Shri Kasturilal Sardarilal Luthra, Nashik V. DCIT CC 1, Nashik

ITA 316/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4339 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure
• Section: 234B; 69; 28

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 316/PN/2012 AND ITA NO.317/PN/2012 (ASST.YEARS : 2004-05 AND 2005-06) KASTURILAL SARDARILAL LUTHRA URMIL, SHRIN MEADOWS, GANGAPUR ROAD, NASHIK 422 013. .. APPELLANT PAN NO. AAFPL 4629P VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, NASHIK. .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SRI S.K. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 09-05-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-05-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30-11-2011OF THE CIT(A)-II, N ASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE WERE HEARD AND ARE BEING DISPOSE D OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.316/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) : 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.4,21,000/- FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT( A) BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SINCE NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN SEARCH OR THEREAFTER, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.153A OF THE ACT. TH E ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) BE QU ASHED. 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION AND H EAVY VEHICLE HIRING. IN THIS CASE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON 28-09-2006. IN RES PONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 14-05-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,66,570/-. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE SE IZED MATERIAL IN A FILE MARKED A-4 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSE E SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.4,21,000/- TOW ARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS SON SRI AMIT LUTHRA FOR WHI CH SOURCE WAS NOT EXPLAINED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE HAD ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) T HAT THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN HI S HANDS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RE TURN FILED HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE QUESTION PUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH ARE AS UNDER : Q.NO.8 PLEASE GO THROUGH FILE NO. A-4 REGARDI NG A PLOT PURCHASED BY SHRI AMIT LUTHRA CONTAINING AGREEMENT TO SALE NOTORISED ON 29-08-2003. ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COST OF PLOT IS RS.7,11,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS.4,11,000/-+RS.10,000/- HAS BEEN PAID BY CASH AND REMAINING BALANCE OF RS.2,90,000/- BY CROSSED CHEQU E. PLEASE STATE WHETHER THIS INVESTMENT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE I NCOME TAX RECORDS OR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.4,21,000/-? ANS. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AGREEMENTS. AS FAR A S I REMEMBER THIS PLOT WAS AGREED TO BE PURCHASED BY MY SON AMITKUMAR LUTHRA FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,11,000/- AND THE PAYM ENTS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IS DEFINITELY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HOWEVER CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.4,21,000/- MADE TO THE SELLER TO THE BEST OF MY MEMORY WAS BY MY LATE WIFE SMT. URMILA K. LUTHRA WHO PAID ON BEHALF OF MY SON AMIT. HOWEVER, AS ON TODAY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLA IM AND THEREFORE TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID LITIGATION I OFFER CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.4,21,000/- AS INCOME AND THIS INCOME WILL BE ASS ESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF AMITKUMAR LUTHRA IN WHOSE NAME THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR OF INVESTMENT. 3 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ABOVE TO T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. REALISING HIS MISTAKE THE ASSESSEE GAVE HIS CONSENT TO ADD THIS AS HIS INCOME VIDE HIS LETTER D ATED 29-12-2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.4 ,21,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 11. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION IF ANY HAS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF LATE SMT. URMILA K. LUTHRA OR IN THE HANDS OF SHRI AMIT K. LUTHRA IS NOT TENABLE. I HAVE PERUSED THE STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT RECORD ED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND HIS LETTER DATED 29/12/2008 WHEREIN HE HAS SPEC IFICALLY MENTIONED THAT : IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE I ALSO DISCLOSED THE AMOUN T OF ` 4,21,000/- INVESTED IN THE LAND AT AURANGABAD IN TH E NAME OF MY SON AMIT AS PER DOCUMENT NOTARIZED ON 29/08/2003 AN D THIS INCOME IS DECLARED TO AY 2004-05 IN MY HANDS. THIS AMOUNT IS DECLARED VOLUNTARILY IN GOOD FAITH. PENALTY PROCEED INGS U/S 271(1)(C) MAY NOT BE INITIATED. THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 8 OF THE STATEMENT RECOR DED ON 05/10/2006 IS AS FOLLOWS: Q. NO. 8 PLEASE GO THROUGH FILE NO. A-4 REGARDING A PLOT PURCHASED BY SHRI. AMIT K. LUTHRA CONTAINING AND AG REEMENT TO SALE NOTORIZED ON 29/08/2003. ACCORDING TO WHICH THE COS T OF PLOT IS ` 7,11,000/- OUT OF WHICH ` 4,11,000/- + ` 10,000/- HAS BEEN PAID BY CASH AND REMAINING BALANCE OF ` 2,90,000/- BY CROSSED CHEQUE. PLEASE STATE WHETHER THIS INVESTMENT HAS BEEN DISCL OSED IN THE INCOME TAX RECORDS OR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE CASH PAYMENTS OF ` 4,21,000/- ? ANS. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AGREEMENTS. AS FAR AS I REMEMBER THIS PLOT WAS AGREED TO BE PURCHASED BY MY SON AMITKUMAR LUTH ARA FOR THE AMOUNT OF ` `7,11,000/- AND THE HOWEVER CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY A CCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IS DEFINITELY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWE VER CASH PAYMENTS OF ` 4,21,000/- MADE TO THE SELLER TO THE BEST OF MY MEM ORY WAS BY MY LATE WIFE SMT. URMILA K. LUTHARA WHO PAID ON BEHALF OF MY SON AMIT . HOWEVER, AS ON TODAY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUP PORT OF THIS CLAIM AND THEREFORE TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID LITIGATION I OFFER CASH PAYMENTS OF ` 4,2I,000/- AS INCOME AND THIS INCOME WILL BE ASSESS ABLE IN THE HANDS OF AMITKUMAR LUTHARA IN WHOSE NAME THAT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR OF INVESTMENT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN REGARD TO UNDISCLOSED PAYMEN T OF ` 4,21,000/- IN CASH FOR LAND PURCHASED AT AURANGABAD IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT'S SON SHRI. AMIT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE TRANSACTION REFLECTE D IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT (FILE NO. A-4) THE COST OF THE PLOT WAS SHOWN AT ` 7,11,000/- OUT OF WHICH ` 4,21,000/- (` ` 4,11,000 + ` 10,000/-) WAS PAID IN CASH. THIS PAYMENT WAS NOT DI SCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE REMA INING BALANCE OF ` 2,40,000/- WAS PAID BY CROSSED CHEQUE. SINCE THE AP PELLANT COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE 4 HIS CLAIM THAT THE CASH OF ` 4,21,000/- WAS PAID BY HIS WIFE LATE SMT. URMIL K. LUTHARA ON BEHALF OF HER SON AMIT, APPELLANT DISCLOSED THE SAME AS HIS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR AY 2004-05. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CASH PAYMENT OF ` 4,21,000/- AS APPELLANT'S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/ S 69 IN AY 2004-05. THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. 4.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH T HE SIDES. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) HAS OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,21,000/- AS HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED COURSE S. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE IN HI S LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE AO HAS ACCEPTED FOR THE ADDITION TO BE MADE IN HIS HANDS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. WE ACCORD INGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS U NDER : 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEVY OF INTEREST BE QUASHED. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 23C IS MANDATORY AND CO NSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 BY THE ASSESSEE BEING GEN ERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.317/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) : 9. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 READ AS UNDER : 5 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.6,00,000/- FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT( A) BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SINCE NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN SEARCH OR THEREAFTER, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.153A OF THE ACT. TH E ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) BE QU ASHED. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESS EE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,87,860/- WHICH WAS ALSO SHOWN IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.139 ON 31-10-2005. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED DEDUCTION U/S.57 AMOUNTING TO RS.6 LAKHS TOWARDS BAD DEBT ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS GIVEN TO SRI SATISH MANCHANDA ON 30-08-2002 RELATING TO A.Y.2003 -04. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THI S DEDUCTION U/S.57 IS ALLOWABLE AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPO SITS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW THIS DE DUCTION U/S.57 IS ALLOWABLE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY ATTEMPT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.6 LAKHS AND INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S.57 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 11. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.6 LAKHS WAS PAID TO SRI SATISH MANCHANDA ON 30-08-2002 VIDE CHEQUE NO.646365 OF PUNJAB & SIND BANK, CURRENT ACCOUNT NO.1278, AUR ANGABAD BRANCH. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID AS LOAN GIVEN IN THE ORDIN ARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NEITHER QUESTIONED OR REQ UISITIONED ABOUT THE TRANSACTION REFLECTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR U/ S.153A NOR HAS DOUBTED ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WITH THE S AID SRI SATISH 6 MANCHANDA. THE PAYMENT MADE TO SRI SATISH MANCHAND A TOWARDS EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED U/S.37 BUT BY MISTAKE IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S.57 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 12. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IN REGARD TO HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.6 LACS U/S.57 OF THE A CT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN AS A LOAN TO SHRI SATISH MANCHANDA (HIS RELATIVE) O N 30/08/2002. SINCE SHRI SATISH MANCHANDA HAS NOT REPAID THE LOAN, THE APPEL LANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THIS DEBT AS BAD DEBT U/S.57 OF THE ACT. THE CL AIM OF THE APPELLANT FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.6 LAC U/S.57 OF THE ACT IS UNTENABL E. WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE APPELLANT FILES PROFIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC .44AD OF THE ACT, ON THE OTHER HAND HE CLAIMS DEDUCTION U/S.57 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE INCOME OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS. SINCE SEC.28 TO 43C OF THE ACT ARE TAKEN CARE OF WHILE SHOWING PROFIT OF 8% ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER/GROSS RECEIPTS U /S.44AD, APPELLANT HAS CHOSEN TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S.57 OF THE ACT TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF ACT. THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLA NT. ADDITION OF RS.6 LAC IS CONFIRMED. 13. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.6 LAKHS U/S.57 FROM THE INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSIT AND BAD DEBT CLAIMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE S AME. WE FIND BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAME IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S.37 AND BY MISTAKE THE SAME WAS CLAIMED U/S.57 A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE BAD DEBT IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT OFFERING 7 INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM ANY DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBT F ROM THE BUSINESS INCOME SINCE SECTION 28 TO 43C OF THE INCOME TAX AC T ARE TAKEN CARE OF WHILE OFFERING THE INCOME ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS. 15. SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.57 WE FIND THE SAME IS NOT AT ALL ALLOWABLE SINCE IT IS NO WAY RELATED TO EARNING OF SUCH INTEREST INCOME FROM FIXED DEPOSITS. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADVAN CED TO THE BROTHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AS LOAN AND IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE TO ADVANCE LOANS ON INTEREST. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WE FIND NO INFIRM ITY IN HIS ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 1 AND 2 BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 16. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER : 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEVY OF INTEREST BE QUASHED. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 23C IS MANDATORY AND CO NSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 BY THE ASSESSEE BEING GE NERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 19. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF MAY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 14 TH MAY 2013 SATISH 8 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. THE CIT-III, PUNE 5. D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // PRIVAT E SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE