MAYA MILIND SIRSATH, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 33(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3562/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7497 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Capital Gains; Bogus
• Section: 131; 148; 143(3); 143(1); 143(2); 69A; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3562/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Maya Milind Sirsath, 2102, 2103, Neptune Sunrise CHSL, LBS Road, Neptune Living Point, Bhandup West, Mumbai-400078. Vs. ITO 33(2)(3), Room No. 848, 8 th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 RO C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra West, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AKMPS 3821 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Kothari Revenue by : Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/04/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/04/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 though the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the learned ITO. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000 being 100% sale consideration of the flat u/s. 69A though the assessee ha said flat in the return of income and her ownership share in the said flat is only 50%. 3. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000 being 100% sale consideration of t flat u/s. 69A without giving deduction of cost of flat and expenses incurred in the financial year 2010 2011-12. 2. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also file additional ground which 1. The assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 ought to be treated as invalid and bad in law since it does not provide computer generated Document Identification Number (DIN) nor state the facts in the required format given in para 3 of the circular no dated 14/08/2019. 2. The learned Income Tax Officer erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 after a pg: 13 period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and issuing notice u/s. 148 without forming a belief that income escap as required u/s. 149(1)(b) as per the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. 2.1 We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of admissibility of the additional ground. As the additional ground raised being purely legal in nature and no facts was required , in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 283 (SC) 3. We have heard submission of t additional ground. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 though the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the learned ITO. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000 being 100% sale consideration of the flat u/s. 69A though the assessee had declared capital gain on the sale of the said flat in the return of income and her ownership share in the said flat is only 50%. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000 being 100% sale consideration of t flat u/s. 69A without giving deduction of cost of flat and expenses incurred in the financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also file additional ground which is reproduced as under: The assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 ought to be treated as invalid and bad in law since it does not provide computer generated Document Identification Number (DIN) nor state the facts in the required format given in para 3 of the circular no dated 14/08/2019. The learned Income Tax Officer erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 after a pg: 13 period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and issuing notice u/s. 148 without forming a belief that income escaped is more than Rupees one lakh as required u/s. 149(1)(b) as per the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of admissibility of the additional ground. As the additional ground purely legal in nature and no investigation therefore, same are admitted for adjudication, n view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. 229 ITR 283 (SC). We have heard submission of the parties on the issue of additional ground. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee Maya Milind Sirsath 2 ITA No. 3562/MUM/2023 order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 though the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000 being 100% sale consideration of the flat u/s. 69A d declared capital gain on the sale of the said flat in the return of income and her ownership share in the said Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000 being 100% sale consideration of the flat u/s. 69A without giving deduction of cost of flat and expenses 11 relevant to assessment year Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee also filed an The assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 ought to be treated as invalid and bad in law since it does not provide computer generated Document Identification Number (DIN) nor state the facts in the required format given in para 3 of the circular no. 19 of 2019 The learned Income Tax Officer erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 after a pg: 13 period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and issuing notice u/s. 148 without ed is more than Rupees one lakh as required u/s. 149(1)(b) as per the reasons recorded for reopening We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of admissibility of the additional ground. As the additional ground investigation of fresh e are admitted for adjudication, n view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of he parties on the issue of additional ground. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and provided to the assessee. of the said reasons provided by th portal on 18/11/2019 [DIN: ITBA/AST/F/17/2019 020/1020610163(1)] Assessing Officer also in the assessment order in para 2 has mentioned that reasons recorded were provided to the as on 18.01.2019. The relevant part of the same is reproduced as under: “Subject: Reasons for Re As required by you, the reason for re in your case for A. Y. 2012 DDIT(Inv.)-Unit- scrip namely M/s. Nimbus Industries Limited (Script Code vis providing Bogus Accommodation Entry in LTCG/STCL/Business Loss and beneficiaries involved are analysed by the Mumbai. On verification, it was found that you were one of the beneficiaries who has traded in the above mentioned scrip. 3.1 In view of the above reasons recorded, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Of belief that income escaped was required u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that reasons recorded available on the assessment folder from the reasons which have been produced by the assessee before the Tribunal. A copy of the reasons recorded supplied by the Ld. referred to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and provided to the assessee. On specific request of the assessee, a he said reasons provided by the Assessing Officer portal on 18/11/2019 [DIN: ITBA/AST/F/17/2019 020/1020610163(1)] is available on Paper Book page 13. Assessing Officer also in the assessment order in para 2 has mentioned that reasons recorded were provided to the as The relevant part of the same is reproduced as “Subject: Reasons for Re-opening – reg. As required by you, the reason for re-opening of the assessment in your case for A. Y. 2012-13 is as per information received from -4(2),Mumbai that an enquiry was conducted in the penny scrip namely M/s. Nimbus Industries Limited (Script Code-530971) vis vis providing Bogus Accommodation Entry in LTCG/STCL/Business Loss and beneficiaries involved are analysed by the DIT (Inv.) Mumbai. On verification, it was found that you were one of the beneficiaries who has traded in the above mentioned scrip. SUNITA SUNIL Ward 33(2)(3), Mumbai” In view of the above reasons recorded, the Ld. counsel for the submitted that the Assessing Officer has not recorded a that income escaped was more than Rs. 1,00,000/ required u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act . In response, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that reasons recorded the assessment folder of the department are different which have been produced by the assessee before A copy of the reasons recorded supplied by the Ld. Maya Milind Sirsath 3 ITA No. 3562/MUM/2023 referred to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer and On specific request of the assessee, a copy Assessing Officer through online portal on 18/11/2019 [DIN: ITBA/AST/F/17/2019- is available on Paper Book page 13. The Assessing Officer also in the assessment order in para 2 has mentioned that reasons recorded were provided to the assessee only The relevant part of the same is reproduced as opening of the assessment 13 is as per information received from 4(2),Mumbai that an enquiry was conducted in the penny 530971) vis-à- vis providing Bogus Accommodation Entry in LTCG/STCL/Business Loss DIT (Inv.)-Unit-4(2), Mumbai. On verification, it was found that you were one of the SUNITA SUNIL Ward 33(2)(3), Mumbai” In view of the above reasons recorded, the Ld. counsel for the ficer has not recorded a more than Rs. 1,00,000/- , which . In response, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that reasons recorded of the department are different which have been produced by the assessee before A copy of the reasons recorded supplied by the Ld. DR, available on page 5 of her submission, under: “MAYA MILIND SIRSATH ITD system verification the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y 2012-13 on 02/07/2012 declaring total income of R$ 2,85,534/ return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act on 09/05/2013. 2. An information in respect of penny stock companies was forwarded by DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai vide letter No. DDIT(Inv.) 4(2)/Information/Nimbus/2018 been conducted in the penny scrip namely M/s. Nimbus Industries Limited (Script Code Entry Of Long Term Capital Gains /Short Term Capital Loss /Business Loss and beneficiaries involved are identified by DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai. While conducting enquiry date collect analyzed to identify the beneficiaries who had traded in the scrip namely M/s. VAS Infrastructure Ltd. On analysis of such data the DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai found that above named assessee is one of the beneficiary who had traded i during F.Y.2011 Mumbai disseminated the data and forwarded the information of the above assessee to the office of undersigned. 3. As per the informatio beneficiaries of such transactions classified as non genuine shares sale/purchase transactions. The assessee has made Total Sale of Rs.5,69,501/- in the scrip M/s. Nimbus Industries Limited during the F.Y. 2011-12. 4. The investigation conducted by the Mumbai Investigation Directorate reveals that this company has been used by beneficiaries (Sellers of Shares) to launder money in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) while claiming tax exemption u/s 10(38) of the In Act 1961. Summons u/s 131 of the I.T the data of the scrip was called for analyzed. Financial profiling of few exit providers and statement of Director of M/s Nimbus Industries Ltd was recorded. 5. In view of the abo the extent of Rs. 5,69,501/ within the meaning of section 147 of the I T Act for A.Y.2012 therefore propose to assess the income of the assessee for A. Y.2012 6. In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration but no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was made. Accordingly, in this case the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has bee It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as ble on page 5 of her submission, are reproduced as “MAYA MILIND SIRSATH is an Individual assessee and as per ITD system verification the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y 13 on 02/07/2012 declaring total income of R$ 2,85,534/ return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act on 09/05/2013. An information in respect of penny stock companies was forwarded by DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai vide letter No. DDIT(Inv.) 4(2)/Information/Nimbus/2018-19 dated 15.03.2019. Enquiries have been conducted in the penny scrip namely M/s. Nimbus Industries Limited (Script Code- 530971) vis-à-vis providing Bogus Accommodation Entry Of Long Term Capital Gains /Short Term Capital Loss /Business Loss and beneficiaries involved are identified by DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai. While conducting enquiry date collected from BSE has been analyzed to identify the beneficiaries who had traded in the scrip namely M/s. VAS Infrastructure Ltd. On analysis of such data the DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai found that above named assessee is one of the beneficiary who had traded in the scrip namely M/S. Nimbus Industries Limited during F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. The DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai disseminated the data and forwarded the information of the above assessee to the office of undersigned. As per the information received the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of such transactions classified as non genuine shares sale/purchase transactions. The assessee has made Total Sale of in the scrip M/s. Nimbus Industries Limited during the F.Y. The investigation conducted by the Mumbai Investigation Directorate reveals that this company has been used by beneficiaries (Sellers of Shares) to launder money in the garb of Long Term Capital (LTCG) while claiming tax exemption u/s 10(38) of the In Act 1961. Summons u/s 131 of the I.T Act 1961 was issued to BSE and the data of the scrip was called for analyzed. Financial profiling of few exit providers and statement of Director of M/s Nimbus Industries Ltd In view of the above I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 5,69,501/-chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I T Act for A.Y.2012 therefore propose to assess the income of the assessee for A. Y.2012 In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration but no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was made. Accordingly, in this case the only requirement to initiate proceedings u/s 147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as Maya Milind Sirsath 4 ITA No. 3562/MUM/2023 are reproduced as is an Individual assessee and as per ITD system verification the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y- 13 on 02/07/2012 declaring total income of R$ 2,85,534/-The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act on 09/05/2013. An information in respect of penny stock companies was forwarded by DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai vide letter No. DDIT(Inv.)- 19 dated 15.03.2019. Enquiries have been conducted in the penny scrip namely M/s. Nimbus Industries vis providing Bogus Accommodation Entry Of Long Term Capital Gains /Short Term Capital Loss /Business Loss and beneficiaries involved are identified by DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), ed from BSE has been analyzed to identify the beneficiaries who had traded in the scrip namely M/s. VAS Infrastructure Ltd. On analysis of such data the DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai found that above named assessee is one of the beneficiary n the scrip namely M/S. Nimbus Industries Limited 13. The DDIT(Inv), Unit 4(2), Mumbai disseminated the data and forwarded the information of the n received the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of such transactions classified as non genuine shares sale/purchase transactions. The assessee has made Total Sale of in the scrip M/s. Nimbus Industries Limited during the F.Y. The investigation conducted by the Mumbai Investigation Directorate reveals that this company has been used by beneficiaries (Sellers of Shares) to launder money in the garb of Long Term Capital (LTCG) while claiming tax exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was issued to BSE and the data of the scrip was called for analyzed. Financial profiling of few exit providers and statement of Director of M/s Nimbus Industries Ltd ve I have reason to believe that the income to chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I T Act for A.Y.2012-13. I therefore propose to assess the income of the assessee for A. Y.2012-13. In this case a return of income was filed for the year under consideration but no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was made. Accordingly, in this case the only requirement to initiate n recorded above. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the assessee has filed return of income for the year under consideration but no assessment as stipulated u/s 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed u/s 143(1 clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 7. In this case more than four year have been lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration, hence necessary approval to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act and to issue notice W/s 148 of the I.T. Act may be accorded as per the provisions Income tax Act. 3.2 In view of above before us, the Ld. DR was asked to substantiate as whether the second set of the reasons made available produced before us duri assessee or not. The Ld. DR referred to the service of letter dated 31.03.2019 available on page No. 2/3 of her submission, but is found to be in respect of notice u/s 148 of the Act. clear that said reasons were never provided to t authenticity of the same is doubtful, hence can’t be relied upon. 3.3 Therefore, the issue ground raised is whether the Assessing Off conditions specified in section 149(1)(b) during relevant ti relevant part of the provision is reproduced as under: “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, (a) if four years have assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c) ; (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income stipulated u/s 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was only processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. n this case more than four year have been lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration, hence necessary approval to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act and to issue notice W/s 148 of the I.T. Act may be accorded as per the provisions of section 151 of the Income tax Act.” above two sets of the reasons recorded available before us, the Ld. DR was asked to substantiate as whether the second set of the reasons made available on assessment folder and before us during the hearing, was served upon the assessee or not. The Ld. DR referred to the service of letter dated available on page No. 2/3 of her submission, but in respect of notice u/s 148 of the Act. clear that said reasons were never provided to the assessee and the same is doubtful, hence can’t be relied upon. the issue-in-dispute left before us is whether the Assessing Officer has complied the conditions specified in section 149(1)(b) during relevant ti relevant part of the provision is reproduced as under: “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,— (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income Maya Milind Sirsath 5 ITA No. 3562/MUM/2023 stipulated u/s 2(40) of the Act was made and the return of income was ) of the Act. In view of the above, provisions of clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. n this case more than four year have been lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration, hence necessary approval to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act and to issue notice W/s 148 of of section 151 of the two sets of the reasons recorded available before us, the Ld. DR was asked to substantiate as whether the on assessment folder and served upon the assessee or not. The Ld. DR referred to the service of letter dated available on page No. 2/3 of her submission, but which in respect of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, it is he assessee and the same is doubtful, hence can’t be relied upon. before us in additional icer has complied the conditions specified in section 149(1)(b) during relevant time. The relevant part of the provision is reproduced as under: “149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax whic likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (i located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment.? Explanation.-In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub provisions of Explanat apply for the purposes of that section.” 3.4 In the instant case, notice u/s 148 has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, according to above provision, was required to record that in lakh but in copy of the reasons recorded provided to the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not complied with the mandatory condition of tax effect involved being more Hon’ble jurisdictional ltd in 439 ITR 333 (Bom) specifically point out the failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all the material facts and in absence therefore , reassessment proceedings is invalid in law. absence of any such satisfaction assessment proceedings are void quashed. Since, the additional ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the reassessment proceedings has been quashed, therefore, the other ground chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment.? In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub- provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.” In the instant case, notice u/s 148 has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, according to above provision, the Assessing officer was required to record that income escaped was more than Rs. the reasons recorded provided to the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not complied with the mandatory condition of tax effect involved being more than Rs.1,00,000/ Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Hindustan Unilever in 439 ITR 333 (Bom) held the assessing officer has to specifically point out the failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all the material facts and in absence therefore , reassessment proceedings is invalid in law. In instant case also in absence of any such satisfaction in the reasons recorded ssment proceedings are void ab-initio, therefore quashed. Since, the additional ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the reassessment proceedings has been quashed, therefore, the other grounds are merely rendered Maya Milind Sirsath 6 ITA No. 3562/MUM/2023 h has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year. (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in ncluding financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped In determining income chargeable to tax which has -section, the ion 2 of section 147 shall apply as they In the instant case, notice u/s 148 has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment the Assessing officer come escaped was more than Rs. one the reasons recorded provided to the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not complied with the mandatory than Rs.1,00,000/-. The Hindustan Unilever the assessing officer has to specifically point out the failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing all the material facts and in absence therefore , instant case also in in the reasons recorded, the , therefore, same are quashed. Since, the additional ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the reassessment proceedings has been s are merely rendered academic and therefore, we are not adjudicating upon. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/04/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// academic and therefore, we are not adjudicating upon. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. nounced in the open Court on 30/04/2024. Sd/ SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Maya Milind Sirsath 7 ITA No. 3562/MUM/2023 academic and therefore, we are not adjudicating upon. The appeal In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. /04/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai