SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI V. ITO 23(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2636/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79163 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Onus to prove; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 2636/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS 109, BHARAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, LBS MARG, BHANDUP (W), MUMBAI-400 078 / VS. ITO 23(1)(4), MUMBAI ' ./# ./PAN/GIR NO. AACFS 9233 R ( '$ /APPELLANT ) : ( %&'$ / RESPONDENT ) '$ ' ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. GOPAL %&'$ ' ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MORYA PRATAP )* + ' , / DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2014 -./ ' , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.06.2014 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-33, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 05.01.2011, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 2003-04 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.12.2008. 2 ITA NO. 2636/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO 2. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE MAI NTAINABILITY IN LAW OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LAW IN THE MATTER IS WELL SETTLED, SO THAT A CASH CREDIT APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS TO BE PROVED AS TO ITS NATURE AND SOURCE, FAILING WHICH, SECTION 68, WHICH IS A RULE OF EVIDENCE, DEEMING TH E AMOUNT CREDITED AS THE ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, MAY STAND ATTRACTED. FURTHER, THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF HAS TO BE DISCHARGED ON THE PARAMETERS OF IDE NTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR, AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT TRANSAC TION. THE ISSUE IS THUS PRIMARILY FACTUAL, SO THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED IN EACH CAS E WHETHER THE BURDEN OF PROOF STANDS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WHICH WOULD BE QUA EACH CREDIT. 4.1 WE SHALL BEGIN BY RECOUNTING THE BACKGROUND FAC TS OF THE CASE; THIS BEING THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE, A B UILDER-DEVELOPER, PURCHASED A CHEMICAL FACTORY VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 15.01.2001 FO R RS.928 LACS ON AS IS WHERE IS BASIS (PB PGS.78-99). IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL ITEMS OF PLANT & MACHINERY, OIL TANKS, ETC. AT THE SAID FACT ORY PREMISES, WHICH WERE DISMANTLED AND SOLD AS SCRAP, REALIZING A SUM OF RS.157.60 LACS IN CASH . THIS SUM WAS, ACCORDINGLY, REDUCED FROM THE VALUE OF THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS (WIP ) AS AT THE YEAR-END, IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAME STOOD REALIZED ONLY BY WAY OF AND IN THE C OURSE OF CARRYING ON THE TRADE, I.E., IN UNDERTAKING A PROJECT AT THE SAID SITE (PB PG. 20). THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, BEING UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH PRIMARY DETAILS, VIZ. T HE ITEMS OF PLANT & MACHINERY, THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE SCRAP DEALERS TO WHOM THE SAID MACHINERY STOOD SOLD, ETC., ITS EXPLANATION WAS REJECTED, AND THE AMOUNT DEEMED AS IT INCOME UNDER SECTION 68. THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING ITS STAND, SUPPLEMENTED ITS C ASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH AN AFFIDAVIT BY ONE, SH. SHASHIKANT R. KADAM, STATED TO A LABOUR CONTRACTOR WITH THE VENDOR, M/S. GOLDEN DYES CORPORATION (INDIA) (P.) LTD., AVERRING THAT HE HAD FACILITATED THE SALE TRANSACTION, AND THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABL E, SEEKING TIME TO RECALL AND FURNISH THE SAME (PB PGS. 108-110). THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 16.01.2008 (IN ITA NO. 3 ITA NO. 2636/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO 381/MUM/2007 / COPY ON RECORD), RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.), WITH A VIEW TO ALLOW THUS AN OPPORT UNITY TO ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY; IT S SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS BEING AS: 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED THEM CAREFULLY. THE ONLY CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS THAT WHETHER THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAP SALE WAS IN FAC T IS OUT OF SALE OF SCRAP OR HAD THE ASSESSEE ADDUCED ITS OWN MONEY UNDER THE GA RB OF SALE OF SCRAP. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI DINESH SHARMA WHO WAS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF ASSESSEES FIRM WHICH ENTERED INTO DEVELOPMENT AGRE EMENT WITH GOLDEN DYES CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD. TO DEVELOP A HOUSING PROJECT AT THE FACTORY PREMISES SITUATED AT HARDAS NAGAR HAS FILED NOW. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THIS AFFIDAVIT THAT WHATEVER ITEMS WERE LYING IN THE BUI LDING STRUCTURE, WHICH WAS TAKEN FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, THEY WERE SOLD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.157.60 LACS. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI SHASHIKANT R KADAM WHO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RENDERING SERVICES OF REPAIRS AND M AINTENANCE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF DYES CHEMICA L AND LABOUR CONTRACTOR IS ALSO PLACED BY WHICH IT HAS BEEN STAT ED THAT HE FACILITATE FOR SALE OF SCRAP ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE AFFI DAVITS FILED NOW AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ONE OF THE AFFIDAVIT S OF SHRI DINESH SHARMA WAS ASKED TO FILE BY THE BENCH. TO VERIFY THE TRUTH -NESS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS, IT IS NECESSARY TO SEND BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, AS THEY WERE NOT FILED EARLIER. ACCORDINGLY, TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THIS IS SUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHO WILL EXAMINE THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER EVIDENCES OR DETAILS AS THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4.2 IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS AFORE-NOTED, IT COULD NEITHER PRODUCE THE SCRAP DEALERS NOR FURN ISH CONFIRMATIONS THERE-FROM, IN VIEW OF WHICH ITS CLAIM WAS AGAIN CONSIDERED AS UNSUBSTANT IATED. ITS CLAIM THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WAS MANAGED BY ONE, SHRI KADAM, WHO ACT ED AS A CONDUIT AND THE LINK BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SCRAP DEALERS, THE BUY ERS OF MACHINERIES, DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DIRECT OR EVEN ANY CORROBORATING PROOF AS TO THE SALE OF THE MACHINERIES. AGGRIEVED, THE A SSESSEE IN THE SECOND APPEAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES CASE RESTED ON THE INA PPLICABILITY OF SECTION 68 IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. TWO, EVEN IF THE ADDITION IS MADE UNDER SECTION 68, IT 4 ITA NO. 2636/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO WOULD STILL BE ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DONE, REFLECTING IT AS INCOME, THOUGH HAD REDUCED I T FROM THE VALUE OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS, AS IT WAS FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD. THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS CLAIMED, HAD NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE REAL ESTATE DEVELOP MENT IS ITS ONLY BUSINESS. TOWARDS THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD. AR WOULD RELY ON TWO DECISIONS , I.E., CIT VS. MARGARETS HOPE TEA CO. LTD. [1993] 201 ITR 747 (CAL) AND MANSFIELD & SONS VS. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 254 (CAL). THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD RELY ON THE ORDERS BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PURSUED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 6.1 THE SET-ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST INST ANCE BEING AN OPEN SET-ASIDE, TO ENABLE FRESH DETERMINATION OF THE MATTER, WE SHALL FIRSTLY EXAMINE IF SECTION 68 IS APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHICH, AS AF ORE-NOTED, IS TO BE SEEN IN EVERY CASE OF AN ADDITION EFFECTED UNDER SECTION 68. TOWARD THIS, WE FIND THE ASSESSEES CASE TO BE TOTALLY UNPROVED . THE SALE AGREEMENT DOES NOT MENTION OF ANY PLANT & MACHINERY AT THE SITE, AND WHICH IT MOST DEFINITELY WOULD, CONSIDERI NG THAT THE AGREEMENT IS NOT ONLY FOR THE SALE OF LAND BUT ALSO OF THE BUILDING THEREAT, AND ALL ATTACHMENTS THERETO, ON AS IS WHERE IS BASIS. IN FACT, THERE IS NO MENTION OF EV EN ANY ATTACHMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE RATHER PRESUMED ON THE BASIS OF THE NATURE OF THE S ALE TRANSACTION. THIS WOULD ONLY, IT MAY BE NOTED, CLARIFY THE OWNERSHIP STATUS OF THE SAID PLANT & MACHINERY, STATED TO BE AT THE SITE, ESTABLISHING ITS TRANSFER TO AND ACQUISITION BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, NOT TO SPEAK OF ITS DESCRIPTION OR SPECIFICATION IN SOME D ETAIL, THERE IS AS AFORE-NOTED NO WHISPER OF ANY PLANT & MACHINERY IN THE SAID AGREEMENT, WHI CH IS INEXPLICABLE. LEST ONE MAY ARGUE OF IT BEING AN OMISSION (WHICH THOUGH CANNOT BE LIGHTLY INFERRED) OR OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE, IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT ITS VA LUE CONSTITUTES ABOUT 17% OF THE CONTRACT VALUE AND, IN FACT, A MUCH HIGHER % AGE THEREOF WHEN RECKONED UPON EXCLUDING THE LAND VALUE COMPRISED THEREIN; THE LAND VALUE A CONSTANT - AND THE OTHERS CLEARLY FORMING TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARABLE PARTS OF THE AGR EEMENT. THE SELLER CANNOT BUT BE CONSCIOUS OF ITS VALUE, SO THAT THE SAME CAN ONLY B E CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ARRIVING AT THE CONTRACT VALUE. THEN, AGAIN, EVEN SO, WHY COULD NOT THE ASSESSEE 5 ITA NO. 2636/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO AS MUCH AS OBTAIN A CONFIRMATION FROM THE SELLER TO THAT EFFECT ? IN FACT, THE SAID PLANT & MACHINERY AND ITS DISPOSAL WOULD ONLY FIND REFLECTI ON IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE SELLER AND, THUS, PRESUMABLY ONLY DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE . FURTHER STILL, WHEN INQUIRED ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE ON DISMANTLING, DISLOCATION AND THE SHIFTING OF THE SAID MACHINERY, IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NOT BEAR ANY SUCH EXPENDITURE AS THE SAME WAS INCURRED ONLY BY THE BUYERS OF THE MACHINERIES; THE SAME BEING SOLD, AGAIN, ON AS IS WHERE IS BASIS. THE SAID STATEMENT IS AGAIN WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIATION WHAT- SO-EVER AND, IF ANYTHING, ONLY SHOWS THAT THE PLANT & MACHINERY (SCRAP) WAS WORTH EVEN M ORE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE BUYERS HAD INCURRED AN EVEN HIGHER COST IN ACQUIRING THE SAME. AND WHICH IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AS, BY OWN ADMISSION, THE SAID MACHINERIES WERE LYING I DLE FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS PRIOR TO THEIR SALE. CONTINUING FURTHER, A RECEIPT IS THE FIRST THING THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD ISSUE; RATHER, WOULD STAND TO BE DEMANDED BY THE BUYER IN EVIDENCE OF THE PAYMENT HAVING BEEN MADE, WITH THE ASSESSEE, SIMILARLY, INSISTING ON A RECEIPT OR DELIVERY CHALLAN/VOUCHER OF THE RELEVANT MACHINERY, THUS CONCLUDING THE TRANSAC TION. NEITHER ANY RECEIPT IN FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT OF THE MACHINERY, NOR ANY PROOF OF DE LIVERY STANDS ADDUCED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE PLANT & MACHINERIES FORM THE S UBSTRATUM OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION OF HAVING SOLD THE SAME, WHILE ITS EXIS TENCE IS ITSELF HIGHLY SUSPECT AND AT BEST SHROUDED IN MYSTERY OR, SIMPLY PUT, TOTALLY UN PROVED. THIS ALSO EXPLAINS THE NON- PRODUCTION OF EITHER THE SCRAP DEALERS, THE BUYERS OF PLANT & MACHINERY, OR EVEN CONFIRMATIONS THERE-FROM. 6.2 LOOKED AT FROM ANY ANGLE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EES CLAIM FAILS. IN FACT, ON SUCH QUESTIONS/OBSERVATIONS, I.E., AS AFORE-NOTED, BEING MADE BY THE BENCH DURING HEARING, THE LD.AR WOULD SUBMIT THAT HE DOES NOT SERIOUSLY DISPU TE THE APPLICATION OF S. 68 PER SE , AND THAT THE MAIN PLANK OF HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT, EVEN S O, THE SAID INCOME IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES, SO THAT NO ADJUSTMENT TO THE RETURNED INCOME WOULD FOLLOW. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD AS, AGAIN, 6 ITA NO. 2636/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO MISPLACED. INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS THE RESID UARY HEAD OF INCOME, APPLICABLE WHERE THE INCOME DOES NOT STAND TO FALL UNDER ANY O F THE OTHER SPECIFIED HEADS OF INCOME. THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 68 IN THE INSTANT CASE IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES INABILITY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME AS HAVING BEEN DERIVED OR REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS . AS SUCH, THE CONTENTION THAT THE INCOME, THOUGH B ROUGHT TO TAX U/S. 68, IS ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME, IS CONTRARY TO THE F ACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ONE COULD UNDERSTAND A CASE AS - TAKING EXAMPLE OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE, THOUGH THE EXISTENCE OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY SOLD AND ITS FAI R VALUE, IN PROXIMITY OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED, STANDS PROVED, YET BECOMES ASSESSABLE UND ER SECTION 68 IN VIEW OF NON- CONFIRMATION OF THE BUYERS. AS SUCH, IT BEING CONFI RMED THAT THE AMOUNT UNDER QUESTION HAS ITS ORIGIN IN THE SAID PLANT & MACHINERY (SCRAP ), ONE COULD ARGUE THAT THOUGH THE SOURCE OF INCOME (RECEIPT) MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXHIBI TED, ITS NATURE STANDS SO, SO THAT THE INCOME, THOUGH THUS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER SEC TION 68, WOULD YET BE CONSIDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME, ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE COU RSE OF HIS ONLY BUSINESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, BOTH THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CR EDIT/S ARE UNEXPLAINED . AS SUCH, THE ONLY HEAD OF INCOME UNDER WHICH THE INCOME IS LIABL E TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ASSESSMENT IS THE RESIDUARY HEAD, I.E., INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ASSESSEES SAID CONTENTION AS WELL. THE DECISIONS C ITED SUPRA IN THIS REGARD, BEING RENDERED IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THOSE CASE S, AS DOES THE PRESENT CASE, STAND TO BE OR WOULD BE OF LITTLE ASSISTANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. I T MAY BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE REVENUE, WHILE ASSESSING AN INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 , IS UNDER NO FURTHER OBLIGATION TO EXHIBIT THE SOURCE THEREOF (REFER: CIT VS. MANICK SONS [1969] 74 ITR 1 (SC); CIT VS. DEVI PRASAD VISHWANATH [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC)). FURTHER, EVEN AS OBSERVED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ITSELF, EVEN THE ASSESSMENT OF TH E SAID INCOME, BROUGHT TO TAX U/S. 68, AS BUSINESS INCOME U/S. 28, WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE INASMUCH AS IT WOULD STAND TO BE ASSESSED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, I.E., THE YEAR OF TH E CREDIT IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THERE IS, WE EMPHASIZE AGAIN, NOTHING TO LINK THE I MPUGNED CREDIT/S WITH THE PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. GOLDEN DYES CORPORAT ION (INDIA) (P.) LTD. THE CONTROVERSY STANDS DELINEATED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER SUPRA IN THE FIRST 7 ITA NO. 2636/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2003-04) SHREE SAI DEVELOPERS VS. ITO ROUND. THE SAID ARGUMENT, THUS, AGAIN, LOOKED AT FR OM ANY ANGLE, WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. 6.3 FINALLY, BEFORE PARTING WITH THIS ORDER, WE MAY CLARIFY THAT WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN STATING THAT THE VALUE OF THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS A S AT THE YEAR-END SHALL STAND TO BE INCREASED BY THE IMPUGNED INCOME, WHICH IS IN FACT ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL. 7. WE ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS CITED, HAVE NO H ESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY THE REVENUE IN THE INSTANT CASE, I.E., IN RELATION TO THE IMPUGNED CREDIT/S, ASSESSING THE SAME UNDER THE RESIDUARY HEAD OF INCOME, I.E., INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. 0/ 1 )2 30 ' 0 ' 45 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 18, 2014 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 6+ MUMBAI; 7) DATED : 18.06.2014 *.)../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&'$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. :*; < %)=2 , , =2/ , 6+ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. < >3 ? + / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , 6+ / ITAT, MUMBAI