ITO, Bangalore V. Smt. Sadarama S. Chadagar, Bangalore

ITA 1025/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57545 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P C CHADAGA ITP
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69; 144

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES A BEFORE SHRI N K SAINI, ACCOUNANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1025/BANG/2010 (ASST. YEAR 2005-06) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),BANGALORE. VS SMT. SADARAMA S CHADAGAR, ROHINI NO.43, 5 TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070. PA NO.AJPWC4579M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1053/BANG/2010 (ASST. YEAR 2005-06) SMT. SADARAMA S CHADAGAR, ROHINI NO.43, 5 TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560070. PA NO.AJPWC4579M VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2),BANGALORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 20.03.20 12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.03.2012 REVENUE BY : SHRI SARAVANAN B., JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P C CHADAGA, ITP O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K : THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A)- II, BANGALORE DATED 23.03.2010, IN RELATION TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. PAGE 2 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 2 2. IN REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO.1025/2010), THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED:- 1) THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW A ND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.46,40,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT OF DEPOSIT MADE TO THE SB ACCOUNT OF THE BANK. 3) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO COMPUTE CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF SIT ES TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING A HUGE SUM OF RS.58,60,000/- AS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT AGREEMENT MADE WITH FIRM WHICH IS OWNED B Y THE ASSESSEES SONS. 5) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE COST OF SITES AT RS.4,09,046/-. 6) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED IN A MANNER TO REDUCE THE TAX IN CIDENCE WHICH IS COVERED IN THE CASE OF M/S MCDOWELL & CO. AS REPORTED IN 154 ITR 148. 7) FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER ORDER BE RESTORED. 2.1 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO.1053/2010), THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED:- 1) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FAC TS OF THE CASE. 2) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 144 ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE WITHOU T GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. PAGE 3 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 3 3) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3 ,06,256/- AS REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 4) FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH MAY BE RAISED EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT HEREIN MAY KIN DLY BE ALLOWED. 3. WE SHALL FIRST CONSIDER THE REVENUES APPEAL (I TA NO.1025/2010). GROUND NOS.1 AND 7 RAISED IN REVENU ES APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR; HENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO.2 RELATE TO THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS.46,40,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT MADE IN S B ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1 THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT AN AMOU NT OF RS.46,40,000/- WAS FOUND DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT STA NDING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF HER DEPOSITS. THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, AN EXPARTE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 1 44 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2007 BY BRINGING TO TAX THE DEPOSI TS MADE AMOUNTING TO RS.46,40,000/- AND DEMANDING A TAX LIABILITY TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,82,896/-. 4.2 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEF ORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. PAGE 4 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 4 4.3 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IT HAD PURCHASED AND SOLD 5 PLOTS OF LAND DURING THE YEAR W HICH ACCOUNTED FOR THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE. 4.4 THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE A ND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE AMOUNTING TO RS.46,40,000/-. THE REL EVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) READS AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME THE SUM OF RS.46,40,000/- BEING CASH DEPOSITS MADE DURING T HE PREVIOUS YEARS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO.19971. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD SITES/PLOTS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.70,35,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS.18,80,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY CASH AND THE REMAININ G RS.51,55,000/- BY BANK CHEQUES. THE CASH SO RECEIVE D WAS DEPOSITED IN BANKS AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.25,87,00 0/- IS EXPLAINED THAT SHORT ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO THE PARTIES, WHICH RECEIVED BACK IN CASH. THERE IS FOR CE IN THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION AND AS PER THE BANK STAT EMENT, SALE HAS BEEN EFFECTED UP TO OCTOBER, 2004 AND MOST OF THE CASH DEPOSITS APPEAR THEREAFTER. THUS, THE SOU RCES OF CASH DEPOSITS STAND EXPLAINED. 4.5 THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 4.6 THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF T HE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE HE HAS NOT CATEGORICALLY FOUND THAT THE RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND WAS RECEIVED IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO TH E CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOS IT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF SITES/PLOTS WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18,80,000/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONCL UDING THAT AN AMOUNT OF PAGE 5 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 5 RS.25,87,000/- IS EXPLAINED BY RECEIVING BACK THE SH ORT ADVANCES, WHICH WERE GIVEN TO VARIOUS PARTIES AND RECEIVED BACK IN CASH. 4.7 THE LEARNED AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A). 4.8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) HAD FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.70,35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SITES/PLOTS. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH O F RS.18,80,000/- AND THE BALANCE OF RS.51,55,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF BANK CHEQUES. THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS NOT UNDERTAK EN THE EXERCISE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE CASH RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SITES/PLOTS WERE THE REASON FOR THE RESULTANT DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, HE HAS NOT VERIFIED THE DATE ON WHICH THE PLOTS WERE SOLD AND THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN CASH AND WHETHER IT IS CO-R ELATED TO THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN DETAILS WITH REGARD TO HIS FINDING THAT SHORT ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASSES SEE TO VARIOUS PARTIES WERE RECEIVED BACK IN CASH. IN THE INTEREST OF JUS TICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS MATTER NEEDS FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE LEV EL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE HEARD BEFORE A DECI SION IS TAKEN ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. GROUND NOS.3 TO 6 RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF COMPU TATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. PAGE 6 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 6 5.1 AT THE TIME OF APPEAL HEARING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE WORKING OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS UNDER:- I) SALE PRICE RS.70,35,000 II) LESS: PURCHASE PRICE OF SITES REGISTRATION/DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS. 4,09,046 RS.58,60,000 RS.62,69,046 RS. 7,65,954 5.2 THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED FOR TAXATION A SUM OF RS.7,65,954/- AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASS ESSEE HAD PURCHASED ONE PLOT OF LAND ON 4/2/2004 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,02,790/-. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FOUR MORE SITES ON 6/4/2004 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,06,256/-. THESE FIVE SITES/P LOTS WERE SOLD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.70,35,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMED REGISTRATION/DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.58 ,60,000/-. THE REGISTRATION/DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.58 ,60,000/- IS SAID TO BE PAID TO - I) M/S SRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS RS.30,60, 800/- II) M/S SRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS RS.27,99,000/- THE CIT(A) HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AS GENUINE EXPENDITURE BY DEDUCTING A SUM OF RS.58,60,000/- FROM THE TOTAL SA LE CONSIDERATION OF RS.70,35,000/- IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 5.3 THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. PAGE 7 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 7 5.4 THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IS NO T JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS.58,60,000/- AS REGISTRATIO N/DEVELOPMENT CHARGES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS, TO WHICH THE DEVELOPMENTS CHARGES WERE PAID, WERE OWNED BY THE SO NS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO RELATED PARTIES ONLY TO SPLIT THE SALE CONSIDERATION. IT WAS STATED THAT THE DEV ELOPMENT CHARGES PAID TO THE RELATED CONCERNS HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND INCOME ADMITTED WERE UNDER PRESUMPTIVE BASIS AT THE RATE O F 8% WITHOUT MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS. THE LEARNED DR CONTENDED THAT THE SITES WHICH WERE SOLD WERE ALREADY DEVELOPE D WHEN IT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE OU GHT NOT TO HAVE INCURRED SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT AS DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES . 5.5 THE LEARNED AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AT PAG E 12 HAD OBSERVED THUS:- (I) FROM THE REMAND REPORT IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PUT HER OPINION ON THE BA SIS OF MOU AND SALE DEED. NO FURTHER ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED. AT LEAST, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE APPELLANT, PROPRIETORS OF M/S SRI PROP ERTY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS AS WELL AS M/S SRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AGAINST WHOM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WERE CLAIMED. WHILE EXAMINING, SHE SHOULD HAVE ASKED FO R THE NATURE OF WORK CARRIED OUT BY THEM, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES INCURRED, ETC. PAGE 8 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 8 5.7 THE CIT(A) HAS PUT THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN NOT EXAMINING THE APPELLANT/THE PROPRIETORS OF M/S SRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS AS WELL AS M/S SRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS WHIL E DOUBTING THE PAYMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION/DEVELOPMENT CHARGES . NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE PARTIE S TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE PARTIES, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EXAMINING THE PARTIES CONCERNED. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY M/S SRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS AND M/S SRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS WERE DISCLOSED IN THEIR RETU RNS OF INCOME ON A PRESUMPTIVE BASIS AT 8% WITHOUT ANY MAINTENANCE OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS. THE DECLARATION OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES I N THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT ON A PRESUMPTIVE BASIS WILL NOT ABSOLVE T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THESE ARE GENUINE PAYMENTS MADE. WE FEEL THAT NO PR OPER EXAMINATION HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ISSUE AND WH ETHER IT WAS NECESSITATED TO INCUR THESE EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.58,60,000/-. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH AN D ACCORDINGLY, IT IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR D ENOVO CONSIDERATION. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE HEARD BEFORE A DECISION IS TAKEN ON THE MATTER. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN GROUND NO.5, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE CIT(A)S DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE COST OF SITES AT RS.4,09,046/-. PAGE 9 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/2 010 9 6.1 THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION IN THE COURSE OF HEARING IN RESPECT OF CIT(A)S FINDING OF TREATING THE COST OF THE SITES/PLOTS AT RS.4,09,046/-. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO.1053/20100 8. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS GEN ERAL IN NATURE AND NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR; HENCE, THES E GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 8.1 IN GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT STATING THAT NO A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE EXPA RTE ASSESSMENTS. 8.2 IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE AD DITION OF RS.3,06,256/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTI ON 69 OF THE ACT. 8.3 AS STATED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FIVE SITES. THE DETAILS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE AND THE COST OF PUR CHASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:- SITE NO. DATE OF PURCHASE/INVESTMENT COST PRICE (RS .) 16 4/2/2004 1,02,790 2 6/4/2004 85,846 10 6/4/2004 73,470 9 6/4/2004 73,470 8 6/4/2004 73,470 8.4 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NAMELY, 2005-0 6, THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF RS.3,06,256/- ON ACC OUNT OF PURCHASE OF 4 PAGE 10 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/ 2010 10 SITES ON 6/4/2004. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OUT OF HER SAVINGS WAS VERY LOW AND TREAT ED THE PURCHASE OF SITES FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.3, 06,256/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 8.5 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE ADDITIO N BEFORE US. 8.6 THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF IN VESTMENT HAS BEEN CLEARLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS HER PAST SAVINGS AND SALE PROCEEDS OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES. 8.7 THE LEARNED DR PRESENT WAS DULY HEARD. 8.8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) HAD TREATED A SUM OF RS.3,06 ,256/- BEING THE INVESTMENT MADE ON PURCHASE OF 4 SITES DURING THE YE AR AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. WE FIND TH AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HE HAS NOT NOTED THE OBJECTIONS RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTM ENTS IS OUT OF HER SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND NECESSARILY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOW IN HER PAST SAVINGS TO PROVE T HE INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL THAT THIS MATTER R EQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE REVENUE TO EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. PAGE 11 OF 11 ITA NOS.1025 & 1053/BANG/ 2010 11 8.9 THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 3 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE REVENUES AND THE ASSES SEES APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012 SD/- SD/- (N K SAINI) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO:- 1. THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT CONC ERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR 6. GF MSP/- BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.