INDOKEM LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5200/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78926 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N G THAKRAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Commercial expediency; Capital expenditure
• Section: 14A; 194C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I, BENC H MUMBAI . . , ..!'. , BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM & DR.S.T.M.PAVALAN, JM ./ ITA NO.5761/MUM/2012 ( $ $ $ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09) DCIT- 6(1), MUMBAI VS. INDOKEM LTD., 410/411, KHATAU HOUSE, MOGUL LANE, MAHIM, MUMBAI-18 % ./ &' ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACI 2959 M ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) AND ./ ITA NO.5200/MUM/2012 ( $ $ $ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09) INDOKEM LTD., 410/411, KHATAU HOUSE, MOGUL LANE, MAHIM, MUMBAI-18 VS. DCIT- 6(1), MUMBAI % ./ &' ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACI 2959 M ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) & + ++ + , , , , /REVENUE BY : MR. SANJEEV JAIN -. + ++ + , , , , /ASSESSEE BY : MR. N.G.THAKRAR + .' / DATE OF HEARING : 29 TH MAY, 2014 /0$ + .' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH MAY, 2014 1 1 1 1 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN (A.M.) : THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20-06- 2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A)-14, MUMBAI AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 . IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES ARE URGED:- (A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RECONS TRUCTION OF ROOF DESTROYED IN CYCLONE. (B) DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.5761 & 5200/12 2 3. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONLY ISSUE URGED RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE MA DE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 4 . WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIR EXPENDITURE O F RS.28,50,142/- RELATING TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ROOF DESTROYED IN CYCLONE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE T O EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON RECONSTRUCTION OF ROOF SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED FOLLO WING EXPLANATIONS BEFORE THE AO. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, DUE TO HEAVY RAINS, THE ROOF OF THE ACID PLANT BUILDING OF THE COMPANY S FACTORY AT ANKELSHWAR WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED. IN VIEW OF THIS, T HE SAME TO BE ERECTED AGAIN. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE COMPANY HAD MADE PURCHASES OF G.P.COIL SHEET, GC SHEET, MS ANGLES, M S. BEAMS, T-ANGLE ETC. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE ON THE PURCHASE OF THE ABOVE ITEMS WAS OF THE ORDER OF RS.28.51 LACS A PPROX. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE AND IT IS NOT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN VIEW O F THIS THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWING THE SAME AND ALLOWING DEPRE CIATION THEREON DOES NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIE D THE DECISIONS OF CIT VS. CHOWGULE & CO. PVT. LTD., 214 ITR 523 (BOM) AND DALMIA JAIN & CO. LTD. VS. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 754 (SC). IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO NEW ASSET CAME INTO EXISTE NCE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN A N ALREADY EXISTING ASSETS, VIZ., THE ROOF OF THE ACID PLANT B UILDING, THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR PRESERVATION AND MAINT ENANCE OF THE ROOF IN ITS CURRENT STATE AND IT IS INCURRED FOR RU NNING THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY ALSO BE NOTE D THAT DUE TO HEAVY DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE ROOF OF THE ACID PLANT B UILDING ON ACCOUNT OF HEAVY RAINS, THE COMPANY HAD LODGED AN I NSURANCE CLAIM FOR THE SAME WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY WHICH HAD BEEN SETTLED SUBSEQUENTLY. ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING FAC TS AND CASE LAWS, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.28.51 LACS INCURRED BY THE COMPANY FOR THE PURPO SE OF REPAIRS TO THE ROOF OF ITS ACID PLANT BUILDING IS REVENUE I N NATURE AND NO PART THEREOF IS DISALLOWABLE AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE . ITA NOS.5761 & 5200/12 3 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEW THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS DERIVED LONG TERM BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE BY INC URRING THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE AND THE BENEFIT WOULD EXTEND TO SEVERAL YEARS. BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE SPECIAL BE NCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA VS. DCIT (113 ITD 1), THE AO TO OK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DERIVING ENDURING BENEFIT, IF THE DURATION OF THE BENEFIT EXTENDS BEYOND 2 YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLO WED THE ABOVE SAID CLAIM AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 10% THEREON. 4.1 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD CIT(A) AL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEA L BEFORE US. 4.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFU LLY PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ADMITTED FACTS ARE THAT ROOF OF THE BU ILDING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE GOT DAMAGED BY CYCLONE AND HENCE THE ASSES SEE HAD TO RECONSTRUCT THE ROOF. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS NO T A CASE OF CREATING A NEW ASSET, BUT A CASE OF PRESERVING OR MAINTAINING AN E XISTING ASSET. HENCE, THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY THE AO, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT CORRECT, SINCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 30 OF THE ACT, THE EXPENDITURE I NCURRED ON CURRENT REPAIRS IS ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA (REFERRED SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THESE ASPECTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THIS ADDITION. FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 3.5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.28,50,142/- IS OF REVENUE ITA NOS.5761 & 5200/12 4 NATURE AND HENCE AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. IT IS EV IDENT THAT NO NEW ASSET HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE BY VIRTUE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOF OF THE FACTORY BUILDING OF THE APPELLANT AT ANKLESHWAR. IT IS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF AN ALREA DY EXISTING ASSET WHICH WAS DESTROYED DUE TO CYCLONE. FURTHERMO RE, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD LODGED AN INSURANC E CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF THE DAMAGE TO THE FACTORY BUILDING WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN SETTLED SUBSEQUE NTLY. IT IS STATED BY THE APPELLANTS AR THAT THE INSURANCE CL AIM SO RECEIVED HAS BEEN TAXED AS REVENUE RECEIPT IN THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD (I.E. AY 2009-10) SUO-MOTO BY THE APPELLANT. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT SUPPORT THE PREPOSITION THAT REPAIRS UNDERTAKEN IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF USER FOR THE PUR POSE OF PRESERVATION, MAINTENANCE OR PROPER UTILIZATION OR FOR RESTORING THE ASSET TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION ARE IN THE NATU RE OF CURRENT REPAIRS AND HENCE REVENUE IN NATURE. THE CASE OF AM WAY INDIA (SUPRA), CITED BY THE AO IS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IN THAT CA SE, THE ISSUE WAS IN REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE EXPENDITURE, AND THU S THE SAME WAS NOT IN RELATION TO REPAIRS OF AN ALREADY EXISTI NG ASSET. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.28,50,142/- BY THE AO IS NOT JUS TIFIED. THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. HOWEVER, BEFORE GRANTING AP PEAL EFFECT, THE AO SHALL VERIFY THE FACTS REGARDING THE INSURAN CE CLAIM RECEIVED AND TAXED AS REVENUE RECEIPT IN THE SUBSEQ UENT PERIOD (I.E. AY 2009-10). THE AO SHALL ALSO WITHDRAW THE D EPRECIATION GRANTED IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, T HE AO MAY VERIFY WHETHER THE TAXABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF INSURANCE CL AIM RECEIPTS WAS EXAMINED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR OR NOT. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE URGED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.22, 08,213/- AS CAR HIRE CHARGES. THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS CLASSIFIED INTO FOLLOWING CATEGORIES:- (A) CAR HIRE CHARGES PAID TO EMPLOYEES / THEIR REL ATIVES. (B) CAR HIRE CHARGES PAID TO CONTRACTORS, WHERE TD S WAS DEDUCTED. (C) CAR HIRE CHARGES PAID TO CONTRACTORS WHERE TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED. (D) CAR HIRE CHARGES REIMBURSED TO EMPLOYEES. ITA NOS.5761 & 5200/12 5 THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE ABOVE SAID PAYMENTS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.19,64,071/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDU CT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT(A), HOWEVER, DELETED T HE ADDITION AND HENCE THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) . 5.1 THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS DE LETED THE ADDITION ON THE REASONING THAT THERE IS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT. BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX EVEN IN RESPECT OF ORAL CONTRACT AND ACC ORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN ANY WRITTEN CONT RACT:- (A) SMT. J. RAMA VS. CIT (2012)(344 ITR 608)(KAR) (B) ITO VS. RAJESH A BORICHA (2013)(38 TAXMANN.COM 435)(RAJKOT) ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 194C SHALL NOT APPLY TO HIRING OF TAXIS, AS IT DOES NOT INVOLVE CARRYING OF ANY WORK. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CI RCULAR NO.681 DATED 08- 3-1994 ISSUED BY CBDT. 5.2 WE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CBDT CIRCULAR REFERRED ABOVE, WHEREIN IT IS STA TED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C WOULD NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR HIRING OR RENTING OF EQUIPMENTS ETC. IN SECTION 19 4C, WHICH IS APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE TERM WORK I S NOT DEFINED. THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM WORK IS GIVEN ONLY IN THE AMENDED SECTION 194C, WHICH TAKES EFFECT FROM 1.10.2009 ONLY. HENCE, WE N OTICE THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE GETS SUPPORT FROM THE CBDT CI RCULAR (REFERRED ITA NOS.5761 & 5200/12 6 SUPRA). HENCE, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE HIRING OF CARS WOULD NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SEC. 194C. FURTHER WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ANALYSED EACH TYPE OF CAR HIRE CHARGES LISTED ABOVE AND HAS GIVEN HIS DECISION. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE.:- 4.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SO FAR AS THE CAR HI RE CHARGES PAID TO EMPLOYEES/THEIR RELATIVES ARE CONCERNED, IT IS T RUE THAT NO CONTRACT FOR WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 1 94C OF THE ACT IS INVOLVED. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPE LLANT WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX IN REGARD TO THE PAYMENTS FO R SUCH CAR HIRE CHARGES. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ALSO SUPPORT THIS VIEW. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN RES PECT OF THE PAYMENT OF CAR HIRE CHARGES TO EMPLOYEES/THEIR RELA TIVES DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4.5 THE APPELLANT HAS DEDUCTED TAX IN RESPECT OF CA R HIRE CHARGES PAID TO CONTRACTORS, WHERE THE TAX WAS SO D EDUCTIBLE. HOWEVER, SUCH TAX HAS BEEN PAID LATE AND AFTER THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPELLANT HAD SUO-MOTO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 ,49,758/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.5,49,758/- OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.19,6 4,071/- AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE DISALLOWANCE. HENCE, THE DISALLOW ANCE MADE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD ALSO DESERVES TO BE DELETE D. 4.6 THE APPELLANT HAS MADE AN AGGREGATE PAYMENT OF RS.32,347/- TO TWO PARTIES/CONTRACTORS, WHERE EACH OF THE PAYMENT IS LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. HENCE, NO TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE IN RESPECT OF THESE PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.32,347/- OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.19, 64,071/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4.7 FINALLY, IT IS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IN THE LAST CATEGORY, AND REIMBURSEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF, CA R HIRE CHARGES TO ITS EMPLOYEES AND IN EACH CASE, THE REIM BURSEMENT WAS LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. HENCE, NO TDS WAS DEDUCT IBLE. I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD THAT THE DI SALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENTS FOR CAR HIRE CHARGES DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4.8 THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS .9,64,071/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT I S NOT JUSTIFIED. SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. THE AO SHALL HOWEVER, BEFOR E GIVING EFFECT TO THE SAME, VERIFY THAT TOTAL AMOUNT OF CAR HIRE CHARGES ITA NOS.5761 & 5200/12 7 PAID BY THE APPELLANT CONSISTS OF ONLY THE ABOVE 4 TYPES OF PAYMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6 . WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, WHEREIN THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A OF THE ACT IS BEING ASSAI LED. 6.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE IN VESTMENTS IN ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OUT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY A ND NOT WITH THE MOTIVE TO EARN DIVIDEND INCOME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THREE GROUP COMPANIES HAVE GOT MERGED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IN THAT PROCESS THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE GROUP COMPANIES HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INVEST INTEREST BEARING FUNDS INTO THE INVESTMENT AND IT HAS ONLY USED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS ONLY. HE SU BMITTED THAT THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. CIT(A) BUT THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THEM. THE LD. AR ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION. 6.2 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS BRINGING NEW FACTS AND EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOT PLACED BEFOR E THE AO/CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, HE OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR. ALTERNATIVELY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES AN D SUBMISSIONS, IF ADMITTED BY THE BENCH, SHOULD BE SENT FOR CONSIDERA TION OF THE AO. 6.3 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS READY TO PLACE ALL THE MATERIALS AND SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO. ITA NOS.5761 & 5200/12 8 6.4 HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH BY D ULY CONSIDERING THE INFORMATION/EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. - .2 & + -& + &. 34 -. + 5+ 678 9. + &. 34 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH MAY, 2014. 1 + /0$ : ;2 30 TH MAY,2014 0 + < SD/- SD/- ( . . !' . ) (DR.STM PAVALAN) ( . . ) (B.R.BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; ; DATED 30/05/2014 ). . /PKM , . / PS 1 1 1 1 + ++ + ).= ).= ).= ).= >=$. >=$. >=$. >=$. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1 1 1 1 / BY ORDER, 6 66 6 / 3 3 3 3 & & & & ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ? ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. ? / CIT 5. =@< ). , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. < A / GUARD FILE. *=. ). //TRUE COPY//