M/s. C.G. Lucy Switchgear Ltd., Nashik V. JCIT, Nashik

MA 152/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6228 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARESHWAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 260A; 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO MA NO. 152/PN/10 (ARISING OUT OF MA NO. 26/PN/10 AND ITA NO. 490/PN/ 2009) A.Y 2005-06 M/S. C.G. LUCY SWITCHGEAR LTD., F-10, MIDC AMBA, NASHIK-422 010 PAN NO. AAACC9268P .... APPELLANT VS. JCIT RANGE-2, NASHIK . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRADIP KAPASI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARESHWAR SHARMA ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MA NO 152/PN/10 IN CONNE CTION WITH AN ORDER VIDE THE MA 26/PN/10 ORDER DATED 16/06/2010. THUS, IT IS THE CASE OF ADJUDICATION OF A SUCCESSIVE MA ON THE ORIGINAL MA DECIDED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT MA, THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED T HAT THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2010 VIDE THE MA NO. 26/PN/10 REQUIRES RECTIFICA TION. AS PER THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO CONSIDER A COORDINATE BENCH DECISION/AN ARGUMENT W HILE GRANTING PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, AN MA WAS 26/PN/10 WAS FILED AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 16/06/2010 ON FINDING THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS OF THE DEBATABLE NATURE IN VIEW OF T HE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GLENMARK PHA RMACEUTICAL LTD VIDE ITA NO. 2256 OF 09 ORDER DATED 12 TH MARCH, 2010(BOM) AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 3 OF THE SAID ORDER U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. OTHERWISE, NON-CONSIDERAT ION OF AN ARGUMENT RELATING TO APPLICABILITY OF A DECISION OF JAIPUR BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT NIGAM LTD WAS THE ONE OF THE ISSUES . 2. WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED MA ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL C ONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID ARGUMENT RELATING TO APPLICABILITY OF A DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND AS SEEN FROM PARA 2 & 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ISSUE RAISED AND THE ARGUMENT MADE MA NO. 152/PN/10 A RISING OUT OF MA NO. 26/PN/10 & ITA NO. 490/PN/09 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 2 OF 6 OUT BY LD. COUNSEL IS DEBATABLE IN NATURE IN VIEW OF THE CLARIFICATORY AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN TO THE STATUTE BY WAY OF INSERTING EXPLA NATION TO SEC. 194C OF THE ACT. THE EXPRESSION WORK HAS BEEN DEFINED AND THE SAME WAS EXPLAINED TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ITA NO. 2256 OF 09 ORDER DATED 12 TH MARCH, 2010(BOM). AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 3, TRIBUNAL CAM E TO THE CONCLUSION AFTER DUE DISCUSSION THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL MA IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. HONBLE TRIBUNAL ALSO RELIED ON ANOTHER JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRA DING CO. 203 ITR 497 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CO NSIDER THE ARGUMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD (MAR). THE M A WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED VIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2010. IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, NE ITHER OF THE PARTIES HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE EXISTENCE OF A JUDGMEN T OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS, IN THE CASE OF DEYS M EDICAL (U.P) P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2008) 316 ITR 445, WHERE IT IS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNTS PAID TO THE CONTRACTS WHICH OTHERWISE ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194 C OF THE ACT, IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. CONSEQUENT TO THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAID ORIGINAL MA, ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MA PRAYING FOR RECTIFYING THE ORIGINAL MA ORDER DA TED 16/06/2010. THROUGH THIS MA, IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT NIGAM LTD (SUPRA) WAS NOT APPLI ED TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AND IT CONSTITUTES MAR IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. 295 ITR 466 (S C). ASSESSEE IS ALSO CRITICAL OF THE TRIBUNAL RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. (SUPRA). VIDE PARA 11 OF THE PRESENT M A, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 16/06/2010 ON THE GRO UND THAT THE SAID ORDER DID NOT CONSIDER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE O F HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED THE BO MBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. (SUPRA) WHICH IN HIS OPINION HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE SUPREME COURT DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). AT THE END, ASSESSE E PRAYS FOR RECTIFYING THE ORDER OF ORIGINAL MA ORDER DATED 16/06/2010 VIDE THE MA NO. 26/PN/10. AS SEEN FROM THE TEXT OF THE PRESENT MA, IT IS NOT THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE JAIPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL OBTAINED THE AFFIRMATION OF ANY HIGH MA NO. 152/PN/10 A RISING OUT OF MA NO. 26/PN/10 & ITA NO. 490/PN/09 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 3 OF 6 COURT AS IS THE CASE BEFORE THE APEX COURT WHILE ADJUD ICATING THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE NARRATED THE CONTENTS OF PRESENT MA AND TRACED T HE BACKGROUND OF THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE ISSUE ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE SUCCESSIVE MAS ON THE ORIGINAL MA WAS RAISED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAM E, LD. COUNSEL ARGUED STATING THAT IN VIEW OF THE MERGER THEORY , THE ORDERS PASSED U/S. 254(1) & (2) OF THE ACT CAN BE RECTIFIED IN THE INTEREST OF THE JU STICE AND THERE IS NO POINT IN PERPETUATION OF A MISTAKE. FURTHER, HE EXPLAINED STATI NG THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 16/06/2010 PASSED U/S. 254(2) GETS MERGED WITH THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 254(1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, ALSO HE ARGUED STATING THA T ESSENTIALITY OF APPLYING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION AS HELD BY THE JUDGMENT O F THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH AND THEREFORE, IT CONSTITUTES A MAR, WHICH WAS DONE BY TH E TRIBUNAL BOTH DURING THE PASSING OF ORDER U/S 245(1) AND ALSO DURING THE ORIGIN AL MA PROCEEDINGS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED AN D HIS ARGUMENTS ARE THAT I) THE IMPUGNED MA ORDER DATED 16/06/10 IS A SPE AKING ORDER AND ANY AMENDMENT TO IT AMOUNTS TO REVIEW AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. TAKING A CUE FROM THE DISCUSSION AVAILABLE IN THE IMPUGNED MA ORDER, LD DR ARGUED THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT TH E AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF WORK ARE CL ARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND THEREFORE HAVE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONTRACT PAYMENTS MADE TO THE CONTRACTORS, INVOLVING THE SUPPLY OF MA TERIAL BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE COVERED BY SEC. 194C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, IN PRINC IPLE, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER THE STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO MAKE THE TDS IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENTS, WHETHER PAID OR PAYABLE, AND THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER STATUTORY O BLIGATION TO REMIT THE SAID TDS TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT AS PER THE STATUTE. ANY FAILURE IN THIS REGARD, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT, THE SAID CONTRACT AMOUNTS PAID CONSTITUTES THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . CONSIDERING THE BINDING HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, THE OPERA TION OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT NIGAM LTD ( SUPRA) BECOMES DEBATABLE . LD DR DEMONSTRATED THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAIN ED THE DEBATABLE NATURE OF THE ISSUE VIDE ORIGINAL MA ORDER 16/06/10. FURTHER, THE DR MENTIONED THAT IT IS A SETTLED ISSUE, ON THE SAME ISSUE, THE SUCCESSIVE MAS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LAW AND HE RELIED ON VARIOUS HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT I.E. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MA NO. 152/PN/10 A RISING OUT OF MA NO. 26/PN/10 & ITA NO. 490/PN/09 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 4 OF 6 ITAT AND OTHERS 196 ITR 640 (ORISSA HIGH COURT). HE F URTHER MENTIONED THAT THE MA ON ORIGINAL MA IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, WHEN THERE IS ALTERNATE REMEDY BY WAY OF WRIT BEFORE HIGH COURT AND IN THIS REGARD, DR REL IED ON THE MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF DR. S. PANEERSELVAM VS. ACIT 319 ITR 0135 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE SECOND APPLICATION FOR RECTIF ICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT U/S. 260A OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED OUR ORDERS AND THE CITATIONS REFERRED TO BEFORE US BY THE PARTIES. WITHOUT GOING INT O THE MERITS OUR DECISIONS IN OUR ORDERS ORIGINALLY PASSED U/S. 254(1) AND RECTIFIC ATION ORDER PASSED IN THE ORIGINAL MA ON 16/06/10 U/S. 254 (2) OF THE ACT, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE LEGAL ISSUE ON THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION . WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL REVOLVING AROUN D MERGER THEORY OF THE ORDERS, AVAILABILITY OF THE POWERS TO THE TRIBUNAL TO RE CTIFY THE MA ORDER DARTED 16/06/10 BY THE SUCCESSIVE MAS AND THE APPLICABILI TY OF THE APEX COURTS JUDGMENTS/ORDERS CITED IN THE MA BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED WHETHER THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS ANY WAY DIFFERENT FRO M THE ONE ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY US IN OUR ORDER DATED 16/06/10. FINALLY , WE FIND THE ISSUE IS ONE AND THE SAME I.E., FAILURE TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT/ JA IPUR BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RELEVANT DISCUSSION IS AVAILABLE IN PARA 3 OF THE MA ORDER DATED 16/06/10. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED ON THIS ISSUE ON FINDING THE DILATABILITY OF THE ISSUE IN VIEW OF 1) CLARIFIC ATORY AMENDMENT TO SEC. 194C AND 2)THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.(SUPRA). 7. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE FACTS OF THE JU DGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (S UPRA) AND NOTICED THAT THE SAME DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE SAID CASE, A DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SAMTEL COLOUR LT D WAS CONFIRMED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDI A (P) LTD. 210 CTR 354, WHEREAS, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DECISION OF THE JAIP UR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR VIDYUT NIGAM LTD (SUPRA) IS YET TO GET SUCH CO NFIRMATION OF ANY HIGH COURT AS IS INFORMED TO US. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THE EXIST ENCE OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF DEYS MEDICAL (U.P) P . LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2008) (SUPRA) CONTRIBUTES TO THE DEBATABLE NAT URE OF THE ISSUE. IN THAT CASE, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROVISIONS O F SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE OPERATIVE SINCE THE PAYMENTS WHICH ARE ALREADY MADE ARE MA NO. 152/PN/10 A RISING OUT OF MA NO. 26/PN/10 & ITA NO. 490/PN/09 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 5 OF 6 OTHERWISE SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPI ENT, WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HELD SUCH AMOUNTS PAID CONSTI TUTES INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE JUDGME NT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD (SUPRA) IS NOT ON THE ISSUE OF MA O N ORIGINAL MA AND IT IS ON NON-ADOPTION OF AN ORDER OF A CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WHICH IS APPROVED BY AN HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE IMPUGNE D COORDINATE BENCH DECISION WAS DULY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS EVIDENT FROM PARA 3 OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE MA. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE JUDGEMENT OF ORIS SA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITAT AND OTHERS (SUPRA) WHICH EXPLAIN ED THE SCOPE OF POWER TO RECALL THE ORDERS. THE HELD PORTION OF THE SAID JUDGEME NT READS AS UNDER:- HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT HAVE POWER TO RECA LL ITS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RECALLING ITS EARLIER ORDER. 8. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MADRAS HIGH COURT D ECISION IN THE CASE OF DR. PANEERSELVAM (SUPRA) HELD PORTION OF THE SAME REA DS AS FOLLOWS:- HELD, DISMISSING THE PETITIONS, THAT AS AGAINST T HE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) AND THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THERE WAS A REMEDY BY WAY OF APPEAL PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 260A(1) OF THE ACT AND SUCH REMEDY HAD NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED BY THE PETITIONER. APPARENTLY, THE SECOND PETITION FIELD FOR RECTIFICATION WAS ONE INTENDED TO BRIDGE THE LONG DELAY IN NOT CH ALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2000 AND THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED APRIL 25, 2001. THE PETITIONS DESERVED TO BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE TO PURSUE THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AND ALSO ON THE GROUND OF DELAY AND LACHES, WHICH HAD NOT BE EN EXPLAINED. 9. FURTHER ALSO WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF DEYS MEDICAL (U.P) P. LTD. VS. UNION OF IN DIA AND OTHERS (2008) 316 ITR 445 THE HELD PORTION OF THE SAME READS AS FOLLOWS:- HELD , DISMISSING THE PETITION, THAT A SUM PAID FOR ADVERTISEMENT TOWARDS ADVANCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS WAS LIABLE TO B E DEDUCTED FROM COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME STRICTLY IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT OTHERWISE. IT WAS NOT DISPUTED T HAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT FAILING WHICH SECTION 40(A)(IA) PROVIDED THAT SUCH PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME AND SHOULD BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW TO HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER IT CLAIMED SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO BE ULTRA VIRES AND ANY LEGISLATIVE INCOMPETENCE IN ENACTING SUCH PROVI SION. FROM THE ABOVE EXTRACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER OF REVIEW. FURTHER, THE SECOND APPLICATION OR SUCCESSIVE MAS ARE M AINTAINABLE AND THEY DESERVED TO BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE T O PURSUE THE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY. THE SUMS PAID TO THE ADVERTISEMENT CONTRACTORS CONSTI TUTES INCOME OF MA NO. 152/PN/10 A RISING OUT OF MA NO. 26/PN/10 & ITA NO. 490/PN/09 A.Y. 2005-06 PAGE 6 OF 6 THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE AC T PROVIDED SUCH PAID AMOUNTS ARE LIABLE TO TDS UNDER SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. 10. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDE R DATED 16/06/10 WAS PASSED DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR RECT IFICATION ON OBSERVING THE DEBATIBILITY OF THE IMPUGNED ISSUE. IT IS A SETTLED MATTER THAT ISSUES OF DEBATABLE NATURE ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SEC. 254(2) OF THE AC T AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE MAR. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE FINDS NO MISTAKE IN OUR F INDING MENTIONED IN PARA 3 ON THE DEBATABLE NATURE OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. IT IS ALSO SETTLED ISSUE AT THE LEVEL OF THE HIGH COURT I.E., ORISSA AND MADRA S HIGH COURT AS NARRATED ABOVE, SO LONG AS ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPLICATION FI LED U/S. 254(1) FOR THE SUCCESSIVE MAS IS ONE AND SAME, IN VIEW OF THE ALT ERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF WRIT, THE SUCCESSIVE MAS ARE ON THE SAME ISSUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE . FURTHER, THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF DEYS MEDICAL (U.P) P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (SUPRA) CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE DEBATABLE NATURE OF THE ISSUE. THEREFORE, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE PRAYERS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED SUCCESSIVE MA, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PRESENT MA FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE . ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED . 11. IN THE RESULT, THE INSTANT MA OF THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED 09 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C.SUDHIR) (D.K ARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 09 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 R COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. JCIT, RANGE-2, NASHIK 3. CIT(A)-II, NASHIK 4. CIT-I, NASHIK 5. D.R. ITAT BENCH, PUNE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE