Marhatta Chamber Of Commerce, ... vs Department Of Income Tax

The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), Pune .... Appellant

Vs.

Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, 403 A, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune-411016 .... Respondent

PAN: AAATM5559Q

Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri A.K. Modi Date of hearing : 12-02-2015 Date of pronouncement : 31-03-2015

ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the

CIT(A)-I, Pune dated 06.12.2012 relating to assessment year 2003-04 against

order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act.

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of 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 assessee's appeal by holding that there is no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all particulars of income as would justify the reopening of the assessment already completed u/s.

143(3).

3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that the first proviso to section 147 uses the expression "failure on the part of the assessee......... to disclose, fully and truly, all 2 ITA No.577/PN/2013, Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year"

and that even though the assessee had furnished in the Return of Income certain particulars in relation to transfer of development rights, it had failed to disclose "fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment.....".

4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that in the note / details furnished alongwith the Return of Income the assessee had not given any information to the effect that property under transfer had been "held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes", nor had made any mention whatsoever of its eligibility for exemption u/s. 11(1) r.w.s. 11(1A), which were in the nature of "material facts necessary for its assessment" for the relevant assessment year; and, therefore, the condition laid down in the first proviso to section 147 was not satisfied in its case.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate that mere mention of some facts by way of a note de-hors the context of the issue involved will not by itself mean full and true disclosure and that a "material fact" can be considered as fully and truly disclosed only when it throws light on its relevance to the assessment and compliance with the statutory provisions relating to the assessment.

6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) grossly erred in failing to appreciate, that as Explanation (1) to section 147 would clearly imply, mere production of certain facts and particulars from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the first proviso to section 147.

7. For these and 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.

8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

3. The first issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in

holding that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly

disclose all particulars of income as would justify the reopening of the

assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Revenue was also

aggrieved by the observation of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vis-à-vis

non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee in the return of income. The

appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the striking down of the

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Act. 3 ITA No.577/PN/2013,

Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had furnished the return

of income declaring Nil income after claiming exemption under section 11 of the

I.T. Act. The original assessment of the case was completed under section

143(3) of the Act on 13.02.2006. Thereafter the Assessing Officer recorded

reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act and notice

under section 148 of the Act was issued on 25.02.2010. In the reasons recorded

the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had claimed excessive

deduction/relief under the provisions of Income Tax Act in respect of short term

capital gain of Rs.872 Lakhs which was neither exempt under section 11(1A) nor

eligible for accumulation or setting apart as per provisions of section 11(1)(a) or

11(2) r.w. Form No. 10. Since, the income had escaped assessment and was

more than Rs.1 lakh, as per the Assessing Officer notice under section 148 can

be issued for A.Y. 2003-04 upto 6 years i.e. on or before 31.03.2010. The

second point noted by the Assessing Officer was that no assessment order for

assessment year 2003-04 was passed under section 143(3) but 4 years have

elapsed. The Addl. CIT Range 11, Pune was requested to accord necessary

sanction for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. In respect of the notice

issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee replied that the return

originally filed may be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of

the Act. It was further pointed out by the assessee that there was no failure on

his part to make full and true disclosure as in the note attached with the return of

income the assessee had declared that it had sold the land and the manner in

which the sale consideration of Rs.3034.50 lakhs was proposed to be received

and utilized. The relevant documents such as sale deed etc. were also attached.

The assessee also furnished the reply on merits which is reproduced at pages 5

and 6 of the assessment order.

5. The Assessing Officer observed that the claim of the assessee that notice

issued under section 148 of the Act was bad in law as the assessment was

earlier completed under section 143(3) of the Act was not acceptable. The 4 ITA No.577/PN/2013, Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

Assessing Officer accepted that there was no dispute to the legal position that for

reopening of the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act beyond

the period of 4 years, there has to be failure on the part of the assessee to make

full and true disclosure of all material facts, but whether there was such failure

have to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Assessing

Officer after deliberating on the various legal proposition held that objection of the

assessee that notice under section 148 was bad in law as there was no failure on

the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of all material facts was

not tenable. It was further held that the capital gains of Rs.872 lakhs was

chargeable as income of the assessee under section 11(1A)(a)(ii) as the amount

utilized does not exceed the cost of the asset transferred of Rs.2162 lakhs.

6. The alternate plea of the assessee that income of the trust was exempt

under section 11(1) and hence, even if any capital gains were chargeable, the

same shall be exempted as per provisions of section 11(1) of the Act was also

rejected by the Assessing Officer. It was further held by the Assessing Officer

that the exemption under section 11(1)/11(1A) of the Act was not applicable to

the assessee and the short term capital gain of Rs.872 lakhs earned by the

assessee on the sale of development rights of the land were chargeable to tax

under section 11(1A)(a)(ii) of the Act.

7. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and the

return of income filed by the assessee along with the net computation of short

term capital gain, which is reproduced at page 11 of the appellate order and the

note explaining the background and computation of capital gain arrived at, which

is reproduced at pages 12 and 13 of the appellate order, vide para 3.9 gave a

finding that all the facts were mentioned in the note appended to the return of

income for the captioned assessment year. The CIT(A) held that the assessee

trust had disclosed the fact of the acquisition of capital asset and transfer of

development rights in the note attached to the return of income and also in the 5 ITA No.577/PN/2013, Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

audited Balance Sheet along with the notes on account of the Auditor. The said

disclosure of fact was held to be full and true disclosure by the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) and it was also observed by the Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals) that the facts of the accrual of capital gain and computation

thereof had not been disturbed by the Assessing Officer who had accepted the

figures returned by the assessee i.e. Rs.872 lakhs in the assessment framed.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in the view thereof, held that there

was no failure on the part of the assessee to give full and true disclosure of all

particulars of income and hence, there was no justification for reopening the

assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.

8. The Revenue is in appeal against the said order of the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals). The Ld. DR for the Revenue placed reliance on the order

of the Assessing Officer.

9. The Ld. AR for the assesse placed reliance on the order of the CIT(A) and

pointed out that the reasons for reopening the assessment had been recorded

beyond four years and in the absence of Assessing Officer having established

that there was non-disclosure of true and complete facts by the assessee, there

was no merit in reopening the assessment. Further reliance was placed on the

ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alfa Laval (India)

Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1499/PN/2012 relating to assessment year 2004-05,

order dated 16.12.2013.

10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue

raised by the Revenue in the present appeal is in relation to the initiation of

proceedings under section 147 of the Act and consequent issue of notice under

section 148 of the Act for the relevant assessment year. The case of the

assessee was that the said notice under section 148 of the Act was issued after

a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and 6 ITA No.577/PN/2013, Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

assessment was originally made under section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, it

was argued that validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act would

depend upon the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed in the first proviso to

section 147 of the Act. The proviso to section 147 of the Act prescribes that

where an assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Act for

the relevant assessment year then no action shall be taken to reopen the

assessment under section 147 of the Act, after the expiry of four years from the

end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has

escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part

of the assessee to make a return under section 139 of the Act or in response a

notice issued under section 142(1) or 148 of the Act or to disclose fully and truly

all material facts necessary for an assessment. In the present case, the claim of

the assessee was that it had disclosed fully and truly all material facts relating to

the assessment for the year under consideration by way of furnishing the

information along with the computation of income, which in turn was filed along

with return of income. In the said return of income the assessee had declared

the income from short term capital gain at Rs.8,72,16,000/- which is the figure

adopted by the Assessing Officer to assess the income in the hands of the

assessee under the reassessment order. The assessee in the original return of

income have claimed setting apart of the surplus under section 11 of the Act and

had also filed the copy of the resolution in Form No. 10 along with the said

computation of income. The assessee had also furnished computation of short

term capital gain and both the said statements are reproduced by the CIT(A) in

para 3.6 at page 11 of the appellate order, which are being referred to but are not

being reproduced for the sake of brevity. In addition to the above said

documents the assessee has also appended a note explaining the transaction of

sale and purchase of the development rights which is also reproduced by the

CIT(A) at pages 12 and 13 of the appellate order. In the audited Balance Sheet

for that year on the liabilities sides, the assessee had declared the development

rights of International Convention Centre at Rs.30,34,50,000/-, while on the asset 7 ITA No.577/PN/2013, Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

side the acquisition of development rights in respect of land situated at Senapati

Bapat Road, Shivajinagar was shown at Rs.2162.34. In note of 4 of Schedule I

i.e. notes of account the auditors have mentioned that surplus arising out of this

transaction will be recognized on completion of the project.

11. The question which arises in the present case is whether in view of the

above said disclosure can it be stated that the assessee had not made full and

true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing

Officer was of the view that the assessee has failed to disclose how it was

eligible for claim of deduction under section 11(1) r.w.s. 11(1A) of the Act. The

CIT(A) on the consideration of the evidence filed by the assessee observed as

under:-

3.9. All these facts were mentioned in the note appended to the return of income for A.Y. 2003-04. In the audited Balance Sheet for that year on the liabilities side, development rights of International Convention Centre (ICC) was shown at Rs.30,34,50,000/-, while on the asset side the acquisition of development rights in respect of land situated at Senapati Bapat Road, Shivajinagar is shown at Rs.2162.34. In note 4 of Schedule ((Notes on Account) the auditors have mentioned that surplus arising out of this transaction will be recognized on completion of the project.

3.10. The question that arises for consideration, is whether all these factual affirmations available before the Assessing Officer by way of audited accounts, notes on accounts, computation of income as well as note appended to the return of income can be stated to be full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer is of the view that it is not so, his view is that the use of the words "fully and truly" and "all material facts" together would mean that the disclosure of facts should be made in such a manner that it is capable of being analyzed and interpreted as information and there is no room for guess work/ inquiry with reference to the purpose/ context in which the disclosure is being made. Specifically, the Assessing Officer is of the view that the appellant failed to disclose how it was eligible for claim under both sections 11(1) read with section 11(1 A). The Assessing Officer in his reasons recorded for reopening relied upon the Mumbai High Court's order in Bafna Charitable Trust vs. CIT (230 ITR 864) for the proposition that 11(1A) exemption would be available only if whole or part of net consideration is applied for acquiring another capital asset. It is only when the capital gains are computed u/s 11(1A) that the same would enter into the ""computation of income u/s 11(1) and accumulation thereof would be available @ 15%. He is of the view that the reply of the appellant during the course of hearing in response to 148 notice for the first time explained the manner in which the receipts were claimed to be utilized for the purposes of the trust.

3.11. The objection of the Assessing Officer regarding the failure on the part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts is examined. As already stated in the preceding paragraphs, the appellant 8 ITA No.577/PN/2013, Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

trust disclosed the fact of acquisition of capital asset (note mentions disclosure of such facts even in the preceding assessment year) and transfer of development rights. The amounts to be paid to the land owners, (purchase consideration) the sale consideration and the amounts to be received by the trust in the form of capital assets and corpus donations are all mentioned in the note. The acquisition of development rights in respect of the proposed ICC is mentioned in the balance sheet and the computation of total income includes the short term capital gains arising out of the 'transfer' of the development rights to the developer. The Assessing Officer's objection that the appellant trust had not clarified the manner in which the receipts were to be utilized is unjustified, since in the note and computation of short term capital gains annexed to the statement of total income and return of income, the purchase price of the land is clearly mentioned as Rs.21,62,34,000 and the capital gains has been worked out accordingly at Rs.8,72,16,000 on the sale consideration of Rs.30,34,50,000.

3.12. Further, the Assessing Officer's objection that appellant failed to demonstrate how it was eligible for claim under both sections 11(1) and 11(1 A) is unfounded. The law requires the appellant to furnish facts which it has done. Further, the law is clear that benefits of section 11(1) and 11(1A) are available to a trust, simultaneously, which benefits the appellant has claimed. Incidentally, the Mumbai High Court in Bafna Charitable Trust, cited by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded, never went into the issue of section 11(1 A) vis-a-vis section 11(1). Further, it is seen that all facts material to the applicability of appellant's claim u/s 11(1) and 11(1 A) were available on record when the original return of income was filed on 30.10.2003.

12. The CIT(A) also referred to the reliance placed upon by the Assessing

Officer and found that the facts of the cases were distinguishable. The CIT(A)

thus held as under:-

3.14. The disclosure of facts in the audit report, balance-sheet and statement of income (along with attached note) filed with the return of income for A.Y. 2003-04, is thus held to be full and true disclosure. The appellant has claimed section 11(1) exemption, of upto 15% of the surplus @ Rs.

1,80,11,123 and further claimed setting apart under clause (2) of the Explanation to section 11(1) of the balance amount of capital gains of Rs.7,34,47,478 for which Form No. 10 is attached to the return. The capital gains stand disclosed since there was transfer of the property. The fact of accrual of capital gains and computation thereof have not been disturbed by the Assessing Officer who has accepted the figure of capital gain as returned by the appellant i.e. Rs.8,72,16,000 in the assessment framed subsequently. The Mumbai High Court decision in Bafna Charitable Trust has been incorrectly relied upon by the Assessing Officer, for the proposition that the exemption u/s 11(1A) is not available in case entire net consideration is invested in capital assets. In fact, this question was not even raised before the Hon'ble High Court and no such proposition has been so laid down in its order. Therefore, in the totality of the facts discussed in paras 3 to 3.13 hereinabove, I hold that there was no failure on the part of the appellant to fully and truly disclose all particulars of income, thereby justifying reopening of the assessment already completed u/s 143(3). Ground No. 1 is thus allowed in favour of the appellant.

9 ITA No.577/PN/2013,

Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

13. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances where the

assessee had made the disclosure in the return of income itself along with the

disclosure made in the notes appended to the computation of its income and also

in the note on account to the Audited Balance Sheet and where the assessment

was originally made in the hands of the assessee under section 143(3) of the

Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the notice under section 148 of

the Act in the present case is not justified. On perusal of the reasons recorded

for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act reveals that the

Assessing Officer had given a finding that the assessment in the case was not

completed under section 143(3) of the Act hence, permission was sought from

the Addl. CIT, since the period of 6 years have elapsed for reopening the

assessment of the instant assessment year. However, the Assessing Officer

himself in the body of the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the

Act had given a finding that original assessment was completed under section

143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.02.2006. Subsequent thereto on

25.02.2010 notice under section 148 was issued and the reasons recorded for

reopening the assessment are reproduced at pages 1 to 4 of the assessment

order. In view of the original assessment being completed under section 143(3)

of the Act, we find that the Assessing Officer had initiated the proceedings under

section 147/148 of the Act, where the assessee had made full and true

disclosure of all material facts necessary for the assessment, then in view of

proviso to section 147 of the Act, the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening

the assessment is bad in law. In this view we find support from the ratio laid

down by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Alfa Laval (India) Ltd.

(supra) wherein reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2012) 343

ITR 183 (Bom) and it was held as under:-

5. In para 4 of the assessment order, the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment have been reproduced which read as under :-

10 ITA No.577/PN/2013, Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

"4. Vide letter dated 12.05.2010, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were furnished. The reasons are reproduced below :

1. On verification of case records, it is seen that income on account of impact on financial activity amounting to Rs.98,43,701/- for A.Y. 2004-05 should have been excluded from the Profit eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Due to the above omission there has been excess deduction u/s 80HHC for A.Y. 2004-05 amounting to Rs.11,32,850/- and short levy of tax of Rs.4,06,410/- including surcharge.

3. Therefore, I have reason to believe that there has been an escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act; therefore, it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 is issued.

4. The notice u/s 148 is issued with approval of the CIT- V, Pune vide letter No. Pn/CIT-V/147/2009-10/3987 dated

26.03.2010."

6. Now, the first point made by the assessee is that the assessment has been reopened after a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the original assessment was made u/s 143(3) of the Act and therefore, the prescription of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act applies. It is sought to be made out that in terms of the first proviso to section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is required to make out a case in the reasons recorded as to whether there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. It is pointed out that the Assessing Officer could have proceeded to reopen the assessment only after recording the aforesaid and for his failure to do so, the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act are rendered nugatory. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2012) 343 ITR 183 (Bom).

7. In the above context, we have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. (supra). In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act for reopening an assessment beyond the period of four years and the income of the assessee was originally assessed by way of an order u/s 143(3) of the Act. Considering a similar argument as is being made before us, the Hon'ble High Court held as under :-

"Having regard to the purpose of the section, we are of the view that the power conferred by s. 147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment made earlier unless the mistake in the assessment so made is the result of a failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Indeed, where the assessee has fully disclosed all the material facts, it is not open for the AO to reopen the assessment on the ground that there is a mistake in assessment. Moreover, it is necessary for the AO to first observe whether there is a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and having observed that there is such a failure to proceed under s. 147. It must follow that where the AO 11 ITA No.577/PN/2013, Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

does not record such a failure he would not be entitled to proceed under s. 147. As observed earlier, the AO has not recorded the failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the asst. yr. 1997-98. What is recorded is that the petitioner has wrongly claimed certain deductions which he was not entitled to. There is a well known difference between a wrong claim made by an assessee after disclosing all the true and material facts and a wrong claim made by the assessee by withholding the material facts fully and truly. It is only in the latter case that the AO would be entitled to proceed under s. 147. We are supported in this view by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar, Asstt. CIT (2004) 190 CTR (Bom) 166 : (2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom) where in a similar case the Division Bench held that reason that there was a failure to disclose fully and truly that all material facts must be read as recorded by the AO and it would not be permissible to delete or add to those reasons and that the AO must be able to justify the same based on material record. The Division Bench observed as follows :

"He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish the vital link between the reasons and evidence."

5. We find in the circumstances that the impugned notice is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer cls. (a) and (c)."

8. Ostensibly, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the Assessing Officer did not record that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. What was recorded in the case before the Hon'ble High Court was that the petitioner had wrongly claimed certain deduction which he was not entitled to. Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court held that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not sustainable because in the reasons recorded there was no recording by the Assessing Officer to the effect that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Applying the aforesaid parity of reasoning to the present case, we find that the reasons recorded, which we have reproduced in the earlier paragraphs, do not contain any averment by the Assessing Officer that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all materials facts necessary for the assessment, more particularly, with regard to the excess deduction u/s 80HHC amounting to Rs.11,32,850/-. What is only recorded is that on the verification of records it is seen that income by way of 'Impact on financial activity' amounting to Rs.98,43,701/- is liable to be excluded from the profit eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act and for the said reason, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that there was an escapement of income within the meaning of section 80HHC of the Act qua excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act of Rs.11,32,850/-. In our considered opinion, the absence of any averment in the reasons recorded, as required by the first proviso to section 147 of the Act to the effect that there is failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment, renders the initiation of proceedings susceptible to a legal infirmity, as explained by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. (supra). Thus, on this aspect itself, we are inclined to hold that initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the present case are bad in law and consequential assessment is liable to be annulled.

12 ITA No.577/PN/2013,

Marhatta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune

14. In view thereof, we find no justification in the initiation of proceedings

under section 147 of the Act where the condition precedent to exercise the

jurisdiction to reopen the assessment beyond the period of four years from the

end of the relevant assessment year had not been fulfilled, as there was no

failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts. In

view thereof the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act is liable to

be set aside. We, accordingly, hold so. The grounds of the appeal raised by the

Revenue are thus, dismissed.

15. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 31st day of March, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Pune, Dated: 31 st March, 2015. RK

Copy of the order is forwarded to: - 1) The Assessee; 2) The Department; 3) The CIT(A)-I, Pune 4) The CIT-I, Pune 5) The DR "B" Bench, I.T.A.T., Pune; 6) Guard File. By Order //True Copy// //True Copy// Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T., Pune