SLN Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 1219/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6502 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR PALANI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA
• Keywords: Gift; Business expenditure; Additional evidence; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(2); 12

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER ITA NO S .1218 & 1219 (BANG)/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2011 - 12 & 2012 - 13 ) M/S SLN TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD., NO.1,3 RD FLOOR, HORIZON PAI LAYOUT, OLD MAD R AS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 016 PAN NO.AA DC S 1906P APPELLANT VS THE A SST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P ADAMCHAND KHINCHA, CA REVENUE BY : DR.PALANI KUMAR, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 09 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 10 - 2019 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : PRESENT APPEALS HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 14/05/15 BY LD. CIT (A) - 6 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 2 ITA NO.1218/BANG/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12) DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 35(2AB ) 1. THE LD.CIT(A) - 6, BANGALORE HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING 50% OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 35(2A B) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,18,83,550/. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2A|B) IS T O BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR EXPENDITURE 2. TH E CIT(A) - 6, BANGALORE HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.7,67,521/ - . ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, DEDUCTION OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPEND ITURE IS TO BE ALLOWED AS CLAIM ED BY THE APPELLANT. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,36,699/ - 3. THE LD.CIT(A) - 6, BANGALORE HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,36,699/ - . ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, DE DUCTION OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTIN G TO RS.1,36,699/ - IS TO BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. PRAYER 4. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 3 LD.CIT(A) - 6, BANGALORE TO THE EXTENT PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT BE QUA S HED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE I) DEDUCTION U/S35(2AB) BE FULLY ALLOWED CLAIMED II) DEDUCTION OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENDITURE BE FULLY ALLOWED AS CLAIMED III) DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,36,699/ - BE FULLY AS ALLOWED ITA NO.1219/BANG/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13) DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) 1. THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, BANGALORE HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING 50% OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 35(2AB) AMOUNTING TO RS.73,96,208/ - . ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) IS TO BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. PRAYER 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A ) - 6, BANGALORE TO THE EXTENT PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT BE QUASHED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DE D UCTION U/S 35(2AB) BE FULLY ALLOWED AS CLAIMED . ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 4 2. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY BOTH SIDES THAT ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE COMMON. FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , WE ARE THEREFORE , DISPOSING OF BOTH YEARS BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER. WE SHALL TAKE UP FACTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 FOR PURPOSES OF DECIDING THE ISSUE. 2. 1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011 - 12 ON 22/09/11 DECLARING NIL INCOME AND BOOK PRO FIT UNDER SECTION 115 JB OF THE IT ACT, AT RS.18,94, 612/ - . CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTI NY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142( 1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO STATUTORY NOTICES, REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE LD. AO AND PRODUCED DETAILS CALLED FOR BY LD.AO. 3. LD.AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED SUM OF RS.2,37,67,100/ - UNDER SECTION 35 (2AB) OF THE ACT. ON VERIFICATION BY LD.AO, IT WAS NOTICED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED CERTIFICATE/LETTER OF APPROVAL ISSUED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND RESEARCH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY ASKED TO FURNISH THE SAME. IN RESPONSE TO LD.AOS QUERY, ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS IN - HOUSE R&D UNIT APPROVED BY DEPARTMENT OF S CIENTIFIC AND I NDUSTRIAL R ESEARCH, MINISTRY OF S CIENCE AND T ECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AS R ESEARCH AND D EVELOPMENT ORGANIZ ATION WHICH IS VALID TILL 31/03/13 V IDE LETTER DATED F.NO. TU/IV - R&D/2514/2010 ISSUED 29/09/10. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LETTER WAS SIGNED BY SCIENTIST - G, INSTEAD OF SECRETARY, WHO WAS AUTHORI Z ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SECRETARY. LD.AO HOWEVER , REJECTED ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 5 CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED EXEMPTION OF RS.2,37,67,100/ - CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH CERTIFICATE/LETTER OF APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BEING THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AS PER THE ACT, FOR EXPENDITURE INCURRED. 3.1 LD.AO FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT ASSESSEE DEBITED A SUM OF RS.7,67,521/ - AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY ISSUE COST TO FILE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. ASSESSEE V IDE LETTER DATED 14 - 02 - 2014 FILED VARIOUS DETAILS HOWEVER , LD. AO DID NOT ACCEPT AND MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID SUM. 3.2 LD.AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.1,36,699/ - WHICH WAS SUMITTED TO BE GIFTS GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DETAILS, IT DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO INCOME OF ASSESSE E. 4. AGGRIEV ED BY ADDITIONS MADE BY LD. AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT (A) WHO GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSE E ONLY IN RESPECT OF SECTION 35 (2AB) RELATING TO REGULAR EXPENSES WHICH WAS ALLOWED AS BUSINESS/REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER O F LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 6. GROUND NO. 1 IS IN RESPECT OF 50% OF DEDUCTION DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 35 (2AB). 6.1 AT THE OUTSET , LD. AR FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER R ULE 29 OF THE A CT , WHEREIN HE HAS ANNEXED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE COMMUNICATIONS SUBSEQUENT TO ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 6 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WITH MINISTRY OF S CIENCE AND T ECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF S CIENTIFIC AND I NDU STRIA L R ESEARCH AND T ECHNOLOGY, G OVERNMENT OF INDIA. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THESE D OCUMENTS NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE. 6.2 . IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE DIRECT BEARING TO THE ISSUE FOR CONSI DERATION , AS ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY OBTAINED CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR SUCCEEDING PERIOD OF 01/04/13 TO 31/03/ 16 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 22 6 OF APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS LETTER OF APPROVAL DATED 19/02/14 HAS BEEN S IGNED BY S CIENTIST - G FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SECRETARY DEP AR T MENT OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH . IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THE SAME PERSON WHO AFFIRMED C ERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 29/09/10 PLACED AT PAGE 115 OF PAPER BOOK. 6.3 LD. DR , THOUGH VEHEMENTLY OPPOS ED ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, HOWEVER COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT THESE DOCUMENTS COULD BE USEFUL FOR DECIDING I SSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY LD. AO AND TO CARRY OUT FURTHER VERIFICATION. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVA NCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. U NDOUBTEDLY , ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE US COMMUNICATIONS WITH DEPARTMENT OF S CIENTIFIC AND I NDUSTRIAL R ESEARCH & T ECHNOLOGY POST ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ASS ESSEE WAS THEREFORE , WAS SUFFICIENTLY PRECLUDED FROM PLACING THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER , THESE DOCUMENTS ARE QUITE CRUCIAL IN ORDER TO DETERMINE APPROVAL FOR RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE ACCORDINGLY , ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY ASSESSEE TODAY. ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 7 7.1 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS IN - HOUSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY RECOGNI Z ED BY D S I R, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SINCE 27/06/05 AND RECOGNITION WAS RENEWED FROM TIME TO TIME. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN - HOUSE R&D FACILITY WAS RECOGNIZ ED BY SCIENTIST - G VIDE LETTER DATED 29/09/10 , F NO. TU/IV - R& D/2514/2010, WHICH IS ANNEXED AT PAGE 115 OF PAPER BOOK, AND HAS BEEN HELD TO BE VALID UP TO 31/03/13. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY DISPUTE WITH REVENUE IS REGARDING CERTIFICATE BEING APPROVED BY SCIENTIST - G AND NOT BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY BEING SECRETARY OF DSIR , PLACED AT PAGE 114 - 115 OF PAPER BOOK . HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN SIGNED BY S CIENTISTS - G WHO WAS AUTHORI Z ED SIGNAT ORY ON BEHALF OF SECRETARY , DURING RELEVANT PERIOD. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON EXTRACT FROM WEBSITE OF DSIR.GO V.IN, WHEREIN AS PER SECTION 4 (1) (B) (II ) BEING POWERS AND DUTIES OF EMPLOYEES COULD BE DELEGATED. PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE SAME, HE SUBMITTED THAT IS SCIENTISTS B TO G ARE AUTHORISED TO EXERCISE POWERS OF HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT DULY DELEGATED BY THE SECRETARY . H E THUS S UBMITTED THAT APPROVAL GRANTED VIDE LETTER DATED 29/09/10 IS VALID AND ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 35 (2AB) OF THE IT ACT, AS CLAIMED. 8. ON THE CONTRARY . LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY LD. AR NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY LD. AO , WITHOUT WHICH THE CLAIM CANNOT BE APPROVED. 9. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 8 9.1 ON PERUSAL OF LETTER DA TED 29/09/10 RELIED UPON BY LD.AR PLACED AT PAGE 115 OF PAPER BOOK , IT IS OBSERVED THAT THIS CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IS ISSUED FOR PURPOSE OF AVAILING CUSTOMS DUTY EXEMPTION IN TERMS OF G OVERNMENT NOTIFICATION NO. 24/2007 - C USTOMS DATED 01/03/07 AN D C ENTRAL E XCISE D UTY E XEMPTION IN TERMS OF GOVERNMENT NOTI FICATION NO. 16/2007 - C ENTRAL E XCISE DATED 01/03/07 , AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, T HIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FOR PURPOSE S OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35 (2AB). APPARENTLY , ANY APPROVA L OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 35 (2AB) WILL BE ANNEXED WITH F ORM 3CL WHICH HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN LETTER DATED 29/09/10 PLACED AT PAGE 115 OF PAPER BOOK. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 35(2AB) IS AS P ER EXPENDITURE QUANTIFIED BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY IN FORM 3CL OR IN THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL. WE ALSO NOTE THAT FORM 3CL WAS NOT MANDATORY PRIOR TO 2014. BUT QUANTIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OF DSIR IS MANDATORY. IN A COMPILATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, THIS CATEGORICAL DIFFE RENCE IS VERY CLEAR FROM PAGE 22 8 WHERE IN F ORM 3CL HAS BEEN ANNEXED SHOWING EXEMPTION THAT IS AVAILAB LE TO ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 35 (2AB) FOR RELEVANT PERIOD. 9.2 HOWEVER, BE THAT AS IT MAY, AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE TIME AND AGAIN CALL ED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS FOR PURPOSES OF CONSIDERING APPROVAL WHICH ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED , AS IT IS SEEN FROM RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED APPROVAL SINCE 27/06/15 AND THAT SUBSEQUENT PERIOD APPR OVAL HAS AL SO BEEN GRANTED V IDE LETTER DATED ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 9 15/02/16 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 AND 2015 - 16, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO S ET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO LD. AO FOR VERIFICATION. ASSESSEE AT THIS JUNCTURE ALSO BRINGS TO OUR NOTICE THAT IT HAS FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AGAINST REFUSAL OF CERTIFICATION BY DSIR WHICH IS PENDING FINAL YEAR. 9.3 LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY ALL DETAILS FILED BY ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND TO CONSIDER CLAIM H AVING REGARD TO DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION FILED BY ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. GROUND NO. 2 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. IT H AS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR RS.7,67,521/ - AS PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES AS PER AS - 5. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXPENSES BEING SHO R T PROVISION MADE IN EARLIER YEAR HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR DURING THE YEAR AND SHOWN A S PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTME NT IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SEPAR ATELY TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF ACCOUNTING STANDARD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE NOT PROVISIONAL EXPENSES BUT EXP ENSES THAT ARE IN EXCESS OF PROVISION MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. 10.1 ON THE CONTRARY LD. DR PLACED RELIA NCE UPON ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10.2 WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US . I T IS OBSERVE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN BREAKUP BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NO EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 10 REGARDING SAME BEING EXCESS OF PROVISION THAT WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR. AS NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS , WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LD. AR . WE THEREFORE , DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO. 3 IS IN RESPECT OF GIFTS EX AMOUNT ING TO RS. 1,36,699/ - CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT D IRECTOR THROUGH CREDIT CARD HAS PUR CHASED GIFTS FOR MARRIAGES, BIRTHDAY EVENTS OF EMPLOYEES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE GIFTS MADE TO SPECIAL OCCASIO NS AND HAS BEEN EXPENDED FOR PURPOSES OF BUSINESS . 11.1 ON THE CONTRARY , LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THIS BEN CH RAISED ONE SIMPLE QUERY TO LD. AR REGARDING ANY EVIDENCES THAT COULD BE FURNISHED REGARD ING GIFTS MADE TO EMPLOYEES, FOR WHICH LD .AR REPLIED THAT THERE COULD BE NO DETAILS AVAILABLE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , IT IS HIG HLY IMPROBABLE TO APPRECIATE SUBMISSI ONS ADVANCED BY LD.AR. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 11 IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 13. ITA NO. 1 2 19/B/2015. (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13) THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS REGARDING DI SALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 35 (2AB) AMOUNTING TO RS.73,96,208/ - . IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY BOTH SIDES THAT FACTS FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . W E HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED I DENTICAL ISSUE BEING GROUND NO. 1 IN ITA NO. 1218/B/2015 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. AS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTUAL METRICS THAT HAS BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD, THE VIEW TAKEN BY US FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 ON THIS ISSUE SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS . WE ARE T HUS SETTING ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO LD. AO FOR DUE VERIFICATION OF DETAILS FILED BY ASSESSEE HAVING REGARD TO DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION FILED. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 - 10 - 2019 SD/ - SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: *AM ITA NOS.1218 & 1219(B)/2015 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5. DR 6. ITO (TD S) 7.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST.REGISTRAR