ITO, Pune V. Shree Sangam Glucose Ltd, Pune

ITA 2467/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 246724514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

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. 2467/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01) ITO, WARD-10 (1), PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. SHREE SANGAM GLUCOSE LTD., PARTH-II, BLOCK NO.4, BIJLEE NAGAR, CHINCHWAD, PUNE. .. RESPONDENT PAN NO.AADCS9494A ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. PURANIK REVENUE BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 13-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-11-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 21-09-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATING TO A.Y. 2000-01. 2. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21-04-2003 DECLARING NIL INCOME. IN THIS CASE, INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE ITO, WARD-(3), PUNE THA T RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS HAS GIVEN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.82,93,439/- TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, SHREE SANGAM GLUCOSE LTD., WHEREAS SHREE S ANGAM GLUCOSE LTD. HAS ACCOUNTED FOR ONLY RS.32,33,819/-. THUS, THERE IS VARIATION OF RS.50,59,620/- WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ON TH E BASIS OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION, NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE FOR RE-OPENING OF 2 THE ASSESSMENT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 50,59,620/-. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMO UNT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY M/S. RAVIRAJ ENGINEERING AMOUNTING TO RS.50,59,9 20/- WAS NOT RATIFIED BY THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDER ING THE AMOUNT CREDITED AT RS.32,33,819/-, THE AMOUNT PAID BY RAVI RAJ ENGINEERING OF RS.8,29,34,390/- IS RECONCILED. 3. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAME TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT. WHILE DOING SO, H E HELD THAT THE MONEY SPENT BY RAVIRAJ ENGINEERING ON BEHALF OF SANGAM GL UCOSE LTD., IS RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT NOT IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.50,59,620/- AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69 OF THE I.T. AC T. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT A NY SUCCESS. 4. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE RE- OPENING STATING THAT THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE DESPITE REQUEST MADE. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. 4.1 IN THE SECOND INNINGS BEFORE THE AO AFTER THE M ATTER WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE AO CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS SUCH AS (A) THE LEDGER ACCOUNT EXTRACTS OF SANGAM GLUCOSE LTD., FOR SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FOR A.YRS. 2000-01 & 2001-02, (B) LEDGER ACCOUNT EX TRACTS OF RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS FOR A.YRS. 2000-1 AND 2001-02 AND (C) DET AILS OF PRE- 3 OPERATIONAL INCOME ADJUSTED AGAINST PRE-OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE ABOVE PERIOD. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERE STED IN COOPERATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO FINALISE THE ASSESSMENT. HE ACCO RDINGLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR BROUGHT TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,59,620/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DET AILS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF AN INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE IS MADE BY RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY, THEN IN THAT CA SE, THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE INCURRED IS THAT OF M/S. RAV IRAJ INDUSTRIES. SINCE THE SOURCE OF THE SAME INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE IS EX PLAINED, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT . IT WAS ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT SINCE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT BY THE COMPANY AND THE INVESTMENT/EXP ENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY RAVIRAJ INDUSTRIES ON BEHALF OF THE COM PANY, THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO, TH EREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 6. ON THE BASIS OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE AS SESSEE AND VARIOUS DETAILS FILED BEFORE HIM, THE LD.CIT(A) CAL LED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WHO REITERATED THE SAME REASONIN G GIVEN BY HIS PREDECESSOR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED IN THE REMAN D REPORT THAT THE VARIOUS DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO WERE NOT PROVI DED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. DURING REMAND PROCEEDING S, IT WAS STATED THAT THE COMPANY HAS CLOSED LONG BACK AND NO RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE WITH EX- DIRECTOR. EVEN SUMMONS ISSUED TO M/S. RAVIRAJ ENGI NEERS FOR PRODUCTION 4 OF BOOKS WAS ALSO OF NO USE SINCE THE SAID ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRMED THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO PRODUCE THE SAID INFORM ATION. THE AO ACCORDINGLY STATED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT IT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO VERIFY THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS STATED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EXPLANATION FOR THE INVESTME NT OF RS.50,59,620/-, HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID PERIOD. HE, THEREFORE, STATE D IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSE D U/S.143(3) IS JUSTIFIED. 7. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFRONTED THE CONTENTS OF THE REM AND PROCEEDINGS TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE REPLIED AS UNDER : 'IN PARA 2 (B) OF THE REPORT ASSESSING OFFICER STAT ES THAT ASSESSING OFFICER GOT THE INFORMATION FROM ASSESSING OFFICER OF M/S R AVIRAJ ENGINEERS THAT COMPANY 'SHREE SANGAM GLUCOSE LTD' HAD ACCOUNTED FO R RECEIPTS OF APPLICATION MONEY FROM RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS, OF RS.32, 33,819/- WHERE AS RAVIRAJ, ENGINEERS SHOWN TO HAD PAID RS.82,93,439/- . IN PARA 2C HE STATES 'ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE SATISFACTORY EXPLAN ATION REGARDING DIFFERENCE OF RS. 50,59,620/- APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.50,59,620/- U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. WE ARE AT LOSS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS CASE OF U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO WHICH SECTION 69 APPLIES. IT IS NOT A CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT MY INVES TMENT IS MORE THAN SOURCE/ IT'S NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT MY INVESTMENT IS RS.82,93,439/- FOR WHICH I HAVE SOURCE OF RAVIRAJ E NGINEERS ONLY FOR RS.32,33,819/- AND I HAVE NO SOURCE FOR RS.50,59,62 0/-. THEREFORE, IN OUR HUMBLE SUBMISSION IT IS NOT A CASE TO WHICH SECTION 69 APPLIES. ON LAST PAGE OF THE REPORT, IN PARA ONE, AMOUNT REC EIVED FROM RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS IS IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY IS REFLECT ED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.32,33,819/- AND NO ENTRIES FOR REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 50,59,620/- IS RECORDED IN BOOKS, THUS CONNECTION OF SOURCE OF INV ESTMENT IS M/S RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS IS NOT SATISFACTORY. YOUR HONOUR WILL SEE VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE ORDER U /S 143(3) DATED 31/03/2006 THAT, 5 'SHARE APPLICATION MONEY GIVEN BY RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS OF RS. 82,93,439/- TO SHREE SANGAM GLUCOSE LTD, WHILE SHREE SANGAM GLUCOS E LTD. HAS ACCOUNTED ONLY RS. 32,33,819/- . THUS THERE IS VARI ATION OF RS.50,59,620/- EVEN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR INITIATING PROCEEDING S U/S.147/148 GIVES SAME REASON THAT COMPANY HAS ACCOUNTED FOR APPLICAT ION MONEY FROM 'RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS' LESS BY RS.50,59,620/- (REFER P ARA 3 OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2006). ALSO SEE COPY OF REASONS GIVEN BY ASSE SSING OFFICER ENCLOSED WITH FORM 35. IN PARA 4 (IV) OF ORDER DATED 31/03/2006, ASSESSIN G OFFICER STATES : THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN THAT M/S. RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS SPENT THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,59,620/- ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AND ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECORD THIS EXPENDITURE IN AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSE SSEE AS PER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 961. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION ARE REPRODUCED BELOW,' TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE MERELY FOR CERTAIN EXP ENDITURE IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS FOR WHICH THERE IS SOURCE (SOURCE/S NO T DOUBTED), PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IF ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS SOME INVESTMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SOURCE, ONLY IN THAT EVENT SECTION 69 APPLIES. IN PARA 10 OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2008, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED, 'INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT (AS STATED IN P ARA 6 OF MY PREDECESSOR'S ORDER) RS. 50,59,620/- IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2006 IS REPRODUC ED: 'THE MONEY SPENT BY M/S RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS ON BEHALF OF SANGAM GLUCOSE LTD. IS RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS BUT NOT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 50,59,620/- IS DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE' SAID ORDER DATED 31/03/2006 IS ANNEXED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO ORDER DATED 30/12/2008, WHICH IS UNDER APPEAL. AS SUCH SA ID ORDER DATED 31/03/2006 IS PART OF THE PRESENT ORDER UNDER APPEA L, IN THE LAST PARA OF THE REPORT ASSESSING OFFICER ST ATES, 'IN THIS CASE THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXP LANATION FOR THE INVESTMENT OF RS.50,59,620/- BUT NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE SAID PERIOD , HENCE THE OPINION GIVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED' AS SUCH EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTS THE SOURCE, STILL COMES TO WRONG CONCLUSION. COPY OF REMAND REP ORT RECEIVE BY US IS ONLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01.' 8. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT RECEIVED FRO M THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING DIFFEREN CE OF RS.50,59,620/- IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS PER BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE BOOKS OF M/S. RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS WHO ARE PROMOTE RS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. NOW, THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT IS QUESTION CAN BE CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED, INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AS INCOME, EVEN WHEN THE COMPANY HAS NOT ST ARTED IT'S OPERATION. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN COMPANY HAS NOT STARTED IT'S OPERATION, THERE CANNOT BE ANY UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE COMPANY WHI CH CAN BE REFLECTED IN THE FORM OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, O BVIOUSLY IF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IS THERE, THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE PROMOTERS WHICH IN THIS CASE IS M/S. RAVIRAJ EN GINEERS. BUT WHETHER, THIS STAND CAN BE TAKEN IN CASE OF M/S. RAVIRAJ ENG INEERS IS ALSO QUESTIONABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SOURCE IS EXPLAINED IN THE CASE OF M/S. RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS. THEREFORE, THE E REMAINS RECONCILIATION OF A/CS WHICH THE APPELLANT COMPANY SHOULD NOT HAVE AVOIDED . THEREFORE, UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RELATING TO A COMPANY WHICH HAS NOT STARTED ITS OPERATIONS CAN BE DONE ONLY IN CASE OF PROMOTERS PR OVIDED SOURCE IS NOT EXPLAINED. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, I.E. M/S. RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS, I AM OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 50,59,620/-. THIS GROUND IS THUS ALLOWED. 8.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.50,59,620/- U/S.69 O F THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WHEN THE COMPANY HAS ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF THIS MO NEY, WHICH IS NOT RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS AND HENCE THE FINDING OF THE AO TO TREAT THIS AS UTILIZED FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ON LY DISPUTE TO BE ADJUDICATED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,59,620/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69 OF THE I.T ACT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT M/S. RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS HAS SHOWN TO HAVE GIVEN SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.82,93,439/- TO M/S. S HREE SANGAM GLUCOSE LTD., WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE M/S. SHREE SANGA M GLUCOSE LTD. HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.32,22,819/- ONLY TOWARDS SUCH SHARE APPLICATION 7 MONEY. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.50, 59,620/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS FOR WHI CH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE I.T .ACT. 9.1 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 READ AS UNDER : WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT REC ORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE O F INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NO T, IN THE OPINION OF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH FIN ANCIAL YEAR. 9.2 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT ADDITION U/S.6 9 CAN BE SUSTAINED ONLY WHEN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS UNEXPLAINED. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY RAVIRAJ ENGIN EERS IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THEIR GRIEVANCE IS THE DIFFERENCE IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, VIS-A-VIS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S . RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS. ONCE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS EXPLAINED, IT IS O NLY A MATTER OF PRESENTATION. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY THAT SINCE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS WERE NOT RATIFIED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THERE WAS DI FFERENCE. IF THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIFIED THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD HAVE GONE UP TO THAT EXTENT. THIS FA CT WAS EXPLAINED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVE R, THE SAME WAS IGNORED BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ORDER OF THE EARLIER ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FOLLOWED BY THE SUBSEQUENT AS SESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY RAVIRAJ ENGINEERS IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE, AS THERE IS NOTHING BEFORE US ON THAT ISSUE AND SINCE THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD REGARDING ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT BY THE ASSESSEE, 8 THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE. ONCE THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED M ONEY WHICH IT HAS NOT RECORDED AND HAS MADE INVESTMENT OUT OF THE SAID RE CEIPT, THEN THE SOURCE ITSELF IS EXPLAINED AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW O F THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORD ER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-11-2014. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE DATED: 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE 4. THE CIT-V, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE