SHRI PRAKASH P CHOKASI, Nashik V. ACIT, CIR 1, Nashik

ITA 64/PUN/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49891 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARESHWAR SHARMA; SANJAY SINGH
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR.NO. ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 TO 5 58 TO 62/PN/2008 2000 - 01 TO 2004-05 PRAVINC HANDRA P. CHOKASI 1462 SARAF BAZAR, JIJAMATA CHOWK NASIK PAN ACTPC 1963F ASSTT. CIT (CENTRAL), CIR. 1, NASIK 6 - 7 63 & 64/PN/2008 2003 - 04 AND 2004- 05 PRAKASH P. CHOKASI SAME AS ABOVE PAN ACTPC 1962F - DO - 8. 65/PN/2008 A.Y. 1998 - 99 NAVIN CHANDRA P. CHOKASI SAME AS ABOVE PAN ACTPC 1972C - DO - 9 . 66/PN/2008 A.Y. 2000 - 01 RAMESHCHANDRA P. CHOKASI SAME AS ABOVE PAN AAEHR 8541 M - DO - 10 - 16 71 TO 77/PN/2008 A.Y. 1998 - 99 TO 2004-05 PTC & FAMILY, SAME AS ABOVE PAN AAAAP 5023D - DO - 17 - 20 6 7 TO 70/PN/2008 2000 - 01 TO AND 2003- 04 PREMCHAND THAKARSI CHOKASI SAME AS ABOVE PAN AADEP 7201 M - DO - 21 - 22 990/PN/2009 AND 1499/PN/09 A.Y.1998 - 99 & 1999-00 RAMESHCHANDRA P. CHOKASI SAME AS ABOVE PAN ACTPC 1968Q - DO - 23. 57/PN/2008 1999 - 00 PRA VINCHANDRA P. CHOKASI 1462 SARAF BAZAR, JIJAMATA CHOWK NASIK PAN ACTPC 1963F - DO - 2 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP APPELLANTS BY: SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARESHWAR SHARMA AND SHRI SANJAY SINGH ORDER PER BENCH ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME GROUP OF ASSESSEES FOR DIFFERENT YEARS ON THE POINT OF PENAL TIES AND QUANTUM PERTAINING TO MEMBERS OF SAME GROUP INCLUDI NG AOP. SO, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE. 2. SEARCH U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN TH E CASE OF SHRI NAVINCHANDRA P. CHOKSI ON 21-1-2004. CONSEQUENTLY IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE FRAMED U/S 153A OF THE ACT WHEREIN CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY WAS LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE IS E NGAGED IN PAWNING BUSINESS, AND PAWNED JEWELLERY WAS RECOV ERED AS PER ANNEXURE 5 TO THE PANCHANAMA DRAWN AT THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS SHOP PREMISES. DETAILS OF T HE SAME ARE AS UNDER: PREMISES AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RESIDENCE RS. 27,15,300/- SHOP RS. 13,94,800/- 3 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP 3. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF STATE MENT U/S 132(4) THAT ITEM NO. 94, PAGE NO. 1 TO 166 OF A NNEXURE A-71 ARE IN RESPECT OF HIS MONEY LENDING BUSINESS CONTAINING COMPLETE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS SUCH AS NAMES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM ADVANCES WERE PAID, DATE, AM OUNT ETC. FURTHER IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 6 IN THE AFO RESAID STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HIS MONEY LEND ING BUSINESS WAS NOT SHOWN TO THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT . IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 7 HE STATED THAT THE UNDISCLO SED CAPITAL AND INCOME FROM SUCH BUSINESS FROM 1-4-1997 ONWARDS WOULD BE RS. 50 LAKHS WHICH WILL BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME TO BE FILED U/S 1 53A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT NO SUCH INCOME WAS DECLARED IN THE SAID RETURN AND CONSEQUE NTLY STARTED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. LATER ON , THE ASSESSEE CHANGED THIS STAND AND CONTENDED THAT HE W AS NOT ENGAGED IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND THE SAID BUSINESS ACTUALLY PERTAINED TO M/S. PTC & FAMILY AOP. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PTC & FAMILY IS HAVING PAN AAAJP 0647 A AND IS ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE STATUS OF AOP WITH CIRCLE 2 NASIK. IN T HIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AS UNDER: 4 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP 5.3 M/S. PTC & FAMILY, THE AOP, HAVE OBTAINED THE PAN AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE ALLEGED AOP HAVE OBTAINED TWO PAN NUMBERS. THE PAN NUMBERS IN THE STATUS OF JURIDICAL PERSON I.E. AAAJP 0647 A IS ALL OTTED ON 8-2-2005 AND THE PAN IN STATUS OF AOP BEARING NUMBER AAAAP 5023 D IS ALLOTTED TO IT ON 19-4-2005. THE RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 1998-99 TO 2002-03 WERE FIL ED BY ALLEGED AOP FOR THE FIRST TIME BY QUOTING THE PA N NO. AAAJP 0647 A WITH ITO WARD 2(2), NASIK ON 25-2- 2005 I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN THESE RETUR NS THE PAN NUMBERS QUOTED BY ALLEGED AOP IS PERTAINING TO JURIDICAL PERSONS. THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WERE FILED WITH ACIT CIR. 3-2, NASIK ON 28-2-2005 QUOTING THE PAN OF JURIDICAL PERSON. THUS IT SHOWS THAT NO SUCH AOP OR JURIDICA L PERSON WAS NOT INEXISTENCE TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH. CONSIDERING THAT ALL THESE RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THE PAN WERE ALSO OBTAINED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ENTITY IN THE NAME OF M/S. PTC AND FAMILY IN THE ALLEGED STATUS O F AOP OR OF THE JURIDICAL PERSON HAS NOT IN EXISTENCE TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPEC T OF AOP FILED IS ALSO AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. 5.4 IN REPLY TO THE LETTER DATED 10-3-2006 THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE REPLY DATED 23-3-2006 CLAIMING THAT THE AOP WAS IN EXISTENCE, ONLY IT WAS NOT REPRESENTED BY ANY PROPER NAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE COMMON ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE AOP THOUGH THE NOMENCLATURE GIVEN AFTER THE DAT E OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT NO DIREC T EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. IT IS FURTHER STAT ED THAT NO FORMAL BILL OR RECEIPT WAS ISSUED OR OBTAIN ED IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE ALLEGED AOP. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CLAIMED TO ALLOW THE CREDI T IN RESPECT OF FUNDS SHOWN TO BE GIVEN BY THE SAID AOP. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CHART FOR THE PERIOD FROM A.Y. 1998-99 TO 2004-05 SHOWING RECEIPT FROM AND PAYMENT TO THE SAID AOP BY THE VARIOUS ASSESSES FAMILY MEMBERS. 5 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP 4. IN APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE DAY OF SEARCH HAS BEEN TRYING TO MISLEAD T HE DEPARTMENT. HE HAS INDULGED IN FRAUDULENT ACTIVITI ES AND MADE FALSE STATEMENT BEFORE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. ACTUALLY NO SUCH AOP WAS EVER IN EXISTENCE AND THE ASSESSEE BY CONCOCTING TALE TRIED TO CLAIM BENEFIT BY MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDEN CE WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT FUNDS UTILIZ ED IN PAWNING BUSINESS BELONGED TO SAID AOP. FURTHER, IN THE WAKE OF INVESTIGATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM WITH REGARDS TO EXISTENCE OF SUCH AOP AND ALSO WITHDREW THE CLAIM OF HAVING INVESTED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 17,84,960/- BY THE AOP. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE HIM BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF THE AMOUNTS AVAILABLE WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT THE SAME ACCEPTED THE CLAI M WITH REGARDS TO RS. 50.00 LAKHS AS RECEIVED FROM LATE SH RI PREMCHAND P. CHOKSI AND RS. 86,000/- FROM SHRI SHAILENDRA N. CHOKSI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIV EN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EVIDEN CE 6 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP WHATSOEVER FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 11,98,96 0/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THE CLAIM O F AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,35,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF AOP CONTRIBUTED BY SEVERAL MEMBERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THIS CASE AND SET OFF OF THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN FROM THE FINAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 11,98,960/-, CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF FUNDS CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: SR.NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT SHOWN AS 31-3-1997 1. SHRI NAVINCHANDRA P.CHOKSI RS. 3,75,000/- 2. SHRI RAMESHCHANDRA P.CHOKSI HUF RS. 10,000/- 3. SHRI RAMESHCHANDRA P.CHOKSI INDL. RS. 2,00,000/- 4. SHRI PRAKASHCHANDRA P.CHOKSI RS. 2,00,000/- 5. SHRI RAJENDRA P.CHOKSI RS. 2,50,000/- ------------------ RS. 10,35,000/- ------------------ ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE DETAILS, THE CIT(A) OBSE RVED THAT AOP HAD FUNDS. ALL THE MEMBERS HAVE FILED THE IR RESPECTIVE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AND SAID INVESTMENT IS DISCLOSED THEREIN. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ASKED TO COMMENT ON TH E AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GOI NG 7 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP THROUGH THE SAME, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS DULY EXAMINED ALL THE SUBMISSIONS RAISE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EV IDENCE OF SUCH FUNDS BEING HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENT IN HIS PAWNING BUSINESS WERE REJECTED. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED TO ESTABLISH ASSESSEES CLAIM TH AT INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM IN PAWNING BUSINESS IS FROM AFORESAID FUNDS OF DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS. OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS MAY BE HAVING FUNDS INDIVIDUALLY BUT THAT D ID NOT PROVE ASSESSEES CASE THAT THE SAME FUNDS WERE UTIL IZED BY HIM IN HIS PAWNING BUSINESS. FURTHER, IT WAS KEPT IN MIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF T HE ACT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED THE FACT THAT HIS PAWNING BUSINESS WAS NOT HITHERTO DECLARED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND HE WAS READY TO MAKE A DECLARATION O F RS. 50.00 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SAME. LATER ON, AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURNS U/S 153A HE HAD NOT ONLY DISREGARDED HIS OWN STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT BUT WENT ONE ST EP FURTHER BY CREATING EVIDENCES, THOUGH UNSUCCESSFULL Y, FOR SHOWING THAT THERE WAS AN AOP AND PAWNING BUSINESS WAS DONE BY THE SAID ENTITY. AS ALL HIS CLAIMS TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N THE 8 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, RIGHTLY DETE RMINED THE INCOME BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF INVESTMENT/INC OME AT RS. 11,98,960/- ON ACCOUNT OF SAID PAWNING BUSINESS AND SIMILAR ACTION WAS TAKEN IN OTHER CASES AND THE CIT (A) CONCLUDED ON THE SAME LINE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONS WERE MADE. HOWEVER, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y EITHER PARTY WITH REGARDS TO PENALTY IN RESPECT OF SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA PREMCHANDRA CHOKSI FOR A.Y. 1999-00 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 57/PN/2008. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR A.Y. 2000-01 TO 2004-05 IN THE CASE OF PRAVINCHANDRA P. CHOKSI WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 58 TO 62/PN/2008 AT SR. NO. 1 TO 5 OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 6. SIMILAR PENALTIES AS A CONSEQUENCE TO QUANTUM ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN LEVIED IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH P . CHOKSI FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT M ATTER OF APPEALS IN ITA NO. 63 AND 64/PN/2008 AT SR. NO. 6 AND 7 OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. SIMILARLY IN THE CAS E OF NAVINCHANDRA P. CHOKSI, THE PENALTY LEVIED WAS CONF IRMED BY THE CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 1998-99 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER 9 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 65/PN/2008 AT SR. NO. 8 OF THI S ORDER. THE APPEALS AT SR. NO. 9 TO23 PERTAIN TO QUANTUM IN THE CASES OF INDIVIDUAL FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE GROUP OF AOP. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT IN THE CASE OF PT C & FAMILY FOR A.Y. 1998-99 TO 2004-05 THE QUANTUM ADDI TIONS WERE MADE WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AND TH E SAME IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEALS IN ITA NO. 71 TO 77/PN/2008 AT SR. NO. 10 TO 16 OF THIS ORDER. THUS , WE FIND THAT THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING THE ADDITIONS AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS THE SUBJEC T MATTER OF APPEALS AT SR. NO. 10 TO 23 OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER WHILE CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTIES HAVE BEEN LEVIED IN T HE CASES OF PRAVINCHANDRA P. CHOKSI, PRAKASH P. CHOKSI AND NAVINCHANDRA P. CHOKSI AND RAMESHCHANDRA P. CHOKSI AS MENTIONED AT SR. NO. 1 TO 9 OF THIS ORDER. WE FIND THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDERS, THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN ONE LINE O F ACTION, INTER ALIA, IN GENERAL PENALTIES ARE CONSEQUENTIAL TO QUANTUM ADDITIONS. IN PENALTY ORDERS, THE CIT(A) H AS OBSERVED THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE AT SR. NO. 23 OF THIS ORDER, HAD DISCLOSED THE INCOME OF RS. 50.00 LAKHS BUT DID NOT HONOUR THE SAME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE TR IED TO ESTABLISH THAT INCOME BELONGS TO AOP I.E. PTC & FAM ILY AT 10 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP SR. NO. 10 TO 16 OF THIS ORDER. FURTHERING THE SAM E, DIFFERENT RETURNS WERE FILED BEFORE DIFFERENT AUTHO RITIES BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATUS OF AOP. HOWEVER, HAVING NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON THAT ACCOUNT AGAIN ADDITIONS HAV E BEEN MADE IN INDIVIDUAL CASES AND THOSE ADDITIONS ARE TH E BASIS FOR LEVYING THE PENALTIES IN QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE CASES LISTED AT SR. NO. 1 TO 9 OF THIS ORDER AS DIS CUSSED ABOVE. THUS, THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE INDIVIDUAL CASES INSTEAD OF AOP. CONSEQUENTIAL PEN ALTIES HAVE BEEN MADE IN CERTAIN CASES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IT IS STRANGE TO FIND THAT IN THE QUANTUM APPEALS IN THE CASE OF PTC & FAMILY AS LISTED AT SR. NO. 10 TO 16, ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR INVESTMENT RS. PENALTY RS. 2000 - 01 4,22,113/ - 1,39,075/ - 2001 - 02 4,66,476/ - 1,63,733/ - 2002 - 03 5,75,119/ - 1,75,985/ - 2003 - 04 7,38,169/ - 2,32,523/ - 2004 - 05 8,73,270/ - 3,02,348/ - AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT HAVING DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 50,00,000/- THE SAME WAS NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THE SAME 11 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP WAS TRIED TO BE CLAIMED THE INCOME OF AOP AND AS DISCUSSED ABOVE ON BEING UNSUCCESSFUL ON THAT ACCOU NT THE SAME WAS AGREED TO BE ASSESSED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CA SES AS DETAILED IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. THE WHOLE SITUATION DOES NOT CREATE CLEAR PICTURE OF THE ADDI TIONS AND PENALTIES BECAUSE THE CIT(A) IN THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MA KE OUT A CASE OF INCOME FROM AOP AND SAME WERE ASSESSED IN INDIVIDUAL HANDS. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, WE FIN D THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CASE OF AOP BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEALS AT SR. NO. 10 TO 16. THU S, THERE IS NO PROPER CO-RELATION OF QUANTUM ADDITIONS WITH THE PENALTIES. NEITHER OF THE PARTY IS ABLE TO ASSIST THE BENCH IN THIS REGARD. IN ANY CASE, DOUBLE ADDITION OF SA ME AMOUNT IN TWO HANDS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF AB OVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE WHOLE ISSUE NEEDS DEEP PROBE INTO THE MATTER SO THAT CLEAR PICTURE CAN BE EMERGE D WITH REGARDS TO QUANTUM ADDITION IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDU AL ASSESSES OR AOP AND ALSO WITH REGARDS TO CONSEQUENT IAL PENALTIES. SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTO RE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTI ON TO 12 58 TO 62 ETC. CHOKSI GROUP DECIDE ALL THESE CASES AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PR OVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSU E AT HAND. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JUNE 2011 SD/ - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 30 TH JUNE 2011 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) I NASIK 4. THE CIT CENTRAL 4. THE D.R, A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE