Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Income-Tax Officer,, vs Brig. Raj Vijayender Singh,, New Delhi on 26 July, 2017
आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पण
ु े न्यायपीठ "बी" पण
ु े में
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE
सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM
आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1255/PUN/2016
यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward 11(4), Pune .... अऩीऱाथी/Appellant
Vs.
Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder,
Station Head Quarters Palchan,
P.O. Palchan,
Manali, (H.P.) - 175103 .... प्रत्यथी / Respondent\
ABBPB7233J
आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.2300/PUN/2016
यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward 11(3), Pune .... अऩीऱाथी/Appellant
Vs.
Brig. Raj Vijayender Singh,
DDGST (PPP & OL)
Dte.Gen of Sup & Tpt,
QMG's Branch,
Integrated HQ of MOD (Army),
Sena Bhawan, DHQ PO,
New Delhi - 110011 .... प्रत्यथी / Respondent
PAN: AMWPS6474N
Assessee by : Shri J.C. Jain
Revenue by : Shri Vivek Aggarwal
2
ITA No.1255/PUN/2016
ITA No.2300/PUN/2016
Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr
सन
ु वाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख /
Date of Hearing : 13.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 26.07.2017
आदे श / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
Both the appeals filed by the Revenue relating to different assessee are against separate orders of CIT(A)-I, Pune, dated 10.03.2016 & 19.07.2016 relating to assessment year 2008-09 against respective orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. The issue arising in both the appeals relating to different assessee is identical and for the sake of convenience, we proceed to decide both the appeals by way of this consolidated order. However, reference is being made to the facts and issue in ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 to adjudicate the issue.
3. The Revenue in ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and on facts and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.1,77,34,396/- made under the head „income from Capital Gains‟.
3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in not appreciating the fact that transfer of the Capital Asset took place in the previous year and the income is deemed to be the income of the previous year. In this case the „entire consideration‟ accrued on transfer of capital asset in assessment year 2008-09, even though the balance payment of cash and flat was to be received in due course of time. Section 48 of the Act takes into consideration the full value of the consideration received as accruing as result of the transfer of the capital asset. In this case the full value of consideration has accrued to the assessee in the assessment year 2008-09.3 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016
Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr
4. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
4. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made under the head 'Income from capital gains' at Rs.1,77,34,396/-.
5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,81,418/-. The assessee had declared income from salary. The Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act as information was received that the assessee was member of M/s. Defence Services Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Mohali (hereinafter referred to as Society), which was having 27.03 acre of land in village Kansal, Dist. SAS Nagar and the Society had entered into a tripartite agreement with M/s. TATA Housing Developing Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'THDC') and M/s. Hash Builders Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Hash builders') for sale of land to them. The members of the Society in lieu of, had to get consideration in cash as well as in kind as per their plot size. The assessee during the year under consideration had received Rs.32 lakhs as his property share and proceedings were initiated holding the assessee to be liable to capital gains tax. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and thereafter, notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued along with questionnaire to furnish the requisite information. In response thereto, the assessee stated that the Joint Development Agreement between the Society and THDC and Hash builders had been terminated. However, no proof to substantiate the same was furnished by the assessee. The Assessing Officer called for information from the Society and THDC and Hash builders under section 133(6) of the Act 4 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016 Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr whether the agreement for sale had been terminated and also asked as to how much payment was made to the members. The Society informed that the copy of termination notice dated 31.10.2011 was sent to THDC and Hash builders, who in turn, vide letter dated 26.02.2014 / 23.02.2014 informed that the agreement was not terminated till date. The Assessing Officer considered the factual aspects of the case, wherein the assessee was the member of Defence Services Co-operative House Building Society and owned 500 sq.yds. of plot in the said society, which in turn, owned approximately 27.03 acre of land in village Kansal, District Mohali adjacent to Chandigarh. The Assessing Officer referred to the tripartite joint development agreement dated 27.04.2007 between the Society, THDC and Hash builders by which it was agreed upon that the Society, owner of 27.03 acres of land shall transfer its land to THDC, in lieu of monetary consideration and also consideration in kind. As per the agreement, the assessee having plot area of 500 sq. yds. in the society was to receive Rs.80 lakhs as monetary consideration and one furnished flat admeasuring 2250 sq.ft. to be constructed by THDC. The total monetary consideration receivable by all the individual members of the Society taken together was Rss.124.72 crores. The Assessing Officer noted that in addition to the consideration of Rs.80 lakhs, the total cost of furnished flat admeasuring 2250 sq.ft. would be Rs.1,01,25,000/-. Thus, the total consideration accruing to the assessee was Rs.1,81,25,000/-. The Assessing Officer then referred to various clauses of the joint development agreement, copy of which is reproduced at pages 3 to 9 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer further notes that the assessee along with other members had furnished allotment letters and in turn, their rights in the land in lieu of entire consideration. Further, as per para 4.1 of the agreement, owner granted and assigned the development rights in the property irrevocably and in perpetuity to 5 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016 Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr the THDC to develop the property and for transfer of property upon the surrender of allotment rights by the members vide Resolution dated 08.03.2007 and 25.03.2007. The Assessing Officer after considering various terms agreed upon concluded that the members had furnished their allotment rights and the society on behalf of the members had entered into a Joint Development Agreement in lieu of the entire consideration as described in the Joint Development Agreement. The receipt of consideration was structured and the assessee received part of the consideration during the financial year which was not dependent on whose demarcated land was registered. The Assessing Officer held that after surrender of the allotment rights, the entire property was taken as one and part of entire consideration was distributed amongst all the members as per the payment schedule. He was of the view that the actual date of receipt of consideration does not decide the year of taxability of capital gains for the fact that as per section 45 of the Act, any profits under the head 'capital gains' shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. He then held that the Joint Development Agreement was in fact the sale agreement resulting into transfer of assets, wherein all the factors of transfer i.e. consideration, schedule of payment, rights and liabilities of each of the three parties and termination, indemnity and arbitration clauses were very exhaustively mentioned in the said agreement. The capital gain was held to have arisen in the hands of assessee in view of section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)(v) and 2(47)(vi) of the Act. He also referred to clauses 2.1 of the said agreement, wherein the owner had handed over original title deeds of the property and had also handed over the physical, vacant possession of the property to THDC, simultaneously to the execution and registration of the agreement to develop the same. The Assessing Officer thus, held that the case of assessee was covered under section 2(47)(v) of the Act. He also held 6 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016 Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr that the amounts received under the said agreement could not be treated as advance received and in actual was the sale consideration. The Assessing Officer further was of the view that the value of flat was to be taken as part of the full value of the consideration for computing the capital gains. The Assessing Officer thus, took the full value of consideration at Rs.1,81,25,000/- and computed the income from capital gains in the hands of assessee at Rs.1,77,34,396/-.
6. The CIT(A) considered the plea of assessee that the joint development agreement between the Society, THDC and Hash builders stood terminated and further the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Shri C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT and others in ITA No.200 of 2013 (O&M) decided the issue on 22.07.2015 in favour of assessee and held that no capital gain was required to paid in respect of remaining land. The CIT(A) further informed the Assessing Officer that the only issue to be considered was taxability of Rs.32 lakhs received by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the report did not comment otherwise on the said issue. The CIT(A) thus, held that sum of Rs.32 lakhs received by the assessee was to be considered as consideration in respect of its right in the plot and subject to capital gains. The CIT(A) also directed in case any amount was received further, the Assessing Officer would be free to charge the capital gains at that point of time as per the Hon'ble High Court's order.
7. The next plea of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that the Assessing Officer had not allowed the benefit of section 54F of the Act, wherein he had paid Rs.32 laksh to M/s. Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to calculate long term capital gains, if any, after considering 7 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016 Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr the sale consideration of Rs.32 lakhs received in respect of plot in the society and after allowing the deduction under section 54 of the Act on account of investment of Rs.32 lakhs in Flat No.401, Raheja Atharva, Sector 109, Gurgaon, which was paid on 11.02.2008 to M/s. Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.1,77,34,396/-, against which the Revenue is in appeal.
8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Shri C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT (supra). He pointed out that the other owners of plot of land, who had also entered into tripartite agreement with THDC and Hash builders. He filed on record the copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Shri C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT (supra). He further pointed out that even in the case of Co-operative House Building Society, the issues have been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and in this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Punjabi Co-operative House Building Society Vs. CIT & Anr (2016) 386 ITR 116 (P&H).
9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer.
10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present appeal is against assessability of income from long term capital gains in the hands of assessee. The assessee was member of M/s. Defence Services Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Mohali, wherein 8 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016 Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr he had plot of land of 500 sq.yds. The said Society entered into a tripartite agreement with THDC and Hash builders for sale of land to them. As against the sale consideration, the assessee was to receive consideration in cash and also in kind. The assessee was entitled to receive Rs.80 lakhs and also flat of 2250 sq.ft. and the Assessing Officer computed the value of said flat at Rs.1,01,25,000/- and hence, computed full consideration accruing to the assessee at Rs.1,81,25,000/-. The case of assessee was that because of certain issues, the Joint Development Agreement between the Society, THDC and Hash builders was terminated. The Assessing Officer called for information under section 133(6) of the Act and both the THDC and Hash builders vide separate letters intimated that the Joint Development Agreement was not cancelled. The Assessing Officer in view of the clauses of Joint Development Agreement concluded that the assessee though had received part consideration but in view of provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Act, the capital gains arising on the sale of land by the assessee by way of surrender to the Society and in turn, the Society entering into tripartite agreement, arose in the instant assessment year. He referred to various clauses of the Agreement and concluded so. It may be pointed out herein itself that similar transaction of entering into Joint Development Agreement with THDC and Hash builders was undertaken by various persons who owned plots of land and by several house building societies who owned pieces of land. The said dispute of assessability of capital gains in the hands of assessee in the year under consideration i.e. in the year when partial consideration was received and the agreement was entered into by which, as per the Assessing Officer, when the possession was handed over, the transfer is deemed to have taken place under section 2(47)(v) of the Act, was decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in bunch of appeals.
9ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016
Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr
11. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT in ITA No.200 of 2013 (O&M), judgment dated 22.07.2015 on similar facts and issue as in the case of assessee had decided the appeals. The Hon'ble High Court had referred to the facts of the case that there was an agreement to sell piece of land for development, under which the sale consideration was to be paid in parts and beside part cash consideration, the sellers were entitled to receive a flat in the building proposed to be constructed on the said project itself. However, because of certain clearance not being granted by the State authorities and because of intervention of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the development of said project, the project was shelved and the assessee had not received balance part consideration nor the assessee had received the flat in the said project. The plea of assessee was that in view of various obstacles, the assessee was not in a position to receive part cash consideration and consideration in the form of flat and because of the circumstances, the assessee pleaded that it could not be held liable to pay the capital gains on the complete consideration agreed upon between the parties. The assessee in the individual cases had already offered capital gains tax on the amount it had received in the respective years on transfer of portion of land. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT (supra) considered that the following issues emerged for consideration and adjudication:-
"9. The following issues emerge for consideration and adjudication:-
(i) scope and legislative intent of Section 2(47)(ii), (v) and (vi) of the Act;
(ii) the essential ingredients for applicability of Section 53A of 1882 Act;
(iii) meaning to be assigned to the term "possession"?
(iv) whether in the facts and circumstances, any taxable capital gains arises from the transaction entered by the assessee?"10 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016
Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr
12. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana took into consideration the definition of 'transfer' under section 2(47) of the Act with special reference to provisions of clause (v) and (vi) introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 01.04.1988 and also noted the decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts and also Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT (2003) 260 ITR 491 (Bom) and held as under:-
"17. Adverting to clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Act, it may be noticed that the scope and ambit of this clause as explained by CBDT in its circular No.495 dated 23.9.1987 has already been reproduced above. On perusal of this clause, it would be clear that it was intended to cover those cases of transfer of ownership where the prospective buyer becomes owner of the property by becoming a member of a company, cooperative society etc. In the present case, JDA was executed between the society and the developers and there was no transaction involving the developer becoming member of a cooperative society/company etc. in terms of Section 2(47) (vi) of the Act. The surrender of right to obtain plot by the members was for facilitating the society to enter into the JDA with the developers. There was no change in the membership of the society as contemplated under Section 2 (47)(vi) of the Act. Equally Clause (ii) of Section 2(47) of the Act has no applicability in as much as there was no extinguishment of any rights of the assessee in the capital asset at the time of execution of JDA in the absence of any registered conveyance deed in favour of the transferee in view of judgments in Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT, (1965) 57 ITR 185 (SC) and Additional CIT vs. Mercury General Corporation (P) Limited, (1982) 133 ITR 525 (Delhi)."
13. In respect of ingredients for applicability of section 53A of TP Act, the said provisions were analyzed by the Hon'ble High Court and reference was made to various decisions and it was held as under:-
"24......
Thus, it would mean that Section 53A of 1882 Act has been bodily transposed into Section 2(47)(v) of the Act and the effect of it would be that Section 53A of 1882 Act shall be taken to be an integral part of Section 2 (47)(v) of the Act. In other words, the legal requirements of Section 53A of 1882 Act are required to be fulfilled so as to attract the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act."
14. Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court considered the question of possession which was one of the essential conditions for enforceability of section 53A of the TP Act and also referred to the judgment delivered by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in Re Jasbir Singh Sarkaria (2007) 294 ITR 196 (AAR) and took note of various clauses of agreement between the parties 11 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016 Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr and also the caluses of Irrevocable Power of Attorney issued and it was the case of Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court that where the Development Agreement has been executed followed by registered Special Power of Attorney and when read together, supported the view that the provisions of section 53A of the TP Act stood fulfilled and as a necessary corollary transaction was exigible to capital gains tax under section 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 45 of the Act in the hands of assessee. After referring to various clauses of the agreement under paras 39 to 42 and the Hon'ble High Court concluded as under:-
"43. In view of preceding analysis, it is reiterated that from the cumulative effect of covenants contained in JDA dated 25.2.2007 read with registered special power of attorney dated 26.2.2007, it cannot be held that the mandatory requirements of Section 53A of 1882 Act were complied with which stood incorporated in Section 2(47) (v) of the Act. Once that was so, it could not be said that the assessee-appellants were liable to capital gains tax in respect of remaining land which was not transferred by them to the developer/builder because of supervening event not on account of any volition on their part.
44. Viewed from another angle, it cannot be said that any income chargeable to capital gains tax in respect of remaining land had accrued or arisen to the appellant-assessee in the facts of the case. Considering the issue of taxability of income with regard to its accrual or receipt as the basis for charging income tax, the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City vs. Messrs Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) observed that income tax is a levy on income and where no income results either under accrual system or on the basis of receipt, no income tax is exigible. The relevant observations read thus:-
"Income tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income-tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income, if income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even tough in bookkeeping, an entry is made about a " hypothetical income " which does not materialize. Where income has, in fact, been received and is subsequently given up in such circumstances that it remains the income of the recipient, even though given up, the tax may be payable. Where, however, the income can be said not to have resulted at all, there is obviously neither accrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that, effect might, incineration circumstances, have been made in the books of account."
This pronouncement was applied by the Supreme Court in Godhra Electricity Co. Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC) and followed by the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Balarampur Commercial Enterprises Limited, (2003) 262 ITR 439 (Cal.)."
12ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016
Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr
15. The conclusion of the Hon'ble High Court thus, was as under:-
"46. We summarize our conclusions as under:-
1. Perusal of the JDA dated 25.2.2007 read with sale deeds dated 2.3.007 and 25.4.2007 in respect of 3.08 acres and 4.62 acres respectively would reveal that the parties had agreed for pro-rata transfer of land.
2. No possession had been given by the transferor to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of JDA dated 25.2.2007 so as to fall within the domain of Section 53A of 1882 Act.
3. The possession delivered, if at all, was as a licencee for the development of the property and not in the capacity of a transferee.
4. Further Section 53A of 1882 Act, by incorporation, stood embodied in section 2(47)(v) of the Act and all the essential ingredients of Section 53A of 1882 Act were required to be fulfilled. In the absence of registration of JDA dated 25.2.2007 having been executed after 24.9.2001, the agreement does not fall under Section 53A of 1882 Act and consequently Section 2(47)(v) of the Act does not apply.
5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee appellant that whatever amount was received from the developer, capital gains tax has already been paid on that and sale deeds have also been executed. In view of cancellation of JDA dated 25.2.2007, no further amount has been received and no action thereon has been taken. It was urged that as and when any amount is received, capital gains tax shall be discharged thereon in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid stand, while disposing of the appeals, we observe that the assessee appellants shall remain bound by their said stand.
6. The issue of exigibility to capital gains tax having been decided in favour of the assessee, the question of exemption under Section 54F of the Act would not survive any longer and has been rendered academic.
7. The Tribunal and the authorities below were not right in holding the assessee-appellant to be liable to capital gains tax in respect of remaining land measuring 13.5 acres for which no consideration had been received and which stood cancelled and incapable of performance at present due to various orders passed by the Supreme Court and the High Court in PILs. Therefore, the appeals are allowed."
16. The facts and issue arising in the present appeal before us are identical to the facts and issue before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.S. Atwal Vs. CIT (supra) and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the capital gains on sale of land by the assessee arises in the present year 13 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016 Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr only to the extent of Rs.32 lakhs received by the assessee. Thus, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in holding that sum of Rs.32 lakhs is to be considered as consideration in place of Rs.1.81 crores in respect of rights in the said plots which are to be subject to assessability as income from capital gains. As against the said capital gains, the assessee had claimed deduction on account of flat purchased in M/s. Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd. The assessee claims to have paid Rs.32 lakhs to M/s. Raheja Developers Pvt. Ltd., hence, the assessee is entitled to claim the said benefit under section 54F of the Act.
17. Before parting, we may also refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Punjabi Co-operative House Building Society Vs. CIT & Anr (supra), wherein it was also held that since no possession had been given by the assessee to the transferee of the entire land in part performance of the Joint Development Agreement and where the possession delivered, if any, as a licencee for development of the property and not in the capacity of transferee, then the transaction did not fall with the ambit of section 53A of the T.P. Act, 1882 and consequently, section 2(47)(v) of the Act did not apply. The parties therein had urged that as and when any land would be received, then capital gains tax would be discharged thereupon. The Hon'ble High Court held that the assessee should remain bound by its stand. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that in the year under consideration, the assessee is liable to pay capital gains tax, if any, on sale consideration of Rs.32 lakhs and in case any other amount is received in subsequent years, then as in the case of other Co-operative House Building Societies, the assessee herein also would be bound to pay the capital gains in the year of receiving of any other consideration. Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 14 ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 ITA No.2300/PUN/2016
Lt. Col. Parshottam Singh Binder & Anr
18. The facts and issue in ITA No.2300/PUN/2016 are identical to the facts and issue in ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 and our decision in ITA No.1255/PUN/2016 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No.2300/PUN/2016.
19. In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 26th day of July, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA)
ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 26th July, 2017.
GCVSR
आदे श की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant;
2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent;
3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-I, Pune;
4. आयकर आयुक्त / The Pr. CIT-I, Pune;
5. ववबागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩण ु े "फी" / DR 'B', ITAT, Pune;
6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file.
ु ार/ BY ORDER, आदे शािस सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune