Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 9, Pune V. Kinetic Motor Company Ltd., Pune

ITA 1666/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6140 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SHABANA PARVEEN
• Keywords: Rule of consistency; Capital expenditure; TDS; Rule 8D; Set aside
• Section: 14A; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2007-08 ACIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE. ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. KINETIC MOTOR COMPANY LTD., D-1, BLOCK, PLOT NO.18/2, MIDC, CHINCHWAD, PUNE-411019. PAN : AAACK7012P / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2009-10 ACIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE. ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. KINETIC MOTOR COMPANY LTD., D-1, BLOCK, PLOT NO.18/2, MIDC, CHINCHWAD, PUNE-411019. PAN : AAACK7012P / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : MRS. SHABANA PARVEEN ASSESSEE BY : MR. C.H. NANIWADEKAR / DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.09.2019 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE FOUR APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-6, PUNE 2 ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 COMMONLY DATED 01.02.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007- 08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A CHART GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE ISSUES, WHICH ARE ALMOST COMMON IN ALL THE ABOVE FOUR APPEALS, AND THE SAME ARE NOW COVERED ESPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUES RELATING TO (I) DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY; (II) DISALLOWANCE U/S 35(2) OF THE ACT; (III) DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT; AND DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE SAID CHART IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- SR. ISSUE AY 06-07 ITA 1658 AY 07-08 ITA 1659 AY 08-09 ITA 1665 AY 09-10 ITA 1666 REMARKS 1 DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY YES YES COVERED BY ITA 626/2009 PARA 2- P.2 ROYALTY PAID TO KINETIC ENGG. @ 3% OF SALES. IN EARLIER YEARS IT WAS PAID TO HONDA MOTOR CO. A.O. DISALLOWED THE ROYALTY THIS YEAR ONLY TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE AS DEPT. PREFERRED APPEAL TO BOMBAY HC WHICH IS SINCE BEEN DISMISSED & CIT(A) HAS NOTED THIS FACT IN PARA 4.1.2 OF HIS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07. IN A.Y. 2008-09 ROYALTY WAS PAID TO SANYANG INDUSTRIES AND THERE IS NO CHANGE IN OTHER FACTS. 2 DISALLOWANCE U/S 35(2) YES YES YES COVERED BY ITA 626/2009-P.5 & 6. IN ITA 1658, GROUND HAS BEEN MISTAKENLY TAKEN BY DEPT. THERE IS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE. IN EARLIER YEARS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK TO AO (PARA 4 & 4.1, PAGE5-7 OF ITA 626. 3 DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) YES YES YES COVERED BY 310 ITR 306 (BOM), AS THE ASSESSEE IS LOSS MAKING AND PAYEES ARE PROFIT MAKING & THUS THERE IS NO TAX EVASION. ALSO CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED ASSESSEES JUSTIFICATION FOR PAYMENTS TO RELATED PARTIES. 4 DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A YES THE AO'S CALCULATIONS ARE NOT FATHOMABLE. THE DIVIDEND EARNED RS.32,54,554 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DISALLOWED RS.30,155 ON ITS OWN. IN ANY CASE, DISALLOWANCE U/R 8D(2)(II) IS NOT WARRANTED AS ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS (RS.177 CRS.) ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN INVESTMENTS (RS.30.80 CRS.) (REFERENCE HDFCS CASE 366 ITR 505 (BOM). 3 ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 3. NOW, WE MAY PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE EACH OF THE ISSUES IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. A. DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY - INVOLVED IN ITA NOS.1658 & 1665/PUN/2017 - A.YS. 2006-07 & 2008-09 4. REFERRING TO THE FIRST ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COMMON IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2008-09. STATING THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE ROYALTY TO KINETIC ENGINEER @ 3% OF SALES. SIMILAR PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN THE PAST TO HONDA MOTOR COMPANY AND THE SAME WAS FINALLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS STATED IN THE CHART EXTRACTED ABOVE AND THE REMARKS IN THE SIMILAR PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SANYANG INDUSTRIES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE TOO. DISCUSSING OF THIS ISSUES, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 4.1 TO 4.1.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) GIVEN IN PARA 4.1 TO 4.1.3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2008-09. WE 4 ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 FIND THE CONTENTS OF PARA 4.1.2 TO 4.1.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- 4.1.2. ON PERUSAL OF THE ITAT ORDER FOR A.Y. 04-05, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ROYALTY ALLOWED PERTAINS TO THE AMOUNT PAID TO HONDA MOTORS COMPANY LTD JAPAN. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ROYALTY PAID TO KINETIC ENGG. CO. LTD (KEL) IN THAT APPEAL ORDER. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE CORRECT. THIS ROYALTY IS APPARENTLY IN RESPECT OF NOVA AND ZING MODELS OF SCOOTERS. WHEN QUERIED, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ROYALTY PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THE A.Y.04-05 TO BOTH HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD AND KINETIC ENGG LTD. HOWEVER, THE AO IN THAT YEAR DISALLOWED ONLY THE ROYALTY PAID TO HONDA MOTOR COMPANY AND ALLOWED THE ROYALTY PAYMENT MADE TO KEL THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE KINETIC ENGG LTD WAS ENTERED IN THE YEAR 1999 AND THE ROYALTY PAYMENT IS REFLECTED BY THAT COMPANY IN THE RETURNS FILED BY IT. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO TDS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED ON ROYALTY PAYMENTS AS THE TDS ON ROYALTY AND FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES WAS INTRODUCED BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2006 W.E.F. 13/7/2006. 4.1.3. THE APPELLANT SHOWED SALES OF RS.63,34,92,417/- OF NOVA AND ZING MODELS DURING THE YEAR AND PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,90,04,772/- AS ROYALTY TO KEL BEING 3% OF THE SALES AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTERED ON 20/3/1999. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT IS AS PER THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT AND NOTING THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS INCOME BY THE KEL, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE AS THE DEPARTMENT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ITAT ORDER ALLOWING THE ROYALTY PAYMENT. EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY OR A SPECIFIC FINDING BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED. 7. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN THE GROUP CASES OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE ON THIS ISSUE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY STANDS DISMISSED. B. DISALLOWANCE U/S 35(2) OF THE ACT INVOLVED IN ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 - A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 8. REFERRING TO THE SECOND ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 35(2) OF THE ACT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN 5 ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 VIDE ITA NO.626/PUN/2009. THE CONTENTS OF PARA 4 AND 4.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. 9. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTS OF PARA 4 AND 4.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) ARE RELEVANT AND THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- 4. THE GROUND NO.3 RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF R&D CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,87,144/- IS ALSO CLAIMED TO BE COVERED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.148/PN/06 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN VIDE PARA NOS.19 & 19.1, THE SAME HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO AO, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN-BELOW : 19. ON PERUSAL OF THE AOS ORDER AS WELL AS CIT(A)S ORDER, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN REFERRED TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS PROVIDED UNDER SUB-SEC. (3) OF SEC. 35 OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH E IN SANGHI MEDICAL CENTRE V DCIT REPORTED IN TAXMAN, VOL. 126 MAG. SECTION AT PAGE 99 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35(3) CLEARLY PROVIDE FOR REFERRING SUCH CONTENTIONS ISSUE TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR ITS RESOLUTION. THE LEGISLATURE HAD CONTEMPLATED THAT QUESTION MAY ARISE WHETHER ANY ACTIVITY AMOUNTED TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND WHERE THERE WAS COMMON ACTIVITY THEN IN THE COMMON ACTIVITY HOW MUCH WAS RELATED TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. THE LEGISLATURE THOUGHT' SUCH QUESTION COULD BEST BE ANSWERED BY PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY COMPRISING OF EXPERTS. HENCE, THE PROVISION OF SUB-SEC(3) OF SEC. 35 WHERE-UNDER THE DECISION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY SHALL BE FINAL. REFERRING SUCH QUESTION TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY U/S 35(3) IS MANDATORY. HENCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB-SEC(1) OF SECTION 35 SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF THE PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 35. THE DECISION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE FINAL. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO REFER THE ASSESSEES CASE TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35(3). 6 ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 19.1. SIMILARLY, THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH E IN THE CASE OF SONA STEERING SYSTEMS LTD V DCIT REPORTED IN (2003) 78 TTJ (DEL) AT 213 HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE CIT(A) COULD NOT REJECT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 35(1)(IV) HOLDING THAT THE MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR R & D ACTIVITY WITHOUT OBTAINING THE REPORT IN THIS REGARD FROM THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AS PROVIDED IN SUB-SEC. (3) OF SEC. 35. IN THAT CASE, IN VIEW OF THIS CLEAR PROVISION PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC. 35 WHICH WAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO DIRECTING HIM TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL, WHICH MAY BE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM AND IN CASE OF ANY DOUBT, HE MAY DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER REFERRING THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SEC. (3) OF SEC. 35 OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS RE-ADJUDICATION AND FOR REFERRING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB-SEC. (1) OF SEC. 35 TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC. (3) AND, IN THAT SITUATION, THE DECISION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD WOULD BE FINAL. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PLACE ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS, INFORMATION AND PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM U/S 35(L)(IV) BEFORE THE AO SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ITS RIGHT AND CORRECT PERSPECTIVE AFTER OBTAINING A REPORT FROM THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. 4.1 NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE-CITED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.148/PN/06 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORE- SAID ORDER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND NO. 4 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) ON THIS ISSUE AND FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 35(2) OF THE ACT ARE DISMISSED. C. DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT INVOLVED IN ITA NOS.1659, 1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 - A.YS. 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2009-10 11. REFERRING TO THE THIRD ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LOSS MAKING COMPANY AND ALL THE PAYEES ARE PROFIT MAKING AND THUS 7 ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 ASSESSEE DOES NOT DERIVE ANY TAX ADVANTAGE. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF ISSUE, THIS ISSUE IS TO BE DISMISSED. 12. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. THUS, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT ARE DISMISSED. D. DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT INVOLVED IN ITA NO.1666/PUN/2017 - A.Y. 2009-10 13. REFERRING TO THE FOURTH ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.32,54,554/- AND AMOUNT OF RS.30,155/- WAS SUO-MOTU DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 9 TO 9.4 MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.17,38,279/-. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE TO RS.3,00,000/- BEFORE NETTING OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.30,155/- AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE CIT(A) MADE FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.2,69,845/- (RS.3,00,000/- MINUS RS.30,155/-) UNDER CLAUSE (III) OF THE RULE 8D(2) OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. IN THE PROCESS, THE CIT(A) HELD NO INTEREST BEARING FUNDS ARE INVESTED IN THE DIVIDEND YIELDED ASSETS. HE APPRECIATED THE FACTS THAT NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CLAUSE (II) OF RULE 8D(2) IS REQUIRED. 14. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE 8 ITA NOS.1658 & 1659/PUN/2017 ITA NOS.1665 & 1666/PUN/2017 ON THIS ISSUE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THUS, THE DR FAILED TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (II) OF RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES. THUS, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT ARE DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 19 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-6, PUNE. 4. THE PR.CIT-5, PUNE. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.