OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

ITA 3793/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0778 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOLI SRINIVAS RAODR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY C KOTHARI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Loose papers; Peak credit; Notional interest
• Section: 234B; 131; 132; 154; 15

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , ! ..'(),*!,+ BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS, 10, MITHILA SHOPPING CENTRE, GROUND FLOOR, V.M.ROAD, JUHU SCHEME, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI-400049 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-22, ROOM NO.465, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO. AAAF06752F ,- / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIJAY C. KOTHARI ,- / REVENUE BY SHRI GOLI SRINIVAS RAO-DR / DATE OF HEARING 04/06/2015 / DATE OF ORDER: 22/06/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 2 04/03/2013 OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) AND ANOTHER ONE DATED 20/03/2013 PASSED U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). FIRST W E SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE (ITA NO.3792/MUM/201 3). 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PERT AINS TO PRESUMPTION THAT SHORT TERM FRIENDLY DEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS FOR SAFE KEEPING FOR EARNING SHORT TERM INTEREST AN D CONSEQUENT ADDITION OF RS.64,80,000/- TOWARDS UNACC OUNTED INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON THE SAID ALLEGED SHORT TE RM LENDING AND THUS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF PRESUM ED INTEREST EARNED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.37,80,000/- 2.1. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI VIJAY C.KOTHARI, ADVANCED HIS AR GUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED, BY FURTHE R SUBMITTING THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 16/09/2009 AND ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN PAPERS QUESTIONS WERE ASKED BY THE DEPARTMENT. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO CERTAIN P AGES OF THE ANNEXURE-3 AND PARA 3.1, PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE KEPT THE M ONEY WITH THE RELATIVES AND OTHERS FOR SAFE CUSTODY BUT DID N OT CHARGED ANY INTEREST, THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY P RESUMED THAT INTEREST WAS CHARGED AT THE RATE OF 18%. THE ADOPTION OF INTEREST RATE AT 10.5% WAS ADOPTED BY THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AGAINST WHICH NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER MERELY DREW AN INFERENCE THAT ASSESSEE EARN ED INTEREST BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 3 PRESUMPTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT NOWHERE IT HAS BEEN MENTIONE D THAT THE ASSESSEE CHARGED INTEREST BUT RS. 6 CRORES WAS DEPLOYED WITH THE RELATIVES AND ACQUAINTANCE, BEING UNACCOUN TED MONEY FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE OFFERED RS.8.45 CRORES FOR TAXATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI GOLI SRINIVAS RAO, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OU T THE PEAK AND THE RIGHTLY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE EAR NED INTEREST. NO DETAILS WERE ARGUED TO BE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER ON THE ISSUE. 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE P REMISES AND RESIDENCES OF PARTNERS ON 16/11/2009. DURING SE ARCH, CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF SHRI RAJU PATEL, EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE. SAID LOOSE P APERS ARE CONTAINING PAGE NOS.3, 14, 35, AND 39 TITLED AS ANN EXURE A-3. STATEMENT U/S 132(4) AND 131 OF THE ACT WERE RECORD ED FROM THE PARTNERS AND ITS EMPLOYEES, SHRI RAJU PATEL AND KISHORE PATEL. THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, SHRI GANG ADAS PATEL, OFFERED RS.8.45 CRORES AS ADDITIONAL INCOME VOLUNTA RILY TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE LOOSE PAPERS, AS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, CONTAINS THE TRANSACTIONS ABOUT DEPLO YMENT OF FUNDS FOR SAFE CUSTODY. THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED TH E OFFER OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI GANGADAS, BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER CLAIMED THAT OUT OF THE THREE PAGES, PAGE NO. 3 CON TAINS THE ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 4 FIGURES OF INCOME EARNED FROM REAL ESTATE TRANSACTI ONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FUNDS WERE DEPLOYED ON SHORT TERM BASIS FOR SAFE KEEPING BY FURTHER CLAIMING THA T NO INTEREST WAS EARNED OUT OF SUCH SAFE PARKING OF FUN DS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF NOTIONAL INTERES T INCOME PRESUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST ON SUCH DEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS. HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.64,80, 000/- ON SUCH SHORT TERM LENDING BEING INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18%. 2.3. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS), IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ESTIMATED THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18% ON AD-HOC BASIS AND HE REDUCED THE SAME TO 10.50% AS THE TERM DEPOSITS RATE OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS UP TO ONE YEAR WAS MAXIMUM OF 1 0.25%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE INT EREST RATE @ 10.50% AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 2.4. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME, CONCL USION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, IF K EPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, THE ISSUE BEFORE US WIT H RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.64,80,000/- (BY ASSESSING OFFICER ) ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST PRESUMABLY EARNED OUT OF ALLEGED SHORT TERM LENDING WHICH WAS REDUCED TO RS.37,80,00 0/- BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE NOTE THAT BY VIRTUE OF STATEMENT OF SHRI GANGADAS PATEL, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ACCEPTED THE PEAK CREDIT DECLARATION OF RS.8.45 CRO RES BUT ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 5 FACT REMAINS THAT CASH TO THE TUNE OF RS.2.34 CRORE S WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE MA DE ADDITIONAL DECLARATION OF INCOME, WHICH WAS ACCEPTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONFIRM THE DECLARED AMOUNT IS CORRECT. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT BASED UPON THE CREDIBLE INCRIM INATING MATERIAL AND COOPERATION EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE QUANTUM DISCLOSURE, AS DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN PRESUMING THAT THE ASSESSE E EARNED INTEREST INCOME ON SUCH SHORT TERM LENDING? TO OUR MIND, THIS PRESUMPTION WAS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF WHIMS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADDING THE NOTIONAL INTEREST I NCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOID LITIGAT ION SURRENDERED THE INCOME OF RS. 8.45 CRORES, HOWEVER, NO NOTING OF SHORT TERM DEPLOYMENT WAS FOUND DURING TH E SEARCH OPERATION. AS IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ITSELF. STATEMENTS OF SHRI RAJU PATEL, SHRIT KISHO RE PATEL, AND SHRI GANGADAS PATEL WAS RECORDED, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON 14/12/2011. IN REPLY TO QUESTION N O.4, SHRI KISHORE PATEL TENDERED THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME, OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE COVERS THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED ON A LL PAGES INCLUDING CASH FOUND FROM VARIOUS PREMISES. WITH RE SPECT TO QUESTION NO.5 FOR SHORT TERM DEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS, I T WAS TENDERED THAT THE PAGES WERE NOT CORRECT AND ORIGIN AL AND THE NOTING WERE FOR COLLECTION OF MONEY AND THE SHORT T ERM DEPLOYMENT WAS MADE WITH RELATIVES AND ACQUAINTANCE S FOR SAFE KEEPING AS KEEPING OF ENTIRE MONEY AT ONE PLAC E WAS RISKY. IN QUESTION NO.6, SPECIFICALLY IT WAS ASKED WITH RESPECT TO EARNING OF INTEREST ON SUCH DEPLOYMENT, IT WAS ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 6 CATEGORICALLY DENIED THAT NO INTEREST WAS EARNED ON SUCH DEPLOYMENT. THE PART OF THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN DUL Y MENTIONED AT PAGE 6 ONWARDS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS HEREUNDER FOR READY REFEREN CE:- Q. NO.6 PLEASE STATE WHETHER YOU HAVE EARNED ANY I NTEREST ON THE DEPLOYMENT. ANS. NO, I HAVE NOT EARNED ANY INTEREST ON THE DEPL OYMENT SINCE IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF SAFE KEEPING OF THE F UNDS TO RELATIVES AND ACQUAINTANCES. IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT HAS BEEN ME NTIONED AS UNDER:- 4.1. THE AFORESAID CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT APART FROM SECRETING UNACCOUNTED PROFIT IN CAS H, IT WAS ALSO DEPLOYING SUCH CASH IN SHORT TERM LENDING. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY UNACCOUNTED INTEREST ON SUCH SHORT TERM LENDING. IT CAN BE SAID WITH CERTAINLY THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST ON AMOUNTS LENT TO PARTIES SHOW ON PG.14 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WHICH IT CLAIMS TO HAV E COLLECTED BACK ON THE DATES SHOWN IN THE LIST. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS ARE ANALYZED, ONE FACT IS CLEARLY OOZING OUT THAT EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS AN D THE STATEMENT HAS TO BE READ IN ITS TOTALITY AND AS MEN TIONED EARLIER, IT WAS TENDERED THAT NO INTEREST WAS EARNE D BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE CASH WAS KEPT FOR SAFE KEEPING WITH THE RELATIVES TO AVOID RISK. EVEN, THIS FACT ITSELF HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN PARA 4.1 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THAT ANY UNACCOUNTED INTEREST ON SUCH LEND ING WAS ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 7 EARNED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. IN OUR VIEW, PRESUMPTION, HOWEVE R STRONG IT MAY BE, CANNOT TAKE THE SHAPE OF EVIDENCE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE TOTAL CASH RECOVERED FROM DIFFERENT PREMISES WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2.34 CRORES AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE OFFERED 8.54 CRORES SIMPLY TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOI D LITIGATION, THUS IN OUR VIEW, ANY FURTHER ADDITION THAT TOO ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE EARNED INTEREST ON SUCH DEPLOYMENTS, MORE SPECIFICALLY WHE N THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY DENIED OF EARNING SUCH INTERE ST, IN HIS STATEMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THUS, WE DIRECT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE REMAINING ADDITION, WHICH WAS ADDED ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. OUR VIEW FIND SUPPORTS FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN INDIA FINANCE & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. V S DCIT 200 ITR 710 (MUM.), GLASS LINE WORK EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. VS CIT 198 ITR 297 (SC), CHANDRA MOHAN MEHTA VS ACIT 7 1 ITD 245 (PUNE), MAHENDRA MONILAL NANABATI VS SUSHITA MO HINDER NANAVATI AIR 1965 SC 364, GHANSHYAM BHAI R. THAKKA R 56 TTJ 460 (AHD.) FURTHER THE ADDITION ON PRESUMPTION AND ESTIMATION THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN SUSEE AUTO PLAZA P. LTD. VS ADDL. CIT (2010) 3 ITR (TRIB.-CHENNAI) 166, SUPPORT S OUR VIEW. NOW THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO JUSTIFY WITH SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL WITH SUPPOSITION OF NON-EXISTE NCE FACT, THEREFORE, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CIT VS DAULAT RAM RAWATMAL 87 ITR 349 (SC), KALWA DEVADATION & ORS. VS CIT 49 I TR 165 (SC) SUPPORTS OUR VIEW. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS A ND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION, WE NOTE T HAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME, OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCE PTED BY THE REVENUE, THUS ANY FURTHER ACTION ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 8 THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE EARNED INTEREST INCOME IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT U/S 132 (4) IT WAS SPECIFICALLY TENDERED THAT NO SUCH INTEREST WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOWHERE STATED THAT SUCH DISCLOSURE IS UNRELIABLE. ON THE CONTRARY AGAINST THE CASH SEIZURE OF RS. 2.3 5 CRORES THE DEPARTMENT PROMPTLY ACCEPTED THE FIGURE OF RS.8 .45 CRORES, THUS, FURTHER ADDITION, IN OUR VIEW, IS QUI TE UNJUSTIFIED, THUS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PRESUMPTIVE INTEREST ADDITION. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO NOT TREATING THE SE IZED AMOUNT OF RS.2,24,64,000/- AS ADVANCED TAX AND CONS EQUENT ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234 B AND 234C OF TH E ACT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE IS THAT SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SEIZED MONEY MAY BE ADJU STED TOWARDS TAX/ADVANCED TAX FOR WHICH OUR ATTENTION WA S INVITED TO PAGE-59 AND 64 OF THE PAPER BOOK. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION FROM HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JYOTINDAR B. MODY (ITA NO.3741 OF 2010) ORDER DATED 21/09/2011, CIT VS ASHOK KUMAR 334 ITR 355 (P & H), CIT VS ARUN KAPOOR 334 ITR 351 ( P & H) AND CIT VS K. K. MARKETING 278 ITR 596 (DEL.). ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LD. DR, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 9 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 15/03/2010 (PAGE-59 OF THE PAPER BOOK) SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THE DEPAR TMENT THAT THE CASH SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ADJUSTED A S ADVANCED TAX FOR AY 2010-11. IDENTICALLY ON 30/03/ 2010, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,76,9 4,000/- LYING WITH THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE TREATED AS PAYMENT OF ADVANCED TAX WHICH WILL COVER THE LIABILITY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL INTO THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234B A ND 234C WHEN THE BASIC REQUIREMENT OF PAYING/ADJUSTING THE ADVANCE TAX HAS ALREADY MET BY THE ASSESSEE. OUR VIEW IS FO RTIFIED BY THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, BEING MENTIONED H EREINABOVE IN PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER, THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED. BOTH THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP ITA NO.3793/MUM/2013, WHEREIN, THE CRUX OF GROUNDS PERTAINS TO NOT TREATI NG THE SEIZE MONEY AS PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AND CONSEQUEN TLY CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT AND NOT ALLOWING THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED U/S 15 4 OF THE ACT. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION., WE HAVE ALRE ADY ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE WHILE DEALING GROUND NO.2 OF ITA NO.3792/MUM/2013, THUS, THIS GROUND IS AUTOMATICALL Y DISPOSED OFF IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.3792 & 3793/MUM/2013 OPTIONS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS 10 FINALLY, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE S IDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 04 TH JUNE 2015. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) *! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 22/06/2015 F{X~{T? P.S / ,0 123241 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#$ ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. %$ %$ & ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. %$ %$ & / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. ) *+$ ' , %$ $ - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, #$) ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI