Prithvi Erectors and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissiner of Income-tax,

ITA 2256/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9202 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JHA; DEV A N A SHETH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Competent authority
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 2207 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, PUNE ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. PRITHVI ERECTORS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 585/49, PRIYAMVADA, GULTEKDI, SALISBURY PARK, PUNE 411037 PAN : AABCP1005E / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO . 2256/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 PRITHVI ERECTORS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 585/49, PRIYAMVADA, GULTEKDI, SALISBURY PARK, PUNE 411037 PAN : AABCP1005E ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S/ SHRI S.K. JHA & DEV A N A. SHETH REVENUE BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 07 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 - 0 7 - 2017 2 ITA NO S. 2207 & 2256/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2010 - 11 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH ESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, PUNE DATED 29 - 08 - 2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A PROMOTER AND BUILDER. THE ASSESSEE DEVELOPED A HOUSING PROJECT KRISHNA KAMAL WHICH WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 14 - 10 - 2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.18,78,270/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.76,32,576/ - U/S. 80IB(10) IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) AS THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETE WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED. ORIGINALLY, THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED FOR FOUR BUILDINGS I.E. P, Q, R, AND S. BUILDINGS P AND Q COMPRISING OF 96 FLATS WERE COMPLETE. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN REVISED PLAN BUILDING S WAS ELIMINATED AND FOR BUILDING R CONDITIONAL SANCTION WAS GRANTED . THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING R BEFORE THE DUE DATE I.E. 31 - 03 - 2009 , THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT OUT OF 96 FLATS IN BUILDINGS P AND Q , THE BUILT UP AREA OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS I.E. P 1 - 25 AND Q1 - 21 , IS MORE THAN 1500 SQ. FT. THU S, THE BUILT UP AREA OF THESE TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS IS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) (C) OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO S. 2207 & 2256/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2010 - 11 AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 - 03 - 2013, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GRANTED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AND HENCE, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA OF TWO FLATS I.E. EXCEEDING LIMIT OF 1500 SQ. FT. AGAINST THESE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BOTH, THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE ARE I N APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL HAS RAISED 7 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 7 ARE GENERAL. THE GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 ARE WITH RESPECT TO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) DESPITE THE FACT THAT BUILDING R WHICH IS PART OF PROJECT KRISHNA KAMAL APPROVED ON 23 - 12 - 2004 WAS NOT COMPLETE D BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DUE DATE OF COMPLETION I.E. 31 - 03 - 2009. 3.1 IN GROUND NO. 6 THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN GRANTING PRO - RATA CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF ELIGIBLE FLATS , D ESPITE THE FACT BUILT UP AREA OF TWO FLATS IN THE PROJECT EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF 1500 SQ. FT. AND HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) (C) OF THE ACT. 4 . THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS I.E. P1 - 25 AND Q1 - 21 ALLEGING THAT THE AFORESAI D UNITS EXCEED THRESHOLD LIMIT OF 1500 SQ. FT. 4 ITA NO S. 2207 & 2256/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2010 - 11 5 . SHRI ACHAL SHARMA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE PROJECT KRISHNA KAMAL WAS INITIALLY APPROVED WITH FOUR BUILDINGS I.E. P, Q, R AND S. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE ABANDONED BUILDING S. HOWEVER, FOR BUILDING R THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT FRESH APPROVAL. THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED ON 23 - 12 - 2004, T HEREFORE, THE PROJECT AS PER MANDATORY CONDITION S SET OUT IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A)(II) O F THE ACT , SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY 31 - 03 - 2009. THE ASSESSEE COULD COMPLETE ONLY TWO BUILDINGS I.E. BUILDING P AND Q AND FAILED TO CONSTRUCT BUILDING R BEFORE THE DUE DATE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN GRANTING PRO - RATA BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE HOUSING PROJECT EXCLUDING RESIDENTIAL UNITS P1 - 25 AND Q1 - 21 AS BOTH THE UNIT S EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA LIMIT OF 1500 SQ. FT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND S/SHRI S.K. JHA & DEVAN A. SHETH APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF DEDU CTION U/S. 80IB(10) TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HOUSING PROJECT KRISHNA KAMAL . THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT UNDISPUTEDLY HOUSING PROJECT AS PER ORIGINAL SANCTIONED PLAN HAD APPROV AL OF FOUR BUILDINGS I.E. P, Q, R AND S . THEREAFTER, THE LAYOUT PLAN WAS R EVISED WHEREIN BUILDING S WAS ELIMINATED AND CONDITIONAL COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS RECEIVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING R. THE SAID COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS VALID FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE ABANDONED THE IDEA OF CONSTRUCTI NG BUILDING R. THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS P AND Q , BOTH THE BUILDINGS HAD TWO WINGS I.E. P1, P2, Q1 AND Q2, RESPECTIVELY. THESE FOUR WINGS OF BUILDINGS P AND Q COMPRISED 96 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. BOTH THE WINGS OF BUILDINGS P AND Q WERE 5 ITA NO S. 2207 & 2256/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2010 - 11 COMPLETE IN EVERY RESPECT AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF BUILDING P WAS RECEIVED ON 09 - 06 - 2006 AND IN RESPECT OF BUILDING Q ON 27 - 09 - 2006. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE PROJECT KRISHNA KAMAL WELL BEFORE DUE DATE AS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 80IB(10)(A)(II) OF THE ACT. IN THE BACKDROP OF THESE FACTS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) ON THE PROJECT . 7. IN RESPECT OF DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO TWO RESIDEN TIAL UNITS I.E. P1 - 25 AND Q1 - 21 EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM BUILT UP AREA OF 1500 SQ. FT. , T HE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED CERTIFICATE FROM THE ARCHITECT WHICH IS AT PAGE 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE CERTIFICATE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT P1 - 25 IS HAVING TOTAL AREA OF 1469.50 SQ. FT. INCLUDING TERRACE AND RESIDENTIAL UNIT Q1 - 21 IS HAVING TOTAL AREA OF 1460 SQ. FT. INCLUDING TERRACE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE, WITHOUT ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OR INTIMATING THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE MEASUREMENT OF THE FLATS IN AN UNILATERAL , ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED MANNER AND HELD THE AREA OF BOTH THE FLATS I.E. P1 - 25 AND Q1 - 21 TO BE EXCEEDING THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT OF 1500 SQ. FT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJEC TED THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECT GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE AREA OF THE ABOVE SAID FLATS IN QUESTION BEFORE HOLDING THE AREA OF AFORESAID FLATS AS EXCEEDING THE LIMIT OF 1500 SQ. FT. NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBU T THE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN AT THE BACK OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR MADE AN ALTERNATE PRAYER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) WERE AMENDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WERE AMENDED W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2005 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HA D OBTAINED LAST COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE ON 23 - 12 - 2004 I.E. PRIOR TO AMENDMENT . THE 6 ITA NO S. 2207 & 2256/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2010 - 11 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 80IB(10) IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE AMENDED PROVISION WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS , THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES REPORTED AS 333 ITR 289. 8 . W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF MAKING SUBMISSIONS. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) TO THE HOUSING PROJECT KRISHNA KAMAL DEVELOPED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY, ORIGINAL LAYOUT PLAN OF THE PROJECT COMPRIS ED OF FOUR BUILDINGS I.E. P, Q, R AND S. SUBSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSEE SHELVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING S. THE ASSESSEE ONLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS P AND Q WITH TWO WINGS EACH I.E. P1, P2, Q1 AND Q2. THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED REVISED COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF BUILDING R. THE SAID COMMENCEMENT CER TIFICATE WAS CONDITIONAL AND VALID FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. LATER ON THE ASSESSEE ABANDONED THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING R AND OBTAIN ED COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF BUILDINGS P AND Q IN THE YEAR 2006. THE BUILDINGS P AND Q WERE COMPRISING OF 9 6 FLATS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF FLATS SOLD IN THE AFORESAID TWO BUILDINGS OF THE PROJECT KRISHNA KAMAL. THE LD. AR HAS POINTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF PROJEC T KRISHNA KAMAL IN THE LAST THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SAME SET OF FACTS . THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 7 ITA NO S. 2207 & 2256/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2010 - 11 WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER THOROUGHLY EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VANDANA PROPERTIES REPORTED AS 353 ITR 36 AND THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAHUL CONSTRUCTION VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN ITA NO. 1250/PN/2009 DECIDED ON 30 - 03 - 2012 ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. BUILDINGS P AND Q OF THE HOUSING PROJECT KRISHNA KAMAL ON STANDALONE BASIS SATISFY ALL THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION IN RESP ECT OF AFORESAID BUILDINGS. SINCE, CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING R HAS BEEN WITHHELD BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD NOT IMPINGE THE RIGHT OF ASSESSEE TO CLAIM BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) ON REMAINING PROJECT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 RAISED IN TH E APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. 9 . IN GROUND NO. 6, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN GRANTING PRO - RATA DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) DESPITE THE FACT THAT TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS I.E. P1 - 25 AND Q1 - 21 WERE ALLEGEDLY EXCEEDING THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF 1500 SQ. FT. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED CORRESPONDING GROUND IN ITS APPEAL ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE MEASUREMENT OF AFORESAID FLATS. AS PER THE CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT BUILT UP AREA OF BOTH THE FLATS IS LESS THAN 1500 SQ. FT. 1 0 . IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ISSUING ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AT THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE MEASUREMENT OF FL ATS P1 - 25 AND Q1 - 21. ON THE BASIS OF MEASUREMENT SO TAKEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BUILT UP 8 ITA NO S. 2207 & 2256/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2010 - 11 AREA OF AFORESAID FLATS IS MORE THAN 1500 SQ. FT. AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR HAS DRAWN OUT ATTENTION TO THE CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT AT PAGE 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE SHOW THAT THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT P1 - 25 IS HAVING TOTAL AREA OF 1469.50 SQ. FT. INCLUDING TERRACE AND THE AREA OF RE SIDENTIAL UNIT Q1 - 21 IS 1460 SQ. FT. INCLUDING TERRACE. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER MEASUREMENTS WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TAKING MEASUREMENTS O F THE FLATS AT THE BACK OF ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND SHOULD HAVE JOINED ASSESSEE OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE WHILE TAKING MEASUREMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER WI THOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN PROCEEDED ON TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOW S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT DATED 27 - 11 - 2007 PLA CED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN GIVEN. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS AND THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNJUSTIFIED AND VIOLAT IVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS P1 - 25 AND Q1 - 21 IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. 11. EVEN OTHERWISE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WERE AMENDED W.E.F. 01 - 04 - 2005 , WHEREAS , THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED CERTIFICATE OF COMMENCEMENT ON 23 - 12 - 2004 I.E. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT. HENCE, THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT APPLY ON THE SANCTION S TAKEN PRIOR TO THE DATE OF AMENDMENT. SIMI LAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 9 ITA NO S. 2207 & 2256/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2010 - 11 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA). THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT , GROUND NO. 6 RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 14 TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 14 TH JULY, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - II, PUNE 4. / THE CIT - II, PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, , / ITAT, PUNE