M/s Bipin Textiles Processing Industries Pv tLtd , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 1201/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7692 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TSHERING ONGDA JDIT ISCI
• Assessee Lawyers: VENKATESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Valuation report; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1201 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 1 0 M/S. BIPIN TEXTILES PROCESSING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 9-B, 2 ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE 560 058. PAN: AACCB7510R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11 (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI VENKATESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TSHERING ONGDA , JDIT (ISCI) DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 .0 6 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .0 7 .2018 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 22.02.2018FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER CONCIS E GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER. 1. THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR REOPENING BEIN G ABSENT, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC. 143(3) READ WITH SEC. 147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 147 BY THE LEARNED AO WERE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO EVEN THOUGH ASSESSM ENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S.143(1). 3. THE LEARNED AO HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPL ES AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINAT OR OF INDIA LTD (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) 'WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT T HERE SHOULD BE 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ITA NO.1201/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 7 ASSESSMENT.' 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT WHERE IN PROPERTY/BUILDING HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY WAY OF REIMB URSEMENT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING ON THE LAND OW NED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE 'LESSEE' WITH THE BORROWED CAPITAL , THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAYABLE ON SUCH CAPITAL, RS.19,83,699/- SH ALL BE ALLOWED U/S.24(B). 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATE D THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN SUBSEQUENT LOAN ONLY TO REPAY T HE ORIGINAL LOAN WHICH WAS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF B UILDING AND HENCE THE SAME IS TO BE TREATED AS ORIGINAL LOAN AND THUS INTEREST PAID ON SUCH LOAN SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO U/S.24(B) OF THE ACT, WAS ARBITRARY, CAPR ICIOUS AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE , AMEND OR DELETE ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL URGED ABOVE. 3. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTE NTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE CIT(A). AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE BENCH WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING AND IN REPLY, IT W AS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE RELEVANT REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUP PORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGAR DING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO ASSESSEES CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, WE FIRST REPRODUCE THE REASONS RECO RDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAME ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. Y EAR : 09-10 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 10,74,600/-. AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN RECEIPT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM PROPERTIES LET OUT OF RS. 46,72 ,760/- AND INTEREST RECEIVED OF RS. 36,234/-. AS AGAINST THE SAID INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THE ASSESSE E COMPANY HAS CLAIMED OPERATIONAL FROM ADMINISTRATION AND SELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 26,18,983/-. ITA NO.1201/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 7 AS PER THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED, THE ASSES SEE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED A BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 2,79,753/- AND I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 10,38,361/- AFTER CLAIMING 30 % FOR REPAIRS AND INTEREST EXPENSES. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IS NOT RUNNING ANY BUSINESS AND HAS NOT DECLARED ANY B USINESS INCOMES FOR THE YEAR, THE BUSINESS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LETT INGOUT PROPERTIES, THEN THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED AT 30 % UNDER INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY CANNOT BE ALLOWED. ON ACCOUNT OF FACTS AS ABOVE, I HAVE REASONS TO BEL IEVE THAT THE TAXABLE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO INIT IATE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. FROM THE ABOVE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF RENTAL INCOME FROM PROPERTIES LET OUT AN D INTEREST RECEIVED ONLY AND THERE IS NO OTHER INCOME WHICH COULD BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. RENTAL INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOU SE PROPERTY AND INTEREST INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AVAILABL E ON PAGE NO. 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT AS PE R P&L ACCOUNT AT RS. 11,48,174/- AND FROM THE SAME, HE HAS REDUCED RENTA L INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 46,72,760/- AND RS. 36,234/- RESPECTI VELY TOTAL RS. 47,08,994/- AND AFTER THAT, HE HAS SHOWN LOSS OF RS. 35,60,820/ - WHICH WAS REDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING THE EXPENSES INCURRED AND DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT OF RS. 3,55,531/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX, RS. 9,41,837 /- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND RS. 19,83,699/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTE REST PAID ON UNSECURED LOAN TOTAL OF RS. 32,81,067/- AND ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESS EE WORKED OUT THE NET LOSS OF RS. 2,79,753/- WHICH WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST INCOME FR OM RENT AND INCOME FROM INTEREST OF RS. 10,38,361/- ADDED RS. 36,234/- DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET INCOME OF RS. 10,74,591/-. AS PER THE INTIMATION AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE PAPER BOO K, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 10,74,600/- BEING THE RETURNED INCOME WHICH IS AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 2,79,753/- BEING BUSINESS LOSS CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING, THE AO ST ATED VERY CLEARLY THAT CONSIDERING THIS FACT THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT RUNNING ANY BUSINESS AND NOT DECLARED ANY BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE, BUSINESS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. HENCE IN OUR ITA NO.1201/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 7 CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE RE OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC). IN THIS JUDGEMENT ALSO, I T WAS HELD BY HONBLE APEX COURT THAT THE AO HAS THE POWER TO REOPEN U/S. 147 PROVIDED THE AO HAS THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT ON THE BASIS OF SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND 'MERE CHANGE OF OPINION' CANNOT BE PER SE REASON TO RE-OPEN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS NO ASSE SSMENT COMPLETED PRIOR TO REOPENING AND THERE WAS ONLY INTIMATION ISSUED U/S. 143(1) OF IT ACT AND THEREFORE, NO OPINION WAS FORMED BY THE AO AND HENC E, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY CHANGE OF OPINION. THE AO HAS DULY RECORDED TH E REASONS FOR REOPENING AND IN THE SAME, HE HAS NOTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, THERE IS NO BUSINESS REVENUE AND HENCE, THE EXPENSES ARE NOT AL LOWABLE AND THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO ASSESSEE. HENCE THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ISSUE ON MERIT TO BE DECIDED BY US IS REGARD ING THE ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 19,83,699/- WHILE COMPUTING INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. REGARDING THIS ISSUE, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE HAS RE ITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE CIT(A). HE AL SO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MAKR UPA CHEMICALS (P) LTD. AS REPORTED IN 108 ITD 95 IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTIO N THAT IF THE PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED OUT OF INTEREST FREE LOAN AND SUCH INTERES T FREE LOAN IS REPAID OUT OF INTEREST BEARING LOAN, INTEREST PAID ON SECOND LOAN IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 24 (B). THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER PARA 4.4 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REP RODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 4.4 A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE ENTIRE SH AREHOLDING OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS TAKEN OVER BY M/S ROLLWELL FR OM M/S KRM INTERNATIONAL FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,43,3 0,450/- VIDE MOU DT 05.07.2006 AND IT HAD BECOME THE HOLDING COMPANY OF THE APPELLANT. THUS BY WAY OF ACQUIRING SUCH SHARES THE BUYER M/S ROLLWELL ITA NO.1201/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 7 AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRED THE BUILDING AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE 2 OF THIS MOU. SO AS SUCH NO LOAN WAS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT TO PURCHASE THIS BUILDING. AS PER CLAUSE 7 OF MOU, M/S ROLLWELL AGRE ED TO DISCHARGE THE LIABILITIES OF APPELLANT PERTAINING TO ITS PARE NT COMPANY TO THE TUNE OF RS.300 LAKHS +/- 10% PRIOR TO TAKING OVER THE CO NTROL OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. SO ANY SUCH PAYMENT WOULD BE AFT ER THE DATE OF MOU I.E. 05.07.2006, WHICH IS IN FY 2006-07. THIS C AN THUS ALSO NOT BE CONSIDERED AS LOAN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF THE BUILDING. SO THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RESORTED TO A COLORABLE DEVICE TO SHO W THAT IT HAD TAKEN INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM M/S ROLLWELL FOR THE PURPOS E OF PURCHASE OF A BUILDING, IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THIS IS CLEARLY A ND AFTERTHOUGHT ON PART OF THE APPELLANT TO SHOW AN OUTSTANDING AMOUNT IN ITS BALANCE SHEET RELATING TO M/S ROLLWELL AS A LOAN BORROWED F OR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF BUILDING. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE LOANS B ORROWED FOR REPAYMENT OF THIS LOAN OF M/S ROLLWELL CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 24(B) OF THE A CT AND ANY INTEREST THEREUPON CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON CERTAIN DECISIONS TO ARGUE THAT THE INTEREST ON NEW LOAN TA KEN FOR REPAYMENT OF EARLIER LOAN USED FOR PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. HOWEVER THOSE DECISIONS ARE NO T RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE PURCHA SE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS NOT BY MEANS OF USING SOME EARLIER LOAN. CONSIDERING ABOVE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL 3 AND 4 OF THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 8. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD ARE NO TED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 2.5 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 2.5 IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED THE DETAILS STATED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS, FULLY OWNED BY ITS HOLDIN G COMPANY M/S KRM INTERNATIONAL LTD., IN THE YEAR ENDED 31/3/ 2006, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY ITS HOLDING C OMPANY OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS AND USED BY THEM FOR THEIR BUSINESS ACTIV ITY SINCE 1990 FOR RS.2,61,25,000/-. THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS AR RIVED AT BASED ON VALUATION REPORT FROM AN APPROVED VALUER. THE ENTRY FOR PURCHASE OF BUILDING WAS ACCOUNTED AS ON 31/03/2006 BY JOURNAL VOUCHER. THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,61,25,000/- WAS PAID TO M/S KRM INTERNATIONAL LTD., OUT OF INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM M/S ROLLWELL CONVEYOR COMPONENTS PVT.LTD., IN THE YEAR ENDED 31/03/2007. THE INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM M/S ROLLWELL CONVEYOR COMPONENTS PVT.LTD. , CONTINUED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 31/03/2008 AND THE SAME WA S REPAID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 2009 WITH INTEREST BEARING LOA NS BORROWED FROM FIVE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST OF RS.19, 83,699/- TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM LOANS WERE BORROWED DURING THE YEARENDED 31/03/2009. THUS THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT LOANS ARE BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING BUILDING WHICH IS LET OUT DURING THE PREV IOUS YEAR ENDED 31/03/2009 AND THEREFORE, THE INTEREST PAID ISCLAIM ED AS DEDUCTIONS ITA NO.1201/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 7 FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE COMPANY IS NOT CARRYING ON ANY BUSINESS FOR MORE THAN 10 TO 15 YEARS AND LETTING OUT OF THE PRO PERTY IS NOT A BUSINESS FOR THE COMPANY AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF A SSOCIATION AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY'. 9. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER O F CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER CIT (A), THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS NOT BY MEANS OF USING SOME EARLIER LOAN. THIS FINDING OF CIT (A) IS ON THIS LO GIC THAT THE ENTIRE SHAREHOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS TAKEN OVER BY M/S ROLLW ELL FROM M/S KRM INTERNATIONAL FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,43,3 0,450/- VIDE MOU DT 05.07.2006 AND IT HAD BECOME THE HOLDING COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT BY WAY OF ACQUIRING SUCH SHARES, THE BUYER M/S ROLLWELL AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRED THE BUILDING AS REF ERRED TO IN CLAUSE 2 OF THIS MOU. SO AS SUCH, NO LOAN WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PURCHASE THIS BUILDING. THE FALLACY IN THIS STAND OF CIT (A) IS THIS THAT AS PER CIT (A), BY ACQUIRING ENTIRE SHAREHOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY, M/S ROLLWELL HAS AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRED THE BUILDING BUT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN AFTER ACQUIRING OF THE ENTIRE SHAREHOLDING OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY, M/S ROLLWELL HAS ALTHOUGH BECOME THE HOLDING COMPANY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT THE BUILDING IS STILL OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IF THAT IS NOT SO, THEN HOW THE RENTAL INCOME FROM THE BUILDING IS BEING ASSESSED I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE? IF M/S ROLLWELL HAS BECOME THE OWNER OF T HE BUILDING THAN THE RENTAL INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF M/S ROLLW ELL AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 10. AS PER PARA 2.5 OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AS REPR ODUCED ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,61,25,000/- WAS PAID TO M/S KRM INTERNATIONAL LTD., OUT OF INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM M/S ROLLWELL CONVEYOR COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. IN THE YEAR ENDED ON 31/03/200 7 BUT THERE IS NO FINDING OF CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD AS TO WHETHER . THE INTER EST FREE LOAN FROM M/S ROLLWELL CONVEYOR COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. TAKEN IN THE YEAR END ED ON 31/03/2007 WAS USED TO ACQUIRE THE BUILDING FROM M/S KRM INTERNATI ONAL LTD. IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT IN FACT THE INTEREST FREE LO AN WAS USED TO ACQUIRE THE BUILDING AND INTEREST BEARING LOAN IS USED TO REPAY SUCH INTEREST FREE LOAN THAN ITA NO.1201/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 7 THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. MAKRUPA CHEMICALS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) BECOMES APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. BUT THERE IS NO FINDING OF CIT (A) ON THIS ASPECT. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F CIT (A) AND RESTORE THIS MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGH T OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BO TH SIDES. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DA TE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 13 TH JULY, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.