Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. K.J. Infrastructure Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

ITA 605/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9163 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE , , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 605 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 D Y. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. K.J. INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD., PURANDAR COMPLEX, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MUKUND NAGAR, PUNE 411037 PAN : AADCK3385J / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 - 0 3 - 2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 - 0 3 - 201 8 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 11, PUNE DATED 29 - 01 - 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2 ITA NO . 605/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011 - 12 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : 1) ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80 I A(5) AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SIPPING MILLS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT(2012) 340 ITR 477 WHEREAS THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MICROLABS LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT REPORTED IN 2015 56 TAXMANN.COM 160 (KARNATAKA)(2015) 230 TAXMANN. 647 HAS ON A SIMILAR ISSUE HELD THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AS ERRONEOUS SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80 I A(5 ) ARE NON - OBSTANTE AND REQUIRE STRICT INTERPRETATION. 2) ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS AS PER SEC. 80LA(5) HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AS A STAND ALONG BUSINESS AND THE PROVISIONS OF INTRA HEAD SET OFF OF LOSSES COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U /S. 80 I A. 3) THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER B E RESTORED. 4) T HE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AMEND AND MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD ON 30 - 11 - 2017 FOR 08 - 01 - 2018. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE WAS ADJOURNED TO 22 - 03 - 2018. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEE S SIDE. THEREFORE, WE ARE TAKING UP THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FABRICATORS, CONTRACTORS, MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, AGENT, SUB - AGENT IN CIVIL ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GENERATING POWER THROUGH WINDMILLS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30 - 03 - 2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12,22,26,240/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, 3 ITA NO . 605/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,02,33,769/ - U/S. 80IA O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) IN RESPECT OF POWER GENERATION FROM WINDMILLS. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THUS, THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE NOTIONAL BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES ON THE WINDMILLS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(5) IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GOLDMINE SHARES & FINANCE (P) LTD. REPORTED AS 113 ITD 209. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 - 03 - 2014, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF PUNE B ENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADVIK HI TECH (P.) LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 67 SOT 158. AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL REP RESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND RESTORING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. 4 ITA NO . 605/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011 - 12 6. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE REVENUE IN APPEAL HAS RAISED SOLITARY ISSUE OF ASSESSEES ELIGIBILITY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED DEDUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT BEFO RE CLAIMING DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE NOTIONAL BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES ON THE WINDMILLS. WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE PROPOSITION OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80I A OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADVIK HI TECH (P.) LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE AS UNDER : 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LAW AS DECIDED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. THE SPECIA L BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF GOLDMINE SHA RES IS NOT FOLLOWED BY THE JURISDICT IONAL ITAT PUNE BENCH. IN ITS RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ADVIK HI TECH PUNE LTD (67 SOT 158) (51 TAXMANN.COM 245), THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE I. T. ACT AMOU NTING TO RS.43,93,235/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO TREATED SANGLI AND DHULE UNITS AS SINGLE ONE HAVING SAME ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. THE CLAIM WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF WIND MILL LOCATED AT SANGLI. THE ISSUE PERTAINS TO LOSSES OF THE UNDERTAKING BEFORE THE INI TIAL YEAR ALREADY ADJUSTED AGAINST OTHER INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING PUNE TRIBUNAL'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF POONAWALA FINVEST & AGRO (P.) LTD. V. ASSTT. CIT [2009 ] 27 SO T 47 (URO). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER RELYING UPON SPECIAL 8ENCH DECISION OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. GOLDMINE SHARES & FINANCE (P.) LTD. [200 8] 113 ITD 209 (58), DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO , THE A SSESSING O FFICER ALSO HELD THAT INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS TO B E CONSIDERED AS THE YEAR IN WHICH POWER GENERATION COMMENCES AND NOT THE YEAR IN WHICH IT CHOOSES TO MAKE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION FOR T HE FIRST TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT T HE CU RRENT 5 ITA NO . 605/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011 - 12 SECTION 80IA(5), THERE IS NO OPTION GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. 9.1 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN THE VARIOUS FACTUAL AND LEGAL CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND HAVI NG CONSIDERED THE SAME, THE C I T(A) HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON BOTH ACCOUNTS. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80LA THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO CLAIM DEDUCTION HAS TO BE TREATED AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE C I T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITHOUT DEDUCTING THEREFROM BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PRIOR TO THE INITIAL YEAR OF CLAIM DE HORS THE PROVISION U/S. 80IA A(5) OF THE ACT. THE CLT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POWER GENERATION BUSINESS AND HOLDING THAT EACH WINDMILL HAS TO BE TAKEN AS INDEPENDENT E LIGIBLE BUSINESS. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EACH WINDMILL UNIT HAS TO BE TREATED ON STANDALONE BASIS DE HORS THE SPECIFIC STIPU LATION IN SECTION 80 I A(5) OF THE ACT THAT 'PROFIT AND GAINS OF ELIGIBLE BU SINESS' BEING POWER GENERATION BUSINESS HAVE TO BE TAKEN . ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF C I T(A ) ON THE ISSUE. 9.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT AS PER SEC. 80 I A(2) OF THE IT. ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTION TO EXERCISE THE CHOOSING OF INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR OUT OF FIFTEEN YEARS BEGINNING WITH THE YEAR IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKING STARTS PRODUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN ASSERTING THAT THERE WAS NO OPTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXERCISE OPTION IN CHOOSING THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. AS REGAR DS THE ISSUE OF LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECATION OF THE UNDERTAKING ALREADY ADJUSTED AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF PUNE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF POONA WALA FINVEST (SUPRA) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOLDMINE SHARES & FINANCE (P.) LTD. (SUPRA). HOWEVER, HOWEVER, THE SAME COULD NOT BE FOLLOWED IN VIEW OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF VELAYU DHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. V. ASSTT. C I T [2012 ] 21 TAXMANN.COM 95 /340 ITR 477. ITAT, BANGALORE BEN CH IN THE CASE OF ANIL H LAD V. DY. CIT [2012] 25 TAXMANN.COM 454 (BANG. - TRIB) DID NOT FOLLOW THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE AHMEDEBED BENCH TRIBUNA L IN VIEW OF ABOVE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY: 'FROM READING OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS WERE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXERCISE OPTION, THE ONLY LOSSES OF THE YEARS 6 ITA NO . 605/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011 - 12 BEGINNING FROM INITIAL A. Y. ALONE ARE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND NO LOSSES OF EARLIER YEARS 'WHICH WERE ALREADY SET OFF AG AINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING FORWARD TO A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT IS CONTEMPLATED. IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE REVENUE TO LOOK BACKWARD AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS AND BRING FORWARD NOTIONALLY EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WERE SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. ONCE THE SET OFF IS TAKEN PLACE IN EARLIER YEAR AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE CANNOT REWORK T HE SET OFF AMOUNT AND BRING IT NOTIONALLY. FICTION IS CREATED ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS CREATED . 27. THUS, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT WHERE THE DEPRECIATION AND LOSS OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST OTHER BUSINESS INCOME OF THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR NOTIONALLY CARRYING FORWARD AND SETTING OFF OF THE SAME DEPRECIATION AND LOSS IN COMPUTIN G THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION AVAILABLE U/S. 80I. THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD FURTHER THAT THE YEAR OF COMMENCEMENT A L ONE NEED NOT BE THE INITIAL YEAR, BUT DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE OPTION EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE YEAR OF CLAIM ALS O CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE COURT HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE ISSUE FROM A DIFFERENT LEGAL ANGLE AND HELD THAT THE PROPOSITION ARGUED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SCHEME OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME CONCEPTUALIZED IN THE IT ACT E SPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 80AB WHICH ARE ALL RELEVANT WHILE CONSIDERING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA WHICH IS FALLING UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. WHERE THE EARLIER DEPRECIATION AND LOSSES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET OFF, THOSE LOSS AND DEPRECIAT ION DO NOT GO TO REDUCE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.80AB AND THEREFORE, BRINGING THE NOTIONAL CONCEPT OF CARRYING FORWARD AND SET OFF WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF SEC . 80AB AND CONCEPT OF GROSS TO TAL INCOME. 28. NOW, IT IS CLEAR AS WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ABOVE DISCUSSED JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS P. LTD. V. ACIT (3B DTR 57). WHERE SUCH AN OVERRIDING JUDGEMENT OF THE CON STITUTIONAL COURT IS GOVERNING THE ISSUE, WE ARE NOT PERMITTED TO RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL. 29. THEREFORE, FO LLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, WE A CCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(A) ON THIS P OINT AN DIRECT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO GRANT DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IA FOR THE QUANTUM CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DILUTING THE SAME BY THE NOTIONAL DEDUCTION OF EARLI ER LOSS AND DEPRECIATION . 9.3 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE C I T(A ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U / S.80IA(4)(IV)(A) OF THE ACT WITHOUT DEDUCTING BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PRIOR TO INITIAL YEAR ON NOTIONAL BASIS. THIS REASONED 7 ITA NO . 605/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011 - 12 FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDING OF C I T(A ) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 9.4 AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 12. THUS THE GROUND OF APP EAL HAS TO BE ALLOWED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT ON THE SUBJECT. I ALSO SEE THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL IN EARLIER YEARS , THE BENEFIT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE CIT( A ). THE CIT (A)'S ORDER IN EARLIER YEARS CANNOT HAVE A GREATER PRECEDENT VALUE THAN THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT. 7. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 23 RD MARCH, 2018 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 11, PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE