ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI V. SHREE KKRISHNA STRUCTURE P LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 9220/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79101 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRIJA DAYAL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Onus to prove
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JM ./I.T.A. NO.9220/M/2010 (AY 2005 - 06) ./I.T.A. NO.9221/M/2010 (AY 2006 - 07) . /I.T.A. NO.9222/M/2010 (AY 2007 - 08 ) DCIT - CC - 45, R.NO.659, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 20. / VS. M/S. SHREE KRISHNA STRUCTURE PVT LTD., 203 GIRIRAJ, IRON MARKET, S.T. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 009. ./ PAN : AACCK1623J ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI GIRIJA DAYAL, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA / DATE OF HEARING : 2.5.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .6.2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE THREE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) - 36, MUMBAI COMMONLY DATED 15/10/2010. SINCE, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE THREE APPEALS IS EXACTLY IDENTICAL AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN FIGURES, THEREFORE, FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND DISPOSED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 2. FIRSTLY, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL ITA NO.9220/M/2010 FOR THE AY 2005 - 2006. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,33,00,000/ - MADE IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SKS ISPAT (A GROUP COMPANY), DIRECTORS OF SOME SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ADMITTED IN THEIR DEPOSITION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES MERELY ON PAPER AND THEY DID NOT 2 HAVE CAPACITY TOMAKE TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH HUGE VALUE, THUS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT T HE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 5.33 CRS FOR AY 2005 - 06 . DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF (I) RS. 1.75 CRS FROM M/S. D. KUMAR TRADING CO PVT LTD; (II) RS. 75 LAKHS FROM M/S. HARBHOLE TRADELINK PVT LTD; (III) RS. 75 LAKHS FROM M.T. TRADELINK PVT LTD; (IV) RS. 1.97 CRS FROM M/S. R. KESHAVLAL TRADERS PVT LTD; (V) RS. 5 LAKHS FROM M/S. RUB ICON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD AND (VI) RS. 6 LAKHS FROM M/S. ODYSSEY CORPORATION LTD. FOR PROVING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS ETC, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS OF THE CHART, SHOWING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E AO, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 1 OF THE COMPILATION AND MENTIONED THAT THE AO ERRONEOUSLY HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR GIVING ABSOLUTELY UNSUSTAINABLE REASONS. RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE SAID COMPILATION CHART ARE INSERTE D HERE UNDER. SL NO NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT PAN CONFIRM ATION LETTER AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDER SHAREH OLDERS BANK STATEM ENT SHARE APPLICA TION FORM BOARD RESOLUTION OF SHAREHOLDER COMPANY ROC EXTRACT OF MASTER DATA MOA OF SHARE HOLDER 1 M/S. D. KUMAR TRADING CO PVT LTD 17,500,000 AABCD7089 2 M/S. HARBHOLE TRADELINK PVT LTD 7,500,000 AABCH4735R 3 M.T. TRADELINK PVT LTD 7,500,000 AAECM0374L 4 M/S. R. KESHAVLAL TRADERS PVT LTD 19,700,000 AAACO0463C 5 M/S. RUBICON PHARMACEUTICALS PVT LTD 500,000 AAACR4629R 6 M/S. ODYSSEY CORPORATION LTD 600,000 AACCR2251F 4 . DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE GAVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS BINDING DECISIONS AGAINST THE AOS DECISION IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN PARA 1 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE SAME AND DISCUSSED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STELLAR INVESTMENTS LTD 192 ITR 287 (DEL); FULL BENCH DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOPHIA FINANCE LTD, 205 ITR 98 (DEL); SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD 216 CTR (SC) 195 AND HELD AGAINST THE REVENUE BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE SUMMARY OF THE SAME IS GIVEN IN PARA 19 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 3 19. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT HEREIN, ALL SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BY THE AO AS APPELLANTS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIN 68 ARE DULY INCORPORATED COMPANIES. IN THE CASE OF AN INCORPORATED COMPANY, THE EXISTENCE OF THE PARTY CANNOT BE DENIED. ONCE, INCORPORATED, A COMPANY EXISTS UNTIL LIQUIDATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THESE ARE BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. BUT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, ONCE EXISTENCE OF SHAREHOLDER IS NOT IN DOUBT, NO FURTHER ACTION LIES AND THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS APPELLANT COMPANYS INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX. IN VIEW OF THIS LEGAL POSITION DECLARED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 5,33,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO IN THIS BEHALF ARE REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 5. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT EXACTLY AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SKS ISPAT & POWER LTD VIDE ITA NOS. 9203 & 9204/M/2010 (AYS 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 2008) WHICH IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7 . PER CONTRA, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) ORDER IS EXHAUSTIVE AND QUITE A SPEAKING ORDER AND THEREFORE, PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PE RUSED THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE . WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SKS ISPAT & POWER LTD VIDE ITA NOS. 9203 & 9204/M/2010 (AYS 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 2008) AND PARA NOS. 11 TO 16 OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6.6.2014 ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD WHICH READ AS UNDER: 11. THE SECOND ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1.36 CRS. DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 86 LAKHS FROM M/S. R. KESHAVLAL TRADERS PVT LTD AND RS. 25 LAKHS FROM M/S. H.N. TRADELINK PVT LTD A ND ANOTHER RS. 25 LAKHS FROM M/S. ASPIRE MERCANTILE PVT LTD. FOR PROVING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS ETC, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 73 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND MENTIONED THAT THE AO ERRONEOUSLY HELD AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT FOR GIVING ABSOLUTELY UNSUSTAINABLE REASONS. RELEVANT CONTENTS OF PAGE 73 OF ARE INSERTED HERE UNDER. SL NO NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT PAN CONFIRMATI ON LETTER AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDER S HAREHOL DERS BANK STATEME NT SHARE APPLICATI ON FORM BOARD RESOLUTION OF SHAREHOLDER COMPANY ROC EXTRACT OF MASTER DATA MOA OF SHARE HOLDER 1 R. KESHAVLAL TRADERS PVT LTD 8,600,000 AACCR2251F 2 H N TRADELINKS PVT LTD 2,500,000 AABCH5492D 3 ASPIRE MECHANTILE PVT LTD 2,500,000 AAFCA1712M 4 12. PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THEY PROVIDE THE DETAILS AND THE REASONS FOR MAKING ADDITIONS. THE SUMMARY FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS IS GIVEN IN PARA 8.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER: 8.7 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION, AS MENTIONED IN PARAS 8.1 TO 8.6, THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED OF RS. 1,36,00,000/ - ARE ADDED U/S 68 OF IT ACT, 1961 AS (I) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE THE CONF IRMATION FROM THE RESPECTIVE SHAREHOLDERS (II) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RESPECTIVE SHAREHOLDERS, FROM WHERE THE SHARE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED. (III) THEY FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AS THEY WERE FOUND TO BE NON - EXISTENT ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE BANK STATEMENT. (IV) THEY FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AS NONE OF THE SHAREHOLDER AS MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR HAS THE CAPACITY TO ADVANCE SUCH HUGE SUM OF MONEY. (V) THEY FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. (VI) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PAID THE CASH AND RECEIVED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY CHEQUE, AS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF THESE CHEQUES WERE FOUND TO BE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SHAREHOLDERS . (VII) NONE OF THE PARTIES WHO WERE USED IN THE CHAIN OF TRANSFER OF ENTRIES WERE NOT PRODUCED / VERIFIED. (VIII) THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS PRIMARY ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS. (IX) THE ASSESSEE DID NO T COME FORWARD FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES WHO STATED THAT ALL THESE ARE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. (X) THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS INFUSED IN THE COMPANY TO INCREASE THE PROMOTERS HOLDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF BANK LOAN ON WORKING CAPITAL. 13. DURING T HE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE GAVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS BINDING DECISIONS AGAINST THE AOS DECISION IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN PARA 67 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE SAME AND DISCUSSED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STELLAR INVESTMENTS LTD 192 ITR 287 (DEL); FULL BENCH DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. SOPHIA FINANCE LTD, 205 ITR 98 (DEL); SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD 216 CTR (SC) 195 AND HELD AGAINST THE REVENUE BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE SUMMARY OF THE SAME IS GIVEN IN PARA 65 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 65. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN, ALL SHAREHOLDERS WHOSE CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BY THE AO AS APPELLANTS INCOME UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ARE DULY INCORPORATED COMPANIES. IN THE CASE OF AN INCORPORATED COMPANY, THE EXISTENCE OF THE PARTY CANNOT BE DENIED. ONCE INCORPORATED, A COMPANY EXISTS UNTIL LIQUIDATED IN THE ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IF IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THESE ARE BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS THEN THE DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PR OCEED TO REOPEN THEIR ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. BUT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, ONCE EXISTENCE OF SHAREHOLDER IS NOT IN DOUBT, NO FURTHER ACTION LIES AND THE AMOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS APPELLANT COMPANYS INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX. IN VIEW OF THIS LEGAL POSITION DECLARED BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,36,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO IN THIS BEHALF ARE REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 14. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORD ER OF THE AO. 15. PER CONTRA, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) ORDER IS EXHAUSTIVE AND QUITE A SPEAKING ORDER AND THEREFORE, PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND FIND THAT THE CONCLUSIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) VIDE PARA 65 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCOR DINGLY, ISSUE NO.2 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE CIT (A) VIDE PARA 19 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ./I.T.A. NO.9221/M/2010 (AY 2006 - 07) . /I.T.A. NO.9222/M/2010 (AY 2007 - 08 ) 11. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) - 36, MUMBAI COMMONLY DATED 15.10.2010. GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN AY 2006 - 07 READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,13,00,000 / - MADE IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SKS ISPAT (A GROUP COMPANY), DIRECTORS OF SOME SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ADMITTED IN THEIR DEPOSITION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES MERELY ON PAPER AND THEY DID NOT HAVE CAPACITY TOMAKE TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH HUGE VALUE, THUS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN AY 200 7 - 0 8 READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,25,00,000 / - MADE IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SKS ISPAT (A GROUP COMPA NY), DIRECTORS OF SOME SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES ADMITTED IN THEIR DEPOSITION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES MERELY ON PAPER AND THEY DID NOT HAVE CAPACITY TOMAKE TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH HUGE VALUE, THUS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT ESTABLISHED. 12. IN THESE TWO APPEALS, ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 27.13 CRS (FOR AY 2006 - 2007) AND RS. 1.25 CRS (FOR AY 2007 - 08). T HE REVENUE RAISED AN IDENTICAL GROUND VIDE I.T.A. NO.9220 /M/2010 (AY 2005 - 2006) , WHICH IS ADJUDICATED BY US IN THE ABOVE PARAS OF THIS ORDER. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS FOR AYS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE GROUND RAISED IN AY 20 05 - 06, THEREFORE, OUR 6 ADJUDICATION AND DECISION GIVEN THEREIN SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE INSTANT APPEALS TOO. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISIONS GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) [VIDE PARA 17 FOR AY 2006 - 07 AND VID E PARA 17 FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 ] ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND THEY DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 13 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH JUNE, 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (VIVEK VARMA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 13 .06.2014 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI