DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI v. SAHNEY KIRKWOOD P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7434/MUM/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 743419914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN RAACS5304A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7434/MUM/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI
Respondent SAHNEY KIRKWOOD P. LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 11-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 01-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 01-10-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 04-11-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA JUDI CIAL MEMBER / ITA NO. 7124 /MUM./ 2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 09 ) SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD. 27 KIROL VIDYA VIHAR (W) MUMBAI 400 086 .. / APP ELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 10 ( 2 ) MUMBAI 400 020 .... / RESPONDENT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AACS5304A / ITA NO. 7434 /MUM./ 2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 09 ) ASSTT . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RA NGE 10 (2) MUMBAI 400 020 .. / APP ELLANT V/S SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD. 27 KIROL VIDYA VIHAR (W) MUMBAI 400 086 .... / RESPONDENT PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAC S5304A / ASSESSEE BY : MR. RONAK G. DOSHI / REVENUE BY : MRS. JYOTHILAXMI NAYAK / DATE OF HEARING 01 . 1 0.2013 / DATE OF ORDE R 11 - 10 - 2013 SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD . 2 / ORDER / PER AMIT SHUKLA J.M. THE PRESENT CROSS APPEAL S HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE RIVAL PARTIES CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8 TH AUGUST 2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) XXII MUMBAI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 09 . WE FIRST TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.7124/MUM./2011 VIDE WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN DISALLOWING BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES AND AD HOC BASIS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 02 510 ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES HAS BEEN INCURRED ON THE BASIS OF SELF MADE VOUCHERS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A. O . IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURI NG AND MARKETING OF COMMUTATOR AND ELECTRICAL INSULATION MATERIALS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 20 25 103 IN THE PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE BREAK UP OF SUCH EXPENSES FOR VARIOUS OFFICES ALONG WITH THE DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN MOST OF THE INSTANCES THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY WAY OF CASH PAYMENT FOR WHICH NO SUPPORTING EVIDEN CE HAVE BEEN FILED EXCEPT FOR SELF MADE VOUCHERS. ON THIS PREMISE HE MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE @10% AND DISALLOWED RS. 2 02 510/ - . SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD . 3 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 13 70 109 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION AND HA S FURNISHED THE DETAILS ALONG WITH THE BILLS / SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR THE EXPENDITURE EXCEEDING RS. 10 000. FURTHER DETAILS OF EXPENSES TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF HOTEL EXPENSES CAR EXPENSES PETROL EXPENSES AND ENTERT AINMENT EXPENSES TO THE AUDITORS WERE ALSO FURNISHED. DETAILS OF GIFT AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 66 675 INCURRED ON ITS EMPLOYEES AND CLIENTS ON THE OCCASION OF FESTIVAL AND MARRIAGES WERE ALSO FURNISHED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN IN CURRED DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SAME FINDING. 4. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE PURELY AD HOC DISALLOWANCES WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND ALSO THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. IN THE EARLIER YEARS ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE GIFT ITEMS 10% WAS DISALLOWED THEREFORE IF AT ALL ANY DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR THE SAME SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 10% OF THE GIFT EXPENSES. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE BREAK UP OF DETAILS GIVEN IN THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH THE SAMPLE EVIDENCE OF SUCH EXPENSES. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT NO AD HOC DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE GIVEN GIFTS TO ITS EMPLOYEES AND CLIENTS ON FESTIVAL S AND MARRIAGES AND OTHER CULTURAL PROGRAMMES. ALL THESE GIFTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE MEANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS SPECIFICALLY WHICH H AVE BEEN GIVEN ON MARRIAGE S AND OTHER CULTURAL PROGRAMMES. SOME OF THE HOTEL EXPENDITURE THE DETAILS OF WHICH HA S BEEN GIVEN IN THE PAPER BOOK ARE ALSO SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD . 4 NOT CLEAR AS TO FOR WHOM SUCH EXPENSES WERE INCURRED. ONCE THERE ARE PLETHORA OF EXPENSES ON VARIOUS ACCOUNTS AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BIFURCATE AS TO WHICH IS FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND WHICH IS FOR THE PERSONAL OR NON - BUSINESS PURPOSE THEN UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SOME AD HOC BASIS HAS TO BE ADOPTED FOR DISALLOWING SUCH NATURE OF EXPENSE S. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT 5% OF THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. CONSEQUENTLY INSTEAD OF 10% THE DISALLOWANCE IS HEREBY RESTRICTED TO 5%. THUS THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. IN GROUND NO.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4 13 951 MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND IN COME OF RS. 15 16 360 ON INVESTMENT OF RS. 6 38 31 244. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ALLOTTED ANY EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 14A THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS HUGE SURPLUS FUNDS AND THERE WAS NO INTEREST DISALLOWANCE EVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPINION OR SATISFACTION ON THE CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF NOT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING OF THE EXEMPT I NCOME AND THEREFORE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE A.O. SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD . 5 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION S PERUS ED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACCOUNTS AND THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND ALSO WHETHER ANY EXPENDITURE CAN BE SAID TO BE ALLOCABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME OR NOT . ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACCOUNTS VIS A VIS THE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED ARE NOT SATISFACTORY THEN THE LAW PROVIDES THAT HE HAS TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE. THUS GROUND NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. 11 . IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE NOW TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 7434/MUM./2011 VIDE WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAIS ED: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS. 1 59 34 618 IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY MINICON ON ACCOUNT OF LETTING OUT OF PREMISES WE RE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MINICON WAS A SHAM AND BOGUS TRANSACTIONS . 12. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD . 6 13. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO DISTINGUISHED T HE EARLIER YEARS CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THAT THERE WAS CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF RENT AND ALSO THE OTHER ATTENDANT FACTS. SHE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. AFTER CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ALSO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04 AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF HO N'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CONSIDE RATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE SAID JUDGMENT OF HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT H AS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 07 AND 2007 08 . T HE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL TH ESE YEARS IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS LET OUT THE PROPERTY TO M/S. MINICON INSULATED WIRES PVT. LTD. ON AN ANNUAL RENT OF RS. 22 56 000 WHO IN TURN HAS SUB LET THE PROPERTY TO VARIOUS THIRD PARTIES AND HAS EARNED WAREHOUSING CHARGES OF RS. 1 59 34 61 8 CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE WHETHER LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. MINICON INSULATED WIRES PVT. LTD. IS A SHAM TRANSACTION AND WHETHER TH E AMOUNT RECEIVED BY M/S. MINICON INSULATED WIRES PVT. LTD. CAN BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 04 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1496 OF 2007 AFTER DETAIL ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN PARA 5.3 WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 5.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE APPELLANT AND ALSO DISCUSSED THE CASE WITH THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT. THE A PPELLANT HAS FILED COPY OF ORD ER DATED 29.07.2011 PASSED BY SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD . 7 HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.1496 OF 2007 FOR A.Y. 2003 - .04 WHEREIN FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW WAS RAISED: 'WHETHER THE ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND MINICO N INSULATED WIRES LID (MINICON FOR SHORT) WAS A SHAM TRANSACTION SO TO TAX THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY MINICON BY LETTING OUT THE PREMISES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE?' THE HON. HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THIS QUESTION IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1501 OF 2007 DATED 29.07.2011. COPY OF THIS ORDER DATED 29.07.2011 IN ITA NO.1501 HAS BEEN FILED WHERE HON HIGH COURT HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: 'BY A LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 29.05.1995 THE ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT A PART OF ITS PREMISES TO MINICON INSULATED WIRES LTD ON A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 47 000/ - PER MONTH. THEREAFTER MINICON LET OUT THE SAID PREMISES ON LEAVE AND LICENSE TO VARIOUS THIRD PARTIES FIRST OF SUCH AGREEMENT WAS DATED 19.09.1996. THE A.O. SOUGHT TO TAX T HE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY MINICON FROM VARIOUS PERSONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEAVE AND LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE AND MINICON WAS A SHAM TRANSACTION. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) AND ALSO THE ITAT HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS U/S.260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY MINICON HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF MINICON AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED TO THAT EFFECT HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY. IF THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY MINICON BY LETTING OUT THE PREMISES TAKEN ON LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF MINICON THEN TAXING THE VERY SAME AMOUNT ONCE AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD AMOUNT TO TAXING AN INCOME TWICE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF AKSHAY TEXTILE TRADING & AGENCIES P. LTD. REPORTED IN (2008) 304 ITR 401 (BOM.) HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY AN INTERMEDIARY CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE SAVE AND EXCEPT THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ALSO A DIRECTOR IN MINICON THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MINICON IS A SHAM TRANSACTION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR OPINION THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY MINICON ON A CCOUNT OF LETTING OUT THE PREMISES WERE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MINICON WAS A SHAM AND BOGUS TRANSACTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY THE SECOND QUESTION IS ANSWERE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE ORDER OF HON HIGH COURT I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF HON. HIGH COURT AND QUANTIFY THE INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD . 8 15. THIS DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07 AND 2007 08. THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN THIS YEAR ALSO WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 16. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 17. 17. TO SUM UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. 11 - 10 - 2013 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 - 10 - 2013 SD/ - SD/ - SD/ - D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED : 11 - 10 - 2013 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) / THE ASSESSEE ; (2) / THE REVENUE; (3) / THE CIT(A ) ; (4) / THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; SAHNEY KIRKWOOD PVT. LTD . 9 (5) / THE DR ITAT MUMBAI ; (6) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI