BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8749/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84658 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJITKUMAR SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S R WADHWA; S K MUTSADDI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 68; 263; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKAR RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 8749/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT PVT. LTD. C-24 RUIOA PARK, JUHU MUMBAI- 400 049 PAN: AAACB 5785 E VS. ITO WD - 8(1)(2)MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.R. WADHWA & S.K. MUTSADDI REVENUE BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 . 12 . 2014 DATE OF ORDER : 19 . 1 2 .2014 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST ORDER DATED 01.11.2010, PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX-8,(CIT) MUMBAI, U/S 263 CANCELLING THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE AO U/S 154 DATED 27.04.2009 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- THE LD.CIT ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REVIS ING THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2009 PASSED U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF REVENUE. THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2009 PASSED U/S 154 OF THE IT A BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RECTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER D ATED 24.12.2008 PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3) OF THE ITA. ITA NO. 8749/MUM/2010 M/S. BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 IN RESTORING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ITA, THE LD.CIT BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A MISTAKE OF LAW OR FACT IS RECT IFIABLE U/S 154 OF THE ITA. THE LD.CIT, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 39 LAKHS IS THE APPELLANTS INCOM E U/S 68 OF THE ITA. IN DOING SO THE LD.CIT HAS FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON IT U/S 68 OF THE ITA BY FURNISHING THE IDENTITY OF MR. K.N. RANA, WHO HA D ALREADY FURNISHED THE LOAN CONFIRMATION TO THE A EXPLAINING THE SOURCE FROM WHICH HE HAD GIVEN LOAN OF RS. 39 LAKHS TO THE APPELLANT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W AS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ITEMS OF SILK FABRICS AND PA SHMINA ITEMS. THE ASSESSEE IMPORTS THESE ITEMS FROM NEPAL AND SELLS T HEM IN THE LOCAL INDIAN MARKET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET THERE IS AN INCREASE OF AMOUNT OF RS.39,00,000/- UN DER THE HEAD UNSECURED LOANS, WHICH WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECE IVED FROM ONE OF THE DIRECTOR, MR. K.N. RANA. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHO W CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS EXPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATE D 17.11.2008, STATING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS GIVEN BY MR. K.N. RANA WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED FROM NEPAL THROUGH HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DAYS. THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF STANDARD CHARTERED BA NK FROM WHERE THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED FROM NEPAL BANK ACCOUNT AND THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF MR. K.N. RANA WAS ALSO PRODUCED. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT MR. K.N. RANA HAD BORROWED FUNDS, FROM MACHHAPUCHCHHRE BANK LTD. NEPAL. OUT OF THIS BORROWED FUNDS, MR. K.N. RANA HAD GIVEN LOA N TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION LOAN CONFIRMATION AND LE TTER OF BANK OF NEPAL WAS ALSO FILED. REGARDING THE ASSESSEE OFFICERS FU RTHER QUERY AS TO WHY SUCH A LOAN HAD NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF MR. K.N. RANA FOR A.Y. 2006-07, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, LOAN BEING AN ASSET IS NEITHER AN INCOME NOR AN EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT SHOWN. THE ITA NO. 8749/MUM/2010 M/S. BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 3 COPY OF THE SAID LETTER ALONG WITH THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK OF NEPAL HAVE BEEN PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 17 AND 18. A CONFIRMATION LETTER OF MR. K.N. RANA FILED BEFORE THE AO IS ALSO PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOU T TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THESE VITAL EVIDENCES, HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF A NY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE SUM OF RS.39 LAKHS IS ADDED AS CASH C REDIT U/S 68. 3. AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER MENTIONING NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154, BEFORE THE AO ARE READ AS UNDER: OUR CLIENT HAS RECEIVED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF DEMAND OF RS.13,65,494/- U/S 143(3). IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT IN YOUR ORDER YOU HAVE STATED THAT NO LOAN CONFIRMATION WAS FILED. WE HAD ALREADY FILED LOAN CONFIRMATION LETTER ATTACHED TO OUR CONFIRMING LETTER DATED 30.06.2008 DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY YOU ON DATED 17.07. 2008 COPY OF WHICH WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND RE FERENCE ALONG WITH COPY OF LOAN CONFIRMATION LETTER. REGARDING THE SOURCE OF FUND OF THE LOAN TO BODISAT YA PVT. LTD., WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED THE DETAILS THROUGH OUR L ETTER DATED 17.11.2008, WHICH MAY BE VERIFIED FROM YOUR RECORD S. AGAIN WE ARE SUBMITTING THE LOAN CONFIRMATION LETTER OF MACH HAPUCHCHHRE BANK LTD, NEPAL. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE COMPLETING THE A SSESSMENT IF ANY ADDITION IS MADE IT IS ADDED TO THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. BUT, ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDI T WERE WRONGLY TAKEN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INST EAD OF ADDITION TO INCOME FROM BUSINESS, SHOWN AS PER THE RETURN. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE UNABSORBE D C/F LOSS OF RS.68,41,730/- WAS NOT CONSIDERED. ONLY CURRENT YEAR LOSS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH COPY OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR YOUR KIND REFERENCE. ITA NO. 8749/MUM/2010 M/S. BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE YOUR HONOUR IS REQUESTED TO RE CTIFY THE DEMAND AFTER CONSIDERING C/F LOSSES AND DROP THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY YOU AS THERE WILL BE NO DE MAND AFTER SET- OFF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER REALIZING HIS MISTAKE T HAT SUCH EVIDENCES WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AND ALSO REFERRED TO A LETTER DATED 10.11.2008 WRITTEN BY HI M DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ADMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE LOAN CONFIRMATION AND OTHER EVIDENCES, HOWEVER ADMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HAD ALSO REFERRED TO THE F OLLOWING CONTENTS OF HIS LETTER IN THE ORDER PASSED U /S 154 AND REDUCED THE SAID ADDITION FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE:- PENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A LETTER DATED 10. 11.2008 WAS WRITTEN TO ASSESSEE COMPANY THE OPERATIVE PART OF W HICH IS READ AS UNDER: IT IS SEEN FROM THE LOAN CONFIRMATION LETTER OF S HRI K.N. RANA, DIRECTOR WHO HAS GIVEN THE TOTAL LOANS OF RS.46,59, 000/- TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HOWEVER, OUT OF THESE LOANS, FRES H LOANS OF RS.39,00,000/- WERE GIVEN BY SHRI K.N. RANA (DIRECT OR) TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. IN THIS CONNECTION YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN OUT OF WHICH SOURCE THESE LOANS OF RS.39,00,000/- WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, BANK STATEMENT OF S HRI K.N. RANA OF NEPAL FORM WHICH THE LOAN GIVEN AND SOURCE THERE OF IN DETAIL WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 4. AFTER THIS QUERY FURTHER CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF MONEY WAS EXPLAINED. THE AO THUS ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 154. AGAINST THIS ORDER PASSED U/S 154, LD.CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 22.04.2010 U/S 263, WHERE IN HE HIGHLIGHTED THAT ALL THE INFORMATION WAS IN KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO BEFORE PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3), THEREFORE, THERE WAS N O MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD SO AS TO RECTIFY AND DELETE THE ADDITI ON IN ORDER PASSED U/S ITA NO. 8749/MUM/2010 M/S. BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 5 154. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSE SSEE FILED ITS DETAIL SUBMISSIONS, NOT ONLY ON THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 A ND ALSO ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT HELD THAT SUCH AN ORDER PASSED U/S 154, DELETING THE ADDITION IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AS IT AMOUNTS TO REVIEW AND THEREFORE SUCH AN ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD.CIT IS AS UNDER:- THUS, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DAT ED 27.04.2009, THE AO HAS REVIEWED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 22.04.2008 IN SO MUCH THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.39,00,000/- U/S 68, MADE BY HIM AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE, WAS DELETED BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME CONFIRM ATION LETTER. U/S 154 OF THE ACT, ONLY A MISTAKE APPARENT FORM RE CORDS CAN BE RECTIFIED. NO POWER IS CONFERRED THEREIN TO REVIEW A FINDING BASED ON DETAILED APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LAW. HENCE TH E ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 27.04.2009 PASSED BY THE AO BE ING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE IS SET ASIDE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 IS HEREBY RESTORED. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT, D URING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO LOAN TAKEN FROM MR. K.N . RANA WHICH INCLUDED NOT ONLY THE CONFIRMATION LETTER BUT ALSO THE EVIDENCE REGARDING SOURCE OF THE LOAN, WHICH WAS FROM THE BANK IN NEPA L AND HOW THE MONEY WAS TRANSFERRED FROM NEPAL TO THE BANK IN IND IA AND FROM THERE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THERE WAS DIRECT NEXUS OF SOURCE AND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAS MAD E THE ADDITION U/S 68, ON THE PREMISE THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HA VE BEEN FILED. THIS WAS CERTAINLY A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ITA NO. 8749/MUM/2010 M/S. BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 6 RECTIFIED BY THE AO. NOT ONLY THAT, DURING THE COUR SE OF REVISIONARY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ADDUCED FURTHER EVIDENCES REGARDING REMITTANCES OF BANK DRAFTS AND ALSO THE PHOTO COPIES OF THE BANK DRAFTS TO PROVE THE DIRECT LINKA GE OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO D REW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FROM PAG ES 20 TO 60. THUS, ONCE ALL THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO, HE HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. WITHOUT PREJUDI CE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT HIMSELF IN THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THIS ON MERITS OR COULD HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY CONFIR MED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASS ED U/S 154 BY THE AO, WITHOUT DECIDING ON MERITS. THIS HAS CAUSED GRA VE PREJUDICE AND HANDSHIP TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ONCE AL L THE DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THEN IT IS PRESUMED THAT ALL SUCH EVIDE NCES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND ONLY AFTER APPRAISAL OF EV IDENCES, DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN. DULY U/S 154, THE SCOPE IS VERY LIMITED AND IS ONLY CONFIRMED TO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND NOT TO REVIEW O F DECISION ALREADY TAKEN BY THE AO. THE LD.CIT HAS RIGHTLY CANCELLED T HE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 AS IT WAS PASSED IN VIOLATION OF SCOPE OF THE P ROVISIONS OF THE LAW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDING GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO THE MATERIAL P LACED ON RECORD. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IN THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADDUCED SUFFICIENT PRIMA FACIE EVI DENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN FORM THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 8749/MUM/2010 M/S. BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 7 COMPANY, MR. K.N. RANA. THESE EVIDENCES INCLUDE CON FIRMATION LETTERS, LOAN CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK IN NEPAL FROM WHERE MR. RANA HAD TAKEN THE LOAN, BANK STATEMENT OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK , COPY OF ACCOUNT OF MR. RANA ETC. NOT ONLY THAT, HOW THE SAID AMOUNT HA S BEEN REMITTED TO BANK IN INDIA AND THEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY. ENTIRE NEXUS OF THE TRANSACTION ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCES WHERE PLACED ON RECORD. DESPITE THAT EVIDENCES THE AO ADDED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THER E IS NOT A WHISPER ABOUT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. ONCE THIS WAS POINTED OUT TO THE AO UNDER RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S 154, THE AO TOOK COGNIZANCE OF SUCH MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND CA ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE GENUINE NESS OF THE LOAN, HENCE, THE SAID ADDITION WAS REDUCED FROM THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER BEFORE THE LD.CIT DURING THE COURSE OF REVI SIONARY PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED FURTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT SUCH A RECTIFICATION CANNOT BE CARRIED OUT BY THE AO U/S 154 AS IT AMOUNTS TO REVIEW HAS CANCELLED THE ORDER U/S 154 AND SUSTAINED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. U/S 263 THE LD.CIT I S REQUIRED TO LOOK INTO THE ENTIRE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON THE RECORD AN D THEN ONLY FROM SUCH RECORDS HE CAN FORM ON OPINION THAT THE ORDER WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263, IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. BOTH THE CONDITIONS SHOULD EXIST SIMULTANEOUSLY. EVEN IF THE ORDER OF THE AO U/S 154 WAS BAD IN LAW THEN ALSO THE LD.CIT WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE CONCRETE FINDING ON FACTS AS T O HOW THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. UNDER T HE LATTER LATER CONDITION, THE LD.CIT IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE ME RITS AND THE MATERIAL ITA NO. 8749/MUM/2010 M/S. BODISATYA IMPORT & EXPORT PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 8 ON RECORD AND GIVE HIS FINDING. IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER THE LD.CIT HAS CLOSED ALL THE DOORS OF JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS PATENTLY ERRONEOUS AND W AS IN VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS THE AO HAS OMITTED TO CONSIDER T HE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE HIM. THUS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT CANNOT BE UPHELD AT ALL. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT, FIRSTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND SECONDLY , THE ENTIRE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE ALL THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD RELATING TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE AND EFFECTIVE PROPER OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (D.KARUNAKAR RAO) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19.12.2014 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR B BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.