DEVANG LALJI SHAH, MUMBAI V. DCIT 18(3), MUMBAI

ITA 8345/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 834519914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHIT GANDHI
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 194C

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - D BENCH. . .. . . .. . , ,, , !'# !'# !'# !'# , ' ' ' ' BEFORE S/SH. I.P. BANSAL,JUDICIAL MEMBER & RAJENDRA ,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.8345/MUM/2010 , $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 DEVANG LALJI SHAH 315 KEWAL INDL. ESTATE, S.B.ROAD, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI- 400013 VS. DCIT 18(3) PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA- KURLA COMPLEX C-10, 7 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI-400020 PAN:AAMPS4024Q ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) &' &' &' &' * * * * ' '' ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NISHIT GANDHI ()&' + * ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN $ $ $ $ + ++ + , , , , / DATE OF HEARING : 21-10-2013 -.% + , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-11-2013 $ $ $ $ , 1961 + ++ + 254(1) ' '' ' ,/, ,/, ,/, ,/, '0 '0 '0 '0 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09-09-2010 OF THE CIT(A)-29,MUMBAI: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN RETAINING ADD ITION OF RS. 2,00,000/-, BEING 50% OF SUCH EXPENSES I.E. CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,00,000 /-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN RETAINING ADD ITION OF RS. 4,87,189/- DEBITED BY US AS SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF ACCOUNT, BY TREATING IT AS MER ELY ADVANCES AND NOT ROUTED THOROUGH PROFIT & LOSS A/C, THOUGH SUCH ADVANCES ARE BUSINESS LOSS SINCE N OT RECOVERED AFTER DUE EXERCISE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN RETAINING ADD ITION OF RS.10,44,010/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF T.D.S. ON PAYMENT TO CONTRACTOR WHICH IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 194C(1), THOUGH, SECTION 194C(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUAL / H UF CASES TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 4. THE APPELLANT PERMISSION OF YOUR HONOUR TO DELETE, AMEND, ADD OR ALTER ANY GROUND OF THIS APPEAL. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME O N 30.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10, 62, 650/-.ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FINALISED THE ASSESSME NT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 26.12.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 31,04,290/-. 2 ITA NO.8345/MUM/2010 DEVANG LALJI SHAH 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 LACS BEING 50% OF CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEES TREATING AS PERSONAL EXPENSES.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS.4 LACS AS CLUB MEMBERSHIP FEE IN HIS BOOKS OF AC COUTS.AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE,BEING PROPRIETOR OF THE CONCERN HAD TAKEN MEMBERSHIP OF THE CLUB MAINLY FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE FROM THE PERSONAL BANK ACCOUN T,THAT ELEMENT OF UTILISATION OF FACILITIES FOR HIMSELF AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS COULD NOT BE RULED O UT, THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE THE FACILITIES OF THE CLUB WERE UTILISED WHOL LY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENTERTAINING THE BUSINESS CUSTOMERS ONLY.AS A RESULT,HE MADE DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 2 LACS (50%) OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDI - TURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY(FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT A CORPORATE ENTITY, THAT CASES CITED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(A R) OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT APPLICABLE, THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AS CLUB MEMBERSHIP HAD BEEN USED ON LY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. AS A RESULT,HE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2.2. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) OF THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE,THAT PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE WAS ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT.HE REFERRED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF OTIS ELEVATOR (195ITR 682). DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUBMITTED THAT ASSES SEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL,THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED THAT EXPENDITURE WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVEL Y FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THAT AO AND FAA HAD RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50%. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT IN THE MATTER OF OTIS ELEVATOR ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT WAS DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.40(A)(V).HONBLE COURT HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40( A)(V) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE AND CLUB FEES PAID ON BEHALF OF CERTAIN E MPLOYEES ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE PERQUISITES. ON APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE DID NOT CONSTITUTE A BENEFIT OR AMENITY AS IT WAS T HE COMPANY'S POLICY AND PRACTICE TO REQUIRE THAT EXECUTIVES BECAME MEMBERS OF CLUBS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE CLUB/SPORTS ACTIVITIES WITH THE INTENTION T O ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN BUSINESS CONTACTS IN THE LON G-TERM INTEREST OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED THESE EXPENSES IN THE INTEREST OF ITS BUSINESS AS THE ASSESSEE FELT THAT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CLUBS WOULD PROVIDE ITS OFFIC ERS AND EXECUTIVES BETTER CONTRACT AND ASSOCIATION WITH PERSONS IN GOOD POSITION AND WOULD RESULT IN PUBLICITY.THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ALSO HELD THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT PAID WITH THE INTENTION TO BENEFIT THE EMPLOYEES AND, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF SUCH CLUB FEES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN FOR PROMOTING THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E. THEREFORE, THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE INCOME-TAX OFF ICER. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN THE NATURE OF PERQUISITES AS IT WAS THE OBLIGATION OF THE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED TO PA Y FOR THE SAME AND HENCE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE A PPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND RESTORED THAT O F THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER. ON A REFERENCE: HELD, THAT THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAD CATEGORICALLY FOUND THAT THE PAYMENT OF THE CLUB FEES WAS WITH A VIEW TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO IMPROVE ITS BUSINESS RELATIONS AND PROSPECTS. THE FACTUAL FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE APPELLATE ASSIST ANT COMMISSIONER HAD NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF CLUB FEES WAS B USINESS EXPENDITURE NOT FALLING UNDER SECTION 40(A)(V). SIMILARLY, THE HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE BEING A CASH AMOUNT PAID WAS NOT A PERQUISITE. THUS,THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION.THE ISSUE BEFORE US NOT THE REVENUE/CAPITAL NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE. WE ARE AWARE THAT IN CERTAIN CASES ISSUE REGARDING MEMBERSHIP OF CLUBS HAS BEEN DECIDED,BUT ALL SUCH 3 ITA NO.8345/MUM/2010 DEVANG LALJI SHAH CASES ARE OF CORPORATE ASSESSEE UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHERE ASSESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF A CONCERN.FAA HAD ENDORSED THE VIEWS OF THE AO THAT ELEMENT OF UT ILISATION OF FACILITIES FOR HIMSELF AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS COULD NOT BE RULED OUT.BUT,NEITHER AO NOR F AA HAD FOUND AS WHAT WAS THE FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE CLUB AND WHAT FACILITIES WERE AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIMSELF OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.IN OUR OPINION MATTER NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION.SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PART. 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4.87 LACS IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO FOUND TH AT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS. 4,87,189/- UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY EXPENSES. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO F ILE THE DETAILS AND TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE HELD THAT AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS IN NATURE OF ADVANCE T O SUPPLIERS, THAT NO ACTUAL PURCHASES WERE MADE, THAT ADVANCES APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF AY 2002-03,THAT SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT ROUTED TO P & L ACCOUNT,THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT NON-SUPPLY OF GOODS WHOM THE MONEY W AS ADVANCED.FINALLY, HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4.87 LACS IN THIS REGARD. 3.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY(FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,HE HELD THAT BURDEN OF PROVING THAT EXPENDITURE WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE, THAT IT WAS FOR THE TAX PAYER TO ESTABLISH BY PRODUCING EVIDENCES THAT PART ICULAR ALLOWANCE WAS JUSTIFIED,THAT ASSESSEE HAD NO T PRODUCED EVIDENCES WHY SUCH ADVANCES WERE MADE OR W RITTEN OFF. AS A RESULT, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS UPHELD BY THE FAA. 3.2 .BEFORE US,AR SUBMITTED THAT ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO THE SUPPLIER AND JOB WORKERS FOR PURCHASES AS WELL AS LABOUR CHARGES, THAT THEY HAD NEITHER SUPPL IED GOODS NOR HAD GIVEN ANY SERVICES, THEY DID NOT WRITTEN ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT TIL L DATE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO RECOVER ANYTHING FR OM THE PERSONS WHOM ADVANCES WERE MADE.DR SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE FAA. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT ROUTED THE SAID TRANSACTION TO P & L ACCOUNT, T HAT IT HAD CLAIMED THAT AMOUNT IN QUESTION COULD NO T BE RECOVERED.WE FURTHER FIND THAT HE HAD GIVEN DETA ILS OF SUNDRY DEBTORS/CREDITORS BALANCE WRITTEN TO THE AO (PAGE NO. 67 TO 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK).WE FUR THER FIND THAT AO HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD .IN OUR OPINION,BEFORE DISALLOWING THE AMOUNT-IN- QUESTION,HE HAD TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD TO GIVE REASONS FOR REJECTING THE SAME.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. HE IS DIRECTED TO IS SUE A FRESH OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE PASSING FRESH ORDER. HE SHOULD CONSIDER THE S UBMISSIONS MADE AT PAGE 67 TO 69 OF PAPER BOOK. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALL OWED,IN PART,IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS. 10.4 4 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(1) OF THE ACT,DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS.10,44,010/- TO CONTRACTOR, THA T HE DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. ASSESSEE VIDE IT S LETTER DATED 19.12.2008 SUBMITTED TO THE AO THAT IN DIVIDUALS AND HUFS WERE NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AS PER SECTION 194C(1)OF THE ACT.BUT,AO WAS OF THE OPI NION THAT SAID SECTION PROVIDED THAT ANY PERSON 4 ITA NO.8345/MUM/2010 DEVANG LALJI SHAH RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY RESIDENT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACTOR HAD TO DEDUCT TAX FOR PAYMENT MADE BY IT.HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10.44 LACS. 4.1. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FAA.AFTER C ONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FAA HELD THAT PROVISIONS NOT REQUIRING INDIVIDUALS TO HUF NOT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WERE APPLICABLE TO A CERTAIN CATEGORY OF TAX PAYERS, THAT IF THE TU RNOVER EXCEEDED RS. 40 LACS ASSESSEE HAD TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE,THAT ASSESSEE WAS COVERED BY THE PROVISO TO THE SECTION,THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DEDUCT TAX. HE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 4.2.BEFORE US AR SUBMITTED THAT INDIVIDUALS AND HIN DU UNDIVIDED FAMILIES WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION,THAT SUB-SECTION K WAS APPLICABLE FROM THE AY 2009-10,THAT ASSESSEE BEING,AN INDIVIDUAL,HAD NO T TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE PAYMENTS MADE BY HIM.HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL DELIVER ED IN THE CASE OF RAJIV KISHORILAL PATODIA (ITA NO./8967/MUM/2010,AY 2006-07, DATED.23.05.2013).DR SUBMITTED THAT PROVISO TO THE SECTION WAS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE,THAT FAA HAD RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ADDITION. 4.3.WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT PROVISO, ADDED TO THE SECTION 194C W.E.F.01-06-2002,READ AS UNDER: PROVIDED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED F AMILY, WHOSE TOTAL SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS OR TURNOVE R FROM THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM E XCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUSE (A ) OR CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 44AB DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SUM IS CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT O F THE SUB-CONTRACTOR, SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT INC OME -TAX UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION. THUS,IT CLEAR THAT FROM THE AY.2003-04 INDIVIDUALS AND HUFS WHO HAD TO GET THEIR ACCOUNTS AUDITED HAD TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IF THE TOTAL SALES/GROS S RECEIPTS/TURNOVER OF THEIR BUSINESS OR PROFESSION EXCEEDED THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN THE SECTI ON 44AB OF THE ACT.WE ARE AWARE THAT SUBSECTION K OF THE SECTION 194C OF THE ACT, REFERRED TO BY THE AR,WAS APPLICABLE FROM AY.2009-10 ONLY.BUT,THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT PROVISO WAS ALSO APPLICABLE FROM THAT YEAR.AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT INDIVIDUALS AND HUFS,WHO WERE SUBJECT TO MANDATORY AUDIT,HAD TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCES FROM AY.2003 -04.WHILE INTRODUCING THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION W.E. F.,01.06.2002,IF LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM DID NOT INCLUDE THE INDIVIDUALS AND HUFS,WHO HAD NOT TO GET THEIR ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S.44AB OF THE ACT,TO DEDUCT TAX SOURCE THAN IT WAS A CASE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION.BUT,LEGAL POSITION WAS VERY CLEAR TH AT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PROVISO WAS VER Y MUCH APPLICABLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TO DEDUCT TAX AS HIS TURN OVER EXCEEDED THE MONETARY LIMITS P RESCRIBED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT.IN THE MATTER OF RAJIV KISHORILAL PATODIA (SUPR A)TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AS FROM WHICH AY PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION K OF THE SECTION 194C WO ULD BE APPLICABLE.THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE SAI D ORDER WITH REGARD TO PROVISO INTRODUCED W.E.F.01-06 -2002.WE FIND THAT APPLICABILITY OF PROVISO WAS NOT AT ALL DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE.SO,CASE RELIED UPON BY THE AR IS OF NO HELP TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL.IN OUR OPINION FAA HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT PROVISO WAS APPLICABLE AND ASSESSEE HAD TO DEDUCT TAX SOURCE U/S. 194C OF THE ACT FOR THE PAYM ENTS MADE BY HIM DURING THE AY UNDER CONSIDERA - TION.GROUND NO.3 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 1 2 $1, 3 4 0 2 ' !5 + !, 67. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH NOVEMBER,2013. '0 + -.% ' 8 $ 13 1313 13 , 2013 . + /. 5 ITA NO.8345/MUM/2010 DEVANG LALJI SHAH SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . .. . , ,, , / I.P.BANSAL ) ( !'# !'# !'# !'# / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ' ' ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 9$ /DATE: 13.11.2013 SK '0 '0 '0 '0 + ++ + (,: (,: (,: (,: ;':%, ;':%, ;':%, ;':%, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / &' 2. RESPONDENT / ()&' 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ < = , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / < = 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / :>/ (,$ . , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / ? ):, (, //TRUE COPY// '0$ / BY ORDER, @ / 6 ! DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI