Dhanunjay Rajaram Gupte, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1311/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1056 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE
• Assessee Lawyers: D Y PANDIT
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Residential status; International transaction; Source of fund; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , . . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO. 1 311 /PN/20 1 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 11 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE, VISHRAMBAG HOUSING SOCIETY, SENAPATI BAPAT ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE 411006 . / APPELLANT PAN: A CDPG3754A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) - I , PUNE . / RESPONDENT PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : S MT. DEEPA KHARE AND SHRI D.Y. PANDIT / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 . 0 8 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26 . 0 8 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF C I T (A) - 13 , PUNE , DATED 3 1 . 0 8 .20 1 5 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO . 1311 /PN/20 1 5 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE 2 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TAKE THE COGNIZANCE OF VITAL FACTS AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.2,84,266/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, W HICH IS CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A). 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO NOTE THE FACT THAT THE REVISED STATEMENT OF INCOME WAS FILED VOLUNTARILY AND IN GOOD FAITH BEFORE FIRST DATE OF HEARING BY M/S. HMA AND ASSOCIATES, C.A. ON D ISCOVERING OMISSION OF NOT SHOWING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUND AND INTEREST FROM TATA MOTORS WHICH WAS DUE TO NON AVAILABILITY OF DATA AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN. 3. THE APPELLANT MAY BE PERMITTED TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR ADD A NEW GROUND OF APPEAL ANY TIME BEFORE THE HEARING OF APPEAL OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL OR DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING. 3. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.7,94,790/ - . THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS PICK ED UP FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE RESIDENTIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NRI, THE CASE THUS, WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION) - I, PUNE AND THEREAFTER, NOTICES UNDE R SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND FURNISHED WRITTEN REPLY. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON - RESIDENT AND WORKING IN SINGAPORE AND I N INDIA HE HAD INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS N OT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF ITA NO . 1311 /PN/20 1 5 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE 3 INCOME AND AFTER PROCESSING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, REFUND WAS PROCESSED AND GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE REFUND WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TDS MADE ON SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GAINS DUE ON REDEMPTION OF MUTUAL FUNDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON REALIZATION OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD DERIVED INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. HOWEVER, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE REVISED COMPUTATION WAS FILED ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEN TH E CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THUS, AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME EARNED BY HIM FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND CONSEQUENTLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INI TIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS PER THE REVISED COMPUTATION WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ANOTHER POINT NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS.9,18,177/ - . HOWEVER, IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE SAME WAS SHOWN AT RS.10,11,514/ - , WHICH INCLUDED OTHER INCOME OF RS.91,473/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM TATA MOTORS AND HSBC, WHICH WAS NOT DECLARED I N THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THIS REGARD WERE ALSO INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.8,26,614/ - AND HAD ALSO SHORT DECLARED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS. 93,337/ - . THE ASSESSEE FILED AN EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ITA NO . 1311 /PN/20 1 5 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT DUE TO NON - AVAILABILITY OF DATA, THE INCOME FROM HSBC MUTUAL FUNDS AND TATA MOTORS REMAINED TO BE SHOWN. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE REVISED COMPUTATION WAS FILED AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED THE REFUND ON THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS NRI AND HAD ENTRUSTED HIS PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT TO ICICI SECURITIES AND HSBC, WHICH IN TURN, DEDUCTED TDS @ 30% ON SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE FURTHER STATES THAT HE RELIED ON THE SAID ORGANIZATION FOR TAX COMPLIANCE. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THA T THE INCOME FROM HSBC MUTUAL FUNDS AND TATA MOTORS WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME DUE TO NON - AVAILABILITY OF DATA AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON THE SAID INCOME AND AFTER TAX CALCULA TION, REFUND WAS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED THE REVISED CORRECTED INCOME AND PLEADED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO CONCEAL THE INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TENABLE AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING TAXABLE INCOME DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y UNDER CASS AND FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ACCEPTED THE REFUND WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TDS MADE ON SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS , WHICH INCOME WAS NOT DECLARED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, LEVIED PENALTY AT RS. 2,84,266/ - . ITA NO . 1311 /PN/20 1 5 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE 5 5. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY OBSERVING THAT THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO TDS WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO STATE AS TO WHETHER RECEIPT COVERED BY TDS REPRESENTS HIS INCOME OR NOT. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DECLARE THE INCOME RELATABLE TO TDS, WHICH HE ONLY DECLARED BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED QUERIES IN THIS REGARD, HENCE, DECLARATION OF INCOME RELATABLE TO TDS WAS FALSE STATEMENT. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT BONAFIDE AND HENCE, THERE WAS JUSTIFICATION IN LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ADMITTEDLY, IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, CERTAIN INCOMES WERE NOT DISCLOSED. HOWEVER, AFTER THE CASE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND BEFORE ANY INVESTIGATION COULD START, THE ASSESSEE HAD REALIZED THAT CERTAIN INCOME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME , AGAINST WHICH REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE AMOUNTS WHICH WERE DECLARED IN THE REVISED INCOME WERE SUBJECT TO TDS AND THOUGH SOME WERE NOT S HOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME BUT THE SAME WERE DECLARED BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE TDS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS LESS BUT AFTER EXCLUDING TDS AND ADDITIONAL INCOME , THE AMOUNT OF TDS REFLECTE D IN THE REVISED INCOME HAD INCREASED. HE STRESSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME BY WAY OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME BEFORE ANY ITA NO . 1311 /PN/20 1 5 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE 6 ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALTHOUGH, HE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TIM E FOR FILING THE REVISED INCOME HAD EXPIRED BEFORE HE COULD FURNISH THE REVISED COMPUTATION , HE AGAIN STRESSED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE INCOME WHICH WAS REFLEC TED IN FORM 26AS. HE AGAIN STRESSED THAT THE REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE HAD INCREASED BECAUSE OF TDS AMOUNT. ANOTHER PLEA RAISED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THE MISTAKE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNT IN NOT COMPUTING INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE CORRECTLY. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BENNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD. (2013) 259 CTR 383 (BOM) . 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO VOLUNTARY FILING OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. EVEN AFTER PROCESSING UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, NO REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ONLY AFTER THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAS FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WHICH IS NOT AKIN TO REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR NOT DECLARING INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND FOR SHORT DECLARATION OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE CONCEALED ITS ITA NO . 1311 /PN/20 1 5 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE 7 PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ALSO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO CERTAIN INTEREST INCOME DUE FROM THE COMPANIES REMAINED TO BE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DECLARATION OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD CLAIMS THAT HE WAS NRI AND HAD ENTRUSTED THE WHOLE WORK TO CHARTERED ACC OUNTANT, WHO IN TURN, HAD NOT FILED THE CORRECT RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, WHEN THE DATA IN FORM 26AS AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE WA S RECONCILED, THE ASSESSE E IMMEDIATELY OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WHICH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND FURTHER, INTEREST INCOME FROM MUTUAL FUNDS OF HSBC AND TATA MOTORS. IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE SOURCES OF INCOME I.E. INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND AL SO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY THE CONTRACTEE COMPANY, SINCE THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS NRI. THE ASSESSEE POINTS OUT THAT IT HAD ENTRUSTED THE WORK OF SECURITIES TO ESTABLISHED PERSONS, WHO IN TURN, HAD INFORMED THE ASSESSEE AB OUT THE IRREGULARITIES AND ALSO REGULAR INCOME THEREFROM. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTS THAT THE CONSULTANT HAD UNDER - REPORTED THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE , THOUGH THE TAX AT SOURCE WAS DEDUCTED OUT OF TWO SETS OF INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 10. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN BE HELD TO BE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITA NO . 1311 /PN/20 1 5 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE 8 INCOME MAKING HIM LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS UNDOUBTEDLY, WERE AVAILABLE TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, SINCE THE COMPANIES HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE OUT OF SUCH PAYMENTS / DUES. THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME BY NOT INCLUDING THE TWO INCOME S HAD DECLARED REFUND WHICH WAS PROCESSED AND WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE REFUND DUE TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS ALSO SUBJECT TO TDS AND THE DEDUCTION DETAILS WERE CLEARLY AVAILABLE IN FORM 26AS. THE ASS ESSEE NO DOUBT, HAD NOT INCLUDED THE SAID INCOME IN HIS HANDS BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OUT OF SUCH PAYMENTS. IN SUCH SCENARIO, WHERE COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BU T DEFINITELY IN FORM 26AS, THEN THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE CONCEALED HIS PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THE ASSESSEE UNDOUBTEDLY, HAS FILED THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. HOWEVER, NO REVISED RETURN OF INCOME COULD BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF EXPIRY OF SPECIFIED PERIOD. ADMITTEDLY, EVEN AFTER INCLUSION OF SAID INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, REFUND HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER VERIFYING THE DETAILS IN FORM 26AS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NRI AND OUT OF INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AINS, TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED AND ALSO OUT OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ; THE QUANTUM OF INCOME WHICH NEEDS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO INCLUDE CERTAIN INCOME IN HIS HANDS, WHICH H AS NOW BEEN INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL TAXES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AND BALANCE REFUND HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE BY AN ERROR HAD NOT INCLUDED THE SAME IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ITA NO . 1311 /PN/20 1 5 SHRI DHANANJAY RAJARAM GUPTE 9 ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, MAKING THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. REVERSING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS CANCELLED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED O N THIS 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. PANDA ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; D ATED : 26 TH AUGUST , 201 6 . GCVSR GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPE LLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE C I T (A) - 13 , PUNE ; 4. / THE C I T (IT/TP), PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE