ITO WD 19(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE ARMY NAVY TRUST, MUMBAI

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘फी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.4067/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) ITO Ward-19(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. M/s Milestone Army Navy Trust, 602, Hallmark Business Plaza, Sant Nyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-51 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACTM 0102 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Chandra Vijay ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 17/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, dated 28-3-2014, for the assessment year 2009-10, wherein the following grounds have been taken by the Revenue :- (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the income of the assessee is taxable in the hands of contributors and not in the hands of the AOP. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that activities of the assessee are not commercial in nature even though the assessee has not carried out any activity in the spirit of Trust. (3) The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the AO be restored.‖

2 ITA No4067/14 NIL income. In the Profit & Loss account, the assessee declared interest income of Rs.3.67 crores. The AO asked the assessee to explain as to why interest income should not be taxed in the hands of the Trust/ AOP. The assessee, vide reply dtd 04.07.2011 and 24.10.2011 submitted that as per section 61 & 63 of the LT. Act, all income generated by the trust will be assessed in the hands of the contributors and the entire tax liability on account of income/capital gain generated from the investee company will be to the account of contributors. It was further submitted that the trust and the trustees of the Fund will not be liable to pay tax on account of income/capital gain generated from the investee company and, further, the income earned during the period is from dividend on mutual fund, interest on debentures placed with investee company, hence, entire income is claimed as exempt. However A.O. did not agree with the assessee’s contention and taxed the entire income in assessee hands.

―5.1 The first two grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are general in nature and covered by specific grounds of appeal, 3rd ground of appeal is the main ground of appeal, which has three sub parts. Ground of appeal no 4 & 5 without prejudice to the main ground of appeal no .3 and the last two grounds of appeal are against interest levied u/s 234B & C of the Act. Grounds of appeal no. 8, 9 & 10 actually not being in the nature of a ground of appeal are not taken up for discussion and disposal. I, therefore, take the main ground of appeal no. 3 for discussion and disposal.

5.2 The first sub part of ground of appeal no. 3 is against the action of A.O. in not treating the appellant as a private revocable trust as per the provisions of section 61 of the Act. The second sub-part is against the AO's action is giving a contrary finding that income arising out of the activities of the funds is an ascertained income and the contributors have practically no control over it and the third and last sub part is against the action of A.O. in bringing to tax dividend income received on Mutual Fund, i.e. Rs. 62,55,429/-, which is included in the income of Rs. 3,97,10,328/- and exempt u/s 10(35) of the Act to tax. All the sub grounds being inter related to the common ground against assessment of income of Rs. 3,97,10,328/- in

3 ITA No4067/14 the hands of the trust are clubbed together for the purpose of discussion and disposal. 5.3 The appellant trust came into existence vide an indenture of trust dated 28.11.2007 executed by Propgain Properties Pvt. Ltd, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having registered office at Mumbai being the "Settlor" to constitute and declare a fixed and determinate private revocable trust in India named the "Milestone Army Navy Trust" Fund with its principal office at Mumbai, called the "Trust" or "Fund" with the condition that subsequently all the income generated by the trust will be eligible for assessment in the hand of contributors u/s 61 & 63 of the IT Act, 1961, IL & FS Trust Company Limited ("ITCL or the Corporate Trustee"), as the trustee having its office at Mumbai, Mr. Sanjay K Lalit, citizen of India residing at Thane and Mr. Sumit Somani, a citizen of India residing at Kandivili, Mumbai being the "Individual Trustee". Both, the corporate trustees and the individual trustees collectively are to be referred as "Board of Trustees" or the "Trustees". The trust has been established to invest and hold equity related and other investments in Indian entities and the Fund shall invest the contributions obtained from the contributors in indentified investee companies carrying on any business promoted in India including but not limited to business relating to retail and real estate sector. The trust has been created with the initial statement amount of Rs. 10,000/- paid by the settler and settled towards the corpus of the trust under the terms of the Indenture. Class-A beneficiaries under the above indenture are the contributors and the Class-B beneficiaries mean the 'Investments Advisor'. The "contributors" are; 1. Ms. Ved Prakash Arya having his address at Andheri, Mumbai, 2. Army Group Insurance Fund having his registered office at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and 3. Naval Group Insurance Funds having its registered office at Sena Bhavan, New Delhi. "Funds Investments" have been defined to mean investment made in any securities and instruments, including investments in investee companies by trust, in accordance with the unanimous resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Trustees and the "Investee Company" means any company carring on any such business in which the trust may invest. The term "Investments Advisor" has been defined to mean Milestone Prop-gain Realty Advisors Private Limited, having its office at Andheri, Mumbai and "Investment Advisory Agreement" means the agreements proposed to be entered into by and between the Trustee and the Investment Companies for administering and investing the contributions obtained from the contributors and the "Portfolio Investment" means the aggregate investment made by the Trust out of its funds in any particular indentified Investee Company based on the advice of the Investment Advisor and in accordance with the Deed. Clause 3.7 of the Indenture lays lown "All income generated by the trust will be assessed in the

4 ITA No4067/14 hands of the contributors under section 61 and 63 of the income tax Act 1961". Clause 3.8 further lays down that if in any case tax is deducted at source (TDS) by the investee companies, then the Trustee shall make adequate efforts to obtain the credit/refund of the said TDS from the Income Tax Department on behalf of the contributors. Clause 3.9 stipulates that the entire tax liability on account of income/capital gain generated of the investee company will be to the account of the contributors, and, the Trust and the Trustees of the Fund will not be liable to pay taxes to the income tax department on account of income/capital gain generated from the Investee Company. Clause 18 of the deed lays down that prior to any disbursement being made by the trustees to the contributors or to the Investment Advisors, as contemplated in the deed, the Trustees may re-imburse themselves and pay and discharge out of the monies of the Trust all expenses incurred in or about the execution of the Trust and in the event of the trustees incurring any expense in the discharge of their duties specifically towards any particular contributor, the trustees shall be entitled to be paid their actual expenses. The term or the duration of the trust is for a period of 7 years until its dissolution has been approved by resolution passed by a majority of the Trustees. 5.4 Subsequent, to the Indenture of Trust executed on 28.11.2007, the appellant entered into three separate contribution agreements dated 03.11.2007 at New Delhi. The first agreement was with Army Group Insurance Fund, having its registered office at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. Under the said agreement capital contribution of Rs. 25 crore has been paid by the said contributor to the Trust in the manner provided under the agreement, whereby, the Contributor agreed to invest 4% of the contribution amount as the first installment with the execution of the agreement and the balance amount of 96% to be paid not later than 12 months from the Execution Date. The beneficial interest under the agreement means the beneficial interest of the Contributors calculated on the basis of the Capital Contribution made by the Contributor in proportion to the total capital Contributions received by the Trust from the Contributors. Under this agreement, "Distributable Proceeds" available to the trust from time to time shall be distributed and/or credited, as the case may be in the priority of firstly, to the contributors, upto an amount equivalent to its/his respective Pro- rated Capital Contribution, and, secondly, to the Contributors upto an amount equal to the Hurdle Shortfall (if any) and the remaining 10% to the Contributors in proportion to its/his Pro-rated Capital Contribution, 7.5% to the SRA (Special Reserve Account, which means an amount opened and maintained by the Trust and operated by the Trustees) and 22.5% to the Investment Advisor. This agreement, too specifies that all income generated by the Trust will be assessed in the hand of the Contributor u/s 61 & 63 of the IT Act. The said agreement shall take effect from the date of its execution and shall continue in force for a period of four years,

5 ITA No4067/14 extendable by one year(s) on recommendation of the Trustees/ Investment Advisor and when the same has been dissolved, the dissolution proceeds, if any, shall be distributed amongst the Contributors in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. A similar agreement was executed between the appellant and Naval Group Insurance Fund. The above contributor brought in capital contribution of Rs. 10 crore on the' same terms and conditions as in the agreement with Army Group Insurance Fund. The third Contribution agreement was entered between the appellant and Mr. Ved Prakash Arya of Andheri(W), Mumbai on the same lines as in the above two agreements. Shri Arya brought in Capital Contribution of Rs. 20,000/- only.

5.5 IL & FS Milestone Realty Advisors Private Limited (Milestone Prop-gain Realty Advisors Private Limited) ("Advisory company") are the "Investment Advisor" to the Trust and has been vested with the powers to make investments on behalf of the appellant Fund. The appellant has also enclosed a copy of CBDT letter granting the Army Group Insurance Fund exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) and a copy of Notification dated 24.02.1984, notifying the Army Group Insurance Fund, for the purpose of section 194A (3)(iii)(f) of the Act.

5.6 The A.O. has held that the appellant's claim for exemption from taxation in its hands is misplaced and the reasons for creating this smokescreen by instituting a trust, is to launch a special purpose vehicle for investment in equity or quasi-equity instruments of an investee undertaking and earning interest income/profit arising out of the same. Accordingly, he proceeded to examine whether the above said activity is a commercial transaction and relying upon the Madras High Court's decision in the case of Indo Tech Electric Company, has held that the appellant is an AOP and required to be taxed accordingly. A.O. has also invoked section 161 (1A) of the Act. In so far as the appellant's contention that it is a revocable trust is concerned, the A.O. has rejected the same on the ground that sections 61 to 63 have been brought under the Act to curb the practice of diversion of income from the hands of assessee to a person who may with any intention to defraud the revenue, may carry out or indulge in a manner so as to take away the income from the said person, and, in the instant case, the appellant has attempted to shield itself from the taxation provisions by resorting to twisting the manner and applicability of the above section in its favour.

5.7 The relevant clauses of the Trust Deed and the Contribution Agreement reproduced above show, that the trust has been created as a revocable Trust wherein, it has been mentioned that the income generated by the trust will be

6 ITA No4067/14 assessed in the hands of the Contributors u/s 61 & 63 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that 35 crore has been brought in as capital contribution by the Army Group Insurance Fund and Naval Group Insurance Fund of the Indian Army and Naval establishment. The contribution of Shri Ved Prakash Arya is Rs. 20,000/- only. Thus, the entire contribution to the fund has been from the Army and Naval Group Insurance Funds. Moreover, the income of Army and Naval Group Insurance Funds is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and, accordingly, section 193 and 194 I of the Act are also not applicable, as clarified vide CBDT Circular No. 736 dated 30.0 1.1996. In view of the above facts, the A.O.'s finding that the appellant created the smokescreen of Trust for investment in schemes or funds and earning interest income/profit arising out of the same, is nothing, but commercial transaction, is not valid or justified. I accordingly, annul and cancel this finding of the A.O. The issue now remains is whether the appellant being a revocable Trust, income of the Trust is assessable in the hands of the Trust or Contributors. In this regard, I find that the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Mr. & Ms Govind B. C. Ghanekar (1994)206 ITR 438(Bom) has held "All income arising to any person by virtue of a revocable transfer of assets shall be chargeable to income tax as the income of the transferor and shall be included in his total income." 5.8 In view of the above discussion, I hold that the appellant trust being a revocable Trust, income is taxable, if any, in the hands of the contributors, as mentioned in the Trust Deed and Contribution Agreements. The A.O. himself has not disputed or contradicted that appellant is not a revocable trust. On the contrary, he has accepted this fact. The assessment of income of Rs. 3,97,10,283/- in the hands of the Trust under the head income from the business and profession is, therefore, deleted and ground of appeal no. 3 allowed. Consequently, grounds of appeal no. 1,2,6 & 7 stand allowed. Grounds of appeal No. 4 & 5, being without prejudice to the main ground of appeal no. 3 are no longer valid and relevant hence, not taken up for discussion. 6. In result, appeal is allowed.‖

7 ITA No4067/14 ―42. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. The Assessee, as we have already seen, is the Assessee is a trust constituted under an instrument of trust dated 25/9/2006. M/S. ICICI Venture Funds Management Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ―Settlor‖) by an indenture of Trust dated 25.9.2006 transferred a sum of Rs.10,000/- to M/S. The Western India Trustee and Executor Company Limited (hereinafter referred as the ―Trustee‖) as initial corpus to be applied and governed by the terms and conditions of the indenture dated 25.9.2006. The trustee was empowered to call for contributions from the contributors which will be invested by the Trustee in accordance with the objects of the trust. The objective of creation of the trust was to invest in certain securities called mezzanine instruments and to achieve commensurate returns to the contributors. The fund collected from the contributors together with the initial corpus was to be handed over to the trustees under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. The trust was to facilitate investment by the contributors who should be resident in India and achieve returns to such contributors. The contributors to the fund are its beneficiaries. It is a Private Trust to which the provisions of Indian Trust Act, 1882 would apply. 43. Sec.3 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 defines ―Trust‖ as an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner, or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner; the person who reposes or declares the confidence is called the ―author of the trust‘; the person who accepts the confidence is called the ―trustee‖; the person for whose benefit the confidence is accepted is called the ―beneficiary‖; the subject-matter of the trust is called ―trust property‖ or ―trust-money‖; the ―beneficial interest‖ or ―interest‖ of the beneficiary is his right against the trustee as owner of the trust-property; and the instrument, if any, by which the trust is declared is called the ―instrument of trust‖. 44. We were initially doubtful, whether a person who contributes to the trust in accordance with the terms of a contribution agreement could be said to be ―beneficiary‖ of the trust. It is no doubt true that the beneficiaries are identifiable in terms of the trust deed as persons who contribute under the contribution agreement. But can the beneficiaries be made to contribute to the trust? Beneficiaries are generally recipients of benefits under the deed of trust. Can the trust hold the money so contributed in trust for the contributors and can such contributors be called ―beneficiaries‖? It appeared to us to be a venture undertaken by the Trust, author of the trust and the identified beneficiary at the time of creation of the trust who happens to be the beneficiary and the Investment Manager to whom without any option the management of the trust fund had to be entrusted. It is like any other form of business organization mobilizing funds for investments and promising returns to the contributors. Can such objective be achieved by forming a trust?

8 ITA No4067/14 45. Similar questions arose for consideration before the Authority for Advance Ruling in the case of XYZ, In Re 224 ITR 473 (AAR). We need to look at the facts of the said case before we set out the ruling given by the AAR. An American company in collaboration with an Indian financial services company proposed to set up another fund. For this purpose a trust was created whereby the Indian Financial services company was the author of the trust and another Indian Trust company was appointed as Trustee. The funds of the Trust were to be invested in Indian companies and projects in India. The Indian financial service company was to act as the principal Investment Adviser in India to the trust under an advisory agreement. By an Indenture of trust, the Indian financial service company made an initial settlement of Rs. 1 lakh on the trustees on trust. This along with contributions that may be made to the trust fund by others is referred to as `Contribution Fund'. The Indian financial services company was the only contributor and also the only beneficiary under the trust deed. Clause 7 of the trust deed contains a provision to the following effect :- "Power of Addition 7. (a) The trustee shall have the power at any time or times during the trust period to add as beneficiaries such one or more persons or class of persons as the trustee shall in their absolute discretion determine. (b) Any such addition shall be made by deed signed by the trustee and : (i) naming or describing the person or persons or class of persons to be added as beneficiaries; (ii) specifying the date (not being earlier than the date of the deed but during the trust period) from which such person or persons to be thereby added as beneficiaries; and (c) It is hereby clarified that such beneficiaries will be entitled to only such share that is in proportion to the contribution made by them and in accordance with the Contribution Agreement." 46. On the above facts, which are on par with the facts of the present case before us, the AAR held as follows:- ―At the time of hearing, a doubt was expressed by the Authority as to how far a provision conferring an absolute discretion on the trustees to add names of beneficiaries to the trust would be justified in law. Though the authorised representative of the applicant (AR) contended that this clause was perfectly in order (citing O.P. Agarwalla on Trust, p. 220-2), he also expressed his willingness to modify cl. 7(a) as follows in order to obviate any kind of objection :-

9 ITA No4067/14

7.(a) The trustee shall during the trust period, have the power at their discretion to admit as beneficiary any institutional investor which agrees to enter into a contribution agreement." and, consequent on the above, to insert a definition of the expression "institutional investor" in cl. 1 to the following effect : "(1) `Institutional Investor' means any entity other than an individual, being a natural person including but not limited to financial institution, company or corporation, Government, State or Political sub-division or local authority, that trustees may consider a reputable investor." After a little discussion he was willing also to drop the last seven words which were considered to be somewhat vague. 9. One may pause here to consider whether there could be any valid objections to the constitution of a trust in this manner. The authors of the trust are the IC, the Indian financial service company and others contributing to the trust by the date of the trust deed. Indeed even institutional investors contributing to the trust, in helping the CT achieve its target of 50 million dollars can be considered as supplemental authors of the trust, the CA constituting r/w the trust deed, the instruments constituting the trust in their cases. The purposes of the trust are, as stated in the TD, to invest the trust funds and distributing the proceeds to the beneficiaries. This is, in a sense, nothing more than an arrangement by which certain parties agreed to contribute funds for a common purpose and divide the profits amongst themselves. No doubt the same objective could be achieved by the constitution of a firm or a company but, equally, there seems to be no valid objection if the parties wish to do it in the form of a trust which, under the Trust Act, merely represents certain obligations annexed to the ownership of property in the form of the contributed funds. The purposes of the trust cannot be said to be forbidden by law or likely to defeat the provisions of any law or fraudulent or involving injury to any person or property or opposed to public policy : vide s. 4 of the Indian Trusts Act (IV of 1882). It will appear later that, in entering into the present transactions, the parties took into account certain difficulties if the same transactions had been put through the format of a company and also took into account certain financial and tax implications. But these cannot render the purposes of the trust unlawful within the meaning of the Indian statute. The clause which enabled the trustees to admit any one as a beneficiary, the Authority felt, might introduce a degree of uncertainty regarding the element of beneficiaries under the

10 ITA No4067/14 trust. The parties have agreed to modify the clause as indicated above. The result is that now the trustee's choice of beneficiaries is restricted (a) by the overall limit of the fund; (b) only to institutional investors; and (c) to persons who agree to subscribe to the CA. The criteria for persons to become beneficiaries and the shares of income they are entitled to are clearly defined in the deed. The Authority is of opinion, that with the introduction of the modifications referred to above and in the light of the statement on law contained in the passages from Agarwalla's Trust Act cited by learned counsel, there can be no objection to the validity of the modified trust deed. [Parenthetically, however, it may be observed that, in the definition in cl. (a) proposed to be inserted, the words "being a natural person" appears to be a surplusage and may be omitted without detracting from the meaning of the clause. But this has no impact on the validity of the trust deed.‖ (emphasis supplied) 47. We agree with the aforesaid observations of the AAR and we proceed further to decide the various issues raised by the Revenue in its appeal. 48. Private Trusts could be Fixed or Discretionary Trusts. A fixed trust is a trust in which the beneficiaries have a current fixed entitlement to such income as remains after proper exercise of the trustee‘s powers. On the other hand, a discretionary trust is one in which the beneficiaries have no such current fixed entitlement, but only a hope (spes) that the trustees in carrying out their duty to consider how much income might be paid to such beneficiaries will in their discretion pay that income to a particular beneficiary or beneficiaries. The beneficiaries have no interest in possession under the trust. There are various reasons why a settler prefers to establish a discretionary trust rather than a fixed trust. Some of the important one‘s being – to protect the beneficiary against creditors; to continue to exercise control over young or improvident beneficiaries; to make adjustment according to circumstances. ―When a trust is set up, there is no way of knowing how the beneficiaries will fare in the future; which of them will be most in need, which will be deserving, which spendthrift, which inebriate, which will marry millionaires and which missionaries‖. The trustee can take all these factors into consideration in making their decisions. 49. When it comes to tax on income received by the Trust on behalf of the beneficiaries, there are some implications depending on whether the trust is a discretionary trust or a non-discretionary trust. As we have already seen in terms of Sec.164(1) a trust is assessed as a representative assessee in respect of income which it receives on behalf of its beneficiaries and if the beneficiaries are not certain or shares of beneficiaries are indeterminate, tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. Explanation 1 to Sec.164 deems that in certain

11 ITA No4067/14 situations beneficiaries shall be deemed to be not identifiable or their shares are unascertained or indeterminate or unknown. These provisions have already been set out in the earlier part of this order and are not being repeated. The legislative history of the above provisions needs to be examined to find out the object of introduction of the Explanation. Sec. 164(1) was in the Act when it was enacted in 1962 but its wording underwent a change, introducing a concept of taxation at marginal rate in 1970 by the Finance Act of 1970 w.e.f. 1st April, 1970. The object and scope of this amendment were elaborated in a circular of the CBDT (Circular No. 45 dt. 2nd Sept., 1970) as under :- "Private discretionary trusts. — Under the provisions of s. 164 of the IT Act before the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1970, income of a trust in which the shares of the beneficiaries are indeterminate or unknown, is chargeable to tax as a single unit treating it as the total income of an AOP. This provision affords scope for reduction of tax liability by transferring property to trustees and vesting discretion in them to accumulate the income or apply it for the benefit of any one or more of the beneficiaries, at their choice. By creating a multiplicity of such trusts, each one of which derives a comparatively low income, the incidence of tax on the income from property transferred to the several trusts is maintained at a low level. In such arrangements, it is often found that one or more of the beneficiaries of the trust are persons having high personal incomes, but no part of the trust income being specifically allocable to such beneficiaries under the terms of the trust, such income cannot be subject to tax at a high personal rate which would have been applicable if their shares had been determinate. 50. In order to put an effective curb on the proliferation of such trusts, and to reduce the scope of tax avoidance through such means, the Finance Act, 1970, has replaced s. 164 of the IT Act by a new section. Under s. 164 as so replaced, a ‗representative assessee‘ who receives income for the benefit of more than one person whose shares in such income are indeterminate or unknown, will be chargeable to income-tax on such income at the flat rate of 65% or the rate which would be applicable if such income were the total income of an AOP, whichever course would be more beneficial to the Revenue. 51. When the Explanation was added in 1980, the CBDT issued the following circular [see (1980) 123 ITR (St) 159] [The quotation has been taken from the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1980 and not from the relevant circular, which is Circular No. 281 dt. 22nd Sept., 1980 reported in (1981) 131 ITR (St) 4, though the Circular uses similar language —Ed.] : "49. xxx xxx xxx

12 ITA No4067/14 (iv) Under the existing provisions, the flat rate of 65% is not applicable where the beneficiaries and their shares are known in the previous year, although such beneficiaries or their shares have not been specified in the relevant instrument of trust, order of the Court or wakf deed. This provision has been misused in some cases by giving discretion to the trustees to decide the allocation of the income every year and in other ways. In such a situation, the trustees and beneficiaries are able to manipulate the arrangements in such a manner that a discretionary trust is converted to a specific trust whenever it suits them tax-wise. In order to prevent such manipulation, it is proposed to provide that unless the beneficiaries and their shares are expressly stated in the order of the Court or the instrument of trust or wakf deed, as the case may be, and are ascertainable as such on the date of such order, instrument or deed, the trust will be regarded as a discretionary trust and assessed accordingly." 52. From the above extracts it can be seen that the object of the amendments to the provision was only that the distribution of the income should not be entirely at the discretion of the trustees and that the trust deed should regulate the shares. 53. Having noticed the tax implications of discretionary trusts, we may now revert to the various issues raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal and the facts of the present case. The issue raised in grounds No.1 is general, calling for no specific adjudication. The issue raised by the Revenue in Ground No.2 is with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Sec.60, 61 and 63 of the Act to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this regard it needs to be clarified that the Assessee in its reply dated 15.12.2010 to the AO in the course of assessment proceedings pointed out the above provisions and submitted that it is only the beneficiaries who have to be assessed to tax in respect of income arising from a revocable transfer. The AO in the order of assessment did not consider the above argument nor has he given any reasons why the same are rejected. The submission made by the Assessee before CIT(A) on this aspect have been accepted by the CIT(A) but he has not discussed or given any reasons as to how the submissions are being accepted. The basic scheme of section 61 r/w section 62 and section 63 is as follows : where under a settlement any income arises to the settlor, it has to be assessed in the hands of settlor, whether the settlement is revocable or irrevocable. If under a settlement any income arises to any other person apart from the settlor such income can still be assessed in the hands of the settlor provided the settlement is revocable. Even if a settlement on the face of it is stated to be irrevocable, if the same provides for direct or indirect retransfer of income or assets of the settlement to the settlor or gives the settlor a right to resume power directly or indirectly over such income or asset, the settlement should be deemed to be revocable.

13 ITA No4067/14 54. In Chapter X of the private placement memorandum issued by the investment manager inviting contribution from investors, the tax considerations in making investments as understood by them have been set out. The contents thereof in brief are that the contribution by the contributors are akin to ―revocable transfer‖ u/s.61 of the Act read with Sec.63 of the Act and therefore income arising from the transfer are assessable in the hands of the contributors. The contributors are therefore informed that in respect of their pro-rata share of income received by the Fund it is the contributors who will be liable to tax and not the Trust/Fund. The nature of income that is likely to arise from the revocable transfer has also been set out therein and the same is referred to as (1) Dividend declared by companies whose shares are held by the Trust, are exempt in the hands of the shareholders and therefore the dividend earned by the Trust from investment would be exempt from tax and therefore there would be no tax implications in the hands of the beneficiary. (2) Interest on loans given by the Trust/Fund to companies would suffer tax deduction at source. Nevertheless the beneficiaries have to declare interest income and pay tax thereon but claim refund of tax paid or credit for taxes already paid. (3) Gain on sale of Portfolio Investments would be subjected to tax either as Long Term Capital Gain or Short Term Capital Gain. There is also a reference to the fact that in case the gain on sale of securities of companies held/invested by the Trust/Fund are held to be in the nature of business income then such business income would be taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries at the relevant applicable rates. (4) Gain on redemption premium of debentures/bonds will also suffer tax either as long term or short term capital gain depending on the period of holding. 55. Under clause-2 of the contribution Agreement, the contributor/beneficiary/investor agrees to contribute a specified sum to the trust/fund. Clause-2.6 of the contribution agreement specifies that the contributor/investor/beneficiary shall not have any right to demand the return of his/her/its fund contributor, other than upon dissolution of the fund. Clause-2.6.2 provides that the trustee may refund the fund contributor to the contributor, without interest, within a period of 3 months from the date hereof, in the event the minimum fund commitment is not received. Clause2.9 of the contributor agreement also lays down that the redemption of units by the beneficiary shall be at the sole discretion of the Trustees in consultation with the investment manager. 56. In the light of the aforesaid clauses in the contribution agreement, can it be said that transfer of funds by the beneficiary to the trust/fund is a revocable transfer? 57. The answer to the above question cannot be given by merely reading the clauses in the contribution agreement alone. The contention of the learned counsel for the Assessee before us was that the Contribution agreement has to be read along with the Trust Deed as well as the Investment Management agreement and offer

14 ITA No4067/14 document for private placement issued by the Investment Manager. Article-13 of the Trust Deed provides for termination of the Trust. Though such a power is not with the beneficiary/transferor, it is not the requirement of Sec.61 that the power of revocation must be at the instance of the beneficiary/transferor. The power of revocation under Clause13 of the Deed of Trust is a general power of revocation and the same would be sufficient for construing the transfer in the present case as a revocable transfer. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Assessee it is not necessary that the power of revocation should be at the instance of the contributors/beneficiaries/transferor and it can be at the instance of any person either settlor, trustee, transferee or the beneficiaries. Provisions of Sec.61 of the Act do not contemplate a power of revocation only at the instance of the transferor. In this regard the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Assessee on the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (supra) support the plea taken by him. As rightly contended by him the existence of a power to revoke the transfer that has to be seen and not the manner in which/ or at whose instance such revocation is brought about. 58. The alternative submission of the learned counsel for the Assessee that the provisions of Sec.63(a) of the Act, which deems existence of power of revocation in certain circumstances, are also acceptable. In this regard prospectus inviting contribution from contributors clearly lay down in certain circumstances 75% of the contributors can revoke their contribution to the fund at any point of time and the trustees shall then terminate the fund. Though the above power of the transferor/beneficiary to revoke the transfer is not in the instrument of transfer but by virtue of the power conferred in a document by which the investment manager appointed by the trust by virtue of powers conferred under the trust deed, would be sufficient to conclude that the transferor/beneficiary had deemed powers of revocation. In this regard the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Assessee on the ration laid down in the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyothendrasinhji (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case. In the aforesaid decision the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that Sec. 63(1) of the Act does not say that the deed of transfer must confer or vest an unconditional or an exclusive power of revocation in the transferor. It was further held that the fact that concurrence of the trustee had to be obtained by the transferor/settler for revocation will not make the trust an irrevocable transfer. In such circumstances it must be held that the deed contains a provision giving the transferor a right to re-assume power directly or indirectly over the whole or any part of income or assets within the meaning of s. 63(a)(ii) of the Act. 59. For the reasons given above we hold that Sec.61 read with Sec.63 of the Act which mandates that income arising to any person by virtue of a revocable transfer of assets shall be chargeable to income tax as income of the transferor will apply to

15 ITA No4067/14 the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore the assessment in the hands of the transferee/representative assessee was not proper. 60. The issues raised by the Revenue in Grounds 4 to 7 of the grounds of appeal is with regard to applicability of provisions of Sec.164(1) of the Act. In view of the conclusion on Ground No.3 the adjudication of other grounds may not be necessary. Since the order of the AO is based on the applicability of the provisions of Sec.164(1) of the Act, we deem it appropriate to adjudicate on the issues raised in ground No.4 to 7 as well. The provisions of Sec.164(1) of the Act and Expln.-1 to Sec.164 are relevant in this regard. ―Sec.164(1) lays down that where any income or any part thereof in respect of which the persons mentioned in cl. (iv) of subsection (1) of Section 160 is liable as representative assessee or any part thereof (i) is not specifically receivable on behalf or for the benefit of any one person; or (ii) where the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is receivable are indeterminate or unknown (such income, such part of the income and such persons being hereafter in this section referred to as "relevant income", "part of relevant income" and "beneficiaries", respectively), tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. Explanation 1 to Sec.164 lays down that any income or part thereof to which Section 164(1) applies shall be deemed as being not specifically receivable on behalf or for the benefit of any one person unless the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is receivable during the previous year is expressly stated in the order of the Court or the instrument of trust or wakf deed, as the case may be, and is identifiable as such on the date of such order, instrument or deed;(ii) the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is received shall be deemed to be indeterminate or unknown unless the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit such income or such part thereof is receivable, are expressly stated in the order of the Court or the instrument of trust or wakf deed, as the case may be, and are ascertainable as such on the date of such order, instrument or deed.‖

16 ITA No4067/14 61. The general rule as laid down in Sec. 161(1) is that income received by a trustee on behalf of the beneficiary shall be assessed in the hands of the trustee as representative assessee and such assessment shall be made and the tax thereon shall be levied upon and be recovered from the representative assessee "in like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon the recoverable from the person represented by him". To the above rule, however, three exceptions have been incorporated in the Act :- (a) Under s. 161(1A), this rule of apportionment and determination of proportionate tax attributable to the beneficiary will not apply to any income earned by the trustee as profits and gains of a business. The whole of such income shall be taxed at the "maximum marginal rate". A similar proviso occurs also in s. 164(1) restricting benefits where business income is involved. (b) Under s. 164(1), if the beneficiaries are not identifiable or the individual shares of the persons on whose behalf and for whose benefit the income is receivable are indeterminate or unknown, such income, again, will be taxed at the "maximum marginal rate". (c) In certain other circumstances, set out in the proviso to s. 164(1), the relevant income will be assessable not at the maximum rate but at the rate applicable to it as if it were the total income of an AOP. 62. In the present case the AO has not invoked the provisions of Sec.161(1A) of the Act or the proviso to Sec.164(1) of the Act and therefore, we need not examine those provisions. As far as identification of individual shares of the Sec.164(1) of the Act will not get attracted for the reason that the beneficiaries are not identifiable. 63. The question for our consideration therefore is regarding applicability of Sec.164(1) of the Act. There are two aspects to be noticed in the above provisions. The first aspect is the identification of the beneficiaries. The second aspect is with regard to ascertainment of the share of the beneficiaries. 64. On the aspect of identification of the beneficiaries, it is the plea of the learned counsel for the Assessee that so long as the trust deed gives the details of the beneficiaries and the description of the person who is to be benefited, the beneficiaries cannot be said to be uncertain. CBDT Circular No.281 dated 22.9.1980 wherein the CBDT has explained the scope of Sec.164 with regard to stating the name of the beneficiaries in the trust deed. In the said circular the provisions of Expln.-1 to Sec.164 of the Act regarding identification of beneficiaries has been explained to the effect that for identification of beneficiaries it is not necessary that the beneficiary in the relevant previous year should be actually named in the order of the Court or the instrument of trust or wakf deed, all that is necessary is that the beneficiary should be identifiable with

17 ITA No4067/14 reference to the order of the Court or the instrument of trust or wakf deed on the date of such order, instrument or deed. We find that Clause 1.1.13 of the Trust Deed clearly lays down that beneficiaries means the Persons, each of whom have made or agreed to make contributions to the Trust in accordance with the Contribution Agreement. We are of the view that the above clause is sufficient to identify the beneficiaries. 65. On the aspect of ascertainment of share of the beneficiaries, we find that Article 6.5 of the Trust Deed clearly specifies the manner in which the income of the Assessee is to be distributed. The said clause details formula with respect to the share of each beneficiary. As rightly contended on behalf of the Assessee it is not the requirement of law that trust deed should actually prescribe the percentage share of the beneficiary in order for the trust to be determinate. It is enough if the shares are capable of being determined based on the provisions of the trust deed. In the case of the Assessee the trustee have no discretion to decide the share of each beneficiary and are bound by the provisions of the trust deed and is duty bound to follow the distribution mechanism specified in the trust deed. The further aspect that may require consideration in the present case is with regard to the clause in the Trust Deed which authorises addition of further contibutors to the trust at different points of time in addition to initial contributors. From this clause can it be said that share income of the beneficiaries cannot be determined or known from the trust deed. On the above aspect, we find the AAR in the case of XYZ In re (supra) has considered similar clause in a trust deed with specific reference to the provisions of Sec.164(1) of the Act and has held that if the trust deed sets out expressly the manner in which the beneficiaries are to be ascertained and also the share to which each of them would be entitled without ambiguity, then it cannot be said that the Trust deed does not name the beneficiaries or that their shares are indeterminate. The persons as well as the shares must be capable of being definitely pin-pointed and ascertained on the date of the trust deed itself without leaving these to be decided upon at a future date by a person other than the author either at his discretion or in a manner not envisaged in the trust deed. Even if the Trust deed authorises addition of further contributors to the trust at different points of time, in addition to initial contributors, than the same would not make the beneficiaries unknown or their share indeterminate. Even if the scheme of computation of income of beneficiaries is complicated, it is not possible to say that the share income of the beneficiaries cannot be determined or known from the trust deed. In view of the aforesaid decision of the AAR, with which we respectfully agree, we hold that the provisions of Sec.164(1) of the Act would not be attracted in the present case. We also find that the Hon‘ble Madras High Court in the case of P.Sekar Trust (supra) and Manilal Bapalal (supra) has taken a view that identity by reference to the terms of the trust deed is sufficient and it is not necessary that the beneficiaries should be specifically named in the deed of

18 ITA No4067/14 trust. Consequently Grounds 4 to 7 raised by the Revenue are held to be without merit. 66. In ground No.8, the Revenue has challenged the order of the CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) held that the Assessee cannot be assessed as an ―AOP‖. In Ground No.9 the Revenue has contended that there is no separate status of Trust for making assessment envisaged under the Act. In this regard the definition of person u/s. 2(31) of the Act which does not specifically refer to ―Trust‖ is being highlighted in the grounds raised by the Revenue. These grounds can be conveniently dealt with together. 67. Sec.2(31) of the Act defines the term ―Person‖. The definition includes ―Association of Persons‖(AOP). There is no definition of the expression AOP occurring in the 1922 Act. By a series of decisions, the meaning of this expression was precisely defined and tests were laid down in order to find out when a conglomerate of persons could be held to be an AOP for the purposes of section 3 of the 1922 Act. While interpreting this expression occurring in section 3 of the Indian IT Act, 1922, the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Indira Balkrishna (supra) held "an AOP must be one in which two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action, and as the words occur in a section which imposes a tax on income, the association must be one the object of which is to produce income, profits or gains". The Supreme Court, however, administered the following caution : ‗‗There is no formula of universal application as to what facts, how many of them and of what nature, are necessary to come to a conclusion that there is an AOP within the meaning of section 3; it must depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the conclusion can be drawn or not''. To the above judicial exposition of what constitutes AOP, there has been a statutory rider added. The Finance Act, 2002 has inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 2003 an Explanation to clarify that object of deriving income is not necessary for AOP, BOI, local authority or an artificial juridical person in order that such entity may come within the definition of "Person" in section 2(31). If income results than they are liable to be taxed as AOP if the other conditions laid down by judicial decisions are satisfied. In the light of the above definition of AOP, let us examine the facts of the present case. (i) The Assessee is a trust constituted under an instrument of trust dated 25/9/2006. M/S.ICICI Venture Funds Management Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ―Settlor‖) by an indenture of Trust dated 25.9.2006 transferred a sum of Rs.10,000/- to M/S. The Western India Trustee and Executor Company Limited (hereinafter referred as the ―Trustee‖) as initial corpus to be applied and governed by the terms and conditions of the indenture dated 25.9.2006. The trustee was empowered to call for contributions from the contributors which will be invested by the Trustee in accordance with the objects of the trust. The objective of creation of the trust was to invest in certain

19 ITA No4067/14 securities called mezzanine instruments and to achieve commensurate returns to the contributors. The fund collected from the contributors together with the initial corpus was to be handed over to the trustees under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. The trust was to facilitate investment by the contributors who should be resident in India and achieve returns to such contributors. The contributors to the fund are its beneficiaries. (ii) The trustees had power to appoint investment managers to manage the trust fund. The Settlor was to be appointed as the investment manager. The terms of the appointment of the settlor as investment manager are set out in an investment management agreement dated 25.9.2006 between the Assessee represented by the Trustee and Settlor. (iii) The Settlor as investment manager issued memorandum to prospective investors on a confidential basis for them to consider an investment in mezzanine Fund. An investor who wishes to contribute to the fund enters into a contribution agreement with the trust, the trustees acting on behalf of the trust and the Settlor acting in his capacity as investment manager. 68. It can thus be seen that the beneficiaries contributed their money to the Assessee and a separate agreement was entered into between the Assessee and each beneficiary. There is no inter se arrangement between one contributory/ beneficiary and the other contributory/beneficiary as each of them enter into separate contribution arrangement with the Assessee. Therefore it cannot be said that two or more beneficiaries joined in a common purpose or common action and therefore the tests for considering the Assessee as AOP was satisfied. The beneficiaries have not set up the Trust. Therefore it cannot be said that the beneficiaries have come together with the object of carrying on investment in mezzanine funds which is the object of the trust. The beneficiaries are mere recipients of the income earned by the trust. They cannot therefore be regarded as an AOP. Ground No.8 raised by the Revenue is therefore held to be without any merit. 69. Another reason assigned by the AO for treating the status of the Assessee as AOP was that in the return of income filed by the Assessee the status was shown in return of income. In this regard it is not in dispute before us that the form of return of income as it existed for the relevant assessment year did not contain a clause for filing return of income by a ―Trust‖ in the status other than AOP. The CBDT realised this difficulty faced by 'private discretionary trusts' having total income exceeding ten lakh rupees facing problem in filing their return of income electronically in cases where they are filing their return in the status of an individual because status of a private discretionary trust has been held in law as that of

20 ITA No4067/14 an 'individual' gave instructions in Circular No.6/2012 dated 3.8.2012 to the effect that it will not be mandatory for 'private discretionary trusts', if its total income exceeds ten lakh rupees, to electronically furnish the return of income for assessment year 2012-13. Form No.49A which was the prescribed form of application for allotment of Permanent Account Number (PAN) also did not contain a separate status ―Trust‖ but contained a column ―AOP (Trust)‖. The revised Form No.49A later notified contains a column for status as ―Trust‖. Therefore the argument of the revenue that all ―Trusts‖ are AOPs is not correct. If the contention of the Revenue as raised in Ground No.9 is accepted than the provisions of Sec.161(1) of the Act would become redundant. The charge to tax in the hands of the representative Assessee has to be in accordance with Sec.161(1) of the Act and therefore the status of the Assessee cannot be that of AOP. Ground No.9 raised by the Revenue is therefore held to be without any merit. 70. In ground No.10 the Revenue has raised issue that income has to be brought to tax in the hands of the right person in the right status. In this regard there are circulars dt. 24th Feb., 1967, 26th Dec., 1974 and 24th Aug., 1966 on the issue wherein it has been opined that once the choice is made by the Department to tax either the trust or the beneficiary, it is no more open to the Department to go behind it and assess the other at the same time. 71. In the case of David Joseph (supra) the Hon‘ble Kerala High Court after making a reference to the above circulars held that once a beneficiary is assessed and his assessment is completed prior in point of time, and his assessment is an element of finality, it is a natural consequence flowing there from that the Department does not get any permission to go behind it for the purpose of scrutinising the procedure, for finding out faults in regard thereto, the sole object of which is to justify the subsequent action taken by the Department. These are in fact the normal consequences that flow from the principle of finality. This principle especially emerges from three circulars and has established into a settled practice, any time a deviation therefrom cannot be permitted, even on the ground of a mistake with regard to the merits of the situation that received finality. Similar view has been taken by the Hon‘ble M.P.High Court in the case of Rai Sahe Seth Ghisalal Modi Family Trust (supra) and Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trustees Of Chaturbhuj Raghavji Trust (supra). 72. The Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trustees of Chaturbhuj Raghavji Trust (supra) held that under sub-s. (2) of s. 41, it is permissible for the IT authorities to make direct assessment on the person on whose behalf income, profits and gains from a trust are receivable. Sec. 41 having provided for two alternative methods, namely, either to tax the income in the hands of the trustees or directly in the hands of the person on whose behalf the income was receivable under the trust, and one of them having been availed of by the IT Department in directly assessing

21 ITA No4067/14 beneficiary in respect of the income, the other was no longer available to the Department. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the option was of the ITO who was assessing the trust to decide whether he would assess the income in the hands of the trustees or directly in the hands of the beneficiary. This contention was rejected by the Hon‘ble High Court which held that Sec. 41 was a special enabling provision which permitted the assessment in the hands of the trustees but did not preclude the direct assessment in the hands of the beneficiaries. There is nothing in s. 41 which would indicate that the choice between the alternative methods provided therein has to be made only at the time of the assessment of the trustees or that the choice only belongs to the ITO who is assessing the trust. In Circular No.157 dated 26.12.1974 of CBDT the CBDT has clarified on assessment of trust where share of beneficiaries are unknown. It has been clarified therein that the ITO should at the time of raising the initial assessment either of the trust or the beneficiaries adopt a course beneficial to the Revenue. Having exercised his option once, it will not be open to the ITO to assess the same income for that assessment year in the hands of the other person (i.e., the beneficiary or the trustee). In CBDT Circular No.13/2014 dated 28.7.2014 the Board has however given instructions that as per the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 funds which are not venture capital funds and which are non-charitable trusts where the investors name and beneficial interest are not explicitly known on the date of its creation- such information becoming available only when the funds starts accepting contribution from the investors, have to be treated as falling within Sec.164(1) of the Act and the fund should be taxed in respect of the income received on behalf of the beneficiaries at the maximum marginal rate. 73. The reliance placed on the aforesaid circular, in our view, will not be of any use for the reason that the said Circular was not in force at the relevant AY when the assessment was made by the AO on the present Assessee. Circulars not in force in the relevant Assessment year cannot be applied as held by the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of BASF (India) Ltd. & Anr. vs. W. Hasan, CIT & Ors. 280 ITR 136 (Bom). The decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme in the case of Ch. Atchaiah (supra) on which the AO placed reliance in making assessment on the Assessee in our view is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said decision the status of the Assessee as that of an AOP was not disputed but it was argued that the ITO had option to assess either the AOP or the individual member of the AOP. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that unlike under s. 3 of the 1922 Act, the ITO did not have an option under s. 4 of the IT Act, 1961, to assess either the AOP or the individual members thereof. If the ITO has assessed a wrong person, say individual instead of AOP, he is not precluded, in contradistinction to the 1922 Act, to seek to assess the right person under the 1961 Act. The Hon‘ble Court made it clear that wherever such on option is given under the 1961 Act, it has been specifically provided, as in s.183 and that under the 1961

22 ITA No4067/14 Act, tax has to be levied on the right person, irrespective of benefit to Revenue. In the present case, however, we are concerned with a case of assessment of representative assessee or the person in respect of whom some other person is considered as representative assessee. Sec.161(1) by implication permits assessment of either the beneficiary or the Trustee. When the Trustee is assessed as representative assessee in respect of income received on behalf of the beneficiary, the section provides that tax shall be levied upon and recovered from him in like manner and to the same extent as it would be leviable upon and recoverable from the person represented by him. In our view, therefore, the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Atchaiah (supra) will not be of any assistance to the plea of the revenue in the present case. 74. For the reasons stated above, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. 75. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. 5. As the facts and circumstances of the instant case before us are pari materia, respectfully following the order of the order of the coordinate bench, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for holding that interest income was not liable to be taxed as business and profession in the hands of the assessee trust, being a revocable trust. However, such income is to be taxed in the hands of contributors. 6. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23/12/2015. Sd/- Sd/- (RAM LAL NEGI) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 23/12/2015 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. उप/सहायक पुंजीकार गार्ा पाईर / Guard file. 6. (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, भुंफई / सत्मावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// ITAT, Mumbai