ACIT, Pune V. M/s KITCHEN GRACE [I] P.LTD, Pune

ITA 1533/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 153324514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 80IB; 147

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 NOS.1533 TO 1535/PN/2013 (A.YS: 2006-07 TO 2008-09) ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE APPELLANT VS. M/S. KITCHEN GRACE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GAT NO.116, ALANDI MARKAL ROAD, VILLAGE DHANORE, TAL KHED, PUNE 412105 PAN: AAACK6998G RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL P ATHAK DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAJE SH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING: 20.08.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 22.08.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE PERTAIN TO TH E SAME ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-I, PUNE FOR A.YS. 2006-07 TO 20 08-09. SO, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSE D OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN ITA NO.1533/PN/2013 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE REV ENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE MATERIAL ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF MODULAR KITCHEN FURNITURE AND STORAGE CABINETS, IS INVALID AND AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION. 2 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1535/PN/13 M/S. KITCHEN GRACE (INDIA) PVT. LTD 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF TANGIBLE INFORMATION AND MATERIALS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE'S ASSEMBLING PROCESS AND, MOREOVER, SUCH MATERIALS WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE; AND, THEREFORE, THE REOPENING OF, THE ASSESSMENT COULD BY NO MEANS BE H ELD AS INVALID OR BASED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN STATING THAT AT THE TIME OF THE OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS 'AT LEAST PRESU MED TO HAVE EXAMINED' THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(3) AND ALSO IN STATING THAT THE SAID CLAIM HAD BEEN ALLOWED AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS A ND AFTER APPLICATION OF MIND, WITHOUT IN ANY MANNER VERIFYIN G THE RECORDS AND ALSO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT AT THE T IME THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE THERE WERE NO FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS OTHER THAN THE ROUTINE ASSERTI ON BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE; AND , MOREOVER, NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR NOR THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ANY DETAILS WHATSOEVER REGARDING THE PROCESSES INVOLVED. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,46,499/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DENIAL OF THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I B(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 INSTEAD OF CONFIRMING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASS ESSEE'S ACTIVITY OF MAKING RAW MATERIALS SUCH AS PARTICLE B OARDS, MDF'S BOARD AND PLYWOOD INTO STORAGE CABINETS IS NOTHING BUT ASSEMBLING AND SUCH ACTIVITY CAN BY NO MEANS BE TREATED AS 'MANUFACTURE'. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR VS. R. L. SHARMA, (2012) 82 CCH 001 (ALL. HON'BLE HIGH COURT) WHICH CLEARLY APPLIES TO THE PRESENT CASE. 8. 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 OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1535/PN/13 M/S. KITCHEN GRACE (INDIA) PVT. LTD 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE U/S.80IB(3) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY OF ASSESSEE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING. IN APPE AL, THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER: 7.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL PR ECEDENTS AVAILABLE ON THE ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLA NT WAS ENGAGED IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS FOR THE EAR LIER YEARS AND THE ASSESSMENTS WERE ALREADY COMPLETED UNDER SCRUTINY FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND 2006-07. IT WAS ONLY IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A DIFF ERENT VIEW TO HOLD THAT THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPE LLANT DID NOT AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURING OF FURNITURE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAYK UMAR M.HIRAKHANWALA REPORTED IN 287 ITR 443 RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE SEEN TO BE ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL AND P ARALLEL TO THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRIED ON AT ITS FACTORIES LOCATE D AT FOUR PLACES IN MAHARASHTRA AND WAS CONTROLLED AND MANAGE D BY ITS BOMBAY OFFICE. THE EXPENSES/LOSS INCURRED BY T HE BOMBAY OFFICE HAD ALL ALONG BEEN ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST OTHER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES FOR THE AYS 1997-98, 99-2000, 2000-0 1 AND 2002-03 FOR THE ASSESSMENTS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A) ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2001-02, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS HARDLY ANY ACTIVITY FROM THE BOMBAY OFFICE AND THE LOSS INCURRED ON THE BOMBAY OFFICE WAS DISALLOWED. THE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T HELD THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACTS THAT BOMBAY OFF ICE WAS A LIAISON OFFICE WHERE NEGLIGIBLE ACTIVITY WAS CARRIE D OUT, SINCE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED THERE ON HAD BEEN CONSISTE NTLY ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR SEVERAL DECADES, IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITUR E HAD BEEN ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED IN THE PAST THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENTS. IT WAS F URTHER HELD THAT THE RECORDING OF REASONS THAT THERE WAS H ARDLY ANY ACTIVITY FROM THE BOMBAY OFFICE AND THE LOSS INCURR ED ON THE BOMBAY OFFICE FOR AY 2001-02 WAS NOT SUFFICIENT M ATERIAL TO JUSTIFY REOPENING AND THE SAME AMOUNTED TO PURE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SEEN TO BE IDENTICAL IN THE CASE BEFORE THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (3) HAS BE EN CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT RIGHT FROM THE START OF THE MACHINE PRODUCTION WITH EFFECT FROM AY 2000- 01, 4 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1535/PN/13 M/S. KITCHEN GRACE (INDIA) PVT. LTD INCLUDING IN ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SCRUTINY U /S 143(3) FOR THE AY 2002-03 AND 2006-07. THE ONLY GRO UND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING IS THA T THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT AMOUNT TO O NLY ASSEMBLY AND NOT MANUFACTURE, AND THIS VIEW WAS TAK EN FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE NINTH YEAR OF COMMERCIAL PROD UCTION BY THE APPELLANT I.E. IN THE AY 2009-10. 7.3. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS SEEN THAT CONSISTENT J UDICIAL OPINION ON THE ISSUE OF REOPENING HAS BEEN THAT THE RE MUST BE SOME RELEVANT AND LIVE INFORMATION/MATERIAL AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON WHICH HE COULD FORM A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OH M STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD. VS CIT REPORTED IN 351 ITR 4 43 HAS HELD IN THE CONTEXT OF POWER TO REOPEN ASSESSMENT W ITHIN FOUR YEARS, THAT THE POWER PRESCRIBED U/S 147 IS NO T POWER OF REVIEW AND ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION S OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ARE REPRODUCED HERE UNDER FOR READY REFERENCE: 'THOUGH THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPE N AN ASSESSMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS IS INDISPUTABLY WIDER THAN WHEN AN ASSESSMENT IS SOUGH T TO BE REOPENED BEYOND FOUR YEARS, THE POWER IS NONETHELESS NOT UNBRIDLED. AFTER THE AMENDMENT WHIC H WAS BROUGHT BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS AMENDMENT ACT, 1987 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MUST HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CONFERRED WITH THE POWER TO REVIEW' AN ASSESSMENT AND HE CANNOT} REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT ONLY BECAUSE OF A MERE CHANGE IN THE OPINION.' 7.4 THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN CIT VS ORIENT CRAFT LTD. (ITA NO. 555/2012) DECIDED ON 12/12/2012 WHEREIN THE COURT H AS FOLLOWED RATIO OF THE SUPREME COURT IN RAJESH JHAVE RI STOCK BROKERS P[ LTD. (291 ITR 500) TO HOLD THAT EVEN WHE RE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ARE SOUGHT TO BE TAKEN WITH REF ERENCE TO AN INTIMATION FRAMED EARLIER U/S 143(1), THE ING REDIENTS OF SECTION 147 HAVE TO BE FULFILLED; IN OTHER WORDS , THERE SHOULD EXIST 'REASON TO BELIEVE' THAT INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WITH REFER ENCE TO SECTION 143(1) VIS-A VIS SECTION 147, THE ONLY INGR EDIENT IS THAT THERE SHOULD EXIST REASON TO BELIEVE' THAT IN COME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND IT DOE S NOT MATTER THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO FAILURE OR OMISSION O N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULL AND TRUE PART ICULARS AT 5 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1535/PN/13 M/S. KITCHEN GRACE (INDIA) PVT. LTD THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS. THE COURT HEL D THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE U/S 143(3) OR U/S 143(1), REOPENING CANNOT BE RESORTED TO UNLE SS THERE IS MATERIAL REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS E SCAPED THE ASSESSMENT AND IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CH ALLENGE THE REOPENING ON THIS GROUND THAT THERE WERE EITHER NO REASON TO BELIEVE OR THAT THE ALLEGED REASON TO BEL IEVE WAS NOT RELEVANT, NOT WITHSTANDING THAT THE ARGUMENT OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION' IS NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM U/S 143(1). 7.5. ON GOING THROUGH THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS WHOLLY PLACED RELIANCE ON HIS FINDINGS FOR THE AY 2009-10. THIS IS FOUND TO BE AMOUNTING TO REVIEW OF EARLIER PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN DISAPPROVED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (320 ITR 561). THERE IS NO MENTION IN TH E REASONS RECORDED OF ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH HAS COME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO T HE ISSUE OF INTIMATION U/S 143(1). THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CL AIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(3) FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AN D THIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2002-03 AND 2006-07. IT IS ONLY IN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2009-10 THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS CHOSEN TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THE FA CTS RELATING TO THE PROCESSES INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANT'S FACTOR Y CONTINUE TO BE THE SAME EVERY YEAR AND THE APPELLANT HAS CON SISTENTLY CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION EVERY YEAR SINCE THE SETTING UP OF BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION AND REVIEW OF CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS P ER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED. 2.1 AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE AT HA ND IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT, PUNE IN THE OWN CASE OF ASSES SEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN ITA NO.2219/PN/2012, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNA L HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSE RVING AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. THE PARLIAMENT HAS INSERTED THE DEFINITION OF THE T ERM MANUFACTURE IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT BY INSERTING SU B-SEC. (29BA) TO SEC.2 WHICH READS AS UNDER: 6 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1535/PN/13 M/S. KITCHEN GRACE (INDIA) PVT. LTD MANUFACTURE, WITH ITS GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS, MEA NS A CHANGE IN A NON-LIVING PHYSICAL OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING, (A) RESULTING IN TRANSFORMATION OF THE OBJECT OR ARTICL E OR THING INTO A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJECT OR ARTICLE OR THING HAVING A DIFFERENT NAME, CHARACTER AND USE; OR (B) BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE OF A NEW AND DISTINCT OBJEC T OR ARTICLE OR THING WITH A DIFFERENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OR INTEGRAL STRUCTURE; 6. THE SAID DEFINITION IS BROUGHT ON STATUTE BOOK BY T HE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 01-04-2009. NOW T HE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ACTIVITY OF MAKING THE MODU LAR KITCHEN AND STORAGE CABINETS AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE? SEC.80IB(3) REFERS THE EXPRESSIONS MANUFACTURE OR P RODUCE AND NOT ALONE 'MANUFACTURE'. 7. IN THIS CASE AS PER THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS USING THE RAW MATERIALS LIKE P LYWOOD, PARTICLE BOARDS AND MDF'S ETC. AND THERE ARE DIFFER ENT PROCESSES LIKE LAMINATION OF SHEETS, CUTTING, EDGEB ONDING, DRILLING, ASSEMBLY ETC. EVEN IF WE PUT THE ACTIVI TY OF THE ASSESSEE TO TEST LAID DOWN IN THE NEWLY INSERTED DE FINITION IN THE MANUFACTURE IN SEC.2(29BA), IT CAN BE EASILY IN FER THAT THE FINAL PRODUCTS I.E. THE KITCHEN CABINETS AND K ITCHEN STORAGE ARE THE NEW AND DISTINCT ARTICLES HAVING DI FFERENT NAME, CHARACTER AND USE FROM THAT OF PLYWOOD, PARTI CLE BOARDS AND MDF'S ETC. WHICH ARE THE BASIC RAW MATER IALS FOR MAKING THE MODULAR KITCHEN CABINETS BY THE ASSESSEE . 8. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN SEC.80IB (2) & (3) THE EXPRESS ION 'MANUFACTURE' IS NOT ONLY USE BUT TERM 'PRODUCE' IS ALSO USE. THE TERM 'PRODUCTION IS MUCH WIDER THAN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILE D THE BROCHURE OF ITS PRODUCTS IN THE COMPILATION FROM PA GE NOS. 71 TO 90. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PRODUCTS OR ARTICLES MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE HAS RETAINED THE CHARACTER AND FORM OF THE PLYWOOD, PARTICLE BOARDS AND MDF'S ETC. IN OUR OP INION THE ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE MAKING OF MODULAR KITCHENS AND KITCHEN CABINETS AMOUNT TO MANUFACTURE AND THE LD.C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 3. NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLE DGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOL LOWING THE SAME 7 ITA NOS.1533 TO 1535/PN/13 M/S. KITCHEN GRACE (INDIA) PVT. LTD REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH TH E FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/ S 80IB(3) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITY OF MAKING OF MODULAR KITCHEN AND KITCHEN CABINET AMOUNTS TO MANU FACTURING. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. SINCE WE ARE DECIDING THE ISSU E ON MERIT, THE ISSUE OF REOPENING GOES ACADEMIC AND THE SAME M AY BE AGITATED BY THE CONCERNED PARTIES AS AND WHEN REQUI RED BEFORE THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. 4. A SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE IN ITA NOS.1534 & 1535/PN/ 2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FO LLOWING THE SAME REASONING, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WI TH THE FINDING CIT(A) WHO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/ S 80IB(3) OF THE ACT AS PRAYED. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 22 ND AUGUST, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) DEPARTMENT 2) ASSESSEE 3) THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE