Belvalkar Housing Schemes, Pune V. ITO, Ward 3(1), Pune

ITA 524/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1217 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80IB; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E , , ! ' , #$ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 524/PN/2013 #% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BELVALKAR HOUSING SCHEMES, 1175/1, NIRMITI EMINENCE, 4 TH FLOOR, NEAR MEHENDALE GARAGE, ERANDWANE, PUNE PAN : AADFB9356K ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK & SHRI SUHAS P. BORA REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR / DATE OF HEARING : 25-06-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-08-2015 ) / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, PUNE DATED 29-10 -2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 ITA NO. 524/PN/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30-10-2009 DECLARIN G NIL INCOME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08-09-2010. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEVELOPED HOUSING PROJEC T, MITRANGAN AT BANER, AUNDH, PUNE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.1,14,00,368/- U/S. 80IB(10) IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID PRO JECT. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAD APPROVED PROJECT ON 16-08-2004. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10), THE PROJECT SH OULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WH ICH PROJECT IS APPROVED. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PROJECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BY 31-03-2009. AS PER THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT PLAN THERE WERE 4 BUILDINGS A, B, C AND D, HOWEVER, ONLY TWO BUILDINGS WERE CON STRUCTED I.E. A AND B. IN BUILDING A, THERE WERE 12 FLATS OUT OF WHIC H 10 FLATS WERE COMPLETED. COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF 10 FLAT S WAS ISSUED ON 08-05-2008 AND FOR THE REMAINING 2 FLATS THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY PMC ON 09-08-2011. IN BUILDING B, THERE WE RE 24 FLATS, OUT OF WHICH 20 FLATS WERE COMPLETED ON 08-05-2008 AND FOR THE REMAINING 4 FLATS THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY PM C ON 09-08-2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL LAYOUT AREA OF THE PROJECT WAS 6300 SQ. MTR., OUT OF WHIC H 2955 SQ. MTR. WAS RESERVED FOR D.P. ROAD. THUS, THE SIZE OF THE PLOT AVA ILABLE FOR THE PROJECT WAS ONLY 3344 SQ. MTR. WHICH IS LESS THAN THE M ANDATORY AREA OF 1 ACRE I.E. 4000 SQ. MTR. FOR THE AFORESAID DEFICIENCIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE U/S. 80IB(10). 3 ITA NO. 524/PN/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20-12-2011, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK AND SHRI SUHAS P. BORA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL SIZE OF THE PLOT ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS TO BE DEVELOPED WAS MORE THAN 1 ACRE. TH E SIZE OF THE PLOT WAS REDUCED TO LESS THAN 1 ACRE ONLY FOR THE REASON T HAT PART OF THE PROJECT LAND WAS ACQUIRED FOR D.P. ROAD. THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING A VIEW THAT WHERE THE LAND HAS BEEN ACQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF D.P. ROAD, AND THE PROJECT LAND IS REDUCE D BELOW THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF 1 ACRE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10). IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. B.K. PATE ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 736/PN/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECIDED ON 08-07-2011. WITH REGARD TO TH E COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINALLY THE PROJ ECT WAS APPROVED FOR 30 FLATS ON 16-08-2004. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LAYOUT WAS REVISED ON 31-03-2008 FOR 36 FLATS, 12 IN BUILDING A AND 2 4 IN BUILDING B. OUT OF 12 FLATS IN BUILDING A, 10 FLATS WERE COMPLETED WITH IN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF 4 YEARS. IN BUILDING B, 20 FLATS WERE C OMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF 4 YEARS. THE REMAINING 2 FLAT S IN BUILDING A AND 4 FLATS IN BUILDING B WERE COMPLETED WITHIN TIM E LIMIT FROM THE DATE OF REVISED SANCTION PLAN. COMPLETION CERTIFICAT E IN RESPECT OF THOSE 6 FLATS WERE OBTAINED ON 31-03-2009. THUS, THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME FRAME AS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10). 4 ITA NO. 524/PN/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 THE LD. AR MADE AN ALTERNATE PRAYER, THAT WITHOUT PREJUD ICE TO HIS EARLIER SUBMISSIONS, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) MAY BE G RANTED IN RESPECT OF ORIGINALLY APPROVED 30 FLATS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTE D FACT THAT COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF 30 FLATS WAS RECEIVED WIT HIN THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ORIGINAL APPROVAL. ACCO RDINGLY, PRO- RATA DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) CAN BE GRANTED ON THOSE OR IGINALLY APPROVED 30 FLATS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI RAJESH DAMOR REPRESENTING T HE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM D EDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) ON ITS PROJECT MITRANGAN. NEITHER THE S IZE OF PLOT IS AS PER MINIMUM SPECIFICATION I.E. 1 ACRE NOR THE PROJECT WAS C OMPLETED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 4 YEARS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 80IB(10). THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEVELOPED A HOUSING PROJECT UNDER TH E NAME OF MITRANGAN. ONE OF THE REASON FOR DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U /S. 80IB(10), ON THE SAID PROJECT IS THAT THE SIZE OF PLOT IS LESS THAN 1 ACRE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10), THE PROJECT SHOULD BE ON TH E SIZE OF PLOT WITH MINIMUM AREA OF 1 ACRE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT OF THE PROJECT WAS ON LAND MEASURING 6300 SQ. MTR. OUT OF THE SAID AREA 2955 SQ. MTR. WAS RESERVED FOR D.P. ROAD. THUS, THE SIZE O F THE PLOT FOR THE PROJECT WAS REDUCED TO 3344 SQ. MTR. I.E. LESS THA N 1 ACRE (I.E. 4000 SQ. MTR). THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HELD THAT SINCE THE SIZE OF PLOT IS LESS THAN 1 ACRE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 5 ITA NO. 524/PN/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 80IB(10). THE LD. AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. B.K. PATE ENTERPRISES VS. ACIT (SUPRA). WE OBSERVE THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) EVEN IF THE SIZE OF PLOT IS REDUCED BELOW THE MANDATORY LIMIT OF 1 ACRE, IF THE REDUCTION IN SIZE OF PLOT IS RESULT OF ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR D.P. ROAD. THE LAND ACQUIRED FOR D. P. ROAD IS PART OF THE PROJECT. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IS AS UNDER: 6. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT ONLY BECAUSE THE A.O HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE, I.E. A LLOWABILITY OF THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT, IN DE TAIL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AN INFERENCE CANNOT BE DRAWN THAT THE A.O HA S NOT APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE ISSUE. THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD I.E. COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE A.O (PAGE NOS. 5 TO 9 O F THE PAPER BOOK) AND REPLY DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2007 OF THE ASSESSEE THERETO (PAGE NOS. 1 0 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK) CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O HAD ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SIZE OF THE PLOT ON WHICH THE HOUSING PR OJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED. IN POINT NO. 9 OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2007, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE PROJECT 'PATE SANSKRUTI' WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND SITUATED AT S. NO. 89/1 +90/1 + 91/1. IN THE S AID LETTER, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE AREA IS 49,628 SQ. FTS. THE DETAILS OF THE ENTIRE PLOT HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN IN ANNEXURE ENCLOSED TO TH E SAID LETTER DT. 30.11.2007 OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O CLARIFYING TH AT THE PLOT AREA IS 4612.34 SQ. MTRS AND AFTER DEDUCTION OF THE AREA FO R THE ROAD, THE NET PLOT AREA IS 3592.34 SQ. MTRS. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISP UTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE AUDITORS' REPORT CERTIFY ING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB (10) ALONG WITH THE RETURN. TH E CBDT VIDE IT CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2005 DT. 15.7.2005 (MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS. 15 TO 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK) HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT AREA OCCUPIED BY INTERNAL ROADS, D.P ROADS ETC., SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE AREA OF THE PLOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB (10). FOLLOWING THE SAID CIRCULAR OF THE CBDT, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF M/S. NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPERS V/S. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ROADS AND GARDENS SHOULD COMPL Y WITH THE STANDARDS, RULES AND REGULATIONS IN FORCE AND MANDA TED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES. THE PUNE BENCH HAS ALSO DECIDED THE IS SUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF BUNTY BUILDERS V/S. ITO (SU PRA) HOLDING THAT 6 ITA NO. 524/PN/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 THOUGH THE SECTION DO NOT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ROADS OR GRANT OF OTHER FACILITIES ETC., IN A HOUSI NG PROJECT, BUT THE SAME SHOULD CONFIRM TO THE PROJECT PLAN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE HOUSING PROJECT CONSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ROADS, AND GRANT OF OTHER FACILITIES, THEREFORE, THOSE AREAS SHOULD EXIST WIT HIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS AND TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART AND PARCEL OF THE PROJ ECT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BY WAY OF DEVELO PMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 23.6.2006 (PAGE NOS. 18 TO 54 OF THE PA PER BOOK) ALONG WITH SCHEDULE 'B' DEFINING THE AREA OF THE PLOT AS 4612. 34 SQ. MTRS.; SANCTIONED BUILDING PLAN OF THE PROJECT APPROVED BY THE PMC (PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK) SHOWING TOTAL AREA OF THE PLOT O N WHICH THE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS 4612.34 SQ. MTRS. ; ON PAGE NO. 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AVAILABLE THE LAY OUT PLAN OF THE PLOT SHOWING THE SANCTION OF THE D.P. ROAD. THE AREA OF D.P. ROAD HA S BEEN SHOWN AS 1020 SQ. MTRS. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE SANCTION ED PLAN MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. L OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT PMC HAS ALLOWE D TO THE ASSESSEE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FSI OF 4607.198 SQ. MTRS. GENER ALLY, THE FSI ALLOWED IS IN PMC LIMIT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ESPECIAL LY IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2005 DATED 15.7.2005 AND THE DECI SIONS OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE CITED CASES RELIED UPO N BY THE LD. A.R, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A.O HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CL AIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB(10) TREATING THE SIZE OF THE PLOT AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (B) TO SUBSECTION (10) TO SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT WAS THUS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXCLUDING THE AREA OF THE LAND MEANT F OR D.P. ROAD WHILE COMPUTING THE AREA OF THE PLOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF T HE DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT LD. CIT HAS HEL D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER GRANTING THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB (10) TO TH E ASSESSEE AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E ONLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE AREA OF THE PLOT ON WHICH THE PROJECT WAS CONST RUCTED IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF 1 ACRE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOIN G DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT, WE HOLD THAT LD CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AGAINST OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ISSUE, ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS NURTURING DIFFERENT VIEW WHICH CANNOT BE STATED AS EVEN THE DIFFERENT POSSIBLE VIEW WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80 IB (10) OF THE ACT R.W. CBDT CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2005 DATED 15 .7.2005. WE THUS WHILE SETTING ASIDE REVISIONAL ORDER IN QUESTION, R ESTORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ISSUE WITH THIS FINDING THAT THE A.O H AS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IB OF THE ACT IN QUESTION . THE GROUNDS INVOLVING THE ISSUE ARE THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY US] 7 ITA NO. 524/PN/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 6. THUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. B.K. PATE ENTERPRISES VS . ACIT (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE REDUCTION IN SIZE OF PLOT ON ACCOU NT OF AREA EARMARKED FOR D.P. ROAD WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE IN ELIG IBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. 7. ANOTHER REASON FOR DISALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) IS, THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT. THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 16- 08-2004. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(A)(II), THE HOUSING PROJECT S HOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH TH E HOUSING PROJECT IS APPROVED I.E. BY 31-03-2009. ORIGINALLY, PROJECT WAS APPROVED FOR 30 FLATS. SUBSEQUENTLY, 6 MORE FLATS WERE AD DED VIDE REVISED LAYOUT PLAN. UNDISPUTEDLY, 30 FLATS (10 FLATS IN BUILDING A AND 20 FLATS IN BUILDING B), WERE COMPLETED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIM E LIMIT OF 4 YEARS AND COMPLETION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THOSE 3 0 FLATS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PMC ON 08-05-2008. IN R ESPECT OF REMAINING 6 FLATS I.E. 2 FLATS IN BUILDING A AND 4 FLATS IN BUILDING B, THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM P MC ON 09-08-2011 I.E. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD BY VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND THE TRIBUNAL, THAT WHERE THE PART OF THE PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL THE CONDITIONS AS LAID DOWN U/S. 80IB(10) HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THE ASS ESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) ON THE COMPLETED PA RT OF PROJECT ON PRO-RATA BASIS. FOR THIS PROPOSITION RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATIONS (P.) LTD.; 86 DTR (MAD) 99 AND VIS WAS PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ACIT; 81 DTR (MAD) 68 AND T HE DECISION 8 ITA NO. 524/PN/2013, A.Y. 2009-10 OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. ROHAN HOMES VS. ASSTT. CIT IN ITA NO. 423/PN/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 DECIDED ON 31-01-2013. THUS, WE ACCEPT ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON 30 FLATS ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 24 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 24 TH AUGUST, 2015 RK )*+#,-!.!', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-II, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . /01 , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 2 34 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #5 / BY ORDER, %6 ,1 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE