ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI V. RESHMA J SHETTY, MUMBAI

ITA 4598/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7842 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM I.T.A. NO S . 4598 & 4599 /M/ 20 1 5 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 ) ACIT, CIR 8(2) (ERSTWHILE ACIT - CC - 45) 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 658, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 . VS. MS. RESHMA J. SHETTY 26, 2 ND FLOOR, SONY APARTMENT, ST. PAUL ROAD, BANDRA (W), MUMBAI - 400050. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AANPS 1105 K ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING : 27 . 12 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28. 12 . 2018 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED A PPEAL S AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 47 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVAN T TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 . ITA. NO.4598 /M/201 5 2 . THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.05 .201 5 PASSED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 47 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSEE BY: SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI (DR) ITA NOS. 4598 & 4599 /MUM/201 5 A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN WHICH THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO H AS BEEN ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 3 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE C ASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HER AS DIRECTOR FROM THE COMPANY WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND AS SUCH WERE IN THE NATURE OF CASH LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED CASH LOANS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/ - IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271 D OF THE ACT.' THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND AND/OR ADD NEW GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANT PVT. LTD (HEREAFTER REFERRED AS MIECPL) WHICH IS MANAGING THE ADVERTISING BUSINESS OF MS. KATRINA KAIF. A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF MS. KATRINA KAIF GROUP AND HER RELATED CONCERNS ON 24.01.2011 U/S 133A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED IN THE SAID SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. EVEN A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT, 1961 WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MATRIX INDIA ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTANT PVT. LTD. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON 30.03.2013. ITA NOS. 4598 & 4599 /MUM/201 5 A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 3 COM P UTER BACK - UPS WAS TAKEN IN WHICH THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS WITHDRAWN.: - DATE AMOUNT (RS.) 23.12.2005 72,000 03.12.2005 13,00,000 06.01.2006 3,00,000 31.02.2006 5,00,000 08.02.2006 3,00,000 10.02.2006 40,000 24.08.2005 75,000 20.10.2005 20,000 23.10.2005 5,00,000 05.01.2006 30,000 17.02.2006 30,000 TOTAL 31,67,000 5. THEREAFTER THE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/ S 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THEREAFTER, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS LOAN ADVANCED BY COMPANY TO THE DIRECTOR/SHARE HOLDER HAVING MORE THAN 1 0% SHARES, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME IN VIEW OF THE SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE LOANS IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/ - IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE PENALT Y ITA NOS. 4598 & 4599 /MUM/201 5 A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 4 PROCEEDING U/S 271D OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AND PENALTY IN SUM OF RS.31,67,000/ - U/S 271D OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY, THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFO RE US. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENT AND ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. BEFORE GOING FURTHER, WE DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO ADVERT THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON RECORD.: - 6.1 1 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 22.04.2015 IS QUOTED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: 1) AGGRIEVED WITH THE ADDITION ON THE ABOVE GROUND, THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) - 47 I.E. BEFORE YOUR HONOUR AND AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FACTS; YOUR HONOUR HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THIS GROUND BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONTENTION: A) THE APPELLANT STATES THAT THESE ARE BANK TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE HANK STATEMENTS OF M/S. MATRIX. THE COPIES OF HANK STATEMENTS OF MATRIX REFLECTING ABOVE TRANSACTIONS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO ENCLOSED. THE APPELLANT STATES THAT SHE HAS NOTHING TO LO WIT/I THE BANK WITHDRAWALS OF M/S. MATRIX EXCEPT THAT OF INCURRING SOME EXPENDITURE FO R THE COMPANY (M/S. MATRIX) OR MONETARY SURPLUS WHICH IS COMPANY'S PROPERTY. THE COMPANY'S 'M/S. MATRIX) SURPLUS FUND WAS ALSO RE - DEPOSITED FROM TIME TO TIME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT BY THE COMPANY. THE AFFIDAVIT FI LED BY M/S. MATRIX IS SELF - EXPLANATORY FOR WHAT IS STATED ABOVE. B) THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD, STATES THAT RS.72,000 DATED 23.12.2005 IS NOT A WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT ENCLOSED HEREWITH. IT IS STATED THAT OUT OF RS. 31,67,000 - RS.3,00,000 DATED 08.02.2006 & RS.40,000 DATED 10.02.2006 IS A DEPOSIT AND NOT WITHDRAWAL AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THUS, APPELLANT STATES THAT THE LD. AO HAS TREATED CERTAIN ITA NOS. 4598 & 4599 /MUM/201 5 A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 5 FIGURES AS WITHDRAWALS FROM TH E BANK WHICH WAS NOT WITHDRAWN. THE REPEATED FIGURES IS TOTAL OF RS.4,12,000/ - AN AGGREGATE OF RS.72,000/ - RS.3,00,000/ - AND RS.40,000. ACCORDINGLY, THE CORRECT WITHDRAWAL IS RS.27,55,000/ - AND NOT RS.31,67,000/ - AS ALLEGED BY THE AO. C) THE CORRECT DETAIL S OF THE CASE WITHDRAWN AND RE - DEPOSITED ARE TABULATED AS UNDER: SR. NO. CASH WITHDRAWN DATE AMOUNT SR. NO. CASH RE - DEPOSITED DATE AMOUNT 1 24.08.2005 75,000 9 14.09.2005 50,000 2 20.10.2005 20,000 10 03.11.2005 400,000 3 23.10.2005 500,000 11 02.02.2006 30,000 4 03.12.2005 1,3000,000 12 08.02.2006 75,000 5 5.01.2005 30,000 13 08.02.2006 299,500 6 06.01.2006 300,000 14 08.02.2006 500 7 17.02.2006 30,000 15 10.02.2006 40,000 8 21.02.2006 500,000 16 21.03.2006 1,000,000 - - - 17 21.03.2006 500,000 - - - 18 22.03.2006 300,000, TOTAL 2,755,000 TOTAL 2,695,000 FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, IT IS CAN BE OBSERVED THAT IN MANY INSTANCES, THE CASH WITHDRAWN AND RE - DEPOSITED MATCHES. THE COPIES OF CASH BOOK & BANK STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY M/S. MATRIX HIGHLIGHTING THE ABOVE CASH WITHDRAWN AND RE - DEPOSITED ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. (1) THE APPELLANT IN THE CAPACITY OF DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY MATRIX STATES THAT AT TIMES, THE COMPANY HAD TO WITHDRAW CERTAIN CASH AMOU NT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING PAYMENTS TO THE WORKERS & ALSO MAKING SETS FOR SHOOTING FOR WHICH THE PAYMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON SITES. THE JOB WORKERS ON SITES ARE BASICALLY WORKERS WHO DO NOT MAINTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS TO WHOM CHEQUE PAYMENTS CAN HE MA DE. THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT'S COMPANY DEMAND SUCH QUANTUM OF CASH TO BE KEPT READY FOR ITS DISPOSAL AND I \ IS A NEED OF A BUSINESS IN ITS REGULAR COURSE. E) THE APPELLANT STATES THAT OUT OF THE ABOVE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.27,5 5,000, ONLY RS.60,000 WAS SPENT AS COMPANY'S EXPENDITURE FOR KFC 06 PROJECT AND THE BALANCE OF RS.26,95,000 WERE RE - DEPOSITED AS ITA NOS. 4598 & 4599 /MUM/201 5 A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 6 REFERRED ABOVE. THESE RE - DEPOSITS ARE REFLECTED IN COMPANY'S BANK ACCOUNT. D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT H AD SUBMITTED ALL THE BILLS, INVOICES AND DETAILS OF RE - DEPOSITED UNUTILIZED CASH INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 05/03/2013, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THESE CASH WITHDRAWALS AS A LOAN OR AND GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AND TREATED THE SAME AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2 (22) (E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. G) THE APPELLANT STATES THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF MONEY FROM COMPANY A/C TO THE APPELLANT'S A/C. FURTHER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF COMPANY MAKING ANY PAYMENT I NTO APPELLANT'S A/C AND HENCE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT TAKEN ANY MONEY FROM THE COMPANY BY WAY OF A LOAN. HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2 (22) (E) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE FIRST PRIMARY TEST ITSELF FAILS SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO T ESTABLISHED LOAN TRANSACTION THAT IS FLOWN FROM THE COMPANY'S A/C TO THE APPELLANT'S A/C AND WHEN THERE IS NO LOAN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT INTO HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2 (22) (E). H) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,67,000 ON THE BASIS OF TWO PAPERS ANNEXURE A & B FOUND FROM THE COMPUTER BACKUP TAKEN DURING THE SURVEY ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. MATRIX. HOWEVER, THESE ENTRIES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY V IZ. M/S. MATRIX AS SUCH THERE IS NO CASH LOAN GIVEN BY THE COMPANY TO THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIES UPON THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY M/S. MATRIX, IN THIS REGARD STATING THAT THE COMPANY M/S. MATRIX HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CASH LOAN TO THE APPELLA NT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY M/S. MATRIX IN THIS REGARD WHICH IS SELF - EXPLANATORY AND THEREFORE REQUIRES NO FURTHER COMMENTS. A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR READY PERUSAL. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRIED TO PLUG THE INDEPENDENT TRANSACTIONS OF THE COMPANY INTO THE APPELLANT'S NECK FORCEFULLY AS IF SHE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM THE COMPANY WHICH IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH. SINCE NO PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE APPELLANT BY THE COMPANY AS A LOAN OR ADVANCE, THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 2 (22)(E) OF THE ACT DOES NOT ATTRACT.' ITA NOS. 4598 & 4599 /MUM/201 5 A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 7 BASED ON THE ABOVE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION, YOUR HONOUR HAS STATED VIDE PARA 9.3 AT PAGE NO. 8 OF THE CIT (A) ORDER DATED 30.03.201 5 FOR THE AY 2006 - 07 AS BELOW: 'THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY MATRIX CO MPANY IS KEPT ON RECORD. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION ESPECIALLY AT PAR - (A), (B), (C), (D) & (G). IT IS SEEN THAT THE CORRECT CASH WITHDRAWAL IS RS.27,55,000/ - AND NOT RS.31,67,000/ - AS MONEY THE AO. THE SAID AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN RE - DEPOSITED AS EVIDENCED BY THE BANK STATEMENTS. THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF MONEY FROM COMPANY'S ACCOUNT TO THE APPELLANT'S ACCOUNT AND SO THERE IS NO LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE COMPANY TO THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE ADDITION IS DELETED. GROUND OF APPE AL NO. 2 IS ALLOWED.' 3) THE APPELLANT STATES THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DELETED BY YOUR HONOUR AS EXHIBITED ABOVE AND AS A RESULT, THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED ON HER U/S 271D 6.2 VIDE THIS OFFICE ORDER DATED 30.3.2015 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE UNDERSIGNED HAS PASSED APPEAL ORDER BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.31,67,000/ - ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT A LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN BY MATRIX COMPANY TO THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE PE NALTY U/S 271D OF RS.31,67,000/ - IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE DELETED SINCE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND ITSELF IS DELETED. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7 . ON APPRAISAL OF THE ABOVE SAID FINDING, WE NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE QUANTUM BY VIRTUE OF ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2006 - 07, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN ORDER TO BE DELETED. SINCE THE QUANTUM HAS BEEN DELETED, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY HAS NO LEG TO STAND . THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY AND PASSED THE ORDER JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 4598 & 4599 /MUM/201 5 A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 8 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMI SSED . ITA NO. 4599 /M/201 5 : - 8 . THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 47, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN WHICH THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 9 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HER AS DIRECTOR FROM THE COMPANY WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND AS SUCH WERE IN THE NATURE OF CASH LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M THE COMPANY.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED CASH LOANS EXCEEDING RS.20,000/ - IN CONTRAVENTIO N OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271 D OF THE ACT.' THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND AND/OR ADD NEW GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 10 . THE F ACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NARRATED ABOVE IN ITA. NO.4598 /M/201 5 ABOVE, H OWEVER, THE FIGURE IS DIFFERENT, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME . THE ITA NOS. 4598 & 4599 /MUM/201 5 A.Y S . 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 9 MATTER OF CONTROVERSY IN THIS APPEAL IS ALSO THE SAME . THE FINDING GIVE N IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL IS QUITE APPLICABLE AS MUTATIS MUTANDIS . SINCE THE QUANTUM HAS BEEN DELETED, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY HAS NO LEG TO STAND. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY AND PASSED THE ORDER JUDICIOUSLY AND CORRECTLY WHICH IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERE WITH AT THIS APPELLATE STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED 11 . IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED . ORDER P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28. 12 . 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 28. 12 . 2 018 . V IJAY / 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