Infosys BPO Ltd., Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1026/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 102621114 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FARAHAT HUSSAIN QURESHI CITII
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.698 & 1026/BAN G/2009 (ASST. YEAR - 2005-06) M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD., ELECTRONIC CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE. . APPELLANT PAN NO. AACCP4478N. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-I, BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PADAM CHAND KHINCHA, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI FARAHAT HUSSAIN QURESHI, CIT -II DATE OF HEARING : 28-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16-03-2012 O R D E R PER P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL S ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX - I AT ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 2 BANGALORE DATED 16.06.2009. THE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TECHNOLOGY PROCESS O UTSOURCING, FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 30.10.2005 DECLARING NIL INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED CALLING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REQUIRED DETAILS A ND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS STP UNITS BOTH AT BANGALORE AND PUNE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED PROFITS FROM THE BUSINESS AT RS.70,00,353/ - AND FROM THIS PROFITS, THE EXEMPTION U/S 10A WAS CLAIMED AT RS.31 ,89,260/- AND THE REMAINING PROFIT OF RS.38,11,093/- WAS SET OFF AGAI NST THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FI LED A LETTER DATED 23.8.2007 SUBMITTING THE REASONS FOR CLAIMING BENEF IT U/S 10A BEFORE SETTING OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HOWEVER AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A T LENGTH AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIMATSIGKA SEIDE, 286 ITR 255 (WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT COMPUTATION OF ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR DEDUCTION U/S SEC. 10A HAS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 3 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE PROFITS OF T HE UNDERTAKING CANNOT BE DETERMINED IN ISOLATION OF THE OTHER PROV ISIONS OF THE ACT AND THAT THE PROVISION OF SECS. 70 AND 72 ARE APPLI CABLE IN DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 10A AS FAR AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED AND CARRY FORW ARD AND SET OFF IS GOVERNED BY SEC. 32(2) AND THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIAT ION ASSUMES THE CHARACTER OF CURRENT DEPRECIATION AND HAS TO BE ALL OWED AS A DEDUCTION FROM THE CURRENT YEARS INCOME) HELD THAT THE CLAI M U/S 10A IS TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE TOTAL INCOME ONLY AFTER SETTING OF F OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. THEREAFTER, HE ALSO CONSIDERED THA T THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS EXCLUDED THE ENTIRE TELECOMMUNICATION EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DELIVERY OF SOFTWARE OUTSIDE INDIA FROM BOTH EXPORT TURNOVER AS WELL AS TOTAL TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DED UCTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT. HE HOWEVER, HELD THAT THIS CANNOT BE ALLO WED AND THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE TO BE EXCLUDED ONLY FROM THE EXPORT TU RNOVER AND NOT FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER. HE ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A N APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A), THE CIT- I, BANGALORE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF THE ASSES SEE AND OBSERVED ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 4 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY U/S 10A BY WRONGLY COMPUTIN G ELIGIBLE PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THE BANGALORE AND PUNE STPI UN ITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC. 10A WITHOUT SETTING OFF OF THE UNABSORBED D EPRECATION OF RS.3,32,22,579/- AND RS.26,94,007/- RESPECTIVELY AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW AND THAT THIS HAS RESULTED IN EXCESS ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE, THEREFORE, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUS E AS TO WHY THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDERS SHOULD NOT BE REVISED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE CIT HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND, THEREFORE, IS LIABLE T O BE SET ASIDE. HE DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 10A FOR THE TWO UNITS CORRECTLY IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS IN HIS ORDER U/S 2 63 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREAFTER THE CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE A SSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 143(3), REJECTED THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) HAS BECOME NO-EST IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U./S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT I, BANGALORE U/S ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 5 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND ALSO AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A), DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS INFRUCTOUS. 4. AS REGARDS THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) CAN BE REVISED ONLY IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FOUND TO BE BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FAILS TO CONSIDER A PARTICULAR COMPONENT OF INCOME OR CONSIDERED ONLY A PARTICULAR COMPONENT OF INCOME, THEN ONLY CAN SUCH AN ORDER B E SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR THE DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE S AME HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR D EDUCTION U/S 10A AFTER SETTING OFF OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES ONL Y. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXTENSIVELY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND TAKEN A POSSIB LE VIEW, THEN HIS ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS. IN SUPPORT O F THIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED REL IANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 588 OF 2006 DATED 4 TH JAN, 2012, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER : ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 6 WE ARE ALSO NOT IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION THAT THE MATERIALS HAD BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE A CONCLUSION THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE SAME AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE COMMISSIONER INTERFERING Y TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW ETC. ASSESSING AUTHORITY PERFORMS A QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION AND THE REASONS FOR HIS CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS SHOULD BE FORTHCOMING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THOUGH IT IS URGED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY ITS LEARNED COUNSEL THAT REASONS SHOULD BE SPELT OUT ONLY IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY PASSES AN ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR ADVERSE TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO NEED FOR THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO SPELL OUT REASONS WHEN THE ORDER IS ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMIT THAT THIS IS THE LEGAL POSITION ON AUTHORITY, WE ARE AFRAID THAT TO ACCEPT A SUBMISSIONS OF THIS NATURE WOULD BE TO GIVE A FREE HAND TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JUST TO PASS ORDERS WITHOUT REASONING AND TO SPELL OUT REASONS ONLY IN SITUATION WHERE THE ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 7 FINDING IS TO BE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR ANY CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IS DENIED. WE ARE OF THE CLEAR OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DICHOTOMY OF THIS NATURE AS EVERY CONCLUSION AND FINDING BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY REASONS, HOWEVER BRIEF IT MAY BE, AND IN A SITUATION WHERE IT IS ONLY A QUESTION OF COMPUTATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RELEVANT ARTICLES OF A DOUBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENTS AND THAT SHOULD BE CLEARLY INDICATED IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN PARTICULARS OR DETAILS OF IT. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO DO THAT AND IF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD FAILED IN THAT, MORE SO IN EXTENDING A TAX RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER DEFINITELY CONSTITUTES AN ORDER NOT MERELY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE WHILE THE COMMISSIONER WAS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL WAS DEFINITELY NOT JUSTIFIED IN INTERFERING WITH THIS ORDER OF THE COMMISSION IN ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION. ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 8 5. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CA NNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND CANNOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S MANHATTAN ASSOCIATION (INDIA) DEVELOPMENT CE NTRE PVT. LTD., IN ITA NOS.114 AND 115/BANG/2011, WHEREIN BY FOLLOW ING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF M/S AXA BUSINESS SERVICES PVT. LTD. IT WAS HELD THAT DE DUCTION U/S 10A IS ALLOWABLE WITHOUT SETTING OFF OF THE BROUGHT FORWAR D LOSSES AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF OTHER UNITS. THE COPY O F THE SAID ORDER IS FILED BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS CONSIDERED ONLY THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT AFTER SETTING OFF OF THE UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES FROM THE TOTAL INCOME, BUT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF SETTING OFF OF UNABSORBED BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION FOR THE SAID PURPOSES. HE SUBMITTED THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE BY THE AO IS AN ERRO R AND AS THE ORDER IS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, TH E ORDER U/S 263 IS ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 9 JUSTIFIED. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT IS CONCERNED, HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. 1) M/S INTELLINET TECHNOLOGIES IND. PVT. LTD., IN ITA NO.1021/BANG/2009 DATED 12.3.2010 2) CIT VS. HIMAATASINGIKE SEIDE LTD., (2006-TIOL-44 8- HC-KAR-II) 3) ACIT VS. JEWELLERY SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 28 SOT 405, MUMBAI 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSID ERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE BASIC GRIEVANCE BEFOR E US IS WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD., (CITED SUPRA), WHERE THE ASSESSI NG AUTHORITY HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND HAS TAKEN A POSS IBLE VIEW, THEN MERELY BECAUSE THE SAID ORDER DOES NOT MEET THE AP PROVAL OF THE CIT, IT WOULD NOT BECOME AN ERRONEOUS ORDER TO BE REVIS ED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSI NG AUTHORITY HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH AND AT PAGE 2 AND 3 OF HIS ORDER, HAS HELD AS UNDER : ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 10 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS COMPUTED THE PROFITS FROM THE BUSINESS AT RS.70,00,353/- AND FRO M THIS PROFITS THE EXEMPTION U/S 10A WAS CLAIMED AT RS.31,89,260/-. THE REMAINING PROFITS OF RS.38,11,093/- WAS SET OFF AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DA TED 23 RD AUG, 2007 SUBMITTED THE REASONS FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT U/S 10A BEFORE SETTING OFF THE BROUGHT FORW ARD LOSSES. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SEC. 10A IS AN EXEMPTION SECTION. SECTION 10A IS PLACED IN CHAPTER III OF THE ACT, WHICH DEALS WITH INCOMES WHICH DO NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. SECTION 10A WAS INITIALLY IN THE NAT URE IN EXEMPTION. THE PROVISION WAS SUBSTITUTED W.E.F 1.4.2001 AND THEREAFTER IN AN EXEMPTION SEC. IT WAS CONVERTED INTO A DEDUCTION SECTION. WHILE THE LOSS OF A 10A UNIT WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE CARRIED FORWARD INITIALLY, AFTER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2000 THE LOSS OF A SEC. 10A UNIT IS ELIGIBLE TO BE CARRIED FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST PROFITS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THIS IS IN TERMS OF S EC. 10A(6) OF THE I.T ACT. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HIMATASINGIKE SEIDE LTD., 286 ITR 255 STATED THAT THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME HAS TO BE IN TERMS OF THE IT ACT. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE COMPUTATION OF ELIGIB LE PROFITS FOR SEC. 10A HAS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 11 PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE PROFIT OF THE UNDERTA KING CANNOT BE DETERMINED IN ISOLATION OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT T HE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 70 AND SEC. 72 ARE APPLICABLE IN DETERMINING THE PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEC. 10A AS FAR AS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED, CARRY FORWARD AND SET OF F ARE GOVERNED BY SEC. 32(2) AND THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ASSUMES THE CHARACTER OF CURRENT YEAR S DEPRECIATION AND HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION FROM CURRENT YEARS INCOME. THEREFORE THE CLAIM U/ S 10A IS ALLOWED FROM TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A FTER SETTING OFF THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES. 8. THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CLEA RLY SHOWS THAT HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFOR E HIM AND AS TO WHETHER THE UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS AND DEPRECIATI ON ARE TO BE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER BEFORE ALLOWING CLA IM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINI ON, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD CITED (SUPRA) IS CLEARLY APPLICABL E TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) U/S 263 HAS TO BE QUASHED. AS WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE PROCEED INGS U/S 263 OF ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 12 THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO GO INTO MERITS OF THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. COMING TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) INCLUDING THE SETTING OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES FROM THE TOTAL INCOME BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION/EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. THE CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSME NT ORDER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT HAS BECOME NONEST . WE ARE NOT ABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A), AS THE ORDER OF THE AO MERGES WITH THE ORDE R OF THE CIT U/S 263 ONLY ON THE ISSUES CONSIDERED BY HIM IN THE PRO CEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND NOT ON THE OTHER ISSUES W HICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUES NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT U/S 263 WILL REMAIN AND THE CIT(A) HAS TO DECID E THESE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS INFRUCTUOUS AND ITA NO.698 & 1026/B/09 13 REMAND THE ISSUE TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO DE CIDE THE ISSUES RAISED THEREIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16TH MAR, 2012. SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 16/03/2012 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, BANGALORE.