Income-tax Officer, V. M/s. Brickell Investments, Pune

ITA 1265/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1032 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 12A; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , A M . / ITA NO. 1265 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 - 13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (TDS) - 1, PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. M/S. BRICKELL INVESTMENTS, SECTOR 40, PLOT NO.SDC, OPP POLICE COLONY, WAKAD, PUNE 411041 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AAKFB3682M / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR / RESPOND ENT BY : NONE / RESPOND ENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 12 . 1 0.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.1 0.2015 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - V, PUNE DATED 14 . 03 .20 1 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 2 - 1 3 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1) / 201(1A) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE DEMAND RAISED OF RS. 45 , 17 , 429 / - U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 IN RESPECT OF LEASE PREMIUM PAYMENT PAID TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PCNTDA). ITA NO. 1 265 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. BRICKELL INVESTMENTS 2 2 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA IS UPFRONT PAYMENT AS PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING IN TO LEASE AGREEMENT. 3 . THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DEED ENTERED INTO BY THE DEDUCTOR WITH PCNTDA WAS NOT A TRANSFER DEED BUT A LEASE DEED AND EXPLANATION TO SECTION 194 I CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT ANY PAYMENT BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED UNDER ANY LEASE DEED/AGREEMENT IS TO BE TAKEN AS RENT FOR TDS PURPOSE. 4 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICAT ION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DEMAND CREATED UNDER SECTION 201(1) / 201(1A) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO DEMAND CREATED UNDER SECTION 201(1) / 201(1A) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 45 , 17 , 429 / - IN RESPECT OF THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PCNTDA) . 5. ON THE P ERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A BUILDER FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOT ERS AND DEVELOP ERS OF PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO 99 YEARS LEASE AGREEMENT THROUGH ITS PARTNER S WITH PCNTDA FOR USING 2005.5 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND LO CATED AT PLOT NO. SDC 1/ 2, IN SECTOR NO. 40 , WAKAD , HAVELI, PUNE. THE SAID LAND COULD BE USED BOTH FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID LEASE PREMIUM OF RS. 3 , 7 6 , 45 , 2 40 / - AND HAD FURTHER AGREED TO PAY SUM OF RS.100/ - PER ANNUM FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF LEASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SAID PAYMENT AS RENT AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT, FOR ITA NO. 1 265 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. BRICKELL INVESTMENTS 3 NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO HAVE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON THE SAID LEASE PREMI UM PAID TO PCNTDA . ACCORDINGLY, DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT WAS RAISED AT RS. 37 , 6 4 , 524 / - AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS RAISED AT RS. 7 , 5 2 , 905 / - . 6. WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, AROSE BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO (TDS) VS. PREETAM MEDICAL FOUNDATION & RESEARCH CENTRE, IN ITA NO.190/PN/2014, VIDE ORDER DATE D 16.01.2015 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PCNTDA). IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO 99 YEARS LEASE AGREEMENT THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN WITH PCNTDA FOR USING 3261 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND LOCATED ON PLOT NO.1, IN SECTOR 13, CHIKHALI, TALUKA HAVELI, PUNE. THE SAID LAND WAS TO BE USED FOR EDUCATION PURPOSES AS PER CLAUSE (N) OF THE LEASE DEED. T HE ASSESSEE PAID LEASE PREMIUM OF RS.1,37,36,963/ - FOR THE SAID PLOT AND FURTHER AGREED TO PAY SUM OF RS.100/ - PER ANNUM FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF LEASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (TDS) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UND ER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO PCNTDA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE LEASE PREMIUM TO PCNTDA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE DEDUCTOR. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN IT AND PCNTDA WAS A TRANSACTION OF SALE AND FURTHER APPROPRIATE TAX RETURN HAD BEEN FILED BY IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS NOT THAT OF TRANSFER, BUT OF LEASE AND THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE P ROPERTY, BUT THE SAME WAS LEASED FOR USE EITHER FOR COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AS APPROVED BY THE LESSOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS RESTRICTIONS ON THE LESSEE / ASSESSEE PUT UP BY THE LESSOR AND IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF FREEHOLD TRANSFER OR SALE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT ON THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA. THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE, WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AT RS.13,73,696/ - AND FURTHER INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CHARGED AT RS.82,416/ - . RELIANC E WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOXCONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. VS. ITO (TDS) (SUPRA). 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT NO DOUBT, AFTER 99 YEARS OF LEASE, THE LEASE HOLD RIGHT EXPIRED AND THE LESSOR WAS VESTED WITH THE FULL RIGHTS ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND, WITH THE OPTION EITHER TO RENEW THE LEASE FOR FURTHER PERIOD AND TAKE BACK THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND. HOWEVER, THE PRELIMINARY CLAUSE OF THE LEASE AGREEMEN T REFLECTS THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE PRELIMINARY CLAUSE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT AT PAGE 7 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH ARE NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR ITA NO. 1 265 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. BRICKELL INVESTMENTS 4 THE SAKE OF BR EVITY. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM OF RS.1,37,36,963/ - WAS A PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND THE SAME WAS NOT UNDER THE LEASE DEED, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM FELL OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DEF INITION OF RENT AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOXCONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. VS. ITO (TDS) (SUPRA) AS THE SAME WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS UPFRONT PAYMENT OF LEASE AND FURTHER THE SAID UPFRONT PAYMENT WAS PART OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD RIGHTS, UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHERE, THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NAVI MUMBAI SEZ(P) LTD IN ITA NO.738 TO 7741/MUM/2012, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10, VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.2013, IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO PCNTDA BEING A PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT, COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE PAID UNDER THE TERMS OF LEASE AGREEMENT. FURTHER, STAMP DUT Y HAD BEEN PAID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY LEASE PREMIUM. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DEMAND CREATED UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 7. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQU ARELY COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITO VS. CAMP EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIET Y REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING VARIOUS SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES IN THE CITY OF PUNE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ANOTHER SCHOOL IN PIMPRI CHINCHWAD AREA, THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO AN ADVERTIS EMENT BY PCNTDA, APPLIED FOR A PLOT ON LEASEHOLD BASIS. AS PER THE BID DOCUMENT, WHERE THE BID QUOTED BY A PARTY BASIS. AS PER THE BID DOCUMENT, WHERE THE BID QUOTED BY A PARTY ACCEPTED, THE SAID PARTY WAS REQUIRED TO PAY THE QUOTED AMOUNT I.E. THE PREMIUM WITHIN 3 MONTHS OF THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT. IN CASE SUCH PREM IUM WAS NOT PAID WITHIN PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS, 25% OF THE TENDER DEPOSIT WAS TO BE FORTIFIED AND BALANCE AMOUNT WAS TO BE REFUNDED WITHOUT ANY INTEREST. THE TENDER DOCUMENT STATED THAT THE TENDER WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE OF RESERVED PLOTS AND AS PER THE D OCUMENT FULL PREMIUM WAS TO BE PAID TO PCNTDA AND LEASE AGREEMENT WOULD BE ENTERED WITH THE PARTY. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PCNTDA FOR 99 YEARS AND THE LEASE RENT WAS RS.100/ - PER ANNUM FOR THE PERIOD OF 99 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE ACC ORDINGLY, DEPOSITED THE PREMIUM AMOUNT OF RS.2,20,24,860/ - . AFTER RECEIVING THE PREMIUM AMOUNT, THE LICENSER I.E. PCNTDA AGREED TO EXECUTE LEASE DEED TO CONVEY / TRANSFER / ASSIGN THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS. THE LEASE DEED AUTHORIZES THE ASSESSEE TO BUILD / CO NSTRUCT ANY BUILDING ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM WAS A PRE - CONDITION FOR OBTAINING THE LEASE RIGHTS AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER PAYMENT OF THE LEASE PREMIUM, THE LEASE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO AND BUNDLE OF RIGHTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF THE TDS PAYABLE ON SUCH LEASE RENT PAYMENT TO PCNTDA. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FOX CONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE IN DEFAULT FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX ON SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT ON THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA AND DEMAND UNDER ITA NO. 1 265 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. BRICKELL INVESTMENTS 5 SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT WAS RAISED AND INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS CHARGED, RAISING A DEMAND OF RS.22,90,585/ - . 8. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8 REFERRED TO THE PRELIMINARY CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND PCNTDA AND POINTED OUT THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM FINDS MENTION IN THE LEASE DEED BUT THE SAID PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS A PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT SAME WAS NOT UNDER THE LEASE DEED AND THE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM FALLS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF DEFINITION OF RENT AS SPECI FIED IN SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF FOX CONN INDIA DEVELOPER (P) LTD. (SUPRA) WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS AS IN THAT CASE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS UPFRONT PAYMENT AND NOT LEASE PREMIUM. F URTHER, UPFRONT PAYMENT WAS PART OF CONSIDERATION FOR ACQUIRING LEASEHOLD RIGHTS UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE WHERE PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO LEASE AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. F URTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE SERIES OF DECISIONS, UNDER WHICH SUCH SIMILAR PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM WAS HELD TO BE NOT SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. 9. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM AR OSE BEFORE THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NAVI MUMBAI SEZ (P) LTD. IN ITA NOS.738 TO 740/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 12.08.2013, HELD THAT LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LTD. (CIDCO) FOR ACQUIRING DEVELOPMENT AND LEASEHOLD RIGHTS FOR A PERIOD OF 60 YEARS, WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT. FURTHER ANOTHER BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. WADHWA ASSOCIATES IN ITA NO.695/MUM/2012, VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2013, HELD THAT TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER 03.07.2013, HELD THAT TDS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SECTION 194I OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF LEASE PREMIUM TO M/S. MMRD LTD. 10. I N VIEW OF ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEREIN THE LEASE PREMIUM WAS PAID TO PCNTDA BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID CONSEQUENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT STAMP DUTY HAD BEEN PAID ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY THE LEASE PREMIUM, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. RELYING UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THREE DIFFERENT CASES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194I OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN RAISING THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 8. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT WHERE THE LEASE PREMIUM PAID TO PCNTDA WAS A PRE - CONDITION FOR ENTERING INTO THE LEASE AGREEMENT, THE SAME NOT BEING PAID CONSEQUENT TO THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF RENT AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 194 I OF THE ACT. IN ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID STAMP DUTY ON T HE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT REPRESENTED BY THE LEASE PREMIUM AND THE SAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A) HAVING NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ITA NO. 1 265 /PN/20 1 4 M/S. BRICKELL INVESTMENTS 6 REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE U PHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 7. F OLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 13 TH OCTOBER , 2015 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE AP PELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - V , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - TDS , PUNE ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE