JT.CIT(OSD), Cir.-3, Pune V. M/s. V.J.Associates, Pune

ITA 642/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9785 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Assessee Lawyers: NILESH KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 80IB; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 642/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2 006-07) JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), APPELLANT CIRCLE 3, PUNE V. M/S. V.J. ASSOCIATES RESPONDENT OFFICE NO. 10 COMMERCE CENTRE, PAUD ROAD, PUNE 411038 PAN : AEFV3636M ITA NO.825/PN/2011 (ASSTT.YEAR : 20 07-08) DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPELLANT CIRCLE 3, PUNE V. M/S. V.J. ASSOCIATES RESPONDENT OFFICE NO. 10 COMMERCE CENTRE, PAUD ROAD, PUNE 411038 PAN : AEFV3636M APPELLANT BY : MS. AN N KAPTHUAMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIL ESH KHANDELWAL DATE OF HEARING : 09/8/12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-10-12 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE TWO APPEALS CHALLENGIN G THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A)-II, PUNE FOR THE A.Y. 2006- 07 AND 2007-08. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE MULTIPLE GROUNDS WHICH ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS, BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE ARISES FO R OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE A.O TO DISALLOW THE DEDU CTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HIS HOUSING PROJECT U/S. 80 IB (10) ON THE REASON THAT SOME OF THE FLATS WERE HAVING MORE THAN 1500 SQ.FT. OF AREA AND HENCE, THERE IS VIOLATION OF CONDITION IN CLAUSE (C ) OF SECTION 80 IB(10). 3. THE FACTS WHICH REVEAL FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UN DER. THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/ S. 80 IB(10) OF THE 2 ITA NOS.642 & 825/PN/2011 V.J. ASSOCIATES, A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 INCOME TAX ACT IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PROJECT O N SURVEY NO. 77/3/3, MUNDHWA, PUNE. THE A.O REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE REGISTERED VALUER SHRI. NITIN LELE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING TH E AREA OF UNITS/FLATS. AS PER REPORTS FILED BY SHRI. LELE, THE FOLLOWING FACT S WERE REVEALED AS NOTED BY THE A.O : I) AS PER THE PLAN, THERE WERE 4 UNITS, NAMELY 1 AN D 1A, 2 AND 2A, BUT PRACTICALLY, THERE WERE ONLY 2 UNITS IN THE FORM OF ROW- HOUSES. II) THE COMBINED BUILT UP AREA OF THOSE ROW HOUSES WAS 1978 SQ.FT. 4. THE A.O. ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASS ESSEE AS TO WHY THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE HOUSING PRO JECT NAMELY SPRING BLOSSOM SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS THE CONDITION IN CLAUSE (C) TO SEC. 80 IB (10) HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED. THE ASSESSEE F ILED ITS REPLY WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM PAGE NOS. 3 TO NO.10. THE ASSESSEE STATED IN THE REPLY THAT THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SPRING BLOSSOM WAS COMMENCED ON 30.11.2001 AND THE SAID PROJECT WA S COMPLETED ON 28.3.2006. SO FAR AS THE ROW HOUSE NO. RH -1, 1A, & RH -2 & 2A ARE CONCERNED, THE BUILT UP AREA AS PER SANCTIONED PLAN ARE AS UNDER : UNIT BUILT UP AREA IN SQ.FT. RH 793.20 RH1A 662.74 RH 2 793.20 RH 2A 662.74 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AREA OF THE ROW HO USES STATED ABOVE EVEN IF COMBINED IS NOT MORE THAN 1500 SQ.FT. IT W AS STATED THAT THE AREA EXCEEDED BECAUSE AREA OF THE STAIR CASES & PR OJECTIONS WAS INCLUDED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND AS PER THE RULES OF T HE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (PMC), THE AREA OF THE STAIR CASE IS NO T INCLUDED WHILE CALCULATING THE BUILT UP AREA. THE ASSESSEE ALSO R ELIED ON THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATION(DCR). THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT PROJECT WAS COMMENCED ON 31.1.2001 AND WAS SUBSTANT IALLY COMPLETED BEFORE 1.4.2005 AND HENCE, THE DEFINITION OF THE B UILT UP AREA WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2004 BY INSERTIO N OF CLAUSE (A) TO SEC. 80IB(14) IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONT ENDED THAT THE CHANGES ARE NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE BUILDERS BUT BY THE BUYERS OF THE FLAT. 3 ITA NOS.642 & 825/PN/2011 V.J. ASSOCIATES, A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 THE UNITS WERE COMPLETED AS PER SANCTION PLAN IN NO VEMBER 2006 AND THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN THE UNITS CARRIED OUT BY THE CONCERNED PURCHASERS AFTER SALE OF THE SAID UNIT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONTRACTOR MR. SAGAR SALUNKE, WHO HAS EXECUTED THE WORK OF MODIFICATION IN THE ROW HOUSES 1 AND 1A IN SPRING BLOSSOM TO PROVE THAT THE MODIFICATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE BUYERS OF THE FLATS. THE A.O. WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE A.O. RELIED ON THE DEFINITION OF THE BUILT U P AREA AS INSERTED BY CLAUSE (A) TO SEC. 80 IB (14) AND HELD THAT THE DEF INITION OF BUILT UP AREA WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS O NLY CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOS E OF CALCULATING THE BUILT UP AREA OF THE UNIT AND AS PER THE SAID DEFIN ITION, THE AREA OF ALL THE PROJECTIONS AND BALCONIES HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. THE A.O, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2006-67 OF RS.1,75,68,889/- AND ALSO IN THE A.Y. 2007-08 OF RS .34,12,792/-. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A.O IN BOTH THE A.YS. ARE IDEN TICAL. 6. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O DI SALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80 IB(10) IN BOTH THE A.YS. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND LD CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. I T IS TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND LD CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 ARE AS UNDER : 3.16 THEREFORE, A PERUSAL OF THIS DECISION SHOWED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THE MOST RELEVANT POINT AS TO WHO DID TH E MERGER OF THE FLATS AND AT WHAT POINT OF TIME: I.E. WHETHER IT WAS BEFO RE THE SALE OF THE FLAT OR AFTER THE SALE OF FLAT. NOT ONLY THE FACT AS TO WH O DID MERGER WAS IMPORTANT, BUT THE TIMING OF THE MERGER WAS EQUALLY SIGNIFICANT. THIS IMPLIES THAT IF THE MERGER HAS TAKEN PLACE MUCH AFT ER THE SALE TRANSACTION AND HANDING OVER THE POSSESSION; EVEN IF IT WAS DON E BY THE BUILDER, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND, SINCE THE UNITS WERE NOT SOLD A S COMBINED UNITS IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE FACTUAL PO SSESSION AT THE TIME OF THE ACTUAL SALE OF THE UNITS WAS IMPORTANT TO BE AS CERTAINED. THE TRIBUNAL EVEN HELD THAT LETTER FROM ONE OF THE PURCHASER WHI CH WAS FILED AFTER THE HEARING WAS COMPLETED COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON SINC E THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME. THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR FACTUAL FINDING AS TO WHEN THE MERGER OF THE FLATS TOOK PLACE, WHET HER BEFORE THE SALE AND HANDING OVER POSSESSION TO THE BUYER OR AFTER T HAT; AND WHO DID IT. CONSIDERING THIS RATIO OF THE ITAT, PUNE ORDER; SIN CE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE THE FACTUAL POSSESSION INCLUDING THE STATEMENT U/S. 131 OF THE BUYER ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CONTRACTOR CARRYI NG OUT THE ALTERATION REVEALED THAT THE MODIFICATION WAS CARRIED OUT AFTE R THE SALE CONDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT, THIS CANNOT BE TREATED AS A DISQUALI FICATION SO FAR AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IB(10)(C) WAS CONCERNED. 4 ITA NOS.642 & 825/PN/2011 V.J. ASSOCIATES, A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 3.17 MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT COUNTE RED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION REGARD ING THE TIME OF COMBINING UNITS 1-1A, BUT HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT SAY ANY THING ON UNITS 2-2A. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/ R.46A OF THE I.T. RULES. THIS CONTAINED THE CONFIRMATION FROM BUYERS OF UNIT 2-2A THAT THIS WAS DONE BY THEMSELVES AFTER THE SALE HAD TAKEN PLACE. THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED IN THE LETTER DTD. 7.8.2009 REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/R .46A(1), (C) AND (D). THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REPORT ON THE ADMISSIBILIT Y OF THE SAME WAS CALLED FOR ON 12.8.2009. HOWEVER, IN THE REMAND REPORT SU BMITTED ON 8.3.2010, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE ADMIS SION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE; BEING THIS LETTER DTD. 9.1.2009 ALONG WIT H ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS FROM THE PURCHASERS OF UNIT 2-2A. THE AP PELLANT HAS ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING PR ODUCING THE SAME AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SM T. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH, 231 ITR 1 (BOM.); THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE BEIN G ADMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY COMMENTED IN THESE SUBMISSIONS THAT SINCE UNIT HOLDERS OF RH 2-2 A WERE HUSBAND AND WIFE, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SOLD THE UNITS BY MARK ETING THEM AS ONE UNIT, AND THEREFORE, THE COMBINING OF ROW HOUSES 2- 2A WAS AN ADDED DISQUALIFICATION FOR SECTION 80IB(10)(C). HOWEVER, IT IS POINTED OUT HERE THAT THE DISQUALIFICATION FOR BUYING OF UNITS BY HU SBAND AND WIFE OR RELATIVES OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SAME COMPLEX WAS NOT PROHIBITED IN THE SCHEME OF SECTION 80IB(10) TILL THE INSERTION OF CL AUSE (F) OF SECTION 80IB(10) BY FINANCE ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 1.4.2010. THI S CLAUSE (F) PROHIBITS BUYING OF A UNIT IN THE SAME HOUSING PROJECT BY THE SPOUSE OR MINOR CHILDREN OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR BY THE HUF IN WHICH SU CH INDIVIDUAL WAS A KARTA ETC. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE REJECTED AND NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN MERELY ON THESE BASIS FOR THIS YEAR. IT IS NOTICED FROM THIS LETTER OF THE BUYER OF 2-2A SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE ALTERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE M AFTER TAKING POSSESSION, AND THIS LETTER HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS O F THE ALTERATIONS CARRIED OUT ALONG WITH NECESSARY DRAWING ETC., WHICH HAVE A LSO BEEN ENCLOSED WITH THE APPLICATION U/R.46A. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRIES WITH THESE PERSONS DURING THE REMAND PROC EEDINGS TO REJECT THESE CONTENTIONS, OR TO FIND ANY DEFECTS IN THEIR EXPLANATION, OR IN THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THEREF ORE, THE EXPLANATION CANNOT BE REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIO N, IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE J OINING OF THE UNITS WERE CONDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF BEFORE SELLI NG THESE UNITS TO THE BUYERS. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECI SION OF KASTURI HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA); CLAIM U/S. 80IB (10) CANNOT BE DENIED, SINCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE UNITS WERE ACTUA LLY COMBINED AND SOLD. SO FAR AS THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT R EGARDING THE CALCULATION OF BUILT-UP AREA IS CONCERNED, IN WHICH IT HAS OBJE CTED TO THE ADDING OF THE STAIRCASE AREA AND THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE CUPBOARD , THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS POINT, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION M ADE IN THE PRECEDING PARAS. HERE ALSO THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION HAS BE EN THAT THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CUPBOARDS WAS MADE BY THE BUYER S THEMSELVES SUBSEQUENTLY, WHICH WAS IN FACT AN ARCHITECTURAL F EATURE IN THE FORM OF A BOX TYPE ELEVATION. ON THIS EXPLANATION ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMMENTED AT ALL. MOREOVER, IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT THE AREA OF THE STAIR CASE CANNOT BE INCLUDED DUE TO THE D.C. RULES OF THE PMC. HOWEVER, THESE QUESTIONS COME INTO THE RECKONING ONLY WHEN I T IS CONCLUDED THAT THE UNITS WERE COMBINED BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF, WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVED IN THIS CASE. 3.18 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD TH AT THE CLAIM U/S.80IB(10) IS ALLOWABLE TO THE APPELLANT. GROUND NO.1 IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 5 ITA NOS.642 & 825/PN/2011 V.J. ASSOCIATES, A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 7. SO FAR AS THE A.Y. 2007-08 IS CONCERNED, THE LD CIT(A) FOLLOWED HIS DECISION IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT YEAR ALSO, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AS PER THE FACTUAL MATRIX, THERE IS NO DIS PUTE IN RESPECT OF THE AREA OF THE PLOT, NATURE OF THE HOUSING PROJECT, DA TE OF COMMENCEMENT AND DATE OF COMPLETION. THE SOLITARY DISPUTE IS IN RESPECT OF 4 UNITS OF THE ROW HOUSES IN THE ASSESSEES HOUSING PROJECT. AS P ER THE CASE OF THE A.O, THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE CONDITION OF THE AREA OF THE UNIT AS PER CLAUSE (C) IN SEC. 80 IB (10). THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT AS PER THE SANCTIONED PLAN, 4 ROW HOUSES ARE INDEPENDE NT UNITS BUT THE BUYERS OF THOSE ROW HOUSES I.E. 1 AND 1A AS WELL AS 2 AND 2A WHO ARE FAMILY MEMBERS, THEY MADE THE MODIFICATION IN THE R OW HOUSES BY ENGAGING THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIALLY PROVED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT IN FACT THE BUYERS HAVE CARRIED OUT THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE HOUSES PURCHAS ES BY THEN AND THE ASSESSEE AS A BUILDER AND DEVELOPER HAS NOT MADE AN Y CHANGES PRIOR TO THE SALE OF THOSE ROW HOUSES. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE BUYERS OF THE FLAT HAVE ALSO FILED THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE CARRIED OUT THE CHANGES OF MODIFICATIONS IN THE ROW HOUSES PURCHASE D BY THEM . ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED HERE IS THAT THE A.O HAS RE LIED ON DEFINITION OF BUILT UP AREA, WHICH IS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO .2) ACT 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2005. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE HOU SING PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMMENCED PRIOR TO 1.4.2005 AND AS PER THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, THE DEFINITION OF THE BUILT UP AREA BROU GHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK CANNOT BE APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE FATE OF THE ASSE SSEE WHEN ADMITTEDLY HIS PROJECT COMMENCED PRIOR TO 1/4/2005. THE LD. C OUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G.R. DEVELOPERS, 22 TAXMAN.COM, 265 (KAR.). IN THE CASE OF G.R. DEVELOPERS (SUPRA), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE D EFINITION OF THE BUILT UP AREA BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK BY THE FINANCE (NO .2) ACT OF 2004 W.E.F. 1.4.2005 TO SEC. 80 IB (10) CANNOT BE HELD T O BE RETROSPECTIVE AND IT APPLIES TO ONLY TO SUCH HOUSING PROJECTS WHICH ARE APPROVED AFTER 1.4.2005. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUAREL Y COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, PUNE A BENCH IN THE CASE OF KASTURI HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, RATNAGIRI, A.Y. 20 04-05, ITA NO. 1370/PN/07. 6 ITA NOS.642 & 825/PN/2011 V.J. ASSOCIATES, A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 9. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAD LAID SUBSTANTIA L EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT AT THE TIME OF SALE OF FLATS, THE BUILT UP A REA OF ROW HOUSES WAS BELOW 1500 SQ. FT. BUT AS THE BUYERS OF THE FLATS A RE CLOSELY RELATED FAMILY MEMBERS, THEY CARRIED OUT THE MODIFICATION BY JOINI NG THE ROW HOUSES. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE BUILT UP AREA INTRODUCED IN SEC. 80 IB (10)(14) BY INSERTION OF CLAUSE (C ) IS HAVING THE PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESS EES HOUSING PROJECT AS ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEES HOUSING PROJECT IS CO MMENCED PRIOR TO 1.4.2005. IN OUR OPINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLE D FOR ON THE FACTS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE IN THE REASONED ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A). WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE SAME IN BOTH THE A.YS. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH OC TOBER 2012. SD/- SD/- (R.K.PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S.PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 5TH OCTOBER, 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT- II, PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 5. THE D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE /- TRUE COPY-/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE