Trident Services Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Dy. CIT, Circle-7, Pune

ITA 431/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 84927 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C SARANGI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Fair market value; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.431/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., A-1, TIRUPATI APT., SANEWADI, AUNDH, PUNE 411007 PAN: AACCT0173G APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE RESPONDENT ITA NO.744/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE APPELLANT VS. TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., A-1, TIRUPATI APT., SANEWADI, AUNDH, PUNE 411007 PAN: AACCT0173G RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUHAS P. BORA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.C. SARANGI DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV : THESE CROSS APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II I, PUNE. FOR ITA NOS.431 & 744 OF 13 TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE BEI NG DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IN ITA NO.431/PN/2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TH E APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS-III, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,21,875/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLA IMED ON GOODWILL U/SEC.32(1)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 ON THE GROUND THAT GOODWILL IS NOT INCLUDED IN SEC.32(1)(I I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS-III, PUNE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,35,795/- MADE B Y THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF BAD DEB TS ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEBTS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS BAD, HAD NOT BECOME BAD AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII). 3. THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO ADD TO OR ALTER ANY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF DEEMED NECESSARY. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 4,21,875/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON GOODWILL U/SEC.32(1)(II) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT GOODWILL IS NOT INCLUDED IN SEC.32( 1)(II) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, PUNE A BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1275/PN/2009 & ANOTHER FOR A.Y. 2006-07, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R: 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. SMIFS SECURITIES LTD., VIDE CIVIL APPEAL NO.5961 OF 2012 DATED 22.08.2012, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T GOODWILL IS AN ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 32(I) OF THE ACT AND DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO S UCCEED. FACTUALLY SPEAKING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT D ISPUTED THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE IS IN RESPECT OF GOOD WILL AND REPRESENTS A CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF T HE JUDGMENT ITA NOS.431 & 744 OF 13 TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SMIFS S ECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA), THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,50,000/-. THUS, ON THIS GROUN D ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 3.1 NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLE DGE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWI NG THE SAME REASONING, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEPRECIATION BECAUSE THE GOODWILL IS AN ASSET WITHI N MEANING OF SECTION 32(I) OF THE ACT AND DEPRECIATION ON THE SA ME IS ALLOWABLE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMIFS SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA). 4. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.30,59,513/- BY WAY OF DISAL LOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16,35,795/- WHEREBY GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS.14,23,7 18/-. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH RESPECT TO THE IR GRIEVANCES. 4.1 AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE IS A LSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN IT A NO.1275/PN/2009 & ANOTHER FOR A.Y. 2006-07, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R: 18. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO NEGATIO N TO THE FINDING OF THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEES CLA IM FOR BAD DEBTS IS COMPLIANT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 6(1)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) OF THE ACT. NOTABLY, THE BAD DEBTS HA VE BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AS IRRECOVERABLE A ND THE CORRESPONDING INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN SUBJECT TO TAX I N THE EARLIER YEARS, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 36(2) OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID AND HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F TRF ITA NOS.431 & 744 OF 13 TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. LTD. (SUPRA), THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE PROVED THAT THE DEBTS HAD BE COME BAD, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION O F THE CIT(APPEALS) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND THE REVENUE HAS TO FAIL ON THIS GROUND. 4.2 NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLE DGE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,35,795/- AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE OF RS.14,23,718/ -. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. F URTHER, ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. OUR THIS DECISION IS FORTIFIED BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA), ACCO RDING TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO PROVE THAT BAD DEBT S BECAME BAD. AS STATED ABOVE, THIS WILL TAKE CARE OF GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND BAD DEBTS IN REVENUES APPEAL. 5. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN ITA NO.744/PN/2013, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEALS ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF O F RS.14,23,718/- TO THE APPELLANT GRANT OF DISALLOWAN CES OF BAD DEBTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO APPELLANT AM OUNTING TO RS.4,78,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES U/S. 40A(2)(B) FOR PART OF SALARY PAID TO DIRECTORS. 7. THE ISSUE OF BAD DEBTS HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER, WHEREIN, THE RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME SHOULD BE REFERRED FOR THE SAME. ITA NOS.431 & 744 OF 13 TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 4,78,800/- BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT OUT OF SALARY PAID TO DIRECTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED TH AT THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN THE QUANTUM OF SALARY PAID TO DIRECTORS DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR TO RS.34,64,000/- FROM THE S ALARY PAID TO DURING THE PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR AT RS.29,86,200 /- I.E. AN INCREASE BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,78,800/-. IN THIS RE GARD, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT ALL THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE GENERAL MANAGERS IN CUMMINS INDIA LTD, BEFORE FORMING THE PRESENT COMPANY. THOUGH THE DIRECTORS WERE DRAWING AN ANNUAL SALARY OF RS.7 TO 8 LAKHS P.A. IN CUMMINS THEY DECIDED TO DRAW A LESS SALARY IN THE INITIAL MONTHS OF THE SET UP OF THE NEW COMPANY AND ACCORDINGLY, THEY DREW A SALARY OF ONLY RS.2.5 LAKHS IN THE FIRST TEN MONTHS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THEY WANTED TO CONSERVE THE RESOURCES FOR WORKING CAPITAL AND OTHE R EXPENDITURE. THE REMUNERATION WAS INCREASED WITH THE GROWTH AND PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPANY AND CLAIMED THAT EVEN THE SALARY DRA WN IN THE F.Y. 2006-07 WAS ALSO AROUND RS.6.60 P.A. COMPARED TO CO RRESPONDING SALARY OF AROUND RS.15 TO 18 LAKHS BEING PAID TO GM S AT CUMMINS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT THE SALARY DRAWN PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PRESENT BUSI NESS COULD NOT BE THE SOLE YARDSTICK FOR THE INCREASE IN THE R EMUNERATION. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRAT E THAT THERE WAS ANY RATIONALE IN THE INCREASE IN THE SALARY IN COMP ARISON WITH THE PRESENT PERFORMANCE. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED 50 % OF THE INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION, WHICH RESULTED IN AN ADDITION OF RS.4,78,800/-. 8.1 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT O N THE FACTS AND IN ITA NOS.431 & 744 OF 13 TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO APPELLANT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,78,800/- ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES U/S. 40A(2)(B) FOR PART OF SALARY PAI D TO DIRECTORS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND T HAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED ON THE ISSUE. ON THE OTHER HAN D, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. 8.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A(2)(B). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 40A(2) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: '40A. (1) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT RELATING TO THE COMPUT ATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINES S OR PROFESSION.' '40A. (2)(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE INCURS ANY EXPENDIT URE IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN OR IS TO BE MADE TO ANY PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF THIS SUB-SECTIO N, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENDITU RE IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERVICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHIC H THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENEFIT DERIVED BY OR ACCRUI NG TO HIM THEREFROM, SO MUCH OF THE EXPENDITURE AS IS SO CONS IDERED BY HIM TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE SHALL NOT BE AL LOWED AS A DEDUCTION.' 8.3 THESE PROVISIONS ARE OVERRIDING EFFECT OVER THE OTHER PROVISIONS ALLOWING THE DEDUCTIONS AND IT PRESUPPOS ES ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE OTHERWISE. IF THE EXPENDITURE I S NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 28 TO 39 THEN THE QUESTION OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A WOULD NOT ARI SE. IT IS ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S . 28 TO 39 BUT THE EXPENDITURE IS FOUND TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASO NABLE HAVING ITA NOS.431 & 744 OF 13 TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. REGARD TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SERVICES O R FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A CAN BE MADE IF PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IS MADE T O THE PERSONS SPECIFIED UNDER SUBSECTION (2)(B) OF SECTION 40A OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE PAID REMUNERATION AGGREGATIN G TO RS. 34,65,000/- TO THREE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, NAME LY SANJAY TANDAN, SAMPAT HARPALE, V. NAGESHWARAN AS AGAINST R S. 29,86,200/- IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND T HERE WAS INCREASE OF RS.4,78,000/- IN THE SALARY PAID IN THI S YEAR. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE SALARY PAID TO DIRECTORS I S EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE MARKET VALUE OF T HE GOODS, SERVICES OR FACILITIES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MAD E. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SALARY DRAWN PRIOR TO CO MMENCEMENT OF PRESENT BUSINESS COULD NOT BE THE SOLE YARDSTICK TO FIX THE PRESENT SALARY AND THE INCREASE IN THE REMUNERATION TO THE DIRECTORS DURING THE YEAR IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THERE IS NO FINDING ON WHAT IS THE LEGITIMATE NEED OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HERE COULD NOT BE GENERAL PRESUMPTION THAT WHATEVER WAS PAID IN EARLI ER YEAR ONLY BECOMES REASONABLE AND ANYTHING IN EXCESS PAID IN T HIS YEAR BECOMES UNREASONABLE. THE SCOPE OF ENQUIRY UNDER T HE ABOVE PROVISION IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE FAIR MARKET VALU E OF THE SERVICES RENDERED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR AND THE LEGITIMATE NE EDS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE DIRECTORS WERE S TATED TO BE HEADS OF BUSINESS DEPARTMENT OF CUMMINS DIESEL SALES AND SERVICES (INDIA) LTD. EARLIER AND WERE DRAWING A SALARY OF R S.7 TO 8 LAKHS PER ANNUM. THE PROFILE OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE AMOUNT OF SALARY DIRECTORS WERE GETTING IN CUMMINS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THEY ARE WELL QUALIFIED AND HAD VAST EXPERIENCE AS SENIOR EX ECUTIVES IN CUMMINS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE OF DIRECTO RS WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. THIS IS ALSO NOT A CASE WHERE THERE IS UNPRECEDENTED INCREASE IN THE SALARY TO THE DIRECTO RS IN THE YEAR ITA NOS.431 & 744 OF 13 TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. UNDER CONSIDERATION AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. THE INCREASE IN THE SALARY WAS FROM RS.29.86 LAKHS TO RS.34.65 LAKH S IN THIS YEAR. THE CBDT HAD CLARIFIED IN ITS CIRCULAR NO.6P, DATED 06.07.1968 THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE REASONABLENESS OF EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO EXERCISE HIS JUDGMENT IN A R EASONABLE AND FAIR MANNER. IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE P ROVISION IS MEANT TO CHECK EVASION OF TAX THROUGH EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS TO RELATIVES AND ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND SH OULD NOT BE APPLIED IN A MANNER WHICH WILL CAUSE HARDSHIP IN BO NA FIDE CASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ESTABLISH THAT PAYMENT S MADE TO THE RELATED PARTIES ARE NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SERVICES RENDERED AND THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE B USINESS. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, AS CLEARLY MENTIONED ABOVE, LOOKI NG AT THE QUALIFICATION, EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE OF THE DIRE CTORS AND THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM YEAR AFTER YEAR , IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALARY PAID TO THEM DURING THE YEAR IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE OR IS NOT COMMENSURATE WI TH THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE DIRECTORS. IN VIEW OF THI S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE AN D THE SAME HAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THIS REASONED FINDI NG OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 28 TH AUGUST, 2014 GCVSR ITA NOS.431 & 744 OF 13 TRIDENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4) THE CIT-III, PUNE 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, PUNE.