Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Nagar Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., Ahmednagar

ITA 1007/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1717 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUHAS S KULKARNI
• Keywords: Capital receipt
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1007/PN/2015 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 ACIT, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR . / APPELLANT V/S NAGAR URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD., POST BOX NO.7, CENTRAL BANK ROAD, AHMEDNAGAR 414001 PAN NO. AAAAN0509L . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR / REVENUE BY : SHRI SUHAS S. KULKARNI / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21-01-2015 OF THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AN D LEGALITY OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND OF RS.53,13,800/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CEASES TO EXERCISE RIG HT OVER AMOUNT SET ASIDE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDEND AND HENCE, CESSATION OF LIABILITY, BY NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. TVS SUNDARAM IYANGAR AND SONS LTD. 222 ITR 344. 2. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE BE RESTORED. / DATE OF HEARING :09.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:10.06.2016 2 ITA NO.1007/PN/2015 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELE TE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY CARRYING ON THE BANKING BUSINESS AND ALSO PROVIDIN G DEPOSITORY SERVICES LIKE GENERAL INSURANCE SERVICES, PROVIDING SAFE DEPO SIT LOCKERS ETC. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 23-09-2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,55,67,220/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE AO NOTICED FROM THE DETAILS OF GENERAL RESERVE FUND AC COUNT THAT APART FROM CREDITING THE PROFITS APPROPRIATED FOR THIS YEA R, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THIS ACCOUNT WITH THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS : 1. UNCLAIMED AMOUNTS RS.1,18,476 2. TR. FROM SUSPENSE A/C. RS.67,603 3. ENTRANCE FEE RS.17,820 4. NOMINAL SHARE AMOUNT RS.15,36,570 5. DIVIDEND 06-07 RS.53,13,900 ------------------------ TOTAL RS.70,54,269 ------------------------ 4. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD CERTAIN LIABILITIES WHICH HAD ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THESE LIABILITIES GOT EXTINGUISHED WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME AN D THEREFORE THE SAME BECOME AMOUNTS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR FREE USE. ACCORDING TO THE AO, WHILE TRANSFERRING THESE AMOUNTS TO THE GENERAL RESERVE, THE ASSESSEE ACKNOWLEDGES THE EXTINGUISHMENT O F SUCH LIABILITIES AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THE INCOME CHARACTERISTIC OF SUCH AMOUNTS AND IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE CR EDITS THEM TO THE GENERAL RESERVE ACCOUNT. SINCE SUCH RECEIPTS WERE NOT ROUTED THROUGH THE P&L A/C. THEY ESCAPED TAXATION. THE ARGUMENT OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND ALREADY SUFFERED TAX AND THEREFORE S HOULD NOT BE TAXED AGAIN WAS REJECTED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT ONCE THE 3 ITA NO.1007/PN/2015 DIVIDEND IS DECLARED, THE BANK IS ONLY THE CUSTODIAN OF THE MONEY ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS/SHAREHOLDERS AND WHEN THE SAME RE MAINS UNCLAIMED AND THE BANK IS CREDITING TO ITS RESERVE FUND A CCOUNT, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ITS LIABILITY TO DISTRIBUTE THE UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS AND SUCH AMOUNT IMMEDIATELY ASSUMES T HE CHARACTER OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MAD E AN ADDITION OF RS.70,54,269/- TOWARDS SAID CREDITS IN THE RESE RVE FUND ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CONTESTED ONLY ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND OF 2006-07 AMOUNTING TO RS.53,13,800/- BEFORE CIT(A). 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BANK WAS DOING BUSINESS OF BANKING AS PER GUIDELINES AND PRUDENTIAL NORMS ISSUED BY RBI AS WELL AS THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OP. SOCIETYS ACT, 1960 AN D ALL THE CO-OP. BANKS ARE BOUND BY THE RULES FRAMED BY CO-OP. SOCIETYS ACT AND ANY DIVIDEND REMAINING UNDRAWN FOR THREE YEARS AFTER HAVING BE EN DECLARED, SHALL BE CARRIED TO THE RESERVE FUND OF THE BANK AS PER THE SAID RULES. ACCORDINGLY, THE BANK HAS TRANSFERRED THE SAID SUM OF RS .53,13,800/- TO THE RESERVE FUND A/C. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE SHAR EHOLDER HAD A RIGHT TO CLAIM HIS DIVIDEND BY MAKING AN APPLICATION ON PLAIN P APER, HIS RIGHT TO GET DIVIDEND CANNOT BE DEPRIVED MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS NOT COLLECTED HIS DIVIDEND. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE BANK W AS ONLY CUSTODIAN OF THE MONEY OF MEMBERS/SHAREHOLDERS AND ACCO RDINGLY TO SAFEGUARD THEIR INTEREST THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED T HE UNPAID AMOUNT TO THE RESERVE FUND A/C. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE CO-OP BANK HAS TO KEEP RECORD OF MEMBERS/SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE N OT COLLECTED THEIR DIVIDEND AND MOST OF THE MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT COLLE CTED THEIR DIVIDEND WERE THOSE WHOSE DIVIDEND AMOUNT WERE VERY SM ALL AND DID NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE BANK HAS 4 ITA NO.1007/PN/2015 DISTRIBUTED THE DIVIDEND DECLARED FOR F.Y. 2006-07 AMOUNTING TO RS.1,21,19,127/- AS UNDER : F.Y. 07 - 08 RS.56,78,215/ - F.Y. 08 - 09 RS.6,45,307/ - F.Y. 09 - 10 RS.3,83,038/ - F.Y.10 - 11 RS.98,765/ - TOTAL RS.68,05,325/ - 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE DATA INDICATES THAT THERE WERE MANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAD NOT COLLECTED THEIR DIVIDEND IMM EDIATELY BUT COLLECTED LATER ON AND BANK HAS PAID THE SAME. AS R EGARDS THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT ONCE THE DIVIDEND IS DECLARED THE BANK LOSES ITS RIGHT OVER SUCH MONEY AND WHEN THE SAME REMAINS UN CLAIMED AND THE BANK IS CREDITING IT TO IT RESERVE FUND ACCOUNT, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ITS LIABILITY TO DISTRIBUTE THE UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND AND SUCH AMOUNT ASSUMED THE CHARACTER OF INCOME IS CONCERNED, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE EXAC T NATURE OF TRANSACTION. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD TREATED IT AS A CESSATION OF LIABILITY, OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF LIABILITY BUT IT WAS NOT SO AND IT WAS JUST A TRANSFER FROM ONE HEAD TO ANOTHER, AS PER PROVISIONS O F CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETYS ACT. IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF TRADE LIABILITY NOR ANY LIABILITY WHICH HAD BEEN CREATED BY DEBITING THE SAME AS EXPENDIT URE TO P & L A/C. AND HENCE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF EXTINGUISHMENT OF LIABILITY. 7. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDEN D WAS ONLY THE APPROPRIATION OF PROFIT BELOW THE LINE AND THE ASSESSE E HAD ALREADY PAID TAX ON THE INCOME EARNED FOR A.Y. 2007-08, I.E. F.Y. 2006 -07. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE F.Y. 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE EARNED PROFIT OF RS.2,77,62,908/- AND FILED ITS INCOME-TAX RETURN DISCLOSING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.3,46,86,331/- AFTER MAKING ELIGIBLE ADJUSTMENT AND 5 ITA NO.1007/PN/2015 NOWHERE IN THE P&L A/C. THE ASSESSEE MADE ANY PROVISION S FOR DIVIDEND AND IT WAS ONLY MADE IN APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT. IT WAS A CCORDINGLY CLAIMED THAT THE AO HAD MADE DOUBLE ADDITION OF INCOME ON WHICH THE TAX HAD BEEN ALREADY PAID AS UNDER INCOME TAX ACT AND THERE IS NO PROVISION WHICH ENABLES THE AO TO LEVY TAX AGAIN ON THE IN COME WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN TAXED. 8. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4.3 THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APP ELLANT AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD ARE CAREFULL Y EXAMINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE DIVIDEND WAS PAID/PAYABLE OUT OF PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT BELOW T HE LINE. DURING THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAD WRITTEN BACK UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND D ECLARED BY THE BANK IN EARLIER YEARS AND ADJUSTED THE SAME IN THE RESERVE ACCO UNT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE DIVIDEND DECLARED WAS APPLICATION OF INCOME AND NOT AN EXPENDITURE CLAIM ABOVE THE LINE. IN MY OPINION, AS THE APPELL ANT HAS NOT CLAIMED EXPENDITURE WHEN DIVIDEND WAS PAID, THE WRIT BACK OF THE UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, JUST BECAUSE THE SAME WAS TAKEN TO THE GENERAL RESE RVE ACCOUNT AS PER RBI NORMS AND PROVISIONS OF CO-OP. SOCIETYS ACT. TH IS ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF APEX URBAN CO-OP. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND GOA LTD. (134 ITD) 118), WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED EXPENDITURE WHEN DIVIDEND WAS P AID, THE WRITE BACK OF THE UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, JUST BECAUSE THE SAME WAS CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND TRA NSFERRED TO GENERAL RESERVE DURING THE YEAR AS PER RBI NORMS AND PROVISIONS OF CO-OP. SOCIETYS ACT CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX EITHER UNDER SEC.41(1) OR UNDER SEC 28 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, REFERENCE CAN ALSO BE MAD E TO THE DECISION OF ITAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF BHINGAR URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD. I N ITA NOS. 2027, 2028 AND 2029/PN/2013 DATED 20-10-2014 WHEREIN THE TRIBU NAL OBSERVED AS UNDER : IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAV E MID-DIRECTED THEMSELVES IN TAXING THE UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND AS INCOME. OSTENSIBLY, DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION BY THE ASSESSEE BANK IS AN APPORTIO NED FROM ITS TAX PAID PROFITS AND DOES NOT CHARGE AGAINST THE PR OFITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME. ONCE DIVIDEND DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK IS NOT A CHARGE AGAINST THE PROFITS IN O RDER TO COMPUTE TAXABLE INCOME, ANY UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND THER EOF, CANNOT BE CHARGED AS AN INCOME UNDER THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THUS, ON GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 T HE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 6 ITA NO.1007/PN/2015 4.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS.53,13,8 00/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE ON ACCOUNT OF UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND CREDI TED TO RESERVE A/C. IS NOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETE D. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1(A) SUCCEEDS. 9. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2010 -11 BEARING ITA NO.1861/PN/2013 AND ITA NO.1982/PN/2013 ORDER DAT ED 20-05- 2015 AND SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF TH E DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ISSUE REGAR DING UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIN D THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 14 AND 15 OF THE ORDER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 14. THE SECOND ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.51,43,594/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINT ED OUT THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AHMEDNAGAR SHAHAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD. VS. ACIT VIDE ITA NO.1862/ PN/2013 AND OTHER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ORDER DATED 20.02. 2015, AND TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT SIMI LAR ISSUE/ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID DIVIDEND AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS HELD AS UNDER :- 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL STANDS AND FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF THE REVENUE. QUITE CLEARLY, THE DIVI DEND IS PAID BY THE BANK OUT OF TAX PAID PROFITS. DIVIDENDS ARE DECLARED OUT OF SUCH PROFITS AND IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS AN APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME. IF FOR 7 ITA NO.1007/PN/2015 ANY REASON, THE DIVIDEND SO DECLARED IS NOT ACTUALLY D ISBURSED AND WERE TO BE ADDED BACK TO THE TAXABLE INCOME, IT WOU LD MEAN A DOUBLE TAXATION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATIO N FOR TAXING UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND AS A CESSATION OF LIABILITY. NO D OUBT, CESSATION OF LIABILITY MAY BE A TAXABLE EVENT BUT ONLY IN SIT UATIONS WHERE SUCH LIABILITY HAS ENTERED THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE IN COME ON AN EARLIER OCCASION. QUITE CLEARLY, THE DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND DOES NOT ENTER THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME AS THE DIVIDEND IS DECLARED OUT OF THE PROFITS REMAINING AFTER TAXATION. 6. IN SO FAR AS, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TVS SUNDARA M IYENGAR AND SONS LTD. (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS QUITE MISPLAC ED. IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED DEPOSITS IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS WHICH WERE ORIGINAL LY TREATED AS CAPITAL RECEIPT. SOME OF THE DEPOSITS WERE NEITHER CLAIMED NOR RETURNED TO THE DEPOSITORS. SUCH UNRETURNED AND UNCLA IMED DEPOSITS WERE TAXED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT. AS PER THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, BY LAPSE OF TIME, THE CLAIM OF DEPOSITS BECAME TIME-BARRED AND THE AMOU NTS ATTAINED A TOTALLY DIFFERENT QUALITY. ACCORDING TO THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT, SUCH SURPLUS BECAME A TRADE SURPLUS BECAUSE THE AMOUNTS W ERE RECEIVED ORIGINALLY IN THE COURSE OF TRADING TRANSACT IONS, THOUGH TREATED AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT ORIGINALLY. QUITE CLEAR LY, THE FACT-POSITION BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE ISSUE BEFORE US. 15. THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UP HELD BY THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN CIT VS. TVS SUNDARAM IYENGAR AND SONS LTD., (1996) 222 ITR 344 ( SC) AND IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN AHMEDNAGAR SHAHAR SAHA KARI BANK LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN SIMILAR RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY T HE CIT(A) ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHERE THE UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND WAS NOT ESTAB LISHED TO BE A RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ITS TRADING TRAN SACTIONS. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.51,43,594/-. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEA L NO.2 IS ALLOWED. 13. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SINCE THE TR IBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND OF RS.53,13,800/-. THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8 ITA NO.1007/PN/2015 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10-06-2016. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ' DATED : 10 TH JUNE, 2016. ) *#,! -!/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A ) - II, PUNE 4. 5. 6. THE CIT - II , PUNE $ ''( , ( , / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; + / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE -. ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ( , / ITAT, PUNE