SHASHI K. LAHOTI, MUMBAI V. ITO 14(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7637/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84301 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI S RAHEJA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Share purchase agreement
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI . . , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM ./ I.T.A. NO.7637/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SMT. SHASHI K. LAHOTI, 158/164, 4 TH FLOOR, LAXMI BHAVAN, KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 002 / VS. THE ITO 14(2)(3), 303, 3 RD FLOOR, EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021 ! ./ '# ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABPL 8327L ( $ / APPELLANT ) .. ( %& $ / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI HARI S. RAHEJA RESPONDENT BY SHRI NEIL PHILIP ' ()! / DATE OF HEARING : 01/12/2014 *+ ' ()! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/12/2014 , / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT I S DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) -25 MUMBAI DATED 4/11/2013 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AMENDED GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH INCLUDE THE IS SUE REGARDING VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE IGNO RED. ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING AMENDED GROUNDS WERE CONSIDERED FOR ADJUD ICATION. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF LOSS OF RS.3,33,956/- IS NOT GENUINE AND IN UPHOLDING TH E ADDITION OF THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LOSS IS GENUINE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ./ I.T.A. NO.6547/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 2 3. IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO TR ANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF MEDIA MATRIX THROUGH M/S. A LLIANCE INTERMEDIARIES AND NETWORK PVT. LTD. AND HAS INCURRED A LOSS OF RS.3, 33,956/- OUT OF THESE TRANSACTION. ACCORDING TO INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO THE SAID CONCERN NAMELY M/S. ALLINACE INTERMEDIARIES AND NETWORKING PVT. LTD. WAS INVOLVED IN THE FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, THE AS SESSEE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A BENEFICIARY OF OBTAINING LOSS THROUGH THE AFOREMEN TIONED PURCHASE AND SALES OF SHARES. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED 8600 SHARES AND M/ S. MEDIA MATRIX IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2005 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,48,079.71 WHICH ENTERED INTO D-MAT ACCOUNT ON 31/01/2005 AND THOSE SHARES WERE SOLD ON 30/03/2005 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.1,13,655/- AND NET LOSS OF RS.3,33,956/- WAS CLAIMED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS. THESE DETA ILS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF A CHART AT PAGE-8 OF THE PAPER BOOK.. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AS PER MARKET RATE AND SOLD AS PER MARKET RATE. THE REQUISITE EVIDENCES WERE F IELD BEFORE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) AND THE SALE OF SHARE HAS BEEN TREATED TO BE BOGUS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO. THERE IS NO EVIDEN CE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THESE PURCHASES AND SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE BOGUS. THE SHARES WERE CREDITED IN THE D-MAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND W ERE SOLD OUT OF D-MAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L D. AR THAT ALL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) ARE FOUND PLAC E IN THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN ADDING THE SA ID AMOUNT AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO COMMITTED AN ERROR IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. LD . AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TO CONTEND THAT IN SIMILAR CIR CUMSTANCES SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS THAT APA RT FROM THE INFORMATION THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD ACCORDING TO WHICH IT COU LD BE SAID THAT THE PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSE E WERE BOGUS. 1. SMT. DURGADEVI MUNDRA VS. ITO, ITA NO.1175/MUM/ 2012 & ITO VS. SHRI MAHESH MUNDRA, ITA NO.1176, A.Y. 2003-04 O RDER DATED 01.06.2012 2. SACHIN N. MORAKHIA VS. ITO, ITA NO.1122/MUM/2012 ,A.Y.2008-09 ORDER DATED 01.06.2012 3. ITO VS. MRS. RADHIKA RAVINDRA KUMAR TOSHNIWAL, 1 331/MUM/2010, ./ I.T.A. NO.6547/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 3 A.Y. ORDER DATED 13/03/2013. 4. MAYUR M. SHAH (HUF) VS. ITO , ITA NO.2390/MUM/20 13 ,A.Y. 2003-04 ORDER DATED 10/07/2013. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE AO AND LD. CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASE AND SAL E SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS AS THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED INTO BY TH E ASSESSEE THROUGH M/S. ALLIANCE INTERMEDIARIES & NETWORK PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS A CONCERN RUN BY MR. MUKESH CHOKSI UPON WHOM THE SEARCH WAS MADE AND WHO ADMITTED THAT HE IS INDULGED IN BOGUS PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENTI ONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH HAS NOT BE EN REFUTED BY AO OR LD. CIT(A). THE ADDITION IS BASED SIMPLY ON INFORMATIO N ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTIONS WITH ONE OF THE CONCERN ENGAGED IN THE BOGUS BILLING. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MATERIAL O N RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BOGU S EITHER IN THE TERMS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OR IN THE TERMS OF RATES AT WHICH TH ESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD. RATHER ASSESSEE HAS FILED EVIDENCE TO SH OW THAT THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED FOR A PRICE WHICH WERE PREVALENT IN THE M ARKET AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THESE SHARES WERE ALSO SOLD AT THE PREVALENT MARKET RATE. THESE SHARES WERE ALSO CREDITED IN TH E D-MAT ACCOUNT AND HAVE GONE OUT OF THE D-MAT ACCOUNT. THE RELEVANT DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITU ATION, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD. AR WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME I DELETE THE ADDITI ON. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE AFOREMENT IONED DECISION OF SMT. DURGADEVI MUNDRA VS. ITO (SUPRA), WHEREIN SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS.2,67,247/- WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE WAS ENTERE D INTO PURCHASE AND SALE OF ./ I.T.A. NO.6547/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 4 3400 SHARES OF M/S.BUNIYAD CHEMICALS LTD. AND 1000 SHARES OF M/S. JAY KEE DEE INDL. LTD. AND THESE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS SHOWN AT RS.2,67,247/-, WHICH WAS TAXED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED WITH THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 4. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN RESPECT OF THE SHARES SCAM ALLEGED TO BE INVOL VED BY SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI ACTIONS WERE TAKEN AGAINST MANY PERSONS DISALLOWING THEIR CLAIM IN RESPECT OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE S UBMITS THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL . THE LD. COUNSEL FILED THE COPIES OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION BY WAY OF COMPILATI ON AS UNDER: I) MUKESH R. MAROLIA VS. ADDL. CIT -6 SOT 247 II) RAJNUDEVI CHOWDHARY VS. ITO -ITA 6455/M/2007(B OM) III) ITO VS. TRUPTIC SHAH -ITA 6455/M/2007(BOM) IV) CHANDRAKANT BABULAL SHAH -ITA 6108/M/2009(BOM) V) ACIT VS. SHRI RAVINDRAKUMAR THSHINWAL-ITA5302/M/ 2008(BOM) 5. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED FOR ACCEPTING THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAIN. I HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D.R. 6 . I FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE BILLS SHOWING THE PUR CHASE OF THE SHARES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVED THAT THE SHARES WERE SOLD THRO UGH THE SHARE BROKER AND HE PRODUCED THE PROOF FOR THE SAME. THE IDENTICAL SITU ATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT C BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF CHANDRAKANT B ABULAL SHAH (SUPRA). THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL IS AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND EXAMINED THE RECORD. THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COU NSEL ARE NOT DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS IN THOSE CAS ES THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME DENYING THE ENTIRE TR ANSACTION AS SUCH, WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TREAT THE SALE OF SHARES AS BOGUS. HE HAS ONLY EXAMINED THE PURCHASE OF SHARES AND DOUBTED THE DATE OF PURCHASE. BUT IN THE COMPUTATION HE HAS GIVEN BENEFIT TO THE SAME COST OF PURCHASE OF SHARES AND TAXED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OFFERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ONLY. AS FAR AS THE DATE OF PURCHASE IS CONCERNED, THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD I NDEED EARNED SPECULATION PROFIT BY SALE OF APTECH SHARES WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUFFERED SPECULA TION LOSS AS STATED ABOVE IN FEBRUARY, 2001 AND DEBIT AND CREDIT ENTRIES PERT AINING TO SAME BROKER WERE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE AY 2001-2002 IN AUGUST, 2001. THERE IS ALSO A MENTION OF PURCHASING OF SHARES OF THE COMPANY IN THE RETURN. IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT TH E SAID COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 30-6-2000 HAD TRANSFERRED THE SHARES IN THE N AME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLIO NO. 15021 AND CERTIFICATE NOS. 10574 4 TO 105848. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER QUESTIONED THE SAID COMPA NY NOR DISPROVED THE TRANSFER OF SHARE CERTIFICATES BY 30/6/2000. THE ON LY BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT GENUINE IS O N THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI ON 20-6-2004/20-6-2002 BEFORE THE DDIT (INV.) WITH REFERENCE TO CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN B Y MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI AND HIS GROUP OF COMPANIES, MAINLY GOLD FINVEST PVT . LTD. RICHMOND ./ I.T.A. NO.6547/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 5 SECURITIES AND ALEMBIC SECURITIES, WHICH ARE DEALIN G IN INTERCONNECTED STOCK EXCHANGE/NSC. MOST OF THE ENQUIRIES PERTAINS TO TH E TRANSACTIONS IN INTERCONNECTED STOCK EXCHANGE AND SALE OF SHARES IN THE COMPANY VIZ., RASHEL AGRO TECH LTD. THE ENQUIRY IN THE SAID GROUP OF COMPANIES WAS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ISSUANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASE AND SAL E BILLS AND ACCOMMODATING VARIOUS PARTIES IN EARNING THE CAPITA L GAINS. HOWEVER, AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEES NA ME IS NOT FIGURING IN THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY ENQUIRED BY THE DDIT (INV.) ON 26-4-2002. EVEN THOUGH THE MODUS OPERANDI WAS EXPLAINED AND ST ATED THAT THEY WERE GETTING 0.5% COMMISSION IN ARRANGING THE TRANSACTIO NS, NOTHING WAS CONCLUDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAID STATEMEN T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AGAIN RECORDED THE STAT EMENT UNDER SECTION 131 ON 9-11-2006 IN WHICH QUESTION NO. 4 AND 5 WHICH AR E EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE MAIN RELIANCE IS ON QU ESTION NO. 5 WHICH IS AS UNDER : Q.5 : PLEASE GIVE THE DETAILS OF BILLS OF PROFIT I SSUED BY YOUR COMPANY AS STATED ABOVE. ANS: THESE BILLS NUMBERS BILLS NO. CC/2000/16/12501 DT.18-4-2000 WHICH SHOWS THAT B.87 610.85 PAYABLE TO SHRI CHANDRAKANT D. SHAH. THERE IS ANOTH ER BILL NO. CC/2001/07/164 (N) DT.20/2/2001 IN WHICH RS.89602 W AS RECEIVABLE BY SHRI CHANDRAKANT B.SHAH. THESE BILLS ARE ISSUED SHOWING FICTITIOUS PROFIT AND THEREFORE THE PURCHAS E ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY GENUINE PAYMENTS. 8. THIS STATEMENT WAS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO STATE THAT THE PURCHASE BILLS ARE ISSUED SHOWING FICTITIOUS PROFIT . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. M UKESH CHOKSHI AND WHEN AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN AND ASSESSEE WAS PRES ENT MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE ONLY BASIS FOR THIS ABOVE STATEMENT IS THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT MADE IMMEDIATELY BUT EVEN STAT EMENT ITSELF INDICATE THAT THEY WERE CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SPECULATION PROFITS AND IN QUESTION NO. 4 IN THE STATEMENT MR. MUKESH C HOKSHI ADMITS THE PURCHASE OF 10500 SHARES OF RASHEL AGRO TECH LTD. M ADE OUT OF ADJUSTED SHARE PROFITS AND THEREFORE CONFIRMED THAT THIS IS AN ADJUSTMENT TRANSACTION. IN VIEW OF THIS STATEMENT IN QUESTION NOS. 4 AND 5, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE TRANSACTIONS BECOMES A BOGUS ONE . THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EXCEPT THIS ORAL STATEMENT WHICH IS ALSO NOT SUBMIT TED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION TO PROVE/DISPROVE THE TRANSACTION. WHEREAS THE ASSE SSEE FURNISHED TRANSACTION DETAILS, THE BANK ACCOUNTS, PURCHASE AN D SALE OF OTHER LISTED COMPANIES, SPECULATION PROFIT AND LOSS AND ALSO EVI DENCE IN THE FORM OF BALANCE SHEET FILED MUCH BEFORE THE SAID SHARES WER E SOLD. THE SALE OF SHARES WAS UNDERTAKEN IN DECEMBER 2001 WHEREAS THE RETURN FOR AY 2001- 2002 WAS FILED BY AUGUST 2001 ITSELF INDICATING THE PURCHASE OF SHARES AND OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS TO M/S. GOLDEN FINVEST LTD IN T HE STATEMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASE D ON THE STATEMENT WHICH IS ALSO UNSUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO DENY T HE BENEFIT OF PURCHASE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE ON 8-4-2000. NOT ONLY THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO GAVE CREDIT FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF PURCHASE OF SHARES AT COST AND DID NOT TREAT THE SALE PROCEEDS AS BOGUS/UNACCOUNTED IN COME. THE ONLY ACTION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO DENY THE ASSES SEE THE BENEFIT OF LONG ./ I.T.A. NO.6547/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 6 TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SUBSEQUENT DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION 54EC OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN REC BOND S. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A). IN FACT, THE CIT (A) HAS W ENT AHEAD IN TREATING THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AS BOGUS AND CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE HOLDING THIS WILL BE MORE FOR AN UNEXPLAINED RECEIPT OF MONEY OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY ADD ED THE AMOUNT BY AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED TREATING IT AS STCG. IN ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSIO N, THE CIT (A) PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PAID FULL PAYMENT OF ` 16 LAKHS BY WAY OF CASH WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER. T HERE IS NO EVIDENCE EVEN TO PRESUME THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT (A) AS STATED ABOVE. 7. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS CASE AS IN THE C ASE OF CHANDRAKANT BABULAL SHAH (SUPRA). I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE GE NUINENESS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO DISAL LOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. I, ACCORDING LY, DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED. ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/12/2014 . , ' *+ ! - ./ 01/12/2014 + ' 0 SD/- . . (I.P.BANSAL) /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; . DATED 01/12/2014 , , , , ' '' ' %(1 %(1 %(1 %(1 21( 21( 21( 21( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $ / THE APPELLANT 2. %& $ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 3 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 3 / CIT 5. 140 %( , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 05 6 / GUARD FILE. , , , , / BY ORDER, &1( %( //TRUE COPY// 7 77 7 / 8 8 8 8 ' ' ' ' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . . .VM , SR. PS