DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI V. KAROOX TECHNOLOGIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3135/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5110 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.3135/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -10(2), ROOM NO.432, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S KARROX TECHNOLOGIES LTD, RONUK ESTATE, LBS MARG, OPP. SHREYAS CINEMA, GHATKOPAR (W), MUMBAI-400086 ( & / APPELLANT) .. ( ' & / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACKO376Q & / REVENUE BY : SHRI K.SINGH ' & * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH * - / DATE OF HEARING : 7.11.2013 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 2.2.2011 TAKING FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF C OURSE EXECUTION CHARGES OF RS.16,54,681/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ONLY FILED DETAILS WITH NUMER IC FIGURES AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE AS CERTAINED FROM THE SAID DETAILS AND THE AO HAD JUDICIOUSLY ALLOWED THE EXP ENDITURE AT THE PERCENTAGE OF COURSE EXECUTION CHARGES CLAIMED IN THE PRECEDING A SSESSMENT YEAR 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF COURSE EXECUTION CHARGES OF RS.16,54,681/- IN CONTRAVENTIO N OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962; I.T.A. NO.3135/MUM/2011 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS.9,65,300L- MADE OUT OF THE FRANCHISEE MANAGEMENT FEE OF RS.3,06,11,682/- W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS NOT FILED THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM FRANCHIS EE MANAGEMENT FEES OF RS.3,06,11,682/- HAD BEEN PAID; 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS BY WAY OF AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED SO AS TO PROVE THAT THE FRANCHIS EE MANAGEMENT FEE EXPENSES WERE GENUINE IN NATURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D JUDICIOUSLY ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE AT THE PERCENTAGE CLAIMED IN THE PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF FRANCHISEE MANAGEMENT FEE RS.9,65,300/- IN CONTRAVENTION OF T HE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 2. IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2, THE DEPARTMENT HAS DISPUTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE C OURSE EXECUTION CHARGES OF RS.16,54,681/- BY ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH T HE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G, LD. AR COULD NOT POINT OUT HOW THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) I S IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER O F AO AND WHEREAS THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT IN PARA 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DI SCUSSED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER : 9.1 IT IS SEEN FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.1,60,66,688/- IN RESPECT OF COURSE EXECUTION CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. FROM THE DETAILS FILED IN THIS RESPECT, IT MAY BE SEEN THAT NO NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM E XECUTION CHARGES ARE PAID ARE FURNISHED. ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FILED THE DETAILS STATING NUMERICAL FIGURES, FROM WHERE; IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, TO BE MORE JUDICIOUS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS CLAI M OF COURSE EXECUTION CHARGES, IS RESTRICTED TO THE PERCENTAGE OF COURSE EXECUTION CHARGES CLAIMED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IT IS SEEN THAT COURSE EXECUTIO N CHARGES IS 17.24% OF THE TOTAL INCOME AS AGAINST 15.6% OF OPERATING INCOME OF PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR. COURSE EXECUTION CHARGES IS THEREFORE RESTR ICTED TO 15.6% OF THE OPERATING INCOME OF RS.9,19,26,767/- I.E. RS.1.43 CRORES AS AGAINST RS.1,60,66,688/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HE NCE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,54,681 IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNTS BEING EXCESS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND INABIL ITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO JUSTIFY THE FULL CLAIM AND ALSO THE NEXU S I.T.A. NO.3135/MUM/2011 3 4. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARAGRAPH 9.2 AS UNDER : 8.1 THE LD. AO HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.16,54, 861/- ON THE GROUND THAT NO NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM EXECUTION C HARGES ARE PAID ARE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FURNISHED THE DET AILS REGARDING THE NUMERIC FIGURE WHERE IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED THE GENUINENE SS OF THE EXPENDITURE. WE SUBMIT THAT THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. IN AS MUCH AS THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WAS GIVEN T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT THIS FACT WAS GIVEN BY WAY OF A NOTE TO THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH UNFORTUNATELY THE LEANED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED OR DISREGARDED THROUGH OVERSIGHT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY COLLECTS TESTING FEES FROM STUDENTS AND REMITS THEM TO THE US COMPANY. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY ARE AUDITED BOTH UNDER THE COMPANIE S ACT, 1956 AND ALSO UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS ITEM APPEAR S AS A SEPARATE ITEM OF EXPENDITURE IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS. WE SUBMIT THAT THE CLAIM THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED IN ENTIRETY 5. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CA SE HAS DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE VIDE PARA 9.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WH ICH READS AS UNDER : 9.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE A O HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE, BUT HE HAD RESTRICTED T HE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM MADE IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON THAT BASIS THE AO HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16,54,681/- ON ADHOC BASIS. AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT WAS IMPARTING TRAINING IN THE FIELD OF CO MPUTER AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN COLLABORATION WITH US BASED COMPANY. THE APPELLANT WAS CONDUCTING EXAMINATIONS AND GIVING CERTIFICATES TO STUDENTS IN INDIA ON BEHALF OF US COMPANY. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE APPELLANT WAS CO LLECTING TESTING FEES FROM THE STUDENTS AND REMITTING TO THE SAME TO THE US C OMPANY. THE APPELLANT FILED ENTIRE DETAILS OF EXPENSES TO THE AO. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING PART DISALLOWANCES THAT TOO ON ADHOC BASIS. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR COULD NOT DISPUTE THE FACTS THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16,54,681/- BY COMPARING CHARGES PAID BY ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASS ESSEE FILED ENTIRE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURES ACTUALLY INCURRED, BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO HAD NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT. I.T.A. NO.3135/MUM/2011 4 7. IN GROUNDS NO.3 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL, THE DEPARTM ENT HAS DISPUTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,65 ,300/- IN RESPECT OF THE FRANCHISEE MANAGEMENT FEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO DETAILS OF AG REEMENT ENTERED WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INC OME TAX RULES, 1962. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND WHEREAS, LD. AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE OBSERVE THA T THE ASSESSEE PAID FRANCHISEE MANAGEMENT FEE OF RS.3,06,11,682/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT IT WAS HAVING ABOUT 155 FRANCHISE ES ALL OVER INDIA INCLUDING OPERATION, SYLVAN AND ITES DIVISIONS. THE ASSESS EE OFFERED THE FRANCHISEE COMMISSION RANGING BETWEEN 50 TO 75% ON SALE. THE ASSESSEE H AD BOOKED THE REVENUE OF FRANCHISEE AT 100% IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DEBI TED THE AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD FRANCHISEE MANAGEMENT FEES TOWARDS COMMISSION PAID/ PAYABLE TO FRANCHISEE ON THEIR SALES. IT WAS CONCEDED THAT DURING THE YEAR TH E SALES OF FRANCHISEE OPERATION WERE RS.5,01,78,423/- AND EFFECTIVE FRANCHISEE MANAGEME NT FEES WORKED TOGETHER WITH VARIOUS % OF COMMISSION AT 61% I.E. RS.3,06,11,682/ - WHICH WAS DEBITED TO PROFITS AND LOSS ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE STATEMENT OF FRANCHISEE OPERATION OF SALES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, AO WA S NOT SATISFIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM FRANCHISEE MANAGEMENT FEES OF RS.3,06,11,682/- WAS PAID. TH E AO ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS BY WAY OF AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED SO AS TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE GENUINE IN NATURE. AO REST RICTED THE CLAIM OF FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT FEES TO THE PERCENTAGE OF FRANCHISEE MAN AGEMENT FEES CLAIMED IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS 32.96% AS AGAIN ST 61% CLAIMED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. THUS, THE AO WORKED OUT THE ELIGIBLE CLAIM OF RS.2,96,46,382/- AND DISALLO WED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.9,65,300/-, WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DUR ING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AO HA S WRONGLY HELD THAT THE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DETAILS WER E FILED BEFORE AO AND ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE HIM. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE AO COMPARED THE FEE OF RS.5.08 CRORES WITH THE AGGREGATE REVENUE WHICH WAS 15.32 CRORES. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HE COMPARED THE FRANCHISEE MANAGEMENT FEE WITH ONLY FRANCHISEE OPERATION SALES AND THEREBY ARRIVED AT 61%. IF THERE WAS TO BE COMPARISON IN BOTH THE YEARS NOMINATOR AND DENOMINATOR WILL HAVE TO BE THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO I.T.A. NO.3135/MUM/2011 5 FILED THE COMPUTATION IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 WHICH HAVE BEEN STATED BY LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 15 OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AS UNDER : AY 2002 - 03 RS. AY 200 1 - 02 RS. COURSE FEES GHATKOPAR SALES COURSE FEES DELHI COURSE FEES DELHI SYLVAN FRANCHISE OPERATION SALES COURSE GEES IGNOU PLACEMENT SYLVAN COURSE GKP 1,81,57,048 19,86,308 3,17,360 5,01,78,423 22,63,437 30,841 1,26,29,297 2,42,82,483 - - 8,37,00,181 7,44,848 66,680 1,12,29,111 FRANCHISE FEES FRANCHISE FEES ATC FRANCHISE FEES ITES RENEWAL FEES TOTAL REVENUE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT FEES PAID MANAGEMENT FEES PAID /TOTAL REVENUE MANAGEMENT FEE PAID/FRANCHISE OPERATION SALES 48,01,253 6,00,000 7,87,800 9,19,26,767 3,06,11,682 33.30% 61.01% 2,63,19,300 65,00,000 29,00,000 15,62,57,603 5,08,26,494 32.53% 60.72% 9. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE MANAGEMENT FEE CLAIMED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS 60.72% OF AGGREGATING FRANCHISEE OPERATION S ALES AT RS.8.37 CRORES AND WHEREAS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE FRANCHISEE MANA GEMENT FEES PAID AT RS.3.06 CORES WHICH IS 61.01% OF FRANCHISEE OPERATION SALES AT RS .5.01 CRORES. LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS STATED THAT HIS PREDECESSOR VIDE LETTER DATED 3.11.2006 FORWARDED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS DATE D 11.09.2006 TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS BUT IN SPITE OF NUMBER OF REMINDERS SENT T O THE AO FOR SUBMITTING HIS REPORT, NO REPORT WAS RECEIVED TILL DATE. THE LD. CIT(A), IN VIEW OF ABOVE VIDE PARA 10.3 HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGE OF PAYMENT OF FRANCHISEE MANAGEMENT FEE AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO. THE SAID PARA 10.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED BELOW AS UNDER : 10.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANTS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES/OPERATIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EX PLAINED IN EARLIER PARAS. THE APPELLANT WAS OPERATING ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY THROU GH MORE THAN 150 FRANCHISEES IN MUMBAI AND ALL OVER INDIA. THUS, THE MAJOR SOUR CE OF REVENUE WAS THE SALES PROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM THE FRANCHISEES. IN TURN, T HE APPELLANT WAS PAYING MANAGEMENT FEE TO THE FRANCHISEES FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THE SAID PAYMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS APPELLANTS BUSINESS EXPENSES. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO THE AO DID NOT DOUBTED THE GENU INENESS OF SUCH PAYMENT OF I.T.A. NO.3135/MUM/2011 6 MANAGEMENT FEE TO THE FRANCHISEES. HOWEVER, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,65,300/- ON THE BASIS OF COMPARISON MADE WITH THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS OF IMMEDIATELY PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ONL Y. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINE D THAT THE AO COMPARED INCORRECT FIGURES AND THEREFORE, REACHED TO AN INCO RRECT CONCLUSION. EVEN BY ACCEPTING AOS METHOD BY CONSIDERING THE CORRECT FA CTS I.E. COMPARING FRANCHISEE OPERATION SALES WITH THE MANAGEMENT FEE PAID, THE PERCENTAGE WAS APPROXIMATELY SAME FOR BOTH THE YEAR I.E. 60.72% F OR AY 2001-02 AND 61.02% FOR THE YEAR CONSIDERATION. THUS, BY MANAGEMENT FE E ADOPTED BY THE AO, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGE OF PAYMENT OF FRANC HISEE MANAGEMENT FEE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN DISALLOWING THE APPELLANTS CLAIM. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACTS STATED BY LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE BY COMPARING A WRONG FIGURES OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ON ADHOC BASIS, WHICH HAS BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO THE CONTRARY. THEREFORE, GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT ARE REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 * 1 2 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 * SD/ SD/- ( / RAJENDRA) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: 20 /11/2013 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & / THE APPELLANT 2. ' & / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 6 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 7 '9 , - 9 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - 9 , /ITAT, MUMBAI