Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd (Idgpt) ... vs Assessee
1
ITA No.980/Mum/2004
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI 'C ' BENCH
MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI R V EASWAR, PRESIDENT & SHRI R K PANDA, AM
ITA No. 980/Mum/2004
(Asst Year 2002-
2002-03)
03)
Oil & Natural Gas Corpn Vs The Income Tax Officer
Ltd(IOGPT) Phase -II, Raigad Dist Ward 3 -TDS
Panvel 410 221 Panvel
(Appellant)
Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN NO.AAACO1598A
NO.AAACO1598A
Assessee by Shri P J Pardiwala/Ms Vasanti Patel
Revenue by Shri P N Devdasan/DR
PER R K PANDA, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.12.2003 of CIT(A)-I, Thane relating to assessment year 2002-03. 2 This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for non prosecution. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide order dated 11.6.2010 recalled its earlier order. Hence, this is a recalled matter.
3 Although a number of grounds have been taken, these relate to the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer in treating the assessee as 'assessee in default' for short deduction/no deduction of tax on the amount of value of perquisites to the employees and thereby levying demand u/s 201(1) amounting to Rs. 28,05,580/- and levy of interest u/s 201(1A) amounting to Rs. 4,20,867/- of the I T Act.
3.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the course of verification of ARTDS, the Assessing Officer noted that valuation of perquisites u/s 17(2) was 2 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 not done and no tax was deducted at source on the amount of value of perquisites provided to the employees. In order to bring perquisites to the TDS purview, a survey action was carried out during which it was observed that the assessee had not deducted tax at source in respect of perquisites provided to the employees. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, it was submitted that in view of the Chennai & Mumbai High Court's stay order, valuation of perquisites provided to the employees were valued at Rs. Nil and hence, no tax was deducted at source. On going through the order, the Assessing Officer noted that the petition was filed against the notification issued by CBDT vide SO No.940(E) dated 25.9.2001 amending provisions of section 17(2) of the I T Act, 1961 and also Rule 3 of the I T Rules, 1962. The Hon'ble High Court has granted interim injunction restraining the petitioner i.e. ONGC from effecting any recovery from the salary of the members of the petitioners. Taking shelter of the Court's order, the assessee has not deducted tax at source on the perquisites. The Assessing Officer noted that by virtue of Income Tax (Twenty second) Amendment Rules, 2001, the Rule 3 of the I T Rules, 1962 has been duly amended w.e.f 1.4.2001 Therefore, the assessee was required to make the valuation of perquisite and deduct the tax at source there from as prescribed by the relevant amended I T Act, 1961. However, the assessee has failed to do so. Further, the Hon'ble High Court has not granted any injunction restraining the ONGC from enforcing the amended I T Rules wherein the impugned notification was ratified by the Parliament and 22nd amendment to I T Rules was enacted. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish the details of perquisites provided to the employees during the year 2001-02 and the valuation thereof. 3.2 The assessee furnished the details as called for by the Assessing Officer and stated the basis of valuation of perquisites as under: 3 ITA No.980/Mum/2004
i) Residential accommodation- 10% of salary -rent recovery
ii) Conveyance reimbursement Rs. 2735/ (variable) 800/-
iii) Car advance Int .rate 10% - 5.5%
iv) House building advance int.rate 10% to 5.5/6/8%
v) Scooter advance Int.rate 10% - 5.5%
vi) Computer advance Int.rate 1.3% - 7.5%
vii) Furnishing advance Int rate 13%
viii) Holiday home as per actual
3.3 On going through the submissions, the Assessing Officer noted that an
amount of Rs. 91,73,186/- on account of value of perquisites remained to be taken into consideration while working the tax deductible at source. He, therefore, held that perquisites to the tune of Rs. 91.73,186/- remained to be taxed and on this amount no tax has been deducted by the assessee. He therefore, passed order u/s 201/201(1A) to cover up the short deduction of tax to that extent and determined the short deduction of tax at Rs. 28,05,580/- and interest u/s 201(1A) at Rs. 4,20,867/- both totalling to Rs. 32,26,447/-.
3.4 In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he noted that with the amendment in the Finance Act, 2001, valuation of perquisite u/s 17(2) r.w.r 3 became the law of the land. The assessee was supposed to deduct tax as per valuation provided under Rule 3 of the I T Rules, 1962. These rules were widely publicised in various newspapers and trade journals. The assessee is having well established taxation division to deal with such new Rules. Further, copy of the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is dated 1.3.2002. Similarly, order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court is dated 27.3.2002 granting injunction. He noted that the assessee in the instant case, 4 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 being at Panvel, is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court dated 27.3.2002. Accounting period of the assessee is from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002. The Rule 3 was notified on 25.9.2001 and there was no injunction order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on that date and injunction of Bombay High Court is dated is 27.3.2002. Since the salary pertaining to FY 2001-02 were already disbursed before the operation of injunction order and since the assessee has not deducted TDS in spite of clear cut wording of Rule 3 of IT Rules, 1962, therefore, in the absence of any stay order or injunction by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the assessee was duty bound to deduct the TDS on the value of perquisite. Since the assessee has failed to deduct the TDS; therefore, the assessee is 'an assessee' in default' as per provisions of sec. 201(1) of the I T Act. He accordingly, upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in levying demand of Rs. 28,05,580 u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs. 4,20,867/- u/s 201(1A) both totalling to Rs. 32,26,447/-
4 Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal here before us.
5 The ld counsel for the assessee referring to page 56 of the paper book submitted that the Employees' Union have filed a writ petition on 22.1.1996 which was admitted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Referring to pages 60 & 61 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the nature of the questions before the Hon'ble High Court.
5ITA No.980/Mum/2004 5.1 Referring to pages 83 & 84 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the prayer before the Hon'ble High Court. Referring to page 47 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the interim order dated 20.2.1996 passed by the Hon'ble High Court wherein the interim relief in terms of prayer (e) was granted.
5.2 Referring to page 85 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to clause 'e' of the prayer, which has been allowed by the Hon'ble High Court and which reads as under:
"That pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the respondents, their servants and agents be restrained by an order and injunction from adding the difference between 10% of the salary of any organisation officer and the deductions actually made from the salary income of such officers on account of being provided with a residential accommodation by the respondent organisation as value of 'perquisite' to the other salary income of such organisation officer assessee;"
5.3 He submitted that there was an amendment to clause (2) of section 17 and sub.sec (.2C) of sec. 192 which came into force from 1.4.2001 relevant to Assessment Year 2002-03. He submitted that there is no change to sec. 17(2)(ii). 5.4 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar & Bros & others vs Union of India & Ors., reported in 286 ITR 89(SC), he drew the attention of the Bench to para 64 of the order which reads as under:
"64. We are, however, not inclined to enter into larger question as in our view, it is not necessary in the light of statutory provision relating to 'concession' in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation' in s. 17(2)(ii) of the Act. We are of the view that r. 3 would apply only to those cases where 'concession' has been shown by an employer in favour of an employee in the matter of rent respecting accommodation. Thus, whereas 'charging provision' is found in the Act of Parliament [s. 17(2)(ii)], 6 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 'machinery component' is in the subordinate legislation (r. 3). The latter will apply only after liability is created under the former. Unless the liability arises under s. 17(2)(ii) of the Act, r. 3 has no application and the method of valuation for calculating concessional benefits cannot be resorted to.
5.5 Referring to page 103 of the paper book, he submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide writ petition no.925 of 2002 in the case of Petroleum Employees Union & others vs Union of India order dated 27.3.2002 had granted interim relief. Referring to page 105 of the paper book, he submitted that vide order dated 6.3.2002 the Hon'ble High Court had granted interim stay on the operation of the provisions of sec. 17(2)(vi) of the Act; therefore, there is no doubt about the bonafide of the assessee in not deducting tax at source on account of such perquisites.
5.6 Referring to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Nicholas Piramal India Ltd reported in 299 ITR 356 (Bom) he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that when the assessee, on the basis of declarations as also the affidavits filed by its employees regarding the actual expenditure incurred by them against the children's education allowance and LTA deducted tax on the estimated income, the assessee has not blindly accepted the declarations but has fairly estimated the income for deducting tax u/s192. When the tax was not deducted only on that part of the allowance which is exempt while tax has been duly deducted and paid on the remaining portion, the assessee has acted bonafidely; therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default. He submitted that since the assessee in the instant case with bonafide belief has not deducted the tax at 7 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 source on the perquisite value and since his action is not malafide, therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default and thereby liable to provisions of sec. 201(1) /201(1A).
5.7 Referring to pages 122 to 126 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the news paper reports; according to which the interim stay has been granted for non deduction of tax at source on perquisite value and allowances as required by the IT Act and notification which was issued by CBDT during Sep 2001. He submitted that due to prevailing uncertainty the assessee obtained opinion from a renowned lawyer Shri S E Dastur, who has opined that in view of the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court the question of deducting tax at source as per the new Rules does not arise.
5.8 So far as non deduction of tax at source on conveyance allowance is concerned, he drew the attention of the Bench to the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in case of CIT vs ONGC, Surat, a copy of which is placed at page 137 of the paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs ONGC reported in 125 Taxman 698 and submitted that no tax was deductible on conveyance allowance.
5.9 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs L&T & ors. reported in 313 ITR 1(SC), he submitted that the employer is not under any statutory obligation under the income tax Act, 1961 or the Rules, to collect evidence to show that the employee had actually utilized the amount 8 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance u/s 10(5). Nor is there any circular of the CBDT requiring the employer u/s 192 to collect and examine the evidence supporting the declaration submitted by the employee. Since in the instant case, the employer has acted on the basis of declaration given by the employees; therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the employer to deduct the tax at sources.
5.10 The ld counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the order of the Vishakhaptnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ONGC, Rajahmundry vs ITO vide ITA No. 703/Vsp/2004 order dated 31.10.2008 for Assessment Year 2003-04 and submitted that under identical circumstances the Tribunal had held that the assessee is not in default and cannot be treated as an assessee in default. 5.11 Referring to the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT (TDS) vs Western Coalfields Ltd vide ITA No.93 of 2008 (copy filed) he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has analysed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar (supra) and has held that even after the substitution of Rule 3 with effect from 1.4.2001, in the absence of any specific provision under the Act, it was open to the assessee not to deduct tax at sources relating to the accommodation given to the employees on the ground that no concession in rent has been given to the employees. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside and the demand raised by the Assessing Officer be deleted.9
ITA No.980/Mum/2004 6 The ld DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that when the survey was conducted on 4.12.2002 nothing prevented the employer to deduct tax at source till the injunction is granted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Since the assessee is a Public sector undertaking and since law was very clear; therefore, there was no need to take any opinion from any counsel. Since the assessee has failed to deduct the tax at source as per statutory law, the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in charging tax for the short deduction and interest u/s 201(1)/201((1A) respectively of the act. Accordingly, he submitted that the order of the ld CIT(A) should be upheld.
7 We have considered the rival arguments by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. There is no dispute to the fact that the Assessing Officer, relying on the amendment to Rule 3 of Income Tax Rule 1962 by the Income Tax (Twenty Second) Amendment Rules 2001 w.e.f 1.4.2001, held that the assessee has not valued the perquisites for deduction of tax at source. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the assessee has not deducted the tax at source amounting to Rs. 91,73,186/- on account of valuation of perquisite. He, accordingly treated the assessee as an assessee-in default and levied tax u/s 201 at Rs. 28,05,580/- and interest u/s 201(1A) at Rs. 4,20,867/-. We find, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is dated 1.3.2002. Similarly, the order of the Hon'lble Bombay High Court is dated 27.3.2002 granting injunction and the Rule 3 was notified on 25.9.2001. There was no injunction order of the Hon'ble Madras High Court on that date. 10 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 Therefore, the injunction order became effective from 27.3.2002. Since the salary pertains to FY 2001-02, therefore, in absence of any stay order or injunction by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the assessee was duty bound to deduct tax on the value of the perquisite. It is the submission of the ld counsel for the assessee that due to prevailing uncertainty, the assessee had obtained legal opinion and in a bonafide manner made a fair estimate of tax to be deducted and accordingly didn't deduct the tax at source on that portion of the allowance which according to it is exempt. His intention was not malafide and therefore, the assessee should not be treated as an assessee-in default. 8 We find merit in the above submission of the ld counsel for the assessee. Admittedly, the employees' union filed a writ petition before the jurisdictional High Court in the year 1996. There is also no dispute to the fact that there was amendment to the provisions of sec. 17(2((vi) by Finance Act 2001; according to which new Rule 3 was introduced in the Income Tax Rules through notification no. SO no.940(E) dated 25.9.2001 w.e.f 1.4.2001. There is also no dispute to the fact that as per the new Rule 3, the perquisite was to be valued on the basis of actual cost to the employer. There is also no dispute to the fact that against insertion of the new rule 3, various employees were agitated and filed writ petitions in different High Courts. There is also no dispute to the fact that various High Courts (Chennai and Mumbai) have granted interim stay, although subsequent to the notification and before the end of the financial year. Under these circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the assessee has to be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source on the perquisites value.11
ITA No.980/Mum/2004 9 We find, the Vishakhaptnam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ONGC Rajahmundry (supra) while discussing an identical issue at pages 13 to 16 of its order has held as under:
13 The main issue arsing for consideration in these matters, relates to non-deduction of tax at source u/s 192 in respect of perquisite/amenities provided to its employees by the assessee. It is an admitted fact that the Association of Scientific and Technical Officers of ONGC of India filed a writ petition, being WP No.6962 of 2002 before the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of s. 17(2)(vi) of the act, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 and also Rule 3 of the I T Rules, 1962, as substituted by the Income Tax (Second Amendment)Rules 2001. The Madras High Court by its order dated 8.3.2002 granted interim stay on the operation of the above provisions. We find that S.17(2)(vi) of the Act was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1.4.2002. It was notified by the Govt of India in SO No.940(5) dated 25.9.2001. The Madras High Court granted interim stay on the operation of these provisions on 8.3.2002. So, as on 1.4.2002, the provisions of s. 17(2)(vi) are not in operation in view of the interim order of the Madras High Court. As rightly submitted by the ld counsel for the assessee, deduction of tax in respect of perquisites/amenities, as provided u/s 192 of the Act read with s. 17(2)(vi)would definitely amount to violation of the orders of the Madras High Court dated 8.3.2002 and the assessee has to face penal consequences for contempt of court. Therefore, in our opinion, it is the bounden duty of the assessee to obey the order of the Madras High Court dated 8.3.2002 with regard to deduction of tax on the perquisites/amenities given to the employees. We find from the orders of the lower authorities that one of the grounds for rejection of the plea of the assessee for non deduction of tax at source on the value of perquisites/amenities is that interim stay was granted by Madras High Court and not by Andhra Pradesh High Court and therefore, the assessee ought to have deducted tax u/s 192 of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee-corporation was one of the Respondents before the Madras High Court and therefore, the interim stay granted by the Madras High Court is binding on the assessee- corporation wherever they have branch offices. Therefore, the lower authorities are not justified in saying that the interim stay is granted by the Madras High Court only and not by the A.P High Court. In our opinion, in view of the interim stay granted by the Madras High Court, assessee was not expected to deduct any tax during period of operation of the stay, i.e. from 8.3.2002 to 12 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 30.4.2003. So, during that period, assessee cannot be treated as an assessee-in default.
14 The next question arising for consideration is whether it is duty on the assessee to deduct tax u/s 192 for the financial year 2002-03, after the interim stay was vacated by the Madras High Court on 30.4.2003. We have carefully gone through the provisions of sec. 192 of the act. S. 192(1) makes it obligatory for any person responsible for paying any income chargeable under the head 'salaries' to deduct income tax on the amount payable at the average rate of income tax computed on the basis of the rates prescribed for the financial year in which the payment is made on the estimated income of the assessee under the head 'salary' for that financial year. The language of S. 192 is very clear that the assessee has to deduct tax on the estimated income of the employee under the head 'salary' for that financial year in which payment was made.
For the financial year 2002-03, the payments have already been made before 31.3.2003, on which date, the interim stay of the Madras High Court was in operation. It is not the case of the revenue that any part of arrears related to financial year 2002-03 i.e. relevant to Assessment Year 2003-04, was pending to be paid by the assessee to its employees. In these circumstances, strictly speaking, as contended by the ld counsel for the assessee, the provisions of s. 192(1) of the Act do not make it obligatory for the assessee to deduct in the subsequent assessment year.
15 We have also carefully gone through the judgments of various High Courts referred to by the ld counsel for the assessee. All the High Courts say that the employer has to estimate the income of the year fairly and honestly and deduct tax thereon. Once the income of the employees under the head 'salary' was estimated honestly and fairly, merely because there was short deduction of tax, the provisions of s.201 are not attracted. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P V Rajagopal (supra) examined this issue elaborately and found that the employee, who is in receipt of other income, may send to the employer a verified statement to take that also into account for deduction of tax at source. In doing so, the employee will be taking a great responsibility because if the income is otherwise taxable, he will be liable to pay larger advance tax and for default or deferment, such advance tax will be liable to pay interest under sections 234B and234C. The A P High Court further observed that deduction of tax at source is not on any adjudicated figure, but on an estimated figure of salary income. In the case before us, the assessee estimated the salary income of its employees excluding the value of perquisite/amenities, in view of the operation of the interim stay granted by the Madras High Court. Therefore, the assessee has fairly and honestly estimated the income. It is not the case of the 13 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 revenue that the estimation of the assessee is not fair or honest. When the assessee estimated the income fairly and honestly in compliance with the order of the Madras High Court, we cannot say that the assessee has committed a default in deducting tax. In our opinion, the assessee has estimated the income honestly and fairly and also complied with the interim order of the Madras High Court. So, the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for the assessment year 2003-04.
16 Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and hold that the assessee is not in default for the assessment year under consideration.
10 We find Nagar Bench of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Western Coalfields Ld (supra) at paras 10 & 11 has observed as under:
10. According to Shri Parchure, ld counsel for the revenue, the determination of 'concession in the matter of rent' is inbuilt in Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as introduced with effect from 1.4.2001. Since validity of Rule 3 introduced with effect from 1.4.2001 has been upheld by the Apex Court in Arun Kumar's case (supra) and the same has been fortified by the retrospective insertion of Explanation to sec. 17(2)(ii) of the Act, the assessee was obliged to deduct tax at source and failure to do so made the assessee liable for consequences set out u/s 201 of the Act.
11. We see no merit in the above contentions. The Apex Court in Arun Kumar's case (supra) while upholding the validity of Rule 3 has held that in the absence of any 'deeming fiction' in the Act, it is open to the assessee to contend that there is no concession in the matter of accommodation provided by the employer to the employees and the case is not covered by section 17(2)(ii) of the act. In other words, even after the substitution of Rule 3 with effect from 1.4.2001, in the absence of any specific provision under the Act, it was open to the assessee not to deduct tax at source relating to the accommodation given to the employees on the ground that no concession in rent has been given to the employees. This contention of the assessee has been in fact held by the Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar (supra). To overcome the above decision, the law has been amended by Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2002. The retrospective amendment merely takes away the above argument, which was available to the assessee. 14 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 Once the salary is paid by the employer after deducting tax at source as per the law prevailing on the date of paying the salary, then any subsequent amendment in law brought about retrospective cannot require the employer to deduct tax at source for the past period, because the salary for that period has already been paid. Consequently, the employer cannot be made liable for the consequences set out in sec. 201 of the Act on account of the retrospective amendment to sec. 17(2) of the Act."
11 WE find the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd (supra) has held that when an assessee did not deduct tax at source on that part of the allowance which, according to it is exempt and on the balance portion tax has duly been deducted and paid to the credit of the Central Government and the assessee did act honestly and fairly and there was no reason for the assessee to raise any suspicion and acted in a bonafide manner than in that case the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default. In view of the above, the assessee, in our opinion cannot be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source on the perquisite value of rent free accommodation provided to the employees.
12 So far as the issue relating to deduction of tax on conveyance allowance is concerned, we find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L&T & ors., (supra) has held that the employer is not under any statutory obligation under the income tax Act, 1961 or the Rules, to collect evidence to show that the employee had actually utilized the amount paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance u/s 10(5). Nor is there any circular of the CBDT requiring the employer u/s 192 to collect and examine the evidence supporting the declaration submitted by the employee. Since in the instant case, the employer has acted on the basis of declarations given by the employees; therefore, there 15 ITA No.980/Mum/2004 was no obligation on the part of the employer to deduct the tax at sources. Therefore, the action of the assessee in not deducting the tax at source on the portion of conveyance reimbursement, in our opinion appears to be bonafide and should not be treated as an assessee in default.
12.1 In view of the above discussions, we hold that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for short deduction of tax on account of perquisite value on residential accommodation provided to the employees and conveyance reimbursement. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the demand raised by him u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the act. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
13 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 8th day of April 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
( R V EASWAR ) ( R K PANDA )
President Accountant Member
Place: Mumbai : Dated: 8th April 2011
Raj*
16
ITA No.980/Mum/2004
Copy forwarded to:
1 Appellant
2 Respondent
3 CIT
4 CIT(A)
5 DR
/TRUE COPY/
BY ORDER
Dy /AR, ITAT, Mumbai