M/s. Siddhi Engineering Company, Aurangabad V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1673/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1040 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 201(1); 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . . , BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S. SIDD H I ENGINEERING COMPANY, PLOT NO.19, P-5, VINAYAK HOUSING SOCIETY, N-8, CIDCO, AURANGABAD 431 001 PAN :ABLFS4357A . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD - 2 (3), AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUHAS KULKARNI / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-05-2016 OF THE CIT(A)-2, AURANGABAD RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ENGINEERING GOODS AND JOB WORK UNDER THE NAME AND STY LE M/S. SIDDHI ENGINEERING. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-09-2 012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,16,060/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED JOB WORK CHARGES AT RS.34,20,387/- IN THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT. FROM THE LIST OF 30 PARTIES FURNISHED BEFORE HIM FROM WHOM JOB WORK WAS CARRIED OUT HE NOTED THAT TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT / DATE OF HEARING :08.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:09.09.2016 2 ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 RS.37,942/- FROM TOTAL JOB WORK CHARGES OF RS.27,14,382/-. HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE TAX SO DEDUCTED H AS NOT BEEN PAID WITHIN DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, I.E. BEFORE 30 -09- 2012. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TDS PROVISION IS APPLICABLE ONLY ON THE AMOUNTS SHOWN AS PAYABLE ON 31-0 3-2012. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX FROM SUCH JOB WORK CHARG ES TO VARIOUS PARTIES BEFORE 31-03-2012 BUT THIS TDS AMOUNT W AS NOT DEPOSITED INTO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT WITHIN DUE DATE OF FILIN G OF RETURN AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THIS AMOUN T ONLY ON 22-03-2012 THE AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TH E TAX BUT FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE SAME WITHIN THE DUE DATE AS APPLICABLE U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE, THEREFORE, ADDED AMOUNT OF RS.27,14,382/- U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO CAN INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ONLY IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES CO VERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 30 TO 38. IT WAS STATED THAT ANY ITEM OF EXPENSE COVERED BY ANY SECTION PRECEDING SECTION 30 OR SUCCEEDING SECTION 38 ARE NOT COVERED BY THE STATUTORY ALLOWANCES ENVISAGED U/S.40(A)(IA). IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENSES WHICH REPR ESENTS DIRECT COST ALREADY INCURRED BY THEM TO EARN INCOME FRO M BUSINESS AND THE SECTION 28 OF THE ACT WILL NOT COME UNDER THE PU RVIEW OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 3 ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 1. TEJA CONSTRUCTION VS. ACIT VIDE ITA NO.308/HYD/2009 ORDER DATED 23-10-2009 : 2. CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING REPORTED IN (2013) 357 IT R 642 5. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGUMENT S ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TH E PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VINAY ASHWINIKUMAR JON EJA VS. ITO, WARD-4(5), PUNE VIDE ITA NO.1514/PN/2012 ORDER DA TED 22-10-2013 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE EVEN IF NOTHING REMAINS PAYABLE IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED ANY TAX ON THE AMOUNT, HE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.27 ,14,382/- U/S.40(A)(IA) DISREGARDING THE VALID CONTENTION THAT THESE PAYMENTS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF JOB CHARGES TO VARIOUS PARTIES ARE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S.28 WHILE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) CAN ONLY BE MADE FOR EXPENSES INCURRED AND ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S.3 0 TO 38 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING 357 ITR 642 AND ALTERNATIVELY NOT F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGET ABLE PRODUCTS (SUPRA) 88 ITR 192. 3. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED TO BE AMENDED, ALTERED, MODIFIED, ETC IN THE INTEREST OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECT EXPEND ITURE, THEREFORE THERE IS NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS. FOR THE ABO VE PROPOSITION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION 4 ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TEJ A CONSTRUCTION VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 39 SOT 13. 8. IN HIS ALTERNATE ARGUMENT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE TO THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE PA YABLE AS ON THE LAST DAY AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE EXPENSES W HICH ARE ALREADY PAID DURING THE YEAR. HE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF T HE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.27,14,382/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.24,31,142/- HA S ALREADY BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR AND ONLY AN AMOUNT O F RS.2,83,240/- IS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31-03-2012. FOR THE A BOVE PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LT D. REPORTED IN 357 ITR 642 AND THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILLYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT S REPORTED IN 136 ITD 23. HE HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT CON TRARY VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE REPORTED IN 262 ITR 525 AND TH E HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIKHAND ERKHAN TUNWAR REPORTED IN 357 ITR 312. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHE N DIVERGENT VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE AND IN ABSENCE OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THE VIEW WHICH IS FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) AND TH E CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 9. IN HIS YET ANOTHER ALTERNATE ARGUMENT, THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO PROVISION S OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01-04-2013 HA S 5 ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS AS RETROSPECTIVE W.E.F. 01-04- 2005. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 3 77 ITR 633 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS AIM ED AT ENSURING THAT AN EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DE DUCTION IN THE HANDS OF AN ASSESSEE, IN A SITUATION IN WHICH INCOME EMBEDDED IN SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS REMAINED UNTAXED DUE TO TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSES BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT A PENALTY F OR TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSE BUT IT IS A SORT OF COMPENSATORY DEDUC TION RESTRICTION FOR AN INCOME GOING UNTAXED DUE TO TAX WITHH OLDING LAPSE. THE INSERTION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A )(IA) IS DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE IN NATURE AND IT HAS RETROSPEC TIVE EFFECT FROM 01-04-2005 BEING THE DATE FROM WHICH SUB-CLAUSE (IA) O F SECTION 40(A) WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INSERTE D TO BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO STATES THAT WHERE A PERS ON FAILS TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SUM PAID TO A RESIDENT, OR ON THE SUM CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF RESIDENT, SUCH PERSON SHALL NO T BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF SUCH T AX IF SUCH RESIDENT HAS FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139. WHAT IS COMMON TO BOTH PROVISOS TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND 201(1) OF TH E ACT IS THAT AS LONG AS THE PAYEE OR RESIDENT HAS FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY AND IN WHICH THE INCOME EARNED BY IT IS EMBEDDED AND HAS ALSO PAID TAX ON SUCH INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A PERSON IN DEFAULT. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THESE PARTIES TO WHOM JOB CHAR GES WERE PAID HAVE OFFERED THEIR INCOME AND PAID THE DUE TAXES WHE NEVER REQUIRED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE COMPLE TE ADDRESS 6 ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 AND PAN NOS. OF SUCH PERSONS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLE D FOR. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI GAURIMAL MAHAJAN AND SONS VIDE ITA NO.1852/PN/2012 ORDE R DATED 06-01-2014 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 WHEREIN THE MATTER H AS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) NEE D NOT BE MADE IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSE E IN DEFAULT UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO. 10. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE ME. I FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INST ANT CASE IS A MANUFACTURER OF ENGINEERING GOODS AND JOB WORK UNDE R THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. SIDDHI ENGINEERING. THE ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED JOB WORK CHARGES OF RS.34,20,387/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT S OURCE AMOUNTING TO RS.37,942/- FROM THE JOB WORK CHARGES OF RS.27,14,382/-, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID SUCH T DS WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO , THEREFORE, APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.27,14,382/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR WHICH TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7 ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 12. IT IS THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THESE ARE DIRECT EXPENSES ESSE NTIALLY TO EARN BUSINESS INCOME AND THEREFORE ALLOWABLE U/S.28 ITSELF. HOWE VER I DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE JOB WORK CHARGES OF RS.27,14,382/-. I THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IS UNCALLED FOR. THE FIRST PLANK OF ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 13. THE SECOND PLANK OF ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S.40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE AMOUNT WHICH IS OUTSTANDING AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR . FOR THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS R ELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPIN G AND TRANSPORTS (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE PUNE BENCHES OF THE T RIBUNAL ARE CONSISTENTLY TAKING THE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40(A)(IA) ARE APPLICABLE EVEN WHERE NO AMOUNT IS PAYABLE AT THE EN D OF THE YEAR IF THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). THEREFORE, THE SECOND PLANK OF ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DISMISSED. 14. HOWEVER, I FIND SOME FORCE IN THE THIRD PLANK OF ARGUME NT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE RECIPIENT S HAVE ALREADY PAID THE TAXES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEEMED T O BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO AND THE REFORE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 8 ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 15. I FIND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP PVT. LTDE. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER (SHORTNOTES) : HELD : SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS AIMED AT ENSU RING THAT AN EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF AN ASSESSEE IN A SITUATION IN WHICH INCOME EMBEDDED IN SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS REMAINED UNTAXED DUE TO TAX WITHHOLD ING LAPSES BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT A PENALTY FOR TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSE BUT IT IS A SORT OF COMPENSATORY DEDUCTION RESTRICTION FOR AN INCO ME GOING UNTAXED DUE TO TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSE. THE INSERTION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS DECLARATORY AND CURATI VE IN NATURE AND IT HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01-04-2005 BEING THE DATE FROM WHICH SUB-CLAUSE (IA) OF SECTION 40(A) WAS INSERTED BY THE FIN ANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INSERTED TO BENEFIT THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO STATES THAT WHER E A PERSON FAILS TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SUM PAID TO A RE SIDENT OR ON THE SUM CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF RESIDENT, SUCH PERSON SHA LL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TA X IF SUCH RESIDENT HAS FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139. WH AT IS COMMON TO BOTH PROVISOS TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND 201(1) OF TH E ACT IS THAT AS LONG AS THE PAYEE OR RESIDENT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY AND IN WHICH THE INCOME EAR NED BY IT IS EMBEDDED AND HAS ALSO PAID TAX ON SUCH INCOME, THE A SSESSEE WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A PERSON IN DEFAULT. 16. I FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. GAURIMAL MAHAJAN & SONS VIDE ITA NO.1852/PN/2012 ORD ER DATED 06-01-2014 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANTONY D. MUNDACKAL HAS ALSO TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE P AYEES HAVE DECLARED SUCH INCOME IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF IN COME, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 201(1). SINCE THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINE D BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THEREFORE, I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTO RE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE PAYEES HAVE FILED THE IR RETURN OF 9 ITA NO.1673/PN/2016 INCOME OFFERING THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETUR NS AND PAID THE TAXES DUE THEREON. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSU E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09-09-2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 09 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. '# $# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // // $ % //UE &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - 2, AURANGABAD 4. THE CIT-2, AURANGABAD 5. $ %%* , * , SMC BENCH / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH PUNE; 6. 2 / GUARD FILE.