ITO Wd. 5(3), Pune V. M/s. City Ply, Pune

ITA 1059/PUN/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7674 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANTKUMAR C LEUVA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1059/PN/07 (ASSTT YEAR: 2003-04) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), PUNE APPELLANT VS. M/S CITY PLY, RESPONDENT PUNE PAN AACFC0278J APPELLANT BY : SHRI HEMANT KUMAR C LEUVA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, A.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE D ATED 24.5.2007 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 28.3.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC . 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTA INING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. ALTHOUGH REVENUE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE GRIEVANCE I S AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS 4,48,835/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS 73,19,330/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE CAN BE SUMMA RIZED AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 2 THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN TIMBER AND PLYWOOD. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 32,43,735/-, WHICH WAS SUBJECTED TO A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS 1,05,63,070/-. THE SUBS TANTIVE ADDITION IN DISPUTE IS OF RS 73,19,330/- MADE ON AC COUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING HE COURSE OF SURVEY. A SU RVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 5.3.2003. AT THE TIME O F SURVEY, IT WAS FOUND AND ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT T WO OTHER FIRMS, NAMELY, M/S NATIONAL TIMBERS AND M/S BABULAL VELAJI & CO. HAVING CERTAIN COMMON PARTNERS FROM ONE FAMILY, ALS O OPERATED FROM THE SAME PLACE. AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, PHYSICA L INVENTORY OF THE STOCK WAS UNDERTAKEN WHICH REVEALED EXCESS STOC K OF RS 82,74,325/- OVER AND ABOVE THE STOCK REFLECTED AS P ER THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN PARAGRAPH 3.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOTED THAT PART NER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT MADE IN THE CO URSE OF SURVEY ON 5.3.2003, ACCEPTED THE DISCREPANCY AND AD MITTED TO OFFER ADDITIONAL INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNT TO THE EXTE NT OF RS 50 LAKHS AND THE BALANCE OF RS 32,74,325/- WAS NOT CON FESSED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUBJECT TO RECONCILIATION. IN TERMS O F THE AFORESAID, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPL AIN WHETHER THE ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS 50 LAKHS WAS D ECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER, CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONC LUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCLUDED IN ITS RETURN OF INCO ME THE ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 3 ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS 50 LAKHS ADMITTED AT THE TI ME OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO T HE EXCESSIVE VALUATION OF DISCREPANCY IN STOCK FOUND O N ACCOUNT OF NON-CREDIT OF THE DISCOUNTS ALLOWED, ARITHMETICAL E RRORS, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PARTLY ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DISCREPANCIES ON ACCOUNT OF ARITHMETI CAL ERRORS AMOUNTING TO RS 9,55,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT OUT OF THE EXCESS STOCK OF RS 82,74, 330/- DETECTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, A SUM OF RS 73,19,330/- (AFTER ADJUSTING FOR E RRORS OF RS 9,55,000/-) WAS LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME FILED. IN THIS BACKGROUND, AN ADDITION OF RS 73,19, 3330/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS MADE TO THE RETUR NED INCOME. 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD CREDI TED AN AMOUNT OF RS 50 LAKHS AS EXCESS STOCK IN ITS TRADIN G ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT ADMITTED AS THE ADDITION AL INCOME DURING THE SURVEY WAS FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. SECONDLY, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT DID NOT DISPUTE THE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY OF STOCK FOUND, BUT WAS CONT ESTING THE VALUATION MADE THEREOF. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, STOCK HAS BEEN VALUED AT GROSS SALES MINUS GROSS PROFIT RATE, WHER EAS THE AMOUNT OF SALES WAS TO BE TAKEN AFTER NETTING OF TH E DISCOUNTS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE POIN TED OUT THAT THE STOCK WAS KEPT IN TWO GO-DOWNS WHICH BELONGED T O ALL THE ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 4 THREE FIRMS OPERATING FROM THE SAME PLACE. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS A DEFICIT IN STOCK OF RS 15,38,326/- IN THE CASE OF M/S NATIONAL TIMBERS, WHICH WAS NOT ADJUSTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE EXCESS STOCK IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT ON THE SUBMISSIONS PUT-FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS ALSO THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS 50 LAKHS FOR T HE REASON THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME ADMITTED DURIN G THE SURVEY WAS DULY CREDITED TO THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE TRADING ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DULY DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. SECONDLY, THE ADDITION OF RS 15,38,326/- WA S ALSO DELETED OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION, CONSIDERING THAT STOCK FOUND DURING THE SURVEY BELONGED TO ALL THE THREE FIRMS A ND IN THE CASE OF M/S NATIONAL TIMBERS THERE WAS A DEFICIT IN STOC K OF RS 15,38,326/-. FOR THE BALANCE OF THE ADDITION, THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) NOTICED THAT THE TRADING ACCO UNT FOR THE PERIOD, SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SURVEY, SHOWED A LOSS WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ALSO NOTICED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF THE ASS ESSEE IS REDUCED FROM 9.8% TO 7.87% DURING THE YEAR, WHILE IT HAD NO T SHOWN ANY INCREASE IN THE COST OF PURCHASES. FOR THE AFORESAI D REASONS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HELD THE ACCOU NT BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 5.3. 2003 TO 31.3.2003 (I.E. POST SURVEY PERIOD) AS INCORRECT AN D, IN THIS CONTEXT, HE ALSO NOTICED THE NON-MAINTENANCE OF STO CK REGISTER BY ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 5 THE ASSESSEE. AFTER REJECTING THE TRADING RESULTS O F THE POST SURVEY PERIOD, HE COMPUTED THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE SAID PERIOD BY APPLYING A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 9.8% ON THE SALES O F RS 45.79 LAKHS FOR THE SAID PERIOD, WHICH CAME TO RS 4,48,83 5/-. THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. IN EFFECT, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS 73,19,330/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS SUSTAINED AN ADDITION O F RS 4,48,835/-, ALBEIT ON A DIFFERENT GROUND, AS DETAIL ED ABOVE. AGAINST THE AFORESAID, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, RELIED UPON THE GROUND O F APPEAL OF THE REVENUE TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION BY RS 15,38, 326/- BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE STOCK FOU ND ACTUALLY RELATED TO THE RESPECTIVE ENTITIES OPERATING FROM T HE COMMON PREMISES. FURTHER MORE, IT HAD BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN APPLY ING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 9.8% TO THE SALES OF THE POST SURVEY PERIOD INSTEAD OF APPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 34.48% REFLECTED AS PER THE TRADING ACCOUNT DRAWN FOR THE PERIOD UPTO T HE DATE OF SURVEY, I.E. UPTO 5.3.2003. APART FROM THE AFORESAI D, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BY POINTING OUT THAT THE AMOUNT O F RS 50 ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 6 LAKHS WAS DULY DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IN ASMUCH AS IT HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT AND, AS EV IDENCED FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S). IT IS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFICIT OF STOCK OF RS 15,38,326/- IN THE CASE OF M/S NATIONAL TIMBERS APPARENTLY SHOWED THAT SUCH ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE, SINCE THE STOCKS WERE KEPT IN COMMON GODOWN. IN THIS REGA RD, HE RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF MR N. B. OSWAL (PARTNER OF FI RM) RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 5.3.2003 WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT MATERIAL FOUND IN THE TWO GO-DOWNS BELO NGED TO ALL THE THREE FIRMS. THEREFORE, ON THIS ASPECT, HE HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT P LACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y, IT IS NOTABLE THAT IN SO FAR AS THE SUSTENANCE OF AN ADDI TION OF RS 4,48,835/- BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS ALSO EMERGING FROM RECORD THAT THE FINDING OF THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE POST SURVEY PERIOD, I.E. FROM 5.3.2003 TO 31.3.2003 ARE INCORRECT, IS ALSO NOT CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SO FAR AS THE ASPECT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURIN G THE SURVEY IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DISPUTE THE DISCRE PANCY IN QUANTITIES FOUND DURING PHYSICAL INVENTORY VIS--VI S THE QUANTITY REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. IT IS ALSO FACTUALL Y EVIDENT THAT THE ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 7 THREE FIRMS ARE IN ALMOST SIMILAR BUSINESS, AND OPE RATE FROM THE SAME PREMISES AND TWO GO-DOWNS WERE COMMON AND MATE RIAL OF MORE THAN ONE FIRM WAS STORED THEREIN. THE DISCREPA NCY IN STOCK VALUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RS 82,64,345/-, WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO RS 73,19,330/- AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN ARITHMETICAL ERRO RS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FIRST ASPECT IN DISPU TE IS WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS 50 LAKHS ADMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING SURVEY WA S REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.11.2003 OR NOT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) PERUSED THE TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.20 02 TO 5.3.2003, I.E. UPTO THE DATE OF SURVEY, THE TRADING ACCOUNT F OR THE SAID PERIOD AFTER INCORPORATING THE DECLARATION OF RS 50 LAKHS, AND, THE CONSOLIDATED TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.200 2 TO 31.3.2003. AS PER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS), IT IS APPARENT THAT AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS 50 LAKH S ADMITTED ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK DURING SURVEY WAS INCLUDED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN PARA 2.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), HE HAS REPROD UCED THE THREE TRADING ACCOUNTS AS EXTRACTED FROM THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. THE INFERENCE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS), IN OUR VIEW, IS CLEARLY EMERGING FROM RECORD AND, WE F IND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO NOTIC ED THAT THE AFORESAID FACT POSITION HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOTICED THAT THE ONLY O BJECTION OF THE ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 8 ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THERE IS NO ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR INCLUDING THE EXCESS STOCK OF RS 50 LAKHS. WE F IND THAT THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN ADEQUAT ELY MET BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) BY NOTICIN G THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLEARLY MADE ENTRY IN STOCK IN TRADE DEBITED TO THE BALANCE SHEET AND STOCK IN TRADE CREDITED TO THE PR OFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TO SHOW THE INCOME OF RS 50 LAKHS WHICH WAS FOUND AS EXCESS STOCK DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THEREFORE, IN THE FACE OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION CONCLUDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), TO WHICH THERE IS NO CONTR OVERSION BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS WRONG IN INFERRING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 50 LAKHS D ECLARED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING SURVEY WAS NOT INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TRADING ACCOUNT. AT THIS STAGE, WE MAY ALSO NOTICE FROM A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID THREE TRADIN G ACCOUNTS A PECULIAR SITUATION. IN THE TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUN T PREPARED FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2002 TO 5.3.2003, GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 9.8% IS DECLARED WHEREAS IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED FO R THE SAID PERIOD AFTER INCORPORATING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS 50 LAKHS, GROSS PROFIT RATE GOES UP TO 34.48% AND, IN THE CON SOLIDATED TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS YEAR THE GR OSS PROFIT RATE HAS DECLINED. THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT POST-SURV EY THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED A LOSS IN TRADING, INASMUCH A S THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 34.48% DECLARED UPTO THE DATE OF SUR VEY ON 5.3.2003, HAS DECLINED. THE ONUS TO JUSTIFY SUCH LO SS IS OBVIOUSLY ON THE ASSESSEE. THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN NOTICED BY TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND EVEN A REM AND ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 9 REPORT HAS ALSO BEEN CALLED FOR, FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) REQUIRED THE A SSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE LOSS INCURRED DURING THE POST-SURVEY PE RIOD. NOT BEING SATISFIED, HE HAS HELD THE TRADING RESULTS FOR THE POST-SURVEY PERIOD AS UNRELIABLE. THIS ACTION OF THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E US, AND IS INDEED AFFIRMED. THE ADDITION THEREAFTER HAS BEEN W ORKED OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THE BAS IS OF GROSS PROFIT RATIO OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 BASED O N THE SALES DECLARED FOR THE PERIOD 5.2.2003 TO 31.3.2003. WE F IND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ASPECT OF THE ADDITION AND THE SA ME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. 8. IN SO FAR AS THE DELETION OF RS 15,38,326/- ON A CCOUNT OF DEFICIT IN STOCK OF M/S NATIONAL TIMBERS IS CONCERN ED, IN PRINCIPLE, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE APPROACH OF THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, WHETHER SUCH DEFICIT OF STO CK HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE OF M/S NATIONAL TIMBERS DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID POSITION, BU T NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS FORTHCOMING. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HA D NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER COULD BE RESTORED BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE DEFICIT IN STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF RS 15,38,326/- HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN TH E CASE OF M/S NATIONAL TIMBERS OR NOT. FOR THE SAID LIMITED PURPO SE, WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX ITA NO 1059/PN/07 M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 10 (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE ASSESSEE SHALL SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE AFORESAID ASPECT, WHICH SHALL BE APP ROPRIATELY CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, FOR THAT R EASON A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASS ESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY A LLOWED AS ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G.S. PANN U) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 13TH JANUARY, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) M/S CITY PLY, PUNE 2) THE ITO WD 5(3), PUNE 3) THE CIT (A)II PUNE 4) THE CIT III PUNE 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, B BENCH, ITAT, PUNE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., PUNE B