DCIT, Bangalore V. Sri. K.V. Gopal, Bangalore

ITA 1162/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51392 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SREELEKHA CIT SMT SHEETAL A
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Rectification of order; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 194C; 154

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES A BEFORE SHRI N BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, J.M ITA NO.1162/BANG/2010 (ASST. YEAR 2007-08) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), BANGALORE. - APPELLANT VS SHRI K V GOPAL, NO.2, D K LANE (KASHAPPA LANE), LAKSHMANRAO ROAD CROSS (BVK IYENGAR ROAD CROSS), CHICKPET, BANGALORE-53. - RESPONDENT PA NO.ABYPG 8186 C DATE OF HEARING : 05/12/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/12/2011 APPELLANT BY : SMT. SREELEKHA, ADDL. CIT RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SHEETAL, ADVOCATE O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K : THIS APPEAL INSTITUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARISES OU T OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-II, BANGALORE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. 2. IN REVENUES APPEAL, THE SUBSTANCES OF ISSUES A GITATED ARE TWO- FOLDS, NAMELY: PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 2 (1) THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9. 15 LAKHS BEING EXCESSIVE LABOUR CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE; & (2) THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7.15 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED ADDITION TO CAPITAL INTRODUCED. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS A DEALER IN FOSROC, MATERIAL USED FOR COVERING THE CRACKS ON ROOF AND WALLS. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31.10.2007 FOR THE CONCERNED ASST. YEAR ADM ITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,98,240/-. WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT, T HE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.46.28 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE DECLA RED INCOME OF RS.14.98 LAKHS. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUES WITH THE CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIO NS AS RECORDED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER DISPUTE, THE CIT (A) DELETED T HE ADDITIONS OF (I) RS.9.15,720/- BEING EXCESSIVE LABOUR CHARGES MADE B Y THE AO; AND (II) RS.7,15,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED ADDITION TO CAPIT AL INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGAINST THESE DELETIONS, THE REVENUE HAS COME U P WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5.1. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUES AS EMERGING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT (A) UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE DELIBERATED UPON UNDER DISTINCTIVE CAPTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS: PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 3 I. DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9.15,720/- BEING EXCESSIVE LABOUR CHARGES : 6. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FOSROC FOR RS.34,59,239/-; THAT THE PURCHASES AND LABOUR CHAR GES DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT AMOUNTED TO RS.58,74,959/-; AND THAT THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED THE BALANCE OF RS.24,15,770/- TO BE LABOUR CHARGES, A C LAIM NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF. THE AO FURTHER, OBSERVED, THAT TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE A STAFF OF HIS OWN BUT ONLY ENGAGED LABOUR ON C ONTRACT OR COMMISSION WITH A VIEW TO AVOIDING THE COMPLICATIONS RELATING TO PAYMENTS TO EPF, ESI ETC. AS NO TAX HAD BEEN DEDUCTED U/S 194(C) OR 194( H) OF THE ACT FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS LABOUR, THE AO HELD THAT THE E XPENDITURE OF RS.24.15 LAKHS DID NOT QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION AND, AC CORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.24.15 LAKHS UNDER THE HEA D LABOUR CHARGES. 6.1. AGGRIEVED AT THE STAND OF THE AO, THE ASSESSE E CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE LABOUR CHARGES IN FULL AS THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN WORK CONTRACT O N LABOUR CHARGE WORKS WHICH CANNOT BE DONE ON OWN OR ON SUB-CONTRACT BASI S AND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON PRESUMPTION THAT NO TAX WAS DE DUCTED AT SOURCE FROM SUCH PAYMENTS WAS UNWARRANTED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD, I N FACT, DEDUCTED AT SOURCE U/S 194C FROM RS.10,17,360/- BEING LABOUR CH ARGES. 6.1.1. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES S UBMISSION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES INCLUDING THE RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 154 OF THE ACT, COPIES OF LEDGER EXTRACTS ETC.,, THE CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 4 3.8. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INDUSTRIAL FLOORING CONTRACTS ON WORKS CONTRACT BASIS AS WELL AS PURE LABOUR CONTRACT. THE INDUSTRIAL FLOORING CONTRACT IS PRINCIPALLY UNDERTAKEN FOR MULTI-NATIONAL COMPANIES . (I) PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.58,74,959/- INCLUDES PURCHASES OF RS.36,61,069/- AND LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.22,13,890-. THE APPELLANT IS RECEIVING INCOME BY EXECUTING CONTRACT AS WELL A S LABOUR CONTRACT. THUS, HE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE EMPLOYMENT OF MORE LABOURERS. A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS SHOW PAYMENT TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES AS UNDER: (II) AGAINST THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.73,87,583/-, TH E EXPENSES (LABOUR CHARGES) CLAIMED ARE AS UNDER: (A) PAYMENT OF LABOUR CHARGES WEEKLY BASIS RS.11,96,530 (B) PAYMENT TO THE SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR LABOUR RS.10,17,360 TOTAL RS.22,1 3,890 3.9. THE LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.10,17,360/- WAS PAI D TO ONE SHRI K.N. NARASIMHAMURTHY, SUB-CONTRACTOR, IN RESPECT OF WHICH TDS OF RS.10,328/- WAS MADE. THUS , THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT CANNOT BE DOUBTED. 3.10. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF RS.11,96,530/-, PAYMENT WAS MADE ON WEEKLY BASIS TO THE LABOURERS EMPLOYED BY HIM. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED A SUM RS.9,15,720/- MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. NO CONCLUSIVE FINDING WAS GIVEN THAT PAYMENTS AS CHARGES WERE EXCESSIVE OR BOGUS. IN THIS REGARD ALSO, THE AO HAS NO CLEAR VIEW. ONE SU CH INSTANCE IS HE DISALLOWED LABOUR CHARGES OF RS.24,15,770/- U/S 40(A)(IA) WHICH MEANS THAT THE EXPENSES AS LABOUR CHARGES ARE GENUINE BUT, SINCE T DS WAS NOT MADE, SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE RECTIFICATION OR DER PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 5 DATED 25/1/2010 THE DISALLOWANCE WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.9,15,720/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE VOUCHERS. THIS OBSERVATION ALSO D OES NOT HOLD MERIT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE GOT AUDITED BY AN AUDITOR AND NO DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS PURELY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION AND WITHOUT CONCLUSIVE FINDINGS. THERE FORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,15,720/-IS DELETED. 6.2. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T (A), THE REVENUE HAS COME WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D R THAT THE CIT (A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO DEDUCTION OF TDS U/S 194(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MAD E FOR LABOUR CHARGES AND ALSO THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO ONLY ON ASSUMPTION AND WITHOUT CONCLUSIVE FINDING WHEREAS THE AO HAD, IN FACT, RECORDED THE REASONS FOR HIS STAND. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9.15 LAKHS MADE BY TH E CIT (A) REQUIRES TO BE ANNULLED. 6.2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A R SUBMITTED TH AT AFTER ANALYZING THE ISSUE IN DEPTH AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO SUBSTA NTIATE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, THE LD. CIT (A) CAME TO A CONCLUSION IN A JU DICIOUS MANNER WHICH REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED. 6.2.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A R A LSO SOUGHT THE PERMISSION OF THIS BENCH TO PRESENT AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 WHICH READS AS UNDER: PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 6 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENT ENCLOSED WAS NOT PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE DOCUMENT MENTIONED IN THE PAPER BOOK INDEX IN SL.NOS.1 TO15 WERE FILED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES A ND IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE SAID DETAILS WERE SUFFICIE NT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT I.E., SL. NO. 16 COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A), SINCE WE WERE UNDER A BONA FIDE INFORMATION THAT WHAT DETAILS WE HAVE FURNISHED EIT HER BEFORE THE AO OR CIT(A) ADEQUATE. THE NON- PRODUCTION OF THESE DOCUMENTS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BONA-FIDE MISTAKE AND NOT DUE TO ANY DELIBERATE OR MALA-FIDE INTENTION. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO PROVE THE ISSUE IN HAND AND T HESE DOCUMENTS WERE ONLY SUPPORTING THE SUBMISSIONS ALREADY MADE BEFORE THE AO AND CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, THE DOCUMENT IS BEING PLACED ON RECORD . IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY B E ADMITTED AND KINDLY BE CONSIDERED WHILE DISPOSING O F THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 6.2.3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AND ALSO HEARING THE LD. D.RS VIEW ON THIS POINT, THE REGIS TRY WAS DIRECTED TO PLACE THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSUR ES ON RECORD. 6.3. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE LD. AR ON THE I SSUE. THE ISSUE HAS, IN FACT, BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS FINDINGS WHO VOUCHED THAT LABOUR CHARGE OF RS.10.17 LAKHS WAS PA ID TO SHRI K.N. NARASIMAHAMURTHY, SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR WHICH TDS OF RS .10,328/- WAS DEDUCTED. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN REFLECTED ON PA GE 2 OF ANNEXURE 2 TO THE EFFECT THAT TDS DEDUCTED SUB-CONTRACT @ 1% [COURT ESY: PAGES 7 8 OF PB PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 7 AR]. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE L D. CIT (A) ON THIS SCORE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT TDS HAS B EEN DEDUCTED ON SUB- CONTRACT PAYMENTS, NO DOCUMENTARY PROOF FOR HAVING PA ID THE SAME TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER IS FORTH-COMING. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTE D BACK ON THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO LOOK INTO THIS ASPECT WITH REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. II. DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.7,15,000/- AS U NEXPLAINED ADDITION TO CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE: 7. THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER OBSERVED THAT SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED RS.7.15 LAKHS BY WAY OF ADDIT IONAL CAPITAL FOR WHICH NO PROOF WAS ADDUCED WITH REGARD TO SOURCE FROM WHE RE THE AMOUNT CAME TO BE INTRODUCED, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT . THE SAME WAS BROUGHT INTO THE TAX NET UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 7.1. WHEN THE ISSUE WENT BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY FOR CONSIDERATION, THE CIT (A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS RECORDED IN HIS FINDING, OBSERVED THAT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH M/S. CONCRETE CLINIC - PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM - THE AS SESSEE INTRODUCED ADDITIONAL CAPITAL OF RS.7,15,000/- AND THE TRANSAC TION WAS ON CASH ONLY. HE HAD, FURTHER, STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CO PY OF PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/3/2006 WHERE CASH ON HAND WAS SHOWN AT RS.8,20,000/- AND IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE HIM THAT THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN AND PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 8 DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF M/S. CONCRETE C LINIC. IT WAS THE STAND OF THE CIT (A) THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE COM MANDS MERIT SINCE THERE WAS AVAILABILITY OF CASH AS ON 31.3.2006 WHIC H WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND THAT THE SOURCE FOR INTR ODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL CAPITAL OF RS.7,15,000/- STANDS EXPLAINED. 8. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A), THE REVENUE HAS REPRESENTED BEFORE THIS BENCH THAT WITHOUT AFFORDIN G AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE ALLEGED CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE, THE CIT (A) WE NT AHEAD IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7.15 LAKHS BEING UNEXPLAINED ADDITIO N TO CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER WHICH IS AGAINST PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE AND, THEREFORE, REQUIRES TO BE STRUCK DOWN. 8.1. ON HER PART, THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT AS PE R THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT LEDGER IN THE BOOKS OF PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM, THE ASSESSEE HAD BROUGHT IN DURING THE YEAR RS.7.15 LAKHS AND, FURTHE R, WITHDREW AN AMOUNT OF RS.2.32 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR BY WAY OF CASH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NET CASH BROUGHT IN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RS.4.83 LAKHS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH BALANCE IN HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT AS DISCLOSED IN HIS STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE YEAR-E NDED 31.3.2006, WAS AN ACCUMULATED CASH BALANCE OUT OF HIS DRAWINGS AND OU T OF THE GIFT FROM HIS WIFE MRS.SHOBHA GOPAL WHO HAD GIVEN AN AMOUNT OF RS .4 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE DURING DECEMBER, 2004 FROM DRAWINGS FROM H ER BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A R THAT SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN AN PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO.11 62/BANG/2010 9 INCOME-TAX PAYER SINCE FIFTEEN YEARS, HE HAS THE ACCU MULATED CASH FOR THE BALANCE OF RS.3.15 LAKHS INTRODUCED DURING THE YEAR. 8.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF EITHER PARTY. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO RECALL THE ADMISSION OF TH E LD. A R IN HER APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 CITED SUPRA WHEREIN SHE HAD CONCEDED THAT ( AT THE COST OF REPETITION ) COPY OF CONFIRMATION LETTER ALONG WITH LEDGER ACCOU NT FROM MRS. SHOBHA GOPAL (SL.NO.16) COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT (A) THE NON-PRODUCTION OF THESE DOCUMENTS WAS ON ACCOU NT OF BONA-FIDE MISTAKE AND NOT DUE TO ANY DELIBERATE OR M ALA-FIDE INTENTION. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO PROVE THE ISSUE IN HAND AND THESE DOCUMENTS WERE ONLY SUPPORTING THE SU BMISSIONS ALREADY MADE BEFORE THE AO AND CIT (A). 8.2.1. INCIDENTALLY, THE REVENUE ALSO VEHEMENTLY ARG UED THAT THE CIT (A) HAD NOT OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAM INE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE TO CONFRONT WITH HIS ALLEGED SUBMISSION. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE RECALL THE SUB- RULE (3) OF RULE 46A OF INCOME-TAX RULES WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN UNAMBIGUOUSLY S UBSCRIBED THAT (3)THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY- (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS-EXA MINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLAN T. PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NO.1 162/BANG/2010 10 8.2.2. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), NEITHER THE AO WAS ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS HE CALLED UPON TO FURNISH HIS COMMENTS ON THE FRESH EVIDENCES ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE STAGE. THUS, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS NOT BEE N, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, KEPT IN VIEW WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE BY T HE CIT (A). 8.2.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS IS SUE IS ALSO REMITTED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE AO WITH EXPLICIT DIRECTION TO HIM TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THIS BENCH A ND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT , OF COURSE, AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE S O AS TO FACILITATE HIM TO PLACE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE(S) AT HIS POSSESSION FOR VERIFICATION. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011 SD/- SD/- (N BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT 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.