Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 3, Pune V. Sopan Gahunaji Lanke, Pune

ITA 1556/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0648 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HOUSHANG BOMAN IRANI
• Assessee Lawyers: VAISHNAVI BADWE
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM . / ITA NO.1556/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE DY. C OMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX , CIRCLE 3, PUNE. . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE, OFFICE NO.9, E-WING, 1 ST FLOOR, RAHUL COMPLEX, PLOT NO.16, S.NO.135(P), PAUD ROAD, KOTHRUD, PUNE 411038. PAN : ABKPL2635H. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MS. VAISHNAVI BADWE. REVENUE BY : SHRI HOUSHANG BOMAN IRANI. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 3, PUNE DATED 02.0 2.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE OPERATIONS, PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS . ASSESSEE / DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.12.2019 2 ELECTRONICALLY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2012-13 ON 30.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,06,56,569/-. THE AS SESSEE THEREAFTER REVISED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.12.2012 DEC LARING NIL INCOME AND CARRIED FORWARD THE CURRENT YEAR LOSSES. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAM ED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.25.03.2015 AND THE TOTAL INCOME W AS DETERMINED AT RS.3,61,94,740/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE O RDER DATED 02.02.2017 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-3/WD 3(4), PN/156/2015-16 ) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE OF RS .2,99,64,500/- BEING LOSS OF BUSINESS ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS . 551 LACS TO ANOTHER PROMOTER BUILDER FOR PURCHASE O F LAND THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS AND BU ILDERS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE LOSS O F BUSINESS ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS.351 LACS EVEN AFTER GETTING NOTICE OF OBJECTION A BOUT THE PROPERTY WHEN HE WAS AWARE THAT THERE WAS A DISPUTE IN THE PROPERTY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE LOSS O F BUSINESS ADVAN C ES WRITTEN OFF BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT REMANDING THEM BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. 3. ALL THE GROUNDS BEING INTER-CONNECTED ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHE R. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTIC ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,99,64,500/- UND ER THE HEAD OF BUSINESS ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF WHICH WAS NOT IN THE OR IGINAL RETURN OF INCOME THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON GOIN G THROUGH THE 3 DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT HE HAD WRITTEN OFF RS.2,75,00,000/- AS BAD DEBTS OUT OF THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S. SHARAD MUTHA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., WHICH WAS STATED TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF AN ADVANCE OF PURCHASE OF LAND DURING THE YEA R AND THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED SINCE THE ASSESSEE W AS DECEIVED AND HENCE, THE MARKET VALUE OF ADVANCE WAS REDUCED TO 50% AND THE AMOUNT WAS WRITTEN OFF. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNIS H THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITU RE. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS WHEREIN IT WAS INTER-ALIA SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN RS.551 LAKHS TO SHARAD MUTHA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., FOR PURCHASING LAND AND MOST OF THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH CHEQUES. ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS FILED , AO NOTICED THAT THE CLAIM OF LOSS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING BUSINESS LOSS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A GENUINE BUS INESS TRANSACTION. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS SOME SORT O F ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND NOT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LOSS MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIE D THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6.3. DECISION:- THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENG AGED IN BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE OPERATIONS, PROMOTERS & BUILDERS AND RE NTING OF MARRIAGE HALL. THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 30.9.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,06,56,569/ -. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RETURN WAS REVISED ON 19.12.2012 DECLARING NIL INCOME AND CARRY FORWARD OF CURRENT YEAR LOSS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEBITED TO HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,99,64,500 /- BEING 'BUSINESS ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF'. THE AO CALLED FOR THE DETAI LS OF SUCH AMOUNTS WRITTEN OFF. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EXPLAINED THE ADVANCE WAS GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF LA ND DURING THE YEAR AND THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT MATERIALIZE SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS DECEIVED. THIS RESULTED IN THE REDUCTION IN THE MAR KET VALUE OF THE LAND TO 50% AND HENCE THE AMOUNT WAS WRITTEN OFF. TO BU TTRESS HIS CLAIM, THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF BADRIDAS DAGA VS CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) AND REQU ESTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ADVANCE WRITTEN OFF AS GENUINE BUSINESS EX PENDITURE. THE AO 4 AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE INFERRED FROM THE EXPLANATION RECEIVED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WA S NOT PROVED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THIS TRANSAC TION WAS THE REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT. 6.3.1. THE LD AR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS STRONGLY CON TENDED AS REGARDS TO THE LOSS OF RS. 2,75,00,000/- THAT, AT THE FIRST INSTANCE THE TRANSACTION OF LENDIHG THE SAID AMOUNT BY THE APPEL LANT WAS IN GOOD FAITH. MR. SHARAD MUTHA WHO HAD APPROACHED THE APPE LLANT WAS A GOOD FRIEND OF THE APPELLANT. HE HAD DEMONSTRATED TO THE APPELLANT, THE FUTURE PROSPECTS AND POTENTIAL IN THE SAID PROJECT AND HENCE CONVINCED HIM TO BUY THE LAND OF M/S TAKSHASHILA SOCIETY. THE APPELLANT BELIEVING HIS FRIEND, INVESTED IN THE SAID PROJECT. THE LD. AR FOR THE APPELLANT HAS THEN CONTENDED THAT IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE APPELLANT BEGAN HIS CONSTRUCTION WORK, HE CAME ACROSS VARIOUS HINDRANCES. AFTER REALISING THE COPIOUS CHALLENGES TO CARRY ON THE WORK, HE REFERRED THE MATTER TO ONE OF THE LAWYERS OF THE CITY. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS AND THE RELATED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION; THE LAWY ER OPINED THAT THE LAND ONLY HAD A NUISANCE VALUE. IN RESPONSE TO THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: A. BAD DEBTS ARE GENUINE: MR. SHARAD MUTHA AND M/S SMDPL (APPELLANT) ARE NOT ANY RELATED ENTITIES OF THE APP ELLANT. BY MAKING ANY ADVANCE, NO ACCOMMODATION ADJUSTMENT COULD POSSIBLY EXIST. THE APPELLANT HAS INDEED ISSUED A PUBLIC NOTICE THROUGH AN ADVOCATE WHEREIN UNDERSTANDING OF LAND SALE BY M/S SMHDL HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE INITIAL PUBLIC NOTICE IN THE NEWSP APER AND ALSO IN THE LEGAL NOTICE GIVEN BY APPELLANT'S ADVOCATE TO M/S S MDPL. B. TIMING OF CLAIM OF LOSS: A LOSS TAKES PLACE WHEN THE RELATED EVENT TAKES PLACE AND NOT WHEN THE RELATED COURT MATTER C OMES TO A CONCLUSION. IN FACT, COURT MATTER COMES TO A CONCLU SION ONLY FOR THE ISSUE / REMEDY SOUGHT FOR. C. NON-OFFERING OF ANY INCOME IN THE PAST YEARS: AN ADVANCE IS NOT SAME AS ANY SALES RELATED DEBTOR. THE CLAIM OF BAD-DEBT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOTHING BUT A BUSINESS LOSS OF THE APPELLANT. D. NON-DISCLOSURE OF COMPLETE FACTS BY M/S. SMHDL : MR. SHARAD MUTHA APPROACHED APPELLANT AND REQUESTED TO BUY THE SAID LAND OF M/S. TAKSHASHILA SOCIETY. RELATED DOCUMENTS OF REGISTER ED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAID SOCIETY AND HIS COMPANY, SPECIFIC AGREEMENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, COPIES OF EOGM, AND LEGAL OPINI ON OF CLEAR AND MARKETABLE TITLE OF ADVOCATE BABURAO WAGH, ETC. WER E ALL EXTENDED TO THE APPELLANT. MR. MUTHA INFORMED THE APPELLANT THA T, THREE PARTS OF THE SAID SOCIETY ARE TO BE MADE, WHEREIN, ONE PART IS T O BE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE EXISTING MEMBERS OF TAKSHASHILA, ONE PART IS TO REMAIN WITH M/S SMHDL AND OTHER LAND PART IS TO BE A COMPLETE OWNER SHIP OF M/S SMHDL WHICH WAS EXTENDED TO THE APPELLANT FOR PURCH ASE. AFTER PRIMARY VERIFICATION OF BASE DOCUMENTS, THE APPELLA NT DECIDED TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSAL. APPELLANT, LATER ON, REA LISED THAT, MR. SHARAD MUTHA DID NOT INFORM HIM ABOUT MANY MORE LEG AL ASPECTS OF THE ENTIRE MATTER. E. CHEATING BY SMHDL: MONEY WAS PAID TO M/S SMHDL IN GOOD FAITH, AND ON BELIEF OF EXISTENCE OF ABSOLUTE AND VALID LA ND RIGHTS WITH M/S SMHDL. SUBSEQUENT REALISATION THAT THE ALLEGED ABSO LUTE LAND RIGHTS OF M/S SMHDL WERE SERIOUSLY ENCUMBERED CONSIDERING THE ASPECTS OF DEALS BETWEEN TAKSHSHILA SOCIETY AND M/S STAR CONST RUCTIONS, ETC. AND SOME UNDERSTANDING REACHED BETWEEN MR. MUTHA AN D MR SHARMA, ETC. LEADS TO ONLY ONCE CONCLUSION, THAT THE APPELL ANT, WAS SERIOUSLY 5 CHEATED BY M/S SMHDL AND IN PARTICULAR, MR. SHARAD MUTHA. THE LD AR FOR THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED A CHART O F THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED CHRONOLOGICALLY WHICH IS EXPLICIT ABOUT TH E SAID TRANSACTIONS. ALSO IT INDICATED THE EFFORTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO RECOVER THE MONEY PAID TO MR. MUTHA. 6.3.2 AS REGARDS THE LOSS OF RS.24,64,500/-, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THE LIST OF THE CUSTOMERS, RECOVERY OF THE AMOUNT F ROM WHOM IS NOT POSSIBLE AND HENCE NEEDS TO BE ACCORDINGLY WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS. 6.33 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR ALONG WITH THE MATER IAL PRODUCED BEFORE ME. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS, THE APPELLANT WAS DIRECTED TO FILE A DETAILED STATUS UPDATE TILL CURRENT DATE, TO TEST BONAFIDE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IT TRANSPIRES, THAT APART FROM SENDING LEGAL NOTICES THROUGH ADVOCATES AND TAKING LEGAL RE COURSE, ETC.; APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THE POLICE AUTHORITI ES. COMPLAINT BEFORE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING (CRIME BRANCH) IS PERUSED AND IT APPEARS, PAYMENT OF RS. 5.50 CR REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SH EET IS MENTIONED IN DETAIL IN THE SAID COMPLAINT. CHARGES OF FRAUDULENT PRACTICE OF MR. SHARAD MUTHA ARE EXPLICITLY STATED THEREIN. THE POL ICE AUTHORITIES HAVE INITIATED THE INVESTIGATION. FROM THE FACTS STATED BEFORE THE AO, LEGAL NOTICES APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM MR. R. V. N ANGRE AND MR. R. V. CHIKATE, ADVOCATE OF THE APPELLANT. FROM THE PUBLIC NOTICES GIVEN IN THE NEWSPAPERS, FACTUM OF LITIGATION IS CLEARLY FORTHCO MING. FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DETAILS FILED PURSUANT TO MY ENQUIRY DIR ECTION, MANY MORE ASPECTS ARE REVEALING, SUCH AS CHALLENGE TO THE GEN ERAL MEETING GIVING APPROVING TRANSACTION WITH MR. MUTHA. FURTHER, THE THICK LITIGATION BETWEEN MR. MUTHA AND MR. SHARMA IS ALSO REVEALING VIDE VARIOUS SUITS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. INDEED, IT TRANSP IRES, EVEN, AS OF PRESENT DATE, NO ANY MONEY HAS BEEN RETURNED TO THE APPELLA NT MUCH LESS, ANY LAND RIGHTS. IT IS RELEVANT THAT ALL PARTIES ARE ARMS LENGTH PA RTIES. ALL PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY CROSSED A/C PAYEE CHEQUES. APART FROM RAIS ING DOUBTS ABOUT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, NO FURTHER ENQUIRY WAS DONE BY THE AO. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO APPEARS OVER- REACHED. APPELLANT IS CLAIMING BUSINESS LOSS OF 50% OF ADVAN CED AMOUNTS BASED ON THE LEGAL OPINION SOUGHT FROM ADVOCATE MS. PUJA HARKAL. THE SAME CAN'T DOUBTED PER SE. CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF FACTS , I AM CONVINCED THAT !HE TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE AND NOT A MAKE-BELIEVE OR BOGUS TRANSACTION. AS THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN REAL E STATE ACTIVITIES WHEREIN, SUCH SITUATIONS DO OCCUR, I FIND MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF BAD-DEBTS AN D THE REQUIREMENTS OF OFFERING THE RELATED REVENUE IN THE EARLIER YEAR S, IT APPEARS, THE EXPECTATION OF THE LEARNED AO IS MISCONCEIVED. BUSI NESS LOSS IS A SET OF MANY POSSIBLE EVENTUALITIES FOR A BUSINESS-M AN AND BAD-DEBT IS ONE OF SPECIE OF THE SAME. LEGISLATURE HAS PROVIDED CERTAIN NORMS FOR BAD-DEBTS CLAIM. NO SUCH CONDITIONS ARE SO PROVIDED FOR OTHER STREAMS OF BUSINESS LOSSES, EXCEPT THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS OUGH T TO BE CLAIMED WHEN IT OCCURS. APPELLANT'S ANALOGY THAT BUSINESS LOSS H AS OCCURRED IN CURRENT YEAR IS SOUND SINCE, HE REALIZED THE FOLLY OF HIS I NVESTMENT IN THE CURRENT YEAR. AS SUCH, ON ALL FOURS, APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE LOSS IN A.Y. 2012-13. THE SAME NEEDS TO BE PERMITTED AND HENCE, THE FIRST PART OF GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. IF, IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR S, ANY RECOVERY IS MADE FROM M/S SMHDPL OR FROM MR. SHARAD MUTHA, THE SAME WILL BE TAXABLE ON LOGICAL REASONING. 6 6.3.4. AS REGARDS SECOND PART OF THE BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 24,64,500/-, IT TRANSPIRES, APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED DETAILED CUSTOME R-WISE BREAKUP FOR THE SAME. THE SAME DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN VE RIFIED BY THE AO. BAD-DEBTS LOSS IS DEDUCTIBLE IN THE YEAR OF WRITE-O FF. AS IT IS CLAIMED IN THE A.Y. 2012-13, THE SAME NEEDS TO BE ALLOWED FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LIMITED VS. CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC). AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME AFTER VERIFYING TH AT, RELATED REVENUE WAS INDEED OFFERED TO TAX IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ACC ORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. TOOK US THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMITTED TH AT LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. LD.A .R. ON THE OTHER HAND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AN D LD.CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS ABOUT THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD.CIT(A). WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE TRANSACTION EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS GENUINE AND NOT A MAKE BELIEF OR BOGUS TRANSACTION, THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHARAD MUTHA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., WAS AT ARMS LEN GTH AND ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CROSSED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUES. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED LEGAL NOTICES THROUGH ADVOCATES AND TAKEN LE GAL RECOURSE ETC., AND HAD APPROACHED POLICE AUTHORITIES WHEREIN THE CH ARGES OF FRAUDULENT PRACTICE OF SHARAD MUTHA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD., WERE STATED AND POLICE AUTHORITIES HAD INITIATED THE INVESTIGATION . BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM, LD.CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THA T THE TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE DED UCTION. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO 7 POINT OUT ANY FALLACY IN THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). WE THEREFOR E FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 19 TH DECEMBER, 2019. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A) 3, PUNE. . PR.CIT-2, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , / / TRUE COPY / / -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.