SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. ACIT - 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3795/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6833 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015 - 16) SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. , 509 - 510, NAVRATAN PREMISES CO - OP SOC. LTD. 69 PD MELLO ROAD, CARNAC BUNDER, MUMBAI 400 009 VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) MUMBAI PAN NO. AABCS9243B (ASSESSEE) (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DR. K. SHIVARAM , S ENIOR ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI T.S. KHALSA, D.R DATE OF HEARING : 15 /07/2021 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 /07/2021 ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 14, MUMBAI, DATED 25.03.2017, WHICH IN TURN ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 29.06.2017 FOR A.Y. 2015 - 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE FOLLO WING EFFECTIVE GROUND BEFORE US: I. DISALLOWANCE U/S. 1 4A R.W RULE 8D 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN RESTRIC TING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R. W . RULE 8 D TO EXEMPT INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OFFERED A SUM OF RS.L3W - BEING DEMAT CHARGES AS DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AND RS.4,H6,157/ - STT EXPENSE WHILE ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) 2 FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. ALSO NONE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.46,87,3HA AND FINANCE COST AGGREGATING TO RS.9,56,769/ - LISTED IN NOTE NO JO OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE INCURRED FOR EARNING ANY EXEMPT INCOME SO THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D READ WITH SECTION 14A. FURTHERMORE, THE APPELLANT HAD SUO MOTO DISALLOWED EXPENSES OF RS. 24,17,464/ - OUT OF THE ABOVE SUM OF RS.56,44,080 / - IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME. FURTHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REJECTED APPELLANT S PLEA THAT THE INVESTMENT AS PROMOTERS HOLDING IN OTHER COMPANIES SHOULD NOT B E CONSIDERED FOR CALCULATING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W RULE 8D. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN PROPERTIES HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y 2015 - 16 ON 23.09.2015, DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,49,38,500/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED AS SUCH U/S 143( 1 ) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT THE ASSESEE HAD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MADE CERTAIN NEW EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING INVESTMENTS , VIZ. (I). INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF M/S ESSAR PORTS LIMITED OF RS.49,50,00,322/ - ; AND (II). INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF M/S BHAVANI RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD. OF RS.7,00,00,000/ - . ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE A.O THAT AS AGAINST THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.14,25,000/ - THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY OFFERED FOR DISALLOWANCE THE DEMAT CHARGES OF RS.1,390/ - U/S 1 4A OF THE ACT. ON BEING QUERIED AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE IN ITS HANDS MAY NOT BE WORKED OUT AS PER SEC. 14A R.W RULE 8D, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 28.05.2017. HOWEVER, THE A.O NOT FINDING FAVOR WITH THE EXPLANATION ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF DISALLOWANCE THAT WAS OFFERED U/S 14A OF THE ACT, THEREIN , WORKED OUT THE SAME AT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 62,55,014/ - I.E AS PER THE METHODOLOGY CONTEMPLATED IN RULE 8D OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1963, AS UNDER : A. EXPE NDITURE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE 0 B. EXPENDITURE NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE INTEREST EXPENSES (A) =RS.9,56,769 (A) AVG. VALUE OF INVESTMENT = RS.111,94,62,888 (B) ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) 3 [(140,19,63,049 + 83,69,62,727)/2] AVG. VALUE OF ASSETS = RS.160,41,15,805 (C ) [(195,58,43,028 + 125,23,88,582)/2] (A) X (B) / (C) = RS.6,67,700 C. % OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT 0.5% OF RS.111,94,62,888 = RS.55,97,314 AGGREGATE RS.62,65,014/ - HOWEVER , TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTED TO RS.32,29,857/ - , THE A.O AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUO MOT T O DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,390/ - THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREIN RESTRICTED THE ADDITION AL DISALLOWANCE TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.32,28,467/ - . AFTER MAKING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, THE A.O VIDE HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3), DATED 29.06.2017 ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT RS.1,81,66,960/ - . 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) WAS HOWEVER NOT PERSUADED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO INCUR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR MANAGING ITS EXEMPT INCOME YIELDING INVESTMENTS AND HAD ONLY INCURRED THE D E MAT CHARGES OF RS.1,390/ - AND STT EXPENSES OF RS.4,86,157/ - AS REGARDS THE SAME. ALSO, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE GROUP COMPAN IES WERE NOT LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE DISALL OWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT . AT THE SAME TIME, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.14,25,000/ - , THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A WAS LIABLE TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE SA I D EX TENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT A.R ) FOR ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) 4 THE ASSESSEE DR. K. SHIVARAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE TOOK US THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE A.O WITHOUT RECORDING ANY DISSATISFACTION AS REGARDS THE SUO MOT T O DISALLOWANCE THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, HAD MOST ARBITRAR IL Y DISLODGED THE SAME AND IN A MECHANICAL MANNER SUBSTITUTED IT BY THE DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT AS PER THE METHODOLOGY CONTEMPLATED IN RULE 8D . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT OUT OF THE REMAINING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEN SES OF RS.41,99,764/ - [RS.46,87,311/ - ( - ) RS.4,87,547/ - ] THE ASSESSEE HAD SEPARATELY DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,29,917/ - IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE REASONABLENESS OF THE SUO MOTTO DISALLOWANCE THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 14A COULD SAFELY BE GATHERED FROM THE FACT THAT THE SAME WORKED OUT AT 33.62% O F THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME . BACKED BY THE AFORESAID FACTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT EFFECTIVELY THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ONLY RS.22,69,847/ - (OUT OF RS. 46,87,311/ - ) AS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES I.E 48% ONLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THOUGH THE CIT(A) HAD OBSERVED THAT THE AS S ESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED S O M E ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO EARN TH E DI VIDEND INCOME, HOWEVER, HE HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ATTRIBUTED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR EARNING OF THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT THE A.O IS OBLIGATE D TO ESTABLISH A PROXIMA TE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE EXEMPT INCOME BEFORE WORK ING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A . IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CONTENTION THE LD. A.R HAD RELIED ON THE JUDG MENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE CIT VS. SOCIEDADE DE FO MENTO INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD. (NO. 2) (2020) 429 ITR 358 (BOM) A ND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI, IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. M.S RARE ENTERPRISES (2021) 187 ITD 65 (MUM). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R THAT AS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O WAS NOT ONLY EXORB ITANT BUT ALSO ARBITRARY, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE VACATED ON THE SAID COUNT TOO . ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) 5 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES FOR BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AS WELL AS THE CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S THAT HAVE BEEN PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THE LD. A.R TO DRIVE HOME HIS AFORESAID CON TENTIONS. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE , THE ASSESSEE HAD ON A SUO MO T TO BASIS OFFERED A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,87,547/ - , VIZ. (I) D E MAT CHARGES: RS.1,390/ - ; AND (II) STT EXPENSES: RS.4,86,157/ - IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. OBSERVING, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIV ED EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.14,25,000/ - QUA THE SHARES OF M/S ESSAR PORTS LTD., THE A.O WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A AS PER THE METHODOLOGY CONTEMPLATED IN RULE 8D AT AN AMOUNT OF RS.62,65,014/ - , VIZ. (I) U/R ULE 8D(2)(II): RS.6,67,700/ - ; AND (II ) U/R ULE 8D(2)(III) RS. RS.55,97,314/ - . HOWEVER, AS THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTED TO RS. 3 2, 2 9,857/ - , THEREFORE, THE A.O RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THE SAID EXTENT. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) THOUGH PRINCIPALLY U PHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O, HOWEVER , OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS IN RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND INCOME OF RES. 14,25,000/ - ONLY, THEREFORE, HE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A TO THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME . 8. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TWO FOLD CONTENTIONS BEFORE US , VIZ. (I) THAT THE AO HAD WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT RECORDING HIS DISSATISFACTION QUA THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISALLOWANCE THAT WAS SUO MOT T O OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 14A IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, THEREIN , MECHANICALLY SUBSTITUTED THE SAME BY THAT COMPUT ED BY HIM AS PER METHODOLOGY CONTEMPLATED IN RULE 8D; AND (II) THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY OFFERED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE ADMINISTRAT IVE EXPENSES I.E 52% OF TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES QUA THE EARNING OF THE EXE MPT DIVIDEND INCOME, ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) 6 THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN DISLODGING THE SAID CLAIM WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON. 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CLAIM OF THE LD. A.R THAT THE A.O WITHOUT RECORDING ANY DISSATISFACTION AS REGARDS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISALLOWANCE THAT WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A SUO MO T TO BASIS U/S 14A IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, HAD MECHANICALLY SUBSTITUTED THE SAME BY AN AMOUNT THAT WAS WORKED OUT BY HIM AS PER THE METHODOLOGY CONTEMPLATED IN RULE 8D. INSOFAR THE CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND , THAT HE TOO ON THE BASIS OF A GENERAL OBSERVATION HAD UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O, FOR THE REASON, THAT AS PER HIM THE MAKING OF INVESTMENTS IN E XEMPT INCOME YIELDING SECURITIES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT INVOLVEMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT, EMPLOYEE S AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO SOME EXTENT FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY NO MEANS CAN BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE REALM O F RECORDING OF THE SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE , AS REGARDS THE CORRECTNESS OF ITS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTED QUA THE INCOME WHICH DID NOT FORM PART OF ITS TOTAL INCOME . AS HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DCIT & ANR. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC), IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE A.O TO R ECORD HIS SATISFACTION THAT HAVING REGA RD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS PLACED BEFORE HIM , IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO GENERATE THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THE DISALLOWANCE THAT WAS OFFERED BY HIM U/S 14A OF THE ACT. IN ITS AF ORESAID ORDER , IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE A.O HAD RECORDED HIS DISSATISFACTION AS REGARDS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT ONLY THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . I4A(2) AND (3) R.W. RULE 8D COULD BE INV OKED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, AS UNDER: ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) 7 '37. WE DO NOT SEE HOW IN THE AFORESAID FACT SITUATION A DIFFERENT VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 2003. SUB - SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE SD OF THE RULES MERELY PRESCRIBE A FORMULA FOR DETERMINATION OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION, TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WHETHER SUCH DETERMINATION IS TO BE MADE ON APPLICATION OF THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 3D OR IN THE BEST JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHAT THE LAW POSTULATES IS THE REQUIREMENT OF A SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HAVING REGARD TO T HE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSES, AS PLACED BEFORE HIM? I T IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GENERATE THE REQUISITE SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY THEREAFTER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) AND (3) READ WITH RULE 3D OF THE RULES OR A BEST JUDGMENT DETERMINATION, AS EARLIER PREVAILING, WOULD BECOME APPLICABLE.' AS IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NEITHER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD RECORDED THEIR DISSATISFACTION AS REGARDS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DISALLOWANCE THAT WAS SUO MOTTO OFFERED BY THE ASSESSE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, HAVING REGARD TO THE LATTERS ACCOUNTS AS WERE PLACED BEFORE THEM , THEREFORE, WE ARE OF A STRONG CONVICTION THAT BY DISPENSING WITH THE SAID STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THE JURISDICTION FOR WORKING OUT THE DISALLOW ANCE UNDER SEC. 14A R.W RULE 8D QUA THE EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALIDLY ASSUMED. 10. WE , THUS, NOT FINDING FAVOR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) WHO HAD PRINCIPALLY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE WORKED OUT BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 14A R.W. RULE 8D, THUS , SET - ASIDE HIS ORDER AND VACATE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O U/S 14A R.W RULE 8D TO THE EXTENT THE SAME HAD BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY . 11. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES S EE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 .07.2021 SD/ - SD/ - (RAJESH KUMAR) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 26 .07.2021 PS: ROHIT ITA NO.3795/MUM/2019 A.Y. 2015 - 16 SAINATH TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT - 8(1)(2) 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY) ITAT, MUMBAI