MILAN LABORATORIES (INDIA), THANE V. ACIT CIR 1, THANE

ITA 863/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7926 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P SINGH
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Reasonable cause; Difference of opinion; Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 80HHC; 145; 28

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -BBENCH MUMBAI , , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./863/MUM/2009, / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 MILAN LABORATORIES (INDIA) A-5, MEGH MALHAR, GAVAND PATH, NAUPADA, THANE-400 602 PAN:AAFFM 0536 L VS. CIT-(LTU) 29 TH FLOOR, CENTER NO.1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE MUMBAI-400 005. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) / REVENUE BY: SHRI N.P. SINGH, CIT-DR /ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NITESH JOSHI (AR) / DATE OF HEARING: 10/02/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.03.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA A.M. - CHALLENGING THE ORDER, DATED 24/03/2008, OF THE CIT -I,THANE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.BESIDES FILING THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEA L THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS.DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)CONTENDED THAT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE LEGAL IN NATURE,THAT N O ENQUIRY ABOUT FACTS IS REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE (DR) LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL G ROUNDS AND WE FIND THAT FURTHER ENQUIRY ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE M ADE AND THE GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE.THEREFORE,WE ADMIT THE SAME. IN ITS APPLICATION FILED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY,T HE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT BECAUSE OF THE WRONG ADVISE OF THE CA THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILE D IN TIME,THAT AFTER GETTING THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE 263 ORDER THE ASSESSEE WAS ADV ISED TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE REVISIONARY ORDER,THAT THE DELAY WAS NOT INTENTIONA L,THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE, THE APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY AFFIDAVIT OF THE PROF ESSIONAL WHO HAD ADVISED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE APPEAL. BRIEF FACTS: 2. ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER AND EXPORTER OF PHARMACE UTICAL PRODUCTS.IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/11/2003,DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 8.14 L AKHS AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.2.46 CRORES U/S.80HHC OF THE ACT. WHILE COMPLETING THE A SSESSMENT, U/S.143 (3) OF THE ACT, ON 17/02/ 2006,THE AO DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AT RS. 1.30 CRORES. HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF OUR INCOME TO THE EX TENT OF BOOBIES 5.60 CRORES CONSISTING OF 863/M/09-MILAN LABORATORIES 2 EXCISE REBATE CLAIM (RS.3.60 CRORES) AND DEPB REFUN D (RS. 2.53 CRORES).THE AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE FURTHER DETAILS AND JUSTIFICAT ION ABOUT CLAIM MADE BY IT U/S.80HHC. ACCORDINGLY,A FRESH WORKING OF THE DEDUCTION,IN LIG HT OF AMENDMENT OF 2006 OF THE FINANCE ACT AND THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CBDT IN THAT R EGARD,WAS MADE.AS AGAINST THE CLAIM, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80HHC,OF RS. 2.46 CRORES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN THE AO RESTRICTED INTO RS. 1.24 CRORES. HE COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: PROFITS & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION RS.2,55 ,12,919/- LESS: DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC AS DISCUSSED IN THE RS. 1,24,94,090/- BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER -------- ------------- TOTAL INCOME RS.1,30,18,829/- ROUNDED OFF TO RS.1,30,18,830/- ============= 3. THE CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE,U/S.263 OF THE A CT,TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT AS TO WHY THE REVISIONARY PROVISION OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED, AS THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY THE AO, AMOUNTING TO RS. 1.24 CRORES,WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE.HE RE -WORKED THE 80HHC DEDUCTION AND OBSERVED THAT PR OFIT DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM EXPORT BUSINESS WAS NEGATIVE, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO GET THE REDUCTION, THAT PROFIT AFTER DEDUCTION OF INCENTIVES (AT THE RATE O F 90%) WAS SHOWING NEGATIVE FIGURES, THAT THE SECTION HAD BEEN AMENDED BY TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMEN T) ACT, 2005 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT,THAT THE PROVISO TO SUBSECTION 3 TALKED ABOU T SET OFF OF THE LOSSES COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A)/(B)/(C), THAT ANY SURPLUS ARISING AFTER THE SET OF THE LOSS HAD TO BE DEALT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE THIRD PROVISO, THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PR OVIDE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE HAD AN OPTION TO CHOOSE EITHER THE DU TY DRAWBACK OR THE DEPB SCHEME,THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD GET BENEFIT IN RESPECT OF DEPB LICEN SE SALE IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS ONLY, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN THAT REGA RD, THAT THE AO HAD ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC.HE FURTHER REFERRED TO CLA USE (IIID) OF SECTION 28 AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON THE BASIS OF AMOU NT OF BENEFIT ACCRUED UNDER DEPB SCHEME, THAT ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE LICENCE HAD B EEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR,THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET DEPB RECEIVABLE HAD BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 2.20 CRORES,THAT IT HAD SHOWN MODERATE CREDIT AS LOANS AND ADVANCES IN THE BALANCE SHEET,T HAT IT HAD RECEIVED INTEREST OF RS. 5.43 LAKHS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, THAT IT HAD NETTED THE INTERE ST,THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INTEREST WAS NOT AS PER LAW,THAT IT HAD CLAIMED EXC ESS DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC,THAT THE AO HAD NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF DEPB R EFUND,EXCISE REBATE,MODVATE CREDIT AND 863/M/09-MILAN LABORATORIES 3 INTEREST INCOME,THAT HE HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMEN T WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND.AS STATED EARLIER, THE CIT ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. IN ITS RESPONSE,VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 4/10/2007, TH E ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSION.IT WAS ARGUED THAT AS PER THE AMENDED LAW THE ASSESSEE HAD OPTION TO CHOOSE EITHER DUTY DRAWBACK DEPB SCHEME,THAT THE RATE OF DRAWBACK CRED ITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CUSTOMS DUTY WAS HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF CREDIT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE TRUE ENTITLEMENT PASS BOOK SCHEME, THAT ITS PRODUCTS WERE NOTIFIED IN APPENDIX 28A OF THE HANDBOOK OF PROCEDURES IN PRODUCT GROUP, CHEMICAL, PRODUCT CODE -62, AS PER THE HANDBOOK NO EXPORT HAD TO BE ALLOWED UNDER D EPB SCHEME UNLESS THE DEPB RATE OF THE CONCERNED EXPORT WAS NOTIFIED, THAT THE DRAWBACK CREDIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CUSTOM DUTY WAS HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF CREDIT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE DEPB SCHEME, THAT THOUGH THE DUTY DRAWBACK WAS HIGHER IT HAD OPTED FOR D EPB, THAT EXCISE REBATE WAS REFUND ON EXPORT WHICH RESULTED IN REDUCTION OF COST OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED, MODVATE CREDIT WAS TAKEN TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY WAY OF EXCISE REFUND OF RS. 3.06 CRORES, THAT THE INTEREST INCOME WAS ON ACCOUNT OF FIXED DEPOSIT/TER M DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK AS MARGIN MONEY FOR OPENING LINE OF CREDIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOR T. 3.2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE,TH E CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SATISFIED BY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PROVISO TO SUBSECTION(III) OF SECTION 80HHC,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON AC CRUAL BASIS NOT ON ACTUAL SALE BASIS, THAT RECEIPT OF DEPB LICENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCEP T THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BENEFIT ON ACCRUAL BASIS,THAT DEPARTMENT HAD CHALLENGED THE IN CLUSION OF EXCISE DUTY FOR THE TURNOVER PURPOSES BEFORE THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRODUCTION CHEMICALS, THAT THE INTEREST INCOME WAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROFIT OF THE BU SINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION AND SAME WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . HE DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM WITH REFERENCE TO THE AMENDED PROVISIONS. HE FURTHER DIRECTED THE AO TO ENSURE THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO GET DEDUCTION U/S.80HH C WITH REFERENCE TO EXCISE REBATE.HE ISSUED DIRECTIONS ABOUT MODERATE CREDIT AND INTERES T INCOME ALSO. 4. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)ARGUED T HAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S.143 (3) OF THE ACT, THAT THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STARTED IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST,25 AND COMPLETED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY , 2006, THAT THE AO HAD APPLIED HIS MIND, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAI LS FROM TIME TO TIME IN CONNECTION WITH THE CLAIM MADE U/S.80HHC OF RS. 1.74 CRORES (70% OF RS. 2.49 CRORES),THAT THE AO RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE DETAILS AND APPLY ING THE LAW PREVALENT AT THE TIME, THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN PROVISO 3 TO AMENDED SUBSECTION 3 TO THE SECTION 863/M/09-MILAN LABORATORIES 4 80HHC WERE FULFILLED, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OPTI ON TO CHOOSE EITHER THE DRAWBACK SCHEME OR THE DEPB SCHEME,THAT DRAWBACK CREDIT ATTRIBUTABL E TO CUSTOMS DUTY WAS HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF CREDIT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE DEPB, THAT IT WA S ENTITLED TO TAKE THE REFUND OF DEPB AS PER SECTION 145 OF THE ACT,THAT IT HAD SOLD DEPB R S. 2.53 CRORES DURING THE YEAR, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPORTED GOODS WORTH RS.27.10 CRORES,T HAT THE INTEREST INCOME WAS CONSIDERED AFTER NETTING THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE VIS A VIS IN TEREST INCOME,THAT THE CIT IGNORED THE NETTING OFF OF INTEREST.IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ORDE R SUFFERED FROM LACK OF BASIC JURISDICTION,THAT THE CIT HAD GIVEN SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE AO AS T O HOW TO COMPUTE THE INCOME IN PURSUANCE OF THIS REVISIONARY ORDER,THAT THE CIT HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE COMPANY,THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED IN CASE OF A FIRM,THAT IT WAS A JU RISDICTIONAL AND LEGAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THE ORDER CAN BE IN TWO DIFFE RENT ENTITIES I.E., A CORPORATE ENTITY AND A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,THAT HE HAD LEFT NO DISCRETION WIT H THE AO,THAT SUCH AN ORDER WAS BAD IN LAW, THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN THE VIEWS O F THE AO AND THE CIT,THAT THE AO HAD TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE USE, THAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED BACK THE ISSUE OF VALUE OF DEPB TO THE FILE OF THE AO THAT THE ORD ER OF THE AO WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE.HE RELIED UP ON THE CASES OF AVANI EXPORTS(119 DTR 352), JITENDRA CHANDRALAL NAVLANI & OTHERS(WRIT PET ITION NO.1069 OF 2016-HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT), NICO EXTRUTIONS LTD. (ITA/ 3662/ MUMBA I/2014-AY.2009-10,DATED 08/07/2016) ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT.LTD.(343ITR89) AND MAX INDIA LTD.(295/282)AND ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY.2002-03 (ITA/997/MUMBAI/2007, D ATED 21/08/2009). THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)CONTENDED THAT O RDER OF THE AO WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, THAT CI T HAD RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO FILE OF AO,THAT THE AO DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S.143(3), THAT THE AO HAD ALLOWED DEDUCTION WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS, THAT IT WAS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE LETTERS BEFORE AO WITH REGAR D TO DEDUCTION,THAT NO HARM WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE BY REMANDING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. WITH REGARD TO CONDONATION OF DELAY,HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE AHD TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION NOT TO FILE APPEAL, IT HAD NOT EXPLAINED T HE DELAY SATISFACTORILY 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF AVANI EXPORTS (SUPRA) THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT HAS HELD THAT AMENDED PROVISIONS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE AY. 2004 -05, THAT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS THE LAW EXISTING AT THAT TIME WOULD BE APPLICABLE,THAT AT THE TIME OF PASSIN G OF REVISIONARY ORDER THE CIT DID NOT HAVE BENEFIT OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. ONE OF THE REASONS CI TED BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER WAS THAT THE AO 863/M/09-MILAN LABORATORIES 5 HAD IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF AMENDMENT WHILE GRANT ING DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.80HHC. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS,WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT ORDER OF THE AO COULD NOT BE CATEGORISED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTEREST O F REVENUE. THE AO HAD CALLED FOR DETAILS ABOUT THE DIRECTION CLAIMED AND HAD RESTRICTED THE CLAIM WHILE PASSING 143 (3) ORDER. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT STAND TAKEN BY THE AO WAS AGAINST THE LAW OR WAS NOT ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS. THE REMANDING BACK OF THE ISSUE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER AY.TO THE FILE OF THE AO CLEARLY PROVES THAT ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE. HENCE, THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT DEBATABLE DUTY OF THE ISSUE, IN OUR OPINION, DESERV ES TO BE UPHELD.AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF EXCISE DUTIES CONCERNED IT IS FOUND THAT THE CIT HAD REFER RED TO THE FILING OF SLP BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT.IT CLEARLY SHOWS T HAT AT THAT POINT OF TIME ISSUE STOOD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE AO HAD ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HIS ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS.WE FIND THAT WHILE DEA LING WITH THE ISSUE OF INTEREST, THE CIT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT ABOUT NETTING OF OFF TH E INTEREST. BESIDES THE INTEREST HAD ACCRUED ON THE ITEMS THAT WERE DIRECTLY RELATED WITH THE EX PORTS.WE FIND THAT THE CIT HAD NOT COMMENTED UPON FIRST-DEGREE RELATIONSHIP OF THE INT EREST AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED.WE FURTHER FIND THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER THE CIT H AD SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE AO SHOULD ENSURE THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT GET DEDU CTION WITH REGARD TO EXCISE DUTY.IN OUR OPINION, SUCH AN INSTRUCTION IS NOT APPROVED BY THE PROVISIONS OF LAW.NO AO, EVEN IF HE IS CONVINCED ABOUT THE ALLOWABILITY OF ANY CLAIM/DEDUC TION,WOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE AN ASSESSEE,IF THE CIT INSTRUCTS HIM TO PASS TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IN A PARTICULAR MANNER.THE ABSENCE OF DISCRETION WITH THE AO VITIAT ES THE REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF NICO EXTRUTIONS LTD. (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL H AD CANCELLED AND ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT WHEREIN HE HAD TAKEN AWAY THE DISCRETION FROM THE A O AND HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ORDER IN A PARTICULAR MANNER.WE ALSO FIND THA T THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO REVISE THE ORDER WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF A CORPORATE ASSESSEE,BUT THE REVISIONARY ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM.WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF JITEND RA CHANDRALAL NAVLANI & OTHERS(SUPRA)THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT SUCH AN ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE A VALID ORDER. 5.1. IN OUR OPINION,A MATTER HAS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS RATHER ON THE TECHNICALITIES .IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION,WE FIND THAT ON MERITS ALL THE THREE ISSUES HAVE TO BE ADJUDICATED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.BASIC PRINCIPLES OF JURISPRU DENCE STATE THAT END OF JUSTICE MEET IF CASES ARE DECIDED ON MERITS.IN THE CASE BEFORE US,THE SCA LE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS FAR AS MERIT IS CONCERNED,EVEN IF ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS NOT L OOKED IN TO.CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE,WE CONDON THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. 863/M/09-MILAN LABORATORIES 6 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCUSSION,WE HELD THAT ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT, U/S.263 OF THE ACT,IS NOT VALID. ON MERITS IT CANNOT BE ENDORSED. THEREFO RE, REVERSING THE SAME, WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONA L GROUNDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH MARCH, 2017. 24 , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( / AMARJIT SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 24.03.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.