Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. M/s. Ashapura Rubber Udyog, Nashik

ITA 1915/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7229 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Corroborative evidences; Retraction; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 147; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.1915 TO 1917/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2011-12 ACIT, CIRCLE-2, NASHIK. . /APPELLANT VS. M/S. ASHAPURA RUBBER UDYOG, PROP. RAJESH DAMJI POLDIYA, X-34, MIDC, AMBAD, NASHIK-422010. PAN : AGRPP0744M . / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI P. S. NAIK ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE / DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.04.2019 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE THREE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDERS OF CIT(A)-2, NASHIK DATED 08.06.2016. SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE COMMON IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMPOSITE ORDER. 2. SINCE THE GROUNDS ARE COMMON IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE GROUNDS IN ITA NO.1915/PUN/2016 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER :- I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A)-2, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.44,70,687/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM HAWALA DEALERS / PARTIES ? 2 ITA NOS.1915 TO 1917/PUN/2016 II) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIMS OF PURCHASES FROM IDENTIFIED HAWALA DEALERS AND SPECIFICALLY ADMITTED UNDER OATH U/S 131 OF THE ACT? III) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO LIST OUT THE BOGUS SALES IN ITS BOOKS BEFORE IT CAN CLAIM THAT ONLY PROFIT MARGIN COULD BE TAXED ? IV) WHETHER THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN PRESUMING THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN CASE OF SALES, IT WAS ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND FURTHER ASSUMING THAT THEREBY PURCHASES SHOULD BE GENUINE ? V) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, NASHIK MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICE MAY PLEASE BE RESTORED. VI) THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADDUCE SUCH FURTHER EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. VII) THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, CLARIFY, AMEND AND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN THE OCCASION DEMANDS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF HIS PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF RUBBER BUSHINGS USED IN SHOCK ABSORBER IN AUTOMOBILES. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASES FROM THE SUPPLIERS LISTED IN THE WEBSITE MAINTAINED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT THE SAID PURCHASES AS BOGUS AND MADE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IN ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS I.E. (I) RS.49,67,430/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, (II) RS.68,43,018/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND (III) RS.1,05,84,505/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ENTIRE AMOUNTS AS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OBTAINED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAID PURCHASES AS BOGUS AND OFFERED THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. ASSESSEE RETRACTED THE SAID OFFER WHILE FILING THE 3 ITA NOS.1915 TO 1917/PUN/2016 RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE AND FURNISHED EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE SAID EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE TRAIL OF GOODS, FACTS RELATING TO THE PAYMENTS ETC. 4. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAID STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTS RELATING TO ABSENCE OF THE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THIS REGARD, THE CIT(A) RELIED HEAVILY ON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KHADER KHAN SONS, 352 ITR 480 (SC) AND THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF PAUL MATHEWS & SONS VS. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (KER) AND ALSO RELIED ON THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.286/2/2003 DATED 10.03.2003 AND APPRECIATED THE REASONS FOR RETRACTION RELATING TO THE OFFER OF ENTIRE BOGUS PURCHASES INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 131 OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE BACKGROUND FACTS NARRATED ABOVE BEFORE US, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO RELIED HEAVILY ON THE STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEE U/S 131 OF THE ACT, WHERE ENTIRE SUCH PURCHASES WAS OFFERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR ALSO QUESTIONED THE RETRACTION OF THE STATEMENT AND ITS GENUINENESS. LD. DR, HOWEVER, COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE EXISTENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED EQUIVALENT PURCHASES FROM GREY MARKET IN CASH. 4 ITA NOS.1915 TO 1917/PUN/2016 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE FACTS RELATING TO THE TRAIL OF GOODS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ONE SIDE AND THE GENUINENESS OF PAYMENTS ON THE OTHER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE BOOK ENTRIES FROM THE SAID SUPPLIERS, THE EQUIVALENT PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM OTHER SOURCES FROM THE GREY MARKET. IN THAT CASE ENTIRE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT TAKEN ON OATH U/S 131 OF THE ACT ALONE IS NOT THE EVIDENCE FOR MAKING THE ENTIRE PURCHASES AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES, MERE STATEMENT IS NOT ADEQUATE ENOUGH TO MAKE SUSTAINABLE ADDITIONS. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ADDITIONS MERELY BASED ON THE STATEMENT TAKEN U/S 131 OF THE ACT. 7. WE PERUSED THE ABOVE FACTS AND CONSIDERED THE TRIBUNALS DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHREE MUKESHKUMAR PUKHRAJ MEHTA VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO.2026/PUN/2014. THIS DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.795/PUN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, DECIDED ON 28-04-2017. IN THIS CASE, WITH THE TRAIL OF GOODS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE, RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 10% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES IS ON THE FAIR SIDE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE PROCEED TO EXTRACT THE SAID PARAGRAPHS FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER :- 40. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID RATIOS, THE PRESENT ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF EACH CASE. THE FIRST ASPECT IS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED HAWALA DEALERS. IN MANY CASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN RECEIVED THE COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED OR 5 ITA NOS.1915 TO 1917/PUN/2016 ANY OTHER EVIDENCE FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT THE LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID LIST, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, WHO HAD MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES. IN CASE, NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE MAKING ADDITION, THEN THERE IS NO WARRANT IN MAKING AFORESAID ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SO CALLED LIST OF HAWALA DEALERS. THERE ARE OTHER CASES, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED THE STATEMENT OF THE PERSONS WHO WERE HAWALA DEALERS AND WHO HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE JUST ISSUED BILLS OF SALE WITHOUT DELIVERY OF GOODS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE THAT WHERE THE SELLER OF THE GOODS, HAS ADMITTED NOT TO HAVE ENTERED INTO REAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF GOODS. AGAINST SUCH NON-TRANSACTION, THERE CAN BE NO DELIVERY OF GOODS, THEN IT IS CASE OF PASSING OF BILLS OF SALE AND PURCHASES, AGAINST WHICH NO VAT HAS BEEN PAID. SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES ARE THEN TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, SUPPLIED COPIES OF STATEMENTS AND WHERE THE PERSONS HAVE NOT BEEN TRACED AND NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, THEN THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF SOME CASES, THE GOODS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BY SUCH HAWALA DEALERS TO THE RESPECTIVE PURCHASERS, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DISCHARGE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THE TRAIL OF GOODS WHICH ARE TRANSFERRED AND FURTHER SOLD BY THEM. WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OF GOODS BY WAY OF WEIGHMENT BRIDGE RECEIPTS, TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENTS, PAYMENT OF OCTROI AND SUBSEQUENT SALE OF GOODS TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES AND / OR WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS, THEN TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, BUT GP RATE OF 10% IS TO BE APPLIED ON BOGUS PURCHASES. WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT ESTABLISH ITS CASE, THEN THE COMPLETE BOGUS PURCHASES ARE TO BE ADDED AS HAWALA PURCHASES. FURTHER, IN CASES, WHERE THE STATEMENTS ARE RECORDED AND COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS AND ITS ONWARD TRANSMISSION BY WAY OF SALE BILLS, THEN THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ESTABLISHED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, THE BENEFIT OF PURCHASES BEING MADE FROM GREY MARKET, NEEDS ESTIMATION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE ADDITION BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS SO HELD. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ISSUES WHICH EMERGE ARE AS UNDER:- I. IN CASE NO INFORMATION IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE SALE TAX DEPARTMENT AND NO COPY OF STATEMENT RECORDED OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IS RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THEN NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF NAME OF HAWALA DEALER IN THE LIST PREPARED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR THE SAID INFORMATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. II. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED THE STATEMENTS OF PERSONS WHO HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE JUST ISSUED BILLS OF SALE WITHOUT ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS. IN VIEW OF SUCH EVIDENCE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO REAL TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF GOODS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS, THE SALES ARE BOGUS AND THE ENTIRE SALES ARE TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE DEALER HAD NOT EVEN PAID VAT AGAINST SUCH PASSING OF GOODS. III. THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFRONTED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND HAD SUPPLIED COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED AND HAD ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT, WHERE HAWALA DEALER WAS NOT TRACEABLE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE 6 ITA NOS.1915 TO 1917/PUN/2016 ASSESSEE FAILING TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS, ADDITION IS TO BE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES. IV. THE NEXT INSTANCE IS THE CASE OF GOODS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADMITTEDLY SOLD BY THE HAWALA DEALER AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO IN TURN HAD MAINTAINED QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF ITS MOVEMENT I.E. TRANSPORTATION DETAILS AND QUALITY CONTROL DETAILS OF CONSUMPTION OF THE SAID MATERIAL OR EXACT DETAILS OF SALE OF THE SAME CONSIGNMENT THROUGH SAME TRANSPORTER DIRECTLY TO THE PARTY, THEN THE TOTAL PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE PURCHASES ARE MADE FROM THE GREY MARKET, SOME ESTIMATION NEEDS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE ADDITION BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES, OVER AND ABOVE THE GP SHOWN BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE. V. ANOTHER SET OF CASES WHERE THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE COPIES OF SAME HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE CASE OF RECEIPT OF GOODS AND ITS ONWARD TRANSMISSION, THEN THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ESTABLISHED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, ESTIMATION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF PURCHASES FROM THE GREY MARKET AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID RATIO, ADDITION IS TO BE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 10% OF THE ALLEGED HAWALA PURCHASES, OVER AND ABOVE THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 41. NOW, COMING TO THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF EACH OF THE APPEAL, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO REFER TO THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW, WHERE NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 42. THE LEAD CASE IS IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., WHERE THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS NOT EVEN SUPPLIED THE COPY OF STATEMENT OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BOGUS. I HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN M/S. CHETAN ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO SUPPLY SUCH STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION, NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER REFERRED TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS I.E. GATE PASS, GRN AND ISSUE PASS ESTABLISH ITS CASE OF DELIVERY OF GOODS I.E. PURCHASE FROM HAWALA DEALER AND ITS ONWARDS CONSUMPTION IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE TRAIL OF GOODS PURCHASED TO THE FINAL CONSUMPTION, THEN THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI 7 ITA NOS.1915 TO 1917/PUN/2016 ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION BY WAY OF ESTIMATION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATE OF 10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. HENCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 25 TH APRIL, 2019. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-2, NASHIK. 4. THE CCIT, NASHIK. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.