MAHARASHTRA STATE FILM, STATE & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8604/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4460 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI S RAHEJA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Maximum Marginal Rate; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN , AM AND AMARJIT SINGH , JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 8604/ MUM/ 20 1 1 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA R : 20 0 8 - 09 ) M/ S MAHARASH TRA STATE FILM STAGE AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, DADASAHEB PHALKE CHITRANAGARI, GOREGAON (E), MUMBAI - 400065 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 11( 1 ), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESP ONDENT ) ./ ./PAN. : AAACM7646K / APPELLANT BY SHRI HARI S RAHEJA / RESPONDENT BY SHRI S K MISHRA / DATE OF HEARING : 3 1 .12 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 6.1 .2016 / O R D E R P ER B R BASKARAN, AM : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2011 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) - 3, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2008 - 09. 2. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ISSUES: A) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 43B OF THE ACT ; B) DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIRS EXPENDITURE OF STUDIO NO.3; AND C) DISALLOWANCE OF ROAD REPAIRS EXPENSES . 3. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES FOR ITA NO. 8604 / MUM/ 201 1 2 SHOOTING AND POST SHOOTING PURPOSE. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE ISSUES CITED ABOVE . 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE U/S 43B OF THE ACT . DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS.23.34 LAKHS PAYABLE TO M /S MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA) IN RESPECT OF OUTSTANDING LOAN TAKEN FROM THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS, I.E., IT DID N OT PAY THE INTEREST. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE SAID INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY , HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARIN G FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY ONLY IN RESPECT OF LOAN S TAKEN FROM PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION OR STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION. ALL THE ABOVE INSTITUTIONS HAV E BEEN DEFINED IN EXPLANATION 4 T O SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT MMRDA IS A STATUTORY BODY OF GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND IT DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE CATEGORIES STATED IN SEC. 43B OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TERM P UBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AS DEFINED IN SECTION 4A OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 IS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 43B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO SEC. 4A OF THE COMPANIES ACT, THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT MMRDA WILL NOT F ALL UNDER ANY OF THE CATEGORIES SPECIFIED IN SEC. 4A OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MMRDA HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED UNDER A SEPARATE STATUTE NAME D MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1974 AS ITA NO. 8604 / MUM/ 201 1 3 A LOCAL AUTHORITY AND HENCE THE SAME CANNO T BE CATEGORIZED AS EITHER STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION OR STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THE LOAN TAKEN FORM MMRDA IS NOT COVERE D BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 3 B OF THE ACT . 6 . ON TH E CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST PAYABLE TO MMRDA U/S 43B OF THE ACT IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND FURTHER AN IDENTICAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 7 . IN THE REJOINDER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE LAW AND HENCE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B SHALL BE APPLICABLE FOR THE SUM PAYABLE AS INTEREST ON ANY LOAN OR BORRO WINGS , INTER ALIA, TAKEN FROM ANY PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION OR STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION OR SCHEDULED BANK . THE EXPRESSION OF THE TERM S PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTION STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND STATE IN DUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION HAVE BEEN DEFINED AS UNDER IN EXPLANATION 4 TO SEC. 43B OF THE ACT : E XPLANATION 4. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (A) 'PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS' SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN SECTION 4A OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (1 OF 1956); [(AA) 'SCHEDULED BANK' SHALL HAVE THE MEANING ASSIGNED TO IT IN THE EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (III) OF SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 11 ;] ITA NO. 8604 / MUM/ 201 1 4 (B) 'STAT E FINANCIAL CORPORATION' MEANS A FINANCIAL CORPORATION ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 3 OR SECTION 3A OR AN INSTITUTION NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 46 OF THE STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1951 (63 OF 1951); (C) 'STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION' MEANS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 617 OF THE COMPANIES ACT , 1956 (1 OF 1956), ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING LONG - TERM FINANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS AND 86 [ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE ( VIII ) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36] . ] WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, INTER ALIA, HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43B SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED INTEREST, SINCE THE SAME IS PAYABLE TO A GOVERNMENT COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT MMRDA HAS BEEN FORMED UNDE R THE PROVISIONS OF MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1974 AND F URTHER , AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 OF THE ABOVE SAID ACT MMRDA SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A LOCAL AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM LOCAL AUTHORITY AS DEFINED IN THE BOMBAY GENERAL ACT , 1904. 9. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF STATUTE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY AND HENCE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43B OF THE ACT CAN BE APPLIED ONLY IF THE INTEREST CLAIM IS HIT BY THE SAID PROVIS ION. HENCE, WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE SEEN IS AS TO WHETHER MMRDA SHALL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF PUBLIC FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, SCHEDULE BANK , STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION OR STATE INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION. IF IT DOES NOT FALL IN ANY OF THE ABOVE SAID CATEGORIES, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43B CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE IMPUGNED INTEREST PAYMENT. WE FURTHER AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF LD A.R, THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE LAW AND HENCE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST CLAIM U/S 43B OF THE ACT IN THE EARLIER YEARS WILL NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE SAME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43B ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO IT. ITA NO. 8604 / MUM/ 201 1 5 10. IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE OBJECT CLAUSES OF MMRDA. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE OBJECT CLAUSES SHALL DETERMINE THE NATURE OF MMRDA AND ONLY IF ONE EXAMINES THE OBJECT CLAUSE, HE CAN DECIDE AS TO WHETHER IT FALLS IN ANY OF THE CATEGORIES PRESCRIBED IN SE C. 43B OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW, THIS ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRE CTION TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE AFRESH BY EXAMINING THE OBJECT CLAUSE OF MMRDA AND WHETHER IT SHALL FALL IN ANY OF THE CATEGORIES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PRESCRIBED IN SEC. 43B OF THE ACT AND THERE AFTER DECIDE ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 43B TO THE IMPUGNED INTEREST PAYMENT. 11 . THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON REPAIRS OF STUDIO NO.3. THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE STUDIO NO.3 WAS COMPLETELY DAMAGED IN A FIRE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO RE - BUILT IT AFRESH AND HENC E THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RE - CONSTRUCTION OF STUDIO NO.3 IS CAPITAL IN NATURE . ACCORDINGLY , HE DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF 35.37 LAKHS AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION THEREON AT THE RATE OF 10 % RESULTING IN A NET DISALLOWANCE OF RS.31.83 LAKHS . THE LD. AR SUBM ITTED THAT STUDIO NO.3 WAS PARTI ALLY DAMAGED BY A FIRE THAT OCCURRED IN THE YEAR 2002 . HOWEVER, THE STUDIO NO.3 WAS CONTINUED TO BE LET OUT FOR FILM SHOOTING PURPOSES. INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES NO.8 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME DERIVED FROM LETTING OUT THE STUDIO NO.3 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 , WHICH FACT CLEARL Y SHOWS THAT THE STUDIO NO.3 WAS NOT FULLY DAMAGED . THE ASSESSEE , AFTER EXPIRY OF ABOUT 7 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF OCCURRENCE OF THE FIRE , HAS INCURRED IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE TO CARRY OUT THE REPAIRS IN STUDIO NO.3 . HE ITA NO. 8604 / MUM/ 201 1 6 SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE SAID EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW ASSET OF ENDURING NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.35.37 L AKHS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN FULL. 12 . ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 1 3 . HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.AR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE FIRE OCCURRED LONG BACK IN THE YEAR 2002 AND EVEN AFTER THE SAID OCCURRENCE AND DAMAGE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THAT IT HAS CONTINUED TO GIVE S TUDIO NO.3 ON HIRE AND EARNED INCOME. THAT VERY FACT SHOWS THAT THE STUDIO NO.3 WAS NOT COMPLETELY DAMAGED BY FIRE . HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.35.37 LAKH WAS INCURRED ONLY T O PRESERVE STUDIO NO.3 BY CARRYING OUT REPAIR WORK S . FURTHER, NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BUILT ANY NEW ASS E T BY INCURRING THIS EXPENDITURE. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE E XPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE . ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE . 14. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INC URRED ON RE - SURFACING OF THE ROADS. THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.44 CR. ON RESURFACING OF THE ROAD S AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE . BUT THE AO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RESURFACING OF ROAD S AND ASPHALTIC TREATMENT OF THE R O ADS IS CAPITAL IN ITA NO. 8604 / MUM/ 201 1 7 NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 10% THEREON RESULTING IN NET DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1.30 CR. THE LD. CIT ( A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. 15. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BUILT ANY NEW ROAD BUT IT HAS CARRIED OUT ONLY REPAIRS TO THE EXISTING R OAD BY RE - SURFACING IT AND CARRYING OUT ASPHALTIC TREATMENT THEREON. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INCURRING SUCH KIND OF REPAIR EXPENSES EVERY YEAR. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A SUM OF RS.78.22 LAKHS IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND RS.13.81 LAKHS AND RS.29.76 LAKHS RESPEC TIVELY IN THE YEARS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11. IN ALL THE THRE E YEARS, THE REPAIR EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS LARGE AREA OF LAND HAVING AN EXTENT OF 512 ACRES OF LAND AND HENCE THERE IS HUGE STRETCH OF ROADS INSIDE THE LAND. SINCE THE ASSESS EE ALLOWS ITS LAND AND BUILDING FOR FILM SHOOTING , WHICH IS USUALLY CARRIED OUT BY USING HEAVY EQUIPMENTS AND ALSO BY ERECTING VARIOUS TEMPORARY STRUCTURES , IT RESULT S IN FREQUENT DAMAGE OF ROADS . FURTHER THE ROADS ARE DAMAGED BY NATURAL CALAMITIES INCLUD ING RAINS. H ENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSTRAINED TO CARRY OUT RE - SURFACING OF HUGE STRETCH OF ROADS EVERY YEAR. ACCORDINGLY , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE LD. AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION S RENDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S CHEMAUX LTD (1994) 74 TAXMAN 0201 AND IN THE CASE OF BHARAT FORGE CO.LTD V/S CIT (1999) 240 ITR 0654 (BOM). ITA NO. 8604 / MUM/ 201 1 8 17 . ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDIT URE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION S RE NDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE S OF SHRI MANGAYARKARSASI MILLL P LTD V/S (315 IT R 114 (SC) AND BALLIMAL NAVAL KISHORE AND ANOTHER (224 ITR 414 (SC). 1 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING AN AREA OF 512 ACRES OF LAND AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS HUGE STRETCH OF ROAD THEREIN. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BUILT ANY NEW ROAD. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE TO RE - SURFACE THE EXISTING ROADS. HENCE IT IS A CASE OF MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING ASSET, IN WHICH CASE, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. HENCE THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD CIT(A) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. THOUGH THE LD.CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD GIVE BENEFIT OF ENDURING NATURE, YET THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO INCUR EXPENDITURE EVERY YEAR TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD OF HUGE STRETCH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENJOYING ENDURING BENEFIT. FURTHER, I T IS A KNOWN FACT TH AT THE ROADS ARE DAMAGE D BY WEAR AND TEAR BY PASSAGE OF TIME AND ALSO D UE TO R AIN . FURTHER, IT IS STATED THAT, DURING THE COURSE OF FILM SHOOTING ALSO ROADS ARE DAMAGED TO ERECT TEMPORARY STRUCTURE AND ALSO DUE TO USAGE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENTS. HENCE, WE FIN D MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.AR THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON RE - SURFACING OF ROADS IS REVENUE IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . ITA NO. 8604 / MUM/ 201 1 9 18. IN THE RESULT , THE A P PEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 6TH JAN,2016 . 6TH JAN, 2016 SD SD ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMB ER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 6TH JAN , 2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI