ITO 16(2)(2), MUMBAI V. AMEE HOSANG MISTRY, MUMBAI

ITA 8212/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5116 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 8212/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-16(2)(2), MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400 007 / VS. AMEE HOSANG MISTRY 3 RD FLOOR, JAIJEE TERRACE, 9, NAUSHIR BHARUCHA MARG, SLEATER ROAD, MUMBAI-400 007 ! ./' ./PAN/GIR NO. AAHPM 3359 F ( !# /APPELLANT ) : ( $!# / RESPONDENT ) !# % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR $!# & % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJIV SHAH ' ()* & + / DATE OF HEARING : 01.10.2013 ,-. & + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2013 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGITATING THE ORDE R BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-27, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT ) DATED 14.09.2011, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 20 08-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2010. 2 ITA NO. 8212/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO VS. AMEE HOSANG MISTRY 2.1 THE PRIMARY FACTS OF THE CASE, WHICH ARE SIMPLE AND UNDISPUTED, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TAX DED UCTION OF SOURCE (TDS) ON INTEREST FOR RS.56.80 LACS RECEIVED BY HER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS (AOP) BY THE NAME, M/S. HOSANG MISTRY & CO., OF WHICH SHE IS THE MEMBER, PER HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. THE INTEREST WAS ON 8% RBI SAV ING BONDS ISSUED THROUGH UNION BANK OF INDIA (THE ISSUER OF SECURITIES). AS THE SA ID BONDS COULD NOT BE SUBSCRIBED TO BY AN AOP, RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY IT FOR INVESTMENT FOR AND ON ITS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE ONLY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF TH E AOP. THAT IS, THOUGH THE FUNDS UTILIZED AND INVESTED WERE OF THE AOP (PB PAGES 36- 38), THE INVESTMENT/S WAS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE (PB PAGES 25-32). TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS) CERTIFICATE WAS ACCORDINGLY ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE FOR RS. 11,70,080 (PB PAGE 24), WHO THOUGH REMITTED THE FULL AMOUNT OF INTEREST (RS. 56.80 LAC S) TO THE AOP (PB PAGE 16), THE DE FACTO OWNER OF THE BONDS (INVESTMENT) (PB PAGES 39-40). 2.2 IN THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.), TH E BONDS BEING HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, ALSO RECEIVING INTEREST THEREON, BESIDES CLAIMING T DS IN ITS RESPECT, THE INTEREST WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED IN HER HANDS. CREDIT FOR TDS WAS ALL OWED BY HIM, I.E., AS CLAIMED. THE LD.CIT (A) DIRECTED DELETION OF THE INTEREST ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY THE DE JURE OWNER OF BOTH, THE BONDS AND INTEREST THEREON, THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST THEREIN BEING OF THE AOP. THE INTEREST HAS BEEN DULY ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE AOP; ALSO RECOVERING TAX THEREON (PB PAGES 17-23). AS REGARDS CREDIT FOR TDS, THE RELEVANT PROVISION (SECTION 199) HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED (BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 1996, W.E.F 1/4/1997) TO PROVIDE FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX, BESIDES THE PERSON IN WHOSE HANDS THE CORRESPONDING INCOME (I.E., ON WHICH CREDIT FOR TDS IS BEING CLAIMED) IS ASSESSABL E, ALSO QUA THE OWNER OF THE SECURITY, DEPOSIT OR PROPERTY YIELDING THE SAID INCOME. ACCOR DINGLY, IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO ALLOW CREDIT FOR TDS TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN IN WHOSE HA NDS THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS ASSESSABLE. DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SONAL BANSAL (IN I.T.A. NO. 412 OF 2007) (P&H) AND ITO VS. T.G. VEERARAGHAVAN [2007] 108 ITD 288 (COCH) WERE RELIED UPON BY HIM FOR PRECEDENCE. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL. 3 ITA NO. 8212/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO VS. AMEE HOSANG MISTRY 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PURSUED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. FINDINGS 3.1 OUR FIRST OBSERVATION IN THE MATTER IS THAT THE REVENUE HAS ONLY CHALLENGED THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN-SO-FAR AS IT RELATES TO ALLOWING CREDIT FOR TDS TO THE ASSESSEE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISION OF SEC. 199 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAN D, CONTENDS THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED LAW, INSISTENCE ON THE ALLOWANCE OF THE CRE DIT (FOR TDS) TO THE PERSON IN WHOSE HANDS THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS ASSESSABLE, IS NO T APPROPRIATE AS THE SAME MAY NOT ALWAYS HOLD, SO THAT AN ALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE FO R THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A GIVEN CASE. RULE 37BA, PROVIDING FOR SUCH CIRC UMSTANCES, WAS INTRODUCED ONLY W.E.F 01.04.2009, SO THAT PRIOR THERETO THERE WAS AMBIGUI TY IN THE MATTER, WHICH THEREFORE IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS TWO VIEWS WERE POSSIBLE. IN FACT, THERE HAS BEEN INSTANCES, AS IN JUPUDI KESAVA RAO VS. CIT [1935] 3 ITR 339 (MAD), TOYO ENGG. INDIA LTD. VS. JT. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 373 (MUM), AND ESCORTS LTD. VS. DY. CIT [2007] 15 SOT 368 (DEL), WHERE CREDIT FOR TDS HAS B EEN ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE DEDUCTEE WITHOUT THE CORRESPONDING INCOME BEING BRO UGHT TO TAX IN HIS HANDS. FINALLY, IF SUCH A VIEW IS DISCOUNTENANCED, IT WOULD LEAD TO A FUTILE EXERCISE BY WAY OF REFUND OF THE TAX RECOVERED TO THE AOP, WHILE RECOVERING THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSEE; THE TWO BEING ASSESSED AT THE SAME RATE OF TAX (30%), I.E., TO NO GAIN OR EFFECT. RATHER, CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES, SUCH AS OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234D AND W ITHDRAWAL OF INTEREST GRANTED ON REFUND (U/S. 244A) TO THE ASSESSEE, AS WELL AS TAX IMPLICA TIONS THEREOF, WOULD ARISE, THOUGH TO NO MATERIAL EFFECT. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD. [1958] 33 ITR 681 (BOM) IS INVOKED TO SUBMIT THAT THE REVENUE SHO ULD NOT DISPUTE MATTERS WHICH ARE TO NO CONSEQUENCE. 3.2 CONTINUING FURTHER, THE NEXT THING THAT NEEDS T O BE CLARIFIED, EVEN THOUGH THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS NO LONGER IN DISPUTE, IS TH AT THE INTEREST INCOME UNDER REFERENCE IS ASSESSABLE ONLY IN HANDS OF AOP. INCOME IS TO BE AS SESSED IN HANDS OF THE RIGHT PERSON ONLY [ ITO V. CH. ATCHAIAH [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC)]. COMING TO THE ISSUE AT H AND, WE 4 ITA NO. 8212/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO VS. AMEE HOSANG MISTRY FIND THE ASSESSEES CASE TO BE BASED MORE ON CONVEN IENCE THAN ON LAW, OR EVEN ON EQUITY. NO DOUBT, THE LAW (SEC. 199) STANDS AMENDED TO PROV IDE FOR TDS AS BEING TREATED AS PAYMENT OF TAX FOR AND ON BEHALF OF, BESIDES THE PE RSON FROM WHOSE INCOME DEDUCTION OF TAX STANDS MADE, THE OWNER OF THE RELEVANT SECURITY , DEPOSIT OR PROPERTY YIELDING INCOME. THE SAME, HOWEVER, HAS NECESSARILY TO BE READ IN CO NSISTENCE WITH PROVISOS THERETO, ALSO INSERTED SIMULTANEOUSLY (BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 199 6, W.E.F 01/04/1997), WHICH, ON THE CONTRARY, SEEK TO PROVIDE CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF TH E PERSON, OTHER THAN THE DEDUCTEE, IN WHOSE HANDS THE INCOME, OSTENSIBLY OF THE DEDUCTEE, IS ASSESSABLE IN LAW, SO THAT IN CASE OF JOINT OWNERSHIP, CREDIT IS TO BE ALLOWED IN PROP ORTION TO THE INCOME. THAT IS, TO THE SAME PURPORT AND EFFECT AS RULE 37BA, BROUGHT ON TH E STATUTE-BOOK SUBSEQUENT TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE SEC. 199 BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 W .E.F. 01/4/2008. THE RULE ONLY SEEKS TO; FIRSTLY, SPECIFY SUCH INSTANCES AND, TWO, PROVI DE FOR THE MECHANISM THEREFOR. IN FACT, THE OWNER OF THE SECURITY (BONDS) IN THE INSTANT CA SE IS ONLY THE AOP; THE ASSESSEE BEING ONLY A DE JURE OWNER, WITH THE PROPERTY IN THE BONDS BEING ADMITT EDLY OF THE AOP. 3.3 AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT QUA AMBIGUITY, THE SAME IS COMPLETELY MISPLACED. THE LAW, PER SECTIONS 190 & 191, PROVIDES FOR TDS BEING ONLY A MANNER OF COLLECTION OF TAX CHARGEABLE ON THE RELEVANT INCOME. SECTION 199(1) I TSELF LAYS DOWN THAT TDS IS TO BE TREATED AS TAX PAID FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON FROM WHOSE INCOME TAX IS DEDUCTED. OTHER CATEGORIES OF PERSONS, BEING THE OWNER OF THE RELEVANT PROPERTY, ARE ALSO PROVIDED. THE LAW THUS CONTEMPLATES OF THE DEDUCTEE BEING THE PERSON OTHER THAN FROM WHOSE INCOME TAX DEDUCTION STANDS MADE. IT, THEREFORE, RA THER THAN BEING A SOURCE OF AMBIGUITY, SERVES TO ELIMINATE IT. THE AOP RETURNED THE INTERE ST INCOME ON THE BONDS, WITH THE ASSESSEE EXCLUDING THE SAME FROM HER RETURN. WHY, WE WONDER, THEN, THE TDS COULD NOT BE CLAIMED IN THE HANDS OF AOP ? TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE, IT IS TO BE APPRECIATED, IS ONLY TOWARD THE CHARGE OF TAX U/S. 4 OF THE ACT AND, THE REFORE, CREDIT FOR SAME WOULD NORMALLY BE TO THE PERSON IN WHOSE HANDS THE SAID INCOME IS ASSESSABLE (U/S. 199(1)), AND FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR/S (SS. 199(2) & (3) R/W S. 190), BEIN G CONSISTENT AND IN ACCORD WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. THAT THE SAID PERSON HAS PAID TH E TAX IN FULL ON HIS OWN, OR HAS NOT 5 ITA NO. 8212/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO VS. AMEE HOSANG MISTRY PREFERRED TO CLAIM CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THE TDS, IS NO GROUND FOR ALLOWING CREDIT TO ANOTHER. THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 199, AS ALREADY CLAR IFIED, IS TOWARD MITIGATING AND RESOLVING DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE OSTENSIBLE AND THE REAL OWNER OF THE UNDERLYING SECURITY (PROPERTY) AN D THE INCOME THEREON, SO THAT ON A DECLARATION BEING MADE BY THE DEDUCTEE, CREDIT FOR TDS COULD BE CLAIMED BY AND ALLOWED TO THE REAL ( DE FACTO ) OWNER, EVEN AS THE TDS CERTIFICATE/S IS IN THE NA ME OF THE OSTENSIBLE OWNER (DEDUCTEE). RECOURSE TO THE RULE 37BA, INTROD UCED SUBSEQUENTLY (W.E.F. 01/04/2009), WOULD ARISE ONLY WHERE THE RULE DENIES , AS IT DID IN SOME OF THE CASES CITED, CREDIT TO THE AOP ON THE GROUND THE TDS CERTIFICATE BEING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE (DEDUCTEE). THE CASE LAW CITED 3.4 THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF SONAL BANSAL (SUPRA) AND T.G. VEERARAGHAVAN (SUPRA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE, BEING IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR/S PRIOR TO AY 1997-98, WITH EFFECT FROM WHICH THE PROVISION OF S. 199 STOOD AMENDED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 1996. AS REGARDS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAGRI MILLS CO. LTD . (SUPRA), IT NEEDS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAIN ST LAW, AND EACH YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT OF ASSESSMENT. THE SAID DECISION IS TO BE CONSIDERE D AS RENDERED IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, AND NOT AS A STATEMENT OF LAW INASMUCH AS THE SAME CAN NO LONGER BE SAID TO REPRESENT GOOD LAW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION BY THE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SWADESHI COTTON & FLOUR MILLS (P.) LTD . [1964] 53 ITR 134 (SC). TOWARD THIS ONE MAY IN FACT REFER TO THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE COURT S AS IN THE CASE OF NEW VICTORIA MILLS CO. LTD. V. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 395 (ALL); ESCORTS (AGENTS) (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 61 (DEL.); J. K. WOOLLEN MANUFACTURERS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 237 (ALL.); MYSORE SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 572 (BOM.) [AFFIRMED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN [1970] 78 ITR 4 (SC)]; AND S.M. ZIADDIN VS. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 136 (MAD). IN THE CASE OF TOYO ENGG. INDIA LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, PROVIDING TECHNICAL SERVICES AS WELL AS EXECUTING CONSTRUCTIO N OF PROJECTS IN THE AREAS OF FERTILIZERS, 6 ITA NO. 8212/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO VS. AMEE HOSANG MISTRY PETROCHEMICALS, GAS AND PETROLEUM, ETC., WAS FOLLOW ING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD FOR THE LATTER BUSINESS. THE ISSUE THAT AROSE WAS OF THE YE AR FOR WHICH CREDIT FOR TDS WAS TO BE ALLOWED. IT IS IN THAT CONTEXT IT WAS HELD BY THE T RIBUNAL THAT THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR MAY NOT BE SPECIF IC AND IMMEDIATE IN ALL CASES, SO THAT IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO CORRELATE THE TWO AT ALL TIMES. THE DECISION IS RENDERED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE TO EST ABLISH A CORRELATION BETWEEN THE QUANTUM OF INCOME AND THE YEAR OF ITS ASSESSABILITY, THE VE RY BASIS OF SECTION 199. THE SAME, THUS, HAS NO APPLICATION IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (SUPRA), AGAIN, REPRESENTS ONE SUCH INSTANCE; THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING THAT THE INCOME, ON WHICH TAX STOOD DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, WAS NOT ASSESSABLE UNDER THE ACT. THE REVENUE, HOWEVER, HAVING COLLECTED THE TAX AT SOURC E, DULY EVIDENCED BY A CERTIFICATE IN ITS RESPECT, COULD NOT DENY CREDIT FOR THE SAME, I. E., THE TDS IN ITS RESPECT. THIS FORMS THE BASIS OF THIS DECISION, AND WHICH, THEREFORE, CLEAR LY HAS NOT APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE. TO THE SAME PURPORT AND EFFECT AND, THEREFORE, FATE AS TO THE RELIANCE THEREON, IS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PUNJAB FINANCIAL CORPORATION [2005] 277 ITR 469 (P&H), WHEREIN ONLY A PART OF THE INCOME ON WHICH TAX STOO D DEDUCTED WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX; THE BALANCE FALLING TO THE SHARE OF THE STATE GOVERNMEN T, THE JOINT OWNER (IN A DEFINED RATIO) OF THE RELEVANT SECURITY, AND THUS OUTSIDE THE PURV IEW OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS AY 1978-79. IT WAS HELD THAT CREDIT FO R THE TDS THEREON COULD NOT BE DENIED, WHICH WOULD IN ANY CASE HAVE TO BE REFUNDED , AND TO THE ASSESSEE-DEDUCTEE ITSELF. WE MAY AT THIS STAGE REFER TO THE DECISION BY THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI ANUPALLAVI FINANCE & INVESTMENTS [2011] 131 ITD 205 (CHENNAI), WHEREIN, ADVERTING TO SECTIONS 190, 191, 198 AND 199 OF THE ACT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY, OR IS REQUIRED TO, MARCH ALONGSIDE THE CORRESPONDING INCOME, RECOGNITION OF WHICH BY THE RECIPIENT COULD BE EITHER ON ACCRUAL OR ON RECEIPT BASIS. THE TAX LIABILITY, HOWEVER, WOULD ARISE ONLY ON IT BECOMING ASSESSABLE. IT IS IN VIEW OF AND TO ADDRESS THIS MISMATCH IN TIME BETWEEN THE TDS AND THE ACCRUAL AND/OR RECEIPT OF THE CORRESPONDING INCOME THAT SECTION 199 R/W SS . 190 AND 191 CLARIFIES THAT THE CREDIT FOR TDS SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR THE YEAR/S IN WHICH THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS ASSESSABLE. 7 ITA NO. 8212/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09) ITO VS. AMEE HOSANG MISTRY FURTHER, THERE WAS COMPLETE HARMONY BETWEEN THE ERS TWHILE SECTION 199 AND SECTION 199 AS IT STANDS AFTER SUBSTITUTION BY FINANCE ACT, 200 8 W.E.F. 01.04.2008 READ WITH R. 37BA. IN JUPUDI KESAVA RAO (SUPRA), THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS WHETHER THE WORD SUCCESSION IN SECTION 26(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1922 WOULD INCLUDE TRANSFER WHERE THE BUSINESS DEVOLVES ON THE COPARCENER OF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY (HUF) BY SURVIVORSHIP. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT SECTION 2 6(2) CONCERNS THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND NOT MERELY OF MANAGEMENT. THERE WAS ACCORDINGLY NO SUCCESSION WHEN THE PETITIONER-COPARCENER BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE HUF BUSINESS. WE SEE NO PARITY OR CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE SAID DECISION AND THE IS SUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE, I.E., WHETHER THE CREDIT FOR TDS IS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE TITULAR HOLDER OR THE BENEFICIAL OWNER, IN WHOSE HANDS THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS IN LAW ASSESSABLE, HAVING IN FACT BEEN RETURNED AND ASSESSED ONLY THERE-UNDER . 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 0. 1 ) & ) 2 & 34 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON NOVEMBER 20, 2013 SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' * MUMBAI; 5( DATED : 20.11.2013 ).(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. $!# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' 6 / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 9):; $ (<= , + <=. , ' * / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;>? @* / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' * / ITAT, MUMBAI