Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Satara V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1725/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1835 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D N PARAKH
• Keywords: Question of law; Condonation of delay
• Section: 234B; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , ! # $% , & ' BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ( / ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014 ) * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., 12B, RAVIWAR PETH, SATARA PAN : AAAAP0381L ....... / APPELLANT ) / V/S. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI D.N. PARAKH / DATE OF HEARING : 10-05-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-05-2016 , / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATED 23-1 0-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 237 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF 2 ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 APPEAL SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILIN G OF APPEAL AS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT IS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION U/S. 154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME VIDE ORDER DATED 30 -09-2014. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AGAINST THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION U/S. 154. THE SAID APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED AP PEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18-12-2012 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DECIDED THE SAME AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 23-10-2013 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE O N 19-11-2013. THE LIMITATION FOR FILING OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER C AME TO AN END ON 19-01-2014. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFID E IMPRESSION THAT SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL I.E. BROKEN PERIO D INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM EXPENDITURE IS COVERED BY THE JU DGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE SAME COULD BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 154. THE ASSESSEE W AS PURSUING WRONG FORUM FOR THE RELIEF. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS NOT DELIBERATE OR WILLFUL. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PURSUING HIS CASE FOR RELIEF BEFORE THE WRONG FORUM. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR DE LAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY OF 237 DAYS IN FILING OF A PPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED TO BE HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS. 3 ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BANKIN G BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 71,01,730/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31-08-2012. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLA IMED BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST PAID ON PURCHASE OF GOVT. SECURITIES AND A MORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON GOVT. SECURITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA DISALLOWED THE ABOVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DAT ED 18-12- 2012. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED B Y THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BAN K VS. CIT REPORTED AS 187 ITR 541 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. REPORTED AS 316 ITR 391 (RAJ.) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM ON GOVT. SECURITIES BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE J UDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN T ECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. JOINT CIT REPORTED AS 320 ITR 577 (SC). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. SHRI M.K. KULKARNI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES ON WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MAD E BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE 4 ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. HDFC BANK LTD. REPORTED AS 366 ITR 505 (BOM). THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIAN BANK VS. DY. CIT REPORTED AS 87 DTR (MAD) 89 HAS ALSO DECIDED THE ISSUE RELATING TO BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN APPEAL THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AUDIT FEE AND VOLUNTARILY RETIREMENT EXPENSES IN GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4, R ESPECTIVELY. THE LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT ON INSTRUCTION FROM THE AS SESSEE HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 RAISED IN THE APPEAL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI D.N. PARAKH REPRESENTING THE DEPARTME NT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. TH E LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DISALLOWED BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN TH E CASE OF VIJAYA BANK VS. CIT (SUPRA). SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF AMORT IZATION OF PREMIUM ON GOVT. SECURITIES THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DIS ALLOWED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. JOINT CIT (SUPRA). T HE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. BOTH SIDES HEARD. ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW PE RUSED. IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 7 GROUNDS. THE GROUND NO. 1 IN APPEAL RELATES TO THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) IN RESPECT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST AMOUNTING TO ` 66,49,550/- AND IN 5 ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 GROUND NO. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOU NT OF AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM EXPENSES ` 2,66,596/-. WE FIND THAT BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE SQUARELY COVERED IN VAOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA). THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF V IJAYA BANK VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND HAVE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E IN RESPECT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST. A PERUSAL OF THE JUDG MENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WOULD SHOW THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COUR T HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ALLOWING THE BROKEN PERIOD IN TEREST AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAYA BANK VS. C IT (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. (SUPRA). 7. THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING COR PORATION VS. CIT REPORTED AS 258 ITR 601 (BOM). THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNA L ARE AS UNDER: NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL FOR AY 2001-02 IS WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM FOR PAYME NT OF BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST OF RS. 1,55,98,062/-. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD DR AS WELL AS LD AR OF THE ASS ESSEE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDIC TION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP N LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 258 ITR 601 (BOM). 6 ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 THE LD DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD, REPORTED IN 316 ITR 391 (RAJ). THOUGH, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS DECIDE D THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNAT IONAL BANKING CORPN LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 258 ITR 601 (BOM); HOWEVER, WE ARE BOUND BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE CIT( A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPN LTD (SUPRA) AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE FI NDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGM ENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS I NTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION (SUPRA), IN PRINCIPLE I AGREE W ITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. THE HONBLE COURT AFFIRMING THE DECI SION OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ONCE THE DEPARTMENT SOUGHT TO AS SESS TO ASSES TO TAX THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE TRAN SFEREES FROM THE BROKEN PERIOD UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS, THE DEPARTM ENT COULD NOT HAVE REJECTED THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TRANSFERORS FOR THE BROKEN PERIOD UNLESS THE DEPART MENT PROVES THAT THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE TRUE AND PROPER INCOME. HOWEVER, SINCE THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE A PPELLANTS BANK HAS BEEN TAXED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON ACCRUAL BASIS; INTE REST EXPENDITURE RELATABLE TO THE SAID INCOME IS ONLY TO BE ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO ALLOW BROKEN PERIOD INTERE ST EXPENDITURE ONLY RELATABLE TO INTEREST INCOME TAXED ON ACCRUAL BASIS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND ALLOW THE SAME ACCORDINGLY. APPELLANTS APPEAL ON T HIS GROUND IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. SINCE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERRO R OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), QUA, THIS ISSUE. 8. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BE FORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THE FOLLOWING QUESTION WAS FRAMED: (B) WHETHER THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE BROKEN PERIOD INTEREST IS ALLOWABL E AS A DEDUCTION, IN SPITE OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN TH E CASE OF VIJAYA BANK LTD. V. ADDL. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) AND THE R AJASTHAN HIGH COURTS 7 ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BANK OF RAJASTHAN LT D. [2009] 316 ITR 391 (RAJ)? 9. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVAOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: EVEN AS FAR AS QUESTION (B) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OR THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. IN DECIDING THIS ISS UE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL HAVE MERELY FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE C ASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION V. CIT RE PORTED IN [2002] 258 ITR 601 (BOM). ON GOING THROUGH THE SAID JUDGMENT, WE FIND THAT QUESTION (B) REPRODUCED ABOVE AND PROJECTED AS SUBS TANTIAL BY MR. SURESH KUMAR IS SQUARELY ANSWERED BY THE JUDGMENT O F THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP ORATION (SUPRA). IN VIEW THEREOF, WE DO NOT FIND THAT EVEN QUESTION (B) GIVES RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW THAT NEEDS TO BE ANSWER ED BY THIS COURT. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE ALLOW FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF BROKE N PERIOD INTEREST. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH R EGARD TO AMORTIZATION OF PREMIUM EXPENSES. THE ISSUE RELATING TO AM ORTIZATION OF PREMIUM EXPENSES ON GOVT. SECURITIES WAS ALSO DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA). THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT WAS : (C) WHETHER THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS R IGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION WITH RESPECT TO THE DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT AND AMORTIZATI ON OF PREMIUM ON INVESTMENT HELD TO MATURITY ON THE GROUND OF MANDAT E BY THE RBI GUIDELINES THEREBY IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. V. JOINT CIT [2010] 3 2O ITR 577 (SC)? 8 ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 11. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. REPORTED AS 366 ITR 416 (BOM). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT READS AS UNDER : AS FAR AS QUESTION (C) IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT AN IDENTICAL QUESTION OF LAW WAS FRAMED AND ANSWERED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY THIS COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED JULY 4, 2014, IN I NCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2012, CIT V. LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD. (NOW ME RGED WITH HDFC BANK LTD.) [2014] 366 ITR 416 (BOM). MR. SURESH KUM AR FAIRLY STATED THAT QUESTION (C) REPRODUCED ABOVE IS COVERED BY TH E SAID ORDER. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN QUESTION (C) DOES NOT RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW THAT REQUIRES AN ANSWER FROM US. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED IN THE APPEAL WITH REGARD TO PREMIUM OF AMORTIZATION ON GOVT. SECURITIES IS ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT ON INSTRUCTION FROM THE ASSESSEE HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 RAISED IN THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE SAID GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 13. THE GROUND NO. 5 RAISED IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO DELA Y IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN CONDO NED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 5 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 14. THE GROUND NO. 6 RAISED IN THE APPEAL RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. THE LEVY OF INTERES T UNDER THE 9 ITA NO. 1725/PN/2014, A.Y. 2010-11 AFORESAID SECTIONS IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL. ACCORD INGLY, GROUND NO. 6 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 15. THE GROUND NO. 7 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. HENCE, REQUIRE S NO ADJUDICATION. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; !' / DATED : 18 TH MAY, 2016 RK ,-#./0+. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. # # $ () / THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. # # $ / THE CIT-III, PUNE 5. '() *+ , # *+ , , ,-. , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. )/0 12 / GUARD FILE. // ' // TRUE COPY// #3 / BY ORDER, 4 *. / PRIVATE SECRETARY, # *+ , / ITAT, PUNE