Vishwakarma Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur V. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2235/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7759 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Fair market value; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM . / ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 1 2 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., A - 12, MADHUBAN HOUSING SOCIETY, RAJARAMPURI, 13 TH LANE, KOLHAPUR . / APPELLANT PAN: AAACV5975A VS. THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, KOLHAPUR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA, ADDL.CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 .0 8 . 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 . 0 8 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) , KOLHAPUR , DATED 29 .0 9 .201 4 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 1 - 1 2 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/20 1 4 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 2 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL : - 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17 , 13 , 000/ - OUT OF TOTAL COMMISSION PAID OF RS.21 , 00 , 000/ - TO THREE DIRECTORS MADE BY THE A. O . REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HOLDING THAT THE COMMISSION IN EXCESS OF 2 % WAS COMPARABLE TO SUCH PAYMENT OF BROKERAGE PAID IN THE MARKET. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE BEFORE BOTH T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE SAID COMMISSION WAS NOT PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. THE REJECTION OF CLAIM IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE ADDITION OF RS.17,13 ,000 / - BE DELETED. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) AL SO ERRED BY SIMPLY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A. O . ON PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION ONLY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SUCH BROKERAGE WAS GENERALLY PAID @ 2 % AS IS THE PRACTICE IN THE GENERAL MARKET AND WHICH PAYMENT TO DIRECTORS WAS NOT A BROKERAGE. THE A. O . OUGHT TO HAVE PROVED THIS FACT BY BRING COGENT EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD. THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IT BE DELETED. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A. O . O UT OF SALARY PAID TO DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY U/S 40A(2) (A) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED AS ENVISAGED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT( A) BE DELETED . \ 4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.23,13,000/ - AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS REVENUE NEUTRAL. NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED. IT BE DELETED. 5) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.17,13,000/ - OUT OF TOTAL COMMISSION PAID OF RS.21 LAKHS TO THE DIRECTORS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY BY INVOKIN G PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED BY DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY PAID TO ONE OF THE DIRECTORS BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.48,10,950/ - . THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER, FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/20 1 4 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 3 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 51,58,180/ - AND ALSO SHOWING DEEMED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.47,97,334/ - UNDER SE CTION 115JB OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT SALES COMMISSION OF RS.21,05,000/ - WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TOTAL SALES OF F LAT OF RS.1,93,50,000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH WAS ABOUT 10.87%. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY THE SAID COMMISSION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO 2%, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID SALES COMMISSION WAS EXCESS AND UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SERVICES, FOR WHICH THE AFORESAID PAYMENT WAS MADE. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SALES COMMISSION OF RS.21 LAKHS WAS PAID TO THREE DIRECTORS AND RS.5,000/ - WAS PAID TO OUTSIDE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD STARTED THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS SCHEME AT DEOKAR PANAND HAVING 72 FLATS AND 10 SHOPS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 ONWARDS AND ALMOST COMPLETED THE CONSTRUCTION AND SALES OF FLATS UP TO 31.03.2011. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ONLY AFTER COMPLETION OF SCHEME, SALES COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THREE DIRECTORS, SINCE THE DIRECTORS HAD MADE EFFO RTS TO SELL ALL THE FLATS OR MADE BOOKINGS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, WHERE THE COMMISSION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF TOTAL SALES OF RS.5.50 CRORES, THE SAME WAS REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ENTIRETY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE , IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT COMMISSION AT 10.87% OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS NOTHING BUT THE BROKERAGE PAID IN THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF FLATS AND SHOPS. SINCE THE BROKERAGE GENERALLY WAS PAID @ 2% IN SUCH TYPE OF TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/20 1 4 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 4 OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2) (A) OF THE ACT, ALLOWED COMMISSION AT RS.3,87,000/ - AND DISALLOWED COMMISSION PAID OF RS.17,13,000/ - THE NEXT POINT RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS AGAINST THE DIRECTORS REMUNERATION OF RS.9 LAKHS, WHEREIN RS.3 LAKHS EACH WAS PAID TO THREE DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SALARY OF RS.1 LAKH EACH TO THE DIRECTOR FOR THEIR SERVICES RENDERED TO THE COMPANY AS AN EMPLOYEE WAS ALLOWABLE AND THE SALARY OF RS.6 LAKHS PAID TO THE DIRECTORS WAS CONSIDERED AS EXCESSIVE AND DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40A(2) (A) OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE BEING PURELY BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, SHOULD BE ALLOW ED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) PVT. LTD. (2009) 310 ITR 306 (BOM). THE CIT(A) HOWEVER, UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO OBSE RVED THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) PVT. LTD. WERE AT VARIANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE RECIPIENT DIRECTORS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEY WERE ASSESSED AT THE SAME RATE TO TAX A S THE PAYER COMPANY WAS ASSESSED. HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND POINTED OUT HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS TO ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/20 1 4 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 5 BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(2) (A) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE OUT OF PAYMENTS OF HANDING CHARGES TO THE SISTER CONCERN . THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO EVASION OF TAX BY THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF HIGHER COMMISSION TO THE SISTER CONCERN, SIN CE THE SISTER CONCERN WAS ALSO PAYING TAXES AT HIGHER RATES AS THAT OF PAYER. THE SAID PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. V.S. DEMPO AND CO. P. LTD. (2011) 336 I TR 209 (BOM). THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE DIRECTORS SHRI SHANKAR MARUTI GAWADE, SHRI ARUNA SHANKAR GAWADE AND SHRI NIKHIL SHANKAR GAWADE TO WHOM THE SAL ES COMMISSION AND SALARY, RESPECTIVELY WERE PAID. 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) . 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION INCOME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. THE SAID SECTION PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE MAKES PAYMENT TO A PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF THE SAID SECTION AND WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE, HAVING REGARD TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERVICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE, OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUING THEREFROM, THEN SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERS TO BE ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/20 1 4 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 6 EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE, SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. CLAUSE (B) TO SUB - SECTION E NLISTS THE PERSONS WHO ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THE RELATIVES. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.6 - P OF 1968, DATED 06.07.1968 HAD PROPOSED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO SCRUTINIZE THE REASONABLENESS OF EXPENDITURE WITH REFERENCE TO THE CRITERIA MENTIONED IN THE S ECTION. IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS EXPECTED TO EXERCISE HIS JUDGMENT IN A REASONABLE AND FAIR MANNER, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE PROVISION WAS MEANT TO CHECK EVASION OF TAX THROUGH EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS TO RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATES CONCERNS AND SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD CAUSE HARDS HIP IN BONAFIDE CASES. IT WAS FURTHER PROVIDED VIDE THAT CIRCULAR THAT THE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 40A(2) (A) OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF COMPANY IN RESPEC T OF ANY EXPENDITURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 40(C)(I) OF THE ACT I.E. RELATING TO REMUNERATION BENEFITS AND AMENITIES TO DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, PERSONS SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED IN THE COMPANY OR TO RELATIVES OF SUCH DIRECTOR OR PERSONS. IT WAS STRESSED THAT THE PROVISIONS WERE NOT TO BE APPLIED IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD CAUSE HARDSHIP IN BONAFIDE CASES. IN RESPECT OF REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS, THE CIRCULAR PROVIDED THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE EVASION OF TAX THROUGH PAYMENT TO RELATIVES IF THE SAME WAS WITHIN PERMISSIBLE LIMITS IN SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT. 10. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAD NOTED THE SAID CIRCULAR AND HAD HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE OUT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE SISTER CONCERN ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EVADED PAYMENT OF TAX BY ALLEGED PAYMENT OF HIGHER COMMISSION TO ITS SISTER CONCERN, SINCE THE SISTER CONCERN WAS ALSO PAYING ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/20 1 4 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 7 TAXES AT HIGHER RATES AND COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF SISTER CONCERN S WERE ALSO TAKEN ON RECORD. 11. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. V.S. DEMPO AND CO. P. LTD. (SUPRA) REFERRED TO THE SAID CIRCULAR AND HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING EXTRA HALF PERCENTAGE COMMISSION TO ITS SISTER CONCERN, WHICH WAS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX AND WAS PAYING TAX, NO DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(2) (A) OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO RELATIVES AND SISTER CONCERNS, WHERE THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICE S (TRAVEL) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WAS APPLIED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. 12. NOW, COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE CIRCULAR NO.6 - P OF 1968, DATED 06.07.1968 . FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, IT HAD PAID COMMISSION OF RS.21 LAKHS TO ITS THREE DIRECTORS IN THE PROPORTIONATE AS DECIDED AND RESOLVED IN THE MEETING OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID COMMISSION OF RS.9 LAKHS TO SHRI SHANKAR MARUTI GAWADE AND DIRECTOR S REMUNERATION OF RS.3 LAKHS , TO OTHER DIRECTORS SHRI ARUNA SHANKAR GAWADE, COMMISSION WAS PAID OF RS.6 LAKHS AND DIRECTORS REMUNERATION OF RS.3 LAKHS. FURTHER TO SHRI NIKHIL SHANKAR GAWADE DIRECTORS COMMISSION OF RS.5,37,020/ - AND RS.6 LAKHS OF SALARY WAS PAID. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ON RECORD THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY EACH OF THE DIRECTORS TO POINT OUT THAT THE RATES OF TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF DIRECTORS WERE EQUIVALENT TO THE RATES OF TAXES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND CONSEQUENTLY BY PAYING THE SAID COMMISSION EVEN IF HELD TO BE EXCESSIVE, THERE WAS NO LOSS OF REVENUE. WE ARE DECIDING THE ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/20 1 4 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 8 ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS AND COMMISSION TO THE THREE DIRECTORS , WHICH DEDUCTION WAS PARTLY CURTAILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ONUS IS HEAVY UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH AS TO WHETHER THE REMUNERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO ITS DIRECTORS AND THE COMMISSION PAID TO THE DIRECTO RS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS MORE THAN THE MARKET VALUE OF SERVICES AVAILED BY IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT AND CURTAILED THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.21 LAKHS, THE SAME WAS RESTRICTED TO ONLY RS.3,87,000/ - AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION OF RS.17,13,000/ - WAS DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEDUCTION O F RS.1 LAKH TO EACH OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE BALANCE SALARY OF RS.6 LAKHS PAID TO THE DIRECTORS WAS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABL ISH THAT EVEN AFTER PAYMENT OF SAID COMMISSION AND REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS, THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE, SINCE THE RECIPIENTS WERE ALSO PAYING TAXES AT THE RATES OF TAX AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN VIEW THEREOF AND APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN B Y THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN CIT VS. V.S. DEMPO AND CO. P. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN DENYING THE ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS AND ALSO THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE DIRECTORS. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF COMMISSION AT RS. 2 1 LAKHS AND REMUNERATION OF PARTNERS ITA NO. 2235 /P U N/20 1 4 VISHWAKARMA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 9 AT RS.9 LAKHS IN ENTIRETY . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 9 TH AUGUST , 201 7 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPE LLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) , KOLHAPUR ; 4. / THE CIT - I/II, KOLHAPUR / CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE