Rojee Tasha Stampings Private Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 917/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7450 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRUPAMA KOTRU
• Keywords: Depreciation; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 1029 /P U N/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 ROJEE TASHA STAMPINGS PVT. LTD., 1102/C/3, SAI VILLA, MODEL COLONY, PUNE - 411016 . / APPELLANT PAN: AAAC R9827P VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 917 /P U N/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ROJEE TASHA STAMPINGS PVT. LTD., 1102/C/3, SAI VILLA, MODEL COLONY, PUNE - 411016 . / APPELLANT PAN: AAACR9827P VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, PUNE . / RESPONDENT 2 ITA NO. 1029 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO. 917 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO.1260/PUN/2014 . / ITA NO. 1260 /P U N/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. ROJEE TASHA STAMPINGS PVT. LTD., 1102/C/3, SAI VILLA, MODEL COLONY, PUNE - 411016 . / RESPONDENT PAN: AAACR9827P ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE REVENUE BY : MS NIRUPAMA KOTRU, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 13 .0 9 .2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 .0 9 .2017 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: OUT OF T HIS BUNCH OF APPEALS , APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A) - III, PUNE, DATED 28.03.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2008 - 09 AND 200 9 - 1 0 AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT T HE ACT). 2 . ALL THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1029/PUN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 HAS FILED MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 3 ITA NO. 1029 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO. 917 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO.1260/PUN/2014 1. APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT, THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO SET - OFF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE PUNE UNIT, RELATING TO PAST YEARS, AMOUNTING TO TOTAL TO RS. 94 , 81,438/ - ; THOUGH REMAINED TO BE CLAIMED ERRONEOUSLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . F URTHER, APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT, THE SAID UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.94,81,438/ - B E S ET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS OF THE PUNE UNIT AND NOT PROFITS OF THE UTTARANCHAL UNIT ON BENEFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE OVERALL SC HEME OF THE I TA, 1961. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED AO ERRED ON FACTS IN DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT BY ADOPTING 1.20 % NP RATIO OF PUNE UNIT, ON A STAND - A L ONE BASIS. THE LEARNED I - T AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE N.P. RATIO OF 2.13 % OF THE COMPANY, AS A WHOLE, FOR DETERMINING THE REASONABLE DEDUCTION U/S 80 - I C OF THE ITA, 1961. 3. THE L EARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT FOR AY 2008 - 09, THE CARRIED FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT IS RS. 1,76,26,917/ - . THE LEARNED I - T AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT UTTARANCH AL UNIT WAS FORMED IN AY 2008 - 09, AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO ANY CARRIED FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF THE UTTARANCHAL UNIT. 4. THE LEARNED I - T AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED AND DEDUCTED THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 - IC OF THE I TA, 1961 BEFORE CONCLUDING NET TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT MODIFI ED GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2, 3 AND 4 ARE NOT PRESSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS PRESSING THE FIRST PART OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 I.E. IT IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF PUNE UNIT RELATING TO PAST YEARS AMOUNTING TO RS.94,81,438/ - . 5. BR IEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,57,92,280/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AT RS.75,02,335/ - . THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT W AS RESTRICTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PROFITS OF ASSESSEE WERE RE - COMPUTED AT RS.1,34,99,170/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,76,26,917/ - AFTER SETTING OFF OF INC OME OF THE YEAR AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF ELIGIBLE UNIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE TO CARRY FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.41,27,747/ - . THE 4 ITA NO. 1029 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO. 917 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO.1260/PUN/2014 ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. 6. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN CURTAILING THE PROFITS OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT AND THEREBY PROFITS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT TO HIS ESTIMATION AS TO WHAT COULD BE REAS ONABLE PROFITS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 4.8 FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI - A OF THE ACT WOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE COMPUTATION OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS AFTER SETTING OFF OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES AN D UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS WAS NOT NIL. THE CIT(A) THUS, UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN SETTING OFF OF RS.1.34 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RESULTING IN NIL PROFITS OF UNDERTAKING AND HENCE, NO DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80IC OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION HAD ALSO SHOWN PROFIT FROM PUNE UNIT, WHICH WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH NO ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OR UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED OR ALLOWED. 7. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS CLAIMED THAT IT HAS AVAILABLE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BROUGHT FORWARD FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 TOTALING RS.94,81,438/ - WHICH THOUGH WAS DECLARED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME BUT WAS NOT SET OFF AGAINST INCOME FROM P UNE UNIT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID ISSUE DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FACTS AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO. 1029 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO. 917 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO.1260/PUN/2014 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT NO SUCH ISSUE WAS RAISED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RUNNING TWO UNITS I.E. PUNE UNIT AND UTTARANCHAL UNIT. IN RESPECT OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT, THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WAS DENIED BECAUSE AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF CARRIED FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT AND THE RESULTANT INCOME BEING LOSS. HOWEVER, THE INCOME ARISING FROM PUNE UNIT WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAD DECLARED BROUGH T FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TOTALING RS.94,81,438/ - RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 . HOWEVER, NO SET OFF OF THE SAME WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW, BEFORE US BY WAY OF MODIFIED GROUND OF APPEAL , THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSU E OF SET OFF OF INCOME OF PUNE UNIT AGAINST UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 80 OF THE ACT CREATES BAR FOR CARR Y FORWARD OF LOSSES OTHER THAN THE DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, IN RES PECT OF SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, THERE WAS NO BAR. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE OF SET OFF OF LOSSES HAS BEEN RAISED BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME, NO SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE CIT(A). WE FIND MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND THE MODIFIED GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL DETERMINE THE POSITION OF LAW VIS - - VIS SET TING OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE FIRST PART OF GROUND OF APPEAL 6 ITA NO. 1029 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO. 917 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO.1260/PUN/2014 NO.1 IS THUS, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL BEING NOT PRESSED AND HENCE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.917/PUN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,02,335/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR AY 2008 - 09. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,64,00,653/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWING DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80IC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR AY 2009 - 10. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,88,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWING FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS, FOR AY 2009 - 10. 11. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1 260/PUN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - III, PUNE HAS ERRED IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB BEFORE AO DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS. FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO GET ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND ALSO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO.10CCB. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X(APPEALS) - III, PUNE HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSING OFFICER REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE NEW EVIDENCES OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - III, PUNE WRONGLY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF EARLIER YEARS WHEREAS EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS FINAL ONLY FOR THAT YEAR AND DOES NOT GOVERN AS PER SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF INSTALLMENT SUPPLY (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF I NDIA (1962) REPORTED IN 2 SCR 644, 658. 5. AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE ID COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), PUNE MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 7 ITA NO. 1029 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO. 917 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO.1260/PUN/2014 12. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN PARTIALLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT. 13. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THE APPEAL IS BEING WITHDRAWN, WHERE THE CIT(A) HAS PARTIALLY ALLOWED DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID PARTIAL ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS THE SECOND YEAR OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT, WHERE THE AUDIT REPORT BY MISTAKE WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 14. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO EXAMINE THE FRESH EVIDENCE FILED IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RU LE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (IN SHORT THE RULES) . 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF PROFITS DERIVED FROM UTTARANCHAL UNIT. THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT SIMILAR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW FACTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR MAKING THE SAID CLAIM, THE SAID DEDUCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 ITA NO. 1029 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO. 917 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO.1260/PUN/2014 THE CIT(A) TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION FORM NO.10CCB, AUDIT REPORT FILED BEFORE HIM, WHICH ADMI TTEDLY, WAS THE NEW EVIDENCE FILED, SINCE THE SAME WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS THEREOF, THE CIT(A) APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT R.W.S. 80IA(5) OF THE ACT FIRST HELD THAT THE SAID SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECI ATION BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE EXTENT OF RS.41,27,747/ - SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON THE BALANCE PROFITS OF UTTARANCHAL UNIT, RE - WORK ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.10CCB WHICH WAS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE, VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES . WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF REVENUE IN THIS REGARD, WHEREIN FRESH EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF R ULE 46A OF THE RULES, THE SAID EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ADMITTEDLY, THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS THE SECOND YEAR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT AND WHERE IN THE FIRST, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEL D TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SAID CLAIM, THEN IN THIS YEAR UNLESS FRESH FACTS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SAY THAT THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL POSITION, THEN SUCH CLAIM IS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. NO SUCH FRESH FACTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT ON THE BALANCE PROFITS RE - WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF CARRY FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE PARTICULARS IN THE AUDIT REPORT, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL QUANTIFY THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 9 ITA NO. 1029 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO. 917 /PUN/20 14 ITA NO.1260/PUN/2014 80IC OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. HOWEVER, THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 IN RESPECT OF FINDINGS FOR EARLIER YEARS, IS DISMISSED. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 20 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 7 . G G C C V V S S R R / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - II I, PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - III , PUNE ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE