SACHIN PILGAONKAR, MUMBAI V. ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5863/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7150 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 6 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Assessee Lawyers: ALOK J PATIL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E B ENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5863/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) MR. SACHIN SHARAD PILGAONKAR B-609/610, PEARL APARTMENTS SWAMI SAMARTH NAGAR, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400058. P AN: AAMPP9852H VS. ACIT-11(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 6625/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) MR. SACHIN SHARAD PILGAONKAR B-609/610, PEARL APARTMENTS SWAMI SAMARTH NAGAR, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400058. P AN: AAMPP9852H VS. ACIT-11(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI ALOK J. PATIL (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.G. PANSARI (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 29.03.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THESE TWO APPEAL BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, MUMBAI (THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 24.01.2012 & 19.09.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. THE LD AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE GROUND OF APPEA L IN APPEAL FOR ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR ( AY) 2010-11 DUE TO SMALLNESS OF A MOUNT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE THE APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2. IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE ASSE SSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)[CIT(A)] ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADJUS TMENT OF SUBSIDY GRANTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 24 ,22,000/- AGAINST THE COST OF THE FILM WHICH WAS NOT RELEASED, IN THE REL EVANT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSED THE SAME AS REVENUE RECE IPT. 2. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)[CIT(A)] ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING COST OF PRODUCTION OF THE MARATHI FEATURE FILM TITLED AAHMI SATPUTE' OF RS.6 2,59,006/- TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FIRST GROUND, ON THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN ACCEPTING THAT THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS T O BE ADJUSTED BY REDUCING THE COST OF THE FILM, THEN THE SAME REDUCE D COST OUGHT TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. 3. VIDE LETTER DATED 05.12.2017, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE AO REDUCED THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA OPENING COST OF THE FILM/AAHMI SATPUTE), BUT FAILED TO REDUCE IT FROM C LOSING COST OF THE FILM. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE BENEFIT OF THE SUBSIDY RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA DURING THE YEAR WOULD BE ASSESSABLE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHEN THE FILM (AAHMI SATPUTE) IS EXHIBITED. ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 3 4. PERUSAL OF RECORD REVEALS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER W AS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 24.01.2012, HOWEVER, THE PRESENT APPEA L WAS FILED ON 26.09.2012. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THE DELAY OF 179 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICA TION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE APPLICATION IS SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE AP PLICANT/ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE APPEAL W ITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE NECESSARY STEPS FOR FILING APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HIS CHARTERED ACCOU NT (CA). THIS FACT FOR NON-FILING OF APPEAL CAME TO HIS NOTICE ONLY WHEN A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.09.2012 UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT RECEIVED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS TH AT NON-FILING OF APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WAS NEITHER INTENTI ONAL NOR DELIBERATE BUT DUE TO THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT HIS CHARTERED A CCOUNT, WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER ALL HIS TAX MATTER WOULD HAVE FILED T HE APPEAL AS THE SAID CA WAS GIVEN INSTRUCTION TO TAKE ALL REQUIRED STEP IN TAX RELATED MATTER. THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE ON COMING TO NOTE ABOUT NON-FILI NG OF APPEAL IMMEDIATELY FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN NOT FILING APPEAL IN TIME HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMI TS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE DELAY IN PROPER MANNER. THE ASSES SEE HAS TAKEN A VAGUE GROUND IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE APPLICATION FOR ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 4 CONDONATION OF DELAY IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN A BSENCE OF REASONABLE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE AFFIDA VIT FILED IN SUPPORT THEREOF. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE FIRST APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY LD CIT(A) ON 27.02.2015. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ONLY ON 05.07.2018. THUS, THERE IS DELAY OF 179 DAYS IN FIL ING THE PRESENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE ASSESSEE F ILED HIS AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT HE HAS ENGAGED RAJESH SHAR MA, C.A. TO TAKE CARE AND ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS TO PURSUE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHRI RAJESH SHARMA; C.A NEITHER DISCLOSED THE OUTCOME OF APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) NOR FILED APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN TIME. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTEN DED THAT NOT FILING OF APPEAL IN TIME WOULD NOT BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE RATHE R THE ASSESSEE IS FACING HARDSHIP AND HARASSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLEA DED THAT THE NON FILING OF THE APPEAL WITHIN PERIOD OF LIMITATION WA S NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE. 7. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN B. MADHURI GOUD V. B. DAMODAR REDDY (2012) 12 SCC 693, BY REFERRING VARIOUS TO EARLIER DECISIONS OF SUPERIOR ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 5 COURTS AND HELD THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPAL MUST BE KEP T IN MIND WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y; (I) THERE SHOULD BE A LIBERAL, PRAGMATIC, JUSTICE O RIENTED, NON-PEDANTIC APPROACH WHILE DEALING WITH AN APPLICATION FOR COND ONATION OF DELAY, FOR THE COURTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LEGALISE INJUSTI CE BUT ARE OBLIGED TO REMOVE INJUSTICE. (II) THE TERMS SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOULD BE UNDERST OOD IN THEIR PROPER SPIRIT, PHILOSOPHY AND PURPOSE REGARD BEING HAD TO THE FACT THAT THESE TERMS ARE BASICALLY ELASTIC AND ARE TO BE APPLIED IN PROPER P ERSPECTIVE TO THE OBTAINING FACT-SITUATION. (III) SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BEING PARAMOUNT AND PIVOT AL THE TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN UNDUE AND UNCALL ED FOR EMPHASIS. (IV) NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE ATTACHED TO DELIBERATE C AUSE OF DELAY BUT, GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL OR LITIGANT I S TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. (V) LACK OF BONA FIDES IMPUTABLE TO A PARTY SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY IS A SIGNIFICANT AND RELEVANT FACT. (VI) IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT ADHERENCE TO STR ICT PROOF SHOULD NOT AFFECT PUBLIC JUSTICE AND CAUSE PUBLIC MISCHIEF BECAUSE TH E COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE VIGILANT SO THAT IN THE ULTIMATE EVENTUATE TH ERE IS NO REAL FAILURE OF JUSTICE. (VII) THE CONCEPT OF LIBERAL APPROACH HAS TO ENCAP SULATE THE CONCEPTION OF REASONABLENESS AND IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED A TOTALLY U NFETTERED FREE PLAY. ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 6 (VIII)THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN INORDINATE DEL AY AND A DELAY OF SHORT DURATION OR FEW DAYS, FOR TO THE FORMER DOCTRINE OF PREJUDICE IS ATTRACTED WHEREAS TO THE LATTER IT MAY NOT BE ATTRACTED. THAT APART, THE FIRST ONE WARRANTS STRICT APPROACH WHEREAS THE SECOND CALLS F OR A LIBERAL DELINEATION. (IX) THE CONDUCT, BEHAVIOUR AND ATTITUDE OF A PARTY RELATING TO ITS INACTION OR NEGLIGENCE ARE RELEVANT FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO CO NSIDERATION. IT IS SO AS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE COURTS ARE RE QUIRED TO WEIGH THE SCALE OF BALANCE OF JUSTICE IN RESPECT OF BOTH PART IES AND THE SAID PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE GIVEN A TOTAL GO BY IN THE NAME OF LIBERAL APPROACH. (X) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS CONCOCTED OR THE GROUNDS URGED IN THE APPLICATION ARE FANCIFUL, THE COURTS SHOULD BE VIGI LANT NOT TO EXPOSE THE OTHER SIDE UNNECESSARILY TO FACE SUCH LITIGATION. (XI) IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT NO ONE GETS AWA Y WITH FRAUD, IS REPRESENTATION OR INTERPOLATION BY TAKING RECOURSE TO THE TECHNICALITIES OF LAW OF LIMITATION. (XII) THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FACTS IS TO BE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED AND THE APPROACH SHOULD BE BASED ON THE PARADIGM OF JUDICIAL DISCRET ION WHICH IS FOUNDED ON OBJECTIVE REASONING AND NOT ON INDIVIDUAL PERCEP TION. (XIII) THE STATE OR A PUBLIC BODY OR AN ENTITY REPR ESENTING A COLLECTIVE CAUSE SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME ACCEPTABLE LATITUDE. ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 7 8. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION AND THE SU BMISSION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE THAT NON FILING OF T HE APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IN TIME HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS DUE TO BONAFIDE REASONS AS EXPLAINED IN THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT O F ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID LEGAL POINTS AND THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICALITIES ARE PITTED A GAINST EACH OTHER THE CONSIDERATION OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE MUST PREVAILED . THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IS CONDONED. NOW, WE SHALL PROCEED TO DISCUSS THE FACT S OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 9. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ACTOR/ARTIST WORKING IN MARATHI AS WELL AS HINDI FILMS, DRAMAS, SERIALS AND ALSO PRODUCER OF FEATURE FILMS AND TELEVISION PROGRAMME UNDER THE BA NNER OF M/S KITTU FILMS AND M/S SUSHRIYA ARTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 13.10.2008 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT RS. 67,11,631/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 25 .10.2010 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 93,84,000/-. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TREATED THE FINA NCIAL ASSISTANCE OF RS. 24,22,000/- OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND FURTHER DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 2,50,367/- PAID ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY LEVIED BY ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 8 PRASAR BHARTI FOR DELAY IN DELIVERY OF PROGRAMMES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOT ALLOWED THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF MARAT HI FEATURE FILM AAHMI SATPUTE OF RS. 62,59,007/-. ON APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A), THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,50,367/- UNDER SECTION 37(1) WAS DELETED, HOWEVER, REMAINING TWO DISALLOWANCE WAS UPHELD. THUS, FURTHE R AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (D R) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUN D NO.1 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 24,22,000/- TREATING THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE RECEIVED FROM GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AS REVENUE RECEIPT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT NOW ONLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUN D OF APPEAL IS SUBSIST AND THE MAIN GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY AS SESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF FILM WAS RS. 62,59,007/- AS ON 31.03.2008 WHICH WAS SHOWN AS WORK-IN- PROGRESS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FILM WAS STILL UN DER THE PRODUCTION AND WAS NOT RELEASED TILL 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE RECE IVED RS. 25,00,000/- AS A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHT RA FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR MARATHI FILM INDUSTRY. AS PER THE SC HEME OF MARATHI FILM, PRODUCER, WHO PRODUCED THEIR FILM WITH THEIR OWN FU ND WITHOUT ANY GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL ADD IS ENTITLED TO GET THE FIN ANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THEIR NEXT FILM UP TO CERTAIN LIMIT OF RS. 30,00,00 0/- FROM THE STATE ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 9 GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FINANCIAL STATEME NT TO ASSIST THE ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE THE CAPITAL ASSET. THE FILM WAS A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE HAND OF THE FILM PRODUCER. THE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REVENUE EXPENDITURE ALREADY INCURRED F OR FILM OR TO SUPPLEMENT ITS PROFIT OR TRADE. HOWEVER, THE SAME W AS PROVIDED TO ENABLE THE PROVISO TO AVAIL HIGHER STATE OF ART GADGETS AS TO PRODUCE A FILM OF HIGH TECHNICAL STANDARD . THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AS REVENUE RECEIPT AND ALSO TREATED THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF THE UN-PRODUCTION AND UNRELEASED FILM. 11. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HIS ONLY P RAYER IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE SUBSIDY BE REDUCED FROM THE COST OF T HE FEATURE FILM PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2008. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS ONLY PRESSING THE FIRST ADDITIONAL GROUND, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY FROM THE COST OF FILM DEBITED IN PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REDUCED THE SAME WHILE AR RIVING AT THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF THE FILM. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE ITA NO. 5825 MUM 2012 & 6625 MUM 2013 -MR. SACHIN SHARAD P ILGAONKAR 10 FILM ALSO AFTER REDUCING IT BY THE AMOUNT OF SUBSID Y I.E. RS. 24,22,000/- AND THE BALANCE SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD AS THE OPE NING STOCK OF NEXT YEAR. THUS, ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. IN THE RESULT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-0 9 IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL FOR AY 2010-11 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/ 03/2019. SD/- SD/- G.S. PANNU PAWAN SINGH VICE-PRESIDENT JUD ICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 29.03.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1 . ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI