AMIR B MAHARJAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 16(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7476/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2470 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAMACHANDRAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.7476 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) MR. AMIR B. MAHARJAN, 12 PANCHRATNA, OPERA HOUSE, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004. / V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(3)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400020. ./ PAN : AFFPM3743L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI A. RAMACHANDRAN / DATE OF HEARING : 29-6-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-07-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO. 7476/MUM/2013, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 20-09-20 13 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 6, MUMBAI (HE REINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R DATED 30-12-2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTE R CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER CALL ED THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI (HER EINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- ITA 7476/MUM/2013 2 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ADDI NG A SUM OF RS. 6,66,754/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK WHEREAS T HE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE SAME IN THE CLOSING STOCK STATEME NT FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND ALSO DULY REFLECTED IN THE AUDI TED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE APPELLANT ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 6, MUMBAI FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6 TO RECTIFY THE SAID MISTAKE WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-6. THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY STATES BEFORE YOUR OFFICE AS UNDER: THERE WAS A PURCHASE OF 311 PENDANTS AND IN-HOUSE AS SEMBLY OF 66 ADDITIONAL PENDANTS DURING THE YEAR 2006-07.THESE 66 P ENDANTS WERE ASSEMBLED OUT OF THE GOLD INTRODUCED BY THE PROPRIETOR AT THE TIME OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS AS ALREADY STATED UNDER TH E GROUND NO. 1. THUS TOTALING TO 377 PENDANTS WHICH WERE ALL SOLD D URING THE YEAR 2006-07, THE SALE VALUE OF WHICH IS ADEQUATELY REFLE CTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE 66 PENDANTS ASSEMBLED ARE SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND ARE NO LONGER IN THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THUS THE ADDITION TO INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE FROM UNACCOUNTED IS THEREFOR E NOT WARRANTED AS IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT A PARTICULAR ITEM IS SOLD WITHOUT PURCHASES IN CASE OF A TRADER. THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD 377 PENDANTS AND HAVE OFFERED THE VALUE OF SALE FOR TAXATION PURPOSE. THE ADDITION OF COST OF 66 PENDA NTS AS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING THE COST OF THE SAME AS UNACCOUNTED STOCK IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS IT AMOUNTS TO TAXING OF THE SAM E TRANSACTION AGAIN AND AGAIN FIRST TIME AS A COST AND SECOND TIME A S A SALE, WHICH IS ALREADY OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT SINCE IT HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE TAXATION OF THE SAME TRANSACTION TWICE ON T HE GROUND OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ITEM WISE RECONCILIATION OF INWAR D AND OUTWARD ENTRIES OF THE STOCK AND STOCK RECORDS HAVE NOT BEEN V ERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH NEEDS A DETAILED VERIFICATIO N BEFORE CONFIRMATION OF THIS ADDITION. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT ON THE AFORESAID ADD ITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HENCE PRAYS TO DELETE THE AFORESAID ADD ITION BASED ON THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AFTER DU E VERIFICATION AND TO YOUR SATISFACTION, THE FACTS ARE LOOKED INTO AS THERE IS NO UNACCOUNTED STOCK WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN INITIA TING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. ITA 7476/MUM/2013 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN A PROPRIETARY BUSINESS OF TRADING IN DIAMONDS AND JEW ELLERY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECT ION 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE A.O. OBSERVED, INTER ALIA, AS PER THE LABOUR BILLS, THAT THE TOTAL 154 RINGS, 94 EARRINGS, 311 PENDANTS AND 18 NECKLACE WERE AVAILAB LE , WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 154 RINGS, 56 EARRINGS, 377 PENDANTS AND 1 8 NECKLACES. AS SUCH DUE TO NON RECONCILIATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF 66 PENDANTS , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT 66 PENDANTS WERE ASSEMBLED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN AS PER REQUIRE MENTS OF THE CUSTOMER AND NO LABOUR CHARGES HAVE BEEN PAID ON THESE 66 PE NDANTS . THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS EVIDENT TO THE AO THAT ASSESSEE IS SHOWING CLOSING STOCK OF DIAMONDS OF 15 3 CARATS. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COME OUT WITH AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSEMBLED THE SAID 66 PENDANTS WHICH COULD NOT BE R ECONCILED WITH THE QUANTITY AS PER LABOUR BILL AND SALE FIGURES. THE A.O. ADDED THE VALUE OF DIFFERENCE OF 66 PENDANTS WORKING IT OUT TO BE RS. 6,66,754/- BY TREATING IT AS SALE FROM UNACCOUNTED STOCK BY ESTIMATING THE VALUE AS PER VALUE SHOWN IN EXPORT INVOICE DATED 03-05-2006 , VIDE ASSESSMENT O RDERS DATED 30-12-2009 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 30-12-2 009 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . 5. IT WAS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THAT THERE WAS A PURCHASE OF 311 PENDANTS F ROM OUTSIDE AND IN HOUSE ASSEMBLY OF 66 ADDITIONAL PENDANTS DURING THE PREVI OUS YEAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THESE 66 PENDANTS WERE ITA 7476/MUM/2013 4 ASSEMBLED BY MAKING USE OF THE GOLD INTRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS. THUS, IN TOTAL 377 PENDANTS WERE SOLD DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SALE VALUE O F WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT 66 PENDANT S WHICH WERE ASSEMBLED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SOLD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND ARE NO LONGER IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THA T THE 377 PENDANTS WAS SOLD DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND MERELY BECAU SE THE LABOUR CHARGES WERE NOT THERE IN RESPECT OF 66 PENDANTS, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF AUTHORITIES TO SAY THAT IT IS AN UNEXPLAINED STOCK OF GOLD IN RESPECT OF 66 PENDANTS WHILE THE ASSESSEE ASSEMBLED HIMSELF 66 PE NDANTS OUT OF GOLD INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADDING COST OF 66 PENDANTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIF IED AS IT AMOUNTS TO TAXING OF THE SAME TRANSACTION TWICE AS ONCE AS COST AND S ECOND TIME AS A SALE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM AO WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREU NDER: AS REGARDS POINT NO.3 I.E. SALE OF UNACCOUNTED STO CK AMOUNTING TO RS.6,66,754/-, THE A.O. HAD OBSERVED THAT AS PER LA BOUR BILLS ONLY 311 PENDANTS WERE AVAILABLE FOR SALE WHEREAS THE ASSESS EE HAS SOLD 377 PENDANTS. HENCE THE AO ADDED THE VALUE OF 66 PENDAN TS WORKED OUT AT RS. 666754/- AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNACCOUNTED ST OCK SOLD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT 66 PEN DANTS WERE ASSEMBLED BY THE ASSESSEE ON HIS OWN WITH THE HELP OF HIS STAFF AND CONTRACTOR LABOUR SUPPORT AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CUSTOMER AND NO LABOUR CHARGES HAS BEEN PAID ON IT. THESE PENDANTS WERE ASSEMBLED OUT OF THE GOLD INTRODUCED BY THE PROPRIETOR AT THE TIM E OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS. AS PER THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE , THIS ASSEMBLING IS A SMALL PROCESS WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE ANY BIG MACHINER Y, THESE ARE ALL ITA 7476/MUM/2013 5 HANDMADE PROCESS, WHEREIN THE GOLD IS MELTED AND PO URED ON THE WOODEN DIE AND ONCE THE MELTED GOLD IS DRIED THE ST ONES, DIAMONDS ETC ARE FIXED. ONLY NORMAL RUNNING LOOSE TOOLS ARE REQU IRED. ON VERIFICATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A 'DIE MACHINE' IN THE FIXED ASSET AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON IT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S AO IN REMAND REPORT IS CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSEMBLED 66 PENDA NTS OUT OF THE GOLD INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSEMBLED BY THE ASS ESSEE BUT THIS FACT IS NOT EMERGING FROM THE RECORDS AS NO EVIDENCE IS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO THAT EFFECT AND IS MERELY A CLAIM MADE BY THE AS SESSEE WHICH REMAINED UN- SUBSTANTIATED .THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT AS PER RECORDS THERE IS NO OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK OF GOLD AND THE ASSESSEE HAS INTR ODUCED 173 GRAMS OF THE GOLD AND THE STOCK OF GOLD TALLIES , THERE IS NO GO LD AVAILABLE WHICH IS USED FOR MANUFACTURING 66 PENDANTS. THUS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM REFUSED TO INTERFERE WIT H THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. AND WHILE CONFIRMING THE SAME HE DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR VIDE APPELLATE ORDERS DATE D 20-09-2013. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE APPELLATE ORDERS DATED 20-09-20 13 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH ARE NOT REPEATED FOR SAKE OF BREVITY , AND SUBMITTED THAT MAKING OF PENDANTS DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY EXPERTISE OR COMPLICATED TECHNOLOGY AND REQUIRES MERELY MELTING OF THE GOLD AND POURING IT IN THE WOODEN DIE AND ONCE THE MELTED GOLD IS DRIED , THE STONES, DIAMONDS ETC. ARE FIXED, WHEREBY 66 PENDANTS WERE MADE IN- HOUSE WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY LABOUR CHARGES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT MATERIAL EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND AS SUC H THE LEARNED CIT(A) ITA 7476/MUM/2013 6 SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSE E AND DELETED THE QUANTUM ADDITION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WHICH IS PLACED IN P APER BOOK PAGE 69-72 FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL WHICH ALSO FIND MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), AND ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 6 OF PAPER BOOK TO CONTEND THAT STOCK OF GOLD OF 3197.41 GRAMS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR WHIC H TALLIES WITH GOLD UTILIZED FOR MAKING JEWELLERY DURING THE YEAR OF 3197.41 GRA MS WHICH INCLUDED 173 GRAMS OF GOLD INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO D REW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 13 OF PAPER BOOK WHICH REFLECTS THAT 377 PENDANTS W ERE MADE AND SOLD OUT OF GOLD OF 3197.41 GRAMS UTILIZED DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THUS , THE LD. COUNSEL PRAYED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND DELETE T HE QUANTUM ADDITION. 8. THE LD. D.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AU THORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT ONLY 173 GRAMS WAS SHOWN TO BE INTRO DUCED BY THE OWNER AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS, AS SUCH THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE 66 PENDENTS IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY PROOF OF AVAILABILITY OF SUFFICIENT GOLD, THE AUTHORITIES AR E JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION AND PRAYED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT FOR MAKING 377 PENDANTS WHICH WERE SOLD DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE , 311 PENDANTS WERE MADE BY OU TSOURCING WHICH WAS EVIDENT FROM LABOUR BILLS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE , WHILE 66 PENDANTS WERE CONTENDED TO BE MADE IN-HOUSE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSE E HAS CONTENDED THAT IN ALL 3197.41 GRAMS OF GOLD WAS UTILIZED , INTER-ALIA , FOR MAKING IN TOTAL 377 PENDANTS AND OTHER ITEMS OF JEWELLERY FOR WHICH STO CK RECONCILIATION IS PLACED ON RECORD WHICH INCLUDED 173 GRAMS OF GOLD RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND THE SAID STOCK RECONCILIATION IS PLACED ON RECO RD AT PAGE 13 OF PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROD UCED COPY OF THE REGISTER ITA 7476/MUM/2013 7 OF SOLD ITEMS, STOCK REGISTER, PURCHASE AND SALES, QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN PA PER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO CONTEND THAT THE STOCK IS FULLY RECONCI LED INCLUDING MAKING OF 66 PENDANTS WHICH WERE MANUFACTURED IN-HOUSE. ALL THE SE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSUMES IMPORTANCE IN VIEW OF T HE FACT THAT THE A.O. ON VERIFICATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD SHOWN THE DIE MACHINE AS A FIXED ASSET AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION I N RESPECT OF IT. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT ALL THESE MATERIAL EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING S TOCK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AT PAGE 13 OF PAPER BOOK NEED VERIFICATIO N BY THE A.O., INCLUDING VERIFICATION OF EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF IN TRODUCTION OF 173 GRAMS OF GOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER KEEPING IN VIEW PECULIAR FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, WE CONSIDERED IT JUST A ND EXPEDIENT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK T O THE FILE OF A.O. FOR DE- NOVO DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER CON SIDERING THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPO RT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS LIABLE T O BE SET ASIDE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED BY WAY OF SETTING ASIDE OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A .O. FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND DE-NOVO DETERMINATION OF ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER VERIFYING THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS DISPOSES OF GROUND NO 1 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 10. THE GROUND NO 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE INITIATI ON OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE OU R ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. ITA 7476/MUM/2013 8 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N0. 7476/MUM/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY , 2016. # $% &' 20-07-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 20-07-2016 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI A BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI