Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore V. M/s. KBD Sugar & Distilleries Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 172/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1080 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B VENKATESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: V CHANDRASEKHAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Earning of tax free income; Source of fund
• Section: 234B; 14A; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 172 & 975 / BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. KBD SUGAR & DISTILLERIES LTD., NO. 17, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 020. PAN: AAACK5851A APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NOS.64/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO.975/BANG/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013 - 14 M/S. KBD SUGAR & DISTILLERIES LTD., NO. 17, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 020. PAN: AAACK5851A VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 [1] [1], BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NOS.65/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO. 1 7 2 /BANG/2017) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 201 2 - 1 3 M/S. KBD SUGAR & DISTILLERIES LTD., NO. 17, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 020. PAN: AAACK5851A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 [2] [1], BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. CHANDRASEKHAR, ADVOCATE RE VENUE BY : SHRI B. VENKATESHWAR RAO, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 2 3 . 0 7 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 . 0 9 .2018 ITA NOS.975 & 172/BANG/2017& C.O. NOS. 64 & 65/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 8 O R D E R PER BENCH BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SE TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-4, BANGALORE BOTH DATED 31.10.2016 FOR ASSES SMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 172/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT WHILE RESTRICTING T HE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.R.8D(2)(III) TO RS.1,06,244/- WHEN THER E IS NO DISTINCT SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT. 2. WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT WHILE HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXCEEDED THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MADE BY IT TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS SO NO DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST IS CALLED FOR U/S.36(I)(III) AS IT IS TO BE PRESUMED T HAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES ARE MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILA BLE WITH THE APPELLANT. FOR THE ABOVE AND ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGE D, ALTERED, SUBSTITUTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IN ITA NO. 975/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT WHILE RESTRICTING T HE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.R.8D(2)(III) TO RS. 1,33,067/- WHEN THE RE IS NO DISTINCT SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT. 2. WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT WHILE HOLDING THAT THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXCEEDED THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES MADE BY IT TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS SO NO DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST IS CALLED FOR U/S.36(I)(III) AS IT IS TO BE PRESUMED T HAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES ARE MADE OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILA BLE WITH THE APPELLANT. FOR THE ABOVE AND ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGE D, ALTERED, SUBSTITUTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NOS.975 & 172/BANG/2017& C.O. NOS. 64 & 65/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 8 4. SIMILARLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN C.O. NO. 65/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX [APPEALS] IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJE CTOR ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NATURAL JUSTICE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR DENIES ITSELF LI ABLE TO BE ASSESSED OVER AND ABOVE THE BUSINESS LOSS REPORTED BY THE RE SPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR OF RS. 27,80,317/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R. W.RULE 8D[2][III] AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,06,244/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER OF RS. 2,20,37,596/- BEING CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST IN R ESPECT OF WORK-IN- PROGRESS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 O F THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER AS PER THE PARITY OF REASONING OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KARANVIR SINGH 349 ITR 692, THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTI ON 234 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FURTHER THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 B OF THE ACT IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AS THE PERIOD, RATE, QUANTUM AND METHOD OF CALCULATION ADOPTED ON WHICH INTEREST IS LEVIED ARE ALL NOT DISCERNABLE AND ARE WRONG ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 6. THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY O F THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION, YOUR RESPON DENT / CROSS OBJECTOR HUMBLY PRAY THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION MAY B E ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2013-14 IN C.O. NO. 64/BANG/2017 ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX [APPEALS] IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJE CTOR ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, NATURAL JUSTICE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ITA NOS.975 & 172/BANG/2017& C.O. NOS. 64 & 65/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 8 CASE. 2.THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR DENIES ITSELF LIA BLE TO BE ASSESSED OVER AND ABOVE THE BUSINESS LOSS REPORTED BY THE RE SPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR OF RS. 68,18,283/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF INVESTMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,88,000/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES [EX GRATIA FOR THE YEAR 2011-12] AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,40,809/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A R. W.RULE 8D[2][III] AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,33,067/- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX [APPEALS ] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER OF RS. 1,20,31,970/- BEING CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST IN R ESPECT OF WORK-IN- PROGRESS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 37 O F THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER AS PER THE PARITY OF REASONING OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KARANVIR SINGH 349 ITR 692, THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST UNDER SECTI ON 234 B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. FURTHER THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 B OF THE ACT IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AS THE PERIOD, RATE, QUANTUM AND METHOD OF CALCULATION ADOPTED ON WHICH INTEREST IS LEVIED ARE ALL NOT DISCERNABLE AND ARE WRONG ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. THE RESPONDENT / CROSS OBJECTOR CRAVES LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY O F THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION, YOUR RESPON DENT / CROSS OBJECTOR HUMBLY PRAY THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION MAY B E ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. ITA NOS.975 & 172/BANG/2017& C.O. NOS. 64 & 65/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 8 6. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IN BOTH THE YEARS WHEREAS THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. REGARDING THE ASSESSEE S CROSS OBJECTIONS, HE SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF CROSS OBJECTI ONS ARE GENERAL. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3 OF THE CO, HE REITERATED THE SAME CONT ENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE CIT(A). REGARDING GROUND NO. 4 OF THE CO, H E FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUN AL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND CIT(A) HAS FOL LOWED THE SAME TRIBUNAL ORDER IN PARA 7.3 OF HIS ORDER. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, WE DECIDE THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, THE RE ARE TWO ISSUED INVOLVED. THE FIRST ISSUE IS REGARDING RESTRICTING THE DISALL OWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.RULE 8D(2)(III) TO RS. 1,06,244/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 2-13 AND RS. 1,33,067/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AS AGAINST HIGHER DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE AO IN BOTH THESE YEARS. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ORDERS OF CIT(A), HE HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.RULE 8 D(2)(III) TO EXEMPT INCOME / DIVIDEND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR HOLDING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CORTECH ENERGY PVT. LTD. AS REPORTED IN 372 ITR 97 AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAKHANI MARKETING AS REPORTED IN 272 CTR 265. IN VIEW OF T HIS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE WE DECLIN E TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 1 IN BOTH THESE YEARS OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEALS IN BOTH THESE YEARS BEING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF INTEREST U/S. 36 (1) (III) WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MAD E BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SIS TER CONCERNS AND THE SAME WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS HAVING HUGE QUANTUM OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS OF RS. 137.76 CRORES DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND RS. 183.28 CRORES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 13-14. AS AGAINST THIS, ITA NOS.975 & 172/BANG/2017& C.O. NOS. 64 & 65/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 8 INTEREST FREE ADVANCES WAS OF RS. 111.04 CRORES DUR ING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND RS. 103.66 CRORES DURING ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013-14. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE INTEREST FREE FUND S AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE HIGHER THAN THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN B Y THE ASSESSEE TO SISTER CONCERNS AND BY NOW, IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IF THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS INTEREST FREE A DVANCES GIVEN BY ASSESSEE TO SISTER CONCERNS THEN IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED THAT SUCH INTEREST FREE ADVANCES GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IS OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE IS JUSTIFIED U/S. 36(1) (III) OF IT ACT. HENCE ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE O RDER OF CIT(A). GROUND NO. 2 IN BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED . 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP THE COS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF THE COS ARE GENERAL FOR WHICH NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. 11. GROUND NO. 3 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND GRO UND NO. 5 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS REGARDING CONFIRMING OF DISALLOWANC E U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D[2] [III] TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A ) BY FOLLOWING TWO JUDGEMENTS OF TWO DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS I.E. THE JU DGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CORTECH ENERGY PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAKHANI MARKETING (SUPRA) AND THERE FORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY THI S ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 12. GROUND NO. 4 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND GRO UND NO. 6 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,20, 37,596/- AND RS. 1,20,31,970/- RESPECTIVELY OUT OF INTEREST EXPENDIT URE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) ON TH E BASIS OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 36(1)(III) BECAUSE THIS WAS FOUND BY LD. CI T(A) THAT THE MONEY WAS ITA NOS.975 & 172/BANG/2017& C.O. NOS. 64 & 65/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 8 BORROWED AS TERM LOANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANSION OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDING ASSETS WERE PART OF THE WORK-IN-P ROGRESS AND THEREFORE, WERE NOT TO PUT TO USE AND HENCE, AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 36 (1) (III), DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE AND THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND N O. 4 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND GROUND NO. 6 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 OF ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS IS REJECTED. 13. THERE IS ONE MORE GROUND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 3-14 I.E. GROUND NO. 3 AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS DISPUTING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 17.88 LAKHS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR DIMINUTION IN TH E VALUE OF INVESTMENTS. THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER PARA 6.3 OF HIS ORDER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WHEREIN CATEGORICAL FINDING IS GIVEN BY CIT (A) THAT AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHIN G ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDEED SUFFERED A LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF SECURITIES. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE SAME MORE IN ANTICIPATION OF A LOSS THAN ACTUAL INCURRING OF THE LOSS. HE HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THI S BASIS THAT THE WRITE OFF IS PREMATURELY DONE AND THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. BEFORE US ALSO, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON R ECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDEED SUFFERED A LOSS ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE O RDER OF CIT(A). THERE IS ONE MORE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN BOTH YEARS REGARDI NG INTEREST U/S. 234B OF IT ACT. THE ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S. 234B IS CONSEQUENT IAL AND THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. 14. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.975 & 172/BANG/2017& C.O. NOS. 64 & 65/BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 8 15. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DA TE MENTI ONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.