Finolex Cables Limited,, Pune v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,,

ITA 329/PUN/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 32924514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAACF2637D
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 329/PUN/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Finolex Cables Limited,, Pune
Respondent Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 22-11-2017
First Hearing Date 22-11-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 03-03-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH PUNE . BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY JM . / ITA NO S. 327 TO 330 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 08 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 FINOLEX CABLES LIMITED 26/27 MUMBAI - PUNE ROAD PIMPRI PUNE - 411018 PAN : AAACF2637D ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI J.G. PENDSE REVENUE BY : S MT. NIRUPAMA KOTRU / DATE OF HEARING : 22 - 11 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 1 1 - 2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY JM : TH IS BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 11 PUNE DATED 21 - 01 - 2016 COMMON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12. SINCE THE ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. THE ASSESSEE 2 ITA NO S. 327 TO 330/PUN/2016 A.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 IN ALL THE APPEALS HAS RAISED SOLITARY ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) R.W. RULE 8D. 2. SHRI J.G. PENDSE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 1 IN ALL THE APPEALS. THUS THE GROUNDS RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ARE AS UNDER : 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAIL TO APPRECIATE THAT SUB SECTION 2 AND 3 OF SECTION 14A AND RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE AS THE SAID PROVISIONS IMPOSING A SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCE LEADING TO TAX LIABILITY ARE SUBSTANTIVE AND NOT PROCEDURAL IN NATURE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PROVISION OF RULE 8D ARE APPLICABLE WHEN THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAD CONSIDERED AN AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 55 400/ - AS RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME AS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURE FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A. EXCEPT FOR CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE BY ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 3 OF APPEAL I DENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF IN SULATED WIRES & CABLES OPTIC FIBER CABLES CORRUGATED PVC FOAM SHEETS FINANCE TRADING IN GOODS RENDERING SERVICES LEASING LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY ETC. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PREDOMINANTLY INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF THE SISTER COMPANY FINOLEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED. THE INVESTMENT WAS STRATEGIC INVESTMENT AND NOT FOR TRADING OR EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF AFORESAID COMPANY IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1994 - 95. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED DIVIDEND INCOME FROM INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF SISTER CONCERN HOWEVER EARNING OF SUCH DIVIDEND WAS INCIDENTAL TO THE INVESTMENT. THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OWN 3 ITA NO S. 327 TO 330/PUN/2016 A.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 INTEREST FREE SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR MAKING STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN THE GROUP CONCERN . THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL HAD MADE SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT RECORDING REASONS FOR REJECTING ASSESSEES SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A AND WITHOUT RECORDING OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION MADE SUBSTAN TIAL DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN SPECIFIC FINDING AS TO WHY SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE I S INSUFFICIENT. THE ASSESSEE RAISED SPECIFIC GROUND BEFORE THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST THE MANNER OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT IT IS NOT EMINATING FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSE SSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY DISALLOWANCE U /S. 14A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A(2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IF ANY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT. THE LD. AR TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I . GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. 394 ITR 449 (SC); II . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. 150 DTR 45 (BOM); III . H.T. MEDIA LIMITED VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. 548/2015 DECIDED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON 23 RD AUGUST 2017. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SMT. NIRUPAMA KOTRU REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 4 ITA NO S. 327 TO 330/PUN/2016 A.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN A WELL REASONED ORDER HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE. 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN ALL THE APPE ALS BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST CONFIRMING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN GROUP CONCERN. BY VIRTUE OF SUCH INVESTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ENHANCED THE DISALLOWANCE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. THE DETAILS OF EXEMPT INCOME RECEIVED SUO - MOTO DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AS UNDER : ASSESSMENT YEAR TOTAL DIVIDEND INCOME R ECEIVED CLAIMED AS EXEMPT (IN RS.) SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE BY ASSESSEE (IN RS.) DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A APPLYING RULE 8D BY AO (IN RS.) 2008 - 09 13 72 45 640/ - 2 55 400/ - 1 17 74 029/ - 2009 - 10 12 51 22 953/ - 3 02 550/ - 1 61 02 610/ - 2010 - 11 4 24 98 032/ - 4 43 316/ - 1 01 86 592/ - 2011 - 12 13 56 23 646/ - 5 28 048/ - 1 18 34 013/ - 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(II) AND 8D(2)(III). IN FIRST APPEAL THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D(2)(II) AND CONFIRMED DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III). THE 5 ITA NO S. 327 TO 330/PUN/2016 A.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL HAS ASSAILED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D WITHOUT RECORDING SATISFACTION. 7. BEFORE PROCEEDINGS TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO FIRST REFER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO INCOME NOT INC LUDIBLE IN TOTAL INCOME. 14A. (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS CHAPTER NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RELATION TO SUCH INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH METHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAV ING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT. (3) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (2) SHALL ALSO APPLY IN RELATION TO A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY HIM IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT: A BARE PERUSAL OF SUB - SE CTION (2) TO SECTION 14A MAKES IT CLEAR THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT IS CORRECT OR OTHERWISE IS ONE OF THE PRE - CONDITIONS. THUS THE ROAD TO RULE 8D PASSES THROUGH SUB - SECTION (2) TO SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO INCORRECT CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE IS SINE - QUA - NON FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RUL E 8D. SUCH SATISFACTION CAN BE REACHED AND RECORDED ONLY WHEN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS VERIFIED. 6 ITA NO S. 327 TO 330/PUN/2016 A.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE OBSERVE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE PROCEEDED ON TO W ORKING OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D WITHOUT COMMENTING OR RECORDING SATISFACTION QUA SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE. THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO FIRST EXAMINE CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION SHOULD HAVE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOT DELIBERATED IN HIS ORDER AS TO WHAT WAS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE AND AS TO WHY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTLY PROCEEDED ON TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D WITHOUT EVEN TAKING NOT E OF SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) QUA NON - COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 14A . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.7. ..THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CONSIDERED CERTAIN AMOUNT AS DISALLOWABLE DOES NOT COME OUT FROM THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED IN THE ASST ORDER. IT APPEARS FROM THE ASST ORDER THAT BEFORE THE AO THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED TO EARN THE DIVIDEND INCOME. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D IN GREAT DETAIL IN HIS ORDER. T HUS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO REGARDING APPLYING RULE 8D IS THERE. TO SUPPORT HIS REASONING THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE 7 ITA NO S. 327 TO 330/PUN/2016 A.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 CASE OF LAP FINANCE & CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. IN ITA N OS. 1522 TO 1525/PN/2013 DECIDED ON 06 - 11 - 2015. 10. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN COMING TO CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION REGARDING APPLYING RULE 8D. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT RELIANC E PLACED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LAP FINANCE & CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS MISPLACED AS THE FACTS OF AFORESAID CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THE SAID CASE THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY SELF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE AGAINST EXEMPT INCOME EARNED. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS. 11. A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE OUTSET ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EXPLANATION AS TO WHY PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF INTER EST EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER RULE 8D R.W. SECTION 14A OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF FIRST EXAMINING THE SUO - MOTO DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSEE AND SEEKING EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE THE MANNER OF COMPUTATION OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE AS IF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D IS AUTOMATIC IRRESPECTIVE OF THE GENUINENESS OF CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE. 12. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO RECORD OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S. 14A. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDINGS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT REA DS AS UNDER : 5. IT IS UNDISPUTED POSITION BEFORE US THAT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. R. 8D OF THE RULES WOULD BE APPLICABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THIS 8 ITA NO S. 327 TO 330/PUN/2016 A.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 COURT IN GODREJ &. BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DY. CIT (2010) 234 CTR (BORN) 1: (2010) 43 DTR (BOM) 177: (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM). HOWEVER WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE NON - SATISFACTION OF THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE DONE BY THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE HAS TO BE AN OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION WHICH ENTAILS RECORDING OF REASONS AS HEL D BY THIS COURT IN GODREJ AND BOYCE (SUPRA) IN PARA 55 WHILE RECORDING SUMMATION OF ITS CONCLUSION AS UNDER: '(IX) THE SATISFACTION ENVISAGED BY SUB - S. (2) OF S. 14A IS AN OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION THAT HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY THE AO HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAFEGUARD INTRODUCED BY SUB - SO (2) OF S. 14A FOR A FAIR AND REASONABLE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE AO CONDITIONED AS IT IS BY THE REQUIREMENT OF AN OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION MUST THEREFORE BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED. AN OBJECTIVE SATISFACTION CONTEMPLATES A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ON RECORD ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDING HIS ACCOUNTS AND RECORDING OF REASONS BY THE AO IN THE EVENT THAT HE COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WIT H THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE:' 6. THUS NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE AO SHOULD SHOW FALLACIES IN THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE DONE BY THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE. THUS THERE IS NO REASON TO DISCARD THE DISA LLOWANCE DONE BY THE RESPONDENT - ASSESSEE. 13. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN A RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RELIANCE CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LTD. REPORTED AS 86 TAXMANN.COM 200 HAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT COMMENTED UPON THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE ASSESSEES WORKING OF EXPENDITURE FORMULA PRESCRIBED IN RULE 8D(2)(III) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO WORK OUT DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A. 14. THUS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14 R.W. RULE 8D IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (2) TO SECTION 14A . HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASS ESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS. 2 9 ITA NO S. 327 TO 330/PUN/2016 A.YS. 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 AND 3 RAISED IN THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 15. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN THE APPEALS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 TO 2011 - 12 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE FORESAID TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 28 TH NOVEMBER 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 1 PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL) PUNE 5. / DR ITAT B BENCH PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER / PRIVATE SECRETARY / ITAT PUNE