Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. M/s. B.V. Bio Corp Ltd., Pune

ITA 2329/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5517 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N ASHOK BABU ITA NOS; PUN ITA NOS
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E . , , ! , ' # BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AW ASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS. 2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 '% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 B.V. BIO-CORP PVT. LTD. VENKATESHWARA HOUSE, S. NO.114/A/2, NEAR SRI SARADA MATH, PUNE- SINHGAD ROAD, PUNE-411 030. PAN : AABCB8390C ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE. / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 '% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE. ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. M/S. B.V. BIO-CORP PVT. LTD. VENKATESHWARA HOUSE, S. NO.114/A/2, NEAR SRI SARADA MATH, PUNE- SINHGAD ROAD, PUNE-411 030. PAN : AABCB8390C / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI N. ASHOK BABU. 2 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 / DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.06.2019 ) / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE-11 DATED 29.07.2016 COMMON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2. SINCE ISSUES IN APPEALS FOR BOTH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEARS ARE ARISING FROM SAME SET OF FACTS, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS COMMON ORDER. FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FACTS ARE EXTRACTED FROM THE APPEAL S FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.2220/PUN/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.2329/PUN/2016 (BY REVENUE) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF FEED CONCENTRATES & SUPPLEMENTS, DISINFECTANTS, PET PRODUCTS, H EALTH AND NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS A GROUP CONCER N OF VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES. INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT F ROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF SUSPICIOUS AND HAWALA TRANSACTIONS CARRIED O UT BY HAWALA OPERATORS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED AFTE R ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). IN 3 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,30,28,844/- FROM M /S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES, A DECLARED HAWALA DEALER BY THE SALES TAX DE PARTMENT. IN THE P & L ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED PURCHASES FROM THE AFORESAID DEALER AS RS.1,25,27,737/- I.E. AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF VAT PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF DEALER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADD ITION OF THE AFORESAID NET AMOUNT AS NON-GENUINE PURCHASES IN THE HANDS OF ASSE SSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.03.2015 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BE FORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, FACTS OF THE CASE AND VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY ASSESSEE, RESTRICTED THE ADDIT ION IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES TO 20% OF SUCH PURCHASES. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BOTH, THE ASSESSEE A ND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWA NCE @ 20% AMOUNTING TO RS.25,05,550/- OUT OF THE TOTAL PURCHA SES MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY OF RS.1,25,27,737/- FROM M/S. AJA NTA ENTERPRISES ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID PURCHASES WERE MADE FRO M SUSPICIOUS DEALER AND HENCE, DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 20% ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT COMP ANY WAS REASONABLE. 2] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM M/S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES WERE GENUINE AND IT HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO E STABLISH RECEIPT AND CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL AND THEREFORE, SUCH AD- HOC DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 20% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES FROM THE S AID PARTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. 4 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 3] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE ON AN AD-HOC BASIS ON PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS AC CEPTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THE RECEIPT AND CONSUMPTI ON OF THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM M/S.AJANTA ENTERPRISES AND ACCORDING LY, THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY HIM MAY KINDLY BE DELETED . 4] WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IF AT AL L ANY DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE GROSS PRO FIT PERCENTAGE IN THIS YEAR WAS 19.02% AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS AGAINST 20% APPLIED BY THE CIT(A) AND HENCE, THE ADDITION SHOUL D BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. 5] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 6. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN RESTRICTING THE D ISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES TO 20% BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDU CTED PROPER ENQUIRIES FOR THE VERIFICATION OF GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THESE PURCHASES WHEREIN THE FACTS THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM THE BOG US /HAWALA DEALERS AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE MAHARASHTR A SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, EVEN THOUGH ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A) HIMS ELF THAT THE SUPPLIER UNDER REFERENCE WAS NOT A GENUINE CONCERN. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,27,737/- AND UP HOLDING ONLY PART OF THIS ADDITION @20% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE ONLY FROM M/S . AJANTA ENTERPRISES AND NOWHERE ELSE. 3. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS DEMONSTR ATED COMPLETE TRAIL OF GOODS PURCHASED FROM M/S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES. THE ASS ESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE BILLS, PURCHASE ORDER, DELIVERY CHALLAN , GOODS RECEIVED NOTES, LORRY RECEIPT, STOCK DETAILS, UTILIZATION OF MAT ERIAL, SALE OF 5 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 FINISHED PRODUCTS, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR CONFIRMA TIONS FROM TRANSPORTERS WHO HAVE CONFIRMED DELIVERY OF GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DEMONSTRATED COMPLETE TRAIL OF GOODS SUPPORTED BY COGENT EVIDENCES, NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. 7.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS PRIM ARY CONTENTIONS, IF AT ALL, DISALLOWANCE IS TO BE MADE, IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 10% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CON TENTIONS, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) DILAWAR R. SHAIKH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, IN ITA NOS.1832-1834/PN/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 T O 2011-12 DECIDED ON 31.08.2017. II) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S. DEBROS POLYMER PROD UCT, STICE IN ITA NOS.1927-1929/PN/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 T O 2011-12 DECIDED ON 08.08.2018. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI N ASHOK BABU REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PRAYED FOR REVERSING THE FINDING OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN RESTRICTING T HE DISALLOWANCE TO 20%. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE ANY CONFIRMATIONS FROM SUSPICIOUS DEALER I.E. M/S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES. NEITHER THE SAID DEALER WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES WAS FURNISHED BY ASS ESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADDRESS OF M/S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT CORRECT. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED N OTICE U/S.133(6) TO M/S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES, THE SAME WAS RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS LEFT. 6 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PROVING GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES AND VENDORS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTA TIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AS SESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 20% OF THE BOG US PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE ADDITION OF T HE ENTIRE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT DE PARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WITHOUT C ORRESPONDING PURCHASES, THERE CANNOT BE SALES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 20% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SUCH AS INVOICES FROM M/S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES, CONSIGNMENT NOTE , DELIVERY CHALLAN, RAW MATERIAL T ESTING REPORT, STOCK REGISTER, ETC. THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH T RAIL OF GOODS BY FURNISHING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 10. THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/ S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 795/PUN/2014 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010- 11 HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW TR AIL OF GOODS, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 10% OF BOGUS PURCHASES OVER AND ABOVE GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL ON THE GIV EN SET OF FACTS. FURTHER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES GROUP CONCERN, VENKYS (INDIA) LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.2222 & 2223/PUN/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011- 12 DECIDED ON19.03.2019 HAS TAKEN SIMILAR VIEW AND HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 10% 7 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 OF BOGUS PURCHASES FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHHABI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA.). 11. THUS, IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.2221/PUN/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) ITA NO.2330/PUN/2016 (BY REVENUE) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUND S: ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWA NCE @ 20% AMOUNTING TO RS.27,27,550/- OUT OF THE TOTAL PURCHA SES MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY OF RS.1,36,37,812/- FROM M/S. AJA NTA ENTERPRISES ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID PURCHASES WERE MADE FR OM SUSPICIOUS DEALER AND HENCE, DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 20% ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT COMP ANY WAS REASONABLE. 2] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY FROM M/S. AJANTA ENTERPRISES WERE GENUINE AND IT HAD SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO E STABLISH RECEIPT AND CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL AND THEREFORE, SUCH AD- HOC DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 20% OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES FROM THE S AID PARTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL AND THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. 3] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE ON AN AD-HOC BASIS ON PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS AC CEPTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THE RECEIPT AND CONSUMPTI ON OF THE MATERIAL PURCHASED FROM M/S.AJANTA ENTERPRISES AND ACCORDING LY, THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY HIM MAY KINDLY BE DELETED . 4] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 13. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN RESTRICTING THE D ISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES TO 20% BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDU CTED PROPER ENQUIRIES FOR THE VERIFICATION OF GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THESE PURCHASES WHEREIN THE FACTS THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM THE BOG US /HAWALA DEALERS AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE MAHARASHTR A SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, EVEN THOUGH ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A) HIMS ELF THAT THE SUPPLIER UNDER REFERENCE WAS NOT A GENUINE CONCERN. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,36,37,812/- AND UP HOLDING ONLY PART OF THIS ADDITION @20% OF THE BOGUS PURCHASES EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE MADE ONLY FROM M/S . AJANTA ENTERPRISES AND NOWHERE ELSE. 3. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 14. BOTH THE SIDES ARE UNANIMOUS IN STATING THAT FACTS IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BO GUS PURCHASES HAS BEEN MADE ON SIMILAR LINES AS WERE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 AFTER RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF MAH ARASHTRA. THE HAWALA DEALER INVOLVED IS ALSO THE SAME I.E. M/S. AJANT A ENTERPRISES. SINCE ISSUES RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ALREAD Y RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND FACTS LEADING TO THE ADDITIO N ARE ALSO SIMILAR, THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY US WHILE DECIDING THE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE AND REVENUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WOULD MUTATIS-MUTANDIS APPLY TO THE PRESENT SET OF CROSS APPEALS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 9 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 15. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES IS RESTR ICTED TO 10% OF SUCH PURCHASES OVER AND ABOVE GP DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS DISMISS ED. 16. TO SUM UP, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 03 RD DAY OF JUNE, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( . / D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( ! /VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; !' / DATED : 03 RD JUNE, 2019. SB ) * +',- . ', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS), PUNE-11. 4. THE PR. CIT, CENTRAL, PUNE. 5. %&' () , * () , +,- , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. './ 01 / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // *2 / BY ORDER, 3 (- / PRIVATE SECRETARY * () , / ITAT, PUNE. 10 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 29 .0 5 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 30.05 .2019 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 11 ITA NOS.2220 & 2221/PUN/2016 ITA NOS. 2329 & 2330/PUN/2016 A.YS.2009-10 & 2010-11 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER