DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI V. PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5523/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 552319914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOPAK KUMAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation

Judgement Text

. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC , BENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA , J M ITA NO. 5 523 / MUM/ 20 1 2 ( ASSESSMENT YEA R : 200 9 - 20 10 ) DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI - 400 020 VS. PERFECT THREAD MILLS LTD., 205A TRADE CORNER SAKI NAKA JUNCTION, SAKI VIHAR RD, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 400 072. PAN/GIR NO. : AAACP 6449 F ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPO NDENT ) /REVENUE BY : MR. ROOPAK KUMAR /ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 ND NOV. , 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 TH NOV., 2012 O R D E R TH IS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20 - 6 - 2012 OF LEANED CIT(A) - 1 7 , MUMBAI RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . 2. TH E ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,81,999/ - MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 28(IV) R.W.S. 41(1) OF THE ACT. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO RAISED A GROUND THAT DECISION S RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA VS. CIT, 261 ITR 501 AND IN THE CASE OF SIPLA ITA NO. 5523 /20 1 2 2 INVESTMENT LTD. 33 SOT 317 , ARE NOT APPLICABLE AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 10 TO SECTION 43(1) OF THE ACT. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO A ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (OTS) WITH THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/SCHEDULED BANKS . AS PER THE SAID SCHEME T HE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS HAD WRITTEN OFF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 12.85 CRORES AND PRINCIPAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,05,69,999/ - . THEREFORE, THERE WAS A CESSATION OF LIABILITIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 12.90 CRORES. OUT OF THE INTEREST LIABILITY WRITTEN OFF, A SUM OF RS 11,24,79,114! - HAD BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS U/S. 43B. THE BALANCE LIABILITY OF RS. 60,39,694/ - HAD BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION U/ S. 41(1) BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE , DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T H E ONLY DISPUTE WAS WITH REGARD TO THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WRITTEN OF F, AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,05.69,999/ - . 4. THE ASSE S SEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE A O THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT WAS NOT HIT BY THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 41(1) OR 28 (IV) AS THE SAME WAS NOT A TRADING LIABILITY. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO IT S ABOVE C ONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE ADDITION OF PS. 25,88 , 000 / - , OUT OF TH E PRINCIPA L WRITTEN OFF, AS THE SAME WAS WITH REGARD TO WORKING CAPITAL LOAN. THE A O, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 1,05,69 ,999/ - WAS HIT BY SECTION 41(1); R . W .S. 2 8 (IV), KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF T.V. SUNDARAM AYENGAR AND SONS LTD., 222 ITR 344 AND THAT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO. 5523 /20 1 2 3 SOLID CON TAINER S LTD., 3 08 LTR41 7 . THE AO , THU S, CONCLUDED AS FOLLOWS : - THIS VIEW O F THE ASSES SEE IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE LOAN FOR ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE HERE. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION HE R E TH A T EVEN IF THE ASS ESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT HAS UTILIZED THE LOAN FOR FIXED ASSETS IS ACCEPTED THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ESCAP E FROM T HE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 28(IV) R.W.S. 41(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN EARLIER YEARS IN THE FORM OF DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS ACQUIRED OUT O F THIS LOAN . SO , ULTIMATELY THE LOAN HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN T H E FORM OF DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF ASSETS PURCHASED OUT OF THE BORROWED FUND. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE A PLEA THAT NO DEDUCTION WAS GIVEN TO IT IN RESPECT OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT IN E ARLIER YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS 1,05,69 999 / - IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. 5 . THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), BEFORE WHOM, IT WAS REITERATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1)/28(IV) WERE NOT ATTRACTED. WITH REGARD TO SECTION 41(1), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION TO BE APPLICABLE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE GOT DEDUCTION OR BENEFIT OF ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF LOSS/EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS. AS BY WRITING OFF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY REMISSION OF A TRADING L IABILITY WHICH WAS EARLIER ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) WOULD NOT APPLY. LIKEWISE, WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 28(IV), THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M AHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD., 261 ITR 501, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT REMISSION OF A LOAN USED FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS WOULD NOT BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IV) OR 41(1). THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO ITA NO. 5523 /20 1 2 4 DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF T.V. SUNDARAM AYENGAR (SUPRA) AND SONS AND SOLID CONTAINERS LTD (SUPRA) ON THE GROUNDS THAT IN THOSE DECISIONS THE LOAN HAD BEEN RECEIVED TO MEET TRADING LIABILITIES AND HENCE REMISSION OF THE SAME WAS HIT BY SECTION 28. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF TH E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TOSHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2008) TMI 30879 AND ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S KING PRAWNS LTD., 60/MUM/2010, DATED 14 - 12 - 2010 . 6 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING HIS FINDING S, WHICH ARE AS UNDER : - 3.2 I HAVE EXAMINED THE FACTS AND POSITION OF LAW IN THIS CASE. THE FACTS IN THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE THAT THE SUM OF RS.1,05,69,999/ - CON STITUTED PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN. BARRING A SUM OF RS. 25,88,000/ - , WHICH CONSTITUTED WORKING CAPITAL LOAN WRITTEN OF, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 79,81,999/ - , CONSTITUTED TERM LOAN WHICH WAS WRITTEN OFF. THE AO HAS NOT CONTRADICTED THE ASSESSEES CONTE NTION THAT THE SAID TERM LOAN HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSETS. NOW THOSE BEING THE FACTS, THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLID CONTAINERS LTD (SUPRA), W OULD NOT BE APPLICABLE, AS FAR AS, THE SUM OF RS. 79,81,999/ - IS CO NCERNED. THIS IS BECAUSE IN THAT CASE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH WRITING OFF OF LOAN TAKEN FOR TRADING ACTIVITY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C O URT IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA L.TD WOULD BE MORE APPLICAB LE. IN THAT CASE, THE COURT HAD HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(I) WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE WAIVER OF LOAN TAKEN FOR THE PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS. THIS INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE MUMBAI T RI BUNAL IN THE ABOVE CITED DECIS IO N IN THE CASE OF M/S. KING PRAWNS LTD AND BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T O SHA INTERNATIONAL LTD . IN A MORE RECENT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIPLA INVESTMENT LT D. 33 S OT 317 , THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS REITERATED ITS ABOVE POSITION , AS FOLLOWS : THE FACTS OF THE IN STANT CASE IS INDICATED THAT THE HOLDING COMPANY HAD ADVANCED FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IN 1998 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, AND LATER ON TRANSFERRED TO UNSECURED LOAN. THE AMOUNTS WERE UTILIZED IN INVESTMENTS AND THE INCOMES THEREON WERE OFFERED ITA NO. 5523 /20 1 2 5 UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. AS WAS RIGH T LY HELD BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPLY. FOR ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1), THE FIR ST REQUISITE CONDITION TO BE SATISFIED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE GOT THE DEDUCTION OR BENEFIT OR ALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY INCURRED BY IT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, DURING ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE RECE IVED ANY AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF SUCH LOSS, EXPENDITURE OR TRADING LIABILITY BY WAY OF REMISSION OR CESSATION THEREON. THE REMISSION WOULD BECOME INCOME ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION EARLIER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GOT ANY DE DUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS AS THE SAME HAD BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND NOT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND, HENCE, APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) WAS NOT THERE. THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)S ORDER TO THA T EXTENT WAS CORRECT BOTH ON FACTS AND ON LAW. HOWEVER, HE HAD WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IV). IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD NOT DONE ANY TRADING ACTIVITY NOR SHOWN ANY INCOME AS B U SINESS INCOME ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE . THE ACTIVITY NOR SHOWN ANY INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME ON T H E INVES T MENTS MADE. THE FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS WAS AGAINST HIS FINDING GIVEN WHILE CONSIDERING THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 41(1). THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACTIVITY MIGHT COMPRISE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND SECURITIES, BUT AS FAR AS COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS CONCERNED, THE PROFIT AND LOSS IN THOSE TRANSACTIONS WAS SAID TO BE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT UNDER BUSINESS I NCOME. HENCE, THE GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS IN INVESTMENT AND ADVANCEMENT OF LOANS WAS IN CATENA OF DECISIONS THAT REMISSION OF A DEBT BY THE HOLDING COMPANY WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED AND ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN ANY MANNER IN ANY EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX EITHER UNDER SECTION 41(1) OR UNDER SECTION 28(IV). THERE WAS NOT BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO WRITE OFF THE AMOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D THE AMOUNT WAS STILL OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE LOANS AVAILED FOR ACQUIRING THE CAPITAL ASSET, I.E. SHARES, WHEN WAIVED COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSABLE INCOME FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IV). SINCE THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT WAS UNDOUBTEDLY ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL NATURE, ITS WAIVER DID NOT HAVE TH E QUALITY OF CHANGING THE SAME INTO A REVENUE RECEIPT. IN VIEW OF THOSE FACTS AND ALSO VARIOUS PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS OPINED THAT THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT AS TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 28(IV). ON THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IV) DID NOT APPLY AND THE AMOUNT WAS NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS WERE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT.[PARA 9] ITA NO. 5523 /20 1 2 6 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL WAS TO BE ALLOWED. 3.4 KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE CITIED DECISIONS, AND THE FACTS IN THE APPEL LANTS CASE, I AM INCLINED TO HOLD THAT WAIVER OF TERM LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS. 79,81,999/ - WOULD NOT BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IV)/41(1). THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO RELIEF OF THE SAME AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE SUM OF RS. 25,88,000/ - , PERT AINING TO WAIVER OF WORKING CAPITAL LOAN, WOULD BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28(IV) IN KEEPING WITH THE RATIO OF DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOLID CONTAINERS LTD. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7 . NOW, THE DEPA RTMENT IS IN APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8 . NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 9 . APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 10 . LEARNED DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 10 , THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BECOME INAPPLICABLE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIPLA INVESTM ENT LTD. (SUPRA) IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON ACCOUNT OF FIXED ASSET, THEREFORE, THE WAIVER OF LOAN OBTAINED FOR PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSET, SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINES S ASSET AND ACCORDINGLY PROVISION S OF SECTION 28(IV) ARE APPLICABLE. 1 1 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), I FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY. THE DETAIL FINDING GIVEN BY T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ITA NO. 5523 /20 1 2 7 BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER. THE MAIN OBJECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT AFTER INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 10 TO SECTION 43 (1) OF THE ACT, THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BECOME INAPPLICABLE. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THIS S UBMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HOLD GOOD FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT AS PER THE EXPLANATION 10, WHEREBY IT IS PROVIDED THAT, WHERE A PORTION OF THE COST OF AN ASSET ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MET DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEN T OR A STATE GOVERNMENT OR ANY AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED UNDER ANY LAW OR BY ANY OTHER PERSON, IN THE FORM OF A SUBSIDY OR GRANT OR REIMBURSEMENT (BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED), THEN, SO MUCH OF THE COST AS IS RELATABLE TO SUCH SUBSIDY OR GRANT OR REIMBURSEMENT SHA LL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSET TO THE ASSESSEE , WHICH RELATES TO GRANT OF SUBSIDY OR ANY GRANT OR REIMBURSEMENT BUT NOT WAIVER OF LOAN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE TOOK LOAN, WHICH WAS WAIVED. THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING COST OF FIXED ASSET AND NOT FOR WORKING CAPITAL, THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE ON FIXED ASSET. A LLOWING THE DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSET CANNOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF TRADING ASSET OR TRADING OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. PART OF LOAN WAS TAK EN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT, I.E. RS. 25,88,000/ - WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF WORKING CAPITAL AS STATED ABOVE. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.79,81,999/ - , IN MY CON SIDERED VIEW, WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TERM LOAN AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF FIXED ASSET, CANNOT BE ITA NO. 5523 /20 1 2 8 EQUATED WITH WORKING CAPITAL F OR BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 28(IV) WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GIVEN A DETAIL REASONING THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 41(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE . T HE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) COULD BE CONTROVERTED IN THIS RESPECT. 1 2 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAIL REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) , I AM OF THE VIEW T HAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 79,81,999/ - . THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIPLA INVESTMENT LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S KING PRAWNS LTD. (SUPRA) BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, W ERE ALSO APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHICH W ERE CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, I CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 13 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF NOV. 2 012. 2012 SD/ - ( ) ( R. K.GUPTA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 27 / 11 / 2012 . /PKM , PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT . 3. / THE CIT(A) - X, MUMBAI. ITA NO. 5523 /20 1 2 9 4. / CIT 5. / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT, MUMBAI