Mrs.Shubhada Parmakar Deshpande, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 727/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88938 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Tax effect
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.727/PN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MRS SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 9, SHIVTIRTH PAR, 2 ND FLOOR, NEW PANDIT COLONY, NASHIK 422002 . APPELLANT PAN: AEAPD0334E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK . RESPONDENT ITA NO.783/PN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK . APPELLANT VS. MRS SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 9, SHIVTIRTH PAR, 2 ND FLOOR, NEW PANDIT COLONY, NASHIK 422002 . RESPONDENT PAN: AEAPD0334E ASSESSEE BY : S.N. DOSHI DEPARTMENT BY : B.C. MALAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 11-02-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13-02-2015 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AR E AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, NASHIK, DATED 23.01.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NOS.727 & 783/PN/2013 SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 2 2. BOTH THE CROSS APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSE E WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS N OT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW RS.4 LAKHS. THE LEARNED AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD T HE COMPUTATION OF TAX RELATABLE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 4. ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BELOW RS.4 LAKHS. THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS LESS THAN RS.4 LAKHS. 5. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUAREL Y COVERED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR REPORTED IN (2013) 350 ITR 237 (BOM) THAT T HE PROPOSITION REGARDING THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE CBDT AR E NOT ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE NEW CASES BUT WOULD ALSO APPLICABLE TO TH E PENDING APPEALS. 6. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE REVENUE HAD FILED THE APPEAL ON 03.04.2013. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE T AX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.4 LACS AS PRESCRIBED IN INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2 014 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE MONET ARY LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT STAND REVISED BY THE SAID INSTR UCTION NO.5 OF 2014, DATED 10.07.2014 UNDER WHICH, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED T HAT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED RS.4 LACS IN ANY OF THE AS SESSMENT YEAR THEN, NO APPEAL CAN BE FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE SAID REVISED INSTRUCTIONS WHICH WERE ITA NOS.727 & 783/PN/2013 SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 3 ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE REVEN UE COULD BE APPLIED TO THE PENDING APPEAL OR APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE NE W CASES TO BE FILED BY THE REVENUE AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE INSTRUCTIONS. 7. WE FIND THAT THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR (SUPRA). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SM T. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR (SUPRA), HAD IN TURN FOLLOWED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY ANOTHER DIVISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. POLYCO TT CORPORATION REPORTED IN (2009) 318 ITR 144 (BOM) WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 8. IN CASE OF 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S POLYC OTT CORPORATION' REPORTED AT '(2009) 318 ITR 144 (BOM), A A NOTHER DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT CONSTRUED THE SAME INST RUCTION NO. 2 OF 2005, DATED 24TH OCTOBER, 2005. THE DIVISION BENCH OBSE RVED WHILE CONSTRUING THE PARAGRAPH NO. 5 OF THE CIRCULAR, AS THUS : '9. HAVING CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS, IN OUR OPINIO N, THE INSTRUCTIONS CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS A STATUTE THO UGH IT IS PURSUANT TO THE POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 268A OF THE IT ACT. WHAT THE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER IS THE PLAIN LAN GUAGE OF THE PARA AND THE OBJECT BEHIND THE SAID PROVISIONS. THE OBJECT APPEARS TO BE NOT TO BURDEN COURTS AND TRIBUNALS IN RESPECT OF MATTERS WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PR ESCRIBED. EVEN BEFORE THIS INSTRUCTION, CBDT HAS BEEN ISSUING INSTRUCTIONS, THE LAST ONE BEING ON 24TH OCT., 2005 WH ERE THE MONETARY LIMIT HAS BEEN FIXED. IN THOSE INSTRUCTIONS T HE ONLY EXCEPTION HAD BEEN THAT IN CASES INVOLVING, SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW OF IMPORTANCE AS WELL AS IN CASES WHER E THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW WILL REPEATEDLY ARISE, EITHER IN T HE CASE CONCERNED OR IN SIMILAR CASE, APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED WITH OUT BEING HINDERED BY THE MONETARY LIMITS. THE PRESENT INSTRUCTIONS SEEM EVEN TO LIMIT THE ISSUES INSOFAR AS THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW OR RECURRING ISSUE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT P ROVIDED IN PARA 5. ON A PROPER READING OF PARA 5 OF THE INSTRUCTIONS IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT A DUTY IS CAST ON THE AO THAT EVEN IF THE DISPUTED QUESTIONS ARISE FOR MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR T HEN AN APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THOSE YEARS W HERE THE MONETARY LIMIT AS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 OF THE INST RUCTION. THE EXCEPTION, HOWEVER, IS CARVED OUT IN RESPECT OF A COMPOSITE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OR APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. IN OTHER WORDS WHERE THE HIGH COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS PAS SED A COMPOSITE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE ON T HE SAME QUESTION AND/OR ON DIFFERENT QUESTION AND FOR ONE O F THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN THE MO NETARY ITA NOS.727 & 783/PN/2013 SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 4 LIMIT THEN THE APPEAL SHALL ALSO BE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE COMPOSITE ORDER MUST RELATE TO A COMMON ISSUE. WE BEG TO DISAGREE ON A PLAIN AND LITERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE INSTRUCTION. THE EXPRESSION 'WHICH INVOLVES MORE THA N ONE YEAR' WOULD HAVE NO MEANING IF IT WAS RESTRICTED ONL Y TO THE EXPRESSION 'COMMON ISSUES'. THE EXPRESSION, THEREFORE , OF A COMPOSITE ORDER WILL HAVE TO BE READ TO MEAN AN ORDE R IN RESPECT OF THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR . AN (ORDER) DISPOSING OF SEVERAL APPEALS ON A COMMON QUEST ION OF LAW BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A COM POSITE ORDER AS THE ORDER INVOLVES APPEALS BY DIFFERENT PERS ONS, WHICH APPEALS FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE HAVE BEEN ONLY CLUBBED TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL ON THAT ISSUE. IN OUR OPINION, THIS WOULD BE THE CORRECT READING OF PAR A 5 OF THE INSTRUCTION.' 8. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD AS UNDER:- 15. THE POSITION OF LAW, THEREFORE, EMERGING FROM TH E AFORESAID JUDGEMENTS, IS THAT THE CIRCULARS OR INSTRUCTIONS IS SUED UNDER SECTION 268A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAX ES, ARE APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO NEW CASES BUT TO PENDING CASE S AS WELL. SUCH CIRCULARS HAVE BEEN ISSUED UNDER SECTION 268A OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 260 OF THE ACT. THE CBDT BEING MINDFUL OF THIS POSITION HAS ISSUED THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTIONS. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, THE INSTRUC TIONS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO PENDING CASES AS WELL. WE HAVE ALREADY FOU ND THAT THE INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 AND INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 2 011 ARE PARA- MATERIA. THE INSTRUCTION NO. 5 OF 2008 HAS ALREADY BEEN INTERPRETED BY THIS COURT IN CIT V/S MADHUKAR INAMDAR (SUPRA). IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THIS JUDGEMENT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE STILL HOLDS THE FIELD. 9. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. VIJAYA V. KAVEKAR (SUPR A), WE HOLD THAT IN VIEW OF THE REVISED INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY THE CBDT UND ER WHICH, THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTH ORITIES, TRIBUNALS HAS BEEN REVISED AND FIXED AT RS.4 LACS I.E. ONLY APPEALS WITH TAX EFFECT EXCEEDING RS.4 LACS WERE MAINTAINABLE. IN THE P RESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE MONETARY LIMIT ADMITTEDLY, IS LESS T HAN RS.4 LACS. IN VIEW OF INSTRUCTION NO.5 OF 2014 WHICH ARE APPLICAB LE NOT ONLY TO THE NEW APPEALS TO BE FILED BY THE REVENUE, BUT ALSO TO T HE APPEALS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE BECAUSE OF SMALL TAX EFFECT. ITA NOS.727 & 783/PN/2013 SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 5 10. NOW, COMING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,0 00/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN AT RS.1,93,913/- THE CALCULATION OF WHICH HAS BEEN MADE ERRONEOUSLY BY ADOPTING THE INDEX OF F.Y. 1999-2000 AS AGAINST THE INDEX OF F.Y. 1995-96. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED TO B E AMENDED, ALTERED, MODIFIED, ETC., IN THE INTEREST OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. 11. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 12. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN BANK AT RS.12,55,000/- ON VARIOUS DATES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT, IT HAD SOLD ONE PROPERTY, INCOME FRO M WHICH DECLARED UNDER INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE TOT AL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS.12 LAKHS AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY NOTED THAT AS AGAINST THE BOUNCING OF CHEQUES OF RS.2,50,000/- EACH RECEIVED FROM THREE PERSONS, CASH WA S DEPOSITED. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD DEP OSITED THE CASH OUT OF THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASERS, WAS REJECTED AND ADDITION OF RS.12,55,000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. THE CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE I.E. TWO AFFIDAVITS OF THE PURCHASERS, WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID R S.10 LAKHS IN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS. HOWEVER, THE ITA NOS.727 & 783/PN/2013 SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 6 EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS REMAINING CASH DEPO SIT OF RS.2,55,000/- THAT THE SAME WAS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL PROCEE DS, WAS NOT ACCEPTED FOR LACK OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 14. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A). 15. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN ALL, THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.12,55,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE OUT OF SALE PROC EEDS OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, OUT OF WHICH THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 LAKHS HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE CIT(A) THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DELETION OF RS.10 LAKHS, BUT THE SAID APPEAL HAS NOT MAINTAINABLE BECAU SE OF LOW TAX EFFECT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT BALANCE SUM OF RS.2 ,55,000/- WAS OUT OF SAVINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AGRICULTURAL PROCE EDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT WAS ALSO POINTED O UT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN AS THE ASSESSEE WAS INCURRING LOSSES. 16. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,000/- MERITS T O BE UPHELD. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SOLD O NE PROPERTY AT SURVEY NO.111/3/22, PLOT NO.21, MAUJE WADALA SHIWAR AT NA SHIK, AGAINST WHICH IT DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION IN CASH WHICH WA S DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.10 LAKHS ITA NOS.727 & 783/PN/2013 SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 7 BEING ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SALE PROCEEDS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE BALANCE SUM OF RS.2,50,000/- BY CHEQUE AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,55,000/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DEPOSITED CASH TOTALING RS.2,55,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUN T, WHICH SHE CLAIMS TO BE OUT OF HER SAVINGS AND ALSO PARTLY OUT OF AG RICULTURAL PRODUCE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE CASH FLOW STAT EMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH, EVEN THE EXPENDITURE RELATING T O AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WAS DEBITED. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER SAVINGS AND PARTLY OUT OF AGRICULTURAL PROCEEDS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,55,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE AC T. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, ALLOWED. 18. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IS AGAINST THE INDEXATION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE AS SETS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WA S THAT THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS TO BE COMPUTED BY ADOPTING INDEXATION OF FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96 TO THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HA D ADOPTED THE INDEXATION OF FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE ASSET IN THE SAID YEAR. 19. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASS ESSEE HOWEVER, BEFORE US POINTED OUT THAT INITIALLY, IT HAD PURCHASED THE LAND WITH SMALL BUILT UP AREA IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 AND HAD FURTHER C ONSTRUCTED BUILDING IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 1995-96 AND AS SUCH, THE C OST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BIFURCATED FIGURES OF INVESTMENTS. ITA NOS.727 & 783/PN/2013 SHUBHADA PARMAKAR DESHPANDE 8 20. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RE VENUE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INDEXATION OF FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 HAS TO BE APPLIED. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD INITIALLY PURCH ASED THE LAND ALONG WITH A SMALL BUILT UP AREA IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 A ND HAD CONSTRUCTED BUILDING IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96. WE FIND THAT THE NECESSARY DETAILS IN THIS REGARD ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECO RD AND HENCE, IT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO CARRY OUT THE VERIFICATION EXERCISE AND COMPUTE THE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION RELATABLE TO THE ACQUISITION I.E. THE COST OF LAND WITH BUILT UP AREA IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 AND THE ADDITIONAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96. REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AN D THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-II, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE