CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT LTD. , MUMBAI V. DY CIT RG. 1 (1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7853/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3716 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B BAGCHI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

1 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.111/MUM/2020 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI VS M/S CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT L TD 2 ND FLOOR, ESPLANADE HOUSE HAZARIMAL SOMANI MARG, FOR MUMBAI-400 023 PAN : AAACC2880P APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO.7853/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) M/S CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT LTD 2 ND FLOOR, ESPLANADE HOUSE HAZARIMAL SOMANI MARG, FOR MUMBAI-400 023 PAN : AAACC2880P VS DY.CIT, RANGE 1(1), MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.80/MUM/2021 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.7853/MUM/2019) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16) M/S CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT LTD 2 ND FLOOR, ESPLANADE HOUSE VS DY.CIT, RANGE 1(1), MUMBAI 2 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 HAZARIMAL SOMANI MARG, FOR MUMBAI-400 023 PAN : AAACC2880P CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJAN VORA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI B BAGCHI, DR DATE OF HEARING 21-09-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12-10-2021 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY (JM) CAPTIONED CROSS APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF ORDER DATED 22-10-2019 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, MUMBAI PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS RELATING TO PART DISALLOWANCE OF LEGAL EXPENSES AND SERVICE TAX PAID THEREON. WH EREAS, IN GROUND 1 OF ITS APPEAL, REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED PARTIAL RELIEF GRANT ED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS A RESIDEN T COMPANY AND IS REGISTERED AS A NON BANKING FINANCIAL COMPANY (NBFC) WITH RBI. BA SICALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CATEGORIZED AS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY. BE THAT AS IT MAY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24-09-2015 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 98,34,692/-. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF LEGAL EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,35,89,610/- INCLUDING SERVICE-TAX COMPONENT OF RS.14,08,860/-. AFTER CALLING FOR NECESSARY DETAILS AND VERIFYING THEM, HE FOUND THAT THE LEGAL EXPENSES ARE IN 3 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 RELATION TO VARIOUS LEGAL PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING AC QUISITION OF INTEREST IN THE ESTATE OF ERSTWHILE NIZAM OF HYDERABAD. HE FOUND TH AT THOUGH, BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, A P ART OF NIZAMS IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE; HOWEVER, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES WERE UNDER LEGAL DISPUTE AS SOME OF THEM WERE ACQUIRED BY GOVE RNMENT OR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF T HE PROPERTIES. HE FOUND, PART OF THE LEGAL EXPENSES IS RELATING TO DISPUTE BETWEEN A SSESSEE AND ONE DR. P.S. PRASAD APPOINTED AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TO LOOK AFTER NIZAMS PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN TREATED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED HAS BEEN OFFERED AS BUSINESS RECEIPT; HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNCONVINCED. HE HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO POSSESSORY RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTIES AND THE LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR ACQUIRING /IMPROVING TITLE OVER THE PROPERTY, THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDI TURE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE LEGAL EXPENSES OF RS.1,34,89,610/-. WHEN THE DISPUTE CAME BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), HE OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COUPLE OF PROPERTIES AT HYDERABA D AND PUNE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE POSSESSORY RIGHT. THEREFORE, ASSESSEES CL AIM THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE IN THE NATURE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. L EARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AGREED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID TWO PROPERTIES ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF LEGAL EXPE NSES RELATING TO SOME OTHER PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE SERVICE TAX COMPONENT ON LEGAL FEES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECEIVED COMPENSATION AND IS IN FURTHER DISPUTE FOR 4 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 ENHANCED COMPENSATION, AND THE LEGAL EXPENSES INCUR RED IN RESPECT OF POWER OF ATTORNEY GRANTED TO DR. P.S. PRASAD, LEARNED COMMIS SIONER (APPEALS) ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG HAS TREATED THE PROPERTIES OR IN TEREST ACQUIRED THEREIN FROM NIZAM AS STOCK IN TRADE AS THEY WERE ACQUIRED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF ITS INVESTMENT BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED, ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE P ROPERTIES SO ACQUIRED ARE IN THE NATURE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY L EARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES WEALTH-TAX APPE AL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990- 91 & 1991-92. HE SUBMITTED, THE AFORESAID DECISION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WAS EVEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, HE SUBMITTED, ONCE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THEY C ANNOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET. HENCE, THE LEGAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RES PECT OF THE STOCK-IN-TRADE IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED, TH E VERY FACT THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE IN THE NATURE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE CAN BE DEMONSTRATED FROM THE FACT THAT AFTER COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTIES BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED AS B USINESS INCOME AND THE REVENUE HAS ALSO ACCEPTED IT. THUS, HE SUBMITTED, T HE LEGAL EXPENSES HAVING BEEN INCURRED IN RESPECT OF ASSETS HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRAD E, ARE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIE D UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD VS CIT(1967) 63 ITR 207(SC) 2. DALMIA JAIN & CO LTD VS CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 ( SC) 3. CIT VS O.P.N. AUNACHALA NADAR (1983) 141 ITR 62 0(MAD) 4. CIT VS AIRLINES HOTEL (P) LTD (2012) 346 ITR 33 (BOM) 5 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 5. HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV VS DCIT ITA NO.5678/MUM/20 15 ORDER DATED 3 OCTOBER, 2017 6. DCIT VS B KUMAR GOWDA (2017) 396 ITR 386 (KAR) 5. STRONGLY RELYING UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, THE SUBJECT P ROPERTIES WERE NEVER IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTIES NOR WAS IN POSSESSION, THE PROPER TIES CANNOT BE TREATED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED, IN AN Y CASE, WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED IS AN INTEREST IN CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE , ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO ACQUIRE OR IMPROVE UPON THE TITLE OF SUCH CAPITAL A SSET WOULD ALSO BE OF CAPITAL NATURE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED THE DE DUCTION CLAIMED. HE SUBMITTED, WHEN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT DIS CARDED THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE NATURE AND CHARACTE R OF THE PROPERTY, HE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED A PART OF THE EXPENDITURE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIALS ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF DECISIONS RELIED UPON. UNDISPUTEDLY, T HE ISSUE ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION IS, WHETHER THE LEGAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE ALONG WITH SERVICE-TAX COMPONENT COMPUTED THEREON AGGREGATING TO RS.1,35,8 9,610/- IS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE OR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT IS A FACT ON REC ORD THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALLOWED MAJOR PART OF THE EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,12,89,702/- AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT IS EVID ENT FROM FACTS ON RECORD THAT THE LEGAL EXPENSES MORE OR LESS ARE CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES OR RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE PROPERTTIES TRANSF ERRED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ERSTWHILE NIZAM. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT ON RECORD THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRECTIONS 6 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, CERTAIN PROPE RTIES BELONGING TO NIZAM WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE PROP ERTIES WERE ACQUIRED EITHER BY THE CONCERNED STATE GOVERNMENT OR SOME OTHER GOV ERNMENT AGENCIES. IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE PROPERTIES, EVEN COMPENSATIO N HAS BEEN PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT/GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FOR ACQUIRING THE PR OPERTY. IT IS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FROM THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ITSELF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HAVE NOT ONLY TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT, BUT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON PERUSAL OF ORDER DATED 31-08-199 4 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, BOMBAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 A ND 1991-92, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS VERY CLEARLY AND CATE GORICALLY HELD THAT THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT HYDERABAD ARE STOCK -IN-TRADE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AFORESAID DECISION OF LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY HAS ALSO BEEN APPROVED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING REVENUES APPEAL I N WTA NOS.1255 AND 1256/BOM/1994 DATED 19-11-1996. THUS, ONCE THE IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT HYDERABAD HAVE BEEN HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(14)(I) OF THE ACT. THUS , ANY EXPENDITURE RELATED TO STOCK-IN-TRADE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE EXPE NDITURE. 7. AS REGARDS THE PROPERTY AT YERAWADA, PUNE, UNDIS PUTEDLY, THE SAID PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE DEFENCE AUTHORITIES AND CO MPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. OF COURSE, ASSESSEE IS IN DISPUTE OVE R ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THEREFORE, THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE ALSO AT PAR WITH THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT HYDERABAD. IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO ACQUIS ITION OF SOME OF THE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED IT. 7 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 THIS FACT ALSO SUPPORTS ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE S UBJECT PROPERTIES ARE HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE HOLD T HAT THE LEGAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXP ENDITURE, ARE ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE EVEN THE PARTIAL DISALLOWANC E SUSTAINED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS IN ASSE SSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED AND GROUND 1 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. THE ONLY OTHER SURVIVING ISSUE AS PER GROUND 2 A ND 3 OF REVENUES APPEAL AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R. 8D. 9. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND AMOUNTING TO RS.34 ,30,88,643/-. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUO MOTU DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7, 84,584/- UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE IN TERMS OF RULE 8D, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDE D TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYING RULE 8D AND WORKED OUT A DISALLOWANCE OF R S.1,43,59,665/- UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III). SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISALLO WED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,84,584/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A NET DISALLOWANCE OF RS .1,35,75,081/-. ASSESSEE CONTESTED THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE I N THE CONTEXT OF FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,17,496/-. OUT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,84,584/-. THUS, HE HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEING 8 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 MORE THAN REASONABLE, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE HAS T O BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEREAS, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED, IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTRICTE D THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.2 LAKHS. THUS, HE SUBMITTED, SIMILAR VIEW MAY BE TAKE N IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LITT LE MORE THAN RS.13 LAKHS; WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF R .7.84 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE DISALLOWANCE COMPUT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY RELATES TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE UNDER RU LE 8D(2)(III). THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED MORE THAN 50% OF THE TO TAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED, NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. 12. NOW REVERTING BACK TO ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RS.2 LAKHS AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION. FIRSTLY, IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF H AS COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.7.84 LAKHS. IN FACT, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTI ON 14A R.W.R. 8D SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE 9 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 AFORESAID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECI SION OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND 2 IN RE VENUES APPEAL AND GROUNDS 4,5 AND 6 IN CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. 13. AS REGARDS GROUND 3 OF REVENUES APPEAL CONCERN ING DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.R. 8D WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT, THIS ISSUE IS NOW S QUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI SPECIAL BENCH IN CASE OF ACIT V S VIREET INVESTMENTS P LTD (2017) 82 TAXMANN.COM 415. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE DECISI ON OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THIS GROUND IS ALSO DISMISSED. 14. REST OF THE GROUNDS IN ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIO N BEING MERELY IN SUPPORT OF ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ARE ALSO DI SMISSED. 15. TO SUM UP, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED, REVENU ES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12/10/2021. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) SAKTIJIT DEY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 12/10/2021 PAVANAN 10 ITA 7853/MUM/2019 111/MUM/2020 CO 80/MUM/2021 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI