Mr. M J Aravin, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1510/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7220 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Earning of tax free income; Cost of acquisition; Revised return; Capital Gains
• Section: 14A; 48; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO. 1510/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 MR. M J ARAVIND, NIRVANA, 329, 18 TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT, PHASE I, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 098. PAN: ACBPA 0889 J VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(3)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : S HRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVO CATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PR IYADARSHI MISHRA, ADDL .CI T(DR)(ITAT), B ENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 06 . 0 9 .202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 .0 9 .202 1 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU DATED 05.04.20 17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 O THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN N OT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT VARIOUS EXPENS ES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ., PMS CHARGES, PROFESSIONAL FEES. SALARY IS INTEGRAL TO THE INVESTMENT ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY H IM AND TO EARN THE INCOME RETURNED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS. THE ASSESSEE BELIEVES THAT THE EXP ENSES CLAIMED ITA NO.1510/BANG/2017 1 PAGE 2 OF 8 UNDER SECTION 57 OF RS.18,89,670/- AS A DEDUCTION F ROM THE TOTAL INCOME IS FULLY JUSTIFIABLE. 1.1 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ALSO NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT CERTAIN CLASS OF ASSETS M AY NOT EARN INCOME IN A CERTAIN YEAR VIZ., INVESTMENT IN UNLIST ED EQUITIES AND FOREIGN INVESTMENTS AND THAT THIS FACT WILL NOT HAM PER THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO MANAGE AND MAINTAIN THE PORTFOLIO. SINCE SOME OF THE INCOME MAY BE EXEM PT UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY DISALL OWED EXPENDITURE TO AN EXTENT OF INCOME NOT INCLUDIBLE I N TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED BELOW: INVESTMENTS AMOUNT IN RS. INVESTMENTS AS ON 01/04/2012 41,04,43,249 INVESTMENTS AS ON 31/03/2013 40,73,02,270 AVER A GE INVESTMENTS 40,88,72,759 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS U/S 14A (FOREIGN SECURITIES AND UNLISTED SECURITIES FROM WHICH NO INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED HAS BEEN EXCLUDED) 20,44,364 THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.20,44,364/- IS THE AMOUNT CO MPUTED UNDER SECTION 14A OF - THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WHILE CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION U/S 57, THE ABOVE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RED UCED AS UNDER: TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES 50,57,206 LESS : 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENT 20,44,364 EXPENSES C LAIMED UNDER SECTION 57 30,12,842 AMOUNT RESTRICTED TO THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F R O M OTHER SOURCES 18,89,670 1.3 THE AMOUNT OF RS. 18,89,670/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME SHOWN UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE BELIEVES THA T THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 57 AS A DEDUCTION FROM THE TO TAL INCOME IS FULLY JUSTIFIABLE AND LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE SAID CLAIM U NDER SECTION 57. ITA NO.1510/BANG/2017 1 PAGE 3 OF 8 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING CONTENTIONS EVEN ASSUMING BUT WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THE ACTION OF T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE IN ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OUGHT TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE AMOUNT ACTU ALLY CLAIMED OF RS.18,89,670/- AND NOT RS.39.34,034/-. THE AMOUN T OF RS.39,34,034/- INCLUDES AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,44,364/- ALREADY DISALLOWED U/S 14A BY ASSESSEE, WHILE COMPUTING THE AMOUNT CLAIMED U/S 57. CONSEQUENTLY THIS HAS RESULTED IN D OUBLE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20,44.364/-. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING CONTENTIONS EVEN ASSUMING BUT WITHOUT ADMITTING THAT THE ACTION OF T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE TO BE IN ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSION ER OUGHT TO HAVE EITHER CONSIDERED AN APPROPRIATE SUM AS COST O F ACQUISITION OF SECURITIES FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CA PITAL GAINS IN THE EVENT OF SALE OR AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF SECU RITIES DURING THE YEAR THEREBY ENTITLING THE ASSESSEE RELIEF UNDE R SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 1961. THE ASSESSEE ALSO WISHES TO STATE THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE CLEARLY OUTGOINGS AND IN T HE MOST UNLIKELY EVENT OF YOUR HONOR NOT CONSIDERING THE CL AIM AS ABOVE THE SAID AMOUNT HAVE TO BE CAPITALIZED ON THE VARIO US INVESTMENTS THAT HE IS HOLDING SO THAT THE NECESSARY CLAIM CAN BE MADE WHEN THE SAID INVESTMENT ARE TRANSFERRED AND TAX LIABILI TY ARISES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. YOUR APPELLANT SEEKS LEAVE TO ADD TO, TO AMEND ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS AS AND WHEN CONSIDERED NECESSARY/ AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 30.07.2013 DECLARING A LOSS OF (-) RS.3,89,478/-. SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED R ETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 29.07.2014 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,12,6 40/- AND THE SECOND REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 25.02.2015 DE CLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.80,64,780/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON ITA NO.1510/BANG/2017 1 PAGE 4 OF 8 25.03.2016 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,25, 14,780/- AND CONSEQUENTLY RAISED A DEMAND OF RS.19,04,944/-. WH ILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES : A) DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A RS.20,44,364/ - B)DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER OTHER SOURCES R S.24,05,536/- TOTAL RS.44,50,000/- 3. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISAL LOWANCE TO RS.39,34,034. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2014-15 IN ITA NO.614/BANG/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.7.2019 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE ORDER D ATED 20.04.2018 FOR THE AY 2012-13 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD AS UNDER:- 8. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(III) OF IT ACT, ANY EXPENDITURE NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPE NDITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES IS ALLOWABLE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, IN RESPECT OF IN COME EXCLUDING EXEMPT INCOME BEING INTEREST ON SECURITIES, ANY REA SONABLE SUM PAID BY WAY OF COMMISSION OR REMUNERATION TO BANKER OR ANY OTHER PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF REALISING SUCH DIVI DEND OR INTEREST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE AS PER CLAUS E (I) OF SECTION 57. APART FROM THESE TWO CLAUSES I.E. CLAUSE (I) & (III), OTHER CLAUSES OF SECTION 57 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRE SENT CASE. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS THIS THAT AS PER SECTION 14A OF IT ACT, % OF THE INVESTMENTS HAS TO BE DISALLOWED AND THE BALANC E HAS TO BE ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE IN THAT MANNER AND CLAIMED BALANCE AMOUNT AS DEDUCTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE OBSERVE THAT SECTION 14A COMES INTO PICTURE IN R ESPECT OF THOSE EXPENSES WHICH ARE OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE AND TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FIRST ESTABLISH THIS THAT THE EXPEN SES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF T HE LAW. FOR THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ITA NO.1510/BANG/2017 1 PAGE 5 OF 8 ALLOWABLE U/S. 57 OF IT ACT BECAUSE THE EXPENSES AR E INCURRED IN EARNING OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS PER THE DE TAILS OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS AVAILABLE O N TABLE 2 OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E CIT(A) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO CLAIM REGARDING ANY EXPENSES SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 57 I.E. COMMISSION OR REMUNERATION TO BANKER OR ANY OTHER PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF REALISING DIVIDEND OR INTEREST INCOME BECAUSE THE A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PMS CHARGES, SALARI ES, PROFESSIONAL CHARGES, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, TRAVEL, COMPUTER MAINTENANCE, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, TELEPHONE CHA RGES AND BANK CHARGES. HENCE NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE IN THE PRE SENT CASE UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF SECTION 57. 9. REGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER CL AUSE (III) OF SECTION 57, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSE E THAT EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN EXCLUSIVELY LAID OUT OR EXPEND ED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SU CH INCOME TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND A CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY CIT (A) IN PA RA NO. 6.2 OF HIS ORDER AS REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT NO SUCH DETAIL W AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS M ADE GENERAL ARGUMENTS AND HAS SUBMITTED GENERAL DETAILS BUT NO SPECIFIC DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE US ALSO. HENCE, WE HO LD THAT NO DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE U/S 57 (III). 10. NOW WE EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF TWO JUDGMEN TS ON WHICH RELIANCE HAVE BEEN PLACED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE. FI RST JUDGMENT IS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY (SUPRA). IN OUR CONSIDERE D OPINION, THIS JUDGMENT DOES NOT HELP ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS AS REQUIRED U/S. 57(III) OF IT ACT BECAUSE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRM ED BY CIT (A) BY HOLDING THAT SINCE NO INCOME IS EARNED IN TH E PRESENT YEAR, DEDUCTION IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF THIS EXPEN DITURE WHICH ARE SPENT FOR EARNING SOME INCOME TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT INCOME COULD NOT BE EARNED IN THE PRESENT YEAR. THE REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT FURNISHED NECESSARY DETAILS AND HENCE, THIS JUDGMEN T RENDERS NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. ITA NO.1510/BANG/2017 1 PAGE 6 OF 8 11. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE ON THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF EAST WEST HO TELS LTD. VS. ACIT (SUPRA). IN THAT CASE, LEASE RENT INCOME WAS T O BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HELD THAT EXPENDITURE ALLOWABLE IS RESTRICTED TO ONLY SUCH PA YMENT, WHICH IS SEPARATELY BINDING ON THE EMPLOYER AND LEGAL ENT ITY, I.E., COMPANY, SUCH AS SALARIES, PF, ESI AND OTHER INEVIT ABLE EXPENSES. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A COMPANY AND THE TR IBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COUR T RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GANGA PROPERTIES LTD. AS REP ORTED IN 199 ITR 94 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT EXPENDITURE INCURR ED IN COMPLYING WITH STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S. 57(III) OF IT ACT. AS PER THE RELEVANT PARA OF JUDGMENT REPROD UCED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS NOTED THAT EVEN IF A COMPANY DERIV ES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IT HAS TO MAINTAIN ITS ESTABL ISHMENT FOR COMPLYING WITH STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS SO LONG IT IS IN OPERATION AND ITS NAME IS NOT STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER OF COMPANIE S OR UNLESS THE COMPANY IS DISSOLVED WHICH MEANS CESSATION OF ALL C ORPORATE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSE S AND SO LONG AS IT IS IN OPERATION, IT HAS TO MAINTAIN ITS STATUS A S A COMPANY AND IT HAS TO DISCHARGE CERTAIN LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT IS NECESSARY TO APPOINT CLERICAL STAFF AND A SECRET ARY OR ACCOUNTANT AND INCUR INCIDENTAL EXPENSES AND THEREFORE, SUCH E XPENSES INCURRED WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE ACTIVI TIES TO EARN INCOME AND IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE ALLOW ABLE. FOR THE SAME RATIO, JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF CHINAI & CO. (P.) LTD. VS. CIT A REPORT ED IN 206 ITR 616 WAS ALSO FOLLOWED AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE A LLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAMPUR TIMBUR & TURNERY CO. LTD. AS REPORTED IN 129 ITR 58 WAS ALSO FOLLOWE D. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A COMPANY, TH ESE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. GANGA PROPERTIES LTD. (SUPRA), HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHINAI & CO. (P.) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND OF HO NBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMPUR TIMBUR & TURNERY CO. LTD. (SUPRA) HAVE NO RELEVANCE AND SINCE, THE T RIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THESE JUDGMENTS AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN C ASE OF THAT ASSESSEE BEING A COMPANY, THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS AL SO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE NATURE OF EXPEN SES IN DISPUTE IN THAT CASE ARE NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FORM OF A TABLE AND FROM THE SAME, IT IS SEEN THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THAT CASE ITA NO.1510/BANG/2017 1 PAGE 7 OF 8 WERE REGARDING THE PERSONAL EXPENSES OF DIRECTORS, TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF OTHERS, MOTOR CAR EXPENSES, SECURITY CH ARGES, PRINTING AND STATIONERY, STAFF WELFARE, FLOWERS AND PLANTS, AGM EXPENSES, BOARD MEETING EXPENSES, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, REN T PAID, SUBSCRIPTION TO CLUB, INTEREST ON PURCHASE OF CAR, LEGAL EXPENSES ETC. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER THE NATURE OF EXP ENSES INVOLVED IN THAT CASE, THE EXPENSES WERE IN RELATION TO THE FUL FILLING THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPANY LAW TO HAVE DIRECTORS AND T O HAVE AGM, BOARD MEETING AND TO MAINTAIN THE OFFICE ETC. WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULFILLING THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THIS TR IBUNAL ORDER IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT A COMPANY AND THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO SUCH LEGAL COMPULSION TO INCUR THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE CL AIMED IN THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSES SEE FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS NOT ALLOWABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT ESTABLISHED THAT THE EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE U/S. 57(III) OF IT ACT. 12. NOW WE DEAL WITH AND DECIDE THE ALTERNATIVE ARG UMENT OF LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT EVEN IF EXPENSES ARE HELD AS NO T ALLOWABLE AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AGAINST INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PRESENT YEA R OR FUTURE YEARS. REGARDING THIS ARGUMENT, WE WOULD LIKE TO OB SERVE THAT FOR COMPUTING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, DEDUCTION IS A LLOWABLE U/S. 48 AND EXPENSES WHICH CAN BE ALLOWED AS PER THIS SE CTION ARE EXPENSES INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONNECT ION WITH TRANSFER OF ASSET OR COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSET O R COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT OF THE CONCERNED CAPITAL ASSET ONLY. TH E CLAIM OF EXPENSES IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT FOR THOSE EXPEN SES WHICH ARE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF TRANSFER OF ASSET OR COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSET OR COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT OF ASSET AND THEREFORE, THIS ALTERNATIVE CLAIM ALSO HAS NO MERIT AND ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 5. BEING SO, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.1510/BANG/2017 1 PAGE 8 OF 8 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.