Shri Karveer Nivasini Mahalaxmi Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 653/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9268 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rectification of order
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 54; 154; 15

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.653/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI KARVEER NIVASINI MAHALAKSHMI ISPAT PVT. LTD. A-6, MIDC GOKUL SHIRGAON, KOLHAPUR 416234, MAHARASHTRA. PAN : AACCS5268H. . / APPELLANT V/S ASST. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX , CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY MODI / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 1 & 2, KOLHAP UR, DT.24.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- / DATE OF HEARING : 28.06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.07.2017 2 2.1 ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF STEEL INGOTS AND STEEL BARS. A. SURV EY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.03.2011 WHEREIN FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES AGGREGATING TO RS.74,89,969/- WERE NOTICED. SRL.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) 1 EXCESS CASH 4,00,000/- 2 EXCESS STOCK 40,92,411/- 3 CREDIT BALANCES IN THE ACCOUNT OF [A] ASHTAVINAYAK STEEL LTD. [B] VIDHYA POLYMER P. LTD. 18,53,783/- 11,43,775/- T O T A L 74,89,969 AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE DISCREPANCIES AND VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO DISCLOSE THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL INCOME. ASSESSE E THEREAFTER ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2 011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.37,02,465/-. THE CASE WAS TAK EN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.03.12.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WA S DETERMINED AT RS.1,11,92,434/-. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE AO WHERE IN INTER-ALIA IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE INCOME DECLARED DURIN G THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS REFLECTED IN THE ADJUSTED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND WAS AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.74,89,969/- ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT WAS PASSED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME DECLARED DURING THE SURVEY WAS ONCE AGA IN ADDED 3 BY AO RESULTING INTO DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAME INCOME. TH E AO WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED TO PASS NECESSARY RECTIFICATION ORDER. AO VIDE ORDER DT.22.04.2014 REJECTED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICAT ION BY INTER-ALIA STATING THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN TH E ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PAS SED BY AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DT.24.02.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.KOP/367/14-15) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4. IN THE APPEAL FILED, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED RELI EF THAT ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) SHOULD B E SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THESE ORDERS, MAINLY IN ORD E R UNDER SECT I ON 143( 3 ) SHOULD BE DELETED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN REQUESTED THA T PROFIT DECLARED IN THE AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SHO ULD BE ACCEPTED. 5. THE ABOVE FACTS SHOW THAT BASICALLY THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT FILE APPEAL AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 03/ 12/2013. THE APPELLANT SOUGHT THE RELIEF AGAINST ADDITIONS MADE BY FILING PETITION UNDER SECTION 154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IT WANTED RELIEF FROM THE ADDITION OF RS.74,89 , 969/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE PET ITION WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD ORALLY A CCEPTED THE PETITION AND SAID THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 WILL BE PASSED . HENCE, NO APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT O RDER . IN OTHER WAY, THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER THE IMPRESS I ON THAT THE RESULT OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION WOULD BE IN ITS FAVOUR. HOW EVER, I FIND THAT ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ARE NOT A RESULT O F ANY MISTAKE. THESE WERE WELL THOUGHT OUT DECISIONS TAKEN AFTER C ONSIDERING THE DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH COULD BE R ECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154. APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT ADDITION OF RS. 74,89,969/- WHICH INCLUDES ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CASH, EXCESS STOCK AND UNEXPLAINED CREDIT BALANCE SHOULD BE DELETED. WHETHER OR NOT TH ESE AMOUNTS REPRESENT UNEXPLAINED INCOME IS NOT A S UBJECT MATTER WHICH CAN BE COVERED UNDER SECTION 154 . THEREFORE, GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT ARE REJECTED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN AP PEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1.HON. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED O N FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. REJECTING THE APPLICA TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 154. 4 2. HON . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN PARTICULAR ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDIT IONS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ARE AS A RESULT WELL THOUGHT OUT DECISION OF THE LEARNED A.O . AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 . HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT DISCU SS THE ISSUE AT ALL AND THAT RECORDS FILED WITH THE RETURN SHOW OTHERWISE. HON. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER AND APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS A ND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF. 3. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.74,89,969/- DECLARED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS INCLUDED IN THE AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND WAS CONSIDERED WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE POINTED TO THE COPY OF THE AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PLACED AT PAGE 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED TO THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND WHICH W AS CONSIDERED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREAFTER POINTED TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PLACED AT PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT NET PROFIT CONSIDERED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF RS.74,89,969/ - ACCEPTED AS INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. HE S UBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND THE COMPUTA TION OF INCOME WAS ALREADY BEFORE THE AO. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ONCE AGAIN WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION OF THE SAME INCOME AND FOR RECTIFYING THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY MA DE AN APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT AND THE AO SHALL HAVE PASS ED THE NECESSARY RECTIFICATION ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE RECTIFICATION ORDER, AO TO COVER HIS LAPSES HAS MADE THE A DDITION U/S 69B WHICH WAS NOT MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED U/S 143(3) AND MAKING ADDITION UNDER A NEW HEAD OF 5 INCOME IN A RECTIFICATION ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HE SUBMITT ED THAT IF THE AO WANTED TO MAKE ADDITION U/S 69B OF THE AM OUNT DISCLOSED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, HE SHOULD HAVE DONE SO W HILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) AND THAT IT CANNOT BE DONE IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER RELIED ON T HE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MOOLCH AND ELECTRIC REPORTED IN 192 ITR 238 (BOM) AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF LD. CIT(A) VS. RUSSEL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD REPORTED IN (1987) 163 ITR 538 (CAL) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE POWER OF T HE ITO U/S 154 OF THE ACT COULD BE EXERCISED ONLY TO RECTIFY THE E RRORS AND NOT TO MAKE RE-ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ERRORS COMMITTED BY HIM. LD.A.R. THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF AO BE SET ASIDE. L D.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A) . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U /S 154 OF THE ACT. 5. SECTION 154 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR RECTIFICATION OF ANY MISTAKE WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDERS / INTIMATION SPECIFIED THEREIN. A MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS ONE WHICH IS PATIENT AND OBVIOUS AND WHOSE DISCOVE RING IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ARGUMENT OR ELABORATION. 6. ON THE ISSUE OF THE MISTAKES THAT CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M.M.T.C. LTD., REPORTED IN [2000] 246 ITR 725 (DEL) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 6 A BARE LOOK AT SECTION 154 OF THE ACT MAKES IT CLEA R THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD' IS RECTIFIABLE. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 154, THE MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME MU ST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE POWE R T O RECTIFY THE M I STAKE, H OWEVER, DO E S NOT COVER CASES WHERE A REVISION O R R E V I EW OF THE ORDER IS IN T END E D. ' M I S T AKE' MEANS TO TAKE OR UNDE R STAND WRONG L Y O R INACCURA T ELY ; TO MAKE AN ERR OR I N I NTERPRETING I T IS AN E R ROR A FAULT, A MISUNDERSTAND I NG, A M I SCONCEPTION. ' APPARENT ' MEANS VIS I B L E ; CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN, OBVIOUS ; PLAIN. IT MEANS 'OPEN TO VIEW, VISIBLE, EV I DENT , APPEARS , APPEAR I NG AS REAL A ND T RUE, CONSPICUOUS, MANIFEST, OBVIOUS, SEEMING.' A MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154 IS ONE WHICH IS PATENT, WHICH IS OBVIOU S A ND WHOSE DISCOVERY I S NOT DEPENDENT ON ARGUMENT OR ELABORATION. IN OU R VIEW THE AMENDMENT OF AN ORDER DOES NOT MEAN OBLITERATION OF THE O R DER ORIGINALLY PASSED AND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A NEW ORDER. WHAT THE REV EN U E INTENDS TO DO IN THE PRESENT CASE IS PRECISELY THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE ORDER WHI CH ACCORDING TO US IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE P R OVISIONS OF SECTION 154 AND, THEREFORE, TH E T R IB U NAL WAS J US TIFI ED I N HOLDING T HA T THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON T H E F AC E O F T H E RE CO R D . IN ORDER TO B RIN G AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 15 4 , THE MISTAKE MUS T BE 'APPA R ENT ' FR O M T HE RECORD . SECTION 1 54 DOES NOT E NABL E AN ORDER T O B E REV E RSED BY R E V I S I ON OR BY REVIEW, BUT PERMITS ONLY SO ME ERROR W H IC H IS APPA RE NT O N TH E FA CE OF THE RECO R D TO BE CORRECTED . WH E R E AN ERR OR I S F A R FR OM S E L F- EV I DEN T, IT CEASES T O BE AN APPARENT ERROR. IT I S , N O DO U BT, TRUE THAT A M I S T AK E CAPAB L E O F BEING RECTIFIED UNDER SEC TI ON 1 54 I S NO T CON FINE D T O CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES. ON THE OTHER HAN D, I T DO E S NOT CO V ER ANY MI STAKE W HI CH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A COMPLICA TE D PR OC E SS O F IN V ESTIG A TI ON, ARGUM E N T O R P R OOF . AS OBSERVED BY THE APEX CO URT I N MASTER CONS TRU C TI ON CO . (P.) L TD . V . STATE OF O R ISSA [ 1966] 17 STC 360, A N E RROR WHICH I S APPARENT FROM THE RECORD SHOULD BE ONE WHICH IS NO T A N ER RO R W H ICH D E PENDS FOR ITS D I SCOVERY ON ELABORATE ARGUMENTS ON Q UE S TI ON S O F F AC T O R L AW . A SIM IL AR V I EW WAS ALSO EXPRESSED I N SATYANARAYA N L AXM I NA RA YAN HEG DE V . MALL I KA RJ U N BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE [1960] AIR 1 960 SC 1 37. IT IS TO B E NO T ED THAT T HE LANGUAGE USED IN ORDER 47, RU L E 1 O F TH E COD E O F C I V IL PROC E DUR E, 1 908 (IN SHORT 'THE CPC'), IS D I FFERENT FR O M THE L ANG UAG E USED IN S E C T ION 1 5 4 O F THE AC T . T HE POWER IS G I VEN TO VA RI OU S A U THORITIE S T O RE C T I F Y ANY M I S T AK E 'APPARENT FROM RECORD'UNDER SECTION 1 5 4 OF THE AC T. I N T HE CIVIL PROCEDU R E CODE, THE WORDS ARE 'AN ERROR APP A R E N T ON TH E F AC E O F THE R ECORD'. T HE TWO PROVISIONS DO NOT MEAN THE SAM E THIN G. T H E POW ER OF T HE TR IBUNA L I N SECTION 154 TO RECTIFY 'ANY MISTAKE APPA R E NT FR OM TH E R ECORD' I S U N DOUBTEDLY NOT MORE THAN THAT OF TH E HI GH COU RT T O E N TERTA IN A WR IT PET I TION ON THE BASIS OF 'AN ERROR APPARENT ON T H E FAC E O F TH E R EC O R D ' (S EE T . S . BA L A R AM, I TO V. VOLKART BROTHERS [ 197 1] 82 ITR 5 0 (SC )) . 'MI S T AK E' I S AN O R DINARY WO R D BUT IN TAXATION LAWS, IT HAS A SP E C I A L S I G NIFI CANCE . IT I S N OT AN ARITHME TI CA L E R ROR WH I CH, AFTER A J U D I C I OU S PR OB E I NT O THE RE CORD FR OM WH I C H I T I S SUPPOSED TO EMANATE OR D I SC ER NED. T H E WORD 'MI S T AKE' IS INHER E NTLY INDEFINITE IN SCOPE, AS WHAT MAY BE A MISTAKE FOR O N E MAY NOT BE ONE F OR ANOTHER. IT IS MOSTLY SUBJECT I VE AND T H E DIV I DING LIN E I N BO R DE R AREAS IS TH I N AND INDISCERNIBLE. IT I S SOMETHI N G WH I CH A DULY AND JUD I CIOUSLY I NST R UCTED MIND CAN F I ND OUT FROM THE R E CO RD . I N OR D E R T O ATTR AC T T H E POWE R TO RECTIFY UNDER SECT I ON 154, IT IS NOT SUFFI C I ENT IF T HER E IS MERE LY A M I STAK E IN THE ORDERS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED . T H E MI S TAKE T O BE R ECTIFIE D MUS T B E ON E APPARENT FROM THE RECORD . A D E C I S I O N O N A D E BA TABLE PO I N T O F LAW O R A D I SPUTED QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT A MIS T AK E APPA RE NT FR OM THE R ECORD. T HE PLAIN MEAN I NG OF THE 7 WORD 'APPARENT' IS THA T I T MUS T B E SOMETHING WHICH APPEARS TO BE SO EX FACIE AND I S I NCAP A B LE OF A R GU ME NT OR DEBATE . IT , THEREFORE, FOL L OWS THAT A DECISION O N A DEB ATAB L E PO INT O F L AW O R F AC T O R F A I L U RE TO APP L Y THE LAW TO A SET OF FACT S WH I C H REMA IN S TO BE IN V E S T IGAT ED CAN N OT BE CORRECTED BY WAY OF RECTIFICATIO N. ON THE FACT S O F THE P RE S E NT CASE, W E FI ND THAT THERE WAS NO M I STAKE A P PA RENT F R O M THE RECOR D WH I CH COU L D B E R ECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154 OF T HE A CT . T HE QU E S TI O N S PR OPOS E D DEAL WIT H CONC L USIONS ON THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO NO QU EST ION O F L AW. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE DISCREPANCIES NOTICED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS INCOME AND WAS ALSO OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO A FA CT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FRAMED NO ADDITION U/S 69B WAS M ADE BY THE AO. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE AO. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION U/S 69B FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE RECTIFICATION PROCE EDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT. BY THE PASSING OF RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT W ILL BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE NEW ORDER WITH AN ENHANCED INCOME U /S 69B OF THE ACT. THIS IN OUR VIEW, IS THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT PE RMISSIBLE, MORE SO IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF MMTC LTD., (SUPRA) WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE POWER TO RECTIFY THE MIST AKE DOES NOT COVER CASES WHERE A REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS IN TENDED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE ABOVE DECISION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, MIS TAKE THAT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RECTIFICATION APPLIC ATION WAS APPARENT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 8 154 OF THE ACT AND THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AD DITION U/S 69B OF THE ACT. THUS THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 7 TH DAY OF JULY, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 7 TH JULY, 2017. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-1 & 2, KOLHAPUR. CIT-2, KOLHAPUR / CIT(CENTRAL), PUNE. #$% &&'(,* '(, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; %,-./ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // //// // TRUE COP // /// TRUE // //COPY // TRUE COPY // 0123 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '( , / ITAT, PUNE.