POWAI VIHAR DEVELOPERS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6412/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3705 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PANDIANDR
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -CBENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMIT SHUKLA,JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.6412/MUM/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 POWAI VIHAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. SHRISHTI HOUSE (1 ST FLOOR) NSB ROAD, MULUND (W) MUMBAI-400 080. PAN:AAACP 4163 G VS. ASSTT. CIT-10(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI S. PANDIAN-DR A SSESSEE BY: M. SUBRAMANIAN / DATE OF HEARING: 01.03.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.03.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 5.7.2011 OF CIT(A)-22,MUM BAI THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LABOUR CONTRACT AND DEVELOPERS,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2005 DECLARING THE INCOME AT RS.34.71 LAKHS.INITIALLY,THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1)OF THE ACT.LATER ON,PROCEED INGS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT AFTER RECORDING THE REASO N.THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO)COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT,ON 1 0.12.2010,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.89.71 LAKHS. BRIEF FACTS: 2. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE CIT(A)-37,MUMBAI, ONE NARENDRA R. SHAH (NRS) SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING A COMP REHENSIVE LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF 1314 PERSONS WHO HAD ALLEGEDLY LAUNDERED THEIR B LACK MONEY AND HAD AVAILED FINANCIAL ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES.SOME OF THE ENTITIES WHO HAD PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF LOANS/SHARE APPLICATION MONEY THROUGH NARENDRA R. S HAH INCLUDED KAILASH FICOM LTD. (KFL).IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES,APPEARING I N THE PAPER BOOK (PB) SUBMITTED BY NRS,THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO APPEARED.IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN TWO ENTRIES OF RS.12.00 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKHS IN THE MO NTH OF MARCH 2005 FROM UNIVERSAL CREDIT AND SECURITIES LTD.(UCSL)THROUGH THE CENTURION BANK .IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED,THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ENTRY FR OM UCSL, THAT IT HAD TAKEN LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.55 LAKHS FROM KFL IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2005. IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND OF KFL.THE AO RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 25.11.2010.HE H AD SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION OF KFL. HOWEVER,SUMMONS ISSUED TO KFL WAS RETURNED UNSERVED . THE AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE KFL,THAT IT HAD FAILED TO PROVE THA T LOAN WAS TAKEN FROM KFL, THAT NO AGREEMENT/DETAILS OF SECURITIES OFFERED FOR THE LOA N TAKEN WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE TRANSACTION.FINALLY,HE HELD THAT THE LOANS OF RS.65 LACS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM KFL REMAINED UNPROVED, THAT SAME HAD TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED 6412/M/11-POWAI VIHAR 2 TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.55 LAKHS, U/S.68 OF THE ACT, TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM,IT WAS ARGUED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED LOAN CONFIRMA -TION,BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE,THE ADDRESS OF THE LOANEE AND P.A.NO., THAT THE REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE NRS WAS DENIE D BY THE AO, THAT AO HAD NOWHERE PROVED THAT THERE WAS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LOANEE.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ,THE FAA REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF O ASIS HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD.(ITA NO.2093 OF 2010, DATED 30 TH JAN. 2010) AND HELD THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF THAT C ROSS EXAMINATION WAS ASKED FOR AND DENIED,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED T O PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITORS, THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.55.00 LAKHS. 4. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT BASED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FO R RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT, THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 148 WAS AB INITIO VOID. HE REFERR ED TO THE CASE OF JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD.(331 ITR236)OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT.THE DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT WHILE RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAD RECORDED FOL LOWING REASONS : 'THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOM E ON 30.10.2005, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.34,71,815/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.07.2007, ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 3 4,71,815/ -. SHRI NARENDRA R SHAH A HAWALA OPERATOR WAS INVOLVED MAINLY IN GIVING OF HAWALA OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY TO MANY BENEFICIARIES. SHRI SHAH HAS NOT ONLY ADMITTED HIS ROLE AS A HAWALA OPERATOR BEFORE THE CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI BUT A LSO FURNISHED TO HIM PARTICULARS OF THE BENEFICIARIES. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI SHRI NARENDRA R SHAH HAS SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING A CO MPREHENSIVE LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF 1314(ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FOURT EEN ONLY) PERSONS WHO LAUNDERED THEIR BLACK MONEY AND BECAME THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE IM PUGNED PENNY STOCK, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, ETC. THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CI T(A)-37, MUMBAI SHOWS LIST OF BENEFICIARIES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS. UNDER THE HEAD ' SHARE APPLICATION MONEY GIVEN AT SR. NO. 143 AND 144 POWAI VIHAR DEVELOPERS P. LTD IS IN RECEIPT OF AMOUNT OF RS.12,00,000/-AND RS.25,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY FROM THE PARTY M/S. UNIVERSAL CREDIT AND SECURITIES LTD. ON 15.03.2005 AND 19.03.2005. THE A MOUNT OF RS.37,00,000/- ROUTED FROM M/S. UNIVERSAL CREDIT AND SECURITIES LTD IS NOTHIN G BUT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE AMOUNT OF RS.37,00,000/- IS THEREFORE UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDITS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. I HAVE THEREFORE, REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.37,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR NOT MAKING TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURES OF ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.147 ALONG WITH EXPLANATIONS 1 AND 2(B). THIS IS THEREFORE, A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF NO TICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. WE FIND THAT AO HAD SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT INC OME TO THE TUNE OF RS.37 LAKHS HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT,THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF RS.12 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY FROM UCSL ON 15.3.2005 AND 19.3.2005 R ESPECTIVELY, THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.37 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM UCSL WAS NOTHING BUT ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRY.BUT,THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM KLF AND FINALLY THE AO HAD MADE AN ADDITI ON OF RS.55 LAKHS.FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAD RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAXING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM UCSL BUT FINALLY HE MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM KLF.WE FIND THAT THE FINAL ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO HAD NO RELATION WITH THE R EASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE 6412/M/11-POWAI VIHAR 3 ASSESSMENT.THE ESTABLISHED RULES OF TAXATION PROVID E THAT THERE SHOULD BE LIVE NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS RECORDED AND FINAL ADDITIONS MADE.THE R EASON BEHIND IT IS TO CONTROL THE AO.S.,SO, THAT THEY CANNOT RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENTS WITHOUT VA LID BASIS.WITHOUT SUCH RESTRICTION THEY WOULD ISSUE 148 NOTICES FOR ONE REASON AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS ON OTHER ISSUES. INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 IS A SERIOUS ISSUE AND UNBRIDLED POWERS OF RE-OPENING CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE AO.S.THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JET AIRWAYS (SUPRA)HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: THE EFFECT OF S. 147 AS IT NOW STANDS AFTER THE AME NDMENT OF 2009 CAN BE SUMMARISED AS FOLLOWS : (I) THE AO MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR; (II) UP ON THE FORMATION OF THAT BELIEF AND BEFORE HE PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION, THE AO HAS TO SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 148; ( III) THE AO MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME, WHICH HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION; AND (IV) THOUGH THE NOTICE UNDER S. 148(2) DOES NOT INCLUDE A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HE MAY NONETHELESS, ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN R ESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION. . UPON THE FORMATION OF A REASON TO BELIEVE UNDER S. 147 AND FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER S. 148, TH E AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME, WHICH HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCA PED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE WORDS 'AND ALSO' CANN OT BE IGNORED. THE INTERPRETATION WHICH THE COURT PLACES ON THE PROVISION SHOULD NOT RESULT IN DILUTING THE EFFECT OF THESE WORDS OR RENDERING ANY PART OF THE LANGUAGE USED BY PARLIAME NT OTIOSE. PARLIAMENT HAVING USED THE WORDS 'ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT', THE WORDS 'AND ALSO' CANNO T BE READ AS BEING IN THE ALTERNATIVE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION WOULD BE T O REGARD THOSE WORDS AS BEING CONJUNCTIVE AND CUMULATIVE. IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT PAR LIAMENT HAS NOT USED THE WORD 'OR'. THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT REST CONTENT BY MERELY USING TH E WORD 'AND'. THE WORDS 'AND', AS WELL AS 'ALSO' HAVE BEEN USED TOGETHER AND IN CONJUNCTION. THE WORDS 'SUCH INCOME' REFER TO THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE AO HAS FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT. HENCE, THE LANGUAGE WHICH HAS BEEN USED BY PARLIAMENT IS INDICATIVE OF THE POSITI ON THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MUST BE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHIC H HE HAS FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF ANY O THER INCOME WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS A S HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IF THE INCOME, THE ESCAPEMENT OF WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF TH E FORMATION OF THE REASON TO BELIEVE IS NOT ASSESSED OR REASSESSED, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE AO TO INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS ONLY THAT INCOME WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN TH E COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION AS HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IF UPON THE I SSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER S. 148(2), THE AO ACCEPTS THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DOES NOT ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE NOTICE, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN T O HIM TO ASSESS INCOME UNDER SOME OTHER ISSUE INDEPENDENTLY. PARLIAMENT WHEN IT ENACTED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 147 W.E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1989 CLEARLY STIPULATED THAT THE AO HAS TO ASSESS OR REA SSESS THE INCOME WHICH HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ANY OTHER I NCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ABSENCE O F THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE FORMER, HE CANNOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS THE LATTER. . PARLIAMENT, WHEN IT ENACTED THE EXPLN. 3 TO S. 147 BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 CLEARLY HAD BEFORE IT BOTH THE LINES OF PRECEDENT ON THE SUBJECT. THE PRECEDENT DEALT WITH TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS. WHEN IT EFFECTED THE AMENDMENT BY BRINGING IN EXPLN. 3 TO S. 147, PA RLIAMENT STEPPED IN TO CORRECT WHAT IT REGARDED AS AN INTERPRETATIONAL ERROR IN THE VIEW W HICH WAS TAKEN BY CERTAIN COURTS THAT THE AO HAS TO RESTRICT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS ONLY TO THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSES SMENT. THE CORRECTIVE EXERCISE EMBARKED 6412/M/11-POWAI VIHAR 4 UPON BY PARLIAMENT IN THE FORM OF EXPLN. 3 CONSEQUE NTLY PROVIDES THAT THE AO MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH C OMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH THE REASONS FOR SU CH ISSUE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE UNDER S. 148(2). EXPLANATION 3 LIFTS THE EMBARGO, W HICH WAS INSERTED BY JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION, ON THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT OR R EASSESSMENT ON GROUNDS OTHER THAN THOSE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER S. 148 SETTING OUT THE REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THOSE JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAD HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED ON THE GROUND THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON A CERTAIN ISSUE, THE AO COULD NOT MAKE AN ASSESSMEN T OR REASSESSMENT ON ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS INT ERPRETATION WILL NO LONGER HOLD THE FIELD AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLN. 3 BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) OF 2009. HOWEVER, EXPLN. 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVERRIDE THE NECESSITY OF FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF S. 147. AN EXPLANATION TO A STATUTORY PROVISION IS INTENDED TO EXPLAIN ITS CONTENTS AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO OVERRIDE IT OR RENDER THE SUBSTANCE AND CORE NUGATORY. SEC. 147 HAS THIS EFFECT THAT THE AO HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME (' SUCH INCOME') WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IF A FTER ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER S. 148, HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS T HAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF HE INTENDS TO DO SO, A FRESH NOTICE UNDER S. 148 WOULD BE NECESSA RY, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTED IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF JET AIRWAYS OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT WE HOLD THAT RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WAS NOT VALID. EFFECTIVE GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MARCH, 2016. 04 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( !' / RAJENDRA ) #$ / JUDICIAL MEMBER !%#$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 04 .03.2016 . . . .. . JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.