Income-tax Officer, Ward - 2 (4), Aurangabad V. Veerendra Gurulingappa Mangalge, Aurangabad

MA 1/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5071 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH THETE
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 254(2); 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM M.A. NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 695 /PUN/ 2019 ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(9), AURANGABAD .. /APPLICANT / V/S. SHRI VEERENDRA GURULINGAPPA MANGALGE, D - 108, 5 STAR MIDC SHENDRA, AURANGABAD - 431 154. PAN : ABUPM9145P / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P WALIMBE A SSESSEE BY : SHRI RAMESH THETE / DATE OF HEARING : 17 . 0 9 .202 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 . 09 .2021 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.695/PUN/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WITH A PRAYER TO RECTIFY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 06 .0 8 .2019. 2 M A NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 A.Y. 2015 - 16 2. THE REVENUE BY FILING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 24.02.2020 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1) THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE SUB - ORDINATE AUTHORITIES AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE NULL AND VOID - AB - INITIO CONSIDERING THE LEGAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE . 2) THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE WHILE DECIDING, THE CASE MENTIONED THAT' THE QUASI - JUDICIAL AUTHORITY CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ACTUAL TAX PAYER AND CONTRIBUTING REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT. TO SAFEGUARD THAT SECTION 127 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED. IN THE PRESENT, CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEN ONE OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT, HIS JURISDICTION WAS TRANSFERRED AND ANOTHER O FFICE HAS BEEN PLACED FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT. FIRST OF ALL, ON THIS TRANSFER OF CASE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED AND HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN PLACE. SECONDLY, THE OFFICER WHO ULTIMATELY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, SHOULD HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AGAIN. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY I.T.O, WARD 2(1), AURANGABAD AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ITO, WARD 2(4), AURANGABAD WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE ACT. 3) THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE SECTION 127 OF THE INC OME - TAX ACT, 1961 IS REGARDING THE POWER TO TRANSFER OF CASES BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AT THE LEVEL OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ABOVE. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE NO SUCH ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF CASE IS ON ASSESSMENT RECORD, SO THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE O F PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 DOES NOT ARISE. THE HON'BLE ITAT MENTIONED IN THE ORDER WHILE ADJUDICATING THE CASE THAT ON TRANSFER OF CASE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION(3) OF SECTION 127 OF THE ACT THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE TRANSFER IS FROM ON E ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAVIN G OFFICES SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR PLACE WHICH IS THE FACT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE AS BOTH THE OFFICERS, ITO, WARD 2(1), AURANGABAD AND ITO, WARD 2(4), AURANGABAD ARE HAVING THEIR OFFICES SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY AND LOCALITY. 4) THE HON'BLE ITAT, PUNE HELD THAT ON TRANSFER OF CASE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAV E BEEN INFORMED AND HEARING SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE, WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH AT IT CAN SEEN FROM THE CASE RECORD THAT WHILE TRANSFERRING THE CASE FROM ITO, WARD 2(1), AURANGABAD TO ITO, WARD 2 (4), AURANGABAD COPY OF TRANSFER MEMO DATED 10/10/2016 HAS BEEN MARKED TO THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER ON TRANSFER OF CASE FROM ITO, WARD 2(1), AURANGABAD TO ITO, WARD 2(4), AURANGABAD NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) R.W.S. 129 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SERVED. 5) THE HONBLE ITAT, PUNE HELD THAT THE OFFICER WHO ULTIMATELY COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, SHOULD HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AGAIN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SECTION 143(2) READS AS UNDER: 3 M A NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 A.Y. 2015 - 16 WHER EAS RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139, OR IN RESPO NSE TO AN NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OR THE PRESCRIBED INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE IF, CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMP UTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDER - PAID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER, SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTIC E REQUIRING HIM, ON A DATE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, EITHER TO ATTEND TH E OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OR TO PRODUCE, OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN. PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED. FROM WHICH IT IS CLEAR THAT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION HAS TO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD 2(1), AURANGABAD ON 19.09.2019 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THERE IS NO SCOPE AND REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) AGAIN BY THE ITO, WARD 2(4), AND AURANGABAD ON TRANSFER OF CASE. 6) THE HONBLE ITAT, PUNE DID NOT CONSIDER POINT NUMBER 5 OF THE TRANS FER MEMO DATED 10/10/2016 VIDE WHICH THE CASE/ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE ITO, WARD 2(1), AURANGABAD TO ITO, WARD 2(4), AURANGABAD WHEREIN THE REASON FOR TRANSFER IS MENTIONED' AS PER TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION' . THEREFORE , IN THIS CASE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 REGARDING JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. AS PER SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 124 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JU RISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, AFTER TH E EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR A FTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. IN THIS CASE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN OBJECTION REGARDING JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HENCE, ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISD ICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE. FURTHER AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 29 2BB OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ASSESSEE IS PRECLUDED FROM TAKING ANY OBJECTION REGARDING NON - SERVICE OR IMPROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. 7) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OTHER GROUND AT THE TIM E OF HEARING. 8) THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO FILE ANY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE APPROPRIATE TO THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN APPEAL, AS PER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR FILING DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAS CONTENDED THAT IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF CASE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND SO THE ISSUE OF COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 M A NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 A.Y. 2015 - 16 127 OF THE ACT DOES NOT ARISE AND AS PER PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION 127 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE TRANSFER HAS BEEN TAKEN PLACE FROM ONE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANOTHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING OFFICERS SITUATED IN THE SAME CITY, LOCALITY OR PLACE. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT R EGARDING JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. 3.1 THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN OBJECTION REGARDING JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS PASSED TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE AND AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH O ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. THE ITO, WARD 2(1), AURANGABAD HAS DULY TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNED I.E. THE ITO, WARD 2(4 ), AURANGABAD WHO HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THAT FURTHER, AS PER DIRECTION OF THE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 04.06.2021, THE LD. DR HAS F ILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS I.E. (I) PHOTOCOPIES OF AOS LETTER DATED 02.07.2021 WITH ENCLOSURES /ANNEXURES; (II) PHOTOCOPIES OF ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 ETE. 3.2 THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) PCIT VS. MEGA CORPORATION LTD., ITA NO.128/2016 (DELHI HC) (II) CIT VS. S.S. AHLUWALIA 225 TAXMAN 131 (DELHI HC) (III) HINDUSTAN TRANSPORT COMPANY 189 ITR 326 ( ALLAHABAD HC) 5 M A NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 A.Y. 2015 - 16 (IV) CIT VS. SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., ITA 236/2014 ( DELHI HC) (V) ABHISHEK JAIN VS . ITO, WARD - 55(1), NEW DELHI (2 018) 94 TAXMANN.COM 355 ( DELHI). 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.0 8 .2019 IS WELL REASONED AND THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY REVIEW OR RECTIFICATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITH SOME NEW PLEAS / CITATIONS /DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT PLACED /ARGUED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL AND THOSE ARE (I) CHALLENGING THE ISSUE IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT; (II) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292 BB; (III) CHART OF JURISDICTION ; (IV) COPY OF TRANSFER ETC. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.08 .2019. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOT RAISING OF PLEAS OR GROUND, NOT PLACING OF EVIDENCES LIKE CHARTS AND TRANSFER ORDER, NOT REFERRING OF SECTIONS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL TRIAL CANNOT BE SUBJECT MAT TER OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS ENVISAGED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. 4.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WARRANTING RECTIFICATION. THE REVENUE IS SEEKING RE VIEW OF THE ENTIRE ORDER IN THE GRAB OF RECTIFICATION WHICH IS BASICALLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) DHOLANDHAR INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT /W.P. C NO.369/2014 & CM APPL. 740/2004 6 M A NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 A.Y. 2015 - 16 (II) CIT VS. LALITKUMAR BARDIA , INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.127 OF 2006 DATED 11.07.2017 (III) THE PR. CIT - 1 VS. ALTANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD., ITA NO.665/2015 DATED 21.09.2015 (IV) PETER VAZ VS. CIT, TAX APPEAL NO.19, 21, 22, 23, 24 AND 25 OF 2017. 5. W E HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. W E HAVE ALSO ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE. R EVERTING TO OUR ORDER DATED 06.08.2019, THE LEGAL GROUND THAT WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT ASSESSMENT U/S.143 ( 2 ) OF THE A CT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ITO , W ARD 2 ( 4 ) , A URANGABAD WHEREAS, THE NOTICE U/S.143 ( 2 ) OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ITO , W ARD 2 ( 1 ) , A URANGABAD. T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS , THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO , W ARD 2 ( 4 ) , A URANGABAD WITHOUT SERVING NOTICE U/S.143 ( 2 ) OF THE A CT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFOR E, SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS V OID AB - IN ITO AS WAS HELD IN THE CASE OF ACIT & A NRS V S. H OTEL B LUE M OON REPORTED IN 321 ITR 362 BY THE H ON BLE S UPREME C O URT THAT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143 ( 2 ) OF THE A CT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. 6. N OW IN THIS C OURSE OF M ISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION PROCEEDINGS, ON HEARING THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT I S NOT THE CASE THAT NOTICE U/S.143 ( 2 ) OF THE A CT WAS NOT ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE . T HE FACTS IN THE H OTEL B LUE M OON CASE ( SUPRA. ) IS DISTINGUISH ED FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE H O N BLE S UPREME C O URT SAYS, NOTICE U/S .143 ( 2 ) OF THE A CT SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER MAKING ASSESSMENT BUT HERE IS THE CASE WHE RE SUCH NOTICE WAS ALREADY ISSUED BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER HAVING JURISDICTION AND NOW SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER A SSESSING O FFICER FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT. I T IS ALSO CORRECT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED 7 M A NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 A.Y. 2015 - 16 THE JURISDICTION OF THE A SSESSING O FFICER AND HAS CONSTANTLY FILED RETURN WITH THE A SSESSING O FFICER HAVING JURISDICTION , WHEREAS, SUCH NOTICE IS ALREADY SENT U/S.143 ( 2 ) OF THE A CT TO THE ASSESSEE , N O W NO FURTHER RE - ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS REQUIRED. T HEREFORE, THE H OTEL B LUE M OON CASE ( SUPRA. ) IS FACTUALLY DISTINGUISHABLE . 7. T HE SECOND OBSERVATION IS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT BECOMES CLEAR WITH READING TO S ECTION 127 ( 3 ) AND S ECTION 127 ( 4 ) OF THE A CT THAT WHILE S ECTION 127 ( 3 ) MAKES RIGHT T O BE HEARD DISPENSED WITH IF THE CASE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE A SSESSING O FFICER TO ANOTHER IN SAME CITY, PLACE OR LOCALITY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED THESE FACTS. T HAT S ECTION 127 ( 4 ) IS CLEAR THAT RE - ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ALREADY ISSUED BY THE A SSESSING O FFICER HAVING JURISDICTION AND NOW SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER A SSESSING O FFICER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED . C ONSIDERING THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AS ENSHRINED IN THE PROVISION OF S ECTION S 127 ( 3 ) AND S ECTION 127 ( 4 ) OF THE A CT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE HAS CREPT IN MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 06.08. 2019 AND THUS, THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 06.08.2019 IS HEREBY RECALLED SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL OF G ROUND N O.1 OF THE APPEAL . 8. T HE R EG ISTRY IS DIRECTED TO LIST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING I N DUE COURSE OF TIME AND ISSUE NOTICE ACCORDINGLY. 9 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 27 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 20 21. S D/ - S D/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 27 TH SEPTEMBER , 202 1 . SB 8 M A NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 A.Y. 2015 - 16 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 2, AURANGABAD 4. THE PR. CIT - 2, AURANGABAD. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // T RUE C O PY // / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 9 M A NO. 01 /PUN/ 2021 A.Y. 2015 - 16 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 17 . 0 9 .2021 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27.09 .2021 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER