KAILASH A KOTHARI, MUMBAI v. ITO WD 13(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2334/MUM/2012 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 233419914 RSA 2012
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2334/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant KAILASH A KOTHARI, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO WD 13(1)(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 01-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 26-07-2017
Next Hearing Date 26-07-2017
First Hearing Date 26-07-2017
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 10-04-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA A M AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 2334/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ) KAILASH A. KO THARI 128/130 SARANG STREET MUMBAI - 400 003 / VS. ITO WARD 13(1)(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M. K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MS. PRANALI DIXIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAM TIWARI / DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11 .2017 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 24 MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 20.01.2012 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2007 - 08. 2. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 24 MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER') ERRED IN LAW IN 2 ITA NO. 2334/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) KAILASH A. KOTHARI VS. ITO RECORDING THAT THE APPEAL IS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY ITO - 13(1)(3) U/S 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961 ON 31/12/2010. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISS IONER ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ADDING THE CASH GIFT AMOUNT OF RS. 1 1 00 000.00 GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE'S SISTER TO HIM AS HIS INCOME. HE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DONE SO. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN LAW IN REJECTING THE AFFIDAVIT AND DECLARATION OF GIFT BY MRS. BADAMIBEN N. JAIN SISTER OF THE APPELLANT AND DOUBTING HER CREDITWORTHINESS. HE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DONE SO. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT NEITHER THERE WAS ANY OCCASION NOR PURPOSE O R REASON TO GIVE GIFT BY SISTER TO HER BROTHER THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN LAW IN NOT DEALING WITH GROUND NO.2 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS; '2. THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 2 34 WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.' 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS.11 00 000/ - FROM HIS ELDER SISTER IN CASH. IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SISTER WAS N OT A REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND HAD N O RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 WAS FILED . THE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE SISTER WAS NOT SO GOOD SO AS TO GIVE A GIFT OF SUCH A BIG AMOUNT. SHE HAS THREE CHILDREN AND HER HUSBAND WAS AN ACCOUNTANT. NO CASH FLO W STATEMENT OF THE SIS TER HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO PROVE THE CASH GIFT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SISTER COULD GIVE GIFT OF SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE GIFT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RE CEIVED FROM THE SISTER IN CASH AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE APPEA L ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5 . THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS BEFORE HIM : 3 ITA NO. 2334/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) KAILASH A. KOTHARI VS. ITO 2.2 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS LD.A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE GIFT TO HIM. SHE FILED HER RETURN FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR THE A.Y.2007 - 08 SINCE HER INCOME IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. THE AGE OF THE DONOR WAS AROUND 4 9 YEARS. THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY FOR GIVING GIFT TO HER BROTHER WAS EXPLAINED TO BE GIFT OF RS.3 00 000/ - RS.3 50 000/ - AND RS.2 80 000/ - RECEIVED BY THE DONOR FROM HER TWO DAUGHTERS AND SON RESPECTIVELY AND OUT OF HER OPENING CASH BALANCE. AS REGARDS THE DETAILS OF THE CHILDREN OF THE DONOR IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE TWO DAUGHTERS HAD FINISHED 1 ST YEAR B. COM (PAYAL KUMAR NJAIN) AND 2 ND YR. B.COM(REENA KUMARI N.JAIN) AND WERE NOT STUDYING FURTHER. THEY WERE GIVING TUITIONS AT HOME. SON SHRI PARAG KR .JAIN WAS A GRADUATE AND WAS WORKING FOR A COMPANY DURING THE PERIOD 17/12/2004 TO 10/04/2008. NONE OF THE ABOVE CHILDREN WERE FILING THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME IN VIEW OF THEIR INCOMES BEING BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT. 6 . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE THE LD. CIT(A) BY A VERY REASONED ORDER UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER : 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHENEVER CASH IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ONLY TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE MONEY IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO PROV E THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON IN THIS CASE THE DONOR. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT OTHER THAN CLAIMING THAT THE MONEY/CASH HAD BEEN GIFTED TO HIM BY HIS SISTER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR. 3. AS REGARDS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ALLEGED GIFT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE CASH IN FACT AND IN REALITY W AS RECEIVED FROM THE SISTER. IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED THAT THERE WOULD NORMALLY BE LOVE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN A BROTHER AND A SISTER. HOWEVER IT DEFIES ALL LOGIC AS TO HOW AND WHY A SISTER WHO DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WELL OFF ECONOMICALLY WHOSE HUSB AND IS AN ACCOUNTANT AND WHOSE CHILDREN ARE STILL VERY YOUNG AND ARE CLAIMED TO BE EARNING SOME INCOME BY GIVING TUITIONS WOULD GIVE SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.11 00 000/ - AS GIFT. NO SOCIAL OCCASION FOR GIVING OF THE GIFT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MUCH BETTER OFF THAN THE SISTER ECONOMICALLY. IN THE INDIAN CULTURE NORMALLY IT IS THE BROTHER WHO GIVES GIFTS TO HIS SISTERS. THIS IS NOT TO 4 ITA NO. 2334/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) KAILASH A. KOTHARI VS. ITO SAY THAT SISTERS DO NOT OR NEVER GIVE GIFTS TO THEIR BROTHERS. HOWEVER IN THIS CASE WE ARE TALKING OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.11 00 000/ - WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS GIFT. THE DONOR UNDISPUTABLY DOES NOT HAVE SO MUCH MONEY. SHE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS.9.30 LAKHS FROM HER CHILDREN TO IN TURN GIVEN THE ALLEGED GIFT TO HER BROTHER. IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS TO WHY AND ON WHAT OCCASION THE CHILDREN HAVE GIFTED RS.9.30 LAKHS TO THEIR MOTHER AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THE SAID ALLEGED GIFTS TO THE MOTHER. THE CLAIM IS UNBELIEVABLE AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER NO OTHER OCCASION HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY WERE IN THE HABIT OF GIVING OR RECEIVING SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS OF GIFTS EITHER PRIOR TO THE GIFT IN QUESTION OR LATER. HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT ESTABLISHED. 3.1 THE ABOVE FACTS ALSO P ROVE THAT THE SISTER WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE GIVEN GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIVE THE GIFT OF RS. 11 LAKHS. SHE HAS JUST BEEN USED TO LEND HER NAME TO GIVE - SOME SORT OF AUTHENTICITY AS TO THE SOURCE OF ALLEGED GIFT. IT HAS NO T BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE THAT THE DONOR IN FACT HAD THE CAPACITY TO GIVE THE GIFT. IN FACT ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY SHOW THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIVE RS.11 00 000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE AS GIFT. FOR ONE IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THAT SHE OR HER CHILDREN HAD EARNINGS AND SAVINGS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLEGED GIFT. SECONDLY THE DONOR IS SHOWN TO THE GIFT IN CASH AND THE CHILDREN ARE ALSO IN TURN SHOWN TO HAVE TI RS.9.30 LAKHS TO THEIR MOTHER IN CASH. UNDISPUTABL Y THE DONOR AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS ARE NOT WELL OFF ECONOMICALLY. IT IS UNACCEPTABLE THAT THEY WOULD BE KEEPING MONEY AMOUNTI NG TO SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT AS RS.11 LAKHS IN THE FORM OF CASH. 3.2 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM WITH REGARD OF THE CREDIT OF MONEY IN THE FORM OF ALLEGED GIFT AND HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED DONOR. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE GIFT WAS GIVEN BY HIS SISTER ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CLEARLY SHOW THAT NO SUCH GIFT IN FACT COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY HIS SISTER. RATHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY TRIED TO ROUTE HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN HIS BOOKS BY CLAIMING THAT SUCH MONEY WAS A GIFT FROM HIS SISTER. 4. THE AFFIDAVIT AND GIFT DECLARATION FILED BY THE DONOR WOULD NOT BE OF ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE AS THESE ARE ONLY SELF - SERVING DOCUMENTS WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE DISCUSSIONS HEREINABOVE. 4.1 IN CASE OF ASHOK MAHINDRU & SONS (HUF) 173 TAXMAN 178 (DEL) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THERE IS ENOUGH MATERIAL TO R AISE A STRONG SUSPICION REGARDING 5 ITA NO. 2334/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) KAILASH A. KOTHARI VS. ITO NATURE OF TRANSACTION THE AUTHORITIES CAN REJECT THE DOCUMENTS AND REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION IS ABOVE BOARD. THERE C AN BE NO METERS TO JUDGE TRUTH. THE SAME HAS TO BE CULMINATED OUT OF THE SUR ROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND HAVE TO BE INFERRED. THERE MAY NOT BE CLINCHING EVIDENCES BUT IF AT VARIOUS PLACES THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DOUBTFUL THE NATURAL COROLLARY IS THAT SUCH TRANSA CTION WAS ONLY PAPER TRANSACTION AND CANNOT ACCORD ACCEPTABILITY OF SUCH MAKE BELIEF TRANSACTIONS. IN CASE OF SMT VASANTIBAI N. SHAH 213 ITR 805(BOM) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND TO DRAW HIS OWN INFERENCE ON THE BASIS THEREOF AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUCH CASES IS NOT IMPERMISSIBLE. IN CASES LIKE THIS IT IS ONLY THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE. NO DIR ECT EVIDENCE CAN BE EXPECTED........ IN CASE OF DURGA PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540 (SC) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE NOT REQUIRE D TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. T HEY ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE. THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS AND THE LIABILITY THEREFORE CAN BE FASTENED ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO AS HELD IN THE CASE SMT SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801(SC). IN CASE OF J S PARKER 94 ITR 616 (BOM) IT HAS BEEN' HELD THAT 'THE TAX LIABILITY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT IS OF CIVIL NATURE. TO FASTEN A TAX PAYER WITH SUCH A LIABILITY IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF 'BEYOND DOUBT' AS IS REQUIRED TO FIX A CRIMINAL LIABILITY. TAX LIABILITY CAN BE FASTENED ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES'. PERUSAL AND EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE DONOR DID N OT HAVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIFT AWAY THE AMOUNT OF RS.11 00 000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE ALLEGED GIFT ARE IN CASH AND THE FACTS SHOW THAT NE ITHER WAS THERE ANY OCCASION TO GIVE THE GIFT NOR WAS THERE ANY PURPOSE OR REASON TO GIVE THE ALLEGED GIFT. 5. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONS THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSESSING THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF R.S.11 00 000/ - AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE IS UPHELD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 8 . W E HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 6 ITA NO. 2334/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) KAILASH A. KOTHARI VS. ITO TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE VERACITY OF THE SAME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE SAID G I FT IS FALSE. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : 1. ITA NOS.6 8 9 10 AND 39/VIZAG/201 5 IN THE CASE OF DR.VEMPALA BALA MANOHAR VS. ITO ; AND 2. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUDHIR BUDHRAJA (IN ITA NO.59/2003 DATED 13.10.2015). 9 . P ER CONTRA THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE SAID DONOR HAS NO CAPACITY TO GIVE THE SAID GIFT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF THE COGENCY OF THE CAPACITY MERE DECLARATION OF GIFT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUFFICIENT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E BANK STATEMENT OF THE DONOR WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE DONOR WAS VERY MEAGRE. HENCE THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE GIFT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ADDE D IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE A S UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 10 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 11 LAC S FROM HIS ELDER SISTER. THE SISTER HAD SHOWN STATEMENT OF INCOME OF RS.93 112/ - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. THE SOURCE OF GIFT IN THE HANDS OF THE SISTER HAS BEEN FURTHER EXPLAINED AS GIFT FROM HER TWO DAUGHTERS AND SON AT RS.3 00 000/ - RS.3 50 000/ - AND RS.2 80 000/ - RESPECTIVELY. R EST AMOUNT S HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE OPENING BALANCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DAUGHTERS ARE STILL STUDENTS AND THE S O N HAS JUST TAKEN UP A JOB. THESE PERSONS ARE 7 ITA NO. 2334/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) KAILASH A. KOTHARI VS. ITO NOT FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME . NO STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SAID DONOR HAS BEEN PRODUCED. NO DETAIL OF THE WORKING OF THE OPENING BALANCE IN HER HAND HAS BEEN PRODUCED . THE HUSBAND OF THE SISTER IS A N ACCOUNTANT WITH OUT MUCH INCOME . IN THIS FACTUAL SCENARIO WE FIND THAT IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE SAID DONOR DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO GRAN T THE GIFT OF RS. 11 LAC S TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS REGARDING COGENTLY PROVING THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR TO GIVE THE GIFT . HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT - A. 11. THE CASE LAWS R ELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN NONE OF THOSE CASES IT WAS EMANATING THAT GIFTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHEN IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE DONOR HAD NO CAPACITY TO GIVE THE GIFT. 12. ACCORDIN GLY IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT - A. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME . 13. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.11.2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / J UDICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 01.11.2017 . . ./ ROSHANI SR. PS 8 ITA NO. 2334/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007 - 08) KAILASH A. KOTHARI VS. ITO / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI