Dy. CIT, Circle 10, Pune V. Sanghvi Movers Ltd, Pune

ITA 1037/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 103724514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI G. S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1037 /PN/20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 0 - 10 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CI RCLE 10, PUNE VS. SANGHVI MOVERS LTD., SURVEY NO. 92, TATHWADE, TAL. - MULSHI, PUNE - 411033 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AACCS3775K APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.P. WALIMBE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 - 05 - 2014 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 05 - 2014 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - V, PUNE DATED 18 - 02 - 2013 FOR THE A.Y. 200 9 - 10. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. WH ETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80IA THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CHOOSES TO CLAIM DEDUCTION HAS TO BE TREATED AS INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT PROFIT OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITHOUT DEDUCTING THEREFROM BROUGHT FORWARD NOTIONAL LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PRIOR TO THE INITIAL YEAR OF CLAIM DE HORS THE PROVISION U/S. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT? 2. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 200 9 - 10 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF RS.2,37,63,430/ - IN RESPEC T OF ITS 5 WIND MILLS LOCATED AT JAISALMER IN 2 ITA NO. 1037/PN/2013, SANGHVI MOVERS LTD., PUNE RAJASTHAN AND AT CHITRADURG IN KARNATAKA WHICH WERE INSTALLED IN THE F.Y. 2003 - 04. THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 IS THE SIXTH YEARS OF WIND MILL UNITS. FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IN RE SPECT OF THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM THE WIND MILL I.E. THE GENERATION OF POWER , IN THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 TREATING THE SAME AS AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMI SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 231 CTR (MAD.) 368 AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF ESTATE STUD & AGRO FARM PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 136 TTJ (PUNE) 236. 3. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ABOVE DECISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND HENCE , HE DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S. 80IA TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,37,63,430/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE . NOW THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF SERUM INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT RANGE 6, PUNE ITA NOS. 290 TO 292/PN/2010 ORDER DATED 28 - 9 - 2011 . THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE REASONING AND FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE IS AS UNDER: '11. THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE BENCH IS AS TO WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IA(5) OF THE I. T. ACT 1961, THE PROFIT FROM THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OF THE ACT HAS TO BE COMPUTED AFTER DEDUCTION OF THE NOTIONAL BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWE D SET OFF AGAINST OTHER NON - ELIGIBLE BUSINESS INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD A.R. REMAINED THAT ON THE WIND MILLS SET UP IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A, Y. 2002 - 03, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AT THE RATE OF 100% THEREON I. E. RS. 3.54 CRORES, WHICH WAS FULLY SET OFF AGAINST THE ANOTHER INCOME IN THE SAID A. Y. 2002 - 03 ITSELF. IN THE A. Y. 2004 - 05, THE ASSESSEE HAD POSITIVE INCOME FROM THE SAID GENERATION ACTIVITY AND THERE WERE 3 ITA NO. 1037/PN/2013, SANGHVI MOVERS LTD., PUNE NO BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES/ UNABSORBED DEPRECIAT ION OF THE PRECEDING YEAR, WHICH HAD REMAINED TO BE SET OFF IN THE A. Y. 2004 - 05. THE A.O., NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE A. Y. 2003 - 04 TO THE IMPUGNED A. Y. 2004 - 05 AND DENIED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IA IN RESPECT OF THE PROFIT EARNED BY IT IN A. Y. 2004 - 05. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 80IA PROVIDES AN OPTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHOOSE 10 CONSECUTIVE A. YS, OUT OF 15 YEARS FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TE RM INITIAL YEAR IN SUB - SECTION (5) OF 80IA IS NOT DEFINED AND IS USED IN CONTRADICTION TO THE WORDS 'BEGINNING FROM THE YEAR' USED IN SUB - SECTION (2). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CHOSE A. Y. 2004 - 05 AS INITIAL A. Y BEING THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH IT CLAIM ED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND THEREFORE, LOSSES/DEPRECIATION BEGINNING FROM A. Y. 2004 - 05 ALONE COULD ONLY BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND SET OFF. DEPRECIATION OF THE PRECEDING A. Y. 2002 - 03 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST PROFIT FO R THE A. Y. 2004 - 05. THE LD. A.R. PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT WILL PREVAIL UPON THE DE CISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GOLDMINE SHARES AND FINANCE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRIMA PAPER ENGG (P) LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND THERE THE ASSESS EE DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GOLDMINE SHARES.. THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WAS NOT CITED BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRIMA PAPER ENGG (P) LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA). THE LD. A.R. HAS ALSO CITED THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. AURANGABA D HOLIDAY RESORTS (P) LTD., (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT EVEN A DECISION OF NON - JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS A BINDING PRECEDENT FOR THE TRIBUNAL UNTIL A CONTRARY DECISION IS GIVEN BY ANY OTHER COMPETENT HIGH COURT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE HON'BLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. M/S. VALSON DYEING, BLEACHING AND PRINTING WORKS (SUPRA). 12. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND REMAINED THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80I AND 80IA COVERED INTER ALIA, INDUSTRIAL UNDER TAKINGS. THE POWER GENERATION UNITS FOUND A SPECIFIC 4 ITA NO. 1037/PN/2013, SANGHVI MOVERS LTD., PUNE MENTION FOR THE FIRST TIME W.E.F. 1.4.1993. IN ALL THE YEARS FROM 1.4.1981 TO 31 TO 31 ST MARCH 2000 IN BOTH U/S. 801 AND 80IA, THE TERM INITIAL A. Y WAS DEFINED AND MEANT THE FIRST A. Y. RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE ELIGIBLE UNIT COMMENCES PRODUCTION/POWER GENERATION. ONLY FROM 1.4.2000, WHEN SECTIONS 80IA WAS REPLACED WITH SECTION 80IA AND 80IB, THE DEFINITION OF 'INITIAL A. Y.' DID NOT FIND A MENTION. BUT NOWHERE, IN THE PARLIAMENT SPEECH OF MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE FINANCE BILL HAS ANY MENTION THAT THERE WAS ANY INTENTION TO IGNORE LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION FROM FIRST YEAR OF POWER GENERATION/PRODUCTION AND THAT SUCH LOSSES TILL FIRST YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS TO BE IGNORED. THE VIEW CA NVASSED BY THE ASSESSES DOES NOT FIND ANY SUPPORT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISCERNIBLE CHANGE IN LAW OR INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT W.E.F. 1.4.2000. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOLDMINE SHARES AND FINANCE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) IS FULLY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN ITS RECENT DECISION DT. 21 ST JANUARY 2011, THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYDERABAD CHEMICAL SUPPLIES LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS ALSO DECIDED AN IDENTICAL DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GOLDMAN SHARES & FINANCE (P) LTD. (SUPRA). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS ALSO DISCUSSED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA). THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO EXPLAIN THE INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT AND SCOPE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT SUCH PROFITS ARE TO BE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DEVICES ADOPTED TO REDUCE OR INFLATE THE PROFIT OF ELIGIBLE BUSINESS HAS GOT TO BE REJECTED IN VIEW OF THE OVERRIDING PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. 13. HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROU ND NO. 1 AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE INITIAL A. Y FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IA(5) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE PUNE BENCH OF 5 ITA NO. 1037/PN/2013, SANGHVI MOVERS LTD., PUNE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POONAWALLA STUD AND AGRO FARM PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INITIAL 'A. Y' FOR THE PURPOSE 'OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 801 A WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA (1) AFTER EXERCISING HIS OPTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF 80IA (2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INITIAL A. Y FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 80IA(2) R.W.S. 80IA (5) WAS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE STARTED GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM THE WIND MIL L ACTIVITY. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO, 2 REGARDING THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA UNDIMINISHED BY UNABSORBED LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION ALSO SET OFF IN EARLIER YEARS AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME, IS FULLY COVERE D BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HOLDING THAT AS PER SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 801 A, PROFITS ARE TO BE COMPUTED AS IF SUCH ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXERCISES THE OPTION, ONLY THE LOSSES OF THE YEARS BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL A. Y. ARE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD AND NOT THE LOSSES OF THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAVE BEEN ALREADY SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS BEEN FURTHER PLEASED TO HOLD THAT REVENUE CANNOT NOTIONALLY BRING FORWARD ANY LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND SET OFF AGAINST THE CORRECT INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE BU SINESS. FICTION CREATED BY SUB - SECTION (5) OF SECTION 801 A DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE SUCH NOTIONAL SET OFF, HELD THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THAT DECISION HAS ALSO REFERRED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBER TY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOLDMAN SHARES & FINANCE (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT EVEN A DECISION OF NON - JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS A BINDING PRECEDENT FOR THE TRIBUNAL UNTIL A C ONTRARY DECISION IS GIVEN BY ANY OTHER COMPETENT HIGH COURT. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND STRENGTH FROM THE RECENT DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. VALSON DYEING, BLEACHING AND PRINTING WORKS (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN 6 ITA NO. 1037/PN/2013, SANGHVI MOVERS LTD., PUNE PLEASED TO HOLD IN A CASE OF EXCISE MATTER THAT TRIBUNAL IS BOUND BY THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT, EVEN OF A DIFFERENT STATE, SO LONG AS THERE IS NO CONTRARY DECISION OF ANY OTHER HIGH COURT. THE HON'BL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD FURTHER THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NO OPTION BUT TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. AN AUTHORITY LIKE AN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL ACTING ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY HAS TO RESPECT THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HIGH C OURT, THOUGH OF A DIFFERENT STATE, SO LONG AS THERE IS NO CONTRARY DECISION OF ANY OTHER HIGH COURT ON THAT QUESTION. WE THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. VAKSON DYEING, BLEACHING AND PRINTING WORKS (SUPRA) HOLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD VS. ACIT (SUPRA). WE THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLO WING THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE UNDER ALMOST SIMILAR FACTS, HOLD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXERCISING THE OPTION, ONLY THE LOSSES OF THE YEAR BEGINNING FROM THE INITIAL A. Y, ARE TO BE BROUGHT FORWAR D AND NOT THE LOSSES OF EARLIER YEAR WHICH HAVE BEEN ALREADY SET OFF AGAINST THE OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE CANNOT NOTIONALLY BRING FORWARD ANY LOSS OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST ANY OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET OFF THE SAME AGAINST THE CURRENT INCOME OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA WITHOUT BRINGING THE NOTIONALLY BROUGHT FORWARD ANY LOSS OR DEPRECIATIO N OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRIMA PAPER ENGINEERING P. LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. OR IS ALSO NOT HELPFUL TO THE REVENUE SINCE F IRSTLY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VELAYUDHASWAMY SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) ON THE ISSUE WAS NOT CITED BEFORE THE BENCH AND SECONDLY THE ID. AR FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED WAS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GOLDMINE SHARES & FINANCE IP ) LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ID. AR THEREIN THUS CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE MAY BE 7 ITA NO. 1037/PN/2013, SANGHVI MOVERS LTD., PUNE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GOLDMINE SHARES & FINANCIAL (P) LTD., BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ACQUIESCENCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE SUBJECT IS YET NOT SETTLED. THE GROUND NO. 2 IS THUS DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE,' 5. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH IS INFIRMITY WITH THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SERUM INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 - 05 - 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 29 TH MAY, 20 1 4 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT(A) - V , PUNE 4 THE CIT - V , PUNE 5 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE . 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PU NE