Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Solapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 2, Solapur

ITA 25/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7049 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 40(a)(ia); 40a(ia); 194A; 145

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE ( THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO.25/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SOLAPUR JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., SHIVSMARAK SANKUL, GOLD FINCH PETH, SOLAPUR 413 007. PAN : AAAAS3627C. . / APPELLANT V/S THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2, SOLAPUR. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE. REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE. / ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) 7, PUNE DATED 17.10.2017 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2013- 14 AS PER THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.4, 27,32,795/- BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 40A(IA) FOR THE ALLEGED DEFAULT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON INTEREST PAYMENT TO MEMBERS BY ALLEGING T HEM TO BE NON-MEMBERS THEREFORE ENTIRE ADDITION NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF DISALLOWING A SUM OF R S.4,27,32,795/- BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA), IS INCORREC T AS APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO GET THE BENEFIT OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40A (IA), AS MOST OF THESE / DATE OF HEARING : 08.09. 2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 .0 9 .2020 2 PARTIES ARE TAX PAYERS AND YOUR APPELLANT SEEKS APP ROPRIATE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.29 ,450/- BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 145 BY DISREGARDING APPELLANT CONTENTION SAME NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY FORMED UNDER THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIV E SOCIETYS ACT, 1961. IT IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF RULES AND REGULATIONS GO VERNED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI). THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSE SSEE BANK IS TO ACCEPT DEPOSITS AND LEND MONEY TO THE BORROWERS AND A LSO INVEST IN VARIOUS DEPOSITS AND SECURITIES AS ALLOWED BY MAHARASHTRA CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETYS ACT, 1961 AND R.B.I. THAT FURTHER FACTS RELATING TO THE ISS UES BEFORE US FOR ADJUDICATION IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS ASKED BY THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT DATA RELATING TO PERSON-WISE TOTAL DEPOS IT HELD BY THE BANK AS ON 31.03.2013 AND THE INTEREST CREDITED OR PAID DURING THE F.Y. 2012-13 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF BYE-LAWS OF THE BANK ELABORATING WHO OR WHICH CAN BE MEMBER OF THE BANK. THE LEARNED AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE ON 22.12.2015 SUBMITTED A LIST SHOWING ONLY AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS PERSON-WISE. FURTHER, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED A LIST ON 14.03.2016 SHOWING ONLY INTEREST CRE DITED PERSON- WISE. REGARDING LIST SHOWING, INTEREST FIGURE CORRESPONDIN G TO ENTITY-WISE DEPOSITS, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED ON 18.03.2016 THAT DUE TO PROBLEMS FACED WITH SOFTWARE, THEY ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE CORRESPONDING FIGURES OF DEPOSITS AGAINST THE INTEREST PAID TO THE DEPOSITORS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR F.Y. 2012-13 OBSERVED THAT TOTAL INTEREST CR EDITED TO THE DEPOSITORS IS RS.84,74,99,225/- AND THE LEARNED AUTHORISE D 3 REPRESENTATIVE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH DATA RELATING TO ENTITY-WISE INTEREST CREDITED OR PAID DURING F.Y. 2012-13. THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BUT HE FAILED TO QUANTIFY THE ENTITY-WISE DEPOSIT FIGURE CORRESPONDING TO INTEREST CREDITED FIGURE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER GOING THROUGH THE CO PY OF THE BYE- LAWS OF THE BANK AND MORE PARTICULARLY CLAUSE NO.4(IX) OF TH E BYE-LAWS PROVIDES FOR THE DEFINITION OF THE PERSON, AND ANALYZING THE SAME CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE BYE-LAWS OF THE BANK ITSELF BANS THE FOLLOWING ENTITIES TO BE CALLED AS PERSON AND THEREFORE CANNOT B E TERMED AS MEMBER OF THE BANK VIZ., (1) HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY (H.U.F.) (2) UN- REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRMS (3) UN-REGISTERED TRUST AND (4) MIN OR. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS ASKED TO ELABORATE ON THE TDS DEDUCTION LIABILITY OF THE BANK ON THE INTEREST CREDITED OR PAID TO NON- MEMBERS SUCH AS HUF, UN-REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, U N-REGISTERED TRUST AND MINORS. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE WAS FURTHER ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE BANK HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT TDS ON INTEREST CREDITED OR PAID TO ENTITIES WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS MEMBERS OF TH E BANK AND THUS, FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON THE INTEREST PAID OR CREDITED TO SUCH NON-MEMBERS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEAR NED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SUBMIS SION BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CATE GORICALLY REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN (2004) 134 TAXMAN 1, THAT A SHIELD IS AVAILABLE TO THE BANK FOR NO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS ON INTEREST CREDITED OR PAID ONL Y IN THE CASE TO 4 MEMBERS, WHETHER THE SAME IS REGULAR, NOMINAL OR SYM PATHASIZER AND THUS AUTOMATICALLY ALL AN ENTITY CANNOT BECOME THE MEM BER OF THE BANK AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF BYE-LAWS OF THE BANK AND ACCOR DINGLY, THE ENTIRE INTEREST CREDITED OR PAID TO NON-MEMBERS WITHOUT DEDUCT ION OF TDS ON THE INTEREST PAID OR CREDITED WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER. THAT FURTHER IN HIS ORDER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HA S CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT TIME AND AGAIN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BANK TO PROVIDE VARIOUS DETAILS AS CALLED BY HIM BUT THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE / DE TAILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS PLACED ON RECORD, ASSESSMENT ORDER, FACTS OF THE CASE CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT( APPEALS) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. ACIT (CIVIL APPEAL NO.10245 OF 2017 ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.20044 OF 2015 DT.08.08.2017 BY OBSERVING T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEALT WITH THE PERSONS I.E., HUF, UN-REGIST ERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM ETC., WHO ARE LEGALLY IMPERMISSIBLE AS MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK. IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING WITH NON-MEMBERS / NOMINAL MEMBERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY APPROVAL FROM THE REGISTR AR OF SOCIETIES EITHER TO ACCEPT DEPOSITS FROM NOMINAL MEMBERS WHO ARE A CTUALLY NON- MEMBERS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW OF MUTUALLY AIDED CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995 (MACSA). THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (SUPRA), 5 THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER SEC.194(A)(3)(V) AS THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED ITS OWN BYE-LAW S BY DEALING WITH THE PERSONS IMPERMISSIBLE AS MEMBER. THE RELEVA NT EXTRACT OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER IS PROVIDED HEREIN FOR READY REFERENCE. 5.3 I HAVE CAREFUL L Y CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND LAW APPA R ENT F R OM RECORDS . THE AO SOUGHT DETAILS OF DEPOSIT HELD AND INTEREST CREDITED/PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BANK . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF INTEREST CREDITED PERSON - WISE TOTALLING TO RS . 84 , 74,99,225/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DE T AILS OF ENTITY WISE DEPOSITS. THE AO ANALYZED THE B YE-LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK WHERE PERSON IS DEFINED AT CLAUSE 4(I X) AND MEMBER IS DEFINED AT CLAUSE 4(IV ) . THE AO NOTICED THAT HUF, UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, UNREGISTERED TRUST AND M I NORS CANNOT BE MEMBERS OF THE BANK . THE AO SOUGHT TO TREAT INTEREST CREDITED FROM THESE ENTITI ES AS INTEREST CREDITED TO NON- MEMBERS . THE APPE L LANT RELIED ON DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N CASE OF JALGAON DCC BANK REPORTED IN 265 ITR 423 . THE AO AFFORDED OPPORTUN I TY TO THE APPELLAN T TO F URN I SH DATA I N RESPECT OF TRUST BEING UNREGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEING UNREGISTERED WHICH ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH. THE AO TREATED INTEREST PAID OF RS. 4,27,32,795/- AS I NTEREST PAID/CREDITED TO NON- MEMBERS AND ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194A WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFAULTED. THE AO INVOKED PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND DISALLOWED INTEREST PAID OF RS. 4,27,32,795 /-. 5.5 OSTENSIBLY, THE APPELLANT HAS PAID/CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS. 4,27,32,795/-. TO HUF, UNREGISTERED FIRM, UNREGISTE RED TRUST AND MINORS AS MENTIONED BY THE AO. THE CLAUSE NO. 4(IV) OF THE BY -LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK DEFINES MEMBER AS PERSON AND THE CLAUSE NO. 4( IX) DEFINES PERSONS. IN THE DEFINITION OF PERSON THE NAME OF HUF AND UNREGI STERED FIRM ARE NOT APPEARING. THEREFORE, SUCH ENTITY OF HUF AND UNREGI STERED FIRM CANNOT BECOME MEMBER OF THE APPELLANT BANK. SIMILARLY, MIN ORS AND UNREGISTERED TRUST CANNOT BE MEMBERS OF THE BANK. IF SOMEONE CLA IMS THAT SUCH ENTITIES ARE MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT BANK THEN SUCH ENTITY WOULD BE CALLED AS AB- INITIO ILLEGAL MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT BANK. IN OT HER WORDS, IT CAN BE SAID; THAT THE ENTITY OF HUF, UNREGISTERED FIRM, UNREGIST ERED TRUST AND MINORS WHO HAVE MADE DEPOSITS ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT BANK. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND EXPLAINING ELABORATELY FROM THE PAPER BOOK PLACED BEFORE US. THE RELEVANT PAGES THEREIN BEING 42, 46, 47, 118 AND 199 AND SUBMITTED THAT BYE-LAWS ARE ONLY THERE TO GUIDE THE ASSESSEE IN FUNCTIONING AND CANNOT SUPERSEDE THE PRINCIPAL LAW WHICH IS THE MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SO CIETIES ACT, 6 1960. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, C OULD NOT PLACE ON RECORD ANY SUBMISSION AS TO WHY NO DETAILS WERE SUBMITTE D BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR IRRESPECTIVE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE FACT S CLEARLY COME OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT FU RTHER IN THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT REFERRED BY LD. CIT(APPE ALS), THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BECAUSE THERE WAS VIOLATION OF OWN B YE-LAWS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE ALSO COULD NOT PLACE ON RECORD ANY DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF A LATER DATE THAN THE DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN REVERSED. H OWEVER, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ANOTH ER OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED SO THAT THEY CAN FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY B E REMITTED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE S UB-ORDINATE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT FACTS OF THE CASE WERE NO T ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BANK. AS PER THE EXISTING BYE-LAWS, THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS ABS OLUTELY CORRECT AND FOR THE INTEREST PAID TO NON-MEMBERS, TDS S HOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED SINCE THIS ACTION WAS NOT DENIED BY THE ASSESS EE THEREFORE THE ADDITION U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS CORRECTLY LEVIED ON THE A SSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONCED ED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT DE TAILS BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER FACTUAL VERIFICATION AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE. 7 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE DO CUMENTS ON RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE BANK HAS NOT DEDUCTED T DS ON INTEREST CREDITED OR PAID TO ENTITIES WHICH WERE NOT MEMBERS OF T HE BANK AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE INTEREST PAID OR CREDITED TO SUCH N ON-MEMBERS WERE DISALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE RECORDS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ANALY ZED THE BYE-LAWS OF THE ASSESSEE BANK AND CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT CERTA IN ENTITIES WHO HAVE BEEN PAID INTEREST WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE BA NK I.E., HUF, UN- REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, UNREGISTERED TRUST AND MIN ORS ETC. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JALGAON DISTR ICT CENTRAL CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE THE SHIELD OF NON-DEDUC TING OF TDS ON THE INTEREST PAID IS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR MEMBERS. BUT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BANK SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED ITS OWN BYE-LAWS AND HAVE NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON THE INTEREST PAID TO NON-MEMBERS, THE ADDITION U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) AS PER REASONING APPEARING IN HIS ORDER ON RECORD. THE FACTS FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THAT SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURNISHING DETAILS, RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE ON MERIT S. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SUCH DETAILS. BEFORE US ALSO THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY SATISFACTORY E XPLANATION OR REASONS WHY THEY HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT EVIDE NCES AS CALLED FOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORIT IES. BOTH THE PARTIES HEREIN HAVE AGREED ON ONE ASPECT I.E., THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE FACTUALLY VERIFIED AT THE LEVEL OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE 8 FROM THE DETAILS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER IN FACT THOSE ENTITIES IN QUESTION WER E NON-MEMBERS OR WHETHER THEY WERE MEMBERS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROV ISIONS OF MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960, THE BYE-LAW S OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DECISION OF JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERA TIVE BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (SUPRA). 7. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, ANALYZING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS FA CTUAL VERIFICATION AND THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEA LS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FO R RE-ADJUDICATION AND ALSO WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETA ILS / RELEVANT EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR TO REPRESENT THE CASE ON MERITS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHILE DECIDING THE MAT TER. THEREFORE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REMITTED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS DIRECTED HEREIN. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 9 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- /-/- ( P.M. JAGTAP ) ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. YAMINI 9 2 3456 764 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-7, PUNE. PR.CIT-6, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.