JCIT RG 4, THANE V. RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5804/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78982 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Double taxation relief; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Permanent establishment; Advance ruling

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BEN CH, MUMBAI JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH UJSUNZ DQEKJ FCYYS;K] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILL AIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA[;K / ITA NO.5804/MUM/2012 FU/KKZJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR: - 2009-10 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -4, 2 ND FLOOR, QURESHI MANSION,GOKHALE ROAD, NAUPADA, THANE (W) 400 602. VS. RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. SURVEY NO. 66 PLOT NO. 18, NR. IPOL, VILLAGE VALIV VASAI (EAST) PAN:- AADCR7136C APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY / FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS FU/KKZFJRH DH VKSJ LS SHRI REEPAL TRASHAWALA REVENUE BY/ JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS JKTLO DH VKSJ LS SHRI B.P.K. PANDA ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.05.2012 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0. REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- DATE OF HEARING 21.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 .05.2014 RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. 2 | P A G E (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN THE LAW, THE CIT(A)-II, THANE ERRED DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 25,49,243/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO NON-RESIDENT U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A)-II, THANE ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT CIRCULAR NO. 7 OF 2009 DATED 22.10.2009 CLEARLY STI PULATES THAT EARLIER CIRCULARS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN WITH IMMEDIAT E EFFECT, MEANING THEREBY THAT THE BENEFITS OF EARLIER CIRCUL ARS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF ORDER. (III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT(A)-II, THANE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 9 R.W EXPLANATION 2 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FROM THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 25,49,243/- MADE BY THE A O U/S 40(A)(IA) WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVAT E LTD., COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING ENGINEERING GOODS USED BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES FOR PACKING CAPSULES AND T ABLETS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD REMITTED A COMMISSION AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 25,49,243/- TO M/S LUMINOUS GENERAL TRADING CO. DUB AI ON WHICH NO TAX AT SOURCE WAS DEDUCTED. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ABOVE COMMISSION PAID SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO M/S LUMINOUS TRADING, LLC, BEING A DUBAI BA SED COMPANY, WHICH HAS NO PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT (PE) IN INDIA AND TH E INCOME OF THE PAYEE DID NOT ARISE IN INDIA, THEREFORE, NO TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 195. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CBDT C IRCULAR NO. 786 RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. 3 | P A G E DATED 7.2.2000 AND SUBMITTED THAT TAX LIABILITY OF FOREIGN AGENT OF INDIAN EXPORTER DOES NOT ARISE IN INDIA AS NO PART OF HIS INCOME ARISE IN INDIA. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D PLACE RELIANCE ON THE EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 9(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND HELD THAT THE COMMISSION PAID TO NON RESIDENT FALLS WITHIN THE AM BIT OF SECTION 9 AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME U/S 40(A)(IA). 3. ON APPEAL CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE APPLICABILIT Y OF THE EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1) AND HELD THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUES TION DOES NOT FALL UNDER CLAUSES (V ) TO (VII) OF SECTION 9(1), THEREFORE, T HE EXPLANATION 2 TO THE SAID SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION IS NOT THE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES OR R OYALTY, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION IS NOT APPLICABLE. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONS IDERED THE PROVISIONS OF DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UAE AND HELD THAT WHEN THE S ERVICES ARE RENDERED OUTSIDE INDIA, THEREFORE, AS PER THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND UAE THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSACTION BETWE EN ASSESSEE AND THE NON RESIDENT IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN INDIA, THEREFO RE, NOT SUBJECTED TO PROVISIONS OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND CONSEQ UENTLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYM ENT IN QUESTION IS NOT COMMISSION BUT THE REAL NATURE OF THE PAYMENT I S BUSINESS INCOME OF THE NON RESIDENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE H AS REFERRED THE GUIDELINES OF RBI UNDER WHICH THE REMITTANCE OF COMMISSION IS PERMITTED ONLY UP TO 12.5% OF THE INVOICE VALUE. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTE D THAT IN THE CASE IN RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. 4 | P A G E HAND THE SO CALLED COMMISSION PAD BY THE ASSESSEE I S MORE THAN 20% AND GOES UP TO 22.5%, THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEAR VIOLATIO N OF RBI GUIDELINES TO ALLOW THE REMITTANCE OF THE COMMISSION ONLY TO 12.5% OF T HE INVOICE. THUS THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION IS NO T COMMISSION AND THE REAL NATURE OF THE PAYMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFI ED AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT FACTS. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE B ENEFIT OF THE TREATY BETWEEN INDIA AND UAE IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE RECIP IENT OF THE AMOUNT BECAUSE M/S LUMINOUS TRADING IS AN LLC AND NOT HAVI NG A TAX RESIDENT CERTIFICATE OF THE UAE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO N THE LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE RULING OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING (AA R)IN THE CASE OF SKF BOILERS AND DRIERS PVT LTD (343 ITR 385). THE LD. D R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION FALLS UNDER SECTION 5(2)(B) WHICH DEALS WITH THE SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME AND THE INCOME OF THE NON RESIDENT INCLUDES ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED WH ICH ACCRUES OR ARISES OR IS DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE NATURE OF PAYMENT BEING COM MISSION PAID TO M/S LUMINOUS GENERAL TRADING CO. (LLC) AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID PAYMENT DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CLAUSE (V) TO (VII) OF SECT ION 9(1) SO THAT THE EXPLANATION 2 CAN BE ATTRACTED ON THIS AMOUNT. HE H AS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CIRCULAR NO. 786 OF 7.2.2000 WAS WITHDRAWN ON 22.10.2009 AND, THEREFORE, THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CIRCULAR IS PROSPE CTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUPPOSED TO H AVE DEDUCTED THE TAX IN RESPECT OF THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE NON RESIDE NT AGENT WHEN DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE CIRCULAR NO. 786 DATED 7.2.2 000 WAS VERY MUCH IN RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. 5 | P A G E EXISTENCE. THE SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF THE CIRCULA R DOES NOT AFFECT THE POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT AND CBDT ON THIS ISSUE D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. (I) CIT VS. ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LTD. ( 329 ITR 9) (II) CIT V/S. MODEL EXIMS (2013) 358 ITR 72 (ALL ) (III) 363 ITR 62 (IV) ACIT VS. MODERN INSULATOR LTD. 10 ITR (TRIB) 147 ( JAIPUR) (V) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. DIVI'S LABOR ATORIES LTD. (131 ITD 271) 6. PLACING THE RELIANCE ON THE ABOVE DECISIONS THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CIRCULAR HAS BEEN HELD P ROSPECTIVE AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX BY VIRTUE OF SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWAL OF THE CIRCULAR. HE HAS SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. A S IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, THE GRIEVA NCE OF THE REVENUE IS LIMITED ON THE POINT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPREC IATED THE FACT THAT CIRCULAR NO. 786 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE CIRCULAR NO. 7 OF 2009 DATED 22.10.2009, THEREFORE, THE BENEFIT OF EARLIER CIRCU LARS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. 6 | P A G E THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF ORDER. THE LD. DR HAS R AISED A NEW PLEA BEFORE US REGARDING THE NATURE OF PAYMENT OF SO CAL LED COMMISSION. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT NEITHER THE AO HAS DISPUTED THE FACT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE NO RESIDENT AGENT NOR THE CIT(A) HAS SUSPECTED THE SAME. THE NEW PLEA RAISED BY THE LD. DR INVOLVES THE QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES VERIFICATION AND INVESTIGAT ION OF RECORDS AND FACTS FOR ITS ADJUDICATION AND, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR ANY MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE U S IN SUPPORT OF A FRESH CONTENTION, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ENTERTAIN AND ADJ UDICATE THE SAME. WHEN THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE NATURE OF PAYMENT BEING COMMISSION THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL/RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE REAL NATURE OF PAYMENT IS NOT COMMISSION, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN A FRESH PLEA RAISED BY THE LD. DR. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE LD. DR HAS ALS O RAISED A CONTENTION THAT THE BENEFIT OF DTAA IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE RE CIPIENT OF THE AMOUNT IN THE ABSENCE OF TAX RESIDENT CERTIFICATE. SINCE NO S UCH QUESTION WAS EITHER RAISED BY THE AO OR BY CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, THER E WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SUCH CERTIFICATE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AT THIS STAGE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RECORD TO PROVE TH E CONTRARY THE MERE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION BY APPLYING EXPLANATION 2 O F SECTION 9(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FOR READY REFERENCE WE QUOTE EXPLAN ATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1): [EXPLANATION.- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HER EBY DECLARED THAT FOR THE PRUPSOES OF THIS SECTION, INCOME OF A NON-RESIDENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA UNDER CLAUSE (V) OR CLAUSE (VI) OR CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB SECTION (1) AND SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE NON-RESIDENT, WHETHER OR NOT- (I) THE NON-RESIDENT HAS A RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF BU SINESS OR BUSINESS CONNECTION IN INDIA; OR RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. 7 | P A G E (II) THE NON-RESIDENT HAS RENDERED SERVICES IN INDI A.] 8. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION IS CLEARLY IN RESPECT OF T HE INCOME OF NON RESIDENT FALLING UNDER CLAUSE (V) TO (VII) OF SUB S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 9 AND, THEREFORE, IF THE INCOME OF THE NON RESIDENT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST, ROYALTY OR FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES THEN THE SAID EXPLANATION IS NOT RELEVANT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME O F NON RESIDENT IN INDIA. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREBY IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE EXPLANATIO N IN QUESTION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LIMIT P ROVIDED UNDER THE RBI GUIDELINES FOR REMITTANCE OF COMMISSION IS RELEVANT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMITTANCE IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE AND IS NOT RELEVANT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE INCOME TA X ACT. ONCE THE REMITTANCE WAS ALLOWED EVEN MORE THAN LIMIT PROVIDE D BY THE RBI GUIDELINES THE SAME BECOMES IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURP OSE OF ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. SO FAR AS THE WITHDRAWAL OF CIRCULAR NO. 786 BY A SUBSEQUENT CIRCULAR 7/2009 DA TED 22.10.2009 IS CONCERNED, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA) HAD THE OC CASION TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE AND HELD THAT THE CIRCULAR NO. 7 OF 2009 WHER EBY THE CIRCULAR NO. 789 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN DID NOT HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFEC T IN PARA 9 AND 10 AS UNDER:- 9. FIRST CIRCULAR IN QUESTION HAD BEEN IN FORCE FOR A LONG TIME, FROM 1969. THE BOARD MAY HAVE WITHDRAWN THIS CIRCULAR AND OTHER CI RCULARS VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 7 DATED 22ND OCTOBER, 2009 BUT THE SAID WITHDRAWAL CA NNOT BE RETROSPECTIVE. RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. 8 | P A G E CIRCULAR NO. 7 OF 2009 CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS EXPL AINING OR CLARIFYING THE EARLIER CIRCULARS ISSUED IN 1969 AND 2000. THIS ASSERTION I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FAR- FETCHED AND DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE. CIRCULAR NO. 7 DOES NOT CLARIFY THE EARLIER CIRCULARS BUT WITHDRAWS THEM. THIS IS OBVIOUS AND A PPARENT. CIRCULARS IN FORCE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED. 10. SO LONG AS THE CIRCULARS WERE IN FORCE, IT AIDED IN UNIFORM AND PROPER ADMINISTRATION AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. READ IN THIS MANNER, WE DO NOT THINK THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS IN DEFA ULT AND HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT AT SOURCE, THOUGH IT WAS MANDATED AND REQUIRED. THE RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO RELY UPON THE CIRCULARS. IN LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. ELI LILLY & CO.(INDIA) (P.) LTD. [2009] 3 12 ITR 225/178 TAXMAN 505 AND G.E INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (P.) LTD. V. CIT [ 2010] 327 ITR 456/193 TAXMAN 234/7 TAXMANN.COM 18 (SC) , ONCE THE INCOME WAS NOT EXIGIBLE OR CHARGEABLE TO TAX, TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUC TED. MONEY PAID TO THE THIRD PARTIES, WHO DID NOT HAVE ANY OFFICE OR PERMANENT E STABLISHMENT IN INDIA, WAS EXEMPT AND NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THUS ON THE SAID PAYMENTS OR INCOME, TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION WERE MADE PRIOR TO CIRCULAR NO. 7/2009. ON THIS ASP ECT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THE APPEAL, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT, IS DISMISSE D. 9. EVEN OTHERWISE AT THE TIME OF REMITTANCE OF THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION THE CIRCULAR NO. 786 WAS VERY MUCH INFORCE AND EXIS TENCE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SO URCE ON THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE NON RESIDENT AGENT. A SIMILA R VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MODEL EXIMS (SUPRA) AS WELL AS BY THE JAIPUR BENCHES OF THIS TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAPID PACK ENGG (P) LTD. 9 | P A G E ACIT VS. MODERN INSULATOR LTD. (SUPRA). THE LD. DR THOUGH PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RULING OF AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING(AAR) IN THE CASE OF SKF BOILERS AND DRIERS PVT LTD (SUPRA), HOWEVER WHEN THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS ON THE POINT ARE BINDING ON THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THE RULING OF THE AAR WILL HAVE A PERSUASIVE VALUE. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA) AS WEL L AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S . MODEL EXIMS (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 6.. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E 23-05-2014 SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER/ YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; YS[KK LNL; ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER/ U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; ) MUMBAI DATED 23 -05-2014 SKS SR. P.S, COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, L BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI