DCIT CC 11, MUMBAI V. J.M. JOSHI, MUMBAI

ITA 5224/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5870 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S D SHRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Block assessment; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 80IB; 148; 263; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J B ENCH, MUMBAI , , !'# , $ % BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO.5224/MUM/2012 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2000-2001 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE11, OLD CGO BLDG. (ANNEX), MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. SHRI JAGDISHPRASAD M. JOSHI, 6 TH FLOOR, JMJ HOUSE, ORCHARD AVENUE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI-400 076 ./ I.T.A. NO.5081/MUM/2012 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2000-2001 SHRI JAGDISHPRASAD M. JOSHI, 6 TH FLOOR, JMJ HOUSE, ORCHARD AVENUE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI-400 076 / VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE11, OLD CGO BLDG. (ANNEX), MUMBAI-400 020 ./ I.T.A. NO.5225/MUM/2012 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2002-03 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE11, OLD CGO BLDG. (ANNEX), MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. SHRI JAGDISHPRASAD M. JOSHI, 6 TH FLOOR, JMJ HOUSE, ORCHARD AVENUE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI-400 076 JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 2 ./ I.T.A. NO.5082/MUM/2012 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2002-03 SHRI JAGDISHPRASAD M. JOSHI, 6 TH FLOOR, JMJ HOUSE, ORCHARD AVENUE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI-400 076 / VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE11, OLD CGO BLDG. (ANNEX), MUMBAI-400 020 ./ I.T.A. NOS.6631 TO 6634/MUM/2011 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2003-04 TO 2005-06 & 2007-08 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE11, OLD CGO BLDG. (ANNEX), MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. SHRI JAGDISHPRASAD M. JOSHI, 6 TH FLOOR, JMJ HOUSE, ORCHARD AVENUE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI-400 076 ./ I.T.A. NO.6630/ MUM/2011 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE11, OLD CGO BLDG. (ANNEX), MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. SHRI JAGDISHPRASAD M. JOSHI, 6 TH FLOOR, JMJ HOUSE, ORCHARD AVENUE, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI-400 076 ( $ ./ ) ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAPJ 5006B ( (* / APPELLANT ) .. ( +,(* / RESPONDENT ) (* - / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RAJIV KHANDELWAL SHRI NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL +,(* . - / REVENUE BY: SHRI S.D. SHRIVASTAVA . /0$ / DATE OF HEARING :07.03.2014 12& . /0$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :26.03.2014 JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 3 3 / O R D E R PER BENCH : ITA NOS. 5224 AND 5081/M/2012 ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2000-01. ITA NOS. 5225 A ND 5082/M/2012 ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FOR A .Y. 2002-03. ITA NOS 6630 TO 6634/M/11 ARE THE APPEALS BY THE REVENU E FOR A.YRS 2003- 04 TO 2006-07. MOST OF THE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN AL L THESE APPEALS, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT AND DISREGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IB(2)(I) THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SET UP BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BUSINESS OF AN EXISTING CONCERN HAVING THE SAME NATURE OF BU SINESS AND MANUFACTURING SIMILAR ITEMS CONTROLLED BY THE S AME PROPRIETOR. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS PROPRIETOR OF J.M. ENTERPRISES, J.M. MARKETING, J.M. PERFUMERY (JMP), J.M. ESSENTIA L OIL CO (JME) AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA/80IB IN RESPECT OF ITS BUSINESS OF (JME) AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE NEW U NITS NAMELY JME & SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC HAVE BEEN FORMED BY SP LITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL UNIT M/S. J.M. PERFU MERY. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THIS VIOLATES THE CONDITIONS SPELLED OUT IN CLA USE-2 OF SEC. 80IB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAM E. THE ASSESSEE JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 4 REPLIED THAT ALL THE THREE UNDERTAKINGS ARE INDEPEN DENT UNDERTAKINGS AND THEY HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS SUCH DURING ALL THESE YE ARS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT JME IS BEING ASSESSED SINCE A.Y. 1998-99 AS NE W INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS WHEREAS THE CLAIM IN THE CASE OF J.M. PERFUMERY HAS BEEN ALLOWED SINCE A.Y. 1996-97. JME IS CLAIMING DEDUCT ION FROM A.Y. 1998-99 AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC FROM A.Y. 2 001-02. 3.1. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT ALL THE THREE U NDERTAKINGS ARE SEPARATE AND HAVE NOT BEEN FORMED BY SPLITTING OR T HE RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE REASONS/EXPLANA TIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR FROM THE AO WHO WA S OF THE STRONG BELIEF THAT THE NEW UNITS NAMELY JME AND SACHIN PER FUMERY & COSMETIC HAVE BEEN FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BUSINESS OF J.M. PERFUMERY WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOSED THE BUSINESS O F J.M. PERFUMERY ON 19.2.2002 AFTER AVAILING 100% DEDUCTIONS U/S. 80IB FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE CLOSED THE BUSINESS OF JME IN OCTOBER, 2004 AFTER AVAILING 100% DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OVER A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS. THE AO WAS OF THE STRONG BELIEF THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS WERE MADE. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT ALL THE THREE UNIT S IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LOCATED IN SILVASSA. THUS, THE ASSESS EE HAS MERELY REHASHED THE BUSINESS OF J.M. PERFUMERY IN OTHER TWO UNITS N AMELY JME AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC THUS VIOLATING THE COND ITIONS OF SEC. 80IB(2)(I). THE AO WENT ON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF JME AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED TH AT THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNITS JME AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ON JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 5 ACCOUNT OF SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BU SINESS OF J.M. PERFUMERY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR SPLITTING UP OF BUSINESS, THERE MUST BE SOME MATERIALS TO SHOW THAT EITHER SOME ASSETS O F EXISTING BUSINESS ARE DIVIDED OR ANOTHER BUSINESS IS SET UP FOR SUCH SPLI TTING UP OF ASSETS OF THE OLD BUSINESS. IT WAS STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE UN IT JMP WAS IN EXISTENCE WHEN THE CLAIM FOR JME AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSME TIC WAS MADE THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TWO NEW UNITS WERE OUT OF THE SPLITTING/RECONSTRUCTION OF JMP. IT WAS FURTHER EX PLAINED THAT JMP WAS FORMED IN 1996-97, JME IN 1998-99 AND SACHIN PERFUM ERY & COSMETIC IN 2001-02 WHICH MEANS THAT WHILE THE BUSINESS OF J MP CONTINUED JME STARTED IN 1998-99 AND WHILE THE BUSINESS OF JMP AN D JME CONTINUED SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC WAS STARTED IN 2001-02. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE THREE CONCERNS CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS UNDER INDEPENDENT LICENSE OBTAINED FROM THE PRESCRIBED AU THORITIES. ALL THE THREE UNITS ARE AT DIFFERENT PLACES THOUGH IN SILVA SSA. THE ADDRESS OF JMP IS UNIT NO. 6 TIRUPATI INDUL. ESTATE, AMLI, SILVASS A AND THAT OF JME IS SURVEY NO. 490/2/1, VILLAGE GALONDA, SILVASSA AND T HE ADDRESS OF SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC SURVEY NO. 113/2/1, GALA NO. 1 05, TIRUPATI INDUL. ESTATE, AMLI, SILVASSA. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED T O THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE EMPLOYEES AND THE LABOURERS LOOKING AFTER THE PRODU CTION ACTIVITY ARE DIFFERENT IN ALL THE THREE UNITS EVEN THE CUSTOMERS AND THE PRODUCTS SUPPLIED TO THEM IS DIFFERENT FOR EACH UNIT. IT WA S ALSO EXPLAINED THAT FOR A.Y. 1998-99, WHEN JMP AND JME WAS DOING BUSINESS, THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION THEREFORE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE AO CANNOT TAKE A STAND THAT THE NEW UNIT IS FORMED BY SPLITTING UP/R ECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND RELYING UPON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THA T JMP WAS FORMED IN JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 6 1996-97 WHILE OTHER CONCERNS WERE FORMED IN 1998-99 AND 2001-02 HENCE WHILE M/S. JMP WAS IN EXISTENCE THE NEW CONCE RNS WERE STARTED AND OPERATED. MOREOVER, ALL THE CONCERNS CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS UNDER INDEPENDENT LICENCES OBTAINED FROM THE PRESCRIBED A UTHORITIES. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSME NT OR OF A.Y. 1998- 99 DET. 30.3.2001 HAS ADMITTED THAT BUSINESS OF JMP IS MANUFACTURING OF PERFUMES & FLAVOURS WHILE THE BUSINESS OF JME IS AL TOGETHER DIFFERENT I.E. MANUFACTURING OF NATURAL ESSENTIAL OILS, ATAR, HINA ETC. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT ALL THE BUSINESS ARE CARR IED OUT FROM DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT PREMISES. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDE RED THE FACTS THAT SEPARATE FACTORY LICENSE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND , REGISTRATION NO. SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE, LOCAL SALES TAX CERTIFICA TE, CENTRAL SALES TAX REGISTRATION NO., SALES TAX EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE F OUND, THE SAME BEING OBTAINED SEPARATELY FOR JME AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY, T HE LD. CIT(A) FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT JME AND SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTI ON OF THE BUSINESS OF JMP AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB OF THE ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF T HE AO. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT JMP STARTED OPERATION FROM 1996-97 AND WHILE IT WAS IN EXISTENCE, THE JME STAR TED ITS OPERATION IN JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 7 A.Y 1998-99 AND WHILE BOTH JMP AND JME WERE IN EXIS TENCE, SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSMETIC STARTED OPERATIONS IN A.Y. 200 1-02. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN A.Y. 1998-99, THE AO HAS AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN CASE OF JMP AND JME AND IN A.Y. 2001-0 2, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE THREE U NITS ALTHOUGH THE CIT INVOKING HIS POWERS U/S. 263 DIRECTED THE AO TO DIS ALLOW THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE SAID ORDER OF THE CIT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2949/M/06 DT. 25.1.2012. THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOW THAT NEW TWO UNITS HAVE NOT BEEN FORMED AFTER SPLITTING OF OR RECONSTRUCTION OF JMP. IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLA CE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE BAR AS PROVIDED U/S. 80IB(2)(I) IS TO BE CONS IDERED ONLY FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB. ONCE THE AS SESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT IT HAS USED NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE AND THE NEW UNDERTAKING IS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTEN CE, IT IS ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN A.Y. 1998-99 IN RESPE CT OF JME AND IN A.Y. 2001-02 IN RESPECT OF SACHIN PERFUMERY & COSME TIC CONSEQUENTLY IT CANNOT BE DENIED DEDUCTION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS INASMUCH AS RESTRAIN OF SECTION 80IB(2)(1) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR EVE RY YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BUT CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY IN THE YEAR OF FORMATION OF BUSINESS. 10. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS PAUL BROTHERS 216 ITR 548 HAS HELD THAT: WHERE RELIEF GRANTED U/S. 80HH OR 80J FOR AN EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE SAME GROUND HAS BECOME FINAL , SAME RELIEF CAN NOT BE WITHHELD FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHOUT WITHDRAWING RELIEF FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 8 11. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE COMMON GROUND IN ALL THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IN A.Y. 2000-0 1 AND 2002-03 ARE COMMON WHICH READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S . 80IB WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE OF BOGUS AND FABRICATED PURCHASES AND SALE WITH TWO ARMS OF THE SAME BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED SALE TRANSACT ION WITH THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: 1. SURYAVINAYAK AROMATICS - RS. 14,34,62,500/- 2. LAVEESHA ENTERPRISES - RS. 1,95,50,000/- 3. JAYAVANT INDUSTRIES LTD. - RS. 4,30,10,000/- 4. JAYAVANT PRODUCTS LTD. - RS. 4,26,65,000/- 14. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THESE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILE D A CONFIRMATION LETTER DT. 15.5.2002. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT M/S.SURYAVINA YAK AROMATICS BELONGS TO DELHI AND ATAR HINA WAS SOLD FROM SILVASSA TO DE LHI. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAID PARTY HAS OFFICE AT POWAI IN MUMBAI AND THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SAID PARTY IS IN SYNDICATE BANK LOCA TED IN THANE WHERE THE ASSESSEE ALSO MAINTAIN ACCOUNTS. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE SALES ARE GENUINE, THEN THE CHEQUE FOR THE SALE PRO CEEDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM DELHI. ACCORDING TO THE AO, M/S. SURYA VINAYAK AROMATICS JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 9 IS NOT TRACEABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO IDENT IFY THE PARTY AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID PARTY AND ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE AO TREATED THE SALE PROCEEDS AS BOGUS AND DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT . 15. THE AO GAVE THE SAME TREATMENT TO THE TRANSACTI ON WITH M/S. LAVEESHA ENTERPRISES. SO FAR AS SALES WITH JAYAVA NT INDUSTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4.30 CRORES AND M/S JAYAVANT PRODU CTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 4.26 CRORES, THE AO MADE PROTECTIVE DISALLOWANCES B ECAUSE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE SAME TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN T REATED AS ASSESSEES OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE GARB OF SALE OF ATAR H INA. 16. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 17. IN SO FAR AS PROTECTIVE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 4. 30 CRORES OF JAYAVANT INDUSTRIES LTD., AND RS. 4.26 CRORES FOR JAYAVANT P RODUCTS LTD., THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 2.9.1 OF HIS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2002-03 OBSERVED THAT SINCE SUBSTANTIVE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE IN B LOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER, THESE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS WAS NOT RIGHTLY MADE AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IN RESPECT OF SALE OF ATAR HINA TO M/S. JAYAWANT INDUSTRIES LTD. AND M/S. JAYAVANT PRODUCTS LTD. IN RESPECT OF OTHER DISALLOWANCES NAMELY M/S. SURYAVINAYAK AROMAT ICS AND LAVEESHA ENTERPRISES, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HA S FOLLOWED THE SAME LINE OF INVESTIGATION AS DONE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSME NT ORDER AND HAS RELIED ON THE FACT THAT CERTAIN CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. SURYAVINAYAK AROMATICS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRMATI ONS AND AFFIDAVITS JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 10 HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES DUR ING THE COURSE OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS IGNORED THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID LETTER AND THE CONFIRMATIONS/AFFIDAVITS. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF CONFIR MATION WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AN AFFIDAVITS FROM THE P ARTNER OF M/S. SURYAVINAYAK AROMATICS WAS FILED WHICH DULY CONFIRM S THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTY AND THE CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS , THE LD. CIT(A) WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AMPLY DISCHARGE D ITS BURDEN AS REGARD THE IDENTITY OF M/S. SURYAVINAYAK AROMATICS AND HAS ALSO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED ITS CREDITWORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE T HE ADDITIONS AND ALLOW THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF SALES TO LAVEE SHA ENTERPRISES. 13. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHA T HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN ITA NO. IT(SS)A NO. 24/MUM/2012. 15. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN SO FAR AS TRANSACTION WITH M/S. SURYAVINAYAK AROMATICS AND LAVEESHA ENTER PRISES IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE CONF IRMED THE TRANSACTION BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT. WE ALSO FIND THAT M/S. LA VEESHA ENTERPRISES HAS JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 11 CONFIRMED PURCHASING GOODS FROM JME AND ALSO FURNIS HED THE DETAILS OF MODE OF PAYMENT, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT ITS PAN, SA LES TAX REGISTRATION NO. AND COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. WE ALSO FIND THAT SHRI LALIT VIGH, PARTNER OF M/S. LAVEESHA ENTERPRISES HAS CONFIRMED THESE FACTS IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT. CO NSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE FACTS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 16. IN SO FAR AS THE TRANSACTION WITH SURYAVINAYAK AROMATICS IS CONCERNED, THE AFFIDAVITS FROM THE PARTNER WAS FILE D DURING THE COURSE OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NECESSARY DETA ILS WERE ALSO FILED TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND ONCE THE IDENTITY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ALSO THE CREDIT WORTHINESS WAS ACCEPTED IN THE BLOC K ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOW CAN THE SAME BE DOUBTED DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EMANATING FROM THE SAME SET OF FACTS. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN RESPECT OF THIS DISALLOWANCE. FINDINGS OF THE L D. CIT(A) ARE CONFIRMED. 17. IN SO FAR AS TRANSACTION WITH M/S. JAYANT INDUS TRIES LTD., AND M/S. JAYANT PRODUCTS LTD., WHICH WERE DISALLOWED ON PROT ECTIVE BASIS. WE FIND THAT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE TRIBU NAL HAS CONSIDERED THE TRANSACTIONS AS GENUINE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS F OLLOWING THE SAME VIEW THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCES MADE. GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGL Y DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.5081 & 5082/M/2012-A.YRS 2000-01&02-03-ASSE SSES APPEAL JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 12 19. THE COMMON GROUND IN ASSESSEES APPEAL READ AS UNDER: B. DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB ON INTEREST INCOME:- ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA/80IB IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT HOLDING THAT THE SAME HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE INDUSTR IAL UNDERTAKING. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, HE HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE BINDING DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE ON THE SAME POINT WHICH HAS SPECIFICALLY DISTINGUISHED THE JUDGEMENT OF S.C. IN PANDIANS CASE. REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL ARE WRONG AND INSUFFICIENT. 20. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS U/ S. 80IB ON INTEREST INCOME IN JM ESSENTIAL OIL CO. AND IN J.M. PERFUMER Y. THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON INTEREST INCOME. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT LENGTH AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS DECISIONS INCORPORATED IN THE B ODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 21. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO FOLLOWING T HE DECISIONS OF HIS PREDECESSOR. 22. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A LLOWED A SIMILAR CLAIM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-88 BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREF ORE, THE SAME VIEW DESERVES TO BE TAKEN. JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 13 23. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 24. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD. A SIMILAR ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 1997-98 WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3569/M/2001 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME. THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THOUGH SLP HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT. AS THE MATTER IS SEIZED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BUT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FIN DINGS FOR A.Y. 1997- 98 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLO W THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME. THIS GROU ND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 25. IN A.Y. 2000-01, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOW ING TWO GROUNDS ALSO, WHICH READ AS UNDER: A. ADDITION OF RS. 11 CRORES STATED AS BUSINESS RE CEIPT FROM SHRI RASIKLAL DHARIWAL ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE AO OF RS. 11 CRORES TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING THE SAME ARE WRONG, IMPRO PER, BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO LAW, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE O R BASIS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 14 HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF WHICH L AYS ON HIM TO PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED RECEIPTS CONSTITUTES INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE STATUTE FOR THE A.Y. IN QUESTION. C. RE-ASSESSMENT:- ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LD. AO HAD VALID REASONS TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 AND THEREBY RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMEN T IS BAD IN LAW AND UNWARRANTED AND IS TO CIRCUMVENT THE TIM E BARRED ASSESSMENT. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INSPITE OF THE FACTS THAT THE LD. AO FAI LED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTIONS RAISE D AGAINST REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 26. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT CERTAIN CONFESSIONS WE RE MADE TO THE POLICE OFFICER DURING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MAHARASHTRA C ONTROL ORGANISED ACT, 1999. THE INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM DCP ( CRIME) ZONE-IX, MUMBAI WHO REPORTED THAT HE HAS RECORDED THE CONFES SIONAL STATEMENT OF SHRI JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI. AS PER THE CONFESSIONAL ST ATEMENT OF SHRI JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI IN THE YEAR 2000, THE DEPONENT SH RI ANSARI WAS SITTING IN THE OFFICE OF MR. ANIS, BROTHER OF DAWOOD IBRAHI M IN DUBAI ALONGWITH SHRI J.M. JOSHI, AND DHARIWAL(OWNER OF GOA GUTKA). THE MEETING RELATED TO SOME DISPUTE BETWEEN SHRI DHARIWAL AND SHRI J.M. JOSHI. SINCE NO SETTLEMENT WAS TAKING PLACE SHRI DHARIWAL INSISTED FOR MEETING WITH DAWOOD IBRAHIM. THEREAFTER, SHRI DHARIWAL LEFT FOR KARACHI. SHRI J.M. JOSHI ALSO LEFT FOR KARACHI. SHRI DHAWOOD MADE THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN SHRI J.M. JOSHI AND SHRI DHARIWAL. ACCORDINGLY, TH E ASSESSEE RECEIVED 11 CRORES FROM SHRI DHARIWAL. JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 15 27. TAKING A LEAF OUT OF THE ABOVE SEQUENCE OF EVEN TS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1 1 CRORES SHOULD NOT BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT H E WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT AND NO SUCH CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT HAS BEEN SUPPLIED OR RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT W AS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE SO CALLED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT IS SUB-JU DICED AND THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE M.C.O.C.A COURT. THE AO ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PASSPORT WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED. TH E AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT AS PER SEC. 18 OF THE MCOC ACT, 1999, T HE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS AN ADM ISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 CRORES. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED T HAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE SETTLEMENT WAS DONE IN KARACHI BY SHRI DAWOOD I BRAHIM DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE FACT THAT INCOME ACCRUED IN IND IA AS IT WAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA. THE AO ADDED RS. 11 CRORES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 28. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT U/S. 18 OF THE MCOC ACT, CO NFESSION IS PERMISSIBLE IN THE TRIAL OF SUCH PERSON OR CO-ACCU SED, ABETTOR OR CONSPIRATOR PROVIDED THAT THE CO-ACCUSED, ABETTOR I S CHARGED AND TRIED IN THE SAME CASE TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER ACCUSED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN ACCUSED IN THE SAID TRIAL WITH T HE SAID PERSON THEREFORE THE CONFESSION OF SHRI JAMIRUDDIN ANSARI IS NOT AT ALL AN EVIDENCE WHICH CAN BE RELIED UPON. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID STATEMENT WAS NEVER MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO TEST CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE S AID STATEMENT, THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 16 29. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS , THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RASIK DHARIWAL WERE INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF GUTKA. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE DU ES OWNED BY SHRI RASIK DHARIWAL TO THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY S ETTLED BY WAY OF PAYMENT OF RS. 11 CRORES WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING/ REVENUE RECEIPTS. HENCE ON THE CONSPECTUS OF FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYS IS, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT SETTLEMENT MONEY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE BEHEST OF DAWOOD WAS RIGHTLY TAXED BY THE AO AS REVENUE RECEIPTS. 30. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 31. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 32. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT RECORDED BY CRIME BRANCH OFF ICERS UNDER MCOCA. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT SUCH ALL EGED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH COULD SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 11 CRORES FROM SHRI RASI K DHARIWAL . SURPRISINGLY, THE AO DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO CONFRON T THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANSARI TO SHRI DHARIWAL TO VERIFY WHETHER SHRI DHAR IWAL HAS ACTUALLY PAID THE SAID SUM OF RS. 11 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED/BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT THAT SHRI DHARIWAL INFACT HAS BEEN MADE THE ALLEGED PAYMENT. AS PER THE ALLEGED JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 17 STATEMENT OF SHRI ANSARI, THE TRANSACTION TOOK PLAC E IN KARACHI. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT HOW THAT AM OUNT WAS TRANSMITTED FROM KARACHI TO INDIA. THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE T O SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT STAYED INVESTED IN KARACHI BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS IN KARACHI. 33. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WERE SEARCHED U/S. 132 OF THE ACT AND AN EXTENSIVE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS, NO SUCH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND FROM THE BUSI NESS/RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD SUGGEST THAT S OME SETTLEMENT TOOK PLACE IN KARACHI AT THE BEHEST OF DAWOOD IBRAHIM. THE AO HAS BLINDLY RELIED UPON THE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF SHRI ANSA RI WITHOUT CORROBORATING THE ALLEGED CONFESSION. EVEN BEFORE US, THE REVENUE FAILED TO SUPPLY THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ANSARI RECORDED BEFORE THE CRIME BRANCH OFFICER. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 CRORES CANNOT BE S USTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 CRORES. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 34. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E ON MERIT, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO DECIDE ON THE POINT OF LAW . 35. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 5082/M/2012 A.Y. 2002-03 36. THE ONLY GROUND WHICH REMAINS TO BE DECIDED REA DS AS UNDER: A) ADDITION OF RS. 2,64,000/- STATED AS BUSINESS RECEI PT JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 18 ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 2,64,000/- TO THE INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT. REASONS ASSIGNED BY HIM FOR DOING THE S AME ARE WRONG, IMPROPER, BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO LAW, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR BASIS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROOF WHICH L AYS ON HIM TO PROVE THAT THE ALLEGED RECEIPTS CONSTITUTES INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO TAX UNDE R THE STATUTE FOR THE A.Y. IN QUESTION. 37. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,64, 000/- ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 CRORES WHICH IS CONSIDERED VIDE PARA 26 TO 34 IN ITA NO. 5081/M/2012 FOR A.Y. 2000-01 WHERE WE HAVE GIVEN A DETAILED FINDINGS FOR DELETING THE ADD ITION, ON SIMILAR LINES , SIMILAR REASONS, THE ADDITION IS DELETED. 38. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH MARCH, 2014 . 3 . 2& $ 4 56 26.3.2014 2 . 7 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 5 DATED 26.3.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS JAGDISHPRASAD JOSHI 19 3 3 3 3 . .. . +/ +/ +/ +/ 8&/ 8&/ 8&/ 8&/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,(* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 9 / CIT 5. :7 +/ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7; < / GUARD FILE. 3 3 3 3 / BY ORDER, ,/ +/ //TRUE COPY// = == = / > > > > (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI