PARAG M. SANGHVI, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

ITA 8027/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3094 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY BAHADUR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Loose papers
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 68; 132; 15; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SHRI PARAG M. SANGHVI, 2203, WINDSOR TOWER, SHASHTRI NAGAR, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI 400 053 PAN: ATYPS3041A ... APPELLANT VS. THE ACIT/DCIT, CC-38, MUMBAI. .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P.BAIRAGRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY BAHADUR DATE OF HEARING : 02/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/09/2015 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU,AM: THE CAPTIONED TWO APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSES SEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND, THEREFORE, THEY HAVE B EEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PA SSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2 ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) 2. ITA NO.8027/MUM/2010IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A)-41,MUMBAI DATED 06/09/2010, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23/12/2009 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W. S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). IN THI S APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,29,53,823/- IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.153A OF THE I.T. ACT AS NO RELEVANT OR INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH REFLECTING UN DISCLOSED INCOME. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,29,53,823/- WHICH W AS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,29, 53,823/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI ASHOK PAMANI AND SHRI RAJ SITADA S BOTH BEING NRI AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. 3. BRIEFLY PUT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE APP ELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO ALONGWITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WAS SU BJECT TO A SEARCH ACTION BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE A CT ON 12/9/2007. PURSUANT TO SEARCH, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24/7/2008 CALLING FOR A RETURN OF INCOME. IN R ESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 24/8/2009 DECLARING A T OTAL INCOME OF RS.10,89,125/- AS AGAINST AN INCOME OF RS.5,77,443 /- DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED UNDER SECTION 139 (1) OF THE ACT ON 01/09/2004. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS SUBJECT TO A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 1 53A OF THE ACT, WHEREBY THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.1, 40,42,948/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS PRIMARILY ON ACCOUNT OF AN ADDITION OF RS.1,29,53, 823/- MADE BY THE 3 ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 68 OF THE ACT. THE SAID ADDITION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE FROM TWO NON-RESIDENT INDIANS, NAMELY, SHRI ASHOK PAMAN I -RS.77,03,823/- AND SHRI RAJ SITADAS MOTWANI - RS.52,50,000/-, WHI CH HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE SAID ADDITION STANDS AFFIRMED BY CIT(A) ALSO AND ACCORDI NGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US, ASSESSE E HAS ASSAILED THE ADDITION ON POINTS OF LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. THE FIRST AND FOREMOST PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONTAINED IN THE ABO VESTATED GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1, WHEREBY IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDIT ION OF RS.1,29,53,823/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS B EYOND THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IN AS MUCH AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OR SEI ZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH COULD ASSAIL THE GENUINENES S OF THE IMPUGNED GIFTS RECEIVED FROM TWO NON-RESIDENT INDIVIDUALS. SINCE THE AFORESAID ISSUE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, BEING JURISDI CTIONAL ISSUE, THE SAME IS BEING TAKEN UP AT THE THRESH-HOLD. 5. IN THIS CONTEXT, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE O F THE ASSESSEE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, JEWELLERY, CASH OR UNACCOU NTED BANK ACCOUNT ETC. WAS FOUND AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO SEIZURE EXCEPT SOME LOOSE PAPERS WHICH WERE APPROPRIATELY EXPLAINED IN THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPEC T OF SUCH LOOSE PAPERS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN 4 ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) FILED U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT, SINCE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, THE AS SESSMENT STOOD COMPLETED AND IN ANY CASE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E . ON 12/09/2007, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT 2004-05 WAS NOT PENDING. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION DID NOT ABATE IN TERMS OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153 A(1) OF THE ACT. ON THIS BASIS IT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT THAT NO ADDI TION COULD BE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT UNLESS SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH REGARDING THE ING ENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS IN QUESTION. IN THIS CONTEXT THE LD. REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS NAMELY:- 1. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DCIT, 137 IT D 287 (MUM)(SB) 2. IN THE CASE OF SHRI GURINDER SINGH BAWA, ITA NO. 2075/M/2010 & ITA NO.2669/M/2010 DATED 16/11/2012 28 TAXMANN.COM 32 8 3. CIT (CENTRAL) VS. MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. 49 TAXMANN.COM 172 5.1 APART THEREFROM, RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SPOUSE OF THE A SSESSEE, SMT. ZEENAT P. SANGHVI IN ITA NO.8026/MUM/2010 DATED 19/12/2014, WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WITHOU T REFERRING TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A O F THE ACT IN RELATION TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE ASSES SMENT DID NOT ABATE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS DEFENDED THE ACTION OF LOWER A UTHORITIES BY 5 ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) POINTING OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT EMPOWER THE AO TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX A SSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE AO WAS DUTY BOUND TO ASSESS OR R EASSESS TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS AND, THEREFORE, TH E IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIABLY MADE AS IT INVOLVES APPLIC ATION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINT ED OUT THAT THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TWO PERSONS WAS SCRUTINIZED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTAB LISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR OR THE GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. SECTION 153A OF THE ACT POSTULATES THE ASSESSMENT IN CASES OF SE ARCH OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132 OR UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. THE SAID SECTION ENVISAGES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A(1) O F THE ACT ALSO PRESCRIBES THAT ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT, IF ANY , RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX YE ARS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION(1) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, WHICH IS PE NDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH OR MAKING OF REQUISITION AS TH E CASE MAY BE , SHALL ABATE. IN OTHER WORDS, IN SO FAR AS THE PENDING A SSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE COMPETENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT CONVERGES WITH THE ASSESSMENT T O BE MADE 6 ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) U/S.153A OF THE ACT, I.E. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEARS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARC H AS WELL AS ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOTABLY, THERE WOULD ASSESSMENTS IN THE PERIOD OF T HE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, WHI CH WOULD HAVE BECOME FINAL (I.E. NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARC H); SUCH ASSESSMENTS DO NOT ABATE IN TERMS OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 153A(1) OF THE ACT, THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF SUCH AN ASSESSMENT IS THE CO NTROVERSY BEFORE US. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO REF ER TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA-SHEVA) 58 TAXMANN.C OM 78 (BOM) WHEREIN THE SCOPE OF AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 15 3A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. ONE OF THE POINTS ADDRESSED BY T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER THE SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC TION 153A OF THE ACT ENVISAGES ADDITIONS, WHICH ARE OTHERWISE NOT BA SED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH. AS PER HONBLE HIGH COURT, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN RE SPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT HAD BECOME FINAL IN THE EVENT NO IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO NOTICED ITS EARLIER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MU RALI AGRO-PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND HAS ELABORATELY CULLED OUT THE SCO PE AND AMBIT OF THE ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER S ECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT READ WITH THE PROVISO THEREOF. THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (S UPRA) HAS RULED THAT AN UNABATED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A(1) WO ULD NOT ENCOMPASS AN ADDITION, IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF 7 ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SEARCH, BECAUSE IN SUCH A CASE, THE ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT HAD BECOME FINAL. THIS PROPOSITION HAS BEEN CANVASSED BY THE L D. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IN ORDER TO ASSAIL THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,29,53,823/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TR EATING THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM NON-RESIDENT INDIVIDUALS AS UNEXPLAIN ED, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 7.1 IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECOR D TO SUGGEST THAT ANY MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHIC H WOULD SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED GIFTS RECEIVED FROM THE TWO NON-RESIDE NT INDIVIDUALS WERE IN-GENUINE OR WERE CONTRARY TO THE STATED POSI TION. NOTABLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSERTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT GIFTS OF RS.77,03,823/- FROM SHRI ASHOK PAMANI AND RS.52,50, 000/-FROM SHRI RAJ SITADAS MOTWANI WERE RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANN ELS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPIES OF THE GIFT DEEDS, COPIES OF T HE PASSPORT AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE DONEES TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENES S OF THE GIFTS. THE DISCUSSION IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW ALSO REVEAL THAT DOCUMENTS SHOWING THE PAN OF SHRI ASHOK PAMANI WERE ALSO FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK , WHEREIN IS PLACED A COPY OF AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE MAGAZINE CONTAI NING A WRITE-UP ABOUT THE FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE T WO DONORS, WHICH PRIMA-FACIE SHOW THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONEES . BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE ARE NOT PRESENTLY DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF TH E EFFICACY OF THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, BUT WE ARE ON LY TRYING TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEAR THED DURING THE 8 ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THE GIFTS WERE INGENUINE. ON THIS ASPECT, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL REFE RRED TO BY THE REVENUE TO SAY THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHE D DURING THE SEARCH. THEREFORE, IN THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION IN AN ASSESSMENT FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAVING BEEN FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH, QUA THE IMPUGNED GIFTS FROM THE NON-RESIDEN T INDIVIDUALS. WE MAY CATEGORICALLY MENTION HERE THAT ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH, QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 UNDER CONSIDERATION , ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PENDING AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT FOR TH IS YEAR DID NOT ABATE IN TERMS OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A(1) O F THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA-SHEVA) ( SUPRA) IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF AN UNABATED ASSESSMENT WHICH HAD BECOME FINAL IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAVING BEEN F OUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, QUA THE IMPUGNED GIFT. THUS, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,29,53,823/- AS THE SAME IS PURPORTED TO BE BEY OND THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF AN ASSESSMENT ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 7.2 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO .8027/MUM/2010 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS ABOVE. 9 ITA NO. 8027 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) ITA NO. 5139 /MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) 8. IN SO FAR AS, THE OTHER CAPTIONED APPEAL IS CONC ERNED, THE SAME RELATES TO PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS.42,74,762/-IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1, 29,53,823/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT DATED 23/12/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-0 5. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE EARLIER APPEAL, THE VER Y BASIS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) DOES NOT SURVIVE AN D, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DELETED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/09/2015 . SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER MUMBAI,DATED 30/09/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBA I VM , SR. PS