JCIT CIR 23(2), MUMBAI V. DINESH M SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 970/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8380 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEETENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVENDRA H JAIN
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BE NCH, MUMBAI , !' #$% , !& ! ' BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I .T.A. NO.970/MUM/2013 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DCIT, CIR. 23(2), PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. SHRI DINESH M. SHAH, 104, ARNATH, SARVODAYA NAGAR, JAIN MANDIR ROAD, MULUND (W), MUMBAI ) !& ./ * ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAGPS 5149G ( )+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-)+ / RESPONDENT ) )+ . ! / APPELLANT BY: SHRI JEETENDRA KUMAR ,-)+ / . ! / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI DEVENDRA H. JAIN / 0& / DATE OF HEARING :27.11.2014 12( / 0& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :27.11.2014 !3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI DT.16.11.2012 PERTAINING TO A .Y.2009-10. 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE READ AS U NDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LEASE RENT ITA NO. 970/M/2013 2 OF RS.1,08,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M /S SANAVO RESORTS PVT. LTD. WAS TO BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH M/S SANAVO RESORTS PVT. LT D. AND ALSO HAVING REGARD TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD.CIT (A) THAT THE BUILDING OCCUPIED A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THE L AND AND UNDER THE SITUATION, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE HOUSE APPURTENANT TO LAND RATHER THAN LAND APPURTENANT TO THE BUILDING. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE LEASE RENT OF RS.1,08,00,000/- IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY IS PERVERSE AND BAD IN LAW. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICT ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES TO RS.3,84,743/- FROM RS.15,30,229/- MADE BY THE AO, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE INTEREST-BEARING BUSINESS FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR NON- BUSINESS PURPOSE. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.85,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTI TY OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTIN G THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS MIX-UP IN THE ACCOUNTING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S PATEL PUNIT BUILDERS P LTD. (LOAN CREDITOR) AND FURTHER IGNORING THAT TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3.1. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL IN ITA NO. 2571/M/12 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBU NAL HAS DECIDED THESE ISSUES AT PARA 2.4 OF ITS ORDER WHICH READS A S UNDER: ITA NO. 970/M/2013 3 2.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT FORM THE CO PY OF RELEVANT RENT AGREEMENT, THAT ONLY TWO PLOT NOS.REFLECTED IN 10 TH SCHEDULE AND 11 TH SCHEDULE ARE HAVING RCC STRUCTURE. THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH OTHERS THUS HAS BECOME CO-OWNERS OF A BIGGER P IECE OF LAND WHICH IS IN FACT BY JOINING ALL THESE PLOTS WHICH A LL ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED ALONG WITH O THERS THE NON AGRICULTURAL PLOTS FROM VARIOUS DIFFERENT PARTI ES. OUT OF THESE FEW ARE ONLY PLOTS WHEREAS TWO PLOTS ARE WITH RCC S TRUCTURE ON THE SAME. THE DETAILS OF THESE SCHEDULES I.E. 10 TH AND 11 TH FORMING PART OF THE LEASE RENT AGREEMENT ARE GIVEN AS UNDER: THE TENTH SCHEDULE HEREINABOVE REFERRED TO PVL3-05344-2006 ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND OR GROUNDS SITUATED LYING AND BEING VILLAGE-KOLKHE, TA L. PANVEL, DIST. RAIGAD WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GRAMPANCHAYAT KOLKHE, P ANCHAYAT SAMITI PANVEL AS FOLLOWS: GUT /SURVEY NO. AREA ASSESSMENT H A P RS. PS. 94/1D NA OLD SURVEY 94/1B(2) 0 94 1 188 20 INCLUDING RCC, STRUCTURE GROUND + FIRST FLOOR BUNGA LOW HALF CONSTRUCTED OF 200 SQ.MTS. AND BOUNDED ON FOUR SIDES AS FOLLOWS: EAST GUT NO. 94/I BOUNDARY WEST GUT NO. 95/I BOUNDARY SOUTH GUT NO. 94/I BOUNDARY NORTH NATIONAL HIGHWAY (N.H.4B) THE ELEVENTH SCHEDULE HEREINABOVE REFERRED TO PVL3-4600-2006 1) ALL THAT PIECE OR PARCEL OF NON-AGRICULTURAL LAN D OR GROUNDS AND HEREDITAMENTS BEARING GUT/SURVEY NO. 95, HISSA NO. 1, TOTALLY ADMEASURING 20000 SQ.MTS (OUT OF AREA ADMEA SURING 38960 SQ.MTS.), ASSESSMENT RS.604.80 PAISE, SITUATE D LYING AND BEING VILLAGE-KOLKHE, TAL. PANVEL, DIST.RAIGAD WITHIN THE LIMITS OF GRAMPANCHAYAT KOLKHE, PANCHAYAT SAMITI PA NVEL. ITA NO. 970/M/2013 4 2)FOUR R.C.C. FRAME STRUCTURES WITH CEMENT SHEET RO OF AND ONE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES HAVING FIVE ROOMS WHICH AR E RECORDED IN THE RECORD OF GRAMPANCHAYAT KOLKHE ASSE SSMENT AS UNDER: MILKAT NO. AREA (SQ. MTS.) 237 GODOWN 464.68 238 GODOWN 464.68 239 GODOWN 464.68 240 278.81 IN THE 11 TH SCHEDULE OF AGREEMENT THERE ARE FOUR RCC OLD STRUCTURES AND ONE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE W ITH 5 BEDROOMS WITH TOTAL AREA OF 1858.72 SQ.MTR. SHOWN. TOTAL AREA OF THE BIG PLOT WHICH IS 106920 SQ.MTRS. WHEN COMPARED WITH BUILT UP PART IS DISPROPORTIONATE AS THERE IS VERY SMALL AREA IN FORM OF RCC STRUCTURE. THE LAND BEING APPURTENANT TO BUILDING, THOUGH DISPROPORTIONATELY BIG, STILL DURING THE YEAR THE N ATURE OF INCOME HAVING BEEN DERIVED FROM A BIG PLOT OF LAND WITH SOME GODOWNS ON IT WHICH IS UNDISPUTEDLY ASSET WITH SHARE OF APPELLANT IN IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT THE CHENNAI ITAT IN TH E CASE OF ACIT V T&R WELDING PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. HAS HELD I N A SIMILAR SET OF FACTS WHEN MAJOR PORTION OF THE LEAS ED OUT PROPERTY IS A LAND AND THE LEASE AGREEMENT PERMITS THE LESSEE TO BUILD PERMANENT STRUCTURE THEREIN, THE LE ASE INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY. ALSO, THE DELHI ITAT IN THE CASE O F SANJIT SINGH RATHEE V. ACIT HAS HELD THAT VASTNESS OF THE LAND CANNOT BE THE CRITERION FOR ALLOWING OR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR REPAIRS UNDER SECTION 24(1)(I) OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE IN TOTO AND THE POSITION OF LAW, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THE IMPUGNED LEASE RECEIPT IS INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY AS THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 22 OF THE AC T IS FULFILLED. IN VIEW OF THAT MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UP HELD. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 970/M/2013 5 AS NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RE CORD BEFORE US, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL , GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE DISMISSED. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APP LIED HIS TOTAL SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. THE AO HAS DEMONS TRATED THE FLOW OF FUNDS AT PARA 3.3 OF HIS ORDER. ACCORDING TO THE A O, INTEREST PAYMENT COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IN PROPORTION TO THE FUNDS UT ILIZED FOR BUSINESS VIS- -VIS TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE. THE AO COMPUTED THE D ISALLOWANCE AT RS. 15,30,229/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A). IT WAS CLAIMED THAT INTEREST BEARING BORROWED FUNDS HAVE B EEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS ONLY. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO SUNDRY CREDITORS WHICH ARE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED TH AT THE AO HAS FAILED TO SHOW DIRECT NEXUS OF THE UTILIZATION OF THE FUND VIS--VIS BORROWED FUNDS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE PERCENTAGE OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS WHICH WERE UTI LIZED FOR MAKING INTEREST FREE LOANS COMES TO 22.89%. THE LD. CIT(A ) ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 3,84,743/-. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. ITA NO. 970/M/2013 6 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS CON SIDERED THE ENTIRE OWN FUNDS WHEREAS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN ONLY THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR MAKING INTEREST FREE LOANS. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEMONSTRATED THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS VIS--VIS INTEREST FREE LOANS AND HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOW ANCE TO 22.89% WHICH COMES TO RS. 3,84,743/-. WE, THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 3 IS DISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO. 4 & 5 ARE INTERLINKED AND RELATE TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 85 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 11. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A NET INCREASE IN UNSECURE L OANS. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THERE WERE FURTHER FRESH LOAN TAKEN DU RING THE YEAR. AN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING P ERSONS AND THE REMARKS OF THE AO ARE AS UNDER: SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY REMARKS 1. TALCON ENGINEERING THE ENQUIRY TEAM VISITED THE PREMISES OF THE PARTY ON 22.12.2011. HOWEVER, THE PARTY COULD NOT BE FOUND. ONE, SHRI T.L. PAUL STATED TO BE PROPRIETOR OF THAT PARTY WAS CONTRACTED OVER TELEPHONE AND HE STATED THAT HE IS OUT OF OFFICE. HE NEITHER CONFIRMED NOR DENIED THE TRANSACTION. 2. JIGNESH R. SHAH IN THIS CASE, SHOWN CREDIT BALAN CE OF RS. 4 LAKHS. HOWEVER, IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED, THE FIGURES DO NOT TALLY. IT SHOWS A CREDIT OF RS. 5 LAKHS AND DEBIT OF RS. 14,10,823/-, INTEREST OF RS. ITA NO. 970/M/2013 7 84,604/- AND TDS OF RS. 8,714/-. THE ENQUIRY TEAM VISITED THE GIVEN ADDRESS WHERE THE OCCUPANTS CATEGORICALLY DENIED THAT ANY PERSON BY THE NAME, SHRI JIGNESH R. SHAH RESIDES AT THAT ADDRESS. THEY ALSO ADDED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN STAYING THERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. 3. PATEL PUNIT BUILDERS (P) LTD. SHOWN TOTAL CREDIT OF RS. 1.25 CRORES INCLUDING OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 50 LAKHS AND DEBIT OF RS. 75 LAKHS AND ULTIMATELY SHOWING CREDIT OF BALANCE OF RS. 50 LAKHS AS PER THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FURNISHED. HOWEVER, THE ENQUIRY TEAM GOT A COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF M/S. PATEL PUNIT BUILDERS (P) LTD., WHICH INDICATED THAT THE PARTY HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 75 LAKHS ON 19.11.2008 TOWARDS BOOKING OF A PROPERTY WHICH WAS RETURNED BACK IN TWO INSTALMENTS OF RS. 50 LAKHS AND RS. 25 LAKHS ON 23.2.2009 AND 18.2.2009 RESPECTI9VELY, LEAVING NO BALANCE. 4. M/S. B.G. ENTERPRISES THOUGH THE PARTY WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS, HIS MOBILE NUMBER WAS OBTAINED AND HE CONFIRMED THE LOAN ON PHONE. 12. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY AND WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER IN THE CASE OF TALCON ENGINEERING . THE LEDGER DETAIL S IN THE CASE OF MR. JIGNESH R. SHAH AND EXPLAINED THE DISCREPANCY OF RS . 50 LAKHS . IN THE CASE OF M/S. PATEL PUNIT BUILDERS (P) LTD. IT WAS E XPLAINED, IN THIS CASE RS. 50 LAKHS WAS PAID TO M/S. UNITED BUILDERS AND D EVELOPERS AND WAS ACCORDINGLY DEBITED IN THE BOOKS. HOWEVER IN SUBSE QUENT YEARS, WHEN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 50 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BACK INADVE RTENTLY ACCOUNT OF M/S. PATEL PUNIT BUILDERS HAVE BEEN CREDITED. WHEN THIS ERROR CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATEL Y RECTIFIED. THE ITA NO. 970/M/2013 8 ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE AO. THE AO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD FORGED DOCUMENTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED HIS OWN U NDISCLOSED INCOME AS LOANS AND ADDED THE LOANS TAKEN FROM M/S. TALCON ENGINEERING-RS. 5,00,000/-, MR. JIGNESH R. SHAH- RS. 5,00,000/- AND M/S. PATEL PUNIT BUILDERS RS. 75,00,000/- TOTALING TO RS. 85 LAKHS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 13. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY AGITATED THIS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND EXPLAINED THAT THE BORROWINGS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS , THE LD. CIT(A) NOTICED THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JIGNESH R. SHAH, A COPY OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN FILED AND IN THE BALANCESHEET OF SHRI JIGNESH R SHAH, LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY REFL ECTED. ON THIS BASIS, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. IN THE CASE OF M/S. PATE L PUNIT BUILDERS (P) LTD., THE LD. CIT(A) EXAMINED THE ENTRIES AND FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CREDITED IN THE NAME OF M/S. PATEL PUN IT BUILDERS AND DELETED THE ADDITION. IN RESPECT OF M/S. TALCON EN GINEERING, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THERE IS ANOTHER SISTER CONCERN OF M/S. TALCON NAMELY M/S. TALCON ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) V ERIFIED THE TRANSACTION WITH TALCON ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND ON FINDING THE TRANSACTION DULY REFLECTED IN THE BA NK STATEMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. ITA NO. 970/M/2013 9 16. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. 17. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY RELIE D UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 18. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF THREE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH EACH PARTY SEPARATELY IN HIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GIVEN FACTUAL FINDINGS IN EACH CASE AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE BANK STATEMENTS/COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT. NO ERROR OR PER VERSITY HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ON THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF TH E LD. CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER !& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4 DATED : 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 970/M/2013 10 !3 !3 !3 !3 / // / ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 5!(0 5!(0 5!(0 5!(0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-)+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 6 / CIT 5. 78 ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8 9 / GUARD FILE. !3 !3 !3 !3 / BY ORDER, -0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// : :: : / ; ; ; ; (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI