M/s. Deluxe Tube Traders & Scrap Centre, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer,

CO 38/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3624 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Tangible material; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKAR A RAO, AM . / ITA NO.2530/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS AND SCRAP CENTRE, PLOT NO.63, GAT NO.19, SANJEEV NAGAR, SATPUR, AMBAD LINK ROAD, NASHIK 422 010 PAN : AAEFD4440M . /APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.2197 & 2198/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITO, WARD-1(5), NASHIK . /APPELLANT VS. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS AND SCRAP CENTRE, PLOT NO.63, GAT NO.19, SANJEEV NAGAR, SATPUR AMBAD LINK ROAD, NASHIK 422 010 PAN : AAEFD4440M . / RESPONDENT C.O.NOS.37 AND 38/PUN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 2197 & 2198/PUN/2016 (A.YRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS AND SCRAP CENTRE, PLOT NO.63, GAT NO.19, SANJEEV NAGAR, SATPUR, AMBAD LINK ROAD, NASHIK 422 010 PAN : AAEFD4440M . CROSS OBJECTOR VS. ITO, WARD-1(5), NASHIK . APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL 2 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE / RESPONDENT BY : DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.03.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE FIVE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THE REVENUE INVOLVING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011 -12. ITA NO.2530/PUN/2016 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-I, NASHIK, DATED 13-07-2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. ITA NOS. 2 197 & 2198/PUN/2016 ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE COMM ON ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, NASHIK, DATED 13-07-2016 FOR THE A.YRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE APPE ALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A.YRS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12 VIDE C.O.NOS. 3 7 AND 38/PUN/2016. THERE IS NO CROSS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2009- 10. SINCE THERE ARE COMMON ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS THEY ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND ARE TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION IN TH IS COMPOSITE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE ASESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10. ITA NO.2530/PUN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BY ASSESSEE 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL SHOWING ANY LIVE LINK W ITH THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES @25% OF THE PURCHASES ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THA T IN 3 PRINCIPLE HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GE NUINE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO NEED OF ANY ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. ENTIRE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELET ED. 3. FROM THE GROUNDS ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL (1) AGAINST THE INITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT AND (2) AGAINST THE 25% ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCH ASES. REVENUE HAS NOT FILED APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 AGAINST THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A). 4. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN TUBES AND SC RAPES. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF RS.2,54,800/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES OF RS.18,50,403/- FRO M M/S. SHIV INDUSTRIES WHOSE NAME IS LISTED IN THE LIST OF BOGUS DEALERS BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OF MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT. EVENTUALLY, THE AO VIDE ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT, MADE THE ENTIRE ADDITION O F BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.18,50,403/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THE INCOME AT RS.21,05,200/-. 5. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE QUES TIONED THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ASSESSEE ALSO R AISED THE ISSUE RELATING TO VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT QUA THE AVAILABILITY OF TANGIBLE MATERIAL FOR INVOKING THE SAID PROVISIONS . CIT(A) DISMISSED THE VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LINK ED OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED HEAVILY ON THE JUDGME NT ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 291 ITR 500 AND OTHERS. CONTENTS OF PARA NO.4 TO 4.13 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONT AINS THE DISCUSSION OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS VALID. CIT(A) RELIED ON 4 THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IN THIS REGARD. ON MERITS, CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING SERIES OF DECISIONS EVENTUALLY RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 25% OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.89 THUS, IN MY OPINION THE FACTS ON RECORD DEMO NSTRATE THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF BOGUS PURCHASES BUT A CASE OF INFLATE D PURCHASES AND AT BEST FROM BOGUS PARTIES. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25% OF PURCHASES OF RS.18,50,403/-, I.E. (RS.4,62,000/-). 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE GROUNDS EXTRACTED ABOVE. 7. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ADOPTING 25% OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION IS NOT BASED ON FACTS AND THE SAME IS UNSUSTAINABLE WHEN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT FORMALLY REJECTED U/S.145(3) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED FOR RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LT D. VS. DCIT AND OTHERS IN ITA NO.795/PUN/2014 AND CONNECTED APPEALS, DA TED 28-04-2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. 8. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DUTIFULLY. 9. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION A ND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE DECISION OF T HE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD . (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO EX AMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJES H JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). 5 REGARDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO RE-ASSESSMENT AND ITS VA LIDITY, WE FIND ON SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL DISMISSED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BY RE LYING ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. KHA N AFZALHUSSAIN MOHD. SAIE VS. DCIT ITA NOS. 2708 AND 2709/PUN/2016, D ATED 23-03- 2018. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE PROCEED TO EXTR ACT THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 9. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN ST RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY T HE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI ST OCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND REFERRING TO PARAS 4 AND 5 OF THE APPEL LATE ORDER, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, THE GROUND OF APPEA L NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. REGARDING THE ISSUE OF CONFIRMING OF ADDITION TO 25% OF BOGUS PURCHASES BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SERIES OF DECISIONS. WE FIND THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. KHAN AFZALHUSSAIN M OHD. SAIE (SUPRA) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 10% OF SUCH ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. WE THEREFORE FIND IT TO RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE FINDINGS GIV EN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.11 OF ORDER OF TRIBUNAL HERE AS UNDER : 11. NOW, COMING TO THE MERITS OF ADDITION. THE IS SUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST BOGUS PURCHASES. WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED SIMILAR ISSUE IN SERIES OF DECISIONS WITH LEAD ORDER IN M/S . CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.795/PUN/2014, RELATING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, ORDER DATED 28.04.2017. THE ASSESSEE IN THE FI RST YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 HAS MAINTAINED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS. IN OTHER WORDS, IT HAS THE EVIDENCE OF PURCHASING GOODS AND ITS SALES. IN SUC H CIRCUMSTANCES, AT BEST, HIGHER GROSS PROFIT RATE CAN BE APPLIED. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN EARLIER ORDERS, WE HOLD THAT GP RATE OF 10% OVER AND ABOVE GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BE APPLIED TO WOR K OUT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 6 CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO M AKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BY ADOPTING GP RATE AT 10% OF BOGUS PURCHASES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROU ND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND TH E CROSS OBJECTIONS FOR THE A.YRS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12. ITA NOS.2197 & 2198/PUN/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 BY REVENUE C.O.NOS.37 AND 38/PUN/2016 BY ASSESSEE (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 2197 & 2198/PUN/2016) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 11. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SIMILAR. THE REFORE, WE EXTRACT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS-OBJE CTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 AS UNDER : GROUNDS BY REVENUE : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 20,48,964/- FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS / PARTIES? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PURCHASES TREATED AS BOGU S WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THE CERTAIN PARTIES FROM W HOM PURCHASES WERE MADE WHEN LETTERS SENT TO THE PARTIES WERE RETURNED UNDE LIVERED OR THE PARTIES DID NOT RESPOND? 3. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED TH E FACT THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE PURCHASES VERIFIED W HEN REQUIRED TO DO SO ESPECIALLY WHEN SUCH PURCHASES WERE VERY SUBSTANTIA L IN AMOUNT, IN SOME YEARS ROUGHLY ABOUT 50% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES? 4. WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ASSUMING THAT THE PURCHASES WERE ONLY INFLATED WHEN IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PARTIES FOUND MISSING AND RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION OF ANOTHER GOVT. DEPARTMENT (SALES 7 TAX), THAT THE PURCHASES COULD NOT BE PROVED AS GEN UINE AND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED? 5. WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN PRESUMING THAT SI MPLY BECAUSE NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN CASE OF SALES, IT WAS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND FURTHER ASSUMING THAT THEREBY PURCHASES SHOULD BE GENUINE? 6. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE AF FIDAVITS FROM SUPPLIERS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WHY THE S UPPLIERS COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO WHEN THEY WERE CALLED FOR EXAM INATION, SUBSEQUENTLY AND DETAILS SUCH AS COPIES OF ACCOUNTS, BANK TRANSA CTIONS WERE NOT PRODUCED? 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A)-L, NASHIK MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFI CE MAY PLEASE BE RESTORED. 8. THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADDUCE SUCH FURTHER EVIDE NCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 9. THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, CLARIFY , AMEND AND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN THE OCCA SION DEMANDS. CROSS OBJECTIONS BY ASSESSEE : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL SHOWING ANY LIVE LINK WI TH THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES @ 25% OF THE PURCHASES ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN PRINCIPLE HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GE NUINE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO NEED OF ANY ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. ENTIRE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELET ED. 12. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 01-10-2010 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,87,060/-. BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY SALES TAX D EPARTMENT, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM 3 SUPPLIER S WHO ARE SUSPECTED AS BOGUS DEALERS AMOUNTING TO RS.20,48,964/-. AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE AC T, AO MADE ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THE INCOME AT RS.22,36,030/- FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. 8 SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12. AO MADE ENTIRE ADDITIO N OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES RS.36,24,007/- TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE RAISED A LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WE LL AS ON MERITS. IN REPLY, CIT(A) VIDE HIS COMMON ORDER DATED 13-07-2017 DIS MISSED THE ISSUE RELATING TO VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAV ERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE ON MERITS TO 25% OF THE PURCHASES, I.E. RS.5,12,241/- AND RS.9,06,000/- FOR THE A.YRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. 14. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE GROUNDS EXTRACTED ABOVE. FURTHER, AGGRIEVED WITH THE PART RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJEC TIONS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 15. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO DUTIFULLY. 16. PER CONTRA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON HIS ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE APPEAL ITA NO.2530/PUN/2016 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE IDENTICAL STAND COVERED BY OUR ADJUDICATION IN PARA NO.9 OF THIS ORDER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE APPEAL FOR A .Y. 2009-10. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10, WE HA VE ALREADY HELD THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO ARE VALID AND DISMISSED THE RELEVANT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. F URTHER, REGARDING THE CONFIRMING OF ADDITION TO 25% BY THE CIT(A) WE HAVE DEC IDED THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 10% A S AGAINST THE 25% 9 ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A). FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. TO SUM UP, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YRS. 2009-10 TO 2011-12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D.KARUNAKAR A RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 27 TH MARCH, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, NASHIK 4. / THE CIT-1, NASHIK 5. , , / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE