Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax

Asst. Commissioner of Income M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Tax, Builders, Circle - 4, Pune Yash Residency, S. No. 128/2C, Vs. Sus Road, Near Abhinav Mahavidayalaya, Pashan, Pune-4311021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADFD3276A

ITA No. 832/PN/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Asst. Commissioner of Income Builders, Tax, Yash Residency, S. No. 128/2C, Circle - 4, Pune Sus Road, Near Abhinav Vs. Mahavidayalaya, Pashan, Pune-4311021 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADFD3276A PAN No. AADFD3276A

Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor Assessee By: Shri Sunil Pathak & Nikhil Pathak

Date of hearing : 16-12-2014 Date of pronouncement : 30-01-2015

ORDER

PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM:-

These two cross appeals, one by the Revenue and another by the

assessee, are arising out of assessment order framed by the Assessing

Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act and assessment year involved is

2006-07.

2. We first take the assessee's appeal which is a lead appeal being

ITA No. 832/PN/2011. The assessee has taken the following ground in

the appeal:

2

ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

"Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming order of the ITO of denying deduction U/s 80(IB)10, based on the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The facts which are revealed form the record as under. The

assessee is a Builder and Developer. The assessee has undertaken a

housing project namely "Yash Residency" at Pashan in Pune and this

project is going on since 2001. The said project consists of 4

buildings/wings A, B, C and D. The Assessing Officer has observed that

building A is commercial cum residential building. As observed by the

Assessing Officer the building plan is revised from time to time. The

assessee has declared profit on the said project of Rs.13,08,678/- and

the entire profit is claimed as a deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. As

observed by the Assessing Officer the original plan was approved on

23-07-2001 and the original layout plan was sanctioned by the PMC on

17-10-2000. The building plans were revised from time to time i.e. as on

17-04-2001, 23-08-2001, 06-03-2003 and 24-12-2004. The Assessing

Officer has reservation in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee

u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act on the following three reasons:

i. The built up area of the shops and commercial establishments was

more than 5% of the aggregate built up area,

ii. The housing project is on the size of plot of land which is less than

1 acre and,

iii. The assessee has not completed the housing project within the

permissible time limit i.e. as per the Assessing Officer it should

have been completed before 31-03-2008.

3.1 The Assessing Officer, therefore, declined to give the benefit of

deduction to the assessee. It is pertinent to note that this housing

project is running housing project and the assessee claimed the

deduction u/s. 80IB(10) for the first time in the A.Y. 2001-02. The 3 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

summary of the profit declared and deduction claimed by the assessee is

as under:

Asst. Year Net Profit Deduction claimed Total income u/s. 80IB(10) 2001-02 665978 665978 nil 2002-03 1595015 1595015 nil 2003-04 2597838 2597838 nil 2004-05 1623477 1623477 nil 2005-06 6638984 6638984 nil 2006-07 1308678 1308678 nil

4. The assessee filed the detailed reply before the Assessing Officer

which is reproduced in the assessment order. The assessee challenged

the order of the Assessing Officer before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) agreed on

the contention of the assessee that so far as size of the plot of land is

concerned the same is more than 1 acre but other two contentions were

rejected and Ld. CIT(A) declined to given the benefit of Sec. 80IB(10) of

the Act. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused

the record. The Ld. Counsel submits that Yash Residency is a running

housing project and the issue of allowability of deduction u/s. 80IB(10)

was already before the Hon'ble Tribunal in the preceding years i.e.

A. Yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06. He submits that so far as the two

objections are concerned i.e. the excess commercial area more than

2,000 sq. ft. and size of plot of land have already been decided by the

Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the preceding years more

particularly for the A. Yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05 and the said order was

followed subsequently in the A.Y. 2002-03. The Ld. Counsel referred to

the Compilation in which the copies of orders of the Tribunal in the

assessee's own case for A. Yrs. 2002-03 to 2005-06 are placed. He

submits that accordingly the two objections of the Assessing Officer are

settled by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. In respect of the third 4 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

objection that the project is not completed within the time limit

permissible u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act, he argues that admittedly, the

housing project of the assessee was approved prior to 01-04-2004 and

hence, the time limit for completion of the housing project was 31-03-

2008. He submits that out of the four buildings i.e. building A, B, C and

D, building 'A' comprises of the commercial area. He submits that the

assessee completed the entire project before the 31-03-2008 and it is

evidenced from the occupancy certificate issued by the PMC dated 01-

04-2007 (Page Nos. 2 and 4 of the Compilation) where copies of the

occupation certificates are placed.

5.1 He submits that so far as building 'A' is concerned even though the

same was completed but as there was no customer to buy hence, the

assessee was compelled to convert the commercial area into the

residential area after 31-03-2008 and to that extent the completion

certificate could not be obtained. He submits that so far as building 'A'

is concerned out of 457.704 sq. mtrs. built up area the assessee

converted 285.184 sq. mtrs. into the residential area. The assessee also

filed the chart showing the area wise statement of the buildings and

details of the completion certificate. He submits that the last completion

certificate is dated 29-03-2008 which is in respect of building 'D'. He

submits that as the assessee project is approved prior to 01-04-2004, as

per the law applicable at the time of sanctioned of plan, there was no

requirement u/s. 80IB(10) for producing the completion certificate from

the local authority and the date on which local authority issues

certificate is to be taken as date of completion of the project. He submits

that the said provision is brought on statute book w.e.f. 01-04-2005 and

the said amendment has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. CHD Developers Ltd. 362 ITR 177 (Delhi) and

it is held that if the project was approved prior to 01-04-2005 then there

is no requirement for producing the completion certificate from the local 5 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

authority. He submits that the assessee has completed the entire project

before the time limit but subsequently after completion, he converted

part of the commercial area into residential area due to compelling

circumstances as there was no buyer to the commercial area. In this

situation it cannot be said the assessee has not completed the project.

We have heard the Ld. DR.

6. So far as Yash Residency housing project of the assessee is started

somewhere in the 2001, as rightly argued by the Ld. Counsel the

objections of the Assessing Officer, in respect of the size of plot and built

up commercial area which is admittedly more than 2,000 sq. ft., had

come for the consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee's own

case in the preceding years. We may refer here the decision of the

Tribunal for the A.Y. 2002-03 in ITA Nos. 820 & 831/PN/2011 dated

23-05-2013. Even though the A.Y. 2002-03 came for adjudication after

the subsequent years but the Tribunal has referred to the decision for

the A. Yrs. 2003-04 and 2004-05. We, therefore, refer to the findings on

two issues and operative part of the two issues i.e. (i) the size of the plot

of land and (ii) commercial area are as under:

"8. Before us, it was a common point between the parties that so far as the objection of the Assessing Officer relating to clauses (b) and (d) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act is concerned, the same were subject matter of consideration by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case vide ITA No. 111 & 1353/PN/2007 dated 21.10.2011 for assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05, wherein the stand of the assessee has been upheld.

9. Clause (b) of Section 80IB(10) prescribes that the housing project is to be on a size of the plot of land which has a minimum area of one acre. As per the Assessing Officer, area of the plot of land was less than one acre and in support, the Assessing Officer referred to his earlier stand in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05. For the assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05, the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.10.2011 6 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

(supra) adjudicated the aforesaid objection of the Assessing Officer in the following manner :-

"11. So far as the dispute regarding area of the land meant for the project is concerned, as discussed above, the A.O remained of the view that it is less than 1 acre of land. In this regard, he noted that the area of the plot demarcated in the revised plan sanctioned on 17.4.2001 was 4044.770 sq. mts. and after excluding area of 536.89 sq.mts. reserved for D.P. Road, the net area of land available for construction was 3507.88 sq. mts. The A.O., therefore, held that the total area of land available for construction even if considered as 4044.77 sq. mts. equivalent to 43537.90 sq.ft. was less than 1 acre because 1 acre is equivalent to 43561.31 sq.fts. The submission of the Ld. A.R. in this regard remained that land used by the assessee for the project is exactly 1 acre. In support, he referred copies of agreement for purchase of land dated 4.9.2000 and 7/12 Extract made available at page Nos. 1 to 14 of the paper book. Having gone through that, we find that the area of land meant for the project has been shown as 1 acre of land. He has also referred copies of various plans made available at page Nos. 15 to 18 of the paper book. Having gone through these plans, we find that in the revised plan made available at page No. 17, the sanctioning authority has mentioned the area as 4044.77 sq. mts. while in the initial plans sanctioned, the area is mentioned as 4046.865 sq. mts (page Nos. 16 & 17 of the paper book), which is in conformity with the area shown in the agreement for purchase of land and 7/12 Extract. 1 acre is = 43,460 sq. ft. which comes to 4046 sq. mts. We thus hold that the land developed is 1 acre. We also find substance which is supported by the CBDT Circular No.5 dated 15.7.2005 (Page No. 54) stating that the area occupied by the D.P road should not be excluded while calculating the area of the plot. Secondly, area of the plot should not be taken up with reference to the demarcation of the land done by the authority but it should be taken with reference to the area of the site on which the housing project is constructed. As already mentioned, that the sale deed and 7/12 Extracts clearly indicates the area at 1 acre. In this regard, we also find support from the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bunty Builders Vs. ITO (Supra) holding 7 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

that the housing project consists Development Plan Roads and grant of other facilities, therefore, those area should exist within the prescribed limit and to be considered as part and parcel of the project. We thus do not find substance in the objection of the authorities below and denial of the claimed deduction by them on the basis that the land area of the project was less than 1 acre."

10. Following the aforesaid precedent, which has been rendered under identical facts and circumstances in assessee's own case, we hereby affirm the decision of the CIT(A) holding that the assessee's project is on the plot of land which is of one acre and therefore it complies with the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(b) of the Act.

11. Further, with regard to the objection of the Assessing Officer that the built-up area of shops and other commercial establishments included in the housing project exceeds the limits prescribed in Section 80IB(10)(d) of the Act is concerned, the Tribunal in its order dated 21.10.2011 (supra) has held as under :-

"7. Regarding the commercial area constructed as found by the A.O, the submission of the assessee before the A.O remained that construction of residential as well as commercial premises was done as per the plan revised by the PMC and no construction has been done more than the sanctioned plan. It was submitted that the difference in the area between what had been actually reflected as per the agreement/sale deeds with customers and that deduction by the A.O on physical inspection resulted into inclusion of basement area, top terrace area etc., in the total area. The A.O has considered the access of basement area and top terrace area to the restaurant as the total area for commercial construction. As per the rule of the PMC, the said restaurant was to have access to basement as well as top terrace. The A.O was wrong in drawing inference that the said areas were to be used by the restaurant. Further, the construction in front of the restaurant referred by the A.O was temporary and could be demolished by the PMC at any time and the developer did not process any legal right to sale the same. It was also pointed out that the A.O through oversight has included the area of 363 sq.ft. of the small hall area twice to 8 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

arrive at the total area of the commercial units. It was submitted that if these submissions are considered, the actual area of the land of the commercial unit would be 4072 sq.ft. only.

8. Regarding the observation of the A.O based on the amendment to Section 80IB(10) by the Finance Act 2004, it was contended that this amendment was applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and thus not applicable during the A.Ys. under consideration. The Ld CIT(A) has upheld the action of the A.O in denial of the claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10).

9. Considering the above submissions, we find that undisputedly, the provisions of 80 IB(10) came into operation w.e.f. 1.4.2005 were not applicable during the A.Ys. i.e. 2003- 04 and 2004-05 under consideration. It has been now held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brahma Associates, 122 TTJ (S.B) Pune, 433, approved by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in its decision dated 22.2.2011 (Supra) holding that Clause (d) inserted to Section 80IB(10) w.e.f. 1.4.2005 is prospective and not retrospective and hence cannot be applied for the period prior to 1.4.2005. In this decision, it has been also held that upto 31st March 2005 (subject to fulfilling other conditions), deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) is allowable to housing project approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under D.C. Rules/Regulations framed by the respective local authority. In the case of Brahma Associates, wherein the A.Y. involved was before the provisions of clause

(d) to Section 80 IB (10) coming to effect to 1.4.2005 i.e. A.Y. 2005-06. Before insertion of clause (d) to this section w.e.f.

1.4.2005, there was no restriction of construction of commercial area in the project. The Tribunal held that upto 31st March 2005, deduction u/s. 80 IB(10) would be allowable to the projects approved by the local authority having residential building with commercial user upto 10% of the total built up area of the plot. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in this regard was pleased to hold that in the absence of any provisions under the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that upto 31st March 2005, deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) would be allowable to the 9 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

projects approved by the local authority in residential building with commercial user upto 10% of the total built up area of the plot. On query raised by the Bench, Ld. A.R. submitted that the commercial area constructed in the project is around 12% of the built up area. We thus respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brahma Associates (Supra) hold that the A.O was not justified in denying the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) of the Act to the assessee on the basis that the commercial area constructed by the assessee was more than 5% of the total built up area or 2000 sq.ft, whichever is less, as per clause (d) to Section 80IB(10) of the Act."

12. The aforesaid discussion shows that as per the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer could not have applied the newly amended clause

(d) of Section 10IB(10) of the Act to the instant claim of the assessee, because the project of the assessee was approved by the local authority prior to 31.03.2005 whereas the amended Section 10IB(10)(d) was brought on the statute with effect from 01.04.2005. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the project of the assessee was approved by the Pune Municipal Corporation (i.e. the local authority) on 17.10.2000 and the construction was commenced on the same date i.e. well before the operation of the amended Section 80IB(10)(d) of the Act. Following the precedent which is in line with the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Brahma Associates (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom.), the objection of the Assessing Officer is not tenable and the CIT(A) made no mistake in negating the same. In so far as the appeal of the Revenue is concerned the same is disposed-off in the aforesaid manner and is accordingly dismissed.

13. Now, we may take up the objection of the Assessing Officer with regard to the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(a)(i) of the Act. As per the Assessing Officer since the project of the assessee was approved prior to 01.04.2004, it should have been completed by 31.03.2008 in terms of the condition prescribed in Section 80IB(10)(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that since the requisite occupancy/ completion certificate was not issued by the local authority before 31.03.2008, it could not be said that the project of the assessee was completed within the specified period. In this connection, the learned counsel for the assessee 10 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

pointed out that the lower authorities were wrong in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the aforesaid ground for the reason that the position of law invoked by the lower authorities was introduced only by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005 and prior to it, there was no requirement of completion of project within a specified period. The case of the assessee is for assessment year 2002-03 which is prior to the amendment made to Section 80IB(10) of the Act. In the pre-amended provisions of Section 80IB(10) there was no obligation on the part of the assessee of furnishing a completion certificate as a condition precedent for availing of deduction and that such a condition was introduced only by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005. Furthermore, the learned counsel has submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd. (2013) 30 taxman 131 (Madras) has considered an identical situation, wherein the stand of the assessee was upheld.

14. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand pointed out that the amended provisions have prescribed a completion period for a project which was approved prior to 01.04.2004 and therefore the same would apply in order to test the present claim of the assessee for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act.

15. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Undisputably, the objection with regard to the completion of project is on the basis of the provisions of Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act as inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005. It is also evident that so far as the aforesaid amendment is concerned the legislature has not provided that the same is retrospective in its application. Prior to the insertion of the amended Section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2005 there was no requirement as regards the completion of construction of a project. In fact, the pre-amended provisions of Section 80IB(10) vis-à-vis the amended provisions of Section 80IB(10)(a) with effect from 01.04.2005, have been considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. Jain Housing & Construction Ltd. (supra) and the following discussion is worthy of notice :-

11

ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

"9. As is evident from the substitution of Section 80IB(10) of the Act, prior to the amendment, there was no such requirement as regards furnishing of completion certificate and the deduction provision pointed out to the grant of 100% deduction on the profits derived from a housing project, if the undertaking had commenced development and construction of the housing project on or after 1st October, 1998. Thus, till 2005, there was no clause dealing with completion, in which event, one cannot read into the provision as a condition, which is not specifically provided for therein.

10. As far as the present case is concerned, it relates to the assessment year 2004-05. The substitution of Explanation to clause (a) to sub-section (10) of Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act was brought in under Finance No. (2) Act of 2004, effective from 01.04.2005. Thus, in the absence of any such requirement read into the Section, we find it difficult to accept the case of the Revenue that the claim for deduction has to be rejected on the ground that the assessee had not furnished the completion certificate."

16. Following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court which fully covers the controversy before us, we do not find any justification to accept the claim of the Revenue that the assessee's claim for deduction is to be rejected on the ground that the assessee had not completed the construction and obtained the completion certificate from the local authorities prior to 31.03.2008.

At this point, we may also notice that in the assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act with respect the same project was also denied by the Assessing Officer but there was no objection raised with regard to the requirement of completion of project, as is sought to be made out in the present year. Thus, by implication it follows that for assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 the Department accepted the position that the claim of deduction could not be rejected in the absence of the completion certificate based on the amendment made to Section 80IB(10) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2005. Be that as it may, we conclude by holding that following the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd. (supra), in the present case, the aforesaid objection of the Assessing Officer is untenable. 12

ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

17. In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid aspect and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act to the assessee, as claimed.

7. It is clear from the above order that the two objections of the

Assessing Officer have been overruled by the Tribunal and allowed the

deduction to the assessee in the preceding years. We, therefore,

following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case in the A.

Yrs. 2002-3 to 2004-05 hold that the assessee has not violated the

condition of Sec. 80IB(10)(b) and (d) of the Act.

8. The next objection of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has

not completed the housing project before time limit prescribed i.e. 31-03-

2008. There is no dispute about the fact that as the original plan of the

assessee was sanctioned prior to 01-04-2004 hence, the assessee was

required to complete the project before 31-03-2008. There is an

amendment to Sec. 80IB(10) w.e.f. 01-04-2005 and date of completion of

the construction of the housing project is linked with the date on which

the completion certificate in respect of the housing project is issued by

the competent local authority. In the case of CHD Developers Ltd.

(supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has considered the said

amendment and held that if the projects are approved prior to

01-04-2005, then there is no requirement for producing the completion

certificate from the local authority. The assessee filed the copy of

completion certificate from the PMC dated 29-03-2008. The original

certificate is in Marathi (Page No. 4 of the Compilation) and translation

in English. As per the said certificate 'D' wing is also completed. So far

as A, B, and C wing are concerned the assessee obtained the completion

certificate on 01-01-2007 but at that time so far as building 'A' is

concerned there was no residential area but only commercial area.

Subsequently, as there was no buyer to the commercial unit in 'A'

building/wings, the assessee was forced to convert the part of the 13 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

commercial area into the residential area in 'A' wing. In our opinion as

per the sanctioned plan the assessee has completed the project before

31-03-2008 even presuming that part of the commercial area and

building 'A' was converted into residential area and could not be

completed but otherwise also the assessee is entitled for deduction in

respect of buildings B, C and D completed before 31-03-2008. As per

the statement made by the Ld. Counsel, so far as A.Y. 2006-07 is

concerned the assessee has not claimed any deduction in respect of

building 'A'. We, therefore, allow the plea of the assessee and reverse the

objections of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds taken by the

assessee are allowed and Assessing Officer is directed to allow the

deduction to the assessee.

9. Now, we take up the Revenue's appeal being ITA No.

821/PN/2011. The Revenue has taken the following grounds in the

appeal:

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 allowing the appeal of the assessee instead of confirming the assessment made by the Assessing Officer.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the deduction us 80 IB(10) is admissible in the case of a 'housing project' where area of the plot of construction is less than 1 acre.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that to claim deduction u/s 80 IB(10), the physical size of the land on which the project is built should be at least one acre.

5. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

14 ITA Nos. 821 & 832/PN/2011, M/s. Dhareshwar Promoters & Builders, Pune

10. We have heard the parties. In Ground No. 2, the Revenue has

taken the plea that the Ld. CIT(A) has not confirmed the assessment

made by the Assessing Officer. In our opinion the said ground is

erroneous as Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and

confirmed the disallowance u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Ground Nos. 3 and

4 are in respect of the size of plot of land. We have already dealt with

this issue while deciding the assessee's appeal. Moreover, the Tribunal

has already adjudicated this issue in the preceding years i.e. A. Yrs.

2002-03 to 2004-05 and decided the same in favour of the assessee. The

said decisions are already referred and relied while deciding the

assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2006-07. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 3 and 4

are dismissed. Grounds Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are general in nature.

11. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed and the Revenue's

appeal is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Court on 30-01-2015

Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (R.S. PADVEKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Pune, Dated: 30th January, 2015 RK/PS

Copy to

1 Assessee 2 Department 3 The CIT(A)-II, Pune 4 The CIT-II, Pune 5 The DR, ITAT, "A" Bench, Pune. 6 Guard file.

//True Copy// By Order

Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune