Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Pune V. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune

ITA 657/PUN/2021

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) which favored Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., concerning the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The primary issues revolved around the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act in the context of the life insurance business and the treatment of excess provisions for income-tax in the accounts of the insurance company. The CIT(A) had ruled that section 14A did not apply due to the specific provisions governing the taxation of life insurance companies under section 44 and the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings, referencing several Supreme Court and High Court decisions that supported the non-applicability of section 14A in this context and the specific treatment of tax provisions in the accounts of life insurance companies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137571 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2021
• Other Referred Cases: Life Insurance Corpn. of India vs. CIT, CIT vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., PCIT vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., CIT vs. ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd., PCIT vs. Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Revised return; CHAPTER IV
• Section: 28; 43B; 143(3); 14A; 201; 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune-411006. PAN : AADCA1701E Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the Revenue directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.06.2021 and 30.06.2021 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both the above captioned appeals of the Revenue, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.656/PUN/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13 are stated herein. Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel Assessee by : Shri Percy Pardiwala Date of hearing : 11.12.2022 Date of pronouncement : 10.01.2023 ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 2 ITA No.656/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2012-13 : 4. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The. Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income tax Act 1961 amounting to Rs.5,84,063/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that section 14A contemplates an exception for deductions allowable under the Act as contained u/s 28 to 43B of the Act and that Section 44 creates special application of these provisions in the cases of insurance companies which prohibits the Assessing Officer to travel beyond section 44 and First Schedule of the Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 nowhere restricts the applicability of section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing excess provision of tax as the actual tax liability can be ascertained once the books of accounts audited by Auditor/IRDA and the surplus in revenue account is finalised. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing for provisions for shareholders account even though the vide Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2002 every insurer was required to keep separate accounts relating to funds of shareholders and policyholders, 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the interest income, income from investment, rental income etc., in shareholders' account. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee’s appeal even though the assessee had not claimed the exemptions while filing the return of income and therefore, cannot be entertained without being claimed in the return of income filed. Every claim of deduction has to be made through a revised return of income only. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee’s appeal purely on assumption and presumption basis by holding from the submission of the assessee that the mostly interest is from tax free bonds and the assessee has received various exempt incomes under section 10(23AAB) and section 10(34). 10. The Appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.” 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 3 The respondent-assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of life insurance. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed on 21.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1225,29,85,630/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 08.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.1316,81,70,200/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,84,063/- u/s 14A rejecting the contention of the respondent- assessee that the only expenditure of Rs.17,937/- was incurred to earn the exempt income of Rs.6,02,000/-, rejecting the contention of the respondent-assessee that the provisions of section 14A have no application in view of the non-obstante provisions of section 44 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of excess provisions of income-tax of Rs.58,35,50,500/- rejecting the contention of the respondent-assessee that in case of an assessee engaged in life insurance business, the manner of computing the tax on the profits is prescribed under Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act and which clearly provides that the profits and gains on life insurance business means the surplus or deficit arrived ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 4 at by making the adjustments prescribed in the said Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act to the surplus or deficit disclosed by the actuarial valuation made in accordance with Insurance Act, 1938. Similarly, the Assessing Officer also made addition on provision of tax in case of shareholder account against the profits arrived at Rs.33,10,50,000/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the very applicability of the provisions of section 14A as well as the addition made on account of excess provisions of Income Tax of Rs.58,35,50,500/- made in the books of account on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not power to tinker with the profits disclosed in view of the non- obstante provisions of section 44 read with Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. The respondent-assessee also challenged the addition made on account of provision for income-tax in shareholders profits of Rs.33,10,50,000/- made in the Profits & Loss Account on the same lines. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/s 14A following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.. 7. As regards to the addition made on account of excess provisions of income tax in the policy holder accounts of Rs.58.36 ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 5 crores, the ld. CIT(A) after making a reference to the provisions of section 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act and following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corpn. of India vs. CIT, 51 ITR 773 (SC) and CIT vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., 291 ITR 370 (SC) held that the Assessing Officer had no power to correct errors in the account of insurance company for the purpose of computing the taxable income u/s 44 r.w. Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. The same reasoning was applied by the ld. CIT(A) even with regard to the addition on account of provisions for income-tax on shareholder profits. The ld. CIT(A) also allowed the additional ground of appeal filed by the respondent-assessee seeking the exemption of interest income of Rs.1,57,51,109/- u/s 10(15) placing reliance on the plethora of decisions. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) came to be allowed in its entirety. 8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 9. Ground of appeal no.1 and 10 are general in nature and the same are dismissed as such. 10. Ground of appeal no.2 to 4 challenges the correctness of the finding the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the provisions of section 14A ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 6 have no application while computing the taxable profits of an assessee engaged in the life insurance business in light of non- obstante provisions of section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT-DR contends that the provisions of section 44 have application only in relation to the income earned from the business of life insurance business and, therefore, cannot have application while computing the business income under the head “other sources”. 11. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that applicability of section 14A was excluded in relation to the computation of income of the assessee engaged in the life insurance business in view of the non- obstante provisions of section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 118 taxmann.com 248 (Delhi). 12. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for our consideration in the present ground of appeal nos.2 to 4 is with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 14A in relation to computation of income of an assessee engaged in the life insurance business. The provisions of section 44 provides that the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 7 relating to the computation of income of an assessee engaged in the life insurance business excludes those provisions contained in sections 28 to 43B of the Act. It is also important to note that section 14A begins the words “for the purposes of computing the total income under this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred. . . . . . . . .”. The chapter in question is chapter IV. This chapter also contains the provisions relating to computation of profits and gains of business or profession. The identical issue was came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein, it was clearly held that the applicability of provisions of section 14A was excluded in relation to the computation of taxable income of an assessee engaged in the life insurance business by holding as under :- “9. .......... Thus, the exclusion would take within its sweepsection 14A which is an exemption for deductions as allowable under the Act, as provided under section 28 to 43B. Further, section 44 is a special provision applicable in the cases of insurance companies and applies, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of the Income-tax Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under different heads. For computing the profits and gains of the business of insurance company, the AO had to resort to section 44 and the prescribed rules, and could not have applied section 28 to 43B, since the same were excluded from the purview of section 44. This necessarily includes the exception provision enshrined under section 14A of the Act.” 13. Thus, in view of non-obstante provisions of section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act, which clearly ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 8 excludes the applicability of provisions of sections 28 to 43B in relation to the computation of income of an assessee engaged in the life insurance business, the provisions of section 14A have no application while computing the income under Chapter IV, we are of the considered opinion that resort to provisions of section 14A cannot be made while computing the income of insurance company. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground of appeal nos.2 to 4 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 14. Ground of appeal no.5 challenges the decision of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the excess provisions of income-tax of Rs.58.36 crores debited in the books of account as expenditure. The factual background of the above ground of appeal no.5 is as under :- During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the respondent-assessee made a provision for income-tax at Rs.224 crores as against actual liability of Rs.165.64 crores. Such excess provisions were made in the revenue account by Rs.38.38 crores and shareholders account by Rs.5.27 crores. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer, the respondent-assessee made excess provisions for income-tax of Rs.58.36 crores. According to the Assessing Officer, such excess provisions cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the profits and gains of ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 9 business of the respondent-assessee, accordingly, brought such excess provision to tax. 15. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was held that the taxable profits of the life insurance company should be computed in the manner laid down u/s 44 r.w. Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. The provisions of section 44 starts with non- obstante clause, therefore, overrides all other provisions of the Income Tax Act. The provisions of Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act provides that the taxable profits of insurance company shall be computed considering the surplus/deficit arrived at after making the adjustments prescribed under the said Rule to the surplus/deficit as disclosed by actuarial valuation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corpn. of India vs. CIT, 51 ITR 773 (SC) had laid down that in computation of profits and gains of the insurance company, the Assessing Officer has to accept the surplus/deficit as disclosed by actuarial valuation and the Assessing Officer had no power to correct the errors in accounts of the assessee or an insurance company. The Assessing Officer has no power to tamper with account of the assessee engaged in life insurance business. The ratio of this judgement was reiterated subsequently by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of General ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 10 Insurance Corpn. of India vs. CIT, 156 CTR 425 (SC) by holding as under :- “19. There is another approach to the same issue. Section 44 of the Income- tax Act read with the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Act lays down an artificial mode of computing the profits and gains of insurance business. For the purpose of income-tax, the figures in the accounts of the assessee drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act and satisfying the requirements of the Insurance Act are binding on the assessing officer under the Income-tax Act and he has no general power to correct the errors in the accounts of an insurance business and undo the entries made therein.” 16. Again, the above ratio was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., 291 ITR 370 (SC). The ratio that can be culled out from the above referred judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of income-tax relating to the computation of chargeable income under head “profits and gains of business”, the profits of life insurance business are to be computed according to Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. The provisions of section 44 bars the operations of the provisions of the computation of income under different heads specified therein. Further, the Assessing Officer can only make an adjustment to the surplus/deficit disclosed by actuarial valuations which are permissible under the Rule only. The Assessing Officer had no power to tamper with the surplus/deficit disclosed by actuarial valuation. It must be noted that the Rule 2 of ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 11 First Schedule of the Income Tax Act prescribed the manner in which taxable profits of an assessee engaged in the life insurance business should be computed. The provisions of Rule 5 prescribes the manner of computation of profits and gains of business of insurance other than the life insurance. Subsequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the provisions of Rule 5 have been amended in relation to the business of general insurance empowering the Assessing Officer to make adjustment to the profits as disclosed by the assessee engaged in the non-life insurance business. In the circumstances, it is enumerated in clause (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 5, whereas, no such power has been conferred on the Assessing Officer to make any kind of adjustments as disclosed in the profits and gains prepared in accordance with provisions of the Insurance Act in relation to the life insurance business. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corpn. of India vs. CIT, 51 ITR 773 (SC) that the Assessing Officer had no power to do anything not contained in Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act still holds field. In the light of the above discussions, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition on account of excess provisions of income-tax debited in the books of account. In the circumstances, ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 12 we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of excess provisions of income-tax, and does not warrant interference by us. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.5 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 17. Ground of appeal no.6 challenges the decision of the ld. CIT(A) taxing the income arising on account of shareholders profits. The brief factual background of the grounds of appeal no.6 is as under : During the assessment year under consideration, the respondent-assessee company in terms of the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1930, as amended from time to time, had prepared a separate account relating to the funds of the shareholders account and policyholders accounts. The separate record was also prepared as prescribed under the Regulations. The respondent-assessee company also made a Provision for tax on the profits made in the shareholders accounts. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the Provision for tax made in respect of profits & loss account of shareholders account cannot be allowed as deduction in computing the taxable income of the life insurance business of the respondent-assessee company. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.33,10,50,000/- was brought to tax by the Assessing Officer. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the same came to be allowed by ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 13 holding that preparation of separate Profit & Loss Account in respect of both policyholders account and shareholders account is a mere compliance statutory requirement and the shareholders activities is integral part of the business of life insurance carried on by the respondent-assessee and no separate addition is warranted. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer not to make any addition on account of Provision for tax made in respect of shareholders profits disclosed in the shareholders accounts. 18. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present ground of appeal no.6. 19. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the provisions of Insurance Act as amended w.e.f. 2002 requires an assessee to maintain a separate account relating to the funds of the shareholders accounts and policyholder accounts, the profits disclosed in the shareholders account does not form part of the business of life insurance carrying on by the respondent-assessee. The ld. CIT(A) had applied wrongly principle of law and, therefore, it is prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be reversed. 20. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that the provisions of Rule 2 of First Schedule of the Income Tax Act would be attracted even in respect of the profits as disclosed by the shareholders accounts. He submits that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the business ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 14 of life insurance and the profits as disclosed in the shareholders account is part and parcel of life insurance business and requires to be integrated and has to be taken into consideration into total surplus as arrived at actuarial valuation and the income from the shareholders account was also to be taxed as part of life insurance business placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT vs. ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd., 242 Taxma 159 (Bombay) followed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 444 ITR 518 (Karnataka). 21. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue that arises for consideration in the present ground of appeal no.6 is whether an assessee engaged in the business of life insurance, whether the surplus available in the shareholders account engaged in the life insurance business can be taxed separately from other sources or it should be treated as part and parcel of income from life insurance business by combining the surplus available with the shareholders accounts and with the policyholders accounts. The issue is no longer res integra as it stands settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd., 73 taxmann.com 201 (Bombay) by observing as under :- ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 15 “5. So far as Question No. 8 is concerned, the grievance of the revenue is that the income on shareholders' account has to be taxed as income from other sources. This on the ground that the income earned on shareholders' account is not an income which represents income on account of Life Insurance Business. Therefore it is the revenue's contention that it has to be taxed as income from other sources. The impugned order while allowing the assessee's appeal holds that income earned on shareholders' amount has to be considered as arising out of Life Insurance Business. Moreover in terms of Section 44 of the Act, such income has to be taxed in accordance with First Schedule as provided therein. None of the authorities under the Act nor even before us is it urged that the assessee is carrying on separate business other than life insurance business. Accordingly, the impugned order holding that the income from shareholders' account is also to be taxed as a part of life insurance business cannot be found fault with in view of the clear mandate of Section 44 of the Act. Accordingly Question No. 8 also does not raise any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.” 22. Even the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court following the decision relied upon by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) held that where the assessee company was engaged only in life insurance business and was not carrying on any other business, surplus or deficit as per shareholders account is to be aggregated with surplus or deficit with policyholders account for the purpose of determining the Profit & Loss Account of an assessee engaged in life insurance business u/s 44 of the Act. Then, the findings given by us in relation to the computation of taxable income of the assessee in para 16 of this order would also apply. The ratio of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, we do not find any perversity or fallacy in the order of the ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 16 ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground of appeal no.6 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 23. Ground of appeal nos.7, 8 and 9 challenges the decision of the ld. CIT(A) allowing the additional ground of appeal filed before him claiming exemption of interest income of Rs.1,57,51,109/-. During the course of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), an additional ground of appeal was filed claiming exemption of interest u/s 10(15) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) after calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer allowed the additional ground of appeal following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC). 24. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present ground of appeal nos.7, 8 and 9. 25. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have allowed the additional ground of appeal, inasmuch as, no relief can be granted by the ld. CIT(A) which was not claimed in the return of income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC). 26. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that there is no embargo on the powers of the ld. CIT(A) to admit an additional ground of appeal which involves pure question of law requiring no ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 17 investigation or enquiry into the facts placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra). 27. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is settled position of law that the powers of the ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) can admit an additional ground of appeal which involves pure question of law requiring no investigation into facts as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, 349 ITR 336 (Bombay). It is not the case of the Department that the interest income claimed by the respondent-assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s 10(15) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any illegality and perversity allowing the additional ground of appeal by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground of appeal nos.7, 8 and 9 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 28. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.656/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2012-13 stands dismissed. ITA No.657/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2013-14 : 29. Since the facts and issues involved in both appeals of the Revenue are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA ITA Nos.656 & 657/PUN/2021 18 No.656/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2012-13 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.657/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.657/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14 stands dismissed. 30. To sum up, both the above appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 10 th day of January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 10 th January, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “C” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.