DCIT, Kolhapur V. DR. D.Y.Patil Pratishtan, Kolhapur

ITA 1372/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 137224514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Onus to prove
• Section: 12A; 12; 11

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. 1372/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR .. APPELLANT VS. DR. D.Y. PATIL PRATISHTAN, 869E, KASABA BAWADA, KOLHAPUR .. RESPONDENT PAN NO.AAATD 5311R APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 05-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-09-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 12-03-2012 OF THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 BY THE REVENUE REA D AS UNDER : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALL OWING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO THE ASSES SEE IGNORING THE FACT THAT ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GE NUINE AND ARE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECT S OF THE TRUST. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALL OWING BENEFIT U/S.12A TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE FACT T HE ORDER OF ITAT RESTORING REGISTRATION U/S.12A TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 2 2.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSES SEE DR. D.Y. PATIL PRATISHTAN WAS FOUNDED THROUGH A DEED OF TRUST ON 2 7-12-1990 VIDE REGISTRATION NO.E-1175 UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST AC T 1950. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUT IONS AND HAS OBTAINED THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION U/S.12A FROM COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 15-11-1991 VIDE REGISTRATION NO. D-/93/63/85 /1991-92. FROM A.Y. 2000-01 ONWARDS THE EXEMPTION HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE TRUST ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING CANCELLATION OF REGISTRAT ION BY CIT CENTRAL U/S.12AA(3) AND FOR INDULGENCE IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIE S AND VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C). FOLLOWING THE ORDE RS IN THE CASE OF THE TRUST FOR EARLIER YEARS THE AO DENIED EXEMPTION U/S .11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.2 IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECI SIONS AND OBSERVING THAT THE DENIAL U/S.12A BY THE CIT HAS BE EN RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENY ING THE EXEMPTION U/S.11. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AT PARA 7.3 OF HIS ORDER READ AS UNDER: 7.3 A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD REVEALS THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF IT. ACT TO THE APPELLANT. HE HAS SIMPLY RELIED ON THE A SSESSMENT ORDER FOR EARLIER YEARS. IN THIS CONNECTION IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THA T THE ISSUES RELATING TO RECOGNITION OF THE APPELLANT U/S.12A OF IT. ACT AND EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF IT. ACT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE APPEAL ORD ER OF THE APPELLANT FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDING THE A.Y.2007-08 (PARA 6 TO 6.13). THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT FOR A.Y.2008-09 REMAIN SUBSTANTIVELY SAME AS THAT OF A. Y.2007-08. IN THE A.Y.2008-09, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY E VIDENCE TO SHOW ANY VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH MAKE THE APPELLAN T INELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF IT. ACT. THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF IT. ACT EVEN THOUGH CANCELLED BY CIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, STANDS RESTORED BY HON'BLE I TAT, PUNE. THEREFORE, THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A OF IT. ACT IS AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT FOR A.Y.2008-09. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT AN Y SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF VIOLATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF IT. ACT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS MAKING THE APPELLANT INELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11, AVAILABILITY OF REGISTRATION U/S. 12A IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT AND DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE APPE AL ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y.2007-08, I HOLD THAT THE APPE LLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR 3 EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, THESE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 2.3 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2.4 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND SIMILAR IS SUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.253/PN/2012 ORDER DATED 25-06- 2013 HAS DISMISSED THE GROUNDS BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 2.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITA N O.182/PN/2008 ORDER DATED 28-11-2008 HAS RESTORED THE REGISTRATIO N GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.12A. SIMILARLY, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSES SEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IN ITA NO.1592/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 14- 12-2012 HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SE CTION 11 OF THE I.T. ACT AND THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 13(1)(C) OR 13(1)(D). MERELY BECAUSE THE REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEP TED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THE SAME IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE A GROUND TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE ORDER AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. SINCE THE REGISTRATION U/S.12A CANCELLED BY THE CIT HAS BEEN RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DA TED 28-11-2008 AND SINCE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT Y EAR THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN UPH ELD BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MAT ERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 2.5 SINCE THE AO FOLLOWING ORDERS FOR EARLIER YEARS IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED EXEMPTION U/S.11 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT YEAR AND SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR EARLIER YEARS HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.11 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBU NAL, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOT ICE BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER 4 OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 3. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UN DER : 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING REMUNERATION PAID TO RELATIVES OF TRUSTEES TO THE TUNE OF RS.67, 10,051/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) AND 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.67,10,051/- BEING PAYMEN TS TO PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S.40A(2)(B)/13(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME ARE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C). IN AP PEAL THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UND ER : 10.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. SIMILAR ISSUE HAD CO ME IN APPEAL FOR THE EARLIER YEARS INCLUDING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THESE EXPENDITURES AND ALSO HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD VIOLATED PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 13(1)(C). HOWEVER, IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THESE YEA RS INCLUDING THE APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-08 (PARA 9 TO 9.7 OF THE APPEAL ORDER) IT WAS FOUND THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, APPELLANTS APPEALS WERE AL LOWED ON THIS ISSUE AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDIT URE ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION TO TRUSTEES AND THEIR RELATIVES WAS INCURRED FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND NO VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED U/S.13(1)(C). AS THE FACTS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ARE SU BSTANTIVELY IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF EARLIER YEARS, DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE APPEAL ORDER OF EARLIER YEARS INCLUDING A.Y. 20 07-08 IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE FOR A.Y. 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION TO TH E TRUSTEES AND THEIR RELATIVES WAS INCURRED FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AND NO VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED U/S.13(1)(C). THEREFO RE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 3.2 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.253/PN/2012 ORDER DATED 25 -06-2013 HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UND ER : 4.3 AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE FIND SIMILAR ISSU E HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1612/PN/2011 FILED BY THE REVENUE VIDE ORDER DT. 14-12-2012 HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 36. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONS IDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. WE FIND THE AO DISALLOWED THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE TRUSTEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 38,37,221/- ON THE GROUND THAT SUC H PAYMENT WAS UNREASONABLE CONSIDERING THEIR EXPERIENCE AND QUALI FICATION AND THEREFORE THE MONEY HAS NOT BEEN UTILISED FOR THE O BJECTS OF THE TRUST FOR WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) ARE AT TRACTED. WE FIND THE LEARNED CIT(A) VERY EXHAUSTIVELY ANALYSED THE FACTS AND HELD THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO WAS UNJUSTIFIED AN D UNCALLED FOR. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT P ARA 24.11 TO 24.16 OF THE ORDER READS AS UNDER : 24.11 FROM THE JUSTIFICATION NARRATED IN THE PRECE DING PARAGRAPHS, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE APPELLANT, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ITSELF, GAVE DETAILED JUSTIFICATION IN RESPECT OF, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REMUNERATION/CONSULTANCY CHARGES PAID TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S.40A(2)(B) I 13(3) OF I.T. ACT. IN ITS JUSTIFICATION, THE APPELLANT SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THE NATURE OF SE RVICES / JOBS RENDERED BY THESE PERSONS AND HAS CONTENDED THAT PA YMENTS MADE TO THEM WERE REASONABLE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE REASONABLENESS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S.4OA(2)(B)/ 13(3) OF I.T. ACT. THE AO CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE TOTALLY UNREASONAB LE, EXCESSIVE AND FOR THE PERSONAL BENEFIT OF TRUSTEES. AS STATED ABO VE, THE AO DREW THIS INFERENCE AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH MINUTE S BOOKS OF THE MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS. IN PURSUANCE OF THIS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT, SHE CONCLUDED THAT PAYMENTS TO TH ESE PERSONS WERE WITHOUT ANY AUTHORIZATION. AS STATED ABOVE, SHE GAV E VERY GENERAL REMARK IN RESPECT OF SMT.BHAGYASHREE PATIL AND SMT. RAJASHREE KAKADE TO THE EFFECT THAT NO DETAILS OF DUTIES PERF ORMED BY THEM WERE AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD REVEALS THAT THE AO DID NOT BRING ANYTHIN G ON RECORD TO PROVE THE FACT THAT MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RE NDERED /JOBS DONE BY THESE PERSONS WAS LESS THAN THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE M. AS STATED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS IN RESPECT OF PROVING REASONABLENESS OF PAYMENT MADE TO THESE PERSONS. UN DER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ONUS WAS ON THE AO TO PROVE THE FACT THAT MARKET VALUE OF THESE SERVICES/JOBS WERE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT PA ID TO THESE PERSONS. HOWEVER, NOTHING TO PROVE THE FACT THAT MARKET VALU E OF THE SERVICES RENDERED/JOBS DONE BY THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 4OA(2)(B)/13(3) WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION/CON SULTANCY CHARGES 6 PAID TO ALL PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 40A(2)(B)/ 13(3) OF I.T. ACT WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. RELIANCE OF THE AO ON THE REPORT OF THE AUDITOR U/S .142(2A) TO PROVE THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE FOR THE PERSONAL BE NEFIT OF THE TRUSTEES AS STATED IN PARA 22(IV) IS ALSO NOT CORRECT. IN FA CT, THE AUDITOR GAVE A CATEGORICAL STATEMENT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVA NT INFORMATION EXCESSIVENESS I UNREASONABLENESS OF SUCH EXPENSES C ANNOT BE DETERMINED. THIS STATEMENT OF THE AUDITOR HAS BEEN GIVEN AT SR.NO.9(A) OF STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS WHICH IS REPRODUCED BEL OW :- 9. DETAILS OF AMOUNTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 40A A. PARTICULARS OF PAYMENT WHICH APPEAR TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 40A (2)(A). REFER ANNEXURE IX (FORMING PART OF ADDITIONAL REPORT) SPECIFYING PAYMENTS MADE TO PERSONS REFERRED U/S.40A (2)(B). IN THE ABSENCE OF RELEVANT INFORMATION EXCESSIVENESS / UNREASONABLENESS OF SUCH EXPENSES CANNOT BE DETERMINED. 24.12 AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE RELATING TO THE NUMBER OF VISITS SMT. BHAGYASHREE PATIL PAID TO THE SCHOOL AND RELAT ING THE MAJOR ROLE PLAYED BY SMT. RAJASHREE KAKADE IN THE SETTING UP O F IACST (C-DAC) CENTRE AT KOLHAPUR IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NOTHING O N RECORD TO SHOW THAT SUCH SPECIFIC QUERIES WERE MADE BY THE AO IN T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAKE COMPLIAN CE TO THESE SPECIFIC QUERIES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DISALLOW ANCE OF THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION TO THE TRUSTEES AND THEIR RE LATIVES ON THE BASIS OF, AMONG OTHER THINGS, NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS O F THE NUMBER OF VISITS SMT.BHAGYASHREE PATIL MADE TO THE SCHOOL AND THE ROLE PLAYED BY SMT.RAJASHREE KAKADE IN THE SETTING UP OF IACST (C-DAC) CENTRE AT KOLHAPUR WAS NOT PROPER. 24.13 EVEN DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS NO T BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING TO PROVE THE FACT THAT THE MARKET V ALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED I JOBS DONE BY THESE PERSONS WERE LESS THA N THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM. HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC COMMENT S IN RESPECT OF THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE PAYMENTS TO THESE PERSONS BY VARIOUS MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF TRUSTEES. HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT SA LARY PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO SMT.RAJASHREE KAKADE AND SMT.SUPRIYA P .C. PATIL SINCE A.Y.2000-01. NO RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE TRUST WAS EITHER FILED AT THE TIME ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR AT THE TIME OF CURRE NT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT JUSTIFICATION OF SALARY PAYME NT SPECIFICALLY TO SMT.RAJASHREE KAKADE AND SMT.SUPRIYA P.C.PATIL WAS NEVER GIVEN TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO WHO MADE THE ASSESSMENT HAD EXPRESSED HER OPINION ONLY ABOUT SMT.BHAGYASHRE E PATIL AND SMT.RAJASHREE KAKADE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AO WHO MADE THE ASSESSMENT HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT PAYMENTS MAD E TO THESE TWO LADIES WERE DISPROPORTIONATE AND EXCESSIVE AS COMPA RED TO THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM. AS STATED ABOVE, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT MARKET VALUE O F THE SERVICES RENDERED/JOBS DONE BY THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 40A(2)(B)/13(3) 7 WAS LESS THAN THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STATEMENT OF THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AO WHO MADE THE ASSESSMENTS HAS CATEGORICALLY PROVED T HAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SMT.BHAGYASHREE PATIL AND SMT.KAKADE WERE DISPROPORTIONATE / EXCESSIVE IS NOT CORRECT. THE IS SUE RELATING TO AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENTS TO THESE PERSONS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS 24.14 UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO DURING THE CO URSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL TO PROVE THE FACT THAT EXCESSIVE / DISPROPORTIONATE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THESE PERS ONS. IN FACT, HE IS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC YARDSTICK TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PAYMENT IS EXCESSIVE OR NOT. HE IS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT ARMS LENGTH PAYMENT CAN BE MADE TO THESE PERSONS. HE ALSO POINT ED OUT THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION SAYING THAT THESE ARE THE PERS ONS CLASSIFIED U/S.13(3). HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THERE IS NO B AN IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON PAYMENT TO SUCH PERSONS BY A TRUST PROVIDED THE PAYMENT IS REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE TO THE SERVICES RENDER ED BY THEM. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE PAYMENT IS AT ARMS LENGTH TH EN THE INCOME-TAX ACT DOES NOT TREAT THIS AS A VIOLATION. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CATEGORICAL FINDING AS TO HOW THE PAYMENT MADE TO T HESE PERSONS IS EXCESSIVE AND HOW IT CONSTITUTES VIOLATION U/S 13(L )(C).THE APPELLANT HAS NOW PROVIDED DETAILS OF THE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFI CATIONS OF THE PERSONS AND THE DUTIES AND ROLES PLAYED BY THEM. AT THE OUTSET, IT CANT BE COMMENTED AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS EXCESSIVE OR NOT AS THERE IS NO SPECIFIC YARDSTICK TO DETERMINE THE SAME. THE PERSONS SEEM TO POSSESS REASONABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE. H OWEVER, WHETHER THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE QU ALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE IS A SUBJECTIVE MATTER. THE AO HAS NOT O PINED ON THE SAME. THE DECISION ON THE SAME MAY BE TAKEN ON MERITS AS DEEMED FIT. IF HELD AS UNREASONABLE; THIS WILL INDEED CONSTITUTE A VIOL ATION U/S 13(1)(C). HOWEVER IT IS OPINED THAT TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF SAL ARY TO ALL TRUSTEES AND THEIR RELATIVES IS NOT PROPER. ONLY UNREASONABL E SALARY PAID TO OTHER PERSONS WILL HAVE TO BE DISALLOWED. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD EITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR DURING REMAND PROCEEDING T O PROVE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED U/S.4OA(2)(B )/13(3) WERE EXCESSIVE OR DISPROPORTIONATE IN COMPARISON TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED/JOBS DONE BY THESE PERSONS. U NDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE/DISPROPORTIONATE/UNREASONABLE PAYMENT TO THESE PERSONS CAN BE MADE. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION / CONSULTANCY CHARGES PAID TO TRUSTEES/THEIR RELATI VES IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 24.15 THE AOS CONTENTION THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.13 (1)(C) APPLY TO THE APPELLANTS CASE IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AND IS AGAINST JUDICIAL RULINGS ON THE SUBJECT. IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL RULINGS, IT HAS BE EN HELD THAT AO HAS TO COLLECT MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT TO THE PE RSONS SPECIFIED IN SEC.13(3) IS UNREASONABLE COMPARED TO THE MARKET RA TE FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN HELD RECENTLY BY HONBLE ITAT LUCKNOW IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. VIRENDRA SINGH MEMOR IAL SHIKSHA SAMITI REPORTED IN (2009) 18 DTR 502. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- I 7. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO S. 13 AS UNDER 8 '13. (I) NOTHING CONTAINED IN S. 11 OR S. 12 SHALL OPERATE SO AS TO EXCLUDE FROM THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT THEREOF-................ (C) IN THE CASE OF A TRUST FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGI OUS PURPOSES OR A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, ANY INCOME THE REOF- (I) IF SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION HAS BEEN CREATED O R ESTABLISHED AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT AND UNDER THE TERMS OF THE TRUST OR THE RULES GOVERNING THE INSTITUTION, ANY PART OF SUCH INCOME ENURES, OR (II) IF ANY PART OF SUCH INCOME OR ANY PROPERTY OF THE TRUST OR THE INSTITUTION (WHENEVER CREATED OR ESTABLISHED) IS DU RING THE PREVIOUS YEAR USED OR APPLIED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FOR TH E BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUB-S. (3) : (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF THE PROV ISIONS OF CL. (C) AND CL. (D) OF SUB-S. (I), THE INCOME OR THE PROPERTY O F THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION OR ANY PART OF SUCH INCOME OR PROPERTY SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT CLAUSE, BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN USE D OR APPLIED FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUB-S. (3), ................. (C) IF ANY AMOUNT IS PAID BY WAY OF SALARY, ALLOWAN CE OR OTHERWISE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUB-S. (3 ) OUT OF THE RESOURCES OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION FOR SERVI CES RENDERED BY THAT PERSON TO SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION AND THE AMOUNT SO PAID IS IN EXCESS OF WHAT MAY BE REASONABLY PAID FOR SUCH SERVICES;.. ............... (G) IF ANY INCOME OR PROPERTY OF THE TRUST OR INSTI TUTION IS DIVERTED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN FAVOUR OF ANY PERSON RE FERRED TO IN SUB-S. (3):................... (3) THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN CL. (C) OF SUB-S. (1 ) AND SUB-S. (2) ARE THE FOLLOWING, NAMELY: (A) THE AUTHOR OF THE TRUST OR THE FOUNDER OF THE I NSTITUTION; (B) ANY PERSON WHO HAS MADE A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUT ION TO THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION, THAT IS TO SAY, ANY PERSON WHOSE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION UPTO THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR EXCEEDS FIFTY THO USAND RUPEES; (C) WHERE SUCH AUTHOR, FOUNDER OR PERSON IS AN H UF , A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY/; (CC) ANY TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST OR MANAGER ( BY WHATEVER NAME CALLED) OF THE INSTITUTION; (D) ANY RELATIVE OF ANY SUCH AUTHOR, FOUNDER, PERSO N, (MEMBER, TRUSTEE OR MANAGER) AS AFORESAID; (E) ANY CONCERN IN WHICH ANY OF THE PERSONS REFERRE D TO IN CLS. (A), (B), (C), (CC) AND (D) HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST.' I8. LET US EXAMINE WHETHER CASE OF THE REVENUE FAL LS UNDER CL. (2) OF S. 13(1)(C) OR UNDER S. I3 (2). IT IS NOT DISPUT ED THAT THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SUB-S. (3) IS THE FOUNDER MEMBER OF THE TRUST. THE CONDITION MENTIONED IN S. 13(1)(C) (II) IS THAT INC OME OF THE TRUST SHOULD BE USED OR APPLIED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FO R THE BENEFIT OF ANY 9 PERSON FALLING IN THE PROHIBITED CATEGORY. BENEFIT HERE WOULD MEAN SOME EX GRATIS EXPENDITURE WITHOUT ANY CONTRIBUTION BY SUCH PERSON TO THE SOCIETY. THE TERM 'BENEFIT EXCLUDE FROM ITS AM BIT A TWO WAY PROCESS. IF THE PERSON IN THE PROHIBITED CATEGORY R ENDERS SERVICES AND IN LIEU THEREOF A BENEFIT IS PROVIDED THEN THE CASE DOES NOT FALL IN CL. (II) OF S. 13(1)(C). THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON TH OSE INTERESTED PERSONS WOULD BE A COMPENSATION FOR SUCH SERVICES. A BENEFIT WOULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE PERSONS OF PROHIB ITED CATEGORY, IF THEY IN RETURN DO NOTHING BUT ONLY ENJOY THE FRUITS OF THE TRUST/SOCIETY AND TAKE AWAY THE FUNDS/INCOME OF THE SOCIETY FOR T HEIR PERSONAL BENEFIT OR DISCHARGING PERSONAL OBLIGATION, BUT WHE RE PERSONS OF PROHIBITED CATEGORY RENDER SERVICES TO THE SOCIETY AND IN TURN, GET SOME REMUNERATION, SALARY AND ALLOWANCES ETC. AS A MEMBER THEN PROVISIONS OF SUB-S. (2) WOULD BE APPLICABLE AND NO T OF SUB-S. (1) AND FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S. (2) OF S. 13, IT HAS TO BE SHOWN BY THE REVENUE THAT AMOUNT PAID TO THE PERSONS OF PROH IBITED CATEGORY WAS IN EXCESS OF WHAT MAY BE REASONABLY PAID FOR SU CH SERVICES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO HAS TO COLLECT MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT PAYMENT TO THE PERSONS OF PROHIBITED CATEGORY WAS UNREASONABLE AS COMPARED TO THE MARKET RATES FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD FIRSTLY TO SHOW THAT ALLEGED INFLATED EXPENDITURE HAS GONE TO THE PERSONS OF PROHIBITED CATEGORY, THE REFORE, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE MADE OUT ON THE BASIS OF S. 13(1) CANNO T BE UPHELD. THE QUESTION OF INVOKING S. 13(2) IN THE PRESENT CASE A LSO DOES NOT ARISE BECAUSE S. 13(2) COULD BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THERE I S A CLAIM OF EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF SALARY/ALLOWANCES OR PERQUI SITES TO THE PERSONS OF PROHIBITED CATEGORY FOR SOME SERVICES RE NDERED. THE AO HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE ON THESE PREMISES. THUS, NE ITHER S. 13(1) NOR S. 13(2) IS APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 24.16 THE AO IN HER ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE PAYME NTS TO THESE PERSONS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE MINUTES OF THE M EETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS. AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS , THE AO WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCTION OF MI NUTES OF MEETING OF TRUSTEES IN WHICH PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS PERSONS WERE AUTHORIZED. IN THE CASES WHERE PAYMENTS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TRUSTEES, THEY WERE AUTHORIZED BY THE PERSONS CO MPETENT TO AUTHORIZE THEM. IN ANY CASE, THE ISSUE TO BE EXAMIN ED HERE IS WHETHER THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SERVICES RENDERED / JOBS DO NE WAS LESS THAN THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS. AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT MARKET VALU E OF THESE SERVICES / JOBS WERE LESS THAN THE PAYMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF THEM. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION / CONSULTAN CY CHARGES TO TRUSTEES AND THEIR RELATIVES AMOUNTING TO RS.38,37, 221/- CANNOT BE MADE. THEREFORE, PART OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RE LATING TO THE PAYMENTS TO THE TRUSTEES AND THEIR RELATIVES ON ACC OUNT OF SALARY AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES ARE ALLOWED. 37. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDIN GS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). FURTHER WE FIND NOWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD HOW MUCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE REASONABLE REMUNERATION TO THE TRUSTEES AND THEIR R ELATIVES AND WHAT IS THE AMOUNT PAID BY SIMILARLY PLACED ORGANISATIONS T O THEIR EMPLOYEES. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT IN THE PAST ALSO SUCH TYPE OF PAYMENTS WERE MADE AND IT WAS ACC EPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS FOR A.Y. 2000-01 TO 2002-03 10 (PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 293 TO 307) AND NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE EXHAUSTIVE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) GIVING REASONS FOR SUCH DELETION AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE AGAINST THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO U/S .40(A)(2)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN DELE TED BY US, THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 4.4 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS BY THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. 4.1 SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION FO LLOWING THE ORDER FOR PRECEDING YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRI BUNAL, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRAR Y MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 5. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UN DER : WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE ISS UE OF RENT PAID TO MRS. B.P. PATIL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IGNORI NG THE FACT THAT THERE IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A(2)(B) AND 13(1)(C) OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. 5.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT FROM THE DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S REGARDING PAYMENTS MADE TO SPECIFIED PERSONS U/S.40A(2)(B)/13 (3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE TRUST HAS PAID RENT OF RS.5, 51,912/- TO MRS. B.P. PATIL FOR THE BUNGALOW SITUATED AT PLOT NO.282, IND RAYANI NAGAR, BHOSARI, PUNE AND FLAT NOS. 7 & 18 SITUATED AT SUKH WANI CAMPUS, BUNGALOW NAME SUNFLOWER-B UNIT, A-2, PIMPRI, WARADE . THE 11 ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID RENT BEING PA YMENT TO PERSON U/S.40A(2)(B)/13(1)(C). 5.2 IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDE R : 11.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. SIMILAR ISSUE HAD CO ME FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD D ISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE AND ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED SECTION 13(1)(C). HOWEVER, IN THE REMAND REPORT DU RING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2006-07, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE RENT PAID TO MRS . B.P. PATIL WAS REASONABLE AND THERE WAS NO VIOLATION TO THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT. ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND R EPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT WAS HELD IN THE APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 THAT THER E WAS NO VIOLATION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF THIS PAYMENT OF RENT. SIMILARLY, STAND OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THIS PAYMENT OF RENT HAS NOT BEEN ACC EPTED IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ENTIRE EXPEND ITURE ON RENT PAID TO MRS. B.P. PATIL WAS INCURRED FOR THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST AND NO VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED U/S. 13(1)(C). THE RELEVANT PARAS ARE 25 TO 25.6 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND 10 T O 10.4 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. AS THE FACTS OF THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE SUBSTANTIVELY SAME AS THAT OF A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-0 8, DECISION IN THE APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 IS EQUA LLY APPLICABLE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHER, AS C LARIFIED BY THE APPELLANT THE RATE PER SQ.FT. PAID TO MRS. B.P. PAT IL IS MUCH LESS THAN THE MARKET RENT AND HENCE, IN MY OPINION, THER E IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(C). ACCORDINGLY, I HOLD THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO MRS. B.P. PATIL IS REASONABLE AND F ULLY ALLOWABLE WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE TRUST. FURTHER, I HOLD THAT NO VIOLATION HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE AP PELLANT U/S. 13(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT AND, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5.3 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH T HE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND ALTHOUGH THE LD.CIT(A) HAD DELETED SUCH DISALLOWANC E IN THE A.Y. 12 2006-07 AND 2007-08, HOWEVER, THE REVENUE HAS NOT C HALLENGED THE SAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALTHOUGH THE REV ENUE HAD FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON OTHER ISS UES. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT BROUGHT TO TH E NOTICE OF THE BENCH ANY DISTINGUISHABLE FEATURES FOR THIS YEAR SO AS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS I SSUE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON TH E GROUND THAT THE PAYMENT MADE TO MRS. B.P. PATIL IS REASONABLE AND T HAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST U/S. 13(1)(C) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED. 7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 5, 6 AND 7 BEING GENERAL I N NATURE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 SD/- SD/- (R.S.PADVEKAR) (R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 11 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE 4 CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE