M/s. Pyramid Filters Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. Addl.CIT, Range-4, Pune, Pune

ITA 564/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1971 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.564/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07) M/S.PYRAMID FILTERS PVT. LTD., H BLOCK, PLOT NO.A 20 & A 21, PIMPRI INDL. AREA, PIMPRI, PUNE 411018. .. APPELLANT VS. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-4, PUNE. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHARAD SHAH DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K.SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 14.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.03.2013 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT-II, PUNE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ON FACTS AND IN LAW & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTH ER, 1.1) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORIG INAL ORDER U/S 143(3) BY THE LEARNED ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE A ND HENCE THE ORDER U/S 263 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 1.2) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORI GINAL ORDER U/S 143(3) BY THE LEARNED ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX IS ERRONEOUS AND HENCE THE ORDER U/S 263 IS WIT HOUT JURISDICTION. 1.3) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN DIRECTING TO REVISE T HE ORDER U/S 143(3). 1.4) THE LEARNED CIT HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND HENCE THE SAID ORDER BE QUASHED. 2 2) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB. 3.1) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE FOLL OWING INCOME ARE NOT DERIVED FROM CARRYING ON THE ELIGIBL E BUSINESS. A. VALIDATION AND LABOUR CHARGES RS. 28,80,673/- B. INSURANCE CLAIMS RS. 2,15,238/- C. MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS RS. 1,13,315/- 3.2) THE LEARNED CIT ERRED IN NOT NETTING OUT THE I NCOME AS AFORESAID BY REDUCING THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO TH E P&L A/C WHICH HAS DIRECT NEXUS TO SUCH INCOME. 2. IN THIS CASE THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y . 2006-07 WAS MADE U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 26.1 2.2008. IN THE ASSESSMENT THUS MADE, THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME F OR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS DETERMINED AT RS.30,09,640/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.25,75,430/-. WHILE MAKING TH E ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTIO N OF RS.32,09,226/- U/S.80IB(3) OF THE ACT. 3. ON SUBSEQUENT REVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AFTER LOOKING INTO THE CASE RECORD, THE CIT NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB (3) EVEN THOUGH PRIMA FACIE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCH D EDUCTION IN AS MUCH AS IT HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITION STIP ULATED IN SECTION 80IB(2)(IV) TO THE EFFECT THAT UNDERTAKING WHOSE MANUFACTURING IS CARRIED ON WITHOUT THE AID OF POWE R, MUST HAVE EMPLOYED ATLEAST 20 WORKERS IN THE MANUFACTURING PR OCESS. AS PER CLAUSE 18 OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB, THE ASSESSEE HAD EMPLOYED ONLY 14 WORKERS IN ITS MANUFACTURING PROCE SS ALTHOUGH IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE SAME WAS BEING CARRIED ON WIT HOUT THE AID OF POWER. THUS THERE WAS VIOLATION OF THE ABOVE CONDI TION PROVIDED IN SECTION 80IB(2)(IV). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOV E, IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPUTED THE DEDUCTION ADMISSIBLE U/S.80IB(3) WITHOUT EXCLUDING CERTAIN IT EMS OF INCOME WHICH APPARENTLY COULD NOT BE TREATED AS DERIVED FR OM THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKING, VIZ. VALIDATION AND LABOUR CHARGES R S.28,80,673/-, 3 INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIPTS RS.2,15,238/- AND MISCEL LANEOUS RECEIPTS RS.1,13,315/-. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE ERRORS AND OMISSIONS ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.12 .2008 WAS CONSIDERED TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY UNDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 263 A NOTICE THEREUNDER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.03.2011 CALLING UPON IT TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2008 SHOULD NOT BE REVISED. IN THE NOTICE U/ S.263 ISSUED TO ASSESSEE, AMONG OTHER THINGS THE FOLLOWING POINTS W ERE BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE, WHICH ARE EXTRACTED BELOW: '3.1 ON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT, IT IS NOTICED THAT CERTAIN INCOME HAS BEEN CREDITED TO TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DERIVED FROM THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY FOR WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 801B (3) HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER- I. VALIDATION AND LABOUR CHARGES RS. 28,80,673 /- II. INSURANCE CLAIMS RS, 2 ,15,2387- III. MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS RS. 1,13,315/- EVEN IN THE SUBMISSION DT. 24.32.2008 MADE BEFORE T HE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 4, PUNE, YOU HAVE STATED VALIDATION ACTI VITY AS AN ANCILLARY ACTIVITY. SINCE THIS INCOME, ALONG WITH T HE INCOME MENTIONED AT (II) AND (III) ABOVE, DOES NOT PERTAIN TO YOUR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND CAN NOT BE TREATED AS DE RIVED FROM YOUR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, THE SAME IS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(3) OF THE ACT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE ELIGIBLE DED UCTION. 3.2 FURTHER VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOU NT SHOWS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.92,619/- ONLY HAS BEEN DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF POWER & FUEL EXPENSES. CONSIDERING THE N ATURE OF ACTIVITY WHICH INVOLVES THE MAJOR FUNCTION OF FABRI CATION OF CASING IN VARIOUS METALS, EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PO WER & FUEL DEBITED IS VERY MINIMAL. THIS LEADS TO THE INFERENC E THAT YOU ARE ENGAGED MAINLY IN ASSEMBLING OF FILTER PANELS M OSTLY WITHOUT AID OF ELECTRICITY. FURTHER, SEC. 80IB(2)(I V) STIPULATES THAT THERE MUST BE AT LEAST 20 EMPLOYEES WHEREAS YO U HAVE EMPLOYED ONLY 14 EMPLOYEES AS IS EVIDENT FROM CLAUS E (18) OF THE REPORT IN 10CCB. THUS, THERE IS VIOLATION OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC. 80IB(2)(IV) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1962. HE NCE, THE INCOME EARNED BY YOU FROM THE ALLEGED MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(3) EVEN OTHE RWISE. 4 4. THESE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN YOUR CAS E FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 VIDE ORDER U/S 143(3) DT, 26.12.2008 I S CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, AND BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE UNDERSIGNED AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE SUBJECT A SSESSMENT IS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED UNDER THE SAID SECTION.' 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SU BMISSIONS, WHICH ARE SUMMARISED AS UNDER: (I) THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURES AND SELLS HIGH PRECISION ACCURACY PRODUCT, WHICH PROCESS NECESSARILY INVOLVES CARRYIN G ON OF VALIDATION ACTIVITY IF ONLY TO CHECK THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCTS (FILTERS) IN ORDER TO ENSURE THEIR EFFICIENT WORKIN G. IF IN THE PROCESS IT IS FOUND THAT THE PRODUCTS ARE NOT PERFO RMING AT THE QUALITY LEVEL, THE SAME ARE REQUIRED TO BE EITHER R EPAIRED OR REPLACED. HENCE PROVIDING SUCH SERVICES IS INCUMBEN T UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE VALIDATION ACTIVITY AND THE LABOU R CHARGES RECEIVED THEREFROM WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS 'D ERIVED FROM' THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF ACIT VS. WOODWORD GOVERNORS INDIA (P) LTD., ITAT, DELHI (2007) SOT 362(DEL); AND, VELLOR ELECTR IC CORPORATION V. C1T (1997) 93 TAXMAN 401 ARE RELIED UPON. FURTHER, AS WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN T HE CASE OF BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED V/S. CIT 1992, 62 TAXMAN 480, ( SC), INCENTIVE PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY . IN VIEW OF THESE ABOVE DECISIONS, THERE IS A DIRECT AND PROXIM ATE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY AND T HE VALIDATION ACTIVITY, THE INCOME EARNED FROM THE VAL IDATION CHARGES IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB. (II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, SHOULD IT BE HELD T HAT INCOME FROM VALIDATION SERVICES IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTI ON U/S. 80- IB(3), THEN BY THE SAME LOGIC THE DIRECT EXPENSES I NCURRED IN THE COURSE OF THE VALIDATION ACTIVITY SHOULD BE EXC LUDED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION ELIGIBLE U/S. 80-IB. S UCH DIRECT EXPENSES WHICH WERE BOOKED IN A SEPARATE LEDGER ACC OUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATED TO RS. 24,47, 635/-. (III) COMING TO THE INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIPTS, THESE WERE PRIMARILY IN RESPECT OF DAMAGED RAW MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE H AD DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C PREMIUM OF RS. 8,61,180/- IN RESPECT OF GOODS DAMAGED IN TRANSIT. IN FACT, BUT FOR THE D IFFERENT ACCOUNTING REPRESENTATION ADOPTED, AND IF THE INSUR ANCE CLAIMED RECEIPTS HAD BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE PREMI UM PAID, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NET INCOME WHATSOEVER. BE THAT AS IT MAY, AS THE CLAIM RECEIPTS PERTAINED TO RAW MATERIA LS, AND 5 THUS WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE MANUFACTURING ACT IVITY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U /S. 80-IB. (IV) COMING TO THE MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS EQUIPMENT HIRE CHARGES WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80-IB. THE SAME, HOWEVER, CAN NOT BE SAID OF THE REMAINING RECEIPTS REPRESENTING LONG-PENDING BALANCES WRITTEN BACK, OU TSTANDING WAGE BALANCES, INTEREST RECEIVED AND LABOUR CHARGES WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED AS 'DERIVED FROM' THE BUSINESS O F THE UNDERTAKING. (V) IN THE NOTICE U/S. 263, REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE ONLY TO ELECTRICITY CHARGES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IN SE C. 80-IB THE EXPRESSION USED IS 'AID OF POWER'. IN THE ASSESSEE' S CASE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY IT, THE REQUIREMENT OF ELECTRICITY WAS RELATIVELY LOW, THE MACHINES USED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS PRIMARILY WORKED ON HYDRAULIC POWER. FOR THIS PURPOSE, POWER PACKS ARE AFFIXED TO THE MACHINES WHICH COME ALONG WITH THE MACHINES. (VI) EVEN THE REFERENCE MADE IN THE NOTICE U/S. 263 TO E MPLOYMENT OF 14 PERSONS IS WITHOUT BASIS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD, ALWAYS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, EMPLOYED MORE THAN 20 PERSONS AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE CHART ENCLOSED . FURTHER, AS WAS HELD IN SEVERAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES/WORKERS ENGAGED IN T HE MANUFACTURING PROCESS, 'VARIOUS PROCESSES STARTING FROM PURCHASE OF RAW MATERIALS UNTIL THE SALE OF FINISHE D GOODS FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS AND W ORKERS AND LABORERS EMPLOYED IN ALL THESE PROCESSES ARE TH E WORKERS EMPLOYED IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS. 6. IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH DETAILS AND EVIDENCE S AS TO WHAT POWER OTHER THAN ELECTRICITY WAS BEING USED BY IT I N THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. FURTHER, WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT IT HAD EMPLOYED MORE THAN 20 PERSONS AT ANY TIME DURING THE YEAR IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS, IT WA S ASKED TO ESTABLISH WITH EVIDENCES THAT THE EMPLOYEES/STAFF O THER THAN THE 14 PERSONS WORKING ON THE SHOP FLOOR HAD INDEED BEEN E NGAGED IN WORKS/ROLES WHICH COULD BE RELATED TO THE MANUFACTU RING PROCESS. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES THUS RAISED, THE ASSESSE E MADE FURTHER SUBMISSIONS ON 29.03.2011. WITH REFERENCE TO FIRST QUERY THAT LOW ELECTRICITY CHARGES APPEARING IN THE PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS THE REASON FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE UNIT IS OPERATING WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER, SOME OF THE MACHINES LIKE PLEATING AND CORRUGATION MACHINES ARE USING COMPRESSED AIR, ALSO THE RATED 6 CAPACITY (POWER CONSUMPTION OF MACHINES IS LOW). W ITH REGARD TO SECOND QUERY THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A LIST OF EMPLO YEES WORKING IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. IT WAS ALSO REITERATED THAT T HE WORD MANUFACTURING PROCESS SHOULD BE GIVEN A WIDE INTERP RETATION AND SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO THE PROCESS CARRIED OUT ON THE SHOP FLOOR ONLY. THE CIT HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTION STATED THEREIN. SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BE FORE US. 7. BEFORE US DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, STATED THAT THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER U/S.143(3) WAS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND HENCE THE ORDER U/S.263 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE CIT E RRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER U/S.143(3) BY THE ADDL.COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME- TAX IS ERRONEOUS AND HENCE ORDER U/S.263 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF WORKERS FOR CL AIMING DEDUCTION U/S.80IB. THE CIT ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT FOLLOWING INCOMES ARE NOT DERIVED FROM THE CARRYING ON THE EL IGIBLE BUSINESS (A) VALIDATION AND LABOUR CHARGES RS.28,80,673/- (B) INSURANCE CLAIM RS.2,15,238/- (C) MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS RS.1,13,315/-, AND IN THIS BACKGROUND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT BE QUASHED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO AGITATE ITS GROUNDS ON MERIT IN THE S ET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S .263 SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. 9. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLIANCE OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN U/S.80IB(2)(IV). THE O BJECTION OF THE CIT WAS THAT UNDERTAKING WHOSE MANUFACTURING PROCESS IS BEING CARRIED 7 OUT WITHOUT THE AID OF POWER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED T O BE ALLOWABLE U/S.80IB(20(IV) OF THE ACT. OTHER OBJECTION WAS TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE CONDITION STIPULATED IN S ECTION 80IB(20(IV) AND IN VIEW OF CLAUSE 18 OF THE AUDIT R EPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EMPLOYED ONLY 14 EMPLOYEES IN ITS MANUFACTURING PROCESS. ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTA NTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT IT HAS USED POWER OTHER THAN ELECTRICITY. INS TEAD COMMENTING ON USE OF POWER ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THAT MAC HINE USED IN MANUFACTURING PROCESS ARE USING COMPRESSED AIR AND THAT THEIR RATED CAPACITY IS LOW. IN VIEW OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB, ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 14 EMPLOYEES AND HE C OULD NOT DISPUTE THE SAME. THE CIT HAS REVISED THE ORDER BE CAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM WITH REGARD TO NUMBER O F EMPLOYEES ENVISAGED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 80IB(2)(IV) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE OUT THE CASE THAT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ERRONEOUS SO AS TO BE PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS SO AS TO BE PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. NOW, EVERYTHING IS OPEN ON MERIT BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, WHO HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAND AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDI NG REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS R EASONED FACTUAL FINDING OF CIT NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. IN ANY WAY ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO PLEAD HIS CASE AS PER FAC T AND LAW IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF MARCH, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( G.S.PANNU ) ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YAD AV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER GSPS PUNE, DATED THE 22 ND MARCH, 2013 8 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-4, PUNE. 3. THE CIT-II, PUNE. 4. THE DR B BENCH, PUNE. 5. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE.