Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Sangli V. M/s. Kotibhaskar Builders, Sangli

ITA 1506/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 150624514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Assessee Lawyers: C H NANIVADEKAR
• Section: 27; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1506/PN/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, OPP. BIRNALE COLLEGE, SOUTH SHIVAJINAGAR, SANGLI VS. M/S. KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS, RAM MANDIR CORNER, SHIVAJI NAGAR, SANGLI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAAFK9962H APPELLANT BY: MS. ANN KAPTHUAMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.H. NANIVADEKAR DATE OF HEARING : 08-04-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-04-2013 ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM:- IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND: ON THE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL), KOLHAPUR ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE TH AT AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN CASH IS NOTHING BUT DEPOSIT WHICH WAS ACCEPTED IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROV ISION OF SECTION 269 SS OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDE R. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED RS .20,00,000/- IN CASH FROM ONE M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20-01-2007 ITSELF VIDE CHEQ UE OF RS. 10,00,000/- AND TWO CHEQUES OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH. THE JO INT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1 (JCIT, R-1), SANGLI, LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.20,00,000/- U/S. 271D BY HOLDING THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.20,00,000/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DEPOSIT FROM M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT APPEARS THAT THE M/S. SAI TRADING CO MPANY FILED THE 2 ITA NO.1506/PN/2011, KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS, SANGLI EXPLANATION WHY THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY IS REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), WHICH IS AS UNDER: 'A) ACTIVITY: THE FIRM WAS INCORPORATED WITH THE O BJECT OF COLLECTION OF OCTROI IN THE JURISDICTION OF SANGLI MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. THE FIRM HAS BEE N AWARDED CONTRACT FOR COLLECTION OF OCTROI BY THE SANGLI MIR AJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR 2006-07. TH E FIRM WAS DISSOLVED ON COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT. B) EXTRACT OF CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 10-1/2 7 TO 15.01.2007 IS ENCLOSED AS ASKED FOR. C) THE FIRM HAS SUFFERED LOSSES DUE TO SHORT COLLEC TION OF OCTROI THAN THE AMOUNT PROJECTED BY US. AS PER TERM S OF CONTRACT WE HAVE PROVIDED BANK GUARANTEE OF RS 625 LAKHS ISS UED BY THE SHETKARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD. (RS 425 LAKHS) AND CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SANGLI BRANCH (RS 200 LAKHS). WE WERE TO MAKE WEEKLY PAYMENT @ 2% OF THE AMOUNT BID PER WEEK. FOR THIS PURPOSE WE WERE TO DEPOSIT DAILY COLLECTION IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND SETTLE THE PAYMENT ON EVERY MONDAY. THE BANK GUARANTEES WERE INVOKED BY THE SANGLI MIRAJ AND KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DUE TO FAILURE ON OUR PA RT TO MAKE PAYMENT OF OCTROI AMOUNT AS STIPULATED IN THE AGREE MENT. THEREFORE BANK HAD MADE PAYMENT BY DEBITING TO FORC ED LOAN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT OPERATIVE DURING THAT PERIOD DUE TO FORCED LOANS. AS THE SMKC HAS IN VOKED THE GUARANTEES, THERE AROSE DISPUTE BETWEEN US AND SMKC , WE STOPPED DEPOSITING DAILY COLLECTION IN THE SMKC AMO UNT AS REQUIRED BY US AND DEPOSITED SMALL AMOUNTS WITH SMK C. AS WE STARTED DEPOSITING SMALL AMOUNTS OUT OF DAILY COLLECTION WE WERE HAVING SUBSTANTIAL CASH BALANCES OUT OF DAILY COLLECTIONS. IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE CASH IN HAND WE HAVE KEPT THE AMOUNTS WITH OTHERS ALONGWITH KOTIBHASKAR BUILD ERS. THE AMOUNTS WERE KEPT FOR SAFE CUSTODY THAT TOO IN CASH AS BANK ACCOUNTS WERE INOPERATIVE. THE FACT CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE CASH BOOK EXTRACT ENCLOSED. OUT OF THESE AMOUNTS WE HAVE TAKEN BACK THE AMOUNTS TO DEPOSIT IN FORCED LOAN ACCOUNT ON 15/01/2007 WITH SHETKARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD ON RESOL UTION OF ISSUES WITH BANKS. WE HAVE UTILIZED AMOUNT KEPT WITH KOTIBHASKAR BUILD ERS TO REPAY THE TEMPORARY LOANS TAKEN BY US. THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED DIRECTLY IN THE NAMES OF THIRD PARTIES AS PE R OUR DIRECTIONS BY KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS. D) THE AMOUNT IS GIVEN BY US ON OUR OWN FOR OUR CONVENIENCE FOR SAFE CUSTODY TO KOTIBHASKAR BUILDER S ALONGWITH OTHERS. THE FIRM, KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS, H AS NOT DEMANDED ANY AMOUNT FORM US TO MEET THEIR NEEDS. TH E SAME CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE FACT THAT WE TAKEN BACK TH E AMOUNT WITHIN 6 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF KEEPING IN SAFE CUST ODY. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE FIRM KOTIBHASKA R BUILDERS HAS NOT PAID ANY INTEREST TO US AS THE AMOUNT WAS K EPT WITH THEM FOR OUR CONVENIENCE. 3 ITA NO.1506/PN/2011, KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS, SANGLI E) BANK ACCOUNT: AS STATED ABOVE THE FIRM KOTIBHASK AR BUILDERS HAS MADE DIRECT PAYMENT TO THIRD PARTIES A S PER OUR INSTRUCTIONS. THESE ENTRIES DO NOT APPEAR IN OUR BA NK STATEMENT. THEREFORE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT ENCLOSED.' 3. THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE JCIT, RANGE -1, SANGLI, ON THE REASON THAT SAID FIRM COULD HAVE KEPT THE MONEY IN THE BANK IN SAFE CUSTODY BY OPENING A BANK ACCOUNT THEN, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF KEEPING THE SAME FOR SAFE CUSTODY WITH THE ASSESSEE ESP ECIALLY WHEN IT HAS DEPRIVED OF ANY BENEFIT OF EARNING INTEREST BY KEEPING THE AMOUNT WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED T HAT THE AMOUNTS WERE REPAID TO M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY BUT WERE REPAID BY CHEQUE TO THIRD PARTIES AT THE INSTANCE OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HAS OBSERVED IF AT ALL THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ANAMAT KEPT WITH THE ASSESSEE THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO RECORD THE SAID A MOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE SAID AMOUNT HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE AS SESSEES BUSINESS. 4. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INTERPRETED THE E XPRESSION ANAMAT AS ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSITS IN CASH. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALSO REFERRED TO LAW LEXICON, RE-PRINT EDITION 2002 TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF THE TERM DEPOSIT BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED THE SITUATION IN WHICH SAID AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- HAS COME. THE ASSES SEE TOOK THE CONSTANT STAND THAT IT WAS JUST A ANAMAT NOT A DEPOSIT AND THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS. AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE THAT M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY WHICH WAS A FIRM HAS BIDED FOR COLLE CTION OF OCTROI ON BEHALF OF SANGLI-MIRAJ-KUPWAD CORPORATION FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.43.07 CRORES. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE IN FIFTY WEEKS AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO DEPOSIT INSTALLMENT OF RS. 86.13 CRORES EVERY WEEK. THE DAILY COLLECTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY IN ITS ACCOUNT WITH THE CORPORATION BAN K OR WITH SHETKARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD. IF THE DAILY COLLECTION WAS IN SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE AMOUNT OF AGREED INSTALLMENT THEN, THE DEFICIT WA S REQUIRED TO 4 ITA NO.1506/PN/2011, KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS, SANGLI BE DEPOSITED IN EITHER OF THOSE BANKS ON THE MONDAY NEX T FOLLOWING THE WEEK WHICH HAD ENDED ON SATURDAY. DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY HAS BIDED FOR COLLECTION OF CONTRACT, IT SUSTAINED THE LOSS DUE TO THE GENERAL STRIKE BETWEEN SOME PERIOD WHICH LEAD TO DEFICIT IN COLLECTION OF RS.65,06,585/- AND THERE WERE FLOOD SITU ATION AND DURING THE PERIOD OF FLOOD SITUATION THERE WAS FURTHER DEFICIT IN COLLECTION OF OCTROI TO THE EXTENT OF RS.71,40,097/-. 5. MOREOVER, THERE WAS ANOTHER STRIKE BY THE TRADERS AGAINST THE LEVY OF OCTROI BETWEEN 01-12-2006 AND 09-12-2006 AND M/S. S AI TRADING COMPANY SUFFERED LOSS IN COLLECTION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 3,29,383/-. SOME OTHER INSTANCES WERE ALSO LED TO A SHORTFALL IN COLLECT ION OF OCTROI. M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE SUFFER A LO SS OF MORE THAN 4 CRORES AND REQUESTED THE CORPORATION TO VERIFY THE TERMS OF CONTRACT AND ALLOW THEM TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF SHORTFA LL OR DEFICIT WITHIN 30 DAYS INSTEAD OF ONE DAY. IT APPEARS THAT THE M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY UNABLE TO HONOUR THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND THE CORPORATION INVOKED THE BANK GUARANTEE ISSUED BY CENTRAL BANK OF IN DIA AS WELL AS SHETKARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD. THE CORPORATION ALSO ASKED FOR FRESH BANK GUARANTEES. DUE TO THE ABOVE SITUATION, OPERATION OF BAN K ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY CAME TO STAND STILL AND ALSO M/S . SAI TRADING COMPANY STOPPED DEPOSITING THE OCTROI COLLECTION WITH THE BANK. THERE WAS A COLLECTION WITH M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY AND SURPLUS AMOUNT WAS COVERED AND HENCE, M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY KEPT TH E SAID AMOUNT WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR SHORT PERIOD TILL THE DISPUT E WITH THE BANK WAS TEMPORARILY RESOLVED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT IT WAS NOT A DEPOSIT BUT THE MONEY KEPT IN TRUST AS ANAMAT AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE LD.CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE AND DELETED THE PENALTY BY GIVING THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED CASH OF? 20 LAKHS FROM M/S SAI 5 ITA NO.1506/PN/2011, KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS, SANGLI TRADING COMPANY. IT IS A FACT THAT M/S SAI TRADING CO MPANY HAD BEEN FACING DIFFICULTY IN OCTROI COLLECTION WHICH WAS RUNNING INTO A DEFICIT AND IT WAS BEING FORCED TO MA KE GOOD THE DEFICIT BY MAKING PAYMENTS OF SANGLI MIRAJ KUPWAD CORPORATION. IT IS A FACT THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BET WEEN M/S SAI TRADING COMPANY HAD SOURED TO THE EXTENT THE EXTENT THAT THE CORPORATION HAD INVOKED THE BANK GUARANTEES TO MAKE G OOD THE DEFICIT IN PAYMENTS. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF M/S SAI TRADING COMPANY THAT THE SHORTFALL IN COLLECTION WAS A RESULT OF CERTAIN MANMADE AND NATURAL CALAMITIES AND IT WAS ALSO A DIRECT RESULT OF CERTAIN DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE SANGLI MIRAJ KUPWAD CORPORATION WHICH HAD A DIRECT NEGATIVE IMPACT IN THE QUANTUM OF OCTROI COLLECTION. ONCE TH E BANK GUARANTEES ARE INVOKED, ANY MONEY WHICH WAS DEPOSIT ED WOULD HAVE GONE IN TO REFURBISH THE FORCED LOAN ACC OUNT AND NOT TOWARDS PAYMENT TO THE CORPORATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF THE MONIES WERE DEPOSITED INTO TH E BANK ACCOUNTS, THE PROBLEM OF INCREASING DEFICITS IN PAY MENTS TO THE CORPORATION WOULD PERSIST AND, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT BE RESOLVED. HENCE, IT WAS NOT PRUDENT ON THE PART OF M/S SAI TRADING COMPANY TO DEPOSIT THE OCTROI COLLECTION WI TH THE BANK. THE MONEY COLLECTED BY M/S SAI TRADING COMPAN Y COULD BE KEPT WITH ITSELF OR IT COULD BE KEPT ANYWH ERE. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO NEGATE THAT THE APPELLANT R EQUIRED THE MONEY FOR UTILIZATION IN ITS OWN BUSINESS. THE APPE LLANT IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSITS FROM PUBLIC. THERE IS NOTHING WHICH INDICATES THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INDULGED IN ANY TAX PLANNING OR TAX EVASION. THIS T RANSACTION HAS FOUND PLACE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPE LLANT AS WELL AS IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S SAI TRADING COMPANY. THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT IT WAS NOT A GENUINE TRANSACTI ON TO COVER UP ANY UNACCOUNTED MONEY. EVEN IF WE CONSIDER FOR A MOMENT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS IN REQUIREMENT OF SOM E IMMEDIATE MONEY THEN IT IS NORMAL COURSE TO APPROAC H A MONEYLENDER OR A CASH RICH PERSON WHO WOULD LEND MO NEY TO SATISFY THE IMMEDIATE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TAKE A LONG TIME IN CLEARING THE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS. SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE MALAFIDE OR AIMED AT DISCLOSING CONCEALED MONEY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 ID CANNOT BE IMPOSED FOR VENIAL OR TECHNICAL MISTAKES. 10. IT IS HELD IN THE CASE OF DIRECTOR OF INSPECTIO N (INVESTIGATION) V/S KUMARI A B SHANTHI [2002] 255 I TR 258 (SC) THAT THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCING SECTION 269SS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE TAX PAYER IS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE FALSE EXP LANATION FOR HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY OR IF HE HAS GIVEN SOME FALSE ENTRIES IN HIS ACCOUNTS, HE SHALL NOT ESCAPE BY GIVING FALSE E XPLANATION FOR THE SAME. FURTHER, THE PRINCIPLES ENUNCIATED I N (I) CIT VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD BAORIA (HUF) [2003] 183 CTR (GAU) 4 84 (II) CIT VS. BOMBAY CONDUCTORS & ELECTRICALS LTD. [2003] 3 DTR (GUJ) 200 & (III) OMEC ENGINEERS VS. CIT [2008] 271 CTR (JHARKHAND) 144 THAT SECTION 271 D CANNOT BE IMPOSE D FOR TECHNICAL BREACH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE INST ANT CASE AS WELL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 D IS DELETED. 6. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE HEAR D THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE H AVE ALSO 6 ITA NO.1506/PN/2011, KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS, SANGLI ANXIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE BACKGROUND FACTS TO EXAMINE WH ETHER SECTION 269SS IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN THAT FROM VERY BEGINNING, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN STAND THAT DUE TO THE GENUINE PROBLEM, M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY KEPT AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,00,000/- AS AN ANAMAT WITH THE ASSESSEE ON 15-01-2007 FOR SAFE CUSTODY AND THE S AME AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY CHEQUE TO THE M/S. SAI TRADING COMPANY ON 20-01-2007. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INTERPRETED THE SAID AMOUNT AS AN ANAMAT ONLY BUT GAVE THE MEANING TO IT AS A DEPOSIT COVERED WITH THE MEANING OF SECTION 269SS. IN OUR OPINION , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO MAKE OUT A CLEAR CASE BY BRINGIN G SOME MATERIALS ON RECORD AS A GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS NOWHERE IN DISPUTE. SECTION 269SS IS BROUGHT ON STATUTE TO CHECK THE LOOP HOLE TO CHECK CIRCULATION OF THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY SHOWING IT AS A DEPOSIT OR LOAN. ONE ASPECT OF SECTION 271D CANNOT BE DISCARDED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FIRST ESTABLISH IN CLEAR TERMS, BEING QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, THAT IN FACT, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF DEPOSIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 269SS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE TERM DEPOSIT IS VERY MUCH WIDE ENOUGH EV EN TO COVER A SHORT TENURE DEPOSIT. IT IS ALSO NOT NECESSARY THAT EACH AND EVERY DEPOSIT SHOULD ATTRACT THE INTEREST BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN THE DEPOSIT WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 269SS AND AMOUNT KEPT IN ENTRUST WITH SOMEONE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CA TEGORICAL FINDING THAT AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE THROU GH BANK CHEQUE WITHIN 5 TO 6 DAYS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT AT ALL UTILIZED FOR ANY PURPOSE BY THE ASS ESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE DURING SAID PERIOD. UN DER THIS SITUATION, IN OUR OPINION, SECTION 269SS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSACTION OF RS.20,00,000/- AND HENCE, LEVY OF PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271D WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. IN OUR OPINION LD.CIT(A) HAS R IGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE DO NOT FIND 7 ITA NO.1506/PN/2011, KOTIBHASKAR BUILDERS, SANGLI ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-04-2013 SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (R.S. PADVEKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK/PS PUNE, DATED: 29 TH APRIL, 2013 COPY TO 1 DEPARTMENT 2 A SSESSEE 3 THE CIT (A), KOLHAPUR 4 THE CIT(C), PUNE 5 THE DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE . 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE