CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

ITA 1879/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3662 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DANIELDR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Earning of tax free income; Tangible material; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 68; 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 CLASSIS SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. RADHA BHAVAN, 1 ST FLOOR, 121, NAGINDAS MASTER ROAD, MUMBAI-400023 / VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI-400020 / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO . AACCC5745P $ % & / ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJIV KHANDELWAL $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI P.DANIEL-DR / DATE OF HEARING 10/03/2016 & / DATE OF ORDER: 11/03/2016 & / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/01/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERT AINS TO ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 2 REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT BY CONTENDING THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW AN D NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI RAJIV KHANDELWAL, ADVANCED ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY EXPLAIN ING THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE-1 OF THE PA PER BOOK AND THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER (PAGE-5 OF THE PAPER BOOK). IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. OUR ATTE NTION WAS INVITED TO PAGES 9 AND 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING LEDGER ACCOUNT AND RECONCILIATION AVAILA BLE AT PAGE-9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS ALSO ASSERTED THA T THE REOPENING IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS BUT WI THIN SIX YEARS AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXPECTED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT TILL MARCH, 2011, WHICH HE HAS DONE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT DOE S NOT BELONG TO THIS YEAR AS THE DIFFERENCE AROSE IN A.Y. 2001-02. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE WAS NO ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME BEING THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS NO TAXABLE. THE LD. COUNSEL CLARIFIED IN A.Y. 2005-06, THE SAME ENT RY WAS PASSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON 01/04/2004 SHOWING T HE SAME AS PRIOR PERIOD ENTRY AND THE SAME WAS TAXED I N A.Y. 2005-06. ON APPEAL, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHI CH MY ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 3 ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK (RELEVANT PAGE 26 PARA 20). 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, DR. P. DANIEL, LD. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT DEFENDED THE REOPENING A ND CONSEQUENT ADDITION BY CONTENDING THAT FIRSTLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND SECONDLY NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS CL AIM. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THE FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, AT THE RELEVA NT TIME, WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARES AND SECURITIE S. ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPL ETED, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.89,819/-, AS AGA INST THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.89,820/-. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, OBSERVED THAT IN SCH EDULE-G OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD. (FOR F.Y. 2003-04), THE ASSESSEE WAS SUNDRY DEBTOR TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.80,01,089/-, WHEREAS, IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE UNSECURED LOANS, BORRO WED FROM M/S TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD. WAS SHOWN AT RS.87,78,589/-, RESULTING INTO DIFFERENCE OF RS.7,7 7,500/-, WHICH HAS TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND IS LIABLE TO BROUGHT TO TAX. AFTER RECORDING THE REASO NS AND GETTING APPROVAL U/S 151(1) OF THE ACT, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 4 ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 143( 2) OF THE ACT, DATED 23/08/2011 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. S INCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THEREFORE, AGAIN NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WITH 271(1 )(B) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BUT ASKED FOR TIME TO FILE THE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE NECESSARY DETAILS, THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. 2.3. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED WRITTE N SUBMISSIONS AND APPEARED ON VARIOUS DATES. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER, THE STAND TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS AFFIRME D. THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBU NAL. 2.4. UNDER THE FACTS, NARRATED HEREINABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL, FACT REMAINS THAT THE SAME AMOUNT WAS TAXED SUBSEQUENTLY IN A.Y. 2005-06. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHETHER THE SAME AMOUNT WAS TAXED. THE BENCH ASKED THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE FACTUAL MATRIX. THE LD . COUNSEL, STATED AT BAR THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,77,5 00/- IS THE SAME AMOUNT AND WAS TAXED SUBSEQUENTLY IN A.Y. 2005-06. THUS, CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT BAR THEN THE SAME AMOUN T CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 5 SO FAR AS, REOPENING U/S 147/148 IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- 147. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THA T ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY AS SESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 1 53, ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SU BSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, OR RE COMPUTE THE LOSS OR THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY OTHER ALLOWANCE, AS T HE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (HEREAFTER IN THIS SE CTION AND IN SECTIONS 148 TO 153 REFERRED TO AS THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR) : PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR THIS SECTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY REASON OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETUR N UNDER SECTION 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) O F SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FAC TS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT, FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY IN A CASE WHERE ANY INCOME IN RELATION TO ANY ASSET (INCLUDING FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ANY ENTITY) LOCATED OUTSIDE INDIA, CHAR GEABLE TO TAX, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR: PROVIDED ALSO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME, OTHER THAN THE INCOME INVOLVING MATTERS WHI CH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTERS OF ANY APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION, WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. EXPLANATION 1. PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ACCOUNT BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENC E COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOREGOING PROVISO. EXPLANATION 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE FOLLOWING SH ALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE CASES WHERE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, NAMELY : ( A ) WHERE NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH HIS TOTAL INCOME OR THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN Y OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX ; ( B ) WHERE A RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT NO ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND IT IS NOTICED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 6 THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS CLAI MED EXCESSIVE LOSS, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF IN THE RETURN ; ( BA ) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH A REPORT IN RESPECT OF ANY INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WHICH HE WAS SO REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 92E; ( C ) WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE, BUT ( I ) INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED ; OR ( II ) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT TOO LOW A RATE ; OR ( III ) SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN MADE THE SUBJECT OF EXCESSIV E RELIEF UNDER THIS ACT ; OR ( IV ) EXCESSIVE LOSS OR DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OR ANY O THER ALLOWANCE UNDER THIS ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED; ( D ) WHERE A PERSON IS FOUND TO HAVE ANY ASSET (INCLU DING FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ANY ENTITY) LOCATED OUTSIDE INDIA. EXPLANATION 3. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT UNDE R THIS SECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR R EASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE, WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AND SUCH ISSUE COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF T HE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 148. EXPLANATION 4. FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, AS AMENDED BY THE FINAN CE ACT, 2012, SHALL ALSO BE APPLICABLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNIN G ON OR BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2012. 2.5. IF THE AFORESAID PROVISION OF THE ACT IS ANAL YZED WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF PROVIDING OPPORTUNITI ES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT SUCH BELIEF WAS REASONABLE, BECAUSE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FROM SCHEDULE G OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD. (F.Y. 2003-04) FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A SUNDRY DEBTOR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.80,01,089/-, WHER EAS, IN THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, THE UNSECURED LOANS BORRO WED ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 7 BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD. WA S SHOWN AT RS.87,78,589/-, THUS, HE REASONABLY BELIEV ED THAT THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.7,77,500/- HAD ESC APED ASSESSMENT. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR FILED ANY D ETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, SO F AR AS, REOPENING IS CONCERNED, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER W AS UNDER A BONA-FIDE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF REOPENING IS DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 3. SO FAR AS, THE NEXT GROUND FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U /S 68 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, FROM PAGE 9 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ENTRY IS ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEN D INCOME WHICH IS AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(33) (A.Y. 2001-02) AND NOW U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. IN A.Y. 200 5-06, THIS ENTRY WAS PASSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON 01/04/2004 SHOWING THE SAME AS PRIOR PERIOD ENTRY A ND IN A.Y. 2005-06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAXED THE SA ME AMOUNT, THEREFORE, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE SAME A MOUNT CANNOT BE TAXED AGAIN. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 11/09/2008 (RELEVANT PAGE 26 OF TH E PAPER BOOK). THE FINDING CONTAINED IN PARA 20 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 8 SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TAXED THE DIVIDEND AS INCOME OF THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE SAME WOULD BE EXEMPTED U/S 10(34). THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARA 15 ABOVE W.R.T. GROUND NO.4 HOLD GOOD IN THE MATTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW SUCH EXEMPTION. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.4290 & 4229/MUM/2004, ORDER DATED 11/09/2007, IN GROUP CONCERNS CASE NAMELY M/S TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL FINA NCE INDIA LTD. ALLOWED SIMILAR CLAIM, THUS, IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY CONTRARY FACT, I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, IN PARA 16 OF THE ORDER O F THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 11/09/20 08, THERE IS FINDING THAT IN EARLIER YEAR, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.7,77,500/- WHICH IS EXEMPTED U/S 10(34) OF THE ACT. IN PARA 17 OF THE AFORESAID ORDE R, THERE IS MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCO ME OF RS.7,77,500/- IN THE YEAR 2001-02 WHICH WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(33) OF THE ACT. IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED VIDE NOTE B(16) OF SCHEDULE-9, ANNEXED T HERETO THAT THE DIVIDEND OF RS.7,77,500/- PERTAIN TO FINAN CIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2001-02 AND THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE SAME AS EXEMPTED. ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER CON SIDERING THE EXPLANATION FROM BOTH SIDES AND MORE SPECIFICAL LY THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAI NED THE ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 9 GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT FIRSTLY, IT WAS EXEMPT INCOME AND SECONDLY, IT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXA TION IN A.Y. 2005-06. THUS, THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE . EVEN OTHERWISE, FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, T HE ADDITION CAN BE MADE, WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERE D BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO NATURE AND SOURCE THER EOF AND FURTHER ANY EXPLANATION, IF OFFERED AND FOUND UNSATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, ONLY THEN, IT CAN BE CHARGED TO TAX OR ADDITION CAN BE M ADE. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE NATURE, SOURCE AND GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED AMOU NT, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED U/S 68 OF THE A CT. THUS, THIS GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 10/03/2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 11/03/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT ITA NO.1879/MUM/2014 CLASSIC SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. 10 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI