Sanjay Dnyandeo Patil, Kolhapur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 318/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9477 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYURESH DOSHI
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE , , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 318 /PUN/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 4 - 05 SANJAY DNYANDEO PATIL, 545, E - WARD, YASHWANT NIWAS, KASABA BAWADA, KOLHAPUR - 416001 PAN : ABZPP7270M ....... / APPELLANT / V S. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOLHAPUR / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK & SHRI MAYURESH DOSHI REVENUE BY : S HRI AVADHESH KUMAR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 - 0 5 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 - 0 5 - 2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 & 2, KOLHAPUR DATED 27 - 01 - 2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S. 132 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 2 ITA NO . 318/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2004 - 05 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF DR. D.Y. PATIL GROUP ON 20 - 07 - 20 0 5 . THE ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF THE CONSTITUENT OF TH E GROUP WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE PREMISES OF D Y PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE, YCM HOSPITAL, SANT TUKARAM NAGAR, PIMPRI, PUNE A PAPER MARKED AS PAGE NO. 55 WAS IMPOUNDED. A PERUSAL OF THE PAPER REVEAL THAT ONE DR. P. S HARAT H CHAND ER RAO, SEEKING ADMISSION IN MS ORTHOPEDICS AT D Y PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE, PIMPRI HAD PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.30 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE. A SUM OF RS.8 LAKHS WAS PAID BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT AND REMAINING RS.22 LAKHS WAS PAID IN CASH IN TWO INSTALLME NTS OF RS.10 LAKHS AND RS.12 LAKHS ON 12 - 09 - 2003 AND 19 - 09 - 2003, RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 1 5 3A(B) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER APART FROM OTHER ADDITIONS MADE ADDITION OF RS.30 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF AFOREMENTIONED PAPER SEIZED FOR ACCEPTING DONATION FOR ADMISSION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24 - 12 - 2007, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INTER ALIA CHALLENGING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.30 LAKHS . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE QUA THE ADDITION OF RS.30 LAKHS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 6 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET MADE STATEMENT AT THE BAR THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 IN THE APPEAL. THE GROUND NOS. 4, 5 AND 6 RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE WITH RESPECT TO SINGLE ISSUE I.E. CONFIRMING OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DONATIONS RECEIVED. THUS, THE RELEVANT GROUND S AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : 3 ITA NO . 318/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2004 - 05 DONATION RECEIVED : 4. I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION RECEIVED WHICH IS NOT AT ALL RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DONATION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED . 6. I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPER WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE THEREFOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND S OF APPEAL. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE FORM OF AL TERNATE PRAYER TO THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS NOS. 4, 5 AND 6. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.30 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF THE PAPER SEIZED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO SUCH ADDITION WAS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE SAID ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETED. 2] WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.30 LAKHS IS NOT WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND, IF AT ALL, ANY ADDITI ON IS TO BE MADE, THE SAME SHOULD BE OF MUCH LESSER AMOUNT. 4 . SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS CARRIED OUT ON 20 - 07 - 2005. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUSTEE AND OFFICE BEARER OF D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN AND D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY. ON THE SAME DATE D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN WAS COVERED UNDER SURVEY. A DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF D Y PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE WHICH IS AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE DOCUMENT CONTAINED INFORMATION REGARDING THE AMOUNT PAID BY DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO FOR ADMISSION IN MS ORTHOPEDICS COURSE AT D Y PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE, PIMPRI, PUNE . AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS WAS PAID BY DEMAND DRAFT 4 ITA NO . 318/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2004 - 05 AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 22 LAKHS WAS PAID IN CASH IN TWO INSTALLMENTS. AS PER THE SAID DOCUMENT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ALLEGEDLY PAID TO SHRI SANJAY D. PATIL, PRESIDENT, D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY I.E. ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THE SEIZED PAPER CLEARLY MENTIONS THAT THE A MOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR ADMISSION TO MS ORTHOPEDICS COURSE AND IN CASE NO ADMISSION IS MADE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT HAS TO BE REFUNDED IMMEDIATELY. ADMITTEDLY, DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO WAS NOT GIVEN ADMISSION TO ANY OF THE COURSE. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED THR OUGH DEMAND DRAFT A S WELL AS IN CASH WAS RETURNED. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE BANK STATEMENT OF D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT RS.8 LAKHS WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN, KOLHAPUR ON 2 9 - 09 - 2003. SINCE, ADMISSION WAS NOT GRANTED TO DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RETURNED TO HIM VIDE CHEQUE ISSUED BY D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE BANK STATEMENT OF D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT THE CHEQUE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO WAS DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SOCIETY ON 23 - 08 - 2004. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT ALL THESE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS AT PAGES 13 TO 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS HAD RAISED NO DOUBT ON THE BANK ST ATEMENT S AND HAS EVEN RECOMMENDED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE UPHELD TO THE EXTENT OF RS.22 LAKHS ONLY. THE LD. AR ASSERTED THAT AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO FOR ADMISSION TO MS ORTHOPEDICS COURSE AT D Y PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE, PIMPRI, PUNE , S INCE, ADMISSION WAS DENIED TO HIM, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HIM WAS REFUNDED TO HIM. THE AMOUNT 5 ITA NO . 318/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2004 - 05 WHICH WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WAS REFUNDED THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN CASH WAS RET URNED IN CASH. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WHEN DEAL DID NOT MATERIALIZE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF RETAINING ANY AMOUNT WHATSOEVER EITHER PAID BY CHEQUE OR IN CASH. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF UDEYRAJA GOLIYA (HUF) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 64 ITD 21 ( MUMBAI) (TM) . 4 .1 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF AT ALL ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE , IT SHOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF TRUST AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT WAS RECE IVED AS DONATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE COLLEGE WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE TRUST. THE CASH RECEIVED WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE TRUST. THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY A MEDIUM FOR ACCEPTING CASH ON BEHALF OF TRUST. THE AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY OR FOR HIS PERSONAL USE. THEREFORE, IF ANY ADDITION HAS TO BE MADE IT SHOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF THE TRUST AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. 4 .2 THE LD. AR MADE AN ALTERNATE SUBMISSION THAT A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS RECEIVED THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT HAS BEEN REPAID THROUGH CHEQUE. THE CHEQUE HAS BEEN ENCASHED AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DEB ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY ON 23 - 08 - 2004. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH , T HEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT HAVE BEEN REFUNDED AFTER THE IMPOUNDING OF THE D OCUMENT. THE ADDITION , IF ANY HAS TO BE MADE IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH. 6 ITA NO . 318/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2004 - 05 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI AVADHESH KUMAR REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.30 LAKHS. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.30 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE , THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS DONATION HAS BEEN RETURNED. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN ON 29 - 09 - 2003 . AFTER ALMOST ONE YEAR RS.8.00 LAKHS HAVE BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE FROM THE ACCOUNT OF D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BY THE D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY WHEN THE DONATION WAS RECEIVED BY D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN. BOTH THESE BODIES ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 6 . THE LD. AR CONTROVERTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUSTEE OF BOTH THE ORGANIZATIONS I.E. D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN AND D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY. BOTH THE ORGANIZATIONS ARE PART OF SAME GROUP. HOW TO UTILIZE THE FUNDS OF THESE INSTITUTIONS IS THE PREROGATIVE AND INTERNAL ARRANGEMENT OF BOTH THE BODIES. THE FACT THAT AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS HAS BEEN REPAID TO DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO IS NOT DISPUTED. ONCE, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RETURNED , THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION WHETHER IT IS PAID BY D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN OR D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY. 7 . W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE 7 ITA NO . 318/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2004 - 05 HAS PLACED RELIANCE. THE ONLY ISSUE ARGUED BEFORE US IS WITH RESPECT TO DONATION OF RS.30 LAKHS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION FROM DR. P. SH ARATH CHANDER RAO IN MS ORTHOPEDICS COURSE IN D Y PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGED, PIMPRI, PUNE. A PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENT MARKED AS PAGE 55 PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WAS IMPOUNDED DURING THE SURVEY FROM THE PREMISES OF D Y PATIL MEDICAL COLLEGE , PIMPRI, PUNE. CONTENTS OF THE SAID PAPER SHOW THAT AN AMOUNT OF R S .8 LAKHS WAS PAID VIDE DEMAND DRAFT AND RS.22 LAKHS WAS PAID IN CASH TO SHRI SANJAY D. PATIL FOR ADMISSION . A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN, KOLHAPUR AT PAGE 4 O F THE PAPER BOOK REVEAL THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED BY TRANSFER ON 29 - 09 - 2003. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT SINCE ADMISSION TO DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO WAS DENIED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED VIDE DEMAND DRAFT AND IN CASH WAS RETURNED. OUR ATTEN TION WAS DRAWN TO THE BANK STATEMENT OF D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID BANK STATEMENT SHOWS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS WAS PAID TO DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO ON 23 - 08 - 2004. A CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE BANK ST ATEMENT S PLACED ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS RECEIVED THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT HAS BEEN REPAID THROUGH CHEQUE. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN ENDORSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS REMAND REPORT DATED 09 - 03 - 2010 PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGES 13 TO 16 O F THE PAPER BOOK. 8 . IN SO FAR AS REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.22 LAKHS RECEIVED IN CASH IS CONCERNED , NO DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH AS PER THE IMPOUNDED DOCU MENT WAS AT ANY POINT OF TIME PASSED ON TO D Y PATIL PRATISHTHAN OR D Y PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY 8 ITA NO . 318/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2004 - 05 EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH WAS RETURNED TO DR. P. SHARATH CHAN DER RAO . THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.22 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE TRUST WAS RETURNED AFTER REJECTION OF ADMISSION TO DR. P. SHARATH CHANDER RAO . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EVIDENCE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS FAR AS REFUND OF AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH . THUS, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, GROUND NOS. 4, 5 AND 6 RAISED IN THE APPEAL AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 9 . THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SUBMISSIONS HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF UDEYRAJA GOLIYA (HUF) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND HENCE, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 0 . THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED FROM BANK STATEMENTS OF TWO TRUSTS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.8 LAKHS RECEIVED THROUGH DEMAN D DRAFT WAS RETURNED THROUGH CHEQUE . THIS FACT HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF OF RS.8 LAKHS . THE ADDITION OF REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.22 LAKHS IS CONFIRMED FOR THE DETAILED REASO NS GIVEN ABOVE. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCEPTED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 1 1 . THE G ROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 9 ITA NO . 318/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2004 - 05 1 2 . THE G ROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRESSED. IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY , THE 26 TH DAY OF MAY, 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 26 TH MAY, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 & 2, KOLHAPUR 4. / THE CIT - I /II, KOLHAPUR/CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , , / ITAT, PUNE