Shri Laxman S. Mehetre, Pune V. ACIT, Circle - 9, Pune

CO 43/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9190 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GARIMA CHOUHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: MANE B B
• Keywords: Onus to prove

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 952/PN/2012 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-08) ACIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. LAXMAN S. MEHETRE, 212, 213, LAXMI COMPLEX, B.P. ROAD, CHINCHWAD, PUNE -18 PAN NO. AAUPM5598B .. RESPONDENT CO NO.43/PN/2013) (ASST. YEAR 2007-08) LAXMAN S. MEHETRE, 212, 213, LAXMI COMPLEX, B.P. ROAD, CHINCHWAD, PUNE -18 PAN NO. AAUPM5598B .. CROSS OBJECTOR VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE .. APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANE B.B. REVENUE BY : SMT. GARIMA CHOUHARY DATE OF HEARING : 26-12-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-12-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CO FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29-02-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION WERE HEARD TO GETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PROMOTER AND BUILDER. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAK EN 2 PROJECTS AND HAS SHOWN PROFIT OF RS.19,64,798/- IN RESPECT OF COMMER CIAL/RESIDENTIAL 2 PROJECT LAXMI PLAZA. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DECLA RED PROFIT OF RS.1,86,87,739/- FROM THE HOUSING PROJECT LAXMI VR UNDAVAN AND HAD CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SHRI MARUTI S.MHETRE IS THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR OF THE ASSESSEE F OR CENTRING AND OTHER WORK. HE OBSERVED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE PAYABLE DUE TO SHRI MARUTI S. MHETRE AS ON 31-03-20 07 IS AT RS.50,31,465/-. HOWEVER, HE OBSERVED FROM THE RETU RN OF INCOME OF MARUTI S. MHETRE THAT HE HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,57,343/- AS RECEIVABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE WAS A DI FFERENCE OF RS.29,74,122/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF MARUTI S. MH ETRES ACCOUNTS IN HIS BOOKS FOR THE PERIOD 01-04-2006 TO 31-03-200 9. HE ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF BILLS RECEIVED FROM MARUTI S. M HETRE DURING THIS YEAR. IT WAS AGAIN CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT ALL T HE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECONCILE HIS ACCOUNTS WITH THAT OF THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR ON THE PLEA THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTAN T OF THE CONTRACTOR HAS GONE ON A PILGRIMAGE AND IS LIKELY TO COME ONLY ON 29-12-2009. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED THE AS SESSING OFFICER DID NOT WAIT FOR THE ARRIVAL OF THE SAID CHARTERED ACCO UNTANT AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. 2.2 THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT I N CASE THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME, THEN DEDUCTION U/S.80IB( 10) MAY BE ALLOWED WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE DIFFERENCE 3 IN ACCOUNTS WAS ON VARIOUS ISSUES SUCH AS CASH PAYM ENT, OVER STATEMENT OF LABOUR CHARGES ETC. THE ONUS OF PROVING THE COR RECTNESS OF THE CLAIM IS OBVIOUSLY ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN THE INSTANT C ASE HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE EQUATED TO INCOME DERIVED FROM THE EXEMPT HOUSING PROJECT. HE ACCO RDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SA ME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT FULL DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING THE BILLS ISSUED BY THE SAID SUB-CONTRACTOR, THE DETAILS OF S UBSEQUENT PAYMENT OF RS.50,31,465/- AFTER 31-03-2007 AND THE LEDGER ACCO UNT OF SHRI MARUTI S. MHETRE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND CONTRACTEE NEED NOT MATCH BECAUSE OF A NUMBER OF REASONS SUCH AS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED, YEAR-END CUT OFF TRANSACTIONS, TIME LAG I N RECORDING TRANSACTIONS AT EITHER END AND SO ON. IT WAS FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE LABOUR CHARGE TO M.S. MHETRE RELATES TO THE LAXMI VRUNDAVAN PROJECT ON WHICH DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) HAS BEEN CL AIMED AND THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI MARUTI S. MHETRE CLEAR LY STATES THAT IT RELATES TO THE SAID PROJECT. 3.1 BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ACTION OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR IS LINKE D TO THE PROJECT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PROFIT INCREASED ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION IS NOT RELATED TO THE PROJECT. THE 4 LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-RECONCILIATION IN THE ACCOUNTS OF SHRI MARUTI S. MHETRE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ADDITION IS MADE ON ACC OUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT RELATED TO THE PROJECT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S.80IB(10), THE ADDITION HAS RESULTED INTO INCREASE IN PROFIT OF TH E SAID PROJECT AND THEREFORE THE ALTERNATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT IS ADMISSIBLE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. HE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IB(10) OF T HE I.T. ACT AT RS.29,74,122/-. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ( APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSES IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80 -IB(10) ON THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT TOWARDS UN-RECONCILED SUN DRY CREDIT BALANCES UNDER THE HEAD 'LABOUR CHARGES'. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING AS ABOVE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OR EVIDENCES AS REGARDS THE UN-RE CONCILED BALANCES AND, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NATURE THEREOF COULD BY NO MEANS BE ASCERTAINED IN ANY MANNER. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB( 10) IS ADMISSIBLE ON PROFITS 'DERIVED FROM' THE HOUSING PROJECT WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION COULD BY NO MEANS BE TREATED A S PROFIT SO DERIVED. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THE BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUG NED ADDITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE UN-RECONCILED CREDIT BALANCE WAS IN THE NATURE OF PROFIT DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT EXCLUSIVELY LAY ON T HE ASSESSEE WHO HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE SAME. 6. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BE RESTORED. 5 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION VIDE CO NO.43/PN/2013 WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ALTHOUGH ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB (10) TO THE RESPONDENT O N ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS, ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN SUSTAINING THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE IN CREDITO RS AS PER THE RESPONDENT'S BOOKS AND THAT SHOWN BY THE RELEVANT CREDI TOR IN HIS BOOKS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION ON PRIMARY PRINCIPLES A ND PRIMARY BASIS ITSELF. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING AS ABOVE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD IN FACT FURNISHED RELEVANT COPIES OF BI LLS RAISED BY CONCERNED CREDITOR ALONG WITH EXTRACT OF ACCOUNTS FO R THE PERIOD 1/04/2006 TO 31/03/2009, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS WHICH THE LEARNED AO HAS ACCEPTED AND HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAME. FURTHER THE LEARNED AO AND LD . CIT(A) HAVE ALSO IGNORED THE FACT OF SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS EFFEC TED OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE APPEARING IN THE RESPONDENT'S BOOK S, TO THE CONCERNED CREDITOR AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL'S) GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THAT IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE RE SPONDENT'S HAS DISCHARGED ONUS CAST UPON HIM. THEREAFTER, IT IS FOR TH E LD. AO TO FURTHER SCRUTINISE THE RELEVANT COPIES OF BILLS RAISED B Y CONCERNED CREDITORS AND THE LEDGER EXTRACT PROVIDED, AND IN CA SE HE NURTURES ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS PRODU CED BY THE RESPONDENT TO PROBE THE MATTER FURTHER. 4. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF THE HEARING, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DIFF ERENCE BE DELETED OR UPHELD THE LD CIT (A) ORDER ON THE ALTERNATIVE G ROUND. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE A DDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-REC ONCILIATION OF THE BALANCE IN THE SUB-CONTRACTORS ACCOUNT. SINCE THIS ADDITION CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE HOUSING PROJECT, THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) AMOUNTING TO RS.29,74,122/-. 6 7. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAN D CHALLENGED THE VERY ADDITION OF RS.29,74,122/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FULL DETAILS REGARDING THE BALANCE OUTSTANDIN G IN THE NAME OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR. REFERRING TO PAGES 30 TO 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-2007 ALONG WITH SCHEDULES AND SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,31,465/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PAYABLE TO SHRI MARUTI S. MHETRE. REFERRING TO PAGES 37 TO 39 OF T HE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI MARUTI S. MHETRE FROM 01-04- 2006 TO 31-03- 2007 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS ON 31-03-2007 WAS SHOWN AT RS.50,31,465/-. REFERRING TO PAGES 40 TO 4 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE VARIOUS B ILLS ISSUED BY MARUTI S. MHETRE. REFERRING TO PAGES 45 TO 50 OF THE PAPE R BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHR I MARUTI S. MHETRE IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE O PENING BALANCE HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.50,31,465/- AS ON 01-04-2007 WHICH HAS BEEN PAID SUBSEQUENTLY ON VARIOUS DATES ALONG WITH SUBSEQUENT BILLS RAISED BY SHRI MARUTI S. MHETRE. REFERRING TO PAGES 51 TO 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE TAX DEDUC TED AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS AND THE TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED. HE A CCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHEN FULL DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE SUB-CONTRACTORS ACCOUN T. 7.1 HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE MAY BE SO MANY REASONS WHY THE SUB- CONTRACTOR HAS NOT SHOWN THE FULL AMOUNT AS RECEIVA BLE AND THE ASSESSEE 7 CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MISTAKE COMMITTE D BY OR ON THE PART OF THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY ADDITION HAS TO BE DELETED WHICH IS THE GROUND TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. SO FAR AS THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED THE PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE PROJECT WILL GO UP AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) ON THE ENHANCED PROFIT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE GOING TO THE ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE I.T. A CT ON THE ENHANCED PROFIT DUE TO UNRECONCILED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE A SSESSEES ACCOUNT AND THE LABOUR CONTRACTORS ACCOUNT, WE AT THE OUTS ET WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH THE BASIS OF THE VERY ADDITION. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,31,465/- AS PAYAB LE TO SHRI MATURI S. MHETRE WHEREAS AS PER THE RETURN OF SHRI MATURI S. MHETRE THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS RECEIVABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE IS AT RS.20,57,343/-. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI MATURI S. MHETRE IN HIS BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND THE COPIES OF THE BILLS RAISED BY SHRI MATURI S. MHETRE DURING THE YEAR. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CATEGORICALLY STATED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUE. THE ABOVE FACTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SAME. WE FURTHER FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FLED THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF THE LABOUR CONTRACT OR FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-2007 TO 31-03-2009 SUBSTANTIATING/EVIDENCING THAT THE CLOSING 8 BALANCE OF RS.50,31,465/- AS ON 31-03-2007 HAVE BEE N PAID SUBSEQUENTLY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND M ERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THA T NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECONCILED BALANCES. TH E DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR MAY BE DUE TO SO MANY REASONS SUCH AS NON-RECORDING OF SOME TRANSACTIONS BY THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR, METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY HIM AND SO MANY OTHER REA SONS. 8.1 FOR ANY FAULT ON THE PART OF THE LABOUR CONTRAC TOR, THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR OPINION, CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE ESPECIALLY WHEN HE HAS FILED THE BILLS RAISED BY THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR, THE LEDGER A CCOUNT OF THE SAID SUB- CONTRACTOR, FOR THE YEAR AS WELL AS FOR THE SUBSEQU ENT YEARS EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF SUCH OUTSTANDING BALANCE IN SUBSEQUENT Y EARS ETC. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE C IT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNRECONCIL ED BALANCE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND D IRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.29,74,122/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN ACCOUNT OF THE LABOUR CONTRACTOR. ACCORDINGLY, THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8.2 SINCE THE VERY BASIS OF ADDITION HAS BEEN DELET ED, THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NA TURE. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DE DUCTION U/S.80IB(10) ON THE PROFIT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT, THE INCREASED PROFIT DUE TO ADDITION IS ALSO ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) IS CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS BY THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. 9 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AND CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-12-2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. P ANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 30 TH DECEMBER, 2013 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE