M/s. Adwitya Projects, Pune V. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1285/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6746 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• 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.1285/PUN/2014 ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. ADWITYA PROJECTS, 201, SUPREME IKON, AUNDH, PUNE 411 007. PAN NO.AALFA 2587P. . / APPELLANT V/S THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 4, PUNE. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK & SHRI SUHAS P. BORA. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE. ( / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORD ER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) II, PUNE DATED 25.02.201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- / DATE OF HEARING : 31.01.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.03.2017 2 ITA NO.1285/PUN/2014 AY.NO.2009-10 2.1 ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE ENGAGED AS CIVIL CONTRACTOR. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 200 9-10 ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,82,03,520/-. THE CA SE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DT.29.12.2011 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.8,23,93,910/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE O RDER DT.25.02.2014 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-II JCIT,R-4/245/2011-1 2) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE L EARN E D CI T(A) E RR E D IN C O N F IRMIN G A DDI TIO N OF RS . 6 3 25 47 3/- TO TH E TO T A L INCOM E O F THE AS SESSE E , MAD E B Y TH E A O O N A CCO UN T OF DI SA LLO W ANC E OF L A B O U R CHARGES ON THE G ROUND THAT THE APPELLANT FA IL E D T O DI S CHAR GE TH E BU R DEN OF PRO V IN G TH E EXPE ND I TUR E. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) , FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT TH E APPE LL A NT H A S O UT O F 63 , 25 , 474 / - PAID ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CH A R GES , R S . 47 22,572 / - A R E ON AC COUNT OF D A IL Y WAGES TO THE LABOURS EMPLO Y ED B Y THEM AT V ARIOU S S ITE S A N D PA Y M E NT I S E FFECTE D F ORTNIGHTL Y. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH A T TH E S E LA B O UR S A RE UNSKILL E D A ND DO NOT HA V E B A NK A CCOUNTS. 4. ASSESSE E S E EKS , PERMIS S ION T O A DD , A LTER , A M E ND , MO D IFY , RE C T I FY , D E L E TE , WI THD RAW THE GROUNDS OF APPE A L AND / OR TO T A KE . ADDITION A L G R O UN D AS OC C AS I O N MA Y DEM A ND . 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH ASSESSE E HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT ALL THE GROUNDS ARE INTER-CON NECTED AND THE SOLITARY ISSUE WHICH NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED IS DISALLOW ANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO COMP ARED THE RATIO OF MATERIAL AND LABOUR EXPENSES INCURRED TO T HE TURNOVER DURING THE YEAR WITH THAT OF A.Y. 2007-08 TO 2009-10. AO THEREAFTER 3 ITA NO.1285/PUN/2014 AY.NO.2009-10 CONCLUDED THAT THE RATIO OF DIRECT EXPENSES TO THE GROS S SALES WERE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS AND THE INCREASE IN RATIO, ACCORDING TO AO, SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS STRONG POSSIBILITY OF INFLATION OF EXPENSES. AO THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE INCREASE IN EXPENSES. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED TH AT IN CASE OF LABOUR PAYMENTS, ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATION BUT FURNISHED ADDRESSES OF AROUND 50% OF PARTIES. IN CASE OF MATERIAL PURCHASES, ASSESSEE COULD FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION OF ONLY 9 PARTIES FROM WHOM THE AGGREGATE PURCHASES OF RS.1.56 CRORES WE RE MADE AS AGAINST THE TOTAL MATERIAL PURCHASES OF RS.30 CRORES. AO THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE INCREASE IN EXPENSES. HE THEREAFTER AND AFTER NOTING THAT THE RATIO OF PURCHASES OF MATERIALS INCLUDING LABOUR TO TURNOVER HAD INCREASED FROM 42.62% TO 78.04% AND IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY COGENT EXPLANATION, DISALLOWED 10% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES (AMOUNTING TO RS.3,06,63,538/-) AND 20% OF LABOUR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,68,48,239/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE C ARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N OF RS.3,06,63,538/- ON ACCOUNT OF MATERIAL PURCHASES BUT HOW EVER UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.63,25,473/- O UT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,68,48,239/- OF LABOUR EXPENSES BY H OLDING AS UNDER : 5.3 SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS . 1,68 , 48,238/ - ON DISALLOWANCE OF LABOR CHARGES IS CONCERNED, THE DIS ALLOWANCE WAS PRIMARILY DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH AND PROVIDE ADDRESSES OF THE LABOUR CONTRACTORS WHICH COULD HAVE ENABLED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY OUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION . HOWEVER , THE APPELLANT DID PROVIDE THE REQUISITE DETAILS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR VERIFICATION AND REPORT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N ITS REPORT DATED 5-7-2013 HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THE LIST OF PARTY WISE LABOR CHARGES PAID DURING THE YE AR INCLUDING 4 ITA NO.1285/PUN/2014 AY.NO.2009-10 THOSE PARTIES TO WHOM CASH PAYMENT ARE MADE ON ACCO UNT OF DAILY WAGES EMPLOYED AND ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PARTIES ON WHOSE PAYMENT TDS IS DEDUCTED AND WHICH ALSO REFLECTS THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, HOWEVER, AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS FURNI SHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAS REMARKE D THAT 'IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO FU RNISH THE VERIFICATION OF PAYMENT TO THE LABOR WHICH IS PAID IN CASH OF RS. 63 , 25 , 473/-. THUS THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY SUCH MATERIAL OR E VIDENCE SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH THOUGH THE A PPELLANT APPEAR TO HAVE FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS OF T HE REMAINING EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER THE HEAD LABOR EXPENSES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS EXC EPT FOR THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS . 63,25 , 474/- HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT . MOREOVER THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ALSO SUBJECTED TO TDS AND TH E SAME ALSO REFLECT THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS OF THE V ARIOUS PARTIES TO WHOM PAYMENT HAVE BEEN MADE . HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT NO SUCH MATERIA L EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR THE REMAND PROCEEDI NGS SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM MADE BY HIM . THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT OUT OF THE SUM OF RS . 63 , 25 , 474/ - PAID IN CASH RS . 47 , 22 , 572/ - ARE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPARTMENTAL LABOUR AT VARIOUS SITES WHEREIN DAILY LABOR IS EMPLOYED AND PAYMENT M ADE FORTNIGHTLY AND THAT IT IS NECESSARY T O MAKE THE PAYMENT IN CASH IN MOST OF THE CASES THESE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS . THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS D I FFICULT TO BE CONSIDERED IF THE TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH IS TAKEN I NTO ACCOUNT . THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AND FURNISH THE NECESSARY DE TAIL SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT MADE IN CASH BY HIM. THE REL IANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE PUNE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MUKUND J DHARIYA VS ACIT CITED SUPRA I S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE IN AS MUCH AS THE FACT THERE IN BEING ON A MUC H DIFFERENT FOOTING THAN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE THE ASS ESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION OF EARTHEN DAMS IN R EMOTE PARTS OF THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA WHERE IT WAS PRACTICALLY N OT POSSIBLE TO GET VOUCHERS FROM THE LABORERS ENGAGED IN THE SI TE WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NOT PROVIDED C OMPLETE DETAILS OF THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE EVEN DURING THE R EMAND PROCEEDINGS WHICH COULD HAVE FACILITATED IN GETTING THE ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION DONE IN THE CASE AND EVE N THE CONSTRUCTION WORK CARRIED OUT IS NOT LOCATED IN REM OTE AREAS. MOREOVER THE ITAT IN THAT CASE RELIED UPON THE DECI SION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF PRAGATI FASHIONS AND OF MUMBAI BENCH IN TH E CASE OF AYUSHAKTI AYURVED PVT . LTD., WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED . THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE , RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BASED ON ABOVE FACT, HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH FAC TS EXISTS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE MATERIAL O N R ECO RD. IT IS SETTLED THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM AN EXPENDITURE THE BURDEN OF PROVING NECESSARY FACT IN THAT CONNECTION IS ON THE APPELLANT WHICH T HE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,68,48,239/- THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 63 , 25 , 473/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1,05 , 22 , 766/- (1 , 68 , 48 , 239 - 63,25 , 473) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . 5 ITA NO.1285/PUN/2014 AY.NO.2009-10 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT AGAIN ST THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF R ELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY REVENUE. LD.A.R. REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR CHARGES WHICH HAS BE EN CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) COMPRISES OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON DEPARTMENTAL LABOUR AT RS.47,22,572/-, LABOUR CHARGES INC URRED WHERE THE PAN NOS. OF THE CONTRACTORS ARE AVAILABLE (RS. 13,03,219/-) AND LABOUR CHARGES PAID TO THE CONTRACTORS, WHOSE PAN NUMBERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE (RS.2,99,682/-). HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE IN CASH. HE POINT ED TO THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE 66 TO 71 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THOSE DETAILS WIT H RESPECT TO DEPARTMENTAL LABOUR CHARGES, HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AT VARIOUS PROJECT SITES AND IN THE NATUR E OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE CASH PAYMENTS TO THE LABOURS. WITH RESPECT TO THE LABOUR CHARGES PAID TO VARIOUS CONTRACTORS WHOSE PAN NUMBERS ARE AVAILABLE AND DETAILS WHICH ARE LISTED AT PAGES 68 AND 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL LABOUR PAYMENT OF RS.4,90,26,955/- PAID TO SUCH CONTRACTORS, THE CASH PAYMENT WAS ONLY RS.13,03,219/- AND IT WAS TO MEET THE IMMEDIATE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THESE CASES THE PAN NUMBERS OF THE CONTRACTORS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO AND IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE DISALLOWANCE OF CASH PAYMENT SHOULD NOT HAV E BEEN 6 ITA NO.1285/PUN/2014 AY.NO.2009-10 MADE. WITH RESPECT TO THE LABOUR CHARGES PAID WHERE PAN NUMBERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE AND THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE LIS TED AT PAGE 70 AND 71 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE HAD MADE AGGREGATE PAYMENT OF RS.23,32,911/- AND THE CASH C OMPONENT WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,99,682/- WHICH WAS AROUND JUST 30% OF THE TOTAL PAYMENTS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT CONS IDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON IT BY GIVING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWA NCE BE MADE. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESP ECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR PAYMENTS AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN PA ID IN CASH. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN THE NATURE OF BUS INESS IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED, THE MAJOR PORTION OF EXPENSES IS ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR PAYMENT. THE DETAILS OF CASH PAYMENT W HICH HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, AS SUBMITTED ON PAGE 66 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS AS UNDER :- FROM THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF RS.2,99,682/- (BEING PAYMEN T OF LABOUR CHARGES WHERE PAN IS NOT AVAILABLE) THE DETAILS OF WH ICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE 70 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT ASS ESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO 41 PARTIES AND THE AGGREGATE OF PAYME NTS MADE IS SL.NO. PARTICULARS IN RS. 1 DEPARTMENT LABOUR 47,22,572 2 PAYMENT OF LABOUR CHARGES WHERE PAN NO. IS AVAILABLE 13,03,219 3 LABOUR CHARGES WHERE PAN NO. IS NOT AVAILABLE 2,99,682 TOTAL: 63,25,473/ - 7 ITA NO.1285/PUN/2014 AY.NO.2009-10 RS.23,32,911/- OF WHICH THE CASH PAYMENT IS RS.2,99,682/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS, IT IS SEEN THAT OF THE CASH PAYMEN TS, THE LOWEST AND THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT IS RS.600/ - AND RS.63,000/- RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER THE CASH PAYMENT C ONSTITUTES AROUND 13% OF THE TOTAL PAYMENTS. 7. FROM THE DETAILS OF LABOUR PAYMENT OF CASH OF RS.13,03 ,219/- (WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGE 68 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND WHERE THE PAN NUMBERS ARE AVAILABLE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE TOTAL PAYM ENT HAS BEEN MADE TO 68 PERSONS, THE AGGREGATE PAYMENT WAS RS.4,90,26,955/- WHICH COMPRISED OF CASH PAYMENT OF RS.13,03,219/-. IT IS THUS SEEN THAT THE CASH PAYMENT C ONSTITUTED AROUND 3% OF THE TOTAL PAYMENTS, THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM CASH PAYMENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON WAS RS.1,03,400/- AND RS.4 00/- RESPECTIVELY. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE PA N NUMBERS OF ALL THESE 68 PERSONS TO THE AO BUT HOWEVER AO DID NO T MAKE ANY INQUIRY ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS BY THEM FROM ASSES SEE. FURTHER REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL TO DEMONST RATE THAT THE PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS B OGUS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORESA ID FACTS AND THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.2,99,682/- (WHERE PAN IS NOT AVAILABLE) AND OF RS.13,03,219/- (WHERE PAN IS AVAILABLE) IS NOT CALLED FOR AND THEREFORE WE DIRECT ITS DELETION. 8. AS FAR AS PAYMENT OF RS.47,22,572/- STATED TO HAVE BE EN MADE TO DEPARTMENTAL LABOUR IS CONCERNED AND FROM THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS PROJECTS, WHERE IT HAS BEEN INCURRED (WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK) IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXPENSES HAVE BEE N INCURRED FOR 8 ITA NO.1285/PUN/2014 AY.NO.2009-10 15 PROJECTS AT VARIOUS SITES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLA CED SAMPLE COPIES OF THE VOUCHERS IN THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT L D. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GRANTED TO ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED NECESSARY DETAILS TO JUSTIFY T HE PAYMENT. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, THE NATURE OF WORK A ND THE FACT THAT THE INCREASING OF EXPENDITURE IS NOT DOUBTED BY REV ENUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT FACTS THE ENDS OF JUSTICE SHALL BE MET IF THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO RS.20 LACS AS AGAINST RS.47,22,572/- CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). WE THUS DIRECT ACCOR DINGLY. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 30 TH MARCH, 2017. YAMINI ( ) *!+, -,! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. 5. 6. THE PR.CIT-II, PUNE THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE. #$% & 1 &'(, * '(, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; %+, - / GUARD FILE. ( / BY ORDER, //// // TRUE COPY // T // // TRUE COPY // . /012 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '( , / ITAT, PUNE.