DCIT 24(2), MUMBAI V. SWASTIK PICTURES, MUMBAI

ITA 6522/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79496 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH L PATHADE
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA, HONBLE PRESIDENT AND P.M . JAGTAP, AM .. , .. , ./ I.T.A. NO.6522 /MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24(2), C-13, 6 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BKC BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051. / VS. M/S SWASTIK PICTURES, 42, IST FLOOR, MIRAGE RESIDENCY, NEAR MALAD FIRE STATION, JANKALYAN NAGAR, MALAD (W), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : ABHFS2671K ( ! / APPELLANT ) .. ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) A PPELLANT BY SHRI PRAKASH L PATHADE R E SPON DENT BY : SHRI SATISH R. MODY ' ( / DATE OF HEARING : 15-07-2014 ' ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-7-2014 [ / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : .. , THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 34, MUMBAI DTD. 6-8-2012 AND THE GROUNDS RAISED THE REIN READ AS UNDER:- (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.43, 46, 185/- MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT LOWER RATES IN RES PECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO 11 PARTIES BY THE ASSESSEE; (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,0 0,000/- MADE IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN CASH THROUGH SELF M ADE VOUCHERS AND FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENSES AS WELL AS ITS RELATION WITH BUSINESS; ITA 6522/M/12 2 (III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,0 0,000/- MADE TOWARDS FOOD AND REFRESHMENT EXPENSES, IGNORING THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THOSE EXPENSES WITH BILLS AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THEIR GENUINENESS. 2. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F PRODUCING TELEVISION SERIALS, ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAMMES, ADVERTISEMENT AN D OTHER PROGRAMMES OF DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 30-9-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,38,80,920/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OR HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT LOWER RATES FROM THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS:- SR NO. NAME & HEAD OF EXPENSES AMOUNT PAID (RS) TDS DEDUCTED (RS) RATE% REMARK FOR DEDUCTION AT LOWER RATE OR NO DEDUCTION 1 RAJESH SINGH UNDER ARTIST REMUNERATION 44000 941 2.15 ARTIST REMUNERATION PAYMENT. ITS NOT CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT. 2 GIRISH MARKKAL- EDITORS REMUNERATION 35000 721 2.06 ARTIST REMUNERATION PAYMENT. ITS NOT CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT. 3 AD LABS PVT. LTD. EQUIPMENT RENTALS 2094000 233385 5.63 TAS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AT THE RATE OF 11.33 APPLICABLE. THE AVERAGE RATE WORKS OUT TO 6.53% ON RS. 41,54,195/- 4 SANA KHAN - LOCATION HIRE 139000 NIL FLAT WAS RENTED FOR ARTIST SANA KHAN & DEPOSIT PAID RS. 1.39 LACS, BUT LATER ADJUSTED AGAINST RENTALS & HENCE TDS REMAINS TO BE DEDUCTED. 5 G A JAMES TECHNICIAN REM. 431475 8888 2.06 ARTIST REMUNERATION PAYMENT. ITS NOT CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT. 6 LAXMAN P. ROY TECHNICIAN REM. 128056 2677 2.06 ARTIST REMUNERATION PAYMENT. ITS NOT CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT. 7 MANISH KAWA TECHNICIAN REM. 140000 2804 2.06 ARTIST REMUNER ATION PAYMENT. ITS NOT CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT. 8 RICHARD SPENSOR TECHNICIAN REM. 117500 2420 2.09 ARTIST REMUNERATION PAYMENT. ITS NOT CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT. 9 ROYAJ BEIG TECHNICIAN REM. 504280 10380 2.06 ARTIST REMUNERATION PAYMENT. ITS NOT CONTRACTUAL PAYMENT. 10 MAHARASHTRA FILM STAGE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 512874 NIL NO TDS 11 NILESH MAYEKAR 200000 NIL NO TDS TOTAL 4346185 ITA 6522/M/12 3 3. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE EXPENDITURE AGGREGATI NG TO RS. 43,46,185/- WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 AS A RESULT OF DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMP LYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. WHEN THIS P OSITION WAS CONFRONTED BY THE A.O. TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LATER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE CASES OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BECAUSE SUCH INSTANCES WOULD NOT BE S IMILAR TO THE CASE OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. AS REGARDS THE THREE PA YMENTS FROM WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED ITS EX PLANATION IN SUPPORT OF THE STAND THAT NO TAX AT SOURCE WAS LIABLE TO BE DEDUCT ED CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS PAID. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE A.O. AND KEEP ING IN VIEW THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLYING WITH THE REQ UIREMENT OF TDS, HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 43,64,185/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 4. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF SHORT DED UCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONCLUSION, HE, INTER ALIA, RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. CHANDOBHOY & JASSOBHOY REPORTED IN 49 SOT 448 (MUMBAI). AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THREE PAYMENTS F ROM WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ONE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,39,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SANA KHAN, ARTIST FOR HIRING THE FLAT. HE HOWEVER DELETED THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF RS. 5 ,12,874/- AND RS. 2 LACS MADE TO MAHARASHTRA FILM STAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT ION (MFSDC) AND SHRI ITA 6522/M/12 4 NILESH MAYEKAR RESPECTIVELY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASO NS GIVEN IN PARA NO. 2.4.2 AND 2.5.2 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- PARA 2.4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPEL LANT. THE APPELLANT IS INTO THE PRODUCTION OF TELEVISION SERI AL, ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAMMES AND ADVERTISEMENT. THE PAYMENTS MADE ABO VE WERE TOWARDS LOCATION HIRE CHARGES TO M/S, MFSDC. AS POI NTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION THAT THE HIRING OF THE LOCATION WAS AT DIFFERENT DATES AND DIFFERENT POINT OF TIME AND THE SAME IS NOT ON A REGULAR BASIS. AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED, THE LOCA TION IS BEING HIRED WITH M/S. MFSDC AND THERE IS NO CONTRACT IN WRITING FOR AVAILING SUCH SERVICES. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-1, TDS N EEDS TO BE DEDUCTED WHEN THE RENT PAID EXCEEDS RS. 1,20,000/- IN A YEAR . IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S. MFSDC AND THE UTILIZATION OF THE PREMISES WAS ON A PIECE MILL BASIS WITHOUT ANY CONTRACT OR COMMITMENT. EACH TIME WHEN THE PREMISES IS HIRED, THE PAYMENT DOES NOT EXCEED RS.1,20,000/- AN D HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194-I HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND THE APPELLANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS ON THIS AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ADDITION MADE RS. 5,12,874/- IS HEREBY DELETED. PARA 2.5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT . THE ABOVE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY TO THE ABOVE INDIVIDUAL AND IT IS NOT PAID TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL FEES. THOUGH IT WA S DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD PRODUCTION EXPENSES, THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE T O DEDUCT TDS U/S.192 OF I.T. ACT BUT NOT U/S.194-I. PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40(A)(IA) APPLIES TO PAYMENT OF INTEREST OR COMMISSION OR BRO KERAGE, RENT, ROYALTY, FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE. HENCE IT IS NOT APPLIED TO PAYMENT OF SALARY. SINCE THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 192 IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDE R THIS SECTION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DELETED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(A) OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF T HE ACT FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.K. TEKRIWAL (2013) 260 CTR (CAL) 73 WHEREIN IT WA S HELD THAT THE EXPENSES ITA 6522/M/12 5 ARE NOT LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF TH E ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. 6. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,12,874/- MA DE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO MFSDC, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PAY MENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MFSDC FOR UTILIZATION OF THE PREMIS ES ON A PIECEMEAL BASIS WITHOUT ANY CONTRACT OR COMMITMENT AND NONE OF SUCH PAYMENTS SINGULARLY EXCEEDED RS. 1,20,000/- AS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A). ON THE BASIS OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION, THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO TAX AT SOURCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO MFSDC. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPUTE OR CONTROVERT THIS FACTUAL POSITION. WE TH EREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF RS. 5,1 2,874/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO MFSDC TOWARDS COMPENSATION FOR UTILIZATION OF LA TERS PREMISES. SIMILARLY, THE OTHER PAYMENT OF RS. 2 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E TO SHRI NILESH MAYEKAR WAS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE IN THE NATURE OF SALARY AND NOT PROFESSIONAL FEES AND ON THE BASIS OF THIS FINDING, HE HELD THAT NO TAX AT SOURCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SA ID PAYMENT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSE E TO SHRI NILESH MAYEKAR WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF SALARY BUT IN THE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND THIS BEING SO, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A )(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHIR NILESH MAYE KAR. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETIN G THE SUBSTANTIALLY THE ITA 6522/M/12 6 DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL. 7. APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 & 3, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S FROM THE VERIFICATION OF CASH BOOK AND EXPENSES FILES MAINTAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CASH AND ON SELF MAD E VOUCHERS. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT IT IS THE DIRE NECESSITY OF THE BUSINESS THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED ON THE SPOT CONSIDERING THE EMERGENCY AND NECESSITY OF ARTICLES, THINGS, MANPOWER ETC. WHILE SHOOTING IS GOING ON. IT WAS AL SO SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUBSTANTIAL FOOD AND REFRESHMENT EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED AS IT IS A PART OF THE MODALITY OF THE BUSINESS THAT SNACKS AND FOOD PACKETS ARE BEING PROVIDED WHILE SHOOT OR OTHE R FUNCTIONS OF THE FIRM ARE IN PROCESS. ALTHOUGH, THE A.O. DID NOT DISPUTE THIS STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INVOLVEMENT O F PERSONAL AND NON- VERIFIABLE ELEMENT IN THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. HE THEREFORE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3 LAC S OUT OF CASH EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS. 2 LACS OUT OF FOOD AND REFRESHMENT EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A ) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON BOTH THE ISSUES FOR THE FOLLOWI NG REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 3.3 AND 4.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- PARA 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPE LLANT AND THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT IS SUCH THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ALL THE PAYMENTS BY WAY OF CHEQUE. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT THESE WERE PAYMENTS MADE TO INDIVIDUAL WORKERS ON THE SET OF S HOOTING AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN BILLS FROM THE DAILY WAGE WO RKERS AND HENCE NECESSARILY APPELLANT HAD TO PREPARE SELF MADE VOUC HERS BUT GOT IT SIGNED WITH PAYEE ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEVER DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT OR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DAILY WAGE LABOURERS. BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT VERIFY ALL THE PAYMENTS , AN ADHOC ITA 6522/M/12 7 DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY HIM. SINCE THE PAYMENTS MA DE ARE GENUINE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE AN ADHOC DISALLOW ANCE AND HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOW ED. PARA 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPE LLANT AND THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. AS MENTION ED IN THE ABOVE PARA, THE NATURE OF BUSINESS IS SUCH THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS TO PROVIDE FOOD PACKETS TO THE ARTISTS, THE TEAM OF TECHNICIAN S AND THE CASUAL LABOURERS AT THE TIME OF SHOOTING AND OTHER FUNCTIO NS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD SPEC IFICALLY TO SHOW THAT THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL NATURE IS INVOLVED UNDER TH IS HEAD OF EXPENDITURE AND HENCE THE ADHOC ADDITION MADE IS HE REBY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY H ELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE EXPENSES IN CASH ON SELF MADE VOUCHERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF ITS BUSINESS AND THAT ALONE CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE ESPECIALLY WHEN NOT A SIN GLE INSTANCE WAS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. TO SHOW THE INVOLVEMENT OF ANY PERS ONAL ELEMENT AND/OR NON- VERIFIABLE ELEMENT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT EXPENS ES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3 LACS AND RS. 2 LACS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE AND PERSONAL ELEMENTS ALLEGEDLY INVOLV ED IN THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY, 2014. ' . / 0 30-7-2014 ' SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (P.M. JAGTAP ) /PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 0 DATED 30-7-2014 ITA 6522/M/12 8 .;../ RK , SR. PS ' #%& '& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. < () / THE CIT(A) 7, MUMBAI 4. < / CIT -3, MUMBAI 5. ? ';;A , ( A , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, #? '; //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI