INCOME TAX OFFICER 12(1)(1), MUMBAI V. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

ITA 5358/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5612 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABDUL HAKEEM M
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of cross examination

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL , HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5215/ MUM/201 7 ( A. Y : 20 10 - 11) M/S. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PVT. LTD., OFFICE NO. 16, 2 ND FLOOR BUILDING B - 1, LAXMI NI VAS CHS LTD., PAI NAGAR, S.V. ROAD BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI 400 092 PAN: AAGCA 7111 H V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9 (1)( 1 ) ROOM NO. 226/262, 2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 ( ASSESSEE ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5358/ MUM/201 7 ( A. Y : 2010 - 11) INCOME TAX OFFICER 12 (1)(1) ROOM NO. 226, 2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 V. M/S. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PVT. LTD., OFFICE NO. 3, GOKUL APARTMENT HARIDAS NAGAR, SHIMPOLI ROAD BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI 400 092 PAN: AAGCA 7111 H ( ASSESSEE ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY SINGH DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ABDUL HAKEEM M DATE OF HEARING : 30 .04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 .07.2019 2 ITA NO. 5215 & 5358 /MUM/2017 (A. Y: 2010 - 11) M/S. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PVT. LTD., O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD (JM) 1. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 20, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER IN SHORT LD.CIT(A) ] DATED 12.05.2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 IN PARTLY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS BOGUS PURCHASES . 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT, DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM SIX PARTIES AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND THESE PARTIES WERE ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS AS PER MAHARA SHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND T HEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THEM. ASSESSEE PRODUCED VARIOUS EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE PUR CHASES WERE GENUINE. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF .5.61 CRORES AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 3. ON APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES AND V ARIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT ELEMENT FROM 3 ITA NO. 5215 & 5358 /MUM/2017 (A. Y: 2010 - 11) M/S. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PVT. LTD., SUCH PURCHASES AT 8% FOLLOWING VARIOUS HIGH COURT DECISION S, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL . 4. ASSESSEE STRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE L D.CIT(A) AND THE LD. DR STRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD.CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN THE PURCHASES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN THE SALES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BHOLANATH POLY FAB LTD ., [355 ITR 290], CIT V. SIMIT P. SHETH [356 ITR 451] , CIT V. SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES [316 ITR 2 7 4] AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, W HILE HOLDING SO HE OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 5.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE SURVEY REPORT SUBMITTED BY A.O. ALONG WITH THE REMAND REPORT. IT IS NO TED THAT THE A.O. HAD MADE ADDITION OUT OF PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,60,40,356/ - . THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ADDITIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENT WAS ALL MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE DELIVERY OF MATERIALS WAS SUPPORTED BY DELIVERY CHALLANS. IT IS STATED THAT THE A.O. HAD MAD E ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM VAT AUTHORITIES WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER PERTAINS TO HAWALA PURCHASES FROM SO CALLED SUSPICIOUS DEALERS AS PER THE INFORMATIO N OF VAT AUTHORITIES. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THESE PURCHASES AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. IT IS NOTED THAT PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE WAS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY PARTLY ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE COMPLETE ONUS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT A.O. HAS SIMPLY MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT WITHOUT MUCH ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF BILLS, BANK STATEMENT ETC, TO ESTABLISH THAT PURC HASES WERE GENUINE. ON THE FACE OF THESE EVIDENCES THE ENTIRE PURCHASES CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BOGUS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT OF SELLER WHO WAS NEVER CROSS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ITEMS PURCHASED WERE USED AS PART OF 4 ITA NO. 5215 & 5358 /MUM/2017 (A. Y: 2010 - 11) M/S. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PVT. LTD., ASS ESSEE'S SALES WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS NOTED THAT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT ONLY THE REAL INCOME IS TAXABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE TRANSACTION WITH REGARD TO ALL THE SIX PARTIES. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT PROVED THE DELIVERY AND STOCK REGARDING THE MATERIAL PURCHASED. IT IS NEXT A CASE WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE WAS IMMEDIATELY SIPHONED AND RETURNED TO APPELLANT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE PURCHASED THE GOODS BY INVESTING UNACCOUNTED CASH BY MAKING PURCHASE FROM GRAY MARKET AND AVAILED THE ACCOMMODATION BILL, THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE PURCHASE AMOUNT CANNOT BE MADE. 5.4. IT IS NOTED THAT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT IS LIABLE TO TAX IN SUCH CASES AS WAS HELD IN THE CASE OF: - 1. CIT VS. BHOLANATH POLY FAB LTD. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (GUJ). (HC) 2. CIT V SIMIT P. SHETH (2013) 356 ITR 451 (GUJ) (HC) 3. CIT VS. SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUSTRIES (2009) 316 ITR 274 (GUJ) (HC) 4. ITO VS. PERMANAND (2007) 1.07 TTJ 395 (JD)(TRIB.) 5 . SHRI MADHUKANT B. GANDHI VS. ITO ITA NO. 1950/M/2009 BENCH B' DT. 23.02.2010 (AY 2005 - 06) (MUM.)(TRI B.) 6. SANJEEV WOOLEN MILLLS VS. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 434 (SC) 5.5 . IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUN T OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FULLY IN APPEAL. THE APPELLANT HAS EFFECTED PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS IN FOUR YEARS FROM A.Y. 2009 - 10 TO 2012 - 13 ADOPTING SAME MODUS OPERANDI. THEREFORE PROFIT/LOSS ARISING FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS GETS S PREAD AMONGST AFORESAID FOUR YEARS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PEAK METHOD AS AGUED BY THE AR CANNOT BE ADOPTED AS RELIABLE FOR WORKING OUT THE EMBEDDED PROFITS IN THESE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE CORRESPONDING SALE AGAINST THE SUSPECTED PU RCHASE IS PARTLY WITH DELIVERY AND PARTLY W ITHOUT DELIVERY. THE SALE WITH D ELIVERY IS NEITHER DISPUTED BY A.O, NOR DD I HOW EVER, IT IS SEEN FROM SURVEY REPORT THAT THE SALE CLAIMED BY APPELLANT WITHOUT DELIVERY WAS NOT CONFIRMED IN THE COURSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THESE PARTIES BY ASSESSEE BEFORE DDI AS THEY CONFIRMED HAVING RECEIVED DELIVERY. THEREFORE, ON FACTS THESE SALES CLAIMED AS WITHOUT, DELIVERY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS SALE AND NO SET OFF CAN BE GRANTED TO ASSESSEE. IN NUMBER OF CASES DECIDED BY HON'BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL AND HIGH COURT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION BY WAY OF APPLYING APPROPRIATE GP R ATIO TO SUCH UNPROVEN PURCHASES MEETS THE END OF JUSTICE WHEN PURCHASES ARE MADE FROM GREY MARKET AND SAME IS SUBSTANTIATED BY PROCURING INVOICES FROM HAWALA PARTIES AND AT THE SAME TIME CORRESPONDING SALE IS NOT DOUBTED. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED GP RAT IO FOR THE YEARS FROM A.Y. 2013 - 14 TO A .Y. 20 16 - 1 7 WITH AVERAGE GP RATIO OF 4.57%. THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMENCED BUSINESS FROM F.Y. RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. THEREFORE G.P, RATIO O F FIRST FOUR YE ARS WHERE PURCHASES ARE EFFECTED FROM SUSPECTED PARTIES ARE IGNO RED BEING ERRATIC. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE REASON OF LOWER GP RATIO AS BEING WHOLESALE TRADING OF CHEMICALS AND INDUSTRIAL RAW MATERIAL WHERE SUPPLY IS FROM BUSINESS TO BUSINESS, AND NOT TO ULTIMATE CUSTOMER RESULTING IN LIMITED MARGIN OF PROFIT. T HE A.O . HAS ACCEPTED THE APPELLANT'S GP RATIO FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND A.Y. 2014 - 15 WHILE ASSESSING THE INCOME U/S. 143(3). HAVING REGARD TO FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE IF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS RESTRICTED TO 8% ON THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 12.5% GP AS PER THE VARIOUS COURT RULINGS IN SUCH CASES AND THE GP OF 4.57% AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS, THE WORKING OF WHICH COMES TO RS. 36,83,228/ - ,. BEING 8% OF IMPUGN ED PURCHASE S OF RS. 4,60,40,356/ - FOR THE YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO.2 PERTAINS TO THE ADDITION OF GROSS PROFIT OF .57,55,045/ - ON N ON - PROVEN PURCHASES. 6.1. IN THIS REGARD T HE A.O. HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF . 57,55,045/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ON THE PURCHASES AS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BY 5 ITA NO. 5215 & 5358 /MUM/2017 (A. Y: 2010 - 11) M/S. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PVT. LTD., ADOPTING THE DISCLOSED GP @ 12.50% BEING THE SUPPRESSED PROFIT EQUIVALENT TO MVAT RATE. 6. 2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSIONS MADE IN T HIS REGARD AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. IT IS NOTED THAT THE A.O. HAD MADE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ON THE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,60,40,356 / - WHICH WAS FOUND TAXABLE IN THE HANDS O F ASSESSEE BY ADOPTING THE GP @ 12.50% BEING THE SUPPRESSED PROFIT EQUIVALENT TO MVAT RATE. THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ADDITIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ALL THE PURCHASES OF THE APPELLANT ARE GENUINE PURCHASES. THE LEARNED A.O. IS GROSSLY IN ERROR WHILE STATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE PU RCHASE FROM SOMEONE ELSE WHICH WERE REGULARIZED BY TAKING BILLS FROM ENTRY PROVIDERS. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT THIS OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. IS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SUBMIT T HAT THE LEARNED A.O. IS HIMSELF TAKING THE TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID P ARTIES BY TREATING THE SAME AS BOGUS AND AT THE SE COND POINT HE IS STATING THAT TH E APPELLANT HAD MADE THE PURCHASES FROM SOMEONE ELSE WHICH IS REGULARIZED BY TAKING BILLS FROM ENTRY PROVIDERS AND IN THE COURSE, THE APPELLANT IS BENEFITED BY 12.50% MVAT AND HENCE THE SAME HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT S INCE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES HAS BEEN DISALLOWED, ADDITION @ 12.50% OF SUCH PURCHASES BY TREATING THE SAME AS SUPPRESSED PROFIT IN THE FORM OF MVAT WILL LEAD TO D OUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT, WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND HENCE RE QUIRES TO BE DELETED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR ABOVE SUBMISSION OF GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES, THE ABOVE PROPOSITION ITSELF PROVES THAT A.O. HAS ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES AS GENUINE AND AT MOST ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THAT CASE @ 12.50%. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE SU BMISSION, WE WOULD LIKE YOUR HONOUR TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 57,55,045/ - WHICH IS ALLEGED TO BE UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ELEMENT ON PURCHASES FROM SUSPICIOUS DEALERS. IT IS NOTED THAT TH E ENTIRE MATTER PERTAINS TO HAWAL A PURCHASES FROM SO CALLED SUSPIC IOUS DEALERS AS PER THE INFORMATION OF VAT AUTHORITIES. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED THESE PURCHASES AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. IT IS NOTED THAT PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE WAS ON THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY PARTLY ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE COMPLETE ONUS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT A.O. HAS SIMPLY MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT WITHOUT MUCH ENQUIRY INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF BILLS, BANK STA TEMENT ETC. TO ESTABLISH THAT PURCHASES MADE FROM CREDITORS WERE GENUINE. ON THE FACE OF THESE EVIDENCES THE ENTIRE PURCHASES CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BOGUS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT OF SELLER WHO WAS NEVER CROSS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ITEMS PURCHASED WERE USED AS ASSESSEE'S PRODUCT FOR SALES WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ADDITION OF GP HAS BEEN MADE IN PARA 5.5 ABOVE ON THE ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASE. IT IS NOTED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL DECI SIONS AVAILABLE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNAL ARE AVAILABLE ON THIS ISSUE WHERE THE HON'BLE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAVE HELD THAT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT IMBEDDED IN THE FORM OF GP IN SUCH CASES OF SUSPICIOUS PURCHASES IS REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AND A DDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED THAT ONCE THE GP ADDITION IS ALREADY MADE ON THIS ISSUE THERE IS NO CAUSE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ON THE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 57,55,045/ - BY ADOPTING THE DISCLOSED GP @ 12.50% BEING THE SUPPRESSED PROFIT EQUIVALENT TO MVAT RATE AS DONE BY THE AO. HAVING REGARD TO FU LL FACTS OF THE CASE THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,55, 045/ - MADE BY THE AO BY A DOPTING THE GP @ 12.50% BEING THE SUPPRESSED PROFIT EQUIVALENT TO MVAT RATE IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN APPEAL AND IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6 ITA NO. 5215 & 5358 /MUM/2017 (A. Y: 2010 - 11) M/S. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PVT. LTD., 6. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 8% NET OF VAT ON THE PURCHASES OF . 4 , 60 , 40 , 356/ - AND IN SO FAR AS THE PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF . 55 , 57 , 045 / - LD.CIT(A) APPLIED GROSS PROFIT RAT E AT 12.5%. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THE REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD. DR ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT HOW THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS WRONG. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA.NO. 4910/MUM/2017 DATED 08.02.2019 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN SUCH NON - GENUINE PURCHASES AT 8%. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 IN ITA.NO. 5897 & 5898/ MUM/2017 BY ORDER DATED 01.01.2019. THUS , WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT( A) IN ESTIMATING T HE PROFIT ELEMENT IN SUCH PURCHASES AND REJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 12 TH JULY 2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI / DATED 12 / 0 7 / 2019 GIRIDHAR , S R. PS 7 ITA NO. 5215 & 5358 /MUM/2017 (A. Y: 2010 - 11) M/S. AMI RIDDHI CHEM PVT. LTD., COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUM