DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI V. HARESH R. MAJETHIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3773/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 377319914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS RITIKA AGARWAL
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Question of law; Valuation report
• Section: 68; 132

Judgement Text

H IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY GARG, J.M. ./ I.T.A. NO. 3772 /MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, OLD CGO BLDG., ANNEXE, 9 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 20. / VS. SHRI HARESH R. MAJETHIA, 1803, 18 TH FLOOR, TRIDEV TOWER, BHAKTI MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080. ./ PAN : AEQPM 5542 P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /C.O. NO. 192/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3772/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 SHRI HARESH R. MAJETHIA, 1803, 18 TH FLOOR, TRIDEV TOWER, BHAKTI MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080. / VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, OLD CGO BLDG., ANNEXE, 9 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 20. CROSS OBJECTOR .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A. NO.2220 /MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI HARESH R. MAJETHIA, 1803, 18 TH FLOOR, TRIDEV TOWER, BHAKTI MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080. / VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, OLD CGO BLDG., ANNEXE, 9 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 20. ./ PAN AEQPM 5542 P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ITA 3772/M/11, ITA C.O. 192/M/11,, ITA 2220/M/11, ITA 3773/M/11 2 ./ I.T.A. NO.3773/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, OLD CGO BLDG., ANNEXE, 9 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 20. / VS. SHRI HARESH R. MAJETHIA, 1803, 18 TH FLOOR, TRIDEV TOWER, BHAKTI MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080. ./ PAN : AEQPM 5542 P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY MRS. RITIKA AGARWAL DEPARTMENT BY SMT. PARMINDER 3 456 7 89 / DATE OF HEARING : 10-02-2015 :;<= 7 89 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-04-2015 [ >? / O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, A.M . : THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE REVENUE AND ALSO C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. ITA NO. 2220/MUM/2011 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 (ASSESSEES APPEAL). 2. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 36, MUMBAI DATED 21-02-2011 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR THE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,72,358/- MADE BY T HE A.O. U/S 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OUT OF CASH FOUND DURING THE S EARCH AND ALSO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,12,945/- MADE U/S 69-A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF VALUE OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEAR CH. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR MAKING ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF M OTOR CAR EXPENSES AS PERSONAL EXPENSE. ITA 3772/M/11, ITA C.O. 192/M/11,, ITA 2220/M/11, ITA 3773/M/11 3 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE AT ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL PREMIS ES. DURING SEARCH, CASH OF RS. 13,02,240/- WAS FOUND. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HOUSE WAS OCCUPIED BY HIS FATHER, MOTHER, BROTHER AND UN- MARRIED SISTER AND HIMSELF. THE CASH WAS STATED TO BE BELONGS TO HIS BROTHER AND MOTHER AND THEY HAD OWNED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIM E OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, THE A.O. ALLOWED RS. 4,50,000/- DECLARED BY HIM OUT OF CASH FOUND. THE CASH BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEES MOTHER WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE SAME ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF A.O. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 ,72,358/-. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND FOUN D THAT FOLLOWING STATEMENT OF MRS. JASHODABEN RAVJI MAJETHIA, MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED DURING SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT:- Q. 4: PLEASE CONFIRM THAT CASH OF RS. 13,02,240/- H AS BEEN FOUND AT YOUR PREMISES AT 1803, 18 TH FLOOR, TRIDES TOWER, BHAKTI MARG, MULUND (W)_ MUMB AI 80 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961 ON 07.01.2009. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE SAME. ANS: YES. I CONFIRM THAT CASH OF RS. 13,02,240/- H AS BEEN FOUND FROM MY RESIDENCE 1803, 18 TH FLOOR, TRIDES TOWER, BHAKTI MARG, MULUND (W)_ MUMB AI 80 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 7-1-2009. OUT OF THE ABOVE CASH RS. 8,50,000/- BELONGS TO ME AND MY DAUGHTER NAMED MS BHANUBEN RAVJI MAJETHIA AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 ,50,000/- BELONGS TO MY SON SHR LILLADHAR RAVJI MAJETHIA. THE ABOVE CASH OF RS. 8,50,000/- BELONGING TO US ARE OUR SAVINGS FOR A PERIOD OF OVE R 25 YEARS. SIR, MOREOVER, 1 WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT MY DAUGHTER WHO IS AGED 50 Y EARS AND UNMARRIED AND I HAVE SAVED THE MONEY KEEPING IN MIND FOR HER FUTURE . MY HUSBAND IS ALSO AGED 85-87 YEARS AND THEREFORE LOOKING TO OUR OLD A GE AND MY DAUGHTER'S CONDITION, WE HAVE SAVED WHATEVER IS POSSIBLE FROM OUR SIDE. 'SINCE THESE SAVINGS ARE MADE OVER A PERIOD OF 20-25 YEARS FROM MY HUSBAND'S INCOME AS WELL AS MY SON'S INCOME WHICH THEY THEMSELVES DO NO T KNOW, SO I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO SHOW ANY PROOF I WOULD ONCE AGAIN LIKE TO SAY THAT ALL THESE AMOUNTS RECEIVED ARE FROM MY SAVINGS ONLY. ITA 3772/M/11, ITA C.O. 192/M/11,, ITA 2220/M/11, ITA 3773/M/11 4 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FOUND THAT DURING SEARCH STAT EMENT OF ASSESSEES MOTHER SMT. JASHODABEN RAVJI MAJETHIA FROM WHOSE PO SSESSION CASH WAS FOUND, WAS RECORDED. IN THE STATEMENT SMT. JASHODAB EN RAVJI MAJETHIA STATED THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 8,50,000/- OUT OF SAVINGS FOR A PERIOD OF OVER 25 YEARS. SINCE THE DAUGHTER OF SMT. JASHODABEN RAVJI MAJETHIA MISS BANUBEN RAVJI MAJETHIA, AGED 50 YEARS WAS UN-MARRIED, MONEY WAS SAVED KEEPING IN MIND FOR HER FUTURE OF UN-MARRIED DAUGHTER. AS PER THE STATEMENT, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGED 85-87 YEARS AND THEREF ORE LOOKING TO THE OLD AGE AND HER DAUGHTERS CONDITION BEING UN-MARRIED, THE AMOUNT WAS SAVED FOR A PERIOD OF LAST 20-25 YEARS FROM HER HUSBAND AS WELL AS FROM SONS INCOME. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY SMT. JASHODABEN RAVJI MAJE THIA DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS NOT FOUND TO BE IN-CORRECT. ACCORDIN GLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. 6. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,12,945/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY, WE FOUND THAT THE JEWELLERY WAS FOUND IN THE CUPBOA RD OF THE MOTHER KEPT IN HER ROOM. DURING THE COURSE OF PRELIMINARY STATEME NT ITSELF THE MOTHER AND SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD OWNED THE JEWELLERY AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. THE JEWELLERY FOUND IS LADIES JEWELLERY AND HENCE IT CANNOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS A BACHELOR A ND HENCE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT OF MRS. JASHODABEN RAVJI MAJETHIA WAS RECORDED ON JANUARY 7, 2009 DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH. OUT OF THE SAME, QUESTION NO. 3 AND ITS REPLY IS ME NTIONED HEREUNDER:- Q. 3: PLEASE CONFIRM REGARDING JEWELLERY/SILVER/DI AMOND AS PER VALUATION REPORT OF SHRI GANPATLAL M JAIN (GOVT. AP PROVED VALUER) OF RS.16,57,3401- FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON 07 .01.2009 AT THE PREMISES AT 1803, 19H FLOOR, TRIDEV, TOWER, BHA KTI MARG, MULUND (W), MUMBAI -80 AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCE THERE OF? ITA 3772/M/11, ITA C.O. 192/M/11,, ITA 2220/M/11, ITA 3773/M/11 5 ANS: YES. I AM CONFIRMING THE ABOVE SAID VALUE OF R S. 16,57,340/- OF JEWELLERY/SILVER/DIAMOND JEWELLERY HAS BEEN FOUND F ROM MY RESIDENCE AT 1803, 18TH FLOOR, TRIDEV TOWER, BHAKTI MARG, MUL UND (W), MUMBAI - 80 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 07.01.2 009, TOTAL GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND FROM MY PREMISES IS 1.386900 KG AND DIAMOND JECWELLERY OF RS.30,100/- AND SILVER UTENSILS OF 2 KG. I HAVE FIVE MEMBERS IN MY FAMILY INCLUDING MY HUSBAND SHRI RAVJ I VALJI MAJETHIA AGED (85-87 YRS), MY TWO SONS NAMED (1) SHRI LILADH AR RAVJI MAJETHIA AGED 44 YEARS (2) SHRI HARESH RAVJI MAJETHIA AGED 4 0 YEARS AND ONE DAUGHTER NAMES MS BHANUBEN RAVJI MAJETHIA AGED 50 Y RS. I RECEIVED JEWELLERY ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS SUCH AS MARRIAGE, BIRTH IOJ CHILDREN AND OTHER CEREMONIES: I HAD ALREADY STATED IN MY PR ELIMINARY STATEMENT THAT I HAVE RECEIVED 50 TOLAS ON MARRIAGE (I.E., 50 0 GMS) AND 25 TOLAS (I.E., 250 GMS) ON THE OCCASION OF CHILDREN'S BIRTH AND 20 TOLAS (I.E., 200 GMS) ON OTHER OCCASIONS. SIMILARLY, MY DAUGHTER HAS ALSO EXPLAINED IN PRELIMINARY STATEMENT THAT SHE HAS TWO SETS OF 8 TO LAS EACH I.E.,160 GMS. MOREOVER IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE JEWELLERY FOUN D AT MY PREMISE THAT WHOLE OF IT CONSIST OF OLD JEWELLERY AND NOTING IS NEW. THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE SAME IS, OUT OF SAVINGS OF MYS ELF AND MY FAMILY MEMBERS FOR A LONG TIME AND GIFTS RECEIVED ON DIFFE RENT OCCASIONS. MOREOVER THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY FOUND IS V ERY LESS. THEREFORE, REQUEST YOU TO RELEASE THE SAME. THE ABOVE STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE JEWELLERY IS ONL Y OUT OF GIFTS AND NEVER PURCHASED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THERE IS NO ME RIT IN ADDING THE JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 8. THE A.O. ALSO MADE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CREDITORS IN THE A.Y. 2009-10, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AFTER HAVING FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AP PELLANT AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IT IS A FACT THAT IN THE REGULAR 'ASSESSMENT THE SAME SUNDRY CREDITORS, WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO EVIDENCE RELATING TO SUCH SUNDRY CRED ITORS WERE FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BY 'A/C PA YEE' CHEQUES. ALL THE PARTIES HAVE PAN, ARE REGULARLY FILING RETURNS AND BOTH THE ENTRIES REGARDING THE ISSUE AS WELL -AS THE RECEIPT OF THE LOAN IS REFLECTED IN THEIR REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE APPELLANT. THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSIT BEFORE THE ISSU E OF LOAN AND THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN REPAID. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, JUS T BECAUSE THE REPLIES WERE NOT SENT BY CREDITOR DIRECTLY BUT THRO UGH THE ASSESSEE ITA 3772/M/11, ITA C.O. 192/M/11,, ITA 2220/M/11, ITA 3773/M/11 6 CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE. THE, AP PELLANT HAD RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: ADDITION U/S 68 ROSHAN DI HATTI VS. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) HON JEHANGIR GHEESTA VS. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (SC) EXPLANATION AND MATERIAL FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED ARBITRARILY, UNREASONABLY AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY. ORIENT TRADING CO. LTD. VS CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (BOM) CIT VS. ORISSA CORPN. P. LTD (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) ASSESSEE NEED NOT PROVE SOURCE OF SOURCE. ONCE CONFIRMATION, ADDRESS, PAN GIVEN, ONUS SHIFTS ON DEPARTMENT. CIT, VS DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC). BEDI & CO. (P) LTD. VS CIT (1983) 144 ITR 352 (KAM) JALAN TIMBER VS. CIT (223 ITR 11) (GAU) SONA ELECTRIC CO VS CIT (152 ITR 507 (DEL). UNLESS CONTRARY MATERIAL OUTWEIGHS THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD CONTRARY VIEW CANNOT BE TAKEN BY AO. BHAGWATI PRASAD MISHRA V S CIT (1959 35 ITR 97 (ORI) REJECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE BY IGNORING TO CONSIDER IMPORTANT K.S. KANNAN KUNHI VS CIT (1969) 72 ITR 757(KER) PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS AN ERROR IN LAW. A.O. MUST BEING POSITIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD PROVING EXPLANATION NOT VALID. SRI RAM JHABARMULL (KALIMPONG) LTD. (1967) 64 ITR 314 AKBEALL EUSUFALIY VS CIT (1966) 60 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE REJECTED ONLY WITH POSITIVE EVIDENCE FALSIFYING ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION. CIT' VS. U.M. SHAH (90 ITR (396) (BORN) DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS (2002) 256 ITR 360 (GUJ) PRAGATI CONSTRUCTION CO V S ITA 60 ITD 201 (DEL. TRIB) IF THE CREDITORS HAVING RECEIVED THE SUMMONS DID NOT PRESENT THEMSELVES BEFORE THE A.O., IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR THE SAME. NEMICHAND KOTHARI VS CIT (2003) 265 ITR 254 (GAU) ONCE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT HE RECEIVED AMOUNT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED CREDITWORTHINESS OF LENDER. SETH TEXTILES VS ITA (2003) 80 TTJ (MUM TRIB) 329 PRAVIN COLOUR CO. VS. ITA (1977) TAXATION 48(6)-155 (BOM) ADDITION U/ S. 68 COULD NOT BE MADE AS A.O. HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRY AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT DETAILS, ITA 3772/M/11, ITA C.O. 192/M/11,, ITA 2220/M/11, ITA 3773/M/11 7 CONFIRMATIONS, DETAILS OF CHEQUES AND AFFIDAVITS ETC. VEER METALS VS CIT (1995) 51 TTJ (DEL) TRIB 132 DCIT VS. ANIL KUMAR (1997) 58 TTJ (DEL.TRIB) 340 WHERE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, CONFIRMED, INTEREST PAID AND THUS DEDUCTED, PAN NOS. AND BALANCE SHEET FILED, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ELSE IT TANTAMOUNT TO CONVERTING' GOOD PROOF' TO 'NO PROOF'. CIT VS. BHAWANI OIL MILLS P. LTD. (2011) 49 DTR (RAJ. 212 (HC) 'ONE CREDITOR HAVING APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE A.O AND CONFIRMED THE LOAN WHILE THE REMAINING CREDITORS HAVING FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVITS, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVING ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDITS AFTER EVALUATING THE SAID CONFIRMATIONS, THE MATTER DOES NOT RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, SO AS TO JUSTIFY INFERENCE. CIT VS. COMPUTER FORCE (2011) 48 DTR (AHD) (TRIB) 298 ASSESSEE HAVING MADE PAYMENTS TO THE CREDITORS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHICH IS CORROBORATED BY THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF SUCH CREDITS CANNOT BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN SUS TAINING THE ADDITION WHICH DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. COMPUTER FORCE (2011) 48 DR (AHD) (TRIB) 29 8 THAT IF THE RECEIPT AND REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN IS CORROBORATED BY THE LE DGER ACCOUNTS AND BANK ENTRIES, ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF SUCH CREDITS CANNOT BE MADE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THE INTEREST THEREON IS DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. 9. SIMILAR ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS IN THE A.Y. 2008-09 WERE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). FOLLOWING THE SAME REAS ONING GIVEN ABOVE IN THE A.Y. 2009-10, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFER E IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITORS. ITA 3772/M/11, ITA C.O. 192/M/11,, ITA 2220/M/11, ITA 3773/M/11 8 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 22 20/MUM/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 IS ALLOWED, WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE IN ITA NO. 3772/MUM/2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND IN ITA NO. 3773/ MUM/2011 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ARE DISMISSED. THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR A.Y. 2008-0 IS ALSO DISMISSED. , ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH APRIL, 2015. >? 7 :;<= 3 @ AB C>4 D 10-04-2015 ; 7 E6 F SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A 3 N6 MUMBAI ; C>4 DATED 10-04-2015 [ 5.O4../ RK , SR. PS ! '#$% &%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 3 P8 () / THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. 3 P8 / CIT CONCERNED,, MUMBAI 5. S5TE O8O4UV , 9 UV= , A 3 N6 / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI H BENCH 6. EXY Z6 / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, S8 O8 //TRUE COPY// (/') * ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , A 3 N6 / ITAT, MUMBAI