DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI V. RISHIROOP POLYMERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7384/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6748 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: JAYESH DADIAAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DBENCH M UMBAI , . . , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER & C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.7384/MUM/2016, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(3)(1) ROOM NO.609, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 VS. M/S. RISHIROOP POLYMERS PVT. LTD. 65, ATLANTA, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 PAN:AAACR1789G ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI RAM TIWARI-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI JAYESH DADIA-AR / DATE OF HEARING: 12/06/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:27/06/2018 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-8, MUMBAI, DATE D 28.09.2016 THE ASSESSING OFFICER (ASSESSING OFFICER) HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. ASSESSEECOMPANY, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF POLYMER COMPOUNDS AND TRADING IN S YNTHETIC RUBBER, PETROLEUM, RESINS AND CHEMICALS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14.80 CRORES. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE A CT, ON 31.03.2015 DETERMINING ITS INCOME AT 15.31 CRORES. 2. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT TREATING THE EXP ENDITURE OF RS.11.23 LACS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IT WAS AGREED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (ITA 1725/MUM/2015 & I TA 1028/MUM/2015-A.Y.2011-12, DATED 15.11.2016). WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PORTI ON OF SAID ORDER AND IT READS AS UNDER PARA 2 TO 7 COPY. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL AMOUNTING TO RS.32,54,413/-. FOR THIS REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED I N DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.32 ,54,413/- AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE SHOWN IS UNDOUBTEDLY CAPITAL IN NATURE AS THE EXPEN DITURE INCURRED IS ITA 7384.M.2016 M/S. RISHIROOP POLYMERS P. LTD. 2 NOTHING BUT REPLACEMENT OR OLD STRUCTURE WITH NEW S TRUCTURE WHICH IS PERMANENT IN NATURE AND GIVES THE ASSESSEE ENDURING BENEFIT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.29,32,172/- IN RESPECT OF FACTORY BUILDING REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AND ALSO CLAIMED EXPENDITURE IN RES PECT OF REPAIR OF OFFICE BUILDING AMOUNTING TO RS.3,22,241/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER, THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON WAS INCREASED FROM RS.3,31,166/- DURING THE A.Y.2010-11 TO RS.32,54,413/- IN A.Y.201 1-12, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF SUCH EXPENSES AND ASSESSEE EXPLAIN THAT THESE INCLUDES LABOUR CHARGES FOR AC SHEETS RE MOVING, OLD PIPES DISMANTLING, PIPE LINE FABRICATIONS, FITTINGS, PURCHASE OF TILES, PUR CHASE OF PAINTS, LABOUR CHARGES ETC. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE EXPENDITURE CLA IMED ARE PURELY IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL AND ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPE NSE OF RS.32,54,413/- AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AS PER APPLICABLE RATES. AGGRIEVED AS SESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AND HELD T HE EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE IN NATURE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.25,84,047/- FOR REPAIRS OF EXISTING FACTORY BUIL DING AT VAPI TO STRENGTHEN THE BEAM OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. SIMI LARLY, RS.3,48,125/- WAS SPENT ON REPAIR OF THE BOUNDARY WALL AT NASHIK FACTORY. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT RS.16,32,302/- WAS SPENT ON PURCHASE OF STEEL AND CEMENT SHEETS. THESE SHEETS WERE PURCHASED TO PROTECT THE EXISTING BUILDING AND SUPPORT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. IT IS ALSO SEEN TH AT LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.2,92,889/- WAS ALSO PAID. REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF OLD WALL CANNOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT NEW CAPITAL ASSETS CAME I NTO EXISTENCE. I REFER HERE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF NEW SHORROC SPG . & MFG. CO.LTD. V. VIT SO ITR 338 (BOM); ADDL.CIT V. DESAI BROS -.108 ITR 14 (GUJ); CIT V. CHOWGULE & C0. (P) LTD. 81 TAXMAN 384/214 ITR 523(B OM); CIT V. SARAVANA SP. MILLS (P) LTD. 163 TAXMAN 201215293 IT 'R 201(SC); CIT V. JANAKIRAM MILLS LTD. 275 ITR 403(MADRAS); CIT V. MA DRAS AUTO SERVICE (P) LTD. 99 TAXMAN 575 (SC); CIT V. MANOHAR LAL HIM LTD. 219 TAXMAN 161; CIT V. JAWAHAR MILLS LTD. 226 ITR 230 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.32,54,413/ - MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE . THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS.30,75,581/- MADE BY THE AO IS DELETE D. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUN AL 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED REPAIR TO THE EXISTING FACTORY BUILDING AT VAPI AND TO STRENGTHEN THE BEAM OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE A SSESSEE ALSO CARRIED OUT REPAIR OF BOUNDARY WALLS OF FACTORY AT NASIK. ONCE THIS IS RE PAIR, THE EXPENDITURE IS REVENUE IN NATURE, HENCE, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF CIT (A ) AND CONFIRMED THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER, WE DECIDE F IRST GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO, AS THE FACTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE SIMILAR 3. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.12.66 LACS BEING WORK IN PROGRESS. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) & THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) AGREED ITA 7384.M.2016 M/S. RISHIROOP POLYMERS P. LTD. 3 THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 201 1-12(SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PARA NO.8 TO 10:- 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BEING WORK-IN-PROGRESS AMOUNTIN G TO RS.11,80,812/-. FOR THIS REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.4: 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.11,80,812/- BEING WORK IN PROGRESS WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WITH ANY SUPPORT ING EVIDENCES THE YIELD OF FINISHED GOODS IN RESPECT OF RAW MATERIAL UTILIZE D AND ALSO THE BYE- PRODUCTS IF ANY PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF MANU FACTURING PROCESS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOTICED FROM WORKING IN PROGRESS & MATERIAL CONSUMED AND FINISHED GOODS PRODUCTION RATIO THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSE ANY CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS DESPITE HAVING CONSUMED RA W MATERIAL AMOUNTING TO RS.11,80,81,229/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE TH E AO THAT ITS MANUFACTURING PROCESS INVOLVES VARIOUS MATERIALS TO BE BLENDED TOGETHER A ND BLENDING PROCESS PLANNED DURING THE DAY AND COMPLETED WITHIN THAT DAY AND THEREAFTE R THERE IS NO WORK IN PROGRESS AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THE AO ESTIMATED THE DEPLOYMENT OF M ATERIAL FOR MANUFACTURING OF FINISHED GOODS AT 1% AND ESTIMATED WORK IN PROGRESS AMOUNTIN G TO RS.11,80,812/-. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A), WHO DELET ED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - I FIND THAT THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF THE APPELL ANT COMPANY INVOLVES IMPORTED MATERIAL TO BE BLENDED. IN THE PAST ASSESS MENT YEARS ALSO THE APPELLANT-COMPANY HAS NEVER SHOWN WORK IN PROGRESS SINCE IT NEVER HAD WORK IN PROGRESS IN ITS AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE AG HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NO T DISCLOSED WORK IN PROGRESS. THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT NOT HAVING AN Y RAW MATERIAL/SEMI- FINISHED GOODS IN THE MACHINERY ITSELF IN THE MANUF ACTURING PROCESS AT ANY PARTICULAR POINT OF TIME CANNOT BE RULED OUT IS NO T BASED ON ANY REASONING. THEREFORE, THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 1% OF RAW MATE RIALS DEPLOYED FOR MANUFACTURING OF FINISHED GOODS WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE (AC) AND WHICH COMES TO RS.11,80,812/- IS DELETED. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUN AL. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDE S AND FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 1% ON RAW MATERIAL AND CIT (A ) DELETED THE SAME AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND HENCE DELETION IS CONFIRMED. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID WE DECIDE THE SE COND GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. 5 .LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.8.91 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE POR TION OF THE LETTER, DATED 03.02.2015 ADDRESSED TO THE AO AND SAME READS AS ABOVE (PAGE NO.25 TO 28 ). THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALWAYS INCURS FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES IN VIEW OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES I.E IMPORT AND SALE OF GOODS TO RUBBER & COATING INDUSTRY. THE ITA 7384.M.2016 M/S. RISHIROOP POLYMERS P. LTD. 4 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A VERY OLD ASSESSEE AND IS IN T HE BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EARNS SUBSTANTIAL INCOME IN FO REIGN EXCHANGE I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF INDENTING COMMISSION. IN FACT DURING THE YEAR UN DER ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED INDENTING COMMISSION OF 17,12,62,483/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO IMPORT MATERIAL AND SELL IN INDIA. THE TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT ON IMPORT OF MATERIAL IS 10,02,63,140/-. DIRECTORS ARE REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE FOREIGN TOURS FOR MEETING EXISTING SUPPLIERS AND TO ALSO THEY HAVE TO VISIT A ND EXPLORE NEW BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AND DEVELOPMENT. THEY HAVE TO VISIT A ND MEET NEW CUSTOMERS RELATED TO COATING AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES, ATTEND TR ADE FAIR AND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES. THE ENTIRE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF 35,67,732/- HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND MORE PARTICULARLY HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY MR. ARVIND KAPOO R AND MR. ADITYA KAPOOR, THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. A STATEMENT SHOWING COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL CONTAINING NAMES THE PERSON, PLACE OF VISIT, PURPOSE OF VISIT AND EX PENSES SPENT ON EVERY INDIVIDUAL TRIP IS ENCLOSED. FROM THE DETAILS YOU WILL OBSERVE THAT Z 13,24,804/ - WAS SPENT ON SEVEN FOREIGN TRIPS OF MR. ARVIND KAPOOR AND MR. ADITYA KAPOOR WH O TRAVELLED TO SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA WHERE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY'S PRINCIPAL I.E. K UMHO PETROCHEMICALS CO. LTD IS LOCATED. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AN OFFICIAL INDENTING AGENT OF THE SAID KOREA COMPANY FROM WHOM THE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED AL MOST Z 17 CRORE AS INDENTING COMMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. DIRECTORS ARE REQUIRED TO VISIT PRINCIPALS OFFICE TO HOLD DISCUSSIONS ON MARKET SIT UATION, PRICING STRATEGIES AND PRICE NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONTRACTS WITH THE COMPA NIES. EXPENSES INCURRED ON SIMILAR TRIPS IN PAST, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED INC LUDING IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. 5,48,791/- WAS SPENT ON DUBAI TRIP OF MR. ARVIND KA POOR AND MR. ADITYA KAPOOR. THESE TRIPS WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY I.E. PURCHASE OF SYNTHETIC RUBBER FROM RISH ICHEM MIDEAST LTD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PURCHASED MATERIAL WORTH Z 9.2 4 CRORE FROM RISHICHEM MIDEAST LTD SITUATED IN DUBAI. THESE DUBAI TRIPS WERE ALSO FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS. KINDLY NOTE THAT SIMILAR EXPENSES INCURRE D ON DUBAI TRIPS IN PAST HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED INCLUDING IMMEDIATE PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR. 1,42,379/- WAS SPENT ON THAILAND TRIP WHERE MR. ADI TYA KAPOOR AND MR. VINAY ACHARYA, SENIOR EXECUTIVE OF THE COMPANY HAVE GONE TO ATTEND THAILAND RUBBER EXPO. YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT ATTENDING SUC H CONFERENCE RELATED TO BUSINESS ARE NECESSARY AND MUST FOR LATEST UPDATE A ND THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 5,26,605/- WAS SPENT ON SHANGHAI TRIP WAS AGAIN INC URRED FOR ATTENDING CONFERENCE IN SHANGHAI CHINA COAT SHOW. THIS AGAIN RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 4,84,400/- WAS INCURRED ON TRIP TO SAU PAULO,BRAZIL WHERE MR. ARVIND KAPOOR ATTENDED INTERNATIONAL RUBBER CONFERENCE. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN THIS CONNECTION ARE ENCLOSED. THUS, THE TRIP TO SAU PAULO, BRAZIL WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA 7384.M.2016 M/S. RISHIROOP POLYMERS P. LTD. 5 2,49,565/- WAS INCURRED ON TRIP TO FRANKFURT, AMSTE RDAM WAS AGAIN INCURRED ON MR. ARVIND KAPOOR WHO VISITED FRANKFURT AMSTERDAM T O MEET BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND TO EXPLORE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY. 1,88,098/- WAS INCURRED ON TRIP TO HONG KONG WAS TO ATTEND FORBES AWARD CEREMONY. 44,606/- ON USA TRIP OF MR. ADITYA KAPOOR WAS SPENT WAS RELATED TO EXPLORING NEW BUSINESS AND TO UNDERSTAND VARIOUS NEW PRODUCTS REL ATING TO BUSINESS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED. SIMILARLY, 58,485/- WAS SPENT ON TRIP TO SRILANKA WHERE SENIOR EXECUTIVES JAYKUMAR RUPAREL VISITED TO MEET THE EXECUTIVE OF C EAT KELANI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD RELATING TO BUSINESS ACTIVITY. YOU WILL APPRECI ATE THAT CEAT KELANI INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD IS ALSO MANUFACTURERS OF RUBBER TYRES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF Z 3 5,67,732/- INCURRED ON FOREIGN TRAVEL WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE O F BUSINESS. YOUR PREDECESSOR HAS DISALLOWED CERTAIN TRIPS IN IM MEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHERE HE FELT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DID NOT GIV E PROPER JUSTIFICATION. HOWEVER, THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE JUSTIFIED EACH AND EVERY FOREIGN TRIP AND THEREFORE ENTIRE EXPENSES INCURRED ON FOREIGN TRIP SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL. FOR YOUR INFORMATION, UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED IN FULL WHILE DOING THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. FOR YOUR PERUSAL A CHART IS ENCLOSED. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS, INCLUDING THE PURPOSE OF FOREIGN VISITS OF THE DIRECTORS,THAT IN THE EARLIER YEARS DETAILS WERE NO T FURNISHED,THAT BECAUSE OF NON AVAILABILITY OF THE DETAILS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE UNDER THE HEAD FO REIGN TRAVEL,THAT FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE E ARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL I NFIRMITY. CONFIRMING HIS ORDER WE DECIDE THE LAST EFFECTIVE GROUND AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2018. 27 , 2018 SD/- SD/- ( /C.N.PRASAD) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 27/06/2018. MP/JV,SR.PS - - ITA 7384.M.2016 M/S. RISHIROOP POLYMERS P. LTD. 6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.