Dy. CIT, Cir.-1, Nashik V. Shri Abhijit Anil Kothasthane, Nashik

ITA 1244/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2497 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Validity of assessment; Procedural lapse; Block assessment
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 145; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 1244/PN/2011 BLOCK PERIOD: 01-04-1996 TO 09-10-2002 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. SHRI ABHIJIT ANIL KOTHASTHANE, MATRUKRUPA OPP.-MOTWANI FACTORY, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK 422010 PAN : AOCPK5146B / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 18-01-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-03-2016 ( / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, NASHIK DATED 27-07 -2011 PASSED U/S. 158BD R.W.S. 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR THE BLOCK PERIO D 01-04-1996 TO 09-10-2002. 2 ITA NO. 1244/PN/2011 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000, TH E ASSESSEE WORKED AS A SUB-CONTRACTOR OF M/S. PRAKASH C ONSTROWELL PVT. LTD. FOR ELECTRIFICATION OF 106 FLATS OF POLICE HOUSING CORPORAT ION AT DHULE FOR THE SUB-CONTRACT PRICE OF ` 16,43,500/-. SIMILARLY, DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01, THE ASSESSEE WORKED AS SUB-CONT RACTOR OF M/S. PRAKASH CONSTROWELL PVT. LTD. FOR RCC WORK OF MUMBAI NAKA BRIDGE WORK FOR THE SUB-CONTRACT PRICE OF ` 9,05,061/-. M/S. PRAKASH CONSTROWELL PVT. LTD. DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE S UB-CONTRACT PAYMENTS, DEPOSITED THE SAME WITH THE GOVERNMENT ACCOU NT AND ISSUED TDS CERTIFICATES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT THE TDS CERTIFICATES RECEIVED FROM M/S. PRAKASH CONSTROWELL PVT. LTD., WAS A SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE IN RESPECT OF HIS TAX OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ACT, DID NOT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 , WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED U/S. 139. A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132(1) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. PRAKASH CONSTRUWELL PVT . LTD., NASHIK. DURING SEARCH IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AFORESAID COM PANY HAD MADE SUB-CONTRACT PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PAY MENTS TO THE TUNE OF ` 25,50,552/- WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID PAYMENTS PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WERE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE. NOTICE U/S. 158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21-03-2005. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FILED BLOCK RETURN ON 21-04-2005 DEC LARING NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. ALONG WITH THE BLO CK RETURN THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED REGULAR RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 ON 21-04-2005 DECLARING INCOME FROM BUSINESS . THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED INCOME OF ` 1,31,480/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 3 ITA NO. 1244/PN/2011 2000-01 AND ` 72,560/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20001-02 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY COMPUTING TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AT ` 28,00,552/- WITH THE TOTAL PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF ` 25,20,497/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27-03-2007, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLE NGED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE ABSENCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2), AS WELL AS ON MERITS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT SINCE NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS EVER ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE, THEREFORE, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS NULL AND VOID AND QUASHED THE SAME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) FOLLOWED THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON REPORTED AS 321 ITR 362 (SC). THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE ON MERITS AS WELL. NOW, THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORD ER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN TREATING THE ASS ESSMENT PASSED UNDER SEC. 158BD R.W.S.158BC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1996 TO 09/10/2002 (A.Y.1997-98 TO 200 3-04) AS NULL AND VOID AND QUASHING SAME. 2. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT WAS NOT VALID DUE TO NON SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SEE.143(2) EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ACQUIESCED IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE AO AND THEREFOR E THE PROVISIONS OF SEE.292BB OF THE INCOME- TAX-ACT, 1961 WERE APPL IED. 4 ITA NO. 1244/PN/2011 3. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SEE.292BB ALTHOUGH THEY ARE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND THERE FORE THEY CAN BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE CIT(A) ERRED IN QUASHING THE NOTICE UNDER SEE.158BD FOR THE REASONS THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS RECORDED AFTER COMPLETION BLO CK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF PERSON SEARCHED. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT NO TIME LIMIT FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.158BD OF THE I T ACT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, T HE LEARNED CIT(A)- I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AT ` 25,50,552/- ON ACCOUNT OF FICTITIOUS SUB-CONTRACT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/ 1996 TO 09/10/2002 (A.Y.1997-98 TO 03-04). 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LEARNED CLT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION AT ` 2,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1996 TO 09/10/2002 (A.Y.1997-98 TO 200 3-04). 8. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADDITION UNDER SEE. 158BD R.W.S. 158BC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 9. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 10.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND ALT ER ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL. 3. SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE. NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 132(2) IS FATAL TO THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN SUPPOR T OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE 5 ITA NO. 1244/PN/2011 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATE D IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 292BB IT IS DEEMED THAT THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSE E. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS; WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2), THE ASSESS MENT MADE IS VALID? IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY BU T A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS NOT A R ECTIFIABLE DEFECT EVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB CANNOT RESCU E THE DEPARTMENT FOR NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2). 6. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ASS ISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS. HOTEL BLUE MOO N (SUPRA) HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO MANDATORY RE QUIREMENT OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2). THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS : (1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS MANDA TORY? THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTION IN AFFIRMATIVE HELD AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 1244/PN/2011 15. ..SEC. 158BC(B) PROVIDES FOR ENQUIRY AND ASSESSMENT. THE SAID PROVISION READS 'THAT THE AO SHALL PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE MANNE R LAID DOWN IN S. 158BB AND THE PROVISIONS OF S. 142, SUB-SS. (2) AND (3) OF S. 143, S. 144 AND S. 145 SHALL SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY.' AN ANALY SIS OF THIS SUB-SECTION INDICATES THAT, AFTER THE RETURN IS FILED, THIS CLA USE ENABLES THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LIKE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2)/142 AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 14 3(3). THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ACCEPTING THE RETURN AS PROVID ED U/S. 143(1)(A). THE AO HAS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) ONLY. IN CASE OF DEFAULT IN NOT FILING THE RETURN OR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE NOT ICE U/S. 143(2)/142, THE AO IS AUTHORIZED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX PART E U/S. 144. CLAUSE (B) OF S. 158BC BY REFERRING TO SS. 143(2) AND 143( 3) WOULD APPEAR TO IMPLY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 143(1) ARE EXCLUDED . BUT S. 143(2) ITSELF BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE IT BECOMES NECESSARY T O CHECK THE RETURN, SO THAT WHERE BLOCK RETURN CONFORMS TO THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME INFERRED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THERE IS NO REASON, WHY THE AUT HORITIES SHOULD ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2). HOWEVER, IF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 158BC, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) SHOULD BE I SSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF BLOCK RETURN. OMISS ION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) CAN NOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE AND, THERE FORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH . THE OTHER IMPORTANT FEATURE THAT REQUIRES TO BE NOTICED IS THAT THE S. 158BC(B) SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH R EQUIRES TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS UN DER CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE ACT. THIS LEGISLATION IS BY INCORPORATION. T HIS SECTION EVEN SPEAKS OF SUB-SECTIONS WHICH ARE TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE AO. HAD THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO EXCLUDE THE PROVISIONS OF CH APTER XIV OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE OR COULD HAVE INDICATED THAT ALSO. A READING OF THE PROVISION WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE, IN OUR OPINIO N, IF THE AO, IF FOR ANY REASON, REPUDIATES THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 158BC(A), THE AO MUST NECESSARILY ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN THE PROVISO TO S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. WHERE THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN PROVISI ONS FROM THE AMBIT OF S. 158BC(B) IT HAS DONE SO SPECIFICALLY. THUS, WHEN S. 158BC(B) SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO [SIC-S. 143(2)] APPLICABILITY OF THE PROV ISO THERETO CANNOT BE EXCLUDED. WE MAY ALSO NOTICE HERE ITSELF THAT THE C LARIFICATION GIVEN BY CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO. 717, DT. 14TH AUG., 1995, HAS A BINDING EFFECT ON THE DEPARTMENT, BUT NOT ON THE COURT. THIS CIRCULAR CLARIFIES THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SUB-S. (2) OF S. 7 ITA NO. 1244/PN/2011 143 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCLUDE EVEN FOR T HE PURPOSE OF CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE ACT, FOR THE DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME FOR A BLOCK PERIOD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 158BC, THE PROVIS IONS OF S. 142 AND SUB-SS. (2) AND (3) OF S. 143 ARE APPLICABLE AND NO ASSESSMENT COULD BE MADE WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, IT IS CONTENDED BY SRI SHEKHAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE D EPARTMENT THAT IN VIEW OF THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE' IN S. 153 BC(B), THE ISSUE OF NOTICE IS NOT MANDATORY BUT OPTIONAL AND ARE TO BE APPLIED TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE. IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONTENTION, THE LEA RNED COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS COURT IN DR. PARTAP SINGH'S CASE. IN THIS CASE, THE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT S. 37(2) PROVIDES THAT 'THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE RELATING TO SEARCHES, SHALL SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY TO SEARCHES DIRECTED U/S. 37(2). READING THE TWO SECTIONS TOGET HER IT MERELY MEANS THAT THE METHODOLOGY PRESCRIBED FOR CARRYING OUT TH E SEARCH PROVIDED IN S. 165 HAS TO BE GENERALLY FOLLOWED. THE EXPRESSION 'S O FAR AS MAY BE' HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSTRUED TO MEAN THAT THOSE PROVISIONS MAY BE GENERALLY FOLLOWED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE RESPONDENT HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF MAGANLAL VS. . JAISWAL INDUSTRIES & ORS. (1989) 4 SCC 344, WHEREIN THIS COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE SCOPE AND IMPORT OF THE EXPRESSION 'AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE' HAS STATED 'WITHOUT ANYTHING MO RE THE EXPRESSION 'AS FAR AS POSSIBLE' WILL MEAN THAT THE MANNER PROVIDED IN THE CODE FOR ATTACHMENT OR SALE OF PROPERTY IN EXECUTION OF A DE CREE SHALL BE APPLICABLE IN ITS ENTIRETY EXCEPT SUCH PROVISION TH EREIN WHICH MAY NOT BE PRACTICABLE TO BE APPLIED. 16. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY' INDICATES THAT IT IS NOT EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF S. 142, SUB-SS. (2) AND (3) OF S. 143 STRICTLY FOR THE PURP OSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, SINCE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY'. IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE AO IN REPUDIATION OF THE RETURN FILED U/S. 158B C(A) PROCEEDS TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY, HE HAS NECESSARILY TO FOLLOW THE PROVIS IONS OF S. 142, SUB-SS. (2) AND (3) OF S. 143. [EMPHASIZED BY US] THUS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF IN DIA, IT IS AMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT EVEN IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENTS MADE UNDER 8 ITA NO. 1244/PN/2011 CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE ACT. NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 1 43(2) IS NOT A RECTIFIABLE DEFECT. 7. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION O F HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 18 TH MARCH, 2016 RK ()*%+,#-#.+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. ' / THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE