Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Shri Venkateshwara Agricultural Farm, Kolhapur

ITA 2041/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1072 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Source of fund
• Section: 10B; 68; 148; 132; 139

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. 2041/PN/2014 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI, DISTT.-KOLHAPUR ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. SHRI VENKATESHWARA AGRICULTURAL FARM, CHANDAN 8 TH LANE, A/P JAYSINGPUR, TAL.-SHIROL, DISTT.-KOLHAPUR PAN : AAEFV5838L / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 18-08-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-08-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR DATED 25-08 -2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EARLIER, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 23-09-2011 WHILE DECIDING BUNCH OF 31 APPEALS INCLUDING THE APPEAL OF ASS ESSEE IN 2 ITA NO. 2041/PN/2014, A.Y. 2002-03 ITA NO. 755/PN/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 REMITT ED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO LOAN TRANSACTION AND ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF DONATIONS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE : A SEARCH AND SEIZURE U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDEN TIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES IN THE CASE OF MALU GROUP ON 20-07-2005. THE A SSESSEE IS A FIRM AND DERIVED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON 30-07-200 2 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AS NIL AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 3,60,758/-. AFTER SEARCH, NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO TREAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S. 139 AS RETURN FILED IN COMPLIAN CE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA MADE ADDITION OF ` 20 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS FROM SHRI J.H. MANIYAR AND ` 17 LAKHS DONATIONS MADE TO TIRUPATHI DEVASTHAN. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW CREDITWOR THINESS OF SHRI J.H. MANIYAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CIRCULATED ITS OWN UNEXPLAINED FUNDS THROUGH SHRI J.H. MANIY AR AS LOAN. ADDITION OF ` 20 LAKHS WAS MADE PROTECTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS. IN RESPECT OF ` 17 LAKHS DONATIONS TO TIRUPATHI DEVASTHAN, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF DONATIONS WAS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE-CASTED CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AN D HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOM E FOR MAKING DONATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE DIFFERENCE BETWE EN 3 ITA NO. 2041/PN/2014, A.Y. 2002-03 INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME A ND THE FUNDS GENERATED AFTER THE RECASTING OF THE CASH FLOW AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES. AFTER THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY TRIBUNAL, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DELET ED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS FROM SHRI J.H. MANIYA R AS WELL AS DONATIONS MADE TO THE TIRUPATHI DEVASTHAN. WHILE DELE TING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PLACED RELIANCE ON HIS OWN ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJENDRA MALU, THE MAIN PERSON OF MALU GROUP DECIDED ON 0 1-08- 2014. IN RESPECT OF DONATIONS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT EVEN IF PART OF AGRICULTURAL SALES WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AGRICULTURE INCOME, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ASSESSED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE A SSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR DONATION, WHETHER FROM AGRICULTURA L INCOME FOR FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEH EMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON BOTH THE ISSU ES. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED UNSECURED LOAN OF ` 20 LAKHS FROM SHRI J.H. MANIYAR. SHRI J.H. MANIYAR IS STATED TO HAVE INCOME FROM EXPORT OF SOFTWARE. HOWEVER, SHRI J.H. MAN IYAR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH FROM DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THE SOURCE OF INCOME FROM EXPORT. FURTHER, THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGEDLY CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE DONATION OF ` 17 LAKHS TO TIRUPATHI DEVASTHAN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE AN Y DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SOURCE OF THE SAME FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 4 ITA NO. 2041/PN/2014, A.Y. 2002-03 4. PER CONTRA, SHRI M.K. KULKARNI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI J UGALKISHOR MANIYAR VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS. 99, 100 & 101/NAG/2011 FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03 AND 2003-04 DECIDED ON 23-11-2 012. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED GENUINENESS OF SOFTWARE EXPORT BUSINESS. SHRI J.H. MANIYAR HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS AND WAS MAN OF MEANS FOR EXTENDING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN CASTING ASPERSIONS ON THE SOFTWARE EXPORT BUSINESS OF S HRI J.H. MANIYAR. 4.1 IN RESPECT OF DONATIONS MADE TO TIRUPATHI DEVASTHAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS HAVING SUFFICIENT INCOME FOR MAKING DONATIONS. EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD AGRICULT URAL INCOME WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, ASSESSEE HAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS CHANGED THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX ON THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING INCOME AT ALL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER O F COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. BOTH SIDES HEARD. ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW PER USED. THE TWO ISSUES WHICH HAVE EMERGED FROM THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL SIDES ARE : 5 ITA NO. 2041/PN/2014, A.Y. 2002-03 I. UNEXPLAINED LOAN FROM SHRI J.H. MANIYAR, AND II. DONATIONS TO TIRUPATHI DEVASTHAN. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION OF ` 20 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI J. H. MANIYAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RAISED DOUBT OVER THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE LENDER. ALTHOUGH, THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED BY DEMAND DRA FT AND BANKING CHANNELS YET THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ASSES SEE HAS CIRCULATED ITS OWN UNEXPLAINED FUNDS THROUGH SHRI J.H. MUNIY AR AS LOAN. SHRI J.H. MANIYAR IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXP ORT OF SOFTWARE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER ABOUT THE SOFTWARE EXPORT BUSINESS OF SHRI J.H. MANIYAR A ND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT SHRI J.H. MANIYAR HAS NO SUCH EXPORT INCO ME TO LEND MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIO N OF ` 20 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR, WHICH ARE PRIMARILY BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI JUGALKISHOR MANIYAR VS. ACIT (SUPRA). THE TR IBUNAL IN THE ORDER HAS HELD THAT SHRI JUGALKISHOR MANIYAR WAS ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF SOFTWARE AND WAS DERIVING INCOME TH ERE FROM. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGA RD ARE AS UNDER : 6.1 AGAINST THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE REV ENUE FILED THE MISC. APPLICATION, WHICH WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUN AL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25/07/2011. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXP ORT OF THE SOFTWARE. THE FACTS INVOLVED IN ALL THESE YEARS ARE ALSO THE SAME. ALL THESE YEARS HAVE BEEN REOPENED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 07/03/ 2007 BY INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO THE F ACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S 10B HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THUS, IN OUR OPINION, THE BASIS OF THE REOPENING OF ALL THESE AS SESSMENT YEARS IS THE 6 ITA NO. 2041/PN/2014, A.Y. 2002-03 DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 AS WELL AS THEIR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE SU RVEY REPORT. WE ALSO NOTED THAT ALONG WITH EACH AND EVERY INVOICE, THROU GH WHICH THE EXPORT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, CERTIFICATE ISSUED B Y THE DY. DIRECTOR (TECH.) OF STPI WAS ATTACHED. THIS CERTIFICATE CLEA RLY STATES THAT THE SOFTWARE DESCRIBED WERE ACTUALLY TRANSMITTED AND TH E EXPORT VALUE DECLARED BY THE EXPORTER HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE IN OR DER AND ACCEPTED BY THAT AUTHORITY. ONCE THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED BY T HE STPI, THERE REMAINS NO DOUBT THAT THE EXPORT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DULY VERIFIED BY THE STPI, WHICH IS ONE OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY. THIS I S THE SETTLED LAW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF DURGA DAS RAWAT MAL 87 ITR 369 THAT THE APPARENT IS REAL, ONU S IS ON THE PERSON WHO ALLEGES APPARENT IS NOT REAL. WE HAVE GONE THRO UGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT WE DO NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE W HICH MAY PROVE THAT THE EXPORT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS. THERE HA D BEEN SURVEY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NO SPECIFIC MATERIAL W AS BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD WHICH MAY DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE THE EXPORT BUT HAS IN FACT BROUGHT HIS OWN FUNDS AT THE PRETEXT OF EXPORT BEING MADE. WHENEVER THE EXPORTS ARE TO BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO FOLLOW GUIDELINES ISSUED BY TH E STPI AND HAS ALSO TO SUBMIT FIRMS BEFORE THE RBI UNDER THE FEMA ALONG WITH THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STPI CERTIFYING THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE EXPORTER TO BE IN ORDER AND ACCEPTED BY THE STPI. THIS FORM HAS BEEN FILED ALONG WITH EACH AND EVERY INVOICE UNDER THE FEMA. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE STPI HAS NOT TO ISSUE ANY CERTIFICATE BEFORE THE EXPORT ABOU T THE DECLARATION OF THE EXPORT CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIN D EVEN A SINGLE INSTANCE, WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE GUIDELINES IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S MAINLY RELIED ON A LETTER DATED 03/01/2007 ISSUED BY STPI TO THE ASSES SEE ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN INFORMATION. THIS LETTE R IS ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY WHEN ACTUALLY EXPORT HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE AND ALSO AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IS APPARENT FR OM PARA 6 OF THE LETTER DATED 22/07/2009 WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSMENT. DIRECTO R, STPI, MAHARASHTRA TO ACIT, CIRCIE-NAGPUR. THIS PARA READS AS UNDER: 6. AS REGARDS CONTENTS OF PARA NO.6 OF YOUR AFORESA ID LETTER, ALL THE THEN DEALING OFFICIALS IN OUR OFFICE HAVE CHANGED. YOU W ILL APPRECIATE THAT THE SOLE REASON BEHIND SENDING OUR LETTER DATED 3 RD JA NUARY 2007 TO THE SAID STP UNIT WAS TO EXPEDITE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY YOUR OFFICE AND NOTHING ELSE. IN FACT, IT IS NOTHING BUT AN OFFSHOO T OF LETTER NO. ITO(INV.)/NGP/JHS/2006-07 DATED 13.12.06 & LETTER N O. ITO(INV.)/NGP/JHS/2006-07 DATED 21.12.06 RECEIVED B Y US FROM THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (INV.), NAGPUR. AS REGARDS SOFTE X FORMS CERTIFIED BY OUR OFFICE AND THE NATURE OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BY M/S JAI HARI SOFTECH, WE WISH TO STATE THAT CERTIFICATION OF THE SAID FORMS WAS DONE BY THE THEN CONCERNED OFFICIALS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SOFTEX FORMS AS ALREADY EXPLAINED IN PARA NO.2 ABOV E. 6.2 IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCE OF FACTS AS COMPARED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 2005 THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGO RICALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS O F THE EXPORT OF THE SOFTWARE BY IT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IS BINDING ON US. RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALL T HE YEARS AND THUS ALLOW 7 ITA NO. 2041/PN/2014, A.Y. 2002-03 THE GROUND NO. 5 TO 13 OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 10B OF T HE ACT. 7. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI J.H. MUNIYAR SHOWS THAT EXPORT OF SOFTWARE CARRIED OUT BY H IM WAS GENUINE. THE ASSERTIONS OF THE REVENUE CASTING DOUBT OVER THE S OFTWARE EXPORT BUSINESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI J.H. MUNIYAR IS WITHOU T ANY BASIS. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVE NUE AGAINST DELETING OF ADDITION BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) O N ACCOUNT OF LOAN OF ` 20 LAKHS FROM SHRI J.H. MUNIYAR. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 8. THE SECOND ISSUE IN APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DONATIONS TO TIRUPATHI DEVASTHAN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURE INCOME FOR MAKING DONATIONS TO TIRUPATHI DEVAST HAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE-CASTED CASH FLOW OF THE ASSESSEE AND TRANSFERRED PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES. THE EXERCISE DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RECASTING THE CA SH FLOW, HOWEVER, DID NOT CHANGE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY CHANGED THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BY CHANGING THE HEAD OF INCOME ALONE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T HAVING SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR MAKING DONATIONS. THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME HAS TO BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CASH FLO W, WHETHER INCOME IS ASSESSED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OR IT IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 8 ITA NO. 2041/PN/2014, A.Y. 2002-03 ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETING OF ADDITION OF ` 17 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF DONATIONS TO TIRUPATHI DEVASTHAN ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN GROUND NO. 7 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDING S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BEING BAD IN LAW AND N OT MAINTAINABLE. HOWEVER, THE LD. DR HAS NOT ADVANCED ANY AR GUMENTS ON THIS GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 26 TH AUGUST, 2016 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR 4. ' / THE CIT-I/II, KOLHAPUR/CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE