Dr. Tushar Trimbakrao Deore, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2190/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9343 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV BATHAM
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Invalid notice; Document seized; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO S. 2187 TO 2193 /PUN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 03 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 DR. TUSHAR TRIMBAKRAO DEORE, GAIKWAD MALA, B/H. REGIMENTAL PLAZA, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK 422101 PAN : AAUPD2036M ....... / APPELLANT / V S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NASHIK / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : S HRI GAURAV BATHAM / DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 06 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 0 6 - 2017 / ORDER PER BENCH : TH ESE SEVEN APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, NASHIK DATED 31 - 10 - 2014 COMMON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 , CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). SINCE, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON 2 ITA NO S. 2187 TO 2193/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 SAME SET OF FACTS, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN A SSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL ARE : ASSESSMENT YEAR PENALTY AMOUNT 2003 - 04 RS.1,66,635/ - 2004 - 05 RS.3,90,069/ - 2005 - 06 RS.5,04,674/ - 2006 - 07 RS.3,69,365/ - 2007 - 08 RS.3,69,365/ - 2008 - 09 RS.4,72,863/ - 2009 - 10 RS.14,145/ - 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 READS AS UNDER : ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1] THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND HENCE, PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH INVALID NOTICE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AN IDENTICAL ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05 TO 2008 - 09. 4. TODAY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS . THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HERE - IN - UNDER : 3 ITA NO S. 2187 TO 2193/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 1] THE ABOVE APPEALS PERTAIN TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10. THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCTOR AND IS AN ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEON. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.01.2009. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE SUPPRESSED HIS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RE SPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 153A FILED FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF NET SUPPRESSED PROFESSIONAL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. APPEALS FOR A Y.2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 2] IN THE ASSTS. COMPLETED U/S 153A FOR A.Y.2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09, THE A.O. HAD DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN U/S 153A ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED EXPENSES. THE A.O. HAD ALSO LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASST. ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A FOR A.Y.2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09. IN THE QUANTUM APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED MAJORITY OF UNRECORDED EXPENSES CLAIMED AS A DEDUCTION AGAINST THE SUPPRESSED RE CEIPTS. 3] IN THE PENALTY APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) MAINLY ON THE NET SUPPRESSED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OFFERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 153A FOR THE ABOVE YEARS. APART FROM THE SAME, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO SUSTAINED THE PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS.63,434/ - FOR A.Y. 2004 - 05 AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,22,481/ - FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT AGAINST THE ABOVE LEVY OF PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS 4] AT THE OUTSET, THE ASSESSEE WISHES TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR A.Y.2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) ISSUED FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THE COPIES OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ENCLOSED SEPARATELY HEREWITH. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE GROUND IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND ALL THE FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ABOVE GROUND ARE ALREADY ON R ECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND MAY PLEASE BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 5] THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE EXACT 4 ITA NO S. 2187 TO 2193/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 CHARGE ON WHICH PENALTY IS INITIATED AND WITHOUT STRIKING OUT THE PORTIONS WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE COPIES OF THE NOTICES U/S 274 ISSUED FOR A.Y.2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09 ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ABO VE NOTICES ARE NOT VALID IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [359 ITR 565] WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 274 SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS ON THE WHICH THE PROCEE DINGS U/S 271(1)(C) HAVE BEEN INITIATED AND ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 274 IN PRINTED PRO - FORMA WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS ALSO BEEN RECENTLY APPROVED AND FOLLOWED BY HO N'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAMSON PERICHERRY [REPORTED ON ITATONLINE.ORG ON 03.02.2017]. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 274 ARE BAD IN LAW AND HENCE, THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6] HERE, IT IS TO BE FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN IN THE PENALTY ORDERS U/S 271(1)(C) PASSED FOR A.Y. 2003 - 04 TO 2008 - 09, THE LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE EXACT CHARGE FRAMED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 5 I.E. THE CONCLUDING PARA OF THE PENALTY ORDER, THE LEARNED A.O. HAS STATED THAT 'THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BY FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE SAME'. ACCORDI NGLY, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT EVEN IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE A.O. HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE YXACT LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PENALTY HAS (BEEN LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A SETTLED LAW AS ALSO REITERATED BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF SAMSON PERICHERRY THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE GROUND AND LEVYING ON PENALTY OF A DIFFERENT GROUND IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AS CLARIFIED ABOVE, EVEN IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE LEARNED A.O. HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE EXACT CHARGE ON WHICH THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 7] WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED ON MERITS. IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE RELIES UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY HIM IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. 5 ITA NO S. 2187 TO 2193/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 APPEAL FOR A.Y.2009 - 10 - 8] THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THIS IS THE YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH ACTION HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON 16.01.2009 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE PENALTY LEVIABLE IF ANY, FOR THIS YEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED U/S 271AAA AND THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED U/S 271 (1)( C) OF THE ACT. IN THIS RESPECT, THE ASSESSEE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. SHRI GAURAV BATHAM REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR EACH OF THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE AND HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC CHARGE AS WELL. IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE ADDITIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IN CASE OF OTHER ADDITIONS SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR INITIATING PENALTY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CARRIES BOTH THE LIMBS OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED CHARGE FOR INITIATING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) QUA EACH AND EVERY ADDITION IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. D R. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE PROFORMA WITHOUT 6 ITA NO S. 2187 TO 2193/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 SPECIFYING THE EXACT CHARGE ON WHICH PENALTY IS INI TIATED AND WITHOUT STRIKING OUT THE PORTIONS WHICH ARE INAPPLICABLE. ANALYZING VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS AN INITIAL STEP IN ASCERTAINING LEGITIMACY OF PENALTY ORDER. T HEREFORE, WE WILL FIRST DEAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) QUA EACH ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES MADE DURING T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFIED THE CHARGE U NDER WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED U/S. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE MADE. IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE ADDITIONS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITI ATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IN CASE OF SOME OF OTHER ADDITIONS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) HAVE BEEN INITIATED FOR CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME. THUS, THERE ARE TWO SETS OF ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR F OR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED EITHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AS PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN INITIATED IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BY INVOKING BOTH THE LIMBS I.E. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON DIFFERENT ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES, IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) SHOULD MENTION BOTH THE CHARGES. FURTHER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR EACH ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS UNAMBIGUOUSLY SPECIFIED THE CHARGE FOR THE OFFENCE. IN VIEW OF TH IS FACTUAL POSITION , WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) ARE VALID. TH US, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE APPEALS IS REJECTED. 7 ITA NO S. 2187 TO 2193/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 7. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) REVEAL THAT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE. EVEN THOUGH IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED FOR FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FINAL ORDER LEVYING PENALTY HAS LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CLEAR IN HIS MIND AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE PENULTIMATE PARAGRAPH OF THE PENALTY ORDER S , WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN REASON FOR LEVYING PENALTY READS AS UNDER : 05. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS O F THIS ORDER, THE UNDERSIGNED IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BY FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFORE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PENALTY AS CALCULATED HEREIN UNDER IN ADDITION TO T HE TAX PAYABLE BY HIM ON HIS ASSESSED INCOME. (I) INCOME DEEMED TO BE CONCEALED INCOME RS.5,29,000/ - (II) TAX PAYABLE ON CONCEALED INCOME RS.1,66,635/ - (III) 100% OF TAX ON CONCEALED INCOME RS.1,66,635/ - (IV) 300% OF TAX ON CONCEALED INCOME RS.4,99,905/ - (V) PENALTY LEVIED @ 100% OF TAX ON CONCEALED INCOME RS.1,66,635/ - DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ACCORDINGLY. THE REASON FOR LEVYING PENALTY IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL IS IDENTICALLY WORDED. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE LEVYING PENALTY HAS NOT SPECIFIED IN RESPECT OF EACH OF ADDITION /DISALLOWANCE AS WAS THE CASE AT THE TIME OF RECORDING SATISFACTION , THE CHARGE FOR LEVYING PENALTY . THIS AMBIGUITY IN THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY IS FATAL. THE CHARGE AND REASON S RECORDED AT THE TIME OF INITIATING PENALTY AND THE CHARGE AND REASONS AT THE TIME OF LEVY OF PENALTY SHOULD BE COHERENT. ANY V ARIANCE IN THE CHARGE AT THE TIME OF INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY OF PENALTY WOULD MAKE THE PENALTY 8 ITA NO S. 2187 TO 2193/PUN/2014, A.YS. 2003 - 04 TO 2009 - 10 ORDER BAD IN LAW . THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT, TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. IN A LL THE APPEALS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND THE PENALTY ORDER S HAVE BEEN PASSED IN IDENTICAL MANNER . IN VIEW OF THE DISCREPANCY POINTED IN THE PENALTY ORDERS, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY LEVIED IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 21 ST DAY OF JUNE, 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 21 ST JUNE, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I, NASHIK 4. / THE CIT (CENTRAL) - I, NASHIK 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , , / ITAT, PUNE