Rajendra B. Raisoni,, Pune v. Depty Commissioner of Income-tax,,

ITA 1900/PUN/2013 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 190024514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AASPR4761K
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1900/PUN/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Rajendra B. Raisoni,, Pune
Respondent Depty Commissioner of Income-tax,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2015
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 23-10-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1900/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) MR. RAJENDRA B. RAISONI 401/402 POONAM PLAZA MARKET YARD PUNE 411037 PAN NO.AASPR4761K .. APPELLANT VS. DCIT CIRCLE-2 PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPIN K. GUJRATHI REVENUE BY : SHRI CHANDIP SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 28-04-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-04-2015 ORDER PER R.K.PANDA AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 13-05-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-II PUNE RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.22 85 650/- BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS THE ONL Y GRIEVANCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF ONION AND IMPORT OF GA RLIC AND TRADING IN DOMESTIC MARKET UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. SHUBHAM EXPORTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION O F INCOME HAS 2 CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.67 90 419/- ON B ANK LOANS AND SARAFI LOANS AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. HE THEREFORE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT B E DISALLOWED AS THE BORROWED FUNDS ARE NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURP OSE OF BUSINESS. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS CARRYING ON OTHER BUSINESS IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE NAME A ND STYLE OF M/S. RAISONI DEVELOPERS AND M/S. BANSILAL B. RAISON I AND SONS AND HE IS ALSO DIRECTOR OF ASHOKA BUILDERS (N) PVT. LTD. IN ORDER TO FULFIL THE CAPITAL REQUIREMENT OF THE BUSINESS H E HAS TAKEN LOANS FROM BANK AS WELL AS PRIVATE FINANCIERS FROM TIME T O TIME. ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SHUBHAM EXPORTS A PROPRIETARY CON CERN WERE MAINTAINED SEPARATELY FROM HIS INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS. THE LOANS TAKEN FOR M/S. SHUBHAM EXPORTS AND INTEREST PAID ON THE SAME IS RECORDED IN ACCOUNT OF M/S. SHUBHAM EXPORTS. IT WA S STATED THAT THE FUNDS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL REQUI REMENT OF THE BUSINESS FROM BANK AND OTHER PRIVATE FINANCIERS IS RECORDED IN HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNTS AND THE INTEREST PAYMENTS MADE IS RECORDED IN HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNTS. IN SPITE OF HEAVY LOSSES IN THE PROPRIETARY BUSINESS THE INTEREST IS TO BE PAID TO THE BANK AND OTHERS. A SMALL PORTION OF THE BORROWED MONEY WAS INVESTED IN SHARE S OF GROUP COMPANIES AND OTHER COMPANIES AND SOME AMOUNT IS IN VESTED IN PURCHASE OF LAND. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED WITH THE INTENTION TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AND SALE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED VARIOU S PERMISSIONS FROM GOVT. DEPARTMENTS WHICH IS TIME CO NSUMING. IN THE MEANTIME THE RATES OF LAND CAME DOWN. THERE FORE HE 3 COULD NOT CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT. HE HAS ALREADY SHOWN THE LAND AS STOCK IN TRADE IN HIS BAL ANCE SHEET. THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND WILL BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS BUSINESS INCOME ONLY AND THEREFORE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON AC COUNT OF INTEREST ON BANK LOANS AND SARAFI LOANS IS TO BE AL LOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 4. HOWEVER THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOANS FROM THIRD PARTIES IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FROM F.Y. 1996 -97 TILL F.Y. 2002-03. THUS THESE FUNDS WERE UTILIZED TO INTROD UCE AS CAPITAL IN THE FIRMS WHERE HE IS A PARTNER INVESTMENTS MAD E IN PURCHASE OF LAND PURCHASE OF SHARES OTHER INVESTMENTS GIV ING LOAN TO THIRD PARTIES AND SISTER CONCERNS. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF LOANS TAKEN FROM BANKS. THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS AND THE UTILITY OF THESE LOANS IT CA NNOT BE ASCERTAINED THAT THESE FUNDS ARE USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED THE BORROWED FUNDS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR HIS OWN INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ONION AND GARLIC UNDER THE NAME AND STYL E OF M/S. SHUBHAM EXPORTS NOR HE USED IN ANY BUSINESS IN HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERNS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE IN TEREST ON THESE BORROWED FUNDS AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IN HIS COMPU TATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED HIS PER SONAL BALANCE SHEET/STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS SHOWING THE INCOMING AND OUTGOINGS THOUGH HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SAM E. IN VIEW OF 4 THE ABOVE THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH INTE REST EXPENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS THE AO DISALLOWED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.67 90 419/- U/S. 36(1)(III) OF TH E I.T. ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT( A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE AO THEREAFTER INITIATED P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMIS SIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 323 IT R 158 IT WAS ARGUED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE THE SAME BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ATTRACT PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. HOWEVER THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LT D.(SUPRA) AND RELYING ON VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS HE LEVIED PENALT Y OF RS.22 85 650/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 BEING 100% OF AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 7. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIE D BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. WHILE DOING SO HE OBSERVED THAT THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD CLEARLY INDICAT E THAT THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSI NESS AS THE 5 ASSESSEE HAS DULY DEBITED THE INTEREST PAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS SEPARATELY IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS.2 85 292/- ALONG WITH THE BANK CHARGES AND COMMISSION. THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE INTEREST AS AN EXPENDITURE THOUGH HE WA S FULLY CONSCIOUS AND AWARE THAT THE SAME DID NOT RELATE TO THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT AND HENCE THE CLAIMS ITSELF WAS DELIBER ATE AND FALSE. THE CLAIM THUS MADE WAS NOT BONAFIDE RATHER IT WAS WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEBIT THE AFORESAID INTEREST IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY RATHER JUST TO DEBIT THE SAME IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHICH APPEARS TO BE STRANGE A ND ALSO DOES NOT APPEAL TO REASON ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO TH E CLAIM MADE SUBSEQUENTLY. DISTINGUISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT REPORTED IN 29 1 ITR 519 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS HE UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIE D BY THE AO. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OPPOSE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E MAINTAINS ACCOUNTS ONLY FOR HIS EXPORT BUSINESS I.E. M/S. SH UBHAM EXPORTS WHICH ARE AUDITED. APART FROM THIS THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING OTHER BUSINESS FOR WHICH NO ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED. REF ERRING TO PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAS CLEARLY MENTIO NED THE BANK INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS AT RS.18 69 049/- A ND INTEREST ON 6 UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.49 21 370/- WHILE GIVING THE BREAKUP OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AT ( - ) RS.1 39 97 6 88/-. REFERRING TO PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE DETAILS OF YEAR-W ISE SARAFI LOANS INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS FIRMS PURCHASE OF LAND AND LAND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT IN SHARES LOANS AND ADVANC ES ETC. THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : YEAR SARAFI LOAN CLOSING AMOUNT INCREASE INVESTMENTS CAPITAL WITH FIRMS LAND PURCHASE & DEVELOPMENT SHARES 1996 - 97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2 998 000.00 27 000 000.00 31 654 000.00 51 479 000.00 76 366 800.00 81 019 000.00 76 403 900.00 1 656 000.00 24 002 000.00 4 654 000.00 19 825 000.00 24 887 000.00 4 652 200.00 (4 615 100.00) -- 3 476 366.00 -- -- -- -- -- 9 380 736.00 -- -- 2 630 745.00 2 854 700.00 -- -- 6 003 800.00 9 808 600.00 -- -- -- -- 943 230.00 1 470 000.00 880 200.00 3 130 700.00 LOANS & ADVANCES FINANCE BROKERAGE ADVANCE SISTER CONCERNS INTEREST PAID INCREASE IN LIABILITIES (CURRENT) -- 7 081 510.00 810 000.00 607 300.00 24 080 000.00 -- -- -- -- 1 092 056.00 -- -- -- -- -- 5 584 000.00 -- -- -- 3 335 367.00 -- 4 610 300.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3 462 5 00.00 -- 10. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INTEREST WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE AO FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST ON BANK LOAN AND SARAFI LOAN ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTI LIZED THE BORROWED FUNDS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN BUSINESS. R EFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007-08 P ASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES. HOWEVER IN THE PRECEDING YEARS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MAJOR AMOUNT OF THE LOAN WAS INVESTED IN LAND AND PROFIT HAS BEEN O FFERED TO TAX IN 7 A.Y. 2007-08 WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED U/S.143(3) R.W .S153A. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN ALL THESE DETAILS ARE BEFORE TH E AO AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT INTERES T IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION THEREFORE MERELY BECAUSE ASSE SSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR HIS OTHER BUSINES S PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED. H E ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND UPH ELD BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHE R HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. HE SUBMITTE D THAT BY REDUCING THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE FROM THE COMPUTAT ION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME WHICH ATTRACTS PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. TH EREFORE THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER O F THE AO. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.67 90 419/- AS B USINESS EXPENDITURE U/S.36(1)(III) ALTHOUGH HE WAS AWARE TH AT THE SAME IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO PAY LESSER TAX FOR WHICH HE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT . THE LD. CIT(A) 8 HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS FURNISHED ALL PARTICULARS RELATING TO SUCH CLAIM AN D NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN THE PAST ON ACCOUNT OF SUC H INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK AND SARAFI LOAN. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAD DECLARED BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.1 39 97 688/- THE DETERMINATION OF SUCH BUSINES S LOSS AT RS.1 39 97 688/- IS AS UNDER : SR.NO. HEAD OF INCOME AMOUNT AMOUNT 1. INCOME FROM BUSINESS INTEREST ON CAPITAL IN REGISTERED FIRM RAISONI DEVELOPERS 1 03 537 SHARE OF PROFIT IN REGISTERED FIRM 250 HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED 6 54 000 NET LOSS FROM SHUBHAM EXPORTS PROPRIETARY -77 94 278 LESS : EXPENSES BANK COMMISSION AND CHARGES 21 827 BANK INTEREST PAID ON BORROWED FUNDS 18 69 049 INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS 49 21 370 FINANCE BROKERAGE 86 382 LEGAL EXPENSES 296 PROFESSIONAL FEES 10 000 PROFESSION TAX 2 500 VEHICLE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE 5 100 VEHICLE INSURANCE 21 004 R.T.O. TAX 23 668 69 61 197 NET LOSS FROM BUSINESS (-) 1 39 97 668 13. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. SHUBHAM EXPORTS HOWEVER NO ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED FOR TH E VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PAYME NT OF INTEREST TO BANK AND INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS IS NOT IN D ISPUTE. THE DISPUTE WAS ITS ALLOWABILITY WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRE FERRED FURTHER APPEAL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE QUESTION THA T ARISES IS AS 9 TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE VISITED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR CLAIMING SUCH INTEREST AS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A STATEME NT AT THE BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INCURRING SUCH EXPENSES I N THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO AND NO SUCH DISALLO WANCE WAS MADE IN THE PAST. WE FIND FULL DETAILS ARE ALREADY THERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A). THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT WITHHELD ANY INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTE D OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NO T ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS FURT HER HELD THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON THE ASSESSEE STILL INVITE P ENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT THAT IS CLEARLY NOT T HE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THAT MER E MAKING OF THE CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WI LL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HI GH COURT WAS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISM ISSED. 15. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVE N FULL PARTICULARS REGARDING THE CLAIM OF SUCH INTEREST AN D IN THE 10 PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN T HE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) WE HOLD THA T PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 16. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE ADDITION AL GROUND FOR WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OB JECTION. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-04-2015. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PA NDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 30 TH APRIL 2015 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II PUNE 4. THE CIT-II PUNE 5. THE D.R A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT PUNE BENCHES PUNE