Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 6, Pune V. Sulzer India Private Limited, Pune

ITA 1621/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7173 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASEEM SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: RONAK DESAI
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 144C; 13; 92CA; 37

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.1621/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, PUNE. . / APPELLANT. V/S SULZER INDIA PVT. LTD., GAT NO.304, AT POST KONDHAPURI, OFF. PUNE NAGAR ROAD, TALUKA SHIRUR, PUNE 412209. PAN : AAACS7876D. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RONAK DESAI. REVENUE BY : SHRI ASEEM SHARMA. / ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) 4, PUNE DT.06.03.2017. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE A CTION OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,36,66,315/- MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SAP IMPLEMENTATION CHARGES. / DATE OF HEARING : 27 . 0 8 .2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 .0 9 .2020 2 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF HI-TECH EQUIPMENTS. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 30.11.2012 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,52,75,720/-. IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN, A SUM OF RS.4.36 CR ORES WAS DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCUR RED ON SAP IMPLEMENTATION. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 92CA / 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03 .2016, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITU RE INCURRED ON IMPLEMENTATION OF SAP FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARA NO.5.3 TO 5.3.2 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. DECISION: I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISS ION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS ABOVE CAREFULLY. I FIND FR OM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAD DENIED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,36,66,315/- ON ACCOUNT OF SAP IM PLEMENTATION AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND TREATED THE SAME AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT'S RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAYCHEM RPG LTD (346 ITR. 13 8) AND OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VARINDRA AGRO CHEMICAL LTD. (309 ITR 272) (P & H) CONTENDING THAT ON THE SIMILAR FACTS OF THE CASE THE EXPENDITURE WAS TREAT ED AND ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, WAS ALSO DENIED BY THE AO ATTE MPTING TO DISTINGUISH THE FINDINGS IN THE SAID CASES IN PARA 4, PAGE NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN QUOTED ABOVE. 5.3.1 THE APPELLANT, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELYING ON THE SAID DECISIONS AND FURTHER A NUMBER OF DECISIONS DURING THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS CONTENDED THAT SAP PACKAGE WAS TO BE USED FOR BUSIN ESS PURPOSE AND THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE HAD NOT RESULTED IN BRING ING INTO EXISTENCE ANY NEW ASSET NOR HAS ANY PERMANENT OR AN ENDURING BENEFIT ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT, WHICH COULD BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE ON THE ASSE TS OF THE COMPANY WERE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING AND MA INTAINING OF ALREADY EXISTING ASSETS AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH EXPENDITURE BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE ANY NEW ASSET NOR DID IT GIV E THE APPELLANT ANY NEW OR DIFFERENT ADVANTAGE OR AN ENDURING BENEFIT. FURTHER CONTENDED 3 THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED BY THE APPEL LANT ON 'ONCE AND FOR ALL BASIS' BUT FOR MAINTAINING AND PRESERVING T HE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY ON CONTINUOUS BASIS FOR ITS EFFECTIVE AND E FFICIENT DAY-TO-DAY WORKING. THE APPELLANT REITERATED THAT SUCH EXPENDI TURE WAS NECESSARY FOR THE EFFICIENT FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSE TS OF THE COMPANY AND HENCE WAS IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT FINALLY STATED THAT UNDER SUCH CONDITION, EXPENDITU RE ON SAP IMPLEMENTATION WAS WRONGLY TREATED BY THE AO AS CAP ITAL EXPENDITURE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THE A PPELLANT ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION CITED BEFORE THE AO AND FURT HER THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF DELHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES V. DCIT (114 TTJ 476)(DEL.) (SB). THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DE LHI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. INDO RAMA SYNTHESIS LTD. VS ACIT (ITA NO. 2002/DEL.2008) (TDEL.) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 5.3.2 I FIND THAT THE AO IN A STRETCHED MISINTERPRE TATION OF THE DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM HAD DISALLOWED THE APPEL LANT'S CLAIM OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF SAP IMPLEMENTATIO N OF RSA,36,66,315/-. IN FACT, ALL THE DECISIONS CITED B Y THE APPELLANT HAD DECIDED THIS TYPE OF EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE EXPENDI TURE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT EXPENDITURE TOWARD S SAP IMPLEMENTATION INCURRED DID NOT BRING IN TO EXISTEN CE OF ANY NEW ASSET OF BENEFIT OF INDURING NATURE CANNOT BE B RUSHED ASIDE. IT IS FACT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE OF THE COMPANY WERE NECE SSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING AND MAINTAINING OF ALREADY EX ISTING ASSET, AS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT. I FIND THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS CONVERED IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS CITED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.4,36,66,315/- IS THEREFORE DELETED. GROUND NO. I RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS ARGUED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES, THIS ISSUE RELATING T O THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SAP IMPLEMENTATION IS SQU ARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. KSB PUMPS LTD. (ITA NO.728 OF 2014 WITH ITA NO.777 OF 2014 DT.05.10.2016) WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA NOS.9 TO 13 OF THE JUD GMENT OF THE LORDSHIP WHICH ARE EXTRACTED BELOW : 9. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US IS THAT THE ACQUISITION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAMME SUCH AS SAP IN TERMS OF INCOME TAX RULES, IS ENTITLED FOR DEPRECIATION. IN THAT VIEW, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT 4 FEES PAID TO M/S. KSB GERMANY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 10. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAVE CONCURRENTLY RENDERED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THERE WAS NO ACQUIS ITION / PURCHASE OF THE SAP PROGRAMME BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. CONS EQUENTLY, OCCASION TO APPLY DEPRECIATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE INCOME TAX RULES WOULD NOT ARISE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 11. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE C IT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL RECORD THE FACT THAT THE PROFESSIONAL CHAR GES PAID FOR UPGRADING THE SOFTWARE HAS MADE THE RESPONDENT ASSE SSEES OPERATION MORE EFFICIENT. IT DID NOT RESULT IN ANY PROFIT MAKING APPARATUS COMING INTO EXISTENCE. 12. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GEOFFREY MANNERS & CO ., LTD. 226 TAXMAN 135 WHEREIN IN THE CONTEXT OF INSTALLATION O F SOFTWARE PROGRAMME, THE COURT INTER ALIA HAS OBSERVED AS UND ER : 12. THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CASES INSTALLS THE COMPU TERS. THIS TECHNOLOGY IS NOW SAID TO BE ACCEPTABLE IN CHANGING WORLD. THE RAPID ADVANCEMENT OF RESEARCH ALSO CONTRIBUTES A SM ALL DEGREE OF ENDURABILITY, BUT THAT BY ITSELF DOES NOT MEAN T HAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED CANNOT BE REVENUE IN NATURE. SIN CE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT IS AN ASPECT WHICH MUST BE T AKEN JUDICIAL NOTE OF, SO ALSO, MACHINERY BECOMING OBSOL ETE THAT THERE IS NECESSITY OF ACQUIRING FURTHER TECHNOLOGY. THIS IS TO MEET THE GROWING COMPETITION AND CONSIDERING TRENDS IN THE M ARKET. THEREFORE, SUCH EXPENDITURE WILL HAVE TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 13. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE COURT TAKING NOTE OF RAPID TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT, PURCHASE OF TECHNOLOGY MAY NOT LEAD TO ANY ENDURING BENEFIT AS THE SAME MAY HAVE TO BE UPGRADED VERY SO ON. IN ANY CASE, THE FINDING OF FACT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THERE IS N O PURCHASE OF TECHNOLOGY BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. KSB PUMPS LTD. (SUPRA ), WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF ASSES SEE FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SAP IMPL EMENTATION AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1. 6. IN GROUND NO.2, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIA TION ON THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.4.36 CRORES INCURRED ON SAP IMPLEMENTATION / PACKA GE. 5 7. EVEN THOUGH THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.4.36 CRORES INCURRE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON SAP IMPLEMENTATION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE SAME AS CAPITAL IN NATURE, DEPRECIATION TH EREON WAS NOT ALLOWED BY HIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAP PACKAGE WAS NOT PUT TO USE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DIREC TED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION ON SAP PACKAG E OBSERVING THAT THE SAID PACKAGE WAS READY TO USE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES ON THIS ISS UE AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGH TLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R., THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.4.36 CRORES INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SAP IMPLEMENTATION / PACKAGE HAVING BEEN ALLO WED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION THEREON. NOW, THAT WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE OF RS.4.36 CRORES IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SAP IMPLEMENTATION / PACKAGE BY TREATING THE SAME OF REVENUE IN NATURE, DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME CANNOT BE A LLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 9. THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 OF THE REVEN UES APPEAL RELATE TO THE DELETION BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OF THE DISALLOWA NCE OF RS.27,02,616/- AND RS.38,11,924/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY EXPENSES AND PROVISION FOR AFTER SALES COST RESPECTIVELY. 6 10. THE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AND PROVISION FOR AFTER SALES COST WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SEC.143(3) R.W.S. 92CA / 144C OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS WERE NOT MADE ON SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND THE SAME BEING MADE FOR UNASCERTAINED LIABILITIES REPRESENTED CONTINGENT LIABILITIES WHICH WERE NOT ALLOWABLE A S DEDUCTION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS ) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THESE ISSUE S AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF P ROVISION FOR WARRANTY AND PROVISION FOR AFTER SALES COST BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIE R YEARS CONSISTENTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SIMILAR DEDUCTIONS. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE E ARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME WAS CONSISTENTLY DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL YEAR-WISE AND NARRATED BY THE TRIB UNAL IN ITS LATEST ORDER DT.25.08.2019 PASSED FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IN ITA NO.722/ PUN/2016 IN PARA NO.8 AS UNDER : 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS LIMITED I SSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF PROVISION OF WARRANTY AND AFTER SAL ES COSTS. THIS ISSUE IS PERENNIALLY BEING RAISED BY THE REVENUE SINCE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ONWARDS. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE EXTRAC TED AS UNDER: A.Y. ITA NO./ CIT(A) NO. RELEVANT PARA NO./PG. NO. OF THE ORDER RELEVA NT PG. OF PB REMARKS 1998-99 2790/M/03 PARA 5/PAGE NO.2 NO APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE SAID 7 1999-00 5047/M/04 PARA 2/ PAGE NO.1 DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 2000-01 3677/M/04 PARA 21/PAGE NO.6 2001-02 8219/M/04 PARA 36/PAGE NO.10 2002-03 N.A N.A ALLOWED BY AO IN ASSESSMENT. 2003-04 2871/M/07 PARA 11/ PAGE NO.4 NO APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE SAID DISALLOWANCE BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 2004-05 6135/M/07 PARA 12/PAGE NO.11 2005-06 3366/M/10 PARA 14/PAGE NO.13 2006-07 4435/M/11 PARA 2/ PAGE NO.2 2007-08 6740/M/11 PARA 3/ PAGE NO.2 2008-09 IT- 205/2011- 12 PARA 1.2/ PAGE 4 NO APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A)/AO. 2009-10 U/S. 143 (3) OF THE IT ACT. PAPER BOOK 111 FROM THE TABLE EXTRACTED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE IS ALLOWED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN MANY ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 1998-99 TO 2 009-10. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE TABLE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HIMSELF ALLOWED CLAIMED OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND 2009-10. IN SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE SAID D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NEVER FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT. AS SUCH, DECISION OF CIT (A) IS, IN PRINCIPLE, AS PER JUDGME NT LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ROTORK CONTROLS INDIA LTD . (SUPRA.). IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT IN ANY CASE WHERE ESTIMATION IS DONE BASED ON SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND CALCULATED PROPERLY, THE PROVISION MADE FOR WARRANTY IN RESPECT OF GOODS SHOULD BE ALLOWED U/S. 37 (1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS FAIR AND RE ASONABLE AND THE SAME DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. THE ISSUES RELATING TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AND PROVISION FOR AFTER SALES COST THUS ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE VARIOUS DECISIO NS OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AND RESPECTFULLY 8 FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CI T(APPEALS) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTIONS ON ACCOUN T OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AND PROVISION FOR AFTER SALES COST. GROUND N OS. 3 AND 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 2 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2020. YAMINI ! '#$% &%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(APPEALS)-4, PUNE. PR.CIT-3, PUNE. '#$ %%&',)&', / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY )&', / ITAT, PUNE.