Asstt.CIT Cir.-1,, Aurangabad v. Mediators & Ajantha Securities Pvt. Ltd.,, Aurangabad

ITA 1711/PUN/2005 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 171124514 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN AABCM2321E
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1711/PUN/2005
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Asstt.CIT Cir.-1,, Aurangabad
Respondent Mediators & Ajantha Securities Pvt. Ltd.,, Aurangabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 12-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-07-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 11-11-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR. NO. ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 1711/PN/2005 2002 - 03 ASSTT. CIT CIR. 1 AURANGABAD MEDIA TORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. NO. 15 TOWN CENTRE CIDCO AURANGABAD PANAABCM2321E 2. 1758/PN/2005 2002 - 03 MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. NO. 15 TOWN CENTRE CIDCO AURANGABAD PANAABCM2321E ASSTT. CIT CIR. 1 AURANGABAD 3. 604/PN/2006 2003 - 04 ASSTT. CIT CIR. 1 AURANGABAD MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. NO. 15 TOWN CENTRE CIDCO AURANGABAD PANAABCM2321E 4. 740/PN/2006 2003 - 04 MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. NO. 15 TOWN CENTRE CIDCO AURANGABAD PANAABCM2321E ASST T. CIT CIR. 1 AURANGABAD 5. 700/PN/2009 2003 - 04 ASSTT. CIT CIR. 1 AURANGABAD MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. NO. 15 TOWN CENTRE CIDCO AURANGABAD PANAABCM2321E ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C.H. NANIWADEKAR DEPARTMENT BY: SMT. ANN KAPTHUAMA 2 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JM THESE ARE TWO SETS OF CROSS APPEALS I.E. TWO BY THE REVENUE AND TWO BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST SE PARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AURANGABAD DATED 25-8-2005 AND 28- 2-2006 RESPECTIVELY FOR A.Y. 2002-03 AND 2003-04. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 700/PN/2009 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) AURANGABAD DATED 2-3-2009 ON THE POINT OF PE NALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT. ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE SO THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1711/PN/200 5 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL. 1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A)I AURANGABAD WAS RIGHT I N HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON THE LOANS FOR PURCHASING THE VEHICLES IN THE NAMES OF DIRECTORS I S ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SE TWO ARE DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITLES? 2) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR FULL DEPRECIATION ON THE VEHICLES IN THE NAME OF DIRECTORS IF THE VEHICLE I S USED EVEN FOR A DAY FOR THE BUSINESS USE DESPITE THE FA CT THAT THESE TWO ARE DIFFERENT LEGAL ENTITLES? 3 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN RESTRICTIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON VEHICLES TO 25% IN SPIT E OF THE FACT THAT THESE VEHICLES ARE NOT OWNED BY THE COMPANY? 4) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE INSURANCE CHARGES OF THE VEHICLES STANDING IN THE NAMES OF DIRECTORS? 5) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AURANGABAD WAS RIGHT I N ESTIMATING THE DEPOSIT AT 10% OF EMPLOYEES @ RS. 400/- PER EMPLOYEE I.E. 250 X RS. 400 = RS. 1 00 00 0/- AND UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THIS EFFECT AS AGAINST T HE 40% OF THE TOTAL DEPOSIT (40% OF RS. 19 29 825/-) ESTIMATED BY THE AO. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO HAD NOT CLAIMED THE DEPOSIT FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS AND WHO HAD LEFT THE COMPANY AND NOT CLAIMED THE DEPOSIT. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE A.O BE RESTORED. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROV IDING SECURITIES SERVICES AND LABOUR. THE FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO INTEREST PAID ON LOANS FOR VEHICLES PURC HASED IN THE NAMES OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND ALSO WITH REGARDS TO DEPRECIATION ON SAID VEHICLES DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON SUCH VEHICLES AND INSURANCE ON THE SAME. THIS ISSUE IS CLAIMED TO BE COVERED BY T HE JUDGMENT OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP SINGH SARDARSINGH BAGGA (1993) 201 ITR 995 (BOM) WHEREIN REGISTRATION UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT WAS HELD NOT ESSENTIAL PRE-REQUISITE FOR AN ACQUISITION OF OWNER SHIP. 4 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED MOTOR VEHICLE FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION AND USED THE SAME FOR ITS BUSINESS. S UCH A BENEFICIAL OWNER CANNOT BE DERIVED BENEFIT OF DEPRE CIATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSFER WAS NOT RECORDED UN DER THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT OR THAT THE VEHICLE STOOD IN TH E NAME OF THE VENDOR IN THE RECORDS OF THE AUTHORITIES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AND IS NOT ESSENTIAL PRE-REQUISITE FOR ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP OF MOTOR VEHICLE BUT IS AN OBLIGATION CAST UPON THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE FOR P URPOSE OF RUNNING THE VEHICLE IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE. THIS RAT IO HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MIRZA ATAULLALRA BAIG AND ANOTHER (1993) 202 IT R 291. BOTH THESE JUDGMENTS OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ROHAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS P. LTD. IN ITA NO. 942/PN/2 006 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 DATED 29-8-2008 AND IN THE CASE OF SMACH ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1394/PN/2006 FOR A .Y. 2003-0 DATED 29-8-2008. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST PAID ON LOANS FOR VEHICLES PURCHASED IN THE NAMES O DIRECTORS IS DECI DED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY THE ISSUE OF DE PRECIATION ON VEHICLES PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF DIRECTORS ALL OWABILITY OF INSURANCE ON SAID VEHICLES AND EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE SAME ARE ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. T HIS TAKES 5 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES CARE OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1758/PN/2005. 3. THE NEXT ISSUE IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS WITH RE GARDS TO RESTRICTION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNIFORM DE POSITS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDI TION OF RS. 7 71 930/- WHICH IS 40% OF UNIFORM DEPOSITS KEP T BY THE SECURITY GUARDS. THE COMPANY IS FOLLOWING THE PRACTICE OF KEEPING UNIFORM DEPOSITS FROM THE SECURITY GUARD S AGAINST THE UNIFORMS AND OTHER DEAD STOCK ITEMS SUP PLIED TO THEM. THE REGULAR RECORD HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE COMPANY FOR SUCH DEPOSITS AND REF UNDS MADE TO THEM. IT IS THE MONEY REFUNDABLE WHEN GUAR D LEAVES THE COMPANY SERVICE. THE GUARD HAS RIGHT TO GET THIS AMOUNT FROM THE COMPANY. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THE LIABILITY PERTAINS TO THE PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT COLLECTED THEIR DEPOSITS. AS PER DETAILS THERE WERE 1621 E MPLOYEES AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. ONLY WATCH AND WARD STAFF ARE GIVEN UNIFORMS AND DEPOSIT IS CO LLECTED FROM THEM. ON AN AVERAGE ONLY 1 500 WATCH AND WARD PERSONNEL ARE ON DUTY BUT AS PER THE SECURITY DEPOS IT NEARLY 4000 PERSONS ARE INVOLVED. AROUND 2500 PERSO NS CLAIMED TO BE NOT REGULAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIV EN LIST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE NOT REPORTING FOR NUMBER OF YEARS A ND YET 6 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES NOT COLLECTED THE DEPOSIT. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH DETA ILS 10% OF 2 500 PERSONS COULD BE ESTIMATED AS LEFT AND THE RE IS NO POSSIBILITY FOR THEM TO COLLECT THE UNIFORM DEPOSIT . THE ESTIMATION WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE HAS EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO GIVE AGE-WISE HOLDIN G OF THE DEPOSIT OR DETAILS OF PERSONS WHO DID NOT TURN UP F OR LAST 10 YEARS. SO THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 00 000/- (250 PERSONS X RS. 400 PER UNIFOR M). THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PARTIAL RELIEF GRA NTED BY THE CIT(A) WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PAID THE SECURITY DEP OSIT NOR ANY EFFORT IS MADE WITH REGARDS TO THE DEPOSITS TH EN IT IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S DIRECTED TO VERIFY ALL THESE DETAILS IN THE LIGHT O F DISCUSSIONS AND DECIDE THIS ISSUE AS PER FACT AND L AW AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES 5. THE NEXT ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS WITH REGA RDS TO DISALLOWANCE OO RS. 39 948/- PERTAINING TO CREDITOR S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 51 879/- AS DEEMED INCOME AS THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT CONFIRMED BY THE PETTY CREDITORS. IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE FILED EXT RACTS AS APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS IN RESPECT OF KUSHBOO GRAPHI CS FROM WHICH IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE PARTY S ACCOUNT COPY WAS FOR THE PERIOD 1-4-2002 TO 31-3-20 03 WAS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AGA INST TANDOOR RESTAURANT AND BAR OPENING BALANCE WAS SHOW N AT RS. 27 30/- AND THIS WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN ADJUST ED IN RENT ON 31-3-2003. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLARI FY THE ADJUSTMENT WITH NARRATION AS TO HOW RENT IS DUE TO IT. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE IS THEREFO RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A ND ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. 7. THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 604/PN/2 006 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 HAS TAKEN SIMILAR GROUNDS AS RAIS ED BY IT IN ITA NO. 1711/PHN/2005 FOR A.Y. 2002-03. THE ISSU ES 8 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES WITH RESPECT TO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) WITH R EGARDS TO DEPRECIATION INTEREST AND PERSONAL EXPENDITURE ON PURCHASING THE VEHICLES IN THE NAMES OF DIRECTORS H AVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND DECIDED BY US IN PARA 2.1 OF THI S ORDER WHILE DEALING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN ITA N O. 1711/PN/2005 FOR A.Y. 2003-04. FACTS BEING SIMILAR SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING WE DECIDE ALL THESE I SSUES AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . THIS TAKES CARE OF ISSUES RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL AS WELL IN ITA NO. 740/PN/2006 FOR A.Y. 2003-04. 8. THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 700/PN/2 009 FOR A.HY. 2003-04 HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS ABOUT THE CESSATION OF LIABILITY OF UNI FORM DEPOSITS AND UNPAID AMOUNT OF BONUS. 8.1 THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME O F RS. 5 38 430/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 25 74 470/- AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 20 36 040/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS INCLUDING ADDITION OF RS. 5 78 947/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED INCOME OUT OF UNIFO RM DEPOSIT AND RS. 2 62 989/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID BON US. WHILE MAKING SUCH ADDITIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER 9 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) AND IMP OSED PENALTY OF RS. 3 09 410/-. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF BY THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. HOWEVER ADDITION OF RS. 5 78 947/- ON A CCOUNT OF DEEMED INCOME OUT OF UNIFORM DEPOSITS BY SECURIT Y GUARDS WAS CONFIRMED AND THE ADDITION U/S 43B ON AC COUNT OF UNPAID BONUS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 62 989/- REMAINE D UNCONTESTED. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOU S SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT (A) CANCELLED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R: THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHOW THAT ENTIRE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SUCH CLAIM WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT ITSELF AND ONLY AFTER THE SCRUTINIZING TH E MATERIAL VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE DISALLOWANCES OUT O F UNIFORM DEPOSITS. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESS EE HAS CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. THE UNIFORM DEPOSITS COLLECTED FROM THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE DULY REFLE CTED IN THE APPELLANTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IN CONSIST ENT WITH ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED IN EARLIER YEAR S APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE AFORESAID AMOUNT AS LIABILI TY IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS APPELLANT FURNISHED EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO SYSTEM OF COLLECTING THE UNIFORM DEPOSIT AND TREATING THE SAME AS LIABILITY. EVEN IF THE CONDUCT OF SECURITY GUARDS SHOWS THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF UNIFORM DEPOSITS WERE NEVER CLAIMED THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS MALA FIDE AND IT CANNOT BE HEL D THAT APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALED ITS INCOME. IN SUCH SITUATION AO WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING CONCEALMENT PENALTY ON SUCH ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCES. SIMILARLY DISCREPANCY DETECTED BY THE AO IN RESPEC T OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B IS NOTHING BUT A BONAFIDE AND 10 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES GENUINE MISTAKE BY THE APPELLANT AND SUCH BONA FIDE MISTAKE CANNOT BE TREATED AS CONSCIOUS DISREGARD CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT OR DIS-HONEST CONDUCT OF T HE APPELLANT. 8.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WIT H RESPECT TO UNIFORM DEPOSIT HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY ALL THE DETAILS AND DEC IDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. IN VIEW OF THIS WE RESTORE THE ISSUE OF PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAM E AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 AND 1758/PN/2005 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 740/PN/2006 IS ALLOWED AND ITA NO. 604/PN/2009 IS DISMISSED WHILE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 740/P N/2006 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD/ (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 29 TH JULY 2011 ANKAM 11 ITA NO. 1711/PN/2005 ETC. MEDIATORS & AJANTHA SECURITIES COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) AURANGABAD 4. THE CIT AURANGABAD 5. THE D.R ITAT B BENCH PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL