DCIT, (EXEMPTION), AURANGABAD V. SHRI DNYANESHWAR TRUST, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 37/PUN/2020

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, which was assessed as an AOP instead of a charitable trust by the lower tax authorities. The Trust contested this assessment, arguing that it is a charitable entity engaged in activities as per its trust deed. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the assessment as an AOP, highlighting issues such as non-deduction of TDS and non-inclusion of certain receipts in the income and expenditure account. The Tribunal's decision focused on the legal status of the Trust and the procedural validity of the reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137379 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2020
• Other Referred Cases: All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 137 ITD 287 (Mum.) (S.B.), National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Charitable institution; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Onus to prove; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; TDS
• Section: 80G; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2016-17 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, A/P Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Bhende, Tal-Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar Maharashtra. PIN – 414 604 PAN AABTS1962N vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holy Cross English School, Cantonment, Aurangabad - 431 001. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2016-17 The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Aayakar Bhavan, Near Holy Cross English School, Cantonment, Aurangabad. PIN – 431 001. Maharashtra. vs. M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, A/P Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Bhende, Tal- Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar Maharashtra. PIN – 414 604 PAN AABTS1962N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod Shingte For Revenue : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date of Hearing : 01.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. The instant batch of eight appeals pertains to a single assessee herein namely M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust. This assessee and Revenue have filed their four cross-appeals each i.e., ITA.Nos.1647 to 1650/PUN./2019 [former] and 2 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. ITA.Nos.34 to 37/PUN./2020 [latter party]; against the CIT(A)- 2, Aurangabad’s separate orders dated 04.10.2019 passed in case Nos.ABD/CIT(A)-2/186, 187, 180 & 190/2018-19 dated 09.01.2019, case No.ABD/CIT(A)-2/187/2018-19 dated 04.10.2019 [A.Y. 2011-12] and dated 09.01.2019 [for A.Ys.2012-13 to 2013-14 and 2016-17]; in relevant proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 in former twin and u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") in latter as many assessment years, respectively. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 2. Both the learned representatives unanimously stated during the course of hearing that the assessment year 2011-12’s cross-appeals filed at the assessee’s and Revenue’s behest i.e., ITA.No.1647/PUN./2019 and ITA.No.34/PUN./ 2020 respectively; may be treated as the “lead” cases since involving identical pleadings and issues. We thus proceed in the very terms for the sake of convenience and brevity. Assessment year 2011-12 Assessee’s appeal ITA.No.1647/PUN./2019 and Revenue’s appeal ITA.No.34/PUN./ 2020 3. The assessee’s appeal ITA.No.1697/Pun./2019 raises the following substantive grounds : 3 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 1. “On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Erred in assessing the Appellant as AOP instate of Charitable Trust. While doing so, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad has failed in appreciating the facts that - the Appellant is charitable trust duly registered u/s 12A(a) and 80G of the Act; - the Appellant is in fact doing activities as per its Trust Deed/Memorandum of Association duly registered; 2.The appellant craves for the leave, add, alter, amend, modify and delete any or all the above grounds of appeals before or at the time of hearing.” 4. It transpires during the course of hearing that the instant sole issue raised at the assessee’s behest as to whether both the learned lower authorities have rightly assessed it as an “AOP” than a “trust” carrying out charitable activities, is found to be no more res integra for the precise reason that not only the Assessing Officer’s former round of sec.143(3) assessment dated 16.01.2014 assessing it as AOP has been reversed in the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short 4 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. “NFAC”] Delhi’s very recent order Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2022-23/1049027071(1) dated 23.01.2003 but also the CIT(E), Pune’s latest adjudication in sec.12AA(3) proceedings have dropped registration cancellation proceedings. That being the case, we are of the view that the assessee’s instant main ground stands accepted as it no more requires any further adjudication in foregoing terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. Mr. Shingte at this stage invited our attention to assessee’s following additional ground seeking to challenge validity of sec.147 proceedings : “Grounds of appeal 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. AO erred in imitating the reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148, which is admittedly beyond four years, issuance of such notice is not in accordance with the provisions of law as same is beyond the scope of first proviso to Section 147and therefore same is void ab initio, and accordingly consequential proceedings and order is bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. AO erred in imitating the 5 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. reassessment proceedings u/s. 147, by recording the reasons which are either explained during the course of assessment proceedings or are based on view which is debatable in law, therefore such reasons shall amount to change of opinion and therefore the proceedings which are based on such reasoning are not in consonance with the scheme of law, and therefore reassessment proceedings are bad in law. Since, both these ground gees to the root cause of the appeal, it is most humbly prayed that the ground may kindly be admitted.” 6. The Revenue raised vehement technical objections that such a ground could not be allowed to be raised at this belated stage. We see no merit in the instant technical arguments at the Revenue’s behest in light of this tribunal’s Special Bench decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT [2012] 137 ITD 287 (Mum.) (S.B.) holding that we can very well entertain such a pure legal question in order to determine correct taxable income in a given case provided all the relevant facts forms part of the records. Learned Special Bench has already considered National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) in its detailed 6 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. adjudication. We thus admit the assessee’s instant legal ground and proceed to adjudicate the same. 7. A perusal of the Assessing Officer’s sec.147 re- assessment framed herein dated 24.12.2018 makes it clear [in paragraph-3 pages 2 to 4] that he had initiated the impugned reopening on four counts i.e., this trust ought to be assessed as an AOP as it had not performed any charitable activity in light of sec.2(15) first proviso, it had received gross contract receipts of Rs.44,27,20,834/- from Shree Dnyaneshwar SSK Ltd., which had not been considered as income in the corresponding income and expenditure account and, therefore, the same ought to be assessed @ 8%, coming to Rs.3,54,17,666/- had escaped income, it had failed to deduct TDS on varying sums of expenditure involving professional fee, audit fee and rent and taxes which attracted sec.40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.13,88,021/- and interest amount of Rs.2,83,27,925/- debited against short term loans deserved to be disallowed u/s.43B(e) of the Act; respectively. Learned Assessing Officer further observed that although the impugned reopening had been initiated beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the same was an instance of the assessee having not disclosed “fully” and “truly” all the particulars of its income u/s.147 first proviso. 7 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 7.1. It is in light of these facts that learned counsel challenges correctness of the impugned reopening itself that the Assessing Officer had already examined the very issues at length in light of his sec.143(3) assessment discussion dated 16.01.2014 and, therefore, neither there was any fresh tangible material nor the assessee could be blamed for having not disclosed “fully” and “truly” all the relevant particulars of income. Mr. Shingte vehemently submitted that we ought to quash the impugned reopening therefore. 8. The Revenue has strongly supported correctness of the impugned reopening. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival submissions. We find no merit in assessee’s arguments. We make it clear that although the assessee’s case all along is that it is merely a pass through trust entity between harvesting and transport contract labourers/unions and Shree Dnyaneshwar SSK Ltd., and on no profit no loss basis, the fact remains that even its income and expenditure account has failed to consider the gross receipts of Rs.44,27,20,834/- followed by the corresponding expenditure’s details and vouchers making payments to various harvesting and labour contractors/ unions. We thus are of the view that the Assessing Officer had acted on the 8 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. basis of the tangible material for initiating the impugned reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Same stands upheld therefore. This assessee’s appeal ITA.No.1647/PUN./2019 is partly allowed in very terms. 10. Now comes the Revenue’s cross-appeal ITA.No.34/PUN./2020 raising the following substantive grounds : 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [hereinafter CIT(A) in short] erred in holding that the total payments made by the sugar factory for paying advances to labourers/harvesters could not be assumed or taken as contract receipts of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the basis of determination of receipt of the assessee trust, i.e Resolution No. 6(1) of Shree Dnyaneshwar SSK Ltd., was neither filed before the Assessing Officer nor any remand report was called from the Assessing Officer. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the burden of proof that the assessee had earned some income over and above what was recorded in the books of account or that disclosed in the return of income, is on the department 9 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not produced any books of account before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer had to rely on gross receipts as per Form No. 16A which are not reflected in the income and expenditure account and assessee also claimed TDS and refund as per Form No. 16A. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,54,17,666/- being 8% of gross receipts of Rs.44,27,20,834/- made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the assessee trust is not charitable as per the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,83,27,925/- made by Assessing Officer on account of interest payment, without appreciating the fact that loans were given to individual Harvesting & Transport (hereinafter H & T in short) Contractors and not to the trust by the Banks and no such object was mentioned in trust deed regarding payment to bank with respect to interest expenses on loans given to h & T Contractors by the bank. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the total payments 10 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. made by the sugar factory for paying advances to labourers/harvesters could not be assumed or taken as contract receipts of the assessee, without appreciating the fact that these payments were not routed through the Income & Expenditure Account of the assessee, TDS was made by the sugar factory and the assessee had claimed refund in its return of income also. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the action of the Assessing Officer to apply profit @ 8% of the gross receipts which included advances, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to produce any details in respect of expenditure incurred on such receipts. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable since the loan details and amount of interest paid to various banks was neither filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings nor was it shared by Ld. CIT(A) with the Assessing Officer during the appellate proceedings and also no remand report was called from the Assessing Officer by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or omit any or all the grounds of appeal.” 11 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 10. Suffice to say, it emerges during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer’s above stated re- assessment dated 15.12.2008 had assessed the assessee @ 8% of gross receipts of Rs.44,27,20,834/-. He further observed that only the estimated gross profits @ 8% deserve to be added being the higher sum than all the remaining heads of disallowances forming subject matter of reopening as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The CIT(A) has reversed the Assessing Officer’s action as follows : 12 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 13 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 14 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 15 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 16 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 17 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 18 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 19 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 20 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 21 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 22 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 23 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 24 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 25 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 11. Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands against and in support of correctness of CIT(A)'s findings deleting the impugned gross profit estimation @ 8% as well as interest disallowance of Rs.2,83,27,925/-. Learned CIT-DR strongly supported the assessment findings that the Assessing Officer had rightly taken recourse to the impugned estimation once the assessee had not got its books 26 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. audited and filed before the Assessing Officer. The assessee’s vehement stand on the other hand before us is that there is no surplus available at all as per it’s income and expenditure account which was duly filed before the Assessing Officer as evident from its submissions made dated 15.12.2018 and taken note in para 5.3 of the re-assessment. Mr. Shingte took us to the Assessing Officer’s discussion once again that he had not held the assessee to have not maintained the books of account at all u/s.11 r.w.s.12AA in terms of sec.44AD for presumptive taxation only. He also invited our attention to assessee’s detailed paper book running into 246 pages wherein it had duly filed its income tax audit report Form 10B dated 15.07.2011 along with statutory audit report under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. This is further stated to be coupled with the fact that pages 22A to 28 therein contain assessee’s balance-sheet as on 31.03.2011 [both in Marathi and English]. It is in light of all these details available on record that Mr. Shingte has vehemently opposed the impugned estimation @ 8% taken recourse to by the Assessing Officer and supported the CIT(A)'s lower appellate discussion. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions and find no merit to express our agreement with either of these two parties in entirety at this stage. We observe first of all that we have already decided the 27 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. assessee’s foregoing legal ground of its assessment as an “AOP” or a charitable trust in its favour (supra). This is further coupled with the fact that the assessee prima facie appears to have filed all the relevant details [strongly contested by the Revenue side] before the Assessing Officer as per the assessment discussion. It transpires from the perusal of the assessment order that the learned Assessing Officer had not examined the ‘tripartite agreement’ executed amongst the assessee, the payer Shree Dnyaneshwar SSK Ltd., and the ultimate payee representing harvesting and transport labourers/unions. We however note as a matter of abundant caution that even our findings in preceding paragraphs about the total receipts coming to the assessee’s credit [including alleged advances] of Rs.4,42,72,834/- had not been properly routed in the corresponding revenue account maintained at the assessee’s behest. Faced with the situation, we are of the opinion that the learned Assessing Officer needs to examine this entire issue of the assessee’s status as a pass through entity only, afresh as per law to arrive at the correct computation of its taxable income. We order accordingly. It is made clear that it shall be the risk and responsibility only to file and prove all the necessary details in consequential proceedings before the Assessing Officer preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing as much water has 28 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. flown downstream since the impugned assessment year 2011- 12. These Revenue’s grounds as well as it’s main appeal ITA.No.34/PUN./2020 stands accepted for statistical purposes in very terms. 13. We next advert to assessee’s and Revenue’s three cross-appeals each i.e. ITA.Nos.1648 to 1650/PUN./2019 and ITA.Nos.35 to 37/PUN./2020 therein, for assessment years 2012-13 to 2013-14 and 2016-17 respectively. Both the parties are very much unanimous that the assessee has raised the very twin substantive grounds i.e., status of its assessment as an “AOP” [Revenue’s case] or a “trust” followed by its challenge to validity of sec.147/148 proceedings which we have already considered at length in the lead assessment year 2011-12. And that there is no distinction of facts or law, as the case may be since the only exception is assessment year 2012-13 wherein the reopening is beyond the period of four assessment years from the end of the relevant assessment year [in A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14] and within four years in the last assessment year 2016-17, respectively. We, therefore, adopt our foregoing detailed discussion in assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.34/PUN./2019 mutatis mutandis and partly accept all these appeals qua the former ground of its status as a charitable trust only. 29 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. 14. So far as Revenue’s as many cross-appeals ITA.Nos. ITA.Nos.35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 are concerned, both the parties stated in very clear terms that it has raised identical pleadings as in the lead appeal ITA.No.34/PUN./2020 for assessment year 2011-12 challenging correctness of the CIT(A)'s action reversing assessment findings adopting 8% income on the gross receipts coming from Shree Dnyaneshwar SSK Ltd. Faced with this situation, we accept the Revenue’s instant three appeals ITA.Nos.35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 for statistical purposes in light of our detailed discussion in the lead assessment year 2011-12. Ordered accordingly. 15. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 16. To sum-up, these assessee’s four appeals ITA.Nos.1647 to 1650/PUN./2019 are partly allowed and Revenue’s as many cross-appeals ITA.Nos.34 to 37/PUN./ 2020 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.03.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 08 th March, 2023 VBP/- 30 ITA.Nos.1647, 1648, 1649 & 1650/PUN./2019 & ITA.Nos.34, 35, 36 & 37/PUN./2020 M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust, Ahmednagar. Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aayakar Bhavan, Cantonment, Aurangabad – 431 002. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune. 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.