HANSA M. MEHTA, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 21(1)(2), MUMBAI

CO 122/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8577 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 14-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KAMAT O
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Charitable institution; Date of conversion; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 148; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI .. , ! '#$ % % % % &'. '.(.. %) * '#$ '+ BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM './ I.T.A. NO. 215 & 216/MUM/2009 ( *) - %.- *) - %.- *) - %.- *) - %.- / / / / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 & 2004-05) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 21(10(2), 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 604, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. ) ) ) ) / VS. SMT.HANSABEN M. MEHTA, 5, SAHYADRI, ROAD NO. 9, JVPD SCHEME. VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI 400 049. $/ ! './ PAN : ABIPM1837G ( /0 / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( 12/0 / RESPONDENT ) 12+ '/C.O. NO.122/MUM/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 215/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 SMT. HANSABEN M. MEHTA, 5, SAHYADRI, ROAD NO. 9, JVPD SCHEME. VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI 400 049. ) ) ) ) / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 21(10(2), 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 604, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. $/ ! './ PAN : ABIPM1837G CROSS OBJECTOR .. ( 12/0 / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH SHAH DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AMOL KAMAT ')% O ! / // / DATE OF HEARING :25-02-2013 PQ. O ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-04-2013 ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 2 # R / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : THESE TWO APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DTD. 23-10-2008 AND 21-10-08 PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A) XXI, MUMBAI FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 BY THIS SING LE COMPOSITE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 BEING ITA NO. 215/MUM/2009 WHICH INVOLVE A SOLITARY ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSE ES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDU AL WHO FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ON 1-8-2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 85,360/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS INITIALLY ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 25-11-2003. SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING FOR A.Y. 2003-04, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE A CLAIM OF HAVING CONVERTED HER CAPITAL ASSET BEING LEASE R IGHTS IN A PLOT OF LAND INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE AS ON 17-4-2001 AND LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN ARISING FROM SUCH ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 3 CONVERSION WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,47,00,882/- WAS CLAI MED TO BE EXEMPT U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN CON STRUCTION OF HOUSE. SINCE THE SAID CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY AN EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING BUNGALOW, THE A.O . WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/ S 54F OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 24,33,481/- ARISING FROM SALE OF EQUITY SHARES IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME WAS ALSO CLAIMED AS EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME HOU SE WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. HE THEREFORE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 28-2-2006 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH A LETTER WAS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING INTER ALIA THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER MAY BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 24,33,481 /- ARISING FROM THE SALE OF EQUITY SHARES WAS EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AND ON SUCH EXAMINATION, HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE AND ONE SHRI JASWANTRAI PARIKH WE RE JOINT LEASE HOLDERS OF THE PLOT OF LAND NO. 5 IN PRESIDENCY CO-OPERATIVE H OUSING SOCIETY LTD. THE AREA OF THE SAID PLOT OF THE LAND WAS ABOUT 1254.5 SQ. MTRS. OF WHICH THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS 627.25 SQ. MTRS. SOMEWHERE IN THE YEAR 1975, THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI JASWANTRAI PARIKH HAD JOINTLY CON STRUCTED THE TWIN BUNGALOW ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEY ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 4 JOINTLY BEGAN THE CONSTRUCTION OF MULTISTORIED STRU CTURE BY WAY OF ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUNGALOW AT THE REAR SIDE OF THE BUNGA LOW. THE SAID CONSTRUCTION WAS PERMITTED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREAT ER MUMBAI AND PLAN FOR THE SAME WAS APPROVED AS PROPOSED ADDITION AND ALT ERATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING. AS NOTED BY THE A.O., EXTENDED STRUCTURE WAS A SEVEN STORIED BUILDING COMPRISING OF TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS IN EAC H FLOOR AND THE SAME WAS SO DESIGNED THAT THE FIRST TWO FLOORS WERE IN LEVEL WI TH THE ALREADY EXISTING BUNGALOW. ACCORDINGLY THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS NO. 10 2 & 202 ON THE IST AND 2 ND FLOOR WERE UNIFIED WITH THE EXISTING BUNGALOW OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE THE INVESTMENT IN NEW HOUSE HAVING RETAINED BY HER. EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WAS A CCORDINGLY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISI NG FROM SALE OF SHARES ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SAID CONSTRUCTION . ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE NEW STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE HOWEV ER WAS ONLY AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUNGALOW MEANING THEREBY THAT THE E XISTING BUNGALOW WAS EXTENDED BY ADDITIONAL FLOORS. HE HELD THAT SUCH N EW STRUCTURE IN THE FORM OF EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING BUNGALOW THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION AS A NEW HOUSE CONSTRUCTED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE INVESTMENT MADE THEREIN THUS WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR E XEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THIS FINDING AND CONCLUS ION, THE A.O. ALSO HELD THAT THE UNITS NO. 102 & 202 ON THE IST AND 2 ND FLOOR EVEN OTHERWISE WERE TWO INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL HOUSES AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IF SHE WAS OWNER OF MO RE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 5 HOUSE OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET. HE THEREFORE DISAL LOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DTD. 26-12-2006 . 4. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT INVESTMENT IN TWO RESIDENTI AL HOUSES WAS MADE BY HER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS N O. 102 ON THE IST FLOOR AND 202 ON THE 2 ND FLOOR WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE KITCHEN IN TH E SAID HOUSE AND BOTH THE UNITS WERE HAVING UNITY OF STRUCTURE. IN THIS REGA RD, ATTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO PARA NO. 15 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN IT WAS STATED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF THAT THE INTERIORS O F THE TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS WERE MERGED BY REMOVING THE PARTITION WALLS AND THE TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS DID NOT GIVE APPEARANCE OF TWO SEPARATE UNITS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NEW STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A VER TICAL EXPANSION BUT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXPANSION WITHOUT MODIFYING THE EXISTING TWIN BUNGALOWS ON THE VACANT PLOT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE BMC RULES, THE CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT IN THE FORM OF HORIZON TAL AND VERTICAL EXPANSION WITHOUT ADDING OR MODIFYING THE EXISTING BUILDING B UT WITHOUT EFFECTING SUB- DIVISION OF PLOT IS TERMED AS ADDITIONS & ALTERATI ONS AND THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING ON THE SAID EXPRESSION USED BY THE BMC TO DRAW AN ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 6 INFERENCE THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE WAS NOT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NE W HOUSE. 5. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 6 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE, ISSUE AND PERUS ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE APPELLANT FOR CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IS BASED IN THE FOLLOWING TWO FACTS: A) INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND B) AMOUNT INVESTED IN NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. FIRSTLY, LET US EXAMINE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONSTRUCTE D AN INDEPENDENT STRUCTURE OF STILT PLUS 7 STORIED BUILDING. IT IS I NDEPENDENT BUILDING HAVING SEPARATE ENTRY, STAIRCASE, SEPARATE LIFT, LO BBY, SEPARATE WATER AND ELECTRICITY METER ETC. ETC ABUTTING THE OLD STR UCTURE. THE AREA CONSTRUCTED IN NEW BUILDING IS 12859 SQ. FT AND OLD BUNGALOW AREA IS 2750.8S SQ FT. THE APPELLANT HAS RETAINED TWO FLOOR S IN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR RESIDENCE WHICH IS 3674 SQ.FT. THE STRUCTURE IS SO DESIGNED THAT THE FIRST TWO FLOORS ARE IN LEVEL WIT H THE ALREADY EXISTING BUNGALOW. THE APPELLANT HAS KEPT COMMON KITCHEN AND INTERIORS HAVE BEEN MERGED BY REMOVING THE PARTITION WALLS AND DOE S NOT GIVE AN APPEARANCE OF TWO SEPARATE UNITS. THE ISSUE OF INVE STMENT IN MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WAS DEALT WITH IN THE CASE ITO V/S MS. SUSHEELA M. JHAVERI 14 SOT 394(MUM). THE SPECIAL BENCH OF HON BLE MUMBAI ITAT HAVE HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION U/ S 54 AND 54F WHEN A PERSON PURCHASES MORE THAN ONE UNIT WHICH ARE ADJ ACENT TO EACH OTHER AND ARE CONVERTED INTO ONE HOUSE FOR THE PURP OSES OF ONE RESIDENCE BY HAVING COMMON PASSAGE, COMMON KITCHEN ETC., THEN IT WOULD BE INVESTMENT IN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND CO NSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION. THE JUDGME NT OF THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIV NARAIN CHA UDHARI V. CWT (1977) 103 ITR 104 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SEVERAL SELF-CONTAINED DWELLING UNITS WHICH ARE CONTINUOUS AND SITUATE IN THE SAME COMPOUND AND WITHIN COMMON BOUNDARIES AND HAVING UNITY OF TH E STRUCTURE COULD BE REGARDED AS ONE HOUSE. THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THAT APPELLANT HAS INVESTED IN MORE TH AN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 7 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE RELATING TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH WAS TR EATED BY THE A.O. AS TWO SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL UNITS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GITA DUGGAL (ITA NO. 1237/2011 DTD. 21-02-2013) CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US A ND A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AFTER DISCUSSING ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS IN DETAIL IN PARA NO. 8 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: SECTION 54/54F USES THE EXPRESSION A RESIDENTIAL H OUSE. THE EXPRESSION USED IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THIS I S A NEW CONCEPT INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTO THE SECTIO N. SECTION 54/54F REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE A RESIDENTIAL HOU SE AND SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES A BUILDING, WHICH MAY BE CONS TRUCTED, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CONSIST OF SEVERAL UNITS WHICH CAN, IF THE NEED ARISES, BE CONVENIENTLY AND INDEPENDENTLY USED AS AN INDEPENDENT RESIDENCE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. THERE IS NOTHING IN T HESE SECTIONS WHICH REQUIRE THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT SHOULD BE FOR THE R ESIDENTIAL USE AND NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE. IF THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SECT ION WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE BUILT IN A PAR TICULAR MANNER, IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES CANNOT INSIST UPON THAT REQUIREMENT. A PERSON MAY CONSTRUCT A HOUSE ACCORDI NG TO HIS PLANS AND REQUIREMENTS. MOST OF THE HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTE D ACCORDING TO THE NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS AND EVEN COMPULSIONS. FOR IN STANCE, A PERSON ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 8 MAY CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT HE MAY USE THE GROUND FLOOR FOR HIS OWN RESIDENCE AND LET OUT THE FIRST FLOOR HAVING AN INDEPENDENT ENTRY SO THAT HIS INCOME IS AUGMENTE D. IT IS QUITE COMMON TO FIND SUCH ARRANGEMENTS, PARTICULARLY POST -RETIREMENT. ONE MAY BUILD A HOUSE CONSISTING OF FOUR BEDROOMS (ALL IN THE SAME OR DIFFERENT FLOORS) IN SUCH A MANNER THAT AN INDEPEND ENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONSISTING OF TWO OR THREE BEDROOMS MAY BE CARVED O UT WITH AN INDEPENDENT ENTRANCE SO THAT IT CAN BE LET OUT. HE MAY EVEN ARRANGE FOR HIS CHILDREN AND FAMILY TO STAY THERE, SO THAT THEY ARE NEARBY, AN ARRANGEMENT WHICH CAN BE MUTUALLY SUPPORTIVE. HE MA Y CONSTRUCT HIS RESIDENCE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IN CASE OF A FUTURE NEED HE MAY BE ABLE TO DISPOSE OF A PART THEREOF AS AN INDEPENDENT HOUSE. THERE MAY BE SEVERAL SUCH CONSIDERATIONS FOR A PERSON WHILE C ONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WE ARE THEREFORE, UNABLE TO SEE HOW OR WHY THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURING OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, WHETHER IT IS LATERAL OR VERTICAL, SHOULD COME IN THE WAY OF CONSIDERING THE BUILDING AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE FACT TH AT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSISTS OF SEVERAL INDEPENDENT UNITS CAN BE PERMITTED TO ACT AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 54/54F. IT IS NEITHER EXPRESSLY NOR BY NECESSARY IM PLICATION PROHIBITED. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS NEITHER CITED ANY CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUES CASE ON THIS ISSUE NOR POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE AS COMPARED TO THE CASE OF GITA DUGGAL (SUPRA) DECIDED BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GITA DUGGAL (SUPRA) AND UPHOLD THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL H OUSE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. IN THE C.O. FILED FOR A.Y. 2002-03, THE ASSESSE E HAS RAISED A PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 143(2) ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 9 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY US WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER C.O. HAS BECOME INFRU CTUOUS OR ACADEMIC. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE UP ON THE SAME AND DISMISS THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HAVING BECOME INF RUCTUOUS. 9. IN THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED IN ITS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2004-05, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,53,21,430/- MADE BY THE A.O. BY WAY OF DISALLOWAN CE OF PROPORTIONATE COST OF LAND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF AREA SOLD WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME. 10. AS ALREADY NOTED, HER CAPITAL ASSET BEING LEAS E HOLD RIGHTS IN THE PLOT OF LAND WAS CONVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN STOCK-IN-TRAD E AS ON 17-4-2001. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THIS ENTIRE PLOT OF LAND ADMEA SURING 627.25 SQ. MTS. AS ON DATE OF CONVERSION I.E. 17-4-2001 WAS TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2,14,50,000/- ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER WHO HAD TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE POTENTIAL OF THE PLO T OF LAND TO RECEIVE TDR AND APPLIED CIRCULAR RATES PRESCRIBED IN THE READY RECKONER 2001 ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF STAMP DUTY. THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTED AREA AFTER AVAILING TDR WAS 12859 SQ. FT. OUT OF WH ICH AREA RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE W AS 3674 SQ. FT. (TWO FLATS OF THE AREA 1837.SQ.FT. EACH). THE REMAINING AREA OF 9 185 SQ. FT. I.E. ABOUT 72% ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 10 (APPROX) THUS WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSIN ESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SALE OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS. THE MARKET VALUE ATTRIB UTABLE TO THE SAID AREA AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,53,21,430/- (APPROX. 72% OF RS. 2,14,50,000/-) WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUT ING HER BUSINESS INCOME. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ALLOTTEES OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT, IT WAS NOTIC ED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE AS THE OWNER OF THE FLATS HAD REPRESENTED TO THE ALLOTTEES THE FOLLOWING FACTS FOR THEIR KNOWLEDGE:- (A) AS PER THE BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY, NO SOCIETY/ CONDOMINIUM OF APARTMENTS / LIMITED COMPANY OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZAT ION CAN BE FORMED OR INCORPORATED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID BUILD ING AND THE SAID PLOT OR PART THEREOF AND THE ALLOTTEE/S SHALL NOT CALL U PON THE OWNER AND THE CONFIRMING PARTY TO FORM THE SAME NOR THE ALLOTTEE/ S SHALL ATTEMPT TO FORM THE SAME; (B) THE OWNER AND THE CONFIRMING PARTY ALONE SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN THE MEMBERS OF PRESIDENCY C-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIE TY LTD. AND THE TITLE OF THE SAID PLOT AND THE SAID SHARES EVEN AFT ER THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETE SHALL ALWAYS REMAIN VESTED WITH THE OWNER AND THE CONFIRMING PARTY; (C) THE ALLOTTEE/S SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED OR ANY SA LE DEED / CONVEYANCE / ASSIGNMENT OR ANY TRANSFER OR VESTING DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PLOT AND THE SAID BUILDING; (D) THE ALLOTTEE/S RIGHT IS RESTRICT ED TO THE USE AND OCCUPATION OF THE SAID PREMISES AND AT NO TIME THE ALLOTTEE/S SHALL HAVE ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER IN THE SAID PL OT OR ANY OTHER BENEFITS PERTAINING TO THE SAID PLOT; (E) THE OWNER AND THE CONFIRMING PARTY ALONE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY THE LEASE RENT TO THE SOCIETY; ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE ABOVE PORTION OF THE AG REEMENTS WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXTINGUISHED HER RIG HT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE PLOT OF LAND IN ANY MANNER AND CONTINUED TO HOL D ON TO THE LEASE RIGHTS OF ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 11 THE PROPERTY JOINTLY ALONG WITH JASWANTRIA PARIKH. AS NOTED BY THE A.O., THIS POSITION WAS CONFIRMED EVEN BY THE PRESIDENCY CO. O P. HSG. SOC. LTD. WHICH CERTIFIED THAT SHRI JASWANTRAI B. PARIKH AND THE AS SESSEE WERE THE LEASE RIGHTS HOLDERS OF PLOT NO. 5 VIDE LETTER DTD. 24-2-2006. THE A.O. THEREFORE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OR EXTINGUISHED HE R RIGHTS IN THE PLOT OF LAND IN ANY MANNER AND SHE THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE COST OF LAND ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AREA SOLD WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE DE DUCTION OF RS. 1,53,21,430/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESS MENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DTD. 26- 12-2006. 11. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3 ) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DISPUTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,53,21,430/- MADE THEREIN. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE A.O. THAT THE BUYER/ALLOTTEES OF THE LAND HAD NO RIGHT IN THE PLO T OF LAND OF THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH THE FLATS SOLD TO THEM WERE CONSTRUCTED. ATTE NTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD WAS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FOLLO WING CLAUSES I.E. CLAUSE NO. 13 & 14 OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE FLAT PURCHASERS:- ULAUSE 13: IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO THAT ON THE ALLOTTEE/S PAYING THE FULL CONSIDERATION AND ALL OTHER AMOUNTS DUE AND PAYABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT TO THE OWNER, THE ALLOTEE/S SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME AND AT ALL TIMES BE ENTITLED TO DEAL WITH DISP OSE OFF, ASSIGN, ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 12 LET, GIVE ON LEAVE AND LICENSE BASIS AND/OR OTHERWI SE TRANSFER THE SAID PREMISES AND/OR BENEFIT OF THIS AGREEMENT TO A NY THIRD PARTY OF PERSON AND/OR PART WITH POSSESSION OF THE SAID P REMISES TO ANY THIRD PARTY OR PERSON (SUBJECT THE BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY) FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AND ON SUCH ITEMS AS THE ALLOTEE/S MA Y THINK FIT AND PROPER WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE OR RESOURCES TO CONCUR RENENCE OF THE OWNER. THE ALLOTTEE/S SHALL BE ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATED T HE CONSIDERATION MONIES SO RECEIVED ON TRANSFER OF THE SAID PREMISES IN SUCH MANNER AS THEY MAY DEEM FIT. THE NEW PURCHASER OR OCCUPANT SHALL HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS THAT OF THE ALLOTEE/S UNDER THIS AGREEMENT AND SHALL DISCHARGE THE LIKE OBLIGATION, HERE BY IN TENDED TO BE DISCHARGE BY ALLOTTEE/S. PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT ANY SUCH PROSP ECTIVE ALLOTTEE/S BE A HINDU AND VEGETARIAN . CLAUSE 14 IN THE EVENT SAID BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED OR DESTROY ED BY FIRE, EARTHQUAKE OR ANY ACT OF GOD. THAN THE ALLOTTEE OR THEIR NOMINEE/S OR ASSIGN OR TRANSFEREES SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO CONS TRUCT, USE AND OCCUPY THE SAME AREA AS THE SAID PREMISES IS THE NE W BUILDING THAT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SAID PLOT PROVIDED THAT THE ALLOTTEE/S SHALL CONTRIBUTE THE PROPORTIONATE COST OF CONSTRUC TION. 12. IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ABOVE CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT WERE SUFFICIENT TO S HOW THAT THE BUYERS OF FLAT HAD GOT RIGHT ON FSI AND POTENTIAL USE OF THE AREA ARISING FROM THE PLOT OF LAND IN PROPORTION TO THE AREA OF THE RESPECTIVE FLATS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID BUYERS ALSO HAD AN AUTHORITY TO CREATE CHARGE ON THE FLATS SOLD TO THEM. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS ON THE PLOT OF LAND CONSUMING FSI AS WELL AS UTILIZING RIGHT TO USE TDR WAS TO TH E DETRIMENT OF THE LAND USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUILDER AND THEREFORE FAIR MARKE T VALUE OF THE LAND ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION IE. 17-4-2001 ATTRIBUTABLE TO TH E AREAS SOLD WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING HER BUSINESS I NCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 13 13. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALL OW THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,53,21,430/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE COST OF LAND ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AREA SOLD WHILE COMPUTING HER BUSINESS PROFITS FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 7, 7.1, 7.2 & 7.3 O F HIS IMPUGNED ORDER:- 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND PERUS ED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CON SUMED THE BALANCE FS OF THE PLOT. IT CAN NOT BE DENIED THAT RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL FLOORS WAS ALSO CONSUMED. IN FACT, THE- ENTIRE BALA NCE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PLOT IS CONSUMED BY THE APPELLANT ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND NO PART OF THE BALANCE DEVELOPMENT POTE NTIAL OF THE PLOT IS LEFTOVER. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CARRYING ON BUSINES S AS BUILDER AND DEVELOPER BEFORE A.Y.2002-03. THE APPELLANT STARTED THE BUSINESS ON 17.4.2001 AND CARRIED OUT VARIOUS BUSINESS ACTIVITY RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY. THE BUYER OF THE FLAT HAS GOT UNLIMITED RIGHT IN THE FLATS PURCHASED BY THEM WHICH INCLUDES RIGHT AT ALL TIMES TO DEAL WITH DISPOSE OFF, ASSIGN, LET, GIVE ON LEAVE AND LI CENSE BASIS AND/OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER THE SAID PREMISES AND/OR BENEFIT OF THIS AGREEMENT TO ANY THIRD PARTY OF PERSON AND/OR PART WITH POSSE SSION OF THE SAID PREMISES TO ANY THIRD PARTY OR PERSON (SUBJECT THE BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY) FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AND ON SUCH ITEMS A S THE ALLOTEE/S MAY THINK FIT AND PROPER WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE OR RECOU RCES TO CONCURRENCE OF THE OWNER. EVEN IN THE EVENT SAID BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED OR DE STROYED BY FIRE, EARTHQUAKE OR ANY ACT OF GOD. THAN THE ALLOTTEE OR THEIR NOMINEE/S OR ASSIGN OR TRANSFEREES SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO CONSTRU CT, USE AND OCCUPY THE SAME AREA AS THE SAID PREMISES IN THE NEW BUILD ING THAT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SAID PLOT. THE BUYERS OF THE FL AT HAD ALSO AUTHORITY TO CREATE CHARGE ON THE FLATS. 7.1. THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE BUYE R OF THE FLAT HAS GOT RIGHT ON FSI, POTENTIAL TO USE TDR AND TDR WHICH I HAS GONE TO CONSTRUCT HIS FLAT. WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF RIGHT TO LEASE BEING EMBEDDED IN THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP, HONBLE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF A.R.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS V/S CIT 176 ITR 417(S. C.) HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE ENTIRE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY MEANS THE OWN ERSHIP OF A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS AND A LIMITED INTEREST WHICH CAN B E SEVERED AND DISPOSED OF FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD IN THE FORM OF L EASE OR MORTGAGE OR THE LIKE IS PART OF THAT BUNDLE. ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 14 THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAN D INCLUDES THEREIN A COMPONENT OF PURCHASE PRICE ATTRIBUTABLE TO VARIOUS KINDS OF INTERESTS EMBEDDED IN THE SAID LAND. 7.2. WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER OF PR OPERTY, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNIL SIDHARTHBHAI V/S CIT 156 ITR 509 OBSERVED AS UNDER: IN ITS GENERAL SENSE, THE EXPRESSION TRANSFER OF PROPERTY CONNOTES, THE PASSING OF RIGHTS IN PROPERTY FROM ON E PERSON TO ANOTHER. IN ONE CASE, THERE MAY BE A PASSING OF THE ENTIRE BUNDLE OF RIGHTS FROM THE TRANSFEROR TO THE TRANSFEREE. IN ANOTHER CASE, THE TRANSFER MAY CONSIST OF ONE OF THE ESTATES ONLY OUT OF ALL THE ESTATES COMPRISING THE TOTALITY OF RIGHTS IN THE PR OPERTY. IN A THIRD CASE, THERE MAY BE A REDUCTION OF THE EXCLUSIVE INT EREST IN THE TOTALITY OF RIGHTS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER INTO A JOI NT OR SHARED INTEREST WITH OTHER PERSONS. AN EXCLUSIVE INTEREST IN PROPERTY IS A LARGER INTEREST THAN A SHARE IN THAT PROPERTY. 7.3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAFNA CHARITABLE TRUST V/S CIT 230 ITR 809 MUMBAI HIGH COURT HELD THAT TRANSFER OF INTEREST IN A PROPERTY AMOUNTS TO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION2(14) AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING REL IEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES A ND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSER VED THAT THE CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN BY THE A.O. THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF PRO PORTIONATE RIGHT IN THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ALLOTTEES OF THE FLATS ON THE BASIS OF CLAUSE 3 OF THE AGREEMENT. WHILE DOING SO, HE READ THE SAID CLAUSE IN ISOLATION WITHOUT REFERRING TO OTHER CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT ESPECIA LLY CLAUSE NO. 13 & 14. CLAUSE NO. 3 OF THE AGREEMENT BASICALLY STIPULATED THE CONDITIONS BASED ON THE BYE-LAWS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CO-OP. HSG. SOCIET Y LTD. WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND THE JOINT OWNER OF THE PLOT WHICH WERE THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 15 OF THE SOCIETY SHALL CONTINUE TO REMAIN AS MEMBERS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE ALLOTTEES SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE USE AND OCCUPA TION OF THE PLOTS WITHOUT ANY RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN THE PLOT OF LAND. CLAU SE 13 OF THE AGREEMENT HOWEVER PROVIDED THAT THE BUYER OF THE FLAT HAVE GOT UNLIMI TED RIGHT IN THE FLAT PURCHASED BY THEM INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEAL WITH, DISPOSE OFF, ASSIGN, LET, GIVE ON LEAVE AND LICENCE BASIS OR OTHERWISE TRANSF ER THE FLAT TO ANY THIRD PARTY OR PERSON FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AND ON SUCH CONSID ERATION AND ON SUCH TERMS AS THE ALLOTTEE MAY THINK FIT AND PROPER WITH OUT ANY REFERENCE OR RECOURSE TO CONCURRENCE OF THE OWNER. IT WAS FURTH ER STIPULATED IN CLAUSE NO. 14 THAT IN THE EVENT OF THE BUILDING BEING DEMOLISH ED OR DESTROYED, THE ALLOTTEE OR THEIR NOMINEE/S SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO C ONSTRUCT, USE AND OCCUPY THE SAID AREA IN THE NEW BUILDING THAT SHALL BE CON STRUCTED ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. IT WAS ALSO STIPULATED THAT THE BUYERS OF THE FLAT SHALL HAVE AN AUTHORITY TO CREATE CHARGE ON THE FLATS. IN OUR OPINION, THE SE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE RELEVANT AGREEMENTS WERE SUFFICIE NT TO SHOW THAT THE PROPORTIONATE RIGHTS IN THE PLOT OF LAND ON WHICH T HE FLATS WERE CONSTRUCTED WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ALLOTTEES OF THE FLATS AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE COST OF LAND ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FLAT S SOLD IN COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECI SION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF A.R. KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF SUNIL SIDHARTHBHAI (SUPRA). AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO RAISE ANY MATERIAL CONTENTION TO DISPUTE THIS LEGAL ITA 215 & 216 /MUM/2009 & C.O . 122/M/2009 16 POSITION CLEARLY EMERGING FROM THE TERMS AND CONDIT IONS OF THE RELEVANT AGREEMENTS AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. C IT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) G IVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLDING THE SAME, WE DISMISS T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE R EVENUE AND C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-04-2013. . # R O PQ. ! S#)T 23-04-2013 Q O SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (P.M. JAGTAP ) * '#$ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '#$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; S#) DATED 23-04-2013 %.*).'./ RK , SR. PS # R O 1*UV W V. # R O 1*UV W V. # R O 1*UV W V. # R O 1*UV W V./ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 12/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. X () / THE CIT(A)CONCERNED, MUMBAI. 4. X / CIT CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. V%[ 1**) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI H BENCH 6. &- \ / GUARD FILE. # R)' # R)' # R)' # R)' / BY ORDER, '2V 1* //TRUE COPY// ] ] ] ]/ // /' ' ' ' ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI