MILTON PLASTICS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7120/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9958 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BISHT
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Avoidance of tax
• Section: 14A; 80IB

Judgement Text

1 , , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -FBENCH MUMBAI , , , , , , ,, , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAKTIJIT DEY,JUDICIAL MEMBER / ITA NO. 7120/MUM/2011 / ITA NO. 2970/MUM/2013 /ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 & 2009-10 MILTON PLASTICS LTD. ASIAN BUILDING , 4 TH FLOOR R. KAMANI MARG, BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI-400 001. PAN:AAACM 4047 Q VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2) ROOM NO.545, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) REV ENUE BY: SHRI B.S. BISHT ASS ESSEE BY: SHRI HIRO RAI / DATE OF HEARING: 07/06/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.09.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA A.M. - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS DATED 12.08.2011&14.02.2013 OF THE CIT(A)-5,MUMBAI,THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE MENTION ED ASSESSMENT YEARS (AY.S).ASSESSEE- COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THERMOWARE PRODUCTS AND TRADING IN POLYMERS.THE DETAILS OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON, INCOME RETURN ED , ASSESSESSED INCOME ETC. FOR BOTH THE AYS CAN BE SUMMARISED AS UNDER:- A.Y. ROI FILED ON INCOME AS PER RETURN DT. OF ASSES SMENT ORDER ASSESSED INCOME 2008-09 28/09/2008 NIL 10/12/2010 NIL 2009-10 21/09/2009 NIL 08/12/2011 NIL ITA/7120/MUM/2011,AY.2008-09: 2. FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL (GOA-1-3) IS ABOUT ADDITION RS.5.86 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALE PRICE FOR THE GOODS SOLD TO M/S. HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT. LTD.(HHPL). DURING THE ASSESSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD GOODS WORTH RS.44.33 CRORES TO HHPL,THAT IT WAS RELATED CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP.HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF QUANTITY SOLD TO HHPL, PRICE CHARGED FROM HHPL AND PRICE CHARGED FROM OTHER UNRELATED PARTIES IN RESPECT OF EACH AND EVERY ITEM SOLD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DATED 7/12/10 THE AO HE LD THAT THE SALES EFFECTED TO HHPL WERE SOLD AT A DISCOUNTED RATE (12% LESS THAN THE OTHER SALES),THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM THAT H HPL WAS BEARING THE TRANSPORTATION COST 2 AND ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES, THAT HHPL HAD CLAIMED D EDUCTION U/S. 80-IB OF RS.6.66 CRORES, HHPL WAS BY AND LARGE EXEMPT UNDERTAKING, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GETTING A DUEL BENEFIT BY TRANSFERRING ITS PRODUCTS TO HHPL AT A LESSER PRICE , THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PAYING ANY TAX, THAT HHPL WAS CLAIMING EXEMPTION, THAT IT WAS NOT U NDERSTANDABLE AS TO HOW HHPL WOULD BEAR THE FREIGHT COST WHILE OTHER PARTIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BEAR THE SAME, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EVADED TAX OF RS.5,68,14,843/- BY UNDER INVOICI NG THE SALES MADE TO HHPL. 2.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA)AND MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSI ONS BEFORE HIM. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT ORDER, H E HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE REDUCED DISCOUNTED SALES PRICE,THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION AFTER MAKING DETAILED COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SIMILAR SALES TO O THER UNRELATED PARTIES, THAT THE EXPLANATION REGARDING BEARING TRANSPORT COSTS AND ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE WAS NOT CONVINCING AND SATISFACTORY, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD,THAT THE OTHER UNIT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB.HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF SHATRUNJAY DIAMONDS(261ITR258);NUND AND SAMONT CO. P. LTD.(70 ITR 268), AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2.2. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)CONTENDE D THAT THAT NO PROVISION IN THE ACT PERMITTED THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION FOR ALLEGED SHORT FALL,THAT NO ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION PASSED, THAT THE AO DID NOT TAKE NOTICE OF THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO PG.69 OF THE PAPER-BOOK AND STATED THAT THE SIST ER CONCERN WAS INCURRING EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT AND FREIGHT,THAT THE FAA H AD NOT DEALT WITH THE 80 IB ISSUE, THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO,AMOUNTING TO RS.5.64 CRORES, WAS NIL,THAT SISTER CONCERN WAS PAYING TAXES,THAT T HE FAA HAD RELIED UPON THE CASES DEALING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT,TH AT THEY HAD NO BEARING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF CALCUTTA DISCOUNT LTD.(91ITR8); SHIVKAMI CO.PVT.LTD.(159ITR71) AND A RAMAN & CO.(67 ITR 11) . THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) ARGUED THAT ASS ESSEE AND HHPL WERE SISTER CONCERNS, THAT THE SALE WAS PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL TRANSACTIO N,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHARGED PRICES AT LOWER RATES, THAT THE MANUFACTURE I.E.THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER PARTY WAS NOT IN THE SAME PLACE.HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF LAKEWOOD CONSTRUCT ION CO.PVT.LTD.(ITA/841/MUMBAI/2010, DATED 15/05/2013). 3 IN HIS REJOINDER,THE AR STATED THAT FACTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LOCATED AT SILVASA, THAT HHPL WAS HAVING BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT IN DADRA AND NAGA R HAVELI,THAT IN THE CASE OF LAKEWOOD CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE THREE JUDGMENTS DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RELIED UPON BY HIM,THAT FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER APPEAL WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF LAK EWOOD. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD GOODS TO HHPL AT LOWER RATES,THAT IT HAD FILED EXPLANATION IN THAT REGARD TO THE AO AND THE FAA,THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES REJECT ED THE JUSTIFICATION FILED BY IT.PRIMA FACIE IT MAY APPEAR THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH HHPL WERE NOT AT ARMS LENGTH.BUT,IF THE ENTIRE PICTURE IS LOOKED AT IT BE COME CLEAR THAT THERE WAS JUSTIFICATION FOR SELLING THE GOODS AT LOWER RATES TO HHPL.THE ASSESS EE WAS SUFFERING HUGE LOSSES WHEREAS HHPL WAS EARNING PROFIT.BY SUBMITTING THE ACCOUNTS OF BOTH THE ENTITIES THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS CAST UPON IT WITH REGAR D TO SELLING THE GOODS AT LOWER RATES. THEREAFTER,THE ONUS HAD SHIFTED TO THE AO AND HE H AD TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE PAYMENT WAS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE. APART FROM THE PRESU MPTION,BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HHPL AND THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY,THERE WAS NO OTHER MATERIAL BEFORE BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SALE PRICE CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HHPL WAS NOT REASONABLE.IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSES SE HAD INCURRED NEGLIGIBLE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEADS TRANSPORTATION AND ADVERTISEMENT, I.E.1.0 4% AND 0.74% OF THE SALES RESPECTIVELY. WHEREAS,HHPL HAD INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE O N ACCOUNT OF THOSE TWO HEADS.THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING LOSSES AND IT DECIDED TO CHA RGE LESSER PRICE IN LIEU OF CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PURCHASER THEN THE DECISION CANNOT BE CHALLENGED BY ANYBODY.REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO STEP IN TO THE SHOE S OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS TO HOW TO RUN ITS BUSINESS AND WHICH EXPENSES TO INCUR OR NOT TO INCUR.THEY HAVE NOT DOUBTED THE TRANSACTION I.E. SELLING OF GOODS TO HHPL AND RECEI VING OF LOWER PRICE.THEIR OBJECTION IS ABOUT DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO THE BUYER.IN OUR OPINION, IF AN ASSESSEE FILES A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR CHARGING LESSER OR HIGHER RATES AS COMPARED TO THE NORMAL MARKET RATES,IT HAS TO BE SEEN FROM A POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESSMAN.IN THE CASE O F A RAMAN & CO.(SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS FOUND TO HAVE AFFECTED SALES OF GOODS TO I TS PARTNERS I.E.MANAGER OF THE TWO HUF.S. THE AO ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE GOODS TO THE FAMILIES, THAT THE FAMILIES HAD EARNED SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT ON THE RESALE OF THE GOOD S OVER AND ABOVE THE MARGIN OF PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE CREATION OF THE FAMILY BUS INESS WAS MERELY A SUBTERFUGE OF THE 4 PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE TO DIVERT THE PROFITS.DECI DING THE MATTER THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS LAID DOWN A BASIC PRINCIPLE AND HAS HELD AS UNDER : - THE LAW DOES NOT OBLIGE A TRADER TO MAKE THE MAXIMU M PROFIT THAT HE CAN OUT OF HIS TRADING TRANSACTIONS. INCOME WHICH ACCRUES TO A TRADER IS T AXABLE IN HIS HANDS: INCOME WHICH HE COULD HAVE, BUT HAS NOT EARNED, IS NOT MADE TAXABLE AS INCOME ACCRUED TO HIM. BY ADOPTING A DEVICE, IF IT IS MADE TO APPEAR THAT INCOME WHICH B ELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN EARNED BY SOME OTHER PERSON, THAT INCOME MAY BE BROUGHT TO TA X IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND IF THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED TAX IN A PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT, A CASE FOR COMMENCING A PROCEEDING FOR REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147(B) MAY BE MADE OUT. AVOIDANCE OF TAX LIABILITY BY SO ARRANGING COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS THAT CHARGE OF TAX IS DISTRIBUTED IS NOT PROHIBITED. A TAXPAYER MAY RESORT TO A DEVICE TO DIVERT THE INCOME BEFORE IT ACCRUES OR ARISES TO HIM. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEVICE DEPENDS NOT UPON CONSIDERATIONS OF MORAL ITY, BUT ON THE OPERATION OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. LEGISLATIVE INJUNCTION IN TAXING STATUTES MAY NOT, EXCEPT ON PERIL OF PENALTY, BE VIOLATED, BUT IT MAY LAWFULLY BE CIRCUMVENTED. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO/FAA HAD FAIL ED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS ANY AVOIDANCE OF TAX LIABILITY.IT WAS A SIMPLE AND PLAIN CASE OF OFFERING A DISCOUNT TO THE BUYER IN LIEU OF REDUCED TRANSPORTATION AND ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES.I T WAS THE PROVERBIAL EK HAATH LE EK HAATH DE DEALING. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REFER TO THE MATTER OF SIVAKA MI CO.(SUPRA).IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE HELD CERTAIN SHARES WHICH WERE NOT QUOTED ON THE ST OCK EXCHANGE. IT SOLD THE SHARES TO TWO OTHER COMPANIES WHICH WERE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY C ONNECTED WITH IT AT PRICES CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THEIR BREAK-UP VALUE. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS NOT UNDERSTATED AND THAT THE REAL AND MAIN OBJECT OF THE RESPONDENT IN SELLING THE SHARES WAS TO SAFEGUARD THE SHARES FROM BEING TAKEN OVER BY THE GOVERNMENT IN S ETTLEMENT OF TAX DUES. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECT ION 12B(2) OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, COULD BE INVOKED AND THE BREAK-UP VALUE SUBST ITUTED IN THE PLACE OF THE DECLARED PRICE AND THE RESPONDENT ASSESSED TO TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS ON THAT BASIS.DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT,THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD AS FO LLOW: SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAD FOUND THAT THE CONSIDERATI ON WAS NOT UNDERSTATED AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DIRECT OR INFERENTIAL TO SHOW THAT THE CONSIDERATION ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS MORE THAN WHAT WAS DISCLOSED OR DECL ARED BY THE RESPONDENT, THE PROVISO TO SECTION 12B(2) COULD NOT BE INVOKED. THOUGH THE L EGISLATION IN QUESTION IS TO REMEDY A SOCIAL EVIL AND SHOULD BE READ BROADLY AND SHOULD B E SO READ THAT THE OBJECT IS FULFILLED, YET THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING A CONDITION OF TAXABILITY MUST BE FULFILLED BY THE REVENUE..UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT MORE THAN WHAT WAS STATED WA S RECEIVED, NO HIGHER PRICE CAN BE TAKEN TO BE THE BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT,WE HOLD THAT THE AO/FA A HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HIGHER PRICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THAN WHAT WAS STATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THA T BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE EMPHASISED THAT BY CHARGING LESSER PRICE THE ASSESSEE HAD HELP ED THE BUYER TO CLAIM HIGHER 80IB DEDUCTION.BUT,THEY HAVE IGNORED THE BASIC FACT THAT DEDUCTION UNDER THAT SECTION IS AVAILABLE 5 ONLY FOR MANUFACTURED GOODS.THUS,THE ONE OF THE REA SONS FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BASIS AT ALL.WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE FACTS OF LAKEWOOD(SUPRA) ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE UN DER CONSIDERATION.IN THAT MATTER THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD FLATS TO DIRECTORS AND SHARE HOLDERS AND T HERE WAS VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE MARKET PRICE AND THE SALE PRICE.IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CHARGING LE SSER PRICE FOR SHIFTING BURDEN OF CERTAIN EXPENSES TO THE BUYER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE,WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA CANNOT BE ENDORSED.SO,REVERSING THE SAME,WE DECIDE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. SECOND EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL (GOA-4-6) IS ABOU T DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AND INVESTMENT OF RS.4.06 CRORES.HE DIRECTED IT TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY EXPENSES RELATED TO INVESTMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14 A AS PER RULE 8D. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS REGARD EXPENDITURE RELATED TO INVESTMENT. H E MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1.39 CRORE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT. 3.1. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE FAA, T HE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT AO HAD ERRED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATIO N,THAT HE HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY COMPUTA - TION AS TO HOW THE SAID FIGURE WAS DERIVED THAT HE DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT THE INVESTMENT WERE VERY OLD AND WERE NOT EARNING ANY INCOME,THAT THE D ISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE MADE BY HIM WAS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 34,20,11,234/- OUT OF THE TOTAL IN TEREST OF RS. 36.80 CRORES DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WAS NOT FORMING PART OF THE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER THE ACT, THAT ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. THE FAA, REFERRING TO THE MATTER OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFAC TURING COMPANY LTD.(43DTR177), CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3.2. THE AR,BEFORE US,STATED THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT J USTIFIED,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY TAX FREE INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER AP PEAL.HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT(377 ITR 78). THE DR STATED THAT MATTER COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS.AS PER THE SETT LED PRINCIPLES NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED EXEMPT INCOME.IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AO HAD MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD MADE INVESTMENTS. IN OTHER WORDS, HE ALSO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY E XEMPT INCOME AGAINST WHICH EXPENDITURE 6 WAS BOOKED.THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TH ERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 A READ WITH RULE 8D. REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA/2970/MUM/2013-AY.2009-10: 4. FOLLOWING OUR ORDER FOR THE EARLIER AY.,WE DECIDE T HE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,AS THE FACTS OF BOTH THE CASES ARE IDENTICAL. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE AY.S.STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER ,2017. 01 ,2017 SD/- SD/- ( / SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 01.09.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.