Bellary Kashi Vishwanatha Setty, Davangere V. CIT, Davangere

ITA 10/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 1021114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T S N MURTHY CITIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI BELLARY KASHI VISHWANATHA SETTY, PROP. KASHI TRADING CO., STATION ROAD, DAVANGERE. PAN: AKPPS 0021A VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.S.N. MURTHY, CIT-I(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2014 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE OR DER U/S. 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [CIT], DAVANGERE ON 29.10.2013. ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 10 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, A DEALER IN SUG AR AND FOOD GRAINS AND ALSO DOING LORRY TRANSPORT BUSINESS, HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME OF RS .6,61,140. DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE AND OTHER DETAILS. ASSESSING O FFICER HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED COP IES OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS, LIST OF SUNDRY DEBT ORS AND CREDITORS, DETAILS OF INVESTMENTS AND DEPOSITS. THEREAFTER, ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) ON 26.3.2013 WHEREIN CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME VIZ., FOR DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK, DIFFE RENCE IN SUNDRY CREDITORS, DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN EXPENSES, DIFFERENCE IN CAP ITAL ACCOUNT AND DISALLOWANCE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVISIONS. 3. THEREAFTER, ON 7.8.2013, CIT ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSMENT WAS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE DUE TO NON-EXAMINATION OF THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- (I) NARRATION IN THE CASH BOOKS WHICH REFLECTED DEP OSITS IN CASH TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF TRADE CREDITORS. (II) NON-EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REFE RENCE TO THE DEPOSITS INTO TRADE CREDITORS BANK ACCOUNTS. 4. REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ABOVE NOT ICE ON 3.9.2013. ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AO HAD RAISED THE VERY SA ME ISSUE OF CASH PAYMENTS DIRECTLY TO SUPPLIERS BANK ACCOUNTS AND IN THIS REGARD AO HAD ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 10 ALSO OBTAINED ACCOUNT EXTRACT OF PARTIES CONCERNED. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SUCH PAYMENTS WERE DISCUSSED DURING THE COURSE OF O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS A DECISION OF BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SANDUR SALES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.872(BANG)2011 DATED 27.10.2012 , WHICH SUPPORTED HIS CONTENTION THAT DEPOSITS DIRECT LY TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SUPPLIERS WOULD NOT ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH V. ITO, 191 ITR 667 (SC) . 5. HOWEVER, THE CIT WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE ABO VE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HELD THAT MUMBAI BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF STAR INDIA LTD. IN ITA NO.7476/MUM/07 & 320/MUM/10 HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER:- AN ASSESSING OFFICER IS PART OF REVENUE MACHINE RY, EVEN THOUGH HIS JOB INVOLVES EXERCISE OF CERTAIN QUASI-J UDICIAL POWERS, AND DECISIONS OF THE APPELLATE FORUMS, IN GENERAL, DO NOT PREVENT HIM FROM RAISING DEMANDS ON THOSE ISSUES, UNLESS TH ESE DECISIONS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHOULD FOLLOW THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS LONG AS HE CAN DO SO WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, BUT WE CANNOT VISUALIZE A SITUATION IN WHICH HIS NOT RAISI NG DEMANDS ON THOSE ISSUES WILL NOT AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE. IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT RAISE THE DEMANDS ON THE ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT I S IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME, INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WILL BE CLEARLY PREJUDICED AND REMAIN UNPROTECTED. THE ORDERS OF TH E HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES BIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT THAT ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 10 HE IS REQUIRED TO LOYALLY EXECUTE THE DIRECTIONS CO NTAINED IN THESE ORDERS, BUT THEN THESE ORDERS DO NOT PREVENT HIM FR OM TAKING THE SAME STAND, AS HE TOOK IN THOSE ASSESSMENTS, IN OTH ER CASES; QUITE TO THE CONTRARY, HIS ABANDONING THAT STAND IN OTHER CASES COULD PREJUDICE HIS STAND IN THE MATTERS WHICH ARE IN APP EAL BEFORE THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IT WILL, HOWEVER, BE STRETCHING THE THINGS TOO FAR TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT RAISE DEMANDS ON THOSE ISSUES AT ALL, BECAUSE IT WILL RESULT IN A SITUATIO N THAT IN THE ASSESSMENTS SO FRAMED, TAX REVENUES IN RESPECT OF A N ISSUE ON WHICH REVENUE IS VIGOROUSLY JUSTIFYING ITS EARLIER STAND BEFORE THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES, WILL BE LOST FOREVER. THE POSITION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM A JUDI CIAL OR EVEN QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY; HE IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDIC ATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR AND IT IS ALSO HIS DUTY TO DEFEND LEGI TIMATE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. MERELY BECAUSE ANOTHER DEMAND RAISED O N THE SAME ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY A JUDICIAL BODY, AS LONG AS THE DECISION OF THAT JUDICIAL BODY IS IN CHALLENGE BEFO RE THE HIGHER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, DOES NOT PREVENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM RAISING DEMANDS ON THOSE ISSUES IN THE CASES OF OTH ER TAXPAYERS, 6. AS PER THE CIT, THERE WERE DECISIONS OF THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VENKATADRI CONSTRUCTIONS (2013) 17 TAXMAN.COM 71 (MAD) , WHICH HAD HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) WERE ATTRACTED TO CASH DEPOSITS MADE DIRECTLY TO TH E ACCOUNTS OF SUPPLIERS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE VIEW, EVEN IF THERE WAS ONE T AKEN BY THE AO, WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND THIS RENDERED THE ASSES SMENT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. HE THUS I NVOKED THE POWERS VESTED ON HIM U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AND SET ASIDE THE ASSESS MENT ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE INCOME BY DISA LLOWING PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF RS.41,85,020 U/S. 40A(3) O F THE ACT. ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 5 OF 10 7. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT WAS TRYING TO SUBSTITUTE A LAWFUL VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. ACCORDIN G TO HIM, THE SAME ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A D ETAILED REPLY IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AO, AFT ER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SANDUR SALES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND ALSO THAT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH (SUPRA) , HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SECTION 40A(3) WAS NOT ATTRACTED TO PAYMENTS D IRECTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO BANK ACCOUNT OF SUPPLIERS. EVEN IF THE RE WERE JUDGMENTS OF OTHER HIGH COURTS, THAT MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A DIFFEREN T VIEW; AS PER THE LD. AR, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO WAS NOT A POSSIBLE ONE. AS PER THE LD. AR, THIS WOULD NOT BE A SUFFICIENT REASON F OR INVOKING POWERS VESTED WITH THE CIT U/S. 263. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT V. MAX INDIA LTD., 295 ITR 282 (SC) AND THAT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. GABRIEL INDIA LTD., 203 ITR 108 (BOM) . 8. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT. ACCORDING TO HIM, VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A S A LEGITIMATE ONE. AS PER THE LD. DR, AO HAD NOT EXAMINED THE REPLY GIVEN BY ASSESSEE, NOR HAD CORRECTLY ASSIMILATED THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY TH E ASSESSEE. ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 6 OF 10 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING APPLICATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT WAS VERIFIED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. THAT, QUERIES WERE RAISED IN THIS REGARD AND ASSESS EE HAD GIVEN REPLY ON 8.3.2013 IS CLEAR FROM THE PAPERBOOK FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. IN THE LETTER DATED 8.3.2013 SENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO, THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DEALT WITH. THE SAID LETTER IS REPRODU CED VERBATIM HEREUNDER:- SUB: SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS AY 2010-11 - CALLING FOR INFORMATION CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING. IN THE COURSE OF OUR CASE HEARING YOUR GOODSELF HAV E RAISED THE ISSUE OF CASH PAYMENTS TO OUR SUPPLIERS THROUGH THE IR [SUPPLIERS] BANK ACCOUNTS. THESE PAYMENTS ARE MADE AS THE PARTI ES ARE WIDE SPREAD IN THE VILLAGES AND TOWNS OF KARNATAKA AND W HERE THEY ARE IN REMOTE PLACES AND NOT CONNECTED WITH NET BANKING SYSTEM. THE PAYMENTS ARE ALSO OTHERWISE MADE TO OUR PARTIES WHO ARE NOT OPERATING NET BANKING SYSTEM. ON THEIR PRESSURE WE ARE FORCED TO MAKE THESE PAYMENT TO THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS DIRECTLY, THESE PAYMENTS ARE SUPPORTED BY PAY IN SLIPS. WE ALSO WISH TO STATE THAT OURS IS A SUGAR, MAIDA A ND ATTA WHOLE SALE BUSINESS, WE HAVE BEEN BUYING SUGAR FROM MAINL Y CO- OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES WHICH ARE SITUATED IN THE REMOTE PLACES IN THE NORTHERN PART OF KARNATAKA, MAIDA AND ATTA F ROM MYSORE FLOOR MILL AND RAMALINGESHWARA INDUSTRIES. SOME SUGAR FACTORIES NAMELY SRI HIRANYAKESHI S S K N, JAWAHAR SHEKARI S S K LTD. SRI TATYSAHEB KORE WARANA S S K LTD ETC AND MYSORE FLOOR MILL, RAMALINGESHWARA INDUSTRIES, INSI ST US TO DIRECTLY DEPOSIT THE CASH INTO THEIR BANK ACCOUNT T OWARDS PURCHASE OF SUGAR & ATTA AND WE HAVE DONE AS PER THEIR REQUE ST AND ALSO FOR BUSINESS NECESSITY. OTHERWISE IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO PURCHASE THE SUGAR AS THE SELLER REQUIRES IMMEDIATE CASH PAYMENTS TO SUGAR CANE GROWERS AT THEIR END, AS ALS O THE AGRICULTURISTS INSIST FOR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT FROM S UGAR FACTORIES. ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 7 OF 10 WITHOUT THE ABOVE MECHANISM OF PAYMENT IT IS NOT PO SSIBLE FOR US TO DO THIS BUSINESS. YOUR GOOD SELF HAVE RECEIVED THE LEDGER BALANCES OF OUR ACCOUNT/S FROM ALL OUR SUPPLIERS. YOUR GOOD SELF HAVE VERIFIE D OUR BOOK ENTRIES AND THE ENTRIES AS THEY APPEAR IN THEIR [SU PPLIERS] BOOKS, YOU HAVE ALSO CROSS VERIFIED THE EACH PURCHASES MAD E BY US AND ALSO CORRELATED THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY US WITH R ECEIPTS IN THEIR BOOKS. THERE ARE NO DISCREPANCIES AS FAR AS OUR PAY MENTS AND THEIR RECEIPTS ARE CONCERNED. WE FURTHER WISH TO ST ATE THAT THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND ARE DONE MAINLY FOR BUSINESS NECESSITY. CASH PAYMENTS DIRECTLY INTO BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SUP PLIERS ENABLES VERIFICATION OF THE TRANSACTION FROM ORIGIN TO THE CONCLUSION AND ENSURES THAT THE PAYEE ALONE RECEIVES THE PAYMENT A ND ALSO AS THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY UNACCOUNTED MONEY THAT COUL D BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED TO MAKE THE PAYMENTS. OURS IS A COVERED MATTER BY THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT. HONBLE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH A IN THE CASE OF THE DY. CIT VS M/S SANDUR SALES AND SERVICES PVT. LTD, ITA NO.872(BNG)/2011 A.Y.2005-06 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. THE EXTRACT OF T HE DECISION IS ENCLOSED TO THIS LETTER FOR YOUR KIND REFERENCE. THE DECISION IS BASED ON THE REFERENCE OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT CASE, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APEX COURT ARE REFERRED IN THE ABOVE SAID TRIBUNAL CASE, THE EXTRACT OF THIS I S REPRODUCED BELOW :- THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ATTAR SING H GURMUKH SINGH VS ITO REPORTED IN 191 ITR 667 HAS HELD AS UN DER; THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT THE INTENTION TO MAKE PAYMENT BY CROSSED CHEQUE OR CROSSED DD IS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ASCERTAIN THAT TH E PAYMENT IS GENUINE AND NOT OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT SEC.40A(3) IS INTENDE D TO REGULATE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND TO PREVENT THE U SE OF UNACCOUNTED MONIES OR TO REDUCE THE CHANCES OF USE OF BLACK MONEY FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. IN THE PRESE NT ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 8 OF 10 CASE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF R ICE, PAID THE AMOUNT DIRECTLY TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE. THE EFFECT OF ISSUE OF CROSSED CHEQUE/DD IS THAT THE PAYEE NAMED THEREIN RECEIVES THE PAYMENT THROUG H BANKING CHANNELS. THE PURPOSE IS DUAL. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IT IS TO SEE THAT THE PAYEE AND PAYEE ALON E RECEIVES THE PAYMENT AND TO ENSURE THAT THE PAYMENT IS ROUTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNE1 SO AS TO TRACE THE ORIGIN AND CONCLUSION OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, IT IS SEEN THAT INSTEAD OF ISSUING CHEQU E/DD THE ASSESSEE PREPARED A CHALLAN AND ALONG WITH THE CASH THE CHALLAN WAS PRESENTED TO THE BANK OF THE PAYEE FOR THE CREDIT OF THE SAME IN THE ACCOUNT OF PAYEE. IN THE RESULT, IT IS ENSURED THAT THE PAYEE ALONE RECEIVES THE PAYMENT AND THE ORIGIN AND CONCLUSION OF TRANSACTIO N IS TRACEABLE THUS, PAYMENT OF SUM DIRECTLY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF PAYEE FULFILS THE CRITERIA FOR ENSURING THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCTION OF SEC 40A(3). THIS IS NOT A DIRECT PAYMENT TO THE PAYEE BUT ONLY TO THE CREDIT OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT THE PAYEE ACTUALLY RECEIVING THE CA SH. WE ACCORDINGLY, HOLD THAT SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3) AND HENCE NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL CASE AND THE PRINCIPLE HELD IN A PEX COURT DECISION IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN OUR CASE. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE, NOT IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS PRAYED TO YOUR GOOD SELF TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE ABOVE SUBMISSION BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT. 10. IT MIGHT BE TRUE THAT THERE ARE SOME DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS WHICH COULD LEAD TO A VIEW THAT PAYMENTS EFF ECTED DIRECTLY TO SUPPLIERS BANK ACCOUNT IN CASH WOULD ALSO ATTRACT SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY AO IS NOT A LAWFUL ONE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SANDUR SALES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAD HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 9 OF 10 ASSESSEE IN SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, RELYIN G ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH (SUPRA) . SO, EFFECTIVELY, THE LD. CIT WAS TRYING TO SUBSTITUTE A LAWFUL VIEW TAKEN BY AO WITH THAT OF HIS OWN. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN TH E CASE OF MAX INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAD CLEARLY HELD THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND ITO HAD TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT COULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, UNLESS VIEW TAKEN BY ITO WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT SECTION 263 DID NOT VISUALIZE SUBSTITUTION OF JUDGMENT OF COMMI SSIONER WITH THAT OF ITO. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THIS WAS NOT A FIT CASE WHERE POWERS U/S. 263 COULD HAVE BEEN INVOKED. THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT ORDER COULD BE STATED TO BE ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. ORDER OF THE CIT U/S. 263 IS QUASHED. 11. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER , 2014 . SD/- SD/- ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST OCTOBER, 2014 . /D S/ ITA NO.10/BANG/2014 PAGE 10 OF 10 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.