INDRAKUMAR PATODIA, MUMBAI V. ITO 24(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4275/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4061 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C S NAIK
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Right to appeal
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4275/M/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 SHRI INDRA KUMAR PATODIA, RESIDING AT B/1206, ABROL VASTU PARK, EVERSHINE NAGAR, MALAD (WEST), MUMBAI 400 064 PAN: AACPP 1552E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(2)(4), MARINE LINES, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHARAT GANDHI, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI B.C.S. NAIK, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :03 .02.2016 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2013 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1998-99. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE REJECTION OF ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY CERTAIN PARTIES OTHER THAN THE 15 PARTIES IN RELATI ON TO WHICH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT GIVEN VIDE ORDER DATED 13.05.08. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THIS CASE U/S.143(3)ON 28.3.2001 DETE RMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.83,58,250/-. THE MAJOR ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS ON ITA NO.4275/M/2013 SHRI INDRA KUMAR PATODIA 2 ACCOUNT OF NEW LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.77,53,501/-. A GGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION SO MADE, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A). VIDE ORDER DATED 5.2004, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DAT ED 13.5.2008 PASSED IN ITANO.465/MUM/2004 ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO 15 PARTIES AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 9 OF THE SAID ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN RELATION TO 15 PARTIES ONLY AND CON FIRMED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION S OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED C/T(A) IN RESPECT OF THE LENDERS EXCEPT THOSE IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE ASSESSE E HAS ADDUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS NOTED EARLIER. THE AGGREGAT E AMOUNT OF THESE LOANS IS MENTIONED IN PARA (6) &(7) ABOVE. 117 THE AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN DATE OF SUMMARY SUI T WHICH ARE AFTER THE DATE OF PASSING THE LEARNED CIT(A) ORDER. THE C ONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF SIX PARTIES HAS BEEN OBTAINED ON 18.3.20 08. THUS, THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES AND THEREFORE IN ORDER TO IMPART SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, W E ADMIT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WILL EXAMINE THESE EVIDENCES AFRESH, WE MAY ALSO CLARIFY THAT SINCE THE MATTER IS VERY OLD, THE ONUS WILL BE ENTIRELY ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM IN REGARD TO ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED D.R. THAT 9 PARTIES COVERED BY SUMMARY SUIT OUT OF 15 PARTIES, ONLY IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES STANDS ESTABLISHED BUT THE CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO N IS STILL TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ABOVE MENTION ED 15 PARTIES IN TERMS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED OBSERVATIONS AFTER AFFORDING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF LOAN CREDITORS OTHER THAN 15 LOAN CREDITORS NOTED IN PAR A 6 & 7 OF THIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF OBSERVATIONS MADE IN PARA 9 OF THIS ORDER QUA 15 LOAN CREDITORS. 4. THUS A SPECIFIC DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO THE AO T O RE-ADJUDICATE THE CLAIM OF LOAN ONLY IN RESPECT OF 15 PARTIES FOR WHI CH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE IT. IN PARA 10, A CLEAR FINDING W AS GIVEN BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO.4275/M/2013 SHRI INDRA KUMAR PATODIA 3 CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF LOAN CREDITORS OTHER THAN THE 15 LOAN CREDITORS MENTIONED ABOVE. 5. IN THE SET-ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE AO, AS PER THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES FILED IN RESPECT OF 15 PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, WANTED TO FILE LOAN CONFIRMATION S IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER/REMAINING PARTIES ALSO, BUT THE AO REJECTED T HE SAME AS THERE WAS NO DIRECTION OF THE ITAT IN THAT RESPECT AND FURTHER T HAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF SUCH OTHER PARTIES HAVE BEEN C ONFIRMED BY THE ITAT. 6. AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 13.5.2008 O F THE ITAT, A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ITAT ON 18.1.2010 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.5.2008 OF THE ITAT WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT THE EXTENSION OF THE DIRECTION OF F ILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES ALSO. THE ITAT, HOWEVER, V IDE ITS ORDER DATED 13.8.2010 PASSED IN M.A.NO.111 OF 2010 DISMISSED TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PAR T OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 'THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUSHILASHANTILALJHAVERI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, 286 ITR 426(BOM.) AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPOR TED IN 2007 S. C. C. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT EVIDENCE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENT NATUR E WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER SHOULD BE ALLOWED. RULE 29 OF 1TAT RULES , IS PRIMARILY BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THESE DECISIONS ONLY BUT IN 254(2) PROCEEDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER,WHICH IN E FFECT, LD. COUNSEL WANTS ID TO DO. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N. IN THE RESULT, M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED,' 7. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASS ESSEE FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2364 OF 2010. IN THE WRIT PETITION, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED T HAT THE AO HAD ERRONEOUSLY DECLINED TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AND HENCE THE PETITIONER HAD NO OPTION BUT TO MOVE THE ITAT BY M.A AND THE M.A. SHOULD HAVE BEEN ITA NO.4275/M/2013 SHRI INDRA KUMAR PATODIA 4 ALLOWED BY THE ITAT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS GIV EN ITS FINDING IN PARA 6 & 7 OF ITS ORDER DATED 01.02.2011 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 6. IN OUR OPINION, THE CHALLENGE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2009 CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS AN ALTERNATE REM EDY OF FILING AN APPEAL AND AGITATE THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS BOUND TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED BY T HE ITAT, BY FILING AN APPEAL. 7. AS REGARDS THE CHALLENGE TO THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL IN REJECTING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS CONCERNED, IN OUR OPIN ION, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW. ONCE THETRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS, THE ITAT CANNOT REVIEW ITS ORDER. CIVIL COURTS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSLY GRANTED POWER OF R EVIEW IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. NO SUCH POWERS ARE CONFERRED UPON THE IT AT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. HENCE, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN REJECTING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. 8. STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE COUNSEL FOR TH E PETITIONER ON THE DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BOARD OF CONTROL F OR CRICKET, INDIA V/S. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB REPORTED IN A.I.R. 2005 SUPREME COURT, 592 AND INDERCHAND JAIN (DEAD) THOUGH LRS V/S. MOTILAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS REPORT ED IN (2009) 14 SUPREME COURT CASES, 663. IN OUR OPINION, BOTH THE AFORESAID DEC ISIONS HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, BECAUSE, THOSE DECISIONS RELATE TO THE REVIEW POWER OF THE CIVIL COURTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. NO SUCH PROVISIONS ARE THERE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. HENCE, BOTH THE AFORESAID DECISIONS HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 9. SIMILARLY, RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF T HIS COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN (1998) 231 ITR 1 AND SUSHILA SHANTILAL JHAVERI V/S. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. REPORTED IN [2006] 286 ITR 428 (BOM) ARE ALSO MISPLACED, BECAUSE, IN BOTH THE AFORESAID CASES, THE ISSUE WAS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE B EFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE ITAT AND NOT AFTER THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEA L BY THE ITAT. THEREFORE, THESE TWO DECISIONS ALSO DO NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE P ETITIONER. 8. AFTER THE DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION, THE ASS ESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO D ATED 29.12.09 PASSED BY THE AO IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 13.05.08 OF THE ITAT. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE FIRSTLY ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION AND SECONDLY HOLDING THAT THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN RELATION TO OTHER PAR TIES ALSO EXCEPT THOSE 15 PARTIES IN RELATION TO WHICH THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DA TED 13.05.08 HAD SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. ITA NO.4275/M/2013 SHRI INDRA KUMAR PATODIA 5 CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED BY THE LD. D.R. TOWARDS PARA 9 OF THE ORDER DATED 13.05.08 OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.4652/M/04. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED A SPECIFIC OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FINDING OF THE LD. CI T(A) IN RESPECT OF THE LENDERS EXCEPT THOSE IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE ASSESSE E HAS ADDUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO RE- ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF 15 PARTIES AS MENTIONED IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF LOAN CREDITORS OTHER THAN 15 LOAN CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY AP PEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.05.08 TO THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT. HENCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.05.08 ATTAINED FINALITY. THE AO WAS SUPPOSED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN LETTER AND SPIRIT. THE AO WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF 15 PARTIES ONLY AS DETAILED IN THE RELEVANT PARAS O F THE ORDER AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES WERE UPH ELD/CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THUS, PRECLUDED FROM A GITATING THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES AS THE ADDITIONS IN RESPEC T OF OTHER PARTIES IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO, HAVE ALREADY BEEN UPHELD/CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE BEING NO APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE SAID CONFIRMATIONS/DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL HAVE BECOME FINAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE WHICH THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO AMEND TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SEEKING SIMILAR DIRECTIONS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I N RESPECT OF OTHER LOAN CREDITORS ALSO, BUT THE SAID APPLICATION OF THE ASS ESSEE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED WRIT PETITION AGAINST THE SAID DISMISSAL OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BUT THAT THA T TOO HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE ITA NO.4275/M/2013 SHRI INDRA KUMAR PATODIA 6 BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE POINT AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS HELD THAT THE DECISIONS REL IED ON BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RELEVANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE ISSUE IN THOSE CASES WAS REGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE ITAT AND NOT AFTER THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY TH E ITAT. NOW THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PARA 6 OF ITS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE CHALLENGE TO A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.09 CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS AN ALTERNATE REMEDY OF FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND AGITATE AS TO WHETH ER THE AO WAS BOUND TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THOSE P ERMITTED BY THE ITAT. 10. IN OUR VIEW, THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DO NOT CONTAIN ANY DIRECTION OR PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE HAVING ANY RIGHT TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN RE LATION TO OTHER LOAN CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ADDITIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT AND THE ORDER HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS JUST MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE RE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE WOU LD HAVE SUCH A RIGHT TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO IN RESPE CT OF A MATTER/ISSUE, THE ADDITIONS RELATING TO WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONFI RMED AT THE LEVEL OF ITAT AND HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY. WE FURTHER FIND THAT T HE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED THAT THERE WAS A D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ISSUE RELATING TO ALLOWABILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEF ORE THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL BY THE ITAT AND AFTER THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY TH E ITAT. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RIGHT TO AGITATE THE ADDITIONS/CONFIRMATIONS/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN REL ATION TO THE ISSUES/PARTIES/ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT AND THE ORDER HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY. THE AO HAD NO JURIS DICTION TO BYPASS THE ORDER OF THE ITAT OR TO OPEN UP THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ITA NO.4275/M/2013 SHRI INDRA KUMAR PATODIA 7 ITAT HAD RESTORED THE MATTER FOR THE LIMITED ISSUE OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF 15 PARTIES ONLY. 11. THE FACTS CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN RELATION TO OTHER PARTIES A ND RESTRICTED HIMSELF TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ITAT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HE REBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.02.2016. SD/- SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 03.02.2016. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.