LATE SHRI PRADEEP RAMKARAN MODI, MUMBAI V. ITO 31(2)(5),

ITA 393/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1121 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V VIDHYADHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MEELKANT KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERAN D SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 393/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 LATE SHRI PRADEEP RAMKARAN MODI THROUGH L.H SMT ANITA MODI, E-1410, 14 TH FLOOR, ROYAL SAMAR, S.V. ROAD, GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI 400 062 PAN AABPM2545D VS. ITO 31(2)(5) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEELKANT KHANDELWAL REVENUE BY : SHRI V. VIDHYADHAR (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 29.1 1.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2018 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: 1. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTA NCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 02.0 9.2016 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O DATED 16.03. 2015 U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS S OUGHT TO IMPUGN THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE O RDER OF THE A.O BY ALLEGING (I) LACK OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE AC T; AS WELL AS (II) ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,76,244/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MOVED PETITION FOR ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN TERMS OF RULE 11 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. AS PER ADDITIONA L GROUNDS THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO RAISE A LEGAL GROUND THAT TH E ENTIRE 2 ITA NO. 393/MUM/2017. LATE SHRI PRADEEP RAMKARAN MODI, LH BY SMT ANITA MO DI, MUMBAI ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL AND VOID OWING TO T HE FACT THAT THE STATUTORY NOTICES HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE DECEAS ED ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED ON THE DECEA SED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS RAISED IS PRODUCED HEREUNDER F OR PROPER APPRECIATION THEREOF. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER 31(2)(5), MUMBAI ERRED IN INITIATING AND THEREAFTER FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE DECEAS ED, THAT IS ON MR. PRADEEP MODI WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT OUGHT TO HAVE B EEN INITIATED AND FRAMED ON THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED, MRS ANITA MODI AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF MR. PRADEEP MODI, AND HAVING NOT DONE SO THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NULL AND VOID. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STRAIGHTAWAY ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE LEGAL OBJECTION RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND AND CONTENDED TH AT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT IS VITIATED AND THUS A NULLITY IN LAW. THE LD. AR ADV ERTED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE LEGAL H EIR (SMT. ANITA MODI) DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O THAT HER HUSBAN D (ASSESSEE HEREIN) SHRI PRADEEP RAMKARAN MODI EXPIRED ON 14.10 .2008 AND HE IS SURVIVED BY HER AND HIS TWO CHILDREN. THE LEGAL HE IR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED TO DROP THE CASE CITING THAT NO ASSE SSMENT CAN BE MADE AGAINST DECEASED PERSON. THE LD. AR FOR THE A SSESSEE THEREAFTER ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE ISS UED UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 29.12.2014 AND SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE SPECIFIC INTIMATION TOWARDS DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O H AS CONTINUED ISSUE NOTICES IN THE NAME OF DECEASED ASSESSEE SHR I PRADEEP RAMAKARAN MODI. THE LD. AR THEREAFTER ADVERTED OU R ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 16.03.2015 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 156 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS DEMAND NOTICE AND PENAL TY NOTICE HAS 3 ITA NO. 393/MUM/2017. LATE SHRI PRADEEP RAMKARAN MODI, LH BY SMT ANITA MO DI, MUMBAI BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT PERSON AND THUS CANNOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST THE A DECEASED PERSON IN LAW. F OR THIS PROPOSITION THE LD. AR ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO A VERY RECENT DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALAMELU VE ERAPPAN VS. ITO, [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 155 (MAD). PLACING HEAV Y RELIANCE ON THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT A NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED PERSON IS UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND THE REVENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PLEAD THAT THE NOTICE IS MERELY A DEFECTIVE ONE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON A DECEASED PERSON BASE D ON RELEVANT NOTICES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DECEASED PERSON IS RE QUIRED TO BE DECLARED AS INVALID WITHOUT SANCTITY OF LAW. THE L D. AR ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IS BAD IN LAW AND R EQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE AND QUASHED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED HOWEVER THAT A REPO RT FROM THE A.O IN THIS REGARD WOULD BE DESIRABLE FOR DISPOSAL OF T HE DISPUTE RAISED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PRECISE LEGAL OBJECTION OF SU BSTANTIVE NATURE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS. C IT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), SUCH ADDITIONAL GROUND OF A LEGAL NATURE DESE RVES TO BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION ALBEIT AT THIS BELATED ST AGE. 7. AS STATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN ESSENCE, C HALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O IN ISSUANCE OF VARIOUS NOTICES IN THE NAME OF DECEASED PERSON DESPITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT PLACED BEFORE THE A.O. IT IS THUS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED PERSON PURSUANT TO SUCH INHERENTLY DEFECTIVE STATUTORY NOT ICES INCLUDING THE NOTICE OF DEMAND AND PENALTY NOTICES IS UNENFORCEAB LE IN LAW. WE FIND OURSELVES IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE AFORE SAID PLEA RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF ALAMELU VEERAPP AN VS. ITO 4 ITA NO. 393/MUM/2017. LATE SHRI PRADEEP RAMKARAN MODI, LH BY SMT ANITA MO DI, MUMBAI (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SKY LIGHT HOSPITALITY LLP VS. ACIT, [2018] 90 TAXMANN.COM 143 (DEL). THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS CATEG ORICALLY STATED AND REITERATED THE SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT A N OTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED PERSON IS UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW . THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING OBSERVATIONS THAT THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED EVEN ON THE PLEA THAT IT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASS ESSEE. 8. IT WILL BE APT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT OPERATI VE PARA OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. 13. THIS COURT HAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL ON EITHER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. 14. THE ISSUE, WHICH FALLS FOR CONSIDERATION, IS AS TO WHETHER THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON - THE SAID MR.S.VEERAPPAN IS ENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND THE SUBSID IARY ISSUE BEING AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONER, BEING THE WIFE OF THE SAID MR.S.VEERAPP AN, CAN BE COMPELLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND RESPOND TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. THE FACT THAT THE SAID MR.S.VEERAPPAN DIED ON 26.1.2010 IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IF THIS FACT I S NOT DISPUTED, THEN THE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON IS UNENFORCEABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 15. THE DEPARTMENT SEEKS TO JUSTIFY THEIR STAND BY CONTENDING THAT THEY WERE NOT INTIMATED ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE LEGAL HEI RS DID NOT TAKE ANY STEPS TO CANCEL THE PAN REGISTRATION IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT T HEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO COOPERATE IN THE PROCEE DINGS PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. 16. THE SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLE BEING THAT A NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON IS UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW. IF SUCH IS THE LEGAL POSITION , WOULD THE REVENUE BE JUSTIFIED IN CONTENDING THAT THEY, HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE ENTITLED TO PLEAD THAT THE NOTICE IS NOT DEFECTIVE. IN MY CONSI DERED VIEW, THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SHOULD BE DEFINITELY AGAINST THE REVENUE. 17. THIS COURT SUPPORTS SUCH A CONCLUSION WITH THE FOLLOWING REASONS : ADMITTEDLY, THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF N OTICE FOR REOPENING EXPIRED ON 31.3.2017. THE IMPUGNED NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 30.3.2017 IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON. ON BEING INTIMATED ABOUT THE DEATH, THE DEPARTMENT SENT THE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER - HIS SPOUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS NOTICE WAS WEL L BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, AS IT HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER 31.3.2017. IF WE APPROACH THE PROBLEM SANS COMPLICATED FACTS, A NOTICE ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION I.E. 31.3.2017 IS A NULLITY, UNENFORCEABLE IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THUS, MERELY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT INTIMATED ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT CANNOT, BY ITSELF, EXTE ND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE. NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THIS CO URT BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A STATUTORY OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE LEGAL REP RESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE TO IMMEDIATELY INTIMATE THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE OR T AKE STEPS TO CANCEL THE PAN REGISTRATION. 18. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION WOULD BE AS TO WHETHER SECTION 159 OF THE ACT WOULD GET ATTRACTED. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WOULD BE IN THE NEGATIVE, AS THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 159OF THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IF THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN INITIATED WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ALIVE AND WAS PERMI TTED FOR THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONTINUED 5 ITA NO. 393/MUM/2017. LATE SHRI PRADEEP RAMKARAN MODI, LH BY SMT ANITA MO DI, MUMBAI AS AGAINST THE LEGAL HEIRS. THE FACTUAL POSITION IN THE INSTANT CASE BEING OTHERWISE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 159 OF THE ACT HAVE NO APPLIC ATION. 19. THE REVENUE SEEKS TO BRING THEIR CASE UNDER SECTION 292 OF THE ACT TO STATE TH AT THE DEFECT IS A CURABLE DEFECT AND ON THAT GROUND, THE IMPUGNED NOTICE CANNOT BE DECLARED AS I NVALID. 20. THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN SECTION 292 OF THE ACT IS CATEGORICAL AND CLEAR. THE NOTICE HAS TO BE, IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT, IN CONFORMITY W ITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ISSUE RELATING TO LIMI TATION IS NOT A CURABLE DEFECT FOR THE REVENUE TO INVOKE SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. 21. ALL THE ABOVE REASONS ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY TH E DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIPIN WALIA. IN THAT CASE, THE NOTICE DATED 27.3.2015 WAS ISSUED UN DER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO DIED ON 14.3.2015. THE VALIDITY OF TH E SAID NOTICE WAS PUT TO CHALLENGE. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TOOK A STAND THAT SINCE THE INTI MATION OF DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE ON 14.3.2015 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HER, THE NOTICE WAS I SSUED ON A DEAD PERSON. HOWEVER, THE FACT REGARDING THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE DEPARTMENT CONTINUED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/ 148 OF THE ACT AND AT THAT STAGE, THE SON OF THE DECEASED APPROACHED THE HIGH COURT O F DELHI. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI POINTED OUT THAT WHAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE DONE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AGAINST TH E DECEASED ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, FOR WHICH, THE LIMITATION FOR ISSUANC E OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT WAS 31.3.2015 AND ON 02.7.2015 WHEN THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY DEAD AND IF THE DEPARTMENT INTENDED TO PROCEED UNDE R SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, IT COULD HAVE DONE SO PRIOR TO 31.3.2015 BY ISSUING THE NOTICE TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED AND BEYOND THAT DATE, IT COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED IN TH E MATTER EVEN BY ISSUING NOTICE TO THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION IN VIPIN WALIA FULLY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN. 22. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIPIN WALIA WAS FOL LOWED IN THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF RASID LALA, IN WHICH, THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE DEAD PERSON, THAT TOO, AFTER A LONG DEL AY. THE COURT POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 159 OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED, IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE NOTICE WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED AGAINST AND IN THE NAME OF THE HEIRS O F THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND UNDER THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, SECTION 159 OF THE ACT SHALL NO T BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE. 23. IN THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD., ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, WHICH FELL FOR CONSIDERATION, IS AS TO WHETHER SUCH FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON EXISTING ENTITY OR A DEAD PERSON COUL D BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT AND AFTER REFERRING TO THE DECISION S ON THE POINT INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI NATH SURESH CHAND RAM NARESH VS. CIT [REPORTED IN (2006) 280 ITR 396], IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND THAT FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAIN ST A NON EXISTING ENTITY/PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL I RREGULARITY, BUT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT, AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PERSO N. 24. THE LEARNED SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REV ENUE HAS SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD., B Y REFERRING TO SKY LIGHT HOSPITALITY LLP. 25. ON A PERUSAL OF THE FACTUAL POSITION THEREIN, T HE COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFECT WAS CURABLE BECAUSE IT WAS HELD THAT THE NOT ICE WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE CORRECT NAME AND THAT THE PAN MENTIONED WAS ALSO INCORRECT. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE COURT HELD THAT ERRORS A ND MISTAKES CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT NULLIFY THE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE OTHERWISE VALID AND THAT NO PREJUDICE HAD BEEN CAUSED, AS THIS BEING THE MANDATE OF SECTION 292B OF THE AC T. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SKY LIGHT HOSPITALITY LLP IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND IT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 6 ITA NO. 393/MUM/2017. LATE SHRI PRADEEP RAMKARAN MODI, LH BY SMT ANITA MO DI, MUMBAI 26. FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, THIS COURT HOLDS THA T THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST THE PET ITIONER. 9. IN PARITY WITH EXPRESS AND CATEGORICAL OBSERVATI ONS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION (SUPRA), WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC TION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT DATED 16.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE AND QUASHED. 9. THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE MAIN APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE NOT BEING ADDRES SED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH NOV, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( RAVISH SOOD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 30/11/2018 KRK / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/