ITO 14(1)(3), MUMBAI V. TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA, MUMBAI

ITA 4526/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2258 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAILASH GAIKWAD
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E B ENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .TA NOS. 4526 TO 4528/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS:2009-10 TO 2011-12 THE ITO - 14(1)(3), EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 / VS. SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA, (PROP. METAL AGENCIES), ROOM NO. 28, 2 ND FLOOR, 204, CHANDRA MAHAL, THAKURDWAR ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002 C.O. NOS. 212 TO 214/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I .TA NOS. 4526 TO 4528/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS:2009-10 TO 2011-12 SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA, (PROP. METAL AGENCIES), ROOM NO. 28, 2 ND FLOOR, 204, CHANDRA MAHAL, THAKURDWAR ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002 / VS. THE ITO - 14(1)(3), EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAAPP 5187D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / REVENUE BY: SHRI KAILASH GAIKWAD / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI VIMAL PUNAMIYA / DATE OF HEARING :14.07.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :27.07.2016 / O R D E R SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA 2 PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROS S OBJECTIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-25, MUMBAI DATED 14.4.2014 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ISSU E IS COMMON AND THEREFORE THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCO UNT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM SUSPICIOUS DEALERS WHICH ARE ALLEGEDLY IN VOLVED IN ISSUING BILLS AND PURCHASES MADE FROM THE PARTIES IN DISPUT E ARE NOT GENUINE. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. METAL AGENCIES AND CONDUCTING THE BUSINES S OF TRADING OF FERROUS AND NON-FERROUS METALS. THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2009-10 TO 2011-1 2 ARE RE-OPENED 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING WHO IN TURN GOT THE INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX AUTHORITIES THAT SOME DEALERS ARE NOT DEPOSITING SALES TAX AND THEY ARE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR BOGUS PURCHASES. BASED O N THESE INFORMATION AND ENQUIRIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE PURCHASE S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS BOGUS PURCHASES AND ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS U/S. 143(3) R .W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BY MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 23,17,742/- RS. 2,4 3,87,391/- AND RS. SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA 3 4,29,07,380/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 201 0-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE GOODS AND SOLD THE SAME AND THE T RANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE, THE PURCHASES ARE NOT BOGUS. THERE IS ONE TO ONE CO- RELATION TO THE PURCHASE AND SALES THEREFORE PURCHA SES ARE GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF 95% A ND CONFIRMED THE 5% OF PURCHASES HOLDING THAT PURCHASES CAN BE IN G REY MARKET AGAINST WHICH ORDER BOTH REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEALS/CROSS OBJECTIONS BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY S UPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE PURCHASES MADE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AS BOGUS PURCHASES FOR THE REA SON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE DEALERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER, NAME OF THE SUPPLIER FIGURED IN THE LIST OF SUSPICIOUS DEALERS IN THE WEBSITE OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT ETC. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE, THE BOG US PURCHASES ARE RIGHTLY BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPP ORTS THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE PURCHA SES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENUINE. HE SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT( A) HAVING HELD THAT THERE IS ONE TO ONE MATCH OF PURCHASES AND SALES, Q UANTITATIVE DETAILS OF STOCKS ARE TALLIED, EVEN 5% WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT PROPER AND LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED T HE ENTIRE SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA 4 PURCHASES AS GENUINE. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE SALES ARE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE, THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASES CA NNOT BE BOGUS JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISE S (P) LTD 216 TAXMAN 171(BOM). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BAS IS OF LIST OF SUSPICIOUS DEALERS APPEARING ON THE WEBSITE WWW.MAHAVAT.GOV.IN OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WHEREIN THE DEALERS WERE TERME D AS SUSPICIOUS DEALERS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT WEBSITE HAS TERMED SUCH DEALERS AS ONLY SUSPICIOUS DEALERS AND NOT CONFIRMED AS HAWALA DEALERS. THEREFORE, THE LIST MERELY HIGHLIG HTS A POSSIBILITY WHICH IS TENTATIVE IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ON MERE SUSPICION AND WITHOU T MAKING ANY ENQUIRY ADDITION WAS MADE WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT HOWEVER STRONG SUSPICIOUS MAY BE, THAT SUSPICION CANNOT BE AN EVIDENCE FOR MAKING THE ADDI TION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS RAJEEV G. KALATHIL IN ITA NO. 6727/M/2012 D ATED 20.8.2014, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SUSPICION OF HIGHEST DEG REE CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF EVIDENCE. HE ALSO PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS ITO (131 ITR 579) FOR THE PREPOSITION THAT ADDITIONS CANNOT BE M ADE MERELY ON ASSUMPTIONS OR PRESUMPTIONS OR SURMISES OR CONJECTU RES. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT OBSERVATION OF A THIRD PARTY CANNOT B E BASIS FOR ADDITION WITHOUT THERE BEING AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIR Y AND SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE STRONGLY PLACES RELIANCE ON SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA 5 THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE PUR CHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GENUINE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON A READING FROM THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED CERTAIN PUR CHASES FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AS BOGUS PURCHASES FOR THE REASON THAT ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE DEALERS, SUPPLIERS DID NOT EXIST ETC., AND THEREFORE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES ARE NOT PROVED. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PURCHASED THE SE GOODS FROM THE GRAY MARKET BY INVESTING UNACCOUNTED CASH WHICH IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE PUR CHASE MADE FROM OPEN MARKET WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S. 69C OF THE ACT FOR ALL THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. LD. CIT(A) CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 5% OF THE ALLEGED PURCHASES AND DELETED 95% OF THE PURCHASES MADE TRE ATING THEM AS GENUINE PURCHASES. IT IS NOT IN DOUBT THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES AND ALSO MADE SALES AND THEY ARE DULY ACC OUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OFFERED TO TAX THEREFORE ENTIR E PURCHASE MADE CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. WHIL E COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSION, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AND HELD AS FOL LOWS: 5.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSIO NS OF APPELLANT, AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CA SE. ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE SAME, I OBSERVE AS UNDER: (I) THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING BASED ON THE INVES TIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. THE PARTI ES HAVE NOT SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA 6 DIRECTLY NAMED THE APPELLANT, AND IT APPEARS THAT T HE PARTIES MUST HAVE MADE A GENERAL STATEMENT BEFORE THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. NO ATTEMPT SEEMS TO HAVE MADE BY THE A .O. TO ENQUIRE WITH THE PARTIES AS TO WHETHER THEY HAD ACT UALLY SOLD GOODS TO THE APPELLANT OR NOT, AND THEREAFTER TO CO NFRONT THE APPELLANT WITH ANY ADVERSE FINDING FROM SUCH ENQUIR Y, AND ALSO TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THES E PARTIES TO THE APPELLANT. IN A RECENT DECISION PRONOUNCED BY H ON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI ON 1 ST OCTOBER, 2013, IN THE CASE OF PARMIT TEXTILES VS. ITO (ITA NOS. 4012 TO 4015 AND 4020 TO 4021/MUM/201 2, THE HON'BLE ITAT, MUMBAI OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO MAT ERIAL ON RECORD TO SAY THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESS EE WAS BOGUS EXCEPT THE GENERAL STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE DEPART MENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, WHICH WAS LATER ON RETRACTED. THE HON'BLE ITAT HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERS E MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WILL BE BASED ON PRESUMPTION ONLY AND IT CANNOT BE SUSTA INED IN THE EYES OF LAW. (II) THE APPELLANT ON HIS PART HAS PRODUCED THE PUR CHASE INVOICES, DAILY STOCK REGISTER, LEDGER COPIES ETC., AND THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THOUGH THE AO HAS ALLEGED THAT THE PAYMENTS TO THESE PARTIES WERE MAD E AFTER SUBSTANTIAL LAPSE OF TIME, HOWEVER THERE IS NO EVID ENCE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH HAS FLOWN BACK TO THE APPELLANT. IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. M.K. BROTHERS [1987] 163 ITR 249 (GUJ), THE ASS ESSEE MADE CERTAIN PURCHASES FROM SOME PARTIES AND MADE PAYMEN T THROUGH CHEQUES, AND THE ITO FOUND THAT PARTIES WERE NOT AV AILABLE TO CROSS EXAMINE AND THAT PAYMENTS WERE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE AFTER SUBSTANTIAL LAPSE OF TIME AFTER DATE OF PURCHASE, AND HENCE THE ITO HELD THOSE TRANSACTIONS TO BE BOGUS A ND ADDED BACK THE PURCHASES TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE H ON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTI FIED IN DELETING E ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT VOUCHERS GIVEN BY THOSE PARTIES TO ASSESS EE WERE BOGUS OR THAT ANY PART OF THOSE PAYMENT CAME BACK TO ASSE SSEE. (III) THE APPELLANT IS A TRADER AND THE GOODS PURCH ASED WERE USED IN SALES, AND NOT IN CONSUMPTION AS A MAN UFACTURER. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT UNLIKE MANUFACTURER OF GO ODS, A TRADER IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH ONE TO ONE CO-RELATION BETWEEN THE GOODS SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA 7 PURCHASED AND SOLD. THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY SUCH FAULT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE PURCHASES MADE ARE FOLLOWED BY SA LES. THE AO HAS AGREED THAT 'THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE QUANTIT ATIVE DETAILS AND SALE HAS BEEN EFFECTED AGAINST THE ALLEGED PURC HASES'. THERE CANNOT BE ANY SALE WITHOUT PURCHASES. ONCE SALE IS ACCEPTED, THERE IS NO REASON TO 'DOUBT THE PURCHASES'. THE A. O. CANNOT ACCEPT THE ONE LIMB.AND IGNORE THE OTHER. IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. NIKUNJ EXIMP ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD. [2013] 216 TAXMA N 171 (BOM.), THE JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BO MBAY HELD THAT WHERE SALES SUPPORTED THE PURCHASES AND PAYMEN T WAS MADE THROUGH BANKS, MERELY BECAUSE SUPPLIERS HAD NO T APPEARED BEFORE AO, THE PURCHASES COULD NOT BE REJE CTED AS BOGUS. (IV) UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, I 961 WHAT CAN BE TAXED IS THE REAL INCOME. EVEN THOUGH THE TRANSACTION IS NOT VER IFIABLE, WHAT IS TAXABLE IS THE INCOME COMPONENT, AND NOT THE ENT IRE TRANSACTION AMOUNT. I FIND THAT IN MANY SUCH CASES, THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE BASED ON THE GP/NP RATIO. IN THE PRESENT C ASE OF APPELLANT, IN FACT THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOT RULED OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE PURCHASED THESE GOODS F ROM THE GREY MARKET BY INVESTING UNACCOUNTED CASH WHICH IS NOT R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, THERE SEEMS NO OBJE CTIVE STATEMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SUGGEST THAT T HE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED BY PURCHASE IN GREY MARKET AT LOWER RATES. I FURTHER FIND THAT IN MANY SUCH CASES, THE ADDITIO NS ARE MADE ASED ON THE G.P.I N.P. RATIO. IN THE PRESENT CASE O F APPELLANT, IN FACT THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOT RULED OUT THE POSSIBILI TY OF THE APPELLANT PURCHASING EQUIVALENT GOODS FROM GREY MAR KET BY INVESTING UNACCOUNTED CASH. IN SUCH A SITUATION, EV EN ASSUMING THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE GOODS B Y INVESTING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH, STILL IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT T HE SALE PROCEEDS OF SAID GOODS HAVE BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE B OOKS AND OFFERED TO TAX. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE PURCH ASE AMOUNT CANNOT BE MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE. RATHER, THE CAU SE OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET BY MAKING ADDITION OF A REASONABLE PER CENTAGE OF SUCH PURCHASES IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE GAP OF ANY R EVENUE LEAKAGE IN AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES. IN PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCE S, I FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO CONFIRM ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 5% OF THE ALLEGED PURCHASES I.E. 5% OF RS.23,17,742/- = RS.L, 15,887/- . SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA 8 5.4 I FIND THAT THE AO CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION JUS T ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. SUSPICION, HOWEVER STRONG CANNOT T AKE PLACE OF PROOF. THIS PRINCIPLE IS REFLECTED IN THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: UMACHARAN SHAW & BROS V. CIT (37 ITR 271) (SC) DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS V. CIT (26 ITR 775) (SC) SHEONARAIN DULICHAND V. CIT (72 ITR 766)(AIL.) THE APPEARANCE OF A PURCHASE PARTY ON THE WEBSITE OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT MAY RAISE A QUESTION MARK; HOWEVER THE A LLOWANCE OF PURCHASE EXPENSES HAS TO BE NECESSARILY DECIDED TAKING INTO VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPELLANT S CLAIM. HENCE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION MADE TO RS. 1,15 ,887/- AND ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 23,1 7,742/- 1,15,887/- = RS. 22,01,855/-. THEREFORE, THE GROUN D NO. 1 OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE OBSERVATION S AND TO HOLD THAT THE PURCHASES MADE ARE BOGUS FOR THE REASON THAT NO NE OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE BEEN REBUTTED BY TH E REVENUE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO 2011-12. 9. IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING 5% OF PURCHASES. 9.1. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF 5% OF PURCHASES U/S. 69C SINCE THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE GENUINE AND THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR SUSTAINING THE SA ME PARTLY. THUS, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED. SHRI TAKHTMAL BHURALAL PICHHOLIYA 9 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED 27 TH JULY, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI