ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI V. ABHIJIT RAJAN, MUMBAI

ITA 3936/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54892 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F V IRANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.3936/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ACIT, CIRCLE 6(3) .. APPELLANT AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. VS SHRI ABHIJIT RAJAN, ,. RESPONDEN T RITURAJ, 2 MITTAL PARK, 1, MILITARY ROAD, JUHU, MUMBAI- 400 049 PA NO.AAEPR 0342 J T.A NO.3963/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI ABHIJIT RAJAN, ,. APPELLANT RITURAJ, 2 MITTAL PARK, 1, MILITARY ROAD, JUHU, MUMBAI- 400 049 PA NO.AAEPR 0342 J VS ACIT, CIRCLE 6(3) .. RESPONDENT AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: USHA NAIR, FOR THE REVENUE F.V.IRANI, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF HEARING : 8.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 -08-2011 2 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DAT ED 12 TH MARCH, 2010, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCES: 1. (A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE F ORM OF AN OPINION GIVEN BY SSP & CO REGARDING THE VALUATION OF RIGHTS AWARDED T O AMIF I LTD., WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO AS REQUIRED BY RU LE 46A OF THE I.T.RULES, 1962 BEFORE ADMITTING SUCH LEADING & FRESH EVIDENCE. (B) ) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SSP & CO. IS NOT A STATUTOR Y BODY PRESCRIBED BY ANY AUTHORITY TO GIVE SUCH REPORTS AND THAT THE FINDING G IVEN BY SSP & CO IS NOT BASED ON A METHOD OF STUDY SUBJECT TO OR SANCTIONED BY ANY PROFESSIONAL BODY. (C) ) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN EXTRA CONC ESSIONS MADE AND RIGHTS AWARDED TO THE THIRD PARTY I.E. AMIF I LTD AND THAT THE VALUE OF THESE RIGHTS HAS TO BE REDUCED TO ARRIVE AT THE COMPARABLE VALUE OF THE SHARES ALLOTTED TO AMIF I LTD. D) ) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FIXING THE VALUE OF SUCH RIGHTS AWARDED TO A MIF I LTD., AT `.27.63 ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS AS TO WHY M ONETARY VALUE NEEDS TO BE PRESCRIBED TO SUCH INTANGIBLE AND ON WHAT CRITE RIA SUCH MONETARY VALUE IS TO BE DETERMINED. E) ) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ARBITRARILY ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF RIGHTS A WARDED TO AMIF I LTD AT `.27.63 AND IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF SHAR ES ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN AT `.38.25 PER SHARE INSTEAD OF `.65.8 8 PER SHARE AS HELD BY THE AO. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL, HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR IEVANCES; 3 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF `.30,000 MA DE BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DETERMINING AND A DDING ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE @ 10% OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TWO RESIDENTIAL HO USES UNDER SECTION 23(1)(A) TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, EVEN THOUGH THE SAID TWO FLATS REMAINED VACANT THROUGHOUT THE PREVIOUS YEAR DESPITE THE APPELLANTS BEST EFFORTS TO LET THE SAME ON RENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 23( 1)(C). 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT( A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT OBTAINED BENEFIT FROM GAMMON INFRASTRU CTURE PROJECTS LIMITED BY WAY OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES OF GIPL TO THE APPELLAN T AT A PRICE LOWER THAN THE ACTUAL VALUE OF SHARES, WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE TAXE D AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 2(24)(IV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PRICE AT WHICH SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO A THI RTY PARTY IN THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME WOULD BE THE BEST INDICATOR OF THE A CTUAL VALUE OF SHARES AND NOT FOLLOWING THE BREAK UP VALUE OR NET ASSET VALUE M ETHOD. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN VALUING THE RIGHTS AT TACHED TO THE SHARES ALLOTTED TO A THIRD PARTY @ `.27.63 PER SHARE AS AGAI NST THE VALUATION OF @ `.38.92 PER SHARE VALUED BY SSPA & CO. IN THEIR VALU ATION REPORT, THUS HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT OBTAINED BENEFIT @ `.38.25 PER SH ARE OF GIPL, TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 2(24(IV) OF THE ACT. 3. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS INTER-LINKED WITH GROUND NO.3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DISPOSE OF THEM BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE CI T(A) BEFORE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), OR THE AO. TO THIS, LEARNED COUNSEL HAS NO OBJECTIO N BUT LEARNED COUNSEL SUGGESTS THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO AS HE CAN CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF ENTIRE RELEVANT MA TERIAL, AS THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PRODUCE NOW. IN VIEW THIS AND WITH THE CONSENT OF T HE PARTIES, THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH A DJUDICATION AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, AND AFTER C ONSIDERING THE ENTIRE RELEVANT MATERIALS BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER AND IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE LAW. 4 5. APROPOS GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, FACTS ARE L IKE THIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST FROM F.D., SAVING BANK INTEREST AND INTEREST FROM ICICI SAFETY BOND TOTALLING TO ` .7,53,829 AND REDUCED AN INTEREST PAYABLE OF ` .30,000 FROM THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPO N THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST PAID AND INTE REST RECEIVED AND ALSO TO PROVE THAT THE INTEREST PAID OF ` .30,000 WAS EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EARNI NG THE INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE ANY SUCH NEXUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DECLINED THE INTEREST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 6. LEARNED COUNSEL PRODUCED A COPY OF DECISION OF A C OORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2483/M/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND CONTENDED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06(SUPRA) ON SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ALLO WED THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: THE FIRST GROUND IS THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES E RRED IN DISALLOWING INTEREST OF ` . 30,000/-. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THA T WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST PAYABLE OF ` . 30,000/- FROM THE INTEREST OF ` .22,392/- RECEIVED AS INTEREST ON FD, SAVINGS BANK INTE REST AND INTEREST FROM ICICI SAFETY BONDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE INCOME AS R EQUIRED UNDER SECTION 57(III) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS U NABLE TO PROVE THE NEXUS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE IN TEREST CLAIM OF `30,000/- AND BROUGHT THE INTEREST OF ` . 22,392/- TO ASSESSMENT. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS UPHELD IN APPEAL AGAINST WHICH THE ASSE SSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFO RE THE CIT(A). THEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE BORROWED AN AM OUNT FROM MR SALDANHA MORE THAN 15 YEARS BACK AND THERE WAS NO CH ANGE IN THE USE TO WHICH THE BORROWING WAS PUT IN ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT Y EARS AND THAT THE INTEREST WAS BEING ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS IN COMPUTING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. IT WAS SUBMITTED ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS STATEMENT OF FACTS THA T CONSISTENT WITH THE 5 PAST PRACTICE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEPARTURE; THE INTEREST CLAIM OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. OUR ATTE NTION WAS DRAWN TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, IN WHICH YEAR ALSO THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE J UDGMENT OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SRIDEV ENTERPRISES (1 991) 192 ITR 165 (KAR) TO CONTEND THAT IF INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS A DEDU CTION IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WERE FRESH BORROWINGS DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE INTEREST PA ID BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE CREDITORS ACCOUNT SHOULD NORM ALLY BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RIVAL CONTENTION S PUT FORTH BEFORE US AND AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEF ORE THE CIT(A), WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE CIT(A) OR BEFORE US ON BEHAL F OF THE DEPARTMENT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT BE DEPARTED FROM IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHA NGE IN THE FACTS OR THE LEGAL POSITION. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF TH E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLO W THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF ` . 30,000/- AS INTEREST. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH , WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE T HE ADDITION OF ` .30,000. 9. GROUND NO.1 IS THUS ALLOWED. 10. APROPOS GROUND NO.2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. THE ASSESSEE OWNED THREE FLATS, ONE OF WHICH WAS OC CUPIED BY HIM AND OTHER TWO FLATS AT CAPRI, JUHU AND AT KDINAR CHS WERE LET OUT. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE INCOME FROM BOTH THE FLATS AT ` .3,265 AND ` .7,255, RESPECTIVELY AND DEDUCTION OF 30% U/S.24(A) OF THE I.T.ACT WAS CLAIMED AGAINST THE A BOVE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE FAIR MARKE T RENT AND STANDARD RENT FOR BOTH THE HOUSES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBM ISSION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE OF CAPRI AT ` .4,00,000 AND KIDINAR AT ` .3,00,000 AND AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 24(A) @ 30%, DETERMINED THE ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE OF BOTH THE PROPERTIES AT ` .4,90,000. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6 11. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION B EFORE A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIO NS. THE ISSUE, AS POINTED OUT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IS COVERED BY A NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF THE MUMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, SOME OF WHICH HAV E BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE OF S C F INANCE AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (ITA NOS: 4177 AND 4178/MUM/1999) DATED 13.01.2004, IT WAS HELD THAT THE STANDARD RENT DETERMINABLE UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF THE RENT LEGISLATION SHOULD BE TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 26.09.2007 IN INCOME TAX AP PEAL NO: 831 OF 2004. A SIMILAR ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. M/S SHAPOORJI & CO. (RAJKOT) PVT. LTD. (I TA NO: 40/MUM/1999) ON 17.09.2003. IN THIS ORDER THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 29.07.2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 IN THAT ASSESSEE S CASE AND HELD THAT IN MUMBAI IT IS THE ANNUAL RATEABLE VALUE AS FIX ED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, WHICH IS TAKEN AS ANNUAL VALUE BECAU SE THE SAME IS BASED ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. IT WAS FURT HER HELD THAT ANNUAL MUNICIPAL VALUE IF AVAILABLE ITSELF COULD BE THE ANN UAL LETTING VALUE AND IF THE ACTUAL RENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE IS MORE THAN THE ANNUAL MUNICIPAL VALUE, THEN THE ACTUAL RENT MAY BE TAKEN AS THE ANNUAL VALU E. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT BY ORDER DATED 26.09.2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO: 752 OF 20 04. IN THE CASE OF BHANSALI INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, BY JUDGMENT DATED 29.08.2009, IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO: 758, 759 AND 866 OF 2008, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE A NNUAL RATEABLE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 23(1)(A) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THAT DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURP OSE OF IMPOSING PROPERTY TAX, HAS HELD THAT THE CALCULATION OF THE A NNUAL RATEABLE VALUE SHALL BE BASED ON THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL AU THORITIES. A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT HAS ALSO BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. I N THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID BINDING DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN RECALCULATING THE A NNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE CAPRI AND KODINAR FLATS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND WHICH WERE VACANT DURING THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ONE OF THE ORDERS CITED ABOVE THAT THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AL SO FIXES THE ANNUAL VALUE ON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDI NG. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CERTIFICATES GIVEN BY THE BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGARPALIKA SHOWING THE RATEABLE VALUE OF THE FLATS AND THESE CER TIFICATES WERE ENCLOSED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CALCULATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED ON THESE CERTIFICATES. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CERTIFICATES THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RE-DETERMINING THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE OF THE FLATS ON THE BASIS OF THE TIMES OF INDIA PROPERTY CHART. WE ACCORDINGLY U PHOLD THE ASSESSEES 7 CONTENTIONS AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT T HE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CAPRI AND KODINAR. THE GROU ND IS ALLOWED. 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DI RECT THE AO TO ACCEPT THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF FLATS AT CAPRI AND KODINAR. 14. GROUND NO.2 IS THUS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ALSO TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2011 SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 12 TH AUGUST, 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),12 MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CITY-6 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH A MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI