HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5420/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87909 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEETENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return; Unabsorbed depreciation

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . , ! BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND RAJENDRA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.5357/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE DCIT 1(1), ROOM NO.579, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 ' ' ' ' / VS. M/S. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. RAMON HOUSE, HT PAREKH MARG, 169, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI 400020 . $ ./ % ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACH 8775L ( $& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '($& / RESPONDENT ) ./ I.T.A. NO.5420/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. RAMON HOUSE, HT PAREKH MARG, 169, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI 400020 . ' ' ' ' / VS. THE DCIT 1(1), ROOM NO.579, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 $ ./ % ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACH 8775L ( $& / APPELLANT ) .. ( '($& / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI JEETENDRA KUMAR ASSESSEE BY SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL ' ) *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 13/01/2015 ,-# ) *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/01/2015 . / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-4, MUMBAI DATED 29/5/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSE SSEE READ AS UNDER: ./ I.T.A. NO.5357& 5420/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 2 GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTM ENT IS NOT TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING DEDUCTION DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT O F AMORTIZATION OF DEBTS SECURITIES OF RS.3,27,69,854/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-4, MUMB AI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A) ] ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL CLAIMING DEDUCTION FOR PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES OF RS .6,422,568/-. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO (1) ABOVE, THE CIT(A) OUGH T TO HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) TO ALLOW DEDUCTION FOR PRE -OPERATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.6,422,568/- AMORTISED DURING THE YEAR. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE AO TO RECO RD THE EARLIER YEARS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINE SS LOSS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME IN THE SUBSE QUENT YEARS. REVENUES APPEAL: 2. APROPOS GROUND NO.1 OF DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL, THE SAME WAS STATED TO BE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE ORDER DATED 17/09/2010 IN ITA NO.338/MUM/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, WHEREI N SIMILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING TAXABILITY OF PRO FIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT AND TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF INVEST MENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IT WAS PLEADED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT YEAR ARE SAME AS WERE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS ALSO PLACED ON OUR RECORD AND WAS ALSO GIVEN TO LD. DR. LD. DR AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL STATED THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SAME. HOWE VER, HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY AO. 2.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTEN TIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE FI ND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE TRIBU NAL AND WHILE GIVING ./ I.T.A. NO.5357& 5420/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 3 RELIEF LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE AFOREMENTION ED ORDER, RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND IT IS ALSO REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING TAXABILITY OF G AIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENT IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS IN THE BUSINESS OF GE NERAL INSURANCE. THE PROFIT OF A GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY IS REQUIRED TO BE CO MPUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44 READ WITH RULE 5 OF PART B OF 1ST SCHEDULE. THE RULE 5(B) WHICH WAS APPLICABLE TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988 -89 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR TAXABILITY OF GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENT. THE S AID RULE 5(B) WAS HOWEVER DELETED W.E.F ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90. THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO.528 DATED 16.12.88 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 EARLIE R HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE AMENDMENT OF RULE 5(B) FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 WAS WITH A VIEW TO PROVIDE EXEMPTION OF THE PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF I N YES TIN EN TS. WE FIND THAT IMPACT OF AMENDMENT OF RULE 5(B) FROM ASSESSMENT YE AR 1989-90 ON THE TAXABILITY OF GAIN ON SALE OF IN VESTMENT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BAJAJ ALL IANZ VS. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO.1447/PN/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE TR IBUNAL IN THE SAID ORDER OBSERVED THAT TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 RU LE 5(B) PROVIDED FOR TAXATION OF PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT WHICH WAS DELETED FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 AND AFTER DELETION NO CLAUSE WAS INTRO DUCED TO PROVIDE FOR TAXATION OF SUCH GAIN. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE CONCL UDED THAT AFTER THE DELETION OF RULE 5(B) OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE, PROFIT ON SALE OF IN VESTMENT IN CASE OF GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANIES CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 4 4 OF THE I. T ACT. THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE M UMBAI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (SUPRA). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF IN VESTMENT IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF TH E REVENUES APPEAL. 3. APROPOS GROUND NO.2, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE I SSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TATA AIG GE NERAL INSURANCE VS. ACIT, ORDER DATED 22/10/2010 IN ITA NO.2597/MUM/200 9. (COPY OF ORDER PLACED ON OUR RECORD AND ALSO GIVEN TO LD. DR. 3.1 ACCORDING TO FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE AS SESSEE HAS AMORTIZED DEBIT SECURITIES FOR RS.3,27,69,854/- INVOLVING BO NDS/INVESTMENTS AND DEBIT SECURITIES AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME CLAIMING THAT PREMIUM/DISCOUNT RELATING TO THE SECURITIES IS AMORTIZED OVER A PERIOD TILL THE MATURITY. THE AO DID NOT AGREE AND REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ./ I.T.A. NO.5357& 5420/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 4 LD.CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE VS. ACIT(SUPRA) AND REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING OBSER VATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL: 7. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMORTIZATION CLAIM CANNOT BE CON SIDERED AS AN EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF RULE 5(A) OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE. AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN MOLASSES CO . (PRIVATE) LTD. VS. CIT, WEST BENGAL (1959) 37 ITR 66 (SC), SPENDING IN THE SENSE PAYING OUT OR AWAY OF MONEY IS THE PRIMARY MEANING OF EXPENDITURE. EXP ENDITURE IS WHAT IS PAID OUT OR AWAY AND IS SOMETHING WHICH IS GONE IRRETRIE VABLY. EXPENDITURE, WHICH IS DEDUCTIBLE FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, IS ONE WHICH IS TOWARDS A LIABILITY ACTUALLY EXISTING AT THE TIME, BUT THE PUTTING ASID E OF MONEY WHICH MAY BECOME EXPENDITURE ON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT IS NOT EXPENDITURE. IF THIS MEANING IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE WORD EXPENDITURE OC CURRING IN RULE 5(A), THE AMORTIZATION CLAIM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXPENDIT URE AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE BALANCE OF THE PROFITS. IN GEN ERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. CIT (1999) 240 1TR 139 (SC), THE SUPRE ME COURT HELD THAT EVEN IF AN ITEM OF DEBIT IS CONSIDERED AS AN EXPENDITURE, I T SHOULD FURTHER BE SUCH AN EXPENDITURE CONTEMPLATED IN SECTIONS 30 TO 43A AND, THEREFORE, UNLESS THERE WAS A SPECIFIC PROHIBITION FOR SUCH AN ALLOWANCE, T HE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN ADDING BACK THE AMOUNT UN DER RULE 5(A). THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE DEBIT FOR AMORTIZATION IS CONSIDERED AS AN EXPENDITURE, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROHIBITION AGAINST ALLOWING SUCH AN EXPEN DITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 30 TO 43B. THE WORDS EXPENDITURE OR AL LOWANCE WHICH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 30 TO 4 3B APPEARING IN THE SUB- RULE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO MEA N THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIFIC PROHIBITION AGAINST THE EXPENDITURE OR A LLOWANCE IN WHICH CASE ALONE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ADD BACK THE SAME TO THE BALANCE OF PROFITS. IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH SPECIFIC PROHIB ITION AGAINST THE ALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE IN THE ABOVE SECTIONS OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THOUGH RULE 5(A) OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE CONSIDE RED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT THE WORDS ANY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE WHICH IS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTIONS 30 TO 43A WERE PRESENT AND THE SAME WORDS BEING PRESENT IN TH E AMENDED SUB-RULE, THEY HAVE TO BE GIVEN THE SAME MEANING AS WAS GIVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE DEBIT FOR AMORTIZATION IS CO NSIDERED AS AN EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE, THERE BEING NO SPECIFIC PROHIBITION AGAI NST THE EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE IN SECTIONS 30 TO 43B, THE DEPARTMENTAL A UTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING BACK THE AMOUNT TO THE BALANCE OF THE PROFITS. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL INSURAN CE CORPORATION OF INDIA (SUPRA) TAKES CARE OF ALL THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,91,33,94 5/- AND ALLOW THE FIRST GROUND. 3.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTEN TIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. LD. DR DID NOT DISPUTE THE CONTEN TION OF LD.AR THAT THE ./ I.T.A. NO.5357& 5420/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 5 ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE VS. ACIT (SUPRA). IN T HIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE HOLD T HAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ASSESSEES APPEAL: 4. APROPOS GROUND NO.1 & 2, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THE ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AS AD DITIONAL GROUND AND LD. CIT(A) HAD FORWARDED THE MATTER TO THE AO. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE AF OREMENTIONED DECISION IN THE CASE OF TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE VS. ACIT (SU PRA). THE AO DID NOT AGREE AND IN THE REMAND REPORT HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AND REVENUES APPEAL IS PENDING IN THE HIGH COURT. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL T HESE SUBMISSIONS LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THIS GROUND FOR THE REASON THA T ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE THIS CLAIM IN THE RETURN AND ALSO DID NOT FILE REVI SED RETURN. SUCH CLAIM HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY AO EITHER ON FACTS, ON ME RITS OR ABOUT THE ALLOWABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE SAID CLAIM AS PER LAW. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE SAID ISSUE SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO AS NEITHER MAKING THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN NOR F ILING THE REVISED RETURN IS NECESSARY TO SUBMIT A CLAIM WHICH IS LEGALLY ADMISS IBLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE POWER TO ENTERTAIN SUCH CLAIM IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD , 349 ITR 336 (BO M). 4.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 4.2 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTEN TIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. IF ASSESSEE IS MAKING A CLAIM IT WILL BE WITHIN THE POWER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITIES TO ENTERTAIN SUCH CLAIM WITHO UT MAKING SUCH CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR WITHOUT FILING REVISED RETU RN. THE CASE LAW RELIED ./ I.T.A. NO.5357& 5420/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 6 UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE SAME AS PE R LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. GROU ND NO.1 & 2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 5. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS R EJECTED THE SAID GROUND AS PER FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EARLIER YEARS BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OR DEPREC IATION ARE ALLOWED AS PER LAW BY VERIFYING THE SAME FROM RECORDS OF EARLIER Y EARS AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO SEPARATELY DETERMINE THEM EVERY YEAR. HE NCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 5.1 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF REJECTING THE GROUND LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO RECORD THE EARLIER Y EARS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS TO B E CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 5.2 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTEN TIONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. THE DUE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF BRO UGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS HAS TO BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDING OF SUCH UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS WHICH IS ENTITLED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD IS ALSO NECESSARY FOR GETTING SUCH BENEFIT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DETERMINE SUCH BROUGHT FORWARD AND CARRIED FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSS AS PER LAW AFTER GIV ING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ./ I.T.A. NO.5357& 5420/MUM/2013 ( ' ' ' ' # # # # / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 7 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED AND APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/01/2015 . . ) ,-# / 0'1 13/01/2015 - ) 2 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) . . (I.P.BANSAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 0' DATED 13/01/2015 . . . . ) )) ) '*3 '*3 '*3 '*3 43#* 43#* 43#* 43#* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. '($& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 5 / CIT 5. 362 '*' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 27 8 / GUARD FILE. .' .' .' .' / BY ORDER, (3* '* //TRUE COPY// 9 99 9 / : : : : (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . ' . .VM , SR. PS