BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ITO12(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 438/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2880 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: MANI JAIN LD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO.438/MUM/2014 BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./I.T.A. NO.438/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA 65, BAJAJ BHAVAN NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI-400 021 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 12(3)(1) MUMBAI-400 012 '# ! ./ ! ./PAN/GIR NO. AFBPM-9529-A ( #% /APPELLANT ) : ( &'#% / RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY : MANI JAIN, LD. AR REVENUE BY : CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH,LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01/10/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/11/2018 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2009- 10 CONTEST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX (APPEALS)-23 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI, APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-23/ITO-12(3)(1)/IT- 366/2011-12 DATED 31/10/2013 BY RAISING FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- IN RESPEC T OF CASH DEPOSITS IN ITA NO.438/MUM/2014 BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 2 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT APPELLAN T WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND AT THE TIME DEPOSITING THE SAME INTO T HE BANK ACCOUNT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CAE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,7 10/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY WAS FRAMED BY LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(3)(1), MUMBAI [AO] U/S 143(3) ON 30/12/2011 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.24.3 4 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 9 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30/10/2009. 2.1 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PURSUANT TO RECE IPT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION UNDER CASS, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.15 LACS IN ONE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT MA INTAINED WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. AGAINST THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND PRINT OUT OF CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/04/2004 TO 31/03/2009 WHERE IN THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 15 LACS GOT REFLECTED ON 30/03/2009. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF CASH IN HAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED WITH ASSESSEES EX PLANATION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAIN ING ANY BALANCE SHEET OR STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS , THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS CASH CREDIT U/S 68. 2.2 THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.33,710/- IS ON ACCOUN T OF INTEREST ON FDRS WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. I T WAS ITA NO.438/MUM/2014 BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 3 SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME SHALL BE OFFERED AS AND WHE N RECEIVED, FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. HOWEVER, NOT C ONVINCED, LD. AO ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE SAME WITHOU T ANY SUCCESS BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE IMPUGNED ORDE R DATED 31/10/2013 AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS. THE ATTENTION WAS D RAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW CASH OF RS.16.30 LACS FR OM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM NAMELY TRANSOCEAN AGENCY IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AND THEREFORE, CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE DUR ING IMPUGNED AY TO DEPOSIT THE SAME INTO THE BANK. HOWEVER, TREATIN G THE EXPLANATION AS FAR-FETCHED, LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONFI RMED THE STAND OF LD. AO BY MAKING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 2.2 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SHE HAD SUBMI TTED THE CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/2004 TO 31/03/2009 GIVING THE CASH POS ITION AVAILABLE AS ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN SOURCE OF THE INCOME WAS FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AND THAT THE SOURCE OF THE C ASH WAS THE BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH HER OUT OF THE PAST SAVINGS, WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND WITHDRAWALS FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM, M/S.TRANSOCEAN AGENCY FOR TH E EARLIER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT ON A PERUSAL OF THE C APITAL ACCOUNT OF M/S. TRANSOCEAN AGENCY FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, IT CAN BE A PPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.16,30,000/- IN TH E F.Y. 2002-03 FROM THE SAID FIRM AND THE SAME WAS AVAILABLE WITH HER FOR D EPOSITING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK IN WHICH THE DEPOSIT OF RS.15,00,000/- IN CASH HAS BEEN MADE WAS DULY REFLE CTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS HER TRANSACTIONS WITH THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS WERE TAKING PLACE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE, THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SAID A CCOUNT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS DULY EXPLAINED. 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.15,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE F.Y. 2008 -09 WITH THE CASH AVAILABLE WITH HER MAINLY OUT OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.16,30,0 00/- IN THE F.Y. 2002-03 FROM M/S. TRANSOCEAN AGENCY. THIS EXPLANATION IS FAR FET CHED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.438/MUM/2014 BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 4 SUBMITTED THAT HER TRANSACTIONS WITH THE PARTNERSHI P FIRMS WERE TAKING PLACE THROUGH HER ACCOUNT IN QUESTION WITH STANDARD CHART ERED BANK. IF THIS BE SO, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.16,30,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH IN THE F.Y. 2002- 03 AND AS TO WHY THE WITHDRAWAL WAS NOT ROUTED THROUGH HER BANK ACCOUNT. EVEN PRESUMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.16,30,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSES SEE IN CASH, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO STATE AND TO SHOW AS TO THE PU RPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN IN CASH. IF SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN IN CASH, THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DR AWN IS THAT THE MONEY WAS WITHDRAWN IN CASH FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FOR IT S IMMEDIATE UTILIZATION. IF THE MONEY WITHDRAWN WAS FOR ANY SPECIFIC PURPOSE (WHICH PURPOSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT STATED OR SHOWN), THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN UTIL IZED BY HER FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE. IF THE MONEY WITHDRAWN WAS NOT UTILIZED FO R THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONE Y CONTINUED TO BE KEPT BY HER AS CASH IN HAND AND WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN HER BA NK ACCOUNT. IF THE MONEY WAS OUT OF EXPLAINED SOURCES, AND WAS OUT OF THE WI THDRAWAL OF RS.16,30,000/- MADE FROM THE FIRM AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND, IF THE MONEY WAS NOT REQUIRED AT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN IT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE FIRM, ANY PRUDENT PERSON WOULD HAVE DEPOSITED THE SAME IN THE BANK AC COUNT OR WOULD HAVE AT LEAST GOT A FIXED DEPOSIT MADE SO THAT THE MONEY CO ULD HAVE EARNED SOME INCOME FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT UNDERSTANDA BLE AS TO WHY SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY WAS KEPT IDLE AND, THEN, SUDDENLY A FTER 6 YEARS, THE ASSESSEE WOKE UP TO DEPOSIT THE SAME CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUN T. THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY POINTED OUT AND SHOW ONLY ONE FACT, THE FACT BEING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.15,00,000/- IS UNEXPLAINED AN D WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOW SEEKING TO EXPLAIN BY FABRICATING EVIDENCES AND STO RIES. EVEN THE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF THE SO CALLED CASH BOOK CANNOT BE TAKEN COG NIZANCE OF SINCE THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO BACK THE SAID CASH BOOK AND IN VIEW OF THE REASONS GIVEN HEREINABOVE. MERELY BECAUSE THE BANK ACCOUNT IN QUE STION HAS BEEN REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME, ALL TRANSACTI ONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE EXPLAINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE A SSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.15,00,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT BUT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THE SAME. 2.3.1 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69A, WHERE IN A NY FINANCIAL YEAR THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND, TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY AND THE ASSE SSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE S AME OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SATISFACTORY, THE MONEY MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGAR DING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.15,00,000/- WHICH IS OWNE D BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.15,00,000/- DEP OSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE, THE MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS.15,00,000/- IS DEE MED TO BE THE INCOME OF ITA NO.438/MUM/2014 BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 5 THE ASSESSEE FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 RELEVANT TO THE A .Y. 2009-10. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN DULY CREDIT ED IN HER BOOKS, SINCE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.15,00,000/- CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOK S IS TO BE CHARGED TO INCOME- TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y 2009- 10 U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HENCE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST WAS CONFIRMED B Y OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.2 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD NOT OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOME IN QUESTION TO TAX SINC E SHE WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE INCOME WAS OFFERED IN THE A.YRS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12, I.E. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS OF RECEIPT OF THE INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE A.YRS. 2010- 11 AND 2011-12 IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM. 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE COMPUTATION OF TO TAL INCOME FOR THE A.YRS.2010-11 & 2011-12 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I FI ND THAT IN THE A. Y.2010-11 F.D INTEREST OF ONLY RS. 16,836/- HAS BEEN SHOWN WH ILE IN THE A.Y. 2011-12, NO INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN. THIS MEANS THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.33,710/- HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED NO MATERIAL BEFORE ME TO SHOW THAT SH E WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 3 3,710/- HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.33,710/- HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE I N THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2009-10, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER OF TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.33,710/- IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 IS UPHELD . THE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US WHEREIN LD. AUHTORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [AR], SHRI MANI JAIN HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STAND OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. CHIRAG JAYANT MEHTA [ITA NO. 8548/MUM/2011 DATED 31/05/2017] RENDERED UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. PER CONTRA, ITA NO.438/MUM/2014 BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 6 LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR], CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO DIS CHARGE THE ONUS CASTED UPON HER TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT . 4.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS A ND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.15 LACS HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ON E OF THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HER WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK . THE COMPLETE ONUS TO PROVE THE SOURCE THEREOF WAS ON AS SESSEE AND THE SAME, IN OUR OPINION, HAS REMAINED UN-DISCHARGED. T HE LD. AR IS MERELY HARPING ON THE POINT THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE MADE DURING IMPUGNED AY I.E. 2009-10 OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 WHEREAS THE CIRC UMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE CASH WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UN EXPLAINED. AS RIGHTLY NOTED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE SAI D SUBMISSION IS FAR- FETCHED AND IS NOT PLAUSIBLE ONE. THE PERUSAL OF CA SH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/2004 TO 31/03/2009, AS PLACED ON RECOR D, REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.2 0.50 LACS AS ON 01/04/2004, MOST OF WHICH HAS BEEN CARRIED FORWARD UP-TO 01/09/2008, AFTER WHICH SAID CASH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PLA USIBLE EXPLANATION TO JUSTIFY CARRY FORWARD OF HUGE CASH BALANCE, THE PLEAS OF LD. AR COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THIS IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LOCATIONS FROM W HERE THE CASH WAS ACTUALLY DEPOSITED IN THE SAID ACCOUNT DESPITE BEIN G DIRECTED BY THE ITA NO.438/MUM/2014 BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 7 BENCH AND THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS COUL D NOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 4.2 SO FAR AS THE RELIANCE ON THE CITED JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENT IS CONCERNED, THE SAME COULD NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE MATTER IS FACTUAL ONE AND THE COMPLETE ONUS TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT WAS ON THE ASSESSE E AND THE SAME, AS A MATTER OF FACT, HAS REMAINED UN-DISCHARGED AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAME IS NOT P LAUSIBLE ONE. 4.3 VIEWING FROM ANY ANGLE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, T HE SAME STANDS CONFIRMED. 5. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF INTEREST IS CONCERNED, THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) REVEAL THAT THE SAID INTEREST WAS NEVER OFFE RED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE LD. AR HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE SAME. THEREFORE, NO INFIRMITY IS FOU ND IN THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGA RWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : SR.PS:-THIRUMALESH/JV, SR.PS ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ITA NO.438/MUM/2014 BEENA SNEHAL MEHTA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 8 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'#% / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , -&. , . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. - /01 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI