Smt. Urmila Sachdev, Pune V. ITO (Int. Tax)-I, Pune

ITA 2566/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6764 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS S PRAVEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2566/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SMT. URMILA SACHDEV, C/O PREM SAGAR SACHDEV, FLAT NO. C-12, SAIVIHAR RESIDENCY, S.NO.121/2A/1/3, PASHAN SUS ROAD, PUNE 411 021. PAN : ACAPS4081P . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT-1), PUNE. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. SUNIL PATHAK DEPARTMENT BY : MRS. S. PRAVEENA DATE OF HEARING : 21-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-07-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IT/TP, PUN E DATED 02.11.2012 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 30.0 3.2009 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,54,420/-. 3. BRIEFLY PUT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE APPELLANT IS A NON- RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL, WHO FILED A RETURN OF INCOME F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 26.07.2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.40,240/- WHICH, INTER-ALIA, INCLUDED A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.11,16,113/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT FINALIZED U/S 143(3) ON 22.12.2006, THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ASS ESSED AT RS.27,08,228/- ITA NO.2566/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2004-05 PRIMARILY ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ACCEPTANCE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE WAS CO-OWNER OF A RESID ENTIAL PROPERTY AT 5, CURZON ROAD, (NEHRU ROAD) DEHRADUN ALONG WITH HER T WO BROTHERS AND ONE SISTER. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE S AID PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,19,46,000/-. FOR THE P URPOSES OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ASSE SSEE ADOPTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.35, 44,374/- AND THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION THEREOF WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.1, 64,10,452/-. IN THIS MANNER, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.44,64,452/- WAS WO RKED OUT AND ASSESSEES SHARE CAME TO RS.11,16,113/-. 4. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATT ER TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) U/S 55A OF THE ACT. THE DVO VALUED T HE PROPERTY AT RS.4,02,948/- AS ON 01.04.1981 AND AS A RESULT ASSE SSEES SHARE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS ASSESSED AT RS.25,20,087/- AS AGAI NST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.11,16,113/- RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SINCE BECOME FINAL, AS ASSESS EE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO FILE AN APPEAL IN THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.200 7. 5. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASS ESSEE GUILTY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE IMPOSED PENALTY @ 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED QUA THE AFORESAID ADDITION VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2009, WHI CH HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS.8,31,630/-. ITA NO.2566/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2004-05 6. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ASSAILED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. BEFO RE THE CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT INDIVIDUA L, AGED 74 YEARS AND SHE HAD BONA-FIDELY RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE REGIS TERED VALUER FOR ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1 981 FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. ASSESSE E ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS AS A RESULT OF ONLY A DIFFEREN CE IN VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED A NY INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A ) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACT DILIGENTLY IN RELYING ON THE REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER, WHICH HAD NO ACCEPTABLE BASIS TO CALCULATE THE FAIR MARKET VA LUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 01.04.1981. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED BY THE CI T(A) THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BONA-FIDE AND PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIABLY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, HE RESTR ICTED THE LEVY OF PENALTY @ 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AS AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER @ 150% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EV ADED. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ACTION CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 7. BEFORE US, THE FIRST AND THE FOREMOST PLEA OF TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME IS UNSUS TAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS (2014) 98 DTR 177 (BOM.) AS ALSO THE JUDGEME NT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH VS . ITO & ANR., 6 DTR 203 (GUJ.). ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID, IT IS SOUGH T TO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE DVO FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITA NO.2566/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2004-05 ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS UNSUSTAINABL E AND THEREFORE ANY ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ACTION IS NOT SUST AINABLE. IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE AF ORESAID JUDGEMENTS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT HAVE ALSO BEEN NOTICED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF ITO VS. MRS. SANGEETA JEEVAN BHONSALE VIDE ITA NO.1125/PN/2013 D ATED 30.05.2014 WHEREIN AN ADDITION MADE IN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR CIRCUM STANCES HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDING TO THE LEARN ED COUNSEL, IF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ITSELF IS UNSUSTAINABLE, THEN LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. APART THEREFROM, THE LEARNED COUNSE L POINTED OUT THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RELYING UPON THE REPORT OF THE R EGISTERED VALUER FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS A BONA-FIDE ACT BECAUSE ASSESSEE BEING A LAY PE RSON HAS TO DEPEND THE REPORT OF AN EXPERT. MOREOVER, IT IS POINTED OUT T HAT THE SAME REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE OTHER CO- OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THEIR RESP ECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED, AS NO ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN RESPECT OF THE RETURNS OF INCOM E FILED BY THE CO-OWNERS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS AN E XTRAORDINARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUATION CARRIED OUT BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND THE DVO VIS-- VIS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01. 04.1981. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO WAS BASED ON THE CIR CLE RATES OF LAND NOTIFIED FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEREAS THE BASIS ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER TO VALUE THE PROPE RTY WAS NOT A RECOGNIZED METHOD. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE REPO RT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DUE DIL IGENCE AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE MADE A BONA-FIDE CLAIM IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO.2566/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2004-05 RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE APPELLANT BEFORE US IS A NON-RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL, WHO WAS CO- OWNER OF A PROPERTY AT 5, CURZON ROAD (NEHRU ROAD), DEHRADUN ALONG WITH HER T WO BROTHERS AND ONE SISTER. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,19,46,000/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A LONG TER M CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF PROPERTY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LOSS WAS COM PUTED AT RS.11,16,113/-. THE ONLY AREA OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AN D THE REVENUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DETERMINATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE ADO PTED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.35,44,374/- BASED ON T HE REPORT OF A REGISTERED VALUER AND THEREAFTER BY APPLYING INDEXATION FACTOR , THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WAS COMPUTED AT RS.1,64,10,452/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO AND BASED ON HIS REP ORT DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS .4,02,948/- AND THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION CAME TO RS.18,65,649/-. THE AFORESAID CONSTITUTED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPORTED AND THE ASSESSE D INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN SUBJECTED TO LE VY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. IT IS A TRITE POSITION OF LAW THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE F INDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE FOR THE P URPOSES OF LEVY OF PENALTY, THOUGH THEY MAY BE A RELEVANT CONSIDERATIO N DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, MERELY BECAUSE THERE EXISTS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED AND ASSESSED INCOME, IT DOES N OT LEAD TO AUTOMATIC IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ALT HOUGH A PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT DOES ARISE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE REBU TTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2566/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2004-05 11. IN THE ABOVE CONTEXT, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT B EFORE US THAT THE ADDITION ITSELF IS NOT MAINTAINABLE HAVING REGARD TO A LEGAL POSITION WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA). THE PLEA ADVANCED IS THAT A REFERENCE U/S 55A(A) OF THE ACT COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE VALUE ADOP TED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE PRESEN T CASE, IT IS EMERGING THAT THE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.35,44,374/- WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.4,02,948 /- AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO. NOTABLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED T HE ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DVO ONLY ON THE STRENGTH OF HIS PERCEPTION THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS HIGHER THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. AS PER THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES INVOCATION OF SECTION 55A(A) OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUS TIFIED. THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA) IS RELEVANT :- 7. WE FIND THAT S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT VERY CLEARLY A T THE RELEVANT TIME PROVIDED THAT A REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE DVO ONLY WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE VALUE A DOPTED BY THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.35.99 LAKHS WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF RS.6.68 LAKHS EVEN AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO. IN FACT, THE AO REFERRED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION TO THE DVO ONLY BECAUSE IN HIS VIEW THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1981 AS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE AFOR ESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INVOCATION OF S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED . 8. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF TH E AMENDMENT TO S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT IN 2012 BY WHICH THE WORDS IS LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ARE SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORDS IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE IS CLARIFIACTORY AND SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFF ECT. THIS SUBMISSION IS IN FACE OF THE FACT THAT THE 2012 AMENDMENT WAS MADE E FFECTIVE ONLY FROM 1 ST JULY, 2012. THE PARLIAMENT HAS NOT GIVEN RETROSPEC TIVE EFFECT TO THE AMENDMENT. THEREFORE, THE LAW TO BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT AS EXISTING DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT T O THE ASST. YR. 2006-07. AT THE RELEVANT TIME, VERY CLEARLY REFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO DVO ONLY IF THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE OPINION OF AO LE SS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE. 9. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO BY THE AO IS SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF S. 55A(A)(II) [ 55A(B)(II)] OF THE ACT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT S. 55A(B) O F THE ACT VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT IT WOULD APPLY IN ANY OTHER CASE I.E. A CASE N OT COVERED BY S. 55A(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS AN UNDISPUTABLE POSITION T HAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY S. ITA NO.2566/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2004-05 55A(A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, RESORT CANNOT BE HAD TO THE RESIDUARY CLAUSE PROVIDED IN S. 55A(B)(II) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE, THE CBDT CIRCULAR DT. 25TH NOV., 1972 CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE FACE OF THE CLEAR POSITION IN LAW. THIS IS SO AS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATUTO RY PROVISIONS BY THE REVENUE AS FOUND IN CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS RIOT BINDING UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS OPEN TO AN ASSESSEE TO CONTEND T O THE CONTRARY. 12. THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH (SUPRA) HAS ALSO LAID DOWN LEGAL PO SITION SIMILAR TO THAT EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA). 13. BY APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION TO THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DENUD ED OF ANY POWER TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1981 BASED ON AN OPINION THAT THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THUS, CONSIDERED IN THIS BACKGROUND, IN OUR VIEW, THE ADDITION ITSELF IS UNS USTAINABLE. WE ARE CONSCIOUS THAT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, WE ARE N OT CONCERNED WITH THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. SO HOWEVER, EVEN IF ASSESSEE CAN MAKE OUT A CASE IN TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT ADDITION ITSELF IS UNSUSTAINABLE THEN THE PENA LTY HAS TO FAIL. HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS UNSUSTAINABLE. WE HOLD SO. 14. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OTHER ARGUMENTS WHILE ASSAILING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED SINCE THE NECESSARY RELIEF HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS. 15. IN THE RESULT, WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2566/PN/2012 A.Y. : 2004-05 16. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 25 TH JULY, 2014. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-IT/TP, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE