL OF EXEMPTION WAS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE I.T.A NO.3150/ MUM/2010 WELEX LABORATORIES PVT LTD 4 ACCEPTED THE SAME AND THE MATTER RESTED THERE. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME/ FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED AS FOLLOWS: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 10B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS 32,00,721 WHICH WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT SET UP NEW UNDERTAKING AND IT HAS RECONSTRUCTED ITS BUSINESS TO MAKE A FIT CASE AS 10 0% EOU USING OLD MACHINERY, PLANT WHICH WAS USED BY IT PREVIOUSLY. M OREOVER, IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1/2005 DATED 6 TH JANUARY 2005, ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC M ERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS NOT ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 32,00,721 WAS CORRECTLY MADE UND ER SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT I S A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. ANY CONCEALMENT OR INACCURACY OF PARTICULARS IN COMPUTI NG TOTAL INCOME WOULD ATTRACT PENALTY PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. I AM, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CO NCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME/ FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH IN COME. I, ACCORDINGLY, LEVY A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. LEARNED CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF TH E CBDT CIRCULAR AND OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BRING TO MY KNOWLEDGE ANY DECISION WHICH SUPPORTS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT ITS VIEW IS SUSTAINABLE VIEW. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ONE OF THE POSS IBLE VIEWS OF THE MATTER AND THAT SELF SERVING AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPEL LANT FROM ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT. THE CIT(A) WAS I.T.A NO.3150/ MUM/2010 WELEX LABORATORIES PVT LTD 5 SATISFIED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME AND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ONLY NO T BONAFIDE , BUT IT IS ALSO A FALSE CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IN PRINCIPLE. THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, REDUCED THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY BY TAKING I NTO ACCOUNT DEDUCTION OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80HHC AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY EQUIVALENT TO ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF NE T TAX, I.E. CLAIM UNDER SECTION 10 B REDUCED BY ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 HHC, SOUGHT TO BE AVOIDED. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED BY TH E STAND SO TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS A LSO THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. WE FIND THAT A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 271(1)(C ) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SO FAR AS THE SCHEME OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS CONCERNED, IT IS SINE QUA NON FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY THAT DURING THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS (I) CONCEALED HIS INCOME, OR (II) FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE CASE OF THE CIT(A) IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME INASMUCH AS THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. THAT IS THE SHORT REASON FOR WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. HOWE VER, HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE P ETROPRODUCTS (322 ITR 158), OBSERVED THAT FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTI CULARS MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCUR ATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS . THE IR LORDSHIPS NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEO US OR FALSE AND SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF I NVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THEN NOTED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS I.T.A NO.3150/ MUM/2010 WELEX LABORATORIES PVT LTD 6 THAT A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUS TAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PA RTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT SUCH CLAIM MADE I N THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE THUS CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND CON TRARY TO THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATION BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, IN A FAIR AND TRANSPARENT MANNER AND IS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, IN SUPPORT O F HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CLAIM, WHICH HAS BEEN SIMPLY B RUSHED ASIDE BY THE CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WAS CONSIDERA BLE CONFUSION ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SUCH A CLAIM AS EVIDENT FROM T HE FACT THAT EVEN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAD TO ISSUE CLARIFICATION ON THIS ISSUE A CLARIFICATION WHICH WAS ISSUED AFTER THE FILING OF RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTORS, AS ALSO ENTI RETY OF THE CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN I F INCORRECT, WAS A FALSE OR NOT BONAFIDE CLAIM. 8. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO ADMISSIBILITY OF CLAIM IS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING TH E MATTER ON MERITS, BUT WHEN WE ARE EXAMINING THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE V IS--VIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE CLAIM, WE CANNOT REJECT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEGAL POSITION, AS UNDERSTOOD BY THE ASSESSEE, TURNED OUT TO BE UNACCEPTABLE ON MERITS. AS AT THIS STAGE OF ADJUDICATING CORRECTNESS OF PENALTY IMPOSED, WHAT I S TO BE EXAMINED IS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING THE CLAIM, AND NO T CORRECTNESS OF THE LEGAL POSITION IN DECIDING THE CLAIM ON MERITS. 9. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR HAVING MADE THE CLAIM IS REASONABLE AND WORTH BEING ACCEPTED. I N OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT EVEN A FIT CASE IN WHICH PENA LTY UNDER SECTION I.T.A NO.3150/ MUM/2010 WELEX LABORATORIES PVT LTD 7 271(1)(C) COULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ON ACCOUNT OF INFERENCE BEING DRAWN TO THAT EFFE CT UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C). 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEAR ING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT TH E CIT(A) INDEED ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF IMPOSED ON THE AS SESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THIS CASE DID NOT REALLY WARRANT OR JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF THIS PE NALTY. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011 SD/- SD/- (R V EASWAR ) (PRAMOD KUMAR) HONBLE PRESIDENT ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 29 TH DAY OF APRIL , 2011 . COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER MUMBAI CITY , MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, G BENCH, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ETC. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI