KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ITO 4(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2394/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 239419914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABCK0905A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2394/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 4(2)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 18-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 03-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 03-11-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 15-04-2009
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI BEFORE SHIRI D.K. AGARWAL J.M. AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH A.M. ITA NO. : 2394/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. SHOP NO.C JAWAHAR MANSION FANASWADI THAKURDWAR MUMBAI-400 002. PAN NO: AABCK 0905 A VS. I.T.O. - 4(2)(4) AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY : SHRI SAMEEL DALAL DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI PARTHSARTHI NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 03.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2011 ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 16.01.2009 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-IV FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE DISPUTE ON F OUR DIFFERENT GROUNDS. 2. THE FIRST DISPUTE IS REGARDING NOT ALLOWING ADEQ UATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE HOWEVER HAD NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEA L. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. 3. THE SECOND DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR HAD CLAIMED EXPEN SES OF `. 19 50 000/- INCURRED ON MEDICAL TREATMENT OF CHAIRMAN LATE SHRI R.G. KOTHARI. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN IN CURRED ON COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE J UDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MEHBOOB PRODUCTION PV T. LTD. VS. CIT (106 ITR 758). THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTE NTION RAISED AND HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPO SE OF BUSINESS AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE SAME. 3.1 IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) THAT SHRI R.G. KOTHARI WAS THE ONLY WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR OF TH E COMPANY OUT OF TWO DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AND HE HAD NOT TAKEN SALAR Y TILL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AS THE COMPANY WAS RUNNING LOSSES. BE CAUSE OF EFFORTS MADE BY SHRI KOTHARI THE COMPANY HAD PROGRESSED AN D MADE PROFIT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. SHRI R.G. KOTH ARI HAD FALLEN SERIOUS ILL DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSIDERING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM HAD DECIDED TO REIMBURSE T HE MEDICAL EXPENSES BY PASSING THE RESOLUTION ON 06.05.2004. UNFORTUNAT ELY SHRI R.G. KOTHARI DIED ON 25.10.2004. OUT OF THE TOTAL SUM OF `. 19 50 000/- A SUM OF `. 11.50 LAKHS WAS PAID IN CASH BY THE COMPANY AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF `. 8 LAKHS WHICH HAD BEEN PAID BY SHRI KOTHARIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS WAS REIMBURSED TO THEM BY THE COMPANY IN THE YEAR 2007-08 BY CHEQUE. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION RAISED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT SHRI R.G. KOTHARI WAS D IRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE WORKING OF THE COMPANY. HE WAS ALSO PROPRIETARY OF M/S. KOTHARI METALS & ALLOYS WHICH HAD EARNED PROFIT OF `. 1 36 986/- DURING THE YEAR. THE ILLNESS OF SHRI R.G. KOTHARI WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THAT PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE ONLY BECAUSE HIS SON AND WIFE WERE DIRECTORS IN THE COMPANY. THE EXP ENSES WERE THUS 3 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE LD. CIT(A ) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3.2 BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT SHRI R.G. KO THARI WHO WAS THE FOUNDER MEMBER OF THE COMPANY WAS THE ONLY WHOLE TI ME DIRECTOR DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR AND HAD MADE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBU TION TO THE WORKING OF THE COMPANY. HE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY SALARY AS THE CO MPANY WAS INCURRED LOSSES. HOWEVER DURING THE YEAR SUBSTANTIAL EXPENS ES HAD TO BE INCURRED ON HIS MEDICAL TREATMENT WHICH THE COMPANY DECIDED TO REIMBURSE THROUGH BOARD RESOLUTION CONSIDERING HIS CONTRIBUT ION. THE EXPENDITURE WAS THEREFORE ON COMMERCIAL EXPENDITURE. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE RESPECTIVE OR DERS. 3.3 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE ALLOWABILIT Y OF MEDICAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE TREATMENT O F SHRI R.G. KOTHARI THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WHO EXPIRED DURING THE YEAR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT SHRI R.G. KOTHARI WAS THE FOUNDER MEMB ER OF THE COMPANY AND WAS THE ONLY WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR DURING THE REL EVANT YEAR. THERE IS NO MATERIAL PLACED BY THE REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE AB OVE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SHRI R.G. KOTHARI WAS NOT WORKING AND HAD NOT MADE ANY CONTRIBUTION T O THE COMPANY. HE HAD NOT CHARGED ANY SALARY TILL THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 BECAUSE OF THE LOSSES AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS N OT CONTROVERTED BEFORE US IS THAT BECAUSE OF HIS EFFORTS THE COMPANY MAKE PROFIT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. DURING THE SAID YEAR S HRI KOTHARI HAD FALLEN SERIOUS ILL AND SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURES WERE INCUR RED ON MEDICAL 4 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. EXPENSES OUT OF WHICH `. 11 50 000/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY AND `. 8 00 000/- WAS REIMBURSED TO THEIR CHILDRENS. IN O UR VIEW THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO PAY FOR THE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF ITS ONLY WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON C OMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. SHRI KOTHARI COULD HAVE ALSO CLAIMED S ALARY NOT ONLY FOR THIS YEAR BUT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AS HE WAS THE ONLY WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR AND IN CASE HE HAD MADE CLAIM OF THE SALARY IT COULD NO T HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. MERELY BECAUSE HE HAD NOT CLAIMED SALARY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HE WAS NOT WORKING FOR THE COMP ANY. IN OUR VIEW CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE EXPENSES INC URRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF ITS ONLY WHOLE TIME DIR ECTOR WHO WAS SUPPORTED BY THE BOARD RESOLUTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. HOWEVER WE NOTE FROM THE BILLS PLACED AT PG. 90 ON WARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT EXPENDITURE AS PER THE BILLS IS ONLY ABOU T `. 9 00 000/-. THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS CLAIMED RELATED TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE NURSES AND OTHER EXPENSES WHICH ARE NOT SUPPORTED B Y ANY EVIDENT ON RECORDS. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THE EXPENDITURE HA S TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE SUPPORTING BILLS HAVE BEEN FIL ED. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE GROUND PARTLY. 4. THE THIRD DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE ON A CCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED COMMISSIO N OF `. 20 87 997/- PAYABLE TO 23 PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCH ASE AND SALE OF MATERIALS. THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 4.3 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION PAYMENT WAS LESS TH AN `. 1 00 000/- IN ALL THE CASES EXCEPT IN CASE OF SHRI RAJENDRA D. J AIN TO WHOM COMMISSION PAYABLE WAS `. 1 75 332/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT SERVICES RENDERED AND TDS D EDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER STATED THAT NO TAX HAD BEEN DEDU CTED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE COMMISSION REMAINED OUTSTANDING A T THE END OF THE 5 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. YEAR AND HAD ALSO INCREASE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPARED T O EARLIER YEAR. HE THEREFORE DID NOT BELIEVE THE GENUINE OF EXPENDITU RE. SINCE TAX HAD ALSO NOT BEEN DEDUCTED HE DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 40A(IA). THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE DECISION OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) THAT TAX HAD NOT BEEN DEDUCTED BECAUSE INCOME OF THE PAY EES WAS BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT AND THEY HAD FILED UP FORM 15-G. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION RAISED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY HI M THAT THE FORM NO.15G HAD BEEN CREATED TO JUSTIFY NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THERE WERE ALSO WIDE VARIATIONS IN THE RATE OF COMMISSION WHICH VARIED FROM 2.75% TO 9%. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY HIM THAT IT WA S IMPROBABLE THAT THE COMPANY OBTAINED SERVICES OF SUCH PERSONS. THEIR ID ENTITY WAS ALSO UN- ESTABLISHED. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE CONFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4.1 BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION WAS F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF T HE COMMISSION WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER DATED 15.11.2007 OF THE AS SESSEE ADDRESSED TO THE AO AND PLACED AT PAGE NO.38 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT W AS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NEVER PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE CLAI M U/S.40A(IA) AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE 15G FO RM. THE PAYMENT IN MOST OF THE CASES WAS BELOW `. 1 00 000/- AND THEREFORE INCOME OF THE PAYEES WAS NOT TAXABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE 15G FORM BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD NOT ACCEPTED THEM WITHOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATION. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. 4.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE ALLOWABILIT Y OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION TO 23 PART IES. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT NO TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTION AT SOURCE AND THAT GENUINENESS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS AGREED WITH THE FINDING OF THE AO. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT INCOME OF THE COMMISSION PAYEES WAS BELOW TAXABLE L IMIT AND MOST OF THEM HAD GIVEN 15G FORMS WHICH HAD BEEN PRODUCED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WERE NOT EXAMINED. THE CIT(A) ALSO MEN TIONED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PAYEES WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. IN OUR VIEW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TAXES WERE NOT DEDUCTED SINCE THE PAR TIES HAD FILED FORM 15G REQUIRES VERIFICATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM TH E PARTIES WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER DATED. 15.11.2007 OF THE ASSE SSEE ADDRESSED TO THE AO PLACED AT PAGE NO.38 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AO H AD NOT MADE EFFORTS TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PARTIES. HE DISAL LOWED THE COMMISSION U/S.40A(IA). THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT U/S.40A (IA) WAS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE PARTIES HAD FILED FORM NO.15G HAS ALSO NOT B EEN EXAMINED. IN OUR VIEW THE MATTER REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION TO ARRI VE AT A FAIR CONCLUSION IN THE MATTER. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSI NG AFRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATION AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE FOURTH DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF `. 13 47 718/- ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIRS. THE AO NOTED THA T PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO M/S GLORY ELECTRICAL WORKS LICENSED E LECTRICAL CONTRACTOR AND ENGINEER WHICH WERE FOR REPLACEMENT OF MACHINE PARTS AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS FOR REPAIRING OF PANEL BOARD ETC. H E DISALLOWED THE CLAIM 7 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE D ECISION OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE EXPENDITUR E HAD BEEN INCURRED ON REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF MACHINERY BUILDINGS AND A SUM OF `. 3 LACS HAD BEEN INCURRED FOR REPAIRING OF PANEL BOARD WHICH WAS BURNED DUE TO SHORT CIRCUIT. THE OTHER EXPENSES WERE ALSO ON REPAIR AND DAY TO DAY MAINTENANCE OF MACHINERIES. THE LD. CIT(A) HOW EVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS RAISED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY HIM THAT THE BILL OF `. 13.50 LACS WAS FOR SUPPLY OF 63 KVA OUTDOOR TYPE TRANSFORMER AND THEREFORE EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CURRENT REPA IR. HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5.1 BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INCURRED ON REPAIR AND REPLACE MENT OF PARTS OF MACHINERY ETC. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REPAI R WORK WAS MOSTLY ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFORMER WHICH HAD BURNT DURING THE Y EAR. THERE WAS NO NEW TRANSFORMER PURCHASED AND THEREFORE FINDING O F THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS N O OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE LD. DR ON THE OTH ER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE ALLOWABILIT Y OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIR OF MACHINERY ETC. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT A SUM OF `. 13.50 LACKS ON NEW TRANSFORMER. THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS BILLS RELATING TO REPAIRS HAVE B EEN PLACED AT PAGE NO.99 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXAM INED IN DETAIL BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE EXPENDITURE CAN BE CONSI DERED AS REPAIR IF IT IS FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE PART OF THE MACHINERY BUT E XPENDITURE INCURRED ON 8 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. ACQUISITION OF NEW MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT WHICH CAN FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY CANNOT BE CALLED REPAIR. THE BILLS PL ACED IN THE PAPER BOOK DO NOT GIVE ANY CLEAR PICTURE. THE BILL DATED 13.09 .2004 PLACED AT PAGE NO.100 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS EXPENDITURE OF `. 1 35 000/- ON ACQUISITION OF 22 KVI 60 KVA OUTDOOR TYPE TRANSFORM ER. TRANSFORMER IS AN ASSET WHICH CAN FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY AND THEREFO RE IT CANNOT BE CALLED A REPAIR ITEM. THE POSITION IN RESPECT OF OTHER ITE MS ALSO REQUIRES DETAILED EXAMINATION. EACH ITEM OF EXPENDITURE IS REQUIRED T O BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED WITH THE VIEW TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE SAM E WAS FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING MACHINERY OR AN INDEPENDENT ITEM WHICH COULD FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR PA SSING AFRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBS ERVATIONS MADE BEFORE AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE AS SESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. SD/ - SD/ - - ( D. K. AGARWAL ) ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DT: 18.11.2011 9 ITA NO : 2394/MUM/2009 M/S. KAMBARE CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR - BENCH ITAT MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI ROSHANI