MDIndia Healthcare Services (TPA) Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Pune

ITA 1366/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5249 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 195

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 13 66 /P U N/201 7 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 1 3 MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES (TPA) PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MDINDIA HEALTH INSURANCE TPA PVT. LTD.) S.NO.46/1, E - SPACE BUILDING, A - 2 WING, 3 RD FLOOR, PUNE NAGAR ROAD, VADGAON SHERI, PU NE 411014 . / APPELLANT PAN: AADCM4828N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GAR G / DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 . 0 7 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19 . 0 8 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (A) - 7 , PUNE , DATED 06 . 0 2 .201 7 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 20 1 2 - 1 3 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 13 66 /P U N/20 1 7 MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 2 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 7, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE PARTIAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED AO, FOR INCENTIVE PAID TO MR. BRIJ SHARMA U/S 40A(2) OF THE ITA, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.40 , 00 , 000/ - . THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 7, ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT, NO ANY SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE LEARNED AO REGARDING, INCENTIVE PAID TO M R. BRIJ SHARMA IS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABLE, AS WARRANTED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ITA 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 7, ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN COMPARING THE INCENTIVE PAID TO MR. BRIJ SHARMA WITH THAT OF MR. RAJNISH SHARMA. THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 7, OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO MR. BRIJ SHARMA AND MR. RAJNISH SHARMA. AS SUCH , NO ANY EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENT IS MADE TO MR. BRIJ SHARMA. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 7, E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.40,00 , 000/ - HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY MR. BRIJ SHARMA , IN HIS INDIVIDUAL HANDS. THE LEARNED CIT (A) - 7 , OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2) OF THE ITA , 1961 WOULD LEAD TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE MADE OUT OF INCENTIVE PAID TO THE DIRECTORS INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD DECLARED PAYMENTS MADE TO PARTIES COVERED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT IN ITS TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI BRIJ INDERLAL SHARMA , DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WAS 1.08 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID DIRECTOR ALONG WITH DETAILS OF HIS CONTRIBUTION FOR EARNING INCENTIVES AND COMPENSATION. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPANY AND HAD VAST EXPERIENCE IN MARKETING AND BUSINESS T ECHNIQUES AND HE HAD FOUNDED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE YEAR 2000. HIS WORK PROFILE WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 4 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT HUGE AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE OR BONUS OF 80 LAKHS WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE TO ITS DIRECTOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT ITA NO. 13 66 /P U N/20 1 7 MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3 66% OF SHARES OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE HELD BY THE SAID DIRECTOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OR DETAILS BEING FURNISHED REGARDING EXCEPTIONAL SERVICES RENDERED BY HIM, THE NATURE OF PAYMENT WAS NOTHING BUT BONUS PAID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE BONUS OR INCENTIVE WAS PAID TO SHRI BRIJ SHARMA DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT WERE APPLICABLE. AS PER THE SAID PROVISIONS, IT IS HELD THAT ANY SUM WHICH IS PAID TO AN EMPLOYEE AS BONUS OR COMMISSION FOR SERVICES RENDERED, WHERE SUCH SUM WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAYABLE TO HIM AS PROFITS OR DIVIDEND IF IT HAS NOT BEEN PAID AS BONUS OR COMMISSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTES THAT INCENTIVE AT HALF RATE ONLY I.E. 40 LAKHS HAD BEEN PAID TO SHRI RAJNISH SHARMA, WHO WAS THE FULL TIME MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED INCENTIVE OF 80 LAKHS BEING ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE OF DIVIDEND AND HELD THE SAME WAS NOT ALLOWABLE EITHER UNDER SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT OR 37(1) OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID INCENTIVE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE BO ARD RESOLUTION. IT WAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE SAID INCENTIVE WAS OFFERED TO TAXATION BY SHRI BRIJ SHARMA AND DISALLOWANCE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION PAID IN T HE PAST YEAR HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND INCENTIVE PAID TO SHRI RAJNISH SHARMA WAS ALSO ACCEPTED. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT TRANSACTION WAS REVENUE NEUTRAL AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA (P.) LTD. REPORTED IN 195 TAXMAN 35 (SC) . THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE CIT(A) REFERS TO AUDIT REPORTS NOTE 19.6 OF MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION AND ALSO TA KES NOTE OF RESOLUTION ITA NO. 13 66 /P U N/20 1 7 MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 4 PASSED, WHEREIN 80 LAKHS WAS PAID AS INCENTIVE TO SHRI BRIJ SHARMA AND 40 LAKHS TO SHRI RAJNISH SHARMA. THE CIT(A) NOTES THAT THE AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE ALLOWED WAS 1.70 CRORES, WHEREAS THE RESOLUTION WAS ONLY FOR 1.20 CRORES, THEREFORE, 50 LAKHS INCENTIVE WAS PAI D WITHOUT ANY BOARDS RESOLUTION. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SHRI BRIJ SHARMA HAD GOT MORE INCENTIVE OF 40 LAKHS AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER DIRECTOR AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT WERE ATTRACTED. THE SECOND PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS REVENUE NEUTRAL, WAS NOT ACCEPTED. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTUAL ASPECTS CORR ECTLY. HE POINTED OUT THAT CIT(A) ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 40 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE ANALOGY THE SAME INCENTIVE WAS PAID TO OTHER DIRECTOR WAS WRONG. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HERE POINTED OUT THAT ACTUALLY 90 LAKHS WAS PAID TO OTHER DIRECTOR I.E. SHRI RAJNISH SHARM A. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE CHART UNDER PARA 6.5 AT PAGE 17 OF CIT(A)S ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT TOTAL INCENTIVE WAS 1.70 CRORES I.E. 80 LAKHS TO SHRI BRIJ SHARMA AND 90 LAKHS TO OTHER DIRECTOR SHRI RA JNISH SHARMA. THE FIRST PLEA RAISED BY ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS TAX NEUTRAL AS THE RATES OF TAXES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND DIRECTORS WERE SAME, THOUGH ADMITTEDLY, SHRI BRIJ SHARMA OFFERED INCENTIVE IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AND PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ARIHANTAM INFRAPROJECTS (P.) LTD. VS. JCIT (2016) 156 ITD 425 (PUNE - TRIB.). HE FURTHER POINTED OU T THAT THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO. 13 66 /P U N/20 1 7 MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 5 IN PARA 21 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF TAX NEUTRALITY AND IN PARA 22, IT HAS ALSO DECIDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON TH E OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE RESOLUTION OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS PLACED AT PAGE 35 OF PAPER BOOK, UNDER WHICH 80 LAKHS WAS PAID TO SHRI BRIJ SHARMA AND 40 LAKHS TO SHRI RAJNISH SHARMA. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REJOINDER AGAIN REFERRED TO THE CHART MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT IN AUDITED BALANCE SHEE T, SUM OF 1.70 CRORES WAS DEBITED AS INCENTIVE TO THE DIRECTORS THOUGH ADMITTEDLY, IN THE RESOLUTION THERE WAS SOME MISMATCH IN THE FIGURES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID MISMATCH WAS NEVER PUT TO THE ASSESSEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 10. WE HAV E HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INCENTIVE PAID TO DIRECTOR SHRI BRIJ SHARMA. ADMITTEDLY, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TOTAL INCENTIVE O F 1.70 CRORES WAS PAID TO DIRECTORS AS AGAINST 1.20 CRORES PAID IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE SAID FACT IS MENTIONED IN AUDIT REPORTS NOTE NO.19.6 MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION. THE DETAILS ARE TABULATED UNDER PARA 6.5 AT PAGE 17 OF APPELLATE ORDER. THE AFOR ESAID DETAILS DECLARES THE INCENTIVE OF 1.70 CRORES FOR THE YEAR, OUT OF WHICH 80 LAKHS WAS PAID TO SHRI BRIJ SHARMA AND 90 LAKHS WAS PAID TO SHRI RAJNISH SHARMA. THOUGH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND EVEN THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE BEFORE US HAS REFERRED TO THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COMPANY, ITA NO. 13 66 /P U N/20 1 7 MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 6 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 35 OF PAPER BOOK, BUT ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS MISMATCH IN FIGURES AS IN THE RESOLUTION, THE FIGURE MENTIONED IS 80 LAKHS + 40 LAKHS, WHEREAS IN ACTUAL FACT, THE PAYMENT TO THE DIRECTORS HAS BEEN MADE AT 80 LAKHS + 90 LAKHS, RESPECTIVELY. IN OTHER WORDS, SHRI BRIJ SHARMA HAD RECEIVED 80 LAKHS AND SHRI RAJNISH SHARMA HAD RECEIVED 90 LAKHS AS INCENTIVE DURING THE YEAR. KEEPING MISMATCH OF THE RES OLUTION IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON THE SIDE , WE HOLD THAT IN ANY CASE THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AT BEST A TAX NEUTRAL CASE, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WE RE BOTH TAX PAYERS AND THE RATES OF TAXES PAID BY BOTH OF THEM ARE AT PAR AND I T IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID BY SHRI BRIJ SHARMA IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND NOT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION. 11. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GL AXO SMITHKLINE ASIA (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT. VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) PRIVATE LIMITED (2009) 310 ITR 306 (BOM) IN THE FACTS BEFORE THEM, HAD HELD THAT WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AND T AXES HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE SAID DIRECTORS ON ITS INCOME, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT . THIS PROPOSITION WAS APPLIED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ARIHANTAM INFRAPROJECTS (P.) LTD. VS. JCIT (SUPRA) AND VIDE PARA 21 IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 21. ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AND THE TAXES HAVE BE EN PAID BY THE SAID DIRECTORS ON ITS INCOME, THEN NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT. VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) HAVE LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE T HE PAYEE HAS BEEN PAID INCENTIVE COMMISSION, THEN THERE IS NO TAX AVOIDANCE AND HENCE, NO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. APPLYING THE SAME SIMILI TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PAID THE COMMISSION TO THE DIREC TORS, WHO IN TURN HAD DECLARED THE SAME IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL RETURN OF INCOME, ON WHICH ITA NO. 13 66 /P U N/20 1 7 MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 7 TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID AND APPLYING THE SIMILI LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF PAYER AS THE RE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO AVOID TAX. 12. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY DEAL WITH THE OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID INCENTIVE IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ARIHANTAM INFRAPROJECTS (P.) LTD. VS. JCIT (SUPRA) AND VIDE PARA 22, IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: - 22. THE CIT(A) WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAD FOUND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN DALAL BROACHA STOCK BROKING (P) LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT (SUPRA). THE DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN K.L. CONCAST PVT. LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ITS ALLOWABILITY UNDER SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT, OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE COMMISSION WAS TREATED AS PART AND PARCEL OF SALARY BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND TAX DEDUCTION WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 192 OF THE ACT TREATING THE COMMISSION AS PART OF SALARY, THEN THE DISALLOWA NCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO MANAGING DIRECTOR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN AMD METPLAST PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) . IN VIEW THEREOF, THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE REVENUE ON RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN DALAL BROACHA STOCK BROKING (P) LTD. VS. ADDL.CIT (SUPRA) WAS HELD TO BE NOT CORRECT, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT, W HICH WAS BINDING ON ALL THE SUBORDINATE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS WORKING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH HIGH COURT. THE DECISION OF MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IS NOT BINDING, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SERIES OF D ECISIONS AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE CIT(A). 13. THE SAID ISSUE WAS DECIDED RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN AMD METPLAST PVT. LTD . VS. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 (DEL) . IN VIEW OF THE DICTATE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, IT WAS HELD THAT RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE REVENUE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN DALAL BROACHA STOCK BROKING (P) LTD. VS. ADD L.CIT (2011) 131 ITD 36 (MUM) (SB) WAS MISPLACED. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PRESENT CASE HAD ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, APPLYING TH E DICTATE OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN AMD METPLAST ITA NO. 13 66 /P U N/20 1 7 MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 8 PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN MAKING THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF INCENTIVE PAID TO T HE DIRECTORS AT 80 LAKHS AS INCENTIVE PAID TO SHRI RAJNISH SHARMA OF 90 LAKHS HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 14 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNC ED ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 19 TH AUGUS T , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 7 , PUNE ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 6 , PUN E ; 5. 6. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE ; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE