HEMALBHANJI DEDHIA, MUMBAI v. IUTO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6595/MUM/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 659519914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AOEPS0224A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6595/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant HEMALBHANJI DEDHIA, MUMBAI
Respondent IUTO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 28-02-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 25-02-2014
Next Hearing Date 25-02-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 31-10-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BEN CH MUMBAI . . . . BEFORE SHRI B R MITTAL JM & SHRI B R BASKARAN A M ./I.T.A. NO.6594/MUM/2012 ( ' ' ' ' ' '' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) HETAL PINAK DEDHIA 301 VIMAL APTS. NEHRU ROAD - VILE PARLE (E) MUMBAI 400 057 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1)(4) MUMBAI ./PAN :AOEPS0224A ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) & ./I.T.A. NO.6595/MUM/2012 ( ' ' ' ' ' '' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) HEMALBHANJI DEDHIA 301 VIMAL APTS. NEHRU ROAD -VILE PARLE (E) MUMBAI 400 057 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(1)(4) MUMBAI ./PAN :AEDPD0923L ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) % ( / APPELLANT BY DR PRAYAG JHA/PRATEEK JHA &'% ( / RESPONDENT BY SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR DR ( + / DATE OF HEARING : 26.02.2014 ( + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH FEB 2014 / O R D E R PER B R BASKARAN AM : BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-32 MUMBAI IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS AND BOTH THE APPEALS ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 2 RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. SINCE THE I SSUES URGED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE THEY WERE HEARD T OGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF C ONVENIENCE. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION BY TWO DAYS. AFTE R HEARING THE PARTIES ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT T HE APPEALS FOR HEARING. 2. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S 68 OF THE ACT IN BOTH THE CASES IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK A CCOUNTS HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED TH ESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION AR E STATED IN BRIEF. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THESE TWO ASSESSEES WERE TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY THE AO BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THEREA FTER HE SERVED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT CALLING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS. IN RESPONSE THERETO BOTH THE ASSESSEES FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS BUT FAILED TO FURNISH THE REMAINING DETAILS CALLED FOR. HENCE THE AO PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE TH E ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON VERIFICATION OF DETAILS THE AO NOTICED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE MADE HUGE DEPOSITS BY WAY OF C ASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THEM. THE AO NOTICED THAT MS. HETAL P DEDHIA HAD DEPOSITED AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.27.58 LAKHS. MR. HEMAL BHAN JI DEDHIA HAD DEPOSITED AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.47.31 LAKHS IN THE BANK A CCOUNT STANDING IN HIS NAME AND FURTHER A SUM OF RS.24.62 LAKHS IN A BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED JOINTLY WITH MR. FORUM HEMAL DEDHIA. THUS THE AGGREGATE A MOUNT OF DEPOSIT MADE IN ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 3 ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS BY MR. HEMAL BHANJI DEDHIA WO RKED OUT TO RS.71.83 LAKHS. SINCE THE ASSESSEES DID NOT FURNISH THE DET AILS EXPLAINING THE SOURCES FOR MAKING CASH DEPOSITS THE AO PROPOSED TO ASSESS THE SAME AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE HANDS OF MS. HETAL P DEDHIA THE AO GAVE SET OFF OF OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.1 73 990/- AND THE AMOUN T OF RS.3 13 840/- EARNED OUT OF STITCHING ACTIVITIES AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSE D THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.22 70 170/- AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. IN THE HANDS OF MR. HEMAL BHANJI DE DHIA THE AO ASSESSED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.71.83 LAKHS. 4. BEFORE LD CIT(A) BOTH THE ASSESSEES FURNISHED COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET OF EARLIER YEARS AND SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAD GIVEN LOA NS AND ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN THOSE YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED BACK THE LOANS AND ADVANCES SO GIVEN BY THEM FROM THE CO NCERNED DEBTORS WHICH HAVE BEEN UTILIZED BY THEM TO MAKE DEPOSITS INTO TH E BANK ACCOUNTS. THE LD CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE AGE OF THESE ASSESSEES WAS IN THE RANGE OF 19 YEARS AND 21 YEARS AS ON 1.4.2002. HE FURTHER NOTICED TH AT THEY HAVE SHOWN HUGE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF AROUND RS.30.00 LAKHS AS ON 1.4.2002 WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS IMPROBABLE BY HIM. THE LD CIT(A) FUR THER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR INABILITIES TO FURNI SH THE NAMES AND OTHER DETAILS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE LOANS WERE GIVEN. I N CASE OF HEMAL BHANJI DEDHIA HE HAD SHOWN FLAT ADVANCE IN THE EARLIER YE ARS BUT NO DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW EITHER THE BOOKING OR CANCELLATION OF THE FLAT. HE FURTHER ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 4 NOTICED THAT THE LOAN CREDITORS HAVE NOT DEDUCTED T DS ON THE INTEREST AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THESE ASSESSEES. HE A LSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE CARRIED ALL THE TRANSACTIONS BY WAY OF CASH ONLY EVEN THOUGH BOTH OF THEM HAD MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNTS. ACCORDI NGLY THE LD CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES THAT THE SOURCE S FOR MAKING THE DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE THE REPAYMENT OF LOANS GI VEN BY THEM EARLIER SINCE BOTH THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLA IMS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CA SE LAWS THE LD CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. (A) ASHOK MAHINDRU (173 TAXMAN 178)(DEL) (B) SMT. VASANTHIBAI SHAH (213 ITR 805)(BOM) (C) DURGA PRASAD MORE (82 ITR 540)(SC) (D) ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDUSTRY (157 ITR 77)(SC) (E) SMT. NAYANTARA C AGGARWAL VS. CIT (207 ITR 63 9)(BOM) (F) SMT. SUMATI DAYAL (214 ITR 801)(SC) (G) J.S. PARKAR (94 ITR 616)(BOM) IN RESPECT OF DEPOSIT OF RS.24 61 800/- MADE BY SHR I HEMAL BHANJI DEDHIA JOINTLY WITH SHRI FORAM H DEDHIA THE LD CIT(A) DEL ETED THE SAME SINCE HE HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO ASSESS THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF SHRI FORAM H DEDHIA. IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING AMOUNTS OF DEPOSITS THE L D CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS P ASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THESE APPE ALS BEFORE US. 5. THE LD COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES DID NOT GET ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH ALL THE D ETAILS BEFORE THE AO. THE LD ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 5 A.R FURNISHED A COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS ONLY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT CALL THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF AMOUNTS DEPOSITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD A. R SUBMITTED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN FILING RETURNS OF INCOME FOR TH E PAST SEVERAL YEARS ALONG WITH COPIES OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINING PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. THESE FINANCIAL STATEME NTS OF THE EARLIER YEARS DEPICTED THE DETAILS OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ESP ECIALLY THE LOANS AND ADVANCES GIVEN BY THESE ASSESSEES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAVE REALIZED THE LOANS AND ADVANCES SO GIVEN AND UTILIZED THE SAME T O MAKE DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 68 IS ATTRACTED ONLY IF THE CASH CREDITS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT ASKED BY THE AO TO FURNISH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D HENCE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. T HE LD A.R FURNISHED COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AS AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES IN BOTH THE CASES AND PLEADED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD D.R ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) BY EXERCISING HIS CO-TERMINUS POWER HAS EXAMINED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN A DETAILED MANNER. THE LD D.R BY INVITING OUR ATTEN TION TO THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEES HAVE FAILED TO FURNISH ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 6 THE NAMES AND DETAILS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE LOANS WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THEM. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MERE FILING RETURNS OF INCOME WITH SOME FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS S UBSTANTIATING EVIDENCES SINCE THESE RETURNS OF INCOME HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN U P FOR SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE FINANCIAL TRANSAC TIONS OF THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED BY WAY OF CASH ON LY EVEN THOUGH BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNTS. ACCORDING LY HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE ONLY SELF SERVING DO CUMENTS WHICH CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ASSESSEES HAV E MADE DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. HENCE THE DEPARTMENT COULD TAKE NOTICE OF THE DEPOSITS SO MAD E AND ACCORDINLGY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES THEREOF. HOWEV ER BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS THAT THEY REPRESE NT THE AMOUNT RECOVERED FROM THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE LOANS AND ADVANCES WERE GIV EN EARLIER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS NOW FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AS A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL BY LD CIT(A) AND HENCE NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED IN SENDING BACK THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF TH E AO. WITH REGARD TO THE QUERY AS TO WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) CAN EXAMINE THE T RANSACTIONS OF THE EARLIER YEARS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTA NT YEAR THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ONLY EXAMINED THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS FOU ND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 7 THEM IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. WITH REGARD TO THE QUER Y AS TO WHY THE AO DID NOT REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARLIER YEARS THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN SINCE THE DEPOSITS WERE ASSES SED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF THE DEPOSITS 7. IN THE REJOINDER THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS DRAWN HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJEC TURES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) IN PARA 3.3 OF THE ORDER PASSED IN T HE HANDS OF HETAL P DEDHIA HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNIS H THE ARGUMENTS OR EXPLANATIONS WHICH IS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM NOW TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO D ID NOT CALL FOR ANY EXPLANATIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE D EPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CI T(A) HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON PRESUMPTIONS. HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT IN A POSIT ION TO EXPLAIN THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AS ON 1.4.2002 WHERE AS THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE NOT ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS. ACCORDINGLY THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES DID NOT GET SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CARE FULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE NOTICE THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE FAILED TO ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 8 FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS THAT WERE CALLED FOR BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM O F LD A.R THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CALL FOR THE DETAILS OF SOURCES OF THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THESE ASSESSEES THE LD D.R SUBMITTED TH AT THE DETAILS COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE AO BY WAY OF ORDER SHEET NOT ING AND ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES V ERIFICATION. BE THAT AS IT MAY THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. 9. ACCORDING TO LD D.R THE LD CIT(A) HAD EXAMIN ED THE CLAIMS MADE BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES IN A DETAILED MANNER AND HENCE NO PUR POSE WOULD BE SERVED BY SENDING THE MATTERS AGAIN TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HOWEVER AS POINTED OUT BY LD A.R WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED ON CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT CALLING FOR EXPLANATIONS FROM T HE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE FAILED TO FURNISH THE NAMES ADDRESSES AND OTHER DETAILS OF LOANS CREDITO RS. IN REPLY THERETO THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ASKED FOR T HOSE DETAILS AND FURTHER SINCE THE DETAILS CALLED FOR RELATE TO THE TRANSACT IONS UNDERTAKEN ABOUT 8 TO 10 YEARS BACK IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE S TO FURNISH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A ) SHOULD NOT HAVE DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DIFFICU LTIES OF THE ASSESSEES. ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 9 10. FROM THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) WE NOTICE THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISS UES AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID CALL FOR THE DETAILS RELATI NG TO THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS OF EARLIER YEARS OR NOT. SIMILARLY IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DID CALL FOR SUCH KIND OF DETAILS. HEN CE WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES THAT THEY DID NOT GET SUFFICIENT OPPO RTUNITIES TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR SUBMISSIONS. FURTHER WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PROCEEDED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE BY MAKING CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND THE SAID OBSERV ATIONS ARE SERIOUSLY DISPUTED BY THE LD A.R. FURTHER THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEES HAVE FILED COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR EARLIER YEARS AS ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES WOULD SHOW THAT THEY WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN THOUGH THE LD D.R CONTENDS THAT ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY LD CIT(A) YET THE FACT REMAINS TH AT THE LD CIT(A) HAS MADE CERTAIN PRESUMPTIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICAT E THE ISSUES AND THE SAID PRESUMPTION ENTERTAINED BY LD CIT(A) IS BEING QUEST IONED BY THE ASSESSEES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF NATUR AL JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRE SH AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE O RDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A) IN BOTH THE CASES IN SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO THE AD DITIONS CONFIRMED BY HIM AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. THE ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 10 AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER A FFORDING NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DEC ISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEES ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. / '/ ( 1( 34 ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEB 2014 . ( 28TH FEB 2014 ( SD/- SD/- ( B R MITTAL ) ( B R BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; : DATED 28 TH FEB 2014 . . ./ RAJ SR. PS ITA NOS 6594 & 6595/M/2012 11 ( (( ( &; &; &; &; <; <; <; <; /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % / THE APPELLANT 2. &'% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. = / CIT 5. ; & / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. ' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER '; & //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI