ITO, (Central)-3, Nashik, Nashik V. Shri Kantilal C. Kankaria, Nashik

ITA 461/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 46124514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A N SABADRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH VARMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Search and seizure
• Section: 54F; 153A; 27; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 461/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-04) INCOME TAX OFFICER (CENTRAL) - 3 , ... APPELLANT NASHIK V. SHRI KANTILAL C. KANKARIA RESPONDENT PROP. M/S. BUILDERS MARKET, INGLE NAGAR, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK PAN : AHXPK6431H APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUKESH VARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.N. SABADRA DATE OF HEARING : 05/7/12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : -7-12 ORDER PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - I, NASHIK, DATED 17.1.2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND CARRYING ON THE P ROPRIETARY BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE AS M/S. BUILDERS MARKET, NASHIK. THERE WAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S. 132(1) ON 3 0/08/2007. THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. IN RE SPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 153A, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, DECLARING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE LAND AT SURVEY NO 895/2 (NASIK SHIEER) FOR RS. 8,70,017/- AND ALSO CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN I.E. RS. 8,70,017/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD 1 /5 TH SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE A.O HAS RESERVATION IN ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. HE SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE LIVES IN A JOINT HINDU FAMILY. THE PLOT ON WHICH THE BUNGALOW IS CONSTRUCTED IS IN THE NAME OF THE YOUNGER G ENERATION MEMBER OF THE FAMILY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS TH E CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED THAT ALL T HE MEMBERS STAY ITA . NO. 461//PN/2011 SHRI. KANTILAL C. KANKARIA A.Y. 203-04 PAGE OF 7 2 TOGETHER IN THE SAME HOUSE. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE MARWADI COMMUNITY, THEY RESPECT THE JOINT FAMILY SYSTEM A ND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE CONTRIBUTION IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SURVEY NO. 392/1B IN NASIK WHICH IS ON THE NAME OF ASSE SSEES SON SHRI PIYUSH K. KANKARIA. THE A.O. REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE U/S. 54F. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.R. SESHADRI, 228 CTR 334 (KAR.). THE OPERATIVE PART OF T HE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER : 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ISSUE. I HAVE ALSO APPLIED MY MIN D TO THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F. THERE IS NO D ISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE WORKING OF CAPITAL GAINS AND THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 F. THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS CLAIMED THE CAPITAL GAINS A T RS.8,70,017/- BEING 1/5 TH SHARE FROM THE SALE OF LAND, WHICH THE AO ENHANCED T O RS.19,04,530/- . THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THIS REGARD WITH THIS CALCUL ATION. THE LIMITED ISSUE THEREFORE IS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTIT LED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF TH E APPELLANT ON 14/12/2009 EXPRESSED HIS NO OBJECTION FOR DISALLOWANC E OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S. 54F, HOWEVER, SUCH NO OBJECTION WHICH AR E NOT BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE SUB JECT DO NOT HOLD GOOD IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLANT HAS A RI GHT TO DISAGREE WITH SUCH NO OBJECTION EXPRESSED BY HIS A.R. BEFORE THE AO . FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PLOT OF LAND ON WHICH THE APPELLANT CONSTRUCTED THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (BUNGALOW) WAS IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANTS SON SHRI PIYUSH KANKARIYA. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE PROP OSITION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONTRIBUTED MONEY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. PARA 17 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AS UNDER :- AFTER VERIFICATION OF EARLIER SUBMISSION GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE & DETAIL DISCUSSION WITH THE ASSESSEE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT CONSTRUCTED OR PURCHASED ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. A RE SIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTED ON SURVEY NO. 392/B IS IN THE NAME OF H IS SON SHRI PIYUSH K. KANKARIA, NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRIB UTED SOME MONEY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF HIS SON. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IT IS ESTABLIS HED THAT THE AO HAS DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S 54F ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE PLOT OF LAND WAS NOT IN THE APPELLANTS NAME BUT WAS IN THE NAME OF H IS SON. THE APPELLANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HA S NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY ITA . NO. 461//PN/2011 SHRI. KANTILAL C. KANKARIA A.Y. 203-04 PAGE OF 7 3 THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THEREFORE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND WAS NOT IN HIS NAME. THE R ELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT IN THE NAME OF CIT VS. P.R. SESHADRI REPORTED IN 228 CTR 334 AND 33 DTR 128 (2010) SUPPORTS THE APPELLANTS CASE. ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE H ONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS RULED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FO R EXEMPTION U/S 54F WHERE HE HAD INVESTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HO USE ON THE LAND THAT BELONGED TO HIS WIFE. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT TH E LAND BELONGED TO HIS SON AND THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COST WAS MET BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE POSITION O F LAW, THE APPELLANT IS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE POSITION OF LAW IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLE D FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F, THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 19,04,530/- I S DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 5.7 .2012 WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH VS. ITO, 312 ITR 40 WHICH HAS ALS O BEEN CONSIDERED. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED ALL THE DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPE R BOOK. THE LD COUNSEL ARGUES THAT THOUGH THE PLOT IS ON THE NAME OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE CONTRIBUTION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE LD COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE COPY OF THE HOME LOAN A GREEMENT PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROW ED THE LOAN FROM CITIFINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE SHOWN AS A CO-BORROWED ALONG WITH SHRI. PRAKAS KANKARIA, SON OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITS THAT IS A MARWADI JOINT FAMILY AND EVEN IF THE PLOT IS ON THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES SON, THE ASSESSEE IS STAYING IN THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. TH E LD COUNSEL PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P.R. SESHADRI (SUPRA). HE SUBMITS THAT LIBERAL INTERPRETATION IS T O BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISIONS GIVING THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE IF T HE ASSESSEE PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE TIME ITA . NO. 461//PN/2011 SHRI. KANTILAL C. KANKARIA A.Y. 203-04 PAGE OF 7 4 LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 54FR. HE SUBMITS THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH (SUPRA) IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS IN THE SAID CAS E, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF HIS ADOPTED SON. HE PLEADE D FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUBMITS THAT THE HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH V/S ITO (SUPRA) HAS SE TTLED THE LAW AND THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION IS THE BINDING. HE SUBMITS THAT T HE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS IN THE DIFFERENT CONTEXT AND IT IS NOT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ALSO. HE SUBMITS THAT NOTHING IS THERE ON REC ORD TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE IS RESIDING IN THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ALONG WITH HIS OTHER SONS INCLUDING THE SON ON WHOSE NAME THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ST ANDS ON. HE PLEADED FOR REVERSING THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE ALSO ANXIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISS ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 5.7.2012. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE ASSE SSEE TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE PRAKASH V/S. ITO (SUPRA). THE FIRST DISTINCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE CASE OF P RAKASH V/S ITO (SUPRA), THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON THE NAME OF THE ADOP TED SON BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS THE JOINT INVESTMENT. IT IS FURTHER ST ATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RELINQUISHED HIS RIGHT IN THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AN D ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS SHOW THAT IT IS THE JOINT PROPERTY. IT IS FU RTHER STATED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS TOWARDS INSTALLMENT OF THE LOAN ARE PAID EXCLUSIVE LY FROM THE BANK A/C OF THE ASSESSEE AND FROM THE BANK A/C OF HIS SON. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT OWNERSHIP INSTRUMENT HAS ALWAYS REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH V/S. ITO (SUPRA), THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 12. THE CONCEPTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OWN OWNED OWNER, OWNERSHIP, CO-OWNER, OWNER OF HOUSE PROPERTY OR OWNERSHIP O F PROPERTY AS ELABORATED IN SECTIONS 22 TO 27 AND 32 OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, ARE VERY MUCH INTERLINKED AND CONNECTED FOR GRANTING THE BENEFIT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE WORD AND PHRASE OWNER IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTI ON 22 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HAS BEEN ELABORATED IN CIT V. PODAR CEMENT P. LTD . [1997] 226 ITR 625 ITA . NO. 461//PN/2011 SHRI. KANTILAL C. KANKARIA A.Y. 203-04 PAGE OF 7 5 (SC) AND MYSORE MINERALS LTD. V. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775 (SC). AN ASSESSEE MUST HAVE VALID TITLE LEGALLY CONVEYED TO HIM AFTER COM PLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW OR AT LEAST ENTITLED TO RECEIVE I NCOME FROM THE PROPERTY IN HIS OWN RIGHT AND HAVE CONTROL AND DOMAIN OVER TH E SAID PROPERTY FOR ALL THE LEGAL PURPOSES, WHICH BASICALLY EXCLUDES A THIRD PE RSON OF ANY RIGHT OVER THE SAID PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ALL THESE CONCEPTS ARE INTERLINKED. THE SCHEME AND PURPOSE OF SECTION 54F, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1982, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1983, I.E., FROM THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1983-84 IS WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. THE OBJECT, THEREFORE, IS TO GIVE ALL BENEFITS UNDER THIS SECTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON CONDITIONS AS ELABORATED IN THE SECTION. NO SUCH BENEFIT IS AVA ILABLE TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO MEANS THE ASSESSEE MUST C OMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS STRICTLY AS PER THIS PROVISION IN ALL RES PECTS. AS NOTED, THIS EXEMPTION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE IN CASE WHERE THE ASS ESSEE OWNS, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, ANY RESIDENT IAL HOUSE OR PURCHASED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, AFTER SUCH DATE OR C ONSTRUCTS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER SUCH DATE ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WHERE AN ASSESSEE PURCHASES OR CONSTRUCTS ANY OTHER RESIDENT IAL HOUSE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE AFORESAID EXEMPTION UNDER THE PROPOSE D PROVISION, IF ALLOWED, SHALL STAND FORFEITED. THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARIS ING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED TO TAXES SHALL BE ALLOWED TO BE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN RELATI NG TO LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSETS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH RES IDENTIAL HOUSE IS SO PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED. FURTHERMORE, IF AN ASSESSE E TRANSFERS NEWLY ACQUIRED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THREE YEARS OF ITS PURC HASE OR CONSTRUCTION, THEN THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TR ANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET, WHICH WAS NOT CHARGED TO TAX, SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE T HE INCOME OF THE YEAR IN WHICH THE NEW ASSET IS TRANSFERRED AND THE SAID INCOME SHALL BE CHARGED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD OF CAPITAL GAINS RELATING TO TH E LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSETS. [(1982) 138 ITR (ST.) 10] (DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR NO. 346, DATED JUNE 30, 1982). 13. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT THE PURPOSE IS TO GIVE THIS BENEFIT ON THE OWNERSHIP OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ONLY BY THE ASSESS EE AND TO ENCOURAGE TO HAVE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, RIGHT FROM THE SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET TILL THE PURCHASE AND/OR CONSTRUCT ION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, I.E., THE NEW ASSET, THE OWNERSHIP AND DOMAIN O VER THE NEW ASSET IS A MUST. THE NEW PROPERTY MUST BE OWNED BY THE AS SESSEE AND/OR HAVING LEGAL TITLE OVER THE SAME. THE OTHERS MAY USE A ND OCCUPY THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT THE OWNERSHIP SHOULD BE OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE ITA . NO. 461//PN/2011 SHRI. KANTILAL C. KANKARIA A.Y. 203-04 PAGE OF 7 6 RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO PURCHASED FROM THE NET CONSIDER ATION/SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. HAVING OBSERVED ABOVE AND IN VIEW OF THE UNDISP UTED POSITION ON THE RECORD THAT THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, ADMITTEDLY, THOUGH SOLD THE PROPERTY OWNED BY HIM YET PURCHASED THE NEW PROPERTY IN THE N AME OF ADOPTED SON AND PAID CONSIDERATION OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS IN Q UESTION, WITH CLEAR INTENTION TO TRANSFER THE PROPERTY TO THE ADOPTED S ON. HE, THEREFORE, UTILIZED THE SALE PROCEEDS TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE BY TRANSFERRI NG THE PROPERTY AND SUBMITTING PLAN IN THE NAME OF THE SON ONLY. THE IN TENTION WAS VERY CLEAR FROM THE DAY ONE TO TRANSFER THE PROPERTY EVEN BEF ORE THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE TO THE ADOPTED SON. HE TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, AS PER THE SCHEME OF SECTION, AND THE SON BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR ALL THE PURPOSES. THE DECEA SED/ASSESSEE, ADMITTEDLY, HAD NO DOMAIN AND/OR RIGHT WHATSOEVER ON THE SAID PROPERTY. THIS FACT ITSELF, THEREFORE, DISENTITLED HIM TO CLAIM AN Y EXEMPTION AS THERE WERE VARIOUS NON-COMPLIANCES WITH THE CONDITIONS AS PE R THE SCHEME OF SECTION 54 AND 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS MENTIONED AB OVE. 7. IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH V/S. ITO (SUPRA), THE HONBLE H IGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED SEC. 54F AND IT IS HELD THAT THE NEW PROPER TY MUST BE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND/ OR HAVING LEGAL TITLE OVER THE SAME. THE O THERS MAY USE AND OCCUPY THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT THE OWNE RSHIP SHOULD BE OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO PURCHASED FROM THE NET CONSIDERATION/SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET BY THE ASSESS EE . IN THE PRESENT CASE THOUGH IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DOMAIN AND O WNERSHIP OF THE SAID PROPERTY BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US TO S HOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS THE TITLE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. SO FAR AS THE BANK DOCUMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THAT CANNOT BE THE DECISIVE AS ADMITTEDLY THE SON OF THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS THE MAIN BORROWER AND THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWN AS THE CO-BORROWER BUT IT IS NOTHING BUT AS A GUARANTOR. IN OUR OPINION, ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY LEGAL PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BO MBAY IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH V/S. ITO (SUPRA) AS ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRAT E THAT HE HAS TITLE OR OWNERSHIP IN THE PROPERTY OF THE SON. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , NASIK. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA . NO. 461//PN/2011 SHRI. KANTILAL C. KANKARIA A.Y. 203-04 PAGE OF 7 7 THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 25TH JU LY, 2012 SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 25TH JULY, 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT, CENTRAL, NAGPUR 4. THE CIT(A)- I, NASHIK 5. THE D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE /-TRUE COPY-/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE