Income-tax Officer, V. Magic Software Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

ITA 2447/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2157 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV GHEI
• Assessee Lawyers: R D ONKAR
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 92C; 143(3); 147; 148; 92

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.2447 & 2448/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2007-08 & 2008-09 ITO, WARD-14(4), PUNE /APPELLANT VS. MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., OFFICE NO.9-12, TARA ICON, MUMBAI PUNE ROAD, WAKDEWADI, PUNE 411037 PAN : AABCM2443B . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJEEV GHEI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.D. ONKAR / DATE OF HEARING : 14.11.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:15.11.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE TWO APPEALS BY THE REVENUE UNDER CONSIDERA TION INVOLVING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THEY ARE FILED A GAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 14-07-2016 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-1 3, PUNE. REVENUE RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THE SAID APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF IN THIS COMPOSITE ORDER. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 AS THE STANDARD ONE FOR THE SAKE OF FACTS. ITA NOS.2447 & 2448/PUN/2016 MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., 2 ITA NO.2447/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2.WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A)- 13, PUNE WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVI ED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS. 11,03,966/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT MADE T O THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 3. WHETHER THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND NOT APPRECIATING THE MEANING, TESTS AN D REQUIREMENTS ENUMERATED FOR INTERPRETATION OF TERMS 'DUE DILIGEN CE' BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN THEIR JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF J. SAMUAL AND OTHERS V/S GATTU MAHESH AND OTHERS (2012) IN 2 SCC 300. 4. WHETHER THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE ERRED IN NOT APPLYIN G THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS 'GOOD FAITH' AND WITH 'DUE DILIGENCE' COR RECTLY, AS PER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERMS MADE AND AS PER THE TES TS AND REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THEIR JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF J. SAMUAL AND OTHERS V/S. GATTU MAHESH AND OTHERS (201 2) IN 2 SCC 300. HE ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT AS PE R THE INTERPRETATION BY THE SUPREME COURT, THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT B E CONSTRUED TO HAVE DONE IN 'GOOD FAITH' AND IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED THAT 'DU E DILIGENCE' WAS ADHERED TO BY THE ASSESSEE WHO FAILED TO FOLLOW THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. 5. WHETHER THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE ERRED IN RELYING UPO N THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAXMAN V/S CIT THE FACTS OF WHICH WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND IN THAT CASE THE SPECIALLY PR OVIDED EXPLANATION- 7 FOR 'DEEMED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' WAS NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AS PER THE EXPLANATION -7 OF THE SECTION 271(1)(C) THE DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OR SPECIFI ED DOMESTIC TRANSACTIONS IS] S 92C IS DEEMED TO BE CONCEALED INCOME. 6. WHETHER THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE ERRED IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN REVEALED AND PROVED BY THE TRANSFER PRICI NG OFFICER THAT THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FROM IDENTICAL/ SAME ACTIVITIES AND FINANCIAL DATA OF WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON PROWESS AND CAPITALINE DATABASE AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE ANYTHING IN ITS SUPPORT. THE FACTS HAVE BEEN UPHELD AND THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN BLAMED FOR ITS ACTIONS BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31/07/2013. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT DETERMINED ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN 'GOOD FAITH' AND WITH 'DUE DILIGENC E'. 7. WHETHER THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE SPECIALLY PROVIDED EXPLANATION -7 TO SECTION 271 TH AT SHIFTS THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID ON INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN ACC ORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 92C AND IN THE MANNER PRESCRIB ED UNDER THAT SECTION, IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH DUE DILIGENCE. HOWEVER, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN SHIFTING OF ONUS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THE ABSE NCE OF 'DUE DILIGENCE' AND LACK OF 'GOOD FAITH' ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.2447 & 2448/PUN/2016 MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., 3 8. WHETHER THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION -7 TO SECTION 271, WHICH UNLIKE THE CASES OF PENALTY LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER ADDITIONS, THE EXPLANATI ON- 7 PROVIDES DEEMING PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE M ADE U/S 92C(4) WHICH ARE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISH ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 9. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER REASONS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTOR ED. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ITAT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. ASSESSEE FILED THE RE TURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE TPO MADE ADJUSTMENT O F RS.85,63,973/- TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH AES U NDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S .143(3) R.W.S.147, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.11,03,966/. AO OPINED THAT THE A SSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND COMMITTED DEFAU LT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE FIRST APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED WITH THE DELETION OF PENALTY, THE REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO DUTIFULLY AND PRAY ED FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 5. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE TPO WAS HELD AS INV ALID BY THE TRIBUNAL BY VIRTUE OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1801/PUN/2013 & CO NO.97/PUN/2014, DATED 31-01-2017. THUS, THE ADDITION OF R S.85,63,973/- STANDS DELETED AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSE L, THEREFORE, ITA NOS.2447 & 2448/PUN/2016 MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., 4 PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). IN THIS CONN ECTION, LD. COUNSEL FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO U/S.92CA(3) MAKING UPWARD TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.85,63,973/- TO THE ARMS LENGTH PR ICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WAS A NULLITY IN LAW AND VOID AB INIT IO DUE TO THE FACT THAT AOS REFERENCE TO THE TPO WAS MADE WHEN NO ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS WERE PENDING BEFORE THE AO AND THE DETERMINATION OF ALP BY THE TPO WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE ORDER PASSED BY TPO WAS NOT VALI D MATERIAL FOR THE AO TO ENTERTAIN A BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HA D ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148. 2. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REG ARDING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE THE FINALISED ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 AND 144C HAS BEEN QUASHED (KINDLY REFER PARA 14 PAGE 10 AND PARAS 20 TO 22 PA GES 22 AND 23 HIGHLIGHTED PORTION OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER HONOUR ABLE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN QUANTUM APPEAL). 3. IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL THE ADDITION MADE TO TOTAL INCOME HAS NOT SURVIVED. IT IS PRAYED THAT DELETION OF PENALTY BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 31-01-2017 DELETING THE QUAN TUM ADDITION ON THE TECHNICAL ISSUE OF JURISDICTION. WE FIND IT RELEVANT TO E XTRACT THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL BELOW (PARA 20 & 21 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL) : 20. AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN MAXIMIZE LEARNING (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT (S UPRA) AND H ENCE THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL SQUARELY A PPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FURTHER, WE ALSO APPLY THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIT VS. XL INDIA BUSINESS SERVICE S (P) LTD. (SUPRA). IN VIEW THEREOF, WE HOLD THAT WHEN NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WERE PENDING IN RELATION TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS PRECLUDED FROM MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE TPO UNDER SECTION 92 CA(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE IN REL ATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. CONSEQUENTLY, ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO UNDER SECTION 92CA(3) PROPOSING AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.85,63,973/- T O THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS A NULLITY IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE-SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TPO WAS NOT A VALID MATERIAL FO R THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ENTERTAIN A BELIEF THAT CERTAIN INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, WE HOLD THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147OF THE ACT DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE S ECTION AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER PASSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NOS.2447 & 2448/PUN/2016 MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., 5 UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND 144C OF THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. 21. AS THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN QUASHED, THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION BECOME ACADEMIC AND HENCE TH E SAME ARE NOT ADJUDICATED FOR THE PRESENT. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE QUANTUM ADDITION H AS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, THE PENALTY LEVIED HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. CONSID ERING THE ABOVE STATED POSITION, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NO.2448/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2008-09 8. BRIEFLY STATED, RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E TPO MADE AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF RS.1,64,21,243/- TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.14 3(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND EVENTUALLY LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.43,91,583/-. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE FIL ED THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF PENALTY. 9. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RAISING THE ORAL GROUND RELATING TO RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO SUB MITTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE AO FAILED TO RECORD VALID AND LEGALLY SUS TAINABLE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE INITIATING THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS. HIGHLIGHTING THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF MAKING A S PECIFIC ITA NOS.2447 & 2448/PUN/2016 MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., 6 REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC LIMB OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 271(1) O F THE ACT AND RELYING ON VARIOUS BINDING JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE CIT VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (2017) 392 ITR 4 (BOM.) AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565, LD. COUNSEL DEMONSTRATED TH AT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN THIS REGARD, HE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE PENALT Y ORDER HIGHLIGHTING THE ABOVE LEGAL DEFICIENCIES. THUS, LD. COUNSEL PRAYED FOR C ONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 10. PER CONTRA, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF AO DUTIFULLY. 11. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE SAID LEGAL ISSUE RAIS ED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF TH E REVENUE. WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RELATING TO RECORDING OF PROPER SATISFACTION BY THE AO. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE PERUSED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DATED 28-02-2012 AND FIND THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS RELEVANT FOR E XTRACTION. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF, I AM S ATISFIED THAT IT HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) HAVE, THEREF ORE, BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY . 11.1 WE ALSO PERUSED THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 31-03-201 5 AND FIND THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/ S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS RELEVANT FOR EXTRACTION. THE SAID SATISFACTION READS AS UNDER: ITA NOS.2447 & 2448/PUN/2016 MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., 7 08. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,29,17,715/-. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PAY A SUM OF R S.43,91,583/- (RUPEES FORTY THREE LAKHS, NINETY ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THREE ONLY) BY WAY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT.... FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT, AO DID NOT MENTION ANY LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT WHEREAS AT THE TIME OF LEVY OF PENALTY, T HE AO MENTIONED THE LIMB STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME . THIS MANNER OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION SUGGESTS THE EXISTENCE OF AMBIGUITY WITH REFERENCE TO APPLICABILITY OF SPECIFIC LIMB. THEREFO RE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE REFERRED BINDING JUDGMENTS SUCH PENALTY ORDER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW LEGALLY. IT IS A SETTLE D LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE AO IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO SPECIFY THE CORRECT LIMB AT THE TIME OF INITIATION AS WELL AS AT THE TIME OF LEVY OF PENALTY. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE DELIBERATION ON THIS ISSUE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MER ITS OF THE PENALTY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IS LIA BLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS LEGAL ISSUE. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. SATISH ITA NOS.2447 & 2448/PUN/2016 MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD., 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE 4. / THE PR.CIT-6, PUNE 5. , , / DR A, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.