Geetha Paramahamsa, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1034/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 103421114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARCHANA CHOWDHRY CITII
• Assessee Lawyers: H N KHINCHA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 153A; 234B; 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B, BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.1034 TO 1037 & 1154(BANG.)/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04,04-05,05-06,07-08 & 06 -07)) SMT. GEETHA PARAMAHAMSA, NO.56/40, 40 TH CROSS, 8 TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 082 PAN NO.AEPPP4673R APPELLA NT VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.N.KHINCHA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ARCHANA CHOWDHRY, CIT-II DATE OF HEARING : 26-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-08-2011 O R D E R PER BENCH; ALL THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04,04-05,05-06,07-08 & 06-0 7 AND ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-VI, BANGALO RE DATED 01-07-2010, 30-07-2010 AND 17-08-2010 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.1034(B)/2010 (AY: 2003-04) ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS I N ITS APPEAL; 1. THE AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM AND THE AO HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE ORDER PASSED IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THE ORDER PASSED IS WITHOUT ASSUMING PROPER JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF, NATURAL JUSTICE IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE LD. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF QUASHING THE ORDER IN TOTO HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 3. IN ANY CASE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE AO HAS ERRED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS.6,43,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,41,300/-. THERE IS NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AT ALL. ALL THE INVESTMENTS ARE DULY EXPLAINABLE AND MADE THROUGH EXPLAINED SOURCES ONLY. THEREFORE, ADDITION AS SUSTAINED IS TO BE DELETED IN ENTIRETY. 4. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HOLDING THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS AN AFTER THOUGHT TO PROVE THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. SUCH A CONCLUSION IS CONTRARY TO THE AVAILABLE FACTS IS TO BE DISREGARDED. ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 3 5. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING CORRECT AND SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS TO BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH. 6. THE ASSESSEE DENIES TO PAY THE INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE INTEREST HAVING BEEN LEVIED ERRONEOUSLY IS TO BE DELETED. 2.1 THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BEING GENERAL IN NATU RE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, TH OUGH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD THE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY T HE AO AND THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURA L JUSTICE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 3. AS REGARDS GROUND NOS.3 TO 5 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED H ER RETURN OF INCOME ON 05-02-2004 DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.6,58.050/-. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER, THERE WAS A SEA RCH U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT ON 24-08-2006 IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE, A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED ON 04-12-2007 TO THE ASSES SEE ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 4 CALLING FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 01-09-2008 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.9,72,309/- AND ALSO AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.12,00,260/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WA S FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENED A BANK ACCOUNT IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND HAS ALSO PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO THE EXTENT OF 4 ACRES AND 2 CENTS AND ALSO OTHER LANDED PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN SOUR CES FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS IN T HESE PROPERTIES. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 16-12-2008 STATING THAT THESE PROPERTI ES WERE ACQUIRED FROM OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVE D BY HER FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED AT ANDHRA PRADES H. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT AT STA TE BANK OF INDIA AT SEETHANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH IN WHICH MOST OF THE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WERE BEING CREDITED, WHICH THE ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO CONSIDE R WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY. THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THESE INVESTMENTS WERE CONSIDERED ONLY AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURNS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND HELD THAT THE ENTIRE AMO UNT OF ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 5 RS.6.43,000/- IS TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. FUR THER, WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF ENHANCED AGRICULTURAL I NCOME ALSO THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED AN Y DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARR YING ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRAD ESH AND THAT THE SAME WERE YIELDING THE INCOME WHICH WAS DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT THE A SSESSEES CLAIM OF INCREASED AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A IS TO BE REJECTED AND THE DIFFERENCE IS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENTS IN PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,81,70 0/-AND GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.3,21,300/- BY HOLDING THAT ONC E THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN FILED U/ S 153A OF THE IT ACT HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES, THE ADDITION TOWARDS THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE PU RCHASE OF PROPERTY OUT OF SUCH INCOME CANNOT BE MADE. 3.2 WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF ENHANCED CLAIM O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A)CONF IRMED THE ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 6 ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEA L BEFORE US. 3.3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI H.N.KHINCHA, WHILE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THEY HAVE MADE THE DISALLOWANCES WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE SAID EVIDENCES. 3.4 THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED AND PURCHASED NUMBER OF PROPERTIES WHI CH WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME. THESE INVESTMENTS HAVE COME TO LIGHT ON LY DURING THE SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREM ISES OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCES FOR THE SA ID INVESTMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROD UCE ANY EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE, BOTH THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAVE RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 7 4.1 WITH REGARD TO THE ENHANCED AGRICULTURAL INCOME LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A)S ORDER TO T HE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUME NT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ENHANCED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 4.2 HAVING GONE THROUGH BOTH THE ORDERS, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, BUT WHETHER TH E ENHANCED AGRICULTURAL INCOME COULD HAVE BEEN EARNED OUT OF 4 ACRES AND 2 CENTS OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT VERIFIAB LE. BUT IT ALSO CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE EA RNING SOME INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURE LANDS IF SHE HAS C ARRIED ON AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES IS SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENTS I N THE LANDED PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALR EADY BEEN GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AGAINST THE SAID E NHANCED AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHICH IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODU CE ALL THE ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 8 RELEVANT DETAILS RELATING TO SUCH INCOME AND THE NA TURE OF CROPS GROWN AND THE INCOME EARNED THERE FROM, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THESE GROUNDS ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. GRO UND NO.6 BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION . 4.3 IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. ITA NO.1035(B)/2010(A.Y:2004-05 ) 5. IN THIS APPEAL GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND GROUND NO.2 IS WITH REGARD TO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y NOT BEING GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN OUR ORDER FOR AY: 2003-04 ABOVE, GROUND NO.2 IS REJECTE D. 5.1 AS REGARDS GROUNDS 3 & 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED IS DISALLOWING THE EN HANCED CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME AND TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THIS YEAR IS ALSO SIMILAR AS THAT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, HENCE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1036(B)/2010 (A.Y: 2005-06) 6. IN THIS APPEAL, ALONG WITH OTHER GROUNDS RELATI NG TO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,56,000/- A S ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 9 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). IN THIS YEAR THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY ADDITIONAL OR ENHANCED AGRICULTURA L INCOME, BUT HAD CONTENDED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVEST MENT IS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY AP PRECIATED THE CASE THAT THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AS ON 31-0 3-2004 WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED WHILE FINALIZING THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-2005 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFA CTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE. EVEN BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM. THUS, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO1154(B)/2010 (AY; 2006-07) 7. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ONLY GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH NEEDS ADJUDICATION IS RELATING TO TREATING THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7.1. IN THIS YEAR, THE FACTS ARE ALMOST THE SAME A S AY: 2003-04, EXCEPT THAT THERE IS NO INVESTMENT IN AGRI CULTURAL LANDS AND THERE IS NO TELESCOPING OF THE INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES TOWARDS THE INVESTMENT IN LANDS BY THE CIT (A). THEREFORE, GOING BY OUR FINDING IN AY: 2003-04 ABOV E, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS BOUND TO BE SOME AGRICULTURAL IN COME FROM THE LANDS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE COME ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 10 TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO ONLY DUE TO SEARCH. BUT IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HIS YEAR IS FILED AFTER THE SEARCH BUT BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THESE LA NDS ALSO IN HER ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE CIT( A). 7.2 IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1037(B)/2010 (AY: 2007-08) 8.1 IN THIS APPEAL ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND FOR THE DETAI LED REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJ ECTED. 8.2 IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION OF A SUM OF RS.5,58,000/- MADE BY THE AO A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN GOLD JEWELLERY U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 11 9. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH GOLD JEWELLERY OF 5966 GRAMS W AS FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND HER HUSBAND DR K.R.PARAMAHAMSA, IT WAS FOUND THAT 7 90 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS SEIZED AS EXCESS QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY WAS SOUGHT TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENTS U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER STATING THAT 790 GRAMS OF EXCESS QUA NTITY JEWELLERY FOUND BELONGS TO HER FATHER IN LAW SHRI K.RAMACHANDRA RAO, WHO IS RESIDING WITH HER AND HE IS ALSO THE JOINT OWNER OF THE HOUSE. SHE ALSO STATED THAT HER FATHER IN LAW HAS ALREADY DECLARED THIS GOLD IN MARCH, 200 5 IN THE BALANCE SHEET. SINCE HE HAS NOT FILED STATEMENTS O F AFFAIRS ALONG WITH THE BALANCE SHEET, GOLD WAS SEIZED BY TH E ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX AND THE DEPARTMENT HAD PROMI SED THAT ONCE HER FATHER IN LAW FILES THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, THE SEIZED GOLD WOULD BE RELEASED. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI K.RAMACHANDRA RAO ON 17-06- 2006, WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS ONLY ONE GO LD CHAIN ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 12 AND TWO GOLD RINGS TOTALLY WEIGHING 16 GRAMS AND DO ES NOT OWN ANY OTHER GOLD OR SILVER ARTICLES. SINCE MOST O F THE JEWELLERY ITEMS INVENTORISED ARE SUCH AS WOULD BE W ORN BY LADIES AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ASSESSEES FATHER IN LAW, THE AO HELD THAT THE STATEMENT OF AF FAIRS FILED BY SHRI K.RAMACHANDRA RAO, SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH IS NOT RELIABLE AND THAT THIS IS AN UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN GOLD JEWELLERY. HE ACCORDINGLY, RED UCED THE EXTENT OF GOLD JEWELLERY OWNED BY HER FATHER IN LAW AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,58,000/-U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. 9.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO C ONFIRMED THE SAME AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFOR E US. 9.2 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND W HILE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY WAS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND TO THE EXTENT OF 774 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY AFTER E XCLUDING 16 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY OWNED BY HER FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WIT H ITA.NO.1016(B)/10 13 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT IT BELONGS TO HER FATHER IN LAW AND NOT TO HER. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONGS TO HER FATHER IN LAW AND PARTICUL ARLY AFTER THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY HIM THAT HE DOES NOT OWN ANY GOLD JEWELLERY AND ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT T HE JEWELLERY INVENTORISED IS MOSTLY WORN BY WOMEN, HEN CE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A. 10.1 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 26 TH AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER PLACE: BANGALORE DATED: 26-08-2011 AM* COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF(BLORE) BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE