Laxman Maruti Shitole, Pune V. ` Income tax Officer,

ITA 74/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7744 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 54B

Judgement Text

SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM . / ITA NO.74/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 LAXMAN MARUTI SHITOLE, SUS. 402, SHITOLE WASTI, TAL. MULSHI, DIST. PUNE 411 021 PAN : CBLPS2626E . /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-4(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.75/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ANIL MARUTI SHITOLE, SUS. 402, SHITOLE WASTI, TAL. MULSHI, DIST. PUNE 411 021 PAN : CBLPS2767L . /APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-4(4), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SASAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG / DATE OF HEARING : 17.05.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.05.2018 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESS EES UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THEY ARE FILED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-3, PUNE COMMONLY DATE D 07-09-2016. I SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE FIRST. ITA NO.74 & 75/PUN/2017 SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE & SHRI ANIL M. SHITOLE 2 ITA NO.74/PUN/2017 SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE A.Y. 2009-10 2. BEFORE ME, AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE MENTIONED THAT GROUND NOS. 4 AND 5 OF THE APPEAL ARE NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 3. REFERRING TO GROUND NOS.1 AND 2, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS RELATE TO VA LIDITY OF THE REFERRAL BY THE AO TO DVO U/S.55A OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED T HAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE A FRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS 360 ITR 697. THE SAME IS RELEVANT FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE REFERRAL U/S.55A OF THE ACT TO THE DVO SHOULD BE MADE ONLY WHEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THA N THAT OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF HONBL E BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUJA PRINTS (SUPRA), THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF AO F OR FRESH ADJUDICATION. AO IS DIRECTED TO GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NOS. 7 AND 8 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE G ENERAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE, THE SAID GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. THAT LEAVES GROUND NOS. 3 AND 6 FOR ADJUDICATION AND THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED A S UNDER : II. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER OF LAND. ITA NO.74 & 75/PUN/2017 SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE & SHRI ANIL M. SHITOLE 3 3. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENDITU RE CLAIM IN CONNECTION WITH AGRICULTURAL LAND. 6. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DECISION O F A.O. REGARDING PERMISSION FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT OF ISSUES OTHER THAN CASS NOTICE. 6. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54B OF THE ACT WHEN THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE BUYER OF THE LAND S UBSEQUENT TO THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID LAND TO THE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT FACTS I NCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS A SHARE IN A LAND AND THE SAME WAS SOLD FOR A CONSI DERATION OF RS.96 LAKHS (ROUNDED OFF) AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE IS 33.33%. ASSESSEE REINVESTED A SUM OF RS.56 LAKHS (ROUNDED OFF) IN PURCHASE OF (A NEW ASSET) A LAND AND GOT IT REGISTERED ON 18-03-2009 AS PER THE PROCEDURE. ASS ESSEE INCURRED RS.18,40,350/- TOWARDS BROKERAGE TOO. THUS, RS.33 ,98,453/- IS LEFT FOR CAPITAL GAINS TAX. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 12-11-2011, (PARA NO.14 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER), I.E. TWO AND HALF YEARS NEARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO ENTER INTO A WRITTEN AGREEMENT ON A NON-JUDICIAL STAMP FORM AND PAID A S UM OF RS.15 LAKHS TO MR. CHANDRAKANT YELWANDE, THE SELLER OF THE LAND ON 11- 02-2009 AND 12-03-2009 AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THE SAID AGREEMENT IS AN UNREGISTERED ONE. AO DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION FOR WANT OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. AO DISCUSSED HIS ISSUE IN PA RA NO.14 OF HIS ORDER. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE D ECISION OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD. 7. ON THIS ISSUE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.15 LAKHS SUBSEQUENT TO THE REINVESTMENT WAS T HE REQUIREMENT FOR GETTING FULL POWERS OF THE LAND. THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED B Y THE CIT(A) IN PARA NO.7.3.1. ITA NO.74 & 75/PUN/2017 SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE & SHRI ANIL M. SHITOLE 4 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND O N PERUSING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), I FIND IT RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE FINDING G IVEN BY THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER : 7.3.1 IN REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF SETTLEMENT FEES FOR CONSENT OF RS.15,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO TO THE SALE DEED DATE D 18-03-2009 WHEREIN CONSIDERATION WAS WRITTEN AT RS.50,00,000/-, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ON THE SAID CONSIDERATION ONLY STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHAR GES WERE PAID. NOWHERE IN THE REGISTERED DEED THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS OF RS.15 ,00,000/- TO MR. CHANDRAKANT YELWANDE ON 11-02-2009 AND 12-03-2009 WA S MENTIONED. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ABOVE PAYMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF DEED AND NOWHERE IN THE DEED SUCH SETTLEMENT FEES P AID WERE MENTIONED. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTARIZED D EED EXECUTED (NOT REGISTERED) ON 12-11-2011 WAS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE SAID DEED THE REFERENCE OF THE SETTLEMEN T FEES PAYMENT WERE MENTIONED STATING THAT THE SAME WAS PART AND PARCEL OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND FOR WHICH SALE DEED WAS MADE. THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT ALL THE PARTIES MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT DAT ED 18-03-2009 WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE NOTARIZED DEED DATED 12-11-2011. A GAINST THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE AO, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT T HE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CHANDRAKANT YELWANDE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE FOR G ETTING CONSENT OF THE SAID PERSON TO AVOID LITIGATION IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND HENCE PAYMENT WAS MADE OF RS. 15,00,000/-. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED TH AT THE NAME OF MR. YELWANDE WAS PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT ALONG WITH AD DRESS AND THE AO COULD ISSUE SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT TO VERIFY THE SAME BEFORE DISALLOWING THE AFORESAID AMOUNT. I FIND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IS BEREFT OF ANY MERIT . WHAT WAS THE REASON AND FOR WHAT SUCH PAYMENTS WERE MADE IS NOT AT ALL CONSPICUOUS FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. WHY SUCH PAYMENT D ETAIL WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 18-03-2009 CO ULD ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. WHY SUCH A CLAIM WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ONLY V IDE A NOTARIZED DEED EXECUTED ON 12-11-2011, FAR AFTER TH E REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED AND THAT TOO DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ' ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ALSO REMAINED UNEXPLAINED . THE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,00,000/- WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO SHRI CHANDRAKANT YELWANDE ONLY TO REDUCE THE GAINS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF THE AFORESAID LAND. IT CAN SIMPLY BE STATED AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE APPELLANT, WITHOUT ANY REASON WHATSOEVER IN NAT URE. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS / EVIDENCES TO ENSURE EITHE R BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED THAT SUCH PAYMENT TO MR. YELWANDE WAS NE CESSITATED IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF THE LAND. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS AND ALSO IN V IEW OF THE FACTS STATED IN DETAIL BY THE AO , I HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND NO INTERFERENCE ON THE SAME IS CALLED FOR ACCORDINGLY THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE OF RS.15,00,000/- IS HEREBY CO NFIRMED. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE PAI D THE SUM TO LITIGANT IN CONNECTION WITH EARLIER SALE TRANSACTION OF HIS LAN D. IF THE SAME IS NOT PAID, THE LITIGANT IS LIKELY TO CANCEL THE SALE TRANSACTION. FURTHER, CIT(A) IGNORED THE ITA NO.74 & 75/PUN/2017 SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE & SHRI ANIL M. SHITOLE 5 JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ANANT CHUNILAL KATE VS. ITO 187 CTR 93 (BOM.) AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VITHALBHAI PATEL 148 CTR 61. THESE JUDGMENTS AFFIRM THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS DO NOT ARIS E IN CASE THE SALE TRANSACTIONS ARE VOID. IN MY VIEW, THE CIT(A) IS U NDER OBLIGATION TO ADDRESS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID JUDGMENTS TO THE FACT S OF THIS CASE. IT IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT IN CASE SAID AMOUN T OF RS.15 LAKHS IS NOT PAID, THE LITIGANT IS LIKELY TO GO FOR CANCELLATION OF THE SALE AGREEMENT, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE GENERATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS. I N MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN NOT GIVING A VIEW ON THE A PPLICABILITY OF THE SAID JUDGMENTS. THEREFORE, I RESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SET THE SET PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 9. GROUND NO. 6 BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO MANNER O F MAKING ADDITIONS IN CASES SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. EXPLAINING THAT THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REFERRAL MADE BY THE AO TO THE DVO IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF GUIDELINES ISSUE S TO THE AO FOR SCRUTINY. STATING THAT THIS IS A LIMITED SCRUTINY CASE AND TH E SAME RELATES TO THE EXAMINATION OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54B OF TH E ACT, AO EXCEEDED THE LIMIT AND REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO, FOR DETERMINING THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE TRANSACTION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE , THIS ISSUE IS UNCONNECTED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S.54B OF THE ACT. AC CORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS ISSUE WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO WITHOUT OBTAINING TH E APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIT. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.1 SHOULD BE QUASHED CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADMINISTRATI VE APPROVAL BY THE CIT AND CONVERTING THE LIMITED SCRUTINY TO THE COMPLETE SCR UTINY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ITA NO.74 & 75/PUN/2017 SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE & SHRI ANIL M. SHITOLE 6 ISSUE IS POINTED OUT AND THE ACTION OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54B IS ESTABL ISHED. LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM DURING THE CIT(A). 10. ON THIS ISSUE, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE SAME ARE EXTR ACTED HERE AS UNDER : THE APPELLANT CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER THE CASS. T HE CASS SELECTION OF CASES IS TYPE OF COMPULSORY SCRUTINY. THESE CASES IS SEL ECTED ON THE BASIS OF PARTICULAR FINANCIAL CRITERIA AND SELECTED THROUGH COMPUTER SELECTION PROCEDURE.. THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPULSORY SCRUTINY A ND COMPREHENSIVE SCRUTINY. IN COMPREHENSIVE SCRUTINY SELECTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN VERIFY ENTIRE RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT ANY LIMITED OR PART ICULAR ASPECT. IN CASE OF COMPREHENSIVE SCRUTINY IT IS A COMPLETE SCRUTINY OF THE CASE. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS SELECTED UNDER CATEGOR Y COMPULSORY SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF CASS FOR VERIFICATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B ,C,D,G,GA. IN CASE OF APPELLANT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING THE PERMISSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIT HAD VERIFIED THE OTHER ASPECTS LIKE REFERENCE V I] S 55A OF THE ACT TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND COST OF ACQUISITION U/S. 48(I I) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ADHERED THE BINDING CIRCULAR OF CBD T. THE CIRCULAR IS ATTACHED IN PAPER BOOK NO. I PAGE NO. 194. ALSO WE ARE GIVING W ITH THIS LETTER THE COPY OF INSTRUCTION NO. 7 OF 2004 DATED 26/9/2014 IN WHICH COMPREHENSIVE SCRUTINY (COMPLETE SCRUTINY) IS REFERRED. THUS YOUR HONOUR WI LL BE ABLE TO MAKE OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPULSORY SCRUTINY AND COMPREHE NSIVE (COMPLETE) SCRUTINY. IN THIS MATTER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED APPELLANT GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE HIM. THE CIT -APPEALS IN HIS ORDER PARA NO. 5.3 PAGE NO. 4 & 5 OBSERVED THAT THIS IS P ROCEDURAL LAPS AND CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S. 292BB OF THE ACT. BUT IN THIS CONNEC TION WE WANT TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE TAKEN THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE COMPLETION O F THE ASSESSMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 14/11/2011. THIS LETTER IS ATTACHED IN PAPER BOOK NO. I PAGE NO. 44. HENCE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 292BB WILL NOT B E APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT CASE. IN SUPPORT OF OUR CLAIM WE HAVE SUBMITTED VARIOUS C ASE LAWS REGARDING BINDING NATURE CIRCULAR ON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. THIS C ASES ARE AS FOLLOWS. 1 UNION OF INDIA VS. AZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN 2 CIT VS. SHETH (VH) (BORN.) 3 ACIT VS. GENO PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. 11. ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE, I FIND THE ISSUE OF VERIFICATION UNDER CASS RELATES TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54 B,C,D,G,GA OF THE ACT QUA THE RE-INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE AS SESSEE ON SALE OF THE LAND. ITA NO.74 & 75/PUN/2017 SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE & SHRI ANIL M. SHITOLE 7 NOW I HAVE TO EXAMINE IF THE ISSUES RELATING TO REF ERRAL U/S.55A OF THE ACT FOR DETERMINING THE COST OF ACQUISITION/FULL VALUE CONS IDERATION IS CONNECTED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54B OF THE ACT OR NOT. AS D ISCUSSED IN THE OPEN COURT, I FIND THE REFERRAL IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54B OF THE ACT WHICH IS GENERIC IN NATURE. UNLESS THE ACT UAL COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSET OR THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION IS KNOWN, IT IS DIF FICULT TO DETERMINE THE EXPENDITURE OF CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVENTUALLY RE- INVESTED FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.54B OF THE ACT. FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.6 ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.6 RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.75/PUN/2017 SHRI ANIL M. SHITOLE A.Y. 2009-10 13. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL, FACTS, ARGUMENTS AND THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF APPE AL FILED BY SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE VIDE ITA NO.74/PUN/2017. INFACT, THE PROPE RTY IN QUESTION IS OWNED JOINTLY BY THESE ASSESSEES. THEREFORE, OUR DECISIO NS IN CONNECTION APPEAL ITA NO.74/PUN/2017 SHALL APPLY TO THIS APPEAL TOO. CON SEQUENTLY, THE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, GROUN DS NO. 3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND GROUND NO.6 IS DISMISSED. GROUND NOS. 4, 5, 7 AND 8 ARE DISMISSED AS EITHER NOT PRESSED OR GENERAL. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.74 & 75/PUN/2017 SHRI LAXMAN M. SHITOLE & SHRI ANIL M. SHITOLE 8 15. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AR E PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF MAY, 2018. SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 30 TH MAY, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 3 , PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT - 2 , PUNE 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE