Imran Badsha Bagwan, Ichalkaranji V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1132/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9293 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM . / ITA NOS.1128 & 1129/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 AND 2009-10 SMT. KATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN, BAGWAN HOUSE NO.499, PARVATI SAH. SANSTHA, NEAR ONKARESHWAR TEMPLE, ICHALKARANJI PAN : AAYPB5128J . /APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.1131 & 1132/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 AND 2009-10 SHRI IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN, BAGWAN HOUSE NO.499, PARVATI SAH. SANSTHA, NEAR ONKARESHWAR TEMPLE, ICHALKARANJI PAN : AILPB2309N . /APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT(S) BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL, CIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:16.02.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE TWO DIFFERENT A SSESSEES AGAINST THE COMMON ORDERS OF CIT(A)-1&2, KOLHAPUR DATED 29-05-2 015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. ITA NOS. 1128 & 1129/PU N/2015 ARE FILED BY SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN AND ITA NOS. 1131 & 1132/PUN /2015 ARE FILED BY ITA NOS.1128 & 1129/PUN/2015 & ITA NOS. 1131 AND 1132/PUN/2015 SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN MR. IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN 2 SHRI IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE COMMON THEY ARE BEING CLUBBED AND ADJUDICATED IN TH IS COMPOSITE ORDER. I SHALL FIRST DEAL WITH THE APPEALS PERTAINING TO SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN ITA NOS. 1128 AND 1129/PUN/2015 FOR A.YRS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS FOR THE CAPTI ONED TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, GROUN DS RAISED IN ITA NO.1128/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING PARTIAL ADDITION IN RESPECT AGRICULTURE INCOME DECLARED BY APPELLANT BY TREATING 54% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS EXPENSES FOR AGRICULTURE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT EXPENSES AS SHOWN BY HIM /HER WHILE ARRIVING AT THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING ADEQUATE TO MEET THE COST OF AGRICULTURE, PARTIAL SUSTAINING OF THE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO DELE TE THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE IN THIS RESPECT. 3. BEFORE ME, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE R AISED PERTAINS TO EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONN ECTION WITH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICUL TURAL OPERATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO SUGARCANE, VEGETABLES, GRASS ETC. GIVING THE AB OVE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2 ,62,935/- FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 AND COMPUTED THE ALLOWABLE AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES AN D EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. THE TABLE GIVEN IN PARA NO.1 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF COMPUTATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE CIT(A) VIDE HIS COMMON ORDER FOR A.YRS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 DATED 29 -05-2015 GAVE PART RELIEF IN THE MATTER. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL ASKING FOR ENTIRE RELIEF. WHILE ALLOWING PART RELIEF, THE CIT (A) FOLLOWED THE EARLIER ORDERS OF THE ITA NOS.1128 & 1129/PUN/2015 & ITA NOS. 1131 AND 1132/PUN/2015 SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN MR. IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN 3 CIT(A) FOR THE A.YRS. 1999-2000 TO 2006-07. THUS, THE CIT(A) HAVE CONSISTENTLY ADOPTED THE FIGURES SET BY HIS PREDECESSOR CIT(A) A ND ALLOWED THE AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES AT 54% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. 4. WITH THESE FACTS AND THE DEVELOPMENTS, LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE COMBINED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11 -08-2017 WHICH COVERS THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ALONG WITH OTHERS, I.E. SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN AND OTHERS ITA NOS. 1217 TO 1224/PUN/2012 AND ITA NOS . 1334 TO 1341/PUN/2012 AND OTHERS FOR THE A.YRS. 1999-2000 TO 2006-07. LD . COUNSEL DREW MY ATTENTION TO THE CONTENTS OF THE PARA NO.32 & 33 OF THE SAID ORD ER OF TRIBUNAL. THE SAME ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME/EXPENDITURE WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER IN THE SAID APPEALS AND THE TRIBUNAL PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE A.YRS. 1999-2000 TO 2006-07. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE SAID DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL APPLY TO THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES RAIS ED IN THE PRESENT CASE. LD. COUNSEL REQUESTED FOR APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE SAI D ORDER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER ASSE SSMENT YEARS. WITH REGARD TO EXISTENCE OF APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08, IF ANY, BOTH THE PARTIES DID NOT MENTION ABOUT THE SAME. 5. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CI T(A) DUTIFULLY. 6. I HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE OF DETERMIN ING THE ALLOWABLE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SUGARCANE, GRASS, VEGETABLES ETC. ON P ERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 11-08-2017 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y RS. 1999-2000 TO 2006-07 (SUPRA), I FIND IT RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE SAID PAR A NOS.32 & 33 OF THE ORDER AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER : 32. THE CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE AT 54%. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS NOT BEING MAINTAINED BY IT IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED , SOME ESTIMATION HAS TO BE MADE. HOWEVER, HE IS AGGRIEVED BY ESTIMATION BY TH E CIT(A) AT 54%. THE CIT(A) ITA NOS.1128 & 1129/PUN/2015 & ITA NOS. 1131 AND 1132/PUN/2015 SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN MR. IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN 4 HAS ANALYZED THE FACTUM OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND WE HAVE ALREADY PERUSED THE SAME AND WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN NOT CONSIDERING THE BATAI EX PENDITURE AS PART OF EXPENDITURE FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM SUGARCANE. THE CIT(A ) HAS ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES AT 54% OF RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, WE DEEM IT FIT TO ESTIMATE THE SAME AT 50% I.E. 50% OF GROSS RECEIPTS WOULD CONSTITUTE THE ASSESSEES I NCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS OF GROWING SUGARCANE; WHICH WOULD FORM A PART OF CASH FLOW OF ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL WORK OUT THE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE CASH FLOW IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN ASSET S STANDS COVERED AFTER THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHEREIN HE HAD ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES AT 54% EXCEPT FOR NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE ADDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND WE HAV E REDUCED THE SAME TO 50% AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND DECIDE THE CASH POSITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ACCORDINGLY. 33. NOW, COMING TO THE NEXT ESTIMATION OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE I.E. INCOME FROM VEGETABLES CROP. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT PART OF CROPS WERE GROWN ALONG WITH SUGARCANE AND THE BALANCES ON THE LAND A VAILABLE I.E. ABOUT 30-31 ACREAS WHICH ARE UNDER CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES, GRASS SC IENTIFICALLY GROWN AS CATTLE FEED AND OTHER CROPS. AS IN THE CASE OF SUGARCANE, THE FIRST ASPECT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR GROWING VE GETABLES; THE SECOND ASPECT IS THE INCOME FROM RECEIPTS FROM GROWING VEGETABLES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY DETAILS IN THIS REGARD AND THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAD POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO MENTION IN 7/12 EXTRACTS IN RESPECT OF GROWING OF VEGETABLES. THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTS OUT THAT SINCE V EGETABLES WERE GROWN FOR DURATION OF 3-4 MONTHS AND WERE REPEATEDLY BEING CH ANGED DOES NOT FIND MENTION IN 7/12 EXTRACTS. HOWEVER, THE SALE PATTIES WERE R ECOVERED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE WHICH REVEALED THE YIELD OF VEGETABLES PER ACRE IN VALUE. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ADMITTED THAT EXCEPT FOR FEW SALE PATTIES OF NOMINAL VALUE, MAJORLY THE SALE PATTIES OF VEGETABLES WERE AVAILAB LE FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN R ESPECT OF RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF VEGETABLES TO BE WORKED OUT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSE E. THE ONLY DISPUTE REMAINS IS IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE ON GROWING OF VEGETABLES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE HAD ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT RS.5, 000/- PER ACRE AND AFTER DEDUCTING ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE AND BATAI EXPEN SES HAD TAKEN THE NET YIELD AT RS.2500/- PER ACRE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE EXP ENSES AT 20% AND THE CIT(A) HAD TAKEN THE EXPENSES AT 50% OF THE RECEIPTS AND H AD NOT DEDUCTED ANY EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF BATAI. THE LEARNED AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED BEFORE US THAT IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY DETAILS BEING MAINTAINED, EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE ESTIMATED. THE F IRST ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND OF BATAIA EXPENSE S FOR GROWING VEGETABLES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF DEDUCTING 50% ON ACCOUNT OF BATAI EXPENSES. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. THE SECOND ASP ECT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENSES TO BE ESTIMATED ON ACCOUNT OF CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE ESTI MATED EXPENDITURE AT 40% WHICH WAS HIGH AND THE SAME MAY BE ADOPTED AT 30%. FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE HOLD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS BEING MA INTAINED, IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ESTIMATE THE EXPENDITURE AT 35% FOR GROWING VEGETABLES. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT( A) IN ESTIMATING THE SAME AT 50% SINCE THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE CROP OF S UGARCANE IS HIGHER AS COMPARED TO THE VEGETABLE CROPS. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. 7. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT, AGAINST THE DECISION OF CIT(A) ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE AT THE RATE OF 54%, THE TRIBUNAL DEEMED IT FIT TO ESTIMATE THE SAME AT ITA NOS.1128 & 1129/PUN/2015 & ITA NOS. 1131 AND 1132/PUN/2015 SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN MR. IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN 5 50%, I.E. 50% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS WOULD CONSTITUT E AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS OF GROWING SUGARCANE . TO THAT EXTENT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAVOURED THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF ALLOWING THE INCR EASED EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER, REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM VEGETABLES , THE TRIBUNAL (AT PARA NO.33) DEEMED FIT TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULT URAL EXPENDITURE AT 35% THEREBY QUANTIFYING THE EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON ACCOU NT OF VEGETABLES AT 65% OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCO UNT OF VEGETABLES. IN THIS REGARD, THE TRIBUNAL DISAPPROVED THE CIT(A)S ESTIM ATION ADOPTING 50% OF THE AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF VEGETABLES. 8. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE SAME, I AM OF THE OPI NION THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 HAS TO BE DECIDED IN THE LINES DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER A.YRS. 1999-2000 TO 2006-0 7. I DIRECT THE AO ACCORDINGLY. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (S UPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BEING DATED 11-08-2017 DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME WH EN THE CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER ON 29-05-2015. THEREFORE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE M ERITS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1129/PUN/2015 (AY. 2009-10) 9. SO FAR AS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10, THE ISSUES AND FACTS ARE SAME, ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES A RE COMMON. HOWEVER, FOR A.Y. 2009-10, THE AO HAS SLIGHTLY DEVIATED FROM HIS WORK ING FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN MAKING THE ESTIMATIONS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND AGRICULT URAL EXPENDITURE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE SAME, THE CIT(A) GAVE A COMMON FINDING FOR THE A.YRS. 2007- 08 TO 2009-10 DETERMINING THE ALLOWABLE AGRICULTURA L EXPENDITURE AT 54% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS RELYING ON THE ORDERS OF HIS PREDECE SSOR FOR A.YRS. 1999-2000 TO ITA NOS.1128 & 1129/PUN/2015 & ITA NOS. 1131 AND 1132/PUN/2015 SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN MR. IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN 6 2006-07. THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2006-07 APPLIES TO THIS APPEAL ALSO IS SAME. THEREFORE, WITH IDENTICAL DIR ECTIONS GIVEN IN A.Y. 2008-09, I PARTLY ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 20 09-10. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, AFTER RE-COMPUTATION BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET PAR T RELIEF QUA THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE ME. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY SMT. KH ATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN VIDE ITA NOS. 1128 & 1129/PUN/2015 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. I SHALL NOW DEAL WITH APPEALS PERTAINING TO SHRI. IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN. ITA NOS. 1131 & 1132/PUN/2015 (A.YRS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10) 11. BEFORE ME, IN CONNECTION WITH THESE TWO APPEALS FOR THE A.YRS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT MY AT TENTION TO THE COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SMT. KHATUNBI BAD SHA BAGWAN WHICH WAS ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY ME IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT ARGUMENTS ARE IDENTICAL. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONS OLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11-08-2017 COVERS THIS ASSESSEES CASE ALSO V IDE ITA NOS. 1195 TO 1201/PUN/2012 & ITA NOS. 1320 TO 1324/PUN/2012 AND OTHERS FOR THE A.YRS. 1999- 2000 TO 2006-07. 12. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF C IT(A) DUTIFULLY. 13. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I FIND THE ISSUE RAI SED IN THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THIS ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME/EXPENDITURE EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SUGARCANE, VEGETABLES, GRASS ETC., AS IN THE CASE OF SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN. CONSIDERING THE SAME AND CONSIDERIN G THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF ITA NOS.1128 & 1129/PUN/2015 & ITA NOS. 1131 AND 1132/PUN/2015 SMT. KHATUNBI BADSHA BAGWAN MR. IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN 7 THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11-08-2017, WHERE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL GIVING PART RELIEF. THE FI NDING OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN PARA NOS. 32 AND 33 WHICH ARE EXTRACTED ABOVE ARE APPLIC ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUES RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COVERED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. AS A RESULT, TH E COMMON GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE TO BE A LLOWED PARTLY. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, AFTER RE-COMPUTATION BY THE AO, ASSESSEE W ILL GET PART RELIEF QUA THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE ME. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY SHRI I MRAN BADSHA BAGWAN VIDE ITA NOS. 1131 & 1132/PUN/2015 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 15. TO SUM UP, THE APPEALS FILED BY SMT. KHATUNBI B ADSHA BAGWAN AND THE APPEALS FILED BY SHRI IMRAN BADSHA BAGWAN FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1&2, KOLHAPUR 4. / THE CIT - 1&2, KOLHAPUR 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRI VATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE