ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5871/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3403 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURLIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: K SHIVARAM
• Keywords: Depreciation; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD., 328-329, NINAD CHS, 1 ST FLOOR, BLDG. NO. 7, SERVICE ROAD, NEAR BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4(1), MUMBAI PAN NO. AAACA4562G ( / ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD., 328-329, NINAD CHS, 1 ST FLOOR, BLDG. NO. 7, SERVICE ROAD, NEAR BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4(1), MUMBAI PAN NO. AAACA4562G ( / ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 2 / REVENUE BY SHRI M. MURLI-DR / ASSESSEE BY SHRI K. SHIVARAM / DATE OF HEARING : 23/03/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 23/03/2016 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11, AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 16/07/2012 & 31/07/2013 OF THE LD. FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE U P THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11, WHEREIN, THE FIRST GROUND PERTAINS TO DISALLOWING RS.23,03,775/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT RE AD WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES, BEING EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EXEMPTED INCOME, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE SHARES WERE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK IN TRADE, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS WRONGLY MADE. FURTH ER, IT WAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THERE WERE NO DIRECT OR IN DIRECT EXPENSES, INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR EARNING TH E DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.2,64,733/- AS ALL EXPENSES DE BITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WERE IN RELATION TO THE BUSIN ESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE DISALLO WANCE OF RS.23,03,775/-, U/S 14A WAS ON NOTIONAL BASIS, THER EFORE, BE DELETED. ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 3 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SHRI K. SHIVARAM, RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE C ASE OF M/S DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS VS ACIT (ITA NO.5592/MUM/2012)(MUM. TRIB.), HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME. ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI M. MURLI, THOUGH DEFEN DED THE STAND TAKEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BUT DID NOT CONTR ADICT THE ASSERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO AFOR ESAID DECISION. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S DAGA GLOBAL CHEMICALS (SUPRA) CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/07/2012 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS: 1.THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRE D IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,58,112/- U/S 14A R .W. RULE 8D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO EXPENDITURE DIRECTL Y OR INDIRECTLY WAS INCURRED DURING THIS YEAR FOR EARNIN G EXEMPT INCOME AND INVESTMENTS IN SHARES WERE MADE IN EARLI ER YEARS OUT OF OWN FUND AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FOUND AND HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D MAY BE DELE TED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DIVIDE ND INCOME IS DIRECTLY CREDITED TO BANK ACCOUNT AND APP ELLANT DOES NOT HAVE TO INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8 D MAY BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT INTERE ST EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,35,49,746/- HAS NO NEXUS WITH E ARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AS THE INVESTMENTS ON WHICH EXEMPT ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 4 INCOME IS EARNED IS OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND HENCE DISALLOWANCE U/S14A R.W. RULE8D MAY BE DELETED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT A.O. DULY RECORDED SATISFACTION BEFORE INVOKING SECTION 14A R .W. RULE 8D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BIFURCATION OF FINANCIAL EXPENSES TO A.O. TO SHOW T HAT INTEREST EXPENSE WAS NOT INCURRED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES O R FOR EARNING EXEMPT DIVIDEND INCOME AND A.O. DID NOT REJ ECT THE SAME AND STILL A.O. APPLIED RULE 8D IN AN AUTOMATIC FASHION AND HENCE, NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY A.O. AS REQUIRED U/S 14A BEFORE INVOKING RULE 8D. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D CANNOT EXCEE D EXEMPT INCOME. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, DIVIDEND RECEIVED DURIN G THIS YEAR IS ONLY RS.1,82,262/- AND DEMAT CHARGES A RE RS.1,485/-, HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE RESTRICTE D TO MAXIMUM RS.1,485/-. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, DR. K.SHIVARAM ALONGWITH SHRI RAHUL HAKANI, LD. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVANCE D THEIR ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED BY SUBMITTING THAT NO EXPENDITURE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECT LY WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME AND FURTHER THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS MADE IN EARLIE R YEARS OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NOT OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS, THE REFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W. RULE 8D IS TO BE MADE. 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI AKHILENDRA YADAV STRON GLY DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY CONTENDING THAT A WELL R EASONED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY AS APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE DIVIDE ND INCOME WAS DONE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT WAS PLEADED THAT SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES IS CLEAR LY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 5 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY, ENGAGED IN TRADING OF BULK AND FINE, CHEMICALS, SOLVENT AND PHARMACEUTICAL RAW MATERIALS DECLARED ITS INCOME AT RS.74,40,000/- ON 26/09/2009. THE ASSESSEE CREDITE D DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1,82,262/- IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT INVOKE SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D BY CONTE NDING THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES WHICH ARE RE LATED TO EXEMPT INCOME IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND DISA LLOWED RS.14,58,412/-. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BROADLY THE STAND TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS AFFIRMED AGAINST WHICH THE ASS ESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE TOT ALITY OF FACTS CLEARLY INDICATES, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE DIVIDEND WERE DIREC TLY CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED. WHAT IT MAY BE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY RECEIVED RS.1,82,362/- AS DIVIDEND IN COME, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.14,58.412/- BY INVOKING SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D UNDER THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAIN ED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ON IDENTICAL FACT IN EARLIER YEARS, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO, NO BORROWED FUNDS WERE INVEST ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES OR FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME. AT BEST, IF ANY DISALLOWANCE COU LD BE MADE THAT CAN BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,485/- WHICH WE RE CLAIMED AS DEMAT CHARGES. DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W . RULE ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 6 8D CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME. IN VIEW OF THI S FACT, WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 2.2. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT NI L EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATIO N TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME AND RS.9,95,435/- WAS IN CURRED BY WAY OF INTEREST, WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTA BLE TO ANY SOURCE OF INCOME (RS.97,21,446/-). THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT INVOKED SECTIO N 14A R.W.R.8D BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED VA RIOUS EXPENSES, WHICH RELATES TO EXEMPT INCOME. CONSIDERI NG THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CO NCLUSION DRAWN IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND PE CULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, TH AT AT BEST, THE DISALLOWANCE MAY BE RESTRICTED WHICH CANNOT EXC EED THE EXEMPT INCOME. WE HOLD SO. 3. SO FAR AS, THE DEPRECIATION ON V-SAT LINE/INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE RATE OF 15% INSTEAD OF 6 0%, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. IT WAS EXPLA INED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT V-SAT IS NOTHING BUT PART OF C OMPUTER SYSTEM, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION I N ACIT VS NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LTD. (2011) 133 ITD 27 (MUM. TRIB.), WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT V-SAT NETWO RK FOR ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 7 THE PURPOSES OF ENABLING SCREEN BASED TRADING BY TH E MEMBERS IS ENTITLED TO FULL DEPRECIATION. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED IN ITO VS OMNI GLOBAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGI ES INDIA PVT. LTD. (2011) 131 ITD 280 (DEL. TRIB.), WH EREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT COMPUTER PERIPHERALS SUCH AS PRINTERS , SCANNERS, SERVERS, UPS, ETC. ARE INTEGRAL PART OF C OMPUTER SYSTEM ON WHICH HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION OF 60% IS ALLOWABLE. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE ASSER TION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT ED THAT IDENTICALLY, ON THE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION, THE BENC H IN THE CASE OF M/S IDEA CELLULAR (ITA NO.3847/MUM/2013), O RDER DATED 07/10/2015 HELD AS UNDER:- 3. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,01,908/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLA IM OF DEPRECIATION ON PRINTERS, UPS AND OTHER ACCESSORIES . THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IDENTICAL T O THE GROUND RAISED BY CONTENDING THAT THE ACCESSORIES AR E PART OF POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM AND NOT OF COMPUTER SYSTEM, THE REFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION. ON TH E OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DEFENDED THE CONC LUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WITHOUT G OING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 8 RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR READY REFE RENCE:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT T HE UPS IS ONLY A DEVICE TO PROVIDE POWER BACK AND IT IS NEI THER PERFORMING ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS OF A COMPUTER AND SIMILARLY OTHER ITEMS ARE ALSO NOT FUNCTIONING AS COMP UTER. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT COMPUTER DOES NOT FUNCTION IN ISOLATION OR STAND ALONE, THE OTHER ITEM S SUCH AS PRINTER AND UPS ETC. ARE NECESSARY FOR THE FUNCTIONING O F THE COMPUTER AND, THEREFORE, THESE ITEMS ARE ALSO IN TEGRAL PART OF THE COMPUTER AND ACCORDINGLY DEPRECIATION IS TO BE ALLOWED ON THESE ITEMS AT THE SAME RATE AT WHICH IT IS ALLOWED TO COMPUTERS. THE ASSESSEE'S VIEW FINDS SUPP ORT FROM VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND HON' BLE ITAT AS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS REPRODUCED ABOVE . HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT UPS TO BE ELI GIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @ 60% IN THE CASE OF ORIENT CERAMIC AN D INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA). HONBLE ITAT HAS FOUND PRINTE RS, SCANNERS AND SERVERS AS INTEGRAL PART OF COMPUTER SYSTEM AND ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION @ 60% IN THE CASE OF OMNI GLOBE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA ). SIMILAR IS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITA T IN THE CASE OF EXPEDITORS IN INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND DATACRAFT (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION @ 60% ON SUCH ITEMS CONSISTING OF UPS, PRINTERS SCANNERS AND OTHER ITEMS WH ICH ARE INTEGRAL PART OF COMPUTERS AFTER VERIFICATION. IN RESU LT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 3.2. IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, LEADING TO ADDITION MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME , CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, MATERIAL AV AILABLE ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 9 ON RECORD, ASSERTIONS MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE CO UNSEL, IF KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYZED, WE FIND THAT TH IS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE R ATIO LAID DOWN IN DCIT VS DATACRAFT INDIA LTD. (2010) 40 SOT 295 (MUM)(SB), DCIT VS BTA CELLCOM LTD. (ITA NO.3658/DEL./2011), M/S WEIZMANN LTD. VS DCIT (ITA NO.768, 742, 770/MUM/2012) ORDER DATED 31/10/2013, EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS ADDL. CIT (2008) 118 TTJ 652 (DEL.). IN THESE CASES, IT HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD THAT PERIPHERALS SUCH AS PRINTERS, SCANNERS, NT SER VER ETC, ARE INTEGRAL PART OF COMPUTER, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION AT HIGHER RATE. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWI NG THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID CASES, WE AFFIRM THE STA ND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL PLACED RELIANC E UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS AND CONCLUDED THAT HIGHER RA TE OF DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IDENTIC AL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN IN THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE US. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW, HIGHER RATE OF DEPRECIATION, IS ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 4. SO FAR AS, THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10 (ITA NO.5871/MUM/2011) IS CONCERNED, IDENTICAL GROUND HA S BEEN RAISED, THEREFORE, OUR ABOVE CONCLUSION WILL B E APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL ALSO. ITA NO.5871/MUM/2012 & ITA NO.5738/MUM/2013 M/S ARCADIA SHARE & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 10 FINALLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 23/03/2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 23/03/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& '( / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. + + , ( %& ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. + + , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. /01 )2 , + %& %23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 14 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, */& ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI