M/s. D.P. Jagtap, Pune V. Asssitant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 418/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7073 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 133A; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , ! ' # , $% &' #' , ' # '( BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWAS THY, JM '%. / ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. D.P. JAGTAP, 272/1, PARTH COMPLEX, NAVI PETH, PUNE-411042 PAN : AAEFD8081C ....... / APPELLANT /VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SMT. ANN KAPTHUAMA / DATE OF HEARING : 01-02-2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-02-2017 , / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, PUNE DATED 13-02- 2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS THE ACT). 2 ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. A SURVEY ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE A SSESSEE ON 10-02-2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF ` 71,70,047/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ` 27,36,567/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30 -09-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AS ` 1,67,11,210/-. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 47,380/- U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DISC LOSED DURING SURVEY ACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER D ATED 25-09-2013 LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 30,80,096/- U/S. 271(1)(C) ON ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY. THE PEN ALTY WAS LEVIED FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF P ENALTY. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI M.K. KULKARNI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 10-02-2010. THE ASSESSEE MADE DECLARATION OF ` 71,70,047/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ` 27,36,567/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30-09 -2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 REFLECTED BOTH THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNTS. 3 ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SUR VEY ACTION. WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBSERV ED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. A PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORD WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED. THEREAFTER, WHILE ISSUING NOTICE DATED 08-07-2013 U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK OFF IRRELEVANT CLAUSES. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WHILE LEVYING PENALTY VIDE ORDER DATED 25-09-2013, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NEITHER RECORDED PROPER SATISFACTION FOR LEVYING PENALTY NO R THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 CLEARLY SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENA LTY IS BEING LEVIED. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION HAS PLACED R ELIANCE ON SEVERAL DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJU NATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY REPORTED AS 359 ITR 565. T HE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE WHER E THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 FOR LEVY OF PENALTY DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED. SUCH NOTICE IS SUED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IS INVALID. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SMT. ANN KAPTHUAMA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO SURVEY, THE A SSESSEE WOULD 4 ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 NOT HAVE MADE DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE UNSE CURED LOANS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT GENUINE. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT BO NAFIDE. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND CONFI RMING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED IN RESPE CT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY ACTION. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAS DI SCLOSED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING SURVEY. THE ESSENTIAL CON DITIONS REQUIRED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) ARE : (I) FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME; (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME; AND (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) OR THE PR. COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDING S UNDER THE ACT IS SATISFIED ABOUT THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE PROCEEDINGS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 271(1) ARE THE PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THAT IS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SURVEY ACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED SAID IN COME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS CONCEALED INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 5 ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 6. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAS PHARMACEUTICALS REPORTED AS 335 IT R 259 WHILE DEALING WITH SIMILAR ISSUE HAS HELD : 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS O F THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ARGUME NT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PREVAIL AS IT CARRI ES SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT. IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS A PENAL PROVISION AND SUCH A PROVISION HAS TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED. UNLESS THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE SAID PROVISION, PENA LTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 STIPULATES CERTAIN C ONTINGENCIES ON THE HAPPENING WHEREOF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMI SSIONER (APPEALS) MAY DIRECT PAYMENT OF PENALTY BY THE ASSESSEE. WE A RE CONCERNED HEREWITH THE FUNDAMENTALITY PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH AUTHORIZES IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WHE N THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER ; (A) CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME ; OR (B) FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME . 13. IT IS NOT A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME, AS IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN, PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE B EEN DULY FURNISHED AND THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF INCOME WAS DULY REFLE CTED IN THE INCOME- TAX RETURN. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. IT WOULD DEPEND U PON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THIS CONCEALMENT HAS REFERENCE TO THE INCOME -TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., WHETHER CONCEALMENT IS TO BE FO UND IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN. 14. WE MAY, FIRST OF ALL, REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELYING UPON THE EXPRESSION 'IN THE COU RSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT' OCCURRING IN SUB-SECTIO N (1) OF SECTION 271 OF THE ACT AND CONTENDING THAT EVEN DURING SURVEY WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULAR OF HIS IN COME, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT IN THE COURSE OF 'ANY PROCEEDINGS'. THE WORDS 'IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT' ARE PREFA CED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). WHEN THE SURVEY IS CONDUCTED BY A SURVEY TEAM, THE QUESTION OF SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT ARISE. WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS THE 6 ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 ASSESSING OFFICER WHO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS AND DIRECTED THE PAYMENT OF PENALTY. HE HAD NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFA CTION DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE DECISION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS, THUS, OBV IOUS THAT THE EXPRESSION 'IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT' CANNOT HAVE THE REFERENCE TO THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IN THIS CA SE. 15. IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT CONCEALMENT OF PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY T HE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN FILED BY IT. THERE IS SUFF ICIENT INDICATION OF THIS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MO HAN DAS HASSA NAND [1983] 141 ITR 203 (DELHI) AND IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2 010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLINCHED THIS ASPECT, V IZ., THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN H IS RETURN AND EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE INCOME-TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW GETS SUPPORTED BY EXPLANATION 4 AS WELL AS EXPLANATION 5 AND EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271 OF THE ACT AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT. 16. NO DOUBT, THE DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND DURING T HE SURVEY. THIS HAS YIELDED INCOME FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF AMO UNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRESENTLY, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, BUT THE MOOT QUESTION IS TO WHETHER THIS WO ULD ATTRACT PENALTY UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. OBVIOUSLY, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE CON DITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE DULY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY SATI SFIED. SINCE THE ASSES SEE WAS EXPOSED DURING SURVEY, MAY BE, IT WOU LD HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME BUT FOR THE SAID SURVEY. HOWEV ER, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PENALTY ONLY ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND POSSI BILITIES. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY. UNLESS IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A CONCEALMENT OR NON-DISCLOSURE O F THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. THERE IS NO SUCH CONCEALMENT OR NON- DISCLOSURE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A COMPLETE DISC LOSURE IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN AND OFFERED THE SURRENDERED AMOUN T FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX. 17. WE, THUS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS FORMULATED AB OVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE FINDING NO FAULT W ITH THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. AS A RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7 ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 7. THE VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F GODAVARI TOWNSHIPS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED AS 148 IT D 463 HAS OBSERVED : 16.4. THERE IS ONE MORE ASPECT TO THE ISSUE. UNLIK E IN A SEARCH CASE THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE AMOUNT UNEARTHED D URING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEAL ED INCOME. NO PROVISION/EXPLANATION SIMILAR TO EXPLANATION-5 WAS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION TO COVER SURVEY CASES. SINCE, THE INCOME DE TECTED/OFFERED IN SURVEY CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE CONCEALED INCOME, T REATING THE SAME AS CONCEALED INCOME AS WAS DONE BY A.O. DOES NOT ARI SE. A.O. HAS TO ESTABLISH THE NATURE OF INCOME AS CONCEALED INCOME BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, NOTHING WAS DONE BY A.O. EXCEPT ACCEPTING THE REVISED INCOME RETURNED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, IT IS AMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO LEVY PENALTY ON AN INCOME DISCLOSED DURING SURVEY ACTIO N AND SUBSEQUENTLY DECLARED IN RETURN OF INCOME. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE AFORESAID DE CISIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S. 27 1(1)(C) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE CO URSE OF SURVEY ACTION AND HAS DISCLOSED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 9. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED THAT THE NOTIC E ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS DEFECTIVE AS IRRELEVANT PARTS OF THE P ROFORMA NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN STRUCK OFF. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MANJUNATHA CO TTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FU RNISHING INACCURATE 8 ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON-APP LICATION OF MIND. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT AT THE TIME OF INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION HAS OBSERVED THAT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS BEING INITIATED FOR CON CEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME HOWEVER, WHILE ISSUING NOTICE THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK OFF THE IRRELEVANT PART IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 AND THUS, IT READS : HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME. THEREAFTER IN PENALTY ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED : IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, I AM SA TISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. THUS, IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CLEAR AS TO UNDER WHAT CHARGE PENALTY HAS TO BE LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE INCONS ISTENT WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION, THEREAFTER AT THE TIME OF ISSUING NOT ICE AND FINALLY AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ORDER. THERE IS TOTAL NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING PEN ALTY ORDER. RECENTLY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAMSON PERINCHERY IN INCOM E TAX APPEAL NO. 1154 OF 2014 DECIDED ON 05-01-2017 HAS HELD T HAT FAILURE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SPECIFY IN NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 2 74 WHETHER 9 ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 THE PENALTY IS BEING INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS FETAL. IT REFLECTS NON -APPLICATION OF MIND AND RENDERS THE LEVY OF PENALTY INVALID. 11. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DECISIONS AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CANCEL THE PENALTY. THE IM PUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( ! / VIKAS AWASTHY) ' ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / PUNE; $% / DATED : 15 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 RK , - ./& 0&+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & & ' () / THE CIT(A)-4, PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT-3, PUNE 5. *+ ,- , & ,- , . ./ , ' / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. +01 23 / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// &'4 / BY ORDER, 5 %6 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, & ,- , ' / ITAT, PUNE