Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Brahma Corp Hotels & Resorts Ltd., Pune

ITA 862/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1107 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Relationship of principal and agent
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , !, # $ BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ITA NO.862/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. BRAMHA CORP. HOTELS & RESORTS LTD., C/O HOTELS LE-MERIDIEN, RBM ROAD, PUNE 411 001. PAN : AAACB7054L . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE / DATE OF HEARING : 29.09.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.09.2015 % / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, PUNE DATED 31.10.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS.98,03,623/- TO THE BANKS ON CREDIT CARDS, MAD E U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH PAYMENT DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 194H OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER OR AMEND ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 ITA NO.862/PN/2014 3. THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) COMMITTED ERROR IN HOLDING THAT NO TDS UNDER SECTIO N 194H OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS RETAINED BY THE BANKS/CREDIT CARD AGENCIES IN RESPE CT OF HOTEL BOOKINGS THROUGH CREDIT CARD. 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CO MPANY ENGAGED IN THE HOSPITALITY BUSINESS AND IS THE OWNER OF HOTEL LE-M ERIDIEN, WHICH IS 5-STAR RATED HOTEL AND MAJORITY OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE FROM HIGH CLASS SOCIETY, CORPORATES AND FOREIGNERS, WHO PREFER TO M AKE PAYMENT THROUGH CREDIT CARDS/DEBIT CARDS FOR AVAILING SERVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BANKS/CREDIT CARD AGENCIES PROCESSES THE TRANSACTIO N AND MAKES INSTANT PAYMENT TO THE MERCHANT ESTABLISHMENT I.E. ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE AND RECOVERS MONEY FROM THE CREDIT CARD HOLDERS I.E. CU STOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FOR THIS PROCESSING SERVICE, BANKS/CREDIT CARD AGENCIES, ETC. DEDUCTS APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGE (%) OF THE AMOUNT AS FEE/CH ARGE/COMMISSION AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT TO THE MERCHANT ESTABLISHMEN T AND REMITS REMAINING AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUT INY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAI D COMMISSION ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS TO VARIOUS BANKS AGGREGATING T O RS.98,03,623/- BUT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENTS AS REQUI RED BY SECTION 194H OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THESE BANKS E TC. HAVE COLLECTED PAYMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BANKS HAVE RENDERED S ERVICES FOR THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED TDS UNDE R SECTION 194H OF THE ACT AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF IMPUGNED COMMISSION. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, INVOKED SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT A ND DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION AMOUNT PAID TO THE BANKS/CREDIT CARD AGE NCIES DUE TO FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT THE TDS WHILE MAKING COMMISSION PAYMENT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3 ITA NO.862/PN/2014 6. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT FO R AN EXPENDITURE/AMOUNT TO FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 194H OF THE ACT, THERE HAS T O BE A PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RECEIVER AND PAYER AND IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE BANKS ARE NOT WORKING AS AN AGENT, IT IS JUST PROVIDING I NFRASTRUCTURE FOR FACILITATING THE WHOLE TRANSACTION AND CHARGING SPECIFIC FEE FOR PROVIDING THIS INFRASTRUCTURE. THE FEE PAID IN LIEU THEREAFTER IS THEREFORE NOTHING BUT ARE IN THE NATURE OF BANK CHARGES/DISCOUNTING CHARGES, ETC. AN D CERTAINLY NOT THE COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED TH AT PRINCIPAL AGENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND BANKS/CREDIT CARD AGENCIES DOES NOT EXIST AND THEREFORE, SECTION 194H OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLI CABLE. THE BANKS ARE MERELY MAKING PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE CUS TOMERS WHO ARE HOLDING CREDIT CARDS. THE BANK IS IN NO WAY HELPING THE AS SESSEE TO SELL ITS SERVICES AND THE BANKS RESPONSIBILITY IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE EX TENT OF PAYING TO THE ASSESSEE THE VALUE OF SERVICES SWIPED BY ITS CLIENTS THROUGH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH IS AN ORDINARY FUNCTION OF THE BANK. THE TRANSACTION BET WEEN THE BANK AND THE ASSESSEE ARE BASED ON PRINCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL. THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BANK IS RELATED TO SERVICES AND FA CILITIES BEING OFFERED BY THE BANKS FOR FACILITATING EARLY OR IMMEDIATE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. SUCH PAYMENT IS ON BEHALF OF THE BANKS CUSTOMERS HOLDIN G CREDIT CARD. BANK IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS DISCHARGES ITS FUNCTIONS ON BEHALF OF CARD HOLDERS AND IS MAKING PAYMENTS OF THE VALUE OF THE SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE. WHILE REMITTING THE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE, THE BANK DEDU CTS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OUT OF IT WHICH CAN BE TERMED AS SERVICE CHARGE OR DISC OUNT OR BY ANY OTHER NAME. THE BANK IS MERELY GRANTING USE OF THE FACILITIES O F ITS CREDIT CARD GATEWAY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ENABLE IT TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS FOR S ERVICES SOLD TO THE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE CREDIT CARD HOLDERS. THE PAYMENTS RETAINED BY THE BANK ARE AKIN TO DISCOUNTING IN CONSIDERATION OF IMMEDIATE PAYMENT M ADE BY THE BANKS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE IMPUGNED CHARGES CAN PARTAKE THE CHA RACTER OF DISCOUNTS WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER TH E PREVAILING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE SALE IS CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND NOT BY THE BANKS ON BEHALF OF ITS CREDIT CARD HOLDER CUSTO MERS. THE AMOUNTS RETAINED 4 ITA NO.862/PN/2014 BY THE BANKS ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION PA YMENTS FOR RENDERING SERVICES, DUE TO ABSENCE OF AGENCIES. 7. THE CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ITS FAVOUR. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART O F THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE :- 4.4 THE VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD. C OUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT ARE CAREFULLY EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, APPEL LANT SELLS ITS GOODS/SERVICES THROUGH CREDIT CARD AND ON PRESENTATION OF BILL ISS UED AGAINST CREDIT CARD; THE BANK CONCERNED MAKES PAYMENT TO THE APPELLANT AFTER DEDU CTING AGREED FEES AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT BANKS ISSUE CREDIT CARD TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS ON CERTAIN AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND I F THE CREDIT CARD HOLDER DOES NOT MAKE PAYMENT DUE TO THE BANK WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, BANKS CHARGE PENAL AMOUNT. BUT, BANK CANNOT REFUSE THE PAYMENT TO THE MERCHANT ESTABLISHMENT, WHO SELLS THEIR GOODS AND SERVICES THROUGH CREDIT CARD. ONLY IN CERTAIN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES I.E. WHEN THE MATERIAL PURCHASED BY H IM IS DAMAGED OR DEFECTIVE ETC., CREDIT CARD HOLDER CAN REQUEST THE BANK NOT TO MAKE THE PAYMENT AND IN SUCH CASES ONLY BANK CAN WITHHOLD THE PAYMENT. EVEN THOUGH TH E DEFINITION OF THE TERMS COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE USED IN SECTION 194H IS A N INCLUSIVE DEFINITION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LIABILITY TO MAKE TDS UNDER THE SAID SECTION ARISES ONLY WHEN A PERSON ACTS ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PERSON. IN THE CASE OF C OMMISSION RETAINED BY THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BANKS AC TS ON BEHALF OF THE MERCHANT ESTABLISHMENT OR THAT EVEN THE MERCHANT ESTABLISHME NT CONDUCTS THE TRANSACTION FOR THE BANK. THE SALE MADE ON THE BASIS OF A CREDIT C ARD IS CLEARLY A TRANSACTION OF THE MERCHANTS ESTABLISHMENT ONLY AND THE CREDIT CARD CO MPANY ONLY FACILITATES THE ELECTRONIC PAYMENT, FOR A CERTAIN CHARGE. FURTHER, THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE BANKS CONCERNED HAVE ADV ISED THE APPELLANT TO SELL THEIR GOODS OR PROVIDE SERVICES TO ITS CUSTOMERS ON A COM MISSION. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT RECEIVES THE PAYMENT FROM THE BANK/CREDIT CARD COMPANIES CONCERNED AFTER DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION THEREON, AND THUS, THIS IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF A POST FACTO ACCOUNTING AND DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY PAYMENT OR CRED ITING OF THE COMMISSION TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE BANKS OR ANY OTHER ACCOUNT BY THE AP PELLANT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, RELATION BETWEEN THE BANK AND THE APPELLANT MERCHAN T ESTABLISHMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE RELATIONSHIP OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. IN MY C ONSIDERED OPINION, THE COMMISSION RETAINED BY THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY IS I N THE NATURE OF NORMAL BANK CHARGES AND NOT IN THE NATURE COMMISSION/BROKERAGE FOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THUS, THERE IS CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN TH E CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT COMMISSION PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO THE BANKS/CREDI T CARD COMPANIES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FALLING WITHIN AMBIT OF SEC.194H. IN THIS CONTEXT, REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES, WHEREIN THE ISSU E IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 1. DCIT HYDERABAD VS. M/S. VAH MAGNA RETAIL (P) LTD ., HYDERABAD. (ITA NO.905/HYD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) 2. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. VS. DCIT (TDS), BANGALORE [2013] 29 TAXMANN.COM 261 (BANGALORE TRIB.) 3. ITO (TDS) VS. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. [2013] 36 TAXMANN.COM 379 (MUMBAI TRIB.) 5 ITA NO.862/PN/2014 4. M/S GEMS PARADISE VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR, ITA NO.8 41/JP/2011, ITA NO.746/JP/2011 5. SHRI BHANDARI JEWELLERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR, (T DS) JAIPUR ITA NO.745/JP/2011 4.4.1 IN THE ABOVE CASES, IT IS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT PAYMENTS RETAINED BY THE BANKS ARE IN THE NATURE OF NORMAL BANK CHARGES AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION/BROKERAGE FOR ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE ME RCHANT ESTABLISHMENT AND SUCH PAYMENTS, THOUGH TERMED AS COMMISSION, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS FALLING WITHIN AMBIT OF SEC. 194H. THUS, AS ON DATE, THE ISSUE IN VOLVED IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY CATENA OF DECISIONS OF T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NO CONTRARY DECISION ON THIS ISSUE HAS COME TO MY KNOWLEDGE. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A CERTIFICATE/ORDER U/S 195(3) ISSUED TO AEBC AND CITI BANK BY THE ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI AND DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MUMBAI, APPLICABLE FOR FY 2009-10 WAS ALS O FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH STATE THAT THESE BANKS A RE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND OTHER SUMS FROM VARIOUS CLI ENTS/CUSTOMERS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX. 4.4.2 FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, IT IS HELD THA T THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BANKS ARE IN THE NATURE OF BANK CHARGES AND T HE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194H ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO SUCH PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAYMENTS BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURC E. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.98,03,623/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THI S GROUND IS DELETED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STATED THAT IN T HE ABSENCE OF DEDUCTION OF TDS FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE BANKS FOR AVAI LING THE SERVICES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TRIGGERED THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE INTERFERED WIT H THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE PLEADED FOR REVERSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORATION OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY LONG LINE OF CASES DECIDED BY THE VARIOUS TRIBUNALS. TH E ISSUE HAS ALSO RECEIVED JUDICIAL APPROVAL BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT R ECENTLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JDS APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED REPORTED IN (2015) 370 ITR 454 (DELHI). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT DREW DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CONT RACT OF SALE AND A 6 ITA NO.862/PN/2014 CONTRACT OF AGENCY BY WHICH AN AGENT IS AUTHORIZE D TO BUY AND SELL ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCIPAL. THE EXPRESSION COMMISSION AND DISCOUNT WERE ALSO DISTINGUISHED. IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT THAT BANK HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THEREI N PLACED IN THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BANK A ND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT OF AN AGENCY BUT THAT OF TWO INDEPENDENT PARTIES ON PR INCIPAL TO PRINCIPAL BASIS. THE BANK WAS ALSO ACTING AND EQUALLY PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF THE CUSTOMERS WHOSE CREDIT CARD WAS USED IN THE SWIPING MACHINES. THE BANK WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH BUYING AND SELLING OF GOODS AS SUCH . THE AMOUNT RETAINED BY THE BANK IS A FEE CHARGED BY THEM FOR HAVING RENDER ED THE BANKING SERVICES AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS A COMMISSION OR BROKERAGE PAID IN THE COURSE OF USE OF ANY SERVICES BY A PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHE R FOR BUYING OR SELLING OF GOODS. THE BANKING SERVICES CANNOT BE COVERED AND TREATED AS SERVICES RENDERED BY AN AGENT FOR THE PRINCIPAL DURING THE C OURSE OF BUYING OR SELLING OF GOODS AS THE BANKER DOES NOT RENDER ANY SERVICE IN THE NATURE OF AGENCY. ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WAS HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE ON PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE BANKS ON PAYMENT REC EIVED FROM CUSTOMERS THROUGH CREDIT CARDS. 11. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. REPORTED IN (2013) 28 ITR 582 (MUMBAI-TRIB.), WHERE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN FAVOURABLY CONSIDERED IN THE SIMILAR FACTS. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PERUSED THE CASE LAWS CITED. THE ONLY IS SUE IN DISPUTE IS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 194H OF THE ACT AND AS A C OROLLARY APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF T DS WHILE INCURRING EXPENDITURE TOWARDS COMMISSION TO THE BANKS, ETC. T O AVAIL THEIR SERVICES FOR REALIZATION OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE CUSTOMERS OF TH E ASSESSEE HOTEL THROUGH CREDIT CARD/DEBIT CARD, ETC.. WE FIND THAT THE ISS UE IS NO LONGER RES-INTEGRA AND IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE 7 ITA NO.862/PN/2014 DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JDS APPARELS PRIVAT E LIMITED (SUPRA) AND MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JET AIR WAYS (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA) REFERRED ABOVE. THE CIT(A) HAS SUCCINCTLY ANALYZED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AND THEREFORE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. THUS, THE GROUND OF AP PEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. % & '( )*' / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. %+ / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE