Deputy Director of Income-tax, V. Serum Institute of India Ltd., Pune

ITA 1601/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 160124514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Double taxation relief
• Section: 206AA; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.792/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT-II), PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LIMITED, 212/2, OFF SOLI POONAWALA CORP. BUILDING, HADAPSAR, PUNE 411 028. PAN : AABCS4225M . RESPONDENT ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT-II), PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LIMITED, 16/B-1/SAROSH BHAVAN, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, PUNE 411 001. PAN : AABCS4225M . RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B. C. MALAKAR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJAN VORA DATE OF HEARING : 12-02-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-03-2015 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 ARE FOUR APPEALS BY TH E REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IT/TP, PUNE DATED 28.01.2013 WHICH, IN TU RN, HAS ARISEN FROM FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 200A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR QUARTER 1 TO QUARTER 4 OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. INITIALLY, REVENUE HAD FILED A SINGLE APP EAL VIDE ITA NO.792/PN/2013 ASSAILING THE COMBINED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PASSED IN RELATION TO FOUR ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 200A OF THE ACT. ITA NO.792/PN/2013 ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 SUBSEQUENTLY, REVENUE HAS RECTIFIED AND FILED FOUR SEPARATE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 AND ACCORDINGLY THE INITIA L APPEAL VIDE ITA NO.792/PN/2013 IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. 2. IN ALL THE APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/ 2014, REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 1) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN CONCLUDING THAT SEC 206AA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE OF NON-RESIDENTS AS THE DTAA OVERRIDES THE ACT AS PER SECTION 90(2). 2) THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT ACCORDING TO T HE LAW AND ERRED IN IGNORING THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS O F THE FINANCE (NO.2) BILL, 2009 WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT THE SEC. 206AA APPLI ES TO NON-RESIDENTS AND ALSO PRESS RELEASE OF CBDT NO.402/92/2006-MC (04 OF 2010) DATED 20.01.2010 WHICH REITERATES THAT SEC. 206AA WILL ALSO APPLY TO ALL NON- RESIDENTS IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS/REMITTANCES LIABLE TO TDS. 3) THE CIT(A) IS ERRED IN IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF BOSCH LTD. VS ITO, ITA NO.552 TO 558 (B ANG.) OF 2011 DATED 11.10.2012, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE RECIPI ENT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE PAN TO THE DEDUCTOR, THE DEDUCTOR IS LIABLE TO WITHHOLD TAX AT THE HIGHER RATES PRESCRIBED U/S. 206AA. 3. BRIEFLY PUT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF T HE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND IS, INTER-ALIA, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANU FACTURE AND SALE OF VACCINES, AND IT IS A MAJOR EXPORTER OF THE VACCINE S. IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENTS TO NON- RESIDENTS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, ROYALTY AND FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES DU RING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010- 11 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING TAX U/S 195 OF THE ACT. THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TAX RATES PROVIDED IN THE DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGR EEMENTS (DTAAS) WITH THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. THE TAX RATE SO PROVIDED IN THE DTAAS WAS LOWER THAN THE RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND THEREFOR E IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT, THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED A T SOURCE BY APPLYING THE BENEFICIAL RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT DTAAS . IT WAS NOTED BY THE ITA NO.792/PN/2013 ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 REVENUE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY AND F EE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES IN CASE OF SOME OF THE NON-RESIDENTS, THE RECIPIENT S DID NOT HAVE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS (PANS). AS A CONSEQUENCE, REVENUE TREATED SUCH PAYMENTS, AS CASES OF SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX IN T ERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT. NOTABLY, SECTION 206AA P RESCRIBES THAT IF THE RECIPIENT OF ANY SUM OR INCOME FAILS TO FURNISH HIS PAN TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTION TAX AT SOURCE, THE TAX SH ALL BE DEDUCTIBLE AT THE RATE SPECIFIED IN THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR AT THE RATES IN FORCE OR AT THE RATE OF 20%. ON THE STRENGTH OF SECTION 206AA OF T HE ACT, REVENUE TREATED PAYMENTS TO THOSE NON-RESIDENTS WHO DID NOT FURNISH THE PAN AS CASES OF SHORT DEDUCTION BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20% AND THE ACTUAL TAX RATE ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANT DTA AS. AS A CONSEQUENCE, DEMANDS WERE RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SHORT D EDUCTION OF TAX AND ALSO FOR INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID DISPUTE WAS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE RAISED VAR IED ARGUMENTS. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 06AA ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS. IN SUPPORT, ASSESS EE POINTED OUT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139A(8) OF THE ACT R.W. RULE 114C(1) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) PRESCRIBE THAT N ON-RESIDENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR PAN. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SECTI ON 206AA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBED THAT THE RECIPIENT SHALL FURNISH THE PAN AND SUCH FURNISHING WOULD BE POSSIBLE ONLY WHERE THE RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PAN UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS. THUS, WHERE THE NON-RESIDENTS ARE NOT OBLIGED TO OBTAIN A PAN, THE REQUIREMENT OF FURNISHING THE SAME IN TERM S OF SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE. SECONDLY, ASSESSEE ALSO POINTE D OUT THAT THE TAX RATE APPLICABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT CAN NOT PREVAIL OVER THE TAX RATE PRESCRIBED IN THE RELEVANT DTAAS, AS THE RATES PRES CRIBED IN THE DTAAS WERE ITA NO.792/PN/2013 ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 BENEFICIAL. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH A STAND, ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH PRESCRIBE THAT PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MORE BENEFIC IAL TO THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBED HIGHER RA TE OF WITHHOLDING TAX, IT WOULD NOT BE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS T HE RATES PRESCRIBED IN THE DTAAS. THE CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE POINT THAT THE NON- RESIDENTS RECIPIENT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PAN. SO HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT(A) CONCURRE D WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WOULD OVERRIDE O THER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BUT NOT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), WHERE THE DTAAS PROVIDE FOR A TAX RATE LOWE R THAN THAT PRESCRIBED IN 206AA OF THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE DTAAS SHALL PREVAIL AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE . THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE TAX DEMAND RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATABLE TO T HE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20% AND THE ACTUAL TAX RATE PROVIDED BY THE DTAAS. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 5. IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND, THE RIVAL COUNSELS HAVE BEEN HEARD. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT( A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN CASE S WHICH ARE GOVERNED BY THE DTAAS. ACCORDING TO HIM, SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WOULD OVERRIDE SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE TAX DEDU CTION WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE @ 20% IN ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF PANS BY THE RECIP IENT NON-RESIDENTS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, T HE CIT(A) HAD HIMSELF CONCLUDED THAT SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT REQUIRED EV EN THE NON-RESIDENT RECIPIENTS OF INCOME TO OBTAIN AND FURNISH PAN TO T HE DEDUTORS OF THE TAX AT SOURCE, BEING THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. ITA NO.792/PN/2013 ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS DEFENDED THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) THAT SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WOULD NOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN PART B OF CHAPTER XVII DEALING WITH COLLECTION AND RECOVERY OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE . SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT DEALS WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FURNISHING PAN BY ANY PERSON, ENTITLED TO RECEIVE ANY SUM OR INCOME ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER CHAP TER XVII-B, TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING SUCH TAX. SHORN OF OTHER DETAILS, IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY IS CONCERNED, IT WOULD SUFFICE TO NOTE THAT SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THAT WHERE PAN IS NOT FURNISH ED TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE THEN THE TA X DEDUCTOR WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT THE HIGHER OF THE FOLLOWI NG RATES, NAMELY, AT THE RATE PRESCRIBED IN THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; OR AT THE RATE/RATES IN FORCE; OR AT THE RATE OF 20%. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DEDUCTING TAX ON PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY AND/OR FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE DISPUTE BEFORE US RELATES TO THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH NON-RESIDENTS WHO HAD NOT FURNISHED THEIR PANS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS T HAT IN THE ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF PAN, ASSESSEE WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX @ 20% FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206AA OF THE AC T. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE AT THE RATES PRESCRIBED IN THE RESPECTIVE DTAAS BETWEEN INDIA AND THE RELEVANT COUNTRY OF THE NON-R ESIDENTS; AND, SUCH RATE OF TAX BEING LOWER THAN THE RATE OF 20% MANDATED BY SE CTION 206AA OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 90(2) PROVIDES THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF THE DTAAS WOULD OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOMESTIC ACT I N CASES WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF DTAAS ARE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSE SSEE. THERE CANNOT BE ITA NO.792/PN/2013 ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 ANY DOUBT TO THE PROPOSITION THAT IN CASE OF NON-RE SIDENTS, TAX LIABILITY IN INDIA IS LIABLE TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR THE DTAA BETWEEN INDIA AND THE RELEVANT COUNTRY, WHICHE VER IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE, HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THA T THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND OTHER S VS. UOI, (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) HAS UPHELD THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PR OVISIONS MADE IN THE DTAAS WILL PREVAIL OVER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS CONT AINED IN THE ACT TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THI S CONTEXT, IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO OBSERVE THAT THE DTAAS ENTERED INTO B ETWEEN INDIA AND THE OTHER RELEVANT COUNTRIES IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT PRO VIDE FOR SCOPE OF TAXATION AND/OR A RATE OF TAXATION WHICH WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE SCOPE/RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. FOR THE SAID REASON, ASSESSEE DEDUC TED THE TAX AT SOURCE HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE D TAAS WHICH PROVIDED FOR A BENEFICIAL RATE OF TAXATION. IT WOULD ALSO BE RELE VANT TO OBSERVE THAT EVEN THE CHARGING SECTION 4 AS WELL AS SECTION 5 OF THE ACT WHICH DEALS WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT ARE ALSO SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPLE ENSHRINED IN SECTION 90(2) AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND OTHERS (SUPRA) . THUS, IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SCOPE/RATE OF TAXATION WITH RE SPECT TO THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MAKE TO THE NON-RESIDENTS IS CONCERNED, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE RATE OF TAXATION INVOKED BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE DTAAS, WHICH PRESCRIBED FOR A BENEFICIAL RATE OF TAXATION. HOWE VER, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AT 20% IN THE ABSENCE OF FURNISHING OF PAN BY THE RECIPIENT NON-R ESIDENTS, HAVING REGARD TO SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, IT WOULD BE QUITE INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THOUGH THE CHARGING SECTION 4 OF THE ACT AND SECTION 5 OF THE ACT DEALING WITH ASCERTAINMENT OF TOTAL INCOME ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPLE ENSHRINED IN SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT BUT THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER ITA NO.792/PN/2013 ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 XVII-B GOVERNING TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE ARE NOT SU BORDINATE TO SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT. NOTABLY, SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT WHIC H IS THE CENTRE OF CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS NOT A CHARGING SECTION BUT IS A PART OF A PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS DEALING WITH COLLECTION AND DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT WHICH CASTS A DUTY ON THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS TO A NON-RESIDENT CANNOT BE LOOKED UPON AS A CHARGING PROVISION. IN-FACT, IN THE CONTEXT OF S ECTION 195 OF THE ACT ALSO, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ELI LI LY & CO., (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC) OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF TAX WITHHO LDING I.E. SECTION 195 OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY ONLY TO SUMS WHICH ARE OTHERWISE CH ARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GE I NDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) HELD THA T THE PROVISIONS OF DTAAS ALONG WITH THE SECTIONS 4, 5, 9, 90 & 91 OF THE ACT ARE RELEVANT WHILE APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. THEREFO RE, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT, SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO OVERRIDE THE CHARGING SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE ACT. THUS, WHERE SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT DTAAS OVERRI DE DOMESTIC LAW IN CASES WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF DTAAS ARE MORE BENEFICIAL T O THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME ALSO OVERRIDES THE CHARGING SECTIONS 4 AND 5 O F THE ACT WHICH, IN TURN, OVERRIDE THE DTAAS PROVISIONS ESPECIALLY SECTION 20 6AA OF THE ACT WHICH IS THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE US. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE STRENGTH OF THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIO NS OF SECTION DTAAS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE IN VOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INSIST ON THE TAX DEDUCTION @ 20%, HAVIN G REGARD TO THE OVERRIDING NATURE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE AC T. THE CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, CORRECTLY INFERRED THAT SECTION 206AA OF THE ACT DO ES NOT OVERRIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 90(2) OF THE ACT AND THAT IN THE IMPUGNED CASES OF PAYMENTS MADE TO NON-RESIDENTS, ASSESSEE CORRECTLY APPLIED THE RATE OF TAX PRESCRIBED UNDER THE DTAAS AND NOT AS PER SECTION 2 06AA OF THE ACT BECAUSE ITA NO.792/PN/2013 ITA NOS.1601 TO 1604/PN/2014 THE PROVISIONS OF THE DTAAS WAS MORE BENEFICIAL. T HUS, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE T AX DEMAND RELATABLE TO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20% AND THE ACTUAL TAX RATE ON W HICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANT DTAAS. AS A CONSEQUENCE, REVENUE FAILS IN ITS APPEALS. 8. RESULTANTLY, THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 30 TH MARCH, 2015. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-IT/TP, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE