THERMOLAB SALES & SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6704/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 670419914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H N MOTIWALLA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI . . , !' #'' ' , $ % BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . : 6704 / / 2012 A.Y. 2009-10 ITA NO. : 6704/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) THERMOLAB SALES & SERVICES PVT LTD, C/O. H N MOTIWALLA & CO., 508 SHARDA CHAMBERS, 33, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI -400 020 PAN: AABCT 3641 A VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI -400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H N MOTIWALLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M L PERUMAL /DATE OF HEARING : 07-01-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 -01-2014 ( O R D E R #'' ' , : PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 18, MUMBAI, DATED 17.08.2012, WHEREIN, THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HA VE BEEN RAISED: THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREUNDER ARE WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO ONE ANOTHER. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 18, MUMBAI, ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, PARTICULARLY WHEN, NO TAX FREE INCOME WAS EARN ED, DURING THE YEAR, BY THE APPELLANT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE SAID LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECT ION 1 4A OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY WHEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROV ED THE NEXUS BETWEEN EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND EARNING OF TAX FREE INCOME. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE SAID LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF THE THERMOLAB SALES AND SERVICES PVT LTD ITA NO. 6704/MUM/2012 2 ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTIO N 14A OF THE ACT, ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF CHEMINVEST LTD VS. ITO [317 ITR ( AT) 86 (DEL) (SB)] WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE LATER DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBU NAL IN YATISH TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT [129 ITR 237 (MUM)]. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE SAID LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECT ION 1 4A OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY WHEN, THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS OUT OF ITS OWN FUND TO THE EXTENT OF 67.79%. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,09,804 /- U/S 14A. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUS INESS OF TRADING AND SERVICING OF SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENTS. ON EXAMINATION OF BALANCE SHEET THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HO LDING INVESTMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,00,82,691/-. IT WAS ALSO O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ATTRIBUTED ANY EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED TO CARRY OUT THE ACTIVITY OF INVESTING IN E XEMPT-INCOME INVESTMENTS. 4. THE AO, INVOKING SECTION 14A(1), AS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF GODR EJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS DCIT, HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE HAD T O BE COMPUTED AS PER RULE 8D. THE AO, THEREFORE, COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 2,09,804/-. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A), BEFORE WHOM, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED, I) THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SERVICING AND IN STALLATION OF SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENTS. THE PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE DOE S NOT INVOLVE BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. THE ACTIVITY OF INVESTIN G IN SHARE IS NOT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 2,00,82,691 IN EQUITY SHARES OF KORTEN PHARMACEUTICAL S PRIVATE LIMITED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. THE ACQUISITION OF SHARES WAS NOT WITH THE INTENTION OF EARNING ANY DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT E ARNED ANY DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT 2009-10 OR AN OTHER PREV IOUS OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR TILL DATE. II) THE LEARNED AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS DISALLO WED RS. 2,09,804 AS EXPENDITURE U/S 14A R/W RULE 8D, AS EXPENDITURE INCURRE D AGAINST EXEMPT INCOME. PARA 3.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READS AS FO LLOWS; IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT EVEN IF NO EXEMPT INCOME IS ACTUALLY EARNED OR RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER, THE PROVISO OF SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D APPLY WHERE ANY SUCH INVESTMENT IS MADE WHERE FORM SU CH TYPE OF INCOME MIGHT BE GENERATED EITHER IN THE PAST OF IN THE FUTURE YEARS. (III) SECTION L4A DEALS WITH EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION T O INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. THERMOLAB SALES AND SERVICES PVT LTD ITA NO. 6704/MUM/2012 3 SECTION 14A (I) READS AS FOLLOWS: FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS CHAPTER, NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPE CT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT HARM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. (IV) HENCE THE SECTION 14A CLEARLY DEALS WITH DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO EARNING INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCOME FALLING WITHIN THE SC OPE OF CHAPTER III (INCOME WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961. (V) THUS FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. L4A THERE MUST BE (I) INCOME WHICH IS TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT FOR THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND (II) THERE SHOULD ALSO BE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PA RT OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR. IF EITHER ONE IS ABSENT, THEN SEC. 14A(1) HAS NO APPLIC ABILITY. (VI) THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN STATED BY HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN CIT V. WALFORT SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. REPORTED IN 233 CTR 42 (SC). (VII) FURTHER HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. WINSOME TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD., REPORTED IN 319 ITR 204 (P&H) H AS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION SECTION 14A COULD HAVE NO APPLICATION. (VIII) THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES HAVE ALSO BEEN UPHELD IN THE CASE H ONBLE SIVA INDUSTRIES & HOLDINGS LTD. V/S ACIT (ITAT CHENNAI) 59, DTR 182. A N EXTRACT FROM WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: AN INVESTMENT WHICH DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY INCOME D EEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE CANNOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND THER EFORE CANNOT FORM INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UND ER THE ACT. THUS ONCE THERE IS NO CLAIM OF INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE IN RELATION TO AN INVESTMENT WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY INCO ME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. (IX) HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MS. DELITE ENTERPRISES, THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE IS THERE IS NO TAX FREE IN COME. (X) A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5(1) OF THE ACT PR OVIDES FOR THE SCOPE OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IT INCLUDES ALL INCOMES FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED WHICH IS RECEIVED OR DEEMED TO HE RECEIVED, ACCRUES, ARISES OR IS DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE IN INDIA OR ACCRUES OR ARISES OUTSIDE INDIA DURING SUCH YEAR. THUS WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IS THAT THE TOTAL INCOME IS RELATING TO SUCH YEAR. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY INCOME AS FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME DURING ANY YEAR THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT COULD NUT BE APPLIED TO HIM. (XI) AS PER SECTION 8 OF THE ACT. FOR THE PURPOSES OF IN CLUSION IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE. - (A) ANY DIVIDEND DECLARED BY A COMPANY O R DISTRIBUTED OR PAID BY IT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUB-CLAUSE (A) OR SUB-CLAUSE (B) OR SUB-CLAUSE (C) OR SUB- CLAUSE (D) OR SUB-CLAUSE (E) OF CLAUSE (22) OF SECTION 2 SH ALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH IT IS SO DECLARED, D ISTRIBUTED OR PAID, AS THE CASE MAY BE; (XII) FURTHER SECTION 1150 DESCRIBES DIVIDENDS AS ANY AMOUNT DECLARED, DISTRIBUTED OR PAID BY SUCH COMPANY BY WAY OF OLD DIVIDENDS. HENCE. IT IS IMPROPER TO ASSUME DIVIDEND INCOME TO ACCRU E IN CURRENT YEAR OR ARISE IN THE FUTURE, WITHOUT THE SAME BEING EXPRESSLY DECLARED OR DISTRIBUTED BY THE COMPANY. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: (I) THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SERVICIN G OF SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENTS. THE MAJORITY CLIENTELE OF THE COMPANY ARE PHARMACEUTICA L COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SHARES IN KORTEN PHARMACEUTICALS P RIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE OF PHARMACEUTICALS. THE OBJECTIVE OF MAKING THIS INVESTMENT WAS TO GET A STRONG FOOTHOLD IN THE PHA RMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY BY GETTING ACCESS TO KORTENS CLIENTS. SIMULTANEOUSLY KORTEN COULD GET ACCESS TO THERMOLABS EXISTING CLIENTELE OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. THUS THIS INVESTMENT WAS TO TRY AND ACHIEVE BUSINESS SYNERGY, W HICH WOULD BE MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL. THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT WAS NOT TO EARN A DIVIDEND OR EARN LONG TERM RETURNS IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT EARNED ANY DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 OR AN Y OTHER PREVIOUS OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT EAR TILL DATE. FURTHER, THE BANKE RS OF KORTEN HAVE IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND. THERMOLAB SALES AND SERVICES PVT LTD ITA NO. 6704/MUM/2012 4 (II) THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REMAINED UNCHANGED FROM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION TILL DATE. THIS CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE PU RPOSE OF MAKING THE INVESTMENT WAS TO EXPAND THE CORE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE LONG RUN AND NOT EARN ANY TAX FREE INCOMES IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND S OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HOLD ANY OTHER IN VESTMENT IN SHARES OTHER THAN THAT MADE IN KORTEN. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT INVOLVED IN TRADING OF SHARES OR ANY SUCH INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. (III) IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LIMITED, THE ASSESSEE WA S INVOLVED IN TRADING OF SHARES ON A REGULAR BASIS. FURTHER THE OBSERVATION MA DE BY THE ITO CLEARLY STATES THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED FOR EARNING LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE THERE WAS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY THAT AN EXEMPT INCOME COU LD ACCRUE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FUTURE. (IV) THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RELEVANT. IN THE CURRENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OB JECTIVE OF EARNING ANY EXEMPT INCOME. HENCE THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF THE ASSES SEE EARNING ANY EXEMPT INCOME. THE OBJECTIVE OF MAKING THE INVESTMENT IS PURELY FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS, TO OBTAIN ACCESS TO NEWER MARKETS AND EXPAN D THE BUSINESS. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN STATED IN THE EXTRACT OF PARA 8 OF THE CHEMINVEST DECISION (WITH REFERENCE TO DAGA CAPITAL CASE), GIVEN BELOW: 8. IN THIS REGARD, HE REFERRED TO THE SPECIAL BENCH DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT P. LTD . 117 ITD 169 (MUM) (SB). IN THIS DECISION THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT AGREE TO THE PROPOSITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE MUST BE AN EXPENDITURE TO E ARN INCOME. ON THE CONTRARY, IT HELD THAT IF THERE WERE INCOME, EXPENDITU RE IS TO BE DISALLOWED. IT WAS ASSERTED THAT WHAT IS RELEVANT TO CO NSIDER IS THE OBJECT OF INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE. IF SUCH OBJECT WERE FOR EARNING EXEMPT INCOME, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE IS RIGHTLY CALLED FO R U/S 14A. IF, HOWEVER, IT WERE FOR EARNING TAXABLE INCOME THEN NO DIS ALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD INCIDENTALLY EARNED SOME INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE REQUEST YOU TO CONSIDER OUR CASE AND REVERSE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A. 6. THE CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE REJE CTED THE CONTENTION, PLACING RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF GODREJ & B OYCE MFG. CO. P. LTD. ( SUPRA ) AND CHEMINVEST ( SUPRA ), SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE THE ITAT. 8. BEFORE US, THE AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF STOCKS & SHARES AND WAS HOLDING THE INVESTME NTS TO GAIN CONTROL ON THE CLIENTS OF KORTEN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. WHEREIN NEITHER THERE WAS AN INTENTION TO EARN INTEREST OR DIVIDE ND NOR DID THE ASSESSEE EARN ANY INCOME WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEM PT. THE AR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ERRED IN COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THERMOLAB SALES AND SERVICES PVT LTD ITA NO. 6704/MUM/2012 5 9. THE DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DETAILED ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES W ERE CORRECT IN COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND HA VE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 11. THE BASIC RELIANCE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS ON SECTION 14A(1) AND THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE AND THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST. 12. WHEN WE ANALYSE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, A S REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REFERRED TO THE WORDINGS USED IN SECTION 14A(1) WHICH TALKS ABOUT EARNING OF INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE COULD ONLY BE COMPUTED UNTIL AND UNLESS THE ASSESSEE EARNS EXEMPT INCOME, WHICH, HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CIT VS DELITE ENTERPRISES. 13. IN ANY CASE, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT INDICA TED ANYWHERE, AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE INCURRED EXPENDITURE TO EARN THE EXEMPT INCOME. UNLESS THE AO COMES TO A CONCLU SION THAT FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME SOME EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INC URRED, THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. SECTION 14A(2) IS VERY SP ECIFIC THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MUST GO THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 14. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF J K IN VESTORS (BOMBAY) LTD. IN ITA NO. 7858 AND 7851/MUM/2011 (WHERE ONE OF US WAS A PARTY) , IT WAS HELD, AO HAS NOT EXAMINED ANY EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN P&L ACCOUNT SO AS TO RELATE TO EXEMPT INC OME, NOR GAVE A FINDING THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM IS NOT CORRECT FOR ANY REASON . RULE 8D CANNOT BE INVOKED DIRECTLY, WITHOUT SATISFYING ABOUT THE CLAIMS OR OTHERWISE . IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, WE WERE DECIDING THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, FR OM WHICH ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT BECAME APPLICABLE. THERMOLAB SALES AND SERVICES PVT LTD ITA NO. 6704/MUM/2012 6 15. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE, AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE AS CONSEQUENCE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( #'' ' ) (R. C. SHARMA) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 15 TH JANUARY, 2014 / COPY TO:- 1) / THE APPELLANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-18, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-8, MUMBAI, 5) !'# $ , % $ , &'( / THE D.R. E BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) #) * COPY TO GUARD FILE. %+,- / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / . / / '0 % $ , &'( DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *23/ . . * CHAVAN, SR. PS