Satish Bhagwantrao Talekar (HUF), Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Aurangabad

ITA 1087/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7213 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: NILESH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Additional evidence; Revised return
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1087/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI SATISH BHAGWANTRAO TALEKAR (HUF), M/S. SHAH KHANDELWAL JAIN & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, LEVEL 3, BUSINESS BAY, PLOT NO.84, WELLESLEY ROAD, NEAR RTO, PUNE 411 001 PAN :AACHT1722N . /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-2(2), AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NILESH KHANDELWAL REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH JHA, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 09.11.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.11.2017 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, AURANGABAD, DATED 06-03-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CA SE AND AS PER PROVISIONS & SCHEME OF THE ACT IT BE HELD THAT, ADD ITION OF RS.1,44,78,665/- , BEING LOANS RECEIVED FROM SHRI. SHANKARRAO TALEKAR (HUF) RS.19,00,000/-; SH RI BHAGWANRAO TALEKAR (HUF) RS.96,50,000/-; SHRI. B ALASAHEB PATIL (INDL.)RS.5,20,000/-; SHRI. BHAGWANRAO V.KANADE RS. 8,00,000/-; ALOK POULTRY FARMS RS.9,42,000/-; ALOK TALEKAR RS. 6,66, 665/-, MADE BY THE AO AND THAT SUSTAINED BY THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') IS UNWARRANTED, UN JUSTIFIED, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS AND SCHEME OF THE ACT AND FACTS PREVAILI NG IN THE CASE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THAT CONFIRMED BY THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT BE GRANTED JUST AND PROPE R RELIEF IN THIS RESPECT. ITA NO.1087/PUN/2017 SHRI SATISH B. TALEKAR (HUF) 2 2. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CAS E AND AS PER PROVISIONS & SCHEME OF THE ACT IT BE HELD THAT, ADD ITION OF RS.24,38,284/- MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO RS.22,04,713/- BY TAXING AGRICULTURAL INCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS UNJUSTIFIED, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS AND SCHEME OF THE ACT AND FACTS PREVAILI NG IN THE CASE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THAT CONFIRMED BY THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BE DELETED. THE APPELLANT BE GRANTED JUST AND PROPE R RELIEF IN THIS RESPECT. 3. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CAS E, FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE SPECIFIC LE GAL ARGUMENT MADE AT TIME OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A), WITH RESPECT T O DOUBLE TAXATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY IT BE HELD THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS INCOMPLETE AND BAD IN LAW. 4. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CAS E, FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE SPECIFIC LE GAL ARGUMENT MADE AT TIME OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A), WITH RESPECT T O EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF SOURCE WITH REGARD TO LOANS RECEIVED. ACCORDINGLY I T BE HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS INCOMPLETE A ND BAD IN LAW. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-2 AURANGABAD HAD ERRED IN PASSING OF ORDER AFTER AT ABOUT FIVE MONTHS AFTER CASE WAS LAS T HEARD. CONSIDERING THE UNREASONABLE DELAY BETWEEN HEARING OF CASE AND PASS ING OF ORDER IT IS PREYED TO GRANT RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT. 6. THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, RECTIFY, DELETE, AND RAISE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF AND DERIVES INCOME FROM DAIRY BUSINESS AND ALSO FROM THE AGRICU LTURAL ACTIVITY. ORIGINALLY, ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-03-20 12 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,09,673/-. ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE NET A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.50,96,664/- WHICH INCLUDES AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS O F RS.73,51,294/-. HE CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES OF RS.22,54,6 30/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 19-01 -2013 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.7,66,979/-, FURNISHING THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.18,46,053/-. EVENTUALLY, AO DETERMINED THE ASSESSED INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,78,51,370/-. DETAILS OF THE ADDITIONS ARE G IVEN AT PAGE 16 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER : ADDITION AS PER PARA 13.1 OF AO RS.19,00,000/ - ADDITION AS PER PARA 13.2 OF AO RS.96,50,000/ - ADDITION AS PER PARA 13.3 OF AO RS.5,20,000/ - ADDITION AS PER PARA 13.4 OF AO RS.8,00,000/ - ADDITION AS PER PARA 13.5 OF AO RS.16,08,665/ - ADDITION AS PER PARA 14.4 OF AO RS.24,38,284/ - ADDITION AS PER PARA 15.4 OF AO RS.1,08,24,750/ - TOTAL RS.2,77,41,699/- ITA NO.1087/PUN/2017 SHRI SATISH B. TALEKAR (HUF) 3 4. BEFORE US, REFERRING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,08,24,750/- A S PER PARA 15.4 ABOVE OF THE AO, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE SAME NOW STANDS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE REVENUE IS NOT AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS DELETION. REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS FINALITY ON THIS ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE ADJUDICATION ON OTH ER ADDITIONS AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORD ER. ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ADDITION OF RS.24,3 8,284/- 5. FURTHER, REFERRING TO THE ADDITION MADE VIDE PARA 14.4 OF THE ASST, ORDER RELATING TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) GRANTED PART RELIEF ONLY TO THE EX TENT OF RS.2,33,571/- OUT OF THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.24,38,284/-, LEAVING THE BALANCE OF RS.22,04,713/- FOR ADJUDICATION IN THIS APPEAL. REFERRING TO THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS MORE THAN 40 ACRES OF LAND AND GREW VARIOUS CROPS SUCH AS MANGOES, SUGARCANE, JAWA R, HARBHARA, WHEAT, TOOR, UDIT, CORN, ETC. ASSESSEE EARNED GROSS AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF ABOVE RS.29 LAKHS AND IT INCLUDES MANGO-SPECIFIC AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF RS.5,19,775/-. EXCLUDING THE MANGO-SPECIFIC AGRICULTURAL INCOME , THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE BALANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.24,3 8,284/- IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO, IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 14.4 OF HIS ORDER. THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN AS UNDER : SL.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT I. BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SALE OF SUGARCANE 900 QUINTALS @ RS.2300 PER QUINTAL AS PER SATBARA NO.41 RS.20,70,000/- II. BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SALE OF JOWAR 70 QUIN TALS @ RS.2063 PER QUINTAL AS PER SATBARA NO.41 RS.1,45,318/- ITA NO.1087/PUN/2017 SHRI SATISH B. TALEKAR (HUF) 4 III. BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SALE OF HARBHARA 25 QUINTALS @ RS.3535 PER QUINTAL AS PER SATBARA NO.41 RS.89,833/- IV. BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SALE OF WHEAT 50 QUIN TALS @ RS.1600 PER QUINTAL AS PER SATBARA NO.41 RS.80,000/- V. BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SALE OF TOOR 8 QUINTAL S @ RS.2800 PER QUINTAL AS PER SATBARA NO.41 RS.21,000/- VI BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SALE OF UDIT 3 QUINTAL S @ RS.2500 PER QUINTAL AS PER SATBARA NO.41 RS.8,125/- VII BEING AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SALE OF CORN 25 QUINT ALS @ RS.970 PER QUINTAL AS PER SATBARA NO.41 RS.24,008/- RS.24,38,284/- THE SUMMARY OF THE AOS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE INCLUDES THA T (I) IN THE ASSESSMENT, AO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME RE LATING TO THE MANGO-SPECIFIC LINKED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND (II) THE DISCUSSION OF AO IN PARA NOS. 14.5 & 14.6 OF HIS ORDER GIVES REASONS FOR DIS ALLOWANCE. AO LISTED THAT THE CASH TRANSACTION, ABSENCE OF CREDIBLE SALE BILLS AND THE UNSEASONAL SALE/PURCHASES, FAILURE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTERS RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPT INCOME ETC ., ARE SOME OF THE REASONS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME . 6. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE DENIAL OF ENTIRE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE FACTS INCLUDE THAT IT OWNS HUGE TRACKS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, FILED THE RELEVANT 7/12 EXTRACTS, SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ETC. THESE EVIDENCES ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT. FUR THER, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUN ITY BEFORE AO TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS. ALTERNATIVELY, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL MAY DECIDE THE ALLOWABLE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CONSIDERING THE FACT S OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEE LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE BENCH. FURT HER, LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NEED FOR ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR FOR THE REVENUE DUTIFULLY RE LIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A). ITA NO.1087/PUN/2017 SHRI SATISH B. TALEKAR (HUF) 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS LAND IN OSMANABAD AND IT HAS WATER SUPPLY. WE FIND, WITH SUFFICIENT WATER SUPP LY, THERE IS A DEFINITE POSSIBILITY OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SAID LANDS. THE 7/12 EXTRACTS ALSO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALS O EXAMINED THE ISSUE RELATING TO PROVIDING THE EVIDENCES BY THE ASSESSEE TO AO BOTH RELATING TO EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL AS THE AGR ICULTURAL EXPENDITURE. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED OUT OF THE MANGO CROP. THERE IS NO DISPUT E ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DISPUTE RE LATES TO THE AGRICULTURE INCOME RELATING TO OTHER CROPS ONLY. IN OUR VIEW, THE AO HAS EXTREME VIEW AND DENIED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME FROM OTHER CROPS. FURTHER, WE FIND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE CROPS ARE NOT IN TUNE WITH THE STANDARDS SET BY THE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITIES IN MAHARASHTRA. THERE IS RE FERENCE TO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ARISH SHOUKAT BAGWA N AND OTHERS (ITA NOS. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013 AND CONNECTED APPEALS DATED 17-05 -2017 FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED NET AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF RS.50,96,664/- IS THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ORIGINALLY. ASSE SSEE REDUCED THE CLAIM TO RS.18,46,053/- IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. WE HAVE NO INFORMATION ON THE REASONS FOR THIS DRASTIC REDUC TION. IN THE SAID REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE REFLECTED THE GROSS A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.29,31,775/- INCLUDING THAT OF THE INCOME FROM MANGO CR OP. AO ALLOWED ALL CLAIMS RELATING TO THE SAID MANGO CROPS. THEREFOR E, THE DEBATE IS RESTRICTED TO THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF THE CROPS OT HER THAN THE MANGO CROP. HOWEVER, AO DENIED ALL CLAIMS RELATING TO INCOME FROM OTHER CROPS. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WE FIND THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO.1087/PUN/2017 SHRI SATISH B. TALEKAR (HUF) 6 NOT IN POSSESSION OF DIRECT AND SUSTAINABLE 3 RD PARTY EVIDENCES BOTH ON AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS EXPENSES. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSID ERED OPINION, WE FIND IT IS A CASE OF MERE ESTIMATION AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO POINT IN REMANDING TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATION. WE A RE ALSO NOT WITH THE AO IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.24,38,28 4/- AS THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ENTIRELY FOR THE REA SON, AO ACCEPTED THE ENTIRE CLAIM RELATING TO INCOME FROM MANGO CROPS. AO HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE TO PROVE THAT THE SAID INCOME EARNED OUT O F DAIRY BUSINESS. FURTHER, AO HAS NOT DISPROVED THAT THE DATA GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO BRING THE DISPUTE TO TH E FINALITY, AS DESIRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WE PROCE ED TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF THE SAID OTHER CROPS. FOR THIS, WE PERUSED THE TABLE EXTRACTED IN PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER AND FIND IT CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED OU T OF SUGARCANE AND OTHER CEREALS AND PULSES. BEFORE, CIT(A), THE ASSESSE E FURNISHED THE EVIDENCES ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,33,571/- OUT OF RS.2 4,38,284/-. THEREFORE, HE PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER W ORDS, IT IS THE CASE OF NOT EVIDENCING THE CLAIM RATHER THAN NOT GR OWING THE CROPS AT ALL AND EARNING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT ALL OUT OF THE O THER CROPS. THERE CAN BE MANY REASONS FOR SUCH FAILURE OF FURNISHING EV IDENCES. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM AGRICULT URAL INCOME FROM OTHER CROPS. IN OUR VIEW, RESTRICTING THE CLAIM TO MERELY RS.2,37,571/- IS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE. THEREFORE, WE DIREC T THE AO TO RESTRICT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF OTHER CROPS /CEREALS/PULSES TO RS.50% OF RS.24,38,284/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLE D TO RELIEF OF RS.12,19,142/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1087/PUN/2017 SHRI SATISH B. TALEKAR (HUF) 7 DIRECT THE AO TO RESTRICT THE CLAIM TO 50% OF THE RS.24,38 ,284/- WHICH INCLUDE THE RELIEF OF RS.2,33,571/- GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). OTHER ADDITIONS (PARA 13.1 TO 13.5 OF AOS ORDER) 9. REFERRING TO THE OTHER ADDITIONS DISCUSSED IN PARA NOS. 13.1 TO 13.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT ALL THESE ADDITION REVOLVES AROUND THE UNSECURED LOANS RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LOAN CREDITORS. SUSPECTING THE SOURCE S AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS FOR ONE REASON OR THE O THER, AO DISBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. FILING INADEQUATE DO CUMENTATION IS ALSO A REASON FOR ADDITION. THE SAID REASONS INCLUDES (1) CO NFIRMATION LETTERS ARE FILED AND NOT THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CRE DITORS; OR (2) BANK STATEMENTS ARE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS ARE NOT FILED; OR (3) RETURNS FILED IN RESPECT OF THESE CREDITORS WERE SUBSEQUENT TO THE BOO K ENTRIES (4) SOME OF THE LOANS ARE NOT PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ETC. 10. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED FOR G RANT OF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO FOR FILING THE RELEVANT PAPE RS AS WANTED BY THE AO. HE REQUESTED FOR REMANDING ALL THESE CASH CREDITS TO THE FILE OF T HE AO AND ALSO REQUESTED FOR GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. 11. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE ALSO OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSES SEE FOR GRANT OF ONE MORE ROUND/OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO. 12. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND MERIT IN THE REQUEST FOR REMANDING TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THUS, WE FIND THERE IS NEED FOR MORE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATING THESE GROUNDS MEANINGFULLY. H ENCE, AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THESE CREDITS AFRESH AND DECIDE THE ISSUE FRESH IN THE ITA NO.1087/PUN/2017 SHRI SATISH B. TALEKAR (HUF) 8 LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. AO IS FREE TO REPEAT THE ADDITION IN CASE O F ASSESSEES FAILURE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. AO IS DIRECTED TO GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT(A) - 1, AURANGABAD CIT - 1, AURANGABAD , , B BENCH PUNE; / GUARD FILE.