JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN (RANKA), MUMBAI V. DCIT., CENT. CIR.-1, MUMBAI

ITA 5793/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5791 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRIJA DAYA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . 5788 TO 5794/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2002 - 03 TO 2008 - 09 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN (RANKA), 325 AMRI T DIAMOND HOUSE, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI 400 004 PAN: ABHPJ0571F VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO S . 5951 5953 & 5954 - 5955/M/2011 ASSESS MENT YEAR S : 2003 - 04 TO 2005 - 06 & 2007 - 08 TO 2008 - 09 ACIT, OFFICE OF THE DCIT, CC 1, R.NO.902, 9 TH FLOOR, OLD CGO BLDG., ANNEXE, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 VS. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN (RANKA), 325 AMRIT DIAMOND HOUSE, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI 400 004 P AN: ABHPJ0571F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/ SHRI RAJIV KHANDELWAL & NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL REVENUE BY : SHRI GIRIJA DAYA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 03.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .01.2014 O R D E R PER BENCH : THE ABOVE NOTED CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE , ARISING OUT OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ALL DATED 1 0.06 .2011 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEARS AS NOTED ABOVE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , ARE TAKEN TOGETHER FOR DISPOSAL WITH THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE ITA NOS. 5788 TO 5794/M/2011 & 5951 5953 & 59 55/M/2011 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN 2 FACTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE APPEAL NO. 5794/M/2011 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN DIAMONDS AND PRECIOUS STONES IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. JITENDRA & CO MPANY . THE ASSESSEE D E RIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS, SALARY HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. A SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132 AND 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN TH E CASE OF ONE SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND ON THE PERSONS/ENTITIES CONNECTED WITH HIM ON 31.03.08. SINCE THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND HIS CONCERNS WERE ALSO ALLEGEDLY CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE SAID SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JA IN AND HIS ASSOCIATES , AS SUCH THE RESIDENCE AND LOCKER OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO SEARCHED. SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE BUSI NESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION AT THE OFFI CE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE , CERTAIN CHE QUES AS WELL AS TWO BLANK LETTER HEADS OF SHRI ASHOK , PROPRIETOR OF M/S. KUNAL GEMS , WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. A STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ALSO RECORDED. CONSEQUENTLY, TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03 TO 2008 - 09 WERE INITIATED. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4 . IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILLS AND WAS RECEIVING COMMISSION FOR THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE INCOME FROM THE ACCOMMODATION BILLS/ENTRIES WAS ESTIMATED AT THE RATE OF 1% OF THE TOTAL ITA NOS. 5788 TO 5794/M/2011 & 5951 5953 & 59 55/M/2011 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN 3 TURNOVER OF RS. 57,36,72,342 / - WHICH WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.57,36,723/ - AND WAS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE OR BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGATION OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILLS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE CONCLUSION OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILLS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS WRONGLY MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT MADE BY SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN , EVEN THE SAME WAS LATER ON RETRACTED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SUCH BUSINESS LINKS WITH THE SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN. IT WAS ALSO FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE ALSO SUBJECTED TO AUDIT. NOT A SINGLE DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE WRONGLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT A NY CONVINCING REASON. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME AT THE RATE OF 1% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT THE RATE OF 1% MADE BY THE AO BE DELETED AND THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE BE ACCEPTED. 6 . THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FILE OBSERVED THAT FROM THE RECORD NO SPECIFIC DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED MEAGER INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. HENCE, HE CONSIDERED IT REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME AT THE RATE OF 0.5% (NET OF EXPENSES) OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER INSTEAD OF 1% AS ADOP TED BY THE AO. HE THUS ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.28,68,361/ - . AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS. 5788 TO 5794/M/2011 & 5951 5953 & 59 55/M/2011 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN 4 7 . THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WITHOUT FINDING ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE/MATERI AL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE , THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO WAS WRONG AND ILLEGAL . T HE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE BE ACCEPTED AND THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT THE RATE OF 0.5% OF THE TURNOVER BE SET ASIDE. 8 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REVENUE HAS COME INTO THESE APPEALS FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN REDUCING THE ESTIMATED INCOME AT THE RATE OF 0.5% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER AGAINST THE ESTIMATION AT THE RATE OF 1% MADE BY THE AO. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. HAS BEEN THAT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY LINK BETWEEN SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND THE ASSESSE E. NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL EXCEPT A FEW CHEQUES AND TWO LETTER HEADS BELONGING TO OTHER PERSON S WAS FOUND. THE TWO OF THE SAID PERSONS WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE PURCHASE PARTIES/SALE PARTIES HAVING BUSINESS LINKS WITH THE ASSES SEE RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES SERVED BY THE AO AND FURNISHED THE NECESSARY DETAILS/CONFIRMATIONS ALSO. CONFIRMATIONS BY THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE ALSO FILED. NO DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND BY THE AO. MERELY BECAUSE THE S AID SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN, WITH WHOM THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY LINK OF THE ASSESSEE, ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT TO HAVE GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO ONE PERSON THAT ITSELF COULD NOT BE A GROUND TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSE E. EVEN THE LD. AR HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 9 & 10 OF THE FILE BEFORE US THAT AGAINST THE OPENING STOCK OF NIL THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.3.2002 OF STOCK IN TRADE OF POLISHED DIAMONDS WAS AT ABOUT RS.1.11 CRORES. HE HAS FURTHER DEMONS TRATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR VARIOUS EXPENDITURE SUCH AS ASSORTMENT CHARGES OF ABOUT RS. 4.64 LAKH, BROKERAGE OF RS.6.99 LAKH, ITA NOS. 5788 TO 5794/M/2011 & 5951 5953 & 59 55/M/2011 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN 5 FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 64 THOUSANDS, I MPORT EXPENSES OF RS. 53 THOUSANDS ALONG WITH OTHER EXPENDITURE AS DETA ILED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, WHICH REMAINED CONTRIBUTING FACTORS RESULTING LESS PROFIT TO THE ASSESSEE IN COMPARISON TO HIS TURNOVER. 10 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF CHEQUES/LETTER HEADS B ELONGING TO OTHER PERSONS WAS FOUND . S O FAR THE CONFIRMATION S MADE BY THE BUYERS AND SELLERS WERE CONCERNED, HIS CONTENTION HAS BEEN THAT THE BUYER AND SELLER MIGHT HAVE CONNIVED WITH EACH OTHER . 11. T HOUGH THE LD. D.R. HAS ADMITTED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) THAT FROM THE RECORD NO DIRECT INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECT, YET HIS CONTENTION HAS BEEN THAT IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES , THOUGH VERY SMALL , THE PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES . 12 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO MINUTELY GONE THROUGH THE RECORD. IT IS ALMOST AN ADMITTED CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT NO DIRECT INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION RELATING TO SOME CHEQUES AND TWO LETTER HEADS BELONGING TO ONE SHRI ASHOK, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. KUNAL GEMS , TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SAID PERSONS IN THE NAME OF THEIR DIF FERENT CONCERNS WERE CARRYING OUT THEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES FROM THE SAME PREMISES FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN OPERATING. EVEN SOME OF THE SAID PERSONS WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE R EVENUE BUT THE REVENUE COULD NOT COLLECT ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGA INST THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. ITA NOS. 5788 TO 5794/M/2011 & 5951 5953 & 59 55/M/2011 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN 6 13. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT FROM THE RECORD IT WAS SEEN THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN TH E BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED BY THE AO WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY COGENT MATERIAL AND THE ESTIMATION WAS MADE ON THE BA S IS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE W AS CONCERNED , NO SUCH STATEMENT WAS EVER MADE BY HIM. DESPITE MAKING THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS , THE CIT(A) WENT ON TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATION BASIS THOUGH AT A REDUCED RATE I.E. 0.5% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD DECLARED VERY LESS INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) GIVEN IN PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND PERU SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R . I FI ND THAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME BY APPLYING THE FLAT RATE OF 1 % AN D NOT ALLOWED ANY EXPENSES AS CLAIMED IN THE P&L A / C . IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED BY THE AO WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY COGENT MATERIAL AND THE ESTIMATION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND AS FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCERNED, NO SUCH STATEMENT WAS E V ER MADE BY HIM. IT IS FURTHER SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE FACT REMAINS THAT APPELLANT HAS DECLARED VERY MEAGER INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. UNDER THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES , IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ESTIM ATE THE INCOME @ 0.5% [NET OF EXPENSES] ' OF THE - TOTAL TU RNOVER INSTEAD OF 1 % AS ADOPTED BY THE AO . ACCORDINGLY , THE I NCOME IS ESTIMATED AT RS . 28,68,361 [0.5% OF 57,36,72,342]. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF O F RS.28,68,361/ - . THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 4 . IN OUR VIEW, MERELY BECAUSE IN THE OPINION OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS AS COMPARED TO HIS ANNUAL TURNOVER , THAT ITSELF CANNOT BE A GROUND TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAD BEEN MAINTAINED REGULARLY IN THE DUE COURSE OF BUSINESS. WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN NO COGENT OR CONVINCING INCRIMINATING ITA NOS. 5788 TO 5794/M/2011 & 5951 5953 & 59 55/M/2011 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN 7 MATERIAL WAS FOUN D AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION , THEN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HIM TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. WE ARE ALSO NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. THAT EVEN TH OUGH NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT STILL THE POSSIBILITY CANNOT BE RULED OUT THAT THE BUYER AND THE SELLER ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE CONNIVED WITH EACH OTHER. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D.R. IS JUST AN ASSUMPTION AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ANY VALUE OF EVIDENCE IN THE EYES OF LAW. SUCH AN ASSUMPTION , CANNOT IN ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES , BE SAID TO BE A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. E VEN SUCH AN ASSUMPTION CANNOT BE A B A S E OF ANY SUCH PRESUMPTION OF INVOLVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY BE CALLED TO DISPROVE. THE REVENUE HAS TO STAND ON ITS OWN LEGS TO BRING THE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE A GAINST THE ASSESSEE AND TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN SUCH ACTIVITIES , WHICH THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. WE MAY FURTHER ADD THAT IT IS EVEN NOT OPEN TO THE REVENUE TO MERELY RELY ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE S PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE TO MAKE ANY ADVERSE PRESUMPTION OR CONCLUSION OF HIS INDULGING IN SUCH ACTIVITIES WITHOUT BEING THERE ANY DIRECT OR EVEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD AGAINST HIM. MERELY ASSUMING THAT THE BUYER AND SELLER MIGHT HAVE CONNIVED WITH EACH OTHER , CANNO T ITSELF BE A GROUND TO CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE TO DISPROVE SUCH TYPE OF ASSUMPTION WHICH IS EVEN NOT BASED ON ANY RELEVANT INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE OR FACT ON THE FILE. 1 6 . IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE INCOME ON ESTIMATION BASIS AT THE RATE OF 0.5% OF THE TURNOVER EVEN HAVING GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE FOUND ITA NOS. 5788 TO 5794/M/2011 & 5951 5953 & 59 55/M/2011 SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR JAIN 8 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, T HE ESTIMATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE AO AND FURTHER REDUCED AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELETED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. 1 7 . SINCE, SIMILAR OBSERVA TIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS RELATING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, HENCE, IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, ALL THE SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED AND ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE HERE BY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.01. 201 4 . SD/ - SD/ - ( P.M. JAGTAP ) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 16.01. 201 4 . * KISHORE COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT ( A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR C BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.