Dy.CIT, Circle-9, Pune, Pune V. Kinetic Motors Co.Ltd., Pune

ITA 107/PUN/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7508 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NANI WADEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: L K LEUVA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Capital expenditure
• Section: 80HHC; 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR (JM) AND SHRI G.S. PANNU (AM) ITA NO. 107 /PN/200 7 ( ASSTT. YEAR : 200 3 - 04 ) DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 9 .. APPELLANT V. KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD., D 1 BLOCK, PLOT NO. 18/2, CHINCHWAD, PUNE 411 019 PAN : NOT AVAILABLE . RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : SHRI L .K. LEUVA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI NANI WADEKAR ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR J M THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPEL LATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION ON ROYALTY OF RS.2,49,65,801/ - PAID TO HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION OF RS. 90,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF WARRANTY PROVISION. 3 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXCISE DUTY AND SALES TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC OF THE I.T.ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE HON. SUPREME COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : ITA NO 107 /PN/200 7 KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD.. A.Y.2003 - 04 PAGE OF 8 2 (A) CHOWRINGHEE SALES BUREAU PVT. LTD, 87 ITR 542, (B) PUNJA B DISTILLING INDUSTRIES LTD, 35 ITR 519 (C) SINCLAIR MUURAY & CO. PVT. LTD 97 ITR 615, (D) BAZPUR CO - OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY LTD 172 ITR 321. AND THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. [143 ITR 318] HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY AND / OR SALES TAX COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FORM PART OF THE SALE PRICE AND HENCE GETS NATURALLY INCLUDED IN THE TURNOVER. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 35(2) ON ACCOUNT OF R&D CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.12,20,249/ - . 2. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT ISSUES RAISED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE A.Y. 2002 - 03 IN ITA NO. 148 / PN/2006. A COPY OF ORDER DATED 30 TH AUGUST 2007 IN THE SAID APPEALS HAS BEEN SUPPLIED. 3. THE LD. A.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 30 TH AUGUST 2007 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF FOR THE A.Y. 2002 - 03(SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY DECIDE THE MATTER AS UNDER : GROUND NO. 1 ITA NO 107 /PN/200 7 KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD.. A.Y.2003 - 04 PAGE OF 8 3 5. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY OF RS.2,49,65,801/ - PAID TO HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. HAS BEEN COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE VIDE PARA NO. 6 IN ITA NO. 148/PN/06 FOR A.Y. 2002 - 03 (SUPRA), WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 6. A SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE US IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 98 - 99 WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY FOLLO WING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER ALREADY GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 VIDE ITA NO. 31/PN/99. THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN ITA NO. 26/PN/02 DT 30.11.2005 READS AS UNDER : 22. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. 31/PN/99 WHERE THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE GROUNDS NO. 10 TO 29 DISCUSSED AT PARAS 39 TO 53 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96 AND HE AGREED WITH THE VIEW OR STAND TAKEN BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96, BUT HE WAS NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE SAID DECISION, SINCE A REFERENCE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT U/S 260A OF THE ACT. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE R OYALTY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 94 - 95 ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96. AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96, WHICH HAS NOT YET EITHER BEEN SET ASI DE OR REVISED OR MODIFIED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. MERE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DOES NOT PRECLUDE TO FOLLOW THE SAID DECISION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 95 - 96, WE DECIDE THIS IS SUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THEDEPARTMENT. SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE ALSO ALLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS 96 - 97, 97 - 98, 98 - 99 AND 99 - 2000. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN EARLIER YEARS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DE LETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY PAID TO HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. THIS ISSUE IS THUS DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE - CITED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.148/PN/06 (SUPRA), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF ROYALTY PAID TO HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD. THIS ISSUE IS THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO 107 /PN/200 7 KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD.. A.Y.2003 - 04 PAGE OF 8 4 THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. GROUND NO. 2 6. THE GROUND RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF WARRANTY PROVISION OF RS. 90,00,000/ - IS ALSO COVERED IN TH E ABOVE CITED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 148/PN/06 FOR A.Y. 2002 - 03 WHEREIN VIDE PARA NO. 11, THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF A.O TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON THE GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. PARA NO. 11 OF THE SAID ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR A READY REFERENCE : 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT, SR 1, PUNE V KIRLOSKAR CUMM INS LTD IN ITA NO 255/PN/93 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989 - 90 WHERE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DT 21.6.2005 HAS HELD THAT SUCH PROVISION IS NOT CONTINGENT, BUT HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON THE GUIDELINES CONTA INED IN THAT ORDER. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER READS AS UNDER : 9. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. MAHARASHTRA SCOOTERS LTD, PUNE IN ITA NO. 690/PN/1994 FOR AY 1989 - 90 DATED 23 - 2 - 2005 IT WAS HELD BY THE ITAT, PUNE THAT THE PROVISION MADE B Y THE ASSESSED FOR THE LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE WARRANTY CLAIMS WAS NOT CONTINGENT IN NATURE AND WAS ALLOWABLE. THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS VS. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC). 9.1 THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION OF THE ITAT PUNE, WHILE THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FROMCASH TO ACCRUAL IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM FOR WARRANTY EXPENSES FOR AND FROM AY 1989 THE QUANTIFICAT ION OF THE LIABILITY HAS TO BE DONE ON THE FOLLOWING LINES : I) THE ALLOWABLE LIABILITY FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR SHOULD BE ONLY IN RELATION THE SALES MADE IN THAT YEAR AND SHOULD BE ESTIMATED ON A REASONABLE BASIS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RELEVANT FIGU RES RELATING TO THE CLAIMS SETTLED IN EARLIER YEARS ; II) IF OUT OF THE PROVISION MADE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR IN RESPECT OF THE SALES MADE IN THAT YEAR, ANY SURPLUS IS FOUND IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR(S) THEN THAT SURPLUS WOULD BE OFFERED FOR TAX. SIMILARLY IF THERE IS A SHORTAGE IT WILL BE ALLOWED. ITA NO 107 /PN/200 7 KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD.. A.Y.2003 - 04 PAGE OF 8 5 III) THE SURPLUS OR SHORTAGE IN RELATION TO THE PROVISION MADE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR WILL HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE SALES MADE IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT RECORDS BEFORE THE A.O FOR VERIFICATION. 10. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, WE REMIT THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE SHOULD EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND SHOULD DETERMINE THE ACCRUED LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE WARRANTY EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF THE GUIDELINES GIVEN ABOVE. BEFORE PASSING A FRESH ORDER, THE A.O WILL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NO. 1 IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISI ON AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT SUCH PROVISION IS NOT CONTINGENT, BUT RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON THE GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORE - SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE HOLD THAT SUCH PROVISION IS NOT CONTINGENT AND ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON THE SIMILAR GUIDELINES CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE - CITED ORDER . WE ORD ER ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND NO. 2 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO.3 7. THE GROUND IN RESPECT OF INCLUSION OF EXCISE DUTY AND SALES TAX IN TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 80HHC IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFORE - CITED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.148 /PN/06 VIDE PARA NO.14, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HA S UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A),WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN - BELOW : 14. THIS ISSUE IS NOW SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. LAXMI MACHINE WORKS REPORTED IN (2007) 290 ITR 667 (SC)_, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SALES TAX AND EXCISE DUTY WOULD NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. THIS DECISIO N IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT ITA NO 107 /PN/200 7 KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD.. A.Y.2003 - 04 PAGE OF 8 6 V SUDARSHAN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD (2000) 245 ITR 769. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO EXCLUDE SALES - TAX AND EXCISE DUTY FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO EXCLUDE SALES - TAX AND EXCISE DUTY FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC OF THE ACT. IN RESULT GROUND NO. 3 IS REJECTED. GROUND NO. 4 8. THE GROUND RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE OF R & D CA PITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.12,20,249/ - IS ALSO COVERED IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 148/PN/06 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN VIDE PARA NOS. 19 & 19.1, THE SAME HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO AO, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN - BELOW : 19. ON PE RUSAL OF THE AOS ORDER AS WELL AS CIT(A)S ORDER, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN REFERRED TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, AS PROVIDED UNDER SUB - SEC. (3) OF SEC. 35 OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH E IN SAN GHI MEDICAL CENTRE V DCIT REPORTED IN TAXMAN, VOL. 126 MAG. SECTION AT PAGE 99 HAS HELD AS UNDER : THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35(3) CLEARLY PROVIDE FOR REFERRING SUCH CONTENTIONS ISSUE TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR ITS RESOLUTION. THE LEGISLATURE HAD CO NTEMPLATED THAT QUESTION MAY ARISE WHETHER ANY ACTIVITY AMOUNTED TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND WHERE THERE WAS COMMON ACTIVITY THEN IN THE COMMON ACTIVITY HOW MUCH WAS RELATED TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. THE LEGISLATURE THOUGHT SUCH QUESTION COULD BEST BE ANSW ERED BY PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY COMPRISING OF EXPERTS. HENCE, THE PROVISION OF SUB - SEC(3) OF SEC. 35 WHERE - UNDER THE DECISION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY SHALL BE FINAL. REFERRING SUCH QUESTION TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY U/S 35(3) IS MANDATORY. HENCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB - SEC(1) OF SECTION 35 SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF THE PROVISION OF SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 35. THE DECISION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD SHOULD BE FINAL. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO REFER THE ASSESSEES CASE TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35(3). ITA NO 107 /PN/200 7 KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD.. A.Y.2003 - 04 PAGE OF 8 7 19.1. SIMILARLY, THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH E IN THE CASE OF SONA STEERING SYSTEMSS LTD V DCIT REPOTED IN (20 03) 78 TTJ (DEL) AT 213 HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE CIT(A) COULD NOT REJECT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 35(1)(IV) HOLDING THAT THE MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR R & D ACTIVITY WITHOUT OBTAINING THE REPORT IN THIS REGARD F ROM THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AS PROVIDED IN SUB - SEC. (3) OF SEC. 35. IN THAT CASE, IN VIEW OF THIS CLEAR PROVISION PROVIDED IN SUB - SECTION (3) OF SEC. 35 WHICH WAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO DIRECTING HIM TO RE - ADJUDICATE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL, WHICH MAY BE FURNISHED BEFO RE HIM AND IN CASE OF ANY DOUBT, HE MAY DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER REFERRING THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB - SEC. (3) OF SEC. 35 OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DEC ISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HIS RE - ADJUDICATION AND FOR REFERRING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (IV) OF SUB - SEC.(1) OF SEC. 35 TO THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF S UB - SEC.(3) AND, IN THAT SITUATION, THE DECISION OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD WOULD BE FINAL. THE ASSESSEE SHALL PLACE ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS, INFORMATION AND PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM U/S 35(1)(IV) BEFORE THE AO SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN ITS RIGHT AND CORRECT PERSPECTIVE AFTER OBTAINING A REPORT FROM THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE - CITED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.148/PN/06 FOR THE A.Y. 2002 - 03 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE SET AS IDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O AS PER DIRECTION S OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORE - SAID ORDER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND NO. 4 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY 201 1 . SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( I.C. SUDHIR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE , DATED THE 28 TH FEBRUARY , 20 1 1 ITA NO 107 /PN/200 7 KINETIC MOTORS CO.LTD.. A.Y.2003 - 04 PAGE OF 8 8 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE A PPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT V , PUNE 4. THE CIT(A) - II I , PUNE 5. THE D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE