ITO, Jalgaon v. Jai Bajrang Ginning & Pressing Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon

ITA 1430/PUN/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 143024514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN EYEAR2008W
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1430/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Jalgaon
Respondent Jai Bajrang Ginning & Pressing Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-12-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 23-12-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 01-12-2011
Next Hearing Date 01-12-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 10-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 1430/PN/09 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-07) INCOME-TAX OFFICER .. APPELLANT WARD 2(1) JALGAON VS. JAI BAJRANG GINNING & PRESSING P LTD .. RESPO NDENT GAT N 575/1 & 575/2 MANUR ROAD BODWAD JALGAON APPELLANT BY: SMT ANN KAPUSTHAMA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI NILKHIL PATHAK DATE OF HEARING : 01.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2011 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II NASHIK DATED 25. 9.2009 WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 3 0.12.2008 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SH ORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELET ION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OF THE ADDITIO N OF RS 53 75 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GINNING AND PRESSING OF COTTON. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED UNSECURED LO ANS AMOUNTING TO RS 56 75 000/- FROM 24 INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE MAINLY A GRICULTURISTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE VER ACITY OF THE ABOVE 2 LOANS. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF ALL THE LENDERS AS ALSO BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE LENDERS SHOWING AMOUNT PAID BY ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. OUT OF 24 LENDERS 16 LENDERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO CONFIRMED THE SAID PAYMENT OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE WITH SO URCE THEREOF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENT ON OATH OF THE 16 LE NDERS WHO WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HE LENDERS WHO WERE MAINLY AGRICULTURISTS DID NOT HAVE CAPACITY TO LEND THE SAID LOANS. THE LENDERS DEPOSITED CASH BEFORE ISSUING CHEQUES OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSE E. NONE OF THE LENDERS HAD REASONABLE BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE LENDERS WERE DISMISSED AS A SELF-SERVING EVIDENCE. HE FU RTHER OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED ITS OWN CASH IN THE GUISE OF UNSECURED LOA N. ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE LOANS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT THEREBY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 53 75 000/-. DIS-SATISFIED WITH THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY. 3. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MAD E DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MEETING ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDER ING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DETAILED SU BMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOUL D NOT HAVE DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF 8 CREDI TORS AS THE ASSESSEE WAS READY TO PRODUCE THEM AND PARTICULARL Y WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE DETAILS LIKE CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS AFFIDAVITS ETC. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FURTH ER REMARKED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE BRUSHED ASIDE THE AFFIDAVITS AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DEPONENTS AND PROVING THE CONTENTS THEREOF AS INCOR RECT AS THE SAME HAD EVIDENTIARY VALUE. FURTHER MOST OF THE LENDERS HAD SUBSTANTIAL 3 AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS AND SOME OF THEM HAD OTHER AC TIVITIES ALONGWITH AGRICULTURE AND WERE MEN OF MEANS. MOST OF THE LEND ERS SOLD THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE I.E. COTTON TO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID THE LOANS OF 23 LENDERS BY ACCO UNT PAYEE CHEQUES IN THE YEAR 2008 WHEN FUNDS BECAME AVAILABL E WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) FURTHER HELD THAT WITHOUT CLEARLY ESTABLISHING THE NEXUS OR COLLUSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THEIR EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE IN THAT REGARD. AFTER ANALYZING T HE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WE LL AS THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) SUMMED UP HIS FINDINGS AS FOLL OWS: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY GENUINENESS AND CREDIT-WORT HINESS OF THE LOAN CREDITORS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FA CTS I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAID LOANS FROM 23 LENDERS WERE REASO NABLY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED LOANS. THEREFORE THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS 53 7 5 000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS DELETED. 4. BEFORE US THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED THE CREDIT BALANCES AS UNEXPLAINED AFTER CARRYING OUT DUE VERIFICATION. OUR ATTENTION WA S INVITED TO THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN TH IS REGARD AND IT IS CONTENDED THAT AS A RESULT OF THE VERIFICATION EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF CREDITORS COULD N OT BE ESTABLISHED. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE 24 CREDITORS AS MUCH A S 8 CREDITORS WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH AGAIN JU STIFIES THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 68 OF THE ACT. 4 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE R ESPONDENT-ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE 23 CREDITORS THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED 16 CREDITORS WHO WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH EXAMINATION THE CREDITORS DULY CONFIRMED A ND EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF INCOME TO ADVANCE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS PO INTED OUT THAT ALL THE PERSONS EXAMINED HAD SUFFICIENT LAND HOLDINGS AND THE AM OUNTS HAD BEEN ADVANCED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE LENDERS ARE AGRICULTURISTS WHO SOLD THEIR COTTON PRODUCE TO THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE LENDERS WAS STRANGERS INASM UCH AS THEY WERE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES AND ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IT WAS POINTED OUT THA T THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS STOOD ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS MANDATED BY SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT. EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE 8 CREDITORS WHO COULD NOT BE P RODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE IR AFFIDAVITS AND THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE DULY FILED AND IN ANY CASE EVEN D URING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEA LS) ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED TO PRODUCE SUCH CREDITORS FOR FURTHER EXAMINAT ION; AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AVAIL OF SUCH OPPORTUNITY AND INSTEAD SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION. IN THE COURSE OF SUBMISSIONS THE COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: (I) CIT V. METACHEM INDUSTRIES 245 ITR 160 (MP); (II) KANHAIALAL JANGID V ACIT 217 CTR 354 (RAJ.) (III) ACIT V. RAJASTHAN ASBESTOS CEMENT CO. 23 DTR 430 (JP)(TRIB) 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DISPUTE REVOLVES AROUND THE INVOKING OF SECTION 68 O F THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO TREAT THE UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED FROM 23 PERSONS AMOUNTING TO RS 53 75 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT PERMITS AN ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT A SUM CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT BO OKS OF AN ASSESSEE AS INCOME IF THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE N ATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN T HE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING 5 OFFICER SATISFACTORY. QUITE CLEARLY SECTION 68 OF THE A CT CASTS AN OBLIGATION ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDITS A PPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY WELL-SETTLED THAT FOR TH E PURPOSES OF DISCHARGE OF SUCH ONUS THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE IDENTIT Y CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AS ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED LOANS OF RS 56 75 000/- FROM 24 INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE MAINLY AGRICULTURISTS. AFTER CARRYING OUT A VERIFICATION EXERCISE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED UNSECURED LOANS FROM 23 PERSONS AMOUNTING TO R S 53 75 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE PRIMARY REASON WEIGHING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT IN THE CASE OF 16 PERSONS WHO WERE PRODUCED AND EXAMINED BY HIM SUCH CRE DITORS COULD NOT PROVE THEIR CAPACITY TO ADVANCE STATED LOANS TO THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY. FOR THE BALANCE OF THE CREDITORS AS THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TREAT THE SAME AS EXPLAINED AND ACCORDINGLY A DDITION WAS MADE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SO FAR AS 16 LENDERS WHO WERE PRODUCED AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WE FIND THAT ALL OF THEM CONFIRMED THE ADVANCING OF LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTABLE FROM THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SAID PERSONS NOT ONLY EXPLAINED THEIR SOUR CES OF INCOME BUT ALSO LEVEL THEIR LEVELS OF INCOME AND EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NO SATISFIED WITH THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE LENDERS PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT BEFORE ADVANCING OF LOANS BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES THE LENDERS H AD DEPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. OBSERVATIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMIN ATION SOME OF THE LENDERS COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS TO WHO HAD FILLED UP PAY-IN-SLIPS OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT ETC. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE APPLICAT ION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND QUA THE BURDEN CAST ON THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN THE 6 NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDIT APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. NO DOUBT THE BURDEN IS CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO DO SO. SO HOWEVER SAME CA NNOT BE EXTENDED TO MEAN THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO INFALLIB LY DEMONSTRATE THE SOURCES OF THE CREDITORS WHO LENT MONIES TO THE ASSESSEE. OSTENSIBLY THE CREDITORS HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEIR OWN SOURCES AND IF AT ALL THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS NOT SATISFIED REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF MONIES WITH THE CREDITO RS SAME CANNOT IPSO FACTO MEAN THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN CAST ON IT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT QUA THE CREDIT APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEES ACCO UNT BOOKS. QUITE CLEARLY IN CASE WHERE CREDITOR APPEARS CONFIRMS ADVANCIN G OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO EXPLAINS THE SOURCE OF INCOME THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THEREAFTER QUA THE ASSESSEE TO INFALLIBLY PROVE SUCH SOURCE OF THE CREDITOR. IN SUCH A SITUATION IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SOURCES SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE CREDITOR THE BURDEN SHIFTS ON THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE HA VE PROXIMITY TO THE ASSESSEE OR THAT SUCH FUNDS ARE TRACEABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ITSE LF. THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION IS IN LINE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KANHAIALAL JANGID V. ACIT (SUPRA) AS ALSO 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN SO FAR AS 16 PERSONS ARE CONCER NED THEIR EXISTENCE IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT SUCH PERSONS APPEA RED AND ADMITTED ADVANCING OF LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THA T SUCH PERSONS EXPLAINED THEIR SOURCES OF INCOME. APART FROM BLANDLY DIS-BELIEVIN G THEIR CAPACITY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT LED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT F UNDS FOR THE IMPUGNED CREDIT COULD BE TRACED TO THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. IT WILL ALSO NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE THAT ALL THE LENDERS ARE AGRICULTURISTS W HO HAVE SOLD THEIR COTTON PRODUCE TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS ENGAGED IN TH E BUSINESS OF GINNING AND PRESSING OF COTTON. IT IS ALSO A STATED POSITION THAT THE LENDERS ARE NOT STRANGERS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INASMUCH AS THEY ARE ITS SHA REHOLDERS. MOREOVER IT IS ALSO FOUND BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) THAT ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE BEEN REPAID SUBSEQUENTLY THROUGH ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. 7 CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN CAST UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT SO AS TO PROVE THE THREE INGREDIENTS NAMELY IDENTITY CRE DIT-WORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAVING REGARD TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND IN LAW PROCEEDED ON ME RE PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES TO DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. NOW IN SO FAR AS THE LOANS FROM 8 PERSONS WHO WERE N OT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED ON THIS ASPECT ALSO WE FI ND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MADE NO MISTAKE IN DELETING THE ADDITION. AS PER THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHEN TH E REMAND PROCEEDINGS WERE CALLED FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT INSIST FOR PRODUCTION OF REMAINING 8 CREDITORS INSPITE OF ASSESSEES OFFER TO PRO DUCE THEM. THEREFORE NON-PRODUCTION OF SUCH CREDITORS AT THE INITIAL STAGE DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE FATAL TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ESPECIALLY WHEN ON RELEVANT DETAILS LIKE CONFIRMATION LETTERS AFFIDAVITS ETC. WERE ON RECORD AND WERE AVAILABLE FOR SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AFFIDAVITS FURN ISHED WERE SUBJECT-MATTER OF EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE DEPONENTS BY HIM. CONSIDERING TH E INSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME COULD NOT BE MERELY DIS-BELIEVED AND DIS-REGAR DED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION EVEN WITH REGARD TO SUCH CREDITORS MATERIAL ON RECORD WAS PARI MATERIA WITH THE MATERIAL LED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA THE REMAINING 16 CREDITORS INASMUCH AS THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AFFIDAVITS LOANS HAVING BEEN RE CEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES CREDITORS BEING SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ETC. CLEARLY POINT OUT THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IS JUSTIFIABLE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES MATERIAL ON REC ORD AND IN LAW WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MADE NO M ISTAKE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO TH E 8 CREDITORS WHO WERE NOT PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8 11. RESULTANTLY WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) AND ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 23RD D AY OF DECEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (I C SUDHIR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE DATED: 23RD DECEMBER 2011 B COPY TO:- 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT (A)-II NASHIK 4) CIT-II NASHIK 5) DR B BENCH ITAT PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PS I.T.A.T. PUNE