ACIT 24(2), MUMBAI V. MEENA KHETAN, MUMBAI

ITSSA 56/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9482 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PREETAM SINGH DR
• Assessee Lawyers: A K GHOSH BHUMIKA VORA
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI KARUNAKARA RAO , AM ./I.T.(SS)A. NO.56/M/2010 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1999 TO 1.2.2001) DCIT - 24(2), R.NO.601, 6 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E), MUMBAI 400 051. & / VS. MRS. MEERA KHETAN, FLAT NO.B-301, MADHUBAN UPPER GOVIND NAGAR, MALAD (E), MUMBAI 400 097. ' $ ./PAN : AEWPK 8750 K ( '( /APPELLANT) .. ( )*'( / RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.124/M/2012 (BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 1.2.200 1) (ARISING FROM IT(SS)A NO.56/M/2010 MRS. MEERA KHETAN, FLAT NO.B-301, MADHUBAN UPPER GOVIND NAGAR, MALAD (E), MUMBAI 400 097. & / VS. DCIT - 24(2), R.NO.601, 6 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E), MUMBAI 400 051. ' $ ./PAN : AEWPK 8750 K ( '( /APPELLANT) .. ( )*'( / RESPONDENT) '( + , / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.K. GHOSH / BHUMIKA VORA )*'( + , / REVENUE BY : SHRI PREETAM SINGH, DR & + -$ /DATE OF HEARING : 3.7.2013 ./0 + -$ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2.8.2013 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT(SS)A NO. 56/M/2010 IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.124/M/2012 IS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1999 TO 1.2.2001. SINCE, THE ISSUES INV OLVED ARE INTERRELATED AND AROSE FROM SAME ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-34, MUMBAI DATED 5.10.201 0, AND FOR THE SAKE OF 2 CONVENIENCE, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED AND DISPO SED OF IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE AND GROUND WISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN I N THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION WITH A COUPLE OF OBJECTIONS AND OBJECTION NO. (I) WHICH IS A PRELIMINARY GROUND, RELATES TO COMPLETIO N OF THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING THE STATUTORY APPROVAL U/S 158BG OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS NOT PRESSED. THEREFORE, OBJECTION NO.1 CAN BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. BRINGING OUT ATTENTION TO OBJECTION NO.2, LD COU NSEL MENTIONED THAT AO MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,45,250/- ON ACCOUNTS O F (I) INVESTMENTS IN HUNDIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10.5 LACS (2) INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 6.22 LACS AND (III) INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSIT AMOUNTING RS. 4.73 LACS . IN MAKING THE ADDITIONS IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, AO RELIED ON THE ENTRIES APPEARED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE LYING WITH DENA BANK, MUMBAI. IT IS THE G RIEVANCE OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH RELEVANT STATEMENTS DURING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE ACT. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, CIT ( A) GRANTED RELIEF AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON FINDING THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS EMANATING FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE DULY EXPLAINED. BEFORE US, DEVIATING FROM THE A BOVE, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS THE SOURCE FOR ALL T HE ADDITIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 21,45,250/-, ARE INVALID ADDITIONS, CONSIDERING TH E FACT THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DENA BANK WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. THE ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 139(1) WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH IE 1.2.2001. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE NOW TO BE DECIDED VIDE OBJECTION NO.2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION REVOLVES AROUND THE LEGAL ISSUE ON THE SCOPE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND IF THE ADDITIONS ARE ALLOWED TO BE MADE BASED ON THE DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS PAGES 1 TO 10; 98 TO 124 O F THE PAPER BOOK IE COPIES OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH FALLS IN THE BLOCK PERIOD AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS AN ACCOUNT WITH THE DENA BANK AND THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE CLEARLY REFLECTED VIDE THE CA PITAL ACCOUNT ENCLOSED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS OF THE BLOC K PERIOD. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT 3 THESE RETURNS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR COURSE WITH ITO, MUNGER, BIHAR AND WERE FILED PRIOR TO 1.2.2001, THE DATE OF SEARCH. AO DID NOT ACCESS TO THE SAID DOCUMENT WITH THE ITO, MUNGER AND CAME TO THE PREMA TURE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT DISCLOSED/REFLECTED AND ACCORDINGLY MADE INVALID ADDITIONS IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SAID ADDITIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, LD COUNSEL FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SRI ADITRYA RAI VS. DCIT VIDE IT(SS)A NO.68 4/M/2003; IT(SS)A NO.795/M/2003 AND IT(SS)A NO.31/M/2003 DATED 30.5.2008 AND BROUGH T OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 8 OF THE SAID ORDER. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR MENTIONED THAT THE ADDI TIONS ARE JUSTIFIED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHEN THERE IS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER/COPIES OF THE RETURNS ORIGINALLY FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE ON THE LEGAL ISSUE IF THE SAID ADDITIONS ARE ALREADY DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR MANY YE ARS CONSISTENTLY PRIOR TO THE OCCURRENCE OF EVENT OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 232 OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE ABO UT THE SCOPE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT QUA THE DISCLOSURE OF DETAILS OF SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT W ITH DENA BANK, MUMBAI VIDE THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IN TH IS REGARD, WE HAVE PERUSED THE REFERRED PAGES FROM THE PAPER BOOK. TO START WITH P AGE 1 OF THE PB, IT IS THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2001-02 AND UNDER THE HEADING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN, AGAINST SL.NO.2, CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED AS ONE OF THE ENCLOSURES. PAGE 2 OF THE PB REFLECTS THIS INFORMATION. PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE COPY OF THE SAID CAPITAL ACCOUNT. IN THE SAID PAGE 3 IE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31.3.2001, AGA INST SL.NO.21, DENA BANK ACCOUNT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN A TYPEWRITTEN FORM. PAGES 5, 5A, 5B SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR PAPERS WERE FILED FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1993-94 ALSO. FURTHER, WE HAVE SEEN PAGES 94-98 RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1995-96 AND 1996-97 AND THESE ARE THE COPIES OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND TH EY ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE EXISTENCE OF ASSESSEES SB A CCOUNT WITH THE DENA BANK, MUMBAI 4 IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH IS ENCLOSED TO THE RET URN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE DATE 1.2.2001. THEREFORE, WE ARE CONVINCED WIT H THE FACTS RELATING TO THE EXISTENCE OF SB ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DENA BANK, M UMBAI AND FURNISHING OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DULY FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SEARCH ACTION. IF THE AO HAS FILED TO ENQUIRE INTO SUCH DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE ENTRIES THEREIN, THE SAME CANNOT BE ENQUIRED INTO B Y THE AO IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC O F THE ACT. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE CITED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADITYA RAI (SUPRA) WHERE ONE OF US IS THE PARTY TO THE DECISION AND PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF PARA 8 OF THE SAID ORDER, WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT ISSUE ON SCOPE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SAID PARA, THE SAME IS REPRODUC ED HERE UNDER. 8 (A). WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE PERTINENT ISSUES BEFORE US ARE WHETHER BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 38067 WITH UNITED BANK OF INDIA IS A UNDISCLOSED BANK A CCOUNT OR OTHERWISE. FURTHER, THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE SAID BANK ACCOU NT WHEN FOUND DISCLOSED TO THE IT DEPARTMENT, WHETHER THE WHOLE BANK ACCOUNT IS DEEME D DISCLOSED OR OTHERWISE AND SUCH A DISCLOSURE EXTENDS TO A ALL THE ENTRIES IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT OR NOT. WE HAVE ANALYZED THESE ISSUES AND FIND THAT THE ASSESS EE, WHEN INCLUDED THE CLOSING BALANCE FIGURE IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN, HAS INTENTION TO DISCLOSE THE WHOLE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE DEPARTMENT AND HIS INTENTION IS OBVI OUS THAT THE ACCOUNT IS NOT UNDISCLOSED ONE. NO ASSESSEE SHALL DISCLOSE THE C LOSING BALANCE OF A BANK ACCOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR DEPARTMENT, WHEN HE HAS INTENTIO N TO CONCEAL THE SAID ACCOUNT. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS ABSURD TO BUY AN A RGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE SAID ACCOUNT FOR ONE AY AND NOT FOR THE OTHER AY, M ORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE TAXABLE INCOME IN THAT YEAR, THE STATEMENT THA T IS NOT REFUTED BY THE AO. WE ARE ALSO OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE DO ES NOT HAVE TO DECLARE EACH AND EVERY ENTRY OF A BANK ACCOUNT TO KEEP THE TRANSACTIONS OU TSIDE THE AMBIT OF CHAPTER XIVB. THE FURNISHING OF THE CLOSING BALANCE OF A BANK ACCOUNT IS ADEQUATE ENOUGH TO KEEP THE WHOLE BANK ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE BUNCH OF TRANSACT IONS OUT OF DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, MORE SO WHEN NO OTHER DOCUMENT OR ENTRIES ARE SEIZED OR FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AS IN THE CASE OF INSTANT ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT STATED OR FOUND ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WAS SOM E DOCUMENT OR ENTRY ETC IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT OR FOUND AND LEFT OR INVENTORISED L ISTS OF DOCUMENTS TO MENTION THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS LINKED TO SUCH SEARCH RELATED DOCUMENTS. PRIMA FACIE, WE FIND THESE DETAIL OF BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DUG OUT FROM THE CASE RECORDS DURING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT SUCH INFORMATIO N HAS TO BE DEALT WITH UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, SAY SECTIONS 143, 147 R.W.S 148 OR 263 ETC AND CERTAINLY NOT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIVB OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS. AISWARYA RAI AND FOUND THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE. (B) IN THE SAID CASE OF AISWARYA RAO (104 ITD 166) (MUM) , COMMENTING ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT BASED (I) ON THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND (II) WHEN THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURIN G THE SEARCH OPERATION CONNECTING THE 5 SAID BANK ACCOUNT, IN PARA 28 OF THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE IS NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED M ATERIAL AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE MADE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. RELEVANT PARTS OF THE PA RAGRAPH ARE AS UNDER: THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR M AKING ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUND I N SEARCH ACTION. IT HAS BEEN THE VIEW OF HONBLE COURTS BY NOW THAT THE BLOCK A SSESSMENT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE MATERIAL GATHERED IN SEARCH PROCE EDINGS. SECTION 158 BB STATES THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINE D ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH. IN THE INSTANT C ASE, NO SUCH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED IN SEARCH PROC EEDINGS WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD AR FULLY SUPPORTS THIS VIEW. W E THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THIS ADDITION IS NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED MATERIAL AND TH EREFORE CANNOT BE MADE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. (C) TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE CERTAIN JUDGMENTS FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN TH E BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHEN THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS NOT AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 158BB OF THE ACT. THEY ARE: THE CASE OF RAVIKANT JAIN 250 ITR 14 1 (DELHI); THE CASE OF VINOD DANCHAND GHODAWAT (247 ITR 448) (MUM); THE CASE OF DR. MKE MEMON (168 CTR 184); AND THE CASE OF SUNDER AGENCIES (59 TTJ 610). THER EFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX WITHOUT HELP OF A NY SEIZED PAPER/DOCUMENTS/ ENTRIES IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. A CCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS 1 TO 5 ARE ALLOWED . 6. THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE ARE LARGELY AKIN TO THE PRESENT ONE, WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE RELIED ON A BANK ACCOUNT WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA FOR MAKING ADDITIONS, WHEN THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE SAID ASSESSEE. WITH THE BACKGROUND OF SUCH FACTS AND RE LYING ON THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION IN THE CASE OF AISWARYA RAI (SUPRA) AND MANY OTHERS , IT WAS HELD THAT THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT BASED ON SUC H DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINI ON, THE SAID RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADITYA RAI, SUPRA SQUAR ELY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) FOR THE ABOVE SAID REASONS RELATING TO THE LEGAL ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DELETING THE ADDITION IS REASONABLE AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. WE NEED NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 6.1. IN THE RESULT, THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6 IT(SS)A NO. 56/M/2010 REVENUES APPEAL 7. IN THIS APPEAL, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENU E READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 21,45,250/- MADE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE AO BEING INVESTMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN HUNDIES, FLATS AND FIXED DEPOSITS , WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PR OVIDE THE REQUIRED DETAILS DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF THESE INVESTMENTS. 8. IN THIS APPEAL, THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS 2 1,45,250/- IS THE DISPUTE. CIT (A) GRANTED RELIEF AFTER EXAMINING THE PAPERS FILED BEF ORE HIM AND AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT (A), REVENUE FI LED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. OBJECTION NO.2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION, WHICH IS ADJUDICATED BY US IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER, IS DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE SOLITARY GROUND OF THE REVENUE. IN THE SAID CROSS OBJECTION, WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE SAID ADDITION BUT BASED ON THE LEGAL REASONING THAT THE ADDITIONS BASED ON DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT WITH DENA BANK CANNOT BE MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. WE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH DENA BANK, WHICH IS THE SOURCE MATERIAL FOR THE CITED ADDITION OF RS. 21,45,250/- WAS DISCLOSED BAN K ACCOUNT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ANNEXURES THERETO. CONSIDERING THE INVALID ITY OF THE ADDITIONS FOR LEGAL REASONS, WE ALLOWED THE OBJECTION NO.2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTIO N RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT DISCUSSION IS GIVEN IN PARA 5 & 6 OF THIS ORDER. TH EREFORE, ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE CONSTITUTES HERE MERELY CONSTITUTES AN ACADEMIC EXE RCISE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2.8. 2013. SD/- SD/- ( I.P. BANSAL) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 1& 2.8. 2013. 7 . & . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 2- ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 2- / CIT 5. 3 45 )-& , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5!6 7 / GUARD FILE. *3- )- //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI