MUKESH M WADHWANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4152/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7449 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Revised return
• Section: 147; 69; 148; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHR I SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 415 2 /MUM./2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 06 07 ) MUKESH M. WADHWANI ENCHANTE, FLAT NO.201 14 TH ROAD, NEAR TRIBHUWANDAS BHIMJI ZAVERI, KHAR (W), MUMBAI 400052 PAN AAMPW7413K . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(2)(3), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MS. POOJA SWAROOP ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANESH JAIN A/W SHRI BIKASH KUMAR BOGI DATE OF HEARING 21.02.2018 DATE OF ORDER 25.04.2018 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 14 TH MARCH 2016, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 33, MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07. 2 . IN GROUND NO.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF ` 88,83,000, ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS DENIAL OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 4 OF THE ACT. 2 MUKESH M. WADHWANI 3 . B RIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. SINCE , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE A CT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 21 ST MARCH 2013, DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME. AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT NOR APPEARED BEF ORE HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM HDC BANK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1 ST APRIL 2005 TO 31 ST MARCH 2006, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS . S INCE , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT BY APPEARING BEFORE HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF ` 10,02,677 ON PEAK BASIS. FURTHER, ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF ` 93 LAKH IN AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VIDE SALE DEED REGISTERED WITH JT. SUB REGISTRAR, ANDHERI, MUMBAI, ON 26 TH JULY 2005. SINCE , THE ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF ` 93 LAKH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING IT AN UN EXPLAINED ] INVESTMENT. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ADDITION MADE , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3 MUKESH M. WADHWANI 4 . BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE PRODU CED CERTAIN EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ` 93 LAKH IN PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR NON FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME EVEN IN PURSUANCE TO SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASS ESSEE EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF ` 93 LAKH SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FATHER WERE THE OWNERS OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT 1 ST JANUARY 2002, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, PALI NAKA, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI, WHICH WAS SOLD AND THE CONSIDERATION OF ` 93 LAKH WAS REC EIVED. IT WAS SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED HIS 50% SHARE OUT OF SALE PROCEED IN PURCHASE OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND ACCORDINGLY , CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES FILED AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER PERUSING THE REMAND REPORT AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THOUGH, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE IN RESPECT OF THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, ON A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF ORIEN TAL BANK OF COMMERCE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HE FOUND THAT ONLY ONE CHEQUE AMOUNTING TO ` 46,50,000 WAS DEPOSITED ON 30 TH JULY 2005. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 4 MUKESH M. WADHWANI 46, 50,000 WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY ASSESSEES FATHER MANOHARLAL W ADHWANI, THE OTHER CO OWNER HELD THAT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE , HENCE, HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AT HIS HANDS FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. AS REGARDS ASSESS EES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDEX ED COST OF ACQUISITION, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE PROPERTY UNDER SALE WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FATHER MANOHARLAL W ADHWANI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` 1,98,750 ON 1 ST JULY 19 80 OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEES FATHER PAID ` 1,15,000. THEREFORE, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL 1981 TO THE ASSESSEE O N COST OF ACQUISITION OF ` 83,750 BEING ASSESSEES SHARE IN COST OF PURCHASE . AS REGAR DS ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED SUCH CLAIM BY FILING RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 5 . THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE VERY OUTSET, ACCEDED TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME NOR APPEARED IN THE COURSE OF RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX PARTE. HOWEVER, HE SUB MITTED , ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FATHER WAS A JOINT OWNER OF A FLAT WHICH WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 93 LAKH. IN THIS 5 MUKESH M. WADHWANI CONTEXT, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED AT PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER BEING JOINT OWNERS HAVE EQUAL SHARE IN THE PROPERTY . T HEREFORE, THE BUYER ISSUED TWO SEPARATE CHEQUES TOWARDS THE SALE CONSIDERATION , ONE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER IN THE NAME OF HIS FATHER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, WHILE THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CREDITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIS FATHER THROUGH A SEPARATE CHEQUE WAS CREDITED IN FATHERS BANK ACCOUNT. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT HE HAS RECEIVED 50% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION. LEARNED AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) NEVER ASKED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE FATHER ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HE SUBMITTED, WITHOUT SEEKING FURTHER DETAILS THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BENEFICIARY OF THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 93 LAKH WHICH IS CONTRARY TO FACTS ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED , WHILE CONSIDERING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INDEXATION BENEFIT ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION , LEAR NED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS RES TRICTED IT TO THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHERE AS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN 6 MUKESH M. WADHWANI HE HAS TAKEN THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AT ASSESSEES HANDS WHICH IS IMPROPER. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, TH E LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS OF THE SAID PROVISIONS , HENCE, CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED ON TECHNICAL GROUND OF NOT RAISING THE CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. H E SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE FORUM. 6 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, IN SPITE OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BEING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, HE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CO OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CERTAIN EVIDENC E S, HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT FULLY ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM EITHER WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF 50% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION BY HIS FATHER OR WITH REGARD TO COST OF ACQUISITION. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)S FINDING ON THE ISSUE ARE PROPER. AS REGA RDS ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, HE SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING SUCH DEDUCTION , CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 7 MUKESH M. WADHWANI 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH, I T MAY BE A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT NOR APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEAL S THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAI NED AND AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF WHICH ` 93 LAKH WAS RECEIVED WAS JOINTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. ONLY BECAUSE THE IDENTITY OF THE CO OWNER WAS NOT PROVIDED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ADDED BACK THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 93 LAKH AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BY WAY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED, BANK STATEMENT, ETC., TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HIS FATHER AND HIS SHARE IN THE PROPERTY IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 50%. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 46,00,500 WHICH IS RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY HIS FATHER THROUGH CHEQUE. ONLY BECAUSE THE PAYMENT DETAILS OF ASSESSEES FATHER WAS NOT AVAILABLE, THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THE AFORESAID APPROACH OF THE 8 MUKESH M. WADHWANI LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS IMPROPER AND UNJUSTIFIED. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REGISTERED SALE DEED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HIS FATHER. FURTHER, THE REGISTERED SALE DEED ALSO REVEALED THAT THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED TWO SEPARATE CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO ` 46,50,000 EACH ON 19 TH JULY 2005 IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES FATHER AND ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF CHEQUE NUMBER S ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. EVEN PAN DETAIL S OF ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER WERE ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE SALE DEED. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE IS HAVING 50% SHARE IN THE PROPERTY SO LD AND HAS ALSO RECEIVED 50% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION , THERE IS NO VALID REASON TO CONSIDER THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. MORE SO, WHEN THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS ALLOWING INDEXATION BENEFIT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. IF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAD ANY DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE REAL BENEFICIARY OF THE BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION , HE SHOULD HAVE CA LLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR REMOVING HIS DOUBTS. INSTEAD OF DOING THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ONLY ON PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF T HE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF LONG 9 MUKESH M. WADHWANI TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS AND MATERIAL RELATING TO SALE OF HOUSE PROPERTY. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION HE HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF HIS SHARE IN THE PROPERTY THEN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY RESTRICTING IT TO ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AFTER ALLOWI NG BENEFIT OF INDEXATION FOR COST OF ACQUISITION. 8 . AS REGARDS ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, IN OUR VIEW, NON FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WI LL NOT PREVENT THE ASSESSEE FROM RAISING SUCH CLAIM BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GOETZ INDIA LTD. V/S CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN THE RATIO THAT THE RESTRICTION WITH REGARD TO FRESH CLAIM THROUGH A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE ALSO RESTORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DENOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER VERIFYING ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH DUE REGARD TO EVIDENCE PRODUCED AND ONLY AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10 MUKESH M. WADHWANI 9 . IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF ` 10,02,677 UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN AN ACCOUNT HELD WITH HDC BANK ADDED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT ON PEA K BASIS , SINCE , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS E VIDENT , BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND EXPLAIN ED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT TO BE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEED FROM HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. CLEAR CL OTHING CO. H OWEVER, SINCE , THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAIN ING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 . BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER BOOK. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE US, WE ARE I NCLINED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 11 MUKESH M. WADHWANI HOWEVER, PRIMARY ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12 . IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.04.2018 SD/ - RAJESH KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25.04.2018 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR/SR.P.S) ITAT, MUMBAI