Shivratan Motilal Rathi, Jalna V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 732/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2527 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report; Reason to believe
• Section: 69; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM . / ITA NO S . 730 TO 7 33 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 4 - 0 5, 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 & 2011 - 12 SHRI SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI, BANSILAL KABRA, ADVOCATE, 20, 1 ST FLOOR, AMBIKA MARKET, JALNA - 431203 . / APPELLANT PAN: A DBPR0373F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAD 1 ( 3 ), JALNA . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARAG RATHI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH GAWALI / DATE OF HEARING : 2 5 . 0 2 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 . 0 3 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF CIT (A) - 1 , AURANGABAD , ALL DATED 0 8 . 0 1 .201 6 RELATING TO DIFFERENT AS SESSMENT YEAR S 2004 - 05, 2008 - 09 , 2009 - 10 AND 2011 - 12 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTION /S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 / 144 R.W.S. 147 / 144 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO S . 730 TO 733 /P U N/201 6 SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI 2 2. THIS BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS RELATING TO THE SA ME ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: - 1. A DDITION OF RS.10,50,000/ - BY ALLEGING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY INDIVIDUAL. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.10,50,000/ - BY ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE CAPACITY OF KARTA OF HUF AND ALLEGED THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT ARE FABRICATED OR DID NOT DISCUSS THE SAME IN THE APPEAL ORDER. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 4 . THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE OF 10,50,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND. 5 . BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SEEDS, PESTICIDES, FERTILIZERS. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER LAND TRANSACTION DEED DATED 25.07.2006, AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, SHRI DEEPAK KUNDAN M AL RATHI OF JALNA AND SHRI SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATH I I.E. ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED PIECE OF LAND SITUATED AT SURVEY NO.4076, MUNICIPAL PROPERTY NO.1 - 28 - 76, MANTHA ROAD, JALNA FROM RADESHAM RAMNARAYAN RATHI (GPA HOLDER) AND SUM OF 21 LAKHS WAS PAID DURING THE YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE SAID PAYMENT, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, IN RESPONSE TO ITA NO S . 730 TO 733 /P U N/201 6 SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI 3 WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RE VISED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 1,63,490/ - . THEREAFTER, VARIOUS NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SOME OF THEM WERE REMAINED UN - COMPLIED WITH BUT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE ALSO FILED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF NON COMMUNICATION FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE AND EVEN BY THE CO - OWNER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT AND ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER SEC TION 69 OF THE ACT OF 10,50,000/ - . 6 . BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE LAND DID NOT BELONG TO HIM BUT IT WAS ACQUIRED BY SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI (HUF) AND JUGALKISHORE KUNDAN M AL RATHI (HUF), THOUGH IN THE JOINT NAMES OF SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI AND S HRI DEEPAK KUNDAN M AL RATHI, WHO WERE KARTA AND BENEFICIARY C O - PARCENER OF HUF, RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT EXPENSES FOR STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION AT 2,91,440/ - WERE ALSO MADE AND COPY OF SALE DEED WAS ALSO FURNISHED VIS - - VIS SOURCE OF IN VESTMENT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME WERE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF FLATS AND PAST SAVINGS OF BOTH HUFS AND AGREEMENT / SALE DEEDS OF FLATS WERE ALSO FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT INVESTMENT OF 21 LAKHS EXCLUDING REGISTRATION EXPENSES H AD BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI, HUF AND JUGALKISHORE KUNDAN M AL RATHI, HUF AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF KARTA OR BENEFICIARY CO - PARCENER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ELABO RATELY PROVIDED THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS MADE BY HUF. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE AFORESAID PROPERTY WAS MUTATED VIDE COURT DECREE DATED 13.05.2004 I.E. PRIOR TO 25.07.2006 , WHICH WAS DATE OF PURCHASE I.E. DATE OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED IN THE NAME OF INDIVIDUALS SHRI DEEPAK KUNDANMAL RATHI AND SHRI SHIVRATAN ITA NO S . 730 TO 733 /P U N/201 6 SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI 4 MOTILAL RATHI . HENCE, HE HELD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WAS BY TWO HUFS. HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FAMILY TREE OF RATHI FAMILY AND EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH HUF CAME INTO EXISTENCE. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE LAND AT JALNA WAS PURCHASED BY S HIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI (HUF) AND JUGALKISHORE KUNDANMAL RATHI (HUF) JOINTLY. THOUGH THE PURCHASE DEED WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAMES OF SHRI DEEPAK KUNDANMAL RATHI AND SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI, SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUNDANMAL RATHI I.E. 21 LAKHS AND REGISTRATION CHARGES WERE PAID BY BOTH OF THEM. THEREAFTER, ON THE SAID LAND, CONSTRUCTION WAS UNDERTAKEN CONSISTING OF ONE HOSPITAL BUILDING AND 14 FLATS. THE SAID 14 FLATS WERE SOLD TO VARIOUS BUYERS AND AGREEMENT FOR SALE WAS REGISTERED IN THE CAPACITY OF RESPECTIVE HUF, EVEN IN THE DOCUMENT, PAN NUMBER OF HUF WAS MENTIONED. HE ALSO STATED THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF PROJECT, SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI (HUF) HAD OFFERED TAX ON PROPERTY INCOME I.E. ON SALE OF 50% OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF SAID 14 FLATS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR 50% SHARE IN INVESTMENTS. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, W HICH CLEARLY STATES THAT OWNERS OF LAND IN QUESTION WERE TWO HUFS AND NOT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ALL THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS HAVE NOT BEEN GONE INTO BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO S . 730 TO 733 /P U N/201 6 SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI 5 8 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 WAS REO PENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF 50%. THE BASIS FOR RECORDING THE AF ORESAID REASONS WAS THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE, WHEREIN HE ALONG WITH ONE SHRI DEEPAK KUNDANMAL RATHI HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT JALNA, FOR WHICH TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF 21 LAKHS WAS PAID. THE SAID CONSIDERATION OF 21 LAKHS WAS PAID OUT OF BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUNDANMAL RATHI . THE ASSESSEE HAS TIME AND AGAIN STRESSED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM BUT IS THE ASSET OF HUF AND OTHER 50% IS OWNED BY JUGALKISHORE KUNDANMAL RATHI (HUF) . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ON RECORD SUFFIC IENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE IN THIS REGARD. MERELY BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT WAS RECORDED IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAMES DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATUS OF ITS HOLDING BY HUF. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ASPECT OF ACQUISITION OF LAND BY HUF AND THEREAFTER ON COM PLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE AFORESAID LAND, THE PROFITS BEING OFFERED BY RESPECTIVE HUFS NEEDS DELIBERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER AFFORDING REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO CO - OPERATE AND FURNISH THE COMPLETE INFORMATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO S . 730 TO 733 /P U N/201 6 SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI 6 1 0 . NOW, COMING TO THE APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 AND 2011 - 12. THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE YEARS HAS RAISED ADDITIO NAL GROUND OF APPEAL THAT RE - ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT IS NOT VALID AS THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ARE ON THE BASIS OF OPINION OF THE DVO, WHICH COULD NOT BE CONSTITUTED SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO REOPEN THE ASSESSME NT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 11. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN CASE THE LEGAL ISSUE IS DECIDED, THEN THERE IS NO NEED TO GO INTO THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 12. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. FIRST, IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE, WE SHALL MAKE REFERENCE TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.731/PUN/2016, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. T HE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: - 1] LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BY FORMING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BASED ON VALUATION OFFICERS REPORT WITHOUT ANY OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THEREBY ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION OF REASSESSMENT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 14. THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HAVE NOTED THE FACT THAT ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF SAID ASSESSMENT, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD JOINTLY WITH SHRI DEEPAK KUNDANMAL RATHI, JALNA CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT CONSISTING OF 13 FLATS ITA NO S . 730 TO 733 /P U N/201 6 SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI 7 AND HOSPITAL BUILDING AT PLOT OF LAND IN JALNA. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPY OF VALUATION REPORT COMPUTING TOTAL INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ON THE AFORESAID LAND FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10. IN THE BACKGROUND OF SAID INFORMATION AND ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE AFORESAID CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OF ASSESSEE WERE FOUND UNDISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, REFERENCE WAS MADE UNDER S ECTION 142A OF THE ACT TO THE DVO, NAGPUR. ACCORDINGLY, VALUATION OFFICER, NAGPUR SUBMITTED HIS REPORT, WHICH FORMED PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON VERIFICATION OF DVO REPORT, IT WAS NOTED THAT VARIOUS INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE INCLU DING YEAR - WISE EXPENDITURE ON THE CONSTRUCTION DURING THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE SAID NOTICES AND EVEN TO THE NOTICES FOR INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY. THE DVO CARRIED OUT INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED APARTMENT BUILDING AND HOSPITAL BUILDING. HE ALSO EVALUATED YEAR - WISE EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED TO BE SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED ALL THESE FACTS IN THE FIRST FEW PAGES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THEN IN PARA 6, HE NOTES AS UNDER: - 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS APPARENT THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT INTO THE CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENT BUILDING AND HOSPITAL BUILDING AND HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE ABOVE INVESTMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME BY DISCLOSING THE ABOVE TRANSACTION OF RS.41,19,438/ - (RS.82,38,876/ - /2 = RS.41,19,438/ - ) THEREFORE, THERE WAS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 2(A) OF SECTION 147, ASSESSEES INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AT RS.41,19,438/ - , BEING HIS 50% SHARE INTO THE ABOVE PROPERTY, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 15. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UND ER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO S . 730 TO 733 /P U N/201 6 SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI 8 16. THE LIMITED ISSUE WHICH ARISES BEFORE US IS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DVO REPORT VIS - - VIS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT INTO CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENT BUILDING AND HOSPITAL BUILDING BY THE ASSESSEE, CAN THE REOPENING BE SUSTAINED. THE ANSWER TO THE SA ID IS NO. 17. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ACIT VS. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) HAS LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE DEPARTMENT HAD SOUGHT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE OPINION GIVEN BY THE DVO; THE OPINION OF D VO PERSE WAS NOT INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE APEX COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE INFORMATION, IF ANY, COLLECTED AND MUST FORM A BELIEF THEREO N. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THUS, HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. 18. IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL WHERE THE BASIS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OPINION O F THE DVO I.E. VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO ESTIMATING COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SUCH REPORT OF THE DVO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND HAS PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WHERE THE BASIS FOR REOPENING IS REPORT OF THE DVO, THEN APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN ACIT VS. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED T O REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH OPINION OF THE DVO. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF ITA NO S . 730 TO 733 /P U N/201 6 SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI 9 THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED THEREAFTER UNDER SECT ION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DO NOT STAND. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED IN ALL THREE YEARS IS ALLOWED AND ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HELD TO BE INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 1 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004 - 05 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09, 2009 - 10 AND 2011 - 12 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 11 TH MARCH , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 1 , AURANGABAD ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE