DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI V. SHAH SPINNERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4326/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7826 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MAHAPATRA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Assessment record
• Section: 115JB; 32

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 4326/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-2003 THE DCIT, CIR. 3 (3) MUMBAI. VS. M/S. SHAH SPINNERS PVT. LTD. MUMBAI 400 021 PAN AAFCS3007D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI S.K.MAHAPATRA FOR RESPONDENT ; -NONE- ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 17-3-2009 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- XXXII, MUMBAI AND RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02-2003. 2. FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ARE STATED IN BRIEF. ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND DEC LARED INCOME, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT AS WELL AS UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. SINCE THE CASE WAS TAKEN-UP FOR S CRUTINY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE RECORDS AND FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 27 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LE TTING OUT THE PREMISES. AGAINST SUCH RECEIPTS AN EXPENDITURE OF R S.3,20,854/- AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,29,695/- WAS CLAIMED. IT MAY B E NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED INCOME FROM LETTING OUT THE PR EMISES AS BUSINESS INCOME. 3. ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS OF THE OPINION TH AT THE IMPUGNED INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROP ERTY INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TOW ARDS DEPRECIATION 2 AS WELL AS EXPENDITURE. IN THIS REGARD, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND MEREL Y LET OUT THE PREMISES TO A SISTER CONCERN UNDER AN UN-REGISTERED AGREEMENT. THE WHOLE AREA WAS LET OUT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAI NTAINING ANY EMPLOYEE TO RUN ITS SO-CALLED BUSINESS SINCE THE AS SESSEES ONLY ASSET CONSISTS OF OFFICE PREMISES. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE WAS THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS MAINLY OF BUYI NG AND GIVING ON LEASE PROPERTIES IN THE NATURE OF FLATS, OFFICES ET C., AND THIS ACTIVITY IS AUTHORISED BY THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF ITS MEMORANDUM O F ASSOCIATION. IN THE ORDINARY BUSINESS ACTIVITY IT HAD EARNED BUSINE SS INCOME OF RS. 22 LAKHS CONSISTING OF BUSINESS CONDUCTING CHARGES OF PRIVATE SERVICE STATUS, MAINTENANCE OF OFFICE RECORDS AND PROVISION FOR CLIENTS CONFERENCE FACILITIES ON ITS PROPERTY AT REGENT CHA MBERS AT NARIMAN POINT. ONLY 50% PORTION OF SUCH PROPERTY IS STATED TO BE USED FOR THE SAID PURPOSE AND THE BALANCE WAS STATED TO BE SELF- OCCUPIED FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS. SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS COMMERCIALLY E XPLOITED IT HAD ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS WELL AS ADMINISTRATIVE AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE INCOME EARNED THEREON. 5. LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF DE CISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 263 ITR 143 INCOME FROM LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY IS ASSESSABLE T O TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, RE JECTED THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS WELL AS DEDUCTION TOWARDS ADMINISTR ATIVE AND ESTABLISHMENT EXPENSES THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTICED T HAT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR APPELLANT HAD USED THE PREMISES FOR I TS BUSINESS PURPOSE AND EARNED BUSINESS CONDUCTING CHARGES THER EFROM IN WHICH EVENT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEP RECIATION ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER N OTICED THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS IN THE FORM OF 3 BANK CHARGES, AUDIT FEES ETC., OF RS.3,20,854/-. SI NCE THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BU SINESS THE SAME WAS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. OPERATIVE PORTION OF TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED FOR IMMEDIATE REFER ENCE : 4.3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE ARGUMENTS, IT IS CLAIME D THAT THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE U/S. 32 TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF THE PREMI SES AS THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS LET OUT WA S AROUND 50% OF THE TOTAL AREA, AND THE REMAINING PORTION WAS OCCUPIED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR I TS OWN BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THIS IS SUPPORTED FROM THE F ACT THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS EARNED SERVICE CHARGES APART FROM BUSINESS CONDUCTING CHARGES AS UNDER : ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT RS. 2004-05 6,00,000/- 2005-06 6,00,000/- 4.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS A S WELL AS FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT WAS DIRECT ED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 05 - 03-09 TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IF ANY TO PROVE THAT ACTU ALLY 50% OF THE PREMISES ARE BEING USED BY THEM. IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 25-07-07 OF THE BOARD AUTHORISING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR USAGE OF 50% OF THE PREMISES . ALSO, A COPY OF MOU DATED 31-07-01 ENTERED INTO WIT H THE TENANT M/S. RUSHNIT EXIMP PVT. LTD. FOR PROVIDI NG BUSINESS FACILITIES AT THE SAID PREMISES AND RESTRI CTED TO 50% OF THE TOTAL AREA HAS BEEN FURNISHED. YET ANOTHER MOU DATED 15-07-01 WITH THE SISTER CONCERN M/S. SHIMNIT INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER SHI MNIT 4 MACHINE TOOLS & EQUIPMENTS LTD.) FOR PROVIDING VARIOUS SERVICES TO THE APPELLANT FOR CARRYING OUT THEIR (I.E., APPELLANTS) BUSINESS HAS BEEN FURNISHED. TH IS ESTABLISHES THE FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPER TY AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS NOT APPRECIAT ED THE FACT THAT ONLY A PORTION I.E., 50% OF THE PREMI SES WAS LET-OUT AND THE BALANCE PORTION WAS HELD BY THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS PUT TO USE FOR ITS OWN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT IT HAS EARNED SERVICE CHARGES FROM LIASIONING WORK IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF TH E APPELLANT THAT SINCE THE BALANCE PORTION WAS PUT TO USE AND OCCUPIED FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IT IS ELIG IBLE FOR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE U/S. 32 IN RESPECT OF TH AT PORTION. AS THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED INCOME OTHER THAN BUSINESS CONDUCTING CHARGES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. I HOLD AND DIRECT THAT A DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION U/S. 32 BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT FO R THE USE OF THE SAID PREMISES IN ITS OWN BUSINESS. HOWEVER, AS I HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT 50% OF THE PROPERTY WAS LET-OUT, THE DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE U/S. 32 WILL BE RESTRICTED TO 50% OF THE TOTAL DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4.5. SO FAR AS CLAIM FOR BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IS CONCERN ED, THE SAME ARE ALLOWABLE AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS WHICH IS ALSO NECESSARY TO BE INCURRED FOR MAINTAINING THE BUSINE SS ASSETS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND IN ITS STATUS A S A COMPANY. THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF HINDUSTAN CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. VS. CIT 124 ITR 561 (BOM.) 5 6. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, CONT ENDING INTER ALIA, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO TH E DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS DEPRECIATION SINCE THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTICE HERE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND HAD ALSO TAKEN N OTE OF THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD EARNED SERVICE CHARGES APART FROM BUS INESS CONDUCTING CHARGES EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-2005 AND 2005-2006. 7. APPEAL WAS FILED ON 17-7-2009 WHEREIN THE APPEL LANT SHOWS TO RAISE A GENERAL GROUND STATING THAT THE CI T(A) IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY ON ANY BUSINES S ACTIVITY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT AND 50% DEPRECIATION. IN OTHERWORDS, NEITHE R THE AUTHORISATION MEMO CONTAINS ANY NOTING THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS NO SUCH ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED ON NOR WAS ANY MATERIA L PAPER FILED TILL DATE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVI TY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. THE CASE WAS POSTED FROM TIME TO TIME SINCE 5-5 -2010 AND ON ALL THESE OCCASIONS THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS R EPORTED READY THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESS EES COUNSEL AND ON 6-10-2010 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 27-12-2010 B Y SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT THIS IS THE FINAL CHANCE. SINCE THE RE VENUE NEVER SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THE REVENUE IS READY IN ALL RESPECTS, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE REVENUE IN ITS CAPAC ITY AS APPELLANT HAS TO PROVE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS WRONG AND THE SAME HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDEN CE. IN OTHERWORDS, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS IN POSSESSION OF THE RELEVANT MATERIA L PAPERS, IF ANY, FOR PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. 6 9. ON 27-12-2010, THE BENCH HAVING NOT FUNCTIONED, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 22-3-2011 BY DULY NOTIFYING T HE FRESH DATE THROUGH THE NOTICE BOARD ON WHICH DATE NONE APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE LAST CHANCE GIVEN TO THE A.R. ON 6-10-2010. ON THE CONTRARY, A REQUEST VIDE LETTER DATED 22-3-2001 , WAS MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACCOUNTANT LOOKING AFTER THE MATTER IS BUSY ELSEWHERE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, REQUEST MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR ADJOURNMENT, IS REJECTED. AT THIS JUN CTURE, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE REVENUE IS NOT READY SIN CE THE STATUS OF THE APPEALS, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2004-2005 AND 2005-2006 HAS TO BE VERIFIED. AS STATED HEREINBEFOR E, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS ONLY AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND AT NO STAGE THE REVENUE PLEADE D THAT IT ALSO REQUIRES TO OBTAIN RECORDS. AT ANY RATE THERE WAS S UFFICIENT TIME AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE TO OBTAIN RECORDS TO PRO SECUTE THE APPEALS PARTICULARLY WHEN AN APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REV ENUE. ATLEAST WHEN THE BENCH HAD CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT NO FURTH ER OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN, BY ADJOURNING THE CASE AS FINAL CHA NCE TO THE PARTIES, IT IS THE DUTY OF BOTH THE PARTIES TO HONOUR THE DIREC TION OF THE BENCH AND TO BE PRESENT WITH THE NECESSARY MATERIAL PAPER S. HOWEVER, LAXITY OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN NOT PROSECUTING THE A PPEALS BY OBTAINING NECESSARY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS INDICATE THAT THEY A RE NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS AND IN A ROUTINE AND CAS UAL MANNER THIS APPEAL APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FILED. NO DOUBT, THE E XCEPTION PROVES THE RULE, BUT IN THE RECENT PAST WE HAVE COME ACROSS I N A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BEEN O BTAINING THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND IN SOME CASES EVEN WHERE DRS WERE DILIGENTLY ADDRESSING LETTERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CO NCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER INTURN NEVER BOTHERS TO SEND THE RECORD ON TIME, PROBABLY GIVING LEAST IMPORTANCE TO THE MATTERS PENDING BEFO RE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL IS PREFE RRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FEW CASES THE TRIBUNAL WAS COMPELLED TO EXPRESS ITS AGONY AND BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 ABOUT THE STATE OF AFFAIRS BUT ON MOST OCCASIONS TH E LEARNED DRS ARE FOUND TO BE IN A PATHETIC SITUATION OF EXPRESSING T HEIR INABILITY TO ARGUE THE APPEALS EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THA T THEY WERE ONLY POSTED FOR A DAY OR RECORDS ARE NOT OBTAINED ON TIM E. 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE OVERALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND AS A TEST CASE WE WERE COMPELLED TO REJECT THE REQUEST OF THE REVENUE AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS ON THE B ASIS OF THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL ON RECORD. LEARNED DR MERELY PLEADED THAT HE WAS NOT READY AND DID NOT CHOOSE TO ADDRESS THE BENCH BY POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC MATERIAL, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE HE CAN AT BEST RELY UP ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE THEREFORE, SADDLED WI TH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EXAMINING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO APPRECIATE A S TO WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL AND WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT SUS TAINING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD TO THE MERIT S OF THE CASE. 11. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AS WELL AS DEDUCTION TOWARDS EXPENDITU RE. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A SPECIFIC CLAIM THAT THE COMPANY HAD USED THE PREMISES FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSE AND HAD EARNED BUSINESS CONDUCTING CHARGES THEREFROM. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THE I NCOME IS CHARGED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY THE N ATURE OF THE SAID INCOME DOES NOT CEASE TO BE BUSINESS INCOME. AT ANY RATE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY. BY VIRT UE OF A SPECIFIC PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 22 OF THE ACT, INCOM E EARNED THEREFROM MAY BE ASSESSABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD PROPERTY I NCOME BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN A BUS INESS ACTIVITY. PLACING RELIANCE UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS LISTED OUT IN PARA 4.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TOWARDS DEPRECIATION AS WELL AS EXPENDITURE IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE EARNING OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS. NO 8 EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS FURNISHED BY THE LEARNED DR TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 12. IT IS EQUALLY RELEVANT TO NOTICE HERE THAT WHE N AN APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) A NOTICE IS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED A ND GOING BY THE PAST PRACTICE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO APP EAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) SO AS TO APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASS ESSEE, ON THE OTHER SIDE, SO AS TO CONTRADICT OR COUNTER THE SAME. IT I S EVIDENT FROM THE NARRATION IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) THAT NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT. OUR EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL FORTUNATE TO HAVE SOME DILIGENT OFFICERS WHO CONSIDER THAT IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY T O RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND TH EY MAY EITHER APPEAR IN PERSON OR ATLEAST FURNISH THEIR WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THOUGH THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS ALSO FROM MUMBAI, HE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR, AS IS THE USUA L PRACTICE IN NUMBER OF CASES. THIS, COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT E VEN BEFORE US THOUGH AN APPEAL IS FILED FORMALLY IN 2009 EVEN TIL L THE YEAR 2011 NO MATERIAL COULD BE FURNISHED TO ENABLE THE TRIBUNAL TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE , COMPELS US TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. 13. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARN ED CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) (R.K.PANDA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE 30 TH MARCH, 2011 VBP/- 9 COPY TO 1. DCIT, CIRCLE 3 (3), ROOM NO. 609, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 20. 2. M/S. SHAH SPINNERS PVT. LTD., 8 TH FLOOR, REGENT CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN AAFCS3007D 3. CIT(A)-XXXII, MUMBAI 4. CIT-3, MUMBAI 5. DR E BENCH 6. GUARD FILE (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI.