Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67068 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
25-06-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
20-06-2013
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
16-06-2009
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.715/PN/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) PHARANDE DEVELOPERS 98/2, GURUVIHAR, PUNE NASHIK ROAD, BHOSARI, PUNE 411 039 PAN : AAFFP3023R . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8 (3), AKURDI . RESPONDENT ITA NO.175/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S PHARANDE DEVELOPERS 98/2, GURUVIHAR, PUNE NASHIK ROAD, BHOSARI, PUNE 411 039 PAN : AAFFP3023R . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8 (1), PUNE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MR. SUNIL GANOO, MR. S.C. BHATIA & MR. UDAY BHATIA RESPONDENT BY : MR. SANTOSH KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 20-06-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-06-2013 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED TWO APPEALS RELATE TO THE SAME ASSES SEE AND INVOLVE A COMMON QUESTION, THEREFORE THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED A ND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07 VIDE ITA NO.175/PN/2011 WAS DELAYED, THE DELAY BE CONDON ED AS THE SAME WAS UNINTENDED AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO WILLFULLY OVERLOOK THE PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED ON RECORD AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 17.06.2013 EXECUTED BY REMESH BABU SALIAN THE THEN PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR THE DE LAY HAVE BEEN AVERRED. IN PARTICULAR THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF THE AFFIDAVIT I S RELEVANT :- 3. THAT IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2010, WE DECIDED TO SHIFT THE ACCOUNTS OFFICE OF THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM TO OUR REGISTERED OFFICE I.E. 98/2 GURUVIHAR, TARANGAN APARTMENTS, BHOSARI, PUNE 411 0 39. 4. THAT IN THE LAST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 2010 OR THERE ABOUT, OUR TAX CONSULTANT HANDED OVER TO ME THE APPELLATE ORDER FO R THE A.Y. 2006-07 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, PUNE IN THE CASE OF OUR SA ID PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ADVISED THAT THE FURTHER APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED BEF ORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER DURING THAT PERIOD SINC E THE SHIFTING WORK OF OUR ACCOUNTS OFFICE WAS IN PROGRESS, THROUGH OVERSIGHT MISTAKE AND INADVERTENCE, THE INCOME TAX FILE OF OUR SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM WA S MISPLACED BY ME. BEING NOT MUCH EDUCATED, I DID NOT REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SAID FILE AND UNFORTUNATELY I COMPLETELY FAILED TO REMEMBER THAT THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE. 5. THAT ON 4 TH FEBRUARY 2011, WHEN OUR FIRM RECEIVED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8 (3) PUNE REGARDING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07, WE THE PARTNERS WERE APPRAISED BY OUR TAX CONSULTANTS THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 200 6-07 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-V, PUNE IN THE CASE OF OUR SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAS REMAINED TO BE FILED DUE TO MY FAULT. 6. I REALIZED MY SERIOUS MISTAKE AND IMMEDIATELY OU R PARTNERSHIP FIRM FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON. INCOME TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ON 09.02.2011 WITH AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY OF ABOUT 114 DAYS IN FILING THE SAID APPEAL. 7. SINCE DUE TO MY SERIOUS LAPSE AND MISTAKE OUR PA RTNERSHIPS FIRM HAD BEEN PUT TO SERIOUS INCONVENIENCE AND PREJ UDICE, I WAS FEELING ASHAMED OF MYSELF AND HAD IMMENSE GUILTY FEELING AS A RESULT OF WHICH I VOLUNTARILY RETIRED FROM THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM W.E.F. 01.04.2011. 8. THAT THIS AFFIDAVIT IS EXECUTED FOR FILING THE S AME BEFORE THE HON. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE IN THE MAT TER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS FOR ME RE INADVERTENCE, THIS APPEAL COULD NOT BE FILED IN TIME AND THE PRIMARY R EASON FOR THE SAME WAS THE SHIFTING OF THE OFFICE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER DU RING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. NEVERTHELESS, THE ENTIRE CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN EX PLAINED BY THE PARTNER IN ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 ITS AFFIDAVIT AND AS PER THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAVING REGARD TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & OTHERS (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) THE DE LAY BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE OF NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE WHERE THE REASON S FOR THE DELAY CAN BE SAID TO BE BEYOND CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AC CORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE A PPEAL IN TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE DELAY BE NOT CONDONED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MST. KATIJI & OTHERS ( SUPRA) HAD EXPLAINED, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE THAT I T REFERS TO ENABLING THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER WHICH SERVE S THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. PERTINENTLY, AS PER THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN S ITUATIONS WHERE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGA INST EACH OTHER, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED AND A LIBERAL APPROACH IN SUCH SITUATIONS IS ALSO JUSTIFIED. IN THIS BACKGROUND, W E MAY NOW EXAMINE THE PRESENT PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APP EAL IS OF 114 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS IN THE MONTH OF SEPT EMBER, 2010 THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS HANDED OVER TO IT BY THE TAX CONS ULTANT AND IN THE SAME MONTH ASSESSEE ALSO DECIDED TO SHIFT ITS ACCOUNTS O FFICE TO ANOTHER PREMISES. DUE TO THE SHIFTING WORK OF THE ACCOUNTS OFFICE AND OVERSIGHT BY THE CONCERNED PARTNER, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FIL E ITS APPEAL IN TIME. IT WAS ONLY IN FEBRUARY 2011 WHEN ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SHOW -CAUSE NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS , THE NON-FILING OF APPEAL CAME TO LIGHT AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THEREAFTER T HE APPEAL WAS IMMEDIATELY FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 09.02.2011. THE CONCER NED PARTNER HAS ALSO ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 AVERRED THE SAME ON AN AFFIDAVIT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FACTS OF THE CASE DO NOT SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS ANY MALA-FIDE INTENTION OR THAT THE REASONS EXPLAINED ARE ONLY A DEVICE TO COVER ANY ULTERIOR P URPOSE. IT MAY ALSO BE APPRECIATED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SAY THAT T HE REASONS ARE LACKING IN BONA-FIDE AND IN-FACT IT APPEARS TO BE A BONA-FIDE MISTAKE OR AN INADVERTENCE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMIT ATION. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 114 DA YS IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. NOW, WE MAY TAKE-UP THE TWO SUBSTANTIVE DISPUTES RAISED IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE PRIMARI LY ISSUE RELATES TO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80- IB(10) OF THE ACT WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. IN O RDER TO APPRECIATE THE CONTROVERSY AND THE FACTUAL ASPECTS, WE MAY TAKE-UP FOR DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.715/PN/2009 FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE IS FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AND SALE THEREOF. FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0-IB(10) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.65,26,760/- IN RELATION TO THE PROF ITS DERIVED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECTS. T HE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO HOUS ING PROJECTS NAMELY, (I) LAKSHDWEEP AND (II) SAMARTH NAGARI. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM BOTH THE PROJECTS AND THE SAME HAS SIN CE BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ALSO. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SO FA R AS THE LAKSHDWEEP PROJECT IS CONCERNED THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES HAV E ERRED IN REJECTING THE ENTIRE CLAIM MERELY BECAUSE TWO UNITS EXCEEDED THE BUILT-UP AREA PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. EVEN WI TH REGARD TO THE SAMARTH NAGARI PROJECT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDI TION PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT HAVING REGARD T O THE FACTS AND ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE T HE RIVAL STANDS THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT. FIRST, WE TAKE-UP THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH R ESPECT TO THE LAKSHDWEEP PROJECT. THE HOUSING PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 23.10.2003. THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS THAT ASSESSEE SOLD TWO NEIGHBORING FLATS (I.E. BUNGLOW N OS. G1 & G2) TO ONE FAMILY I.E. ONE EACH IN THE NAME OF BOTH THE SPOUSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE TWO UNITS I.E. BUNGLOW NOS. G1 & G2 INDIVI DUALLY ADMEASURED 1286 SQ.FT. AND 508 SQ.FT. RESPECTIVELY, AND THAT THE TW O WERE AMALGAMATED INTO ONE BUNGLOW USED BY ONE FAMILY. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE BUNGLOW ADMEASURING 1794 SQ.FT. I.E. 1 286 SQ.FT. + 508 SQ.FT.. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WAS A P ROJECTION OF 116 SQ.FT. IN BUNGLOW G1 AND 655 SQ.FT. PROJECTION IN BUNGLOW G2 AND IF THE AFORESAID AREAS WERE CONSIDERED, THE TOTAL BUILT-UP AREA OF THE AMA LGAMATED BUNGLOW AGGREGATED TO 1975 SQ.FT. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN TERMS OF CLA USE (C) OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF EACH RESI DENTIAL UNIT IN THE CITIES OTHER THEN DELHI AND MUMBAI IS NOT TO EXCEED 1500 SQ.FT. IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE AMALGAMATED BUNGLOW EXCEEDED 1500 SQ.FT., IT WAS VI OLATIVE OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT WAS DISA LLOWED. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO AFFIRMED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE BUNGLOW G1 & G2 WERE AMALGAMATED INTO ONE BUNGLOW N OT BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY THE CUSTOMER. HOWEVER, HE FAIRLY CONCEDED TH AT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AFORESAID POSITION AND THEREFOR E IT MAY BE TAKEN THAT THE AMALGAMATED BUNGLOW NAMELY G1 & G2 CONSISTED OF BUI LT-UP ARE OF 1794 SQ.FT., WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LEA RNED COUNSEL, THE AFORESAID VIOLATION IN THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE AMALGAMATED B UNGLOW G1 & G2 WOULD NOT LEAD TO WHOLESOME DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE LAKSHDWEEP PROJECT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT BE DEN IED ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE UNITS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IB(10)(C) OF THE ACT AND FOR THE BALA NCE ELIGIBLE UNITS CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. IN OT HER WORDS, AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN PROPORT ION TO THE ELIGIBLE UNITS CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT. IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESA ID, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF D.S. KULKARNI DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS. 1428 & 1429/PN /2008 DATED 08.08.2012 AND ALSO THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VISWAS PROMOTERS (P) LTD. (2013) 29 TAXMANN .COM 19 (MADRAS). 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN A PROJECT VIOLATED THE LIMIT OF BUILT-UP AREA PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 8 0-IB(10) OF THE ACT, THE ENTIRE PROJECT BECOMES INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. 10. ON THIS ASPECT, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRECEDENTS. A SIMILAR SITUATION HAS BEEN CON SIDERED BY THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF D.S. KULKARNI DEVELOPERS LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS RELEVANT :- 20. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF TH E ASSESSEE SPRINGS UP. THE PLEA IS THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 -IB(10) BE DENIED ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE UNITS WHICH DO NOT CONFORM TO THE CO NDITION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IB(10)(C) AND FOR THE BALANCE ELIGIBLE RESIDENTI AL UNITS, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE SAID PLEA O N THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT. 21. ON THIS ASPECT, WE FIND THAT THE MUMBAI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S EKTA HOUSING PVT. LTD., ITA NO.3 649/MUM/2009 DATED 20.05.2011 HAS UPHELD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT WHERE SOME OF TH E RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 PROJECT VIOLATED THE CONDITION CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IB(10)(C) OF THE ACT. THE MUMBAI BENCH AFTER NOTICING THE PRECEDENTS IN THE C ASE OF I) ITO VS. AIR DEVELOPERS, 25 DTR 287 (NAG.); II) DCIT VS. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., 14 DT R 371 (BANG.); III) ACIT VS. SHETH DEVELOPERS P. LTD., 33 SOT 27 7 (MUM.); IV) BENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD. VS. DC IT; V) SJR BUILDERS VS. ACIT, 3 ITR 569 (MUM.) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT LOOSE THE EXEMPTIO N UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) IN ENTIRETY WHERE SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WIN GS HAD A BUILT-UP AREA IN EXCESS OF THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SEC TION 80-IB(10) BUT, IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE PROFITS EARNED ON THE ELIGIBLE UNITS. PARTICULARLY, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THE SAME DO ES NOT ENVISAGE DENIAL OF PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. T HE RELEVANT DISCUSSION, AS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 8 AND 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S EKTA HOUSING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) READS AS UNDER : - VIII) WE NOW EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUP RA) TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. ON A CAREFUL READING OF THIS JUDGEMEN T, WE FIND THAT NOWHERE IT IS STATED THAT PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION S HOULD BE ALLOWED, IN CASE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL UNITS HAD BUILT-UP AREA IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF 1,000 SQ.FT.. IN FACT, THIS ISSUE WAS NOT BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WERE DIFFERENT AND, HENCE THE JUDGEMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ON THIS ISSUE. THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IS WHEN THERE IS A COMMERCIAL ELEMENT IN A RE SIDENTIAL PROJECT, WILL BE ASSESSEE BE DENIED THE ENTIRE EXEMPTION. IN THIS CASE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT WHEN THE LOCAL AUTHORITY APPROVED A PLAN AS A HOUSING PROJECT OR A RESIDENTI AL CUM COMMERCIAL PROJECT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM FO R DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) EVEN IF THE PROJECT HAD COMMERCIA L ELEMENT IN EXCESS OF 10%. AT PARAS 27 AND 28, THE COURT OBSERV ED AS FOLLOWS :- 27. THE QUESTION THEN TO BE CONSIDERED IS, WHETHER THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROJECTS HAVING COMMERCIAL AREA UPTO 10% OF THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE PLOT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 80- IB(10) ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT UPTO 01.04.2005. ONCE THE BASIC ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE HOUSING PROJECTS W ITH COMMERCIAL USER ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SECTION 80-IB(1 0) DEDUCTION IS REJECTED, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RESTRICTION IMPOSED UNDER THE ACT, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO H OLD THAT THE PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVING R ESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITH COMMERCIAL USER UPTO 10% OF THE PLOT AREA WOULD ALONE BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB( 10). AS NOTED EARLIER, RESTRICTION REGARDING COMMERCIAL USE R HAS BEEN IMPOSED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY INTRODUCING CLAUSE (D ) TO SECTION 80-IB(10) WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2005. THEREFORE, I T WAS NOT OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO HOLD THAT PRIOR TO 01.04.20 05, PROJECTS HAVING COMMERCIAL USER UPTO 10% OF THE PLOT AREA AL ONE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR SECTION 80-IB(10) DEDUCTION. 28. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH THE COMMERCIAL USER IS MORE THAN 10% OF THE PLOT AREA, THE TRIBUNAL HAS AL LOWED SECTION 80-IB(10) DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF 15 RESIDE NTIAL ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 BUILDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROFITS FROM THESE EXCLUSIVELY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS COULD BE DETERMINED ON STAND ALONG BASIS. IN OUR OPINION, THAT WOULD NOT BE PROPER, BECAUSE S ECTION 80- IB(10) ALLOWS DEDUCTION TO THE ENTIRE PROJECT APPRO VED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND NOT TO A PART OF THE PROJECT. I F THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN SECTION 80-IB(10) ARE SATISFIED, THEN DE DUCTION IS ALLOWABLE ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT APPROVED BY THE LOC AL AUTHORITY AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION TO P ART OF THE PROJECT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COMMERCIAL USER I S ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DC RULES AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO SECTION 80-IB(10) DEDUCTION ON THE ENTI RE PROJECT APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESTRICT ING THE DEDUCTION TO A PART OF THE PROJECT. THEREFORE, WHIL E HOLDING THAT IN LAW, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO SECTION 80-IB( 10) DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DI STURB THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESTRICTING THE SECTION 80-IB(10) DEDUCTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED FR OM 15 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. IX) THUS, IT COULD BE SEEN THAT THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT DO NOT APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT A RES IDENTIAL BUILDING WITH COMMERCIAL USER UP TO 10% OF THE PLOT AREA WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10). THE ISSUE THAT, IN CASE WHERE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE OF A BUILT-UP AREA IN EXCESS OF THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF 1,000 SQ.FT. IN RESIDENTIAL PRO JECT, THIS WOULD RESULT IN THE ENTIRE EXEMPTION BEING LOST, OR WHETHER THE ASS ESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION WAS NOT BEFOR E THE HIGH COURT. THUS, IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BRAHMA ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) DOES NOT C OME TO THE RESCUE OF THE REVENUE. 22. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, WE, THEREFOR E, HOLD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE CONDIT ION UNDER SECTION 80- IB(10)(C) IN RELATION TO THE FLATS ON THE 11 TH FLOOR, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) CANNOT BE DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY, BUT, TH E DENIAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PROFITS IN RESPECT OF THE FLATS ON THE 11 TH FLOOR ALONE. FOR THE BALANCE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80- IB(10) OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED, AND THE ASSESSEE SU CCEEDS ON THIS ASPECT. 11. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, WE HOLD THAT MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE VIOLATED THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED UNDER SE CTION 80-IB(10)(C) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE AMALGAMATED BUNGLOW G1 & G2, THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED IN IT S ENTIRETY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PRO FITS IN RESPECT OF THE AMALGAMATED BUNGLOW G1 & G2 ALONE. FOR BALANCE OF T HE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WHICH COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ARUN EXCELLO FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD. VS . CIT (2013) 29 ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 TAXMANN.COM 149 (MADRAS) CONSIDERED AN ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE, SIMILAR TO WHAT HAS BEEN ARGUED BEFORE US, TO THE EFFECT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTEMPLATION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10 ) OF THE ACT FOR PROPORTIONATE RELIEF ON PARTIAL COMPLIANCE, SECTION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO GRANTED PRO RATA RELIEF. THE AFORESAID ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN NEGATED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND THEREF ORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PROPORTIONATE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED. 12. THUS, ON THE AFORESAID ASPECT, ASSESSEE SUCCEED S AND WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE LAKSHDWEEP PROJECT BY LIMI TING THE DENIAL ONLY TO THE PROFITS IN RESPECT OF BUNGLOW G1 & G2. FOR BALANCE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ASSESSEE SHALL BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 8 0-IB(10) OF THE ACT. 13. NOW, WE MAY TAKE-UP THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE F OR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SAMARTH NAGARI PROJECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE OBJECTIONS IN PARA 5.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE DISCUSSION, IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE BUILT-UP AREA OF TWO UNITS EXCE EDED 1500 SQ.FT. AFTER INCLUDING THE AREAS OF TERRACE AND CANOPY. AS PER T HE ASSESSEE, THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE TWO UNITS WAS 1455 AND 1440 SQ.FT. WHER EAS AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PROJECTIONS BY WAY OF TERRACE AND CANO PY WERE INCLUDABLE IN THE EXPRESSION BUILT-UP AREA AND AFTER INCLUDING THE SAME THE BUILT-UP AREA CAME TO 1687 AND 1683 SQ.FT. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROJECT S AMARTH NAGARI WAS ALSO HELD TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). 14. ON THE AFORESAID ASPECT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE UNDERS TOOD THE EXPRESSION BUILT- UP AREA ON THE BASIS OF THE DEFINITION CONTAINED I N SECTION 80-IB(14)(A) OF THE ACT. SECTION 80-IB(14)(A) OF THE ACT DEFINES BUILT -UP AREA TO MEAN THE INNER ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 MEASUREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AT THE FLOOR L EVEL, INCLUDING THE PROJECTIONS AND BALCONIES, AS INCREASED BY THE THICKNESS OF THE WALLS BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE COMMON AREAS SHARED WITH OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNIT S. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID DEFINITION OF BUILT-U P AREA WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01.04.2005. ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID DEFINITION HAS INCLUDED THE AREA COVERED BY PR OJECTIONS AND BALCONIES IN THE EXPRESSION BUILT-UP AREA BUT THE SAME SHOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ONLY SUCH PROJECTS WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON OR AFTER 01.04 .2005 I.E. THE DATE FROM WHICH SUCH AMENDMENT HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINAN CE (NO.2) ACT, 2004. THE SAMARTH NAGARI PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON 20.11.2002 AND THEREFORE IT IS PRIOR T O THE AMENDMENT INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004. ACCORDING TO THE LEAR NED COUNSEL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESENT CLAIM THE BUILT-UP AREA WOULD NO T INCLUDE THE AREA OF CANOPY AND BALCONY PROJECTIONS. IT IS SUBMITTED THA T SIMILAR SITUATION WAS CONSIDERED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF D.S. KULKARNI DEVELOPERS LTD. (SUPRA). 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEFINITION OF BU ILT-UP AREA CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IB(14)(A) OF THE ACT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND IS APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ONWA RDS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE CONCERNED PROJECT. 16. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. THE SOLITARY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO T HE SAMARTH NAGARI PROJECT IS THAT SOME OF THE FLATS CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESS EE DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE FEW UNI TS EXCEEDED THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 80-IB(10) OF TH E ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DIFFERED WITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE CALCULATION O F BUILT-UP AREA OF SUCH UNITS. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AREA COVERED BY T HE TERRACE AND CANOPY WAS ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 INCLUDIBLE WHILE CALCULATING THE BUILT-UP AREA OF T HE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE REFERR ED TO THE DEFINITION OF BUILT- UP AREA CONTAINED IN SECTION 80-IB(14)(A) OF THE A CT FOR THE SAID PURPOSE. OSTENSIBLY, THE DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION BUILT -UP AREA INCLUDING THE AREAS OF PROJECTIONS AND BALCONIES WAS INSERTED BY THE FI NANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01.04.2005 WHEREAS THE PROJECT OF THE ASSESS EE COMMENCED PRIOR TO 01.04.2005. IN AN EARLIER DECISION, THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF D.S. KULKARNI DEVELOPERS LTD. (SUPRA) RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HAWARE CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. ITO, 64 DTR (MUMBAI) (TRIB) 251 AND ALSO THE DECISI ON OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRIME PROPERTIES (ITA N OS. 887/PN/2010 & OTHERS) DATED 26.04.2012 AND IT WAS HELD THAT PRIOR TO 01.0 4.2005, THE EXPRESSION BUILT-UP AREA HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. THE INSERTION OF THE DEFINITION OF THE BUILT- UP AREA IN SECTION 80-IB(14)(A) BY THE FINANCE (NO .2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 01.04.2005 WAS HELD TO BE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE EVALUATING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80- IB(10) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY PRIOR T O 01.04.2005. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SA MARTH NAGARI PROJECT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY P RIOR TO 01.04.2005, THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE UNITS IS REQUIRED TO BE CALC ULATED AS PER THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL RULES OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AN D ON THAT BASIS THE AREA COVERED BY CANOPY AND BALCONY ARE NOT INCLUDIBLE. I N VIEW OF THE AFORESAID POSITION, THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, I N OUR VIEW IS UNTENABLE. 17. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR ASSESS MENT ORDER 2005-06 IS SET-ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) ON THE AFORESAID LINES. 18. IN SO FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS CONCERNED THE DISPUTE IS SIMILAR TO THAT CONSIDERED BY US WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THE EARLI ER PARAGRAPHS. THEREFORE, OUR DECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ALSO. 19. FURTHER, ANOTHER ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE DE TERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT NOTICED THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT INCLUD ED A PROFIT ELEMENT OF RS.5,22,600/- WHICH REPRESENTED DISALLOWANCE MADE U NDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT DUE TO NON-PAYMENT/DEDUCTION OF TDS DURI NG THE YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON SUCH AMOUNT OF DISALLOWAN CE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF TH E ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 20. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REL IED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IT O VS. KEVAL CONSTRUCTION (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 277 (GUJARAT) WHEREIN AN IDEN TICAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UPHELD. AS PER THE LEARNED COUNSE L, THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WOULD QUALIFY F OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT AS SUCH DISALLOWANCE MERELY IN CREASES THE ULTIMATE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM BUSINESS. 21. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE SAME. 22. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSEE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KEVAL CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA). THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IN T HE ORDER OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS WORTHY AT NOTICE :- HAVING HEARD COUNSEL ON BOTH THE QUESTION TODAY IN THIS APPEAL, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE TRIBUNALS ULTIMATE CONCLUSION . EVEN IF A CERTAIN EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING HOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE BY VIR TUE OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF ITA NO.715/PN/2009 ITA NO.175/PN/2011 THE ACT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED THE TA X AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT SUCH DISALLOWAN CE WOULD ULTIMATELY GO TO INCREASE THE ASSESSEES PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPING HOUSING PROJECT. WHATEVER BE THE ULTIMATE PROFIT OF ASSESSE E AS COMPUTED EVEN AFTER MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, WOULD QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW. 23. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY SOURCE OF PROFI TS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IS FROM UNDERTAKING DEVELO PMENT OF ITS HOUSING PROJECT LAKSHDWEEP. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE EXPEND ITURE OF RS.5,22,600/- IS FOUND TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DEDUCTING/DEPOSITING THE TDS, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT SUCH DISALLOWANCE ULT IMATELY INCREASES THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE DERIVED FROM ITS HOUSING PR OJECT LAKSHDWEEP. ACCORDING TO THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KEVAL CONSTRUCTION (SUPRA) THE AFORESAID PROFIT REFLECTED BY THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT , QUALIFIED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IB(10) OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT C ASE. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT, ASSESSEE HAS TO SUCCEED. 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ARE ALLOWED AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 25 TH JUNE, 2013 SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-III/V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-III/V, PUNE; 5) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE.
Mehul