Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4865 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
08-02-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
H
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
04-05-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI , JM ITA NO. 3255 / MUM/20 1 7 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 ) M/S. KISMET EXPORTS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., C - 1/5, SARATHI CHS LTD., KHIRA NAGAR, S .V. ROAD SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI 400 054 VS. DCIT - 9(2), MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AACCK2895C ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI PRAKASH K JOTWANI REVENUE BY SHRI ABHIJIT PATANKAR DATE OF HEARING 28 / 01 /201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08 / 02 /201 9 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 20, MUMBAI DATED 02/01/2017 FOR A.Y.2011 - 12 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE FIRST ISS UE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.1,15,72,618/ - AS BUSINESS LOSS AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.9,57,68,400/ - AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 3255/MUM/2017 M/S. KISMET EXPORTS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2011 - 12 WAS FILED ON 27/09/2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,79,14,440/ - WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED ON 08/10/2011 AND PAID TAX ON THE BASIS OF REVISED RETURN AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI O N 115JB OF THE ACT. 3.1. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED SHORT TERM CAP ITAL LOSS OF RS.1,15,72,618/ - . THE BREAK - UP OF WHICH IS AS FOLLOWING: - LOSS ON EQUITY SHARES - [1,15,99,942] PROFIT FROM HDFC LIQUID FUND - 28,840 LOSS FROM BENCHMARK MUTUAL FUN - 1,516 TOTAL [1,15,72,618] 3.2. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REPOR TED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.9,57,67,400/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3.3. THE ASSESSEE APPOINTED ITFL WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD., AS THEIR PORTFOLIO MANAGERS FOR SYSTEMATICALLY PROVIDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND OTHER SHARES AND SECURITIES. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES [PMS] PROVIDER IS ONLY MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND SECURITIES WITH EXPERTISE KNOWLEDGE OF P ORTFOLIO M ANAGERS. THE P ORTFOLIO M ANAGERS WERE IN VESTED WITH THE FUNDS WITH THE SOLE OBJECTIVE OF MAKING INVESTMENT AND THEIR OBJECTIVE IS TO PRESERVE THE CAPITAL AND ACHIEVE ITA NO. 3255/MUM/2017 M/S. KISMET EXPORTS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 3 GROWTH IN CAPITAL. THE P ORTFOLIO M ANAGER IS NOT ALLOWED TO TRADE OR INDULGE IN ANY SPECULATION TRANSACTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION TO PURCHASE AND S ELL THE SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS W ERE ENTIRELY WITH THE P ORTFOLIO M ANAGER. ALL THE SHARES AND SECURITIES WERE TRANSACTED THROUGH D E MAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OPERATED BY THE P ORTFOLIO M ANAGER. THUS, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY C ONTROL OVER THE BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND THIS IS LEFT TO THE CHOICE OF THE P ORTFOLIO M ANAGER. THE P ORTFOLIO M ANAGERS HAVE MAINTAINED DIFFERENT SCHEMES AND EACH SCHEME IS CONTROLLED AND MANAGED BY DIFFERENT PORTFOLIO HEADS AND DECISI ONS TAKEN BY THEM ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER. 3.4. THE LD. AO HOWEVER, DISREGARDED ALL THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS, PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS AND SYSTEMATIC WAY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD DEALT THESE TRANSACTIONS GO TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAD AN INTENTION ONLY TO MAKE QUICK PROFITS OUT OF SALE OF SHARES / MUTUAL FUNDS AND ACCORDINGLY CATEGORIZ ED HIM AS TRADER IN SHARES AND NOT INVESTOR IN SHARES. THIS ACTION OF THE LD. AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT A . 3.5. THE LD AO SIMILARLY TREATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.9,57,67,400/ - AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ACTION OF THE LD. AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ITA NO. 3255/MUM/2017 M/S. KISMET EXPORTS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 4 OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2009 - 10 BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1766 & 1598 /MUM/2013 AND FOR A.Y.2010 - 11 IN ITA NO.5043 & 5610 /MUM/2014 DA TED 03/05/2017 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 3.4 AGAINST ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 8870/ MUM/2011 AND 8699/MUM/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 HAS DECIDED THE SAME ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 14.01.2015. FURTHERMORE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGING INTO THE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY THROUGH PMS ( PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES). LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH CASES HON'BLE HIGH COURTS HAVE DECIDED THAT INVESTMENT ACTIVITY ENGAGED THROUGH PMS TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE TREATED AS TRADING ACTIVITY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE UPON HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN ITA 485/2012 IN THE CASE OF RADIALS INTERNATIONAL VS. ACIT VIDE ORDER DATED 25.04.2014. PER CONTRA LD. DR RELIED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE A.O THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGING INTO THE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY THROUGH PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES. 3.5 UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE HAS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN EARLIER YEAR AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 'THE REVENUE THROUGH ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN TREATING THE PROFIT OF RS.49,87,5149/ - EARNED ON REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL FUNDS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS(LTCG) AS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME TREATED BY THE AO. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS PRIMARILY AN INVESTMENT COMPANY, SO THE INCOME EARNED SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT( A) AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE MATTER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL FUNDS HELD FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR. IT HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY SHOWING THE SAME AS INVESTMENTS AND ASSESSED AS SUCH FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRADED IN THE SAID MUTUAL UNITS. FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED AS A TRADER IN THE REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL F UNDS, HE HELD THE ASSESSEE AS INVESTOR AND DIRECTED THE. ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE SAME AS LTCG. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS PRIMARILY AN INVESTMENT COMPANY, SO THE INCOME EARNED SHOULD BE TREAT ED AS BUSINESS INCOME. LAW HAS BEEN NOW SETTLED ON THE POINT THROUGH VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS THAT EVEN A COMPANY HAVING ITA NO. 3255/MUM/2017 M/S. KISMET EXPORTS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 5 BUSINESS IN TRADING IN SHARES OR SECURITIES CAN ALSO MAINTAIN A SEPARATE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE WELL REASON ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THUS HAVING NO MERIT IS THEREFORE DISMISSED.' 'THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH INVESTMENT MANAGE. IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT 13,000 SHARES OF THE KOTAK SECURITIES LTD WERE DIRECTED TO BE PURCHASED TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGE, HOWEVER, MISTAKENLY 25000 SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY IT. IT WAS IMMEDIATELY DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE PURCHASES TO 13000 SHARES AND REST OF THE 12000 SHARES WERE SOLD ON THE SAME DAY BY INCURRING LOSS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY OTHER SHARE TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR. THIS WAS THE SINGLY TRANSACTION DONE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. THE SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES PURCH ASED WERE HELD AS INVESTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN TREATING THE SAID LOSS RESULTING FROM SINGLE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE PLAUSI BLE EXPLANATION, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE SAID LOSS TO BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS.' 3.6 FURTHERMORE WE ALSO NOTE THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADIALS INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER 'HEAD NOTES ONLY': 'BUSINESS INCOME OR CAPITAL GAINS SALE OF SHARES UNDER PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEME -- ASSESSEE - FIRM EARNED GAIN ON SALE OF EQUITY SHARES UNDER THE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SCHEMES (PMS) A ND TREATED GAINS REALIZED ON SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME. ASSESSEE IN ITS REPLY TO AO STATED THAT THE SHARES WERE DEPICTED AS INVESTMENTS AND NOT 'STOCK - IN - TRADE' IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE GAINS RESULTING FROM THEIR SALE WERE TO BE CONSIDERED CAPITAL GAINS. AO NOTED THAT MOTIVE OF TRANSACTIONS WAS THE EARNING OF PROFIT AND NOT A DIVIDEND AND HOLDING PERIOD WAS RANGING FROM A FEW DAYS TO A FEW MONTHS, THEREFORE, THE GAIN FROM SALE OF SHARES WAS BUSINESS INCOME. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VIEWS OF AO. TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT INTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS TO MAXIMIZE THE PROFIT AT THE TIME OF DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT IN PMS. ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PMS AGREEMENT, BY ITS TERMS ALONE OR BY THE FACT OF AGENCY BEING HAND ED OVER TO THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER, COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR INFERRING AN INTENTION TO PROFIT OR THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. OF THE TOTAL OF 1248 TRANSACTIONS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD, REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE ON AVERAGE, ABOUT 4 - 5 TRANSACTIONS DAILY, ONLY 8 OF WHICH ENTAILED A HOLDING PERIOD OF LONGER THAN 365 DAYS. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MUST BE UPHELD. HELD: THE PMS AGREEMENT WAS A MERE AGREEMENT OF AGENCY AND COULD NOT BE USED IN INFER ANY INTE NTION TO MAKE PROFIT. THE INTENTION OF ASSESSEE MUST BE INFERRED FROM CONDUCT OF ASSESSEE, CIRCUMSTANCES OF TRANSACTIONS AND NOT JUST FROM SEEMING MOTIVE AT THE TIME OF DEPOSITING THE ITA NO. 3255/MUM/2017 M/S. KISMET EXPORTS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 6 MONEY. SINCE LARGE VOLUME OF SHARES PURCHASED WERE REFLECTED FROM THE HO LDING PERIOD, INTENDED TOWARDS THE END OF INVESTMENT, GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES MUST BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAINS, AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME.' 3.7 A READING OF ABOVE CASE LAWS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. FURTHERMORE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT - A IT IS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGING INTO THE ACTIVITY OF INVESTMENT THROUGH PMS. IN SUCH SITUATION THE RATIO FROM HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF TH E CASE. THUS IN EARLIER YEAR SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS WERE TREATED BY THE ITAT AS TRANSACTIONS OF INVESTMENT GIVING RISE CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS. FURTHERMORE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT INVESTMENT ACTIVITY THROUGH PMS AGREEMENT DOESN'T GIVEN ARISE TO BUS INESS ACTIVITY OF MAKING PROFIT. HENCE WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE'S INVESTMENT ACTIVITY CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BUSINESS ACTIVITY. ACCORDINGLY THE GAIN/LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS ARE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OF CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 5.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS (SUPRA), WE ALLOW THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. T HE NEXT ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT R.W.R.8D OF THE RULES IN THE SUM OF RS.52 , 56 , 36 1 / - IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPT INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,92,583/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.52,56,361/ - U/S.14A OF THE ACT BY APPLYING THE SECOND AND THIRD LIMB OF RULE 8D(2) OF THE RULES AS UNDER: - UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) - RS.16,11,907/ - ITA NO. 3255/MUM/2017 M/S. KISMET EXPORTS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 7 UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) - RS.36,44,454 TOTAL - RS.52,56,367 7.1. THIS ACTION OF LD. AO WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR STATED THAT LET THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THIS PROPOSITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS UPHELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JOINT INVESTMENTS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 372 ITR 694 (DELHI), WHICH IS AS UNDER: - 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS NOT FIRSTLY DISCLOSED WHY THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR ATTRIBUTING `2,97,440 / - AS A DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A HAD TO BE REJECTED. TAIKISHA SAYS THAT THE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED FURTHER AND DETERMINE AMOUNTS IS DERIVED AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE ACCOUNTS AND REJECTION IF ANY OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OR EXPLANATION. THE SECOND ASP ECT IS THERE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN NO SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS BY THE AO - AN ASPECT WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNNOTICED BY THE CIT (A) AND THE ITAT. THE THIRD, AND IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, IMPORTANT ANOMALY WHICH WE CANNOT BE UNMINDFUL IS THAT WHEREAS THE E NTIRE TAX EXEMPT INCOME IS `48,90,000/ - , THE DISALLOWANCE ULTIMATELY DIRECTED WORKS OUT TO NEARLY 110% OF THAT SUM, I.E., `52,56,197/ - . BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN SECTION 14A OR RULE 8D BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE TAX EXEMPT INCOME I S TO BE DISALLOWED. THE WINDOW FOR DISALLOWANCE IS INDICATED IN SECTION 14A, AND IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE 'INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME'. THIS PROPORTION OR PORTION OF THE TAX EXEMPT INCOME SURELY CA NNOT SWALLOW THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS HAS HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. 10. RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION, WE DIRECT THE LD. AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,92,583/ - IN THE ITA NO. 3255/MUM/2017 M/S. KISMET EXPORTS & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 8 FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GRO UND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 08 / 02 /201 9 SD/ - ( RAM LAL NEGI ) SD/ - ( M. BALAGANESH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 08 / 02 /201 9 KARUNA SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GU ARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//
