ARCO ELECTRO TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ASSTCIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7250/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1732 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DHIRENDRA M SHAH
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI . , / BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT /AND , . . SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 7250/MUM/2010 ! ! ! ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 M/S. ARCO ELECTRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., MIDC, MAROL, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 093. PAN: AAACA 4336 L VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 8(1), 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-20. ( '# / APPELLANT ) ( $%'# / RESPONDENT ) '# & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHIRENDRA M. SHAH $%'# ( & /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 07-02-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-02-2013 )* / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 13-08-2010 OF THE CIT(A)-16, MUMBAI : 1.(A)ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OFRS.42,09,552/- B EING THE COMMISSION PAYMENT MADE WHICH BE DELETED. (B)THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN STATING THAT, THE PA YMENT IS MADE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND ERRED IN STATING THAT, EXPLANATION TO SE CTION 37(1) IS APPLICABLE AND THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE ARE IN THE NATURE OF ILLEGAL GRAT IFICATION. (C)THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERR ED IN OBSERVING THAT, NO DETAILS AS TO SERVICES RENDERED WERE FILED. (D)THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.42,09, 552/- PAID BEING BUSINESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN COURSE OF THE BUSINESS BE A LLOWED IN FULL AND ADDITION DELETED. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 7250/MUM/2010 M/S. ARCO ELECTRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 2 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFA CTURING OF BRUSH HOLDER, ROCKER RING ASSEMBLY AND LEAD WIRE, FILED I TS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 3.56 CRORES. INITIAL LY, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(ACT). LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS FINALISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (AO) U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30-10-2009 DETERMINING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS . 4.03 CRORES. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND THAT AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 42.09 LAKHS AS COMMISS ION PAYMENT. HE DIRECTED THE APPELLANT-COMPANY TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF COMMISSION P AID WITH PURPOSE OF PAYMENT, NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED AND COPY OF THE AGREEME NT ENTERED INTO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AO HELD THAT ASSES SEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS OF COMMISSION, EXCEPT THE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT WAS PAID, THAT ASSESSEE WAS SUPPLYING HIS ENTIRE PRODUCTS TO INDIA N RAILWAYS, THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID COMMISSION TO VARIOUS PERSONS FOR PROCURING TENDER FORMS AND FOR THE LIAISON WORK, THAT EXPLANATION OFFERED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THAT FOR ATTENDING LIAISON WORK WHAT WAS PAYABLE WAS LIA ISON FEE AND NOT COMMISSION, THAT GENERALLY THE PURCHASER I.E., RAILWAYS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWS PAPERS, THAT NO MIDDLE- MEN ARE ENTERTAINED IN THE TENDER PROCESS. RELYING UPON THE CASES OF CALCUTTA AGENCY LTD., (19 ITR 19) & TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., (256 ITR 701) DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH RESPECTIVELY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. 4. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY (FAA). HE HELD THAT ANY PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY AND HENCE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. HE RELIED UPO N THE CASES OF BANGALORE ARRACK CO., (201 ITR 25) AND MADDI VENKATARAMAN & CO. P.LT D., (229 ITR 534) DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATIONS INSERTED TO S ECTION 37(1) WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01-04-1962, EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT SO-CALLED COMMISSION WAS NOT ACTU ALLY LEGAL EXPENDITURE BUT WAS THE BRIBE/ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION WHICH WAS ROUTED THROUG H THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN THE FORM OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE CERTAIN PERSONS. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE MATTER OF INDRAPRASTHA AGENCIES DEL IVERED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND (266 ITR 320). FINALLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING ELECTRICAL ITEMS, THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS SUPPLYING MATERIAL TO RAILWAYS AND BHARAT HEAV Y ELECTRICALS LTD (BHEL), THAT IT MAINTAINED OFFICE ONLY AT MUMBAI, THAT FOR PROC URING ORDERS IT HAD ENGAGED SERVICES OF CERTAIN AGENTS IN OTHER CITIES, THAT THE AGENTS WERE INFORMING THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ABOUT THE ORDERS PLACED, THAT THEY WERE HELPING IN COLLECTING THE BILLS, THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE AGENTS THROUGH PROPER BA NKING CHANNELS, THAT THE AGENTS WERE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO THE TAX, THAT CORRESPOND ENCE WITH THE AGENTS CLEARLY PROVED THAT IT WAS A NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, THAT TDS WAS COLLECTED FROM THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE AGENTS. HE REFERRED TO PAGE NOS. 24 TO 30; 31 TO 36, 37 TO 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE PAPERS WERE THE COPIES OF THE CORRESPONDENCE WITH HIS AGENTS NAMELY M/S. GYANESHW AR CORPORATION AT JABALPUR, OM TRADE AGENCIES AND MS. ARUNA AT HYDERABAD. HE F URTHER REFERRED TO PAGE NOS. ITA NO. 7250/MUM/2010 M/S. ARCO ELECTRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 3 45 TO 109 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH PROVIDED THE DETA ILS OF DEBIT NOTE ISSUED BY OM TRADING AGENCIES FOR ORDERS FROM BHEL. HE ALSO RE LIED UPON THE PAGE NOS. 151 TO 168 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THESE PAPERS PROVIDE DETAIL S WITH DEBIT NOTES BY M/S. GOSPEL MARKETING ASSOCIATES, PATIALA FOR ORDERS FROM INDIA N RAILWAYS, DIESEL MODERNISATION WORKS ALONG WITH COPIES OF PURCHASE ORDERS. 5.1. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT EXP ENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS AND HENCE WAS NOT ALLOWABLE, THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUPPLYING GOODS TO THE INDIAN RAILWAYS AND BHEL, THAT GOVERNMENT AG ENCY DID NOT ENTERTAIN MIDDLE- MEN, THAT ACTUAL NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED WAS NO T EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL PUT BEFORE US. FOLLOWING UN-DISPUTED FACTS EMERGE FROM THE ORDER O F THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES: I) ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING EL ECTRICAL GOODS; II) INDIAN RAILWAYS AND BHEL ARE TWO MAIN PURCHASERS TO WHOM COMPANY SUPPLIED GOODS; III) ASSESSEE GETS ORDERS TO SUPPLY HIS GOODS AS WELL AS PAYMENT OF BILLS THROUGH A FEW PERSONS LOCATED IN DIFFERENT CITIES O F COUNTRY, IV) ASSESSEE IS MAKING PAYMENT TO SUCH PERSONS FOR HELP ING IT IN CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS. 7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, QUESTION ARISES AS WHE THER THE SAID PAYMENTS ARE ALLOWABLE U/S. 37(1) OF THE ACT OR SAME CANNOT BE A LLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. AS PER TH E SETTLED PRINCIPALS OF TAXATION JURISPRUDENCE FOR CLAIMING AN EXPENDITURE, ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THAT EXPENSES IN QUESTION WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR B USINESS PURPOSES. CONCEPT OF WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN VARI OUS JUDGMENT OF COURTS. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT ARE UNANIMOUS THAT IN SUCH CASES, ASS ESSEE HAS TO PROVE THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS NOT FOR ANY ULTERIOR/NON-B USINESS CONSIDERATION. HOW TO RUN HIS BUSINESS IS THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE ASSESSE E. SO, WHILE CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS, ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD AVAILED SERVICES OF CERTAIN PERSONS AND MADE PAYMENT TO THEM IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS NOT FOR BUSINESS. DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE AR CLEARLY INDICATE TH AT ASSESSEE WAS GETTING ORDERS/PAYMENTS/ PIECES OF INFORMATION FROM THE PER SONS PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE MATERIAL REQUIRED BY INDIAN RAILWAYS/BHEL WAS ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE AGENTS AND THEY WERE PAID FOR IT. ASSESSEE IS SITUATED AT MUMBAI AND FOR PROCURING ORDERS, IF HE AVAILS SERVICES OF AGENTS INSTEAD OF OPENING BRANCH OFFICES AT DIFFERENT PLACES, IT CAN EASILY BE TERME D A PRUDENT DECISION. ONE CANNOT FORGET THAT ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROCURING THE ORDERS ARE NOT ALWAYS PUBLISHED IN NATIONAL NEWS PAPERS. WHEN GOODS ARE REQUIRED IN SMALLER QU ANTITIES, TENDERS ARE FLOATED IN LOCAL NEWS PAPERS ONLY. ASSESSEE-COMPANY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO SUCH TENDERS THROUGH LOCAL AGENTS ONLY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF AGEN TS HAVE BEEN PAID COMMISSION, IT HAS TO BE HELD AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE FAA HAS D ISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE-COMPANY WAS AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TRANSACT IONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THE AGENTS WERE NOT AGAINST ANY PUBLIC POLICY. PASSING ON/RECEIVING INFORMATION ABOUT REQUIREMENT OF ANY ORGANIZATION I S A PURE BUSINESS DEAL. WE CANNOT FORGET THAT FOR AN ASSESSEE WHO IS SITTING HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS AWAY FROM THAT PLACE, SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT IS A BENEFICIAL AND A WISE BUSI NESS DECISION. SUCH AN ITA NO. 7250/MUM/2010 M/S. ARCO ELECTRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 4 ARRANGEMENT ALLOWS ASSESSEE TO CONCENTRATE ON HIS A REA OF STRENGTHS I.E., MANUFACTURING. 8. NOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE FAA. IN THE CASE OF BANGALORE ARRACK CO., (SUPRA), ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS. 5 LAKHS TO A PERSON, SO THAT HE WOULD NOT COMPETE AS BIDDER IN THE AUCTION WHERE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA WAS SELLING THE RIGHT TO VEND ARRACK IN CERTAIN SHO PS. IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT RESULTED IN MONOPOLY AND ELIMINATION OF RIVAL IN A BUSINESS CARRIED OUT ON BUSINESS OF STATE GOVERNMENT WAS AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICY. IN THAT CASE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD HELD AS UNDER : PUBLIC POLICY IS THE PRINCIPLE WHICH DECLARES THAT NO MAN CAN LAWFULLY DO THAT WHICH HAS A TENDENCY TO BE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC WELFARE AND PUBL IC POLICY COMPREHENDS ONLY THE PROTECTION AND PROMOTION OF PUBLIC WELFARE. THE QUESTION WHETH ER ELIMINATION OF COMPETITION IN TRADING IS OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION DE HORS THE NATURE OF THE TRADE, PRIVILEGE OR THE RIGHT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH AN AUC TION IS HELD. IF THE SUBJECT-MATTER INVOLVED IS A TRADE WHICH COULD BE NORMALLY CONSIDERED AS A LAW FUL TRADE AND THE INDIVIDUAL HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARRY ON SUCH A TRADE, ELIMINA TING A RIVAL TRADER FROM OPERATING IN THE SAME FIELD WILL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE EXERCISE OF TH AT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE SUBJECT-MATTER IS LOOSELY REFERRED TO AS TRADE OR BUSINESS BUT ACTUALLY IS NOT RECOGNISED AS TRADE OR BUSINESS IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO FUNDAMENTA L RIGHT EXISTS AND ONLY THE STATE HAS THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE IN INDULGING IN SUCH A TRADE OR BUSINESS, DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD PREVAIL. IN THE LATTER CASE, THE STATE MAY ENGAGE I N THIS TRADE OF A PERNICIOUS CHARACTER ONLY BECAUSE IT IS INEVITABLE TO DO SO HAVING REGARD TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST SUCH AS THE ABSOLUTE NEED TO RAISE REVENUE FOR THE STATE WHICH IN TURN IS UTI LISED FOR THE PUBLIC WELFARE. IT MAY ALSO BE A CASE WHERE THE STATE ENGAGES ITSELF IN SUCH A BUSIN ESS OR TRADE TO MINIMISE THE PUBLIC HARM, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD RESULT TO THE PUBLIC, IF THE TRADE OR BUSINESS IS CARRIED ON BY THE CITIZENS AT LARGE. IT IS NOW QUITE FIRMLY ESTABLISH ED THAT NONE HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARRY ON TRADE IN VENDING LIQUOR. THE RIGHT GIVEN TO TRAD E IN THIS REGARD IS ACTUALLY A PRIVILEGE CONFERRED BY THE STATE AND NORMALLY THESE PRIVILEGE S ARE CONFERRED BY AUCTIONING THE RIGHT TO VEND. IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT THERE SHO ULD BE AS MANY BIDDERS AS POSSIBLE IN SUCH AN AUCTION, SO THAT MAXIMUM REVENUE COULD BE OBTAIN ED BY THE STATE. PURCHASING OF RIVAL BIDDERS, THEREFORE, ON THE FACE OF IT, WILL BE HARM FUL TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE VERY OBJECT OF CONDUCTING THE AUCTION GETS DEFEATED OR DILUTED WHE N INTENDING BIDDERS ARE SOUGHT TO BE KEPT AWAY BY ONE OF THE BIDDERS. .ON THE ADMITTED FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AS SESSEE HAD PURCHASED A RIVAL BIDDER SO THAT HE WOULD NOT COME FORWARD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUB LIC AUCTION TO VEND ARRACK. THIS WAS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS PUBLIC W ELFARE AND, THEREFORE, OPPOSED TO PUBLIC POLICY. IT COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A VALID PAYMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE TOTALLY D IFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF BANGALORE ARRACK CO.,(SUPRA). NO MONOPOLY WAS ACHI EVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE AGENTS. SECONDLY, BUSINES S OF ARRACK RUN BY STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH INDIAN RAILWAYS AND BHEL. IN THE CASE OF MADDI VENKATAMAN (SUPRA), ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT BUSINESS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE (REGULATION) ACT. H ONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT ..ASSESSEE WAS EXPECTED TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF THE ASSESSEE CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE (REGULATION) ACT TO CUT DOWN ITS LOSSES OR TO MAKE LARGER PROFITS WHILE CARRYING ON THE BUS INESS, IT WAS ONLY TO BE EXPECTED THAT PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR VIOLATION OF THAT ACT. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EVADING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE PENALTY LEVIED FOR SUCH EVASION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. ITA NO. 7250/MUM/2010 M/S. ARCO ELECTRO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 5 IN THE CASE OF INDRAPRASTHA AGENCY (SUPRA), QUESTI ON WAS ABOUT ALLEGED BRIBES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE OFFICERS OF THE ANIMAL HUSBANDR Y DEPARTMENT IN FODDER SCAM RELATED CASES. IN OUR OPINION, FACTS OF THE MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE NOT AT ALL COMPARABLE WITH THAT OF INDRAPRASTHA AGENCIES (SUPR A). ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT TO AGENTS IN NORMAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. 9. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND LEGAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PAYMENTS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE TO AGENTS WERE NOT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY RATHER SAME WERE PURE BUSINES S TRANSACTIONS. ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT IN CONTRAVENTION OF LAW OF THE LAN D AND HENCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY. IN OUR OPINION, EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.42.09 LAKHS IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE . THEREFORE, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. + , - +. / )01 ( 23 45 ( . 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 5 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 )* ( 8! 9: ; <) 15 = , 2013 ( 23 > SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN) ( / RAJENDRA) / VICE PRESIDENT 9 ), / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :?3 MUMBAI, <) DATE: 15 - 02-2013 TNMM )* )* )* )* ( (( ( $.@ $.@ $.@ $.@ A@!. A@!. A@!. A@!. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE %@. $. //TRUE COPY// )*: )*: )*: )*: / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , :?3 / ITAT, MUMBAI