M/S. R J OSWAL (HUF), MUMBAI v. THE ADDL. CIT 19(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1442/MUM/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 144219914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAFHR8002L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1442/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant M/S. R J OSWAL (HUF), MUMBAI
Respondent THE ADDL. CIT 19(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 10-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 10-02-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 28-02-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'I' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1441/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL (HUF) ADDL. CIT - 19(3) 81/82 SOLITAIRE CENTRAL AVENUE MUMBAI SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI 400054 VS. PAN - AAFHR 8002 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1442/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SHRI R. J. OSWAL ADDL. CIT - 19(3) 81/82 SOLITAIRE CENTRAL AVENUE MUMBAI SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI 400054 VS. PAN - AAAHR 0430 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1443/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) MS. BHIKHIBEN J. OSWAL ADDL. CIT - 19(3) 81/82 SOLITAIRE CENTRAL AVENUE MUMBAI SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI 400054 VS. PAN - AAAPO 1643 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1444/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) MS. MADHULIKA OSWAL ADDL. CIT - 19(3) 81/82 SOLITAIRE CENTRAL AVENUE MUMBAI SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI 400054 VS. PAN - AABPO 9324 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI BEHARI LAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.P. PATHAK ITA NO. 1441 TO 1444/MUM/2008 SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL (HUF) & OTHERS 2 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. IN THESE GROUP OF APPEALS OF THE SAME FAMILY ASSES SEES HAVE RAISED GROUNDS AGAINST PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) CON FIRMED BY THE CIT(A) XIX MUMBAI VIDE ORDERS DATED 24.10.2007. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND GROUNDS ARE COMMON THEY ARE CONSIDERED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1441/MUM/2008 OF RISHI R. OSWAL (HUF) IS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.29 14 798/- ON 18.08.2004. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITH OTHER SOURCES. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEC LARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.28 85 208 ON SALE OF 45 000 SHARES OF M/ S. TALENT INFOWAY LTD. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COPIES OF BROKERS NO TE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ALONGWITH OTHER DETAILS. THE ASS ESSEE HAS FURNISHED NECESSARY DETAILS. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AND SOLD SHARES THROUGH M/S. GOLDSTAR FIN VEST PVT. LTD. AND THE BROKER WAS A DEALER OF INTER CONNECTED STOCK EXCHAN GE OF INDIA LTD. INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) WAS CALLED FROM TH E INTERCONNECTED STOCK EXCHANGE WHICH INTIMATED THAT THERE IS NO TRANSACTI ON TAKEN PLACE IN THE CASE OF RISHI R. OSWAL THROUGH M/S. GOLDSTAR FINVES T PVT. LTD. IT IS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE SAID COMPANY WAS EXPELLED IN APRI L 2004 THEREFORE IT IS NO LONGER STOCK BROKER OF THE EXCHANGE. ENQUIRIES ARE MADE WITH GOLDSTAR FINVEST PVT. LTD. WHICH FURNISHED NECESSARY INFORMA TION OF TRANSACTIONS OF ASSESSEES PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES VIDE THEIR L ETTER DATED 08.11.2006. ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE INTERC ONNECTED STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD. THE A.O. ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE T O THE ASSESSEE WHY THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM A BOGUS TRANSAC TION SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE AND AVOID LITIGATION AND HARDSHIP OFFERED THE INCOME BY FILING REVISED TOTAL INCOME. IN THE REVISED STATEMENT THE ENTIRE INCOME ARRIVED AT LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN WAS SHOWN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE A.O. INITIATED PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS AND LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) BY CONCLUDING AS UN DER: - ITA NO. 1441 TO 1444/MUM/2008 SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL (HUF) & OTHERS 3 12. IF WE LOOK AT THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IT WILL BE SEEN THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY FILED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME BY DECLARING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND BY THE INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IT IS AMPLY CLE AR THAT THERE IS NO GENUINE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHARES UNDER CONSIDERATION. ALL THE INVESTMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS A PART OF PRESTRUCTURED DEVICE TO CLAIM ARTIFICIAL CAPITAL GA IN TO AVOID THE PAYMENT OF THE TAXES. SENSING THE HEAT OF THE INVESTIGATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AFTER THE DETECTION OF THE ISSUE THE ASSESSEE CHANGED HER STAND BY CHANGING THE HEAD OF INCOME BY FILING THE REVISED STATEMENT OF HER TOTAL INCOME AND REQUESTED NOT TO INITIATE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C). THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IF THE A.O. HAD NOT INVESTIGATED THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALES OF SHARES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE PAID LESSER AMOUNT OF TAX AND W OULD HAVE GONE SCOTT-FREE. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE A.O. INVESTIGATED THE TRANSACTIONS AND PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SHARES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS/NON-GENUINE THE ASSESSEE CAME F ORWARD WITH A REVISED STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME CHANGING THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES. 13. I AM FULLY SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DELI BERATELY INTENTIONALLY AND CONSCIOUSLY FILED INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF THEIR INCOME TO REDUCE THE TAX INCIDENCE. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT LIABLE TO BE PENALIZED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. AC T. ACCORDINGLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE I LEVY MINIMUM PENALTY WHICH IS EQUAL TO 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WITH WORKS OUT AS UNDER: TAX ON ASSESSED INCOME : RS.8 96 212/- LESS: TAX ON RETURNED INCOME : RS.3 02 771/- TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED : RS.5 93 441/- =========== PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) : RS.593 441/- 3. THE CIT(A) ALSO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND DECI DED AS UNDER VIDE PARA 7 AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY: - 7. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR TH AT INITIALLY THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN ITS INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES WHICH WERE REFLECTED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT AND SPECIFIC ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE AO. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AL SO IT CAN BE GATHERED THAT IT WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE INVESTI GATIONS UNDERTAKING BY THE AO AND THE FACTS EMERGED THEREAFTER REGARDIN G THE NON GENUINENESS OF THE BROKER AND THE SHARE TRANSACTION S THAT THE APPELLANT FILED A REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO PER TINENT TO NOTE THAT THE RATE OF TAXATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE LO WER THAN THAT OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT WHICH N EED TO BE APPRECIATED IN THIS CASE IS THE INTENTION OF THE AP PELLANT TO MANIPULATE ITA NO. 1441 TO 1444/MUM/2008 SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL (HUF) & OTHERS 4 THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES AND USE IT TO GENERATE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WHEREAS THE ACTUAL IN COME WAS FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN ITS ORIGINAL R ETURN. THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ALSO DO NOT APPLY SQUARELY IN THE APPELLANTS CASE E.G. AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF T. ASHOK PAI VS.CIT REPOR TED IN 292 ITR HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE OF IN CORRECT PARTICULA RS OF INCOME AS WELL AS DELIBERATE OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAS HIGHLIGHTED SUCH ISSUES WHICH ARE ALSO CLEARLY ESTABLISH IN ITS OWN CASE. 4. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SHARES WAY BACK IN APRIL 2002 AND SOL D THEM IN DECEMBER 2003 TO MARCH 2004. ALMOST MORE THAN TWO YEARS GAP WAS THERE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE OF SHARES AND SALE OF SHARES. REFERRIN G TO THE PAPER BOOK IN THIS REGARD CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 30 THE LEARNED CO UNSEL REFERRED TO THE TRANSACTIONS IN UTI BANK LTD. REGARDING PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION REFLECTED IN RELEVANT YEARS AS INVESTMENT AND SUBSE QUENT SALE THROUGH BROKERS NOTE AND RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION BY WAY O F CHEQUES. IT WAS HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE AND SALE BUT SINCE THE INTE RCONNECTED STOCK EXCHANGE WAS NOT DEALING WITH THE SHARES ANY LONGER AND FURTHER THE SUB- BROKER WAS BLACK LISTED THESE TRANSACTIONS WHICH C AN BE CONSIDERED AS OFF- MARKET TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BEFOR E THE A.O. AND IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGATION AND HARASSMENT THEY HAVE SURRENDER ED THE AMOUNT OF ENTIRE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND OFFERED AS INCOME. IT W AS HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT PURCHASED 45 000 SHARES IN APRIL/M AY 2002 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.47 232/- AND PAID THE AMOUNT BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND SOLD ALL THE SHARES THROUGH THE BROKER FROM 04.12.2 03 TO 27.03.2004 ON VARIOUS DAYS IN VARIOUS SLOTS FOR RS.29 32 440/- TH EREBY GAINING RS.28 85 208/-. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE TRAN SACTIONS ARE NOT BOGUS AND NECESSARY EVIDENCES BY WAY OF BANK STATEMENTS W ERE FURNISHED TO THE A.O. IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT THE SAID GOLDSTAR FI NVEST PVT. LTD. HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION TO THE A.O. VIDE THEIR LE TTER WHICH WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT SELF. ONLY ON ENQUIRY MADE UNDER SECTION 133(6) WITH THE INTERCONNECTED S TOCK EXCHANGE THE A.O. DOUBTED THE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE IN O RDER TO AVOID LITIGATION ITA NO. 1441 TO 1444/MUM/2008 SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL (HUF) & OTHERS 5 SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT AND PAID THE TAX. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT FILING OF REVISED RETURN SHOWING HIGHER INCOME AFTER PERSI STENT ENQUIRY BY THE A.O. DOES NOT LEAD TO PENALTY AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL 251 ITR 9(SC). HE ALS O MADE VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS THAT OFF MARKET TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUI NE AND RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS WHEREIN PENALTY WAS DELETED WHEN INCOME W AS SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND ALSO PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHE D WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IN VARIOUS CASES. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. HOWEVER REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND THE PENALTY ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED HIGHER INCOME IT ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEAL ED PARTICULARS ORIGINALLY AND SO PENALTY IS WARRANTED. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. AS FAR AS THE FACTS A RE CONCERNED THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED SHARES AS EARLY AS APRIL/MAY 2002. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVE NUE. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NECESSARY INVESTMENTS IN ITS RETURN MADE EARLIER YEARS. IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS S OLD THE SHARES THROUGH STOCK BROKER RECEIVED THE PROCEEDINGS THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT AND THE STOCK BROKER ALSO CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSACTION OF SALE BUT A SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS OF SALES OF 5 000 EACH HAPPENED FROM DECEMBER 2003 TO MARCH 2004 OVER A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY W AY OF CHEQUES FROM THE SAID BROKER. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT BO TH THE PURCHASE AND SALE ARE BOGUS. THE ONLY ENQUIRY MADE BY THE A.O. WAS WH ETHER THE TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE. THE STOCK EXCHA NGE HAS INFORMED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT RECORDED THERE. IT IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE A.O. WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS ARE OFF MARKET TRANSACTIONS OR THR OUGH THE STOCK EXCHANGE. NO FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS MADE. EVENTHOUGH THE STOCK B ROKER HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. HE HAS ONLY TREATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED EXEMPT A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT EVEN ENTIRE SALE PRICE. PRIMA FACIE THE SALE AND PURCHASE SEEMS TO BE GENUINE AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BOG US TRANSACTIONS. AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH AT A LATER POINT O F TIME THE TRANSACTIONS OF ITA NO. 1441 TO 1444/MUM/2008 SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL (HUF) & OTHERS 6 SALE UNDERTAKEN AFTER THE SUB-BROKER WAS BLACK LIST ED FROM THE STOCK EXCHANGE PRUDENTLY FILED THE REVISED RETURN AND PAI D THE TAX SO AS TO AVOID LITIGATION AND HARDSHIP. THE SAME WAS ALSO REITERAT ED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER WHICH IS AS UNDER: - 6. ON 14-11-2006 THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED STA TEMENT OF INCOME WHEREIN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITH A COVERING LETTER DTD. 14-11-2006 W HICH READS AS UNDER : I HEREBY ENCLOSE A REVISED STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCO ME FOR THE ABOVE YEAR FOR YOUR REFERENCE. I HEREBY REVISE SAID INCOME TO BUY PEACE TO AVOID LITIGATION AND HARDSHIP WITH A REQUEST NOT TO LEVY PENAL INTEREST AND PENAL TY 7/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 7. IN VIEW OF THIS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PRI NCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESH CHA NDRA MITTAL (SUPRA) WILL EQUALLY APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE A.O. HAS ONLY MADE PERSISTENT ENQUIRIES AND HAS NOT ESTABLISHED EITHER CONCEALMEN T OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE CAN BE TREATED AS BONAFIDE AND PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. EVENTHOUGH TH E LEARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO VARIOUS PRINCIPLES AND CASE LAW THOSE NEED NOT BE CONSIDERD HERE AS THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL 251 ITR 9 (SC).THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE HAS HELD AS UNDER: - PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) CONCEALMENT REVISED RETURN FILED SHOWING HIGHER INCOME ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE INCOME AFT ER PERSISTENT QUERIES BY AO HOWEVER REVISED RETURNS HAVE BEEN REGULARISED BY REVENUE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS D ECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BY PEACE AND TO COME OUT OF VEXED LITIGAT ION COULD BE TREATED AS BONA FIDE PENALTY RIGHTLY CANCELLED NO INTER FERENCE WARRANTD. 8. SINCE THE A.O. HAS NOT MADE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRIES E XCEPT THE ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUR RENDERED THE AMOUNT EVENTHOUGH HE COULD ESTABLISH IT WITH EVIDENCES/CON TINUOUS LITIGATION WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE CAN BE ACCEPTED AS A BONA FIDE ONE. SINCE THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED O N A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL BE LEVIED BASED O N THE PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABO VE SAID CASE WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO LEVY PENALTY IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY IS CANCELLED. ITA NO. 1441 TO 1444/MUM/2008 SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL (HUF) & OTHERS 7 9. SIMILAR FACTS ARE INVOLVED IN OTHER APPEALS OF THE GROUP. EXCEPT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED THE FACTS ARE SAME. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN ITA NO. 1441/MUM/2008 ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO LEVY PENALTY IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY LEVIED IN THOSE CASES ARE CANCELLED 10. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MARCH 2010. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 23 RD MARCH 2010 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) XIX MUMBAI 4. THE CIT XIX MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR I BENCH ITAT MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI N.P.