DCIT, Cir. 3, Malegaon, Malegaon v. M.B. Sugar & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,, Malegaon

ITA 1041/PUN/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 104124514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AABCM2351A
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1041/PUN/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Cir. 3, Malegaon, Malegaon
Respondent M.B. Sugar & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,, Malegaon
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-04-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-04-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 04-08-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR JUD ICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G S PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.NO. ITA NO A.Y APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 1041/PN/08 2005-06 DY. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CIR. 3 MALEGAON M.B. SUGAR & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. MALEGAON PAN AABCM 2351A 2 537/PN/09 2005-06 -DO- M B CHEMICALS LODHA BHAVAN MANMAD PAN AAFFM 1698D APPELLANT BY : SMT ANN KAPTUAMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE ORDER PER G.S. PANNU AM BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II NASHIK D ATED 30.5.2008 IN THE CASE OF M. B. SUGAR & PHARMACEUTICALS AND DATED 26.2.2 009 IN THE CASE OF M B CHEMICALS BOTH PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE DISPUTES RAISED ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE CASES AND ACCORDINGLY THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DI SPOSED OFF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE CONTROVERSY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO 1041/PN/ IN THE CASE OF M B SUGAR & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. IS TAKEN AS A LEAD CASE. IN THIS CASE THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AND DECIDING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 145 IN TH IS CASE IN VIEW OF SERIOUS DEFECTS IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED AND NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED OF HAVING ANY UNFINISHED STOCK IN THE MANUFACTURING AC COUNT MAINTAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2 3. THE CIT (A) FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEES PRODUCTION OF PHARMA SUGAR AS PROVIDED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING WAS LESS THAN THE PRODUCTION SHOWN IN THE MANUFACTURING ACCOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 45 77 555/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED STOCK FOUND IN THE MONTH OF JULY 2004 & FEBRUARY 2005. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT-ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PHARMA GRADE SUGAR (PG SUGAR) SUGAR CUBES SUGAR SACHETS ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 37 53 100/- WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE PURCHASES SALES AND OTHER MANUFACT URING DETAILS LIKE CONSUMPTION PRODUCTION ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED T HAT YIELD PERCENTAGE IN RESPECT OF P G SUGAR WAS EXCEPTIONALLY HI GH DURING THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 AT 129.87% AND 150.62% RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INSTEAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE-WORKED AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T HERE WERE NEGATIVE CLOSING BALANCES IN RESPECT OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 20 05. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT AVERAGE SALE RATE FOR THE MO NTH OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 AND APPLYING THE SAID RATE HE CALCULAT ED SUPPRESSED STOCK WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SOLD WITHOUT DISCLOSIN G THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SU PPRESSED STOCK WAS MADE AT RS 45 77 555/-. 5. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) T HE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDIT ION ON A WRONG BASIS. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS CONTAINED IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE WORTHY OF NOTICE AND READ AS UNDER: IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AO INCORRECTLY CONS IDERED THE QUANTITY OF SUGAR MELTED AS AGAINST QUANTITY OF SUGAR PRODUCTION FOR THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 WHILE ARRIVING AT THE NEGATIVE CLOSING STOCK FOR TH E SAID MONTHS. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED 3 THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE BY THE AO AND NOTHING WAS STA TED BY HIM IN HIS REPORT ON THE ISSUE. IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE FINISHED GOODS INCLUDED S EMI-FINISHED GOODS AND COMBINED EFFECT WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT RE PORTS. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS LETTER DATED 19.5.2008 FI LED DETAILED STATEMENTS CLARIFYING THE PRODUCTION THE YIELD AND THE SALE OF THE PG SUGAR BASED ON THE DETAILS FURNISHED BOTH BEFORE THE AO AND BEFORE ME AT THE TIME OF APPEAL H EARING. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT WORKED OUT THAT THE YIELD PERCENTAGE WAS WITHIN NORMAL RANGE VARYING FROM 74% TO 85% AND THERE WAS NO NEGA TIVE CLOSING STOCK OF PG SUGAR FOR THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 AS WORK ED OUT BY THE AO. WHEN THESE DETAILS WERE DISCUSSED BOTH WITH THE AO AND AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME THE AO FI NALLY AGREED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN WORKING OUT MONTHLY CLOSING STOCK. IT WAS STATED BY HIM THAT IF THE FIGURES OF OPENING BALANCE AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT IS ADOPTED THERE WO ULD NOT BE ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE STOCK POSITION. 6. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS) EXAMINED THE PLEA SET-UP BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICED TH AT THE YIELD PERCENTAGE OF 129.87% IN RESPECT OF JULY 2004 AND 150.62% IN RESP ECT OF FEBRUARY 2005 AS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE WRONG. THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THEREAFTER HAS CULLED OUT THE CORRECT FIGURE I N TABULATION CONTAINED IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER. ON THAT BASIS IT HAS BEEN OBSERV ED THAT YIELD PERCENTAGE NEVER EXCEEDED 100% AND IT VARIED BETWEEN 74% TO 86% ONLY. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION IN THIS REGARD IS AS UNDER: FROM THE ABOVE IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE YIELD PERC ENTAGE NEVER EXCEEDED 100% AND IT VARIED BETWEEN 74% TO 86%. THE OPENING STOCK OF SEM I-FINISHED SUGAR 3590.19 QUINTALS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. THIS FIGURE OF 3590. 19 QUINTALS OF SEMI-FINISHED OPENING STOCK IS INCLUDED IN THE OPENING STOCK FIGURE REPOR TED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31.3.2005. AS PER THIS TRADING ACCOUNT THE OPENING STOCK OF PG SUGAR IS 3893.116 QUINTALS WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF 302.926 QUI NTALS OF FINISHED PG SUGAR AND 3590.19 QUINTALS OF SEMI-FINISHED SUGAR. THE FIGURE S WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCO ME WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE AO. 8. SINCE THE AO WORKED OUT THE HIGH YIELD PERCENTA GE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PG SUGAR AND NOT SATISFIED WITH THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIO NS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE ADOPTED THE SAME FIGURES FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE NEGATIVE CLOSING STOCK. FURTHER THE AO MADE AN ASS UMPTION OF PRODUCTION CANNOT BE MORE THAN CONSUMPTION. ACCORDINGLY HE ADOPTED THE CONSUMPTION OF SUGAR (MELTED SUGAR FIGURES) FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2004 AND FEBR UARY 2005 AS FIGURES FOR PRODUCTION OF PG SUGAR WHILE WORKING OUT THE SUPPRESSED SALE IN T HE ASSESSMENT (PLEASE REFER TO THE TABLE AT PARA 4.2 ABOVE). AS ALREADY POINTED OUT T HE AO IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE PRODUCTON OF PG SUGAR IS DEPENDENT ON THE OPENING A ND CLOSING STOCK OF PG SUGAR THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION FIGURE OF PG SUGAR ARE CONSIDERED AND COMPARED WITH THE SALES OF THE APPELLANT THERE IS NO NEGATIVE CLOSING STOCK. THE FOLLOWING TABLE WILL CLARIFY THIS POSITION: THUS THERE IS NEITHER ANY EXCESS YIELD NOR SUPPRES SED SALE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THE AO ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF SALES AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY DISPUTE AND CONFUSED WITH THE FIGURES OF CONSUMPTION OF RAW MAT ERIAL (IE. MELTING OF SUGAR) AND PRODUCTION OF PG SUGAR. THE AO DID NOT APPLY THE FA CTS AND FIGURES AVAILABLE ON RECORD PROPERLY AND COMMITTED AN ERROR IN MAKING AN ADDITI ON OF SUPPRESSED SALES. THE AO IN HIS LETTER DT 21.5.2008 ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THERE W AS NO NEGATIVE STOCK. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS 45 77 555/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALE OF UNDISCLOSED STOCK IS DELETED. IN VIEW OF THIS THE GROUND NOS 1 TO 6 REGARDING THIS ADDITION ARE TREATED AS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 7. AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 8. BEFORE US THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE NO MISTAKE IN MAKING THE ADDITION INASMUCH AS IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCUMULATED UN ACCOUNTED STOCK UNDER THE GUISE OF EXTRAORDINARY HIGH YIELD OF PG SUG AR IN THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDE D THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION AS THE UNDISCLOSED STOCK WAS CLEARLY PROVED HAVING REGARD TO THE UNDUE HIGH YIELD OF PG SUGAR IN THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 200 5. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE R ESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) MADE NO MISTAKE IN DELETING THE ADDITION INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD MADE THE ADDITION ON A WRONG FOOTING. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTUAL POSITION AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INFERRING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY UNACCOUNTED STOCK SO AS TO MAKE SALES OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSE E HAS RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION THE RESPONDENT IS ENGAGED IN THE MAN UFACTURE OF PG SUGAR AND SUGAR CUBES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE MONTHLY CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCTION RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND F OUND THAT IN THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 THE YIELD OF PG SUGAR WAS EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH I.E. AS MUCH AS 129.87% AND 150.62 % RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH HIGH YIELD P ERCENTAGE WAS EXTRA- ORDINARY AND ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSIO N OF UNACCOUNTED STOCK WHICH WAS INTRODUCED UNDER THE GUISE OF AN EXTRA-OR DINARY HIGH YIELD PERCENTAGE AND THE SAME WAS SOLD WITHOUT DECLARING THE SAME IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE-WORKED AND CONSIDERED THIS AS A DEFECT IN THE 5 MANUFACTURING RESULTS DECLARED AND HELD THE SAME AS UNRE LIABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 145(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED A SSESSEES PRODUCTION FOR THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 AT 10 0% AS AGAINST 129.87% AND 150.62% RESPECTIVELY DEPICTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THIS BASIS WORKED OUT THE SUPPRESSED STOCK OF RS 45 77 555/- AND ADDITION OF THE LIKE AMOUNT WAS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. 11. IN THIS BACKGROUND WE HAVE EXAMINED THE FINDINGS R ECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). ONE OF THE PERTI NENT FACTORS BROUGHT OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS CONTAINED IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD INCORRECTLY WORKED OUT THE YIELD PERCENTAGE FOR THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 AT 129.87% AND 150.62% RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED BEFO RE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER INCORRECTLY CONSIDERED THE QUANTITIES OF SUGAR MELTED AS AGAINST QUAN TITY OF SUGAR PRODUCTION FOR THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 WHIL E ARRIVING AT THE NEGATIVE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE SAID MONTHS. CONSIDERING THE AFORES AID THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) NOTICED THAT THE YIELD PERCENTA GE EVEN IN THE MONTHS OF JULY 2004 AND FEBRUARY 2005 WAS WITHIN NORMAL RANGE VARYING FROM 74% TO 85% AND THERE WAS NO NEGATIVE CLOSING STOCK OF PG SUGAR FO R THE TWO MONTHS IN QUESTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THA T IN THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT BEFORE HIM THE AO FINALLY AGREED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN WORKING-OUT MONTHLY CLOSING STOCK. IT WAS STATED B Y HIM THAT IF THE FIGURES OF OPENING BALANCE AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT IS A DOPTED THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE STOCK POSITION . THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS PERTINENT BECAUSE THE SAME B RINGS OUT THE FALLACY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS ANY SUPPRESSED STOCK. IN FACT THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS 6 UTILIZATION OF ANY UNACCOUNTED STOCK IS MISCONCEIVED. WE MAY ALSO NOTICE HERE THAT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX (APPEALS) HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US AS CLEARLY EVI DENCED BY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED BY US IN THE EARL IER PART OF THIS ORDER. APART FROM THE AFORESAID WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE ACCOUN T BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO AUDIT AND IN FACT A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) TO THE REPORT FUR NISHED BY THE TAX AUDITORS WHICH CONTAIN DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK CLOSING STOCK OF PG SUGAR AND OTHER PRODUCTS ETC. IN THIS BACKGROUND WE HAVE EXAMIN ED THE CASE SET-UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FIND THAT NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAV E BEEN NOTICED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS. MERELY BECAUSE IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THE YIELD PERCENTAGE IS HIGH IN TWO MONTHS WHICH TOO HAS BEEN FOU ND TO BE ERRONEOUS THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS A DEFECT SO AS TO REJECT THE R ELIABILITY OF THE MANUFACTURING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE BASED ON AUDITED ACCOUNT BOOKS. CLEARLY THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MISCONCEIVED AND WAS BASED ON MERE SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND THEREFO RE WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE APPROACH OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN HAVING DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. AS A CONSEQUENCE WE F IND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT ITA NO 1041/PN/08 IN THE CASE OF M B SUGAR & PHARMACEUTICALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS DISMISSED. 13. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP ITA NO 537/PN/09 IN THE CASE O F M.B. CHEMICALS. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE DISPUTE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS 2 9 36 432/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED STOCK. 14. IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF M/S M.B. SUGAR & PHARMACEUTICALS IN ITA NO 1041/PN/08. THEREFORE OUR DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S M.B. SUGAR & PHARMACEUTICALS IN ITA NO 1041/PN/08 A PPLIES MUTATIS 7 MUTANDIS IN THIS CASE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THUS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 15. RESULTANTLY BOTH THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE DISMISSE D. DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE: DATED: 29 TH JULY 2011 B COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II NASHIK 4. THE CIT-II NASHIK 5. THE D.R B BENCH PUNE 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT PUNE