M/s. Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 2(3)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1679/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7458 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V NARENDRA SHARMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts; Revised return; Capital expenditure; TDS
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 143(1); 143(2); 13; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1679/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 15 M/S NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA PVT. LTD.,) NO.258/A, BOMMASANDAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 099. PAN AABCN 1685 J VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO.1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 15 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU. VS. M/S NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA PVT. LTD., NO.258/A, BOMMASANDAR INDUSTRIAL AREA, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 099. PAN AABCN 1685 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAGE 2 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 11-08-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-08-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEALS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 30/04/2019 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT (A)-2, BANGALORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2014-15 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.1679/BANG/2019 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT, IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NATURAL JUSTICE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESSE D OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME REPORTED BY IT AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,21,17,510 /- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ELIGIBLE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 35 AD OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,96,71,138/- BEING 150% OF THE T OTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT ON FIXED ASSETS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AM OUNTING TO RS. 15,97,80,759!- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPE LLANT UNDER SECTION 35AD OF THE ACT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS R ELYING UPON THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF GOETZ [INDIA] LTD., VS. CIT [2006] REPORTED IN 284 ITR 323 [SC]. THE LE ARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD CIRCULAR AND BASED ON PARITY OF REASONING OF SEVERAL CASE LAWS, EVEN THOUGH IF THE ASSESSEE HAS INADVERTENTLY NOT C LAIMED ANY ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME IT IS INCUMBENT O N THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT TO GRANT ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 6. IN THE VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY PAGE 3 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 BE ALLOWED AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ITA NO.1684/BANG/2019 - AY 2012-13 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CLEARLY OPPOSED TO L AW AS THE FINDINGS ARE PERVERSE,. CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE O F THE CASE AND HENCE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LA W BY FORMING A VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS LEASE HOLD RIGHTS TO ACQUIR E THE BUSINESS OF M/S ASIA HEART FOUNDATION FOR CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS. 88,6 4,000/-. 3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LAW BY FORMING A VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS LEASE HOLD RIGHTS TO ACQUIR E THE BUSINESS OF M/S MODERN MEDICAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIETY, RAIPUR FOR CAR RYING OUT ITS BUSINESS AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N MADE AT RS. 32,11,805/-. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANC E MADE UNDER CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AT RS. 1,07,84391 WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS NO RELEVANCE OR NEXUS BETWEEN THIS EXPEND ITURE TO THAT OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT PROVED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. 5. THE LD.CJT(A) HAS ERRED IN THE DELETING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.81,87,015/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE TOWARDS LEAVE SALARY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THESE HAVE NOT BEEN ACTUALLY PAID WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.43B(F) AND ALSO ERRED IN ADMITTING THE ASSESSEE'S ADDL. GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.1685/BANG/2019 - AY 2014-15 1. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CLEARLY OPPOSED TO L AW AS THE FINDINGS ARE PERVERSE, CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND HENCE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LA W BY FORMING A VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS LEASE HOLD RIGHTS TO ACQUIR E THE BUSINESS OF M/S ASIA HEART FOUNDATION FOR CARRYING OUT ITS BUSINESS AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE AT RS. 88,6 4,000/-. 3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN FACTS AND IN LAW BY FORMING A VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS LEASE HOLD RIGHTS TO ACQUIR E THE BUSINESS OF M/S MODERN MEDICAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIETY, RAIPUR FOR CAR RYING OUT ITS BUSINESS AS REVENUE IN NATURE AND ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N MADE AT RS. 46,25,000/-. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANC E MADE UNDER CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AT RS. 91,11,919/- WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS NO RELEVANCE OR NEXUS BETWEEN THIS EXPEND ITURE TO THAT OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT PROVED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THE DELETING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS. 1,40,84,420/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE TOWARDS LEAVE SALARY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THESE HAVE NOT BEEN ACT UALLY PAID WITHIN THE PAGE 4 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 MEANING OF SEC.43B(F) AND ALSO ERRED IN ADMITTING T HE ASSESSEE'S ADDL. GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE C OMPANIES ACT AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF HOSPITAL SERV ICES IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA PVT. LT D. FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME ON THE SPECIFIED DATES. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO BOOK PROFITS, HOWEVER AS TAXES UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS WERE HIGHE R THAN THE BOOK PROFIT, ASSESSEE PAID THE TAXES AS PER THE NOR MAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 2. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE LD.AO C ALLED UPON ASSESSEE TO FILE VARIOUS DETAILS IN REGARDS TO THE QUERIES RAISED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD.AO ON VERIF YING THE DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT BY PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE: PARTICULARS AMOUNT A.Y:2012-13 A.Y: 2014-15 DISALLOWANCE OF RENTAL EXPENDITURE AMORTISED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY DEBITING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT-AHF KOLKATA 88,64,000/- 8,64,000/- RENTAL EXPENDITURE AMORTISED IN THE BOOKS OF 32,11,805/- 46,25,000/- PAGE 5 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 ACCOUNTS BY DEBITING TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT- MMIS, RAIPUR CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY EXPENSES 1,07,84,391/- 91,11,919/- DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT 4,58,678/- - DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION TOWARDS UNPAID LEAVE SALARY ENCASHMENT 81,87,015/- 1,40,84,420/- DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION ON DOUBTFUL DEBTS 75,64,370/- 8,35,32,460/- 2.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD.AO, A SSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 2.2 THE LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESS EE WHILE CONSIDERING THE DISALLOWANCES VIS--VIS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE RENTAL EXPENDIT URE AMORTISED IN RESPECT OF ASIAN HEART FOUNDATION, KOLKATTA AND M/S. MODERN INSTITUTE OF SOCIETY, RAIPUR AND DISALLOWANCE OF T HE PROVISION MADE TOWARDS SALARY BASED ON THE DECISION OF COORDI NATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. FOR ASSESSMENT AY 2014-15 ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ISSUE OF CLAIM UNDER SECTION 35 AD, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD .AO FOR THE REASON THAT, THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BY ASSESSE E BY WAY OF A REVISED RETURN. THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THIS OBSERVATI ON OF THE LD.AO. PAGE 6 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE AN D APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 2.4 WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY REVE NUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND 2014-15. BOTH SIDES AGR EE THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE COMMON ON IDENTIC AL FACTS IN BOTH THESE YEARS. 3. GROUND NO.1 IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION 3.1 GROUND NO.2 PERTAINS TO THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS LEASEHOLD RIGHTS AMORTISED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE L EASE PERIOD. 3.2 THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT ON 28/01/2008 TO OPERATE AND M ANAGE THE HOSPITAL AT KOLKATA FOR LEASE PERIOD OF 25 YEAR S. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE PAID SUM OF 22,16,00,000/- AS DEPOSIT FOR SECURING THE RIGHTS OVER THE EXISTING HOSPITAL DURI NG THE LEASE. ASSESSEE AMORTISED THIS EXPENDITURE DURING THE PERI OD OF 25 YEARS AND IS TREATED AS RENT PAID IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN PAID BY ASSESSEES CAPITAL IN NATURE THEREBY ACQUIRING THE RIGHT OF RUNNING THE HOSPITAL BUSINESS. HE THUS SUBMITTED TH AT THESE ARE TO BE DISALLOWED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 3.3 ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, THIS ISSUE IS A RECURRING ISSUE, AND HAS BEEN SUBJECT MATTER FOR CO NSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN PAGE 7 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND 2010-11 PLACED AT PAGE 133-168 OF PAPER BOOK. 3.4 WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOT H SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 3.5 WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSEE OBTAINED RIGHT TO OPER ATE AND MANAGE ASIAN HEART FOUNDATION BY VIRTUE OF AN AGREE MENT DATED 20/01/2008 FOR 25 YEARS, FOR WHICH SUM OF 22.16 CRORE WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE AMORTISED THE SAID AMOUN T OVER THE LEASE PERIOD. WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 564/B/2012 AND 696/B/2012 , THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 23/01/2015 OBSERVED AND HELD AS UNDER: 6.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY, CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD; INCLUDIN G THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED, THE ENTIRE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT DT.28.1.2008 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND WS. ASIA HEART FOUNDATION, KOLKATA FOR OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE HOSPITAL AT KOLKATA BY THE AS SESSEE FOR A TOTAL LEASE PERIOD OF 25 YEARS BY PAYMENT OF A NON-REFUNDABLE L EASE DEPOSIT OF RS. 22.16 CRORES OUGHT TO BE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY TO UNDERSTA ND THE INTENTION AND CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES THERETO. READING OF CLAUSES IN ISOLA TION COULD LEAD TO ERRONEOUS DEDUCTIONS; AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN READING CLAUSE 7.8 IN ISOLATION. WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT CLAUSE 7.8 IS A DETERRENT CLAUSE, IT OPENS WITH THE WORDS 'SUBJECT TO CLAUSE 7.7 AND THEREFORE IT I S TO BEE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH CLAUSE 7.7. THE DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF RS.22. 16 CR ORES WAS REFUNDABLE ONLY IN THE EVENT OF ANY DEFAULT HAPPENING ON THE PART O F THE ASIA HEART FOUNDATION DURING THE LEASE PERIOD OF 25 YEARS. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE TRUST I.E. ASIA HEART FO UNDATION HAS OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 197(1) OF THE ACT FROM TH E CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON THE RENT AL INCOME OF RS. 88,64,000 UNDER SECTION 1941 OF THE ACT. THIS FORTIFIES THE F ACT THAT THE INTENTION OF BOTH PAGE 8 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 PARTIES TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT DT.28. 1.2008, WAS TO TREAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF' RS. 22.16 CRORES AS A NON-REFUNDABLE DEP OSIT FOR THE LEASE PERIOD OF 25 YEARS. THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TR UST, M/S. ASIA HEART FOUNDATION HAS OFFERED THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS. 88,66 ,000 AS ITS INCOME AS RENTAL RECEIPT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR ITSELF HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE TOO IS TO AMORTISIN G THE AMOUNT OF RS.22.16 CRORES OVER THE PERIOD OF 25 YEARS AND HAS AMORTISE D RS.88,64,000 IN THIS YEAR; BEING 1/25 TH OF RS.22.16 CRORES. THE JUDICIA L DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY REVENUE, WE FIND, ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER WHILE HOLDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITH WHICH FINDINGS WE CONCUR. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS RELEVANT TO EXTRACT THE OPERATIONAL PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO CLARIFY THE FACTUAL POSITI ON ON THIS ISSUES AT PARAS 3.5 TO 3.9 THEREOF :- 3.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SUB MISSIONS AND ALSO ALSO PERUSED ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORT, ETC. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RENTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.88,64,000/- FOR THE FOL LOWING REASON :- 1,) THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN AN INTEREST FREE LOAN T O THE FOUNDATION FOR 25 YEARS IN LIEU OF WHICH IT HAS ACQUIRED THE RIGHT TO MANAGE THE HOSPITAL. II) THE FOUNDATION HAS ALSO NOT TREATED THE PROPORT IONATE AMOUNT AS INCOME BUT HAS TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED B Y IT AS INTEREST FREE LOAN. III) EVEN AFTER 10 YEARS IT IS ONLY FOR ACQUIRING L EASEHOLD RIGHTS AND, HENCE, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR WRITE OFF OF EITHER IN THE FIRST 10 YEARS OR EVEN THEREAFTER. 3.6 AS REGARDS THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD ENTERED INTO A MANAGEMENT AGR EEMENT DT. 28.1.2008 WITHIN THE FOUNDATION TO OPERATE AND MANA GE THE HOSPITAL AT KOLKATA FOR A TOTAL LEASE PERIOD OF 25 YEARS. AS PE R THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE APPELLANT PAID AN AMOUNT OF PAGE 9 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 RS.22,16,00,000 AS DEPOSIT FOR SECURING THE RIGHTS OVER THE EXISTING HOSPITAL TILL THE LEASE PERIOD OF 25 YEARS. THE DEP OSIT IS NOT REFUNDABLE AFTER 25 YEARS. THE APPELLANT AMORTISED THE SAID LE ASE DEPOSIT OF RS.22, 16,00,000 PROPORTIONATELY OVER A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS . AS PER THE AGREEMENT, YEAR ENDED 31.3.2009 IS THE FIRST YEAR O F LEASE AND, THEREFORE, IT AMORTISED A SUM OF RS. 88,64, 000 BEI NG 1125 TH OF THE LEASE AMOUNT OF RS. 22, 16,00,000 AND TREATED THE S AME AS RENT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3.7 A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAUSES IN THE M ANAGEMENT AGREEMENT SHOWS THAT, ACCORDING TO ONE OF THE TERMS, THE DEPO SIT OF RS.22,16,00,000 PAID BY IT IS REFUNDABLE ONLY, IN T HE EVENT OF ANY DEFAULT HAPPENING ON THE PART OF THE FOUNDATION DUR ING THE LEASE PERIOD OF 25 YEARS AND AS SUCH IT IS CONTINGENT CLAUSE. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE LOOKED INTO THE INTENTION OF THE APPE LLANT TO TAKE THE PROPERTY ON LEASE FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF 25 YEARS AND OPTION RENEWING THE SAID AGREEMENT HAS TO BE READ AS A WHOLE AND T/ INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES HAVE TO HE LOOKED INTO AND NOT IN BITS AND PIECES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE FOUNDATION HAS TREATE D THE SUM OF RS.88,64,000 IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS RENTAL RECE IPT AND, ACCORDINGLY, OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE A.O (TDS) CONCERNED FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON RENT VIDE CERTIFICATE DT. 31/3/2009. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.8 FROM A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPE LLANT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INTENTION OF BOTH PARTIES TO THE AGR EEMENT WAS TO CONTINUE TO LEASE FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS AND AO H AS RELIED ON CLAUSES, WHICH ARE DETERRENT AND COME INTO EFFECT O NLY IN CASE OF DEFAULT. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ANY AGREEMENT REQUIRES TO BE READ HARMONIOUSLY AND THE TRANSACTION IS COMMERCIAL IN N ATURE AND FOR BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. IN ANY COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION, RESTRICTIVE, CONTINGENT AND PENAL CLAUSES ARE PLACED IN THE AGRE EMENT IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE PARTIES TO THE INSTRU MENT IN THE EVENT OF CONTINGENCIES TAKING PLACE. MAKING THE CONTINGENT C OVENANTS AS THE MAIN ISSUE IS NOT IN ORDER. THUS, WHEN AN AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO, THE PITH AND SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS TO B E LOOKED INTO AND ALSO TO CONSIDER THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES. AS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES IS VERY, CLEAR FROM TH EIR CONDUCT THAT THE LEASE IS FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS, THE APPELLANT WA S RIGHT IN LAW TO PAGE 10 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 AMORTISE THE LEASE DEPOSIT OVER A PERIOD OF 25 YEAR S I.E. RS. 88,64, 000 PER YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON CERTAIN J UDICIAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE AND MADE ELABORATE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE AND DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS CLAUSE S IN THE AGREEMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE ARE DETERRENT A ND CONTINGENT IN NATURE. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED IS TO BE GRANTED ON T HE SUBJECT MAILER OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH, IN MY VIEW, IS THAT THE A PPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE HOSPITAL ON LEASE FOR 25 YEARS AND NO AMOUNT IS REFUNDABLE 10 THE APPELLANT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LEASE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE FOUNDATION IS COMMERCIAL IN NATURE AND THE INTENTION OF THE PARTI ES IS FOR TAKING THE HOSPITAL PREMISES FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS. THEREFO RE, THE PITH AND SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION HAS TO BE LOOKED INTO AS HELD IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO POINT O UT THAT THE FOUNDATION HAS ALSO OFFERED THIS AMOUNT AS ITS INCO ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THEREFORE, RIGHT IN AMORTISING THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 22,16,00,000 AND APPORTIONING 1125 TH THEREOF I.E. RS. 88,64,000 TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. 3.9 THE ASSESSING OFFICER 'S INFERENCE THAT THE FOU NDATION HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22,16,00,000 AS AN INTERE ST FREE LOAN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE A MOUNT IS A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE, IS INCORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUC ED COPIES OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED &V THE FOUNDATION WHEREI N IT HAS REDUCED FROM THE ADVANCE OF RS.22,16,00,000 A SUM OF RS.1,0 3,41,333 COMPRISING RS.14, 77,333 BEING RENT FOR 2 MONTHS PE RTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND RENT OF RS. 88 64,000 P ERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND SHOWN THE BALANCE D UE TO THE APPELLANT AT RS.21,12,58,667 AS ON 31.3.2009. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE FOUNDATION HAS COUNTED THE SUM OF RS.1,03,41,3 33 AS INCOME FROM RENT IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFOR E, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 'S CONCLUSION THAT THE SUM OF RS.21,16,00 ,000 IS AN INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM THE APPELLANT TO THE FOUNDATION IS BASELESS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CONCLUSION THAT THE FOUNDATION CANNOT WRITE OFF THE AMOUNT OF RS.22,16,00,000 OVE R A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS OR EVEN THEREAFTER ON THE GROUND THAT ILLS C APITAL IN NATURE IS ALSO INCORRECT SINCE THE APPELLANT IS HOUND TO RETU RN THE PROPERTY TO THE FOUNDATION ON EXPIRY OF THE LEASE. 6.3.2 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT( A) ('SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S INFERENCE THAT THE AMOUNT O F RS.22.16 CRORES IS AN INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. ASIA H EART FOUNDATION IS /ACTUALLY UNSUSTAINABLE: AS IS THE ASSESSING OFFICE R 'S CONCLUSION THAT THE LESSOR OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT WRITE OFF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22.16 CRORES OVER THE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS AND THEREAFTER, SINCE IT IS CAPITAL IN NATURE IS ALSO FACTUALLY INCORRECT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY B OUND TO RETURN POSSESSION OF THE HOSPITAL PROPERTY TO M/S. ASIA HEART FOUNDAT ION AFTER THE LEASE PERIOD IS OVER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW PAGE 11 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS GROUNDS 2 AND 3 RAISED BY REVENUE ON THE ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEES CLA IM AMORTISATION OF LEASE RENTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 88,64, 000 DURING T HE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3.6 IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE VIEW TAKEN BY T HIS TRIBUNAL . ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS CONS IDERED BY THE CO-ORDIANTE BENCH FOR ASST. YEAR 2009-10 AND THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE VIE W TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NUMBER 2 RAISED BY REVENUE IN BO TH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION STANDS DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO.3 IS IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS OF MODERN MEDICAL INSTITUTE OF SOC IETY, RAIPUR. 5. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID SUM O F 46.25 LAKHS FOR ACQUIRING THE RIGHTS TO OPERATE AND MANAG E THE SAID HOSPITAL VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 23/07/2011 FOR A PERI OD OF 20 YEARS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS PAYMENT HAS LED TO AC QUISITION OF AN ASSET AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE CAPITALISED. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PA YMENT MADE TO MODERN MEDICAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIETY, RAIPUR IS IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO ASIA HEART FOUND ATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MONEY PAID TO MODERN MEDICAL INS TITUTE OF SOCIETY, RAIPUR IS TREATED AS RENT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BY AMORTISING THE SAID TOTAL AMOUNT FOR A PERIOD OF 20 YEARS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO ASIA HEART FOUNDATION IN THE PRECED ING PAGE 12 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE SAID PA YMENT ALSO. HE RELIED ON THE OBSERVATIONS BY COORDINATE BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL FOR CONSIDERING THE ISSUES SIMILAR TO ASIAN HEART F OUNDATION IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6.1 WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED WERE BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 6.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED BEFORE US THE AGREEMENT DATED 23/07/2011 ENTERED INTO WITH THE MODERN MEDICAL INS TITUTE SOCIETY. 6.3 ADMITTEDLY THE LAUNDRY OBSERVES THAT THE SAID P AYMENT IS MADE BY ASSESSEE TO OPERATE AND MANAGE MODERN MEDIC AL INSTITUTE OF SOCIETY, FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS WITH AN EXTENSION OF FIVE YEARS . IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THE CONSID ERATION PAYABLE BY ASSESSEE TO MODERN MEDICAL INSTITUTE IS 2.5% PER ANNUM OF THE GROSS REVENUE FOR EACH FINANCIAL YEAR OF HOSPIT AL OR 1.25 CRORE PER ANNUM WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. IT HAS ALSO BEEN AGR EED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT IN THE FIRST YEAR 2.5% OF THE GROS S REVENUE SHALL BE PAYABLE BY ASSESSEE AS IN ADVANCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS PAID SUM OF 1.25 CRORE WHICH STANDS ADJUSTED TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF OUTSTANDING LOANS AS A PRECONDITION. IT IS ALSO AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT, ALL PAYMENT MADE BY ASSES SEE TO MODERN MEDICAL INSTITUTE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. WE NOTE THAT THE AMORTISATION AMOUNT PAID T O MODERN MEDICAL INSTITUTE IS DIFFERENT FOR EVERY YEAR. UNDE R SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW THE AMORTISATION AMOUNT IS DETER MINED BY ASSESSEE FOR EVERY YEAR NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED IN TER MS OF THE PAYMENT CONDITION AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. WE TH EREFORE REMAND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE LD.AO FOR VERIFICATIO N OF THE PAGE 13 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 WORKING. WE ALSO DIRECT THE LD.AO TO APPLY THE PRIN CIPLE LAID DOWN BY COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING THE PAYMENT MADE BY ASSESSEE TO ASIAN HEART FOUNDATION. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY REVENUE STANDS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSI DERATION. 7. GROUND NO.4 HAS BEEN ALLEGED BY REVENUE AGAINST DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPON SIBILITY. 7.1 THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO NEXUS BETW EEN THE CSR EXPENDITURE MADE BY ASSESSEE WITH THAT OF ASSES SEES BUSINESS. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUS IVELY FOR THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT. THE LD.DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD.AO. 7.2 ON THE CONTRARY THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PA YMENT MADE DURING ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION TO WARDS CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY WILL NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 37(1). IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT DURIN G ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE INCUR RED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS RUNNING FREE CLINICS AND MEDICA L TREATMENT CAMPS AT AMEATHI IN UTTAR PRADESH. HE FURTHER POINT ED OUT THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES FOR ASSESSMENT AY 2009-10 AND 2010-11 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WAS DELETED BY COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL . 7.3 WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED WERE BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 7.4 WE NOTE THAT, IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS , COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.564 AND 969/B/2012 OBSERVED AND DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE AS UNDER: PAGE 14 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM AN APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS ON RECORD ON THIS ISSUE T HAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED EITHER THE STATED REASONS FOR INCURRING TH E CSR EXPENDITURE OR THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED. TH E ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISH ED THAT THE SAID CSR EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPENDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.92,01,010 FOR CONDUCTING MEDICAL CAMPS AND CLINI CS AT AMETHI; WHICH INCLUDES THE COST OF MEDICINES, DOCTORS FEES ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES AND O PERATING HOSPITALS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE CSR EXPENDITURE OF RS.92,01,010 INCURRED ON MEDICAL CAMPS AND CLINICS AT AMETHI; BEING IN THE SAME LINE OF PROVIDING MEDICAL SERVICES AS IS THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT CLEARLY APPEARS TO BE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF FURTHERANCE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ONLY. THUS, T HE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CSR, IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE ON HAND IS, IN OUR OPINION, ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AS PER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.4 OF REVENUE'S APPEAL DISMISSED. 7.5 FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS NOT THE CAS E REVENUE THAT EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED. AS THE FACTS AR E IDENTICAL, AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CSR ARE OF SIMILAR NATURE, IN OUR OPINION THEY ARE ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT, AS IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY INCURRED FOR FURTHE RANCE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH H EREIN ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS RAISED BY REVENUE FOR BO TH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION STANDS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.5 IS ALLEGED BY REVENUE AGAINST DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION OF LEAVE SALARY EXPENSES. 8.1 THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT, ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED THE SUM TOWARDS PROVISION MADE BY ASSESSEE FOR LEAVE SA LARY PAGE 15 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 43B (F), FOR THE REASON THAT , THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACTUALLY PAID. THE LD.AO HOWEVER FOR ASSES SMENT AY 2014-15 RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE AMOUNT T HAT WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.AR RELIED ON OBSERVATIONS O F LD.CIT(A). 8.2 WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN THE LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 8.3 THIS ISSUE NOW SAND SETTLE AGAINST ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF UOI VS. EXIDE INDUSTRIES REPORTED IN 116 TAXMAN.COM 378. HONBLE SUPREME COURT UPHELD CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY FOR THE ALLOWABILITY OF DED UCTION FOR LEAVE ENCASHMENT UNDER SECTION 43B(F) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961, ON PAYMENT BASIS. 8.4 WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE LD.AO TO COMPUTE THE DI SALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF UNPAID AMOUNT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATIO OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS RAISED BY REVENUE FOR BO TH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION STANDS ALLOWED. ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 9. THE ONLY ISSUE ALLEGED BY ASSESSEE IS IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM RAISED UNDER SECTION 35AD OF THE ACT. 9.1 AUTHORITIES BELOW REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSE E AS IT WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE LD.AO BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN. 9.2 WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOT H SIDES AND RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. 9.3 SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD VS.CIT REPORTED IN 157 TAXMAN 1. THE PAGE 16 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 HONBLE COURT HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION NOT MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OTHERWISE THAN BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. THE COURT ALSO HEL D THAT THE DECISION DOES NOT IMPINGE UPON THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. 9.4 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE RATIO, WE REMA ND THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE LD.AO FOR CONSIDERATION. THE LD.AO SHAL L VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BASED ON THE DETAILS FILED BY ASS ESSEE. THE LD.AO SHALL THEN CONSIDER THE CLAIM ON ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE STANDS PARTL Y ALLOWED AND APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUG, 2021 SD/- SD/- (B. R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 24 TH AUG, 2021. /VMS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE PAGE 17 OF 17 ITA NO.1679, 1684 & 1685/BANG/2019 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -08-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -08-2021 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -08-2021 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -08-2021 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -08-2021 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -08-2021 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -08-2021 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS