ACIT 9(3), MUMBAI V. TVC SKY SHOP LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7907/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 790719914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK SUAI
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH R MODY; RAHUL BAGARIA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 37; 143(3); 37(1)

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 . : 7907 / / 2011 A.Y. 2008-09 ITA NO. : 7907/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX9(3), 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 229, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 VS M/S TVC SKY SHOP LIMITED, TVC HOUSE, KHANDWALA CENTRE, DAFATARY ROAD, MALAD (E), MUMBAI -400 097 PAN: AABCT 3746 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK SUAI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATISH R MODY & SHRI RAHUL BAGARIA /DATE OF HEARING : 08-01-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-01-2014 ( O R D E R #'' ' , : PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) 20, MUMBAI, DATED 16.09.2011, WHEREIN, THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE CAPITALIZATION OF RS. 42,51,901/- TOWARDS C OST OF ADVERTISEMENT FILM LIBRARY AS AGAINST CLAIM OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITUR E MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE SAID EXPENSES AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND THEREBY TREATED THEM AS PART OF FIXED ASSETS AND AN EXPENSE MADE FOR AN ASSET IS CAPITAL IN NATURE FOR THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CAN BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IS OUT OF QUESTION F OR PURPOSE OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,41,13,522/- TOWARDS INP UT SERVICE TAX, BY FLAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE CLAIMING TH E SAID EXPENSE HAS M /S TVC SKY SHOP LIMITED ITA NO. 7907/MUM/2011 2 CREATED CORRESPONDING CURRENT ASSET IN THE BALANCE SH EET, WHICH PROHIBITS THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENSE. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) O N THE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY G ROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. GROUND NO. 1 PERTAINS TO THE DELETION OF CAPITALIZATION O F RS. 42,51,901/- BY THE CIT(A). 3. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED AN EXPENSE UNDER THE HEAD COST OF AD FILM LIBRARY AND CONSIDERED THE SAME TO BE REVENUE EXPENSE. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE SAID EXPENSE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE AND TREATED THEM AS PART OF FIXED ASSETS. HE, DISALLOWED THE EXPENSE HOLDING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENSE. 4. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A) AND MADE A DETA ILED SUBMISSIONS. THE CIT(A) TAKING NOTE OF THE SUBMISSIONS, HELD, 3.2.1 CONTRARY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONCLUSION T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD TREATED THE SAME AS CAPITAL, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME HAS TREATED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS PER COMPANIES ACT THE EXPENDITU RE WAS CAPITALIZED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND AMORTIZED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME 3.2.2 THIS POLICY OF CAPITALIZATION OF SUCH REVENUE EXP ENDITURE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND ITS CONSEQUENT AMORTIZATION OVER A PERIOD BUT CLAI MING THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1) WHILE CALCULATING THE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER INCOME-TAX ACT WAS FOLLOWED BY THE COMPANY FOR EARLIER YEARS AND H AVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENTS ALSO. 3 2 3 IT ALSO DREW ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE DEPR ECIATION SCHEDULE AS PER THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS: AS WELL AS THE DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE PR EPARED AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT TO DRIVE HOME THE POINT THAT ALTHOUGH A S UM OF 22,52,684/- HAS BEEN AMORTIZED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY WAY OF DEBIT TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BUT THE SAME WAS ADDED BACK TO THE COMPUTAT ION OF INCOME AND CLAIMED IN ENTIRETY. U/S 37(1). OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED ON THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO. LTD REPORTED IN 315 ITR 134. 3.3. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THE APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SKY TELESHOPPING AND SO IT IS NATURAL THAT IT WILL DEVELOP PROGRAMMES FOR TELEVISION TO MARKET ITS PR ODUCTS THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE, THEREFORE, CLEARLY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MA RKETING PRODUCTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS TREATED THE SAME AS DEFERR ED REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN ITS A UNT WILL NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE PREPARATION OF ACCOUNT AS PER COMPANIES ACT ENVISAGES THE CONCEPT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT AS PER INCOME-TAX ACT EITHER EXPENDITURE IS EITHER REVENUE OR CAPITAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAV E APPLIED HIS MIND TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CARRIED AWAY SOLELY BY THE TREATMENT MADE IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. IN FACT, THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED BACK THE AMOUNT AMORTIZED IN THE COMPUTATION O F INCOME IN ORDER TO CLAIM A TOTAL DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE I T ACT 1961. THE EXPENDITURE IS IN RESPECT OF ONGOING BUSINESS AND SO THE DECISION OF JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GEOFFREY MANNER & COMPANY LTD IS BINDING. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT HAS INTER-ALIA HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PRODUCTION OF FILM BY WAY OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROMOTING AND MARKETING OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED BY IT IN RESPECT OF ONGOING BUS INESS IS ALLOWABLE AS M /S TVC SKY SHOP LIMITED ITA NO. 7907/MUM/2011 3 REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE FACT THAT THIS EXPENDITURE WA S ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER STRENGTHENS THE APPELLANTS CASE TO SUM UP, THE APPELLANT IS IT THE BUSINESS OF SKY TELESHOPPING, THE A BOVE EXPENDITURE IS CLEARLY REVENUE AND SO THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL IS REVERSED. THE ADDITION MADE IS, THEREFORE, DELETED.. 5. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 6. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 7. BEFORE US, THE DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS ERRONEOUS. 8. THE AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD TAKEN AN APPROPRIATE VIEW. 9. WE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS AND PERUSED THE ORDE RS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE ISSUE PERTAINS TO CAPITALIZATION O F SUCH REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND ITS CONSEQ UENT AMORTIZATION OVER A PERIOD. THE CLAIM OF THE SAME AS REV ENUE EXPENDITURE U/S 37(1), WHILE CALCULATING THE TAXABLE INCOME A S PER INCOME-TAX ACT WAS FOLLOWED BY THE COMPANY IN THE PRECE DING YEARS WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENTS, BY THE DEPARTMENT. TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WAS ACCEPTA BLE, EVEN BY THE HIGHER JUDICIAL FORA, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO. LTD REPORTED IN 315 ITR 134. THE ASSESSEE IN THE BUSINESS OF SKY TELESHOPPING, IT IS BUT NATURAL THAT IT WILL DEVELOP PROGRAMME S FOR TELEVISION TO MARKET ITS PRODUCTS. THE EXPENSES AS INCURR ED, THEREFORE, ARE CLEARLY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARKETING PRODUCTS, TO BE SOLD THROUGH TELEVISION PROGRAMMES. 10. THE PREPARATION OF ACCOUNT AS PER COMPANIES ACT EN VISAGES THE CONCEPT OF DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE BUT AS PER INC OMETAX ACT, EXPENDITURE IS EITHER IN REVENUE FIELD OR IN THE CAPITAL FIELD. 11. THE FACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED BACK THE AMOUNT AMORTIZED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN ORDER TO CLAIM A TOTAL DEDUC TION U/S M /S TVC SKY SHOP LIMITED ITA NO. 7907/MUM/2011 4 37(1) OF THE I T ACT 1961 IS ACCEPTABLE AS THE EXPENDITUR E IS, IN RESPECT OF AN ONGOING BUSINESS AND SO THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GEOFFREY MANNER & COMPANY L TD (SUPRA) IS BINDING. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT, AS NOTED, HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON PRODUCTION OF FILM BY WAY OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROMOTING AND MARKETING OF PRODUCTS MA NUFACTURED BY IT IN RESPECT OF ONGOING BUSINESS IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 12. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE HAVE OBSERVED, THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PROPOSED TO SU CH A DISALLOWANCE IN EARLIER YEARS. BEARING IN MIND THE CONSISTENCY OF APPROACH ON IDENTICAL FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE INTERFERED WITH. 13. GROUND NO. 1 AS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS THEREFORE, REJECTED . 14. GROUND NO. 2 PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE TAX OF RS. 1,41,13,522/-. 15. DEALING WITH THE ISSUE, THE AO OBSERVED, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE CLAIM OF SERVICE TAX BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. FR OM THE PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER SUMMARY, SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS SEEN T HAT THE SAID CLAIM IS ON ACCOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE SAME AS CURRENT ASSETS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS A CCOUNTED THE SAME AS RECEIVABLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, THE SAME CAN NOT BE TREATED AS AN EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E IS NOT ALLOWED AND THEREBY ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. 16. THE DECISION OF THE AO WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE ASS ESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A). 17. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED, THE SAID CLAIM FOR SUM OF RS. 1,41,13,532/- ON ACCOU NT OF SERVICE TAX COMPONENT IN THE SERVICES BILL FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR IS DIS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING MERELY BECAUSE SUCH SUM BY WAY OF DEBIT BALA NCE HAS BEEN BY MISTAKE CLASSIFIED IN THE FINAL ACCOUNTS AS CURRENT ASSE TS INSTEAD OF BEING DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT YEAR THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREBY TOOK A VIEW THAT SINCE SUCH AMOUNT IS RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE FROR1 SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS EXPEND ITURE II.THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT SINCE THE RELEVANT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NEITHER A MANUFACTURING COMPANY PA YING EXCISE DUTY NOR M /S TVC SKY SHOP LIMITED ITA NO. 7907/MUM/2011 5 A SERVICE PROVIDING COMPANY PAYING SERVICE TAX AGAINST W HICH SUCH SERVICE TAX ON INPUT SERVICES CAN BE ADJUSTED. THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS MERELY A TRADING COMPANY. NOR THERE IS ANY PROVISION UNDER THE SERVICE T AX LAW TO REFUND SUCH INPUT SERVICE TAX IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADJUSTMENT FOR THE SAME WITH THE OUTPUT SERVICE TAX LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, BY NO MEANS SUCH AMOUNT CAN BE TREATED AS RECEIVABLE AND THEREFORE, OF CAPITAL NATURE INSTEAD OF REVENUE NATURE AND BE DISALLOWED ON THAT GROUND. III.THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ALL SUCH INPUT SER VICE TAX COST AGGREGATING TO 1,41,13,532/- HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR ONLY AND THEREFORE, IS REQUIRED TO BE CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE IN THE SAME YEAR ONLY ACCORDINGLY SUCH EXPEN DITURE ALTHOUGH BY MISTAKE NOT DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT HAS BEEN VALIDLY CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. IV IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AS PER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 145A OF THE ACT THE COST OF GOODS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS & GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESS ION SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE ANY TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE (BY WHATEVER NAME C ALLED) ACTUALLY PAID OR INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BRING THE GOODS TO THE PLA CE OF ITS LOCATION AND CONDITION AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION. THE SAME THEORY THEREFORE) APPLIES TO EVEN THE VALUATION OF THE SERVICES UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR COMPUTING THE CHARGEABLE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF B USINESS & PROFESSION. THEREFORE, SUCH CLAIM OF INPUT SERVICE TAX BEING OF REV ENUE NATURE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CLAIMED Y ASSESSEE COMPANY AS DEDUCTIBLE EXPE NDITURE AS PART OF THE VALUATION OF THE SERVICES UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y DURING THE YEAR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 R.W.S. 145 OF THE ACT. V IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE AR ALONG WITH THE R ELEVANT DOCUMENTARY PROOFS THAT THE RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE OF THE ASSES SEE FOR NOT DEBITING THE SAME INPUT SERVICE TAX AMOUNT LONG WITH THE SAME MISTAKE FOR SUCH AMOUNT FOR THE A Y 2007-08, IN THE P&L ACCOUNT WAS RECTIFIED BY THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY BY DEBITING THE SAME., IN THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE SUBSEQUE NT A.Y.2009-10 AND NOT CLAIMING THE SAME AGAIN AS AN EXPENDITURE BY ADDING BACK THE SAME IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10. THIS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MUCH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ORD ER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE AY 2008-09 U/S 143(3) ON 30.12.2O1O. 18. THE CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HELD, I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT BASED ON DETAILED EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN P RECEDING PARA, IT IS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,41,L3,532/- ON ACCO UNT OF INPUT SERVICE TAX INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT YEAR IS OF REV ENUE IN NATURE AND HENCE ALLOWABLE AS IT IS NOT ADJUSTABLE AGAINST ANY LIABILITY OF T HE ASSESSEE OR REFUNDABLE BY THE SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT. THE APPELLAN T COMPANY RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE OF NOT DEBITING THE AMOUNTS IN PROFIT & LOSS AC COUNT IT ALSO FAIRLY ADDED BACK SUCH AMOUNT TO TAXABLE INCOME ON WRITING OFF AS ALREADY CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEARS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. SINCE THIS EXPENDITURE RE LATES TO EARLIER YEARS INCLUDING THE PRESENT ONE, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS EXPEND ITURE IN AY 2009-10 AND HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN WHICH IT IS INCURRED FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME- TAX ACT. MOREOVER, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPEND ITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED ONLY ONCE AND THAT IN THE YEAR IT HAS INCURRED. THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 19. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION, AS MADE BY THE AO. 20. AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. M /S TVC SKY SHOP LIMITED ITA NO. 7907/MUM/2011 6 21. BEFORE US, THE DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO, WHEREAS THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) W AS CORRECT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 22. ON HEARING AND CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CIT(A) ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT THE CIT(A) APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL ASPECT AND GAVE A FINDING ON FACTS, WHICH IN OUR OPINION DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE DISTURBED. WE , THEREFORE, SUSTAIN THE VIEW OF THE CIT(A), THEREBY, REJECTING THE GROU ND OF APPEAL, AS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 23. GROUNDS NO. 3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. 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)-20, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT -9, MUMBAI, 5) !'# $ , % $ , &'( / THE D.R. E BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) #) * COPY TO GUARD FILE. %+,- / BY ORDER . / / '0 % $ , &'( DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *23/ . .