Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Pune v. DCIT, Circle 1(1),, Pune

ITA 1377/PUN/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 137724514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAEFB3286F
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1377/PUN/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd., Pune
Respondent DCIT, Circle 1(1),, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-02-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-02-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 03-08-2017
Next Hearing Date 03-08-2017
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 22-11-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1376 & 1377/PN/2009 A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 BODY SCAPES 120 SOHRAB HALL 21 SASSOON ROAD PUNE PAN AAEFB 3286 F APPELLANT VS. I.T.O. WARD 2(2) PUNE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI NILESH KHANDELWAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ABHAY DAMLE ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JM THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT-(A)II PUNE 12-10-2009 FO R A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSE ES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2003-04 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 23 RD FEBRUARY 2011 THE TRIBUNAL THE TRIBUNAL DELETED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON ACCOUNT O F EXTRA PAGE 2 OF 8 ITA NO. 1376 & 1377/PN/2009 BODY SCAPES A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 PROFIT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL R EADS AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. AS NOTED EARLIER THE APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING AND MAINTAINING A HEALTH CLUB. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS 79 50 919/- FROM CU STOMERS WHO JOINED AS MEMBERS OF THE HEALTH FITNESS CLUB RU N BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER INCOME WAS RECOGNIZED ONLY OF R S 58 21 091/- BY WAY OF CREDIT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE OF RS 21 22 828/- WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ADVANCE RECEIVED (I.E. LIABILITY IN THE FO RM OF PRE- RECEIPT MEMBERSHIP FEES I.E. PRMF.) THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 21 22 828/- THO UGH RECEIVED IN THIS YEAR WAS NOT AN INCOME OF THE CUR RENT YEAR SINCE THE SERVICES THERETO WERE TO BE PROVIDED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACC EPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISE THAT UNDER THE MERCA NTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING INCOME BECOMES TAXABLE ON ACC RUAL BASIS AND IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE I MPUGNED AMOUNT WHICH WAS NON-REFUNDABLE AND THUS IT CAN B E SAID TO HAVE ACCRUED. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE RIG HT TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED BY PRMF HAD ARISEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS LI ABLE TO BE ASSESSED IN THIS YEAR ITSELF ON THE BASIS OF THE M ERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO AFFIR MED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. IN THIS CASE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SUM OF RS 21 22 828/- AS ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS/MEMBERS FOR SERVICES TO BE AVAILED BY THE M IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. SECONDLY IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISP UTE THAT IN THE COURSE OF RENDERING SERVICES IN FUTURE ASSESSE E IS LIABLE TO INCUR CERTAIN EXPENDITURE THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITURE SO LIABLE TO BE INCURRED IS NOT MAJOR. NEVERTHELESS FACTUALLY SPEA KING THE ASPECT OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO INCUR EXPENDITURE AND RENDER SERVICES IN FUTURE IN RELATI ON TO THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT RECEIVED AS PRMF IS NOT IN DISPU TE. SECTION 4 OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THAT INCOME-TAX IS CHARGEABLE IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PARTICULAR PR EVIOUS YEAR. SECTION 5 OF THE ACT PRESCRIBES THE SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME WHICH INTER ALIA PROVIDES THAT THE TOTAL INCOME I NCLUDES ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED WHICH IS RECEIV ED OR IS DEEMED TO BE RECEIVED IN SUCH YEAR OR ACCRUES OR AR ISES OR IS PAGE 3 OF 8 ITA NO. 1376 & 1377/PN/2009 BODY SCAPES A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 DEEMED TO ACCRUE OR ARISE DURING SUCH YEAR. IT IS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE SECTION 5 THAT WHERE AN AMOUNT FALLS IN THE SCOPE OF TOTAL INCOME FOR HAVING ACCRU ED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IT MUST BEAR THE CHARACTER OF INCOM E AS ENVISAGED IN THE STATUTE. IN OTHER WORDS WHAT IS O F IMPORTANCE IS THAT AN AMOUNT INCLUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHARGEABILITY OF TAX SHOULD BEAR THE CHARACTER OF INCOME. IN THIS CONTEXT WE MAY REFER TO THE FOLLOWING PORT ION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F E. D. SASSOON & CO. LTD & ORS. V. CIT 26 ITR 27 (SC): MUKERJI J. HAS DEFINED THESE TERMS IN ROGERS PYATT SHELLAC & CO. V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA 1 ITC 163: NOW WHAT IS INCOME? THE TERM IS NOWHERE DEFINED IN THE ACT.. IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY DEFINITION WE MUST TAKE ITS ORDINARY DICTIONARY MEANING THAT WHICH COMES IN AS THE PERIODICAL PRODUCE OF ONES WORK BUSINES S LANDS OR INVESTMENTS (CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO IT S AMOUNT AND COMMONLY EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF MONEY); ANNUAL OR PERIODICAL RECEIPTS ACCRUING TO A PERSON OR CORPORATION (OXFORD DICTIONARY). THE WORD CLEARLY IMPLIES THE IDEAL OF RECEIPT ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE. THE P OLICY OF THE ACT IS TO MAKE THE AMOUNT TAXABLE WHEN IT IS PA ID OR RECEIVED EITHER ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY. ACCRUE S ARISES AND IS RECEIVED ARE THREE DISTINCT TERNS SO FAR AS RECEIVING OF INCOME IS CONCERNED THERE CAN BE NO DIFFICULTY IT CONVEYS A CLEAR AND DEFINITE MEANING AND I CAN THINK OF NO EXPRESSION WHICH MAKES ITS MEANING PLAINER THAN THE WORD RECEIVING ITSELF. THE WORDS ACCRUE AND ARISE ALSO ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT. THE OR DINARY DICTIONARY MEANINGS OF THESE WORKS HAVE GOT TO BE T AKEN AS THE MEANINGS ATTACHING TO THEM. ACCRUING IS SYNONYMOUS WITH ARISING IN THE SENSE OF SPRINGING AS A NATURE OF GROWTH OR RESULT. THE THREE EXPRESSIONS ACCRUES ARISES AND IS RECEIVED HAVING BEEN U SED IN THE SECTION STRICTLY SPEAKING ACCRUES SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS SYNONYMOUS WITH ARISES BUT IN THE DISTINCT SENSE OF GROWING UP BY WAY OF ADDITION OR INCREASE OR AS AN ACCESSION OR ADVANTAGE WHILE THE WORD ARISES MEA NS COMES INTO EXISTENCE OR NOTICE OR PRESENTS ITSELF. THE FORMER CONNOTES THE IDEA OF A GROWTH OR ACCUMULATIO N AND THE LATTER OF THE GROWTH OR ACCUMULATION WITH A TANGIBLE SHAPE SO AS TO RECEIVABLE. IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THIS DISTINCTION HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT MAINTAINE D IN THE ACT AND PERHAPS THE TWO WORDS SEEM TO DENOTE TH E SAME IDEA OR IDEAS VERY SIMILAR AND THE DIFFERENCE ONLY LIES IN THIS THAT ONE IS MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE OTHER PAGE 4 OF 8 ITA NO. 1376 & 1377/PN/2009 BODY SCAPES A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 WHEN APPLIED TO PARTICULAR CASES. IT IS CLEAR HOWE VER AS POINTED OUT BY FREY L.J. IN COLQUHOUN V. BROOKS (18 88) 21 Q.B.D 52 (THIS PART OF THE DECISION APP. CAS.49 3 THAT BOTH THE WORDS ARE USED IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE WORD RECEIVE AND INDICATE A RIGHT TO RECEIVE. THEY REP RESENT A STAGE ANTERIOR TO THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE INCOME BECOMES RECEIVABLE AND CONNOTE A CHARACTER OF THE INCOME WHICH IS MORE OR LESS INCHOATE. ONE OTHER MA TTER NEED BE REFERRED TO IN CONNECTION WITH THE SECTION. WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED MUST BE INCOME AND IT CANNOT BE TAXED UNLESS IT HAS ARRIVED AT A STAGE WHEN IT CAN BE CALLED INCOME. (UNDERLINED FOR EMPHASIS BY US) 11. THUS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT A ME RE RIGHT TO RECEIVE A PARTICULAR SUM MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO T REAT IT AS INCOME UNLESS SUCH RIGHT HAS ACCRUED ON ACCOUNT OF RENDERING OF SERVICES AND NOT BY MERE PROMISE TO RE NDER SERVICES. AS PER THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IT CAN BE DEDUCED THAT WHERE THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE AN AMOUNT IS ANTERIOR TO THE RENDE RING OF SERVICES THE ACCRUAL OF INCOME WITHIN THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT WOULD TAKE PLACE ONLY ON THE RENDERING OF SERVICES BECAUSE IT IS AT THAT STAGE THE SUM WOULD ACQUIRE THE CHARACT ER OF INCOME. 12. IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT IS CLEARLY EVIDEN T THAT AT THE TIME OF TAKING OF THE MEMBERSHIP A MEMBER PAYS THE FEES FOR THE ENTIRE FITNESS COURSE AND THE COURSE MAY EXTEN D FOR A PERIOD BEYOND THE YEAR OF PAYMENT. IN OTHER WORDS MEMBERSHIP FEE IS CHARGED IN ADVANCE FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD. APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE NOTED IN E. D. SASSOON & CO LTD (SUPRA) THE AMOUNT OF PMRF RECEIVED FOR WHICH T HE SERVICES ARE TO BE RENDERED IN FUTURE CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS AN ADVANCE AND NOT AS AN INCOME OTHERWISE IT WOULD LEAD TO AN ANOMALOUS SITUATION. IF ONE WERE TO GO BY THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THE ENTIRE RECEIPT WOULD BECOME TAXABLE IN COME EVEN WHEN THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES ARE YET TO BE INCURRED WHICH WOULD BE INCURRED IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR . THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF ASSESSEE IS UNDE R A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO RENDER SERVICES IN SUBSEQ UENT YEAR QUA THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT BUT THE SAME WOULD NOT DIST RACT FROM THE FACT THAT THE INCOME HAS ACCRUED AS PER TH E METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED AND ACCRUAL IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE RENDERING OF SERVICES BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WOR DS AS PER THE REVENUE THE INCOME HAD ACCRUED WITH RESPECT TO IMPUGNED SUM ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMP LOYED BY PAGE 5 OF 8 ITA NO. 1376 & 1377/PN/2009 BODY SCAPES A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 THE ASSESSEE WHETHER OR NOT ASSESSEE HAD RENDERED THE SERVICES AND THE PRIMARY REASON EXTENDED IS THAT EV EN IF ON A LATER DATE SERVICES ARE NOT RENDERED THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO REFUND ANY AMOUNT MEANING THEREBY THAT THE RECE IPT OF THE SUM HAS BECOME FINAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION TH E AFORESAID ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE TO ARRIVE AT TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF PRMF C LEARLY MILITATES AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA CO. LTD. (SUPRA). AS PER TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE PROFITS OR GAINS UNDER THE ACT HA VE TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN ITS COMMERCIAL SENSE AND THE SAME CAN BE ARRIVED AT ONLY AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENDITURE WHI CH IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THE IMPUGNED R ECEIPTS. ACCORDING TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHETHER OR N OT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS ACTUALLY INCURRED IS NOT MATERIAL A ND WHENEVER A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY IN RESPECT THEREOF HAS ACCR UED EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE DISCHARGED AT SOME FUTURE DATE SU CH EXPENDITURE IS DEDUCTIBLE. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE TO DISREGARD THE EXPENDITURE LIKELY TO BE I NCURRED AND TREAT THE ENTIRE PRMF RECEIPT AS INCOME IS ALSO OTHERWISE FALLACIOUS. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTANC ES AND THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENTS OF E .D. SASSOON & CO LTD (SUPRA) AND CALCUTTA CO LTD (SUPRA ) THE SUM OF RS 21 22 828/- CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS AN INC OME ACCRUING IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE SC OPE OF THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR BECAUSE THE SERVICES AND EXPENDITURE THEREOF IS LIABLE TO BE INCURRED AT SOM E FUTURE DATE. 13. AT THE PRESENT STAGE WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE SPECIFIC ARGUMENT TAKEN BY THE REVENUE THAT ONCE ASSESSEE HA S RECEIVED THE MONEY WITH THE BENEFIT OF BEING NON-RE FUNDABLE IT IS FIT TO BE TREATED AS AN INCOME ACCRUING IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF RECEIPT ITSELF. IN OUR CONS IDERED OPINION THIS ARGUMENT FAILS THE MATCHING CONCEPT. THE MATCHING CONCEPT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V BILAHARI INVESTMENT P.LT D. 299 ITR 1 (SC) BY REFERRING TO THE FOLLOWING PORTION OF ITS E ARLIER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF J K INDUSTRIES V UNION OF INDIA (20 07) 13 SCALE 204 AS UNDER: MATCHING CONCEPT IS BASED ON THE ACCOUNTING PERIO D CONCEPT. THE PARAMOUNT OBJECT OF RUNNING A BUSINESS IS TO EARN PROFIT. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE PROFIT MADE BY THE BUSINESS DURING A PERIOD IT IS NECESSARY THAT REV ENUES OF THE PERIOD SHOULD BE MATCHED WITH THE COSTS (EXPENSES) OF THAT PAGE 6 OF 8 ITA NO. 1376 & 1377/PN/2009 BODY SCAPES A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 PERIOD. IN OTHER WORDS INCOME MADE BY THE BUSINESS DURING A PERIOD CAN BE MEASURED ONLY WITH THE REVENUE EARNED DURING A PERIOD IS COMPARED WITH THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FO R EARNING THAT REVENUE. HOWEVER IN CASES OF MERGERS AND ACQU ISITIONS COMPANIES SOMETIMES UNDERTAKE TO DEFER REVENUE EXPE NDITURE OVER FUTURE YEARS WHICH BRINGS IN THE CONCEPT OF DE FERRED TAX ACCOUNTING. THEREFORE TODAY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CONCEPT OF ACCRUAL IS LIMITED TO ONE YEAR. IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF RECOGNIZING COSTS (EXPENSES) A GAINST REVENUES OR AGAINST THE RELEVANT TIME PERIOD IN ORD ER TO DETERMINE THE PERIODIC INCOME. THIS PRINCIPLE IS AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING. AS STATED ABOVE THE OBJECT OF AS 22 IS TO RECONCILE THE MATCHING PRINCI PLE WITH THE FAIR VALUATION PRINCIPLES. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT REC OGNITION MEASUREMENT AND DISCLOSURE OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF INCO ME EXPENSES ASSETS AND LIABILITIES IS DONE ONLY BY AC COUNTING STANDARDS AND NOT BY PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES AC T. 14. FROM THE AFORESAID IT CAN BE FAIRLY DEDUCED TH AT EVEN THE MATCHING CONCEPT ENUNCIATED IN THE ACCOUNTING STA NDARDS HAS BEEN ADOPTED AS A PRINCIPLE TO DETERMINE PERIOD IC INCOME. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE SEEKING TO D ISREGARD THE MATCHING CONCEPT AND TO RECOGNIZE THE INCOME INDEPENDENT OF THE SAME IN A MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF A CCOUNTING IS UNTENABLE. THEREFORE WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION O N THE PART OF THE REVENUE TO TREAT THE SUM OF RS 21 22 828/- REP RESENTING PMRF AS INCOME IS UNJUSTIFIED. 15. WE HAVE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS BY REFERRING TO THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASES. WITH REGARD TO THE CASE LAWS REFERRED IN THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT INDIVIDUALLY DISCUSSED THE SAME BUT THE SAME ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE AND IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID TWO JUDGMENT S ARE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 16. RESULTANTLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 21 22 828/-. PAGE 7 OF 8 ITA NO. 1376 & 1377/PN/2009 BODY SCAPES A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23-2-2011 WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND DIRECT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN THE LSIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23- 2-2011 AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. 4. GROUND NO. 4 RELATING TO LIABILITY TO PAY INTERE ST IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234A 234B AND 234C IS CONSEQ UENTIAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO COMPUT E THE INTEREST PAYABLE IF ANY AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234A 234B AND 234C. 5. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMMEDIATELY O N CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 28 TH FEBRUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 28 TH FEBRUARY 2011 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT II PUNE 4. CIT(A)-III PUNE 4. THE D.R A BENCH PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER PAGE 8 OF 8 ITA NO. 1376 & 1377/PN/2009 BODY SCAPES A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE