LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3786/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3926 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M G MORYANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 80HHC; 14A; 28

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI .. , , , BEFORE, SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 307, ARUN CHAMBERS, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400034 / VS. DCIT-4(2), ROOM NO.571, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( !'#$ /ASSESSEE) ( % / REVENUE) PAN. NO. AAACL2578H !'#$ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI M.G. MORYANI % / REVENUE BY SHRI YOGESH KAMAT & %'($) / DATE OF HEARING : 11/02/2016 ($) / DATE OF ORDER: 18/03/2016 ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/02/2006 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI, ON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY OF 2191 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT DULY SWORN BY THE MANAGIN G DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STATING THE REASON S OF DELAY. AS PER PARA 9 OF THE AFFIDAVIT, IT HAS BEEN SWORN THAT THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEE, WHO WAS HANDLING WITH THE TAXATION MATTER LEFT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND DUE T O INADVERTENT MISTAKE, THE PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS, RELA TED TO THE APPEAL REMAINED TO BE HANDED OVER, WHICH CAUSED THE DELAY. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SWORN THAT PRIMA-FACIE T HE ASSESSEE IS HAVING A GOOD CASE AND EQUITY OF JUSTIC E DEMAND THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. IT HAS BEEN FURTHE R MENTIONED THAT IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED, IT WIL L GREATLY PREJUDICE AND HARM THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN STERLITE INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. VS ADDL. CIT (2006) 6 SOT 497 (MUM.) TO THE EFFECT THAT FOR CONDONING THE DELAY, A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION, SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, SHOULD BE PREFERRED. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SHRI M.G. MORYANI, ADVANCED ARGUMENTS WHICH IS IDEN TICAL TO THE APPLICATION/AFFIDAVIT FILED FOR CONDONING TH E DELAY. ON ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 3 THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI YOGESH KAMAT, CONT ENDED THAT HUGE DELAY IS INVOLVED, THEREFORE, MAY NOT BE CONDONED. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, DE CLARED INCOME OF RS.1,51,32,160/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, LATER ON, WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEREFORE, REQUIRED NOTICES WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.2,79,93,183/- U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. WHILE CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80H HC, THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED 90% OF THE DEPB AS PART OF EXPORT INCENTIVE BY CLAIMING THAT THE DEPB AMOUNT IS COVER ED AS EXPORT INCENTIVE UNDER CLAUSE (IIIA) AND (IIIC) OF SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPB IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME U/S 28(IV) OF THE ACT, CONSEQUENTLY, HE DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPB. IT IS NOTED T HAT BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS WEL L AS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE OF SALE OF DEPB, FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001-02, WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT FOR EARLIER AND LATER ASSESSMENT YEA RS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN TOP MAN EXPORTS VS CIT (2012) 342 ITR 49(SC), THE MATTER WA S RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THER EFORE, IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED, IT HAS TO BE REMANDED BACK TO TH E FILE OF ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. 2.2. ON THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATING 5% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME AS PROPORTIONATE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF TH E ACT, IS CONCERNED, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN VOLVED IS 2002-03, THE ESTIMATION OF EXPENSES IS HIGHLY EX CESSIVE. 2.3. THE MOOT QUESTION TO BE ADJUDICATED IS WITH RESPECT TO CONDONATION OF DELAY. BROADLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THE COURTS AND THE QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES ARE E MPOWERED TO CONDONE THE DELAY, IF A LITIGANT SATISFIES THE C OURTS THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR AVAILING THE REMEDY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION. SUCH REASONING SHOULD BE TO T HE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICI ENT CAUSE OR REASONS AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTI ON 253 OF THE ACT IS USED IN IDENTICAL POSITION IN THE LIMITA TION ACT 1963, AND IN CPC. SUCH EXPRESSION HAS ALSO BEEN USE D IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SUCH AS SECTIO N 273, 274, ETC. KEEPING IN MIND, THE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOU NCEMENT FROM HONBLE APEX COURT, IT IS ADMITTED POSITION TH AT THE WORDS SUFFICIENT CAUSE APPEARING IN SUB-SECTION ( 5) OF SECTION 253 OF THE ACT SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CON STRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. IT MUST BE RE MEMBERED THAT IN EVERY CASE OF DELAY, THERE CAN BE SOME LAPS ES ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT CONCERN. THAT ALONE IS NOT ENO UGH TO TURN DOWN THE PLEA AND TO SHUT THE DOORS AGAINST HIM, UN LESS ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 5 AND UNTIL, IT MAKES A MALA-FIDE OR A DILATORY STATU TORY, THE COURT MUST SHOW UTMOST CONSIDERATION TO SUCH LITIGA NT. FURTHER THE LENGTH OF DELAY IS IMMATERIAL, IT IS TH E ACCEPTABILITY OF THE EXPLANATION AND THAT IS THE ON LY CRITERIA FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 2.4. IN SUCH A SITUATION, NO DOUBT FILING OF AN AP PEAL IS A RIGHT GRANTED UNDER THE STATUTE TO THE ASSESSEE A ND IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC PRIVILEGE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO BE VIGILANT IN ADHERING TO THE MANNER AND MODE IN W HICH THE APPEALS ARE TO BE FILED IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANT PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT. NEVERTHELESS, A LIBERAL APPROACH HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, WHERE DELAY HAS OCCUR RED FOR BONA FIDE REASONS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE IN FILING THE APPEALS. IN MATTERS CONCERNI NG THE FILING OF APPEALS, IN EXERCISE OF THE STATUTORY RIG HT, A REFUSAL TO CONDONED THE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS M ATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE THRESHOLD, WHICH MAY LEAD T O MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. THE JUDICIARY IS RESPECTED NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS POWER TO LEGALIZE INJUSTICE ON TECHN ICAL GROUNDS BUT BECAUSE IT IS CAPABLE OF REMOVING INJUS TICE AND IS EXPECTED TO DO SO. 2.5. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN A CELEBRATED DECIS ION IN COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST. KATIJI & ORS . 167 ITR 471 OPINED THAT WHEN TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE COURTS ARE EXPECTED TO FURTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JU STICE. THIS ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 6 IS FOR THE REASON THAT AN OPPOSING PARTY, IN A DISP UTE, CANNOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON- DELIBERATE DELAY. THEREFORE, IT FOLLOWS THAT WHILE CONSIDERING MATTERS RELATING TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, JUDIC IOUS AND LIBERAL APPROACH IS TO BE ADOPTED. IF SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS FOUND TO EXIST, WHICH IS BONA-FIDE ONE, AND NOT DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DELAY NEEDS TO COND ONED IN SUCH CASES. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS A DEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY LAW IN A MEAN INGFUL MANNER, WHICH SUB-SERVES THE END OF JUSTICE- THAT B EING THE LIFE PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE COURTS. WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIO N ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED. THIS MEANS THAT THERE SHO ULD BE NO MALAFIDE OR DILATORY TACTICS. SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHO ULD RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE . THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION V S MST. KATIJI & ORS. (167 ITR 471) OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 3. THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO COND ONE DELAY BY ENACTING SECTION 51 OF THE LIMITATION ACT OF 196 3 IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO PART IES BY DISPOSING OF MATTERS ON DE MERITS. THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY EL ASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SUBSERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. IT I S COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN MAKING A JUSTIFI ABLY LIBERAL APPROACH IN MATTERS INSTITUTED IN THIS COURT. BUT T HE MESSAGE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE PERCOLATED DOWN TO ALL THE OTHERS COURTS IN THE HIERARCHY. ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 7 2.6. FURTHERMORE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEDABAI ALIA VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL V S. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL 253 ITR 798 HELD THAT THE C OURT HAS TO EXERCISE THE DISCRETION ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE KEEPING IN MIND THAT IN CONSTRUING THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE PRINCIPLE OF ADVANCING SUBSTANTIAL JUST ICE IS OF PRIME IMPORTANCE. THE COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSIO N SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD RECEIVE LIBERAL CONSTRUCT ION. 2.7. IN ANOTHER DECISION IN N. BALAKRISHNAN VS M. KRISHNAMUTHY (1998) 7 SSC 123, THE HONBLE APEX COU RT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- RULE OF LIMITATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RI GHT OF PARTIES. THEY ARE MEANT TO SEE THAT PARTIES DO NOT RESORT TO DILATORY TACTICS, BUT SEEK THEIR REMEDY PROMPTLY. THE OBJECT OF PROVI DING A LEGAL REMEDY IS TO REPAIR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY REASON OF LEGAL INJURY. LAW OF LIMITATION FIXES A LIFE-SPAN FOR SUCH LEGAL REMEDY FOR THE REDRESS OF THE LEGAL INJURY SO SUFFERED. TIME IS PR ECIOUS AND THE WASTED TIME WOULD NEVER REVISIT. DURING EFFLUX OF T IME NEWER CAUSES WOULD SPROUT UP NECESSITATING NEWER PERSONS TO SEEK LEGAL REMEDY BY APPROACHING THE COURTS. SO A LIFE SPAN MUST BE F IXED FOR EACH REMEDY. UNENDING PERIOD FOR LAUNCHING THE REMEDY MA Y LEAD TO UNENDING UNCERTAINTY AND CONSEQUENTIAL ANARCHY. LAW OF LIMITATION IS THUS FOUNDED ON PUBLIC POLICY. IT IS ENSHRINED I N THE MAXIM INTEREST REIPUBLICAE UP SIT FINIS LITIUM (IT IS FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE THAT A PERIOD BE PUTT TO LITIGATION). RULES OF LIMI TATION ARE NOT MEANT TO DESTROY THE RIGHT OF THE PARTIES. THEY ARE MEANT TO SEE THAT PARTIES DO NOT RESORT TO DILATORY TACTICS BUT SEEK THEIR RE MEDY PROMPTLY. THE IDEA IS THAT EVERY LEGAL REMEDY MUST BE KEPT ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. A COURT KNOWS THAT REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY WOULD R ESULT FORECLOSING A SUITOR FROM PUTTING FORTH HIS CAUSE. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IN APPROACHING THE COURT IS ALWAYS DELIBERATE. THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE WORDS 'SUF FICIENT CAUSE' UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT SHOULD RECEIV E A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE V IDE SHAKUNTALA ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 8 DEVI LAIN VS. KUNTAL KUMARI [AIR 1969 SC 575] AND S TATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. THE ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNICIPALITY [ AIR 1972 SC 749]. IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT IN EVERY CASE OF D ELAY THERE CAN BE SOME LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT CONCERNED. T HAT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO TURN DOWN HIS PLEA AND TO SHUT THE DOOR A GAINST HIM. IF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT SMACK OF MALA FIDES OR IT IS NOT PUT FORTH AS PART OF A DILATORY STRATEGY THE COURT MUST SHOW UTM OST CONSIDERATION TO THE SUITOR. BUT WHEN THERE IS REAS ONABLE GROUND TO THINK THAT THE DELAY WAS OCCASIONED BY THE PARTY DE LIBERATELY TO GAIN TIME THEN THE COURT SHOULD LEAN AGAINST ACCEPT ANCE OF THE EXPLANATION. WHILE CONDONING DELAY THE COULD SHOULD NOT FORGET THE OPPOSITE PARTY ALTOGETHER. IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT HE IS A LOOSER AND HE TOO WOULD HAVE INCURRED QUIET A LARGE LITIGATION EXPENSES. IT WOULD BE A SALUTARY GUIDELINE THAT WHE N COURTS CONDONE THE DELAY DUE TO LACHES ON THE PART OF THE APPLICAN T THE COURT SHALL COMPENSATE THE OPPOSITE PARTY FOR HIS LOSS. 2.8. IN ANOTHER CASE, THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN MAHAVEER PRASAD JAIN VS CIT (1988) 17 2 ITR 331 (MP) HELD THAT APPLICANT CANNOT BE MADE TO SUFF ER FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF HIS COUNSEL BY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN RAFIQ VS MUNSILAL (AIR 1981 (SC) 1400). IDENTICALLY, IN Y.P. TRIVEDI VS JCIT (2014) 059 (II) ITC 0450, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFF ER AND A BONA-FIDE MISTAKE HAS TO BE CONDONED. 2.9. LIKEWISE, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ARTIS TREE PVT. LD. VS CBDT & ORS. (2015) 273 CTR 0014(BO M.); (2014) 369 ITR 691(BOM.), IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE A CCEPTABLE EXPLANATION IS OFFERED AND A CASE OF GENUINE HARDSH IP, DELAY HAS TO BE CONDONED. 2.10. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT, HONBLE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND THE MATERIAL FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, MORE SPECIFICAL LY, THE ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 9 REASONS OF DELAY, AS THE EMPLOYEE, WHO WAS EARLIER HANDLING THE TAX MATTERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHILE LEAV ING THE JOB OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, DID NOT HANDOVER THE R ELEVANT PAPERS EITHER TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO THE NEXT PERSON , WHICH CAUSED DELAY, CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED, THEREFORE, CONS IDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT, A ND THE FACTUAL MATRIX, BY TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO REMAIN VIGILANT IN FUTURE. BEFORE WE PART WITH, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE DELAY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN CONDONED TO THE PECU LIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, MAY NOT BE QUOTED AS PRECEDENT. 2.11. SO FAR AS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT FOR A.Y. 2001-02, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND FOR EARLIER AND LATER ASSESSMENT YEARS , THE MATTER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THEREFORE, WITHOUT COMMENTING UPON THE MER ITS OF THE APPEAL AND THE FACT THAT FOR EARLIER AND LATER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ISSUE WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE ALSO DOING SO, BECAUSE, T HE INTEREST OF BOTH SIDES AND ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF CONS ISTENCY, WE REMAND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE AND DECIDE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH ITA NO.3786/MUM/2012 M/S LAHOTI OVERSEAS LTD. 10 EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THUS, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ON LY. FINALLY, DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 11/02/2016. SD/- SD/- ( G.S. PANNU ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & ' MUMBAI; + DATED : 18/03/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. , -. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 11 & 2$ ( , ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 11 & 2$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 4%5/$! , 1, ),!6 , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7'8' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 04$/$ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI