M/s Newbridge Business Centres Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1620/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9917 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJEET SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJNISH RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS1620&1621/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 & 2012 13 M/S. NEW BRIDGE CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED NO.777/D, HAL 2 ND STAGE, 100 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560 038 PAN NO : AABCN6244K VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1) BENGALURU APPELLANT RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJNISH RAMARAO, A.R. RE SPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJEET SINGH, D.R. DATE OF H EARING : 22.06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.06.2020 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE TWO APPEALS CHALLENGI NG THE COMMON ORDER DATED 09-12-2017 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-5 , BENGALURU AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND HENCE THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 2 OF 11 3. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITION DATED 13.7.2017 SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. HAVING REGARD TO SUBMISSIONS MADE THEREIN, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE DISCUSSED IN BRIEF. DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTE D INCOME FROM SUB-LETTING OF PROPERTIES TAKEN ON RENT. THE ASSES SEE DECLARED ITS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS ON THE P LEA THAT IT IS EXPLOITING THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BY FURNISHING TH E PREMISES TAKEN ON RENT WITH CERTAIN AMENITIES. THE AO DID NOT ACC EPT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO A SSESSED THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHILE DETERMINING THE NET INC OME, THE AO RESTRICTED THE AMOUNT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES WITHOUT M AKING ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AFTER DISCUSSING ABOUT THEM. THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED T HESE APPEALS BEFORE US. 5. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED NET INCOME OF THIS YEAR AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 3 OF 11 GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER P & L A/C 7,75,58, 849 LESS:- ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE 1. RENT PAID 1,51,62,183 2. ADMIN EXPENSES ALLOWED 4,77,83,850 3. FINANCIAL EXPENSES 14,93,854 4. TOTAL INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES * 6,96,825 --------------- 6,51,36,712 ---------------- NET INCOME 1,24,22,137 =========== (* DEPRECIATION AMOUNT WRONGLY STATED BY AO AS ABOVE) FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, IT CAN BE NOTICED TH AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS RS.5,77,83,850/-. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS RESTRICTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO RS.4,77,83,850/- WIT HOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, I.E., HE DID NOT GIVE ANY REASONING AS TO WHY HE HAS RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF ADMINISTRA TIVE EXPENSES. 6. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ABOVE SAID ACTION OF THE AO BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A). WE HAVE NOTICED EARLIER TH AT THE LD CIT(A) HAD PASSED A COMMON ORDER FOR AY 2011-12 AND 2012-1 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS INITIALLY OBSERVED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1.00 CRORE WAS MADE FOR NON-FURNISHING OF DETAIL S RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, LATER HE HAS OBS ERVED THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1.00 CRORE. IT APPEARS THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE FINANCIAL STATEME NTS AND ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO AY 2012-13 INSTEAD OF THE DOCUMEN TS PERTAINING TO AY 2011-12 AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 4 OF 11 DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.00 CRORE, AS SUBMITTE D BY THE APPELLANT. 7. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS G IVEN BREAK-UP DETAILS OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.5,77,83,85 0/- IN SCHEDULE H OF ANNUAL REPORT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DID NOT GIVE ANY REASONS AS TO WHY HE HAS TAKE N THE CLAIM OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AT RS.4,77,83,850/- AS AGAI NST THE ACTUAL FIGURE OF RS.5,77,83,850/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF T HIS IMPLIED DISALLOWANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT COULD BE A CASE OF AN INADVERTENT ERROR ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE W AS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEN SES BY RS.1.00 CRORE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS MISDIRECTED HIMSELF BY REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AY 2012-13 AND ACCORDINGLY OBSERVED THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.1.00 CRORE. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF THIS DISALLOWANCE. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT T HE BREAK-UP DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ANNUAL REPORT AND HENCE THE MA TTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR EXAMINING IT AFRESH. ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 5 OF 11 9. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOU T THE ABOVE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1.00 CRORE, I.E., BY WAY OF RES TRICTING THE AMOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO RS.4.77 CRORES AS AGA INST THE CLAIM OF RS.5.77 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ANNUAL REPORT AND SCHEDULE H OF THE ANNUAL REPORT CONTAINS THE BREAK- UP DETAILS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. HENCE IT IS NOT A CASE OF NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF BY THE ASSESSEE AS OBSERVED BY LD CIT(A) , SINCE THE ANNUAL REPORT WAS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD A.R ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE DID NO T GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 10. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE, WHILE ACTING IN THEIR QUASI- JUDICIAL CAPACITY, THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE PR INCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN SURAJ MALL MOHTA AND CO. V. A. V. VISVA NATHA SASTRI [1954] 26 ITR 1 (SC), THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER ARE JUDIC IAL PROCEEDINGS AND ALL THE INCIDENTS OF SUCH JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE OBSERVED BEFORE ANY CONCLUSION IS ARRIVED AT. 11. THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN EXP LAINED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN VARIOUS OTHER CASES ALSO. FAILURE TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE A THIR D PARTY WHOSE ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 6 OF 11 EVIDENCE IS SOUGHT TO BE UTILISED WOULD MAKE THE AS SESSMENT VOID AS HELD IN THE CASES OF KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM V. CIT [ 1980] 4 TAXMAN 29 (SC), SONA ELECTRIC CO. V. CIT [1984] 19 TAXMAN 160 (DELHI), NATHU RAM PREM CHAND V. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 561 (ALL) . IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES V. CCE [2015] 62 TAXMANN. COM 3/52 GST 355 (SC), THE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT NOT ALLO WING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS WHOSE STATEMENT HAS BE EN RELIED UPON TO FRAME THE ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW. THIS MAKES TH E ORDER A NULLITY. 12. HENCE IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AS EXPLAINED B Y HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE SAID CASES. HENCE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPL AIN ITS CASE BEFORE THE AO TAKES ANY ACTION ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSEE. I N THE INSTANT CASE, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER CALLED FOR EXPLANATIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE NOR DID HE EXPLAIN AS TO WHY HE I S RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO RS.4.77 CRORES AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS.5.77 CRORES. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE THERE IS NO REASON TO REDUCE THE CLAIM OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES BY RS.1.00 CRORE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO AL LOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FULLY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE AT RS.5.77 CRORES. ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 7 OF 11 13. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED FOR AY 2012-13. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THIS YEAR ALSO, AS IN THE EARLIER YEAR, THE AO COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS UNDER:- GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER P & L A/C 16,56,62,73 3 LESS:- ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE 1. RENT PAID 5,70,44,339 2. ADMIN EXPENSES ALLOWED 6,98,20,334 3. FINANCIAL EXPENSES 59,79,990 4. DEPRECIATION AS PER IT ACT 26,94,024 5. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,80,02,255 ---------------- 15,35,40,942 ----------------- NET INCOME 1,21,21,791 ============ 14. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING CLAIM OF RS.31,76,042/- RELATING TO PANTRY AND STAT IONERY PURCHASE. IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT THE RENT PAID FIGURE ADOPTED BY THE AO IS RS.5,70,44,339/-. HOWEVER, THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACC OUNT SHOWS A FIGURE OF RS.6,02,20,381/-UNDER THE HEAD COST OF M ATERIAL CONSUMED, WHICH COMPRISES OF RENT EXPENSES OF RS.5 ,70,44,339/- AND PANTRY & STATIONERY PURCHASE OF RS.31,76,042/-. THE AO, HOWEVER, WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER, DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS.31,76,042/-, REFERRED ABO VE. 15. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR ALSO, THE A O HAD REDUCED THE CLAIM OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES BY RS.1.00 CRORE W ITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING IN SUPPORT OF HIS ACTION. WE HAVE HELD TH AT THE AO WAS NOT ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 8 OF 11 JUSTIFIED IN DOING SO UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED HIM TO ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATIV E EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REASONING GIVEN BY US ON THE ABOVE SAID ISSUE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WOULD EQUALLY APPLY IN THIS YEAR ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE SAME REASONS DISC USSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JU STICE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE UPHELD. ACCORDI NGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS.31,76,042/- RELATING TO PANTRY AND STATIONERY PURCHASE. 16. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE OUT OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE EXPENSES. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.45,57,237/- UNDER THE HEAD BUIL DING MAINTENANCE SERVICES. THE ABOVE SAID EXPENSE WAS G ROUPED UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. ACCORDING TO A O, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE PROPER BREAK-UP OF THE ASSET OWNED BY IT AND EXPENSES RELATED TO BUILDING. HENCE THE AO DISALLO WED 40% OF THE ABOVE SAID CLAIM. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 17. WE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE AND PE RUSED THE RECORD. WE HAVE EARLIER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN CERTAIN BUILDING ON RENT AND SUB-LET IT BY MAKING CERTAIN AMENITIES. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RENT PAYMENT EXPENSES AS DEDUC TION AND THE AO HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE SAME. FURTHER THE FIXED AS SETS SCHEDULE ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 9 OF 11 GIVEN IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN ANY BUILDING. HENCE, THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BREAK- UP DETAILS OF ASSET (BUILDINGS) OWNED BY IT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN ANY BUILDING. THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BREAK-UP DETAILS OF EXPENSES RELATE D TO THE BUILDING. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE AO DID CALL FOR ANY DET AIL OR NOT. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON SUB-LETTIN G ACTIVITY ON THE BUILDINGS TAKEN ON RENT. HENCE THE EXPENSES INCURR ED ON BUILDING SHOULD BE MAINLY ON MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ONLY. W E NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED 40% OF EXPENSES ON ADHOC BASIS, I .E., HE DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE ESTIMAT E OF 40%. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDE NCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF 40% OF EXPENSES O N THE HIGHER SIDE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY BREAK-UP D ETAILS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SOME DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE ABOVE SA ID EXPENSES IS CALLED FOR. IN OUR VIEW THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE RE STRICTED TO 10% OF THE EXPENSE CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD BUILDING MAINTEN ANCE SERVICES, I.E., 10% OF RS.45,57,237/- AND THE SAME WOULD TAKE CARE OF DEFICIENCIES, IF ANY IN THE CLAIM. WE ORDER ACCORD INGLY. THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE STANDS MODIFIED A CCORDINGLY. 18. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.7.00 LAKHS OUT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. THE CLAIM OF MISCEL LANEOUS EXPENSES ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 10 OF 11 WAS ALSO GROUPED UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPE NSES. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.6.98 CROR ES AS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED A S UM OF RS.7.00 LAKHS BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNIS HED THE DETAILS OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS M ADE THIS DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT PROPERLY ANALYSING THE FINANCI AL STATEMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICE FROM THE FINA NCIAL STATEMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DETAILS OF ADMIN ISTRATIVE EXPENSES ARE GIVEN IN SCHEDULE 24. FURTHER THE MISCELLANEOU S EXPENSES INCLUDED IN THE BREAK-UP DETAILS OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WAS RS.4,09,950/- ONLY. HENCE WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERST AND AS TO HOW THAT THE AO COULD DISALLOW A SUM OF RS.7.00 LAKHS O UT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7.00 LAKH S. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THIS DISALLOWANCE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR AY 2011-12 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED FOR AY 2012-13 IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.06.2020 SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 26 TH JUNE, 2020. VG/SPS ITA NOS.1620 & 1621/BANG/2017 M/S. NEW BRIDGE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD., BANGALOR E PAGE 11 OF 11 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER 6. GUARD FILE ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.