DCIT, Hubli V. M/s VRL Logistics Limited, Hubli

ITA 292/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57468 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AMBASTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: P DINESH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Question of law; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 115JB; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BANGALORE BANGALORE BANGALORE BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH A AA A BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N. N.N. N.BARAT BARAT BARAT BARATH HH HVAJA SANKAR, VICE VAJA SANKAR, VICE VAJA SANKAR, VICE VAJA SANKAR, VICE- -- -PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT A AA AND NDND ND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.292(BANG)/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI. APPELLANT VS. M/S.VRL LOGISTICS LTD., HUBLI. PAN NO.AABCV3609C RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.K.AMBASTHA. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.DINESH. DATE OF HEARING: 02-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02-02-2012 O R D O R D O R D O R D E R E R E R E R PER N. BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VP: THIS APPEAL, INSTITUTED BY THE REVENUE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HUBLI, DATED 22-12-2010. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HUBLI IS OPPOSED TO LAW AN D FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA 292(BANG)/2011 PAGE 2 OF 8 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INCORRECT IN NOT GIVING SET O FF OF THE LOSS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE PROFIT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKI NG WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80-IA OF THE ACT AN D BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 80-IA(5) OF THE ACT THE LOSS W AS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM THE WINDMILL BUSINESS HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST OTHER BUSINESS INCOME U/S 70(1) OF THE ACT. 4. THE SECTION 80IA(5) STARTS WITH NON-OBSTANTE CL AUSE BEGINS WITH NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE IS USED USUALLY IN A PROVISION TO INDICATE T HAT THE PROVISION SHOULD PREVAIL DESPITE ANYTHING TO TH E CONTRARY IN THE PROVISION MENTIONED IN SUCH NON- OBSTANTE CLAUSE. IN CASE THERE IS ANY INCONSISTENC Y OR A DEPARTURE BETWEEN THE NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE AND ANOTHER PROVISION, ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF SUCH CLAUSE IS TO INDICATE THAT IT IS THE NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHICH WOULD PREVAIL OVER THE OTHER CLAUSE. THEREFORE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80IA(5) SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE NON-OBSTANTE SECTION 70(1) OF THE IT ACT,1961. IN VIEW OF THIS THE INCOME/LOSS FROM THE WINDMILL BUSINESS HAS TO BE SEPARATELY COMPUTED AND ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF OF FUTURE INCOME FROM WINDMILL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORDE R TO CLAIM BENEFIT FOR 10 YEARS. SECTION 70(1) HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE SINCE WINDMILL BUSINESS HAS THE TAX HOLIDAY BENEFIT FOR 10 YEARS AND HAS TO BE COMPUTED AS A SEPARATE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. 5. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER REASONS THAT WILL BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 3. BRIEF STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOW S: THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTA TION BUSINESS AND ALSO INTO GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY FR OM WINDMILLS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2007 -08 DECLARING ITA 292(BANG)/2011 PAGE 3 OF 8 NIL INCOME, HOWEVER PAID THE TAXES ON BOOK PROFITS OF `9,13,32,034/- U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. THE TOTAL INC OME DECLARED IN THE RETURN AT NIL IS AFTER SETTING OFF OF DEPR ECIATION LOSS PERTAINING TO WINDMILL INSTALLED DURING THE FINANCI AL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE RETU RN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE FACTS AS EMANATING FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2007- 08 THE ASSESSEE HAD INSTALLED A WINDMILL FOR POWER GENERAT ION OF ELECTRICITY AND CLAIMED LOSS UNDER WINDMILL BUSINES S OF `110,51,78,548/- WHICH INCLUDED DEPRECIATION OF `109,26,78,728/- (BEING 80% OF TOTAL COST OF WINDMI LL) WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF LOSS FROM WINDMILL BUSINESS IS REPRODU CED BELOW: SECTION 80IA(5) STARTS WITH NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE READING AS NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH MEANS IT OVERRIDES ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THUS, THE INCOME FROM TH IS SOURCE IS TO BE COMPUTED INDEPENDENTLY. THE COMPUTATION TO BE MADE IS IN RESPECT OF THE ELIGIBL E BUSINESS AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS PERTAINING TO THE SAID ACTIVITIES IS ALLOWAB LE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY AND ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST ANY OTHER INCOME. IT HAS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF ONLY AGAINST THE INCOME FROM SU CH BUSINESS, IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF AHMEDABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. GOLDMINE SHARES AND FINANCE LTD . (2008) 113 ITD 209. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE CARRIED T HE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY [CIT(A)], FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL ITA 292(BANG)/2011 PAGE 4 OF 8 IN ITA NO.200/BANG/2010 IN THE CASE OF SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. VS. ITO, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO ALLOW SET OFF OF T HE ENTIRE LOSS FROM WINDMILL BUSINESS AGAINST OTHER HEADS OF INCOM E. THE CIT(A) ALSO FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 231 CTR 368 AND HELD THAT THE SPECIAL B ENCH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY THE AO IS DISTIN GUISHABLE ON FACTS. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. 5. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE L EARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL R ELIED ON BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIZ., SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (SUPRA) WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.5050/2010 DATED 27-5-2011. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE ASSERTION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE A SSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (SUPRA) HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (SUPRA) IS AS FOLLOWS: 6.5. THUS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMIN ING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION AS REFERRED IN SUB-SEC.(1) TO S.80IA IN RESPECT OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS, THE COMPUTATION WILL HAVE TO BE DONE AS IF SUCH ELIGIBL E BUSINESS WAS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE RELEVANT YEARS OF CLAIM COMMENCING FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON A BROAD READING OF THE ACT, IT MAY APPEAR THAT THE CARRIED FORWARD LOSS OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE ITA 292(BANG)/2011 PAGE 5 OF 8 REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF FIRST AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WHILE DETERMINING THE PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT AND SET OFF OF LOSSES FROM OTHER SOURCES UNDER THE SAME HEAD IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HOWEVER, I T SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT SECTION 80IA OF THE AC T IS A BENEFICIAL SECTION PERMITTING CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN INCOME UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT. A PROVISION GRANTING INCENTIVE FOR PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN TAXING STATUTES SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED AND RESTRICTION PLACE D ON IT BY WAY OF EXCEPTION, SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN A REASONABLE AND PURPOSIVE MANNER SO AS TO ADVANCE THE OBJECTS OF THE PROVISION. IT IS A GENERALLY AC CEPTED PRINCIPLE THAT THE DEEMING PROVISION OF A PARTICULA R SECTION CANNOT BE BREATHED INTO ANOTHER SECTION. THEREFORE, THE DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTI ON 80IA(5) CANNOT OVERRIDE THE SECTION 70(1) OF THE AC T. CIT(A)S OBSERVATION ON THIS REGARD THAT THE SPECIF IC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(5) HAVE OVERRIDING EFFEC T IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE ASSESSEE INCURS LOSS AFTER CLAIMING ELIGIBLE DEPRECIATION. H ENCE SECTION 80IA BECOMES INSIGNIFICANT, SINCE THERE IS NO PROFIT FROM WHICH THIS DEDUCTION CAN BE CLAIMED. A T THIS STAGE, SECTION 70(1) COMES TO THE RESCUE OF TH E ASSESSEE, WHEREBY HE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF THE LOS SES FROM ONE SOURCE AGAINST INCOME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD OF INCOME. HOWEVER, ONCE A SET OFF IS ALLOWED U/S. 70(1) FROM THE INCOME ON ANOTHE R SOURCE UNDER THE SAME HEAD, ANOTHER DEDUCTION ON THE SAME COUNT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE I.E., DURING THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES SURPLUS PROFITS AFTER CLAIMING ELIGIBLE ALLOWANCES AND IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA, THE EARLIER BENEFIT GIVEN UNDER OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ACT SHOUL D BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S . 80IA. WE HERE BELOW BRING OUT THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATION TO EXPLAIN THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTIO N 80IA. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SWARNAGIRI WIRE INSULATIONS P. LTD. (SUPRA) ARE IDENTICAL AND WITH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUE IN THE IN STANT CASE. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED SUPRA HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.5050/2010 DATED 27-5-2011. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT ITA 292(BANG)/2011 PAGE 6 OF 8 OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ASSESSING OFFICER(INCOME TAX) & ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2008) 299 ITR 444(SC). THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 5. THE SUPREME COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SAME QUESTION IN THE CASE OF SYNCO INDUSTRIES L TD. VS. ASSESSING OFFICER (INCOME TAX) AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2008) 299 ITR 444 (SC), AND AT PARA 13 IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 13. THE CONTENTION THAT UNDER SECTION 80-I (6) THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM ONE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST LOSS SUFFERED FROM ANOTHER AND THE PROFIT IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED AS IF PROFIT MAKING INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING WAS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME, HAS NO MERITS. SECTION 80-I (1) LAYS DOWN THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE PRIORITY UNDERTAKING/UNIT/DIVISION, THEN IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 20% HAS TO BE MADE. SECTION 80-I (1) LAYS DOWN THE BROAD PARAMETERS INDICATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION. ON THE OTHER HAND SECTION 80-I (6) DEALS WITH DETERMINATION OF THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION. SECTION 80-I (6) LAYS DOWN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION HAS TO BE WORKED OUT. AFTER SUCH COMPUTATION OF THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION, ONE HAS TO GO BACK TO SECTION 80-I (1) WHICH CATEGORICALLY STATES THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES ANY PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING TO WHICH SECTION 80-I APPLIES THEN THERE SHALL BE A DEDUCTION FROM SUCH PROFITS AND GAINS OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 20 PERCENT. THE WORDS 'INCLUDES ANY PROFITS'' USED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN SECTION 80-I(1) ARE VERY IMPORTANT WHICH INDICATE THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE SHALL INCLUDE PROFITS FROM A PRIORITY UNDERTAKING. WHILE COMPUTING THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-I(6) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO DOUBT, HAS TO TREAT THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE ITA 292(BANG)/2011 PAGE 7 OF 8 DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A. HOWEVER, THIS COURT FINDS THAT THE NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE APPEARING IN SECTION 80-I(6) OF THE ACT, IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION, WHEREAS, THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME UNDER SECTION 80B(5) WHICH IS ALSO REFERRED TO IN SECTION 80I(1) IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT WHICH PRESUPPOSES THAT THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE ARRIVED AT AFTER ADJUSTING THE LOSSES OF THE OTHER DIVISION AGAINST THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. IF THE INTERPRETATION AS SUGGESTED BY THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED IT WOULD ALMOST RENDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80A(2) OF THE ACT NUGATORY AND THEREFORE THE INTERPRETATION CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER SECTION 80-I(6) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE DEDUCTION, THE LOSS SUSTAINED IN ONE OF THE UNITS, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE SUB-SECTION 6 CONTEMPLATES THAT ONLY THE PROFITS SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS IF IT WAS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME. HOWEVER, SECTION 80A(2) AND SECTION 80B (5) ARE DECLARATORY IN NATURE. THEY APPLY TO ALL THE SECTIONS FALLING IN CHAPTER VI-A. THEY IMPOSE A CEILING ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION AND THEREFORE THE NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE IN SECTION 80-I(6) CANNOT RESTRICT THE OPERATION OF SECTIONS 80A(2) AND 80B(5) WHICH OPERATE IN DIFFERENT SPHERES. AS OBSERVED EARLIER SECTION 80-I(6) DEALS WITH ACTUAL COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION WHEREAS SECTION 80- I(1) DEALS WITH THE TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO SUCH DEDUCTIONS IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 80-I(1), WHICH ALSO REFERS TO GROSS TOTAL INCOME ONE HAS TO READ THE EXPRESSION 'GROSS TOTAL INCOME' AS DEFINED IN SECTION 80B(5). THEREFORE, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOSS FROM THE OIL DIVISION WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED BEFORE DETERMINING THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AND AS THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS 'NIL' THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A WHICH INCLUDES SECTION 80-I ALSO. 6. IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT AS AFORESAID, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS SUCH, NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IS MADE OUT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS FRAMED IS ANSWERED AGAINST REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. . ITA 292(BANG)/2011 PAGE 8 OF 8 SINCE THE ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS DIRECTLY COV ERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT C ITED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY DIRECTING THE AO TO SET OFF LOSS FROM WINDMILL BUSI NESS AGAINST OTHER HEADS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.BHARATHVAJA SANKAR) VICE- PRESIDENT PLACE : BANGALORE DATED: 02 FEBRUARY, 2012. EKS COPY TO : COPY TO : COPY TO : COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE