Girdhari Ishwarlal Chhablani, Pune V. ITO, Ward 8(1), Pune

ITA 2089/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7196 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings; Revised return
• Section: 133A

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. 2089/PUN/2012 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 GIRDHARI ISHWARLAL CHHABLANI, RADHESHAM PROV. STORES, SHO NO. RSC 403, MAINBAZAR, OPP. B BLOCK NO. 5, PIMPRI, PUNE-411017 PAN : AASPC1477D ....... / APPELLANT ' /VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV THAKKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL / DATE OF HEARING : 18-01-2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-01-2017 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, PUNE DATED 21-08- 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS THE ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF FOOD GRAIN ITEMS ON WHOLE SALE BASIS. 2 ITA NO. 2089/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 ON 31-10-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,57,030/-. A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE BUS INESS PREMISES OF CHHABLANI GROUP ON 24-08-2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARY DECLARED ` 43,00,000/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAX BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29-09-2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 07-12-2010 ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER ADDITION. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 30-06- 2011 LEVIED THE PENALTY OF ` 14,56,300/- U/S. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. ` 43,00,000/- IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER R EJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI RAJIV THAKKAR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW AS THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVISED R ETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHO UT MAKING ANY ADDITION WHATSOEVER. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ASSESS MENT AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY, THE 3 ITA NO. 2089/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED WHETHER PENALTY PROCEED INGS ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 07-12-2010 DOES NOT SPECIFY TH E CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK OFF THE IRRELEVANT PARTS OF THE PROFORMA NOTICE . IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT NOTICE ISSUED WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHA RGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING S ARISING THEREFROM ARE LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SU BMISSIONS THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SSAS EMERA LD MEADOWS REPORTED AS 73 TAXMANN.COM 241. THE LD. AR FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD FILED SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE AFORESAID CASE. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE AP EX COURT IN CASE TITLED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SSAS EMERAL ME ADOWS REPORTED AS 73 TAXMANN.COM 248. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI P.L. KUREEL REPRESENTING THE D EPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. TH E LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME O NLY BECAUSE OF SURVEY ACTION. IF SURVEY ACTION WOULDNT HAVE BEEN CARR IED OUT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE ESCAPED TAX NET. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. A 4 ITA NO. 2089/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, I.E. WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE OF PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACE ON RECORD A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07-12-2010 ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W .S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE REVEAL T HAT IRRELEVANT PARTS OF THE NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK OFF. T HUS, THE NOTICE DOES NOT CLEARLY SPECIFY WHETHER THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C ) HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY REPORTED AS 359 ITR 565 HAS HELD THAT, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOT ICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON- APPLICATION OF MIND. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM WHER E ALL THE GROUNDS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE WOULD BE OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS , NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO. 2089/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 6. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF K ANHAIYALAL D. JAIN VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO . 1201 TO 1205/PN/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 200 7-08 DECIDED ON 30-11-2016 UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE NOT ICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FAILED TO CLEARLY SPECIFY T HE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, DELETED THE PENALTY BY CONSIDERING CATE NA OF JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. S SAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE FIN DINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH ARE AS UNDER : 15. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO BE SATISFIED IN TH E COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNI SHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C) TO SECTION 2 71(1) OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS THUS, LAID DOWN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIL E ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IT IS CASE OF CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME OR CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. THE RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN T. ASHOK PAI VS. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), WHE REIN AT PAGE 19 IT WAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATION. APPLYING THE SAID PROPOSITION, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING O FFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE N OTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILARLY, FOR FURNISHING INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF R ELEVANT CLAUSES, AS PER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WOULD LEAD TO INFERENCE AS TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. 16. FURTHER, THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CI T VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE , WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 R .W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DOES NOT SATISFY WHICH L IMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH IT HAS BEEN INITIATED THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT HAD RELIED ON DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF THE COURT R ENDERED IN CIT & ANR. 6 ITA NO. 2089/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUP RA) HAS DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION. 17. THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN M/S. SAI VENKATA CONSTRUCTION VS. ADDL. CIT (SUPRA) AND IN SANJOG TARACHAND LODHA VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAVE APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAK A HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO STRIKING OFF OF EIT HER OF LIMBS, THEN NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T WAS INVALID AND SUBSEQUENT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD TO BE VITI ATED. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH FURTHER HELD : 23. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION WHICH IS RAISED BEFORE US BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS ROOT OF START OF THE PROCEEDINGS I.E. RECORDING OF SATISFACTION AND THE ISSUE OF NOTICE, WHICH HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE INVALID. APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT & ANR. VS. MANJUNATH COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) AND CIT VS. SSAS EMERA LD MEADOWS (SUPRA) AND IN VIEW OF SLP BEING DISMISSED, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT THE SATISFACTION RECORDED IN THE PRES ENT CASE TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BOTH FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AGAINST ADDITIONAL INCOME OFF ERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT. FURTHER, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AW ARE OF EXACT CHARGE AGAINST HIM, THE AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UND ER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY NOT STRIKING OF PORTION WHI CH IS NOT APPLICABLE, PREJUDICE THE RIGHT OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO TH E ASSESSEE, AS HE WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF EXACT CHARGE HE HAD TO FACE. IT I S A CLEAR-CUT CASE OF CONCEALMENT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ADDITION AL INCOME PURSUANT TO SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT ITS PREMISES. IT IS NOT TH E CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HENCE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE RECORDED THE SATISFACTION ACCORDINGLY AND ISSU ED THE NOTICE ACCORDINGLY. 24. WE FIND NO MERIT ON THE PARTIAL RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SMT. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO MAKE THE ASSESSEE FULLY AWARE OF EXA CT CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST HIM. AS POINTED OUT, IN PRESENT CASE, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTIO N FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, EXA CT CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CLEAR. THE A SSESSING OFFICER 7 ITA NO. 2089/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 RECORDS THE SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS ON BOTH THE COUNTS I.E. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COUR T HAD ALSO UPHELD THE QUASHING OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1967-68 TO BE JUSTIFIED ON ACCOUNT OF VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED. BUT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS FULLY AWARE OF EXACT CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST HIM , THEN TECHNICAL NON- STRIKING OF CERTAIN TERMS IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT I NVALIDATE THE PROCEEDINGS. WHERE THERE IS DEFAULT IN THE FIRST ST AGE OF MAKING THE ASSESSEE AWARE OF EXACT CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT, T HEN INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED AND THE SAME ARE T O BE QUASHED. THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT ON SUC H VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY MAKES SUCH NOTICE INVALID AND PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER ARE TO BE QUASHED. 25. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T. ASHOK PAI VS. C IT (SUPRA) HAD HELD AS UNDER:- 23. SECTION 271(1)(C) REMAINS A PENAL STATUTE. THE RULE OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION SHALL APPLY THERETO. THE INGREDIENTS F OR IMPOSING PENALTY REMAIN THE SAME. THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATURE THA T IT IS MEANT TO BE A DETERRENT TO TAX EVASION IS EVIDENCED BY THE INCREA SE IN THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY, FROM 20 PER CENT UNDER THE 1922 ACT TO 300 PER CENT IN 1985. 24. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. CONCEALMENT REFERS TO A DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. A MERE OMISSION OR NEGLIG ENCE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A DELIBERATE ACT OF SUPPRESSION VERY OR SUGGESTION FALSI. 26. WHERE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONNOTATION S, THEN AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE R ECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEED INGS AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FALLS. IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS, THE SATISFACTION AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF REVENUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT UNDER WHICH LIMB I.E. FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DOES NOT SHOW CAUSE THE ASSESSEE AS TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF EXACT CHARGE LEVIED AGAINST HIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME, IT CAUSES PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT OF REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE SUFFERS 8 ITA NO. 2089/PUN/2012, A.Y. 2007-08 FROM INFIRMITIES I.E. LACK OF SATISFACTION AND LACK OF NOTICE BEING ISSUED IN MAKING THE ASSESSEE AWARE OF EXACT CHARGE AGAINST H IM, HENCE THE SAME IS QUASHED. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED PURSU ANT TO SUCH NOTICE ARE VITIATED AND THE SAME ARE HELD TO BE INVALID. 7. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS AMBIGUOUS AND VAGUE AND DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, THE SAME IS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW AND H ENCE THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM ARE VITIATED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 18 TH JANUARY, 2017 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, 5 6 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE