M/s. Gera Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Dy.CIT, Cir.1(1), Pune, Pune

ITA 1074/PUN/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56434 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2004
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TYAGI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Depreciation; Question of law
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 1074/PN/04 (ASSTT. YEAR 1998-99) M/S GERA RESORTS P. LTD., .. APPELLANT 200 GERA PLAZA, BOAT CLUIB ROAD, PUNE VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, .. RESPONDENT CIR. 1(1), PUNE APPELLANT BY: SHRI S K TYAGI RESPONDENT BY: SMT NEERA MALHOTRA ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, PUNE DA TED 31.3.2004, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER PASSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE SOLITARY DISPUTE IS AGAINST T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE SALE OF A PORTION OF THE BUILDING GERA STERLING AS BUSINESS INCOME AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND AS TO WHETHER THE BUILDING, GERA STERLING CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS A CAPITAL ASSET FORMING PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS OR A STOCK IN TRADE AS CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 2 3. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE CONTROVERSY AND THE RIVAL STANDS, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CULL OUT THE RELEVANT FACTS AS EMERGING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO THE OTHER MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING BEFORE US. ON THIS BASIS, THE FACTS RELEVANT TO ADJUDICATE THE CONTROVERSY CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS 3,33,350/-. 4. NOTABLY, DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE COMPANY COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING NAMED AS GERA STERLING, WHO SE CONSTRUCTION HAD COMMENCED DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.19 97. THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAD A LODGE NAME D TRAVEL INN WHICH WAS DEMOLISHED. AFTER COMPLETION, SOME UNITS IN THE BUILDING WERE SOLD FOR A SUM OF RS 18,81,500/- DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSE E TREATED THE SAME AS SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET AND ACCORDINGLY APPLIED PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 50 OF THE ACT AND REDUCED THE SALE PRICE FROM THE BLOCK OF ASSETS OF BUILDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, TREATED THE SAME AS SALE OF A STOCK-IN-TRADE AND ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS PR OFIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED THE PROFIT ON THE UNITS SO LD DURING THE YEAR AT RS 13,77,743/-. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FIXED ASSET IN THE FORM OF GERA STERLING WAS CONVERTED INTO STOCK-IN-TRADE AND THEREFOR E ASSESSED THE GAIN ON ITS SALE AS BUSINESS INCOME AND DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON IT A S PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS OF BUILDINGS WAS ALSO DISALLOWED. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS SINCE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEM ENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS I N PROPER PERSPECTIVE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS 3 ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, WHEREAS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOSED ITS BUSINESS OF PROMOTER BUILDING/DEVELOP MENT ACTIVITY FROM THE YEAR 1991 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING I NCOME ONLY FROM LEASING, RETAIL AND LODGING BUSINESS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT TH E INCOME DECLARED BY WAY OF SALE OF CERTAIN BUILDING UNITS IN ADDITION TO THE AFO RESAID BUSINESS INCOME WAS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE UNSOLD UNITS REMAINING OUT OF TH E OLD PROJECTS WHICH HAD BEEN COMPLETED UPTO 1991. WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF SIX UNITS OUT OF THE 14 UNITS IN GERA STERLING BUILDING DURING THE YEAR, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID BUILDING HAS BEEN RECONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEMOLISHING A N OLD PROPERTY WHERE IT WAS RUNNING ITS LODGING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF TRAVEL INN. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TRAVEL INN WAS PURCHASED ON 17.5.1988 I N THE FORM OF A BUNGALOW WHICH WAS REMODELED AND RENOVATED TO START A LODGING B USINESS AND THE INCOME FROM SUCH LODGING BUSINESS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED RIGHT FROM TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THEREAFTER, IT W AS DECIDED TO DEMOLISH AND RECONSTRUCT THE BUILDING AND OUT OF SUCH RECONSTRUCTED BUILDING, TWO UNITS WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS P OINTED OUT THAT ALL ALONG THE BUILDING TRAVEL INN WAS TREATED AS A FIXED ASSET OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT FORMED PART OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS RELATING TO BUILDING S AND ACCORDINGLY DEPRECIATION WAS BEING CLAIMED FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE INCOME FROM LODGING BUSINESS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE PAST AND T HE USE OF BUILDING FOR SUCH BUSINESS ALSO STOOD ESTABLISHED. THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO TREAT THE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING AS A BUSINESS VENTURE AND IT HAS BEEN WRONGLY INFERRED SO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WA S POINTED OUT THAT AFTER THE CLOSURE OF BUILDER/DEVELOPER ACTIVITIES IN 1991, ASSE SSEE HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TILL DATE. MOREOVER, FROM TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 ONWARDS, THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN T HE LODGING BUSINESS, BUSINESS CENTERS AND RETAIL BUSINESS THEREBY PROVING THAT NO PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS IS BEING CARRIED OUT. THE SALE OF UNITS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS FROM POST-1991 IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF UNSOLD BUILDING UNI TS WHICH WERE 4 CONSTRUCTED UPTO FINANCIAL YEAR 1990-91. IT HAS BEEN CONT ENDED THAT FACTUALLY AND IN LAW, THE SALE OF CERTAIN BUILDING UNITS OUT OF GE RA STERLING CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTED AS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND IN THIS REGARD, RELIA NCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: (I) G. VENKATASWAMI NAIDU & CO. V. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC ); (II) SAROJ KUMAR MAZUMDAR V CIT 37 ITR 242 (SC); (III) CIT V PRINCIPAL OFFICER, LAXMI SURGICAL P LTD 2 02 ITR 601 (BOM); (IV) CIT V. JALAMNAAR TEA ESTATE (P) LTD. 45 ITR 626 (ASSAM); (V) M RAMAN PILLAI V CIT 51 ITR 829 (KER); (VI) P J UDANI V CIT 63 ITR 766 (AP); AND, (VII) SHYAMALA PICURES (P) LTD. V CIT 142 ITR 115 (MAD . 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED O UT CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PAST ASSESSEE H AS CONSTRUCTED VARIOUS BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRADING IN FLATS, SHOPS ETC. WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED BUILDING, IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAME WAS A F IXED ASSET IN WHICH LODGING BUSINESS WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PAST YEARS, BUT IT COULD NO T BE SAID THAT IT CONTINUED AS A CAPITAL ASSET EVEN AFTER ITS DEMOLITION AN D RECONSTRUCTION INTO A NEW BUILDING. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE UNITS IN THE BUILDING H AVE BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR SHOWED THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONVERT THE CAPIT AL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN- TRADE, AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 20 A T PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE IN COME ON SALE OF UNITS IN GERA STERLING HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME . 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. TH E LIMITED ISSUE INVOLVED BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO THE BUILDING, G ERA STERLING CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEMOLISHING AN OLD BUILDING HOUSING A LODGE, TRAVEL INN. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 1988 AND AFT ER DEVELOPMENT THE 5 SAME WAS BEING USED TO CARRY OUT LODGING BUSINESS STYLED AS TRAVEL INN LODGE. THE COST OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SHOWN AS A FIXED ASSET AN D SAME FORMED A PART OF BLOCK OF ASSETS. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID ASSET FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 989-90 ONWARDS AS PER THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 AND THE INCOME FROM LO DGING ACTIVITY HAS ALSO BEEN TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE SAID ASSERTION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 1997-98 AND TH E SAME HAS NOT BEEN REPUDIATED BY THE REVENUE AT ANY STAGE. THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 1997-98 IT DECID ED TO CLOSE ITS LODGING BUSINESS AND DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING TRA VEL INN AND IN ITS PLACE THE ASSESSEE BUILT A COMMERCIAL PREMISES IN ORDER TO EARN RENTALS FROM LEASING SUCH PREMISES. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW PREMISES WAS START ED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND THE SAME WAS COMPLETED DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. CERTAIN UNITS OUT OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING HAV E BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS 18,81,500/-. SUCH AN A CTIVITY OF SALE HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE SALE OF FIXED ASSET LIABLE T O BE ASSESSED AS CAPITAL GAINS WHEREAS AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. 8. THE PRIMARY REASON WEIGHING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OTHERWISE CARRIED OUT DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTI ES AS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE, THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDI NG TRAVEL INN LODGE AND ITS RECONSTRUCTION IS TO BE VIEWED AS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT IS FURTHER HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE TRAVEL INN LODGE INDICATED CONVERSION OF THE ERSTWHILE CAPITAL ASSET INTO ST OCK-IN-TRADE WHOSE SALE WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. ON THE OTHE R HAND, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS NEVER HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE BUT AS A FIXED ASSET, BEING USED FOR LODGING BUSINESS. FURTHE R, AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO CONVERSION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET INTO STOCK-IN- TRADE BECAUSE THE NEW RECONSTRUCTED PREMISES NAMELY GERA STERLING WERE INTEN DED TO BE USED FOR 6 EARNING INCOME BY LEASING OUT SUCH PREMISES. A PORTION OF THE PREMISES WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR MERELY IN ORDER TO RECOVER THE COST O F CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EARNING INCOME FROM THE LEASING OF THE P REMISES AS BUSINESS CENTRE. SECONDLY, IT IS STATED THAT THE BUSINESS OF DEVEL OPMENT OF PROPERTIES WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE YEAR 1983 TO 1991 AND THOSE PROPERTIES TAKEN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WERE TREATED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND NOT AS FIXED ASSETS, AS WAS THE CASE WITH THE ASSET IN QUESTION. IT HAS BEEN ASSER TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEVELOPED ANY PROPERTY AFTER 1991 AND O NLY THE UNSOLD STOCKS FROM THE COMPLETED SCHEMES HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1090-91. ON THIS BASIS, IT HAD BEEN CON TENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTING AND DEVELOP MENT OF PROPERTIES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 9. IT IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED THAT WHETHER A PARTICULA R TRANSACTION IS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR IT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT AS A MERE INVESTOR, IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACTS. IT IS ALSO A WELL SETTLED PROP OSITION THAT IN DECIDING THE CHARACTER OF A TRANSACTION, SEVERAL FACTORS ARE RELEVAN T. OSTENSIBLY, THERE IS A PLETHORA OF CASE LAW ON THE SUBJECT BRINGING OUT VARIO US PRINCIPLES INVOLVED TO ADDRESS THE SAID QUESTION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G. VENKATASWAMI NAIDU & CO (SUPRA) ENUMERATED SEVERAL FACT ORS IN THIS REGARD, BUT CAUTIONED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF FACTORS PROS AND CONS TO ARRIVE AT AN ANSWER. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS TO CULL OUT THE DOMINANT OBJECTIVE OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH WOULD DEPICT ITS TRUE NATURE. 10. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE MAY NOW COME BACK TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT THE PERTINENT QUESTIO N, IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY. THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO A SPECIFIC ASSET, NAMELY, A BUILDING IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON ITS LODGIN G BUSINESS IN THE PAST. THE SAID BUILDING ADMITTEDLY WAS NOT TREATED AS A STO CK-IN-TRADE BUT AS A FIXED 7 ASSET ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AS PER T HE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 IN THE PAST. THE SAID BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHE D AND A NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTED THEREON, NAMELY, GERA STERLING. THE NEW BUILDING WAS A COMMERCIAL PREMISES HAVING DIFFERENT UNITS. A PART OF TH E SAME HAS BEEN SOLD DURING THE YEAR. THIS ACTIVITY HAS BEEN TREATED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. OSTENSIBLY, IN THE PAST YEARS, THE OLD ASSET WAS NOT TREATED AS A STOCK-IN-TRADE AND, THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH AN ACTIVITY WAS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE SO AS TO BE CONSTRUED AS SALE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE IN THIS YEAR . FOR THIS, THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIMARILY A PROMOTER BUILDER/DEVELOPER IN THE PAST YEARS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WHICH IS EMERG ING FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THAT IT HAD DISCONTINUED ITS PROPERTY DEVELOPME NT ACTIVITIES SINCE 1991. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DENIAL TO SUCH A FACTUAL ASSER TION. THE SALE OF CERTAIN UNITS SUBSEQUENT TO 1991 HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY ASSERTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE SALE OF UNSOLD UNITS OF THE PROPERTIES DEVELOPED AND CO MPLETED UPTO 1991. ON THIS FACTUAL ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO NEGATI ON IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE STAND OF THE REVENUE IS ON A STICKY WICKET. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER WHICH, IN OUR VIEW , CLINCHES THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2008. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD FURTHER UNITS OUT OF THE BUILDING GERA STERLING. ON THE BASIS OF COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCO ME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE SALE O F SUCH UNITS HAS BEEN TREATED AS A SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET AND THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, HAVING REGARD TO THE SAID ASPECT , QUA THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CA RRIED OUT ANY ADVENTURE 8 IN THE NATURE OF TRADE SO AS TO ASSESS THE SALE OF A PO RTION OF THE BUILDING DURING THE YEAR AS BUSINESS INCOME. 11. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN OUR VIEW, T HE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT AN A DVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE IN THE SALE OF UNITS OF GERA STERLING FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF RS 18,81,500/-. ACCORDINGLY, ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I C SUDHIR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE: DATED: 30 TH AUGUST, 2011 B COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 4. THE CIT-I PUNE 5. THE D.R, B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE