ACIT, Dhule V. Shri Parasnath Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd., Nandurbar

ITA 1580/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8484 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS
• Assessee Lawyers: THIS CONSOLIDATED
• Keywords: Business income; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH C, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), DHULE VS. SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD., C/O. MANGILAL BHOMRAJ JAIN, SAWASWATI COLONY, SHAHADA, DIST. NANDURBAR PAN : AADCS2407F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. SINCE COMMON ISSUES HAVE BEE N RAISED IN THESE APPEALS, WE ARE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS TO DISPOS E THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE . APPELLANT BY MS. KESANG Y. SHERPA, CIT RESPONDENT BY SHRI SUNIL GANOO & SHRI D.P. LUNAWAT DATE OF HEARING 15-07-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16-07-2019 ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 2 A.Y. 2003-04 : 2. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE LD. CI T(A) QUASHING THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) AND CONSEQUENTLY DECLARING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NULL AND VOID. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING LOSS OF RS.16,99,280 /-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER (AO), THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 BY RECORDIN G THE REASONS THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.79,58,760/- HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSME NT WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,57,45,840/- MAKING ADDITION, INTER ALIA, OF RS.79,58,760/-. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, QUESTIONING THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A) QUASH ED THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE CONSEQUENTIA L ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN ADDITION, HE ALSO DEALT WITH THE ADDITIONS MADE AND ORDERED TO DELETE THE SAME. THE REVENUE IS AGG RIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE GROUND CHALLENGING THE QUAS HING OF INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS BEING TAKEN UP FIR ST. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, IT WOULD BE APT TO REPRODUCE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE THE INITIA TION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE ADOPTED FROM PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: REASONS FOR BELIEF THAT INCOME WAS ESCAPED : THE RETURN OF INCOME OF A.Y. 2003-04 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS O F RS.16,99,290/- WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE ON 27.11.2003. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, BY ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM JT. COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE UNIT, MUMBAI, THROUGH THE DDIT(INV.), NAGPUR, VIDE HIS LETTER NO.NAG/DIT/(INV)/TEP /CORRES/2009/10 /DTD.19.03.2010 THE ASSESSEE IS INDULGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE SELLS TO THE PARTIES OUTSIDE MAHARASHTRA STATE. THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE SAID SALES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE AND NOT TRACEABLE. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SALES TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,97,42,250/-. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THAT THE ABOVE PARTY IS INDULGED IN THE SALES OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS WHICH IS ACTUALLY SOLD IN MAHARASHTRA STATE. THUS, THE FINDING OF THE SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT REVEALED THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES- TAX @16% HAS BEEN EVADED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME CONSTITUTES THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS HAND, WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.79,58,760/-. IT IS ALSO RECORDED BY THE SALES T AX DEPARTMENT THAT NAPHTHA IS USED FOR ADULTERATION OF PETROL AND SUPERIOR KEROSENE OIL. AFTER AGGREGATION OF PARAFFIN IS ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 4 SOLD IN THE BLACK MARKET IN CASH. THEREFORE THE DIFFERENTIALS AMOUNT IN THE RATES OF NAPHTHA AND PETROL ALSO CONSTITUTES UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THUS, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.79,58,760/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN THE MEANING OF SEC.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. ON GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE REASONS, IT CAN BE SEEN THA T THE AO GOT INFORMATION FROM THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, ECONOMIC INTELLIGENCE, MUMBAI, WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE SALES TO PARTIES OUTSIDE MAHARASHTRA WHEREAS, IN FACT, THE SALES WERE MADE WITHIN MAHARASHTRA. THE AO TOOK UP THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.4.97 CRORE. HE OPINED THAT BY DECLAR ING THE SALES IN SUCH A MANNER,: THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES-TA X @16% HAS BEEN EVADED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME CON STITUTES THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS HAND, WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.79,58,760/-. THOUGH IN THE LATER PART OF THE REASON S, THE AO ALSO DISCUSSED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN ADULTERATION OF PETROL AND SUPERIOR KEROSENE OIL, BUT HE CONCLUDED HIS REA SON TO BELIEVE FOR THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.79,58,760/-. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO HAS MADE O UT A ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 5 CASE THAT BY SHOWING THE SALES OUTSIDE MAHARASHTRA AS AGAINS T ACTUAL SALES MADE WITHIN MAHARASHTRA, THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME OF RS.79,58,760/-, WHICH WAS NOT DECLARED. 6. IN THIS REGARD, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT UNDER THE SCHEME PSI 1993 FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL CAPITAL INCENT IVE, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 10-03-2000, WAS MADE E NTITLED TO AN INCENTIVE OF RS.98,03,704/-, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEE N PLACED AT PAGES 57 TO 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK. CERTAIN CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN THE CERTIFICATE ITSELF. THE FIRST CONDI TION IS THAT THE CERTIFICATE IS VALID FOR THE PERIOD FROM 16-03-2000 TO 15-10- 2011. IT, THEREFORE, DIVULGES THAT BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERA TION ARE COVERED WITHIN THE DURATION OF THE CERTIFICATE. TH E SECOND CONDITION IS THAT THE HOLDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID ENTRY ONLY IN RESPECT OF ITS S ALES AND PURCHASES RELATING TO THE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNIT. THE THIRD CONDITION STIPULATES THAT: SALES OF GOODS MANUFACTURED AT THE S AID INDUSTRIAL UNIT BY THE HOLDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL BE FREE FRO M WHOLE OF TAX... IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT : THIS SALE IS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER THE RELEVANT ENTRY. THIS INCENTIVE WAS TO B E ALLOWED IN THE SHAPE OF EXEMPTING THE ASSESSEE FROM COLLECT ING ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 6 ANY SALES-TAX OR PAYING THE SAME OVER TO THE EXCHEQ UER. THE LD.AR STATED THAT THE RELEVANT SALES MADE IN THE ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA ARE SUBJECTED TO SALES-TAX @15.5% WHERE AS SALES MADE OUTSIDE MAHARASHTRA ARE SUBJECTED TO CST @4%. HE FU RTHER EXPLAINED THE NUANCES OF THE SCHEME BY SUBMITTING T HAT THE ELIGIBLE ENTITIES CAN MAKE SALES WITHOUT RECOVERY OF ANY SALES-TAX AND TO THE EXTENT THE SALES-TAX IS NOT RECOVERED, THE AMOUN T OF INCENTIVE GETS REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE 46 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS A COPY OF SALES-TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION GIVING FIGURE OF TOTAL SALES AT RS.4.97 CRORE. AT THE END OF THE REQUISITE FORM NO.18-C, THERE IS A MENTI ON OF OPENING BALANCE OF CEILING ON THE BEGINNING OF THE PERIOD FO R WHICH THE RETURN IS FILED AT RS.46,11,179/-. THEN THERE IS REDUCTION BY THE AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE @4% ON SALES F OR THE CURRENT YEAR TO THE TUNE OF RS.19,89,690/-, THEREBY LEAV ING CLOSING BALANCE OF CEILING AT RS.26,21,489/-. SALES-TAX AUTHORITIES P ASSED AN ORDER, A COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 37 ONWARD S OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THIS ORDER, IT HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THO UGH THE ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE SOLD PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OUT SIDE ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 7 MAHARASHTRA BUT THE INQUIRIES CONDUCTED REVEALED THAT THE SALE S WERE MADE WITHIN MAHARASHTRA. THIS HAS LED TO DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF TAX AND INTEREST UNDER THE SALES-TAX ACT LIABLE TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1.38 CRORE. IT IS FURTHER A M ATTER OF RECORD THAT THE FIRST APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SUCH A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER THE SALES-TAX ACT, GOT DISMISSED. THE OVERALL EFFECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SALES-TAX IS THAT THE ASS ESSEES VERSION OF HAVING MADE SALES OUTSIDE MAHARASHTRA HAS BEEN REPELLED AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SALES WITHIN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. REASON FOR THE CLAIM MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE AND ITS REJECTION BY THE SALES-TAX AUTHORITIES IS THAT TH E AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE INCENTIVE, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD RAISE BILLS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY SALES TAX, STANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR AS PER THE ASSESSEES CALCULATION AT RS.26.21 LAKH, B ECAME NEGATIVE FIGURE. RATHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH A LIA BILITY TO PAY FURTHER AMOUNT TOWARDS SALES TAX LIABILITY FOR THE YEAR. OVERALL IMPACT OF THE SALES TAX PROCEEDINGS AS ON DATE IS THA T THE ASSESSEE DISTORTED THE FACTS IN FILING SALES-TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLAIMING THAT IT MADE SALES OUTSIDE MAHARASHTRA WHEREAS THE SALES WERE ACTUALLY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 8 EFFECTED WITHIN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THEREBY INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE AT WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD RAISE INVOICE S WITHOUT CHARGING ANY SALES TAX. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE AO IN INITIATING TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAN BE VALIDATED? 7. SECTION 147 OF THE ACT CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT IF THE AO HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESC APED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASSESS S UCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENT LY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. NITTY-GRITTY OF THIS PROVI SION IS THAT THE AO CAN INITIATE SUCH PROCEEDINGS ONLY IF THERE IS REAS ON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT. THIS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IS SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INC OME, NO REASSESSMENT CAN BE INITIATED. ON EXAMINING THE FA CTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF SECTION 147, IT CLEARLY TRAN SPIRES THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DEFRAUDED SALES-TAX DEPART MENT BY ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 9 CLAIMING THAT THE SALES WERE MADE OUTSIDE MAHARASHTRA WHICH WERE ACTUALLY MADE WITHIN MAHARASHTRA, BUT THIS DEFRAUDING IS INCOME-TAX NEUTRAL. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, COLLECTED SALES-TAX @15.5% (OR 16% AS STATED BY THE AO) BUT OFFERED A LOWER AMOUNT AT 4% OR IN OTHER WO RDS POCKETED THE DIFFERENTIAL OF 11.5% (15.5% - 4%). THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT UNDER THE SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EN TITLED TO RECOVER ANY AMOUNT OF SALES-TAX BUT WAS AUTHORIZED TO SELL ITS GOODS WITHOUT CHARGING ANY SALES-TAX SO AS TO GIVE A COMPETITIV E EDGE OVER OTHERS. WHILE CONSIDERING THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IT HAS BEEN NOTED THEREFROM THAT THIS SALE IS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER THE RELEVANT ENTRY. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF TH E ASSESSEE. NO FIGURE OF SALES TAX APPEARS IN THE ANNUAL AC COUNTS. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY, THE LD. DR ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED 15.5% SALES TAX AND POCKETED 11.5%. I N VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SIMPLY ENTITLED TO SELL GOODS WITHOUT CHARGING SALES-TAX, IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHARGE SALES-TAX AND AS SUCH, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO QUESTION OF SHOWING THE SAME AT A LOWER LEVEL. T HE ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 10 SITUATION WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD COLLEC TED SALES TAX @16% AND SHOWED ONLY 4% TO THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES, WHICH WOULD HAVE VALIDLY LED TO INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HERE, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COLLECT ANY SALES-TAX AT A LL AND THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF SHOWING INTER-STATE SALES INSTEAD OF WITHIN STATE SALES WAS AIMED AT INCREASING THE BALANCE OF ELIGIBILITY AS PER CERTIFICATE WHICH SIMPLY ENTITLED IT TO MAKE SALES WITHOUT CHARGING ANY SALES-TAX. THUS, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESORTING TO SUCH DUBIOUS MEANS SIMPLY AFFECTED HIS LIABILITY UNDER THE SALES-TAX ACT WITHOUT INCREASING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX. SINCE NO INCOME ESCAP ED ASSESSMENT BY REASON OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING SALES MAD E IN MAHARASHTRA AS INTER-STATE SALES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE, THEREFORE, ACCORD OUR IMPRIMATUR TO THE VIEW CANVASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. AS THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS HELD TO BE INVALID, THE SEQUITUR IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS FLOWING THEREFROM SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY STAND CANCELLED INCLUDING THE ADDITIONS SO ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 11 MADE BY THE AO. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DECISION ON THE ABOVE GROUND, THERE IS NO NEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE GROUNDS TAKEN ON MERITS. A.Y. 2004-05 : 9. IT IS AN AGREED POSITION THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT YEAR ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04. FOR THIS YEAR ALSO, THE AO INITIATED THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS BY OPINING THAT THE SALES-TAX DEPARTMENT UNEARTHED THE ASSESSEES MALPRACTICE IN SHOWING SALES INTER-STATE SALE A S AGAINST THE ACTUAL SALE WITHIN MAHARASHTRA. FOR THIS YEAR, THE A O RECORDED THAT THE SALES WERE MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,50,7 8,038/- AND THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES-TAX AT 16% CONSTITUTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS HANDS AMOUNTING TO RS.88,12,486/ -. THE LD. CIT(A) QUASHED INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. 10. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS FOUND AS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THER E IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS FOR THIS YEAR VIS--VIS THE PRECEDING YEAR. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, WE ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 12 QUASH THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE PROCEEDINGS FLOWING THEREFROM. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VIC E PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 16 TH JULY, 2019 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE CIT(A)-1, NASHIK 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-1, NASHIK , , / DR C, ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR P RIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NOS.1579 & 1580/PUN/2012 SHRI PARASNATH PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. 13 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 15-07-2019 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 16-07-2019 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *