Sri. Nakoda Constructions Limited, Bangalore V. JCIT, Bangalore

CO 96/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8883 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVEEN KARANTH JT
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BABU PRASAD; B S BALACHANDRAN
• Keywords: Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(3), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. SOURCE HUB INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.29, SHREE KRISHNA, 3 RD & 4 TH FLOOR, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, GOVINDRAJ NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040. PAN : AAICS 0656B APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO NO.96/BANG/2012 (IN ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. SOURCE HUB INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.29, SHREE KRISHNA, 3 RD & 4 TH FLOOR, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, GOVINDRAJ NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 040. PAN : AAICS 0656B VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVEEN KARANTH, JT. CIT(DR) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI B.S. BALACHANDRAN & S.K. BABUPRASAD, ADVOCATES. DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2013 ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 2 OF 10 O R D E R PER BENCH ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2012 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-II, BANG ALORE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A C ROSS-OBJECTION VIZ., CO NO.96/BANG/2012 WHICH IS PURELY SUPPORTIVE OF TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.44,03,789 MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE IS AS FOLLOWS . THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDIN G COMPUTER SERVICES. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICE D THAT A COMPANY BY NAME M/S. VALUE POINT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. [VPSPL FO R SHORT] HAD GIVEN A LOAN OF RS.81,90,247 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SHAREHOL DING PATTERN OF VPSPL IS AS FOLLOWS: MR. R.S. SHANBHAG - 50% MR. SAMPATH KUMAR - 50% AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CONCERNED, ITS SH ARES WERE HELD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 3 OF 10 VPSPL : 64.53% V.C. KAMATH : 33.33% R.S. SHANBHAG : 1.07% SAMPATH KUMAR : 1.07% 4. SEC. 2(22) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DEFINES DIVIDEND . SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, READS AS FOLLOWS : '(E) ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM (WH ETHER AS REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE) MADE AFTER THE 31ST MAY, 1987, BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL O WNER OF SHARES (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVID END WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER, OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHIC H SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH H E HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (HEREAFTER IN THIS CLAUSE REFE RRED TO AS THE SAID CONCERN) OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHA LF, OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT, OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY IN EITHER CASE POSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFIT S.' EXPLANATION 3 TO S. 2(22)(E) IS AS FOLLOWS : 'EXPLANATION 3 : FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE (A) 'CONCERN' MEANS AN HUF, OR A FIRM OR AN AOP OR A BOI OR A COMPANY; (B) A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN A CONCERN, OTHER THAN A COMPANY, IF HE IS, AT ANY TIM E DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BENEFICIALLY ENTITLED TO NOT LESS TH AN TWENTY PER CENT OF THE INCOME OF SUCH CONCERN.' SEC. 2(32) DEFINES THE EXPRESSION 'PERSON WHO HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN THE COMPANY', IN RELATION TO A COMPANY, MEANS A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES, NOT BEING SH ARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RI GHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS, CARRYING NOT LESS THAN TWENTY PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER. ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 4 OF 10 5. THE THREE LIMBS OF S. 2(22)(E) ARE AS FOLLOWS : 'ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY, NOT BEING A COMPANY IN W HICH THE PUBLIC ARE SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED, OF ANY SUM (WHETHER A S REPRESENTING A PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE) MADE AFT ER THE 31ST MAY, 1987, BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN. FIRST LIMB (A) TO A SHAREHOLDER, BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BEN EFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RAT E OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH OR WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN P ROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN PER CENT OF THE VOTING POWER. SECOND LIMB (B) OR TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST (HEREAFTER IN THIS CLAUSE REFERRED TO AS THE SAID CONCERN) THIRD LIMB (C) OR ANY PAYMENT BY ANY SUCH COMPANY ON BEHALF, O R FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF ANY SUCH SHAREHOLDER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE COMPANY IN EITHER CASE P OSSESSES ACCUMULATED PROFITS.' 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DOE S NOT OWN ANY SHARES IN VPSPL AND THEREFORE THE 1 ST LIMB WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE ALSO BEFORE US THAT THE 1 ST LIMB REFERRED TO ABOVE WILL APPLY. 7. AS FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SECOND LIMB O F SEC.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE COMMON SHAREHOLDERS IN THE AS SESSEE COMPANY AND VPSPL SHOULD HOLD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BOTH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 5 OF 10 VPSPL. SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST HAS BEEN DEFINED TO ME AN HOLDING OF 20% VOTING POWER OR RIGHT TO SHARE OF PROFITS TO THE EX TENT OF 20%. THE TWO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS OF THE ASSESSEE AND VPSPL, HOLD 50% SHARES OF VPSPL AND THEREFORE SATISFY THE CONDITION AS FAR AS VPSPL IS CONCERNED. AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, THEY HOLD ONLY 1.07% SHARE CAPITAL AND THEREFORE DO NOT SATISFY THE TEST OF HOLDING SU BSTANTIAL INTEREST IN ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE THE SECOND LIMB IS ALS O NOT ATTRACTED OR SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 8. THIS FACTUAL POSITION IS ACCEPTED BY THE AO ALSO . NEVERTHELESS, THE AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22) (E) BY OBSER VING THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SECOND LIMB WERE INDIRECTLY SATISF IED FOR THE REASONS THAT SRI SHANBHAG AND SRI SAMPATHKUMAR HOLD MORE THAN 20 % SHARE HOLDING IN VPSPL AND BY VIRTUE OF THE HOLDING OF 66% OF THE SH ARES OF THE ASSESSEE BY VPSPL ARE DEEMED TO HOLD MORE THAN 20% SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE PAYM ENT IS A MADE UP AFFAIR AS M/S. VALUE POINT SYSTEMS (PVT.) LTD. COULD HAVE DIS TRIBUTED DIVIDENDS OUT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS TO SHARE HOLDERS AFTER PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX AND IN TURN THESE SHARE HOLDERS COULD HAVE GIVE N THE LOANS TO M/S.SOURCEHUB INDIA PVT. LTD., IF NEEDED. HOWEVER, THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN HEREIN IS SUCH WHEREIN SURPLUS FROM M/S VALUE POINT SYSTEMS (PVT.) LTD. IS TRANSFERRED TO M/S.SOURCEHUB DIRECTLY IN THE FORM O F LOAN, THEREBY ACHIEVING TWO GOALS OF AVOIDING DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX BUT AT THE SAME TIME ACHIEVING THE INTENTION OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED INDI VIDUALS TO USE THE ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 6 OF 10 SURPLUS IN THE HOLDING COMPANY FOR THE BENEFIT OF T HE SUBSIDIARY/SISTER CONCERN AND HENCE THIS IS NOTHING BUT A MADE-UP AFF AIR AND HENCE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND HAS TO BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY AS DEEM ED DIVIDEND. 9. THE AO ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE LOAN GIVEN BY VPSPL TO THE ASSESSEE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE AC T. THE AO FOUND THAT OUT OF LOAN OF RS.81,90,247 SHOWN AS LOAN OUTSTANDI NG AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, ONLY A SUM OF RS.44,03,789 WAS LOAN GIVEN DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AMOUNTING TO A SUM OF RS.44,03,789 WAS TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO. 10. THE CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, THE ASSE SSEE MUST BE A SHAREHOLDER IN THE COMPANY WHICH GIVES LOAN AND SIN CE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUCH A SHAREHOLDER, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE LO AN IN QUESTION CANNOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE U/S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IN COMING TO THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION, TH E CIT(A) RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT V. ANKITECH PVT. LTD., (2011) TAXPUB(DT) 1008 (DEL-HC) . THE CIT(A) ALSO HELD AS FOLLOWS:- IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT CONCERN IS NOT A SHAREHOLDER IN THE PAYER CONCERN. AS SUCH, BY A PLAIN READING OF THE LAW, THE DEEMED DIV IDEND CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT CONCERN. I AM INCLINED ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 7 OF 10 TO THE VIEW THAT THE AO ADOPTED THE CONCEPT OF A DE EMED SHAREHOLDING WITH REFERENCE TO SEC 2(22)(E) WHICH A PPEARS TO TRAVEL BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION. THE LD. DEL HI HIGH COURT HAS OPINED THAT IF THE LEGISLATURE HAD THIS INTENTI ON, IT WOULD HAVE INSERTED THE SAME BY WAY OF A DEEMING PROVISIO N. RESPECTFULLY CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT WHICH IS SQUARELY ON THIS ISSUE, I AM OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, THOUGH OCCASIONED BY THE BONAFIDE Z EAL TO SAFEGUARD THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE FROM WHAT CO ULD WELL HAVE INGREDIENTS OF A MADE UP AFFAIR, IS NOT WITH IN THE SCOPE OF THE LAW AS FOUND IN SEC 2(22)(E) AND INTERPRETED BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT AS ABOVE. AS SUCH, I AM UNABLE TO UPHOL D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT, AND THE SA ME IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR, WH O RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HAVE CONSIDERED HIS SUBMISSIONS AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY HELD TO BE NOT PROPER BY THE CIT(APPEALS). AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT(A), THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE AO THAT THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ARRANGED IN SUCH A WAY TO GET OUT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO BRING TO TAX THE SUM GIVEN AS LOAN. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT I N THE PRESENT CASE NEITHER THE FIRST LIMB OR THE SECOND LIMB OF SEC.2( 22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE. THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE SECOND LIMB IS APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE TRANSACTION CAN GIVE BENEFIT TO THE ASS ESSEE BECAUSE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS VIZ., MR.SHANBHAG AND MR.SAMPATHKUMAR H OLD THE ENTIRE SHARES ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 8 OF 10 OF VPSPL WHICH IN TURN HELD 66% OF SHARES OF THE AS SESSEE. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT(A), THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT HAVE TO BE APPLIED AS IT IS. THOSE PROVISIONS DO NOT CONTEMPL ATE LOOKING BEHIND THE CORPORATE VEIL. IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE AO IS ACCEP TED, THEN THAT WOULD BE IGNORING THE CORPORATE PERSONALITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATING IT AS TWO INDIVIDUALS VIZ., MR.SHANBHAG AND MR.SAMPATHKUMAR. THE INTENTION BEHIND ENACTING PROVISIONS OF S. 2(22)(E) ARE THAT CLOSELY HELD COMPANIES (I.E., COMPANIES IN WHICH PUBLIC ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INT ERESTED), WHICH ARE CONTROLLED BY A GROUP OF MEMBERS, EVEN THOUGH THE C OMPANY HAS ACCUMULATED PROFITS WOULD NOT DISTRIBUTE SUCH PROFI T AS DIVIDEND BECAUSE IF SO DISTRIBUTED THE DIVIDEND INCOME WOULD BECOME TAX ABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. INSTEAD OF DISTRIBUTING ACCUMULAT ED PROFITS AS DIVIDEND, COMPANIES DISTRIBUTE THEM AS LOAN OR ADVANCES TO SH AREHOLDERS OR TO CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SHAREHOLDERS HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OR MAKE ANY PAYMENT ON BEHALF OF OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF SUCH SHAREHOLDER. IN SUCH AN EVENT, BY THE DEEMING PROVISIONS SUCH PAYME NT BY THE COMPANY IS TREATED AS DIVIDEND. THE INTENTION BEHIND THE PROVI SIONS OF S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS TO TAX DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDER. THE DEEMING PROVISION AS IT APPLIES TO THE CASE OF LOANS OR ADVANCES BY A COMPANY TO A CONCERN IN WHICH ITS SHAREHOLDER HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IS B ASED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE LOAN OR ADVANCES WOULD ULTIMATELY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY BY GIVING THE LOAN OR A DVANCE. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS THEREFORE TO TAX DIVIDEND ONL Y IN THE HANDS OF THE ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 9 OF 10 SHAREHOLDER AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH IS NOT SHAREHOLDER IN THE COMPANY THAT HAS GIVEN LOAN OR ADVANCE. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS NOT A SHAREHOLDER IN VPSPL, THE DE EMING PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE C IT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANKITECH PVT.LTD. ( SUPRA ). THE HONBLE COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION HEL D THAT UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN BY A COMPANY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OR TO A CONCERN WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS D IVIDEND. IT HAS BEEN MADE SO BY LEGAL FICTION CREATED UNDER S. 2(22)(E). THIS LEGAL PROVISION RELATES TO 'DIVIDEND' AND IT IS THE DEFINITION OF D IVIDEND WHICH IS ENLARGED BY THIS DEEMING PROVISION. DEFINITION OF SHAREHOLDER IS NOT ENLARGED BY ANY FICTION. THE CONCLUSION IS THAT THE LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN UNDER THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED UNDER S. 2(22)(E) HAS TO BE TR EATED AS DIVIDEND. FICTION HAS TO STOP HERE AND IS NOT TO BE EXTENDED FURTHER FOR BROADENING THE CONCEPT OF SHAREHOLDERS BY WAY OF LEGAL FICTION. I NTENTION BEHIND THE PROVISIONS OF S. 2(22)(E) IS TO TAX DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF SHAREHOLDERS. A CONCERN WHICH IS GIVEN LOAN OR ADVANCE BY A COMPANY CANNOT BE TREATED AS SHAREHOLDER/MEMBER OF THE LATTER SIMPLY BECAUSE A S HAREHOLDER OF THE LENDER COMPANY HOLDING VOTING POWER OF 10 PER CENT OR MORE THEREIN HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN SUCH CONCERN. IF THE INTEN TION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO TAX SUCH LOAN OR ADVANCE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND AT T HE HANDS OF 'DEEMING SHAREHOLDER', IT WOULD HAVE INSERTED DEEMING PROVIS ION IN RESPECT OF SHAREHOLDER AS WELL. ITA NO.642/BANG/2012 & CO NO.96/BANG/2012 PAGE 10 OF 10 13. SINCE NONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR INVOKING THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WERE PRESENT IN THE INSTANT CAS E, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPE AL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. THE CO BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS PURELY SUPPORTI VE OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ALSO DISMISSED, IN VIEW OF THE DISMIS SAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL AS WELL AS THE CO IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVA N ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R BANGALORE, DATED, THE 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. C IT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.