ITO 20(1)-4, MUMBAI V. KUMAR AUTO SALES, MUMBAI

ITA 7505/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70956 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS JOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . ! , '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 7505/MUM/2010 &4762/MUM/2012 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2009-10 THE ITO 20(1)-4, ROOM NO.608, 6 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBA- 12. % % % % / VS. M/S.KUMAR AUTO SALES, 1004, KANCHGANGA, 9/10, MANISH NAGAR, JP ROAD,, FOUR BUNGLOW, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI -53 ' '# ./ ( ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAHFK 2427N ( ') / APPELLANT ) .. ( *+') / RESPONDENT ) ') , ' / APPELLANT BY: MRS. JOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK *+') - , ' / RESPONDENT BY : S/SHRI DHARMESH SHAH & MAYUR MAKADIA % - .# / DATE OF HEARING : 27/08/2013 / & - .# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/08/2013 '0 / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND AR E DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 25/8/201 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. GROUND OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS READ AS UNDER: GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y.2007-08: THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN ALLOWING RS.99,58,338/- AS DEDUCTION U/S. 8OIC OF THE I.T. A CT, 1961 CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS MANUFACTURING INSTE AD OF ASSEMBLING LUGGAGE CARRIERS, WHEEL CAPS ETC. ./ I.T.A. NO. 7505/MUM/10& ITA NO.4762/MUM/12 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2009-10 2 II. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. ILL. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND OR TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR A.Y.2009-10 THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN ALLOWING RS. 1,59,40,255/- AS DEDUCTION U/S. 8OIC OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961 CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS MANUFACTURING INSTE AD OF ASSEMBLING OF ACCESSORIES, NAMELY LUGGAGE CARRIERS, WHEEL CAPS ET C. II. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. ILL. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER A NY GROUND OR TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS RAISES COMMON ISSUE AND WER E ALSO ARGUED TOGETHER BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CON VENIENCE BOTH OF THEM ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF VARIOUS TYPES OF AUTO ACCESSORIES, SPARE PARTS, COMPONENTS, TOOLS AND EQUIPMENTS, VEHICLE DECORATIV E ITEMS ETC. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE FROM AN UNDERTAKIN G LOCATED IN AN INDUSTRIALLY BACKWARD AREA SITUATED IN DISTRICT DEHRADUN, UTTERA NCHAL. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY IT ARE UNDE R THE BRAND NAME OF CLASSIQUE AND IT INVOLVES FOLLOWING PROCESS OF DIFFERENT F INISHED PRODUCTS: A) CUTTING : THIS STEP INVOLVES CUTTING OF THE RAW MATERIALS SUCH AS PIPES/PATTAS/PROFILES. THESE RAW MATERIALS ARE CUT DEPENDING UPON THE SIZE AND THE SHAPE REQUIRED WHICH AGAIN DEPENDS UPON THE PRODUCT BEING MANUFACTURED AND THE VEHICLE FOR WHICH THE SAME IS INTENDED. B) BENDING : THIS STEP INVOLVES BENDING OF THE RAW MATERIALS ( FROM PREVIOUS STEP) SO AS TO ARRIVE AT THE INTENDED SHAPE. THE S.S. PILES ARE USUALLY BENT USING CNC MACHINES. THESE MACHINES ENSURE A HIGH LEVEL OF PRE CISION THAT IS REQUIRED IN SUCH TYPE OF PRODUCTS FOR GIVING DESIRED SHAPE TO S.S.PI PES IN FRONT GUARD AND REAR GUARDS. M.S.PIPES/PATTA ARE CUT AND BENT ON POWER P RESS MACHINE. C) GRINDING : SOME TYPES OF RAW MATERIAL SUCH AS M. S.PROFILES, M.S.BRACKETS ETC REQUIRES FURTHER PROCESSING I.E. GRINDING INVOLVES REMOVING ROUGHNESS FROM CORNER EDGE OF BRACKETS/PROFILES BY HAND GRINDER MACHINES. D) HOLING : THIS PROCESS INVOLVES DRILLING OF HOLES AT SPECIFIED PLACES ON THE REW MATERIALS LIKE M.S/S.S./ALUMINIUM AS PER THE DESIGN STRUCTURE. THESE HOLES ARE DRILLED USING POWER PRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FITMEN T OF BRACKETS/SCREWS FOR BEING ./ I.T.A. NO. 7505/MUM/10& ITA NO.4762/MUM/12 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2009-10 3 FASTENED WITH THE ACCESSORIES OF THE VEHICLE SUCH A S BUMPER. DOOR, CHASSIS OF THE CAR ETC. E) WELDING : THIS PROCESS INVOLVES WELDING OF THE D IFFERENT COMPONENTS SO AS TO MAKE A FRAME OF THE DESIRED FINAL PRODUCT. FOR E.G. WHILE MAKING A FRONT GUARD, THE DIFFERENT S.S. PIPES THAT TIRE CUT ARE WELDED TOGET HER AS PER THE DESIGN STRUCTURE SO AS TO PREPARE THE FRAME OF THE FRONT GUARD AS PER T HE DESIGN OF THE VEHICLE. WE USE ARGON GAS WELDING, GAS WELDING AND C02 WELDING MACH INES IN ABOVE PROCESS. SIMILARLY, WHILE MAKING A LUGGAGE CARRIER, ALLUMINI UM EXTRUSION CHANNELS THAT IS CUT AS PER THE REQUIRED LENGTH AND SIZE IS FITTED IN A FRAME OF MS. SQUARE PIPES WHICH ARE ALSO CUT AND WELDED AS PER THE REQUIRED SIZE. T HE WELDED FRAME OF THE LUGGAGE CARRIER IS THEREAFTER SUBJECTED TO FURTHER PROCESSI NG I.E. POWDER COATING TO ARRIVE AT THE FINISHED PRODUCT. WELDING IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR AFFIXING BRACKETS AND SUPPORT PATTI TO THE FRAME. THESE BRACKETS ARE REQUIRED FOR AFFIXING THE FINISH ED PRODUCT TO THE VEHICLE. AT THIS STAGE THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS SUCH AS THE PIPES, PATTAS, PROFILES, BRACKETS ETC LOSE THEIR IDENTITY AND BECOME A PART OF THE LA RGER STRUCTURE VIZ.FRAME OF THE FINAL PRODUCT. F) POLISHING : THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE ARE REQUIRED TO BE POLISHED SO AS TO GET THE REQUIRED FINISHING. DEPEN DING UPON THE FINAL PRODUCT, POLISHING MAY BE REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CUT TING PROCESS WHERE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS SUCH AS PIPES, PROFILES OR BRACKETS ARE POLISHED AND THEREAFTER ONCE THEY ARE ASSEMBLED INTO THE FRAME, THE ENTIRE ASSEM BLED FRAME IS SENT FOR POLISHING. G) FINAL ASSEMBLY. ONCE THE SEMI FINISHED PRODUCT I S RECEIVED FROM POLISHING, THE FINAL ASSEMBLY IS UNDERTAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIN ISHING THE PROCESS. THIS INVOLVES ASSEMBLY OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS SUCH AS RUBBER PAR TS, PLASTIC PARTS, MONOGRAM ETC TO THE POLISHED FRAME OF THE FINAL PRODUCT. H) CLEANING/PACKING : AFTER FINAL ASSEMBLY THE FINI SHED PRODUCT IS CLEANED AND WRAPPED WITH PROTECTIVE PACKING MATERIAL AND FINAL LY PACKED INTO CORRUGATED BOXES FOR DISPATCH AND TRANSPORTATION. 3.1 HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO AO THE PROCESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE CAN NEVER FIT INTO THE TERM MANUFACTURE AS CONTEMPLATED UN DER SECTION 80 IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT). BEFORE LD. CIT(A) I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT BY EMPLOYING THE AFOREMENTIONED PRODUCTION PROCESS, T HERE WAS SIGNIFICANT TRANSFORMATION OF BASIC RAW MATERIALS WHICH ARE PIP ES/PATTAS, EXTRUSION CHANNELS ETC. TAKE PLACE AND AS A RESULT OF SUCH TR ANSFORMATION AN ENTIRELY NEW DISTINCT FINISHED PRODUCT EMERGED. THEREFORE, THE A CTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE TANTAMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 80 IC R.W.S. 2(29BA) OF THE ACT. THE PRODUCT RANGE OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIST OF (I) FRONT GUARD; (II) LUGGAGE CARRIER; (III) REAR GUARD; (IV) REAR SPOILER; (V) S IDE GUARDS; (VI) SILENCER PIPE ASSEMBLY DESIGN; (VII) WHEEL CAPS; (VIII) FITTING BRACKETS E TC. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ./ I.T.A. NO. 7505/MUM/10& ITA NO.4762/MUM/12 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2009-10 4 ASSESSEE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TO CLAIM THAT T HE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE NATURE OF MANUFACTURE. 1. ASPINWALL & CO.LTD. VS. CIT (251 ITR 323 (SC) 2. DY.CST VS. PIO FOOD PACKERS (1980) SUPP.SCC 174 3. UNION OF INDIA VS. DELHI CLOTH MILLS CO.LTD.(AIR 1963 SC 791) 4. EMPIRE INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA (1986) 162 ITR 846(SC) 5. INDIAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. VS. CCE 88 ELT 644 (SC) 6. TATA LOCOMOTIVE & ENGG.CO. LTD. 68 ITR 325. 7. CIT VS. MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA 178 TAXMAN 22. 8. AKASH STONE INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT 106 TTJ 128 (BOR N.) 4. ON THE BASIS OF AFOREMENTIONED SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE MANUFA CTURING ACTIVITY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC. THE DEPARTMENT IS AGGRIEVED, HENCE, HAS FILED AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING RELYING UPON THE OBSERVAT IONS OF AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THEREFOR E, SHE PLEADED THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE UNDER SECTION 80 IC. SHE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED T HE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF AO BE RES TORED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR RELYING UPON THE ORD ER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND DECISIONS RELIED UPON BEFORE LD. CIT(A) PLEADED THAT RELIEF HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHEL D. IN ADDITION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS LD. AR ALSO PLACED RELIANC E ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT V. SUPREME GRAPHICS CREATIONS P. LTD & ANR [276 ITR 668 (BOM)] . 2. DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIA CINE AGENCIES V. CIT [308 ITR 98 (SC)]. 3. DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO V. ARIHANT TILES AND MARBLES P. LTD [320 ITR 79 (SC)]. 4. DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHRI MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA [308 ITR 222 (P&H)]. 5. DECISION OF HONBLE CHENNAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHIRANJJEEVI WIND ENERGY LTD V. ACIT [4 ITR 9 (TRIB) (CHEN)]. 6. DECISION OF HONBLE CHANDIGARH TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF SOND BHARAT PEDALS (INDIA) V. ITO [84 ITD 89 (CHD) ./ I.T.A. NO. 7505/MUM/10& ITA NO.4762/MUM/12 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2009-10 5 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUPREME GRAPHICS (SUPRA) UNDER ALMOST SIMILAR FACTS HAS UPHELD THE O RDER OF TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 7 IN PARA. 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL NO TED THUS: THE RAW MATERIAL USED FOR MANUFACTURE OF PRINTED L AMINATED CAR TON IS A PAPERBOARD CORRUGATIVE SHEETS, WHICH HAVE DIFFERENT USES. THE FINAL PRODUCT IS PRINTED PRODUCT IS PRINTED PAPERBOARD CONTAINER, PLAIN AND VARNISHED LAMINATED, FOIL EMBOSSED AND *AXED CARTONS, PRINTED E-FLUTE CORRUGATED BOARD CARTONS AND PRINTED CATCH COVERS. THE CHARACTERISTI CS OF THE FINISHED GOODS ARE TOTALLY CHANGED AFTER LAMINATING, IN PRINTING, PUNCHING AND PASTING. THE FINISHED PRODUCT CANNOT BE CALLED PAPERBOARD OR PA PER CARTON BY LOOK OR BY CHARACTERISTICS. IT IS A COMMODITY AN1 ARTICLE CALL ED AS CARTONS. THE USE OF THE USE OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT IS SPECIFIC. THE R AW MATERIAL CANNOT BE USED IN PLACE OF THE FINISHED PRODUCT AND THE FINISHED P RODUCT CANNOT BE USED IN PLACE OF THE RAW MATERIAL. 8 WE HAVE NO DOUBT IN OUR MIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HA S CONSIDERED THE NATURE OF OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY RELYI NG UPON THE THREE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS CARRYING OUT A MANUFACTURING PROCESS FOR MAKING THE LAMINATED CART ONS. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE FAULTED, AS IT DOES NOT SUFF ER FROM ANY ERRORS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY DISCARDED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FAILS AND THE SAME IS HE REBY DISMISSED 8. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMPUTER GR APHICS VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 7. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, THE TEST TO DETERMINE WH ETHER A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY AMOUNTS TO MANUFACTURE OR NOT IS : DO NEW AND DIFFERENT G OODS EMERGE HAVING DISTINCTIVE NAME, USE AND CHARACTER. THE MOMENT THERE IS TRANSF ORMATION INTO A NEW COMMODITY COMMERCIALLY KNOWN AS A DISTINCT AND SEPA RATE COMMODITY HAVING ITS OWN CHARACTER, USE AND NAME, WHETHER IT BE THE RE SULT OF ONE PROCESS OR SEVERAL PROCESSES MANUFACTURE TAKES PLACE AND LIABILITY T O DUTY IS ATTRACTED. ETYMOLOGICALLY THE WORD MANUFACTURE PROPERLY CON STRUED WOULD DOUBTLESS COVER THE TRANSFORMATION. IT IS THE TRANSFORMATION OF A M ATTER INTO SOMETHING ELSE AND THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS A QUESTION OF DEGREE, WHETHER TH AT SOMETHING ELSE IS A DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL COMMODITY HAVING ITS DISTINCT CHARACTER, USE AND NAME AND COMMERCIALLY KNOWN AS SUCH FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW, IS A QUESTION DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (SEE EMPIR E INDUSTRIES LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [1985] 3 SCC 314). 9. HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. SHRI MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IB ON THE ASSEMBLING/JOB WORK DONE BY IT TO MANUFACTURE RIM, ./ I.T.A. NO. 7505/MUM/10& ITA NO.4762/MUM/12 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2009-10 6 TYRE, TUBE, BEARING, DRUM, SPOKE, NIPPLE AND COLOR. THE ASSESSEE WAS USING ALL THESE ITEMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHEEL ASSEMBLING AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROCESS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS IN THE NATURE OF DRUM ASSEMBLY, DRUM AND SPOKE ASSEMBLY, TIGHTENING OPERATION, BALANCING OPE RATION AND TYRE MOUNTING OPERATION WAS IN WAS IN THE NATURE OF MANUFACTURING AND SUCH WHEEL ASSEMBLY USED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CERTAINLY A DIFFERENT ITEM FROM THE COMPONENT WHICH WAS USED IN THE PROCESS. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONB LE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 12. THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED MEANING GIVEN TO THE WOR D MANUFACTURE AS HELD IN THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS WHEN A NEW AND DIFFERENT ARTICLE EMERGES HAVING DISTINCTIVE NAME, CHARACTER OR USE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL APPLYING THE TESTS LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HELD THAT A DISTINCT ARTICLE WITH DISTINCTIVE NAME, CHAR ACTER AND USE EMERGED. THE TESTS LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT HAVE TO BE APPLIED FROM CASE TO CASE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ARRIVED AT A FINDING OF FACT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE AFOREMENTIONED POSITION OF LAW, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR IN HOLDING THAT TH E ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE IN THE NATURE OF MANUFACTURING, THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT. WE DECLI NE TO INTERFERE IN THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/08/2013 . '0 - & #' 1 2%3 27/08/2013 - 4 SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA) (I.P.BANSAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 2% DATED 27/08/2013 ./ I.T.A. NO. 7505/MUM/10& ITA NO.4762/MUM/12 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2009-10 7 '0 '0 '0 '0 - -- - *.56 *.56 *.56 *.56 7'6&. 7'6&. 7'6&. 7'6&. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ') / THE APPELLANT 2. *+') / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 8 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 8 / CIT 5. 694 *.% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 4: ; / GUARD FILE. '0% '0% '0% '0% / BY ORDER, +6. *. //TRUE COPY// < << < / = = = = (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . % . .VM , SR. PS