MANISH LUBRICANT, MUMBAI V. ACIT 21(3), MUMBAI

ITSSA 76/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3303 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P SINGH; RAJAT MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S C GUPTA
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Block assessment
• Section: 6; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 76 /MUM/ 2009 : (A.Y : 1.4.1990 TO 15.1.1999 ) M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT C/O. RAJNI SURESH SINGH 703 - B, RADHA KUNJ CHS, MANMALA TANK ROAD, MAHIM, MUMBAI 400 016 (APPELLANT) PAN : AAKFM3465D VS. ACIT - 21(3), MUMBAI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.C. GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.P. SINGH (CIT - DR) & SHRI RAJAT MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 28 / 04 /201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 /0 5 /201 7 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU , AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 21 , MUMBAI DATED 20.4.2009 , PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 15.1.1999 , WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 2 9 . 10 .20 07 UNDER SECTION 158BFA(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ACTIO N OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY 2 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 158BFA OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.18,02,126/ - . 3. IN BRIEF, THE BACKGROUND GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS. THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. ON 15.1.1999, A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF ONE M/S. UNIQUE ROADLINES WHICH REVEALED CERTAIN LOOSE PAPE RS CONTAIN ING REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEE - FIRM. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31.5.2001 , AS A CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 15.1.1999 WAS COMPLETED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 23.5.2003 U/S 158BD OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.33,28,987/ - . THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME COMPRISED OF UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT IN TRUCKS AND UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME. THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ALSO, AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND VIDE ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO. 826/MUM/2003 DATED 7.4.2004 THE TRIBUNAL SET - ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A DECISION AFRESH. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 29.12.2005, A FRESH ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS AGAIN DETERMINED AT RS.33,28,987/ - . AGAINST SUCH AN ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 2.4.2007 ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF AND IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THAT THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL W AS DETERMINED AT RS.30,03,544/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 158BFA(2) OF 3 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT THE ACT IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.18,02,126/ - BEING 100% OF THE TAX LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 15 8B OF THE ACT AT RS.30,03,544/ - . AGAINST SUCH A LEVY, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE RAISED VARIOUS ISSUES IN LAW AND ON FACTS. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMEN T IN TRUCKS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CONCEALED INCOME SINCE THE VEHICLES WERE ACQUIRED BY OBTAINING LOANS. THE CIT(A) HAS SINCE AFFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY NOTICING THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DISCOVERED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A SEARCH IN THE PRE MISES OF ANOTHER CONCERN WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD BUSINESS DEALING. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTICED THAT EVEN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. PERTINENTLY, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF T HE EXISTENCE OF ASSESSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT WAS FAIRLY AUTOMATIC BECAUSE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE VIS - A - VIS THE RETURNED INCOME. SO HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OTHERWISE SCALE DOWN TH E LEVY OF PENALTY BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2008 PASSED IN A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION VIDE M.A NO.444/MUM/2007. IN ANY CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT IN - PRINCIPLE. AGAINST SUCH AN ACTION OF THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS, BUT A SPECIFIC PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED BY WAY OF AN 4 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT ADDITIONAL GROUND OF AP PEAL WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY INVOKED SEC. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT SINCE THE SAME DID NOT COVER AN ASSESSMENT MADE IN PURSUANCE TO PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 158B D OF THE ACT BEFORE 1.6.2002. SINCE THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WE MAY DISCUSS THE SAME AT THE THRESHOLD. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT SUCH A GROUND WAS NOT HITHERTO RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT SIN CE IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD, THE SAME BE ADMITTED FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD., 229 ITR 383 (SC) . THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO A COMMUNICATION DATED 17.2.2016 ADDRESSED TO THE BENCH, WHEREIN IT IS , INTER - ALIA, ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SIMILAR GROUNDS WERE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHAGWATI PRINTERS (P) LTD., 102 TTJ (DEL) 480 . 6. INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEES PLEA FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND IS CONCERNED, THE LD. CIT - DR HAS NOT MADE ANY SERIOUS OPPOSITION, BUT POINTED OUT THAT IN THE APPLICATION DATED 17.2.2016, NO SPECIFIC PRAYER WAS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. 7. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL STANDS, IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED INASMUCH AS THE SAME INVOLVES A PURE POINT OF LAW AND THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF FACTS . CONSIDERING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE 5 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. (SUPRA), AND ALSO NOTICING THAT THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TO THE BONA FIDES OF THE GROUND SOUGHT TO BE RAISED, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO ADMIT THE AFORESAID GROUND, AN ASPECT WHICH WAS MADE KNOWN TO THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF HEARING. INSOFAR AS THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. CIT - DR IS CONCERNED, THE SAME, IN OUR VIEW, IS QU ITE MIS - CONCEIVED INASMUCH AS THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 17.2.2016, INTER - ALIA , CONTAINS A PRAYER THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BE ADMITTED AND DISPOSED OFF AS PART OF THE APPEAL. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE RIVAL PARTIES WERE HEARD WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE STAND OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO ASSESSMENTS INITIATED U/S 158B D OF THE ACT PRIOR T O 1.6.2002 . NOTABLY, IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE SAID ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT. CHAPTER XIV - B OF THE ACT, WHICH INITIALLY CONSISTED OF SEC. 158B TO 158BH OF THE ACT , WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1995 W.E.F. 1.7.19 95 PRESCRIBING SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT OF SEARCH CASES. AT THAT STAGE, SEC. 158BC AND 158BD OF THE ACT WERE INTRODUCED, BUT SEC. 158BFA DEALING WITH THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN CERTAIN CASES WAS INSERTED IN CHAPTER XIV - B BY THE INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1997 W.E.F. 1.1.1997. T HE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 158BFA OF THE ACT ONLY REFERRED TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SEC. 158BC OF THE ACT. OSTENSIBLY, AT THE TIME OF INSERTION OF SEC. 158BFA OF THE ACT, BOTH SEC. 158BC AS WELL AS S EC. 158BD OF THE ACT EXISTED IN CHAPTER XIV - B OF THE ACT. THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 MADE AN AMENDMENT TO SEC. 158BD 6 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT OF THE ACT, WHICH SOUGHT TO PRESCRIBE THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIED IN THE SAID SECTION, THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A PERSON , OTHER THAN A P ERSON IN WHOSE CASE THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION MADE, WAS ALSO TO BE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC AND ALL THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV - B SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 AMENDED SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT SO AS TO TREAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE THEREIN AT PAR WITH AN ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 8 DATED 27.8.2002 CONTAINING EXPLANATORY NOTE S ON THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO FINANCE ACT, 2002 TO POINT OUT THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT WAS TO TAKE EFFECT FROM 1.6.2002. 9. THE AFORESAID SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS HAS BEEN REFERRED TO ASSERT THAT THE PENAL PROV ISIONS CONTAINED IN SEC. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT COULD APPLY TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ASSESSED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT ONLY WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD WERE INITIATED AFTER 1.6.2002 , I.E. THE DATE FROM WHICH SUCH AN ASSESSMENT HAS ALSO BEEN RECOGNISED IN LA W TO BE AT PAR WITH AN ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC OF THE ACT. THE POINT SOUGHT TO BE PUT ACROSS BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INITIATED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A SEARCH ON A THIRD PARTY CONDUCTED ON 15.1.1999 AND, THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IS TO BE SEEN IN THE MANNER AS THE SECTION EXISTED PRIOR TO 1.6.2002. IT IS ALSO SOUGHT TO BE POINTED OUT THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INI TIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON 31.5.2001, WHICH IS ALSO A DATE PRIOR TO 1.6.2002 AND, 7 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT THEREFORE, THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT IN THIS BACKGROUND WOULD NOT FALL FOR CONSIDERATION U/S 158BA OF THE ACT. 10. THE LD. CIT - DR APPEARING FOR TH E REVENUE, HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT SEC. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED EVEN TO ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT PRIOR TO 1.6.2002 ALSO INASMUCH AS IT IS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER XIV - B OF THE ACT WHICH DEALS WITH PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT OF SEARCH CASES. 11. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL STANDS ON THIS ASPECT, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT HAS BEEN TREATED ON PAR WITH AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT BY A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F. 1.6.200 2. IN FACT, THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 HAD MADE MORE THAN ONE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV - B RELATING TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN CASES OF SEARCH AND REQUISITION. THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 27.8.2008 HAS EXPLAINED THE SAID AMENDMENTS AND THEY HAVE BEEN BROADLY CLASSIFIED IN TO TWO CATEGORIES. FIRSTLY, THERE IS ONE SET OF AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE EXPLAINED TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND SUCH AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.7.1995, I.E. WHEN CHAPTER XIV - B ITSELF WAS BROUGHT ON THE STA TUTE. THE SECOND SET OF AMENDMENTS RELATE TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE WHICH, INTER - ALIA , CONTAIN S THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISCUSSION BEFORE US, AND SUCH AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE FROM A PROSPECTIV E DATE, I.E. FROM 1.6.2002. THE DISTINCTION IN THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TWO SET OF AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN SUCCINCTLY NOTED AND EXPLAINED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VATIKA TOWNSHIP 8 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT (P.) LTD., 367 ITR 466 (SC) WHEREIN T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SEC. 113 OF THE ACT PROVIDING FOR SURCHARGE PAYABLE IN ADDITION TO THE TAX ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED UNDER CHAPTER XIV - B OF THE ACT . THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SEC. 113 OF THE ACT IS ALSO A PART OF THE SECOND SET OF AMENDMENTS , WHICH INCLUDE S THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT (WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US) AND SUCH AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE FROM 1.6.2002. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS PROSPE CTIVE INASMUCH AS IT HAS BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE FROM A FIXED FUTURE DATE AND, THEREFORE, DID NOT HAVE A RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. ON THE SAME ANALOGY, IN THE PRESENT CASE TOO, IT HAS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE INSTANT AMENDMENT TO SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT MADE B Y THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 HAS BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE BY THE LEGISLATURE FROM 1.6.2002 AND NOT BEFORE THAT DATE. AS A CONSEQUENCE, IT I S TO BE INFERRED THAT AN ASSESSMENT INITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT I S TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS ONE U/S 158BC ONLY FROM 1.6.2002. I N THIS BACKGROUND, NOW ONE HAS TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER SEC. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT, WHOSE PHRASEOLOGY CONFINES ITS OPERATION TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED U/S 158BCC OF THE ACT ONLY, CAN BE SAID TO ENCOMPASS AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WH ICH HAS BEEN INITIATED PRIOR TO 1.6.2002 OR NOT? OSTENSIBLY, AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT, WHICH IS INITIATED PRIOR TO 1.6.2002, CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY W.E.F. 1.6.2002 THAT SEC. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT WOULD TAKE INTO ITS FOLD AN ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FACT - SITUATION IN THE INSTANT CASE CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, WAS 9 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT INITIATED ON 31.5.2001. THEREFORE, SINCE THE INITIATION OF SEC. 158BD OF THE ACT IS PRIOR TO 1.6.2002, THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE SEEN ON SUCH ANTERIOR DATE AND SINCE SEC. 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE A SSESSMENT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT TILL 31.5.2002, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT ARE LACKING IN JURISDICTION. AS A CONSEQUENCE, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNTENABLE IN T HE EYES OF LAW AND IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 12. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCEEDED ON ITS PRELIMINARY PLEA, THE OTHER ARGUMENTS RAISED BEFORE US ON MERITS OF THE LEVY ARE RENDERED ACADEMIC AND ARE BEING KEPT OPEN AND NOT ADJUDICATED FOR THE PRESENT. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 T H MAY, 2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( G.S. PANNU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 2 6 T H MAY , 201 7 * SSL * 10 IT(SS)A NO. 76/MUM/2009 M/S. MANISH LUBRICANT COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, B BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI