CIT-III, Pune V. Shri Jaiprakash H.Pande, Pune

ITA 759/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 75924514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 759/PN/10 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-03) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, .. APPELLANT WARD 5(3), PUNE VS. SHRI JAIPRAKASH H PANDE, .. RESPONDE NT PROP. MAHALAXMI DAIRY, 372 BUDHWAR PETH, PUNE 411042 PAN ABQPP3979C APPELLANT BY: SMT NEERA MALHOTRA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUNIL GANOO DATE OF HEARING : 07.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.12.2011 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATE D 25.2.2010 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 31.1 .2005 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READ AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND T O THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT P ROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT A PPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE THE SOURCE OF SUPPRESSED PURCHASES A ND THEREFORE THEY REQUIRED TO BE ADDED U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THUS DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 4. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT A PPRECIATING THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALES WHICH COMPRISES (PURCHASES + GROSS PROFIT) REQUIRES TO BE ADDED BECAUSE NO DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE AGAINST UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE S DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF FAKIR MOHAMMED HAJI HASAN V. CIT 247 ITR 290 (GUJ.) 5. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELET ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 3,30,899/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION OF PROVISION S OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE BY WAY OF GROU ND NOS. 1 TO 4 IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALES WHICH COMPRISED (PURCHASES PLUS GROSS PROFIT) WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BECAUSE NO DEDUCTION W AS AVAILABLE AGAINST THE UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES DEEMED TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING BU SINESS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S MAHALAXMI DAIRY IN SALE OF MILK AND MILK PR ODUCTS TO REPUTED COMPANIES, INSTITUTIONS ON CONTRACT BASIS. DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL CHEQUES DEPOSITED ON ACCOUNT OF SALES AMOUNTED TO RS 36,11,647/- WHEREAS IN TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE SALES WERE SHOWN AT RS 28,47,953/-. THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES AS APPEARIN G IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE, IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL FIGURE OF SALES AS COMPUTED FROM HIS TRADIN G & PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THOSE GIVEN FROM THE BANK STATEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS 7,62,509/- SHOULD BE TREATED AS UNDE RSTATED SALES AND THE CORRESPONDING GROSS PROFIT SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SUPPRESSED SALES AS UNDECLARED INCOME, AGAINST WHI CH THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS). 3. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILED EXPLANATION. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO THE FOLL OWING CONCLUSION: 3 5.4 AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT MERITS ACCEPTANCE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 7,62,509/- REPRESENTS UNDERSTATED SALES OF THE APPELLANT. THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE WHETHER WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT REPRESENTING SUPPRESSED SALES OR ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT ON SUCH UNDERSTATED SALES IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO T HE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE AO HAS ADDED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE SUPPRESSED SALES AFTER REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT RELATING SUCH SALES NEEDED TO BE ADDED. THE ACTION OF THE AO IS BASED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE SUPPRESSED SALES AR E AGAINST SUPPRESSED PURCHASES. PRIMA FACIE, THERE APPEARS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTI ON OF THE AO BECAUSE IF THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES WHICH HAVE NOT B EEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ONUS IS ON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE HIS CLAIM BY PRODUCING NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, WHICH THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DO. 5.5 HOWEVER, THE REJECTION OF APPELLANTS CLAIM OF SUPPRESSED PURCHASES BY THE AO FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE, DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THERE ARE NO SUPPRESSED PURCHASES. AT THIS STAGE, BOTH THE POSSIBILITIES ARE THERE F IRST, THERE MAY BE PURCHASES OVER AND ABOVE THE PURCHASES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T (WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE BY PRODUCING NECESSARY EVIDENCE), OR SECOND, THERE MAY NOT, IN FACT, BE ANY UNRECORDED PURCHASES. THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKIN G ADDITIONS OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF UNDERSTATED SALES CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS REL IED UPON THE SECOND POSSIBILITY VIZ. THAT THERE ARE NO SUPPRESSED PURCHASES. HOWEVER, IN DOING SO, THE AO HAS IGNORED THE FACT THAT HIS CHOICE OF THE SECOND POSSIBILITY HAS LED TO ABNORMAL RESULTS, AS IS EXPLAINED HEREUNDER. 5.6 THERE CAN BE NO DENYING OF FACT THAT APPELLANT S CLIENTS ARE REPUTED PERSONS OF THE CITY AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT CANNOT TAKE ANY C HANCE WITH REGARD TO THE QUALITY OF THE MILK SUPPLIED, MEANING THEREBY, IT IS IMPERATIVE FO R THE APPELLANT TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF MILK. THIS, IN OTHER WORDS, MEANS THAT THE GROSS PR OFIT EARNED BY THE APPELLANT FROM YEAR TO YEAR WILL NOT SHOW MUCH VARIATION. 5.7 THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AND AC CEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN AYS 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE 12.56%, 13.49% AND 11.43% RESPECTIVELY. NOW IF THE AOS PROPOSITION THAT THERE ARE NO SUPPRESSED PURCH ASES, IS ACCEPTED TO BE CORRECT, IT WILL RESULT IN SHOWING GROSS PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT 29.04% WHICH IS CERTAINLY ABNORMAL AS COMPARED NOT ONLY WITH THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN OTHER YEARS BUT AL SO AS COMPARED WITH GROSS PROFIT SHOWN BY THE OTHER MILK SUPPLIERS. 5,8: IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE ONLY LOGICAL INF ERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE UNDERSTATED SALES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT O UT OF THE UNRECORDED PURCHASE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION TO THE INCO ME OF THE APPELLANT IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT EARNED ON UNDERSTATED SALES. THE GROUND OF APPEAL SUCCEEDS. AGAINST THE AFORESAID DECISION, REVENUE IS IN FURTHER AP PEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, HAS DEFENDED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY POINTING OUT THAT INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT DURING THE ASSESSMENT CLEARLY SH OW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO GIVE SOURCE OF THE SUPPRESSED PURCHASES AND , IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNRECORDED SALES COMPRISIN G OF PURCHASES PLUS GROSS PROFIT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED AND THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX 4 (APPEALS) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MERELY TO THE GROSS PROFIT ON SUPPRESSED SALES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE R ESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MADE NO MISTAKE IN HOLDING THAT IT IS ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN THE SAL E CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED AND THAT THERE WAS NO CONCLUSIVE F INDING THAT ANY UNRECORDED INVESTMENT HAS BEEN INCURRED TOWARDS COST OF ACQ UIRING THE GOODS IN QUESTION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS PROPOSITION, RELIANCE AS PLACE D ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PRE SIDENT INDUSTRIES 258 ITR 654 (GUJ) AND OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. OMER (S.M) 201 ITR 608 (CAL.) WITH REGARD TO GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, THE LEAR NED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED PURCHASES AND, THEREF ORE, THE SAID GROUND WAS MISCONCEIVED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I N THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS. I N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHILE EXAMINING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT TOTAL CHEQUES DEPOSITED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE S AMOUNTED TO RS 36,10,462/- WHEREAS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ANNEXE D ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, SALE HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS 28,47,953/-. THI S LED TO FURTHER INVESTIGATION WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND D ISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AN D THOSE REFLECTED BY BEARER CHEQUES DEBITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSME NT ORDER ALSO REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED AND HE ADMITTED THAT HE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, ETC., AND IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE A SSESSEE OFFERED TO DECLARE INCOME ON A PRESUMPTIVE BASIS IN TERMS OF SECTION 44AF O F THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONCLUSION CHOSE TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS 7,62,509/- 5 REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL CREDITS A PPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND TOTAL SALES AS DECLARED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCO UNT AS RECEIPTS REPRESENTING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS UNDISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THE L IMITED ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS INCOME AND IT IS ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN SUCH SALES WHICH COULD BE ASSESSED AS INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ACC EPTED THE SAID POSITION. 7. IN SO FAR AS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E ARE CONCERNED, GROUND NOS. 3 & 4 ARE BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT AN AD DITION HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PURCHA SES. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PLEA OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID GROUNDS ARE MISCONCEIVED, INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INVO KED SECTION 69 OF THE ACT SO AS TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ANY UN RECORDED PURCHASES. NEVERTHELESS, IN SO FAR AS ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE AMOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT EARNED ON UNDERSTATED SALES IS CONCERNED, HEREIN ALSO, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAIRLY ANALYSED THAT IF THE ASSE SSING OFFICERS PROPOSITION OF ADDING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALES TO TH E INCOME IS TAKEN, IT WOULD RESULT IN ABSURD RESULT OF A HIGH GROSS PROFIT RATE WHICH WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESULTS OF EARLIER YEARS AND WHICH STAND ACCEPTED BY T HE DEPARTMENT. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY INVESTMENT OTHER THAN THAT DEPICT ED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MADE TO CARRY OUT THE IMPUGNED SUPPRESSE D SALES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION ARRIVE D AT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHICH WE HEREBY AF FIRM. THUS, SO FAR AS GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME ARE HEREBY D ISMISSED. 6 8. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 3,30,899/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS AGGRE GATING TO RS 16,54,495/- BY BEARER CHEQUES/CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THEREFORE, DISALLOWED 20% OF THE AMOUNT TOTALING TO RS 3,30,899/ - BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS TO THE FARMERS BY6 BEARER CHEQUES/CASH EXCEEDING RS 20,000/- AND THOSE DAIRY FARMERS DID NOT HAVE LOCAL BANKING FACILITY AT LOCAL PLACE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SUCH PAYMENTS/EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE TO DAIRY FAR MERS WERE EXCLUDED FROM DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT VIDE CLAUSE NO. (F) (II) AND (H) OF RULE 6DD OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 A ND AS SUCH, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 9. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), AFTER CONSI DERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 3 ,30,899/- BY CONCLUDING AS UNDER IN PARA 6.3 OF HIS ORDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN MADE FOR P URCHASE OF MILK. THUS, THE PAYMENTS BY BEARER CHEQUE/CASH HAVE BEEN MADE BY TH E APPELLANT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES AS PRESCRIBED UNDER CAUSE (F) OF RULE 6DD AND AS SU CH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. ACCORDI NGLY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS 3,30,899/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. BEFORE US, THE ONLY PLEA RAISED BY THE REVENUE I S TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE IN CASH/BEARER CH EQUES AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) B Y POINTING OUT THAT THE 7 PAYMENTS IN QUESTION ARE COVERED BY THE EXCEPTION PRO VIDED BY RULE 6DD OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MADE NO MISTAKE IN SETTING ASIDE THE DISALLOWANCE, INASMUCH AS IN TERMS OF RULE 6DD(F)(II) WH ERE THE PAYMENT IS MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PRODUCE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OR DAIRY OR POULTRY FARMING, ETC., THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN SECTION 4 0A(3) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED. THE AFORESAID CLAUSE OF RULE 6DD , IN OUR V IEW, CLEARLY COVERS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS) MADE NO MISTAKE IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 3,30,899/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY AFFIRM HIS DECISION. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I C SUDHIR) (G.S. PAN NU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE, DATED: 15 TH DECEMBER, 2011 B COPY TO:- 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT (A)-III, PUNE 4) CIT-III, PUNE 5) DR, B BENCH, ITAT, PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PS, I.T.A.T., PUNE