PANKAJ VRUJLAL BABARIA, MUMBAI V. ADDL.C.I.T.14(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7308/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 730819914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIKANT NAMDEO
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHIT GANDHI
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUD ICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 7308/MUM./ 2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 10 ) MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 98, PRINCES STREET, 1 ST FLOOR MANSOOR BUILDING, MUMBAI 400 002 .. / APPELLANT V/S ADDL. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 14(3), 609, EARNEST HOUSE 6 TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 .... / RESPONDENT ./ PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AAEPB7960N / ASSESSEE BY : MR. NISHIT GANDHI / REVENUE BY : MR. SHRIKANT NAMDEO / DATE OF HEARING 12.06.2014 / DATE OF ORDE R 18.06.2014 / ORDER , / PER AMIT SHUKLA , J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HA S BEEN P REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28 TH AUGUST 2012. PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) XXV , MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) , OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009 10 . MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 2 2 . THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF ` 19,64,998, MADE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D. 3 . FACTS IN BRIEF : THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DRIVING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS , INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE BUSINESS INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN UNDER SIX PROPRIETARY CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F TRANSPORTATION, CLEARING , WAREHOUSE, LOADING AND UNLOADING AND A LLIED SERVICE PROVIDERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` 1,75,720, WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(34). THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D, SHOULD NOT BE MADE, SUBMITTED THAT ONLY SUCH EXPENDITURE CAN BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 14A, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE OR RELATED TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR EACH OF THE ACTIVITIES AND ALL THE EXPENDITURES INCURRED HAVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE RESPECTIVE BUSINESS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D, CANNOT BE BLINDLY APPLIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, WAS MADE IN THE GROUP CASE OF THE ASSESSEE MR. MAHESH VRAJLAL BABARIA, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09, WHEREIN THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 3 DISALLOWANCE. HE FURTHER HELD EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT THE NET RESULTS OF SUCH BUSINESS ARE SHOWN IN THE PERSONAL PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, IT WILL NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTRIBUTED ANY EXPENDITURE, DI SALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D, HAS TO BE MADE. THEREAFTER, APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D, HE MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 19,64,998, OUT OF WHICH THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST WAS AT ` 19,03,553, AND OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE S (I.E., 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT) WAS AT ` 61,445. 4 . BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILISED THE BORROWED FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND THE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF OWN FUNDS AND NOT THE BU SINESS FUNDS. IT WAS AGAIN REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENT BUSINESS AND THERE IS NO MIX UP OF EXPENSES RELATING TO BUSINESS AND, THUS, RELATE TO INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. ON THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE HEL D THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R/W RULE 8D WOULD BE APPLICABLE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH SEPARATE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FOR THE VARIOUS PROP RIETORSHIP CONCERNS, BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN CLUBBED IN THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 4 INCLUDES INVESTMENTS IN SHARE AND OTHER ASSETS. BESIDES THIS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SHOWING BUSINESS ASSETS OF CAR RENTAL AND CEMENT BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LOAN LIABILITY OF ` 3.9 CRORES AND ALL THESE BORROWINGS ARE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY LINKED WITH ALL THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS. HOWEVER, THE CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF ALL THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE TO BE SEEN F OR THE PURPOSE OF NET TAXABLE INCOME AND ALSO THE EXEMPT INCOME. AFTER RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V/S DCIT, (2010), 328 ITR 081 (BOM.) AND SOME OTHER DECISIONS, HE HELD THAT THE DISALL OWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED. 5 . BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, FOR ANY DISALLOWANCE AND APPLICATION OF RULE 8D, CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SUB SECTION 2 AND 3 OF S ECTION 14A, HAS TO BE EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE ENTIRE NATURE OF BUSINESS, EXPENSES INCURRED DIRECTLY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THE UTILISATION OF LOAN FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN THESE DETAILS OF A LL THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE ACCOUNTS AND AFTER BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH SUCH ACCOUNTS AND WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME, THEN ONLY, THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D CAN MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 5 BE APPLIED. HE ALSO REFERRED TO CLAUSE 1 OF RULE 8D, WHICH ALSO SPEAKS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESS EE THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED. THUS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN ARRIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINESS EXPENSES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CAN BE MADE FOR THE REASON THAT, FIRSTLY, NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND, SECONDLY, THE LOANS WHICH WERE TAKEN FOR VARIOUS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, THEY HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR S PECIFIC PURPOSE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SECOND CONTENTION, HE HAS ALSO GIVEN BREAK UP OF THE INTEREST IN VARIOUS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS AND ALSO THE UTILISATION OF THE LOAN. THUS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST SHOULD BE MADE . L ASTLY , HE RELIED AND REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN MAHESH BRAJLAL BABARIA, ITA NO.7421/MUM./2011, AND IN JIGAR RAJESH BABARIA, ITA NO.7422/MUM./ 2011, ORDER DATED 10 TH APRIL 2014, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS SE T ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE AVAILABILITY OF SURPLUS FUNDS / INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE AND ALSO TO EXAMINE THE EXPENDITURE , WHETHER THEY CAN BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE T O THE EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 6 6 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND , RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME AND HAS ALSO CLAIMED EXPENDITURE, THEN THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A, HAS TO BE MADE AND THE SAME CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FORMULA GIVEN IN RULE 8D. 7 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS CASE, HAS REPEATEDLY CONTENDING THAT HE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR ALL HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, WHEREIN THE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN DEBITED SEPARATELY WHICH HAS BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE BUSIN ESS INCOME SHOWN UNDER THE SAID BUSINESS ENTITY. HE HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTENDING THAT NO INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN SHARES WHICH HAVE YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME FROM THE BORROWED FUNDS AND IN FACT, HE HAS SURPLUS FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN M ADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETELY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS GIVEN IN CASE OF MAHESH VRAJLAL BABARIA, BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME REASO NING. THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A CAN ONLY BE TRIGGERED ONCE THERE IS AN EXEMPT INCOME AND ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME, HAS TO MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 7 BE DISALLOWED. SUB SECTION (2) PROVIDES FOR THE CONDITION PRECEDEN T FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTIFYING THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME. THIS CAN BE DONE UNDER THE PRESCRIBED METHOD I.E., RULE 8D. HOWEVER, PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D, CAN BE APPLIED ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD TO THE A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE I S NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR ABOUT THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN REITERATED IN CLAUSE (1) OF RULE 8D. THIS STATUT ORY EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, WE FEEL THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORE D BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE INCLUDING THE AVAILABILITY OF SURPLUS FUNDS / INTEREST FREE FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING INVESTMENT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT SIMILAR FACTS AND REASONING, THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ASSESSEES FAMILY MEMBERS I.E., MAHESH VRAJLAL BABARIA AND JIGAR VRAJLAL BABARIA, IN ITA NO. 7422/MUM./20117422 AND 7421/MUM ./2011 , ORDER DATED 10 TH APRIL 2014, HAS RESTORED TH IS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 7.1 WE MAY FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN DAY TO DAY BUSINESS, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SEE HOW TO MANAGE ITS BUSINESS. EV EN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT SHOW IN THE ABSENCE OF SEPARATE FUND FLOW STATEMENT OR SEPARATE ACCOUNTS RELATING TO BUSINESS LOANS AND TRANSACTIONS AND INVESTMENTS MADE FROM OWN FUNDS, BUT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THE NEAR PROXIMITY OF AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUNDS MAY BE EXACTLY NOT ON THE DATE OF INVESTMENT OR MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 8 ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN BUT IN A VERY NEAR FUTURE DATE OR WITHIN A REASONABLE SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, EVEN THEN THE PRESUMPTION WILL BE THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BYTHE ASSESSEE FROM HIS OWN FUNDS OR IN ANTICIPATION OF AVAILABILITY OF ITS OWN FUNDS WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THIS PROPOSITION IS THAT A BUSINESSMAN HAS TO CIRCULATE HIS MONEY ACCORDING TO THE DAY TO DAY REQUIREMENTS AND THE LIKELY INFLOW AND OUTFLOW OF MONEY IN THE NEAR FUTURE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE MAKING INVESTMENTS. EVEN IF ON THE DATE OF INVESTMENT / EXPENDITURE, OWN FUNDS MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT IF THE INVESTMENT/ EXPENDITURE IS MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUN DS AND THE OWN FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, THEN UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE ON THE ENTIRE LOAN AMOUNT BUT A VERY REASONABLE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE AND EVEN IN CERTAIN CASE S CAN BE IGNORED DUE TO THE SHORTNESS OF THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE DATE OF ADVANCEMENT / EXPENDITURE AND DATE OF AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUNDS. IT CAN BE OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS TO WHETHER SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR OR THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE GENERATED DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE AVAILABILITY OF OWN FUNDS ON THE PARTICULAR DATE OF INVESTMENT/ADVANCEMENT/EXPENDITURE. 7.2 IN THE CA SE IN HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR INVESTMENT AND BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING IN TRANSPORT BUSINESS, THE INTEREST WAS PAID TO THE FINANCE COMPANY FOR THE PURC HASE OF TRUCKS WHICH WERE USED FOR TRANSPORT BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE HAD BEEN A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME. 7.3 HOWEVER, A PERUS AL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THE AO WITHOUT RECORDING ANY DISSATISFACTION WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME, STRAIGHTWAY APPLIED RULE 8D AGAINST THE MANDATE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN MAINTAINING SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT PURPOSES WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE. 7.4 IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE SET ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 9 SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS/INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESS EE FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES SO FAR DISALLOWANCE RELATING TO INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS CONCERNED. THE AO WILL ALSO CONSIDER THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, IF ANY, INCURRED INCLUDING THE ALLOCATION OUT OF INDIRECT COMMON EXPENSE S FOR EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE GUIDELINES / OBSERVATIONS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE A.O. WILL PROVIDE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND ACCOUNTS ETC. INCLUDING FUND FLOW STATEMENT, IF ANY AS PER LAW. THE AO THEREAFTER, WILL DULY EXAMINE THE EXPLANATION/ DOCUMENTS SO PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT AND GIVE A SPECIFIC FINDING IN THIS RESPECT BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. THE GROUND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. CONSISTENT WITH THE AFORESAID DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE CONCLUSION , WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND RESTORE BACK THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8 . 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 18 TH JUNE 2014 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 18 TH JUNE 2014 SD/ - . D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 18 TH JUNE 2014 MR. PANKAJ VRAJLAL BABARIA 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) / THE ASSESSEE ; ( 2 ) / THE REV ENUE; ( 3 ) ( ) / THE CIT(A ) ; ( 4 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; ( 5 ) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ; ( 6 ) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI