Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Gift Holdings P. Ltd , vs Assessee on 25 November, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES, 'B', MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
MA No.251/Mum/2011
Arising out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003
(Assessment Year : 2001-02)
Gift Holding Private Income Tax Officer,
Limited, Ward 8(1)(4),
1, Mermaid, 2 n d Floor,
Juhu Tara Road, V/s Aayakar Bhavan,
Juhu, M K Road,
Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-400020
PAN: AABCG 5854 E
APPLICANT RESPONDENT
Date of Hearing : 25.11.2011
Date of Prono uncement :
Applicant by : Shri J.D. Mistri
Respondent by : Shri P.C.Maurya
O R D E R
PER VIJAY PAL RAO (JM) This Miscellaneous Application by the assessee is directed against the orde r pronounced on 16.10.2008 of this Tribunal.
2. The assessee has raised three-fold grievances in this Miscellaneous application against the impugned order of this Tribunal. The first ground raised by the 2 Ari si ng MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) applicant is that the impugned orde r was not passed within the period of three month from the date of hearing.
3. We have heard the learned Sr.Counsel Shri J.D.Mistri on behalf of the assessee and the learned DR at length. The ld. Sr.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as per the provisions of Act, the order of the Tribunal should be pronounced within a period of three months from the date of hearing. He has pointed out that the hearing o f the appeal in this matter was concluded on 24.1.2008 and the order finally was pronounced by the Tribunal on 16.10.2008 which is beyond the perio d of three months fro m the date of conclusion of the arguments of the appeal. Thus, the ld. Sr.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant V/s ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom), the impugned order pronounced belatedly is not sustainable and liable to be set aside/recall for fresh hearing. He has also referred the decision o f the Hon'ble Goa Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Pradeep K.P.Sangodker V/s 3 Ari si ng MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) State of Goa and District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Alto Porvorim in W P No.281 of 2006 order dated 24.8.2006 and submitted that the jurisdictional High Court has issued the directions which are applicable to all the quasi-judicial authorities/bodies and the order shall no t be delayed be yond two months fro m the date of conclusio n of arguments. The ld. Sr.Counsel for the assessee also referred the minutes of meeting of Vice -Presidents of this Tribunal held on 26.2.2003 wherein the instructions we re issue d for disposing of the appeals in the ensuing months to which the hearing has been concluded. Thus, the ld. Sr.Counsel has submitted that when there is a abnormal delay in pronouncing the order then it is a sufficient reason for recalling of the impugned order for fresh hearing.
4. On the other hand, the learned DR has opposed contentio ns of the learned Sr.Counsel for the assessee and submitted that the o rde r in the ordinary course has to be pronounced within a period of two months and not late r than three months but in the cases of exceptional circumstances, once the order is 4 Ari si ng MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) pronounced even after the expiry of three months, the same cannot be held as illegal on the ground of delay.
5. We have considere d the rival contentions and case proceedings as well as relevant provisions of law. The time period and procedure for pronouncement has been prescribed under Rule 34 (5) as under :
" Order to be pronounced, signed and dated
34. (1) ......
(2) ......
(3) ......
(4) ...
(5) The pronouncement may be in any o f the following manners:-
(a) The Bench may pronounce the order imme diately upon of the hearing.
(b) In case where the order is no t pronounced imme diately on the conclusion o f the hearing, the Bench shall give a date fo r pronouncement.
(c) In a case where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded and extraordinary circumstance s circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day fo r pronouncement of the o rder and such date shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a furthe r period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board."
Thus, as per Sub-rule (5) of Rule 34 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules,1963 in case where the order is 5 Ari si ng MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) not prono unced immediately on conclusion of the hearing and no date of pronouncement is given then every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within a period of 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded. This Sub-rule further facilitate provides that the pronouncement of the order afte r the period of 60 days ordinarily be within further period of 30 days provides that due notice of the date fixed for pronouncement shall be given on the notice board. Thus, the term ordinarily used in the Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 34 postulate that the time limit of further 30 days is not final but is flexible depending upo n the nature and circumstances. The pronouncement of the order is expected to be within a period o f 60 days and in case of exceptional circumstances, it may be pronounced within a furthe r period of 30 days. The deci sion relied on by the ld. Sr.Counsel for the assessee for the assessee also directs that the order should be pronounced within a pe riod three months from the date on which the case is closed for judgment. It is pertinent to note that in the case in hand, there are certain developments with respect to the long leave and transfer of one of the Member constitution the Bench 6 Ari si ng MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) who have heard the appeal. It is transpired from the record that one of the Members Shri D.K.Shrivastava, AM, seating in the Beach who heard the appeal of the assessee was transferred from Mumbai Benches to Ahmedabad Benches of this Tribunal. T herefore , it appears that due to transfer of o ne of the Membe rs of the Bench who have heard the appe al, there exists some extra ordinary circumstances which lead to the delay in pronouncement of the order. In the absence of any tangible material, glaring facts and circumstances of the case to show that by the reason of delay in pronouncement of the orde r, the Bench has ignored or failed to consider material facts or legal point of argument of the assessee. Merely because, there is a delay due to some exceptional circumstances, would not render the decision of the Tribunal as illegal or void. Therefore, in our view when the assessee has not bro ught on record anything to establish prima facie that any mate rial fact or contention was left without considering by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we do not agree with the contentio ns of the learned counsel for the assessee on this point, the same is rejected.
7 Ari si ng MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02)
6. The next point raised by the assessee in this Misce .Peti tion is that the impugned order has been signed by the Members who have heard the matter but has been pronounced by the differe nt Member on 16.10.2008. T he ld. Counsel fo r the assesse e has submitted that it is no t practi cally possible that the impugned order has been signed by the different Members and pronounced by the different members on the same date.
7. We have carefully gone through the appeal file and found that befo re pronouncement of the order on 16.10.2008 the order was signed by both the Members who have heard the appeal in questio n. Since one of the Members was already transferred was no t available at Mumbai, therefore, another Accountant Member Shri R.S.Syal was nominated to substitute D.K.Shrivastava, AM who was transferred, therefore, the re is no illegality or de fect in the process of prono uncement of the impugned order. Once, the order was ready for pronouncement as signed by both the Members consisting the Bench, then as per Rule 34(6) of the Income Tax Appellate Procedure Rule s, 1963, the order 8 Ari si ng MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) can be pronounced by such Members as may be nomi nated by the President, Sr.Vice-President or Vice- President as the case may be Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 34 reads as under:
Rule 34(6) "34. (1) ....
(2) ....
(3) .....
(4) ....
(5)....
(6) The order of the Bench shall ordinarily be pronounced by the Members who heard the appeal. However, if the said Members or any of them is or are not available for pronouncement for any reason, then the order will be pronounced by such Member or Members as may be nominated by the President, Senior Vice-President, Vice- President, or Senior Member, as the case may be." Thus, in the case in hand, the proper procedure was followed for pronouncement of the order by substituting the Membe r who was not available for pronouncement by the reasons of his transfer from Mumbai to Ahmedabad. Hence, we do not find any substance or merits in the petition of the learned counsel for the assessee.
8. The last point raised by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Petition is against the finding of this 9 Ari si ng MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) Tribunal. The learned Sr.counsel for the assessee has contended that the finding of the Tribunal are erroneous and against the decision as cited by the assessee during the hearing of the appeal. The. ld.Sr.Counsel has submitte d that the assessee placed on record 2 decisions in support of its claim but this Tribunal has given finding in the impugned order which is contrary to the deci sions relied upon by the assessee. He has reiterate d the contention on merits and submitted that in view of the decision relied upon by the assessee, the claim of the assessee should have been allowed to that purpose, the order of the Tribunal should be recalle d.
9. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the Tribunal decided the issue on merits after considering the contentions of bo th parties and therefore, the scope u/s 254(2), of the Act the Tribunal cannot revise its order.
10. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully pe rused the relevant material available on record. This Tribunal has duly considered all the 10A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) contentio ns and decision relied upon by assessee in the impugned order and there after given the finding on merits. In paragraphs 6 to 13, the Tribunal has recorded the contentions as well as the decisions relied upon by both the parties and thereafter in paragraphs 14-15, the Tribunal has given the finding on merits which are base d on exclusive re asoning's. Paragraphs 6 to 16 are reproduced below:
"6. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s. VST Motors, 226 TR 155(Mad.); CIT V/s National Storage Pvt. Ltd. 66 IT R 596 (SC), CIT V/s New India Industrial Limite d 201 ITR 208 (Guj).
7. The assessee also submitted alternate ground that the y have incurred certain expe nses for providing certain services stipulated in the agreement therefore, portion of the receipts should be considered as having been towards services so rendered and the same has to be excluded from being assessed as income from house pro perty.
8. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of Ho n'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indian Warehousing Industries Ltd. 258 ITR 93(Mad), wherein it has been held that letting out of ware house should be assesse d under the he ad income from house property. While coming to this conclusion, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the ease of East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs. CIT 42 ITR 49(SC). The CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the ease of CIT Vs. Shambhu 11A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) Investme nt Pvt. Ltd(Cal.), wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer was right in computing receipt from letting out "table space" as income from house property. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
9. The Id. Counsel for the assessee Shri J. Mistri submitted that the assessee was not o nly providing space but also re ndering certain services as stipulate d in the agreement. He brought to our notice Para-12 of the agreement (which is reproduce d here below) wherein it is state d that the agreement recorded is composite, indivisible and inseparable.
"It is mutually agreed and declared by and between the parties hereto that the allotment of Cabins and space by the owners to the customers for the use of the Custome r as aforesaid is incidental to the availing of the office facilities, amenities and services mentioned he reinabove and agreed to be provided by the owners to the customer and the customer shall not be entitled to avail of only the use of the cabins and space or avail the other facilities separately and the agreement hereby reco rded is compo site, indivisible and inseparable."
10. The assessee's counsel submitted that the premises which have been let out is for commercial premises, income arising there from is assessable unde r the head "Profits and Gains from Business and Profession". The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decisions in the case of CT Vs. VST Moto rs Pvt. Ltd. (226 ITR 155(Mad), CIT Vs. National Storage Pvt. Ltd. 66 ITR 596 (SC) and CIT Vs. New India Industrial Ltd. 201 ITR 208(Gujj.
12A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02)
11. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore submitted in his arguments in support of his contentio n, that 'the income should be treated as business income for following reasons;
a) Co ntrol of pre mise payments with lessee i.e. assessee and since security opens and closes the shop during working hours.
b) No advertisement or hoarding or signage by the lessee i.e. Radhakrishna Foodland Pvt. Ltd. has been allowed to be put up at any permanent place .
c) Telephone and Fax facilities have been provided by the assessee and electricity bills are reimburse d.
d) Stenographer has been provided by the assessee.
e) The clause 3(b), (e), (f), (g) and (h) all go to the show that there is amalgam of vario us services rendered by the assessee and it is not just bare property which is give n on rent.
f) All the 12 pre vious asse ssment years, the Assessing Officer has assessed it under the head "income from business" and accepte d the assessee's claim.
12. The ld. Co unsel for the assessee relied on the decision in the case of ITAT Calcutta Bench PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd. Vs. ITO (Kol. 119 lTD 337. The Id. Counsel fo r the asse ssee also submitted that M/s Shambhu Investment has to be distinguished and shall not apply to assessee 's case.
13. The ld. Departmental Representative argued that it is two floor of Co-ope rative 13A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) Hsg. Society which is residential which has been let out to Radhakrishna Foodland Pvt. Ltd. and not a co mmercial asset. The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the decision of Shambhu Investme nts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 263 JTR 143(SC) and the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A.R. Complex Vs. ITO, 212 CTR 328(Mad). The ld. Departmental Representative also argued that each assessment year is separate by itself and therefore the contention of the assessee that the property should be assessed unde r the head "business income" as the same has been considered as business income in the past assessments is not correct.
14. We have carefully considered the relevant facts, the. arguments advanced by the rival parties and the decisions cited. The ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Kolkata ITAT in the case of PF H Mall & Retail Management Ltd. 110 lTD 337 in support of the claim but we find that the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable to the facts of the case before us. The Tribunal in that case has fo und as unde r:
"In our view, before arriving at any conclusion about the particular head under which the inco me derived by the assessee is required to be assessed, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisio ns of the agreements that the assessee had entered into with the users. In all the agreements the assessee is shown as the owne r of the premises in which the shopping malls / business centers are locate d and the other party to the agreement is shown as under. The assessee, as owners of the premises, has the re sponsibility of providing security, communication and other services as specified in the agreements. The agreements with Pantaloo n industries Ltd., PFH entertainment Ltd. and Pantaloon Fashions (India) Ltd., are operative over a period of six years commencing front 1.4.1999 and that with Pantaloon 14A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) Retail (India) Ltd. is made operative for a pe riod of seven years comme ncing front the date of official launch of the mall, or, in any case, on or before 15.3.2000, by which time the owner would Endeavour to provide the user with all the services and facilities as mentioned in the agreeme nt. The agreement pro vide inter alia that the owne r, i.e. the assessee, would keep open the business cente rs from 9 am to 10 pm [(10 am to 10pm as per the agreement with Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd.)] every day. During this period the assessee would provide the services as mentioned in the agreements and would permit the employees of the user free access to the said services. It has been clarified in the agreements that similar services are provided to the othe r clients also. The owner would determine the precise hours during which the stock- in-trade or wares may be brought into the business cente rs to obviate any inconvenience to the use of the said business centre and to facilitate free movement of the visitors within the said building. As per the agreements the user are not permitted to allow any person to sleep or stay in any part of the building no t to use the same for residential purposes. The agreements specifically stipulate that the user is only granted pe rmissive use of the services and facilities provided in the premises by the assessee.
15. But we find that in the instant case, the assessee has in reality granted tenancy to the clients eve n though the same is termed as 'cabin space'. There is no restriction as to the time period during which the clients can utilize the premises as has been in the case before Kolkata Bench. In the case before Kolkata Bench the ownership of the property continued to be with the grantor who made available the space to the clients for business purposes only from 9 am to 10 pm. T he o wner had furthe r controlled the movement of stock- in- trade and other goods by the clients into the premises. The users are not permitted to allow any person to sleep or to stay in any part of the building beyond 15A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) the hours mentioned therein. But in the instant case the customer has been granted use of the premises for 60 mo nths. There is no bar on the tenants to use the premises during the entirety of the 24 hours. Further, the assessee provides various services like facility of stenographer, telex, fax. etc. which, in our opinio n, is only service s provided to the tenants which will not alte r the basic character of the agreement viz, tenancy. In the case of Shambu Investme nts Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had let out premises with all furniture fixtures like air- conditioner, for being used as "table space". In that case also the owner is to provide services like watch and ward staff, electricity, water and other common amenities. On these facts, the Ho n'ble Calcutta High Court has followed that the receipts arising from letting out of property is to be assessed as income from house property and this decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Prasad Investme nts Private Ltd., 263 ITR 143(SC). In the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Limited (274 ITR 117) before the Hon'ble Madras High Court the assessee was formed with the main object for acquiring and holding certain immovable property and letting out of such prope rty. However, the Hon'ble Madras High Court after considering the various decisions held that the assessee is the owner of the building an was only exploiting the property as owner and leasing the same and realize the rent. Hence, the court held that the rent is assessable as "income from House Property".
16. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the facts on which decision of the Kolkata Bench, in the case o f PFH Mall & Retail Management Ltd. was rendered are distinguishable and the ratio of the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Shambhu Prasad Investme nt Pvt. Ltd. , 263 ITR 143 is applicable to the case of the assessee, therefore, the income received by the assessee from letting out of property to M/s Radhakrishna 16A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) Foodland Pvt. Ltd. has been correctly assessed as income fro m house prope rty."
Thus, the relevant para of the impugned order has expressly made it clear that this Tribunal has duly considered all the contentions and the decision relied upon by the ld. Sr.Co unsel for the assessee. The refore, once the findings given on merits, after considering the relevant records as well as facts then even if the said findings of this Tribunal is no t sustainable would not bring the case under the scope of section 254(2) of the Income T ax Act, 1961. The Tribunal cannot re- appreciate and e valuate the facts and circumstances of the case in the proceedings u/s 254(2) of the Act. The scope of sec 254(2) is very limited and circumscribed. For exercising the jurisdictional u/s 254(2), it is the mandatory condition that such mistake should be wide apparent, manifest and patent and no t so mething which could be involved serious circumstances of disputes of question of facts or law and can be established by long drawn process and re asoning on the point to be rectified. A patent mistake as well as evident erro r, which does not require an elabo rate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the records and can be 17A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) rectified under the ambit o f section 254(2). It is well settled that sec 254(2) does not confe r powe r on the Tribunal to review is earlier order. Thus, the Tribunal has no powe r to review its order passed on merit and in the grab of rectification of mistake no o rder can be passed u/s 254(2) which amounts to reversal of the order passed after discussing all the facts and statutory provisions in detail. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee.
11. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the assessee has filed appeal against the order dated 16.10.2010 passed by this Tribunal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by this Tribunal and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High and waiting for outcome of the appeal. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the identical situation while deciding an application GA No.2492 of 2010 in appeal ITA No.24 of 2010 in the case of Pankaj Rathi V/s The CIT vide order dated 18.8.2010 has observed as under :
18A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) "The Court :- In this case, Mrs. Dasgupta (nee Banerjee) appearing for the appellant has fairly submitted that his client has taken a decision to withdraw the miscellaneous application pe nding before the Learned Tribunal. Needless to mention, parallel proceeding for achieving the same purpose cannot be allowed to be done in a self-same matte r, which has exactly been done in this case. This being the position, we feel for the e nds of justice hearing of the matter should be postponed. In view of the submission as afo resaid, no order need be passed on this application. Ho wever, liberty is give n to Ms. Dasgupta's (nee Banerjee) client to do what have been stated before us. Once the order of withdrawal is placed before this Court the matter pending before this Court will be taken up for Consideration.
The application is thus disposed of."
12. We may gainfully takes the support of the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in Tata Communication Ltd. V/s JCIT (2009) 121 ITD 384 (Mum)(SB) in which it has been obse rve d and held (page 406,para 19 and 20):
"19. It may further be pointed out that legal question relating to entitlement of the assessee to deduction under section 80IA of the Income-tax Act has alre ady been admitted by the Bombay Hon'ble High Court, as per order dated 24-11-2008 in Income tax Appeal No. 73/2008. The substantial question frame d by Their Lordships is as under:-
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to a deduction unde r section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter refe rred to as the Act) in respect of the two Earth Stations set up at Halisahar(Calcutta) 19A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) and Korattur (Madras) during the relevant assessment year.
20. We are of the opinion that when question is pending the before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it is not right for the assessee to agitate same or part of the question before the Tribunal. The assessee has now to show the Hon'ble High Co urt that the conditions of section 80-IA are satisfied on the fact and in the circumstance s of the case and that he is entitled to relief under the abo ve section. As far as Tribunal is concerned, question has already been decided and the Tribunal is now functus officio, so far as deducti on of eligibility of section 80IA is concerned. It is for Their Lordships of Hon'ble Bombay High Court to adjudicate o n the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the preceding discussions, we are of the considered view that the rectification petition filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Act must fail. No interfe rence is thus called for."
Therefore when the impugne d orde r is subjudiced in the Hon'ble High Court as appeal of assessee in ITA(L) No.2218/10 admitted vide order dated 14.12.2010 then this miscellaneous application for fresh hearing of the appeal is not maintainable and hence re jected.
13. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed.
20A r i s i n g MA N o.251/Mum /2011 out of ITA No. 6330/Mum/2003 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) Orde r pronounced in open court on 4 t h Jan 2012.
Sd sd
(R.S.SYAL) (VIJAY PAL RAO)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date d 4 t h Jan, 2012
SRL:
copy to :
1. Applicant
2. Respo ndent
3. CIT(A) conce rned
4. CIT Concerned
5. DR concerned bench
BY ORDER
True copy
ASSTT. REGISTRAR,
ITAT,MUMBAI