Raakeshh S. Sureka, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Pune

ITA 1289/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5713 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V L JAIN MS SHABANA PARVEEN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Period of limitation; Application of stay; Difference of opinion; Competent authority; Assessment record; Time period of passing order; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 27; 148; 6; 10; 2; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI RAAKESHH S. SUREKA, FLAT NO.6-101, SYLAVN HEIGHTS, NEAR SEASON HOTEL, SANEWADI, PUNE 411 007 PAN : AEUPS5884E VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) S.A.NO.95/PUN/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI RAAKESHH S. SUREKA, FLAT NO.6-101, SYLAVN HEIGHTS, NEAR SEASON HOTEL, SANEWADI, PUNE 411 007 PAN : AEUPS5884E VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, PUNE DATED 18-01-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. APPELLANT BY SHRI V.L. JAIN RESPONDENT BY MS. SHABANA PARVEEN DATE OF HEARING 14-02-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14-05-2019 ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF STEEL. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR O N 06-10-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27,75,750/-. THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF ASSESS EE ON 07-02-2011. AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSESSEE FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH D GIT (INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI INDICATING THAT ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF TRANSACTIONS WITH HAWALA OPERATORS. CONSEQUENTLY, RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. AFTER RECORDING REASONS, NOTIC E U/S.148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRE D TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27-03-2015. IN RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM SUSPICIOUS HAWALA DEA LERS AGGREGATING RS.7.23 CRORE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF APPROX. 8% OF THE HAWALA PURCHASES, I.E. RS.56,57,294/-. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15-03-2016 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL AS THE ADDITION ON MERITS. THE CIT(A) ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 3 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE UPHOLDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING, AS WELL AS ADDITION ON MERITS. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM I NG THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 15.03.2016 IS NOT TIME BARRED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 15.03.2016 IS NOT BAD IN LAW ASSUM I NG BUT WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT AO HAS ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 148 ON 27.03.2015 ON THE GROUND THAT IN PRESENCE OF EARLIE R NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 09 . 04.2013 THE AO IS NOT COMPETENT TO ISSUE ANOTHER NOT I CE U/S 148 DATED 27 . 03 . 2015. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED I N LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 15.03 . 2016 IS NOT BAD IN LAW THOUGH THE REASONS CONSTITUTE CHANGE OF OPINION AND BASED SOLELY ON TH E INFORMAT I ON SUPPL I ED BY SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE AO HAS NOT ERRED IN INVOKING THE PRO VISION OF SEC. 145(3) WITHOUT DETECTING ANT DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE TREATMENT OF PURCHASES AS HAWALA TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE NON- GENUINE AND THUS CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.56,57,294/-. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO A L TER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD TO THE SAME, IF DEEMED NECESSARY. ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 4 3. SHRI V.L. JAIN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 DA TED 15-03-2016 IS BAD IN LAW AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT AS SPECIFIED U/S.153(2) OF THE ACT. THE FIRST NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09-04-2013, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHIN A PE RIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE N OTICE WAS ISSUED. HENCE, THE LIMITATION FOR PASSING ASSESSMENT OR DER EXPIRED ON 31-03-2015, WHEREAS, THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 15-03-2016. 3.1 THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW ON THE GROUND TH AT SECOND NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 27-03-2015 WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE FIRST NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 09-04-2013 WAS STILL IN FORCE. ISSUANCE OF SECOND NOTICE U/S.148 DURING THE PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AR ISING FROM THE FIRST NOTICE U/S.148 IS UNSUSTAINABLE. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADITYA MEDISASLES LTD. VS. DY.CIT REPORTED AS 242 TAXMANN 228 (GUJ.). ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 5 3.2 THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER ASSAILING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT REASONS RECORDED F OR REOPENING ARE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 R.W.S.148 OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE REAS ONS RECORDED WOULD SHOW THAT REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSES SMENT ARE BORROWED REASONS AND CONSTITUTE CHANGE OF OPINION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS INDEPENDENT MIND AND N O INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH COULD HAVE RESULTED IN REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 3.3 THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT POINTING ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SALES. WITHOUT THERE BEING PURCHASES THERE CANNOT BE SALES. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS RAISED SUSPICION OVER THE PURCHASES MADE BY ASSESSE E WITHOUT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 6 HAS INDULGED IN BOGUS PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD INVOICE, CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK INDICATING PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SUPPLIERS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. MERE DEFAULT OF VAT BY THE SUPPLIERS DOES NOT LEAD TO CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT GENUINE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. VARSHABEN SANATBHAI PATEL VS. ITO 282 CTR 0075 (GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT) 2. SUNIL AGARWAL VS. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0090 (DELHI TRI BUNAL) 3. PR. CIT VS. G&G PHARMA INDIA LTD. 348 ITR 0147 (DEL HI HIGH COURT) 4. PER CONTRA, MS. SHABANA PARVEEN REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ALLEGED NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 09-04-2013 IS NOT IN THE RECORDS OF DEPARTM ENT. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURNISHED COPY OF REPLY FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS TH E ONLY NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2009-10 WAS 27-03-2015. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NOT ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 7 ADMITTING BUT PRESUMING THAT NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 09-04-2013 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IN PURSUANCE TO SAID NOTICE. THEREFORE, THE SA ID NOTICE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO MEANING. THE ONLY VALID NOTICE ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.148 IS DATED 27-03-2015 AFTER RECORDIN G THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ON 12-03-2015. THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER POINTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NEVER RAISED ANY OBJECTION WITH RESP ECT TO THE ALLEGED SECOND NOTICE U/S.148 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FULLY PARTICIPATED IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT APPELLATE STAGE DOES NOT SURVIVE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENIN G AND REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THIS FACT HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE AFTER OBTAINING SANCTION U/S.151(1) OF THE ACT FROM THE CIT-1 7, MUMBAI. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS PLACED ON RECORD AT PA GE 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM THE DGIT (INVESTIGATION) APPLIED HIS MIND AND THEREAFTER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE F OR A.Y. 2009-10. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF MERITS, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ADDITION OF ENTIRE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REASONABLE IN MAKING GP ADDITION OF 8% (APPROX .) OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES. THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.795/PUN/2014 DECIDED ON 28-04-2017 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS HAS MADE G.P.ADDITION OF 10% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES OVER AND ABOVE THE GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS REASONABLE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED F OR CONFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 9 THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL HAS AS SAILED REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THREE GROUNDS, I.E. (1) ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TIME BARRED; (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED SECOND NOTICE U/S.148 DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE EARLIER NOTICE DATED 09-04-2013 U/S.148; AND (3) THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT A RE BORROWED AND NOT OWN REASONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SOFARAS THE FIRST OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS CONCERNED, THE ONLY NOTICE ISSUED U/S.14 8 OF THE ACT AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS DATED 27-03-2015. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2) OF THE ACT, THE DUE DATE FOR P ASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM THE DATE OF AFORESAID NOTICE IS 3 1-03- 2016. ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 HAS BEEN PASSED ON 15-03-2016. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S .143(3) R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT WAS WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. HENCE, THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND HENCE, IS DISMISSED. THE SECOND OBJECTION OF ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED SECOND NOTICE U/S.148 ON 27-03-2015 D URING ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 10 THE PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN CONSEQUENCE TO FIRST NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 ON 29-05-2013. THE DEPARTMENT HAS CATEGORICALLY DENIED ISSUANCE OF ANY NOTICE U/S.148 ON 27-05-2013 TO ASSESSEE. DEHORS THE CONTENTIONS OF DEPAR TMENT, A PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD REVEAL THAT THE REAS ONS FOR REOPENING WERE RECORDED ON 12-03-2015. THE NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 27-03-2015 WAS ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO RECORDING OF REASONS. EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT NOTICE U/S.148 WAS IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09-04-2013, SINCE NO REASONS WERE R ECORDED FOR REOPENING ON THAT DATE, THE SAID NOTICE WAS INVALID. THUS , THE VALID NOTICE U/S.148 IS ONLY NOTICE DATED 27-03-05 WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECORDING OF REASONS AND AF TER OBTAINING SANCTION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. THE THIRD OBJECTION RAISED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST REOPENING IS THAT THE REASONS FOR REOPENING ARE SOLELY BASED ON THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS FOR REOPENING AT PAGE 41 OF T HE PAPER ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 11 BOOK SHOWS THAT UNDOUBTEDLY INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER FROM DGIT (INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI ABOUT ASSESSEES INDULGENCE IN BOGUS PURCHASES, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RECEIVED AND HAS THEREAFTER RECORDED REASONS BY APPLYING HIS INDEPENDENT MIND FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED SANS MERIT. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS, ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND DOES NOT SUPPO RT THE CAUSE OF ASSESSEE. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE A O BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 R.W.S.148 HAS TO RECORD REASONS FOR REOPENING. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE OPENING SHOULD REFLECT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE OBSERVE THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION OR MERELY BORROWED INFORMATION FROM S ALES TAX DEPARTMENT WHICH HAS RESULTED IN REOPENING OF ASSESSM ENT. THE REASONS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER QUALIFY THE TEST OF REASONS TO BELIEVE AS ENVISAGED U/S.147 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 12 6. ON MERITS OF THE ADDITION, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT PRODUCE DELIVERY CHALLANS EVIDENCING TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AND HAS ALSO FAILE D TO PRODUCE STOCK REGISTER. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT S HOW MOVEMENT OF GOODS FROM THE SELLER TO THE WAREHOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS DECISIONS HAS HELD THAT W HERE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE TRAIL OF GOODS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES HAS TO BE SUSTAINED. IT IS A N ADMITTED POSITION THAT SALES BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE BOGUS PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE G.P. ADDITION OF 7.82% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. T HE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS DECISIONS HAS SUSTAINED G.P. ADDITION OF 10% OF BOGUS PURCHASES OVER AND ABOVE THE GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS REASON ABLE AND JUSTIFIED. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING S OF THE CIT(A). HENCE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD AND THE APPE AL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 13 STAY APPLICATION NO.95/PUN/2018 7. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED, AS SUCH. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE STAY APPLICATION ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY, MAY14TH, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 14 TH MAY, 2019. / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-3, PUNE 4. 5. THE PR.CIT-2, PUNE , , / DR A, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NO.1289/PUN/2017 RAAKESHH S. SUREKA 14 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 10-05-2019 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 13-05-2019 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.