DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1560/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5653 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B BALACHANDRAN SHRI PRADEEP
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset
• Section: 69; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, B E NGAL U R U BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1560/BANG/ 201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 11(3), BENGA LURU. VS. APPELLANT M/S.GENEVA INDUSTRIES LTD., (FORMERLY GENEVA FINE PUNCH ENCLOSURES LTD.),NO.140/1, PATTANDUR AGRAHARA VILLAGE, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 066. PAN: AAACG7208F RESPONDENT AND ITA NO.1628/BANG/ 201 3 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 ) (BY THE ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.BALACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE. REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 02/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 /01/2018 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THESE CRO SS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AS WELL AS REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - I, BENGALURU, DATED 3 0/0 8 / 2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. BRIEFLY , FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : T HE ASSE SSEE IS A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 . I T IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING OF SHEET METAL , MEDICAL EQUIPMENTS AND ACCESSORIES. T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 2 OF 12 10 WAS FILED ON 30 /09/ 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 20 , 33 , 52 , 160 / - . A GAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 11(3), BENGALURU VIDE ORDER DATED 30/ 12/201 1 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 ( 3 ) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT] AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 42 , 97 , 10 , 412 / - . W HILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE SEVERAL DISALLOWANCES. ONE OF THE DISALLOWANCES RELATES TO THE SALE OF THE BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY, FACTORY SITU ATED AT WHITEFIELD , BANGALORE . THE FACTORY BUILDING WAS SOLD ON 10/09/2008 FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 59 , 52 , 07 , 380 / - . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D COM PUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF FACTORY BUILDING AND ARRIVED AT A FIGURE OF RS.97,87,164/ - AND IN RESPECT OF LAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 50 , 3 0,93,552/ - . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIE D EXEMPTION OF THE CLAIM U/S 54G OF THE A CT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAS NOT SHIFTED THE FACTORY BUILDING FROM SPECIFIED URBAN AREA TO NON - URBAN AREA . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION BASED ON THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY T HE INSPECTOR OF THE D EPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD NOT SET UP ANY FACTORY TO CARRY ON INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY . THE FACTS ON TH IS ISSUE ARE SET OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM PAGE 3 ONWARDS AND UP TO 10. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ALSO MADE ADD ITION BASED ON THE PAPE RS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY OPERATIONS WHEREIN IT WAS SHOWN THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.183,00,000/ - WAS INVESTED. W HEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS EVIDENCE IT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DREW ADVERSE INFERENCE AND TREATED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND BROUG HT TO TAX RS.183,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED COMMISSION PAYMENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS ON THE GROUND THAT NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 3 OF 12 3. BEING AGGRIEVED , AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER , ALLOWED DE DUCTION TO THE EXTENT INVESTMENT IN LAND AND BUILDING OF RS. 19 CRORES AND THE BALANCE WAS CONFIRMED . THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS FOLLOWS : ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 4 OF 12 4. BEING AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL IN ITA NO.1628/2013 AND THE REVENUE IS IN AP PEAL IN ITA NO.1560 /BANG/ 20 13. 5. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE REVENUE UP IN ITA NO.1560/BANG/2013. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 6. G ROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 7. GROUND N O. 2 CHALLENGES THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING ADD ITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 7.1 THE FACTS L EADING TO THE ABOVE ADDITION ARE SET OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PAGES 10 TO 12 WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 5 OF 12 HAD CONFRONTED THE ASS ESSEE WITH SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS INDICATING SOME UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT, THE MD OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MERELY DENIED HAVING MADE ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 7.2 IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) DE LETED ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION BASED ON MERELY IMPOUNDED PAPERS. TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION, THE CIT(A) HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL. 7.3 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 7.4 WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SUG GESTING PAYMENTS OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS INFORMATION , THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY DENIED HAVING MADE ANY UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DR AWN ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM THE CONDUC T OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT IT IS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. ON APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) THIS CAME TO BE DELETED BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN BRINGING TO T AX BASED ON THE LOOSE SCRIBBLING FOUND IN THE LOOSE SHEETS . I N TH E BACKDROP OF THESE FACTS , WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE W HE THER ADDITION OF RS. 183 LA KHS WAS JUSTIFIED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. I T IS TRITE LAW THAT THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROVING IS ALWAYS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN LOOSE SHEETS A R E N OT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME AND R ELIANCE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE ( 165 ITR 14 ). I N THE PRESENT CASE , THE ASSESSEE MERELY DENIED IT WITHOUT TENDERING ANY C R EDIBLE EXPLANATION . I N OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO DUE DISCHARGE OF INITIAL BURDEN ON T HE PART OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 6 OF 12 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING ADVERSE IN FERENCE AND MAKING ADDITION OF RS.183 LAKHS. THE GROUND A PPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED . 8. GROUND N O S. 3 AND 4 CHALLENG E THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54G OF THE ACT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT SHIFTED THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT SITUATED IN URBAN AREA I.E. WH ITEFIELD TO NON - URBAN AREA AND INVESTMENT OF A SUM OF RS.19,84,150/ - TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND WAS MADE. THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON SALE OF UNDERTAKING WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 54G AS THE SAME WAS USED FOR PURCHASE OF NEW LAND PLANT AND MACHINERY AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING THAT IF THE AMOUNT IS UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY AND LAND IT SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 54G OF THE ACT. FOR BETTER APPRECIATION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 54G ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: [ EXEMPTION OF CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF ASSETS IN CASES OF SHIFTING OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING FROM URBAN AREA. 54G. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (2), WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FRO M THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING MACHINERY OR PLANT OR BUILDING OR LAND OR ANY RIGHTS IN BUILDING OR LAND USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING SITUATE IN AN URBAN AREA, EFFECTED IN THE COURSE OF, OR IN CONSEQUENCE OF, THE SHIFTING OF SUCH INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET) TO ANY AREA (OTHER THAN AN URBAN AREA) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOO K PLACE, ( A ) PURCHASED NEW MACHINERY OR PLANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING IN THE AREA TO WHICH THE SAID UNDERTAKING IS SHIFTED ; ( B ) ACQUIRED BUILDING OR LAND OR CONSTRUCTED BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS BUSINESS IN THE SAID AREA ; ( C ) SHIFTED THE ORIGINAL ASSET AND TRANSFERRED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH UNDERTAKING TO SUCH AREA; AND ( D ) INCURRED EXPENSES ON SUCH OTHER PURPOSE AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN A SCHEME FRAMED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTI ON, THEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME - TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 7 OF 12 BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, ( I ) IF THE AMOUNT OF T HE CAPITAL GAIN IS GREATER THAN THE COST AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES MENTIONED IN CLAUSES ( A ) TO ( D ) (SUCH COST AND EXPENSES BEING HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUN T OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR ; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS BEING PURCHASED, ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED OR TRANSFERRED, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COST SHALL BE NIL ; OR ( II ) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO, OR LESS THAN, THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW A SSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS BEING PURCHASED, ACQUIRED, CONSTRUCTED OR TRANSFERRED, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COST SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN. EXPLANATION. IN THIS SUB - SECTION , 'URBAN AREA' MEANS ANY SUCH AREA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OR MUNICIPALITY AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, HAVING REGARD TO THE POPULATION, CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRIES, NEED FOR PROPER PLANNING OF THE AREA AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS, BY GENERAL OR SPECIAL ORDER, DECLARE TO BE AN URBAN AREA 99 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB - SECTION. (2) THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE COST AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION T O ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES MENTIONED IN CLAUSES ( A ) TO ( D ) OF SUB - SECTION (1) WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY HIM FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES AFORESAID BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 , SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER T HAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 ] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BAN K OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME 1 WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED B Y PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT ; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB - SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES AFORESAID TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT, SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 8 OF 12 PROV IDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION IS NOT UTILISED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE PURPOSES MENTIONED IN CLAUSES ( A ) TO ( D ) OF SUB - SECTION (1) WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THAT SUB - SECTION, THEN, ( I ) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILIS ED SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES ; AND ( II ) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SUCH AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID. 8.1 THE PARLIAMENT HAS ENACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 54G WITH THE INTENTION OF PROMOTING DE - CONGESTION OF URBAN AREA AND ALSO TO B ALANCE REGIONAL GROWTH BY EXEMPTING CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON THE TRANSFER OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND BUILDING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING AND THE CAPITAL GAINS ARE EXEMPT FROM TAX TO THE EXTENT CAPITAL GAINS ARE UTILISED IN ACQUIRING NE W PLANT AND MACHINERY AND BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF UNDERTAKING IN THE AREA TO WHICH IT IS SHIFTED PLUS INCUR R ING EXPENSES IN THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW PLANT AND MACHINERY ETC. EXPLANATION TO SUB - SECTION (1) O F SECTION 54G AUTHORIZ ES THE CENT RAL GOVERNMENT TO DECLARE THE AREAS TO BE URBAN AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVISIONS OF 54G. IN EXERCISE OF THIS POWER CONFERRED, THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED FIRST NOTIFICATION NO.9489 ON 23/02/1994 AND THE SECOND NOTIFICATION W AS ISSUED ON 02/04/1996 AN D THIRD NOTIFI CATION WAS ISSUED ON 20/12/1999 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 9 OF 12 ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 10 OF 12 ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 11 OF 12 8.2 IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT FACTORY BUILDING SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT SITUATED IN THE NOTIFIED URBAN AREA . FROM THE ABOVE NOTIFICATIO N S , IT IS CLEAR THAT WHITEFIELD IS NOT ONE OF THE NOTIFIED URBAN AREAS WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54G. THUS, ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAD FAILED TO SATISFY THE CONDITION THAT UNIT SOLD WAS SITUATED WITHIN NOTIFIED URBAN AREAS. THEREFORE THE ASS E SSEE - COMPANY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54G. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND GRANTED RELIEF. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE G R OUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED . 10. THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY IS IN APPEAL IN ITA NO.1628/BANG/2013 CHALLENGING THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) RESTRICTING DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF ONLY RS. 14,16,79,733/ - AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS. 19,74,46,141/ - UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54G OF THE ACT. SINCE I N THE REVENUE S APPEAL (ITA NO.1560/BANG/2013) WE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54G THEREFORE, FURTHER R ELIEF ON THIS COUNT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. ITA NO . 1560 & 1628 /BANG/201 3 PAGE 12 OF 12 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( LALI T KUMAR ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : B EN GAL URU D A T E : 19 /01/2018 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDEN T 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL BANGALORE