KETAN HIMATLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA V. NFAC, NOT APPLICABLE

ITA 2497/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ketan Himatlal Mehta, the Assessee, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(x)(b) and Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The additions pertained to the difference in the transaction values and the stamp duty valuations of immovable properties purchased by the Assessee, and the Long Term Capital Gains from the sale of a property. The Tribunal examined the agreements, financial statements, and relevant legal provisions, ultimately deciding in favor of the Assessee by deleting the contested additions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707075 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer, Joseph Mudaliar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Shri Sandip Patil v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE; WAY OF; INR.; INR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 56; 43CA; 50C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"F\" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2497/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Ketan Himatlal Mehta 1st Floor, Cine Star Building, Trikamdas Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai - 400067. Maharashtra. [PAN: ADDPM0713C] …………. Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(1), Mumbai Room No.579, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020.Maharashtra. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/ Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Rakesh Joshi Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 24.04.2025 10.07.2025 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 26/03/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 23/04/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding additions of Rs.1,35,17,690 u/s 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 2 1961 made by the Assessing Officer in respect of three immovable proprieties (i.e. Rs.1580568 + Rs.8923838 + Rs.2908954). He has not considered submissions made by the appellant. Reasons assigned by him for doing the same are erroneous and against law. The appellant prays to delete the additions of Rs.1,35,17,690. 2. Without prejudice to the figure of Rs.1,35,17,690 mentioned in ground of Appeal no. 1 above, there is an arithmetical error in the Assessment Order as well as Appellate Order, as the same ought to have been at Rs.1,34,13,360. Thus there is an excessive addition of Rs.104309. 3 The learned CIT(A) erred in making further addition of Rs. 6,30,873 for flat no. KAR-103 as long term capital gain. The Ld. CIT(A) did not issue the notice of enhancement before making this addition in the Appellate Order. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion the addition of Rs. 6,30,873 as confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). 4. Order passed is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, Appellant prays for the deletion of additions confirmed by the Learned CIT(A).” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is an individual. For the Assessment Year 2018-2019 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide Assessment Order, dated 23/04/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act at assessed income of INR.2,68,32,379/- after making addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- to the returned income of INR.1,33,14,710/-. Being aggrieved, the Assessee challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A). Vide order dated, 26/03/2024, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) also made addition of INR.6,30,873/- holding the same to be Long Term ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 3 Capital Gains arising from sale of immovable property (i.e. Office No.KRA-103, Kempa Plaza, Malad, Mumbai) invoking the provisions contained in Section 50C of the Act. Thus, the CIT(A) enhanced the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are directed against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. While Ground No.3 is directed against the enhancement of income done by the CIT(A) by directing to tax Long Term Capital Gain of INR.6,30,873/- in the hands of the Assessee under Section 50C of the Act. 4. We have heard both the sides, consider the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. Ground No.1 & 2 5. We would first take up Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Assessee. 5.1. The facts relevant for adjudication of the grounds under consideration are that during the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee had purchased the following properties for a consideration less than the stamp duty valuation: SI Details of Property Stamp Duty Value Transaction Value Difference 1 KRA 1 B, KEN Plaza, Malad P, Mumbai [For short ‘Property 1B’] 1,01,94,401 12,70,563 89,23,838 2 KRA 1 A, KEN Plaza, Malad P, Mumbai [For short ‘Property 1A’] 33,23,268 4,14,314 29,08,954 The aggregate difference in the purchase consideration for Property 1B and Property 1A and the respective stamp duty value was INR.1,18,32,792/- [INR.89,23,838/- + INR. ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 4 29,08,954/-]. Therefore, the Assessing Officer observed that the applicability of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act could not be ruled out. Further, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the Assessee had provided vague explanation regarding the source of purchase consideration and therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the consideration paid by the Assessee as ‘Nil’ and treated the aggregate stamp duty value of INR.1,35,17,669/- (INR.1,01,94,401/- + INR.33,23,268/-) as income of the Assessee under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. 5.2. In appeal before the CIT(A), it was contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that during the relevant previous year only Agreement to Sell registered on 23/03/2018. It was explained that the Assessee had received the property under consideration by way of a registered Declaration Deed, dated 25/12/2008. The consideration agreed upon was duly disclosed in the financial statements for the relevant Previous Year 2008-2009 by the Assessee as well as the transferee partnership firm (i.e. M/s Sunket Associates) wherein the Assessee was also a partner. Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of the aforesaid Declaration Deed and as on the date of registration of Agreement to Sell should have been adopted by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of determining the applicability of and the addition under Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) agreed with the Assessing Officer and rejected the contentions raised by the Assessee. 5.3. In appeal before this Tribunal both the sides reiterated their respective stands. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee vehemently contended that the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were contrary to the ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 5 material on record and that no addition was warranted in the facts of the present case in view of the provisions contained in Proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed reliance upon the following documents forming part of the paper-book: (a) Audited Balance Sheet of Sunket Associates for the Assessment Year 2009-10 for showing drawings of flat in partners’ capital account along with declaration [Page No.52 to 60 of the Paper Book] (b) Audited Financial Accounts of the Assessee for Assessment Year 2008-2009 for appearing flat in schedule E of Properties. [Page No.70 to 80 of the Paper Book] (c) Audited Financial Accounts of the Assessee for Assessment Year 2009-2010 for appearing flat in schedule E of Properties. [Page No.70 to 80 of the Paper book] (d) Declaration of capital withdrawn – M/s.Sunket Associates KANE Plaza [Page No.81-94 of the Paper Book] 5.4. Per Contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order and submitted that the Assessee had failed to bring on record sufficient material to show that the Proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act were applicable to the case of the Assessee. It was also submitted that the Assessee had also failed to provide details of the source of purchase consideration and reliance in this regard was made on the observations made by the Assessing Officer. 5.5. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. 5.6. Section 56(2)(x) of the Act provides that in case an immovable property is received for consideration that is less than the stamp duty value; and the difference between the stamp duty value and consideration exceeds the specified amount, then such ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 6 difference would be taxable as ‘Income from Other Sources’ in the hands of recipient of such immovable property. However, the Proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act applies in a case where there is difference between the date of agreement between the parties to transfer/sell the immovable property and date of the actual registration of sale deed and the same reads as under: “Section 56 (1) xx xx (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, namely :- (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of April, 2017,— (a) xx xx (b) any immovable property- (A) xx xx (B) for a consideration, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration, if the amount of such excess is more than the higher of the following amounts, namely: (i) the amount of fifty thousand rupees; and (ii) the amount equal to five per cent of the consideration Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the provisions of the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration referred to therein, or a part thereof, has been paid by way of an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft or by use of ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 7 electronic clearing system through a bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed, on or before the date of agreement for transfer of such immovable property: Provided also that where the stamp duty value of immovable property is disputed by the assessee on grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 50C, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of such property to a Valuation Officer, and the provisions of section 50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections;” (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, as per the above Provisos to Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Act for the purpose of applying the provisions contained in the said Section 56(2)(x)(b), the stamp duty value on the date of agreement between the parties is to be considered provided (a) there is an agreement fixing the consideration for transfer/sale of immovable property and (b) whole/part of consideration has been paid through banking channel by way of account payee cheque, an account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system. 5.7. On perusal of record, we find that the Assessing Officer had information that the Assessee had purchased 2 properties during the relevant previous year. During the course of hearing before the Tribunal the Assessee was directed to place on record copy of agreements showing purchase of the two properties. On perusal of the same we find that the two Agreements for Sale were registered on 23/03/2018. By way of first Agreement for Sale the Assessee had agreed to purchase Unit 1A (having carpet area admeasuring 13.90 sq. mtrs.) on the Ground Floor of building known as Kemp Plaza for consideration of INR.4,14,314/-. The aforesaid Agreement for Sale made reference to Declaration Deed, dated 25/12/2008. Similarly, by ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 8 way of second Agreement for Sale the Assessee had agreed to purchase Unit 1B (having carpet area admeasuring 42.74 sq. mtrs.) on the Ground Floor of building known as KANE Plaza for consideration of INR.12,70,563/-. This Agreement for Sale also made reference to Declaration Deed, dated 25/12/2008. On perusal of Declaration Deed, dated 25/12/2008 (Placed at Page 81 to 93 of the Paper Book), we find that the same is a registered document whereby the partners of the partnership firm (namely, Sunket Associates) has declared that the partners of the said partnership firm (including the Assessee) have been allocated Units by way of withdrawal of partnership assets held as stock-in-trade. The declaration clearly states that the partners were in exclusive possession of their respective units allocated to them by way of the aforesaid Declaration Deed. Further, as per the said Declaration Deed the Assessee was allocated premise No.001 (Carpet area 620 sq. ft.) at Ground Floor of project situated at CTS No.1406/3/1 and 1406/3/2 of Village Malad (South), Taluka Borivali, Mumbai City, Mumbai Suburban. On going through the audited financial statements of the partnership firm Sunket Associates for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 we find that a withdrawal of INR.16,84,877/- has been shown in the Capital Account of the Assessee (as on 30/03/2009) with the narration ‘To Withdrawal of KP’. We find that corresponding disclosure has been made by the Assessee in the financial statements for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. In the Balance Sheet of the Assessee as on 30/03/2009 aggregate properties of INR.77,41,544/- have been disclosed with its break up given in Annexure E stating that the Assessee holds property – KANE Plaza – 001 at INR.16,84,877/-. Thus, the financial statements corroborate the declaration made in the Declaration Deed, dated 25/12/2008. From the aforesaid documents it become clear that ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 9 the Assessee had receive the property bearing No.001 at Ground Floor of KANE Plaza during the financial year 2008-2009 for agreed consideration of INR.16,84,877/-. The two Agreements to Sale registered during the relevant previous year pertained to the aforesaid property. On perusal of the said agreements we find that the aggregate area of Property 1A & 1B at Ground Floor of KANE Plaza and the property details correspond to the aforesaid property received by the Assessee by way of Declaration Deed, dated 25/12/2008. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the Assessee was in possession of the property under consideration since financial year 2008-2009 and that the Assessee had also offered to tax the rental income earned therefrom. There was clearly an agreement between the Assessee and the partnership firm (Sunket Associates) fixing the consideration for transfer/sale of immovable property for INR.16,84,877/-. The entire consideration was paid by way of adjustment entry passed in the books of account as on the date of Declaration Deed whereby the withdrawal of capital by the Assessee was shown from the partnership firm by way of allocation of units/property held by the partnership firm as stock in trade. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the Assessee had introduced capital in the partnership firm by way of cash or modes other than the modes prescribed. On perusal of the Capital Account of the Assessee as on 31/03/2009, we find that the capital of INR.10,00,000/- was introduced by the Assessee through banking channel and the same was sufficient for allocation of part payment for acquisition of immovable Property 1A & 1B. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the stamp duty value as on the date of the Declaration Deed (i.e., 25/12/2008) for the purpose of determining the applicability of Section 56(2)(x)(b) read with ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 10 the Provisos thereto and addition, if any, under the said section. In terms of the aforesaid directions, addition of INR.1,35,17,669/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No. 1 raised by the Assessee are allowed and Ground No. 2 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. Ground No. 3 6. Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) directing Assessing Officer to being to tax Long Term Capital Gain of INR.6,30,873/- in the hands of the Assessee under Section 50C of the Act in respect of …sale of Office at SI Details of Property Stamp Duty Value Transaction Value Difference 1 KRA A, 103, Floor No.1, KEMPA Plaza, Plaza, Malad P, Chincholi Bandar Road Mumbai [For short ‘Property Sold’] 2,51,00,000 2,66,80,568 15,80,568 6.1. According to the Assessing Officer, the Assessee had understated the capital gain by INR.15,80,568/- in respect of Property Sold and had invoked provisions of Section 50C of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer did not make any additions in this regard in the concluding part of the Assessment Order. The aforesaid fact was noted by the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that in the computation of total income, the Assessee had offered Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of INR.79,79,873/- in respect of Property Sold out of total LTCG of INR.1,99,49,684/- claiming to be 40% owner of Property Sold. The Assessee had taken stamp duty value of Property Sold at INR.2,51,03,388/-. The CIT(A) observed that the stamp duty value of Property Sold was INR.2,66,80,568/- and that the Assessee had not brought on record any material to prove that ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 11 the stamp duty value of the Property Sold was lesser. Therefore, the CIT(A) held that stamp duty value of the Property Sold has been understated by the Assessee by INR.15,77,180/- [INR. 266,80,568/- minus INR. 2,51,03,388/-]. Accordingly, the CIT(A) determined the total LTCG for the Property Sold at INR.2,15,26,864/- [INR. 1,99,49,684/- + INR. 15,77,180/-]. Taking 40% of the said amount as the Assessee’s share of LTCG, the CIT(A) made enhancement by making addition of LTCG of INR 6,30,873/- [INR.86,10,746/- minus LTCG offered to tax amounting to INR.79,79,873/-] in the hands of the Assessee. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.2. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record. 6.3. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced, we arrive at the conclusion that addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- was not warranted in the hands of the Assessee for the reasons set out hereinafter. In the case of Maria Fernandes Cheryl vs. Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation), 2(3)(1), Mumbai [2021] 85 ITR(T) 674 (Mumbai - Trib.) it was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal that amendment made in scheme of Section 50C(1) of the Ac, by inserting Third Proviso thereto and by enhancing tolerance band for variations between stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation from 5 per cent to 10 per cent, shall be effective from date on which Section 50C was introduced, (i.e., from 01/04/2003). The aforesaid decision relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Joseph Mudaliar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai [2021] 191 ITD 719 (Mumbai - Trib.)[14-09-2021] cited on ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 12 behalf of the Assessee. In that case it was held that if the variation between the consideration paid and the stamp duty valuation of the immovable property falls within the specified tolerance band of 10% of consideration, no addition can be made under the provisions of Section 50C/Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii)/56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal reads as under: “14. On a conjoint reading of sections 50C, 43CA and 56(2)(x) of the Act, the legislative intention becomes absolutely clear that wherever the statute provides for adoption of the value determined by the stamp valuation authority as the deemed sale consideration, in case, it exceeds declared sale consideration, exceptions have also been provided not to adopt the market value if the difference between the value declared by the assessee and determined by the stamp duty authority is within a permissible limit. 15. The reason for not providing such an exception in section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) is patent and obvious. As could be seen, the amendments to sections 50C, 56(2)(x) and 43CA providing for exception in case of marginal difference between the declared sale consideration and value determined by the stamp valuation authority were introduced to the statute by Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 1-4-2019. Meaning thereby, the legislature did not felt the necessity of introducing such an exception to section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) simply for the reason that such provision was applicable for a period between 1st October, 2009 to 1st April, 2017. Therefore, non-introduction of similar exception to section 56(2)(vii(b)(ii) cannot be held against the assessee. Rather, section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) has to be harmoniously construed along with sections 50C, 56(2)(x) and 43CA and the exceptions provided in the later three provisions have to be read into section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) to provide true meaning to the intention of the legislature. This, according to us, clearly answers submissions of learned departmental representative regarding absence of a provision identical to third proviso to section 50C(1) in section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). 16. Thus, in our considered opinion, the assessee would be eligible to get the benefit of ten per cent margin difference in the valuation between the value determined by the stamp duty authority and the declared sale consideration. Thus, if the variation between the aforesaid two values falls within the range of ten per cent, no addition can be made. ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 13 17. It is further relevant to observe, section 50C or for that matter section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are identical provisions. Only difference being, 50C is applicable to the seller of an immovable property, whereas, the later provision is applicable to the buyer of the property. Therefore, a benefit given to a seller of the property in respect of marginal variation cannot be denied to the buyer of the property, since, they stand on the same footing. This aspect of the issue has also been considered by the co- ordinate bench in case of Shri Sandip Patil v. ITO (supra), wherein, the co-ordinate bench has held that there cannot be two different fair market value in respect of the very same property, i.e. one at the hands of the seller and the other at the hands of the buyer. Thus, in our view, if the difference in valuation between the value determined by the stamp duty authority and the declared sale consideration is less than 10%, no addition can be made under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act. 18. Having held so, the second aspect of the issue which requires consideration is whether the exception to section 50C(1) by way of third proviso and section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) would apply prospectively or retrospectively. The issue is no more res integra in view of a number of decisions of different benches of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has consistently expressed the view that since the aforesaid amendments made by Finance Act, 2018 with effect from 1-4-2019 are curative in nature and beneficial provisions, it would apply retrospectively. In this context, we get support from the following decisions:- 1. Sandip Patil (supra) 2. Maria Fernandes Cheryl (supra) 19. Thus, keeping in view the discussions hereinabove, we delete the addition of Rs. 23,30,694/-. This ground is allowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 6.4. On perusal of record we find that in respect of Property Sold the Assessing Officer has recorded that the difference between stamp duty value and consideration is INR.15,80,568/- which is less than 10% of the recorded consideration value of INR.2,66,80,568/-. Therefore, in view of the above decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case no addition under Section ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 14 50C of the Act was warranted in the hands of the Assessee. Accordingly, order the CIT(A) is overturned and the addition of LTCG of INR.6,30,873/- is deleted. Thus, Ground No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed. Ground No. 4 7. Since we have allowed Ground No.1 and 3 raised by the Assessee, Ground No. 4 is dismissed as having been rendered academic in nature. 8. In result, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 10.07.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated :10.07.2025 Milan, LDC ITA No. 2497/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2018-2019 15 आदेशकीŮितिलिपअŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ/ Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊफाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपतŮित //True Copy// उप/सहायकपंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "