WELL WISHER CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. CIT-VI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3326/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8062 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHA KALA CHANDA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition; Capital receipt
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BE NCH, MUMBAI , !' # # # # , $ % & , !' ( BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I .T.A. NO. 3326/DEL/2013 ( ) ) ) ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. WELL WISHER CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., SHOP NO. 5 & 6, SHAKTI ARCADE, PLOT NO. 5, SECTOR-19D, VASHI, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI-400705 / VS. THE CIT-VI, 2 ND FLOOR, C.R. BLDG., I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI '* ./ +, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACW 3204H ( *- / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY: MS. RITIKA AGARWAL SHRI BHARAT AGARWAL SHRI KHUSHIRAM D. JADHWANI ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ABHA KALA CHANDA 1 $2 / DATE OF HEARING :01.10.2014 34) 1 $2 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :10.10.2014 !% / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-VI, DELHI MADE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT DT. 25.3.201 3. ITA NO. 3326/DEL/2013 2 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE C IT ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN EXERCISING JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF TH E I.T. ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE YEAR. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT U/S. 143(3) FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THERE IS A FINDING TO THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND BUSINESS E XPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THAT YEAR WAS DISALLOWED. 4. TAKING A LEAF OUT OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN A.Y. 2006-07, THE AP PROCEEDED BY QUESTIONING THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS A CCEPTED THAT IT HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY EITHER DURING THE YEAR OR IN EARLIER YEARS, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWING EXPENDITURE AND A LSO DEPRECIATION. THE AO FURTHER EXAMINED THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT O F SALE OF PLOT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 4.1. THE CIT INVOKING THE POWERS VESTED ON HIM BY S EC. 263 OF THE ACT ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH READ AS UNDER: AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORD OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS IN YOUR CASE FOR A.Y 2008-09 IT IS FOUND A) THAT THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR OR IN EA RLIER YEARS AND B) THAT THE NET RECEIPTS ON TRANSFER OF MIDC PLOT AT I T-5, AIROLI KNOWLEDGE PARK OF TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, AIROL I, ITA NO. 3326/DEL/2013 3 NEW MUMBAI ARE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL RIGHT AND C) THAT YOU HAVE NOT DECLARED SUCH NET RECEIPTS OF RS. 43,52,50,000 RECEIVED FROM B RAHEJA DEVELOPERS AS A TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AND D) THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON IN ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS TO MAKE THE ABOVESAID RECEIPT NON-TAXABLE ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN YOUR CASE. THE CASE OF B.C. SRINIVASA N SHETTY 128 ITR 294 PERTAINS TO TAXABILITY OF GOODWI LL AND THAT OF D.P. SANDU BROS. CHEMBUR PVT. LTD. 273 ITR 1 WAS ON TAXABILITY OF TENANCY RIGHTS. IN THESE CASE S THE APEX COURT CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIB LE ASCERTAIN THE COST OF ACQUISITION IN THESE TRANSACT IONS THUS THE COMPUTATION U/S. 48 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 IS NOT POSSIBLE. THIS IS NOT YOUR CASE. THE PAYMENT MADE BY B. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS TO MIDC ON YOUR BEHALF REPRESENTS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF YOUR CAPITAL RIGHT WHICH WAS SOLD TO B. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS AT PROFIT OF RS. 43,52,50,000/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOU R CASE I CONSIDER THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 21.12.2010 PASSED IN YOUR CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IS ERRONEOUS I N SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE. ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN YOUR CASE IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON 25.7.2012 AT 3.30 P.M AND SHOW CAUSE THAT WHY SHOULD NOT A NECESSARY ORDER U/S. 263 BE PASSED AS THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING AN ORDER ENHANCING O R MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANCELLING THE ASSESSME NT AND DIRECTING FRESH ASSESSMENT. NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE ABOVE SHALL BE DEEMED THAT YO U DONT HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO SAY IN THIS MATTER A ND THE MATTER MAY BE DECIDED WITHOUT GIVING FURTHER OPPORTUNITY. ITA NO. 3326/DEL/2013 4 4.2. AN IDENTICAL QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE AO VID E NOTICE DT. 23.11.2010 WHICH READ AS UNDER: DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DETAI LS WERE SOUGHT REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 43.5 CRORES SHOW N BY YOU AS CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE YOU HAVE SUBMITTED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE RELEASE DEED DT. 14.4.2007 BY VIRTUE OF WHICH YOU RELEASED YOUR RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE PLOT FROM MIDC IN FAVOUR OF B. RAHEJ A DEVELOPERS. IN CONSIDERATION OF RELEASE OF SUCH VA LUABLE RIGHT YOU HAVE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 43.5 CRORE S. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN INCLUDED BY YOU FOR THE CALCUL ATION OF MAT AND ACCORDINGLY MAT HAS BEEN PAID ON IT. YOU AR E REQUIRED TO SHOW CAUSE. A) WHY SAID AMOUNT RECEIVED BY YOU SHOULD NOT BE TREAT ED AS TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. B) ALTERNATIVELY, WHY ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION S HOULD NOT BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN TAKING C OST OF ACQUISITION AS NIL, SINCE YOU HAVE SOLD A VALUABLE RIGHT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE AMOUNT. YOUR REPLY TO THE ABOVE SHOULD REACH THE UNDERSIGNE D WITHIN 7 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE. IN CASE NO REPLY IS RECEIVED WITHIN SUCH TIME, IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT YOU HAV E NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER AND ASSESSMENT SHALL BE FINALI ZED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4.3. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY IN RESPONS E TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE AO WHICH IS AS UNDER: IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT WE HAD ACQUIRED A VALUABLE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY FROM MIDC BY VIRTUE OF IS SUANCE OF ALLOTMENT LETTER DT. 24.2.2006 BY MIDC. THE SAID V ALUABLE RIGHT IS COVERED WITHIN THE BROAD DEFINITION OF THE TERM PROPERTY. HENCE, SUCH A VALUABLE RIGHT IS A CAPI TAL ASSET AS DEFINED U/S. 2(14) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. NO PA YMENT WAS MADE FOR ACQUIRING THE SAID RIGHT AS THE ENTIRE PRE MIUM WAS ITA NO. 3326/DEL/2013 5 PAID TO MIDC BY B. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS. KINDLY REFER TO THE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED FOR DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY M/S. B. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FIND ING OF YOUR LEARNED PREDECESSOR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FO R THE A.Y. 2006-07, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD E ARLIER. IN THE SAID ORDER LD. AO HAS STATED THAT NO BUSINES S WAS CARRIED OUT BY US AND THAT ACQUISITION OF ANY RIGHT IN AIROLI PLOT WAS MERELY A CAPITAL ASSET WITHOUT ANY BUSINES S BEING CARRIED OUT. ON THAT BASIS HE DISALLOWED EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION . THE SAID ORDER REMAINS UNDISPUTED AND HENCE HOLDS THE F IELD. 4.4. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE RELIED U PON CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISIONS CLAIMING THAT THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE A PROP ERTY IS A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(14) OF THE ACT AND HENCE ANY GAIN ON SALE/SURRENDER OF SUCH RENTAL IS RELIABLE FOR TAX U NDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. IN SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.C. SRINIVASAN SHETTY 128 ITR 294. 4.5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT CONCLUDED BY HOLDING THAT THE AO WHILE COMP LETING THE ASSESSMENT DID NOT TRY AND FAILED TO COLLECT THE IN FORMATION INDEPENDENTLY AND HE ALSO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE CORRECTLY A S PER THE LAW. THE CIT WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 1 43(3) IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE. HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER TO THE AO TO MAKE ASSESSMENT DENOVO AND COMPLETE TH E ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. ITA NO. 3326/DEL/2013 6 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMIT TED THAT THE AO MADE DETAILED ENQUIRY DURING ASSESSMENT AND ALSO IS SUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED RE PLY. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY EXAMINED AND THEREAFTER THE AO FORMED A BELIEF AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, HENCE , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AO HAS NOT MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT PART OF THE TRANSACTIO N HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED AND ACCEPTED IN A.Y. 2006-07 IN SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE VIEW FORMED IN A.Y. 2006-07 COULD NO T HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY THE CIT IN A.Y. 2008-09. IT IS THE SAY OF THE L D. COUNSEL THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CIT WAS DIFFERENT F ROM THE REASONS GIVEN WHILE COMPLETING THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. TH E LD. COUNSEL RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISIONS, COPY OF THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER. THE FIRST THING WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS RIGHTLY ASSUMED THE POWER UNDER SE CTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTR IAL CO. LTD. 243 ITR 83 HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING RATIO:- A BARE READING OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR THE EXERCI SE OF JURISDICTION BY THE COMMISSIONER SUO MOTU UNDER IT, IS THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAS TO B E SATISFIED OF ITA NO. 3326/DEL/2013 7 TWIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY, (I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS ; AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF ONE OF THEM IS ABSENT IF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS BUT IS NOT PREJ UDICIAL TO THE REVENUE OR IF IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS BUT IS PREJUDICIA L TO THE REVENUE RECOURSE CANNOT BE HAD TO SECTION 263(1) OF THE ACT . THE PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS ONL Y WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL BE ATTRACTED. AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS 9. NOW, LET US SEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE RATIO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW. THE FIRST OBJECTION I S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 43,52,50,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY IT AS CAPITAL RECEIPT AND THEREFORE DID NOT CONSIDER T HE SAME AS TAXABLE INCOME. THE SECOND OBJECTION IS THAT THE AO ACCEP TED THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON CASE LAWS WHICH ARE NOT APPL ICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE THIRD OBJECTION IS THAT THE AMOUNT H AS BEEN RECEIVED FROM TRANSFER OF A TRADING ASSET AND YET NOT RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE RECEIPT. 9.1. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOW S THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T DOING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO HAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CA RRY ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 SHOWS THAT THE IS SUE RELATING TO THE PLOT BY MIDC HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND H AS GIVEN A VERY CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT ANY PROPERTY WHETHER CONNE CTED WITH BUSINESS OR NOT OTHER THAN STOCK IN TRADE IS A CAPITAL ASSET. THUS, THE OBSERVATION OF ITA NO. 3326/DEL/2013 8 THE CIT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS FROM TRANSFER OF A TRADING ASSET IS NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED IT AS A CAPI TAL ASSET, THE RELINQUISHMENT OF THE RIGHT WAS CONSIDERED AS TRANS FER OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED W HY THERE IS NO LIABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE A SPEC IFIC QUERY WAS ALSO RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND A VERY SPECIFIC REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE SE FACTUAL MATRIX HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE AO AS IS EVIDENT FR OM THE EXTRACT OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE GIVEN AT PARA-4.3 HEREI NABOVE. THE AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY JUDICIAL DECISIO NS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO MAY BE DIFFEREN T FROM THE VIEW OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND ASSUMING THAT THE VIEW TAK EN BY THE AO IS A LOSS TO THE REVENUE BUT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, FOR E.G. WHEN AN INCOME TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE O F THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN L OSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER H AS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE LD. COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDER WHICH IS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 9.2. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS GABRIAL INDI A LTD., (1993) 203 ITR 108 HAS HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS ORDER , HE DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS DISCUSSED HEREI NABOVE, IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITH ER ERRONEOUS NOR ITA NO. 3326/DEL/2013 9 PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE, TH EREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER U/S. 263 AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OCTOBER, 2014 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) !' / JUDICIAL MEMBER !' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 5! DATED : 10 TH OCTOBER, 2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS !% !% !% !% 1 11 1 .$ .$ .$ .$ 6)$ 6)$ 6)$ 6)$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 7 / CIT 5. 89 .$ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9: ; / GUARD FILE. !% !% !% !% / BY ORDER, /$ .$ //TRUE COPY// < << < / = = = = + + + + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI