2 Wire Development Centre (India) Private Limited, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

ITA 2355/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9019 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction; Question of law
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , !' # $ , % BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWAS THY, JM '. / ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 2WIRE DEVELOPMENT CENTER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. FLAT NO. 11, ALKA CLASSIC, 20/1A SOMWAR PETH, NEXT TO UNION BANK OF INDIA, PUNE-411 011 PAN : AABCG3302P ....... / APPELLANT ) / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KAMAL SAWHNEY REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.03.2018 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 17.08.2017 PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) 2 ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A SUBSIDIARY OF KENNATI TECHNOLOGIES INC. THE AS SESSEE IS PROVIDING SOFTWARE SUPPORT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE SERVICES FOR 2WIRE INCS RESIDENTIAL GATEWAYS AND MULTIMEDIA BROADBAND PRODUCTS FROM ITS DEV ELOPMENT CENTRE AT PUNE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTER-COMPANY SERVICES AGR EEMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS REMUNERATED ON COST-PLUS 15% BILLING METHODOLOGY FOR SERVIC ES RENDERED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE ENTERE D INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,17,36,835/- IN RESPECT OF SOFTWARE SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES). THE ASSESSE E ADOPTED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD T O BENCHMARK ITS TRANSACTIONS. PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) TO DETERMINE ARM S LENGTH TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT 16.04%, A S AGAINST AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MEAN MARGIN OF 11.83% OF THE COMPARABLES SELECT ED IN THE TP STUDY REPORT. THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) REJECTED SOME OF THE COMPANIES SELECTED BY ASSESSEE IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES AND INTRODUCED SO ME NEW COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES. THE TPO FINALLY SELECTED 11 COMPANIES AS COMP ARABLES. THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES ALONG WITH PLI AFTER PROVIDING FOR WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT AS PER TPO ORDER IS AS UNDER: SR. NO. NAME OF THE COMPANY FY 2011-12 OP/OC % WITH WORKING CAPITAL ADJUSTMENT. 1 CG-VAK SOFTWARE AND EXPORT LTD. 18.40 23.29 2 E-ZEST SOLUTIONS LIMITED. 9.30 14.34 3 MINDTREE LIMITED (SEGMENTAL) 18.20 18.20 4 PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LTD. 33.61 38.29 5 R.S SOFTWARE (INDIA) LTD. 17.35 23.94 3 ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 THE TPO MADE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1,16,47,902/- IN RESPECT O F INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BASED ON THE ORDER OF TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.11.2016. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTION BEFOR E THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP) ASSAILING THE ADJUSTMENT PROPOSED BY TPO. THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA RAISED OBJECTION QUA COMPANIES SELECTED/REJECTE D WHILE PREPARING FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES BY TPO. THE DRO VIDE DIRECTIONS DATED 31.05.2017 DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE WHEREBY TP ADJUST MENT WAS DELETED. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER SUO-M OTO REVISED THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES BY INTRODUCING FOUR NEW COMPAR ABLES AND MADE REVISED TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.61,80,690/-. 4. SHRI KAMAL SAWHNEY APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE SUB MITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIREC TION OF DRP EXCEEDED JURISDICTION AND HAS INCLUDED FOUR COMPANIES IN THE FINAL LIST O F COMPARABLES RESULTING IN TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 61,80,690/-. THE LD. AR PO INTED THAT THE LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES AS PER THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICE R ARE AT PAGE NO. 4 OF 6 THIRDWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. 36.98 42.32 7 CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 8.59 12.58 8 EXILANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. 10.48 16.06 9 HARBINGER SOFTWARE PVT. LTD. 21.98 25.75 10 INFOBEANS SYSTEM INDIA LTD./ INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES 33.73 39.99 11. PRIYA SOFTWEB SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED. 21.02 28.94 ARITHMETIC MEAN 20.88 25.79 4 ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. A PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THA T FOUR COMPANIES WERE SUO-MOTO INCLUDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT SPECIFYING A NY REASON OR AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE INC LUDING SUCH COMPANIES IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. THE FOUR COMPANIES INCLUDED IN TH E LIST OF COMPARABLES ARE AS UNDER: 4.1 THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THE DRP IN ITS DIRECTIONS SPECIFIC ALLY OBSERVED THAT TATA ELXSI LTD. (SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICE SEGM ENT) IS NOT COMPARABLE TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. THE OTHER T HREE COMPANIES ARE NEITHER EMANATING FROM DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR FROM THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP. THE ADDITION OF THESE FOUR COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES BY AS SESSING OFFICER ON ITS OWN IS CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF SECTION 144C(10) & (13) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT GO BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP. T HE LD. AR TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SANMINA SCI INDIA PVT. LTD. (APPEAL NO . 567 OF 2016) DECIDED ON 08.08.2017. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IF FOUR COMPANIES SUBSEQUENTLY A DDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, A SSESSEES INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS AES WOULD FALL WITHIN THE ARMS LENGTH AND NO ADJUSTMENT WOULD SURVIVE. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT IN CASE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 SR. NO NAME OF THE COMPANY OP/OC % OP/OC AFTER WCA 7. TATA ELXSI LTD (SEG.) 10.53 16.50 10. CYBERMATE INFOTEK LTD. 74.71 43.50 14. MEGRI SOFT LTD. 77.77 82.87 15. SANKHYA INFOTECH LTD. 4.45 8.03 5 ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 RAISED IN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED, THEN OTHER GROU NDS RAISED IN APPEAL WOULD BECOME ACADEMIC. 4.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE- COMPUTE WORKING CAPITAL OF CYBERMATE INFOTEK LTD. IN LINE W ITH DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP, INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSES SEE WITH ITS AES WOULD FALL WITHIN THE RANGE OF 5% AND NO TP ADJUSTMENT WOULD BE REQUIR ED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR REPRESENTING T HE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIV ES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. AR O F THE ASSESSEE HAS PRIMARILY ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND T HAT THE LIST OF COMPARABLES ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDES FOUR COMPARABLES WHICH WERE NEITHER PART OF FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY TP O NOR SUBJECT MATTER OF DISCUSSION BEFORE THE DRP OR WERE REJECTED BY THE DRP. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS OVER STEPPED HIS JURISDICTION IN TINKERING WITH THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES. THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHERE REFERENCE HA S BEEN MADE TO DRP ARE CONTAINED IN SECTION 144C OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT EXTRAC TS OF THE SECTION SPECIFYING THE ROLE OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROCEEDING WHERE REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO DRP ARE AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 144C : REFERENCE TO DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHALL, NOTWITHSTANDING A NYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, FORWA RD A DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT (HEREINAFTER IN THIS SECTION RE FERRED TO AS THE DRAFT ORDER) TO THE ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE IF HE PROPOSES TO MAKE, ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009, ANY VARIATION IN THE INCOME OR LOSS RETURNED WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF SUCH ASSESSEE. (2) ON RECEIPT OF THE DRAFT ORDER, THE ELIGIBLE ASS ESSEE SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECEIPT BY HIM OF THE DRAFT ORDER;- (A) FILE HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATIONS TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER; OR (B) FILE HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO SUCH VARIATION WITH ,- (I) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL; AND (II) THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (3) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESS MENT ON THE BASIS OF THE DRAFT ORDER, IF (A) THE ASSESSES INTIMATES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE VARIATION OR (B) NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED WITHIN THE PERIOD SP ECIFIED IN SUB SECTION (2) (4) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, NOT WITHSTANDING A NYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 [ OR 153B], PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U NDER SUB SECTION (3) WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH ,- (A) THE ACCEPTANCE IS RECEIVED; OR (B) THE PERIOD OF FILING OF OBJECTIONS UNDER SUB S ECTION (2) EXPIRES. (5) THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL SHALL, IN A CASE W HERE ANY OBJECTION IS RECEIVED UNDER SUB SECTION (2), ISSUE SUCH DIRECTIO NS, AS IT THINKS FIT, FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENABLE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. .. .. (10) EVERY DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESOLUTI ON PANEL SHALL BE BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (11) NO DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) SHALL BE IS SUED UNLESS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON SUCH DIRECTIONS WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, RESPECTIVELY. (13) UPON RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SU B-SECTION (5), THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS, C OMPLETE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 [ OR SECTION 153B], THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY FURTHER OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE ENDS OF THE MON TH IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTION IS RECEIVED. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SUB-SECTION (10) REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF DRP. T HE DIRECTIONS OF DRP ARE 7 ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 BINDING ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON FURTHER PERUSAL OF SUB-S ECTION (13) SHOWS THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT GO BEYOND THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN INCLUDING FOUR COMPANIES VIZ. TATA ELXSI LTD (SE G.), CYBERMATE INFOTEK LTD., MEGRI SOFT LTD. AND SANKHYA INFOTECH LTD. IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES AND THEREBY DISTURBING AVERAGE ARITHMETIC MARGIN OF THE C OMPARABLES. THE SUO- MOTO INCLUSION OF FOUR COMPANIES IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES RE SULTED IN TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.61,80,690/-. THE LD. DR FAILED TO SHOW AS T O UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUO-MOTO IN CLUDED THESE COMPANIES IN THE LIST OF COMPARABLES. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT AFORESAID COMPANIES EXC EPT TATA ELXSI LTD, WERE EVER CONSIDERED FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE THE DRP OR WERE PA RT OF THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY TPO. THE DRP AFTER CONSIDERING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT & SERVICES SEGMENT OF TATA ELAXI LTD. CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT COMPARABLE TO TH E ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AND THUS, EXCLUDED THE SAME FROM THE LIST OF COMP ARABLES. 9. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S ANMINA SCI INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE ANSWERING THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO SET OFF LOSSES PRIOR TO CO MPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S.10A IN ORDER PASSED 143(3) R.W.S. 144C GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF DRP HELD: 9. IT IS ONLY IN SUB SECTION (8) WHERE THE POWER OF ENHANCEMENT IS GRANTED TO THE DRP, THAT THE SCOPE OF THE VARIATIONS AS PROPOS ED UNDER SECTION 144C(1) STAND EXPANDED. THE INTERESTS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE TO RESPOND TO THE PROPOSED VARIATIONS HAS BEEN PROTECT ED AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR UNDER S UB SECTION (11). THUS 8 ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 WHERE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED FOR ANY VARIATION IN ASS ESSMENT OVER AND ABOVE THAT PROPOSED IN THE ORDER OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT, IT HAS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING PRIOR THERETO. THERE AFTER, IN TERMS OF SUB SECTION (13), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOUND TO CONFORM TO THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE DRP AND GIVE EFFECT TO THE SAME. CONTRARY TO THE MA NDATE IN SUB SECTION (11), IT HAS BEEN THOUGHT UNNECESSARY TO GRANT AN OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE PRIOR OF TO THE PASSING OF THE FINAL ORDERS. THIS LEADS T O THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EXPECTED TO , AND SHALL NOT VENTURE TO RAISE ANY ISSUE EXCEPT THE VARIATIONS SPECIFIED BY HIM IN 144C(1) IN THE ORDER OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT OR ANY ISSUE RAISED BY THE DRP BY WAY OF ENHANCEMENT IN TERMS OF SUB SECTION (8) OF 144C. THE SCHEME OF S. 144C WOULD THUS BE WHOLLY VIOLATED IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES IT U PON HIMSELF TO INCLUDE IN THE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SUCH ADDITIONS/DISALLOWAN CE/ VARIATIONS THAT DO NOT FORM PART OF THE ORDER OF DRAFT ASSESSMENT. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144C AND THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN EXCEEDING HIS JURIS DICTION AND SUO-MOTO ADDING COMPANIES IN THE FINAL LIST OF COMPARABLE COMPANIES PROPOSED BY T PO. THE LD. AR STATED AT BAR THAT IF FOUR COMPANIES SUBSEQ UENTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF COMPARABLES, THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY ASSESSEE WITH ITS AES WOULD FALL WITHIN ARMS LENGTH AND NO ADJUSTMENT WOULD SURVIVE. WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIE W THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL DEMONSTRATE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT AFTER EXCLUSION OF FOUR COMPANIES AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTIONS OF ASSESSEE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE ARMS LENGTH. IN PRINCIPLE, THE GROUND N O. 1 & 2 RAISED IN APPEAL ARE ALLOWED, HOWEVER, WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION AS MENTIONED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 10. IN SO FAR AS OTHER GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING DELIBERATED UPON AS THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TP ADJUSTMENTS WOULD BE REDUCED TO NIL AFTER ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF ON THE ISSUE RAIS ED IN GROUND NO. 1 AND 2. 9 ITA NO. 2355/PUN/2017 A.Y.2013-14 THE OTHER GROUNDS I.E. GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 14 HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC, HENCE, NOT TOUCHED UPON. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS AFORESAID. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( # $ /VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; !' / DATED : 28 TH MARCH, 2018. SB * + ,-# .#( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-13, PUNE. 4. THE CIT-IT/TP, PUNE. 5. %&' () , * () , +,- , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. './ 01 / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // *2 / BY ORDER, 3 (- / PRIVATE SECRETARY * () , / ITAT, PUNE.