Simplex Solutions Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2), Bangalore

ITA 1339/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1092 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LOKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 10

Judgement Text

ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.1339/BANG/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S. SIMPLEX SOLUTIONS P. LTD, NO.116/C-1, 3 RD FLOOR, 5 TH BLOCK, KHB COLONY, BEHIND AIRTEL CUSTOMER CARE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU .. APPELLANT PAN : AABCS8796H V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(2), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. LOKESH JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : DR.P. V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT HEARD ON : 28.08.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 14.09.2018 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), BENGALURU -6, BENGALURU, DT.30.11.2017 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 2 ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 3 02. BRIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY REGI STERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. IT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECLARING TOTAL TAXABLE INC OME OF RS.1,31,078/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPEN ED AND NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. IN PARA 2, THE AO M ENTIONED THE BROAD REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. FRO M THE READING OF ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER ASK ED FOR THE REASONS FOR REOPENING NOR HAS FILED OBJECTION TO THE REOPEN ING OF COMPLETED PROCEEDINGS. AS SUCH THE AO PROCEEDED TO REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. 03. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BESIDES THE REASONS ENUMERATED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, THE AO HAS ALSO EXAMINED ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 4 VARIOUS ISSUES WHICH CAME TO HIS NOTICE AND ACCORDI NGLY MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I N THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE E XEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S10A OF THE ACT, WHICH WA S BEYOND THE REASONS MENTIONED FOR REOPENING IN THE PARA 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE APPE ALED BEFORE THE CIT (A), HOWEVER ASSESSEE FAILED BEFORE CIT(A) AS W ELL. HENCE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILLED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GR OUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE. 04. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO STATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHICH IS AS UNDER : ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 5 05. THE CIT (A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ABOVE PRELIMINA RY GROUNDS, DESPITE SEEKING THE GROUND WISE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, AND HAS ONLY DECIDED THE ISSUES ON MERIT. AS THESES GR OUNDS WERE DECIDED ON MERIT BY CIT(A) THEREFORE WE ARE RESTRI CTING OURSELVES TO THE GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 RAISED BEFORE US AS PRELI MINARY GROUNDS. 06. THE CIT (A) IN RESPONSE TO GROUND NO.1 RAISED B EFORE HIM HAS RECORDED AT PAGES 5 AND 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : A REMAND REPORT WAS RECEIVED FROM ASSESSING OFFICER ON 29/10/2012. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME IS REPRODU CED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED, IN ALL, .8 GROUNDS OF APPE AL, SUPPLEMENTED BY 3 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 08.02. 2012, 24.02.2012 AND 23.05.2012 AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 PASSED ON 27.12.2010. THE COMMENTS ON EACH OF G ROUND OF APPEAL, AS DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A):ARE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: GROUND.NO.1 :'THE LEARNED INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCL E 12(2) HAS ERRED IN DOING A ROVING ENQUIRY INSTEAD OF RESTRICT ING THE ASSESSMENT ENQUIRIES TO THE TREATMENT OF FOREIGN EX CHANGE EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTING 10A BENEFIT WHICH IS BA D IN LAW AND NOT JURISDICTIONAL'. THE ASSESSEE HAS ELABORATED ON THIS GROUND OF APPEA L AT PARA 1 OF ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 08.02.2012. ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 6 COMMENTS:THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION IS THAT THE WORD S 'AND ALSO' ACCORDING TO SECTION 147 SIGNIFY THAT UNLESS THE AO ASSESSES THE INCOME WITH RESPECT TO WHICH HE HAS FORMED REASON T O BELIEVE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147, IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN FOR HIM TO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE T O TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE AO, HAVING REOPENED THE CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXP ENSES INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY (BEING DEPUTATION EXPE NSES) WERE NOT REDUCED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER, CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF HIS OTHER FINDINGS...THI S QUESTION WOULD HAVE ARISEN IN A CASE WHERE THE AO, HAVING RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/ S 10A, DID NOT EXAMINE THE CLAIM AND ASSESSED SOME OTHER INCOM E NOT CONNECTED WITH THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10A. ON T HE CONTRARY, WHAT THE AO DISALLOWED IS THE CLAIM OF EX EMPTION U/S 10A AND NOTHING ELSE. IT IS ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXAMINATION OF CLAIM U/S 10A THAT THE AO CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CALLING A 'ROVING ENQUIRY'. T HE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT WAS A CASE. WHERE THERE WAS NO LIVE NEXUS BETWEEN REASONS RECORDED AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED. THE INCOMES BELIEVED TO HAVE ES CAPED ASSESSMENT IN THAT CASE WERE THE ITEMS LIKE CLUB FE ES, GIFTS AND PROVISION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT WHEREAS THE DISALLOW ANCES MADE WERE UNDER SECTION 80HH AND 80-I. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED TO EXCLUDE THE EXPENDIT URE CLAIM OF DEPUTATION EXPENSES FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER WHI CH HAD , AN IMPACT ON THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A.DURI NG THE COURSE OF VERIFICATION, SINCE THE AO FOUND THAT THE ELIGIBLE PRO& CLAIMED . BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXCESSIVE, AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE, THE ENTIRE PROFIT WA S ADDED BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM U/S 10A. THIS WAS FURTHER ON THE BASIS OF THE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY IN FRASTRUCTURE TO EXPORT SOFTWARE OF RENDER SOFTWARE CONSULTANCY S ERVICES TO EARN REVENUE OF RS. 3.12 CRORES AND THAT, THE REMIT TANCES WERE NOTHING BUT THE TRANSFER OF MONEY FROM ITS BRANCH, WHICH WERE GIVEN THE COLOUR OF EXPORT. THE AO, THEREFORE CONFI NED HIMSELF TO RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 10A AND DID NOT BR ING IN . ANY OTHER INCOME TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME, AS WA S . DONE IN THE CASE OF RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD., CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER AS RECORDED HEREINABOVE, THE CIT (A) HAS NO T ADJUDICATED THESE GROUNDS WHILE PASSING THE ORDER IMPUGNED BEFO RE US. ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 7 07. BEFORE US IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS NOT CORRECT FIRSTLY IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO PROVIDE THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SECONDLY AO SHOULD CALL OBJECTIONS FROM THE ASSESSE E AND THEN PASS THE ORDER DISPOSING THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE. HOWEVER, WE ARE AFRAID THIS PLEA OF SUPPLY OF REASON AND PAS SING OF THE ORDER WAS NEITHER RAISED BEFORE US NOR BEFORE THE CIT (A) . HENCE THIS ISSUE NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED BY US. 08. THE NEXT ISSUE ROSE BEFORE US IS THAT THE AO HA S ISSUED THE NOTICE FOR REOPENING FOR THE REASON MENTIONED IN PA RA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THIS COUNT AND THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.10A , ON THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS NO INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING 10A EXEMPTION DURING THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE AO THAT EXPORT MADE FROM INDIA WAS NOT INFACT EXPORT OF SOFTWARE OR RENDERIN G THE SOFTWARE CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO EARN FOREIGN EXCHANGE, RATH ER THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE MONEY FROM ITS BRANCH TO ANOTHE R BRANCH BY GIVING ITS COLOUR OF EXPORT. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE IT WAS SUBMITTED BY AR THAT R EASONS FOR REOPENING AND REASONS FOR PASSING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WERE DIFFERENT. WE WOULD BE SUMMARISING THE TWO IN THE F OLLOWING TABLE : REASONS FOR REOPENING GROUNDS FOR ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCE ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 8 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXCLUDED THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN FOREIGN CURRENCY FOR DELIVERY OF SOFTWARE FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.10A OF THE ACT IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE AO THAT EXPORT MADE FROM INDIA WAS NOT IN FACT EXPORT OF SOFTWARE OR RENDERING THE SOFTWARE CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO EARN FOREIGN EXCHANGE, RATHER THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE MONEY FROM ITS BRANCH TO ANOTHER BRANCH BY GIVING ITS COLOUR OF EXPORT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR REOPENING WAS NOT AT ALL RELATABLE TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION ON THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE NOT RELATABLE TO THE GROUNDS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY THE LD. AR TO THE JUDGMENT O F THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT V. JET AIRWA YS INDIA P. LTD [331 ITR 236] AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD V. CIT [336 ITR136], WHERE THE HON BLE DELHI AND BOMBAY HIGH COURTS HAVE HELD THAT IF THE REASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS DO NOT CULMINATE IN MAKING ADDITION ON THE GROUND MENTIONED FOR REOPENING IN THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE AND RATHER THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON OTHER GROUNDS, FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEN THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED BEING INVALID IN LAW. 09. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED AND DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDG MENT IN THE MATTER OF N. GOVINDARAJU V. ITO [60 TAXMANN.COM333] , WHERE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER DISCUSSING THE ABOVE TWO J UDGMENTS OF ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 9 BOMBAY AND DELHI HIGH COURTS, IN PARA 33, 34 AND 41 , HELD AS UNDER : 33. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT ONCE SATISFACTION OF REASONS FOR THE NOTICE IS FOUND SUFFICIENT, I.E., IF THE NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148(2) IS FOUND TO BE VALID, THEN ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ALL GROUN DS OR ISSUES (WITH REGARD TO 'ANY OTHER INCOME' ALSO) WHICH MAY COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147, EVEN THOUGH REASON F OR NOTICE FOR 'SUCH INCOME' WHICH MAY HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, MA Y NOT SURVIVE. 34. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. [2011] 331 ITR 236/[2010] 195 TAXMAN 117 THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT 'EXPLANATION 3 DOES NOT AND CANNOT OVERRIDE THE NEC ESSITY OF FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE SUBSTANTIV E PART OF SECTION 147. AN EXPLANATION TO A STATUTORY PROVISION IS INT ENDED TO EXPLAIN ITS CONTENTS AND CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO OVERRIDE IT OR RENDER THE SUBSTANCE OR CORE NUGATORY. SECTION 147 HAS THIS EF FECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INC OME ('SUCH INCOME') WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IF HE DOES SO, HE CAN A LSO ASSESS OR REASSESS ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT AND WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IF AFTER ISSUING A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8, HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOLDS THAT THE I NCOME WHICH HE HAS INITIALLY FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE HAD ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT, HAS AS A MATTER OF FACT NOT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, IT IS NOT OPEN TO HIM INDEPENDENTLY TO ASSESS SOME OTHER INCOME. IF H E INTENDS TO DO SO, AFRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WOULD BE NECESS ARY, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH WOULD BE TESTED IN THE EVENT OF A CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE.' .... 41. IF THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN THE MAIN PROVISION OF THE ENACTMENT, IT CAN BE CLARIFIED BY INSERTION OF AN EXPLANATION TO THE SAID SECTION OF THE ACT. SAME HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY BY DIFFERENT HI GH COURTS, I.E., WHETHER THE SECOND PART OF THE SECTIO N WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE FIRST PART, OR NOT. TO CLARIFY T HE SAME, EXPLANATION 3 WAS INSERTED BY WHICH IT HAS BE EN CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ALSO 'ANY OT HER INCOME' ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 10 (OF THE SECOND PART OF SECTION 147) WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS U NDER THE SECTION. AFTER THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SE CTION 147 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE USE OF THE PHRASE 'AND ALSO' BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE SECOND PARTS OF THE SECTION IS NOT CONJUNCTIVE AND ASSESSMENT OF 'ANY OTHER INCOME' (OF THE SECOND PART) CAN BE M ADE INDEPENDENT OF THE FIRST PART (RELATING TO 'SUCH IN COME' FOR WHICH REASONS ARE GIVEN IN NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148), NOT WITHSTANDING THAT THE REASONS FOR SUCH ISSUE ('ANY OTHER INCOME' ) HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN IN THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148(2) OF THE ACT. WE ARE THUS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE PU NJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF MAJINDER SINGH KANG AND MEHAK FINVEST (SUPRA ). ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE BANGALORE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE EVE N IF THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT MADE PURSUANT TO THE REASON MENT IONED IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, HOWEVER IF THE ADDITIONS WERE M ADE ON ANY OF THE REASON WHICH IS FOUND CONNECTED WITH THE REASON MENTIONED IN THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE, THAN THE REASSESSMENT ORDE R IS VALID. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THE REASONS PROVIDED FOR R EASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE, HENCE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD. OUR AT TENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE MATTER OF PCIT V. JAKHOTIA PLASTICS P. LTD [94 TAXMANN 89] , IN WHICH HONBEL COURT HAD CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW OF THE HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT REFERRED HEREINABOVE IN THE MATTER OF N. GOVI NDRAJU V. ITO [60 TAXMANN.COM 333]. THE ASSESSEE IN THAT MATTER HAS APPROACHED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY FILING THE SLP, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT. ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 11 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WITHOUT COMMENTING UPON THE LEGAL PROPOSITION CANVA SSED BEFORE US WITH RESPECT TO THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.148 OF THE ACT, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAN D THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A), AS THE CIT(A) HAD NOT DECI DED THESE ISSUES, WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE GROUND NO.1 AND 2 RA ISED BEFORE HIM ON THE BASIS OF THE LEGAL PROPOSITION MENTIONED HER EINABOVE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE, AS ALSO ANY OTHER JUDGMENT WHICH COMES TO HIS NOTICE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS NO LIVE CONNECTION WITH THE REASONS FOR REOPEN AND WITH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. AR THA T IF THE FOUNDATION (REASONS TO BELIEVE/ GROUNDS REFERRED TH EREIN ) ON WHICH THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF ADDITIONS WERE MADE IS ITSEL F NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW OR IT (REASONS TO BELIEVE/ GROUN DS REFERRED THEREIN ) DOES NOT HAVE ANY LIVE CONNECTION WITH THE ADDI TIONS MADE, IN THAT EVENTUALITY NO SUCH ADDITIONS IS SUSTAINABLE. HOWEVER IF THE CIT (A) COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A LIV E CONNECTION AND THE REASONS TO REOPEN IS INTERDEPENDENT AND INTERWO VEN WITH THE ADDITION MADE THEN SAID ADDITIONS ARE SUSTAINABLE I N THE EYES OF LAW. 13. AS WE ARE SENDING BACK THE GROUND NO.1AND 2 TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A), THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT APPROPRIATE T O ADJUDICATE THE REMAINING OTHER GROUNDS AS THEY ARE DEPENDENT ON T HE ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO.1AND 2 BY THE CIT (A). IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE, WE REMAND THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) TO DECIDE THE ITA.1339/BANG/2018 PAGE - 12 SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BENGALURU DATED : 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.