A. Raymond Fasterners Private Ltd., Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 994/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4934 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S B PRASAD
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO , AM . / ITA NO. 994 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 1 2 A. RAYMOND FASTENERS PVT. LTD., 128/2, SANGHAVI COMPLEX, TELCO ROAD, MOHAN NAGAR, CHINCHWAD, PUNE 411019 . / APPELLANT PAN: AAGCA7184G VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 9, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJENDRA AGIWAL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.B. PRASAD, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 . 1 1 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12 . 0 2 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF D CIT , CIRCLE - 8, PUNE , DATED 29 . 0 1 .20 1 6 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 1 - 1 2 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED DRP - 3, MUMBAI ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE LEARNED TPO U/S 92CA OF THE ITA, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS .98,65,593/ - TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ITA NO. 994 /P U N/20 1 6 A.RAYMOND FASTENERS PVT. LTD. 2 2. THE LEARNED TP AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CARRYING OUT THE REVISED BENCHMARKING DURING THE TP PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT FORMING ANY OPINION AS REGARDS 'PROFIT PASSING' AS REQUIRED U/S 92C(3) OF THE ITA, 1961. 3. THE LEARNED TP AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CARVING OUT & DECIDING THE RELATED TRANSACTION IN RESPECT TO THREE (3) PRODUCTS BY USING CUP METHOD AS AGAINST THE CPM METHOD USED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED TPO & DRP E RRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT BENCHMARKING METHOD IS USED FOR ALL SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS ON OVERALL BASIS & NOT TRANSACTION BY TRANSACTION. 4. THE LEARNED TP AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN APPLYING CUP METHOD WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SALES TO NON - AE PARTIES WAS ON TRIAL BASIS (WITH VOLUME OF 22,000 NOS . ) AS AGAINST REGULAR ORDERS OF AE PARTY (WITH VOLUME OF 66,25,000 NOS . ). 5. THE LEARNED TP AUTHORITIES, ERRED IN LAW IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING SALES RATES CHARGED TO AE PARTLY ON COST +1 0 MARK UP FORMULA WITH RESPECT TO ONLY THREE (3) PRODUCTS, WHILE ACCEPTING THE SIMILAR COST +10 MARK UP FORMULA FOR ALL REST OF THE PRODUCTS. 6. ALTERNATIVELY & WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED TP AUTHORITIES ERRED ON FACTS IN NOT EXTENDING T - P ADJUSTMENTS OF LIMITED RISKS & LIMITED FUNCTIONS WHILE SELLING GOODS TO AE (AS CONTRACT MANUFACTURER) AS AGAINST SELLING GOODS TO THIRD PARTIES (AS FULL - FLEDGED MANUFACTURE). 7. THE LEARNED TP AUTHORITIES FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SPLIT PROFITABILITY PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BENCHMARKING THE TRANSACTIONS ON AN OVERALL YEARLY BASIS UNDER CPM APPROACH. 8. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, LEARNED TP AUTHORITIES ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT ALL THE INTERNATIONAL T RANSACTIONS BENCHMARKED BY APPLYING CPM / TNMM METHOD ON AN OVERALL ENTITY BASIS / SPLIT - P & L BASIS. THE LEARNED TP AUTHORITIES, FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT CUP IS ALWAYS PREFERABLE TO USE ANY OTHER METHOD. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST TRANSFER PRICING A DJUSTMENT MADE AT 98,65,593/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT ALL RELATE TO THE AFORESAID ADDITION. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF AUTOMOTI VE FASTENERS AND CONNECTORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS PART OF GROUP BASED IN FRANCE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AND HENCE, REFERENCE WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT TO THE TRANSFER PRICING O FFICER (TPO). THE TPO NOTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE SOLD FINISHED GOODS VALUE OF 3.70 CRORES TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AND CLAIMED IT TO BE ITA NO. 994 /P U N/20 1 6 A.RAYMOND FASTENERS PVT. LTD. 3 AT ARM'S LENGTH PRICE ON THE BASIS OF COST PLUS METHOD. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON OECD GUIDELINES AND A LSO POINTED OUT THAT AS NO INTERNAL CUP METHOD COULD BE IDENTIFIED, COST PLUS METHOD WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF FINISHED GOODS SOLD TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AND ALSO TO THIRD PARTIES. THE TPO ON ANAL YSIS NOTED THAT THERE WERE PRODUCTS / COMPONENTS WHICH WERE SOLD TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AS WELL AS TO THIRD PARTIES AND THERE WAS HUGE PRICE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE PRICE MADE TO THIRD PARTY AND ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHO W CAUSE AS TO WHY INTERNAL CUP METHOD SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AS AGAINST COST PLUS METHOD. THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THAT PRICE AT WHICH IT WAS SOLD WAS BASED ON THE IMPORT S FROM ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES, WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS MATERIAL CONSUMPTION FOR THE SAM E PRODUCT, AS PER THE TPO COULD NOT BE DIFFERENT FROM ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AND THIRD PARTY, UNLESS THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY SALE TO THE PARTIES. SINCE NO SUCH DIFFERENCE WAS POINTED OUT, THEREFORE THIS REASON WAS HELD TO BE NOT VALID. THE SECOND PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE HAD PROVIDED MOULD S WORTH 1.04 CRORES FREE OF COST FOR PRODUCTION OF COMPONENTS WAS HELD TO BE NOT THE BASIS FOR PRICE DIFFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED THAT BECAUSE OF VOLUME DIFFERENCE , THERE WAS DIFFER ENCE IN THE PRICE OF GOODS SOLD BUT THAT WAS ALSO REJECTED. THE NEXT PLEA OF ASSESSEE OF NO EFFORTS OF MARKETING, WARRANTY RISK, ETC. WAS REJECTED. THE TPO PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 1.33 CRORES. HOWEVER, THE TPO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION ON FREE MOU LD PROVIDED BY ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AND PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 98,65,593/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP), WHICH WERE REJECTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER, PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO. 994 /P U N/20 1 6 A.RAYMOND FASTENERS PVT. LTD. 4 MAKING THE SAID ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE UNIT OF ASSESS EE WAS SET UP IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08 AND THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF FIVE PRODUCTS TO THE ASSOCIATED ENT ERPRISE AND IT HAD APPLIED COST PLUS METHOD, WHEREAS THE TPO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT INTERNAL CUP METHOD WA S TO BE APPLIED IN RESPECT OF ONLY THREE PRODUCTS; FOR TWO PRODUCTS, THE METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TPO. INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE WA S IMPORTING AND SELLING THE PRODUCTS TO MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA I.E. DOMESTIC ENTITY, FOR WHICH PRICE WAS AGREED FOR THE AFORESAID SALE IN 2008. HOWEVER, IN T HIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED MANUFACTURING AND FOR THE PROCESS, THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE HAD S UPPLIED MOULD FREE OF COST AND AFTER MANUFACTURING THE ITEMS, THE SAME WERE SOLD TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE S . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT DIFFERENCE IN PRICE OF ITEMS SOLD TO THIRD PARTY AND ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE S WAS BECAUSE OF COMMERCIAL PRUDENCE AND ALSO THERE WAS MATERIAL COST DIFFERENCE BECAUSE OF IMPORTS OF RAW MATERIAL AND ALSO VOLUME DIFFERENCE WHEREIN THE ITEMS SOLD TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE TOTALED 65,25,006/ - . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TPO HAD ACCEPTED 76% OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE ISSUE WAS ONLY WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NOS.1 TO 6 AS MENTIONED IN THE CHART, THOUGH THE ITEM NOS.7 TO 9 WHEREIN NO ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE, SALE WAS MADE BOTH TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE S AND NON - ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE S . HE STRESSED THAT CUP METHOD WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CPM IS TO BE APPLIED. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT WHEN NO ADJUSTMENT COULD BE GRANTED, THEN THAT METHOD CANNOT BE APPLIED. IN THIS REGARD, HE PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE RATIO ITA NO. 994 /P U N/20 1 6 A.RAYMOND FASTENERS PVT. LTD. 5 LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PR.CIT VS. M/S. AMPHENOL INTERCONNECT INDIA P. LTD. IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1131 OF 2015 ALONG WITH OTHER APPEALS, JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.2018 AND PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN INTERVET INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.720/PN/2014, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, ORDER DATED 18.04.2016. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD ESTABLISHED ITS MANUFACTUR ING UNIT AND SOLD THE MANUFACTURED ITEMS TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE S . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS IMPORTING SAID ITEMS IN EARLIER YEAR S, WHICH WERE SOLD TO MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA I.E. NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SALE PRICE WAS FIXED IN 2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SUMMARY OF PRODUCTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND IN RESPECT OF ITEM NOS.1 AND 2, THE QUANTITY WHICH WA S S OLD TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE WA S 65,25,000, WHEREIN THE PRICE PER COMPONENT WAS 1.33, WHEREAS SALES TO MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA WERE OF QUANTITY OF 22,000 ONLY BUT THE PRICE CHARGED WAS 3.35 PER UNIT. THE TOTAL SALES TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE OF THIS PRODUCT W ERE 86,82,502/ - AND OF SIMILAR ITEM S TO NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE W ERE 7 3,700/ - . THIS IS THE ONLY DISPUTED TRANSACTION. 8. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD TO BE APPLIED WHILE BENCHMARKING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF ASSESSEE. THE LAW OF TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS IS THAT WHILE BENCHMARKING ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS LIKE HAS TO BE COMPARED WITH LIKE AND WHILE MAKING THE SAID COMPARISON, ONE OF THE METHOD WHICH CAN BE ITA NO. 994 /P U N/20 1 6 A.RAYMOND FASTENERS PVT. LTD. 6 APPLIED IS CUP METHOD I.E. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS AN INTERNAL COMPARISON AVAILABLE, THE N THE PRICE CHARGED BY ASSESSEE FROM ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE CAN BE COMPARED WITH PRICE CHARGED FROM NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE PARTY , BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IN THE CASE IS THE ITEM WHICH IS BEING COMPARED SHOULD BE THE SAME. THE ITEM S WHICH WERE COMPARED I N THE CASE IS SAME BUT THE SALES TO NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE PARTY WERE ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT WHICH WAS AGREED UPON IN 2008, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS IMPORTING ITEMS AND SELLING IT TO MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA. THE PRICE DECIDED WAS 3.35 PER COMPONENT . THE VOLUME OF SALE TO MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA WAS LOW. DU RING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HA D STARTED MANUFACTURING SIMILAR ITEMS FOR WHICH IT HAD RECEIVED MOULD FROM ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE S FREE OF COST AND AFTER MANUFACTURING ITEMS WERE SOLD TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPR ISE ; FIRST OF ALL DIFFERENCE IN VOLUME OF GOODS SOLD TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AS COMPARED TO NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT IT ACTED AS CONTRACT MANUFACTURER IN RESPECT OF COMPONENTS SOLD TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AND DID NOT UNDERTAKE ANY MARK ET ING FUNCTIONS FOR THE SAID EXPORT S ; DID NOT BEAR ANY CREDIT RISK ; DID NOT PAY ANY ROYALTY TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE FOR USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND KNOWHOW IN PRODUCTION PROCESS, WHILE MANUFACTURING GOODS F OR ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE S . HENCE, DIFFERENCE IN FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, ASSETS EMPLOYED AND RISK ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE ACTIVITY OF SALE OF MANUFACTURED ITEMS TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE AND NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE. FURTHER, ADMITTEDLY, THERE WE RE GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCES IN MARKETS, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPORTING COMPONENTS TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES LOCATED IN FRANCE, WHEREAS THE COMPONENTS SOLD IN NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES WERE IN INDIA. 9. THE NEXT ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PRICE AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES BASED ON IMPORT AND SALE CONTRACTUAL TERM S COULD BE COMPARED WITH PRIC E AGREED BASED ON MANUFACTURE AND SALE CONTRACTUAL TERMS. WE FIND NO ITA NO. 994 /P U N/20 1 6 A.RAYMOND FASTENERS PVT. LTD. 7 MERIT IN THE VIEW POINT OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND TPO IN THIS REGARD AND TWO TRANSAC TIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE NOT COMPARABLE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, CUP METHOD CANNOT BE HELD TO BE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD ESPECIALLY WHERE THE PRICE WAS PRE - AGREED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND ITS NON ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE PARTY. FURTHER, SUCH HIGHER PRICE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS TO CHARGE SALE PRICE FROM ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE PARTIES, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTRACT MANUFACTURER FOR EXPORT OF COMPONENTS TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONB LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PR.CIT VS. M/S. AMPHENOL INTERCONNECT INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA) , WHEREIN THE RATES OF COMMISSION VARIED BETWEEN COMMISSION PAID TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES AND TO THIRD PARTIES, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT COMPARISON OF SALE COMMISSI ON PAID ON SALES MADE IN INDIA TO SALES COMMISSION PAID TO SALES MADE ABROAD WOULD IN VIEW OF GEOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, TNMM METHOD WAS TO BE APPLIED AND NOT THE CUP METHOD AS THE MOST AP PROPRIATE METHOD TO DETERMINE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF SALES COMMISSION PAID TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES. ANOTHER ASPECT NOTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES IN RESPECT OF FUNCTIONS AND GEOGRAPHY BETWEEN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE TRANSACTI ONS AND THIRD PARTY TRANSACTIONS AND CUP METHOD WAS HELD TO BE NOT MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. 10. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTING AS CONTRACT MANUFACTURER IN RESPECT OF EXPORT OF COMPONENTS TO ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES THEN, CUP METHOD WAS NOT CORRECT METHOD TO BE APPLIED TO BENCHMARK INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PR.CIT VS. M/S. AMPHENOL INTERCONNECT INDIA P. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT TNM M METHOD IS TO BE APPLIED IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED MARGINS OF 7.76%. THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO. 994 /P U N/20 1 6 A.RAYMOND FASTENERS PVT. LTD. 8 ALSO FURNISHED DETAILS AND HAD SELECTED CERTAIN COMPARABLES AS FUNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE WHOSE MEAN MARGINS WORKED OUT TO 7.12%. THE TPO HAS NOT CONSIDERE D THE SAID PLEA OF ASSESSEE. SO, IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO TO APPLY TNMM METHOD TO BENCHMARK THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND COMPARE THE MARGINS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE WITH THE MEAN MARGINS OF COMPARABLES WHICH ARE F UNCTIONALLY COMPARABLE. IN THIS REGARD, THE MATTER IS BEING SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER / TPO FOR LIMITED PURPOSE TO VERIFY THE STAND OF ASSESSEE AND TO DETERMINE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAIS ED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( D.KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 12 TH FEBRUARY , 201 9 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPEL LANT ; 2. THE RESPONDENT; 3. THE DRP, PUNE ; 4. THE DIT (TP/IT), PUNE ; 5. THE DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE