ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI V. VINOD K. SHARDA, MUMBAI

ITA 6050/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88662 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KU MAR BEERLA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Benefit of exemption

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - F BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. I P BANSAL,JUDICIAL ME MBER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.6050/MUM/2010, ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 ACIT 25(3), C-11R.NO. 308, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E),MUMBAI-400051 VS VINOD K. SHARDA,4 - B, 1304, WHISPERING PALMS, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX,MUMBAI-400101 PAN:ASAPS4016L ( #$ / ASSESSEE) ( %&#$ / RESPONDENT) ' ( / REVENUE BY :SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA !)* !)* !)* !)* ( ( ( ( /ASSESSEE BY :SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH ! ! ! ! ' '' ' *+ *+ *+ *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 26 - 03 -2015 ,-' ' *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 -03-2015 ! ! ! ! , 1961 ' '' ' 254(1) *.* *.* *.* *.* / / / / ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) ! PER RAJENDRA,A.M. CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.10.06.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-3 5,MUMBAI,THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO. TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AINS AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON PROFIT ARRIVING FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES INSTEAD O F BUSINESS INCOME TREATED BY THE AO. WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN LARGE VOLUME OF SHARES, MOST OF THE SHARES ARE BOUGHT AND SOLD WITHIN SHORT PERIOD, WHILE SOME ARE NOT SOLD DUE TO MARKET CONDITIONS AND THEIR HOLDING WITH THE ASSESSEE REMAINS BEYOND FEW DAYS, IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE ASSESSEE IS VERY WELL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF SHARE TRADING, WHICH DENOTES THAT THE MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CARRY ON BUSINESS IN S HARES TO BOOK PROFIT, RATHER THAN INVESTMENT IN SHARES. (II) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO. BE RESTORED. (III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING AND LETTING OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES.HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 06.07.2007,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.31,21,780/-.THE AO FINALIS - ED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3)OF THE ACT ON 22.12.200 9 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.35,67,163/-. 2. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 64,553/- INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GAINS (STCG) OF RS. 31.21 LAKHS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REDUCED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS FROM THE CAPITAL GAINS, AMOUNTING TO RS. 4.34 LAKHS. WE FURTHER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE H AD SHOWN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS. 5357/-. VIDE PERUSING THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT HE FO UND THAT ALL THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ARISING OUT OF TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES AND SECU RITY EXCEPT BANK INTEREST, THAT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HE HAD BIFURCATED THE CREDIT ENTRIES AND OFFERED THE PROFIT/LOSS ON THE SALE OF SHARES AS STCG.TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS TO WH ETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING OR FROM CAPITAL GAIN S HE EXAMINED THE REGULARITY VOLUME TURNOVER, PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE SHARES AND OTHER PARAMETERS. HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY TRADING IN SHARES INCLUDING SPECULATION I.E. INTRA TRADING, THAT HE HAD MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF AC COUNTS FOR THAT PURPOSE. FROM THE DETAILS 2 ITA NO. 6050/M/2010 VINOD K. SHARDA OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D BOUGHT AND SOLD 1,85,983 SHARES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT THE SHARE WERE P URCHASED FOR RS. 3.80 CRORES AND WERE SOLD FOR RS. 1.45 CRORES RESULTING IN PROFIT OF RS. 35.9 2 LAKHS. HE ANALYSED THE STATEMENT OF STCG FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT MOST OF S CRIPTS WERE SOLD ON THE SAME DAY OR WERE BOUGHT OR SOLD WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 TO 5 MONTHS, TH AT HE HAD BIFURCATED THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS INTO TWO CATEGORIES I.E. FIRST WHERE SHARES WERE TO BE DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SECOND WHERE NO DELIVERY WAS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN, THAT TH E ASSESSEE TREATED THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE FIRST CATEGORY AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, THAT THE INCOME FROM SECOND CATEGORY WAS TAKEN AS BUSINESS INCOME OR LOSS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 93095 AS AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS. 36.59 LAKHS (LTCG 1.03 LAKHS +STCG 35.55 LAKHS), THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE SHARE TRADING AND WAS NOT THE MAIN INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASING SHARES, THAT THIS WAS A REG ULAR ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT BECAUSE A PARTICULAR SCRIPTS WAS NOT SOLD FOR 12 MONTHS WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET, THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE W AS TO HOLD THE SHARES NOT AN INVESTMENT BUT RATHER THE PRIMARY MOTIVE TO BOOK PROFIT.CONSIDERIN G THE FREQUENCY, VOLUME AND ORGANISED ACTIVITY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING HIM AS TO WHY THE SHA RE TRANSACTIONS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO HELD THAT MERE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR TO DECIDE THE REAL NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOANS TO DO THE SHARE BUSINESS. THE AO REFERRED TO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT ON 15.06.2007 IN THIS REGARD I.E. CIRCULAR NO. 4/07. HE REFERRED TO THE CASE OF DEEPA SHAH (99 ITD 219). FINALLY, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY CLASSIFIED THE INCOME UND ER THE TWO HEADS, THAT THE ENTIRE PROFITS ARISING OUT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES HAD TO B E ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS, THAT THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AVAILABLE TO PROFIT AND SHARES CLAIMED AS LTCG AND BENEFIT OF LOWER RATE OF TAXATION AVAILABLE TO PROF ITS AND SHARES CLAIMED AS STCG WAS TO BE DISALLOWED. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA).BEFORE HIM, IT WAS ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE WAS A SENIOR CITIZEN AGED 67 YEARS, THAT THE INTENTION AT THE TIME OF PURCHAS E OF SHARE WAS TO HOLD SAME AS INVESTMENT, THAT SHARES WERE PART OF THE INVESTMENT AS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE-SHEET, THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED ONLY INTO A SELECT GROUP OF SCRIPTS AND TH AT TOO IN SELECT SECTORS WHICH WERE LIKE TO OUTPERFORM, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ANY INFRASTRUCTURE TO DEAL WITH THE BUSINESS OR SHARE TRADING. REGARDING THE LTCG WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS ONL Y ONE SALE TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION,THAT SHARES WERE PURCHASED MORE THAN 10 YEARS BACK, THAT THERE WAS NO GROUND FOR TREATING THE LTCG AS BUSINESS INCOME, TH AT MAJOR PORTION OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS EARN BY HOLDING SHARES FOR MORE THAN THREE MONTHS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD PAID STT. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF GOPAL PUROHIT (29SOT117)AN D JANAK S. RANGWALA (11 SOT 627). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER.THE FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DERIVED LTCG OF THE RS. 1.03 LAKHS ON SALE OF 600 SHARES OF ZICOM ELEC, THAT THOSE SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN OCTOBER 1996 BY SUBSCRIBING TO PUBLIC OFFER, THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE LTCG AS BUSINESS IN COME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE PERIOD OF HOLDING THE FAA STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE C LEAR DISTINCTION DELIVERY BASED AND NON- DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTION, THAT ASSESSEE WAS ALLOW ED TO CARRY OUT THE SHARE BUSINESS AND TO HAVE THE SHARES AS INVESTMENTS,THAT HE SALE OF SHAR ES WAS ONLY WITH A VIEW TO PROTECT THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD TRANSFERRED ALL THE SHARES IN HIS NAME BEFORE SALE AS EVIDENCED BY THE D-MAT ACCOUNT, THAT THE AVERAGE HOLDING PERIOD OF SHARES WAS MORE THAN THREE MONTHS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT AVAILED ANY BORROWED FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS OF SHARES. REFERRING TO THE CASES OF GOPAL PUROHIT AND JANAK S. RANGWALA, HE HELD THAT THE DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTI ONS HAS TO BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT. 3 ITA NO. 6050/M/2010 VINOD K. SHARDA FINALLY, HE DIRECTED THE AO TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY ACCEPTING STCG AND LTCG AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE US,THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) STATE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE LARGE SCALE TRADING OF SHARES,THAT INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE COULD BE GATHERED FROM THE SURROUN -DING CIRCUMSTANCES,THAT IT HAD PURCHASED SHARES WO RTH MORE THAN RS.3 CRORES, THAT AS COMPARED TO DIVIDEND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THE I NCOME FROM SHARE TRADING BUSINESS WAS MANIFOLDS,THAT AO HAD PASSED THE DETAILED ORDER AND HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT AN INVESTOR. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE FAA. HE RELIED ON CASE OF GOPAL PUROHIT(336ITR287),DELIVERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY US IS AS TO WHETHER THE PROFITS ON THE S ALE OF SHARES DURING THE YEAR WHICH HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES IN QUESTION IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR UND ER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS.WE ARE OF THE FIRM OPINION THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT CRITERIA OR DEMA RCATION THAT COULD SEGREGATE THE TRANSACTIONS RELATED WITH THE SHARES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS /CA PITAL GAINS.EVEN AFTER SERIES OF CASES DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT NO ONE C AN SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT AN ASSESSEE UNDERTAKING SHARE TRANSACTIONS COULD BE ASSESSED AS INVESTOR OR TRADER.COURTS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO LOOKED IN TO.INTEN TION AT BEST CAN BE DECIDED FROM THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES.BROADLY,AN INVESTOR PURCHASE A SHARE WITH A VIEW TO EARNING INCOME IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND AND FOR APPRECIATION IN VALUE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND IS NOT MOTIVATED TO SELL SHARES ON EACH AND EVERY RISE IN THE VALUE OF SHARE S WHICH ARE, IN FACT, THE ATTRIBUTES OF A TRADER.TO PURCHASE SHARES AND THEN WAIT FOR APPRECIATION IN T HEIR VALUE IN THE LONG TERM IS THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF AN INVESTOR.THERE MAY BE CRITERIA AND PA RAMETERS,BUT INDIVIDUAL PARAMETERS WOULD NOT BE DECISIVE AND IT IS ONLY THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THOSE CRITERIA WHICH WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INVESTOR OR A TR ADER.IN SHORT,TOTALITY OF FACTS AND PARAMETERS,AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE COURTS AS WELL AS CBDT HAV E TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DECIDING THE QUESTION.IN THE MATTER OF SONIA UPPAL THE HONB LE P & H HIGH COURT HAS(367ITR70)HELD AS UNDER: THERE IS A NO STRAITJACKET FORMULA FOR CONCLUDING WHETHER A TRANSACTION WOULD FALL WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR OUTSIDE ITS AMBIT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE WOULD BE DETERMINATI VE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE RECEIPT. THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IN SUCH CASES RELATES TO EXAM INING THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION. WHERE A PERSON INVESTS MONEY IN AN ASSET WITH INTENTION TO HOLD IT, ENJOYS ITS USUFRUCT FOR SOME TIME AND THEN SELLS IT AT AN ENHANCED PRICE, IT WOULD BE A C ASE OF CAPITAL ACCRETION OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PROFITS RESULTING FROM AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE O F TRADE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE INCOME ACCRUES ON REALISATION OF INVESTMENTS CONSISTING OF PURCHASE AND RESALE, INCOME ACCRUING COULD BE TREATED AS FROM AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE .THE CARDINAL QUESTION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE TO BE ANSWERED WOULD BE WHETHER THE PURCHASER WAS A TR ADER AND HAD PURCHASED THE COMMODITY WITH THE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS HIS USUAL TRADE OR BUSINESS OR INCIDENTAL TO IT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME OF RS.64 ,000/-APPROXIMATELY FROM HIS BROKERAGE BUSINESS.AS A SENIOR CITIZEN,AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE HIMSELF,HOW MUCH JOB OF A ESTATE BROKER HE WOULD HAVE DONE IS KNOWN TO HIM ONLY.NOTH ING IS COMING OUT OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD.ON THE OTHER HAND WE GET A CLEAR PICTURE OF HIS SHARE BUSINESS FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY HIM.FROM THE TRADING AND P&L A/C IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1.10 LAKHS AND EXPE NDITURE UNDER THE HEAD ELECTRICITY HAD BEEN PAID TO RS. 25,850/-.THESE FIGURES INDICATE TH E ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY HIM.AS COMPARED TO HIS BUSINESS INCOME,THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN INCOME MORE THAN RS. 33 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS.IT IS FOUND THAT SHARE S OF HIND ZINC INDO-ASIAN, MANGALAM CEMENT WERE TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MORE THAN ONC E.THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED AND SOLD MORE THAN 1.85 LAKH SHARES OF VARIOUS SCRIPTS AND T HE TOTAL SALES TURNOVER IS MORE THAN 4 CRORES.WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE DIVIDEND EARN ED BY THE ASSESSEE.FOR ENTERING IN TO PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTION OF SHARES OF THAT MAG NITUDE ONE HAS TO DEVOTE CONSIDERABLE TIME 4 ITA NO. 6050/M/2010 VINOD K. SHARDA AND RESOURCES AND HAS TO CARRY OUT ACTIVITIES IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER.HE HAS TO KEEP WATCH OF THE MOVEMENT OF SHARES EVERYDAY AND HAS TO PURCHASE AND SELL THE SAME AT APPROPRIATE TIME.ALL THESE CHARACTERISTICS UNDOUBTEDLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PERSON IS DOING BUSINESS OF SHARES, HE IS NOT AN INVESTOR.ACTIVITIE S OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO MAXIMISE THE PROFIT AND NOT INTE RESTED IN APPRECIATION OF VALUE OF THE SCRIPTS.IN OUR OPINION, ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS IS ONE OF THE DECIDING FACTORS,BUT NOT THE CONCLUSIVE FACTOR TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE A SSESSEE WAS A TRADER OR INVESTOR OF SHARES COVERED UNDER THE HEAD STCG.IN THE CASE OF GOPAL PU ROHIT THE HONBLE COURT HAD ALSO EXPRESSED THE SAME VIEW.IN THAT MATTER THE HOBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHO HAD,AFTER CONSIDERING THE PECUL IAR FACTS OF THE CASE,ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING TWO SE PARATE ACCOUNTS.IN THE PRESENT CASE,WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN INVESTOR FOR THE SHARES WHICH WERE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD STCG.AS FAR AS THE SHARES OF ZICOM ELEC.ARE CONCERN ED,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SAME HAD BEEN RIGHTLY TAXED UNDER THE HEAD LTCG BY THE FAA.I N OUR OPINION,TO THAT EXTENT,THE ORDER OF THE FAA HAS TO BE ENDORSED. BUT,WE ARE REVERSING HIS ORDER FOR THE SHARES THAT WERE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD STCG BY THE AO.IN SHORT,CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS NO T AN INVESTOR, BUT WAS A TRADER.THUS,PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE ARE ARE DECIDING THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE AO,IN PART. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. *1 !)* 2 3 ' . /*1 4 ' * 56 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH,MARCH,20 15. / ' ,-' 7 8! 26 9 ,2015 - ' . : SD/- SD/- ( /I P BANSAL) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8! /DATE: 26.03.2015 SK / / / / ' '' ' %*; %*; %*; %*; <;'* <;'* <;'* <;'* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / #$ 2. RESPONDENT / %&#$ 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ = > , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / = > 5. DR F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ;?. %*! , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ . &;* %* //TRUE COPY// /! / BY ORDER, @ / 5 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.