S.D.Patel Education Research Foundation, Baroda V. The CIT-III, Baroda

ITA 3443/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7914 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Non compliance
• Section: 12A; 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 3443/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: N.A.) S.D. PATEL EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, 2 ND FLOOR, PRASANNA HOUSE, ASSOCIATED SOCIETY, NEAR AKOTA STADIUM, VADODARA- 390020 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7 (2), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAMTS4464N APPELLANT BY : SHRI BANDISH SOPARKAR, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR, CIT/ D. R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 07 -12-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 -12-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE C ORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-III, BARODA DATED 29.10.2014 FRAMED U/S.12AA(1)(B)(II) R.W.S. 12A OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 3443 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. N.A. 2 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) ERRED IN REJECTING THE REGISTRATION U/S. 12A TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE APPELLANT TRUST MADE AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTR ATION 12A OF THE ACT ON 12.08.2013. NOTICES WERE ISSUED FOR PROCESSING THE APPLICATION AND THE APPLICATION WAS REJECTED FOR NON COMPLIANCE VIDE OR DER DATED 24.02.2014. THE APPELLANT TRUST ONCE AGAIN MADE APPLICATION IN FORM 10A ON 28.04.2014. THE LD. COMMISSIONER CALLED FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION/DET AILS WHICH WERE COMPLIED WITH BY THE APPELLANT TRUST. 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED, THE LD . COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE AS UNDER:- 1.TO SET UP ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN, DEVELOP AND PROMOT E SCHOOL/COLLEGE BOTH TO DEVELOP THE CHARACTER AND DISCIPLINE AMONGST THE ST UDENTS, COLLEGES BOTH PROFESSIONAL AND MANAGEMENT IN ANY PART OF INDIA 2. TO PHYSICAL TRAINING, INTELLECTUAL AND OTHER BUT PURSUITS. 3. TO ARRANGE, ORGANIZE AND PARTICIPATE IN LECTURES , SEMINARS, DEBATES AND CONFERENCES ETC FOR THE DIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE AND FOR PROMOTION OF EDUCATION. 4. TO ESTABLISH RUN AND MAINTAIN A BOARDING HOUSE F OR THE STUDENTS. 5. TO PROVIDE SUPPORT AND/OR PROMOTE ANY/ALL SUCH F ACILITIES WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN THE FURTHERANCE OF EDUCATION, SPORTS RELATED ACTIVI TIES. 5. THE LD. COMMISSIONER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APPE LLANT TRUST IS A FRANCHISE OF GLOBAL DISCOVERY ACADEMY AND IS RUNNING A SCHOOL AT VODODA WITH CLASSES FROM PLAY GROUP TO 8 TH STANDARD. ITA NO. 3443 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. N.A. 3 6. THE LD. COMMISSIONER ANALYZED AND CONSIDERED THE F EE STRUCTURE AT PAGES 2 TO 6 OF THE ORDER. 7. ON PERUSAL OF THE FEE STRUCTURE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ANNUAL FEES CHARGED FROM PLAY GROUP TO STANDARD 8 TH IS RS. 2,960/- TO RS. 4,875/- PER MONTH. THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT A COMMON MAN C ANNOT AFFORD SUCH HIGH FEES. 8. THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY ITS CHARIT ABLE ACTIVITY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FEES CHARGED BY IT. THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS FURTHER ASKED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE BENEFIT IS GOING TO BE DERIVED BY THE GENERAL PUBLI C AT LARGE WHEN SUCH HIGH FEES ARE CHARGED FROM THE STUDENT. THE APPELLANT TRUST R EPLIED THAT NONE OF THE TRUSTEES IS BENEFICIARIES OF THE TRUST. THE BENEFIC IARIES OF THE TRUST ARE THOSE WHO ARE BEING ADMITTED IN THE SCHOOL RUN BY THE TRUST O N PAYMENT OF THE SCHOOL FEES. 9. THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REP LY OF THE APPELLANT TRUST AND FURTHER FOUND THAT RENT IS PAID TO THE SON OF T HE TRUSTEE. 10. THE LD. COMMISSIONER FORMED A BELIEF THAT THE TRUST IS NOT A CHARITABLE TRUST AND IS DEFINITELY IS NOT IN ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY. T HE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST IS ENGAGED IN THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY IN A COMMERCIAL MANNER AND IS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO THE TAX EXEMPTION. 11. THE LD. COMMISSIONER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT CHARGING MORE THAN RS. 1,000/- PER MONTH IS BEYOND THE REACH OF AN ORDINARY MIDDLE CLASS PERSON. POOR DO NOT STAND A CHANCE. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THIS I S A REASONABLE FEE FOR THE DEPRIVED SECTION. THE LD. COMMISSIONER WENT ON TO D ISCUSS CERTAIN JUDICIAL ITA NO. 3443 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. N.A. 4 DECISIONS AND FINALLY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE ACTIVITIES OF APPLICANT TRUST CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OF CHARITABLE NATURE WITHIN TH E PURVIEW OF SECTION 11, 12 & 12A AND SECTION 2(15) OF THE ACT. SINCE IT IS ENGAG ED IN THE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY REGISTRATION U/S. 12A WAS DENIED. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE APPELLANT TRUST IS BEFORE US . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT WHILE GRANTING REGI STRATION U/S. 12A OF THE ACT, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT IS THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONE R COULD ONLY EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRUST AND ITS ACTIVITIES. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT NOWHERE THE COMMISSIONER HAS MENTIONED THAT TRUST W AS NEITHER GENUINE NOR ITS ACTIVITIES WERE WHAT WAS PROFESSED IN THE DEED OF TRUST AND THEREFORE GROSSLY ERRED IN DENYING REGISTRATION. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT MERELY BEC AUSE THE TRUST WAS CHARGING FEES FROM THE STUDENTS CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REJEC TING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT IT I S NOT A CASE WHERE THE SCHOOL WAS MAKING EXORBITANT PROFITS FROM RUNNING THE INST ITUTION. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARA T IN THE CASE OF MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNICATION RESEARCH & EDUCATION 2 87 CTR 135. RELIANCE WAS FURTHER PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE H IGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF SHREE KAMDAR EDUCATION TRUST 74 TAXMANN.COM 253, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF SRI RADHA RAMAN N IWAS TRUST 42 TAXMANN.COM 77, HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN TH E CASE OF GANPAT UNIVERSITY 293 CTR 113. THE LD. COUNSEL CONCLUDED BY SAYING THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT TRUST ARE VERY MUCH OF CHARITABLE IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE REGISTRATION S HOULD BE DENIED TO THE APPELLANT TRUST. ITA NO. 3443 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. N.A. 5 14. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN DAWN EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST 370 ITR 724 AND IN THE CASE OF SHREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST 382 ITR 399. 15. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE TRUST DEED EXHIBITE D AT PAGES 1 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT TRUST HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED ELSEWHERE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER WAS INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE ANNUAL FEES CHARGED WAS AT RS. 2,960/- TO RS. 4,875/- PER MONTH AND ON THE BASIS OF THE FEES STRUCTURE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OBSERVED TH AT CHARGING MORE THAN RS. 1,000/- PER MONTH IS BEYOND THE REACH OF AN ORDINAR Y MIDDLE CLASS PERSON. THIS MEANS THAT ANY INSTITUTION WHICH IS CHARGING LESS T HAN RS. 1,000 PER MONTH SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF REGISTRATION U/ S. 12A OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT ON SUCH OBSERVATION OF THE LD. COMMI SSIONER. EVEN, IF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER ARE CONSIDERED THEN ALSO WE FIND THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST HAS SHOWN A DEFICIT OF RS. 44,8 6,610/-. THIS IS IN ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT TRUST WAS NOT RUNNING ON COMMERC IAL BASIS. FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE TRUST BEING A FRANCHISE OF GLOBAL DISCOVERY ACADEMY AND THE FRANCHISEE MODEL SUGGEST A BUSINESS DEAL. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COU NSEL. THERE IS NO SUCH FRANCHISEE MODEL AND VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT HIS S TATEMENT MAY BE TAKEN AS STATEMENT AT BAR. 16. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO REFER TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF MUDRA FOUNDATION FOR COMMUNI CATION RESEARCH & EDUCATION (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OB SERVED AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 3443 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. N.A. 6 AFTER CONSIDERING SEVERAL DECISION, CERTAIN CRITERI A HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN IN PARAGRAPH 11 OF THE JUDGMENT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 11. THUS, THE LAW COMMON TO SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD ) AND (VI) MAY BE SUMMED UP AS FOLLOWS: (1) WHERE AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION CARRIES ON TH E ACTIVITY OF EDUCATION PRIMARILY FOR EDUCATING PERSONS, THE FACT THAT IT MAKES A SUR PLUS DOES NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT CEASES TO EXIST SOLELY FOR EDUCA TIONAL PURPOSES AND BECOMES AN INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING PROFIT. (2) THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT TEST MUST BE APPLIED - T HE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION SHOULD NOT BE SUBMERGED BY A PROFIT MAKING MOTIVE. (3) A DISTINCTION MUST BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE MAKING OF A SURPLUS AND AN INSTITUTION BEING CARRIED ON 'FOR PROFIT'. NO INFERE NCE ARISES THAT MERELY BECAUSE IMPARTING EDUCATION RESULTS IN MAKING A PROFIT, IT BECOMES AN ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT. (4) IF AFTER MEETING EXPENDITURE, A SURPLUS ARISES INCIDENTALLY FROM THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, IT WILL NOT BE CEASE TO BE ONE EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. (5) THE ULTIMATE TEST IS WHETHER ON AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE MATTER IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR THE OBJECT IS TO MAKE PROFIT AS OPP OSED TO EDUCATING PERSONS.' 17. IN THE CASE OF GANPAT UNIVERSITY (SUPRA), THE HONB LE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 12. THE QUESTION OF SURPLUS GENERATED BY THE EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTION WHICH IS OTHERWISE EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSES OF EDUCATION HA S BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. IN ONE OF THE LATER JUDGMENTS IN CASE OF QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) ALL PREVIOUS JU DGMENTS ON THE POINT WERE CONSIDERED. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DECISION OF S UPREME COURT IN CASE OF ADDL. CITV. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSO CIATION [1978] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 TAXMAN 501. IN WHICH, THE QUESTION AROSE AS TO WHAT IS THE MEA NING ITA NO. 3443 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. N.A. 7 OF EXPRESSION ACTIVITY FOR PROFIT. REFERENCE WAS MA DE TO THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION V . ADDL. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 310/90 TAXMAN 528 IN WHICH, IT IS OBSERVED THAT AFTER MEETING THE EX PENDITURE WHEN ANY SURPLUS RESULTS INCIDENTALLY FROM THE ACTI VITY LAWFULLY CARRIED ON BY THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, IT WILL NOT CEASE TO BE ON E EXISTING SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES, SINCE THE OBJECT IS NOT ONE TO MAKE PROFIT. AFTER R EFERRING TO SUCH AND OTHER DECISIONS, THE COURT HELD AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: '25. WE APPROVE THE JUDGMENTS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARY ANA, DELHI AND BOMBAY HIGH COURTS. SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE JUD GMENT OF THE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT AND SINCE THE CHIEF COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX'S ORDERS CANCELLING EXEMPTION WHICH WERE SET AS IDE BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT WERE PASSED ALMOST SOLELY UPON T HE LAW DECLARED BY THE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE ORDERS CANNOT STAND. CONSEQUENTLY, REVENUE'S APPEALS FROM THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT DATED 29.1.2010 AND THE JUDGMENTS FOLLOWING IT ARE DISMISSED. WE REITERATE THAT THE CORRECT TESTS WHIC H HAVE BEEN CULLED OUT IN THE THREE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS STATED ABOVE, NAMELY, SURAT ART SILK CLOTH, ADITANAR, AND AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGIN G, WOULD ALL APPLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTS SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT. IN ADDITIO N, WE HASTEN TO ADD THAT THE 13TH PROVISO TO SECTION 10(23C) IS OF GREA T IMPORTANCE IN THAT ASSESSING AUTHORITIES MUST CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR FRO M ASSESSMENT YEAR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR WHETHER SUCH INSTITUTIONS CONTINUE TO APPLY THEIR INCOME AND INVEST OR DEPOSIT THEIR FUNDS IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE LAW LAID DOWN. FURTHER, IT IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE THAT THE ACTIVIT IES OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS BE LOOKED AT CAREFULLY. IF THEY ARE NOT GENUINE, OR AR E NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OR ANY OF THE CONDITIONS SUBJEC T TO WHICH APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN, SUCH APPROVAL AND EXEMPTION MUST FORTHW ITH BE WITHDRAWN. ALL THESE CASES ARE DISPOSED OF MAKING IT CLEAR THA T THE REVENUE IS AT ITA NO. 3443 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. N.A. 8 LIBERTY TO PASS FRESH ORDERS IF SUCH NECESSITY IS F ELT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAIN ED IN SECTION 10(23C) READ WITH SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT.' 13. IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT GENERATING CERTAIN SURPLUS AFTER CARRYING OUT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES BY ITSELF WOULD NOT INDICATE THAT THE INSTITUTION DID NOT EXIST FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF MA KING PROFIT. WHETHER THE SURPLUS SO GENERATED WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES ALSO WOULD BE A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION. BE THAT AS IT MA Y, WHEN THE PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAD NOT TAKEN INTO A CCOUNT CORRECT FIGURES AND WAS THUS MISGUIDED INTO COMING TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE PETITIONER HAD GENERATED SIZEABLE PROFIT, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REQUEST THE COMMISSIONER TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE PET ITIONER 18. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDICIAL DECISIO NS, WE FIND THAT THE OBJECT OF THE APPELLANT TRUST IS DEFINITELY IMPARTING EDUCATI ON WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. THEREFORE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND, THE LD. COMMISSIONER ERRED IN DENYING THE REGISTRATION TO THE APPELLANT TRUST. 19. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. D.R. ON THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF DAWN EDUCATIONAL CHA RITABLE TRUST (SUPRA) APPEARS TO BE MISPLACED INASMUCH AS IN THAT CASE, T HE LD. COMMISSIONER MADE AN ENQUIRY AND WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE INT ENDED TO RUN A POSH INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL IN NAME OF CHARITABLE ACTIVITY , AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION. IN THAT CASE, THE LD. COM MISSIONER FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AT LIBERTY TO ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS AS DONATION AND CONTRIBUTORS HAD NO RIGHT OR CONTROL OVER MANAGEMENT OR IN ADMIN ISTRATION OF ASSESSEE. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE CASE IN HAND. THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO RELIED UPON ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HONBL E HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN ITA NO. 3443 /AHD/2014 . A.Y. N.A. 9 THE CASE OF SHREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST (SUPRA) WH EREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY HOLDING THAT WHILE GRANTING REGISTRATION TO A TRUST AUTHORITY COULD HA VE EXAMINED ONLY GENUINENESS OF TRUST AND ITS ACTIVITIES. THE LD. D.R. PLACED RE LIANCE ONLY ON THE STRENGTH OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ADMITTED BY THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS CANNOT BE A REASON FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE DICTUM OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON WHY REGISTRATION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TRUST. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECT HIM TO GRANT REGISTRATION TO THE APPELLANT TRUST. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 - 12- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCO UNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 18/12/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABA