M/s. Kale & Sons, Pune V. ACIT, Cir.-3, Pune

CO 9/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7728 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y K BHASKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Retrospective amendment

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 205/PN/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. M/S. KALE AND SONS, JANARDHAN DESHPANDE BUNGLOW, 76/14, SHANTI SHEELA SOCIETY, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, ERANDWANE, PUNE 411004. .. RESP ONDENT PAN NO.AABFK 2828B CO.NO.09/PN/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/S. KALE AND SONS, JANARDHAN DESHPANDE BUNGLOW, 76/14, SHANTI SHEELA SOCIETY, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, ERANDWANE, PUNE 411004. .. APPEL LANT PAN NO.AABFK 2828B VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SRI NIKHIL PATHAK DEPARTMENT BY : SRI Y.K. BHASKAR DATE OF HEARING : 07-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 -08-2012 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27-11-2009 OF THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE FOLLOWING EXPENSE S TO THE TUNE OF RS. 89,19,860/- TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON WHICH TDS SO DED UCTED HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME L IMIT. 2 ACCOUNT HEAD AMOUNT RS. TDS DATE OF PAYMENT CONTRACTOR 80,86,255 1,41,156 30-06-2006 PROFESSIONAL FEES 1,25,562 6,593 30-06-2006 BROKERAGE 7,05,043 36,539 10-06-2006 ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O DEDUCT THE TAX AND DEPOSIT THE SAME TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 89,19,860/- U/S. 40(A)( IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2.1 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE O F SURVEY MADE U/S.133A THE ASSESSEE FIRM THROUGH ONE OF THE PARTNER HAD DECLA RED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LAKHS AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN WORK-IN-PROGRESS. ACCORD ING TO AO THE SAME WAS TO BE OFFERED TO TAX OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR INCOME. HE NOTICED THAT THE INCOME OF THE FIRM BEFORE REMUNERATION IS RS. 15,80,000/- WHI CH IS INCLUSIVE OF THE SURVEY DECLARATION. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE AO THE ASS ESSEE REPLIED AS UNDER WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE BODY OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WE WERE AS KED TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF WORK IN PROGRESS ON THAT DATE. BECAUSE OF NON AVAILABIL ITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE STAGE OF COMPLETION OF DIFFERENT NATURE OF WORK ON THE SITE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE SITE, WE HAD STATED IN OUR STATEMENT RECORDED THAT WORK I N PROGRESS IS VALUED ON ESTIMATE BASIS ONLY. IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE ERROR ON ESTIMA TION WE HAD AGREED AND STATED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN ESTIMATION OF THE WIP MAY BE APPR OXIMATELY RS. 25,00,000/-. THIS ALSO AN ESTIMATION ONLY. HOWEVER WE HAD DISCLOSED THIS VALUE OF WIP SEPARATELY IN P&L ACCOUNT. FROM THE STATEMENT IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT NO EXCESS EXPENDITURE WAS AGREED TO BE ADDED AS WIP. THIS DISCLOSURE WAS ONLY FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN ESTIMATION OF WIP. HOWEVER THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATI ON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFACTORIL Y EXPLAINED THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 25 LAKHS WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED BY ONE OF THE PARTNER NAMELY MR.GIRISH KALE IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 12. HE ACCORDINGLY TRE ATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 3. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER FILED BY THE AO NOTED THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED THE YEAR IN THE D ATE OF PAYMENT COLUMN AS 3 2006 INSTEAD OF 2005. THUS THE TDS HAS BEEN PAID O N 30-06-2005 AND 10-06-2005 AS AGAINST 30-06-06 AND 10-06-06 RESPECTIVELY AS ME NTIONED BY THE AO. HE HOWEVER HELD THAT AFTER THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2008 IF TDS WAS TO BE MADE AND WAS SO MADE DURING M ARCH 2005 IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEN IF THE PAYMENT OF TDS IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN U/S. 139(1 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THEN THERE WILL NOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE. IN CASE THE TDS WAS TO BE MADE BEFORE MARCH 2005, THE PAYMENT OF THIS TDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BEFOR E 31 ST MARCH 2005 TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT OF THIS AMENDMENT. ACCORDING TO HIM AS PER THE SAID PROVISIONS IF THERE IS A DELAY IN THE PAYMENT OF THE TDS AMOUNT BEYOND THE ABOVE MENTIONED DATES OR THE TDS ITSELF IS MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE DEDUCTION WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TDS HAS BEEN PAID INTO THE GOVE RNMENT ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT IN ASSESSEES CASE THE RELIEF CAN BE A LLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT IF THE PAYMENTS AS WELL AS THE TDS HAS BEEN MADE DURING TH E MONTH OF MARCH 2005, WHERE THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TDS HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS JUNE 2005. IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT WHEN THE TDS WAS DEDUCTIBLE BEFO RE MARCH 2005, SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BY 31 ST MARCH 2005 , NO RELIEF CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE DETAILS FILED, H E NOTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE, RS. 54,72,074/- PERTAINS TO MARCH 200 5, AND ON THIS TDS WAS PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BY 30 TH JUNE 2005, I.E. WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 54,72,074/- WAS ONLY LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDME NT BROUGHT INTO THE STATUTE BY FINANCE ACT 2008 OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AT R S. 89,19,860/- 3.1 SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,00,000/- ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN WORK-IN-PROGRESS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. WHILE DOING SO, HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS WAS INCREASED BY RS. 25 LAKHS WHILE FILING THE RETU RN OF INCOME AND WHICH HAS BEEN 4 SHOWN AS SUCH IN THE P&L ACCOUNT, WHICH IS REVEALED FROM THE SCHEDULE-1 OF THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.2 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH PART RELIEF BY THE CIT(A) T HE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: GROUNDS BY REVENUE : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN ALLOWING A DEDUCTION OF RS. 54,72, 074/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 89,19,860/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATED THAT BY APPLYING THE RETROSP ECTIVE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT 2008, WHEREBY THE TAX DEDUC TIBLE OR DEDUCTED DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR COULD BE REMITTED BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 65,532/- ONLY CORRESPONDING TO THE TDS OF RS. 1,468/- SO REM ITTED, AND WAS BY NO MEANS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF THE BALANCE RELIEF OF RS. 54,06,542 /- ( RS. 54,72,074 RS. 65,532/-) 4. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25 LAKHS MADE IN THE A SSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ADMITTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY INSTEAD O F CONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION. 5. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUNDS BY ASSESSEE IN THE CO: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS. 34,47,786/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DULY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES BEFO RE 31 ST MARCH 2005 AND NO AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE TO THEM AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAV E BEEN MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA). 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 34,47,786/- WAS PAID BY IT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN U/S. 139(1) AND HENCE IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2010, NO DISALLOWANC E U/S. 40(A)(IA) WAS WARRANTED. 4. THE RESPONDENT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE CROSS OBJECTION. 4. THE LEARNED DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E AO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT S INCE TAX HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN, THEREF ORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE 5 PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. H.A. DEVELOPERS VIDE ITA NO. 373/2009 ORDER DATED 27-04-2012 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IS CALLED FOR. REFERRING TO THE SAID DECISION HE S UBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIRGIN CREATIONS HAS HELD THAT AMENDMENT TO THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2010 IS RETROSPECTIVE FR OM 01-04-2005. CONSEQUENTLY, ANY PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE DURING PREVIO US YEAR RELEVANT TO AND FROM A.Y. 2005-06 CAN BE MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT ON OR BE FORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1). HE ACCORDINGLY S UBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 54,72,074/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 89,19,860/-. 5. SO FAR AS THE DELETION OF RS. 25 LAKHS MADE BY T HE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN WORK-IN-PROGRESS AND AS A DMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRE SS WAS INCREASED BY RS. 25,00,000/- WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND S HOWN AS SUCH IN THE P&L ACCOUNT WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM SCHEDULE-1 OF THE P&L ACCOUNT. REFERRING TO SCHEDULE-1 ATTACHED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE FOLLOWING AND SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN THE WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS. 25 L AKHS WHICH WAS DECLARED U/S.131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SCHEDULE-1 AS AT 31-03-2005 RS. AS AT 31-03-2004 RS. INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN STOCK CLOSING STOCK W.I.P. 45,117,794.23 24,244,535 W.I.P. (DECLARED U/S.131 OF IT ACT) 2,500,000.00 47,617,794.23 0 LESS : OPENING STOCK W.I.P. 24,244,534.30 16,207,661 TOTAL 23,373,259.93 8,036,874 6 HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WA S JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO. 6. SO FAR AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,47,486/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HE SUBMITTED T HAT SINCE THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DULY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO THE RESPECTIV E PERSONS BEFORE 31-03-2005, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE VISAKHAPA TNAM SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSP ORT VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 136 ITD 23 (SB) NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IS CALLED FOR. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECI SIONS CITED BEFORE US. SO FAR AS THE DELETION OF RS. 54,72,074/- OUT OF THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 89,19,860/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS CONCE RNED WE FIND THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE TDS SO DEDUCTED HAS NOT BEEN CREDITED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WITHIN THE PRESCR IBED LIMIT. ACCORDING TO THE AO SUCH DEPOSIT HAS BEEN MADE TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON 30-06- 2005 AND 10-06-2005. WE FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF H.A. DEVELOPERS (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT AMENDMENT TO THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2010 IS RETROSPECTIVE FROM 01-04-2005. CONSEQUENTLY, ANY PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE DURING PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CAN BE MADE TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCO ME U/S.139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE ADMITT EDLY HAS DEPOSITED THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON 30-06-2005 AND 10-06-2005 AND SINCE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE INSTANT CASE IS 31-10-2 005, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION CITED (SUPRA) NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(I A) CAN BE MADE. ACCORDINGLY, 7 THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS UP HELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. NOW COMING TO THE DELETION OF RS. 25 LAKHS WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN WORK IN PROGRE SS WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CLOSING STOCK HAS ALREADY ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 5 LAKHS WHICH WAS DECLARED U/S.131 OF THE INCOME TACT ACT AT THE TIME OF SURVE Y. SINCE THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LAKHS DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THEREFORE, WE CONCUR W ITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CALLED F OR. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. NOW COMING TO THE GROUNDS IN THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,47, 786/- ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN TDS WAS TO BE MADE BEFORE MARCH 2005 THE PAYMENT OF THIS TDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE 31-03-2005 TO AVAIL OF THE BENEFIT OF THE AMENDMENT TO FINANCE ACT 2008. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DULY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO T HE RESPECTIVE PARTIES BEFORE 31- 03-2005 AND NO AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE TO THEM. THEREFO RE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF VISAKHAPATNAM SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT (SUPRA) NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) IS CALLED FOR. IN OUR OPINION THE MATTER REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE VISAKHAPATNAM SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIO N CITED (SUPRA) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS IN THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012 SD/- SD /- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: THE 24 TH AUGUST 2012 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CCIT, PUNE 4. CIT(A)-II, PUNE 5. ACIT, RANGE-3, PUNE 6. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 7. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE