MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI V. DIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 625/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72019 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRITAM SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S E DASTUR
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Maximum Marginal Rate; Competent authority
• Section: 12A; 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI , BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM ! I.T.A. NO.625/MUM/2012 & (ALONG WITH SA NO.228/MUM/2013) (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 625/MUM/2012) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PLOT NO.C-14 AND C-15, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 ! VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI '! # ./PAN/GIR NO. AAATIM 7016 R ( '$ /APPELLANT ) : ( %&'$ / RESPONDENT ) '$' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. E. DASTUR & SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL %&'$(' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRITAM SINGH ) *+(,- / DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2013 ./0(,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.12.2013 1! O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE ORD ER U/S. 12AA(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) BY THE DIRECT OR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI (DIT(E) FOR SHORT) DATED 27.12.2011, WITHD RAWING/CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A W.E.F. 01.04.2009, I.E., THE ASSESSMENT YEA R (A.Y.) 2009-10, ONWARDS. 2 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) 2. THE INSTANT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE RAISES BOTH L EGAL AND FACTUAL ISSUES. THE LEGAL ISSUE ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS A SUBSISTING ONE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE- APPLICANTS AND THE REVENUE, I.E., WHETHER THE REGIS TRATION U/S.12A/12AA OF THE ACT COULD BE CANCELLED OR WITHDRAWN U/S.12AA(3) IN VIEW OF TH E AMENDMENT IN LAW BY WAY OF SUBSTITUTION OF SECTION 2(15) BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F. 01.04.2009, WHICH READS AS UNDER: DEFINITIONS. 2. IN THIS ACT, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES , (1) (2) . (15) 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' INCLUDES RELIEF OF THE POOR, EDUCATION, MEDICAL RELIEF, PRESERVATION OF ENVIRONMENT (INCLUDING WATE RSHEDS, FORESTS AND WILDLIFE) AND PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS OR PLACES O R OBJECTS OF ARTISTIC OR HISTORIC INTEREST, AND THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY : PROVIDED THAT THE ADVANCEMENT OF ANY OTHER OBJECT OF GENERA L PUBLIC UTILITY SHALL NOT BE A CHARITABLE PURPOSE, IF IT INVOLVES T HE CARRYING ON OF ANY ACTIVITY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, COMMERCE OR BUSINE SS, OR ANY ACTIVITY OF RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN RELATION TO ANY TRADE, COM MERCE OR BUSINESS, FOR A CESS OR FEE OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION, IRRESPECTIV E OF THE NATURE OF USE OR APPLICATION, OR RETENTION, OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH ACTIVITY: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY IF THE AGGR EGATE VALUE OF THE RECEIPTS FROM THE ACTIVITIES REFERRED TO THEREIN IS TEN LAKH RUPEES OR LESS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR; [EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLI NING, OURS] THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE CONTROVERSY IS IF THE ASS ESSEES ACTIVITIES, IN VIEW OF INTEREST AND RENT RECEIPT, ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ARISING IN THE COURSE OF AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED, OR IS IT BY WAY OF A C OMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF ITS RESOURCES. ARGUMENTS/THE RESPECTIVE CASES 3. WE BEGIN BY LISTING THE RESPECTIVE CASES OF BOTH THE LITIGANTS, BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS AS ADVANCED BEFORE US, AS ALSO THOSE ADOP TED IN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THEM: 3 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) THE ASSESSEES CASE 3.1 THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANTS STAND IS THAT REGISTRA TION UNDER THE ACT, ONCE GRANTED, COULD BE REVIEWED ONLY IN THE TERMS PROVIDED BY LAW ITSELF, I.E., SECTION 12AA(3). THE SAME POSTULATES A SATISFACTION AS TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION BEING NOT GENUINE OR BEING NOT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS. AS LONG AS, THEREFORE, THE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT FOUND TO BE EITHER NOT GENUINE O R AS BEING NOT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTS, THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR THE COMPETE NT AUTHORITY TO VISIT THE REGISTRATION. THE INFERENCE OF NON-GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES BY THE LD. DIT(E) IN-SO-FAR AS THE SAME INVOLVES AN ACTIVITY THAT MAY BE CONSID ERED TO BE IN NATURE OF TRADE OR COMMERCE OR BUSINESS, OR RENDERING ANY SERVICE IN R ELATION THERETO, WOULD NOT BY ITSELF MAKE THE ACTIVITY AS NOT GENUINE, WHICH (ACTIVITY) CONTINUES TO BE THE SAME, I.E., BOTH PRIOR AND AFTER TO THE AMENDMENT TO S.2(15). THE SA ID INFERENCE IS ONLY AN ATTEMPT BY THE REVENUE TO FIT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY/S INTO THE C LEAR PROVISION OF LAW, EVEN IF IT INVOLVES STRAINING ITS CLEAR LANGUAGE BEYOND ALL REASONABLE LIMITS. THERE IS NO AMENDMENT IN LAW, I.E., S. 12AA(3) (CO- OPTED ON THE STATUE BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004, W.E.F. 01.10.2004), EVEN AFTER TH E AMENDED S. 2(15) COMES INTO FORCE. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 13(8), INSERTED ON THE STA TUTE BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.R.E.F. 01.04.2009, I.E., SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE SUBSTITUTIO N OF SECTION 2(15), MAKES THE INTENT OF THE LAW MAKER PATENTLY CLEAR, I.E., THAT THE REGIST RATION UNDER THE ACT FOR PERSONS HIT BY THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) IS TO CONTINUE, THOUGH WOULD STAN D DISENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER LAW. THE OBLIGATION TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME CONSISTENT WITH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, WHICH W.E.F. 01.04. 2009 INCLUDES SECTION 13(8), IS ONLY ON THE TAX PAYER. THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS, THUS, CLEARLY IN FAVOUR OF THE IMPACT OF THE PROVISOS TO SECTION 2(15) BEING ALLOWED OR BEING GIVEN EFFE CT TO IN DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR, BEING A VARIABL E PHENOMENON (REFER PARA 8 IN MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . ADDL. DIT(E) [2013] 58 SOT 196 (MUM.)). RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. CIT VS. SARVODAYA ILAKKIYA PANNAI [2012] 343 ITR 300 (MAD.); 4 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) II. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . ADIT(E) (SUPRA); III. KHAR GYMKHANA VS. DIT(E) (IN ITA NO.373/MUM/2012 DATED 10.07.2013); IV. MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY VS. CIT [2013] 142 ITD 565 (COCHIN- TRIB.); V. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD VS. CIT [2012] 19 ITR (TRIB) 524 (JP.); VI. ASST. CIT VS. AURANGABAD HOLIDAY RESORTS (P.) LTD. [2009] 118 ITD 01 (PUNE); AND VII. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. DIT (E) [2012] 19 ITR (TRIB) 520 (AHBD). 3.2 ON FACTS, THE ASSESSEE IS AN AUTHORITY ESTABLI SHED UNDER AN ACT PASSED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, NAMELY, THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1974 (MMRD ACT HEREINAFTER/PB PGS.1-38), WITH THE MAIN OBJECT TO SECURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION ACCORDING TO THE REGIONA L PLAN. IT IS THUS AN AGENCY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, OR A FORM OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF. H OW COULD THE SAME, BY ANY SCORE, BE REGARDED AS NOT GENUINE, WHICH WOULD ONLY IMPLY AS NOT ACTING OR ACTUALLY DOING WHAT ONE PURPORTS TO BE DOING OR IS SEEMING TO DO. ITS A CCOUNTS ARE REGULARLY AUDITED BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA (C & AG), AND WHICH AUTHORITY HAS NOT COMMENTED ADVERSELY UPON ITS ACTIVITIES. THE INTERE ST AND THE RENT RECEIPTS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009-10 (T HE REGISTRATION HAVING BEEN PROPOSED FOR WITHDRAWAL W.E.F. 01.04.2009), AT RS.174.12 CRO RES AND RS.63.52 CRORES RESPECTIVELY, ARISE OUT OF LOANS TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND REN TING OUT OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY RESPECTIVELY. THE SAME ARE ONLY ACTIVITIES UNDERTAK EN BY IT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED. REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE LD. AR TO SECTIONS 12, 17, 20, 21, 21A, 46A AND 47 OF THE MMRD ACT. THE REVENUES CASE 3.3 THE REVENUES STAND, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THAT WHEN THE OBJECT/S OF THE REGISTERED ENTITY IS NO LONGER REGARDED AS FOR A CHARITABLE PU RPOSE IN VIEW OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), THE REGISTRATION COULD NOT OBTAIN IN ASMUCH AS THE SAME BECOMES INCONSISTENT WITH AND DEFEATIVE OF THE LAW, I.E., S S. 2(15) AND 12AA (REFER, INTER ALIA, 5 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION V. DIT(E) (INFRA)). IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO SECTION 2(15) EITHER IN SECTION 12A OR S.12AA, SO THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT IN VIEW OF THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT ( REFER MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA) PARA 7.1). THE REGISTRATION CONFERS THE ENTITY THE STATU S OF A PUBLIC CHARITABLE INSTITUTION UNDER AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT, AND WHICH THEREFOR E CANNOT SUBSIST WHEN THE OBJECT/S STANDS DISQUALIFIED AS CHARITABLE BY THE ACT ITSELF . IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHANGE IN LAW WOULD CAUSE THE REMOVAL OF THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE INSTITUTION RESTS, AND WHICH IS N O LONGER AVAILABLE TO IT. THE SAME OPERATES ON A PERENNIAL BASIS, WARRANTING WITHDRAWA L OF REGISTRATION, WHILE THE PURVIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS IS TO VERIFY THE APPLICATION OF INCOME OF A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND THE SATISFACTION OF OT HER CONDITIONS, AS SPELLED OUT IN SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT, SUBJECT TO WHICH THE EXEMPTION TO THE SAID INCOME AS NOT FORMING PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME IS GRANTED. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT PER THE AMENDED LAW, APPLICABLE W.E.F. 01.04.2009 ( I.E., A.Y. 2009-10 ONWARDS), THE LAW LINKS THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OBJECT, PER SE CHARITABLE, IS ACHIEVED OR ACCOMPLISHED, WITH IT BEING SO OR REGARDED AS SO UNDER THE ACT, IN-SO- FAR AS IT IS TOWARD THE ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY ( MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA) - PARA 8). IN OTHER WORDS, THE ONLY COURSE AVAILABLE IN LAW IS FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE SAID REGISTRATION WHERE THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) IS ATTRACTED. AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), WHICH LIMITS THE OPERATION OF TH E FIRST PROVISO TO AN EXTANT THRESHOLD LIMIT QUA THE RECEIPTS OF THE INSTITUTION FROM ITS ACTIVITIE S (PRESENTLY AT RS.25 LACS), THE SAME, WHERE SO, COUL D BE REVIEWED INASMUCH AS THE WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION IN THE FIRST INSTANCE HA D BEEN OCCASIONED OR CAUSED ONLY BY THE INVOCATION OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), TO WHICH AN EXCEPTION IS MADE BY THE SECOND PROVISO TO THE SECTION. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY DOES NOT B ECOME FUNCTUS OFFICIO AFTER THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION AND HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO INTERFERE, OF COURSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WHERE THE TERMS OF REGISTRATION OBTAIN NO LONG ER; A POWER SINCE SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED BY SECTIONS 12AA(3) AND 293C OF THE ACT. THAT IS, N O BENEFIT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE 6 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), I.E., INDEPENDENT OF THE FIRST PROVISO , COULD BE EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE AS, AS WOULD BE APPARENT FROM A MER E READING THEREOF, THEREBY THE ACT ONLY SEEKS TO PROVIDE A WINDOW OF EXCLUSION OR EXCE PTION (FROM THE OPERATION OF FIRST PROVISO ) FOR SMALL ASSESSEES. SECTION 13(8) OF THE ACT, WHICH SUPERSEDES SECTIONS 11 AND 12, SO THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE O BJECTS OF THE TRUST/INSTITUTION, THE SAID SECTIONS SHALL NOT OPERATE TO EXCLUDE ANY INCOME FR OM THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PERSON IF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) BECOMES APPLICABLE, IS ONLY AN EN ABLING PROVISION. THIS IS AS OTHERWISE IT MAY WELL BE OPEN FOR SUCH A PERSON TO CONTEND THAT BEING A CHARITABLE TRUST UNDER THE ACT, EXEMPTION U/S.11 COULD NOT BE DENIED TO IT WHERE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTIONS 11 TO 13 ARE SATISFIED. THE SAME BY ITSELF DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE REVENUE TO WITHDRAW REGISTRATION; THE PROVISION ONLY CONFIRMING WHAT IS OTHERWISE APPARENT, LEST ONE ARGUES OF AN ABSENCE OF A LEGAL BASIS FOR NON-GRANT OF EXEMPT ION U/S.11 IN SUCH A CASE , WHERE REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED OR WITHDRAWN. 3.4 THE ASSESSEE HAS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS Y EAR EARNED INTEREST INCOME AT RS.174.12 CRORES AND INCOME BY WAY OF LEASE RENT AN D RENT AT RS.63.52 CRORES. THE SAME IS ONLY A SYSTEMATIC, COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF IT S ASSETS, AMOUNTING TO A REGULAR, BUSINESS ACTIVITY, AND WHICH IF ANYTHING ONLY REINF ORCES THE INVOCATION OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15), SO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER TAKING ANY CHARITABLE ACTIVITY, I.E., IN TERMS OF THE EXTANT LAW, FURTHER JUSTIFYING THE WIT HDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO SECTIONS 24 AND 24A OF MMRD ACT; THE LATTER CONSTRAINING THE ASSESSEE FROM OPERATING AT A LOSS. FURTHER, RELIANCE STOOD PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I. ENTERTAINMENT SOCIETY OF GOA VS. CIT [2013] 23 ITR (TRIB) 635 (PANAJI); II. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IN ITA NOS.5584 & 5062/MUM/2009 DATED 29.06.2012); III. JALANDHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. CIT [2009] 124 TTJ (ASR) 598; IV. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. DIRECTOR OF INCO ME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 7 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) [2013] 57 SOT 439 (CHENNAI); V. PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. C IT [2006] 103 TTJ (CHD.) 988; VI. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. CIT [2012] 52 SOT 153 (ASR.)(URO); VII. IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. CIT [2013] 30 TAXMANN.COM 58 (ASR.); FINDINGS 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH, AND GIV EN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER, WE PROCEED WITH OUR ANALYSIS/DECISION. 4.1 AT THE OUTSET, HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO CLARIFY AN ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAVING A DIRECT BEARING ON ITS ADJUDICATION. THERE IS NO SCOPE TO SAY OF THE REVENUES ACTION AS BEING IN EXCESS OF THE JURISDICTION OF TH E COMPETENT AUTHORITY ON ACCOUNT OF THE REGISTRATION WITHDRAWN HAVING BEEN GRANTED U/S.12A OF THE ACT ON 22.07.2002 (PB PG.39); THE REGISTRATIONS UNDER WHICH PROVISION STOOD INCLU DED FOR WITHDRAWAL U/S.12AA(3) ONLY BY FINANCE ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01.06.2010. THIS IS AS THE REGISTRATION IN THE INSTANT CASE, GRANTED IN JULY, 2002, IS IN SUBSTANCE; RATHER, IN FACT, ONLY A REGISTRATION U/S. 12AA(1)(B) INASMUCH AS A REGISTRATION U/S. 12A COULD BE GRANTE D ONLY UP TO 1/4/1997, I.E., PRIOR TO THE COMING INTO FORCE OF S.12AA. TWO, THE HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. CIT [2012] 343 ITR 23 (BOM), RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) BEFORE US, EXPLAIN ED THE IMPORT OF THE SAID AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12AA(3) TO MEAN THAT REGISTRATION U/S.12 A (AS ALSO U/S.12AA) GRANTED AT ANY TIME COULD BE WITHDRAWN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER 01.06.2010 . THE IMPUGNED CANCELLATION HAS BEEN MADE VIDE ORDER DATE D 27.12.2011 . THE MATTER STANDS ALSO DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL IN MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE LEGAL ISSUE, WE HAVE DELINEATED THE CASES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, ALSO DRAWING ON THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THEM. THE M OOT POINT THAT EMERGES IS WHETHER AN OBJECT/S WHICH IS NOT, OR BETTER, CAN NO LONGER BE REGARDED AS, CHARITABLE, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED LAW, WOULD YET ENTITLE AN ENTITY FOR THE CO NTINUATION OF ITS REGISTRATION, OR NOT SO, 8 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) UNDER THE ACT. IN LEGAL TERMS, WHETHER THE CONDITION OF THE OBJECT/S BEING CHARITABLE, AN IMPLIED CONDITION FOR THE GRANT OF REGISTRATION, IS ALSO SO FOR ITS CONTINUATION. BEFORE, HOWEVER, WE MAY PROCEED WITH THE MATTER, IN OUR VIEW THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE CONTROVERSY, AFORE-STATED, WOULD NEED TO BE DETERMINED FIRST. THAT IS, WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTIVITIES BEING UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE -AUTHORITY ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECTS OR NOT. THIS IS AS UN LESS THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS CLARIFIED BY ISSUING A FINDING OF FACT, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IT WOULD NEITHER BE PROPER NOR RELEVANT TO DISCUSS THE BROADER, LEGAL ISSUE AFORE-SAID. 4.2 THE ASSESSEE IS INCORPORATED WITH THE MAIN OBJE CT OF SECURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION ACCORDING TO THE REG IONAL PLAN. CHAPTER IV OF THE SAID ACT CONTAINS THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHOR ITY. SECTION 12(1) OF THE ACT LISTS THE FUNCTIONS AS THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER IV POWERS AND FUCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY 12.(1) THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE AUTHORITY SHALL BE TO SECURE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOMBAY METROPOLITAN REGION ACCORDING TO THE REGIONAL PLAN, AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY SHA LL BE- A) REVIEW ANY PHYSICAL, FINANCIAL AND ECONOMICAL PL AN; B) REVIEW ANY PROJECT OR SCHEME FOR DEVELOPMENT WHI CH MAY BE PROPOSED OR MAY BE IN THE COURSE OF EXECUTION OR MA Y BE COMPLETED IN THE METROPOLITAN REGION; C) FORMULATE AND SANCTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TH E METROPOLITAN REGION OR ANY PART THEREOF; D) EXECUTE PROJECTS AND SCHEMES; E) RECOMMEND TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT ANY MATTER OR PROPOSAL REQUIRING ACTION BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTH ER AUTHORITY FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN REGION; F) PARTICIPATE WITH ANY OTHER AUTHORITY FOR INTER-R EGIONAL DEVELOPMENT; G) FINANCE ANY PROJECT OR SCHEME FOR THE DEVELOPMEN T OF THE METROPOLITAN REGION; H) CO-ORDINATE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT OR SCHEMES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN REGION; FUNCTIONS OF THE METROPOLITA N AUTHORITY. 9 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) I) SUPERVISE OR OTHERWISE ENSURE ADEQUATE SUPERVISI ON OVER THE PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF ANY PROJECT OR SCHEME, TH E EXPENSES OF WHICH, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ARE TO BE MET FROM THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT FUND; J) PREPARE SCHEMES AND ADVISE THE CONCERNED AUTHORI TIES IN FORMULATING AND UNDERTAKING SCHEMES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULT URE, HORTICULTURE, FLORICULTURE, FORESTRY, DAIRY DEVELOP MENT, POULTRY FARMING, PIGGERY, CATTLE BREEDING, FISHERIES AND OT HER SIMILAR ACTIVITIES; K) PREPARE AND IMPLEMENT SCHEMES FOR PROVIDING ALTE RNATIVE ACCOMMODATION AND FOR REHABILITATION OF PERSONS DIS PLACED BY PROJECTS AND SCHEMES WHICH PROVIDE FOR SUCH REQUIRE MENTS; L) DO ALL SUCH OTHER ACTS AND THINGS AS MAY BE NECE SSARY FOR OR INCIDENTAL OR CONDUCIVE TO ANY, MATTERS WHICH ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS ACTIVITY AND WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE AUTHORITY IS ESTABLISHED. ANY ENTITY NEEDS FUNDS ON A REGULAR AND SUSTAINABLE BASIS TO CARRY OUT ITS ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE AUTHORITY HAS NOT SPECIFIED ITS REVEN UE MODEL , I.E., AS TO HOW THE FUNDS ARE GENERATED IN THE NORMAL, REGULAR COURSE OF ITS BUSI NESS AND ACTIVITIES FOR THEIR FINANCING AS WELL AS SUSTAINING ITSELF, I.E., MEETING THE ESTABL ISHMENT COSTS. THERE IS NO BALANCE-SHEET OR STATEMENT OF SOURCES AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS ON RECORD. CHAPTER V OF THE SAID ACT IS TITLED FINANCE, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTS. SECTION 18(1 ), FALLING THERE-UNDER, PROVIDES FOR VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS. THE SAME INCLUDES CONTRIB UTIONS AND MONEYS PAID TO THE AUTHORITY BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE SU MS PLACED AT ITS DISPOSAL BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF ANY CESS LEVIED U NDER CHAPTER VI OF THE ACT; THE PROCEEDS OF ANY BETTERMENT CHARGES LEVIED UNDER CHA PTER IV; ALL FEES, COSTS AND CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT OR ANY OTHE R LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE; MONEYS RECEIVED BY WAY OF RENTS AND PROFITS OR ANY OTHER MANNER OR FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE; MONEYS RECEIVED FROM THE DISPOSAL OF THE LA NDS, BUILDINGS OR OTHER PROPERTY, MOVEABLE OR IMMOVABLE, OR OTHER TRANSACTIONS. THE INTEREST AND RENT, RECEIVED AT AN AGGREGATE OF RS.237.64 CRORES FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2009-10, WOULD FORM PART OF T HE GROSS RECEIPT. AS SUCH, THERE IS UNDOUBTEDLY NO QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF SECOND PROVISO , NOR IS SO CONTENDED AT ANY 10 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) STAGE. DURING HEARING, THE LD. AR WOULD EXPLAIN US AS TO HOW THE SAID RECEIPTS ARE INTEGRAL TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE AUTHORITY, AND FOR WHICH IT HAS THE REQUISITE MANDATE UNDER ITS CHARTER, REFERRING TO SECTIONS 12(1)(G) AND 21A OF THE MMRD ACT FOR THE PURPOSE, AS WE OBSERVE WAS ALSO DONE BEFORE THE LD. DIT(E). SECTIO N 12(1) STANDS REPRODUCED ABOVE. SECTION 18 (1)(J) IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. THE S AME, AS ALSO S. 21A, READ AS UNDER: CHAPTER V FINANCE, BUDGET AND ACCOUNTS 18. (1) THERE SHALL BE A FUND FOR THE METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY TO BE CALLED MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT FUND TO WHICH SHALL BE CREDITED ALL MONEYS RECEIVED BY THE AUTHORITY, INCL UDING- (J) ALL MONEYS BORROWED BY THE AUTHORITY. 21A. THE METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY SHALL BE COMPETENT TO GIVE GRANTS, ADVANCES OR LOANS TO, OR TO SHARE EXPENSES WITH, AN Y LOCAL AUTHORITY OR OTHER AUTHORITY IN THE METROPOLITAN REGION, FOR ANY OF TH E PURPOSES OF TIME BEING IN FORCE, BUT SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS (IF ANY) CONTAINED IN THE MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR S UCH OTHER AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT SUCH GRANTS, ADVANCES OR LOANS OR SHARE IN T HE EXPENSES, SUBJECT TO SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE METROPOLITAN AUTHO RITY MAY, FROM TIME TO TIME, IN CONSULTATION WITH SUCH OTHER AUTHORITY, SP ECIFY. THE LD. DIT(E), ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDS OF ALL SUCH ACTIVITIES AS ONLY TOWARD A SYSTEMATIC, COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF ITS PROPERTY , MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE, BY THE ASSESSE-AUTHORITY. 4.3 BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAVE MADE THE IR CONTRARY CLAIMS DE HORS AND WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN FACT, FOR ALL WE MAY KNOW, THERE MAY WELL BE TRUTH IN BOTH THE STATEMENTS, SO THAT BOTH OF THEM ARE TRUE, ALBEIT PARTLY. WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH, WE MAY CLARIFY, IS NOT THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER, BUT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 12AA(3), INVOKED BY THE RE VENUE, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN-SO- FAR AS AND TO THE EXTENT, THEREFORE, THE INTEREST I NCOME ARISES ON THE FINANCING OF ANY PROJECT OR SCHEME FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE METROPOLIT AN REGION OR ON ANY ADVANCE OR LOAN TO ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY THEREIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF S ECTION 12, THE SAME WOULD FALL TO BE FUNDS OF THE METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY . POWER TO METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY TO FINANCE PROJECTS AND SCHEMES AND IMPOSE CONDITIONS THEREFOR. BOM. III OF 1888. 11 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) COVERED UNDER ITS REGULAR FUNCTIONING AND, THUS, TH OUGH A RECEIPT OF ITS BUSINESS OR TRADE, CANNOT BY ANY SCORE BE SAID AS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WI TH ITS OBJECTS. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE PROJECTS (IN THE METROPOLITAN REGION) ON THE FINANCING OF WHICH, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY (I.E., THROUGH A LOC AL AUTHORITY OR OTHER AUTHORITY IN THE METROPOLITAN REGION), THE INTEREST RECEIPT ARISES T O IT. ALL IT SAYS IS OF THE SAID INCOME AS ARISING ON LOANS TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS (REFER PA RA 3A(1) OF ITS LETTER DATED 26.12.2011 TO THE LD. DIT(E)/PB PGS.41-55), WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE DETAILS, SO THAT IT CANNOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION OR THE FINDING OF BEING IN R ELATION TO THE STATED PROJECTS. RATHER, AS WE SEE IT, THE FINANCING OF THE PROJECTS COULD ONLY BE INCIDENTAL AND/OR SECONDARY TO THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY, AND CANNOT BY ITSELF BE THE ASSESSEES PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY, IF IT IS TO BE REGARDED AS TOWARD ADVANCEMENT OF AN OBJEC T OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY. THAT IS, FINANCING AS AN ASPECT OF BUSINESS IS AN ENTIRELY D IFFERENT PROPOSITION FROM BEING THE CORE OR THE PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY, OR BUSINESS BY ITSELF, A S IN THE CASE OF A BANK OR A TERM LENDING INSTITUTION. WE ARE NOT FOR A MOMENT ADVOCATING A S TRICT MEANING TO ITS ACTIVITY OF FINANCING, BUT ONLY SEEK TO EMPHASIZE THAT IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF THE ASSESSEES REGULAR BUSINESS OR FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITY, IT HAS TO BE FIRSTLY IN COMPLIANCE OF THE OBJECTIVE OF S. 12 OF ITS GOVERNING ACT, QUA PROJECTS THAT FALL WITHIN ITS PURVIEW AS A PART OF THE REGIONAL PLAN, BEING REVIEWED AND SUPERVISED BY IT. SECONDLY, THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ONLY OR EVEN PREDOMINANTLY A FINANCING ORGANIZAT ION, AND AS SUCH EARNING ITS REVENUE PRIMARILY OR PREDOMINANTLY BY WAY OF INTEREST, AS F INANCING ITSELF COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN ADVANCING AN OBJECT OF GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITY . TRUE, FINANCING IS A VITAL INPUT FOR EXECUTION OF PROJECTS, BUT THEN SO ARE OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES THAT GO INTO UNDERTAKING THE SAME. THEIR SUPPLY, AS ALSO THAT OF FUNDS, AS B Y BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING LONG TERM FINANCE TO PUBLIC OR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PER SE CHARITABLE. AGAIN, THE TERMS OF LENDING (E.G. WHET HER AS SOFT LOANS OVER LONG GESTATION PERIOD, OR AT REGULAR, PREVAILI NG RATES OF INTEREST, ETC.) HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFIED, AND WHICH WOULD ALSO BE RELEVANT. WHAT I S A RATIO OF THE INTEREST REVENUE FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEES OTHER, PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY/S HAS NOT BEEN CLARIFIED. IN SUM, THE 12 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) FINANCING FUNCTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A PART O F AND TOGETHER WITH OTHER SERVICES BEING PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, QUA THE RENT RECEIPT ALSO THE ASSESSEES CLARIFICATION IS VAGUE AND GENERAL, ONLY STATING, BY ADVERTING TO SECTION 12(1 )( L ) OF THE MMRD ACT, OF THE SAME BEING AN ACTIVITY INCIDENTAL TO AN ACTIVITY NECESSA RY FOR AND IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS OBJECTS. THAT IS, WITHOUT LINKING IT TO ANY OF ITS MAIN ACTI VITY/S UNDER ANY CLAUSE OF S. 12(1). RATHER, THE SAME CANNOT BE A MATTER OF PRESUMPTION AND HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED AS A FACT, FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED AS SO, OR ELSE IT CANNOT NO T BE REGARDED AS INTEGRAL TO ITS FUNCTIONING, BUT ONLY AS A NORMAL OR REGULAR TRANSA CTION OF LETTING OUT OR LEASING OF PROPERTY. THEREBY GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INFERENCE AS DRAWN AND THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. DIT(E) AND, THUS, BE REGARDED AS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS. THE RATIO OF THE SAID SUM (RS. 63.52 CRORES), I.E., TO THE ASSES SEES GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR, OR ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS, IS ALSO NOT CLEAR, CONSIDERING THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO ITS PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES. ALSO, THE FACT THAT THE SAID INCOMES GO TO CONSTITU TE OR FORM PART OF THE FUND (CALLED THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT FUND), TO WHICH IN FACT ITS BORROWINGS ALSO STAND TO BE CREDITED, FOR BEING APP LIED FOR ITS ACTIVITIES IS NOT A RELEVANT CONSIDERATION OR DETERMINATIVE OF THE MATTER. 4.4 WE ARE, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, CLEARLY UNABLE TO ISSUE ANY POSITIVE FINDING, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AS TO T HE INTEREST AND RENT RECEIPT, AGGREGATING TO RS.237.64 CRORES (FOR THE CURRENT YEAR), AS ARIS ING ON THE CARRYING OUT OF ACTIVITIES INTEGRAL TO THE ASSESSEES FUNCTIONING OR ITS PRINC IPAL OBJECTS, SO AS TO BE CONSIDERED AS ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE NECESSAR Y FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT IS ESTABLISHED, AND THUS FALLING UNDER SEC TION 12(1)( L ) OF THE MMRD ACT. IN FACT, WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THERE MUST BE SOME PRINCIPA L ACTIVITY/S BEING PURSUED FOR THE FINANCING AND RENTAL ACTIVITY TO BE AT ALL CONSIDER ED AS NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL THERETO. THE PHYSICAL AND/OR FUNCTIONAL CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TWO WOULD DECIDE ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. SUCH A FINDING/S, AS WOULD BE PATENT LY CLEAR, IS NECESSARY TO ARRIVE AT A 13 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) FINDING AS TO THE SATISFACTION OR OTHERWISE OF ANY OF THE TWO CONDITIONS OF SECTION 12AA(3), I.E., ON FACTS. THE PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABL ISH ITS CASE IN THIS REGARD IS ON THE ASSESSEE. CONCLUSION 5. THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF SECTI ON 12AA(3) IN THE INSTANT CASE BEING FACTUALLY INDETERMINATE, WE ONLY CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO RESTORE THIS MATTER BA CK TO THE LD. DIT(E) FOR ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CA SE IN THIS REGARD BEFORE HIM, TO BE DECIDED PER A SPEAKING ORDER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. DIT(E), THOUGH NOT RESTRICTED TO THE FACTS AND FIGURES FOR A PARTICULA R YEAR, SHALL RESTRICT HIS INQUIRY TO THE FACTUAL ASPECT OF THE CASE, I.E., QUA THE SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITION/S OF SECTION 12A A(3) ON FACTS. THAT IS, THE FACT THAT THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) GETS ATTRACTED SHALL NOT INFLUENCE OR COLOUR THE LD. DIT(E)S FACTUAL FINDIN GS NOR BY ITSELF BE CONSIDERED AS A GROUND FOR CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES AS NOT GENUINE OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OBJECTS; THE SAME BEING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF T HE LEGAL ASPECT AFORE-NOTED. WE DO SO AS THE ASSESSEES CASE WOULD REQUIRE BEING EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL THEREON ONLY IF THE SAME SURVIVES AN EXAMINATION ON FACTS, I.E., SATISFIES T HE TEST OF S. 12AA(3) ON FACTS. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES STAY PETITION, THE PRA YER WAS LIMITED TO, DRAWING REFERENCE TO THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M. K. MOHAMMED KUNHI [1969] 71 ITR 815 (SC) AND ITO VS. KHALID MEHDI KHAN [1977] 110 ITR 79 (AP) QUA THE INHERENT POWER OF AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO GRANT STAY, TO S TAY THE DEMAND FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS, BY WHICH TIME THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN THE INSTANT C ASE WOULD ENSUE. WE HAVING HEARD THE APPEAL ON MERITS, WERE DISINCLINED TO, EVEN AS OBSE RVED DURING HEARING, INTERFERE IN THE MATTER; NO CASE FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP HAVING BEEN EVEN OTHERWISE MADE OUT. IN FACT, IN VIEW OF OUR DISPOSAL OF ITS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 14 ITA NO. 625/M/12 & SA NO.228/M/13(A.Y. 2009-10) MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS . DIT(E) RESULT 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND ITS STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON DECEMBER 31, 2013 SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (SANJAY ARORA) ! VICE PRESIDENT ! ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) + MUMBAI; 2 DATED : 31.12.2013 *3! ROSHANI, SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ ! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&'$ / THE RESPONDENT 3. ) 4, 5 6 / THE CIT(A) 4. ) 4, / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 7*89%3,3:; -:;0 ) + / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9<=+ ! GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ) + / ITAT, MUMBAI