Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
PER RAMIT KOCHAR, Accountant Member
This appeal, filed by the Revenue, being ITA No. 5422/Mum/2013, is directed against the order dated 20-05-2013 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Mumbai (Hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The ground raised by the Revenue in the memo of appeal filed with the Tribunal reads as under:-
“(i) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that reopening u/s 147 was made on the basis of material on record which ITA 5422/Mum/2013 2
was duly considered by the AO while completing the original Assessment order. (ii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in extending the scope of " change of opinion" to a case where no opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer and therefore presumed deemed formation of opinion. (iii) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that this is a case where no opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer and therefore reopening was outside the scope of change of opinion.
(iv) The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not properly appreciating the factual and legal matrix as clearly brought out by the Assessing Officer in reason recorded for reopening the Assessment.
The Ld. CIT(A)'s order is contrary in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside.
The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground that may be necessary.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 55,19,179/- on 05-12-2006 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter called “the Act”) vide assessment orders dated 09-07-2008 passed by the learned assessing officer (Hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) determining the total income of the assessee company at Rs.63,19,825/-. Subsequently it was noticed by the AO that the income chargeable to tax has been under assessed on account of Modvat being not included in closing stock u/s 145A of the Act of Rs. 72,07,660/- and rebate on non-payment of sales tax deferred installments of Rs. 10,72,897/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2012 was issued to the assessee company. In reply, the assessee company submitted that without prejudice, the assessee company is following the method of accounting of ITA 5422/Mum/2013 3
purchase and sales on net basis whereby the amount of sales and purchase are shown net of excise, sales tax etc. . In the tax audit report, every year the effect of Cenvat Credit (Modvat) was given on the opening stock and closing stock as adopted in gross method as per provision of section 145A of the Act and on the basis of effect of Modvat on valuation of opening and closing stock, the effect was given in the computation of income while filing the return of income with the Revenue. However, w.e.f. the assessment year 2006-07 the assessee company had decided not to give the said effect in the computation of total income in the return of income filed with the Revenue. Similarly, in the assessment year 2007-08 and onwards, no such effect was accounted in the opening stock and closing stock. Since the effect of Modvat in the closing stock was taken into account in the assessment year 2005-06, the same was shown in the opening stock of the assessment year 2006-07 and no such effect of Modvat was accounted in the closing stock of the assessment year 2006-07. In support, the assessee company relied on the judgments in the case of CIT v. Indo-Nippon Chemical Co. Ltd. , 245 ITR 384 (Bom) and the Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of Echjay Industries Ltd. v. DCIT, 257 ITR 1(AT).
With respect to the lower- payment of Rs. 10,72,897/- due to premature payment under Sales Tax Deferral scheme, it was submitted that the Paithan and Waluj Unit of the company were entitled to a Sales Tax Deferral scheme of the Government of Maharashtra and after the introduction of section 43B in the Act , lot of representation were made to the Central Government by various States who had Sales Tax Deferral Scheme about the difficulties faced by the units enjoying Sales Tax Deferral Scheme. The CBDT issued a Circular in 1987 wherein it was stated that the States should formulate a scheme like Maharashtra State which provided that the Sales Tax Payable by the eligible unit would be deemed to have been paid on due date and simultaneously the same amount would have been deemed to be disbursed by the Government as ITA 5422/Mum/2013 4
loan to the eligible unit. Hence, it was assumed that the revenue collection of statutory dues stood fully paid due to which no addition were required to be made u/s 43B of the Act. In other words the revenue liability was extinguished and a capital liability came into existence. The sales tax deferral amounts were payable in installments spread over a period of time and subsequently, the Maharashtra State offered to accept the NPV. (i.e. Net Present Value) of the deferral installments if paid in lump sum before due date of each installment. The assessee company availed the benefit of this scheme and paid NPV by reducing Rs.10,72,897/-. The assessee company did not offer this amount for taxation as the benefit has accrued to the assessee company on extinguishment of a capital liability, which is not taxable. The assessee company submitted that the assessee company had taken the benefit of the scheme and paid the discounted value of loan which was payable in number of installments over the years by paying the discounted amount immediately in lumpsum. Hence, it can be called as waiver of part of amount of loan and not the revenue expenditure and hence provisions of Section 41 of the Act are not applicable.
The assessee company’s explanation was considered by the AO but not found to be acceptable as the assessee company has claimed Modvat on purchase of raw material and has valued its closing stock as net of Modvat. The amount of Modvat credit on closing stock is Rs. 72,07,660/ which is not added to closing stock of the assessee company. Therefore, as per provisions of Section 145A of the Act, the same needs to be added to the closing stock of the assessee company as its income. The provisions of section 145A of the Act is clear and unambiguous and it provides that the closing stock should be valued at inclusive of Cenvat. Therefore, the value of closing stock is increased by Rs. 72,07,660/- and addition was made to the income of the assessee company vide assessment order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Further, the assessee company’s
ITA 5422/Mum/2013 5
contention about the rebate on non-payment of sales tax deferral installments of Rs. 10,72,897/- was also not acceptable as section 41(1) r.w.s. 43B of the Act is squarely applicable to the assessee company case. Further, this stand has been confirmed by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Schenctady Specialities Asia (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, 29 SOT 1 (Mum)[2009], the facts of which are squarely applicable to this case. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 10,72,897/- is added back to the income of the assessee company by the AO vide assessment order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act.
Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 23-01-2013 passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).
Before the CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that the notice dated 28.03.2012 u/s 148 of the Act was issued in this case and scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 09/07/2008. The notice dated 28-03-2012 u/s 148 of the Act has been issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year which expired on 31/03/2011 and the original assessment having being framed u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the notice issued after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year was bad in law. The assessee company further submitted that as per proviso to Section 147 of the Act where the assessment is completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, no action shall be taken after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on part of the assessee company to disclose fully & truly all material facts necessary· for the assessment. In this case all the details & effect of Modvat on opening & closing stock were given under Annexure "D" of Tax Audit Report & also in computation of income which was attached with return of income filed by the ITA 5422/Mum/2013 6
assessee company with the Revenue and hence the assessee company has disclosed fully & truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. The assessee company submitted that the revenue audit team has raised objection on three issues out of which in respect of leave encashment, they have accepted the reply of the A.O. and in the case of other two objections, they have not accepted the A.O.’s reply. The objections raised by the revenue audit team are as under:-
“(i) Regarding Modvat Credit:
The assessee company while computing the profit &. gains of the business had claimed deduction of Rs. 37,03,717/- u/s. 145A being MODVAT included in the opening stock of Raw Material (refer annexure "D" of Tax Audit report). During scrutiny assessment the Assessing Officer accepted the computation. Audit Scrutiny revealed that the assessee company had not considered the MODVAT included in the closing stock. As per Annexure D of Tax Audit Report, the MODVAT included in closing stock u/s. 145A was Rs. 72,07,660/- which should have been added while computing the profit and gains of business.
(ii) Rebate on Sales Tax Deferral: In its return of income the assessee company had claimed reduction of Rs. 10,72,897/- being rebate on non-payment of Sales tax deferral Installment (being capital receipts). On scrutiny the assessing officer allowed the deduction. In this connection it is pointed out that rebate on Sales Tax Deferral installments is cessation of liability and liable for tax. Omission resulted in underassessment of Rs. 10,72,897/- leaving to short levy of tax of Rs. 4,62,256/-.”
The assessee company argued that from the revenue audit team objection it is clear that they have raised objection on the basis of details given in Annexure 'D' of Tax Audit Report regarding MODVAT credit and as per details given in the statement of total income regarding rebate on Sales Tax Deferral installments. Thus it is clear that these details were already there before the AO at the time of framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act in response to return filed u/s 139 of the Act and the same were examined by the A.O. while passing the original assessment order dated 09.07.2008
ITA 5422/Mum/2013 7
passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee company submitted that the A.O. has repeated the revenue audit team objections without applying his own mind on the facts of the case. The A.O. has repeated the language of the Section that the escapement of income is by reason of failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Without pinpointing the details and to how there is a failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose fully and truly all the materials when the revenue audit team has raised the audit objection on the basis of the details filed by the assessee company, which is very clear from the revenue audit team objection’s . In nutshell, the assessee company submitted that the re-opening was bad in law on account of three following issues:-
“(i) Re-opening has been done merely on the basis of audit objection;
(ii) Re-opening is done after expiry of 4 years from the end of the asst. year when the scrutiny assessment is passed u/s. 143(3); and (iii) Since all the details are available on the record, which were supplied at the time of assessment, it cannot be said that the income escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
(iv) Without prejudice, since all the details are available on the record and the AO has passed the order by not applying his mind on the facts as mentioned very clearly in para 2 of the original asst order passed on 09-07-2008, if any other view is taken which tantamount to change of opinion which is not permitted for re-opening of the assessment.”
In support, the assessee company relied on the following judgments:-
ITA 5422/Mum/2013 8
(i) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. , 320 ITR 561(SC) (ii) ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 210 Taxman 67(Bom.HC.) (iii) Vijay Rameshbhai Gupta v. ACIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 41( Guj. HC), (iv) Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (LTU and other writ Petition bearing No. 7943/2011 – 2013-TIOL-366-HC-DEL- IT dated 23-4-2013(Del. HC) (v) Bhor Industries Ltd. v. ACIT and Others, 267 ITR 161 ( Bom. HC.) (vi) Grind Well Norton Ltd. v. ACIT, 267 ITR 673 (Bom.HC) (vii) Biswanath Tea Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, 267 ITR 687(Cal.HC) (viii) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. ACIT, 65 DTR 385 ( Gujarat HC.) (ix) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., SPARC v. ACIT, 2012-TIOL-527-HC-AHM-IT , (Guj. HC)
In the light of above case laws, the assessee company contended that the reopening is bad in law and the assessment order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act may be quashed.
The CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case observed that the assessee company’s return of income was scrutinized and order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 09-07-2008 was passed by the AO whereby the AO considered various issues on which the addition was made in the computation of income whereby assessed income was Rs.63,19,825/- as against returned income of Rs.55,19,179/-. Thereafter, the AO formed the belief u/s 147 of the Act that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The AO formed his belief on the basis of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The reasons recorded are as under:-
“1. The scrutiny assessment for A Y 2006-07 was completed u/ s 143(3) of the Act assessing the income at Rs 63,19,800/-- as against the return of income of Rs. 55,19,179/-- on 09-07-2008. ITA 5422/Mum/2013 9
The assessee while computing the profit & gains of the business had claimed deduction of Rs. 37,03,717/- u/s. 145A being MODVAT included in the opening stock of Raw Material (refer annexure “D” of Tax Audit report). From the perusal of record, it has been revealed that the assessee company had not considered the MODVAT included in the closing stock. As per Annexure D of the Tax Audit Report, the MODVAT included in closing stock u/s. 145A was Rs. 72,07,660/- which should have been added while computing the profit and gains of business.
In its return of income the assessee company had claimed reduction of Rs. 10,72,897/- being rebate on non-payment of Sales tax deferral installment (being capital receipts). In this connection, it is pointed out that rebate on Sales Tax Deferral installments is cessation of liability and liable for tax. As per the provisions u/s 41, where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or liability incurred by the assessee and subsequently during any previous year the assessee has obtained whether in cash or in any manner whatsoever any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof, the benefit obtained shall be deemed to be profits and gains of business.
Thus, there is an escapement of income to the extent of Rs. 82,80,557/- (Rs. 72,07,660/- + Rs.l0, 72,897). The escapement of income is by the reason of failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for A Y 2006-07. I, therefore, have a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, it is a fit case of assessing the same u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.”
The AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28-03-2012 which is admittedly issued after the lapse of four years from the end of assessment year under consideration hence, the proviso to section 147 of the Act was clearly attracted. The CIT(A) held that as per provisions of the Act, if the A.O has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the AO can reopen the completed assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, for reopening the completed assessment, the A.O. should form a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Such belief should be formed on the basis of material information available to the A.O. The material/information should be such that on the basis of which a reasonable person could form a prima facie belief that income chargeable to ITA 5422/Mum/2013 10
tax had escaped assessment. Such material/information should come in possession of AO subsequent to the completion of original assessment. The CIT(A) held that it is not necessary that on the basis of such material information a fool proof case should be made out of escapement of income. The requirement of law is that on the basis of such information/material, a reasonable person could form a prima-facie belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The CIT(A) after perusal of "reasons recorded for reopening assessment" reveals that the AO has formed his belief on the basis of information/material/ details already available on record and the AO has not reopened the assessment on the basis of any fresh information/material received after the completion of original assessment order dated 09-07-2008. Though in the "reasons recorded" the AO has mentioned that the escapement of income is by the reasons of failure on the part of assessee company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year 2006-07, however, even in the assessment order also, the AO has not explained as to how there was any failure on the part of assessee company to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Without prejudice to this, the CIT(A) held that after a perusal of "reasons recorded" shows that the reopening was made on the basis of material available on record. Thus, it was a clear case of change of opinion on the basis of same set of facts, information/ material already available on record and considered during the original assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) vide orders dated 20-05-2013 held that since there was no failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment and since the reopening was made on the basis of change of opinion, the reopening of assessment was bad in law and therefore, deserves to be quashed.
Aggrieved by the orders dated 20-05-2013 passed by the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
ITA 5422/Mum/2013 11
The ld. D.R. strongly supported and relied upon the order of the A.O. and submitted that the A.O. has reopened the assessment u/s 147 /148 of the Act by issuing notice dated 28.03.2012 u/s 148 of the Act as the assessee company has not shown Modvat credit in the closing stock. Section 145A of the Act mandatorily requires notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145, the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable under the head profits and gains of business or profession shall be in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee company and further adjusted to include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid or incurred by the assessee company to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation and for this purpose, any tax, duty, cess or fee under any law for the time being in force, shall include all such payment notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment. Thus, the ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee company should have included Modvat in the opening and closing stock in the impugned assessment year. The assessee company has included the Modvat in the opening stock which should be mandatorily required to be done but the same has not been added in the closing stock leading to income being escaped from assessment . Similarly with respect to benefit of Rs.10,72,897/- being payments made by the assessee company towards sales tax deferral scheme , it was submitted that the assessee company has availed the benefit which is taxable and income has escapade assessment and the AO has rightly invoked Section 147/148 of the Act . The A.O., has not discussed these issue in the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 9th July 2008 and hence it could not be said that the A.O. has formed an opinion while framing the original assessment order dated 09-07-2008 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act , hence, there is no question of change of opinion. The ld. DR contended that the A.O. has rightly reopened the assessment u/s ITA 5422/Mum/2013 12
147/148 of the Act as the income has escaped assessment. The ld. D.R. drew our attention to Explanation 1 to section 147 of the Act that production before the A.O. on account of books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the A.O. will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso and hence the A.O. has rightly reopened the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act.The ld. DR relied upon the orders dated 23-01-2013 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee company, on the other hand relied upon the orders dated 20-05-2013 of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee company has truly and fully disclosed all the material facts in the return of income filed with the Revenue as well before the A.O. during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 143(2) of the Act and notice dated 28-03-2012 u/s 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year and there is no failure on the part of the assessee company in fully and truly disclosing all the material facts and hence the reopening is bad in law. The ld. Counsel submitted that the reasons for reopening was recorded by revenue on 26-03-2012 which is at page 15 of paper book filed with the Tribunal which are on account of non-inclusion of Modvat credit of Rs. 72,07,660/- in the closing stock as required u/s 145A of the Act whereby it was submitted that the said change in method of accounting was bonafide and being revenue neutral as the lower amount of the closing stock will become lower amount of opening stock in the next year and tax impact will be neutral and no prejudice is caused to Revenue by the change in method of accounting which was bonafide and also the said changed method is thereafter consistently followed and secondly the reduction of Rs.10,72,897/- being rebate on non-payment of sales tax deferral installments scheme whereby the assessee company has followed the scheme of Government and ITA 5422/Mum/2013 13
prepaid sales tax remission liability. It cannot be a rebate given by the government considering that net present value of the sales tax paid to the government. All the details were given in the return of income filed with the Revenue and during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(2) of the Act read with Section 143(3) of the Act and the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act based on the record filed before the A.O. No information has come to the A.O. for taking a different view. The ld. Counsel contended that the assessments have been reopened based on the revenue audit team objection’s. He drew our attention to page 12 to 14 of the paper book whereby all the reasons recorded have been mentioned. The ld. Counsel also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Rameshbhai Gupta (supra) and also the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Biswanath Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Grindwell Norton Limited(supra) and submitted that reopening on this case is bad in law.
We have considered the rival contention and also perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessee company has filed return of income u/s 139 of the Act and whereby the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Revenue vide orders dated 9th July, 2008. The Revenue is seeking re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act after four years from the end of the assessment year and proviso to section 147 is applicable thereby it can only reopen the assessment when there is a failure on the part of the assessee company in truly and fully disclosing all the material facts necessary for the assessment. We have observed that detail of deviation from the method of valuation prescribed u/s 145A of the Act are duly given in Annexure “D” to tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act which was submitted before the AO and also in the computation of income filed along with the return of income with the Revenue, hence, the assessee company
ITA 5422/Mum/2013 14
has truly and fully disclosed all the material facts necessary for the assessment. With respect to the amount of Rs. 10,72,897/-, we have observed that the assessee company has disclosed the said facts in the computation of income filed with the Revenue Authorities. The tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act is an important piece of evidence and is a statutory document u/s 44AB of the Act, which is filed before the A.O. along with the return of income from where the A.O. seeks all the prescribed information which is vital and necessary for framing the assessment. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that the A.O. has not gone through the tax audit report while framing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and in fact the A.O.is duty bound to go through the same before framing the assessment . The said information was also duly declared and disclosed in the computation of income filed with the Revenue Authorities. The Revenue is seeking reopening of the assessment based on the information received from the revenue audit team. Thus, as per section 147/148 of the Act change of opinion is not permitted as the AO while framing the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide orders dated 09-03-2008 has duly applied his mind to the issues as detailed above and is now re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of information received from revenue audit team while there is no independent application of mind by the AO before re-opening the assessment which is not permissible and more-so when the AO has passed scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act in original assessment and four years have elapsed from the end of the assessment year when the assessment was re- opened vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28-03-2012 and the reasons were recorded on 26-03-2012 , and there is no failure on the part of the assessee company to truly and fully disclose all material information in the return of income filed with the revenue and during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(2) of the Act read with Section 143(3) of the Act. In our considered view, reopening u/s 147 of the Act in the instant case cannot be held to be valid as per the provisions of the Act and the same is liable to be ITA 5422/Mum/2013 15
quashed. The CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned detailed order in which we find no infirmity and we uphold the same. Thus addition made by the A.O. vide re-assessment orders dated 23-01-2013 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained and the order dated 20-5-2013 of the CIT(A) is upheld and the order dated 23-01-2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act of the AO is hereby quashed. Since , we have adjudicated the legal issue regarding reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act and the same is held to be illegal and bad in law and we have already quash the same as detailed above, we are refraining from deciding the issues on merit as the same has become purely academic and infructuous. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0. 5422/Mum/2013 for the assessment year 2006-07 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th March, 2016. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांकः 07-03-2016 को क" गई । (JOGINDER SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated 07-03-2016 [ व."न.स./ R.K. R.K., Ex. Sr. PS R.K. R.K.
ITA 5422/Mum/2013 16
आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned, Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु"त / CIT- Concerned, Mumbai "वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai A Bench 5. 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"या"पत ""त //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.