STERLITE INFRA LTD, CHENNAI V. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7220/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8625 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEENA SANTOSH
• Keywords: Competent authority; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 37

Judgement Text

, B BB B INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - E BENCH , IOU IOUIOU IOU , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PAWAN SI NGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER /.ITA NO. 7220/MUM/2012, /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05 M/S STERLITE INFRA LTD. NO.1, SAI FLATS NO.55, PILLAIYOR KOLI STREET, KANAGAM, THARAMANI, CHENNAI-600113 PAN: AAFCS1424A VS. ACIT -2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) /.ITA NO. 7221/MUM/2012, /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 M/S STERLITE INFRA LTD. NO.1, SAI FLATS NO.55, PILLAIYOR KOLI STREET, KANAGAM, THARAMANI, CHENNAI-600113 PAN: AAFCS1424A VS. ACIT -2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIMAL PUNMIYA (AR) / REVENUE BY : MS. BEENA SANTOSH (DR) ' / DATE OF HEARING : 11 -01-2017 ! '( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10. 02-2017 , 1961 ' 254(1) #$ ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER PAWAN SINGH, J.M. IOU IOUIOU IOU : 1. THESE TWO APPEALS BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (ACT) ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 6, [FOR SHORT THE CIT(A)] MUMBAI DATED 11.10.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2004-05 & 2006-07. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE S IMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL, FACTS FOR BOTH THE YEAR ARE SIMILAR, THUS, BOTH THE APPE AL WERE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID THE CO NFLICTING DECISION. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS FIRST WE ARE REFERRING THE FA CTS OF APPEAL FOR AY 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 READ WIT H SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 HAVING BEEN WRONGLY INITIATED, THE AC TION OF THE LD CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS TOTALLY WRONG, ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AND ILLEGAL. 2 ITA NOS. 7220 & 7221/M/2012 M/S STERLITE INFRA LTD. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD AO WAS TOTALLY WRONG, ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER U/ S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED A ND ILLEGAL. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008 -09 WHEREIN ON THE SAME FACTS, THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY THE APPEL LANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS WERE DULY FOUND ALLOWABLE IN THE CASE OF T HE APPELLANT AND THUS TAKING AN ALTOGETHER CONTRARY VIEW IN RESPECT OF THE EARLI ER YEAR EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN FACTS IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF CON SISTENCY AND SUCH ACTION OF THE LD CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED, UNWARRANTED AN D ILLEGAL. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY T HE APPELLANT COMPANY AMOUNTING TO RS 2408211/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAPITALI SED. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2408211/- WERE FULLY ALLOWABLE U/S 37 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-C OMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT AY ON 31.10.2004 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 24,08,2011/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 16.02 .2005. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS RE-OPENED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDING FOR AY 2008- 09. DURING THE ASSESSMENT OF AY 2008-9 THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER (AO) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE STOPPED ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN 1997, THE REFORE, HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED EXCESSIVE LOSS AND THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 23.03.2011. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF IN COME ON 18.04.2011. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT VIDE OBJE CTION DATED 01.07.2011 AND 29.07.2011. THE OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.08.2011. THEREAFTER, THE AO PROCEEDED FOR ASSESSMENT AND DIS ALLOWED THE EXPENSES OF RS. 24,08,211/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143( 3)/147 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO THE ASSESSEE UNSUCCESSFULLY FILED A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE P RESENT APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) OF ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AN D GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 RELATES TO THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING PROCEEDING U/S 147 R.W. SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR AY 2008-0 9, THE ASSESSMENT OF AY 2004- 05 WAS RE-OPENED. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT AY UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED ON 3 ITA NOS. 7220 & 7221/M/2012 M/S STERLITE INFRA LTD. 31.10.2004. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 16.02.2005. FOUR YEARS PERIOD FROM THE END OF RELEV ANT AY WAS COMPLETED ON 31.03.2009. THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 23.03 .2011. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BEYOND THE FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT AY. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT AO HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFA CTION ABOUT FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACT NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT OR FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SUPPORT OF SUBMISSION THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BEYOND THE FOUR YEARS OF END OF RELEVANT AY. THE LD . AR FOR ASSESSEE IN ALTERNATIVE ARGUED THAT PERMISSION FOR RE-OPENING FROM COMPETEN T PERSON AS REQUIRED U/S 151 OF THE ACT, WAS NOT OBTAINED BY AO. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ARGUED THAT NECESSARY PERMISSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM JCIT AS PROVIDED U/S151(2). IN SUPPORT OF ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF TH E ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN D S J COMMU NICATION VS. DCIT (2014) 41 TAXMANN.COM 151 (BOM), DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COUR T IN CIT VS. SPLS SIDDHARTHA LTD. (2012) 17 TAXMANN.COM138 (DEL.) AND IN SHRI G HANSHYAM K. KHABRANI VS. ACIT (2012) 20 TAXMANN.COM 716 (BOM). ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT THE FOUR YEARS CONDITION AS PRE SCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISO OF SECTION 147 IS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D U/S 143(3) ONLY AND NOT FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME PROCESSED U/S 143(1). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PART IES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSME NT FOR AY 2008-09 RECORDED THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2004-05. 1. IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31. 10.2004, DECLARING LOSS AT RS. 24,08,211/-. NO ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED IN THIS CASE. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A LOSS OF RS.24,08.211/- . DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY.2008-09, TH E ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRMED BEFORE THE AO, THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS STO PPED IN THE YEAR 1997. IT IS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAHORE ELE CTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD 60 ITR 1 HAS HELD THAT LOSS RELATING TO ANY BUSINESS OR PROF ESSIONS DISCONTINUED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREVIOUS YEAR SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED . 4. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT INCOME OF RS. 24,08.211/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR AY.2004-05 IN THIS CASE. LAST DATE OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 IS 31.03.2011. ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. 4 ITA NOS. 7220 & 7221/M/2012 M/S STERLITE INFRA LTD. 5. THE PERUSAL OF REASONS FOR RE-OPENING REVEALED THAT AO HAS NOT RECORDED ITS SATISFACTION THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY AL L MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT IN THAT AY. THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 23. 03.2011 WAS ISSUED WHEREIN THE AO HAS RECORDED THIS NOTICE IS BEING ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING NECESS ARY SATISFACTION OF THE CIT. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF S HRI GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI (SUPRA), WHILE DISCUSSING THE SIMILAR GRO UND WITH REGARD TO THE PERMISSION /APPROVAL FOR RE-OPENING FROM COMPETENT PERSON HEL D THAT APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN ANY EVENT, IF THE SAID APPR OVAL IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AFTER DISCUSSING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT HELD AS UNDER: 6. THE SECOND GROUND UPON WHICH THE REOPENING IS SOUGH T TO BE CHALLENGED IS THAT THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 151 (2) HAS NO T BEEN FULFILLED. SECTION 151 REQUIRES A SANCTION TO BE TAKEN FOR THE ISSUANC E OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN CERTAIN CASES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AN ASSES SMENT HAD NOT BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR SECTION 147 FOR A.Y. 2004-0 5. HENCE, UNDER SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 151, NO NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED U NDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT CO MMISSIONER AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. THE EXPRESSION 'JOINT COMMISSIONER' IS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(28C) TO MEAN A PERSON APPOINTED TO BE A JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR AN ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 117(1). IN THE PRESENT CAS E, THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL ON 28 MARCH 2011 TO THE CIT(1) THANE THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE (L) THANE. ON 28 MARCH 2011, THE ADDITIONAL C IT FORWARDED THE PROPOSAL TO THE CIT AND AFTER RECORDING A GIST OF T HE COMMUNICATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT: ''AS REQUESTED BY THE A.O. NECESSARY APPROVAL FOR I SSUE OF NOTICE U/S, 148 MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED IN THE CASE, IF APPR OVED.' ON THIS A COMMUNICATION WAS ISSUED ON 29 MARCH 2011 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CIT (1) CONVEYING APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 151 (2) COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN FULFILLED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. SECTION 151(2) MANDATES T HAT THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. THAT EXPRESSION HAS A DISTINCT MEANING BY VIRTUE OF THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 2 (28C). THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX IS NOT A JOINT COMMISSIONER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2( 28C). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FORWARDED THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX. THE APPROVAL WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED IS NOT BY THE ADDITIONAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 ITA NOS. 7220 & 7221/M/2012 M/S STERLITE INFRA LTD. BUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THERE IS NO STATUTORY PROVISION HERE UNDER WHICH A POWER TO BE EXERCISED BY AN OFFICER C AN BE EXERCISED BY A SUPERIOR OFFICER. WHEN THE STATUTE MANDATES THE SAT ISFACTION OF PARTICULAR FUNCTIONARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF A POWER, THE SATISF ACTION MUST BE OF THAT AUTHORITY. WHERE A STATUTE REQUIRES SOMETHING TO DO NE IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, IT HAS TO BE DONE IN THAT MANNER. IN A SIMILAR SITUATI ON THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SPLS SIDDHARTHA LTD . (ITA NO.836 OF 2011 DECIDED ON 14 TH SEPTEMBER 2011) HELD THAT POWERS WHICH ARE CONFERR ED UPON A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY HAVE TO BE EXERCISED BY THAT AUTHORITY AND SATISFACTION WHICH THE STATUTE MANDATES OF A DISTIN CT AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE SATISFACTION OF ANOTHER. WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT. 7. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS WHICH WE HAVE RECORDED ON S UBMISSIONS (I), (II) AND (IV), IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER SUBMISSION (III) WHICH HAS BEEN URGED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE COUR T HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE NO COMPLIANCE OF THE MANDATOR Y REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 147 AND 151 (2), THE NOTICE REOPENING THE ASSESSMEN T CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. 6. THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION OF SHRI GHANSHYAM K. KH ABRANI (SUPRA) WAS FURTHER FOLLOWED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN D S J COMM UNICATION (SUPRA). THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. P. N. SHARM A 2014 TAXMAN.COM 131(ALLAHABAD) HELD THAT WITHOUT PASSING THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THERE IS NO OCCASION TO PASS RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 OF THE ACT. AND FURTHER THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF TELCO DADAJE E DHACKLEE LTD. VS. DCIT 2010(5)TMI 690 ITAT MUMBAI HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS BAD-IN-LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED AS INVALID, EVEN IF THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ORIGINALLY U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. 7. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE MAY CONCLUDE TH AT THERE WAS NO NEW MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO FOR RE-OPENING OF THE CONCLUDED ASSES SMENT. THE RE-OPENING WAS MADE BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR. MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO PROPER SANCTION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE AS PROVIDED U/S 151 OF THE ACT. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSI ON, THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 IS BAD-IN-LAW. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED IN THE PRES ENT APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 9. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 AND RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.WS. 147 IS HELD AS INVALID. THUS, THE DISC USSION ON OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL BECAME ACADEMIC. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE FOR AY 2004-05 IS ALLOWED. 6 ITA NOS. 7220 & 7221/M/2012 M/S STERLITE INFRA LTD. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SIMILAR GROUND OF APPEAL FOR AY 2006-07. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE FACT IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 2 9.11.2006. THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31.03.2011. THE NOTICE WAS ADMITT EDLY ISSUED AFTER FOUR YEARS OF END OF RELEVANT AY. SIMILARLY THE SANCTION OF LD. C IT WAS OBTAINED INSTEAD OF JCIT AS PROVIDED U/S 151 OF THE ACT. AS WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR AY 2004-05 ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND ON IDENTICAL GRO UND. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS YEAR IS ALSO ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR BOTH TH E AYS ARE ALLOWED. *'+ ,-' . / ! 01 NKSUKSA , DH SA 2 ! ' 3 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH FEBRUARY,2017. 5 ! 6 7 10 QJ ( , 201 7 ! 01 ; SD/- SD/- ( / RAJENDRA ( IOU IOUIOU IOU / PAWAN SINGH)) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 /MUMBAI, 7 /DATE: 10.02.2017 SK ' )*+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ ., ( <' , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / ., <' 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / =>0 '?, B BB B , . . . 1 6. GUARD FILE/ 0 *1 5 / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ( ?, , 1 /ITAT, MUMBAI