ITO, Nashik V. M/s Kirti Food Ltd, Latur

ITA 1406/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6724 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Maximum Marginal Rate; Assessment record; Tax effect

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.1406/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) ITO, CENTRAL-I, NASHIK .. APPELLANT VS. M/S.KIRTI FOOD LTD. 79-C, MARKET YARD, LATUR. PAN NO.AABCK5376K .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING : 01-05-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-05-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 05-04-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF SOYA BE AN OIL BY PROCESS OF OIL EXPELLER, SOLVENT EXTRACTION UNIT AND REFINE RY UNIT. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25-03-2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF NIL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE VALUATION OF CLOSI NG STOCK. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLOSING STOCK HAS B EEN VALUED AT THE MARKET PRICE OR COST PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOWER AS PE R METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONSISTENTLY. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, 2 THEREAFTER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE MARKET PRICE AND COST PRICE AS ON 31-03-2002 OF THE SOYA BEAN SE EDS, SUNFLOWER SEEDS AND SOLVENT CRUDE GRADE-III OIL. 2.1 FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VA LUED THE STOCK AT LOWER RATE THAN EITHER COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEV ER IS LOWER. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,930/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUA TION OF SOYA BEAN SEEDS, RS.6,18,813/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF SUNFLOWER SEEDS AND RS.21,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF SOLVENT CRUDE GRADE-III OIL. THUS THE TOTAL ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF STOCK WAS RS.8,40,943/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) W HO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOU NT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. HE, HOWEVER, ACCEPTED THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENHANCED CLOSIN G STOCK SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE OPENING STOCK OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON ACCOUN T OF ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDER VAL UATION OF CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, INITIATE D PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CONSEQUENTIAL EFFECT IN SUBSEQUEN T YEAR HAS BEEN GIVEN AND THERE IS NO LOSS TO REVENUE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE E FFECT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE F ACE OF THE RECORDS WHICH RESULTED INTO ADDITION OF RS.8,40,943/-. ACC ORDING TO HIM 3 FALSEHOOD OF ACCOUNTS CAN TAKE EITHER OF THE 2 FOR MS, I.E. EITHER AN ITEM OF RECEIPT MAY BY SUPPRESSED FRAUDULENTLY OR A NY ITEM OF EXPENDITURE MAY BE FALSELY CLAIMED. BOTH TYPES ARE ATTEMPT TO REDUCE TAXABLE INCOME WHICH AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED FOR EITHER ATTEMP T. HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED BOTH THE THINGS TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME, I.E. BY UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 3.1 RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF K.P. MADHUSUDHAN VS. CIT REPORTED IN 169 CTR 489 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF ADDITION IS MADE AND IF THERE IS NO PROPER EXPLANATION FOR SUCH ADDITION IT WOULD AMOUNT TO CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT ARE JUSTIF IED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE AS SESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.3,00,215/- BEING THE MINIMUM P ENALTY LEVIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 4. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME A RGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT SINCE THE ENHANCED CLOSING STOCK HAS BECOME THE OPENING STOCK OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE MA XIMUM MARGINAL TAX RATE THE OVERALL TAX EFFECT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES NIL. FURTHER, ADDITION OF RS.8,40,943/- ON THE TOT AL CLOSING STOCK OF RS.3,11,23,874/- AS ON 31-03-2002 SHOWS THAT THE PE RCENTAGE IS VERY NEGLIGIBLE. VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PROPOSITION THAT PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE. 4 4.1 BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESS MENT ORDERS, THE PENALTY ORDERS, THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15/03/2005, THE AO HAS ESTIMATED T HE CLOSING STOCK OF SOYABEAN SEEDS, SUNFLOWER SEEDS AND SO LVENT CRUDE OIL GRADE-III BY APPLYING AN AVERAGE RATE OF THESE I TEMS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,40,945/- AND INITIATED PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C). THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE C IT(A) WHO IN I.T.A. NO.CIT(A)/259/08-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 09/06/2 010 CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 'I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL, STAT EMENT OF FACTS, THE REASONINGS OF AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APP ELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE PURCHASE PRICE AND COST AND THE QUANTI TY OF CLOSING STOCK. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THAT THE LOWER RATE IS APPLIED BECAUSE THE DETERIORATION IN THE QUALITY OF THE MATERIAL PURCHASED, AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES NEVER HAVE STANDAR DIZATION IN THEIR QUALITY, INCREASE IN WEIGHT DUE TO HUSK, SMALL SEEDS, FLAT SEEDS, STONE-DUST FOREIGN PARTICLE, ETC. CONTAINED IN THE RA W MATERIALS PURCHASED, ARE OF GENERAL NATURE AND HOLD GOOD TO A MEAGER EXTENT ONLY. IT IS TO BE NOTED HERE THAT THE APPELLANT IS N OT A NEW ENTREPRENEUR IN THIS LINE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. T HE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CARRYING ON THE SAME ACTIVITIES FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. HENCE, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE APPELLANT AS A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN HAS NATURALLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTOR S TO ARRIVE AT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSMENT RECORD ALSO SHOWS THA T THE APPELLANT HAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN VALUED REGULARLY AT THE MARKET PRICE OR COST PRICE WHICHEVER IS LOWER. HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF AN Y DEVIATION THEREFROM AND VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK AT THE RATE O THER THAN MARKET PRICE OR COST PRICE AS HAS EARLIER BEEN DONE BY THE APPELLANT. ON THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,00,930/-, RS.6,18,813/- AND RS.21,200 /- AGGREGATING TO RS.8,40,943/- STANDS CONFIRMED. HOWEVER, THE PRAYER OF THE APPELLANT THAT IF THE RE LIEF OF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK VALUATION COULD NOT BE GRANTED T HEN TO DIRECT THE AO TO GRANT RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF STOCK VALUATION ADDITION IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF AC COUNTING, NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY, AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT IS EN TITLED TO THE RELIEF. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THE CLOSING STOCK AS WORKED OUT BY HIM AS ON 31/03/2002 AS THE OPENING STOCK AS ON 01/04/2 002 AS THE CLOSING STOCK AND OPENING STOCK WARRANT VALUATION-ON THE SAME BASIS. THE ADDITION OF UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 8,40,943/- IN THE COMPUTERIZED STOCK REGISTER IS BASED ON ESTIMATION. WHILE LEVYING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSUMED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31/03/2 002 WAS OUT OF THE PURCHASES IN MARCH, 2002. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF ID. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY ITEM OF STOCK HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ID. AO HAS NOT PROVED BY ANY OTHER INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HOLDING ANY ALLEGED 5 EXCESS QUANTITY OF STOCK OF THE VALUE OF RS.8,40,943/-. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT A PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT LE VIABLE FOR ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED IN THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT AND SPECIFICALLY THE CASE OF CIT VS. MODI CORPORATION(SUPRA) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT T HE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE FOR ADDITIONS BASED ON ESTIMA TE ADDITIONS FOR UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. BHIMJI BHAMJI & CO. 146 ITR 145(BOM.), IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO AN ADDITION DOES NOT IMPLY TH AT HE AGREES THAT THE INCOME WAS CONCEALED. IT WAS HELD BY THE HON 'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT V. K.R. CHINNIKRISHNA CHETTY (246 ITR 121); OF CIT V. APSARA TALKIES (155 ITR 303) (MAD.), T.P.K. RAMALINGAM V. CIT (211 ITR 520) (MAD.) AND CIT VS. M . PACHAMUTHU (2007) 295 ITR 0502 THAT ON AN ESTIMATED ADDITION CO NFIRMED IN APPEAL, PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. ON T HESE FACTS, THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEWS, THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DATED 30/03/20 12 POSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.3,00,216/- IS, T HEREFORE, CANCELLED, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) THE REVEN UE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,00,216/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DETECTED THE CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME IN THE FORM OF UNDER-VALUATION OF STOCK, THUS RENDERING THE DECISION PERVERSE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE RATIO OF T HE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF A.M. SHA H & COM. VS. CIT (2000), THAT ANY CONCEALMENT OR INACCURACY IN THE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OCCURRING AT ANY STAGE UP TO AN D INCLUSIVE OF THE ULTIMATE STAGE OF WORKING OUT OF TOTAL INCOME WOULD ATTRACT THE PENALTY PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C), WHICH SQUAREL Y APPLIES TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED ON ESTIMATED ADDITIONS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HAT THE ASSESSEE'S CASE IS NOT THAT OF ESTIMATION, AND WITHOUT FUR THER APPRECIATING THE SETTLED POSITION THAT PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED EVEN ON ESTIMATED ADDITIONS, ONCE IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S CAUGHT WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 171(1)(C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WAS MAD E ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACTED IN ANY MALAFIDE MANNER SO AS TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK CONSIST OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES WHICH NEVER HAS ANY STANDA RDISATION IN ITS QUALITY. INCREASE IN WEIGHT DUE TO HUSK, SMALL SEE DS, FLAT SEEDS, STONE-DUST, FOREIGN PARTICLE ETC. CONTAINING IN THE RAW MATERIALS PURCHASED WERE SOME OF THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE LO WER RATE WAS APPLIED. 7.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARIGOPAL SINGH VS. CIT HE SUB MITTED THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED ADDIT ION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALT Y AFTER CORRECTLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELYING ON V ARIOUS DECISIONS WHICH SHOULD BE UPHELD. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A.M. SHAH AND COMPANY VS. CIT RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND NOT APPLI CABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN ANY CASE HE SUBMITTED THAT WH EN THERE ARE DIVERGENT VIEWS ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE THE VIEW WHIC H IS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE APPLIED. HE ACCORDINGLY SUB MITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISE D BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 7 8. 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 VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE ADDI TION OF RS.8,40,943/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOS ING STOCK, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON ACCOUNT OF SOYA BEAN SEEDS : RS.2,00,930/- 2. ON ACCOUNT OF SUNFLOWER SEEDS : RS.6,18,813/- 3. ON ACCOUNT OF SOLVENT CRUDE GRADE-III OIL : RS.21,200/- 8.1 WE FIND ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE L D.CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATI ON OF CLOSING STOCK. HE HOWEVER ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THE OPENING STOCK OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR SHOULD BE ENHA NCED TO THAT EXTENT. THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL FOR THE SAME. IT WAS ALSO STATED BEFORE US THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE SAME AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT TH E SAME. THEREFORE, WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VA LUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IS REVENUE NEUTRAL SINCE THE INCOME OF THE CU RRENT YEAR HAS GONE UP AND THE INCOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR HAS B EEN REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE OF 35% FOR BOTH THE YEARS, THEREFORE, IN EFFEC T THERE IS NO LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE DEPARTMENT. WE FIND THE ADDITION HA S BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND THE SAME IS RS.8,40,943/- ON TOT AL VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RS.3,11,23,874/-. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VAR IOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED 8 ADDITION FOR VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT CALL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAI LED REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-05-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER PUNE DATED: 06 TH MAY, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE 9