BABITA P. KANUGO, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 14, MUMBAI

ITA 594/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 59419914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHU
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH G , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 591/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003 - 04 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO , 101, 1 ST FLOOR, SHARTRUNJAY APT., 28, SI NDHI LANE, N.D. ROAD, MUMBAI 400004 PAN: AAVPK9699Q VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 59 2 /M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 4 - 05 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO, 101, 1 ST FLOOR, SHARTRUNJAY APT., 28, SINDHI LANE, N.D. ROAD, MUMBAI 400004 PAN: AAVPK9699Q VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 593/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO, 101, 1 ST FLOOR, SHARTRUNJAY APT., 28, SINDHI LANE, N.D. ROAD, MUMBAI 400004 PAN: AAVPK9699Q VS. ASSTT. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 594/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 0 7 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO, 101, 1 ST FLOOR, SHARTRU NJAY APT., 28, SINDHI LANE, N.D. ROAD, MUMBAI 400004 PAN: AAVPK9699Q VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI ITA NO .591 TO 595/M/11 & 597/M/11 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I TA NO. 595/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 0 8 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO, 101, 1 ST FLOOR, SHARTRUNJAY APT., 28, SINDHI LANE, N.D. ROAD, MUMBAI 400004 PAN: AAVPK9699Q VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVA N, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 597/M/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 09 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO, 101, 1 ST FLOOR, SHARTRUNJAY APT., 28, SINDHI LANE, N.D. ROAD, MUMBAI 400004 PAN: AAVPK9699Q VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 13, INCOME TAX OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K. SAHU, D.R. DATE OF HEARI NG : 25.11.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.13 O R D E R PER BENCH : ALL THE ABOVE NOTED SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 11/11/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND READ AS UNDER: 1. THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/ - UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF INCOME T AX ACT, 1961. SUCH ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE HIM AS WELL AS WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY LEV IED UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (B) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF RS. 10,000/ - SHOU LD BE CANCELLED. ITA NO .591 TO 595/M/11 & 597/M/11 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO 3 2. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE SAME AND THESE APPEALS ALSO HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) WITH A CONSOLID ATED ORDER, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE PROCEED TO DECIDE ALL THE APPEALS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD. HOWEVER, ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, A LETTER DATED 22.11.13 HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE VIDE WHICH IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PLACED ON FILE TWO PAPER BOOKS AND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO APPOINT ANY COUNSEL FOR THE MATTERS. IT HAS BEEN PRAYED T HAT THE ABOVE CASES BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE , WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUMM ARIZED THE DETAILS OF NOTICES SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO REGARDING F AILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COM PLY THE NOTICES IN A CHART WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS RE PRODUCED AS UNDER: SL. NO. NOTICE UNDER WHICH SECTION AND DATED DAT E OF HEARING REMARKS 1. 143(2) DATED 25/8/2009 ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT. 15/09/2009 REQUISITE DETAILS NOT FILED. NOBODY ATTENDED AND ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED BY M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES WITHOUT ENCLOSING ANY LETTER OF AUTHORITY. 2. 142(1) DATED 1/10/2009 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED AND 26/10/2009 - DO - ITA NO .591 TO 595/M/11 & 597/M/11 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO 4 DULY SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT 3. NOTICE U/S. 274 RWS 271(1)(B) DATED 25/3/2010 ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT. 5/4/2010 - DO - 5. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE A LLEGED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES, HAD NEVER FILED LETTER OF AUTHORITY EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR FAVOUR. THUS THE SAID FIRM HAD NO AUTHORITY TO FILE ANY REPLY. ACCORDING TO AO SUCH UNAUTHORIZED AND IRREGULAR REPLY WAS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT), THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NOTICE S UNDER SECTION 143(2) & 142(1) RESPECTIVELY ASKING TO ATTEND ON 15.9.2009 & 26/10/2009 RESPECTIVELY WERE REC EIVED BY HER. ON THE SAID DATE S, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT AND IT WAS INFORMED THAT FRESH NOTICE S WILL BE ISSUED IN THIS MATTER. ALONG WITH THE SAI D REPLY COPIES OF ADJOURNMENT LETTER S WERE ALSO FILED. THUS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICE AND PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) SHOULD BE DROPPED. HOWEVER, A.O REJECTED SUCH EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE REPLY FILED BY M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS WAS NOT SATISFACTORY AND NOT ACCE PTABLE. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES HAD NOT FILED LETTER OF AUTHORITY THUS, THAT CONCERN WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO FILE REPLY . M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES WAS ALSO WRONG IN SAYING THAT FRESH NOTICES WOULD BE ISSUED IN THIS MATTER. A.O AL SO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE BELONGED TO M/S. PRAKASH STEELAGE GROUP, WHICH WAS A CONTINUOUS DEFAULTER OF NON - COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE EXPLANATION ON THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND, THEREFORE, HE IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (B) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR ORDER HAD ALSO BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF ALL OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NO .591 TO 595/M/11 & 597/M/11 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO 5 6 . IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) , IT HAD BEEN MENTIONED THAT SPECIFIC ADJOURNMENT REQUEST LETTER S WERE FILED ON THE DATE S OF HEARING AND IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT LETTER OF AUTHORITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS THERE WAS MENS - REA ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF HINDUSTAN STEE L LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA, 83 ITR 26(SC), IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PENALTY IS A QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBLIGED, EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CON TUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. THUS IT WAS PLEADED THAT PENALTY SHOULD BE DELETED. ON THESE SUBMISSIONS LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LETTER OF AUTHORITY WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS THE OBLIGATION OF TH E ASSESSEE TO SHOW REASONABLE CAUSE AND AO WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF LAW. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE COMPLIANCE OF THE NO TICES, THE PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P.MADHUSUDANAN VS. CIT, 251 ITR 99(SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MENS - REA IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVED IN THE CASE OF PENALTY L EVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISIONS INTER - ALIA INCLUDING DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS, 306 ITR 277 (SC) TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT M ENS - REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT TO IMPOSE PENALTY. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO LINKED THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN AVOIDING THE PROCEEDINGS AND HER FAIL URE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. FINALLY, L D. CIT(A) HAS COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY AND IN THIS MANNER LEVY OF PENALTY HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. ITA NO .591 TO 595/M/11 & 597/M/11 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO 6 6. LD. D.R RELYING UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY AO AND L D. CIT(A) PLEADED T HAT ASS ESSEE DID NOT ATTEND ON THE VARIOUS DATES AND DID NOT FILE THE DETAILS. M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO TAKE ADJOURNMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS NO LETTER OF AUTHORITY WAS FILED. THUS , L D. D.R PLEADED THAT P ENALTY HAS RIGHTLY BEEN SUS TAINED BY LD. CIT(A) AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. THE LD. D.R. HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON AN AUTHORITY OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REPAKA SEETHARAMSWAMY VS. CIT STYLED AS [1961] 42 ITR 829 (AP) WHEREIN THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADE SH HIGH COURT UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES CONCERNED. THE LD. D.R. HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON AN ANOTHER AUTHORITY OF THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STANDARD MERCAN TILE CO. STYLED AS [1986] 160 ITR 613 (PAT) WHEREIN THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ANSWER THE CHARGE OF HAVING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE AO HAD REJECTED ASSES SEES PLEA RELATING TO THE REASONS PUT FORTH BY HIM WHICH PREVENTED HIM TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS BEFORE THE AO ON THE STIPULATED DATE, THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(B) OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. D.R. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDER AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). ON EACH OF THE FIXED DATES , ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS WERE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE A.O IS THAT SINCE M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATE S DID NOT PRODUCE LETTER OF AUTHORITY, THOSE APPLICATIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. D.R. IN THE CASE OF REPAKA SEETHARAMSWAMY (SUPRA) THE CASE WAS FIXED BY THE AO FOR FINAL H EARING AND THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR ITA NO .591 TO 595/M/11 & 597/M/11 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO 7 ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT ITS HEAD CLERK WAS SICK WAS REJECTED BY THE AO. HE DID NOT ADJOURN THE CASE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT TO BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS UPHELD UP TO THE HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE OF STANDARD MERCANTILE CO. (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE LOST IN A TAXI WAS REJECTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL IN THE REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ACTION OF THE AO IN IMPOSING PENALTY FOR NON PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE. AS CAN BE OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS FROM THE CHART GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER , ON EACH DATE OF HEARING A LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED BY M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER PLEADED THAT AFTER FILING OF THE ADJ OURNMENT LETTERS IT WAS INFORMED THAT FRESH NOTICES WOULD BE ISSUED IN THE MATTER. THE AO WHILE IMPOSING PENALTY VIDE ORDER DATED 15.04.10 OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE SAID M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES HAD NOT FILED ANY AUTHORITY LETTER FROM THE ASSESSEE HENCE T HE REPLY/ADJOURNMENT LETTER WAS NOT CONSIDERED. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143( 2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN FACT, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES APPEARED AND FILED ADJOURNMENT LETTERS. THE AO DID NOT REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT LETTERS ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING. IT WAS NEITHER INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR TO THE SAID M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES THAT THE LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT HAD BEEN REJECTED. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROBABLE ASSUMPTION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSEE/ CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THAT THE LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AND FRESH NOTICES WOULD BE SENT. IN CASE , THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY/ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE , THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED ITA NO .591 TO 595/M/11 & 597/M/11 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO 8 IN EXPRESS TERMS EITHER TO THE CONCERNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OR TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER OPPORTUNIT Y SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF OR ANY OTHER DATE AS MAY BE DIRECTED BY HIM. BUT IN THIS CASE , THE AO SIMPLY PLACED THE ADJOURNMENT LETTERS ON THE FILE AND DID NOT CONSIDER THE CONTENTS OF THE SAME. HAD THE ASSESSEE NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AFTER REJECTION OF HER ADJOURNMENT LETTER AND ITS COMMUNICATION TO HER, THEN IN SUCH AN EVENT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY. THE SUBSEQUENT CON DUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IS ALSO RELEVANT. THE SAID M/S. MALPANI & ASSOCIATES IN THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS NOT ONLY FILED THE LETTER OF THE AUTHORITY BUT ALSO PRODUCED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL IN RESPONSE TO THE FRESH NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED. IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED EX - PARTE OR WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL/EVIDENCES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS UNDER HER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HER ADJOURNMENT LETTER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE CONCERNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS INF ORMED ABOUT THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , IT CAN NOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES AND AS SUCH THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ABOVE NOTED APPEALS IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.11. 2013. SD/ - SD/ - ( P.M. JAGTAP) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 29.11. 2013. ITA NO .591 TO 595/M/11 & 597/M/11 SMT. BABITA P. KANUGO 9 * 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.