M/s. Mascon Computers Services Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. CIT, Pune-1, Pune

ITA 1085/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0246 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HRISHIKESH KHALADKAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E . . , , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MASCON COMPUTERS SERVICES PVT. LTD. A-21, MAVLANKAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 45, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, PUNE, PIN-411001 PAN : AABCM2676C ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1 / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HRISHIKESH KHALADKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR / DATE OF HEARING : 26.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2016 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1 DATED 28.03.2013 PASS ED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A CT). 2 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN DATA PROCESSING, DEVELOPING AND MAINTENANCE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 22.09.200 8 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.5,14,429/-. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS S ELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS, ACCORDINGLY, FIRST NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.09.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURN FILED BY ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING AN Y ADDITION. THEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INVOKED THE PR OVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE O N 08.03.2013. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS SUED TO ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- '3. ON SUBSEQUENT EXAMINATION OF RECORDS, IT IS SEE N THAT YOU HAD COMPUTED THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS.5,14,429/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 9,44,212/- ON 'INTANGIBLE ASSETS' AND DEDUCTION OF RS.9,14,050/-TOWARDS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES(FOREIGN MARKET) WRIT TEN OFF'. IN THE 'NOTES TO ACCOUNTS FORMING PART OF THE BALANCE- SHEET', THE STATUTORY HAD AUDITOR STATED THE FOLLO WING AS REGARDS 'TREATMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS' : 'ACQUIRING/TRANSFER OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE 'TRUSTMARK' OF QUALITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE PROD UCT OF THE COMPANY. IT IS THE FINANCIAL PREMIUM A USER IS WILLING NOT PAY. IT IS THE RESULT OF THE RELENTLESS PURSUIT IN RESEARCH, MANUFACTURING, SELLING, SERVICE AND MARKE TING. METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED BY THE COMPANY FOR VALUING THE SE 'RIGHTS' (THE INVISIBLE ASSETS) IS ITS COMMERCIAL P OTENTIAL AND THE REVENUES IT IS GOING TO DERIVE FROM LICENSI NG THESE TO OUTSIDE USERS. THESE ARE ACCOUNTED FOR 'AT COST' MUTUALLY AGREED.'HOWEVER NO DETAILS HAD BEEN FURNIS HED IN THIS REGARD. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF 'BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES (FOREIGN MARKET) WRITTEN OFF', THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ACCOMPA NYING STATEMENTS DID NOT CONTAIN ANY DETAILS WHATSOEVER. 3.1 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(1)(II) DEPR ECIATION IS ADMISSIBLE ON 'KNOW HOW, PATENTS, COPY RIGHTS, T RADE MARKS, LICENSES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS O R COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE, BEING INTANGIB LE ASSETS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1998'. IN YOUR CASE, GOING BY THE NOTES ON 'TREATMENT OF INTE LLECTUAL 3 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 PROPERTY RIGHTS, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS FAL LING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF KNOW HOW, PATENTS, COPY RIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENSES OR FRANCHISES. YOU HAD NOT MA DE ANY SUCH CLAIM EITHER. ON THE CONTRARY, YOU HAD SOU GHT TO CATEGORIZE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AS 'TRU STMARK'. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE 'INTELLEC TUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS' CLAIMED BY YOU COULD FALL WITHIN T HE SCOPE OF 'ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS O F SIMILAR NATURE'. AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT, THE PRINCIPLE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS WOULD STRIC TLY APPLY WHILE INTERPRETING THE ABOVE EXPRESSION. IN O THER WORDS, ONLY A COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS RIGHT WHICH HA S THE SAME CHARACTERISTIC AS THE WORDS PRECEDING, VIZ. 'K NOW HOW, PATENTS, COPY RIGHTS, TRADE MARKS, LICENSES AN D FRANCHISES' WOULD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION UIS.32(1)(II). HOWEVER, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE NOT ES THAT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS CLAIMED BY YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PATENT, KNOW HOW , COPY RIGHTS ETC. MOST CRUCIAL TO THESE IS A 'RIGHT' AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A 'BENEFIT', A RIGHT WHICH IS TR ADABLE. INVARIABLY, SUCH RIGHTS ARE RECOGNIZED. IN FACT, TH EY BECOME RIGHTS ONLY ON BEING SO RECOGNIZED. HOWEVER, IN YOUR CASE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE 'NOTES' TO SHOW T HAT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WERE IN THE NATURE OF 'RIGHTS' TO BEGIN WITH. THERE IS ALSO NOTHING IN THE 'NOTE' AS WOULD SHOW THAT THESE HAD BEEN REGISTERED UNDER ANY ACT S O AS TO GET RECOGNIZED. 'RELENTLESS PURSUIT IN RESEARCH, MANUFACTURING, SELLING, SERVICES AND MARKETING' MAY ENSURE TO YOU AN ADVANTAGE OR A BENEFIT. BUT SUCH ADVANTAGE OR BENEFIT DOES NOT IPSO FACTO BECOME A R IGHT. 3.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, YOU WERE PRIMA FACIE NOT ENTITLE TO DEPRECIATION ON THE SO-CALLED INTELLECTUAL PROPE RTY RIGHTS WHICH WERE CHARACTERIZED BY YOU AS INTANGIBL E ASSETS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT RAIS E ANY QUERY WHATSOEVER WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE CLAIM. SU CH QUERIES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN RAISED, MORE SO WHEN ANY AND EVERY KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO AN ASSET AND ANY AND EVERY ASSET DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A RIGHT, LET ALONE A COMMERCIAL OR BUSINESS RIGHT. IT IS SEEN FR OM THE RECORDS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAIS ED SEVERAL QUERIES IN CONNECTION WITH A FEW OTHER ISSU ES, THIS ISSUE /CLAIM COMPLETELY ESCAPED HER ATTENTION. AS A RESULT, AN APPARENTLY INADMISSIBLE CLAIM WAS ALLOWE D WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY. 3.3 WHAT IS STATED HEREINABOVE EQUALLY APPLIES YOU TO YOUR CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF 'BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES (FOREIGN MARKET) WRITTEN OFF'. IT IS SEEN THAT IN RESPECT OF THIS CLAIM TOO NO QUESTIONS WERE ASKED B Y THE 4 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY ENQUIRY WAS MADE. THIS IS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND TH E ACCOMPANYING STATEMENT /DOCUMENTS, YOU HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS WHATSOEVER IN RESPECT OF THES E TWO CLAIMS. IT HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAINED WHAT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WERE WRITTEN OFF BY YOU, WHY SUCH WRITE-OFF WAS RESORTED TO, WHETHER THESE HAD B EEN TAKEN INTO THE COMPUTATION OF YOUR TOTAL INCOME LIA BLE TO TAX AT ANY POINT OF TIME EARLIER ETC. WITH REGARD T O ANY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF WRITE OFF, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO ASCERTAIN ALL THE MATERIAL F ACTS. IN YOUR CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DO SO. 4. FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINABOVE, THE ORDER DA TED 11.11.2010 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN YOUR CA SE FOR THE A.Y.2008-09 IS CONSIDERED ERRONEOUS IN SO F AR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCO RDINGLY, AND BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE UNDERS IGNED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE SAID ORDER IS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED UNDE R THE SAID SECTION. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH RELIABLE EXPLANATION/ DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THUS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIDE IMP UGNED ORDER DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.9,10,050/- ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPM ENT EXPENSES ( FOREIGN MARKET) WRITTEN OFF AND RS. 9,44,212/- O N ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT JUS TIFIED THE CASE WHILE DISPOSING THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT CON SIDERED THE EXPLANATIONS AND SUPPORTING SUBMITTED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON I NTELLECTUAL 5 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES (FORE IGN MARKET) WRITTEN OFF IS UNJUSTIFIED & UNNATURAL. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS IGNORED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/ S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. INTEREST U/S 234 B & C BE SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED. 5. THE ASSESSEE PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, EXPLAIN, CLARI FY, MODIFY AND / OR WITHDRAW THE GROUND/S AS THE OCCASIO N MAY DEMAND AT THE TIME OF PRESENTATION OF THE CASE. 4. SHRI HRISHIKESH KHALADKAR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT FOR EXPLANATION AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING MORE TO ADD. THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE AND HAS ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDER THE DOCUMENTS PROPERLY. THE LD . A.R PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR REPRESENTING T HE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX DISALLOWING THE WRITING OFF OF EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIATION ON INTANGIBLE ASSETS BY INVOKING THE PROVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT A PERUSAL OF RECORD S WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY, WHAT-SO- EVER WITH RESPECT TO THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSE S ( FOREIGN MARKET) WRITTEN OFF AND DEPRECIATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPER TY RIGHTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES FOR EXPANDING ITS BUSIN ESS OVERSEAS. THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON R ECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNDATED AND UNSIGNED COPY OF MOU BETWEEN T HE ASSESSEE 6 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 AND SHRI VASANT JOSHI AND FEW E-MAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN T HE TWO PARTIES. AS PER E-MAILS, THE PAYMENTS WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE THROUGH ADJUSTMENT OF OUTSTANDING BILLS, AS PER INVOICES RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON WES, A CONCERN REPRESENTED BY SHRI VASANT JOSHI. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS OR EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT WES HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCES TO SHOW THE WORK CA RRIED OUT BY WES FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO PENETRATE THE US MARKET. 6. IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY R IGHTS, THE LD. D.R. POINTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RE CORD ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW WHAT TYPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGH TS HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TYPE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON SAM E. THE LD. D.R PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS BY THE REPRESENTATIVE S OF RIVAL SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CONDUCT ENQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO EXPENDITURE/DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS QUESTIONED ASSESSEE S CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES (FOREIGN M ARKET) WRITTEN OFF RS. 9,10,050/- AND DEPRECIATION ON INTELLECTUA L PROPERTY RIGHTS RS. 9,44,212/-. 7 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 8. IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES (FOREIGN MARKET) WRITTEN OFF, THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID EXPENSES REPRESENT EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY SHRI VASANT JOSHI FOR INCREASING ASSESSEES MARKET PRESENCE IN USA. THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO BEAR THE EX PENSES AT THAT POINT OF TIME, THEREFORE, MOU WAS ENTERED WITH SHRI VASANT JOSHI TO MEET EXPENSES WHICH WOULD BE AMORTIZED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF MOU ALONG WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THE SAID MO U IS NEITHER DATED NOR SIGNED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES. THUS, T HE VERACITY OF MOU PLACED ON RECORD BY ASSESSEE IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF FEW E-MAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN TWO SIDES AND SOME INVOICES. IN RESPECT OF ABOVEMENTIONED DOC UMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OBSERVED THAT THE E-MAILS PLACED ON RECORD SHOW THAT ALL THE PAYM ENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ADJUSTMENT OF OUTSTANDING BILLS AS PER INVOIC ES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WES FROM TIME TO TIME. THESE INVOICES WERE RAISED DURING THE PERIOD STARTING FROM THE YEAR 2001 TO 2004. H OWEVER, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WERE WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACC OUNTS OF ASSESSEE IN FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2008. IT HAS BEE N POINTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THAT NO DETAILS OR EVID ENCES OF WORK CARRIED OUT BY WES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO E XPAND THE FOREIGN MARKET, HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED ITS CLAIM. 9. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THE WORK, IF A NY, ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT BY WES IN PURSUANCE TO THE 8 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 UNDERSTANDING/MOU. LD. A.R HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVE RT THE OBSERVATION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NEGATING TH E EXPLANATION GIVEN BY ASSESSEE DURING REVISION PROCEEDING. 10. ANOTHER CLAIM WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX IS DEPRECIATION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY R IGHTS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y RIGHTS REPRESENTS IN-HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OF SOFTWARES BY THE A SSESSEE DEPENDING ON CLIENTS REQUIREMENTS. THE SOFTWARE DEVELOPED HAS GREAT VALUE FOR THE ASSESSEES OPERATION BUT THEY MAY NOT HA VE VALUE IN THE MARKET AS THEY ARE CLIENT SPECIFIC. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON DEVELOPMENT OF IN-HOUSING SOFTWARE WAS TREATED AS DEFERRE D REVENUE EXPENDITURE. DURING PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOFTWAR E DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED ITSELF THAT PU RPORTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO COMMERCIAL VA LUE. FURTHER, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT TH E IN-HOUSE SOFTWARES ALLEGEDLY DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE CONFER ANY RIGHTS TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME ARE NOT RECOGNIZED. THE LD. A.R HA S NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE WELL REASONED AND DETAILED FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. 11. THUS, IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FINDINGS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMP LETING ASSESSMENT, FAILED TO MAKE ENQUIRES ON THE VITAL ASPECTS O F EXPENDITURE/DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME WHICH ARE NOW SUBJECT OF REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 9 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013 ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UPHELD AND THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 28 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) '/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $% '/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; & / DATED : 28 TH DECEMBER, 2016 SB ) *', - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT, PUNE-1. 4. THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-11, PUNE. 5. ! %%* , * , - , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, % * / PRIVATE SECRETARY, * , / ITAT, 10 ITA NO. 1085/PUN/2013