Vipul Vijay Chopda, Pune V. Income tax Officer,

ITA 2883/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5169 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: K SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Period of limitation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 2 883 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 VIPUL VIJAY CHOPDA, C/O KTA SPINDLE TOOLINGS, 246/9 HINJEWADI, TALUKA - MULSHI, HINJEWADI, PUNE 411057 PAN : AAQPVC2436E ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI K. SRINIVASAN REVENUE BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG / DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 10 - 2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 10 - 201 8 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3, PUNE DATED 01 - 09 - 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE IN PRESENT APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) AS WELL AS THE ADDITION ON MERITS. 2 ITA NO . 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF TAPPING ATTACHMENT, QUICK CHANGE TAP ADOPTERS AND HOLDERS, KEYLESS DRILLS CHUCKS, COLLET CHUCKS, SIDE LOCK HOLDERS. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MAHARASHTRA SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES FROM THE HAWALA OPERATORS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ENTRIES AND INVOICES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN BOGUS PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS . T HE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE/FILE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE FOLLOWING SUSPICIOUS DEALERS I.E. M/S. PURVI SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD., M/S. DHRUV SALES CORPORATION, M/S. PALSONS SALES AGENCY PVT. LTD., M/S . PARK DISTRIBUTOR PVT. LTD. AND M/S. DHAVAL ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES AND THE DEALERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.47,92,903/ - , THE ENTIRE BO GUS PURCHASES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 03 - 03 - 2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 14 7 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING ON THE GROUND OF ISSUANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT BEYOND TIME. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CHALLENGED THE ADDITION ON MERITS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED THE LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID NOTICE U/S. 143( 2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON MERITS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRANTED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 20% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE 3 ITA NO . 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN REJECTING THE LEGAL GROUND ASSAILING VALIDITY OF REOPENING, IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. 3. SHRI K. SRINIVASAN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS BAD IN LAW AS IT SUFFERS FROM LEGAL INFIRMITIES. NARRATING THE SEQUENCES OF EVENTS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 24 - 03 - 2014. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE VIDE COMMUNI CATION DATED 28 - 03 - 2014 INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 31 - 07 - 2009 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ASKED FOR THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING. SINCE, THE REASONS WERE NOT PROVIDED T O THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 13 - 10 - 2014 AGAIN REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING. THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16 - 10 - 2014. THE ASSESSEE VIDE COMMUNICATION D ATED 07 - 11 - 2014 RAISED OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 26 - 02 - 2015 DISPOSED OF THE REASONS IN A SUMMARY MANNER . THE ORDER WAS SERVED ON ASSESSEE ON 27 - 02 - 2015 AND THEREAFTER WITH IN A SHORT SPAN OF THREE WORKING DAYS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 147 R.W.S. 148 ON 03 - 03 - 2015. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE TIME LINE ENUMERATED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AS IAN PAINTS LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. REPORTED AS 296 ITR 90. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT ACCEPT THE OBJECTIONS, HE SHALL NOT PROCEED FURTHER WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF SERVICE OF THE SAID ORDER ON OBJECTIONS, ON 4 ITA NO . 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS REITERATED THE SAME PROPOSITION IN THE CASE OF BHARAT JAYANTILAL PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. REPORTED AS 378 ITR 596. 3.1 THE LD . AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW AS NO VALID MANDATORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS EVER SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 20 - 10 - 2014 (AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK) HAS BROUGH T TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) TILL DATE AND THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 13 - 10 - 2014 AS WELL. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ARE BAD IN LAW. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ABACUS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. RE PORTED AS 78 TAXMANN.COM 321. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND REPORT DATED 07 - 06 - 2016 HA S ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 ON 28 - 03 - 2014. THE TIME LIMIT FOR SER VICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ENDED ON 30 - 09 - 2014 AND TILL THAT TIME NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 09 - 02 - 2015 . THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED THE LEG AL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) BY TAKING SHELTER OF SECTION 2 92BB OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI PANKAJ GARG REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5 ITA NO . 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE ENTIR E BOGUS PURCHASES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 20% OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COOPERATED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HEN CE AT SUCH BELATED STAGE CANNOT RAISE OBJECTION CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT PROVIDE IMMUNITY TO THE DEPARTMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS COOPERATED IN FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION. 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW . WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED VARIOUS DECISIONS AND DOCUMENTS PLA CED ON RECORD BY THE LD. AR. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON TWO LEGAL GROUNDS : I . SUFFICIENT TIME NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN SEEKING THE REMEDY AGAINST REJECTION OF OBJECTIONS. II . CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN T HE ABSENCE OF VALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. 6. FOR DECIDING THE ISSUES IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO HAVE SEQUENCE OF DATES AND EVENTS : DATE EVENTS 24 - 03 - 2014 NOTICE U/S. 148 . 28 - 03 - 2014 RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE. SOUGHT REASONS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 13 - 10 - 2014 REMINDER FOR PROVIDING COPY OF REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING. 6 ITA NO . 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 INFORMATION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) NOT RECEIVED TILL DATE. 16 - 10 - 2014 REASONS FOR REOPENING PROVIDED TO ASSESSEE. 20 - 10 - 2014 OBJECTIONS U/S. 292BB FOR NON - RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT. 07 - 11 - 2014 OBJECTIONS AGAINST REASONS FOR REOPENING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 26 - 02 - 2015 ASSESSING OFFICER DISPOSED OF OBJECTIONS AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 03 - 03 - 2015 ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(2) R.W.S. 148. 7. A PERUSAL OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS SHOW THAT THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. REPORTED AS 259 ITR 19 HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SHOWN UNDUE HASTE IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REASONS FOR REOPENING. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASIAN PAINTS LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT ACCEPT THE OBJECTIONS, HE SHAL L NOT PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER ON THE OBJECTIONS, BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISPOSED OF OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF REOPENING VIDE ORDER DATED 26 - 02 - 2015 WHICH WAS OSTENSIBLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 27 - 02 - 2015. 28 - 02 - 2015 AND 01 - 03 - 2015 WERE CLOSED HOLIDAY ON ACCOUNT OF SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED WITH THE ASSESSMENT AND PASSED ASSESSMENT O RDER U/S. 143(2) R.W.S. 148 ON 03 - 03 - 2015. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED ON TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT IN ABSOLUTE VIOLATION OF THE TIME LINE FIXED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASIAN PAINTS LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX & ANR. (SUPRA). A 7 ITA NO . 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 CLOSE GLANCE OF THE SEQUENCE OF DATES AND EVENTS MENTIONED ABOVE WOULD SHOW THAT THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN DELAY ON THE PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPOND ING TO THE REQUESTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FAIRLY PR OMPT IN REVERT ING BACK TO THE NOTICES AND THE COMMUNICATION S FROM THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND REASON BEHIND UNDUE HASTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF THREE WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF DISPOSAL OF OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE , WHEREAS ON E ARLIER OCCASIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES LUXURY TIME TO RESPOND TO ASSESSEES REQUEST. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIOLATING THE TIME LINE SPECIFIED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CONTEMPTUOUS. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF ASIAN PAINTS LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. (SUPRA) , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 8. THE SECOND OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING IS THE ABSENCE OF VALID STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143( 2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE REMAND REPORT DATED 07 - 06 - 2016 PAGE PAGES 18 AND 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADMITTED THAT THE LIMITATION FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 14 3(3) IN THE PRESENT CASE ENDED ON 30 - 09 - 2014. NO SUCH NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED BEFORE 30 - 09 - 2014 IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO WAS ISSUED ON 09 - 02 - 2015 I.E. MUCH AFTER THE DATE OF EXPIRY OF LIMITAT ION FOR ISSU ING SUCH NOTICE. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT NO NOTICE UNDER CLAUSE ( II ) SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FORM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED. IN THE PRE SENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 ON 28 - 03 - 2014. THUS, THE LIMITATION FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(3)(II) ENDED ON 8 ITA NO . 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 30 - 09 - 2014 AND AS PER REVENUE OWN ADMISSION NO SUCH NOTICE WAS EVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE SAID DATE . 9. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PTE LTD. VS. DGIT REPORTED AS 341 ITR 247 HAS HELD THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED BEYOND TIME LIMIT WOULD RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT INVALID. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN T AKEN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GENO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. REPORTED AS 214 TAXMAN 83 AND IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ABACUS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). 10. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN AN OBJECTI ON THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS NOT RAISE D ANY OBJECTION , THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 292BB WOULD CREATE ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR RAISING OBJECTION AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE A CT. WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DEVOID ON ANY MERIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OBJECTION AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) VIDE LETTER DATED 20 - 10 - 2014 AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BO OK. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO TIME BARRING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) EVEN PRIOR TO FILING OBJECTIONS ON REASONS FOR REOPENING. 11. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ABACUS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS NOT VALIDLY SERVED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WILL NOT BE SAVED BY SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUFFERS FROM LEGAL SHORT COMINGS AS MENTIONED ABOVE HENCE , THE SAME IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING 9 ITA NO . 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009 - 10 THERE FROM ARE VITIATED AND ARE THUS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 12. SINCE, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS OF THE ADDIT ION HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND HENCE, NOT DELIBERATE UPON. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 09 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 09 TH OCTOBER, 2018 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 3, PUNE 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE