NV REALTY P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3599/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84619 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK BATRA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 32

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BE NCH, MUMBAI , !' $ $ $ $ % & ' , !' ( BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I .T.A. NO. 3599/MUM/2012 ( ) ) ) ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. NV REALTY PVT. LTD., THE GREAT OASIS, PLOT NO. D-13, STREET NO. 21, MIDC, MAROL, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400 093 / VS. THE DCIT-7(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 '* ./ +, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCD 2669P ( *- / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY: SHRI KANCHUN KAUSHAL SHRI ALIASGER RAMPURAWALA MS. HIRALI DESAI ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIVEK BATRA 1 %2 / DATE OF HEARING :09.12.2014 34) 1 %2 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :22.12.2014 !& / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-20, MUMBAI DT.28.1.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y.20 06-07. ITA NO. 3599/M/2012 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS OF GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEE DS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPR ECIATION ON COMMERCIAL PREMISES. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON AN AREA OF 1,68,978 SQ. FT WHICH HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND CAPITALIZED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT OUT OF THE COMPLETED AREA OF 36,180 SQ. FT HAD BEEN ACTUALLY LEASED OUT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE ENTIRE AREA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PROPORTIONATE DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF TH E BALANCE AREA OF 1,32,645 SQ. FT. SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IT WAS E XPLAINED THAT THE LEASED AGREEMENT WITH PTC SOFTWARE(INDIA) PVT. LTD. TO WH OM 36,180 SQ.FT IS LEASED ALSO HAVE A CLAUSE THAT THE LESSEE HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT TO TAKE ADDITIONAL SPACE. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSET IS READY TO USE AND THEREFORE FULL DEPRECIATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 4.1. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE LEASED AGREEMENT DOES NOT SHOW THE SAID LICENCEE HAS OPTED TO TAKE SUCH ADDITIONAL SPACE ON LEASE. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MERE INTENTION OR ANTICIPATION THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE TAKEN UP FOR USE BY SOMEONE OR THE OTHER A T ANY POINT OF TIME WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSET SUBJECT TO PASSIVE USER . THE AO ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF 36,180 SQ.FT AND DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 1,53,75,725/-. 5. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESS EE REVISED ITS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY RS. 53,58,122/- TO ADJUST FOR TH E VALUE OF LAND CAPITALIZED IN THE VALUE OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES. T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ITA NO. 3599/M/2012 3 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT DEPRECIATION ON COMMERCI AL PREMISES SHOULD BE ALLOWED FROM THE DATE WHEN THE ASSET IS READY TO USE AND NOT THE DATE WHEN THE ASSET WAS PUT TO USE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,53,75,725/- IN RES PECT OF THE ENTIRE COMMERCIAL PREMISES AS THE SAME IS CAPITALIZED IN I TS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 5.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION S, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT THE AO HAD A VALID REASON TO HOL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PUT TO USE THE ENTIRE COMMERCIAL AREA SO A S TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ON IT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF TH E AO. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF E-CITY ENTERTAINMENT (I NDIA) PVT. LTD. VS ACIT 24 ITR 73(MUM) HAS ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ALLOWANCE FOR DEPRECIATION IS THAT T HE ASSET MUST BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRI ED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD BE APT TO CONSIDER THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF E-CITY ENTERTAINMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). IN CIT V. BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. (2010) 187 TAXM AN 111 (DEL), QUESTION AROSE FOR ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON ASSET ENTERING TO ITA NO. 3599/M/2012 4 BLOCK OF ASSETS. DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT PRIOR T O THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW CONCEPT OF BLOCK OF ASSETS WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4 -1988, THE DEPRECIATION USED TO BE CLAIMED SEPARATELY ON EACH ASSET. THE LEGISLATURE FOUND THAT THIS WAS A CUMBERSOME PROCED URE LEADING TO VARIOUS DIFFICULTIES. THIS NECESSITATED INTRODUCTIO N OF THE CONCEPT OF BLOCK OF ASSETS AND ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON SUCH A BLOCK. THE RATIONALE AND PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE CONCEPT OF BLOC K ASSET WAS INTRODUCED BY THE AMENDMENT IN THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT, AS REFLECTED IN THE CIRCULAR DATED 23-9-1988 OF THE CBDT. INTENT ION BEHIND THESE PROVISIONS IS APPARENT. ONCE THE VARIOUS ASSETS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND BECOME BLOCK ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIO N 2(11), FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRECIATION, IT IS ONE ASSET. EVERY TIM E, A NEW ASSET IS ACQUIRED, IT IS TO BE THROWN INTO THE COMMON HOTCHP OTCH, I.E., BLOCK ASSET ON MEETING THE REQUIREMENT OF DEPRECIATION AL LOWABLE AT THE SAME RATE. THE VALUE OF THE BLOCK ASSET INCREASES AND THE DEPR ECIATION IS TO BE GIVEN ON THE AFORESAID VALUE, WHICH IS TO BE TREATE D AS WRITTEN DOWN VALUE. INDIVIDUAL ASSETS LOSE THEIR IDENTITY FROM T HAT VERY MOMENT IT BECOMES INSEPARABLE PART OF BLOCK ASSET INSOFAR AS CALCULATION OF DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED. FUSION OF VARIOUS ASSETS INTO THE BLOCK ASSET GETS DISTURBED ONLY WHEN EVENTUALITY CONTAINE D IN CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 32 TAKES PLACE, VIZ., WHEN A PARTICULAR ASS ET IS SOLD, DISCARDED OR DESTROYED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (OTHER THAN THE P REVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH FIRST BROUGHT IN USE). EVEN IN THAT EVENT, TH E AMOUNT BY WHICH THE MONEYS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF THAT PARTICULAR BU ILDING, MACHINERY, ETC., TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SCRAP VALUE IS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM TOTAL WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE BLOCK ASSET. ONCE O NE UNDERSTANDS AND APPRECIATES THIS SCHEME CONTAINED IN THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE TH AT UNLESS A PARTICULAR ASSET IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINES S OR PROVISION, DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWED. NO DOUBT AS PER SECTIO N 32(1), IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION, THE ASSET IS TO BE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS ALSO TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. HOWEVER, THE EXPRESSION 'USED FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS I, WHEN APPLIED TO BLOCK ASSET, WOULD MEAN USE OF B LOCK ASSET AND NOT ANY SPECIFIC BUILDING, MACHINERY, PLANT OR FURNITUR E IN THE SAID BLOCK ASSET AS INDIVIDUAL ASSETS HAVE LOST THEIR IDENTITY AFTER BECOMING INSEPARABLE PART OF THE BLOCK ASSET. 3.3.5 SECTION 38(2) CONTAINS PROVISIONS AS TO PROPO RTIONAL DEPRECIATION IN CASE THE ASSET IS PARTLY USED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND PARTLY FOR A NY OTHER PURPOSE. IT ITA NO. 3599/M/2012 5 IS PROVIDED THAT WHERE ANY BUILDING, MACHINERY, PL ANT OR FURNITURE IS NOT USED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS ES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM THEN THE DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 32(1 )(II) SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO A FAIR PROPORTIONATE P ART THEREOF AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD T O THE USER OF SUCH BUILDING, PLANT, MACHINERY OR FURNITURE FOR THE PUR POSES OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT SECTION 38(2) DO ES NOT REFER TO INTANGIBLE ASSETS, HENCE THE SAME WILL NOT BE APPLI CABLE IN CASE OF SUCH ASSETS. PRIOR TO AMENDMENT OF SECTION 32, SECT ION 38(2) REFERRED TO REDUCTION OF DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION, ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION AND TERMINAL ALLOWANCE BUT AFTER THE AMENDMENTS BY THE TAXATION LAW (AMENDMENT AND MISCE LLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1986, SECTION 38(2) WAS ALSO AMEND ED AND HENCE NOW IT REFERS ONLY TO ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 3.3.6 THEREFORE, AFTER THE AMENDMENT BY THE TAXATIO N LAWS (AMENDMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1986, WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1988, THE INDIVIDUAL ASSETS HAVE LOST THEI R IDENTITY AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION, ONLY THE BLOCK OF ASSETS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE PARTICULA R BLOCK OF ASSETS IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF B USINESS. IF A BLOCK OF ASSETS IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, DEPRECIATION WILL BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, THE TEST OF USER HAS TO BE APPLIED UPON THE BLOCK AS A WHOLE INSTEAD OF UPON AN INDIVIDUAL ASSET. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. AO THA T THE DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING AND PLANT AND MACHINERY WILL BE ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF THE AREA WHICH IS USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES VIS-A- VIS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. ONCE IT IS PROVED THAT BLOCK OF ASSET IS USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPELLANT BUSINESS AND THE RE IS NO FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE BLOCK OF ASSETS OR FOR THAT MATTER A NY ASSET FALLING IN THE BLOCK OF ASSET IS USED FOR OTHER BUSINESS PURPOSES PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCES OF DEPRECIATION IS NOT WARRANTED. THE REFORE, LD.AO ACTION IN DISALLOWING THE PROPORTIONATE DEPRECIATIO N ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE AREA TO THE EXTENT OF 14.53% WAS NOT USED OR REMAINED UNUTILIZED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE LD. AO IS DELETED. 9. THE TRIBUNAL FINALLY HELD AS UNDER: 8.5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE AG REE WITH THE LEARNED CIT (A). FIRST OF ALL THERE IS NO BASIS FOR WORKING OUT THE UTILIZED AND UNUTILIZED AREAS AS WAS DONE BY AO WHEN THE ENTIRE MULTIPLEX WAS PUT ITA NO. 3599/M/2012 6 TO USE. ASSESSEE HAS STARTED OPERATION IN ONLY THRE E PLACES AND BALANCE OF PROJECTS ARE UNDER VARIOUS STAGES OF CON STRUCTION. THEREFORE, WHAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED WAS DEPRECIATION O F PROJECTS UNDER OPERATION AND REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCES OF THE SAME. ONCE THE ENTIRE PROJECT HAS COMMENCED THE BUSINESS OPERATION, JUST BECAUSE PART OF IT WAS NOT LEASED OUT OR COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITED CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR DISALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION AND EXPENDITURE. FOLLOW ING THE CONCEPT OF BLOCK ASSETS OF AN ASSET HAS ENTERED INTO BLOCK OF ASSETS AND DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN GRANTED ON IT, THE CLAIM OF D EPRECIATION CANNOT BE DENIED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE FOLLOWING CASES SUPPORT THE ABOVE CONTENTION: 1. CIT VS. SONAL GUM INDUSTRIES 322 ITR 542 (GUJ) 2. SWATHI SYNTHETICS LTD V. ITO (38 SOT 208, 234 (M UM.) 3. UNITEX PRODUCTS LTD V. ITO (22 SOT 429 (MUM) 4. ACIT VS. BOSKALIS DREDGING INDIA (P) LTD (53 SOT 17-18 (MUM) URO) 5. ACIT V. SRF LTD (21 SOT 122, 130-131 (DEL) LIKEWISE, THE CLAIM OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE ON REPAI RS AND MAINTENANCE. THERE IS NO MERIT IN ACTION OF AO IN D ISALLOWING THE AMOUNTS. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS UPHELD . GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 10. AS THE FACTS IN ISSUE BEFORE US ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION AS CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 11. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF LEG AL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED LE GAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,48,403/-. THE AO FURTH ER NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CAPITALIZED RS. 25,19,085/- OUT OF THE TOTAL ITA NO. 3599/M/2012 7 FINANCIAL EXPENSES OF RS. 27,22,066/-, IT HAS NOT C APITALIZED ANY PART OF THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES PERTAINING TO T HE ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS. THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT SINCE THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CAPITALIZED THIS AMOUNT BECAUSE THESE ARE INCURRED IN THE COUR SE OF SETTING UP OF THE BUSINESS STRUCTURE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ACCORDI NGLY TREATED RS. 5,80,350/- AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 13. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS. 5,80,350/- WERE INCUR RED AFTER THE SET UP DATE OF THE BUSINESS, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVE NUE EXPENDITURE. IN ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT IF THE EXPENDITURE IS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME SHOULD BE ALL OWED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNTS DISALLOWED UNDER LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENDITURE WERE IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENTS OF PURCHASE, SALE AND AMENITI ES, PREPARATION OF TITLE REPORT, REGISTRATION OF SHOPS & ESTABLISHMENTS. CO NSIDERING THE FACT THAT, THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT THE SAME OPTION CAPITALIZED BY T HE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE ALTERNAT IVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION ON THIS CAPITALIZED AMOUNT. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 15. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REI TERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALS O RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VS CIT 60 ITR 52. ITA NO. 3599/M/2012 8 16. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED T HE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW AND THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. AT TH E OUTSET, THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS MISPLACED INASMUC H AS IN THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. THE EXPENDITURE INC URRED ON LOAN ON MORTGAGE OF FIXED ASSETS AND THE ACT OF BORROWING MONEY WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS. ON THESE FACTS, TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE LOAN OBTAINED WAS NOT AN AS SET OR AN ADVANTAGE OF ENDURING NATURE. THUS, THE FACTS ARE CLEARLY DISTI NGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS IN HAND. FURTHER IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE EX PENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE ALL THE HALLMARKS OF CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE CLAIM OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION IF THE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN W ELL TAKEN CARE OF BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS FINDING. THEREFORE, NO SEPAR ATE DIRECTION IS CALLED FOR. GROUND NO. 3 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND DECEMBER, 2014 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) !' /JUDICIAL MEMBER !' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 5! DATED : 22 ND DECEMBER, 2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 3599/M/2012 9 !& !& !& !& 1 11 1 .% .% .% .% 6)% 6)% 6)% 6)% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 7 / CIT 5. 89 .% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9: ; / GUARD FILE. !& !& !& !& / BY ORDER, /% .% //TRUE COPY// < << < / = = = = + + + + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI