Unique Tags Private Ltd v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 4(1)(1) ==========================================================Appearance

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17802 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA andHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA ========================================================== ========================================================== UNIQUE TAGS PRIVATE LTD Versus ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(1)(1) ==========================================================Appearance: MR TUSHAR HEMANI FOR MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MR MANISH BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR KARAN SANGHANI WITH MR MUNJAAL BHATT FOR M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIAand HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Date : 18/07/2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1.Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani assisted by learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt assisted by learned advocate Mr. KaranSanghani and learned advocate Mr. MunjaalBhatt for M.R. Bhatt and Co. for therespondents. 2.Having regard to the controversy involved inthis petition, with the consent of thethis petition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties,the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3.Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocateMr. Karan Sanghani waives service of noticeof rule for the respondents. 4.The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia challenging the impugned notice dated19.02.2018 issued under section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”)proposing to reopen the assessment for theAssessment Year 2011-2012. After filing ofthe petition, the respondent has passed thefinal assessment order dated 20.11.2018 undersection 144 read with section 147 of the Actand therefore, the petitioner has alsochallenged the same. 5.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated underthe Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in thebusiness of manufacturing woven labels andgeneration of power. 5.1) The petitioner filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 on24.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.85,99,759/-. The return of income waslater on revised on 26.09.2011 declaringtotal income at Rs.85,99,759/- after claimingdepreciation of Rs. 3,69,42,979/-. 5.2) The case of the petitioner wasselected for scrutiny assessment. Variousdetails were called for by the AssessingOfficer. It is the case of the petitionerthat the petitioner had placed on record TaxAuditReportwhereinStatementofDepreciation as per Act was appended andmarked as Annexure "A" to such report fromwhich it is evident that there was anaddition of Rs.2,24,25,057/- to the Plant andMachinery during the year under considerationand total depreciation of Rs. 1,72,15,728/-was claimed on such Plant and Machinerywhich also included additional depreciationof Rs.41,00,144/- (ie. Rs.37,03,276 +Rs.3,96,868). It is the case of the petitioner that the additions to Plant and Machinery included the following additions as well: Addition to assetDateRemarksRs. 12,88,353/-08.09.10Before 30th SeptemberRs. 15,48,061/-08.01.11After 30th September 5.3) Accordingly, additional depreciationofRs.41,00,144/-includedadditional deprecation on the above stated two additionsas follows: Addition to assetDateRemarksRs. 12,88,353/-Rs.2,57,670/-@20%(Full year)Rs. 15,48,061/-Rs.1,54,808/-@10%(Half Year petitioner that the additions to Plant and Machinery included the following additions as well: Addition to assetDateRemarksRs. 12,88,353/-08.09.10Before 30th SeptemberRs. 15,48,061/-08.01.11After 30th September 5.3) Accordingly, additional depreciationofRs.41,00,144/-includedadditional deprecation on the above stated two additionsas follows: Addition to assetDateRemarksRs. 12,88,353/-Rs.2,57,670/-@20%(Full year)Rs. 15,48,061/-Rs.1,54,808/-@10%(Half Year 5.4) It is further the case of thepetitioner that there was an addition ofRs.3,34,18,860/- in the Wind Mill Project on31.01.2011 on which, additional depreciationof Rs.33,41,886/- [i.e. @ 10% (Half year)]was claimed. 5.5) The Assessing Officer, thereafterissued notice dated 26.06.2013 under section142(1) of the Act calling upon the petitionerto furnish the following details : “Details of additions made to fixed assetsalong with copies of bills/vouchers exceedingRs. 10 lakhs for such additions (PointNo.11); Details and justification of the claim undersection 32(1)(iia) of the Act, if any (PointNo. 13).” 5.6) The petitioner, vide letter dated24.07.13,furnishedthefollowinginformation: “Statement showing additions to fixed assetsduring the year under consideration alongwith bills of addition to fixed assets exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs (Point No.11). Statement showing justification of claim ofadditional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) was also furnished (Point No.13);” 5.7) The petitioner, vide letter dated07.08.2013, further submitted that it hadpurchased plant and machinery in the form ofwindmill during the Financial Year 2010-2011and it had complied with all the conditionsfor claiming additional depreciation undersection 32(1)(a) of the Act. It is the caseof the petitioner that the petitioner alsofiled a chart showing complete justificationalong with compliance of conditionsstipulated under section 32(1)(a) of theAct . 5.8) It is the case of the petitionerthat the Assessing Officer, after perusing all the above details and informationfurnished by us, consciously chose not tomake any addition in respect of theadditional depreciation claimed by thepetitioner under section 32(1)(a) of the Actwhile framing assessment under section 143(3)of the Act vide order dated 11.10.2013. 5.9) However, thereafter, the respondentissued the impugned notice dated 19.02.2018under section 148 of the Act seeking toreopen the case of the petitioner for theyear under consideration. 5.10) The petitioner filed return of income on 23.05.2018 in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 5.11) The respondent supplied the copy ofreasons recorded for reopening the case ofthe petitioner on 10.07.2018. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment read as under : “The assessee company is engaged in thebusiness of manufacturing of narrowwoven labels & generation of powers.During the year the company had madeaddition in plant & machinery and air-condition of Rs. 2,24,25,057/- anddepreciation & additional depreciationthere on for full & half yearaccordingly of Rs. 1,72,15,728/-. On verification of case records it isseen that the assessee has claimed theadditional depreciation of Rs. 2,57,670/- on Globle Airtech Machinesystem of 12,88,353/- for full year. OnDacion Airtech System of 15,48,061/-assesseehadclaimedadditionaldepreciation of Rs.2,57,670/-. TheGloble Airtech Machine Dacion AirtechSystem are not plant & machinery usefor manufacture or production of anyarticles of things. The assessee haswronglyclaimedtheadditionaldepreciationofRs.2,57,670/-+(1,54,808-4,12,478)- on these twoitems which was required to bedisallowed. On verification of case records it isseen that the assessee has claimed theadditional depreciation of Rs. 2,57,670/- on Globle Airtech Machinesystem of 12,88,353/- for full year. OnDacion Airtech System of 15,48,061/-assesseehadclaimedadditionaldepreciation of Rs.2,57,670/-. TheGloble Airtech Machine Dacion AirtechSystem are not plant & machinery usefor manufacture or production of anyarticles of things. The assessee haswronglyclaimedtheadditionaldepreciationofRs.2,57,670/-+(1,54,808-4,12,478)- on these twoitems which was required to bedisallowed. It is further to state the during theyear the assessee has made addition ofnew plant & machinery (wind mill) ofRs. 33,418,860/- at Navadara, distJamnagar and claimed half yeardepreciationandadditionaldepreciationthereonofRs.13,367,544/-+3,341,886/-=1,67,09,430/-. Provision of the I.T Act in respect ofadditional depreciation as per section32(lia) are as under. "In the case of any new machineryor plant (other than ships andaircraft), which has been acquiredand installed after 31st day ofmarch 2005, by an assessee engagedin the business of manufacture orproduction of any article orthing.[orinbusinessofgeneration or generation anddistribution of power). a furthersum equal to twenty percent of theactual cost of such machinery orplant shall be allowed asdeduction under clause (ii)--,” ThusProvisionforadditionaldepreciation on assets acquired orinstalled in the business of generationand distribution of power areintroduced by the Finance Act 2012w.e.f 01-04-2013. Assesse's claim ofadditional depreciation of Rs. 33,41,886/- on such assets in F.Y. 2010-11(A.Y.2011-12)wasthereforenotallowed. Therefore excess depreciation allowedby the assessing officer of 2,57,670=+1,54,808/-&Rs.33,41,886//-37,54,354/-hasresultedunderassessment of Income to the extent ofRs.37,54,354/- having the tax effect of11,60,098/-+ interest 234B of the Act. Further, while going through records,It is noticed that, In submission dated24.07.2013, It is clear that assesseedid not provide complete details w.r.todepreciation claim & specifics of thesame. Documentary evidences were not provided at all in this regard. In viewof the above facts, I have reason tobelieve that income chargeable to taxhas escaped assessment within themeaning of section 147 of the ac, forthis assessment year by reason of thefailure on part of the assessee todisclose fully & truly all materialfacts necessary for this assessment. Asper the provisions of section 149(1)(b), the income chargeable to tax,which has escaped assessment for the AY2011-12 is more than Rs 1 lakh.” 5.12) The petitioner, vide letter dated10.10.2018,raisedobjectionsagainstreopening of the assessment. 5.13) The respondent, vide order dated15.10.2018 disposed off the objections raisedby the petitioner. 5.14) The Petitioner, after receiving theorder disposing off the objections againstreopening, filed the present writ petitionwhich came up for hearing before this Courton 27.11.2018 and this Court issued noticeto the respondent making it returnable on 07.01.2019. This Court, further directed thatthe respondent may proceed further pursuantto the impugned notice but shall not pass thefinal order without the permission of theCourt. 5.15) It is the case of the petitionerthat above referred order was served upon therespondent and Direct Service affidavit wasfiled with the Registry on 28.11.2018,however, despite the order passed by thisCourt directing the respondent not to passthe final assessment order without the leaveof the Court, the respondent passed theimpugned assessment order on 20.11.2018 undersection 144 read with section 147 of the Actdetermining the petitioner's total income atRs. 1,23,66,100/- after making additions andalso issued demand notice under section 156of the Act. It is further the case of thepetitioner that from the speed post cover in 5.15) It is the case of the petitionerthat above referred order was served upon therespondent and Direct Service affidavit wasfiled with the Registry on 28.11.2018,however, despite the order passed by thisCourt directing the respondent not to passthe final assessment order without the leaveof the Court, the respondent passed theimpugned assessment order on 20.11.2018 undersection 144 read with section 147 of the Actdetermining the petitioner's total income atRs. 1,23,66,100/- after making additions andalso issued demand notice under section 156of the Act. It is further the case of thepetitioner that from the speed post cover in which order was received, it can be gatheredthat the said order was dispatched to postalauthorities only on 02.12.2018 and onconducting online verification from thewebsite enabling speed post tracking, it isfurther gathered that such order was bookedby the postal authorities on 03.12.2018 andserved upon the petitioner on 06.12.2018. 5.16) Being aggrieved by such action onpart of the respondents, the petitioner haspreferred the present petition. 6.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani forthe petitioner submitted that the assessmentfor the year under consideration was framedunder section 143(3) of the Act and the sameis sought to be reopened beyond the period offour years. It was submitted that anassessment framed under section 143(3) of theAct can be reopened beyond the prescribed period of four years from the end of therelevant assessment year if and only if anincome chargeable to tax has escapedassessment by reason of failure on the partof the petitioner to make a return undersection 139 or in response to the noticeissued under section 142(1) or section 148or to disclose fully and truly all materialfacts necessary for assessment for thatAssessment Year. It was submitted that allmaterial facts pertaining to the issue onhand were duly disclosed by the petitionerin the form of Tax Audit Report, Statementshowing additions to fixed assets during theyear under consideration along with bills ofaddition to fixed assets exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs, Statement showing justification ofclaim of additional depreciation and a chartshowing complete justification along withcompliance of conditions stipulated undersection 32(1)(iia) of the Act. It wsa therefore, submitted that there is nofailure on part of the petitioner to disclosefully and truly all material facts necessaryfor assessment. 6.1) It was submitted that the respondent has acted illegally and withoutjurisdiction in issuing notice under section148 of the Act inasmuch as notice can beissued under section 148 of the Act if andonly if an Assessing Officer has reason tobelieve that any income chargeable to tax hasescaped assessment. It was submitted that itis well settled that the words "reason tobelieve" suggest that firstly, the beliefmust be that of the Assessing Officersecondly, it must be that of an honest andreasonable person based upon reasonableground, not a mere change of opinion,suspicion, gossip or rumour and thirdly,there must be live link or close nexus between the material before Assessing Officerand the belief he has formed regardingescapement of income. Such belief must leadto a conclusion that income has escapedassessment. It was submitted that thepetitioner's case was selected for scrutinyand the issues on hand were alreadyscrutinized by the then Assessing Officerwhich is evident from notice dated 26.06.2013 between the material before Assessing Officerand the belief he has formed regardingescapement of income. Such belief must leadto a conclusion that income has escapedassessment. It was submitted that thepetitioner's case was selected for scrutinyand the issues on hand were alreadyscrutinized by the then Assessing Officerwhich is evident from notice dated 26.06.2013 issued under section 142(1) of the Act,calling upon the petitioner to furnishvarious details and information regardingdetails of additions made to fixed assetsalong with copies of bills/vouchers exceedingRs.10 lakhs for such additions, details andjustification of the claim under section32(1)(iia) of the Act, if any. Thepetitioner had vide letter dated 24.07.2013,furnished all such information which includedstatement showing additions to fixed assetsduring the year under consideration along with bills of addition to fixed assetsexceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioner hadalso submitted that additional depreciationunder section 32(1)(a) of the Act has beenclaimed on additions made to Plant andMachinery during the year under considerationat the prescribed rates and a statementshowing justification of claim of additionaldepreciation under section 32(1)(ia) was alsofurnished by the petitioner. The petitioner,also vide letter dated 07.08.2013, furthersubmitted that it had purchased plant andmachinery in the form of windmill during theFinancial Year 2010-2011 and it had complied with all the conditions for claimingadditional depreciation under section 32(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner also filed achart showing complete justification alongwith compliance of conditions stipulatedunder section 32(1)(a) of the Act. 6.2) It was submitted that the thenAssessing Officer, after minutely examiningthe issue on hand, consciously chose not todisturb the claim of additional depreciationwhile framing assessment under section 143(3)of the Act and now the respondent isattempting to reopen the very same issuewhich is nothing but change of opinion andtherefore, the action of reopening thepetitioner's case under section 147 is merelybased on change of opinion which is nottenable in the eye of law. 6.3) It was submitted that there is nonew information or fresh evidence which hascome into possession of the respondent whichwas not there when original assessment orderwas framed. The respondent has merely reliedupon the documents furnished by thepetitioner at the original assessment stageand therefore, the action of reopening is nothing but change of opinion and the same isnot permissible. 6.4) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hemanisubmitted that it is well settled that anAssessing Officer cannot take any actionunder section 147 of the Act, merely becausehe happens to change his opinion or to holdan opinion different from that of hispredecessor on the same set of facts. In thepetitioner's case, there is nothing toindicate that the respondent, in consequenceof any information in his possession whichcame subsequent to framing of the originalassessment, had reason to believe that incomehad escaped assessment. It was submittedthat during the course of original assessmentproceedings, the petitioner had submittedvarious details in respect of the issue onhand and having considered such details, thethen Assessing Officer consciously built an opinion, did not call for any furtherinformation and clarifications, accepted theissue as it is and did not raise anyobjection at the time of original assessmentproceedings. It was submitted that havingformed an opinion, it is not open to now,change that opinion and take a differentstand based on the very same set of facts andinformation. opinion, did not call for any furtherinformation and clarifications, accepted theissue as it is and did not raise anyobjection at the time of original assessmentproceedings. It was submitted that havingformed an opinion, it is not open to now,change that opinion and take a differentstand based on the very same set of facts andinformation. 6.5) It was submitted that despite thefact that the petitioner had alreadyapproached this Court for seeking appropriaterelief by challenging the impugned noticeunder section 148 of the Act, which wasgranted by the Court vide its order dated27.11.2018, the respondent passed theAssessment Order under Section 144 read withsection 147 of the Act on 20.11.2018. It wassubmitted that the respondent was havingsufficient time for the purpose of framing the assessment pursuant to the reassessmentproceedings and the respondent ought not tohave passed the assessment order andtherefore, also the Assessment Order deservesto be quashed and set aside in the largerinterest of justice. 6.6) It was submitted that the finalassessment order, though apparently stated tohave been passed on 20.11.2018, could only bedispatched on 02.12.18 (ie. after service oforder dated 27.11.18 passed by this Court)which is quite unusual and it has beenpassed to circumvent the interim reliefgranted by this Court. In any case, by thetime the assessment order was dispatched,this Court had already passed the order dated27.11.2018 and hence, even on that score, theaction of the respondent is not tenable inthe eye of law. 7.On the other hand, learned advocate SeniorAdvocate Mr. Manish Bhatt for the respondentat the outset submitted that the petition isfiled at a pre-mature stage inasmuch as onlya notice under section 148 read with section147 of the Act has been issued and in theevent, the petitioner is aggrieved by thereassessment, alternative efficacious remedyis available by way of an Appeal before theCIT(Appeals) and thereafter before theTribunal. 7.1) Referring to section 32(iia) of theAct, it was submitted that provision foradditional depreciation on assets acquired orinstalled in the business of generation anddistribution of power were introduced by theFinance Act, 2012 with effect from 01.04.2013and therefore, the assessee's claim ofadditional depreciation of Rs.33,41,886/- onsuch assets in Financial Year 2010-2011 is not Correct. 7.2) It was submitted that notice undersection 148 of the Act can be issued till theend of six years from the end of theassessment years wherein income chargeable totax has escaped assessment amounts to or islikely to amount to one lakh rupees or morefor that year. It was submitted that the Actitself provides many mechanisms which can beresorted to after assessment order is passed.Therefore, it cannot be said that once theassessment order is passed, no correctiveaction can be taken to safeguard the interestof the revenue. It was further submitted thatsection 147 itself covers the instances wherethe remedy under this section can be resortedto and calling for details relating toinvestment will not amount to forming ofopinion by the Assessing Officer. It wassubmitted that in a case, where no opinion has been formed, there cannot be any changeof opinion. 7.3) It was submitted that in thepresent case satisfaction was drawn withindependent application of mind on the basisof material facts available on record andthereafter only the Assessing Officer hasformed his reasons to believe and recordedthe same and proceeded to reopen the case. has been formed, there cannot be any changeof opinion. 7.3) It was submitted that in thepresent case satisfaction was drawn withindependent application of mind on the basisof material facts available on record andthereafter only the Assessing Officer hasformed his reasons to believe and recordedthe same and proceeded to reopen the case. 7.4) In support of his submission thataudit objection on the point of fact can be avalid ground for reopening of assessment,reliance was placed on the decision of theHon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT v. P. V. SBeedies P. Ltd. reported in [1999] 237 ITR 13(SC) and on decision of this Court in caseof M/s N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Income-taxOfficer (OSD), reported in [2014] 49taxmann.com 216 (Gujarat). It was submitted that in the present case, reopening hasbeen done after independent application ofmind on the basis of facts available onrecord. The reasons were duly recorded incompliance of legal provisions and judicialpronouncements by judicial forums regardingreopening of assessment. Facts have clearlybrought out and conclusion regardingformation of belief regarding escapement of income clearly emanates from reasonsrecorded. The quantum of income escapingassessment has been duly provided in thereason for reopening. Therefore, this Courtmay not interfere at this stage. 8.Considering the facts of the case as well assubmissions made by the learned advocates forboth the sides, the assessment order undersection 143(3) of the Act was passed on11.10.2013 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 after considering the issue of claim ofdepreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of theAct in regular assessment. Admittedly, theimpugned notice dated 19.02.2018 issued undersection 148 of the Act is beyond a period offour years from the end of relevantassessment year and there is no failure onpart of the assessee to truly and fullydisclose all the material facts. The assesseehad filed all material facts which is evidentfrom the materials placed on record of thispetition i.e. Annexure-A to the tax auditreportshowingparticularsofthedepreciation allowable as per the provisionsof the Act in respect of each asset or blockof assets, statement showing addition tofixed assets with the bills of addition tofixed asset exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs along withletter dated 24.07.2013 and statement showingjustification of claim of additionaldepreciation in the said letter. The petitioner has also furnished chart showingcomplete justification for compliance of theconditions stipulated under section 32(1)(iia) along with letter dated 7.08.2013during the course of regular assessment. 9.In such circumstances, on perusal of the reasons recorded, it is apparent that thepetitioner has disclosed truly and fully allmaterial facts necessary for assessment.The alleged excess depreciation allowed tothe petitioner amounting to Rs.37,54,354/-was already considered during the course ofregular assessment. The Assessing Officerrelying upon the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act held that additionaldepreciation on assets acquired or installed in the business of generation anddistribution of power would be applicablewith effect from 1.04.2013 whereas the claimof the assessee is for the Financial Year 9.In such circumstances, on perusal of the reasons recorded, it is apparent that thepetitioner has disclosed truly and fully allmaterial facts necessary for assessment.The alleged excess depreciation allowed tothe petitioner amounting to Rs.37,54,354/-was already considered during the course ofregular assessment. The Assessing Officerrelying upon the provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act held that additionaldepreciation on assets acquired or installed in the business of generation anddistribution of power would be applicablewith effect from 1.04.2013 whereas the claimof the assessee is for the Financial Year 2010-2011, i.e. for Assessment Year 2011-2012. Such issue is already considered inregular assessment by the Assessing Officerafter scrutiny of the books of accounts aswell as explanation tendered by the assesseein respect of additional depreciation claimedunder section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Theassessee in reply to point no.13 in thenotice issued under section 142(1) of the Acthas given explanation along with statementfor additional depreciation under section32(1)(iia) of the Act. Thus there is nofailure on part of the petitioner assessee todisclose truly and fully all material factsduring the course of regular assessment,failure of which would enable the AssessingOfficer to assume the jurisdiction to issuenotice under section 148 of the Act beyond aperiod of four years from the completion ofassessment year as per the proviso to section147 of the Act. 10.With regard to the contention of the assessee that the assessment order allegedlypassed on 20.11.2018 was sent to the assesseeafter order of this Court dated 27.11.2018was served upon respondent Assessing Officeris concerned, it is required to be noted thatwhen the impugned notice is withoutjurisdiction, the consequential order passedby the Assessing Officer would be of noconsequence and therefore, such issue is notdealt with. Reliance is placed by learnedSenior Advocate Mr. Hemani in case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatt or hisSuccessorsto Office reported in (2011) 334ITR 25 (Gujarat) wherein this Court hasanalysed the word “issue” in respect of dateof issuance of notice under section 148 ofthe Act in the said case which was admittedlybeyond the period of six years. However, infacts of the case it is apparent from the record that the assessment order passed undersection 144 read with section 147 of the Actdated 20.11.2018 was sent to the postalauthority by the respondent Assessing Officeronly after the order passed by this Court on27.11.2018 was served by the petitionerassessee. 11.In view of the foregoing reasons, whenthe Assessing Officer has issued the noticewithout jurisdiction in view of the fact thatthere is no failure on part of the assesseeto disclose truly and fully all materialfacts, the Assessing Officer would not haveany jurisdiction to reopen the assessment asper the proviso to section 147 of the Act asthere is no fresh material available onrecord with the Assessing Officer to form areason to believe that income has escapedassessment. 12.The petition succeeds and isaccordingly allowed. The impugned noticedated 19.02.2018 as well as assessment orderdated 20.11.2018 are hereby quashed and setaside. 13.Rule is made absolute to the aforesaidextent. No order as to costs. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)