M/s. Sneh Finance & Investment, Pune v. Addll. CIT, Cent. Range-2,, Pune

ITA 304/PUN/2010 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 30424514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAHFS1098K
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 304/PUN/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Sneh Finance & Investment, Pune
Respondent Addll. CIT, Cent. Range-2,, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-07-2011
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 23-02-2010
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 S.NO. ITA NO ASSTT.YEA R APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 304/PN/10 1998-99 M/S SNEH FINANCE & INVESTMENT 1194/1 VRINDAVAN SOCIETY IIND FLOOR SHIVAJI NAGAR PUNE 411 005 PAN AAHFS 1098K ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF I.T. CEN.R- 2 PUNE 2 305/PN/10 1999-00 -DO- -DO- 3 306/PN/10 2000-01 -DO- -DO- 4 332/PN/10 2001-02 -DO- -DO- 5 333/PN/10 2003-04 -DO- -DO- 6 330/PN/10 2000-01 M/S SNEH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT P. LTD. PUNE -DO- 7 331/PN/10 2004-05 -DO- -DO- APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK RESPONDENT BY : SMT ANN KAPTHUAMA ORDER PER BENCH: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSEES OF THE SAME GRO UP AND INVOLVE CERTAIN COMMON ISSUES AND THEREFORE THEY WERE HEARD T OGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE AND BREVITY. 2. THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEA LS RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271D FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (N SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEARS. 3. THE BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE IS THAT THE CAP TIONED ASSESSEES BELONG TO ONE SNEHA GROUP OF CASES WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCE. ON 16.10.2003 A SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE SNEHA GROUP OF CASES WHICH WAS PR ECEDED BY A SEARCH ON SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR H. SHAH AND SRIRAM H. SONI GROU P ON 29.7.2003. IN THE 2 SEARCHES ON SHAH AND SONI GROUP IT WAS FOUND THAT THEY HAD ADVANCED MONIES TO SNEHA GROUP OF ASSESSEES AND OTHERS AND ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE THE SEIZED MATERIAL SHOWED AN IRREGULAR MANNER AND UNACCOUN TED TRANSACTIONS. IN THIS BACKGROUND ASSESSMENTS WERE FINALIZED IN TERMS OF CHA PTER XIV OF THE ACT IN THE SNEHA GROUP OF CASES. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT S IN THE CAPTIONED CASES THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 271D HAVE BEEN LEVIED WHICH ARE SUBJECT-MATTER OF DISPUTE IN THE CAPTI ONED PROCEEDINGS. 4. IN THIS BACKGROUND IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL A ND MORE OR LESS INVOLVE SIMILAR FACT-SITUATION. IN THIS BACKGROUND WE NOW PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE INDIVIDUAL APPEALS. 5. ITA NO 304/PN/10 IS AN APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DATED 18.11.2009 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WHEREBY A PENALTY OF RS 22 LAKHS L EVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 269SS OF THE ACT HAS BEEN LEVIED. BRIEFLY PUT THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED MONEY THROUGH BEARER CHEQUES FROM B HUPENDRAKUMAR H. SHAH AND HIS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS WHICH WAS IN VIOLATIO N OF THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. IN PARA 5.2 OF THE PENALTY O RDER DETAILS OF LOANS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BEARER CHEQUES FROM BHS BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN NOTICED WHICH TOT ALLED UPTO RS 22 LAKHS. ON BEING SHOW-CAUSED AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 D BE NOT LEVIED THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DULY ACCOU NTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNT BOOKS AND ALSO RECORDED BY THE LENDE RS IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT THESE ARE GENUINE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY OF RS 22 LAKHS IN TERMS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS SUSTAINED TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APP EAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT PENALTY IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN LEVIED IN THE SAME MANNER AS WERE LEVI ED IN OTHER GROUP CASES NAMELY IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH BUILDERS. IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE PENALTY LEVIED IN THE CASE OF MS SNEH BUILDERS VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO 520/PN/08 DATED 20.5.2011 WHEREB Y THE PENALTY LEVIED HAS BEEN DELETED. IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH BUILDERS ALSO SIM ILAR LOANS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RAISED BY BEARER CHEQUES FROM BHUPENDRAKUMA R H. SHAH GROUP AND THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID PRECEDENT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY BE DELETED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE WHILE NOT DISPUTING THE FACTUAL MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE LEARN ED COUNSEL HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE PRESENT CASE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D BE SUSTAINED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT T HERE WAS NO REASONS EXPLAINED AS TO WHY LOANS WERE RAISED BY BEARER CHEQUES AND THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW WAS NO EXCUSE. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMI TTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MADE NO MISTAKE IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. 8. IN REPLY THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IDENT ICAL FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH BUIL DERS (SUPRA) AND THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH BUILDERS (SUPRA). IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE P RESENT CASE THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IN THE PENALTY ORDER HAS RECO RDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE INDEED PRODUCED ALTHOUGH DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WER E NOT FOUND. A REFERENCE HAS BEEN FURTHER MADE TO PARA 5.2 OF THE P ENALTY ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN EXAMINED 4 AND IT IS ON THAT BASIS THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS QUITE EVIDENT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN LOANS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM BHUPENDRAKUMAR H. SHAH AND HIS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS BY WAY O F BEARER CHEQUES WHICH HAS BEEN CONSTRUED AS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. HAVING PERUSED THE PRECEDENT IN THE CASE OF M/ S SNEH BUILDERS (SUPRA) AS ALSO THE DISCUSSION IN PARAS 5 AND 5.2 OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER IT IS EVIDENT THAT TRANSACTIONS IN THE TWO CASES STAND ON IDENT ICAL FOOTING. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT ON THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH BUILDERS (SUPR A) DESERVES TO BE FOLLOWED. THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH BUILDERS (SUPRA) IS WORTHY OF NOTICE: 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATER IAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT CERTAIN CHEQUES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED AS SECURIT Y FOR THE ENTIRE SNEH GROUP. IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MAHENDRA YEOLE RECORDED U/S 131 O N 11-1-2003 IT WAS CONFIRMED BY HIM THAT THE CHEQUES FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREM ISES OF SHRI B.H. SHAH WERE ISSUED FROM DIFFERENT FIRMS AND MONEY WAS BORROWED FOR BUS INESS PURPOSES AND THAT SUCH CHEQUES WERE TAKEN BACK ON RENEWAL OF THE LOAN TRAN SACTIONS. SOME OF THOSE CHEQUES WERE USED FOR MAKING PAYMENTS WHILE OTHERS WERE CAN CELLED. IT WAS GENERAL STATEMENT WITH REGARDS TO TRANSACTION WITH SNEH GROUP BUT IT IS NOT IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARDS TO ASSESSEE I.E. SNEH BUILDERS. THERE IS NOTHING ON R ECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT BY SHRI B.H. SHAH WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE A T ANY POINT OF TIME. THERE IS ALSO NOTHING ON RECORD THAT ASSESSEE WAS OFFERED ANY OPP ORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SAID B.H. SHAH WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT IN QUESTION. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271D ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT AGAINS T THE SECURITY OF THESE CHEQUES OF RS. 95 50 000/- THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE TAKEN EQUIV ALENT AMOUNT OF CASH IS NOT BORNE FROM THE RECORDS. THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO FACT THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS IN FACT RECEIVED IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE STATEME NT OF SHRI B.H. SHAH. GENERAL STATEMENT OF THIRD PERSON CANNOT BE VALID BASIS FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ONLY ON THE BASIS T HAT AGAINST THE SECURITY OF CHEQUES EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF CASH MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CAS H LOANS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY OF RS. 95 50 000/- WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A). WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 8. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO ENHANCEMENT OF TH E PENALTY FROM RS. 3 50 000/- TO RS. 23 50 000/-. THIS ENHANCED PENALTY HAS BEEN OPP OSED BY ASSESSEE ON MERIT ALONE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 3 50 000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOANS BY WAY OF BEARER CHEQUE WHICH IS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT WHICH WAS ENHANCED BY CIT(A) TO RS. 23 50 000/- U/S 271D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED THAT HE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT ACCEPTANCE OF LOANS BY CHEQUES IS E NOUGH FOR COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS. THE ACCEPTANCE OF LOAN S IN CASH/BEARER CHEQUES WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE CORRECT LEGAL PROVISIONS. THE IGNORANCE OF LAW CAN 5 BE A REASONABLE CAUSE AS HELD BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SCHELL INTERNATIONAL (2005) 278 ITR 630 (BOM). THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS BACKGROUND THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED SAME BE DE LETED. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CIT(A) ON THE ISS UE OF ENHANCEMENT OF PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. 9. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED P ENALTY OF RS. 3 50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BEARER CHEQUES IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. WHICH WA S ENHANCED TO RS. 23 50 000/- U/S 271D OF THE ACT. THIS ENHANCED FIGURE IS NOT IN DI SPUTE. DISPUTE IS ON MERIT ALONE AS FAR AS PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED. AS ST ATED ABOVE INITIALLY THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED AT RS. 3 50 000/- FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER IT WAS POINTED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT WAS FOR A MOUNT OF RS. 23 50 000/-. IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE I N COMPUTING FIGURE AT RS. 23 50 000/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN FACT THE BEARER CHEQUES WERE RE CEIVED FROM SHRI B.H. SHAH AND HIS ASSOCIATE CONCERN M/S. PRABHA TRADERS FOR RS. 23 50 000/-. AS STATED ABOVE THIS FIGURE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES BUT DISPU TE IS ON MERIT ALONE. 10. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SUCH A PRACTI CE OF TAKING LOANS THROUGH BEARER CHEQUES IS BEING FOLLOWED FROM YEAR TO YEAR BUT SAM E NEVER POINTED OUT BY THE AUDITORS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT SHRI B.H. SHAH HAS ACKNO WLEDGED THE LOAN AND THEREFORE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEAD ED THAT HE WAS IGNORANT THAT RECEIPT OF BEARER CHEQUES VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 269SS OF THE ACT. TRANSACTIONS WERE DURING ROUTINE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT IN DOUBT. SO PENALTY IN QUESTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT IGN ORANCE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE. SO PENALTY IN QUESTION BE UPHELD. 11. AFTER HEARING SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES A ND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. SCHELL INTERNATIONAL (2005) 278 ITR 630 (BOM) HAS HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE STATEMENTS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT ASSE SSMENT YEAR. AS SOON AS HE GOT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HE SUBMITTED THE STATEMENTS. THE EXPLANATION APPEARED TO BE REASONABLE AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE ORDER OF THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 272A(2) AND 285B O F THE ACT WAS QUASHED. 12. WE ALSO FIND THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (1979) 11 8 ITR 326 (SC) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: MOREOVER IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THERE IS NO P RESUMPTION THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS THE LAW. IT IS OFTEN SAID THAT EVERY ONE IS PRESUM ED TO KNOW THE LAW BUT THAT IS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT : THERE IS NO SUCH MAXIM KNOWN TO THE LAW. OVER A HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS AGO MAULA J. POINTED OUT IN MARTINDALE V. FA LKNER (1846) 2 CB 706 : THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION IN THIS COUNTRY THAT EVERY PERSON KNOWS THE LAW : IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO COMMON SENSE AND REASON IF IT WERE SO SCRUTTON L .J. ALSO ONCE SAID : IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW ALL THE STATUTORY LAW AND NOT VERY POSSIBL E TO KNOW ALL THE COMMON LAW; BUT IT WAS LORD ATKIN WHO AS IN SO MANY OTHER SPHERES PU T THE POINT IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT WHEN HE SAID IN EVANS V. BARTLAM (1937) AC 473 (HL). TH E FACT IS THAT THERE IS NO AND NEVER HAS BEEN A PRESUMPTION THAT EVERY ONE KNOWS THE LAW . THERE IS THE RULE THAT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW DOES NOT EXCUSE A MAXIM OF VERY DIFFERENT SCOPE AND APPLICATION 13. WE ALSO FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. CHAND RAKANT KASHINATH KELE (HUF) THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSU E BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ON HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES IN TH E LIGHT OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND THE PRECEDENTS CITED WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE DUE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO ACCEPT THE LOAN THROUGH BEARER CHEQUE. SOME OF THE FINDINGS ON FACTS SUCH AS AVAI LABILITY OF A MEAGER AMOUNT OF A FEW HUNDRED RUPEES AS OUTSTANDING BALANCE IN THE BANK A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DEFINITELY ESTABLISH THE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINS OF THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER UNCONTROVERTED FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY ISSUED CHEQUES FAVOUR ING AFORE MENTIONED THREE PARTIES HAD TO BE HONOURED AND TO FULFILL ITS COMMITMENT T HE FUNDS WERE URGENTLY REQUIRED THEREFORE A BEARER CHEQUE WAS ACCEPTED ALSO LEADS TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR TH E SAID FAILURE IF ANY HENCE ENTITLED 6 FOR RELIEF AS PRESCRIBED U/S 273B OF THE ACT. NOW B EFORE US A DECISION OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS ALSO BEEN CITED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAKHIJA CONSTRUCTION CO. 257 ITR PAGE 8 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT FOR A MINO R DEVIATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AS OTHERWISE THE TRANSACTION APPEARED TO BE GENUINE PROPER AND BONAFIDE THE PENALTY NEED NOT TO BE IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF SECT ION 269SS OF I.T. ACT. TAKING A SHELTER OF THIS DECISION WE HEREBY HOLD THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RELIED UPON SEVERAL OTHER DECISIONS AS CITED IN THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER HENCE WE HEREBY CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE HAS NO FORCE HENCE DISMISSED. THUS APPEAL WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN C ASE OF CHANDRAKANT K. KELE (HUF) (SUPRA). SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SHIROLI BUDRUK KRISHAK SE VA SANGH IN I.T.A. NO. 1101/PN/2010 : A.Y. 2006-07 DATED 16-12-2010 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THERE IS NO DOUB T THAT IGNORANCE OF LAW CAN ALWAYS BE TREATED A REASONABLE CAUSE TO JUSTIFY THE NON-AT TRACTION OF PENAL PROVISIONS U/S 271D OF THE ACT BUT THE LEGISLATURE KEEPING IN MIND POSSIBI LITY OF IT HAS GIVEN DISCRETION TO THE DEPARTMENT U/S 273B OF THE ACT NOT TO LEVY U/S 271 D OF THE ACT. THUS FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT U/S 273B OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIR ED TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ITS FAILURE IN COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE DO NOT FIND REASON TO DOUBT THE ABOVE SAID REASONABLE CAUSE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AU THORITIES THAT IT BEING A CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY DEALING ONLY WITH ITS MEMBERS WA S UNDER IMPRESSION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269SS AND 269T OF THE ACT WERE INAPPLICABLE TO IT. THIS EXPLANATION FINDS STRENGTH FROM THIS VERY FACT THAT NEITHER THE STATUTORY AUDI TORS NOR THE TAX AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY APPRAISED IT ABOUT THE CORRECT LEGAL PROVIS IONS IN THIS REGARD AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EETAHI AGENCIES (SUPRA) THERE WAS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT AND PENALTY U/S 271E WAS LEVIED. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED VIOL ATION OF SECTION 269T UNDER A GENUINE BELIEF THAT SEC. 269T HAD NO APPLICATION TO DEPOSITS AND THAT IT ONLY APPLIED TO LOANS. THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST SAI D ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE TRIBUNA L. AGAIN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAYABHAWANI GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD. (SUPRA) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTING REASONABLE CAUSE U/S 273B IN CASE OF VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIO NS OF SEC. 269SS OF THE ACT. THE DEPARTMENT HAD PREFERRED SLP BEFORE THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHICH HAS BEEN DIS MISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN (2010) 322 ITR 12 (STATUTE). RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE COURTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS R EASONABLE CAUSE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN NURTURING A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269T WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 2 01 031/- LEVIED U/S 271D OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. IN VIEW OF ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSIONS PENALTY IN QUESTION IS DELETED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT TRANSACTION BY WAY OF BEARER CHEQUE IS NOT VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 9SS OF THE ACT. MOREOVER THIS GENUINE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS POINT HAS NOT BEEN RAISED EVEN BY THE AUDITORS AS THE SAME WAS DONE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS SINCE LONG. BEFORE PARTING THIS DECISION IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IN GENERAL IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO EXCUSE BUT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT MAY BE SO. IN THE PRESENT CASE IG NORANCE OF LAW MAY BE DEFENSE BUT ONE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS WHILE APPLYING THIS PROPOSIT ION. IT SHOULD BE RARELY USED AS SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT EACH CASE IS DECIDED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT CASE LAW S RELIED ON BY BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THOUGH SAME HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED WHILE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PARITY OF REASONING WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACT-SITUATION BEFORE US WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- 7 TAX (APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS 22 LAKHS. 10. THUS ITA NO 304/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH FIN ANCE & INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IS ALLOWED. 11. IN SO FAR AS ITA NOS 305/PN/10 & 306/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH FINANCE & INVESTMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 RESPECTIVELY ARE CONCERNED IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED I N ITA NO 304/PN/10 IN THE EARLIER PARAS. ACCORDINGLY OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 304/PN/10 APPLIES MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THESE APPEALS ALSO. 12. RESULTANTLY APPEALS IN ITA NOS 305/PN/10 & 306/P N/10 IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH FINANCE & INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 199 9-2000 AND 2000- 01 RESPECTIVELY ARE ALSO ALLOWED. 13. ITA NO 332/PN/10 IS AN APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DATED 11.11.2009 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHEREBY A PENALTY OF RS 35 LAKHS L EVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 269SS OF THE ACT HAS BEEN LEVIED. 14. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED A PENAL TY OF RS 35 LAKHS IN TERMS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS STA TED TO HAVE RAISED LOANS OF RS 10 LAKHS FROM SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR H. SHAH AN D ASSOCIATES BY WAY OF BEARER CHEQUES WHICH WAS CONSTRUED AS A VIOLATION OF TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY OF RS 1 0 LAKHS HAS BEEN LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT THE SECOND COMPONENT OF TH E PENALTY OF RS 25 LAKHS WAS IN RELATION TO THE LOANS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FROM SHRIRAM SONI AND ASSOCIATES. 15. BEFORE US IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PART IES THAT IN SO FAR AS THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN RELATION TO LOANS OF RS 10 LAKHS RAI SED FROM SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR H. SHAH BY BEARER CHEQUES ARE CONCERNED THE FACTS AND 8 CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY US IN ITA NO 304/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE M/S SNEH FINANCE & INVESTMENT FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. AS A RESULT THEREOF FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN ITA NO 304/PN/10 HEREIN ALSO THE PENALTY IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 16. IN SO FAR AS THE PENALTY OF RS 25 LAKHS IN RELATION TO THE LOANS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RAISED IN CASH FROM SHRIRAM SONI IS CONCERNED THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS ALSO NOT MAINTAINABLE. IN T HIS REGARD IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LOAN OF RS 25 LAKHS FROM SHRIRAM SONI WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND IT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. I N THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE SAME WAS CONSTRUED AS A VIOLATIO N OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED O UT THAT THE DISPUTE RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TRAVELLED TO THE TRI BUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 VIDE ITA NO 521/PN/10 DATED 31. 5.2011 WHEREBY IT WAS HELD THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT PROVE RAISIN G OF ANY UNACCOUNTED LOAN OF RS 25 LAKHS FROM SHRIRAM SONI AND THEREFORE ADDI TION THEREOF WAS DELETED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS NO UNACCOU NTED LOAN OF RS 25 LAKHS RAISED THERE WOULD NOT ARISE A QUESTION OF VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 17. IN RESPONSE THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES HAVE ADEQUATELY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LOAN OF RS 25 LAKHS FROM SHRIRAM SONI IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT THOUGH THE FACTUAL MATRIX BROUGHT OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL IN TERMS OF THE DE CISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO 521/PN/10 DATED 31.5.2011 (SUPRA) HAS NOT BEEN DISP UTED. 18. IN THIS CONNECTION WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.5.201 1 (SUPRA) HAS NOT UPHELD THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ANY UNA CCOUNTED LOAN OF RS 25 LAKHS FROM SHRIRAM SONI DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. AS A RESULT 9 THEREOF THERE WOULD NOT ARISE THE NECESSITY TO EXAMINE THE EFFICACY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT SINCE THERE IS NO LOAN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRIRAM SONI. CONSEQUENT TO THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO 521/PN/10 DATED 31.5.2011 WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT AMO UNTING TO RS 25 LAKHS IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 19. THUS ITA NO 332/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH FIN ANCE & INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS ALLOWED. 20. ITA NO 333/PN/10 IS AN APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DATED 25.11.2009 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHEREBY A PENALTY OF RS 47 50 00 0/- LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. 21. BEFORE US IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PART IES THAT IN SO FAR AS THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN RELATION TO LOANS OF RS 41 LAKHS RAI SED FROM SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR H. SHAH BY BEARER CHEQUES ARE CONCERNED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY US IN ITA NO 304/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE M/S SNEH FINANCE & INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. AS A RESULT THEREOF FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN ITA NO 304/PN/10 HEREIN ALSO THE PENALTY IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 22. IN SO FAR AS THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS 6 50 000/- I S CONCERNED THE SAME IS IN RELATION TO LOAN STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FRO M SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR H SHAH BY BEARER CHEQUES. ON THIS ASPECT THE LEARNED COU NSEL SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS IN CONSEQUENCE OF A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SUCH LOAN WHICH WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE ACCOUN T BOOKS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO SUCH LOAN HAS INDEED BEEN RAISED AND THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF APPEAL IN ITA NO 525/PN/10 DATED 21.2.201 1 WHEREBY THE ISSUE HAS BEEN REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DECISION AFRESH. IT 10 WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE IMPUGNED ISSUE BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A DECISION AFRESH. 23. TO THE AFORESAID PRAYER OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL BA SED ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.2.2011 (SUPRA) THE LEARNED DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS DISPUTE. 24. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE PRECEDENT IN THE ASSESSEES OW N CASE DATED 21.2.2011 (SUPRA) THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LOAN OF RS 6 50 000/- FROM SHRI B. H. SHAH HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AFRESH. THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT WOULD THEREFORE DEPEND ON THE FINAL ADJUDICATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AS A RESULT THEREOF WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORD ER AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL PASS AN ORDER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 25. IN THE RESULT ITA NO 333/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH FINANCE & INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 IS ALLOWED. 26. ITA NO 330/PN/10 IS AN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT P. LTD. DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) DATED 16.11.2009 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-01 WHEREBY A PENALTY OF RS 5 LAKHS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT HAS BEEN L EVIED. 27. BEFORE US IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PART IES THAT IN SO FAR AS THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN RELATION TO LOAN OF RS 5 LAKHS RAISED FROM SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR H. SHAH BY BEARER CHEQUES IS CONCERNED THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY US IN ITA NO 304/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE M/S SNEH FINANCE & INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 1998-99. AS A RESULT THEREOF FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN ITA NO 304 /PN/10 HEREIN ALSO THE PENALTY IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 11 28. IN THE RESULT ITA NO 330/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF M /S SNEH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT P. LTD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 I S ALLOWED. 29. ITA NO 331/PN/10 IS AN APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT P. LTD. DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) DATED 25.11.2009 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-01 WHEREBY A PENALTY OF RS 15 LAKHS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 27 1D OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT HAS BEEN LEVIED. 30. BEFORE US IT WAS A COMMON POINT BETWEEN THE PART IES THAT IN SO FAR AS THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN RELATION TO LOAN OF RS 3 50 000/- RAISED FROM SHRI BHUPENDRAKUMAR H. SHAH BY BEARER CHEQUES IS CONCERNED TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONSIDERED BY US IN ITA NO 304/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE M/S SNEH FINANCE & INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. AS A RESULT THEREOF FOLLOWING OUR DECISION IN ITA NO 304/PN/10 HEREIN ALSO THE PENALTY OF RS 3 50 000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE D ELETED. 31. IN SO FAR AS THE PENALTY OF RS 11 50 000/- IS CONCE RNED THE SAME RELATES TO AMOUNTS SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM SHRI B.H. SHAH AND GROUP CONCERNS. THE CASE SET-UP BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI B.H. SHAH SEVERAL BLANK CHEQUES WITH AMOUNTS AND DATES MENTIONED ON THEM BELON GING TO SNEH GROUP INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND WHICH AGGREGATED TO RS 1 10 00 000/-. AS PER THE REVENUE HANDING OVER OF THESE CHEQUES TO SHRI B H SHAH THE LENDER LED TO A PRESUMPTION THAT EQUIVALENT AMOUNTS WERE BORROWED B Y THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN BY WAY OF MODES PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 269SS OF T HE ACT. DETAILS OF SUCH AMOUNTS ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 9.6 OF THE PENALTY OR DER AND IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED SUCH AMOUNTS TOTALLED TO RS 11 50 000 /-. ON THIS COUNT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D HAS BEEN LEVIED. 32. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT I N THE CASE OF M/S SNEH BUILDERS PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON SIMILAR FACT-SITUAT ION AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE 12 DETAILS CONTAINED IN PARA 9.6 OF THE PENALTY ORDER. S UCH PENALTY WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH BUILDERS IN IT A NO 520/PN/10 (SUPRA). 33. FOLLOWING THE PARITY OF REASONING GIVEN IN THE CA SE OF M/S SNEH BUILDERS IN ITA NO 520/PN/10 (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS 11 50 00 0/-. 34. IN THE RESULT ITA NO 331/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF M/S SNEH PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT P. LTD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 I S ALLOWED. 34. AS RESULT ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES A RE ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 29 TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE: DATED: 29 TH JULY 2011 B COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-IV PUNE 4. THE CIT CEN. PUNE 5. THE D.R B BENCH PUNE 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT PUNE BENCHES PUNE