Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Oriental Rubber Industries Ltd, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax on 12 November, 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "A", PUNE
BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV,
JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND
SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1144/PN/2012
A.Y. 2008-09
Addl. CIT, Range-3,
Pune Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Oriental Rubber Industries Ltd.,
Shravani Garden,
20 Viman Nagar Road, Pune
PAN: AAACO 1592L Respondent
Appellant by : Shri P.L. Pathade
Respondent by : Shri Kishor Phadke
Date of Hearing: 12.11.2013
Date of order : 27.11.2013
ORDER
PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM
This appeal has been filed by revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II [(in short CIT(A)-II], Pune, dated 12-01-2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 on the following grounds:
1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs.34,66,768/-2
made in the assessment by applying the provisions of sec. 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, instead of confirming the said addition.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that in the Tax Audit Report, the Auditor himself had quantified the profits as per the provisions of sec. 145A at Rs.10,90,44,768/- whereas the net profit as per the Profit and Loss account was Rs.10,55,78,000/-; and also that the Auditor had given no justification for his comments that the impact of the deviation from the method of valuation prescribed under sec. 145A would be NIL.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate the facts and law so elaborately and justifiably brought out in the assessment order in support of the addition.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs.28,47,463/- made in the assessment by applying the provisions of sec.2(24)(x) r.w.s.36(1)(va) instead of confirming the said addition.
6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the payments made by an assessee in respect of the employees contribution to Provident Fund are governed by the provisions of sec.36(1)(va) and the Explanation thereunder whereas the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd., 319 ITR 206 (2009), relied upon by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dealt with the provisions of sec.43B in respect of employer's contribution towards Provident Fund, and hence, the said decision would not apply.
7. In view of the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in mistaking the due date for paying the impugned contributions as the due date of filing of the Return of Income whereas the applicable due date is as prescribed in the Explanation under sec.36(1)(va); and the assessee had not made the payments within the said applicable due dates.
8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,60,000/-
3made in the assessment u/s.41(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 instead of confirming the said addition.
9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the 'conveyance stamp duty payable' of Rs.23,60,000/- related to the year 1989 and the very fact that the matter was hanging for nearly 20 years would establish that the liability provided by the assessee in this regard was no longer payable.
10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in deleting the addition of Rs.14,53,562/- made in the assessment by way of disallowing the excess leave encashment provision made by the assessee which is a proven fact in view of the valuation of the liability as on 31/03/2008 made by the Actuary.
11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the excess provision towards liability which was no longer payable by the assessee as on 31/03/2008 had been correctly added in the assessment.
12. For these such other grounds as may be urged at the time of the hearing, the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any or all the grounds of appeal.
2. The assessee is a resident company engaged in the business of manufacturing rubber conveyer belts required in the material handling application in steel, coal, cement, power generation plants, fertilizers, mining, quarrying and food industries. The assessee company filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.8,30,53,440/- and same has been assessed u/s. 143(3) determining the total income at Rs.9,68,23,233/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer has made addition on account of following disallowances / addition.
41. Rs.34,66,768/- u/s.145A
2. Rs.28,74,463/- u/s.2(24)(x)
3. Rs.36,42,000/- u/s. 37(1)
4. Rs.23,60,000/- u/s.41(1)
5. Rs.14,53,562/- u/s. 37(1) extra provision of leave encashment
3. First issue is with regard to addition of Rs.34,66,768/- made in the assessment order by Assessing Officer by applying provisions of sec.145A of I.T. Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that Tax Audit Report submitted by assessee mentioned with respect to deviation from method of valuation prescribed u/s.145A of I.T. Act. It has been mentioned that profits as per provisions of sec.145A of I.T Act was Rs.10,90,44,768/- whereas net profit as per Profit and Loss Account Rs.10,55,78,000/- and annexure -3 of the Tax Audit Report it was mentioned that impact on Profit and Loss Account due to deviation from method of valuation prescribed u/s.145A was NIL. Assessing Officer has sought an explanation from the assessee with respect to disallowance of Rs.34,66,768/- u/s. 145A of I.T Act. After considering the submissions on behalf of assessee, Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.34,66,768/-.
3.1 Matter was carried before first appellate authority, wherein CIT(A) has considered the submissions on behalf of assessee and CIT(A) granted relief and same has been opposed by revenue, inter alia stated that CIT(A) grossly erred in deleting addition of Rs.34,66,768/- made in the assessment by applying provision of sec. 145A of I.T Act instead of confirming the said addition. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the Tax Audit Report, Auditor himself had quantified profit as per provisions of sec.145A at Rs.10,90,44,768/- whereas, net profit as per Profit and Loss Account was Rs.10,55,78,000/- and also that Auditor has given 5 no justification for his comments that impact of deviation from method of valuation prescribed u/s.145A would be NIL. Accordingly, requested to set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored that of Assessing Officer on the issue.
3.2 The stand of the assessee has been that assessee company followed the exclusive method of accounting and as per the computation of method of valuation of closing stock, a detailed working was submitted in Tax Audit Report certifying that impact of sec.145A on profit of company was NIL. Detailed working was given before CIT(A). Accordingly, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition in question. Same should be upheld.
3.3 After going through the rival submission and material record, we find that assessee has choice of using method of valuation of stock. He is required to follow the same year after year where method is consistently followed, it is not open to Assessing Officer to question the same by imposing different methods and having accepted a method it is not open to Assessing Officer to question the same. The issue relating to whether value of closing stock of inputs, work in progress and finished goods must necessarily include element for which modvat credit is available was debatable issue at relevant point of time. Provisions of sec. 145A clarify that while computing value of inventory as per method of accounting regularly employed by assessee, same shall include the amount of tax, duty, cess or fees paid or liability incurred for same under any law in force, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sec.145A. The explanation to sec. 145A provide that for the purpose of this section any tax, duty, cess or fee under any law for the time being in force shall include all such payments notwithstanding any right arising as consequence to such payment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co.
6Ltd., (2003) 261 ITR 275 (SC) pointed out that value of unconsumed raw material and work in progress at the end of the year at net method would be consistent with the principles of accountancy. Adopting gross method for purchase and net method for unsold stock at the end of year is not so consistent and is not permissible. Adoption of uniform net method could not be faulted, where it is consistently adopted that excise duty is payable on removal from factory site. But where closing stock was not cleared, there is no liability to pay excise duty, so that it could not be added in valuation of closing stock. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. English Electric Co. of India Ltd., (2000) 243 ITR 512 (Mad) relied upon the nature of excise duty for decision as to whether excise duty should be added to the value of closing stock. Hon'ble High Court observed that it does not become cost till excise duty is leviable on such production. Since it was leviable only on removal mere prospect of liability could not converted into an assets in the manner expected by Assessing Officer. If such liability has been incurred it could have been added to the stock while claiming liability itself as a charge on profit where there has been no such charge, the inference that amount should be added to closing stock would not be correct. This reasoning will possibly not applicable in cases of disputed duty, where it has been adjudicated as payable in a later year.
3.1 It was found misunderstanding of this position of account and law, that has resulted in the enactment of sec. 145A requiring any tax actually paid or incurred by the assessee to bring goods to the place of its location as on the date of valuation to be added to the closing stock. But even this provision, if properly understood would refer to excise duty "actually paid or incurred". The question of inclusion of excise element in valuation of stock is now a matter governed by Sec. 145A and not 7 so much an issue to be decided on the basis of accounting principles. Section 145A has also been the subject matter of substitution by the Finance Act, 2009 with effect from A.Y. 2010-
11. Prior to this amendment the section did recognize the system regularly adopted, but subject to adjustment in respect of any tax, duty, cess, or fee with reference to actual payment, so that where no actual payment is made the amount could not be reckoned for purposes of inventory valuation. Sec. 145A covers only such tax or duty, which had been paid, it should not make a difference whether the manufactured goods in stock have left factory premises or not, so as to require clearance under the excise law. When the Assessing officer added the excise duty payable as soon as the goods were manufactured, the question of inclusion of excise over the uncleared goods cannot arise, though Sec.145A uses the expression "actually paid or incurred by the assessee". It can be treated as having been incurred only on clearance. It is under these circumstances, the addition for excise on goods, where even the payment has not been made, was found untenable by the Tribunal in Ashiwn A Shah Vs ACIT (2010) 1 ITR (Trib) 683 (Ahd) which relied and followed the decision of the High Court in CIT Vs English Electric Co of India Ltd, (supra) and CIT Vs Parry confectionary Ltd (2008) cited supra.
3.2 Where additions are made to the closing stock on the basis that the processing cost had not been correctly ascertained, the issue that arises, is whether similar revision of the opening stock would be necessary. The High Court in CIT Vs Indian National Tannery P Ltd (2005) 278 ITR 213 (ALL) found that the principle that the opening stock should be valued in the same manner as closing stock of the preceding year would appear to be the general rule. In the case of Melmould Corporation Vs CIT (1993) 202 ITR 787 (BOM), the High Court held that it is not necessary 8 to revalue the opening stock on the revised basis as done for closing stock. In coming to the conclusion, the High court had followed the decisions in CIT Vs Mopeds India Ltd (1998) 173 ITR 347 (AP) where it was pointed out that, if the opening stock were to be disturbed, there would be a snowballing effect, because of the closing stock of the immediately preceding year and the computation of every earlier year will need revision. It was made clear, that the principle, that no change is necessary for opening stock in such cases, would have application only where the assessee changes his method of valuation bonafide. Similar view was also taken in the case of CIT Vs Mahavir Aluminium Ltd (2008) 297 ITR 77 (Del).
3.3 In West Coast Paper Mills Ltd Vs CIT (2006) 286 ITR (AT) 252 (Mumbai), the Tribunal held that where there is a change in method of accounting adopted by the assessee including excise duty in closing stock, it is not open to the assessee to revalue the opening stock. In this case, the assessee had changed the method because of the statutory requirement of Sec. 145A of the IT Act. A similar issue had arisen in CIT Vs Mahalaxmi Glass works P Ltd (2009) 318 ITR 116 (BOM) where the assessee made a claim for adoption of closing stock of the previous year in the opening stock of succeeding year. The issue in this case related to stock valuation on adjustment of unutilized Modvat credit. The Tribunal allowed the adjustment. Since such adjustment was concealed by the departmental representative before the Tribunal that, it could issue a direction for verification for assessee's claim on facts, there was no question of law to be debated by the High Court.
3.4 The issue relating to whether the value of closing stock of the inputs, work-in-progress and finished goods must necessarily include the element for which MODVAT credit is 9 available was a debated topic. Section 145A was inducted to clarify that while computing the value of inventory as per the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee, the same shall include the amount of any tax, duty, cess or fees paid or liability incurred for the same. The explanation to Sec. 145A provides that for the purposes of this section, any tax, duty, cess or fees under any law for the time being in force, shall include all such payment notwithstanding any right arising as a consequence to such payment.
3.5 In the case of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Loknete Balasaheb Desai SSk Ltd (2011) 243 CTR (Bom) 181, it was held that the excise duty liability crystallizes on the date of clearance of excisable goods and not on the date of manufacture, and therefore, excise liability was not incurred by the assessee in respect of unsold sugar lying in stock and could not be included in the value of closing stock of sugar. It further held that the expression 'incurred by the assessee' in Sec. 145A (b) is followed by the words 'to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation1. Thus the expression 'incurred by the assessee' relates to the liability determined as tax, duty, cess or fee payable in bringing the goods to the place of its location and condition of the goods. Explanation to Sec. 145A(b) makes it further clear that the income chargeable under the head" Profit and gains of business" shall be adjusted by the amount paid as tax or duty. Therefore, the expression 'incurred' in Sec. 145A(b) must be construed to mean liability actually incurred by the assessee. In the case of excisable goods manufactured and lying in stock, excise duty liability crystallizing on the date of clearance of goods and not on the date of manufacture. Consequently, assessee cannot be said to have incurred the excise duty liability in respect of excisable goods lying in stock till the date of clearance of such goods.
103.6 In view of the above facts, and the ratio of judicial citations mentioned above the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.34,66,768/- was rightly deleted by CIT(A). This reasoned factual legal finding of CIT(A), need no interference from our side, wherein CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.34,66,768/- made by Assessing Officer by applying the provisions of sec.145A of I.T Act.
4. Next issue is with regard to disallowance made by Assessing Officer on account of contribution towards Provident Fund amounting to Rs.28,47,463/-. Assessing Officer noticed from the details of payment of employees contribution to PF that in certain months payments were realized beyond date. The details of same are as under:
S.No. Month Amount Amount Due Paid on Realized deducted paid Date on 1 April 07 374801 374801 15.05.07 15.05.07 22.05.07 2 June 07 273440 273440 15.07.07 16.07.07 21.07.07 3 July 07 256173 256173 15.08.07 16.08.07 23.08.07 4 Aug 07 304107 304107 15.09.07 17.09.07 22.09.07 5 Oct 07 323393 323393 15.11.07 15.11.07 21.11.07 6 Nov 07 322086 322086 15.12.07 15.12.07 22.1.08 7 Dec 07 320783 320783 15.1.08 15.1.08 22.1.08 8 Jan 08 336340 336340 15.2.08 15.2.08 22.2.08 9 Feb 08 336340 336340 15.3.08 15.3.08 25.3.08 4.1 Assessing Officer held that payments made by assessee of employees contribution to PF was beyond the stipulated period of 5 days grace allowed under provident fund account in his name as for 9 months mentioned above. So, he held that deduction as mentioned in section 36(1)(va) of I.T Act was not available to the assessee and accordingly, as per provisions of section 2(24)(x) 11 amount totaling to Rs.28,47,463/- which was total contribution paid beyond due date added to the total income.
4.2 The matter was carried before first appellate authority, wherein claim of assessee was allowed and the same has been opposed before us on behalf of revenue. On other hand, learned Authorized Representative supported the order of CIT(A) on the issue.
4.3 After going through the rival submissions and material record, we find that CIT(A) has followed apex court decision in the case of Alom Extrussions Ltd 319 ITR 306 (SC), which has been followed in CIT Vs. Raj Agro Industries Ltd (2011) 334 ITR 122 (P&H) observed that payments of ESI contribution made before due date of filing return could not be disallowed u/s. 43B.
Omissions of second proviso to 43B in curative nature and would apply retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1988. Thus, in view of above ratio discussed above payments made by assessee should be allowed, held by CIT(A). This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) no need of interference from our side. We held the same.
5. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of Rs.23,60,000/- towards stamp duty payable. During assessment proceedings, it was noticed by Assessing Officer that under current liabilities and provisions, details as per annex-3 showed an amount of Rs.23,60,000/- as conveyance deed, stamp duty payable. Assessee during the assessment proceedings explained before Assessing Officer that an agreement of sale had been entered into between assessee and M/s. Kukreja Development Corporation in the year 1989 with respect to property at Bhandup, Mumbai. As per agreement of sale, stamp duty was to be borne in ratio of 50:50 between buyer and seller and liability of the assessee was restricted to a maximum of Rs.23,00,000/-. The said amount of 12 stamp duty was to be due and payable when M/s. Kukreja Development Corporation completed registration formalities for said property at Bhandup, Mumbai. Hence, the amount has been shown payable. It was also stated by the assessee that as per terms of the agreement said amount was kept in a ESI bank account by Solicitor of the company and interest received / accrued was accounted in books of accounts. Assessing Officer held that amount payable was in dispute and that it was due and payable only after completion of the certain formalities by purchaser of the property. Liability could not be said to be ascertained or accrued liability and thus provision created by the assessee was not valid and had become contingent in nature. Accordingly, he added both the amount of Rs.23,60,000/- being liability in dispute and which had not become due and payable u/s. 41(1) of I.T Act.
5.1 Matter was carried before first appellate authority, wherein assessee was granted relief. Same has been opposed before us by revenue inter alia stated that CIT(A) was not justified in deleting addition in question made in assessment u/s. 41(1) of I.T Act instead of confirming the same. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that conveyance stamp duty payable of Rs.23,60,000/- related to the year 1989 and from fact that matter was hanging for 20 years would establish that liability provided by assessee in this regard was no longer payable. So, order of CIT(A) on issue be set-aside and Assessing Officer on the issue be restored. On other hand, learned Authorized Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).
5.2 After going through the rival submissions and material record, we find that liability which has been shown by assessee of stamp duty payable pertains to the transaction which took place in the year 1989 and as per terms of agreement of stamp 13 duty be share at 50:50 basis. The amount of Rs.23,60,000/- was set-aside by assessee and deposited with the solicitor of the assessee company. As the buyer had not registered the sale deed, the said amount has remained payable and which now became subject matter of the appeal as Assessing Officer has held the said liability to be in dispute and not payable by assessee and has taxed the amount u/s. 41(1) of I.T Act. The scope of section 41(1) is to bring tax any loss, expenditure or trading liability allowed in earlier year but, which is recouped by remission or cessation of such liability in later year. It would appear that deduction in earlier year was primary condition for jurisdiction u/s.41(1) when separate amount was kept, the credit therein, if had been taxable and had been taxed, remission or refund would get taxed u/s.41(1) since the section begins "where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment year for any year. Since no deduction in respect of stamp duty had been earlier claimed or allowed, the finding of Assessing Officer was not justified as per provisions of sec. 41(1) of I.T Act. In case of CIT Vs G.P. International Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 25 (P&H) wherein, there was an outstanding liability of Rs.3,30,000/- towards one of the creditor company. It was held that merely because assessee failed to prove the existence and genuineness of such liability, cessation of such liability could not be presumed so as to bring it to tax as deemed income u/s. 41(1) of I.T Act, with the result addition was deleted. In such case, liability was shown carried forward item of credit in balance sheet in later year is not found to be genuine. The proper course is only is to take reassessment proceedings for the year in which it was carried out and not in later year, since what was not genuine in later year could not have been genuine in the year it was booked as liability. In case of CIT Vs. Smt. Sita Devi Juneja (2010) 325 ITR 593 (P&H) wherein assessee having shown the impugned liability in its balance sheet and filed copies of accounts of 14 sundry creditors signed by concerned creditors, such liability could not be treated to have ceased because they are outstanding for this year and therefore, addition made u/s. 41(1) of I.T Act could not be sustained, more so when the Assessing Officer has failed to establish that deduction has been allowed in respect of any trading liability or that assessee has obtained any benefit concerning such liability by way of remission or cessation thereof in the relevant year. In view of above discussion, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer u/s. 41(1) of I.T Act. This reasoned factual finding needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.
6. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of Rs.14,53,562/- on account of provision for leave encashment. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed from the details of provisions for expenses, an amount of Rs.37,40,460/- had been provided towards leave encashment for period April 2007 to March 2008 and said amount was stated by assessee to be the closing balance of leave encashment payable as on 31.03.2008. However, as per actual valuation of liability towards leave encashment as was submitted by assessee such liability as on 31.03.2008 was only Rs.22,86,898/-. In the final accounts of balance sheet of assessee, provision of leave encashment was mentioned at Rs.22,86,898/-. Assessing Officer thus, held that provision made by assessee in books of accounts towards leave encashment of Rs.37,40,460/- was far in excess of assessee's liability determined by authentic actuarial valuation of Rs.22,86,898/-. Assessing Officer thus, held that assessee has made an excess provision of Rs.14,53,562/- (37,40,460 - 22,86,898) and that excess leave encashment provision so made by assessee of Rs.14,53,562/- was not actually liability of assessee and hence not payable and accordingly, an amount of Rs.14,53,562/- was added back to the income of the assessee.
156.1 In appeal, the same was deleted, which has been opposed before us on behalf of revenue, inter alia stated that CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.14,53,562/- made in the assessment by way of disallowing excess leave encashment provision made by assessee, which is proven fact in view of valuation of liability as on 31.03.2008 made by Assessing Officer. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that excess provision towards liability which was no longer payable by assessee as on 31.03.2008 had been correctly added in the assessment. Accordingly order of CIT(A) on the issue be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. On other hand, learned Authorized Representative relied on the decision of CIT(A).
6.2 After going through the rival submissions and material on record, it is found that expenditure debited to profit & loss account on account of leave encashment for the year under consideration of Rs.6,97,046/- was prima facie correct as in the table given by Assessing Officer in the assessment order with respect to year wise break up leave encashment disallowed. CIT(A) observed from the note attached to the table that out of aforesaid amount, Rs.4,40,495/- had been paid by assessee and balance unpaid amount of Rs.2,56,551/- had been disallowed. Assessing Officer however, held that entire amount shown as leave encashment payable to be provision made by assessee for the year under consideration and payable of Rs.37,40,458/- as leave encashment payable as on 31.03.2008 has been compared with the figures of final accounts, where provision was mentioned was at Rs.22,86,898/- and thus has wrongly inferred the difference of Rs.14,53,562/- to be extra provision made being for in excess of assessee's liability. The details as noted from table furnished in assessment order indicated the accumulated liability on account of leave encashment prior to 31.03.2002 to till A.Y. 2008-09. Assessee as himself disallowed unpaid liability 16 on account of leave encashment on year to year basis as per provisions of section 43B of I.T Act. In case disallowance has to be made for any unpaid amount, it has to be made in respect of assessment years to which such amount pertain to and not in one year i.e. A.Y. 2008-09 as done by Assessing Officer. In case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), the provision for leave encashment was held to be deductible and held the same to be contingent liability and not accrued liability. However, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was annulled by the amendment bringing provision for leave encashment within the purview of section 43B so that it is liable only on payment. As the assessee has already paid an amount of Rs.4,40,495/- and disallowed Rs.2,56,551/- himself in view of section 43B provision, out of the total amount debited of Rs.6,97,046/- to the profit & loss account, no further disallowance was called for. Assessing Officer's action of taking into account the book balance of unpaid liability of number of years and comparing the same with actual valuation for years together was not correct and therefore, no disallowance has made by Assessing Officer was called for. Accordingly, CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the same, this reasoned finding need no interference from our side. We upheld the same.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Court on the day 27th November, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Pune, Dated: 27th November 2013
GCVSR
17
Copy to:-
1) Department
2) Assessee
3) The CIT(A)-II, Pune
4) The CIT-II, Pune
5) The DR, "A" Bench, I.T.A.T., Pune.
6) Guard File
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Private Secretary,
I.T.A.T., Pune