Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Shri Apoorva A Patni, Pune

ITA 1511/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2722 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Business income; Cost of acquisition; Date of conversion

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1511/PN/2014 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI APOORVA A. PATNI, S.NO.1A, IRANI MARKET COMPOUND, YERAWADA, PUNE 411006 PAN NO.AGUPP5918J . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR / REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 30-04-2014 OF THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 4 BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF TRANSACTION IN SHARES/MUT UAL FUND BY ENGAGING PMS WAS AN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AND RESULTANT GAIN/LOSS W AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. / DATE OF HEARING :09.02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:12.02.2016 2 ITA NO.1511/PN/2014 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS IN A SYSTEMATIC AND ORGANIZED MA NNER BY UTILIZING THE SERVICES OF PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICE PROVIDER S TO ACT AS AN AGENT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT MOST OF THE TRANSACTIONS EFFECTED WE RE OF SHORT TERM NATURE, CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF THE MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSE E TO EARN PROFITS BY RESORTING TO FREQUENT TRADING RATHER THAN TO EARN DI VIDEND BY HOLDING SHARES FOR LONG DURATIONS. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT TRANSACTI ONS IN HIGH VOLUME AND IN AN ORGANIZED MANNER WHICH CONSTITUTE T HE ACTIVITY AS BUSINESS AND NOT INVESTMENT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND A S SUCH THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS WAS TAXABLE UNDE R THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND HAS RETURNED INCOME OF RS.26,19,900/- WHICH ALSO COMP RISED OF INCOME EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES AND THE SAME HAD BEEN SHOWN AS CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. DURING THE Y EAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PMS IN SHORT) AGREEMENT WITH HDFCPMS, DSPMERRILLYNCHPMS AND ENAMPMS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTRUSTED CERTAIN FU NDS. AS PER THE PMS AGREEMENT, THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE INV ESTED IN STOCK MARKET BY THE ABOVE PARTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAD EARN ED SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS/LOSS AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHA RES. THE A.O. FOLLOWING THE STAND TAKEN AND THE REASONING GIVEN IN TH IS REGARD IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07, A.Y. 2007-08 AND A.Y . 2008-09, HELD THE GAINS/LOSS IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS THROUGH PMS TAXABLE AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ALLOWED THE RELATED EXPENDITURE, VIZ PM S FEES AS DEDUCTION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2008-09 VIDE ITA NO.1569/PN/ 2011 AND OTHER CONNECTED APPEALS ORDER DATED 27-09-2012 HELD T HAT THE ACTIVITY 3 ITA NO.1511/PN/2014 OF TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS BY ENGAGING PMS WA S AN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AND THE RESULTANT GAIN IS ASSESSABLE U NDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2008-09 WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A). WE FIND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SADHANA ASHOK KUMAR PATNI AN D OTHER CONNECTED APPEALS VIDE ITA NO.1835 TO 1837/PN/2013 AND ITA NO.1847/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 24-09-2014 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 HAS HELD THAT ACTIVITY OF TRANSACTION IN SHARES/MUTUAL FUNDS BY ENG AGING PMS WAS AN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY AND THEREFORE THE RESULTANT G AIN WAS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE WERE DISMISSED. SINCE THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2008 -09 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEAR THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OTHER RELATED PARTIES H AS ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVE NUE, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTIC E BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE DISALLO WANCE MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 4 ITA NO.1511/PN/2014 7. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.5 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER : 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED, DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A CANNOT BE MADE DEHORS THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(3) OF THE ACT? 8. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE DISCLOSING THE INCOME UNDER CAPITAL GAINS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY SUCH EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURRED BY HIM AND WHICH WERE ARISING OUT OF PMS ACTIVITY. THE AO HELD THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BUSINESS INCOME AND THEREAFTER DISALLOWED THE TOTAL EXPENS ES ON ACCOUNT OF PMS AND OTHER CHARGES AT RS.13,16,563/- UND ER RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES. 9. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2008-09 DELETED THE DISALLOWAN CE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4.2 THE A.O. HAS APPLIED THE RULE 8D TO ARRIVE AT T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,48,138/-. HOWEVER, DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A REQUIRE S FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME NO EXPENDITURE HAS INCURRED OR CLAIMED, DISALL OWANCE U/S.14A CANNOT STAND. THE EXPENDITURE ON PMS HAS NOT BEEN CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THERE DOES NOT REMAIN ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN THIS EXPENDITURE WHICH IS OTHERWISE LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER RULE 8D OF THE I.T. RULES. 4.3 THIS HAS ALSO BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN THE APPE LLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE ORDER DATED 06-09-2011 AND UPHELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT PUNE, VIDE COMBINED ORDER DATED 27 -09-2012 PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER RELATED CASES IN I TA NOS. 1534, 1535, 1568, 1569, 1570 AND 1571/PN/11. THE HONBLE ITAT HELD AS UNDER : 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND NO INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT EXPENDITURE ON PMS HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE DOES NOT REMAIN ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN THIS EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/ S.14A R.W. RULE 8D CAN BE MADE. THE ABOVE FACTUAL FINDING GIV EN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEA RNED DR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED C IT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO . GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS.13,16,563/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5 ITA NO.1511/PN/2014 10. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y.2008-09 VIDE ITA NO.1568/PN/2011 AND OT HER CONNECTED APPEALS ORDER DATED 27-09-2012 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 9 AND 10 OF THE ORDER HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER : 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE AO DISA LLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,57,396/- BEING 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT OF THE FUNDS DEPLOYED AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX FRE E DIVIDEND INCOME. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED SUCH DISALLOWANCE O N THE GROUND THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A REQUIRES FINDING OF INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE AND WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT FOR EARNING EXEMPTED INCOME N O EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED OR CLAIMED DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A CANNOT STAND. HE OBSERVED THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON PMS HAS NOT BEEN CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THERE DOES NOT REMAIN ANY OTHER E XPENDITURE OTHER THAN THIS EXPENDITURE WHICH OTHERWISE IS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER RULE8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. HE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AT RS.5,57,396/-. AGGRIE VED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL F INDING THAT EXPENDITURE ON PMS HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE DOES NOT REMAIN ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE OTHER THAN THIS EXP ENDITURE, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE8D CAN BE MADE. THE ABOVE FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CO NTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS FOLLOWED T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF OTHE R RELATED PARTIES, I.E. SMT. SADHANA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI AND OTHER CONN ECTED APPEALS VIDE ITA NO.1835/PN/2013 TO 1837/PN/2013 AND I TA NO.1847/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 24-09-2014, THEREFORE, IN AB SENCE OF 6 ITA NO.1511/PN/2014 ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. GROUND RAISED BY THE R EVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 13. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.6 BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER : 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) E RRED IN TREATING THE STOCK-IN TRADE OF SHARES AS INVESTMENT MERELY ON THE BASI S OF A NOTICE OF CLOSURE U/S.176(3) OF THE ACT AND ALSO ON WRONGLY RELY ING UPON THE DECISION OF BRIGHT STAR INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.(2009) 17 DTR 399 (MUM TRIB.). 14. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LOSED ITS SHARE TRADING BUSINESS IN F.Y. 2005-06 AND ALL THE STOCKS WERE TRANSFERRED AT COST TO THE INVESTMENT ACCOUNT. THE STAND OF THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DURING A.Y. 2006- 07 BY HOLDING THAT MERELY SHOWING THE STOCK OF SHARES A S ON 31-03- 2006 AS INVESTMENT MAY NOT BE TREATED AS CLOSURE OF BU SINESS. SINCE THE SHARES HAVE REMAINED IN THE SAME DEMAT ACCOUNT AN D MERELY BY PASSING THE BOOK ENTRIES THE NATURE OF SCRIPS CANNOT IND ICATE A CHANGE, THE AO TREATED THE SHARES SOLD BY THE ASSESSE E OUT OF STOCK IN THE EARLIER YEAR AS BUSINESS INCOME/LOSS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE FORTHCOMING ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOLLOWING THE A BOVE REASONS, THE AO TREATED THE CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.13,06,713/- AS BUSINESS INCOME. 15. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER IN A.Y. 2007-08 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.1 THIS ISSUE ALSO CAME UP DURING THE A.Y. 2007-08 WH EREIN MY PREDECESSOR CIT(APPEALS) HAS HELD AS UNDER : 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BRIGHT STAR INVESTMENT (P ) LTD. (2009) 17 DTR 399 (MUM). THE APPELLANT HAS CITED THE HEAD NOTES FOR THE 7 ITA NO.1511/PN/2014 RATIO OF THIS DECISION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE ABO VE SUBMISSION. IN THIS DECISION, THE ITAT HAD OBSERVED THAT THE RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF SHARES AFTER CONVERSION FROM STOCK- IN-TRADE TO INVESTMENT WERE RIGHTLY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, I.E. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE PRICE OF THE SHARES AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES, WHICH IS TH E BOOK VALUE ON THE DATE OF CONVERSION WITH INDEXATION FROM THE DATE OF CONVERSION, THERE BEING NO PROVISION LIKE S.45(2) TO D EAL WITH SUCH A SITUATION. 6.3 MOREOVER, IT IS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DULY GIVEN THE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUATION OF BUSINESS VIDE L ETTER DATED 07-04-2006 SUBMITTED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 12-04 -2006, I.E. WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME AS MENTIONE D IN SECTION 176(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LEGAL POSITION ENUNCI ATED BY THE ABOVE REFERRED TO DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL TH E APPELLANTS CLAIM IS HELD TO BE TENABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, GR OUND NO.4(A) & (B) ARE HELD TO BE ALLOWED. SINCE GROUND NO.4(A) & (B) ARE ALLOWED, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE ON GROUND NO.4(C) WHI CH IS ON A WITHOUT PREJUDICE BASIS. 5.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AS THE FACTS AND THE LEGAL POSITION HAS NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE GROUND BEING THE SAME AS IN A.YRS. 2007-08 AND 2008-09, FOLLOWING T HE DECISION TAKEN BY MY PREDECESSOR WHICH WAS ALSO FOLLOWED BY ME WHILE A DJUDICATING THE MATTER IN APPELLANTS CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE GROU ND OF APPEAL NO.3(A TO C) RAISED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ALLOWED. 16. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2007- 08. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.804/PN/2011 ORDER DA TED 28-06-2012 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 13. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS DULY GIVEN THE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUATION OF BUSINESS VIDE LETTER DATED 7-11-06 FILED BEFORE THE AO ON 12-04-0 6 WHICH IS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF TIME AS PER SECTION 176(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR. FURTH ER IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT HE HAS DISCONTINUED THE SHARE TRADING BUSINESS AND THE CL OSING STOCK IN SHARES AS ON 31-03-06 HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AT COST 8 ITA NO.1511/PN/2014 AND THE SAME ALSO REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. BRIGHT STAR INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THAT RECEIPT FROM SALE O F SHARES AFTER CONVERSION FROM STOCK IN TRADE TO INVESTMENT HAS TO BE HELD AS CAPITAL GAIN IN ABSENCE OF PROVISION LIKE SEC. 45(2). RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF BRIGHT STAR INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WE FIND NO INFIRMI TY IN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL B ROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-02-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A ) - II, PUNE 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-II, PUNE $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE C // /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE