M/s Premier Charities, Mysore V. ACIT, Mysore

ITA 1264/BANG/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9454 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHA PRAKASH; JACINTA Z VASHAI
• Assessee Lawyers: B K MANJUNATH
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Document seized; Cost of acquisition; Bad and doubtful debts; Block assessment; Documents seized; Unabsorbed depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 1 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH BANGALORE BENCH BANGALORE BENCH BANGALORE BENCH A AA A BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI K.P.T. THANGAL K.P.T. THANGAL K.P.T. THANGAL K.P.T. THANGAL, , , , VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N.L KALRA N.L KALRA N.L KALRA N.L KALRA, A , A, A , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CCOUNTANT MEMBER CCOUNTANT MEMBER CCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/BANG/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00 & 2002-03 TO 2005-066) WIPRO FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, WIPRO CENTRE, NO.5, PAPANNA STREET, ST. MARKS ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), C.R BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.K MANJUNATH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARSHA PRAKASH & SMT. JACINTA Z. VASHAI O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER K.P.T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT PER K.P.T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT PER K.P.T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT PER K.P.T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT : : : : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) - VI, BANGALORE DATED 10.07.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1999-00. SINCE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE THE SAME, WE ARE DISPOSIN G OF ALL THE APPEALS BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT IN FACT GROUND NO. 1 TO 13 IS EXHAUSTIVE BUT HE CONFINED IN A NUTSHELL TO ONE POINT I.E THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DIRE CTING THE AO TO ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 2 2 QUANTIFY THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 32, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD. 2.1 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON THE LEASED ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95, WHEN THE ORDER DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATIO N ON THE SAME LEASED ASSETS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 ITSELF STA NDS ANNULLED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.4 .2007. FACTS LEADING TO THE DISPUTE ARE AS UNDER : 2.2 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION ON 31.12.99 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.1,74,20,540/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(II) ON 28.3.2000 FIX ING REFUND AT RS.57,89,950/-. IT WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BLOCK DEMAND OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PAR 6.1 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVING AS UND ER : IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IT IS SEEN THAT ON NUMBER OF ASSETS, TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO WHICH WERE DISALLOWED IN THE BLOCK ORDER, DEPRECIATION IS STILL BEING CLAIMED. IT WAS FURTHER VERIFIED FROM THE DE TAILS FILED THAT LEASE RENTALS ARE ALSO CREDITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT ON SUCH ASSETS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT T HE ENTIRE TRANSACTION AND THE CONSEQUENT CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N HAS ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, SU CH CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE I THE CURRENT ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 3 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OFFERED LEASE RENTALS ON THESE ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,47,39,471/-. THESE RECEIPTS, IN VIEW OF THE F ACT THAT TRANSACTION AS PER SE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED, CANNOT B E HELD AS LEASE RENTALS. BUT THE FACT OF RECEIPT OF AMOUNT HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THIS RECEIPT IS THEREFORE ASSESS ED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS CONSIDERED FOR HIS DISALLOWA NCE OF DEPRECIATION IN THE BLOCK RETURN AND CLAIMED DURING THIS YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.54,85,522/- IS BEING DISALLOWE D. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE APPROACH ED THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 2.4 THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER FRA MED THREE POINTS TO BE DECIDED AS UNDER : (A) WHETHER THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING TH E CARRIED FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ? (B) WHETHER THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE CURRENT YEARS DEPRECIATION ? (C) WHETHER THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF WHEN THE I NITIAL YEAR I.E THE A.Y 1994-95 WHEREIN ASSETS WERE ALLEGEDLY ACQUIRED WAS ASSESSED PROTECTIVELY AND TH E SUBSTANTIVE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 4 4 HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE LEARNED ITAT AS TIME BARRED ? 2.5 THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE POINTS STAND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 IN ITA NO.795/BANG/2006. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED TH AT SET OFF OF LEASE RENTALS AGAINST DEPRECIATION CLAIM WAS NOT CONSIDER ED IN THE CASE WHERE LEASE RENTALS EXCEEDED THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM ED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WAS ALLOWED BY T HE TRIBUNAL VIDE PAGE 20 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER : IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF ACQUISIT ION AND OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS, COST OF ACQUISITION, ETC., WERE ALL REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHE R DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH EVIDENCES WERE SEIZED BY THE SEARCH PARTY IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT. FROM THIS IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS OF PROVING THE CLAI M FOR DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. PERUSAL OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT BRING OU T ANY REASON OR DISCUSSION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH L ARGE SUM. IN FACT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION AT ALL FOR THI S YEAR. THE DISCUSSION IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN SPECIFIC CASES OF ALLEGED IRREGULAR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ALL PERT AIN TO EARLIER YEARS. THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS ON ASSETS WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT 100% RATE. T HE IRREGULARITY IF ANY IN THE EARLIER YEARS WOULD NOT EFFECT THE CLAIM FOR THIS YEAR AS 100% DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THOSE ASSETS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS. ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 5 5 NOTHING TURNS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DISCUSS ION IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE DR HAS ALSO NOT BROUG HT ANY NEW EVIDENCE TO BUTTRESS THE CASE OF THE DEPART MENT AS THERE IS NO REASON OR DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE I N ANY MEANINGFUL MANNER IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS T HERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO HOLD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HENCE , THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVING DISCHARGED THE ONUS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AND DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY WE DIR ECT THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,38,55,935/-. 2.6 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE THERE IS FIN DING BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT DETAILS OF THE ACQUISITION AND OWNERS HIP OF ASSETS, COST OF ACQUISITION ETC. WERE ALL REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO SUCH EVIDENCES WERE SEIZED BY THE SEARCH PARTY, THE PRESUMPTION IS IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR TO THE EXTENT WHAT IS FOUND IS TRUE UNLESS THE CONTRARY PROVED BY THE REVENUE BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 132(4A) READ WITH SECTION 292C. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT SEIZED DOCUM ENTS ONLY REFLECTED THE DETAILS OF THE FURNITURES, FIXTURES ETC. ON WHOM 100% DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED AND TO WHOM IT HAD BEEN GI VEN ON LEASE BUT IT DID NOT REFLECT WHEN SUCH ASSETS WERE PURCHASED AND FROM WHOM AND AT WHAT COST. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR DE TAILS OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH ASSETS. HE HELD THAT ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS HAS BEEN PROVED IN THE BOOKS DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE BECAUSE PURELY SUCH OWNERSHIP WAS TO BE EXPLAINED E ITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE. I N FACT HE HELD THAT ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 6 6 THERE IS NO ARGUMENT BY ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE A T ANY POINT OF TIME THAT THE ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CLAIMED WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. HE FURTHER HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF FINANCING HIRE PURCHASE SCHEMES AND HE WAS NOT LEASING OF 100% DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. HE HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR MAKING THE BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE BY ADOPTING COLOURABLE DEVIC ES. HE HELD THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PROVING OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS. SIMPLY IF IT IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IT HAS NO RELEVANCE UNLESS SHOWN TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OR TO THE T RIBUNAL TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS. HE HELD THAT HAD IT BEEN SHOWN TO ITAT, IT COULD H AVE VERY WELL SENT TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND REPOR T. SUCH BEING NOT DONE, CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FIND ING OF THE AO THAT THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF SUCH ASSETS WAS BOGUS AND US E THEREOF FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS WAS DOUBTFUL. HENCE CLAIM OF T HE DEPRECIATION WAS NOT ALLOWED. THE QUESTIONS FRAMED AT (A) AND ( B) ABOVE WERE, THEREFORE, DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2.7 BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THERE IS NO PROPE R DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 2.8 PERUSAL OF THE ORDER MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO REFUT E THE CONTENTION OF THE ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 7 7 ASSESSEE BY MAKING FIELD ENQUIRY ABOUT THE LEASED P ROPERTIES ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THESE LEASE TR ANSACTIONS WERE BOGUS ONES AND UTILIZED TO REDUCE PROFIT. HE FURTHE R FOUND THAT DOCUMENTS SEIZED ONLY REFLECT THE DETAILS OF FURNIT URE FIXTURES ETC. ON WHOM 100% DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED. AT THE SAME TI ME, IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO WHOM IT WAS LEASED AND ALSO IT IS NOT CLEA R WHEN IT WAS PURCHASED ETC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE REMA NDED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ISSUE FRESH ORDER AFT ER CONDUCTING THE ENQUIRY. THE CASE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS THAT THE MERE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSETS IS NOT SUFFICIENT. ACCORDIN G TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), ASSESSEE WAS DOING BUSINESS OF FINANCING HI RE PURCHASE SCHEME AND NOT LEASING OF 100% DEPRECIABLE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE IS DISPUTING THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOE S NOT CLEARLY BRING OUT THE REASONS HOW THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EA RLIER YEARS. THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE AO ALSO MAKES IT CLEAR THAT HE HAD NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE PROPERLY EXCEPT SAYING THAT ASS ESSEE WAS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON NUMBER OF ASSETS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE DEPRECIATION HAS ALREADY BEEN DISALLOWED IN THE BLO CK ASST. AND SUCH CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE HELD THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS CONSIDERED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION IN THE BLOCK RETUR N AND CLAIMED DURING THIS YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.54,85,522/- IS BEING DISA LLOWED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCUSSION BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S, WE ARE OF THE ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 8 8 VIEW THAT THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER TO BRING ABOUT THE ENTIRE FACTS. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. COMING TO THE NEXT GROUND, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ER RED IN UPHOLDING THE LEASE RENTALS OF RS.1,47,39,471/- BEI NG ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, SIMPLY SAYIN G THAT AO HAS BEEN ABLE TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL IN TAXING THE CLA IM FOR DEPRECIATION AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3.1 SUFFICE TO SAY THAT AO HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 6 SIMPLY STATING AS MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE PRESENT A SSESSMENT YEAR IT IS SEEN THAT ON NUMBER OF ASSETS, DEPRECIATION RELA TING TO WHICH WERE DISALLOWED IN THE BLOCK YEAR, DEPRECIATION IS STILL BEING CLAIMED. IT IS, THEREFORE, FURTHER VERIFIED FROM THE DETAILS FILED THAT LEASE RENTALS ARE ALSO CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON SUC H ASSETS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE BROUGHT O UR ATTENTION TO APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 -98 IN ITA NO.795/BANG/2000 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 3.6.04. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, VIDE PARA 4.8 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS H ELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION WAS WRONGLY INCLUDED I N THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE BLOCK PERIOD WI LL CONSISTS OF PERIOD UP TO THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF SEARCH AND SUBSEQ UENT SEARCH ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 9 9 CANNOT BE INCLUDED THE BLOCK YEAR, IN THIS CASE END S ON 31.3.97 WHICH IS CLEARLY OUTSIDE THE BLOCK PERIOD AS THE SEARCH W AS COMMENCED ON 3.1.97. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT THE CLAIM FO R DEPRECIATION IS BASED ON THE WDV OF THE BLOCK OF ASSETS HELD AND OW NED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. ANY ACQUISITION OF ASSETS AND DISPOSAL OF ASSETS IN ANY MANNER DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS ADJUSTED TO OPENING WDV OF BLOCK OF ASSETS. ULT IMATELY IT IS THE CLOSING WDV OF BLOCK OF ASSETS WHICH IS THE BASIS F OR ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION. NO CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION IN BETWEEN THE YEAR IS ENVISAGED UNDER THE ACT. THE SCHEME FOR CLAIM OF D EPRECIATION IS SO WELL ESTABLISHED AND UNDERSTOOD THERE IS NO SCOPE F OR ANY CONFUSION. ACCORDINGLY DEPRECIATION FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3. 97 IS CLAIMED ONLY ON 31.3.97 WHICH DATE IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF BLO CK PERIOD I.E 31.1.97. CONSEQUENTLY ADDITION OF THIS SUM IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS UNWARRANTED AND IS AN ERROR BY THE DEPARTMENT. BY THE SAME LOGIC AND ENTIRE ISSUE OF CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION HAS TO BE CO NSIDERED ON A SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND NOT ON A PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THIS ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. 3.2 IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,38,55,935/- FOR THE REASON MENT IONED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. WE ALSO FIND FROM HIS LETTER DATED 1.3 .2000 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED AS PAGE 308 TO 310 IN THE PAP ER BOOK, THAT HE WAS NOT WILLING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 10 10 IN AS MUCH THE AO CHOSE NOT TO ASK FOR ANY SUBSTANT IATION OF THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ALL THE DE TAILS OF ACQUISITION AND OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS, COST OF ACQUISITION, ETC., WER E ALL REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINT AINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH EVIDENCES WERE SEIZED BY THE SEAR CH PARTY IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT. FROM THIS IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS OF PROVING THE CLAI M FOR DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. PERUSAL OF BL OCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT BRING OUT ANY REASON OR DISCUSSION F OR DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH LARGE SUM. IN FACT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION AT ALL FOR THIS YEAR. THE DISCUSSION IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN SPECIFIC CASE S OF ALLEGED IRREGULAR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ALL PERTAIN TO EARL IER YEARS. THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS ON ASSETS WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AT 100% RATE. THE IRREGULARITY IF ANY IN THE EARLIER YEARS WOULD NOT AFFECT THE CLAIM FOR THIS YEAR AS 100% DEPRECIATION IN RESPECT OF THOSE ASSETS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN EARLIER YEARS. NOTHING TUR NS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DISCUSSION IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMEN T. THE DR HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW EVIDENCE TO BUTTRESS THE C ASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AS TO WHY THERE IS NO REASON OR DISCUSSI ON OF THIS ISSUE IN ANY MEANINGFUL MANNER IN THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. TH US THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO HOLD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, HAVING DISCHARGE D THE ONUS, HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AND DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLO WED. HOWEVER IN THE ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 11 11 ABSENCE OF MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION, WE ARE CONSTRAINE D TO SEND IT BACK TO THE AO TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER KEEPING IN MIND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL MENTIONED ABOVE. REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHILE DISALLOWING CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE HAS ALR EADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AGAIN, WHEREAS THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY HELD THAT IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED, AS IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED, WE DIRECT THE AO TO PASS APPRO PRIATE ORDER ON THE LINE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AS HELD B Y THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 4.8 AND 4.9, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE. 4. COMING TO THE NEXT GROUND, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ER RED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.9,98,329/-, WHICH ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE IS THE EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION GAIN THAT HAS BEEN ALR EADY BEEN TAXED TWICE, ONCE AS BUSINESS INCOME AND AGAIN AS PART OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 4.1 WHEN THE MATTER WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, THE A SSESSES REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT HE IS UNDER THE DIRECTIO N NOT TO PRESS THIS GROUND. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT BEI NG PRESSED. 5. COMING TO THE NEXT GROUND, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE DEDUCTION OF RS.36,32,45,645/- AS BAD DEBT S UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VII) AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS BAD DEBTS AND IN FACT THEY ARE ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 12 12 APPLICATION OF NET PROFITS WHICH NORMALLY APPEAR BE LOW THE LINE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 5.1 LEARNED COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER WHEREIN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS E XACTLY IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS STATED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND VIDE PARA 5.3 IS AS UNDER : WE FIND THE DETAILS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORDS ARE INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. IN FACT TH E CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER IN PARA 13 HAS EXPRESSED SIMILAR DIFFI CULTY IN DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE. IT IS STATED BY CIT(A) TH AT CERTAIN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS WAS NOT COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES VERSION THAT THE DETAILS COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED AS ADEQUATE TIME WAS NOT GIVEN BY CIT(A). WE SEE NO PURPOSE IN DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE IN DET AIL IN VIEW OF THE INADEQUACY OF THE DETAILS. WE FIND THE CITA() HELD THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY DRAWING ADVE RSE INFERENCE FOR NON SUBMISSION OF DETAILS. WE FIND SUFFICIENT FORCE IN THE REQUEST OF THE AR, THAT SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY MUST BE GIVEN TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS. WE ALSO FIND THE ISSUE INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL DISALLOWANCE. ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY MUST BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DETAILS. IN VIEW OF THIS WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE AND SEND IT BACK TO THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RECONSID ER THE ENTIRE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CALLING FOR THE DETAILS R EQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO FURNIS H SUCH DETAILS AS MAY BE CALLED BY THE AO. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS CALL ED EVEN AFTER REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY THE CLAIM FOR PROVISIO N MAY ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 13 13 BE DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, IN SUCH EVENT THE AO SHALL ALLOW THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEA R WHERE THE CLAIM IS ASCERTAINED AND CRYSTALLIZED. 5.2 IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, SINCE THERE IS NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE REMAND T HE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.1245/BANG/ ITA NO.1245/BANG/ ITA NO.1245/BANG/ ITA NO.1245/BANG/2008 2008 2008 2008 6. COMING TO THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2-03, FOR GROUND NOS. 1 TO 6, LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT CALL FOR SPECIFIC DEALING AS SUCH. HENCE, GROUND NO. 1 TO 6 IS DISMISSED AS SUCH. 7. COMING TO THE GROUND NO. 7 TO 13 THE LEARNED CI T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41,14,142/- WITH OUT EVEN ASCERTAINING BASIC PARTICULARS SUCH AS THE ACTUAL C OST OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS, THE YEARS IN WHICH THE ASSETS WERE ACQU IRED, HOW THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY T HE AO AND WHETHER THE AGGREGATE DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED BY THE AO YE AR AFTER YEAR HAS NOT EXCEEDED THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS BEING DISALLOWED. ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 14 14 8. THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE SUB MISSION MADE WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1999-00 AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.876/BANG/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-02 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10.8.07. 9. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNA L FOLLOWING ITS OWN ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE PARTICULARLY PARA NOS.4.8 AND 4.9, WHILE DEALING T HE ISSUE WE HELD THAT THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS FURTHER FOLLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE REVENUE THAT THERE ARE DISTINGUISHING FACTS, IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, 2001-02 AND ALSO OUR ORDER FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1999-00, WE REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00 HEREIN ABOVE. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 10. COMING TO THE NEXT GROUND I.E GROUND NO.14 TO 1 7 IS THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLEGED MOTIVES WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN SCRAPPING BROKEN AND WORN-OUT FURNITURE AND FIXT URES THAT WERE USED IN ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 15 15 THE ASSESSES BUSINESS OFFICES FOR MANY YEARS IS IM PROPER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT THE INDIVIDUAL ASSETS ACQUIRED IN THE EARLIER YEARS LOSE THEIR IDE NTITY ONCE THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK OF ASSET AND GIVEN THIS CONTE XT THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 43(6) HAS BEEN SATISFIED. IN THE ALTERNATI VE, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTIONAL SALE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN REDUC ED FROM THE BLOCK ASSETS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(6) OF TH E ACT. 10.1 THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO VIDE PA RA 7 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVING AS UNDER : AS PER ANNEXURE-IID TO 44AB REPORT TO RETURN OF INCOME FILED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED A LIST OF FURNITURES, FIXTURES AND ELECTRONICS GOODS OUT O F WHICH A LARGE AMOUNT OF ASSETS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE DEPLETE D BETWEEN 1.4.2001 TO 31.3.2002. HOWEVER, HERE THE SALE VALUE IS REFLECTED AT NIL FOR MANY ASSETS. DETAI LS OF ASSETS AND PERSONS TO WHOM THEY WERE SOLD AT NIL VALUE WER E CALLED FOR VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 25.2.2005. THE A SSESSEE IN ITS REPLY DATED 4.3.2005 HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETA ILS RELATING TO ANNEXURE II-D. INSTEAD IT HAS STATED T HAT AS PER SECTION 43(6) OF THE ACT, THE BLOCK SHOULD BE REDUC ED BY THE MONEYS PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSET FALLING WITH IN THAT BLOCK WHICH IS SOLD OR DISCARDED OR DESTROYED DURIN G THE PREVIOUS YEAR TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SCRAP VAL UE, IF ANY. THE ASSETS USED IN THE OFFICES OF THE COMPANY HAD O VER THE YEARS BECOME USELESS AND LOST THEIR IDENTITY AND WE RE ACCORDINGLY DISCARDED. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, THE DISC ARDED ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 16 16 ITEMS WERE SOLD AS SCRAP AND THE SALE VALUE HAS BEE N DULY CONSIDERED. IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT, THE OTHER DISCARDED ITEMS HAD NOT SCRAP VALUE AND AN EFFORT T O REALIZE A SCRAP VALUE WOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTER PRODUCTIVE AS I T WOULD HAVE ENTAILED INCURRING A NET EXPENDITURE. THE DET AILS OF PARTIES TO WHOM SUCH ASSETS WERE SOLD WERE ONCE AGA IN CALLED FOR VIDE LETTER DATED 16.3.2005. THE REPLY HAS BEEN FURNISHED ON 31.3.2005 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SAI D THAT THE SCRAP OF THE ASSETS HAVE NOT BEEN SOLD. THIS I S IN CONTRADICTION TO ITS EARLIER REPLY. A PERUSAL OF T HE ASSETS LISTED ARE MOSTLY FURNITURES & FIXTURES AND ELECTRO NICS ITEMS. IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS BEING FURNISHED PROPERLY BY THE ASSESSEE AN ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- IS BEING MAD E BEING THE SALE VALUE REALIZABLE FROM SUCH ITEMS. 10.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE AOS ORDER, ASSESSEE APPROACH ED THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY T HE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE PAGE 6 AND 7 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVING AS UNDER : THE AO ON THE OTHER HAND EXAMINED THE ANNEXURE IID TO AUDIT REPORT AND CALLED FOR THE DET AILS. THE APPELLANT REPLIED ON 25.02.2005. IN THAT LETTER, I T WAS ADMITTED THAT SOME OF THE ASSETS WERE DISCARDED AND SOLD AND WHEREVER IT WAS SOLD, VALUE WAS ASCRIBED AND IN REST OF THE CASES, NIL VALUE WAS TAKEN. THE A.O FURTHER AS KED THE DETAILS AS TO WHOM SOLD, WHEN SOLD, SALE PRICE ETC. , NO REPLY CAME. THEREFORE, THE A.O ESTIMATED THE SALE V ALUE OF THE ITEMS TERMED AS SCRAP SHOWING NIL VALUE AT RS.1 0 LAKHS AND ADDED THE SAME. I FIND THE ACTION OF THE A.O JUSTIFIED. ON FACTS AVAILABLE, I FIND THAT THE APP ELLANT SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE DETAILS AS TO ASSETS CONDEMNED AND S OLD AS WELL DISCARDED AND NOT SOLD. THAT BEING NOT GIVEN, THERE IS ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 17 17 NO CASE FOR INFRINGEMENT IN THE ORDER OF A.O. GROU ND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS AS TO THE ASSETS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE IID AS TO ITS ACQU ISITION SALE ETC. I AM CONSTRAINED TO DISMISS THE GROUND N O.6 OF APPEAL WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM BLOCK OF ASSETS FOR COMPUTATION OF DEPRECIATION THEREON. 10.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10.4 CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT ALTERNATIVE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT NOTIONAL V ALUE DETERMINED BY THE AO SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED FROM THE BLOCK OF ASSET AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43(6) IS TO BE ACCEPTED. WE D IRECT THE AO TO CONSIDER THE NOTIONAL SALE VALUE AND REDUCE IT FROM THE BLOCK OF ASSET. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. WHILE DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW THE NOTIONAL VA LUE FROM THE BLOCK OF ASSET, WE HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE SUBMISSION OF L EARNED DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAILS AND, THEREFORE, AO WAS HANDICAPPED. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE DETAILS WHATEVER AVA ILABLE AND TO ASSIST THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY . 12. COMING TO THE NEXT GROUND, THE LEARNED CIT(A) I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INSTALLMENT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 35D. ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 18 18 12.1 ASSESSEEES REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE I S UNDER THE INSTRUCTION NOT TO PRESS THIS ISSUE. HENCE, IT IS D ISMISSED AS NOT BEING PRESSED. 12.2 COMING TO THE GROUND NO.19, IT IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO QUANTIFY THE CARRY- FORWARD LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. 12.3 SINCE OTHER ISSUES ARE REMANDED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE AO, WE DIRECT THE AO TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER WHILE GIVIN G EFFECT TO THIS GROUND AS WELL. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.1246/BANG2008 13. COMING TO THE APPEAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4, GROUND 1 TO 9 ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 7 TO 13 IN PARA 7 REFERRED ABOVE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 13.1 WE REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSEE TO PASS FRESH ORDER GIVING ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY AND ALSO KEEPING IN MIND THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EARLIER YEARS, ON WHICH IT IS ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS FOR THESE TWO YEAR S I.E 2002-03 AND 2003- 04. THIS GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. COMING TO GROUND NO. 10, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INSTALLMENT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 35D. 14.1 ASSESSEEES REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE I S UNDER THE INSTRUCTION NOT TO PRESS THIS ISSUE. HENCE, IT IS D ISMISSED AS NOT BEING PRESSED. ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 19 19 15. COMING TO THE GROUND NO.11, IT IS EXACTLY IDENT ICAL WITH GROUND NO.19 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE DIRECTION C ONTAINED HEREIN PARA 12.1 REFERRED ABOVE HOLDS GOOD FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION AS WELL. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1247/BANG/2008 ITA NO.1247/BANG/2008 ITA NO.1247/BANG/2008 ITA NO.1247/BANG/2008 16. APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN GROUN D NO.1 TO 9 AND GROUND NO. 1 TO 9 FOR THE ASSESSMENT 2003-94, THERE IS NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIREC TION HEREIN ABOVE CONTAINED IN ITA NO.1246/BANG/2008. 17. GROUND NO.10 IS DISALLOWANCE OF INSTALLMENT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35D. 17.1 ASSESSEEES REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE I S UNDER THE INSTRUCTION NOT TO PRESS THIS ISSUE. HENCE, IT IS D ISMISSED AS NOT BEING PRESSED. 18. COMING TO GROUND NO.11, IT IS AGAINST THE FAIL URE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DIRECT THE AO TO QUANTIFY CARRY FORWARD O F UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. 18.1 SUFFICE TO SAY THAT ON EXACTLY IDENTICAL GROUN D FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, WE HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO QUANTIFY TH E CARRY FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE EARLIER YEARS AND SAME HOLDS GOOD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1244 TO 1248/B/08 20 20 ITA NO.1248/BANG/2008 ITA NO.1248/BANG/2008 ITA NO.1248/BANG/2008 ITA NO.1248/BANG/2008 19. GROUND NO.1 TO 9 ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARN ED CIT(A) IN DISALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.41,14, 142/-. AS IN THE EARLIER YEARS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 200 3-04, THE SAME DIRECTION HOLDS GOOD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON AS WELL. 19.1 COMING TO GROUND NO.10, IT IS EXACTLY IDENTIC AL TO GROUND NO.11 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IMMEDIATE TO TWO PREVIOUS Y EARS, BEING GROUND NO.11 THE SAME DIRECTION HOLDS GOOD FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION AS WELL. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH AUG, 2009. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - ( (( (N.L KALRA N.L KALRA N.L KALRA N.L KALRA) ) ) ) (K.P.T. THANGAL (K.P.T. THANGAL (K.P.T. THANGAL (K.P.T. THANGAL ) ) ) ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE DATED 7/8/09 VMS. COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF 7. GF, ITAT, NEW DELHI. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGAL ORE.