G IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 1687 /MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ITO- 24(3)(1), ROOM NO. 703, C-11, 7 TH FLOOR, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 51. / V. SHRI GOPAL S. RAJPUT, PROP. M/S EXPRESS TRANSPORT, 18/JIYA WELFARE SOCIETY, S.V. ROAD, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI 400 063. ./ PAN :AGCPR2737F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI ABANI KANTA NAYAK,DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 18-11-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-11-2015 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE REVENUE, BEING ITA NO. 16 87/MUM/2011, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-12-2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - 34, MUMBAI (H EREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEREBY T HE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HE REINAFTER CALLED THE A.O.) U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 1687/M/11 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN T HE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LRD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O U/S 40(A)(IA) AMOUNTING TO RS.94,61,762/- HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRANSPORTER, WITHOUT C ONSIDERING THAT, THE MOMENT THE TRANSPORTER UNDERTAKES THE TASK OF TRANS PORTING THE ASSESSEES GOODS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, IT AMOU NTS TO CONTRACT AND TDS NEEDS TO BE DEDUCTED. 2,THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S EXPRESS TRANSPORT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE A.O. TO FILE THE DETAILS OF VARI OUS EXPENSES CLAIMED AND DETAILS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCES ON THESE EXPENSE S AND DEPOSITED WITH REVENUE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOW ING DETAILS OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES:- SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT 1 ANWAR MERCHANT 23,36,000 2 BALAJI BUILDING 1,00,000 3 BHARAT MOTORS 1,25,000 4 GANESH PATIL 5,09,525 5 GOOD LUCK TRANSPORT 6,33,130 6 HAFIZI MOHAMMED HASAN KHAN 7,10,780 7 LALIT JAIN 8,41,000 8 LAXMAN H NAIR 1,25,000 ITA 1687/M/11 3 9 MAGALMAY TRANPORTS 4,83,746 10 MOHAN PATIL 1,00,000 11 NAFISH S. CHAUDHARY 62,351 12 PRASHANT SITARAM PATIL 14,61,810 13 PRAVIN GAVAD 3,10,920 14 PUNDALIK PATIL 1,26,660 15 PURNIMA PAREKH 1,00,000 16 SHRI SAI STONE PVT LTD. 6,60,840 17 SIKARWALA TRANSPORT CO. 2,25,000 18 TRIMURTI ENTERPRISES 3,50,000 19 VISHAL TRANSPORT 1,00,000 20 B.D. AHRAWAL & CO. 1,00,000 IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O. THAT NO TAX HAS BEEN DE DUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ALTHOUGH THE SAME ARE COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED ABOUT THE DEFAULT W.R.T. NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THESE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE , HOWEVER, HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY DETAIL BEFORE THE AO FOR SUCH DEFAULT MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRANSPORT CHARGES PAYMENT OF RS. 9 4,61,762/- WAS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY THE AO VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11 .2009 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.20 09 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASS ESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E. THE CIT(A) AND S UBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. TO THIS EFFECT , THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT (TDS) VS. M/S UNITED RICE LAND LIMITED IN ITA NO. 633 OF 2007 DATED 12-05-2008 WHICH IS ALSO REPORTED IN (2008) 174 TAXMANN 286 (P &H HC). THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS VIDE AVERMENTS IN TH E FORM OF AFFIDAVIT, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- ITA 1687/M/11 4 I GOPALJI S. RAJPUT (PROP. OF M/S EXPRESS TRANSPORT) AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, INDIAN INHABITANT OF GOREGAON DIST. MUMBAI 400 062 P RESENTLY RESIDING AT 18, JIYA WELFARE SOCIETY, S.V. ROAD, GOREGAON (WEST), D OST. MUMBAI 400 062 HEREBY STATE & DECLARE ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION AS UNDER :- 1. THAT I HAVE PAID TRANSPORT CHARGES TO VARIOUS PARTI ES BUT THOSE ARE NOT ACTUALLY TRANSPORTERS. 2. THAT I HAVE HIRED ALL THE TRANSPORT FROM OUTSIDERS WHO WERE AROUND ME AND MANAGED TRANSPORTERS FOR ME WHOM I DO NOT RECOGNI ZE. IN FACT, I HAVE DEBITED SUCH PERSONS ONLY IN MY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D SUM PAID BY ME ACTUALLY TO THE OUTSIDERS WHO WERE ARRANGING THE TRANSP ORT FOR ME ON SOS BASIS. 3. THAT, THESE PERSONS APPEARING IN MY BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS HAD IN TURN HANDED OVER THE SUM PAID BY ME FOR CARRIAGE OF GOOD S AND SERVICES TO VARIOUS PARTIES STRANGER TO ME BUT CALLED BY THESE PERSONS FROM OPEN MARKET OF TRANSPORTERS. 4. THAT I HAVE NO CONTRACT, WRITTEN OR ORAL WITH ANY O F THE PERSONS OR ACTUAL PARTIES IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS. 5. THAT I AM ILLITERATE PERSON HAVING PASSED 7 TH STANDARD WITH MUCH OF EDUCATIONAL HARDSHIP AND UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND LAW OR COMPLEXITY OF BUSINESS. 6. THAT NO SINGLE PAYMENT IS DONE ON ANY DAY TO ANY P ERSON FOR MORE THAN RS. 20,000/- IN CASH. 7. THAT WHEN SOME ACTUAL TRANSPORT DID MY TRANSPORTER DIRECTLY, THOUGH PICKED UP FROM OPEN MARKET, HE WAS PAID THROUGH ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUE ONLY. WHATEVER STATED HEREINABOVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THE RE IS ANY CONTRACT, WRITTEN OR ORAL BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE INDIVIDUAL PAR TIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENT WAS MADE AND HENCE IN ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDING OF TH E AO AND ALSO ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO CONTRACT WRITTEN O R ORAL, BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE INDIVIDUAL PARTIES , THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 194C OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S UNITED RI CE LAND LIMITED (SUPRA) ITA 1687/M/11 5 AND HELD VIDE ORDERS DATED 16/12/2010 THAT THERE IS NO PAYMENT OF FREIGHT CHARGES IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT AND THE ADDITI ON OF RS.94,61,762/- IS UNJUSTIFIED AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DELE TED THE SAME AS IN VIEW OF THE CIT(A) THERE IS NO DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE IN N OT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), THE REVE NUE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE SI NCE MAY 2014 , THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING T HE LD. D.R. THE LD. DR ALSO STATED BEFORE US THAT NOTICE IS ALSO SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE. 7. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AN D SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO VARIOUS PARTIES AGGREGATING TO RS.94,61,762/-DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT NO TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENTS. THE LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT, TO BE COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARL Y VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR WHICH TAX HAS TO BE DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AS PER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AND THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY DI SALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.94,61762/- BEING PAYMENT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES U/ S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR THE DEFAULT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF NOT DEDUCTING T AX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT AND THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ONS BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE INDIVIDUAL PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE . THE REVENUE RE LIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V. RAJESH A BORI CHA IN ITA NO ITA 1687/M/11 6 1369/RJT./2010 DATED 13 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 REPORTED IN (2013) 37 CCH 106 RAJKOT TRIB. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL PLACED ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. WE HAVE OBSER VED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION AND HAS M ADE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.94,61,762/- TO VARIOUS PARTIES DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS AN EXPENSE BY THE ASSESSEE ( T HE DETAILS OF TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.94,61,762/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS PRODUCED IN THE CHART IN THE PRECEDING PARAS ) . AS PER THE A.O., NO TAX H AS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THESE PAYMENTS OF TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.94,61,762/- MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NO DETAILS FOR SUCH DEFAULT BECAUSE OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE W ERE FURNISHED AND HENCE ADDITION OF RS.94,61,762/- WAS MADE BY THE AO U/S 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR DEFAULT BECAUSE OF NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE A S COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT ON THESE PAYMENTS OF TRANSPORT CHARGES BY THE A SSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELET ED THE ADDITION OF RS.94,61,762/- HOLDING THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OF FACT AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY CONTRACT, WRITTEN OR ORAL BETW EEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE INDIVIDUAL PARTIES TO WHOM THE PAYMENT WAS MADE AND HENCE IN ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDING OF THE AO AND ALSO ASSERTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THERE IS NO CONTRACT WRITTEN OR ORAL, BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE INDIVIDUAL PARTIES , THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRAC TED IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS WHEREBY THE MAIN AVERMENT OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO VARIOUS PARTIES(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE INTERMEDIARIES) WHO THEMSELVES ARE NOT TRANSP ORTER BUT RATHER THEY ARE ARRANGING ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS INDEPENDENTLY FROM OP EN MARKET FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE HAS AVERRED I N THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THESE ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS ARE STRANGER TO THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSEE HAS NO ITA 1687/M/11 7 CONTRACT WRITTEN OR ORAL WITH ANY OF THE PERSON OR ACTUAL PARTIES IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO AVERRED IN THE AFFI DAVIT THAT THESE INTERMEDIARIES TO WHOM ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT HA VE MADE PAYMENTS TO ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS OUT OF THE MONEY COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(TDS) V. UNITED RICE LAND LIMITE D IN (SUPRA) DURING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHILE THE REVENUE IS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V. RAJESH A BORICHA (SUPRA). IT IS IMPORTANT AT THIS STAGE TO REFER TO RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07-08 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : [PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTORS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS. 194C. (1) ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO A NY RESIDENT(HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE CONTRACTOR) FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK) IN PURS UANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND (A) THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY STA TE GOVERNMENT; OR (B) ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY; OR (C) ANY CORPORATION ESTABLISHED BY OR UNDER A C ENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT; OR (D) ANY COMPANY; [OR] [(E) ANY CO-OPERATIVE [SOCIETY; OR]] [(F) ANY AUTHORITY, CONSTITUTED IN INDIA BY OR UN DER ANY LAW, ENGAGED EITHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH AND SATISFYING THE NEED FOR HOUSING ACCOMMODATION OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLANNING, DEVEL OPMENT OR IMPROVEMENT OF CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR FOR BOTH; OR ITA 1687/M/11 8 (G) ANY SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES RE GISTRATION ACT, 1860 (21 OF 1860) OR UNDER ANY LAW CORRESPONDING TO THAT ACT IN FORCE IN ANY PART OF INDIA; OR (H) ANY TRUST; OR (I) ANY UNIVERSITY ESTABLISHED OR INCORPORATED BY OR UNDER A CENTRAL, STATE OR PROVINCIAL ACT AND AN INSTITUTION DECLARED TO BE A UNIVERSITY UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT, 1956 (3 OF 19 56); [OR] [(J) ANY FIRM,] SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACC OUNT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CH EQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, [DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO (I) ONE PER CENT IN CASE OF ADVERTIS ING, (II) IN ANY OTHER CASE TWO PER CENT, OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THERE IN.] (2) ANY PERSON (BEING A CONTRACTOR AND NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY) RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM TO ANY RESIDENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE SUB-CONTRACTOR) IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT WITH THE SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR CARRYING OUT, OR FOR THE SUP PLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT, THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR OR FOR SUPPLYING WHETHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY ANY LABOUR WHICH THE CONTR ACTOR HAS UNDERTAKEN TO SUPPLY SHALL, AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUB- CONTRACTOR OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CAS H OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, D EDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE PER CENT OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRI SED THEREIN: [ PROVIDED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, WHO SE TOTAL SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS OR TURNOVER FROM THE BUSINESS OR PRO FESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM EXCEED THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUSE ( A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 44AB DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TH E FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SUM IS CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT O F THE SUB-CONTRACTOR, SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME-TAX UNDER THIS SUB-SECTI ON.] ITA 1687/M/11 9 . .. [EXPLANATION III.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION , THE EXPRESSION WORK SHALL ALSO INCLUDE (A) ADVERTISING; (B) BROADCASTING AND TELECASTING INCL UDING PRODUCTION OF PROGRAMMES FOR SUCH BROADCASTING OR TELECASTING; (C) CARRIAGE OF GOODS AND PASSENGERS BY ANY MODE OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN BY RAILWAYS; (D) CATERING.] (3) NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1 ) OR SUB-SECTION (2) FROM [(I) THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR L IKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID TO THE ACCOUNT OF, OR TO, THE CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR , IF SUCH SUM DOES NOT EXCEED TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE AGGREGATE OF THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH SU MS CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID D URING THE FINANCIAL YEAR EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE PERSON RESPONSIB LE FOR PAYING SUCH SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL BE LIABLE TO DEDUCT INCOME-TAX [UNDER THIS SECTION:] [ PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), FROM THE AMOUNT OF ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID OR LIKELY TO BE CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING GOO DS CARRIAGES, ON PRODUCTION OF A DECLARATION TO THE PERSON CONCERNED PAYING OR CREDITING SUCH SUM, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANN ER AND WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, IF SUCH SUB-CONTRACTOR IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT OWNED MORE THAN TWO GOODS CARRIAGES AT ANY TIME DUR ING THE PREVIOUS YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY SUM AS AFORESAID TO THE SUB-CONTRACTOR REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PROVISO SHALL FURNISH TO THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY OR THE PERSO N AUTHORISED BY IT SUCH ITA 1687/M/11 10 PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN SUCH FORM AND W ITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; OR] (II) ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 1972; [OR] [(III) ANY SUM CREDITED OR PAID BEFORE THE 1ST D AY OF JUNE, 1973, IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND A CO-OPERA TIVE SOCIETY OR IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN SUCH CONTRACTOR AND THE SUB-C ONTRACTOR IN RELATION TO ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT A NY WORK) UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.] [EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (I), GOOD S CARRIAGE SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN THE EXPLANATION TO SUB-SECTION ( 7) OF SECTION 44AE .] .. THE CONSEQUENCES OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON PAYMENT S COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT ARE PROVIDED IN SECTION 40(I)(IA) OF THE AC T WHICH STIPULATE THAT SUCH AMOUNTS ON WHICH TAX IS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE SHAL L NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER HEAD PROFIT S AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SECTION 40( I)(IA) OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS REPRODUCED BELOW : AMOUNTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE. 40. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN SECTIONS 30 TO [ 38 ], THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTIN G THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION, (A) IN THE CASE OF ANY ASSESSEE .. .. (IA) ANY INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, [ RENT, ROYALTY, ] FEES FOR PROFES- SIONAL SERVICES OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYA BLE TO A RESIDENT, OR AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR, BEING RE SIDENT, FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT A NY WORK), ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION, HAS NOT BEEN PAID DURING THE P REVIOUS YEAR, OR IN THE ITA 1687/M/11 11 SUBSEQUENT YEAR BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME PRESC RIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200 : PROVIDED THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH SUM, TAX HAS BEE N DEDUCTED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR OR, HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN THE PR EVIOUS YEAR BUT PAID IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME PR ESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200 , SUCH SUM SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPU TING THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TAX HAS B EEN PAID. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS S UB-CLAUSE, . (IV) WORK SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN EXPLANATION III TO SECTION 194C ; . PERUSAL OF THE SECTION 194C OF THE ACT WILL REVEAL THAT IT STIPULATE THAT IF ANY PERSON AS SPECIFIED IN THE SECTION IS RESPONSIBLE F OR PAYING ANY SUM TO RESIDENT(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CONTRACTOR) FOR C ARRYING OUT ANY WORK IN PURSUANCE OF CONTRACT BETWEEN SUCH PERSON AND THE CONTRACTOR , SUCH PERSON SHALL DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AS PROVIDED UNDER THE SE CTION 194C OF THE ACT. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE ARE ALSO COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE PROVIDED THE STIPULATED CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED AS DETAILED IN THE PROVISO. THE SECTION 194C OF THE ACT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT PAYMENTS TO S UB-CONTRACTOR BY THE CONTRACTORS SHALL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION OF T AX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT. IT ALSO PROVIDE THAT THE WORK SHALL ALSO INCLU DE CARRIAGE OF GOODS OR PASSENGER BY ANY MODE OF TRANSPORT OTHER THAN RAILW AYS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS IN THE BUSINE SS OF TRANSPORTATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS AVERRED IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT HE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS AS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO VARIOUS P ARTIES WHO ARE NOT ACTUAL ITA 1687/M/11 12 TRANSPORTERS BUT WHO HAVE INDEPENDENTLY ARRANGED AC TUAL TRANSPORTERS FROM OPEN MARKET FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY TRANSPORT FOR THE ASSESSEE . THESE INTERMEDIARIES TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMEN TS AS TRANSPORTATION CHARGES HAVE IN TURN MADE PAYMENTS TO THE ACTUAL TR ANSPORTERS OUT OF THE MONEY COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE IN PURSUANCE OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE WITH ANY OF THE PERSON OR THE ACTUAL T RANSPORTERS. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES BEFORE US IS THAT WHETHER THERE IS CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE AS SESSEE HAD MADE THE PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FO R CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO IN TURN HAVE INDEPENDENTLY ARRANGED AC TUAL TRANSPORTER FROM OPEN MARKET FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THESE INTERMEDIARIES HAVE PAID THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS OUT OF MONEY COLL ECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR ANXIOUS THOUGHT TO THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO KEPT IN VIEW THE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND HARDSHI PS OF THE ASSESSEE AS AVERRED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THE WORD CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED U/S 194C OF THE ACT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD CONTRACT IN THE ACT , WE HAVE TO REFER TO TH E MEANING OF CONTRACT AS USED IN COMMERCIAL PARLANCE WHICH DREW ITS SOURCE F ROM INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872 WHEREBY IT IS STIPULATED ACCORDING TO SECT ION 2 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872 , EVERY PROMISE AND EVERY SET OF PROMISES , FORMING THE CONSIDERATION FOR EACH OTHER , IS AN AGREEMENT WHIL E CONTRACT AS DEFINED IN THE SAME SECTION MEANS AN AGREEMENT ENFORCEABLE BY LAW. SECTION 9 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT , 1872 PROVIDES THAT CONTRACTS CAN BE EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. AN EXPRESS CONTRACT IS ONE WHERE THE PROPO SAL OR ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PROMISE IS MADE IN WORDS WHILE IMPLIED CONTRACT IS ONE WHERE SUCH PROPOSAL OR ACCEPTANCE IS MADE OTHERWISE THAN IN WORDS. EVEN IF THERE IS NO EXPRESS CONTRACT, A CONTRACT MAY STILL EXIST BY IMPLICATION , I.E. CONTRACT CONSISTING OF OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT AND I NTENT TO PROMISE , WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXPRESSED IN WORDS. AN IMPLIED CONTRA CT ENVISAGED BY SECTION 9 ITA 1687/M/11 13 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872 CAN BE INFERRED FRO M THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT INDICATE A MUTUAL INTENTION TO C ONTRACT . CIRCUMSTANCES MAY EXIST WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE ORDINARY COURSE A ND COMMON UNDERSTANDING , DEMONSTRATE SUCH AN INTENT THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF AN IMPLIED CONTRACT . CHAPTER V OF THE I NDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872 TREATS CERTAIN RELATIONS RESEMBLING THOSE CREATED B Y A CONTRACT AS CONTRACTS ENFORCEABLE IN LAW. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872 TH US ENVISAGES FOUR TYPES OF CONTRACTS, NAMELY (1) CONTRACTS MADE IN WRITING (2) CONTRACTS MADE ORALLY (3) CONTRACTS BY IMPLICATION OR IMPLIED CONTRACTS AND ( 4) QUASI CONTRACTS . THUS, THE CONTRACTS ENVISAGES IN SECTION 194C OF THE ACT ARE NOT LIMITED TO WRITTEN CONTRACTS AND ALL PAYMENTS MADE IN PURSUANCE OF WRI TTEN, ORAL, IMPLIED OR QUASI CONTRACTS ARE COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT. TH US, A CONTRACT NEED NOT BE IN WRITING; EVEN AN ORAL , IMPLIED OR QUASI CONTRAC T IS GOOD ENOUGH TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. AS HON'B LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED IN THE CASE OF SMT. J. RAMA V. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 608/[2010] 194 TAXMAN 37 , 'LAW DOES NOT STIPULATE THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTE N CONTRACT AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR (INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WITH RESPECT TO) PAYMENT OF TDS'. CONTRACT NEED NOT BE I N WRITING. IT MAY INFER FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES. IT MAY BE ORAL OR IMPLIED ALSO. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, 'A' BENCH, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V. KAMAL KR. MUKHERJEE & CO. (SHIPPING) (P.) LTD . [2012] 51 SOT 73 (URO)/20 TAXMANN.COM 670 , DCIT V. FIVE STAR SHIPPING AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED (2015) 59 TAXMANN.COM 369 (KOL.TRIB.) AND T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V. RAJESH A BORICHA (SU PRA). THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO CONT RACT WITH THESE INTERMEDIARIES FOR THE WORK OF HIRING OF TRANSPORT FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSE E TO THESE INTERMEDIARIES WHO ARE NOT ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS BUT ARE ARRANGING ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS INDEPENDENTLY FROM OPEN MARKET FOR CAR RIAGE OF GOODS FOR ASSESSEE AND THESE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INTERMEDIARIES ARE ITA 1687/M/11 14 CONSOLIDATED PAYMENT WHICH INCLUDE TWO COMPONENTS/E LEMENTS I.E. CHARGES FOR ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS HIRED INDEPENDENTLY BY THE INTERMEDIARIES FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SERVICE CHARGES OF TH ESE INTERMEDIARIES FOR ARRANGING ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS FROM OPEN MARKET FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE . THESE INTERMEDIARIES HAVE IN-TURN INDEP ENDENTLY SUB-CONTRACTED THE WORK TO ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS WHO TRANSPORTED THE GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE WORD WORK IN EXPLANATION III TO SECTION 194C OF THE ACT IS DEFINED IN AN EXTENSIVE MANNER AS THE LAW MAKERS HAVE USED THE WO RDS THE EXPRESSION WORK SHALL ALSO INCLUDE MEANING THEREBY THAT THE LAWMAKER INTEND TO GIVE EXTENSIVE DEFINITION TO THE WORD WORK INSTEAD OF GIVING NARROWER OR RESTRICTIVE DEFINITION (REFERENCE PRINCIPLES OF STA TUTORY INTERPRETATION BY JUSTICE G.P.SINGH 12 TH EDN.2010, PAGE 179-180). THE CONTRACT ALSO INCLUDE SUB-CONTRACT AS IT COULD BE SEEN FROM COVERAGE OF P AYMENTS TO SUB- CONTRACTORS BY CONTRACTORS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECT ION 194C OF THE ACT . IN THE INSTANT CASE UNDER APPEAL, THE CONTRACTORS I.E. INTERMEDIARIES ARE TRANSPORTING THE GOODS BY CARRIAGE FOR THE ASSESSEE NOT THEMSELVES BUT THROUGH APPOINTING SUB-CONTRACTORS INDEPENDENTLY I. E. ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS WHO ARE HIRED INDEPENDENTLY BY CONTRACTORS AS SUB-C ONTRACTOR FOR TRANSPORTING THE GOODS BY CARRIAGE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THESE SUB-CONTRACTORS ARE PAID FOR BY THE INTERMEDIARIES OUT OF MONEY COL LECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN WORK CONTRACT TO INTER MEDIARIES FOR HIRING OF TRANSPORT FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE WH ICH ITSELF IS A CONTRACT COVERED UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AND IN OUR CO NSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194C OF THE A CT ON PAYMENTS OF RS.94,61,762/- FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS THROUGH INTERM EDIARIES AS THERE WAS A CONTRACT COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND THESE INTERMEDIARIES FOR THE WORK OF CARRIAGE OF GOODS TH ROUGH TRANSPORT WHICH WAS EXECUTED BY THESE INTERMEDIARIES THROUGH SUB-CONT RACTORS I.E. ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS APPOINTED INDEPENDENTLY BY THESE INTER MEDIARIES . THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE ITA 1687/M/11 15 CASE OF ITO(TDS) V. UNITED RICE LAND LIMITED(SUPRA) BUT THE FACTS OF THAT CASE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT AND DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FA CTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE SAID CASE THERE WAS FINDING OF FACT RECORDED BASED ON CERTIFICATES OF THE ALLEGED TRANSPORTERS WHICH WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVE NUE THAT THE CONCERNS TO WHOM PAYMENTS WERE MADE WERE ARRANGING THE SHIPMENT I.E. ARRANGING THE VESSEL/SHIPS, LOADING IN THE SHIP AND CLEARING THE PORT AND SIMILARLY THERE WAS A FINDING OF FACT THAT OTHER ALLEGED TRANSPORTERS W ERE NOT TRANSPORTING THE GOODS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT MERELY ARRANGING A TRUCK FOR WHICH SERVICE CHARGES OF RS.250-200 WAS COLLECTED FROM THE TRUCK OWNERS/O PERATORS . IN THE CASE OF UNITED RICE LAND LIMITED (SUPRA) , THERE WAS UNCONT OVERTED FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS INSTRUCTING FOR PAYME NT OF TRUCK CHARGES AND WHATEVER CHARGES WERE INSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE TH EREIN WAS PAID BY THESE C&F AGENTS WHICH WAS LATER REIMBURSED BY THE ASSESS EE AND THESE C&F AGENTS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE THEREIN MADE THE PAYMEN TS HAVE NOT INDEPENDENTLY APPOINTED TRUCK OPERATORS FOR THE ASS ESSEE THEREIN RATHER IT WAS THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WHO APPOINTED TRUCK OPERAT ORS WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF INTER MEDIARIES WHO ARE NOT ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS THEMSELVES BUT WHO IN TURN ENGA GED INDEPENDENTLY ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSE AND MADE PAYMENTS TO ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS OUT OF MONEY COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE . THUS, IN THE INSTANT CASE UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN C ONTRACT TO THESE INTERMEDIARY TRANSPORTERS IN THEIR INDEPENDENT CAPA CITY WHO HAVE IN TURN HIRED INDEPENDENTLY THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTERS AS THEI R SUBS-CONTRACTORS FOR CARRIAGE OF GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE NO SUCH IN STRUCTIONS WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PAY A CERTAIN AMOUNT TO ACTUAL TRAN SPORTERS WHO WERE HIRED BY INTERMEDIARIES INDEPENDENTLY AND HENCE THE CASE OF UNITED RICE LAND LIMITED IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. THE NEXT CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSE AS AVERRED IN THE AFFIDAVIT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT MADE ANY SINGLE PAYMENT ON ANY DAY TO ANY PERSON FOR MORE THAN RS.20000/- I N CASH WHICH CONTENTION AGAIN IS DEVOID OF MERIT AS SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE FOR THE ITA 1687/M/11 16 RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR PROVIDES THAT IF PAYMENTS IN AGGREGATE EXCEEDING RS.50000/- ARE MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TO A NY CONTRACTOR, IT SHALL GET COVERED WITH IN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194C OF AC T AND PERUSAL OF DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF RS.94,61,762/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WILL CLEARLY REVEAL THAT PAYMENT EXCEEDING RS.50000/- IN AGGREGATE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO EACH OF THE CONTRACTORS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YE AR. THUS, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT ON THESE PAYMENTS OF TRANSPORT CHARGES OF RS.94,61,762/- MADE TO INTERMEDIARIES DURING THE A SSESSMENT YEAR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO AS THERE WAS A CONTRAC T BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THESE INTERMEDIARY PERSONS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS FOR TRANSPORTATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COVERED U/S 194C OF THE ACT AN D THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.94,61,762/- U/S 40(I)(I A) OF THE ACT CONSEQUENTIALLY FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT. HENCE , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND R ESTORE THE ORDERS OF THE AO. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. # $% &' 30-11-2015 ( ) SD/- SD/- - (AMIT SHUKLA) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS ITA 1687/M/11 17 !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI H BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI