SIDDHI GAURAV ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 1, THANE

ITA 2302/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 230219914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 30-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK; SUBODH RATNAPARKHI
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure
• Section: 131; 132

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2302 /MUM/2013 ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SIDDHI GAURAV ENTERPRISES, 4A-9, LAKE CITY MALL, KAPURBAWDI JUNCTION, MAJIWADA NAKA, THANE 400 607. / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, ASHAR I.T. PARK, 6 TH FLOOR, B WING, ROOM NO. 22, ROAD NO. 16Z, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE 400 604. ! '# ./ PAN : AADAS0792F ( !$ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( %&!$ / RESPONDENT ) A PPELLANT BY SHRI SUNIL PATHAK & SHRI SUBODH RATNAPARKHI R E SPONDENT BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP (DR) ' (# / // / DATE OF HEARING : 30-06-2015 )* ' (# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 -09-2015 [ 1'2 / O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) 37, MUMBAI DATED 28.1`2.2 012. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS.L,53,00,000- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATI ON TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND AT VILLAGE KHARIGAON, TALUKA & DIST. THANE FRO M SHRI. NARESH MOTIRAM GOURI AND OTHERS, NOT APPRECIATING THE VALID EXPLAN ATION OF YOUR APPELLANT ITA 2302/M/13 2 WHICH WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY SEIZED/IMPOUNDED DOCUME NTS AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE IN THE COURSE OF ASST. PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,50,OO,OOOI- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PAYME NT OF CONSIDERATION TO SHRI. MUKUND KENI TOWARDS PURCHASE OF HIS RIGHTS IN LAND AT VILLAGE KHARIGAON, TALUKA & DIST. THANE, NOT APPRECIATING T HE VALID EXPLANATION OF YOUR APPELLANT WHICH WAS FURTHER SUPPORTED BY EVIDE NCES SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE OF ASST. PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN AOP HAVING M/S. SIDDHI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND M/S. TWINKLE REAL TORS PVT. LTD. AS ITS MEMBERS. THE BUSINESS OF THE AOP IS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON SIDDHI GROUP ON 28.08.2008. DURING COURSE OF SAID SEARCH, CERTAIN D OCUMENTS WERE FOUND AT VARIOUS SEARCHED PREMISES. THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING N IL INCOME. THE AO NOTED THAT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION: (I) A COPY OF DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI. JAYENDRA GALA. (II) AN UNDATED AND UNSIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES AT PRIDE PARK. (III) ONE LOOSE PAPER SEIZED FROM OFFICE PREMISE S AT LAKE CITY MALL. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ALL THESE DOCUMENTS PERTAIN ED TO PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY AT GAT NO. 61 ADMEASURING 1 HECTOR AND 85 R AT VILLAGE KHARI, DISTT. THANE, BY THE ASSESSEE FROM GAURI FAMILY. AS PER TH E DRAFT AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS.1,53,00,000/- TO GAURI FAMILY IN CASH AND HAD FURTHER PAID RS.1,50,00,000/- IN CASH TO SHRI. MUKUND KINI, WHO HAD CERTAIN RIGHT S IN THE SAID LAND. THESE CASH PAYMENTS AS PER AO HAD NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1.53 CRORES AND RS.1.50 CRORES INTO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. ITA 2302/M/13 3 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL TO CIT(A) , HE HO WEVER SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS I N FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAVE A LSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND HAS EXPLAINED THAT SHRI. NAR ESH GAURI AND 12 OTHERS WERE THE OWNERS OF THE SAID LAND. AROUND JULY, 2005 , THEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL THIS LAND TO MUKUND KINI OF M/S . MANDAR CONSTRUCTIONS FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.45 LAKHS. HOWEVER, TRAN SACTION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN JULY 2008, THE ASSESSEE DECIDED TO ACQUIRE THIS LAND FROM GAURI FAMILY AND NEGOTIATIONS WERE IN PRO GRESS THROUGH A GROUP OF BROKERS. AT ONE STAGE OF NEGOTIATIONS, THE CONSIDER ATION DEMANDED BY GAURI FAMILY WAS RS.5,10,00,000/- AND THE DRAFT AGREEMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF JAYENDRA GALA DURING SEARCH ON 20.08.2008. THIS LAND WAS SUBJECT TO SEVE RAL RESERVATIONS OF GOVT., NAMELY, MAHARASHTRA WATER SUPPLY DEPT., FIRE DEPT. AND PART OF THE LAND WAS OCCUPIED BY UNAUTHORIZED ENCROACHERS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE LAND WAS ALSO SUBJECT TO 'NAVI SHART' WHIC H MEANS THAT IT COULD NOT BE SOLD UNLESS NAZRANA I.E. PREMIUM DETERMINED BY G OVT. WAS DEPOSITED AND THEREFORE, NECESSARY PERMISSION WAS REQUIRED FROM T HE GOVT. AUTHORITIES. BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE PROBLEMS IN THE LAND, THE ROUG H DRAFT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE S AID DRAFT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE PARTIES. THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS EVEN UNDATED AND WAS NOT ON ANY STAMP PAPER. THERE WERE CORRECTIONS AND CUTTINGS MA DE IN THE SAID DRAFT AT SOME PLACES. THE FIGURE DEPICTING THE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF RS.5.1 0 CRS. WAS ALSO STRUCK OFF. THE SAID MOU WAS NEVER ACCEPT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT IN THE SECOND DRA FT, WHICH WAS ALSO SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION, THE CONSIDERATION WAS MEN TIONED AT RS.3.57 CRS. ITA 2302/M/13 4 AND THERE WERE ALSO MANY CORRECTIONS IN THIS DRAFT. THIS DRAFT WAS ALSO NOT SIGNED BY THE PARTIES. ULTIMATELY, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS REGISTERED ON 23.09.2008 (COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AT P AGES 82 TO 114 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION THEREOF ON PAGES 115 TO 147 OF PAPER BOOK). ON PAGE 119, THE AGREEMENT MENTIONS ABOUT RE SERVATIONS BY FIRE BRIGADE, GOVT. WORK, D.P. ROAD, UNAUTHORIZED USE AN D OCCUPATION BY SHRI. SHARAD BUBERA AND OTHERS AS WELL AS PART OF THE LAN D BEING IN OCCUPATION OF MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN. AS PER THIS REGISTE RED AGREEMENT, THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ACQUIRE THE LAND WAS RS.3.57 CRORES ONLY . THE LD. AR HAS THUS CONTENDE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE LAND FOR 3.57 CRS ONLY FROM SHRI MOTIR AM GOURI AND 12 OTHERS AND NO PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN CASH T O ANY PERSON. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE EXPLANATION FOR FINAL SETTLEMENT OF CONSIDERATION AT R S.3,57,00,000/- WAS CORROBORATED BY THE LANDOWNER IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY INVESTIGATION WING ON 15.10 .2008 ( COPY ENCLOSED AT PG NOS. 169 TO 175 OF PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN IN REPLY TO Q. NO.7, THE LANDLORD EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE LAND, THE CONSIDERATION WAS FINALLY SETTLED AT RS.3,57,00,000/-. THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE BROKERS IN THE TRANSACTION CONFIRMING THAT NO CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE WAS ALSO F ILED. REGARDING THE CASH PAYMENT TO MUKUND KINI OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- , IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT SHRI MUKUND KINI HAD CERTAIN RIGHTS IN THE PRO PERTY AND FOR THIS REASON A SUM OF RS. 60,00,000 /- WAS PAID TO HIM BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SEIZED LOOSE PAPER. THE SAID PAPER, APART FROM FURTHER PAYMENT O F RS. 20,00,000/- BY CHEQUES ALSO REFERS TO PAYMENT OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- IN CASH. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ONLY THE CHEQUES AGAINST WHICH THE W ORD 'PAID' HAS BEEN MENTIONED WERE PAID AND FURTHER ENTRIES OF CHEQUE P AYMENT OR CASH PAYMENT (PAYABLE ) HAD NEVER BEEN EXECUTED. THIS FACT HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY SHRI. MUKUND KINI, HIMSELF, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING ON 10.10.2008. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTENDED THAT TIL L DATE THERE WAS NO ITA 2302/M/13 5 AGREEMENT WITH SHRI. MUKUND KINI AND OUT OF THE RS. 60,00,000/- PAID BY CHEQUES, DUE TO INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF PREMIUM T O BE PAID TO THE GOVT., A SUM OF RS. 40,00,000/- HAS BEEN TAKEN BACK FROM HIM. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ONLY RS. 20,00,000/ - HAS PAID TO SHRI MUKUND KINI AS ADVANCE AGAINST THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF HIS INTEREST IN THE LAND T O THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR, HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT NO CASH PAYMENT HAS EVER BE EN PAID TO THE OWNERS OF THE LAND AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. 5. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS RELIED UPON T HE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND H AVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE COPY OF THE FIRST DRAFT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FILE. ADMITTEDLY, THERE ARENT ANY SI GNATURES OF ANY OF THE PARTIES ON THE ALLEGED DRAFT AGREEMENT FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. THE FIGURE OF RS. 5.10 CRORES WRITTEN AS CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN STUCK OFF AND EVEN THE FIGURE OF RS. 1.53 CRORES WRITTEN ON THE SEIZED LOSE PAPER HAS ALSO BEEN STRUCK OFF. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT T HAT AN ANOTHER DRAFT AGREEMENT WAS ALSO FOUND WHERE THE CONSIDERATION HA S BEEN MENTIONED AS RS. 3.57 CRORES, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED IN THE FILE AT PAGES 44 TO 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE FIRST AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACTED UPON FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAID LAD WAS SUBJECT TO SEVERAL RESERVATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, NAMELY MAHARASTRA W ATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE PART OF TH E LAND WAS OCCUPIED BY UNAUTHORIZED ENCROACHERS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE LAND WAS ALSO SUBJECT TO NAVI SHART WHICH MEANT THAT IT COULD NOT BE SOLD UNLESS NAZRANA I.E., PREMIUM DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT WAS DEPOSITED AND, THEREFORE, THE NECESSARY PERMISSION WAS REQUIRED FR OM THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE SELLERS OF THE L AND WERE ALSO CALLED UPON AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SPECIFIC QUER IES WERE PUT TO THE SELLERS. ITA 2302/M/13 6 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE PAGE169 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NARESH MOTIRAM GAURI, ONE OF THE SELLERS, RECORDED UNDER SECTION 1 31 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. HE HAS BEEN C ROSS EXAMINED AT LENGTH. SPECIFIC QUERIES HAD BEEN PUT TO HIM IN RELATION TO THE DRAFT AGREEMENT AND AS TO WHETHER ANY CASH PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE SEL LER FROM THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SALE TRANSACTION OF THE LAND IN QUES TION. HOWEVER DESPITE LENGTHY EXAMINATION, THE INVESTIGATION WING COULD N OT EXTRACT ANY WORD FROM THE SAID SELLER OF THE LAND ABOUT RECEIPT OF ANY C ASH IN RELATION TO SALE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION. THE SAID STATEMENT HAS ALS O BEEN SIGNED BY THE OTHER SELLERS OF THE LAND CONFIRMING THAT WHAT HAS BEEN R ECORDED THEREIN WAS CORRECT. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN FULLY CORROBORATED BY THE STATEMENT OF THE SELLERS. EXCEPT THE ABOVE S TATED UNSIGNED DRAFT DOCUMENT RELIED UPON BY THE AO, THE FIGURES MENTION ED THEREIN HAD ALSO BEEN STRUCK OFF, NO OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. EVEN THE ANOTHER DRAFT AGREEMENT WAS ALSO F OUND ON WHICH THE FIGURES EXACTLY TALLIED WITH THE SALE DEED WHICH WAS REGIST ERED WITH THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE T HAT THE SALE PRICE INDICATED IN THE SALE DEED WAS VALUED LESS THAN THE PRICE FIXED FOR THE LAND BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ACT UAL MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND WAS MORE THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO P ROVE THE OTHERWISE THAT NO CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FU LLY EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT THE FIRST DRAFT AGREEMENT WA S NEVER EXECUTED. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED EXPLANATION AND ITS VERSION REGA RDING THE FIRST DRAFT AGREEMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPROVED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE FIRST DRAFT AGREEME NT WAS NEVER EXECUTED AND ALSO THE REASONS AS TO WHY IT WAS NOT EXECUTED AND ALSO PROVED THAT THE SECOND DRAFT AGREEMENT WAS MADE WHICH WAS FURTHER C ORRECTED AND IMPROVED AND WAS FINALLY ACTED UPON, THE BURDEN SHIFTED UPO N THE A.O. TO DISPROVE THE ITA 2302/M/13 7 EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE. THE ANOTHER PERTINENT FACT IS THAT THE SECOND DRAF T AGREEMENT WAS ALSO FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A N AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT ANY CASH TRANSACTION HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SE LLERS OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECO RD BEFORE US BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF UNSIGNED, UNDATED DRAFT AGREEMENT, THE FIGURES WRITTEN ON WHICH HAD B EEN STRUCK OFF, CANNOT BE A BASIS OF ADDITION IN THIS CASE, ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER INCRIMINATING OR CORROBORATING EVIDENCE OF EXCHANG E OF CASH. 7. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE P APER, COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON PAGE 148 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IN RELAT ION TO PAYMENT MADE TO SH. MUKUND KENI IS CONCERNED, THE NOTABLE FACT IS T HAT IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE LOSE PAPERS THAT RS. 60 LAKH WAS PAID BY CHEQUE AND THE OTHER FIGURES MENTIONED WERE RS. 20 LAKH BY CHEQUE AND RS. 1.50 CRORE BY CASH. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN THAT THE AMOUNT O F RS. 1.50 CRORE WAS PAID IN CASH. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN COULD NOT PROVE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 20 LAKH WHICH WAS ALSO MENTIONED TO BE PAID BY CHE QUE. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ORIGINALLY RS. 60 LAKH WERE PAID BY CHEQUE AND OUT OF WHICH RS. 40 LAKH WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI MUKUND KENI AND THAT THE DEAL HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZE D TILL DATE. WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 20 L AKH BY CHEQUE ABOUT WHICH THE INVESTIGATION WING /SEARCH PARTY HAS MADE THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS, THEN THE PRESUMPTION ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF CASH CAN NOT BE DRAWN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ADDITIONS SOLELY ON THE BA SIS OF SUSPICION, HOW STRONG IT MAY BE, IN OUR VIEW, ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. ITA 2302/M/13 8 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH SEPT. 2015. 1'2 ' )* # ' 314 9-9-2015. * ' 5 SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (SANJAY GA RG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER MUMBAI ; 31 DATED 09-09-2015 [ .../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , SR. PS 1'2 ' %(67 8'7( 1'2 ' %(67 8'7( 1'2 ' %(67 8'7( 1'2 ' %(67 8'7(/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&!$ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9( () / THE CIT(A)- 37 MUMBAI 4. 9( / CIT- CENTRAL -II MUMBAI 5. 7<5 %( , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. 5> ? / GUARD FILE. 1'2 1'2 1'2 1'2 / BY ORDER, &7( %( //TRUE COPY// @ @@ @/ // /A B A B A B A B ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI