Hemant B. Motadu, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 283/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9417 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 283/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SRI HEMANT B. MOTADU, NO.2394, SOLAPUR ROAD, PULGATE, CAMP, PUNE 411 001 PAN : AAXPM9935D . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD - 4(5), PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PAWAN CHAKRAPANI REVENUE BY : SHRI SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE, DATE D 25-10-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. GROUND NOS.1 AND 9 TO 11 ARE SAID TO BE EITHER G ENERAL IN NATURE OR CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. REST OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EXTRACTED AS UND ER : 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSES SED IN RESPECT OF GAINS ARISING FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNT ING TO RS.58,21,520/- AS BUSINESS INCOME UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE. / DATE OF HEARING :25.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.05.2017 2 ITA NO.283/PUN/2014 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS BUSINESS ASSET UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE LANDS SOLD ARE AGRICULTURAL LANDS & DO NOT EVEN PAR TAKE THE CHARACTER OF CAPITAL ASSETS U/S.2(14)(III) OF THE ACT MUCH LESS BUSINESS ASSETS, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE RATIO ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND UNDER THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE CON SIDERED THE FACT THAT AS PER THE NO PERSON OTHER THAN A AGRICULTURIS T CAN OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & PURCHASE & SALE OF THE SAME CANNOT BE DONE AS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS BUSINESS ASSET WHEN IT IS MENT IONED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS PER THE REVENUE RECORDS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN STATING THAT NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT EVEN WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT CARRIED OUT AGRICULTUR AL OPERATIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. BRIEFLY THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TAILOR-CUM-REAL ESTATE AGENT. HE EARNS NOT ONLY THE TAILORING CHAR GES BUT ALSO THE COMMISSION INCOME FOR ARRANGING PROPERTIES FOR RENTALS. DURIN G THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE OFFERED INCOME OUT OF (1) TAILOR RECEIPTS RS.7,87 ,517/- AND (2) COMMISSION RECEIPTS RS.5,89,572/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE EN TERED INTO TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT LOC ATED AT SUS VILLAGE, KONDHWA KHURD, HINJEWADI AND BHIVARI. ASSESSEE FIL ED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,50,710/-. ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING THE ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.70,00,250/-. WITH REGARD TO THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE PROPERTIES LOCA TED AT SUS VILLAGE, KONDHWA KHURD AND HINJEWADI, THERE IS NO DISPUTE BEFORE US. THE INCOMES EARNED FROM THE RELATED TRANSACTIONS WERE TAXED AS BUSINESS INC OME. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF TRANSACTION OF LAND AT BHIVARI, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 3 ITA NO.283/PUN/2014 EXEMPTION CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL NATURE OF TH E LANDS AT BHIVARI. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE GIVEN AT PAGES 5 AND 6 OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER : SALE OF LAND AT BHIVARI THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING 3.80 R AT VILLAGE BHIVRI, TAL. HAVELI, DIST. PUNE FOR CONSIDERATION O F RS.1,38,75,000/- VIDE AGREEMENT DT. 3-6-2008. THIS LAND WAS PURCHASED ON 5-12-2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.19,42,500/-. THIS WAS PURCHASE D JOINTLY WITH SHRI TUSHAR ATMARAM KALATE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SA LE COMMISSION OF RS.4,62,500/- OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES FROM PURCHASE COST. EXCEPT SELF MADE CASH VOUCHERS NO OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF THESE EXPENSES WITH THE ABOVE TR ANSACTION. HOWEVER, 1,85,000/- IS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION BASED O N THE VOUCHERS. THE PROFIT ON SALE OF THIS TRANSACTION IS WORKED OU T AS UNDER : SALE CONSIDERATION RS.13875000 LESS COMMISSION PAID RS. 185000 ---------------- RS.13690000 LESS : PURCHASE PRICE INCLUDING STAMP DUTY REGISTRATION CHARGES (104660) RS.2046960 ---------------- RS.11643040 ASSESSEES SHARE 50% RS. 5821520 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE SERIES OF TRANSACTION AS ABO VE THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THIS LAND IS WITHIN THE INTENTION OF EARNIN G PROFIT. THEREFORE PROFIT ON SALE OF THIS LAND OF RS.58,21,520/- IS CONSIDERE D AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE HI M, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT BHI VARI ON 5-12-2006 WITH AN INTENTION TO CULTIVATE THE LAND FOR BOTANICAL AND M EDICINAL PLANTATION JOINTLY WITH SHRI TUSHARAM ATMARAM KALATE. MR. TUSHAR ATMARAM K ALATE OWNS THE OTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND ADJACENT TO THE IMPUGNED LAND. T HEY UNDERTOOK THE CULTIVATION OF PLANTATION OF THE MEDICINAL PLANTS. HOWEVER, TH E SAID CULTIVATION WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL AS EXPECTED. THERE WERE MANY OTHER PROB LEMS WITH REGARD TO THE 4 ITA NO.283/PUN/2014 CULTIVATION OF THE SAID LAND. EVENTUALLY, BOTH THE OWNERS OF THE SAID LAND DECIDED TO SELL THE LANDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID A DMEASURING 3.80 R, WHICH WAS PURCHASED FOR A SUM OF RS.19,42,500/- EXCLUDING COM MISSION CHARGES AND THE SAME WAS SOLD FOR A SUM OF RS.1,38,75,000/- ON 03-0 6-2008 AFTER HOLDING THE LAND FOR 18 MONTHS. 5. CONSIDERING THE FACT THE SAME IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND LOCATED BEYOND 8 KMS OF THE PUNE MUNICIPALITY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D THE EXEMPTION ON THE PROFITS (I.E. RS.1,36,90,000 RS.20,46,960/- X 1/2 ). IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED AND ASSESSING OFFI CER TREATED THE SAME AS A TRANSACTION ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. ACCO RDINGLY, HIS SHARE OF INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.58,21,520/- IS CONSIDERED AS BUSINE SS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CO NFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA NOS. 3.4 TO 3.9. IN T HOSE PARAGRAPHS, THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE TRANSACTION AND HELD THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BACKGROUND OF THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, HAS A BUSINESS MIND AND INTENTION AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LA ND ADMEASURING 3.80 R. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) WITH REFERENCE TO THE T RANSACTION OF ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE IS NOT PROPER. ASSESSEE RELIE D ON VARIOUS DECISIONS TO SUPPORT HIS CASE. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G. VENKATASWAMI NAIDU & CO. VS. CIT 35 ITR 594 (SC). THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE AGRICULTURA L LAND, WITH AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN IT, IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF TAXATION AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE TAXED UNDER THE STATUTE. HOWEVER, TH E CIT(A) IS OF THE VIEW THAT IN SHORT SPAN OF TIME THE INVESTMENT OF RS.19,42,50 0/- HAS GROWN UPTO A SUM OF RS.1,38,75,000/-. SUCH INCREASE IS POSSIBLE ONL Y WITH A COMMERCIAL ASSET AND NOT WITH AGRICULTURAL ASSET. AS THE CIT(A) IS OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE 5 ITA NO.283/PUN/2014 ACQUIRED THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLELY AND EXCL USIVELY WITH THE INTENTION OF RE-SALE AT A PROFIT AND HAS NO INTENTION OF HOLDING THE PROPERTY FOR HIMSELF OR OTHERWISE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE PRESENCE OF SU CH INTENTION IS A RELEVANT AND CRUCIAL FACTOR FOR DETERMINING THE PARTICULAR TRANS ACTION CONSTITUTES AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO FINDING OF FACT BY THE CIT(A) AS TO HOW THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF AN AGRICU LTURAL LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXEMPT DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA. EVENTUALLY , THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED T HAT THIS IS A CASE OF AN EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL LAND ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH SHRI TUSHAR ATMARAM KALATE PURELY FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, I.E. GROWING MEDICINAL PLANTS ON THE PRINCIPLES. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE 7/12 EXTRACTS, DULY TR ANSLATED AND ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE RECORDS BEAR WITNESS TO THE FACT OF GROWING OF MEDICINAL PLANTS IN THE SAID LANDS. FUR THER, GIVING THE REASONS FOR SALE OF THE LAND IN 2008, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SALE WAS REQUIRED TO BE SOLD IN VIEW OF THE PRESSUR ES FROM THE OTHER CO-OWNER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. ASSESSEE BEING A NON-LOC AL, COULD NOT CONTINUE THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN AN ADVERSE CLIMATIC COND ITIONS. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT IS YIELDING GOOD EARNING DUE TO MARKET CONDITIONS, IT WAS DECIDED TO SELL THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A SUM OF RS.1,38,75,000/-. 7. BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REA D OUT THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G. VENKATASWAMI NAIDU & CO. VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND ALSO F ROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THUS, IT IS A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE 6 ITA NO.283/PUN/2014 AN INTENTION TO RESALE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF T HE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND. EXPLAINING THE MEANING OF THE ADVENTURE IN THE NAT URE OF TRADE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS RELEVANT F OR THE PROPOSITION THAT INTENTION OF TRADE IS A CRUCIAL FACTOR AT THE VERY TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE ASSET. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THE INTENTION TO RESALE IS A SUBSEQUENT EVENT AND NOT RELATED TO THE TIMING OF THE PURCHASE. THE REFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. WITHOUT PREJUD ICE, HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH RECORDED AGRICULTURAL AC TIVITIES IN IT, ON SALE, IT WILL NEVER YIELD THE TAXABLE INCOME IN VIEW OF THE EXEMP TIONS AVAILABLE TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. LD. AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THAT THE OTHER CO-OWNER OF THE LAND LEFT OUT BY THE REVENUE WITHOUT TAXING THE OTHER 50% OF THE SALE PROCEEDS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES, IT IS THE DEMAND OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW . FOR THIS PROPOSITION, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED O N HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF S. MURTHUKARUPAN 290 ITR 01 54 (MAD.) 8. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE NARRATED THE ABOVE REFERRED FACTS OF THE CASE AND MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE, APART FROM BEING A TAILOR AND REAL ESTATE AGENT, IS ALSO A FULL PLEDGED BUSINESSMAN ENGAGED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND. FOR THIS, HE RELIED ON THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE PRO PERTIES AT SUS VILLAGE, KONDHWA KHURD, HINJEWADI ETC. A PERSON WITH A BUSI NESS MIND IS OBVIOUSLY ENGAGED IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE IMPUGNED AG RICULTURAL LAND WITH A BUSINESS MOTIVE. IN SUCH CASE, THE ORDER OF THE AO /CIT(A) IS PROPER AND THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. 7 ITA NO.283/PUN/2014 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. SO FAR AS THE NATURE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE LAND IS LOCATED AROUND 60 TO 70 KMS AWAY FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF PUNE CITY. FURTHER, IT IS BORN E ON THE REVENUE RECORDS THAT THERE WAS MEDICINAL PLANTS CULTIVATION ON THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FACT IS UNDISPUTED AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE. 10. NOW COMING TO THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION AD VENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, IT IS DECIDED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE INTENTION TO RESALE IS A CRUCIAL FACT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE ASSET. IF IN C ASE OF THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH INTENTION, SUBSEQUENT TO THE POINT OF PURCHASE, THE ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE DOES NOT ARISE TO SUCH TRANSACTION. IT IS R ELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITH HIS PROPERTIES LOCATED AT SUS VILLAGE, KONDHWA KHURD, HINJEWADI. THE SAME IS UND ISPUTED. HOWEVER, WHEN COMES TO THE PROPERTY AT BHIVARI, THE ASSESSEE RETA INED THE SAID LAND FOR A PERIOD OF 1 YEARS BY THE TIME IT IS EVENTUALLY SOLD. DURING THE PERIOD, ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO USE THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER, THE SAID ATTEMPTS DID NOT YIELD RESULTS. IN ANY CASE, IT IS DECIDED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE USE OF LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IS NOT A RELEVANT FACTOR FOR DETERMINING THE NATURE OF LAND AS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. HOWEVER, THE FACT CULTIVATION OF MEDICINAL PLANTS ON THE LAND SUGGEST S THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. FURTHER, IT IS THE CASE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION F ROM TAX THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF AGRI CULTURAL LAND. NORMALLY, IN SUCH CASES, THE PRIMARY ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE. I N THIS CASE, ASSESSEE GAVE THE REQUIRED DETAILS ON THE PURCHASE AND SALE TRANS ACTION, DETAILS OF THE BUYER, DETAILS OF THE 7/12 EXTRACTS SHOWING THE DETAILS OF CROP GROWN (MEDICINAL PLANTS) 8 ITA NO.283/PUN/2014 IN THE SAID LANDS, DETAILS OF ORIGINAL INTENTION TO USE THE SAID LAND FOR GROWING THE MEDICINAL PLANTS, REASONS FOR SALE ETC., WHEREA S THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY DISBELIEVED THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSING OFFIC ER DOES NOT BRING ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO THE RECORDS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS DISB ELIEF. IN OUR VIEW, THE ONUS HAS SHIFTED TO THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE/ASSESSING OF FICER. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION IN LAW THAT, FOR HOLDING A PARTICULAR T RANSACTION AS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE, THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF LAND IS A CRUCIAL FACTOR. SUBSEQUENT GENESIS OF IN TENTION, WHICH LED TO THE SALE TRANSFER OF LAND, DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO HOLD A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION AS THE TRANSACTION AS AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS THE CASE OF GENESIS OF INTENTION TO TRA DE THE ASSET SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIMING OF PURCHASE OF LAND. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION, DESPITE THE ASSESSEES BACKGROUND AS BUSINESSMAN, THIS PARTICUL AR TRANSACTION IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. THU S, THE CORE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL STAND ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S. MURTHUKARUP AN (SUPRA) HOLD THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN CASE OF ASSESSEE WHERE NO SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENTS OF OTHER CO-OWNERS. HENCE, THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF MAY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 30 TH MAY, 2017. 9 ITA NO.283/PUN/2014 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - II , PUNE 4. CIT - II , PUNE 5. , , B BENCH / DR, ITAT, B BENCH PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE.