THIO PHARMA, MUMBAI V. ITO 21(2)(4),

ITA 7529/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3352 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PREMANAND J
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.7529 /MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THIO PHARMA M G CROSS ROAD, VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI-400057 / V. ITO, 21(2)(4) MUMBAI ./ PAN :AABFT8224E ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MR. PREMANAND J.,DR / DATE OF HEARING : 15-02-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-03-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM, BEING ITA NO. 7529/MUM/2012, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12-04-2011 PASS ED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 32, MUMBAI (H EREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT( A) AROSE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2009 PASSED BY THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S. 143(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT), FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM . DESPITE NOTICES BEING SENT TO THE A SSESSEE-FIRM WHICH WERE DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE-FIRM , THERE IS NO APPE ARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ITA 7529/MUM/2012 2 ASSESSEE-FIRM . THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN THE M EMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. UNSECURED LOANS THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN TREATING THE UNSECURED LOAN S RECEIVED FROM FRIENDS & RELATIVES AS CASH CREDIT AND FURTHER ERRED IN ADDING THE SAME TO THE INCOME. AND LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. CEASED LIABILITY THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN TREATING THE SUNDRY CR EDITORS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.28,30,227/- AS CEASED LIABILITY AND CIT(A) ER RED IN NOT DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MEDICIN E . 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND DETAILS IN T HE RECORDS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS SHOWN UNSECUR ED LOAN TO THE TUNE OF RS.48,23,753/- AS DETAILED UNDER: K J DADHIA, HUF 152000 RAJESH DADHIA 1330000 M.J.DADHIA 560325.67 SUBHLATA BOHRA 500000 V.J.DADHIA 1125123.33 RAMESH BOHRA 15000 PRAVIN JASANI 179000 ANIL BOHRA 60000 MEENA DADHIA 305134 ITA 7529/MUM/2012 3 ANISH DADHIA 456670 PRAVIN KUMAR S/O PURSHOTTAM JI 140000 4823253 DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE-FIRM BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM DID NOT FILE ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE A O TO PROVE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM.THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ONLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FRIENDLY LOAN S WERE TAKEN FROM FAMILY MEMBERS AND NO LOAN HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESS EE-FIRM. THE AO TREATED THE SAID LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AS NO DET AILS WERE FURNISHED AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.48,23,253/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AS THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTI TY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-20 09 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-20 09 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FILED FIR ST APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). 7. THERE WERE NO SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-F IRM BEFORE THE CIT(A) NEITHER ANY DETAILS / CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED BEF ORE THE CIT(A) DESPITE THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ENTERING APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DULY CONSIDERED THE STATEMENT OF FACT FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM ATTACHED TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHEREBY IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM THAT THE LOANS WERE RAISED FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIV ES AND NO AMOUNT WAS RETURNED DURING THE YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE-FIRM REQU ESTED FOR FURTHER TIME FROM THE AO TO GET THE LOAN CONFIRMATION FROM THE P ARTIES WHO WERE ABROAD BUT THE AO HAD ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WITHOUT WAIT ING FOR THE ASSESSEE- FIRM TO GET THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS. ITA 7529/MUM/2012 4 THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AS WERE MADE BY THE AO , AS THE ASSESSEE- FIRM FAILED TO FILE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE THE A O AND CIT(A) DESPITE SUFFICIENT AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE-FIRM. THE ASSESSEE- FIRM HAS NOT EVEN FURNISHED THE ADDRESSES OF THE LE NDERS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDI NGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THUS, THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDERS DATED 12.4.2011 CONFIR MED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.48,23,752/- AS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E-FIRM BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS FAILED TO DISCH ARGE ITS BURDEN TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE L OANS OF RS.48,23,752/- APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 12.4.2011 OF THE C IT(A), THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSES SEE-FIRM NOR ANY EXPLANATIONS, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OR LOAN CONFIRM ATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED TO SUBSTANTIATE AND DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON THE AS SESSEE-FIRM TO SATISFY THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT T O ESTABLISHING IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GE NUINENESS OF THE LOANS OF RS.48,23,752/- RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND STOO D CREDITED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS NOT FILED ANY LOAN CONFIRMATIONS/ DETAILS TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSME NT AND/OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE PRIMARY ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE-FIRM TO ESTABLI SH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GE NUINENESS OF THE LOANS OF ITA 7529/MUM/2012 5 RS.48,23,752/- RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AND STOO D CREDITED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS PER MANDATE OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WH ICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE TH E BURDEN CAST ON IT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT DESPITE SUFFICI ENT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS U/S 143(2) READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE AO AND TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THU S KEEPING IN VIEW THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HA VE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.48,23,752/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AS UN-EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 10. GROUND NO 2 RELATES TO ADDITIONS MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO CEASED LIABILITY OF WHICH ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.28,30,227/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,14,124/-. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS IN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO SUSTAINING OF THE ADDITIONS U/S.41(1) OF THE ACT BY THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 5115/MUM/2011 BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL WITH RESPECT TO DELETION BY THE CIT(A) OF THE ADDITIONS MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT BY THE AO TO THE TUNE OF RS.22,16,103/- , WHICH APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH E VIDE O RDERS DATED 29-08-2012. 11. IT WAS SEEN BY THE AO FROM PERUSAL OF THE BALAN CE SHEET THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 60,99,168/ - UNDER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS AND IN-SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUN ITIES, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO AS UNDER : WE ARE GIVING TO OUR PARTY STOCK ON SALES BASIS TH EY GIVE US PAYMENT ACCORDING TO SALES PROCEEDS. SOME OF THE PARTY NOT PAID AMOUNT THEY ITA 7529/MUM/2012 6 CLAIM RATE REDUCTION AND SHORT EXPIRY ETC. , THEREF ORE SOME PAYMENT IN DISPUTE. NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM REGA RDING DETAILS OF THE CREDITORS . THE AO PERUSED THE DETAILS OF THE PURCH ASES MADE DURING THE YEAR AND CREDITORS LIST AND IT APPEARED TO THE AO THAT A SUM OF RS.32,68,941/- REPRESENTED RUNNING ACCOUNTS . THE TOTAL PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE- FIRM DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.61,41,240/-. THE ONUS I S ON ASSESSEE-FIRM TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. T HE AO MADE ADDITIONS OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.28,30,227/- (RS.60,99,168/ - - RS.32,68,941/- ) U/S 41(1) OF THE ACT BY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS CEA SED LIABILITY ,AS THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS/CONFIRM ATION, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2009 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT . 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 29-12- 2009 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FILED AN F IRST APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). 13. THERE WERE NO SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE- FIRM BEFORE THE CIT(A) NEITHER ANY DETAILS / CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED BEF ORE THE CIT(A) DESPITE THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ENTERING APPEARANCE FOR SEEKING ADJOU RNMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) OBSERVED FROM STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GRO UNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHEREIN IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE-FI RM THAT IT IS PURCHASING THE GOODS(MEDICINES) FROM PARTIES AND THE DETAILS OF PU RCHASES WERE PROVIDED. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM THAT SOME OF THE CR EDITORS WERE NOT PAID DUE TO CLAIMS FOR RATE REDUCTION AND EXPIRY OF MEDICINE ETC. WHICH IS LYING TO THE CREDIT OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AND REVENUE CANNOT F ORCE THE ASSESSEE-FIRM TO MAKE PAYMENTS AND PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS WILL BE MAD E AFTER SETTLING DISPUTES WITH THE CREDITORS. ITA 7529/MUM/2012 7 THE CIT(A) HELD THAT IN LINE OF BUSINESS OF MEDICIN ES, THERE WILL BE DISPUTES WITH RESPECT TO RATE DIFFERENCES AND EXPIRY OF MEDI CINES BUT THAT DOES NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR PURCHASES MADE FROM SUCH CREDIT ORS AND THE SAID DISPUTE OF RATE REDUCTION, EXPIRY OF MEDICINE WILL HAVE CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT ON CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENDITURE OF PURCHASES CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SINCE , NO DETAILS HAS BEEN GIVEN OF THE C REDITORS BY THE ASSESSEE- FIRM AND VAGUE EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT S PECIFIC DETAILS, GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES CLAIMED CANNOT BE ACCE PTED ON THE FACE OF IT. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ITSELF CLAIMED THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE OVERCHARGED , WHICH ITSELF SUGGESTS THAT PURCHASES CLAIMED ARE EXCESSIV E AND HENCE 10% OF PURCHASES OF RS.61,41,240/- WAS CONSIDERED TO BE EX CESSIVE CLAIM OF THE PURCHASES DEBITED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACC OUNT OF RATE DIFFERENCE, EXPIRY ETC. AND HENCE THE ADDITIONS OF RS 28,30,227 /- MADE BY THE AO WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.6,14,124/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES NOT PROVED IN ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IN RESPE CT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR PURCHASES, VIDE ORDERS DATED 12.4.2011. 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 12.4.2011 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 15. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSE SSEE-FIRM NOR ANY SUBMISSIONS/DETAILS/EXPLANATIONS ARE FILED WITH RES PECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,14,124/- CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UN-PROVED PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR PURCHASES. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. ITA 7529/MUM/2012 8 THE REVENUE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, MU MBAI BENCHES AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) GIVING THE RELIEF TO THE A SSESSEE-FIRM TO THE TUNE OF RS.22,16,103/- WHICH APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE TR IBUNAL, MUMBAI E BENCH IN ITA NO.5115/MUM/2011 VIDE ORDERS DATED 29- 08-2012. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS IN THE B USINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF MEDICINE. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAD MADE PURCHASES T O THE TUNE OF RS.61,41,240/- AND IT IS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM THAT THERE ARE DISPUTES WITH THE CREDITORS WITH RESPECT TO OVER-CH ARGING OF RATES AS WELL CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WITH RESPECT TO EXPIRED MEDICINES ETC WHICH IS A NORMAL TRADE PRACTICE. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM THERE-AFTE R REFRAINED FROM GIVING ANY FURTHER DETAILS ABOUT THE CREDITORS STANDING TO THE CREDIT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NATURE AND EXTENT OF DISPUTE EXISTING WIT H THE CREDITORS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS PER THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES WERE GIVEN DURING ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. THE AO MADE AN ESTIMATE WHEREBY HE GAVE CREDITS FOR RUNNING ACC OUNTS AND MADE ADDITIONS TO THE TUNE OF RS.28,30,227/- AFTER REDUC ING SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.60,99.168/- AS AT YEAR END FROM THE CREDITORS OF RS.32,68,941/- WHERE THERE WAS RUNNING ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AGAIN CHOSE NOT TO FILE ANY DETAILS/CLARIFICATIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CI T(A) MADE A RATIONAL ESTIMATE @10% OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.61,41,240/- TOWARDS THE RATE OVER- CHARGING CLAIMS AND THE CLAIMS FOR EXPIRED PRODUCTS , THERE-BY ADDITION OF RS.6,14,124/- WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) TOWARDS P URCHASES NOT PROVED. THE REVENUE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL,MUMB AI BENCHES AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) AND WHICH APPEAL WAS DIS MISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI E BENCH IN ITA NO.5115/MUM/2011 VIDE ORDER S DATED 29-08-2012. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED ALL THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES AND THE FACTS AS EMANATING FROM THE SAID ORDERS AND DETAILS BEFORE US, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WEL L REASONED ORDER MAKING AN RATIONAL AND REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF DISALLOWANCE @10% OF PURCHASES ITA 7529/MUM/2012 9 TOWARDS DISPUTES OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WITH CREDITOR S FOR PURCHASES TOWARDS RATE OVERCHARGING CLAIM , CLAIMS FOR EXPIRED PRODUC TS ETC WHICH IS VERY RATIONAL AND REASONABLE ESTIMATE , MORE-SO KEEPING IN VIEW THAT UN- FORTUNATELY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS CONSISTENTLY CHOS EN A PATH OF NON CO- OPERATIVE ATTITUDE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM AGAIN CHOSE NOT TO A VAIL OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE WELL REASONED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 12.04.2011 MAKIN G RATIONAL AND REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,14,124/ - @10% OF PURCHASES OF RS.61,41,240/- DURING THE YEAR. WE ORDER ACCORDINGL Y. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE -FIRM IN ITA N0. 7529/MUM/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MARCH, 2016. # $% &' 30-03-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 30-03-2016 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI F BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI