Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Sarang Property Developers P.Ltd, ... vs Acit Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai on 31 July, 2017
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण, मुब ं ई "जी"
जी" खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -"G"Bench Mumbai सव ी राजे ,ले लेखा सद य एवं, राम लाल नेगी,ी याियक सद य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./4013/Mum/2015, िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s.Sarang Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. Addl CIT,Central Circle -4 (1) th Attrium 215, 10 Floor, Andheri Kurla 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, next to Courtyard Mariott Hotel, Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059.
PAN:AADCS 6382 B
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ / Respondent)
Revenue by: Ms. Arju Garodia-DR
Assessee by: S/Shri Vijay Mehta& Govind Javeri
सुनवाई क तारीख / Date of Hearing: 23.05.2017
घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2017
आयकर अिधिनयम,1961
अिधिनयम क धारा 254(1)के के अ
तग त आदे श
Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act)
लेखा सद
य राजे
के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Challenging the order,dated 07/05/2015, of the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai the Assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee-company is engaged in the business of Real Estate Development. The effective Ground of appeal deals with levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Brief Facts:-
2.During search and seizure operation carried in the case of Kanakia Group on 29/03/2011, the assessee was subjected to search.The Assessing Officer (AO)completed assessment u/s.
143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act on 28/03/2013 determining income of the assessee at Rs.1.97 lakhs.
During the course of search Rasesh Kanakia the Director of the assessee company and Chairman of Kanakia Group admitted that it had purchased bogus bills amounting to Rs. 85. 49 lakhs,in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act on 24/05/2011 for the year under consideration.It was observed by AO that bogus bills were debited in the books of the assessee,that material whatsoever was received by it against accommodation bills, that it had inflated cost of construction of the project by debiting bogus bills in its accounts, that the cost of construction was carried forward as work-in-progress(WIP) since the project was under
development .As the books of account of the assessee for the year were closed at the time of search so it could not give effect to such bogus purchases in the relevant year in its books. To give effect to the admitted bogus purchases the assessee reduced opening WIP in the AY. 2011-12 by the admitted amount of bogus purchases.The contention raised by the assessee was accepted during the assessment proceedings. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.
4013/M/15(09-10) M/s.Sarang Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.
271(1)(c).After considering the submissions of the assessee,dated 28/03/2013,the AO held that the assessee had debited bogus bills in its regular books of account, that it was following percentage method of accounting, that during the year under consideration the project of the assessee was not complete, that the assessee had passed bogus entries in its books, that same were reversed in the AY.2011-12,that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of income.The contention of the assessee that bogus purchases had not resulted in any addition of income that could lead to justification of levy of penalty was not acceptable,that it has passed bogus entries in the books, that the booking itself amounted to furnishing of inaccurate particulars in return of income, that tax effect was nil during the year, that there would be tax effect on the total income/loss realized out of the project when it would be complete, that at time of completion of project, the profir/loss woulf be affected by the bogus bills,that there was a willful attempt on the part of the assessee to make false claim, referring to provisions of section 271(1)(c),he held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He levied penalty of Rs.26.41 lakhs in that regard.
2.1.The AO further found that the assessee had set aside all brought forward loss of Rs.14.59 lakhs to the extent of net profit of Rs.4.61 lakhs,that there was change in share holding pattern of the assessee,that in view of this provisions of section 79 were applicable, that the assessee was not entitled to set off the carried forward loss against current year's income. He brought it to the notice of the assessee and directed it to file explanation. On 25/03/2015, the assessee furnished revised computation of income wherein it did not set off the carried forward losses.The taxable income was enhanced to Rs.1.97 lakhs,the AO initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c)for furnishing inaccurate particulars.After considering the submission of the assessee he levied penalty of Rs.81,541/-.Thus,the total penalty of Rs.27.32 lakhs(Rs.26.41 lakhs and Rs.81,541/-)was levied by the AO.
3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA)and made elaborate submissions.After considering available material,the FAA held that Kanakia Group had surrendered total bogus purchases of Rs.38 crores as per statement of the MD of the assessee company in his statement,recorded on 30/03/2011 u/s. 132(4) of the Act.Later on, the figure of bogus purchases was enhanced to Rs.39.42 crores,when the MD apportioned the bogus purchases in different group entities, that out of the total bogus purchases an amount of Rs.5.99 crores related to the assessee company,that out of the said amount a sum of Rs.85.49 lakhs related to the year under appeal, that no purchases had taken place, that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries with 2 4013/M/15(09-10) M/s.Sarang Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.
a view to jack up expenses to reduce taxable profits and the closing WIP, that the purchases were debited to books of account i.e. P&L account, that subsequent to the search the assessee had reduced the same from the closing WIP,that it was a clear case of falsification of books of account and jacking of expenditure.The FAA referred to Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)
(c) and observed that no addition was made by the AO while computing assessment, that the returned income and assessed income remained same,that the assessee was found to be debiting bogus expenditure in his books of account,that closing WIP was akin to the loss incurred by assessee during the year as envisaged under Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c), that the AO had rightly levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
With regard to levy of penalty in respect of claim of set off of brought forward losses,he observed that the AO had found that there was substantial change in the share holding pattern of the assessee company during the year,that it was not entitled to set off carry forward losses against the income under appeal,that the assessee had filed revised statement only after AO made enquiries,that during the appellate proceedings the assessee had claimed that it was an inadvertent mistake,that the assessee was not knowing the law,that there was bonafide ignorance about the provisions of the Act,that the assessee was fairly big company doing business at significantly high level, that it was having a fullfledged accounts section and was advised by professionals,that it could not claim that it was not aware of the provisions of law, that it had committed the same mistake twice i.e., at the time of filing of original return and filing of return u/s. 153C of the Act,that even in the revised computation the assessee had shown a part of income at Rs.1.97 lakhs as against disputed income of Rs.4.61 lakhs. It was not an inadvertent or bonafide mistake.Upholding the order of the AO,the FAAA referred to the case of MAK Data (358ITR593);Zoom Communications Pvt.Ltd. (327ITR510) and Lal Chand Tirath Ram(225ITR684).Finally,he upheld the order of the AO.
4.During the course of hearing before us, the Authorised Representative(AR)argued that there was no change in income, that no addition was made to the income returned by the assessee, that no penalty for concealment of income could be levied, that income was offered for the year under appeal, that the calculation machinery would fail in such cases,that the section spoke of tax sought to be evaded, that for the purpose income for the current year had to be considered,that it was a search and seizure case, that no incriminating material was found during the search,that the AO had not struck off the portion in the penalty notice to indicate as to which of the omissions the assessee had committed i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealing the income.He referred to the cases of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd.
34013/M/15(09-10) M/s.Sarang Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.
(327ITR543); Meherjee Kasinath Holding Pvt.Ltd. (ITA/2555/Mum/2012,AY.2008-09, Dt.28/4/2017);Suresh P. Dedhia (IT(SS)A/ 16/Mum/2009 dated 03/12/2010 and Deepika Dev Todia(ITA/189/Mum/2008-AY.2004-05,dated 29/7/2011).He also produced the notice issued by the AO and demonstrated that the AO had in fact no struck off the portion in the penalty notice to indicate as to which omission the assessee had commited.
The Departmental Representative (DR)contended that the penalty was levied in the year when expenses were claimed, that the assessee had booked bogus purchases,that it was following percentage completion method, that by booking bogus purchases the assessee had impliedly evaded the tax,that it had committed an offence u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act.He referred to the case of K.P. Madhusudan,delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.In his rejoinder, the AR referred to the case of K.C. Builder (265 ITR562) and stated that as there was no income in the year under consideration,so no penalty was leviable u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act.
5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.We find that the MD of the group,during the search and seizure proceedings,admitted undisclosed income on account of bogus purchase bills taken by various entities of the group,that that the cost of construction was carried forward as WIP,that the AO levied penalty on two counts namely bogus purchases and carry forward of losses,that the FAA had confirmed the order of the AO.
Before proceeding further,we would like to refer to the order of Meharjee Cassinath Holdings Private Ltd.(supra)wherein the issue of non striking off relevant portion of the penalty notice has been deliberated upon extensively.We are reproducing the portion dealing with the issue and the facts of the case and same read as under:
"2.In this appeal, the solitary grievance of the assessee is with regard to imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3.In brief, the relevant facts are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and for the assessment year under consideration it declared a total income of Rs.86,94,668/- in a return filed on 29.9.2008, which was subject to a scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and vide order dated 10.12.2010 the final income has been assessed at Rs.1,11,84,640/-. The relevant issue for our purpose is Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.18,19,34,011/- reported by the assessee in its return of income. The said loss was incurred by the assessee on account of redemption of Preference shares of a concern, namely Shri Santram Finance Ltd. In the assessment finalized u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire Long Term Capital Loss on the ground that the transaction of redemption of Preference shares was a bogus transaction and further the Assessing Officer also denied the carry forward of said loss. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer vide order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.6.2011 held the assessee guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income qua the aforesaid issue within the meaning of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, which was computed at Rs.5,45,80,203/-. The CIT(A) 4 4013/M/15(09-10) M/s.Sarang Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.
has sustained the levy of penalty, but has allowed partial relief by correcting the computation of penalty and accordingly, the CIT(A) has scaled down the penalty to Rs.4,12,26,247/-. In this background, the rival counsels have made their submissions and the relevant material has been perused. Before we proceed to refer to the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to bring out the background in which the penalty u/s 3 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the Assessing Officer. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had reported Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.18,19,34,011/- on redemption of Preference shares of Shri Santram Finance Ltd., detailed as under :-
XXXX
5. At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that the quantum assessment proceedings have become final inasmuch as assessee has not gone in appeal against the action of the Assessing Officer. .........
Another pertinent point raised by the assessee was that the penalty notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 10.12.2010, a copy of which has been placed on record, reveals nonapplication of mind by the Assessing Officer inasmuch as the irrelevant portion of the notice has not been struck off. It was, therefore, contended that the levy of penalty is illegal and deserves to be setaside. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance has been placed on the following decisions :-
i) M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows, ITA No. 380/2015 dated 23.11.2015 (Hon'ble Karnataka High Court);
ii) Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors., 359 ITR 565 (Kar.);
iii) Dilip N. Shroff, 161 Taxman 218 (SC);
iv) Dr. Sarita Milind Davare, ITA No. 2187 & 1789/Mum/2014 dated 21.12.2016;
v) Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA No. 4625 to 4630/Mum/2013 dated 11.10.2013 XXXX
7......... With regard to the plea of assessee that notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act was legally untenable, the ld. CIT-DR pointed out that in the assessment order itself the Assessing Officer in para 4 has recorded that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It was, therefore, contended that the assessment order itself shows due application of 8 mind by the Assessing Officer for initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and that the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s.
271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.12.2010 cannot be solely examined to see whether the Assessing Officer has duly applied his mind to the initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ......
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to impose penalty to the extent specified if, in the course of any proceedings under the Act, he is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, what Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates is that the penalty can be levied on the existence of any of the two situations, namely, for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, it is obvious from the phraseology of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act that the imposition of penalty is invited only when the conditions prescribed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act exist. It is also a well accepted proposition that 'concealment of the particulars of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' referred to in Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act denote different connotations. In fact, this distinction has been appreciated even at the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court not only in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) but also in the case 9 of T.Ashok Pai, 292 ITR 11 (SC). Therefore, if the two expressions, namely 'concealment of the particulars of income' and 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' have different connotations, it is imperative for the assessee to be made aware as to which of the two is being put against him for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, so that the assessee can defend accordingly. It is in this background that one has to appreciate the preliminary plea of assessee, which is based on the manner in which the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.12.2010 has been issued to the assessee company. A copy of the 5 4013/M/15(09-10) M/s.Sarang Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.
said notice has been placed on record and the learned representative canvassed that the same has been issued by the Assessing Officer in a standard proforma,without striking out the irrelevant clause. In other words, the notice refers to both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, namely concealment of the particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Quite clearly, non-striking-off of the irrelevant limb in the said notice does not convey to the assessee as to which of the two charges it has to respond. The aforesaid infirmity in the notice has been sought to be demonstrated as a reflection of non- application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and in support, reference has been made to the following specific discussion in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra):-
"83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars. Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placing the order of assessment laid emphasis that he had dealt with both the situations. 84. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind. It was also bound to comply with the principles of natural justice. (See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 2 SCC 718]"
9. Factually speaking, the aforesaid plea of assessee is borne out of record and having regard to the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the notice in the instant case does suffer from the vice of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. In fact, a similar proposition was also enunciated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) and against such a judgment, the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 5.8.2016, a copy of which is also placed on record.
10. In fact, at the time of hearing, the ld. CIT-DR has not disputed the factual matrix, but sought to point out that there is due application of mind by the Assessing Officer which can be demonstrated from the discussion in the assessment order, wherein after discussing the reasons for the disallowance, he has recorded a satisfaction that penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In our considered opinion, the attempt of the ld. CIT-DR to demonstrate application of mind by the Assessing Officer is no defence inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the factum of non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice as reflective of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Since the factual matrix in the present case conforms to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we proceed to reject the arguments advanced by the ld. CIT-DR based on the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Further, it is also noticeable that such proposition has been considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court also in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA Nos. 1154, 953, 1097 & 1126 of 2014 dated 5.1.2017 (supra) and the decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved.
11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare (supra). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :-
64013/M/15(09-10) M/s.Sarang Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.
"12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N Shroff (supra) would make it clear that there should be application of mind on the part of the AO at the time of issuing notice. In the case of Lakhdir Lalji (supra), the AO issued notice u/s 274 for concealment of particulars of income but levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court quashed the penalty since the basis for the penalty proceedings disappeared when it was held that there was no suppression of income. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court has struck down the penalty imposed in the case of N.N.Subramania Iyer Vs. Union of India (supra), when there is no indication in the notice for what contravention the petitioner was called upon to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed. In the instant case, the AO did not specify the charge for which penalty proceedings were initiated and further he has issued a notice meant for calling the assessee to furnish the return of income. Hence, in the instant case, the assessing officer did not specify the charge for which the penalty proceedings were initiated and also issued an incorrect notice. Both the acts of the AO, in our view, clearly show that the AO did not apply his mind when he issued notice to the assessee and he was not sure as to what purpose the notice was issued. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has discussed about non-application of mind in the case of Kaushalya (supra) and observed as under:- ".... The notice clearly demonstrated non-application of mind on the part of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The vagueness and ambiguity in the notice had also prejudiced the right of reasonable opportunity of the assessee since he did not know what exact charge he had to face. In this back ground, quashing of the penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1967-68 seems to be fully justified." In the instant case also, we are of the view that the AO has issued a notice, that too incorrect one, in a routine manner. Further the notice did not specify the charge for which the penalty notice was issued. Hence, in our view, the AO has failed to apply his mind at the time of issuing penalty notice to the assessee."
12. The aforesaid discussion clearly brings out as to the reasons why the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) is to prevail. Following the decision of our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare (supra), we hereby reject the aforesaid argument of the ld. CIT-DR.
13. Apart from the aforesaid discussion, we may also refer to the one more seminal feature of this case which would demonstrate the importance of non-striking off of irrelevant clause in the notice by the Assessing Officer. As noted earlier, in the assessment order dated 10.12.2010 the Assessing Officer records that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are to be initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off. Quite clearly, the observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and non- striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice clearly brings out the diffidence on the part of Assessing Officer and there is no clear and crystallised charge being conveyed to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c), which has to be met by him. As noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra), the quasi-criminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural justice, and in the present case, considering the observations of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order alongside his action of non- striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice shows that the charge being made against the assessee qua Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not firm and, therefore, the proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Assessing Officer is himself unsure and assessee is not made aware as to which of the two limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act he has to respond.
14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.12.2010 is untenable as it 7 4013/M/15(09-10) M/s.Sarang Property Developers Pvt.Ltd.
suffers from the vice of nonapplication of mind having regard to the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery (supra). Thus, on this count itself the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be deleted. We hold so. Since the penalty has been deleted on the preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant are not being dealt with.
15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as above"
Respectfully following the above order and considering the failure of the AO to strike off the relevant portion in the penalty notice we hold that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the FAA was not as per law.So,reversing the order of the FAA,we decide the issue in favour of the assessee.
As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed फलतः िनधा रती ारा दािखल क गई अपील मंजूर क जाती है.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th ,July, 2017.
आदेश क घोषणा खुले यायालय म दनांक 28, जुलाई, 2017 को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(राम लाल नेगी / Ram Lal Negi) (राजे / Rajendra)
याियक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद
य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबईMumbai; दनांक/Dated : 28.07 .2017.
Jv.Sr.PS.
आदेश क ित िलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant /अपीलाथ 2. Respondent / यथ
3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब# अपीलीय आयकर आयु&, 4.The concerned CIT /संब# आयकर आयु&
5.DR "G " Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /िवभागीय ितिनिध, खंडपीठ,आ.अ.'याया.मुंबई
6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स यािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण , मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.8