Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Acit Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai on 16 June, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "C", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA NO.8048/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2008-09)
ITA NO.1776/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10)
The ACIT, CC-34,
Room No.104, 1st Floor,
Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road,
Mumbai - 400020 ..... Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Prism Cement Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Rahehas, Main Avenue,
V.P.Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai 400054
PAN: AAACP6224A .... Respondent
ITA NO.8554/MUM/2011 (A.Y.2008-09)
ITA NO.965/MUM/2013(A.Y. 2009-10)
M/s. Prism Cement Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Rahehas, Main Avenue,
V.P.Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai 400054
PAN: AAACP6224A ... Appellant
Vs.
The ACIT, CC-34,
Room No.104, 1st Floor,
Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road,
Mumbai - 400020 .... Respondent
Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal
Respondent by : S/Shri Nitesh Joshi/Nishit Khatri
Date of hearing : 13/06/2017
Date of pronouncement : 16/06/2017
2
M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd.,
ORDER
PER G.S.PANNU,A.M:
The captioned are bunch of four appeals pertaining to the same assessee for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
2. First we shall take up the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09, which are directed against an order passed by CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 06/09/2011, which in turn, arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 23/12/2010.
3. In these appeals, the respective Grounds of appeal read as under:-
Assessee's Grounds of Appeal(A.Y. 2008-09):-
"1. (a) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle- 34, (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in disallowing a sum of Rs.1,83,70,327/- under section 14A while computing the total income of the appellant under normal provisions as well as book profit under section 115JB.
(b) Without prejudice to what is stated above, the appellant submits that the Assessing Officer was not justified in considering interest expenses for the purpose of calculations under Rule 8D(ii) as the entire interest paid was for the purpose of its business and for working capital requirements of the appellant and no borrowed funds were utilized for the purpose of investments.
(c) Without prejudice to what is stated above, the appellant submits that the disallowance worked out by applying Rule 8D works out to 16% of the dividend income earned, which is highly unreasonable.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing reimbursement of expenses amounting to Rs.53,66,026/- to an institution for running the school situated at village Mankahari, Satna.3
M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd.,
3. (a) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in allowing depreciation on UPS @ 15% by treating the same as plant & machinery as against depreciation claimed by the appellant @ 60% as part of computer.
(b) Without prejudice to what is stated above, the appellant submits that UPS are in the nature of energy saving device and as such entitled to depreciation @ 80%.
4. The appellant submits that the learned Assessing Officer be directed:
(a) (i) to delete the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 1,83,70,327/- under section 14A while computing total income as per normal provisions as well as under
section 115JB;
(ii) without prejudice to what is stated above, to delete the proportionate disallowance of interest expenses under section 14A;
(b) to delete addition made in respect of reimbursement of expenses amounting Rs. 53,66,026/- to an institution for running school at village Mankahari, Satna;
(c) (i) to allow depreciation @ 60% on UPS;
(ii) Without prejudice to what is stated above, to hold that UPS are in the nature of energy saving device and as such entitled to depreciation @ 80%.
and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
5. Each of the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other."
4. The assessee before us is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cement and clinker. For the assessment year under consideration, it filed a return of income declaring a total of income of Rs.305,82,87,116/-, which was subject to a scrutiny assessment, in terms of which the total income has been assessed at Rs.3,17,03,27,430/-, after making certain additions/ disallowances. The various additions made to the returned income were carried in appeal before CIT(A), who has allowed 4 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., partial relief. The assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before us on the aforestated Grounds of appeal.
5. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee, wherein Ground of appeal No.1 relates to a disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act at Rs.1,75,28,793/-, as against a suo-motu disallowance of Rs.70,276/- made by the assessee. In this context, the relevant facts are that assessee company had earned dividend income of Rs.10,27,22,519/-, which was claimed as exempt. On being show caused by the Assessing Officer with respect to disallowance under section 14A of the Act, the assessee made written submissions dated 09/12/2010, copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 64 to 65. The assessee contended that there are no borrowed funds during the year and thus, no interest expenditure could be attributable to the earning of the exempt income. Secondly, assessee pointed out that there was no direct expenditure incurred on earning of the dividend income and in any case, on account of incurrence of indirect expenditure a sum of Rs.70,276/-, being 6% of the remuneration paid to employees looking after the day- to-day activity of mutual fund investments, was identified and it was suo-motu disallowed in the return of income as per section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer however, rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee and instead applied Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962( in short 'the Rules') to compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs.1,75,28,793/-. In terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.99,57,793/-, being interest attributable to the exempt income and in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, he determined overhead expenditure of 5 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., Rs.75,71,000/- as attributable to the earning of exempt income, thereby computing the total disallowance to Rs.1,75,28,793/-. Since assessee had suo-motu disallowed a sum of Rs.70,276/- in the return of income, the balance of Rs.1,74,58,517/- was added to the returned income. The said disallowance has since been sustained by the CIT(A) also, against which assessee is in appeal before us.
5.1 Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in so far as the disallowance out of interest expenditure is concerned, the same is untenable, inasmuch as, during the year under consideration assessee has no borrowed funds and that the expenditure on 'Other Interest' of Rs.1.47 crores and 'Bank charges' of Rs.1.74 cores debited in the Profit & Loss Account do not relate to any borrowings. It has been pointed out that the 'Bank charges' are for the banking facilities availed in relation to the export transactions and so far as the expenditure on 'other interest' is concerned, the same relates to business related liabilities, for instance interest on security deposits received, etc. It was, therefore, contended that there was no justification for disallowing any interest expenditure. Apart therefrom, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that during the year under consideration the value of investments have increased to Rs.258.76 crores from Rs.141.87 crores at the end of the preceding year and that the Shareholder Funds comprising of paid-up share capital and Reserves & surplus amounting to Rs.617.77 crores was enough to cover the investments. It was pointed out that the fresh investments during the year were to the tune of Rs.117.00 crores and that the cash profit before depreciation but after tax for the year under consideration was Rs.273.56 crore. According to 6 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., the Ld. Representative for the assessee, the aforesaid facts show that no interest expenditure was attributable to the making of the investments, which have yielded exempt income.
5.2 With regard to the disallowance of Rs. Rs.75,71,000/- made out of administrative expenditure, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer has erred in applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) to compute the disallowance, inasmuch as, the disallowance computed by the assessee at Rs.70,276/- has not been found to be incorrect. The Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not recorded the satisfaction contemplated under section 14A(2) of the Act before proceeding to apply the provisions of Rule 8D of the Rules for the purposes of computing the disallowance. In the context of such plea, our attention was invited to the relevant discussion contained in para-5 of the assessment order.
5.3 On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative has not controverted the factual matrix brought out by the assessee , but relied upon the orders of the authorities below to support the case of the Revenue.
5.4 We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In our considered opinion, the action of the Assessing Officer of disallowing interest expenditure under section 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules is wholly misplaced. The factual matrix clearly brings out that the interest expenditure debited in the Profit & Loss Account has no nexus with the investments which have yielded exempt income. A copy of the Balance 7 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., Sheet of the assessee company, which is placed in the Paper Book at pages 1 to 55, clearly points out that there are no borrowed funds either at the close of the earlier year or during the year under consideration. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Representative for the assessee also asserted that 'Other Interest' and 'Bank Charges' debited in the Profit & Loss Account are not in relation to the investments. Bank charges have been incurred with respect to export related transactions and 'Other Interest' is on deposits from customers, suppliers, etc. Be that as it may, it is quite evident that the Share Capital and Reserve & Surplus available with the assessee company at the beginning of the year as well as at the close of the year under consideration are enough to cover the investments in question and, therefore, following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340(Bom), it gives rise to a presumption that such investments have come out of interest free-funds. The said proposition is equally applicable in the context of section 14A of the Act, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 366 ITR 505(Bom) and in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT,383 ITR 529 (Bom). Therefore, in the above background, we have no hesitation to delete the disallowance of interest made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act.
5.5 In so far as disallowance of Rs.75,71,000/- out of administrative expenses is concerned, the plea of the assessee is based on the requirements of section 14A(2) of the Act. The plea is that the method prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules cannot be straightway invoked to compute the disallowance under section 14A of the Act unless the Assessing Officer has recorded his 8 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., satisfaction with regard to correctness or otherwise of the assessee's claim in this regard. On this aspect, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.(supra) has upheld the proposition that section 14A(2) of the Act does not empower the Assessing Officer to apply the method prescribed in Rule 8D of the Rules irrespective of the nature of claim made by the assessee. According to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Assessing Officer has to first consider the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. In fact, as per Hon'ble Bombay High Court, such satisfaction contemplated in section 14A(2) has to be "objectively arrived at" by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the accounts of the assessee and the relevant facts and circumstances. In this background, what is required to be examined in the present case is as to whether the Assessing Officer has recorded a satisfaction about incorrectness of assessee's claim that the amount of Rs.70,276/- was an expenditure relatable to the earning of the impugned exempt income, before proceeding to apply Rule 8D of the Rules. Having perused the entire discussion in para - 5 of the assessment order, the satisfaction contemplated under section 14A(2) of the Act is not discernible. In fact, the Assessing Officer has proceeded to apply Rule 8D of the Rules in an automatic manner without recording a satisfaction that the claim of the assessee was incorrect, having regard to the accounts of the assessee and the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, the following para in the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court brings out that recording of the satisfaction contemplated under section 14A(2) of the Act is a safeguard provided by the Parliament, and thus the same is required to be adhered to:-
9M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., "Parliament has provided an adequate safeguard to the invocation of the power to determine the expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of non-taxable income by adoption of the prescribed method. The invocationof the power is made conditional on the objective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. When a statute postulates the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer "Courts will not readily defer to the conclusiveness of an executive authority's opinion as to the existence of a matter of law or fact upon which the validity of the exercise of the power is predicated". (M. A. Rasheed v. State of Kerala [1974] AIR 1974 SC 22491). A decision by the Assessing Officer has to be arrived at in good faith on relevant considerations. The Assessing Officer must furnish to the assessee a reasonable opportunity to show cause on the correctness of the claim made by him. In the event that the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim made by the assessee, he must record reasons for his conclusion. These safeguards which are implicit in the requirements of fairness and fair procedure under article 14 must be observed by the Assessing Officer when he arrives at his satisfaction under sub-section (2) section 14A. As we shall note shortly hereafter, sub-rule (1) of rule 8D has also incorporated the essential requirements of sub- section (2) of section 14A before the Assessing Officer proceeds to apply the method."
In the absence of the recording of the necessary satisfaction, in our view, it was wrong on the part of the Assessing Officer to determine the disallowance under section 14A by applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules.
5.6 Apart from the aforesaid, we have perused the explanation furnished by the assessee justifying the adoption of Rs.70,276/- as being the expenditure relatable to the earning of the impugned dividend income.
Before the Assessing Officer assessee pointed out that the dividend earned of Rs.10,27,22,519/- comprised of dividend to of Rs.85,96,119/- ( i.e. eight dividend warrants) and Rs.9,41,26,400/- by way of dividend reinvestment. The assessee explained that the dividend receipt from Mutual Funds was merely by way of dividend reinvestment plan in terms of which dividend is reinvested automatically and no effort is required for collecting such dividend. The assessee has also explained the basis of arriving at the aforesaid expenditure, being a percentage of remuneration paid to the 10 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., employees looking after the activity of the Mutual Fund investments. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, especially the fact that the explanation furnished by the assessee has been completely brushed- aside, we find no reason to uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules in order to compute the disallowance envisaged under section 14A of the Act. Therefore, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect also and direct the Assessing Officer to retain the suo-motu disallowance of Rs.70,276/- made by the assessee and delete the balance.
5.7 In the result, as far as Ground of appeal No.1 of the assessee is concerned, the same is allowed.
6. In so far as Ground of appeal No.2 is concerned, the same relates to the claim of the assessee for depreciation in respect of Badminton court amounting to Rs.12,657/-. In this context, it was a common point between the parties that in the earlier years, similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and such decisions continue to hold the field as the same have not been altered by any higher authority. In particular, a copy of the decision of the Tribunal for assessment year in ITA No 5957/Mum/2009 Dated 16/5/2016 is filed, wherein such claim of the assessee has been allowed by the Tribunal following the earlier precedents. In view of the aforesaid precedents, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds.
7. The third Ground in the appeal of the assessee is with regard to an amount of Rs.34,23,082/- representing payment made by the assessee to 11 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., cover the deficit of a school run at village Mankahari, Satna. In this context, the relevant facts are that the manufacturing unit of the assessee is situated in a village at Satna, Madhya Pradesh and the assessee incurred an expenditure of Rs.34,22,082/- on reimbursement of expenses incurred on running of a school in the village. On being show-caused, assessee pointed out that the expenditure was incurred with the purpose of carrying on business activities of the assessee as the school was catering to educational and socio-curricular needs of the children of its employees. The Assessing Officer however, keeping in mind the stand of the earlier years, invoked section 40A(9) of the Act and disallowed such expenditure. The CIT(A) has also approved the same.
7.1 Before us, it was a common point between the parties that similar payment has been held to be an allowable deduction in the earlier year by the decision of the Tribunal dated 16/05/2016(supra) for assessment year 2005-06. Following the aforesaid precedent, and since the facts and circumstances remain the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. Thus, on this aspect assessee succeeds.
8. In the fourth Ground, the grievance of the assessee is against the action of the income tax authorities in allowing depreciation on UPS @15% treating it as a part of Plant & Machinery, as against assessee's claim for allowance of depreciation @60% as part of computer.
8.1 On this aspect, it was submitted before us that in assessment year 2005-06, the Tribunal vide its order dated 16/05/2016 (supra) has upheld the claim of the assessee for depreciation @60%. Following such precedent, 12 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., which continues to hold the field, we uphold the claim of the assessee for depreciation on UPS @ 60%. Thus, assessee succeeds on this aspect.
9. In so far as assessment year 2008-09 is concerned, assessee has raised an Additional Ground of appeal, which was hitherto not raised before the lower authorities, which reads as under:-
"(a) The appellant submits that a sum of Rs.49,59,49,871/- received by the appellant in form of Sales tax /VAT subsidy from Government of Madhya Pradesh ought to be regarded as capital in nature not exigible to tax and accordingly to be reduced in computing the taxable income of the appellant."
9.1 On this aspect, the Ld. Representative for the assessee pointed out that in assessment year 2005-06(supra) also, assessee had raised a similar claim before the Tribunal by way of an Additional Ground of appeal, which was admitted and, thereafter, the matter was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to be decided in accordance with law. On the basis of the aforesaid precedent, it is canvassed that in the instant year too, the Ground be admitted and the matter be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to be decided as per law.
9.2 The Ld. Departmental Representative has not controverted the factual matrix brought out by the Ld. Representative for the assessee.
9.3 On account of the precedent in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06 vide order dated 15/05/2006 (supra), the aforesaid Additional Ground deserves to be admitted. Quite clearly, the issue raised by the assessee in its Additional Aground is a point of law and since under similar circumstances, the same has been admitted by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself in assessment year 2005-06, we deem it fit and proper to admit the said Additional Ground and remit the matter to the file of 13 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., Assessing Officer, who shall decide the issue in accordance with law. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before adjudicating the issue in accordance with law. Thus on this aspect assessee succeeds.
10. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above.
11. Now we may take up the Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2008-
09. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:-
1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.
CIT(A) is justified in holding that the exchange rate fluctuation loss claimed by the assessee is allowable, without considering the fact that the assesee has suffered loss on account of fluctuation of foreign exchange in respect of loans the assessee had borrowed for meeting its capital requirement."
2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) is justified in holding that it is not open for the Assessing Officer to assume the allowance of depreciation for earlier years when such depreciation was not actually allowed in those years, without taking into consideration Explanation 5 below Section 32(1 )(ii) inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 which will apply retrospectively w.e.f.1.4.1988."
The appellant prays that the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) on the above grounds be set aside and that the ITO/AC/DC be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add new ground which may be necessary."
11.1 So far as the first Ground is concerned, the same relates to the exchange fluctuation loss amounting to Rs.1,29,889/-, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that loss on account of restatement of foreign currency could not be allowed as revenue expenditure. Before the CIT(A), assessee contended that the loan in foreign currency was raised for the purposes of meeting the working capital requirements and, therefore, the loss on account of exchange rate fluctuation was allowable as a revenue expenditure. The CIT(A) considered the plea of the assessee and noted that 14 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., in assessment year 2006-07 similar plea of the assessee had been upheld by his predecessor CIT(A). Furthermore, the CIT(A) noted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.,179 Taxman 326(SC), wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. In this background, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee.
11.2 Before us, it was a common point between the parties that the decision of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2006-07 has since been affirmed by the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No.3859/Mum/2010 dated 16/05/2016(supra). The relevant discussion in the order of the Tribunal dated 16/05/2016(supra) reveals that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.(supra). In view of the aforesaid precedent, the decision of the CIT(A) is affirmed and Revenue fails on this aspect.
12. The last Ground in the appeal of the Revenue is with regard to assessee's claim of depreciation which was restricted by the Assessing Officer to Rs.13,71,85,165/- from Rs.18,61,04,063/- claimed by the assessee. In this context, the relevant facts are that the Assessing Officer noted from the record that for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02, assessee had neither claimed and nor allowed depreciation, as a consequence of which, the written down value of the assets at the beginning of the previous year for the instant assessment year was higher. In this background, the Assessing Officer invoked Explanation -5 to section 32(1) of the Act and held that the same was clarificatory in nature and, therefore, would apply retrospectively.
15M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., As a consequence, the Assessing Officer reworked the written down value of the assets assuming that the depreciation for assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 stood allowed, though in actuality such a claim was neither made and nor allowed by the Assessing Officer in those years. As a result, the depreciation claimed by the assessee stood reduced. The CIT(A) has since negated the action of the Assessing Officer and restored the claim of the assessee for depreciation. The decision of the CIT(A) is based on the decision of his predecessor CIT(A) in the case of the assessee for 2006-07. The decision of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2006-07 has since been affirmed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 16/05/2016(supra), wherein the decision for assessment year 2005-06 has been followed. The precedents so noted continue to hold the field and, therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A) on this aspect. Thus, on this aspect also Revenue fails.
13. In the result, so far as the assessment year 2008-09 is concerned, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed.
14. Now, we may take the cross appeals for assessment year 2009-10. With respect to the Grounds raised in assessment year 2009-10, it was a common ground between the parties that the disputes are similar to those which have been decided by us in the cross appeals for assessment year 2008-09 in the earlier paras and, therefore, our decision in the respective cross appeals for assessment year 2008-09 would apply mutatis mutandis in the cross appeals for the assessment year 2009-10 also.
15. Before parting, we may point that in assessment year 2009-10 also assessee has raised an Additional Ground of appeal regarding the nature of 16 M/s. Prisim Cement Ltd., Sales/Vat subsidy received from the Madhya Pradesh Government. Following our decision in the assessee's appeal for 2008-09, the said Additional Ground is admitted and the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to be decided as per law. Needless to mention, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, pass an order as per law.
16. In the result, whereas the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, those of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16/06/2016
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAM LAL NEGI) (G.S. PANNU)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 16/06/2017
Vm, Sr. PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant,
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)-
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai