DCIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI V. VIBRANT SECURITES P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5526/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1440 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDRA JHA
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 37(1); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(2), ROOM NO. 642,6 TH FL, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD MUMBAI-400020 . APPELLANT VS M/S VIBRANT SECURITIES PVT LTD, 103-A, PODAR CHAMBERS, SA BRELVI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400001 PAN: AABCV8287E RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIRENDRA JHA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 15.07.2009 OF CIT(A)-IV, MUMBAI FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUN DS OF APPEAL: 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY OF RS.39,366/- PAID TO STOCK EXCHANGE ON VIOLATION OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE, WHICH ARE STATUTORY IN CHARACTER AND THUS AMOUNTED TO INFRINGEMENT OF LAW ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 2 2(I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN RESPECT OF VSAT, LEASELINE AND TRANSACTION CHARGES U/S 40(A)(AI), WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THES E WERE COMPOSITE CHARGES FOR PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES RENDERED BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE TO ITS MEMBERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS 3. GROUND NO.1 REGARDING DELETING THE ADDITION MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY OF RS.39,366/-. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS THE LEARNE D AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECO RD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF PENALTY PAID TO THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE IS COVERED BY T HE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOLDCREST CAPITAL MA RKETS LTD V/S ITO REPORTED IN 36 DTR (TRIB ) 177 (MUM) IN WHICH T HE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAGRAPHS 10 TO 12 HAS HELD AS UNDER : 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS CAREFULLY. THE SHORT QUESTION ARISING HERE IS THAT WHETHER VIOLATION OF THE RULE S AND REGULATIONS OF NSE LD. BY ITS MEMBERS COULD BE TREATED AS AN OFFENCE OR AS AN ACT PROHIBITED BY LAW. IN CASE, IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN OFFENCE OR AN ACT PROHIBITED BY LAW, NO DOUBT SUCH EXPENDITURE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF S.37(1) OF THE ACT. RULE 1(1) OF THE NSE LTD. CLEARLY BRINGS OUT THAT IT HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED AS A LIMITED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IT IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECURITIES CONTRACT (REGULATIONS)ACT, 1956 AND SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992. THE POWERS OF THE BOARD OF NSE LTD TO MAKE BYE-LAWS, RULES AND REGULATION IS SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTIVE UNDER THESE ENACTMENTS AND ALSO THE TRADING REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY RBI FROM TIME TO TIME. THE APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 3 THE NSE IT HAS TO BE DONE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF NSE LTD. THE BOARD IS HAVING POWER FOR PENALIZING ANY DISOBEDIENCE OR CONTRAVENTION OF ITS RULES. BYE-LAWS AND REGULATION S BY IS MEMBER. NO DOUBT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NSE HAS THEREIN NOMINEES OF SEBI, BUT, IN OUR OPINION, THIS BY ITSELF WOULD NOT MAKE NSE A STATUTORY BODY ON PAR WITH SEBI. MEMBERS OF NSE LTD ARE BOUND THROUGH THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATIONS TO ABIDE BY THE RULES, REGULATIONS AND BYE-LAWS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS REGULATIONS FOR CONTROLLING THE INTER NAL INTER SE OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS AND NSE LTD. THOUGH EVERY MEMBER OF NSE LTD WOULD BE OBLIGED TO ABIDE BY SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS, A VIOLATION THEREOF CANNOT BE TREATED AS VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY LAW OR RULE. FINES AND PENALTIES LEVIED FOR VIOLATION ON ACCOUNT OF UNFAIR TRADING PRACTICE A S SPECIFIED IN REGN.4.6 OF THE NSE REGULATIONS AND UN-BUSINESS LIKE CONDUCT AS SPECIFIED IN R. IV(4 )(E) OF THE NSE RULES CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY RULES OR LAW. THOUGH, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REFERRED R.4C IN APPENDIX 222 TO SEBI RULES, 1992, THIS RULE ONLY SPECIFIED THE CONDITION TO BE SATISFIED FOR THE SEBI BOARD TO GRANT A CERTIFI CATE TO A STOCK BROKER. IT IS TRUE THAT WORKING OF STOC K EXCHANGES CAN BE REGULATED BY SEBI UNDER THE SEBI ENACTMENT BUT VIOLATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS FRAMED BY SUCH STOCK EXCHANGES CANNOT BE PER SE CONSIDERED AS VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISIONS OF SEBI ENACTMENT. THE FINE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE DISCIPLINARY BENCH OF THE NSE AND NEITHER THE A O NOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT HOW SUCH VIOLATION OR BREACH OF REGULATIONS COULD E TREATED ON PAR WITH THE BREACH OF A RULE UNDER THE SEBI ENACTMENT, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF L AW BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FIND PAID WERE ONLY FOR NON - OBSERVATION OF INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF STOCK EXCHANGE. WE DERIVE SUPPORT IN TAKING THIS VIEW FROM THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S CFL LTD IN ITA NO.2656/MUM/2006 DECIDED ON 5 TH DEC, 2008. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THERE WAS LEVY OF FINE BY NSE FOR NON- OBSERVANCE BY BYE-LAWS AND RULES. AT PARA 6 OF THE ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER : - ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 4 6. WE HAVE VERIFIED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. OBVIOUSLY, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO RELYING ON EXPLANATION TO SUB-S (1) OF S.37 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUCH PAYMENTS TO NSE FOR NON-OBSERVATIONS OF ITS REGULATIONS REGARDING CAPITAL ADEQUACY SETTLEMENT PERIOD AND SUBMISSIONS OF DATA. AS PER EXPLANATION TO SUB-SEC.(1) OF S. 37 OF THE ACT. AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND NO DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE THEREOF SHALL BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, FOR APPLICATION OF THIS EXPLANATION, IT IS NECESSARY THERE SHOULD BE AN EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO AN OFFENCE OR FOR A PURPOSE WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO REBUT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NSE WAS AN INDEPENDENT BODY AND THE BYE-LAWS MADE BY IT FOR THE REGULATION OF ITS MEMBERS DID NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF THE LAW. SUCH BYE-LAWS COULD BE, AT THE BEST BE SEEN AS PRIVATE CONTRACTS ENTERED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND STOCK EXCHANGE AND ANY VIOLATION, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE IN OUR OPINION, EQUATED WITH AN OFFENCE OR WITH AN ACT PROHIBITED BY LAW. IN THE NATURE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS, AS A MEMBER OF NSE PAYMENTS RELATED TO SWITCHING ON THE TERMINALS, SWITCHED OFF FOR NOT ABIDING BY THE REGULATIONS OF SUCH EXCHANGE, OR FOR DELAY IN, SETTLEMENT OR FURNISHING OF DATA CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENTAL LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S NSE COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS COMPENSATORY SINCE BYE-LAWS OF NSE WERE ONLY PROCEDURAL AND VIOLATION COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A PENALTY FALLING WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF EXPLANATION TO S. 37(1) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLING FOR AN INTERFERENCE 11. IN THE RESULT, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2-1/2 LAKHS AND RS.1 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY BEING THE FIND PAID BY ASSESSEE TO M/S NSE LTD. ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 5 12. AS FOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) DECISION TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,093, WE FID NO REASON TO INTERFERE 4. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF GOLDCREST CAPITAL MARKETS LTD V/S ITO (SUPRA), WE D ECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD. 5. GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE SECOND GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS REGARDING DISAL LOWANCE OF TRANSACTION CHARGES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AS WELL AS THE LEA RNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECO RD. AS FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSACTION CHARGES OF RS.26,30,432/- U/S 40(A)(IA) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD V/S ADDL. CIT REPORTED IN 25 SOT 440 (MUM), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAGRAPH 28 DIREC TED TO DELETE THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO TRANSACTION CH ARGES AS UNDER : 28. TO CALL A PAYMENT AS FTS ITS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID IN CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING BY THE RECIPIEN T OF PAYMENT OF ANY (A) MANAGERIAL SERVICE (B) TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES; STOCK EXCHANGES MERELY PROVID E FACILITY FOR ITS MEMBERS TO PURCHASES AND SELL SHA RES, ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 6 SECURITIES ETC, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ITS BYE LA WS. IN THE EVENT OF DISPUTE IF PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES. IT REGULATES CONDITIONS SUBJECTS TO WHICH A PERSON CAN BE MEMBERS AND WHEN AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES MEMBERSHIP CAN BE TRANSFERRED, CANCELLED, SUSPENDED ETC. THE EXCHANGE PROVIDES A PLACE WHERE THE MEMBERS MEET AND TRANSACT BUSINESS. THE TRANSACTION FEE PAID I S ON THE BASIS OF VOLUME OF TRANSACTION EFFECTED BY A MEMBER. THE STOCK EXCHANGES DO NOT RENDER ANY MANAGERIAL SERVICES NOR DO THEY RENDER ANY TECHNICA L CONSULTANCY SERVICE. THE TRANSACTION FEE IS NOT P AID INCONSIDERATION OF ANY SERVICE PROVIDE BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE. IT IS A PAYMENT FOR USE OF FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND SUCH FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ANY MEMBER. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WHICH CASTS A BURDEN ON A PERSON TO DEDUCT AT SOURCE AND TREAT HIM A DEFAULTER ON FAILU RE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR OBLIGATION O N THE PART OF A PERSON SPELT OUT IN UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J READ WITH EXPLANATI ON 2 TO SECTION 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT, SUCH OBLIGATION CANNOT BE IMPLIED OR LEFT TO THE IPSI DIXIT OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT TRANSACTION FEE PAID CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A FEE PAI D IN CONSIDERATION OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE RENDERING ANY TECHNICAL SERVICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J ARE THEREFORE NOT ATTRACTED. THEREFORE , THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THAT AT SOURCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WERE ALSO NOT ATTRACTED AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED 8. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD V/S ADDL. CIT (SUPRA), WE CONFIRM TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELE TE THE TRANSACTION CHARGES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 7 9. AS REGARD VSAT AND LEASELINE CHARGES DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF RS.1,10,000 AND RS.6,21,927/- RESPECTI VELY ARE CONCERN, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AN CONSIDE RING THE RELEVANT RECORD WE NOTE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S ANGEL BR OKING LTD (3 ITR (TRIB) 294 (MUM) WHEREIN VIDE PARAG 12, THE TRI BUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER : 12. WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN NATURE OF VSAT CHARGES AND LEASELINE CHARGES, OTHER CHARGES, BOLT CHARGES, DEMAT CHARGES, PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. STOCK EXCHANGES AS A MASURE OF PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE TO THEIR MEMBERS INSTALL VSAR, LEASELINE FACILITIES, BOLT CHARGES AND DEMAT CHARGES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE FEES COLLECTED IN THIS REGARD ARE NOTHING BUT FEES PAID FOR USE OF FACILITIES PROVIDE BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE. SUCH FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ANY MEMBER. SATELLITE BASED TRADING ENABLES TRADING MEMBER TO TRADE ON EXCHANGE FROM THEIR PLACE OF WORK ACROSS THE COUNTRY. STOCK EXCHANGE HAS TO GET THE PERMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION FOR INSTALLING AND SETTING UP VSAT OR LEASELINE SYSTEM. CHARGES LEVIED BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE ON ITS MEMBERS ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERY OF ITS COST IN PROVIDING THESE FACILITIES TO THE MEMBERS. STOCK EXCHANGES TO DO NOT PROVIDE ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES BY INSTALLING VSAT NET WORK. IT IS THE FACILITY PROVIDE TO ITS MEMBERS, SUCH PAYMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE IN THE NATURE OF FEES FOR ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES RENDERED. STOCK EXCHANGES MERELY PROVIDE FACILITIES FOR ITS MEMBERS TO PURCHASE AND SELL SHARES WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF ITS BY-LAWS. IT ALSO PROVIDES FOR A MECHANISM FOR SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTED BETWEEN THE BROKERS AND ITS CUSTOMERS. STOCK EXCHANGES DO NOT INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN PROVIDING ANY TECHNICAL SERVICES TO ANY OF THEIR MEMBERS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS RATIO OF THE HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT WILL APPLY TO THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE AO IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PAYMENT WAS FOR FEES FOR ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 8 TECHNICAL SERVICES HAS RELIED ON THE FACT THAT THE SCREEN BASED TRADING IS SOPHISTICATED METHOD OF TRADING, THIS BY ITSELF WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE BEING RENDERED. THE AO HAS ALSO HELD THAT SERVICES ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE BUT ONLY TO REGISTERED MEMBERS, AGAIN THIS BY ITSELF WILL NOT MAKE THE SERVICES IN QUESTION AS TECHNICAL SERVICES. ANOTHER REASON GIVEN BY THE AO IS THAT SPEED AT WHICH THE TRANSACTION WERE COMPLETED AND THE EASE WITH WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DONE IN SCREEN BASED TRADING. THIS AGAIN IS NOT RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR HOLDING THAT THE SERVICES RENDERED WERE TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE FACT THAT THE DATA PROVIDED ON SCREEN WILL PROVIDE BETTER DATA FOR CARRYING OUT TRANSACTION WILL NOT AGAIN BE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT TECHNICAL SERVICES ARE BEIN G RENDERED. ALL THE ABOVE FEATURES PRESENT IN SCREEN BASED TRADING SAVES TIME. THIS IS THE RESULT OF IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY THAT DOES NOT MEANS THAT STOCK EXCHANGE IS PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES. MEMBERS OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE ARE BENEFICIARIES OF THESE TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS. STOCK EXCHANGES ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY TO PROVIDE THEM FOR A FEE TO PROSPECTIVE USERS. THEY ARE THEMSELVES CONSUMERS OF THE TECHNOLOGY. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) LAWS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION IS NOT FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES RENDERED. WE THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) LAND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF DCIT V/S ANGEL BROKING LTD WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 5526/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) 9 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.06.2010 S D SD (R.S.SYAL) (VIJ AY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 18 TH JUNE 2010 SRL:10610 COPY TO: 1. THE ACIT CIRCLE 4(2), ROOM NO. 642,6 TH FL, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD MUMBAI-400020 2.M/S VIBRANT SECURITIES PVT LTD, 103-A, PODAR CHAMBERS, SA BRELVI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400001 3. CIT-4, MUMBAI 4. CIT(A)-IV, MUMBAI. 5. ADD.CIT-4(1), MUMBAI 6.DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI 7. DR F BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI