Deputy Commissioner Income-tax,, v. Tapsi Prestressed Products Ltd.,, Jalgaon

ITA 2139/PUN/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 213924514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAACT6669D
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 2139/PUN/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Deputy Commissioner Income-tax,,
Respondent Tapsi Prestressed Products Ltd.,, Jalgaon
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 06-12-2013
Judgment Text
] IQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE ! ' BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY JM / ITA NO.2139/PN/2013 !# $ %$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 DCIT CIRCLE-2 JALGAON . / APPELLANT V/S TAPI PRESTRESSED PRODUCTS LTD. GAT NO.537 BANK OF TAPI RIVER ANJALE TAL : YAWAL DIST. JALGAON. PAN NO. AAACT6669D . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI . S.K. RASTOGI CIT & / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13-09-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-II NASHIK RELATING TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN A VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES SUCH AS UNDERT AKING OF CONTRACT WORK RELATING TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS LIKE W ATER SUPPLY AND LIFT IRRIGATION PROJECT ROAD CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRACT ON BO T BASIS MANUFACTURING OF PSC PIPES TRADING IN MS PLATES AND PIPES E TC. THE / DATE OF HEARING :29.07.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:31.07.2015 2 ITA NO.2139/PN/2013 ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-09-2009 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF NIL AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.15 33 36 705/- U/S.80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH WAS REVISED TO RS.10 92 36 6 58/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO D ISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) AMOUNTING TO RS.15 33 36 705/- W HICH WAS REVISED TO RS.10 92 36 658/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE ACT. WHILE DOI NG SO THE AO FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WHEREIN SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : I. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ONLY A CONTRACTOR AND NOT A DEVELOPER OF ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. II) THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN TENDER DOCUMENT/AGREE MENT BY WHICH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND OR ANY PROPERTY IS ENTRUSTED TO THE CONTRACTOR I.E. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. III) THE DRAWINGS AND DESIGNS OF THE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY THE CONTRACTEES AND HAVE NOT BEEN PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. IV) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT OPERATING AND MAIN TAINING ANY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COLLECTING FINANCE BY WAY OF TOLL IN THE CAPACITY OF OWNER OF THE PROJECT FOR SPECIFIED PERIOD V) THE PROJECT WAS FINANCED BY THE CONTRACTEE AND NOT BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. VI) THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. KOLHAPUR VS. ADDL CIT-R-2 KO LHAPUR OF IT AT PUNE AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CLT VS. ABG HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FA CTS. 3. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR A.YRS. 20 07-08 AND 2008-09 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 3 ITA NO.2139/PN/2013 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE ITAT PUNE IN THE CASES OF LAXMI CIVIL ENGG. (P) LTD. AND PRATIBHA CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERI NG (P) LTD. IN AS MUCH AS THE FACTS OF THOSE CASES ARE DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF ASSESSEE'S CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH TH AT IT WAS A DEVELOPER AS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 80I A(4) OF THE ACT; HENCE INELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMED DEDUCTION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ON BEING CONFRONTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.YR.2009-10 REGARDING ELIGIBILITY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY REVISED ITS CL AIM OF DEDUCTION FROM RS. 15 33 36 705/- TO RS.10 92 36 658/-. THE CI T HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80(IA)(4) RS 10 92 36 658/- 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT SURVEY ACTION U/S.133A WAS CONDUCTED IN ASSESSEE'S CASE AND CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONAL INCOM E DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCIES IN EXPENSES HOWEVER FINDINGS OF SURVEY PARTY REGARDING DEDUCTION U/S.80IA(4) WERE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ADD ALTER T HE ABOVE GROUNDS IF FELT NECESSARY LATER. 5. 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 FIND IDENTICA L ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.YRS. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WHERE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80 IA(4) WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE AO WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) AND ON FUR THER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BY O BSERVING AS UNDER : 3.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATE RIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEVELOPER AND ENTITLED TO CLA IM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE C IT(A) HAD RELIED ON ABOVE MENTIONED ORDERS/JUDGMENTS AND CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CORRECTLY CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80 IA(4) OF THE ACT. 3.4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WHO HAS IN FACT DEVELOPED THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY IS A CONTRACTO R AND HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA(4). ACCORDING TO LEARNED AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE IN CASE IT IS ACCEPTED THEN THE SAID DE DUCTION SHALL NOT BE ALLOWABLE TO ANY PERSON IN INDIA AS ALL SUCH INFRASTRUC TURE WORK IS 4 ITA NO.2139/PN/2013 AWARDED BY GOVT. & SEMI GOVT. DEPARTMENTS TO DEVELO PER CONTRACTORS THROUGH TENDERS AND THEREAFTER ENTERING INTO CONTRAC T FOR THE WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS. IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S CONTENTION IS ACCEPTED THEN CERTAINLY PROVISION FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA( 4) FOR DEVELOPING INFRASTRUCTURE SHALL BECOME REDUNDENT'. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS IGNORED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT PUNE BENCH - IN THE CASE M/S PRATIBHA CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING PVT. LTD WHEREIN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABG HEAVY ENGINEERI NG LTD. HAS DECIDED ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DEVELOPI NG PROJECT OF WATER SUPPLY AND LIFT IRRIGATION. ASSESSING OFFICER CON CLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY A CONTRACTOR AND THE WORK WILL BE CLO SELY LOOKED AFTER OR SUPERVISED BY THE CONTRACTEE WHEN THE WORK IS CLOSE LY SUPERVISED WHICH MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IN A MERELY CONTRACTOR. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REFERRED THE CONTRACT RECEIVED FROM JMC AND PRELIMINARY CONDITION OF DESIGNING AND DRAWING ESSENTIAL FOR DEVEL OPER IS LACKING AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY COULD NOT BE CALLED TO B E A DEVELOPER. 3.5 CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED BY MISUNDERSTANDING THE CONDITIONS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION SPECIFIED U/S 80IA(4). WHAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) IS THE PROF ITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY SUCH AS R OAD PROJECT AIRPORT PORT INLAND WATERWAYS IRRIGATION PROJECTS WATER SUP PLY PROJECTS ETC. IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE THAT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AS A WHOLE AND NOT A PART OF IT. 3.6 THE APPELLANT IS DEVELOPER/CONTRACTOR OF ELIGI BLE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. THE WHOLE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT OF WATER SUPPLY AND LIFT IRRIGATION HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE 2 /3 ENGINEERS/OFFICERS OF JMC HAVE ONLY SUPERVISED THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE WORK AND THE PROPER EXE CUTION OF THE PROJECT BY DEVOTING PART OF THEIR TIME. BY ANY STRETCH OF IM AGINATION IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED/PERCEIVED THAT THE SAID 2/3 ENGINEERS/OFFIC ERS HAVE EXECUTED THE SAID INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT OF WATER SUPPLY AND LIFT I RRIGATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE WORK HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY JMC AS DEVELOPER AND THE APPELLANT IS A MERE CONTR ACTOR. 3.7 AS REGARDS PREPARATION OF DESIGN AND DRAWING OF TH E PROJECT IT IS EVIDENT FORM THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS/PAPERS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS IN FACT PREPARED THE SAME. ANNEX-4 APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 177 OF THE TENDER OF MOKHABARDI LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME RELEVA NT PORTION OF WHICH READS AS UNDER : 'PARAMETERS FOR DESIGN AND DRAWING' 1.0 SCOPE OF PROPOSED IRRIGA TION SCHEME AS STATE D IN ANNEX 'A ' OF SECTION-1. 2.0 DESIGN AND DRA WING. 2.1 THE CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT SHALL CARRY OUT LAYOUT STUDIES INCLUDING COST ECONOMICS BY EXAMINING ALL POSSIBLE ALT ERNATIVE TO PREPARE DETAILED LAYOUT DESIGN AND DRAWINGS OF ALL COMPONENTS OF THE WORK STATED IN ANNEX A. THE CONTRACTOR/CONSULTAN T SHALL USE GUIDE LINES IN THE RELEVANT ISI CODES/CDO CODES PREPAR ED BY 5 ITA NO.2139/PN/2013 ISI/CDO FOR VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT IN THE LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME. 2) CPWD MANUAL RELEVANT PAPERS AT PAGE NOS. 74 & 75. 3) LETTER DATED 24-08-2006 FILED WITH SUPDT. ENGINEER( PHS) CENTRAL DESIGNS ORGANISATIONS NASHIK. 4) LETTER DATED 07-10-2006 ISSUED BY CHIEF ENGINEER NAG PUR TO THE APPELLANT. 5) LETTER DATED 13-10-2006 ISSUED BY SUPDT. ENGINEER AM BADI (BHANDARA) TO THE APPELLANT. 6) LETTER DATED 14-07-2006 ISSUED BY SUPDT. ENGINEER AM BADI (BHANDARA) TO THE APPELLANT. 7) LETTER DATED 27-07-2006 ISSUED BY SUPDT ENGINEER AMB ADI (BHANDARA) TO THE APPELLANT. IN THE VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS DRAWINGS AND DESIGNS OF THE PROJECT ARE IN FACT PREPARED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH ARE APPROVE D BY VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND JALGAON MUNI CIPAL CORPORATION ETC. 3.8 CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) IN RESPECT OF PROFIT ON INFRASTRUCTURE PROJEC TS OF WATER SUPPLY AND LIFT IRRIGATION PROJECT. AS STATED ABOVE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS DISALLOWED DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF WATER SUPPLY AND LIFT IRRIGAT ION PROJECTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A CONTRACTOR AND WORK EXECUTED BY IT WAS COVERED UNDER 'WORKS CONTRACT' AND HENCE DEDUCTION W AS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 80IA INTRODUCED B Y FINANCE ACT 2007 AND AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH RETROSPECTIVE E FFECT FROM 01-04- 2000. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED THE APPELLANT' S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT A DEVELOPER BUT ONLY A CONTRACTOR. FURTHER ACCORDING TO THE AO THE 'EXPLANATION' INSERTED BELOW SUB-SEC. 80IA(13) BY TH E FINANCE ACT 2007 AND LATER AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 2009 EFFECTIVE RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 01-04-2000 ALSO MADE THE APPELLANT INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A DETAIL ED ANALYSIS OF APPELLANT'S CONTRACT WITH JALGAON MUNICIPAL CORPORAT ION (JMC) IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A. Y. 2008-09 AND ALSO REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF DY. ENGINEER JMC RECORDED ON OATH WHEREIN HE IS STATE D TO HAVE TOLD THAT THE PROJECT WITH JMC WAS A 'WORKS CONTRACT'. ON THE B ASIS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT AND THE ABOVE REFERRED STATEMENT OF DY. ENG INEER JMC AO HELD THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS O F S. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. SHE DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 17 21 46 986/- CLAIME D BY THE APPELLANT U/S 80IA(4) OF THE ACT. AS MENTIONED IN STATEMENT OF F ACTS A SIMILAR CLAIM OF RS. 13 16 13 885/- U/S 80IA(4) WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO IN A. Y. 2007- 08. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS I.E. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING (SUPRA) OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD (SUPRA) AND PRATIBHA CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS (SUPRA) ON FAC TS VIS-A-VIS FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE STAT US OF THE APPELLANT WAS SIMILAR TO THAT OF LAXMI CIVIL ENGG. (P) LTD AND MAHALAXMI CORPORATION I.E. THE NATURE OF WORK WAS ALSO MORE OR LESS SIMILAR. T HE SIMILARITIES IN THE 6 ITA NO.2139/PN/2013 TENDER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE PROJECTS UNDERTAKE N BY THESE PERSONS SUGGEST THAT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WERE BY AND LARGE IDENTICAL. FURTHER TENDER DOCUMENT FOR GOSHIKHURD PROJECT AWARDED TO OM METAL INFRA BY VIDC PROVES THAT IT WAS FOR IRRIGATION WORK AND THE T ERMS AND CONDITIONS WERE AKIN TO THAT OF MOKABARDI IRRIGATION PROJECT A WARDED TO THE APPELLANT I.E. TAP/ PRESTESS PRODUCTS LTD. BY VIDC. CIT(A) IN HIS CONCLUDING PARA HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND ALSO IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY IN RESPECT OF IDENTICAL FACTS HE WAS OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ABOVE DISCUSSED DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE JAIPUR BENCHES AND ABH HEAVY INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) IN REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTIONS U/S. 80IA(4) OF THE ACT ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE A PPELLANT'S CASE. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF R EVENUE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTIONS U/S. 80IA (4) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURAL PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY IT DURING AYS 2007-08 AND 2008 -09. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. WE FIND ON FURTHER APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ITA NO.106 AND 107 OF 2014 ORDER DATED 02-07-2015 DISMISSED THE APPEA L FILED BY THE REVENUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 2. THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE IS BENEFICI ARY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BE CAUSE HE HAS DEVELOPED ATLEAST PARTLY AN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A CONTRACT BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. IT WAS A SC HEME FOR LIFTING WATER FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION IN THE CITY AND ALSO FOR IRRI GATION. 3. THE PROJECT WAS OF SUCH A NATURE THAT THE DESIGNS WE RE SUPPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE ASSESSEE BEING SUCH CONTRACTOR DEVELOPED THE DESIGNS FOR THIS PROJECT WHICH WERE APP ROVED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE PRINCIPAL. THEREAFTER THE PROJE CT WAS UNDERTAKEN AND COMPLETED. 4. THE QUESTION THAT AROSE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS WHE THER THE ASSESSEE COULD BE SAID TO BE A DEVELOPER OF SUCH PROJECT. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON FACTS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD BE SAID TO BE A DEVELOPER AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 80IA(4). WE H AVE PERUSED BOTH THE JUDGMENTS AND NOTICED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS QUITE METICULOUSLY BY MINUTELY GOING THROUGH TH E TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND CAME TO AN UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT. 5. IN VIEW OF THIS WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND A SUBSTANTIA L QUESTION OF LAW ARISING IN THESE APPEALS. THE APPEALS ARE THEREFORE DI SMISSED. 7. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON BLE 7 ITA NO.2139/PN/2013 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONT RARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-07-2015. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; !' DATED : 31 ST JULY 2015. LRH'K &'(!)*+%) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ $ % ( ) - II ( / THE CIT(A)-II NASHIK 4. $ $ % - II ( / THE CIT- II NASHIK 5. 6. )*+ -. $ -. IQ.KS / DR ITAT A PUNE; +01 2 / GUARD FILE. &# / BY ORDER ) //TRUE C ) //TRUE COPY// 345 6 -7 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY $ -. IQ.KS / ITAT PUNE