M/s. The Jalna Dist. Central Co-op Bank Ltd., Jalna V. Asst. CIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad

ITA 1072/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85177 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS M S VERMA
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1072/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) M/S. THE JALNA DIST. CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., SANTOSHI MATA MANDIR ROAD, TAL. & DIST. JALNA. PAN: AAAAT3208Q . APPELLANT VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK RESPONDENT BY : MRS. M.S. VERMA, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 20-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-11-2014 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), AURANGABAD DATED 29.04.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD ERRED IN FACTS AND ON LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,28,42,450/- FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(V IIA) TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD ERRED IN FACTS AND ON LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,90,14,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THIS IS RELATED TO THE NOTIONAL REVERSAL OF EXCESS PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS CREDITED TO PROFIT & LOSS A/C OF RS.4,0 0,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS ALREADY ADDED BACK THE PROVISI ON FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS, WHICH HAS BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS A/C IN THE RELEVANT YEARS, TO THE NET PROFIT WHILE COMPUTIN G THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE BANK. AS THE BANK HAS ALREADY ADDED THE SE AMOUNTS WHILE COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME OF THE BANK OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS, AGAIN TREATING THE REV ERSAL OF ITA NO.1072/PN/2013 M/S. THE JALNA DIST CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD. 2 EXCESS PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.1,90,14,000/- AS INCOME OF THE BANK WILL RESULT IN D OUBLE TAXATION OF SAME AMOUNT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,90,14,000/- BY DISALLOWING IT ON PROPORTIONATE BASI S WHICH IS NOT LOGICAL, HENCE THE SAID ADDITION NEEDS TO BE NULLI FIED. 3. ALTERNATIVELY EVEN IF THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD IS CONSIDERED CORREC T HE HAS ERRED IN FACTS & ON LAW IN CALCULATING THE RELIEF TO BE ALLOWED OF RS.2,09,86,000/- OUT OF RS.4,00,00,000/-. WHILE CALCULATING T HE PROPORTION OF RELIEF TO BE ALLOWED THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE DEDU CTION ALLOWED OF RS.27,57,17,780/-. BUT THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED & ALLOWED COMES TO RS.15,97,23,883/- (RS.27,57,17,180 -- RS.5,43,29,400 - RS.6,16,64,497) BECAUSE THE LEARNED ASSISTA NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S.148 HAS DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION FOR A.Y 2004-05 OF RS.5,43,29,400/- & FOR A.Y 2005-06 OF RS.6,16,64,497/- BUT THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AURANGABAD WHILE PASSING HIS ORDE R. IF THE ACTUAL DEDUCTION ALLOWED IS CONSIDERED AT RS.15,97,23,883/ -, THE RELIEF GIVEN WORKS OUT TO RS.2,89,85,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.2,09,86,000/-. 4. SUCH OTHER ORDERS BE PASSED AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT AND P ROPER. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER VARY A ND / OR WITHDRAW ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 3. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AG AINST DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AT RS.6,28,42,450/-. 4. SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2414/PN/2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 AND OUR DECISION VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE WOULD APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS . THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE AC, IT IS PROVIDED THAT ANY SCHEDULED BANK OR NON-SCHEDULED BANK , OTHER THAN PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRIMARY C O-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, CAN CLAIM DEDUC TION IN RESPECT OF ANY PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS OF AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING 7% OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED, BEFOR E MAKING ITA NO.1072/PN/2013 M/S. THE JALNA DIST CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD. 3 ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THIS CLAUSE OR CHAPTER VIA AND AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING 10% OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE ADVANCES MAD E BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF SUCH BANK COMPUTED IN THE PRESCRIB ED MANNER. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION, IT IS CLEARLY PR OVIDED THAT THE DEDUCTION SPECIFIED THEREIN WOULD BE IS IN RESPECT O F ANY PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS MADE BY THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE , MEANING THEREBY, THAT THE SAID DEDUCTION WOULD BE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION MADE. FO R ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN RELEVANT YEAR, PROVISION TO THAT EX TENT HAS TO BE MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH PROVISION, NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS. 7. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AROSE BE FORE THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI MAHALAXMI CO-OP. B ANK LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO.1658/PN/2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND VIDE ORDER DATED 29.10.2013, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED .. 15.. 8. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APP EAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SHRI MA HALAXMI CO-OP. BANK LTD. (SUPRA). IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE U S ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE A PROVISION IN ITS BOOKS OF A CCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARIT Y OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. UPHOLDIN G THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE . 5. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,90,14,000/-. 7. SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF AROSE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2414/PN/2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 AND OUR DECISION VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE WOULD APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS . THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10 ARE AS UNDER:- 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK REGISTERE D UNDER SECTION 9(1) OF THE MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT, 1960. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AD MADE REVERSAL OF EXCESS PROVISION CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ITA NO.1072/PN/2013 M/S. THE JALNA DIST CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD. 4 BY REDUCING THE SAME FROM PROFITS WHILE COMPUTING T HE TAXABLE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED A SUM OF RS.12 CROR ES ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND FURTHER, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS REDU CED FROM THE INCOME IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT THE SA ID ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE AS PER THE GUIDELINES AND DIR ECTIONS ISSUED BY THE RBI AND FURTHER, THE AMOUNT WAS DEBITE D TO THE PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS. HOWEVER, AS AGAIN ST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA ) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED ON A LESSER FIGURE. THE DETAILS OF PROV ISIONS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND DEDUCTION CLAIM ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT WERE AS UNDER:- ASSTT. YEAR PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS DEBITED IN P & L ACCOUNT (AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT) DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VIIA) RS. (AS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. ON PAGE 5 OF THE ASSTT. ORDER. 2001 - 02 62635000 6,62,058 2002 - 03 39402000 7,23,020 2003 - 04 45389000 15,00,355 2004 - 05 57581000 5,43,29,400 2005 - 06 31617000 6,16,64,497 2006 - 07 -- -- 2007 - 08 153 447000 7,66,15,100 2008 - 09 189962000 8,02,23,350 TOTAL 58,00,33,000 27,,57,17,780 19. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBT FUL DEBTS AT RS.58,00,33,000/- AGAINST WHICH, THE DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED AT RS.27,57,17,780/-. HOWEVER, THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05 AT RS.5.43 CRORES AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AT RS.6.16 CRORES HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR RE-ASSESSME NT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, HENCE N O SUCH DEDUCTION IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITE D A SUM OF RS.12 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PROVISION MADE FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS REDUCED FROM THE INCOME WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ISSUE RAISED B EFORE US IS WHETHER THE SAID EXCESS PROVISION MADE FOR BAD & DO UBTFUL DEBTS, WHICH HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E IN WHOLE OR IN PART. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS MAKING PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS IN VIEW OF THE RBI GUIDELINES FROM YEA R TO YEAR AND DEBITING THE SAME TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, COMPLETE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT I.E. EQUAL TO THE PROVISION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN ALLOW ED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTLY REVERSED THE PROV ISION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12 CRORES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO FILE EVI DENCE AS TO THE YEAR TO WHICH SUCH WRITE BACK OF RS.12 CRORES REL ATES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE AMOUNT ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE AND THE SAME IS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE CIT(A) HOWEVER, APPLIED THE RATIO OF 47.535% I.E. THE RATIO O F DEDUCTION ITA NO.1072/PN/2013 M/S. THE JALNA DIST CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD. 5 CLAIMED VIS--VIS THE PROVISION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BA D & DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND HELD THAT A SUM OF RS.5.70 CRORES IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS AVAILABLE AS TO THE YEAR TO WHICH SUCH WRITE BACK RELATES, THE ISS UE IS TO BE DECIDED AS TO THE TAXABILITY OF SUCH WRITE BACK. THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE IN TH IS REGARD IS THAT PRINCIPLE OF FIFO BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE A MOUNT OF WRITE BACK VIS--VIS PROVISION MADE. 20. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2A) OF THE AC T, THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING ANY SECURITIES I N THE DEPOSITORY ACCOUNTS SHALL BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF FIFO METHOD. IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING THE SHARES IN THE DEPOSITORY ACCOUNT I.E. D-MAT ACCOUNT THE N, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINCTIVE NUMBER, THERE IS MERGER OF THE SHARES ACQUIRED BY THE PERSON FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND ON ITS SALE WHILE COMPUTING THE GAINS ARISING ON THE SAID TRANSFER, SE CTION 45(2A) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND TH E PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SUCH SECURITIES IS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF FIFO METHOD. 21. SIMILAR PROPOSITION IN RESPECT OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES OF DIFFERENT YEARS AND THEIR ADJUSTMENT ON THE BASIS O F THE FIFO METHOD IS RECOGNIZED BY SECTION 72 OF THE ACT. 22. THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 200 3-04 HAD MADE PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS AT ABOUT RS.1 5 CRORES AGAINST WHICH, IT HAD BEEN ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.29 LACS. IN CASE THE PRINCIPLE OF FIFO METHOD BE A PPLIED THEN, THE CLAIM OF WRITE BACK OF RS.12 CRORES IS RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2003-04, SINCE AGAINST THE PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS AT RS.15 CRORES O NLY, A SUM OF RS.29 LACS HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AN D 2004-05 THOUGH INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AT RS.5.43 CRORES AND RS.6.1 6 CRORES RESPECTIVELY, BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE FOR RE-ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE AC T. THE PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FURTHER REFLECT THAT IN ASSESSME NT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PROVISION F OR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS AT RS.34.33 CRORES AGAINST WHICH, IT HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT AT R S.15.68 CRORES, IMPLYING THEREBY THAT THE PROVISION MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM YEAR TO YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISION FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER RBI NORMS BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT I.E. SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING RELATABLE TO AN AMOUNT N OT EXCEEDING 7 % OF THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED BEFORE ALLOWING ANY DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID CLAUSE OR UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE A CT AND AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING 10% OF THE AGGREGATE AVERAGE AD VANCES MADE BY THE RURAL BRANCHES OF SUCH BANK, COMPUTED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROVISION MAD E FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS IS ON A DIFFERENT PLATFORM THAN THE D EDUCTION ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT IN BOTH THE SCENARIOS THE ITEMS OR THE ITA NO.1072/PN/2013 M/S. THE JALNA DIST CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD. 6 PARTIES ARE NOT IDENTIFIED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HA D REVERSED AND WRITTEN BACK A SUM OF RS.12 CRORES TO THE PROVISI ON FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS AGAINST WHICH IT HAS NO DETAILS. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO IDENT IFY THE BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS WHICH IT HAS WRITTEN BACK, WE FIND MER IT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT REVERSED B ACK IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE PERCENTAGE APPLIED BY THE CIT(A) FOR WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE APPLIED SINCE THE DEDUCTION ALLO WED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 HAS BEEN REVERSE D. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISION MADE ON ACCO UNT OF BAD & DOUBTFUL DEBTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE ACT. 23. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO.3 HAS RAISED AN ALTERNATE PLEA THAT THE DEDUCTION RELATING IS NOW WOR KS OUT TO RS.8,69,56,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.6,29,58,000/- WORKED OUT BY TH E CIT(A). WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE T HE RELIEF IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.2 AND 3 ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 AND 3 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014. GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD; 4) THE CIT, AURANGABAD; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE