M/s. Thackar Builders and Developers, Satara V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2, Satara

ITA 1654/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5062 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 192

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, P UNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM / ITA NO. 1654/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 M/S. THACKAR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, THACKAR CHAMBERS, SHANIWAR PETH, SATARA-415 002. PAN : AAGFT0146A .... / APPELLANT ! / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWALI / DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2019 ' / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-4, PUNE DATED 13.08.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDIT IONS OF 2 ITA NO. 1654/PUN/2018 A.Y.2015-16 RS.15,87,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED RENT FOR STOCK-IN-TRA DE OF 33 FLATS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE PUNE B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION VS . INCOME TAX OFFICER, IN ITA NOS. 230 & 231/PUN/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 & 2014-15 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 7. THE ISSUE BEFORE US FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE NOTIONAL ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE ON UNSOLD FLATS HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NEHA BUILDER S (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE PROPERTY IS HELD AS STOCK-I N-TRADE ANY INCOME DERIVED ROM STOCK WOULD BE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER :- 7. FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WOULD CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE C OMPANY WAS INCORPORATED WITH THE MAIN OBJECT OF PURCHASE, TAKE ON LEASE, OR ACQUIRE BY SALE, OR LET OUT THE BUILDINGS CONSTRUCT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. DEVELOPMENT OF LAND OR PROPERTY WOULD ALS O BE ONE OF THE BUSINESSES FOR WHICH THE COMPANY WAS INCORPORAT ED. 8. TRUE IT IS, THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERT Y WOULD ALWAYS BE TERMED AS 'INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY, BUT IF THE PROPERTY IS USED AS 'STOCK-IN-TRADE, THEN THE SAID PROPERTY WOULD B ECOME OR PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE STOCK, AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM THE STOCK, WOULD BE 'INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS, AND NOT INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY. IF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY AND SELL IT OR TO CONSTRUCT AND LET OU T THE SAME, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE 'BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS STOCK S, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE, WOULD BE TAKEN TO BE 'STOCK-IN- TRADE, AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH STOCKS CAN NOT BE TERMED AS 'INCOME FROM PROPERTY. EVEN OTHERWISE, I T IS TO BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND 'INCOME FROM PROPERTY ON ONE SIDE, AND 'ANY INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE TRIBUNAL, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WAS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED IN COMPARING THE RENTAL INCOME WITH THE DIVIDEND INCOME ON THE SHARES OR INTEREST INCOME ON THE DEPO SITS. EVEN OTHERWISE, THIS QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE TRIBUNALS AND, ALL OF SUDDEN, THE TRIBUNAL STARTED APPLYING THE ANALOGY. 9. FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD CLE ARLY APPEAR THAT IT WAS TREATING THE PROPERTY AS 'STOCK-IN-TRAD E. NOT ONLY THIS, IT WILL ALSO BE CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE GROUND FLOOR, WHICH HAS BEEN LET OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF 3 ITA NO. 1654/PUN/2018 A.Y.2015-16 THE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT. IF THA T BE SO, THE PROPERTY, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING WAS A 'STOCK-IN- TRADE. 8. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANS AL HOUSING FINANCE AND LEASING CO. LTD. (SUPRA) THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW HAS HELD THAT ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE ON UNSOLD FLATS BUILT BY ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS IS ASSESS ABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN TWO DIVERGENT VIEWS OF NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS ARE AVAILABLE AND TH ERE IS NO DECISION ON THE ISSUE FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE V IEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ADOPTED [COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD.(SUPRA)]. 9. IN SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SANE & DOSHI ENTERPRI SES (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THE SAID CASE A RE AT VARIANCE. IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE RENTED OUT UNSOLD FLATS AND SUO-MOTU OFFER ED RENTAL INCOME FROM THE FLATS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY . ON THE CONTRARY THE REVENUE WANTED TO TAX RENTAL INCOME UN DER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME . THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNA L HELD THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RE NTING OF FLATS IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HI GH COURT. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL AND H ELD THAT RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM UNSOLD PORTION OF PROPERTY CON STRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY. THE CORE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SANE & DOSHI ENTERPRI SES (SUPRA) IS THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, IT IS NOTIONAL ANNUAL RENT AL INCOME ON FLATS HELD AS STOCK WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED, WHEREAS IN TH E CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SANE & DOSHI ENTERPRI SES (SUPRA) IT WAS THE CASE OF ACTUAL RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSE SSEE FROM RENTING OF FLATS CONSTRUCTED BY IT. HENCE, THE DECISION RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SANE & DOSHI ENTERPRI SES (SUPRA) WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 10. WE FURTHER FIND THAT MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN M/S. C.R. DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. JCIT (SUPRA), M/S. RUNWA L CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND SHRI GIRDHARILAL K. LULLA VS. DCIT (SUPRA) UNDER SIMILAR SET OF FACTS HAVE TAKEN A CONSISTENT VIEW IN HOLDIN G NOTIONAL ANNUAL RENTAL VALUE ON UNSOLD FLATS HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE BY THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AS BUSINESS INCOME . 11. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NEHA BUILDER S (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND AL LOW THE APPEAL. 4. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EV EN THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CHAMBER CONSTRUCTIO N PVT. LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, IN ITA NO.4418/MUM/2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE SAME ISSUE HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGM ENT OF THE HON'BLE 4 ITA NO. 1654/PUN/2018 A.Y.2015-16 HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NEHA BUILDERS (P.) LTD. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (GUJ.) AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THOUGH THE ANNUAL VALUE OF A PROPERTY SIMPLICITER OWNED BY AN ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER TH E HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , HOWEVER A SIMILAR TREATMENT CANNOT BE ACCORDED TO A PROPERTY WHICH IS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK-I N-TRADE OF HIS BUSINESS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW A PROPERTY WHICH I S HELD BY AN ASSESSEE AS STOCK-IN-TRADE OF HIS BUSINESS AS THAT OF A DEVELOPER WOULD LOOSE ITS COLOR AND CHARACTER AS THAT OF A PROPERTY SIMPLICITER OWNED BY HIM. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NEHA BUILDE RS (P) LTD. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (GUJ). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE DISPOS ING OFF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE COM PANY WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY , HAD OBSERVED THAT WHERE A PROPERTY IS HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THEN TH E SAME WOULD BECOME OR PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE STOCK, AND ANY INCO ME DERIVED THEREFROM WOULD BE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND CANNOT BE HELD AS INCOME FROM PROPERTY. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE CONCLUDING A S HEREINABOVE HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER: 7. FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WOULD CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE C OMPANY WAS INCORPORATED WITH THE MAIN OBJECT OF PURCHASE, TAKE ON LEASE, OR ACQUIRE BY SALE, OR LET OUT THE BUILDINGS CONSTRUCT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. DEVELOPMENT OF LAND OR PROPERTY WOULD ALS O BE ONE OF THE BUSINESSES FOR WHICH THE COMPANY WAS INCORPORAT ED. 8. TRUE IT IS, THAT INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PROPERT Y WOULD ALWAYS BE TERMED AS INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY, BUT IF THE PROPERTY IS USED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE , THEN THE SAID PROPERTY WOULD BECOME OR PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF THE STOCK, AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM THE STOCK, WOULD BE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS, AND NOT INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY. IF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPERTY AND SELL IT OR TO CONSTRUCT AND LET OU T THE SAME, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS STOCKS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE, WOULD BE TAKEN TO BE STOCK-IN- TRADE , AND ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH STOCKS CANNOT BE TERMED AS INCOME FROM PROPERTY . EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THERE WAS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND INCOME FROM PROPERTY ON ONE SIDE, AND 'ANY INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE TRIBUNAL, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, WAS ABSOLUTELY UNJUSTIFIED IN COMPARING THE RENTAL INCO ME WITH THE DIVIDEND INCOME ON THE SHARES OR INTEREST INCOME ON THE DEPOSITS. EVEN OTHERWISE, THIS QUESTION WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE TRIBUNALS AND, ALL OF SUDDEN, THE TRIBU NAL STARTED APPLYING THE ANALOGY. 9. ADMITTEDLY, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING COMPANY LTD. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (DELHI) A ND HAD THEREIN CONCLUDED THAT THE NOTIONAL LETTABLE VALUE OF THE U NSOLD FLATS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE DETERMINED AND BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER 5 ITA NO. 1654/PUN/2018 A.Y.2015-16 CONSIDERATION BEFORE US I.E WHETHER THE NOTIONAL LE TTABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HELD BY AN ASSESSEE AS STOCK-IN-TRADE IN I TS BUSINESS AS THAT OF A DEVELOPER IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , HAS BEEN DIFFERENTLY ANSWERED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN CIT VS. NEHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (2008) 2 96 ITR 661 (GUJ) AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIT VS. ANSAL HO USING FINANCE AND LEASING LTD. (2013) 354 ITR 186 (DEL). WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID CONFLICTING VIEWS OF THE AFORESAID NON- JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS, THE VIEW IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE AS HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARA T IS TO BE PREFERRED. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS (19 73) 88 ITR 192 (SC), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT IF TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TAXING PROVISION IS POSSIBLE, TH EN THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH FAVOURS THE TAX PAYER MUST BE ADOPTED. FURTH ER, WE FIND THAT ITAT, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ACIT-15(2)(1) VS. M/S H AWARE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [ITA NO. 3321 & 3172/MUM/2016; DATED 31.0 8.2018] HAD AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE AFORESAID JUDGMENTS OF THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN NEHA BUILDERS (P) LTD.(SUPRA) AND THAT O F THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING C OMPANY LTD.(SUPRA), HAD BY TAKING SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), HAD FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN NEHA BUILDERS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND HAD CONCLUDED THAT TH E NOTIONAL LETTABLE VALUE OF THE UNSOLD FLATS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE DETERMINED AND BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PR OPERTY . STILL FURTHER, A SIMILAR VIEW HAD ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S C.R DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. VS. JCIT-8(1)(OSD), MUMBA I [ITA NO. 4277/MUM/2012; DATED 13.05.2015]. IT WAS OBSERVED B Y THE TRIBUNAL THAT ESTIMATING OF THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE FLATS H ELD BY THE ASSESSES AS STOCK-IN-TRADE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, AS THE SAID FLATS WERE NEITHER GIVEN ON RENT NOR THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY INTENTION TO EARN REN T BY LETTING OUT THE SAME. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ANOTHER COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I.E. ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI IN ITO-2(1)(1), MUMB AI VS. M/S ARIHANT ESTATES PVT. LTD. [ITA NO. 6037/MUM/2016; D ATED 27.06.2018] HAD RELIED ON AN EARLIER VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S RUNWAL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ACIT IN [ITA NO. 5408 & 54 09/MUM/2016; DATED 22.02.2018], AND AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE JU DGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN CIT VS. NEHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (GUJ) AND THAT OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ANSAL HOUSING FINANCE & LEASING COMPANY LTD. (2013) 354 ITR 186 ( DEL), HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CORRECT IN BRINGING T O TAX THE NOTIONAL ANNUAL LETTABLE VALUE OF THE UNSOLD FLATS WHICH WER E HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. ON A SIMILAR FOOTING A SIMILAR VIEW HAD ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE ITAT,MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF PROGRESSIVE HOMES, MUMBAI VS. ACIT-CIRCLE 4(4), MUM BAI [ITA NO. 5082/MUM/2016; DATED 16.05.2018) AND ITAT H BENCH , MUMBAI IN HAWARE ENGINEERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-4(2), MUMBAI [ITA NO. 7155/MUM/2016; DATED 10.10.2018]. 10. IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. NEHA BUILDERS (P) LTD. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (GUJ) AND THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ERRED IN DETERMINING THE NOTIONAL LETTABLE VALUE OF THE UNSOLD FLATS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY AS STOCK-IN-TRADE OF ITS BUSINESS OF BUILDERS AND PROPERTY DEVELOPERS , AND BRINGING THE SAME TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY . WE THUS IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6 ITA NO. 1654/PUN/2018 A.Y.2015-16 11. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND GIVEN THOUGH TFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. THAT ON THE ISSUE IN HAND, THERE ARE DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED B Y THE PUNE AND ALSO BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID TRIBUNALS DECISIONS, WE S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 06 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- D. KARUNAKARA RAO PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 06 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. SB '#$%&'(' % / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-4, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT-3, PUNE. 5. '#$ %%&' , ( &' , - )*+ , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. $,- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // (0 / BY ORDER, %1 &+ / PRIVATE SECRETARY ( &' , / ITAT, PUNE. 7 ITA NO. 1654/PUN/2018 A.Y.2015-16 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 5 .0 2 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 05 .0 2 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER