ACIT, Cir.-1, Aurangabad V. Shri Kedar Ramkishan Mundada, Jalna

ITA 1355/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2037 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P D KUDWA
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income; Rule of consistency

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. 1355/PN/2011 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-08) ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JEEVAN SUMAN, LIC BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, CANNOUGHT PLACE, N-5, CIDCO, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD .. APPELLANT VS. SRI KEDAR RAMKISHAN MUNDADA, VITHAL, CIVIL CLUB ROAD, JALNA. .. RESPONDENT PAN NO. AAWPM 2710K CO NO. 98/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) SRI KEDAR RAMKISHAN MUNDADA, VITHAL, CIVIL CLUB ROAD, JALNA. .. APPELLANT PAN NO. AAWPM 2710K VS. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JEEVAN SUMAN, LIC BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, CANNOUGHT PLACE, N-5, CIDCO, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1356/PN/2011 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-08) ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JEEVAN SUMAN, LIC BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, CANNOUGHT PLACE, N-5, CIDCO, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD .. APPELLANT VS. MAMTA RAJESH MUNDADA, VITHAL, CIVIL CLUB ROAD, JALNA. .. RESPONDENT PAN NO. ABEPM 0434B CO NO. 99/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) MAMTA RAJESH MUNDADA, VITHAL, CIVIL CLUB ROAD, JALNA. .. APPELLANT PAN NO. ABEPM 0434B VS. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JEEVAN SUMAN, LIC BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, CANNOUGHT PLACE, N-5, CIDCO, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD .. RESPONDENT 2 ASSESSEE BY : SRI P.D. KUDWA RESPONDENT BY : SRI SANTOSH KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 19-02-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-02-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CR OSS OBJECTIONS BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPAR ATE ORDERS DATED 18-08-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-AURANGABAD RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE APPEALS AS WELL AS T HE CROSS OBJECTIONS, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1355/PN/2011 (BY REVENUE) (A.Y. 2007-08) (KE DAR RAMKISHAN MUNDADE) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY, BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND CAP ITAL GAIN. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 17,75,010. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LOSS) ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES. HE NOTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE SELLS THE SHARES ON TH E SAME DAY HE HAS TREATED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING WHEREAS IF THE SHARES ARE SOLD ON NEXT DAY HE HAS TREATED THE SAME AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AIN OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE CASE MAY BE. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT HE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING. I N RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS SHOWING SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ALONG WITH DATE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AT ` 10,03,160 AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AT 3 ` 3,49,361. THE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E IS BUSINESS, I.E. SHARE INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND OTHER SOURCES. 3. FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE ARE 743 TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YE AR, I.E.203 TRANSACTIONS TOWARDS PURCHASES AND 234 TRANSACTIONS TOWARDS SALES. CONS IDERING THE VOLUME, FREQUENCY AND MAGNITUDE OF TRANSACTIONS AND RELYING ON CBDT C IRCULAR NO.1827 DATED 31- 05-1989 AND CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 DATED 15-06-2007 AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND TREATED SUC H INCOME AS INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING BUSINESS. 4. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS CORRECTLY SHOWN INTRADAY SHARE TRANSACTIONS AS BUSINESS INCOME (SPE CULATIVE). HOWEVER, IN CASE OF DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTIONS, WHERE THE SHARES ARE H ELD FOR LESS THAN 1 YEAR, THE PROFIT FROM SAME WAS TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND WHERE THE SHARES ARE HELD FOR MORE THAN 1 YEAR THE PROFIT FROM SAME WAS TAKEN AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. REFERRING TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 DATED 15-06-20 07 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN HAVE 2 PORTFOLIOS, I.E. AS STOCK IN TR ADE AND AS INVESTMENT. THE VARIOUS FACTORS LAID DOWN IN CBDT CIRCULAR TO DECIDE THE IS SUE AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES ARE TO BE TREATED AS BUSINES S INCOME OR CAPITAL GAIN WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A). 4.1 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN SEPARATE OFFICE OR OWN BOLT FOR ENTERING INTO SHARE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BORROWED ANY INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES BUT H AS UTILISED HIS OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY DECLARED SURP LUS ON SALE OF SHARES AS CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH HAVE B EEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FREQUENCY OF TRA NSACTIONS AND VOLUME OF 4 TRANSACTIONS PERSE ARE NOT DECISIVE FACTORS WHICH H AVE BEEN LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE DECISION OF HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT REPORTED IN 228 CTR 582 WA S ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DELIVER Y BASED TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES ARE TO BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS AND PR OFIT THERE FROM HAS TO BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DEPENDING UPON THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE SHARES. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRINCIPLES OF RESJUDICATA IS NOT ATTRACTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AS EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE IN ITSELF, THERE OUGHT TO BE UNIFORMITY IN TREATMENT OF PROFIT ON SHARE TRANSACTIONS WHEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE I DENTICAL IN EACH YEAR. VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS WERE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A). 5. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM THE LEARNED CIT(A) DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY ACCEPTING THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHARE S AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE CASE MAY BE. WHILE DOING SO, HE REFERRED TO CBDT CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 DATED 15-06-2007 ACCORDING TO WH ICH THE ASSESSEE CAN HAVE 2 PORTFOLIOS, I.E. ONE AS STOCK IN TRADE AND THE OTHE R AS INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, THE SAME PERSON CAN ACT AS A TRADER IN RESPECT OF SOME TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES SUCH AS INTRADAY TRANSACTIONS AND CAN ACT AS AN INVESTOR IN THE CASE OF DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTIONS WHERE SHARES WERE PURCHASED WITH THE I NTENTION OF HOLDING FOR SOME DAYS AND EARNING CAPITAL GAIN. HE NOTED FROM THE B ALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HOLDING OF THE SHARES AT THE END OF YEAR UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN VALUED AT COST AND NOT AT COST OR MARKET VALUE WHICHEVER IS LOWER. FURTHER, HE NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILISED OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARES AN D HAS NOT BORROWED FUNDS FOR INVESTING IN SHARES. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING 5 OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING SIMPLY ON THE VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.1 HE NOTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTING INTO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARE DELIVERY BASED TRA NSACTION OF SHARES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY SHOWN THE HOLDING OF SHAR ES AS INVESTMENT AND SURPLUS OR DEFICIT OF SALE OF SHARES HAS BEEN SHOWN AS CAPITAL GAIN OR CAPITAL LOSS. SINCE THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF DELIVERY BASED SHARE TRANSACTIONS AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS CONSISTENTLY SHOWING SUCH INCOME FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PAST WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IN THE LIGHT OF T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GO PAL PUROHIT (SUPRA) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY SHOWN T HE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS. HE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE HONBLE CIT(A) AURANGABAD ERRED IN TREATING THE SHARE TRADING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 2. THE HONBLE CIT(A) AURANGABAD ERRED IN NOT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED ON CONTINUOUSLY AND SYSTEMATIC ALLY TRADING IN SHARES WITH A VIEW TO EARN AN INCOME WHICH AMOUNTS TO INCOME FROM BUSINES S OR PROFESSION AND NOT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 3. THE HONBLE CIT(A) AURANGABAD ERRED IN NOT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT WHILE DETERMINING THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF ASSESSEES TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES PRINCIPLES AND ASPECTS OF SUBSTANTIAL NATURE OF TRANSACTION, MAGNI TUDE OF PURCHASE AND SALE, RATIO BETWEEN PURCHASES AND SALES WITH ITS HOLDING AS PER CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 WAS DULY CONSIDERED IN ASSESSEES CASE. 4. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED A ND THAT OF THE CIT(A) BE VACATED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF TH E PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN 6 THE CASE OF AJINKYA ELECTROMELT PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT VIDE ITA NO.1519/PN/2008 ORDER DATED 30-07-2010 HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDEN TICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TREATED THE INCO ME FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTE D THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHE R HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISI ON OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT (SUPRA) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE INCOME FROM PUR CHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WHICH ARE DELIVERY BASED HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED AS SHORT TER M/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE CASE MAY BE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIO US DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THE ONLY DISPUTE IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS REGARDIN G TREATMENT OF PROFIT FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AIN/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OR BUSINESS INCOME AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TREATMENT OF SUCH INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME OR AS C APITAL GAIN DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LEARN ED CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE HOLDING OF SUCH SHARES UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT WHICH ARE VALUED AT COST. FURTHER, THE SHARES ARE DELIVE RY BASED. THE PROFIT FROM SUCH SALE OF SHARES WHICH WERE DECLARED AS SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE CASE MAY BE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE PAST A ND NO BORROWED FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILISED FOR INVESTMENT IN SUCH SHARES. THE A BOVE FACTUAL FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 7 10. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GOPAL PUROHIT (SUPRA) HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT DELIVE RY BASED TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE TREATED AS THOSE IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT TRANSA CTIONS AND PROFIT RECEIVED THERE FROM SHOULD BE TREATED AS EITHER SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DEPENDING UPON THE PERIOD OF HOLDING AND PROFIT FRO M OTHER TRANSACTIONS MAY BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. SIMILARLY, IT HAS FURT HER BEEN HELD THAT THOUGH PRINCIPLES OF RESJUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCO ME TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS EACH YEAR IS A SEPARATE ASSESSMENT YEAR YET THERE O UGHT TO BE UNIFORMITY IN TREATMENT OF PROFIT ON SHARE TRANSACTIONS WHEN FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL IN EACH YEAR. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE INCOME FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN AC CEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE PAST, A FACT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A ) AND NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE PRO FIT FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WHICH ARE DELIVERY BASED AS SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GAIN OR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE CASE MAY BE, THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE DECIS ION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED (SUPRA) AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REA SONING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS WE FIND NO I NFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CASE OF AJINKYA ELECTROMELT PVT. LTD. IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN VIEW OF THE LATER DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. CO NO.98/PN/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) (A.Y. 2007-08) : 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CO ARE MERELY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE 8 APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1355/PN/2011, THEREFORE, THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1356/PN/2011 (BY REVENUE) (A.Y. 2007-08) (M AMTA RAJESH MUNDADA): 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS IN ITA NO.1355/PN/2011. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, THE GROUNDS R AISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. CO NO.99/PN/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) (A.Y. 2007-08) : 13. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CO ARE MERELY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1356/PN/2011, THEREFORE, THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RE VENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 25 TH FEBRUARY 2013 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-AURANGABAD 4. CIT, AURANGABAD 5. D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENI OR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE