Vikas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Aurangabad V. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax -2, Aurangabad

ITA 1911/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6270 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 80P; 194A; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO . 1911 /PUN/201 8 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 14 VIKAS SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., (NOW VILAS SSK LIMITED), VAISHALI NAGAR, A/P. NIWALI, TAL. & DISTT. - LATUR PAN : AAATV2893E ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, AURANGABAD / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE REVENUE BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG / DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 - 09 - 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 0 9 - 2020 / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27 - 03 - 2018 PASSED BY THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, AURANGABAD PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 196 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR DELAY. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, 2 ITA NO . 1911/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2013 - 14 WE FIND THAT THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BONAFIDE WHICH REALLY PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL IN TIME. THEREFORE, THE DELAY OF 196 DAYS ARE CONDONED. 3. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ACTION OF PR. CIT - 2, AURANGABAD IN TREATING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE CONTENTION OF PR. CIT - 2 WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS BANKS AND EA RNED INTEREST INCOME TO AN EXTENT OF RS.3,74,00,231/ - ON FIXED DEPOSIT AND DIVIDEND INCOME AT RS.4,00,328/ - , TOTALING TO RS.3,78,00,559/ - AND CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT AS EXEMPT U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNT FOR TAXATION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HE HELD INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED IS OTHER INCOME NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSIT S IN A CO - OPERATIVE BANK WHICH DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AS REFERRED U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT. HE PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO - OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. VS. ITO (SC) REPORTED IN 322 ITR 283 OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHICH HELD THE IN TEREST EARNED ON DEPOSITS IS NOT BUSINESS INCOME , BUT , INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREBY, HE SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE IN THE 263 PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE RESERVE S IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT NOT S HOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BUT ADDED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT. THE PR. 3 ITA NO . 1911/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2013 - 14 CIT DID NOT FIND THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AS ACCEPTABLE AND HELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND DIRECTED THE AO TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER BRINGING ENTIRE FACT S ON RECORD. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR, SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE SUBMITS THAT THE PR. CIT HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR ASSESSEE AS SUCH THE INTEREST AND DIVIDEND HAS NOT EARNED FROM CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY , FURTHER, THAT THERE WAS LACK OF ENQUIRY BY THE AO IN TERMS OF PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO - OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD. (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE INTEREST AND DIVIDEND EARNED AS DEDUCTION AS THE SAM E WERE EARNED FROM CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO PAGE 102 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF REASONS CONTAINED THEREIN. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALL THE REQUIREMENT S AS SOUGHT BY THE AO IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF REASON NO. 1 RELATING TO CLAIMS UNDER CHAPTER VI - A. FURTHER, HE REFERRED TO PAGE 99 AND SUBMITTED THE AO ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRE , THE RELEVANT QUESTION BEING AT SL. NO. 18 IN PAGE 99 WHEREIN THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS OF TAX FREE INCOME EARNED. THE RELEVANT DETAILS ARE PLACED AT PAGE 91 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, HE REFERRED TO PAGE 81 REGARDING THE CLAIM MADE U/S. 80P OF THE ACT FOR AN EXTENT OF RS.3,78,00,559/ - . HE ARGUED ALL THE DE TAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND BY VERIFICATION THE AO ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT , ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO LACK OF ENQUIRY AS FOUND BY THE PR. CIT. THE INTEREST INCOME AND DIVIDEND EARNED THEREON WERE ROOTED TO THE RESERVE ACCOUNT WITHOUT CREDIT ING IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND REFERRED TO PAGES 30 AND 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS ADDED AND COMPUTED IN 4 ITA NO . 1911/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2013 - 14 THE RETURN OF INCOME AS INCOME AND OFFERED TO TAX. F URTHER, HOLDING THE CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS DIFFERENT FROM CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND THE INCOME EARNED FROM CO - OPERATIVE BANK ON FIXED DEPOSITS TOWARDS INTEREST IS NOT BUSINESS INCOME AS HELD BY THE PR. CIT IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE. HE SUBMITS THAT THE CO - OP ERATIVE BANKS ALSO REGISTERED AS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDER MAHARASHTRA STATE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT BUT WHATEVER THE NAME IT MAY SUGGEST , BUT IN ACTUAL FACT THEY ARE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THE PR. CIT POINTED NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PRA YED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PR. CIT. 7. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR, SHRI DEEPAK GARG SUBMITS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS NOT CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE INCOME TAX RETURN AND COMPUTATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE DEDUCTION IN RETURN OF INCOME. REFERRING TO THE CONTENTIONS MADE WITH REGARD TO PAGES 99, 91, AND 80 , HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE NO SPECIFIC CLAIM U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT. THE AO WI THOUT EXAMINING THE DETAILS OF SAID CLAIM , ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE STRAIGHTWAY AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION WHICH IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE PR. CIT. FURTHER, THE LD. DR PRAYED TO TAKE ON RECORD WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY HIM. HE REFERRED TO DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. REPORTED IN (2017) 85 TAXMANN.COM 10 (BOMBAY) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE CLAIM BEFORE HIM IN DETAIL AND NO OPINION WHATSOEVER RENDERE D BY HIM ON THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ARGUED THAT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE SAID CASE IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ON HAND. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL AS RELIED ON BY THE LD . AR AND SUBMITTED THAT PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONSIDER THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. THE TOTAGARS CO - 5 ITA NO . 1911/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2013 - 14 OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY REPORTED IN (2017) 395 ITR 611 (KARN.) AND REFERRED TO PARAS 13, 14 AND 15 AND AR GUED THE AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , THEREBY ITS CONSTITUTES NO APPLICATION OF MIND AND ASSESSMENT MADE THEREON BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. FURTHER, HE PRAYED TO CONSIDER THE COPIES OF DECISION ANNEXED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE ON HAND AND PRAYED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF PR. CIT. 8. HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF LD. AR IS THAT EVERY DETAIL REGARDING THE CLAIM UNDER CHAPTER VI HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER EXAMINATION OF WHICH THE AO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED DETAILS OF THE CLAIM BEFORE THE AO BUT HOWEVER AS RIGHTLY POINTED BY THE LD. DR , T HERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THE CLAIM U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT. IN PAGE 99 OF THE PAPER BOOK AT Q. NO. 18 IT WAS SOUGHT THE DETAILS OF TAX FREE INCOME EARNED IN SUPPORT OF CL AIM AS DEDUCTION. IN REPLY TO THE SAID QUESTION THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE INTEREST OF RS.3,35,14,068/ - FROM LATUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND INTEREST OF RS.38,86,163/ - AND DIVIDEND OF RS.4,00,328/ - FROM VIKAS SAHAKARI BANK LTD. , WHEREIN WE NOTE THAT NO SPECIFIC DEDUCTION U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED. FURTHER, IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 28 - 09 - 2015 WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CLAIM U/S. 80P OF THE ACT . THEREBY, THE RECORD FURNISHED BEFORE US REGARDING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY SHOWS THE ASSESSEE MADE NO SPECIFIC CLAIM U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE AO NOR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS RIGHTLY POINTED BY THE LD. DR. 6 ITA NO . 1911/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2013 - 14 9. REGARDING WHETHER THE INTEREST AND DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM CO - OPE RATIVE BANK IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT , THE LD. DR PLACED ON RECORD THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF THE TOTAGARS CO - OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA) WHEREIN IN PARAS 13, 14 AND 15 IT IS CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT A CO - OPERATIVE BANK MAY HAVE THE CORPORATE BODY OR SKELETON OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY BUT ITS BUSINESS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND THAT IS THE BANKING BUSINESS, WHICH IS GOVERNED AND REGULATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949. FURTHER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT ONLY THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES WITH THEIR LIMITED WORK OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITY TO ITS MEMBERS CONTINUED TO BE GOVERNED BY THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80P OF THE ACT. FOR READY REFERENCE PARA 13, 14 AND 15 ARE REPRODUCED HERE - IN - BELOW : 13. WHAT SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS THOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED AND CANVASSED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, ENVISAGES IS THAT SUCH INTEREST OR DIVIDEND EARNED BY AN ASSESSEE CO - OPERATIVE SOC IETY SHOULD BE OUT OF THE INVESTMENTS WITH ANY OTHER CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE WORDS 'CO - OPERATIVE BANKS' ARE MISSING IN CLAUSE (D) OF SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. EVEN THOUGH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK MAY HAVE THE CORPORATE BODY OR SKELETON OF A C O - OPERATIVE SOCIETY BUT ITS BUSINESS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND THAT IS THE BANKING BUSINESS, WHICH IS GOVERNED AND REGULATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949. ONLY THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES WITH THEIR LIMITED WORK OF PR OVIDING CREDIT FACILITY TO ITS MEMBERS CONTINUED TO BE GOVERNED BY THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 14. THE BANKING BUSINESS, EVEN THOUGH RUN BY A CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS OF EX EMPTION OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING ON THE STATUTE BOOK SUB - SECTION (4) IN SECTION 80P OF THE ACT WAS TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT ALTOGETHER TO ANY CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND TO EXCLUDE THE NORMA L BANKING BUSINESS INCOME FROM SUCH EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION CATEGORY. THE WORDS USED IN SECTION 80P(4) ARE SIGNIFICANT. THEY ARE: 'THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY CO - OPERATIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCI ETY ..'. THE WORDS 'IN RELATION TO' CAN INCLUDE WITHIN ITS AMBIT AND SCOPE EVEN THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE, A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY FROM A CO - OPERATIVE BANK. THIS EXCLUSION BY SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT ANY AME NDMENT IN SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT IS SUFFICIENT TO DENY THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS THAT OF A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. THE DEPOSITORY KANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL BANK LIMITED IN THE 7 ITA NO . 1911/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2013 - 14 PRESENT CASE IS ADMITTEDLY NOT SUCH A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. 15. THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT EXCLUDING THE CO - OPERATIVE BANKS FROM THE DEFINITION OF 'CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY' BY FINANCE ACT, 2015 AND REQUI RING THEM TO DEDUCT INCOME TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT ALSO MAKES THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT CLEAR THAT THE CO - OPERATIVE BANKS ARE NOT THAT SPECIE OF GENUS CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY, WHICH WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION OR DEDUCTION UNDER THE SPECIA L PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VIA IN THE FORM OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 10. ON PERUSAL OF PARA 14 ABOVE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT KARNATAKA HELD THAT THE WORDS 'CO - OPERATIVE BANKS' ARE MISSING IN CLAUSE (D) OF SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. EVEN THOUGH A CO - OPERATIVE BANK MAY HAVE THE CORPORATE BODY OR SKELETON OF A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY BUT ITS BUSINESS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND THAT IS THE BANKING BUSINESS, WHICH IS GOVERNED AND REGULATED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 194 9. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM CO - OPERATIVE BANK IS SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED AS EXEMPTION OR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P (2)(D) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF SUGAR AND BY - PRODUCTS . AS RIGHTLY ARGUED BY SHRI DEEPAK GARG THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER THE ACTIVITIES OF SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUSE (D) OR (B) OF SECTION 80P, BUT UNDER CLAUSE (C), AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE EARNED INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME F ROM LATUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND VIKAS SAHAKARI BANK LTD. CLEARLY SHOWS THE INTEREST AND DIVIDEND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FROM CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THE AO ON INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS OF FACTS WITHOUT APPLYING CORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTS NON APPLICATION OF MIND. 11. COMING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED 143(3) OF THE ACT , WE NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION NOR REFERENCE MADE BY THE AO TO THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE MADE U/S. 80P2(D) OF THE ACT. THEREBY, IT SHOWS THE AO HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRY OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF 8 ITA NO . 1911/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2013 - 14 PROVISIONS CONTEMPLAT ED U/S. 80P OF THE ACT. WE FIND THE PR. CIT DIRECTED THE AO TO DECIDE THIS ISSU E AFRESH AFTER BRINGING ENTIRE FACTS ON RECORD AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE , IN OUR OPINION , THE ORDER OF PR. CIT - 2 IS VALID IN TREATING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 08 - 03 - 2016 AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE . THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF PR. CIT - 2 IS UPHELD. THUS, THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE PR. CIT 2, AURANGABAD 4 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 5 . / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE