Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Reliance Communications Ltd, Navi ... vs Assessee on 5 February, 2014
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,
अिधकरण, मुंबई,
ई, "डȣ" Ûयायपीठ मुंबई मɅ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI
ौी संजय अरोड़ा,, लेखा सदःय एवं ौी ǒवजय पाल राव, Ûयाियक सदःय के सम¢ ।
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM
आयकर अपील सं./I . T. A. N o. 671/Mum/2013
( िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2008-09 )
Reliance Communications बनाम/
बनाम The Commissioner of
Ltd. "H" Block, 1 s t Floor, Vs. Income Tax-10(3),
Dhirubhai Ambani Room No.574, 5 t h Floor,
Knowledge City, Aayakar Bhavan,
Navi Mumbai-400710 M.K. Marg,
Mumbai-400020
ःथायी ले खा सं . / PAN : AACCR7832C
(अपीलाथȸ /Assessee) .. (ू×यथȸ / Respondent)
अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से / Assessee by : Shri A.V.Sonde, Shri Yogesh
Thor, & Shri Jitendra Sanghavi
ू×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/ Respondent by : Shri Surender Jit Singh
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 05/02/2014
घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pron ouncement : 1 2/ 02/2014
आदे श / O RDER
PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revision order dated 22/11/2012 of the Commissioner of Income-tax -10, Mumbai passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal as under.
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai ("the Hon'ble CIT") erred in holding that the order of Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax, Range 10(3), Mumbai ("the AO") passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2008-09 in respect of matters specified in Grounds II and III hereof, erroneous and/or prejudicial to the interest of revenue 2 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
and consequently, invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act and directing revision of the Assessment order.
2. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the relevant aspects had been considered in the course of assessment proceedings and without prejudice the of order of the Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue and the finding to the contrary was without any basis in fact and/or in law.
3. The Appellant prays that, it be held that the action of the Hon'ble CIT in invoking provision of section 263 to set aside the order u/s 143(3) and directing the AO to frame the assessment denovo, after examining the issues specified, be held to be ab-initio and/or otherwise void and bad-in-law."
2. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act on 31/12/2010 whereby the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs.9,77,30,916/-. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax on perusal of assessment records, found that the assessee company has claimed to have raised funds to the tune of Rs.6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds (FCCB) during the previous Assessment Year. Out of the said FCCB funds, an amount of Rs.5142 crores are given to M/s Reliance Info Investment Pvt. Ltd. (RIIL), which in turn invested the said money and earned interest of Rs.389 crores in the year under consideration. Hence, granting of interest free loan in view of the Commissioner will be deemed to be transfer of an asset in terms of the provisions of sections 60 to 63 of the Income-tax Act and consequently the interest income is liable to be clubbed in the hands of the assessee company. The Commissioner also found that the assessee has acquired forex/derivative instruments for hedging and the losses are recognized on the settlement day or the reporting day whichever is earlier and the same are recognized in the Profit & Loss Account. The Commissioner was of the view the said mark-to-market losses as on the reporting day i.e. 31/03/2008 are only notional losses and thereby contingent in nature, hence, cannot be allowed to be set off against taxable income. Accordingly, the Commissioner issued a show-cause notice u/s 263 of 3 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
the Income-tax Act to the assessee as to why the assessment should not be cancelled/set-aside being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee has filed its reply to the show-cause notice and raised various contentions including the jurisdiction of the CIT to invoke the provisions of section 263 when the Assessing Officer has already examined the issues and taken a possible view. The Commissioner did not accept the contention of the assessee and set- aside the assessment order dated 31/12/2010 being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the AO to frame the assessment denovo after reexamining the aforesaid issue.
3. Before us, Shri A.V. Sonde, ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that an identical issue has been considered and decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y.2007-08 vide order dated 05/02/2013 in ITA No. 2915/Mum/2012. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the questions involved in the appeal filed by the assessee against the revision order passed u/s 263 for the A.Y. 2007-08 and submitted that the question no. 2 and 3 as reproduced by the Tribunal in the said order at page no. 2 are identical to the questions/issues involved in the revision order for the year under consideration. The ld. Counsel then took us to the relevant findings of the Tribunal on these two issues and submitted that after considering the identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has set-aside the revision order passed by the Commissioner for the A.Y. 2007-08. On the other hand, the ld. DR has heavily relied upon the impugned order of the commissioner and submitted that the assessee has diverted the borrowed fund to its sister concern which has earned only interest income and no other business activity was carried out therefore as per the provisions of sections 60 to 63 of the Income-tax Act, the said 4 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
interest income is liable to clubbed in the hands of the assessee. The ld. DR has forcefully contended that non invoking the provision of sections 60 to 63 of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind. Thus, the ld. DR has submitted that though the identical issue was considered by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2007-08 however in view of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the said interest income has to be clubbed in the hand of the assessee. As regards, the notional loss on forex instrument as on the date of reporting, the ld. DR has submitted that CBDT Instruction No.3/2010 are clear on this point and in view of the CBDT instruction, no benefit of adjustment of income or gain should be given against such losses. Therefore, the Assessing Officer while allowing the claim of the assessee did not apply his mind. The ld. DR has submitted that the assessment order passed without application of mind is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore the Commissioner is justified in setting-aside the assessment order.
4. Having considered the rival submissions and carefully perusal of the relevant record, we note that the issues on which the Commissioner has passed a revision order are common to the issues involved for the A.Y. 2007-08 which have been recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated 05/02/2013 under item no. 2 and 3 as under.
(2). Out of the proceeds of the said FCCB funds, an amount of Rs.5142 crore was given to M/s. Reliance Info Investments Ltd., (RIIL), which was invested by this company on which interest income of Rs.157.95 crores was earned. Such granting of interest free funds would be deemed to be transfer of an asset and in view of the provisions of section 60 to 63 of the Act, the the AO failed to club such interest income with the assessee's total income.
(3) The assessee acquired derivative instruments for hedging and recognized losses on the settlement day or the reporting day, whichever is earlier. The said Mark to market losses (MTM) as on the reporting day were notional losses and 5 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
hence contingent in nature not allowable for set off against the total income. The AO was wrong in allowing such set off.
5. Thus, there is no quarrel on this point that the issue on which the provision of sections 263 are invoked by the Commissioner for the year under consideration are common and identical to the issues for the A.Y.2007-08. As regards, the issue of FCCB funds diverted to the M/s Reliance Info Investment without charging interest and therefore the Commissioner held that the interest free fund would be deemed to be transfer of an asset in view of the provisions of sections 60 to 63 of the Act the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2007-08 has dealt with the issue in para 7 to 7.5 of as under:-
"7. Applicability of sections 60 to 63 7.1. The second point considered by ld. CIT making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue is about the attractability of the provisions of sections 60 to 63 of the Act on interest income earned by RIIL on the bank deposits, which amount was advanced by the assessee company free of interest. The ld. CIT noticed that : "the assessee company transferred its assets by virtue of a revocable transfer which in effect means transfer of income without the transfer of the assets".
He further observed that : "If an interest free loan is given by a person to another person, it is a case of transfer of an asset and the transfer is to be treated as a revocable transfer because the transferor would receive the fund back thus invoking provisions of section 60 to 63". As this aspect was not properly considered in this assessment order, the ld. CIT opined that it led to making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
7.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In this regard, it is observed that the AO enquired about this aspect of the matter during the course of the assessment proceedings. The assessee, vide its letter dated 20.5.2009 addressed to the AO, explained that out of the proceeds of the FCCB, a sum of Rs.1,343 crore was utilized for capital expenditure and the balance amount of Rs.5,142 crore was temporarily held in various nationalized banks by RIIL, a wholly owned subsidiary of the assessee company. The assessee further intimated that RIIL earned interest income of Rs.157.95 crore on the said fixed deposit and accounted for the same in its Profit and loss account. Copy of accounts of RIIL for the year ending 31.3.2007 was also furnished to the AO with further details of fixed deposits given through Annexures 4 & 5 of assessee's letter.
7.3. Now we turn to the applicability of the provisions of sections 60 to 63 to the present factual position. Firstly, it is relevant to note that the ld. CIT has referred to sections 60 to 63 in a composite manner without particularly pointing out as to under which specific provision the case falls. As such, we will also examine the case accordingly. Section 60 contemplates clubbing of income in the hands of the transferor when the asset is retained with self but the income is transferred. This section categorically provides that all income arising to any person by virtue of a transfer 6 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
whether revocable or not, shall be chargeable to income tax as the income of the transferor where there is no transfer of the asset from which the income arises. It is quite manifest also that when the asset is retained by the transferor himself but only income is transferred, such income is liable to be included in the total income of the transferor. Section 61 deals with the clubbing of income from a revocable transfer of asset. This section provides that all income arising to any person by virtue of a revocable transfer of assets shall be chargeable to income tax as the income of the transferor and shall be included in his total income. "Revocable transfer" has been defined in section 63. Clause (a) of section 63 provides that a transfer shall be deemed to be revocable if (i) it contains any provision for the re-transfer directly or indirectly of the whole or any part of the income or assets to the transferor, or (ii) it, in any way, gives the transferor a right to re-assume power directly or indirectly over the whole or any part of the income or assets. When we read section 61 in conjunction with section 63, it becomes manifest that in case of a revocable transfer of asset as defined in section 63(a), the income is chargeable in the hands of the transferor and not the transferee.
7.4. Now the question arises as to the applicability or otherwise of sections 60 to 63 of the Act to the interest income in a case where interest free loan is given by one to another and the later earns interest income thereon. The ld. counsel vehemently argued that the clubbing provisions cannot be attracted in case of interest earned by the borrower on the interest bearing or interest free loan advanced by the lender. Per contra, the ld. DR forcefully relied on the relevant provisions to contend that there is no bar on such clubbing. She referred to the provisions of section 63(a)(i) to contend that what is contemplated is the re-transfer of an asset. Her argument was that in every loan, the pre-requisite of re-transfer is always present. If the provision of re- transfer is obliterated in a money transaction, then it becomes a case of gift. In every case of loan, she submitted, that the provisions of section 63(a)(i) will be attracted to make it a case of revocable transfer and consequently the interest income earned by the borrower shall become eligible for clubbing in the hands of the lender. On a pointed query, the ld. DR failed to draw our attention towards any precedent in support of her contention.
7.5. Though, ex facie, we find some force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the Revenue in this regard, we equally find that the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Nalinbhai M.Shah [(2000) 93 TTJ (Ahd) 107] has held that income earned by family members of the assessee by employing interest free loan advanced to them by the assessee out of his funds cannot be made subject matter of addition u/s 60. In the light of the above, it is clear that the question as to whether income earned by the borrower from the interest free loan advanced by the lender be clubbed in the hands of the lender, is definitely debatable and not conclusive. Suffice to say, we are dealing with proceedings u/s 263. The scope of such proceedings is restricted to revising an order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An order cannot be said to be erroneous when the AO followed one of the legally sustainable view out of the two views available on the point. The CIT can not call an assessment order to be erroneous simply because he is inclined to follow the other legally sustainable view in preference to the one followed by the AO. The Hon'ble Summit Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] has held that : `Where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law.' The same view has been reiterated by several Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal 7 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
Properties & Ind. (P) Ltd. (2009) 315 ITR 225 (Del). In this case it has been noticed that : `That at the time when the Commissioner issued the notice under section 263 and passed the order dated March 23, 2004, the question of surcharge on undisclosed income was a debatable one. When an issue was debatable, the provisions of section 263 could not be invoked.' From the above discussion it is axiomatic that no revision can be done on a debatable issue. An issue becomes debatable if two legally sustainable views exist on a particular point. When the A.O. accepts and adopts one possible view, the power of the CIT is ousted to revise the assessment order on his finding the other legally sustainable view as more logical in preference to the one adopted by the AO. Coming back to the issue in hand, we find that the controversy here lies in narrow compass inasmuch as the existence of one possible view in favour of the assessee also exists. Without going deep into the interpretation of the relevant provisions, we leave this point here by holding that this aspect cannot be taken out from the realm of "debatable issue" and hence there can be no revision of the assessment order on this point".
6. It is clear from the above finding that the Tribunal has considered all the contention of the department regarding applicability of section 60 to 63 of the Act to the interest income and then gave a finding that the issue was debatable and provisions of section 263 could not be invoked when the AO has already conducted an enquiry and taken one of the possible view. There is no quarrel on the point that for the year under consideration, the AO conducted an enquiry on the issue therefore we do not find any reason for distinguishing either the fact or the finding of the Tribunal on the issue for the A.Y. 2007-08
7. As regards to mark to market loss/gain the Tribunal for The A.Y. 2007-08 has considered and decided the issue in para 8 to 8.5 as under:-
"8. Mark to market loss/gain 8.1. The next point considered by ld. CIT for assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 is about Mark to market (MTM) losses claimed by the assessee. The ld. CIT noticed that there was a component of MTM loss on foreign exchange derivatives which was included by the assessee under the head Foreign currency exchange fluctuation loss/gain (net) in Schedule O, that is, Financial charges. The said MTM loss as on the reporting date was held by the ld. CIT to be only notional and contingent in nature not eligible for set off against taxable income. In reaching this conclusion, the ld. CIT took assistance from CBDT Instruction No.3 /2010, which provides that no benefit of adjustment of income or gain should be given against such losses. He noticed that it was not clear, in the absence of details of gains amounting to Rs.21.89 crores, that how much component was of loss set off against the income. As this issue was not examined by 8 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
the AO, the ld. CIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
8.2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. Mark-to-market or fair value accounting refers to accounting for the "fair value" of an asset or liability based on the current market value on the last business day of the year, and any gain or loss is taken into account for that year. We find that the AO examined Financial charges debited to profit and loss account to the tune of Rs.264,91,96,232, the details of which are available at page 82 of PB. It has several sub-components. Presently we are concerned with sub-component H with title:
'Foreign Currency Exchange Fluctuation loss/(gain)/(Net)'. Under this sub-head, there are six transactions - four representing gain on account of foreign currency exchange fluctuation, inter alia, a sum of Rs.21.89 crores towards `Urealised Forex Gain - Derivatives' and two items of losses. There is an overall excess of gain of foreign currency exchange fluctuation over the loss under this sub-component to the extent of Rs.69.42 crores, which has been reduced from the total Financial charges debited to the Profit and loss account. There is no dispute on any other item even under sub-component H, except Unrealized forex gain of derivatives amounting to Rs.21.89 crores. The ld. CIT relied on CBDT Instruction No.3/2010 to bolster his point of view that the loss on account of derivatives cannot be claimed as deduction. We have perused this Instruction. The crux of the Instruction is that the loss on account of forex derivatives cannot be allowed against taxable income.
8.3. In CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 312 ITR 254 (SC)], the assessee debited to its profit and loss account certain unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation in foreign currency transactions towards revenue items as on the last day of the accounting year. The A.O. held that the liability as on the last date of the previous year was not an ascertained but a contingent liability. Resultantly, the same was added back to the total income. The CIT(A) echoed the assessment order.
However, the Tribunal held that the claim of the assessee for deduction of unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation as on the last date of the previous year was deductible. The said order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. On further appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the loss suffered by the assessee on revenue account towards foreign exchange difference as on the date of balance sheet is an item of expenditure deductible u/s 37(1). It further observed than an enterprise has to report outstanding liability relating to import of raw material using closing rate of foreign exchange and any difference, loss or gain, arising on conversion of said liability at closing rate should be recognized in profit and loss account for reporting period. In para 21 of the report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summed up its conclusion by observing that in order to find out if an expenditure is deductible certain factors, inter alia, the following should be taken into consideration:
"whether the assessee has been consistent and definite in making entries in the account book in respect of losses and gains; whether the method adopted by the assessee for making entries in the books of account in respect of losses and gains is as per nationally accepted Accounting Standards." From the judgment of the Hon'ble Summit Court it can be clearly deduced that unrealized loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation in foreign currency transactions on revenue items as on the last date of the accounting year is deductible. A further important factor which needs consideration is that the same treatment needs to be given to losses as well as gains accruing to the assessee on account of fluctuations in foreign currency rate as at the end of the year.
8.4. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the assessee showed net `Unrealised Forex Gain on Derivatives' amounting to Rs.21.89 crore. In other words, it is a case of overall gain on derivatives due to change in the market rate as at the end 9 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
of the year and not that of the loss. Thus it becomes manifest that on this count, the assessee offered for taxation the said sum and did not claim deduction for loss. This fact finds prominence in the impugned order as well. Despite that, the ld. CIT has held that the component of forex loss on derivatives was not eligible for deduction. There is no doubt that the CBDT Instruction provides that no deduction can be allowed on account of forex losses. Such Instruction has been obviously issued after the judgment in the case of Woodward Governor (SC) and restricts itself to the disallowability of loss on account of currency derivatives. Going by this Instruction, it becomes patent that such forex loss is no more deductible. We fail to understand the logic of the view that the forex loss be ignored but the forex gain on derivatives be taxed. Any profit and loss from an item cannot go in the opposite directions. This position can be observed from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Woodward Governor (supra). The Instruction of CBDT simply states the loss on account of forex derivatives cannot be allowed since it is a contingent loss. It cannot be accepted that the deduction claimed by the assessee towards loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation in foreign currency transactions in derivatives should be considered as contingent and hence ignored but the gain due to such foreign exchange fluctuations in foreign currency transactions on derivatives should be assessed to tax. Both the loss / gain assume the same character of either contingent or non-contingent. If the forex loss on account of derivatives is considered as contingent and hence ineligible for deduction, the forex gain will also have to be considered as contingent and hence immune from taxation. If there is a prohibition in not allowing the loss on account of forex derivatives, equally there can be no question of charging to tax the gain on account of forex derivatives. It is axiomatic that both loss or gain can move in tandem and not in diametrically opposite directions.
8.5. Be that as it may, it is observed from the impugned order as well as the details of the financial charges that the amount of Rs.21.89 crores represents gain on account of forex derivatives. This fact has also been admitted by ld CIT in para 6.3 of the impugned order. When there is a net gain of Rs.21.89 crores, which the assessee included in its total income, we fail to appreciate the reason for charging the gross gain of forex derivatives to tax but ignoring the loss on account of such forex derivatives. As the ultimate net figure on account of forex derivatives in the given facts and circumstances of the case is that of gain which was offered for taxation, it is manifest that the assessment order in accepting said figure of gain as chargeable to tax, cannot be described as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We are, therefore, unable to countenance the view canvassed in the impugned order on this issue".
8. It is clear that the Tribunal while decided the issue for the A.Y. 2007-08 has also considered the CBDT instruction no. 3/2010 which has been heavily relied upon by the Commissioner as well as the ld.
DR. We further note that the AO has examined this issue and disallowed the net loss after adjusting the gain on account of foreign currency derivatives for hedging and therefore it is manifest from the record that the issue has been examined by the Assessing Officer and taken a possible view. The Tribunal on the identical facts has decided 10 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013 Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
this issue by holding that the view of the Commissioner cannot be countenanced with. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to take a different view from that of already taken by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2007-08. The Tribunal has also considered the various decisions and ruling on this point and finally concluded in para 16 as under:-
"16. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, we find that the Assessing Officer made enquiry about the above referred three aspects which have been noted by the CIT for exercising jurisdiction u/s 263. Upon such enquiry, the assessee made submissions by placing all the relevant documents before the AO. Thus it can be seen that this case does not fall in the category discussed in para 15.1. above. The mere fact that the Assessing Officer did not make any reference to these three issues in the assessment order cannot make the assessment order erroneous when these issues were properly looked into by the Assessing Officer. Now let us see whether it can be brought within the ambit of para 15.2. above. From the details filed by the assessee it can be inferred that the AO not only enquired into these three issues but also got satisfied with the assessee's reply submitted from time to time in support of its stand. Resorting to the provisions of section 263 in such a situation could have been possible only on the ld. CIT showing that the assessment order was erroneous on such three aspects. From the detailed discussion made above on these issues, it is manifest that the AO took either perfectly correct or a possible view. As such, the extant assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The natural corollary which, therefore, follows in the present case is that the learned CIT was not justified in invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order".
9. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal on the identical issues for A.Y. 2007-08, we set-aside the impugned revision order of the Commissioner.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12/02/2014.
आदे श कȧ घोषणा खुले Ûयायालय मɅ Ǒदनांक 12 /02/2014 , को कȧ गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANJAY ARORA) (VIJAY PAL RAO)
लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT Ûयाियक सदःय / JUDICIAL MEMBER
MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; Ǒदनांक /Dated : 12/02/ 2014
f{x~{tÜ? P.S.
11 ITA NO.671/Mum/2013
Rel i an c e C o mm u n ic a t io ns L td . .
आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत / Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) िनधा[ǐरती / The Assessee;
(2) राजःव / The Revenue;
(3) आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A);
(4) आयकर आयुƠ / The CIT, Mumbai City concerned;
(5) ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुब
ं ई / The DR, ITAT, Mumbai;
(6) गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.
स×याǒपत ूित / True Copy
आदे शानुसार / By Order
उप / सहायक पंजीकार / (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुब
ं ई / ITAT, Mumbai