Asstt.CIT Cir.-2,, Pune v. Sh. Giri Tikamdas Dua, Pune

ITA 904/PUN/2009 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 90424514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AGNPD7326B
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 904/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Asstt.CIT Cir.-2,, Pune
Respondent Sh. Giri Tikamdas Dua, Pune
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-03-2011
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 05-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES A : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO. AM I.T.A. NO. 904/PN/2009 : A.Y. 1997-98 ASSTT. CIT CIR. 2 PUNE. APPELLANT VS. SHRI GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A-1 GRAFICON TERRACE PLOT NO. 74 VIMAN NAGAR PUNE-14 PAN AGNPD 7326 B RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 36/PN/2010 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 904/PN/2009 : A.Y. 1997 -98 SHRI GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A-1 GRAFICON TERRACE PLOT NO. 74 VIMAN NAGAR PUNE-14 PAN AGNPD 7326 B CROSS OBJECTOR VS. ASSTT. CIT CIR. 2 PUNE. APPELLANT IN APPEAL DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ABHAY DAMLE ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SUNIL GANOO ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)II PUNE DATED 29-5-2009 FOR A.Y. 1997-98 ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 2 WHEREIN THE DELETION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 7 12 000/- HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A CROSS OBJECTION SUPPORTIN G THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A). 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S. TASMAC (TRA INING AND ADVANCE STUDIES IN MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION) AN D ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANAGEMENT TRAINING AND EDUCATION. THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 1997-98 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31-10-1997 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS . 2 34 800/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER RETURN OF INCOME ON 5-1-2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 6 34 799/- AND YET FILED ANOTHER RETURN ON 22-3-2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 20 14 799/-. THE ASSESSEE TERMED BOT H THESE RETURNS AS REVISED RETURNS. AS THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE OUT OF TIME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) THEY WERE NOT TREATED AS REVISED RETURNS AND THE SAME WERE IGNORED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) ON 21-3-2000 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 43 88 020/- WHICH WAS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CIT( A) VIDE ORDER DATED 2-1-2001. ACCORDINGLY FRESH ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 250 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLET ED ON ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 3 27-3-2002 COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 25 68 030/- . THE ADDITIONS INTER ALIA INCLUDED AS UNDER: UNDISCLOSED INCOME RS. 3 90 753/- BOGUS LOANS RS. 17 80 000- DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY RS. 54 000/- DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TELEPHONE EXP. RS. 25 000 /- DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRAVELING EXP. RS. 83 47 6/- 3. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 250 WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) PASSED AN O RDER U/S 250 OF THE ACT ON 8-12-2003 ALLOWING ASSESSEES APP EAL PARTLY. THEREAFTER ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 8-12-2003 WHE REIN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 148/PN/2004 DATE D 30-11- 2005 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30-11-2005 WAS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE ON 27-12-2005. ON RECEIPT OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(A). IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 23-6-2007 INTER ALIA STATING AS UNDER: ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 4 THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT HIS REPLY TO THE CAPTIONED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHICH IS AS UNDER: THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS ISSUED IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WHICH HAVE BEEN PARTLY CONFIRMED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITION OF RS.15 000. 00 IS MADE ON ACCOUNT O F ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED PERSONAL ELEMENT INVOLVED IN THE SAME. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT REGARDING THIS DISALLOWANCE NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOTICED EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTM ENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE SAID EXPENDITURE WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVE OF TAX EVASION. THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON AD HOC BASIS ON THE GROUND OF POSSIBLE PERSONAL ELEMENT INVOLVED IN THE SAME AND THUS THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON SUCH DISALLOWANCE MADE ON AD HOC AND ESTIMATE BASIS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARAYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.!. T. VS. AJAIB SINGH REPORTED IN 253 I. T.R.PAGE 630 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF AN EXPENSE PER SE CANNOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. CONCEALMENT . INVOLVES PENAL ACTION. IT HAS TO BE PROVED AS A CONSCIOUS ACT. THE NEXT DISALLOWANCE IS IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.83 476.00 OUT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.32 764.00 ON THE GROUND OF THE SAME BEING IN RESPECT O F THE FOREIGN TRIP UNDERTAKEN BY ASSESSEE'S MOTHER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THROUGH OVERSIGHT THE SAI D ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 5 AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO TRAVELING EXPENDITURE INSTEAD OF DEBITING TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT. AT THE YEAR END THE NECESSARY JOURNAL ENTRY HAD REMAINED TO BE PASSED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO MALAFIDE INTENTIONS IN THE MATTER. REGARDING FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 712.00 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE NECESSARY BILLS AS T HE SAME WERE MISPLACED. THE ASSESSEE UNDOUBTEDLY HAS TO UNDERTAKE FOREIGN TRAVEL FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS BUSINESS AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AUDITED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED O N THIS DISALLOWANCE. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.17 80 000.00 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNPROVED CASH CREDITS IT IS PERTINE NT TO NOTE THAT THE SAME ARE NOT THE CASH CREDITS BUT THE PROFESSIONAL FEES RECEIVED FROM THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES WHICH WERE ERRONEOUSLY SHOWN AS ADVANCES UNDER MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACTS. THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.L7 80 000. 00 IN FACT HAS BEEN OFFER ED AS INCOME FOR THE A. Y.1998-99 WHEN THE EXACT NATURE OF THIS RECEIPT WAS SORTED OUT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES. HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER EXPRESSED DOUBTS ABOUT TH E YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TO BE TAXED. THE ASSESSEE SOLELY WITH A VIEW TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AN D AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATION AGREED FOR TAXING THE S AID AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY FILED THE REVISED RETURN. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE INCOME OF THE A. Y: 1998-99. THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER CONCEALED THESE RECEIPTS BUT IN FACT HAD OFFERED THE SAME AS HIS INCOME FOR THE A. Y.1998-99 BEFORE DETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT AND HAD ALSO PAID THE TAX ON THE SAME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH E A SSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE SAID INCOME FROM THE DEPARTMENT OR HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS ABOU T THE SAME AND THEREFORE NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON THIS ADDITION. ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 6 LEGAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE MATTER THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO T HE FACT THAT YOUR LEARNED PREDECESSOR HAS NOWHERE IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION ABOUT TH E ALLEGED DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. A MERE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER ABOUT THE ALLEGED ACT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BODY O F THE ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT SPEAK ABOU T THE SATISFACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDIC TION. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT MERE DIRECTION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT THERE BEING SATISFACTION IS NO T A SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE ASSESSEE WOULD LIKE TO PLACE RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: C .I.T. VS. RAM COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES REPORTED IN 246 1. T. R. PAGE 568 [DEL) C.I.T. VS. MUNISH IRON STORE REPORTED IN 263 1. T. R. PAGE 484 [P&H] SINCE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT VALIDLY INITI ATED THE SAME NEED TO BE WITHDRAWN. 4. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE US IS WITH R EGARDS TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS LOANS OF RS. 17 80 000/- THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT THE CASH CREDITS BUT THE PROFESSIONAL FEES RECE IVED FROM THE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES WHICH WERE ERRONEOUSLY SHOW N AS ADVANCES UNDER MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACTS. SUBSEQUENT LY THE SAID AMOUNT F RS. 17 80 000/- HAS BEEN OFFERED AS I NCOME FOR THE A.Y. 1998-99 WHEN THE EXACT NATURE OF THIS RECEIPT ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 7 WAS SORTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AS SESSING OFFICER EXPRESSED DOUBTS ABOUT THE YEAR IN WHICH TH E SAID AMOUNT WAS TO BE TAXED. THE ASSESSEE SOLELY WITH A VIEW TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATIONS AGREED FOR TAXING THE SAID AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME FOR A.Y. 1 997-98 AND ACCORDINGLY FILED REVISED RETURN. AS A CONSEQU ENCE OF THIS WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) ON 31- 3-2000 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTE D FROM THE INCOME OF A.Y. 1998-99 BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAS NOT CONC EALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF RS. 17 80 000/-. 5. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E WAS FILED ON 31-10-1997 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 34 800/-. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER RETURN OF INCOME ON 5-1-2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16 34 799/-. IN THIS RETURN THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 14 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN LIABILITY SHOWN AS ON 31-3-1997. THE ASSESSEE FILED YET ANOTHER RE TURN ON 22-3-2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 20 14 799/ -. IN THIS RETURN THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 80 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN LIABILITIES SHOWN AGA INST ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 8 BULLS EYE OF RS. 1 80 000/- AND DUA FOUNDATION OF R S. 2 00 000/-. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE RETURNS FILED SUBSEQUENT TO THE FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN F OR A.Y. 1997-98 ARE THE REVISED RETURNS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AS THEY WERE OUT OF TIME A S PER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 139(5) OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THEM AS NULL AND VOID. THE STA ND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE INCOMES IN QUESTION WERE OFFERED IN THE REVISED RETURNS AND NOTHING WAS CONC EALED. AFTER REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 7 12 000/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONC EALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 17 80 000/- AS DISCUSSED ABOVE W HICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CA SE WHERE IT COULD BE TREATED AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14 00 000/- WAS OFFERED AS INCOME IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE ANY SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 9 THE TRANSACTION WAS CONCLUDED AND SETTLED WITH THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN THE NEXT YEAR AND THIS AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND INCOME BY THE ASSESS EE IN A.Y. 1998-99. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE ASSESSEE RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS (ITA NO. 746/PN/2006 FOR A.Y . 1998-99 DATED 30-1-2008 IN WHICH THE PENALTY WAS CANCELLED ON THE BASIS THAT WHEN THE ADVANCES OF RS . 14 82 803/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME IN THE NEXT FINAN CIAL YEAR AND TAX WAS DULY PAID ON THIS AMOUNT THEN THE PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) STOOD REBUTT ED BY THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINIO N THIS DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE FA CTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER IT CANNO T BE TREATED THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14 00 00 0/-. 7. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 3 80 000/ - RELATING TO TWO LOANS IT WAS MENTIONED THAT CONFIRM ATION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF LOANS IN THE NAME OF BULL S EYE OF ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 10 RS. 1 80 000/- AND DUA FOUNDATION OF RS. 2 00 000/- . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 3 80 000 /- WHICH WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RE TURNS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS WAS DONE IN RESPECT OF THE AM OUNT OF RS. 14 00 000/-. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 80 000/- AS INCOME AT T HE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A VIEW TO AVOI D PROTRACTED LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE OF MIND. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THIS CANNOT BE A CASE OF CONC EALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE HOLD TH AT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED PENAL TY OF RS. 7 12 000/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE UPH OLD THE SAME. 8. COMING TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE SINCE WE HAVE TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS JUST IFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE GOES ACADEMIC AND DOES NOT SURVIVE FOR CONSIDERATION. ITA NO. 904 & CO36/PN/09 GIRI TIKAMDAS DUA A.Y. 1997-98 11 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL SO DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 23 RD MARCH 2011 ANKAM COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEES 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT - II PUNE 4. CIT(A) III PUNE 5. ITAT D.R. A BENCH PUNE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE.