Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Jain Irrigation System Ltd., Jalgaon

ITA 831/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6566 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NANDITA KANCHAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 739 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD., PLASTIC PARK, POST BOX NO.72, N.H. NO.6, BAMBHORI, JALGAON 425001 . / APPELLANT PAN: A AACJ7163Q VS. THE JT . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, RANGE - 1, JALGAON . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 83 1 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JALGAON . / APPELLANT VS. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD., PLASTIC PARK, POST BOX NO.72, N.H. NO.6, BAMBHORI, JALGAON 425001 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AAACJ7163Q ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRASHANT MAHESHWARI REVENUE BY : MS. NANDITA KANCHAN / DATE OF HEARING : 11 . 0 6 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01 . 0 8 .201 9 ITA NO S . 739 & 83 1 /P U N/20 1 5 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. 2 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THE CROSS APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (A) - 2 , NASHIK , DATED 13 . 0 3 .201 5 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UN DER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AND REVENUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 . THE LEARNED AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN RAISED BY ASSESSEE, WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF JURISDICTION EXERCISED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE TAKEN UP FIRST. 4. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APP EAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: - X. O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('LEARNED AO') HAS ERRED IN COMPLETING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT AND WITHOUT ISSUING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AS STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 144 C(1) OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF ORDER OF THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER AND HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT PASSED ON 21/03/2013 MAY BE DECLARED AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 5. THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT I.E. HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT HAS ISSUED FINAL ITA NO S . 739 & 83 1 /P U N/20 1 5 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. 3 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND NOTICE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THEN WHERE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, AN UPWARD TP ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECT ION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT BY TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER ( TPO ) , THEN SUCH AN ORDER SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY AND CANNOT STAND IN LAW. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US POINTED OUT THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IS PUREL Y LEGAL ISSUE AND STANDS COVERED BY ORDERS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND EVEN BY ORDERS OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION OF FACTS AND BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE RAISE D IN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS JURISDICTIONAL LEGAL ISSUE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION INTO FACTS, HENCE THE SAME IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TPO HAD PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 28.01.2013, WHEREIN ADJUSTMENT OF 91,94,100/ - WAS PROPOSED. CONSEQUENT THERETO, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP BY ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 15.02.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ADDITION AS PER TRANSFER PRICING ORDER ALONG WITH OTHER OFFERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 21.03.2013. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS PLACED COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED IN FORM NO.7 AND ALSO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS , DATED 21.03.2013 . IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PR.CIT VS. LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD. (2018) 100 TAXMANN.COM 413 (BOM) AND ALSO BY PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SOKT AS INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. ITA NO S . 739 & 83 1 /P U N/20 1 5 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. 4 ACIT (2017) 77 TAXMAN.COM 19 (PUNE - TRIB.) AND EATON FLUID POWER LTD. VS. DCIT (2018) 96 TAXMANN.COM 512 (PUNE - TRIB.) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL. 8 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO ASSESSEE AS TO WHY TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT BE NOT MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS COMMUNICATION ACCEPTED THE UPWA RD ADJUSTMENT IN ITS HANDS. HENCE THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE SAID FINAL ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. MAGN A INTERNATIONAL INC. (2019) 19 7 TTJ 875 (PUNE ). 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPORTED CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, MADE REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT TO THE TRA NSFER PRICING OFFICER , WHO IN TURN, PASSED AN ORDER DATED 28.01.2013 UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT AND PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 91,94,100/ - . ON RECEIPT OF SAID ORDER OF TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS TO THE OR DER PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE PROPOSING AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 91,94,100/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSEE. THIS IS MENTIONED IN PARA 1 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, IN THE BODY OF ORDER AT PAGE 23 WHILE TALKING AB OUT DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OUT OF NON COMPETE FEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERS TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 15.02.2013 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER ITA NO S . 739 & 83 1 /P U N/20 1 5 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. 5 PRICING ADJUSTMENT AND OTHER AD DITIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT AFTER VERIFICATION ON OTHER ISSUES VIDE ORDER DATED 21.03.2013 BUT ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUES DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.7, DATED 21.03.2013 AND ALSO NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 21.03.2013. 10. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN RECEIPT OF ORDER PASSED BY TPO UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT PROPOSING AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 91,94,100/ - , IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER FIRST TO PASS A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREAFTER, PASS A FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. 11. LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT I.E. SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHALL (NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THIS ACT) IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FORWARD A DRAFT OF PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE, ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. SUB - SECTION (2) OF THE SAID SECTION PROVIDES THAT ON RECEIPT OF DRAFT ORDER, THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE SHALL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT BY HIM OF THE DRAFT ORDER, (A) FILE HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR (B) FILE HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO SUCH VARIATION WITH DRP AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER . UNDER SUB - SECTION (3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL THEN COMPLETE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT OR DER, IF, (A) THE ASSESSEE INTIMATES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ACCEPTANCE OF VARIATION, OR (B) NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED WITHIN PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (2). IN CASE AN OBJECTION IS FILED BEFORE THE DRP, THEN THE PROCEDURE IS PROVIDED IN ITA NO S . 739 & 83 1 /P U N/20 1 5 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. 6 SUB - SEC TION (5) ONWARDS OF THE SAID SECTION WITH WHICH, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED AT PRESENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SCHEME OF THE ACT IS THAT A DRAFT ORDER IS TO BE PROPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE ANY VARIATION IN THE I NCOME OR LOSS RETURNED, WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, ON RECEIPT OF DRAFT ORDER, THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE SHALL EITHER FILE HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE DRP AND ASSESSING O FFICER. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C(3) OF THE ACT. 12. IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, THE TPO HAD PASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) OF THE ACT PROPOSING VARIATION IN THE INCOME WHICH IS PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF ASSESSEE, SUCH ADJUSTMENT NEEDS TO BE PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DO. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE RECEIPT OF DRAFT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EITH ER FILE HIS ACCEPTANCE OR OBJECTION TO THE SAID PROPOSAL. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE UPWARD ADJUSTMENT PROPOSED IN HIS CASE, BUT THE SAID ADJUSTMENT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND VIDE WRITTEN LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PASSED ANY DRAFT ORDER BUT HAS PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND NOTICE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. SUCH AN ORDER PASSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY AS THE SAME IS AGAINST PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 13. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PR.CIT VS. LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HAVE LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 144C(1) ITA NO S . 739 & 83 1 /P U N/20 1 5 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. 7 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO FIRST PASS A DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE, BY WAY OF REPRESENTATION TO THE DRP. IT IS ONLY AFTER DRP DISPOSES OF REPRESENTATION, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER PASSES A FINAL ORDER IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS OF DRP AND SUCH FINAL ORDER IS APPEALABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE FACTS BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT A FINAL ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT PASSING ANY DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SAME WAS SOUGHT TO BE CO RRECTED BY ISSUE OF CORRIGENDUM ON A DATE AFTER THE T IME TO PASS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD EXPIRED. THEN, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION VS. DCIT (2016) 68 TAXMANN.COM 246 (BOM), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NECESSARY IN TERMS OF SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN PROCEED TO PASS FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, ORDER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE FACTS BEFORE IT IN PR.C IT VS. LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF REVENUE THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ESTOPPED FROM CHALLENGING THE CORRIGENDUM, WHICH WAS PASSED AFTER THE DATE OF PASSING OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS IT WAS ACCEPTED BY IT AND REPRESENTATION WAS ALSO FILED TO THE DRP. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THIS SUBMISSION OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT THERE CAN BE NO ESTOPPEL ON ISSUE OF LAW PERTAINING TO JURISDICTION. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT IF THE CORRIGENDUM AND THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, THE SAME CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL WILL NOT APPLY. MERE CONSENT OF PARTIES DOES NOT BESTOW THE JURISDICTION IF THE ORDER IS BEYOND JURISDICTION. 14. APPLYING THE SAID P ROPOSITION TO THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE AND MAINLY RELYING ON THE PROPOSITION THAT MERE CONSENT OF PARTIES DOES NOT BESTOW THE ITA NO S . 739 & 83 1 /P U N/20 1 5 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. 8 JURISDICTION, WHERE THE ORDER IS BEYOND JURISDICTION. WE HOLD THAT EVEN IF ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED ADDITION TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WOULD NOT BESTOW THE JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE CANNOT BE UPHELD IN LAW, IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSING OFFICER PASSING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS ENVISAGED AS PER SECTION 144C(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BAD IN LAW. 15. THE STAND OF REVENUE IN THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING PARTICIPATED IN ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS AND HENCE, THE ERROR, IF ANY, STANDS CORRECTED, DO NOT STAND IN VIEW OF THE DICTATE OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC. (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE AT VARIANCE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTU IN GOOD FAITH CLAIMS TO HAVE OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME TO TAX AT THE BEGINNING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, THE SAID INCOME WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSES SEE AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT VARIATION IN INCOME WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF VOLUNTARY OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE VARI ATION IN THE INCOME RETURNED, WHICH WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. THEN THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE SAID CASE. HOWEVER, THE SAID PROPOSITION DOES NOT HOLD GOOD AS THE FACTS ARE AT VARIANCE. 16. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) MAKING CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS TO ITA NO S . 739 & 83 1 /P U N/20 1 5 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. 9 ASSESSEES ARM'S LENGTH PRICE WITHOUT PROCESSING DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL IN SOKTAS INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT THE SAID ORDER BEING AGAINST PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF OUR SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON MERITS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAI SED BY REVENUE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 17 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 1 ST DAY OF AUGUST , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (A NIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 1 ST AUGUST , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2 , NASHIK ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 2 , NASHIK ; 5. 6. , , / DR B , I TAT, PUNE ; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE