M/s. BramhaCorp Ltd., Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1835/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7436 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL ITA NO P U N ITA NO
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 1835 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 0 - 11 M/S. BRA M HA CORP. LTD. (EARLIER AS M/S. BRAM H A BUILDERS) RESIDENCY CLUB, 3, QUEENS GARDEN ROAD, PUNE 411001 . / APPELLANT PAN: AADFB8649M VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER, WARD 4(5), PUNE . / RESPONDENT WARD 4(5), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 1748 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 10 - 11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5), PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. M/S. BRAMHA CORP. LTD. (EARLIER AS M/S. BRA MHA BUILDERS) RESIDENCY CLUB, 3, QUEENS GARDEN ROAD, PUNE 411001 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AADFB8649M ASSESSEE BY : S HRI MEHUL SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL ITA NO . 1748 / P U N /201 4 ITA NO. 1835 /P U N/201 4 M/S. BRAMHA CORP LTD. 2 / DATE OF HEARING : 28 . 1 2 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 . 0 1 .201 7 DATE OF HEARING : 28 . 1 2 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 . 0 1 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THE CROSS APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST ORDER OF CIT( A ) - II, PUNE , DATED 28 . 0 5 .201 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST OF CIT( A ) - II, PUNE , DATED 28 . 0 5 .201 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST THE ORDER PAS SED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1835/PN/2014 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.68,13,244 BEING INTEREST RECEIVED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST BUSINESS RECEIPTS AS CLAI MED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) & AO OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST RECEIVED, INTEREST PAID AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST RECEIVED, INTEREST PAID AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. 4 . THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1748 /PN/201 4 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB(10) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA MAJESTIC' BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF SB, PUNE ITAT IN THE CASE OF BRA MHA ASSOCIATES AND ALSO PUNE ITAT'S DECISION IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A.YS.2006 - 07 & 2007 08. ITA NO . 1748 / P U N /201 4 ITA NO. 1835 /P U N/201 4 M/S. BRAMHA CORP LTD. 3 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMENDED SECTION 80 IB(10)(D) WOULD APPLY ONLY TO THE PROJECTS STARTED AFTER 0 1.04.2005. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES, 333 ITR 2 8 9 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB(10), AS A DMISSIBLE PRIOR TO 01.04.2005, WOULD BE ALLOWABLE TO A HOUSING PROJECT APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAVING RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH COMMERCIAL USER TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED UNDER THE DC RULES/REGULATIONS FRAMED BY THE RESPECTIVE LOCAL AUTHORITY ONLY UPT O 31.03.2005. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, PUNE IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES FOR THE A.Y.2003 - 04 HAD HELD BEYOND ANY CONFUSION THAT THE POSITION WITH EFFECT FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WOULD BE DIFFERENT IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC RESTRICTION BROUGHT INTO EFFECT BY SECTION 80 IB(10)(D) WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE COMMERCIAL USE OF BUILT UP AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED 2000 SQ.FT OR 5% OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT UP AREA , WHICHEVER IS LESS. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO VESTED RIGHT OF AN ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS TAXATION PROVISIONS ARE CONCERNED AND WHERE AN AMENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO RESTRICT THE ELI GIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR DEDUCTION, IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED THAT CERTAIN ASSESSES OR THEIR PROJECTS WOULD BE RENDERED INELIGIBLE, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD., 120 ITR 921 . 6. THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE L.T . ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA AVENUE' BY RELYING ON DECISIONS FOR A.YS.2006 - 07,2007 - 08,2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10. 7. THE LEAR NED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA AVENUE' IS A SEPARATE PROJECT DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA ESTATE' AND THAT THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA AVENUE' COMMENCED ON 06.10.2000 AND NOT ON 22.08.2005. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PLAN IN RESPECT OF PROJECT 'BRAHMA AVENUE' WAS ACTUALLY AN AMALGAMATED AND REVISED PLAN OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN SANCTIONED FOR THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA ESTATE' DATED 06.10.2000 AN D, THEREFORE, THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA AVENUE' IS ONLY AN EXTEN S ION OF THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA ESTATE'. 9. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT IN THE COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF PROJECT 'BRAHMA AVENUE' I T WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT IT WAS A REVISED LAYOUT AND, MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO SEPARATE LAYOUT PLAN OR BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY THE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA AVENUE' . 10. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT AS THE BRAHMA AVENUE PROJECT IS MERELY AN EXTEN S ION OF BRAHMA ESTATE PROJECT, WHICH HAD BEEN GIVEN APPROVAL ON 06.10.2000, CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRAHMA AVENUE PROJECT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE 31.03.2008 AND IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE'S FAILURE TO COMPL E TE ITA NO . 1748 / P U N /201 4 ITA NO. 1835 /P U N/201 4 M/S. BRAMHA CORP LTD. 4 CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE ABOVE STIPULATED DATE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLE TO DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) ON THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA AVENUE'. GROUNDS WITH RESPECT TO PROJECT BRAHMA SUNCITY 11. TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 I B(10) IN RESPECT OF PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA SUNCITY' IGNORING THE FACT THAT EACH FLAT AND ITS SO CALLED NEXT FLAT CALLED A PROVIDING ONLY LIVI NG ROOM AND TOILET WERE ALWAYS CONCEPTUALIZED, CONSIDERED, MARKETED AND SOLD AS ONE FLAT WITH ONE ELECTRIC METER. 12. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ABOVE DEDUCTION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE WALL BETWEEN THE ABOV E TWO UNITS WAS NEVER BUILT AND THEREFORE AREA OF ALL THE FLATS IN THOSE BUILDINGS WAS ALWAYS MORE THAN 1500 SQ FT WHEN SOLD . 13. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE I .T . ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF PROFIT FROM THE PROJECT 'BRAHMA SUNCITY' HOLDING THAT THE MERGER OF A NUMBER OF UNITS OUT OF 1280 RESIDENTIAL FLATS HAD NOT BEEN CONCLUSIVELY PROVED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THOSE FLATS DID NOT HAVE AN AREA MORE THAN 1500 SQ FT SO AS TO INFRINGE CLAUSE(D) OF SECTION 801B(10). 14. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE THAT 10 OUT OF 13 STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE WITHOUT TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE THAT 10 OUT OF 13 STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE A.O AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) BASED ON SUCH INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE WAS INCORRE CT. 15. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB(10) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE ASSSESSEE'S VERSION THAT SHRI. ASHISH GHAI (FLAT NO.A - 2/303) AND SHRI.S.C.SHARMA (FLAT NO.A - 1/902) WERE THE TEN ANTS, WHEN IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THESE PERSONS HAD AFFIRMED TO BE THE OWNERS AND TO HAVE PURCHASED THE FLATS FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OU T THAT THE ISSUE ARISING IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NAME OF ASSESSEE CHANGED FROM M/S . BRAMHA BUILDERS TO M/S.BRAMHA CORP LTD. AND THE PARTNERSHIP CONCERN WAS CONVERTED INTO A LIMITED COMPANY. ITA NO . 1748 / P U N /201 4 ITA NO. 1835 /P U N/201 4 M/S. BRAMHA CORP LTD. 5 6. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS TO ASSESSABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME AND WHETHER THE SAME IS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR AS BUSINESS INCOME. 7. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AT NIL BUT AT LATER REVISED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME AT NIL AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AT RS.28,28,37,845/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED BUSINESS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL UNITS OF ITS PROJECTS AND HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT FROM THE PROFITS OF ITS PROJECT NAMELY, BRAHMA MAJESTIC, BRAHMA EXUBERANCE, BRAHMA AVENUE, BRAHMA SUNCITY AND BRAHMA EMERALD COUNTY , AT KONDHWA, PUNE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST INSTANCE CONSIDERED THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROJECTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SOME OF UNITS IN DIFFERENT PROJECTS EXCEEDED THE BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQ.FT. AND ALSO THERE WAS COMMERCIAL BUILT UP AREA IN THE PROJE CT , WHICH WAS EXCEEDING THE LIMIT ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROJECT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS MERGER OF FLATS AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA EXCEEDED THE LIMIT PROVIDED AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT I N RESPECT OF ALL THE PROJECTS . THE INDEPENDENT FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROJECT AND THE SAME ARE DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO . 1748 / P U N /201 4 ITA NO. 1835 /P U N/201 4 M/S. BRAMHA CORP LTD. 6 RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 68,13,244/ - WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE CLUBBING IT WITH THE BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, THE SAID INTEREST INCOME WAS TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME WAS HELD TO BE NOT BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR EARLIER YEARS, WAS OF THE VIEW TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO PRORATA DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UPHELD AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE NOT ENTITLED TO TREAT THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND CLA I M DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 9 . THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 10 . THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROJECT. 1 1 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF ASSESSABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 IN ITA NOS.734/PN/2013, 753/PN/2013, 1169/PN/2013 AND 974/PN/2013, ORDER DATED 31.10.2014 . HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) HAD FOLLOWED THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN EARLIER YEARS IN ORDER TO DENY THE SAID CLAIM TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO . 1748 / P U N /201 4 ITA NO. 1835 /P U N/201 4 M/S. BRAMHA CORP LTD. 7 1 2 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. 1 3 . WE HAVE HEARD TH E RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 8.1 AT PAGE 40, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RECEIPT OF INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM AND WAS PART OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING AND IN VIEW OF THE CONCESSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE D ECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 1 4 . IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 2 TO 5 OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 31.10.2014 . THE PERUSAL OF DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS THEREUNDER REFLECTS THAT THE ISSUE HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED ELABORATELY BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO ALLOW PRORATA DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IS SAME AS IN EARLIER YEARS. BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAD FOLLOWED THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS IN DECIDING THE SAID ISSUE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROJECT WOULD APPLY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO FOLLOW THE SAME IN DECIDING THE ISSUE AND COMPUTING THE PRORATA ITA NO . 1748 / P U N /201 4 ITA NO. 1835 /P U N/201 4 M/S. BRAMHA CORP LTD. 8 DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE PROJECT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; D ATED : 5 TH JANU ARY , 201 7 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE C I T (A) - II , PUNE ; 4. / THE C I T - II, PUNE ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE