Income-tax Officer, V. Taloja CETP Society Ltd., Raigad

ITA 1776/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1142 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJA B SINGH
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.1776 & 1777/PN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2007-08 ITO, WARD - 2, PANVEL RAIGAD DISTRICT . / APPELLANT V/S TALOJA CETP SOCIETY LTD., PLOT NO.24, MIDC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, TALOJA, DIST. RAIGAD 410 208 PAN : AAAJT0588L . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJA B. SINGH / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, THANE DAT ED 27-06-2014 COMMON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 A ND 2007-08. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND ARE ARISING FROM SAME SET OF FACTS THE APPEALS ARE TAKING UP TOGETHE R FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM THE RECO RDS ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY SET UP FOR TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENTS GENERATED BY ITS MEMBERS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURIN G AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE / DATE OF HEARING :17.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:19.08.2016 2 ITA NOS.1776 & 1777/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 27-10-2004 DECLARING NIL IN COME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) WAS PASSED BY THE AO ON 31-05-2006 AC CEPTING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA AND ADMITTING NIL INCOME RETURNED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 WERE INVOKED AND ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 WAS PASSED ON 29-12-2009 DEN YING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PR EFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A)-I, THANE. THE CIT(A)-I, THANE CONFIRMED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AO. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN SECOND APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI IN ITA NO.2162/MUM/2011. THE TRIB UNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 11-01-2012 SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE OF MUTUALITY AND REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR CO NSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2004-05 U/S.1 43(3) R.W.S. 254 WAS PASSED. THE AO HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY DO ES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,88,365/-, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION U/S.80IA OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-03-2013 FOR A.Y . 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. SIMILARLY, IN THE A.Y. 2007-08 THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 2 8-03-2012 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF MUTUALITY DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SOCIETY . 3 ITA NOS.1776 & 1777/PN/2014 AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER, COMMON FOR A.YRS. 2004-0 5 AND 2007-08 REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND ALLOWED THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT (THANE-BELA PUR) ASSOCIATION REPORTED AS 328 ITR 362 (BOM.) 7. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. SRI P.L. KUREEL REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTL Y SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS R ECEIVING CONTRIBUTION FROM CENTRAL/STATE GOVERNMENTS IN THE FORM O F SUBSIDY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM NON MEMBERS, THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY WILL NOT APPLY. THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT AS THE FUNDS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE MEMBERS AND THE NON-MEMBERS HAVE ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE FUNDS, THE INGREDIENTS OF MUTUALITY ARE MISSING. THE ASSESSEE IS AN ASSOCIATION OF TRADERS AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. THE SECOND GROUND FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT OF MUTUALITY IS THAT AT THE TIME OF WINDING UP, ANY SURPLUS ARISING FROM DISPOSAL OF ASSET S WOULD NOT BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY ALONE. N EITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS MEMBERS HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER ITS FUNDS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE SO CIETIES ACT AND RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALI TY IS DILUTED. 4 ITA NOS.1776 & 1777/PN/2014 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT ED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, SRI RAJA B. SINGH APPEARING ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY DEFENDING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE AO IN A.Y. 2005-06 ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY. THE AO FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT (THA NE-BELAPUR) ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80I A(4) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31-08-2012 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT.. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AP PEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS THE GROUNDS RAIS ED IN THE APPEALS/ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE NOT ARISING FROM THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ASSERTED THAT THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL/ADDITIONAL GROUNDS HAS WRONGLY A LLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT CHARGES DURING THE A.YRS. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 FROM DOMBIVILI, MIDC W HICH IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM DOMBIVILI MIDC FOR TREATMENT OF ANY EFFLUENT. DOMBIVILI, MIDC IS NOT A MEMBER. NO EFFLUENT IS GENERATED BY THE MIDC. DOMBIVILI, MI DC IS PROVIDING WATER SUPPLY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE USED IN T HE TREATMENT OF EFFLUENTS. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE LIST OF ALL THE MEMBERS AND THE COLLECTION OF FUNDS FROM MEMBERS DURING TH E RELEVANT PERIOD WAS FURNISHED TO THE AO BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. IN THE SAID LIST THE NAME OF DOMBIVILI, MIDC DOES NOT FIGURE. THE AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE LIST OF ME MBERS FROM WHOM COLLECTIONS WERE MADE DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2007-0 8. 5 ITA NOS.1776 & 1777/PN/2014 THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POW ER COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED AS 229 ITR 383 (SC) HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN CONSIDER A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF INDIAN STEEL AND WIRE PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS SUPPOSED TO DECIDE ONLY ISSUES WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF FIRST APPEAL, OTHERWISE THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE REDUCED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS AGAINST THE INTENT OF LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE 2 STAGES OF APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH IS IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF COSTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 32A OF THE ITA T RULES, 1963 AS THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED FRIVOLOUS APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT WERE NEVER RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NOR IT IS EMANATING FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ASSAILING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, THANE HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRI NCIPLES OF MUTUALITY APPLIES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF ACI T, PANVEL FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 WHICH WAS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS B Y THE ASSESSEE THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RECEIPT FROM OTHER THAN MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, WHEREAS THE FACT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DRAINAGE & TREAT MENT CHARGES OF RS.75,51,473/-, RS.78,58,545/-, RS.82,73,119/- & RS.98, 93,887/- DURING A.YS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY FRO M DOMBIVILI, MIDC WHICH IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, THANE HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRI NCIPLE OF MUTUALITY, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY AS THERE ARE RECEIPTS FROM ENTITIES OTHE R THAN MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND THERE IS A CLEAR MOTIVE OF PROFIT. 6 ITA NOS.1776 & 1777/PN/2014 IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE B EEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. A PERUSAL OF THE APPEAL FILE SHOWS THAT INITIALLY THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS WERE RA ISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE GRO UNDS WERE AMENDED AND THE SAME WERE RAISED AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY DOES NOT APPLY ON THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEP TED FUNDS FROM NON- MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPAR TMENT IN THE GROUNDS/ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS RECEIVING DRAINAGE AND TREATMENT CHARGES FROM DOMBIVILI, MIDC WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R SHOWS THAT THE MIDC COLLECTS SERVICE CHARGES/FEES FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY TOWARDS EFFLUENT DISPOSAL. THERE IS NO OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN EITHER OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES ANY AMOUNT FROM MIDC AS SUBSCRIPTION OR TOWARDS ANY OTHER SERVICE OR ASSISTANCE/GRANT. THE ISSUE RELATING TO RECEIPTS FROM DOMB IVILI, MIDC WAS NEVER RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS OR BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EVEN OTHERWISE WHAT HAS BEEN URGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON BEHALF OF REVENUE IS A FACTUAL ISSUE WHICH IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORDS. 11. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL CAN BE RAISE D BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ONLY IF IT IS A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS JUR ISDICTION TO EXAMINE A QUESTION OF LAW WHICH ARISES FROM THE FACTS AS FOU ND BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY AND HAVE BEARING ON THE TAXABILITY O F THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT NO QUESTION OF LA W HAS BEEN 7 ITA NOS.1776 & 1777/PN/2014 RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS BORNE OUT OF FACTS ON RECORD DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED LIST OF COLLECTION FROM MEMBERS D URING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2007-08. WE OBSERVE THAT T HE SAID LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE THE NAME OF DOMBIVILI, MIDC. THE LIST WHICH HAS B EEN PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS PURPORTEDLY PLACED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS LIABLE TO B E DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND ALONE. 12. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ORDER, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO OBSERVE THAT THE AO WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2005-06 HAD ACCEPTED THAT DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY APPLIES IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMEN T PLANT (THANE-BELAPUR) ASSOCIATION (SUPRA) HAS ANSWERED THE QUES TION WITH RESPECT TO ELIGIBILITY OF SIMILARLY PLACED ASSESSEE TO CLAIM EXE MPTION FROM INCOME TAX ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY IN AFFIRMATIVE. ONE O F THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE WAS : (A) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE EXCESS OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE EFFLUENT TREATMENT RECEIPTS IS EXEMPT FROM IN COME-TAX ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY? THE HONBLE COURT AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CAS E & VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED HELD : APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, THERE CAN BE NO MANNER OF DOUBT THAT THE SURPLUS GENE RATED BY THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTING THE EXCESS OF ITS INCOME OVER EXPENDITUR E WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF MUTUALITY. FOR THE PURP OSES OF THE FIRST ISSUE, IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THIS INCOME IS EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST WHICH IS EARNED ON FIXED AND OTHER DEPOSITS AND ON REFUND OF INCOME-TAX WHICH WOULD BE DEALT WITH SEPARATELY. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRIBUTED BY ITS MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FORMED SPECIFICALLY WITH THE OBJECT OF PROVIDING A COMMON EFFLUENT FACILITY TO ITS MEMBERS. THE INCOME IS NOT GENERATED OUT OF DEALINGS WITH ANY THIRD PARTY. THE ENTIRE CONTRIBUTION ORIG INATES IN ITS MEMBERS AND IS EXPENDED ONLY IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS. ON THESE FACTS, BOTH THE COMMISSIONER (APP EALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL WERE JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE SURPLUS SO GENERATED FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DOCTRINE O F MUTUALITY AND WAS NOT 8 ITA NOS.1776 & 1777/PN/2014 EXIGIBLE TO TAX.. THE FIRST QUESTION OF LAW WOULD A CCORDINGLY HAVE TO BE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENU E. 13. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FAC TS OF THE CASE ADJUDICATED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE AC TIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY CO MMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT (THANE-BELAPUR ASSOCIATION. THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE MISCONCEIVE D AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE FACTS ON RECORD. ACCO RDINGLY, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT HAVE TO FAIL. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISM ISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; DATED : 19 TH AUGUST, 2016. LRH'K ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-I, THANE CIT-I, THANE # &&', ', IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; , / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , # & //TRUE COPY// ./ & ' / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ', IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE