ITO - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI V. VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT, MUMBAI

ITA 4122/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9909 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AKHTAR HANSARI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) & SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN ( AM) ITA NO. 2865/MUM/2018(AY: 2013-14) SHRI VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT 70, C NEHRU ROAD, VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI PAN : AMEPK5162D VS ITO, WD.23(3)(5), MATRU MANDIR INCOME TAX OFFICES, GRANT ROAD, GAMDEVI, MUMBAI-400047 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT ITA NO.4122/MUM/2018 (AY :2013-14) ITO, WD.23(3)(5), MATRU MANDIR INCOME TAX OFFICES, GRANT ROAD, GAMDEVI, MUMBAI-400047 VS SHRI VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT 70, C NEHRU ROAD, VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT APPELLANT BY SHRI MANOJ PANDIT AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI AKHTAR H ANSARI SR DR DATE OF HEARING 03-12-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20-12-2019 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM : 1. THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-34, MUMBAI DAT ED 09-03-2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH ARISES FROM THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 15.03.2016. THE ASSESSE E IN ITS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. TREATING INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUCES 2 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELL ANT. THE ID. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY NOT FOLLOWING THE PR INCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF PREMIUMS INVESTMENT & FINANCE LIMITED V . DCIT [2015] 63 TAXMANN.COM 23 (MUM-TRIB) 2. DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OF RS. 13,61,0247-: (A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 13,61,0247 - (COMPRISING OF RENT PAID RS. 3,86,1297-; SALARIES TO STAFF RS. 3,72,000 7-, DEPRECIATION ON COMPUTER AND FURNITURE OF RS. 1,47,0007- AND GENERA L AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS. 4,55,8957-) INCURRED BY THE APPELLA NT DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON HIS CONSULTANCY BUSINESS 7 PROFESSIO N OF HOSPITALITY SERVICES. (B) THE ID. CIT(A) HAVING HELD THAT THE APPELL ANT HAD INDEED CARRIED OUT CONSULTANCY BUSINESS, FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS E OF THE SAID BUSINESS AND HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SUBSTITUTED GROUND NO.2 IN TH E FOLLOWING MANNER:- 2. DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE (A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE OF RENT PAID RS. 3,86,1297-; SALES PROMOTION EXPENSE OF RS. 43,450/-; STAFF WELFARE EX PENSES OF RS. 62,3207- AND GENERAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2,35,0007- INC URRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON HIS CONS ULTANCY BUSINESS 7 PROFESSION OF HOSPITALITY SERVICES. 3 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT (B) THE ID. CIT(A) HAVING HELD THAT THE APPELL ANT HAD INDEED CARRIED OUT CONSULTANCY BUSINESS, FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS E OF THE SAID BUSINESS AND HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE REVENUE, IN ITS CROSS APPEAL, HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE BENEF IT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT TO THE FULL EXTENT OF RS. 1,81,67,513 /- BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY W ITHIN TWO YEARS OF SALE BY AVAILING 20:80 SCHEME(ADF FROM HDFC LTD) FO R PAYMENT AND COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 54(1 ) AND 54(2) OF THE ACT ?' 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUC TION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT TO RS 55,44,000/- AS THE SALE PROCEEDS OR THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED TO THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT WHOLLY APPROPRIATED TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF NEW RES IDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD ?' 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUC TION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ON THE DA TE OF PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THE ASSESSEE HAD OWN FUNDS OFRS 3,50,00,OOO/-FROM SALE OF FLAT IN BANDRA (OLD RESID ENTIAL PROPERTY) AND PURCHASED THE NEW PROPERTY BY AVAILING 20:80 SC HEME (UNDER THE ADF SCHEME FROM HDFC LTD. I.E. RS 55,44,000/- FROM SALE OF OLD PROPERTY AND BALANCE FROM BORROWED FUNDS) AND THERE BY UTILIZING THE 4 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT MAJOR PORTION OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS 3,50,00, 0 00/ -FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES ? ' 4. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUC TION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SECTI ON 54 CLEARLY STATES THAT ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED EITHER TO PURCHASE A RESI DENTIAL HOUSE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF OLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF (ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRA NSFER TOOK PLACE OR PURCHASED)OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFT ER THAT DATE (CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE) OR IF THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ABLE TO APPROPRIATE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF OLD RESIDENTIAL HO USE BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF ROI U/S 193(1), HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO DEPOSIT THE SAME BEFORE FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME ?' 4. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14 ON 15-01-2014 DECL ARING INCOME AT RS.7,27,170/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AFTER SERVING STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1), THE ASSESS ING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION (U/S) 143(3) ON 15-03-2016 . THE AO, WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, DISALLOWED THE EXEMPT ION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,26,23,513/-, DISALLOWED EXPEND ITURE OF RS.13,61,024/- CLAIMED AGAINST INTEREST INCOME ON T HE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS DURING THE RELEV ANT PERIOD AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE V IS-A-VIS INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SERVICE CHARGE AS 5 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT INTEREST INCOME WAS TREATED UNDER THE HEAD, INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. ON APPEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS A LLOWED EXEMPTION U/S 54 ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON SALE OF RESIDENTIAL FLAT AT BANDRA. HOWEVER, OUT OF THE EXPENSES OF RS. 13,61, 024/-, CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,86,000/- INCURRED ON AC COUNT OF RENT ON RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS . 43,450/-, STAFF WELFARE OF RS. 62,320/- AND GENERAL EXPENSES OF RS . 2,35,000/- WAS SUSTAINED. THEREBY GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.634,125/-. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE FILE D THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEAL RAISING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH WE HAVE EXTRACTED ABOVE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT TH E OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT RS. 50 LACKS AS FIX ED BY CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO.17 OF 2019. THE TAX EFFECT IN REVENUE S APPEAL IS RS.26,00,444 ONLY WHICH IS LESS THAN RS.50 LAKHS FI XED BY CBDT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINA BLE AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHE D THE WORKING OF TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL. 6 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE, AFTE R GOING THROUGH THE WORKING OF TAX EFFECT OF RS.26,00,444/- FAIRLY CONC EDED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN REVENUES APPEAL IS ADMITTEDLY LESS THAN THE MON ETARY LIMIT OF RS.50 LAKHS. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, SUBMITS THAT REVENUE M AY BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE APPEAL REVIVED IN CASE AT A LATER STAGE IT IS DISCOVERED THAT THE CASE OF REVENUE IS COVERED BY A NY EXCEPTION CLAUSE OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3 AS AMENDED VIDE DATED 20-0 8-2018. 8. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 50 LACKS AS PRESCRIBED BY CBDT VIDE ITS CIRC ULAR NO.17 OF 2019 DATED 20-08-2019; HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE IS GIVEN LI BERTY TO GET THE APPEAL REVIVED IN CASE IF AT A LATER STAGE IT IS DISCOVERE D THAT THE CASE OF REVENUE IS COVERED BY ANY EXCEPTION CLAUSE AT PARA 10(E) OF CIRCULAR DATED 20-08- 2018. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. NOW ADVERTING TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE GROUND 1 RAISED ORIGINALLY BY ASSESSEE AND SAME MAY BE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. CONSI DERING THE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE, GROUND 1 OF AP PEAL IS DISMISSED, AS NOT PRESSED. 7 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT 11. GROUND 2 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPEND ITURE OF RS.3,86,129/- ON ACCOUNT OF RENT PAID, RS.43,450/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES; RS. 62,320/- ON ACCOUNT OF STAF F WELFARE EXPENSES AND RS.2,35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONSULTANCY BUSINES S / HOSPITALITY SERVICES. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT T HE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE VIS-A-VIS INCOME AND ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICE R ON DISALLOWANCE OF RENT OF RS. 3,86,129/-, SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS. 43,450/- STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES OF RS. 62,320/- AND GENERAL EXPENS ES OF RS. 2,35,000/- AND ON REMAINING DISALLOWANCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLO WED RELIEF. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED FOR ENTIRE EXPENSES. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE. NO DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE FOR INCURRING SUCH EXPENSES BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE EXPENSES AS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE LIABLE TO BE UP HELD. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DURING THE 8 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT ASSESSMENT NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS. 2,00,000/- AS A PROFESSIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGE FROM LILAVATI HOSPITAL FOR PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 15,80,981/-. THE ASSES SEE DEBITED EXPENSES OF RS. 13,61,024/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE SHOW -CAUSE DATED 11.03.2016 ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE CONSULT ANCY/SERVICE CHARGE FEES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY VIDE REPLY DATED 07.03.2016 AND STA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON RENT, STAFF SALARY, SALE PR OMOTION AND GENERAL EXPENSES AND SUBMITS THAT THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABL E EXPENSES. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE I NCOME RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THE INCOME RECEIPT OF RS. 2,00 ,000/- FROM LILAVATI HOSPITAL HAS NO CONNECTION WITH EXPENDITURE OF RS. 13,61,042/- AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITS THE SIMILAR SUBMISSION AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND THE MAT ERIAL BROUGHT BEFORE HIM CONCLUDED THAT AGAINST THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 17,80,981/- (RS. 15,80,981 + RS. 2,00,000), RS. 2,00,000/- IS THE ON LY FROM PROFESSIONAL INCOME AND REST OF THE RECEIPT ARE INTEREST FROM LO AN OR FIXED DEPOSIT IN 9 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT THE FORM OF SAVING ACCOUNTS, WHICH ARE ASSESSABLE U NDER SECTION 57. IN CASE ANY CLAIM OF EXPENSES AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE CRITERIA PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 57(III) HAS TO BE FULFILLED WHICH PRESCRIBED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THAT INCOME. NONE OF THE EXPENSE S DEBITED BY ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C ARE HAVING ANY NE XUS WITH THE INTEREST INCOME I.E. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON THE AFORE SAID OBSERVATION, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE, WHICH CONSI ST OF RENT OF RS. 3,86,000/-, GENERAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2,35,000/-, SAL E PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS. 43,450/- AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES OF RS. 6 2,320/-. AND DISALLOWANCE ON REST OF THE EXPENSES WAS DELETED. B EFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSE E CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR WHI CH THE ASSESSEE PAID RENT OF RS. 3,86,000/-. SIMILARLY, NO BREAKUP OF GE NERAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2,35,000/- AND SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES OF RS. 43,45 0/- AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES OF RS. 62,320/- AND/OR ANY DOCUMENT OR EVI DENCE SHOWING NEXUS WITH PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT IS PLACED BEFORE US . THOUGH, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF SEVERAL DECISION OF TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, THE LD. AR WHILE MAKING HIS SUBMISSION HAS NEITHER REFERRED NOR MADE ANY PRAYER FOR MAKING RELIANCE ON THOSE DECISIONS. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THOSE DECISIONS BY TREATING THEM A S NOT PRESSED. 10 ITA 2865/MUM/2018 & 4122/MUM/2018 VISHAL VITHAL KAMAT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ANY NEXUS OF EXPENSES EITHER WITH THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS THAT THE EXPE NSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFESSIO NAL RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE SAID EXPENDIT URE HAS ANY NEXUS WITH THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE. IN THE RE SULT, GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 -12-2019. SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 20 TH DECEMBER, 2019 PK/- COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI