ACIT 13(1), MUMBAI V. RAJU M. SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 1729/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0622 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LOVE KUMAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Onus to prove
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , ! '# $ %, & ' BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM . / ITA NO.1729/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 ) ACIT 13 (1) R.NO.427, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. RD. MUMBAI 400020 .. / APPELLANT V/S SHRI RAJU M. SHAH, INDO FOREIGN HARDWARE STORES, 193, NAGDEVI STREET, MUMBAI 4000 03 .... / RESPONDENT . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AADPS9224M REVENUE BY : SHRI LOVE KUMAR (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA (AR) ! '# / DATE OF HEARING 18.03.2015 $% &' ! '# / DATE OF ORDER 27 .05.2015 $ / ORDER '# $ %, & (! / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE A GAINST ORDER DATED 31.12.2009, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS)24, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SE CTION 143(3), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, ON THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL: SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 2 1.THE LD. CIT(A), ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.57 ,21,000/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF NON-GENUINENESS OF LOAN CREDITORS. 2.THE LD. CIT(A), ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, ERRED IN NOT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE FOUND THE ACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS INCOMPLETE.' 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVI DUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF THE FIRM, M/S. INDO FOREIGN HARDWARE S TORES. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CREDITS APPEARING IN THE A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS.68,71,000/- ON TH E ACCOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM 69 PERSONS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS, HE HAD ADDED THE ENTIRE CREDITS AND ALSO DIS ALLOWED THE INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION O F RS.78,54,242/- WAS MADE AND TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILE D VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES THAT INCLUDED CONFIRMATION OF LOANS FROM THE PARTIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN. THE LD. CIT(A), FORWARDED THESE EVIDENCE TO AO AND CALLED FOR A REM AND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE LO AN TAKEN FROM THE 15 CREDITORS AGGREGATING TO RS.4,75,000/- STOOD EX PLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES THESE CREDITORS LD. CIT(A) AFTER VE RIFYING VARIOUS SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 3 OTHER DOCUMENTS ALLOWED THE LOANS TAKEN FROM 9 OTHER C REDITORS. THUS, OVERALL LOANS APPEARING IN THE CASE OF 24 CREDITORS STOOD ACCEPTED AND FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT UNDER THE NAME OF 45 CREDITOR S STOOD CONFIRMED FROM THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE. IN THE SECON D APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMI NE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, IN LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE MATTER STOOD RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 3. IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N ORDER TO EXAMINE THE GENUINESS OF THE LOANS, ISSUED SUMMONS TO 9 PERSONS, HOWEVER NONE OF THE SAID PERSONS APPEARED IN RESPONS E TO THE SUMMONS U/S.131 EXCEPT THAT SOME OF THE CREDITORS HAV E SENT LETTERS BY POST, THE DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT PAG E 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT A S PER THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT, THE ASSESSEEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE TH E PARTIES FROM WHOM LOANS WERE TAKEN AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T PRODUCE THE CREDITORS THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE ENTIRE LOANS TAKEN F ROM 54 CREDITORS, AGGREGATING TO RS.53,76,000/-. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, F IRST OF ALL, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROC EEDINGS HAS ALREADY GIVEN RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,20,000/-, INCLUDING INTEREST SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 4 ATTRIBUTABLE THEREON AT RS.2,12,432/-. OUT OF THE SAID A MOUNT THE AO HAS AGAIN CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR THE SUMS AGGREG ATING RS.7,53,600/- FOR WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE COPY OF ALL THE EVIDENCES RELATING TO THE CREDITORS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE FILED, VIZ. CONFIRMATION OF THE LOAN, BANK STATEMENTS, AFFIDAVITS OF ALL THE CREDITORS RETURN OF INCOME ETC. WERE ALREADY FILED B EFORE THE AO HOWEVER NO COGNIZANCE HAVE BEEN TAKEN. NOW ALL THE LOANS HAVE REPAID EITHER DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR OR I N THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD . CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE DETAILS OF THE REPAYMENTS OF THE LOAN HE LD THAT SUCH AN ADDITION U/S. 68 CANNOT BE MADE. THE DETAILS OF REPAY MENTS OF LOANS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE CIT(A) FROM PAGES 4 T O 7 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.53, 76,000/- AND INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE ON SUCH LOANS OF RS.3,45,000/ - WAS DELETED. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SECOND TIME TO PROVE THE GENUINEN ESS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, HOWEVER THE ASSESS EE FAIL TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HAS EVEN ISSUED SUM MONS TO 9 SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 5 PERSONS, BUT HAVE FAILED TO RESPOND. MERELY BECAUSE AMOUNT HAS BEEN REPAID CANNOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM PROVING THE GE NUINENESS OF THE LOANS. THUS, THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 BY TH E AO IN SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. REGARDING DUPLICATION OF ADDITION WITH REGARD TO THE 5 PERSON, HE SUBMITTED THA T SAME CAN BE VERIFIED BY THE AO AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL SHRI VIJAY MEHTA SUB MITTED THAT, ALL THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH BROKERS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID DELALI AND COMMISSION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED. THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO, DURING THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. THE BROKERS HAVE ARRANGED FOR THE LOANS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND ALL THE AMOUNT FROM THE CREDITORS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISBELIEVED THE PAYMENT OF BROKERAGE/DALALI PAID TO THE BROKERS FOR ARRANGING THE LOANS AND IN FA CT SUCH EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT STANDS ALLOWED. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN STATEM ENTS OF DALALI AND COMMISSION PAID DURING THE YEAR TO 27 PERSON WE RE GIVEN FOR SUMS SEGREGATING TO RS.6,17,809/-. INDEPENDENT OF THI S FACT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FULLY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY NO T ONLY GIVING THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS BUT ALSO COPY OF THEI R AFFIDAVITS DULY SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 6 CONFIRMING THE LOAN, DETAILS OF THE CHEQUES, PAN, ETC ., CONFIRMATION OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT AND BANK CERTIFICA TE OF CREDITORS AND DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE VOLUME 2 OF THE PAP ER BOOK, WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF EACH AND EVERY CREDITORS HAVE BEEN PLACED. THESE DOCUMENTS PRIMA FACIE GO TO PROVE THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE LOANS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. IN THE SECOND ROUND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REQUIRE THE ASSES SEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS AND IN FACT ONCE IT WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TH AT THE BROKERS HAVE ARRANGED FOR THE LOANS FROM THE VARIOUS CREDITORS THEN BROKERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUMMONED INSTEAD OF CREDITORS WHEN ALL THE PARTICULARS OF THESE BROKERS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. EVEN IN THE CASE OF 9 PERSONS AS NOTED BY HIM AT PAGE 2 OF THE OR DER TO WHOM HE HAD ISSUED SUMMONS, AND DID NOT RESPOND TO SUCH SUMM ONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS, PAN, THEIR COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS ALONG WITH THEIR BANK STATEMENTS. ONCE THE L OAN HAS BEEN REPAID AND MORE THAN 10 YEARS WAS LAPSED, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILE D TO EXAMINE ALL THESE EVIDENCES AND DISBELIEVED THE CREDITS SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT CREDITORS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. HE ALSO FURNISHED A CHART SHOWING THE DETAILS OF ALL EVIDENCES FILED IN RESPECT OF THE PAR TIES TO WHOM ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SUMMONS U/S.131 IN THE SECOND ROUND OF SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 7 LITIGATION. FURTHER, ONCE THE LOANS HAVE BEEN REPAID T HROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, THIS CORROBORATES THE OVERALL GENUINE NESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 H AS RIGHTLY BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PER USED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADD ED THE LOANS TAKEN FROM 69 PERSONS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. IN THE FIRST APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS, VARIOUS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FILED AND REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR. AFTER DETAILED SCRUTINY OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES, PA RT RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN CREDITORS WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) BASED O N THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO. IN THE SECOND APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL HA D SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENES S AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AS PER THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND EVIDENCES FILED. THERE WAS NO SUCH DIRECTION IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PRODUCE ALL THE CREDITO RS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN THE SET ASIDE PROC EEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF VERIFYING THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED IN SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS AND CREDITWORTHIN ESS OF THE SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 8 CREDITORS, HAS DRAWN ADVERSE INTERFERENCE SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT NOT PRODUCE THE CREDITORS WHICH WA S NOT THE SPECIFIC MANDATE OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN HIS ORDER THE AO H AS MENTIONED THE NAME OF SOME CREDITORS TO WHOM HE HAD ISSUED SUMM ONS U/S.131, AND HAVE FAILED TO RESPOND. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RE CORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE RESPECT OF THESE 9 PERSONS THE LIST OF WHOM HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: (I) AFFIDAVITS WITH THE ADDRESS CONFIRMING THE LOAN AND D ETAILS OF PAN; (II) DETAILS OF REPAYMENTS OF LOANS; (III) CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT; (IV) BANK STATEMENTS; (V) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME; THE DETAILS OF THESE DOCUMENTS FILED IN RESPECT OF THES E PERSONS ARE AS UNDER: SR. NO . PARTICULARS RS. DOCUMENTS FILED (IN FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION ITSELF) 1. VINODINI C. PARIKH 30,000 AFFIDAVIT WITH ADDRESS CONFIRMING LOAN, PAN, REPAYMENT OF LOAN: PAPER BOOK PAGE (PBP)- 231 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT PBP 232 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME OF PARTY-PBP-233 BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-PBP-234 2. SUNNY P. PARIKH 1,00,000 SHRI PREM NARAYAN [P. NARAYAN], FATHER OF THE PARTY, APPEARED BEFORE A.O. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, CONFIMED TRANSACTION. AO ASKED FOR PROOF FOR SOURCE OF SOURCE. SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 9 ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING: - CONFIRMATION WITH ADDRESS OF PARTY- PBP-148 BANK PASS BOOK FOR PROOF OF ADDRESS- PBP 149 PAY IN SLIPS OF THE ASSESSEE-PBP 150-151 3. PUSHPA HIMMATLAL 50,000 AFF IDAVIT WITH ADDRESS CONFIRMING LOAN, PAN, REPAYMENT OF LOAN: PAPER BOOK PAGE (PBP)- 196 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT PBP 197 BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-PBP-198-199 4. KAUSHIK C. SHAH (HUF) 30,000 AFFIDAVIT WITH ADDRESS CONFIRMING LOAN, PAN, REPAYMENT OF LOAN PBP- 227 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT PBP 228 BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-PBP-229-230 5. HIMMATLAL PADAMSEY, HUF 1,00,000 AFFIDAVIT WITH ADDRESS CONFIRMING LOAN, PAN, REPAYMENT OF LOAN PBP- 143 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT PBP 144 BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-PBP-145-146 6. ARUNA M. PANDYA 25,000 AFFIDAVIT WITH ADDRESS CONFIRMING LOAN, PAN, REPAYMENT OF LOAN PBP- 289 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT PBP 290 BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-PBP-191-292 7. HIRABEN C. SHAH 45,000 AFFIDAVIT WITH ADDRESS CONFIRMING LOAN, PAN, REPAYMENT OF LOAN PBP- 205 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT PBP 206 BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-PBP-207 8. VICKY P. PAREKH 50,000 SHRI PREM NARAYAN [P. NARAYAN], FATHER OF THE PARTY, APPEARED BEFORE A.O DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, CONFIRMED TRANSACTION. A.O. ASKED FOR PROOF FOR SOURCE OF SOURCE. ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING. CONFIRMATION WITH ADDRESS OF PARTY PBP-201 PAY IN SLIPS OF THE ASSESSEE PBP 202-203 BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REPAYMENT- PBP 204 9. USHA INDUSTRIES 1,25,000 AFFIDAVI T WITH ADDRESS CONFIRMING LOAN, PAN, REPAYMENT OF LOAN PBP- 101 CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT PBP 102 BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE-PBP-103-105 WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PERSONS ALSO, WE FIND THAT SI MILAR EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE CREDI TORS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PAPER BOOK. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED L OANS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND FURNISHED THE BANK STATEMEN TS OF THE CREDITORS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT AND ACK NOWLEDGMENT OF SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 10 RETURN OF INCOME AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, THEN THE ASSESS EES PRIMARY ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS STANDS DISCHARGED. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO THAT THESE LOANS OR TRANS ACTIONS ARE BOGUS AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THESE EVIDENCE S. ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT IN THIS CASE, IS THAT, ALL THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN ARRANGED THROUGH BROKERS/COMMISSION OF AGENT, TO WHOM ASSESSE E HAS PAID DALALI AND COMMISSION AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED. IF THE AO WANTED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN, HE COULD HAVE SUMMONED THE BROKERS WHO HAVE ALL THE PARTICULARS AND DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS. THUS, IN THE WAKE OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES AV AILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT NOT ONLY THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS BU T ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE CREDITORS STAND PROVED. THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTION IS FURTHER CORROBORATED BY THE FACT THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEE N REPAID TO THE CREDITORS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AS PER THE DE TAILS INCORPORATED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION S FOR SUMS AGGREGATING TO RS.57,71,000/- MADE U/S.68 IS DELETED AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. SHRI RAJU M. SHAH 11 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF MAY 2015. SD/- SD/- SD/ - . . B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - '# $ % & AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, )* DATED: 27.05.2015 PATEL $% ! '( ) *)' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) +' / THE ASSESSEE; (2) , / THE REVENUE; (3) -'( ) / THE CIT(A); (4) -' / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) )01 '2, # 2, / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) 14 5 / GUARD FILE. ) ' ' / TRUE COPY $% / BY ORDER 6 / 7 , / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) # 2, / ITAT, MUMBAI