Income-tax Officer, V. Shri Venkatesh Creators Promoters & Developers, Pune

ITA 1240/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7447 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPIN K GUJARATHI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.1240/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 I NCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(1), PUNE, 4 TH FLOOR, C WING, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE 411 037. . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI VENKATESH CREATORS PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS, 96/B, 96C, DPM, KANUNVAR PRABHUNAGAR, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, MUNDHWA, PUNE 411036. PAN :ABAFS6199K . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPIN K. GUJARATHI REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH JHA, JCIT. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 7, PUNE DT.09.06.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- / DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.09.2017 2 ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER-SHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS, DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. ASSESSE E ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 29.09.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.NIL AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.57,42,992/- U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. T HE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.24.03.2014 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.57,42,992/- BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO V IDE ORDER DT.09.06.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-7/ITO WD-1(3), PN/376/2014-15) ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGR IEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFO RE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE HONBLE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTI ON TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) WHEN ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMP LETE THE HOUSING PROJECT AS REQUIRED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC .80IB(10)(A)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE HONBLE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IB(10) WHEN THE EXPLANATION (II) TO CLAUSE (A) OF SEC.80IB(10) PROVIDES THAT THE DATE OF COMPLETION O F CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THAT THE D ATE ON WHICH THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH HOUSING P ROJECT IS ISSUED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND NO SUCH CERTIFICATE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE HONBLE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN INTERPRETING SEC. 80IB(10), IN THE CONTEXT OF APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATION (II) TO CLA USE (A), IN A MANNER NEITHER CONTEMPLATED NOR PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE ACT . 3. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE SOLE CONTR OVERSY IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) O F THE ACT. 3 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON PERU SING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT IT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.57,42,992/- U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT CONSTRUCTED AT PLOT NO.2C, S URVEY NO.96B, 96C, 96D VILLAGE MUNDHWA, DISTRICT PUNE. AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED FIVE WINGS OF THE PROJECT BU T COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS RECEIVED ONLY FOR FOUR WINGS. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE ENTIRE HOUSING PROJE CT BEFORE 31.03.2009. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE COMPLE TION CERTIFICATE WAS NOT RECEIVED FOR ENTIRE PROJECT, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO D ECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A PPELLANT AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT'S CASE FOR AY. 2009- 10 INVOLVING SIMILAR ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(1 0) FOR THE SAME PROJECT OF THE APPELLANT WAS BEFORE THE ERSTWHILE CIT(APPEALS)-I, PUNE, FOR ADJU DICATION AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED IN APPELLANT'S FAVOUR VIDE APPELLA TE ORDER NO.PN/CIT(A)-I/ITO WD 1(3)/PN/454/11-12 DATED 01.03 .2013, WHICH WAS ALSO FOLLOWING BY THE CIT (APPEALS)-I, PU NE IN APPELLANT'S CASE FOR AY. 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2014. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER FOR AY. 2009 DATED 01.03.4013 IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: '3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND FIN D THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR OCC UPANCY CERTIFICATE BEFORE PMC ON 27.11.2007 IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE HOUSING PROJECT ENCOMPASSING ALL 5 BUILDINGS. HOWEV ER DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT I.E. REQUIREMENT OF NOC FROM LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THE APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE ONLY PART COMPLETION FOR 4 OUT OF 5 WINGS ON 6.10.2008. IT WAS ONLY ON 21.4.2009 THAT T HE APPELLANT COULD INFORMALLY PROCURE A LETTER ADDL. C ITY ENGINEER (VIGILANCE) OF PMC TO CLARIFY THAT COMPLET ION CANNOT BE GIVEN FOR C WING TILL THE TIME THE LABOUR NOC IS NOT SUBMITTED BY THEM. A PERUSAL OF THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PMC AT THE FIRST INSTANCE DATED 18.5.2004, AND SUBSEQUENT COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATES DATED 28.2.2006 AND 7.2.2007 SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO CONDITION REGARDING REQUIREMENT OF LABOUR NOC 4 COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT FROM THE SIDE OF PMC. 3.4. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT SINCE THE APPLIC ATION FOR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE WAS MADE BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES WELL WITHIN TIME I.E. ON 27.11.2007 AND NO REFUSAL NOR ANY OBJECTION WAS RECEIVED WITHIN A PER IOD OF 21 DAYS OF SUCH SUBMISSION, IT SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAV E BEEN GRANTED IN TERMS OF RULE 7. 7 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES, PUNE ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO OBJE CTION FROM PMC THAT THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IS NOT IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE SANCTIONED PLAN. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ITAT PUNE BENCH DECISION IN SATISH D ORA & ASSOCIATES VS. ALIT IN ITA NO. 713 & 714/PN/2010. FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TRI ED ITS LEVEL BEST TO PRODUCE THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE BUT DUE T O REASONS BEYOND ITS CONTROL VIZ. THE ISSUE REGARDING LABOUR NOC IN RESPECT OF THE LANDLORD, THE SAME COULD NOT BE PROD UCED. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON PUNE ITAT DECISION IN RAMSUKH PROPERTIES VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.84/PN/2008 FO R THE PROPOSITION THAT TAXING STATUTE GRANTING INCENTIVE FOR PROMOTION OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE INTER PRETED LIBERALLY. 3.5. IN THE CASE OF SATISH BORA & ASSOCIATES, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED OBJECTION LETTER FROM PMC ON 23.12.2005 IN RESPECT OF HIS APPLICATION DATED 29.10.2005, WHEREIN DEFECT S WERE COMMUNICATED AND WHICH REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO REM OVE THOSE DEFECTS FOR ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE THE ITAT, AFTER ANALYSIS OF SEC.263 OF THE BOMBAY PROVI NCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1949 AND RULES 7.6 AND 7 .7 OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES FOR PMC HELD THAT EVEN IN A CASE WHERE SMALL OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED FROM PMC AFTER A PERIOD OF 21 DAYS UNDER RULE 7.7, THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DEEM ED TO HAVE SANCTION TOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPLETION OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY NO OBJECTI ON HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM PMC TILL DATE. THIS DECISION IS THEREFORE, SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT'S CASE. SO FAR AS THE OTHER DECISION OF RAMSUKH PROPERTIES IS CONCERNED, THE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT SIN CE PMC TOOK INORDINATELY LONG TIME TO GRANT THE PERMISSION FOR MODIFICATION, SINCE THEIR FILES HAD BEEN TAKEN OVER BY INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT FOR INVESTIGATION OF VIOLAT ION OF URBAN LAND CEILING ACT. IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE COMP LETION COULD NOT BE MADE DUE TO REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL , THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) PROPORTIONATELY IN RESPECT OF FLATS COMPLETED WITHI N THE PRESCRIBED TIME. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE HOUSING P ROJECT OF THE APPELLANT WAS APPROVED ON 18.5.2004, WHEREAS TH E CONDITION FOR COMPLETION WITHIN 4 YEARS OF END OF Y EAR OF APPROVAL CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1.4.2005 VIDE FINANC E ACT, 2004. THEREFORE, ON THIS ACCOUNT ALSO, THE CLAIM O F THE APPELLANT THAT, THE ACT AS IF THEN STOOD, DID NOT P ROVIDE ANY STATUTORY TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF HOUSING PROJE CTS, APPEARS TO BE CORRECT. 3.6 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE RECEIVED FROM THE PM C DATED 11.2.2013 IN RESPECT OF 'C' WING. HOWEVER, THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT CONSIDERED EVEN NECESSARY AT THIS STAGE AND IS NOT ADMITTED DUE TO THE FACT' THAT JUD ICIAL 5 PRECEDENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT C ITED ABOVE NAMELY SALISH BORA & ASSOCIATES, WHICH IS BINDING ON THE UNDERSIGNED AS ALSO THE FACT THAT THE AMENDED PROVI SIONS OF SEC.80IB(10) BY FINANCE ACT, 2004 APPLIED TO PROJEC TS APPROVED ON OR AFTER 1.4.2005, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10). GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED.' FURTHER, THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-I WAS C HALLENGED BEFORE THE ITAT PUNE BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE HON'BLE ITA T PUNE ENDORSED THE VIEW OF THE CIT (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER N O. ITA 1202/PN/2013 DATED 09.09.2014 OBSERVING AS UNDER : 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECIS IONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT TH AT THE ASSESSEE VIDE APPLICATION DATED 27.11.2007 SUBMITTE D APPLICATION FOR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE BEFORE PMC IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF 5 BUILDING S. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE 5 WINGS ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE PART COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF 4 WINGS ON 06.10.2008. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF COMPLET ION CERTIFICATE FOR THE 5TH WING IS CONCERNED, IT IS TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE OBTAINED DUE TO NON-SUBMISSION OF LABOUR NOC. THE NON RECEIPT OF TH E ABOVE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF TH E ASSESSEE. FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED VARIOUS NOCS LIKE LIFT, DRAINAGE, FIRE AN D WATER WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR ISSUE OF COMPLETION CERTIFIC ATE. POSSESSION OF THE FLATS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSES SEE TO THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE RE CORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE TO THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES ON 27.11.2 007 AND NO REFUSAL OR OBJECTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE W ITHIN A PERIOD OR 21 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH SUBMISSION. THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF RULE 7.7 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES, RUNE IT SHOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GRANTE D SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO OBJECTION FROM THE PMC THAT THE B UILDING CONSTRUCTED IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SANCTIONE D PLAN. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATISH BORA AND ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E. THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAMS UKH PROPERTIES HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 8 0IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH WAS DENIED TO IT BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLETED ALL THE 205 FLATS IN THE PROJECT WITHIN T IME STIPULATED UNDER THE SECTION. .. .. 9.1 WE FIND THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. TARNETAR CORPORATION (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED A S UNDER (SHORT NOTES). 6 THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION WELL B EFORE 31.03.2008 IS NOT IN DOUBT. IT IS TRUE THAT FORMALL Y BU PERMISSION WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORI TY BY SUCH DATE. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT EXPLANATION (II) TO CLAUSE (A) TO SEC.80IB(10) LINKS THE COMPLETION OF THE CON STRUCTION TO THE BU PERMISSION BEING GRANTED BY THE LOCAL AUT HORITY. HOWEVER, NOT EVERY CONDITION OF THE STATUTE CAN BE SEEN AS MANDATORY. IF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE THEREOF IS. ESTABLISHED ON RECORD, IN A GIVEN CASE, THE COURT M AY TAKE THE VIEW THAT MINOR DEVIATION THEREOF WOULD NOT VIT IATE THE VERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH DEDUCTION WAS BEING MADE AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPLETED THE CONSTRUC TION TWO YEARS BEFORE THE FINAL DATE AND HAD APPLIED FOR BU PERMISSION. SUCH BU PERMISSION WAS NOT REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT COMPLETED, BUT SOM E OTHER TECHNICAL GROUND. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATER, GRANTING BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ILLEGAL.[ PARA 7] 9.2 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION CITED (SUPRA) AND IN VIE W OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE ALL OWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) WE FIND NO INF IRMITY IN THE SAME. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER AND THE RELEVANT LEGAL POSITION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING SIMILAR AS THE D EDUCTION CLAIMED IS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME PROJECT I.E. VENK ATESH FLORA, THE DECISION TAKEN IN APPELLANT'S CASE BY THE LD CIT (A )-I, PUNE AND THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE VIDE ORDERS DATED 01.03.2013 AND 09.09.2014, RESPECTIVELY ARE FOLLOWE D. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO A LLOW THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS HELD AS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. TOOK US THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF AO AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND LD .A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) A ND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NO INTERFERE NCE TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. 7 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTED THAT SIMILAR ISSU E OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AROSE IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE IN ITA NO.1202/PN/2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND THE SAME WA S DECIDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR BY HIS PREDECESSOR. HE HA S FURTHER NOTED THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, PUNE AND TH E TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER A ND WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. BEFORE US REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 HAS BE EN SET ASIDE OR STAYED BY HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES NOR POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE A ND THAT OF EARLIER YEAR. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE FIND NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017. YAMINI 8 ' #$%& '&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. 5. 6. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(A)-7, PUNE. CIT-6, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $+,-/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // / TRUE COPY / / //T// TURE COPY // ./0%1&2 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.