M/s. City Link Travels, Aurangabad V. Commissioner of Income-taX,

ITA 1168/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2009 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B; S K RASTOGI J AIN
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Non-deduction of tax; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. CITY LINK TRAVELS, SHOP NO.1, KAMAL LAXMI BUILDING, CBS ROAD, AURANGABAD PAN NO. AADFC5038R . / APPELLANT V/S CIT, AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. RASTOGI JAIN & B / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 18-03-2014 PASSED U/S.263 BY THE CIT, AURANGABA D RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRAVEL AGENCY UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. CITY LINK TRAVELS AT AURANGABAD . IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,29,900/-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) ON 11- / DATE OF HEARING :04.04.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.04.2016 2 ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 04-2011 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.5,23,342/-. THE LD. CIT EXAMINED THE RECORDS AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED SECURED LOANS FROM TATA FINANCE AND TATA MOTORS LTD. FOR PURCHASE OF VEHICLES. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS PAID INTERE ST TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,45,830/- TO THE SAID NON BANKING FINANCIAL COMP ANIES WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A. SINCE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED U/S.194A FROM THE PAYMENT O F INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,45,830/-, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT DESER VES TO BE DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT DIS ALLOWED THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE ORDER HAS BECOME ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT TO EXPLAIN A S TO WHY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE. IN AB SENCE OF ANY REPLY FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUE D BY THE LD.CIT, HE INVOKED JURISDICTION U/S.263 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO GIVE CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.17,45,839/- U/S.40(A)(IA) R.W.S. 194A OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE C IT HAS ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISION OF 263 AS THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E FACT THAT PAYEE M/S TATA MOTORS AND TATA FINANCE HAVE DULY OFF ERED THE INTEREST INCOME AND HAVE PAID DUE TAXES THEREON AND THEREFORE RELYING ON THE AMENDED SECTION 201 FROM 01/07/2012 THE APPELLANT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS DEFAU L TER AND CONSEQUENTIALLY NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S 40(A)(IA). 3. ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO 1 THE CIT HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINI NG THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1745830/- MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) DISRE GARDING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF INTEREST IS ACTUALLY PAID TO T HOSE FINANCIAL COMPANIES NAMELY TATA MOTORS AND TATA FINANCE AND NOT HING WAS PAYABLE ON 31.03 . 2009 3 ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 REFER: CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD ALLAHABAD HI GH COURT 357 ITR 642 AND SPECIAL BENCH OF VISHUKHAPATNAM TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT -136 ITD 23 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN THE PRESENCE OF CONTRARY VIEW TAKEN BY GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN CIT VS. SIKANDERKHAN TUNVAR 33 TAXMANN.COM 133 AND IN CASE O F CIT VS. CRESENT EXPORT SYNDICATE KOLKATTA HIGH COURT 262 CTR 525 SUGGESTING VERY CLEARLY THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF SEE 40(A)(IA ) IS CAPABLE OF DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION AND IN THAT CASE VIEW TAKE N IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED AS HELD BY SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. 88 ITR 192. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED T O BE AMENDED, ALTERED, MODIFIED ETC . , IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT IN INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. REFERRING TO PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PRIOR TO INVOKING ACTION U/S.263 BY THE CIT, THE AO HAD INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S.154 ON THE VERY SAM E ISSUE BY PROPOSING TO RECTIFY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR MAKING DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.17,45,839/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. REFERRING TO PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW T HE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LE TTER DATED 12- 09-2012 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT EACH AND EVERY DETAILS/INFORMATION WHICH WAS NECESSARY AS WELL AS ASKED B Y THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE FURNISHED. IT WAS STATED THAT THE AO AT THAT TIME OF COMPLETING THE ASS ESSMENT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INTEREST PAID TO TATA FINANCE AND TATA MOTORS LTD. IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR WHICH NO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PROPOSAL FOR RECTIFICATION IS DUE TO CHANGE OF OPINION THE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE DROPPED. 4 ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 5. REFERRING TO PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE A TTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S.154 OF THE I.T. ACT WHEREIN THE AO HAS DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.154 OF THE I .T. ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO AMOUNT PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR TO TATA FINANCE AND TATA MOTORS LTD., THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS PREVAILING AT THAT TIME INCLUDING THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD., (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT (SUPRA) NO DISA LLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IS WARRANTED. EVEN OTHERWISE, WHEN TWO VIEWS A RE POSSIBLE, THE VIEW WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ADOPTED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD., (SUPRA). THEREFORE, THE L D.CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S.263. 6. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 295 ITR 282 HE SUB MITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD T HAT WHEN DIVERGENT VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE AND THE AO HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS THE CIT CANNOT INVOKE JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD IN THE SAID DECISION THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDE R OF THE AO CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WHE N THE AO HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSS IBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGR EE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 5 ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 1. CIT VS. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD. REPORTED IN 367 I TR 458 2. CIT VS. DLF POWER LTD. REPORTED IN 329 ITR 289 3. CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 332 ITR 231 4. CIT VS. MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN 294 ITR 121 5. CIT VS.D.P. KARAI REPORTED IN 266 ITR 113 6. ANIK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ACIT REPORTED I N 134 TTJ 17 7. TRINITY CHARITABLE TRUST VS. ITO REPORTED IN 153 ITD 247 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE PRO VISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) INSERTED W.E.F. 01-04-2013 SUBMITTED THAT WHE RE THE PAYEE HAS OFFERED THE RELEVANT INCOME AND PAID THE TAXES THEREON TH E PAYER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DEFAULTER WITHIN THE MEAN ING OF SECTION 201 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS HARDLY ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE REPUTED COMPANIES SUCH AS T ATA FINANCE AND TATA MOTORS LTD. HAVE NOT OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOM E IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, IN THAT CASE ALSO NO DISALLOWAN CE IS CALLED FOR U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT. HE SUBMITTED T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED ANY TAX U/S.194A FROM T HE INTEREST PAID TO TATA FINANCE AND TATA MOTORS LTD., THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) WAS REQUIRED WHICH THE AO HAS FAILED TO DO. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO HAS BECOME ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THERE FORE, THE CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LD.CIT INVOKED JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AS REQUIRED U/S.194A OF THE ACT FROM 6 ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 THE INTEREST TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,45,830/- PAID TO TATA F INANCE AND TATA MOTORS LTD. SINCE THE AO HAS FAILED TO DISALLOW THE ABOVE INTEREST AMOUNT U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT, THEREFORE, THE ORDER HAS BECOME ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY COMPLIANCE TO THE SHOW CAUS E NOTICE ISSUED U/S.263 THE LD.CIT DIRECTED THE AO TO GIVE EFFECT T O HIS ORDER PASSED U/S.263 BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.17,45,839/- U/S.40(A)(IA ) R.W.S. 194A OF THE I.T. ACT. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK WE FIND THE AO HAD ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.154 DATED 04-09-2012 PROPOSING TO RECTIFY THE FOLLOWIN G MISTAKE : THE VERIFICATION OF RECORDS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS MADE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.17,45,830/- TO TATA FINANCE A ND TATA MOTORS LTD. TOWARDS INTEREST ON VEHICLE LOAN. TATA FINANCE IS NBFC. THE NBFC IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION 3 OF SECT ION 194A. TATA MOTORS IS LTD. COMPANY. AS PER RECORD, THE FIRM HAS TA KEN LOAN FROM TATA MOTOR LTD., AND TATA FINANCE LTD. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON INTEREST PAYMENTS MA DE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I INTEND TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST PA YMENT RS.17,45,830/- UNDER SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE ACT. YO UR SUBMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED RECTIFICATION MAY PLEASE BE SENT TO THIS O FFICE ON OR BEFORE THE AFORESAID DATE. 10. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 12-09-2012 H AD REPLIED TO THE ABOVE RECTIFICATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO STATING THAT EACH AND EVERY DETAILS/INFORMATION WHICH WAS NECESSARY AS WELL A S ASKED BY THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WER E PROVIDED AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID DETAILS THE AO HAD NOT MAD E ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE PROPOSED RECT IFICATION PROCEEDINGS IS DUE TO CHANGE OF OPINION AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS REQUESTED TO DROP THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S.154 O F THE I.T. ACT. WE FIND THE AO VIDE ORDER U/S.154 OF THE I.T. ACT PA SSED ON 15- 01-2013 HAS DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 7 ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 ORDER U/S.154 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 154 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 154 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ARE HE REBY DROPPED. 11. WE FURTHER FIND FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT THAT THE INTEREST HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR AND NOTHING WAS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD OF TIME THERE ARE DECIS IONS BOTH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE O N ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) WHEN NO AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING. WHILE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VECT OR SHIPPING SERVICE PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 357 ITR 642 AND TH E DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPP ING AND TRANSPORT REPORTED IN 136 ITD 23 ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THERE ARE ALSO DECISIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIKANDERKHAN TUNWAR AND HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CRESCENT EXPOR T SYNDICATE. THUS, WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE ATTRACTED FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S.194A FROM THE PAY MENTS MADE TO TATA FINANCE AND TATA MOTORS LTD. IS A DEBATAB LE ISSUE WHEN THE LD.CIT INVOKED JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. 12. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAX INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQU ENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WHEN THE AO HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH COMMIS SIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY 8 ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF DLF POWER LTD. HAS HELD THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT ORDER WAS NO LONGER EXISTS AS IT GETS MERGED WITH THE ORDER U/S.154 PA SSED BY THE AO AND IN SUCH A SITUATION THE CIT COULD NOT EXE RCISE HIS JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE FIND THE HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. HAS HELD THAT IF THE AO HAS ADOPTED ONE OF COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW WHICH RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 13. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY VARIOUS OTHER HIGH COUR TS AND DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT REPLIED TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS SUED BY THE LD.CIT, HOWEVER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 THE AO HAS DROPPED THE RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS ISSUED U/S.154 ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT NO AMOUNT OF INTEREST TO TATA FINA NCE AND TATA MOTORS LTD. WAS OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTIN G YEAR AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.17,45,839/- WAS PAID TO THE ABOVE CONCERNS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NO DISALLOWANCE U/S .40(A)(IA) WAS CALLED FOR IN VIEW OF VARIOUS DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD.CIT WAS A DEBATABLE ONE AN D SINCE THE AO HAS TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT IN OUR OPINION IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9 ITA NO.1168/PN/2014 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-04-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 06 TH APRIL 2016 ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , $ ' //TRUE COPY // $ ' //TRUE COPY// 01 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE