Rajendra S. Goel, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

ITA 711/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0367 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 234B; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NOS.710 & 711/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2013-14 MR. RAJENDRA SITARAM GOEL, 5, SAN MAHU COMPLEX, BUND GARDEN ROAD, OPP. POONA CLUB, PUNE 411 001 PAN : AAWPG2105J VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE/ DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) . / ITA NS.712/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 MR. SUBHASH GOEL, 5, SAN MAHU COMPLEX, BUND GARDEN ROAD, OPP. POONA CLUB, PUNE 411 001 PAN : AAWPG2100P VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THESE THREE APPEALS BY RELATED BUT TWO DIFFERENT ASSESS EES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-5, PUNE APPELLANT BY SHRI KRISHNA GUJARATHI RESPONDENT BY SHRI M.K. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 28-03-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29-03-2019 ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 2 ON 29-11-16, 09-12-2016 & 22-02-2017 RESPECTIVELY IN RE LATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2013-14. SINCE SOME OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, WE ARE, THEREFORE, P ROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.710/PUN/2017 MR. RAJENDRA S. GOEL A.Y. 2010-1 1: 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMA TION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HER EINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT). 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E EARNED CERTAIN EXEMPT INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND MUTUAL FUNDS AND ALSO PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. NO DISALLOWANCE WAS OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R (AO), AFTER RECORDING SATISFACTION, PROCEEDED TO DETERMINE THE AMOU NT OF DISALLOWANCE AT RS.2,13,657/-, CONSISTING OF RS.62,468/- UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) AND RS.1,51,189/- UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III). THE LD. CIT(A), DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) TO THE TUNE OF RS.62,468/-. AS REGARDS THE OTHER COMPONENT OF DISALLOWA NCE AT 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE AO AT RS.1,51,189/- IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D(2)(III), THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 3 ONLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BUT ALSO ENHANCED IT BY RS.38,60 2/- ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAVE BEEN CAPTURED AT PAGE 22 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSES SEE IS AGGRIEVED BY SUCH SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION AS WELL AS ITS ENHANCEMENT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSEES PROFIT A ND LOSS ACCOUNT, WHOSE COPY IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BO OK, THAT HE INCURRED TOTAL INDIRECT EXPENSES OF RS.20,12,169/- WHOSE DETAIL HAS BEEN GIVEN AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. OUT OF SUCH TOTA L INDIRECT EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST TO CORPORATION BANK A S WELL AS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,39,445/- AND RS.10,61,618/- RESPECTIVELY, THEREBY LEAVING OTHER EXPENSE S AT RS.8,11,107/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A CHART BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CONTENDING THAT OUT OF SUCH REMAINING EXPENSES, A SUM OF RS.7,72,505/- WAS EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED TOWARDS EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF TAXABLE INCOME THEREBY LEAVING COMMON EXPENSES, INCURR ED BOTH FOR TAXABLE AND NON-TAXABLE INCOME, AT RS.38,602/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF INCORPORATED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BUT MISCONSTRUED THE SAME AND ORDERED TO MAKE ENH ANCEMENT ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 4 BY THE SUM OF RS.38,602/- WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. WE, THER EFORE, ORDER TO DELETE THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO TH IS EXTENT. 5. NOW COMING BACK TO THE DETAILS OF OTHER EXPENSES, WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED RS.7,72,505/- EXCLUSIVELY TOWARDS TAXABLE INCOME. OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES, THREE ITEMS O F EXPENSES, VIZ., PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FOR PROJECT AT PARVAT I AMOUNTING TO RS.5,51,500/- ; STAMP DUTY, STAMP PAPER AND MISCELLANEOU S EXPENSES OF RS.86,893/-; AND EXPENSES RELATING TO PROPER TY RENTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.50,872/-, HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE EXEMPT INCOME AND HENCE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOW ANCE U/S 14A. THE REMAINING ITEM OF EXPENSE IN THIS LIST IS A SUM O F RS.83,240/-, WHICH IS PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES, THAT RELATES TO INCOME-TAX FILING RETURN COMMON BOTH TO THE TAXABLE AND EXEMPT INCOME. THE SAME IS THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED AS COMMON EXPENSE AND NOT EXCLUSIVELY FOR TAXABLE INCOME. AT THIS STAGE , IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT EVEN UNDER RULE 8D, THE DISALLOWANCE U/S .14A CANNOT EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER EXCLUSIVELY FOR EXEMPT INCOME OR JOINTLY FOR EXEMPT AND TAXABLE INCOME. IN THIS BACKDROP OF THE FACTS, WE ORDER TO RESTRICT THE ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 5 DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1,21,842/- (RS.38,602 + RS.83,240). THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.711/PUN/2017 MR. RAJENDRA S. GOEL A.Y. 2013-1 4 : 7. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THA T THE ASSESSEE EARNED EXEMPT INCOME BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY DISALLO WANCE U/S.14A. THE AO COMPUTED DISALLOWANCE AT RS.30,35,585/- ONLY UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III), BEING, 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED IN THE SAME MANNER BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WAS DONE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR THAT ONLY COM MON EXPENSES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED EXCLUSIVELY IN RELATION TO TAXABLE INCOME, SHOULD BE REDUCED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED SUCH CALCULATION WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUC ED AT PAGE 12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREBY WORKING OUT A S UM OF RS.13,297/- AS RELATABLE TO BOTH EXEMPT AND TAXABLE STREAMS OF INCOME. SIMILAR TO HIS ACTION FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR, THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ONLY SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE AS MADE BY THE AO BUT ALSO ENHANCED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BY SUCH AN AMOUNT OF ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 6 RS.13,297/-. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE CONFIRMA TION AS WELL AS ENHANCEMENT OF THE ADDITION. 8. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEV ANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF A.Y. 2010-11 WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED HEREINABOVE. IT IS OBS ERVED THAT OUT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCLUSIVELY FOR TAXABLE INCOME, THERE IS AN ITEM OF COMMON EXPENSE, WHICH IS PROFESSIONAL FEE OF RS.58,521/-. FOLLOWIN G OUR ABOVE DECISION FOR EARLIER YEAR, WE DIRECT TO DELETE THE ENH ANCEMENT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). AT THE SAME TIME, THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO COMMON EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.71,818 (NAMELY RS.13,297 + RS.58,521) . THIS ISSUE IS PARTLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE WHICH SURVIVES IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST U/S.234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. THE FACT APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTE DLY FILED HIS RETURN BEYOND DUE DATE U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST U/S.234 A AT RS.25,97,300/-. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) THAT THE AMOUNT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BY HIM SHOULD HAVE BEE N ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 7 PROPORTIONATELY REDUCED IN THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST U/S.234A. THE LD. CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO FOLLOW CBDT CIRCULAR NO.2/2015, DATED 10-02-2015. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY SUCH A DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT GIVING FURTHER RELIEF IN INTEREST U/S.234A IN RESPECT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE U/S.1 39(1) BUT BEFORE THE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE RE LEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT THE ASSES SEE FILED RETURN BELATEDLY AND HENCE, IS LIABLE TO BE VISITED WITH INTERE ST U/S.234A OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BY HIM PRIOR TO THE FILING OF RETURN SHOULD BE REDUCED IN THE PROCESS OF CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER THIS SECTION. WE WANT TO CLARIFY AT THE OUTSET THAT THE DISPUTE IN TH E EXTANT APPEAL IS ONLY REGARDING THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST AND N OT FOR THE DURATION FOR WHICH THE INTEREST IS SO CHARGEABLE. SECTION 2 34A THOUGH PROVIDES CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF TAXES ETC. UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) TO BE REDUCED FROM THE AMOUNT OF TAX ON TOTAL INCOME DETERM INED UNDER REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION O F INTEREST U/S 234A, BUT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC MENTION FOR THE EXCLUSIO N OF THE AMOUNT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION THAT T HE ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 8 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. PRANOY ROY AND ANOTHER (2009) 309 ITR 239 (SC) HAS DEALT WITH THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST U/S.234A. IN THAT CASE, THE RETURN WAS DUE TO BE FILED O N 31-10-1995 BUT THE SAME WAS ACTUALLY FILED ON 29-09-1996, I.E. AFTER A DELAY OF ABOUT 11 MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE PAID SELF-ASSE SSMENT TAX ON 25-09-1995, I.E. BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1). RELYING ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION, THE AO DID NOT ALLOW CREDIT FOR THE PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX IN TH E CALCULATION OF INTEREST U/S 234A OF THE ACT. WHEN THE MATTER FINALLY CAME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IT WAS HELD THA T THE AMOUNT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF RETURN OF INCOME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REDUCED. PURSUANT TO THIS JUDGME NT, THE CBDT HAS COME UP WITH A CIRCULAR NO.2/2015, DATED 10-02-2 015 PROVIDING THAT NO INTEREST U/S.234A OF THE ACT IS CHARGEABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS THIS CIRCULAR WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR MAKING A FRESH CALCULATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.234 A. 11. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THOUGH THE IMPUGNE D ORDER PROVIDES FOR EXCLUSION OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BEFORE THE DUE ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 9 DATE OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, BUT THERE IS NO SUCH DIREC TION FOR REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE AFTER THE DUE DATE BUT BEFORE THE ACTUAL FILING OF RETURN. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SIMILAR DIRECTION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIV EN FOR SUCH LATER INTEREST PAYMENT AS WELL. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT PAY MENT OF INTEREST U/S.234A IS A COMPENSATION TO THE REVENUE FOR DEP RIVATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX DUE, FOR THE PERIOD IT IS NOT PAID. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN PRANOY ROY (SUPRA) DEALT WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE U/S. 139(1). THERE WAS NO AMOUNT OF SELF ASSESSM ENT TAX PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE. THE HONBLE COURT, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO REDUCE SUCH AN AMOUNT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX IN THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST U/S 234A. IT WAS SO DECIDED ON THE GROUND THAT ONCE THE AMOUNT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAID, THE REVENUE COULD NOT BE CON SIDERED AS DEPRIVED OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX DUE TO IT. AS INTEREST U/S 2 34A IS COMPENSATORY, FOLLOWING THE RATIONALE, WE HOLD THAT THE CONSEQUENCE WILL BE NO DIFFERENT IF THE AMOUNT OF SELF-ASSES SMENT TAX IS ALSO PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE BUT BEFORE THE FILING OF R ETURN OF INCOME. IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE REVENUE WILL STAND COMPEN SATED TO THE EXTENT OF PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX MADE AFTER THE DUE DATE ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 10 AND ACCORDINGLY THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST U/S 234A FOR THE PE RIOD DURING WHICH SUCH AN AMOUNT STOOD PAID, NEEDS TO BE COMPU TED ON THE PROPORTIONATELY REDUCED AMOUNT OF TAX ACCORDINGLY. U NDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AN D REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF INTERE ST U/S.234A AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING DATE-WISE PAYMENTS OF S ELF- ASSESSMENT TAX MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH BEFORE AND A FTER THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1). 12. GROUND FOR CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234B IS CONSEQUE NTIAL AND DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.712/PUN/2017 MR. SUBHASH GOEL A.Y. 2013-14 : 14. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRM ATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D(2)(III). THE FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED CERTAIN EXE MPT INCOME BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A. THE AO COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS.50,70,709/- UNDER RULE 8D (2)(III) AT 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESS EE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CON TENDING ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 11 THAT ONLY COMMON EXPENSES OF RS.57,037/- SHOULD HAVE BE EN CONSIDERED FOR THIS PURPOSE. THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ONLY CON FIRMED THE ADDITION BUT ALSO MADE ENHANCEMENT BY RS.57,037/-. THE A SSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY SUCH CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION AS WELL AS ITS ENHANCEMENT. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GOING THRO UGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE ARE ADMITTEDLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF MR. RAJENDRA GOEL FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE IN SUCH APPEAL, WE DELETE THE ENHANCEMENT M ADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO COMMON EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,12,187/- (RS.57,037 + RS.55,150, BEING THE AMOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL FEE). THIS ISSUE IS, THERE FORE, PARTLY DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE OTHER GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CHARGING O F INTEREST U/S.234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS ISSUE ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF MR. RAJENDRA GOEL FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN, WE DIRECT THE AO TO COM PUTE INTEREST U/S 234A IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR DISCUSSION MADE SUPRA. ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 12 PART OF THE GROUND RELATING TO THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234 B IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH MARCH, 2019. SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 29 TH MARCH, 2019 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-5, PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT-4, PUNE 5. , , B / DR B, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NOS.710 TO 712/PUN/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA GOEL AND SHRI SUBHASH GOEL 13 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 28-03-2019 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28-03-2019 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *