B.D. Nibjiya Prop. Of Kamal ... vs Assessee

Shri Vijaykumar Devichand Nibjiya, .......... अपीलाथ / Office No.304/305/306, Appellant D-Wing, 3rd Floor, Business Court, Mukundnagar, Pune - 411037 PAN No.AANPN8491R

बनाम v/s

DCIT, Circle-5, Pune .......... यथ / Respondent

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1746/PN/2013 #लॉक अव ध / Block Period 1996-97 to 2002-03

Shri B.D. Nibjiya, Prop. of Kamal Enterprises, 526/71, Mahatma Phule Peth Opp. Sonmarg Theatre, Timbet Market, Pune 411 042 PAN No.AAJPN5611K .......... अपीलाथ / Appellant बनाम v/s

DCIT, Circle-5, Pune .......... यथ / Respondent

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1787/PN/2013 #लॉक अव ध / Block Period 1996-97 to 2002-03

Shri Devichand B. Jain, 526/71, Mahatma Phule Peth Opp. Sonmarg Theatre, Timbet Market, Pune 411 042 PAN No.ABBPJ 1405C .......... अपीलाथ / Appellant 2

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

बनाम v/s

DCIT, Circle-5, Pune .......... यथ /

Respondent

अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K. Srinivasan & Shri Vikay Kumar D. Nibjiya यथ क ओर से / Department by : Shri Mazar Akram P. Singh

सन ु वाई क तार ख / घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 30.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement:22.07.2015

आदे श / ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM :

The above 3 appeals filed by the respective assessees are

directed against the separate orders dated 26-07-2013 of the CIT(A)-

III, Pune relating to Block Period 1996-97 to 2002-03. Since identical

grounds have been taken by the respective assessees, therefore, for

the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being

disposed of by this common order.

2. First we take up ITA No.1745/PN/2013 in the case of Shri

Vijay Kumar Devichand Nibjiya as the lead case. Facts of the case, in

brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the

business as a Builder. In response to notice u/s.158BD the assessee

filed the block return in Form No.2B on 10-04-2006 declaring NIL

undisclosed income. During the course of assessment proceedings,

the AO called for the details of transactions made by the assessee in

respect of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers, Adoni (Andhra Pradesh) and

Rajashree Enterprises. The assessee in his reply stated that the 3

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

loans and interest payment are genuine and are reflected in regular

books of account and should not be treated as undisclosed income

u/s.68 and unexplained expenditure u/s.69.

3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted

that a search and seizure action u/s.132 of the I.T. Act was carried

out on 12-10-2001 in the case of M/s. Rajashree Enterprises,

Proprietor Shri Ramanlal Shah and M/s. Maheshwari Financiers,

Proprietor Shri Mahendra Shah at Adoni, Andhra Pradesh. It was

found that Shri Ramanlal Shah was the main person who had

generated unaccounted cash from various business activities which

was deposited in 1980 by opening many bank accounts in the name

of different HUFs and Kartas who were family members and

concerns. This process of deposit of cash in HUF accounts continued

till 1997-1998. He also wanted to accommodate other persons by

providing many lending list of members. To bring back the

unaccounted cash belonging to Shri Ramanlal Shah as well as other

businessmen at Pune into the regular books of accounts, Shri

Mahendra Shah and Shri Ramanlal Shah opened 2 financial

concerns at Adoni by opening bank accounts at Bank of India,

Bhavani Peth, Pune (Account No.1740 and 1728). The modus

operandi was to deposit cash into these bank accounts and to

immediately thereafter issue cheques in favour of Pune based

businessmen and to charge interest @18% from these concerns.

When the money was received back from the businessmen at Pune by

cheque, the cash was withdrawn from these bank accounts. Before

the income-tax authorities Shri Ramanlal Shah had claimed that the

2 financial concerns were based at Adoni and some of the activities

were carried out at Pune. The cash was withdrawn from the bank 4

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

accounts of the financial concerns at Adoni and brought to Pune

physically. However, on examination of the statements recorded of

the Accountant of Shri Ramanlal Shah and his own statement and

after further enquiries the AO of Shri Ramanlal Shah came to a

finding that the entire modus operandi was operated by the persons

receiving loan entries from these financial concerns. The assessee

was one of the persons who allegedly received the fictitious loan

amounts of Rs.22 lakhs spread over 3 assessment years.

4. The AO observed that in the cash book of M/s. Maheshwari

Financiers (SEA-12 seized on 11-10-2001) it was found that there are

two figures of balance of cash in hand, drawn at the end of each date,

from page No.21 dated 24-05-1999 to page 142 dated 30-03-2000.

The first balance was drawn in the regular course. The second

balance of cash in hand was drawn after certain cash expenses were

debited at a later date in the cash book. Due to certain discrepancies

the accountant of the firm, in whose hand writing these transactions

were written, was recorded. As per the said statement the AO

observed that the persons who have received cheques of loan entries

are mainly promoters and builders or persons involved in the

business where there is ample scope of generation of unaccounted

money like Timber, building materials, finance companies etc. These

persons have unaccounted cash available with them. It is brought

back to their books of accounts through these finance concerns.

Therefore, it can only be possible if these persons are either closely

related to Shah Sanghvi group or there were some sort of business

understanding or partnership with Shah group so that there is no

problem in the recovery of loan or the interest amount. The two

finance concerns, i.e. M/s. Maheshwari Financies and M/s. 5

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

Rajashree Enterprises have given the loan entries to Pune parties and

to give a colour of real transaction, interest was charged on these

loans and from this interest received interest payments were shown

to have been made to family and friendly HUFs. Relying on the

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal

Vs. CIT reported in 214 ITR 801 and the decision in the case of CIT

Vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540 the AO came to the

conclusion that the loan amount of Rs.22 lakhs given by M/s.

Maheshwari Financiers and M/s. Rajashree Enterprises to the

assessee was the assessee's own money which was routed through

the concerns of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers in the garb of loan. The

AO accordingly treated the amount of Rs.22 lakhs shown by the

assessee as loan received from M/s. Maheshwari Financiers, Adoni as

undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period being

unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the I.T. Act. Similarly, he also

disallowed the year-wise interest paid on such loan totaling to

Rs.7,03,485/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69 of the I.T. Act.

Thus, the AO determined the undisclosed income of the assessee for

the period at Rs.29,03,485/-.

5. Before CIT(A) the assessee challenged the validity of notice

issued u/s.158BD on the ground that the requisite conditions for

such notice were not satisfied. It was argued that the satisfaction

note recorded by the AO of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers is general in

nature mentioning Pune based concerns/parties without specific

names and alleging that loans were obtained by these parties by

cheque for which they have paid cash to M/s. Maheshwari

Financiers. It was further argued that the notice issued u/s.158BD

is bad in law being issued beyond a reasonable time of the date of 6

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

completion of the assessment of the searched person. Without

prejudice to the above the assessee further argued that the loan of

Rs.22 lakhs was accepted by crossed account payee cheques from

M/s. Maheshwari Financiers and is from a person duly identified by

the department. The AO of the searched person in the satisfaction

note in para 8 thereof has clearly accepted that there is no direct

evidence that the assessee had paid cash for obtaining this loan from

M/s. Maheshwari Financier. The assessee has also paid interest on

the loan to the lenders from time to time by crossed account payee

cheques and has also repaid the entire loan amount by crossed

account payee cheque. Relying on various decisions it was argued

that the addition made u/s.68 as well as u/s.69C is unwarranted

and illegal.

6. It was also stated that the satisfaction u/s.158BD of the Act of

the searched person is suspect, not in good faith and un-creditworthy

because the successor AO of the searched person, after the matter

was set aside by the CIT u/s.263, has given a finding that the peak

credits of the cash introduced in the bank account maintained with

Bank of India, Bhavani Peth branch, Pune for enabling the searched

person to issue cheques for the loans given through that account is

the undisclosed income of the searched person. Therefore, when the

unexplained cash so introduced is the undisclosed income of the

searched person, i.e. M/s. Maheshwari Financiers, the same amount

cannot be added in the hands of the assessee as undisclosed income.

It was accordingly argued that both factually and legally the AO was

not justified in making the addition.

7

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

7. However, the Ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments

advanced by the assessee. He called for a remand report from the

AO. After considering the remand report of the AO and submission of

the assessee to such remand report the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition

made by the AO. While doing so, she observed on perusal of the

satisfaction note of the AO of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers, which

was enclosed by way of a covering letter, that the same clearly shows

that loan transactions amounting to Rs.22 lakhs were shown in the

books of account of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers against whom

search and seizure was conducted on 12-02-2001. The covering

letter is accompanied by a satisfaction note into 10 pages which

details the books of accounts, documents, bank passbooks etc., that

were seized and verified during the course of search and the enquiries

that were conducted post search. Therefore, the satisfaction of the

AO who has jurisdiction over the searched person is found to be

clearly recorded that the undisclosed income found in the books

belonging to the assessee. The extract of the books of account

including the loan amounts and interest thereon have been duly

reproduced in the satisfaction note and therefore the requirement of

section 158BD that the books of accounts, other documents or assets

seized or requisitioned thereof to be handed over to the AO having

jurisdiction over such other persons has been made. The assessee

has already been provided a copy of satisfaction note which contains

the detailed working of the loan entries and the interest thereon as

found in the books of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers. Therefore, the

argument of the assessee that no documents, papers and other

evidence have been actually handed over to his AO by the AO of the

searched person is a frivolous ground.

8

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

8. As regards the argument of the assessee that the notice issued

u/s.158BD is bad in law being issued beyond a reasonable time from

the date of completion of the assessment of the searched person is

concerned, the Ld.CIT(A) following various decisions held that there is

no unreasonable delay in notice issued u/s.158BD. The delay of 18-

19 months in issuance of notice u/s.158BD from the date of

satisfaction recorded by the AO of the searched person cannot be

held to be unreasonable particularly when the section does not

provide any time limit for issuance of such notice.

9. So far as the argument of the assessee on merit is concerned

she also dismissed the same on the ground that the loan amount

though advanced by way of cheque by M/s. Maheshwari Financiers

has its origin in the cash and since the cash has been proved by the

AO of the searched person as not belonging to him can be certainly

inferred to be belonging to the assessee. She accordingly held that

the AO is correct in law in assessing the loan of amount of Rs.22

lakhs u/s.68 and the interest thereon as unexplained expenditure

u/s.69C in absence of any evidence produced by the assessee that

the cash does not belong to him. She accordingly upheld the action

of the AO.

10. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A) the assessee is in

appeal before us with the following grounds :

"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment framed by A.O. u/s 158BD of the Act and confirmed by CIT (A) may be held as bad in law, invalid , and maybe quashed as Nullity.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be held that the A.O. has assumed Jurisdiction u/s.158BD without following due process of law, beyond reasonable time and violating principles of natural justice and therefore bad in law and be cancelled.

9 ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it may be held that A.O. and CIT(A) have failed to follow the binding judicial precedents and the remarks may be quashed.

4. Without prejudice to the above grounds on the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O. erred in bringing to tax amounts totaling Rs. 29,03,485 u/s.68, 69C of the act and CIT(A) confirmed without appreciating evidence on record, legal position and explanation furnished before him and same may be deleted , cancelled or appropriate relief granted to the assessee.

5. The appellant craves leave to add/amend /alter/modify or raise additional grounds of appeal and to provide additional evidence if found necessary, at the time of hearing."

11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the search in

the case of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers and M/s. Rajashree

Enterprises took place on 11-10-2001 and the Block Assessments in

these cases were completed on 24-12-2003 by making certain

additions in the hands of the searched person. Subsequently, the

Ld.CIT set aside the orders u/s.263 on 23-03-2006. Subsequent to

the order passed u/s.263 the AO completed the assessment of the

searched persons on 29-12-2006 by making addition u/s.69A

amounting to Rs.1,63,77,713/- as money lent to third parties. He

submitted that the assessee in the instant case received notice

u/s.158BD on 10-02-2006 on the basis of a letter dated 06-04-2004

with satisfaction note which was undated. The assessee filed the

block returns on 10-04-2006 and the assessment was completed on

28-02-2008. He submitted that there is no question of assessing the

assessee when the 263 order was in force in case of the searched

person. The satisfaction note was received by the assessee on 07-12-

2007 along with the show cause notice. He submitted that the

satisfaction note is undated and is much late after original

assessment on 24-12-2003. Thus, there is a gap of about 4 years.

He submitted that till today no details of materials transferred is 10

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

shown and it is admitted that there is no seized material which are

incriminating and disclose undisclosed income. Referring to the

decision of the Bangalore Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of

Y. Subbaraju & Co. Vs. ACIT reported in 91 ITD 118 and the decision

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari Vs.

ACIT reported in 289 ITR 341 he submitted that the primary

requirement for action u/s.158BD is not fulfilled. The observation of

the CIT(A) in para 4.2 are contrary to legal requirements in view of

the above 2 decisions. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Knitwears reported in

362 ITR 673 he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that though there is no time limit for recording satisfaction note,

however, it can be done till seized materials are handed over and

have not dispensed with requirement of existence of incriminating

seized material and their handing over to the concerned AO having

jurisdiction. He accordingly submitted that the notice issued

u/s.158BD is bad in law because (a) there is no incriminating seized

material relating to assessee's undisclosed income, (b) no material

has been handed over to the AO and consequently to assessee till

date, (c) the issue of notice u/s.158BD without seized material is bad

in law and cannot be done on basis of presumptions and

assumptions as it is special provision for assessment of certain types

of cases and (d) statements recorded are no material for purpose of

158BD.

12. So far as the merit of the case is concerned he submitted that

there is no evidence of deposit of cash by the assessee in bank

account of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers. The entries were recorded

in the books of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers before the search took 11

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

place. The assessee has discharged the onus and there is no material

before the revenue that assessee has deposited cash in the bank

account of M/s. Maheshwari Financiers. Therefore, the application of

provisions of section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the case.

13. He also relied on the following cases:

1. Manish Maheswari Vs. ACIT & Another reported in 289 ITR 341 (SC)

2. CIT Vs. Alka Bhandari reported in (2015) 92 CCH 0027 (Del.)

3. CIT Vs. Late Rajpal Bhatia reported in 333 ITR 315

4. CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain reported in 320 ITR 554

5. CIT Vs. Manoj Bansal reported in (2015) 92 CCH 0005 (Del.)

6. Nivedita M. Makwana Vs. P.M. Shukla reported in (2008) 11 DTR (Guj.) 225

7. CIT Vs. Bharat Bhushan Jain reported in (2015) 92 CCH 0004 (Del.)

14. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily

relied on the order of the CIT(A).

15. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the

sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and

the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also

considered the various decisions cited before us. We find in the

instant case a search and seizure action took place in the case of

M/s. Rajashree Enterprises, proprietor Shri Ramanlal Shah and M/s.

Maheshwari Financiers, proprietor Shri Mahendra Shah on 12-10-

2001. The block assessments in the case of the above searched

persons were completed on 24-12-2003. The satisfaction u/s.158BD

has been recorded by the AO of the searched person on 06-04-2004

and the notices has been issued to the assessee u/s.158BD on 10-

02-2006, i.e. after a gap of over 23 months with reference to the date

of recording of satisfaction. Further, the loan of Rs.22 lakhs taken by

the assessee from the searched person has been recorded in the 12

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

books of account of the searched persons prior to the date of search.

No other incriminating material was found except the said entries in

the books of account prior to the date of search and the statement of

one Mr. M. Srinivasulu, accountant of the searched persons. Under

these circumstances the question that arises is as to whether the

notice issued u/s.158BD to the assessee is valid and whether the

addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee u/s.68 and

69C is sustainable.

16. From the details furnished by the assessee in the paper book

as well as the perusal of the orders of the authorities below, we find

the assessee has received an amount of Rs.22 lakhs, i.e. R.5 lakhs

during A.Y. 1998-99, RS.2 lakhs in A.Y. 2000-01 and Rs.15 lakhs in

A.Y. 2001-02 from M/s. Maheshwari Financiers by account payee

cheques and these were entered in the books of account of M/s.

Maheswari Financiers prior to the date of search. There is no proof

with the Department that money was given by the assessee to M/s.

Maheshwari Financiers for obtaining the cheques or that after the

loans were obtained cash was withdrawn and given to M/s.

Maheswari Financiers. Merely on the basis of statement of the

Accountant and without any corroborative evidence the addition

made by the AO in a block assessment passed u/s.158BD r.w.s.

158BC which has been upheld by the CIT(A), in our opinion, is not

correct and proper. It is further to be noted here that the block

assessment order passed in the case of the searched person has been

set aside by the CIT u/s.263 on 23-03-2006. Subsequent to the

order passed u/s.263 the AO completed the assessment of the

searched persons on 29-12-2006 by making addition u/s.69A

amounting to Rs.1,63,77,713/- as money lent to third parties, a 13

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the bar and

not controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative. Therefore,

we find merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee

that when the order passed u/s.263 is in force in case of the

searched person, there was no question of making addition in the

hands of the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we are of the

considered opinion that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the

addition of Rs.22 lakhs as undisclosed income of the assessee for the

block period. Since the loan amount has been treated as genuine,

therefore, the disallowance of interest u/s.69C by the AO and upheld

by the CIT(A) also is not warranted. Accordingly, the disallowance of

such interest on such loan by the AO u/s.69C and upheld by the

CIT(A) is directed to be deleted.

17. Even otherwise also, it is a fact that no incriminating material

belonging to the assessee were found from the premises of the

searched person. The satisfaction note was mainly based on the

basis of entries made in the regular books of account and the

statement of the accountant.

18. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs.

Late Rajpal Bhatia reported in 333 ITR 315 has held that proceedings

initiated against the assessee u/s.158BD on the basis of the

statement recorded during search are not valid as the statement is

neither document nor asset. It has further been held that initiation

of proceedings u/s.158BD by the AO against the assessee without

recording the requisite satisfaction was illegal. The relevant

observations of the Hon'ble High Court at para Nos. 11 to 13 are as

under :

14

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

"11. It clearly emerges from the reading of this provision that before invoking the provisions of s. 158BD of the Act, the AO of the person searched "under s. 132(1) must satisfy himself that some undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the persons with respect to whom search was made under s. 132(1) of the Act. Such satisfaction must be based on the material found in the course of search. In the absence of any such satisfaction (which is to be recorded in writing) the concerned AO does not get any jurisdiction to assess that other person by invoking the s. 158BD of the Act. Further, the satisfaction of the AO has to be in respect of the following aspects :

(i) there should be "undisclosed income" within the meaning of s.

158B(b) referable to the assets or books/documents found seized/ requisitioned;

(ii) there should a finding by the AO that there was undisclosed income in such assets or books of account or documents of the searched person;

(iii) and that such undisclosed income belonged to the person other than the one searched.

12. In the present case, admittedly, during the search carried out at the premises of Mr. and Mrs. Charla, no books of accounts or other documents or other assets pertaining to the assessees herein were found or seized. The entire foundation of the block assessment under s. 158BD of the Act, insofar assessees are concerned, was the statement of Smt. Surksha Charla recorded during the course of search.

13. The Tribunal has held that this statement could not be treated "books of accounts or other documents or assets" which only could be the basis for invoking the provision of s. 158BD of the Act. Admittedly, statement of Mrs. Charla is neither 'books of accounts' nor 'assets'. The question, therefore, is as to whether this statement can be treated as 'other documents'. Prima facie, it is difficult to accept this proposition. Statement was not the document which was found during search. In fact this was the document which came to be created during the search as the statement was recorded at the time of search. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement was 'seized' during the search and thus, would not qualify the expression "document" having been seized during the search. In such a scenario, proper course of action was reassessment under s.147 r.w s. 148 of the Act."

19. The Bangalore Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Y.

Subbaraju & Co. and others Vs. ACIT reported in 91 ITD 118 has

held that in a case where not an iota of evidence was found during

search regarding undisclosed income of any other person, there is no

question of assessment of such other persons u/s.158BD on the

basis of reappraisal of facts already in possession of the Department. 15

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

20. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manoj

Bansal reported in 92 CCH 0005 has held that in absence of

satisfaction note of AO of searched person that any undisclosed

income belonged to any person, other than the person searched,

order passed u/s.158BD cannot be held to be valid.

21. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat

Bhushan Jain reported in 92 CCH 0004 has held that Revenue has to

be vigilant in issuing notice to third parties u/s.158BD immediately

after completion of assessment of searched person. Where the

satisfaction note was recorded more than a year after completion of

assessment of the searched person notices issued were rightly held to

be not issued in conformity with requirement of section 158BD. The

relevant observation of Hon'ble High Court at para 6 of the order

reads as under :

"6. Having regard to the intent of the Supreme Court in Para 44 of the Calcutta Knitwears (supra), where it was indicated that the Revenue has to be vigilant in issuing notice to the third party under Section 158 BD, immediately after the completion of assessment of the searched person, this Court is of the opinion that a delay ranging between 10 months of 1 ½ years cannot be considered contemporaneous to assessment proceedings. We are of the opinion that notices were not issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 158BD, and were unduly delayed. The appeals of the Revenue accordingly fail and are dismissed."

22. Since in the instant case the block assessment of the searched

persons were completed on 24-12-2003 and since the notice

u/s.158BD was issued on 10-02-2006, i.e. after a gap of 26 months,

therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in

the case of Bharat Bhushan Jain (Supra) the notices issued

u/s.158BD are not in conformity with the requirements of section

158BD which were unduly delayed. Therefore, on this aspect also,

the notice issued u/s.158BD has to be held as invalid and void. 16

ITA No.1745, 1746 & 1787/PN/2013

Thus, both factually and legally the addition made by the AO is not

sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) is accordingly set aside and the

grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

ITA No.1746/PN/2013 and 1787/PN/2013 :

23. Identical issues are involved in the above appeals. Facts being

similar, therefore, following the ratio in ITA No.1745/PN/2013 the

above 2 appeals filed by the respective assessees are also allowed.

24. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective

assessees are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22-07-2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) या!यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

iq.ks Pune; दनांक Dated : 22nd July, 2015. lrh'k

आदे श क& '!त)ल प अ*े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant

2. यथ / The Respondent

3. आयकर आय$ ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-III, Pune

4. आयकर आय$ ु त / The CIT-III, Pune

5. 'वभागीय *त*न+ध, आयकर अपील य अ+धकरण, "ए" iq.ks / DR, ITAT, "A" Pune;

6. गाड/ फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER,

स या'पत *त //True Copy// स या'पत *त //True Copy// व1र2ठ *नजी स+चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील य अ+धकरण, iq.ks / ITAT, Pune