State Bank of India Officer's Association Education Society, Aurangabad V. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax ,

ITA 862/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9267 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND A DESAI
• Section: 263; 63; 11; 139

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . . . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 862/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION EDUCATION SOCIETY, ZONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.79, CIDCO, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA PAN : AAMFS9429B . / APPELLANT V/S PRINCIPAL (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANAND A. DESAI REVENUE BY : SHRI AJIT KORDE, CIT / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF PR.CIT (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE DATED 26-03-2015 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : 1. THE PRL. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S.263 WHEN IN FACT ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS AND CONSEQUENTLY ENTIRE ASSE SSMENT U/S.263 IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE PRL. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) DID NOT REALIZE THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EXERCISED THE OPTION U/S.11(1)(A) R.W. EXPLANATION 2 AND ACCORDINGLY INTIMATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME MENTIONED IN THE LAW AND THEREFO RE THERE WAS COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUISITE PROVISIONS. 3. THE PRL. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) WRONGLY APPLIED SEC.11( 2) AND CONCLUDED THAT THE PROCEDURAL PART WAS NOT FOLLOWED AND TAXED THE INCOME WHEN IN FACT THE APPELLANT HAD NEVER APPLIED/CONSIDERED SEC.11(2 ) FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. / DATE OF HEARING :05.07.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:07.07.2017 2 ITA NO.862/PUN/2015 4. THE PRL. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH E FACT THAT SEC.263 CAN BE INVOKED WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS. IN GIVEN CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED SEPARATE LETTER FOR EXERCISING OPTION UNDER EXPLANATION 2 OF SEC.11(1)(A) WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER APPLICATION OF OWN MIND HE HAS PASSED THE ORDER. T HE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING THE CORRECT AND ONLY INTERPRETATION, THE INVOKING SEC.263, WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A TRUST WITH THE OBJECT OF IMPARTING FORMAL EDUCATION THROUGH THE SC HOOLS AT NERUL, NAVI MUMBAI AND AURANGABAD. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN O F INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME. ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 23- 10-2012 ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRINCIPAL CIT (EX EMPTIONS), PUNE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND HELD T HAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO (SUPRA) IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. EVENTUALLY, THE AOS ORDER WAS SET AS IDE BY THE PRL. CIT. IN THE REVISION ORDER, PRL. CIT INITIATED THE REVISION PRO CEEDINGS BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE FORM NO.10, BEING THE NOTIC E FOR ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. PRL. CIT IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRUST INC OME WHICH IS SHORT APPLIED TO THE TUNE OF RS. 23,47,812/-. ON FINDING THIS ISSUE WAS NOT VERIFIED BY THE AO PROPERLY, THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS PROPOSED TO BE FO UND TO BE ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN RES PONSE TO THE SAID PROPOSAL OF THE PRL. CIT, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11-03- 2015 SUBMITTED THAT SURPLUS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTES RS.23,47,812/-. THE SAME IS ACCUMULATED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANAT ION TO SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED REQUISITE INTIMATION TO TH E AO AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SAID CLAUSE (2) TO THE SAID EXPLANATION. THE FA CT OF ABOVE ACCUMULATION WAS ALSO DISCLOSED FULLY IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCO ME FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE SAID ACCUMULATED INCOME WAS DULY UTILIZED FOR THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SAME WAS ALSO DISCLOSED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2 011-12. THUS, IT IS THE 3 ITA NO.862/PUN/2015 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME WAS ACCUMULATE D AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) O F THE ACT AND HAS MET THE CONDITIONS OF INTIMATING THE AO ABOUT IT AS PER THE OPTION SPECIFIED THEREIN. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF FILING OF FOR M NO.10 IN THE SAID EXPLANATION IN THE INSTANT CASE WHICH HAPPENED TO B E THE CONDITION PRECEDENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2)(A) OF THE AC T. THESE PROVISIONS ARE NOT OPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE SAME THE AS SESSEE REQUESTED FOR DROPPING OF THE PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT O RDER OF THE AO. 4. PRL. CIT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) AND FOUND FAULT WITH THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS FURNISHING OF THE REQUISITE F ORM NO.10 BEING THE NOTICE OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME. REFERRING TO FORM NO.10 WH ICH IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE DUE DATE AND IN RESPONSE TO THE DEMANDS OF THE AUTHORITIES, THE PRL. CIT CONSIDERED THE SAME AS IN VALID AND DIRECTED THE AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US WITH THE GROUNDS EXTRACTED ABOVE. 6. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATU RE AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 4 ARE ARGUMENTATIVE. ARGUMENTS OF T HE ASSESSEE INCLUDE THAT THE PRINCIPAL CIT (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE DID NOT APPREC IATE THE FACT OF ASSESSEE EXERCISING THE OPTION U/S.11(1)(A) R.W. CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ACT. HE ALSO MENTIONS THAT THE PRL. CIT ERRONEOUSLY APPL IED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) WHICH WAS NEVER INVOKED BY THE ASSESS EE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED THE OPTION TO THE AO THAT TH ERE IS NO ERROR IN ORDER OF THE AO NOR ANY LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE DEPARTMENT IF THE CORRECT PROVISIONS SUCH AS PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT ARE APPLIED. REFERRING TO THE PAPER BOOK, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 5, LETTER DATED 08-09 -2010 GIVING INTIMATION TO 4 ITA NO.862/PUN/2015 THE AO REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11 (1) OF THE ACT. 7. IN REPLY, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF THE PRL. CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 8. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE OF JURISD ICTION OF PRL.CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 RE FERS TO THE SAME. WE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ORIGINALLY IS ER RONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE PRL. CIT THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT IN PLACE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT AS DECIDED BY THE PRL. CIT. IN HIS REVISION ORDER, PRL. CIT IS OF THE OPINION T HAT AS PER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO FILE FORM NO.1 0 WHEN THE AMOUNT WHICH FALLS SHORT OF 85% OF THE INCOME WAS ACCUMULATED OR SET APART (PARA NO.4). FURTHER, HE OBSERVED THAT THE SAID FORM NO.10 WAS N OT FILED. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.23,47,812/- SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER PRL. CIT IS OF THE OPINION T HAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE A SPECTS OF ACCUMULATION. HOWEVER, REVISION ORDER DOES NOT REFER TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM U/S.11(1) OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S.11(2) OF THE ACT. AS PER SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF FILING OF FO RM NO.10. HOWEVER, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF EXERCISING OPTION AND COMMUNICATIN G SUCH OPTION IN WRITING TO THE AO BEFORE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.13 9(1) OF THE ACT. AS SUCH, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S.11(1) OF THE ACT. WITHOUT GETTING INTO THESE ASPECTS, PRL. CIT CAME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND (PARA NO.5) AND THEREFO RE ERRONEOUSLY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE NIL INCOME AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO.862/PUN/2015 9. WITH THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE, WE EXAMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 11(1 ) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE PROCEED TO EXTRACT THE SAID REL EVANT PROVISIONS AS UNDER : (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 60 TO 63 , THE FOLLOWING INCOME SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME- (A) INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST WHOL LY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INC OME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA; AND, WHERE ANY SUCH INCOME IS AC CUMULATED OR SET APART FOR APPLICATION TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA, TO THE E XTENT TO WHICH THE INCOME SO ACCUMULATED OR SET APART IS NOT IN EXCESS OF [FIFTE EN] PER CENT OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTY; (B) . . . . . . . . . . (C) . . . . . . . . . . (D) . . . . . . . . . . EXPLANATION - FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSES (A) AND (B),- (1) . . . . . . . (2) IF, IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE INCOME APPLIED TO CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES IN INDIA FALLS SHORT OF [EIGHTY FIVE] PER CENT OF THE INCOME DERIVED DURING THAT YEAR FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST, OR , AS THE CASE MAY BE, HELD UNDER TRUST IN PART, BY ANY AMOUNT (I) FOR THE REASON THAT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE IN COME HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED DURING THAT YEAR, OR (II) FOR ANY OTHER REASON, THEN - (III) IN THE CASE REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (I), SO MUCH OF THE INCOME APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME IS RECEIVED OR DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING AS DOES NOT EXCEED THE SAID AMOUNT, AND (IV) IN THE CASE REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (II), SO MUCH OF THE INCOME APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA DURING THE PREVIO US YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS DERIVED AS DOES NOT EXCEED THE SAID AMOUNT, MAY, AT THE OPTION OF THE PERSON IN RECEIPT OF THE INCOME (SUCH OPTION TO BE EXERCISED IN WRITING BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TI ME ALLOWED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) [***] OF SECTION 139 [***] FOR FURNISHING THE RETUR N OF INCOME) BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND THE INCOM E SO DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN APPLIED SHALL NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CAL CULATING THE AMOUNT OF INCOME APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES, IN THE CASE REFERR ED TO IN SUB- CLAUSE (I), DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME IS REC EIVED OR DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, AS THE CASE MA Y BE, AND, IN THE CASE REFERRED TO IN SUB-CLAUSE (II), DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS DERIVED.] (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 6 ITA NO.862/PUN/2015 10. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT, WHEN ASSESSEE FALL S SHORT OF 85% OF APPLICATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE, HAS AN OPTION AS PER CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT, AS APPLICABLE TO THE CURRENT A.Y. 2010-11, SUCH OPTION IS TO BE E XERCISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WRITING AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE COMMUNICATED TO TH E AO, BEFORE EXPIRY OF THE TIME (NOT DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME) ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 139(1) FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORD INGLY, AS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 08-09-2010 (SUPRA), ASSESSE E EXERCISED SUCH AN OPTION AND RELEVANT PARAGRAPH FROM THE SAME ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : DT. 08-09-2010 TO, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1), AURANGABAD SUB : STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION EDUC ATION SOCIETY A.Y. 2010-11 INTIMATION UNDER EXPLANATION 2 TO SEC.1 1(1). RESPECTED SIR/MADAM, THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE TRUST IN PURSUANCE OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST RESULTED IN A SURPLUS OF RS.23,47,812.42 (RUPEES TWENTY THREE LAKHS FORTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWELVE AND PAISE FORTY TWO) FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010. THE TRUST WISHES TO ACCUMULATE THIS AMOUNT AND APPLY THE SAME TOWARDS ITS OBJECT OF PRO MOTION OF EDUCATION IN THE IMMEDIATE SUBSEQUENT YEAR (I.E. F.Y. 2010-11, A. Y. 2011-12). KINDLY CONSIDER THIS CORRESPONDENCE AS AN INTIMATIO N AS REQUIRED UNDER EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 11(2) AND ALLOW THE TRUST TO ACCUMULATE THE UNSPENT AMOUNT TO BE APPLIED TOWARDS ITS OBJECTS IN THE SUB SEQUENT PREVIOUS YEAR ENDING ON 31/03/2011 (I.E. F.Y. 2010-11). THANKING YOU, YOURS SINCERELY FOR STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS ASSOCIATION EDUCATION SOCIETY SD/- (TRUSTEES) 11. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE PRL. CIT THAT THE SAI D COMMUNICATION IS NOT MADE TO THE AO AS PER THE SAID PROVISION. AS DISCU SSED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE HAS AN OPTION TO OPT FOR BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT AND PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE 7 ITA NO.862/PUN/2015 ACT. ASSESSEE OPTED FOR EARLIER ONE AND REJECTED T HE LATER ONE, WHICH REQUIRE FILING OF FORM NO.10. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 11(1), THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF FURNISHING OF FORM NO.10. SUCH COND ITION IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ON FINDING NO MISTAKE WITH THE ASSESSEE OPTING FOR THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) OF T HE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH F ORM NO.10. AS PER THE SAID EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT, ASSESS EE DULY FURNISHED THE STATEMENT DATED 08-09-2010 (SUPRA). 12. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THI S IS NOT THE FIRST YEAR OF THE TRUST/SOCIETY. ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMING THE OPTION PROVIDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT. THE DEPARTMENT IS CON SISTENTLY ACCEPTING THE SAID CLAIM INCLUDING THE CURRENT YEAR WHICH IS UNDER REV IEW BY THE PRL. CIT. WHEN THE AO FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY, THE PRL. CIT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISTURBED THE SET PRINCIPLE WHEN THERE IS NO DIFFER ENCE ON FACTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER COMPLETED BY THE AO IS PROPER AS THE SAME WAS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE AOS ORDER DOES N OT CALL FOR ANY REVISION U/S.263 OF THE ACT. 13. REGARDING THE ALLEGATION OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE AO BY THE PRL. CIT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE SAME IS NO T BASED ON ANY FACTS. INFACT, IT IS THE PRL.CIT WHO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS M IND TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT QUA THE I SSUE OF COMMUNICATING THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING OF FORM NO.10. AS SUCH, IT I S A SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE CIT CAN ONLY ASSUME JURISDICTION ONLY WHEN THER E IS AN ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF FACT, ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION OF LAW/FAC T OR FAILURE OF THE AO (1) 8 ITA NO.862/PUN/2015 TO APPLY HIS MIND, OR (2) TO CONDUCT THE REQUIRED E NQUIRIES, ETC. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263, THE PRL. CIT IS NOT EMPO WERED TO THRUST HIS OPINION ON THE ASSESSEE QUA THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT WHEN THE ASSESSEE OPTED FOR THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFOR E, WE DO NOT FIND ANY OF THESE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. THEREFO RE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWE D. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 07 TH DAY OF JULY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 07 TH JULY, 2017. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE PRL. CIT , PUNE 4. THE CIT A) - 10 , PUNE 5 . DR, ITAT, A BENCH PUNE; 6 . / GUARD FILE.