DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Daya MK Developers Pvt. :Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 118/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5214 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWATI S PATIL
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 118/BANG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. M/S. DAYA M.K. DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NO.16, OBALAPPA GARDEN, K.R. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 002. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. SWATI S. PATIL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, C.A. O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, BANGALORE IN ITA NO:218/DC 11(1)/CIT(A)-I /08-09 DATED: 9.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE CA SE OF DAYA M.K. DEVELOPERS PVT. LIMITED, BANGALORE. ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 2 OF 10 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN ITS GROUND S OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES RAISED ARE CONFIN ED TO TWIN ISSUES, NAMELY: (I) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3.6 4 CRORES CLAIMED U/S 80IB (1) OF THE ACT; & (II) THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADD ITION OF RS.1.72 CRORES BEING EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON PURCHA SE OF MATERIALS AND EXPENDITURE UNDER VARIOUS HEADS TO RS .25 LAKHS. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY [THE ASSESSEE IN SHO RT] WAS IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY AS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS BE SIDES RESTAURANT BUSINESS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSE SSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.3,64,84,960/- U/S 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRE D TO FURNISH, AMONG OTHERS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, APPROVED PLAN, COMPLETIO N CERTIFICATE FOR 80-IB PROJECT ETC. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THERE WAS NO CO MPLIANCE. WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE AO HAD OBSERVED THAT (I) IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUIRED DETAILS SEPARATE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR 80-IB PROJECTS, COMPLETION CERTIFI CATE, VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENSES CLAIMED, DEDUCTION CLAIMED ON THE INCOME ARRIVED AT ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS ETC., THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION CLAIMED WAS DISALLOWED; & (II) IN THE ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF MATERIALS PURCHASED, DIRECT EXPENSES, ADMINISTRATION ETC., 10 % OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1.72 CRORES WAS DISALLOWED. 4. AGITATED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUES BEFORE THE CIT (A) FOR SUITABLE REMEDY. AFTER GIVING DUE WEIGHT-AGE TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 3 OF 10 ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND ALSO REJOINDE R OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT 1. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.1.72 CRORES: 9.4.THE BASIC THRUST FOR ADDITION IS ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS FOR MATERIALS PURCHASED AT RS.7,82,43,641/-. DIRECT EX PENSES OF RS.7,23,84,504/- AND ALSO ADMINISTRATION, SELLING A ND OTHER EXPENSES OF RS.2,20,24,133/-. THE 3CD REPORT ALSO DOES NOT FUR NISH THE COMPONENTS OF THE EXPENDITURES OF DIRECT EXPENSES AND THE MATERIA LS PURCHASED. SCHEDULE 13 ELABORATES THE DETAILS ONLY OF ADMINISTRATION, S ELLING AND OTHER EXPENSES, THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF WHICH ARE ADVERTISEMENT, DI RECTORS REMUNERATION, SALARIES RESPECTIVELY OF RS.58,19,397/-; RS.49,75,0 00/- AND RS.44,69,483/-. IT IS NOWHERE CLAIMED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OR THE REJOINDER THAT THE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE IS FULLY VOUCHED AND HAS SUPPOR TIVE BILLS OF PURCHASE OR EXPENSE. THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE, I FIND, HAS B EEN MADE ON JUSTIFIED GROUND. HOWEVER, LOOKING TO THE PAST HISTORY AND T REND IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY I CONSIDER THE ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE AND, THEREFORE, RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO A LUMP-SUM OF RS.25 LAKHS AND THE REST IS DELETED. 2. NON-ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB(10): 10.2..I FIND THE ARGUMENT THAT MAINTENAN CE OF SEPARATE BOOKS IS NOT PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT AND THE REFORE NOT NECESSARY AND WHAT IS NECESSARY IS THE PROPER IDENTIFICATION OF R ELATABLE PROFIT SO AS TO COMPUTE THE 80-IB (10) DEDUCTION EXACTLY BASED ON T HE ABOVE CITATION IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS OCCASION BECAUSE THE CASE LAW CITE D IS ON S.10A DEDUCTION AND NOT ON S.80-IB (10) DEDUCTION. EVEN IN THE CAS E OF APPLICATION OF S.10A, I HAVE HELD THAT STPI AUTHORITIES WHILE GRANTING AP PROVAL STIPULATE A MANDATORY CONDITION THAT SUCH UNDERTAKINGS MUST MAI NTAIN SEPARATE BOOKS FOR EACH OF THE APPROVED UNIT OR OTHERWISE THE APPR OVAL BE DEEMED TO BE HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN VIDE DECISION ON GROUND NO.3 IN THE CASE OF M/S IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD. IN ITA NO:42/DC 11(1 )/A-I/07-08 DATED: 5.10.2009. BUT ALAS, THIS NOT A 10A/10B UNIT. THE PRESENT CLAIM IS UNDER S.80IB (10) OF IT ACT. SO WHAT IS NECESSARY IS PRO PER IDENTIFICATION OF PROFIT. SO WHAT IS REQUIRED IS EXAMINATION OF PAST HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE RATIO OF DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P.VENKANNA CITED SUPRA 72 ITR 328. RECORDS SHOW THAT FOR CLAI MING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) THE APPELLANT HAS ADOPTED THE SAME METHOD AS HAD BEEN ADOPTED IN AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT EVEN THOUGH ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S W143(3) OF I. T.ACT. IN OTHER WORDS PROCEDURE ADOPTED WAS NEVER QUESTIONED IN PAST. TH EREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTED HERE. AS PER BOOKS THE INV ESTMENT IN MAGAN GOLDEN METRO I.E., 80IB (10) PROJECT WAS RS.11,12,39,633/- OUT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.16,85,69,014/- I.E., 65.99%. AS PER THE COMPUT ATION, THE TOTAL PROFIT ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 4 OF 10 FROM HOUSING PROJECT BUSINESS WAS RS.5,51,44,489/- AND, THEREFORE, 66% OF THE SAME I.E., RS.3,64,84,959/- WAS CLAIMED FOLLOWI NG THE METHOD OF COMPUTATION ALSO ADOPTED IN PAST. I FIND, THEREFOR E, THE SAME IN ORDER AND CORRECT. HENCE, THE CLAIM IS ALLOWED.. 5. DISILLUSIONED WITH THE TREATMENT OF THE ISSUES B Y THE LD. CIT (A), THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE S UBMISSION OF THE REVENUE WAS, CHIEFLY, REVOLVED TO: (I) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING RS.3.64 CRORES BEING T HE DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED U/S 80IB (10) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE CON CERNED PROJECT, NON-PRODUCTION OF THE REQUIRED COMPLETION CERTIFICATES OF 80IB PROJECT AND ALSO NON-PRODUCTION OF VOUCHERS RE LATING TO EXPENDITURE CLAIMED; - THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON THE INCOME ARRIVE D AT ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DISALLOW ED BY THE AO; (II) THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE ADD ITION OF RS.1.72 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CL AIMED ON PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HE ADS TO RS.25 LAKHS ONLY WITHOUT A PROPER BASIS AFTER HOLDING THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD NOWHERE CLAIMED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS FULLY VOUCHED AND THAT THERE WERE SUPPORTIVE BILLS FOR PURCHASE OR EX PENSES. 5.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR REITERATED MORE OR LESS WHAT HAS BEEN URGED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 6. THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WERE DULY CONSIDERED AND A LSO VIEWED METICULOUSLY THE RELEVANT RECORDS. 6.1. ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT( A), WE FIND THAT THE AOS MAIN CONTENTION WAS REVOLVED THAT IN SPITE OF SEVERAL REQUESTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, APPROVE D PLAN, COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR 80IB PROJECTS ETC. NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE LEGITIMATE REQUIRED ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 5 OF 10 PARTICULARS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, PERHAPS, P ROMPTED THE AO TO DISALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. LIKEWISE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF INVOICES FOR PURCHASE OF MATERIALS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES CL AIMED ETC., WHICH CONSTRAINED THE AO TO RESORT TO DISALLOW 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED, BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. 6.2. THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT REQUIRED FOR TIME TILL 29.02.2008 (S IC) 29.12.2008. THE AO WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE REPLY PASSED THE ORD ER ON 31.12.2008 IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER. 6.3. ON A CAREFUL AND PLAIN READING OF THE ASSESSEE S REJOINDER, ONE COULD SAFELY INFER THAT THE AO WAS RATHER MAGNANIMO US IN HIS ACTION FOR HAVING WAITED TILL 31.12.2008 EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD ASKED FOR TIME TILL 29.12.2008 TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED PARTICULARS, BUT, CHOSE TO NON-RESPOND EVEN ON 31.12.2008 AS PER ITS OWN ADMISSION. SUCH BEING A GROUND REA LITY, HOW COULD ONE FINDS FAULT WITH THE AO THAT HE HAD A CTED IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER AS THE ASSESSEE CHOOSE TO ALLEGE. 6.4. TURNING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10 ) OF THE ACT, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT NO SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS WERE NOT NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS U/S 80-IB (10) OF THE ACT. LET US NOW HAVE A GLIMPSE OF S.80IB (10) OF THE ACT . S.80-IB (10) THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IN THE CASE O F AN UNDERTAKING DEVELOPING AND BUILDING HOUSING PROJECT S APPROVED BEFORE THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2007 BY A LOCAL AUTHORITY SHALL BE ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 6 OF 10 HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREV IOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SUCH HOUSING P ROJECT IF- (A) . (B) THE PROJECT IS ON THE SIZE OF A PLOT OF LAND WH ICH HAS A MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE PROVIDED .. (C)THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS A MAXIMUM BUILT-UP AREA OF ONE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WHERE SUCH RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DELHI OR MUMBAI OR WITHIN TWENTY-FIVE K ILOMETERS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THESE CITIES AND ONE THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AT ANY OTHER PLACE ; AND (D) THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE SHOPS AND OTHER COMMER CIAL ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE HOUSING PROJECT DOES NOT EXCEED FIVE PER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE HOUS ING PROJECT OR TWO THOUSAND SQUARE FEE, WHICHEVER IS LESS.] 6.5. TO VERIFY SUCH A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80I B (10) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS WITHIN HIS REALM TO EXAMINE THOSE ASPECTS. 6.6. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE A S PLACED BEFORE THIS BENCH, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A CONSISTENT STAND OF NOT TO PRODUCE THE PROJECT PLAN GOT APPROVED/SANCTIONED BY THE LOCAL A UTHORITY AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/PARTICULARS FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE AO WHO HAS BEEN VESTED WITH SUCH POWERS UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT TO VERIFY THE ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH A CLAIM. TO PUT IT GENTLY , WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHYING AWAY FROM FURNISHI NG THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 6.7. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE BUILD ING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHOR ITY DATED 18.5.2006; ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 7 OF 10 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR VERIFICATION FOR THE REASON S NOT FAR TO SEEK. 6.8. WE HAVE DULY PERUSED THE FINDING OF THE HONBL E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DIGITAL EQUIPMENT INDIA LTD. V. DCIT REPORTED IN (2006) 103 TTJ 329 (BANG) ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED STRONG RELI ANCE. WITH DUE REGARDS, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WAS EXEMPTION U/S 10A OF THE ACT WHICH HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE ON HAND. 6.9. WE HAVE ALSO ATTENTIVELY PERUSED THE RULING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P. VENKANNA V. CI T, MYSORE REPORTED IN 72 ITR 328. THE ISSUE, IN BRIEF, BEFORE THE HONBL E COURT WAS THAT - THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED A NET INCOME OF RS. 4,998. T HE TURNOVER CONCERNING HIS SALES AMOUNTED, ACCORDING TO HIS RETURN, TO RS. 1,08,718 AND THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN IN THE RETURN WAS 22.3 PER CENT OF THA T TURNOVER. THE ITO ESTIMATED THE GROSS TURNOVER TO BE RS.1,16,000 AND HE ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFITS AT 28 PER CENT OF THAT TURNOVER. THE AAC RE DUCED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ITO TO THE NET INCOME BY RS. 4,000. THE ESTI MATION OF THE GROSS PROFITS MADE BY THE AAC AMOUNTED TO 24 PER CENT OF THE TURN OVER. IN APPEAL THE ORDER OF THE AAC WAS REVERSED BY TRIBUNAL. IT POINT ED OUT THAT, IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE`S GROSS PROFITS WERE ESTIMATED AT 27.5 PER CENT OF THE TURNOVER IN RESPECT OF ONE YEAR AND AT 30 PER CENT IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER. IT WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE INCREASE IN THE TU RNOVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE ASST. YR. 1962-63 WITH WHICH THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONCE RNED, DID NOT JUSTIFY THE REDUCTION OF THE GROSS PROFIT TO 24 PER CENT OF THE TURNOVER. ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 8 OF 10 6.9.1. PRECISELY, THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE CO URT WAS WHETHER THERE WAS MATERIAL FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE AAC WHICH GAVE THE ASSESSEE A REDUCTION OF RS. 4,000/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL, THE RULING OF HONBLE COURT WAS THAT OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, PROFITS ESTIMATED DURING AN EARLIER PERIOD MAY, IN A PROPER CASE, GUIDE THE ESTIMATION OF THE PROFITS OF A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. BUT THE EARLIER ESTIMATES CAN HAVE RELEVANCE ONLY IF THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE LATER PERIOD IS CONDUCTED ARE SO SIMILAR TO THOSE O F THE EARLIER PERIOD THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE PROPORTION BE TWEEN THE TURNOVER AND THE PROFITS REMAINS UNALTERED. 6.9.2. WITH DUE RESPECTS, WE HAVE VIEWED THE RULIN G OF THE HONBLE COURT. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A HOTELIER A ND THE DISPUTE WAS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFITS WHEREAS THE I SSUE BEFORE HAND WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED HEAVY EXPENDITURE AN D ALSO RESORTED TO PURCHASES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING INVOIC ES FOR PURCHASES AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES INCURR ED AND NON-PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH HAD DEPRIVED THE AO TO VE RIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, THE AO MADE DISA LLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE LAW IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE TOOK SANCTUARY I S OF NO RELEVANCE. 6.10. WHILE RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1.7 2 CRORES TO RS.25 LAKHS, THE LD. CIT (A) HIMSELF HAD CONCEDED THAT [ AT THE COST OF REPETITION ] 9.4 THE 3CD REPORT ALSO DOES NOT FURNISH THE COMPONENT S OF THE ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 9 OF 10 EXPENDITURE OF DIRECT EXPENSES AND THE MATERIALS PU RCHASED. SCHEDULE 13 ELABORATES THE DETAILS ONLY OF ADMINISTRATION SELLI NG AND OTHER EXPENSES, THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF WHICH ADVERTISEMENT, DIRECTORS REMUNERATION, SALARIES.. IT IS NOWHERE CLAIMED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OR THE REJOINDER THAT THE CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ARE FULLY VO UCHED AND HAS SUPPORTIVE BILLS OF PURCHASE OR EXPENSE. THEREFORE , THE DISALLOWANCE, I FIND, HAS BEEN MADE ON JUSTIFIED GROUND 6.11. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E ISSUES AS DELIBERATED UPON IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS, WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUES SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE AO WHO SHALL LOOK INTO THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, OF COURSE, AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH ITS A R, IS ADVISED TO FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND OTHER REQUIR ED PARTICULARS WHICH WILL FACILITATE THE AO TO CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIONS OF TH IS BENCH REFERRED SUPRA. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- ( SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 18 TH JUNE, 2010. DS/- ITA NO.118/BANG/10 PAGE 10 OF 10 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.