Pramod Trimbak Koregaonkar, Pune V. ACIT, Range-5, Pune

ITA 2000/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1538 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NISHTHA TIWARI
• Keywords: Business income; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 PRAMOD TRIMBAK KORGAONKAR, 704, MAPLE CITY WOOD, SALISBURY PARK, OPP. POONAWAL GARDEN, PUNE-411037 PAN : ABVPK5159L ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. ACIT, RANGE-5, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : MRS. NISHTHA TIWARI / DATE OF HEARING : 01-06-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-07-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATED 31-0 8-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPE AL ON 2 ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012, A.Y. 2006-07 31-10-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,54,81,780/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28-03-2008 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,55,35,290/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FO R SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26-06-2007. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD S HOWN BUSINESS INCOME FROM TRADING OF SHARES ` 2,94,00,958/-, PROFIT FROM SPECULATION IN SHARES AND COMMODITY ` 24,69,343/- AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ` 1,37,45,845/-. APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM REMUNE RATION ` 79,923/- AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ` 50,804/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED SEPARAT E BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE DEMAT ACCOUNTS FOR TRADING OF SHARES UNDER INVE STMENT PORTFOLIO AND BUSINESS PORTFOLIO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE HUGE BORROWINGS FOR INVESTM ENT IN SHARES. NO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FOR UTILIZING BORROW ED FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES UNDER INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AND SHARES HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALIT Y OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE TREATED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARE D ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENSES AND CERTAIN OT HER EXPENSES SUCH AS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES, TELEPHONE EXPENSE S, VEHICLE EXPENSES ETC. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11-11-2008, T HE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE IMPU GNED ORDER UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING SH ORT TERM 3 ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012, A.Y. 2006-07 CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF ` 4,39,733/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) RESTRICTED THE SAME TO ` 3,78,499/- U/S. 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECO ND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON TWO GROUNDS : I. CONFIRMING THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF SHARES ` 1,37,45,845/- AS BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. II. CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,78,499/-. 4. SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS FOR S HARES HELD AS INVESTMENT AND STOCK IN TRADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNT ARILY DISCLOSED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT I.E. ` 2,94,00,958/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN SHARES. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MA DE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND THE SAME HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE S HEET. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADMITTEDLY PART OF BORROWINGS WERE UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT. THE LD. AR FURT HER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 6/2016 DATED 29-02-201 6. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE DIFFICULTIES OF T HE ASSESSEES THE CBDT HAS ISSUED ABOVE CIRCULAR. THE CBDT HAS CLEARL Y STATED THAT IN RESPECT OF SHARES AND SECURITIES, IF THE ASSESSEE DESIRE S TO TREAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER THEREOF AS CAPITAL GAIN, THE SA ME SHALL 4 ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012, A.Y. 2006-07 NOT BE PUT TO DISPUTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR FURTHER IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAWAHARLAL P. MEHTA VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 1463/PN/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECIDED ON 29-11-2013. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED THAT T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BLUE MOO N SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1019/PN/2007 DECIDED ON 2 3-07-2010. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECALLED THE AFORESAID ORDER AND HAD DEC IDED THE APPEAL AFRESH IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE SUBSEQUENT ORDER DATED 23- 08-2011. THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORD ER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BLUE MOO N SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1019/PN/2007 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DECIDED ON 23-08-2011. 5. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF IN TEREST EXPENDITURE, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BA R THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE SAME. 6. PER CONTRA, MRS. NISHTHA TIWARI REPRESENTING THE DEPA RTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IN REJECTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED SEPARAT E BANK ACCOUNT AND DEMAT ACCOUNT FOR THE ALLEGED INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER HAS ANNEX ED THE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. A PERUSAL OF T HE TRANSACTIONS WOULD SHOW THAT BARRING THREE TRANSACTIONS , HOLDING 5 ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012, A.Y. 2006-07 PERIOD OF SHARES WAS LESS THAN 6 MONTHS. THERE ARE SEV ERAL TRANSACTIONS WERE THE HOLDING PERIOD WAS LESS THAN 10 DA YS AND IN SOME OF THE CASES IT WAS ONLY 1 TO 2 DAYS AND THERE A RE TRANSACTIONS WERE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD ON SOME DAY. THE REFORE, THE FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE INTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EARN QUICK PROFITS. THE TRANSACTIONS WE RE CLEARLY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF INVESTME NT. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS, WHETHER THE GAIN ON SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES ` 1,37,45,845/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS IN FACT BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE? 8. WHETHER THE SHARES ARE HELD AS INVESTMENT OR STOCK IN TRADE IS A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOS ITION THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN MAINTAIN TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS FOR TRADING OF SHARES AND INVESTMENT IN SHARES. HOWEVER, TO MAKE SUCH CLAIM THE DU TY IS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW FROM RECORDS THAT TWO SEPA RATE PORTFOLIOS ARE MAINTAINED AND THERE IS NO IMAGINARY DISTINCTION. THE ASSES SEE IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE TWO PORTFOLIOS AS WELL AS SEPARATE DEMAT ACCOUNTS FOR SHARES HELD AS STOC K IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAG ED IN TRADING OF SHARES AND HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE HELD SHARES AND SECURIT IES FOR TRADING PURPOSE, AS WELL AS INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE FROM RECORDS THE EXISTENCE OF TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIO FOR SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT AND STOCK IN TRADE. THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT 6 ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012, A.Y. 2006-07 MAINTAINED SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR TRANSACTING THE S HARES HELD AS INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER NOT MAINTAINED SEP ARATE DEMAT ACCOUNT FOR THE SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSE E HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRANSACTING SHARES HELD A S INVESTMENTS AS WELL AS STOCK IN TRADE THROUGH SINGLE DEMAT ACCOUNT AND ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DONE THROUGH SINGLE BANK ACCOUNT. 9. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS MADE HUGE BORROWINGS FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES. THE ASSES SEE HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT PART OF BORROWINGS WERE UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES ALLEGEDLY HELD AS INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, NO PRECISE DISTINCTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE BORROWINGS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASING THE SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT. THE LD. AR POIN TED THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSEE HAS SEPARATELY SHOWN INVESTMENT IN SHARES TO THE TUNE OF ` 3.72 CRORES. HERE WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONE ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASES OF KEDARNATH JUTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 82 ITR 363, SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS L IMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 116 ITR 1 AND C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SMIFS SECURITIES LTD. REPORTED AS 348 IT R 302 HAS HELD THAT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DEM ONSTRATIVE OF THE TRUE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FURTHER REITERATED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GOPAL PUROHIT REPORTED AS 336 ITR 287 (BOM). 10. THE LD. AR HAS TRIED TO TAKE SUPPORT FROM THE DEC ISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAWAHARLAL P . MEHTA VS. 7 ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012, A.Y. 2006-07 DCIT (SUPRA). IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARE D LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE SALE OF SH ARES. THE REVENUE TREATED THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINE SS INCOME DUE TO THE VOLUME, FREQUENCY, REPETITIVENESS AND UTILIZATION OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES. IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF SHARES AND THUS WA S NOT HAVING TWO SEPARATE PORTFOLIOS FOR SHARES HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE AND SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENT. IN FACT THERE WAS SPECIFIC PLEA ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED PERSON AND HA S NO INFRASTRUCTURE FOR DOING BUSINESS. IN THE BACKDROP OF THESE FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES WHERE HOLDING PERIOD OF SHA RES IS LESS THAN 30 DAYS SHOULD BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AN D THE REMAINING AMOUNT SHOULD BE TREATED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, AS THE CASE MAY BE. WE FIND THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE ANY ADVANTAGE FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION. 11. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 6/2016 DATED 29-02-2016. THE SAID CIRC ULAR IS IN THE CONTEXT OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES, WHETHER TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOM E. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CIRCULAR IS REPRODUCED HERE-IN-BELOW : 3.DISPUTES, HOWEVER, CONTINUE TO EXIST ON THE APPL ICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE FACTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL CASE SINCE THE TAXPAYERS FIND IT DIFFICULT TO PROVE THE INTENTION IN ACQUIRING SUCH SHARES/SECURITIES. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT NO UNIVERSAL PRI NCIPAL IN ABSOLUTE TERMS CAN BE LAID DOWN TO DECIDE THE CHARACTER OF I NCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES (I.E. WHETHER THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME), CBDT REALIZING THAT MAJOR PART OF 8 ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012, A.Y. 2006-07 SHARES/SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS TAKES PLACE IN RESPE CT OF THE LISTED ONES AND WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE LITIGATION AND UNCERTAINT Y IN THE MATTER, IN PARTIAL MODIFICATION TO THE AFORESAID CIRCULARS, FU RTHER INSTRUCTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS IN HOLDING WHETHER THE SURPLUS G ENERATED FROM SALE OF LISTED SHARES OR OTHER SECURITIES WOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME, SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOW ING- A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE P ERIOD OF HOLDING THE LISTED SHARES AND SECURITIES, OPTS TO TREAT THE M AS STOCK-IN- TRADE, THE INCOME ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF SUCH SHA RES/SECURITIES WOULD BE TREATED AS ITS BUSINESS INCOME, B) IN RESPECT OF LISTED SHARES AND SECURITIES HELD FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF ITS TRANSFER, IF THE ASSESSEE DESIRES TO TREAT THE INCO ME ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER THEREOF AS CAPITAL GAIN, THE SAME SHAL L NOT BE PUT TO DISPUTE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THIS STA ND, ONCE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, SH ALL REMAIN APPLICABLE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO AND THE TAXPAYERS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT A DIFFERENT /CONTRARY STAND IN THIS REGARD IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS; C) IN ALL OTHER CASES, THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION (I .E. WHETHER THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS I NCOME) SHALL CONTINUE TO BE DECIDED KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAI D CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE CBDT. 12. A PERUSAL OF CLAUSE (B) REPRODUCED ABOVE WOULD SHOW THAT WHERE THE SHARES ARE HELD FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 12 MONTH S, THE REVENUE SHALL NOT DISPUTE THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON T RANSFER OF SHARES AS CAPITAL GAIN, PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE CONSISTENTL Y TREAT THOSE SHARES AS INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE SHARES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN ARE HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD LESS THAN 6 MONTHS AND IN SOME OF THE CASES THE HOLDING PERIOD IS EVEN LESS THAN 10 DAYS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE SHELTER OF THIS CBDT CIRCULAR. 9 ITA NO. 2000/PN/2012, A.Y. 2006-07 13. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND A NY MERIT IN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO TREAT THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE GRO UND NO. 1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 14. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF IN TEREST EXPENDITURE OF ` 3,78,499/-, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 2. THE SAME IS D ISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 22 ND JULY, 2016 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-III, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE