ITO, Ward 1(3), Jalana, Jalna V. Smt. Anju Suryaprakash Demda, Jalna

ITA 150/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0521 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Tax effect
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 234B

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM ITA NO.117/PN/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SMT. ANJU SURYAPRAKASH DEMDA, PROP. OF AKANKSHA INTERNATIONAL AJINKYA PALACE, MANTHA ROAD, JALNA. PAN: ADGPD6397I .. APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JALNA. ... RESPONDENT ITA NO.150/PN/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JALNA. .. APPELLANT VS. SMT. ANJU SURYAPRAKASH DEMDA, PROP. OF AKANKSHA INTERNATIONAL AJINKYA PALACE, MANTHA ROAD, JALNA. PAN: ADGPD6397I ... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. K. KULKARNI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI P. L. KUREEL / DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 .11.2016 / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS. THE FIRST ONE IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SECOND ONE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2010 OF THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2 ITA NO.117/PN/2011 ITA NO.150/PN/2011 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER DIS MISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR NON-APPEARANCE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE MA NO.68/PN/2012 ORDER DATED 23.11.2012 RECALLED THE EARLIER ORDER. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RECALLED. ITA NO.150/PN/2011 (REVENUE) : 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMI TTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME RAISING THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 4. THE LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E TAX EFFECT OF THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ADMITTEDLY LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF LATEST CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21 OF 2015 DATED 10.12.2015, THE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN RS.10 LA KHS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.117/PN/2011 (ASSESSEE) : 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUN D NO.3 FOR WHICH LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISS ED. GROUND NO.5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 READ AS UNDER :- 3 ITA NO.117/PN/2011 ITA NO.150/PN/2011 1) ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. C.I.T.(A)- AURANGABAD WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION MADE OF RS.23,00,000/- BEING PART OF 35 LAKHS BY THE A.O. INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ARE NOT AT ALL APPLICA BLE SINCE ASSESSEES OWN MONEY EARLIER PAID TO THE CREDITOR HAS CAME BACK. THE AD DITION CONFIRMED BY C.I.T. (A) AURANGABAD WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL POSITIO N BE QUASHED. 2) ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. C.I.T.(A) AURANGABAD HAD ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ORIGINAL ADDITION OF RS.35,00,000/- VIOLAT ING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF MS SCRAP AND MS BARS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S AKANKSHA INTERNATIONAL, JALNA . SHE IS ALSO THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. WINE WORLD, JALNA WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMFL. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31 .10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,96,186/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,77,090/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.35,00,000/- IN THE NAME OF ONE SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR, SHRI PRAKASH BASR ANI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY TO FURNISH THE POSTAL ADD RESS, DATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF LOAN AND BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH WHICH THE MONIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED LEDGER EXTRACT APP EARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE SAID PARTY. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THIS LEDGER ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE IS CREDITS TO THE EXTENT O F RS.37,00,000/- ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES I.E. 19.07.2004 AND 22.07.2004. IN ABSENCE O F ANY DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SAID CRE DITOR AND NON-PRODUCTION OF THE SAID CREDITOR FOR HIS EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSING OF FICER INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 MADE ADDITION OF RS.35,00,000/- BEING T HE AMOUNT SHOWN AS CREDIT IN THE NAME OF SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI IN THE BOOKS OF TH E ASSESSEE. 4 ITA NO.117/PN/2011 ITA NO.150/PN/2011 9. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI PR AKASH BASRANI IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAJ METALS, HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT D-34, NEAR BU S STAND, KOLHAPUR AND BRANCH OFFICE AT OPP.HOTEL, AMBAR, NEAR POST OFFICE, JALNA . THE CREDITOR HAS EFFECTED SALE AND PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS OF SCRAP AND MS BARS WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT PAID TO AND RECEIVED FROM SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI ARE ADVANCES FOR PURCHASES AND ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR SALE. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE XEROX COPY OF THE PAN CARD AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION STANDS PROVED AS THE TRANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WI TH DEOGIRI BANK LTD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE QUESTION OF CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE CREDITOR DOES NOT ARISE AS THE ADVANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SA ID CREDITOR WHICH WAS REFUNDED BY THE CREDITOR ON LATER/SUBSEQUENT DATES. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INITIAL ADVANCES TO SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI TO THE TUNE OF RS.37,00,000/- WHICH WAS REFUNDED BY HIM ON SUBSEQU ENT DATES AND WERE CREDITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAIN ED WITH DEOGIRI BANK (SB A/C NO.1039). RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS, IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 IS UNCALLED FOR. 10. ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSE E THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CO NFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY HIM FROM TIME TO TIME, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, REMAND REPORT AND ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE A.O. AND ALSO THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAS PAID RS.37,00,000/- BY CHEQUES TO SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS REFUNDED BACK TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPE LLANT HAS POINTED-OUT THAT THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN PERSONAL BOOKS OF THE APPELL ANT ARE PAID AS UNDER: 19/07/2005 RS.10,00,000 22/07/2005 RS.10,00,000 22/07/2005 RS.10,00,000 22/07/2005 RS. 7,00,000 5 ITA NO.117/PN/2011 ITA NO.150/PN/2011 HOWEVER, AT THE YEAR END I.E. ON 31/03/2005 THERE I S NET CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.23,00,000/- WITH THE APPELLANT AS PER THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET AND BUSINESS BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS UNDE R: (I) M/S AKANKSHA INTERNATIONAL (A) RAJ METALS DEBIT BALANCE (-) RS.12,00,000/- (B) HARI OM STEEL RS.NIL (II) SMT. ANJU DEMDA (PERSONAL ACCOUNT) RS.35,00,00 0 NET CREDIT BALANCE RS.23,00,000/- THE APPELLANT HAS TO PROVE THIS CREDIT BALANCE OF S HRI PRAKASH BASRANI AND HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERNS STANDING IN THE BOOKS OF THE A PPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING F ACTS/FINDINGS OF THE A.O. I) THE SAID CREDITOR SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI WAS NOT P RODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION II) SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI HAS NOT REFLECTED THE AMOU NTS RECEIVABLE FROM THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED. EVEN THE TRANSACTIONS/BUSINESS OF TRADING SCRAP/CTD BARS UND ER THE NAME OF STYLE OF M/S.RAJ METALS AND M/S.HARI OM STEELS WERE NOT S HOW IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED. III) THE SALES TAX REGISTRATION NUMBERS APPEARING I N THE BILLS OF M/S.RAJ METALS IS FOUND TO BE NON-GENUINE AND THE S AME BELONGED TO SHRI SUNIL ARJUNDAS BASRANI, PROP. OF M/S.RAVIRAJ MARKET ING & SALES, KOLHAPUR. THE SALES TAX OFFICER COMMUNICATED THAT M/S.RAJ MET ALS AND M/S.HARI OM STEELS ARE NOT REGISTERED UNDER SALES-TAX AND M.V.A .T. UPTO THE DATE. IV) SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE APPE LLANT AND HIS FINANCIAL POSITION IS NOT SOUND TO PERMIT HIM TO CA RRY ON BUSINESS OF STEEL/SCRAP TRADING. V) THE APPELLANT HAS NOT REBUTTED THE VARIOUS FACTS POINTED-OUT AND THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND RE PORT IN HER COUNTER COMMENTS ON THE REMAND REPORT. THE APPELLANT WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FILE REPLY IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ISSUES VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 20/09/2010 ON OR BEFORE 07/10/2010: I) TO PROVE THE CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31/03/2005 OF SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI AND HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERNS IN THE BOOKS O F THE APPELLANT I.E. BY FILING CONFIRMATION LETTER OR/AND AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI AND BY PRODUCING SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI BEFORE THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION. II) THE SUSPENSE ACCOUNT OF RS.1,63,219/- SHOWN IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET WHICH REPRESENTS UNEXPLAINED EXCESS C REDIT/LIABILITY OVER THE ASSETS. III) THE UNPAID SALES-TAX AND TCS LIABILITY OF RS.4 ,00,436/- APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET NOT PAID UPTO THE DATE OF TAX AUD IT IS DISALLOWABLE U/S.43B OF THE ACT. NOTICE U/S.251 OF THE ACT WAS I SSUED FOR PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT IN RESPECT OF NEW ISSUES ON WHICH ADDIT ION WAS NOT MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE SHRI BASRANI BEFORE T HE A.O. AND HAS NOT FILED ANY REPLY/SUBMISSION BEFORE THE UNDERSIGN ED OR THE A.O. THE APPELLANT ON 03/11/2010 HAS FILED A LETTER CLAIMING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.35,00,000/- WAS ONLY ADVANCE GIVEN BY SHRI PRAKA SH A. BASRANI TO THE APPELLANT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT UNSECURED LOAN. 6 ITA NO.117/PN/2011 ITA NO.150/PN/2011 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED LETTER OF SHRI PRAKASH A. BASRANI DATED 16/08/2008 CONFIRMING THE ABOVE FACT ABOUT ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 03/11/2010 IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH EXPLANATION OF THE APPEL LANT WAS SOUGHT FOR VIDE LETTER DATED 29/09/2010. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED T O PROVE THE NET CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31/03/2005 OF RS.23,00,000/- APPEARIN G IN THE BALANCE SHEETS OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE ADDITION OF R S.23,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.35,00,000/- MAD E BY THE A.O. U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 11. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 IS UNCAL LED FOR SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI. RATHER HE HAS PAID TO HIM WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REFUND BY HIM. SO FAR AS NO N-PRODUCTION OF SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT, IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN HE WILL PRODUCE THE SAID PERSO N BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET -ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE AN OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SHRI PR AKASH BASRANI FOR EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE ADDITION OF RS.35,00,000/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BEING T HE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI PRAKASH A. BASRANI ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE SA ID PERSON TO GIVE SUCH HUGE AMOUNT AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE FIND THE CIT(A) UPHELD AN 7 ITA NO.117/PN/2011 ITA NO.150/PN/2011 ADDITION OF RS.23,00,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY HIM TO PROVE THE NET CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2005 OF RS.23,00,000/- APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SH RI PRAKASH BASRANI BY FILING CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND/OR AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI PRAKA SH BASRANI AND BY PRODUCING SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HI S VERIFICATION. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI AS SECURED OR UNSECURED LOAN AND INFACT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT TO SHRI PRAKASH BASRAN I AND THEREFORE PROOF OF THE CAPACITY OF THE SAID PERSON DOES NOT ARISE. IT IS ALSO HIS ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE SAID PERSON BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CASE. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ALTERN ATE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DI RECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CAS E AND PRODUCE SHRI PRAKASH BASRANI BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS EXAMIN ATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW AND FACT AFTER GI VING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDIN GLY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 15. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER S ECTION 234B AND 234D OF THE I.T. ACT. 16. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234D OF THE ACT ARE MANDATO RY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ABOVE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO.117/PN/2011 ITA NO.150/PN/2011 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 04 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. & '#)! *! / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD; 4) THE CIT, AURANGABAD; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , //TRUE COPY// ' / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ', / ITAT, PUNE