AASIA MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTANT, V. ACIT 6(1),

MA 347/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7418 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B MENOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. M.A. NO. 347/MUM/2011. (ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 1916/MUM/2010) ASSESS MENT YEAR : 2006-07. M/S ASIA MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF PVT. LTD., HINDUJA HOUSE, VS. INCOME-TAX-6(1), 171 DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400 016. PAN-AAACI 3370C APPLICANT. RESPONDENT. APPLICANT BY : SHR I J.P. BAIRAGRA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.B.MENOR DATE OF HEA RING : 18-11-2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 09-12-2011. O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CREPT IN THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13 TH APRIL, 2011 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1916/MUM/2010. 2. AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPLICATION AND FURTHER REITERATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEA RING, THE FOLLOWING MISTAKES HAVE BEEN ALLEGEDLY CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL D ATED 13 TH APRIL, 2011 (SUPRA) : 2 M.A.NO.347/MUM/2011. 1) IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER, THE HON. TRIBUNAL HAS H ELD AS UNDER- ALTHOUGH AN ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS BEFORE US T HAT THE SAID MISTAKE IN MISCLASSIFYING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN ERROR INADVERTENTLY OCCURRED, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF THE HEARING, ON THE QUERY RAISED BY THE HON. BENCH, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AT PAGE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THERE IS INCOME SHOWN AS PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.52,66,68,726/- AND WHIL E PREPARING THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS IS REDUCED FROM THE PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND U NDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, IT WAS SHOWN AS- LONG TERM GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES RS.52,66,68,726 LESS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S. 10(38) RS.52,66,68,726 THAT PROVED THE FACT THAT DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY O F THE TAXATION MANAGER AND MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) AT THAT TIME AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE PERSONS SO APPOINTED, WHILE PREPARING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE MANAGER WHO HAS PREPARED THE SAME, HAS TAKEN THE TOTAL PROFIT ON SA LE OF INVESTMENTS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL ON SALE OF SHARES WITHOUT MAKING THE S TATEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT SOME PART OF IT CONSIST ED OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ALSO. 2. THE HON. TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD IN THE SAID PARA 7 OF THE ORDER THAT THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH ITS RE TURN OF INCOME WHILE MAKING THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 39 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND A PERUSAL O F THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE VERY MATERIAL AND RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE FORM OF C ORRESPONDING DATES OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE NOT GIVEN THEREIN . IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT - WHILE GIVING THIS FINDING, THE HON. BENCH HAS RELI ED ON THE STATEMENT OF LONG TERM INVESTMENTS ATTACHED WITH THE BALANCE SHEET PREPARED AS SCHEDULE VI OF THE COMPANIES ACT, WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3 M.A.NO.347/MUM/2011. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE ATTENTION OF THE HON. BENCH WAS DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN WORKING O F THE TOTAL CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES IS GIVEN, WHICH GIVES THE DETAILS OF NAME OF THE COMPANY, DATE OF PURCHASE, NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED, RATE AT WHICH SOLD, TOTAL SALE PRICE AND NET GAIN/(LOSS) AND THIS STATEMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE HON. BENCH. 3. THE HON. TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER HELD IN SAID PARA 7 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER- WHETHER A TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHAR ES HAS RESULTED IN SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WOULD DEPEND ON THE CORRESPONDING DATES OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND IF SUCH DATES ARE N OT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE CORRESPONDING TRANSACTION O F PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS RELATING TO ITS CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, IT WAS SPECIFICAL LY ARGUED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THIS YEAR WAS FILED ELECTRONICALLY AND I N THE SAID E-RETURN FORM, THERE WAS NO COLUMN FOR GIVING SUCH DETAILS. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT IN THE SAID RETURN FILED ELECTRONICALLY, THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT DELETE OR ADD ANY COLUMNS OR ROWS. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NO PROVI SION IN THE E-RETURN FORM TO FILL UP THE DETAILS RELATING TO DATES OF PURCHAS E AND SALE OF SHARES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN T HE DETAILS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS ASKED FOR BY THE AO, THE MANAGER (TAXATION) OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS IN T HE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND AT THAT TIME, IT WAS FOUND THAT A SUM OF RS.71,14,710/- WAS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 4.FURTHER, AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ATTENTIO N OF THE HON. BENCH WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.52,66,68, 726/-, WHICH IT HAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S. 10(38) OF THE ITA. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THROUGH OVER SIGHT, IN THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS CLAIM ED TO BE EXEMPT, INADVERTENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.71,14,710/- ARISING OUT THE SALE OF SHARES OF IN DUSIND BANK LTD. THE 4 M.A.NO.347/MUM/2011. ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED BROKERS NOTE IN THE CONTEXT OF SALE OF SHARES AND PROOFS IN RESPECT OF HOLDING OF SHARES OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR. A SCRUTINY OF THE BROKERS NOTE IN THE CONTEXT OF SALE OF SHARES A ND PROOFS IN RESPECT OF HOLDING OF SHARES OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR. A SCRUTINY OF THE BROKERS NOTES SUBMITTED WILL REVEAL THAT SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX HAS BEEN PAID IN RESPECT OF ALL THE SALE OF SHARES EFFECTED DURING THE YEAR. CO NSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION IS COMSPUTED AS FOLLOWS: SR NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT IN RS. 1. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PER RETURN OF INCOME. 52,66,68,726/- 2. SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF IBL SHARES. 71,14,710/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPT U/S. 10(38) OF THE ITA. 51,95,54,016/- 3. SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN 71,14,710/- THE HON. TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS FINDING O F THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT ALL. 5. AGAIN, IN THE SAID PARA 7, THE HON. TRIBUNAL FUR THER HAS HELD THAT MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY TH E ASSESSEE TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY IT IN MISCLASSIFYING S HORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS A BONAFIDE ONE. IN THIS RESPECT, WE RELY ON THE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN I N PARA 5.1 ABOVE. 6. IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER, THE HON. TRIBUNAL HAS CO NSIDERED ONLY TWO DECISIONS OUT OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HELD THAT THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS REGARDS MISTAKE NO.1, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ATTRIBUTING THE MISTAKE IN MISCLASSIFY ING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO INADVERTENT HUMAN ERROR W AS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL 5 M.A.NO.347/MUM/2011. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NOTHING BROUGHT ON REC ORD TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. IT IS NOT VERY CLEAR FROM THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE MANAGER WHO PREPARED THE RETURN IN THE ABSENCE OF TAXATION MANAGER AND ACCOUNTS MANAGER HAD TAKEN THE TOTAL PR OFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WITHOUT PREPARING THE STATEM ENT OF CAPITAL GAIN. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT POINT OUT AS TO HOW THE MISTAKE IN MISCLASSIFICATION OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO INADVERTENT HUMAN ERROR. ON THE CONTRARY, WHEN THE ENTIRE PROFIT ON SALE OF INV ESTMENTS WAS DECLARED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT M AKING THE STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THE MISCLASS IFICATION WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY INADVERTENT HUMAN ERROR. IN ANY CASE, THE SUBMISSIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL TAKING A DEFINITE VIEW AND IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO REVIEW THE SAME U /S 254(2). 4. AS REGARDS MISTAKE NO. 2, IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHILE MAKI NG THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 39 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WERE FOUND TO BE INSUFFICIENT AND INCOMPLETE BY THE TRIB UNAL AS THE SAME DID NOT INCLUDE VERY MATERIAL AND RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE FORM OF C ORRESPONDING DATES OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID DETAILS WERE GIVEN IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED UNDER THE COMPANIES A CT WHEREAS ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS WERE GIVEN SEPARATELY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO WHICH ATTENTION WAS DRAWN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAID DETAILS AS PLACED ON PAGE NO. 13 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WERE GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AO WHICH REVEALED THE FACT THAT SHORT 6 M.A.NO.347/MUM/2011. TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT BY THE A SSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FURNISHING OF THE SAID DETA ILS AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANN OT BE TAKEN AS BASIS TO CLAIM THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE FULLY AND TRULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT CONCEALMENT HAS TO BE INFERRED FROM TH E RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS REGARDS MISTAKE NO. 3 ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NON CONSIDERATION OF HIS SUBMISS ION BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF FILING E-RETURN, IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE RELEVA NT NOTINGS MADE IN THE LOG BOOK THAT NO SUCH SUBMISSION WAS ACTUALLY MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAI D THAT THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS COUNT AS ALLEGED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 6. AS REGARDS MISTAKE NO. 4 ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NON CONSIDERATION OF A PARTICULA R FINDING OF THE AO GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DECISION WAS RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER HAVING PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECOR D AS MENTIONED CLEARLY IN PARAGRAPH NO. 7 OF ITS ORDER WHICH INCLUDED THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL. IN ANY CASE, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THI S PARTICULAR FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO WAS SO MATERIAL TO ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM IMP OSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT THROWN ANY LIG HT ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 7. AS REGARDS MISTAKE NO. 5 ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NOT ACCEPTING ITS CONTENTION THA T THE MISTAKE COMMITTED IN MISCLASSIFYING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS A BONAFIDE ONE, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SIMILAR TO T HE ONE MADE WHILE POINTING OUT 7 M.A.NO.347/MUM/2011. MISTAKE NO.1 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY US IN THE FOREGOING PORTION OF THIS ORDER. 8. AS REGARDS MISTAKE NO. 6 ALLEGEDLY POINTED OUT B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CONSIDERING ONLY TWO DECISIONS O UT OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ALL THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEES CASE BY THE TRIBUNAL AS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH NO. 8 OF ITS ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS . THE TWO DECISIONS OUT OF THESE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WERE DISCUSSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL JUST TO POINT OUT SOME INSTANCES TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE VARIOUS DECISI ONS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE AS SESSEES CASE. IT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE WAS ANY MISTAK E IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS COUNT. 9. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13 TH APRIL, 2011 (SUPRA) AS SOUGHT TO BE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION CALLING FOR ANY RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2 ). IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) IS VERY LIM ITED AND WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER THE SAID PROVISION IS ONLY THE MISTAKE OF FAC T OR LAW, WHICH IS PATENT AND GLARING AND WHICH IS CLEARLY APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE POWER CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) TO RECTIFY AN ERROR APPARENT FR OM THE RECORD HAS A LIMITED APPLICATION AND THE REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2). AS ALREADY DISCUSSED, THERE IS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13 TH APRIL, 2011 (SUPRA) AS SOUGHT TO BE POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION. BY THE SAID APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS 8 M.A.NO.347/MUM/2011. SEEKING REAPPRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD BY THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS DECISION WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN RENDERED ON APPRECIATION OF THE SAID FACTS AND MATERIAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THIS PO SITION CLEARLY MANIFEST FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED TO THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE, HOWEVER, STILL PROCEEDED TO MAKE STATE AND STE RILE SUBMISSIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO SOMEHOW SUPPORT AND JUSTIFY THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ATTEMPT, IN OUR OPINION, CLEARLY AMOUNTS TO MI SUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. THE FILING OF THIS FRIVOLOUS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) AND THE STATE AND STERILE SUBMISSION S MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT THEREOF THUS HAS RESULT ED IN WASTAGE OF THE PRECIOUS TIME OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, JUSTIFY IMPO SITION OF COST ON THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND IMPOSE A COST OF RS.10,000/ - ON THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 9 TH DECEMBER., 2011. WAKODE 9 M.A.NO.347/MUM/2011. COPY TO : 1. APPLICANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, A-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGI STRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BEN CHES, MUMBAI ,