Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 434/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9195 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Double taxation relief; Retrospective amendment; Non-deduction of tax
• Section: 143(3); 201(1); 147; 148; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E . , , ! , ' # BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AW ASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS. 431 TO 434/PUN/2016 '% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 TO 2011-12 M/S. INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. NIRVANA, 2 ND FLOOR, COMMERCIAL-3, PLOT NO. 18, SURVEY. NO. 213, 214, 215, KALYANI NAGAR, YERAWADA, PUNE-411 006. PAN : AABCI0540H ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 18.01.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2018 ) / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THESE FOUR APPEALS BY ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2008-09 TO 2011-12 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, PUNE FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. A LL THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE DATED 22.01.2016. 2 ITA NOS.431 TO 434/PUN/2016 A.YS.2008-09 TO 2011-12 SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE ARISING FROM SAME SET OF FACTS, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDIC ATION AND ARE DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SOFTWARE TRADING A ND DEVELOPMENT. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09 WAS SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2010. IN ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12, THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCE SSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD P URCHASED SOFTWARE FROM FOREIGN COMPANIES. THE PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF ROYALTY. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEDUCT TAX ON SUCH PAYMENTS UND ER PROVISION OF SECTION 195 OF THE ACT. RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S. 147 R.W.S 148 FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF S OFTWARE. THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S.201(1) FOR WHICH SEPARATE ORDERS U/S.201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT WERE PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2011-12. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEARS DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 2008-09 RS.9,47,182/- 2009-10 RS.1,25,463/- 2010-11 RS.1,61,307/- 2011-12 RS.11,37,422/- 3 ITA NOS.431 TO 434/PUN/2016 A.YS.2008-09 TO 2011-12 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 R.W.S 147 IN THE LIGHT O F CBDT CIRCULAR NO.723 DATED 21.09.2012THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS . THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.431/PUN/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ARE AS UNDER: 1 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE A.O. FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT EFFECTED FROM 1-6-1976 BY I NSERTING EXPLANATION 4, 5 AND 6 IN S. 9(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. A RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT COULD NOT CREATE A LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX U/S.195 R.W.S 40(A)(I) AS IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCHARGE SUCH LIABILITY. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ASSES SMENT REOPENED UNDER S.147 FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX INCONSONANCE WITH S. 195 R.W.S. 40(A)(I) WAS INVALID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW AND IN VIEW OF GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. RS.9,47,182/- WHICH HAD A N EFFECT OF REDUCING THE LOSS DECLARED. THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, ADD/AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEALS FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 4. SHRI M.K. KULKARNI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 TO SECTION 9 AND 195 OF THE ACT WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.1962/01.04.1976 WOULD NOT A PPLY IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CLARIFICATION VIDE LETTER NO.[F.N O.500/111/2009- FTD-1(PT.)] DATED 29.05.2012. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK PAPER M ILLS LTD. REPORTED AS 256 ITR 673 HAS HELD THAT THE ACT OR OMISSION FOR WHICH NO ADDITIONAL INCOME 4 ITA NOS.431 TO 434/PUN/2016 A.YS.2008-09 TO 2011-12 TAX WAS PAYABLE AS PER LAW IN FORCE AT A GIVEN TIME CANNO T BE SUBJECTED TO ADDITIONAL TAXATION WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT SPECIALLY WHEN THE IMPRINT OF PENALTY IS EX-FACIE VISIBLE IN THE AMENDED PROVISION. THE TDS IS TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE PAYER ON THE BASIS OF LAW EXISTING AT THE TIME OF P AYMENT. EXPLANATION 5 & 6 TO SECTION 9(1) WERE INSERTED SUBSEQUENTLY. WHEN THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO DEFAULT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRE-EMPT ANY RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN LAW FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SO URCE, ON SUCH PAYMENTS. DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASS ESSEE WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S.195 OF THE ACT O N THE PAYMENTS MADE TO FOREIGN COMPANIES FOR PURCHASING SOFTWARE. RETROSPECTIVE AM ENDMENT COULD NOT CREATE A LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX U/S.195 AS IT WAS IMPOSSIB LE TO DISCHARGE SUCH LIABILITY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENT EXISTING AT T HAT POINT OF TIME. SADDLING LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE BY RETROSPECTIVE AMEND MENT WOULD AMOUNT TO PENAL LIABILITY. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT RE-OPENING OF AS SESSMENT IS ITSELF BAD IN LAW. ON MERITS OF ADDITION, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE FOREIG N COMPANIES HAVE NO PE IN INDIA; THEREFORE, NO TDS WAS REQUIRED TO B E DEDUCTED ON PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI ACHAL SHARMA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS). THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DOES NOT APPLY T O THE FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE SAME. THE LD. DR FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 TO SE CTION 9 AND 195 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT INCOME FR OM SALE OF SOFTWARE 5 ITA NOS.431 TO 434/PUN/2016 A.YS.2008-09 TO 2011-12 LICENSES IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN INDIA AS ROYALTY. AS PER SECTION 9(1)(VI) OF THE ACT AND ALSO UNDER DTAA WITH THE RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO VISIONS TO SECTION 195, THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT FOR WHICH SEPARATE ORDER U/S. 201(1) WAS PASSED. THE LD. DR FURTHE R CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS BROUGHT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 TO SECTION 9 AND 195, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISSING ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVE S OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ON LY ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ALL APPEALS BEFORE US IS VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING U/ S.147 FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX ON THE BASIS OF RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT S TO SECTION 9 AND 195 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. 7. THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 HAS INTRODUCED CERTAIN CLARIFICATO RY AMENDMENTS INTER-ALIA IN RESPECT OF SECTION 9 AND 195 OF THE ACT WITH RETROSPECT IVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.1976. BY VIRTUE OF AMENDMENTS, THE EXPLANATION 4, 5 AN D 6 HAVE BEEN INSERTED TO CLAUSE (VI) SUB SECTION 1 TO SECTION 9. SECTION 9(1)(VI) DEALS WITH INCOME ACCRUED BY WAY OF ROYALTY. THE AMENDMENT HAS ALSO BEEN MADE TO SECTION 195. THE CBDT, THEREAFTER, VIDE LETTER NO. [F.NO.500/111/2009-FTD-1 (PT.)], DATED 29-05-2012 HAS ISSUED CLARIFICATION REGARDING RE-OPENING OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF AMENDMENTS INTRODU CED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE LETTER FROM BOARD IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: LETTER [F.NO.500/111/2009-FTD-1 (PT.)], DATED 29-05-201 2 THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 HAS INTRODUCED CERTAIN CLARIF ICATORY AMENDMENTS IN SECTION 2 CLAUSE (14), SECTION 2 CLAUSE (47), SECTI ON 9 AND SECTION 195, OF 6 ITA NOS.431 TO 434/PUN/2016 A.YS.2008-09 TO 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT), WITH RETROSPECTIV E EFFECT FROM 01.04.1962 OR 01.04.1976, WHEREBY MEANING OF VARIOUS TERMS USE D IN THESE SECTIONS HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED IN ORDER TO REMOVE ANY DOUBT RE GARDING THEIR INTERPRETATIONS. 2. THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED RETROSPECT IVELY IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND STATE THE POSITI ON OF LAW FROM THE DATE OF COMING INTO EFFECT OF THESE SECTIONS IN THE ACT. 3. DOUBTS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN VARIOUS QUARTERS ABOU T THE IMPLICATION OF THESE AMENDMENTS ON THE ASSESSMENTS THAT HAVE ALREA DY BEEN COMPLETED AND ATTAINED FINALITY. 4. THE BOARD, AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY DIREC TS THAT IN CASE WHERE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2012, AND NO NO TICE FOR REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THAT DATE; THEN SUCH CASES SHA LL NOT BE REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVEM ENTIONED CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. HOW EVER, ASSESSMENT OR ANY OTHER ORDER WHICH STAND VALIDATED DUE TO THE SA ID CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENTS IN THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WOULD OF COURSE BE ENFORCED. 5. THIS MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL OFFICER S IN YOUR REGION IMMEDIATELY. FROM PERUSAL OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY BOARD, IT EMERGE S THAT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S.14 3(3) BEFORE 01.04.2012 AND NO NOTICE OF RE-ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE SAID DATE, NO REOPENING PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE INITIATED. IN OTHER WORDS, W HERE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S.143(3) PRIOR TO 01.04.2012 AND NOTICE U/S .148 HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE SAID DATE; THE ASSESSMENTS SH OULD NOT BE DISTURBED ON ACCOUNT OF AMENDMENT INTRODUCED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.20 10. NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31.03.2013. THUS, ASSESSM ENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO 01.04.2012 AND NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS NOT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TILL 01.04.2012. IN VIEW OF CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT, RE- ASSESSMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT 7 ITA NOS.431 TO 434/PUN/2016 A.YS.2008-09 TO 2011-12 YEAR 2008-09 ON ACCOUNT OF RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 9 AND 195 INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 11.03.2014 PAS SED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT RE-OPENING HAS BEEN DONE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF AMENDMENTS INSERTED BY T HE FINANCE ACT, 2012. THUS, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN VIEW OF CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY BOARD, RE- OPENING U/S.147 R.W.S. 148 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS INVALID. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 431/PUN/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS ALLOWED . 9. IN SO FAR AS ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AFORESAID THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. THERE HAS BEEN NO ASSESSMENTS U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT IN ASSESSMENTS YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12. THE NOTICE U/S.148 FOR THE AFORESAID THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE ISSUED ON 31.03.2013. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT O RDERS IN AFORESAID THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE NOT PASSED U/S.143(3) OF T HE ACT, THE BENEFIT OF CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BOARD VIDE LETTER DATED 29.05.201 2 WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. ASHOK PAPER MILLS LTD.(SUPRA) TO CONTEND THAT TH E RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 9 AND 195 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 20 12 CANNOT BIND THE ASSESSEE TO DO THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED IN THE STATUTE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, WHEN PAYMENTS WERE MADE. WE FIND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF H ON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK PAPER MILLS LTD. (SUPRA ) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN APPEAL FILED BY TH E DEPARTMENT REPORTED AS 315 ITR 426. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT REMITT ED THE MATTER BACK TO 8 ITA NOS.431 TO 434/PUN/2016 A.YS.2008-09 TO 2011-12 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. J .K. SYNTHETIC LTD, 10 SCC 623 : 251 ITR 200. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT, THE DE CISION OF HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. ASHOK PAPER MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. NO OTHER MATERIAL HAS B EEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND THAT RE-OPENING IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ARE BAD IN LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS NOT PLACE D BEFORE US ANY JUDGMENT HOLDING RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AS BAD IN LAW. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABL E. THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY CBDT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY RELIEF TO ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 20 11-12. 11. IN SO FAR AS MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS IN THESE THREE AS SESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W ARE SILENT ON THE ASPECT OF EXISTENCE OF PES OF FOREIGN COMPANIES IN INDIA TO WHOM PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES THE EXACT NATURE OF TRANSACTION I.E. WHETHER IT IS OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE OR PURCHASE OF RIGHTS TO USE SOFTWARE ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS BY LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THESE VITAL ISSUES, WE DEEM IT APPROPR IATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES A ND PASS SPEAKING ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 1709 TO 1712/PUN/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 20 11-12 ASSAILING THE ORDERS PASSED U/S. 201 R.W.S 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR SIMILA R REASONS. THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS ARE RE MITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY ON T HE ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GRANT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 9 ITA NOS.431 TO 434/PUN/2016 A.YS.2008-09 TO 2011-12 PASSING THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.431/P UN/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS ALLOWED AND APPEALS OF ASSES SEE IN ITA NOS.432/PUN/2016 TO 434/PUN/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2009-10 TO 2011-12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( . / D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( ! /VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; !' / DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 SB ) * +',- . ', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-1, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT-1, PUNE. 5. %&' () , * () , +,- , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. './ 01 / GUARD FILE. // % // TRUE COPY // *2 / BY ORDER, 3 (- / PRIVATE SECRETARY * () , / ITAT, PUNE.