GENIUS PRINTERS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5024/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2305 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH P SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional depreciation
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JM) , AND ASHWANI TANEJA (AM) ./I.T.A. NO.5024/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) M/S G ENIUS PRINTERS PVT. LTD., UNIT NO.58, GROUND FLOOR, RAJA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, P K ROAD, MULUND (W), MUMBAI-400080 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN. :AAACG1741R / APPELLANT BY SHRI HITESH P SHAH /REVENUE BY SHRI VACHASPATI TRIPATHI ! / DATE OF HEARING :12.10.2015 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.12.2015 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND I T IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-12, MUMBAI, DATED 3 .1.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO.5024/M/11 2 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1760, 000/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS, AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRED IT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF INTERES T DISALLOWED ON THE SAID LOANS. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMERGED FROM THE ASSES SMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.1,47,65,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO CALLED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,40,000/- PERT AINS TO THREE DIRECTORS AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS.1,20,5 5,000/- PERTAINS TO OTHER 32 PERSONS. THE AO CALLED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ABOUT 32 CREDITORS. THE AO CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE SAME. THE AO GAVE BENEFIT OF DOUBT REGARDING TH REE DIRECTORS AND ONE OTHER PERSON WHO HAD ADVANCED THE LOANS. TH E AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CREDITWORTHINESS OF 28 CREDITORS W AS NOT PROVED. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, AND ALSO IDENTITY OF THE 28 CREDITORS OF LOANS FOR DIFFERENT AMOUNTS AGG REGATING TO RS.73,15,000/-. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED LOAN. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE MATTER BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.5024/M/11 3 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EACH A ND EVERY DOCUMENT, THE LOANS ARE GENUINE AND HAD FILED IT B EFORE THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO STATED THAT HE HAD MADE OBSERVATIONS ONLY AF TER EXAMINING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ACCEPTED THE LOANS OF 12 PERSONS FOR AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.21,55,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE FINDING OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF RS.21, 55,000/-. IN RESPECT OF 11 CREDITORS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE L OANS GIVEN BY THEM ARE NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THESE CREDITORS. WITH REGARD TO THE REMAINING 5 CREDITO RS, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THESE CREDITORS DID NOT HAVE ANY SOURCES OF IN COME. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT BEFORE GIVING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, S OME OF THE CREDITORS HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AC COUNT. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO BALANCE SHEET AND CA PITAL ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE CREDITORS. THE AO ALSO OBSER VED THAT THERE IS NO RETURN OF INCOME AND SOME OF THE RETURNS ARE GEN ERATED FOR THIS PURPOSES ONLY AND SOME ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF ANO THER. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINIONED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE MANUFACTURED EVIDENCES FOR ACCEPTING THE LOANS AS G ENUINE. SINCE THE AO OBSERVED THESE DISCREPANCIES ABOUT 16 CREDIT ORS, THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR THESE CREDITORS. 5. IN REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS: A) THE AO DID NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THE ASSESSEE THA T THE DETAILS FILED WERE NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT; ITA NO.5024/M/11 4 B) THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE PERSONA L DETAILS OF ALL THE LENDERS AND HAS TO RELY ON WHATEVER THEY SUBMIT ; C) AS IN THE CASE OF 2 LOAN CREDITORS I.E. MR M P K HANDURI AND SAMEER S KAMAT WHO WERE NOT WILLING TO GIVE THE DE TAILS OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO SUBMIT THE DE TAILS CALLED FOR. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT NOTICED BE ISSUED TO THESE PERSO NS TO VERIFY THE LOANS CREDITS; D) THE AO HAD SENT THE ORDER HURRIEDLY WITHOUT INTI MATING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE ALL THE LOAN CREDITORS FOR PERSONAL VERIFICATION DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; E) THE INCOME OF ONE YEAR CANNOT BE THE CRITERIA TO ARRIVE AT A DECISION THAT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER WA S DOUBTFUL. OUT OF THE 11 LOANS CREDITORS, BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL A CCOUNTS HAD BEEN FILED FOR 4 OF THEM WHICH PROVES THAT THERE ARE SUF FICIENT CAPITAL FROM WHICH FUNDS COULD BE ADVANCED. THE AO HAS IGNORED T HIS FACT; F) REGARDING THE BALANCE 3 PEOPLE, FOR WHOM NO RE TURN OF INCOME HAD BEEN FILED, BUT SUFFICIENT OTHER DOCUMEN TS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO PROVE THAT LOANS HAD BEEN ADVANCED BY THEM; G) ALL THE ABOVE 16 LENDERS HAVE PAN AND CONFIRMATI ON AND THEIR ADDRESSES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AT THE STAGE OF ASSES SMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT NONE OF THE LOANS WAS TREATED BY AO AS NON-GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED DETAILS O F THE EACH CREDITOR. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ITA NO.5024/M/11 5 IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17.60 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, DETAILED S UBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, POINTING OUT THAT COMPLETE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED AND THE BURDEN LAID UPON THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 WAS DISCHARGED. BUT THE ADDITION HAS WRONGLY BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) WITH RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS : S.NO. NAME AMOUNT IN RS. 1 BAJAL J GALA 6 LAKHS 2 SATISH S TIRODKAR 1 LAKH 3 PANBAI VIRJI DEDHIA 1 LAKH 4 MANEKLAL N PAREKH 1.5 LAKH 5 SAMEER S KAMAT 1.10 LAKH 6 POPATLAL NANJI VISARIA 1 LAKH 7 VANDANA ATUL GALA 1 LAKH 8 VISHANJI LAKHAMSHI GALA 1 LAKH 9 M P KHANDURI 4 LAKH 8. WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE PARTIES, THE LD. COUNSEL S UBMITTED THAT THE COMPLETE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED TO SH OW THAT THESE PARTIES ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND THE AMOUNT W AS RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. VARIOUS EVIDENCES I N THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION, BANK STATEMENT, COPY OF INCOME TAX RE TURN, COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK, COPY OF BALANCE SHEET ETC WERE GIVE N TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BUT WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C IT(A). THE LD. ITA NO.5024/M/11 6 COUNSEL HAS TAKEN US THROUGH VARIOUS PAGES OF PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, ADVERSE INFERENCE WERE DRAWN BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND G UESS WORK AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. 9. THE LD. DR REITERATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RE LIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN RESPONSE TO OUR SPE CIFIC QUERY WITH RESPECT TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY OR DEFECT S THEREIN. 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US FOR OUR CONSIDERATION . IT IS NOTED BY US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVE D BY IT, IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. WITH RESPECT TO THE LOA N COEDITORS, FOLLOWING EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED: A) CONFIRMATION; B) COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN; C) COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME; D) COPY OF BALANCE SHEET; E) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND BANK PASSBOOK. AND F) COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. 11. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE MATER IAL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO CONTROVERT T HE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE AD DITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCE ITA NO.5024/M/11 7 OF SOURCE. IN OUR VIEW, ONCE THE TRANSACTION STAND S CONFIRMED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED SOURCE OF AMOUNT RECEIVE D IN ITS POSSESSION, THEN THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE COMPELLED T O EXPLAIN SOURCE IN THE HANDS OF THE CREDITORS BEYOND A PARTICULAR P OINT. IT IS NOTED THAT OVERWHELMING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO PROPERLY EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPER ATE WITH THE AO FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE ISSUE. THE AO IS AT LIB ERTY TO TAKE JUDICIOUS VIEW AFTER PROVIDING FAIR AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE SECOND GROUND, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF A DDITIONAL DEPRECATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. 13. BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 26,30,112/- AS ADDITIONAL DEPRECIAT ION. THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WH Y THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY HIM SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT CARRY ANY MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. IN RESPONSE, TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTIVITIES RIGHT FROM THE DESI GNING OF THE MAGAZINES, PROCUREMENT OF RAW MATERIAL SUCH AS PAPE R , INK, ITA NO.5024/M/11 8 CHEMICALS ETC, THE PRINTING BINDING AND PACKING OF MAGAZINES ARE AKIN TO A MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND AS SUCH THEY ARE ENT ITLED FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON SOME JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, BUT THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE SAID DECISION OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED THIS MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE AO. BUT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMI SSIONS AND HELD THE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT A MANUFACTURER AND HAS NOT MANUFACTURED ANY NEW PRODUCT FROM ITS RAW MATERIAL I.E. RAW MATERIAL PAPER, AND CHEMICALS AND INK ETC AND THAT NEW PRODU CT WHICH EMERGES OUT OF THE PRINTING ACTIVITY IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF EARLIER PRODUCT, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PAPE R ON WHICH PRINTING HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURING AC TIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF AO. 15. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 16. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DISA LLOWANCE HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN THE PRINTING MAGAZINES, PROCUREMENT OF RAW MATERIAL SUCH AS PAPER, INK, CHEMICALS ETC, AND DURING THE YEAR T HE COMPANY HAS STARTED NEW BUSINESS OF DECORATIVE DESIGNING, STYLE S. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION ITA NO.5024/M/11 9 OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAYPEE DYEING HOUSE 239 ITR 418 (BOM), WHICH WAS RENDERED IN DIFFERENT CON TEXT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IN ANOTHER JUD GMENT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THEREAFTER DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS EMPTEE POLY-YARN PVT. LTD. 305 ITR 309, WHEREIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF JAYPEE DYEING HOUSE (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT PROCESS OF DESIGNING, PRINTING MAGAZINES WATERPROOF ING ETC CONDUCTED IN COTTON FABRICS, WOODEN FABRICS AND MAN -MADE FABRICS, WOULD AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE. FINALLY, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD (2013) 85 CCH 0077, WHEREIN P RINTING OF PERIODICALS OF MAGAZINES WAS HELD TO BE MANUFACTUR ING ACTIVITY, AND THEREFORE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THIS JUDGMENT. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF LD. CIT(A) AND CASE LAW MENTIONED THEREIN. 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REC ORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS HIMSELF MENTIONED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF GREETINGS, MAGAZINES, ENVELOPES, ETC, AND THEREFORE , THE AO COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN CONTRARY VIEW WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF ALLOWBILITY OF DEPRECIATION. IT IS FURTHER NOTED B Y US THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD, (SUPRA), HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE AT LENGTH FOR H OLDING THAT THE AFORESAID ACTIVITY AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ITA NO.5024/M/11 10 PRINTING OF GREETINGS CARDS ON PAPER AMOUNT TO MANU FACTURING A NEW AND MARKETABLE ARTICLE, AS A DISTINCT PRODUCT COMES INTO EXISTENCE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT A N INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING MUST MANUFACTURE A COMMERCIALLY NEW PRO DUCT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT, IN ANY CASE, THIS ACTIVITY SHALL AMOUNT TO PRODUCTION. AS PER SECTION 32, AN UNDERTAKING, EN GAGED IN MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCTION SHALL BE ELIGIBLE T O CLAIM ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION. THUS, IN VIEW OF THIS, THE CONTROVERS Y BECOMES NARROWER. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE B ENEFIT OF DEPRECIATION, AS IT IS UNDISPUTEDLY ENGAGED IN ACTI VITY OF PRODUCTION. WE ALSO DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EMPTEE POLY-YARN PVT. LTD (SUPRA). 19. THUS, THE POSITION OF LAW IS SQUARELY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IF APPLIED CORRECTLY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE U S. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL D EPRECIATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AS C LAIMED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 4 TH DEC, 2015. $ % & '( ) 4 TH DEC, 2015 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER % MUMBAI: 4 TH DEC, 2015. ITA NO.5024/M/11 11 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. - ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. - / CIT CONCERNED 5. ./ 0 , ! 0 , % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. 1 / GUARD FILE. ( / BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ! 0 , % /ITAT, MUMBAI