M/s. Prayag Construction Co., Parbhani V. Income-tax Officer, Parbhani

CO 56/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8983 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C SARANGI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 69C; 43B; 40A(3); 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.599/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (4), PARBHANI . APPELLANT VS. M/S. PRAYAG CONSTRUCTION CO., MUNICIPAL COLONY, PARBHANI PAN : AAHFP1145J . RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 56/PN/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.599/PN/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S. PRAYAG CONSTRUCTION CO., MUNICIPAL COLONY, PARBHANI PAN : AAHFP1145J . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (4), PARBHANI . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : MR. S.C. SARANGI ASSESSEE BY : MR. SUNIL GANOO DATE OF HEARING : 26-08-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-08-2013 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD DA TED 15.02.2011 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 16.12.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO.599/PN/2011 C.O. NO. 56/PN/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 2. IN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED READS AS UNDER :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT ALTHOUGH G.R. RAUT IS NON-WORKING PARTNER BUT STILL REMUNERATION PAID TO HIM IS ALLOW ABLE U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT? 3. IN THIS CONTEXT, BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACTING. IT WAS NOTI CED THAT THE FIRM CONSISTED OF THREE PARTNERS, NAMELY (I) SHRI SHANKARRAO BAP URAO NIKAM; (II) SHRI MANIKRAO BAPURAO NIKA; AND, (III) SHRI GANPATRAO RA OSAHEB RAUT AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED ON 01.04.2005. ONE OF THE PARTNERS, I.E. SHRI SHANKARRAO BAPURAO NIKAM EXPIRED ON 06.02.2006. IN TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, ALL THE THREE PARTNERS WERE STATED TO BE WORK ING PARTNERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED ONE OF THE PARTNERS I.E. SHRI GANP ATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT. ON THE BASIS OF HIS EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SAID PARTNER WAS NOT HAVI NG KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS OF THE FIRM AND THAT HE HAD MADE N O CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND CLAIMED THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY SHARE OF PROFIT S. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THIS ASPECT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE PART NERSHIP DEED AS A SHAM PIECE OF PAPER WHICH WAS NOT ACTED UPON AS PER THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED THEREIN. FOR THE AFORESAID REASON, THE REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS CLAIMED AT RS.1,40,037/- WAS DISALLOWED AND THE SUM WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE MAIN PARTNER OF THE FIRM WAS SHRI SHANKARRAO BAPURAO NIKAM WHO HAD EXPIRED ON 06.02.2006 AND THAT SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF SHRI SHANKARRAO BAPURAO NIKAM. IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT, PARTN ER DULY EXECUTED THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AND THE PARTNER REMUNERATION WAS B EING REGULARLY CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT. THAT NO CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS GIVEN TO OTHER PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT C OULD NOT BE THE BASIS TO TREAT THE PARTNERSHIP DEED AS A SHAM PIECE OF PAPE R. IN ANY CASE, IT WAS ITA NO.599/PN/2011 C.O. NO. 56/PN/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE OTHER PART NER NAMELY, SHRI MANIKRAO BAPURAO NIKAM WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY SIGNIFIED THAT SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT WAS NOT A WORKING PARTNER AND THAT EV EN AFTER NOT CONSIDERING SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT AS A PARTNER, OTHER PA RTNERS REMAINED AND THE STATUS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM STILL PREVAILED. THE CIT(A) RETAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF PARTNERS REMUNERATION TO THE E XTENT IT WAS PAID TO SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT OF RS.46,679/- AND THE BALA NCE OF RS.93,358/- REPRESENTING PARTNERS REMUNERATION PAID TO OTHER PA RTNERS WAS ALLOWED. AGAINST THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CIT(A), REVEN UE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN TERMS OF THE AFORESTATED GROUND OF APPEAL. A PERUSA L OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL SHOWS THAT WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE CHALLENGED IS THE A CTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE REMUNERATION PAID TO SHRI GANPATRAO RA OSAHEB RAUT IN SPITE OF THE CIT(A) CONSIDERING HIM TO BE A NON-WORKING PART NER. QUITE CLEARLY, THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS MISCONCEIVED INA SMUCH THE REMUNERATION PAID TO SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT HAS BEEN DISAL LOWED BY THE CIT(A) AND IT IS ONLY THE REMUNERATION PAID TO OTHER PARTNERS WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED, AS IS QUITE EVIDENT FROM PARA 5.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL AS IT STANDS, IN OUR VIEW, DESERVES TO BE DI SMISSED AS MISCONCEIVED AT THE THRESHOLD ITSELF. 5. NEVERTHELESS, ASSUMING THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY MOVED AND REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE PARTIAL RELIEF OF RS.93,358/- GIVEN BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE C ONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) IS FAIR AND PROPER. THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY INTERFERED THAT THE AVERMENTS OF SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT CAN ONLY BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT HE WAS NOT A WORKING PARTNER BUT THE BONAFIDES OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED ITA NO.599/PN/2011 C.O. NO. 56/PN/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 EXECUTED BY HIM COULD NOT BE VITIATED. BY NOT CONSI DERING SHRI GANPATRAO RAOSAHEB RAUT AS A WORKING PARTNER, IN OUR VIEW, TH E CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE REMUNERATION PAID TO SUCH PARTNE R STANDS DISALLOWED AND THE BALANCE OF THE REMUNERATION PAID TO OTHER PARTN ERS WAS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. THE AFORESAID APPROACH OF THE CIT(A) IS HE REBY AFFIRMED AS WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IS WITH REGAR D TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.9,54,400/- REP RESENTING INTEREST PAYABLE TO PARBHANI PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.9,54,400/- O N ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON BANK LOAN FROM M/S PARBHANI PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BAN K, WHICH WAS NOT ACTUALLY PAID WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN SECTI ON 43B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,54,400/- WAS DISALLOWED. THE CIT( A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT SECTION 43B OF THE ACT COVERS SUMS PAYABLE AS INTEREST ON ANY LOAN OR ADVANCE RAISED FROM A SCHE DULED BANK ALONE AND THAT PARBHANI PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK IS NOT A SCHEDUL ED BANK AS PER DEFINITION OF SCHEDULED BANK PROVIDED IN SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE AFORESAID, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THE CO NCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE IMPUGNED BANK DOES NO T FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SCHEDULED BANK GIVEN IN SECTION 43B OF THE ACT . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REVENUE F AILS ON THIS ASPECT ALSO. ITA NO.599/PN/2011 C.O. NO. 56/PN/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 9. THE LAST GROUND IN THIS APPEAL RAISED BY THE REV ENUE READ AS UNDER :- 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DECIDING THAT PAYMENT TO S UB-CONTRACTOR SHRI MAHESH H. BARNE WAS GENUINE AND ALLOWABLE U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT? 10. ON THIS ASPECT, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESS EE FIRM HAD SUB- CONTRACTED WORK RELATING TO PIMPRI-CHINCHWAD NEW TO WN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NIGDI, PUNE TO SAMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE AN D SHRI MAHESH H. BARNE, CONTRACTOR OF PUNE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED T HAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS.1,23,04,714/- AS DETAILED IN PARA 9 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER TO THE SUB- CONTRACTORS AS AGAINST CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF ONLY RS .98,13,417/- AS DETAILED IN PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE EXCESS PAYMENT MADE TO THE SUB-CONTR ACTORS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESPONSE, ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.24,91,297/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ALSO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NEITHER ANY RECONCILIATIO N WAS FURNISHED AND NOR THE SUB-CONTRACTORS WERE PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF PROC EEDINGS. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT DUE TO THE DEATH OF THE MAIN PARTNER SHRI SHANKARRAO BA PURAO NIKAM DETAILED EXPLANATION COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER; THAT AFTER CARRYING OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS, ASSESSEE FURNISHED APPROPRIATE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 8.1 OF HIS ORDER. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT APART FROM MAK ING PAYMENT OF RS.98,13,417/- TO THE SUB-CONTRACTORS, M/S SAMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE PIMPRI-CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NI GDI, PUNE PROJECT IT HAD MADE SUB-CONTRACT PAYMENTS OF RS.24,91,397/- TO SHRI MAHESH BARNE FOR WORK PERTAINING TO ZILHA PARISHAD BARNE. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID SUB-C ONTRACTOR AS ADDITIONAL ITA NO.599/PN/2011 C.O. NO. 56/PN/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 EVIDENCE. ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT WHILE MAKING PAYMENT IT HAD DULY DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OF RS.35,034/- AND THE NECES SARY TDS CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE SUB-CONTRACTOR. THE CIT(A) PROVI DED THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE SUBMISSIONS PUT-FO RTH BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE BY WAY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SHRI MAHESH H. BARNE, THE SUB-CONTRACTO R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED A REMAND REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL STANDS, THE CIT(A) HAS CONCLU DED AS UNDER :- 8.5 THE BASIC ISSUE THAT CROPS-UP IN THIS RESPECT IS GENUINENESS OF THE SUB-CONTRACT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO SHRI MAHESH H. BARNE IN RESPECT OF ZILHA PARISHAD WORK AMOUNTING TO RS.24,9 1,397/-. IT IS A FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED SHRI MAHESH BARNE FO R EXAMINATION BEFORE THE A.O. IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT . THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF SUB- CONTRACT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY AGREEMENT AS IN TH E CASE OF PIMPRI- CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NIGDI, PU NE TO SAMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND SHRI MAHESH BARNE, CONTRACTORS O F PUNE. THE A.O., THEREFORE, COULD BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED IN REJECTI NG THE CLAIM OF SUB-CONTRACT. THE ISSUE, THEREFORE, THAT CROPS-UP IS WHETHER ANY EXPENSES WERE INCURRED OR NOT FOR EXECUTION OF THE AFORESAID SUB-CONTRACT. TH E A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IN THIS RESPECT. FURTHER, OUT OF GROSS CONT RACT RECEIPTS OF RS.1,47,16,991/-, THE SUB-CONTRACT PAYMENT OF RS.98 ,13,417/- HAS BEEN DULY ACCEPTED BY THE A.O.. THEREFORE, THE BALANCE AMOUNT COMES TO RS.49,03,574/-, THE A.O. HAS ALREADY BROUGHT TO TAX RETURNED INCOME OF RS.78,810/- AND COMMISSION OF SUB-CONTRACT OF RS.2, 40,895/-. THE A.O. HAS NOW PROPOSED FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.24,91,297/-. IF ALL THESE ADDITIONS ARE CONSIDERED, THE INCOME INCLUSIVE OF REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS WOULD COME IN THE VICINITY OF RS.29,00,000/- OUT OF CONTRACT RECE IPTS OF RS.49,03,574/- EXCLUDING SUB-CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN THIS RESPECT IS APPARENTLY NOT JUSTIFIED. 8.6 FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION O F THE SUB- CONTRACTOR, SHRI MAHESH BARNE IN RESPECT OF SUB-CON TRACT WORK OF RS.24,91,397/-. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLA NT THAT TDS IS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OF SHRI MAHESH BARNE ON THE SUB-CONTRACT AMO UNT AND PAID TO THE CREDIT OF GOVERNMENT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS PAID THE TDS ON 12.04.2006 IN RESPECT OF ALL THE SUB-CONTRACT PAYME NTS/EXPENSES. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF CONFIRM ATION LETTER AND THE FACT OF TDS DEDUCTION AND PAYMENT, THE PAYMENT OF RS.24,91, 397/- CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 69C OF THE ACT. FURTHER , THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT PAYMENT TOWARDS SUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES IS MADE BY WAY OF A/C ITA NO.599/PN/2011 C.O. NO. 56/PN/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) DOES NOT ARISE. THE BANK STATEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS VERIFI ED AND THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS FOUND CORRECT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE F ACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.24,91,397/- IS DELETED. 12. AGAINST THE AFORESAID, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS REITERATED THE POINT RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT BEFORE THE C IT(A) WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS NO SUB-CONTRACT AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF WORK OF ZILHA PARISHAD BARNE; THAT THE SUB-CONTRACTOR WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION AND IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED LATE AND NOT AT THE TIME OF THE PAYMENT TO THE SUB-CONTRACTOR. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID, IT IS SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SHRI MAHESH H. BARNE IN RESPECT OF ZILHA PARISHA D WORK AMOUNTING TO RS.24,91,397/- WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE DETAILED EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN DULY REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AND HE RELIED UPON THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) ARE BASED ON THE APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL BEFORE HIM AND CANNOT BE FAULTED IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. THE CIT(A) HAS DULY NOTED THE CONFIRMATION FURNISHED BY THE SUB-CONTRACTOR IN RESPECT OF SUB-CONTRACT WO RK OF RS.24,91,397/- AND HAS ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DULY DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT PAID TO SUB-CONTRACTOR. CONSIDERING THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME AS THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO THE ITA NO.599/PN/2011 C.O. NO. 56/PN/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 CONTRARY BROUGHT OUT BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, T HE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE REVENUE FAILS ON THIS GROUN D. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 16. IN SO FAR AS THE CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSE E IS CONCERNED THE SAME IS MERELY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE. 17. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS- OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G . S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 29 TH AUGUST, 2013 SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD; 4) THE CIT, AURANGABAD; 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE