ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

ITA 600/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ulka Madhukar Shinde, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14, which included a delay of 459 days in filing the appeal. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 11,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information from the Annual Information Report (AIR). The assessee argued that the cash deposits were from legitimate sources, including her business and support from friends and family, and that the total withdrawals from her accounts exceeded the deposits. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s handling of the case, including incorrect references to bank accounts and failure to consider substantial withdrawals that contradicted the claim of unexplained deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707135 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others v. Mst. Katiji and others, Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Manveer Singh Vs ITO, Dashrathbhai Shivabhai Chaudhary Vs ITO, Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT, CIT Vs S.V. Angidi Chettiar, CIT VS Divine Leasing & Finance Limited, Brij Bhushan Lal Praduman Kumar Vs CIT, Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd V/s ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANTHONY DSONZA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एक सदस्य मामला” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.600/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ulka Madhukar Shinde, C-108 Krishna Co-op. HSG Ltd., Sector-11, Plot No. 35, Kamothe – 410209 PAN : DIYPS5785R Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anthony Dsonza Department by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date of hearing : 24-04-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09-07-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 459 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. He submitted that the delay is not intentional and is a bonafide one for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee as evident from the affidavit filed in support thereof and therefore prayed that the delay may be condoned and the appeal be admitted for adjudication. 2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 2.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 459 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee stating the reason for such delay which are as under : 2 ITA No.600/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 “I Mrs. Ulka Madhukar Shinde daughter of Dhondram Chougule, aged 58 years having PAN-DIYPS5785R and residing at Sector-11, Plot No. 35, Kamothe -410209, Maharashtra, do hereby declare solemnly on oath and affirmation as under. I had received CIT order dated 27/09/2023 u/s 147r.w.s. 144 for AY 2013- 2014 and penalty CIT order u/s 271 (1) (c) dated 27/09/2023 for AY 2013- 2014. Against the above orders, we had filed appeals in the office of Income tax Tribunal Pune, (online) within the prescribed time period along with the appeal fees. We received acknowledgments for both appeals filed by us, copies of which are attached herewith. Since, we are not computer literate, we couldn't get any email from your office, regarding the hearings schedule for appeal filed against order u/s 147 r.w.s 144. On making enquires at your office by personal visit, we were shocked and surprised to know that the said appeal filed by us has been overwritten due to some technical glitches. Hence we were informed to refile the said appeal immediately along with a letter of condonation containing the facts for delay in filing this new (second) appeal. We were also like to state that in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others v. Mst. Katiji and others their Lordships of Apex Court held that court should adopt liberal and justice-oriented approach for the purposes of condonation of delay. Considering the guidelines provided by the Apex Court and the reasons for the delay mentioned by the appellant, we kindly request the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. We assure the Honourable Tribunal that the delay was not a result of intentional oversight on the part of the trust, and we remain committed to fulfilling all compliance obligations promptly. This resulted in filing of appeal belatedly and there is delay of about 524 days. We request the Hon, Tribunal to consider the application and admit the appeal.” 2.3 In light of the above reason stated by the assessee in his affidavit, we find some merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. 2.4 We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3 ITA No.600/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 2.5 We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.” 2.6 Considering the totality of facts and in the circumstances of the case set out above and respectfully following the above decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld AO relied on the information of AIR regarding cash deposit of Rs. 11,00,000/- in ShyamraoVithal Co-op Bank Ltd. Mumbai, but has no tangible reliable material of the same, as he hasn't received the information called tor u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Page 2, line no 13 of the assessment order). Thus the assessment proceedings are bad in law, since the same have been initiated on surmises, conjectures and suspicion, without any tangible evidence. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in relying purely on the information of Annual Information Report (AIR) without making independent enquiries and framing the best judgment assessment without verifying the complete bank account of the appellant. Case laws relied upon: 1. Manveer Singh Vs ITO (TAT Delhi -ITA No. 2976/Del2022 dated 20/06/2023) 2. DashrathbhaiShivabhai Chaudhary Vs ITO (|TAT Ahmedabad) 3. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 4. CIT Vs S.V. AngidiChettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) 5. CIT VS Divine Leasing & Finance Limited (2001) 248 ITR 338 (Delhi HC) 6. BrijBhushan Lal Praduman Kumar Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) 7. Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd V/s ITO 338 |TR 51 (Delhi HC) 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant is unwarranted, since the entire cash deposited with the bank account cannot be treated as income of the Appellant and only gross margin earned from the appellant's business can be treated as her income. 4. The addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the income of the appellant is not tenable under the law because additions are made in gross ignorance and in violation of 4 ITA No.600/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 real income theory of taxation which states that no income could be earned without incurring expenses for the same. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in making additions upon ex-parte material, in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the orders passed by the Hon. CIT (A) and the Ld AO are against the principles of natural justice. 7. For Statistical Purpose, the summarized data of cash deposits and withdrawals from various banks is tabulated below: Name of Bank Cash Deposited Cash Withdrawn ABHYUDAYA COOP BANK, KAMOTHE (SB 2719, Pension Ac Joint with Husband) 162000 735000 SVC CO-OP BANK LTD, KAMOTHE SB/GEN/85 412400 341500 UNION BANK (SB/GEN A/C NO: 566602010004691) 115000 324000 TOTAL 689400 1400500 From the above, its crystal clear that cash withdrawn is more than that deposited into bank account. The detailed summary attached herewith, will make it even more evident that the deposits are out of withdrawals from bank, as the date of cash deposit is just around the date of cash withdrawals. Further, the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- cash deposited, as mentioned by the Ld AO and confirmed by the Hon. CIT (A), is no where matching with any bank account. Further to state that the sum total of cash deposited in all three accounts stated above, also does not sum up to Rs. 11,00,000/-. Hence, the figures of cash deposit, mentioned in the assessment order is baseless and merely relied upon the AIR, without any tangible evidence, thereby causing mental harassment to widow who is struggling to survive and earn her livelihood. 8. The Appellant filed her ITR in response to notice u/s 148 declaring business receipts Rs. 2,92,100/-, Income from Business Rs. 1,12,734/- and taxable income of Rs.1,71,370/-. Thus profit percentage declared by the appellant is 38.6% (112734 / 292100 x 100). From table in point no. 7 supra, it is evident that cash deposited is out of cash withdrawals only. Had the Ld AO thoroughly verified the bank statements, he would have made additions of only Rs. 1,53,358/-, detailed working given below: Total cash deposited in 3 bank accounts 6,89,400 Less :Business Receipts declared in ITR 2,92,100 Balance (undeclared cash deposited) 3,97,300 Profit percentage declared by Appellant 38.6% Profit on undeclared cash deposited 1,53,358 But instead, the Ld AO made additions of entire amount of Rs.11,00,000/- as per information received from AIR, without even verifying the bank statements at his end. Further, the Hon. CIT (A) has also turned a blind eye to the bank passbook copies submitted by the appellant, on the pretext that the client name and bank stamp is not visible and / or non existing. Everything summing up, in adding to 5 ITA No.600/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 the stress and misery of a widow struggling to survive and take care of her kids. 9. The notice issued u/s 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18/09/2021 states that the assesse has made cash deposits in two Bank Accounts viz. ShamraoVithal Co-op Bank Rs.6,00,000/- and Abhyudaya Co-op Bank Rs.5,00,000/-, The Ld AO in his assessment order has mentioned that the assessee has made cash deposit in ShamraoVithal Co-op Bank Ltd. Mumbai and is silent about Abhyudaya Co-op Bank Ltd.( Page 2, line no. 13 of the assessment order). Further, the Ld AO has erred by stating the assessee has deposited Rs.11,00,000/- at Federal Bank Ltd, Kankavli, Maharashtra (Page 2, line no. 19 of the assessment order). The above clearly indicates that the Ld AO is himself not aware of the correct facts of the case as the notice u/s. 142 (1) mentions 2 banks with combined cash deposit of Rs.11,00,000/- and the AO in his order is mentioning two banks, different from those mentioned in the notice u/s. 142 (1), with each having cash deposit of Rs.11,00,000/-, clearly indicating the ambiguity in the mind of the Ld AO. The Hon. CIT (A) has completely overlooked these grounds and failed to comment on the same. The Ld AO is himself, not aware of the reasons for making additions. 10. As already stated in the statement of facts, the cash has been deposited out of self withdrawals made earlier by the appellant, earnings from tailoring jobs carried out by appellant and monetary help received from friends and families, for taking care of her husband and children. The same has not been commented upon by the Hon. CIT (A). Rather, it has been categorically stated that the appellant shouldn't have visited bank frequently for depositing the cash received from above sources when she was overburdened with treatment of her husband and home care. The Income Tax Department cannot impose its own directions on assessee's personal life, by asking the assessee to act and do things, which are not stated in the law. 11. The assessee has not made any exorbitant cash deposits in the 3 accounts maintained by her, namely SVC CO-OP BANK LTD KAMOTHE (SB/GEN/85), ABHYUDAYA CO-Op BANK LTD.. KAMOTHE (Pension Alc 2719, jointly with husband) and UNION BANK OF INDIA, KAMOTHE (SB/GEN A/C NO: 566602010004691). Copies of bank statements were Submitted during the appellate proceedings but overlooked by the Hon. CIT (A). The same are once again attached herewith for your ready reference. Summary of cash deposits and cash withdrawals from each account is also submitted herewith. In light of the above, we humbly request you to consider the above grounds and delete the additions erroneously made, so that justice is not denied to the assessee.” 4. It is a case of reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). From the information available in the AIR report, it was found that during the Financial Year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14, the assessee deposited cash of Rs.11,00,000/- in her bank account with Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai, Maharashtra. Since the assessee had not filed her return of income for AY 2013-14, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 04.03.2020 which was duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee e-filed her return of 6 ITA No.600/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 income for AY 2013-14 on 08.10.2020 declaring total income of Rs.1,71,370/-. Accordingly, statutory notice(s) u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. For lack of compliance to the said notices and also to the letter giving the final opportunity to the assessee to furnish information in support of the alleged cash deposit(s) and explain the source of cash deposit(s) and also due to lack of any information received u/s 133(6) of the Act from the said bank, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment ex-parte on 29.09.2021 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on total income of Rs.12,71,370/- by making addition of the cash deposit(s) of Rs.11,00,000/- to the income returned by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Act. 5. The assessee challenged the ex-parte order of the Ld. AO before the Ld. CIT(A). Although the appeal was filed late by 97 days, the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of adequate and sufficient supporting documentary evidences not filed by the assessee substantiating her claim. The relevant observations and findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below : “6.2.2 I have perused the matter and considered the relevant factors to be in this case including the surrounding circumstances, objective facts, evidences adduced, and material available on record. 6.2.3 It is noticed from the assessment order that the assessee has deposited cash into Shamrao Vithal Co-op Bank Ltd., Mumbai of Rs.11,00,000/- during the FY 2012-13. In this regard, notices u/s 133(6) of the IT Act was issued to the bank to furnish the copy of bank statement held by the assessee for the period 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013. Further, the assessee was asked to furnish the nature of business activities, source of income, financial statement/audit report, balance sheet, profit and loss account, computation of income for the relevant period, details of bank accounts and source of cash such cash deposits along with supporting documentary evidences to substantiate claim. 6.2.4 During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has stated that the cash deposited in Shamrao Vithal Co-op bank amounting to Rs.4,12,400/- and Rs 1.15,000/- in Union bank. The total amount of cash deposit in both these accounts sums to Rs 5,27,400/-. In this regard, the appellant has submitted the bank statement of Shamrao Vithal Co-op Bank and Union bank. 6.2.5 Further, the appellant has stated that – \"The notice issued u/s 142 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18/09/2021 states that the assessee has made cash deposits in two Bank Accounts viz. Shamrao Vithal Co-op Bank Rs.6,00, 000/- and Abhyudaya Co-op Bank Rs.5,00,000/-, The Ld AO in his assessment order has mentioned that the assessee has made cash deposit in Shamr¡o Vithal Co-op Bank Ltd. Mumbai and is silent about Abhyugaya, Co-op, Bank Ltd.( Page 2, line no. 13 of the assessment order). Further, the Ld AO has erred by stating the assessee has deposited Rs. 11,00,000/- at Federal Bank Ltd, Kankavli, Maharashtra (Page 2, line no. 19 of the assessment order). 7 ITA No.600/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 The above clearly indicates that the Ld AO is himself confused and not aware of the correct facts of the case. The notice u/s. 142(1) mentions 2 banks with combined cash deposit. of Rs.11,00,000/- and the A0 in his order is mentioning two banks, different from those mentioned in the notice u/s. 142(1), with each having cash deposit of Rs.11,00,000/,clearly indicating the ambiguity in the mind of the 'd AO.\" 6.2.6 I have carefully considered the matter. The appellant has not submitted the details of investments and or deposits as called for by the AO. The same have not been furnished at the appellate stage as well. As seen from the bank statement furnished by the appellant; a) It does not even contain a bank name or the name/account number of account holder and is not certified by the bank as well . b) The cash deposited into the account is converted into investments in the form of Term deposits/Recurring deposits/Insurance deposits/Mutual funds etc. c) The claim of appellant that the deposits are from friends and family to help with treatment of husband are not corroborated by any documents/bank transfers. Cash received for hospital bills would have been spent directly rather than being deposited in a bank and then withdrawn in cash to pay such bills. A person who was overburdened with the treatment and home care would like to avoid unnecessary trips to banks as well. The details/account statements of the second bank have not been furnished at all. 6.2.7 The explanation given by the appellant thus does not match up to the documents produced. The receipts of cash are uncorroborated and accordingly their assessment by the AO as unexplained is upheld. The grounds of appeal are dismissed? In the result, appeal is dismissed.” 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a widow and her husband expired on 23.11.2012. He submitted that the assessee had in fact deposited cash of Rs.4,12,400/- in Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Rs.1,15,000/- in Union Bank totaling to Rs.5,27,400/- during the relevant AY and the bank statements of both the accounts were submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). Referring to page 32 of the paper book, he submitted that during the relevant AY the assessee made a total cash deposits of Rs.6,89,400/- in three bank accounts held by the assessee viz. Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank, Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Union Bank. Against the said cash deposits, there were cash withdrawals totaling to Rs.14,00,500/- which is much more than the amount of deposits made by the assessee. However, the said withdrawals have not been taken into consideration by the Ld. AO/CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the Ld. AO without appreciating the facts of the case correctly. 8. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO/CIT(A). 8 ITA No.600/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 9. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties, perused the material available on records and paper book filed by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the assessment order of the Ld. AO for the reason that the explanation given by the assessee does not match with the documents produced and the receipts of cash has not been corroborated by documentary evidences. Facts on record reveals that the assessee had submitted certain documents before the Ld. CIT(A) including the bank statement of Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Union Bank where the assessee claims to have deposited the total cash of Rs. 5,27,400/- and cash of Rs. 1,62,000 was deposited in Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank. We further observe that notice u/s 142(1) of the Act states that the assessee has deposited cash in two bank accounts, one being Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. where cash amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- has been deposited and the second bank account being Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank where the cash amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- has been deposited by the assessee, aggregating to Rs.11,00,000/-. But there is no mention of the cash deposited in Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank in the assessment order. Further, at one place the Ld. AO has stated that the assessee has deposited Rs.11,00,000/- at Federal Bank Ltd., Kankavli, Maharashtra. It is also a fact that the information called from Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd under section 133(6) of the Act could not be obtained by the Ld. AO. This approach of the Ld. AO, in our view, clearly depicts the lack of clarity about the factual matrix of the case and he proceeded to make the assessment ex-parte without application of mind. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the Ld. AO for the reasons reproduced in the preceding paragraph. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assessee made a total cash deposits of Rs.6,89,400/- in three bank accounts held by the assessee viz. Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank, Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Union Bank. He submitted that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.4,12,400/- in Shamrao Vithal Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Rs.1,15,000/- in Union Bank totaling to Rs.5,27,400/- during the relevant AY in support of which the assessee has already submitted the bank statements of both the aforesaid bank accounts before the Ld. CIT(A) which are also available on record. It is the contention of the Ld. AR that there are cash withdrawals totaling to Rs.14,00,500/- which is much more than the amount of deposits made by the assessee. However, the said withdrawals have not been taken into consideration by the Ld. AO/CIT(A) before making the impugned addition. We find some force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR. Perusal of 9 ITA No.600/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 the Ld. AO’s as well as the Ld. CIT(A)’s order reveals that the facts of the case have not been appreciated in correct perspective and lacks the requisite examination and verification of the above claim of the assessee. 10. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case enumerated above, in our view, it would be judicially expedient, in the interest of justice and fair play, if the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO to decide the impugned issue afresh on merits as per facts and law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of filing the relevant submissions and supporting documents/evidence as may be required/ called upon, without seeking adjournment under any pretext unless required for sufficient cause, failing with the Ld. AO shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law. We direct and order accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Astha Chandra) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददन ांक / Dated : 09th July, 2025. रदि आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “एक सदस्य मामला” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपत प्रदत// True Copy// आदेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदिि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune "