DILIP VISHNDAS BADLANI, V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 1,

MA 181/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3632 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S C TIWARI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Retrospective amendment; Block assessment; Condonation of delay
• Section: 132; 154

Judgement Text

1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI , !'# # $ , % , & BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 181/M/2015 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO. 115/M/2005, BLOCK PERIO D 01.04.1990 TO 20.10.2000) SHRI DILIP VISHINDAS BADLANI PROF. M/S. VISHINDAS VATUMAL JEWELLERS, SHOP NO. 584, ZAVERI BAZAR, SIRU CHOWK, ULHASNAGAR 421003 / VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 THANE PAWAL INDL. ESTATE, EDULJI ROAD, CHARAI THANE 400601 ( ./ * ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABEPB7685D ( (+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S. C. TIWARI DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SATYAPAL KUMAR . / # / DATE OF HEARING: 06.11.2015 012 / # /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.11.2015 / O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM: THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEE KING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE PURPORTEDLY CREPT IN TO THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2008 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS) 115/M/2005. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS LEADING TO THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION ARE A SEARCH AND SEIZER OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHO RT THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE O N 20.10.2010. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZER OPERATION, AN ORDER U/S. 158BA(1) R.W.S.158B C(C) WAS PASSED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.10.2000 MAKING ADDITION OF UNDISC LOSED INCOME. HAVING DONE SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO LEVIED SURCHARGE ON THE TAX COMPUTED AS PER SECTION 113 OF THE ACT. M.A.181/M/15(ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)115/M/05) BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.10.2000 2 BESIDES CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT O F UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGE THE L EVY OF SURCHARGE U/S. 113 OF THE ACT BY CONTENDING THAT PROVISION U/S. 113 OF THE ACT HAVIN G COME INTO STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2002, NO SURCHARGE CAN BE LEVIED ON THE ASSES SEE AS THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 20.10.2000. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH PROPOSITION ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ARUN M. KATARIA VS. DCIT 85 TTJ 363 AND SMT. KUSUM R. MO TO VS. DCIT IN ITA 365 DATED 19.11.2003. 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON AGREED THAT PROVISION CONTAINED U/S. 113 OF THE ACT HAVING COME INTO OPERATION WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2002 WILL NOT APPL Y TO A BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN PURSUANCE TO SEARCH OPERATION TAKING PLACE PRIOR TO 01.06.2002. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE LEVY OF SURCHARGE. BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID D ECISIONS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE AFORESAID ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. SURESH N. GUPTA 297 ITR 322(SC) WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISION CONTAINED U /S. 113 OF THE ACT PRESCRIBING LEVY OF SURCHARGE WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL REV ERSING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE LEVY OF SURCHARGE BY THE A.O. AS IT APPEARS, ASSESSEE A LSO ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE AS HE DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH N. GUPTA (SUPRA) CAME TO BE EXAMINED BY A LA RGER BENCH (FIVE JUDGES BENCH) OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHI P (P) LTD. 367 ITR 466(SC)(FB). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AFTER ANALYSING THE PROVISION S CONTAINED U/S. 113 OF THE ACT, FINALLY, CONCLUDED THAT THE SAID PROVISION, SINCE PRESCRIBE LEVY OF SURCHARGE IS IN THE NATURE OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION, HENCE, CANNOT BE TREATED AS CLARIFICATOR Y IN NATURE SO AS TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. FINALLY, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OVERRULING THE D ECISION OF DIVISION BENCH HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 113 OF THE ACT WILL NOT APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY. TAKING RECOURSE TO THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPLICATION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE APPEAL ORDER. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED B EFORE US, IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE LATER DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT WHEREIN, IT IS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 113 WILL HAVE NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION IS WRONG. THE LEARNED COUN SEL SUBMITTED, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHEREIN THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH WAS OVERRULED BUT AS PER THE SETTLED LEGAL PO SITION A JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO EVEN IN CASE OF PARTIES WHO HAVE NOT CARRIED THE MATTER IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED, THE TIME LIMIT OF FOUR YEARS PRESCRIBED U/S. 254(2) WILL ALSO NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE AS NO TIME LIMIT IS REQUIRED FOR GIVING EFFECT TO THE M.A.181/M/15(ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)115/M/05) BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.10.2000 3 ORDER/JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. HE SUBMITTE D, EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IS REQUIRED TO BE WAIVED IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF BHARTIYA ENGINEERING CORPORATION ( O) LTD. VS. R.G.DESHPANDE, ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 130 ITR 442(BOM). LASTL Y, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED, THE TIME LIMIT OF FOUR YEARS WILL NOT APPLY AS IT IS NO T STRICTLY AN ORDER FOR RECTIFICATION AS ENVISAGED U/S 254(2) BUT A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER TO BE PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HOWEVER CONTESTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE BEING N O RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS NOT MAIN TAINABLE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED AS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BEYOND FOUR YE ARS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPEAL ORDER IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IN OUR VIEW, FOLLOWING TWO FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES ARISE FOR CO NSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT CASE:- 1. WHETHER, THERE IS A RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE IN TERMS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 2. IF SO; WHETHER, IT CAN BE RECTIFIED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. AS FAR AS THE FIRST ISSUE IS CONCERN THERE IS NO DO UBT THAT TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH N. GUPTA (SUPRA) HELD THAT SURCHARGE U/S. 113 OF ACT IS LEVIABLE AS THE SAID P ROVISION BEING CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE WILL HAVE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT T HE AFORESAID DIVISION BENCH DECISION WAS OVERRULED BY A LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE APEX COU RT BY HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 113 OF THE ACT ARE NOT CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE, HEN CE, WOULD NOT APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 113 WILL APPLY PROSPECTIVELY WITH EFFECT FROM 01.06.2002. THUS, A S PER THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT SURCHARGE U/S. 113 OF THE ACT CAN BE LEVIED IN CASE OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN PURSUANCE TO SEARCH AND SEIZER ACTION CONDUCTED ON OR AFTER 01.06.2002. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE LARGER BENCH DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE EFFECT OF THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION HAS BEEN OBLITERATED. FURTHER, IN TERMS O F ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS BECOME LAW OF THE LAND. KEEPING THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE IN VIEW THE ISSUE T O BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE LARGER BENCH OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD AS ENVISAGED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STO CK EXCHANGE LTD. 262 ITR 146 HAS HELD THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT EVEN IF RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY, WOULD CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT F ROM THE RECORD THEREBY INVESTING THE AUTHORITY TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE. THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT WHILE DECIDING AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF M.A.181/M/15(ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)115/M/05) BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.10.2000 4 ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. 305 I TR 227 APPROVED THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT. THUS, THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW WHICH EMERGES FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION IS NON CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, EVEN SUBSEQUENTLY, WOULD CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AS EN VISAGED U/S. 254 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES CASE STAND IN A BETTER FOOTING AS THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW DECIDED IS, BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE FACE OF RECORD BECAUSE OF NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE LARGER BENCH OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. (SUPRA ), THOUGH, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. CONSIDERED IN THE AFORESAID PERSPECTIVE NON CONSIDERATION OF DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD COMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 8. HAVING HELD SO, THE NEXT ISSUE WHICH NEEDS TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER EXPIRY OF F OUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPEAL ORDER CAN BE ENTERTAINED AND WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE POWER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. IN THIS CONTEXT ASSESSE ES ARGUMENT IS TWO FOLD. FIRSTLY, THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S.254(2) CAN BE WAIVED AS IT IS TO GIV E EFFECT TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. SECONDLY, AS THE ORDER TO BE PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS IN THE NATURE OF A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER, THE TIME LIMIT WILL NOT APPLY. IN THIS CONTEXT HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING TWO DECISIONS:- 1. PENINSULA LAND LTD. VS. CIT & ORS. (2008) 307 ITR 0 183. 2. BHARTIYA ENGINEERING CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VS. R.G. DESHPANDE ACIT(SUPRA). 9. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. ON CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF ACT WE FIND, THE ONLY PROVISION UNDER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CAN PASS ANY ORDER IS U/S. 254 OF THE ACT. UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 254, THE TRIBUNAL CAN PASS ORDER FOR DISPOS ING OF AN APPEAL OR CROSS OBJECTION. UNDER SUB SECTION (2) OF THE SECTION 254 THE TRIBUNAL CAN PAS S AN ORDER FOR RECTIFICATION OF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. OF COURSE, UNDER SUB SEC TION (2A) OF SECTION 254, TRIBUNAL CAN PASS AN ORDER ON STAY. APART FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS WE ARE UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THE ACT EMPOWERING TRIBUNAL TO PASS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. AS STATED EARLIER BY US, IN OUR VIEW, THE ONLY PROVISION UNDER WHICH TRIBUNAL COULD HAVE PASSED AN ORDER IN PURSUANCE TO THE LARG ER BENCH DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) WILL COME INTO PLAY IN RESPECT OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT BEING THE CASE, THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED THEREIN WILL AUTOMATICALLY APPLY. ON A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN PASS AN ORDER FOR RECTIFICATION WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. THE AFORESAID LIMITATION PRESCRIBED CAN BE WAIVED ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE FILES THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPEAL ORDER BUT FOR SO ME REASON OR OTHER SAID APPLICATION COULD NOT BE DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPEAL ORDER. M.A.181/M/15(ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)115/M/05) BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.10.2000 5 THIS VIEW OF OURS GETS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SREE AYYANAR SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LIMITED 3 01 ITR 434. ADMITEDLY, IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE APPEAL ORDER. TO BE PRECISE, DELAY IS OF FOUR YEARS AND EIGHTEEN DAYS. THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION ON THE FACE OF IT IS BARRED BY LIMITATI ON. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, BUT, IN OUR VIEW THE DELA Y CANNOT BE CONDONED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SECTION 254(2) DOES NOT EMPOWER THE TRIBUNAL TO CON DONE DELAY WHERE THE APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE CONCERNED PARTY BEYOND PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. U NLIKE SUBSECTION (5) OF SECTION 253 UNDER WHICH TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN VESTED WITH POWER TO CONDON E DELAY IN RESPECT OF AN APPEAL OR CROSS OBJECTION. NO SUCH POWER OF CONDONING DELAY IS PRO VIDED U/S. 254(2). THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT FOR NOT PROVIDING FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY U/S. 254(2), MAY BE FOR THE REASON THAT A REASONABLY LONG PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS HAS BEEN GIVEN. BE THAT AS IT MAY, TRIBUNAL BEING CREATURE OF STATUTE IS BOUND BY THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. HENCE, IN ABSEN CE OF ANY PROVISION U/S. 254(2) FOR CONDONING DELAY, THE PRESENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPEAL ORDER CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. AS FAR AS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARE CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THEY DO NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN CASE OF PENINSULA LAND LTD. VS. CIT & ORS (SUPRA) THE COURT WAS DEALING WITH THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IN P URSUANCE TO THE DECISION IN APPEAL, REVISION/REFERENCE. HENCE, IT WAS HELD THAT POWER TO PASS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER IS NOT LINKED TO SECTION 154 BUT IS INHERENT IN SECTION 143 OR SECTI ON 144. HOWEVER, NO SUCH INHERENT POWER AKIN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUN AL. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BHARTIYA ENGINEERING C ORPORATION PVT. LTD. VS. R.G.DESHPANDE ACIT(SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, IN OUR VIEW, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, HENCE, WE REFRAIN FROM DELIBERATING ON THE SAME ANY FURTHER. THUS, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS B EEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF APPEAL ORDER PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL, IT CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN VIEW OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2). ACCORDINGLY , WE DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (SAKTIJIT DEY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 3. DATED : 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 MP M.A.181/M/15(ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)115/M/05) BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1990 TO 20.10.2000 6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. '# ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. '# / CIT 5. 678 ,%#%. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8$: ; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, -6# ,%# //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) !' #, / ITAT, MUMBAI