DCIT CIR 13(3), MUMBAI V. ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

ITA 6592/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8937 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SASMITA MISRA
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income; Question of law

Judgement Text

ITA NO.6592 OF 2011 ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL MUMBAI PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6592/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) DCIT, CIRCLE 13(3), ROOM NO.430, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 VS. SHRI ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL, 402, VYAPAR BHAVAN, 368/70 NARSHI NATHA STREET, MASJID WEST, MUMBAI 400009 PAN: AAAPA 8648 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: MRS. SASMITA MISRA, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA DATE OF HEARING: 30/08/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12/09/2012 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. THIS IS A REVENUE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A)-24 MUMBAI, DATED 1/7/2011. 2. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN OFFERED BY ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GA IN OR AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. ASSESSEE HAS ONLY THREE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF SHARES DURING THE YEAR AND EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TUNE OF ` 4,77,69,526/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION 10(38). AO CONSIDERED THIS AS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND TREATE D THE ENTIRE GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON THAT ASSESSEE IS EARNING SALARY INCOME FROM M/S ENVISION INVESTMENT & FIN. PVT. LTD AND WAS HOLDING SHARES OF RELIANCE NA TURAL, RELIANCE COMMUNICATION AND RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD AND HAS SOLD 3,00,500 SHARES OF ONLY THESE THREE COMPANIES WHICH WAS PUCH ASED LONG BACK FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 65,66,704/-, SOLD THEM FOR ` 5,44,10,070/- ITA NO.6592 OF 2011 ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL MUMBAI PAGE 2 OF 7 THEREBY EARNING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE ALSO MAD E DETAILED SUBMISSINS BEFORE THE CIT (A). 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS THE CIT (A) ACCEP TED THE CONTENTIONS AND REBUTTED AOS ARGUMENTS IN TREATING THE INCOME AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HIS DETAILED ORDER IN PARA 3.2 IS AS UNDER: 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE TO BE DE CIDED IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE PROFITS ON THE SALE OF SHARES DURING THE YEAR IS TO BE ASSE SSED UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' OR WHETHER TH E SAME IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS' AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HOLCKS LARSEN, 160 ITR 67 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHETHER A TRANSACTIO N OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARE WERE TRADING TRANSACTION S OR WHETHER THEY WERE IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENTS IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT. IN THE CASE OF P.M. MOHD. MIRZA KHAN 73 ITR 735 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT T HE ANSWER WHETHER A TRANSACTION IS ADVENTURE IN THE NA TURE OF TRADE OR NOT MUST NECESSARILY DEPEND IN EACH CAS E ON THE TOTAL IMPRESSION AND THE EFFECT OF THE RELEVANT FACTORS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE INTENTION AT THE TIME O F PURCHASES IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR TO DECIDE WH ETHER THE PURCHASES WERE MADE AS A TRADER OR WHETHER THE SAME WERE MADE AS AN INVESTOR. THIS INTENTION HAS T O BE GATHERED FROM SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEALING WITH THESE SHARES. AN INVESTOR PURCHASES A SHARE WITH A VIEW TO EARNING INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND AND FOR APPRECIATION IN VALUE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND IS NOT MOTIVATED TO SELL SHARES ON EACH AND EVERY RISE IN THE VALUE OF SHARES WHICH ARE IN FACT THE ATTRIBUTES OF A TRADER. FOR DECIDING THE QUESTI ON WHETHER THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHARE IS CAPITAL GA IN OR BUSINESS INCOME, NO SINGLE THUMB RULE CAN BE APPLIE D AS HELD BY THE DIFFERENT HON'BLE COURTS AS WELL AS BY THE CBOT IN CIRCULAR NO. 4/2007. VARIOUS HON'BLE COURTS AND BENCHES OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAVE LAID DOWN PARAMETERS/CRITERIA FOR JUDGING WHETHER THE ACTIVIT Y OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF AN INVESTMENT ACT IVITY OR A TRADING ACTIVITY. THESE PARAMETERS INCLUDE INT ENTION OF THE APPELLANT, FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION, CONTINU ITY, VOLUME, HOLDING PERIOD, TREATMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, USE OF BORROWED/OWN FUNDS AND DEVOTION OF TIME TO THE ACTIVITY. HOWEVER, THE COURTS/TRIBUNALS HAVE ITA NO.6592 OF 2011 ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL MUMBAI PAGE 3 OF 7 ALSO HELD THAT INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS WOULD NOT BE DECISIVE AND IT IS ONLY THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF AL L THESE CRITERIA WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO DECIDE WHETHER ASSES SEE WAS AN INVESTOR OR A TRADER. COMING TO THE PRESENT CASE, AS REGARDS THE INTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE OF THE SHA RES WHICH HAVE NOW BEEN SOLD AND WHICH ARE SUBJECT MATTERS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THESE SHARES AS INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 'THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEAL ING WITH THESE SHARES ALSO SHOWS THAT HIS INTENTION WAS TO HOLD THESE SHARES AS INVESTMENTS AND NOT AS TRADIN G ASSETS., A TRADER BUYS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESELLING AT A PROFIT. HE DOES NOT WAIT FOR CAPITAL APPRECIATION. HE INDULGES IN THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE SAME SHARE SEVERAL TIMES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING QUICK PROF IT AND IT IS NOT HIS INTENTION TO HOLD ON TO THE PURCHASE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME TO ENJOY THE APPRECIATION IN ITS VAL UE. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE DE TAILS AS ENUMERATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER THAT THE SHARES WERE BOUGHT AT LEAST 2 YEARS BEFORE THEIR SALES, THE SHARES WERE BOUGHT AT LOW R ATES AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD AT VERY HIGH RATES, THER EBY GIVING CAPITAL APPRECIATION TO THE ASSESSEE. INTACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADMITS IN PARA 4.9 ON PAG E NO. 11 OF THE ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES SHARES IN BULK STOCK AND WAITS FOR THEIR VALUE TO APPRECIATE AT AN OPPORTUNE TIME, THEREBY CAPITALIZING ON LONG TERM P RICE MOVEMENTS OF SHARES OF SELECT COMPANIES: I AGREE WI TH THE ASSESSEE THAT TO PURCHASE SHARES AND THEN WAIT FOR APPRECIATION IN VALUE IN THE LONG TERM IS THE CLASS IC EXAMPLE OF AN INVESTOR. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE SHARES WHICH IT HAS PURCHASED AND SO LD AND THE TREATMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOWS TH AT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE WAS TO DEAL WITH THE SAME AS AN INVESTO R IN THE SHARES AND NOT AS A TRADER IN THE SHARES. AS REGARDS THE FREQUENCY AND CONTINUITY OF TRANSACT IONS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONLY 3 SHARES OF COMPANIES WHICH IT HAD BEEN HOLDING FOR BETWEEN 701 TO 1000 DAYS. FROM THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTIO NS AS INCORPORATED ON PAGE 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALES WERE MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE ON ONLY 3 DAYS DURING THE YEAR I.E. ON 21/09/2007, 13/02/2008 AND 22/02/2008. NO TRANSACTIONS OF EITHER PURCHASE OR SALE OF SHARES O THER THAN THE ABOVE HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY ITA NO.6592 OF 2011 ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL MUMBAI PAGE 4 OF 7 ASSESSEE. TRANSACTIONS ONLY ON 3 DAYS OUT OF 365 DA YS IN A YEAR THAT TOO OF SALE OF SHARES HELD FOR MORE THAN 2 YEARS, ONLY PROVES THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT INDULGED I N THE PURCHASE AND SALES OF SHARES FREQUENTLY. IN FACT, H E HAS INDULGED IN THE ACTIVITY VERY RARELY, THAT TOO, TO SELL SHARES WHICH IT HAD BEEN HOLDING FOR A VERY LONG DURATION IN ORDER TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF CAPITAL APPRECIATION IN THOSE SHARES. SUCH INFREQUENT TRANSACTIONS AS ABOVE AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A T RADER IN SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ALSO ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO FREQUENCY IN SHARE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CAPITALIZING ON VOLUME AND NOT ON FREQUENCY OF SHAR ES. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. SALE OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF SH ARE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME DOES NOT MEAN LARGE VOLUMES OF TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. IF AN ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HOLDING A LARGE NUM BER OF SHARES, AND HE DECIDES TO SELL THEM AT ONE GO, I T DOES NOT MEAN LARGE VOLUMES. IT ONLY SHOWS THAT THE SHAR ES HELD HAVE BEEN SOLD OFF. THERE IS NO PURCHASE AND S ALE OF SHARES AT FREQUENT INTERVALS. VOLUME BY FREQUENT PURCHASE AND SALES IS NOT BEING CREATED. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T TAKEN ANY LOAN FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN THE SHARES . THE SHARES HAVE BEEN BOUGHT FROM THE FUNDS AVAILABL E WITH THE' ASSESSEE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE TAKING OF O R NOT TAKING OF LOANS IS NOT THE SOLE DETERMINING FACTOR FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER OR AN INVESTOR IN SHARES. HOWEVER, THIS IS A N IMPORTANT PARAMETER TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DECIDING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A PERSON IS AN INVESTOR OR TRADER. TOTALITY OF FACTS AND PARAMETER S, AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE COURTS AS WELL AS CBOT HAV E TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DECIDING THE QUES TION. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN LOAN TO BU Y SHARES IS AN IMPORTANT FACT IN HIS FAVOUR. AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED ONLY A VERY MINISCULE AMOUN T OF DIVIDEND FROM THE SHARES AND HENCE, THIS CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE INTENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME FROM SHARES, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD EARNED A DIVIDEND OF ` 62,57,654/- IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND A DIVIDEND OF ` 55,507/- ON SHARES AND RS.10,16,600/- ON MUTUAL FUNDS DURING THE YEAR. THIS WAS BECAUSE IN THE LAST ITA NO.6592 OF 2011 ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL MUMBAI PAGE 5 OF 7 MONTH OF F.Y 2006-07 MANY COMPANIES HAD DECLARED ANTICIPATED DIVIDEND IN VIEW OF THE FORTHCOMING DIV IDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX AND, HENCE, LOWER DIVIDEND DECLARA TION IN F.Y. 2007-08. I FIND THAT ALTHOUGH EXPECTATION O F DIVIDEND IS ASSOCIATED WITH AN INVESTOR, THE DECLAR ATION OF DIVIDEND IS IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY ON WHICH THE INVESTOR HAS NO CONTROL. THERE MAY BE OCCASIONS WHE N THE COMPANY DECLARES EITHER NO DIVIDEND FOR A YEAR OR DECLARES A VERY LOW RATE OF DIVIDEND. ONLY BECAUSE A DIVIDEND IS NOT EARNED ON THE SHARES HELD BY AN ASSESSEE WILL NOT DEPRIVE HIM FROM BEING AN INVESTO R IN THOSE SHARES WHEN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS SHOWS THAT HE IS IN FACT AN INVESTOR. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE H ERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED A DIVIDEND OF ` 60,24,536/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARES AND DIVIDEND OF ` 2,33,118/- ON ACCOUNT OF MUTUAL FUNDS IN THE A.Y. 2007-08, DURING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE SHARES WHICH IT HAS NOW SOLD OFF DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2008-09. FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 IN THE PAPER BOOK , IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED SHARE DIVI DEND OF ` 24,23,638/- DURING THE SAID YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE SHARES IN QUESTION DURING THAT YEAR TOO . IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED SUBST ANTIAL DIVIDEND DURING THE EARLIER PERIODS. AS REGARDS THE HOLDING PERIOD OF THE SHARES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SHARES HAVE BEEN HELD FOR A PERIOD RANGING BETWEEN 701 TO 1000 DAYS. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN TRADING IN THESE SHA RES, BUT WAS HOLDING ON TO IT AS AN INVESTMENT WITH THE INTENTION OF REAPING HIGH RETURNS BY WAY OF CAPITAL APPRECIATION. THESE SHARES WERE ALSO REFLECTED AS INVESTMENTS IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND ACCEPTED AS SU CH BY THE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS MAINTAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CARRYING OUT ITS SHARE TRANSACTIONS. HE MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH COMPANIES DEALING IN SHARES, BUT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT HE WAS USING THE INFRASTRUCTU RE OF THOSE COMPANIES/BUSINESS FOR CARRYING OUT HIS OWN SHARE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE WORKING OF THE STOCK MARKET AS HE WAS AN ACTIVE PART OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS TOTALLY DEDICATED TO SHARE TRADING. HOWEVER, THIS CANNOT DEBAR THE ASSESSEE FR OM BEING AN INVESTOR IF HIS CONDUCT AND THE SURROUNDING EVIDENCES SHOW THAT HE HAS, IN FACT, ACTED AS AN IN VESTOR AND NOT AS A TRADER. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE T HAT AN ITA NO.6592 OF 2011 ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL MUMBAI PAGE 6 OF 7 INVESTOR, TO BE A SUCCESSFUL INVESTOR, MUST HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MARKET HE IS DEALING/INVESTING IN. SKILLS AND EXPERTISE IN THE SHARE MARKET IS ALWAYS ADVISABLE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL IF HE WISHES TO INVEST IN THE SHARE MARKET. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO UTILIZE HI S SKILL AND EXPERTISE TO MAKE PROFITS IN THE SHARE MARKET F ROM HIS INVESTMENTS, AND SUCH PROFITS ARE EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF TAXES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, SUCH EXEMPTION IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE A ND, NOT DENIED, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS. AS REGARDS THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE A TRADER IN SHARES FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN INVESTOR IN SHARES. SIMILARLY, FOR THE A,Y. 2006-07 ALSO, THE LD. CIT(A ) IN HIS ORDER DT. 3/7/2009 HAS HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN INVESTOR IN SHARES. FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IN HIS PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THE A.Y. 200 7-08, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS. 4,99,76,638/-. IN THE SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, VIDE HIS ORD ER DT. 29/04/2009 HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE AN INVESTOR IN SHARES. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, AND AFTER EXAMINING THE VARIOUS PARAME TERS LAID DOWN BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AND CB DT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEALT WITH THE SHARE S AS AN INVESTOR AND NOT AS A TRADER. HENCE, THE SURPLUS EARNED ON THE SALE OF SHARES WAS TO BE ASSESSED UND ER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS A ND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION'. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 A LONG WITH ITS SUB GROUNDS 1.01, 1.04, LOS, 1.06, 1.07 AN D 1.08 IS ALLOWED. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN REVENUE APPEAL. AS CAN BE MADE OUT FROM THE DETAILED CIT (A)S ORDER, HE HAS EXAMINED THE I SSUE BOTH LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY AND SINCE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR IN THE ABOVE SAID THREE SHARES FOR A LONG PERIOD, THE GAINS ON THAT H AS TO BE CONSIDERED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A LARGE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS FOR PROFIT WHEN TH E FACTS INDICATE ITA NO.6592 OF 2011 ADITYA RAMSINGH AGARWAL MUMBAI PAGE 7 OF 7 THAT HE HAS INVESTED THEM FOR A LONG PERIOD. IN VIE W OF THE FACTS WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). WE REJECT THE GROU NDS OF THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI