ACIT 24(1), MUMBAI V. ARUN DAMJI GADA, MUMBAI

ITA 6/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9839 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Gift; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Wrong claim; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD , JM ITA NO. 6 / MUM/20 14 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 ) ACIT 24(1) C - 13 R. NO . 503 PRATYSHAKAR BHAWAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 400 050 VS. SHRI ARUN DAMJI GADA A - 103, GO D GIFT ADARSHA DUGDHALAYA LANE, ADARSH NAGAR, ADARSH DHUGHALA LANE, MALAD (W) MUMBAI 400 064 PAN/GIR NO. AABPG3923F APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJESH SANGHVI & SUBHASH CHH AJED REVENUE BY SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV DATE OF HEARING 21 / 12 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEME NT 19 / 03 /201 8 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A) - 34, MUMBAI DATED 2 8/ 10/2010 FOR A.Y.2007 - 08 IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. 2. IN THIS CASE, AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO THE INCOME DETERMINED AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ITA NO. 6/MUM/2014 SHRI ARUN DAMJI GADA 2 3. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 2.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY. THE APPELLANT, THE HON. ITAT, MUMBAI 'C'BENCH IN THE CASE OF OTIS ELEVATOR CO.(L) LT D. REPORTED IN ITA NO.4509/MUM/2012 HAS HELD AS UNDER: - '2,........THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THIS STEP BEFORE THE AO TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE ISSUE WHILE FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08, THAT THE ACT OF OFFERING THE ADVANCES OF SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS NOT DICTATED BY COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2007 - 08, THAT IT WAS NOT FIAR TO LEVY PENALTY WHEN DISPUTE BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE AO WAS ONLY ABOUT THE TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME AND NOT ABOUT DEDUCTION OF ANY INCOME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AT ALL . RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF AISHWARIYA RAI (12SOT114),FAA HELD THAT FACTS OF THAT CASE WERE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAD DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THAT CASE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT EVERY ADDITION MADE IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS THE BASIS FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY, THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY ADJUSTMENT OF INCOME WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE PRIOR TO THE RAISING OF THE ISSUE BY THE AO, THAT THE EXPL ANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE. FINALLY HE CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. BEFORE US, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHERE AS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE UPON THE ORDER OF THE FAA. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OFAISHWARYA RAY (SUPRA). ...,I) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. BEFORE IMPOSING, PENALTY IT HAS TO BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XXI OF THE ACT. NOT ONLY THE PROVISIONS OF LEVY OF PENALTY ARE DISCRETIONARY IN N ATURE, BUT THE DISCRETION IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY. II) PENALTIES UNDER THE ACT ARE IMPOSED FOR SOME OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT HIS SUCH OMISSIONS/COMMISSIONS HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY SPELT OUT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS WELL AS IN THE PENALTY ORDER. AO/FAA HAS TO SPECIFICALLY MENTION AS WHICH OF THE PARTICULARS WERE FALSE OR HOW HE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. SO, WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE F OUND TO BE INCORRECT/ERRONEOUS/ FALSE IS NO QUESTION OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). ITA NO. 6/MUM/2014 SHRI ARUN DAMJI GADA 3 II I) EVIDENCES PRODUCED AND ISSUES DECIDED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT FINAL OR BINDING IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. PROVISIONS FOR FINALISING ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS AND FOR IMPOSING PENALTY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN TAX LAWS FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. DURING THE ASSESSMENT OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AO OR THE FAA CAN DRAW A CONCLUSION THAT PARTICULAR ITEM FORMS PART OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, SUCH CONCLUSION OR FINDING CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT BECOME SOLE BASIS FOR IMPOSING PENALTY. IN OTHER WORDS CONFIRMATION OF ANY DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITION DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE BASIS FOR INVOKING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C )OF THE ACT. IV) CLAIMING OR NOT CLAIMING PARTICULAR ITEM UNDER A PARTICULAR HEAD OF INCOME IS NOT A VALID BASIS FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER CONCEALMENT PROVISIONS. V) A DISPUTED CLAIM CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS PENAL PROVISIONS CANNOT BE INVOKED BECAUSE CLAIMS, INCLUDING CLAIMS FOR SPECIAL DEDUCTIONS, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO. VI) IF THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT NOT IMPOSING PENALTY IS NOT REBUTTED BY THE AO, PROVISIONS OF CONCEALMENT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. VII) CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS ARE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN 'LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS. VIII) WHERE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPLACED BY THE ESTIMATE OF AN AO PENALTY SHOULD NO T BE LEVIED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IX) THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FALSE CLAIM AND A GENUINE CLAIM. IN THE FIRST CASE, THE FACT OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE IS MISSING, WHERE AS IN THE SECOND SITUATION, INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE IS NEVER IN DISPUTE. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS HOW TO TREAT THAT EXPENDITURE REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN SUCH A CASE, PENALTY CANNOT BE IM POSED U/S. 2 71(1)(C)OF THE ACT . X) PENALTY ALSO CANNOT BE IMPOSED, IF A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AN INCRURRED EXPENDITURE IS REJECTED. XI) NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVII OF THE ACT, SHOULD NOT RESULT IN IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT NO DEDUCTION OF TAX SOURCE CAN RESULT IN OTHER CONSEQUENCES , BUT IMPOSITION OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY IN SUCH CASES IS IMPERMISSIBLE. ITA NO. 6/MUM/2014 SHRI ARUN DAMJI GADA 4 XII) SIMILARLY, NOT GETTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH CONCEALING THE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THERE ARE SEPARATE PENAL PROVISIONS IN TH E ACT FOR NOT GETTING THE BOOKS AUDITED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44. AD. BUT, FOR VIOLATION OF THOSE PROVISIONS, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE VISIT ED B Y THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. XIII) PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED WHERE ARGUABLE/CONTROVER SI AL/DE B ATABLE ISSUES ARE INVOLVED. XIV) DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON BASIS OF SUBSEQUENT SUPREME COURT DECISION IS NOT PERMISS IBLE UND E R THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT APPLYING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, WE CAN SAFELY HOLD THAT FAA HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY. ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE ADVANCES FOR TAXATION IN SUBSEQUENT AYS., BEFORE AO MADE AY INQUIRY ABOUT THEM. FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGO RICAL FINDING ABOUT THE DATES OF INQUIRY INITIATED BY THE AO AND OFFERING OF ADVANCES FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND FROM HIS ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ON ITS OWN PAID TAX ON THE AMOUNTS - IN - QU E STION. IT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE FACTS OF EARNING OF INCOME - RATHER IT IS A CASE WHERE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF INCOME WAS IN DISPUTE. AO AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT TH E YEAR IN WHICH SAME SHOULD BE TAXED. IN OUR OPINION, IN SUCH MATTERS PENALTY J/S. 271 (1)(C) CANNOT B E LEVIED. HON.MUMBAI ITAT 'H' BENCH IN THE CASE OF HARSHA H JAVERI REPORTED IN 463/MUM/2010 HAS HELD AS UNDER: - ....5.1. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BOGUS OR ABSOLUTELY WRONG. THE FACT OF EX PENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE IN COMPARING TO THE TRADING ACTIVITY. 5.2......WHEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND BOGUS OR ABSOLUTELY WRONG OR ILLEGAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISCLOSED ALL THE RELEVANT PRIMARY FACTS, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE OF THX SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME LEADING TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S,271(1)(C). 6...... . 6.1. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE , WHETHER THE EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE OR NOT. ITA NO. 6/MUM/2014 SHRI ARUN DAMJI GADA 5 THOUGH, ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS A RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) BUT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE FACT DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE NEITHER FOUND BO GUS NOR FALSE, THEN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE PARAMETERS OF BONAFIDE..... 7. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.AR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED THE SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN RE SPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SP ECIFICALLY RECORDED THE INITIA TION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEW, WHICH ITSELF SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS RECORDED ITS SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY FOR ALL THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS. IT IS NOT REQUIRED ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION FOR EACH AND E VERY DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION SEPARA TELY ONCE THE SATISFACTION IS RECORDED AF THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT 01 'DER. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEREAS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU R T IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA IS APPLIC ABLE, AND ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCES IN QUESTION. . 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE PRIMARY FACTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE EX PENDITURE IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THEN MER E DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WOULD NOT LEAD TO ATTRAC T PENALTY PROVISIONS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE PENALTY LEVIED IN THIS CASE.' SINCE THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HO N. MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (I)LTD., REPORTED IN 4509/MUM/2012 AND HARSHA H. JAVERI REPORTED IN ITA NO.463/MUM/2010 QUOTED SUPRA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS.60,76,516/ - LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO FOR IMPOSING PENALTY AND CONTENDED THAT PROVISION OF EXPENDITURE MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS AND THE SAME WAS NOT CRYSTALLISED, TH EREFORE, AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT AO INITIATED PENALTY ON THE ADDITION ON THE LIMB OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SEE PARA # ITA NO. 6/MUM/2014 SHRI ARUN DAMJI GADA 6 C.I7 ON PG : 21 OF IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT IN IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER PENALTY WAS FINALLY LEVIED ON BOTH THE LIMBS OF 'CONCEALMENT' AND 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' AS PER PARA # 5 OF IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER AND THEN IN PARA # 9 OF IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER , THE AO AGAIN LEVIES PENALTY ON CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME AS PER EXPL - 1 OF SEC. 271(L)(C). NOTICE U/S 274 DT : 29 - 12 - 09 WAS ISSUED WIHTOUT STRIKING OFF RELEVANT LIMBS. 7. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY LEARNED AR ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATH 359 ITR 565, SAMSON PERINCHE RRY ( CONFIRMED BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT - ITA NO. 1154 OF 2007 DT: 5 - 1 - 17 ) & ASHOK PAI (SC - 292 ITR 11). IN DCIT VS NEPA LTD ( INDORE TRIBUNAL ITA 683/IND/2013 DT : 13 - 10 - 14 ) IT WAS HELD THAT EXPL - 1 IT RELATES TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND NOT FOR FURNISHES I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8. WITH REGARD TO THE MERIT OF THE PENALTY SO DELETED BY CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT REJECTED NOR ANY DEFECT IN THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WAS FOUND BY THE AO. THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE BALANCE - SHEET FIGURES DRAWN FROM THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS NOT CHALLENGED THEM. THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE BOOK RESULTS. ASSESSEE FOLLOWED PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THIS BEING ESTIMATION WORK, PENALTY WAS CLAIMED NOT TO BE LEVIED RELYING ON RE LIANCE PETRO CASE ( 230 CTR 320 - SC ) & OTIS ELEVATORS CASE ( MUMBAI ITAT IN ITA 4509/MUM/20L2) & HARSHA JHAVERI (MUMBAI ITA NO. 463/MUM/20IO). ESTIMATIONS CAN CONSTANTLY CHANGE AT VARIOUS LEVELS AND HENCE IN ITA NO. 6/MUM/2014 SHRI ARUN DAMJI GADA 7 ESTIMATION CASES NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. FUR THER AS PER BOMBAY HIGH COURT CASE OF UPENDRA MITHANI (ITA 1860 OF 2009 DT: 5 - 8 - 09), WHERE THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE ADDITION AMOUNT DOES NOT REPRESENT CONCEALED INCOME IS EQUAL TO THE HYPOTHESIS THAT IT REPRESENTS CONCEALED INCOME, AND IF THE ASSESSED GIVES AN EXPLANATION THAT IS UNPROVED BUT NOT DISAPPROVED , PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE GAVE HIS VERSION WHY HIS CONSTRUCTION INCOME OUGHT NOT TO BE TAXABLE AND NONE OF HIS FIGURES OR FACTS LIKE COURT LITIGATION WERE PROVED WRONG OR DISPPROVED , BUT THAT THE AO DISAGREED ON TIMING ISSUES OR IT WAS THE AO'S VERSION TO TAX IT, THE SAID FACTS FALL IN THE UPENDRA MITHANI JUDGEMENT AND HENCE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISION OF EXPENDITURE SO MADE WHICH WAS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THIS IS A CASE OF ESTIMATION ASSESSEE DID NOT RECOGNISE INCOME DUE TO COURT LITIGATIONS/DEMOLITION ORDERS AND NON C OMPLETION OF PROJECTS. BUT AO RECOGNISE D TAXABLE INCOME IGNORING COURT CASES OR DEMOLITION ORDERS. I N THE ALTERNATIVE THE AO REFUSED TO RECOGNISE THE PROVISION OF EXPENDITURE OF 3.80 CRS AND PROFITS/LOSSES OF GAURAV GAGAN (DEMOLITION BLDG). THE CIT(A) RECO GNISE D THE PROVISIONING OF EXPENDITURE , BUT NOT AT RS. 3.80 CRS AS CLAIMED , BUT ALLOWS RS. 2.39 CRS. THE CIT(A) ALSO RECOGNISED INCOME (INCOME TERM INCLUDES LOSSES) OF GAURAV GAGAN, PEGGING THE LOSS AT RS. 2.75 CRS. HENCE ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 6.96 C RS IS REDUCED BY RS. 5.15 CRS AND NET ADDITION REMAINS AT RS. 1.81 CRS., ITA NO. 6/MUM/2014 SHRI ARUN DAMJI GADA 8 WHICH WAS FURTHER SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19/01/2018, WHEREIN TRIBUNAL HAVE ALLOWED 80% OF THESE EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED FINDING SO REC ORDED BY CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER FOR DELETING THE PENALTY. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 / 03 /201 8 SD/ - ( RAVISH SOOD ) SD/ - ( R.C.SHARMA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 19 / 03 /201 8 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//