ITO 7(1)(4), MUMBAI V. PRINCE MULTIPLAST P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2002/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88544 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Earning of tax free income; Cost of acquisition; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 14A; 32; 10

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . . , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2002/MUM/2013 (A.Y.2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER 7(1)(4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO.670B 6 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 002. GIR NO./PAN : AAACP 9106 B (APPELLANT ) VS. M/S. PRINCE MULTIPLAST PVT. LTD. 21, KALPATARU POINT, KAMINI MARG, SION(E) MUMBAI-400 022. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP - DR RESPONDENT BY : MS. MRUGAKSHI JOSHI DATE OF HEARING : 26 /02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 /0 3 /2015 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, A.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2012 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08. THE FIRST ISSUE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS FOLLOW S:- GROUND NO.1 AND 2 . I) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LA W, IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CAPITALIZATION OF IN TEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.42,25,030/- WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FA CTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX AS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. II) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LA W IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.42,25,030/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT SINCE THERE IS DIRECT NEXUS OF BORROWED FUNDS TO THE 2 ITA NO.2002/M /13 PURCHASE OF NEW SHARES SHOWN AS INVESTMENTS, THE SA ME IS LIABLE FOR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W.S.8D. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PUR CHASED 45 SHARES OF M/S. MERINO HOME LAND PVT. LTD. FROM ANIL KUMAR MEH TA FOR RS.4,32,00,000/- . FROM THE BREAK-UP, IT WAS FOUND THAT PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF SHARES WAS OF RS.4,32,00,000/-, ST AMP DUTY OF RS.90,00,000/-, COMMON STAMP DUTY OF RS.1,80,00,000 /- AND CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST OF RS.42,25,030/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASS ESSEE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS CAPITALIZED FOLLOWING AS-13 HAVING DIRECT NEXUS WITH ACQUISITION OF SHARES. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CO NTENTION OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM THE INTEREST EXPENSES SO INCURRED WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE RECONSIDERED AS PART OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPI TAL ASSET WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF BUSINESS ASSETS. ACCORDING TO THE AO T HE COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE REDUCED BY SUCH INTEREST AND ACCORDINGLY THE COST OF NEW SHARES SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS.4,33,98,000/- . FURTHER ACCORDI NG TO THE AO SUCH INTEREST IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENSE BECAUS E IT HAS DIRECT NEXUS WITH INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES. ALTERNATIVELY IT WAS ME NTIONED BY THE AO THAT IF THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN BORROWED FUNDS AND NEW SHARES PURCHASED FOR INVESTMENT, THEN THE SAME IS LIABLE FOR DISALLO WANCE U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 2.1 ON APPEAL CIT(A) ALLOWED THE GROUND OF THE ASS ESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS RELATED TO ACQUISI TION OF 45 SHARES OF M/S. MERINO HOMELAND PVT. LTD. HE OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD ADMITTED THAT SUCH SHARES HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY UT ILIZING BORROWED FUND. 3 ITA NO.2002/M /13 HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE THERE IS DIRECT NEXU S OF CORPORATE LOANS WITH ACQUISITION OF SHARES, SUCH EXPENDITURE WOULD ADD T O THE COST OF SHARES. HE OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY PRESUMED THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS NOT TO BE CAPITALIZED AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE A RGUMENTS OF THE AO WERE NOT TENABLE, WHEN NO SUCH EXPENDITURE CAN BE CLAIME D AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, SAME IS ALSO NOT LIABLE FOR DISALLOWAN CE U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW C APITALIZATION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.42,25,030/-. AGAINST THIS THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED THE INTEREST INCURRED ON LOAN WHICH WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF SHARES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, BUT IT WAS CAPITALIZED AS PART OF THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES. THE CONTENTION OF THE AO WAS THAT IT CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE COST OF THE INVESTMENT SO AS TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE CAPIT AL ASSET. 3.1 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN SHA RES AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED INTEREST ON IT AND THE ASSESS EE ADDED THAT INTEREST TO THE COST OF INVESTMENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE INTERES T IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE COST OF INVESTMENT TILL DATE OF ACQUISI TION AND INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMMENCING FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITIO N OF SHARES TILL THE DATE OF SALE WOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE COST OF ACQ UISITION. 4 ITA NO.2002/M /13 4. FURTHER, IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT INC OME OF AN ASSESSEE HAS TO BE COMPUTED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE ACT- THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTIONS ARE TO BE ALLOWED IN COMP UTING THE INCOME UNDER VARIOUS HEADS ONLY TO THE EXTENT IT IS PROVID ED BY THE LEGISLATURE UNDER THAT VERY HEADS. THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL G AIN IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THIS SECTION, T HE ONLY DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE ALLOWABLE ARE - (1) THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET, (2) THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT THERETO AND (3) EXPENDITURE INCURRED WH OLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSET. THE COST OF ACQUISITION, IN OUR OPINION, MEANS THE AMOUNT PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE AS SET. ONCE THE ASSET IS ACQUIRED, THEN ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREAFTER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION, SINCE SUCH EXPENDITURE WOU LD NOT HAVE ANY NEXUS WITH THE ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET. WHEREVER THE LEG ISLATURE INTENDED TO ALLOW SUCH EXPENDITURE AS DEDUCTION, IT HAD SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED SO UNDER VARIOUS HEADS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24 OF T HE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON THE BORROWED FUNDS UTILISED FOR AC QUIRING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, WHEN THE INCOME IS TO BE COMPU TED UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION', TH E DEDUCTION ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON BORROWED FUND IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) THE ACT, WHERE THE BUSINESS ASSETS ARE ACQUIRED OUT OF BORRO WED FUNDS. AT THIS STAGE, IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT DEPRECIATION IS ALSO ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 32 IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS ASSETS ON T HE COST OF ACQUISITION . IN DETERMINING THE COST OF ACQUISITION, THE INTERES T COMPONENT AFTER BRINGING THE ASSET INTO EXISTENCE IS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION AS EXPLANATION 8 TO V. 5 ITA NO.2002/M /13 SECTION 43 OF THE ACT. IF THE INTEREST IS TO BE ADD ED TO COST OF ACQUISITION, THEN THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DOUBLE DEDUC TION ONCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(III) AND THE OTHER UNDER SECTION 32 OF ACT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. V. UOI[1993] 199 ITR 43. 4.1 SIMILARLY, WHEN THE SHARES ARE PURCHASED BY WA Y OF INVESTMENT, AND THE DIVIDEND IS RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF SUCH SHA RES, THE INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE AS DED UCTION AGAINST DIVIDEND INCOME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS GONE A STEP FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY [1978] 115 ITR 519 , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE IN COME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, EVEN WHERE THE DIVIDEN D IS NOT RECEIVED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. IF THIS IS THE LEGAL POSITION, THE N WE ARE AFRAID, HOW THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SHARES. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THEN IT WOULD AMOUNT TO ALLOWING DOUBLE DEDUCTION I.E., UND ER SECTION 57 AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, WHICH CAN NEVER BE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. AS ALREADY STATED, THE DOUBLE DEDUCTIO N IS PROHIBITED AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ES CORTS LTD. (SUPRA). THE ENTIRE SCHEME OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, REVEALS THAT I NTEREST COMPONENT AFTER THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AND TILL THE DATE OF SALE CANNO T BE TREATED AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION. IT IS ONLY ALLOWABLE AS A REVENUE DEDU CTION ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS AGAINST THE INCOME GENERATED FROM SUCH ASSET OR LIKELY TO BE GENERATED TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. 6 ITA NO.2002/M /13 4.2 THE VIEW TAKEN BY US IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECIS ION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MACINTOSH FINANCE ESTATES LTD. VS. ACIT(12 SOT 324) , WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD 'ONCE WE FIND THAT INTERES T EXPENSES IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE ADDED TO THE COST OF INVEST MENT ONLY BECAUSE IN THIS YEAR NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE BECA USE THE DIVIDEND INCOME HAS BEEN MADE EXEMPT '. 4.3 HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF K. RAJA GOPALA RAO (252 ITR 459) HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN RECEIVED ON THE MORTGAGE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD ALSO FORM PART OF TH E COST OF ACQUISITION IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE O F CHALLAPALLI SUGARS LTD. V. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167. T HE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WERE RELIED ON BY THE COURT: AS THE EXPRESSION 'ACTUAL COST' HAS NOT BEEN DEFINE D, IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, IN THE SENSE WHICH NO COMMERCIAL MAN WOULD MISUNDER STAND. FOR THIS PURPOSE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN THE CONNOTATION OF THE EXPRESSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMAL RULES OF ACCOUNTANCY PREVAILING IN COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. THE ACCEPTED ACCOUNTANCY RULE FOR DETERMINING COST OF F IXED ASSETS IS TO INCLUDE ALL EXPENDITURE NECESSARY TO BRING SUCH ASSETS INTO EXI STENCE AND TO PUT THEM IN WORKING CONDITION. IN CASE MONEY IS BORROWED BY A N EWLY STARTED COMPANY WHICH IS IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTING AND ERECTIN G ITS PLANT, THE INTEREST INCURRED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION ON S UCH BORROWED MONEY CAN BE CAPITALISED AND ADDED TO THE COST OF THE FIXED ASSE TS. 4.4 A BARE LOOK AT THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS REVEALS T HAT ACTUAL COST WOULD INCLUDE ALL EXPENDITURE NECESSARY TO BRING TH E ASSETS INTO EXISTENCE AND PUT THEM IN WORKING CONDITION. NOWHERE IN THE A BOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AFTER THE 7 ITA NO.2002/M /13 ACQUISITION OF ASSET WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF ASSETS. THE TERMINAL POINT IS THE TIME WHEN THE ASSET IS BROUGHT INTO EX ISTENCE OR WHEN THE ASSET IS PUT IN A WORKING CONDITION. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED AFTER THE ASSET BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE, I.E., AFTER THE ACQUI SITION OF THE ASSET WOULD FORM PART OF THE ACTUAL COST. THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT INTEREST PAID ON MONIES BORROWED F OR ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET AND TO MEET EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH ITS INSTA LLATION ETC. AND CAPITALIZED, HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE COST OF ASSET F OR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRECIATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT PERSUADED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. THANE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LTD. [1994] 206 1TR 727 (BOM.),HAS HELD THAT JUDGMENT OF NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS N OT BINDING ON SUBORDINATE COURTS OR THE TAX AUTHORITIES BUT HAS O NLY A PERSUASIVE VALUE. 4.5 THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL PLACED STRONG RELIANCE O N THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS IN : 1. MR. S. BALAN ALIAS SHANMUGAM BALKRISHNAN CHETTIAR V S. DCIT (ITAT (PUNE) BENCH DATED 31.01.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03; [2009 ] 120 ITD 469(PUNE); 2. ITO VS. M/S. GLOBAL ASSETS HOLDING CORPORATION ITA NO.4738/MUM/2010 DATED 27.7.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05; 3. ALKA RAJESH AGRAWAL VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.2393/MUM/201 2 ORDER DATED 19.10.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ; 4. CIT VS. MAITHREYI PAI [1985] 152 ITR 247(KAR.); 5. ITO VS. ARIHANT ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. ITA NO.2750/D EL./2011 ORDER DATED 21/9/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08; 8 ITA NO.2002/M /13 6. MODERN INFO TECHNOLOGY P. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.42 94/MUM/2012 ORDER DATED 19/10/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 7. DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.559 2/MUM/2012 ORDER DATED 01/01/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 4.6 IN OUR OPINION IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHELLAPALLY SUGARS LTD. CITED SUPRA, WE ARE INCLINED TO NOT FOLLOW ABOVE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LD. AR . AC CORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 5. NEXT GROUND THAT WE TAKE IS GROUND NO.3 WHICH RE ADS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW, IN DELE TING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.16,77,597/- UNDER SECTION 14A R.W . RULE 8D IGNORING THE FACTS THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE BUSINESS FUND S AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO EARN EXEMPT INCOME AND THEREFORE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A AS PER RULE 8D IS JUSTIFIED AND ALSO RULE 8D PROVIDES UNIFORM M ETHOD FOR COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE. 5.1 THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.735/- AND CLAIMED IT AS EXEMPT U/S. 10 (33) OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED ANY EXPENSES FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S. 14A. THE AO HAD ME NTIONED THAT THERE WAS OPENING AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT OF RS.1,25,02,250 /- AND AFTER MAKING NEW PURCHASE, CLOSING BALANCE OF INVESTMENT IS FOUN D TO BE OF RS.6,01,35,280/- THUS, THERE IS APPLICATION OF FUND AND INFRASTRUCTURE EXPENSES, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE AO DISALLOWAB LE EXPENDITURE WAS WORKED OUT UNDER RULE 8D. THE INTEREST INCOME DEBIT ED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT IS OF RS.75,78,302/- AGAINST THE TOTAL INTEREST EXP ENDITURE PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.1,26,27,349/-. PLACING RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF M/S. DAGA CAPITAL 9 ITA NO.2002/M /13 MANAGEMENT P. LTD. IN ITA NO.8057/MUM/2003 , THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THAT DISALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 6,77,597/- AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCU RRED ANY EXPENDITURE ON EARNING TAX FREE INCOME AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWING NOTIONAL EXPENDITURE BUT IN OUR OPINION THERE SHOULD BE CERT AIN EXPENDITURE ON ADMINISTRATION OF THESE INVESTMENTS FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE EARNED EXEMPT INCOME. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DIRECT THE AO TO DISALLOW THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- ON THIS COUNT. T HIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.2 002/MUM/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/03/ 2015 !' # $%& 04/ 03/2015 ! ' SD/- SD/- ( . . / I.P. BANSAL) ( / CHANDRA POOJARI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; $% DATED : 04/03/ 2015 . % . ./JV, SR. PS 10 ITA NO.2002/M /13 )*+ )*+ )*+ )*+ ,+'* ,+'* ,+'* ,+'* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -. / THE APPELLANT 2. )/-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 0 / CIT 5. +1' )*% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. '2 3 / GUARD FILE. % % % % / BY ORDER, /+* )* //TRUE COPY// 4 44 4 / 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI