Sharvari Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Nashik V. ACIT, Circle - II,

CO 63/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0118 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Non-deduction of tax; Bad and doubtful debts; Non compliance; Right to appeal; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, NASHIK . APPELLANT VS. M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD., C/O RARAN SOLI LUTH, JESHANUR, VRIDAWAN COLONY, ANANDWALLI, PIPE LINE ROAD, GANGAPUR ROAD, NASHIK 422 013 PAN: AAECM9165M . RESPONDENT CO NO.63/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD., C/O RARAN SOLI LUTH, JESHANUR, VRIDAWAN COLONY, ANANDWALLI, PIPE LINE ROAD, GANGAPUR ROAD, NASHIK 422 013 PAN: AAECM9165M . CROSS OBJECTOR VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, NASHIK . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 13-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-11-2014 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, NASHIK DATED 10.07.20 12 RELATING TO ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED BY DELETING RS.10,13,443/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF NO N DEDUCTION OF TDS ON INTEREST PAID TO SHRI DADASAHEB WAMAN VISHNU SHINKAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SHRI DADASA HEB WAMAN VISHNU SHINKAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED, WHICH IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND CARRYING ON T HE BUSINESS OF BANKING AS PER THE BANKING REGULATION A CT AND IS EXEMPTED FROM TDS ON INTEREST PAYMENT AS PROVIDE D IN SECTION 194A(3)(III)(A) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING HEARI NG WITH PERMISSION OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT'S AS THE NOTICE DATED 30/3/2011 ISSUED U/S.148 HAS NE VER BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT AND THE OBJECTIONS TO THE S AID EFFECT HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE A.O. AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 IS INVALID. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) HAVE E RRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ON RECEIPT OF NOTI CE U/S.271(1)(B) DATED 17/10/2011 AND SUMMONS U/S.131 DATED 17/10/201 1 FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 THE APPELLANT HAS COMMUNICA TED THE FACT OF NON RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S.148 VIDE LETTE RS DATED 28/10/2011. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE A.O & CIT(A) HAVE ERRED I N NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ON LATER DATE IT HAS BEEN REVEALED THAT THE IMPUGNED NOTICE U/S.148 HAS BEEN SERVED ON AN EMP LOYEE OF AN EDUCATIONAL TRUST NAMELY FRAVASHI ACADEMY, TRIMBAK ROAD, OPP. POLICE TRAINING CENTRE, NASHIK AND WAS NEVER BE EN RECEIVED BY SHARVARI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 3 4. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECT IONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL OF CROSS OBJECTIONS, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1] THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE REASST. U/S.147 IS BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN LAW SINCE THE LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT M ADE ANY ADDITION ON THE ISSUE WHICH IS REFERRED IN THE REASO NS RECORDED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASST. WAS REOPENED U/S.148 AND HENCE, THE LEARNED A.O. SHOULD HAVE DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.147. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IS LEGAL IN NATURE AND AS ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION OF THE ABOVE GROUND. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE, ON MERITS, TO BE ADMITTED AS IT IS A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE AND ALL FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED UPO N THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONA L THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RE-ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF PASSING AN ORD ER UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WERE BAD & DOUBTFUL DE BTS IN LAW SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON T HE ISSUE WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OP ENING THE ASSESSMENT. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE PARA 3.1 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH TALKS OF RE-OPENING OF ONE ISSUE A ND PARA 3.3 AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER WHICH, NO ADDIT ION ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS MADE. HOWEVER, VIDE PARA 3.4, ADDITION WAS MA DE ON ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 4 ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE SAID IN TEREST. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) NO GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE RE-OPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT WERE RAISED AND EVEN IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS ONLY CHALLENGE TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE IN THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN B Y THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. REPORTE D IN (2011) 331 ITR 236 (BOM). FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON TH E DECISION REPORTED IN (2011) 336 ITR 136 (DELHI) AND 355 ITR 172 (GUJ). 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND OF APPEAL OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY HIM THA T SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT AGITATED THE SAID ISSUE EITHER BEFORE T HE CIT(A) OR EVEN IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJEC TION, SUCH ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AT THIS JUNCTURE COULD NOT BE ADMITTED. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 O F THE ACT HAS BEEN INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.1989 BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT OF 2009, UNDER WHICH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOW ERED TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH ISSUE , NO REASONS WERE RECORDED AND WHICH HAD SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS COME TO HIS NOTICE. FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS PLA CED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 2008 W.E.F. 01.04.2008. ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 5 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE POINTED OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB PRECLUDE THE A SSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED, ETC. HOWEVER, THE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ONCE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED ON ONE ISSUE, ON WHICH ACCOUNT, NO ADDITION WAS MADE, THEN, NO FURTHER ADDI TION COULD BE MADE WITHOUT ISSUING FRESH NOTICE FOR RE-ASSESSMENT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED AGAIN ST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE THE ADDITIONAL GR OUND OF APPEAL IS AGITATED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED AGA INST HIM UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT BEING BAD IN LAW SINCE N O ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE WHICH WAS REFERRED IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. 10. THE FIRST POINT RAISED AGAINST THE PRESENT ISSUE IS WHE THER THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CAN BE ADMITTED AT THIS JU NCTURE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY ISSUE AGAINS T THE COMPLETION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EITHER BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BEFORE US. THE POWERS ENSHRINED UNDER THE ACT IN THE TRIBUNAL ARE WIDE ENOUGH TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON ANY QUESTION OF LAW. HOWEVER, WHERE INVESTIGATION OF FACTS IS REQ UIRED, THEN, SUCH ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CANNOT BE ADMITTED BUT IN CASE WHERE PURELY QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED THEN, THE SAME C AN BE ADMITTED. EVEN WHERE THE SAID ISSUE IS TO BE ADJUDICATED ON THE ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 6 EXAMINATION OF RECORD, THEN ALSO, SUCH ADDITIONAL GROUND OF A PPEAL CAN BE ADMITTED. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY O F THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL OF CROSS OBJECTION IS PURELY A QUESTION OF LAW AND WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER ADMITTING T HE SAME, WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON MERITS. IN THIS REGA RD, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN NATION AL THERMAL POWER CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (SUPR A), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DEALING WITH APPEALS IS THUS EXPRES SED IN THE WIDEST POSSIBLE TERMS. THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAXING AUTHORITIES IS TO ASSE SS CORRECTLY THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. I F, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A RESULT OF A JUDICIAL DECISION GIVEN WHILE THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS FOUND THAT A NO N-TAXABLE ITEM IS TAXED OR A PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION IS DENIED, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PREVENTED FROM RAI SING THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, SO LONG AS THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF THAT ITEM. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UND ER SECTION 254 ONLY TO DECIDE THE GROUNDS WHICH ARISE FROM THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). BOTH THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE A RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL/CROS SOBJECTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE FAIL TO SEE WHY THE TRIBUNAL S HOULD BE PREVENTED FROM CONSIDERING QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED EARLIER. THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS CONFINED ONLY TO ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS TOO NARROW A VIEW TO TAKE OF THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW A NEW GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNA L IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM T HE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE FAIL TO SEE WHY SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHE N IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO COR RECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. .. WHERE ON THE FACTS FOUND BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A QUESTION OF LAW ARISES (THOUGH NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES ) WHICH BEARS ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER THE TRIB UNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE THE SAME ? ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 7 . THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS CONFINED ONLY TO ISSUE S ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) TAKES TOO NARROW A VIEW OF THE POWERS OF THE APPELLATE TRI BUNAL (VIDE, E.G., CIT V. ANAND PRASAD [1981] 128 ITR 388 (DELHI), CIT V. KARAMCHAND PREMCHAND P. LTD. [1969] 74 ITR 254 (GUJ) A ND CIT V. CELLULOSE PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (G UJ) [FB]). UNDOUBTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL WILL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW A NEW GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNA L IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM T HE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WE FAIL TO SEE WHY SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE RAISED WHE N IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION IN ORDER TO COR RECTLY ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. 11. NOW, COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE RAISED, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED REASONS FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WHICH READ AS UNDER:- IN THIS CASE, THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FR OM DY. D.I.T.(INV)-I, NASHIK VIDE HIS LETTER NO.NSK/DDIT(INV)- I/S&S/SUYOJIT ENQUIRY REPORTS/2010-11/622 DATED 21.02.20 11. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SUYOJIT GROUP OF NASHIK ON 17.09.2010. DURING THE SEARCH, SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED WHICH RELATING TO TRANSACTION WITH M/S SHARVARI BUILD CON. AS PER SALE DEED BETWEEN M/S SHARVARI BUILDCON (THROUGH RATA N LUTH) AND SHRI UJWAL TUKARAM PAWAR, IT IS SEEN THAT M/S SHA RVARI BUILDCON HAS PAID RS.85,00,000/- IN CASH TO SHRI UJWAL T . PAWAR. IN POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES IT IS FOUND THAT OUT OF RS.85,00,000 /- ONLY RS.8,00,000/- HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED BY M/S SHARVARI BUILDC ON. THEREFORE, THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.77,00,000/- REMAIN S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS OF M/S SHARVARI BUILDCON. TH E TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04. THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS BEING FORWARDED TO THIS OFF ICE FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS MENTIONED ABOVE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE(B) OF S UB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . THEREFORE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR 2004 -05 HAS BEEN UNDER ASSESSED AND THE SAME NEED TO BE REOPENED UND ER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 12. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPEN ING THE ASSESSMENT REFLECT THAT THE ISSUE RAISED WAS IN RELATION T O THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN SUYOJIT GROUP OF NASHIK AND THE AS SESSEE, UNDER ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 8 WHICH A SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FOR A SUM OF RS.85 LAKHS. THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES REVEALED THAT OUT OF RS.85 LAKHS, ONLY R S.8 LAKHS WAS ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.77 LAKHS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING UNDER S ECTION 147 OF THE ACT, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN O F INCOME FILED MAY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID N OTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARAS 3 .1 TO 3.3 AT PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER CONCERN FOR RS.85 LAKHS AND EVEN SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THE SELLER AND THEREAFTER, NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, VIDE PARA 3.4, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS.10,13,443/- ON LOANS TAK EN FROM DWD SHINKAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY. THE ASSE SSEE HAD FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS OUT OF SAID INTEREST PAYMENT AND CON SEQUENTLY, THE SAID INTEREST PAID WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT, IN VIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 13. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DID N OT RAISE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID RE-OPENING OF ASSE SSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT AND ONLY AGITATED T HE ADDITION MADE AT RS.10,19,923/-. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITIO N, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF A DDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IS AGITATED BY T HE RE- ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 9 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE ON A ISSUE WHICH W AS NOT PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 14. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CH ARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, T HEN HE MAY ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INC OME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES T O HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE CASE OF PROCEEDINGS, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153 OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS SUCH INCOME WHIC H HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR RE-OPENING THE A SSESSMENT. FURTHER, AFTER ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAD ES CAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN CASE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, HAS THE POWER NOT ONLY TO ASSESS SUCH INCOME WHICH HA D ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE FORMATION OF B ELIEF BUT ALSO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS SUCH OTHER INCOME WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. HO WEVER, IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D PURSUANT TO ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ACCEPTS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT AND NO ADDITION IS MADE ON THAT ACCOUNT THEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO ASSESS SUCH OTHER INCOME WHICH HAD COME TO HIS NOTICE FOR WHICH, NO REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING AND S UCH INFORMATION OF ESCAPEMENT CAME IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 10 DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S . 148 OF THE ACT. 15. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE HAS POINTED OUT THAT VIDE EXPLANATION 3 UNDER SECTION 147 O F THE ACT, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT (NO.2) OF 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.1989, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D THE POWER TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS SUCH INCOME IN RESPECT O F ANY ISSUE WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NO TICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN CASE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION NOTWITHSTANDING, THE FACT THAT THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE WERE NOT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148(2) OF THE ACT. THE SAID AMEN DMENT MADE BY WAY OF INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 UNDER SECTION 147 OF T HE ACT AND ITS EFFECT WAS BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: THE EFFECT OF SECTION 147 AS IT NOW STANDS AFTER TH E AMENDMENT OF 2009 CAN THEREFORE, BE SUMMARISED AS FOLLOWS : (I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY AS SESSMENT YEAR ; (II) UPON THE FORMATION OF THAT BELIEF AND B EFORE HE PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NO TICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 148 ; (III) THE ASSESSING OF FICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS SUCH INCOME, WHICH HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME, CHA RGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COME S TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER THE SECTION ; AND (IV) THOUGH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2) DOES NOT INCLUDE A PARTICULAR, ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH IN COME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HE MAY NONE THE LESS ASSESS OR R EASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION. 16. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 11 ..UPON THE FORMATION OF A REASON TO BELIEVE UNDER SECTION 147 AND FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSME NT, AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE WORDS 'AN D ALSO' CANNOT BE IGNORED. THE INTERPRETATION WHICH THE COUR T PLACES ON THE PROVISION SHOULD NOT RESULT IN DILUTING THE EFFEC T OF THESE WORDS OR RENDERING ANY PART OF THE LANGUAGE USED BY PARL IAMENT OTIOSE. PARLIAMENT HAVING USED THE WORDS 'ASSESS OR REASSES S SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX W HICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT', THE WORDS 'AND ALSO' CANNOT BE READ AS BEING IN THE ALTERNATIVE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION WOULD BE TO REGARD THOSE WORDS AS BEING CONJUNCTIVE AND CUMULATIVE. IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT PARLIAMENT HAS NOT USED THE WORD 'OR'. THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT REST CONTENT BY MERELY USING THE WORD 'AND'. THE WORDS 'AND' AS WELL AS 'ALSO ' HAVE BEEN USED TOGETHER AND IN CONJUNCTION. THE SHORTE R OXFORD DICTIONARY DEFINES THE EXPRESSION 'ALSO' TO MEAN FU RTHER, IN ADDITION BESIDES, TOO. THE WORD HAS BEEN TREATED AS BE ING RELATIVE AND CONJUNCTIVE. EVIDENTLY THEREFORE, WHAT P ARLIAMENT INTENDS BY USE OF THE WORDS 'AND ALSO' IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, UPON THE FORMATION OF A REASON TO BELIEVE U NDER SECTION 147 AND THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 (2) MUST ASSESS OR REASSESS : (I) SUCH INCOME ; AND ALSO (II) ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURS E OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION. THE WORDS 'SUCH INCO ME' REFER TO THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT, AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING: OFFICER HAS FORM ED A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HENCE, THE LA NGUAGE WHICH HAS BEEN USED BY PARLIAMENT IS INDICATIVE OF T HE POSITION THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MUST BE IN RES PECT OF THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE HAS FORMED A REASON T O BELIEVE THAT IT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY DURI NG THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IF THE INCOME, THE ESCAPEMENT OF WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMAT ION OF THE REASON TO BELIEVE IS NOT ASSESSED OR REASSESSED, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INDEPENDENTLY ASS ESS ONLY THAT INCOME WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN TH E COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECTION AS HAVING ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT. IF UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148(2), THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTS THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DOES NOT ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME WHICH WAS T HE BASIS OF THE NOTICE, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO HIM TO ASSESS INC OME UNDER SOME OTHER ISSUE INDEPENDENTLY. PARLIAMENT WHEN IT ENA CTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1 989 CLEARLY STIPULATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS TO REASSESS THE INCOME WHICH HE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE PROCEEDING. IN THE AB SENCE OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE FORMER, HE CANNOT INDEPENDENTLY ASSESS THE LATTER. 17. IT WAS FURTHER CONCLUDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS UNDER: - ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 12 PARLIAMENT, WHEN, IT ENACTED EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147 BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 CLEARLY HAD BEFORE IT BOTH TH E LINES OF PRECEDENT ON THE SUBJECT. THE PRECEDENT DEALT WITH T WO SEPARATE QUESTIONS. WHEN IT EFFECTED THE AMENDMENT BY BRINGIN G IN EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 147, PARLIAMENT STEPPED IN TO CORRECT WHAT IT REGARDED AS AN INTERPRETATIONAL ERROR IN THE VIEW WHICH WAS TAKEN BY CERTAIN COURTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS TO RESTRICT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY TO THE ISSUES IN RESPECT OF WHICH REASONS WERE RECORDED FO R REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE CORRECTIVE EXERCISE EMBARKED UP ON BY PARLIAMENT IN THE FORM OF EXPLANATION 3 CONSEQUENTLY PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBS EQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THOUGH THE REASONS F OR SUCH ISSUE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148(2). EXPLANATION 3 LIFTS THE EMBARGO, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY JUDICIAL IN TERPRETATION, ON THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT OF REASSESSMENT ON G ROUNDS OTHER THAN THOSE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH A NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148. SETTING OUT THE REASONS, FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THOSE JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAD HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS SOUGHT TO BE REOPENED ON T HE GROUND THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ON A CERTAIN IS SUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ON ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH CAME TO HIS NOT ICE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS INTERPRETATION WILL NO LONGER HO LD THE FIELD AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT OF 2009. HOWEVER, EXPLANATION 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVE RRIDE THE NECESSITY OF FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUB STANTIVE PART OF SECTION 147. AN EXPLANATION TO A STATUTORY PROVI SION IS INTENDED TO EXPLAIN ITS CONTENTS AND CANNOT BE CONS TRUED TO OVERRIDE IT OR RENDER THE SUBSTANCE AND CORE NUGATOR Y. SECTION 147 HAS THIS EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME ('SUCH INCOME') WHICH ESCAPED A SSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BELIEF A ND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN ALSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE D URING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE AND HOLDS THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDEPENDENT LY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF HE INTENDS TO DO SO, A F RESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WOULD BE NECESSARY, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTED IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE BY THE ASS ESSEE.- CIT VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD. (1992) 107 CTR (SC) 2 09 : (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) : (1992) 64 TAXMAN 442 (SC) RELIED ON. 18. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH CO MES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TH OUGH THE ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 13 REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PR OVIDED ADDITION IS MADE ON THE ISSUE FOR WHICH REASONS WERE RECO RDED WHILE RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF T HE ACT. HOWEVER, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THE AS SESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS THAT THE INCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESS MENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDEPENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. 19. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JET AIRWA YS (I) LTD. (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY IT, WE HOLD TH AT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF TH E ISSUE AGAINST WHICH REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING UNDE R SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER, HAS NO POWER TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF SUCH ISSUES WHICH CAM E TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. S INCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ISSUE AGAINST WHICH, THE REASONS WERE RECORDE D FOR RE- OPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS PRECLUDED FROM MAKING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF A NY OTHER ISSUE I.E. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST E XPENDITURE IN VIEW OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME IS ANNULLED. 20. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REV ENUE HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE A CT. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID SECTION REFLECTS THAT WHERE THE ASSE SSEE HAS ITA NO.1843/PN/2012 CO NO.63/PN/2013 M/S. SHARVANI BUILDCON PVT. LTD. 14 APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER W ITHOUT OBJECTING TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE OR SERVICE OF NOTICE THEN , THE ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM RAISING ANY ISSUE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE AT A LATER STAGE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE ISSUE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE BUT HAS OBJECTED TO THE FRAMING OF ASSE SSMENT AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING ON ONE ISSUE AND C OMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING THE ADDITION ON ANOTHER ISSUE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 21. IN VIEW OF OUR ANNULLING THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THE CROS S OBJECTIONS BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND THE SAME ARE NOT BEING A DJUDICATED. SIMILARLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ALSO BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND THE SAME ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE DEPARTMENT; 2) THE ASSESSEE; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-II, NASHIK; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE