Pendse and Associates, Pune V. ITO, Ward 3(4), Pune

ITA 1270/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 127024514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MODI
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1270 / P N/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 7 - 08 M/S. PENDSE AND ASSOCIATES, 2 COMM ERCE CENTRE, 16 RAMBAUG COLONY, PAUD ROAD, PUNE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABFP4440L APPELLANT BY: N O N E RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.K. MODI DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 0 5 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 9 - 05 - 2014 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT - II, PUNE DATED 2 1 - 03 - 2012 FOR THE A.Y. 200 7 - 08. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ORDER DT. 21 ST MARCH, 2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT, PUNE II (CIT) UNDER S. 263 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') IS BEYOND JURISDICTION, BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. 2. THAT THE CIT ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN EXERCISING REVISIONARY POWERS UNDER S. 263 HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT SATISFY ING THE PREREQUISITE CONDITIONS OF THAT SECTION. 3. THAT THE CIT ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION/ENQUIRIES 2 ITA NO. 1270 /PN/201 3 , M/S. PENDSE AND ASSOCIATES, PUNE AND PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO AND EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN REVISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 30 TH SEPT 2009, BY SUBSTITUTING HIS OPINION WITH THAT OF THE AO, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUNDS, THAT THE LEARNED CIT ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT INTEREST EARNED ON ADVANC E GIVEN TO SISTER CONCERN WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 ON 20 - 02 - 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSEE U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT AFTER SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30,883/ - AGAINST THE CURRENT YEARS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,30,929/ - . THE NE T INCOME OF RS.30,883/ - HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION AND INTEREST PAYABLE/PAID TO THE PARTNERS. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. CIT - II, PUNE CALLED FOR ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED THE SAME. AS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EFFECTIVELY ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME APART FROM MAKING A MINOR DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) , THEREBY ALLOWING T HE ASSESSEES ENTIRE CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES COMPRISING INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION. IN THE OPINION OF THE LD. CIT THE SAID ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PRIMA - FACIE INCORRECT BECAUSE THE EXPENSES THUS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTIONS PERTAINED TO BUSINESS WHEREAS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE INCOME CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT CONSISTED OF DIVIDEND AT RS.4 , 500 / - , INTEREST RECEIPTS AT RS.13,16,708 / - AND MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS. 6 , 612 / - WHICH WERE 3 ITA NO. 1270 /PN/201 3 , M/S. PENDSE AND ASSOCIATES, PUNE PATENTLY IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT HAS NOTED THAT SET OFF OF THE BUSINESS EXPENSES AGAINST INCOME IN THE NATURE OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES WAS ERRONEOUS. THE LD. CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AGAINST THE CURRENT YEARS INCOME WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NATURE OF THE UNABSORBED LOSS AND THE ELIGIBILITY OF SUCH LOSS FOR SET OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT YEARS INCOME PARTAKING THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30 - 09 - 2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 WAS CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT SEEKING THE EXPLANATION WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS . T HE ASSESSEE RESPONDED BY FILING HIS REPLY . THE LD. CIT WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER F OR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO DO AFRESH. THE REASONING AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT ARE AS UNDER: 5.1 THE THRUST OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT A S THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY SCHEME SINCE THE F.Y. 2005 - 06, IT HAD ADVANCED ITS FUNDS TO OTHER CONCERNS IN WHICH ONE OF THE PARTNERS WAS ALSO A PARTNER, AND SINCE SUCH OTHER FIRMS WERE ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS, THE INTERES T RECEIVED FROM THEM ON THE ADVANCES HAD BEEN ACCORDINGLY OFFERED TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME. IT IS ALSO THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT THE VERY FACT THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SUPPLIERS OF GOODS PURCHASED IN THE EARLIER YEAR, A PART OF WHICH WAS ALSO DISA LLOWED U/S. 40A(3), WOULD IN ITSELF INDICATE THAT BUSINESS HAD BEEN CARRIED ON IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AS WELL. 5.2 I AM AFRAID, THE ARGUMENTS THUS RAISED ARE WITHOUT OF ANY MERIT. BY THE ASSESSEE'S OWN ADMISSION, THERE WAS NO SCHEME SINCE THE F.Y. 2 005 - 06. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WERE NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 4 ITA NO. 1270 /PN/201 3 , M/S. PENDSE AND ASSOCIATES, PUNE THEREAFTER. A MERE PAYMENT OF SOME EARLIER DUES WOULD NOT BY ITSELF SPRING A BUSINESS INTO EXISTENCE. THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO STRETCHING THE CONCEPT OF 'BUSINESS' TOO FAR AND BEYOND COMPREHENSION. IN T HIS SCENARIO I.E. WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DO ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND, THEREFORE, HAD ADVANCED IDLE SURPLUS FUNDS TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS, THE INTEREST ON SUCH ADVANCES CAN BY NO MEANS PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF BUSINESS INCOME. FOR, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE FUNDS HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE SISTER CONCERNS IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSEE'S OWN BUSINESS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN BUSINESS WAS NOT BEING CARRIED ON, THE MERE FACT THAT THE OTHER FIRMS TO WHOM THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN ALSO HAPPENED TO BE DEVELO PERS / BUILDERS WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO CONVERT THE ACT OF ADVANCING OF FUNDS INTO A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION INVOLVED HERE. THE MERE PARKING OF IDLE FUND WITH A VIEW TO EARNING INCBME DID NOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PRUDENCE EITHER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIRMS COULD ONLY BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER SOURCES'. THIS WOULD NOT ALTER MERELY BECAUSE SUCH INTEREST HAD BEEN OFFERED TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE PRECEDIN G ASSESSMENT YEAR. 5.3 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS GROSSLY IN ERROR IN NOT ASSESSING THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND, INTEREST ETC. UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER SOURCES'. IN FACT, THE HEAD UNDER WHICH THE INTEREST INCOME SHOULD HAVE; BEEN ASSESSED DID NOT ENGAGE HIS ATTENTION AT ALL. AS OBSERVED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 15/3/2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EVEN PURSUE THE ASSESSEE'S RESPONSE TO AN INITIAL QUERY WHEREBY 'NOTE ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND SOURCE OF INCOME' HAD BEEN CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY SUCH NOTE. AS A RESULT, I.E. DUE TO TOTAL NON - APPLICATION OF MIND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT ONLY ENDED UP BY ASSESSING THE INCOME IN QUESTION UNDER THE WRONG HEAD OF BUSINESS, HE ALSO ALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENSES WHICH HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH EXPENSES WERE PRIMA FACIE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND HENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. NON - APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO LED HIM TO ALLOW SET - OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NATURE OF SUCH LOSS AND ITS ELIGIBILITY FOR SET - OFF AGAINST THE CURRENT YEAR'S INCOME WHICH WAS IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 5 ITA NO. 1270 /PN/201 3 , M/S. PENDSE AND ASSOCIATES, PUNE 5.4 FOR THE D ETAILED DISCUSSION HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IN ALLOWING THE EXPENSES AS DEDUCTION DESERVES TO BE REVERSED. HOWEVER, FOR THE PRESENT, I WOULD DIRECT SUCH REVERSAL IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES OTHER THAN PAYMENT OF INTEREST BY THE ASSESSEE 'ON MONEYS BORROWED FROM BANK AND ITS PARTNERS.' THIS IS BECAUSE THE PLEA RAISED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT POINT NO. 8 OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ROUTINELY IGNORED. IN I THIS ALTERNATIVE PLEA, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IN THE EVENT THE INTEREST INCOME IS TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE INTEREST PAID TO BANKS AND PARTNERS BE ALLOWED U/S. 57 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. THIS ALTERNATIVE PLEA IS BEING TAKEN UP BECAUSE, AS ALREADY HELD, THE INTEREST RECEIPTS WILL HAVE TO BE TAXED AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THE INTEREST PAYMENT MADE ,TO BANK AND PARTNERS CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INTEREST RECEIPTS WOULD DEPEND ON THE NEXUS OF SUCH PAYMENTS WITH THE INTEREST RECEIPTS WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 57 (II) OF THE ACT. THE INTEREST PAYMENTS WOULD QUALIFY AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INTEREST RECEIPTS ONLY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST PAYMENTS HAD BEEN LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPO SE OF MAKING OR EARNING THE INTEREST RECEIPTS. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF INTEREST; PAYMENTS AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INTEREST RECEIPTS AS PER SECTION 57(III) SHOULD BE DECIDED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AS WOULD ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BEING DECIDED A FRESH. 5.6 WHILE RE - DOING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO DECIDE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM TOWARDS SET - OFF OF BROUGHT - FORWARD LOSS AGAINST THE CURRENT YEAR'S INCOME WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES.' 4. NOW THE ASSESSE E HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT - II, PUNE BEFORE US. 5. NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (DR) IS PRESENT. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. CIT (DR). 6 ITA NO. 1270 /PN/201 3 , M/S. PENDSE AND ASSOCIATES, PUNE 6. IT IS SEEN THAT THE NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST AD HAS BEEN SERVED O N THE ASSESSEE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS ON RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THIS APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LD. CIT (DR) . 7. IN THIS CASE WE FIND THAT AS PER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS SINCE 1991. IN THE A.Y. 2006 - 07, IT COMPLETED TWO SCHEMES AND THE INCOME WAS OFFERED FOR TAX ON DEGREE OF COMPLETION METHOD. DURING THE F.Y. 2005 - 06, THERE WAS NO NEW SCHEME IN THE PIPELINE HENCE, THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED CERTAI N AMOUNTS TO OTHER CONCERNS IN WHICH ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ALSO A PARTNERS IN OTHER FIRMS ARE ALSO ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY THOSE FIRMS WAS OFFERED FOR TAX AS BUSINE SS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE ADVANCES IN THE F.Y. 2005 - 06 AND THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO SHOW THE SAID INTEREST INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS ETC. FOR EXAMINATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF CASH PAYMENTS WHICH PERTAIN TO A SUPPLIER OF GOODS, PURCHASED IN EARLIER YEAR. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PAYMENT TO MATERIAL SUPPLIER OF EARLIER YEAR PURCHASES IS CERTAINLY A BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR 2006 - 07. ALTERNATIVELY IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE THE LD. CIT - II, PUNE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE MONEY BORROWED FROM BANK AND ITS P ARTNERS. IN THE EVENT THE SAID INTEREST IS TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE INTEREST PAID TO BANK AND PARTNERS BE ALLOWED U/S. 57 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 8. WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE POWER EXERCISED BY THE LD. CIT - II, PUNE U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX A CT . T HE SCOPE OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIT 7 ITA NO. 1270 /PN/201 3 , M/S. PENDSE AND ASSOCIATES, PUNE U/S. 263 HAS COME FOR THE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY IN THE PLETHORA OF DECISION INCLUDING THE LAND MARKED DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) . ON PE RUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT . I T IS NOT DENIED EVEN BY THE LD. CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS. IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS NO BUS INESS BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELATING TO THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 NOR IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOSED THE BUSINESS AND DIVERTED TO SOME OTHER ACTIVITY. THE RESERVATION OF THE CIT IS TO THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS BUSINESS PROFESSION. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EVEN MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT THAT SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY AFTER EXAMINATION DECIDED TO TREAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS IN THE BUSINESS PROFESSION. 9. IN OUR OPINION THIS IS NOT A CASE OF THE LACK OF ENQUIRY NOR IT IS THE CASE OF THE INADEQUATE ENQUIRY. MERELY BECAUSE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE CIT THAT WILL NOT VEST A JURISDICTION IN HIM TO EXERCISE THE POWER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THE LAW IS ALSO BEEN WE LL EXPLAINED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GABRIAL INDIA LTD., 203 ITR 108 (BOM.) . IN OUR OPINION, ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ONE MERELY BECAUSE THE LD. CIT IS NOT AGREEING TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHICH WAS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT AS PER THE MANDATE OF SEC. 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , TWO CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED (I) ORDER MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND (II) IT SHOULD AL SO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE 8 ITA NO. 1270 /PN/201 3 , M/S. PENDSE AND ASSOCIATES, PUNE REVENUE. EVEN IF ONE CONDITION IS NOT FULFILLED THE COMMISSIONER HAS NO POWER TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S. 263 IS ITSELF ERRONEOUS AND WIT HOUT JURISDICTION. WE, ACCORDINGLY, QUASH THE SAID ORDER AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 - 05 - 20 1 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 29 TH MAY, 20 1 4 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 THE CIT - II, PUNE 4 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 5 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE