M/s. Trimurti Developer, Pune V. ITO Wd. 2(1), Pune

ITA 1084/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 108424514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Section: 80IB

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. 1084/PN/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) M/S. TRIMURTI DEVELOPERS , ... APPELLANT S.NO. 31, RAUT BAUG, DHANKAWADI, PUNE 411043 PAN: AACFT 7071 N V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PUNE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN RESPONDENT BY : MS. ANN KAPTHUAMA DATE OF HEARING :18.8.11 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 .10.11 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM U/S 80 IB (10). 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN INFERRING THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE HON. TRIBUNAL IN BRAMHA ASSOCIATES & OTHERS HAD MAD E CLEAR THAT FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ONWARDS THE RESTRICTION AS MENTIONED IN THE CLAUSE (D) OF SEC 80 IB(10) WOULD APPLY IN RESPECT OF COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE PROJECT APPROVED OR COMMENCED PRIOR TO A.Y. 2005-06. 2 ITA NO. 1084/PN/2009 TRIM URTHI DEVELOPERS, PUNE A.Y. 2005- 06 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE CLAIM FOR THE PROPORTIONATE DED UCTION WAS NOT TENABLE. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N U/S. 80 IB(10) OF RS.1,15,62,345/- DENIED BY THE A.O TO THE ASSESSEE, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS, BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS : 1. THE SAME CLAIM ON SIMILAR PROJECT WAS DENIED BY THE A.O IN THE PRECEDING A.Y. 2004-05. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT AS A RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT , WHEREAS THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWABLE TO HOUSING PROJECT U/S. 80 IB(10). 3. THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL AREA ENVISAGED IN THE PROJ ECT WAS 14032 SQ.FT. WHICH WAS 15% OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT UP AREA. 3. THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT INTO EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 BY INSERTING CLAUSE (D) TO SECTION 80IB(10) BY WHICH THE COMMERCIAL AREA IN TH E PROJECT WAS RESTRICTED TO 5% OF THE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA OR 2000 SQ. FT., WHICHEV ER IS LESS, AS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BESIDES, THE A.O ALSO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF PROP ORTIONATE DEDUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILT UP AREA OF THE PROJECT STATING THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF A PROJECT AS A WHOLE, WHICH EITHER SATISFIED THE CONDITION OR FAILED THE SATISFY OR THERE CANNOT BE ANY PARTIAL SATISFACTION AS SUCH. 5. THE LD CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE A.O. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE ISS UE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF OPEL SHELTERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT AND OTHERS, IN ITA NOS. 219 & 17 /PN/2009, A.Y. 2005-06, ORDER 3 ITA NO. 1084/PN/2009 TRIM URTHI DEVELOPERS, PUNE A.Y. 2005- 06 DATED 31 ST MAY 2011, COPY SUPPLIED. HE ALSO REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PLAN WAS APPROVED AND THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE UNDER REFERENCE NO. DPO/7613/II DATED 2.2.2002, DPO/2222/ DATED 3.4.200 2 AND DPO/2448/ DATED 14.10.2002 WERE ISSUED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROJ ECT WAS EXECUTED AND COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS APPROVED/COM MENCEMENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED. LD. A.R. ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE A.Y. 2004-05, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ITA NO. 1321/PN/2007 ON THE SAME FACTS FOR THE SAME PROJECT HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O, WHO HAS SINCE GIVEN EFFECT TO THE SAME VIDE ORDER DATED 19.7.2010 . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUND IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISIO N OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES, 22 DTR 1 (S.B), NOW APPROVED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 1194 O F 2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 22 ND FEBRUARY 2011. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLL OWING DECISIONS : 1. ITO VS. KHYATI FINANCIAL SERVICES, ITA NO. 3740/ MUM/2008, ORDER DATED 25 TH JUNE 2010 2. HIRANANDANI AKRUTI J.V VS. DCIT(2010), 39 SOT 49 8 (MUM). 7. THE LD. D.R, ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVE D IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AS TO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN UNDER CLAUSE (D) I NSERTED TO SECTION 80 IB (10) BY THE AMENDMENT VIDE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004, WITH E FFECT FROM 1.4.2005 BY WHICH THE COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE PROJECT HAS BEEN RESTRI CTED TO 5% OF THE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA OR 2000 SQ. FT. WHICHEVER IS LESS, SHALL BE A PPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED THAT THE PR OJECT WAS APPROVED ORIGINALLY ON 2.2.2002 BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY I.E. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (PMC) AND 4 ITA NO. 1084/PN/2009 TRIM URTHI DEVELOPERS, PUNE A.Y. 2005- 06 COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED INITIALLY ON 2.2.2002 AND THEREAFTER ON 3.4.2002 AND 14.10.2002 BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. T HE PROJECT WAS ALSO COMPLETED AS PER THE APPROVED PLAN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LI MIT I.E. WELL BEFORE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2008 AS PER THE PROVISIONS LAID U/S. 80 IB (1 0) AS PREVAILING WHEN THE PLAN WAS APPROVED, HENCE AMENDED PROVISIONS U/S. 80 IB (10) CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. A.O DID NOT AGREE WITH THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS T HAT NOTHING TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ACT THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS AP PLICABLE ONLY TO THE PROJECT WHICH HAVE COMMENCED AFTER 1.4.2005. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO APPROVED THIS ACTION OF THE A.O WITH THIS OBSERVATION THAT THE SP ECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES & OTHERS (SUPRA) HAS MADE IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT AFTER INSERTION OF CLAUSE (D) W.E.F. 1.4.2005, THE LAW HA S CHANGED AND NOW FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 ONWARDS, THE RESTRICTION AS MENTIONED IN CL AUSE (D) WOULD APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA. THE LD CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED FURTHER THAT IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THIS SPECIAL BENCH ORDER THAT THE REST RICTION PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (D) SHOULD NOT APPLY FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND ONWARDS, IF T HE PROJECT WAS APPROVED OR COMMENCED PRIOR TO THIS A.Y. HAD THIS BEEN THE IN TENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE ACT IT SELF. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THER E WAS NO OCCASION BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATE & OTHERS (SUPRA) TO DECIDE AN IDENTICAL ISSUE, BECAUSE THE A.Y. INVOLVE D THEREIN WAS OF EARLIER THAN THE A.Y. I.E. 2005-06 WHEN THE AMENDED PROVISIONS U/S. 80IB(10) CAME INTO OPERATION W.E.F. 1.4.2005. THUS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 2004-05 IS NOT GOING TO HELP THE ASSESSEE AS ADMITTEDLY IN THE A.Y. 2004-05, THE AMENDED PROVISIONS U/S. 80 IB(10 COMING INTO OPERATION W.E.F. 1.4.2005 WAS NOT APPLICABLE AND THUS, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O DIRECTED THE A.O TO DECIDE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB (10) AS PER THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES & OTHERS (SUPRA). THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS, 5 ITA NO. 1084/PN/2009 TRIM URTHI DEVELOPERS, PUNE A.Y. 2005- 06 HOWEVER, AN OCCASION TO DECIDE AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF OPEL SHELETERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT & OTHERS (SUPRA) WHEREIN AFTER DISCU SSING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL IT HAS COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION. FOR A READY REFE RENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NOS. 19 & 20 OF THE SAID DECISION ARE BEING REPRODUCED HERE UNDER : 19. WE, THUS, FIND THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HIRANAN DANI AKRUTI J.V V/S. DCIT (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIG THE SAID DECISION IN THE CASE OF HIRANANDANI AKRUTI J.V. (SUPRA), WE DECIDE THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES THAT A HOUSING PROJECT WILL ALSO CONSIST OF COMMERCIAL AREA TO A PERMISSIBLE LIMIT, AS SETTLED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BRAMHA ASSOCA TES (SUPRA) (NOW UPHELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT) AS APPLICABLE UPTO A.Y. 2004-05. AND SECONDLY, THE LAW AS IT EXIS TED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS PRO POSAL OF THE PROJECT AND PERMISSION FOR THE SAME WAS ACCORDED TO AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMMENCED THE PROJECT IS TO BE APPLIED. I N THE PRESENT CASE, UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEES HAD STARTED THE PR OJECT IN THE YEAR 2001 WHEN SUB-CLAUSE (D) TO SECTION 80IB(10) WAS N OT IN EXISTENCE, HENCE IT CANNOT BE APPLIED ON SUCH PROJE CTS AS HELD BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HIR NANDANI AKRUTI J.V. (SUPRA). IN THIS REGARD, WE ALSO FIND STRENGT H FROM THIS PLEA OF THE LD. A.R. WHICH WAS ALSO RAISED BEFORE IN THE C ASE OF HIRANANDANI AKRUTI J.V. THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD FO LLOWED WIP (WORK-IN-PROGRESS) METHOD, THE INCOME FROM THE PROJ ECT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAXABLE IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS THE PROJ ECT WAS COMPLETED EARLIER TO THE AMENDMENT AND IN THAT CASE , AS PER THE OLD PROVISION THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION. BUT, JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLL OWED THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD, IN THESE CASES, THE DEDUCTION I S BEING DENIED BECAUSE IT FALLS IN A.Y. 2005-06. IN OUR VIEW THE N EWLY INSERTED CLAUSE (D) TO SECTION 80IB(10) WILL NOT APPLY ON TH E PROJECTS APPROVED UPTO 31.3.05 SINCE IN THOSE PROJECTS ASSES SEES ARE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. THE ONLY FISSIBLE COMPLIANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MET AS PER THE HARMONI OUS INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 80IB(10) AS AMENDED IS T O COMPLETE SUCH 6 ITA NO. 1084/PN/2009 TRIM URTHI DEVELOPERS, PUNE A.Y. 2005- 06 PROJECTS (APPROVED BEFORE 1.4.2004) ON OR BEFORE 31 .3.2008. IN THE CASES BEFORE US THE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETE D WELL BEFORE THIS DATE. PUTTING OF SUCH CONDITION OF TIME LIMIT IS WELL UNDERSTOOD. SINCE THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED THE COMPLETION OF PR OJECTS WITHIN A TIME FRAME TO AVOID INCONVENIENCE TO THE BENEFICIAR IES I.E. THE BUYERS. IN THIS REGARD THE LEGISLATURE HAS CATEGOR ISED THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE PROJECTS APPROVED ON DIFFERENT PERIOD BEFOR E 31.3.2007 BUT REQUIREMENT REMAINED THE SAME THAT PROJECTS WOULD B E APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. COMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREM ENT PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (D) TO THE SECTION IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN THOSE PROJECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN STARTED ON OR AFTER 1.4.2005 AS BY THEN T HOSE ASSESSEES WERE ALL AWARE ABOUT THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN CL AUSE (D). 20. BY APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRU CTION TO INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS UNDER SUB-SECTION (10) TO SECTION 80IB AS AMENDED W.E.F. 1.4.2005 WE COME TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE LEGISLATURE ALWAYS INTENDED THAT THE PROJECT MUST B E APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, THUS IN THOSE APPROVED PROJECT S WHERE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN STARTED MUCH EARLIER THAN 1.4 .2005, THE ASSESSEES ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PLAN AS IT H AS BEEN APPROVED. AS PUTTING SUCH ASSESSEES TO COMPLETE TH E PLAN MEETING OUT CONDITION UNDER CLAUSE (D) OF THE SUB-SECTION W OULD LEAD INTO ABSURDITY AND IMPOSSIBILITY FOR THE ASSESSEE AND I N CONTRADICTION TO THE PROVISIONS U/S. 80 IB(10) AS PREVAILED AT THE T IME OF APPROVAL AND COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJEC T WELL BEFORE 1.4.2005. BOMBAY BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HIRANANDANI AKRUTI J.V (SUPRA) HAS DISCUSSED ALL THESE RELEVANT ASPECTS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE CASE OF HIRANANDANI AKRUTI J.V V/S. DCIT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LAW AS EXISTED WHEN THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS PROPOSAL AND PERMISSION FOR CARRYING OUT THE DEVELOPMENT WAS ACCORDED AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMM ENCED DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE APPLIED. IN THE PRESENT CAS ES, AS PER PAGE NOS. 17 AND 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN THE CASE OF OPE L SHELTER THE PROJECT WAS COMMENCED ON 23.2.2001 AND EVEN COMPLET ED ON 14.5.2004, SIMILARLY AS PER THE CONTENTS OF PAGE NO .2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PAGE NO. 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN THE CASE OF D.S. KULKARNI AND ASSOCIATES, THE PROJECT WAS COMM ENCED ON 12.4.2001 AND COMPLETED IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 20 03. THUS, 7 ITA NO. 1084/PN/2009 TRIM URTHI DEVELOPERS, PUNE A.Y. 2005- 06 THE ASSESSEES WERE SUPPOSED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT S AS PER THE LAW AS EXISTED IN THE A.Y. 2001-02 IN THE CASE OF OPEL SHELTERS AND IN THE A.Y. 2002-03 IN THE CASE OF D.S. KULKARNI A ND ASSOCIATES. WE THUS FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HIRA NANDANI AKRUTI JV V/S. DCIT (SUPRA) HOLD THAT AMENDED PROVISIONS UNDE R SECTION 80 IB(10) W.E.F. 1.4.2005 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PR ESENT CASE, HENCE ASSESSEES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/ S. 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW TH E CLAIMED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEES. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO DI SPUTE THAT THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED AND COMMENCED IN THE YEAR 2002 (AS PER THE ABOVE MENTIONED CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY PMC) WHEN SUB-CLAUSE (D) TO SECTION 80IB( 10) WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE PROJECT AS PER THE A PPROVED PLAN AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 IB(10) WHICH WERE APPLICABLE WHEN THE PLAN WAS APPROVED. SINCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN U/S. 80 IB (10) OF THE I.T. ACT PREVAILING WHEN THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED AND COMMENCED, THERE WAS NO V IOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THUS FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE PUN E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OPEL SHELTERS PVT. LTD. V/S. ACIT (SUPRA) D IRECT THE A.O TO ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY. THE ISSUE I S THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE ACCORDINGLY ALL OWED. 9. SO FAR AS ALTERNATIVE PLEA RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3 THAT THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR THE PROPORTIONATE DEDUCT ION IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BECOME ACADEMIC IN VIEWS OF OUR FINDING ON THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2. THE GROUND NO. 3 IS THUS DOES NOT NEED ADJUDICATION . 10. IN RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8 ITA NO. 1084/PN/2009 TRIM URTHI DEVELOPERS, PUNE A.Y. 2005- 06 THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH OCTOBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (I.C. SUDHIR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE,DATED THE 17 TH OCTOBER, 2011 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT -II, PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. THE D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE