GAZEBO DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1561/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79361 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Deemed dividend
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I B ENCH, MUMBAI , !', % % % % &' . % . () . % . , !' * BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR.S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.921/CHD/09 ( + + + + / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 THE DCIT-8(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., GAZEBO HOUSE, 52,GULMOHAR ROAD, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI-400 049 C.O. NO. 67/CHD/2009 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.921/CHD/09 ( + / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., GAZEBO HOUSE, 52,GULMOHAR ROAD, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI-400 049 / VS. THE DCIT-8(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ I.T.A. NO.1561/MUM/2012 ( + + + + / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., GAZEBO HOUSE, 52,GULMOHAR ROAD, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI-400 049 / VS. THE DCIT-8(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 2 ', ./ -. ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCG 0009N ( ,/ / APPELLANT ) .. ( 01,/ / RESPONDENT ) ,/ 2 / DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SUNIL AGRAWAL 01,/ 3 2 / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NITESH JOSHI 3 4) / DATE OF HEARING: 02 .07.2014 56+ 3 4) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:11.07.2014 !7 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: ITA NO. 921/CHD/09 FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CRO SS OBJECTION NO. 67/CHD/2009 ISFILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA DT.12.06.2 009 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2006-07. ITA NO. 1561/M/2012 IS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-16, MUMBAI DT. 11.01.2012 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSE D OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NO. 921/CHD/2009- A.Y. 2006-07 2. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,90,199/- MADE U/S. 40A(2)(B) AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 37(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 3 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,90,199/- MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS I N ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 2,42,51,715/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 2,62,50,000/- MADE U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A REALITY DEVELOPER. THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED ON 31.3.2007 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME AT RS. 4,16,74,093/-. THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT AND STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE A SSESSEE. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST OF RS. 63,45,627/-. THE SAID INTEREST WAS PAID TO ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. G AZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD., BEING SPECIFIED PERSON U/S. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. INTEREST WAS PAID @ 12% PER ANNUM. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT PAID INTEREST ON SIMILAR ADVANCES AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,06 ,23,242/-. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 7,66,79,452/- ON WHICH ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PA ID ANY INTEREST. ON FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET, THE AO NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PARTIES AMOU NTING TO RS. 17,55,87,523/-. 3.2. ON THESE FACTS THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EX PLAIN WHY INTEREST PAID TO ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES L TD. BE NOT DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK BEING INADMISSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED THAT IT WAS TO SELL CERTAIN PROPERTY AT LUDHIANA TO M/S. GAZEBO IN DUSTRIES LTD., SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS NOT FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCES, THE DEAL B ROUGHTGOT DELAYED AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO PAY INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM TO M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 4 M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR FROM THE AO WHO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID INTEREST TO ANY PARTIES FROM WHOM HE HAS TAKEN ADVA NCES AND FURTHER THE SAID INTEREST WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE TAX AUDIT RE PORT U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED INTEREST OF RS . 63,45,627/- PAID TO M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. BEING SPECIFIED PERSON U/S. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TH E NATURE OF TRANSACTION WITH M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE ASSE SSEE TO ITS SISTER CONCERN. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO ERRED IN INVOKING THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO I TS SISTER CONCERN WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF SOME OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. THEREFORE, EXPLANATION TO SEC. 37(1) DOES NOT APPLY. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO N-MENTIONING OF THE PAYMENT IN TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT CA NNOT BY ITSELF ALLOW THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE COMPARISON BY THE AO OF NOT PAYING INTEREST ON OTHE R ADVANCES IS UNCALLED FOR BECAUSE OTHER ADVANCES DO NOT FIT IN THE SAME FOOTING AS THAT OF THE ADVANCE GIVEN BY M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED TH E AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 5 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SIMPLY RELIE D UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTER EST TO ITS SISTER CONCERN @ 12% PER ANNUM. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY INTEREST ON OTHER BORROWINGS/ADVANCES. HO WEVER, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ARE NO T TENABLE IN LAW. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAYING INTEREST SINC E 1999-2000 BY MAKING TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE SAID INTEREST HA S BEEN ALLOWED IN ALL THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE RECIPIENT M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. IS DECLARING THE INTEREST INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF I NCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VERY RIGHTLY DECLINED TO INVOKE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 37(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THIS PAYMENT OF INTEREST. CONSIDERING A LL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. 9. PROCEEDING FURTHER, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS DEBITED RS. 1,94,73,663/- TO ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UN DER THE HEAD DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WHICH INCLUDED RS. 71,90,199/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO M/S. DEV CONSTRUCTION. THE AO FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THIS PAYMENT. INVOKI NG PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA), THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS. 71,90, 199/-. 10. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ONE PROPERTY TO M/S. DEV CONSTRUCTION WHIC H WAS UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND REQUIRED ADDITIONS/RENOVATION WORK. THE POSSESSION OF M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 6 THE SAID PROPERTY WAS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO SALE AGREEMENT AND IT WAS AGREED THAT THE ADDITIONS/RENOVATION/ALT ERATION WORK WOULD BE CARRIED ON BY M/S. DEV CONSTRUCTION AND THE ASSESSE E WOULD REIMBURSE THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE SAID PARTY, RS. 71,90 ,199/- WAS PAID TO M/S. DEV CONSTRUCTION ON THIS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 40A(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE LABOUR CHAR GES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY M/S. DEV CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAD DEDUCTE D THE TAX AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ON CE THE LABOUR CHARGES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE PURCHASER PARTY AND TDS W AS DULY DEDUCTED BY THAT PARTY OUT OF SUCH LABOUR PAYMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE TIME OF REIMBURSING SUCH PAYMENT TO THE PURCHASER PARTY AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.71.90,199/-. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHA T HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LABOUR CHARGES HAVE BEEN IN CURRED BY M/S. DEV CONSTRUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORIC AL FINDING THAT TDS HAS BEEN MADE BY DEV CONSTRUCTION ON SUCH LABOUR PA YMENTS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY REIMBU RSED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY M/S. DEV CONSTRUCTION. IN OUR CONSIDER ED VIEW, ON SUCH REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURE, THERE IS NO LIABILIT Y FOR TDS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. NO INTERF ERENCE IS CALLED FOR. GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 7 14. ON FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNTS, THE AO NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED PAYMENTS AS ADVANCES FROM M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. WHICH ARE IN ADDITION TO THE BROUGHT FORWARD ADVANC ES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF SUCH ADVANCES, THE AO NOTICED THAT M /S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. HAS MADE ADVANCES OF RS. 2,62,50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O EXPLAIN WHY ADVANCE FROM M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. BE NOT CON SIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND INCOME U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IT WAS E XPLAINED THAT ALL ADVANCES FROM M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2 (22)(E) DO NOT APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR FROM THE AO WHO WENT ON TO TREAT RS. 2,62,50,000/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 15. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDE D THAT THE TRANSACTION WITH M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. WAS IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE MI SCHIEF OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS O NLY CONSIDERED AND TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE FROM BOMBAY OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE LUDHIANA OF ITS SISTER CONC ERN M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT THE AO HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID SUBSTANTIA L AMOUNTS TO M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDER ED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) WENT ON TO CONSIDER THE TRANSACTION OF AMOUNT TAKEN AND GIVEN TO M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. TH E SAID TRANSACTIONS ARE EXHIBITED AT PAGE-22 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT(A) FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS. 19 ,98,285 CAN ONLY BE M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 8 CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED A RELIEF OF RS. 2,42,51,715/-. 16. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 17. THE LD. DR SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF T HE AO. 18. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME STATED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPL ICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER A SHARE HO LDER OF M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. NOR THE ASSESSEE IS A MEMBER OR A P ARTNER OR A SHARE HOLDER IN ANY CONCERN IN WHICH M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY SUBSTANTIAL INTER EST IN M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIES LTD. WE FIND THAT THIS ASPECT HAS NOT B EEN LOOKED INTO BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, FOR VERIFYING THE FA CT FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE SHARE HOLDING PATTERN IN TH E RELATED COMPANIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO IS DIR ECTED TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A SHARE HOLDER OF M/S. GAZE BO INDUSTRIES LTD. OR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST I N ANY CONCERN WHICH HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN M/S. GAZEBO INDUSTRIE S LTD. AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. C.O. NO. 67/CHD/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 9 20. THE CROSS OBJECTION NO. 1 & 2 ARE IN SUPPORT O F THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL I N ITA NO. 921/CHD/2009. SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE ON THESE GROUNDS, THE CROSS OBJECTION NO. 1 & 2 BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 21. THE CROSS OBJECTION NO.3 & 4 RELATES TO THE ADD ITION U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THIS ISSUE IN REVE NUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 921/CHD/09 TO THE FILES OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AS PER OUR DIRECTIONS, C.O. NO. 3 & 4 ARE ALSO ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. 22. IN THE RESULT, C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. I TA NO. 1561/M/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 ASSESSEES APPE AL 23. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-16 MUMBAI DT. 11.1.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2 006-07. 24. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE DCIT U/S. 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 25. ON PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT TREATED AS DE EMED DIVIDEND BY THE AO IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SI NCE WE HAVE RESTORED THIS ISSUE RELATING TO DEEMED DIVIDEND IN ITA NO. 9 21/CHD/09 TO THE FILES OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AND SINCE THE PENALT Y HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE SAID ADDITION, THE PENALTY ORDER IS ALSO SET AS IDE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH. M/S. GAZEBO DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 10 26. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JULY, 2014 . !7 3 6+ 8 9!: 11.7.2014 6 3 ; SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (N.K. BILLAIYA) !' /JUDICIAL MEMBER !' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 9! DATED 11 TH JULY, 2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS !7 !7 !7 !7 3 33 3 04 04 04 04 <+4 <+4 <+4 <+4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ,/ / THE APPELLANT 2. 01,/ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. = / CIT 5. >; 04 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;& ? / GUARD FILE. !7 !7 !7 !7 / BY ORDER, 14 04 //TRUE COPY// @ @@ @ / A A A A - - - - (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI