Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0320 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
12-03-2021
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
H
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
14-05-2019
Judgement Text
H IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3210/MUM/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) T HE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14(2)(1), MUMBAI ROOM NO. 432, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD. 4 TH FLOOR, VINAY BHAVYA COMPLEX, 159A, CST ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI-400 098 ( ' / APPELLANT) ( #$' / RESPONDENT) . /PAN NO. AAACO3983B '&' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEEHAR PANDEY, DR #$'&' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI FAROKH V. IRANI, AR & *+ / DATE OF HEARING: 14.12.2020 & *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.03.2021 / O R D E R , . PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-22, MUMBAI [IN SHORT THE CIT(A)] DATED 28.02.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 013-14. 2. THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BY RAISING FOLLOWING G ROUNDS:- 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SURPLUS OF RS. 48.45 CRORES IN PAGE | 2 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 SHAREHOLDERS ACCOUNT HAS TO BE TREATED AT PAR WITH THE INCOME FROM LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS UNDER THE POLICY HOLDE RS ACCOUNT TAXABLE U/S 44 OF THE ACT?' 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING T HE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE 8D?' 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT N EGATIVE RESERVE HAS AN IMPACT OF REDUCING THE TAXABLE SURPLUS AS PE R FORM-I AND THEREFORE, CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT FOR NEGATIVE RE SERVE NEED TO BE MADE TO ARRIVE AT TAXABLE SURPLUS?' 4. 'THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, VARY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL A T ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL.' 5. 'THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HE RESTORED.' 3. SHRI FAROKH V. IRANI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE IN APPEAL FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE SIMILAR TO THE ONE RAISED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE AO HAD MADE ADDITIONS/ DISALLO WANCES FOR IDENTICAL REASONS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS STARTING FROM AY PAGE | 3 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 2007-08 TO AY 2012-13 AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED THAT THE FACTS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED CHART TABULATING THE DETAILS OF APPEALS FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 4. SHRI NEEHAR PANDEY REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT, VEH EMENTLY DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR PRECEDING AYS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDES A ND HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HA VE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEREIN IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED. 6. IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS ASSA ILED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE SURPLUS OF RS. 48.45 CRORES IN SHAREHOLDERS ACCOUNT HAS TO BE TREATED AT PAR WITH THE INCOME FROM LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS AND IS THUS, TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 44 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT). WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS PERENNIAL. FOR THE FIRST TIME TH IS ISSUE AROSE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISS UE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPE AL BEFORE THE PAGE | 4 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2551/MUM/2010. THE TRIBUNAL VID E ORDER DATED 22.03.2013 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF IC CI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 6854 TO 6856 AND 6059/MUM/2010. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L HELD AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY THE RIVAL PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE OF THE DR ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESE ES OWN CASE IS MISPLACED INASMUCH AS DURING THAT PERIOD, THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT STARTED ITS INSURANCE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, PROVISIO NS OF SEC. 44 AND IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE I N THAT YEAR. HOWEVER, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS THEREFORE, TH E ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ICICI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (SUPRA). WE FIN D THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE AT PARA-55 OF ITS O RDER WHICH IS AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. AS BRIEFLY DIS CUSSED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF TAXING SURPLUS, ASSESSEE IS I N LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS AND IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO DO ANY OTHER BU SINESS. ALL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSEE ARE FOR FURTHERA NCE OF LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS. MAINTAINING ADEQUATE CAPITAL IS NECESSARY TO ITA NOS.6854 TO 6856 6509 7765 TO 7767 AND 7213 ICICI PRULIFE MUMBAI F BENCH COMPLY WITH IRDA( ASSETS, LI ABILITIES AND SOLVENCY MARGIN OF INSURERS)REGULATIONS,2000. INCOM E EARNED ON PAGE | 5 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 CAPITAL INFUSED IN BUSINESS IS INTEGRAL PART OF LIF E INSURANCE BUSINESS. THE LD. CIT(A) GIVES A FINDING THAT ASSES SEE IS EXCLUSIVELY IN LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS. HOWEVER, SINCE HE GAVE PRIMACY TO FORM I PROFORMA HE CONCLUDED THAT OTHER INCOMES ARE NOT OF LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS MANDATED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS BY IRDA REGULATIONS. JUST BECAUSE SEPARATE ACCOUNTS ARE MAI NTAINED THE INCOMES IN SHAREHOLDER'S ACCOUNT DOES NOT BECOME SE PARATE FROM LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS. AS PER INSURANCE ACT 1938 ALL INCOMES ARE PART OF ONE BUSINESS ONLY AND THESE INCOMES ARE CON SIDERED AS PART OF SAME BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE INCOMES IN SHAREHO LDER'S ACCOUNT ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ARISING OUT OF LIFE INSURAN CE BUSINESS ONLY. MORE OVER SEC 44 MANDATES THAT ONLY FIRST SCHEDULE WILL APPLY FOR COMPUTING INCOMES AND EXCLUDES OTHER HEADS OF INCOM E LIKE, INTEREST ON SECURITIES, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BEING NON-OBSTANTE CLAUS E, SEC. 44 MANDATES THAT THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF INSURANCE BU SINESS SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES CONTAINED IN FIRST SCHEDULE. THEREFORE, THE INCOMES IN SHAREHOLDER'S ACCOUNT ARE TO BE TAXED AS PART OF LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS ONLY, AS THEY ARE P ART OF SAME BUSINESS AND INVESTMENTS ARE MADE AS PART OF SOLVEN CY RATIO OF SAME BUSINESS. THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. AO IS DIREC TED TO TREAT THEM AS PART OF LIFE INSURANCE BUSINESS AND TAX THE M U/S 115B. AS FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN THE CASE OF ICICI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., (SUPRA ), RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. THEREAFTER IN, AYS 2008-09 TO 2012-13, THIS ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE FOR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTL Y FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN AY 2007-08 AND HAS DISMISSED THE APPE ALS OF THE REVENUE. NO CONTRARY DECISION HAS BEEN PLACED BEFOR E US BY THE LEARNED DR. THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE BY FOLLOWING PAGE | 6 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. WE SEE, NO REASON TO TAKE CO NTRARY VIEW. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE PRECEDING AS SESSMENT YEARS, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS ASSA ILED DELETING OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). WE FIND THA T THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR THE FIRST TIME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, I N APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 2401/MUM/2010 FOR AY 2007-08. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.09.2011 HELD THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF ASSESEE EN GAGED IN GENERAL INSURANCE BUSINESS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FIN DINGS OF TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- 12. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS ON APPEAL BEFORE US . IN THE CASE OF BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 38 DTR 282 PUNE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 14A IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF I NSURANCE BUSINESS, WHICH IS GOVERNED BY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF 44 AND SCHEDULE 1. IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE GENERAL INSURAN CE CO LTD V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI BENCH, SI MILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE CO LTD V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX ITA 2253/M/2006 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT THE PAGE | 7 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE RELEVANT DETA ILS AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.16 AND 5.17 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS. 30,18,496/- FOR EARN ING DIVIDEND INCOME, THEREFORE, THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE L D. DR THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. THIS BEING SO, AND KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD V. ACIT ( 2009) TIOL 172 ITAT - DEL AFTER DISCUSSING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AT LENGTH HAS HELD THAT SECTION 44 PROVIDES FOR APPLICATION O F SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTATION OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF INSURANCE BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 5 OF SCHEDULE 1 AN D, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO TRAVEL BEYOND SECTION 44 AND SCHEDULE-I AND MAKE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. TH E ABOVE ORDER HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN THE ABOVE THREE CASES RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEAT URE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. DR WE RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLD THAT IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TRAVEL BEYOND SECTION 4 4 AND SCHEDULE-I AND MAKE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING SECTIO N 14A OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30, 18,496 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS DELETED. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCHES, WE DELETE THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE UND ER 14A AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,77,69,215 IS NO EXPENDITURE IS I NCURRED FOR EARNING EXEMPTION DIVIDEND INCOME 9. THE AO CONTINUE TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AYS 2008-09 TO 2012-13 AND THE SAME WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL CONFIR MED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN TH E IMPUGNED PAGE | 8 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOW ED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2012-13 AND HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HENCE, THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND NO .2 OF APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAI LED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON NEGATIVE RESERVES OF THE ASSE SSEE. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL IN AY 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 6223/MUM/2014 VIDE ORDER DAT ED 20.12.2016 DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER:- 7. THE LAST GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL ASSAILS DEL ETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NEGATIVE RESERVE OF RS. 399. 05 CRORES BY CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME IN TAX ABLE SURPLUS ON THE PREMISES THAT NEGATIVE RESERVE MEANS THE INS URANCE CONTRACT UNDER CONSIDERATION DOES NOT WARRANT ANY P ROVISION AND IN FACT, IS AN ASSET. RELYING UPON TRIBUNAL JUDGEME NT, CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME. THE LD. AR HAS SUPPORTED THE STAN D OF CIT(A) AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS TRIBUNAL DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF COMPANIES CARRYING ON INSURANCE BUSINESS, WHICH WE HAVE PERUSED. WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6854 & OT HERS/ MUM/ 2010 ORDER DATED 14/09/2012 TITLED AS ICICI PRUDENT IAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. ACIT HAS CONCLUDED THAT SUCH NEGATIVE RESERVE DO NOT GIVE RISE TO DISTRIBUTABLE SURPLUS. SIMILAR VIEW HAS PAGE | 9 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 BEEN EXPRESSED IN BUNCH OF APPEALS ITA NO. 2203 & O THERS TITLED AS HDFC STANDARD LIC LTD. VS. DCIT ORDER DATED 20/0 9/2013, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. RESPECTIVE LY FOLLOWING THE SETTLED POSITION, WE ARE INCLINED TO DISMISS TH IS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL. 11. NO DISTINGUISHABLE FACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF TRI BUNAL. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUES ARE IN LINE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE. WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED SANS MERIT. 12. THE GROUND NO. 4 & 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN N ATURE, HENCE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON _FRIDAY THE _12 TH _DAY OF MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- ( / SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER) , 0 / MUMBAI, DATED: 12.03.2021 + , . 1 23 / SUDIP SARKAR, SR.PS PAGE | 10 ITA NO.3210/MUM/2019 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD.; AY 13-14 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( 5* ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ( 5* / CIT 5. 89 #*2 , + 2 , ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9: / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, $* #* //TRUE COPY// / (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ( / ITAT, MUMBAI
