Volkswagen India Private Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 549/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9125 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NANDITA KANCHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Business expenditure; International transaction; Additional evidence; Wholly owned subsidiary; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 549 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, E1, MIDC INDUSTRIAL AREA, VILLAGE : NIGOJE MHALUNGE, KHARABWADI, CHAKAN, PUNE 410501 PAN : AACCV4229P ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI SUNIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : S MT. NANDITA KANCHAN / DATE OF HEARING : 28 - 0 6 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 0 7 - 2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24 - 01 - 2014 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). 2 ITA NO . 549/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009 - 10 2. THE FACTS EMANATING FROM RECORDS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF VOLKSWAGEN INTERNATIONAL FINANCE NV, NETHERLANDS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ESTABLISHED FOR MANUFACTURING VEHICLES OF VOLKSWAGEN AND OTHER GROUP BRANDS IN INDIA. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO PROVIDING QUALITY AND TECHNICAL SERVICES TO VOLKSWAGEN GROUP ENTITIES. THE SERVICES INCLUDE IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NETWORK OF INDIAN SUPPLIERS COMMENSURATE TO GROUPS GLOBAL STANDARDS FOR SOURCING OF VARIOUS RAW MATERIAL COMPONENTS/PA RTS , FOR VOLKSWAGEN GROUP ENTITIES HAVING MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS ACROSS THE GLOBE , AS WELL AS IN INDIA. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTE RPRISES (AES). REFERENCE U/S. 92CA OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS MADE TO TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) FOR COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH AES . THE TPO MADE ADJ USTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH GROUP ENTITIES ON ACCOUNT OF : (I) P AYMENT OF RAW MATERIAL AND COMPONENTS TO VOLKSWAGEN GROUP ENTITIES RS.12,39,40,065/ - , AND (II) P AYMENT FOR IT IMPLEMENTATION AND BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES RS.21,87,47,658/ - . ON THE BASIS OF ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 13 - 03 - 2013. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS MADE, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP). THE DRP DELETED THE ENTIRE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.12,39,40,065/ - MADE BY TPO IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ON IMPORT OF RAW MATERIAL, COMPONENTS AND PARTS. IN RESPECT OF IT IMPLEMENTATION AND B USINESS SUPPORT SERVICES THE DRP DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE VALUE OF SERVICES TO THE TUNE OF 12,35,434 3 ITA NO . 549/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009 - 10 WITH MARK UP OF 6.50%. ON THE BASIS OF DIRECTIONS OF DRP, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS OF RS.13,59, 74,250/ - MADE IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 4 GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL. SHRI SUNIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR ADJUDICATION ARE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 ONLY. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HERE - IN - BELOW: THE GROUNDS STATED HERE UNDER ARE INDEPENDENT OF, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER: 1 . GROUND NO 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD. A O, UNDER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. DRP, ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO PAYMENT FOR AVAILING THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES AND BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES ('THE SERVICES') AT RS . 8,27,73,408 AS AGAINST RS . 21,87,47,658. IN DOING SO, THE LD. AO/ LD. DRP HAVE SPECIFICALLY ERRED IN: 1. 1. REJECTING THE TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD ('TNMM') SELECTED BY THE APPEL LANT CONSIDERING THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES ('AES') AS THE TESTED PARTY AND SELECTING COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE METHOD ('CUP') AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD WITHOUT USING ANY COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION TO DETERMINE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE; AND 1.2. DETERMINING THE VALUE OF SERVICES WHICH WERE RS . 13,59,74,250 AS 'NIL' BY IGNORING THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF PROCESS MANUALS, PRESENTATIONS AND E - MAIL CORRESPONDENCES. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE BOOK VALUE OF THE INTERNATI ONAL TRANSACTION BE ACCEPTED TO BE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF THE SAID TRANSACTION AND THE TP ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE LD. A O / LD. DRP BE DELETED. 4 . GROUND NO 4 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD. A O HAS ERRED IN GRANTING A TDS CREDIT OF ONLY RS . 9,76,19,217 AS 4 ITA NO . 549/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009 - 10 AGAINST THE TDS CREDIT OF RS . 10,05,03,411 CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT TDS CREDIT OF RS . 10,05,03,411 SHOULD BE GRANTED BY THE LD. A O FOR THE P URPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TAX REFUND. 3.1 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SUBSIDIARY OF VOLKSWAGEN INTERNATIONAL FINANCE NV, NETHERLANDS. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TECHNICAL SERVICES FROM VOLKSWAGEN GROUP ENTITIES WHICH INCLUDE AUDI AND SKODA . THE ASSESSEE APPLIED TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO DETERMINE ALP IN RESPECT OF SERVICES. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THE TPO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE COMMENSURATE BENEFITS AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE FEE TO THE AES. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF MORE THAN RS.21.87 CRORES ON TRAINING OF TECHNICAL STAFF AND SYNCHRONIZATION OF INDI AN ENTITY WITH ITS GLOBAL GROUP COMPANIES. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DRP, THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO STRENGTHEN THE CLAIM OF NEED AND GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE ON SERVICES RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM ITS AE. THE DRP SOUGHT REPORT FR OM THE TPO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TPO OBJECTED TO THE FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, ON MERITS THE TPO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY FURNISHED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.8 CRORES. THE TPO FURTHER QUESTIONED THE MARGIN OF 6.50% CHARGED BY THE AE. THE DRP REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE AE TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTH ER, THE DRP ERRED IN ENDORSING THE FINDINGS OF TPO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE COMMENSURATE BENEFITS AGAINST THE PAYMENTS OF SERVICE FEE TO THE 5 ITA NO . 549/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009 - 10 AES. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT QUESTION THE NECESSITY OR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIE NCY OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS INDIA (P) LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 150 DTR 313 AN D THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HLS ASIA LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 121 TTJ 340. 3.2 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR FURNISHING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS AT PAGES 547 TO 652 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE INCLUDE CHART OF SERVICES RENDERED BY AES, COPIES OF INVOICES CHARGED FOR VARIOUS SERVICE ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND ANNUAL TAX STA TEMENT U/S. 203AA OF THE ACT IN FORM 26AS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED SAMPLE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE DRP INDICATING THE PAYMENTS MADE AND THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AE TO SHOW THAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE AES TO THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EXHAUSTIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY AES TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS MADE IN RESPECT THEREOF. NON F I LING OF EXHAUSTIVE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DRP WAS INADVERTENT MISTAKE . THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF EXHAUSTIVE MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. GREAT PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE IF ADDITION IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 3.3 IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 4 RAISED IN THE APPEAL , THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN GRANTING TDS CREDIT TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,76,19,217/ - ONLY AS AGAINST THE TDS CREDIT OF RS.10,05,03,411/ - 6 ITA NO . 549/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009 - 10 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FORM 26AS WAS REVISED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO GRANT TDS CREDIT AS PER CORRECTED AND FINAL FORM 2 6AS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SMT. NANDITA KANCHAN REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DRP AS WELL. THE TPO OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF SAME. THE DRP AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE. SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED BY THE DRP TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS BUT THE ASSESSEE FILED ONLY SAMPLE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DR. NOW, AT BELATED STAGE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5. W E HAV E HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE PRIMARY ISSUE IN APPEAL IS ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THE AES TO ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED IT AND B USINESS SUPPORT SERVICES FROM ITS AE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY AES. THE TPO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF IT AND B USINESS SUPPORT SERV ICES ON THE PREMISES : (I) THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE AS REGARDS THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICES ; AND (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVE D COMMENSURATE BENEFITS AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE FEES TO THE AE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN SAMPLE DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DRP. THE DRP AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF TPO. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EXHAUSTIVE 7 ITA NO . 549/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009 - 10 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS A DDITIONAL E VIDENCE ( AT PAGES 547 TO 652 OF THE PAPER BOOK ) TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SERVICES RENDERED BY AE S . 6. AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THE COMMENSURATE BENEFITS AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE FEES , I T IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT STEP IN TO THE SHOES OF ASSESSEE TO DETERMINE THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OR BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DHANRAJGIRJI RAJA NARASINGIRJI REPORTED AS 91 ITR 544 HAS OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE DEPARTMENT TO PRESCRIBE WHAT EXPENDITURE AN ASSESSEE SHOULD INCUR AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HE SHOULD INCUR THAT EXPENDITURE. EVERY BUSINESSMAN KNOWS HIS INTEREST BEST. THEREAFTER , IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS L TD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) & ANR. REPORTED AS 288 ITR 1 THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD : O NCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS (WHICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF), THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARMCHAIR OF THE BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME THE ROLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS REASONABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. NO BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE ITS PROFIT. SIMILARLY, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. REPORTED AS 254 ITR 377 HAS HELD : UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1061, THE JURISDICTION OF THE REVENUE IS CONFINED TO DECIDING THE REALITY OF THE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, VIZ., WHETHER THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WAS FACTUALLY EXPENDED OR LAID DOWN AND WHETHER IT WAS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE 8 ITA NO . 549/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009 - 10 B USINESS. IT MUST NOT, HOWEVER, SUFFER FROM THE VICE OF COLLUSIVENESS OR COLOURABLE DEVICE. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE COULD BE GONE INTO ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER, IN FACT, THE AMOUNT WAS SPENT. ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT TH ERE WAS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENDITURE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS, THE REVENUE CANNOT JUSTIFIABLY CLAIM TO PUT ITSELF IN THE ARMCHAIR OF A BUSINESSMAN OR IN THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ASSUME THE SAID ROLE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS A REASO NABLE EXPENDITURE HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. N O BUSINESSMAN CAN BE COMPELLED TO MAXIMIZE HIS PROFITS. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE WELL SETTLED LAW , THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT ASK THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE COMMENSURATE BENEFIT AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF SERVICE FEES PAID TO THE AE. 7. AS REGARDS THE PROOF OF SERVICES RENDERED BY AE , THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMI T THIS ISSUE BACK TO DRP TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND AFTER ASCERTAINING THE VERACITY OF SAME DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH . THE DRP SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE DE - NOVO A FTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN GROUND NO. 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR GRANTING TDS CREDIT OF RS.10,05,03,411/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF RS.9,76,19,217/ - . IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT REVISED FORM 26AS WAS FILED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO TAKE THE SUBSEQUENT FORM 26AS INTO CONSIDERATION. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF TDS CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CORRECTED AND FINAL FORM 9 ITA NO . 549/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009 - 10 26AS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 4 RAISED IN THE APP EAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SATED AT THE BAR THAT HE IS NO PRESSING GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 28 TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 28 TH JULY, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE DRP, PUNE 4. THE DIT(TP/IT), PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE