KUNAL CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4689/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71443 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MADHUK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business expenditure; Source of fund
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, A.M. AND SHRI SANJAY GAR G, J.M. ./ I.T.A. NO.4689/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) KUNAL CORPORATION 155, B WING, MITTAL COURT, PLOT NO.224, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBA-400 021 / VS. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 12(3), 1 ST FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAAFK 1475 B ( ! /APPELLANT ) : ( '#! / RESPONDENT ) ! $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIPUL JOSHI '#! % $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. MADHUK & '( ) % * + / DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2013 ,-. % * + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2013 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 31.05.2012, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2009. 2 ITA NO.4689/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) KUNAL CORPORATION VS. ASST. CIT 2.1 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL CASE WAS TH AT WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) HAD EFFECTED A DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AT RS.95 ,084/-, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ENHANCED IT TO RS.16,64,980/- BY TREATING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 36(1)(III) AT RS.18,71,943/- BY THE A.O. AS U/S.14A. THE TWO PROVISIONS, THOUGH QUA THE SAME EXPENDITURE, I.E., INTEREST EXPENSE CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, ENTAIL DIF FERENT OBLIGATIONS AS FAR AS THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE-APP ELLANT DID NOT GET PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE BEFORE HIM. IN FACT, EVEN ON MERIT S, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS OF ITS OWN, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A QUA INTEREST EXPENDITURE, WHICH, AT RS.15,69,896/- , CONSTITUTES THE BULK OF THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY HIM, WOULD ARISE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (BOM). THE SAME, THOUGH RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF S. 36(1)(III), WOULD APPLY IN EQUAL MEASURE TO A DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A QUA INTEREST EXPENDITURE, EVEN AS APPROVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHIRAJLAL MORARJI VS. ACIT (IN ITA NO.2139/MUM/2011 DATED 03.02.2012). THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ALSO COMMIT TED AN ERROR WHILE MAKING A DISALLOWANCE IN NOT ADJUSTING THE SUO MOTU DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,97,249/-, I.E., QUA INTEREST, AS WOULD BE APPARENT FROM THE READING OF THEIR IMPUGNED ORDERS. THE MATTER WAS, ACCORDINGLY, PRAYED FOR BEING RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR AN ADJUDICATION AFRESH, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRE SENT ITS CASE BEFORE HIM. THIS WAS THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES CASE BEFORE US. 2.2 THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD RELY ON TH E ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, STATING THAT THE SAME, AS ITS READING WO ULD SHOW, IS A REASONED ORDER, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY INFIRMITY TH EREIN. THERE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT SEEKING A SET ASIDE BACK TO T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 IT WOULD BE, BEFORE WE PROCEED TO DELINEATE THE ISSUE INVOLVED AND ITS ADJUDICATION, RECOUNT THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH ARE FAIRLY SIM PLE AND UNDISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE, A FIRM ACTING AS A MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES, COMMISS ION AGENT AND DEALER IN A VARIETY OF 3 ITA NO.4689/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) KUNAL CORPORATION VS. ASST. CIT ITEMS, VIZ. IRON AND STEEL AND HARDWARE MATERIALS, OILS AND OIL SEEDS AND CHEMICALS, WAS OBSERVED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS AT RS.397.37 LACS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE BREAK- UP OF WHICH, INCLUDING THE OPENING VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS, I.E., AS ON 31.03.2006 (A T RS.9.65 LACS), AS PROVIDED, IS AS UNDER: (RS. IN LACS) 1. IN SHARES AND UNITS OF MUTUAL FUND 361.12 2. OFFICE PREMISES 9.56 3. FDR/S WITH BANK 36.33 _________________________ 407.01 THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN SHARES (RS.31.35 LACS) AND UNITS (RS.329.77 LACS) WAS, HOWEVER, MADE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE SAME, A S EXPLAINED, STOOD SOURCED AS UNDER: - OUT OF BORROWINGS FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. RS .205.00 LACS - OUT OF OWN CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY THE PARTNERS RS. 156.12 LACS RS.361.12 LACS AS THE ENTIRE BORROWING OF RS.205 LACS WAS ADMITTED LY UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND UNITS, YIELDING TAX-FREE INCOME, THE INTEREST S UFFERED THEREON, RS.6,37,555/- , WAS DISALLOWED BY THE A.O., AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT (A) U/S.14A OF THE ACT. 3.2 COMING TO THE FINANCING OF RS.156.12 LACS, ASCR IBED TO OWN CAPITAL, THE A.O. FOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE AVAILED, AMONG OTHERS, UNSECUR ED LOANS FROM FRIENDS, RELATIVES AND OTHERS, INCURRING INTEREST COST AT RS.15,31,138/-. PRO-RATA INTEREST THEREON WAS, ACCORDINGLY, WORKED OUT BY HIM AT RS.12,34,388/-, W HICH COMPRISES THE SECOND LIMB OF THE DISALLOWANCE. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED BY THE L D. CIT(A), AGAIN U/S.14A, ALBEIT AT RS.9,32,341/- , AGAIN BY FOLLOWING AN AVERAGE (PROPORTIONATE) FOR MULA. THE DIFFERENCE ARISES ON ACCOUNT OF THE METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT AD OPTED. AS AGAINST ONLY THE INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS BY THE A.O., THE LD. CIT(A) INCLUDE D THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCURRED FOR THE YEAR, SAVE THE INTEREST AGAINST MUTUAL FUND LOAN AL READY CONSIDERED (RS. 6.38 LACS), I.E., AT RS.47,44,556/-. THIS IS AS THE INVESTMENT UNDER REF ERENCE ARISES FROM THE COMMON POOL OF 4 ITA NO.4689/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) KUNAL CORPORATION VS. ASST. CIT FUNDS, COMPRISING BOTH INTEREST-FREE AND INTEREST B EARING SOURCES OF CAPITAL. THIS WAS WITH REFERENCE TO THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE BUSINESS O F RS.795 LACS. 3.3 THE THIRD LIMB OF THE DISALLOWANCE, WHICH IN FA CT WAS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US, IS FOR RS.95,084/-, TOWARD INDIRECT EXPENSES (OTHER THAN I NTEREST), WORKED OUT AT 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT HELD DURING THE YEA R. 3.4 DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, IT WAS AN ADM ITTED POSITION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE FOR RS.6.37 LACS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY WORKED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. TWO, THAT THE ONLY SURVIVING DISALLOWANCE, I.E., FOR RS.9.32 LACS, IF AND TO THE EXTENT SUSTAINED, WOULD ONLY BE U/S.14A, I.E., AS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AND NOT U/S.36(1)(III). NO GRIEVANCE QUA THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, OBTAINS OR IS, IN ANY CASE, MAINTAINABLE. FURTHER, THAT THE DISPUTE IS ESSENTIALLY ONE OF THE VALUATION, I.E., TOWARD QUANTIFYING THE BORROWING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BALANCE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AN D UNITS (RS.156.12 LACS), I.E., AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF BORROWINGS FOR THE SAID INV ESTMENT MADE FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD. AT RS.205 LACS. WHILE THE ASSESSEE CLAIM S THE SAME TO BE OUT OF THE PARTNERS CAPITAL, THE REVENUE HAS, IN THE ABSENCE OF A DIREC T NEXUS, APPLIED THE COMMON POOL OF FUNDS HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS ONLY REASONABLE WHERE TH ERE ARE NO EAR-MARKED OR DEDICATED FUNDS TOWARD SPECIFIED PURPOSES. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE REVENUES CASE, I.E., IN PRINCIPLE. EVEN THOUGH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A DISALLOWANCE U/ S. 36(1)(III) IS THE SAME AS OF THAT U/S.14A, I.E., INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL, THERE IS YET A DEFINITE, QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE ATTENDING THE TWO. WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO EXHIBIT, IN ORDER TO ESCHEW A DISALLOWANCE U/S.36(1)(III), IS THAT NO PART OF THE BORROWED CAPITAL, ON WHICH INTEREST STANDS INCURRED AND CLAIMED, HAS BEEN DIVERTED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES, I.E., CONTINUES TO BE RETAINED IN OR FOR BUSINESS. THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S. 14A(1), ON THE OTHER HAND, IS A STATUTORY DISALLOWANCE. THE SAME WOULD FOLLOW UNLESS THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE T O EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS H AVING BEEN APPLIED TOWARD ASSET/S YIELDING INCOME THAT DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTA L INCOME . THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY PRESUMPTION WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICATION OF FUNDS , FOR EXAMPLE, BASED ON THE QUANTUM 5 ITA NO.4689/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) KUNAL CORPORATION VS. ASST. CIT OF OWN FUNDS VIS--VIS BORROWED FUNDS INASMUCH AS T HE COMPUTATION FORMULA PROVIDES EQUAL WEIGHTAGE TO ALL THE SOURCES OF FUNDS, PROVID ING FOR FUNDS BEING APPLIED PROPORTIONATELY. FUNDS, IN A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE, ARE ALWAYS IN A ST ATE OF FLUX. AS SUCH, THE DAILY CASH FLOWS APART, WHICH MAY ENABLE LOCATION OF THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF FUNDS, IT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT IT IS ONLY THE FUND FLOW STATEM ENT FOR THE PERIOD THAT COULD LEAD TO DISCERNING THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS AND THEIR APPLICATION. WHAT IS OF RELEVANCE IS FUNDS AS AGAINST CASH. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A TERM-L OAN IS GRANTED FOR ACQUISITION OF A CAPITAL ASSET, THE SAME, EVEN IF ACQUIRED FROM OWN CAPITAL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS SOURCED TO THAT EXTENT FROM TH E TERM LOAN RELEASED IN ITS RESPECT, WHERE THE SAID ASSET STANDS ACQUIRED, SUBSTITUTING THE EARLIER SOURCE OF FINANCE; THE FUNDS BEING FUNGIBLE, BEING ROUTED GENERALLY THROUGH A CO MMON CASH/BANK ACCOUNT. THE EXERCISE OF FUND FLOW WOULD ALSO SHOW THE AVENUE/S OF THE CASH PROFIT ARISING DURING THE YEAR. THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT STANDS APPROVED OF BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF EAST INDIA PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD. VS. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 627 (SC), FINDING CONSIDERABLE FORC E IN THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THE TAXES WERE P AID OUT OF PROFITS PUMPED INTO THE OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT, THOUGH DID NOT DECIDE ON THAT BA SIS IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PLEA AND, RESULTANTLY, OF ANY CORRESPONDING FINDINGS, BEFORE THE LOWER FORUMS. SIMILARLY, WHERE ADVANCES HAVE BEEN AVAILED FROM BANK/S TOWARD FINAN CING WORKING CAPITAL, NO PART OF THE INTEREST ON SUCH DEDICATED BORROWINGS, EXCEPT WHERE AND TO THE EXTENT OF DEFICIENCY IN MAINTAINING ADEQUATE INVENTORY LEVELS OF THE RELEVA NT FINANCED ASSETS, COULD BE CONSIDERED AS TOWARD FINANCING INVESTMENT IN SHARES , SO AS TO QUALIFY FOR THE PROPORTIONATE FORMULA. WE SAY SO AS THE MATTER IS ESSENTIALLY FAC TUAL, AND TOWARD WHICH WE EXTRACT FROM THE DECISION BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE O F AFL PVT. LTD . (IN ITA NOS.3123/MUM/2011 & 951/MUM/2012 DATED 14.08.2013): 6.5 IN OTHER WORDS, AS ALSO STATED BY THE LD. CI T(A), THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE, AND UNLESS IT IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT TH E BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR SPECIFIED PURPOSES, AS IN THE CAS E OF DEDICATED FUNDS, VIZ. TERM LOANS, WORKING CAPITAL ADVANCES, ETC., THE GEN ERAL POOL OF FUNDS HYPOTHESIS SHALL PREVAIL, AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF T HE INTEREST TO THE 6 ITA NO.4689/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) KUNAL CORPORATION VS. ASST. CIT PROPORTIONATE EXTENT, ENSUE. REFERENCE IN THIS CONT EXT IS ALSO MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HERCULES HOISTS LTD. VS. ASST. CIT [2013] 22 ITR (TRIB) 527 (MUM) (PARA 48, AT PG. 563 & 564 OF THE REPORTS). THE MATTER IS PRINCIPALLY FACTUAL, TO BE DECIDED ON THE FACTS AS LED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SHORT, THE MATTER IS ENTIRELY FACTUAL, AND TURNS ON ITS FACTS, WHICH THOUGH WOULD NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED, THE ONUS FOR WHICH IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE, EVEN AS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. MAHANAGAR GAS LIMITED (IN ITA NO.1978 OF 2011/COPY ON RECORD). THE DECISION B Y IT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. (SUPRA) IS ITSELF BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CLARIFIED PER ITS SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DY. CIT (AT PG.136). CONTINUING FURTHER, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE APP ROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A), I.E., IN PRINCIPLE, IN APPLYING THE PROPORTIONATE METHOD, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY POSITIVE FINDINGS OF FACT BEING LED TO BY THE ASSESSE INASMUCH AS HE IS ONLY REQUIRED TO ADOPT A REASONABLE METHOD IN TERMS OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE (SUPRA), EVEN AS CLARIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JT.CIT VS. RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. (IN ITA NO.3037/MUM/2008 AND OTHERS DATED 13.02.2013/COPY ON RECORD). IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT MOST OF THE INVESTMENTS HAD ALREADY BEEN FINAN CED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, WHILE IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS WOULD BE APPARENT FROM THE FOREGOI NG, THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND UNITS IS ONLY DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR (REFER PARA 3.1). THE ASSESSEES METHOD IN ARRIVING AT THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,97,249/-, CREDIT FOR WHICH OF COURSE IS TO BE ALLOWED TO IT, IS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS (REFER PG.7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER) IN-AS-MUCH AS IT, INTER ALIA , LINKS/CORRELATES THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WITH THE DIVIDEND EARNED DESPITE THE TWO BEING INDEPENDENT AND DISPARATE EVENTS. THE INTEREST EXPE NDITURE WOULD ARISE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DIVIDEND EARNED, IF ANY, MUCH LESS HAVE A BEARING O N ITS QUANTUM. REFERENCE IN THIS CONTEXT MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. V. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318 (DEL-SB). IN FACT, WE OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO, IN APPLYING THE AVERAGE METHOD, ERRED IN-AS-MUCH AS HE HAS ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT (AT RS.795 LACS), I.E., AS PER BALANCE-SHEET, EVEN AS I NVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.205 LACS STANDS ALREADY CONFIRMED TO BE SOURCED FROM THE BOR ROWING FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME 7 ITA NO.4689/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) KUNAL CORPORATION VS. ASST. CIT LTD., SO THAT IT IS ONLY THE BALANCE INVESTMENT IN BUSINESS THAT IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, I.E., IN THE DENOMINATOR, EXCLUDING RS.205 LACS BOT H FROM THE VALUE OF THE EXEMPT INVESTMENT AS WELL AS THE TOTAL INVESTMENT. NEEDLES S TO ADD, IF THE BANK LOANS ARE DEDICATED FUNDS, TOWARD FINANCING WORKING CAPITAL, APPLICATION OF WHICH IS DEMONSTRATED, THE SAME WOULD ALSO WARRANT A SIMILAR EXCLUSION TO THE EXTENT ITS FUNDING BY BORROWED CAPITAL IS ESTABLISHED. UNLESS, HOWEVER, THE SAME I S PERCEPTIBLY DEMONSTRATED, THE COMMON POOL OF FUNDS HYPOTHESIS, COULD APPLY, BEING REASONABLE, SO THAT ALL THE FUNDS, HOWSOEVER DERIVED, ARE CONSTRUED AS HAVING FINANCED THE RELEVANT INVESTMENTS PROPORTIONATELY. 4. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT FI T AND PROPER THAT THE MATTER QUA THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A WITH REFERENCE TO THE INTERES T ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF RS.156.12 LACS IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. CIT(A), SO AS TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE HIM, AND WHO SHALL DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ISSUING DEFINITE FINDINGS OF F ACT, AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, GIVING THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY DUE OPPORTUNITY TO E XAMINE AND REBUT THE ASSESSEES CASE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF IN THE ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 11, 2 013 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & 0) MUMBAI; 1' DATED : 11.10.2013 (.'../ ROSHANI , SR. PS 8 ITA NO.4689/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) KUNAL CORPORATION VS. ASST. CIT ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT 3. & 2* ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. & 2* / CIT CONCERNED 5. 5(6 '*'78 , + 78. , & 0) / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9 : ) / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & 0) / ITAT, MUMBAI