ITO 9(2)(2), MUMBAI V. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA, MUMBAI

ITA 9171/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 917119914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNMIYA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Deemed dividend
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.9171/MUM./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200708 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD9(2)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .. APPELLANT V/S SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA C402, GOKUL DIVINE IRLA, S.V. ROAD VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI 400 056 PAN AABPK6364L .... RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIMAL PUNMIYA DATE OF HEARING 27.07.2015 DATE OF ORDER 31-8- 2015 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29 TH OCTOBER 2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)20, MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 200708. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF OF RS. 12, 1 0,396/- TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 2 U/S. 2(22)(E), DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE ADDIT ION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF CREDITS IN THE BANK STATEMENT AS TH AT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NO T BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR WAS EXAMI NED BY HIM, AND THERE IS NOT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT B E PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO REASONABLE CAUS E. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,59,873/- IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DESPITE THE E VIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE RENT AL INCOME RELATING TO ALL THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY HER, NAMELY , FLAT NO.C- 402 & C-403 AS WELL AS GALA NO.G-05 AT SAMPADA. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) BE SET ASIDE ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE AND THAT OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER AN Y GROUNDS OR ADD A SINCE ALL THESE THREE APPEALS INVOLVE COMM ON ISSUE, EXCEPT VARIATION IN FIGURES, WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, AS A MATTER OF CONVE NIENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE B EING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. HOW EVER, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION, IT WOULD BE NECESSAR Y TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACTS OF ONE APPEAL. WE ARE, ACCORDINGLY, NA RRATING THE FACTS, AS THEY APPEAR IN THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 8542 /MUM./2011, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607. THE SOLE DISPUTE IN TH IS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOL DING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE IS A BENEFICIAL SHAREHOLDER M/S. KO RADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., HOLDING 50% OF SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN OF RS.78,10,000/-, ON VARIOUS DATES FROM THE SAID C OMPANY WHICH HAD ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS. 8,00,97,861/-. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ). SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 3 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND GAVE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND THE LEA RNED CIT(A) GAVE RELIEF OF RS. 12,10,396/-, ON THE BASIS THAT RS.2,00,000/- INCLUDE REMUNERATION WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN INCURRED AS INCOME FROM SALA RY. FURTHER, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY GAVE RELIEF OF RS. 5,35,396/-, ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING DEBIT BALANCE AND ANOTHER DEBIT OF ` RS.4,75,000/-. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, RELIED UPO N THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED SUM AND CIT(A ) ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,10,396/- AND ACCUMULATED PROFI T OF KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AS ON 31/3/2006 IS RS.1,43,7 8,968/- AS ON 31/3/2007 IS RS.8,00,97,861/-, HENCE THIS AMOUNT SHOULD BE TR EATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE'S OPENING BALANCE IS RS.5,35,396(DEBIT) AS ON 1ST APR IL 2006 WHICH IS THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY ASSESSEE FROM KORADIA CONSTRUC TION PVT. LTD. IN WHICH ASSESSEE HOLDS 50% SHARES, WHILE FURTHER PAYMENTS W ERE MADE DURING THE YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE TO KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ON 3RD AUGUST 2006 OF RS.4,75,000 WHICH AMOUNT OF RS 4,75,000 WAS RECE IVED BACK ON 18 TH AUGUST 2006. SIMILARLY HE CONTENDED THAT THE OPENIN G BALANCE OF RS SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 4 5,35,396 IS RECEIVABLE BY ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY AS ON 1ST APRIL 2006 AND TO THE EXTENT AMOUNT RECEIVED CANNOT BE ADDED A S IT IS THE RETURN OF LOAN GIVEN BY ASSESSEE TO KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PRIV ATE LIMITED AND THERE IS NO RECEIPT TO THAT EXTENT WHICH CAN BE COVERED U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. HE PRODUCED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS WELL BANK STATEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION. FURTHER HE STATED THAT RS.2, 00,000, IS THE SALARY FROM KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., WHICH HAS ALREADY B EEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR T HE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER AMOUNTS COMPRISED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS 7 8,10,000 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, T HE RECEIPT OF RS.58,00,000, WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FOR THE PU RCHASE OF PROPERTY. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS DELETED VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.3/MUM./2011 WHILE FOR BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.7 ,99,604/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORE-STATED ORDER TO BE TREATED AS INCOME AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE NOTED THAT WITH RESPEC T TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS 78,10,000 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD IN WHICH AS SESSEE HOLDS 50% SHARES, THE RECEIPT OF RS. 58,00,000, WAS ON ACCOUN T OF ADVANCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WHICH WAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDE RED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 5 ADDITION WAS DELETED VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO.3/MUM ./2011 WHILE THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF AMOUNT OF RS. 7,99,604 HAS BEEN CONF IRMED BY TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORE-STATED ORDER TO BE TREATED AS INCOME AS DEEME D DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)( E) OF THE ACT. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS 1210396.00 COM PRISES ASSESSEE'S OPENING BALANCE OF RS.5,35,396(DEBIT) AS ON 1ST APR IL 2006 WHICH IS THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY ASSESSEE FROM KORADIA CONSTRUC TION PVT. LTD. IN WHICH ASSESSEE HOLDS 50% SHARES, WHILE FURTHER PAYMENTS W ERE MADE DURING THE YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE TO KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. L TD. ON 3RD AUGUST 2006 OF RS.4,75,000 WHICH AMOUNT OF RS 4,75,000 WAS RECE IVED BACK ON 18TH AUGUST 2006 . THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS 5,35,396 IS RECEIVABLE BY ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID COMPANY AS ON 1ST APRIL 2006 AND TO T HE EXTENT AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK CANNOT BE ADDED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/ S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AS IT IS THE RETURN OF LOAN GIVEN BY ASSESSEE TO KO RADIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ASSESEE HAS PRODUCED STATEMENT OF ACCO UNT AS WELL BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED RS 2,00,000 AS THE SALARY FROM KORADIA CONST RUCTION PVT. LTD., WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THUS, IN VIEW O F ABOVE WE HOLD THAT CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,10,396 AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THUS, THE REVENUE APPEAL FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 7. GROUND NO.2, RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.8,59,873, ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 6 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED RENT FROM VARIOUS PROPERTIES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06 AND 2006-07, WHICH INCLUDES PROPERTIES LIKE G-104, G-119 AT RIDDHI AND ALSO G-114 AT SWAGAT, G-104, G-105 AND G-106 AT SAMPADA. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION RENT AL INCOME FROM THESE PROPERTIES DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1) OF THE ACT WHICH STIPUL ATE THAT THE SUM FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE L ET OUT FROM YEAR TO YEAR BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY FOR THE SAID YEAR AND HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.85 ,98,873, AS THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN THE LE ARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE FINDINGS THAT THIS ADDITION IS BASELESS AND THE PRESUMPTIOUS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO CONCRETE FINDI NG BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS TO WHY THE INCOME WHICH WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION FOR EARLIER YEAR AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION THIS YEAR. 10. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPO N THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DECLARED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH ARE OWNED BY THE A SSESSEE. SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 7 11. IN THIS CONTEXT, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CRYPTIC, BUT FACT UAL MATRIX OF THE CASE SUPPORTS HIS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. IN THIS CONTEXT ADDITIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CORRESPONDING FACTUAL MATRIX IS TABULATED AS UN DER: S.NO. ADDITION AMOUNT BASIS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE 1. 3,85,273 DETAILS OF PROPERTIES AS PER DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN A.Y 2005-06 & A.Y 06-07 THESE ARE THE ADDRESS OF OLD TENANT AND OLD PROPERTIES. ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTIONS. 2. 1,00,800 PROPEPRTY C-403, GOKUL DIVINE, IRLA, SV,ROAD, VILE PARLE(W) CONSIDERED AS DLOP BY THE LD.AO THE ASSESSEE OWN 50% OF TWO ADJUDICATE FLATS I.E. C0402 & C-403 IN GOKUL DIVINE AND THE SAME IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENCE I.E. SOP. NO RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THIS PROPERTY. REFERENCE IN COMPUTATION FOR C-402 WAS GIVEN JUST BECAUSE TENANT OF KHOKHANI BHAVAN, VASAI I.E. M/S. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION & M/S. KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. HAVE REGISTERED OFFICE AT C-402. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUME THAT C-403 IS ALSO NOT SOP AND COMPUTED DEEMED RENT. 3. 2,73,000 GALA NO.5 SAMPADA IS LET OUT TO THE SAME PARTY AS I.E. BIANCO TEXTILES TO WHOM PRESSMAN HOUSEWAS GIVEN ON RENT. GALA NO.5 SAMPADA IS THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS LET OUT TO BIANCO TEXTILES WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT PRESSMAN HOUSE. THEREFORE, IN COMPUTATION IN ADDRESS OF TENANT PRESMAN HOUSEWERE MENTION. HOWEVE,R THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY HELD PRESSMAN HOUSEIS ANOTHER PROPERTY WHICH BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER LEAVE AND & LICENCSE GALA NO.5 SAMPAD WAS GIVEN ON RENT FOR RS.3.90 LAC. 4. 1,00,800 RENT FROM KHOKHANI BHAVAN, VASAI NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED RENT FROM LETTING OUT KHOKHANI BHAVAN AND THE SAME IS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ADDRESS OF TENANT OF KHOKHANI BHAVAN I.E. M/S. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION & M/S. KORADIA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. IS AT C-402. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISUNDERSTOOD THE FACTS AND HELD THAT FLAT C-402, GOKUL DIVINE IS GIVEN ON RENT AND NOT KHOKHANI BHAVAN AND COMPUTED THE NOTIONAL RENT INCOME FOR THE PROPERTY WHICH IS GIVEN ON RENT AND ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAX. SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 8 AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND COMMENTS, THE LD.AO HAS GROSSLY MISUNDERSTOOD THE FACTS AND MADE THE ADDITIONS PURE LY ON PRESUMPTIONS. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONE D THE ADDRESS OF C-402, GOKUL DIVINE FOR THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM M/S SAGA R CONSTRUCTIONS AND M/S KORADIA DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION PVT. LTD. FOR THE U SE OF PREMISE AT KHOKHANI BHAVAN, SINCE C-402, GOKUL DIVINE IS THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THESE COMPANIES AND IT IS MANDATORY TO MENTION THE ADDRESS OF THE TENANTS. TO SUMMARISE, AMISHA KORADIA RECEIVED RENT OF RS.7 2,OOO FOR PROPERTY AT KHOKHANI BHAVAN, VASAI FROM SAGAR CONSTRUCTIONS AS WELL AS M/S KORADIA DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION WHICH HAS ITS REGISTERED OF FICE AT C-402, GOKUL DIVINE. THE RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR PROPERTY AT KHOKHANI BHAVAN AND NOT FOR C-402, GOKUL DIVINE. GALA NO.5 - SAMPADA IS LET OUT TO BIANCO TEXTILES WHICH HAS ITS ADDRESS AT 'PRESSMAN HOUSE' THE RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR PRO PERTY AT GALA NO.5 - SAMPADA AND NOT FOR 'PRESSMAN HOUSE'. 11.1 THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRIX, WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI BINAL S. KORADIA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHER EIN ALSO SIMILAR ADDITIONS WAS MADE. A COPY OF SUCH ORDER IN ITA NO .9170/MUM/2010 DATED 14/02/2014 HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 12. LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISP UTED THE FACTUAL MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, BUT HAS MER ELY POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS BEREFT OF ANY DETAILED DISCUSSION. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS SHORT ON DETAILS , SO HOWEVER, THE FACTUAL MATRIX WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT JUSTIFY ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY TH E CIT(A). MOREOVER, WE SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 9 FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALL THE FACTS BY WAY OF A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION DATED 2 5/11/2009, COPY OF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAG ES 110 TO 111. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE ANY FRESH FACTS ARE BEING PLEADED. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND I N THE BACKGROUND THAT THE FACTS WERE ALREADY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, WHICH HAVE REMAINED UN-REBUTTED AND ALSO THE PRECEDENT ON SIMILAR ISSU E IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND, SHRI.BINAL S. KORADIA, WE HEREB Y UPHOLD THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFF IRMED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-08-2015 SD/- SD/- SSD/- D/- SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 31/8/2015 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 VM (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI SMT. AMISHA BINAL KORADIA 10 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD IS ENCLOSED AT THE END OF FI LE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER , / / 1999798 200001 / / / / !! / / %& ' ( / ) / * ( / + ,-. * ( / + ,-. * * (