Sulhyan Ranjitshingh Ramsingh, Sangli V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1933/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93740 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Assessment record
• Section: 142(1); 144; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI SULHYAN RANJITSINGH RAMSINGH, 815/1D, SHIVAJI ROAD, MIRAJ 416410, DIST. SANGLI . APPELLANT PAN: ADWPS1024R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), SANGLI. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. DEEPA KHARE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 07-05-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-05-2015 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF TWO APPEALS, ONE APPEAL IS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), KOLHAPUR DATED 16.09.2 013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ANOTHER APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT(A), KOLHAPUR, DATED 16.09.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAI NST THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 . 2. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO SAME ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1932/PN/2013 HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED IN TIME. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAIL ED TO APPRECIATE THAT ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 2 THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED WITHIN SPECIFI ED TIME AND THE ASSESSMENT BECOMES BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.48,55,596/- IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PROPE RTY. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF BUILDING OF RS. 7,87,673/- WHICH WAS INDEXED FURTHER ON THE GROUND THAT THE CAPITAL ASSE T SOLD WAS ONLY OPEN PLOT AND NOT BUILDING. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY OR SU BSTITUTE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) O F THE ACT. 5. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,49,270/- ON 1 8.09.2009. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE AC T ON 22.10.2009. THEREAFTER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED F OR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND THE FIRST NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE AC T WAS ISSUED ON 31.08.2010. THE SAID NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 13. 09.2010 FOR HEARING ON 16.09.2010. THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NO TICE AND THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. FROM D AY TO DAY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REQUISITE INFORMATION ON LATER DATE A ND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BY WAY OF GROUND OF AP PEAL NO.1 AGGRIEVED BY NON-SERVICE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143( 2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ON THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, THERE IS SI GNATURE OF ONE SHOBHA KISHAN JADHAV, WHO IS NOT CONNECTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THOU GH, THERE IS SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS STAMP BUT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DAT E. ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 3 7. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD RAISED SAID GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE SAME WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED THEREOF WAS NOT PROPER. THE CIT(A) HAD E XAMINED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND PERUSED THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31.08.2010. THE SAID NOTICE WAS ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE AT HIS GIVEN ADDRESS AND WAS DULY S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 13.09.2010 BY THE DEPARTMENTAL NOTICE SERVER, SHRI S. G. JOSHI. THERE IS SIGNATURE OF ONE SHOBHA KISHAN JADHAV, RUBBER STAMP OF THE ASSESSEE, PROFESSOR AND HOD OF THERMOLOGY, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, MIRAJ AND THERE WAS ALSO SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE, DR. R.R. SULHYAN, WHICH WAS SAME AS DONE BY HIM ON THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A). IN VIEW THEREOF, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THER E WAS NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE AS SESSEE. 8. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD WHERE THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ALONG WITH HIS OFFICIAL RUBBER STAMP. THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGNATURE OF THE STRANGER AS PER THE ASSESSEE OF SH OBHA KISHAN JADHAV, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAI D NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. WHERE AS THE NOTICE BORE THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE SAME AS APPEAR ING ON VARIOUS OTHER APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NECESSARY VE RIFICATION IN THIS REGARD HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND NO M ERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. WE ALSO FIND NO MERIT IN THE NEXT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 13.09.2010, ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 4 IN VIEW OF THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID NOTICE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. WE DISMISS THE GROUND APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.2 AND 3 R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN S ON SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS AN OWNER OF LAND AND BUILDING BEARING HOUSE NO.2821-1(1) IN MIRAJ, T AL. AND SUB-DIVISION MIRAJ, DIST. AND DIVISION SANGLI ADMEASURING 1624.80 SQ.MT RS.. THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTY AS PER THE AGREEMENT ENTE RED INTO IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 TO LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF IN DIA, COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IS PLACED ON RECORD. AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES CONSENTED TO CONSIDERATION O F RS.1,84,33,000/- ON WHICH STAMP DUTY OF RS.9,21,650/- WAS PAID AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE AGREEMENT TO SELL. AS PER THE PREAMBLE TO THE SAID AGREEMENT, T HE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY WAS DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY OWNE D AND POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS KARTA AND MANAGER OF THE HUF. THE ASSE SSEE AGREED TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTY TO LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDI A ON THE MUTUALLY AGREED TERMS AND CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT WAS AGREED THAT THE C ONSIDERATION WAS TO BE PAID FIRST ON THE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THEN ON THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE-DEED. THE EXPENSES FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SALE-DEED WERE TO BE BORNE BY BOTH THE PARTIES IN EQUAL SHARES. IT WAS FURTHE R AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF A GREEMENT TO SELL, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CLEAR THE SI TE UPTO GROUND LEVEL AND REMOVE THE ENTIRE MATERIAL OF THE DEMOLISHED BUILDI NG FROM THE SITE IN APPROPRIATE MANNER, SINCE THE PURCHASER WAS DESIROUS OF CONSTRU CTING BUILDING FOR ITS REQUIREMENT ON THE SAID SITE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE DEMOLISHED THE ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 5 STRUCTURE ON THE SITE AND THE SALE-DEED WAS COMPLET ED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE COPY OF THE SALE-DEED IS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK A T PAGES 4 TO 41. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD DEC LARED HIS SHARE OF INCOME ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION BUT HAD RECOMPUTED THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY ADOPTING ONLY THE COST O F LAND AS COST OF ACQUISITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO BENEFIT WAS GIVEN TO THE COST OF BUILDING BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD AGREED TO SELL ONLY THE LAND TO THE PURCHASER I.E. LIC. THE CIT(A) HAS UPH ELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD, AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE SHORT QUESTION ARISING BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE ON WHI CH HE AGREED TO SELL THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, WHERE THE SAID BUILDING WAS DEM OLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LINE WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO B ETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED HIS RIGHTS, WHETHER ASSESSEE W AS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION BOTH ON ACCOUNT OF LAND AND BUILDING IN THIS REGARD. THE PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT I.E. AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THE SALE-DEED REFLECTS THAT IN THE SCHEDULE, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS GI VEN AS UNDER :- SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY NON-AGRICULTURAL PLOT OF LAND WITH BUILDINGS, BEARI NG FINAL PLOT NO.124 OF MIRAJ, (OLD N.A. PLOT BEARING R.S.NO.810, HISSA NO. 1 OF MIRAJ, ADM.1624.8 SQM.) LYING WITHIN LIMITS OF MIRAJ, TAL. AND SUB-DIVN. MI RAJ, DIST. AND DIVN. SANGLI, WITHIN LOCAL LIMITS OF SANGLI-MIRAJ-KUPWAD CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, H.NO.2821-1(1) ADMEASURING 1624.8 SQ.MTRS. BOUNDED BY : ON THE EAST : MAIN ROAD. ON THE SOUTH : F.P. NO.124/1. ON THE WEST : F.P. NO.128, 129. ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 6 ON THE NORTH : F.P. NO.123/1. HENCE THE PROPERTY WITH CONSTRUCTION, FIXTURES, FIT TINGS, RIGHTS AND EASEMENTS ATTACHED THEREWITH. 12. THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES ALSO REFLECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF THE PROPER TY WHICH COMPRISED OF LAND AND BUILDING. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE NEEDS OF THE PURCHASER I.E. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA WHICH WANTED TO CONSTRUCT A NE W BUILDING ON THE SAID SITE, IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE ASSESSEE AF TER EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, WITHIN 45 DAYS THEREOF, WOULD DE MOLISH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CLEAR THE SITE UPTO THE GROUND LEVEL AND REMOVE THE ENTIRE MATERIAL OF THE DEMOLISHED BUILDING FROM THE SITE IN APPROPRIATE MA NNER AND THEN AFTER PHYSICAL VERIFICATION AND SATISFACTION BY THE PURCHASER, THE SALE-DEED WAS TO BE EXECUTED AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF THE BALANCE 50% AMOUNT OF AG REED CONSIDERATION. THE ABOVE SAID TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AND SALE-DEED ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ENTERI NG INTO THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT THE SITE, THE COST OF WHICH WAS BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISPOSED-O FF ITS PROPERTY IN ENTIRETY TO THE PURCHASER BUT ONLY AFTER DEMOLISHING ITS BUILDI NG. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF BOTH LAND AND BUILDING IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION SINCE THE ASSET SOLD BY THE AS SESSEE COMPRISED OF BOTH LAND AND BUILDING. MERELY BECAUSE THE SAID BUILDIN G WAS DEMOLISHED, IN VIEW OF THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PARTIES, WOULD NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCO UNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAID BUILDING. IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE ABOVE SA ID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCO ME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AF TER ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 7 INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF BOTH LAND AND BUILDI NG. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 AND 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED . 13. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1933/PN/2013 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WAS NO NO N-COMPLIANCE ON 5.8.2013 FOR WHICH DATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WER E INITIATED. 2. LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IMPO SING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ON 18/1/2013, 18/3/201 3 AND 15/4/5013 FOR WHICH NO NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) WERE ISSUED. THE PEN ALTY FOR THESE DATES THEREFORE IS NOT VALID AND MAY BE CANCELLED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY OR SU BSTITUTE ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 14. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELA TION TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/-. 15. THE CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE DEFAULT OF THE ASSESS EE IN NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE HIM ON VARIOUS DATES HAD HELD THE ASSESSEE L IABLE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/-. 16. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 17. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT HAD ISSU ED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT DATED 04.09.2013. IN THE SAI D NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED TO EXPLAIN WITH REASONABLE CAUSE FOR HI S NON-APPEARANCE ON 05.08.2013. THEREAFTER, THE CIT(A) HAD LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/-. THE PERUSAL O F THE SAID ORDER REFLECTS THAT ON ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 8 THE AFORESAID DATE I.E. 05.08.2013, FOR WHICH THE S HOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HIMSELF ADMITS THAT AN ADJOURNMENT REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ITP WA S OUT OF STATION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE ON 05.08.2013 HAD MOVED AN APPL ICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THIS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE W AS NO DEFAULT IN NON- APPEARANCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE SAID DATE I.E. 05.08.2013. THOUGH, THE CIT(A) RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPE AR BEFORE HIM ON 18.01.2013, 18.03.2013 AND 15.04.2013 BUT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THA T ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS WERE MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 08.05.2013, 27.06.201 3, 03.07.2013, 18.07.2013 AND 05.08.2013. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) AT RS.10,000/- IS SILENT ABOUT TH E EXACT DATE OF DEFAULT, THOUGH THE NOTICE ISSUED BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT HAD MENTIONED THE DATE I.E. 05.08.2013. IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING PUT IN APPEARANCE ON 05.08.2013 BY WAY OF AN ADJOURNMENT A PPLICATION, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AT RS.10,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE SAM E. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THUS ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.1932/PN/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT IN ITA NO.1933/PN/2013 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 20 TH MAY, 2015 SUJEET ITA NOS.1932 & 1933/PN/2013 9 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR; 4) THE CIT, KOLHAPUR; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE