ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6701/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92432 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NARAYNA ATAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 10B; 147; 144; 10

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI , . . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6701/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 17 TH FLOOR, NIRMAL, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 / VS. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, 6 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( !'# $ /ASSESSEE) ( % / REVENUE) P.A. NO. AAACE2506L !'# $ / ASSESSEE BY NARAYNA ATAL % / REVENUE BY SMT. N. V. NADKARNI-DR & % ' $ ( / DATE OF HEARING 13/04/2015 ' $ ( / DATE OF ORDER: 24/04/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 23/08/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI, CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.6,67,394/- IMPOSED U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI NARYAN ATAL, CHALLENGED IMPOSITI ON AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY BY CONTENDING THAT NEITH ER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI, N.V. NADKARNI, DEFENDED THE IMPOS ITION AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACT S, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFAC TURE OF LIGHTING ARRESTORS AND VARISTORS. THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 28/12/2006 DETERMINING LOSS AT RS.88,21,642/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.1,10,55,202/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE BOOK LOSS DECLARED U /S 115JB OF THE ACT WAS RS.11,41,05,966/-, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE A CT ON THE PLEA THAT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE WA S TAXABLE PROFIT OF RS.86,81,543/- WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO ASSE SSED U/S 115JB INSTEAD OF LOSS OF RS.11,41,05,966/-, WRONGLY COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REASONS RECORDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE-2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS PER THE REVENUE, FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF FACT WAS NOT M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSES SEE TO THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, ORDER U/S 144 ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 3 R.W.S. 147 WAS PASSED ON 29/09/2011 ASSESSING THE I NCOME UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 115JB DETERMINING TH E BOOK PROFIT AT RS.86,81,543/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIL E ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMO UNTING TO RS.6,66,394/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFFIRMED THE PENALTY. THE RELEVANT P ORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFEREN CE AND ANALYSIS:- 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT, WHILE FILING T HE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2004, HAD DECLARED TOTAL LOSS OF RS .1,10,55,202/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE A CT AND BOOK LOSS AT RS.11,41,05,966/- U/S 115JB OF THE ACT . WHILE DECLARING THE BOOK LOSS U/S 115JB, THE APPELLANT CO MPUTED THE SAME IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- PROFIT/LOSS AS PER P& L ACCOUNT BEFORE TAXATION (2,38,92,096/-) LESS:- I. THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM RESERVES OR PROVISIONS, IF ANY SUCH AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO P & L ACCOUNT 8,84,42,251 II. THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TO WHICH ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10, 10A OR 10B OR 11 OR 12 APPLY 1,350 III. THE AMOUNT OF LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, WHICHEVER IS LESS AS PER BOOKS OF A/C 17,70,269 9,02,13,870 BOOK PROFIT /(LOSS) U/S 115JB 11,41,05,966 8. IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHERE-FROM THE ABOVE THRE E FIGURES, WHICH HAVE BEEN FURTHER REDUCED FROM THE NET PROFIT HAVE COME. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NO SUCH RECORDS H AVE BEEN ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 4 FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, FROM WHICH ABOVE FIGURE S CAN BE DECIPHERED. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT' S P&L ACCOUNT AS PER ITS AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS AS UNDER: INCOME SCHEDULES RS. LAKHS SALES AND SERVICES - GROSS XV 5732.54 LESS: EXCISE DUTY 505.95 SALES AND SERVICES - NET 5226.59 OTHER INCOME (NOTE 19B) XVI 474.47 5701.06 EXPENDITURE MATERIALS XVII 3478.68 EMPLOYEE COSTS XVIII 545.30 DEPRECIATION! AMORTIZATION V 141.92 INTEREST XIX 247.77 OTHER EXPENSES XX 1200.57 5614.24 PROFIT/(LOSS) BEFORE TAX & EXCEPTION ITEMS 86.82 PROVISION FOR TAX -CURRENT TAX -DEFERRED TAX 57 (57.00) PROFIT/(LOSS) BEFORE EXCEPTION ITEM 143.82 (SHORT)/EXCESS PROVISIONS FOR TAX FOR EARLIER YEARS 884.42 PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL LOANS & ADVANCES (197.91) PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF INVESTMENTS (1069.25) NET PROFIT/(LOSS) 9. IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE ABOVE FIGURE OF LOSS OF RS.238.92 LAKHS A S STARTING FIGURE FOR COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS UND ER SECTION U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, FOR THIS COMPUTATION , THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLAN ATION-1 OF THE SAID SECTION WHEREIN THE ADJUSTMENTS IN RESP ECT OF BOOK PROFITS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED. THESE ADJUSTMENT S ARE AS UNDER: ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 5 EXPLANATION-1, - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 'BOOK: PROFIT' MEANS THE NET PROFIT AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOU S YEAR PREPARED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), AS INCREASED BY- A) THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX PAID OR PAYABLE, AND THE PROVISIONS THEREFORE; OR B) THE AMOUNTS CARRIED TO ANY RESERVES, BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED, OTHER THAN A RESERVE SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 33AC; OR C) THE AMOUNT ON AMOUNTS SET ASIDE TO PROVISIONS MADE FOR MEETING LIABILITIES, OTHER THAN ASCERTAINED LIABILI TIES; OR D) THE AMOUNT BY WAY OF PROVISION FOR LOSSES OF SUBSID IARY COMPANIES; OR E) THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS OF DIVIDENDS PAID OR PROPOSED ; OR F) THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS OF EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO ANY INCOME TO WHICH SECTION 10 (OTHER THAN THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (38) THEREOF) OR SECTION 11 OR SECTION 12 APPLY; OR G) THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, H) THE AMOUNT OF DEFERRED TAX AND THE PROVISION THEREF ORE, I) THE AMOUNT OR AMOUNTS SET ASIDE A PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF ANY ASSET, IF ANY AMOUNT REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES (A) TO (I) IS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AND AS REDUCED BY, - I. THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM ANY RESERVE OR PROVISIONS EXCLUDING A RESERVE CREATED BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1997 OTHERWISE THAN BY WAY OF DEBIT TO THE PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT, IF ANY SUCH AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT: PROVIDED THAT . II. THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TO WHICH ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 (OTHER THAN THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (38) ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 6 THEREOF) OR SECTION 11 OR SECTION 12 APPLY, IF ANY SUCH AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT; OR II.A. THE AMOUNT OF DEPRESSION DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT (EXCLUDING THE DEPRECIATION ON ACCOUNT OF REVALUATION OF ASSETS); OR IIB. THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM REVALUATION RESERVE AND CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, TO THE EXTENT IT IS NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON ACCOUNT OF REV ALUATION OF ASSETS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIA}; OR III. THE AMOUNT OF LOSS BROUGHT FORWARD OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, WHICHEVER IS LESS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, EXPLANATION, -. IV TO VI (OMITTED) VII. .. VIII. THE AMOUNT OF DEFERRED TAX, IF ANY SUCH AMOUNT IS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 10. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE COMPUTATION OF THE PR OFIT U/S 115JB THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE ABOVE PROVISIONS AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCO ME FILED. AS ALREADY STATED, IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHE RE- FROM, THE FIGURES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE APPELLAN T IN ITS COMPUTATION U/S 115JB (AS EXTRACTED IN PARA-7 ABOVE). ALSO, IT IS SEEN THAT THE STARTING FIGURE H AS BEEN WRONGLY STATED AS 'PROFIT/LOSS AS PER P&L ACCOUNT BEFORE TAXATION' INSTEAD OF 'PROFIT/LOSS AS PER P&L ACCOUNT'. FURTHERMORE, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE COMPUTATION IS INACCURATE. THE CORRECT COMPUTATION OF PROFITS U/S 115JB SHOULD HAVE BEEN AS UNDER: ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 7 PROFIT/LOSS AS PER P & L ACCOUNT (2,38,92,000) ADD: I) PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL LOANS AND ADVANCES 1,97,91,000 II) PROVISIONS FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF INVESTMENTS 10,69,25,000 12,67,16,000 10,28,24,000 LESS: I) SHORT/EXCESS PROVISION FOR TAX FOR EARLIER YEARS 8,84,42,000 II) DEFERRED TAX 57,00,000 9,41,42,000 86,82,000 11. DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, OBVIOUSLY THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED WRONG PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME IN TERMS OF PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT DID NOT EXPLAIN/CLARIFY SUCH FACTS AND FIGURES, AS NOBODY ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. SIMILARLY, DUR ING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO, NOBODY ATTENDED, ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND ANY EXPLANATIONS/ CLARIFICATIONS WERE NOT SUBMITTED. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE FACTS AND FIGURES. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE' CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED COMPLETE PARTICULARS' OF ITS INCOME DURING THE ORIG INAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT'S CORRECT INCOME COULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTED. NEITHER ANY EXPLANATIONS/ CLARIFICATIONS WERE FURNISHED DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 8 CORRECT INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ASSESSED. I HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED ABOVE THAT THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT WAS INACCURATE. THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE A S UNDER: WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THI S ACT - (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SU CH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATIO N OF HIS INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB- SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 12. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS FULLY COVERED BY CLAUSE (A) OF THE ABO VE EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THI S EXPLANATION PLACES THE ONUS OF PROOF ON THE APPELLA NT ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 9 TO FURNISH EXPLANATION AND ALSO THAT SUCH EXPLANATI ON SHOULD BE BONA FIDE AND ALL FACTS RELATING TO THE S AME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ARE REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED AND SUBSTANTIATED. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION IN REGARD TO THE PROFITS UNDER SECTION 115JB AT ANY STAGE, EITHE R DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, COMPLETE FACTS AND FIGURES/EXPLANATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED: THE APPELLANT'S CASE THEREFORE FALL S UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION-1 TO SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS COVERED BY BOTH CLAUSES (A) AND (B) OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO-PRODUCTS PVT. LTD (SUPRA), C ITED BY THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, WHERE THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND/OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. SAME IS THEREFORE UPHEL D. 13. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 2.2. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER/PENALTY ORDER, LEADING TO IMPOSITION OF PENAL TY, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 10 RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNS EL, IF KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, WE FIND THAT AT ANY STA GE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION AND ULTIM ATELY THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS/ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 R .W.S.147 OF THE ACT ASSESSING THE TOTAL BOOK PROFIT OF RS.86 ,81,534/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THERE IS UNCONTROVERTED FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY RECORD/FIGURES, AS HAS BEEN CLA IMED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING THE COMPUTATION HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION-1 TO THE SEC TION, WHEREIN, THE ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF BOOK PROFITS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED. THE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN ALREADY REPROD UCED AT PAGE 9 ONWARDS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS MENTIONED IN PARA- 11, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN/CLARIFY THE FIGURE S AS NOBODY ATTENDED AND IDENTICALLY DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS . EVEN BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COMPLETE FACTS AND FIGURES WERE NOT FURNISHED. ONLY AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF REASSESSMENT, CORRECT INCOME WAS ASSES SED. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AT THE OR IGINAL STAGE AND DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO PROFITS U/S 115JB AT ANY STAGE EITHER DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS/REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE IN AGRE EMENT WITH THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE GONE SCOT FREE. IT IS NOT THE C ASE THAT THE ASSESSEE SUO-MOTO FURNISHES SOMETHING IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. 11 THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN LEVY AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IS AFFIRMED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SIDES, AT TH E CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 24/04/2015. SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & MUMBAI; ) DATED : 24/04/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & 0$ ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. P4. & 0$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 2%3 .$! , *+( *! 4 , & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5' 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /2+$ .$ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & / ITAT, MUMBAI