ARCH PHARMALABS LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI

ITA 1248/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9813 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JM) I.T.A. NO. 1248/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) I.T.A. NO. 3114 /MUM/20 1 6 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 ) M/S. ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. H - WING, 4 TH FLOOR TEX CENTRE, OPP. SAKI VIHAR ROAD CHANDIVALI, ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI - 400 072. VS. DCIT C.CIRCLE - 32, NOW DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1) AIR INDIA BUILDING NAIRMAN POINT MUMBAI - 400 021. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AACCM0306Q ASSESSEE BY SHRI NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL DEPARTMENT BY S HRI M.C. OMI NINGSHEN DATE OF HEARING 2 . 8 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 . 8 . 201 7 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT (A) - 53, MUMBAI AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS. THE REVENUE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT CERTAIN DEALERS (POPULARLY CALLED HAWALA DEALERS) ARE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ACTUALLY SUPPLYING THE MATERIALS. FROM THE DET AILS COLLECTED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED MATERIALS FROM THOSE HAWALA DEALERS DURING THE YEARS RELEVANT TO THE AY 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11. ACCORDINGLY THE AO RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10. HE ESTIMATED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - M/S. ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. 2 11 ALSO, THE AO ADDED 10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AS INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ESTIMATE OF 10% MADE BY THE AO. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE QUANTUM OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE LD CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE SAME AND ALLOW RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 4. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE LD A.R FIRST ARGUED ON THE GROUND RELATING TO VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A O HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT TO ASSESS THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S MANISH ENTERPRISES, M/S J.P ENTERPRISES, M/S MAXILLA PHARMA P LTD AND M/S M.R CORPORATION. IN THIS REGARD HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF REASONS FOR REOPENING PLACE D IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE ABOVE SAID PARTIES, BUT HE MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: - (A) M/S CRESCENT CHEMICAL TRADING CO. (B) M /S PHARMA TRADING HOUSE (C) M/S ODYSSEY CHEMICALS. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT THE ABOVE SAID FACT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT SO HAPPENED THAT THE QUANTUM OF PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S MANISH ENTERPRISES AND M/S J P ENTERPRISES MATCHED WITH THE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS PURCHASED FROM M/S CRESCENT CHEMICAL TRADING CO AND M/S PHARMA TRADING HOUSE. HOWEVER HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTIES ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. 5. TH E LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF M/S. ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. 3 MAKING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF REASONS R ECORDED FOR RECORDED FOR REOPENING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE ANY FURTHER ADDITION IN RESPECT OF OTHER ISSUES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF JET AIRWAYS LTD (2011)(331 ITR 236). 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED ACCOMMODAT ION BILLS FROM THE HAWALA DEALERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE NAME OF THE DEALERS DIFFERED, YET THE TIN NUMBER REMAINED THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE MADE THE ADDITION AGAINST THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE PA RTIES MENTIONED IN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE - OPENING SHOULD BE HELD TO BE VALID. 7. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSM ENT. AS SUBMITTED BY LD A.R, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GOODS FROM FOUR PARTIES, VIZ., M/S MANISH ENTERPRISES, M/S J.P ENTERPRISES, M/S MAXILLA PHARMA P LTD AND /S M.R CORPORATION, WHO WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE PROVIDED ONLY ACCOMMODA TION BILLS WITHOUT ACTUALLY SUPPLYING THE MATERIALS. HOWEVER, WE NOTICE THAT HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE ABOVE SAID PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES FOR MAKING AD DITION IN THE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT: - (A) M/S CRESCENT CHEMICAL TRADING CO. (B) M/S PHARMA TRADING HOUSE (C) M/S ODYSSEY CHEMICALS. EVEN THOUGH THE QUANTUM OF PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S MANISH ENTERPRISES AND M/S J P ENTERPRISES MATCHED WITH THE QUAN TUM OF PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S CRESCENT CHEMICAL TRADING CO AND M/S PHARMA TRADING HOUSE M/S. ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. 4 RESPECTIVELY, YET THE FACT REMAINS THAT THEY ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT PARTIES. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX SHOULD BE CONSTRUE D STRICTLY. IN THE CASE OF REOPENING OF ALREADY COMPLETED ASSESSMENT, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO MORE STRICT INTERPRETATION. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED ESCAPED INCOME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. 8. NOW THE QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHETHER THE AO IS ENTITLED TO MAKE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER ESCAPED INCOME, IF HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN RE SPECT OF ITEMS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THIS QUESTION CAME TO THE CONSIDERATION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JET AIRWAYS LTD (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE ADDITION OF ANY OTHER ESCAPED INCOME, IF HE DOES NOT MAKE ADDITION OF ANY INCOME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. SINCE THE FACTS AVAILABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE AO IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WHEN HE DID NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ITEMS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) AND QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 9. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2010 - 11. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GOODS FROM M/S MAXILLA PHARMA P LTD, WHO HAS BEEN LISTED A S HAWALA DEALER BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PURCHASES ONLY TO INFLATE THE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS, RECEIPT AND SALE OF GOODS. HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT ENTIRE EXPENSES SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ONLY THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE TRANSACTION SHOULD BE ADDED. ACCORDINGLY THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 10% OF THE PURCHASES. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOODS TO THE TUN E OF RS.3.41 M/S. ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. 5 CRORES FROM THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY AND ACCORDINGLY THE AO ASSESSED A SUM OF RS.34.14 LAKHS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL PURCHASE MADE FROM THE ABOVE SAID CONCERN WAS ONLY RS.3.29 CR ORES. IT ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF 4.16% FROM THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS AND HENCE ESTIMATION AT 10% OVER AND ABOVE THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARBITRARY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE GOODS PURCH ASED FROM M/S MAXILLA PHARMA HAS BEEN SOLD TO M/S MANISH ENTERPRISES AND HENCE THERE IS ONE TO ONE RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASES AND SALES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY ENQUIRY TO DISPROVE THE PURCHASES OR SALES AND ACCORDINGLY PLEADED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED AS IT HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTIONS. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS: - (A) SHRI RAJEEV G KALATHIL (ITA NO.6727/MUM/2012) (B) PARESH ARVIND GANDHI (ITA NO.5706/MUM /2013) (C) BABULAL C BORANA (282 ITR 251) 11. THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT FULLY CONVINCED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTICED THAT THE INVOICES HAVE BEEN RAISED EVEN ON SUNDAYS AND FURTHER THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS. HENCE, IN PRINCIPLE, HE AGREED WITH THE AO THAT 10% OF THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXTRA PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE QUANTIFICATION OF PURCHASES, HE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERI FY THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL. 12. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX AUTHORIT IES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO DID NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WITH THE SUPPLIERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE M/S. ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. 6 DETAILS LIKE, INVOICES, QUANTITY DETA ILS, ONE TO ONE RECONCILIATION OF PURCHASES AND SALES, PAYMENT DETAILS ETC. TO PROVE THE PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON SURMISES AND HENCE THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 13. THE LD A.R ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION DATED 31 - 07 - 2017 RENDERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF KAMAL P AGARWAL & OTHERS (ITA NO.3537, 3538 & 3540/MUM/2016 AND OTHERS) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BENCH WAS CONVINCED THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED, YET IT SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN THE RANGE OF 3.5% TO 4% TO MEET THE ANOMALIES, IF ANY. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, THE AO CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES BY SENDING NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY AND HENCE THE ENTIRE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD RECEIVED CONCRETE INFORMATION ABOUT THE AC COMMODATION BILLS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS. FURTHER THE BILLS WERE DATED ON SUNDAYS. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED. 15. WE HEARD THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY TO DISPROVE THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES. AT THE SAME TIME, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS. 16. IN THE CASE OF KAMAL P AGARWAL AND OTHERS (SUPRA), THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH CONSIDERED THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SANJAY V DHRUV (ITA NO.5089/M/2014 DATED 29 - 02 - 2016), WHEREIN THE ADDITION WAS DELETED FULLY. IN THE CASE OF SHARAD CONSTRUCTION P LTD (ITA NOS.2812 - 14/M/2015 M/S. ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. 7 DATED 30 - 09 - 2016), ANOTHER CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAD ALSO FULLY DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBS ERVING THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NIKUNG EXIMP ENTERPRISES (P) LTD (372 ITR 619), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES BY OBSERVING THAT THE NON - PRODUCTION OF SUPPLIERS BEFORE THE AO CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE GOODS LOCALLY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF TRANSPORTATION BILLS, THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION IN THE RANGE OF 3.5% TO 4% OF THE VALUE OF PURCHASES. 17. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED THE PURCHASES WITH SALES. T HERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DOUBT THAT THE SALES COULD NOT BE MADE WITHOUT MAKING CORRESPONDING PURCHASES. THE AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE PURCHASES AS WELL AS SALES. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH EVIDENCES FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS, THE AO PRESU MED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE MADE EXTRA PROFIT AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE SAME AT 10% OF THE VALUE OF PURCHASES. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT MAKING ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ( SUPRA) ALSO CONSIDERS CERTAIN DECISIONS WHEREIN IDENTICAL ADDITION MADE BY THE AO HAS BEEN DELETED FOR WANT OF PROPER ENQUIRIES. HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMEN TS, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE MATERIALS MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY TRANSPORTED FROM THE SUPPLIERS PLACE TO THE CUSTOMERS PLACE, BUT NO EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD WAS FURNISHED. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIM ATING EXTRA PROFIT, IF ANY, MADE IN THE PURCHASES. HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ESTIMATION @ 10% APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDS THAT IT HAS ALREADY DECLARED 4.16% ON THE ABOVE SAID TRANSACTIONS. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT IN THE RANGE OF 3.50% TO 4% IN THE CASE OF KAMAL P AGARWAL & OTHERS (SUPRA). M/S. ARCH PHARMALABS LTD. 8 18. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES MA Y BE MADE @ 4% TO MEET THE ANOMALIES, IF ANY, AND IN OUR VIEW, THE SAME WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) STANDS MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 4% OF THE VALUE OF ALLEG ED BOGUS PURCHASES. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2009 - 10 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL RELATING TO AY 2010 - 11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 . 8 .201 7. SD/ - SD/ - (RAVISH SOOD ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUD ICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 23 / 8 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. G UARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI