Ashish A. Samant, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1578/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0518 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMITRA BANERJI
• Keywords: Reason to believe
• Section: 142(1); 148; 144

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE . . , BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM ITA NO.1578/PN/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 SHRI ASHISH A. SAMANT, 452, MAHATMA SOCIETY KOTHRUD, PUNE 411 038. PAN: ALFPS8367L .. APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), PUNE. ... RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. N. PURANIK / DEPARTMENT BY : MS. SUMITRA BANERJI / DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.11.2016 / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2015 OF THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN THIS CASE, INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ADIT(INV.), UNIT 1(2), PUNE VIDE LETTER NO.PN/ADIT(INV) 1(2)/148/06-07 DATED 09.03.2007 THA T ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE CASE OF D.Y. PATIL GROUP OF CASES, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY SHRI ASHISH SAMANT IS TO BE TAXED IN HIS HANDS AS MENTIO NED BELOW :- A.Y. 2000-01 - RS.4,75,000/- A.Y. 2001-02 - RS.4,50,000/- A.Y. 2002-03 - RS.2,00,000/- TOTAL . RS.11,25,000/- ============ 2 ITA NO.1578/PN/2015 3. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED INCOME-TAX RETU RNS FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ABOVE YEARS. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO T HE SAID NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS SEPARATE LETTERS DATED 25.04.2007 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS STATED THAT HE WAS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE DURING THE P REVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND HAS REGULARLY FLIED HIS RETURNS OF INCOME ALONGWITH TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HIS EMPLOYER. HE FORWARDED COPIES OF THE RETURNS AND TDS CERTIFICATES FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 001-02 AND 2002-03 AND STATED THAT THE SAME MAY BE TREATED AS RETURNS IN C OMPLIANCE TO THE AFORESAID NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT O F THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01, HE STATED THAT ALTHOUGH HE IS UNABLE TO FIND TH E COPY OF RETURN, HE IS NEVERTHELESS CERTAIN THAT HE HAS FILED THE SAME WIT HIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THAT RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2000-01 BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 OF THE ACT. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) DATED 08.11.2007 BY RPAD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS SEPARATELY, FIXING THE HEARING ON 16.11.2007 AND CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. SINCE NO ONE APPEARED, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ISSUED ANOTHER SET OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) I.E. ON 06.12.2 007 AGAIN BY REGISTERED POST FOR THE STATED ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER, SIN CE NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS THERE ANY RESPONSE F ROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS F ROM THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE TAXABLE SALARY AT R S.40,000/- AND FURTHER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,75,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE 3 ITA NO.1578/PN/2015 ASSESSEE AS DONATIONS/ CAPITATION FEES FROM PARENTS /STUDENTS AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE CASE OF D.Y. PATIL GROUP OF CASES. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER FOR ANY ADMISSION AND PAYMENT OF CAPITATION FEES TO THE D.Y. PATIL GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS. ON T HE BASIS OF STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SUBMITTED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF SEIZ ED MATERIAL IT WAS NOTICED THAT SHRI ASHISH SAMANT HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNTS FROM TH E STUDENTS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI HAS MADE ENQUIRY ABOUT THE ASSESSEE AND HAD CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS HAVING HOUSE IN DHULE WHICH H AS BEEN SOLD TO MR. AGARWAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED TO PUNE. ENQU IRY CONDUCTED THROUGH TELEPHONE DIRECTORY REVEALS THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE ASHISH SAMANT IN PUNE. IT WAS FURTHER REPORTED THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NO CONNECTION RELATED TO AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM D.Y. PATIL GROUP I S NOT TENABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER REPORTED THAT THE DCIT, C ENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI HAS CONFIRMED THE IDENTITY OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PAN NUM BER AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THESE AMOUNTS. 6. THE CIT(A) CONFRONTED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPL ICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKING THE VARIOUS DET AILS OF SERVICE OF NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REPLY FORWARDED COPIES OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2)/142(1) DATED 08.11.2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HOWEVER, O THER DETAILS LIKE PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ETC. COULD NOT BE FURNISHED AS AL LEGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CARRIED OUT INSPECTION OF RECORD O N 06.02.2008 AND NOTED THAT 4 ITA NO.1578/PN/2015 ALTHOUGH COPY OF NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2 ) AND 142(1) DATED 08.11.2007 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ON RECORD , HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICES. 7. BASED ON THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUND RELATING TO THE NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) HOLDING THAT SINCE NO RETURN WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF ISSUE AND S ERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT O F THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY IS CONCERNED, HE ALSO REJ ECTED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE PAN NUMBER IDENTIFIED PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE CLAIM OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) AT PARA 8 TO 10 OF HIS ORDER READS AS UNDER :- 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, REOPENING U/S 147 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN DONE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ADIT(LNV), UNIT 1(2), PUNE VIDE LETTER DATED 9/3/2007 AND ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MA TERIAL IN THE CASE OF D.Y. PATIL GROUP EVIDENCING CERTAIN PAYMENT TO ONE SHRI ASHISH SAMANT HAVING PAN ALFPS8367L WHICH BELONG TO THE APPELLANT . THIS BEING SO, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE AO I N ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT, 1961 AS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT IN FORMATION WITH PAN DETAILS FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 9. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF ABSENCE OF SERVICE OF NOT ICE U/S 143(2) THE ACT. IT IS SEEN FROM TIE RECORDS THAT NOTICES U/S 143(2) /142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 8/11/2007 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING. THE AO MENTI ONS THAT NOTICES WERE SENT THROUGH RPAD BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICES. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT RECORDED THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WERE SERVED. HO WEVER, NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE I T ACT, 1961 WILL NOT VIT IATE THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT NO RETURN WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE ISSUED U/S 148 FILED COPIES OF RETURNS FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AND 2002-03 AND REQUESTED THE SAME TO BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S 148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, FOR A.Y. 2000-01, THE APPELLANT MERELY SUBMITTED TH AT THE RETURN WAS FILED BUT HE IS UNABLE TO FILE COPY OF THE SAME AND STATED TH AT NON-EXISTENT RETURN SHOULD BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT, 1961. THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 2 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS BEING SO, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONCLUDING T HAT NO RETURN WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE I T ACT, 1 961. ONCE IT IS CONCLUDED THAT NO RETURN WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING AND SERVING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE I T ACT, 1961 DOES NOT ARISE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE DISMISSED. 5 ITA NO.1578/PN/2015 10. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF WRONG IDENTITY IS CONCER NED, THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE ON THE BASIS OF CERTAI N ANOMALIES IN ADDRESS AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE MI DDLE NAME. HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT THE PAN NUMBER IDENTIFIED PE RTAINS TO THE APPELLANT, THE CLAIM OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 4,75,000/- IS UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE DISMISSED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- GROUNDS: 1. HONOURABLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VA LIDITY OF ORDER U/S. 144 R.W.S. 148. APPELLANT PRAYS TO HOLD THAT SAME IS BA D IN LAW, AS THE SAME IS COMPLETED WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING A ND OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 2. HONOURABLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VAL IDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148. APPELLANT PRAYS TO HOLD THE SAME AS BAD I N LAW. 3. HONOURABLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAKING INCORRECT OBSERVATION IN PARA'8' REGARDING MY IDENTITY AS TO PAN. INFACT NOWHERE PAN IS RECORDED IN SEARCH RECORD. FURTHER CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED DISCREPANCY IN AD DRESSES AND MIDDLE NAME AS TO MINE AND IN SEARCH RECORD. PROCEEDING INITIATED ON MISTAKEN IDENTITY AND ORDER PASSED MAY PLEASE BE DECLARED INVALID. 4. CIT(A) HAS ERRED M CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.4,7 5,000/- SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR CANCELLATION OF INTEREST CHA RGED U/S. 234A, 234B. 6. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. 7. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY AND /OR WITHDRAW THE GROUND/ GROUNDS AS THE OCCASION MAY DEMAND. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET S UBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY SINCE THE NAME OF THE ASS ESSEE IS SHRI ASHISH ASHOK SAMANT WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOT ICED IN THE NAME OF SHRI ASHISH SAMANT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 28.03.2007 AND AS PER THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 08.11.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD 6 ITA NO.1578/PN/2015 HURRIEDLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 31 ST DECEMBER, 2007. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S.144 WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING OR SERVICE OF NOTICE. SO FA R AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH AMOUNT AND ASSESSEE IS NOWHERE RELATED TO D.Y. PATI L GROUP OF CASES HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN MAKE THE ADDITION AND HOW THE CIT(A) CAN CONFIRM THE ADDITION. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS HE HELD AS NULL AND VOID SINCE NO NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 143(2) WAS ISSUED. HE ALSO REFERRED TO VARIOUS DECISION FILED IN THE PAPE R BOOK. 10. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 THEREFORE THERE IS NO REQU IREMENT FOR ISSUE OF ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). SHE SUBMITTED THAT LD . CIT(A) HAS PASSED A VERY REASONED ORDER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHICH SHOULD BE UPHELD. 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE. I FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMAT ION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 147 AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000- 01, 2001-02 AND 2002-03 AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE COPIES OF THE RETURN AND TDS CERTIFICATES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2001-02 AND 2002-03. HOWEVER, HE STATED THAT HE IS UNABLE TO FIND THE CO PY OF THE RETURN BUT WAS CERTAIN THAT HE HAD FILED THE SAME WITHIN THE PRESC RIBED TIME. HE ACCORDINGLY 7 ITA NO.1578/PN/2015 REQUESTED THAT THE RETURNS FILED EARLIER MAY BE TRE ATED AS RETURNS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES UNDER SECTION 148. I FIND THE ASSESSING OF FICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 IN ABSENCE OF ANY APPE ARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.5, 15,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE AS THERE IS NO PROOF IN THE RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT SUCH A NOTICE WA S EVER ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT IT IS A C ASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY SINCE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS SHRI ASHISH ASHOK SAMAN T WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE TO SHRI ASHISH SAMANT. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK , I FIND ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01, HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING ABOUT AS TO WHETHER SUCH NOTICES WERE RECEIVED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND 2002- 03. NEITHER THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SPEAK S OF THIS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME FORWARD AS TO WHAT HA S HAPPENED IN THE SUBSEQUENT TWO YEARS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED LY FILED COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH TDS CERTIFICATE, ETC. IN MY O PINION, THE MATTER REQUIRES A RE-VISIT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL GIVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. THE VARI OUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CA SE, THE ASSESSEE DESPITE RECEIPT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAS NOT FILED T HE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 NOR HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE EARLIER RETURN EVIDENCING THAT HE HAD FILED THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) IN MY OPINION DOES NOT ARISE. SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT 8 ITA NO.1578/PN/2015 IT IS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) / 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)-I, PUNE; 4) THE PR.CIT-2, PUNE; 5) THE DR SMC BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $% # ' / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ', / ITAT, PUNE