MAN INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5775/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3388 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRAJIT SINGHD R
• Assessee Lawyers: KESHAV B BHUJLE
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Wholly owned subsidiary
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.5775 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) MAN INFRAPROJECTS LTD., 101, MAN HOUSE, S.V. ROAD, VILE PARLE, MUMBAI 400 056. / V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2), ROOM NO. 209, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 20. ./ PAN : AAECM9991M ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI KESHAV B. BHUJLE REVENUE BY : SHRI CHANDRAJIT SINGH(D.R.) / DATE OF HEARING : 09-03-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-06-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BEING ITA NO. 5775/MUM/2013, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31-07-2013 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 17, M UMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18-01-2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HE REINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 5775/MUM/2013 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 80,10,897/- BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS ARBITRARY & ILLEG AL. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A ARE NOT A PPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION, REAL ESTATE AND CONST RUCTION CONTRACTORS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 14 3(2) READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DETAILS FILED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAS MADE INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 55,12,50,000/- AND HAD INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.49 CRORES BY WAY OF INTEREST ON LOANS. IT WAS OBSERVE D BY THE AO THAT AS PER CLAUSE 17(B)(1) TO FORM 3CD OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT , THE AUDITORS HAVE REPORTED RS. 80,10,897/- AS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY EXPENSES RELATING TO INVESTMENT, INCOME FROM WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMIT TED THAT THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN 100% SUBSIDIARY OF THE COMPANY AN D NO INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH INVESTMENTS, EVEN IT IS NOT PROFITABLE IN FUTURE AL SO WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA 5775/MUM/2013 3 THE A.O. CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT A COMPANY CANNOT EARN D IVIDEND WITHOUT ITS EXISTENCE AND MANAGEMENT AND THE INVESTMENT DECISIO NS ARE VERY COMPLEX IN NATURE. HE HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT DECISIONS REQU IRE SUBSTANTIAL MARKET RESEARCH, DAY-TO-DAY ANALYSIS OF MARKET TRENDS AND DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO ACQUISITION, RETENTION AND SALE OF SHARES AT THE MO ST APPROPRIATE TIME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT CORRECT TO SAY T HAT DIVIDEND INCOME COULD BE EARNED BY INCURRING NOMINAL EXPENDITURE. THE A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS CONTENTION THAT A COMPANY CAN EA RN SUBSTANTIAL DIVIDEND INCOME WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENSES IN THE ABSENC E OF MANAGEMENT OR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IS NOT POSSIBLE AS THE DECI SIONS ARE GENERALLY TAKEN IN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING. THUS, THE A.O. WORK ED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DCIT & ANR., (2010) 234 CTR (BOM) 1. THE A.O. ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE O F CHEMINVEST LTD. V. ITO , 317 ITR 86 (AT) AND WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AS UNDER , VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED18-01-2013 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT:- SL NO. PARTICULARS AMT(RS) AMT ( RS) 1. AMOUNT OF EXPENSES DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE INCOME A AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES OTHER THAN 1(A) B1 INVESTMENTS AS ON 01-04-09 B2 INVESTMENTS AS ON 31-03-10 B AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT [B=(B1+B2)/2] C1 ASSETS AS ON 01-04-09 C2 ASSETS AS ON 31-03-10 C AVERAGE OF TOTAL ASSETS [C=(C1+C2)/2] 2 ATTRIBUTABLE INDIRECT INTEREST EXPENSES[A*B/C] 3 % OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT 24,884,206 501,250,000 551,250,000 526,250,000 2,148,716,096 2,719,749,454 2,434,232,775 5,379,647 2,631,250 ITA 5775/MUM/2013 4 DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A(1+2+3) 8,010,897 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 18-01- 2013 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FIL ED ITS FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS AND THE OTHER CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DECIDED THE IS SUE BY FOLLOWING HIS PREDECESSORS DECISION FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 31/07/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 3.1 I FIND THAT THIS ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE UNDE RSIGNED FOR AY 2008-09. IN THAT YEAR, VIDE MY ORDER DATED 02-11-2 011, I HAVE HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND POSITION OF LAW. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF SIVA INDUSTRY & HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., CIT ED SUPRA, IS CONCERNED, I FIND THAT IN THAT CASE THE CHENNAI TRI BUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A WOULD NOT BE APP LICABLE WHERE THERE IS NO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF WALFORT SHARES & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. AND THAT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCES MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD. HOWEVER, I FIND THAT A SI MILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE DELHI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF CH EMINVEST LTD. ITA NO. 87/DEL/2008. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE SPECI AL BENCH WAS : WHETHER DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE I.T. ACT CAN B E MADE IN A YEAR IN WHICH NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED OR R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SPECIAL BENCH HELD: ITA 5775/MUM/2013 5 WHAT ONE HAS TO SEE IS WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO AN INCOME THAT DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THIS ACT AND IS THE ANSWER IS AFFIRMATIVE THEN THAT EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS ALLOWABLE UNDER DIFFERENT PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT WHERE A DIFFERENT PHRASEOLOGY IS USED IN ALLOWING T HAT EXPENDITURE AS THE FOCUS AS TO ON DISALLOWANCE WITHIN PARAMETER S OF SECTION 14A AND OVERRIDING PROVISIONS OVER ALLOWANCE PROVIS IONS. IT WOULD RESULT IN DISALLOWANCE EVEN IF NO INCOME HAS RESULT ED OR MADE OR EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THUS, I FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DIRECTLY CONSI DERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY A BIGGER BENCH. UNFORTUNATELY, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE CHENNAI TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED TH IS DECISION AND TO THAT EXTENT THE ORDER OF THE CHENNAI BENCH IS PE R IN CURIUM. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE CHENNAI BENCH ARE NOT DIRECTLY ON THIS ISSUE AND ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN T HE CASE OF M/S CHEMINVEST LTD. NO RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN TO THE APPEL LANT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 1.32. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF MY LD. PREDEC ESSOR, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 2. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 31/07/20 13 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INVESTED RS. 55,12,50,000/- IN ITS SUBS IDIARY COMPANY M/S MARINO SHELTERS PVT. LTD. WHICH IS ALSO IN THE FIEL D OF CONSTRUCTION WORK. NO EXEMPT INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM THE SAID INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . NO DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AS SESSMENT YEAR FROM THE SAID INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED ITA 5775/MUM/2013 6 THAT THIS ISSUE UNDER INSTANT APPEAL IS SQUARELY CO VERED BY THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE COMPANY S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 6191/NUM/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDE ORDERS DATED 20 TH JANUARY, 2016 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WH EREBY THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED V. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (DELHI HC) . IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED V. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (DEL HI HC) AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURIN G THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR R AND HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT I S NOT CALLED FOR. 8. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORDS INCLUDING THE DEC ISION CITED BY THE RIVAL PARTIES. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 55,12,50,000/- IN ITS 100% SUBSIDIARY COMPAN Y M/S MARINO SHELTERS PVT. LTD. WHICH IS ALSO IN THE FIELD OF BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME OR ANY DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THESE INVESTMENTS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED (SUPRA) HAS OVERRULED THE DECISION OF ITAT SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED(SUPRA) HENCE, THIS ISSUE IS SQUA RELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISIONS IN T HE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED (SUPRA) . AS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE CO- ORDINATE BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO DECIDED THIS ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE COMPANY IN ASSESSEE COMPANYS ITA 5775/MUM/2013 7 OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT Y EAR I.E. 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 6191/MUM/2015 VIDE ORDERS DATED 20-01-2016 BY F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVE ST LIMITED (SUPRA) AND HENCE THE ISSUES IN THE INSTANT APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES COMPANY OWN CASE IN I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2009-10 IN ITA NO 6191/MUM/201 5 VIDE ORDERS DATED 20-01-2016. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO 6191/MUM/2015 VIDE ORDERS DATED 20-01-2016 IN ASSESSEE COMPANYS OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I.E. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND ALSO MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT , ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INC OME FROM THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF THE SUBSIDI ARY COMPANY. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO FO LLOWING THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LI MITED (SUPRA). NOW THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF NO EXEMPT I NCOME HAS BEEN RECEIVED OR IS RECEIVABLE IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE U/S 14A . THE RELEVANT O BSERVATION AND THE FINDING BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER CON SIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT V. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY ., REPORTED IN (1978) 115 ITR 519 IS AS UNDER:- THE PLAIN AND NATURAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 57(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IRRESISTIBLY LEA DS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TO BRING A CASE WITHIN THE SECTION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ANY INCOME SHOULD IN FACT HAVE BEEN EARNED AS A RESULT OF THE EXPENDITURE. WHAT SEC. 57(III) R EQUIRES IS ITA 5775/MUM/2013 8 THAT THE EXPENDITURE MUST BE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED W HOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNIN G INCOME. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDITURE THAT IS RELEVA NT IN DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 57(III) AND T HAT PURPOSE MUST BE MAKING OR EARNING OF INCOME. SEC. 57(III) D OES NOT REQUIRE THAT THIS PURPOSE MUST BE FULFILLED IN ORDE R TO QUALIFY THE EXPENDITURE FOR DEDUCTION. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE EXPENDITURE SHALL BE DEDUCTIBLE ONLY IF ANY INCOME IS MADE OR EARNED. THERE IS IN FACT NOTHING IN THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 57(III) TO SUGGEST THAT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH EXPEN DITURE IS MADE SHOULD FRUCTIFY INTO ANY BENEFIT. THUS , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN B Y THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT , WE HOLD THAT , NO DISALLOWANCE U /S 14A IS CALLED FOR, ONCE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME RECEIVED OR REC EIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR . ACCORD INGLY , THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED . 9 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLO WED.' THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEE COMPANYS OWN CASE IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 WHEREBY THE ISSUES WERE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY AS SET OUT ABOVE , WE ALSO HOLD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT I S CALLED FOR , ONCE THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE ALLOWED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITA N0. 5775/MUM/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS AL LOWED. ITA 5775/MUM/2013 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD JUNE , 2016. # $% &' 03-06-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 03-06-2016 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI B BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI