ADDL CIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI V. ENERCON INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8373/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 92623 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P BAIRAGRA
• Assessee Lawyers: N K CHAND
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI , , . . , BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO . 8373 / MUM./ 2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 5 06 ) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .. / APPELLANT V/S M/S. ENERCON I NDIA LTD. PLOT A/9, ENERCON TOWER VEERA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE VEERA DESAI ROAD, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400 053 PAN AAACE0319D .... / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : S HRI N.K. CHAND / REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. BAIRAGRA / DATE OF HEARING 25.05.2015 / DATE OF ORDER 29.05.2015 / ORDER , / PER VIJAYPAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER TH E PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 , PASSED BY THE M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 2 COMMISSIONER ( APPEALS) 15 , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 06 . FOLLOW ING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE : - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 15,64,000 MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 14A OF THE ACT TO AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF ` 5,00,000/ WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON THEREFOR. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 16,07 ,10,000 MADE U/S 92CA BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER / ASSESSING OFFICER . 2. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(23G) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED A SUM OF ` 107.16 CRORES IN ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE DISALLOWANCE PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS. FURTHER, SINCE THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS CAL LED FOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF ` 15,64,000 UNDER SECTION 14A. M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 3 3. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V/S DCIT, [2010], 328 ITR 081 (BOM.) . HOWEVE R, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MADE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF DISALLOWANCE AT ` 5,00,000, UNDER SECTION 14A. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, H OWEVER, IT HAS PERSUASIVE VALUE FOR COMPUTING A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO ` 5,00,000. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS CONTENTION AS RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FROM THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTI ON 10(23G) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND CONSEQUENTLY, FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME IN THE S H A P E OF INTEREST. THUS, HE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TH AT ` 5,00,000, IS A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE. M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 4 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS OWN FUND S AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. THERE IS NO QUARREL ON THE POINT THAT PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D, ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS HELD BY THE HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA) . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION ON REASONABLE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SU BSIDIARY COMPANY, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF RESHUFFLING INVESTMENT OF PORTFOLIO BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH REQUIRES THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT IN THE REGULAR DECISION MAKING PROCESS. IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS A STRATEGIC INVESTMENT AND FURTHER DOES NO T REQUIRE REGULAR E VALUATION AND RE CONSIDERATION OF RETAINING OR RESHUFFLING OF THE INVESTMENT. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ESTIMATE OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENS ES MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT ` 5,00,000, IS WITHIN THE RANGE OF 1% TO 2% OF THE EXEMPT INCOME WHICH IS FOUND TO BE REASONABLE KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT OF THE CASE THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY IN THE M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 5 ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) QUA THE PRESENT ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1, IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.2, RELATES TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. 8. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF WIND TURBINE GENERATORS AND INSTALLATION OF WIND MILLS. IT IS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN ANARCOM GMBH AND THE INDIAN PROMOTER WITH THE SHAREHOLDING OF 56% TO 44% RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNDER: SR. NO. CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION ( ` IN LAKH) 1. IMPORTS GOODS COMPONENTS AND SPARE PARTS EIL IMPORTS RAW MATERIAL FROM ITS GROUP ENTITIES FOR ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY ` 31624.14 2. EXPORTS MANUFACTURED BLADES / CBCT EIL MANUFACTURERS BLADES / CBCT FOR EXPORT (E 40 MODEL) ` 342.27 3 . IMPORT CAPITAL GOODS EIL IMPORTS CAPITAL GOODS LIKE MACHINERY, ACCESSORIES, SPARES, ETC., FROM ITS GROUP ENTITIES ` 5772.57 4. REIMBURSEMENT OF GUARANTEE CHARGES REIMBURSEMENT OF GUARANTEE CHARGES ` 243.33 5. SALE OF COMPUTER SALE OF COMPUTER ` 0.87 M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 6 9. IN ITS TRANSFER PRICING STUDY, THE ASSESSEE HAS BENCH MARKED ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF IMPORT OF RAW MATERIALS / SPARES FROM THE GROUP ENTITY FOR ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES BY ADOPTING THE TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AND SELECTIN G 11 COMPARABLE COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ARRIVED MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLE AT 7.16% IN COMPARISON OF THE ASSESSEES OPERATING MARGIN @ 11.57%. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ARE AT ARMS LENGTH. THE TRANSFER PR ICING OFFICER REJECTED THE COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE TNMM ANALYSIS AFTER CONSIDERING THE COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE WIND GENERATOR ESPECIALLY SUZLON ENERGY LTD. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF S UZLON ENERGY LTD. IN THE COMPARABLE LIST ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID COMPANY WAS NOT RENDERING VALUE ADDED SERVICES LIKE INSTALLATION AND SUCH ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT BY ITS ASSOCIATED GROUP OF COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE OTHER G ROUP COMPANIES WHICH WERE CARRYING OUT THE OTHER SERVICES LIKE INSTALLATION WERE HAVING LOWER MARGIN. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND DOCUM ENTS IN THIS RESPECT. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER FINALLY TOOK THREE COMPANIES AS COMPARABLE AND ARRIVED AT MEAN MARGIN OF 13.39% AS UNDER: M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 7 SR. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY TURNOVER EBIT PROFIT / SALES (%) 1. NEPC INDIA LTD. 299.68 80.72 26.94% 2. SUZION ENERGY LTD. 1917.50 430.92 22.47% 3. VESTAS R RB INDIA LTD. 553.36 23.88 4.32% 10. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT THE PROFIT MARGIN OF SUZLON ENERGY LTD. WAS WRONGLY TAKEN BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER BEFORE DEPRECIATION & INTEREST AND FURTHER SUZLON ENERGY LTD., IS NOT CARRYING OUT THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES FOR INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF WIND MILLS, THEREFORE, THE SAID COMPANY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUZLON ENERGY LTD., UNDER THREE DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITIES / COMPANIES, IS CARRYING OUT VARIOUS ACTIVITIES OF SUPPLYING OF WIND MILL, INSTALLATION & COMMISSIONING AND LAND PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SITE. THUS, THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT ALL OTHER ACTIVITIES OF INSTALLATION, COMMISSIONING AND LAND PURCHASE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SITE ARE PERFORMED BY THE OTHER GROUP COMPANIES AND NOT BY THE SUZLON ENERGY LTD. AND, THEREFORE, SUZLON ENERGY LTD. IS NOT A FUNCTIONAL LY COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PROVIDED THE DAT A OF THE OTHER TWO COMPANIES NAMELY SUZLON INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. AND SARJAN REALITIES LTD., WHICH ARE PERFORMING THE ACTIVITIES OF INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING AS WELL AS LAND PURCHASE AND DEVELOPME NT OF SITE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 8 ACCEPTED THE COMBINED / CONSOLIDATED OPERATING MARGIN OF ALL THE THREE COMPANIES AS RE CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF THE MARGIN OF SUZLON ENERGY LTD. ALONE. THUS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TH E COMBINED MARGIN OF SUZLON ENERGY LTD. ALONG WITH THE OTHER TWO COMPANIES AT 18.10% AND, THEREAFTER, WORKED OUT THE OPERATING MEAN MARGIN OF THE COMPARABLES AT 11.21% AS AGAINST THE PROFIT MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE @ 11.15% AND HELD THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS AT ARMS LENGTH AND CONSEQUENTLY, DELETED THE ADDITION WHICH WAS MADE BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. 11. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THE RE CALCULATION OF THE MARGIN OF THREE COMPANIES AS INTEGRATED / COMBINED AVERAGE MARGIN OF SUZLON GROUP OF COMPANIES WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. THUS, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, WHILE ACCEPTING THE FRESH EVIDENCE / DETAILS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION OF COMBINING THE RESULTS OF MOR E THAN ONE COMPANY AS DONE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TRANSFER PRICING. M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 9 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A FRESH EVID ENCE OR DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BUT THE ASSESSEE TOOK THIS OBJECTION BEFORE THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF SUZLON ENERG Y LTD. IN THE SET OF COMPARABLES. HE HAS REFERRED TO PARA 3 OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SPECIFIC OBJECTION THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AS THE VALUE ADDED SERVICES LIKE INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING ARE NOT PERFORMED BY THIS COMPANY BUT THE SAME WERE PERFORMED BY THE OTHER ASSOCIATED COMPANIES OF SUZLON ENERGY LTD. THUS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF ALL T HE THREE GROUP COMPANIES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO MAKE THEM FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE OPERATING PROFIT OF THE SUZLON ENERGY LTD. PRIOR TO DEPR ECIATION AND INTEREST WHEREAS IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER COMPARABLE, THE OPERATING MARGIN WAS TAKEN AFTER DEPRECIATION, THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS CLUBBING OF RESULTS M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 10 OF THREE GROUP COMPANIES OF SUZLON FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT SUZLON ENERGY L TD. IS ENGAGED IN SUPPLY OF WIND MILLS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIVITIES OF INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING W ERE BEING PERF ORMED BY THE OTHER GROUP COMPANIES VIZ. SUZLON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. FURTHER, THE LAND PURCHASED AND DEVELOPMENT OF SITE WORK IS DEALT WITH B Y SARJAN REALITIES LTD., A GROUP COMPANY OF SUZLON ENERGY LTD. THEREFORE, SUZLON ENERGY LTD. WAS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF SUPPLY ALONE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLY, INSTALLATION, COMMISSIONING AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENT OF SITES. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BUSINESS ACTIVIT IES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE SUZLON ENERGY LTD., FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER INCLUDED THE SUZLON ENERGY LTD. IN THE COMPUTATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE, HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SUZLON ENERGY LTD. IS NOT A FUNCTIONAL COMPARABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE INCLUSION OF SUZLON ENERGY LTD. IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLE IS NOT PROPER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SUZLON ENERGY LTD. ALONE IS NOT A GOOD COMPARISON OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, CLUBBED THE MARGINS OF ALL THE THREE COMPANIES. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE AT 13.39% IN THE COMPARISON TO THE OPERATING MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE @ 11.57%. HOWEVER, THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 11 BENEFIT OF TOLERANCE RANGE OF + 5% WHILE MAKING THE ADJUSTMENT. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE CONTROVERSY WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF THREE GROUP COMPANIES OF SUZLON , W E NOTE THAT WHEN THE SUZLON ENERGY LTD. IS NOT A COMPARABLE AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SET OF COMPARABLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE AND FUR THER THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE DETERMINED BY THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER IS WITHIN THE TOLERANCE RANGE OF 5%, THEN THE CLUBBING OF RESULTS OF THREE GROUP COMPANIES BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WOULD BE INCONSEQUENTIAL . THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE WHEN THE ACTION OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER INCLUDING SUZLON ENERGY LTD. IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. AS SUCH, THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. 14. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 29.5.2015 SD/ - . . B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - , VIJAYPAL RAO JUDICIA L MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 29.5.2015 M/S. ENERCON INDIA LTD. 12 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) / THE ASSESSEE; (2) / THE REVENUE; (3) ( ) / THE CIT(A); (4) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI