ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI V. ANSHUL SPECIALITY MOLECULES LTD ( FORMERLY KNWON AS ANSHUL CHEMICALS LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 6369/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3768 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOMANATH S UKKALI
• Keywords: Deemed dividend
• Section: 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . . , !' , # , $ BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .T.A. NO.6369/MUM/2012 ( # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENT. CIR. 38 R.NO.32(1), GROUND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. M/S. ANSHUL SPECIALITY MOLECULES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ANSHUL CHEMICALS LTD.) 13, ARADHANA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPERS CORPORATION, NEAR VIRWANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI - 400063 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA4003N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI KIRIT KAMDAR DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SOMANATH S. UKKALI / DATE OF HEARING: 13.01.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.05.2016 ! / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2012 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-41, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTED THE ADDITION U/S.2(22)(E) TO THE EXTENT OF INCREMENTAL ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS.29,99,807/- AN D DELETED THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS76,05,745/- WHEN EXPLANATION TO SEC.2(22)(E), THE ACCUMULATED PROF IT INCLUDES ALL PROFITS OF THE COMPANY UP TO THE DATE OF GRANT OF SUCH LOANS WAS RS.1,06,05,543/-. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF INCREMENTAL ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS.29,99,807/-, WHEN PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) WERE SQUARELY ATTRACTED TO THIS CASE. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT ADVANCE LICENSE BENEFITS, DEPB BENEFITS, DFRC BENEFITS AND REVERSAL OF ADVANCE LICENSE APPLICATION ARE NOT TAXABLE ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND TAXABLE ONLY IN THE YE AR IN WHICH THESE ARE ACTUALLY UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSE E> 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY RECEIVED LOAN FROM GROUP CONCERN M/S. UTKARSH CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. (LENDER COMPANY) DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO NOTICE D THAT SHRI ASHWIN C. SHROFF WHO IS HAVING SHAREHOLDING OF 27.88% IN T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IS ALSO HOLDING 84.67% SHARES IN THE LENDE R COMPANY. THE LENDER COMPANY HAS ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS.1,05,41 ,153/- AS ON 31.03.2004. HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) (E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS SQUARELY AT TRACTED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 29.03.2011. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOM E IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S .143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 3 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS O F THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISION U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WAS ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THEREFORE HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,06,05,543/- I S THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED AS TAXABLE INCOME. ASSESSING OFF ICER ALSO HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.29,99,807/- RECEIVED AS ADVANCED TA X BENEFITS IS TAXABLE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL B EFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE ON THE ABOVE SAID POINT THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL B EFORE US. ISSUE NO. 1 & 2:- 4. ISSUE NO. 1 AND 2 ARE INTERCONNECTED THEREFORE A RE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE HAS ARGUED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DULY COVERE D U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A) IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FACTS AND ACCUMULATED PROFIT IS LIABLE TO B E TAXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTIONS. BEFORE DISCUSSING FU RTHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ISSUE:- 1.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT, ORDER OF THE AO AND FACTS OF THE CASE CAREFULLY, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOAN FROM M/S. UTKARSH CHEMIC ALS PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.9,11,00,000/-. THE LENDE R COMPANY HAS ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS.1,06,05,543/-. SHRI ASHWIN SHROFF HOLD MORE THAN 10% EQUITY SHARES, THE REFORE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ARE FULFILLED AN D THE CASE ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 4 OF THE APPELLANT WAS REOPENED U/S.148. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS, THE AO HAS ASKED THE ASSESSE E TO EXPLAIN WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) MAY NOT BE ATTRACTED. IN RESPONSE TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED ITS REPLY. AFTER CONSI DERING THE SAME, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,05,543/- U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE A .R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A LOAN OF RS.1,35,80,000/- FROM M/S. UTKARSH CHEMICALS PVT. L TD. AND THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT AS ON 31.03.2006 WAS AT RS.1,06,05,543/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED TH E AMOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED (TO THE EXTENT OF INCREMENTAL ACCU MULATED PROFITS) I.E. RS.29,99,807/- WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E). THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO AGR EED TO PAY TAX ON ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS.29,99,807/-. FURTH ER THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 WAS RS.66,24,724/-. THE ENT IRE ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS.66,24,724 WAS TAXED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143 (3) R.W.S.147. FURTHER THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 WAS RS.76,05,745/- WAS ALSO OFFERED TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FURTHER THE ACCUMULAT ED PROFIT FOR THE A.Y.2006-07 IS RS.1,06,05,543/-. ACCORDINGLY, ONLY THE INCREMENTAL ACCUMULATED PROFI T OF RS.29,99,807/- (RS.1,06,05,543/- - RS.76,05,745/-) IS TO BE ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 5 TAXED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). 1.4 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT AND ORDER OF THE AO, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS AGREED TO OFFER ACCUMULATED PROFIT AS INCOME U/ S. 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT BUT THE DISPUTE IS REGARDI NG THE QUANTUM OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT. IN THE A.Y.2005-06, THE AMOUNT OF RS.76,05,745/- WAS ADDED BACK U/S. 2(22)( E) OF THE I. T. ACT. NOW IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT IS ONLY RS.29,99,807/- (RS.1,06, 05,543/- - RS.76,05,745/-). IT WAS ARGUED THAT OTHERWISE IT WILL BE DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT WHICH WAS TAXED IN THE A.Y.2005-06. TO RESOLVE THIS DISPUTE THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G. NARASIMHAN HAS DECI DED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: ANY LEGAL FICTION WILL HAVE TO BE CARRIED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION. IT THE PAYMENT UNDER S. 2(22)( E) IS TREATED AS A DEEMED DIVIDEND AND IS REQUIRED TO BE SO TREATED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COMPANY POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS, THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT THIS PAYMENT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE COMPANYS ACCUMULATED PROFITS TO THE EXTENT THA T IT IS TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND WHILE CALCULATING ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF THE COMPANY. WHENEVER ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 6 ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF THE COMPANY ARE REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED, SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT WILL HAVE TO BE MADE. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITS VS. GORDHANDAS KHIMJI DECIDED AS UNDER:- FROM A CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND THE HIGH COURTS, IT FOLLOWS THAT LOANS AND ADVANCES WILL NOT BECOME DEEMED DIVIDENDS ONLY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT CHOOSES TO TREAT THE SAME AS SUCH AND BRINGS THE SAME TO TAX AS DIVIDEND. SECTION 2(6A)(E) IS NOT WORDED AS AN ENABLING SECTION BY WHICH THE DEPARTMENT CAN TREAT THE LOANS AND ADVANCES AS DEEMED DIVIDENDS. THE SECTION DOES NOT SAY THAT THE AMOUNT WILL BECOME DEEMED DIVIDEND ONLY IF IT HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS SUC H. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROVISION IS A CLAUSE IN THE INCLUSIVE DEFINITION, BY WHICH ADVANCES AND LOANS A RE CONSTITUTED AS DIVIDENDS. THE MOMENT AN ADVANCE OR LOAN SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS OF THE SECTION IS MA DE, IT WOULD BECOME A DIVIDEND AND IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT HAS ASSESSED THE SAME AS DIVIDEND OR NOT. IT IS NEITHER PRACTICABLE NOR PRO PER TO POSTPONE THE WHOLE PROCESS OF ASCERTAINING THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS TILL THE DEPARTMENT CHOOSES TO TREAT A PARTICULAR ADVANCE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. IF THE ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 7 CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTED, THEN IF T HE ITO IGNORES THE ADVANCES IN EARLIER YEARS AND THEN GOES DOWN ON THE ASSESSEE IN AN ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH HE HAS DRAWN SUBSTANTIAL ADVANCES, IT WILL AMOUNT TO ALLOWING THE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ITS OMISSIONS TO ASSESS THE EARLIER LOANS AND ADVANCES AS DEEMED DIVIDENDS AND TO ALLOW SUCH OMISSIONS TO BLOAT THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS, SO THAT THE WHOLE OF THE LARGE ADVANCES TAKEN IN THE LAST ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE CONVERTED INTO DEEMED DIVIDENDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADVANCES OR LOANS IN T HE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS HAD TO BE TREATED AS DIVID END WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OMITTED TO ASSESS AND AS SUCH THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS SHOULD BE REDUCED BY THE EARLIER LOANS OR ADVANCES IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AS DEEMED DIVIDENDS BY THE DEPARTMENT. 1.5. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DE CIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY HOLDI NG THAT THE INCREMENTAL ACCUMULATED PROFIT IS TO BE TA XED U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE I. T. ACT. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE COURTS, THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED T O RS.29,99,807/- AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.76,05 ,745/- IS DELETED. GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 8 4.1 AT THE TIME OF THE ARGUMENT THE LEARNED DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE NOWHERE ADDUCED ANY MATERIAL ON RECO RD CONTRARY TO THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). MOREOVER THE FINDIN G OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BASED UPON THE FINDING OF THE CASE OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. G. NARASIMHAN (1999) 236 ITR 0327. MOREOVER THE HONBLE INCOME T AX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO DECIDED THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON T HIS RELEVANT POINT IN CONNECTION WITH THE A.Y.2007-08. SO FAR AS THESE I SSUES ARE CONCERNED WE NOWHERE FOUND ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE MEN TIONED LAW. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS PASSED THE ORDER JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH DOES NOT REQU IRE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, THESE IS SUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. ISSUE NO. 3:- 5. ACCORDING TO ISSUE NO.3 IT IS LIABLE TO BE SEEN THAT THE LEARNED ACIT ERRED IN INCLUDING IN THE TOTAL INCOME, ADVANC E LICENCE BENEFIT RECEIVABLE AMOUNTING TO RS.20,91,788/-. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPEL LATE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.11.2010 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y.2006-07. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DECISION PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE DECIDED ON 23.11.2010 OF A.Y.20 06-07. THE FINDING OF THE SAID JUDGEMENT IS HEREBY MENTIONED B ELOW:- 2. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DED UCTION OF RS.20,91,788/-, BEING THE NET BENEFIT UNDER THE HEA D ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 9 ADVANCE LICENSE BENEFIT RECEIVABLE AND DEDUCTED S UCH BENEFIT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF REDUCTIO N FROM RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED. HOWEVER, IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME THE DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE O F JAMSHRI RANJITSINGHJI SPINNING MILLS LTD. VS. IAC 4 1 ITD 142. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HOWEVER OF THE OPIN ION THAT ADVANCE LICENSE BENEFIT RECEIVABLE SHOULD BE T REATED AS INCOME DESPITE THE FACT THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRE CEDING YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94, 1996-97 TO 199 9-2000 AND 2001-02 TO 2004-05, CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE; THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. HOWEVER , ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) NO TICED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TH E ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1996-97 TO 1999-2000 AND THEREFOR E, ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LEAR NED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, PLACED BEFORE US COPIES OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OW N CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE AND ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 10 AGAINST THE REVENUE. LEARNED DR COULD NOT PLACE AN Y DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OR OF A HIGHER FO RUM WHEREIN A CONTRARY VIEW IS TAKEN ON THIS ISSUE. UN DER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOT PERSUADED TO TAKE A DIFFE RENT VIEW ON THE ISSUE. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FO LLOWED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEA L FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5.1 MOREOVER THIS ISSUE HAS DULY BEEN DECIDED BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED (358 ITR 295) NOTHING CONTRARY T O THIS LAW HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE IS DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6. IN RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY DI SMISSED ACCORDINGLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH MAY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER % & MUMBAI; ' DATED : 11 TH MAY, 2016 MP MP MP MP ITA NO.6369/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 11 ' ( )# !* +*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ( / CIT 5. )*+ $$,- , ,- , % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +./ 0 / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, ) $ //TRUE COPY// , / ' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % & / ITAT, MUMBAI