INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1(2), MUMBAI V. CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY, MUMBAI

ITA 5600/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0990 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 ITA NO. 5600/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' C ' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAD I P K. KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5600 /MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 1(2), ROOM NO. 501, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LAL BAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 012 VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY, 1508, MAKER CHAMBER V, MUMBAI - 400 021. PAN AAACT0174H ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY: SHRI V. VIDHYADHAR, D.R RESPONDENT BY: SHRI KETAN K. VED, A.R DATE OF HEARING: 26.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 2 8 . 11.2018 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 1, MUMBAI, DATED 23.06.2017 WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT) DATED 10.03.2015 FO R A.Y. 2012 - 13. THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWING DEPRECIATION OF RS. 24,93,299/ - IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE DECISION OF ESCORTS LTD. VS. UOI 199 ITR 43 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT S INCE SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES FOR DEDUCTION CAPITAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED OIL ACQUIRED FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AS APPLICATION AND DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY & EXPRESSLY PROVIDE FOR DOUBLE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME VER Y ASSETS ACQUIRED FROM SUCH CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED U/S. 32 FOR THE P A G E | 2 ITA NO. 5600/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY SAME OR ANY OTHER PREVIOUS YEAR IN RESPECT OF THAT ASSET AS IT AMOUNTS TO CLAIMING A DOUBLE DEDUCTION. 2. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL, WHEN THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST AND KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LISSIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS VS. CIT 76 DTR (KER) 372 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HON.BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD (199 ITR 43). 3. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON MERIT OF THE CASE, BUT DUE TO SMALLNESS OF TAX EFFECT APPEAL WAS NOT FILED BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. ALSO, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF' HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI VILE - PARLE KELV ANI MANDAL, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION ON MERIT AND FILED SLP, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN THE SAME AS THERE WAS NO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OIL ASSETS. MOREOVER, THE REVENUE HAS FILED SIPS ON THIS ISSUE IN OTHER CASES INCLUSIVE THE CASE OF G.D. BIRLA MEDICAL RESEARCH & EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION (S.L.P.(C) NO. 24904 OF' 2016 (C.A. NO. 8294 OF 2016) AND IN THIS CASE LEAVE HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND IN ALL CASES ISSUE IS PENDING F OR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT. 4. WHETHER O N THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE L D. CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWARD OF DEFICIT OF RS. 45,85,615/ - AND ALLOWING SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 5. WHETHER, O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN AL LOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAID DEFICIT, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EXPRESS PROVISION IN THE I.T ACT. 1961 PERMITTING ALLOWANCE O F SUCH CLAIM. 6. WHETHER, OIL FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE SAID DEFICIT BY RE LY ING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL SELECTION, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAID DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON MERIT OF THE CASE, BUT DUE TO SMALLNESS OF TAX EFFECT APPEAL WAS NOT FI LED BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. H OWEVER, ON THIS ISSUE THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED SLPS ANOTHER CASES BEFORE THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF' MIDC (SPL (CIVIL) 9891 OF 2014 ), IN WHICH LEAVE HAS BEEN GRANTED AND THE ISSUE IS PENDI NG FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE TH E HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THE CASE HAS NOT REACHED FINALITY. 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1. MUMBAI BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. P A G E | 3 ITA NO. 5600/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY B E NECESSARY' 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHICH REPRESENTS THE ORGANIZED TEXTILE UNITS IN SPINNING AND COMPOSITE SECTORS COMPRISING MILLS PRODUCING COTTON YARN, BLENDED AND MAN - MADE SPUN YARN, F ABRICS AND HOME FURNISHING S HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2012 - 13 ACCOMPANIED WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME , AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10B , INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET ALONGWITH ANNEXURES ON 26.09.2012 , CLAIMING A DEFICIT OF RS.45 ,85,615/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH UNDER SEC. 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(2). 3. THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT DECLINED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEFI CIT OF RS.45,85,615/ - THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH ALLOW ED DETERMINATION OF LOSS WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME UNDER SEC. 11 OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF H IS AFORESAID CONVICTION THE A.O DECLINED TO ALLOW THE CARRY FORWARD OF THE DEFICIT OF RS.45,85,615/ - BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.24,93,299/ - IN ITS COMPU TATION OF INCOME. THE A.O BEING OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSET, THEREFORE, ALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION , THUS DECLINED TO AL LOW THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 24,93,299/ - CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES UNDER SEC.11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS THE A.O RESTRICTED THE APPLICATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT O F THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. P A G E | 4 ITA NO. 5600/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O HAD ERRED IN NOT TREATING THE DEPRECIATION AS APPLICATION OF INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION, DID FIND FAVOUR WITH THE SAME. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING PERSONNEL ( 2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM) AND DIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI VS. SHRI VILE PARLE KELAVANI MANDAL (2015) 58 T AXMANN.COM 288 (BOM). INSOFAR THE ISSUE AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE A.O OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE DEFICIT OF RS.45,85,615/ - WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE SAID ISSUE WAS ALSO COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING (2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM). IN THE BACKDROP OF THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE S INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM WERE COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT S OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE CIT(A) RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ED THE SAME AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. 5. THE R EVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R) FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE S UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE SQUARELY C OVERED BY THE JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT EVEN THOUGH EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS WAS TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES UNDER SEC.11(1)(A), YET DEPRECIATION WAS TO BE ALLOWED O N SUCH ASSET S SO PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION THE LD. A.R HEAVILY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - III, PUNE VS. RAJASTHAN & GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC). INSO FAR THE P A G E | 5 ITA NO. 5600/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY ENTITLEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST TOWARDS CLAIM OF DEFICIT TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR BEING SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS WAS CONCERNED, THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ISSUE WAS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT (EXEMPTION) VS. SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2018) 166 DTR 257 ( SC) . IT WAS THUS AVERRED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CARRY FORWARD OF THE DEFICIT OF RS. 45,85,615/ - FOR SETTING OFF THE SAME IN THE FUTURE YEARS. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHO RT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. INSOFAR THE ISSUE AS REGARDS THE ENTITLEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON CAPITAL ASSETS , THE EXPENDITURE OF ACQUISITION OF WHICH HAD BEEN TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES UNDER SEC.11(1)(A) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEING SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - II, PUNE VS. RAJASTHAN & GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC) , IS THUS NO MORE RES INTEGRA . THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN ITS SAID JUDGMENT HAD CONCLUDED THAT IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE CHARITABLE INSTITUTION REGISTERED UNDER SEC.12A, EVEN THOUGH EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR ACQUISITION OF A CAPITAL ASSET WAS TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES UNDER SEC. 11(1)(A), YET DEPRECIATION WOULD BE ALLOWED ON SUCH ASSET SO PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE . FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERV E D BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE LEGISLATURE VIDE F INANCE ( NO. 2 ) ACT, 2014 HAD W.E.F 01.04.2015 MADE AVAILABLE SUB - SECTION (6) TO SEC.11 OF THE ACT, WHICH THEREIN PROVIDES THAT NO DEPRECIATION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET, ACQUISITION OF WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER SEC.11 , IN THE SAME OR ANY P A G E | 6 ITA NO. 5600/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY OTHER PREVIOUS YEAR. WE THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN & GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA ( S UPRA) , ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS DEPRECIATION ON THE CAPITAL ASSETS BEING WELL IN ORDER , HAD THUS RIGHTLY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A). IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS UPHELD. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CARRY FORWA RD OF DEFICIT OF RS.45,85,615/ - FOR SETTING OFF THE SAME AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE BEFORE U S IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INSTITUTE OF BANKING (2003) 264 ITR 110 (BOM). WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAD OBSERVED THAT AS THE INCOME O F THE TRUST WAS TO BE COMPUTED ON COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES, THUS ADJUSTMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE EARLIER YEARS AGAINST THE INCOME EARNED BY THE TRUST IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR , WAS TO BE REGARDED AS APPLI CATION OF INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS OBSERVED THAT THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE TRUST IN THE EARLIER YEARS, AGAINST THE SU RPLUS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WILL HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE INCOME OF THE TRUST UNDER SEC. 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. STILL FURTHER, THE AFORESAID VIEW HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(EXEMPTION) VS. SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (2018) 166 DTR 257 (SC) . THE HONBLE APEX COURT WHILE AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF P A G E | 7 ITA NO. 5600/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAD IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND HAD DECLINED TO DISLODGE THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HIGH COURT THAT THE EXC ESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE CHARITABLE TRUST/INSTITUTION IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS TO BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS BY INVOKING SEC. 11 OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN TH E APPEAL BEFORE US IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA , HENCE GOING BY THE RULE OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE SAME. IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) WHICH IS FOUND TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE THUS UPHOLD THE SAME IN CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE G ROUND S OF APPEAL NO. 4 TO 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO. 7 & 8 BEING GENERAL ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 .11.2018 S D / - S D / - (PRAD I P K. KEDIA) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 28.11.2018 * PS. ROHIT P A G E | 8 ITA NO. 5600/MUM/2017 A.Y. 2012 - 13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) VS. M/S CONFEDERATION OF INDIAN TEXTILE INDUSTRY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI