G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, v. ITO 9(1)4,

1 MA 718/M/2010 M/S G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP A.M. AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RA O JM MISC. APPLICATION NO. 718/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1579/MUM/08 & C.O. NO. 121/M UM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 M/S G. TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. B-5 DWARKAMAT BLDG. NO. 2 PANNALAL GHOSH MARG SOMWAR BAZAR MALAD (E) MUMBAI -64 PAN AAACG 9382 J VS. ITO 9(1)(4) ROOM NO. 224 2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN MUMBAI 20. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY SHRI ASHWIN S. CHHA G RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.S. SRIVASTAV ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP A.M. BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 PASSED WHILE DISPOSING OF THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING C.O. NO. 12 1/MUM/09 ALONG WITH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEING ITA NO. 1579/MUM/08. 2. AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICA TION AND FURTHER REITERATED BY ITS LEARNED COUNSEL AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US T HERE ARE FOLLOWING MISTAKES WHICH HAVE BEEN CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 (SUPRA). 1. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO VALIDITY O F REASSESSMENT AS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTE THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA 187 TAXMAN 312 WHEREIN IT HAS B EEN HELD THAT THE 2 MA 718/M/2010 M/S G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS AN INBUILT TEST T O CHECK ABUSE OF POWER BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN AFTER 1.4.1989 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE POWER TO REOPEN PROVIDED THERE IS TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE NON-CONSIDERAT ION OF THE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS GIVEN RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS L IABLE TO BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA (2008) 305 ITR 227. 2. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALIDI TY OF REASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVER I STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. 291 ITR 500 (SC). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHAT H AS BEEN HELD IN THE SAID DECISION IS MERELY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ONLY IF THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 A RE FULFILLED AND THE SAID PROPOSITION IS NOT BEING RELEVANT TO DECIDE TH E ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE RELIANCE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON TH E DECISION IS CLEARLY MISPLACED. 3. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGEDLY MADE SALES O UTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH SALES HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE REASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ALLEGED SALES OUTSI DE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS O RDER DTD. 30 TH SEPT. 2010 (SUPRA). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT OTHER ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASSESSMENT WHICH WERE NOT THE SUBJ ECT MATTER OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER HAVE BEEN EITHER CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RES TORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION VIDE ORDE R DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ADD ITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ONLY ISSUE ON WHICH ASSESSMENT HAD BEE N REOPENED WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL THE OTHER ADDITIONS MADE O N THE ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED AS NECESSARY COR OLLARY IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 3 BELOW SECTION 147. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE VALIDIT Y OF REASSESSMENT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT 3 MA 718/M/2010 M/S G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. PROCEEDINGS ITSELF WAS BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME WAS B ASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS STAND RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE A SSESSEE INTER ALIA ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KEL VINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (FULL BENCH) 256 ITR 1 (DELHI) [FB]. THE SAID DECISION HOWEVER WAS FOUND TO HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ISSUE RELATING TO VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY RE LYING ON THE DECISION OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS 291 ITR 500 (SC) AS IS EVIDENT FROM PARAGRAPH NO. 7 OF ITS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A QUESTION RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER EVEN FOR A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE ITO ACTIO N U/S 147 CAN BE BROUGHT INTO OPERATION AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE SAID CASE WAS ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) AND THE SAME WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF SAME MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE SAME SET OF FACTS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NEW INFORMATION COMING TO THE POSSESSION OF THE A.O. THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME WA S BASED MERELY ON THE CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE ITO. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(1) AND THERE BEING NO ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPR A) HOLDING THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AS BAD IN LAW BEING BA SED ON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION HAS NO APPLICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVER I STOCK BROKERS 291 ITR 500 (SC) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT INTIMATION U/S 143(1)(A) CANNOT BE TREATE D TO BE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND THERE BEING NO ASSESSMENT U/S 143(1) (A) THE QUESTION OF RE- OPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPI NION DOES NOT ARISE. IT WAS HELD THAT IN SUCH CASE IF THE A.O. FOR WHATEV ER REASON HAS REASON TO BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IT CONFE RS JURISDICTION TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT WHERE THE CASE IS NOT COVERED BY PRO VISO TO SECTION 147. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS U/S 143(3) WILL NOT RENDER THE A.O. POWERLESS TO INITIATE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVE N WHEN INTIMATION U/S 143(1) HAD BEEN ISSUED. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE R ETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ORIGINALLY PROCESSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(1)(A) AND THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 1 48 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH BELIEF WAS ENTERTAINE D BY THE A.O. ABOUT THE ESCAPEMENT OF ASSESSEES INCOME. HAVING REGARD TO ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE INITIATION OF RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE A.O. WAS IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AND THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY MUCH LESS LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE S AID INITIATION AS ALLEGED BY 4 MA 718/M/2010 M/S G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C.O. AND DISMISS THE SAME. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE T RIBUNAL IN THIS CONTEXT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING TH E VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. SINCE THE ASSESSME NT IN THE SAID CASE WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND TO BE MADE U/S 143(3) ON APPLICATION OF MIND WHICH WAS TREATED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS AS EXPRESSION OF OPINION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT THAT IN SUCH A CASE WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) AND THE SAME WAS REOPENED SUBSEQUENTLY ON THE BASIS OF SAME MATERIAL AVAILABL E ON RECORD AND IN THE SAME SET OF FACTS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NEW INFORMATION COMIN G TO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUCH REOPENING WOULD BE BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME IS BASED MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN U PHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND WHILE DOING SO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS H ELD THAT THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS RELEVANT EVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 W.E.F. 1.4.1989. IT IS NOWHERE HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT THAT THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION IS APPLICABLE EVEN IN THE CASE WHERE TH E RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ORIGINALLY PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 1 43(1). ON THE OTHER HAND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S 143(1)(A) CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND THERE BEING NO ASSESSMEN T U/S 143(1)(A) THE QUESTION OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION DOES NOT RISE. IT WAS HELD THAT IN SUCH CASE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WH ATEVER REASON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IT CONFERS JURI SDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS U/S 143(3) WILL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER POWERLESS TO INITIATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN WHEN INTIMATION U/S 143(1) HAD 5 MA 718/M/2010 M/S G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. BEEN ISSUED. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ORIGINALLY PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(1)(A) AN D THERE BEING NO ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENG ING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT ITS INITIATION WAS BASED ON CHANGE OF O PINION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (SUPRA). IT IS THEREFORE CANNOT BE S AID THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT AS RENDERED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) AS ALLEGED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS (SUPRA) WAS FOUND TO BE SQUARELY APPL ICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL ON APPRECIATION OF RELEVANT FACTS AND BY PLACING RELIANCE THEREON THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. AS REGARDS THE OTHER MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE POINT ED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON EXPLANATION 3 BELOW SECTION 147 IT IS OBSERVED THA T THE EFFECTS OF THE SAID EXPLANATION INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT OF 2009 WITH RE TROSPECTIVE EFFECT W.E.F. 1.4.89 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 12.4.2010 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS INDIA LTD. (ITA NO. 1714 OF 2009). THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THIS CONTEXT TOOK NOTE OF THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING PROVISIONS OF FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL OF 2009 WHEREIN THE AMENDME NT MADE IN SECTION 147 BY INSERTING EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 WAS TREATED TO BE CLAR IFICATORY. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SAID MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE LE GISLATIVE INTENTION BEHIND INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 AND AFTER DISCUSSIN G THE RELEVANT ASPECTS IN DETAIL THE EFFECTS OF THE SAID EXPLANATION HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZE D BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PARAGRAPH NO. 9 OF ITS JUDGMENT AS UNDER:- THE EFFECT OF SECTION 147 AS IT NOW STANDS AFTER TH E AMENDMENT OF 2009 CAN THEREFORE BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS: (I) THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY 6 MA 718/M/2010 M/S G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR; (II) UPON THE FORMATION OF THAT BE LIEF AND BEFORE HE PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1 ) OF SECTION 148; (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOM E WHICH HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTIC E SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION; AND (IV) THOUGH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2) DOES NOT INCLUDE A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT HE MAY NONETHELESS ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION. 6. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PARA 11 THAT IF THE INCOME THE ESCAPEMENT OF WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF TH E FORMATION OF THE REASON TO BELIEVE IS NOT ASSESSED OR REASSESSED IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS ONLY THAT INCOME WHICH COMES T O HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION AS HAVI NG ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT WAS HELD THAT IF UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTS THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DOES NOT ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE NOTICE IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO HIM TO ASSESS INCOME UNDER SOME OTHER ISSUE INDEPENDENTLY. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE INCOME WHI CH WAS THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REASSESSMENT AND IT WAS THEREFORE OPEN TO HIM TO AS SESS INCOME WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS AS HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE POSITION AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT THUS IS REL EVANT IN THIS CONTEXT AND NOT AT THE STAGE OF APPELLATE LEVEL AS SOUGHT TO BE CONTENDED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO SAY THAT THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL T O CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME WHICH CAME T O NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS HAVING ESCAPED ASSES SMENT WHEN THE INCOME THE ESCAPEMENT OF WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF THE REASON TO BELIEVE AS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED BY IT. THERE I S ALSO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF AIPITA MARKETING P. LTD. 21 SOT 302. FIRST OF ALL THE SAID DECISION WAS NOT CITED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF ITS CROSS OBJECTION. MOREOVER THE MATTER WAS 7 MA 718/M/2010 M/S G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 7. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 8 . IN THE RESULT THE MISC. APPLICATION FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN ON 18 TH FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 18 TH FEBRUARY 2011. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) IX MUMBAI 4. THE CIT- IX MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH G 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI 8 MA 718/M/2010 M/S G-TECH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 2.2.11 4.2.11 SR. PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 3.2.11 4.2.11 SR. PS 3 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS SR. PS 5 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. PS 6 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS 7 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER