Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71828 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
06-12-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
01-11-2013
Assessment Year
2004-2005
Appeal Filed On
08-05-2012
Judgement Text
G IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.3149 TO 3153 /M/2012 (AY: 2002 - 2003 TO 2006 - 2007 ) SHRI GIRRAJ VIJAYVARGIYA, C/O. M/S. RAVI & DEV, C.AS., 601, A WING, AURUS CHAMBERS, BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWERS, S.S. AMRUTWAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 013. / VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAUPV 6266 D ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./I.T.A. NO.4009/M/2012 (AY: 2002 - 2003) ./I.T.A. NO.4010/M/2012 (AY: 2003 - 2004) ./I.T.A. NO.4016/M/2012 (AY: 2005 - 2006) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, MUMBAI. / VS. SHRI GIRRAJ VIJAYVARGIYA, C/O. M/S. RAVI & DEV, C.AS., 601, A WING, AURUS CHAMBERS, BEHIND MAHINDRA TOWERS, S.S. AMRUTWAR MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 013. ./ PAN : AAUPV 6266 D ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEVENDRA A MEHTA / REVENUE BY : SHRI DR. MANJUNATH KARKIHALLI, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 0 1.11.2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 .12.2013 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THERE ARE 8 APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5 OF THEM ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THREE OF THEM ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) - 39, MUMBAI DATED 28.3.2012. SINCE, THE ISSUE 2 INVOLVED IN THES E APPEALS IS IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL THE 8 APPEALS ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND BEING DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 2. FIRSTLY, WE SHALL TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEALS. THER E ARE 5 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 07 AND IN ALL THE FIVE AYS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS, THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED WITH REGARD TO THE AY 2003 - 2004 ARE T AKEN FOR ADJUDICATION WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A) PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS BOTH THE BAD IN LAW AND BAD IN FACTS. 2. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. 2.1. IN DOING SO, CIT (A) WRONGLY HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME REPRESENTING DISCLOSED ASSETS, ADVANCES AND INVESTMENT, OFFERED FOR TAXATION U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF D RUGS AND PHARMA LTD. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 26.4.2007 (AY 2008 - 2009) ALONG WITH THE GROUP COMPANIES. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURNS. THE DETAILS OF INCOME RETURNED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THE TAX PAID THEREON ARE AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME TAXES PAID 2002 - 03 3,30,697/ - 1,17,334/ - 2003 - 04 3,76,165/ - 1,25,071/ - 2004 - 05 2,82,757/ - 55,569/ - 2005 - 06 4,80,883/ - 1,39,330/ - 2006 - 07 23,05,414/ - 8,61,841/ - 4. DURING THE SEARCH, ASSESSEE DISCLOSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 20 LAKHS, SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS MODIFIED TO RS. 27.8 1 LAKHS FOR 6 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 07. BEFORE THE CIT (A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME W AS INVESTED IN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS. THE DETAILS OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: 3 PARTICULARS AMOUNTS (RS.) ADVANCE TO BROTHER FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT 15,00,000/ - FURNITURE AT FLAT 2,00,000/ - SHARE OF VINIYOG COMMERCIAL LTD 8,82,000/ - SHRI RADHEYSHYAM GUPTA 1,50,000/ - SHRI PARIKSHI JAIN 42,000/ - TOTAL 27,92,000/ - 5. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT LOT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN RESPONSE, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR THE BOGUS GIFTS. IN THE PROCESS, HE EARNED COMMISSION INCOME @ 2 TO 3% OF THE SAID GIFTS. THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS IN RESPONSE TO THE 153A NOTICE RELATES TO THE SAID COMMISSION INCOME AND FURTHER HE MENTIONED THAT THE CREDITS FOUND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS MUST NOT BE HELD AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. AFTER EXAMINING THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE, AO NOT ONLY ACCEPTED THE COMMISSION INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY CHANGES BUT ALSO MADE ADDITIONS U/S 68 IN RESPECT OF THE CREDITS ON PROTE CTI V E BASIS . THUS, THE COMMISSION INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE WHEREAS THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WAS PROTE CTIVELY ADDED, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LITIGATION BEFORE THE C IT (A). 6. DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, CIT (A) DELE TED THE ADDITIONS MADE ON PROTE CTIVE BASIS. FURTHER, THE CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTIES LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68 ON PROTE CTIVE BASIS. THE SAID DELETION WAS DO NE RELYING ON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT PENALTY WAS NOT SUS TAINABLE ON PROTE CTIVE BASIS. IN THE REGARD, THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS ARE RELEVANT. (I) CIT VS. BEHARI LAL PYARE LAL (141 ITR 32) (P&H); (II) METAL STORES VS. CIT (1 86 ITR 612) (GAU); (III) DCIT VS. RAJAN H SHINDE (93 ITD 1) (PUNE TM) AND (IV) ABHAY KUMAR VS. ACIT (63 ITD 15) (PATNA). REGARDING THE PENALTY LEVIED IN RESPONSE TO THE UNDISCLOSED COMMISSION INCOME, CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES FOR ALL THE 5 ASSESSMEN T YEARS FROM 2002 - 03 TO 2006 - 07. 4 7. COMING TO THE PENALTY ORDERS OF THE AO FOR ALL THESE YEAR, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT IS THE IMMUNITY IS AVAILABLE TO HIM UNDER EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.D.V. CHANDRU; HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANHAIYALAL [2008] 214 CIT 611 AND OTHERS . ASSESSEE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE EARLIER A SSESSMENT YERS IS ALSO COVERED IN THE EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, AO IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH IS DISCLOSED U/S 132 (4) OF THE ACT IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE SAID EXPLANATION. THERE FORE, AO OPINED THAT SUCH DISCREPANCIES UNEARTHED IN SEARCH ACTION RELATION TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS SHOULD INVITE THE PENAL PROVISIONS. THUS, IT IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY FURNISHING THE INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. HE ACCORDINGLY, LEVIED PENALTIES FOR ALL THE 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS. BEFORE THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENT. THE CIT (A) TOOK A STAND THAT THIS IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND NON - DISCOVERY OF ANY UNDISCLOSED ASS ETS. AS STATED EARLIER, CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTY RELATABLE TO THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSE S SEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 152A OF THE A CT IN ALL THESE 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHILE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY, AS SEEN FROM PARA 6.7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER (AY 2002 - 03) (SAME PARAS FOR ALL THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION), CIT (A) MENTIONED THAT NO UNACCOUNTED MONEY, BUI LLION, JEWELLERY, VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING WAS FOUND AND THE ASSESSEE, THE APPELLANT, IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ALSO HAS NOT MENTIONED ABOUT ANY SUCH DISCOVERY OF ASSETS. FURTHER, THE CIT (A) EXPLAINED THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5 AND C AME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED TO EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SOUTH INDIAN FINANCE VS. ITO (39 ITD 370) (COCHIN) AND DCIT VS. MAHADIK BROTHERS (84 ITD 1) (PUNE). THUS, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE COMMISSION INCOME IS UPHELD. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID CONFIRMATION OF THE PENALTY, ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL FOR ALL THE FIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, AGGRIEVED WITH THE DELETION OF PENALTY RELATABLE TO THE 5 PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL FOR ONLY THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04 AND 2005 - 06. IT IS MENTIONED BEFORE US THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL FOR THE OTHER TWO ASSESSMENT YEAS. 8. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS, ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS BY STATING THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER CLAUSE - 2 OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL EXPLAINED THE SAID PROVISIONS AND RELIED ON THE CITED DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURTS OF MADRAS AND RAJASTHAN (SUPRA) AND OTHERS. FURTHER, HE ALSO FILED A COPY OF TH E ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHRI PURNANDU JAIN VIDE ITA NO. 1679/M/2012 (AY 2004 - 05) & ITA NO.1680/M/2012 (AY 2006 - 07) DATED 23.9.2013 AND MENTIONED THAT THE SAID CLAUSE - 2 IS APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME RELATABLE TO THE EA RLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE SAID DECISION WAS TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLAINING OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS BY THE CITE D HIGH COURTS SO MENTIONED. PARAS 6 TO 6.3 OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE SPECIALLY MENTIONED BY THE LD COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD. ON THE ISSUE OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). IN THE PROCESS, HE MENTIONED THAT THIS IS A CASE OF NON - D ISCOVERY OF ANY ASSETS SPECIFIED IN THE EXPLANATION 5 TO THE SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LISTING OF THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS I.E., ADVANCE TO BROTHER FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT WITH FURNITURE, INVESTME NT IN SHARES AND OTHER ADVANCES TO RADHEYSHYAM GUPTA AN D SHRI PARIKSHIT JAIN WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO AS NONE OF THE ORDERS OF THE AO FOR ANY OF THE AYS, DO NOT REFER TO SUCH UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS. WHEN SUCH ASSETS WERE NOT DISCOVERED BY THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5 WHIC H STARTS WITH WHERE IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING REFERRED TO AS ASSETS. ARE NOT APPLI CABLE. THEREFORE, FINDING OF THE SAID ASSETS IS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF THE SAID EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, IN GENERAL AND PARA 6.7 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER. ON PERUSAL OF THE 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDERS OF THE AO, WE FIND, THEY DO NOT INDICATE THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION WHICH IS A MANDATORY CONDITION FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID ASSETS REFERRED TO IN PARA 4 ABOVE WERE DISCOV ERED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOKING THE EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO SHOULD EXAMINE THIS ASPECT AND CLARIFY IF SUCH ASSETS WERE FOUND AND THE SOURCE OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IS OUT OF COMMISSION INCOME, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. FOR THIS PURPOSE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE AO FOR ALL THE 5 ASSESSMENT YE ARS AND DIRECT THE AO TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE A F R E S H AND TO WRITE A SPEAKING ORDER AFTER APPLYING THE CITED JUDGMENTS TO THE PRESENT CASE. DURING THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, AO SHALL GRANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDIN GLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ./I.T.A. NO.4009/M/2012 (AY: 2002 - 2003) ./I.T .A. NO.4010/M/2012 (AY: 2003 - 2004) ./I.T.A. NO.4016/M/2012 (AY: 2005 - 2006) (BY REVENUE) 12. THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) 39, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04 AND 2005 - 06. IN THESE THERE ASSESSMENT YEARS REVENUE RAISED THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND, WHICH IS IDENTICAL IN ALL THE APPEALS, READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY CHARGED U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT. 13. BY THESE APPEALS, REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED WITH THE DELETION OF PENALTY RELATABLE TO THE PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS AND IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR ONLY THREE 7 A SSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04 AND 2005 - 06. IT IS MENTIONED BEFORE US THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL FOR THE OTHER TWO ASSESSMENT YEAS. 14. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE US, LD DR RELIED HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD COUNSEL RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN GENERAL AND PARA 6.7.2 IN PARTICULAR AND THE CITED DECISIONS MENTIONED A BOVE. CONSIDERING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAID PARA 6.7.2 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER: 6.7.2. AS FAR AS THE INCOME ASSESSED AS PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT, I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS VIEW THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEV Y A BLE ON THE INCOME ASSESSED PROTECTIVELY. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT INCOME BELONGS TO SOME OTHER PERSON . WHEN IT IS SO, SUCH INCOME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT . IN VIEW OF THIS, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY CHARGED U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT . 17. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT, AO FOUND THAT THE INCOME BELONGS TO SOME OTHE R PERSONS OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONCEALED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY CHARGED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE INCOME WHCH IS ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AS THEY ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 18. IN THE RESULT, THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 T H DECEMBER, 2013. S D / - S D / - (VIVEK VARMA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 6 .12.2013 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI
