Surehs Babulal Shah (HUF), Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2136/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1084 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: R G NAHAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Wrong claim; Sham transactions
• Section: 143(3); 6

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE , !', $ % BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ITA NO.2136/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI SURESH BABULAL SHAH (HUF), C/O KHANDELWAL JAIN & ASSOCIATES, ALANKAR CINEMA BUILDING, 1 ST FLOOR, ABOVE UNITED BANK, PUNE 411 001. PAN : AAFHS7733H . APPELLANT VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. G. NAHAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 09.08.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.08.2016 & / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, PUNE DATED 31.07.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CA SE AND AS PER PROVISIONS & SCHEME OF THE ACT IT BE HELD THAT, THE SHORT TERM C APITAL GAIN DERIVED ON THE SALE OF SHARES OF RS.13,59,670/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAX AS SH ORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ONLY & NOT AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS TREATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. JUST IN PROPER RELIEF BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT ON THIS SCORE. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO BE ALLOWED TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, RECTIFY, DELETE, & RAISE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2 ITA NO.2136/PN/2014 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A HUF DERIVING INCOME FROM PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS/PROFESSION , SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, DIVIDEND INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.17,39,930/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FO R SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED AS SESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT THE SAME AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TR EATED THE INCOME DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.13, 59,669/- AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE VOLUME, FREQUENCY, CONTINUITY AND REGULARITY OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE GAINS AR ISING ON SALE OF SHARES AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUD ED THAT THE IMPUGNED GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF SHARES IS SYSTEMATIC COURSE OF A CTIVITY OR CONDUCT WITH SET PURPOSE AND IS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER REFE RRING TO SEVERAL DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT, ENDORSED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR THE A SSESSEE SHRI R. G. NAHAR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRON GLY HELD THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE HUF TO BE A TRADING OR BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS AGAINST THE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REFLECTED I N THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENT AND NOT AS CURRENT ASSET. THE TREATMENT IN THIS RESPECT IN THE BOOKS IS CONSISTENT HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECT S AND THE MOTIVE BEHIND MAKING SUCH INVESTMENTS. IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO, TH E ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING SHARES AND THE SAME WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE S HEET UNDER THE HEAD 3 ITA NO.2136/PN/2014 INVESTMENTS. AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2007, THE TOTAL SHARES HELD IN STOCK WERE AMOUNTING TO RS.9,59,397/- I.E. IN FOUR SCRIPS ONLY . THE LD. AR EMPHASIZED THAT SHARES WERE TAKEN BY WAY OF PHYSICAL DELIVERY AND DULY CREDITED TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD FOR REASONAB LE/SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE THOSE WERE DISPOSED OFF. SIMILARLY, WH EN THE SHARES WERE SOLD, THE ACTUAL DELIVERY THEREOF WAS GIVEN. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ON STOCK WHICH IS ORDINARI LY REQUIRED IN A SYSTEMATIC OR ORGANIZED COURSE OF ACTIVITY. THE INVESTMENT MA DE IN THE VARIOUS SHARES IS LIMITED TO JUST 16 SCRIPS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,11,831/ - AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008. HE NEXT POINTED OUT THAT SECURITY TRANSACTIONS TAX (STT) HAS BEEN PAID ON THE SALE/PURCHASE OF SHARES AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 111A AND 112 OF THE ACT. HE WEN T ON THE OBSERVE THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENTS ALSO, THE GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF SHARES HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH HAS BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ALBEIT WITHOUT SCRUTINY. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 RECOGNIZES THE CONCEPT OF SHORT TERM CAPI TAL ASSETS WITH REFERENCE TO THE SECURITIES LISTED IN RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE VIDE SECTION 2(42A) AS WELL AS LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSETS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2 (29A) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, SECTION 111A AND 112 LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE FOR CO MPUTATION OF TAX SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RESPEC TIVELY. THE LD. AR OBSERVED THAT CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.13,59,669/- IS MEA GER AND WAS CLAIMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 111A OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES ALL THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE SAID SECTION. THE LD. AR NEXT CONTENDED THAT SPECIFIC PROVISIONS TO DEAL WITH SUCH A SITUATION I S AVAILABLE IN THE STATUTE AND THEREFORE ONE CANNOT READ THE PROVISION OF SECTION 111A AND 112 AS REDUNDANT. PARTICULARLY WHEN IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE TO DEAL IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. THE RESULTANT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED INCLUDE GAINS ON SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS WHERE THE SHARES WERE SUBSCRIB ED IN INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING AND SOLD AFTER LISTING. THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY CANN OT BE SEEN TO BE A TRADING ACTIVITY PER SE. THE LD. AR STRESSED THAT THE SHARES WERE ALWAYS ACQ UIRED BY WAY OF INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE THE PROFITS DERIVE D FROM THE SALE OF SUCH SHARES WILL HAVE TO BE TREATED AS LONG TERM/SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE ALSO 4 ITA NO.2136/PN/2014 ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO A CBDT CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 DATED 29.02.2016 WHERE THE CONTROVERSY IN TREATING THE PURCHASE AS CAPITAL ASSET OR A TRADING ASSET HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT ADDRESSED. HE REFERRED TO A DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHRI MAHEND ER KUMAR BADER IN ITA NO.605/JP/2013, ORDER DATED 18.03.2016 (COPY IN FIL E) WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR (SUPRA) AND TOOK A FAVOURABLE VIEW IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WHO WAS SIMILAR LY PLACED ON FACTS. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SHRI HI TENDRA NINAWE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE REGULARITY, FREQUENCY, VOLUME OF THE TRANSAC TIONS, THESE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES BEARS TRAPPINGS OF BUSINESS OR ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR COMMERCE, ETC. AND THUS GAIN ARISING THEREFORE IS R EQUIRED TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION AS PER SECTION 2(13) OF THE AC T. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CAL LED FOR. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GAIN ARISING ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES TO THE TUNE OF RS.13,59,669/- AS SHORT TE RM CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. AS PER THE SCHEME OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFICIAL TREATMENT IN TAXATION ON SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES LISTED ON A RECOGNIZE STOCK EXCHANGE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO AVAIL THE CONCESSIONAL TAX TREATMENT IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAINS OFFERED THAT AROSE TO HIM. THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE GAIN A RISING ON IMPUGNED PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IS NOTHING BUT A BUSINESS ACTIVI TY AND THEREFORE TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. BY DOING SO, THE REVEN UE HAS SOUGHT TO FORFEIT THE CONCESSIONAL TAX TREATMENT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSE E WHERE INCOME IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. 9. THE CONTROVERSY, IN ESSENCE, IS IN A NARROW COMP ASS I.E. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE OF SHARES AND SAL E THEREOF TANTAMOUNTS TO AN 5 ITA NO.2136/PN/2014 INVESTMENT ACTIVITY OR A TRADING ACTIVITY. IN ORDE R TO ADDRESS THE AFORESAID CONTROVERSY, THE FACTS AS DISCERNIBLE ON RECORD HAS BEEN NOTED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE PURCHASE OF SHARES AN D HOLDING THEREOF AT THE END OF THE YEAR UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENTS WHICH CONN OTES CAPITAL TRANSACTION UNLIKE WHERE THESE SHARES STOCK HELD AS TRADING ASS ET AND IS DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT ASSET IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE IN TEND TO CARRY ON A BUSINESS ACTIVITY. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WAS BARELY HOLDING FEW SCRIPS UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMEN TS. IT IS ALSO BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS GIVING RI SE TO GAIN ARE ACQUIRED BY WAY OF INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING WHICH WERE RE-SOLD A FTER THE SAME WERE LISTED IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS HOLDING BARELY 16 SCRIPS AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 REL EVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THIS KIND OF FACTUAL DATA DOES NOT SUPPOR T THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING IN ANY SORT OF SYST EMATIC OR ORGANIZED BUSINESS ACTIVITY. 10. NOTABLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTEDLY PAID SECUR ITIES TRANSACTION TAX (STT) TOWARDS SALE OF IMPUGNED SHARES. 11. ALSO, PERTINENT HERE TO NOTE THE REFERENCE MADE TO CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA) WHICH READS AS UNDER :- SUB-SECTION (14) OF SECTION 2 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 ('ACT') DEFINES THE TERM 'CAPITAL ASSET' TO INCLUDE PROPERTY OF ANY KIND HEL D BY AN ASSESSEE, WHETHER OR NOT CONNECTED WITH HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY STOCK-IN-TRADE OR PERSONAL ASSETS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS. AS R EGARDS SHARES AND OTHER SECURITIES, THE SAME CAN BE HELD EITHER AS CAPITAL ASSETS OR ST OCK-IN-TRADE/ TRADING ASSETS OR BOTH. DETERMINATION OF THE CHARACTER OF A PARTICULA R INVESTMENT IN SHARES OR OTHER SECURITIES, WHETHER THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF A CAPITAL ASSET OR STOCK-IN-TRADE, IS ESSENTIALLY A FACT-SPECIFIC DETERMINATION AND HAS L ED TO A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY AND LITIGATION IN THE PAST. 2. OVER THE YEARS, THE COURTS HAVE LAID DOWN DIFFER ENT PARAMETERS TO DISTINGUISH THE SHARES HELD AS INVESTMENTS FROM THE SHARES HELD AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ('CBDT) HAS ALSO, THROUGH INS TRUCTION NO. 1827, DATED AUGUST 31, 1989 AND CIRCULAR NO.4 OF 2007 DATED JUN E 15, 2007, SUMMARIZED THE SAID PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDANCE OF THE FIELD FORMATION S. 6 ITA NO.2136/PN/2014 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 T HIS BACKGROUND, WHILE RECOGNIZING THAT NO UNIVERSAL PRINCIPAL IN ABSOLUTE TERMS CAN B E LAID DOWN TO DECIDE THE CHARACTER OF INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES AND SECURIT IES (I.E. WHETHER THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME), CBD T REALIZING THAT MAJOR PART OF SHARES/SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS TAKES PLACE IN RESPE CT OF THE LISTED ONES AND WITH A VIEW TO REDUCE LITIGATION AND UNCERTAINTY IN THE MA TTER, IN PARTIAL MODIFICATION TO THE AFORESAID CIRCULARS, FURTHER INSTRUCTS THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICERS IN HOLDING WHETHER THE SURPLUS GENERATED FROM SALE OF LISTED SHARES OR OTHER SECURITIES WOULD BE TREATED AS CAPITAL GAIN OR BUSINESS INCOME, SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING- A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE P ERIOD OF HOLDING THE LISTED SHARES AND SECURITIES, OPTS TO TREAT THEM AS STOCK-IN-TRADE, THE INCOME ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF SUCH SHARES/SECURIT IES 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 IT S TRANSFER, IF THE ASSESSEE DESIRES TO TREAT THE INCOME ARISING FROM T HE TRANSFER THEREOF AS CAPITAL GAIN, THE SAME SHALL NOT BE PUT TO DISPU TE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THIS STAND, ONCE TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR, SHALL REMAIN APPLICABLE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO AND THE TAXPAYERS SHALL NOT B E 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 INCOME) S HALL CONTINUE TO BE DECIDED KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID CIRCULARS ISS UED BY THE CBDT. 4. IT IS, HOWEVER, CLARIFIED THAT THE ABOVE SHALL N OT APPLY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES/SECURITIES WHERE THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTION ITSELF IS QUESTIONABLE, SUCH AS BOGUS CLAIMS OF LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN / SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OR ANY OTHER SHAM TRANSACTIONS. 5. IT IS REITERATED THAT THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN FORMULATED WITH THE SOLE OBJECT OF REDUCING LITIGATION AND MAINTAINING CONSI STENCY IN APPROACH ON THE ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF INCOME DERIVED FROM TRANSFER OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. ALL THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY ON TH E TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING TRANSFER OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. 12. WITH A VIEW TO DILUTE CONTROVERSY CONTINUOUSLY CROPPING UP ON THE SUBJECT, THE CBDT HAS UNRAVELED THE GUIDELINES IN T HIS REGARD. THE CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA) CLARIFIES THAT ONCE A PARTICULAR S TANDS HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH PURCHASES IN A PARTICULAR ASSESSME NT YEAR IT SHALL REMAIN APPLICABLE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO AND THE TAXPAYERS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT DIVERGENT STAND IN DIFFERENT ASSES SMENT YEARS. CLEARLY, THE CBDT CIRCULAR (SUPRA) ATTEMPTS TO TONE DOWN THE ONG OING CONTROVERSY ON THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND ON FACT T HAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE 7 ITA NO.2136/PN/2014 IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AFORESAID CBDT CIRCULAR. CO NSEQUENTLY, GAINS ARISING ON SALE IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD CAP ITAL GAINS ONLY. WE ALSO TAKE NOTE OF THE AVERMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE THAT SEVERAL PURCHASES MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND DECLARED AS CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE EARLIER YEAR WERE ALSO SOLD AN D GAIN ARISING THEREFROM FORMED PART OF THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAINS ARISING I N THIS YEAR. WE, THUS, FIND NO REASON TO IMPUGNE THE DECLARED INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SHARE WERE ACQUIRED AS CAPITAL ASSET. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW O F THE MATTER, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS RAISED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO TREAT THE GAI NS ARISING ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS CLAIMED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE ON THE ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE REVERSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 17 TH AUGUST, 2016. & ' () *+( / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. &, / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE