HERALD DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4482/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54883 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALKRISHNA MENON SR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Corroborative evidences; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP (A.M.) AND SHRI VIJAY PAL R AO (J.M.) ITA NO.4482/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 HERALD DISTRIBUTORS P. LTD. 1, TIMES OF INDIA BUILDING, 1 ST FLR., GYMNASIUM LANE, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 PAN : AAACH8735N VS. THE I.T.O. WD.1(1)(4) R.NO.531, 5 TH FLR., AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BALKRISHNA MENON (SR.AR) O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TW O SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-I, MUMBAI FOR A.Y. 20 05-06 AND 2006-07 INVOLVE SOME COMMON ISSUES AND THE SAME THEREFORE H AVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE C OMPOSITE ORDER. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED IN THIS CASE ON 20. 07.2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. HOWE VER, KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE EITHE R COVERED OR VERY SMALL, THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEDED TO AND THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF EX-PARTE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD DR AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO.4482/MUM/2010 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2010 2 3. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E FOR A.Y.2005-06 BEING ITA NO.4482/MUM/10 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD CIT(A)-1, MUMBAI DATED 31.12.2009. 4. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 OF THIS APPEAL R ELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,010/- AND RS.16,387/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TR AVEL EXPENSES AND DOMESTIC TRAVEL EXPENSES RESPECTIVELY. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD DR AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS.50,010/- AND DOMESTIC TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS.16,387/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE WERE DISALLOWED BY THE AO AS A RESULT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PR ODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE RESPECTIVE TOURS WER E UNDERTAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. EVEN BEFORE THE LD CIT(A ), NO SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE COULD BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPO RT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE THAT THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES WERE WHOLLY AND E XCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS. IN OUR OPINION, THE ONUS IN THIS REGARD IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ON EVIDENCE THAT THE CORR ESPONDING TRAVELS WERE UNDER TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS IN ORDE R TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON SUCH TRAVELS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE SAID ONUS, WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE S AME IS THEREFORE UPHELD ON THIS ISSUE DISMISSING GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSE ES APPEAL. 6. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.2729/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CI T(A) U/S.14A. 7. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.13,000/- EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SHARE WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT. NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO ITA NO.4482/MUM/2010 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2010 3 THE SAID EXEMPT INCOME HOWEVER WAS MADE BY THE ASSS ESSEE AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A. THE AO THEREFORE WOR KED OUT SUCH EXPENDITURE AT RS.2729/- BY APPLYING RULE 8D AND MADE DISALLOWA NCE U/S.14A. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWAN CE MADE BY THE AO U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D RELYING ON THE DECISION O F SPECIAL BENCH OF I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT . LTD. 117 ITD 169 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULE , 1962 HAS A RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS AGREED BY THE LD REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE SIDES, THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE LTD. (2010) 234 CTR (BOM) 1, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RU LE, 1962 IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM A.Y.08-09. AS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT, DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A FOR THE YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 08-09 HAS TO BE MADE BY ADOPTING SOME REASONABLE METHOD. RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERA TION AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES WHICH HAS TO BE MADE U/S.14A BY APPLYI NG SOME REASONABLE METHOD AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER AND SUFFI CIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ACCOR DINGLY TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2006-07 BEING ITA NO.4483/MUM/10 WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD CIT(A)-1, MUMBAI DATED 30.12.2009. 10. THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) OUT OF MOTAR CAR EXPENSES AMOUNTING T O RS.22,270/-, OUT OF DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR AMOUNTING TO RS.24,110/- AND OUT OF CAR ITA NO.4482/MUM/2010 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2010 4 INSURANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.6,250/- IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER: WHEN THE LD AO HAS ALREADY SUBJECTED THE EXPENSE ON RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE OF MOTOR CAR INCLUDING INSU RANCE AND DEPRECIATION THEREOF TO FBT, DISALLOWANCE U/S.1 43(3) TREATING THE SAME HAS HAVING INCURRED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE IS UNJUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE CONTENT OF CIRCULAR NO.8 /2005 DATED 29.08.2005 ISSUED BY THE CBDT WHEREIN AT S.NO.35 & 36 OF THE FAQS ISSUED, THE BOARD HAS SPELT OUT THAT ANY EXPE NDITURE DIS-ALLOWED U/S.37 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND/OR TRE ATED AS BOGUS SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO LEVY OF FBT. HERE THE LD AO HAS ALREADY SUBJECTED THE SAID EXPENSES TO FBT AND YET HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME. EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HA S PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE EXPENSES I NCURRED AND GIVEN ITS EXPLANATION OF HAVING INCURRED THE SA ME WHOLLY AND NECESSARILY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT, NO DEMONSTRATIVE PROOF OF THE SAME COULD BE PRODUCED D UE TO THE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD DR A ND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH IS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF COORDINAT E BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BIPIN KOTAK VS. ACIT DATED 29.07.2011 P ASSED IN ITA NO.486/MUM/09 WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECI DED IN FOVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON GIVEN IN PARA 5 W HICH READS AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN US THROUGH THE CBDT CIRC ULAR NO. 8/2005 DATED 29-08-2005 GIVING EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO FRINGE BENEFIT TAX AS INTROD UCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2005 AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PORTION THEREOF TO EXPLAIN THE OBJECT BEHIND LEVYIN G FRINGE BENEFIT TAX. AS INDICATED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR, THE FRINGE BENEFIT TAX HAS BEEN INTRODUCED AS A SURROGATE TAX ON EMPLO YER WITH THE OBJECTS OF RESOLVING THE PROBLEMS IN TAXING SOM E PERQUISITES/FRINGE BENEFITS IN THE HANDS OF THE EMP LOYEES IN TERMS OF SECTION 17. FURTHER, AS EXPLAINED IN PARA NO. 3.2 OF THE CIRCULAR, THE SCOPE OF THE TERM FRINGE BENEFITS PR OVIDED IS DEFINED IN SECTION 115WB(1) TO MEAN ANY CONSIDERATI ON FOR EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED BY WAY OF ANY PRIVILEGE, SERVIC E FACILITY OR AMENITY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, PROVIDED BY AN EMP LOYER, WHETHER BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OR OTHERWISE, TO HI S EMPLOYEES. MOREOVER, AS CLARIFIED IN THE SAID CIRCU LAR WHILE ANSWERING FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION NO. 15, FRINGE BENEFIT IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IF THE EMPLOYER HAS IN CURRED EXPENSES FOR ANY OF THE PURPOSES REFERRED TO IN THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SEGRAGATE SUCH EXPENSES BETWEEN THOSE INCURRED FOR OFFICIAL PURPOS ES AND PERSONAL PURPOSES. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED WHILE A NSWERING ITA NO.4482/MUM/2010 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2010 5 QUESTION NO. 81 THAT WHEN EXPENDITURE ON RUNNING AN D MAINTENANCE OF MOTOR CARS IS LIABLE TO FRINGE BENEF IT TAX, THE EMPLOYEES WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO INCOME TAX ON THE P ERQUISITE VALUE OF MOTOR CAR PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER. AS RIG HTLY CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CIRCULAR NO. 8/2005 DATED 29-08-2005 ISSUED BY THE BOARD EXPLAIN ING THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO FRINGE BENEFIT TAX THUS MAKE S IT CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH FRINGE BENEFIT TAX IS RECOVERED FROM EMPLO YER, THE SAME ACTUALLY IS THE LEVY ON EMPLOYEES FOR ANY PRIV ILEGE, SERVICE, FACILITY OR AMENITY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYER WHETHER BY WAY OF REIMBURSEMENT OR OTHERW ISE. AS FURTHER CLARIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR, FRINGE BENEFIT T AX IS LEVIED ON THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYER IRRESPECTIVE OF W HETHER THE SAME ARE INCURRED FOR OFFICIAL OR PERSONAL PURPOSES . IT HAS ALSO BEEN CLARIFIED THAT WHATEVER PERQUISITES ARE LIABLE TO FRINGE BENEFIT TAX, THE EMPLOYEES WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO IN COME-TAX ON THE VALUE OF THE SAID PERQUISITES. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L PASSED IN THE CASE OF BIPIN KOTAK (SUPRA) ON SIMILAR ISSUE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, DEPREC IATION ON MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND MOTOR CAR INSURANCE AFTER VERIFYING TH AT THE AMOUNTS SO DISALLOWED HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBJECTED TO PAYMENT O F FBT. GROUND NO.1 IS ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED. 12. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) OUT OF CONVEY ANCE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3630/- AND OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10,250/- BEING 1/5 TH OF TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE L D DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SH OW THAT CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE WHOLLY AND EXC LUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS, THE AO DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OF SUCH EXPENSES OBSERVING THAT THE SAME TO THAT EXTENT WERE INCURRED FOR PERS ONEL USE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE REQU IRED DOCUMENTARY ITA NO.4482/MUM/2010 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2010 6 EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR THE CONVEYANCE AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD DR AND PE RUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO. VS. CIT (253 ITR 749) NO DI SALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENDITURE CAN BE MADE FOR INVOLVEMENT OF PERSONAL ELEMENT IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE S HOWEVER WAS MADE ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRO DUCE THE RELEVANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVID ENCE, EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD CONVEYANCE AND TRAVE LLING EXPENSES WERE NOT FULLY VERIFIED. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS REASON GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF CONVEYANCE AND TRAVEL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH I S QUIET NOMINAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 1/5 TH I.E. 20% MADE OUT OF TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE AND IT WO ULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO 10%. THE AO AC CORDINGLY IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON THIS ISSUE. GR OUND NO.2 IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 15. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.64,388/- MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 16. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME EARNED IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND ON SHARE. IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INC OME, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.64,388/- ON ACC OUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE SAID EXEMPT INCOME AS P ER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14A. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143(3) , THE AO WORKED OUT SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO EXEMPT INCOME BY APPLYING RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 AT RS.64, 388/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE BY HIM U/S.14A. ON APP EAL, THE LD CIT(A) ITA NO.4482/MUM/2010 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2010 7 CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D RELYING ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF I.T.A.T . IN THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. 117 ITD 169 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULE, 1962 HAS A RETROSPECTIVE OPERAT ION. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS AGREED BY THE LD REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE SIDES, THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE LTD. (2010) 234 CTR (BOM) 1, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RU LE, 1962 IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM A.Y.08-09. AS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT, DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A FOR THE YEARS PRIOR TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 08-09 HAS TO BE MADE BY ADOPTING SOME REASONABLE METHOD. RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERA TION AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES WHICH HAS TO BE MADE U/S.14A BY APPLYI NG SOME REASONABLE METHOD AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER AND SUFFI CIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. GROUND NO.3 IS ACCORDINGLY, TREATED AS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y.2005-06 BEING ITA NO.4482/MUM/10 AS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 06-07 BEING ITA NO. 4483/MUM/10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 12.08.2011 JANHAVI ITA NO.4482/MUM/2010 ITA NO.4483/MUM/2010 8 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- , MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY- , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH , MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI