Maxpro Associates, Raigad V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2087/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1742 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVIN PATIL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Loose papers; Reasonable cause; Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MAXPRO ASSOCIATES, B-1, ASHOKA GARDEN, MAHATMA PHULE ROAD, PANVEL, DIST. RAIGAD - 410206 PAN NO.AAMFM7500R . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAVIN PATIL / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 07-08-2014 OF THE CIT(A)-I, THANE RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1 LAKH U/S.271B BY THE AO AND UPH ELD BY THE CIT(A) IS THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. / DATE OF HEARING :31.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.05.2016 2 ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-03-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,88,33,300/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THE ASSESSEE FIRM SUBMITTED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AFT ER AUDITING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S.44AB. IN THE SAID REVIS ED COMPUTATION, TOTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED AT RS.5,33,87,722/-. T HE INCOME WAS REVISED ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION AND DISALLOWANCE OF SERVICE CHARGES U/S.40(A)(IA). FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FIRM CARRIED OUT THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING OF LAND FOR THE PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS IN RAIGAD DISTRICT ESPECIALLY IN AND AROUND PANVEL. THE ASSESSEE FIRM MAINLY PURCHASED LAND FOR HIRANANDINI GROUP. DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALES AT RS.48,30,40,349/-. AFT ER CLAIMING DEPRECIATION, BAD DEBTS AND OTHER BUSINESS EXPENSES THE NET PROFIT WAS DECLARED AT RS.4,88,33,300/-. A SURVEY U/S.133A WAS CONDUCTED AT ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES ON 10-01-2 008. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS, DOCUMENTS ET C WERE IMPOUNDED. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB ON LY ON 24-03-2010. ACCORDING TO THE AO, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE GOT HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND FURNISHED SUCH AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DUE DATE WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE IS 30-09-2008. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S GOT ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S.44AB ONLY ON 24-03-2010, THEREFORE , HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U /S.271B SHOULD NOT BE INITIATED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SI NCE HIS ACCOUNTANT LEFT THE JOB, THE BOOKS WERE NOT COMPLETE AN D THESE WERE 3 ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 COMPLETED LATER BY THE NEW ACCOUNTANT FOR WHICH THERE WAS DELAY IN GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED. 4. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IT WAS AGREED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED AFTER THE SPECIFIED DUE DATE AND T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY E VIDENCE, THE AO, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SARASWATI ELECTRONICS VS. ITO REPORTED IN 292 ITR 411 REJECTED SUCH EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PEN ALTY OF RS.1 LAKH U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMIS SIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACCOUN TS FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08, I.E. PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS OBTAINED ON 11-02-2009 AND THE AUDIT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION COULD BE COMPLETED ONLY AFTER THE AUDIT FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED LEAVING OF THE J OB BY THE ACCOUNTANT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS N O ABSOLUTE DEFAULT BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ATLEAST OB TAINED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S.44AB AFTER THE SPECIFIED DUE DATE. RELY ING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B SHOULD BE DELETED. 6. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THOUG H THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ACCOUNTANT HAD LEFT THE JOB AND THE BOOKS COULD BE COMPLETED ONLY AFTER THE NE W ACCOUNTANT JOINED, HOWEVER THE SAME WAS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE NAME OF THE OLD ACCOUNTANT AND WHEN HE 4 ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 LEFT THE JOB AND WHEN THE NEW ACCOUNTANT HAD JOINED ET C. DISTINGUISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM, THE LD.C IT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 7. THE AUTHORISED PERSON ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FILED W RITTEN SUBMISSION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S.4 4AB OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 WAS OBTAINED ON 11-02-2009. TH EREFORE, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S.44AB OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE, I.E. 30-09-2008, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ITSELF IS A REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH PRE VENTED THE ASSESSEE IN NOT GETTING ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED U/ S.44AB BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YRS. 2006-07 AN D 2007-08 VIDE ITA NOS.918 AND 919/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 27-11-20 13 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271 B BY THE AO WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE DE CISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HEMANT RAM CHANDRA DAKE VIDE ITA NO.920/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 26-11-2013 F OR A.Y. 2007-08 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRACHIN LAND INFRA PVT. LTD. V IDE ITA NO.917/PN/2013 ORDER DATED 26-11-2013 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE FACTS IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS O F THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED AN Y EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE ACCOUNTANT HAS LEFT TH E JOB FOR 5 ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 WHICH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE AUDITED BEFORE T HE SPECIFIED ATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB BY NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS A UDITED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE AND FILING THE AUDIT REPORT BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SUST AINING THE PENALTY OF RS.1 LAKH LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE AO IN THE INSTANT CA SE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1 LAKH ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S GOT ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED ONLY ON 24-03-2010 AS AGAINST THE SP ECIFIED DATE OF 30-09-2008. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACCOUNTANT HAS LEFT THE JOB AND THE ASSESSEE COULD GET ITS ACCOUNT S AUDITED ONLY AFTER JOINING OF THE NEW ACCOUNTANT AND THEREFORE THERE WAS REASONABLE CASE FOR SUCH DEFAULT WAS REJECTED BY THE A O. ACCORDING TO THE AO, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING HIS BUSINESS WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN CRORES WITHOU T ANY ACCOUNTANT. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE, THE NAME OF THE OLD ACCOUNTANT WHO HAD LEFT THE JOB AND ON WHICH DATE THE NEW ACCOUNTANT JOINED THE SERVICE, ET C. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE ACCOUNTS OF A.Y . 2006-07 AND 2007-08 WERE AUDITED ONLY ON 11-02-2009, THEREFORE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DUE DATE, I.E. 30-09-2 008. 6 ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 THEREFORE, THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. 10. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED U/S.271B IN A.YRS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDIT ED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 27-11- 2013 HAS DELETED SUCH PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271B FOR A.YRS. 20 06-07 AND 2007-08. THEREFORE, WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE A.Y. 2007-0 8 WAS AUDITED ON 11-02-2009, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S.44AB FOR A.Y. 2008-09 BEFORE 30-09-2008. ALTHO UGH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE THE SUDD EN LEAVING OF THE OLD ACCOUNTANT AND THAT THE NEW ACCOUNTANT TOOK SOME TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE JOB BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ACCO UNTS FOR PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE AUDITED ONLY ON 11-02- 2009. WITHOUT THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 T HE OPENING BALANCE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 CANNOT BE VE RIFIED. NO AUDITOR WILL AUDIT THE ACCOUNTS OF A SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITHOUT HAVING THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, THERE IS SOME FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT WITHOUT THE AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2007-08 THE A UDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE. F URTHER, THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.533,87,720/- IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) ON 14-12-20 10 WHICH IS THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVIS ED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. 7 ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 11. WE FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HEMANT RAMCHANDRA DAKE (SUPRA) WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271B HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND THE CIT(A). IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS OBT AINED THE AUDIT REPORT ON 16-01-2009 AS AGAINST THE STATUTORY DUE DATE OF 31-10-2007. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE DEFAULT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACCOUNTANT HAS LEFT THE JOB IN THE MID DLE OF THE F.Y. 2006-07 HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. W E, THEREFORE, FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CA USE ON HIS PART FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUE DATE. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS THAT MERE FAIL URE TO FILE AUDIT REPORT IN TIME WILL NOT JUSTIFY LEVY OF PENALTY SINCE POWER U/S.271B IS DISCRETIONARY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, DUE TO THE LEAVIN G OF SERVICE BY THE ACCOUNTANT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE FIN ALISED IN TIME FOR WHICH THERE WAS DELAY IN GETTING THE AUDIT REPOR T AND FINALLY THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE AUDIT REPORT ON 16-01-2009. F URTHER, THE RETURNED INCOME AT RS.8,51,340/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CA SE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. WE, THEREFORE, SET- ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CANCEL THE P ENALTY. 12. FURTHER, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRACHIN LAND INFRA PVT. LTD. WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.27 1B HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.36,249/- FOR OBTAINING THE AUDIT REPORT ON 11-02-2009 AS AGAINST THE STATUTORY DUE DATE OF RS.31-10- 2007. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY SO L EVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE GIVING THE BONAFIDE REASONS FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUE DATE. FROM THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.61,3 7,420/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED AT RS.55,62,383/- BY MAKI NG ADDITION OF RS.5,75,033/- WHICH CONSISTS OF DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION OF RS.5 LAKHS AND PRELIMINARY EXPENSES OF RS.75,003/-. IN OTHER WOR DS, THE VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES AND INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST T HE SAME ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDIT ED ON 11-02- 2009 AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-03-2009, WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENAL TY U/S.271B FOR DELAY IN GETTING THE AUDIT REPORT U/S.44AB. 8 ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 6.1 WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) REGARDING THE REA SONS FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE STATUTORY DAT E ON THE GROUND THAT TILL THE DATE OF FINALIZATION OF THE ACCOUNTS A ND AUDIT NO AGREEMENT COULD BE REACHED WITH M/S. MARATHON PRACHIN INFRASTRU CTURE PVT. LTD. REGARDING THE PRICES AT WHICH THE LANDS WOULD BE TRAN SFERRED AND THE CONTRACT WAS AT STAKE ABOUT ITS FURTHER CONTINUATION. DUE TO SUCH UNCERTAINTIES ABOUT THE PROFITS ON THE BUSINESS TRANSACTI ONS NO INCOME COULD BE RECOGNISED AND THEREFORE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS WERE INCOMPLETE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AND ACCOUNTS WERE NO T AUDITED. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT MERE FAILURE TO FI LE AUDIT REPORT IN TIME WILL NOT JUSTIFY LEVY OF PENALTY AS POWER US.271B IS DISCRETIONARY (HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THANJAVUR S ILK HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD . VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 263 ITR 334). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BE EN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CA PITAL ELECTRONICS (GARIAHAT) REPORTED IN 261 ITR 4. SINCE IN THE INST ANT CASE, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE DEFAULT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AUDIT REPORT ALTHOUGH BELATEDLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE RE WAS BONAFIDE REASONS FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE TH E STATUTORY DUE DATE AND THEREFORE THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET-ASI DE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CANCEL THE P ENALTY LEVIED U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 13. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND I N VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED (SUP RA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FO R LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO CANCEL THE PENALTY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-05-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; # DATED : 31 ST MAY, 2016. LRH'K 9 ITA NO.2087/PN/2014 ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ( ) S / THE CIT(A)-I, THANE 4. ( S / THE CIT-I, THANE 5. 6. + ., ., IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , + //TRUE COPY // + //TRUE COPY/ 2 . / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ., IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE