MANGLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

There are 3 appeals filed by different assessees under consideration against

the separate orders of CIT(A)-I, Nashik commonly dated 18-08-2014 for the common

A.Y. 2001-02. All these appeals are filed with identical grounds as well as an

additional ground.

and submitted that the legal issue raised in it relates to the applicability of provisions

of the proviso to section 147 of the Act. As per the Ld. Counsel for the assessee,

there is no failure on part of the assessee in matters of true and full disclosure of

fact. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the AO that revolves around the

applicability of Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 (SC), are unsustainable and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are

bad in law.

ITA No.1891/PUN/2014 – Shri Kalyanchand Manakchand Lalwani (HUF) (A.Y. 2001-02) 3. Giving brief facts of the case, which are culled from the appeal filed by Shri

Kalyanchand Manakchand Lalwani (HUF) for the A.Y. 2001-02, Ld. Counsel for the

assessee submitted that the assessee filed the return of income and offered the long

term capital gains and interest income for taxation. Assessee earned long term

capital gains relating to the income of enhanced compensation of land. Assessee

owns a land and the Government acquired the same @ Rs.15/- per sq. mtr.

Assessee disputed the compensation and filed a case before the District Court. Vide

the order dated 30-06-1999, the compensation was increased to Rs.340/- per unit.

AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act on

22-03-2005 and AO passed reassessment order dated 28-11-2005. In the appeal by

the Government before the High Court, the Hon’ble High Court passed an order

determining the rate at Rs.53/- per sq.mtr. AO considered the same in the

reassessment. However, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court on the issue of

correctness of the enhanced compensation. Eventually, the Supreme Court vide its

judgment dated 25-03-2010 enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court

which was determined the compensation at Rs.53 per sq. mtr. Supreme Court

enhanced the same to Rs.66.25 per sq.mtr. On finding the enhanced compensation,

AO proposed to treat the said enhanced compensation as income of the assessee for

the A.Y. 2001-02. On this issue, AO opined the said consideration was not offered by

the assessee even in the year A.Y. 2010-11 and therefore the AO re-assessed the

income of the assessee for the year 2001-02 invoking the provisions of the proviso to

section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded by the AO refer to his reliance on the

judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra).

Eventually, the AO proceeded to make the reassessment taxing the enhanced income

and interest in the A.Y. 2001-02, the ‘year of acquisition of land by the Government’.

objection to the validity of the re-opening u/s.147 of the Act. Further, assessee also

questioned the proposed taxability of the enhanced compensation in the ‘year of

receipt’, i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 not in the year of sale - 2001-02. To that extent,

considering the fact that Supreme Court judgment enhancing the compensation from

Rs.53 per sq.mtr to Rs.66.25 per sq.mtr is crystallised only on 25-03-2010 and,

therefore the sum is taxable in the A.Y. 2010-11 on receipt basis, was argued.

Further, assessee submitted that he did not have the benefit of the revised figures

Rs.66.25 per sq.mtr ordered by the Supreme Court at the time when the

assessments/reassessments were finalised in the past under various provisions of the

Act. According to the assessee, when the assessee disclosed the facts fully and truly

in the return of income that are necessary for completion of the assessment, the AO

cannot invoke the provisions of proviso to section 147 of the Act based on the

subsequent developments on that issue. Further, assessee reasoned that the

Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is not

applicable in view of the fact that bifurcation of interest under various sections of

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were also not available. Assessee also relied on the

provisions of section 45(5) and the provisions of section 155(16) of the Act, which

advocates for taxation of such compensation in the A.Y. 2010-11 on receipt basis

only. However, AO dismissed the said arguments and held that the matter of

taxation of compensation, enhanced compensation and interest is taxable in the A.Y.

2001-02. Interestingly, AO cites that such receipts are taxable on the ‘receipt basis’

and the interest is part of the compensation (Para 5.4 of the Assessment order) and

however taxed the same in the A.Y. 2001-02 on the basis of date of acquisition of

the land by the Government.

submissions vide his letter dated 20-02-2013. It is the submission of assessee that

the original compensation received by the assessee for Acquisition of the land was

already offered to tax in the year under consideration on the basis of the binding

High Court judgment. The interest portion of the same was also offered and taxed.

When it comes to the enhanced compensation, assessee raised various objections

and argued that the completed assessment for A.Y. 2001-02 cannot be reopened for

taxing the enhanced compensation in view of the practical difficulties that may arise,

which are mentioned by the Supreme Court against reopening of the completed

assessments considering the taxational difficulties involved therein. Further,

assessee submitted that the proposal to reopen the assessment constitutes ‘a change

of opinion’ in the matter. Further, assessee submitted that there is no failure on the

part of the assessee when it comes to full and true disclosure of the facts necessary

for completion of the assessment. Further, it is submitted that the Supreme Court

judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is inapplicable in view of

the fact of non-availability of bifurcation of interest and enhanced compensation out

of the said enhanced compensation. As per the assessee, when the interest portion

is not determined by the Supreme Court, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction for

taxing the same in A.Y. 2001-02 on the basis of receipt by reopening the completed

reassessment. Further, it is submitted that the said Supreme Court judgment in the

case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is dated 16-07-2009 and the final order of

assessment was passed on 29-12-2008 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Therefore,

as per the assessee, on the ground of debatability also, the provisions of section 148

of the Act should not be invoked. On this legal issue, the CIT(A) referred to the said

Supreme Court judgment (supra) on one side and the amended provisions of section

45 of the Act which provides for taxation of the enhanced compensation in the year

in which the final judgment of the Supreme Court is passed, on the other. Finally,

CIT(A) observed that the amended provision apply to the A.Y. 2015-16 and

subsequent years. Eventually, the CIT(A) dismissed the submission of the assessee

and held the taxability of the enhanced compensation in the A.Y. 2001-02. Contents

of Para No.6 of the CIT(A) are relevant in this regard.

the following grounds :

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT (A) -I is not justified in not disposing of the grounds of appeal. The same may please be considered in its proper perspective along with the number of decisions quoted in support of grounds of appeal and the appellant's contention may be accepted and the order of the Learned Assessing Officer may please be cancelled.

Without prejudice to the above: 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT (A)-I is not justified confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in not allowing the deduction of interest of Rs.1,69,097 which is already taxed in earlier years. There is double taxation. The deduction may be allowed. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned is not justified in confirming the levy of the interest under section 234A, 234B as the appellant could not foresee the final amount of compensation. The same may please be cancelled.

under:

“Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by issue of notice/s served on 08/03/2011 after expiry of four years in absence of reason to believe that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of first proviso to Section 147.

additional ground and mentioned that the same is required to be admitted and

adjudicated in favour of the assessee. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no

failure of disclosure on part of the assessee as per the Supreme Court judgment

in the case of the assessee in a subsequent development. Further, relying on

the considering the filing of Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs.

Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra). Ld. Counsel submitted that the ratio supports the

taxability in the ‘year of receipt. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed

the following written submissions to demonstrate the inapplicability of the

provisions of section 147 of the Act. For the sake of completeness the same are

extracted here as under :

“In identical context Delhi High Court in case of Central India Electric Supply Company V ITO reported in 333 ITR 237 (Page 31 of legal compilation) held that there was no lack of disclosure by the assessee. That was, of course, apart from the fact that the assessee could hardly disclose as to what would be the compensation, which he might get ultimately if the plea of enhancement was sustained. The fact remained that copy of the report of the board of directors had been filed in which the fact of pending arbitration proceedings for enhancement of compensation had been mentioned. It is not the duty of the assessee to pin- point what inference has to be- drawn by the assessing authority as long as full, complete and truthful disclosure has been made of, primary facts', which, in fact, was made in the instant case. Thus, there was nothing, which was not set out, which ought to have been set out as the factum of appeal pending was disclosed. There was no finality emerging in matters of enhancement of compensation as none of the parties could contemplate in advance as to what would be the fate of the appeal proceedings. The facts of the instant case showed that the award was interfered with in appeal and again by the Supreme Court. The final picture emerged only when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu V ITO reported in 160 ITR 526 (Page 27 of legal compilation) held that Certain lands of assessee were acquired and compensation was paid in 1974. High Court enhanced compensation in November, 1981.Interest on enhanced compensation was paid on 15-6-1982 - ITO therefore, issued notices under section 147/148 that amount of interest received by assessee for period 5-10-1974 to 6-5-1982 should be spread over different assessment years. Till amount of interest had become due or was actually paid to assessee on 15-6-1982, he could not be held guilty of not disclosing truly and correctly material facts, therefore, impugned notices were not valid in law. Supreme Court in case of Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd V CIT reported in 224 ITR 560 (Page 14 of legal compilation) held that The primary fact in the instant case was the lease agreement entered into by the appellant with the Kotah State dated 2-5-1945. It was placed before the ITO at the time of original assessments. It was not the duty of the assessee to draw the attention of the ITO to any particular clause or portion of the document and invite him to draw any particular inference therefrom, Moreover, in the suit the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan were parties. The interim injunction passed by the Court from assessing or levying any income-tax against the assessee-company was varied on the representation made by the Union of India, by later orders. Indeed, the Union of India and the Commissioner had filed written statements in the suit.

The order of injunction was within the knowledge of the ITO, as could be seen from the original assessments. The ITO was aware of the triangular dispute between the assessee- company, State of Rajasthan and Union of India pending before the District Court. What was more, the order of injunction to refrain from proceeding with the assessments was served on the ITO which was later modified. In view of these salient features, the High Court totally erred in holding that there was any omission on the part of the appellant-company to fully any truly disclose material or primary facts necessary for the assessments for the years in question. Thus, the reassessment proceedings for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1956-57 under section 34(1)(a) were invalid.

It is therefore respectfully submitted that the there being no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully all the material and primary facts and the reasons recorded being do not speak of such failure, the reassessments are invalid in law in view of the settled principle of law as decided by various Courts including Jurisdictional High Court.

special reference to the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Central India

Supply Company Vs. ITO 333 ITR 237 is very close to the facts of the present

case.

the AO and the CIT(A) on merits. Regarding the additional ground/legal issue,

Ld. DR relied on the reasons recorded by the AO and brought my attention to the

contents of Para No.6.1 of the order of CIT(A). He submitted that the issuance

of notice u/s.148 for the second time for giving effect to the judgment of

Supreme Court delivered on 25-03-2010 is sustainable as the same is intended

for taxing the enhanced compensation in the year of Acquisition of land by the

Government. However, there is no explanation as to how the year of said

Supreme Court judgment dated 25-03-2010 creates liability of taxation on the

enhanced compensation in the A.Y. 2001-02, the year of Acquisition of land by

the Government.

both the sides. I have also gone through the orders of the Revenue and the

reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the completed assessment u/s.148

of the Act. The issue which requires my attention in this appeal relates to, if

there is failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts

necessary for completion of the reassessment within the meaning of the first

proviso to section 147 of the Act. For this purpose, I extract the reasons

recorded by the AO on 05-11-2011 and the same read as under :

“REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT

In this case, assessment for the A.Y. 2001-02 was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 on 29-12-2008 on total income of Rs.4,64,580/-, which consisted of long term capital gain of Rs.3,18,796/- and interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.25,637/-.

This reassessment was completed on the basis of calculation of compensation of land as determined by the Mumbai High Court at Rs.53/- per Sq. Mtr.

Now, as per the information gathered, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25-03-2010, has enhanced the compensation awarded by the High Court, Mumbai from Rs.53/- per Sq. Mtr to Rs.66.25. Consequently, the enhanced compensation at the said rate is taxable along with interest for the year under consideration.

Moreover, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 the interest on enhanced compensation is part of compensation and required to be taxed in the year of receipt.

Accordingly, as per the following working the enhanced compensation and interest is taxable for A.Y. 2001-02, as the assessee received the same in the year under consideration.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Balance taxable (compensation) Rs.99,575/-

Interest Calculation on Rs.8,36,742/-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Balance taxable Rs.10,19,373/- ------------------ Total Rs.11,18,948/- ------------------

The interest is now a part of compensation and is taxable in the year of receipt in view of the Supreme Court decision cited above.

I have therefore reason to believe that the enhanced compensation alongwith interest as worked out @Rs.11,18,948/- as above has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2001-02 within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Since the reassessment for A.Y. 2001-02 is in pursuance of an order on appeal by the assessee in Supreme Court, in order to tax the above income, permission for issue of notice u/s.148 r.w.s.150 may please be granted.

Malegaon Sd/- Date : 05-01-2011 Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Malegaon

From the above, it is clear that the immediate reason for reopening the

completed assessment u/s.147/148 of the Act is the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court dated 25-03-2010 which enhanced the compensation already awarded by the

High Court, from Rs.53/- per sq. mtr to Rs.66.25 per sq. mtr which includes interest

portion as well. For taxing the said enhanced compensation and interest in the year

under consideration, the AO cited the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT

Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR 1 which advocates for taxing the interest on

enhanced compensation in the ‘year of receipt’.

compensation in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2001-02, I need to examine

the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.

Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra). The judgment in this case deals with explaining the

provisions of section 45(5)(b) and 45(5)(c) and provisions of section 155(16) which

is brought into statute w.e.f. 01-04-2004. In principle, these provisions do not apply

to the year under consideration. Nevertheless, these provisions were explained by

the Supreme Court in connection with the A.Y. 1999-2000 and also in connection

with the enhanced compensation/interest as relevant from the inception of the said

provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the compensation under the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 arises and is normally payable in multiple stages.

Therefore, as and when assessee claimant is in receipt of the enhanced

compensation, it shall be treated as ‘deemed income’ and taxed on ‘receipt basis’.

Hence, the year in which enhanced compensation is received is the ‘year of

taxability’. However, the issue under dispute relates to the assessee’s failure in

matters of disclosure of facts and applicability of the proviso to section 147 of the

Act. Even before the amendment to section 45 and 155(16) of the Act (i.e. prior to

01-04-2004), the enhanced compensation was taxable in the ‘year of receipt’ only

u/s.45(5)(b) of the Act and this approach is reinforced by the amendment to clause

(c) of section 45(5) of the Act. Further, this scheme of taxation in the year of receipt

was inserted by way of section 45(5) of the Act right from 1988. Therefore, in

principle, the ‘year of taxability’ all through the assessment years is always on

‘receipt basis’. Relevant finding of the Apex Court is extracted as under :

“35. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act deals only with reworking, its object is not to convert the amount of enhanced compensation into deemed income on receipt. We find no merit in this argument. The scheme of section 45(5) of the 1961 Act was inserted with effect from April 1, 1988, as an overriding provision. As stated above, compensation under the L. A. Act, 1894, arises and is payable in multiple stages which does not happen in cases of transfers by sale, etc. Hence, the Legislature had to step in and say that as and when the assessee-claimant is in receipt of enhanced compensation it shall be treated as " deemed income" and taxed on receipt basis. Our above understanding is supported by insertion of clause (c) in section 45(5) with effect from April 1, 2004, and section 155(16) which refers to a situation of a subsequent reduction by the court, tribunal or other authority and recomputation/amendment of the assessment order. Section 45(5) read as a whole (including clause (c) not only deals with reworking as urged on behalf of the assessee but also with the change in the full value of the consideration (computation) and since the enhanced compensation/consideration (including interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act) becomes payable/paid under the 1894 Act at different stages, the receipt of such enhanced compensation/consideration is to be taxed in the year of receipt subject to adjustment, if any, under section 155(16) of the 1961 Act, later on. Hence, the year in which enhanced compensation is received is the year of taxability. Consequently, even in cases where pending appeal, the court/tribunal/authority before which appeal is pending, permits the claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise the enhanced compensation (which is in dispute), the same is liable to be taxed under section 45(5) of the 1961 Act. This is the scheme of section 45(5) and section 155(16) of the 1961 Act. We may clarify that even before the insertion of section 45(5)(c) and section 155(16) with effect from April 1, 2004, the receipt of enhanced compensation under section 45(5)(b) was taxable in the year of receipt which is only reinforced by insertion of clause (c) because the right to receive payment under the 1894 Act is not in doubt. It is important to note that compensation, including enhanced compensation/consideration under the 1894 Act is based on the full value of property as on date of notification under section 4 of that Act. When the court/tribunal directs payment of enhanced compensation under section 23(1A), or section 23(2) or under section 28 of the 1894 Act it is on the basis that award of the Collector or the court, under reference, has not compensated the owner for the full value of the property as on date of notification.

solatium under section 23(2) of the 1894 Act, would be extremely difficult after all these years, will not be done.

Subject to what is stated hereinabove, we allow the civil appeal of the Department with no order as to costs.”

counsel and find they revolve around the need for taxing of the same in the A.Y.

2010-11, which is the ‘year of receipt’ and certainly not A.Y. 2001-02, which is the

year of acquisition. Apart from others, the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana

High Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu Vs. ITO & Another 160 ITR 0526 is

found relevant for the legal proposition that reopening of the completed assessments

based on the judgments delivered subsequently after completion of assessments are

invalid as the assessee cannot be held guilty of not disclosing all the material facts

truly and fully necessary for making the assessment. This is the case where earlier

returns were already filed and the judgment of Court was delivered on 19-11-1981

and the amount was actually paid to assessee on 15-06-1982. The assessment years

under review of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are the ones prior to A.Yrs. 1975-76 to

1979-80. Relevant lines from Para 6 of the judgment are extracted as follows :

“6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So it is patent that till the amount of interest referred to above had become due to the petitioner as per the judgment of this Court dated November 19, 1981, or was actually paid to him on June 15, 1981, he could not possibly be held guilty of not disclosing truly and correctly the material facts for the assessment years referred to above.”

Therefore, it is undisputed fact that the assessee filed the return of income

originally on 17-01-2001 declaring total income of Rs.1,20,140/-. The same was

processed on 09-10-2002. On finding the escapement of income qua the judgment

of High Court relating to enhanced compensation/interest, a notice u/s.148 of the Act

was issued on 22-03-2005 and the income was reassessed determining the total

income at Rs.28,44,104/-. Primarily, this reassessment was made for taxing the

enhanced compensation and giving effect to the judgment of High Court which fixed

the enhanced compensation at Rs.53/- per sq. mtr. The current proceedings u/s.147

of the Act for second time revolves around the reopening of the said completed

assessment u/s.147/148 of the Act in order to tax the enhanced compensation from

Rs.53/- per sq. mtr to Rs.66.25 per sq. mtr as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court

judgment dated 25-03-2010 in the assessee’s own case.

Therefore, as per the provisions of proviso to section 148 of the Act, the AO

can assume jurisdiction only when there is failure on part of the assessee “to disclose

fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment

year”. Therefore, to adjudicate the additional ground raised before me, in our view,

what is to be seen is if there exists the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and

truly all material facts relating to the enhanced compensation/interest. There is no

dispute on the date of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 25-03-2010

and the relevant A.Y. 2001-02 is not the year of receipt of the compensation.

Considering the above cited ratios laid down by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) which is categorical in stating

the ‘year of taxation’ in this kind of situation is the ‘year of receipt’, A.Y. 2010-11

constitutes the ‘year of receipt’ in this case. Coming to the validity of reopening

proceedings, we find the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of

Mukhtiar Singh Sandhu Vs. ITO & Another (supra) did not approve such reopening

on the fact the date of filing of return prior to the said judgment of High Court,

therefore, the failure cannot be attributed to the assessee in the matters pertaining

to the disclosure of fully and truly all material facts necessary for making the

assessment.

Further, the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Central India Electric

Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO 333 ITR 237 is relevant for the same legal proposition. This

is the case where some of the units engaged in generation and supply of electricity

were acquired by the State Government in 1964 granting compensation and the

same was offered to tax for the A.Y. 1965-1966. Subsequently, the higher

compensation was received by virtue of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 24-

07-1985. On these facts, the Delhi High Court held that there is no lack of disclosure

by the assessee in as much the issue of enhanced compensation was settled only

when the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment and on receipt of the enhanced

compensation assessee had disclosed the same in the return. In this case, the

reopening of the assessment for A.Y. 1965-66, like in the present case, was held

invalid and without jurisdiction.

assessee cannot be held guilty of failure to disclose fully and truly all the relevant

facts relevant to the enhanced compensation or interest on compensation in the

return. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee has to be allowed in

favour of the assessee. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee is

allowed.

ground, in my view, the adjudication of other grounds raised by the assessee on

merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as

academic. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

ITA No.1892/PUN/2014 – Shri Kamlesh Kalyanchand Lalwani (HUF) (A.Y. 2001-02)

ITA No.1893/PUN/2014 – Shri Manglesh Kalyanchand Lalwani (HUF) (A.Y. 2001-02)

the assessees in these 2 appeals are also identical on merits as well as on law.

Further, he submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessees are also

identical and it revolves around the jurisdiction issues of the AO in reopening of the

assessments and applicability of the provisions of proviso to section 147 of the Act.

He also submitted that the arguments and submissions made in connection with the

appeal in ITA No.1891/PUN/2014 in the case of Shri Kalyanchand Manakchand

Lalwani (HUF) are common and applicable to these 2 appeals too.

ground raised by these 2 assessees has to be admitted and allowed in their favour.

Further, the other grounds raised by the assessees on merits have to be dismissed as

academic. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessees on merits are dismissed

as academic.

Order pronounced on this 23rd day of February, 2018.

Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 23rd February, 2018. Satish

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)-I, Nashik 3. आयकर आयु� / The CIT-I, Nashik 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune