Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Shri Balaji Society, Pune

ITA 711/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9222 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K GAUTAM SHRI S N DOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PASS PUNE
• Keywords: Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 12A; 12AA; 12; 11

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NOS.710 & 711/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, 2 ND FLOOR, B.O. BHAVAN, SECTOR NO.47, PLOT NO.1, PUNE SATARA ROAD, PUNE 411 009. . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI BALAJI SOCIETY, S.NO.55/2-7, TATHAWADE, OFF MUMBAI BANGALORE BYPASS, PUNE 411033. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. GAUTAM / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE EMANATING O UT THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, PUNE DT.26.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDEN TICAL EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED AND T HEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM WHILE ARGUING ONE APPEAL WOULD BE / DATE OF HEARING : 29.06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.06.2017 2 EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER APPEAL ALSO AND THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LD.D.R. HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED TO BY LD.A.R. WE THEREFOR E FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APP EALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. HOWEVER, WE PROCEED WITH NARRATING T HE FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 3. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER: 3.1 ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860. THE ASSESSEES SOCIETY IS ALSO RE GISTERED U/S 12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE MAIN OBJECTIVE AND ACTIV ITIES OF THE SOCIETY ARE STATED TO BE TO SPREAD AND PROMOTION OF ED UCATION ASSESSEE RUNS VARIOUS INSTITUTES AND COLLEGES. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2010-11 ON 14.10.2010 DECLARING TAX ABLE INCOME AT RS.NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND T HEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.11.02.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.21,80,89,554/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DT.26.02.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-10/ACIT, CIR.6/947/13-14 ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TH E EXPENDITURE ON ADVERTISEMENT WAS A LEGITIMATE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURSUING THE OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT TH E FUNDS OF THE SOCIETY ARE NOT APPLIED OR USED OR DIVERTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PERSONS REFERRED TO SECTION 13(3) IN VIOLATION OF C ONDITION LAID DOWN U/S 13(1)(C) AND 13(2)(C). 3 4. BEFORE US, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE G ROUNDS ARE INTER-CONNECTED AND CAN BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO NOTICE D THAT SHRI BALAJI CREATIVITIES (SBC), A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS RUNNING AN ADVERTISING AGENCY AND THREE OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE ASS ESSEE NAMELY SHRI B. PARAMANANDHAN, SHRI B. PARANDHAMAN AND SMT. THILANGAVATHY WERE PARTNERS IN SHRI BALAJI CREATIVITIES AN D HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN IT. THUS ACCORDING TO AO, SHRI BALAJ I CREATIVITIES WAS A PERSON COVERED U/S 13(3)(E) OF THE ACT. ON PERUSING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTIC ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED TOTAL ADVERTISING EXPENSES OF RS.3,98,76,888/- WHICH INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,35,42,934/- BEING PAID TO SHRI BALAJI CREATIVITIES (SBC). AO NOTICED THA T PAYMENT BY ASSESSEE TO SBC FIRM WAS AROUND 70% OF IT S TOTAL TURNOVER. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT SBC HAD GRANTED DISCOU NT @ 10% TO 12% TO OTHER CLIENTS WHEREAS THE DISCOUNT GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS AT UNIFORM RATE OF 2% EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE W AS ITS LARGEST CLIENT. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OBTAIN THE DISCOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THAN THE NORMAL DISCOUNT OF 10% GRANTED BY SHRI BALAJI CREATIVITIES TO OTHER CLIENTS, IT HAD DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY PASSED ON THE BENEFITS TO THE FIR M BY MAKING EXCESS PAYMENT AND HAS THUS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS U/S 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY DENIED T HE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDEC ESSOR FOR A.Y. 2008-09, DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AP PELLANT GOT RELIEF FROM CIT(A)-III, PUNE IN A.Y. 2008-09 ON IDENTICAL GROUN DS. HON'BLE PUNE TR I BUNAL THEREAFTER DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF CIT(A)-III, PUNE. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TRIBUNAL'S ORDER IN A.Y. 2008-0 9 IN ITA NO. 1679/PN/2012 DATED 18.02.2015 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDE R: '5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . THE MAIN PLANK OF THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD . DR IS THAT M/S . SRI BALAJI CREATIVITIES (SBC) IS THE CHILD OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND THE ADVERTISEMEN T EXPENDITURE WHICH IS THE MAJOR PART OF TOTAL EXPEND ITURE HAS BEEN DIVERTED TO THE M/S . SBC AND THEREBY THE TRUSTEES HAVE DIVERTED THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THEIR PERSONAL BENEFITS . HE REFERRED TO SEE . 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND SUBMITS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE BENEFIT SHOULD BE DIRECTLY DIVERTED BUT IT CAN BE BY IMPLICATION OR BY IN DIRE CT WAY . HE REFERRED TO ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITS THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE DATA IN RESPECT O F CARD RATES OF THE ADVERTISEMENT AND HAS ESTABL I SHED THAT EVEN IF THE M / S . SBC HAS GIVEN THE MORE DISCOUNT TO OTHER PARTIES BU T SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED LESS BENEFIT ARE PASSED . HE SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO REASONS FOR THE ASSESSEE TRUST TO ROOT THE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE THROUGH THE M/S . SBC AND THE ASSESSEE TRUST COULD HAVE DIRECTLY GIVEN THE ADVERT ISEMENT TO THE RESPECTIVE NEWSPAPERS AND COULD HAVE OBTAINED T HE BETTER BENEFITS . THE LD . DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PLEADED FOR REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 6.PER CONTRA, THE LD . AR FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THATEVEN IF M/S. SBC IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTI NG OF THREE PARTNERS WHO ARE IN TURN THE TRUSTEES OF THE ASSESS EE TRUST BUT MERELY BECAUSE SOME BUSINESS IS DONE WITH THE F IRM OR CONCERNED IN WHICH THE TRUSTEES OR THE PROMOTER OF THE TRUST ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OR PARTNERS THAT WOULD NOT SUO-MO TO PUT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY INTO THE CLUTCHES OF SEE . 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT . THE LD . COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . KAMLA TOWN TRUST 279 ITR 89 (ALL . ) AND SUBMITS THAT BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CONDITION OF SEE . 13(1)(C) IS FULFILLED AND THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION IN SEE . 13(1)(C) OR OTHERWISE THAT IF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DONE WITH PARTIES COVERED U/S . 13(3) THEN THOSE TRANSACTIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEE . 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT . 6.1 HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS BENEFITED BY ENGAGING TO M/S. SBC FOR LOOKING AFTER THE ADVERTIS EMENT WORK OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. HE SUBMITS THAT THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF M/S . SBC THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS TO THE EXTENT OF 70% BUT THE OBSERVATION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT M/S. SBC HAS GRANTED 2% DISCOUNT ON THE BILL OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARED TO THE 10% DISCOUNT TO THE OTHER CLIENT IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS AND AGAINST T HE EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM. HE ARGUES THAT THE INTENTION BEHIND GIV ING THE WORK TO M/S . SBC IS TO GET THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED AS M/S. SBC IS A PROFESSIONAL ADVERTISING AGENCY WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED . HE ARGUES THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS GIVEN THE MORE BENEFIT BY WAY OF DISCOUNT AND NOT AT 2% AS MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HE SUBMITS THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE M/ S. SBC GRANTED DISCOUNT BETWEEN 7 . 4% AND 12% TO ALL ITS CLIENT IS FACTUALLY WRONG. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN SOME CORPOR ATE CLIENTS 5 LIKE M/S . SANDVIK ASIA, DINA INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT DISCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE BILLS WAS GRAN TED BUT AT SAME TIME TO MANY OTHER CLIENTS M/S. SBC HAS NOT GR ANTED THE DISCOUNT AT ALL. HE SUBMITS THAT EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IF WE LOOK INTO THE MATTER THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS DIVERTED ITS PROFIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TRUSTEES BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST IS ENJOYING THE REGISTRATION U/S . 12AA OF THE ACT AND OTHERWISE ALSO ITS INCOME IS EXEMPT U/S. 11 & 12 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHERE AS THE PROFIT EARNED BY M/ S. SBC IS TAXABLE . HE SUBMITS THAT M/S SBC HAS ACTUALLY CHARGED MUCH LESS THAN THE CARD RATES BY OBTAINING REBATES FROM THE NEWSPAPERS. HE PLEADED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE BENCH HAS GIVEN THE DIRECTIONS TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE SAMPLE BILLS OF THE NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS RAISED ON M/S. SBC IN RESPEC T OF ADVERTISEMENTS OF THE RELATED PARTIES I . E. THE ASSESSEE TRUST END NON-RELATED PARTIES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DIFFERE NCE IN THE CARD RATE OF ADVERTISEMENT AS CLAIMED IN THE CH ART FILED IN THE COMPILATION AT PAGE NO . 9 OF THE PIB . IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH , THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS FILED SAMPLE, BILLS WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD. NOW, THE ISSUE FO R CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER BY GIVING THE ADVERTISEMEN T WORK TO M/S . SBC WHICH IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE ADVERTISEMENT WORK, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEE . 13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. BEFORE US THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IN THE CASE OF MANY OTHER CLIENTS, M/S. SBC HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DISCOUNT AND IN THE CASE OF SOME OF THE CLIENTS, M/S. SBC HAS GIVEN THE DISCOUNT WHI CH IS LESS THAN THE AVERAGE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS TRUE THAT OUT OF TOTAL TURNOVER OF M/S. SBC THE MAJOR CONTRIB UTION IS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. THE BENCH ALSO PUT THE QUERY TO LD . AR TO EXPLAIN WHY ADVERTISEMENT WORK WAS NOT DIRECTLY GIV EN TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLISHERS OF THE NEWSPAPERS WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE TRUST COULD HAVE GOT THE BETTER DISCOUNT . THE LD. AR EXPLAINED WITH THE CHART THAT AS PER THE CARD RATES OF THE DIFFERENT NEWSPAPERS WHICH ARE PLACED ON REC ORD , THE ASSESSEE IS MORE BENEFITED BY GIVING THE WORK TO M/ S. SBC . HE I SUBMITS THAT THE ENTIRE DESIGNING AND ART WORK REQU IRED FOR THE ADVERTISEMENT WAS COMPILED AND PREPARED BY M/S. SBC AND NO SEPARATE PAYMENT IS MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COMPARATIVE CHART SHOWING THE BENEFIT RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY VIS-A-VIS OTHER CLIENT . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF THE INVOICES AND THE ZEROX COPY OF THE RESPECTIVE NEWSPAPERS LIKE SAKAL ETC . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE SAMPLE BILLS FOR THE OTHER AGENCIES ON WH ICH M/S. SBC HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DISCOUNT AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED SAMPLE BILLS OF M/S . SBC RAISED ON THE ASSESSEE TRUST I.E. BILL NO. 823 DATED 01-09-2007 ON WHICH THE CARD RATE CHA RGES ARE LESS THAN THE NEWSPAPER RATE AS PER COMPARATIVE CHA RT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEMONST RATED BEFORE US THAT IF THE AVERAGE RATE OF DISCOUNT IS W ORKED OUT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS COMPARE TO CARD RATE WHICH IS ALMOST 10%. WE ALSO FIND THAT M/S. SBC HAS ALSO DONE THE W ORK FOR OTHER CLIENTS I.E. NON-RELATED PARTIES TO WHOM NO D ISCOUNT OR REDUCTION IN THE CARD RATES ARE GIVEN. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US, WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT BY GIVING THE ADVERTISEMENT WORK TO M/S . SBC, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS NOT VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS OF S EE . 13(1)(C) TO DEPRIVE TO GET THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 11 & 12 OF THE ACT . WE ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE . ' 6 9. SINCE, FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, FOLLOWING APPELLAT E ORDER OF MY PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 2008-09 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD AT THE LEVEL OF TRIBUNAL TOO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GRANT EXEMPTION U/S. 11 OF INCOME-TAX ACT AND GROUND NO.1 TO 6 AND 8 ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US. LD.DR. TOOK US THROUGH THE VARIOUS OBSERV ATIONS OF AO AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. LD.A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN REVENUE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE ISSUE WAS DE CIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. HE THE REFORE SUBMITTED THAT FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BE DISMISSED MORE SO WHEN THERE ARE NO CHANG ES IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WIT H RESPECT TO DENIAL OF EXEMPTION BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.13(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09. BEFO RE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEMON STRATE THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE DISTINGUISHABLE TO THAT OF EARLIER YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND FOLLOWING TH E SAME REASONING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IS DISMISSED. 9. AS FAR AS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE C ASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF TH E CASE FOR A.Y. 2011-12. WE, THEREFORE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS STATED HERE IN WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND FOR SIMILAR REAS ONS, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ALSO. 10 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017. SD/- S D/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 30 TH JUNE, 2017. YAMINI '#$%&'&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-13, PUNE. 4. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS) PUNE. 5. #$% &&'(, * '(, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; 6. %+, - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // // . /012 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '( , / ITAT, PUNE.