ACIT 9(3), MUMBAI V. RADICAL SYSTECH (I) LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8526/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 852619914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVESH VASAVADA
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

, MH MHMH MH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - D BENCH. , MK0 ,L VH ,E IKOYU MK0 ,L VH ,E IKOYU MK0 ,L VH ,E IKOYU MK0 ,L VH ,E IKOYU BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S.T.M . PAVALAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER /. ITA NO.8526/MUM/2010, ! ! ! ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05 ACIT 9(3) 2 ND FLOOR, R.NO. 229, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 VS M/S RADICAL SYSTECH (I) LTD. 701-B,FALCONS, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTON ROAD, MUMBAI-400013 PAN:AAACF4588R ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# / RESPONDENT) ' ( / REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN )* ' ( / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEVESH VASAVADA ' '' ' *+ *+ *+ *+ / DATE OF HEARING : 20-02-2014 ,-! ' *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-03-2014 , 1961 ' '' ' 254 )1( *.* *.* *.* *.* / / / / ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2010 OF THE CIT(A )-20, MUMBAI ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARID IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,37,375 BEING INTEREST PAYABLE TO A BANK AND NOT PAID BY THE SPECIFIED DATE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT A MAJOR PART OF THE INTEREST OF RS. 10,37,375 PAYABLE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED INTO A LOAN AND DID NOT AMOUNT TO PAYMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 3C/3CD TO SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961,AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2006 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, THEREBY RENDERING THE ASSESSEE INELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE DEDU CTION OF INTEREST IN THE CURRENT YEAR TOO. 3.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,11,305 IN RELATION TO SUPPRESSIO N OF GROSS PROFIT IGNORING THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED NO PLAU SIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE HIGHER OVERHEAD EXPENSES AND THE HIGHER CONSUMPTION VIS-A-VIS THE S ALES. 4.THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFAC TURING OF ELECTRONIC WEIGHING MACHINES, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2004 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.(-)1.22 CRORES.ASSESSMENT WAS FINALISED BY THE AO U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 18.08. 2006 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.(-) 21,31,505/-. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT INTEREST OF RS. 17,18,240/- ON BANK LOAN,TH AT AS PER THE AUDITORS NOTE ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN REPAYMENT OF INTEREST DUES TO THE BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.10,37,375/- ON THE TERM LOAN 2 ITA NOS. 8526/MUM/2010 M/S RADICAL SYSTECH (I) LTD. TAKEN FROM SYNDICATE BANK. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE AFORESAID AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNPAID LIABILITY AND BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B(D) OF THE ACT.AS PER THE AO ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGAR D.AS A RESULT,AO ADDED A SUM OF RS.10,37, 375/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED,ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHROIRY(FAA).ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE AO HAD REFERRED TO THE AU DITORS NOTE NO.12 TO DISALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 10,37,375/- YET HE IGNORED THE SAME AUDITOR S NOTE AT POINT NO. XI,THAT IN THE SAID NOTE IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEF AULTED IN REPAYMENT OF DUES TO ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, BANKS, OR DEBENTURES AND OTHER SECURI TIES,THAT IT HAD NOT VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 43B(D) AND NO DISALLOWANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R,FAA HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS PERTAINED TO DEFAULT IN REPAYMENT OF DUES TO THE BA NK TOWARDS TERM LOAN INTEREST,THAT THE AUDITORS HAD ALSO COMMENTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEFAUL T IN REPAYMENT OF DUES TO ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,THAT SECTION 43B(D) REFERRED TO ANY SU M PAYABLE AS INTEREST ON LOAN OR BORROWING FROM ANY PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION OR A STATE FINANCI AL CORPORATION OR A STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDIT IONS OF THE AGREEMENT GOVERNING SUCH LOAN OR BORROWING,THAT THE DEFAULTED AMOUNT WAS IN RELATION TO INTEREST PAYABLE TO A BANK AND NOT TO ANY PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION OR STATE FINANCIAL COR PORATION OR A STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORA - TION AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 43B OF THE ACT,THAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B(D) IN DISALLOWING THE INT EREST.HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 5. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AUTHORISED REPRESENTA - TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THEAO HAD APPLIED WRONG SECTION ,THAT SECTION 43B(E) OF THE ACT WAS ABOUT SCHEDULED BANKS,SECTION 43(D) DEALT WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,THAT DISPUTED AMOUNT DID NOT RELATE TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL,THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENTS TO THE BANK TOWARDS TERM LOAN INTEREST, THAT AUDITORS HAD ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT DEFAULTED IN THE PAYMENT OF DUES TO ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B(D) REFERS TO ANY SUM PAYABLE AS INTEREST ON LOAN/BORROWING FROM ANY PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIO N/STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION/STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION.CLEARLY,THE DEFAULTED AMOUNT WAS IN RELATION TO INTEREST PAYABLE TO THE BANK AND NOT TO ANY PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ET C., AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 43B OF THE ACT.IN OUR OPINION,FAA WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(D) IN DISALLO-ING THE INTEREST WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT IN THE AUDITORS REPORT AT COLUMN (XII) IT WAS MENTIONED BY THEM THA T ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN REPAYMENT OF DUES TO BANKS AND NATURE OF LOAN WAS TERM LOAN/ TERM LOA N INTEREST AND THAT DEFAULT PERIOD WERE STARTED FROM AUGUST 2004. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 7. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.45,11,305/-PERTAINING TO SUPPRESSION OF GROSS PROFIT.ON GOING THROUGH THE TRADING ACCOUN T, AO FOUND THAT THE SALES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE OF RS. 17,55,733/- AS COMPARED T O THE SALES FOR THE EARLIER YEAR IS RS.4,87,12, 164/-,THAT PURCHASES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON WAS OF RS. 11,59,753/-,THAT THE TOTAL COST OF PURCHASES EXCLUDING THE MANUFACTURING EXPENSES WAS RS.55,74,666/-,THAT AFTER ADDING THE MANUFACTURING EXPENSES THE COST OF MANUFACTURED GOO DS WAS RS. 61,69,640/-,THAT THE GOODS COSTING RS.61,69,640/- HAD BEEN SOLD FOR RS. 20,38, 412/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THE EXPLANATION FOR REDUCTION IN SALES COMPARED TO LAST YEAR AND WA S ALSO ASKED TO EXPLAIN WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE TOTAL MANUFACTURING COST WAS RS.61.69 LAKHS AND WHI CH HAD BEEN SOLD @ RS.20,38,412/-.AS PER THE AO,NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION ALONG WITH THE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF PURCHASES, SALE S, SUNDRY DEBTORS, CREDITORS WERE NOT FURNISHED, THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED IN RESPECT OF THE GOODS WHICH WERE SOLD AT A GROSS LOSS 3 ITA NOS. 8526/MUM/2010 M/S RADICAL SYSTECH (I) LTD. OF RS. 38,38,630/-.AO,FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT RATIO @ 33% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2003-04 .AFTER COMPARING THE WORKING OF THE GROSS PROFIT/GROSS LOSS,HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHO WN GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF 33% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR A.Y. 2003-04 WHEREAS FOR A.Y. 2004-05 SHOWED LO SS OF RS. 38.38 LAKHS WHICH WORKS TO GROSS RATIO OF 188.31%.ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LOSS SUFFE RED BY IT WAS DUE TO HIGHER CONSUMPTION AND HIGH OVERHEAD EXPENSES AS COMPARED TO SALES.AO REJE CTED THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT IT HAD NOT ADDUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE OR HAD NOT FILED THE DETAILS OF PARTY-WISE PURCHASES/ SALES / EXPENSES DETAILS EXCEPT SALARY D ETAILS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALES TRANSACTIONS AND CLAIM OF EXPENSES,THAT T HE POSSIBILITY OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND INFLATION OF EXPENSES /PURCHASES COULD NOT BE RULED OUT.RELYING ON THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF LAST YEAR,HE TOOK GROSS PROFIT RATIO AT 33% INSTEAD OF GROSS LOSS OF 188.31% AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE.FINALLY,HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.45,11,30 5/- ,ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP AND ADDED IT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,FAA HELD THAT THE ACCO UNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN AUDITED,THAT THE AO HAD NOT REJECTED THEM OR HELD THAT THE AUDIT ORS HAD CERTIFIED FALSE OR BOGUS OR INCORRECT ACCOUNTS.THAT EXCEPT STATING THAT THE GROSS PROFIT WAS LOWER IN THE CURRENT YEAR NO INACCURACY IN THE ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN STATED OR CITED BY THE AO,THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED AND KEPT QUANTITATIVE DETAILS/STOCK REGISTER FOR THE GOODS M ANUFACTURED/TRADED AS REPORTED IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS,THAT SAME WERE NOT IN DISPUTE,THAT THE AO HAD NOT DOUBTED THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE GE NUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE SALES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS HAD NOT BEEN DOUBTED,THAT THE AO HAD GUESSED THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND INFLATION OF EXPENSES / PU RCHASES IN THE CURRENT YEAR WITHOUT CITING ANY SUCH INSTANCE,THAT THE SALES MADE LAST YEAR WERE RS . 487.12 LAKHS WHICH CAME DOWN TO RS. 20.38 LAKHS IN THE CURRENT YEAR,THAT THE TURNOVER FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS HARDLY 4% OF LAST YEAR, THAT SALES FOR THE YEAR WAS AN INDICATION THAT ALL WAS NOT WELL WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY.FINALLY HE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE AO TO COMPARE THE GROSS PROFIT OF LAST YEAR WITH THAT IN THE CURRENT YEAR,THAT THE COST OF GOODS SOLD WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS. 5574666 AS AGAINST SALE OF RS. 2038412 WAS A RESULT OF SUBSTANTIAL LOSS IN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK,THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ESTIM ATE ANY GROSS PROFIT.HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.4511305 MADE BY THE AO. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS,FAA HELD THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN AUDITED,THAT THE AO HAD NOT REJE CTED THEM OR HELD THAT THE AUDITORS HAD CERTIFIED FALSE OR BOGUS OR INCORRECT ACCOUNTS.THAT EXCEPT STATING THAT THE GROSS PROFIT WAS LOWER IN THE CURRENT YEAR NO INACCURACY IN THE ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN STATED OR CITED BY THE AO,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED AND KEPT QUANTITATIVE DETAILS/STOCK REGISTER FOR THE GOODS MANUFACTURED/TRADED AS REPORTED IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS,THAT SAME WERE NOT IN DISPUTE,THAT THE AO HAD NOT DOUBTED THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE SALES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS HAD N OT BEEN DOUBTED,THAT THE AO HAD GUESSED THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND INFLATION O F EXPENSES / PURCHASES IN THE CURRENT YEAR WITHOUT CITING ANY SUCH INSTANCE,THAT THE SALES MADE LAST Y EAR WERE RS. 487.12 LAKHS WHICH CAME DOWN TO RS. 20.38 LAKHS IN THE CURRENT YEAR,THAT THE TURNOV ER FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WAS HARDLY 4% OF LAST YEAR, THAT SALES FOR THE YEAR WAS AN INDICATIO N THAT ALL WAS NOT WELL WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY.FINALLY HE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FO R THE AO TO COMPARE THE GROSS PROFIT OF LAST YEAR WITH THAT IN THE CURRENT YEAR,THAT THE COST OF GOODS SOLD WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS. 5574666 AS AGAINST SALE OF RS. 20,38,412/- WAS A RESULT OF SUBSTANTIAL LOSS IN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK,THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ESTIMATE ANY GROSS PROFIT.HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.4511,,305/- MADE BY THE AO. 9. BEFORE US,DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AR SUBMI TTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS MANUFACTURING WEIGHING MACHINES AND WAS VALUING ITS STOCK AT COS T OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVER WAS LESS, THAT DURING THAT PERIOD THERE WAS HEAVY IMPORT FROM CHIN A, HAT IMPORT OF WEIGHING MACHINES HEAVILY DAMAGED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT FROM THE SALE OF RS.5 CRORES OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ASSESSEES FIGURE FOR SALE WERE 20 LACS FOR THE YEAR UNDER APP EAL AND THE TURNOVER FOR THE NEXT YEAR WAS ONLY 4 ITA NOS. 8526/MUM/2010 M/S RADICAL SYSTECH (I) LTD. OF RS. 25,000/-, THAT LATER ON ASSESSEE CLOSED OF I TS BUSINESS, THAT THE GP OF EARLIER YEARS COULD NOT BE ADOPTED FOR ARRIVING AT THE PROFIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED BY THE AUTHORISED PROFESSIONALS, THAT SAME HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO, THAT HE HAD NOT HELD T HE CERTIFICATE OF THE AUDITOR WAS BOGUS. AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT GP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LO WER, AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS. THIS IN ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE AN ADDITION.ASSESS EE HAD MAINTAINED AND KEPT QUANTITATIVE DETAILS/ STOCK REGISTER FOR THE GOODS MANUFACTURED/TRADED AN D AO HAD NOT DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THESE ENTRIES. WE FURTHER FIND THAT VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE PURCHASES AND SALES SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE POSSIBILITY OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AND INFLATION OF EXPENSES/PURC HASES WAS THE BASIS FOR THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. BUT, HE HAD NOT CITED ANY EXAMPLE; WHICH CA ME TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; PROVING THE SUPPRESSION OF SALES/INFLA TION OF PURCHASES.IN ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE NO ADDITION BY THE AO CAN BE SUST AINED.WE FIND THAT TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS IT WAS NIL.FAA HAD CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS BEFORE ARRIVING A T THE CONCLUSION THAT FALL IN GP WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY I T WAS CONVINCING.THEREFORE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA, WE DECIDE GROUND NO.3 AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. 0*1 )* VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH VF/KDKJH 2 3 ) ' * 45. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MARCH,2014 . / ' ,-! 7 8 21 EKPZ EKPZ EKPZ EKPZ , 201 4 - ' . 9 SD/- SD/- ( MK MKMK MK0 00 0 ,L VH ,E IKOYU ,L VH ,E IKOYU ,L VH ,E IKOYU ,L VH ,E IKOYU / DR. S.T.M.PAVALAN) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 8 /DATE: 21.03.2014. SK / / / / ' '' ' $*: $*: $*: $*: ;:!* ;:!* ;:!* ;:!* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / '# 2. RESPONDENT / $%'# 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ < = , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / < = 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / :>. $* M MM MH HH H , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ . 0 %:* %:* %:* %:* $* $*$* $* //TRUE COPY// / / BY ORDER, ? / 4 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI