ITO, Pune V. Society of Saint Ursula, Pune

ITA 1540/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 154024514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Depreciation; Maximum Marginal Rate; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 80G; 12A; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1540/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. SOCIETY OF SAINT URSULA, AKURDI, PUNE 411 044. PAN : AAAAS4291C . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : MR. S. P. WALIMBE ASSESSEE BY : MR. C. H. NANIWADEKAR DATE OF HEARING : 13-11-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-12-2013 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, PUNE DATED 04.04.2012 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 24.12.2010 PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 11 WHEN T HE TRUST HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11 (4A) AND 11(3)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS THE TRUST HAS BEEN GENERATING SURPLUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULA TION IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER YEAR AFTER YEAR WITH A MOTIVE TO EARN HUGE P ROFITS 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 11 EVEN WHEN THERE WAS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 13(1)(C), WHICH STATES THAT I F ANY PART OF INCOME IS USED OR APPLIED FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY PERSON SPECIFIED U/S. 13(3), PROVISION OF SEC 11 WOULD NOT APPLY. ITA NO. 1540/PN/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATI ON OF RS. 42,38,718/- WHEN THE ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECATION WAS CLAIMED WE RE ACQUIRED OUT OF APPLICATION OF INCOME AND ALLOWING OF DEPRECIATION WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT T HE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 42,38,718/- IS EVEN OTHERWISE NOT ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, AS IT HAS FAILED TO APPLY 85% OF ITS TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING T HE AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE TO THAT EXTENT FOR THE SPECIFIED PURPOSE AND, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT IS REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AS INCOME AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 11 (3) OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE THE RIVAL DISPUT ES IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO BRIEFLY TOUCH-UPON THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS FORMED IN 1963 AS PUBLIC CH ARITABLE TRUST DULY REGISTERED UNDER BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950 AND WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION BY THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER ON 27.05.1963 ALSO. TH E MAIN OBJECTS OF THE TRUST ARE TO UNDERTAKE CHARITABLE WORKS IN THE FIEL D OF EDUCATION AND MEDICAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRUST IS DULY REGISTERED WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 12A OF THE ACT VIDE REGISTRATION DATED 03.12.19 73. THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ALSO GRANTED EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. FURTHER MORE, THE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF TRUST IS LOOKED AFTER BY SIST ERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. IT IS STATED THAT THE SISTERS HAVE DEVOTED THEIR ENTIRE LIFE FOR CHARITY INASMUCH AS THEY WORK AS TEACHERS IN THE SC HOOLS MANAGED BY THE TRUST AND ALSO CARRY OUT ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER R ELATED WORK. NO REMUNERATION OR SALARY IS PAID TO ANY OF THE SISTER FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO THE TRUST AND IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THEY WORK FULL-TIM E FREE OF COST AND DO NOT POSSESS ANY PERSONAL WEALTH OR ANY BANK ACCOUNT. I N THIS BACKGROUND, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 11/12 OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE CHAR ITABLE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES BEING CARRIED OUT, WHICH WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN CARRYING OUT SINCE INCEPTION. 4. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, ASSESSEE DECLARED NIL INCOME. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN A SURPLUS OF RS .14,08,287/- IN THE ITA NO. 1540/PN/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. TOTAL RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS HEADS VIZ. INTEREST, DIVIDEND, LOCAL DONATIONS, BUILDING FUND DONATIONS, FOREIGN DONATION, FEES, MEMBERS EARNINGS, ETC. WAS SHOWN AT RS.8,86,66,562/- AGAINST WHICH TOTAL EXPENDITURE WAS SHOWN AT RS.8,7 2,58,257/-, THEREBY DEPICTING A SURPLUS OF RS.14,08,287/- IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED, ASSESSEE CONSID ERED THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AT RS.8,86,66,563/- AND AFTER DEDUCTING 15% OF STATUTO RY ACCUMULATION OF RS.1,32,99,984/-, THE BALANCE OF RECEIPTS WAS SHOWN AT RS.7,53,66,578/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR FURTHE RANCE OF ITS OBJECTS. THE APPLICATION OF INCOME WAS SHOWN AT RS.6,20,62,458/- INCLUSIVE OF A DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS OF RS.42,38,718/- THEREBY RE FLECTING A SURPLUS OF RS.1,33,04,120/- (I.E. RS.7,53,66,578/- MINUS RS.6,20,62,458/-). THE SAID SURPLUS OF RS.1,33,04,120/- WAS ACCUMULATED IN TERM S OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE TAXABLE INCOME WAS COMPUTE D AT NIL. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBJECTED THE RETURN OF IN COME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF WHICH H E HELD THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11/12 OF THE ACT. A S PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE TRUST WAS HAVING SURPLUS YEAR AFTER YEAR A ND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS BEING RUN FOR A PROFIT-MOTIVE AN D NOT FOR CHARITY. SECONDLY, AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SCHOOLS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAVE A VERY HIGH FEES STRUCTURE. THIRDLY, ACCORDIN G TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BENEFIT TO STUDENTS BELONGING TO ECONOMICALLY WEAKE R-SECTIONS WAS NOT DONE IN A TRANSPARENT MANNER AND THE CLAIM REMAINED UNSUBST ANTIATED. FOURTHLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT AN EXPENDIT URE OF RS.20,000/- WAS MADE ON MEDICAL EXPENSES OF SISTER SUSANE, WHO WAS A TRU STEE. THE INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, WAS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT, SINCE IT WAS INCURRED FOR THE BENEFIT OF A TRUSTEE WHO WAS A PERSON SPECIFIED IN SECTION 13(3)(C)(C) O F THE ACT. FOR ALL THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS INELIGIBLE FOR ITA NO. 1540/PN/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 EXEMPTION U/S 11/12 OF THE ACT. FURTHERMORE, DEPRE CIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.42,38,718/- WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED WERE ACQUI RED OUT OF APPLICATION OF INCOME AND THEREFORE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF S UCH ASSETS AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE DEDUCTION. FINALLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,14,97,532/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SURPLUS SHOWN IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AT RS.1 4,08,287/- AND THEREAFTER ADDED TO IT A SUM OF RS.4,00,89,245/- RE PRESENTING TRANSFERS TO RESERVE OR SPECIFIC FUNDS WHICH TOTAL TO RS.4,14,97 ,532/-. THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,14,97,532/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE HAVING VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11/12 OF TH E ACT. THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS SUBSTANTIALLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY HE HAS H ELD THE ASSESSEE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11/12 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS.4,14,97,532/- HAS BEEN DELETED. AGAINST THE AFO RESAID, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WITH RESPECT TO THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ONLY PLEA RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS BASED ON THE POINTS RAISED IN ASSESSMENT ORDERS, WHICH WE HAVE BRIEFLY NARRATED I N THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS AND ARE NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PAST YEARS NO SUCH OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITIE S OF EDUCATION AND MEDICAL EVER SINCE ITS INCEPTION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REFER RED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AN D ON THAT BASIS IT IS SOUGHT ITA NO. 1540/PN/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 TO BE POINTED OUT THAT FACTUALLY SPEAKING THE CIT(A ) FOUND NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO POINTED OUT TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE C IT(A) IN COMING TO HIS CONCLUSION. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS BASED ON A COGENT MATERI AL PLACED BEFORE HIM, WHICH IS ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE US. ON THAT BASIS, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY INFIRMITY SO AS TO REQUIRE US TO DISTRACT FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A). IN THIS CONNE CTION, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO THE EFFEC T THAT ASSESSEE TRUST IS HAVING SURPLUS YEAR AFTER YEAR AND IS THEREFORE BEI NG RUN WITH PROFIT-MOTIVE AND NOT FOR CHARITY. IN PARA 10 OF HIS ORDER, THE CIT( A) HAS CONSIDERED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS SOME SURPLUS AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRUST IS BEING RUN FOR A PROFIT-MOTIVE. APART THEREFROM, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS REFERRED TO A TABULATION FOR VARIOUS YEARS, WHICH HAS BEEN REPROD UCED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN PARA 9, REGARDING THE FEES CHARGED AND TH E SURPLUS FROM CARRYING OUT OF EDUCATION/MEDICAL ACTIVITY FOR VARIOUS YEARS. T HE TABULATION DEPICTS THAT IN SO FAR AS THE CARRYING OUT OF EDUCATION/MEDICAL ACT IVITIES ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS A DEFICIT FOR VARIOUS YEARS ENDING ON 31.03.2005 TO 31.03.2008 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHERMORE, IT IS POINTED OU T THAT THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, WHICH AMOUNTS TO APPLICATION OF INCOME , DOES NOT FIND A PLACE IN THE AFORESAID DEFICIT COMPUTED. WITH REGARD TO THE OBSERVATIONS THAT THERE IS A SURPLUS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE S AID OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREIGN D ONATION WHICH ARE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS PARENT ASSOCIATION ABROAD. ASSESSEE IS DULY REGISTERED WITH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND SUCH DON ATIONS RECEIVED ARE KEPT IN THE BANK AS FIXED DEPOSITS AND INTEREST INCOME E ARNED IS USED FOR THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. FURTHERMORE, SUC H AMOUNTS ARE USED TOWARDS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ALSO. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTE NDED THAT IN SO FAR AS THE ACTIVITIES OF EDUCATION/MEDICAL ACTIVITIES ARE CONC ERNED, THERE IS NO SURPLUS. ITA NO. 1540/PN/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 THE AFORESAID FACTS ARE BORNE OUT OF RECORD, AND TH US, IN OUR VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE MISPLACED . 9. WITH REGARD TO THE HIGH FEES STRUCTURE REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE LEVEL OF FEES IS DECIDE D BY THE TRUST IN CONSULTATION OF THE PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATION AND ON COMPARISON WITH OTHER SCHOOLS IN VICINITY, THE FEES STRUCTURE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T HIGH. THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY IN TERFERENCE INASMUCH AS NO MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT. THI RDLY, WITH REGARD TO THE GRANT OF BENEFIT TO THE ECONOMICALLY WEAKER-SECTIONS, THE CIT(A) FOUND SUCH OBJECTION WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE DECISION OF THE C IT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AS THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY. 10. APART FROM THE AFORESAID, WE ALSO FIND THAT BEF ORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED FOR TH E SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2009-10 THOUGH THE EXEMPTION U/S 11/ 12 OF THE ACT WAS DENIED THE SOLE REASON WAS ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF SECT ION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT BUT IN SO FAR AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONCER NED, WHICH WERE SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS BEING DONE IN THE INSTANT YEAR, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ACTIVITIES ARE CHARITABLE IN NATURE. THE AFORESAID POSITION HAS ALSO PREVAILED WITH THE CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT THE ACTIVITI ES OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE DONE WITH THE PROFIT-MOTIVE AND NOT C HARITY. EVEN BEFORE US, THE AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A ), HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 11/12 OF THE ACT. 11. IN SO FAR AS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.20,000/- INCURRED ON MEDICAL EXPE NSES OF SISTER SUSANE (TRUSTEE) THERE IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CLEAR LY MISDIRECTED. AS NOTED ITA NO. 1540/PN/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 EARLIER AND WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE CIT(A), THE CONCERNED SISTER HAS BEEN SERVING THE TRUST WITHOUT CHARGING ANY SALARY AND SHE HAS DEVOTED ENTIRE LIFE IN THE TRUST AND THEREFORE IT W OULD BE NATURAL AND EVEN IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO TAKE CARE OF H ER MEDICAL NEEDS. ASSESSEE POINTED OUT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT SISTER SUSANE WAS WHOLLY DEPENDENT ON THE TRUST WITH NO PERSONAL BANK ACCOUN T OR WEALTH AND THEREFORE IT WAS IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS THAT HER MEDICAL NE EDS WERE TO BE TAKEN CARE BY THE TRUST. THE SAID EXPENDITURE UNDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, IN OUR VIEW, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF SECTION 13(1) (C) OF THE ACT. NOTABLY, EVEN IF WE STRICTLY APPLY SECTION 13(1)(C) OF THE A CT, IT WOULD BE EVIDENT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT ON A PERSON WHO IS RENDERING SERVICES TO THE TRUST AND THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.20,000/- SPEND IN THE WHOLE YEAR CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE. THEREFORE , CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 13(1 )(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INCURRENCE OF MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.20,000/- FOR S ISTER SUSANE. 12. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 13. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE REMAINING BY WAY OF GROUND S OF APPEAL NOS. 3 AND 4 RELATE TO THE DENIAL OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF D EPRECIATION OF RS.42,38,718/- ON THE ASSETS. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE DISALLOW ANCE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF DIT (EXEMPTION) VS. FRAMJEE CAWSJEE INSTITUTE, 109 CTR 463 (BOM). NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN ARGUED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US AND THEREF ORE, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS .42,38,718/-. THUS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1540/PN/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 14. IN THE RESULT, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREB Y AFFIRM AND THE REVENUE FAILS ON ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 15. RESULTANTLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 31 ST DECEMBER, 2013 SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-V, PUNE; 5) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE