ACIT, Pune V. J.N.MARSHALL PVT LTD, Pune

ITA 1548/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 154824514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• 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: Opportunity of being heard; Maximum Marginal Rate
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1548/PN/2012 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-09) ACIT, CIRCLE-9, AKURDI, PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. J.N. MARSHALL PVT. LTD., MUMBAI PUNE ROAD, KASARWADI, PUNE-34 .. RESPONDENT PAN NO. AACACJ4425B ITA NO. 1444/PN/2012 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-09) J.N. MARSHALL PVT. LTD., OPP : 106 TH MILESTONE, MUMBAI PUNE ROAD, KASARWADI, PUNE-34 .. APPELLANT PAN NO. AACACJ4425B VS. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-9, PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING : 29-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-01-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS. THE FIRST ONE IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SECOND ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29-04-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF BOILERS . IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29-09-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF R S.3,17,35,913/-. 2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS PAID COMMISSION OF RS.89,34,261/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR T HE DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED HIM TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF SUCH COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF COMMISSION OF RS.75,33,97 3/- BUT COULD NOT FURNISH DETAILS OF COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 4,00,288/-. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14,00,288/- THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.75,33,973/- INCLUDES AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,78,850/- AS PROVISION FOR COMMISSION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED AN Y TAX ON THE ABOVE AMOUNT AND COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ABOVE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT( A) AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. NOW COMING TO THE BALANCE COMMISSION THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTED FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT IT HAS PAID COMMISSION FOR SALES MADE TO NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOP MENT BOARD (IN SHORT NDDB) WHICH IS AN AUTONOMOUS CONCERN OF GOV T. OF INDIA. THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO M/S. SUPREME ENGINE ERING COMPANY RS.3,70,650/- AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SINCE NDDB IS A GOVT. CONCERN AND HAS WELL LAID DOWN TRAN SPARENT PROCEDURE FOR PROCUREMENT OF MAJOR ITEMS THROUGH OP EN TENDERS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR KEEPING AN Y MIDDLEMAN OR COMMISSION AGENT. IN ABSENCE OF ANY JUSTIFICATION TO PROVE THAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY M/S. SUPREME ENGINEE RING COMPANY 3 AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXCEPT C ONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID PARTY WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS A SELF- SERVING DOCUMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED T HE COMMISSION OF RS.3,70,650/- PAID TO M/S. SUPREME ENGINEERING COMP ANY FOR PROCUREMENT OF ORDERS FROM NDDB. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SIMILARLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.7,65,000/- BEING COMMISSION PAI D TO M/S. RISHI TEK OF GAJANAN MARKETING TOWARDS SALES TO GANDHI NA GAR DISTRICT CO- OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION AND PUNJAB STATE CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THES E ARE SEMI-GOVT. UNDERTAKINGS AND COVERED BY GOVT. OF INDIA GUIDELIN ES. IN ABSENCE OF ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASONS AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE THAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ABOVE COMMISSION. 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMILARLY NOTED THAT ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAS PAID SALES COMMISSION TO M/S. FORBES MARSHALL P RIVATE LTD. (FMPL) WHICH IS A GROUP CONCERN. ALTHOUGH THE ASSE SSEE FILED CONFIRMATION BUT NO EVIDENCE SUCH AS ANY CORRESPOND ENCE, E-MAIL, FAX ETC. WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO I NDICATE THAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY PERSONS IN RECEIPT O F THE COMMISSION. SINCE THE PAYEE IS A GROUP CONCERN THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PAYMENT OF SUCH COMMISSION, IN ABS ENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR RENDERING OF SERVICES, IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT. FURTHER, THE PERSONS/EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE REN DERED ACTUAL SERVICES HAVE NOT BEEN NAMED IN THE CONFIRMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED COMMISSION OF RS.13 LAKHS PAID TO FMPL. 4 4. AS STATED EARLIER THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DI SALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF RS.14,00,288/- AND RS.22,78,850/- FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL BEFORE US. SO FA R AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,35,650/- WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS ARGUED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,70,650/- HAS BEEN PAID TO M/S. SUPREME ENGINEE RING COMPANY FOR ASSISTANCE IN EXECUTING ORDERS OF NDDB. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT M/S. SUPREME ENGINEERING COMPANY IS NOT A RELATED P ARTY, THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY CROSSED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQ UE AGAINST PROPER BILLS/INVOICES OF THE PARTY AND TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. IT WAS ARGUED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, PUBLIC SEC TOR ENTERPRISES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY FR OM PRIVATE SECTOR CONCERNS. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED THE COMMISSION PAID TO M/S. SUPREME ENGINEERING COM PANY TOWARDS PROCUREMENT OF ORDERS OF M/S. QUALITY CHEMICALS LTD . THEREFORE, THERE IS NO APPARENT REASON FOR OBJECTING TO COMMIS SION PAID FOR PROCUREMENT OF ORDERS FROM NDDB MERELY BECAUSE NDDB IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING. 5. SO FAR AS THE COMMISSION OF RS.7,65,000/- PAID T O M/S. RISHI TEK OF GAJANAN MARKETING IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID FOR PROCURING ORDERS OF GANDHI NAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID FOR BONAFIDE REASONS BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND DUE TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT COMMISSION OF RS.12,000/- PAID TO M/S. RISHI TEK FOR ORDER OF M/S . SAKAR HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 5 5.1 AS REGARDS THE COMMISSION PAID TO FMPL AMOUNTIN G TO RS.13 LAKHS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HA S MADE AN EXPORT OF RS.161.76 LAKHS DURING A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAS NO OVERSEAS BRANCHES. IT WAS ARGUED THAT SELLI NG BOILERS IS A TOUGH COMPETITIVE PROCESS ACROSS THE GLOBE. SINCE FMPL H AS ITS OWN BRANCHES IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES AND IT PROVIDES MARKE TING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR EXPORT ORDERS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COM MISSION OF RS.13 LAKHS PAID ON EXPORT SALES OF RS.161.76L LAKHS IS J USTIFIABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRMATION OF THE PAYEE WAS ALSO F URNISHED. FURTHER, FMPL PAYS TAX AT THE MAXIMUM MARGINAL RATE. RELYIN G ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS.GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 236CTR 131 IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A CCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF RS.13 LAKHS TO THE GROUP CONCERN IS UNCA LLED FOR. 6. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED COMMISSION OF RS.11,35,650/- BY H OLDING AS UNDER: 11. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS BASICALLY GONE BY THE VIEW THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF ORDERS FROM PUBLIC SECTOR UNITS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. THIS VIE W IS NOT CORRECT. THE APPELLANT CANNOT PUT ITS EMPLOYERS DIRECTLY AT AL L THE PLACES FOR BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS AND ALSO FOR COMPLETION OF OTHER F ORMALITIES LIKE TENDERS, FOLLOW-UP OF PAYMENTS ETC. THEREFORE, PLACE MENTS OF AGENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS TO PROCURE BUSINESS EITHER FROM PRI VATE SECTOR OR PUBLIC SECTOR IS A BUSINESS NECESSITY. IT IS ALSO NOT TH E CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SOME ILLEGAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO ANY EMPLOYEE/OFFICER OF THE CONCERNED PSU. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT PARTIES ARE NOT RELATED TO THE APPEL LANT AND PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THOSE PARTIES FOR OBTAINING ORDERS FROM PS US APPEARS TO BE CORRECT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAME PARTIES HAVE PR OCURED ORDERS FROM PRIVATE SECTOR ON WHICH COMMISSION PAYMENT WAS NO T QUESTIONED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT DESERVES TO SUCCEED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.11, 35,650/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6 6.1 SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF RS. 13 LAKHS PAID TO FMPL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. THE MAIN POINT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T NO PROOF OF SERVICES RENDERED BY M/S. FORBES MARSHALL PVT. LTD. HAS BEEN SUBMITTED REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED EVEN AT THIS STAGE. TH E REPLY OF THE APPELLANT SIMPLY REMAINS THAT COMMISSION WAS PAID FOR PR OCUREMENT OF EXPORT ORDERS. MERELY ASSERTING THAT COMMISSION WAS PA ID FOR PROCUREMENT OF EXPORT ORDER IS NOT SUFFICIENT. PROOF OF SERVICES RENDERED IS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ONUS REGARDING CLAI M OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE APPELLANT. 15. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT REPORTED IN C1T VS. GLAXO SMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IN REVENUE NEUTRAL CASES DISALLOWANCES ARE UNCALLED FOR. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT, IT I S SEEN THAT THE RELIANCE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON THE ABOVE DECI SION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IS MISPLACED. IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE ADDITI ON WAS U/S.40A(2) OF THE ACT, WHILE IN THE PRESENT CASE DISAL LOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE AS NO PROOF OF SERVICES BRING RENDERED HAS BEEN FI LED FOR WHICH COMMISSION OF RS.3,00,000/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED. SECONDLY, THIS DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE CONTEXT OF SLP. IT IS WELL SETTL ED THAT NO LAW IS LAID DOWN WHILE DECIDING SLP BY THE SUPREME COURT A ND THE JUDGEMENT REMAINS CASE SPECIFIC. 16. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCO RDINGLY, ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.13,00,000/- TO M/S. FORBES MARSHALL PVT. LTD. IS UPHE LD. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND IS DISMISSED 6.2 AGGRIEVED WITH THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.13 LAKHS SU STAINED BY THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY BOTH THE SIDES. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF RS.11,35, 650/- BY THE 7 ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT (A) WE FIND THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE FOLLOWING 2 PARTIES : 1. M/S. SUPREME ENGINEERING COMPANY RS.3,70,650/- 2. M/S. RISHI TEK & GAJANAN MARKETING RS.7,65,000/- THE ABOVE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO THE RESPECTIV E PARTIES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AS PER THEIR BILLS RAISED AND TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS THAT THE COMMISSIONS WERE PAID FOR SECURING ORDERS FROM NDDB AND GANDHI NAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION WHICH ARE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WHICH HAVE WELL LAID DOWN TRANSPARENT PROC EDURES FOR PROCURING MAJOR ITEMS THROUGH OPEN TENDERS, THEREFO RE, THE ROLE OF COMMISSION AGENTS IS RULED OUT. FURTHER, THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE TH AT ACTUALLY ANY SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE SAID COMMISSION AG ENTS. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS ALLOWED COMMISSION PAID TO M/S. SUPREME ENGINEERING COMPANY RELATING TO THE ORDERS PROCURED FROM M/S. QUALITY CHEMICALS LTD . SIMILARLY, HE HAS ALLOWED COMMISSION OF RS.12,000/- PAID TO M/S. RISHI TEK FOR PROCURING ORDERS FROM M/S. SAKAR HEALTH CARE PVT. L TD. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ALLOWED COMMISSION PA ID TO THE ABOVE PARTIES FOR PROCUREMENT OF ORDERS FROM PRIVATE COMP ANIES WE FIND NO REASON AS TO WHY THE COMMISSION SHALL BE DISALLOWED FOR PROCURING ORDERS FROM OTHER CONCERNS MERELY BECAUSE THEY ARE SEMI-GOVT. UNDERTAKINGS. 8 7.1 WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT PUT ITS E MPLOYEES DIRECTLY AT ALL THE PLACES FOR BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS AND FOR COMPLETION OF ALL OTHER FORMALITIES LIKE TENDERS, FOLLOW UP OF PAYMEN TS ETC. FURTHER, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE COMMISS ION SO PAID IS ILLEGAL OR SOME PART OR OTHER OF THE COMMISSION HAS COME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. IN THIS VIEW OF T HE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING THE COMMISSION OF RS.11,35,650/- WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. NOW COMING TO THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE REGA RDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS.13 LAKHS, WE FIND THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN PAID TO M/S. FMPL WHIC H IS A SISTER CONCERN. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PR ODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) O R EVEN BEFORE US TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ACTUALLY ANY SERVICE HAS BEEN REN DERED BY THE SAID PARTY. MERELY BECAUSE THE RECIPIENT OF THE COMMISS ION HAS BRANCHES AT VARIOUS PARTS OF THE GLOBE DOES NOT PROVE THAT IT H AS RENDERED SOME SERVICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS EXPORT SALE AND THE REFORE THE SAME IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ALLOWING THE COMMISSION IN ABSENCE O F ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT SERVICES HAS ACTUALLY BEEN RENDERED BY THE RECIPIENT. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LA W THAT FOR CLAIMING AN EXPENDITURE AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION THE ONUS IS A LWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS B EEN INCURRED WHOLLY 9 AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HOWEV ER, IN THE INSTANT CASE THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESS EE. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMPANY HAS ALL RELEVANT DETAILS AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY HE CA N SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A). CONSI DERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUB STANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDING THE ALLOWABI LITY OF THE CLAIM OF RS.13 LAKHS PAID AS COMMISSION TO M/S. FMPL. THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDING LY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-01-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 31 ST JANUARY 2014 SATISH 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. D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE