ITO, Bangalore V. Mr. Christina Ann Kuriacose, Bangalore

ITA 1541/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 154121114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL JT
• Assessee Lawyers: V K SUDHAKAR SHETTY
• Keywords: Capital asset; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(IT)A NO.1541/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD 1(2), BANGALORE. VS. MR. CHRISTINA ANN KURIACOSE, C/O. V.K. SUDHAKAR SHETTY, VKS SHETTY & CO., CA, NO.55, I FLOOR, 10 TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, W O C ROAD, BANGALORE 560 086. PAN : BLQPK 8496N APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, JT. CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K. SUDHAKAR SHETTY, CA DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.08.2015 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE, ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT CIT (A) ALLOWED DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.54 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 10 ACT FOR SHORT), CONSTRUING THE WORD A APPEARING IN THE SAID SECTION TO BE PLURAL IN NATURE. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER F AMILY MEMBERS WAS OWNING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY COMPRISING 3 ACRES AN D 12 GUNTAS AREA AT SY.NO.51, K NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, K. R. PURAM HOBLI , BANGALORE EAST TALUK. THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED ON 11.12.1967. I T WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION, BUT CONVERTED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL ON 23.11.1994. RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CON STRUCTED THEREIN IN THE YEAR 1998-99 AND THEREAFTER IT WAS JOINTLY OWNE D AND ENJOYED BY THE FAMILY OF ASSESSEE. ON 28.03.2011, THEY ENTERED IN TO A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (JDA FOR SHORT) WITH ONE M/S. BRIGADE ENT ERPRISES, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS ON THE PROPE RTY. JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ALSO REGISTERED. AS PER THIS JDA, 35 % OF THE SUPER BUILT-UP AREA IN THE FORM OF RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS WAS TO B E DELIVERED TO THE FAMILY OF ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. SHARE OF ASSE SSEE IN THE TOTAL AREA TO BE ALLOCATED WAS 6.05%. IN THE RETURN FILED FOR IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION AND THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING THEREFROM, BUT CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM, ASSESSEE HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V. K. G. RUKMINIAMMA [(2011) 331 ITR 211] . HOWEVER, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY AO. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE COULD AT BEST CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO ONLY ON E RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 10 6.05% SHARE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TRANSLATED TO 4 FLATS. AS PER THE AO, IN A LATER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KHOOBCHAND M. MAKHIJA [(2014) 223 TAXMAN 189] , HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD A APPEARING IN SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, WAS TO BE MADE CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. ACCORDING TO H IM, THEREFORE, JUDGMENT IN K. G. RUKMINIAMMAS CASE ( SUPRA ) COULD NOT BE APPLIED HERE. HE RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION TO VALUE OF ONE F LAT AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE CLAIM. EFFECTIVE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT, CAME TO RS.61,76,068/-. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT ( A). RELIANCE WAS ONCE AGAIN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN K. G. RUKMINIYAMMA (SUPRA) . CIT(A), RELYING ON THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT, HELD THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DENIED DEDUCTION CL AIMED BY IT U/S.54(1) OF THE ACT. HE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 54( 1) OF THE ACT STOOD AMENDED VIDE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, W.E.F.01.04. 2015, WHEREBY CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BEEN SUBSTITU TED BY CONSTRUCTING ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE WAS ALWAYS TO RESTRICT THE DEDUCTION TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND, THEREFORE, AN INTERPRETATION GIVING PLURALITY TO THE WORD A WAS NOT CORRECT. ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 10 5. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANCE OF THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 54F AS WELL AS SEC.54F(1) HAD COME UP BE FORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. V. R. KARPAGAM [(2014) 90 CCH 034] . AS PER LD. AR, IT WAS HELD CLEARLY THAT AMENDMEN T WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.04.2015, COULD BE CONSTRUED ONLY PRO SPECTIVELY. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 6.05% RIGHTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY AND LAND WHICH WA S GIVEN FOR JOINT DEVELOPMENT. MAY BE IT IS TRUE THAT THE SAID PERCE NTAGE OF SHARE, WHEN TRANSLATED TO UNITS WOULD RESULT IN 4 RESIDENTIAL FLATS. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION, THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A REASON FOR DENY ING DEDUCTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K. G. RUKMINIAMMA (SUPRA) WAS SEIZED OF ALMOST A SIMILAR SITUATION, WHERE ALSO THE CLAIM WAS WITH REGARD TO EXEMPTION C LAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE U/S.54 OF THE ACT, ON TRANSFER THROUGH JDA, WHEREIN FOUR FLATS WERE TO BE RECEIVED AS CONSIDERATION. JUDGMENT WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EFFECT OF AMENDMENT WAS ALSO A SUBJECT MATTER BEFOR E THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V. R. KARPAGAM (SUPRA) , WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD MOVED IN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF CHENNAI TRIB UNAL IN ITA. NO.1082/MDS/2010, DT 07.03.2013, WHEREIN ONE OF US WAS A PARTY. IT WAS HELD BY THE LORDSHIP AS UNDER AT PARA 5 TO 12 OF TH E ORDER :- ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 5 OF 10 5. THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HELD IN PARAGRAPH NO.4 OF THE OR DER THAT AS THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ADMITTED THAT WITH REGARD TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEVELOPER, M/S. MOUNT HOUSING A ND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COULD NOT BE FAULTED. ALSO, TH E TRIBUNAL, BY CONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 5 4F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND TAKING NOTE OF THE DECISION OF T HE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA REPORTED IN 331 ITR 211, WHICH REFERRED TO SECTION 13 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, HELD THAT TH E WORD A APPEARING IN SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED IN SINGULAR, BUT SHOULD BE UNDERST OOD IN PLURAL. HENCE, FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAS CLEARLY HELD IN THE ABOVE JUDGMENT THAT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THE CONTEXT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A SINGULAR. IN THE SAID CASE ALSO, CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION WAS WITH REGARD TO FOUR FLATS IN LIEU OF SHARE IN LAND, BUT THE CLAIM WAS UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION THE MEANING GIVEN TO THE EXPRESSION A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WILL APPLY PARIPASSU TO SEC. 54F ALSO, SINCE THE EXPRESSION USED HERE IS ALSO A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. NEW ASSET DEFINED IN THE SEC.54F, AS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS ALSO TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE PLURAL. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ALL RESIDENTIAL UN ITS SHOULD HAVE A SINGLE DOOR NUMBER ALLOTTED TO IT AS ARGUED BY THE LD. D.R. NO DOUBT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF G.SAROJA (SUPRA) DID CONSIDER THE FACT THAT DIFFERENT FLATS WERE HAVING ONE DOOR NUMBER. HOWEVER, THIS ALONE WAS NOT THE REASON WHY ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THEIR LORDSHIPS TOOK CUE FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 6 OF 10 SMT.K.G.RUKMINIAMMA (SUPRA). SIMILAR EXEMPTION WAS GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AGAIN IN THE CASE OF DR. (SMT.)P.K. VASANTHI RANGARAJAN (SUPRA) WHEREIN THERE WAS NO C/AIM THAT FLATS ALLOTTED IN LIEU WERE HAVING SINGLE NUMB ER. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR C/AIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ON THE FIVE FLATS RECEIVED BY HER IN LIE U OF THE LAND SHE HAD PARTED WITH. 6. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLES ME NTIONED IN SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AS INTERPRETED BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE-SAID DECISION, WO ULD APPLY PARIPASSU TO SECTION 54F ALSO. HENCE, THE TRI BUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIB LE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT O N THE FIVE FLATS RECEIVED BY HER IN LIEU OF THE LAND SHE HAD PARTED WITH. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL RAISING THE ABOVE- SAID SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE SUBMIT S THAT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MENTIONED EN SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ONE UNIT, EVEN THOUGH DIFFERENT FLATS ARE CONSTRUCTED; BUT IT SHOU LD BE CONSTRUED AS ONE RESIDENTIAL FLAT, AS EVERY RESIDEN TIAL APARTMENT CONTAINS SEPARATE KITCHEN, ENTRANCE ETC. HE ALSO POINTED OUT TO THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 WITH E FFECT FROM 01.04.2015, WHEREIN THE WORD A RESIDENTIAL HO USE IS SUBSTITUTED TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPEA RING FOR THE REVENUE AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE THIS COURT AND THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. K. G.RUKMINIAMMA REPORTED IN 331 ITR 211. WE FIND THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISION IS THIS ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 7 OF 10 CASE IS SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH RE ADS AS FOLLOWS: 54F. CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CAPITAL ASSETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. - - (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGI NAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ON E YEAR BEFORE TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERR ED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEA LT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY,-- (A) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN T HE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTIO N 45: (B) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS LESS THAN THE N ET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF T HE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET BEARS TO THE NET CONSIDERATION, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45: PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL APPLY WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE, (I) OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THA N THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGI NAL ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 8 OF 10 ASSET; OR (II) PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN TH E NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DA TE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR (III) CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; AND (B) THE INCOME FROM SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OWNED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 9. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE HEREIN THAT AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO THE ABOVE-SAID PROVISION WITH REGARD TO THE WORD A BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, WHICH WILL COME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.04.2015. THE SAID AMENDMENT READS AS FOLLOW S: 32A. WORDS CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED FOR CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2015. 10. THE ABOVE-SAID AMENDMENT TO SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WHICH WILL COME INTO EFFECT ONLY FR OM 01.04.2015, MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WILL BE APPLICABLE TO CONSTRUCTED, ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA AND THA T CLARIFIES THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE, I.E, P OST AMENDMENT, VIZ., FROM 01.04.2015, THE BENEFIT OF SE CTION 54F WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN INDIA. PRIOR TO THE SAID AMENDMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT A RES IDENTIAL HOUSE WOULD INCLUDE MULTIPLE FLATS/RESIDENTIAL UNIT S AS IN THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT FIVE RESIDE NTIAL FLATS. WE MAY ALSO MENTION HERE THAT ALL THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW HAVE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE AGREEMENT SI GNED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S.MOUNT HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., IS ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 9 OF 10 THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL RECEIVE 43.75% OF THE BUILT- UP AREA AFTER DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS CONSTRUED AS ONE BLOCK, WHICH MAY BE ONE OR MORE FLATS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTE R WHAT WAS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY EQUIVALENT OF 56.25% OF LAND TRANSFERRED, EQUIVALENT TO 43.75% OF BUILT UP AREA RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS BUILT UP ARE A GOT TRANSLATED INTO FIVE FLATS. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THE TRANSACTION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER OF FLATS BUT WITH REGARD TO THE PERCENTAGE O F THE BUILT UP AREA, VIS-A-VIS, THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LA ND. 11. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS COURT, BY ORDER DATED 04.01.2012 IN T.C.(A)NO.656 OF 2005 HELD AS FOLLOWS : THE ABOVE PROVISION REFERS TO A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MEANING THEREBY THAT EVEN IF THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT FLATS AND IF IT IS CONSIDERED FOR THE PROPERTY ASSESSED AS ONE UNIT AND ONE DOOR NUMBER IS GIVEN, IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT, NAMELY, ONE UNIT. IN THAT SENSE, THE SAID PROVISION IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE DECISION REPORTED IN (2012) 75 DTR 56 (DR.(SMT..) P.K.VASANTHI RANGARAJAN, THIS COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F, FOLLOWED THE ABOVE-SAID DECISION OF THIS COURT IN T.C.(A)NO.656 OF 2005 AND GRANTED THE BENEFIT TO TH E ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE FOUR FLATS. 7. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE CLAIM U/S.54(1) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REA SON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT (A). ITA NO.1541/BANG/2014 PAGE 10 OF 10 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE STANDS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) ( N.V. VASU DEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 14 TH AUGUST, 2015. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENTS 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.