ASHOK DEORA, V. ITO 24(1)(3),

MA 690/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6705 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 145; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA 690/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA. NO. 2107/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 MR. ASHOK DEORA MUMBAI 400 097 PAN AACPD6042M VS. ITO 24 (1) (3) MUMBAI - 400051 (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPLICANT : SHRI ASHWIN CHHAG FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI R.K. GUPTA (D.R.) ORDER PER D.MANMOHAN, V.P. 1. BY THIS APPLICATION ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ORDER DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH CONTAINS SEVE RAL MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD AND SEEKS RECTIFICATI ON OF THE SAME. 2. SYNOPSIS OF THE ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE : (A) BENCH ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHILE ARRIVING AT THE DECISION; PRESUMABLY ASSESSEE REFERS TO PARA 3 OF THE ORDER O F THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO ARRIVE A T THE CORRECT OPENING WORK-IN-PROGRESS APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY DID NOT PRODUCE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSES. IN THIS REGARD HE REFERS TO GROUND NOS. 2 TO 6 ANNE XED TO FORM NO. 36 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS NEVER CALLED UPON BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO FUR NISH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALL THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHE D 2 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER APART FROM THE FACT TH AT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED. MERE VARIATION I N SELLING RATES CANNOT GIVE RISE TO ESTIMATE OF INCOM E. (B) THE BENCH ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATI NG THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY INTIMAT ION ABOUT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS AND ESTIMATED THE INCO ME. EVEN UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, AN OPPORTUNITY I S REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN WHEREAS, ORDER WAS PASSED UND ER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE. (C) BENCH FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ESTIMATE OF PROFIT WAS MADE UNDER IRRELEVANT PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED PART OF THE SALES CONSIDERATION IN CAS H. PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COUR T IN THE CASE OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS 26 ITR 775 (SC ) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO INCOME CAN BE ASSESSED WITHOUT A VALID EVIDENCE. (D) BENCH HAS WRONGLY SHIFTED THE RESPONSIBILITY UPON T HE ASSESSEE THAT NO MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT IN SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS OTHER BUILDERS HAVE LES SER PROFITS. IN FACT THE ONUS IS UPON THE REVENUE WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME, PARTICULARLY WHEN AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE TO BE REJECTED. (E) BENCH FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT UPON REJECTION OF B OOKS ASSESSMENT CAN ONLY BE DONE UNDER SECTION 144 WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. (F) BENCH SUMMARISED ALL THE SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL INTO ONE ISSUE I.E., CORRECTNESS OF THE ESTIMATE OF THE PROFIT IN THE CASE OF DEVELOPER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT EACH ISSUE IS INDEPENDENT AS WELL AS INTER-LINKED. 3 3. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSE D OF THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING EACH ASPECT, PRESUMABLY DUE TO INADVERTENCE OR OVER-SIGHT, WHICH GIVES RAISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN SHORT, ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A DEVELOPER OF PROPERTIES. IT FOLLOWED PROJECT COMPLE TION METHOD. IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS, RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) OF THE ACT. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION ASSESSEE DECLARED WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT RS.1.10 CRORES AND SAL ES OF RS.0.95 CRORES. NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WORKS O UT TO 0.5% OF THE TOTAL SALES. SINCE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LOW, DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS AND ALSO TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS. ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ET C., WHICH COMPELLED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE PRO FIT. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO FURNISH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. LEARNED CIT(A) THUS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. EVEN BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO FURNISH BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN OUR ORDER, APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED, BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CI T(A). THE MAIN PLANK OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS TH AT AT NO POINT OF TIME ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THUS COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT BY STATING THAT BOOKS ARE NOT PRODUCED IS INCORRECT. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT TO SUBMIT THAT ASSESSEE IS DUTY BOUND TO PR ODUCE ONLY SUCH DETAILS WHICH ARE CALLED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVING NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR TH ERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS. EVEN ASSUMIN G FOR A MOMENT THAT THE BOOKS WERE NOT PRODUCED, NO CASE WAS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION BEC AUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD OTHER F LATS ALSO AT THE SAME PRICE AT WHICH FEW FLATS WERE SOLD. IT WAS CON TENDED THAT IN THE 4 LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. 26 ITR 775 (SC), WHILE INCLUDING A PARTI CULAR RECEIPT AS INCOME THE INITIAL ONUS IS UPON THE REVENUE TO PROV E THAT IT IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX ; WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, N O EVIDENCE WAS GATHERED TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A HIGHER CONSIDERATION IN CASH IN RESPECT OF FEW FLATS. HE A LSO ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN SECTION 145 ( 3) OF THE ACT TO SUBMIT THAT IN THE EVENT OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF A CCOUNT, TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DUTY BOUND TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT IN WHICH EV ENT THERE IS A FURTHER OBLIGATION CASTE UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INTIMATE THE ASSESSEE OF HIS INTENTION TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME WH EREAS NO SUCH PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED. THESE ASPECTS WERE NOT TAKE N INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE BENCH AND THEREFORE, IT GIVES RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF STARK ENGINEERS & CONTR ACTORS 127 ITD 211 TO SUBMIT THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSE SSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE EARLIER ORDERS FOR THE P URPOSE OF PROVING THE OPENING WORK IN PROGRESS WHEREAS THE TRIBUNAL HAS N OT TAKEN NOTE OF THIS FACT. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMI NARAYAN BADRI DAS 5 ITR 170 I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE A BEST JUDGMENT AS SESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO MAKE LOCAL ENQUIRY AND COL LECT NECESSARY INFORMATION AND HAS TO GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY A PARTICULAR MODE, TO DETERMINE THE INCOM E, SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE BENCH HAS NOT TAK EN NOTE OF THESE BASIC GUIDELINES WHICH GIVES RAISE TO A MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE M.A. THE BENCH ENQUIRED AS TO WHETHER THE BOOKS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL MERELY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS PREPARED TO PRODUCE BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT ANY RATE, HE DID NOT CHOOSE TO FURNISH THE BOOKS EVEN AT THIS STAGE. 5 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAVING TAKEN NOTE OF ALL THE FAC TS AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION THAT ESTIM ATION OF PROFIT IS REASONABLE, NO CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SUFFERS FROM A MIS TAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN SHORT, THE CASE OF THE LEARNED D.R. IS THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, EITHER IN LAW OR ON F ACTS. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FACT REMAINS THAT IN THE EA RLIER YEARS THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DETAILS SINCE REGULAR ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT MADE. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED FROM SEVERAL ADJACENT FLATS, PARTICULARLY WHEN TRANSACTI ONS TOOK PLACE AROUND THE SAME TIME, THE INITIAL ONUS IS CASTE UPO N THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED PART O F THE CONSIDERATION IN CASH WHICH IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX; THE ONUS THEN SHIF TS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS A BONAFIDE TRANSACTIO N. ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FURNISHED DETAILS OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS NOR F URNISHED ANY DETAILS CALLED FOR. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 2.8, ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE CONSIDE RATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT AND THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IS REASONABLE. THUS, ASSESSING OFFICER PRO CEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE REASONS FOR WHICH BOOK RESULTS WERE DISCARDED THE A SSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO PLACE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DETAILS, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 4.1 OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS EXTRAC TED BELOW : 4.1. - - - - -IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPE LLANT DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS THEREOF. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED EV EN DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER THE APPELLAN T 6 HAD NOT FURNISHED FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE WIP WITH PROPER EVIDENCE. HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF OTHER EXPENSES ALSO WITH PROPER EVIDENCE. THE VARIATION IN THE RATES OF SALES OF SH OPS AND OFFICE PREMISES WAS VERY HIGH AND MUCH BEYOND THE REASONABLE DEGREE OF VARIATION. THE SHOP NO. 30 1 WAS SOLD ON 16-2-2005 @ RS.4074/- PER SQ. FT. THE ADJOINING SHOP NOS. 302 & 303 WERE SOLD ON THE SAME DATE. BUT THE RATE CHARGED FOR THESE TWO SHOPS WAS RS.2,500/- PER SQ. FT. ONLY. THE APPELLANT COULD NO T GIVE PROPER EXPLANATION REGARDING SUCH LARGE GAP IN THE RATES OF SALE OF SIMILAR SHOPS ON THE SAME DATE. THERE AR E MANY OTHER VARIATIONS ALSO AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NO PRUDENT BUSINESS MAN NORMALLY SELLS SIMILAR GOODS ON SAME DATES AT SUCH VARIED RA TES. THIS SUPPORTS THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT THE APPELLANT MUST HAVE CHARGED SIMILAR RATES FOR SIMILAR SHOPS BUT HAD CONCEALED THE PART PROCEED IN RESPECT OF SOME UNITS. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE FACTS T HE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AUTHENTIC AND ACCEPTABLE. 7. DESPITE A CATEGORICAL FINDING BY THE CIT(A), EV EN BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO P RODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND EVEN AT THE STAGE OF ARGUING THE M. A. ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME FORWARD TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH IMPLIEDLY SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME, BEA RING IN MIND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, ON FACTS, THE RE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL. 8. ASSESSEE SEEKS TO PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TO CALL FOR SPECIFIC PARTICULARS IN THE ABSENCE OF WHI CH HE CANNOT REACH A CONCLUSION BY VIRTUE OF ABSENCE OF SUCH PARTICULARS . PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE WORDS AFTER HEARING SUCH EVIDENCE AND AFT ER TAKING INTO 7 ACCOUNT SUCH PARTICULARS AS THE ASSESSEE MAY PRODUC E AND SUCH OTHER EVIDENCE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REQUIRE ON SP ECIFIC POINTS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAVING NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNIS H THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT BOOKS WERE NOT MAINTAINED. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTICE HERE THAT SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 SPEAKS OF A CHOICE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, PARAS 2.2 AND 2.3 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL BUT NO MATERIAL WAS FILED WHICH WAS THE BA SIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY SECTION 145 ( 3) OF THE ACT, ON WHICH LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED STRONG RELIANCE, READS AS UNDER : WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR WHERE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SUB-SECT ION (1) OR ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AS NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVID ED IN SECTION 144. 8.1. THE EXPRESSION ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144 S HOWS THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISF IED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSE E, A DISCRETION IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER AN ASS ESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OR UNDER SECTION 144, BE ARING IN MIND THE EXPRESSION MAY USED IN SECTION 145 (3). 8 9. AT ANY RATE, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RE-ARGUE THE APPEAL AT THIS STAGE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE SINCE THE TRIBU NAL IS NOT ENTITLED TO REVIEW ITS ORDER IN A PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF SEC TION 254 (2) OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF RAMESH ELECTRIC & TRADING CO. 203 ITR 497 WHEREIN THE HON BLE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER : - - - - - - IN OUR VIEW, THE POWER OF RECTIFICATIO N UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIO US AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, A ND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMEN TS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN T HE PRESENT CASE. FAILURE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUME NT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSI ON IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. 10. CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTI NGUISHABLE ON FACTS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT SUFFER FROM A NY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THE MIS CELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, ON THIS THE 1 7 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE 17 TH JUNE, 2011 VBP/- 9 COPY TO 1. MR. ASHOK DEORA, 53, DEORA BUILDING, RANI SATI M ARG, MALAD (EAST), MUMBAI 400 097, PAN AACPD6042M 2. ITO 24 (1) (3), INCOME TAX OFFICE, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXIV, C.-10 , R.NO.709, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BA NDRA (EAST), MUMBAI 400 051. 4. CIT-24, MUMBAI 5. DR A BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI.