ACIT, Ahmednagar V. KUKADI SSK LTD, Ahmednagar

ITA 1529/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84866 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1529/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) ACIT, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR .. APPELLANT VS. KUKADI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., PIMPLALGAON PISA, TAL : SHRIGONDA, DIST : AHMEDNAGAR .. RESPONDENT PAN NO. AAATK3702B ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 20-08-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-08-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 02-05-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU FACTURE AND SALE OF SUGAR, BY-PRODUCTS, MOLASSES ETC. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2007 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.46, 60,404/-. THIS RETURN WAS REVISED ON 01-10-2008 ON A TOTAL LOSS OF RS.31,02,259/-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) ON 18-12 -2009 ON A TOTAL LOSS OF NIL AFTER MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3 0,75,645/- 2 U/S.43B ON ACCOUNT OF NON PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING IN TEREST PAYABLE TO VARIOUS BANKS. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.39,67,809/ - TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BEING AMOUNT PAID/PAYABLE TOWARDS PAYMENT OF CONTRACTORS. THESE AMOUNTS WERE SUBJECT TO TDS U/S .194C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE TDS STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT RS.39,67,809 /- WERE PAID/PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTORS FROM 01-04-2006 TO 28-02-2007 AND ON THIS AMOUNT THE TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2007. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE TDS ON THIS AMOUNT ON 31 -05-2007. ACCORDING TO THE AO, SINCE THE TDS WAS NOT MADE ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2007, THEREFORE, THE SAID EXPENDITURE BECOMES INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE IN VIEW OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T . ACT. HE, THEREFORE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT. ON 29-03-2012. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE THE AO DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS.36,67,809/- U/S.40(A)(I A) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY O F REOPENING U/S.148 AS WELL AS ADDITION MADE U/S.40(A)(IA). RE LYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNTED TO CHANGE OF OPIN ION AND THEREFORE THE REOPENING WAS NOT VALID. ON MERIT, S HE HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 W.E.F. 0 1-04-2010 IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE TAX BEFORE 3 THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN, THEREFORE, NO DI SALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) CAN BE MADE. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT F OR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNTED TO 'CHANGE OF OPINION' AND WAS , THEREFORE, INCORRECT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF RELEVANT FACTS TO WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO MADE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD NOT APPLIE D HIS MIND AT ALL; AND ALSO THAT THE REOPENING HAD BEEN MA DE WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE EXPIRY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR; AND, THEREFORE, THE REOPENING COULD BY NO MEANS BE HELD E ITHER AS BASED ON 'CHANGE OF OPINION' OR AS INVALID. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DU LY COOPERATED DURING THE COURSE OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND HAD ALSO NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE REOPENI NG OF THE ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; AND , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS PRECLUDED FROM RAISING SUCH A N OBJECTION ONLY IN THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDIN GS. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE R EASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A LETTER DATED 18.12. 12 WHEREIN IT HAD REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE EXPE NDITURE OF RS.39,67,809/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THEREBY IMPLIEDLY ACCEPTING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT ADMI SSIBLE AS DEDUCTION FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2007-08. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) G ROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 39,67,809/- WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 SOLELY BY RELYING ON THE AMEND MENT BROUGHT ABOUT IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, W.E.F. 01.04.2010 AND BY TREATING THE SAID AMENDMENT AS RETR OSPECTIVE IN EFFECT, WHEREAS THE AMENDMENT HAD BEEN SPECIFICALL Y BROUGHT INTO EFFECT PROSPECTIVELY. 7 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF ALLIED MOTORS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (224 ITR 677) AND COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX VS.ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (319 ITR 306) HAD BEEN 4 RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 43B OF THE ACT AN D AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION A FEW FACTORS VIZ. HARDSHIP, INVIDI OUS DISCRIMINATION CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE, DUE DATES FOR PAYME NTS UNDER THE RELEVANT LAWS VIZ. SALES TAX LAW, PROVIDENT FUND ACT ETC. [WHICH (FACTORS) ARE NOT RELEVANT TO SECTION 40( A)(IA)]; AND THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISIONS WOULD NOT APPLY TO SECTIO N 40(A)(IA). 8 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GR OSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD D EPOSITED THE IMPUGNED TDS ON 31.05.2007 I.E. BEYOND THE PRESCRIBE D DUE DATES AND, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.39,67 ,809/- HAD BEEN VALIDLY MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. 9 FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER BE RESTORED. 10 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 RELATES TO THE VALID ITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. ADMITTEDLY, THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 25-05-2009 VIDE QUESTION NO. 9 & 10 HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FO LLOWING DETAILS : 9. PARTYWISE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT PAID/CREDITED EXC EEDING RS.50,000/- ALONG WITH COPIES OF RELEVANT PARTY ACCOU NTS MAY PLEASE BE FILED : ALSO EXPLAIN AS TO WHETHER AFORESAID EXPENDITURE IS SUBJ ECT TO TDS. THE DETAILS THEREOF MAY PLEASE BE FILED IN THE FOLLOWING PROFORMA. IN CASE THE TDS SO MADE IS NOT PAID TO THE CENTRAL GOVT. WITHIN STIPULATED TIME, PLEASE EXPLAIN AS TO WH Y THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT : SR.NO. NAME OF THE PARTY NATURE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT DATE OF PAYMENT/CREDIT AMOUNT OF TDS DATE OF DEDUCTION OF TDS DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT THEREOF TO THE GOVT. A/C. 10. TDS DETAILS IN THE AFORESAID PROFORMA MAY PLEASE B E FILED IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING EXPENSES : I. CONSULTANCY FEES II. ADVERTISEMENT III. SUGAR STOCK EXPENSES 5 5.1 WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PARTY-WISE D ETAILS OF THE AMOUNT PAID/CREDITED EXCEEDING RS.50,000/- THE DET AILS OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 8 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THESE DETAILS, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE THE AO HAD CALLED FOR THE DETA ILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER GOIN G THROUGH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ISSUI NG NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.148 ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND MATER IALS IN OUR OPINION AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION ESPECIALLY WHE N NO OTHER NEW TANGIBLE MATERIAL HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE AO OTHER THAN THE MATERIAL ALREADY ON RECORD. 5.2 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V S. ICICI SECURITIES PRIMARY DEALERSHIP LTD. REPORTED IN 348 ITR 299 (SC) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION OF THE AO. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF PARVEEN P. BHARUCHA VS. DCIT REPORTED I N 348 ITR 325 (BOM.) HAS HELD THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS WELL SETTLED PO SITION IN LAW THAT THE POWER TO REOPEN THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA R IS VERY WIDE, NEVERTHELESS, THIS POWER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT WI THIN A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS DOES NOT PERMIT REVIEW OF AN ASSESSMENT ORD ER. THERE MUST BE TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN B Y VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE WHICH ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 6 5.3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE HOLD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE AO ON THE SAME SETS OF FACTS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD AMOUNTS TO MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE HELD AS VALID. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. SO FAR AS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.5 TO 8 ARE CONCER NED, THEY RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.39,67,809/- U.S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. ADMI TTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE TDS ON 31-05-2007 WHICH IS MUCH BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. 6.1 WE FIND AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. MULAY BROTHERS LTD. VIDE ITA NO.1375/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 20-08-2014 FOR A.Y. 200 9-10 (IN WHICH BOTH OF US ARE PARTIES). WE FIND THE TRIBUNA L IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD AS UNDER : 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATER IAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDI TION OF RS.8,93,74,441/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, AMENDED SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) BY FINANCE ACT, 2010 W.E.F. 01.04.2010 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 40. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN SECT ION 30 TO (38), THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS SHALL NOT BE DEDUCTED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GA INS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION (A) IN THE CASE OF ANY ASSESSEE- 7 .. (IA) ANY INTEREST, COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, (RENT, ROY ALTY,) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OR FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES PAYAB LE TO A RESIDENT, OR AMOUNTS PAYABLE TO A CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CO NTRACTOR, BEING RESIDENT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK (INCLUDING SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK), ON WHICH TAX IS D EDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE UNDER CHAPTER XVII-B AND SUCH TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED OR, AFTER DEDUCTION, (HAS NOT BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139:). 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE PAYMENT OF TDS, THOUGH MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE W ITH THE DUE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TDS REQUIRED BY SECTION 194C. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPE NDITURE U/S.40(A)(IA) AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AS E XISTED FOR A.Y. 2009-10 I.E. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE AMENDME NT IS PROSPECTIVE AND IS APPLICABLE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND ON WARDS AS HELD BY BHARTI SHIPYARD LTD. VS. DCIT (2011) 141 TTJ 129 (MUM. SB). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY FINANCE ACT, 2 010 IS CLARIFICATORY AND HAS RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. IN SUP PORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWI NG DECISIONS: (I) CIT VS VIRGIN CREATIONS, ITA NO.302 OF 2011, GA NO.32 00 OF 2011, DATED 23.11.2011 (II) ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC ) (III) CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) (IV) BANSAL PARIVAHAN (INDIA) (P) LTD. VS. ITO (2011) 137 TTJ 319 (MUM) 4.2 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M.K. GURUMURTHY ( 2012) 32 CCH 049 (BANG.TRIB.), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT ADDITION U/S.40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE MADE IF PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUC TED AT SOURCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE BANGALORE BEN CH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING VIRGIN CREATIONS (SUPRA) BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUT TA, WHEREIN THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER: THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL ON FACT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAID CHARGES BETWEEN THE PERIOD APRIL 01, 2005 AND APRIL 28, 2006 AND THE SAME WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN JULY AND AUGUST, 2006, I.E. WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION. THIS FACTUAL POSITION WAS UNDISPUTED. THE HONBLE HIG H COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE RATIO THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40( A)(IA) CANNOT BE MADE IF THE PAYMENT OF TDS HAS BEEN MADE B EFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4.3 THE RATIO OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN VIRGIN CREA TIONS (SUPRA) WILL PREVAIL OVER THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE BHARTI S HIPYARD LTD. (SUPRA). IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE CIT(A) WAS JU STIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,93,74,441/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF 8 THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED B ECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE B EFORE DUE DATE OF RETURN OF FILING INCOME FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE F OLLOWING CASES: I) CIT VS. OMPRAKASH R. CHOUDHARY IN TAX APPEAL NO.412/2013, DATED 22.11.2013 BY THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF GUJARAT II) CIT VS. SANTOSH KUMAR SHETTY & OTHERS BY THE HONBLE H IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (TS-460-HIGH COURT-2014 (KARN) III) CIT VS. ORACLE SOFTWARE INDIA LTD. BY THE HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT (2007) 293 ITR 353 (DEL) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SA ME. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. 6.2 IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE CITED (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HOLDING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25-08-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 25 TH AUGUST, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 4. THE CIT-I, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, P UNE BENCHES, PUNE