DR KHAN INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD, THANE V. ADDL CIT TDS RG, THANE

ITA 4661/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4044 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

I IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.4659/ MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ./ I.T.A. NO.4660/ MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ./ I.T.A. NO.4661/ MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DR. KHAN INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., S-6, RANAMANJUSHA, RAVI INDUSTRIES COMPOUND, NAUPADA, THANE 400 602. / V. ADDL. C.I.T. TDS RANGE, QURESHI MANSION, GOKHALE ROAD, NAUPADA, THANE 400 602. ./ PAN : AAACK6814D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 11-04-2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-04-2017 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE APPELLATE ORDERS ALL DATED 4 TH APRIL, 2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)- 1, THANE, (HER EINAFTER CALLED THE CIT (A)) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 T O 2011-12. SINCE IDENTICAL ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO ITA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 2 ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THREE APPEALS, THESE APP EALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10.THE COMMO N GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS (ONLY DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT) IN THE MEMO OF APPEALS FILED WITH THE INCOME-TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 272A(2)(K) LEVYING A PE NALTY OF RS.2,89,551/- IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL A ND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.2,89,551/- U/S 272A(2)(K) OF TH E I.T. ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL A ND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.2,89,551/- U/S 272A(2)(K) OF TH E IT. ACT, AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING FULL AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THE MATTER. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.T.T. (A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL A ND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.2,89,551/- U/S 272A(2)(K) OF TH E I.T. ACT AND THAT TOO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FULLY AND PROPERLY. 3. THIS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINS T THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04-04-2016 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES FIRST APPEAL AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ARISEN FROM THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 02-07-2013 PASSED BY THE A.O. U /S 272A(2)(K) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) . THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELAYED IN FILING OF THE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENTS FOR ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO ITA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 3 FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 IN FORM NO 24Q AND 26Q WITHI N THE TIME PRESCRIBED U/S 200(3) OF 1961 ACT READ WITH RULE 31A OF INCOME -TAX RULES, 1962, FOR THE BELOW MENTIONED QUARTERS:- S.NO. FORM NO. QRTR F.Y. RPR NO. DUE DATE DATE OF FILING DELAY TAX.AMT. DEDUCTED (IN RS.) MAX. PENALTY LEVIABLE (IN RS.) 1 24Q Q4 2008- 09 70700500204460 15.06.09 20.07.11 765 143575 76,500 2 26Q Q1 2008- 09 70700300541964 15.07.08 26.08.10 772 51237 51,237 3 26Q Q2 2008- 09 70700300541942 15.10.08 26.08.10 680 72080 68,000 4 26Q Q3 2008- 09 70700300541931 15.01.09 26.08.10 588 50114 50,114 5 26Q Q4 2008- 09 70700300541920 15.06.09 26.08.10 437 138134 43,700 TOTAL 2,89,551 AS THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING OF THE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENTS BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED U/S 200(3) OF 1961 ACT READ WITH RULE 31 A OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962, THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) OF 1961 ACT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THE ASSESSEE, I N REPLY, SUBMITTED THAT THE PAN IN RESPECT OF FEW DEDUCTEE PARTIES WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE IN FILING OF THE QUARTERLY T DS STATEMENTS IN TIME AND THERE WAS A DELAY OF 437 DAYS TO 772 DAYS IN FILING OF QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENTS AS DETAILED ABOVE. THE A.O. OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT PANS OF DEDUCTEES WERE NOT AVAILABLE AND IT IS NOT SUBSTANT IATED THAT THE EFFORTS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN THOSE PANS. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT DUE TO DELAY IN FILING OF QUARTERLY TDS STATE MENTS BY THE ASSESSEE BEYOND TIME PROVIDED BY STATUTE HAS LED TO NON-CRED IT OF TAX AT SOURCE TO VARIOUS DEDUCTEES WHICH HAS LED TO SUFFERINGS OF TH ESE DEDUCTEES. THUS, THE A.O. REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND LE VIED PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO ITA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 4 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,89,551/- , VIDE ORDER S DATED 02-07-2013 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 272A(2)(K) OF 1961 ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 02-07-2013 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 272A(2)(K) OF 1961 ACT, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED PAN OF SOME OF THE DEDUCTEES OF TDS AND ALSO THE DI RECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE TDS AMOUNT DEDUCTED HAD BEEN DEPOSITED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE QUARTERLY TDS STAT EMENTS AND PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272A(2)(K) OF 1961 ACT MAY BE DELETED . IN SUP PORT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN V. UNION OF INDIA (2001) 25 2 ITR 471 (DELHI) 2. WOODWARD GOVERNORS INDIA (P) LTD. V. CIT (2001) 253 ITR 745 (DELHI) 3. KALAKRITHI V. ITO (2002) 253 ITR 754 (MAD.) THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, PROVISIONS OF STATUTE AND RULES OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A SUBSTAN TIAL DELAY OF 437 DAYS TO 772 DAYS BY THE ASSESSEE IN FILING OF THE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENT FOR VARIOUS QUARTERS OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 ON THE PRETEXT T HAT PAN OF FEW DEDUCTEES OF TDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM FILING OF THE APPEAL IN TIME AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A NY DETAILS OF PANS OF THE SAID DEDUCTEES WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE AS SESSEE AND WHAT EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN THE PANS OF SAI D DEDUCTEES. THE OTHER REASON STATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER FOR WHICH ALSO THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS NOR ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) , THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO ITA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 5 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT AS DEDUCTEES HAVE TO SUFFER A LOT AS THEY DO NOT GET CREDIT OF TDS TILL THE TIME TDS STATEMENTS ARE UPLOADED BY THE DEDUCTORS . THE LEARNED CIT(A) THUS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 2, 89,551/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 272A(2)(K) OF 1961 ACT FOR DELAY IN FILING OF T DS STATEMENTS IN FORM NO 24Q AND 26Q FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 BY THE ASSES SEE , VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04-04-2016 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 04-04-20 16 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS WHAT WERE MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION:- 1. ACIT V. KARROX TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. [2014] 36 IT R (TRIB) 39 (MUM.) 2. SBI V. JCIT [2015] 68 SOT 370/56 TAXMANN.COM 311 4. PNB V.JCIT (2016) 46 ITR(TRIB.) 8 CHANDIGARH 7. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCES/ DETAILS OF DEDUCTEES OF WHICH THE PANS WERE NOT AV AILABLE AND WHAT EFFORTS THE ASSESSEE MADE TO OBTAIN PAN OF THESE DEDUCTEES . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CITED OTHER REASONS WHICH IS STATED THAT THE DIRECT OR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSES SEE FROM FILING THE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENT IN FORM NO 24Q AND 26Q IN TIME WITH REVENUE WHICH WERE FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 437 DAYS TO 772 DAYS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WAS QUITE RIGHT IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT AS DUE TO THIS DELAY , THE DEDUCTEES OF THE TDS HAD SU FFERED AS THEY DID NOT GET CREDIT OF PREPAID TAXES BY WAY OF TDS IN TIME. ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO ITA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 6 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE RELIED UPON CASE LAWS. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELAYED IN FILING OF THE QUAR TERLY TDS STATEMENT IN FORM NO 24Q AND 26Q FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 RANGING F ROM 437 DAYS TO 772 DAYS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- S.NO. FORM NO. QRTR F.Y. RPR NO. DUE DATE DATE OF FILING DELAY TAX.AMT. DEDUCTED (IN RS.) MAX. PENALTY LEVIABLE (IN RS.) 1 24Q Q4 2008- 09 70700500204460 15.06.09 20.07.11 765 143575 76,500 2 26Q Q1 2008- 09 70700300541964 15.07.08 26.08.10 772 51237 51,237 3 26Q Q2 2008- 09 70700300541942 15.10.08 26.08.10 680 72080 68,000 4 26Q Q3 2008- 09 70700300541931 15.01.09 26.08.10 588 50114 50,114 5 26Q Q4 2008- 09 70700300541920 15.06.09 26.08.10 437 138134 43,700 TOTAL 2,89,551 WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE TDS PAYMENTS TO CREDIT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED T HE QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENTS IN FORM NO 24Q/26Q FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 20 08-09 IN TIME WITH REVENUE WHICH HAS LED TO INCONVENIENCE CAUSED TO TH E DEDUCTEES AS THEY DO NOT GET THE CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THEIR CASES TILL THE TIME THE TDS STATEMENTS WERE UPLOADED BY THE DE DUCTORS WHICH ALSO EXPOSES THEM TO PUNITIVE ACTION BY REVENUE.THIS DEL AY IS ALSO FATAL AS IT INCREASES THE WORK LOAD OF REVENUE AS THEY HAVE TO WORK EXTRA TO GRANT CREDIT TO VARIOUS DEDUCTEES WHOM CREDIT CANNOT BE GRANTED AT THE FIRST GO DUE TO FAILURE OF THE DEFAULTING DEDUCTOR IN UPLOADING QUA RTERELY STATEMENTS IN FORM NO 24Q/26Q IN TIME. THIS ALSO LEAD TO UN-NECESSARY LITIGATIONS OF VARIOUS BONAFIDE TAX-PAYERS ON THE ONE HAND FOR NO FAULT OF THEIRS AND REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND DUE TO MISMATCHES IN TDS AND NON GRANT O F CREDIT OF TDS TO DEDUCTEES BY REVENUE DUE TO DELAY IN UPLOADING OF Q UARTERLY TDS STATEMENTS ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO ITA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 7 IN FORM NO 24Q/26Q BY DEDUCTORS OF TDS. IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE CHART THAT THE DELAY IN FILING QUARTERLY TDS STATEM ENTS IN FORM NO 24Q/26Q FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 BY THE ASSESSEE RANGES F ROM 437 DAYS TO 772 DAYS WHICH BY ALL YARDSTICKS IS SIGNIFICANT DELAY IN FIL ING OF QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENTS . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME FORWAR D WITH THE REASONS THAT THE SAID DELAY OCCUR DUE TO NON AVAILABILITY OF PAN S IN RESPECT OF FEW DEDUCTEE PARTIES BUT NO DETAILS/EVIDENCES WERE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID CONTENTIONS . IT IS ALSO CLAI MED THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER , BUT AGAIN NO D ETAILS/EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID CONTENTION . THE LEVYING OF THE PENALTY U/S 272A(2)(K) OF 1961 ACT IS NOT MANDA TORY AS PERUSAL OF SECTION 273B OF 1961 WILL CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE PENALTY U /S 272A(2)(K) WILL NOT BE IMPOSED IF THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE FAI LURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS CITED ABOVE AND HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE SO THAT ITS C ASE GETS COVERED BY EXEMPTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B OF 1961 TO TAK E IT OUT OF CLUTCHES OF PENALTY PROVISIONS AS CONTAINED U/S 272A(2)(K) OF 1 961 ACT , BUT EVIDENCES WERE NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE AND RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DENOVO DETERMINATION OF ISSUE ON MERITS IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW KEEPING IN VIEW PROVISIONS OF SECTION 272A(2)(K) OF THE ACT R. W.S. 273B OF 1961 ACT, AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS DEFENSE EXPLAINING REASONABLE CAUSE IN FILING QUARTERLY TDS STATEMENTS IN FORM NO 24Q/26Q FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 LATE BEYOND TIME STIPULATED BY LAW. IN CASE, THE EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS ARE FOUND TO GEN UINE AND BONAFIDE SATISFYING THE MANDATE OF SECTION 273B OF 1961 ACT, THEN NO PE NALTY SHALL BE LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 272A(2)(K) OF 1961 ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ALL NECESSARY AND RELEVANT EVIDENCES BEFORE THE A.O. TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM TO SATISFY THE MANDATE OF SECTION 272A(2)(K) OF THE AC T R.W.S. 273B OF 1961 ACT ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO ITA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 8 AND THESE EVIDENCES SHALL BE ADMITTED BY THE AO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE A.O. TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN-CASE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME FORWARD TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS EXPLANATIONS WITH COGEN T EVIDENCES , THE AO SHALL BE FREE TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN SET AS IDE PROCEEDINGS. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. OUR ABOVE DECISION IN ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE ASSESSE ES OTHER APPEALS IN ITA NO. 4660/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND I TA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 , WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4660- 61/MUM/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-1 2 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO 4661/MUM./2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2009-10 TO 2011-12 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH APRIL, 2017. # $% &' 20-04-2017 ( ) SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 20-04-2017 ITA NO. 4659/MUM/2016 TO ITA NO. 4661/MUM/2016 9 .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI I BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI