DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI V. YARDLY INVESTMENT & TRADINGT CO. P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4268/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5668 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B P K
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 133A; 14A

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - G BENCH. , ! ! ! ! '# '# '# '# , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & AMIT SHUK LA,JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO.4223/MUM/2011, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 YARDLEY INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., 1, PEART MANSION (N) 91, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS DCIT (OSD) 1(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACY0327M ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) /. ITA NO.4268/MUM/2011, $ $ $ $ % % % % / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 DCIT 1(3) R.NO. 540/564, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400020 VS YARDLEY INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., 1, PEART MANSION (N) 91, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN: AAACY0327M ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT) $*! $*! $*! $*! + + + + / ASSESSEE BY : SHREE SNEHAL SHAH , + / REVENUE BY : SHRI B.P.K. PANDA $ $ $ $ , ,, , !- !- !- !- / DATE OF HEARING : 28-01-2014 ./% , !- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-01-2014 $ $ $ $ , 1961 , ,, , 254 )1( !0! !0! !0! !0! ' ' ' ' ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM $ $ $ $ : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.30.08.2011 OF THE CIT(A)-3 0,MUMBAI,ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THE AO HAVE FILED CROSS APPEALS.ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING G ROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW, ULTRA VIRES THE PROVISION OF THE ACT AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND DESERVES TO B E CONDEMNED IN TOTALITY. 2.THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS BEEN PASSE D WITH SURMISES, CONJECTURES, UNDUE HASTE AND HIGH HEADED APPROACH ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 3.THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN OUT RIGHTLY RE JECTING THE PRAYER OF THE APPELLANT TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TA X RULES, 1962 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 4.THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THA T THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE IS NOT BACKED BY EVIDENCE ESPECIALLY SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD A WRITT EN MOU WITH THE SELLER (SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A)APART FROM DEBIT NOTES/CREDIT NOTES AND CONFIRMATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT IS ALREADY ON RECORD. 2 ITA NOS. 4223 & 4268/MUM/2011 YARDLEY INVESTMENT & T RADING CO. PVT. LTD. 5.THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THA T THE DEBIT/CREDIT NOTES AND CONFIRMATIONS OBTAINED FROM THE SELLER ARE SELF PREPARED DOCUMEN TS TO SUIT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PARTIES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE SELLER IS A THIRD PARTY WHO HAS NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. 6.THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN APPLYING THE S ALE OF GOODS ACT, THOUGH INTERPRETED ERRONEOUSLY,IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 7.THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,17,39,000/- BY TREATING THE SAME AS EXCESSIV E LOSS CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING INVENTORY OF SHARES AT COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LESS. 8.THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN FACTS AND LAW I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,30,638/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 9.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND, DELE TE OR MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUNDS OF APPEAL,FILED BY THE AO READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE CIT(A)ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM LOSS RS,1,17,39,000/- TO RS,7 9,71,75O/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE CIT(A)OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,1 7,39,000/- SINCE IT HAS BEE N HELD BY HIM THAT THE DR AND CR NOTE WERE SELF PREPARED TO SUIT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PART IES, APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND OR WITHDRAW THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA/4223/MUM/2011/AY-2007-08: 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN SHARES AND SECURITIES,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 ,30,80,410/-.AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 31.12.2009,DETERMINI NG THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3.49 CRORES. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT REJECTING THE REQUE ST,MADE BY THE ASSESSEE,FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES,196 2(RULES).DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT HUGE LOSS WAS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN SHARE TRANSACTIONS. HE INVESTIGATED THE LOSS AND NOTICED THAT THE LOSS HAD ARISEN PRIMARILY ON A CCOUNT OF VALUATION OF TWO SECURITIES I.E.ATLANTA LIMITED(AL) AND WIRES FABRIK (SA)LTD.(WFL),THAT IN THE CASE OF AL VALUATION LOSS WAS OF RS. 1.17 CRORES,THAT THE SHARES OF AL WERE PURCHASED IN AN OFF MARKET AND WERE NOT ROUTED THROUGH THE STOCK EXCHANGE OR THROUGH ANY SHARE BROKER,THAT AL SHARES WERE PURCHASED ON 20.02.2007 AT THE PREVALENT PRICE IN THE MARKET I.E.@RS.1,052/-PER SH ARE,THAT THE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 12.03.2007,(MORE THAN 20 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PURCHASE),THAT DELAY OF CREDIT TO THE ACCOUNT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE UNDERST ANDING THAT THE SHARES WOULD TO BE TRANSFERRED ON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT BY THE SELLER,THAT THE FIRST PAY MENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION (RS.1,00,00,000/-) WAS MADE BY ASSESSEE ON 12.03.2007,THAT THE BALANCE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION (RS.57,80,000/-)WAS PAID BY THE IT TO THE SELLER 20.03.2007,THAT THE ON LY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF SHARES WAS THE DEBIT & CREDIT NOTES BETWEEN THE PAR TIES AND THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE SELLER,THAT SHARES WERE VALUED @269.40 PER SHARE(RS .40,41,000/-)ON 31.03.2007, THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED A LOSS OF RS. 1.17 CRORES FOR THE HOLDING P ERIOD OF 39 DAYS.CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AO HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS A COLL USIVE TRANSACTION TO GENERATE AN ARTIFICIAL LOSS,TH AT THE COPIES OF THE CHEQUES BY WHICH PAYMENTS HAD BEE N MADE WERE NOT PRODUCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THAT AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF TH E ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF WHICH UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT OF RS 3.48 CRORES WAS ADMITTED,THAT IN ORDER TO SAVE UPON TAX ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME THE ASSESSE E BOOKED THE LOSS ON SHARE TRANSACTION AND SET OFF THE PROFITS 2.1. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT THE SHARES UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD COME TO THE DEMAT AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT SAME WERE SOLD 3 ITA NOS. 4223 & 4268/MUM/2011 YARDLEY INVESTMENT & T RADING CO. PVT. LTD. SUBSEQUENTLY THROUGH A BROKER AND THROUGH THE STOCK EXCHANGE,THAT THE CONTENTION OF AO TREATING THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION A SHAM TRANSACTION COULD N OT BE ENDORSED, THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN ON 20.02.2007,THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE AO WAS THE DEBIT AND CREDIT N OTES BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES AND THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SELLER WHICH WERE NOTHING BUT SELF PREPARED DOCUMENTS TO SUIT THE CONVENIENCES OF THE PARTIES,THAT THE DATE OF PURCHA SE OF THE SHARES UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD A BIG QUESTION MARK ATTACHED TO IT.REFERRING TO THE PROVI SIONS OF SALES OF GOODS ACT HE HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE ON 12.03.2007.HE FO UND THAT ON 12.03. 2007 MARKET PRICE OF THE SHARES WAS RS.524.55 PER SHARE.HE HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SUFFERED A LOSS OF RS.38,27,250/-. CONSEQUENTLY,LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.79.11 LAKHS W AS CONFIRMED. 2.1.A. AS PER THE FAA,WHILE HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SIGNI NG THE ORDER,ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER IN HIS OFFICE 30.03.2011 WHEREIN, APART FROM WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE FILED AND PRAYER WAS BEEN MADE UNDER RULE 46 A OF THE RULES F OR ADMITTING THE SAME.HE HELD THAT THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE A CCEPTED BECAUSE NONE OF THE CONDITION OF STIPULATE IN THE SAID RULES WERE SATISFIED,THAT THE AO HAD GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE PARTICULAR ISSUE,T HAT THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY DENIAL BY AO WITH RESPECT TO ACCEPTANCE OF ANY EVIDENCE,THAT IN THE A PPLICATION MADE UNDER RULE 46A NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE WAS SPELT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF OPPORTUNITY.HE REJECTED THE REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2. BEFORE US,AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)SUBMITTED TH AT LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A VALUATION LOSS AS ON THE LAST DAY OF THE AY,THAT SHARES OF AL WERE SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND WERE SOLD AT A HIGHER PRICE THA N THE VALUATION PRICE OF 31 ST MARCH,2007,THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE VITAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUE, THAT ASSESSEE HAD REASONABLE CAUSE OF NOT FILING THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO.HE REFERRED TO PG. 7 OF THE PAPER-BOOK.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.THE ISSUE BEFORE US, IS WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES,PRODUCED DURING TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE FAA OR NOT.WE ARE AWARE THAT ALL TH E NECESSARY EVIDENCES SHOULD BE PRODUCED AT THE FIRST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY,THAT RULE 46A OF TH E RULES GOVERNS THE PRODUCTION OF FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FAA,THAT AS PER THE RULE ASSESSEE SHOULD MAKE OUT A CASE THAT BECAUSE OF SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE IT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO.IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD NOT CALLED FOR T HE CHEQUES ISSUED TO THE SELLER AND THEREFORE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS.WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF MOU ENTERED IN WITH THE SELLER OF THE SHARES IN FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.AS PER THE FAA NO AGREEMENT EXISTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SELL ER.IF IT WAS THE CASE THEN IN OUR OPINION VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF EXISTENCE OF THE MOU SHOULD HAVE BE EN EXAMINED.POWER OF THE FAA ARE COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE POWER OF THE AO.HE COU LD HAVE MADE INQUIRIES OR COULD HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO CONDUCT INQUIRY.THE COPIES OF THE CHEQUES COULD HAVE THROWN LIGHT ON THE ISSUE THAT WAS PENDING BEFORE HIM.IT IS A FACT THAT ORDER OF THE F AA WAS NOT ISSUED AND IT WAS ALSO NOT GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31.03.2011.BOTH THE EVIDENCE COULD HAVE S UPPORTED/WEAKENED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE,IF INVESTIGATED PROPERLY.IN SHORT DOCUMENTS PRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE HAD COULD HAVE AFFECTED THE RESULT.THEREFORE,CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER SHOULD BE R ESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 1,30,638/- UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.5.41 LAKHS,THAT IT HAD NOT ADDED BACK NAY AMOUNT AS EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EARNING EXEMPT 4 ITA NOS. 4223 & 4268/MUM/2011 YARDLEY INVESTMENT & T RADING CO. PVT. LTD. INCOME.HE HELD THAT CERTAIN MANAGERIAL COST WAS DEF INITELY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME.INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF T HE RULES AND THE SECTION 14A OF THE ACT,HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1.30 LAKHS. 3.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FAA HELD THAT THOUGH T HE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION,YET FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYC E HE HAD TO APPROVE THE ACTION OF THE AO.HE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.2. BEFORE US,AR SUBMITTED THAT RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICA BLE IN THE AY.2007-08,THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS ON HIGHER SIDE,THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.IN OUR OPINION FAA SHOULD NOT HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO ONCE HE WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL.WE ARE AWARE TH AT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE EVEN IN THE YEA R 2007-08 BUT SAME CANNOT BE BASED ON THE CALCULATION MADE UNDER RULE 8D.THEREFORE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE F AA TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE,IF ANY,U/S.14A OF THE ACT.HE IS DIRECTED TO AF FORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED IN PART. ITA/4268/MUM/2011/AY-2007-08: 4. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE AO IS ABOUT RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF LOS TO RS.79.71 LACS IN PLACE OF RS.1.71 CRORES.FACTS RELA TED TO THE LOSS CLAIMED AND DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE FAA HAS BEEN NARRATED IN THE EARLI ER PART OF THE ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NO T GENUINE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED A LOSS OF RS. 1.71 CRORES WITHOUT PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE. AR MADE THE SAME SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTED BY US WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. 4.1. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THAT A TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT BE TERMED SHAM TRANSACTION, THAT SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE DMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE OF SHARES, THAT SHARES WERE LATER ON SOLD THROUGH STOC K-EXCHANGE AND A BROKER PROVED THAT STAND TAKEN BY THE FAA IN HOLDING THE TRANSACTION GENUINE WAS C ORRECT.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT GROUND TAKEN BY THE AO HAS TO BE DECID ED AGAINST HIM. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PA RTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. 1!2 $*! 3 4 , 0 '!2 5 , ! 67 8 $*! - , $ 5 , ! 67. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 31 ST JANUARY,2014 . ' , ./% : ;$ 31 TUOJH TUOJH TUOJH TUOJH , 201 4 / , 0 < SD/- SD/- ( ! '# / AMIT SHUKLA) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, ;$ /DATE: 31 ST JANUARY,2014. 5 ITA NOS. 4223 & 4268/MUM/2011 YARDLEY INVESTMENT & T RADING CO. PVT. LTD. SK ' ' ' ' , ,, , (! (! (! (!= == = >=%! >=%! >=%! >=%! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / &' 2. RESPONDENT / ()&' 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ ? @ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / ? @ 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / =A0 (!$ TH THTH TH , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 0 1 )=! )=! )=! )=! (! (!(! (! //TRUE COPY// '$ / BY ORDER, B / 6 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI