DHARMESH R. SHAH, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 19(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4782/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 478219914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J K GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: B V JHAVERI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Notional interest; Tax effect

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - D BENCH. . .. . , !' !' !' !' # # # # $%&' $%&' $%&' $%&' , % % % % () () () () BEFORE S/SH.D.MANMOHAN,VICE-PRESIDENT & RAJENDR A,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NO.4782/MUM/2012 , + + + +/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 DHARMESH R. SHAH 2A, AIR VIEW APARTMENTS, NEHRU ROAD, VAKOLA BRIDGE, SANTACRUZ(EAST) MUMBAI- 400 055 VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 19(2),LALBAUG, MUMBAI- 400 011 PAN: AAEPSO898Q ( ,- / // / APPELLANT ) ( ./,- / RESPONDENT ) ,- ,- ,- ,- 0 0 0 0 % %% % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.V. JHAVERI ./,- 1 0 % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.K.GARG 1 11 1 2 2 2 2 / DATE OF HEARING :29/08/2013 3+ 1 2 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :06/09/2013 , 1961 1 11 1 254(1) % %% % &242 &242 &242 &242 (%5 (%5 (%5 (%5 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.29-05-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-3 0, MUMBAI ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. IN CHARGING NOTIONAL INTEREST OF RS. 87,156/- ON CERTAIN INTEREST FREE LOAN ADVANCES. (2) THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING IN TREATING L.T.G. I N SHARES AND SECURITIES AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF PROFESSION. (3) THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCES OF EXPE NSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 55,344/- BY A.O. OUT OF CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, CAR EXPENSES, CAR DEPRECIATION, TELEPHONE E XPENSES, STAFF WELFARE AND SUNDRY EXPENSES. (4) YOUR APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT- A. NOTIONAL INTEREST OF RS. 87,156/- SHOULD BE DELETED; AND B. L.T. CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES SHOULD BE TAXED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 111A AS TREATED BY THE APPELLANT RATHER THAN BUSINESS INCOME AS ASSESSED BY THE LD. A.O. WHICH CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-30. C. DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 55,344/- OUT OF CONVEYANCE, CAR EXPENSES, C AR DEPRECIATION, TELEPHONE EXPENSES, STAFF WELFARE AND SUNDRY EXPENSES SHOULD BE DELETED. (5) YOUR APPELLANT, RESERVES, HIS RIGHT TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO A MEND AND/OR TO DROP ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IF NECESSARY. 2. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4.45 CRORES INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL (LTCG) OF RS. 55.18 LAC S.OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 19.07 LACS WERE CLAIMED EXEMPTED U/S.10(38).BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 36.10 LACS WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX (STT) ON THE SALE OF THOSE SHARES. 2.A. BEFORE US, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING,ASSESSEE DI D NOT PRESS GROUND NO.1 AND 3. THEREFORE, SAME STAND DISMISSED AND TREATED AS NOT PRESSED. 2.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,AO FOUND THAT ASS ESSEE HAS EARNED LTCG OF RS. 55,46, 707/-, THAT OUT OF THE SAID LTCG AN AMOUNT OF RS. 19.07 LACS (INDEXED) WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT, THAT THE BALANCE LTCG AMOUNTING TO RS. 36.10 LACS (INDEXED) WAS OFFERED FOR TAX U/S. 112 OF THE ACT. HE NOTICED FROM EARLIER RE CORDS THAT LTCG AS WELL AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN(STCG) EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS BU SINESS INCOME IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY HIM.THEREFORE, AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN AS TO WHY LTCG EARNED DURING THE 2 ITA NO. 4782/MUM/2012(AY-2008-09) DHARMESH R. SHAH YEAR SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND T AXED ACCORDINGLY. VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 26.04.10 ASSESSEE FURNISHED A REPLY IN THIS REGARD. 2.2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE ASSESSEE, FAA HELD THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ACCEPTED THE CAPIT AL GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME BY NOT PREFERRING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE FAA WHO HAD CONF IRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO OF TREATMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME FOR THAT AY I.E. AY -2004-05, THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE AOS CONTENTION THA T THE TREATMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME WAS BASED ON QUANTUM, FREQUENCY AND PERIODIC ITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THAT BASED ON THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER ALL THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE DRAWN ON SAME ANALOGY, THAT ALL THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED WAS CONVERTED INTO BUSINESS INCOME,THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADOPTED THE TREATMENT OF RS.36.10 LACS TO THE NATURE OF STO CK-IN-TRADE, THAT THIS TREATMENT SHOWED REAL MOTIVE AND INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT HIS INVE STMENT IN SHARES WERE IN NATURE OF STOCK-IN- TRADE EVEN PRIOR TO 01.04.2004, THAT THE FACTS OF T HE CASE ARE SIMILAR FOR THE AY 2005-06-2007- 08, THAT THE AO WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS INCOME. 2.3 .BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT UP TO 31.03.2004 ASSESSEE WAS MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES FROM TIME TO TIME, THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS REFLECTED AS INVESTMENT AT COST PRICE IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF TH E ASSESSEE, THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ASSESSEE HAD EARNED STCG AND LTCG OF RS. 20.79 LACS AND 3.75 LACS RESPECTIVELY, THAT AO HAD TREATED STCG AS BUSINESS INCOME AND TAXED AT NORMAL RATE, THAT THE LTCG WAS TREATED BY THE AO AS BUSINESS INCOME AND WERE CHARGED @ 30%, THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA,THAT FAA DID NOT GRANT ANY RELIEF TO THE AS SESSEE, THAT HE DID NOT PREFER AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS THE TAX EFFECT WAS RS. 37,538/- ONL Y, THAT W.E.F. 01.04.2004 THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO CARRY ON BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES AND SECUR ITIES, THAT HE DID NOT CONVERT HIS INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND STOCK-IN-TRADE, THAT HIS INVESTMENT IN S ECURITIES REMAINED AN INVESTMENT AND WAS TREATED ACCORDINGLY IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AT COST PR ICE ONLY,THAT IN THE PREVIOUS AY ASSESSEE HAD EARNED BUSINESS INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING AMOUNT TO RS. 3.34 CRORES AND SAME WAS OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME, THAT DURING THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.0 3.2008 ASSESSEE HAD SOLD CERTAIN SHARES WHICH WERE HELD BY HIM FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR, THAT O N SALE OF THE SAID SHARES HE HAD COMPUTED THE LTCG AS PER RULES,THAT EACH SHARES WERE PURCHAS ED IN THE YEARS BETWEEN 2002-06,THAT THEY WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE EARLIER YEARS AS INVESTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY WERE VALUED AT COST ONLY, THAT AFTER SELLING THE SAID SH ARES THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO SAID SCRIPTS ONCE AGAIN IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN INVESTOR, THAT WAS NOT A TRADER IN RESPECT OF THESE SHARES, THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF LTCG OF RS. 19.07 LACS IT WAS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD ONLY 4 SCRIPTS, THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH EACH SCRIPTS ONCE O NLY I.E. AFTER HOLDING FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR SOLD THE SAME IN PIECEMEAL. HE REFERRED TO PAGE NO.14A A ND 14E,15, 16,17, 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND HE REFERRED TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE D BENCH O F ITAT MUMBAI IN ASSESSEES UNDER FIRST FOR THE AY 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 (ITA NO. 2674/ MUM/2010, 6275/MUM/ 2010,2214/ MUM/2011 AND AY 2005-06,2006-07 AND 2007-08 DATED 1 9.01. 2013).DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN - TATIVE (DR) STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND FAA. 2.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT TILL 31.03.2004 ASSESSEE WAS INVESTOR IN SHARES AND HIS INVESTMENTS WERE NOT SHOWN AS STOCK-IN-TRADE IN THE BALANCE-SHEETS.FROM 01.04.2004 HE STARTED TR ADING IN SECURITIES.HE WAS MAINTAINING TWO PORTFOLIOS-ONE AS AN INVESTOR AND THE OTHER AS BUSI NESSMAN. DURING THE YEAR HE HAD SOLD THE SHARES WHICH WERE HELD BY HIM FOR A PERIOD MORE THA N ONE YEAR AND THOSE SHARES WERE NOT PART OF THE STOCK-IN-TRADE.SHARES-IN-QUESTION,RESULTING IN LTCG,WERE HELD BY HIM AS INVESTMENT IN EARLIER YEARS BALANCE-SHEETS ALSO.IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION,HE HAD OFFERED INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING, AMOUNTING TO RS. 3.34CRORES,UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. RECORDS REVEAL THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOLD MANY SCRIPS.HE HAD SOLD ONLY THOSE SHARES THAT WERE HELD BY HIM FOR A PERIOD OF 1 TO 6 YEARS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PROFIT ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF SAID SHARES HAS TO BE TREATED AS LTCG.FROM THE PERUSAL OF 3 ITA NO. 4782/MUM/2012(AY-2008-09) DHARMESH R. SHAH PAGES NO. 14A-14E, 15-17AND 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK,IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING SHARES AS INVESTMENT AND WAS ALSO EARNING INCOME FROM TRADING IN SHARES.HE WAS MAINTAINING SEPARATE ACCOUNTS UNDER BOTH THE HEADS.WE FIND THAT ITAT MUM BAI HAS DEALT THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AYS 2005-06TO2007-08 (I TA NOS. 6274/MUM/2010, 6275/MUM/ 2010 AND 2114/MUM/2011).DECIDING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19.06.13, TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 8.WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE ARE VARIOUS GUIDELINES AND PRINCIPLES TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DETERMINATION OF THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION WHETHER TRADING OR INVESTMENT. NO SINGLE FORMULA OR PRINCIPAL CAN BE A DETERMINATIVE FACTOR FOR DECIDIN G THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION IN TRADING OR INVESTMENT.BROADLY THE FACTORS WHICH ARE RELEVANT T O DETERMINE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION FOR SALE AND PURCHASE. OF SHARES AS INVESTMENT OR TRADING AR E THE. INTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF SHARES, THE HOLDING PERIOD OF THE SHARE S BEFORE THE SALE, OWN FUND OR BORROWED FUNDS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF THE SHARES, FR EQUENCY OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES THE MOTIVE OF THE TRANSACTION ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF S HARES WHETHER FOR REALIZATION OF PROFIT OR FOR RETENTION AND APPRECIATION OF ITS VALUE,THE VALUATI ON OF THE SHARES AS TAKEN IN THE BALANCE SHEET ETC. THEREFORE NO SINGLE FACTOR OR PRINCIPAL CAN BE A DECISIVE FACTOR TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION I.E. TRADING ACTIVITY OR INVESTMENT. EA CH CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED BASED .011 THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE SAID CASE, HENCE THE ISSUE CA N BE DETERMINE ONLY BE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND VARIOUS FACTORS. THE MAIN GROUND ON WHICH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS AND TREATED THE CAPITAL GAI N AS BUSINESS INCOME IS THE TREATMENT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BUSINESS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04-05.WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS ONLY RS.37,538/- WHICH WAS BECAUSE THE ENTIRE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS TAXABLE AT THE RATE OF 30% AND ONLY THE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX AT THE RATE OF 10%.THEREFORE, NOT PREFERRING THE APPEA L AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DOES NOT OPERATE AS ESTOPPE L BECAUSE IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION THE RULE OF ESTOPPEL AND RESJUDICATA ARE NOT APPLICABLE. FUR THER WE FIND FROM THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONVERTED THE SHARES SHOWN AS INVE STMENT AS ON 31ST MARCH.2004 IN TO STOCK IN TRADE AND THE TREATMENT OF THE SHARES CONTINUED AS INVESTMENT AND VALUED AT COST. WE FIND THAT THERE IS A CONSISTENT TREATMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE SHARES WHICH WERE PURCHASED AS INVESTMENT. THE HOLDING PERIOD FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS RA NGING FROM 1 YEAR TO 6 YEARS WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THE INTENTION.OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SHARES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INVESTMENT AND RETAIN THE SAME FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AND NOT FOR EARNING THE PROFIT AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OCCASION BY TAKING THE ADVANTAGE OF VOLATILE CONDITION OF MARKET.WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RETAINED THE SHARES AS LONG AS 6 YEARS AND WAS NOT INFLUENCED BY THE .FREQUENT UPS AND DOWNS OF THE MARKET THEN THERE IS NO IOTA OF DO UBT ABOUT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE THOSE SHARES.THE HOLDING PERIOD OF THE SHAR ES GIVING RISE TO THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN MOST OF THE CASES IS RANGING FROM 45 DAYS TO 357 DA YS WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THOSE SHARES WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INTENTION TO RETAIN F OR A LONGER PERIOD FOR APPRECIATION OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET. THE AVERAGE HOLDING PERIOD IN RESPECT OF THE SHARES RESULTING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS MORE THAN 100 DAYS AND IN OUR VIEW WHICH CANNOT BE IN THE CASE OF REGULAR TRADING ACTIVITY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAIN -ING A SEPARATE PORTF OLIO FOR TRADING, WHEREIN MORE THAN 2.61 CRORES HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. I T IS NOW SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN HAVE TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS ONE FOR I NVESTMENT AND ONE FOR TRADING AS HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS . GOPAL PUROHIT 188 TAXMAN 140. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.3,67,738/- AND THE HOLDING PERIOD OF THE SHARES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE LOSS IS M ORE THAN 250 DAYS AND EVEN UP TO 360 DAYS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IF THEE ASSESSEES INTENT ION WAS TO AVOID THE TAX THEN THE LOSS ARISING FROM THE SHARES WHICH WERE HELD FOR MORE THAN AVERAGE PE RIOD OF 250 DAYS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS BUSINESS LOSS.THUS,THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CLEAR DE MARCATION BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT AND THE TRADING ACTIVITY OF THE SHARES SOLD DURING THE YEAR WHICH WERE PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER YEARS.THEREFORE,THERE IS NO CONFUSION REGARDING THE SHARES PURCHASED FOR RETAINED AS INVESTMENT.THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN FUND AS ON 31 MARCH,2005 IS RS.5,32,54,850/-,WHEREAS THE INVESTMENT IN SHARE IS RS.1,32,16,407/-.THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES OWN FUND IS MORE THAN THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND NO BORROWED FUND WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT. 4 ITA NO. 4782/MUM/2012(AY-2008-09) DHARMESH R. SHAH 9. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 -98 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN THE INVESTMENT AND UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TH E REVENUE ACCEPTED THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THEREFORE AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEES TREATMEN T OF INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THERE IS NO CHANGE AS IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN IN CASE OF CAPIT AL LOSS THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING THE SAME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL LOSS.THERE IS NO REPETITIVE TRANSA CTION AND THE SHARES ACQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY SHOWN AS INVESTMENT THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN HOLDING THOSE SHARES AS INVESTMENT AND NOT STOCK IN TRADE AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF THE SHARES WOULD BE CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT BUSINESS INCOME.. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, WE DECIDE GROUND NO. 2 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED. 6 )7 62 8 ( 9 5 ):2 1 $ 2 ;. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 (%5 1 3+ % & < =( 6, 2 2013 1 4 > SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN ) ( $%&' $%&' $%&' $%&' / RAJENDRA) !' !' !' !' / VICE-PRESIDENT % % % % () () () () /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, =( /DATE:06 .09 . 2013 SK (%5 (%5 (%5 (%5 1 11 1 .2? .2? .2? .2? @%?+2 @%?+2 @%?+2 @%?+2 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / ,- 2. RESPONDENT / ./,- 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ A B , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / A B 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ?C 4 .2 . , . . & . 6. GUARD FILE/ 4 D / ?2 .2 //TRUE COPY// (%5 / BY ORDER, / $ DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI