M/s. SAPAT PACKAGING INDUSTRY LTD., MUMBAI v. ADDL. CIT. Rg. - 4(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7353/MUM/2007 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 735319914 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AAACS7337P
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7353/MUM/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant M/s. SAPAT PACKAGING INDUSTRY LTD., MUMBAI
Respondent ADDL. CIT. Rg. - 4(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 18-03-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 10-12-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR SR. VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI R.K.PANDA AM I.T.A. NO. 7353/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) M/S. SAPAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. 102/103 T.V. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BEHIND GLAXO LAB 248/A S.K. AHIRE MARG WORLI MUMBAI-400 030 AAACS7337P VS. ADDL. CIT RANGE 4(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHOR B. KARIA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MADHUK ORDER DATE OF HEARING: 18.03.2010 DATE OF ORDER: 30.04.2010 PER R.K.PANDA AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER 2007 OF THE CIT(A)-XIV MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.2 45 524 U/S. 36(1)(III) AND FURTHER ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS.11 94 47 6. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAS TAKEN BUSINESS PREMISES FROM J.R. VENTURES INDIA PVT. LTD. A SISTER CONCE RN ON RENT BASIS FOR BUSINESS OPERATIONS IN WHICH A SUM OF RS.29 LAKHS WAS GIVEN BY WAY OF A DVANCES ON VARIOUS DATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALS O TAKEN THE PREMISES ON RENT FROM SEVERAL OTHER CONCERNS BUT NO DEPOSIT OR ADVANCE WA S GIVEN TO ANY OF THEM. SINCE THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE AND RENT WAS MADE TO THE SISTER CONCERN COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SO CALLED DEPOSIT OF RS. 29 LAKHS HAS TO BE TREATED AS INTEREST FREE LOAN GIVEN TO J.R. VENTURES IN THE GUISE OF DEPOSIT AGAINST PR OPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED SUBSTANTIAL AM OUNT AND HAS PAID INTEREST ITA NO. 7353/MUM/2007 M/S. SAPAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. =========================== 2 AMOUNTING TO RS.60 71 545 DURING THE YEAR. SINCE PART OF BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILISED TOWARDS INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT TO SISTER CONCERN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE INTEREST @ 16% ON THE SAID DEPOSIT OF RS.29 LAKHS I N VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III). WHILE DOING SO HE RELIED ON A COUPLE O F DECISIONS. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPANY S FOCUS WAS TO GROW THE BUSINESS FASTER AND IT WAS VERY RISKY FOR THE ASSES SEE COMPANY TO INCUR HUGE EXPENSES ON PROPERTY HUMAN TALENTS BUILDING UP INFRASTRUCT URE FACILITIES CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ETC. WITHOUT ANY ASSURANCE OF BUSINESS; THEREFORE THE A SSESSEE COMPANY HAD APPROACHED ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. J.R. VENTURES FOR OFFICE PREMIS ES ON RENTAL BASIS SO THAT WITHOUT ANY LOSS OF TIME THE SHIFTING OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS C OULD BE UNDERTAKEN SMOOTHLY; THE AFORESAID GROUP COMPANY WAS READY TO CUSTOMISE THE INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES LIKE FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AS PER THE ASSESSEES REQUIR EMENTS; SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT WANT TO LOSE ANY TIME THE ARRANGEMENT OFFE RED BY J.R. VENTURES SUITED THE ASSESSEES REQUIREMENT AND THUS THE COMPANY AGREED TO PAY A RENT OF RS.2 40 000 PER MONTH. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RE NT PAID TO J.R. VENTURES WAS REASONABLE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY RENTED OUT BY J.R. VENTURES TO THE ASSESSE E WAS PURCHASED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.81 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR 1998 AND THEREFORE THE RENT PAID @ RS.2 40 000 PER MONTH FOR AN AREA OF 1600 SQ.FT. LOOKS EXORBITANT A ND HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. HE ACCORDINGLY ISSUED ENHANCEMENT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE RATES PREVALENT IN THE SAME PREMISES IN THE YEAR 1996 WAS RS.80 000 FOR 875 SQ.FT. FOR U NFURNISHED ACCOMMODATION WHICH COMES TO RS.92 PER SQ. FT. PER MONTH. CONSIDERING THE AVERAGE INFLATION RATE @ 6% FOR PRICE INCREASE THE RATE WOULD INCREASE TO RS.116 PE R SQ. FT. IN THE YEAR 2000. BY ADDING FURTHER 15% TOWARDS THE COMPONENT OF FURNISHED ACCO MMODATION THE RATE WOULD WORK OUT TO RS.134 PER SQ. FT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MA RGINAL INCREASE OF RS.16 PER SQ.FT. WAS GIVEN TO ENSURE FOCUS IN BUSINESS AND SMOOTH TRANSI TION TO MUMBAI. 7. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED BY TH E EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40A(2)(A) THERE WAS OBLIGATION TO PROVE THAT THE RENT PAID TO SISTER CO NCERN WAS REASONABLE AND NOT EXCESSIVE LOOKING THROUGH THE MARKET RATES PREVALENT WITH REG ARD TO RENT. HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE AGREEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS APPROPRIATE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AR COULD NOT ITA NO. 7353/MUM/2007 M/S. SAPAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. =========================== 3 EXPLAIN AS TO WHETHER THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS APPLIC ABLE FOR THE PERIOD OF 2001-02. ACCORDING TO HIM AGREEMENTS FOR RENT ARE FINALISED FOR A PERIOD OF 2 TO 3 YEARS AND RENTALS DO NOT CHANGE EVERY YEAR AND THEY ARE SUBJE CT TO DECLINE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH ANY INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE RENTALS BEING PAID BY THE OTHER TENANTS IN THE SAME BUILDING WHICH COULD BE T HE BEST BASIS FOR COMPARISON. HE NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED F OR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.81 LAKHS AND WAS EXPECTED TO FETCH NOT MORE THAN 10% OF THE COST I.E. RS.8 LAKHS AT THE MAXIMUM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PROVIDED WITH THE FACIL ITIES OF SOME FURNITURES AND FIXTURES ALONG WITH THE PREMISES THE EXPECTED RENT FROM MARK ET POINT OF VIEW CAN BE TAKEN AT THE MOST AT 15% OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. HE ACCOR DINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE PAYMENT BY WAY OF R ENT TO A SISTER CONCERN COVERED U/S. 40A(2)(A) WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE ITS INCOME SIN CE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED FOR RS.81 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ADVANCED A DEPOSIT OF RS. 15 LAKHS TO THE ASSOCIATE CONCERN THE NET INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY STOOD AT RS.66 LAKHS ONLY. SINCE THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON FURNISHING WAS ABOUT RS.15 LAKHS HE CONSIDERED THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.80 LAK HS ON WHICH THE MAXIMUM RETURN OF 15% CAN BE ESTIMATED AS THE REASONABLE RENT OF THE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY THE RENT PER MONTH COMES TO RS.1 20 000 WHICH IS VERY REASONABLE . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RENTAL OF RS.2 40 000 PER MONTH HE HELD THAT THE E XCESS RENT OF RS.1 20 000 PER MONTH DESERVES TO BE DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.14 40 000. WHILE HOLDING SO HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.14 40 000 INCLUDES THE INTEREST DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 2 45 524. THUS THE INCOME ENHANCED BY THE CIT(A) AMOUNTED TO RS.11 94 476. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALL ENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF BOTLIWAL & KARNANI REPORTED IN 2 SOT 379 AND THE DECISION REPORTED IN 15 ITD 215 HE SUBMITTED THAT UNLESS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE PROPERTY IS FOUND OUT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHERE HE HAS CALCULATED THE RENT OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF ITS COST OF ACQUISITION HE SUBMITTED THAT COST OF SISTER CONCERN IS NOT RELEVANT FOR ALLOWING THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO A NUMBER OF DECISIONS HE SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(2) CAN BE MADE WITHOUT ANY COMPARABLE CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR TH E CIT(A) HAS DONE THIS EXERCISE TO PROVE THAT THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHER THAN THE MARKET RENT OF THE LOCALITY. THEREFORE UNLESS IT IS EXCESSIVE NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE. FURTHER IT HAS TO BE SEEN ITA NO. 7353/MUM/2007 M/S. SAPAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. =========================== 4 FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A BUSINESSMAN AND NOT FRO M THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 6 TH JULY 1998 HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) WE RE INTRODUCED. REFERRING TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE AS WELL AS THE SISTER CONCERN ARE TAXABLE AT HIGHER RATES AND NO TAX BENEFIT ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING HIGHER RENT SINCE THE SISTER CONCERN HAS TO PAY MORE TAX AND UL TIMATELY THERE IS NO GAIN. FURTHER NO STANDARD DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED TO THE SISTER CONCERN SINCE THE INCOME HAS BEEN TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. REFERRING TO PAGE 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS RS.3.22 CRORES. REFERRIN G TO PAGE 76 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TURN OVER IS MORE THAN RS. 55 CR ORES AND THE NET PROFIT IS RS.3.12 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.1.65 CRORES IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE DEPOSIT IS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSUMI NG THAT INTEREST FREE ADVANCES OF RS.29 LAKHS HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN T HE SAME IS OUT OF THE OWN FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS MORE THAN RS.4.9 CRORES. REFERRI NG TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE U TILITY & POWER LTD. REPORTED IN 18 DTR (BOM) 1 HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PO SSESSES SUFFICIENT INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF ITS OWN WHICH WERE GENERATED IN THE COURSE OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR APART FROM THE SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDERS FUND PRESUMPTIO N STANDS ESTABLISHED THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN THE SISTER CONCERN WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND THEREFORE NO PART OF INTEREST ON BORROWINGS CA N BE DISALLOWED ON THE BASIS THAT THE INTEREST FREE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND ENHANCED BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 9. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECI SIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE PREMISES FROM THE SISTER CONCERN M/S. J.R. VENTURES INDIA PVT. LTD. ON RENT AND PAID REN T OF RS.2.40 LAKHS PER MONTH. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS G IVEN DEPOSIT OF RS.29 LAKHS ON VARIOUS DATES TO THE ABOVE NAMED SISTER CONCERN FOR TAKING ITS PROPERTY ON RENT AT VARIOUS PLACES. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 45 524 U/S. 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS GIV EN INTEREST FREE ADVANCES IN THE ITA NO. 7353/MUM/2007 M/S. SAPAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. =========================== 5 NATURE OF DEPOSITS TO THE SISTER CONCERN SINCE NO S UCH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO OTHER PARTIES FROM WHOM PREMISES HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON RENT. WE FIND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE RENT PAID AT RS.2.40 LAKHS IS VERY HIGH CO NSIDERING THE INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY MADE BY THE SISTER CONCERN AND THEREFORE HE HELD THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.20 LAKHS PER MONTH WOULD BE REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE MAXIMUM RETURN OF 15% ON AN INVESTMENT OF ABOUT RS.80 LAKHS BY THE SISTER CONCE RN. THUS HE HAS ENHANCED THE INCOME BY RS.11 94 476. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COMPARABLE CASE AS TO HOW THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS SISTER CONCERN IS EXCESSIVE NO ADDITION U/S. 40A(2 ) CAN BE MADE AND IT IS IMMATERIAL REGARDING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE SISTER CONCERN ON PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. WE FIND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) READ AS UN DER: WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPE CT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN OR IS TO BE MADE TO ANY PERSON REF ERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF THIS SUB-SECTION AND THE [ASSESSING] OFFICE R IS OF OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVIN G REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS SERVICES OR FACILIT IES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSI NESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUI NG TO HIM THEREFROM SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS IS SO CONSIDERED BY H IM TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION . 11. IN OUR OPINION WHEN THE CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE @ RS.2 40 000 PER MONTH IS EXCESSIVE CONSI DERING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE SISTER CONCERN FOR ACQUISITION OF THE PREMISES SOM ETHING SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSE E IS IN FACT EXCESSIVE CONSIDERING THE AREA AND LOCATION OF THE PREMISES. HOWEVER NO SUC H EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE AND THE CIT(A) HAS GONE ON A WRONG FOOTING THAT 15% RETURN ON AN INVESTMENT OF RS.80 LAKHS WOULD BE REASONABLE. IN OUR OPINION COST TO THE S ISTER CONCERN IS NOT RELEVANT FOR DETERMINING THE MONTHLY RENT TO BE PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE TO THE SISTER CONCERN. WE FURTHER FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE SISTER CONCERN HAS BE EN TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE REVENUE AND SINCE BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE SISTER CONCERN ARE TAXED AT MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE THERE IS NO TAX BENEFIT TO THE ASSES SEE BY PAYING HIGHER RENT. 12. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE THAT INTER EST FREE FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED TO THE SISTER CONCERN IN THE SHAPE OF RENT AL ADVANCES OUT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WE FIND FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ABOUT RS.3.2 CRORES AND RS.1.65 CRORES IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR . WE THEREFORE FIND MERIT IN THE ITA NO. 7353/MUM/2007 M/S. SAPAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. =========================== 6 SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE U TILITY AND POWER LTD. (SUPRA) INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO THE SISTER CONCERN HAS TO BE PRESUMED TO BE OUT OF THE CURRENT YEARS PROFITS. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE RENT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE @ RS.2.40 LAKHS IS EXCESS IVE ON THE BASIS OF AREA AND LOCATION OF THE PREMISES AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT PROFIT IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH FAR EXCEEDS THE ADVANCE OF RS.29 00 000 GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERN THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT NO ADDITION U/S.40A(2) OR 36(1)(III) COULD HAVE BEEN MADE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLO WED. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH APRIL 2010 SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) SR. VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 30 TH APRIL 2010 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-XIV MUMBAI 4. THE CIT-4 MUMBAI 5. THE DR J BENCH. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI TPRAO