MEHERU MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ACIT., 12(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3233/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59915 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP CHETIWAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Depreciation; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, B, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE PRESIDENT SHRI G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA AND SHRI D.K.AGARWAL (JM) ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) MRS.MEHERU MEHTA, C/O KALYANIWALLA & MISTRY, ARMY & NAVY BUILDING, 3 RD FLOOR, 148, M G ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400001. PAN: AAGPM6680E ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12 (1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI M.M.GOLVALA AND SANDEEP CHETIWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.C.MAURYA ORDER PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, PROPERTY INC OME, INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, INTEREST INCOME AND OTHER SOURC ES, FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.17,65,575/-. DU RING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN COME DATE OF HEARING : 20.2.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.3.2012 ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 2 UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1,35,74 ,879/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE WORKING FILED ALONG WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAID LTCG INCLUDES, CAPIT AL GAIN OF RS.49,27,838/- ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEING FLAT AT COLABA, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD 1/4TH SHARE. HE F URTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AREA OF THE PROPERTY SOLD IS 3390 SQ.FT BUILT UP AREA AND 315.05 SQ.MTRS. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDER ATION STATED TO BE RS.2,03,40,000/- AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.50,85,000/, BEING 1/4TH OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION. AFTER CLAIMING EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,32,312/- AND COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.24,850/ - AND AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION, NET GAIN OF RS. 49,27,838/- WAS OFFERED TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNI SH THE DETAILS OF THE SAID PROPERTY. ON VERIFICATION OF TH E DETAILS FURNISHED, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS PER STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY IS RS.3,46,50,000/- ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID STA MP DUTY OF RS.17,32,500/-. THE PROPERTY IS DULY REGISTERED WIT H THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. ACCORDING TO THE AO AS PER PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) IF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY A UTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR TH E PURPOSE ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 3 OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFE R, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FU LL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRAN SFER. SECTION 50C WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F. 1. 4.2003. SINCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS T O WHY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) ARE NOT ATTRACTED. IN RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WH Y PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C(1) ARE NOT ATTRACTED, THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ADOPTED BY THE ASS ESSEE NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE BUYER OF THE SAID PROPERTY WA S ENTITLED TO A DEPRECIATION OF 50% BECAUSE THE BUILDING WAS MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD. BUT, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN AVAILED OF WH ICH WOULD DEPRECIATE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER THE DEPA RTMENT WAS REQUESTED FOR VALUATION REPORT FROM THE DVO, HENCE PROPOSED ADDITIONS ARE UN-CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED FROM AN ARCHITECT, IND ICATING FMV OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI D NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES PLEA FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE VALUATION DON E BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AT RS.3,46,50,000/- AND HENCE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABL E. THIS IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT; (B) WITH REGARD TO ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION BEING THE PROPERTY IS 50 YEARS OLD, SECTION 50C(1) DOES NOT PROVIDE FO R ANY ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 4 SORT OF DEDUCTION BY DEPRECIATION IN VALUE, OR ANY OTHER DEDUCTION THAT MIGHT BE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E SECTION ONLY MANDATES SUBSTITUTION OF STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES VALUATION AND NOTHING ELSE; (C) ALTHOUGH REFERENCE WAS MADE TO DVO TILL THE DA TE OF PASSING THIS ORDER NO SUCH VALUATION REPORT IS RECE IVED; (D) THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IN ABSENCE OF RE PORT OF THE DVO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ADJUDICATE TH E MATTER, THE SAID ARGUMENT IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, WHICH IS INDEPENDENT AND SELF-SUFFICIENT. THE ROL E OF THE DVO COMES INTO PLAY IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 5 0C ONLY AND NOT UNDER SECTION 50C(1); (E) WITH REGARD TO VALUATION REPORT FROM AN ARCHITE CT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS NOT RELEVANT AS DISADVANTAGEOUS FACTORS HAVING EFFECT OF LOWERING T HE VALUE ARE OF NO AVAILS IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 50C(1). ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) AND VALUE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS SUBSTITUTED WITH RS.3,46,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS.2,0 3,40,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY MADE ADDITION OF RS.35,77,500/-, BEING ASSESSEES 1/4TH SHARE IN DIF FERENCE IN VALUATION, I.E. RS.1,43,10,000/- (RS.3,46,50,000 - RS.2,03,40,000). 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE C ONTENDED THAT IF A VALUATION REPORT IS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SAID VALUATION IS CARRIED OUT, PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF TH E ASSESSMENT. ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN REJECTING THE VALUAT ION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH INDICATES SEVERAL SALE INSTANCES OF NEARBY AREAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE P RICE ADOPTED BY THE PARTIES TO THE PRESENT SALE AGREEMEN T WAS THE CORRECT PRICE. THE DVO ISSUED A DRAFT VALUATION REP ORT DATED 15.10.2010 TO THE ASSESSEE AND REQUESTED THE ASSESS EE TO SUBMIT HER OBJECTIONS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HER O BJECTIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 15TH NOVEMBER, 2010. THUS THE SA LE CONSIDERATION ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D ADOPTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR AR RIVING AT THE CAPITAL GAIN. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSU E OF APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. REGARDING THE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFI CER, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHILE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS MADE ON 16.9.2008 THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE DVO IS DA TED 15.10.2010. MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED ON 31.12.2008 TAKING THE SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION. SINCE THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS MADE AT A STAGE WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING, THE REFERENC E WAS VALIDLY MADE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE RELYIN G ON THE ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 6 DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN T HE CASE OF RELIANCE JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. V/S INCOME-TAX O FFICER (1984) 150 ITR 643 (CAL.) HAS HELD THAT THE VALUATI ON PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD BECOME INFRUCT UOUS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IN ADOPTING THE VALU ATION DONE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES IS CORRECT AND HENCE U PHELD THE SAME. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US TAKING THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS : 1. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN DETERMINING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF ASSESSEES 1/4 S HARE IN COLABA PROPERTY AT RS.85,05,338/- AS AGAINST RS.49,27,838/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITIO N UNDER SECTION 50C OF RS.35,77,500/-. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING T HE FACT THAT THE BUYER DID NOT AVAIL OF 50% DISCOUNT TO WHI CH SHE WAS ENTITLED IN PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE VALUATION PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT UNDERSTANDING THE SPECIFIC SCHEME OF S ECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING, ON MERITS, THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, AND TO WHAT IS STA TED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO TAX LONG TERM CAPI TAL ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 7 GAINS IN RESPECT OF 1/4TH SHARE ON SALE OF COLABA P ROPERTY AT RS.49,27,838/-. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE STATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE SUBMITS THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AO HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO DVO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. H OWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPORT BY THE DVO, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT THE DVOS REPORT. HE FURTH ER SUBMITS THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO ALONG WITH THE ASSESSE ES OBJECTIONS. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDE RING THE SAME UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING THE V ALUATION DONE BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE VIEWS OF THE AO RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA). HE FURT HER SUBMITS THAT THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASS ESSEES CASE AS IN THAT CASE THE REFERENCE WAS MADE FOR VALUATION U/S 55A OF THE ACT. WHEREAS IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE REFER ENCE WAS MADE U/S 50C OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT U/S 50C OF THE ACT IF THE REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE DVO IT IS A DUTY OF THE REVENUE TO CONSIDER THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE AS SESSEES OBJECTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE, THE REFORE, IN ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 8 THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASID E TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF N. MEENAKSHI V/S ACIT (2010) 326 ITR 229 (MAD). 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE INASMUCH AS IT I S ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT THE AO HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. SINCE THE AO COULD NOT GET THE VALUATION REPORT F ROM THE DVO, HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 31.12.2008 WITH OUT CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED D.V.OS REPORT ALONG WIT H HER OBJECTION FOR CONSIDERATION TO THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME WHILE RELYING ON THE D ECISION RELIANCE JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) UPHELD T HE VALUATION TAKEN BY THE AO WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE SAME AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. 8. IN RELIANCE JUTE AND INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT (PAGE 643 HEAD NOTE): ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 9 THE OPINION OF THE ITO IS AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISI TE FOR MAKING A REFERENCE FOR VALUATION UNDER S. 55A OF TH E I.T. ACT, 1961. WHERE A REFERENCE UNDER S. 55A OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1, FOR VALUATION OF A PROPERTY IS MADE BY THE INCOME-TAX O FFICER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS STI LL PENDING, BUT PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF THE VALUATION REPORT, THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, THE REFERENCE WOULD BECOME INVALID BECAUSE THE PURP OSE FOR WHICH A VALUATION REPORT CAN BE UTILIZED, NAMEL Y, FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE VALUATION REPORT, IS NO LONGER EXISTENT, THE ASSESS MENT HAVING BEEN COMPLETED IN THE MEANTIME. 9. IN THE ABOVE CASE THE REFERENCE FOR VALUATIO N WAS MADE U/S 55A OF THE ACT FOR VALUATION OF PROPERTY WHEREAS IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE REFERENCE FOR VALUATION W AS MADE U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. DR IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 10. IN N. MEENAKSHI (SUPRA), IT HAS BEEN HELD (PAG E 230, HEADNOTE): HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, (I) THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, AN APPEAL LAY UNDER SECTION 246A OF THE 1961 ACT. BUT, WHILE THE MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE THE VALUATION OFFICER, WHICH HAD BEEN REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED. IT WAS A QUESTION O F THE VALUABLE RIGHT OF THE ASSESSEE AS CONFERRED UNDER S ECTION 50C OF THE 1961 ACT. THE WRIT PETITION WAS MAINTAIN ABLE. (II) THAT INASMUCH IOC HAD NOT TAKEN ANY STEPS UNDE R SECTION 47A OF THE 1899 ACT, THE ONLY AVAILABLE REM EDY TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HER CAPITAL GAIN WAS UND ER ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 10 SECTION 50C OF THE 1961 ACT, WHICH COULD NOT BE DISPENSED WITH MERELY DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAD NOT CHOSEN TO PASS ORDERS REG ARDING THE VALUATION IN TIME. THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN A N OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VALUATION REPO RT THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. [MATTER REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR FRESH DISPOSAL AFTER OBTAINING THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE FROM THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER.] 11. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S KANPUR C OAL SYNDICATE (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BE EN HELD THAT THE POWERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AR E COTERMINOUS WITH THOSE OF THE AO AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY IS VESTED WITH ALL THE WIDE POWERS, WHICH THE SUB-ORDINATE A UTHORITY MAY HAVE IN THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN TH E INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE DVOS REPORT AND ASS ESSEES OBJECTIONS AND ACCORDING TO LAW AFTER PROVIDING R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GRO UNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.3233/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) 11 12. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27TH MARCH,2 012. SD SD (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA) (D.K.AGARWAL) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 27TH MARCH, 2012. SRL: COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUM BAI