PRITHVI PRAKSHAN P.LTD, V. DCIT 47,

MA 402/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2704 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: P J PARDIWALA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Search and seizure; Question of law; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM ./MA NO. 402/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF MA NO. 499/MUM/2012) (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS) NO. 84/MUM/2009) (BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1996 TO 18.02.2003) PRITHVI PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD. 189, SANE GURJI MARG, CHINCHPOKALI (W), MUMBAI-400 011 / VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 47, MUMBAI # ./% ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACP 5814 A ( APP LICANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI P. J. PARDIWALA & SHRI NITESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP & ' ( / DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2014 )*+ ' ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.01.2015 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE ORDER U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DA TED 30.08.2013 BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS CASE IN RESPECT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.03. 2012 U/S. 254(1) BY IT QUA ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 18.02.2003. 2.1 THE UNDISPUTED FACTS EMERGING FROM THE RECORD A RE AS UNDER: 1) SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY T HE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON ONE, M/S. SUNJEET ADVERTISEMENT PVT. LTD. (SAPL), O N 18.02.2003; 2 MA NO. 402/MUM/2013 (B.P. 01.04.96 TO 18.02.03) PRITHVI PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 2) NOTICE U/S.158BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO SAPL ON 0 6.08.2003, AND ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 28.02.2005 BY ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCL E (CC)-46, MUMBAI, THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.); 3) NOTICE U/S.158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BY ASST. CIT, CC-46, MUMBAI ON 20.04.2004, TO WHICH IT RESPONDED BY RETU RNING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON 02.06.2004; 4) ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC R/W S. 158BD WAS FRAMED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE ON 29.03.2006, AT RS.1,18,72,391/-, BEING THE AGGREGAT E OF THE ADVERTISEMENT BILLS ISSUED IN ITS FAVOUR BY SAPL DURING THE PREVIOUS YE ARS RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 TO 2002-03, COMPRISED IN THE BLOCK PE RIOD, AND WHICH WERE, ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMINATION AND THE VERIFICATION OF TH E EVIDENCES, FOUND BY THE REVENUE TO BE ACCOMMODATION BILLS, REPRESENTING BOG US EXPENDITURE; 5) THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED THE SAME, MEETING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS TO ITS ASSESSMENT, INCLUDING QUA THE CHALLENGE TO THE SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH U/S.132 WAS CARRIE D OUT, MADE ON THE GROUND THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH, ON THE BASIS THAT THE A.O. (ASST. CIT, CC-46, MUMBAI) HAD INITIATED PROCEEDING S U/S.158BD ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS NOTED IN THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 20 .04.2004 (COPY ON RECORD), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE DIARIES AND ON THE BASIS OF THE NATURE OF THE ENTRIES RECORDED THEREIN; 6) THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN FURTHER APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT, HOLDING, AFTER RECORDING THE ARGUME NTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND NOTING THE LEGAL POSITION IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ASST. CIT [2007] 289 ITR 341 (SC); MANOJ AGGARWAL VS. DY. CIT [2008] 113 ITD 377 (DEL)(SB); AND KRISHNA SUGAR CORPORATION VS. DY. CIT [2010] 133 TTJ (LUCK) 33 (UO), ALSO REPRODUCING THERE-FROM, AS UND ER: 13. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN IN THESE C ASE LAWS TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY H OLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158BD, WAS BAD IN LAW. THE SAT ISFACTION IN QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143( 3) R/W 158BD IN THE CASE OF SAPL. THE SATISFACTION NOTE IS RECOR DED IN THE ORDER SHEET, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 158BD ISSUED. THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN KRISHNA SUGAR CORP. (SUPRA) HELD THAT EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CA SE OF PERSON SEARCHED AND OTHER PERSON, IS THE SAME SATISFACT ION IS TO BE RECORDED ONLY IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION UNDER SECTION 158BD, IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER PERSO N. ON THESE FACTS 3 MA NO. 402/MUM/2013 (B.P. 01.04.96 TO 18.02.03) PRITHVI PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HAVE NO OTHER ALT ERNATIVE BUT TO QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD, ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20 TH APRIL, 2004, AND TREAT THE ASSESSMENT AS NULL AND VOID . 7) THE REVENUE FILED A PETITION U/S. 254(2), CLAIMI NG AS UNDER: A) THAT ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC IN THE CASE OF SAPL, THE PERSON SEARCHED, WAS FRAMED BY ASST. CIT, CC-46, MUMBAI AS ITS A.O. ON 28.02.2005; B) THE SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS RECORDED ON 20.04.2004 BY ASST. CIT, CC-46, MUMBAI, BEING ALSO THE A.O. OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME, PRIOR TO THE ISS UE OF NOTICE U/S.158BD. 2.2 IT WAS THUS CLEAR THAT THE SATISFACTION WAS REC ORDED DURING THE COURSE AND PENDENCY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SAPL, AND BY ITS A.O. ON THAT BASIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING BY THE TRIBUNAL (VIDE IT S ORDER U/S.254(1) DATED 14.03.2012), HOLDING THAT THE SATISFACTION HAD NOT BEEN RECORDED BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SAPL, IS INCO RRECT ON FACTS. THE SAME FORMING THE BASIS OF ITS DECISION, THE SAID ORDER WAS PRAYED FO R BEING AMENDED APPROPRIATELY. THE TRIBUNAL, NOTING THE FACTS, FOUND THAT THE LD. COUN SEL REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEES CASE HAD MADE A CATEGORICAL SUBMISSION DURING THE HEARING OF ITS APPEAL BEFORE IT THAT SATISFACTION HAD NOT BEEN RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SAPL, THE PERSON SEARCHED, AND WHICH WAS CLEARLY A WRONG STATEMENT. FURTHER, BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE TRIBUNAL HAVING NOT RECORDED THE COMMENCEMENT A ND THE COMPLETION DATES OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SAPL, I T HAD NO BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT SATISFACTION WAS NOT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SAPL, AND WHICH WAS CLEARLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT H OLDING THAT THE SATISFACTION U/S.158BD WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE MANNER AS CONTEMPLATED THER E-UNDER. IT, ACCORDINGLY, DIRECTED A RECALL OF ITS ORDER, FOR THE MATTER BEING HEARD AFR ESH AND DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW MOVED AN APPLICATION STATI NG THAT THE QUASHING OF ITS ASSESSMENT AS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER D ATED 14.03.2012 (SUPRA) WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE DATE OF THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF 4 MA NO. 402/MUM/2013 (B.P. 01.04.96 TO 18.02.03) PRITHVI PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT SAPL, THE PERSONS SEARCHED, SO THAT THE SAME BEING RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE. THE BASIS OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER WAS THE SATISFACTION BEING RECORDED BY THE A.O. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE, AND NOT SAPL, THE PERSON SEARCHED. FURTHER, THAT THE TRIBUNAL PER ITS ORDER U/S. 254(2) DATED 30.08.2013, HAD NOT ALLOWED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESE NT ITS CASE, HAVING PREEMPTED THE SAME BY OBSERVING DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT WHER E THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED ALL RELEVANT FACTS, THE PETITION MUST FAIL IN-AS-MUCH AS REVIEW IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S. 254(2). ON THIS BASIS, EVEN AS THE APPLICATION RAISES OTHER OBJECTI ON AS WELL, IT IS STATED THAT THE SAID ORDER SUFFERS FROM MISTAKE/S APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, WH ICH MAY BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE INSTANT APPLI CATION ARISES OUT OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS THAT RECTIFICATION OF A RECTIFICATION ORDER IS PERMISSIB LE IN LAW, ITS SCOPE WOULD YET BE LIMITED ONLY TO MISTAKE/S APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER U/S. 254(2). AS A READING OF THE PETITION WOULD SHOW, IT CHALLENGES T HE FINDINGS BY THE TRIBUNAL PER THE SAID ORDER. THE BASIS FOR THE SAME IS CLEARLY THE TRIBUN ALS ORDER U/S. 254(1) DATED 14.03.2012, TO WHICH THERE IS ABUNDANT REFERENCE AS WELL AS REP RODUCTION FROM IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NO MISTAKE THEREIN OR EVEN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN TH E TWO ORDERS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO US OR EVEN OTHERWISE OBSERVED BY US; THE PRIMARY FA CTS OF THE CASE, WHICH STAND ALSO NOTED HEREINABOVE, BEING NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION SEEKS A REVIEW BY THE TRIBUNAL OF ITS ORDER, WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBL E IN LAW. IN FACT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ONLY RECALLED ITS ORDER FOR BEING DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN-AS-MUCH AS THE FACTUAL FINDING (I.E., OF THE SATISFACTION BEING NOT RECORD ED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SAPL), WHICH FORMED A BASIS OF ITS D ECISION OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT BEING NULL AND VOID , WAS WITHOUT BASIS OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SAME , EVEN AS CLARIFIED DURING HEARING OF THE INSTANT PETITION, IS RENDERED OF NO CONSEQUENCE IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT V . CALCUTTA KNITWEARS [2014] 362 ITR 673 (SC). NO PREJUDICE, IN ANY CASE, STANDS AS SUCH CAUSED TO ANY SIDE, AND THE 5 MA NO. 402/MUM/2013 (B.P. 01.04.96 TO 18.02.03) PRITHVI PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE ANY LEGAL PLEA IN THE ENSUING PROCEEDINGS. LIBERTY STANDS ALSO GRANTED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE ITS APPEAL ON MERITS. FURTHER, THERE IS NO INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, NOR ITS REVIEW PERMISSIBLE, WHICH IS THE IMPORT OF WHAT WAS OBSERV ED BY THE BENCH DURING THE HEARING OF THE EARLIER RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS, NOR WAS ONE DONE THEREBY. IN FACT, EVEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CHARGE THE TRIBUNAL OF A REVIEW OF ITS EA RLIER ORDER. THE ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, SO THAT THE CHARGE OF IT BE ING SO WITHOUT EXTENSION OF PROPER OPPORTUNITY, MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS REPRESENT ED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS BY A DIFFERENT COUNSEL, IS WITHOUT BASIS ON FACTS. THIS MEETS THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION VIDE PARA 7 OF ITS APPLICATION. THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION ALSO SEEKS TO INFORM TH EREBY THAT THE REVENUE HAS ALSO MOVED THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN APPEAL AGAINST SECT ION 254(1) ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL, RAISING A QUESTION OF LAW, AND WHICH IS PENDING BEF ORE IT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID QUESTION OF LAW. THE SAME, THOUGH AS IT APPEARS WRO NGLY, RECORDS THE DATE OF SATISFACTION AS 20.01.2004 (I.E., AS AGAINST 20.04.2004 WH ICH THOUGH IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE). IN- AS-MUCH AS IT QUESTIONS THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE TR IBUNALS FINDING OF THE SATISFACTION BEING NOT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE BLOCK ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS OF SAPL, IT NEGATES THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF THE SAID FINDING AS NO T IN DISPUTE (REFER PARA 5 OF ITS APPLICATION) AND, THUS, NOT RELEVANT. REFERENCE, I N THIS CONTEXT, MAY ALSO BE MADE TO GROUND # 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL MEMO BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, GOING BY ITS COPY AS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBU NAL, WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WAS NOT AWARE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL BEING PENDING FOR DISPOSAL, ALBEIT AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION, BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. SO, HOWEV ER, THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS BEING LIMITED TO RECTIFYING MISTAKES, E ITHER OF FACT OR OF LAW, APPARENT FROM RECORD, WE FIND NO EXCESS OF JURISDICTION TO THE EX TENT THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVES THAT IN-AS- MUCH AS THE DATES OF COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SAPL HAD NOT BEEN SPECIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL , ITS FINDING OF THE SATISFACTION BEING NOT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS IN ITS CASE, WHICH FACT THOUGH BECOMES UNDISPUTED IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEES ADMISSION OF THE SAME AS 6 MA NO. 402/MUM/2013 (B.P. 01.04.96 TO 18.02.03) PRITHVI PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 28.02.2005 REFER PARA 4 OF ITS APPLICATION, IS WITHOUT BASIS, AND IN FACT, LEADING TO A PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE, WHICH AN APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY COULD NOT IN LAW DO, SO THAT IT HAD INHERENT POWER TO RECTIFY THE SAME. THE DECISIONS I N THE CASE OF KHUSHALCHAND B. DAGA VS. T. K. SURENDRAN [1972] 85 ITR 48 (BOM) AND CIT VS. DR. T. K. JAIRAJ [2002] 256 ITR 252 (KER), CITED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE, SUPPORT THIS VIEW, AND TOWARD WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC). WITH REGARD TO THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL RECALLI NG ITS ORDER, THE SAID DECISION WAS GUIDED BY FINDING AN ABSENCE OF DIRECT NEXUS BE TWEEN THE CONCLUSION OF FACT ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE PRIMARY FACTS UPON WHICH THAT CONCLUSION IS BASED, SO THAT AN ADJUDICATION AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEV ANT FACTS WAS REQUIRED, IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY US. TRUE, THE QUESTION OF LAW BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS ON THE SAME ISSUE AS STOOD IMPUGNED, ON ITS FACTUAL ASPECT, BY THE RE VENUE BEFORE US. WE, THOUGH NOT AWARE OF THE REVENUES APPEAL BEING PENDING BEFORE THE HO NBLE COURT, SEE NO OVERLAP OF JURISDICTION IN ADMISSION OF THE REVENUES APPLICAT ION AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION. THE RECALL, WHICH WOULD IN ANY CASE BE SUBJECT TO ANY D IRECTION BY THE HIGH COURT, I.E., ON ANY PARTY MOVING IT, IN-AS-MUCH AS IT ALLOWS LIBERTY TO BOTH THE SIDES TO PRESENT THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, CAN LEAD TO N O PREJUDICE OR GRIEVANCE TO ANY SIDE, EVEN AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HI GH COURT, WHILE THAT BY THE REVENUE IS YET TO BE ADMITTED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATES OF THE SATISFACTION BEING RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON AS BEING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE . THIS ALTERNATE CLAIM OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RAISED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE REVENUES APPLICATION, THOUGH IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE AS THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLEAD ITS CASE IN THE RECALLED PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, WE OBSER VE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OF FACT OF THE SATISFACTION BEING RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON, WHICH IS BEING ONLY INFERRED FROM ITS OBSERVATION OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE BEING RECORDED IN THE ORDER SHEET IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE WOULD BECOME AN ASSESSEE OR, IN ANY CASE, THE OTHER PERSON, ONLY AFTER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.158BD INITIATING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ITS RESPECT, I.E., AFTER RECORDING OF THE IMPUGNED SATISFACTION. IN 7 MA NO. 402/MUM/2013 (B.P. 01.04.96 TO 18.02.03) PRITHVI PRAKASHAN PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT FACT, THE SATISFACTION STANDS THUS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHO IS THE A.O. OF BOTH THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THE OTHER PERSON. THE MATTER WOULD IN ANY CASE NEED TO BE DELIBERATED UPON, ALSO CONSIDERING THE DEVELOPME NTS IN LAW THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE, INCLUDING THE DECISION BY THE APEX COURT IN CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (SUPRA). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION IS DISPOSED OF ON THE AFORE- SAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 14, 2 015 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ,& MUMBAI; - DATED : 14.01.2015 . ../ ROSHANI , SR. PS !'#$% &%'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. . #/ / THE APPLICANT 2. 01#/ / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( . ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 4 5 0 6 , . ( 6+ , ,& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5 89 : & / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, (/) * (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ,& / ITAT, MUMBAI