Prachin Group, Raigad V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 877/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1127 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 877/PN/2015 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 PRACHIN GROUP, B-1, ASHOKA GARDEN, MAHATMA PHULE ROAD, PANVEL, DISTT.-RAIGAD PAN : AAIFP8108L ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL / DATE OF HEARING : 18-08-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-08-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, THANE DATED 17-04 -2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S. 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO. 877/PN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN PROPERTIE S AND SERVICES RELATING TO LAND AND PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30-03-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 29,51,840/-. ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE FILED AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AN D AUDIT REPORT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 14-12-2010 ACCEPTED T HE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING MINOR DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DONATIONS ` 35,250/- AND DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) ` 73,700/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271B FOR DELAY IN FILING OF AUDIT REPORT AS ENVISAGED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 28-06-2011 LEVIED P ENALTY OF ` 1 LAKH U/S. 271B FOR DELAYED FILING OF AUDIT REPORT. THE ASSESS EE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISCARDED THE EXPLANA TION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN GETTING THE ACCOUN TS AUDITED AND FURNISHING THE SAME ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH IN THE EXTENDED PERIOD FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AS PROVIDED U /S. 139(4) OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S. 271B OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 1. FACTS OF THE CASE: THE APPELLANT IS A FIRM HAS SUBMITTED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.29,51,840/- ON 30/03/2009. DURING THE COURSE OF 3 ITA NO. 877/PN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS REVIS ED ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN VIEW OF DISALLOWANCES UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND DECLARED INCOME OF RS.30,25,544/-. THE SAME HAS BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND MADE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) BY ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS. 30,25,540/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,00,000/- U/S 271B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF GETTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT ON 20 TH JANUARY, 2009 WHEREAS THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE I.E. 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. THE DELAY WAS OF 3 MONTHS AND 20 DAYS ONLY. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A), THANE H AS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND EXPLANATION FURNISHE D BEFORE HIM AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED HIM FOR NOT GETTIN G BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. IT IS APPARENT ON RECORDS THAT: 1. THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS BEEN OBTAINED ON 20/01/2009. 2. IN VIEW OF THIS THE DELAY WAS FOR ONLY 3 MONTHS AND 20 DAYS. 3. THE SAID APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE NOT GETTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S. 44AB BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE. 2. LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1,00,000/- U/S. 271B OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT: 1. YOUR HONOUR, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN OBTAINING THE TAX AUDIT U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 DUE TO MAJOR TWO REASONABLE CAUSES: A. THE ACCOUNTANT HAS LEFT THE JOB DURING THE FINAN CIAL YEAR 2007-08 AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE COMPLETED LA TER BY THE NEW ACCOUNTANT. THEREFORE, UNDER THE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ACCOUNTANT LEFT HIS SERVICE S DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR WITHOUT FINALIZING ACCOUNTS AND A NOTHER ACCOUNTANT WAS ENGAGED AND THAT RESULTED IN DELAY I N 4 ITA NO. 877/PN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 FINALIZING ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS GETTING ACCOUNTS AUD ITED. THE SAID REPLY WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS VIDE LETTER DATED 15 TH JUNE, 2010. THE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS BEING ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PER USAL AND READY REFERENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED DURING THE COUR SE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT HIS MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME IS SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATE S WHICH IS HIS SISTER CONCERN. THE SAID INCOME IS EAR NED ON THE PURCHASES AND SALE TRANSACTIONS OF LAND EFFECTE D THROUGH APPELLANT BY M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATES. THE SA ID INCOME IS ACCOUNTED FOR ON THE BASIS OF CREDIT NOTE S ISSUED BY M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATES. M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATES COULD NOT FINALISE THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN TIME AND TH EREFORE IT COULD NOT ISSUE CREDIT NOTES TO THE APPELLANT FOR T HE LAST QUARTER OF THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2008. THE APPEL LANT COULDN'T MAKE NECESSARY ENTRIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVABLE FROM M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIA TES. M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATES HAS ISSUED SAID CREDIT NOTES IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2008 ONLY. THE APPELLANT COULD MAKE NECESSARY ENTRIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS AND WH EN SAID CREDIT NOTES ARE RECEIVED. THE APPELLANT COULD FINALIZED HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ONLY AFTER APPOINTING A NEW ACCOUNTANT AND OBTAINING CRE DIT NOTES FROM M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATES. THE AUDITOR OF T HE APPELLANT FIRM COMPLETED HIS AUDITS AFTER MAKING NE CESSARY VERIFICATION AND HANDED OVER TAX AUDIT REPORT TO TH E APPELLANT FIRM ON 20/01/2009. IN VIEW OF ABOVE REASONABLE CAUSES THE PENALTY U/S. 271 B SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN LEVIED. B. YOUR HONOUR IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS DECISION S THAT MERE FAILURE TO FILE AUDIT REPORT IN TIME WILL NOT JUSTI FY LEVY OF PENALTY AS POWER U/S. 271 B IS DISCRETIONARY (HON'B LE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THANJAVUR SILK UNI ON OF INDIA REPORTED IN 263 ITR 334). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT THE CASE O F CIT VS. CAPITAL ELECTRONICS (GARIAHAT) REPORTED IN 261 ITR 4. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE DEF AULT 5 ITA NO. 877/PN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AUDIT REPORT ALTHOUGH BE LATEDLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS BON AFIDE REASONS FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUE DATE AND THEREFORE THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271 B OF THE I.T. ACT . WE HAVE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE IN COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE, BENCH 'A' IN THE MATTE R OF: PRACHIN LAND INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. I TO, WARD -2, PAN VEL (ITA NO. 917/PN/2013 OF ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-08). C. YOUR HONOUR, OBTAINING TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S. 44A B OF THE ACT BY THE APPELLANT, IS NOT A MALAFIDE INTENTION OF THE A PPELLANT TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE AND THERE IS NO LOSS TO THE REV ENUE. IT IS A TECHNICAL BREACH OF LAW AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAR DONED. IN CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA 86 ITR 26 [SUPREME COURT] WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT TECHNICAL BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF LAW HAS TO BE PARDONED WHEN THE SAME IS BONAFIDE AND THERE IS NO LOSS TO REVENUE. D. YOUR HONOUR, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE DETAILED SUB MISSION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROC EEDINGS VIDE ITS LETTERS DATED 15/06/2010 IN RESPONSE TO ITS NOTICE U/S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 B OF THE ACT. THE COPIES OF LETTER S ARE ENCLOSED HERE WITH FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE AND KIND PERUSAL . E. YOUR HONOUR, THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REAS ONABLE CAUSE AS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. THERE IS NO MENS REA OF THE APPELLANT IN THE IMPUGNED MATTER. WE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: THE APPELLANT CITING THE CASE LAW OF SPECTRUM MARKETING V. ITO HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE OR INTE NTIONAL INACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 44AB BEFORE THE SPECIFIED D ATE. SO A LENIENT VIEW MUST BE TAKEN IN ITS CASE. F. THE APPELLANT HAS OBTAINED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT BELATEDLY I.E. AFTER SPECIFIED DUE DATE OF OBTA INING THE SAME. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE DEFAULT BY THE APPELLANT. 6 ITA NO. 877/PN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 WE RELY UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. HEMANT RAMCHANDRA OAKE VS. ITO WARD-2, PANVEL [ITA NO. 920/PN/2013 OF AY 2007-08 OF ITAT PUNE 'A' BENCH] 2. PRACHIN LAND INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. ITO WARD-2, PAN VEL [ITA NO. 917/PN/2013 OF AY 2007-08 OF ITAT PUNE A BENCH ] THEREFORE, WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S. 4 4AB OF THE ACT ON OR BEFORE 30/09/2008 SINCE HE HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY RE ASONABLE CAUSE AS NARRATED HEREINABOVE. YOUR HONOUR, IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION MADE HEREINA BOVE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE IS R EASONABLE CAUSE AND WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS.1,00,000/- LEVIED U/S. 271 B OF THE ACT AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI P.L. KUREEL REPRESENTING THE D EPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271B OF THE AC T. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT BY NOT FILING THE AUDIT REPORT WITHIN THE S PECIFIED TIME. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FINALIZ ATION OF THE ACCOUNTS AND THE AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN R IGHTLY REJECTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS THE SAME WERE NOT SUPPORTED B Y ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FURNISHED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 44AB OF THE ACT THE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GET ACCOUNTS AUDITED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON OR BEFORE 30-0 9-2008. 7 ITA NO. 877/PN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED O N 20-01-2009. THUS, THERE WAS DELAY OF 3 MONTHS AND 20 DAYS IN GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND OBTAINING TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE AND IMPUGNED O RDER SHOWS THAT THE DELAY IN GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED WAS FOR T HE REASON THAT THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE LEFT HIS SERVICE WITHOUT FIN ALIZATION OF THE ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED THE SERVICE OF ANO THER ACCOUNTANT. THE NEWLY APPOINTED ACCOUNTANT TOOK SOME TIME TO PICK UP THE THREADS OF THE WORK LEFT IN BETWEEN BY THE OUTGOING INCUMBENT. F URTHER, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME OF ASSE SSEE IS SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED FROM M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATES, A SISTER CO NCERN OF ASSESSEE. THE INCOME FROM M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATES IS ACCO UNTED ON THE BASIS OF CREDIT NOTES ISSUED. SINCE, M/S. MAXPRO ASSO CIATES COULD NOT FINALIZE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN TIME, M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIAT ES ISSUED CREDIT NOTES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE LAST QUARTER OF TH E FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED ON 31-03-2008 IN DECEMBER, 2008. THE ASSESSEE FIN ALIZED ITS BOOKS AFTER RECEIVING CREDIT NOTES FROM M/S. MAXPRO ASSOCIATES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AS ENVIS AGED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(4) OF THE ACT. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS AND GETTING THE SAME AUDITED THEREAFTER SEEMS TO BE PLA USIBLE. THE DELAY IN FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS WAS BEYOND THE CONTRO L OF ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE SAME AUDITED WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. MERE DELAY IN FILING OF TAX AUDIT R EPORT AS ENVISAGED U/S. 44AB WOULD IPSO FACTO NOT ATTRACT THE PEN ALTY WHERE THE DELAY IN FILING OF AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN REASONABLY EXPLAINED. 8 ITA NO. 877/PN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 6. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRACHIN LAND INFRA PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271B FOR OBTAINING THE A UDIT REPORT ON 11-02-2009 AS AGAINST THE STATUTORY DATE O F 31-10-2007, DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. THE RELEV ANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER : 6.1 .IT HAS BEEN HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT MERE FAILURE TO FILE AUDIT REPORT IN TIME WILL NOT JUSTIFY LEVY OF P ENALTY AS POWER US.271B IS DISCRETIONARY (HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THANJAVUR SILK HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 263 ITR 334). SIMILAR V IEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CAPITAL ELECTRONICS (GARIAHAT) REPORTED IN 261 ITR 4. SINCE IN THE INS TANT CASE, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE DEFAULT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AUDIT R EPORT ALTHOUGH BELATEDLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH ERE WAS BONAFIDE REASONS FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUE DATE AND THEREFORE THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET-A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CANCEL T HE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271B OF THE I.T. ACT. 7. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF HEMANT RAMCHANDRA DAKE VS. IT O (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271B OF THE ACT WHERE THE AUDIT REPORT WAS FURNISHED BELATEDLY AFTER OBT AINING THE SAME ON 16-01-2009 AS AGAINST THE STATUTORY DATE OF 31-10- 2007. IN THE SAID CASE THE FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS WERE DELAYED AS THE ACCO UNTANT HAD LEFT THE SERVICE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE IN HAND. 9 ITA NO. 877/PN/2015, A.Y. 2008-09 8. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX VS. APEX LABORATORIES LTD. REPORTED AS 384 ITR 364 DELETED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271B WHERE THE ASSESSEE FILED AUD IT REPORT ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BELATEDLY. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND THE VARIOUS DECISIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 19 TH AUGUST, 2016 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-2, THANE 4. ' / THE CIT-2, THANE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE