M/S. S. RAMASWAMY, MUMBAI V. THE ACIT (OSD-II), MUMBAI

ITA 632/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2111 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K BALODIA
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 144; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN (JM) & PRAMOD KUMAR (AM) I.T.A.NO. 632/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96) I.T.A.NO. 633/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996-97) I.T.A.NO. 634/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98) I.T.A.NO. 635/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99) I.T.A.NO. 636/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01) I.T.A.NO. 637/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) S. RAMASWAMY TEEKAY SHOP 20 & 22 READYMONEY MANSION VEER NARIMAN ROAD MUMBAI-400 001. VS. ACIT (OSD-II) CENTRAL RANGE-7 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : ACYPS8259D ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. MOHAN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.K. BALODIA ORDER PER BENCH :- ALL THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SIX ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-VI, MUMBAI ALL DATED 7.11.2007 RELATING TO A.Y. 1995-9 6 TO 1998-99 AND 2000-01 & 2001-02. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S . EXCEL & COMPANY, MEMBER OF MADRAS STOCK EXCHANGE. THE ASSES SEE DERIVES INCOME FROM BROKERAGE, COMMISSION AND ON TRADING IN SECURITIES AND SHARES. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AN APPROVED SECURITIES BROKER. THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRIED OU T AT S. RAMASWAMY 2 BOMBAY. THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN MULTI CRORES HARSHA D MEHTA SECURITIES SCAM THAT WAS UNEARTHED SOMETIME IN TH E YEAR 1992 . THE CBI AND INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED S EARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE IS A NOTIFIED PERSON BY THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER SPECIAL COURT ( TORT) ACT, 1992. FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE FRAME D ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 1995-96 AND 2001-02 AND U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y.96-97 TO 199 8-99 AND 2000-01. AGAINST SUCH ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE FILE D APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.249(4) OF THE ACT, THERE ARE CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE AN AP PEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CAN BE ADMITTED FOR ADJU DICATION. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT READS AS FOLLOWS :- NO APPEAL UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE ADMITTED UNLESS A T THE TIME OF FILING OF THE APPEAL, ( A ) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX DUE ON THE INCOME RETURNED BY HIM; OR ( B ) WHERE NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX WHICH WAS PAYABLE BY HIM: PROVIDED THAT, IN A CASE FALLING UNDER CLAUSE ( B ) AND ON AN APPLICATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS BEHALF, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MAY, FOR ANY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO BE RECORDED IN WRITING, EXEMPT HIM FROM THE OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THAT CLAUSE. IN ALL THE A.Y. INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE CLAUSE (B) WILL ALONE A PPLY. IN CASES WHERE CLAUSE (B) APPLIES, THE ASSESSEE CAN MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTING HIM FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THAT CLAU SE AND IF THE CIT(A) FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS RECORDED IN WRITING EXEMPT THE ASSESSEE FROM OPERATION OF THE SAID CLAUSE. S. RAMASWAMY 3 3. AS FAR AS A.Y. 1995-96 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY APPLICATION BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) TO EXEMPT HIM FROM TH E OPERATION OF PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) TO SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PAY ADVANCE TAX, HE HELD THAT THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADMITTED. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR A.Y. 1995-96 WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE BY LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITA NO. 632/MUM/2002 AGAINST THE AFORE SAID ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4. AS FAR AS OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCERNED, TH E ASSESSEE MADE AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE OPERATION OF PRO VISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) TO SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO ADVANCE TAX PAYABLE FOR A.Y. 1996-97. THE A SSESSEE IN THIS REGARD POINTED OUT THAT HE WAS A NOTIFIED PERSON INVOLVED IN THE SECURITIES SCAM VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.6.1997. CONSEQUENTLY ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ATTACHED AND ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO DESE RTED THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED IN COME OF RS. 10,84,704.10 BY WAY OF BROKERAGE IN SHARE BUSINESS AT MAD RAS. APART FROM THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE HAD DIVIDEND AND INTEREST INCOME AND LEASE RENTAL INCOME ON LEASE TRANSACTION WITH TATA ELE CTRICAL COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THESE LEAS E RENTALS WERE ATTACHED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 13.7.1994. IN RESP ECT OF THE BUSINESS AT BOMBAY, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROFIT OF RS. 47,42,68 4.66; THUS, TOTAL PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 58,27,388.76. TH IS PROFIT INCLUDED LEASE INCOME OF RS. 44,55,705/- WHICH HAS ALREADY BE EN ATTACHED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FURTHER GAVE COMPUTATION O F TOTAL S. RAMASWAMY 4 INCOME FOR A.Y. 1996-97. ACCORDING TO THE SAID COMPUTATION, COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 13 OF THE ASSESSEE PAPER BOOK , THE NET TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT NIL. THE TA X DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WAS RS. 43,34,332/-. SIMILARLY FOR A.Y. 1997- 98, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN COMPUTATION OF NET TOTAL LOSS. THERE WAS TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OF RS. 42,84,332/-. FOR A.Y. 1998-9 9, NET TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT NIL. TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE S WAS STATED TO BE RS. 15,04,071/-. FOR A.Y. 2000-01, THERE WAS NET LOSS. FOR A.Y. 2001-02, THERE WAS TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 1,02,800/- AND AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT, T AX PAYABLE WAS NIL. THUS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER HIS ES TIMATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THERE WAS NO ADVANCE TAX PAYABLE; AND THER EFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF PAYING ANY AMOUNT OF TAX AS A CONDITION FOR ADMISSION OF ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTE NTION PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO LEARNE D CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN HUGE MULTI CRORES SCAM AND HAD HUGE INCOME FROM BROKERAGE, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND IN THIS REGARD, RELIED ON THE EX-PARTE AS SESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS . LEARNED CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE PAID THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE ADVANCE TAX PAYABLE ON TH E ASSESSED INCOME. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENOUGH RESO URCES TO PAY SUCH ADVANCE TAX. LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO EXPRESSED OPIN ION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE CUS TODIAN TO MAKE NECESSARY PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX OR COULD HAVE B ORROWED MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE. LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE REFUSED TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION TO EXEMPT THE ASSESSEE PROVISIONS OF CLAUS E (B) TO SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDE RS OF S. RAMASWAMY 5 LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITA NO. 633 TO 637/MUM/2008. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS FAR AS ITA NO. 632/MUM/2008 FOR A.Y. 1995-96 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY APPLICATION BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR EXEMPTION FRO M THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF 249(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE US AFFIRMING THAT ON 7.11.2007, THE APPE AL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING AND HE ATTENDED THE HEARING BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) TO EXP LAIN STATUS OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX FOR A.Y. 1995-96. THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SAME. HE HAD TO PROCEED TO CHEN NAI FOR PERFORMING HIS FATHERS SHRADH. ON COMING BACK FROM CHENN AI, THE ASSESSEE SEARCHED FOR THE OLD RECORDS AND SENT THE RE QUIRED INFORMATION TO LEARNED CIT(A) THROUGH COURIER. THE ASSESSE E HAS SENT COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME THROUGH COURIER ON 13.1 1.2007 ALONG WITH HIS COVERING LETTER DATED 12.11.2007. LEARNED C IT(A) HAD PASSED HIS ORDERS IN THE APPEAL ON 7.11.2007 ITSELF. TH US, LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1995-9 6 AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, TOTAL INCOME WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 3,98,340/-. TAX PAYABLE THEREON WAS RS. 1,34,336/-. THE ASS ESSEE HAD PAID AN ADVANCE TAX OF RS. 2,25,929/- AND HAD CLAIMED REFUND OF RS. 91,593/-. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POIN TING OUT TO THE ABOVE FACTS, SUBMITTED THAT NO TAX WAS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1995-96; AND THEREFORE ASSESSEES APPEAL OUGHT T O HAVE BEEN ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATED BY LEARNED CIT(A). LE ARNED DR, HOWEVER, POINTED OUT THAT THE CONTENTIONS AS PUT FOR TH BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFFIDAVIT REQUIRES VERIFICATION. IN PARTICULAR IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE ALLEGATION MADE BY THE ASSESSE E THAT HE S. RAMASWAMY 6 PRAYED FOR ADJOURNMENT BEFORE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THA T HE WANTED TO VISIT CHENNAI FOR PERFORMING SHRADH OF HIS FATHER BUT SUCH REQUEST WAS REFUSED BY CIT(A) IS FALSE AND IN ANY EVE NT NO BORNE OUT BY THE RECORDS. 7. WITH REGARD TO OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS, LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER T HE CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THERE BEING NO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PAY ANY ADVANCE TAX AS PER COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). APART FROM T HE ABOVE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO BROUGHT TO NOTICE THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHUPENDRA C DALAL VS. DCIT, ITA NO. 6873/MUM/2002FOR A.Y. 1996-97; WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF A PERSON NOTIFIED UNDER SPECIA L COURT (TORTS) ACT 1992, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THE CA SE OF M/S. FORTUNE HOLDING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 5037/MUM/2002 WA S PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT PAYING TAX DUE ON RETURNED INCOME. IN FACT, IT WAS THE CASE U/S. 249 (4)(A) OF THE ACT; WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GONE BY THE ASSESSED INCOME, WHEREAS, U/S. 249(4)(B) OF THE ACT, IF RETURN OF INCOME IS NOT FILED BY AN ASSESSEE, WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE TAX, WHICH WAS PAYABLE BY HIM. ABOVE EXPRESSION ADVANC E TAX PAYABLE ONLY MEANS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED ASSESSEES ESTIMATION OF INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 209(1)(A) OF THE ACT. IN THAT EVENT TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO TAX WAS PAYABLE WOULD BE CORRECT AND THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION TO APPLY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE S. RAMASWAMY 7 ACT. LEARNED DR REITERATED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS FAR A.Y. 1995 - 96 IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 249(4)(B) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE. WE THEREFORE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD WE ALSO DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR AY 95-96 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE CIT(A) AFTER THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE CIT (A). THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ALSO BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE EXEMPTED UNDER THE PROVISO TO SEC.249(4)(B) OF THE ACT, IF SUCH PROVISIONS ARE FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE. IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION WE HAVE TA KEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A NOTIFIED PERSON BY THE SPECIAL COURT UNDER SPECIAL COURT (TORT) ACT, 1992 AND CONSEQUE NTLY ALL HIS BANK ACCOUNTS CAME TO BE ATTACHED BY THE SPECIAL C OURT. SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT WOULD AFFO RD REASONABLE GROUND FOR EXAMINING PERSON FROM APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A) OF THE ACT AS HELD BY THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHUPENDRA C DALAL VS. DCIT, ITA NO. 6873/MUM/2002FOR A.Y. 1996-97. WE FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO AFFORD ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 9. AS FAR AS OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED ONLY E STIMATION OF ASSESSEES INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECT ION S. RAMASWAMY 8 209(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GUIDED BY TH E INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE COMPUTATION OF TOTA L INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PROBABLY NOT THOUGHT IT FIT NOT TO EXAMINE ADV ANCE TAX PAYABLE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY THE ASSES SEE BECAUSE HE WAS UNDER THE ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT ADVANCE TAX EQUAL TO THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE O RDER OF ASSESSMENT. IN OUR VIEW, THIS APPROACH OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED C IT(A) AND DIRECT THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(B) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICA BLE AS NO TAX IS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER TAKING INTO CONS IDERATION THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(B) OF THE ACT ARE FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE, TH E CIT(A) WILL CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION FROM T HE OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.249(4)(B) OF THE ACT, FOR ALL THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED B EFORE US COPY OF THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHRI B HUPENDRA C DALAL VS. DCIT, ITA NO. 6873/MUM/2002FOR A.Y. 1996-97; WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF A PERSON NOTIFIED U NDER SPECIAL COURT (TORTS) ACT 1992, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE OR DER IN THE CASE OF M/S. FORTUNE HOLDING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 5037/MUM/2002 WAS PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT PAYING TAX DUE ON RETURNED INCOME. LEARN ED CIT(A) WILL ALSO KEEP THIS DECISION IN MIND BEFORE DECIDING ON THE ISS UE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF THE PROVIS O TO SECTION 249(4)(B) OF THE ACT. THIS SITUATION WILL ARISE ONLY IF, LEARNED CI T(A) S. RAMASWAMY 9 FINDS THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(B) OF THE ACT WILL APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, ALL THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14 TH DAY OF MAY, 2010. SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14 TH MAY, 2010 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT, CONCERNED. 5. THE DR CONCERNED, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI PS