Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samittee, Jalgaon V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2238/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 223824514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAZAR AKRAM
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Wrong claim
• Section: 50C; 142(1); 148; 10; 11; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2238/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITTEE, (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE) BHADGAON ROAD, PACHORA 424 201 .. APPELLANT PAN NO. AAAAK4068R VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JALGAON .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO REVENUE BY : SHRI MAZAR AKRAM DATE OF HEARING : 12-05-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-05-2015 ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 10-10-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK REL ATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.58,35,106/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A ) IS THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE VARIOUS GR OUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A NON- FILER OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. THE 2 AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 ON 24-12-2010 IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 11-03-2 013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,02,69,504/- WHICH INCLUDED LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.74,99,876/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE APMC HAD SOLD NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND AT SURVEY NO.231 ADMEASURING 1 HECTARE 34R FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.91 LAKHS TO SHRI LILA DHAR MADHUKAR PATIL, PACHORA. HOWEVER, AS PER SALE DEED THE MARKET PRICE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.1,15,50,000/-. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD NON AGRICULTUR AL LAND TO SHRI ATUL SANGHAVI, PACHORA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.15,51,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT BE NOT MA DE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.231 AND WHY NOT MARKET PRICE OF RS.1,15,50,000/- BE ADOPTED FOR CALCULATIO N OF CAPITAL GAIN INCOME. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED NOR FUR NISHED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THEREFORE, THE AO, APPLYING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, ADOPTED MARKET PRICE OF RS.1,15,50,000/- FOR CALCULATION OF INCOME FROM CAP ITAL GAIN AND ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN A T RS.99,45,876/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E AO DETERMINING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.99,49, 876/- BEFORE CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ACTION O F THE AO 3 IN ADOPTING THE VALUATION AS DETERMINED BY THE STAM P DUTY VALUATION DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW FURTHER COST OF RS.25,00,000/- BEING ENHANCED COMPENSATION PAID TO THE OWNER AS PER COURT ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDEXATION. THE AO THEREAFTER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ANY INCOME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE INGREDIENT REQUIRED FOR INITIATION AND LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IS NOT FULFILLED. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME. THE RETURN WAS FILED LATE DUE TO REASONABL E CAUSE AND SUFFICIENT REASONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE P ENALTY NOTICE, NOTHING WAS MENTIONED REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY O F EITHER MAIN CLAUSE OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OR EXPLANATION 3 T O SECTION 271(1)(C). THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE L AWS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. 5. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLA NATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT AS REGARD TO THE FIRST CONTENTION IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT ASS ESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE OFFERED FOR TAXATION THE CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPT ING STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED. WITH REGARD TO SECOND CONTENTION, HE OBSERVED THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON FILER OF RETURN OF INCOME AND IT HAD FILED RETURN ONLY AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE 4 U/S148 BY THE DEPARTMENT. HAD THE DEPARTMENT NOT I SSUED NOTICE U/S.148, THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HA VE ESCAPED. IN RESPECT OF REASONABLE CAUSE OF PAUCITY OF FUNDS, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THIS PLEA CANNOT ABSOLVE ANYBOD Y FROM FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. INSTEAD, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(1) ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED RETURN WITHIN THE STIPUL ATED TIME TO WHICH ASSESSEE FAILED. THE DECISIONS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEES CASE. REJECT ING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIST INGUISHING VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM THE AO LEVIED PE NALTY OF RS.58,35,106/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TH E LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PENALTY PROC EEDING U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR ENT IRE ASSESSED INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED RETURN OF INCO ME ONLY AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIO US THAT THE AO INTENDS TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 O F SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS SOLD OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN OPEN PUBLI C AUCTION AT MARKET PRICE, AS PER PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT, TO COME OUT FROM THE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS/CRISIS. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE APMC IS MAINTAINING REG ULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED BY THE SPECIAL AUDITOR, CLASS-I, OF CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT OF JALGAON. THE CO- 5 OPERATIVE AUDIT WAS NOT COMPLETED BY THE DUE DATE O F FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND HENCE THE THEN C.A WAS RELUCTA NT TO AUDIT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T PROVIDED WITH REPORTS IN THE FORMS AS PER SECTION 44AB OF TH E IT ACT, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT HAD RECEIVED THE CO -OP AUDIT REPORT AS PER LETTER DT. 18-04-2009. 7. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FACING ACUTE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS/CRISIS AND THE ASSESSEE WA S UNDER BURDEN OF HEAVY BANK LOANS. THE COPY OF STATEMENT O F BANK SHOWING LOAN OUTSTANDING DURING THE PERIOD OF 30-10 -2008 TO 31-03-2011 (FROM THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN AND TILL THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME) WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD.CIT(A) WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HEAVY LOAN WAS OUTSTANDING DURING THIS PERIOD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE APMC HAS APPR OACHED THEIR THEN COUNSEL FOR PREPARATION OF COMPUTATION O F INCOME FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND CAME TO KNOW THAT IT RE QUIRED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF ABOUT RS .59.82 LAKHS. SUFFICIENT FUNDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX AND IT WA S TOLD TO THE ASSESSEE THAT UNLESS PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAID RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DEP ARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD.CIT(A) THE COPY OF CASH BALANCES AVAILABLE AS PER THE CASH BOOKS DURIN G THE PERIOD OF 30-10-2008 TO 31-03-2011 TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT TH ERE WAS 6 LITERALLY VERY LESS CASH BALANCES. IT WAS ACCORDI NGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCO ME IN TIME. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE SELF-ASSE SSMENT TAX IN INSTALLMENTS AS UNDER AND THEN FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME : DATE OF S.A. PAYMENT AMOUNT (RS.) 28-02-2011 5,00,000 25-03-2011 5,00,000 25-03-2011 5,00,000 25-03-2011 5,00,000 31-03-2011 5,00,000 31-03-2011 5,00,000 31-03-2011 5,00,000 31-03-2011 5,00,000 31-03-2011 5,00,000 31-03-2011 5,00,000 31-03-2011 5,00,000 31-03-2011 5,00,000 TOTAL 60,00,000 9. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER R ECEIPT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IT HAD TRIED ITS BEST TO C OLLECT THE AMOUNT FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES BUT ULTIMATELY IT FAILE D TO DO SO DUE TO PAUCITY OF FUNDS. THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE T O FILE VALID RETURN U/S. 139(1) R. W. S. 139(9) EXPLANATION-(C) AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE PAYMENT OF TAXES, HENCE THEY HAVE NO T FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAXES. UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASON ABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR LATE FILING RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO INTENTION TO DELAY IN FILING THE R ETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT NON FILING OF THE RETURN DUE TO PAUCITY OF THE FUNDS AMOUNTS TO REASONABLE CAUSE, T HE ASSESSEE 7 RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAHADEOBARI TEA CO. (P) LTD. V/S. DY. CIT REPORTED IN (2002) 75 TTJ 561 (GA U). 10. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO REASONS BY WH ICH ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FOR LATE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED ENTIRE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND M ERELY BRUSHED ASIDE VARIOUS FACTS STATING, THAT, 'REASONA BLE CAUSE OF PAUCITY OF FUNDS, CANNOT ABSOLVE ANYBODY FROM FILIN G RETURN OF INCOME.' 11. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A LOOK AT THE VARI OUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE WAS P AUCITY OF FUNDS WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE APMC FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX, WHICH IS ONE OF THE PRECONDITION FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS CERTA INLY PREVENTED BY REASONABLY CAUSE FOR FURNISHING THE RE TURN OF INCOME IN TIME. 12. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED AUTOMATICALLY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOW ING DECISIONS : 1. CIT VS. AARKAY SAREE MUSUEM REPORTED IN 187 ITR 14 7 (BOM.) 2. CIT VS. PARMESHWARI DAS SATPAL BARNALA REPORTED IN (2008) 14 TAXMANN 507 (P&H) 3. GEM GRANITES VS. DY.CIT REPORTED IN (2009) 120 TTJ 992 (CHENNAI) 8 4. CIT VS. KHODAY ESWARSA & SONS REPORTED IN (1972) CT R 295 (SC) IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT NO PENALTY U/S.27 1(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IS LEVIABLE. 13. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED W ITH THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE P ENALTY SO LEVIED BY THE AO. WHILE DOING SO HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITS TAXABLE INCOME BY NOT FILING ITS RETU RN OF INCOME AND HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY NOT DECLARING THE CORRECT TAXABLE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF ITS ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE HA D WORKED OUT CAPITAL GAINS FROM SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTIES WITH OUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I. T. ACT. EVENTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT IN ASS ESSEES CASE SECTION 50C OF THE I.T ACT WAS/IS ATTRACTED, THE AS SESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY MADE A WRONG CLAIM. ONLY WHEN ENQUIRI ES WERE CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE WRONG CLAIM WAS DI SCOVERED. DISTINGUISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE H IM, THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASS ESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME LATE, BUT IT IS THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WHICH HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT HAD TAXABLE INCOME. 14. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U /S.148 WAS ISSUED ON 24-12-2010. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE U/S.148 ON 11 -03-2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,02,69,504/-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2 ,27,19,504/- WHEREIN HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.79,49,876/- ON ACCOU NT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WHILE DOING SO THE AO HAS CONSI DERED THE SALE VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT SURVEY NO.231 SO LD TO SHRI LILADHAR MADHUKAR PATIL AT RS.1,15,50,000/- AS AGAI NST RS.91 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. AT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN APPEAL TH E LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED FURTHER DEDUCTION OF RS.25 LAKHS REPRES ENTING ENHANCED COMPENSATION PAID TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND AS A PART OF COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATI ON OF CAPITAL GAINS AND ON FURTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUNAL CANCELLED THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WHERE THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION ALLO WED BY THE CIT(A) WAS CHALLENGED. 16. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ORDER GIVING EFFEC T TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, PUNE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME BY THE AO AT RS.1,61,07,873/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCO ME OF RS.2,02,69,504/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN R ESPONSE TO 10 NOTICE U/S.148. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS DESPITE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE THE AO LEVI ED PENALTY OF RS.58,35,106/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 17. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLO SED ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS SOLD IN PUBLIC AUCTION. THEREFORE, WHEN THE PROPERTY IS SOLD IN P UBLIC AUCTION, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS THE SAME PRICE AND NOT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE AO AND T HE CIT(A) HAVE NOT GIVEN REASONS AS TO UNDER WHICH SECTION TH E PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN LEVIED BY FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE NO TICE U/S.148 IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS ISSUED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YE ARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS A.Y. 2008-09 THE TW O YEAR PERIOD EXPIRES ON 31-03-2011 AND THE AO HAS ISSUED THE NOT ICE U/S.148 ON 24-12-2010. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHAGANLAL SUTERI YA VS. ITO AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 337 ITR 350 HE SUBMITTED THA T THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD TH AT A MERE FAILURE TO FURNISH A RETURN OF INCOME DOES NOT AMOU NT TO CONCEALMENT U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE INT RODUCTION OF 11 EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) W.E.F. 01-04-197 6 HAS CHANGED THE LAW ON THE POINTS IN CERTAIN CASES FOR THE PURPOSE OF FALLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF EXPLANATION 3, I.E. ( A) PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED (B) HE SHO ULD HAVE FAILED WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE TO FURNISH RETURN O F INCOME FOR A.Y. 1989-90 OR ANY YEAR SUBSEQUENT THERETO WITHIN 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED (C) N O NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO HIM U/S.142(1) OR SECTIO N 148 OF THE ACT BEFORE EXPIRY OF THE 2 YEAR PERIOD AND (D) THE CONCERNED OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESS MENT YEAR SUCH PERSON HAD TAXABLE INCOME. IN SUCH CASES EXPLANATI ON 3 PROVIDES THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE C ONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLA USE C OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SUCH AN EVENTUALITY EVEN IF THE PERSON CONCERNED FILES T HE RETURN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT, THE DEEMING PROVISION OF E XPLANATION 3 SHALL STILL HAVE APPLICATION. THE ONLY EVENTUALITY UNDER WHICH NON-FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME AMOUNTS TO CONCE ALMENT IS AS PROVIDED UNDER EXPLANATION 3 TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271. HENCE, UNLESS EXPLANATION 3 OF SECTION 271(1) IS ATTRACTED, THERE CAN BE NO CONCEALMENT AS ENVISAGED U/S.271(1) (C). FURTHER, THE CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF EX PLANATION 3 TO SECTION 271(1) ARE CUMULATIVE AND EACH OF THE CONDI TIONS HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS. SINCE 12 IN THAT CASE THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONE R ASSESSEE U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON 10-03-1997 WHICH WAS WITHIN T HE PERIOD SPECIFIED U/S.153(1) IT WAS HELD THAT THE CASE OF T HE PETITIONER DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTI ON 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER ASSESSEE U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARA T HIGH COURT. SINCE THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) O F THE I.T. ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION 3 TO P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 18. EVEN ON MERIT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10(20) THE APM CS CONTINUED TO BE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND THERE WERE WI DE SPREAD MISUNDERSTANDING. ONLY AFTER THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT CLARIFIED ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL AUTHORITY T HAT IT WAS FELT NECESSARY TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FROM A.Y. 20 09-10 ONWARDS. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26AAB WAS INTRODUCE D BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F., 01-04-2009 ACCORDING TO W HICH ANY INCOME OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT MARKET COMMITTEE OR BOARD CONSTITUTED IN LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULATING THE MARKET OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WERE EXEMPT FROM TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE DID NOT 13 HAVE THE MONEY AND WAS UNDER THE PROCESS OF LIQUIDA TION. AFTER THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE UTI LIZED FOR PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX. 19. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, JALGAON VIDE ITA NOS. 2019 TO 2025/PN/2013 ORDER DA TED 21- 10-2014 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 HE SUBMITTED T HAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL CANC ELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED (SUPRA) PENAL TY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE IN TH E INSTANT CASE. 20. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHE R HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A ). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-FILER OF RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED T HE RETURN OF INCOME ONLY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 AND THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND CORRECTLY. HAD THERE BEEN NO NOTICE U/S.148 T HE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFO RE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS JUSTIFIED WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTL Y UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 14 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BE FORE US. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE MARKET COMMITTEE AND HAD EARNED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY , BUSINESS, OTHER SOURCES AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT IT FILED ITS RET URN OF INCOME ON 11-03-2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,02,69,504 /-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 O N 01-12- 2011 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,27,79,504 /-. WHILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THE AO COMPUTE D THE MARKET VALUE OF ONE OF THE LAND AT RS.1,15,50,000/- BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AS AGAINST THE VALUE DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.91 LAKHS. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) W HILE UPHOLDING THE ADOPTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ALLOWED FURTHER RELIEF OF RS.25 LAKHS BEING ENHANCED COMPEN SATION PAID TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND AS PART OF THE COST OF ACQ UISITION. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVEN UE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 20-03-2014 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO I N ADOPTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. SIMILARLY, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY UPHOLD ING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN GRANTING FURTHER DEDUCTION O F RS.25 LAKHS REPRESENTING ENHANCED COMPENSATION PAID TO THE OWNE R OF THE 15 LAND AS A PART OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE P URPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITT ED FACT THAT THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED BY THE AO AFTER GIVING EFFE CT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IS RS.1,61,07,873/- AS AGAINST TH E RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2,02,69,504/-. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES, NOW WE HAVE TO DECIDE THE LEVIABILITY OF PENALTY U/S.27 1(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO AT RS.58,3 5,106/- AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 22. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT WHERE THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T ACT HAS BE EN ISSUED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHAGANLAL SUTERIYA (SUPRA). IT IS ALSO THE ALTERNATE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE WAS UNDER THE PROCESS OF LIQUIDATION AND DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME. ON LY AFTER SALE OF THE PROPERTY BY PUBLIC AUCTION IT COULD GATHER T HE REQUISITE AMOUNT FOR PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX AND ACCOR DINGLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DE CISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, JALGAON (SUPRA) PENALTY U/S.271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE. 16 23. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHAGANLAL SUTERIYA (SUPRA) HAS HELD TH AT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 271(1) THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED ARE CUMULATIVE. T HE AO HAVING ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.148 TO THE PETITIONER WI THIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED U/S.153(1), THE THIRD CONDITION NAMELY TH AT NO NOTICE U/S.142(1) OR SECTION 148 SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED W ITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION 1 OF SECTION 153 IS CLEARLY NOT SATISFIED AND THEREFORE IT WAS HELD THAT THE FAILUR E ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO FURNISH THE RETURN WITHIN THE PER IOD CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE CONCEALMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPL ANATION 3 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT PAGES 356 AND 357 READ AS UNDER : 11. THUS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS THAT MERE FAILURE TO FURNISH A RETURN OF INCOME DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONTENTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT NON-FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME PER SE AMOUN TS TO CONCEALMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT, BEING CONTRARY TO THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION, DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE. 12. BUT THE INTRODUCTION OF EXPLN. 3 TO S. 271(1) W .E.F. 1ST APRIL, 1976 HAS CHANGED THE LAW ON THE POINT IN CERT AIN CASES. EXPLANATION 3 PROVIDES THAT IF A PERSON, WHO HAS NOT H ITHERTO BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE IT ACT, 1961 DOES NOT FIL E A RETURN OF INCOME FOR AN ASSESSMENT YEAR VOLUNTARILY WIT HIN THE NORMAL PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND NO NOTICE UNDER S. 1 42(1) OR 148 IS ISSUED TO HIM TILL THE EXPIRY OF THE SAID PERIOD , HE WILL BE TREATED TO HAVE CONCEALED HIS INCOME AND PENALTY WIL L BE LEVIABLE ON HIM ACCORDINGLY IF HE IS LATER FOUND TO HAVE HAD TAXABLE INCOME IN THAT YEAR. THUS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FALLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF EXPLN. 3, FIRSTLY, A PERSON SHOU LD NOT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED (THAT IS, A NEW ASSESSEE); SECONDLY, HE SHOULD HAVE FAILED WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE, TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YR. 1989-90 OR ANY YEAR SUBSEQUENT THERETO WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CONCERNED; THIRDLY, THAT NO NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO HIM UNDER S. 142(1) OR S. 148 OF THE ACT TILL THE EXP IRY OF THE TWO 17 YEAR PERIOD; AND LASTLY, THE CONCERNED OFFICER IS SATI SFIED THAT IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR, SUCH PERSON HAD TAXABLE INCOME. IN SUCH CASES, EXPLN. 3 PROVIDES THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS IN COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF CL. (C) OF S. 271(1) OF THE AC T FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SUCH AN EVENTUALITY, EVEN IF THE PE RSON CONCERNED FILES A RETURN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE SAID PERIOD OF TWO YEARS IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER S. 148 OF TH E ACT, THE DEEMING PROVISION OF EXPLN. 3 SHALL STILL HAVE APPLICA TION. 13. THOUGH IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE EXPLN. 3 HAS NOT BE EN APPLIED; AS NOTICED EARLIER MERE NON-FURNISHING OF A RETURN PER SE IS NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ONLY EVENTUALITY UNDER WH ICH NON- FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT IS AS PROVIDED UNDER EXPLN. 3 TO SUB-S. (1) OF S. 271 OF THE ACT. HENCE, UNLESS EXPLN. 3 OF S. 271(1) OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED, T HERE CAN BE NO CONCEALMENT AS ENVISAGED UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLN. 3 TO S. 271(1) COULD HAVE BEE N INVOKED IN THE PRESENT CASE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE P ROVISIONS OF EXPLN. 3 TO S. 271(1) OF THE ACT, THE CONDITIONS ENUMERATED HEREINBEFORE ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED. IF ANY OF THE SAID CONDITIONS IS NOT SATISFIED, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLN. 3 TO S. 271(1) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMITTEDLY THE PETITIONER HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, HENCE , THE FIRST REQUIREMENT OF EXPLN. 3 IS DULY SATISFIED. THE P ETITIONER HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 153 OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH, THE SE COND CONDITION IS ALSO SATISFIED. HOWEVER, AS NOTED EARLIER, IN THE PRESENT CASE A NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 10TH MARCH, 1997 WHICH WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED UNDER S. 153(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE THIRD CONDITION NAMELY, THAT NO NO TICE UNDER S. 142(1) OR S. 148 OF THE ACT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED W ITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-S. (1) OF S. 153 OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY NOT SATISFIED. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE CONDITIO NS FOR APPLICABILITY OF EXPLN. 3 TO S. 271(1) ARE CUMULATIV E AND EACH OF THE CONDITIONS HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVOKING THE SAID PROVISION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALL THE CONDIT IONS ARE NOT CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED. THE FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE PETITIONER TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE SP ECIFIED PERIOD, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE CONCEALME NT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXPLN. 3 TO S. 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID, IT IS APPARENT TH AT THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPLN. 3 TO S. 271(1) OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH, NO PENALTY COULD BE LE VIED ON THE PETITIONER UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEAL MENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETI TIONER HAD FAILED TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREFORE, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 18 24. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO WE FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD CANCE LLED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T A CT AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5. IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S TREATED AS A LOCAL AUTHORITY U/S. 10(20) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT UP TO THE A.Y. 2002-03. SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THE APMC WAS REMOVED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE LOCAL AU THORITY. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 H AS INTRODUCED SUB-SEC. (26AAB) TO SEC. 10 AND AGAIN THE INCOME OF THE APMC HAS BEEN EXEMPTED FROM TAX. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOU T THE FACT THAT APMC IS CONSTITUTED FOR MARKETING OF THE AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE HELPING THE AGRICULTURISTS TO GET THE BETTER PRICE IN THE OPEN MARKET AND TO AVOID THE BROKERS AND AGENTS. IT APPEARS THAT THE COLLECTIVE EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE DIFFERE NT APMCS IN INDIA AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 10(20) FOR GETTIN G EXEMPTION. MOREOVER, AS PER THE FACTS ON RECORD THE GOVT. AUDIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PERIOD ENDING ON 30-09-2007 AND 31- 03- 2008 WAS COMPLETED ON 14-07-2009 AND HENCE, THERE WA S A DELAY IN FINALIZING TAX AUDIT REPORT. IT IS ALSO SEE N THAT IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCEPTED WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADDITION. 6. WE FIND THAT THE EXPLANATION 3 BELOW SEC. 271(1) (C) WHICH IS DEEMING PROVISION, IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSE E AS PERIOD MENTIONED U/S. 153(1) HAS EXPIRED AND THEN ONL Y THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE CAN STILL AVAIL THE EXPLANATION 1 TO ESTABLISH TH E BONAFIDE FOR NOT FILING THE RETURNS OF INCOME WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/S. 139 OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BONAFIDE FOR NOT FILING THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR BOTH THESE ASSESSMENT YE ARS WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 1 BELOW SEC. 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT AND IN OUR OPINION NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE CHARGE OF CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DELETE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BOTH THESE ASSESSMENT YEA RS AND GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 25. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDENTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE THEREFOR E SET ASIDE THE 19 ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO CANCEL THE PENALTY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-05-2015. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PAN DA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 20 TH MAY, 2015 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-II, NASHIK 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE