Infrastrcuture Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, V. ACIT 10(1),

ITA 6768/MUM/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84462 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHA KALA CHANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: D V LAKHANI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 234B; 14A; 37

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.6063/MUM/2002 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :1999-2000) INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., PLOT NO.C-22, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( !' / APPELLANT) .. ( #$!' / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A. NO.5987/MUM/2002 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :1999-2000) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., PLOT NO.C-22, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 ( !' / APPELLANT) .. ( #$!' / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A. NO.6768/MUM/2003 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2000-2001) INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., PLOT NO.C-22, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. ( !' / APPELLANT) .. ( #$!' / RESPONDENT) I.T.A. NO.6063/MUM/2002 AND OTHER FIVE MATTER 2 ./I.T.A. NO.6810/MUM/2003 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2000-2001) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., PLOT NO.C-22, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 ( !' / APPELLANT) .. ( #$!' / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A. NO.6863/MUM/2004 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2001-02) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), R NO.476, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., PLOT NO.C-22, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 ( !' / APPELLANT) .. ( #$!' / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A. NO.7631/MUM/2004 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2001-2002) INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., PLOT NO.C-22, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), R NO.476, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( !' / APPELLANT) .. ( #$!' / RESPONDENT) ! ./ % ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAACI0989F !' & / ASSESSEES BY SHRI D V LAKHANI #$!' ' & /REVENUE BY SMT.ABHA KALA CHANDA ( ' ) / DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2014 *+ ' ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.12.2014 I.T.A. NO.6063/MUM/2002 AND OTHER FIVE MATTER 3 / O R D E R PER BENCH THESE CROSS APPEALS RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2001- 02 AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-X, MUMBAI. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND HENCE THEY AR E BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS LEASING AND INVESTMENT BANKING C OMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASING, INVESTMENT BANKING, SECURITIES MANAGEMENT ETC. IN ALL THESE THREE YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT BY MAKING VARIOUS TYPES OF ADDITIONS. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE WERE PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND HENCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE FILED THE SE APPEALS BEFORE US ON THE POINTS DECIDED AGAINST EACH OF THEM. SOME OF THE I SSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE IN ALL THE THREE YEARS AND HENCE WE PREFER TO ADJUD ICATE THE COMMON ISSUES FIRST. 3. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEASE EQUALIZA TION RESERVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LEASE EQUALIZATION RESERVE ON THE REASONING THAT IT IS NOT A PRESCRIBED EXPENDITURE U/S 30 TO 37 OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. BEFORE US, THE LD A.R SUBMITTE D THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS ARISEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ITAT HAS RESTORE D THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. IN THIS REGARD, HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER DATED 11.7.2014 PASSED IN TH E ASSESSEES HAND IN ITA NO.1583/MUM/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-9 9. WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE ABOVE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, HAS FO LLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1997-98 IN ITA NO.2308, 2307, 2309 & 2310/MUM/2011. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 1998-99, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXTRACTED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ORDER PASSED FOR AY 1994-95 TO 1997-98, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXPLAINED THE CONCEPT OF LEASE EQUALIZATION CHARGE AND ACCORDINGL Y RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CARRYING O UT FRESH EXAMINATION. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A) IN ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATIO N AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE I.T.A. NO.6063/MUM/2002 AND OTHER FIVE MATTER 4 FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AY 199 4-95 TO 1997-98. 4. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLO WANCE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF GROSS A MOUNT OF DIVIDEND INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME U/S 10(33)/10(23G) OF THE ACT. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT ONLY THE NET INTEREST INCOME IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPT ION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ALLOWED D EDUCTION OF NET INCOME ONLY IN ALL THE THREE YEARS AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A). THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14A IS APPLIC ABLE PROSPECTIVELY FROM AY 2008-09 ONWARDS ONLY. FURTHER, THE LD A.R SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING BOTH OWN FUNDS AND LOAN FUNDS AND THE INVEST MENTS MADE IN ELIGIBLE COMPANIES ARE FUNDED OUT OF OWN FUNDS ONLY. IN THI S REGARD, THE LD A.R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD (2009)(178 TAXMA N 135). WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED CONTENTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUNDS. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESS EE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN OWN FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS ON THE DATE OF MAKING INVESTMENT. SINCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES VERIFICATI ON OF FACTUAL ASPECTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE ALSO REQUIRES EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFRESH BY DULY CONSIDERING THE INFORMATI ON/EXPLANATIONS THAT MAY BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECI SION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 5. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITIO N OF THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/ S 115JA OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE HAS SINCE BEEN DECIDED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOETZ INDIA LTD (2014)(361 ITR 505) , WHEREIN THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED U/S 14A OF THE ACT UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDE D WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, SINCE WE HAV E RESTORED THE MATTER RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO HIS FILE WIT H THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THIS I.T.A. NO.6063/MUM/2002 AND OTHER FIVE MATTER 5 ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION RENDERED BY H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ INDIA LTD (SUPRA). 6. THE NEXT COMMON ISSUE CONTESTED IN ASSESSMEN T YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2001-02 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF PR OVISION FOR BAD DEBTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT DEBITE D TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. HOWEVER, THE SAID CLAIM HAS BEEN REJECTED BY BOTH T HE TAX AUTHORITIES. WE NOTICE THAT THE IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSE ES HAND IN AY 1994-95 HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SP ECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NEW INDIA INDUSTRIES LTD, NEW DELHI ITA NO. 3958/DEL/2003. 7. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS R EVERSED THE PROVISION NO LONGER REQUIRED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS OFF ERED THE SAME AS ITS INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THA T THE PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS CREATED DURING THE YEAR SHOULD BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER , BOTH THE PARTIES FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF DECISION RENDERED BY THE SPE CIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF NEW INDIA INDUSTRIES LTD (SUPRA). HENCE, A SPECIFIC QU ERY WAS PUT TO LD A.R AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IF T HE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS IS CONFIRMED IN THESE TWO YEARS AND A DIRECTION IS GIVEN TO THE AO TO EXCLUDE THE AMOUNT SO OFFERED (REVERSAL OF PROVI SION) IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS FROM THE TOTAL INCOME, THE LD A.R, AFTER CONSULTING THE COMPANYS REPRESENTATIVE, AGREED TO THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE DI SALLOWANCE OF AMOUNT CLAIMED AS PROVISION FOR BAD DEBTS IN BOTH THE YE ARS CITED ABOVE. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE DIRECT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO EXCLUDE THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BY REVERSAL OF PROVI SION FOR BAD DEBTS IN THE YEARS IN WHICH IT WAS SO OFFERED. WE ORDER ACCORDI NGLY. 8. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES UR GED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 35D OF THE ACT. IT WAS BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE URGED IN AY 1990-91 AND 1994-95 HAVE BEEN RES TORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BRING TO OUR NOTICE A BOUT THE RESULT OF THE FRESH EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE AO. HENCE, WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION, BUT TO I.T.A. NO.6063/MUM/2002 AND OTHER FIVE MATTER 6 REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE. 9. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. SINCE THE CH ARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, THE SAME DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. HOWEVER, SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE CERTAIN ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AO MAY CONSIDER THE CONTENTIONS, IF ANY, PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 10. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEALS FILED BY TH E REVENUE. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE RELATES TO THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON EXPENDITURE ON CLUBS. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A). THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UNITED GLASS MFG. CO. LTD (CIVIL APPEAL NO.6447 OF 2012 DATED SEP. 12, 2012.). WE NOTICE THAT THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEES PAID FOR EMPLOYEES IS ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE CITED ABOVE, SINCE THE DETAILS OF CLUB EXPENDITURE ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE TH E SAME TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CLAIMED U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON THE REASONING THAT PART OF INTEREST H AS TO BE CAPITALIZED. THE AO DISALLOWED PART OF INTEREST CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT T HEY RELATE TO THE AMOUNTS BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS. HOWEVE R, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AS SESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS VIZ., ITA NO.2773/MUM/98 AND 2283/MUM/98 RELA TING TO AY 1994-95 AND 1993-94. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE FOLLOWING PROVISO WAS INSERTED IN SEC. 36(1)(III) ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2004 BY FINANCE ACT 2003: - PROVIDED THAT ANY AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST PAID, IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF AN ASSET FOR EXTENSION OF EXISTING BUSINESS OR PROFESSION (WHETHER CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OR NOT); FOR ANY PERIOD BEGINNING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAPITAL WAS BORROWED FOR ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET TILL THE DATE ON WHICH SUC H ASSET WAS FIRST PUT TO USE, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. I.T.A. NO.6063/MUM/2002 AND OTHER FIVE MATTER 7 HENCE, CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLE D TO CLAIM INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 36(1)(III) IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR A CQUIRING CAPITAL ASSETS IN THESE YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 12. NEXT COMMON ISSUE URGED BY THE REVENUE IN AL L THE THREE YEARS IS THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE ON LEASED ASSETS. IN AY 1996-97, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIA TION ON LEASED ASSETS BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ICDS LIMITED (29 TAXMAN.COM 129). THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION, IF IT HAS LEASED OUT THE ASSETS UN DER OPERATING LEASE. THE AO HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS ENTE RED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE LEASE TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, THE LD CI T(A) HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE IN NATURE AND HE HELD SO BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE PR ECEDING YEARS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN ACCE PTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY DEPRECIATION WAS ALLO WED. ACCORDINGLY, CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 13. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE REVENUE IS CO NTESTING THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE Y2K EXPENSES U/S 36(1)(XI) O F THE ACT. THIS ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KODAK INDIA LTD VS. ACIT (2011)(12 TAXM ANN.COM 140). ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE THREE APPE ALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH DEC , 2014. *+ , -. 17TH DEC ,2014 + ' /( 0 SD SD ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, 17TH DEC, 2014 I.T.A. NO.6063/MUM/2002 AND OTHER FIVE MATTER 8 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ! '#$% &%'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$!' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. 12/ #3 , ) 3 , ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. /4 5( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 6 (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ) 3 , ( /ITAT, MUMBAI