Thakkers Harmony,., Nashik V. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

ITA 1088/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 108824514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA R BUNGE MANAGER
• Assessee Lawyers: S K SINGHSHRI S P WALIMBE
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 80IB; 148; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1088 /PN/20 1 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 3 - 04 THAKKERS HARMONY, 7, THAKKERS, NEA R NEHRU GARDEN, NASHIK VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), NASHIK (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AACFT4250B APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJENDRA R . BUNGE, MANAGER RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. SINGH/SHRI S.P. WALIMBE ORDER P ER R.S. PADVEKAR , JM : - THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - I I , NASHIK DATED 29 - 07 - 2011 FOR THE A.Y. 200 3 - 04 . THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. IN VIEW OF THE LAW PREVAILING FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04, THE LEARN ED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF APPELLANT. THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANTS APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004 TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10), EF FECTIVE FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2005, REGARDING THE CONDITION OF COMPLETION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT, APPLIED TO GOVERN THE DEDUCTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 OF RS.16,37,625/ - , IN SPITE OF BRINGING TO HIS NOTICE THE DECISION OF PUNE B BENCH, PUNE IN THE AP PELLANTS OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05, THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (239 CTR 30) AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2005, DTD. 15 TH JULY, 2005. THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF RS.16,37,6 25/ - , AS CLAIMED. 2 ITA NO. 1088/PN/2011, THAKKERS HARMONY, NASHIK 2. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECTS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. THAKKAR HARMONY. IN THIS CASE , THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2003 - 04 ON 01 - 12 - 2003 CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS OF HOUSING PROJECTS U/S. 80IB(10) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,37,625/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 31 - 01 - 2006 , ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE U/S. 80IB(10). SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS A SURVEY ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FIRM U/S. 133A WHICH HAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PROJECT SITE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 28 - 07 - 2008 WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAIN THE STATUS OF T HE SAID PROJECT WHETHER THE SAME WAS COMPLETED OR NOT ON OR BEFORE 31 - 03 - 2008. AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER D URING THE SURVEY ACTION IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT M/S. THAKKERS HARMONY WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE 31 - 03 - 2008. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ISSUED THE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 148 DATED 08 - 09 - 2008 AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2005 , T HE CONDITION OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31 - 03 - 2008 WAS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE HOUSING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE (CC) ON 23 - 07 - 2003 I.E. BEFORE 1 ST APRIL, 2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, INTERPRETED THE AMENDED PROVISIONS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE PROJECT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) AS IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REFERRED TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT - NASHIK SETTING ASIDE THE A.Y. 2 004 - 05 U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 80IB(10) , THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE HOUSING 3 ITA NO. 1088/PN/2011, THAKKERS HARMONY, NASHIK PROJECT FOR GETTING THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 80IB(10) WAS TUNNED DOWN B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A.YS. 2003 - 04 TO 2007 - 08. HE REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S. 80IB(10). THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER: 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION, DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS WERE LIABLE TO BE WITHDRAWN AS THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT COMP LETED BY 31/03/2008. EVEN THE DEDUCTIONS GIVEN ON ACCOUNT OF PARTIAL COMPLETION WERE LIABLE TO BE WITHDRAWN AS THE PARTIAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED AFTER 31/03/2008. AO, WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT 'S FIRST TWO GROUNDS IN THIS REGARD ARE DISMISSED. THE APPELLANT'S THIRD GROUND THAT THE AMENDMENT IN THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE ONGOING PROJECT IS DEVOID OF MERIT. A PERUSAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE RELEVANT SECTION REVEALS THAT THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CLAUSE WITH RESPECT TO COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT EXCEPT FROM 01/04/2002 TO 31/03/2005. THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT VIDE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 WAS W.E.F. 01/04/2005. THE BENEFIT OF THIS SECTION CAN ONLY BE GIVEN ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THERE IS NO AMB IGUITY, WHATSOEVER, THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IN RESPECT OF WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) IS CLAIMED IS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE 31/03/2008 WHERE THE / HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRI L 2004. APPELLANT'S ANOTHER CONTENTION ESPECIALLY FOR AY 2003 - 04 THAT SEC 80IB(10)(A)(I) WAS NOT APPLICABLE AS THERE WAS NO STIPULATION IN THE ACT IN REGARD TO COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT IS ALSO NOT TENABLE. HERE THE HOUSING PROJECT IS THE SAME WHICH HAS SP ILLED OVER FOR FIVE AYS (AY 2003 - 04 TO AY 2007 - 08). THOUGH THE COMPLETION CLAUSE WAS AGAIN BROUGHT BACK INTO THE ACT W.E.F.01/04/2005, THE VERY FACT THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT FOR WHICH DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED IN AY 2003 - 04 ON PARTIAL COMPLETION BASIS, WAS STI LL INCOMPLETE AS ON 31/03/2008 MAKES THE DEDUCTION DISALLOWABLE. CONSTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF 'BUILDING C WAS NOT COMMENCED EVEN ON 28/07/2008(DATE OF SURVEY). IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 'PROJECT' IS STILL INCOMPLETE AS ON DATE. AY 2003 - 04 IS THEREFOR E, CLEARLY COVERED BY THE CBDT'S 4 ITA NO. 1088/PN/2011, THAKKERS HARMONY, NASHIK AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS NO.4/2009 DT.30/06/2009. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WITHOUT FULFILLING ITS CONDITIONS. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT THE HOUSING PROJECT FOR WHICH DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED SHALL BE COMPLE TED BEFORE 31/03/2008 (IF APPROVED BEFORE 01/04/2004) STANDS VIOLATED IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS OF THE SEC. 80IB(10). THE APP ELLANT IS THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). IN VIEW OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS, DEDUCTIONS GIVEN FOR EARLIER YEARS ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS ARE LIABLE TO BE WITHDRAWN. AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING NOTICES U/S 148 FOR THE AYS UNDER APPEALS AND D ISALLOWING THE DEDUCTIONS GIVEN FOR AY 2003 - 04, AY 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08. APPELLANT'S FOURTH GROUND THAT IT WAS BEYOND ITS CONTROL TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION IS ALSO NOT TENABLE AS SEC. 80IB(10) DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SUCH 'EXCEPTION'. SINCE IT IS A SECTION B ENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSES, THEY HAVE TO FULFILL ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE SECTION AND PROVE THE COMPLIANCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO BEFORE GETTING THE DEDUCTION. ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTIONS U/S 80IB(10) FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED YEARS ARE CONFIRMED. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. SHRI RAJENDRA RAMBHA U BUNGE, MANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS PRESENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 BY THE CIT - I, NASHIK FOR THE A.Y. 2004 - 05 IS CONCERNED , THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENG ING SAID ORDER BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE AND B Y THE CATEGORICAL FINDING THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE A.Y. 2004 - 05. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT - I, NASHIK U/S. 263 OF THE ACT IS BECOME IRRELEVA NT. HE ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAIN HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. 82 DTR 135 (MAD.). HE PLEADED THAT 5 ITA NO. 1088/PN/2011, THAKKERS HARMONY, NASHIK AS THERE WAS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH THE PROJECT HAS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE A.Y. 2005 - 06 , B OTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HA VE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. DR. 5. WE FIND THAT SO FAR AS A.Y. 2004 - 05 IS CONCERNED , THE LD. CIT - I, NASHIK HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2004 - 05 O N THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLETE THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR BEFORE 31 - 03 - 2008 AS THE ASSESSEE HOUSING PROJECT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO 01 - 04 - 2004. TH IS TRIBUNAL AFTER EXAMINING THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2004 TO SEC. 80IB(10) HELD THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE FROM THE A.Y. 2005 - 06 AND HENCE, THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS INVALID. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN THE CA SE OF JAIN HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. (SUPRA) THE SAID AMENDMENT HAD COME FOR THE CONSIDERATION BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER: 8. SECTION 80IB(10) WAS AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2005, WHI CH READS AS UNDER: 'DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS OTHER THAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDERTAKINGS 80IB(10) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE OF AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECTS AP PROVED BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2007 BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IF, - (A) SUCH UNDERTAKING HAS COMMENCED OR COMMENCES DEVELOPMEN T AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998 AND COMPLETES SUCH CONSTRUCTION, - (I) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN, OR, IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, ON OR BEFO RE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2008; 6 ITA NO. 1088/PN/2011, THAKKERS HARMONY, NASHIK (II) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN, OR, IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. EXPLANATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE - (I) IN A CASE WHERE THE APPROVAL IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT IS OBTAINED MORE THAN ONCE, SUCH HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE BUILDING PLAN OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS FIRST APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (II) THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING PROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; (B) THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF A PLOT OF LAND WHICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) SHALL APPLY TO A HOUSING PROJECT CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SCHEME FRAMED BY THE CENTR AL GOVERNMENT OR A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN AREAS DECLARED TO BE SLUM AREA UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND SUCH SCHEME IS NOTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN THIS BEHALF; (C) THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIMUM BUILT - UP AREA OF ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WHERE SUCH RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELHI OR MUMBAI OR WITHIN TWENTY - FIVE KILOMETRES FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THESE CITIES AND ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AT ANY O THER PLACE; AND (D) THE BUILT - UP AREA OF THE SHOPS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED FIVE PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT - UP AREA OF THE HOUSING PROJECT OR TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS.' 9. A S IS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBSTITUTION OF SECTION 80IB(10) (1) OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, THERE WAS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT AS REGARDS FURNISHING OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE AND THE DEDUCTION PROVISION POINTED OUT TO THE GRANT OF 100% DEDUCTION ON THE PROFI TS DERIVED FROM A HOUSING PROJECT, IF THE UNDERTAKING HAD COMMENCED 7 ITA NO. 1088/PN/2011, THAKKERS HARMONY, NASHIK DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT ON OR AFTER 1ST OCTOBER, 1998. THUS, TILL 2005, THERE WAS NO CLAUSE DEALING WITH COMPLETION, IN WHICH EVENT, ONE CANNOT READ INTO THE PR OVISION AS A CONDITION, WHICH IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR THEREIN. 10. AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. THE SUBSTITUTION OF EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (A) TO SUB - SECTION (10) OF SECTION 80IB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS BROUGHT IN UNDER FINANCE NO.(2) ACT OF 2004, EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2005. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT READ INTO THE SECTION, WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION HAS TO BE REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE. LEAVING THAT ASIDE, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE READING OF THE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER, IN ANY EVENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECTS JAIN S SAGARIKA, MRC NAGAR, CHENNAI AND JAINS SWARNAKAMAL, VADAPALANI, CHENNAI AND THE PROJECTS AT VELACHERRY, CHITLAPAKKAM AND VIRUGAMBAKKAM. AS FAR AS THE PROJECTS AT MANAPAKKAM AND PALLAVARAM ARE CONCERNED, IF THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED CERTIFICATES FROM SEW ERAGE AND ELECTRICITY BOARD, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF THE RULES, AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 80IB(10)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND GOING BY THE PROVISION, AS IT STO OD DURING RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, 2004 - 05, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION RESTED ON THE ASSESSEE'S PRODUCTION OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATES. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE - SAID VIEW THAT WE HAVE TAKEN, W E REJECT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TAX CASE (APPEAL) STANDS DISMISSED. NO COSTS. 6. IN OUR OPINION BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE US I S 2003 - 04. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2003 - 04. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL GROUND . A T THE TIME OF HEARING NO 8 ITA NO. 1088/PN/2011, THAKKERS HARMONY, NASHIK ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED NOR ANY PLEA WAS MADE WH Y THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SHOULD BE ADMITTED. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO MAKE ANY OBSERVATION ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS THE SAID GROUND IS NOT ADMITTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 - 07 - 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( R . K . PAN DA ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 18 TH JULY, 2014 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT(A) - I I , NASHIK 4 THE CIT - I I , NASHIK 5 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE . 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE