GXS India Technology Centre Private Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1041/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7357 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: K R VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 37; 263; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A NO. 1041/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 M/S. GXS INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PVT. LTD., PRESTIGE EMERALD, 2, 3 & 4 TH FLOOR, MUNICIPAL NO. 2, MADRAS BANK ROAD, LAVELLE ROAD JUNCTION, BANGALORE 560 001. PAN: AABCG 7972P VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.R. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 . 1 1 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 5 .1 1 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, BANGALORE DATED 18.03.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. I. DISALLOWANCE OF WRITE OFF OF RENTAL DEPOSIT AMOU NTING TO RS. 1,000,000 THE HONOURABLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ['HON'BLE CIT(A)'] ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF WRITE- OFF OF RENTAL DEPOSIT MADE. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF WR ITE-OFF IS IN RELATION TO BUSINESS AND ALLOWABLE AS A BUSINESSLOS S UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ['THE ACT']. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING A DEDUCTIONFOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUN T AS THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS EXPE NDITURE IT(TP)A NO. 1041/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 7 INCURRED WHOLLY AND IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSIN ESS AND HENCE, IS ELIGIBLE FOR A DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ['THE ACT']. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE D OCUMENTARY PROOF SUBMITTED BY THEAPPELLANT AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDE NCE AND THAT THE MATTER HAS REACHED FINALITY RESULTING IN NON-RE COVERABILITY OF RENTAL DEPOSIT. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E STEPS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF E-MAIL CORRESPONDE NCES AND THE FACT THAT THE LANDLORD INITIALLY AGREED TO REPA Y BUT LATER WAS UNRESPONSIVE AND NO FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS TOOK PLA CE. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE MAT TER IS STILL UNDER DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE PARTIES CONCERNED WITH OUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS HAS ELAPSED FROM WHEN THE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEGUN; AND NO OTHER COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE OTHER PARTY APART FROM THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFOR E THE HON'BLE CIT(A). THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED UPHOLDING THAT THE DISALLO WANCE ON THE BASIS THAT NO LEGAL REMEDY IS PURSUED BY THE AP PELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IN THIS CASE, THE COST OF LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL RENTAL DEPOSIT FORG ONE. II. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 56,083 THE LEARNED AO AND THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN LEVY ING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT. THE INTERES T IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AMEND, TO RESCIND OR TO MODIFY THE GROUNDS HEREIN ABOVE OR PR ODUCE FURTHER DOCUMENTS, FACTS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING THIS APPEAL. FOR THE ABOVE AND ANY OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE RA ISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT NECESSARY RELIEF MAY BE PROVIDED. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT ONLY ONE ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THIS IS REGARDING THE ASSESSEES C LAIM FOR WRITE OFF OF RENTAL DEPOSIT WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS DISA LLOWED BY AO AND THIS IT(TP)A NO. 1041/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 7 DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A). HE SUBM ITTED THAT IN PARA NO. 6.1 OF HIS ORDER, THE CIT (A) HAS REPRODUCED THE CONTEN TS OF EMAIL MESSAGE DATED 25.05.2009 AS PER WHICH IT WAS STATED BY M/S. BLACK PEARL TO WHOM THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE FOR RENT THAT THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MAKE TH E PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT BUT WILL MAKE THE REFUND AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PREMISES WAS VACATED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2009 BUT TILL MAY 2009, THE PARTY WAS ASSURING ABOUT REFUND OF DEPOSIT. HE SUBMITTED THA T THE CLAIM REGARDING WRITE OFF OF DEPOSIT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS LOSS IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED.THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS REPRODUCED THE CONTENTS OF VARIOUS EMAILS WHICH ARE DATED 15.05.2009, 18.05.2009, 22.05.2009 AND 25.05.2009. THE LAST EM AIL REPRODUCED IS DATED 25.05.2009. AS PER THE CONTENTS OF THIS EMAIL, THE PARTY HAS NOT STATED THAT THEY WILL NOT REFUND THE MONEY. THE PARTY HAS STATED THA T THE MONEY WILL BE RELEASED VERY SHORTLY. IN PARA NO. 6.3 OF ORDER OF CIT (A), THIS IS THE FINDING OF CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS C LAIM THAT THE DEPOSIT ADVANCED TO M/S. BLACK PEARL WAS NOT RECOVERABLE. IN RESPEC T OF ANY CLAIM FOR BUSINESS LOSS ON THE BASIS OF WRITE OFF OF ANY DEPOSIT OR AD VANCE, THIS IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE SAME HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE AND ONLY IN CASE OF WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS, MERE WRITE OFF IS SUFFICIENT AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT IN QUESTION HAS BECOME BAD AND IRRECOVERABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. IN THE PR ESENT CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REGARDING WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS U/ S. 36(1) (VII) AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING BUSINESS LOSS IN RESPECT OF WRITE OFF OF A DEPOSIT AND THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEPOSIT IN QUESTION HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. AS PER EMAIL DAT ED 25.05.2009 REPRODUCED BY CIT (A) ON PARA NO. 6.1 OF HIS ORDER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DEPOSIT IN QUESTION IS NOT RECOVERABLE. 5. BEFORE US ALSO, IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE SAME EMAILS DATED 15.05.2009, 18.05.2009, 22.05.2009 AND 25.05. 2009 AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US ALSO IN SUPPOR T OF THIS THAT THE DEPOSIT IN QUESTION HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE. COPY OF 11 JUDG MENTS ARE SUBMITTED IN THE IT(TP)A NO. 1041/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 7 CASE LAWS OF PAPER BOOK BUT NONE OF THESE JUDGMENTS IS RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER DISCUSSION HEREINAFTER. IN SOME CASES, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS ABOUT WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS U/S 36 (1) (VII) IN RESPECT OF WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT RELEVANT IN PRESENT CASE. WE WILL INDIVIDUALLY DISCUSS WHERE THE DISPUTE IS NOT ABOUT WRITE OFF OF BAD DEBTS U/S 36 (1) (VII). THE FIRST SUCH JUDGMENT IS THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF UNITED MOTORS VS. ITO AS REPORTED IN 6 TAXMANN.COM 32(MUMBAI), CO PY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 9 TO 18 OF THE CASE LAW PAPER BOOK. THIS JUDGMENT IS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S. 28 IN RESPECT OF FORFEITURE OF SECUR ITY DEPOSIT PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTY TAKEN ON RENT BUT T HIS JUDGMENT IS IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT U/S. 263 OF IT ACT AND IT W AS HELD IN THIS CASE AS PER PARA NO. 8 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER NOTED THAT THIS W AS THE CLAIM IN THAT CASE THAT ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT REND ERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN 295 ITR 282, AT LEAST TWO VIEWS WERE POSSIBLE ON THE QUESTION OF TAXABILITY OF THE TWO AMOUNTS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF THAT IS SO, THERE CAN BE NO RESORT TO ACTION UNDER SECTION 263. THE OBJECTION OF CIT WAS THIS IN THAT CASE THAT THE DEPOSITS REPRESE NTED CAPITAL AMOUNTS AND IF THEY WERE NOT RETURNED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LOSS WA S CAPITAL LOSS NOT ALLOWABLE IN COMPUTING THE INCOME. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, T HIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 6. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF M/S. LG SOFT INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCITIN IT(TP)A NO. 1121/BANG/2011 DATED 22.03.2013, COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 19 TO 50 OF PAPER BOOK, FACTS NOTED IN PARA NO. 6 OF THIS TRIBUNAL OR DER ARE THESE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED A REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT OF RS. 24,93,600/- WITH THE LANDLORD AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DIFFICULTY IN RECOVERING THE DEPOS IT FROM THE LANDLORD, IT HAD FILED A SUIT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNA TAKA WHICH WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEASE DEED WAS NOT DULY REGISTE RED. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF THE RENTAL DEPOSIT IN ITS BOOKS AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING BUSINESS PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D IT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE SAME IS NOT REVENUE IN NATURE AND, HENCE, NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THE ACT. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT IN THAT CASE ALSO, THIS IS NOT THE DISPUTE THAT THE DEPOSIT IN QUESTION IS RECOVERABLE OR NOT AS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS ALSO NOT APPL ICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT(TP)A NO. 1041/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 7 7. SIMILARLY, THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF FAB INDIA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT AS REPORTED IN 2013-TIOL-672-ITAT-DEL, COPY AVAILAB LE ON PAGES 51 TO 60 OF PAPER BOOK, THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS THIS TH AT THE WRITE OFF OF SECURITY DEPOSIT IN QUESTION FOR TAKING LEASE OF VARIOUS PLA CES IS A CAPITAL LOSS AND NOT REVENUE LOSS. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT IN THAT CASE A LSO, THIS WAS NOT THE DISPUTE THAT THE DEPOSIT IN QUESTION IS NON-RECOVERABLE OR NOT AND THE ONLY DISPUTE IS THIS THAT IT IS CAPITAL LOSS OR REVENUE LOSS. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEPOSIT IN QUEST ION HAS BECOME IRRECOVERABLE AND THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER ALSO IS NOT APPL ICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 8. NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BEFORE US IS A JUDGMENT OF H ONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.T.M.S. MAHMOOD AS REPORTED IN 74 ITR 100, COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 61 TO 64 OF PAPER BOOK. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS REGARDING LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF THEFT OF W ATCHES AND IT WAS THE DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE OF CA RRYING WATCHES TO HIS HOME AT LATE HOURS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAFE KEEPING WAS F OR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OR NOT AND THEREFORE, LOSS IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IS A LLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS OR NOT. HENCE THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. 9. THE NEXT JUDGMENT IS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX CO URT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAMCHANDAR SHIVNARAYAN VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 111 I TR 263. IN THIS CASE, THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESP ECT OF CASH BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE TO BUSINESS PLACE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BUYI NG SECURITIES AND THE DISPUTE WAS AS TO WHETHER SUCH LOSS WAS INCIDENTAL TO CARRYING ON OF BUSINESS OF PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES TO EARN PROFIT AND THEREFORE, IT WAS DEDUCTIBLE AS BUSINESS TRADING LOSS. IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THE ISSUE IS DIFFERENT AND HENCE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 10. THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BEFORE US IS THE JUDGME NT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ALUMINIUM CORPORATION OF IN DIA LTD. VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 86 ITR 11. IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE W AS THIS AS TO WHETHER THE COMMISSION PAID TO ITS SOLE SELLING AGENTS WAS ALLO WABLE BECAUSE IT WAS DISALLOWED FOR THIS REASON THAT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, ALL SALES WERE AFFECTED IT(TP)A NO. 1041/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 7 BY ASSESSEE DIRECTLY AND NO SALES WAS EFFECTED BY S ELLING AGENTS AND THEREFORE, PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE FOR BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS. THE DISPUTE WAS THIS AS TO WHETHER MERE FACT THAT NO SALES WERE AFFECTED BY SELLING AGENTS THEMSELVES COULD LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EXPENDITURE WAS N OT EXPENDED FOR PURPOSES OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACT S ARE DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 11. THE NEXT JUDGMENT IS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE AP EX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF J.K. WOOLLEN MFG. VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 72 ITR 612. IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF RS. 75,465 /- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMMISSION PAID TO ITS GENERAL MANAGER WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THIS BASIS THAT IT WAS EXCESSIVE AND QUITE UNREASON ABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE, TH IS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE. 12. THE NEXT JUDGMENT IS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX C OURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WALCHAND AND CO. (P.) LTD. AS REPORTED IN 6 5 ITR 381. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF INCR EASED REMUNERATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. IT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THIS BASIS THAT INCREASE IN REMUNERATION OR SALARY OF OFFICERS WAS NOT REFLECTE D IN INCREASE IN PROFITS OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT AN EXPENDITURE W HICH CAN BE JUSTIFIED AS LAID OUT WHOLLY AND NECESSARILY FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS . THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE. 13. THE NEXT JUDGMENT CITED BEFORE US IS THE JUDGME NT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES (P.) LTD. VS. C IT AS REPORTED IN 63 TAXMANN.COM 308, COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 91 TO 96 O F PAPER BOOK. IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS REGARDING INTEREST P AID ON BORROWED FUNDS FROM BANK WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO WITH THE FINDIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD USED BORROWED FUNDS FOR GIVING INTEREST FREE LOANS TO ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTORS. THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLI CABLE BECAUSE THE DISPUTE AND FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. 14. THE LAST JUDGMENT CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IS JUDG MENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DALMIA CEMENT (P.)LTD. AS REPORTED IN IT(TP)A NO. 1041/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 7 121 TAXMAN 706 (DELHI). IN THIS CASE, THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE TO ITS SOLE SELLING AGENT AT RS. 1.75 PER M.T. AND THE AO ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EX TENT OF RE. 1 PER M.T. AND THE BALANCE 0.75 PAISE PER M.T. WAS DISALLOWED BY T HE AO AND THE SECOND ISSUE IN THAT CASE WAS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF IN TEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO PARTLY BY HOLDING TH AT THERE WAS NO NEED TO BORROW LOAN AS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT WAS ALREADY LYI NG WITH CDL (A SELLING AGENT OF ASSESSEE) WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISPUTE AND FACTS ARE DIFFERENT, THIS JUDGMENT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 15. AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HAVE SEEN THAT NONE OF THE JUDGMENTS IS HELPING THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO ESTABL ISH THAT THE DEPOSIT IN QUESTION HAS BECOME RECOVERABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.