JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 5960/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9460 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV GUBGOTRA
• Assessee Lawyers: B V JHAVERI; KEVIN BORICHA
• Keywords: Business income; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JM ITA NO. 5960 / MUM/20 1 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 ) MS. JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH W - 1501, WORLD CREST TOWER SENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER PAREL MUMBAI 4 00 013 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(1)(5) PIRAMAL CHAMBER, LOWER PAREL MUMBAI 400 013 PAN/GIR NO. ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI B.V.JHAVERI & SHRI KEVIN BORICHA REVENUE BY SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA DATE OF HEARING 25 / 06 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 / 06 /201 9 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 33, MUMBAI DATED 13/06/2017 FOR A.Y.2013 - 14 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1) THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM IN LAW AND FACTS BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.60,00,000 / - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF OUR APPELLANT BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS.60,00,000/ - UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. 3) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CHEQUE OF RS.60,00,000/ - AS REFERRED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED WA S NOT DEPOSITED IN YOUR APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 2 4) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY TREATING ADDITIONS OF RS.60,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY. THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUD ICE TO ONE ANOTHER. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD / ALTER / AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS AND / OR TO MAKE NEW SUBMISSIONS AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL AS WELL AS TO SUBMIT FRESH DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE T IME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 ON 27 TH JULY, 2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.14,78,250/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.60,00,000/ - IN CASH IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, ACCORDINGLY, AO ASKED THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT DURING A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASSESSEE AL ONG WITH OTHER TWO CO - OWNERS, NAMELY, MR. PRATAPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS AND MR. DILIPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS WERE JOINTLY AND EQUALLY HOLDING THE PLOT OF LAND BEARING CTS NO. 27 (PART), SURVEY NO. 96 ADMEASURING 457 SQR. MTRS. OF VILLAGE HARIYALI, TALUKA K URLA. THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WAS SOLD BY THREE CO - OWNERS TO M/S. KANCHI KONCEPT BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 'THE PURCHASER') FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,80,00,000/ - . THE SAID L AND WAS CONVEYED THROUGH THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE DATED 3 RD NOVEMBER, 201 0 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SAID THREE CO - OWNERS AND THE PURCHASER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE RS. 60,00,000/ - (L/3 RD OF RS. 1,80,00,000/ - ) AS CONSIDERATION FOR PARTING WITH HER SHARE IN THE SAID ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 3 LAND. THE PURCHASER HAD ISSUED THE CHE QUE FOR RS.60,00,000/ - IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 7 TH DECEMBER, 2010 DRAWN ON BANK OF INDIA, GHATKOPAR EAST BRANCH HAVING CHEQUE NUMBER '000132'. HOWEVER, THE PURCHASER REQUESTED ALL THE THREE CO - OWNERS THAT THE CHEQUES ISSUED SHOULD NOT BE DEPOSITE D TILL THEY WERE FURTHER INTIMATED IN THIS REGARD. LATER, ONLY MR. DILIPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS WAS INSTRUCTED TO DEPOSIT THE CHEQUE BUT THE ASSESSEE AND MR. PRATAPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS WERE NEVER INSTRUCTED TO DEPOSIT THE CHEQUES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSES SEE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE CHEQUE RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASER. LATER, IN THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 THE PURCHASER PAID THE RS. 60.00,000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASH IN TRANCHES AND THE SAME WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT NO. '910010004391093 WITH AXI S BANK BETWEEN 17 TH JULY, 2012 AND 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: SR. NO. DATE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT (IN RS.) 1. 1707 2012 5.00,000/ - 2. 25072012 5.00,000/ - 3. 26 07 2012 5,00,000/ - 4. 27/0 72012 5, 00 , 000/ - 5. 28/07 2012 5,00, 000/ - 6. 30 07 2012 5, 00,000/ - 7. 31 07 2012 5,00,000/ - 8. 02 08 2012 7 , 50,000/ - ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 4 9. 04 08 2012 2 , 00,000/ - 10. 13 08 2012 5 , 00,000/ - 11. 14/08/2012 5 , 00,000/ - 12. 24/08/2012 3 , 00,000/ - 1 3. 31/08/2012 1, 50,000/ - 14. 04/09/2012 1 , 00,000/ - TOTAL 60,00,000/ - 3.1. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT CAPITAL GAIN SO EARNED ON THE SALE OF PLOT WAS ALREADY OFFERED BY ASSESSEE IN A.Y.2011 - 12 AND SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED WHEREIN AO HAS A CCEPTED THE DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN AND TAXED THEREON. 3.2. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT AGREED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND ADDED RS.60,00,000/ - IN HER INCOME BY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT FROM THE BUYER WHO HAS PURCHAS ED THE PLOT IN THE A.Y.2011 - 12 FROM THE ASSESSEE. 4. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. IT WAS ARGUED BY LD. AR THAT I N THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND TO THE PURCHASER AND HAD RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 60,00,000/ - BY A CHEQUE. HOWEVER THE SAME WAS NEVER DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 5 PURCHASER. THEREFORE THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 60.00,0007 - WAS, IN FACT, NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2011 - 12. THE SAID AMOUNT REMAINED TO BE RECOVERED FROM THE PURCHASER SINCE THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 TILL THE TIME THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN A.Y. 2013 - 14. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET O N THE ASSET SIDE UNDER THE HEAD 'LOANS AND ADVANCES' FOR THE A.YS .20 11 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 INDICATING THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM M/S. KANCHI KONCEPT BUILDERS PVT. LTD, T HEREBY ESTABLISHING THIS FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 60,00,000 / - WAS NOT RECOVERED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PURCHASER IN THE A.YS. 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 . 5.1. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION FROM THE PURCHASER IN THE A.Y. 2011 - 12, THE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED ON THE SA ID TRANSACTION OF RS. 5 2,09,409/ - (1/ 3 RD SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 1,56,28,228 / - ) WAS OFFERED TO TAXATION AND WAS FORMING PART OF THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12. THE COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS SCRUTINI ZED AND ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13 TH MARCH, 2014 FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND MR. PRATAPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS DATED 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SINCE THE TAX LIABILITY ON THE SAID CAPITAL GAINS WAS ALREADY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2011 - 12, NO FURTHER LIABILITY REMAINED TO BE PAID ON THE SAID TRANSACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 60,00,000/ - RECEIVED IN CASH BY THE ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 6 ASSESSEE IN TRANCHES DURING THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX ONCE AGAIN AS THE SAME WOULD T ANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAID TRANSACTION. 5.2. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE ASSESSEE'S BANK STATEMENTS OF AXIS BANK FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2010 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2013 WHICH ALSO CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE CHEQUE OF RS. 60,00,000/ - AT ALL AND THE SAID CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED IN TRANCHES BY THE ASSESSEE DURING A.Y.2013 - 14. ALL THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 20 TH JANUARY 2016 AND 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. 5.3. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 HAD FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. TH E DETAILS OF THE PURCHASER SUCH AS EXTRACT OF COMPANY MASTER DATA FROM THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANY WEBS ITE SHOWING REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE PURCHASER, LIST OF DIRECTORS AND THE DETAILS OF PAN OF THE COMPANY AND ALSO THAT OF THE DIRECTORS. THE A.O. ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE PURCHASER WHICH COULD NOT BE SERVED. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE PR OVIDED NEW ADDRESS OF THE PURCHASER TO THE A.O. AND THE NEW NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. AND THE SAME REMAINED UNSERVED. HOWEVER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER PROVIDING THE NEW ADDRESS TO THE A.O., ONLY SINGLE ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SERVE THE SAID NOTICE ON TH E PURCHASER AND NO FURTHER EFFORTS WERE CARRIED OUT TO SERVE THE SAID NOTICE ONCE AGAIN WHEREBY THE A.O. ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 7 COULD HAVE CONFIRMED THE FACTS FROM THE PURCHASER. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLITARY ATTEMPT MADE BY THE A.O. TO GATHER THE FACTS IN CASE W ERE GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN THEREFORE ARE ERRONEOUS AND AS SUCH, THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT IS NOT AN EMPTY FORMALITY AND THE SAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY THE A.O. IN A PERFUNCTORY MANNER. 6. ON THE O THER HAND, LD. DR CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT OF RECEIPT OF CASH IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION EVEN THOUGH AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133(6) TO THE PURCHASER, BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE PURCHASER. ACCORDINGLY, THE A O WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SAID DEPOSIT OF CASH IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND JOINTLY OWNED BY HER WITH MR. PRATAPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS AND MR. DILIPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS . THUS, THE A SSESSEE WAS HAVING 1/3 RD SHARE THEREIN. THE PLOT WAS SOLD FOR RS.1.80 CRORES THROUGH CONVEYANCE DEED ON 03/11/2010. ACCORDING TO THE CONVEYANCE DEE D, ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE RS.60,00,000/ - (EQUIVALENT TO HER 1/3 RD RIGHT IN THE LAND) WHICH WAS PAID THROUGH CHEQUE BY THE PURCHASER M/S. KANCHI KONCEPT BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD . SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXECUTION OF THE CONVEYANCE DEED, THE BUYER ASKED ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 8 THE ASSESSEE NOT TO DEPOSIT THE CHEQUE TILL HE GIVES THE CLEARANCE. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER, THE BUYER HAS PAID RS.60,00,000/ - IN THE F.Y.2012 - 13 ON DIFFERENT DATES AS STATED ABOVE. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALE PROCEED S OF RS.60,00,000/ - OUT OF THE SALE OF LAND WAS ALREADY OFFERED AS CAPITAL GIVEN IN THE A.Y.2011 - 12 WHICH WAS UNDER SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30/03/20 14 FOR THE A.Y.2011 - 12 . THE AO HAD DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF THIS LAND AT PARA 13 AND AFTER GIVING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION BROUGHT CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.52,09,409/ - TO TAX NET. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT TAX LIABILITY ON THE SAID CAPITAL GAINS WAS ALSO PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y.2011 - 12, NO FURTHER LIABILITY REMAIN TO BE PAID ON THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE OF AO THAT CHEQUES RECEIVED IN THE A.Y.2011 - 012 WAS CREDITED BY ASSESSEE I N HER BANK ACCOUNT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.60,00,000/ - GIVEN BY CHEQUE WHICH WAS NOT CLEARED WAS SHOWN IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES IN THE A.Y.2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13. THIS CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.60,00,000/ - WAS NOT RECOVERED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PURCHASER IN THE A.Y.2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY DISCLOSED AND OFFER TO TAX CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SAID TRANSACT IONS IN THE A.Y.2011 - 12, THE SAME ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 9 CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX ONCE AGAIN BY THE AO IN THE A.Y.2013 - 14. NO POSITIVE MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO TO DECLINE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF CASH DURING THE YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE CHEQUE WHICH COULD NOT BE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE A.Y.2011 - 12. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO TO BRING THE AMOUNT OF RS.60,00,000/ - TO TAX WHICH WAS ALREADY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y.2011 - 12 IS BAD IN LAW. THE OBSERVATION OF CIT (A) TO THE EFFE CT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AND THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND IN THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 ARE SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS IS INCORRECT SINCE THE AMOUNT RECOVERABLE FROM THE PURCHASER IS NOT ONLY SHOWN IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CORROBORATE THE FACT THAT T HE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 60,00,000/ - WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2011 - 12. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E DURING THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 IS NOTHING BUT THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS PART OF THE SAID TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND AND THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. FURTHER, THE CI T(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN OBSERVI NG THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADVANCE ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE CHEQUE OF RS. 60,00,000 / - RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASER WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE EXPLANATION THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OT HER ITA NO. 5960/MUM/2017 MS.JYOTSNA VIKAMSINH 10 CO - OWNER, MR. PRATAPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS, WERE RESTRAINED BY THE PURCHASER FROM DEPOSITING THE CHEQUES AND WERE WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES SUCH AS CHEQUES BEING DISHONOURED DUE TO INSUFFICIENCY OF THE BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF PURCHASER M/S. KA NCHI CONCEPT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE AND MR. PRATAPSINH SHOORJI VALLABHDAS DID NOT DEPOSIT THE CHEQUES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AT THIS BACKDROP IT WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT OFFER ANY REASON FOR HOLDING THE CHEQUE AND NOT DEPOSITED THE SAME FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND SUCH CONCLUSION DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.60,00,000/ - U/S.69A. AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 / 06 /201 9 SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) SD/ - (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 28 / 06 /201 9 KARUNA SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//