Geico Paint Shop India Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Pune

ITA 971/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7745 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANGRAM GAIKWAD
• Assessee Lawyers: M P LOHIA R AJENDRA AGIWAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO . 971 /PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 13 GEICO PAINT SHOP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, A - 4, 5 TH FLOOR, THE 5 TH AVENUE, DHOLE PATIL ROAD, PUNE 411001 PAN : AACCG6973B ...... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S /S HRI M.P. LOHIA/ R AJENDRA AGIWAL REVENUE BY : SHRI S ANGRAM GAIKWAD / DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 - 08 - 2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 0 8 - 2021 / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20 - 02 - 2017 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 2 - 13. 2 ITA NO.971/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED AND SUMMARIZED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE, H ENCE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT CONSIDERING RETURN ON VALUE ADDED COST (ROVAC), GROUND NOS. 3, 4 AND 5 ARE CONNECTED TO GROUND NO. 2. THEREFORE, WE ADJUDICATE GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 COLLECTIVELY. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN INDIA ON 31 - 10 - 2006 AS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY FOR EXECUTING TURNKEY PROJECTS IN INDIA, TO BUILD PAINT SHOPS FOR CAR MANUFACTURES IN INDIA. DURING THE YEAR, GEICO INDIA WAS PRIMAR ILY ENGAGED INTO SALES TRANSACTIONS PURSUANT TO AN ARRANGEMENT WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) TO PROCURE THE MATERIALS AND RELATED SERVICES (ENGINEERING, DRAWINGS AND DESIGNS) FROM THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS TO BE SUPPLIED TO THE AE FOR THE CUSTOMER PROJEC T OF THE AE. IN RESPECT OF THIS ARRANGEMENT, THE ROLE OF GEICO INDIA IS LIMITED AND MAINLY TO CO - ORDINATE THE LOGISTICS FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIALS AND SERVICES INCIDENTAL THERETO PROCURED FROM THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED TNMM AND APPLIE D ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION MATRIX FOR SELECTING THE COMPARABLES. AS PER TP REPORT, 12 COMPANIES WERE SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE . WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN DATA OF THREE YEARS I.E. F.YS. 2009 - 10, 2010 - 11 AND 2011 - 12. ON VERIFICATION OF THE COMPARABLE S SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION, THE TPO HELD CERTAIN COMPANIES DID NOT APPEAR TO BE COMPARABLE WITH THE FUNCTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SET OF COMPARABLES SELECTED BY TH E ASSESSEE. ALSO, TPO OPINED THAT THE PLI OF THE 3 ITA NO.971/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 COMPARABLES IS 22.49% AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES PLI OF 13.81% AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO SUBMIT ITS SAY IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE GEICO INDIAS ROLE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED ARRANGEMENT WITH ITS AE IS AKIN TO THE ROLE OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDER TO THE AE. THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED AND RISKS ASSUMED BY GEICO INDIA IN RESPECT TO THE ABOVE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ARE AKIN TO A SUPPORT SERVICE PROV IDER TO ITS AE. ROVAC IS CONSIDERED AS AN APPROPRIATE PLI FOR BENCHMARKING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF RENDERING OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES IN RESPECT OF THE OVERSEAS PROJECTS OF THE AE BY GEICO INDIA. GEICO INDIA RENDERS BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES TO ITS AE, IT BEARS RELATIVELY LESSER RISKS AND PERFORM RELATIVELY LESSER FUNCTIONS AS COMPARED TO A FULL RISK DISTRIBUTOR. GEICO INDIA PRIMARILY RENDERS SUCH SERVICES TO ITS AE ON A BACK TO BACK BASIS AND AGAINST FIRM PURCHASE COMMITMENTS FROM ITS AES CUSTOMERS WITHOUT HOLDING ANY INVENTORY. IT IS , FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE ADDITION BY GEICO INDIA IN ESSENCE REFLECTS IN THE VALUE ADDED COSTS INCURRED BY IT IN PROCURING AND SELLING ACTIVITIES AND NOT IN THE COST OF THE PURCHASE OF MATERIAL ITSEL F. ACCORDING TO TPO, THAT THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATOR (PLI) PRESCRIBED UNDER TNMM IS THE NET OPERATING MARGINS COMPUTED IN RELATION TO THE PRESCRIBED BASE AND THE TRANSACTION BEING COMPARED IS SALES TO AE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COM PUTING THE PLI, AS IF WOULD DIRECTLY INFLUENCE THE PLI BEING IN THE DENOMINATION FOR COMPUTATION OF THE RATES. THE TPO HAS TAKEN O PERATING PROFIT TO TOTAL COST IS TAKEN AS PLI AND COMPUTED THE ALP OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES BY TAKING THE OPERATING MARGI N OF GEICO INDIA IN RELATION TO RENDERING BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE AE IS CONSIDERED TO BE 20.56% , T HE ARITHMETIC MEAN OF THE PROFIT LEVEL INDICATORS OF COMPARABLES IS TAKEN AS THE ARMS LENGTH MARGIN , PROPOSED AN ADJUSTMENT OF RS.2,04,69,458/ - . THE DRP HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY 4 ITA NO.971/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 DOCUMENT AND EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS NOT UNDERTAKING ANY RISKS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSE ITEMS CLAIMED AS PASS THROUGH AND REJECTED THE PLI AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE BY HOLDING, IS NOT APPLICABLE ON FACTS O F THE CASE. 6. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAGE NO. 314 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS IN RELATION TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES VIDE LETTER DATED 16 - 09 - 2016. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE DRP TO CONSIDER THE BASE FOR COMPUTING OPERATING MARGIN OF ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC VALUE ADDED COSTS (TOTAL COST MINUS COST OF MATERIALS AND SERVICES SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSE E WHICH REPRESENTS THE VALUE OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS SUBMISSION IS MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEES EARLIER CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEES ROLE IS AKIN TO THE ROLE OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDER AND IS LIMITED TO CO - ORDINATI ON OF THE LOGISTICS FOR SUPPLY OF MATERIALS AND SERVICES PROCURED FROM THIRD PARTY INDIAN SUPPLIERS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED R ETURN ON VALUE ADDED COST (ROVAC) IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLI TO MEASURE THE RETURNS OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN TRADING SECTOR. AT PAGE NO. 317 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE NOTE THAT ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED THE RESULT OF SEARCH CONDUCTED FOR IDENTIFYING COMPANIES IN THE TRADING SECTOR. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR FROM T HE RECORD THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE DRP TO TREAT ITS SERVICES IN TRADING ACTIVITIES RATHER THAN BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE. THE DRP, IN VIEW OF THE FRESH SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT REMAND REPO RT FROM THE TPO AND THE SAID REMAND REPORT IS PLACED ON RECORD FROM PAGE NOS. 318 TO 325 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS NOTED THAT THE TPO OBJECTED TO TREAT THE SERVICES OF ASSESSEE IN THE TRADING SECTOR. HE 5 ITA NO.971/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 OBSERVED THAT NO TP REFERENCE WAS MADE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12. REGARDING A.Y. 2010 - 11 HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ITS CLAIM REGARDING THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TPO TREATING THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE. FURTHER, THE DRP ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAID CLAIM EXCEPT FEW CHANGES RELATING TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE GAIN/LOSS. HE HELD THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN A.Y. 2010 - 11 AND IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2012 - 13, TREATED THE ASSESSEE HAS RENDERED SERVICES RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN DISPUTE AS BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDER. 7. THE LD. DR, SHRI SANGRAM GAIKWAD SUBMITS THAT IT IS A STRANGE SITUATION THAT THE ASSESSEE SEEKING TO TREAT IT S SERVICE IN TRADING ACTIVITIES AND FOR ALL EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSEE TREATED ITS SERVICE PROVIDED TO ITS AE IN BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE. HE SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF TPO RELATING TO POSITION OF RULE 9 OF DRP RULES, 2009 AND SUBMITTED THAT WITH OUT RECORDING ANY REASONS FOR FURNISHING THE FRESH COMPARABLES ENGAGED IN TRADING ACTIVITIES THE DRP SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FROM THE TPO AND IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE LD. DR FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HERE WAS NO REASON SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHY IT PAID CONSULTANCY CHARGES AND ARGUED BY WHICH IT ITSELF SHOWS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TRADING ACTIVITIES BUT IN BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDER. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY AGR EEMENT EVIDENCING ITS TRANSACTION BEFORE ALL THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THIS TRIBUNAL AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO FORM AN OPINION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT AND HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TPO CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE AO IN THE FINAL ASSE SSMENT ORDER. 6 ITA NO.971/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 8. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAGE NO. 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK WE NOTE THAT THE NATURE OF OPERATIONS OF ASSESSEE IS IN THE LINE OF DEVELOPING, DESIGNING, PROCURING, ERECTING, CONSTRUCTING, INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING OF PAINT SHOP PLANTS FOR THE CAR MANUFACTURES ON TURNKEY BASIS AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES THERETO. THEREFORE, IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IS INTO DEVELOPING, DESIGNING, PROCURING ETC. ETC. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT AT PAGE NO. 22 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT THE ASS ESSEE ENTERED INTO A SALES TRANSACTION OUTSIDE INDIA PURSUANT TO AN ARRANGEMENT WITH GEICO SPA TO PROCURE MATERIALS AND RELATED SERVICES (ENGINEERING, DRAWINGS, DESIGNS) FORM THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS TO BE SUPPLIED TO GEICO SPA FOR ITS RENAULT AVTOVAZ AND REN AULT MORROCO PROJECTS. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THIS WAS EFFECTED WHEN THERE WAS NO GOOD BUSINESS IN THE MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO OTHER BUSINESS PROVIDING GOODS SUPPLIERS TO ITS AE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID TRANS ACTIONS ARE CONTINUED IN THIS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT PAGE NO. 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE REGISTERED AS DEALER UNDER EXCISE & CUSTOMS ACT WHICH IS ALSO PART OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER POINT 1.14 UNDER THE HEAD TRADED GOODS UNDER BROAD HEAD. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REGARDING THE ASSESSEE AT POINT 2.4 AT PAGE NO. 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK CLEARLY SHOWS, THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNFAVOURABLE AUTOMOBILE BUSINESS SCENARIO IN TURNKEY PROJECTS , THE ASSESSEE E NGAGED INTO SALES TRANSACTIONS PURSUANT TO AN ARRANGEMENT TO ITS AE TO PROCURE THE MATERIALS AND RELATED SERVICES (ENGINEERING, DRAWINGS AND DESIGNS) FROM THIRD PARTY SUPPLIERS TO BE SUPPLIED TO THE AE FOR THE CUSTOMER PROJECT OF THE AE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO INVOICE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 241 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE EXCISE INVOICE CUM DELIVERY CHALLAN A T PAGE NO. 241 OF THE PAPER 7 ITA NO.971/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 BOOK WE NOTE THAT WEBB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED RAISED TH E D ELIVERY CHALLAN IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND THE SHIPMENT SHOWS TO ITS AES PROJECT. IN THE SAID CHALLAN THE UNIT PRICE HAS SHOWN AS RS.30,13,765/ - AND THE ASSESSEE RAISED EXPORT INVOICE IN THE NAME OF ITS AES PROJECT IN RUSSIA WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 242 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THE DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS IN EXCISE INVOICE AT PAGE NO. 241 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS IN EXPORT INVOICE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 242 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE ONE AND THE SAME. FURTHER, A COMMERCIAL INVOICE IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 24 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS EXPORTER, WEBB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED SHOWN AS MANUFACTURER AND BUYER HAS BEEN SHOWN AS A E OF ASSESSEE I.E. M/S. GEICO SPA, THE CONSIGNEE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RENAULT AVTOVAZ TOGLIATTI. WE NOTE THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS ARE ONE AND THE SAME AS REFLECTING IN PAGE NOS. 241 AND 242 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE SELLING PRICE SHOWN AS RS.31,64,4 79/ - WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THE ASSESSEE GENERATED SOME REVENUE ON THE ITEM SHOWN IN EXCISE CHALLAN AT PAGE NO. 241 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE TPO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED ROVAC AS AN APPROPRIATE PLI FOR COMPUTATION OF ITS OPERATING MARGINS BUT HOWE VER THE TPO TAKEN OPERATING PROFIT TO TOTAL COST AS PLI WHICH IS REFLECTING IN PAGE NO. 24 OF THE TPOS ORDER WHEREIN WE NOTE THAT THE TPO OBSERVED PLI PRESCRIBED UNDER TNMM IS THE NET OPERATING MARGINS COMPUTED IN RELATION TO THE PRESCRIBED BASE AND THE C HOICE REGARDING SELECTION OF BASE I.E. COST INCURRED OR SALE EFFECTED OR ASSETS EMPLOYED OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT BASE HAS TO BE GUIDED BY THE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BEING BENCHMARKED. HE OPINED THE THE TRANSACTION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BEING COMPARED IS SALES TO AE AND HELD THE ROVAC CANNOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE PLI, AS IF WOULD DIRECTLY INFLUENCE THE PLI BEING IN THE DENOMINATION FOR COMPUTATION OF THE RATES. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THE TPO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ROVAC AS 8 ITA NO.971/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 PL I FOR TNMM CONCERNING THE TRANSACTION COMPARED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SALES BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS AE. THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 01 - 04 - 2011 TO 31 - 03 - 2012 IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN REV ENUE FROM OPERATIONS AT RS.21,48,52,862/ - THE DETAILS OF WHICH IN NOTE NO. 2.12 AT PAGE NO. 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SHOWN EXPENSES TOTALING TO RS.20,72,54,620/ - IN WHICH THE CONTRACT EXPENSES HAS SHOWN AS RS.18,16,07,299/ - WHICH I S INCLUSIVE OF CONSULTANCY FEES THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AT NOTE NO. 2.14 AT PAGE NO. 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT THE CONTRACT CHARGES OF RS.17,95,23,286/ - INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SERVICES TAKEN FROM THIRD PARTIES A ND PRAYED TO TREAT THE ASSESSEE AS TRADER. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE BERRY RATIO BECOMES ACADEMIC. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF TPO FOR ITS FRESH VERIFICATION TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE ACT IVITIES OF BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDER OR IN THE TRADING ACTIVITIES OR IN THE MIX OF BOTH I.E. BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICE PROVIDER AND TRADING ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSEE IS LIBERTY TO FILE ALL EVIDENCES, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND THE TPO SHALL DECIDE AS INDICATED ABOVE. 9. GROUND NOS. 6 AND 11, THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INTEREST TO PROSECUTE GROUND NOS. 6 AND 11. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. IN VIEW OF THE OUR DECISION IN GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5, T HE GROUND NOS. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BECOMES ACADEMIC, HENCE, REQUIRING NO ADJUDICATION. 9 ITA NO.971/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012 - 13 11. GROUND NOS. 17, 18 AND 19 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTION SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXAMINATION OF SET OFF OF BROU GHT FORWARD MAT CREDIT. IT IS DIRECTED THE SAME MAY BE EXAMINED. 12. IN GROUND NO. 20 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. CHALLENGE TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AT THIS STAGE IS PRE - MATURE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 20 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUGUST, 202 1 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.S. SYAL ) ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 24 TH AUGUST, 202 1 . RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 13, PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT - 5, PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, C BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE