MANJULA H KANUGA, BHIWANDI V. DCIT CIR 1, KALYAN

ITA 4258/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7876 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Tangible material; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 131; 148; 6; 11

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALB BENCH, MUMB AI . . , , , , ! BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, J M / I.T.A. NO.4258/MUM/2012 ( '# $# / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) SMT. MANJULA H. KANUGA HOUSE NO.439, FLAT NO.1, SUMITA BUILDING, GOKULNAGAR, KASARALI, BHIWANDI / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 1 ST FLOOR, MOHAN PLAZA, WAYALE NAGAR, KHADAKPADA, KALYAN (W) ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACAPK5229R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING:17.02.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.03.2017 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2012 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RE LEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ASSESSEE BY: DR. P. DANIEL DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 2 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHICH ORDER IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFF ICER OF INITIATING RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (I) MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FR OM INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND / WITHOUT HAVING ANY MATERIAL B EFORE HIM TO HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT APPELLANTS IN COME CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THAT TOO ON ACCOUNT OF FAILU RE ON ASSESSEES PART TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MAT ERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF HIS ASSESSMENT. (II) WITH A VIEW TO MAKE FISHING ENQUIRIES WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY COGENT MATERIAL TO HAVE A LINK BETWEEN TH E ALLEGED MATERIAL IN HER POSSESSION AND THE FORMATIO N OF BELIEF THAT APPELLANTS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA S ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. (III) IN VIOLATION OF RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON. APE X COURT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONORABLE I.T.A.T., MUMBAI BENCH (JURISDICTIONAL BE NCH) IN THE CASES FACTS OF WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE CA SE OF APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE APPEL LANTS CASE AS WELL AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFO RE HIM. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AN OR VARY ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OR BEFORE THE HEARIN G OF THIS APPEAL. ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.09.2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO T HE TUNE OF RS.3,38,257/-. THE INCOME COMPRISES INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN WOR KED OUT TO THE TUNE OF RS.15,02,042/- AND THE SAID INCOME WAS EXEM PTED U/S.54EC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN SHORT THE ACT) AND A RRIVED AT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TUNE OF RS.NIL, THEREAFTE R, THE CASE WAS RE- OPENED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS U/S.147 OF THE AC T. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 26.03.2010 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE REPLY FOR THE SAME AND STATED THAT THE RETURN FILED ON 15.09.2003 TO BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR THE REASONS AND ACCORDINGLY THE REASO NS WERE PROVIDED TO HIM ON 15.11.2010 WHICH ARE MENTIONED BELOW:- (I) A SEARCH ACTION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (NOW ALAG SECURI TIES PVT. LTD.) ON 25.11.2009 BY THE DDIT(INV.), UNIT 1( 4), MUMBAI. (II) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS FOUND THAT M/S.MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND ITS GROUP CONCERNS WERE ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVIT IES AND ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 4 IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BOGUS SPECULATION PROF ITS OR LOSS ON COMMODITY TRADING, LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM GAINS OR / LOSS INTRODUCING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY . (III) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE SEIZED C OMPUTER DATA, A LIST OF CLIENTS / BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE TA KEN ENTRIES FROM THE ABOVE COMPANY HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED. (IV) THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE APPEA RING IN THE SAID TRANSACTIONS IN THE LIST MENTIONED IN THE COMP UTER DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE ABOVE COMPANY DURING SEARCH . 4. AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF T HE DEPUTY DIRECTOR INCOME TAX (INV.) UNIT-1(4), MUMBAI THAT A SEARCH A CTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHASAGA R SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND ITS GROUP CONCERNS ON 25.11.2009. ALL THE SE CONCERNS WERE FLOATED BY SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI A CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN T BY PROFESSION, FROM HIS OFFICE, SHREE SADASHIV CHS., SANTACRUZ, MU MBAI. IT WAS FOUND THAT M/S. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND ITS GROUP CONCERNS WERE ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVITIES AND I N THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BOGUS SPECULATION PROFIT / LOSS, SHORT TE RM / LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN / LOSS, COMMODITIES PROFIT / LOSS ON COMMODITY TRADING (THROUGH MCX) AND HAD BEEN CONTINUING THIS BUSINESS FOR MANY YEARS. SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI WAS RUNNING THE BUSINESS ON COMMISSIO N BASIS. THE LIST OF PERSON SEEKING ENTRIES FOR BOGUS PROFIT / L OSS I.E.BENEFICIARIES ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 5 EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPUTER DATA SEIZED FROM SHRI M UKEHS CHOKSIS OFFICE PREMISES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT AND IN THE SAID DATA THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS APPEARIN G. THE TRANSACTION AMOUNT WAS INVOLVED TO THE TUNE OF RS.15,02,042/-. THE COPY OF LEDGER OF COMPUTER DATA WAS ALSO ANNEXED. 5. ON APPRAISAL OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE A.Y.2003-04, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OUT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE MENTIONED BELOW:- DETAILS OF WORKING OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS ON 31/03/2003. IN THE NAME OF SMT. MANJULA HIRACHAND KANUNGA PURCHASE DETAILS DATE NAME OF SCRIPT BROKER QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT 17/04/2001 BUNIYAD CHEMICALS GOLDSTAR FINVEST PVT. LTD. 12000 0.55,0.60 7,030.70 25/05/2001 JAYKAYDEE VRP FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 6000 4.00,4.05,4.10 24,312.00 TOTAL 31342.70 SALES DETAILS DATE NAME OF SCRIPT BROKER QUANTITY RATE AMOUNT 13/01/2003 JAYKAYDEE VRP FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3000 7.50 3,14,017.50 20/01/2003 JAYKAYDEE VRP FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3000 7.50 3,13,792.50 07/02/2003 BUNIYAD MAHASAGAR 12000 76.00,75.85, 9,07,119.25 ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 6 CHEMICALS SECURITIES PVT. LTD. 75.80,75.60, 75.50, 75.35, 75.30, 75.10 TOTAL 15,34,929.25 LESS PURCHASE COST 31,342.70 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 15,03,586.55 THE ENTIRE LTCG HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC 6. THEREAFTER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO TICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH A QUEST IONNAIRE WERE ISSUED ON 30.06.2010 AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSES SEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE RAISED OBJECTION VIDE LETTER DATED 25. 11.2010 AND THE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF BY ORDER DATED 14.12.2010 . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE FINAL SUBMISSION BY LETTER DATED 16.12.2010. THEREAFTER, BY DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE TO THE TUNE OF RS.18,73,190/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE V IEW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL GAIN WERE FICTI TIOUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION F OR THE SALE TO THE TUNE OF RS.15,34,929/- WAS TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES. FEELING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US . ISSUE NO.1 TO 5:- 7. UNDER ALL THE ABOVE SAID ISSUES, THE ASSESSEE ON LY RAISED THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W. ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 7 SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LE ARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT ADDITIONAL COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX, RANI MANSION, 2 ND FLOOR, MURBAD ROAD, KALYAN (W) HAS ISSUED THE LETTER DATED 26.03.2010 PROPOSING THE PROCEEDIN GS U/S.147 OF THE ACT IN GROUP COMPANIES OF BENEFICIARIES OF MAHASAGA R SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (NOW ALAG SECURITIES PVT. LTD.) AGAINST THE 22 PERSONS WHOSE NAMES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED THEREIN AND OUT OF THEM T HE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHRI HIRACHAND M. KANUNGA HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE SET ASIDE U/S.147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 PASS ED IN ITA NO.4261&4262/MUM/2010 AND THE PROCEEDING AGAINST SH RI GAUTAMCHAND M. KANUNGA BEEN ORDERED TO BE SET ASIDE U/S.147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.4259&4260/MUM/2012. THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRC UMSTANCES THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S.147/148 OF THE ACT IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HOWEVER ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDER, IT CAME INTO THE NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SHRI HIRACHAND M. KANUNGA VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.4261&4262/MUM/2010 AND IN CASE OF SHRI GAUTAMCHAND M. KANUNGA VIDE ORDER DATED 08.01. 2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.4259&4260/MUM/2012 HAS HELD THAT THE REOPENI NG U/S.147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IS QUITE SIMILAR OF THE CASE MENTIONED ABOVE WHICH ARE THE PART AND ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 8 PARCEL OF THE LETTER DATED 26.03.2010 ON RECORD. THE PRESENT CASE IS DULY COVERED BY THE ABOVE SAID ORDERS. BEFORE PROCE EDING FURTHER, WE FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE SHRI GAUTAMCHAND M. KANUNGA IN ITA NO.4259&4260/MUM/2012 ON RECORD:- 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID DECISION. IT IS P ERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE REOPENING IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS DONE ON THE IDENTICAL INFORMATION AND IN RESPECT OF THE SAME LIST OF BENEFICIARIES WHEREIN T HE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS NAME OF MR. HIRACHA ND KANUGA APPEARED AS BENEFICIARIES. EVEN WE FIND THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT THE SATISFACTION RECOR DED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS REPRODUCED THE LETTER DATED 26.03.10 OF THE ADDITIO NAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHOWING THAT THE PERMISSION WAS GRANTED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSION ER IN RESPECT OF 22 ASSESSEES WHEREIN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS HUF APPEARED AT SL. NOS.1 & 2 IN T HE SAID LIST AND WHEREAS THE NAME OF HIRACHAND KANUGA HUF AND MR. HIRACHAND KANUGA IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY APPEARED AT SL. NOS.3 & 4. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONE R HAS ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 9 SIMPLY SANCTIONED THE PROPOSAL OF INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 AND HE HAS NOWHERE RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION ON THE REASONS RECORDED F OR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO DISCUSSED ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND FORMATION OF BELIEF BY THE AO FOR TH E SAID REOPENING AND THEREAFTER RELYING UPON THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAR THAK SECURITIES CO. PVT. LTD. 329 ITR 110 HAS HELD THAT THE REOPENING WAS BAD IN LAW. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ONC E AGAIN STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. THE FIRST PROPOSITION OF THE LD. COUNS EL WAS THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE WITHOUT APP LICATION OF MIND. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE REOPENING IS BASED ON THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING AND THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. P. LTD. 329 ITR 110. 6.1. THE SECOND PROPOSITION PUT FORTH BY THE LD. CO UNSEL IS THAT THERE IS NO PROPER SANCTION/APPROVAL AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151(2) OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI AMARLAL B AJAJ IN ITA NO. 611/M/04. ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 10 6.2. THE LAST PROPOSITION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN HASTE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE TIME AFTER REJECTION OF OBJECT ION. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT ONCE THE AO REJECTS THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN IN SUCH A CASE THE AO SHOULD NOT PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER FOR A PERI OD OF 4 WEEKS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASIAN PAIN TS LTD. 296 ITR 90 AND ARONI COMMERCIALS LTD. 362 ITR 403. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI AND TH EREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF M IND. THE LD. DR CONTINUED BY STATING THAT PROPER APPROVAL WA S GIVEN BY THE JOINT CIT/ADDI. CIT AND THEREFORE IT I S INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE REOPENING WAS WITHOUT ANY SANCTION. THIRDLY THE DR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DRAGGED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE FAG-END OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITAT ION AND THEREFORE THE AO CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN HASTE. THE LD. DR CONCLUDED BY SAYING THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE VALID AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD. LET US FIRST SEE THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE CASE U/S. 147 WHICH READ AS UNDER: '1. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y . 2003-04 ON 16.10.2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,95,08 0/- 2. A SEARCH ACTION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF MIS. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD (NOW ALAG ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 11 SECURITIES PVT. LTD.) ON 25.11.2009 BY THE DDJT (IN V) UNIT- 1(4), MUMBAI. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IT WAS FOUND THAT MIS. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD., AND ITS GROUP CONCERNS WERE ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVITIES AND IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BOGUS SPECULATION PROFITS OR LOSS ON COMMODITY TRADING, L ONG TERM AND SHORT TERM GAINS OR/LOSS INTRODUCING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE SEIZED COMPUTER DATA, A LIST OF CLIENTS/BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE TAKEN ENTRIES FROM THE ABOVE COMPANY HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED. 5. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE APPEARING IN THE SAID TRANSACTIONS IN THE LIST MENTIONED IN T HE COMPUTER DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE ABOVE COMPANY DURING SEARCH. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS A ND MODUS OPERANDI FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATION, THERE IS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT AS RELEVANT TO BE WORKED OUT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 147 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 AND HENCE A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE LT. ACT, 1961 IS ISSUED.' 8.1. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIN D. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT. WE FIN D THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. P. LTD (SUPRA) WHEREIN AL SO THE ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 12 ORIGINAL RETURN WAS PROCESSED AND INTIMATION WAS SE NT U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE RETURN. THE NO TICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ALLEGING THAT H E HAS REASON TO BELIEVE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT WAS 2003-04 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANI NG OF SEC. 147 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RETURN OF INCOME AS FILED EARLIER SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE RE TURN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE UNDER REFERENCE. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO REQUESTED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE REASONS REC ORDED IT/S. 148(2) AND THE APPROVAL FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E. WHILE FURNISHING THE REASONS, THE ITO ALSO INITIATED REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING FORMAL NOTICE. ON A WRIT PET ITION, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 'HELD, ALLOWING THE PETITION, THAT THE FORMATION OF BELIEF WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT AS REGARDS THE ESCAPEMENT OF THE TAX PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO FORM AN OPINION BEFORE HE PROCEEDED TO ISSUE A NOTICE. THE VALIDITY OF REASONS, WHICH WERE SUPPOSED TO SUSTAIN THE FORMATION OF AN OPINION, WAS CHALLENGEABLE. THE REASONS TO BELIEVE WERE REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 147 WERE FULFILLED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS COMPETENT IN LAW TO INITIATE THE PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 147. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE FOUR COMPANIES WITH WHOM THE ASS ESSEE HAD E NTERED INTO TRANSACTION. BOTH THE ORDERS SHOWED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE SITUATION BY THE INVE STIGATION WING AND THERE WAS NO MENTION THAT THESE COMPANIES WERE FICTITIOUS COMPANIES. NEITHER THE REASONS IN THE IN ITIAL NOTICE NOR THE COMMUNICATION PROVIDING REASONS REMO TELY INDICATED INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND. THOUGH C ONCLUSIVE PROOF WAS NOT GERMANE AT THIS STAGE THE FORMATION O F BELIEF MUST BE ON THE BASE OR FOUNDATION OR PLATFORM OF PR UDENCE WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON WAS REQUIRED TO APPLY. FR OM THE ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 13 PERUSAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE ORDER OF RE JECTION OF OBJECTIONS, THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AUTHORITY AND THEIR EXISTENCE WA S NOT DISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OBJECTIONS HAD STATED THAT THE COMPANIES HAD BANK ACCOUNTS AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE IDENTITY OF THE COMPANIES WAS NOT DISPUTED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 AND ISS UANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WERE TO BE QUAS HED.' 8.2. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF NOTICE AND THE REASONS FOR T HE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 ARE CONCERNED ARE IDENTICA L TO THE FACTS OF SARTHAK SECURITIES (SUPRA), THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISION DISCUSSED HEREINABOV E, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE QU ASHED. 8.3. PROCEEDING FURTHER IN SO FAR AS APPROVAL U/S. 151(2) OF THE ACT ISCONCERNED, FOLLOWING HAS BEEN PLACED BEFO RE US WHICH NEEDS TO BEMENTIONED SPECIFICALLY. 'OFFICE OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX RANI MANSION, 2 ND FLOOR, MURBAD ROAD, KULYAN (W)_____ NO. KY N/ADDL. CIT/ I 47/APPROVAL/2009- 10/2233 DAT E: 26/03/2010 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1,KALYAN SUB . PROPOSAL FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 I N GROUP CASES OF BENEFICIARIES OF MAHASAGAR SECURITIE S PVT. LTD. (NOW ALAG SECURITIES PVT. LTD.) SHARE SCA M REG. REF. STATEMENT DATED 11/12/2009 U/S 131 OF SHRI M. C. CHOWKSI BY DDIT, MUMBAI. ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 14 PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE. ON PERUSAL OF THE PROPOSALS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDI NGS U/S 147, YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/ 148 . THE PROPOSALS IN THE FOLLOWING CASES ARE APPROVED: (1) MR. GAIITAMCHAND M. KANUNGA (2) MR. GAUTAMCHAND M. KANUNGA (HUF) (3) MR. HIRACHAND M. KANUNGA (HUF) (4) MR. HIRACHAND M. KANUNGA (5) MISS SONAMN G. KANUNGA (MINOR) THROUGH SHRI GAUTAMNCHAND M. KANUNGA (6) MISS LAVINA V. KANUNGA (MINOR) THROUGH SHRI VIMAICHAND M. KANUNGA (7) MASTER KENIL G. KANUNGA (MINOR) THROUGH SHRI GAUTAMNCHAND M. KANUNGA (8) MASTER NILESH H. KANUNGA (MINOR) THROUGH SHRI HIRACHAND M. JKANUNGA (9) SINT. MANJULA H. KANUNGA (10) MISS. DEEPIKA H. KANUNGA (MINOR) THROUGH SHRI HIRACHAND M. KCMNUNGA (11) MISS. SIMNRAN H. KANUNGA (MINOR) THROUGH SHRI HIRACHAND M. KANUNGA (12) 5MM' DAMAYANTI RAMESH GADA (13) SHRI. RAM ESH PREMNCHAND GADA (14) SHRI. ALLIAD P. KASHIKAR (15) 5MM'. NILIMA A. KASHIKAR (16) SHRI ABHAY P. KASHIKAR (17) SINT. GEETA A. KASHIKAR (18) SINT. NEE/AM M. GOYAL (19) VIMAIJAIN (20) NARESH FAIN (21)MILAN SALOT (22)MILAN SALOT (HUF) SD/- (SUBHASH BAINS) ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 15 ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 1, KALYAN.' 8.4. LET US FIRST CONSIDER THE RELEVANT PART OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151OF THE ACT. (1)1N A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SE CTION 148 [BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF ASSI STANT COMMISSIONER [OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER], UNLESS THE [ JOINT] COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED B Y SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISS UE OF SUCH NOTICE]. PROVIDED THAT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONE R IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFORESAID, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF S UCH NOTICE. (2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FRILLING UNDER SUB- SECTION ( I ), NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY A N ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF [JOINT] COMMISSIONER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM T HE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE IS SUE OF SUCH NOTICE.] [EXPLANATION.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HERE BY DECLARED THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSIONER OR TH E CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BEING SATISFIED O N THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT FIT NESS OF A CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 , NEED NOT ISSUE SUCH NOTICE HIMSELF]' ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 16 9. A SIMPLE READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151(1 ) WITH THE PROVISO CLEARLY SHOW THAT NO SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNLESS THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIE D ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO THAT IT IS A FIT CAS E FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE WHICH MEANS THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THECOMMISSIONER IS PARAMOUNT FOR WHICH THE LEAST TH AT IS EXPECTED FROM THECOMMISSIONER IS APPLICATION OF MIN D AND DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE ACCORDING SANCTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. 10. INTHE PRESENT CASE THE LETTER WHICH IS PLACED O N RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER HAS SIMPLY SANCTI ONED THE PROPOSAL FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 IN GRO UP CASES OF BENEFICIARIES OF MAHASAGAR SECURITIES P. LTD. NO WHERE THE ADDL. CIT HAS RECORDED HIS DISSATISFACTION. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHUGAMAL RAJPAL VS S. P. CHALIHA & OTHERS 79 ITR 603 OBSERVED THAT THE IMPOR TANT SAFEGUARDS PROVIDED IN SEC. 147 AND 151 WERE LIGHTL Y TREATED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASONS, IN OUR CONSIDERATE VIEW, SECTION 147 AND 148 ARE CHARTER T O THE REVENUE TO REOPEN EARLIER ASSESSMENTS AND ARE, THEREFORE PROTECTED BY SAFEGUARDS AGAINST UNNECESSARY HARASSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY ARE SW ORD FOR THE REVENUE AND SHIELD FOR THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 15 1 GUARDS THAT THE SWORD OF SEC. 147 MAY NOT BE USED UNLESS A SUPERIOR OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE AO HAS GOOD AND ADEQU ATE REASONS TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 147. THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY HAS TO EXAMINE THE REASONS, MATERIAL OR GROUNDS AND TO JUDGE WHETHER THEY ARE SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE TO THE FOR MATION OF THE NECESSARY BELIEF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IF, AFTER APPLYING HIS MIND AND ALSO RECORDING HIS REAS ONS, HOWSOEVER BRIEFLY, THE COMMISSIONER IS OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE AO'S BELIEF IS WELL REASONED AND BONAFIDE, HE I S TO ACCORD HIS SANCTION TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. INTHE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND FROM THE PERUSAL O F THE ORDER SHEET WHICH IS ON RECORD, THE COMMISSIONER HA S ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 17 SIMPLY PUT 'APPROVED' AND SIGNED THE REPORT THEREBY GIVING SANCTION TO THE AO. NOWHERE THE COMMISSIONER HAS RECORDED A SATISFACTION NOTE NOT EVEN IN BRIEF. THE REFORE, IT CANNOT BESAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS ACCORDED SA NCTION AFTER APPLYING HIS MIND AND AFTER RECORDING HIS SAT ISFACTION. 12. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED ELECTRICAL CO. PVT. LTD. VS CIT 258 ITR 317 HAS HEL D THAT 'THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 151 OF THE AC T PROVIDES THAT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHALL NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. THESE ARE SOME IN-BUILTS SAFEGUARDS TO PREVENT ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIDDLE WITH THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT'. THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT 'WHAT DISTURBS US MORE IS THAT EVEN TH E ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAS ACCORDED HIS APPROVAL FOR ACTION U NDER SECTION 147 MECHANICALLY. WE FEEL THAT IF THE ADDIT IONAL COMMISSIONER HAD CARED TO GO THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF THE SAID PARTIES, PERHAPS HE WOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED HIS APPROVAL, WHICH WAS MANDATORY IN TERMS OF THE PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT AS THE ACTION UNDER SECTI ON 147 WAS BEING INITIATED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE POWER VESTED IN THE COMMISSIONER TO GRANT OR NOT TO GRANT APPROVAL IS COUPLED WITH A DUTY. THE COMMISSIONER IS REQUIRED T O APPLY HIS MIND TO THE PROPOSAL PUT UP TO HIM FOR APPROVAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE SAID POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED CASUALLY AND IN A RO UTINE MANNER. WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO OBSERVE THAT IN THE P RESENT CASE THERE HAS BEEN NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE A DDITIONAL COMMISSIONER BEFORE GRANTING THE APPROVAL'. ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 18 13. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE VERY MUCH RELEVANT IN THE INSTANT CASE AS IN THE PR ESENT CASE ALSO THE COMMISSIONER HAS SIMPLY MENTIONED 'APPROVE D' TO THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CONCERNED AO. IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIOS/OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS VIS--VIS PROVISIONS OF SEC. 151 ARE BAD IN LAW AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE DECLARED AS VOID A B INITIO. 14. PROCEEDING FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOW THAT THE AO HAS SUPPLIED THE REASONS RECORDED ON 15.11.2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS OBJECTION ON 25. 11.2010. THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED ON 1 4.12.2010 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE ON 24.12.2010. TH US THE AO DID NOT WAIT FOR FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THE REJECTION OF THE OBJECTIONS AND THEREBY VIOLATED THE PRINCIPL ES ENUNCIATED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF ASIAN PAINT LTD. (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS OBS ERVED AS UNDER: 'REASSESSMENT-NOTICE U/S. 148- OBJECTIONS BY ASSESSEE-IF THE AO DOES NOT ACCEPT THE OBJECTIONS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, HE IS NOT TO PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER REJECTING T HE OBJECTIONS ON THE ASSESSEE ABOVE PROCEDURE IS TO B E FOLLOWED STRICTLY IN ALL SUCH CASES OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT.' 15. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F ARONI COMMERCIALS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS MADE THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATIONS: ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 19 'IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON ALL AUTHORITIES FUNCTIONING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO FEIGN IGNORANCE OF THE LAW DECLARED BY THE COURT AND PASS ORDERS IN DEFIANCE OF IT. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ASIAN PAINTS VS DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 (BO RN) HAS CLEARLY LAID (TOWN THAT WHEN AN ASSESSMENT IS SOUGH T TO BE REOPENED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AND THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN OVERRULED BY THE AO, THEN IN SUCH A CASE THE AO WILL NOT PROCEED FURTHER IN THE MATTER FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF TH E ORDER REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE.' 16. THE AO HAS UNDOUBTEDLY FLAUNTED THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THEREBY MAKING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT B AD IN LAW. 16.1. HAVING SAID ALL THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE FROM ANY ANGLES IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DETAILED DISCUS SION HEREINABOVE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 IS BAD IN LAW. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE FIN DINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/ S. 143(3) R.W. SEC. 147 OF THE ACT. 16.2. AS WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE MERIT OF TH E CASE. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEALS ARE QUITE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAK E OF CONSISTENCY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITA NO.4258/M/12 A.Y. 2003-04 20 THE TRIBUNAL, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS HE REBY ORDERED TO BE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION SO MADE IN THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. ACCOR DINGLY ALL THE ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HE REBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH, 2017 SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (AMARJIT SINGH) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #! /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2017 MP MP MP MP %&'$ / 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// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI