DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) 2 (2) (1), MUMBAI V. ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJ I. B.V. AS TRUSTREE OF ING, MUMBAI

MA 353/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6954 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Period of limitation
• Section: 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH L, MU MBAI BEFORE SH. R. C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO. 355/MUM/2017 IN ITA NO.7119/MUM/2014 ( A Y: 2007-08) DCIT (IT)-2(2)(1) ROOM NO. 1722, 17 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. VS. ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS, C/O. SRBC & ASSOCIATES LLP, 14 TH FLOOR, THE RUBY, 29, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR (W), MUMBAI-400028 . PAN: AAATI4316D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A NO. 353/MUM/2017 IN ITA NO.7120/MUM/2014 ( A Y: 2008-09) DCIT (IT)-2(2)(1) ROOM NO. 1722, 17 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. VS. ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS, C/O. SRBC & ASSOCIATES LLP, 14 TH FLOOR, THE RUBY, 29, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR (W), MUMBAI-400028 . PAN: AAATI4316D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A NO. 354/MUM/2017 IN ITA NO.7121/MUM/2014 ( A Y: 2010-11) DCIT (IT)-2(2)(1) ROOM NO. 1722, 17 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. VS. ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS, C/O. SRBC & ASSOCIATES LLP, 14 TH FLOOR, THE RUBY, 29, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR (W), MUMBAI-400028 . PAN: AAATI4316D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MISS N. HEMA LATHA (SR. DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHANESH BATNA/RAVI SAWANA (AR) MA 353 TO 355 M 17 - ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS 2 DATE OF HEARING : 01.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.07.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. THE AFORESAID THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS (MA S) ARE DIRECTED BY REVENUE FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE ALLEGEDLY APPARENT IN CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 09.12.2016 IN ITA NO. 7119/M/14, 7120/M/14 & 7121/M/14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11. IN ALL APPLICATIONS THE REVENUE HAS PLEADED IDENTICAL CONTENTIONS. 2. IN THE APPLICATION THE APPLICANT/REVENUE HAS CONTEN DED THAT THE TRIBUNAL PASSED CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN APPEALS FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YE ARS BY ADOPTING FACTUAL MATRIX PRESENTED IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 -07 (ITA NO. 5276/MUM/2014). IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE TR IBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BY TAKING SAME INFERENCE THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE FACTS FOR THESE YEA RS. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE RE VENUE ARGUED ON THE SIMILAR LINE. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER SU BMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE ORDER HAS NOT GIVEN SEPARATE FINDING WI TH REGARD TO NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08, 2008-09 AND FOR 2010-11. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11. THERE IS NON-CONSIDERATION/APPRECIATION OF FACT BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11, WHICH CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND REQUIRE R ECTIFICATION. THE LD. DR MA 353 TO 355 M 17 - ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS 3 FURTHER SUBMITS THAT COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) IS FILED ALONG WITH APPLICATION. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PRAYED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2016 IN ITA NO. 7119/M/14, 7120/M/14 & 7121/M /14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (A R) OF THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OPPOSED THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE. T HE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION RUNNING INTO 26 PAGES AND SUBMITS THAT BEFORE DECIDING THE APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE, THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD GO THROUGH THEIR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUB MITS THAT THE APPLICATION FILED BY REVENUE IS TIME BARRED. THE APPLICATION IS FILED BEYOND THE SIX MONTH FROM THE END OF MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED U PON THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 1. SRINIVAS SASHIDHAR CHAGANTY VS. ITO M.A. NO. 05/ HYD/2017 2. SMT. PADMA K. BHAT VS. ACIT (2017) (166 ITD 172) 3. MS SHAMASUNISSA BEGUM VS. DCIT (2017)(165 ITD 5 57) 4. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. ITAT (359 ITR 371) 5. A.S. CHINNASWAMY RAJU (HUF) VS. ACIT (300 ITR 96 ) 6. AJIT KUMAR PITALIYA VS. ITO (318 ITR 182) 7. RAJA MALWINDER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA (278 IT R 568) 5. IN OTHER ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION ON MERIT, THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNA L PASSED THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE A SSESSING OFFICER/REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED THE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) ALLEGEDLY ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143( 2) IS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND IT WAS NOT A PART OF RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL HEARING. THE NOTI CE HAS BEEN PRESENTED POST CONCLUSION OF THE ORIGINAL APPEALS AND THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF NEW MA 353 TO 355 M 17 - ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS 4 DOCUMENTS WHICH WOULD NOT JUSTIFIED THE RECTIFICAT ION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPO RT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISI ON: (A) LAXMI ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD VS CIT (1991)( 188 ITR 398) (B) ACIT VS SAURASHTRA KUTCH STICK EXCHANGE LTD (2008) (305ITR 227) (C) NISHA SYNTHETIC VS (2017) (291 CTR 329) (D) INDRA KUMAR PATODIA VS ITO (2011)(211TAXMAN 38) (E) SESA GOA LTD VS ACIT (MA NO. 30/PAN/2014) (55 TAXMA NN.COM 28) (F) SHEW PAPER EXCHANGE VS ITO (1974) 93 ITR 186, (G) SUMAN TEA & PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD ( 1997)( 22 6 ITR 34), (H) DHOLADHAR INVESTMENT (P) LTD VS CIT (2014)362 ITR 111, (I) PARAS COLDSTORAGE & ICE FACTORY VS CIT (2005) 272 I TR 301(P&H), (J) MRS SABITA SHARMA VS ITO 44 TAXMANN.COM 292, (K) GHARDA CHEMICALS VS DCIT (2011)10 TAXMANN.COM 55, (L) MRS JYITSNA SUTI VS DCIT (1997) ITD 185, (M) THAKUR SUKHPAL SINGH VS. THAKUR KALYAN SINGH AIR 19 63 SC 146. 6. IN THE REJOINDER SUBMISSION, THE LD. DR FOR THE REV ENUE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2016 WAS RECEIVED BY THE REVENUE IN THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT ONLY ON 13.03.2017 AND THE APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 14.07.2017. THE APPLICATION IS FILED WITHIN SIX MONTH FROM THE RECEIPT OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE CONTENTS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER. THE TIME PERIOD FOR MOVING THE APPLICATION FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE ON LY FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS 13 RD MARCH 2017; THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION IS FILED WITHIN PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTIO N 254(2) I.E. WITHIN SIX MONTH FROM THE COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES AN D HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THRO UGH AND CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS FILED BY LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE MA 353 TO 355 M 17 - ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS 5 FIRSTLY OBJECTED THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPLICA TION(S) ON HIS CONTENTION THAT THE APPLICATION IS BARRED BY TIME. WE HAVE SEEN THA T THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY TRIBUNAL ON 09.12.2016 AND THE APPLICATIONS ARE FIL ED ONLY ON 14.07.2017. DURING THE HEARING OF APPLICATION, ON OUR SPECIFIC QUARRY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WA S RECEIVED ONLY ON 13.03.2017 AND THE APPLICATION IS FILED WITHIN SIX MONTH FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. ON PERUSAL OF CASE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER WAS RELEASED FROM THE OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF TRIBUNAL ONLY ON 09/01/2017. AFTER RELEASE OF THE ORDER FROM THE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THE ORDERS ARE DISPATCHED IN SEVEN DAYS. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED ON 13.03.2017 SEEMS TO BE CORRECT. THE LD. AR FOR T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW ANY EVIDENCE TO US, IF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE AW ARD PRIOR TO MARCH 2017. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS, WHICH WE HAVE REFERRED IN PARA-4 (SUPRA). 8. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN STATE OF PUNJAB VS MST QAISAR JEHAN BEGUM AND OTHERS (AIR 1963 SC 1604) WHILE CONSIDERING THE WOR DS KNOWLEDGE EITHER ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY HAS HELD THAT KNOWLEDGE OF AWARD (ORDER) DOES NOT MEAN THAT A MERE KNOWLEDGE OF FACT THAT THE AWARD H AS BEEN MADE. THE KNOWLEDGE MUST RELATE TO THE ESSENTIAL CONTENTS OF THE AWARD. THE LAW DECLARED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IS BINDING THROUGHOUT THE TER RITORY OF INDIA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 141 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDI A. 9. THEREFORE, THE SAID PREPOSITION OF LAW CAN SAFELY A PPLIED TO THE CASE IN HAND. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVE D BY REVENUE ON 13.03.2017 AND THE M.A. WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 14.07 .2017. THEREFORE, THE MA 353 TO 355 M 17 - ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS 6 APPLICATION IS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTH FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDER AND THE OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT THE LAW DECLARED BY HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IS HAVING BINDING PRECEDENT ON ALL THE COURTS AND TRIBUNAL IN THE TER RITORY OF INDIA. THE VARIOUS DECISION RELIED BY LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT H ELPFUL TO HIM IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN STATE OF PUNJA B VS MST QAISAR JEHAN BEGUM AND OTHERS(SUPRA) 10. THE OTHER OBJECTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT THE IMPUGNED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT A PART OF RECORD OF THE TRIB UNAL. WE HAVE NOTED ALONG WITH THE M.A. THE REVENUE HAS F ILED A COPY OF NOTICE DATED 02.09.2013 UNDER SECTION 143(2) FOR AY 2007-08, 200 8-09 & 2010-11 ADDRESSED TO PRINCIPAL OFFICER, ING BEWAAR MAATSCH APPIJI B.V AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS, C/O SR BATLIBOE AND COMPANY-CAS, 6 TH FLOOR, EXPRESS TOWER, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. TH E NOTICES WERE ALLEGEDLY SENT THROUGH SPEED-POST AS ENDORSED AT THE BOTTOM O F NOTICES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FURNISHED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SPECIFICAL LY DENIED THE ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE NOR THE RECEIPT THEREOF AT THE ADDRESS MEN TIONED AT THE SAID NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN THE WORD INTELLIGENTLY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND NOT ADMITTING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ), TO AVOID THE ADMISSION OF THE ALLEGED NOTICE. ON PERUSAL OF FORM-35 WE HAVE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN/PROVIDED THE ADDRESS OF SAME LAW FIRM OF DI FFERENT ADDRESS I.E. SRBC & ASSOCIATE LLP, 14 TH FLOOR, THE RUBY, 29 SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR (W) , MUMBAI. MA 353 TO 355 M 17 - ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS 7 11. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS LIMITED WHILE CONSIDERING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER SEC TION 254(2). HOWEVER, FACT REMAINS THAT THE SERVICE/ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) WAS THE SOLE BASIS FOR QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ASSESS MENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT TAKING IN ACCOUN T THE ISSUANCE OR SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AT THIS STAGE. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN SPECIFIC FINDING THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND ALL THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSE D ON THE BASIS OF FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONT ENTION OF LD. DR THAT ORDER DATED 09.12.2016 IS SILENT ABOUT THE DISCUSSION OF THE FACTS RELATED WITH ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11 OR AB OUT ISSUANCE/NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). WE HAVE FURTHER NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ABSENCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL THE APPLICATION FOR RAISING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF A PPEAL WAS NEITHER DISCUSSED NOR THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE ADMITTED. ALL THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED, EVEN WITHOUT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS ON THE PREMISES THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED. THEREFO RE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO FINDING THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8, 2008-09 & 2010-11 THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND NON-C ONSIDERATION OF FACTS FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DECIDING THE APPEALS IN A C OMMON ORDER FOR FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. CON SIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2016 I N RESPECT OF APPEAL FOR MA 353 TO 355 M 17 - ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 IN ITA N O. 7119, 7120, & 7121/M/2014 RESPECTIVELY. HENCE, THE ORDER DATED 09 .12.20016 QUA ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 7119, 71 20, & 7121/M/2014 ARE RECALLED. 12. THE VARIOUS DECISION RELIED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE AS REFERRED BY US IN PARA-5 ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRE SENT CASE. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE MAY ADD THAT NONE OF THE CASE LAW RELIE D BY LD. AR RELATES TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASES IN OUR HAND. WE HAVE R ECALLED THE ORDER ON THE APPARENT MISTAKE THAT WITHOUT REFERRING AND CONSI DERING THE FACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11AND AD MITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ,THE APPEALS FILE BY REVENUE WERE DISMISSED AT THRESHOLD. 13. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 WAS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACT FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE WE HAVE RECALLED THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2012 QUA ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 7119, 7120, & 7121/M/2 014. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASES FOR HEARING AFRESH BY THE REGULAR BENCH. AS WE 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY REVENUE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND JULY 2018 SD/- SD/- ( R.C. SHARMA ) (PAW AN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 02/07/2018 S.K.PS MA 353 TO 355 M 17 - ING BEWAAR MAATSCHAPPIJI B.V. AS TRUSTEE OF ING EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUNDS 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/