Naresh T. Wadhwani, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1259/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7459 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.1259/PUN/2015 [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 NARESH T. WADHWANI, UMED BHAVAN, OFFICE NO.9, CANARA BANK BUILDING, PIMPIRI, PUNE 411018. PAN : AABPW7203Q. . / APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MODI. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), PUNE 11, DT.24.08.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS AND WAS ENGAGED IN THE EXECUTION OF HOUSING PROJECT. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT / DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20.09.2017 2 RS.1,07,22,600/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.28.03.2014 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,02,95,110/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DT.24.08.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-11/DCIT CEN.CIR 1(2)/PN/435/2014-15) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT GRANTING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THEREBY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 85,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF WIP FOR THE PROJECT SAI VAIBHAV. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING A DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,52,923/-. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD TO THE SAME, IF DEEMED NECESSARY. 3. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NO.1. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF LD.A.R., THE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4 GROUND NO.2 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS.85,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF WORKING PROGRESS. 4.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT CLOSING WIP WAS SHOWN AT RS.3.53 LAKHS ONLY FOR REMAINING 5 UNSOLD FLATS. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY LOWER WIP. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION WHICH WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO AO. 3 AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE HAD ESTIMATED THE COST AT RS.85 LAKHS TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD WORKED OUT AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION COST ON THE BASIS OF TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST INCLUSIVE OF ESTIMATED COST. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHILE WORKING OF THE PROFIT ON THE FLATS ALREADY SOLD, ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY TAKEN THE BENEFIT OF ESTIMATED COST OF RS.85 LAKHS AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE, SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE ESTIMATED COST OF RS.85 LACS WHILE WORKING OUT THE WORK- IN-PROGRESS. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN WORK- IN-PROGRESS AT RS.3,53,416/-, THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WAS SHOWN LESS BY RS.85 LAKHS. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAME AS VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.85 LACS AS ESTIMATED COST TO THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT. AFTER ADDING THE ESTIMATED COST THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE PROJECT WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.11.27 CRS AND THIS WAS DIVIDED OVER THE UNSOLD AREA OF 49,600 SQFT. AS ON 31/03/2010. BY THIS EXERCISE THE APPELLANT ARRIVED AT AVERAGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION @ 2,272.44 PER SQFT. AS THE TOTAL AREA SOLD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS 4,5704 SQFT. THE TOTAL COST OF RS.10,38,59,481/- (45,704 X 2,272.44) WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS A/C. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ESTIMATED COST HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE . 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFORE, CORRECT IN POINTING OUT AT THE APPELLANT, HAVING CLAIMED THE ESTIMATED COST OF RS. 85 LACS AS EXPENDITURE AND HAVING INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS A/C., CANNOT ARGUE THAT THIS COST IN ENTIRELY PERTAINS TO WIP AND SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM WIP. THE APPELLANTS ACTION IN DEDUCTING THIS COST FROM WIP GIVES MUCH DISTORTED FIGURE OF THE WIP. THE TOTAL UNSOLD AREA IS 3,896 SQFT. AND ITS COST SHOULD BE RS.88,53,426/- IF WE APPLY THE AVERAGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DEBITED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. AS AGAINST THIS, APPELLANT HAS SHOWN ONLY RS.3,53,416/- AS WIP. THUS, THE WIP HAS BEEN APPARENTLY UNDERVALUED. THIS IS PATENTLY WRONG. 4 11. WE CAN LOOK AT THE SCENARIO FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. THE ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT'S OWN ADMISSION IS ONLY RS.10,42,12,898/- SPREAD OVER THE AVAILABLE UNSOLD AREA OF RS. 49,600 S F T, THE AVERAGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SQ FT. COMES TO RS.2,101/-. THUS, ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE THE COST THAT SHOULD BE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR 45,704 SQ FT. AREA SOLD DURING THE YEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS.9,60,24,104/-ONLY. THE APPELLANT THUS DEBITED EXCESS COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.78,35,377/-(10,38,59,481- 9,60,24,104). IF THE APPELLANT DOESNT WANT TO INCLUDE THE ESTIMATED COST IN WIP THEN AS A COROLLARY HE SHOULD NOT CLAIM THE SAME AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION AGAINST THE AREA ALREADY SOLD. RESULTANTLY, THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE SHOWN HIS COST OF CONSTRUCTION LESS BY RS. 78,35,377/- AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 12. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECONCILED THIS DISCREPANCY EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. THE APPELLANT HAS REFERRED TO CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISIONS, THOUGH THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT HOLD THAT THE ESTIMATED COST CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IN THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT INCLUDING THE ESTIMATED COST IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DEBITED TO THE P&L ACT. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER HAVING INCLUDED THE ESTIMATED COST IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION; THE APPELLANT IS JUSTIFIED IN NOT INCLUDING THE SAME IN WIP. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT OF MUCH HELP TO THE APPELLANT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE OF RS.85 LAKHS WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING PROFITABILITY AND IF THE EXPENDITURE WAS TO BE ADDED TO THE VALUE OF WIP, THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO NECESSARILY DEBIT IT AS EXPENDITURE TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION IN THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS WAS AT COST AND SUCH ESTIMATED COST YET TO BE INCURRED AGAIN FORMS PART OF VALUE OF WIP. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE APEX 5 COURT IN CALCUTTA CO. LTD., VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. LURGI INDIA CO., LTD., REPORTED IN (2008) 11 DTR 555. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS. WE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE PRESENT CASE. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, IT IS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE OF RS.85 LACS WAS ADDED TO THE COST ALREADY INCURRED TO ASCERTAIN THE TOTAL COST AND THAT SUCH ESTIMATED COST HAS TO BE DEDUCTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUATION OF CLOSING WIP AND THAT IF ESTIMATED COST IS ADDED TO THE VALUE WIP THEN SUCH ESTIMATED COST WILL HAVE TO BE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 7. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA CO., LTD., (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THEN THE EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY INCURRED BUT NOT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR IS STILL ALLOWABLE IF SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE CARRYING ON OF THE BUSINESS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LURGI INDIA CO., LTD (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER : BUSINESS EXPENDITURE ALLOWABILITY - PROVISIONS FOR EXPENSES - IF EXPENDITURE CAN BE ESTIMATED ON A REASONABLE BASIS, SUCH ESTIMATE WILL BE ACCRUED LIABILITY AND NOT A CONTINGENT LIABILITY - ASSESSEE HAVING ESTIMATED ITS LIABILITY FOR TWO PROJECTS AT RS. 13,26,724 AGAINST WHICH EXPENDITURE OF RS. 11,67,210 HAVING BEEN INCURRED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SAME WAS ALLOWABLE TO THAT EXTENT AND IF THE BALANCE WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE NEXT YEAR, THE WHOLE AMOUNT WAS ALLOWABLE. 6 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISIONS. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. 3 RD GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D OF THE ACT. 9.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN VARIOUS FIRMS WHICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME U/S 10(2A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE ACT TO WHICH ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO AO. HE PROCEEDED TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D AT RS.9,52,923/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 16. THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SATISFACTION IN NOT ACCEPTING HIS CLAIM OF NO EXPENDITURE AND INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A R.W.R 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES. I FIND FROM THE DETAILS MENTIONED ABOVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN NUMBER OF PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. THERE IS SUFFICIENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLOSING AND OPENING BALANCE IN ALMOST ALL THE ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, IT IS SAFE TO PRESUME THAT THESE ARE ALL CURRENT A/CS OR AT LEAST THERE ARE FREQUENT TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THESE FIRMS. CARRYING OUT SO MANY TRANSACTIONS DEFINITELY INVOLVES CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE WORK AND FOR MANAGERIAL SKILLS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT WRONG IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A R.W.R. 8D OF INCOME-TAX RULES. ONCE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A ARE INVOKED THE DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE AS PER RULE 8D OF INCOME TAX RULES. I DO NOT THINK THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MUCH LEE WAY OR DISCRETION IN THIS REGARD. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONTESTED THE 7 COMPUTATION PARTY OF THE DISALLOWANCE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY AO BEFORE DISALLOWANCE EXPENSES U/S 14A OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS TO REACH A FINDING BEFORE INVOKING PROVISIONS. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HERO CYCLES LTD., REPORTED IN 323 ITR 0518. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE OF NOT HAVING INCURRED ANY EXPENSES FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO AO. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF AO OF ASSESSEE HAVING INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TO EARN TAX FREE INCOME. WE FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL ISSUE THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHARMEER SAMBHAVI URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD., (SUPRA) WHILE DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D IN A CASE WHEN THERE WAS NO FINDING BY THE AO FOR INCURRING OF SUCH EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME, HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 6.3 WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE UTILISED THE INTEREST BEARING FUND FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT AO HAS APPLIED SECTION 8 14A(2) BUT SECTION 14A(2) ONLY VESTS POWERS IN THE AO FOR QUANTIFICATION OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE BUT AT THE SAME TIME SECTION 14A(2) DOES NOT OVERRIDE SECTION 14A(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6.4 IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES LTD. (SUPRA) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HAS OBSERVED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A REQUIRED FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME, AND WITHOUT SAID FINDING NO EXPENDITURE CAN BE DISALLOWED U/S.14A OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONSIDERED SECTION 14A(2) AND RULE 8D(1) ALSO. IN THE CASE OF CCI LTD. (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE EARNED THE DIVIDEND INCOME ON THE ASSETS WHICH WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT BUT THE PROFIT ON THE SALE WAS OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THERE CANNOT BE PROFIT ON THE TRANSFER OF THE MUTUAL FUNDS BUT AS WE HAVE HELD THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING BY THE AO NOR BY THE CIT(A) THAT INFACT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT, ON THIS FACTUAL ASPECT, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE. WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D AS THE MANDATE OF SECTION 14A(1) IS NOT FULFILLED. 12. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (WHEREIN THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES LTD., HAS BEEN RELIED UP) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, IN THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A. WE THEREFORE DIRECT ITS DELETION. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. YAMINI 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-11, PUNE. CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE. , , / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; [ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.