Mr. Bothara Pemraj Manakchand 'Manisha', Ahmednagar V. Dy.CIT Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

ITA 1172/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56397 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C SHIVAGUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: S A GUNDECHA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1172/PN/09 (ASSTT. YEARS: 2006-07) MR BOTHARA PEMRAJ MANAKCHAND, .. APPELLANT MANISHA, POONAM MOTI NAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR PAN AEHPB8565L VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF I.T .. RESPONDENT ANAGAR CIR., AHMEDNAGAR APPELLANT BY: SHRI S A GUNDECHA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S C SHIVAGUNDE ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, PUNE DA TED 8.7.2009 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 11.1 1.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROU NDS OF APPEAL, BUT ESSENTIALLY IN SUBSTANCE AND IN EFFECT, THE ISSUE RELATES TO ASSESSMENT OF A SUM OF RS 26,63,382/- AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS AGAINST SHORT- TERM/LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS, IN BR IEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL SHOWING LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS 1,25,336/ - AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT AT RS 2,62,630/- AND SHO RT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS 24,00,367/- ON ACCOUNT SALE OF SHARES/SECURITIES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR RELEV ANT DETAILS. THE ITA NO 1172/PN/09 BOTHARA P MANAKCHAND, AHMENDANAGAR 2 ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSACTED I N SHARES THROUGH FOLLOWING SHARE BROKERS: I) PRABHUDAS LILADHAR P.LTD. RS 3,35,617/- II) RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD RS 22,94,502/- III) FORTIS SECURITIES LTD. RS 73,09,976/- RS 99,40,095/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE NUMBER OF SCRIPS IN R ESPECT OF WHICH TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HUGE AS AL SO THE FREQUENCY OF THE PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE ACTIVIT Y OF TRADING IN SHARES NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS AGAINST CAPIT AL GAINS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE INDULGE D IN THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER WITH A MOTIVE TO E ARN PROFIT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) LAXMINARYAN RAM GOPAL V GOVERNMENT OF HYDERABAD 25 ITR 449 (SC); II) WERLE & CO V COLQUHOUN 2 TC 402; III) RAJA BAHADUR VISHESHWARA SINGH (DECD) & OTHER V C IT 41 ITR 685 (SC); IV) CIT V MOTILAL HIRABHAI SPINNING & WEAVING CO LTD 113 ITR 173 (GUJ); V) BHARAT DEVELOPMENT (P) LTD V CIT 4 TAXMAN 58 (DE L); VI) PUNJAB CO-OP. BANK LTD V CIT 8 ITR 635 (PC); AND , VII) SARDAR INDRA SINGH & SONS LTD V CIT 24 ITR 415 (SC) 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: I) THE REGULARITY, FREQUENCY, VOLUME AND CONTINUITY I S VERY HIGH; II) THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SHARES AND ITS DOMINANT INTENT ION WAS TO EARN PROFIT WITHIN MINIMUM TIME; III) THE INTENTION OF HOLDING THE SHARES FOR LONGER P ERIOD TO EARN DIVIDEND IS MISSING UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN RECOURSE TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 94(7) OF THE ACT; ITA NO 1172/PN/09 BOTHARA P MANAKCHAND, AHMENDANAGAR 3 IV) WHETHER TWO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS AND THE ENTRIES ARE MAD E IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS DISTINGUISHING THE INVESTMENT AND STOCK WERE MAINTAINED; V) THE ASSESSEE WAS RIDING VERY HIGH IN THE BOOK PERIOD AND WANTED TO MAKE QUICK BUCKS. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES WHETHER SHORT-TERM OR LONG-TERM W ERE HELD TO HAVE BEEN MADE WITH AN INTENTION TO EARN PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY, T HE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN OF RS 2,62,300/- AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN AT RS 24,01,082/- WERE TAXED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE DI SPUTE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FREQUENCY, VOLUMES, PERIOD O F HOLDING AN ASSET DO NOT DECIDE THE NATURE OF ASSET EITHER AS STOCK IN TRADE OR AS AN INVESTMENT NOR IS A DECISIVE TEST TO TREAT AN ACTIVITY AS A BUSINESS OR AN ADV ENTURE IN THE NATURE OF A BUSINESS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT ACCORD ING TO WHICH EVEN ASSETS HELD BY A TRADE OR A BUSINESS MAN NEED TO BE TREAT ED AS CAPITAL ASSET UNLESS SUCH ASSET IS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE. IT WAS FURTHER STA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE, BEING A PERSON OF MEANS HAVING HIGHER INCOME AND INVESTIBLE SURPLUS HAD INVESTED IN SHARES TO GAIN VALUE ADDITION AND HAD NOT BORROWED ANY FUNDS TO INVEST IN SHARES. IT WAS THEN SUBMITTED THAT CHURNING THE INVESTMENT DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE MARKET SO AS TO AVOID CAPITAL L OSS OR TO MAKE GAIN WAS NOT A TEST TO DECIDE WHETHER HOLDING OF SHARES IS AS A STOCK IN TRADE IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS OR AS A DEALER IN SHARES OR HOLDING AS AN INVESTMENT. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT IF T HE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS LOOKED AT, IT WOULD BE A BSOLUTELY CLEAR ITA NO 1172/PN/09 BOTHARA P MANAKCHAND, AHMENDANAGAR 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHA RES IN AN ORGANIZED AND SYSTEMATIC MANNER AND SUCH AN ACTIVITY ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF TRADING TRANSACTION AND CONSTITUTED BUSINE SS AS INCLUSIVELY DEFINED IN SUB-SECTION (13) OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT. FURTHER ACCOR DING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE, I NTER ALIA, INCLUDING THE FREQUENCY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, UTILIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS IN ACQUIRING FURTHER SHARES, LEADS TO THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE AND THE ACTIVITY F THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTED BUSINESS. 6. AS REGARDS THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THEY WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND THEREFORE, NO USEFUL PURPO SE WOULD BE SERVED BY CONSIDERING EACH CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HE HELD THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY OF DEALING IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUND UNITS IS BUSINE SS ACTIVITY BEING SYSTEMATIC AND CONDUCTED WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE, WAS JUSTIFI ED ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY, AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN TAXING THE PROFIT DERIVED FROM SUCH ACTIVITY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEM ENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN TREATING TH E INCOME FROM THE SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN IN DIVIDUAL, WHO HAS INVESTED HIS SURPLUS FUNDS TOWARDS SHARES AND THE SAME HAS N OT BEEN CARRIED OUT AS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT CONSID ERING THE BACKGROUND, AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT OR A LICENSE OR THE REQUIRED PERMISSION TO CARRY ON BUSINESS AS A DEALER IN ITA NO 1172/PN/09 BOTHARA P MANAKCHAND, AHMENDANAGAR 5 SHARES/SECURITIES, THE SAID ACTIVITY HAS TO BE LOOKED UPON AS AN INVESTMENT PER SE . IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES H AVE ONLY LOOKED AT FEW OF THE FACTORS TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON TRANSACT IONS AS A BUSINESS VENTURE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RA ISED ANY BORROWED FUNDS SO AS TO UNDERTAKE AN ACTIVITY AS A TRADER. IN THIS CONTE XT, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ACTIVITY ON FUTURES AND OPTIONS DEALT WITH BY THE ASSESSEE, INCOME THEREOF HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AS BUSINE SS INCOME. FACTUALLY, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A FULL TIME WORKI NG PARTNER IN A PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S BOTHARA FOUNDRY & MACHINE WORKS AND APART THE REFROM, HE IS ALSO A PARTNER IN ANOTHER PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S RONAK INDUSTRIE S. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO 4/2007 DATED 15.6.2007 HAS RECOGNIZED THAT WHERE THE SHARES ARE HELD AS INVESTMENT, SURPLUS ON SALE AND TRA NSFER OF SHARES ARE LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAIN. REFERRING TO THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN ANY CRITERIA OF BUSINESS OF DEALING IN SHARES AN D, THEREFORE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN TREATING THE TRANSACTION AS OF A TRADER. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, FOLLOWING DECISIONS HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON: (I) VENKATASWAI NAIDU & CO. (G) V. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC ); (II) SAROJ KUMAR MAZUMDAR V CIT 37 ITR 242 (SC); (III) CIT V EXPRESS NEWSPAPERSW LTD. 53 ITR 250 (SC); (IV) RAJA BAHADUR KAMAKHY6A NARAIN SINGH V CIT 77 ITR 253 (SC); (V) CIT V. ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. (P) LTD . 82 ITR 586 (SC); AND (VI) ACIT V NAISHADH V VACHHARAJANI, MUMBAI, VIDE ITA NO 6429/MUM/09 DATED 25.2.2011 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF ITA NO 1172/PN/09 BOTHARA P MANAKCHAND, AHMENDANAGAR 6 THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN SHARE TRANSACTIONS ON HUGE SCALE AND THE FREQUENCY OF PURCHASE AND SALE SHOWS VOLUMES, CONTINUITY A ND REGULARITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE HIGH FREQUENCY OF THE SALES, PURCHASES, AND COMPARATIVE DOMINANCE OF SHORT TERM TRANSACTIONS ESTABLISH BEYOND D OUBT THAT THE ACTIVITY IS CARRIED OUT IN A SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED WAY WHICH WOUL D FALL ESSENTIALLY UNDER THE CATEGORY OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SU PPORT OF REVENUES STAND. HE SUMMED UP BY SUBMITTING THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSACTION S CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUISITION AND SALE OF SHARES/SECURITIES CONSTITUT ED A BUSINESS. HE ACCORDINGLY DEFENDED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARISES FROM THE TREATMENT ACCORDED TO TH E GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS 1,25,336/- AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 (38) OF THE ACT AND SHORT- TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS 24,00,367/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARE/SECURITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED SUCH GAIN AS ASSESSABLE UNDER T HE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT AS CAPITAL GAINS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS CONCURRED WITH THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND FOR THAT REASON THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. UNDOU BTEDLY, THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION IS IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT OR AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE IS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT. IT IS ALSO A WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT NO SINGULAR FACTOR IS DETERMINATIVE OF T HE QUESTION AND THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE INFERRED ON THE BASIS OF CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF SEVERAL FACTORS SUCH AS, WHETHER THE PURCHASER WAS A TRADER; WHETHER THE PU RCHASE OF THE COMMODITY AND ITS RESALE WAS ALLIED TO HIS USUAL TRADE OR BUSINESS; T HE NATURE AND THE QUANTITY OF COMMODITIES TRADED; FREQUENCY AND SIMILARI TY OF TRANSACTIONS USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH TRADE OR BUSINESS; THE REPETITION OF TRAN SACTIONS; PERIOD OF HOLDING ITA NO 1172/PN/09 BOTHARA P MANAKCHAND, AHMENDANAGAR 7 AND ALSO THE INTENTION OF THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VENKATASWAMI NAIDU & CO. ( G) (SUPRA) FURTHER CAUTIONED THAT ALL THE IMPORTANT FACTORS ARE TO BE EVA LUATED AND THE DISTINCTIVE FACTORS OF A PARTICULAR CASE SHALL BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE DETERMINING THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO VARIOUS CA SE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT WHICH ARE NOT BEING INDIVIDUALLY DEALT WITH; SO, HOWE VER THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IS THAT IN EACH CASE THE TOTA L EFFECT OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF A T RANSACTION. 10. WITH THIS BACKGROUND, WE MAY NOW EXAMINE THE CASE SET UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEREIN. THE OVERRIDING FACTOR WHICH PR EVAILED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REGULARITY AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE T RANSACTIONS WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS HIGH. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RIDING HIGH IN THE BOOM PERIOD AND WANTED TO MAKE QUICK BUCKS AND, THEREFORE, IT SHOWED THE INTENTION TO EARN PRO FITS WHILE MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, MERE VOLUME OF TRAN SACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE NATURE OF TRAN SACTION. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE TRANSACTION AS A WHOLE AND NOT MERELY A MAGNITUDE OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT HAVING SINGULAR ACTIVITY OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HOLDING SHARES AS INVESTMENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. IT IS ALSO AN EME RGING FACTOR THAT INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF SURPLUS/OWN FUNDS AND THE ASSESSEE IS OTHERWISE ENGAGED IN OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. BEFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE ALSO CANVASSED WITH REFERENCE TO HIS BALANCE SHEET TH AT HE HAD SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS AND IT IS ONLY TO REALIZE BETTER RETU RN, THE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES HAVE BEEN MADE. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT PRIMARILY THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR SO AS TO EARN LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS; THAT MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN SHARES WERE SOLD FOR A PERIOD LESS THAN ONE YEAR, THE SAME WOULD BE INDICATIVE OF A BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS NOT CORRECT . HAVING CONSIDERED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSACTED IN SHARES A ND HAVING INVESTED ITA NO 1172/PN/09 BOTHARA P MANAKCHAND, AHMENDANAGAR 8 ONLY THE SURPLUS FUNDS IN THE TRANSACTION OF SHARES, IN O UR VIEW, THE SAME HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FALLING UNDER T HE HEAD AS CAPITAL GAIN AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE THER EFORE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE IMPUGNED INCOME FROM SALE OF SHA RES AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT AS BUSINESS INCOME. WE ORD ER ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE, DATED: 24 TH AUGUST, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) BOTHARA P MANAKCHAND, AHMEDNAGAR 2) THE DCIT ANAGAR CIR. AHMEDNAGAR 3) THE CIT (A)-I PUNE 4) THE CIT-I PUNE 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., PUNE B