M/s. Mantri Construction P. Ltd., Pune V. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1284/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7277 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RISHI LODHA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation
• Section: 234B; 10; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / I TA NO S . 1283 & 1284 /PUN/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 M/S. MANTRI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. CTS NO.996, F.P. 383, GOKHALE NAGAR ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE - 411 005. PAN : AABCM1615M ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 11, PUNE. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI RISHI LODHA REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MODI / DATE OF HEARING : 05.09.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 .10.2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, PUNE DATED 29.11.2013 COMMON FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR AND ARE ARISING FROM SA ME SET OF 2 ITA NOS.1283 & 1284/PUN/2014 A.YS. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 FACTS, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTORING THE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE DISALLOWANCE AND ADDING BACK THE ENTIRE COST OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AND OTHER ACCESSORIES PROVIDED AND FITTED IN THE UNITS SOLD, TO THE AO WHEN N O SUCH POWER IS AVAILABLE TO THE CIT(A) U/S.251(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TAXING THE INCOME OF RS. 62,19,708/ - EARNED BY T HE APPELLANT IN LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY HELD AS STOCK - IN - TRADE UNDER THE HEAD, BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST UNDER THE HEAD, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING AMOUNT OF RS.1,21,647/ - CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION FROM THE SAID RENTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES PAID. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE CIT(A) ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE DE DUCTION OF RS. 18,29,418/ - U/S.24(A). ALTERNATIVELY, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON SUCH PROPERTY. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADDING BACK THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,01,200/ - BEING THE RENT PASSED ON TO THE PURCHASER OF THE UNIT. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234B/C. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 3. SHRI RISHI LODHA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR BOTH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ARE IDENTICAL. THE ASSESSEE I S NOT PRESS ING GROUND NO. 1 IN BOTH THE APPEALS. 3 ITA NOS.1283 & 1284/PUN/2014 A.YS. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 3.1 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2, THE L D. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL ESTATE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING RENTAL INCOME OF RS.62,19,708/ - FROM LET TING OUT OF SHOPS/OFFICE PREMISES HELD AS STOCK - IN - TRADE . THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED COMMERCIAL COMPLEX. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, SOME SHOPS/OFFICES WERE HELD AS STOCK - IN - TRADE AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SELL ENTIRE COMMERCIAL UNITS IN THE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN ORDER TO EXPLOIT UNSOLD STOCK, THE ASSESSEE LEASED OUT/RENT ED SUCH SHOPS / OFFICE UNITS AND RENTAL INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH SHOPS /OFFICE UNITS WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF SUCH SHOPS /OFFICE UNITS WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY. THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO LEASE/ RENT THE OFFICE PREMISES WAS NOT INCIDENTAL OR SUB - SERVANT TO THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3.2 DUR ING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M UNSOLD STOCK OF SHOPS/OFFICE AS BUSINESS INCOME . THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED PAYMENT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES AND STAND ARD DEDUCTION PAID U/S. 24(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND TREATED T HE ENTIRE GROSS RENT RECEIVED RS. 62,1 9,708/ - AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SANE & DOSHI ENTERPRISES REPORTED IN 377 ITR 165 HAS HELD THAT RENTAL INCOME 4 ITA NOS.1283 & 1284/PUN/2014 A.YS. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 RECEIVED FROM UNSOLD PORTION OF PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, A R EAL E STATE D EVELOPER IS ASSESSABLE AS I NCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY AND NOT AS BUSINESS I NCOME. THE LD . AR TO FURTHER BUTTRESS HIS SUBMISSIONS, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 373 ITR 673 (SC). 3.3 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 RAISE D IN THE APPEAL ARE IN SUPPOR T OF GROUND NO. 2. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID MUNICIPAL TAXES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,21,647/ - AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS DEDUCTION FROM THE RENTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED STANDARD DEDUCTION OF RS.18,29,418 / - U/S. 24(A) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ASSESSED REN TAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME BOTH THE DEDUCTIONS WERE DISALLOWED . THE LD. AR WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS PRIMARY SUBMISSION, MADE AN ALTERNATE PRAYER WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS PRIMARY SUBMISSION, MADE AN ALTERNATE PRAYER THAT IF THE RENTA L INCOME IS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS I NCOME THEN THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON THE SHOPS/OFFICE UNITS FROM WHICH ASSESSEE HAS EARNED RENTAL INCOME. 3.4 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 5, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS L EASED OUT OFFICE PREMISES TO M/S. TECH MAHINDRA LTD. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RENT OF RS.62,19,708/ - FROM LESSEE. THE LESSEE COMPANY ON PAYMENT OF AFORESAID LEASE AMOUNT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U / S . 194I OF THE ACT. DURING THE CURRENCY OF LEASE , THE OFFICE PREM ISES WERE SOLD BY A SSESSEE TO M/S. DAWA & CO. AS PER AGREEMENT, THE LESSEE COMPANY BECAME THE TENANT OF M/S. DAWA & CO. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY RECEIVED LEASE RENT FROM LESSEE, AS A MATTER OF GOODWILL AND ETHICS, THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED PROPORTION ATE RENT RECEIVED FROM LESSEE 5 ITA NOS.1283 & 1284/PUN/2014 A.YS. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 TO THE NEW OWNER I.E. M/S. DAWA & CO. THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED PROPORTIONATE RENT OF RS.4,01,200/ - TO M/S. DAWA & CO. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A TENANT OF M/S. DAWA & CO. THE ASSESSEE MERELY TRANSFERRED THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED IN ADVANCE FROM LESSEE TO M/S. DAWA & CO . O N SUCH TRANSFER OF RENT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT ANY TAX AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A TENANT OF M/S. DAWA & CO. 3.5 THE LD. AR MADE AN ALTERNATE PRAYER THAT IN VIEW OF NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 TO SECTION 40(A)(IA), IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON ANY PAYMENT, IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE IF THE PAYEE HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SUCH SUM FOR COMPUTING INCOME AND TAX HAS BEEN PAID ON THE SAME AND HAS REFLECTED THE A MOUNT RECEIVED IN RETURN FILED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE AMOUNT. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT M/S. DAWA & CO. FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT DAWA & CO. FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE COPY OF LEDGER IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. DAWA & CO. AT PAGES 336 & 337 OF THE PAPER BOOK. TO FURTHER SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 337 ITR 635. 4. SHRI AJAY MODI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY ASSESSED RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM B USINESS . THE LD. DR POINTED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED THAT AGREEMENT OF LEA VE AND LICENSE ENTERED INTO BY ASSESSEE WITH LESSEE IS 6 ITA NOS.1283 & 1284/PUN/2014 A.YS. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 NOT A CASE OF LETTING OUT OF PROPER TY SIMPLI CITER BUT A CASE OF EXPLOITATION OF THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS RENTED OUT THE PROPERTY AND HAS PROVIDE D SEVERAL AMENITIES WHICH INCLUDES MODULAR FURNITURE, AIR - CONDITION , FALSE CEILING, FIXTURES, CABLING FOR AC C ESS CONTROL, LIFT, D.G. SET, UPS SYSTE M ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PROVIDED WATER SUPPLY AND MAINTENANCE OF TOILETS AND COMMON AREAS ETC. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE BY LETTING OUT COMMERCIAL PREMISES. 4.1 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 5, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE BENEFIT OF TAX CREDIT, DEDUCTED BY LESSEE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF LEASE RENT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED PROPORTIONATE SHARE TRANSFERRED TO M/S. DAWA & CO. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR REJECTING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE A PPEALS ARE COMMON AND GROUNDS RAISED ARE IDENTICAL, THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY US IN RESPECT OF APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WOULD MUTATIS - MUTANDIS APPLY TO IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 5.1 THE GROUND NO. 1 HAS BEEN NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR FOR ASSESSEE. A CCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 5.2 THE GROUND NO. 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE INTERLINKED AND HENCE, ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED COMMERCIAL COMPLEX CONSISTING OF GROUND FLOOR PL US FI VE 7 ITA NOS.1283 & 1284/PUN/2014 A.YS. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 FLOOR S . THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LEASED OUT UNSOLD STOCK OF OFFICE/SHOP UNITS HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE . THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LETTING OUT OF SHOPS/PREMISES PURPORTEDLY HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE, HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX B Y THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM H OUSE P ROPERTY. ON THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE IS B USINESS I NCOME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER . IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SIMPLY RENTED OUT THE PREMISES BUT HAS ALSO PROVIDED VARIOUS FACILITIES SUCH AS MODULAR FURNITURE, AIR - CONDITION, FALSE CEILING, FIXTURES, CHAI R S , D.G. SET, LIFT, UPS SYSTEM ETC. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. SANE - DOSHI ENTERPRISES ( SUPRA). THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAID CASE HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AND HAS DERIVED INCOME FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL COMPLEX AND HAS DERIVED INCOME FROM RENTING OUT SOME OF UNITS, R ENTAL INCOME FROM SUCH UNITS IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE P ROPERTY. WE FIND THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS DATED 09.04.2015 I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE VITAL DOCUMENT WHICH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO EXAMINE IS OBJECT CLAUSE OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE SAME HAS NO T BEEN PLACED BEFORE US EITHER. IT IS TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER RENTING OF PROPERTY IS ONE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO RE EXAMINE THE SAME A FTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OBJECT CLAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF SANE - DOSHI 8 ITA NOS.1283 & 1284/PUN/2014 A.YS. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 ENTERPRISES. THE GROUND NO. 2, 3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 5.3 IN GROUND NO. 5, ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,01,200/ - IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE TRANSFERRING RENT , RECEIVED FROM M/S. TECH MAHINDRA LIMITED (LESSEE) ON BEHALF OF M/S. DAWA & CO. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD L EASED OUT COMMERCIAL PREMISES TO M/S. TECH MAHINDRA LIMITED . DURING THE CURRENCY OF LEASE PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PREMISES TO M/S. DAWA & CO . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PREMISES TO M/S. DAWA & CO., THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED THE RENT RECEIVED IN A DVANCE ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS FOR THE UN EXPIRED PERIOD OF LEASE TO M/S. DAWA & CO. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S. 194 - I OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF SUCH RENT . UNDISPUTED FACTS CLEARLY INDI CATE THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT A TENANT AND HAD MERELY CLEARLY INDI CATE THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT A TENANT AND HAD MERELY TRANSFERRED THE RENT ALREADY RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE PREMISES. SINCE THE PREMISE S WAS SOLD BY ASSESSEE TO M/S. DAWA & CO. , THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED RENT RECEIVED IN ADVANCE IN RESPECT OF UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF LESSEE TO M/S. DAWA & CO. THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT M/S. DAWA & CO. HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS DECLARED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS PAID TAX THEREON . WE ARE OF CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON TRANSFER OF SUCH RENTAL INCOME. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE T HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RENT FOR THE USE OF PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY TRANSFERRED THE ADVANCE RENT RECEIVED FROM LESSEE . UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 - I OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9 ITA NOS.1283 & 1284/PUN/2014 A.YS. 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 5.4 IN GROUND NO. 6, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234C ARE CONSEQUENTIAL AND MANDATORY. WE FIND NO MERIT IN GROUND NO. 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED BEING WITHOUT ANY MERIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON FRIDAY , THE 27 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . / D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 27 TH OCTOBER , 2017 . / PUNE; / DATED : 27 OCTOBER , 2017 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 1, PUNE 4. THE CIT - 1, PUNE. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE .