Shri Haresh Talreja (HUF), Satara V. Dy. CIT, Satara Circle, Satara

ITA 684/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6956 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Proportionate interest; Question of law; Validity of assessment; Onus to prove; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 37(1); 131; 37; 12; 28

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE , ! ' # , % & BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 ! ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI HARESH TALREJA (HUF), PROP. TALREJA TRADERS (HUF), PLOT NO.885, P.B. HIGHWAY ROAD, MALKAPUR, KARAD, SATARA DISTRICT. PAN NO.AABHT6422Q. . / APPELLANT V/S DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. L. KUREEL. ) / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORD ER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) III, PUNE DATED 30.09.201 1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. / DATE OF HEARING :03.01.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.03.2017 2 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- 2.1 ASSESSEE IS A HUF WHICH RUNS A PROPRIETARY FIRM IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. TALREJA TRADE, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING PACKAGING MATERIALS SUCH AS BOTTLE, LABELS, CAPS ETC. TO SUGAR FACTORY. ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 29.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,37,677/ -. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSES SMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 A ND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.89,80,670/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A ), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 30.09.2011 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-III/SATARA CIRCLE/708/09-10/551) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN AFFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY THE A. O. OF RS. 83,12,185/- RESORTING TO P ROVISIONS OF S. 40A(2)(B) BUT WITHOUT PROVING TO THE HILT ANY EV ASION OF INCOME PRACTICED BY THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE SINCE EX PENDITURE INCURRED WAS ESSENTIAL FOR THE CARRYING ON OF THE B USINESS AND THE EXTENT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS COMMENSURATE WITH THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF EX PENDITURE DENIED BY A.O. AND UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) WAS SIMPLY ON APPREHENSIONS AND SURMISES. THE EXPENDITURE BE ALLO WED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN AFFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY THE A. O. OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST RESORTI NG TO PROVISIONS OF 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROPERL Y APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION. THE DISALLOWANCE B E DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN AFFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY AO ON ESTIMATION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EX PENSES. THE DISALLOWANCE BEING NOT SUSTAINABLE BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C IS NOT JUS TIFIED AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT BE DELETED. 3 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. ASSESSEE THEREAFTER THROUGH LD.A.R. ON 15.03.2016 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.24.12.2009 IS VITIATED IN LAW S INCE MANDATORY NOTICE REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED UNDER S. 143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SO ISSUED WITHIN THE LIMITATION LAID DO WN IN THE PROVISO TO S.143(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT MADE THEREFORE, VIDE ORDER DT.24.12.2009 IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JUR ISDICTION. IT BE QUASHED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE FIRST NOTICE U/S 143(2) DT.19.09.2008 WAS ISSUED BY THE AO WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. THE SAME WA S NOT VALID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.143(2) WAS BEYOND LIM ITATION. THE DEEMING FUNCTION UNDER SEC.292BB APPLIES FOR SE RVICE OF NOTICE AND NOT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF TH E ACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.24.12.2009 IS BAD IN LAW AND WI THOUT JURISDICTION. IT BE QUASHED. 3.. THE APPELLANT CRAVES/LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALT ER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS INVOLVE PURE QUESTION OF LAW AND DOES NOT REQUIRE VERIFICATION OF AN Y RECORDS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BE ING LEGAL IN NATURE AND SINCE IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, THE SAME BE ADMITTED AND FOR THIS PROPOSITION RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS. CIT 229 ITR 383(SC) AND JUTE COR PN. OF INDIA VS. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC). LD. D.R. OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E QUESTION RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, BEING THE 4 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT, BEING A QUESTION OF LAW, IT REQUIRES TO BE ADMITTED AND WE THEREFORE ADMIT THE SAME. 6. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.4, IT BEING CONSEQUE NTIAL IN NATURE IT REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. WE NOW TAKE UP THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DT.24.12.2009 FRAMED U/S 143(3) TO BE BAD-IN-LAW AND WITHOU T JURISDICTION AS ACCORDING TO HIM THE MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT ISSUED WITHIN THE LIMITATION AS LAID DOWN IN PROVISO TO SEC.143(2) OF THE ACT. 7. LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WAS FILED ON 29.10.2007. AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC.143(2), THE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED WITHIN 6 MO NTHS FROM THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED. SINCE THE RETURN WAS FILED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08, THE MANDATOR Y NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON OR BEFORE 30.09.2008. LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY ITO, WARD -1, SATARA ON 19.09.2008. LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ITO WARD 1, SATARA H AD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE SUCH NOTICE AS THE JURISDICTION WAS T RANSFERRED TO DCIT, SATARA. THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 21.08.2009 BY DCIT, SATARA WAS AFTER THE PRESCRIBED DATE, THE NOTICE WAS B ARRED BY LIMITATION. LD.A.R. THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INITIAL REQUIREMENT OF ISSUANCE OF VALID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN SENT BY AO, THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.292BB OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARIS E AND THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) BY ORDER DT.24.1 2.2009 IS 5 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 BAD-IN-LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE THE SAME BE QUASHED. 8. LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME F OR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 29.10.2007 AND HAD FILED INCOME TAX RETURN S BEFORE ITO, WARD-I, SATARA, BEING THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE WA S HOLDING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2007 THE NOTICE WAS SER VED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 24.09.2008. IT WAS WELL WITHIN THE TIME L IMIT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE BEING 30.09.2008. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES OBJECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF N OTICE BEING AFTER THE DUE DATE IS NOT RIGHT. SINCE THE RETURN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDED RS.5,00,000/-, ITO, WARD-1, SATARA TRANSFERRED T HE CASE TO DCIT, SATARA AS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE CASES HAVING R ETURNED INCOME EXCEEDING RS.5,00,000/- LIES WITH DCIT. THEREAFTER, DC IT, SATARA CONTINUED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING FRESH NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 21.08.2009 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSM ENT ON 24.12.2009 BY PASSING ORDER U/S 143(3). HE FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT AS PER THE ORDER U/S 120 OF THE ACT DT.10.06.2005 THE DCIT/ACIT EXERCISES THE POWERS AND PERFORMS THE FUNCTIONS CONCURR ENTLY IN RESPECT OF THE CASES SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY AO OR D CIT. HE FURTHER PLACED ON RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SOHAN LAL SEWA RAM JAGGI REPORTED IN (2009) 222 CTR 412 (ALLAHABAD). LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS SESSEE DID NOT RAISE THE OBJECTION OF JURISDICTION EITHER BEFORE AO OR LD. CIT(A). 6 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE M ANDATORY NOTICE REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED U/S 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED W ITHIN THE LIMITATION LAID DOWN AS PER PROVISO TO SEC.143(2) OF THE ACT, T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.24.12.2009 IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDIC TION. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD ELECTRONICALLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2007 BEFORE ITO WARD(1) SATARA A ND THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY HIM ON 19.09.2008. THE CAS E WAS TRANSFERRED TO ACIT/DCIT ON 28.07.2009 ONLY AS THE INCO ME OF ASSESSEE EXCEEDED RS.5,00,000/- AND THE FRESH NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY ACIT/DCIT ON 21.08.2009. BEFORE US, REVEN UE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PROVISO OF SEC.120 OF THE A CT, AO AS WELL AS ACIT/DCIT CONCURRENTLY HOLD THE CHARGE OF ASSES SEE AND THAT THE TRANSFER OF CASE FROM ITO TO ACIT/DCIT IS ONL Y FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE. THE AFORESAID SUBMI SSION OF REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY ASSESSEE. FURT HER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS EARLIER EITHER BEFORE AO OR CIT(A) AND HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE A FORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY ASSE SSEE WITH RESPECT TO JURISDICTION IS WITHOUT MERITS AND THEREFORE DISMISSED. 10. GROUND 1 IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 10.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND O N PERUSING THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD G IVEN SALES COMMISSION OF RS.29,43,165/- TO MRS. SIMRAN TALREJA AND RS.53,69,020/- TO MRS. JAYA H. TALREJA, THE AGGREGATE OF S UCH 7 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 COMMISSION WAS RS.83,12,185/-. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT NO SALE S COMMISSION WAS GIVEN TO EITHER OF THESE LADIES IN EARLIER YE ARS AND BOTH THESE LADIES WERE PERSONS COVERED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF TH E ACT. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ENTRY FOR SALES COMMISSION WAS PASSE D BY A JOURNAL ENTRY ON 31.03.2007. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENDITURE AND SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISSION FOR PURCHASING OF PACKING MATERIAL AND THE EXPENDITURE WAS REASONABLE. THE SUBMIS SION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO FOR T HE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD NEVER PAID SUCH COMMISSION TO ANY PERSON IN THE PAST AND THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT HUGE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO CLOSE RELATIVES. AO ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT U/S 131 (1), BOTH THE LADIES HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EX PENDITURE WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND TDS HAS ALSO BEEN D EDUCTED WAS ALSO FOUND NOT ACCEPTABLE TO AO. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE AGGREGATE COMMISSION OF RS.83,12,185/- PAID BY ASSESSEE TO THE TW O LADIES NAMELY SIMRAN TALREJA AND JAYA TALREJA TO BE EXCE SSIVE AND UNREASONABLE AND WITHOUT LEGITIMATE BUSINESS NEEDS AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED IT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 2.3 THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE APPELLANT ARE CAREFULLY EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE CLAIMED PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE AS DEDUCTION FROM TAXABLE PROFITS, THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE AND IT H AS BEEN LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS E OF THE BUSINESS IS ON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, MERE PAYM ENT BY CHEQUE WOULD NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCTI ON OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE UNLESS THE SAME WAS PROVED TO BE PAID FOR COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATION. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO 8 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 PLACE SUFFICIENT MATERIALS, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO C LAIM ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 37(1). IN CIT V. CHANDRAVIL AS HOTEL [1987] 164 ITR 102 (GUJ.) IT IS HELD THAT IF THE EXPENDITURE IS DOUBTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE BY LEADING EVIDEN CE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN FACT, INCURRED FOR BUSI NESS PURPOSES. THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES EVEN TO COMMIS SION PAYMENTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO WHAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE PAYEES FOR THE APPELLANT FOR WHICH THE PAYMENTS/CREDITS OF COMMISS ION WERE MADE. 2.3.1 IN THE PREMISE OF THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, IT IS NOW EXAMINED WHETHER THESE NECESSARY CONDITIONS EXISTED IN THE PRESENT CASE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION TOWARDS PURCHASE COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 37(1) AND WHETHER THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON IT. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE COMMISSION PAYMENTS WERE MADE ARE INTER-RELATED PARTIES OR CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE APPELLANT. THEREF ORE, ONUS OF A VERY HIGH DEGREE WAS CAST UPON THE APPELLANT T O PROVE THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS GENUINE AND IT WAS IN CURRED FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID PERSONS FOR T HE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. BUT, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THE EXACT NATURE OF SERVIC ES RENDERED BY PAYEES WITH NECESSARY SUPPORTING EVIDEN CE EXCEPT VAGUELY STATING THAT THEY HAVE ARRANGED PURCHASES FOR THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT FAILED T O PRODUCE ANY AGREEMENT OR CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE SAID PERSONS TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO RENDER PARTICULAR SERVICES FOR T HE APPELLANT AND AT A PARTICULAR RATE OF COMMISSION. T HE APPELLANT ALSO NOT PRODUCED CORRESPONDENCE, IF ANY, ENTERED INTO BY THE SAID PERSONS EITHER WITH THE AP PELLANT OR WITH THE SUPPLIERS OF THE APPELLANT TO SHOW THAT CERTAIN SERVICES, AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, WERE UNDERTA KEN AND IN FACT RENDERED BY THE SAID TWO PERSONS. IT IS ALSO NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE PARTIES CONCERNED HAD THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE, EXPERTISE AND RESOURCES T O UNDERTAKE ALLEGED SERVICES OF ARRANGING PURCHASES O N BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT AS PER THE LETTER DATED 09.12.2009 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN BOTH THE CASES, THE ENTIRE COMMISSION WAS CREDIT ED TO THE PAYEES ACCOUNT ON 31 ST MARCH 2007 BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRIES AND NO PAYMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT CERTAIN TARGETS WERE FIXED FOR THE COMMISSION AGENT S AND THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED ON 31.03.2007 AFTER THEY ACHIEVED THE TARGETS FIXED. IN CASE OF GENUINE EXPE NDITURE, THERE WOULD BE PERIODICAL PAYMENTS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED AND THE PAYMENTS EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY A RE MADE AS AND WHEN THE SERVICES ARE RENDERED. MOREOVE R, THIS IS ALSO NOT A CASE WHERE THE SUPPLIERS ARE NEW TO THE APPELLANT OR THE APPELLANT IS NEW TO THIS BUSINESS OR NOT KNOWN TO THE SUPPLIERS EARLIER OR THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION ARE SOLITARY TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE THE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH THE SAID PERSONS. THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN IN THE SAME BUSINESS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND THE APPELLANT NEVER PAID SUCH COMMISSION TO ANY PERSONS IN THE PA ST 9 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 AND THE APPELLANT HIMSELF USED TO PLACE ORDERS FOR ITS PURCHASES. FURTHER, AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, COMMISSION/INCENTIVE/DISCOUNT IS NORMALLY PAID TO THE CUSTOMERS TO PROMOTE SALES AND IT IS RATHER UNUSUAL TO INCUR COMMISSION EXPENDITURE FOR ARRANGING PURCH ASES. THOUGH IN THEIR STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SEC. 131, SMT. SIMRAN B TALREJA AND SMT. JAYA H TALREJA HAVE STATE D THAT THEY HAVE ARRANGED PURCHASES FOR THE APPELLANT , THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT CERTAIN SERVICES, AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, WERE IN FACT RENDERED BY THEM. FURTHER, SINCE THEY ARE INTERESTE D PERSONS IN THE TRANSACTIONS/CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS BUT NATURAL THEY WOULD OBLIGE THE APPELLANT BY VAGUELY STATING THAT THEY ARRANGED PURCHASES ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, SUCH STATEMENTS BY THEMSELVES WOULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SERVICES WE RE RENDERED AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT OR THE DEPONENTS ARE REQUIRED TO ADDUCE NECESSARY EVID ENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SERVICES AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLA NT WERE RENDERED TO THE APPELLANT AND FOR THESE SERVIC ES PAYMENTS/CREDITS WERE MADE BUT THE APPELLANT OR THE SAID TWO PERSONS HAVE FAILED TO DO SO. 2.3.2 ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLAN T IS THAT THE TWO PERSONS HAVE ADMITTED THE COMMISSION O N RECEIPT BASIS FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDI TURE CANNOT BE QUESTIONED. BUT IN CASE OF SMT. SIMRAN B TALREJA, THE SO-CALLED PURCHASE COMMISSION WAS ADMI TTED AS INCOME ONLY IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY HER O N 30.12.2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 I.E, AFTER FINALIZA TION OF ASSESSMENT ON 24.12.2009 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT. THE PURCHASE COMMISSION WAS NOT ADMITTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FURNISHED BY HER ON 22.09.2008. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN HER CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 IS SCANNED AND REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ITNS 65 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT 1 NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. SIMRAN BHARAT TALREJA 885, OPP. AKSHAT MANGAL KARYALAYA MALKAPUR, KARAD, DIST-SATARA 2 PAN NO. ADLPT2339P 3 DIST / WARD / SECTION ITO, WD.1, SATARA 4 STATUS INDIVIDUAL 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 6 WHETHER RESIDENT / NON- RESIDENT RESIDENT 7 METHOD OF ACCOUNTING MERCANTILE 8 PREVIOUS YEAR 01.04.2007 TO 31.03.2008 9 NATURE OF BUSINESS RETAIL SALE TRADE IN BEER & FOREIGN LIQUOR-FL, ETC. 10 DATE OF HEARING AS PER ORDER SHEET 11 DATE OF ORDER 23.12.2010 12 SECTION AND SUB-SECTION UNDER WHICH ORDER IS PASSED 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 10 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 22.09.2008 AND SUBSEQUENTLY. REVIS ED RETURN FILED ON 30.12.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME A T RS.31,32,926/- AS PER REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. . ASSESSEE FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 22.09.2008 WHEREIN SHE HAS D ECLARED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,31,270/-. IN THIS RETURN PURCH ASE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM TALAREJA TRADES (HUF) AMOUNTING TO RS.29,02,055/- WAS REMAINED TO B E INCLUDED. THOUGH, TAX AUDIT U/S.44AB WAS COMPLETED. THE, SAID FIGURES OF COMMISSION WERE ALSO REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED WITHIN PURVIEW OF TAX AUDIT. SUBSEQUENT LY, AFTER CONSIDERING THIS PURCHASE COMMISSION ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN ON 30.12.2009. THUS, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INCOMPLETE AUDIT REPORT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TREA TED AS FILED U/S.44AB. IN VIEW OF THIS A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE FOR PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE I.T.ACT IS SEPARATELY ISSUE D FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF U/S.44AB. THE SAID PURCHASE COMMISSION WAS NOT ADMITTED FOR A .Y. 2007-08 BY SIMRAN B TALREJA ON THE GROUND THAT SHE WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN CASE OF INCOME FROM PURCHASE COMMISSION BUSINESS. BUT, AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE SCANNED IMPRESSION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. SIMRAN TALREJA , THE PURCHASE COMMISSION WAS NOT ADMITTED BY HER IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN EVEN FOR A.Y. 2008-09. IT IS ONLY W HEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER STARTED QUESTIONING THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY SIMRAN TALREJA AND THE GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE; SHE FILED REVISED RETUR N ON 30.12.2009 ADMITTING THE SO-CALLED COMMISSION INCOM E TO GIVE A COLOR OF GENUINENESS TO THE TRANSACTIONS. SI MILARLY, IN THE CASE OF OTHER PERSON, SMT. JAYA H TALREJA, T HE COMMISSION WAS NOT ADMITTED IN HER RETURN FILED FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON THE SAME GROUND THAT SHE WAS ALSO FOLLOW ING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN CASE OF INCOME FROM PURCHASE COMMISSION BUSINESS, BUT CREDIT FOR CORRESPONDING TDS WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SHE WAS FOLLOWING ACCRUAL SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR OTHER SO URCES OF INCOME. THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FILED BY S MT. JAYA HARESH TALREJA WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A .Y. 2007-08 IS ENCLOSED TO THE ORDER AS ANNEXURE A. THU S, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT BUT FOR THE SCRUTINY OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SEC. 143(2), THE PAYEES WOULD NOT HAVE ADMITTED THE SO-CALLED PURCHASE COMMISSION IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE SO-CALLED PURCHASE COMMIS SION IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE FICTITIOUS EXPENDIT URE WAS BOOKED BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRIES ON 31.03.2007 WITH A VIEW TO DIVERT ITS INCOME TO CLOSE RELATIVES OF THE APPELLANT UNDER THE GARB OF 'PURCHASE COMMISSION' A ND REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, 11 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 MERELY BECAUSE, THE PAYEES ADMITTED COMMISSION AS INCOME IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y . 2008- 09, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS JUSTIFIED. 2.3.3 THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT CONSEQUENT TO SERVICES RENDERED BY THE SAID PARTIES , THE PURCHASES HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY DURING THE YEAR. BUT, AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, THE APPELLANT NEVER PAID SUCH COMMISSION IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION, T HERE WAS INCREASE IN PURCHASES IN THE EARLIER YEARS. AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, NO CORRESPONDENCE OR ANY OTH ER EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR AT THE APPELLATE STAGE TO SHOW THAT THE PAYEES HAVE DONE LIAISON WOK WITH THE SUPPLIERS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPEL LANT THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR, WHICH WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE SAID PERSONS, IS NOT AT ALL CONVI NCING. ANOTHER ASPECT HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IS THAT THE ENTIRE COMMISSI ON, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS SUBJECTED TO TDS BY THE APPELLANT AND TAX WAS DEDUCTED AND PAID TO THE GOVT. A/C. ACCORDING TO TH E LEARNED A.R., IF TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, THEN THE EXPENDITURE WILL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION, NOTWITHST ANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SEC.40A(2)(A) OF THE IT. ACT. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT WELL FOUNDED. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT WHETHER THE IMPUG NED EXPENDITURE IS GENUINE AND WHETHER IT WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE, MERELY TAX WAS DEDUCT ED AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE CREDITS TO THE PAR TIES' ACCOUNTS ON 31.03.2007, IT DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY ES TABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE IS GENUINE AND IT WAS INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE APPELLANT. TH E REFERENCE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE TDS PROVISIONS AN D SECTION 199 IS MISPLACED AS THESE PROVISIONS COME I NTO OPERATION ONLY IF THE EXPENDITURE OR THE LIABILITY IS OTHERWISE GENUINE. THEREFORE, MERE DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OR PAYMENT OR MERE PAY MENT BY CHEQUE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR DOES NOT MAKE A NON- GENUINE TRANSACTION 2.3.4 AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF ITAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF DCITSR-3, PUN E VS. KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO. LTD IN ITA NO.415/PN/1995 DATED 24/3/2006, WHEREIN DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS UPHELD BY THE ITAT, PUNE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF SHOWIN G AS TO WHAT SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY THE AGENTS FOR WHICH THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION WERE MADE. FURTHER, IN CASE OF KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES PUNE VS. DCIT.SR.L, PUNE IN I TA NO. 429/PN/97 AND 606/PN/99 DATED 23/6/2006, DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURE WAS UPHELD B Y THE ITAT, PUNE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH THAT PAYE E HAS RENDERED ANY SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH NECESSITATED THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO HIM. IN 12 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 ANOTHER CASE OF LAXMI OIL ENGINES PVT. LTD., KOLHAP UR VS. ACIT.CIR.2, KOLHAPUR IN ITA NO.717/PN/06 & 682/PN/06 DATED 25/04/2008 THE ITAT, PUNE CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION AS THE ASSESSEE IS UNABL E TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS H AVE ACTUALLY RENDERED THE SERVICES. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ITAT IN THAT CASE THAT MERE EXISTENCE OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS SELLING AGENTS OR PAYM ENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS COMMISSION DOES NOT BIND THE A.O TO HOLD THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE EXCLUSIVELY AND WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD ALTHOUGH THERE MIGHT BE SUCH AGREEMENT AND THE PAYMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE, IT IS STILL OPEN TO THE A.O TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT FACTS AND DETAI LS FOR HIS DETERMINATION WHETHER THE COMMISSION SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE AGENTS OR ANY PART THEREOF IS PROPERLY DEDUCTIBLE U/S 37 OF THIS ACT. IN THE PRES ENT CASE ALSO, THE APPELLANT IS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE ACTUALLY RENDERED THE SERVIC ES TO THE APPELLANT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, JUST BECAUSE THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE PARTIES IN THE NEXT YEAR BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND TAX WAS DEDUCTED A T SOURCE FROM SUCH PAYMENTS AND THE PARTIES ARE HAVIN G PAN, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS GENU INE. 2.3.5 TO SUM UP, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH WITH COGE NT EVIDENCE THAT PAYEES HAVE RENDERED ANY SERVICES TO APPELLANT, WHICH NECESSITATED THE PAYMENT OF COMMIS SION TO THE SAID PERSONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENC E, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE E NTIRE COMMISSION WAS DEBITED ON 31.03.2007 BY WAY OF JOUR NAL ENTRIES AND CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT SO AS TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2.3.6 FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, IT IS HELD THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN PRINCIPLE IN MAKING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF RS.83,12,185/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLA NT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE DISALL OWED THE EXPENDITURE UNDER SEC. 37 INSTEAD OF INVOKING PROVI SIONS OF SEC.40A(2). SECTION 40A(2) COMES INTO PLAY WHERE TH E DEDUCTION IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTIONS 28 TO 39 BUT THE EXPENDITURE IS FOUND TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASO NABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS, SER VICES OR FACILITIES OR THE LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS F OR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPENDITU RE IS HELD TO BE NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER SEC.37 AND THEREFORE PRO VISIONS OF SEC.40A(2) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO SUCH NON-GENUINE EXPENDITURE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD THOUGH UNDER A DIFFEREN T SECTION OF THE I.T. ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 13 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 11. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND ARE ALLOWABLE. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND TOOK US THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED TH AT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. THUS, HE SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT AS SESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION AGGREGATING TO RS.83,12,185/- TO MRS. S IMRAN B. TALREJA AND MRS. JAYA H. TALREJA, WHO ARE THE PERSONS COVERED U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NO SUCH COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THESE TWO PERSONS BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE PAST. LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ORDER HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE EXACT NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY SIMRAN TALREJA BY SUBMITTING NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF TH E CONTENTION OF THESE TWO PERSONS OF HAVING ARRANGED PUR CHASES FOR THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US ALSO ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PLAC ED ANY MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN THE SAME BUSINESS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND HAD NEVER PAID COMMISSION TO ANY PERSON IN THE PAST AS ASSESSEE HIMSELF PLACED THE ORDERS FOR PURCHASES. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN CASE OF SMT. SIMRAN B. TALREJA, THE SO CALLED PURCHASE COMMISSION WAS A DMITTED AS INCOME ONLY IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY HER ON 30.1 2.2009 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 I.E., AFTER THE FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN T HE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 24.12.2009. IN THE CASE OF MRS. JAYA H. TA LREJA, LD. 14 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS NOT ADMITTED IN HER RETURN FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON THE GROUND THAT SHE WAS FOLLOW ING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN CASE OF INCOME FROM PURCHASE COM MISSION BUSINESS BUT HOWEVER SHE HAD CLAIMED THE CREDIT FOR CORR ESPONDING TDS IN RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURT HER GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PRODUCED ANY E VIDENCE WHICH COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE TWO LADIES HAD DONE ANY LEGITIMATE BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHETHER SUPPLIERS AR E NEW OR THE ASSESSEE IS NEW TO BUSINESS OR THE SUPPLIERS ARE UNKNOW N TO ASSESSEE AND THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IN THE SAME BUSIN ESS FOR PAST SEVERAL YEARS AND THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF USED TO PLACE OR DERS FOR ITS PURCHASERS AND NO COMMISSION FOR PURCHASES WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE IN THE PAST. BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MAT ERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 31 ST MARCH, 2017. YAMINI 15 ITA NO.684/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2007-08 ) * +',- .-' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-(A)-III, PUNE THE CIT-III, PUNE. #$% & 1 &'(, * '(, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; %+, - / GUARD FILE )! / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // . /012 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '( , / ITAT, PUNE.