Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

ITA 1515/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8080 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Diversion of income; Set aside
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM . / ITA NO.1515/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 1 ST FLOOR, GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA, PUNE 411006. PAN : AABCB5730G. . / APPELLANT V/S THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL MUTHA. REVENUE BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), PUNE 1 DATED 14.03.20 17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GENERA L INSURANCE. ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON 29.09.008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.98,41,65,2 89/-. / DATE OF HEARING : 15.01.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.01.2020 2 SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE REVISED THE RETURN OF INCOME WH EREIN THE INCOME WAS DECLARED AT RS.98,74,32,790/-. THE CASE WAS SE LECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 29.10.2012 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS D ETERMINED AT RS.1,75,00,85,820/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2017 (IN APP EAL NO.CIT(A), PUNE 1/10725/2016-17) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND : GROUND NO.1 : DISALLOWANCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO ENVIR ONMENT RELIEF FUND LIABILITY OF RS.74,03,321/- THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN DISALLOWING THE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ENVI RONMENT RELIEF FUND OF RS.74,03,321/- UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B O F THE ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS N OTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD COLLECTED AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF ENVIRO NMENT RELIEF FUND WHICH WAS ADDED BACK U/S 43B OF THE ACT IN THE OR IGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. BUT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, ASSESSEE FILED REVISED COMPUTATION AND THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS DE DUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED AS PER TH E PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE INTEREST ACT, 1991 AND IT COULD NOT BE DISALLO WED U/S 43B OF THE ACT. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FO UND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AND HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE AMOUNT DISALLOWE D U/S 43B OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD COLL ECTED RS.74,03,321/- BEING LIABILITY TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTAL RELIEF FUND. THE AMOUNT WAS IS ALLOWED U/S 438 OF THE IT ACT. 1961 BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IN THE REVISED COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME, THE AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO MECHANISM TO PAY THE AMOUNT. THE MAIN PLANK OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE A PPELLANT IS THAT THE 3 ABOVE AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED UNDER PUBLIC LIABILITY I NSURANCE ACT 1991. AS PER SEC. 23 OF THE PLI ACT, CENTRAL GOVT. WAS R EQUIRED TO FORMULATE RULES FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH AND THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS REQUIRED TO BE REMITTED BY THE INSURER U/S 4(2D) OF THE PLI ACT. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CONTRIBUTION SO COLLEC TED IS REQUIRED TO BE REMITTED WAS PRESCRIBED IN DECEMBER, 2008 AND THE A PPELLANT MADE THE PAYMENT OF ACCUMULATED BALANCE ON 2/01/2009. TILL T HEN THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS SHOWN AS CURRENT LIABILITY. CONSIDERIN G THE ABOVE PROVISION IT CAN WELL BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS IMPOSS IBILITY OF PAYING THE AMOUNT AS NO MECHANISM FOR THE SAME WAS PUT IN PLAC E. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WILL NOT COME UN DER SEC. 438 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, IN MY VIEW THE AMOUNT IS COVERE D UNDER 'CESS FOR THE PURPOSE ENUMERATED IN THE RELEVANT ACT. HOWEVER , THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO EXCLUDE SUCH CASES FROM AMB IT OF THE PROVISIONS SEC. 43B OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT CAN CLA IM THE SAME IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT. THE APPELLANT ALSO ADMITTED THAT S UCH CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY DRP IN THE A.Y. 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED . 7. AS A PART OF THE GROUND, THE APPELLANT ALSO CRAV ES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND, DELETE OR ADD TO ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SINCE, NO SUCH ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UP IN THIS REGARD, THE S AME IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE US 3. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICA L ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y . 2006-07 IN ITA NO.1653/PUN/2015 ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISS UE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT CANNO T BE ADDED U/S 43B OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY. HE POINTED TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2006-0 7 IN ITA NO.1653/PUN/2015 (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-ORD INATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN A.Y. 2006-07(SUPRA), THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B OF THE ACT SHOULD BE DECIDED IN ASSES SEES FAVOUR. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPEC T TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL IS SUE AROSE IN 4 ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 IN ITA NO.1653/PUN/2 015 (SUPRA) HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF AMOUNT CAN BE MADE U/S 43B OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER : 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE WAS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, INDIA AND ALLIANZ SE, GERMANY, INCO RPORATED ON 31.03.2007. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND APPROVAL ON 02.05.2001 FROM INSURANCE REGULATORY AN D DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IRDA) TO CARRY ON GENERAL INSURANCE BUSI NESS IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN FIRE MARINE, MOTOR AND MISC ELLANEOUS (WORKMEN COMPENSATION EMPLOYERS LIABILITY, PUBLIC P RODUCT LIABILITY, ENGINEERING, AVIATION, HEALTH, PERSONAL ACCIDENT, E TC. INSURANCE BUSINESS. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASS ESSEE HAD IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SUO MOTU MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 70,31,561/- RELATING TO CONTRIBUTION TO THE ENVIRONMENT FUND LI ABILITY UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AN D CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT AS DEDUCTIBLE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ENVIRONMENT RELIEF FUND LIABILITY IS A CONTRIBUTION COLLECTED UNDER PUBLIC LIABILITY FUND ACT, 1999 EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT O F PREMIUM ON PUBLIC LIABILITY POLICIES ISSUED AND DISCLOSED UNDER THE H EAD CURRENT LIABILITIES . THE AMOUNT COLLECTED TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION TO ENVI RONMENT RELIEF FUND WAS TO BE REMITTED IN A MANNER AS PRESC RIBED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT NOTIFIE D THE MANNER OF REMITTING THE FUNDS SO COLLECTED TILL DECEMBER, 200 8. ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE LIABILITY TOWARDS THE CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED TOWARDS ENVIRONMENT FUND LIABILITY REMAINED UNPAID AS ON 31ST MARCH, 20 06. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES BEFORE US IS THAT THE CONTRIBUTION SO COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAD TO BE REMITTED TO THE FUND CREAT ED UNDER PUBLIC LIABILITY FUND ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FUND BEING CREATED TILL THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND, HEN CE, NOT BEING CONTRIBUTED, WHETHER CAN BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT? 11. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC LIABILITY FUND ACT, 1991 ARE AS UNDER:- 4(1) EVERY OWNER SHALL TAKE OUT, BEFORE HE STARTS HANDLING ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE, ONE OR MORE INSURANCE POLICIES PROVIDING FOR CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE THEREBY HE IS INSURED AG AINST LIABILITY TO GIVE RELIEF UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 3;. XXXXXX 4(2C) EVERY OWNER SHALL ALSO, TOGETHER WITH THE AMO UNT OF PREMIUM, PAY TO THE INSURER, FOR BEING CREDITED TO THE RELIEF FUND ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 7A, SUCH FURTHER AMOUNT, NOT EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT OF PREMIUM, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED.; 12. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED TOWARDS ERF WERE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE POL ICY SCHEDULE ISSUED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE COLLECTS THE SAID AMOUNT FROM T HE OWNER (INSURED) OF THE INSURANCE POLICY BUT IT WAS ACTING ONLY AS A CH ANNEL BETWEEN 5 PROPOSED INSURED AND THE GOVERNMENT. THE LIABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAID FUND ARISES WHEN THE OWNER (INSURED) PAYS THE ADDITIONAL REMUNERATION TO THE INSURER. AS PER CLAUSE 4(2D) OF PLI ACT, THE LIABILITY OF INSURER WAS TO REMIT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM TH E OWNER UNDER SUB- SECTION (2C) TO THE RELIEF FUND, IN SUCH MANNER AND WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED; AND WHERE THE INSURER FAILS T O SO REMIT THE AMOUNT, SUCH AMOUNT SHALL BE RECOVERABLE FROM INSUR ER AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE OR OF PUBLIC DEMAND. IN OTHER WORDS, T HE LIABILITY OF ASSESSEE (INSURER) IS TO DEPOSIT THE SAID SUM COLLE CTED FROM THE OWNER (INSURED), TO THE RELIEF FUND. HOWEVER, THE MANNER TO DEPOSIT AND THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE SAME IS TO BE DEPOSITED, IS TO BE PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH COLLEC TS THE AMOUNT FROM THE OWNER (INSURED) BUT IT IS NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AT BEST IS A CONDUIT FOR DEPOSITING THE AM OUNT TO THE RELIEF FUND ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER (INSURED). IN SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE COLLECTION OF THE CONTRIBUTION TO ERF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AT BEST IT IS GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLE O F DIVERSION OF INCOME BY OVERRIDING TITLE. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPOR T FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED, 270 ITR 1(SC), WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS AN AGE NT IN COLLECTING THE AMOUNTS AND REMITTING THE SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT AN D TRUSTEES, THEN THE MONEY COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REACHIN G THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF ITS INCOME, BUT THE COLLECTION WAS MADE FO R AND ON BEHALF OF THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS PAYABLE. WE FURTHER FIND SUPP ORT FROM THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW HORIZON SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD. [2004] 141 TAXMAN 254 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOMAIYA ORGENO-CHEMICALS LTD. [1994] 74 TAXMAN 206 (BOMBAY) FOR THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE ERF FROM THE OWNER (INSURED) THEN HE IS ONLY ACTING AS A CUSTODIAN OF THE SAID FUND AND THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE REGARDE D AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE THE AMOUNT IS NOT THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE, NOT ROUTED THROUGH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE A CT. 13. ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS THE ABSENCE OF A MECHANISM OF MAKING CONTRIBUTION TO ERF; THOUGH UNDER THE ACT, T HE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED THE AMOUNT FROM THE OWNER (INSURED), BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE FUND BEING CREATED, THE ASSESSEE WAS HANDICAPPED IN TRANSFERRING THE AMOUNT SO COLLECTED TO THE FUND. THE MANNER OF REMI TTANCE WAS PRESCRIBED IN DECEMBER 2008 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PA ID THE ACCUMULATED BALANCE ON 2.9.2009. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CREATION OF FUND, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO MEANS OF DEPOSITING THE S AID AMOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE HELD RESPO NSIBLE FOR NON- DEPOSITING THE CONTRIBUTION TO ERF. IN ANY CASE, WE HAVE ALREADY HELD IN THE ABOVE PARAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY THE COLL ECTOR OF FUNDS OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS TO BE DEPOSITED ON BEHALF OF THE O WNER (INSURED), WHEN THE MECHANISM WAS PROVIDED FOR SUCH DEPOSIT. 14. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT THER E IS NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THE SAID PAYMENT TO BE I N THE NATURE OF CESS. THE HOBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S GURUSWA MY & CO. ETC. (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE SAID ISSUE AT PARA 21 OF IT S JUDGMENT AND HAS HELD THAT THE WORD CESS MEANS TAX AND GENERALLY USED WHEN THE LEVY IS FOR SUCH SPECIFICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES WH ICH THE NAME INDICATES I.E. HEALTH CESS, EDUCATION CESS, ROAD CE SS, ETC. THE SAID LEVY (I.E. CESS) IS AN ADDITIONAL LEVY WITH TAX AND IS W ITHIN THE POWERS OF STATE LEGISLATURE TO LEVY THE SAME. APPLYING THE SA ID PRINCIPLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHERE THE LEVY IS PRESCRIBED UND ER THE PLI ACT, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A STATE LEVY OF CESS. THUS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WE HOLD 6 THAT THE FUND COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER FEE, TAX OR CESS AND, HENCE, DO NOT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. 15. THE LAST POINT FOR THE ADJUDICATION IS THE SPEC IAL MANNER OF DETERMINATION OF INCOME OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 5 OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE ACT. THE PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. ITS ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ARE SACROSANC T. THE SAID RULE PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME TO BE DETERMINED IS SUBJEC T TO CLAUSE 8 I.E. IF ANY EXPENDITURE IS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT, THEN THE SAME CAN BE ADDED BACK. AS POINTED OUT IN THE PARAS ABOV E, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEBITED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BUT SHOWN AS CURRENT LIABILITIES AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED BACK TO THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE Y EAR OF INSURANCE ITA NO.1653/PUN/2015 10 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF 70,31,561/- IS HEREBY DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEA L RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 5. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BY REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 (SUPRA) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE / STAYED BY HIGHER JUDICIAL FORUM. REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISTINGUISHI NG FEATURE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE CASE OF ASSE SSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2006-07. WE THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2006-07 (SUPRA) AND FOR SIM ILAR REASONS HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF RS.74,03,321/- U/S 43B OF THE ACT IS UNCALLED FOR AND THEREFORE DIRECT ITS DELETION. THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 21 ST JANUARY, 2020. YAMINI 7 #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A) 1, PUNE. PR.CIT-1, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , / / TRUE COPY / / -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.