Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Gulbarga V. Shri Shivashankarappa , Gulbarga

ITA 170/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7607 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DIVAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIBHA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Assessment record; Tax effect; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54B; 148; 54; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, B ENGALURU BEFORE S HRI N.V.VASUDEVAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO. 170 / BANG/2 0 1 7 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 06 ) INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, BENGALURU. VS. APPELLANT SHRI SHIVASHANKARAPPA, S/O SIDRAMAPPA PATIL, IN RESPECT OF VILLAGE KUSNOOR, GULBARGA. PAN: BEJPS 1791 A RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.DIVAKAR, ADDL.CIT (DR). RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PRATIBHA, ADVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 11/07/2018 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 /07/2018 O R D E R PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), GULBARGA, RELATING TO AY 2005 - 06. 2. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT ON 12.1.2005, THE ASSESSEE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL SOLD HIS SHARE IN LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE WAS A SUM AS COMPUTED BY THE AO WAS RS.15,09,418/ - . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN IN QUESTION IS NO T LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO TAX BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). THE SAID PROVISION READS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO . 170 /BANG/20 17 PAGE 2 OF 7 CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CERTAIN CASES. 54B. (1) SU BJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (2), WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHICH, IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING C HARGED TO INCOME - TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, ( I ) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS GREATER THAN THE COST OF TH E LAND SO PURCHASED ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT 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 PURCHASE, THE COST SHALL BE NIL ; OR ( II ) IF THE AMOUNT OF TH E 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 RESPE CT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE, THE COST SHALL BE REDUCED, BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN.] (2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE P URCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET 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 THAN 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 BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB - SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEM ED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET: ITA NO . 170 /BANG/20 17 PAGE 3 OF 7 PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION IS NOT UTILISED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB - SECTION (1), THEN, ( I ) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILISED SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES; AND ( I I )THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SUCH AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID. 3. SECTION 54B GIVES RELIEF TO A TAXPAYER WHO SELLS HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS HE ACQUIRES ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND. FOLLOWIN G CONDITIONS SHOULD BE SATISFIED TO CL AIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B: (A) THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HUF . (B) THE ASSET TRANSFERRED SHOULD BE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LAND MAY BE A LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET OR SHORT - T ERM CAPITAL ASSET. (C ) THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SHOULD BE USED BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AT LEAST FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IN CASE OF HUF THE LAND SHOULD BE USED BY ANY MEMBER OF HUF. ( D) WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF OLD LAND THE TAXPAYER SHOULD ACQUIRE ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE SATISFIED ALL THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. AS PER SEC.54B(2) OF THE ACT, IF TH E CAPITAL GAIN IS NOT UTILIZED IN PURCHASING ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 , THE ASSESSEE IS R EQUIRED TO DEPOSIT BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN THE UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN IN BANK ACCOUNT AS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY THE RULES FOR THIS PURPOSE. SUCH DEPOSIT SHOULD BE MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE DEPOSIT OF UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN IN A SPECIFIED ACCOUN T AND THEREFORE THE AO DENIED THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S.54B OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO . 170 /BANG/20 17 PAGE 4 OF 7 5. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE UNUTILIZED CAPITAL GAIN IN A SPECIFIED ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE NEVERTHELESS ACQUIRED ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND ON OR BEFORE THE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(4) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) THEREFORE HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THE CONDITION LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PART OF SEC.54B(2) OF THE ACT, THE QUESTION OF DEPOSIT UNDER THE SECOND PART OF SEC.54B(2) OF THE ACT WAS IMMATERIAL AND THEREFORE HE HELD THAT THE EXEMPTI ON CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. IN DOING SO, THE CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAGRITI AGARWALA 339 ITR 610 (P & H). IN THE AFORESAID CASE ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.54F(4) OF THE ACT, WHICH ARE PARI MATERIAL THE SAME AS SEC.54B(2) OF THE ACT, THAT T HOUGH S. 54F(4) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE AMOUNT NOT APPROPRIATED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET HAS TO BE DEPOSI TED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(1), SUB - SECTION (4) OF S. 139 IS IN THE NATURE OF A PROVISO TO S. 139(1). S. 139(4) PROVIDES THAT A PERSON WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED TO H IM UNDER S. 139(1) MAY FURNISH THE RETURN AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. FOR AY 2007 - 08, THE LAST DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(4) IS 31.3.2009. THIS EXTENDED TIME LIMIT IS AVAILABLE FOR MAKING DEPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE CONSIDERATION IN PURCHASE OF A NEW HOUSE BEFORE THAT DATE, THE EXEMPTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THE FOLLOWING WERE TH E RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD: 3.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPE LLANT AND I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54B OF THE ACT BY THE AO. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AS REGARDS THE NATURE OF ASSET SOLD AND THE ITA NO . 170 /BANG/20 17 PAGE 5 OF 7 NATURE OF ASSET IN WHICH THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS ARI SING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED TRANSFER IN PURCHASING ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND (NEW ASSET). HERE THE MUTE POINT IS THE DATE OF INVESTMENT UNDER SEC. 54B OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBJECT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS. THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - II, CHANDIGARH V. MS. JAGRITI AGGARWAL (2011) 339ITR610 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) WHILE DEALING WITH THE AL LOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT UNDER SIMILAR SET OF FACT S HAS HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE IN THAT CASE IS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION EVEN THOUGH THE INVESTMENT IS MADE BEFORE THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED U/S. 139(4). IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(4) OF THE ACT IS 31.03.2007 OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. AS OBSERVED BY THE AO IN PAGE 4 OF THE ASST. ORDER THE APPELLANT HAS INVESTED IN THE NEW ASSET IN PURCHASING OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS ON 20.04.2006 WHICH IS ABOUT ELEVEN MONTHS BE FORE THE DUE DATE OF 31.03.2007 SPECIFIED U/S. 139(4) OF THE ACT IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (SUPRA), I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HEREIN IS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S. 54B OF THE ACT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S. 54B OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS.15,09,418/ - . THUS, GROUND NOS.1, 2 & 3 ARE ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ THUS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND OF THE CASE. 2. IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS) E RRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF IT ACT OF RS. 15,09,418/ - EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE UNUTILIZED AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN INTO THE CAPITAL GAIN DEPOSIT ACCOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DUE D ATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF IT ACT. 3. IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF IT ACT OF RS. 1 5,09,418/ - RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB & HARAYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - IT, CHANDIGARH VS JAGRATI AGRAWAL (2011) 339 ITR 610 (PUNJAB & HARAYANA) EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT FACTS & CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR REASONS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO . 170 /BANG/20 17 PAGE 6 OF 7 NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME VOLUNTARILY UNDER SECTION 139(1) AND 139(4) OF IT ACT AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ONLY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED ON 19.05.2009, HOWEV ER, IT WAS NOT SO IN THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON. 4. IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF IT ACT OF RS. 15,09,418/ - BY WR ONGLY INTERPRETING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54B(2) OF IT ACT WHICH CLEARLY SAYS THAT CAPITAL GAIN DEPOSIT SHOULD BE MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB - SECTION (1 ) OF SECTION 139 OF IT ACT. 5. THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS BS2,91,884L:884/ - WHICH IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT TO FILE FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, FURTHER APPEAL IS BEING FILED IN THIS CASE FOR THE REASONS THAT THE CASE FA LLS UNDER THE EXCEPTION OF BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO. 21/2015 DATED 10/12/2015 WHICH SAYS WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT OR RULE ARE UNDER CHALLENGE, ADVERSE JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B(2) OF IT ACT HAVE WRONGLY INTERPRETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH IN - TURN REPRESENTS THE CHALLENGE OF VALIDITY OF PROVISION OF SECTION 54B(2) OF IT ACT. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING? 7. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN RS.10 LACS WHICH IS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS LAID DOWN BY THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015. SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LACS, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN LIM INE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE LEARNED DR POINTED OUT THAT IN GR.NO.5, THE REVENUE HAS SPECIFICALLY PLEADED THAT DESPITE THE FACT THAT TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LACS, THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE AS THE PRESENT CASE FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION SET OUT IN CL AUSE 8 (A) OF THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR WHICH LAYS DOWN AS FOLLOWS: 8. ADVERSE JUDGMENTS RELATING TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES SHOULD BE CONTESTED ON MERITS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT ENTAILED ITA NO . 170 /BANG/20 17 PAGE 7 OF 7 IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMITS SPECIFIED IN PARA 3 ABOVE OR THERE IS NO TAX EFFECT: (A) WHERE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT O R RULE ARE UNDER CHALLENGE, OR 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DR AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD IS UNSUSTAINABLE. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT HELD ANY STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEREFORE THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE REVENUE TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE AFORESAID CLAUSE 8 (A) OF THE CIRCULAR. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE P RESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN RS.10 LACS WHICH IS THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS LAID DOWN BY THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10.1 2.2015. SINCE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LACS, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JU LY 2018 S D/ - SD/ - (A.K. GARODIA) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BENGALURU. D A T E D : 20 / 0 7 /201 8 EKS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE