INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-30(1)(4), MUMBAI V. SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA, MUMBAI

ITA 197/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8479 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI LD AR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.197/MUM/2018 SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 197/MUM/2018 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 30(1)(4) C-13, 5 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.501 PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BKC BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051. / VS. SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA A-1/43. AMAR JYOTI, MARVE ROAD MALAD(W) MUMBAI-400 064. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. ANDPB-8130-E ( /APPELLANT ) : ( ! / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH- LD.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI- LD. AR ' #$% / DATE OF HEARING : 11/07/2019 &#$% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/07/2019 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2013-14 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-41, MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT (A)], APPEAL NO. 2 ITA NO.197/MUM/2018 SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 CIT(A)41/IT/454/2015-16 DATED 31/10/2017 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.8,14,323/- PLUS THE COST OF ACQUISITION ON THE A LLEGED PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED CAPITAL ASSETS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE RECEIPT OF RS.1,95,00,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF RIGHT OR INTEREST IN PROPERTY AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WITHOUT CONS IDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT 1961. (III) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND HENCE QUESTION OF TRANSFERRING OF RIGHT DOESN'T ARI SE. 2. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [ AR], SHRI RAKESH JOSHI, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER STO OD SQUARED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CO-OWNERS CASE SHRI PREM ASHOK BHATIA, ITA NO.179/MUM/2018 ORDER DATED 30/04/2019. A COPY OF T HE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE O N THE STAND OF LD. AO, HOWEVER, FAILED TO REBUT THE FACT THAT A VIEW HAS A LREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER. 3.1 FACTS ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) ON 14/03/2016 AT RS.202.33 LACS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.15.47 LACS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 27/07/2013. THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, REFLECTED LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.8.14 LACS AGAINST SALE OF CERTAI N LAND. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS MOTHER AND BROTHER INHERITED PART OF LAND WHICH WAS EARLIER JOINTLY HELD BY HIS FATHER LATE S HRI ASHOK BHATIA AND ONE 3 ITA NO.197/MUM/2018 SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 SHRI KISHORE B. DALAL, BOTH HAVING 50% UNDIVIDED SH ARE, INTEREST, RIGHT AND TITLE IN THE LAND. AFTER THE DEATH OF THE FATHER, T HE PLOT OF LAND WAS JOINTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WITH KAVITA BHATIA (MOTHER) AND PRE M BHATIA (BROTHER) AS CO-OWNERS AND SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST IN EQUAL PROPOR TION IN ONE PART AND SHRI KISHORE B. DALAL IN THE OTHER PART. IT WAS ALSO OBS ERVED THAT SHRI KISHORE B. DALAL SOLD HIS UNDIVIDED SHARE IN THE LAND FOR WHIC H THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER AND BROTHER GAVE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) AND RECEIVED AGGREGATE CONSIDERATION OF RS.585 LACS FOR GIVING S UCH NOC. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES SHARE THEREIN BEING TO THE EXTENT OF 1/3 RD I.E. RS.195 LACS WAS OFFERED AS LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN, AGAINST WHIC H DEDUCTION U/S 54F WAS CLAIMED. 3.2 HOWEVER, LD. AO UPON PERUSAL OF RELEVANT DOCUME NTS, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOC IN THE CAPACITY OF CONFIRMING PARTY AS CONSIDERATION O F SALE OF RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE LAND WHICH WAS OWNED BY KISHORE B. DALAL AND THEREFORE THE INCOME WAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE, INTER-ALIA, CONTENDED THAT CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED FOR TRANSFER OF POSSESSORY RIGHT AND THEREFORE, THE GAI NS WERE RIGHTLY OFFERED AS CAPITAL GAIN, HOWEVER, NOT CONVINCED, THE SALE PROC EEDS OF RS.195 LACS WAS ASSESSED BY LD. AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION AS WELL AS DEDUCTION U/S 54F AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS DENIED TO HIM. 4 ITA NO.197/MUM/2018 SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE SAME, BY WA Y OF ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, BEFORE LD.CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31/10/2017 WHEREIN LD. CIT(A), INTER-ALIA, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN J.K. KASHYAP VS. ACIT (302 ITR 255) ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FUR THER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. UPON PERUSAL OF CITED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF CO-OWNER I.E. PREM ASHOK BHATIA, WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL, ON SIMILA R FACTUAL MATRIX, HAS CONFIRMED THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 12. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE I.E. SH. PREM ASHOK BH ATIA ALONG WITH SMT. KAVITA ASHOK BHATIA (MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE) AND SH. GAURAV BHAT IA (BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE) HAD IN EQUAL SHARES RECEIVED AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS. 5,85,00,000/- IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 19 OF THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 07.09.20 12. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED, THE PURC HASERS HAD AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PHYSICAL AND ACTUAL USE, OCCUPATION A ND POSSESSION OF THE PLOT OF LAND REMAINED VESTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER TWO LEGAL HEIRS VIZ. SMT. KAVITA ASHOK BHATIA AND SH. GAURAV BHATIA, HAD THUS AGREED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE VENDOR I.E. SH. KISHORE B DALAL TO PAY A CONSIDERATION AGGREGATING TO RS. 5,85,00,000/- TO THEM. THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SH. ASHOK BHATIA VIZ. THE ASSES SEE I.E SH. PREM ASHOK BHATIA, SMT. KAVITA ASHOK BHATIA (WIDOW) AND SH. GAURAV BHATIA ( SON), HAD IN LIEU OF THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5,85,00,000/- HANDED OVER THE ACTUAL AND PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PLOT OF LAND THEREIN DESCRIBED IN THE THIRD SC HEDULE FORMING PART OF THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PURCHASERS. A PART THERE FROM, THE VENDOR I.E. SH. KISHORE B DALAL HAD AGREED WITH THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SH. ASHOK BHATIA AND THE PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE AFORESAID FACTU AL ASPECT WOULD NOT BE DISPUTED BY HIM. IN FACT, AS IS FURTHER DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RE GISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SH. ASHOK BHATIA ONLY PURSUANT TO THE AFORESAID ARRANGEMENT HAD AGREED TO JOIN HANDS AS A PARTY TO THE AFORESAID REGISTERED D EED OF CONVEYANCE. 13. INSOFAR THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE A.O ON CERTA IN DOCUMENTS IN HIS ATTEMPT TO DISLODGE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE POSSESS ION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD REMAINED WITH SH. ASHOK BHATIA DU RING HIS LIFETIME AND THEREAFTER WITH HIS LEGAL HEIRS IS CONCERNED, WE FIND SUBSTANTIAL F ORCE IN THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE SAID RESPECTIVE DOCUMENTS WERE UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTY, THEREFORE, THE SAME W OULD NOT HAVE ANY SUPERSEDING OR OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER THE CONTENTS OF THE REGISTER ED CONVEYANCE DEED. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE CONTENTS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED UNREG ISTERED DOCUMENTS WILL HAVE TO GIVE WAY TO THE CONTENTS OF THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DE ED. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHARANJIT SINGH 5 ITA NO.197/MUM/2018 SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 ATWAL (SLP NO. 1565 OF 2016), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN H ELD THAT AFTER AMENDMENT OF REGISTRATION ACT, 2001 AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT WIL L HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. ON A SIMILAR FOOTING THE VALIDITY OF THE GENERAL POA S DATED 29.03.2008, 01.04.2010 AND 07.04.2010 AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF IN CONTEXT OF T HE PURPORTED TRANSFER THAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE EFFECTED CAN ALSO SAFELY BE GATHERED IN THE B ACKDROP OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES P. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [SLP(C) NO. 13917 OF 2009, DATED 11.10.2017 ]. IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT NO TRANSFER OF A PROPE RTY CAN BE VALIDLY CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEYS. 14. APART THERE FROM, WE ARE ALSO PERSUADED TO BE I N AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NE ITHER A PARTY TO THE MOU DATED 29.03.2008 OR THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEYS DATED 29.03.2008, 01.04.2010 AND 07.04.2010 ENTERED INTO AND DRAWN BY SH. KISHORE B DALAL IN FAVOUR SH. ABRAR, WHICH AS OBSERVED HEREINABOVE WERE EXECUTED NOT TO HIS KNOWL EDGE, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE PRESSED INTO SERVIC E FOR DRAWING OF ADVERSE INFERENCES AND DISLODGING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SH. A SHOK BHATIA AND THEREAFTER HIS LEGAL HEIRS HAD REMAINED IN EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF THE P ROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION. INSOFAR THE CONFIRMATION DATED 14.05.2009 BETWEEN SH. KISHO RE B DALAL AND SH. ABRAR STATING THAT SH. KISHORE B DALAL WAS HAVING THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT AS THE SAID FACTS ARE AL SO BORNE OUT FROM AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTY, THU S IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID REASONING IN CONTEXT OF VALIDITY OF UNREGISTERED DO CUMENTS EXECUTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME TOO WILL HAVE TO GIVE WAY TO THE CONTENTS OF THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED. AS REGARDS THE EXTRACT OF THE LAND RECORDS AS PER THE LAND REVENUE RECORDS AND THE TITLE SEARCH REPORT OF MR. M.S RODR IGUES, ADVOCATE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS THE SAID DOCUMENTS ONLY AFF IRM THE UNDISPUTED FACT OF CO- OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY BY SH. KISHORE B DALAL AN D SH. ASHOK BHATIA/HIS LEGAL HEIRS, THEREFORE, THE SAME WOULD IN NO WAY ASSIST FOR EITH ER SUPPORTING OR DISLODGING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD REMAINED WITH SH. ASHOK BHATIA AND THEREAFTER W ITH HIS LEGAL HEIRS. 15. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE CLAUSE 19 OF THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED CATEGORICALLY EVIDENCES THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE OTHER TWO LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SH. ASHOK BHATIA VIZ. SMT. KAVITA BHATIA (MOTH ER OF THE ASSESSEE) AND SH. GAURAV BHATIA (BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE) HAD IN EQUAL SHARE S RECEIVED AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS. 5,85,00,000/- IN LIEU OF HANDING OVER THE ACTUA L AND PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE PURCHASERS WHO HAD AGREED TO PAY THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE LEGAL HEIRS AFTER OBTAINING THE CONSENT OF T HE VENDOR I.E. SH. KISHORE B DALAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO CULL O UT CLAUSE 19 OF THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED WHICH CONTEMPLATES THE REASON FOR M AKING OF THE PAYMENT OF RS. 5,85,00,000/- BY THE PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SH. ASHOK BHATIA, AS UNDER :- 19. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ACTUAL AND PHYSI CAL POSSESSION OF THE SAID PLOT AND SINCE THE DATE OF PURCHASE IT WAS INITIALLY WITH THE DECEASED ASHOK BHATIA AND THEREAFTER IT IS WITH THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED ASHOK BHATIA, AND WITH AN INTEND TO AVOID THE LITIGATION BY AND BETWEEN THE VENDOR AND THE PURCHASERS ON THE ONE HAND AND THE F IRST CONFIRMING PARTY ON THE OTHER HAND, IT 6 ITA NO.197/MUM/2018 SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 HAS BEEN MUTUALLY AGREED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTU AL ASPECT OF PHYSICAL AND ACTUAL USE, OCCUPATION AND POSSESSION OF THE PLOT OF LAND THE P URCHASERS HAVE AGREED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE VENDOR TO PAY MORE CONSIDERATION TO THE FIRST CONFI RMING PARTY I.E. THE SUM OF RS. 5,85,00,000/- (RUPEES FIVE CRORES EIGHTY FIVE LAKHS ONLY), IN LIE U THEREOF THE FIRST CONFIRMING PARTY HAS HANDED OVER THE ACTUAL AND PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF T HE PLOT OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE THIRD SCHEDULE HEREUNDER WRITTEN, A SUM OF RS. 1,26,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE TWENTY SIX LACS ONLY) TO THE SECOND CONFIRMING PARTY AND SUM O F RS. 89,00,000/- (RUPEES EIGHTY NINE LAKHS ONLY) TO THE VENDOR TOWARDS TRANSFER OF HIS R IGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE DESCRIBED IN THE THIRD SCHEDULE HEREUNDER WRITTEN PLOT OF LAND. THE VENDOR HAS AGREED WITH THE FIRST CONFIRMING PARTY AND THE PURCHASERS NOT TO DISPUTE THIS FACTUA L ASPECT. ON THE ASSURANCES AND THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE VENDOR AND THE PURCHASER HAV ING ACCEPTED THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF OCCUPATION AND POSSESSION OF THE FIRST CONFIRMING P ARTY AND THERE UPON THE PURCHASERS HAVING AGREED TO PAY MORE CONSIDERATION TO THE FIRST CONFI RMING PARTY, THE FIRST CONFIRMING PARTY HAVE AGREED TO JOIN THEIR HANDS TO THE DEED OF CONVEYANC E. WE THUS IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIO NS ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT AS WAS DISCERN IBLE FROM THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED, ASSESSEE WHO AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY ALL THE CONCE RNED PARTIES HELD A POSSESSORY RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD RECEI VED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,95,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER OF SUCH RIGHTS OR INTEREST I N THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY OFFERED FOR TAX BY HIM UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, WE THUS NOT FINDING ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WHO HAD RIGHTLY ARRIVED AT THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DISTINGUI SHING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE A.O, UPHOLD THE SAME. 16. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. THE REVENUE IS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT S AID RULING WAS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE ALSO. TH EREFORE, NOTHING WOULD WARRANT US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE STAND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 16/07/2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE 7 ITA NO.197/MUM/2018 SHRI GAURAV ASHOK BHATIA ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. # / CIT CONCERNED 5. $%!& ' , ' , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. %)*+ / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.