DCIT, Circle-3, Nanded V. Shri Kudal Prashant Vishnudas, Osmanabad

ITA 2172/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6703 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L PATHADE
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2172 / P N/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), L ATUR VS. SHRI KUDAL PRASHANT VISHNUDAS, PROP. AMBIKA THYERS, SOLAPUR ROAD, NEAR DESHPANDE STAND, OSMANABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AGLPK8465C APPELLANT BY: SHRI P.L. PATHADE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.K. KULKARNI ORDER PER R.S . P ADVEKAR , JM : - THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AURANGABAD DATED 28 - 08 - 2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT RS.20,14,784/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE BSNL HAS NEVER COMPELLED THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PAYMENT BY CASH IN CONTRAVENTIO N OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE CASE OF G.A. CARRIERS VS. ITO (2011) 44 SOT 145 (HYD) AS THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT SIMILAR AND ARE QUI ET DIFFERENT AND CAN NOT BE APPLIED IN THIS CASE. 2 ITA NO. 2172/PN/2012, SHRI KUDAL PRASHANT VISHNUDAS, OSMANABAD 2. THE SHORT ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 40A(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. THE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL , WH O IS DEALING IN MOBILE SIM CARDS , RECHARGE COUPONS ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER OF BSNL. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,40,259/ - ON 24 - 10 - 2008. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A ND ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SALE OF SIM CARDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,37,33,726/ - ON WHICH THE COMMISSION OF RS.37,26,335/ - IS SHOWN. THE LIMITED ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CASH PAYMENT MADE TO BSNL WHICH ARE MORE THAN LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. AS PER FACTS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY DEALING IN BSNL SIM CARDS AND RECHARGE VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE BOOK RESULTS BUT HE HAS RESERVATION IN RESPECT OF THE CASH PAYMENT S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDING RS.2 0 ,000/ - TO BSNL . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE DETAIL S OF THE CASH PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDING RS.2 0 ,000/ - AT A TIME , AGAINST AGGREGATE OF THE PURCHASES MADE OF RS.20,14,784/ - IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CASH PAYMENT S FOR SIM CARD PURCHASES ARE MADE FROM TIME TO TIME TO BSNL. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE BSNL DO NOT ACCEPT THE CHEQUES OR DRAFTS AND INSISTED ONLY ON CASH PAYMENT S AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE STAND THAT IT WAS A C OMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) CANNOT BE INVOKED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE BANK GUARANTEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 LACS TO BSNL AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN CASH AS THE BANK GUARANTEE L IMIT WAS EX HAUSTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE 3 ITA NO. 2172/PN/2012, SHRI KUDAL PRASHANT VISHNUDAS, OSMANABAD EXTENT OF RS.20,14,784/ - INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3)(A) OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF G.A. ROAD CARRIERS VS. ITO (2011) 44 SOT 145 (HYD.). THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT( A) ARE AS U N D ER: 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RI VAL CONTENTIONS. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT HE HAS RECEIVED FIXED COMMISSION FROM BSNL ON PURCHASE OF SIM CARDS WHICH ARE TO BE SOLD TO THE CUSTOMERS AT FIXED RATE AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAS ACTED AS AN AGENT OF BSNL. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS SUPPORTED BY THE AGREEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WITH BSNL. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SIM CARDS FROM BSNL IS NOT HIS EXPENDITURE AND HENCE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED U/S.40A(3) O F THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF SECTION 40A(3), IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT SECTION 40A(3) PROVIDES FOR 'EXPENSES OR PAYMENTS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES'. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR PURCHASE OF SIM CARD A S HE HAS ACTED AS AGENT FOR FIXED COMMISSION AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) IS JUSTIFIED APPEARS TO ME TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THE ABOVE PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF G.A. ROAD CARRIERS VS. ITO (2011) 44 SOT 145 (HYD.) RELIED ON B Y THE APPELLANT. THE HEAD NOTES OF THE SAID DECISION READS AS UNDER: 'SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 - BUSINESS DISALLOWANCE - CASH PAYMENT EXCEEDING PRESCRIBED LIMITS - ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2005 - 06, ASSESSEE - FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN ARRANGIN G TRANSPORT VEHICLES TO BEEDI MANUFACTURERS - IT HIRED LORRIES FOR CARRYING ON SAID WORKS AND MADE CASH PAYMENTS TO LORRY OWNERS FOR SAID SERVICE DEPARTMENT HELD THAT PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE TO LORRY OWNERS WERE IN NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENDITURE DEBITABLE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND WAS TO BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40A(3). !T WAS FOUND FROM RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED PAYMENTS FROM BEEDI MANUFACTURER OUT OF WHICH TRANSPORT CHARGES WERE PAID TO LORRY OWNERS THROUGH, THEIR DRIVERS FROM W HICH ASSESSEE AS AN AGENT OR BROKER EARNED 4 ITA NO. 2172/PN/2012, SHRI KUDAL PRASHANT VISHNUDAS, OSMANABAD MARGIN OF 3% TOWARDS ITS SERVICE CHARGES OR COMMISSION - WHETHER IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, IT COULD BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY ON ANY KIND OF BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT OPERATOR BUT ITS .BUSINESS WAS PRIMARILY, O F A COMMISSION AGENT OR BROKER AND IT ACTUALLY FACILITATED PAYMENT OF TRANSPORT HIRE CHARGES BY USERS OF TRANSPORT VEHICLES BEING BEEDI MANUFACTURERS AND OTHER CUSTOMERS TO ACTUAL OWNERS OF VEHICLE HELD, YES - WHETHER THEREFORE, SOLD PAYMENTS WERE NOT BUSINESS EXPENSES OF ASSESSEE AND COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40A(3) - HELD YES.' IN THE CASE UNDER APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS ACTED AS AN AGENT BETWEEN BSNL AND THE USERS OF BSNL SIM CARDS AND HAS EARNED FIXED COMMISSION. THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BSNL AND THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY FACILITATED MOBILE RECHARGE SERVICE PROVIDED BY BSNL TO USERS OF BSNL RECHARGE CARDS. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ABOVE REFERRED DECISION IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APP ELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING CASH PAYMENT TO BSNL OF RS.20,14,784/ - U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION OF RS.20,14,784/ - IS THEREFORE DELETED. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME FOR THE CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE H ON'BLE ITAT COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF S. RAHUMATHULA VS. ACIT (2011) 127 TTJ 440 (COCH.) AND IT IS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN SIM CARDS AND RECHARGE VOUCHERS. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. DR, WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN THE CASE OF S. RAHUMATHULA (SUPRA) , T HE ASSESSEE WAS DISTRIBUTOR FOR BSNL IN ITS SIM CARD DIVISION AND SELLING THE SIM CARD S AND RECHARGE COUPONS. THE SAID ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SELLING THE INDIA TELEP HONE CARD (ITC). IN THE SAID CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CASH 5 ITA NO. 2172/PN/2012, SHRI KUDAL PRASHANT VISHNUDAS, OSMANABAD PAYMENT S EXCEEDING THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HELD AS UNDER: 4.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO WHAT STANDS STATED HEREINABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT (IN ITA NOS. 106 TO 113/COCH/2009), VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 30TH APRIL, 2009 [REPORTED AT (2010) 129 TTJ (COCH) 222: (2010) 35 DTR (COCH)(TRIB) 393 (COPY ON RECORD), HAS HELD THAT THE PAY MENTS BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER TO THE DISTRIBUTOR IN RESPECT OF THE SIM CARDS AND RECHARGE COUPONS SUPPLIED TO THE CUSTOMERS WOULD ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF S. 194H OF THE ACT. THIS IS ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SIM CARDS AND OTHER SERVICE PRODUCTS PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMERS BY THE DISTRIBUTORS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE AGENCY OR MEDIUM OF WHOLESALERS OR RETAILERS, ARE NOT MERE PHYSICAL COMMODITIES OR GOODS IN THAT SENSE, BUT ONLY DEVICES FOR ACCESS TO THE TELEPHONY SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE SERVICE PROVID ER, WHO ONLY ACTIVATES THE SAME (ON THE SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE OF THE TERMS OF THE SERVICE RELATIONSHIP), LEADING TO AN ACCESS TO THE NETWORK, WITHOUT OR APART FROM WHICH THESE ARE OF NO USE OR VALUE. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO DE FACTO PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY PRODUCT, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO, I.E., THE FRANCHISEE - DISTRIBUTOR AND THE SERVICE PROVIDER, BOTH DE FACTO AND DE JURE, IS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. IN ARRIVING AT ITS DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BPL MOBILE CELLULAR LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [IN WRIT PETN. (C) NO. 29202 OF 2005 (B)], WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT, FOLLOWING THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR. VS. U NION OF INDIA & ORS. (2006) 201 CTR (SC) 346 : (2006) 145 STC 91 (SC) HELD THAT THE VALUE OF THE SIM CARDS, RECHARGE COUPONS, ETC. DO NOT REPRESENT SALE OF GOODS, EXIGIBLE TO SALES (GOODS) TAX, BUT IS ONLY A SERVICE RENDERED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER, LIABLE TO SERVICE - TAX. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR OR THE FRANCHISEE IS AT ALL TIMES ACTING ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE SERVICE PROVIDER, AS A LINK IN THE SERVICE CHAIN, AND THUS, THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL - SERVICE PROVIDE R TO THE AGENT - DISTRIBUTOR ARE ONLY TOWARDS THE RENDERING OF SERVICES BY IT AND, THUS, ONLY A COMMISSION, WHICH STANDS BROADLY DEFINED UNDER S. 194H OF THE ACT AND FURTHER, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MANNER AND NOMENCLATURE UNDER WHICH THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN TH E TWO STAND CLASSIFIED OR DESCRIBED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 6 ITA NO. 2172/PN/2012, SHRI KUDAL PRASHANT VISHNUDAS, OSMANABAD WE ARE AWARE THAT WHILE THE TRIBUNAL DISCUSSES AND DILATES ON THE CHARACTER OF THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL (NETWORK PROVIDER) TO THE FRANCHISEE (DISTRIBUTOR), THE PAYMENTS U NDER REFERENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, I.E., BY THE DISTRIBUTOR TO THE SERVICE PROVIDER. HOWEVER, THIS WOULD NOT BE OF ANY MOMENT AND NOT RENDER THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION INAPPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PR ESENT CASE. IN FACT, EVEN IN THE SAID CASE THERE WAS NO DIRECT PAYMENT BY THE PRINCIPAL TO THE DISTRIBUTOR, AND WHICH CONSTITUTED ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT FOR THE NON - APPLICATION OF THE PROVISION OF S. 194H, AND WHICH THE TR IBUNAL FOUND TO MATTER LITTLE. THIS IS AS ONCE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE ONE OF AGENCY, THE PAYMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, ARE ONLY TOWARDS ADJUSTMENT OF THE VALUES EXCHANGED. THE PRINCIPAL, IN ORDER TO ELIMINAT E OR MINIMISE THE RISK OF DEFAULT, OR FOR LIQUIDITY CONSTRAINTS, OR TO TAKE BUSINESS ADVANTAGE OF ITS DOMINANT POSITION, ET. AL. MAY REQUIRE OF THE DISTRIBUTOR TO MAKE AN UPFRONT PAYMENT AGAINST ALL THE SIM CARDS, ETC. TAKEN DELIVERY OF FOR DISTRIBUTION. T HIS, THEREFORE, THOUGH CLASSIFIED AS PURCHASES IN THE BOOKS OF THE DISTRIBUTOR - AGENT, ARE NOT ESSENTIALLY SO; THE SIM CARDS BEING NOT GOODS IN THE REAL SENSE, PROPERTY IN WHICH WOULD STAND TO BE PASSED ON DELIVERY AND CONCOMITANT ACCEPTANCE OF THE OBLIGA TION TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. SIMILARLY, THERE IS NO PURCHASE OF ANY SERVICES BY THE DISTRIBUTOR ON ASSUMING THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID SERVICE PRODUCTS. IN FACT, THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAME (CARDS) ONLY EQUIPS IT TO PERFORM ITS PART OF THE SERVICES REQUIR ED TO BE EXTENDED TO CUSTOMERS TO ENABLE, FIRSTLY, INITIALIZATION OF THE SERVICE RELATIONSHIP AND, THEN, ITS MAINTENANCE. THE POSITION WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT EVEN WHERE THE SERVICE PRODUCTS ARE SOURCED FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES, AS THE ORIGIN THEREOF, AND THE SE RVICE BEING PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMER IS ONLY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF, THE CONCERNED SERVICE PROVIDER. THE ASSESSEE - DISTRIBUTOR, THUS, DOES NOT IN FACT MAKE ANY PURCHASES EITHER OF GOODS OR SERVICES ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DELIVERY OF THE SIM CARDS OR OTHER SERVICE PRODUCTS AND RESULTANTLY, DOES NOT INCUR ANY EXPENDITURE IN ITS RESPECT, EVEN AS THE TRANSACTION MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS SUCH IN ITS ACCOUNTS. WHICH, AS IS TRITE, CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS NO SCO PE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISION OF S. 40A(3) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7 ITA NO. 2172/PN/2012, SHRI KUDAL PRASHANT VISHNUDAS, OSMANABAD 5. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH WE HAVE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN VIDE PARA 4.4 OF THIS ORDER, W E ARE OF THE CLEAR VIEW THAT THE PROVISION OF S. 40A(3) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE EARLIER PART OF THE ORDER, WHICH SUGGESTS OTHERWISE, IS ON THE PREMISE THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE CARDS BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER TO THE ASSESSEE - DISTRIBUTOR REPRESENTS THE LATTERS PURCHASE THEREOF AND THUS, AS BEING ONLY AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY IT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS, MEETING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPOSING PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES AS MADE BEFORE US. THE SAME IS DE HORS THE AFORESAID DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH STANDS RENDERED FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE APEX COURT ON AN ASPECT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS INTEGRAL TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHE R, AS EXPLAINED EARLIER, ONCE THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FRANCHISEE - DISTRIBUTOR AND THE SERVICE PROVIDER TO BE ONE OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY PURCHASE BY THE LATTER, AND THE INCOME ARISING THERETO IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF A COMMISSION OR REMUNERATION AGAINST SERVICES RENDERED. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASES QUA WHICH S. 40A(3) COULD APPLY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MODE OF PAYMENT THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE SUCCE EDS ON GROUNDS (A) TO (G) OF ITS APPEAL. 5. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF S. RAHUMATHULA (SUPRA) CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 - 0 6 - 20 1 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( R . K . PAN DA ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 13 TH JUNE, 20 1 4 8 ITA NO. 2172/PN/2012, SHRI KUDAL PRASHANT VISHNUDAS, OSMANABAD COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 4 THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD THE CIT, AURANGABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE