ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI v. TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4091/MUM/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 409119914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABCT5379H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4091/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant ADDL CIT RG 1(3), MUMBAI
Respondent TIMES INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 13-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-04-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-04-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 02-07-2009
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI E BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JM ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) THE ADDL COMMR OF INCOME TAX RANGE 1(3) MUMBAI VS TIME INFOTAINMENT MEDIA LTD MATULYA 4 TH FLOOR ENAPATI BAPAT MARG LOWER REL(W) MUMBAI 400 013 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCT5379H ASSESSEE BY SHRI M SUBRAMANIAN REVENUE BY SHRI B JAYA KUAMR PER VIJAY PAL RAO JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2009 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW BAD DEBTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 12 39 357/- II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW 3% OF THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF VENUE MANAGEMENT EXPENSES VENUE EXPENSES PROFESS ION FEES AND STAGE DECORATION EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 03 420/- RS. 6 93 500/- RS 8 84 019/- AND RS. 8 11 036/- RESPECTIVELY AND ALLOW THE BALAN CE EXPENSES. III) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW CONSULTAN CY FEES (TECHNICAL) AMOUNTING TO RS. 8 64 377/- 2 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) IV) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(AA) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW RS. 19 0 0 000/- PAID TO M/S ADULEX DISPLAY SERVICE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. 3 GROUND NO.1 REGARDING BAD DEBTS. 3.1 THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS OF RS. 12 39 357/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S 36(1)(VII) R.W.S 36(2) OF THE I T ACT. 3.2 ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 BEFORE US THE LD DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE OF TIMES FOUNDATION THE AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERTAININ G TO THE TRADE DEBTOR BUT IT REPRESENTS REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS PAID TOWARDS ENTERTA INMENT TAX AT THE TIMES FOUNDATION EVENTS. HE HAS REFERRED THE DETAILS MEN TIONED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 3.1 OF HIS ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AMOUNT DO ES NOT PERTAIN TO TRADE DEBT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FULFIL THE CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED U/S 36(2) OF THE I T ACT. 4.1 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 323 ITR 397. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A). 5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DETAILS OF THE BAD DEBTS ARE REPRODU CED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 3.1 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) S.NO NAME & ADDRESS NATURE OF TRANSACTION YEAR IN WHICH SAME SHOWN AS INCOME AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF REASONS FOR CLAIMING BAD DEBT 1 APOLLO HOSPITALS EVENTS AT KOLKATA LAUNCHING OF APOLLO HOSPITAL 16 508 TOTAL BILL 12 48 000/- RS 16 508 NOT RECEIVED DUE TO SOME PROBLEM IN LOGO METAL 2 SIFY LTD EVENT 17 699 NEW MANAGEMENT NOT ACCEPTING THE LIABILITY 3 TIMES FOUNDATION TIMES FOUNDATION EVENTS THUNDERING TEMPLES 1 81 300 REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS OF RS 1 81 300 PAID TOWARDS ENTERTAINMENT TAX AT THE TIMES FOUNDATION EVENTS THUNDERING TEMPLES REFUND NOT FORTHCOMING 4 GERE FOUNDATION TIME THEORES RICHARD GERE 31.12.2003 9 55 669 AMOUNT ALREADY PROVIDED FOR LAST YEAR. PAYMENT IS NOT RECOVERABLE SO IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN OFF IN THIS YEAR. IMPACT IN THIS YEAR P&L 5 TILM EVENTS 93 181 1 264 357 LESS SOUTHERN SPICE MUSIC (25 000) TOTAL 12 39 357/- 5.1 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD (SUPRA) IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT IN O RDER TO CLAIM THE BAD DEBTS THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE BAD DEBTS W RITTEN OFF IS ACTUALLY GONE BAD. AFTER THE AMENDMENT IN THE SEC. 36(1) THE ONLY REQ UIREMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO WRITE OFF THE DEBTS AS NOT RECOVERABLE DURING TH E YEAR. EXCEPT THE CLAIM IN ITEM NO.3 REMAINING CLAIM OF BAD DEBT AS UNDER THE ITEM S NOS 1 2 4 & 5 IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD (SUPRA). 5.2 AS REGARDS THE ITEM NO.3 IN RESPECT OF TIMES F OUNDATION IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NOT CONSIDERED AS DEB T BUT REPRESENTS REFUNDABLE 4 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) DEPOSITS. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLAIM BE ING A BUSINESS LOSS AND ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED OF BA D DEBT U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RELEVANT RECORDS WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF TIMES FOUNDATION. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALL OWED. 6 GROUND NO2 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF VENUE MANAGEMENT VENUE EXPENSES PROFESSIONAL FEE AND ST AGE DECORATION EXPENSES. 6.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED 10% OF THE VENUE EXPENSES PROFESSIONAL FEE; STAGE DECORATION EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE GROU ND OF NON PRODUCTION OF SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 6.2 ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALL OWANCE TO 3% OF THE SAID EXPENSES AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ONLY 1% OF THE SIMILAR EXPENSES . 7 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUS ED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE NAME AND OTHER PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES ALONG WITH THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACTUM OF PAYMENT MADE TO THE CONCERN ED PARTIES AND FURTHER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS RESTRICTED THE D ISALLOWANCE ONLY TO 1% OF THE SIMILAR EXPENSES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THEN WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN RESTRI CTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 3% OF THESE EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8 GROUND NO.3 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF CONSULTANCY FEE (TECHNICAL). 5 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) 8.1 THE ASSESSEE DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60 11 504 /- UNDER THE HEAD LEGAL EXPENSES. THIS AMOUNT INCLUDES RS. 8 64 377/- WHI CH PERTAINS TO PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES (TECHNICAL) PAID TO ONE MANOJ M ALLICK AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE SYSTEM & LAN INSTALLED AT TIML OFFICE PAID TO TULIP IT SERVICES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THIS AM OUNT OF RS. 8 64 397/- BEING CONSULTANCY EXPENSE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E. 9 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AND THE LD AR OF THE ASSE SSEE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING AS TO HOW THESE EXPENSES ARE CAPITAL IN NAT URE. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSULT ANCY SERVICES TOWARDS MEASURING MARKET RESPONSES TO VARIOUS ADVERTISEMEN TS. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE SAID EX PENSES HAS RESULTED IN BRINGING INTO ANY NEW ASSETS OR ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSE SSEE. EVEN IF AS A RESULT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE SOME FACILITIES ARE AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SMOOTH AND CONVENIENT BUSINESS ACTIVITY; HOWEVER THE SAME WOULD NOT AMOUNTS TO BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE ANY NEW ASSET OR BENEFIT O F ENDURING NATURE. THEREFORE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 10 GROUND NO.4 REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 19 LAC S PAID TO M/S ADULX DISPLAY SERVICES. 6 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) 10.1 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES OF RS. 1 33 29 862/- WHICH INCLUDES RS. 19 LACS PAID TO M/S ADULX DISPLAY SERV ICES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID THIS EXPENDITURE TO DIFFERENT TENT HOUSES STA TIONERS FOR COMMUNICATION ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF INTER-ALIA PAYMENT OF RS. 19 LACS PAID TO M/S ADULX DISPLAY SERVICES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE CONFIRM ATION COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT NOR PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE GENUINENESS AND BUSINESS NEED OF THE EXPENDITURE; ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 11 ON APPEAL THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATION F ROM M/S ADULX DISPLAY SERVICES AND EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO LACK OF TIME THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) AFTER CO NSIDERING THE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF RS. 19 LACS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE. 12 BEFORE US THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT BY CONSI DERING THE ADDITIONAL/FRESH EVIDENCES IS WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REBUT OR COMMENT THE CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF RULE 16A. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE T O PRODUCE THE RELEVANT RECORDS INCLUDING THE CONFIRMATION WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). ONCE THE CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE AND FOUND AS CORRECT AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S DISCHARGED ITS ONUS THEN THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ALL OWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE. 7 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) 13 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERU SED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURN ISH THE REQUITE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND MAILING ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE PURELY ON THE BASIS OF CONFIRMATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE READS AS UNDE R: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. SINCE THE AP PELLANT HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATION FOR RS. 19 00 000/- FROM M/S ADULEX DISP LAY SERVICE THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED AND THE CONFIRMATION FOR RS. 3 50 000/- FROM KRISHNA KUMAR COULD NOT BE PRODUCED EVEN DURING THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 13.1 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE PRODU CED THE CONFIRMATION AND CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN THE CASE OF KIRSHNA KUMAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE SUCH CONFI RMATION. THE RULE 46A READS AS UNDER: 46(A ) (1)THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAYBE THE COM MISSIONER(APPEALS) ANY EVIDENCE WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE AO EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES NAMELY: A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR B) WHETHER THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT C AUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE W HICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR 8 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEA LED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELL ANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER RULE (1) UN LESS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAYBE THE COM MISSIONER(APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. (3) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR AS THE CA SE MAYBE THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AN Y EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BE EN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY; A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS EX AMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT OR B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNE SS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. (4) NOTING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE P OWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAYBE THE COM MISSIONER(APPEALS) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT OR THE EX AMINATION OF ANY WITNESS TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENA LTY (WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UND ER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB. SECTION(1) OF SEC. 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271. 13.2 AS PER SUB CLAUSE (2) OF RULE 46A NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED WITHOUT WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION BY THE CIT(A) . SUB RULE (3) FURTHER PROVIDES THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENC E PRODUCED BEFORE IT UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY TO EXAMINE SUCH EVIDENCE OR CROSS EXAMINATION OF SUCH WITNESS PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE OR TO PRODUCE ANY COUNTER EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE OR WITNESS IN REBUTTAL TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSE E. 14 IN THE CASE IN HAND THE CIT(A) UNDISPUTEDLY CON SIDERED THE FRESH EVIDENCE WITHOUT RECODING ANY REASON AND WITHOUT GIVING OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE OR CROSS EXAMINE THE SAME OR TO PRODUCE THE COUNTER EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL OF THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY IN OUR CONSIDER ED OPINION THE CIT(A) HAS 9 ITA NO. 4091/MUM/2009 (ASST YEAR 2005-06) VIOLATED THE RULES 46A WHILE CONSIDERING THE FRE SH MATERIAL/EVIDENCE FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE AND R EMAND THE SAME TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. 15 IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 13 TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 13 TH JULY 2011 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR ITAT MUMBAI