NIMESH DHIRAJ LAL VORA, MUMBAI V. ACIT , WD- 17 (2), MUMBAI

ITA 4989/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3676 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMATHA MULLAMUDHI
• Assessee Lawyers: BHADRESH K DOSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 143(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (A.M.) & SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) ITA NO. 4989/MUM/2018(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) NIMESH DHIRAJLAL VORA FLAT NO.26, 6 TH FLOOR, NEEMCHHAYA JOSHI LANE GHATKOPAR (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 077 PAN : AACPV5956C VS ACIT, WD.17(2), ROOM NO. 123A, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MAHARSHI, KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT APPELLANT BY SHRI BHADRESH K DOSHI -AR RESPONDENT BY MS. SAMATHA MULLAMUDHI( SR DR) DATE OF HEARING 17-10-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01-11-2019 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM : 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-58, MUMBAI DATED 12-06-2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TAXABILITY OF CONSIDERAT ION RECEIVED AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,04,000/- UNDER SERVICES/AMENITIES AGREEME NT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING SOURCE OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF YARN TRADING AND COMMISSION AGENT AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 18-09-2013 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT RS.36,93,150. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U /S 143(1) OF THE 2 ITA 4989/MUM/2018 NIMESH DHIRAJLAL VORA INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AT THE RETURNED INCOME. THE C ASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND N OTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 05-09-2014 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 06-07-2015 AL ONG WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ALSO ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASS ESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS ENJOYING RENTAL INCOME FROM VARIOUS PROPERTIES AND CLAIMING 30% DEDUCTION ON RENTAL INCOME. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH RENT AGREEMENTS FOR ALL THE PROPERTIES RENTED OUT. ON PERUSAL IT WAS NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RENT OUT OFFICE AT 6504, 6 TH FLOOR, TOWN CENTRE II, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, SAKI NAKA, ANDHERI (E) TO HTL LOGISTICS INDIA (P) LTD FOR RS.1,20,000/- PER MONTH AS PER RENT AGREEMENT DATED 29-10-2010 AND RS.1,08,000 PER MONTH FOR AMENITIES AS PER AGREEMEN T DATED 01-10- 2010 AND RS.9,000/- FOR CAR PARKING SPACE AT BASEME NT. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE YEAR, HAS SHOWN GROSS RENTAL INCOME OF RS.28,51,000/- FROM RENT AND FEES FOR AMENITIES AND CAR PARKING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A S PER INCOME-TAX ACT, FEES FOR AMENITIES HAVE TO BE OFFERED TO TAX U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS SUCH, THE STANDARD DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.4,21,000/- ON FEES FOR AMENIT IES OF RS.14,04,00/- WAS TO BE DISALLOWED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWE D 30% OF RS. 3 ITA 4989/MUM/2018 NIMESH DHIRAJLAL VORA 14,04,000/- I.E RS.4,21,000/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FUR THER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE (LD AR) FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE (LD DR) FOR THE REVENUE. AT THE OUTSET THE LD AR FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS C OVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF DEVBHUMI ESTATES PVT LTD VS DCIT, CIR.2(1)(1), (ITA NO.649/M UM/2017) DATED 12-07-2019, DCIT VS J.K. INVESTORS (BOM)LTD (ITA NO . 2731/MUM/2010 AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS J.K. INVESTOR (BOM) LTD (2102) 25 TAXMANN.COM 12 (BOMBAY). THE LD . AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE AO TO ASSESS THE AMENITY CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS O F AMENITIES AGREEMENT, UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. THE TR IBUNAL WHILE DIRECTING THE AO FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SAMBHU INVESTMENTS PVT LTD (2001) 249 ITR 47 (CAL); AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SAMBHU I NVESTMENTS PVT LTD VS CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC). 4 ITA 4989/MUM/2018 NIMESH DHIRAJLAL VORA 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, THOUGH AGREED THAT T HE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, ST ILL, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ON SIMILAR SET O F FACTS THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN DEVBHUMI ESTATES PVT LTD VS DC IT, (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS O BSERVED AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FO R BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELI ED UPON BY THEM. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE LEAVE & LICENS E AGREEMENT, DATED 07.08.2012 HAD LET OUT ITS OFFICE PREMISES ON THE G ROUND FLOOR OF OFFICE NO. G-01, OFFICE NO.G-02, AND THE OFFICE PREMISES NO. 1 02 ON THE 1ST FLOOR ALONG WITH THE MEZZANINE FLOOR IN THE CITY ICE BUI LDING AT BAZAR GATE STREET, MUMBAI, FOR A PERIOD OF 60 MONTHS COMMENCIN G FROM 22.01.2012 TO M/S BATLIWALA AND KARANI SECURITIES INDIA LTD. (HER EINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LICENSEE ), AT A LICENSE FEE OF RS.5,63,500/- P.M. APART THE RE FROM, THE ASSESSEE AS PER A SEPARATE AMENITIES AGREEMENT, D ATED 07.08.2012, THAT WAS ENTERED INTO WITH THE AFORESAID LICENSEE, HAD A GREED TO PROVIDE CERTAIN AMENITIES/FACILITIES PERTAINING TO THE AFORESAID PR EMISES FOR A COMPENSATION/AMENITY CHARGES OF RS. 9,30,350/- PER MONTH. WE FIND THAT THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE RENTAL RECEIP TS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,63,500/- PER MONTH WERE RELATABLE TO LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AFORESAID LICENSEE, HAD THUS OBSERV ED THAT RECEIPTS ONLY TO THE SAID EXTENT WERE TO BE ASSESSED AS THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O HAD SUB JECTED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS OF RS.1,49,59,200/- [RS.21,17,21 ,200/-(-) RS.67,62,000/- ] TO TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5 ITA 4989/MUM/2018 NIMESH DHIRAJLAL VORA 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES AND HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE AMENITIES AGREEMENT, DATED 07.08.2012 (PAGE 134 T O 148) OF THE ASSESSES PAPER BOOK (FOR SHORT APB ), THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO PROVIDE THE AFORESAID AMENITIES/SERVICES IN ORDER T O FACILITATE A BETTER AND MORE EFFECTIVE USAGE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE LICENSE E. A PERUSAL OF THE NATURE OF AMENITIES WHICH WERE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ASSES SEE TO THE LICENSEE REVEALS THAT THE SAME COMPRISED OF VIZ. (I) EXCLUSI VE USAGE OF THE TOILETS ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND 1ST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING FOR SERVANTS/DRIVER/SECURITY STAFF; (II) PROVISION OF A SEPARATE INDEPENDENT AND EXCLUSIVE TELEPHONE CABLE CONNECTION FOR THE SAID PREMISES; (III) A SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT AND EXCLUSIVE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION FOR THE SAID PREMISES AND AL SO ELECTRICITY AND WATER CONNECTION FOR THE TOILETS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE; ( IV) ELECTRIC AND SANITARY FITTINGS IN THE TOILETS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE; (V) OUTSIDE AREA (NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING) FOR INSTALLATION OF AIR CONDITIONING UNITS/GENERATORS; (VI) USAGE AND BENEFITS OF THE LIFT; (VII) PROVISION OF THE SE CURITY GUARD/SYSTEMS FOR COMMON AREA; (VIII) BENEFITS OF THE REPAIRS, CLEANI NG AND MAINTENANCE TO THE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING ; (IX) USAGE OF THE WATER PUMPS/WATER TANKS (COMMON FOR BUILDING OCCUPANTS) ALONG WITH PL UMBING NETWORK; (X) USAGE AND BENEFIT OF THE COMMON CORRIDORS/PASSAGES, LOBBY, STAIRCASES AND OTHER COMMON AREAS OF THE SAID BUILDING; (XI) BENEF IT OF THE MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE LIFT IN THE BUILDING; AND (X II) USAGE AND BENEFIT OF THE COMMON LIGHTING WITHIN THE SAID BUILDING AND OUTSID E IN THE COMPOUND THEREOF. WE FIND THAT ALL OF THE AFORESAID AMENITIE S/SERVICES REFERRED IN THE AMENITIES AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSE SSEE AND THE LICENSEE WERE INEXTRICABLY INTERLINKED AND INTERWOVEN WITH T HE VERY USAGE OF THE OFFICES IN THE SAID BUILDING WHICH HAD BEEN LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AFORESAID LICENSEE. IN FACT, WE FIND THAT THE AFORE SAID SERVICES WERE BEING PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE LICENSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE RENDERING OF THE AFORESAID AMENITIES ARE CLEARLY IN SEPARABLE AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY ENJOYED BY THE LICENSEE. 6 ITA 4989/MUM/2018 NIMESH DHIRAJLAL VORA 9. IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE THAT AS WHETHER TH E AMOUNT RECEIVED AS CHARGES FOR PROVIDING AMENITIES WERE RIGHTLY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY, OR THE SAME WERE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS ITS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCE S, AS HELD BY THE A.O, WE SHALL ADVERT TO THE GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY A 5 JUDGE BENCH OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SULTAN BROTHER S PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 353 (SC). IN THE AFORESAID CASE, IT W AS OBSERVED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT THAT FOR ANSWERING THE ISSUE AS TO W HETHER THE LETTING OUT OF A PROPERTY ALONG WITH CERTAIN AMENITIES WAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY, THREE ISSUES WERE TO BE LOOKED INTO VIZ. (A) WAS IT THE INTENTION IN MAKING THE LEASE - AND IT MATTERS NOT WHETHER THERE IS ONE LEASE OR TWO, THAT IS, SEPARATE LEASES IN RE SPECT OF THE FURNITURE AND THE BUILDING - THAT THE TWO SHOULD BE ENJOYED TOGETHER ? ; (B) WAS IT THE INTENTION TO MAKE THE LETTING OF THE TWO PRACTICALLY ONE LETT ING; AND (C) WOULD ONE HAVE BEEN LET ALONE AND A LEASE OF IT ACCEPTED WITH OUT THE OTHER ? IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT THAT IF THE ANSWERS TO THE FIRST TWO QUESTIONS WERE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND THE LAST IN T HE NEGATIVE, THEN IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE LETTINGS WOULD BE INSEPARABLE. NOW , IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE PROVISION OF AMENITIES/SERVICES VIZ. USAGE OF T OILETS IN THE BUILDING BY THE SERVANTS/DRIVERS/SECURITIES STAFF, PROVISION OF ELECTRICITY CONNECTION AND WATER CONNECTIONS FOR THE TOILETS, PROVISION OF EXC LUSIVE TELEPHONE CABLE ETC. AND OTHER SUCH SERVICES TO THE LICENSEE, WERE AIMED AT FACILITATING BETTER AND MORE EFFECTIVE USAGE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE WAS A CLEAR NEXUS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN LE TTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND PROVISION OF THE AFORESAID SERVICES TO THE LICE NSEE, WHICH AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE WERE INEXTRICABLY INTERLINKED AND IN TERWOVEN FOR EFFECTIVE USAGE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AS A PART OF ONE LETTING . AS OBSERVED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT, WE FIND THAT IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO TWO SEPARATE AGREEMENTS VIZ. (I) LEAVE & LICENSE AGREEMENT, DATED 07.08.2012; AND (II). AMENITIES AGREEMENT, DA TED 07.08.2012. ALSO, WE FIND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE LEASING OF THE A FORESAID PROPERTY THE RENDERING OF THE AMENITIES/SERVICES BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LICENSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPRACTICAL OR RATHER IMPOSSIBLE. ACCORDI NGLY, IN OUR CONSIDERED 7 ITA 4989/MUM/2018 NIMESH DHIRAJLAL VORA VIEW THE LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND PROVISION OF THE AFORESAID SERVICES BEING INTERDEPENDENT, INTERTWINED AND INSEPARABLE, FORM PART OF ONE LETTING BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF CALCUTTA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAMBHU INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (2001) 249 ITR 47 (CAL), HAD OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE PRIME OBJECT OF THE ASSESSE E WAS TO LET OUT THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO VARIOUS OCCUPANTS BY GIV ING THEM ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF USING THE FURNITURE & FIXTURES AND OTHER COMMON FACILITIES FOR WHICH RENT WAS BEING PAID, THE INCOME DERIVED THEREFROM WOULD BE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS THEREAFTER BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN SAMBHU INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 143 (SC). ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVAT IONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR PROVIDING THE AMENITIES/FACILITIES TO THE LICENSEE AS PER THE AM ENITIES AGREEMENT, DATED 07.08.2012 WAS RIGHTLY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAY HEREIN O BSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GROSS RENT OF RS. 2,17,21,200/- ON LETTING OUT OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM THE LETTING OUT OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY AND PROVISION OF AMENITIES AS PER THE RESPECTIVE AGREEMENTS WORKS OUT TO AN AGG REGATE OF RS.1,79,26,200/- VIZ. (I) RENTAL RECEIPTS: RS.67,62 ,000/- (I.E @ RS.5,63,500/- PER MONTH); AND (II) COMPENSATION/AMENITY CHARGES: RS.1,11,64,200/- (I.E @ RS.9,30,350/- PER MONTH). WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR A FORESAID OBSERVATIONS RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O, WITH A D IRECTION TO ASSESS THE AMENITY CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS O F THE AMENITIES AGREEMENT, DATED 07.08.2012 UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. ALSO, THE A.O IN THE COURSE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS SHALL VERIFY THE REASON FOR THE DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF THE GROSS RENTAL S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,17,21,200/- UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY, A S AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,79,26,200/- [RS.67,62,500/- (+) RS.1,11,64,200 /-] AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RESPECTIVE AGREEMENTS VIZ. LEAVE & LICENSE AGREEMENT, DATED 07.08.2012 AND AMENITIES AGREEMENT, DATED 07.08.201 2. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE AFORESAID DISCREP ANCY, THEN THE AFORESAID 8 ITA 4989/MUM/2018 NIMESH DHIRAJLAL VORA AMOUNT OF RECEIPT OF RS. 37,95,000/- [RS.2,17,21,20 0/- (-) RS.1,79,26,200/-] SHALL BE ASSESSED BY HIM UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOUR CES. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE A.O SHALL IN THE COURSE OF THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTI CAL TO THE ISSUE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASE. THE REFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEVBHUMI EST ATES PVT LTD VS DCIT, CIR.2(1)(1), MUMBAI IN ITA NO.649/MUM/2017 OR DER DATED 12- 07-2019, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE AMENITY CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF AMENITIES AGRE EMENT DATED 01-10- 2010 UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01-11-2019. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 01 NOVEMBER, 2019 PK/- COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI