Pune ITAT on Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.06.20103 is ‘prospective’ or restrospective?
Pune.
अपीलाथ क ओर से/Appellant by : S/Shri Nikhil Pathak/P.D.Kudwa यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar सन ु वाई क तार ख / घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 23.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2017 आदे श / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
The appeal of the assessee is emanating out of the order Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, Pune dated 27/02/2015 for the AY 2011-12.
ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12
2. The facts as culled out from the material on record are as under: 2.1 Assessee is an individual. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 06/08/2010 at residences of Shri Jivaram Magaji Chaudhary (the assessee) and his brother Shri Voraram Chaudhary) and simultaneously a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was also carried out at the office premises of Aaijee Developers. During the course of search, cash of `2,57,10,000/- was found from the residence of the assessee and out of this cash, `2,55,00,000/- was found unexplained and accordingly seized. During the course of search, assessee admitted undisclosed income of `6,25,58,000/-. Thereafter in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, assessee filed the return of income wherein the amount of `6,25,58,000/- disclosed during search was offered as income from undisclosed sources and the total income returned was Rs.6,55,44,411/- . Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18/12/2012 and the total income was determined at `6,55,44,411/- being the same as returned income. On the aforesaid total income, the Assessing Officer raised the tax demand of `30,28,404/- which included interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. Assessee, thereafter, filed an application u/s 154 of the Act before the Assessing Officer wherein prayer was made for granting of credit of seized cash against the advance tax liability for the year and accordingly sought reworking of interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act. The application made u/s 154 was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 14/11/2013 interalia for the reason that according to Assessing Officer, the seized cash could be ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 adjusted u/s 132B only on completion of assessment and that it cannot be adjusted against the advance tax liability for the year and for this conclusion he relied on the CBDT Circular dated 13/07/2006. According to Assessing Officer aforesaid CBDT clarified that the provisions of law do not permit application of seized cash against the advance tax liability of the assessee for the year in which the search took place. Assessing Officer, therefore, held that there was no mistake apparent from record which requires rectification u/s 154 of the Act and accordingly rejected the request made by Assessee.
3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter to Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) vide order dated 27/02/2015 in appeal no.[PN/CIT(A)-11/DCIT Cen. Cir.1(1)/Pn/108/2014-15] dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:
“4.3 The contentions put forth by the appellant are carefully examined with reference to the facts of the case, the provisions of sec. 132B of the I T Act as amended from time to time. As the grounds of appeal No.1 2 and 3 in sum and substance challenge denial of adjustment of seized cash towards advance tax for the year as sought by the appellant and also resultant levy of additional interest u/s 234B & 234C by the Assessing Officer, these grounds are consolidated and adjudicated hereinafter. The core issue giving rise to the present appeal is the denial of credit by the AO for advance tax payment of Rs.1,69,26,860/- on 28/09/2010 by way of adjustment out of cash of Rs.2,55,00,000/- seized in search action u/s 132 of I T Act, 1961 from the appellant’s residential premises on 06/09/2010. The grievance of the appellant in this regard is that seized cash to the extent of Rs.1,69,26,860/- was shown as paid on 27.03.2012 in the assessment u/s 143(3) instead of 28.09.2010 as per appellant’s request made in the letter filed before the CIT for adjustment of seized cash towards advance tax for the year, which according to the appellant, resulted in excess levy of interest u/s 234B and sec. 234C. The contentions of the appellant are not legally well founded. Under sec.132B,seized assets including cash may be adjusted against any existing liability under the Income Tax Act, Wealth tax Act, the Expenditure-
ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 tax Act, the Gift-tax Act and the Interest tax Act and the amount of liability determined on completion of assessments pursuant to search, including penalty levied or interest payable and in respect of which such person is in default or deemed to be in default. This legal position was clarified in no uncertain terms by insertion of Explanation-2 in sec. 132B by Finance Act 2013. Explanation-2 of sec. 132B reads as under:
Explanation 2.- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the “existing liability” does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII (Emphasis given).
4.3.1 The relevant portion of explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill 2013 reads as under:-
“Various courts have taken a view that the term “existing liability” includes advance tax liability of the assessee, which is not in consonance with the intention of the legislature. The legislative intent behind this provision is to ensure the recovery of outstanding tax/interest/penalty and also to provide for recovery of taxes/interest/penalty, which may arise subsequent to the assessment pursuant to search. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the aforesaid section so as to clarify that the existing liability does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII of the Act. This amendment will take effect from 1st June,2013.” 4.3.2 The expression used in the Explanation ‘For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared’ clearly shows that the Explanation is declaratory in nature though it was inserted by the Finance Act, 2013. If a statue is in its nature a declaratory Act, the argument that it is not to be construed so as to take away previously vested rights does not apply. In other words, if the statue is declaratory, one cannot argue that the retrospective operation is invalid just because rights have vested in the assessee previously. Such a construction is legally and constitutionally valid though it may be inequitable in its operation vis-à-vis any individual assessee. The nature of the amendment to sec. 132B and the purpose which it seeks to achieve make it abundantly clear that it is a declaratory amendment inserted to clear up doubts about the meaning of expression ‘existing liability’ used in sec. 132B and it would be applicable even in respect of assessment years prior to insertion of the said amendment. In this context, reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT VS. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. 226 ITR 625, wherein it was held that if a statue is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is generally intended. Thus, in my considered view, insertion of Explanation-2 in sec. 132B by the Finance Act, 2013 is declaratory in nature and, therefore, has to be treated as retrospective. Reverting to the facts of the present case, apparently there was no existing liability as on the date of passing the assessment order for the year under consideration. In such circumstances, the cash seized under sec. 132 can be adjusted only against the demand raised on completion of assessment under se. 143(3) and not towards advance tax for the year.
ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 4.3.3 Adverting to the decisions relied upon by the appellant; these cases including the decision of Bombay HC in the case of Shri Jyotindra B. Mody in ITA No.3741/2010 dated 21.09.2011 were decided prior to the insertion of declaratory Explanation-2 in section 132B of the I.T. Act and in my humble opinion, the view taken in these authorities is no longer good law after the insertion of the said Explanation. Therefore, the said decisions do not render any support to the case of the appellant after the insertion of Explanation-2. In the case of Kanishka Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (34 Taxman.Com 307), the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 in sec. 132B was considered and it was held that Explanation is not retrospective after referring to Page 807 of Taxmann’s publication “Interpretation of Statutes” 2nd Edition by Shri D.P.Mittal. However, in view of the observations of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Podar Cement (P) Ltd. 226 ITR 625 on declaratory amendments, the Explanation-2 in sec. 132B, being declaratory in nature, operates retrospectively and therefore the said decision of ITAT, Ahmedabad is also of no avail to the case of the appellant.
4.3.4 Thus, after the insertion of Explanation-2 in sec. 132B, which is declaratory of law, the seized cash cannot be adjusted against the advance tax payable for the year and there is no flaw or mistake apparent from the record in the assessment order in this respect warranting rectification u/s 154 and therefore the AO is justified in rejecting the rectification application filed by the appellant. 4.3.5 Without prejudice to the above and even presuming for a while that Explanation-2 is not retrospective in nature as claimed by the appellant, it is to be noted that prior to the insertion of said Explanation-2, the issue involved is highly debatable one and could be decided only after long drawn process of reasoning and analysis of the expression ‘existing liability’ in sec. 132B and such contentious issues cannot be subject-matter of rectification under sec. 154 of the I T Act. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the rectification application in question filed by the appellant cannot be entertained and the same was rightly rejected by the AO. Ground No.1, 2 and 3 thus fail.”
4. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), assessee is now in appeal before us and raised the following grounds.
“1. The Hon CIT(A) erred in confirming the tax demand of Rs.30,28,404 raised by the AO by holding that the amount seized during the course of search u/s 132 on 06.09.2010 could not be adjusted as per the assessee’s written request on 28.09.2010 for discharging advance tax liability for AY2011-12 and calculating interest u/s 234B and 234C and could be adjusted.
2. The Hon CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee having offered to tax undisclosed income including the amount seized during the search on 06.09.2010, the liability to pay advance tax in ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 respect thereof arose before completion of assessment and was an existing liability u/s 132B of the IT Act when the assessee requested for appropriation of tax out of seized cash in writing on 28.09.2010.
3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in holding that insertion of Explanation 2 in Section 132B by the Finance Act 2013 is declaratory in nature and has to be treated as retrospective when the amendment was explicitly to take effect from 1st June 2013.
4. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in holding that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jyothindra B. Mody in ITA No.3741/2010 dated 21.09.2011 and the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in the case of Kanishka Prints Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (34 Taxman.Com 307) were no longer good law after the insertion of Explanation 2 in Section 132B. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that these squarely applied in the facts of the appellants case.
5. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee’s request to compute correct tax demand and interest u/s 234B and 234C with reference to tax adjustments on 28.09.2010 towards advance tax liability for AY 2011-12 was rightly rejected by the AO.”
5. Before us, at the outset, Ld.Authorised Representative submitted that though the assessee has raised various grounds but the solitary issue is with respect to non granting of credit of seized cash towards advance tax.
6. Before us, Ld.Authorised Representative reiterated the submissions made before Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). He, further, submitted that it is an undisputed fact that the cash of `2,55,00,000/- was seized at the time of search conducted on 06/09/2010. He, further, submitted that assessee vide letter dated 22/09/2010 addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Investigation) and vide letter dated 28/09/2010 addressed to Commissioner of Income Tax – Central had requested them to adjust the ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 seized cash against the advance tax payable for the year under consideration. He placed on record the copy of the aforesaid letters. He submitted that the Assessee’s request was turned down. He submitted that the reliance placed by ld.CIT (A) to the amendment made to Section 132B by 132B by Finance Act 2013 is misplaced as it is effective from 1st June 2013 & therefore not applicable to assessment year 2011-12, being the year under consideration. He submitted that the Honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jotindra B. Modi (ITA No.3741 of 2010) order dated 21/09/2011 had decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the cash seized can be adjusted against advance tax liability. He, further, submitted that on identical facts and after considering the amendment made by Finance Act 2013 the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kanishka Prints Private Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2014 159 TTJ 699 (Ahd) has held that the insertion of explanation stating that “existing liability” does not include advance tax payable in section 132B made by Finance Act 2013 would be applicable from 01/06/2013. He, further, submitted that the Honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following decisions has held that the explanation to section 132B inserted by Finance Act 2013 was not retrospective in operation.
i) CIT Vs. Shri Sandeep Jain, C/o. Ludhiana Steel Roling Mills, (ITA No.261/2014 (O&M) order dated 29/09/2014).
ii) CIT Vs. Cosmos Builders and Promoters Limited (ITA 425/2014 (O & M) order dated 14/07/2015)ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12
iii) Spaze Towres Private Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.40/2015 (O&M) order dated 17/11/2016.)
7. He also placed reliance on the decisions of Pune Tribunal in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nitin Valjibhai Takkar in ITA No.193/PN/2014 order dated 25/05/2016 and Pushpendra Subash Chandra Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.1077/PN/2012 order dated 26/08/2013. He, therefore, submitted that the credit of the seized cash be given to the assessee. He further, submitted that Assessee would have no objection if the credit for seized cash is given from 28/09/2010, (being the date of letter of request for adjusting of cash) submitted to CIT (A). On the issue of the finding of CIT(A) with reference to the issue cannot be a subject matter of rectification u/s 154 as the issue being a debatable one, he submitted, that as on the date of passing of order by AO & CIT(A), the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jyotindra Mody (supra), being of jurisdictional high court, was binding on those two authorities and that not following the decision of jurisdictional high court was an apparent error and for this proposition he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Standard Radiators vs. CIT (1987) 165 ITR 178 (Guj). Ld.Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the order of Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and further submitted that there was no mistake in the order of Assessing Officer which requires rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He, further, submitted that the Explanation 2 added to section 132B was for the purpose of removal of doubt and therefore it is ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 retrospective in operation and therefore, the amendment made is declaratory in nature and for this proposition, he relied on the decision of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Poder Cements (1997) 226 ITR 625(SC).
8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is about the adjustment of cash seized at the time of search against the advance tax liability. It is an undisputed fact that cash of Rs.2.55 crore was seized on 06/08/2010. It is also an undisputed fact that Assessee vide letter dtd 28/09/2010, addressed to CIT(C) had requested for adjusting of seized cash against the advance tax liability for AY 2011-12. It is Revenue’s case that the seized cash cannot be adjusted against advance tax liability in view of the amendment made to Section 132B by insertion of Explanation 2 by Finance Act 2013, wherein it is stated that “existing liability” does not include advance tax payable. On the issue as to whether the insertion of Explanation 2 to s.132B by Finance Act 2013, is prospective or retrospective, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kanishka Prints(supra) has observed the amendment made of s.132B by insertion of Explanation 2 is prospective and is applicable from 1st June 2013. The relevant observation of the Tribunal is as under:-
“11. We have heard that the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that during the course of search at the residence of directors on 8.2.2007 and locker on 7.3.2007 aggregate cash of Rs.43 lacs was seized. It is also an undisputed fact that Assessee vide his letter dated 13.3.2007 submitted that out of the cash seized, Rs 10 lacs be treated towards payment of advance tax in the case of assessee and ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 similarly balance of Rs. 33 lacs be treated towards payment of advance tax in case of family members/group companies. It is also a fact that vide aforesaid letter, the Assessee had requested that cash of Rs 8 lacs be considered as advance tax in the case of Shreeji Prints P. Ltd. The co-
ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shreeji Prints (ITA No 359/Ahd/2012 – order dated 20.4.2012) decided in favour of Assessee by holding as under:
It is evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that the existing liability under the Income-tax can be discharged from the assets or money seized. In the present case, the search operation was conducted on 22-9-2005 and the assessee filed return on 31-5-2006 declaring the seized money as income. In our opinion, if the assessee has declared income, during the year under consideration in that eventuality he is liable to pay advance tax as per law therefore the A.O. is required to find out whether such liability was existing on the date of seizure. If such liability is existing then he is empowered to apply/adjust the money seized in discharge of the existing liability even without any written representation from the assessee. Now coming to the fact of the present case, it is not disputed that the money seized from the premises of Shri Lalit Patel and same was subsequently declared in the return of income filed on 31-5- 2006. Hence, it can very well be inferred from the return so filed that the respondent/assessee was required to pay advance tax on such income as mandated u/s.208 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, in view of the fact that there is no ambiguity in the provision so far application/adjustment of the seized money is concerned. Further, the judgments as relied upon by the Ld. D.R. would not apply on the facts and circumstances of the present case since this is not a case where application u/s.132(5) is made. Moreover, Section 132(5) is no more on statue book, even otherwise there is divergence in opinion between the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Hon’ble Delhi High Court as fairly pointed by the Ld.D.R. The order of the ITAT Delhi Bench in ITA No.1151/Del/2008 as relied by the Ld. D.R. is on different set of facts therefore, is not applicable on the facts of the present case. The issue whether the seized money should be applied towards advance tax liability of assessee and credit should be given credit there- from the date of seizure of money has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Rajkot Bench in ITA No. 172/RJT/2010 in the case of Shri Ram S. Sarada V. DCIT and the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT in ITA No.4238 & 4239/MUM/2007. Respectfully following the ratio laid therein we do not find any infirmity into the impugned order.”
12. Before us, Ld. D.R. has relied on the amendment made to s. 132A vide Finance Bill of 2013, We find that the amendment has been made by insertion of Explanation and the Explanation has been made applicable with effect from 1st June, 2013,. For ready reference, the amendment made by Finance Bill 2013 and the memorandum is reproduced hereunder:-
13. The amendment made by Finance Bill 2013 reads asunder:- Amendment of section 132b.
34. In section 132B of the Income-tax Act, the Explanation shall be numbered as explanation 1 thereof and after explanation 1 as so ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 numbered the following explanation shall be inserted with effect from the 1st day of June, 2013, (emphasis supplied) namely:- Explanation 2.- For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the “existing liability” does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Par C of Chapter XVII.”
The explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill reads as under:- The existing provisions contained in section 132B of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, provide that seized assets may be adjusted against any existing liability under the Income Tax Act. Wealth tax Act, the Expenditure-tax Act, the Gift-tax Actand the Interest tax Act and the amount of liability determined on completion of assessments pursuant to search, including penalty levied or interest payable and in respect of which such person is in default or deemed to be in default.
Various courts have taken a view that the term “existing liability” includes advance tax liability of the assessee, which is not in consonance with the intention of the legislature. The legislative intent behind this provision is to ensure the recovery of outstanding tax/interest/penalty and also to provide for recovery of taxes/ interest /penalty, which may arise subsequent to the assessment pursuant to search. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the aforesaid section so as to clarify that the existing liability does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII of the Act. This amendment will take effect from 1st June, 2013. (emphasis supplied)
14. In Taxmann’s publication “Interpretation of Statutes” 2nd Edition by Shri D.P. Mittal at page 807 it has been stated as under:- “The effect to be given to an explanatory amendment depends upon several factors, including its language. When the legislature has made the explanation operative prospectively by words expressed therein, its operation shall have to be confined to the future date. The same reasoning governs the case when Parliament limits the retrospectivity of the Explanation with effect from a particular date. In such a situation, giving future respectivity to the Explanation would be hijacking the intention of the Legislature into an impermissible area-CIT vs. Rajasthan Mercantile Co. Ltd. (1995) 211ITR 400 (Delhi). Thus, there is no doubt that ordinarily, a statue, and particularly when the same has been made applicable with effect from a particular date, should be construed prospectively and not retrospectively.”
15. Thus considering the totality of the aforesaid, interpretation of applicability of explanation, and amendment made by Finance Bill 2013, facts and respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench, we are of the view that the amended Explanation cannot be applied in present case. We therefore allow the appeal of the Assessee and direct the AO to give credit of Rs 10 lacs as advance tax. Thus the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.”
ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12
9. We further find that, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Spaze Towers (supra) has also held that the amendment made by insertion of Explanation 2 to section 132B is prospective. The relevant substantial question before Hon’ble High Court & its observations are reproduced herewith for ready reference:
“II. Whether under the facts & circumstances of the case, the Tribunal order is unsustainable, as Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.06.20103 is ‘prospective’ in nature?
III. Whether under the facts & circumstances of the case, Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, though inserted by the Finance Act, 2013 is ‘prospective’ in nature, pursuant to the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of CIT vs Sh. Sandeep Jain & others in ITA 261 of 2014, CIT (Central) Ludhiana vs. Cosmos Builders & Promoters Ltd., in ITA No.425 of 2014?”
3. The appeal is pressed only in respect of these questions of law and not in respect of the questions of law raised in the original appeal.
4. The appeal is admitted on the above questions of law. The judgement of a Divison Bench of this Court dated 29.09.2014 in ITA-261- 2014 titled as Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs Sh. Sandeep Jain and others covers the case in favour of the assessee. It was held that Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is prospective in nature w.e.f. 01.06.2013. The present appeal is in respect of the assessment year 2008-2009. In view of the said judgment, Explanation 2 would not be applicable to the assessee’s case. This judgment was followed by another judgment of a Divison Bench of this Court dated 14.07.2015 to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, CJ) was a party titled as Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs M/s Cosmos Builders and Promoter Ltd. By an order dated 06.05.2016, the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment filed by the department was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
5. We are bound by the above judgment. In fact, in M/s Cosmos Builders and Promoters Ltd. case, the judgment in Sh.Sandeep Jain and others was followed. We follow the same in this appeal also. As we are bound by that judgment, we have not considered Mr. Sethi’s argument on behalf of the respondent that the judgment does not lay down the correct ITA No.1039/PUN/2015 AY.No.2011-12 law. He also relied upon the memorandum explaining the Finance Bill to contend that Explanation 2 to Section 132B is retrospective.
6. In these circumstances, the questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant/assessee. It is admitted that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.”
10. Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support nor has placed any material to demonstrate that against the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Kanishka Prints(supra), Revenue has preferred any appeal before High Court or the aforesaid decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal has been reversed, set aside or overruled in any manner by the higher court. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that, that cash seized at the time of search be adjusted against the advance tax liability and as per ld. Authorised Representative submission the credit for it be given from the date of its request made to CIT(C) for adjustment of cash. We thus direct accordingly. In the result, the grounds of Assessee are allowed.
11. In the result, the appeal of Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on the 31st day of May, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Vikas Awasthy) (ANIL CHATURVEDI)
या यक सद!य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद!य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पण
ु े Pune; दनांक Dated : 31st day of May, 2017.
Gangadhar
ITA No.1039/PUN/2015
AY.No.2011-12
आदे श क+ , त-ल%प अ.े%षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. CIT(A)-11, Pune
4. CIT-(Central), Pune.
