Deputy commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore V. M/s Indo american Hybrid seeds India P Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1330/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9298 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: A SHANKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 80HHC; 115JB; 37; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1330 & 1331(BANG) 2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 09 & 2011 12) THE DCIT, CIRCLE 11(4), BANGALORE APPELLANT VS M/S INDO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA PVT. LTD., PB NO. 7099, 7 TH KM, BANASHANKERI KENGERI LINK ROAD, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, SUBRAMANYAPURA PO, BANGALORE 560061. PAN: AAACI4027J RESPONDENT ITA NO.1338 TO 1340 (BANG) 2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 09 & 2011 12) M/S INDO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA PVT. LTD., PB NO. 7099, 7 TH KM, BANASHANKERI KENGERI LINK ROAD, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, SUBRAMANYAPURA PO, BANGALORE 560061. PAN: AAACI4027J APPELLANT VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE 11(4), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A. SHANKAR, A DVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI T. N. PRAKASH, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 13-10-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: : 03-11-201 6 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF FIVE APPEALS, THERE ARE TWO A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SAME YEAR I.E. A. Y. 2008 09 ARISING OUT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143 (3) AND U/S 147, ONE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 2 2010 - 11 AND REMAINING TWO APPEALS ARE APPEALS FIL ED BY THE REVENUE FOR A. Y. 2008 09 & 2010 11. ALL WERE HEARD TOGETHER A ND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A. Y. 2008 09 ARISING OUT OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 IN ITA NO. 13 38/B/2014. 3. APART FROM MERIT OF THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ON THIS BASIS T HAT THE AO DID NOT HAVE VALID JURISDICTION. HENCE, WE FIRST DECIDE THIS AS PECT AS TO WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ARE VALID OR NOT. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE THAT AS PER THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147, THE A.O. H AS DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 484,92,357/- AND AFTE R ALLOWING SET OFF OF B/F LOSSES, THE NET INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT NIL. THERE AFTER HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. PASSED ORDER U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 144 ON 30.11.2010, COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 63 TO 76 OF APPEAL MEMO AND AS PER THIS ORDER ALSO, THE INCOME WAS DETERMINED BY T HE A.O. AT THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS. 484,92,357/- AND SIMILAR SET OFF OF B /F LOSSES WAS ALLOWED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) ON 30.11.2010 IS ALSO UNDER CHALLENGE AS PER ITA NO. 1339/B/ 2014 AN D HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 ARE BAD IN LAW. LEARNED DR OF T HE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT EVEN AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 147 ALSO, THE INCOME DETERMINED BEFORE SET OFF OF B/F LOSSES AND AFTER SUCH SET OFF IS SAME AS WAS DETERMINED AS PER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT ORDER U/S 143 (3) ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 3 DATED 30.11.2010, IT COMES OUT THAT WHATEVER BE THE RESULT OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143 (3), ONE THING IS CERTAIN THAT THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BECAUSE THE A.O. HAS ALREAD Y DETERMINED AND ASSESSED SAME INCOME AS PER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT VALID. WE HOLD ACC ORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF OUR THIS DECISION, OTHER GROUNDS ON MERIT DO NOT REQUIR E ANY ADJUDICATION IN THESE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 7. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REMAINING TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143 (3) FOR A. Y. 2008 09 AND 201 0 11 IN ITA NOS. 1339 & 1340/B/2014. 8. IN THESE APPEALS, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ABOUT DEN IAL OF EXEMPTION OF RS. 413,57,215/- IN A. Y. 2008 09 AND RS. 575,98,236/ - IN A. Y. 2010 11 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 9. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN A.Y . 2008 09, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 4 13,57,215/- COMPRISING OF A) INCOME FROM NURSERY PLANT (OWN) RS. 38,66,592 /-, OWN FARM CULTIVATION RS. 612,68,641/- AND LOSS FROM CULTIVATION THROUGH FARMERS RS. 191,83,172/- TOTALING RS. 459,52,061/- AND OUT OF T HIS, THE ASSESSEE TREATED 10% I.E. RS. 45,95,246/- AS BUSINESS INCOME AND BAL ANCE RS. 413,57,215/- WAS DECLARED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. NAMDHARI SEEDS P. LTD. IN ITA NO. 75 OF 2007 AND IN CASE OF CIT VS. M/S INDO AMERICAN EXPORTS, ITA NO. 76 OF 2007 FOLLOWED BY CIT (A), INCOME FROM ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 4 CULTIVATION THROUGH FARMERS WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, LOSS FROM CULTIVATION THROUGH FARMERS RS. 191,83,172/- SHOULD BE HELD AS BUSINESS LOSS AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO B E CARRIED FORWARD BUT A) INCOME FROM NURSERY PLANT (OWN) RS. 38,66,592/- AND OWN FARM CULTIVATION RS. 612,68,641/- THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF CULTIVATION ON OWN LAND AND LEASED LAND WAS NOT BEFORE HONBLE HIG H COURT IN THESE TWO CASES AND THEREFORE, THESE JUDGMENTS ARE NOT RELEVA NT IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO INCOMES AND IN A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KAR NATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S NAMDHARI SEEDS, SIMILAR MATTER AS IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS REMANDED TO THE A.O. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT NO FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF THESE ARGUMENTS REGARDING THESE TWO INCOMES FROM OWN LAND AND LEASED LAND BY SAYING THAT THIS IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THIS ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED TO A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION IN LINE WITH THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF M/S NAMDHARI SEEDS. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT RENDERED IN CASE OF CIT VS M/S INDO AMERICAN EXPORTS, ITA NO. 76 OF 200 7 HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. ON PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 AND THE SAME IS REPRO DUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 5 THE ASSSESSEE COMPANIES NEITH E R HAVE D E RIVA T IV E INT E R E ST IN TH E LAND NOR ACTUALLY CULTIVATE TH E LAND. E VE N IF TH EY C ULTI VA T E TH E L A ND, TH EY ARE NOT LESSEES OF THE LAND IN VIEW OF TERM S OF AGR EE M E NT ELIMINATING SUCH RELATIONSHIP. AT THE MOST, TH EY CULTI V AT E THE LAND ON BEHALF OF TH E FARM E R OR OWNER. NOT ONLY THE KARNATAKA LAND R E FORMS AC T SU C H LEASE IS PROHIBITED BUT THE TERMS SPECIFY SO, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEND T H AT IS FOR THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES TO QUESTION THE SAME AND N OT U NDER THE I . T.ACT . THEN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37 OF THE ACT ALSO COMES IN THE WAY . EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS BENEFITS U /S 80J OR 80HHC OF THE ACT TREATING THE CONVERSION OF FOUNDATION SEEDS TO CERTIFIED SEES AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY, IT WOULD NOT ENSURE TO THE BENEF I T OF THE ASSESSEE SO FAR AS SEE . 10(1) OF THE ACT (TOTAL EXEMPTION). THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PAYING ANY R ENT PER ACRE TO THE FARMER AND IS NOT GIVING ANYTHING I N KIND LIK E PRODUCE TO THE FARMER. THE ASSESSEE ONLY PAYS A FIXED PRICE OF RS. 3200 / - PER QUINTAL OR ANY OTHER PRICE DEPENDING UPON TH E T E RMS OF THE AGR E EM E NT FOR FOUNDATION SEEDS GROWN B Y THE FARMER. FARM E R HAS TO AGRE E THAT TH E SEEDS GROWN BY HIM WILL BE SUBJECTED TO PRO CE SS OF C L E ANING AND GRADING. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY COULD HAVE PAID THE R E NT OR A PARTI C ULAR AMOUNT PER ACRE FOR THE LEASE OF THE LAND . THE Y ARE NOT PA Y ING FARM E R AN Y OTHER AMOUNT TOWARDS THE LABOUR OR SUPPLYING ANY INPUT . THE ONLY PAYMENT THEY ARE MAKING IS THE SO CALLED COMPENSATION AT A SP EC IFI E D R A T E PER QUINTAL A S AGREED . IF THE FARMER HAS TO ARRANGE THE LABOUR AND PAY THE LABOUR CHARGES AND ALSO SPEND MONE Y FOR OTH E R OP E RATIONS EITHER BASI C OR SUBSEQUENT ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 6 OPERATIONS, HE CAN ONL Y TAK E AD VA N CE AMOUNT FROM TH E ASSESSEE AND SUCH AMOUNT PAID B Y THE ASSESS EE W OULD B E D E DU C TED FROM THE SO CALLED COMPENSATION TO BE PAID FOR THE QUALIFIED FOUNDATION SEEDS AT TH E END BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTIRE TERMS OF AGRE E MENT WOULD ONLY INDICATE THAT THE FOUNDATION SEEDS GROWN B Y THE FARM E R W OULD B E PUR C HASED B Y THE ASSESSEE AT THE END FOR A C E RTAIN PRI C E PRO V ID E D SEE S QUALIFY TH E SPECIFICATIONS AS PER THE AGREEM E NT . IT IS NOTHIN G SHORT OF A FERTILE WOMB BEING OFFER E D BY A SURROGATE MOTHER FOR THE GROWTH OF CHILD OF SOMEON E ELSE. THE ASSESSEE SUP E RVISES AND OVERSE E S THE S OWING, C ULTIVATION RIGHT FROM TH E PROCESS OF SOWING TILL THE END IN ORDER TO G E T THE QUALIFIED FOUNDATION SEEDS AS PER THE SP E CIFICATION S SO A S TO C ARR Y ON HIS TRAD E IN SELLING C E RTIFIED SEES. THE MAIN INTEREST OF TH E A SSE SS EE IS TO SE E THAT GOAD AND HEALTHY SEEDS ARE PRODUC E D B Y TH E F A RM E R M EE TING THE REQUIR E M E NT SPECIFIED BY IT . SUCH INPUT OR S C IENTIFI C M E THOD IN GIVING ADVICE TO TH E FARMER C ANNOT BE TERMED AS E ITHER B A SI C A G RI C ULTURAL OPERATION OR SUBSEQUENT OPERATIONS ORDINARILY EMPLO Y ED BY TH E FARMER OR AGRICULTURIST . IF THE BASIS OPERATIONS OF AGRICULTUR E AR E NOT CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE- .COMPAN Y , THEN THE HARV E ST E D FOUNDATION SEE D S CA NNOT B E T E RM ED A S INTEGRAT E D PART OF THE FOUNDATION A C TI V IT Y OF A G RI C ULTUR E . THER E FORE EVE N IF WE AGR EE THAT THE ME C HANICAL PROC E SS OF AGRI C ULTURAL OPERATIONS E ITHER BASIC OPERATIONS OR SUBSEQUENT OP E RATIONS WOULD NOT B E AN IMPEDIMENT TO MAKE SU C H OPERATIONS A S AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, TH E QUESTION IS WHETHER, SUCH OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED B Y THE ASSESS EE OR TH E FARM E R OR SOMEONE ELSE. THE ENTIRE READING OF THE ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 7 TERMS OF TH E A G R EE M E NT WOULD ONL Y INDI C AT E THAT ASSESSEE COMPAN Y WAS INTERESTED ONL Y TO HA VE HEALTHY FOUNDATION SEEDS GROWN FOR THE PROCESS OF CONVERTING TH E S AM E AS CERTIFIED S EE DS . THEREFORE THE VIEW O F THE FIRST APP E LLAT E A UTHORIT Y THAT 100 % OF THE OPERATIONS UPTO CONVERSION OF TH E FOUNDATION SEE S A S A G RICULTURAL ACTI V ITY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSES E SSEE COMPAN Y AND THEREFORE INCOME DESERV E S TO BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF TH E AC T IS E RRONEOUS. SIMILARL Y EXEMPTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR 90% OF THE INCOME IS ALSO ERRONEOUS. WE OPINE THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING 10% OF THE INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME WHICH INVOLVED PROCESSING OF FOUNDATION SEEDS TO CERTIFIED SEEDS. IN THAT VIEW OF T HE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT TH E ENTIRE INCOME AMOUNTS TO BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND A SS E SSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE TOTAL INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME. AS A MATTER OF FAC T FOR SOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BASED ON THE OPINION OF ON E OF THE SENIOR COUNSEL ON TAXATION MR. K . R . PRASAD, TH E ASS E SSEE C OMPAN Y OFFER E D ITS INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND E V E N C LAIM E D DEDUCTION U / S 8 0H H C OF THE A CT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIS C USSION AND R E ASONING, WE A N SWE R T HE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENU E AND AGAIN S T TH E ASSE SS E E'. 11. FROM THIS JUDGMENT AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS S EEN THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE WAS NEITHER HAVING DERIVATIVE INTEREST IN THE LAND NOR ACTUALLY CULTIVATED THE LAND AND WHEREVER THEY CULTIVATED THE LAND, THEY WERE NOT LE SSEES OF THE LAND. HENCE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS C ULTIVATED THE LAND AND ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 8 NOT GIVEN TO OTHER FARMERS FOR CULTIVATION AND THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSEE IS A LESSEE OF SUCH LAND, THIS JUDGMENT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE AND THE ISSUE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE INDEPENDENTLY. SINCE THIS WAS NOT DONE BY THE AUTHORIZES BELOW IN ANY OF THESE TWO YEARS, WE FEEL IT FIT AND PROPER T HAT THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION AS PER LAW IN BOTH YEARS AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN IT A NO. 1330& 1331/B/2014. 14. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH YEARS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE REPROD UCED FROM ITA NO. 1330/B/2014. THESE ARE AS UNDER:- 1.THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,46, 26,149/- COMES UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10 AND HENCE UNDER THE PURVIE W OF CLAUSE (II) OF EXPLANATION-I TO SEC.115JB(2)A WITHO UT APPRECIATING THAT THE AO APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UPTO THE HIGH COURT HAVE HELD THAT THE CONCERNED RECEIPTS ARE NOT FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY BUT FROM BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, THE RECEIPT OF RS.5,46,26,149/- IS NOT REDUCEABLE UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF EXPLANATION-I TO SEC.115JB(2). 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SUPREME COU RT DECISION IN THE CASE OF APPOLLO TYRES LTD. VS CIT ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 9 REPORTED IN255 ITR 273 IS APPLICABLE AND THE AO IS NOT EMPOWERED TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT TO THE BOOK PROFIT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SO-CALLED AGRICULTURA L INCOME IS ALREADY CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT AND BY HOLDING IT TO BE THE BUSINESS INCOME, THE QUESTION OF EXCLUSION FROM THE BOOK PROFIT AS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT ARISE AND AS SUCH IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CHANGE OF BOOK PROFIT B Y THE AO. 4. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RES TORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, AME ND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 15. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF C IT (A). 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS THIS AS TO HOW MUCH IS THE AMOUNTS OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME EXEMPT U/S 10 AND ACCORDINGLY IS TO BE REDUCED FROM BOOK PROFIT TO BE COMPUTED U/S 115JB IN THESE TWO YEARS. SINCE, THE I SSUE ABOUT QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EXEMPT U/S 10 HAS BEEN RESTORED BY US TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR FRESH DECISION IN BOTH YEARS, THIS ISSUE A BOUT COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB IS ALSO TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE A.O. FOR A SIMULTANEOUS DECISION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND SET ASIDE THE OR DERS OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE IN BOTH YEARS AND RESTORE THIS MATTER TO A.O. FOR A FRESH DECISION ON THIS ASPECT ALSO IN BOTH YEARS AFTER PROVIDING ADEQ UATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 10 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 18. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IN 147 PROCEEDINGS FOR A. Y. 2008 09 IN ITA NO. 1338/B/2014 IS ALLOW ED AND THE REMAINING TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (SMT ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: BANGALORE: D A T E D : 03.11.2016 AM * COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR, ITAT, BANGALORE ITA NO.1330 TO 1331 & 1338 TO1340(B)2014 11 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2. , , DATE ON WHICH TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICT ATING MEMBER .. 3. !' # . $ %# / $ %# # & DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE PS/SR .PS. 4. ''() & * + DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTAT ING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. * . %# / # . . %# # + DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE PS/SR.PS .. 6 * !', + DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. ! !', ' , - ) IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. .% / 0 + DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. * 1'2 / 34 & 5 + DATE ON WHICH ORDER GOES FOR XEROX &ENDORSEMENT 10. 0 6 / + DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 11. * 7 & 0 8 + THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 12. !) * 9() & 0 9() /#5 . + THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO DESPATCH SECTION FOR DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13. * 9() + DATE OF DESPATCH OF ORDER .