Piaggio Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., Pune V. ACIT, Circle-4, Pune

ITA 965/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 49730 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R R VORA
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional depreciation; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR J UDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 965 & 966 /PN/ 20 0 9 ( ASSTT. YEAR : 2004 - 05 & 2003 - 04 ) PIAGGIO VEHICLE PRIVATE LIMITED , APPELLANT 101/102, PHOENIX, BUND GARDEN ROAD, PUNE 411 001 PAN : AABCP 1225 G VS. JT CIT /ASST CIT, CIR. 4, PUNE RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1203/PN/2009 (ASSTT. YEAR : 2004 - 05) ACIT /ASST CIT, CIR. 4, PUNE APPELLANT VS. PIA GGIO VEHICLE PRIVATE LIMITED, RESPONDENT APPELLANT 101/102, PHOENIX, BUND GARDEN ROAD, PUNE 411 001 PAN : AABCP 1225 G ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.R. VORA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.S. SINGH ORDER PER D KARUNAKARA RAO AM AT THE VERY OUTSET, MR. RAJAN VORA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE TH REE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION . ITA NO. 965/PN/2009 IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2003 - 04 AND APPEALS ITA NO. 966 AND 1203/PN/2009 ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2004 - 05. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED THAT MAJOR GROUNDS OF THESE APPEALS ARE COVERED OF THE REVENUE , AS THE CASE MAY BE. FURTHER, ASSESSEES COUNSEL FILED A CHART GI VING THE PARTICULARS OF CONCISE GROUNDS, AMOUNTS OF ADDITION, REFERENCES TO THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE WAY THE ISSUES ARE COVERED EITHER SIDE. IN THE LAST COLUMN OF CHART, ASSESSEE REFE R R ED TO CERTAIN DECISIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE IMPACT ON THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE SAID CHART IS SCANNED AND PASTED IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. ITA NOS.965,966 & 1203/PN/2009 M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES P. LTD. ( A.Y. 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ) . 2 TAKING CUE FROM THE ABOVE CHART, WE PROCE ED TO ADJUD ICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS AS PER THE DISCUSSION IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. ITA NOS.965,966 & 1203/PN/2009 M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES P. LTD. ( A.Y. 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ) . 3 ITA NO. 965/PN/2009 - ASSTT. YEAR 2003 - 04 - ASSESSEES APPEAL) 2. G ROUND A OF THIS APPEAL RELATES TO CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON LEASEHOLD RIGHTS. REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THESE RIGHTS CONSTITUTE INTANGIBLE AND NON DEPRECIABLE ASSETS AND THEREFORE, THE DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 32 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY MENTIONED THAT ISSUE OF GRANT OF DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS. 1999 - 2000 AND 2001 - 02 BY THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 27.1 1.2007 (ITA NO S . 442 /PN/2003 AND 454/PN/2005 RESPECTIVELY WHERE THE TRIBUNAL RELYING ON THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MUKUND LTD AND OTHERS, 106 ITR 231 (BOM) HELD THAT WHERE PAYMENTS MADE FOR ACQUIRING SUCH RIGHTS ARE HELD TO BE CAPITAL IN NA TURE. HOWEVER, THE LD. C OUNSEL HAS MENTIONED THAT THE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD., 327 ITR 323 (SC) REVERSED THE DECISION OF JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HELD IN THAT CASE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(2)(II) OF THE ACT ON BSE CARD ON CONSIDERING IT TO BE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF COMMERCIAL RIGHT OF SIMILAR NATURE. LD COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUN PHARMACEUITICALS LTD., 227 CTR 2006 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT LEASEHOLD PREMIUM IS IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE RENT AND SHOULD BE A LLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. LD . D.R. FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE A.O AND CIT(A). FINALLY, DURING THE REBUTTAL TIME, THE COUNSEL PRAYED FOR ASSIGNIN G THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O FOR EXAMINING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE REFERRED AP EX COURT JUDGMENT AS WELL AS GUJARAT HIGH COURT. ON OBSERVATION OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THE ISSUE OF LEASEHOLD RIGHT IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE B Y VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, IS IN THE CAPITAL NATURE AND THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US. THE O NLY DISPUTE FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE US RELATES TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEPR ECIATION ON SUCH LEASE RIGHT AND IF THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF ELIGIBLE RIGHTS SPECIFIED IN 32(1)(II) IE BUSINESS OR COMMERC IAL RIGHT S OF SIMILAR NATURE , AS OBSERVED BY THE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF TECHNO SHARES AND STOCKS LTD (SUPRA) AND IF SO, THE DEPREC IATION IS ALLOWABLE ON SUCH RIGHTS OR NOT . IN FACT, THESE ASPECTS WERE NOT ATTENDED TO BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT S DURING THE POST 2 007 PE RIOD , WHERE THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE FAVOUR OF REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. ASSESSEE SHALL FILED COPIES OF THE SAID DECISIONS/JUDGMENTS BEFORE THE AO, WHO SHALL GIVE EFFECT TO THE CITED DECISIONS/ JUDGMENT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH. ITA NOS.965,966 & 1203/PN/2009 M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES P. LTD. ( A.Y. 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ) . 4 3. GROUND B RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL . HAVING CONSIDERED THAT GOODWILL IS A CAPITAL ASSE T, THE A.O DENIED THE DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION HOLDING THAT THE DEPRECIATIO N IS NOT ALLOWABLE ON GOODWILL AS THE SAME WAS A C QUIRED BEFORE 1.4.98 I.E. PRIOR TO TH E AMENDMENT TO THE SECTION 32(1)(II ) OF THE ACT AND THE REVENUE KEPT THE IR RELIANCE ON THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON 30 TH MARCH 1998 IN SUPPORT THEIR DECISIONS . ON THIS ISSUE , ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT , THOUGH SIGNED ON 30 TH MARCH 1998, WAS GIVEN EFFECT IN THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE SAID AMENDMENT TO SECTION 32(1)(II) . IN THIS REGRD, THE ASSESSEE NARRATED THESE EVENTS AS PER THE TABLE GIVEN BELOW : SR . NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 1. 30 MAR 1998 AGREEMENT TO SALE AND PURCHASE BARAMATI UNIT BETWEEN GREAVES LTD. AND APPELLANT [RELIED UPON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES] 2. 31 MAR 199 8 ACCOUNTED THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 3. 0 1 APRIL 1998 THE A PPELLANT PAID STAMP DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF ENTERING INTO THE AFORESAID AGREEMENT 4. 0 1 APRIL 1998 DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS ACQUIRED FROM GREAVES LIMITED WAS CLAIMED FROM A.Y. 1999 - 00 ONWARD ONLY. 5. 0 8 APRIL 1998 FIRST SALE INVOICE WAS RAISED BY APPELLANT FRO M BARAMATI UNIT. 6. 25 JUNE 1998 TRANSFER OF DEALERSHIP NETWORK BY ACTUAL COMMUNICATION TO THE DEALERS BY GREAVES LTD. 7. DIFF DATES AFTER1 APR 98 PAYMENT TO GREAVES LTD FOR PURCHASE OF BARAMATI UNIT. 8. 4 AUGUST 1998 SALE DEED FOR PURCHASE OF BARAMATI UNIT BETWEEN GREAVES LTD. AND APPELLANT. ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS TO ADVANCE HIS CASE. THE REVENUE DID NOT APPRECIATE THE SAID ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP IS IMPORTANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEPRECIATION AND NOT UNDER THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP TITLE. THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE GOODWILL WAS PASSED ON TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE TRANSFER OF BUSINESS ON OR AFTER 1 ST APRIL 1998 AND NOT ON 30 TH MARCH 1998. FURT HER, THE LD. COUNSEL RELYING ON AN ORDER OF THE ITAT, IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR SUGAR CO. LTD ., ITA NOS. 255 & 256/VIZ/2010 ARGUED THAT THE CASE MAY BE REFERRED TO THE FILES OF THE A.O FOR EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ITA NOS.965,966 & 1203/PN/2009 M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES P. LTD. ( A.Y. 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ) . 5 APPLICABILITY OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION. OTHERWISE, AS PER HIM, THE SAID DECISION ADVOC A TES FOR GRANT OF DEPRECIATION U/S. 32 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF GOODWILL WITH THE SHADE OF COMMERCIAL RIGHTS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF A.O FOR EXAMINATION AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE COPY OF THE UNREPORTED DECISION IN PRINTED FORM TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND IS SET ASIDE. 4. GROUND C RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAGE 126 OF PAPER BOOK (ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (ITA 422/PN/2003 AND ITA 454/PN/2005) AND STATED VIDE PARAS 22 TO 25 OF THE ORDER, AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE WAS ADJUDIC A TED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE SAID TRIBUNAL ORDER, ACTUARIAL VALUATION OF WARRANTY PROVISION BASED ON THE PAST EXPERIENCE CONSTITUTES REASON ABLE BASIS FOR ESTIMATION OF THE PROVISION OF WARRANTY AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS (SUPRA) IN REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS, THOUGH RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT IN THAT CASE, ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE LAW IS SETTLED. IF THE BUSINESS LIABILITY HAS DEFINITELY ARISEN DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ALTHOUGH THE LIABILITY MAY HAVE TO BE QUANTIFIED AND DISCHARGED AT A LATER DATE. WHAT SHOULD BE CERTAIN IS THE INCURRING OF THE LIABILITY. IT SHOULD ALSO BE CAPABLE OF BEING ESTIMATED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY ALTHOUGH THE ACTUAL QUANTIFICATION MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE. IF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED, THE LIABILITY IS NOT A CONTINGENT ONE. THE LIABILITY IN PRESENTI THOUGH IT WILL BE DISCHARGED AT A FU TURE DATE. IT DOES NOT MADE ANY DIFFERENCE, IF THE FUTURE DATE, THE LIABILITY SHALL HAVE TO BE DISCHARGED, IS NOT CERTAIN. IN THE CONTEXT OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT AND THE PAST EXPERIENCES, THE APEX COURT HAS COME TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS. FROM THE ABOVE IT I S SELF - EXPLANATORY THAT THE INCURRING OF LIABILITY SHOULD BE CERTAIN DURING THE YEAR AND SUCH LIABILITY SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF ESTIMATION WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY . ACTUARIAL VALUATION CONSTITUTES A BASIS FOR REASONABLE ESTIMATION IN THIS REGARD. IN THE INST ANT CAS, THE B ASIS FOR ESTIMATION OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY FOR THIS YEAR ALSO IS THE SAME AS IN EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO DISTURB THE SETTLED POSITION IN THIS MATTER. D.R. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE S ETTLED POSITION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST SUCCEED IN THIS REGARD. ITA NOS.965,966 & 1203/PN/2009 M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES P. LTD. ( A.Y. 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ) . 6 5. GROUND D RELATES TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT ON THE INTEREST INCOME WHEN THE SAID INCOME WAS UNDISPUTEDLY TREATED AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES . THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE SC JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PANDIAN CHEMICALS AS WELL AS DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRIRAM HONDA POWER EQUIP (289 ITR 475)(DEL) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE SUCH INTEREST RECEIPTS DO NOT CONSTIT UTE BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THEREFORE, THEY ARE NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . ONC E THE INTEREST RECEIPTS ARE OUT SIDE THE SCOPE OF THE HEAD OF INCOME IE PROFITS AND GAINS FROM THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION , THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT GR ANT OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAID INTEREST IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 880HHC OF THE ACT . THUS, THE ASSESSEE LOSES THE APPEAL ON THIS PART OF THE GROUND. ACCORDINGLY GROUND D IS DISMISSED . 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 966/PN/2009, ASSTT. YEAR 2003 - 04 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 7. AS SEEN FROM GROUNDS A TO D OF THIS APPEAL , THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL T O THE ONES DISCUSSED IN THE APPEAL ITA NO. 965/PN/2009. T HEREFORE, THE DECISIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF THE BENCH ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT GROUNDS A TO D OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE GROUNDS PRO - TANTO. THA T LEAVES ONLY GROUND E FOR ADJUDICATION AND THE SAME IS DECIDED IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPH. 8. GROUND E RELATES TO COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS UNDER SPECIAL PROVISION VIS - - VIS THE DISALLOWANCE OF (1) PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AND (2) PROVISION FOR LEAVE EN CASHMENT AND GRATUITY. REVENUE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE UN ASCERTAINED LIABILITIES AND THEREFORE, THESE PROVISION ARE INCLUDED FOR COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS AND THE SAME IS AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL ARGUED THAT BOTH THESE PROVISIONS WERE CALCULATED BASED ON ACTUARIAL VALUATION BASED ON THE PAST RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS HELD TO BE SCIENTIFIC WAY OF WORKING OUT THE PROVISION S FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE ASCERTAINED LIABILITI ES . IN THIS REGARD, THE COUNSEL RELIED ON VARIOUS CITATIONS AS INDICATED IN THE CHART ABOVE AGAINST GROUND E. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE VIEW TAKEN BY US AND BY VARIOUS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS AS WELL AS THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF J YOTI LTD ITA NOS.965,966 & 1203/PN/2009 M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES P. LTD. ( A.Y. 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ) . 7 (SUPRA) ., WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST SUCCEED ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND E WITH ITS SUB - GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED . 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ITA NO. 1203/PN/2009 (REVENUES APPEAL) 10. TH E ONLY ISSUE AGITATED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO GRANTING OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE COMPUTERS USED IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. V/S. CIT [200 8], 298 ITR 78 AND MENTIONED THAT THE COMPUTERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION U/S. 32(1)(IIA). ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND WE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CITED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. (SUPRA). THE HELD PORTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT READS AS FOLLOWS : HELD THAT INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE WAS ADMISSIBLE IN RESPECT OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION, MANUFACTURE OR PRODUCTION OF ANY ARTICLE OR THING. IT WAS THE SPECIFIC CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE COMPUTERS WERE IN STALLED IN THE FACTORY PREMISES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND PRODUCTION OF AN ARTICLE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE REVENUE. IT HAD NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT THE COMPUTER S INSTALLED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE USED FOR PROCESSING RAW MATERIALS, DATA, WAGES AND SALARY PAYMENT AND FOR MONITORING THE DETAILS OF PRODUCTION. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE AND ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION . 11. CONSIDERING TH E ABOVE STATED POSITION OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED . 12 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT ON 06TH APRIL , 201 1 SD/ - SD/ - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ITA NOS.965,966 & 1203/PN/2009 M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES P. LTD. ( A.Y. 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ) . 8 JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 6 TH APRIL , 201 1 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE A PP ELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - I I, PUNE 4. THE CIT - II , PUNE 5. THE D.R. ITAT B BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER AS SISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE