ONEPATONT SOFTWARE LIMITED , MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7471/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6834 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K BEPARI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Unabsorbed depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 32; 37; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 ONEPATONT SOFTWARE LTD. 18, HIRA BHUVAN, V P ROAD, MULUND (WEST), MUMBAI - 400080 VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 15(2) - 2 MUMBAI. PAN NO. AABCO5588P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. DEVENDRA JAIN , AR REVENUE BY : MR. S.K. BEPARI , DR DATE OF HEARING : 04 /12/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/02/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2014 - 1 5 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 24 , MUMBAI [IN SHORT CIT(A)] AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 2. THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL 2.1 THE L D. CIT( A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLES, WITHOUT O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 2 APPRECIATING THAT INTANGIBLES WERE ALREADY PU T TO USE FOR COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION. 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE ACTIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ON INCORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF FACTS FOR CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT INTANGIBLE ASSETS WERE PURCHASED ON 26 JULY, 2013 VIDE AGREEMENT FOR ASSIGNMENT OF PATENTS.FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO H AVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD USED UNCONVENTIONAL MODEL OF MONETIZING OF PATENTS THROUGH LITIGATION.THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT ONCE EFFORTS TO MONETIZE HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND THE PATENTS WERE RECOGNIZED AS PART OF BUSINESS ASS ETS, IT WOULD INEVITABLY TANTAMOUNT THAT THE ASSET WERE PUT TO USE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 2.3 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE DATE OF PUT TO USE IN CASE OF INTANGIBLES IS NOT SPECIFICALLY DETERMINA BLE UNLIKE TANGIBLE ASSET WHEREIN THE DATE OF TRIAL PRODUCTION RUN OR DATE OF ACTUAL USE OF ASSET IS THE DATE OF PUT TO USE OF ASSET. 2.4 THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN MISUNDERSTANDING THE FACTS TO DOUBT THE ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF THE INTANGIBLE ASSET, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAME WERE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT BY VIRTUE OF DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF PATENTS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT LITIGATION AGAINST OTHER COMPANIES FOR INFRINGING ITS RIGHTS WAS JUST A METHOD TO COMMERCIALLY EXPLOIT THE PATENTS OWNED BY DIE APPELLANT. 2.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, WE SUBMIT THAT DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT AS THE PATENTS WERE 'READY TO USE' FOR COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF APPELLANT'S BUSINESS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.3,71,02,851/ - AS ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS UNDER THE BLOCK INTANGIBLE ASSET (PATENT). THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSING OF PATENTS AND INTELLECTUAL PR OPERTY RIGHTS. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 3 ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD PURCHASED VARIOUS PATENTS FROM MR. YOGESH RATHOD FOR RS. 3,71,02,851/ - AND SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PATENTS. AS PER THE LEDG ER ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD BOOKED RS.77,47,851/ - AS PATENT RIGHT EXPENSE ON 31.03.2014. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EASE OF ACCOUNTING, THE SAME HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO INTANGIBLE ASSET ON 31.03.2014 BY WAY OF JOU RNAL ENTRY. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAID REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY OF THE ASSET BEING PUT TO USE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ALSO THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H A S NOT BOOKED ANY INCOME FROM REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS EITHER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE AO FURTHER FOUND FROM THE LETTER DATED 19.09.2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY HA S FILED LITIGATIONS AGAINST LARGE NUMBER OF COMPANIES TOWARDS INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT SHALL RECOGNIZE REVENUE FROM OPERATIONS AS AND WHEN THE SAME WOULD ACCRUE TO THE COMPANY. THUS ARRIVING AT A FINDING THAT THE PATENTS PURCHASED FROM MR. YOGESH RATHOD HA S STILL BEEN NOT PUT TO USE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.39,89,063/ - . 4. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION THAT THE ASSETS WERE PUT TO USE DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR, (II) IT IS ALSO THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSETS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY IT, (III) THE TANGIBLE ASSETS IN QUESTION WERE IN THE LITIGATION, THEREBY THE ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF THE O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 4 SAME IS DOUBTFUL, (IV) MERE PASSING OF THE BOOK ENTRY WOUL D NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEPRECIATION. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.39,89,063/ - MADE BY THE AO. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILES A COPY OF AGREEMENT F OR ASSIGNMENT OF PATENTS DATED 26 TH JULY 2013 AND FINANCIALS FOR FY 2013 - 14. IT IS CLARIFIED BY HIM THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AND CIT(A) . IT IS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD PURCHASED PATENTS FROM MR. YOGESH RATHOD ON 26. 07.2013 VIDE AGREEMENT FOR ASSIGNMENT OF PATENTS. AFTER ACQUISITION OF THE SAID PATENTS, THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY LAID DOWN PLANS FOR UTILIZING THE PATENT RIGHTS AND DREW UP VARIOUS REVENUE MODELS AND BUSINESS PLANS. THE REVENUE MODEL FOR EARNING I NCOME FROM THE USE OF PATENTS WERE SALE OF PATENTS TO LARGE PLAYERS OR COMPETITORS, SELLING NON - CORE PATENTS TO ACTUAL USERS ON LUMP SUM/ROYALTY, LICENSING THE PATENTS, FILING BACK CLAIMS, FILING LITIGATIONS FOR INFRINGEMENT OF USING ITS PATENTS. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE PATENTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN QUESTION ED BY THE AO AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS FULL RIGHT TO USE THE PATENTS IN SEVERAL WAYS AS EXPLAINED ABOVE OUT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT CHOSE TO FILING LITIGATIONS WHICH IS A SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, OF THE SAID INTANGIBLE BEING PUT TO USE. IT IS STATED O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 5 THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 32 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS STATED THAT BOTH THE AO AND CIT(A) ERRED IN MISINTERPRETING THAT THE APPELLANT S PATENTS ARE INTO LITIGATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MET FOREIGN ATTORNEYS TO FILE LITIGATIONS AGAINST MAJOR COMPANIES FOR THE INFRINGEMENT MADE BY THE COMPANIES BY USING THE APPELLANTS PATENTS. ALSO IT IS STATED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IS NOT LINKED TO EARNING OF REVENUE AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY SPECIFIC DATE OF PUT TO USE FOR AN INTANGIBLE ASSET, UNLIKE A TANGIBLE ASSET WHERE THE DATE OF TRIAL PRODUCTION RUN OR DATE OF ACTUAL USE OF ASSET IS THE DATE OF PUT TO USE OF ASSET. THUS IT IS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT BEING THE OWNER OF THE PATENTS, HAD RIGHT TO SALE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CHARGED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HE ARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN ORDER TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION, ONE SHOULD SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LIKE (I) ASSET MUST BE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, (II)IT MUST BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, (III)IT S HOULD BE USED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND (IV) DEPRECIATION IS AVAILABLE ON TANGIBLE AS WELL AS INTANGIBLE ASSETS. O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 6 UNDER SECTION 32(1)(II) FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000, DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE EVEN ON CERTAIN SPECIFIED INTANGIBLE ASSETS, WHICH ARE : (I) KNOW - HOW; (II) PATENTS ; (III) COPYRIGHTS; (IV) TRADEMARKS; (V) LICENSES ; (VI) FRANCHISES; AND (VII) ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE INTANGIBLE ASSETS WOULD FORM A BLOCK SEPARATE FROM THAT OF TANGI BLE ASSETS AS PER EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 32(1). IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS, ALL THE CONDITIONS AS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF TANGIBLE ASSETS, HAVE TO BE FULFILLED. IN MYSORE MINERALS V. CIT 239 ITR 775 (SC), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE TERM OWN, OWNERSHIP AND OWNED ARE GENERIC AND RELATIVE TERMS; THAT THEY HAVE A WIDE AND ALSO A NARROW CONNOTATION AND THE MEANING WOULD DEPEND ON THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE TERMS ARE USED. HAVING EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT I N THE INSTANT CASE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT (I) THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS WERE PURCHASED ON 26 JULY, 2013 VIDE AGREEMENT FOR ASSIGNMENT OF PATENTS, (II) IT HAD USED UNCONVENTIONAL MODEL OF MONETIZING OF PATENTS THROUGH LITIGATION , NEED TO BE EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 7 OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO MAKE AN ORDER AFRESH, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. THUS THE 2 ND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. AS THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO, WE ARE NOT ADVERTING TO THE CASE - LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL 7. THE 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSE OF RS.10,06,703/ - ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN EXPANDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37(1). 3.2 THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF S. 40A(2)(B) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING WAS PAID TO OTHER THAN RELATED PARTIES A ND HENCE THE SAID SECTION WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3.3 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT APPELLANT WAS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS, AND ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH IS INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INTANGIBLE ASSETS WOULD BE EXPENDITURE OF THE BUSINESS AND CANNOT BE EXPENDITURE OF PERSON WHO INVENTED SUCH INTANGIBLE ASSETS. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS.10,06,703/ - . IN RESPONSE TO A QUERY RAISED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ALONG WITH SOME CONSULTANTS HAD TRAVELLED TO USA TO HOLD MEETINGS WITH THE ADVOCATES IN USA AND O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 8 OBTAINING LEGAL OPINIONS WITH REGARD TO FILING THE INFRINGEMENT CASES AGAINST THE CASES AS STATED ABOVE. OBSERVING THAT THE ONLY BUSINESS RELATED ACTIVITY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACQUIRING PATENTS FROM MR. YOGESH C. RATHOD, WHICH IS A RELATED PARTY AND FALLS U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT, THE AO DISALLOWED THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.10,06,703/ - ON THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN THE CO NTEXT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE MANAGEMENT FOUND FILING OF LITIGATIONS FOR INFRINGEMENT O F USING ITS PATENTS AS A MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME AND THUS SCHEDULED MEETINGS WITH ATTORNEYS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. IT IS STATED THAT THEY TRAVELLED ABROAD IN ORDER TO FINALIZE THE LAW FIRM AND DISCUSS THE LEGAL PROCEDURES TO FILE LITIGATIONS AGAINST LARGE CO MPANIES LIKE TWITTER, FACEBOOK, APPLE, IBM, AMAZON, GOOGLE ETC. TOWARDS INFRINGEMENT MADE BY THEM BY USING THE PATENTS OWNED BY THE COMPANY. IT IS STATED BY HIM THAT THE FOREIGN TRAVEL WAS FOR INITIATING THE LITIGATION PROCESS AND FINALIZING THE ATTORNEY, WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 9 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL S ON RECORD. AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES AND DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON REGISTRATION OF PATENTS THROUGH THE ADVOCATE ALONG WITH INVOICES INDICATE THAT THE CONCERNED TRAVEL WAS FOR INITIATING THE LITIGATION PROCESS A ND FINALIZING THE ATTORNEY WHICH IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AND LD. CIT(A). AS THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,06,703/ - MADE BY THE AO AND ALLOW THE 3 RD GROUND OF APPEAL. 11. THE 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL 4.1 THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ERROR WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL LOSS AS PER RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.34,94,293/ - VIS - A - VIS RS.1,20,49,169/ - AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.34,94,293/ - AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.85,54,876/ - . HOWEVER, THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONSIDERING ONLY THE BUSINESS LOSS OF R S.34,94,293/ - AS THE TOTAL LOSS AS PER RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. FURTHER, IT IS STATED THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME A T THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. ALSO IT IS STATED, THAT THE AO HAS ALLOWED SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF ONLY AY 2013 - 14 OF RS.26,578/ - WITHOUT O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 10 CONSIDERING THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS OF AY 2012 - 1 3 OF RS.3,76,761/ - . THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ORDER OF THE AO. 13. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL CONSIDERING WRONG AMOUNT OF LOSS AS PER RETURN OF INCOME, W HILE COMPUTING ASSESSED INCOME, REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ALLOW THE LOSS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AFTER DU E VERIFICATION OF RECORDS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. THE 5 TH GROUND OF APPEAL BEING CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B IS MANDATORY, THOUGH CONSEQUENTIAL. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/02/2019. SD/ - SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 28/02/2019 RAHU L SHARMA, SR. P.S. O N EPATONT SOFTWARE ITA NO. 7471/MUM/2017 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY) ITAT, MUMBAI