DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD, v. DCIT CEN CIR 22,

MA 167/MUM/2013 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16719924 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAACD1461F
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number MA 167/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD,
Respondent DCIT CEN CIR 22,
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 23-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 23-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 20-09-2013
Next Hearing Date 20-09-2013
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 09-05-2013
Judgment Text
` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J MUMBAI . . ! ' #'' '$ % ! & BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER MA 162/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5840/MUM/2003 AY 1997-98 MA 163/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5813/MUM/2004 AY 1998-99 MA 164/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 51/MUM/2005 AY 1999-2000 MA 165/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 52/MUM/2005 AY 2000-01 MA 166/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 53/MUM/2005 AY 2001-02 MA 167/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 4014/MUM/2005 AY 2002-03 MA 168/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 151/MUM/2007 AY 2003-04 MA 169/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7348/MUM/2007 AY 2004-05 DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. TRADE POINT FIRST FLOOR KAMALA MILLS LOWER PAREL / 301 VEER SARVAKAR MARG PRABHADEVI MUMBAI-400 013/25 PAN: AAACD 1461 F VS DY. CIT CEN. CIR. 22 ROOM NO. 403/465 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI -400 020 (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI SATISH MODY RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.P. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 27-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-10-2013 O R D E R PER VIVEK VARMA JM : MA 162/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 1997- 98 : IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSU E OF LAW EXPENSES DISALLOWED AT RS. 28 14 050/- IS NOT PRESSED AS PER PARA 80 OF ITA NO. 5840/MUM/2003. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. MAS 162 TO 169 /M/2003 2 2. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ALLO WED IN ITA NO. 4892/MUM/2003 IN THE SAME/CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN PAR AS 72 TO 76. 3. WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR ARE CORRECT. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS IDENTICAL IN THE INSTANT YEAR AND BY NOT FOLLOWING OUR OWN ORDER AS IN ITA NO. 4892/MUM/2003 WE SHALL BE COM MITTING A JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY LEADING TO A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER IN I TA NO. 5840/MUM/2003. 4. WE THEREFORE RECTIFY THE ORDER TO THIS EXTENT AND MODIFY THE SAME TO BE READ AS: 72. THE ISSUES RAISED THEREIN ARE RELATING TO THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 24 73 000/- AND RS. 1 11 262/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED O N PROFESSIONAL/LEGAL FEES. 73. THE AR REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THE APPELLANT BEFORE AY 1996-97 WAS A CO-OPERATIVE BA NK. SUBSEQUENTLY UNDER PART IX OF THE COMPANIES ACT IT BECAME A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. THE SAID CONVERSION WAS UNDERTAKEN TO EXPAND THE SCOPE O F THE BUSINESS AS THERE WERE SEVERAL RESTRICTION ON COOPERATIVE BANK TO EXPAND BUSINESS HENCE THE CONVERSION TO CORPORATE ENTITY WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR T HE BENEFIT OF BUSINESS. AFTER CONVERSION CERTAIN SHAREHOLDER OF THE ERSTWHILE CO-OPE RATIVE BANK FILED VARIOUS SUITS. IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE TITLE OF THE BANK IN SU CH SUITS THE APPELLANT INCURRED VARIOUS EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF FEES TO PROFESSIONAL ETC. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE CONVERSION WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR THE BENEFIT O F BUSINESS AND HENCE THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF TITLE OF ITS BU SINESS IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS THREA T TO VERY EXISTENCE. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON: CIT VS BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD (219 ITR 521) - S UPREME COURT CIT VS MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD (284 ITR 679 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT CIT VS BIRLA COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD (82 ITR 16 6 - SUPREME COURT CIT VS JAGATJIT DISTILLING AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD (41 ITR 328) -PUNJAB HIGH COURT ALL INDIA REPORTER LTD VS CIT (49 ITR 196) - BOMBAY HIGH COURT 74. THE DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES AND AFTER WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AMOUNTS SO PAID WERE IN FACT FOR THE PURPOSE S OF SOOTH RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS AND WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASES BY THE LITIGANTS. O N GOING THROUGH THE CASES CITED BEFORE US RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THEM WE ALLOW THE EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 75. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE CASE OF THE CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES AS REVENUE. 76. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4892/MUM/2001 IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 5840/MUM/200 3 AY 1997-98 STANDS MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. 6. MA NO. 162/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TH US TREATED AS ALLOWED. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. MAS 162 TO 169 /M/2003 3 MA 163/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 1998-99: ISSUE I : 7. IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE IS SUE INVOLVED OF LAW EXPENSES DISALLOWED AT RS. 1 97 000/- IS NOT PRESSE D AS PER PARA 91 OF ITA NO. 5813/MUM/2004. 8. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ALLO WED IN ITA NO. 4892/MUM/2003 IN THE SAME/CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN PAR AS 72 TO 76. 9. WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR ARE CORRECT. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS IDENTICAL IN THE INSTANT YEAR WIT H THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND BY NOT FOLLOWING OUR ORDER WE SHALL BE COMMITT ING A JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY LEADING TO A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 5813/M UM/2003. 10. WE THEREFORE RECTIFY THE ORDER TO THIS EXTENT AND MODIFY THE SAME TO BE READ AS: 72. THE ISSUES RAISED THEREIN ARE RELATING TO THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 24 73 000/- AND RS. 1 11 262/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED O N PROFESSIONAL/LEGAL FEES. 73. THE AR REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THE APPELLANT BEFORE AY 1996-97 WAS A CO-OPERATIVE BA NK. SUBSEQUENTLY UNDER PART IX OF THE COMPANIES ACT IT BECAME A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. THE SAID CONVERSION WAS UNDERTAKEN TO EXPAND THE SCOPE O F THE BUSINESS AS THERE WERE SEVERAL RESTRICTION ON COOPERATIVE BANK TO EXPAND BUSINESS HENCE THE CONVERSION TO CORPORATE ENTITY WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR T HE BENEFIT OF BUSINESS. AFTER CONVERSION CERTAIN SHAREHOLDER OF THE ERSTWHILE CO-OPE RATIVE BANK FILED VARIOUS SUITS. IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE TITLE OF THE BANK IN SU CH SUITS THE APPELLANT INCURRED VARIOUS EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF FEES TO PROFESSIONAL ETC. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE CONVERSION WAS UNDERTAKEN FOR THE BENEFIT O F BUSINESS AND HENCE THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF TITLE OF ITS BU SINESS IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS THREA T TO VERY EXISTENCE. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON: CIT VS BOMBAY DYEING & MFG. CO. LTD (219 ITR 521) - S UPREME COURT CIT VS MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD (284 ITR 679 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT CIT VS BIRLA COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD (82 ITR 16 6 - SUPREME COURT CIT VS JAGATJIT DISTILLING AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD (41 ITR 328) -PUNJAB HIGH COURT ALL INDIA REPORTER LTD VS CIT (49 ITR 196) - BOMBAY HIGH COURT 74. THE DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES AND AFTER WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AMOUNTS SO PAID WERE IN FACT FOR THE PURPOSE S OF SOOTH RUNNING OF THE BUSINESS AND WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASES BY THE LITIGANTS. O N GOING THROUGH THE CASES CITED BEFORE US RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THEM WE A LLOW THE EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 75. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE CASE OF THE CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES AS REVENUE. 76. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4892/MUM/2001 IS ALLOWED. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. MAS 162 TO 169 /M/2003 4 11. IN THE RESULT THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 5813/MUM/20 04 AY 1998-99 STANDS MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. ISSUE II : 12. IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED AND HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 5813/MUM/2004. 13. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ARGUED A ND THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK REPORTED IN 126 ITD 448 WAS REFERR ED TO AND RELIED UPON. 14. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND ARGUED BY THE AR. 15. WE THEREFORE MODIFY THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 5813 /MUM/2004. AS PER MODIFICATION THE ORDER SHALL READ WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK AND APPL Y THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IF THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE F OUND TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF CHOHUNG BANK. 16. THE GROUND AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. ORDER IN ITA NO. 5813/MUM/2004 IS THUS MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. 18. MA 163/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREAT ED AS ALLOWED. MA 164/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 1999-2000: 19. IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED AND HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 51/MUM/2005. 20. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ARGUED I N THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK REPORTED IN 126 ITD 448 WAS REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. MAS 162 TO 169 /M/2003 5 21. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND ARGUED BY THE AR. 22. WE THEREFORE MODIFY THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 51/M UM/2005. AS PER MODIFICATION THE ORDER SHALL READ WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK AND APPL Y THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IF THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE F OUND TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF CHOHUNG BANK. 23. THE GROUND AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 24. ORDER IN ITA NO. 51/MUM/2005 IS THUS MODIFIED T O THAT EXTENT. 25. MA 164/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREAT ED AS ALLOWED. MA 165/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2000-2001 : 26. IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED AND HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 52/MUM/2005. 27. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ARGUED I N THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK REPORTED IN 126 ITD 448 WAS REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON. 28. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND ARGUED BY THE AR. 29. WE THEREFORE MODIFY THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 52/M UM/2005. AS PER MODIFICATION THE ORDER SHALL READ WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK AND APPL Y THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IF THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE F OUND TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF CHOHUNG BANK. 30. THE GROUND AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. MAS 162 TO 169 /M/2003 6 31. ORDER IN ITA NO. 52/MUM/2005 IS THUS MODIFIED T O THAT EXTENT. 32. MA 165/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREAT ED AS ALLOWED. MA 166/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2001-2002 : 33. IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED AND HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 53/MUM/2005. 34. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ARGUED I N THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK REPORTED IN 126 ITD 448 WAS REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON. 35. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND ARGUED BY THE AR. 36. WE THEREFORE MODIFY THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 53/M UM/2005. AS PER MODIFICATION THE ORDER SHALL READ WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK AND APPL Y THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IF THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE F OUND TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF CHOHUNG BANK. 37. THE GROUND AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 38. ORDER IN ITA NO. 53/MUM/2005 IS THUS MODIFIED T O THAT EXTENT. 39. MA 166/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREAT ED AS ALLOWED. MA 167/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2002-2003 : 40. IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED AND HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 4104/MUM/2005. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. MAS 162 TO 169 /M/2003 7 41. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ARGUED I N THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK REPORTED IN 126 ITD 448 WAS REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON. 42. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND ARGUED BY THE AR. 43. WE THEREFORE MODIFY THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 4104 /MUM/2005. AS PER MODIFICATION THE ORDER SHALL READ WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK AND APPL Y THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IF THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE F OUND TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF CHOHUNG BANK. 44. THE GROUND AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 45. ORDER IN ITA NO. 4104/MUM/2005 IS THUS MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. 46. MA 167/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREAT ED AS ALLOWED. MA 168/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2003-2 004 : 47. IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED AND HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 151/MUM/2007. 48. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ARGUED I N THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK REPORTED IN 126 ITD 448 WAS REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON. 49. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND ARGUED BY THE AR. 50. WE THEREFORE MODIFY THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 151/ MUM/2007. AS PER MODIFICATION THE ORDER SHALL READ WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK AND APPL Y THE SAME TO THE FACTS DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. MAS 162 TO 169 /M/2003 8 OF THE CASE IF THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE F OUND TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF CHOHUNG BANK. 51. THE GROUND AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 52. ORDER IN ITA NO. 151/MUM/2007 IS THUS MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. 53. MA 168/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREAT ED AS ALLOWED. MA 169/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2003-2004 : 54. IN THE INSTANT MA IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON GOVERNMENT SECURITIES HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED AND HENCE IT WAS DISMISSED IN ITA NO. 7348/MUM/2007. 55. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ARGUED I N THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK REPORTED IN 126 ITD 448 WAS REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON. 56. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AND ARGUED BY THE AR. 57. WE THEREFORE MODIFY THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 7348 /MUM/2007. AS PER MODIFICATION THE ORDER SHALL READ WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF DD(IT) VS CHOHUNG BANK AND APPL Y THE SAME TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IF THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE F OUND TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF CHOHUNG BANK. 58. THE GROUND AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 59. ORDER IN ITA NO. 7348/MUM/2007 IS THUS MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT. 60. MA NO. 168/MUM/2013 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS T REATED AS ALLOWED. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD. MAS 162 TO 169 /M/2003 9 TO SUM-UP: ASSESSEES MAS 162/MUM/2013 163/MUM/2013 164/MUM/2013 165/MUM/2013 166/MUM/2013 167/MUM/2013 168/MUM/2013 169/MUM/2013 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD OCTOBER 2013 SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( #'' '$ ) ! ! (P.M. JAGTAP) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATE: 23 RD OCTOBER 2013 / COPY TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) C-IV/I _____CONCERNED MUMBAI 4. THE CIT/CC-II/ _______ CONCERNED MUMBAI 5. THE DR J BENCH MUMBAI. 6. COPY TO GUARD FILE / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / [ / ! ' DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI *$% & . . * CHAVAN SR. PS