Smt. Pramila D. ashtekar , Pune V. ITO, Central-II, Pune

ITA 354/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9742 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 153A; 148; 132; 15; 139

Judgement Text

N THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI, R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 354 TO 358/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEARS : 2000-01 TO2 004-05) SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR .. . APPELLANT 828, NEW BUDHWAR PETH, PUNE - 411002 PAN AAQPA9334B V. ITO CENTRAL - II, PUNE RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 359 TO 362/PN/2 010 (ASSTT. YEARS : 2000-01, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) SHRI DINKAR M. ASHTEKAR APPELLANT 828, NEW BUDHWAR PETH, PUNE - 411002 PAN AAZPA4526G V. ITO CENTRAL - II, PUNE RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 363 TO 365/PN/20 10 (ASSTT. YEARS : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2 005-06) M/S. ASHTEKAR JEWELLERS APPELLANT 596, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411030 PAN AAZPA4526G V. ITO CENTRAL - II, PUNE RESPONDENT ITA NO. 366/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI TUSHAR D. ASHTEKAR APPELLANT 828, NEW BUDHWAR PETH, PUNE - 411002 PAN AGCPA0364M V. ITO CENTRAL - II, PUNE RESPONDENT 2 ITA NOS. 354 TO 358/PN/2010 SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR ETC. A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 ETC ITA NOS. 367/PN/2010 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04) SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR M. ASHTEKAR APPELLANT 828, NEW BUDHWAR PETH, PUNE - 411002 PAN AAPPA3061N V. ITO CENTRAL - II, PUNE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SHAILJA RAI DATE OF HEARING : 05/9/1 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : - 9-12 ORDER PER BENCH : THIS BATCH OF FOURTEEN APPEALS ARE HAVING IDENTICA L ISSUES AS WELL AS COMMON FACTS AND THESE APPEALS ARE ARISING OUT OF T HE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEES ARE COMMON, SAVE THE AMOUNT OF THE PENALTIES WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS. 69000/- U/SEC 271(1)(C ) FOR A.Y. 2000- 2001. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), PUNE FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE THE RE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SINCE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE ASSESSED INCOME AND RETURNED INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/SEC. 153A. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATI NG THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN RES PECT OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/SEC. 153A OF THE ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED CIT A ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALT Y BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR IMMUNITY AS PROVI DED IN EXPL.5 TO SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS WHICH REVEAL FROM THE RECORD ARE AS U NDER. ALL THESE ASSESSEES WERE SUBJECTED TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S. 132(1) OF THE ACT ON 26.10.2005. THESE ASSESSEES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF JEWELLERY AND RELATED ACTIVITIES. THE A.O. ISSUED NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE U/S. 153A AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O., ALL THESE 3 ITA NOS. 354 TO 358/PN/2010 SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR ETC. A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 ETC ASSESSEES FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME ON 29.11.200 7. THE POSITION OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH, INCOME DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS, INCOME DECLARED IN THE RET URNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S. 153A, INCOME ASSESSED BY THE A.O AND P ENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S. 271(1)(C ) CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER : NAME OF ASSESSEE ASSTT. YEAR INCOME DECLARED IN ORIGINAL RETURN (IN RUPEES) INCOME DECLARED IN RETURN 153 A (IN RUPEES) INCOME ASSESSED BY THE A.O. (IN RUPEES) PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) (IN RUPEES) SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 - - 1,83,644/- 2,75,094/- 2,77,219/- 2,68,430/- 1,43,580/- 2,21,260/- 3,81,200/- 6,48,790/- 2,68,430/- 1,43,580/- 2,21,260/- 3,81,200/- 6,48,790/- 69,000/- 21,700/- 11,500/- 49,500/- 1,11,500/- SHRI. DINKAR M. ASHTEKAR 2000-01 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 1,53,534/- 12,66,912/- 3,44,837/- 5,31,230/- 3,63,340/- 14,28,610/- 6,34,780/- 6,07,660/- 3,63,340/- 14,28,610/- 6,34,780/- 6,07,660/- 70,000/- 51,300/- 87,100/- 20,600/- ASHTEKAR JEWELLERS 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 3,38,332/- - - 5,77,740/- 4,51,950/- 5,81,090/- 5,77,740/- 4,51,950/- 5,81,090/- 88,000/- 1,62,200/- 2,12,700/- SHRI TUSHAR D. ASHTEKAR 2005-06 25,988/- 3,37,190/- 3,37,190/- 76,660/- SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. ASHTEKAR 2003-04 6,10,073/- 6,99,420/- 6,99,420/- 31,600/- IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES U/S. 153A WAS ACCEPTED IN ALL THESE CASES AND NO FURTHER ADDITION WAS MADE. FROM THE SUMMARY OF THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE GIVEN ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN RESPECT OF 4 ITA NOS. 354 TO 358/PN/2010 SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR ETC. A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 ETC SOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THESE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT FILED THE RETURNS U/S. 139(1) AND 139(4) BUT FOR THE FIRST TIME FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. IN SOME OF THE CASES, IN SOM E OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THESE ASSESSEES OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME WH ILE FILING THE RETURNS OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 15 3A OF THE ACT, BUT, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE ASSESSEES FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL, THE INCOME DECLARED BY THESE AS SESSEES IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES U/S. 153A WAS ACCEPTED. THE A.O INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THESE ASS ESSEES FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE US U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFINED THE PENALTY TO THE ADDI TIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THESE ASSESSEES IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES U/S. 153A. MOREOVER, IN SOME OF THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS, THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME ONL Y AFTER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S. 153A. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO LEVY THE PENALTY FOR CONCEA LMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING THE INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THES E ASSESSEES IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S. 153A AND ALSO IN THOSE CASES WHERE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT Y EARS, THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED ONLY AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE S U/S. 153A. THE DETAILS OF THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ARE GIVEN HEREINABOVE. ALL THESE ASSESSEES CHALLENGED THE PE NALTY ORDER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS, AS THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDERS AND DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS. NOW, THE ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL, AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, SU BMITTED THAT NO ADDITION IS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE INCOME OFFE RED OR DECLARED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT ENTIRE INCOME OFFERED BY TH ESE ASSESSEES WERE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SOME ENTRIES IN THE DOCUMENT S AND THERE IS NO INCOME DETECTED BASED ON ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWEL LERY OR ANY VALUABLE ASSET. HE SUBMITS THAT AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE IMMUNITY AS PER THE EXPLANATION-5 TO THE SEC. 2 71(1)(C ) OF THE ACT AS THE INCOME ADMITTED DURING SEARCH OPERATION WAS OFFERED BY ALL THESE ASSESSEES AND ALSO PAID THE TAX. SECOND LIMB OF H IS ARGUMENT IS THAT 5 ITA NOS. 354 TO 358/PN/2010 SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR ETC. A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 ETC EVEN EXPLANATION-5A, NEWLY ADDED TO SEC. 271(1)(C ) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THESE ASSESSEES AS ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE PRIOR TO THE A.Y. 2007-08. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN THE CASE OF CHANDAN K. SHEWANI VS. DCIT, ITA NOS. 235 AND 236/PN/2010, ORDER DATED 29.8.2012. H E PLEADED FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D.R., WHO SUPPORTED T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN ALL THESE APPEALS, IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE IS NO ADDIT ION OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME DECLARED BY THESE ASSESSEES IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. IT IS AL SO ADMITTED FACT THAT NO DECLARATION IS BASED ON ANY MONEY, JEWELLERY, BULLI ON OR ANY OTHER VALUATION ARTICLES DETECTED OR SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OPERATION. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE LD. COUNSEL PLEADED THA T THESE ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED FOR THE IMMUNITY IN VIEW OF EXPL.- SEC. 5 TO SEC. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE INCOME ADMITTED DURING THE COUR SE OF THE SEARCH HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS TH E TAX ON THE ADMITTED INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN PAID. THE SCOPE OF EXPLANATIO N-5 HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT, AHAMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CA SE OF ACIT VS. KIRIB DAYABHAI PATEL, 121 ITD 159 (TM ) WITH SPECIFIC REF ERENCE WHETHER THE IMMUNITY IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS OR ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN HAS BEEN EXPIRED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR I N RESPECT OF WHICH, THE PREVIOUS YEAR WAS YET TO END ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN THIS CASE, SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 26 OCTOBER, 2005, HENCE, AT THE MO ST, THE BENEFIT OF THE IMMUNITY CAN BE GIVEN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 6. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS OTHERWISE SQ UARELY COVERED VIDE THE DECISION OF ITAT,PUNE IN THE CASE OF CHANDAN K. SHEWANI VS. DCIT, ITA NOS. 235 & 236/PN/2010. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO COVER U P THE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS DEPOSIT IN BANK A/CS. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDE RED THE EXPLANATIONS- 3, 5 & 5A TO SEC. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT AND HELD A S UNDER : 8. WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.YS. 19 99-2000 AND 2001- 02, THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE INCOME OFFERED TOWARD S THE PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS DIVORCEE SISTER HAS BEEN DELETED. EVEN THOUGH THE PARLIAMENT HAS INSERTED EXPLANATION 5A TO SEC. 271(1)( C ), SAID EXPLANATION IS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF TH E SEARCH INITIATED U/S. 132 ON OR AFTER 1 ST JUNE 2007. SECTION 5A IS INTRODUCED TO PATCH OUT THE 6 ITA NOS. 354 TO 358/PN/2010 SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR ETC. A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 ETC LACUNAE IN THE EXISTING PROVISIONS MORE PARTICULARL Y TO OVERCOME THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF EXPLANATION -5. IF THE SEARCH IS INITIATED U/S. 132 ON OR AFTER 1 ST JUNE 2007 THEN THERE IS A LEGAL PRESUMPTION THAT A NY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O R OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS, WHICH IS CLAIMED AS INCOME BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE SAME WOULD BE TREATED AS DEEMED CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SO FA R AS THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THE DATE OF SEARCH IS 15.6.2 004 AND HENCE, EXPLANATION 5A TO SEC. 271(1)((C ) IS NOT APPLICABL E. IT IS WELL SETTLED RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF THE PENALTY PROVISIONS THAT T HE SAME SHOULD BE STRICTLY INTERPRETED AND THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ANY PRESUMPTION FOR LEVY OF THE PENALTY UNLESS STATUTE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES SA ME. 9. SO FAR AS THE EXPLANATION-3 TO SEC. 271(1)(C) IS CONCERNED, WHICH READS AS UNDER : EXPLANATION 3.- WHERE ANY PERSON FAILS, WITHOUT RE ASONABLE CAUSE, TO FURNISH WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 153 A RETURN OF HIS INCOME WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH UNDER SECTION 139 IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR COMM ENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1989, AND UNTIL THE EXPIRY OF THE PE RIOD AFORESAID, NO NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO HIM UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS SATISFIED THAT IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR SUCH PERSON HAS TAXABLE INCOME , THEN, SUCH PERSONAL SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C ) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR, NOTWITHSTANDING TH AT SUCH PERSON FURNISHES A RETURN OF HIS INCOME AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148. THE SAID EXPLANATION PRESUMES THAT THERE IS A CONC EALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FILING OF THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME IN THE SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME U /S. 139 OR WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S. 153(1) OF THE ACT BUT FI LES THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148. THE SAID EXPLANAT ION IS ALSO SILENT IN THE SITUATION IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ANY PARTICULAR A.Y. BUT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A, THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL P RESUMPTION ? IN OUR OPINION, EXPLANATION-3 HAS NO APPLICATION, WHEN THE RETURN IS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT AS PER THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICA TION TO LEVY THE PENALTY FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 IN THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A EVEN FOR THE SAID INCOME IS BASED ON SOME ENTRIES FOUND IN THE DIARIES OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR EVEN BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE, ACCO RDINGLY DELETE THE PENALTY SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A). 7. IN ALL THE APPEALS BEFORE US, EXPLANATION-3 CANN OT BE APPLIED, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CHANDAN K. SHEWANI (SUPRA). SO FAR AS EXPLANATION 5A IS CONCERNED, IT IS BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK W.E.F. 1.6.2007 I.E. 7 ITA NOS. 354 TO 358/PN/2010 SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR ETC. A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 ETC FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SO FAR AS THE ASS ESSMENTS IN ALL THESE CASES ARE CONCERNED, NO ADDITION IS MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURNS O F INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A AS THE EXPRESSION TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED APPEARING IN CLAUSE (C) TO SEC. 271(1) IS TO BE UND ERSTOOD AS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE INCOME FINALLY ASSESSED. AFTER INTR ODUCTION OF SEC. 153A W.E.F. 1.6.2003, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PENALTY PROVI SION TO DEAL WITH THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH AND SEI ZURE ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS THE RETURNED I NCOME AND INCOME ASSESSED ARE THE SAME, OTHERWISE ALSO, NO PENALTY C AN BE LEVIED. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IN ALL THE APPEALS BEFORE US, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DELETE THE PENALTIES LEVIED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN ALL THE APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASONS. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH SEPTEMBER 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S.PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT- I, PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 5. THE D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE /- TRUE COPY-/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE