Ashok M. Musale, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

ITA 2953/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9972 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHABHANA PARVEEN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Period of limitation; Deemed dividend; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 2(22)(e); 143(1); 147; 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO S . 2951 TO 2954 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 7 - 0 8 TO 20 1 0 - 11 SHRI ASHOK M MUSALE C/O PUNE METAGAPH, 113, GENERAL BLOCK, MIDC, BHOSARI, PIMPRI - CHINCHWAD, PUNE 411026 . / APPELLANT P AN: A A UPM2922P VS. THE DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8 , PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI KISHORE PHADKE / RESPONDENT BY : MS. SHABHANA PARVEEN / DATE OF HEARING : 16 . 0 5 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 . 0 5 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THIS BUNCH OF APPEAL S FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT (A) - 6 , PUNE , DATED 0 1 . 0 9 .20 1 6 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 7 - 0 8 TO 2010 - 11 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO S . 2 951 TO 2 954 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI ASHOK M MUSALE 2 2. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS RELATING TO SAME ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS RAISED THE ISSUE ON MERITS OF ADDITION AND HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FIRST PRESSED THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FACTS AND MAY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. ON GOING THROUGH ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND THE SAME ARE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: - 5. LEARNED CIT(A) - 6, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N SUSTAINING JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ITA, 1961 ASSUMED BY THE LEARNED AO, DESPITE THE FACT THAT, NO ANY CASE OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND TAXATION U/S 2(22)(E) EXISTS. 6. APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE LEARNED AO WAS WRONG IN NOT PASSING A SEPARATE ORDER, DEALING WITH APPELLANTS OBJECTIONS, SPECIFICALLY RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 27/1/2014. APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT, CONSIDERING THIS FATAL AND SERIOUS PROCEDURAL ERROR, ENTIRE 147 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ARE VITIATED AND HENCE, MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED. APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT BEFORE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED AO. 5. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST PROCEEDINGS I NITIATED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN ORDER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE, WE REFER TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.2951/PUN/2016, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. ITA NO S . 2 951 TO 2 954 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI ASHOK M MUSALE 3 6. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.10.2007 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 76,03,161/ - . SURVEY ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ENPACK PLASTICS PVT. LTD. / M/S. PUNE METAGRAPH ON 24.01.2012. THE SURVEY TEAM NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTOR OF ENPACK PLASTICS PVT. LTD. WITH SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AND HAD RECEIVED ADVANCES / LOANS FROM THE SAID COMPANY OUT OF ITS RESERVES AND SURPLUS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THUS, SATISFIED THAT DEEMED DIVIDEND AS PER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE, AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING AND AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY APPROVAL, INITIATED RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23.07.2012 AND THERE AFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT HAD BEEN FULFILLED AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD CREDIT BALANCE AGAINST WHICH THE AMOUNT WAS PAID, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE MAKING THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THERE W AS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT CONCLUDED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FURTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED FOR THES E YEARS WITHIN PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSEES GROUND IN RELATION TO REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS DISMISSED. 8. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ITA NO S . 2 951 TO 2 954 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI ASHOK M MUSALE 4 9. THE LEARNED AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS STRESSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS SUBMISSIONS DATED 27.01.2014, WHICH WERE NOT DISPOSED OF BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE, THE ENTIRE 147 PROCEEDINGS NE ED TO BE QUASHED. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - A) GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) B) KSS PETRON PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.224 OF 2014, JUDGMENT DATED 03.10.2016 C) M/S. BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN WRIT PETITION NO.2502 OF 2015, ORDER DATED 27.01.2016 D) ABHIJIT DESPANDE VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.492/PUN/2018, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, ORDER DATED 03.05.2019 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS ASKED TO FILE REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF OR NOT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS FILED REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH HE POINTS OUT THAT SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 25.02.2014 AND AT PA GE 10 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISCUSSED OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND HAD REJECTED THE SAME. THE RELEVANT PA RA IN PAGE 10 IS REPRODUCED IN THE SAID REPORT AND IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT EVEN THE CIT(A) HAD DISMISSED THE GROUND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ON REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US IS AGAINST 147 RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND NO 143(3) ASSESSMENT HAD TAKEN PLACE. THEREAFTER, CONSEQUENT TO SURVEY ON ENPACK PLASTICS PVT. LTD. WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTOR, REASONS WERE RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ITA NO S . 2 951 TO 2 954 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI ASHOK M MUSALE 5 ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. SUCH REASONS WERE RECORDED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALSO SOUGHT APPROVAL FROM THE ADDL.CIT AND THEREAFTER, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN FACTS UPTO THIS JUNCTURE. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 13.01.2014 REQUESTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THEREAFTER, IT HAD SOUGHT REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND AFTER RECEIPT OF THE SAME, FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE SAID REA SONS FOR REOPENING. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO DISPOSE OF OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND HENCE, ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AGAINST ASSESSEE SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITY AS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD DISPOSED OF OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT. IN THIS REGARD, REFERENCE IS MADE TO RELEVANT PARA IN PA GE 10 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RELEVANT PORTION READS AS UNDER: - THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED & PERUSED BUT NOT ACCEPTABLE. SINCE THE CASE FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 WAS ORIGINALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF IT ACT, APPROVAL OF REASSESSMENT U/S 148 HAS TO BE GRANTED BY ADDL. CIT ITSELF & IS PROCEDURALLY CORRECT & THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN PROCEDURE. 12. THE PERUSAL OF ABOVE REFLECTS THAT THERE IS NO WHISPER OF OBJECTIONS BEING RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND THE SAID OBJECTIONS BEING DISPOSED OF. A CLEAR INSTRU CTION WAS GIVEN TO LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISPOSED OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE OR NOT. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS LETTER REFERS TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ST RESSES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISCUSSED OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND DULY REJECTED THE SAME. THERE IS NO MERIT IN ITA NO S . 2 951 TO 2 954 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI ASHOK M MUSALE 6 THE STAND OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW IS THAT REJECTION OF OBJECTIONS SHOULD BE PASSED BY A SEPARATE ORDER, COPY OF WHICH SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN CASE HE WANTS TO SEEK ANY REMEDY AVAILABLE TO IT. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT STAND IN LAW. 13. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO (S UPRA) HAD HELD THAT WHEN A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS ISSUED, PROPER COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE NOTICEE IS TO FILE RETURN AND IF HE SO DESIRES, TO SEEK REASON FOR ISSUING NOTICE . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO FURNISH REASONS WITHIN REASONABL E TIME. ON RECEIPT OF REASONS, THE NOTICEE IS ENTITLED TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. 14. APPLYING THE SAID PRINCIPLE, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN KSS P ETRON PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: - 8 . WE NOTE THAT ONCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER FINDS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED, THEN THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FURTHER/FRESH ORDER. IF THIS IS PERMITTED, IT WOULD GIVE A LICENCE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS ORDERS ON RE-OPENING NOTICE, WITHOUT JURISDICTION (WITHOUT COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE PROCEDURE), YET THE ONLY CONSEQUENCE, WOULD BE THAT IN APPEAL, IT WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE. THIS WOULD LEAD TO UNNECESSARY HARASSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BY REVIVING STALE/ OLD MATTE RS. 9 . IN FACT, TO ENSURE THAT RE-OPENING NOTICES ARE DISPOSED OF, EXPEDITIOUSLY THE PARLIAMENT ITSELF HAS PROVIDED IN SECTION 153(2) OF THE ACT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION WITHIN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST PASS AN ORDER ON THE NOTICE OF RE-OPENING I.E. WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED. IN FACT, SECTION 153 (2A) OF THE ACT AS IN FORCE AT THE RELEVANT TIME ITSELF PROVIDES THAT AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT, CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 25 4 OF THE ACT, WOULD HAVE TO BE PASSED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT, WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ITA NO S . 2 951 TO 2 954 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI ASHOK M MUSALE 7 15. SIMILAR PROPOSITION WAS FURTHER LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: - 6. THIS PASSING OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30TH MARCH, 2015 WAS IN THE FACE OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA)LTD V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 259 ITR 19(SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT WHENEVER A REOPENING NOTICE IS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, ON REQU EST, A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED WHILE ISSUING THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE IS THEN ENTITLED TO FILE ITS OBJECTION TO THE GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE REOPENING NOTICE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSESSE E'S OBJECTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY A SPEAKING ORDER. IT IS ONLY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTS THE OBJECTION THAT HE CAN PROCEED WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE REOPENED ASSESSMENTS. 16. FURTHER, VIDE PARA 11, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD A S UNDER: - 11. IN THE PRESENT FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30TH MARCH, 2015 WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSED OF THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REASONS RECORDED IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE. THE REASONS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE P ETITIONER ONLY ON 19TH MARCH, 2015 AND THE PETITIONER HAD FILED THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SAME ON 25TH MARCH, 2015. THIS PASSING OF THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTIONS IS IN DEFIANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN GKN DRIVE SHAFTS (INDIA) LTD (SUPRA). THUS, THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH, 2015 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THIS FOR THE REASON THAT IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT DISPOSING OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REASONS RECORD ED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR IMPUGNED NOTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH, 2015. WE ARE NOT DEALING THE VALIDITY OF THE REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AS THE TIME LIMIT TO PASS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AS PROVIDED UNDER 4TH PROVISO TO SUB - SECTION(2) OF SECTION 153 OF THE ACT HAS ALREADY EXPIRED WHEN THE PETITION WAS FILED. 17. FURTHER, VIDE PARA 17, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT HAVING DISPOSE D OF PETITIONER S OBJECTIONS TO REASONS RECORDED IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE, THEN THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 18. IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF BY A SSESSING OFFICER BEFORE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM TAKING REMEDIAL ACTION, THEN SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND HENCE, THE SAME IS QUASHED. ITA NO S . 2 951 TO 2 954 /P U N/20 1 6 SHRI ASHOK M MUSALE 8 THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE, THE ISSUE RAISED ON MERITS BECOMES ACADEMIC. 19. THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN ITA NOS.2952/PUN/2016 TO 2954/PUN/2016 A RE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN ITA NO.2951/PUN/2016 AND OUR DECISION IN ITA N O.2951/PUN/2016 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ITA NOS.2952/PUN/2016 TO 2954/PUN/2016. 20 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 24 TH MAY , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 6 , PUNE ; 4. THE PR. CI T - 5, PUNE ; 5. 6. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE ; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE