THE DY CIT CIR 15(1), MUMBAI V. MR. JITENDRA S. MOTANI, MUMBAI

ITA 6178/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 617819914 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUSUM INGLE
• Assessee Lawyers: K SHIVARAMAJAY R SINGH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Gross profit estimation
• Section: 80HHC; 133A; 133(6); 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6178 OF 2007 JITENDRA S MOTANI MUMBAI PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'J' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6178/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JITENDRA S. MOTANI 15(1), ROOM NO.104, MATRU SHOP NO.5, 51 BADA MANDI R MANDIR, 1 ST FLOOR, TARDEO ROAD OPP:2 ND PANJRPOLE LANE GRANT ROAD MUMBAI 400007 VS MUMBAI 400 004 PAN: AADPM 3770 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SMT. KUSUM INGLE (CIT-DR) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.SHIVARAM/AJAY R.SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 23/11/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/11/2011 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) XV MUMBAI DATED 20/07/2007. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL I S WITH REFERENCE TO DELETION OF AN AMOUNT OF ` 7,48,42,424/- ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN PURCHASES DISALLOWED AS NON-GENUINE WHICH T HE CIT (A) ALLOWED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR RUNNI NG BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S NITIN IMPEX AND ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF STEEL UTENSILS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC. A SURVEY OPERATION U NDER SECTION 133A WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 19.12.2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS O F THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION UNIT EXAMINED THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD AN EXPORT SALE OF ` 11,29,94,093/- AND HAS PURCHASED TO THE TUNE OF ` 12,34,90,490/-. OUT OF THAT, THE ITA NO.6178 OF 2007 JITENDRA S MOTANI MUMBAI PAGE 2 OF 8 ASSESSING OFFICER IDENTIFIED 35 PARTIES TOTALING TO ` 7,48,42,474/- FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO HAVE PURCHASED VARI OUS ITEMS DURING THE YEAR BUT COULD NOT BE VERIFIED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AS THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) HAVE RETURN ED WITH THE REMARKS NOT KNOWN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURN ISH THE EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING THE PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE PA RTIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASES LISTED TO HAVE B EEN MADE FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES ARE NOT GENUINE AND THEY ARE TO B E CONSIDERED AS INFLATED PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME DECLARED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ALLOWED DEDUCTION US/ 80HHC ON THE GROSS TOTAL OF T HE INCOME SO WORKED OUT INCLUDING THE DISALLOWANCES OF PURCHASES . THE CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND ON REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE FURNISHED IN TERMS OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM PARTIES, DELE TED THE ABOVE. IN DELETING THE CIT (A) CONSIDERED THAT THE G.P AFTER DISALLOWANCE OF SUBSTANTIAL PURCHASES COMES TO 56.9% WHICH IS NOT P OSSIBLE IN THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE FUR NISHED QUANTITATIVE TALLY ON THE BASIS OF RECORD AND WITHO UT THOSE PURCHASES THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EXPORTED THE GOODS AND FURTHER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SPEAK EV EN A WHISPER ON EXPORT OF GOODS AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FOR M OF CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. HE CONSIDERED VARIOU S CASE LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION. HIS ORDER RUNS FROM PARA 3.6 IN PAGES 8 TO PAGE 20. THE FINAL CONCLUSIO N IS AS UNDER: IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THERE IS SCANTLY AND VERY FEEBLE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO HOLD THAT PURCHASES ARE BOGUS IN CASE OF 34 PARTIES. ONLY IN ONE CASE PURCHASE REMAI NED UNVERIFIABLE. IN THAT CASE ALSO, IT CAN ALSO NOT BE HELD THAT PURCHASE WAS NOT MADE AT ALL. AO HAS PROCEEDED ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT PARTIES WERE NOT PRODUCED. A O HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SIMPLY ADDING THE ENTIRE PURCHASES DEFIES ALL ACCOUNTING ITA NO.6178 OF 2007 JITENDRA S MOTANI MUMBAI PAGE 3 OF 8 PRINCIPLES. IT APPEARS TO BE FINAGLES FLY BY AO. AO HAS NOT AT ALL QUESTIONED THE RATE OF PURCHASE IN COMPA RISON TO MARKET RATE. THEREFORE, AO'S FINDING IS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REFERRING T O VARIOUS FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT TH E CIT (A) CONSIDERED EXTRANEOUS FACTORS IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE GENUINE P URCHASES AND HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. LA MEDICA 250 ITR 575. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT SUPPORTED THE PURCHASES, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE UPHELD. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAS EXPORTED THE GOODS AND FURNISHED VARIOUS CONFIRMATI ONS IN THE FORM OF INVOICES, PAYMENT OF THROUGH BANK DETAILS (FROM PAGE 1 TO 309 OF THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT (A)) IN THE FORM OF EVIDENCE WHICH WAS SENT ON REMAND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THE CIT (A) ORDER IS AFTER VERIFICATION OF FACTS, WHICH SHOULD BE UPHELD. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HILUX AUTOMOTIVE (P) LTD 23 DTR DEL 385 WHE REIN THE ABOVE DECISION RELIED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS DISTINGUISHED TO HOLD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FURNIS HES SUFFICIENT MATERIAL NAMELY, BANK ACCOUNT OF SUCH PARTIES TO SH OW PAYMENT, THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SAID PARTIES WERE GENUINE SUPPLIERS AND THAT THEY RECEIV ED PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES IS PLAUSIBLE AND BASED ON EVI DENCE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS IN LATER YEARS DID NOT DISALLOW PURCHASES B UT ONLY ESTIMATED AT GP AT 4.5% ON THE ENTIRE TURNOVER, WHEREAS THE C IT RESTRICTED THE GP ESTIMATION TO 3% OF THE TAINTED PURCHASES IN OTH ER YEARS, THE ORDERS OF WHICH WERE UPHELD BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO.5 927/MUM/ ITA NO.6178 OF 2007 JITENDRA S MOTANI MUMBAI PAGE 4 OF 8 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ITA NO.3024 TO 3028/MUM/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 20 03-04 AND 2005-06. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN ALL THE YEAR S FROM 2000-01 TO 2006-07 EXCEPT THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR PURCHASES WE RE NOT DISALLOWED. THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) RE QUIRE TO BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND EXAMINED THE FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DI SALLOWED THE ENTIRE PURCHASES FROM 35 PARTIES FOR THE REASON THAT THEY ARE NOT VERIFIABLE HOLDING THEM AS NON-GENUINE PARTIES IN THIS ASSESSM ENT YEAR, WHEREAS PURCHASES FROM SIMILAR PARTIES/SAME PARTIES IN EARLIER YEARS AND LATER YEAR WERE NOT DISALLOWED BUT, GP W AS ASSESSED ON THE ENTIRE TURNOVER AT 4.5%. THE CIT (A) WHILE DELE TING THE ENTIRE PURCHASES DISALLOWED THIS YEAR. IN OTHER YEARS GP W AS RESTRICTED TO 3% OF THE TAINTED PURCHASES. THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDE RED BY THE ITAT IN A BATCH OF APPEALS IN ITA NOS.3024 TO 3028/MUM/2 008 VIDE PARA 7 AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE FA CTS OF THE CASE, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND RELEVANT RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE G.P.@ 4.5% ON THE ENT IRE SALES TURNOVER INCLUDING THE ALLEGED BOGUS SALES AN D CONSEQUENTLY, MADE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS, OVER AND ABOVE THE NET PROFIT SHOWN, IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SUCH ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF GP RATE APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE SALES IS NOT LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY TENABLE. THE ELEMENT OF INFLATION IN PURC HASES CAN BE POSSIBLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCH ASES. THE ESTIMATION AND APPLICATION OF UNIFORM G.P @ 4.5 % ON THE ENTIRE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REASONABLE AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E, AS THE ENTIRE PURCHASES AND ENTIRE SALES WERE NOT NON- GENUINE. THE SAID G.P RATE MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE, I N RESPECT OF EXPORT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS TREATED THE PURCHASES FROM THE ALLEGED 16 PARTIES A S BOGUS PURCHASES. NO ADVERSE FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF REMAINING PURCH ASES. THEREFORE, UNIFORM ESTIMATION AND APPLICATION OF GP @ ITA NO.6178 OF 2007 JITENDRA S MOTANI MUMBAI PAGE 5 OF 8 4.5% IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE GP RATE APPLIED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AT 3% IN RESPECT OF TAINTED PURCHAS ES IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT IN VOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE UPHELD AND THE APPEALS O F THE REVENUE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED . 6. IN VIEW OF THIS, DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES BY THE A O IS NOT CORRECT AND TO THAT EXTENT THE CIT (A) ORDER IS TO BE UPHELD. NOT ONLY THAT THE DETAILS OF THE VERIFICATION OF PAN OF SOME CASES HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD WHICH DO INDICATE THAT THE PAN IS MATCHING IN MANY OF THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH ERE MAY BE CERTAIN NAME DIFFERENCES DUE TO REASON THAT THOSE A SSESSEES MAY BE OPERATING UNDER A DIFFERENT PROPRIETORSHIP NAME WHE RE AS PAN MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN INDIVIDUAL NAME, LIKE THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND ST YLE OF NITIN IMPEX AND BILLS ARE BEING ISSUED IN THIS NAME, WHER EAS THE PAN IS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN NAME. SO IF THERE IS VERIFICA TION, ONLY THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD COME ON RECORD AND NOT M /S NITIN IMPEX. THIS SORT OF DIFFERENCES IN NAME CANNOT BE A REASON FOR HOLDING THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT GENUINE. ONLY WHEN A NON EXISTING PAN IS REPORTED, THEN ONLY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE C OMPLETE VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED. THERE ARE VERY FEW ENTRIE S OF SUCH NATURE IN THE LIST. THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES IN IT S ENTIRETY IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THOSE PARTI ES ARE NONEXISTENT AND BOGUS. NO SUCH ENQUIRY WAS DONE TO ESTABLISH. 7. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSE LF HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT 4.5% OF THE GP IN ALL THE Y EARS AY 2000-01 TO AY 2006-07 EXCEPT IN THIS YEAR. THE ESTIMATION O F GP WAS ULTIMATELY CONFIRMED AT 3% ON THE TAINTED PURCHASES . TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ORDERS IN OTHER YEARS, IN THIS YEAR GP ESTIMATION AT 3% ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TAINTED PURCHASES WOULD JUSTIFY THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.6178 OF 2007 JITENDRA S MOTANI MUMBAI PAGE 6 OF 8 8. IN THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENTS THE LEARNED COUNSEL HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMAT IONS TO A LARGE EXTENT AND PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,02,51,203/- SHOULD BE EXCLUDED IN CASE ESTIMATION WAS RESORTED TO. WE FIN D THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES AN ENT ERPRISE M/S NISHA ENTERPRISE IN WHOSE CASE THE CIT VIDE PAGE 1 0 OF THE ORDER GAVE A FINDING THAT THE PURCHASES CANNOT BE ACCEPTE D AS GENUINE. EVEN THOUGH, PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE NISHA ENTERPR ISES WAS CONSIDERED AS NON GENUINE, THE CIT (A) HOWEVER DELE TED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFO RE, CONSIDERING THESE FACT OF PURCHASES FROM M/S NISHA ENTERPRISES TO THE TUNE OF ` .7,07,975/-, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ESTIMATION OF 3% GP ON THE TOTAL PURCHASES SO DISALLOWED AT ` .7,48,42,474/- WOULD JUSTIFY ON THE GIVEN FACTS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDERS I N OTHER YEARS. 9. THE ASSESSEE RAISED A GROUND AS PER RULE 27 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES IN RESPECT OF SET OFF OF ADDITIONS S USTAINED UNDER SECTION 69 AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE ON THE REASON THAT IF THE ABOVE CONTENTION IS NOT RAISED THERE WOULD BE DOUBLE ADDI TION. THE GROUND RAISED UNDER RULE 27 IS AS UNDER: 1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SET-OFF OF ` .16,76,200/- (PEAK CASH CREDIT) MAY BE ALLOWED AGAINST GROSS PRO FIT ADDITION (IF ANY) TO AVOID DOUBLE ADDITION. 10. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SET OFF OF PEAK CASH DEFICIT A ND SUPPRESSED THE CASH BALANCE AGAINST THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES VIDE GROUND NO.4 (S.NO.11) BEFORE T HE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE GROUND STATING AS UNDER:- 6.1 ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING DOUBLE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND THEN PEAK OF CASH DEFICIT AND AGAIN ON SUPPRESSED CASH BALANCE WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. I HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ARGUMENT. I FIND THAT SINCE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES HA VE NOT BEEN SUSTAINED, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. HENCE IT IS DISMISSED . ITA NO.6178 OF 2007 JITENDRA S MOTANI MUMBAI PAGE 7 OF 8 11. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT I N CASE THE GP ADDITION IS CONSIDERED AS IN OTHER YEARS IN THE REVENUE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CAN CONTEST THE DOUBLE ADDITION MADE O N THE AMOUNT OF PEAK CASH DEFICIT SUSTAINED BY THE CIT (A) ON WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL. IT WAS HIS CONTENTION THAT IF ANY ADDITION IS MADE ON GP BASIS TO THE RETURNED INCOME , THE PEAK CASH DEFICIT TAXED AT ` .16,76,200/- SHOULD BE GIVEN SET OFF. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT THE DATES OF PEAK CASH DEFICIT AND THE GP ON THE BOGUS PURCHASES VARY AND SET OFF CAN NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF CO-RELATIO N BETWEEN THE GP INCOME AND INCOME BROUGHT TO TAX AS PEAK CASH DEFIC IT. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. AS PER RULE 27 OF THE ITAT RULES THE RESPONDENT THOUGH MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED M AY SUPPORT THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON ANY GROUND DECIDED AG AINST HIM. SINCE THE GROUND OF DOUBLE ADDITION WAS DISMISSED B Y THE CIT (A) ON THE REASON THAT THE ADDITION OF BOGUS PURCHASES WAS DELETED, THE ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST THAT GROUND UNDER R ULE 27. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION ON RULE 27 IS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE DETAILS OF PEAK CASH DEFICIT AND THE DATES ON W HICH THE SAME WERE WORKED OUT AND ALSO THE GP PROFITS WHICH MIGHT BE EARNED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CORRELATED BE FORE US. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO DIRECT THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE TELESCOPING BENEFIT OF THIS AMOUNT WHICH WAS T AXED AS PEAK CASH DEFICIT TO THE GP ADDITION BEING MADE IN THE R EVENUE APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS FREE TO FURNISH THE REVISE D WORKING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CLAIM ANY SET OFF, IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE EARNINGS OF GP TO THE CASH AVAILABILITY WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SAME BEFORE CONSIDERING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. 13. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE APPEAL IS CONSIDERED PA RTLY ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BRING TO TAX 3% OF THE ITA NO.6178 OF 2007 JITENDRA S MOTANI MUMBAI PAGE 8 OF 8 GP ON THE TAINTED PURCHASES, AS WAS DONE IN EARLIER YEARS AND LATER YEAR AS UPHELD BY THE ITAT. THE GROUNDS ARE DETERMI NED ACCORDINGLY. 14. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VNODAN/SPS MUMBAI, DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //BY ORDER// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI