ADDL.C.I.T.RG.16(1), MUMBAI V. UJAWALARAJE JAI VIKRAM SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 6010/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 601019914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CPT PRADEEP SHAURYA ARYA
• Assessee Lawyers: P B CHHAPGAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - F BENCH. . , !'# !$%&' , %! () BEFORE S/SH.D.MANMOHAN, VICE-PRESIDEN T & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.6010/MUM/2012, ! ! ! ! * * * * / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 ACIT 16(1 ), 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 203, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400007 VS SMT. UJAWAL ARAJE JAI VIKRAM SHAH FLAT NO.3,FIRST FLOOR SHANGRILA 27,CARMICHAEL ROAD,MUMBAI-26 PAN:AACPS9113N ( !+, / APPELLANT) ( -.+, / RESPONDENT) !$) / 0 % / REVENUE BY : CPT. PRADEEP SHAURYA ARYA !12 !12 !12 !12 0 0 0 0 % %% % / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.B.CHHAPGAR ! ! ! ! / // / 2! 2! 2! 2! / DATE OF HEARING : 25-06-2014 3* ! / 2! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-06-2014 , 1961 / // / !! !! !! !! 254 )1( % %% % &242 &242 &242 &242 (%5 (%5 (%5 (%5 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM %! %! %! %! () () () () !$%&' !$%&' !$%&' !$%&' % %% % ! ! ! ! : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.25.07.2012 OF THE CIT(A)-2 7,MUMBAI, ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1.WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE FEES PAID TO M/S MEGHA DEVELOPERS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 52,05,082/-. 2.WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED BY MERELY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT REFERENCE TO SHIV MAHAL PALACE IN THE BILLS ISSUED BY M/S MEGHA DEVELOPERS WAS ONLY TO MAIL ALL THE DOCUMENTS TO ITS PRESENT ADDRESS AT BARODA WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MA DE ENQUIRIES AT BARODA WHICH CLEARLY CONFIRM THAT SHIV MAHAL PALACE,OLD PADRA ROAD, BARODA AND L AND BEARING SURVEY NO- 86(PART) ADMEASURING 3000 SQ.M. ARE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AND LOCATED 3 KMS. AWAY FROM EACH OTHER. 3.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) O N THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME O N 30.07.2005, DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,38,32,709/-.AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.14 3(3) OF THE ACT,ON 27.12. 2010,DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.9,96,72,760/ -. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE FEES PAID TO M/S.MEGHA DEVELOPERS (MD) TO THE TUNE OF RS.52,05,082/-.DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS(LTCG)OF RS.9,00,8 5,200/-FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY SITUATEED AT SHIV MAHAL PALACE, OLD PADRA ROAD, BAR ODA, BEARING SURVEY NO. 86 (PART) ADMEASURING 3,000 SQ. MTS.,SITUATED IN THE SIM OF V ILLAGE JETALPUR,TALUKA AND DISTRICT BARODA. AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AND DE DUCTED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.72,05,082/- AS BROKERAGE,THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID TO MD.HE CA LLED FOR FURTHER DETAILS IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT THAT MD HAD CHARGES PROFESSI ONAL FEE OF RS.7,55,000/-FOR IMPARTING NECESSARY KNOW HOW IN IDENTIFYING OPEN LAND & PROPE RTIES AND SETTLING LEGAL FORMALITIES INCLUDING 2 ITA NO. 6010/MUM/2012 SMT.UJAWALARAJE JAI VIKRAM SH AH LITIGATION IN FAVOUR OF VENDORS, APPOINTING LAWYERS , AND OBTAINING CONSULTATIONS, ISSUING TITLE CLEARANCE NOTICES AND REPLYING OBJECTIONS AND ISSUI NG TITLE CLEAR CERTIFICATE,THAT MD HAD ALSO CHARGED RS. 64,55,082/- FOR PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR IMPARTING NECESSARY KNOW HOW IN IDENTIFYING VENDORS AND BUYERS AND SETTLING THE DEAL IN THE BES T INTEREST OF BOTH THE PARTIES, DRAFTING OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND REGISTRATION OF THE TRANSAC TION. AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO STATE AS TO WHY WHOLE OF E XPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.AS PER THE AO NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED AS TO WHY B ROKERAGE OF RS.72,05,082/-HAS BEEN PAID. HE HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE,THAT MD HAD STATED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BILLS ABOUT THE PROP ERTY SITUATED AT SIM VILLAGE,THAT THE LOCAL INQUIRI ES REVEALED THAT THE SHIV MAHAL PALACE, OLD PADRA ROAD , BARODA, AND LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 86 (PART) ADMEASURING 3,000 SQ. MTS.WERE SITUATED IN T HE SIM OF VILLAGE JETALPUR, TALUKA AND DISTRICT BARODA WERE TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES,THAT THE SAID PROPERTIES WERE AT LEAST 3 KILOMETERS AWAY FROM EACH OTHER,THAT CAPITAL GAINS WERE BEING SHOWN FROM ONLY ONE PROPERTY,THAT CHARGES PAID FOR THE OTHER PROPERTY WERE ALSO CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AT TH E TIME OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLU SIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER,THAT IT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION,THAT THE ASSES SEES EXPLANATION TOWARDS ITS BEING REASONABLE WAS ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY SUPPORTING INSTAN CE.FIANLLY,HE ALLOWED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.20,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD BROKERAGE EXPENSES AN D DISALLOWED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.52,05,082/- FROM THE COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS. AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AND DEDUCTED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.72,05,082/- AS BROKERAGE,THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID TO MD.HE CA LLED FOR FURTHER DETAILS IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT THAT MD HAD CHARGES PROFESSI ONAL FEE OF RS.7,55,000/-FOR IMPARTING NECESSARY KNOW HOW IN IDENTIFYING OPEN LAND & PROPE RTIES AND SETTLING LEGAL FORMALITIES INCLUDING LITIGATION IN FAVOUR OF VENDORS,APPOINTING LAWYERS, AND OBTAINING CONSULTATIONS,ISSUING TITLE CLEARANCE NOTICES AND REPLYING OBJECTIONS AND ISSUI NG TITLE CLEAR CERTIFICATE,THAT MD HAD ALSO CHARGED RS.64,55,082/- FOR PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR I MPARTING NECESSARY KNOW HOW IN IDENTIFYING VENDORS AND BUYERS AND SETTLING THE DEAL IN THE BES T INTEREST OF BOTH THE PARTIES,DRAFTING OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND REGISTRATION OF THE TRANSAC TION.AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO STATE AS TO WHY WHOLE OF EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.AS PER THE A O NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED AS TO WHY BROKERAGE OF RS.72,05,082/-HAS BEEN PAID. HE HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE,THAT MD HAD STATED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BILLS ABOUT THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT SIM VILLAGE,THAT THE LOCAL INQUIRIES REVEALED THAT THE SHIV MAHAL PALACE, OLD PADRA ROAD, BARODA, AND LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 86 (PART)ADMEASURING 3,000 SQ.MTS.WERE SITUATED IN THE SIM OF VILLAGE JETALPUR, TALUKA AND DISTRICT BARODA WERE TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES,THAT THE SAID PROPERTIES WERE AT LEAST T HREE KILOMETERS AWAY FROM EACH OTHER,THAT CAPITAL GAINS WERE BEING SHOWN FROM ONLY ONE PROPERTY,THAT CHARGES PAID FOR THE OTHER PROPERTY WERE ALSO CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION AT THE TIME OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD NOT BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WIT H SUCH TRANSFER,THAT IT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION,THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION TOWARDS I TS BEING REASONABLE WAS ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY SUPPORTING INSTANCE.FIANLLY,HE ALLOWED AN EX PENDITURE OF RS.20,00,000/-UNDER THE HEAD BROKERAGE EXPENSES AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE AMOUN T OF RS.52,05,082/-FROM THE COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).BEFORE HIM IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE WERE NO T WO PROPERTIES AS ALLEGED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER, THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS PART OF THE A REA AROUND SHIV MAHAL PALACE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOLD ANY PART OF THE SHIV MAHAL PALACE,THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE SHIV MAHAL PALACE IN THE BILLS ISSUED BY THE MD WAS NOT GIVEN ONLY TO MAIL A LL THE DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSEES PRESENT ADDRESS AT BARODA,THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE PROPERTY WHICH WAS SOLD AND THE SERVICES OF MD WERE 3 ITA NO. 6010/MUM/2012 SMT.UJAWALARAJE JAI VIKRAM SH AH UTILISED THEREOF.A MAP OF THE LAND SOLD REFERRED TO AS BANAKHAT WAS PLACED ON RECORD.IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MD HAD RENDERED THE VARIOUS SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING FINDING A FINANCIALLY SOUND PARTY WITH IMPECCABLE REFERENCES WHO WOULD BUY THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS UP FOR SALE AND HANDLING THE PAPERWORK / DOCUMENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,HE HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED CHARGES WERE PAID IN RESPECT OF ONLY ONE P ROPERTY AND NOT FOR TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AS NOTED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER,THAT THE PROPERTY SHIV MAHAL PALACE WAS NOT PART OF THE INTENDED SALE NOR IT WAS PUT FOR SALE DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION,THAT THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY MD ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED PROP ERTY AND NOT OTHERWISE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A DETAILED LIST OF SERVICES RENDERED BY MD.THAT FROM THE DETAILS PLACED ON RECORD IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT M ATTER OF LITIGATION AT LEAST FROM THE YEAR 2006,THAT IT WAS ALWAYS THE CASE THAT LEGAL DILIGEN CE HAD TO BE CARRIED OUT WHILE SELLING SUCH LARGE PIECE OF LAND AND TITLES ARE TO BE MADE CLEAR ETC., THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING AT MUMBAI AND THEREFORE SHE NEEDED TO INVOLVE AN AGENT FOR CARRYI NG OUT THE RELATED SERVICES FOR HER,THAT MD WAS AN OUTSIDE PARTY AND HAD NO RELATION WHATSOEVER WIT H THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT COULD NOT BE QUESTIONED,THAT CONSIDERING TH E TOTAL VALUE OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE SERVICES RENDERED THE PAYMENT MADE REASONABLE,THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED PART OF THE BROKERAGE / PROFESSIONAL FEES PAID WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY PROPER REASONS. FINALLY,HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 4. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AUTHORISED REPRESE - NTATIVE(AR) STATED THAT ONLY ONE PROPERTY WAS SOLD, THAT SHIV MAHAL WAS NOT SOLD,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING AT MUMBAI,THAT LITIGATION WAS GOING ON ABOUT THE PROPERTY,THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TO MD AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GA INS WORKED OUT TO AROUND 4% OF THE SALE PRICE, WHICH;EVEN WHEN ONE WERE TO CONSIDER A 2% BR OKERAGE AND ANOTHER 2% OF LEGAL FEES;WOULD BE REASONABLE.HE REFERRED TO THE PAGE NO. OF THE PA PER BOOK. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.UNDISPUTED FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN EXPENDITU RE OF RS.72,05,082/-(RS.7,55,000/- +64,55,082/-) WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF A PLOT OF A LAND,THAT SHE MADE PAYMENT TO TO MD,THAT PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED TO HAD BEEN PAID FOR VARIOUS SE RVICES RENDERED TO HER,THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED THE AO ALLOWED RS.20 LAKHS ONLY ,THAT THE FAA DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW FULL EXPENDITURE. FIRST WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF EXISTEN CE OF TWO PROPERTIES.WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE AO MENTIONS OF LOCAL INQUIRY CONDUCTED ABOUT THE PROPE RTY SOLD AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES I.E. SHIV MAHAL AND THE PLOT OF LAND,YE T HE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SOURCE OF SUCH INQURIES.THE AO IS SITTING IN MUMBAI AND FOR CONDUC TING LOCAL INQUIRY AT BARODA EITHER HE HAD TO DEPUTE HIS INSPECTOR OR HAD TO ASK HIS COLLEAGUES A T BARODA TO CONDUCT INQUIRY.HE HAD NOT MENTIONED HOW THE INQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED AT BARODA.S ECONDLY,IF HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF SUCH A VITAL PIECE OF INFORMATION WHAT PREVENTED HIM FROM CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID FACT.TAKING A UNILATERAL DECISION,WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE ALLEGATION,IS A CLEAR AND BLATANT VIOLATI ON OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.WE FIND THAT TH E FAA HAS GIVEN A UNDISPUTABLE FINDING THAT ONLY ONE PROPERTY WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL.WE FIND THAT HE HAD ACCESS TO A MAP OF THE L AND SOLD.SO,AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IF HE REACHED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT ONLY ONE PROPERTY WAS SOLD THEN IT HAS TO HELD THAT HIS ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY.A GLANCE AT THE SALE DEED CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS ABOUT A PLOT OF LAND AND ABOUT THE PROPERTY CALLED SHIV MAHAL.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO ABOUT SALE OF TWO PROPERTIES IS TOTALLY BASELESS.THERERFORE,CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE 4 ITA NO. 6010/MUM/2012 SMT.UJAWALARAJE JAI VIKRAM SH AH AO. AS FAR AS PAYMENT TO MD IS CONCERNED,WE FIND THAT T HE AO HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS UNREASONABLE AND EXCESS AND HAD TO BE PARTLY ALLOWE D.WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE AO FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REASONABLE.AO.S ARE EXPECTED TO MENTION THE REASONS OF THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THEM IN THEIR ORDERS.AN ORDER WITHOUT REASONS IS LI KE A BODY WITHOUT SOUL.AS A RESPONSIBLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOVEREIGN IT IS THEIR DUTY TO DETERMINE AND COLLECT DUE TAXES ONLY FROM THE TAXES.DUE TAXES CANNOT BE DETERMINED IN AN ARBITRAR Y AND WHIMSICAL MANNER.AN ONE LINER ORDER; DEVOID OF REASONS FOR ARRIVING AT CERTAIN CONCLUSIO NS AND FASTING TAX LIABILITY TO A CITIZEN;CAN NOT B E TERMED A JUSTIFIABLE OR DEFENDABLE ORDER.DISALLOWAN CE OF ANY EXPENDITURE NOT ONLY INCREASES THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE.BUT IT MAY ALSO RESULT IN OTHER SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES LIKE LEVYING OF PENALTY AND INITIATION OF PROSECUTION.THEREFORE AO. S SHOULD ACT IN AN UNBIASED AND FAIR MANNER. IN THE CASE BEFORE US,WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD NOT FOLL OWED A JUDICIOUS APPROACH.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAS ANALYSED THE ISSUE IN PROPER PROSPECTIVE. F ACTORS LIKE ASSESSEES STAY IN MUMBAI,ON - GOING LITIGATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY,RENDERING OF SE RVICES AT BARODA BY MD,WERE CONSIDERED BY HIM BEFORE ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE.FR OM MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS FOUND THAT MD HAD RENDERED VARIOUS SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE FR OM IDENTIFYING CUSTOMERS TO SETTLING THE DEAL AND GETTING THE DOCUMENTS REGISTERED.IT IS A FACT T HAT MD IS NOT A RELATED PARTY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOT QUESTION. SO,IF THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE @4% FOR PAYING FEES TO A PROFESSIONAL ENTITY,THEN T HERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN PARTLY DISALLOWING IT.IN OUR OPINION,FAA HAD RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE.THEREFORE,CONFIRMING HIS ORDER WE DECIDE GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT, APP EAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. 26 !12 ! 8!! (!9 / 4 ):2 / $!2 ; . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JUNE, 2014 . (%5 / 3* ! % &!! < =(! 25 $> , 201 4 / 4 ? SD/- SD/- ( . / D.MANMOHAN) ( !$%&' !$%&' !$%&' !$%&' / RAJENDRA) !'# / VICE PRESIDENT %! %! %! %! () () () () /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, =(! /DATE: 25.06.2014. SK (%5 (%5 (%5 (%5 / // / -2@ -2@ -2@ -2@ A%@*2 A%@*2 A%@*2 A%@*2 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / !+, 2. RESPONDENT / -.+, 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ B C , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / B C 5. DR F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / @D!4 -2 , . . &!! . 6. GUARD FILE/ 4! ! .!@2 .!@2 .!@2 .!@2 -2 -2-2 -2 //TRUE COPY// (%5!! / BY ORDER, / ! $! DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI