SHIVANAND SHIVKANTH MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO(3)(2)(1) & CIT(A) 57, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H(SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shivanand Shivkanth ITO 3(2)(1), Mishra Air India Bldg, 5 Sahajanand CHS Ltd, Vs. Nariman Point, Milan Subway Road, Nr. Mumbai-400 021 Milan Subway, Santacruz West, Mumbai-400 054 PAN/GIR No. CMZPM1386E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Manish Desai, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Ld. DR Date of Hearing 18.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC/CIT(A)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"]under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] for Assessment Year

2 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra 2017-18, arising out of the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(1), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer or AO"]under section 144 of the Act. Condonation of delay 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 166 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that he is a Non-Resident Indian and citizen of France residing in France for the last 36 years and was not aware of the order passed by the learned CIT(A). It was further submitted that the assessee came to know about the impugned order only in October/November 2025 and, being not conversant with Indian income tax laws and appellate procedures, could not understand the nature of the order and the appellate remedy available to him. The assessee further submitted that only upon consulting a Chartered Accountant, he became aware that an appeal lay before the Tribunal and by that time the limitation period had already expired. The assessee accordingly prayed for condonation of delay stating that the same was neither intentional nor due to negligence. The learned Departmental Representative fairly submitted that he has no objection if the delay is condoned. Considering the reasons explained in the affidavit and in the interest of substantial

3 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra justice, the delay of 166 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. Facts of the Case 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a Non-Resident Indian residing in France. The case of the assessee was selected for verification under “Operation Clean Money” on the basis of information available on the ITBA module of Actionable Information Monitoring System (AIMS), wherein it was noticed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 18,00,000/- during the demonetization period in bank accounts maintained with Dena Bank. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) dated 15.01.2018 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish return of income and explain the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 18,00,000/- in two savings bank accounts maintained with Dena Bank in old currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/-. The details noted by the Assessing Officer were deposits of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 16.12.2016 and Rs. 4,00,000/- on 21.12.2016 in Account No. 001610024074 and similar deposits in Account No. 001610006907 aggregating to Rs. 18,00,000/-. The Assessing

4 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra Officer noted that the assessee had neither filed return of income nor furnished satisfactory explanation regarding the source of the said deposits. 5. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) dated 08.06.2019, 28.09.2019 and 23.11.2019 calling upon the assessee to furnish complete details regarding source of cash deposits, return of income, bank statements, capital account, source of income, details of business activities and documentary evidences substantiating the source of deposits. In response, the assessee filed a reply through e-proceedings on 15.07.2019 stating that he was filing return of income in response to notice issued under section 142(1). Subsequently, vide letter dated 17.07.2019 filed physically through his brother-in-law, the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that he was a Non-Resident Indian residing in France for the last 25 years and used to visit India frequently due to medical emergencies arising from the illness of his father and cancer treatment of his brother- in-law. It was submitted that the cash deposits represented savings brought from France for meeting medical expenses and household needs of family members in India. The assessee further submitted that he had no taxable income in India except interest income of Rs. 6,618/- and, therefore, no return of income had been filed earlier. Copies of French passport, Indian passport and certain medical papers were also furnished. 6. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidences establishing the source

5 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra of cash deposits. According to the Assessing Officer, despite repeated opportunities, no supporting evidences such as source of cash, bank statements evidencing withdrawals from foreign accounts, money exchange details or any documentary material substantiating the explanation were furnished. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee did not comply with the subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) dated 28.09.2019 and 23.11.2019 and also failed to respond to the final show- cause notice dated 07.12.2019. The Assessing Officer accordingly proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act. 7. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period and, therefore, the provisions of section 69A of the Act were clearly attracted. After reproducing and discussing the provisions of section 69A, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee was the owner of unexplained money amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/- which was not recorded in the books of account and whose source remained unexplained. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of Rs. 18,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act taxable under section 115BBE and completed the assessment under section 144 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 18,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC, 270A(2), 272A(1)(d) and 271F of the Act.

6 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra 8. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that he is a Non-Resident Indian residing in France for the last 36 years and has no taxable income in India except nominal interest income from savings bank accounts. The assessee submitted that his father expired on 18.07.2010 and his mother expired on 07.06.2017, while his brother-in-law was suffering from cancer and subsequently expired in the year 2018. It was submitted that the assessee used to visit India regularly and bring cash savings from France to financially support his parents and family members and to meet household and medical expenses. The assessee further submitted that the cash deposits in the bank accounts represented accumulated savings brought from France over several years. 9. The assessee specifically contended before the learned CIT(A) that out of the total deposits of Rs. 18,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- deposited in Account No. 6907 belonged to the assessee’s mother who had accumulated savings over several years out of money sent by the assessee from France and, therefore, the said amount could not be treated as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee’s mother had a separate PAN. The assessee further contended that the deposits were made only due to demonetization and there were no similar cash deposits in earlier years. The assessee also filed additional written submissions before the learned CIT(A) explaining that he was

7 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra employed in France as a kitchen helper and had accumulated savings from his earnings abroad. It was further submitted that Indian cultural and family obligations required him to support his relatives financially and, therefore, he regularly brought cash savings to India during his visits. 10. The learned CIT(A), however, observed that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence substantiating the claim that the cash deposits represented savings brought from France or savings accumulated by the assessee’s mother. The learned CIT(A) noted that no foreign bank statements, money exchange records, remittance documents or evidence regarding conversion of foreign currency into Indian currency were furnished either before the Assessing Officer or during appellate proceedings. The learned CIT(A) further observed that no evidence was produced regarding the alleged daily savings accumulated by the assessee’s mother. According to the learned CIT(A), the explanations furnished by the assessee were general in nature and unsupported by documentary evidence. 11. The learned CIT(A) further held that the assessee had admittedly deposited cash in his own bank accounts during the demonetization period and had failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under section 69A of the Act. After discussing the legal principles governing sections 68 and 69A and referring to various judicial precedents relating to burden of proof, the learned CIT(A) concluded that the assessee had failed to establish the identity, capacity and genuineness of the source of cash

8 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra deposits. The learned CIT(A), however, observed that out of the total deposits, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- could reasonably be considered as “Stridhan” of the assessee’s mother and granted relief to that extent. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of Rs. 16,00,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The grounds relating to initiation of penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature in nature.

9 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act by Ld. Assessing Officer. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto,the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270(A)(2) of the Act by Ld. Assessing Officer. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 272(A)(1) of the Act by Ld. Assessing Officer. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the Act by Ld. Assessing Officer. 9. The appellant prays that the additions / disallowance made may be deleted and initiation of penalty may be quashed. 10. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by Learned AO and providing relief only to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the assessed total income considering as this could be a “StriDhan”. 11. The appellant craves your honour's leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing or before. 13. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the assessee filed a detailed affidavit dated 19.03.2026 elaborating the factual background relating to the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period and reiterated the submissions earlier advanced before the lower authorities. Referring to the affidavit, the learned AR submitted that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian residing in France for the last 36 years and has no source of income in India except nominal interest income from savings bank accounts, which is below the taxable limit. It was submitted that since there was no taxable income in India, the assessee had never filed any return of income in India.

10 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra 14. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee’s father, Shri Shivkanth Shivgopal Mishra, had suffered a paralytic stroke in the year 2014 and was bedridden thereafter, while the assessee’s brother-in-law, Shri Ramkishor Tripathi, was suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital. It was also submitted that the assessee’s mother was suffering from old-age ailments and all the family members were financially dependent upon the assessee for their daily livelihood and medical expenses. According to the learned AR, the assessee’s father and mother expired in the year 2017 and the brother-in- law expired in the year 2018. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned AR referred to the medical documents and death certificates already placed on record before the authorities below. 15. The learned AR further drew our attention to the details of the assessee’s visits to India from the year 2011 to 2025 as furnished in the affidavit and submitted that the assessee had been regularly visiting India almost every year till 2017 for attending to his ailing parents and family members. It was submitted that during each visit the assessee used to bring approximately 4,000 to 5,000 Euros with him from France and leave the remaining money with his parents for meeting routine household and medical expenses. The learned AR submitted that since the assessee’s parents were elderly and homebound, they were accustomed to keeping substantial cash at home out of the money brought by the assessee from France.

11 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra 16. Referring to the bank accounts in which cash deposits were made during the demonetization period, the learned AR submitted that the deposits were made in Bank of Baroda Account No. 001610024074 standing in the name of the assessee and in Account No. 001610006907 jointly held by the assessee and his mother. It was contended that there were no cash deposits in the said bank accounts prior to demonetization and the bank statements for the period 2011 to 10.03.2017 clearly demonstrated that no such cash deposits were made in earlier years. According to the learned AR, only after demonetization was announced, the assessee came to India and deposited the accumulated cash savings lying with his parents into the bank accounts. 17. The learned AR further submitted that out of the total deposits, a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- deposited in Account No. 001610006907 belonged to the assessee’s mother, who was the primary account holder and whose PAN was BKYPM7922A. It was contended that the said amount represented the personal savings and “Stridhan” of the assessee’s mother accumulated over several years and partly out of funds provided by the assessee for household expenses. The learned AR submitted that under Hindu law, “Stridhan” includes movable and immovable properties accumulated by a woman during her lifetime and that Indian households often retain cash savings for contingencies. It was further submitted that the learned CIT(A) himself had accepted

12 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra the said explanation partially and granted relief of Rs. 2,00,000/- treating the same as “Stridhan”. 18. The learned AR also referred to the details of income earned by the assessee and his wife in France from the years 2011 to 2017 as reflected in the affidavit. It was submitted that the assessee had sufficient source of income in France and copies of income tax returns filed in France along with French bank statements for calendar years 2011 to 2017 had been furnished through the authorised representative vide submission dated 27.02.2026. According to the learned AR, this was not a case where the family had regular income and consistently deposited money into bank accounts in India. Rather, the assessee’s parents were entirely dependent upon the assessee and the cash brought from France during his visits was used for their livelihood and medical treatment, while the remaining amounts were retained as savings and subsequently deposited during demonetization. 19. Summarising the factual position, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had been residing outside India for the last 36 years, had regularly visited India to attend to his ailing parents, had sufficient disclosed source of income in France and had brought cash savings from France during his visits to India. It was therefore contended that the cash deposits made during demonetization represented explained sources and no addition under section 69A of the Act was warranted.

13 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra 20. The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, strongly relied upon the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). Referring to the findings recorded by the lower authorities, the learned DR submitted that despite repeated opportunities granted during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any cogent documentary evidence substantiating the source of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. The learned DR submitted that though the assessee has claimed that the amounts deposited represented savings brought from France in Euro currency over several years, no documentary evidence whatsoever has been brought on record evidencing conversion of Euros into Indian Rupees or lawful transfer of foreign currency into India. 21. The learned DR further invited our attention to the observations recorded by the Assessing Officer in para 3.3 of the assessment order wherein the assessee had, through his brother- in-law, claimed that the cash deposits were also disclosed under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016. Referring to the said portion of the assessment order, the learned DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had specifically observed that though the assessee claimed that the amount remaining with the assessee’s father after meeting medical expenses was deposited under the IDS Scheme, 2016, no documentary evidence in support of such disclosure was ever furnished. The learned DR pointed out that the Assessing Officer had conducted verification through the

14 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra office of the CIT regarding whether the assessee had in fact made any disclosure under the IDS Scheme, however, it was found that the assessee had not come under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 at all. The learned DR therefore submitted that even the explanation regarding disclosure under IDS was found to be factually incorrect and unsupported by record. 22. In rebuttal to the submissions advanced by the learned DR, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had been residing in France for the last several decades and the inward carrying of Euro currency pertained to a very old period spread over many years. According to the learned AR, considering the substantial passage of time, it was practically impossible for the assessee to now produce documentary evidence relating to conversion of Euro currency into Indian Rupees or preserve money exchange receipts and related documents pertaining to such old transactions. With regard to the observations made by the Assessing Officer concerning the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016, the learned AR submitted that the assessee had never made any disclosure under the IDS Scheme and the observations recorded in the assessment order in this regard are factually incorrect. 23. On perusal of the paper book and the bank statements furnished by the assessee during the course of hearing, it was observed by the Bench that the assessee was maintaining two bank accounts, namely an individual account bearing No. 001610024074 and a joint account bearing No. 001610006907

15 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra held jointly with his mother. From the bank statement of the individual account, it was noticed that after the cash deposits made during the demonetization period, the closing balance reflected in the account was approximately Rs. 8,21,036/-. Similarly, from the bank statement of the joint account, it was noticed that an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was transferred on 27.12.2016 to various bank accounts through cheque transactions. 24. In view of the aforesaid entries appearing in the bank statements, the learned AR was specifically queried by the Bench to explain the nature of the transfers made from the joint account and to furnish complete details regarding the recipients of the said amounts along with supporting evidences. The learned AR, however, expressed his inability to furnish the requisite details at the time of hearing and submitted that the necessary particulars, supporting documents and explanations regarding the subsequent transfers from the bank accounts may be furnished before the Assessing Officer if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee. 25. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole substantive issue arising for consideration in the present appeal relates to the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 16,00,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act in respect of cash deposits made during the demonetisation period.

16 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra 26. From the facts emerging from the record, it is not in dispute that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian residing in France for several decades. It is also not disputed that the assessee has consistently stated before the Assessing Officer, the learned CIT(A) and even before us that he had no taxable source of income in India except nominal interest income from savings bank accounts. Significantly, neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) has brought any material on record demonstrating that the assessee was carrying on any business activity in India or had any undisclosed source of income in India capable of generating unaccounted cash. Except for drawing an adverse inference on account of inability of the assessee to fully substantiate the source of cash deposits through documentary evidence, no independent inquiry appears to have been conducted by the lower authorities to establish that the impugned cash deposits represented income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee. 27. We further notice that one of the bank accounts in which cash deposits were made, namely Account No. 001610006907, is admittedly a joint bank account wherein the first holder is the assessee’s mother, namely Smt. Sarojini Shivkanth Mishra. The assessee has consistently contended that the deposits in the said account represented partly the personal savings and “Stridhan” of his mother accumulated over a period of time and partly the funds brought by the assessee from France for household and medical purposes. In fact, the learned CIT(A), after considering

17 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra the surrounding circumstances, has himself accepted the explanation partially and granted relief of Rs. 2,00,000/- treating the same as “Stridhan”. However, beyond granting such partial relief, no proper inquiry has been conducted either by the Assessing Officer or by the learned CIT(A) regarding the ownership, application and eventual utilisation of the cash deposited in the said joint account. 28. During the course of hearing before us, on examination of the bank statements placed in the paper book, it was noticed that in the individual account of the assessee bearing No. 001610024074, substantial balance continued to remain available even after the cash deposits made during demonetization. Likewise, from the bank statement of the joint account, it was noticed that an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- was subsequently transferred on 27.12.2016 to various bank accounts. In these circumstances, a specific query was raised by the Bench to the learned AR regarding the identity of recipients, nature of transfers and ultimate application of the deposited cash. The learned AR fairly submitted that complete details in this regard could not be furnished immediately during the course of hearing and requested that one more opportunity may be granted to place the requisite evidences and explanations before the Assessing Officer. 29. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid aspects go to the root of the controversy and require proper factual verification. The primary issue which needs examination is whether the bank

18 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra accounts of the assessee were merely used as a conduit for depositing unaccounted income belonging to some other persons which was subsequently returned immediately after deposit, or whether the cash deposits represented explained savings and family funds as consistently claimed by the assessee. Significantly, neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) has recorded any clear finding on this crucial aspect. Similarly, no inquiry has been conducted regarding the eventual utilisation of the balance amount retained in the assessee’s individual bank account after the deposits were made. These surrounding circumstances assume importance particularly because the assessee has consistently asserted that the deposits represented accumulated savings retained for medical and household needs of aged and ailing family members. 30. We also find merit in the contention of the assessee that the evidentiary value of the affidavits filed before the authorities and before us cannot be brushed aside lightly in absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue. The affidavit placed before us contains detailed factual assertions regarding the assessee’s prolonged stay in France, regular visits to India, illnesses of family members, source of earnings abroad, maintenance of parents and accumulation of cash savings over a long period of time. It is a settled proposition that unless an affidavit is controverted through cogent material or cross- examination, the contents thereof cannot be rejected summarily. At the same time, considering the subsequent movement of funds

19 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra in the bank accounts and the inability of the assessee to furnish complete supporting details before us, we are of the view that limited verification at the level of the Assessing Officer would meet the ends of justice. 31. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of examining the application and utilisation of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period, including the subsequent transfers from the joint bank account and retention/utilisation of balances in the assessee’s individual account. The Assessing Officer shall also examine the explanation of the assessee regarding the joint nature of the bank account, the claim relating to “Stridhan” and household savings of the assessee’s mother, and the explanation regarding foreign earnings and cash brought from France during various visits to India. 32. We direct that if, upon such verification, the explanations furnished by the assessee regarding source and application of cash deposits are found to be satisfactory and supported by surrounding circumstances and material placed on record, no addition under section 69A of the Act shall survive. For the aforesaid purpose, the assessee shall be at liberty to furnish all relevant evidences including details of withdrawals from foreign bank accounts over the relevant period, copies of passport entries evidencing visits to India, foreign income details, bank statements

20 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra and any other supporting material to substantiate the claim that the amounts deposited during the demonetization period were brought from France over a period of time and retained for family, household and medical purposes. The Assessing Officer shall also examine whether the amounts transferred immediately after the cash deposits belonged to the persons to whom such amounts were transferred and whether the assessee’s bank accounts were merely used as a temporary conduit for holding or routing such family funds. The Assessing Officer shall further verify the identity of recipients, nature of transfers and surrounding circumstances relating thereto before drawing any adverse inference. The Assessing Officer shall consider the affidavits filed by the assessee along with all supporting evidences and explanations that may be furnished during the remand proceedings and shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the matter is being restored for fresh limited verification, the relief of Rs. 2,00,000/- already granted by the learned CIT(A) shall naturally abide by the outcome of such verification proceedings. 33. Accordingly, the impugned addition is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for limited verification in terms indicated hereinabove. 34. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

21 ITA No. 8623/Mum/2025 Shivanand Shivkanth Mishra Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/05/2026 Dhananjay, Sr.PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai