DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI V. MEGASOFT INFORMATION SYSTEMS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3445/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0024 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH KUMAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Accommodation entries
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.3445/MUM/2015 - AY 2010-11 ITA NO.3446/MUM/2015 - AY 2011-12 DCIT 15(2)(2), MUMBAI VS M/ S MEGASOFT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD, 36/5, BANSALI BHAVAN, 10 TH ROAD, JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI - 56 PAN : AABCM4900B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI SAURABH KUMAR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 29 -06-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06-2017 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI DATED 18-03-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AN 2011-12. SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.3445/MUM/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSULTANTS, F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME 2 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 15-10-2010 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,63,92,382. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ALONGWITH A QUESTIONNAIRE CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES, AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED T HE DETAILS, AS CALLED FOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF MUMBAI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, WHO WERE LISTE D AS HAWALA OPERATORS BY THE COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, , THE AO ISSU ED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PUR CHASES MADE FROM THOSE PARTIES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS AND MADE ADD ITIONS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DATED 5.2.2013 SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD INDEED TRANSACTED WITH THOSE ALLEGED THREE PARTIES AND HAD PURCHASED RELEVANT MA TERIAL FROM THOSE PARTIES TO BE SUPPLIED TO THE BANKS, AS PER THEIR WORK ORDE RS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS PURCHASED THE MATERIALS WITH PROPER SALES INVOICES AND THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN USED IN THE WORK EXECUTED F OR THE BANKS, AS PER THEIR SPECIFICATIONS. TO THIS EFFECT, ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF SALES BILL DETAILS AND MATERIALS PURCHASED, PAYMENT DETAILS, ETC. THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY FURTHER DENIED TO HAVE RECEIVED ANY BOGUS BILLS FROM THOSE PARTIES AND ARGUED THAT 3 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 THOSE PARTIES MIGHT HAVE INVOLVED IN HAWALA DEALING S, SO AS TO ESCAPE FROM THE VAT LIABILITY ON THE SALES MADE BY THEM. HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BOGUS PURCHASES BILLS AND IN FLATED THE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF SALES BILL DETAILS OF MATERIALS PURCHASED, PAYMENT DETAILS, ETC TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES AR E GENUINE. 3. THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIES OF MUMBAI HAD CARRIED OUT AN INVESTIGATION IN THOSE CASES WHERE THERE WERE DEFAULTS OF VAT AND DURING T HE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN PARTIES, WHO W ERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING BOGUS BILLS AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF TH E CUSTOMERS WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. THOSE PARTIES HAVE CATEGORICALL Y ACCEPTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN PROVIDING AC COMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS. THEREFORE, THE AO OPINE D THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THOSE PARTIES ARE BOGUS IN NATURE. THE AO FUR THER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS LIKE SALES I NVOICES, DETAILS OF MATERIALS PURCHASED AND PAYMENT DETAILS, BUT FAILED TO FURNIS H FURTHER EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE IN THE FORM OF DELIVERY NOTES, WEIGH BRIDGE SLIPS, ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRO DUCE THE STOCK REGISTER SHOWING QUANTITY OF GOODS PURCHASED FROM THOSE PARTIES AND ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CONSUMPTION REGISTER TO SHOW CONSUMPTION OF MATERIA LS, IF ANY, PURCHASED 4 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 FROM THOSE PARTIES. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF PHYSI CAL DELIVERY OF GOODS, WHATSOEVER, IN NATURE, WAS PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF I TS ARGUMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE TOTAL PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS BOGUS PURCHASES AND MADE ADDITIONS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED ITS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF 100% PURCHASES, DESPITE FURNISHI NG NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THOSE PARTIES ARE LISTED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT AS HAWA LA OPERATORS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD FURNISHED AL L THE DETAILS AND ALSO PRODUCED NECESSARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO PROVE THAT T HERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR MISMATCHING ANY STOCK DETAILS W ITH FINANCIAL BOOKS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY D ETAILS TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE. IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENT , ITS RELIED UPON PLETHORA OF JUDGEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARA T HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS VS CIT (2015) (I) TMI 828 (GUJ HC) AND ALSO CIT VS SMIT P SHETH 56 ITR 451 (GUJ). 5. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE 5 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SUPPLIERS. THE SUPPLIERS WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS BILLS WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GOODS. MOREOVER, THE SUPPLIERS ARE NOT REGULAR PARTIES AND THEY WERE FOUND TO HAVE SUPPLIED MATERIAL ONLY DURING TH E YEAR AND THERE WAS NO SUPPLY EITHER IN THE YEAR AFTER OR IN THE SUBSEQUEN T YEAR THERETO. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BO GUS IN NATURE. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WITHOUT PURCHASES OF MATERIAL S IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EITHER SELL THE ITEMS OR COMPLETE T HE CONTRACT. THE AO HAD NEVER DISPUTED OR EXAMINED THE ASPECT OF SALES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC OBSERVATION AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PURCHASES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DOUBTE D MERELY BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT. TH E AO HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED GOODS FROM GREY MARKET AND RECORDED THE SALES TO THAT EXTENT; IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE GOODS WITH OUT ACTUAL UTILIZATION OF RAW MATERIALS AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED GOODS BY CASH FROM THE OPEN MARKET AND SU BSEQUENTLY OBTAINED THE BILLS FROM THOSE HAWALA OPERATORS; HENCE, THE E NTIRE PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A), THERE FORE, HELD THAT ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH TRANSACTIONS COULD BE ADDED. THE CIT(A) 6 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ENTIRE PU RCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED IS THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDD ED IN THESE PURCHASES. THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT RANGING FROM 12.5% O 25% DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, IN YET ANOTHER CASE IN CIT VS SMIT P SHETH (SUPRA) OBSERVE D THAT NO UNIFORM YARDSTICK COULD BE APPLIED FOR ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT. IT DEPENDS UPON NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE O BSERVATIONS, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT OF 15% ON T OTAL BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM THOSE PARTIES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT( A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF N OTICE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE MATTER COULD BE DISPOSED OF EVEN WITH OUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE LD.DR AND PROCEE D TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER QUA THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DI RECTING THE AO TO ESTIMATE PROFIT AT 15% ON THE TOTAL ALLEGED BOGUS P URCHASES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS COMPLETELY NO PROOF OF DELIVERY OF PURCHASES OF GOODS AND THE SAID SELLERS WERE FOUND TO BE HAWALA OPERATORS / BOGUS BILLERS. THE DR REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN 7 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 THE CASE OF NK PROTEINS LTD VS DCIT (2017) TOIL-23- SG-IT SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE ADDITION OF 100% B OGUS PURCHASES. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF NK PROTEINS LTD VS DCIT (SUPRA) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND UPHELD THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AT 10 0% OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE AO HAS BROUGHT OUT CLEAR FACTS TO THE EFFECT TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE PURCHASES AS GENUINE AND, THEREFORE, ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE AO SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD LD.DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE NON EXISTENCE OF THE ALLEG ED BOGUS SELLERS ARE NOT DISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THOSE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO TO PROVE THAT THE PARTIES ARE IN EXISTENCE AND THE PUR CHASES MADE FROM THOSE PARTIES ARE GENUINE IN NATURE. IT IS ALSO AN UNDIS PUTED FACT THAT THE SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HAS CONDUCTED AN INVESTIG ATION AND LISTED THOSE PARTIES AS HAWALA OPERATORS / BOGUS SELLERS INVOLVE D IN THE ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT ACTUAL DELIVERY OF GO ODS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF SALES BILLS AND PAYMENT DETAILS TO PROVE THE PURCHASES AS GENUINE, BUT FAILED TO FILE FURTHE R EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF DELIVERY NOTES, WEIGH BRIDGE SLIPS, ETC. THEREFORE , PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM TO PROVE THE PURCHASES AS GENUINE. 8 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 AT THE SAME TIME, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITIONS TO THE BOGUS PURCHASES MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT OF MAHARASHTRA WHEREIN THEY HAVE LISTED THE PARTIES AS HAWALA / BOGUS OPERATORS WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY AS TO TH E CORRECTNESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NEVER DOUBTED THE SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED O UT ANY INCORRECTNESS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO STOCK DET AILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE PURCHASED THE GOODS FROM THE OPEN MARKET BY CASH AND OBTAINED BILLS FROM THESE ALLEGED HAWALA OPERATORS. ONCE TH E AO HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF PURCHASES FROM ONE P ARTY AND OBTAINING BILLS FROM ANOTHER PARTY AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SP ECIFIC OBSERVATIONS BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE INCORRECTNESS OF FINANCIAL BOOKS AS WELL AS STOCK BOOK MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIV ED FROM SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT. WE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THESE TYPE OF CASES, VARIOUS HIGH COURTS INCLUDING TRIBUNALS HAVE ESTIMATED THE NET P ROFIT AT 12.5% TO 25% DEPENDING UPON FACTS OF EACH CASE AND NATURE OF BUS INESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEES. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN TH E CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD 9 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 VS CIT (SUPRA) OBSERVED THAT ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MA DE OF TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE TAXED IS ONLY THE PR OFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. IN YET ANOTHER CASE, IN M/S SMIT P SHETH (SUPRA), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT NO UNIFORM YARDSTI CK COULD BE ADOPTED FOR ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT ON BOGUS PURCHASES. NO DO UBT, ONCE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THE PURCHASES AS GENUINE, THEN THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH PURCHASES HAS TO BE TAXED. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSES SEE HAS RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS WHEREIN THE COURTS HAVE DIRECTE D THE AO TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT AT 12.5% TO 25%. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS (SUPRA), W E DIRECT THE AO TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT AT 20% ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 10. COMING TO THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.DR, T HE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF NK PROTEINS LTD VS DCIT (SUPRA) AND SUBMITTED THAT ONCE PURCHASES FROM THOSE CONCERNS WERE TREATED AS BOGUS, THEN ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE OF T HE ENTIRE BOGUS PURCHASES. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD.DR IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CASE B EFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS THAT IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS SEARCH PROCE EDINGS AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTA IN BLANK VOUCHER BOOKS IN 10 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 THE NAME OF THE CONCERNS AND BLANK SIGNED CHEQUES W ERE FOUND. UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBLE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE BOGUS AND HENCE ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE ON TOTAL PURCHASES FR OM THE SAID PARTIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY A TRADE R AND HAS FURNISHED CERTAIN EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE PURCHASES FROM THE ALLEGED H AWALA OPERATORS ARE GENUINE. THEREFORE, WITH DUE RESPECT, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD.DR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ACCORDINGLY NOT CONSIDERED. 11. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, A NET PROFIT OF 20% NEEDS TO BE ESTIMATED ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT AT 20% ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.3446/MUM/2015 13. THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.3445/MUM/2015, THEREFORE, FOR THE DETAILED D ISCUSSIONS IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IN ITA NO.3445/MUM/2015, WE D IRECT THE AO TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT AT 20% ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHAS ES FROM THE SAID PARTIES. 14. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO .3446/MUM/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11 ITAS 3445 & 3446/MUM/2015 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENU E ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (G MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 30 TH JUNE, 2017 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI