M/s Senses Pharmaceuticals Ltd , Bangalore V. The Income TAx Officer ward-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1269/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5619 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Business expenditure; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1269 / BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 13 M/S. SENSES PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., NO. 30, PAVANADHAMA, 80 FEET ROAD, M PADMANABANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 070. PAN: AAMCS 5853N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 [1] [1], BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 .01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .0 1 .201 8 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) 6, BANGALORE DATED 10.03.2017 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 30,86,429/- IN RESPECT OF SALES PROMOTION EXPEN SES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT HOLDING THAT THESE EXPENSES INCURRED BY T HE APPELLANT WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW BEING THE MCI GUIDELINES AN D THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 37[1] OF THE ACT, UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT[A] OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH AT THE MCI GUIDELINES SPECIFIED A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR DOCTORS AND AS SUCH THESE GUIDELINES WERE NOT BINDING ON THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRE D EXPENDITURE THAT WAS PROHIBITED BY LAW AND THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE SU STAINED BY THE ITA NO.1269/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 7 LEARNED CIT[A] IS ON AN ERRONEOUS APPRECIATION OF L AW AND THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT[ A] OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT A SUM OF RS. 16,61,439/- OUT OF TH E TOTAL SALES PROMOTION EXPENDITURE OF RS. 30,86,429/- WAS INCURR ED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF FREE SAMPL ES TO THEIR OWN DISTRIBUTORS, WHO IN TURN GIVES THESE GOODS AS PART OF OFFER TO CHEMIST AND SUCH OF THIS EXPENDITURE WAS NOT RELATED TO ANY FREEBEES GIVEN TO DOCTORS AND PROHIBITED BY THE MCI GUIDELINES AND TH US, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES ON FREE SAMPLES IS OPP OSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THEREFORE, TH E SAME REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WI TH THE HON'BLE CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE C HARGED TO INTEREST U/S 234-A, 234-C AND 234-D OF THE ACT, WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 5. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLA NT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO OR DER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS. 3. BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLES OF RS. 16,61,439/-, EXPENSES ON HOTEL BILLS OF BOARDIN G AND LODGING OF VARIOUS DOCTORS OF RS. 12,07,180/- AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF DOCTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,17,810/- TOTAL OF RS. 30,86,429/- THE AO HAS REF ERRED TO BOARD CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 DATED 01/08/2012 AND ALSO MCI REGULATIONS AM ENDED W.E.F. 10.12.2009 AS PER WHICH THERE IS A PROHIBITION IMPOSED ON THE DOCTORS FROM ACCEPTING GIFT, TRAVEL FACILITIES, HOSPITALITY AND CASH OR MONETARY GIFTS. THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF THESE EXPENSES BY INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PHL PHARMA P. LTD. IN ITA NO. ITA NO.1269/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 7 4605/MUM/2014 DATED 12.01.2017 COPY AVAILABLE ON PA GES 25 TO 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER PARA NO. 8 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS HELD THAT FROM THE SAID AMENDMENT / NOTIFICATION IN THE MCI REGULATION, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT SAME IS APPLICABLE FOR MEDICAL PRACTITIO NERS ONLY AND THE CENSURE / ACTION WHICH HAS BEEN SUGGESTED BY IT IS ONLY ON ME DICAL PRACTITIONERS AND NOT FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES OR ALLIED HEALTH SECTO R INDUSTRIES. THE VIOLATION OF THE AFORESAID REGULATION WOULD ONLY ENSURE REMOV AL OF A DOCTOR FROM THE INDIAN MEDICAL REGISTER OR STATE MEDICAL REGISTER F OR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME BUT IT DOES NOT IMPINGE UPON THE CONDUCT OF PHARMAC EUTICAL COMPANIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ALSO HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THIS IMPORTANT DISTINCTION HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT REGULATION ISSUED BY MEDICAL C OUNCIL OF INDIA IS QUA THE DOCTORS / MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND NOT FOR THE PHAR MACEUTICAL COMPANIES. AS A LOGICAL COROLLARY TO IT, IF THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OR PROHIBITION AS PER MCI REGULATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 37(1) R.W. EXPLANATION 1, THEN IT IS ONLY MEANT FOR MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND NOT FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY (I .E. THE PRESENT ASSESSEE COMPANY) FOR CLAIMING THE EXPENDITURE. 5. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS FURTHER POINTED OUT IN PARA NO. 9 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE ARG UMENT OF LD. DR OF REVENUE THAT CBDT IS WELL EMPOWERED TO ISSUE SUCH CLARIFICA TION AND THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 01.08.2012 IN ITS CLARIFICATION HAS ENLARGED THE SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF INDIAN MEDICAL COUN CIL REGULATION 2002 BY MAKING IT APPLICABLE TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIE S OR ALLIED HEALTH CARE SECTOR INDUSTRIES. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN PARA 9 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REFERRED TO ANOTHER TRIBUNAL ORDER OF MUMBAI BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SYNCOM FORMULATIONS (I) LTD. IN ITA NOS. 6429 & 6428/MUM/2012 FOR A.YS. 2010-11 & 2011-12 DATED 23.12.2015, WHERE IN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE A. YS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AS IT WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01.08.2012. HE SUBMITT ED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2012-13 WHICH STARTED FROM 01.04.2012 AND THEREFORE, THIS CIRCULAR IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE P RESENT CASE ALSO BECAUSE THE RULE APPLICABLE ON THE FIRST DAY OF RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR HAS TO BE APPLIED IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. HIS ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION WAS THIS THAT EVEN IF IT IS ITA NO.1269/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 7 HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED UNDER EXPLA NATION 1 TO SECTION 37(1) THEN ALSO, ONLY THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON HOTEL BILLS OF BOARDING AND LODGING AND TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF DOCTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 12, 07,180/- AND RS. 2,17,810/- RESPECTIVELY MAY BE AFFECTED BUT NOT THE EXPENDITUR E OF RS. 16,61,439/- IN RESPECT OF DISTRIBUTION OF FREE SAMPLES BECAUSE AS PER MCI REGULATIONS AMENDED W.E.F. 10.12.2009, THERE IS PROHIBITION IMP OSED ON THE DOCTORS FROM ACCEPTING GIFT, TRAVEL FACILITIES, HOSPITALITY AND CASH OR MONETARY GIFTS AND DISTRIBUTION OF FREE SAMPLES IS NOT HIT BY THESE RE GULATIONS. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0-11 AND 2011-12 AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPENSES IS FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2012-13 AND THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESEN T CASE. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, I REPRODUCE PARA NOS. 9 AND 10 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AS PER PAGES 47 TO 51 OF PAPER BOOK. 9. ADVERTING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT DR TH AT CBDT IS WELL EMPOWERED TO ISSUE SUCH CLARIFICATION, IT IS SEEN T HAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 01.08.2012 (SUPRA) IN ITS CLARIFICAT ION HAS ENLARGED THE SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF 'INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL REGULATION 2002' BY MAKING IT APPLICABLE TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPA NIES OR ALLIED HEALTH CARE SECTOR INDUSTRIES. SUCH AN ENLARGEMENT OF SCOPE OF MCI REGULATION TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES BY THE C BDT IS WITHOUT ANY ENABLING PROVISIONS EITHER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX LAW OR BY ANY PROVISIONS UNDER THE INDIAN MEDICAL C OUNCIL REGULATIONS. THE CBDT CANNOT PROVIDE CASUS OMISSUS TO A STATUTE OR NOTIFICATION OR ANY REGULATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN E XPRESSLY PROVIDED THEREIN. THE CBDT CAN TONE DOWN THE RIGOURS OF LAW AND ENSURE A FAIR ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS BY ISSUING CIRCULARS AND BY CLARIFYING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. CBDT CIRCULARS ACT LIKE 'CONTEMPORANEAEXPOSITIO' IN INTERPRETING THE STATUT ORY PROVISIONS AND TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUE MEANING ENUNCIATED AT THE TIM E WHEN STATUTE WAS ENACTED. HOWEVER THE CBDT IN ITS POWER CANNOT CREAT E A NEW IMPAIRMENT ADVERSE TO AN ASSESSEE OR TO A CLASS OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY SANCTION OF LAW. THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBD T MUST CONFIRM TO TAX LAWS AND FOR PURPOSE OF GIVING ADMINISTRATIVE R ELIEF OR FOR CLARIFYING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND CANNOT IMPOSE A BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE, LEAVE ALONE CREATING A NEW BURDEN BY ENLA RGING THE SCOPE OF A DIFFERENT REGULATION ISSUED UNDER A DIFFERENT ACT SO AS TO IMPOSE ANY KIND OF HARDSHIP OR LIABILITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN A NY CASE, IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR WHICH CREATES A BURDEN OR LI ABILITY OR IMPOSES A NEW KIND OF IMPARITY, SAME CANNOT BE RECKONED RET ROSPECTIVELY. THE ITA NO.1269/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 7 BENEFICIAL CIRCULAR MAY APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY BUT A CIRCULAR IMPOSING A BURDEN HAS TO BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY ONLY. HERE IN THIS CASE THE CBDT HAS ENLARGED THE SCOPE OF 'INDIAN MEDICAL COUN CIL REGULATION, 2002' AND MADE IT APPLICABLE FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. THEREFORE, SUCH A CBDT CIRCULAR CANNOT BE RECKONED TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE SAME CBDT CIRCULAR HAD CO ME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE I TAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SYNCOM FORMULATIONS (I) LTD. ( IN ITA NOS. 6429 & 6428/MUM/2012 FOR A.YS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12, VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2015), WHEREIN TRIBUNAL HELD THAT CBDT CIRCUL AR WOULD NOT BE NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE A.YS. 2010-11 AND 2011-12 AS IT WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. 1.8.2012. 10. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT UNDER THE HEAD 'CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT', THE ASSESSEE ARRANGES NATIONAL LEVEL S EMINAR AND DISCUSSION PANELS OF EMINENT DOCTORS AND INVITING O F OTHER DOCTORS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SEMINARS ON A TOPIC RELATED TO T HERAPEUTIC AREA. IT ARRANGES LECTURES AND SPONSORS KNOWLEDGE UPGRADE CO URSE WHICH HELPS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO MAKE AWARE OF THE PRODUCTS AND MEDICINES MANUFACTURED AND LAUNCHED BY IT. UNDER KE Y ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, THE ASSESSEE MAKES ENDEAVOUR TO CREATE AWARENESS AMONGST CERTAIN CLASS OF KEY DOCTORS ABOUT THE PROD UCTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS TAKING PLACE IN T HE AREA OF MEDICINE AND PROVIDING CORRECT DIAGNOSIS AND TREATM ENT OF THE PATIENTS. THE SAID ACTIVITIES BY THE ASSESSEE ARE T O MAKE THE DOCTORS AWARE OF ITS PRODUCTS AND RESEARCH WORK CARRIED OUT BY IT FOR BRINGING THE MEDICINE IN THE MARKET AND ITS RESULTS ARE BASE D ON SEVERAL LEVELS OF TESTS AND APPROVALS. UNLESS THE PHARMACEUTICAL C OMPANIES MAKE AWARE OF SUCH KIND OF PRODUCTS TO KEY DOCTORS OR ME DICAL PRACTITIONERS, THEN ONLY IT CAN SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCH ITS PRODUCTS/MEDICINES. THIS KIND OF EXPENDITURE IS DEF INITELY IN THE NATURE OF SALES AND BUSINESS PROMOTION, WHICH HAS TO BE AL LOWED. COMING TO THE GIFT ARTICLES AND FREE SAMPLES OF MED ICINES, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE GIVES VARIOUS KIND OF ARTICLES LI KE, DIARIES, PEN SETS, CALENDARS, PAPER WEIGHTS, INJECTION BOXES ETC. EMBO SSED WITH BOLD LOGO OF ITS BRAND NAME AND THE PRODUCT NAME SO THAT THE DOCTORS REMEMBERS THE BRAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE NA ME OF THE MEDICINE. ALL THE GIFT ARTICLES, AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO BEFORE US ARE VERY CHEAP AND LOW CAST ARTICLES WHICH BEARS THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND IT IS PURELY FOR THE PROMOTION OF ITS PRODUCT, BRAND REMINDER, ETC. THES E ARTICLES CANNOT BE RECKONED AS FREEBIES GIVEN TO THE DOCTORS. EVEN THE FREE SAMPLE OF MEDICINE IS ONLY TO PROVE THE EFFICACY AND TO ESTAB LISH THE TRUST OF THE DOCTORS ON THE QUALITY OF THE DRUGS. THIS AGAIN CAN NOT BE RECKONED AS FREEBIES GIVEN TO THE DOCTORS BUT FOR PROMOTION OF ITS PRODUCTS. THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN MANUFAC TURING AND MARKETING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, CAN PROMOTE I TS SALE AND BRAND ONLY BY ARRANGING SEMINARS, CONFERENCES AND THEREBY CREATING ITA NO.1269/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 7 AWARENESS AMONGST DOCTORS ABOUT THE NEW RESEARCH IN THE MEDICAL FIELD AND THERAPEUTIC AREAS, ETC. EVERY DAY THERE A RE NEW DEVELOPMENTS TAKING PLACE AROUND THE WORLD IN THE A REA OF MEDICINE AND THERAPEUTIC, HENCE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CORRECT DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF THE PATIENTS, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT TH E DOCTORS SHOULD KEEP THEMSELVES UPDATED WITH THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MEDICINE AND THE MAIN OBJECT OF SUCH CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS IS TO UPDATE THE DOCTORS OF THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH IS BENEFI CIAL TO THE DOCTORS IN TREATING THE PATIENTS AS WELL AS THE PHARMACEUTI CAL COMPANIES. FURTHER AS POINTED OUT AND CONCLUDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THERE IS NO VIOLATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS GIVING AN Y KIND OF FREEBIES TO THE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. THUS, SUCH KIND OF EXPEN DITURES BY A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ARE PURELY FOR BUSINESS PU RPOSE WHICH HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE AND IS NOT IM PAIRED BY EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 37(1). 7. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THE TRIBUNA L ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PHL PHARMA P. LTD. (SUPRA), IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 DATED 01.08.201 2 HAS TO BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY ONLY AND IT CANNOT HAVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND THIS CIRCULAR IS DATED 01.08.2012 AND THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OP INION, THIS CIRCULAR CAN BE APPLIED W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ONLY AND NOT PRIOR TO THAT. RESPECTIVELY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, I HOLD THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BYTHE CIT (A) IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE BASIS OF CIRCULAR NO. 5/2012 DATED 01.08.2012 IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HE NCE, I DELETE THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 24 TH JANUARY, 2018. /MS/ ITA NO.1269/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 7 COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.