Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, V. Dr. Sushil Lalchand Muthiniya, Pune

ITA 93/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5854 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV GHEI
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 93 /P U N/201 7 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 - 13 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 9, PUNE ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. DR. S USHIL LALCHAND MUTHINIYA, 18, B.G. CORNER, BEHIND NIGDI BUS STOP, NIGDI, PUNE 411044 PAN : AAVPM0747P / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV GHEI / DATE OF HEARING : 3 1 - 01 - 2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 - 01 - 201 9 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 13, PUNE DATED 25 - 10 - 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 - 13. 2. THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 2 ITA NO . 93/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 1. WHETHER IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD . CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DEL ETING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 24,72,400/ - WHEN THE ADDITION ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED WAS BASED ON SURVEY OPERATION ON ASSESSEE'S HOSPITAL & A LARGE DIFFERENCE WAS NOTICED BETWEEN ASSESSEE'S ACTUAL DAILY COLLECTION FROM HOSPITAL & MANUAL RECORDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS & DAILY ACCOUNTING PACKAGE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) ER RED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P. LTD. V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - II (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9772 OF 2013, ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.18389 OF 20 13) IN WHICH HON BLE SUPREME COURT STATED THAT UNDER THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271( 1 )(C) OF T HE ACT, IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELEASE THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE MAKES A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME, HE HAD TO BE ABSOLVED FROM P ENALTY. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A SURVEY ACTION 133A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESSEE ON 12 - 01 - 2012. IN STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY , THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.80,01,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ADDI TIONAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DULY OFFERED TO TAX IN RETURN OF INCOME , NO PENALTY COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) AS THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED ONLY IF THERE IS CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL. 3 ITA NO . 93/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 I . M/S. D.P. JAGTAP VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. 418/PUN/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 DECIDED ON 15 - 02 - 2017; II . ACIT VS. SHRI VITTHAL BALKRISHNA KHANKARI IN ITA NOS. 418 AND 419/PUNE/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 DECIDED ON 30 - 09 - 2010. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI SANJEEV GHEI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IF SURVEY OPERATION WOULD NOT H AVE CARRIED OUT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.80,01,000/ - . THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY IS NOT A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND HENCE , THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ABSOLVED FROM PENA LTY PROVISIONS. 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW . PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE U/S. 133A OF THE ACT ON 12 - 01 - 2012. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.80,01,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE D ISCLOSED THE SAID AMOUNT AND PAID TAXES THEREON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY AND OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS; WHETHER PENAL TY U/S. 271(1)(C) ON ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING SURVEY AND OFFERED IN RETURN OF INCOME IS LEVIABLE? 4 ITA NO . 93/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. D.P. JAGTAP VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID CASE ARE AS UNDER : 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE PEN ALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY ACTION. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAS DISCLOSED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING SURVEY. THE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS REQ UIRED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) ARE : (I) FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME; (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME; AND (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OR THE PR. COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT IS SATISFIED ABOUT THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE PROCEEDINGS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 271(1) ARE THE PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THAT IS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SURVEY ACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED SAID INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS CONCEALED INCOME IN THE RET URN OF INCOME. 6. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAS PHARMACEUTICALS REPORTED AS 335 ITR 259 WHILE DEALING WITH SIMILAR ISSUE HAS HELD : 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PREVAIL AS IT CARRIES SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT. IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS A PENAL PROVISION AND SUCH A PROVISION HAS TO BE STR ICTLY CONSTRUED. UNLESS THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE SAID PROVISION, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 STIPULATES CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES ON THE HAPPENING WHEREOF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) MA Y DIRECT PAYMENT OF PENALTY BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE CONCERNED HEREWITH THE FUNDAMENTALITY PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH AUTHORIZES IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER ; (A) CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME ; OR (B) FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 5 ITA NO . 93/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 13. IT IS NOT A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AS IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN, PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN DULY FURNISHED AND THE SURR ENDERED AMOUNT OF INCOME WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. IT WOULD DEPEND UPON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THIS CONCEALMENT HAS REFERENCE TO THE INCOME - TAX RET URN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., WHETHER CONCEALMENT IS TO BE FOUND IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN. 14. WE MAY, FIRST OF ALL, REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELYING UPON THE EXPRESSION 'IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS AC T' OCCURRING IN SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 OF THE ACT AND CONTENDING THAT EVEN DURING SURVEY WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULAR OF HIS INCOME, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT IN THE COURSE OF 'ANY PROCEEDINGS'. THE WORDS 'I N THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT' ARE PREFACED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS). WHEN THE SURVEY IS CONDUCTED BY A SURVEY TEAM, THE QUESTION OF SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR T HE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT ARISE. WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTED THE PAYMENT OF PENALTY. HE HAD NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION DURING THE COURSE OF SURV EY. THE DECISION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS, THUS, OBVIOUS THAT THE EXPRESSION 'IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT' CANNOT HAVE THE REFERENCE TO THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IN THIS CASE. 15. IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN FILED BY IT. THERE IS SUFFICIENT INDICATION OF THIS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT V. MOHAN DAS HASSA NAND [1983] 141 ITR 203 (DELHI) AND IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC ) THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLINCHED THIS ASPECT, VIZ., THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN HIS RETURN AND EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE INCOME - TAX RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS VIEW GETS SUPPORTED BY EXPLANATION 4 AS WELL AS EXPLANAT ION 5 AND EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271 OF THE ACT AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT. 16. NO DOUBT, THE DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. THIS HAS YIELDED INCOME FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSE SSEE. PRESENTLY, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, BUT THE MOOT QUESTION IS TO WHETHER THIS WOULD ATTRACT PENALTY UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. OBVIOUSLY, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE COND ITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE DULY AND UNAMBIGUO USLY SATISFIED. SINCE THE ASSES SEE WAS EXPOSED DURING SURVEY, MAY BE, IT WOULD HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME BUT FOR THE SAID SURVEY. HOWEVER, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PENALTY ONLY ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND POSSIBILITIES. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY. UNLESS I T IS FOUND THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A CONCEALMENT OR NON - DISCLOSURE OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. THERE IS NO SUCH CONCEALMENT OR NON - DISCLOSURE AS 6 ITA NO . 93/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE INCOME - TAX RETURN AND OFFERED TH E SURRENDERED AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX. 17. WE, THUS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS FORMULATED ABOVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE FINDING NO FAULT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. AS A RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GODAVARI TOWNSHIPS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED AS 148 ITD 463 HAS OBSERVED : 16.4. THERE IS ONE MORE ASPECT TO THE ISSUE. UNLIKE IN A SEARCH CASE THERE IS N O PRESUMPTION THAT THE AMOUNT UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALED INCOME. NO PROVISION/EXPLANATION SIMILAR TO EXPLANATION - 5 WAS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION TO COVER SURVEY CASES. SINCE, THE INCOME DETECTED/OFFE RED IN SURVEY CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE CONCEALED INCOME, TREATING THE SAME AS CONCEALED INCOME AS WAS DONE BY A.O. DOES NOT ARISE. A.O. HAS TO ESTABLISH THE NATURE OF INCOME AS CONCEALED INCOME BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, NOTHING WAS DONE BY A.O. EXCEPT ACCEPTING THE REVISED INCOME RETURNED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, IT IS AMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT TO LEVY PENALTY ON AN INCOME DISCLOSED DURING SURVEY ACTION AND S UBSEQUENTLY DECLARED IN RETURN OF INCOME. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S. 271(1)(C) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION AND HAS DISCLOSED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI VITTHAL BALKRISHNA KHANKARI (SUPRA) DELETED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IN CASE OF SIMILAR DISCLOSURE DURING SURVEY. THE TRIBUNAL HELD : 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS ESPECIALLY WHEN THESE MATERIAL FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED DR IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US THAT WHEN SURVEY ACTION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES, DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS STILL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AN INFERENCE BEYOND DOUBT COULD NOT BE DRAWN THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHI NG OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES TOWARDS THE ADDITIONS TO AT T R A CT THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WHEN DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY, IT CANNO T ALSO BE ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIKELY TO DISCLOSE THIS INC O ME WHI C H WAS REVEALED DURING THE SURVEY ACTION. WE, THUS FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT, PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO V. SHRI MANHAR PREMJI/SHRI RAMESH MANOHAR TALATHI (SUPRA) , DIREC T THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY IN QUESTION LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES. ACCORDING THE 7 ITA NO . 93/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE REJECTED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE UPHELD . 7. THUS, IN VIEW OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSD AY, THE 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 31 ST JANUARY, 201 9 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 13, PUNE 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5 , PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE