M/s Mindtree Ltd., Bangalore V. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 176/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7057 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Scheme of amalgamation
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A NO. 277 /BANG/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 9 - 1 0 M/S. MINDTREE LTD., (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. AZTECSOFT LTD., NOW MERGED WITH M/S. MINDTREE LTD.), GLOBAL VILLAGE, R.V.C.E POST, MYLASANDRA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 059. PAN: AABCA2122R VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A NO. 176/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 M/S. MINDTREE LTD., (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. AZTECSOFT LTD., NOW MERGED WITH M/S. MINDTREE LTD.), GLOBAL VILLAGE, R.V.C.E POST, MYLASANDRA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 059. PAN: AABCA2122R VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 .1 2 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 .1 2 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER; BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E SAME A. Y. 2009 10. FIRST APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DA TED 07.02.2014 PASSED BY THE AO FOR U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE IT ACT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP. THE SECOND APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT (LTU) DATED 01.02.2016 IT(TP)A NOS. 277/BANG/2014 & 176/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 7 U/S 263 FOR SAME YEAR AND THIS REVISION ORDER U/S 2 63 IS AGAINST THE SAME ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE FIRST APPEAL IS FILED. 2. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH IS AS UNDER. APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM 36B: GROUND NO. X THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF AZTECS OFT LTD., THOUGH THE SAID ENTITY WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AS ON T HE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I.E., 16.10.2012. HE HAS F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PASSING AN ASSESSMENT ORDER ON A NON-EXISTENT ENTITY IS VOID AND AN INCURABLE DEFECT IN THE EYES OF LAW. 3. IN THE SECOND APPEAL, SIMILAR ISSUE IS RAISED AS PER GROUND NO. (III). THIS READS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN PASSING THE REVISIONARYT ORDER IN THE NAME OF AZTECSOFT LT D., THOUGH THE SAID ENTITY WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AS ON THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE SAID ORDER I.E. 01.02.2016. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT ON P AGES 113 TO 143 OF PAPER BOOK IS COPY OF SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OF AZTECSOFT LTD. WITH MINDTREE LTD. AND ON PAGES 144 TO 154 OF PAPER BOOK IS THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.06.2009 OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN COMPANY PETITION NO . 09 OF 2009 SANCTIONING THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF FORM 21 FILED BY MINDTREE LTD. TO REGISTRAR OF COMPANY INTIMATING TH E SANCTION OF SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION ON 17.06.2009 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 15 5 TO 159 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SIMILARLY, COPY OF FO RM 21 FILED BY AZTECSOFT LTD. TO REGISTRAR OF COMPANY INTIMATING THE SANCTION OF SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION ON 17.06.2009 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 160 TO 164 OF PAPE R BOOK. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NO. 165 OF PAPER BOOK IS COP Y OF LETTER ALONG WITH THE COURT ORDER INTIMATING THE SANCTION OF SCHEME OF AM ALGAMATION FILED BEFORE AO I.E. DCIT, CIRCLE 11 (1) DATED 23.07.2009 FILED ON 24.07.2009. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PA SSED BY THE AO ON 07.02.2014 I.E. MUCH AFTER THE MERGER DATE AND THE DATE OF INTIMATION OF MERGER AND THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE MERGED ENTITY IT(TP)A NOS. 277/BANG/2014 & 176/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 7 AZTECSOFT LTD. ALTHOUGH IT IS STATED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THAT THIS COMPANY IS NOW MERGED WITH MINDTREE LTD. AND THEREFORE, THIS I S APPARENT THAT THE FACT OF MERGER IS VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF AO. THEREA FTER, HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 WAS PASSED BY THE C IT ON 01.02.2016 I.E. MUCH AFTER THE MERGER DATE AND THE DATE OF INTIMATI ON OF MERGER AND THE SAID ORDER IS ALSO PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE MERGED ENTI TY AZTECSOFT LTD. ALTHOUGH IT IS STATED IN THIS ORDER ALSO THAT THIS COMPANY IS N OW MERGED WITH MINDTREE LTD. AND THEREFORE, THIS IS APPARENT THAT THE FACT OF ME RGER IS VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF CIT ALSO. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THES E FACTS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REVISIONARY ORDER ARE BAD IN LAW AND IT SHOULD BE QUASHED AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS . MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. WHICH IS SUCCESSOR OF M/S. SUZUKI POWERTRAIN INDIA LTD. AS REPORTED IN 397 ITR 681 (DELHI). HE ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SPICE ENFOTAIN MENT LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2014 DATED 02.11.2017 AND PLACED RELIANC E ON IT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. HE ALS O SUBMITTED COPY OF A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. SUCCESSOR IN INTER EST TO M/S. SOFTWARE & SILICON SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. IN ITA NOS. 499 & 500/2009 DATED 03.03.2015 AND PLAC3ED RELIANCE ON IT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS C ASE ALSO, IT WAS HELD BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED IN THE MERGED ENTITY NAME IS NOT VALID IN LAW AND SAME WAS QUASHE D ALTHOUGH IT WAS HELD THAT DEPARTMENT MAY PROCEED FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE NAME OF NEW ENTITY IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF TH E IT ACT, 1961. 5. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE VALID ITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 7.2.2014 IN THE NAME OF M/S AZTECSO FT LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH M/S MINDTREE LIMITED) BY FILING ADDITIO NAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION ISSUE IN ANY OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS, NEITHER DU RING THE ASSESSMENT IT(TP)A NOS. 277/BANG/2014 & 176/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 7 PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE DRP PROCEEDINGS. 3. IT MAY KINDLY BE NOTED THAT THE NAME OF THE ASSE SSEE IN THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2009-10 IS MENTIONED AS M/S AZTECSOFT LTD (NOW MERGED WITH M/S MIND TREE LTD). THE ADDRES S OF THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS 'GLOB AL VILLAGE, RVCE POST, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560059'. THIS IS THE C ORRECT ADDRESS OF SUCCESSOR ENTITY M/S MIND TREE LTD AND NOT OF ERSTW HILE ENTITY M/S AZTECHSOFT LTD. IT MEANS THAT THE EVENT OF MERGER O F ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN DULY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE FINAL ASSESSMEN T ORDER IS QUOTED BELOW. 'AZTECHSOFT LIMITED (AZTECH FOR SHORT), INCORPORATE D IN 1995, NOW MERGED WITH MINDTREE LIMITED WAS THE PRINCIPAL HOLDING COMPANY OF AZTECH DISHA INC AND AZTECH US.' IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IS INDEED PASSED IN THE NAME OF SUCCESSOR COMPANY WHEREIN THE NAME, ADDRESS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY MENTIONED. 4. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED I TS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2009 IN THE NAME M/S AZTECH SOFT LT D. FOR A.Y. 2008-09 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS. NIL AND BOOK PROFI T AT RS. 56279720/- AND CLAIMING A REFUND OF RS. 2,94,90,370 /-. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY GOT MERGED WITH MINDTREE LIMITED W ITH APPOINTED DATE OF 01/04/2009 AS APPROVED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 09/06/2009. THUS, TILL 31.03.2009, AZTE CH SOFT LTD HAD SEPARATE EXISTENCE. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTIO N IS WITH REGARD TO FINANCIAL AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR F. Y. 2008-09. NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY ON 20/08/2010 SELECTING THE CASE FOR SCRUTINY OF THE R ETURN FILED IN THE NAME OF M/S. AZTECH SOFT LTD ON 30.09.2009. THE S AME WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER A LETTER DT 27/8/20 10 WAS ISSUED WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF REFUND. IN RESPONSE THE AS SESSEE COMPANY FILED REPLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE LETTER AND FILED THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS IN THE NAME OF AZTEC SOFT. THE LETTER WA S SIGNED BY SRI RAGHUNATH R AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY. HOWEVER THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE EVENT OF MERGER IN THE LETTER (ENCLOSURE 1) 5. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE REFUND CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 30/11/2010, WHICH IS SUBSEQUEN T TO THE DATE OF MERGER, IN THE NAME OF AZTECH SOFT LIMITED. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED FOR THE SAME WHILE ACCEPTING THE REFUN D WHICH WAS ADJUSTED TOWARDS ARREAR DEMAND. 6. SUBSEQUENT NOTICES U/S 142(1) HAVE BEEN ISSUED I N THE NAME OF M/S AZTECH SOFT LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH MINDTREE L IMITED) AND IT(TP)A NOS. 277/BANG/2014 & 176/BANG/2016 PAGE 5 OF 7 ADDRESSED TO REGISTERED ADDRESS OF MINDTREE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR ENTITY). COPY OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 22.1.2013 IS ENCLOSED AS ONE SUCH REFERENCE (ENCLOSURE-2) . IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALL THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES AND ORDERS SUCH AS DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER, DRP ORDER, FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE NAME OF M/S AZTECH SOFT LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH MINDTREE LIMITED) AND ADDRESSED TO REGISTERED ADDRESS OF MINDTREE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR E NTITY). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED RESPONSE IN THE SAME MANNER . ONE SUCH REPLY OF ASSESSEE DATED 15/2/2013 IS ENCLOSED (ENCLOSURE-3) FOR READY REFERENCE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT IN STATING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS NOT VALID. 7. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FACTS ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT TAKE A STAND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON NONEXISTENT ENTI TY. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 170(1) OF THE ACT ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE, AS THE SUCCESSION OF BUSINESS HAS TAKEN PLACE BY WAY OF ME RGER AND THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF MERGER IS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND ADDRESSES TO THE SUCCESSOR COMPANY. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT TH AT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE AFTER RECORDING THE FACT OF MERGER AN D MINDTREE LTD BEING THE SUCCESSOR, ALL THE LIABILITIES STAND TRAN SFERRED TO IT POST MERGER. 9. THE HON'BLE ITAT, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF TRISH ULBUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD VS JCIT, ITA NO.S 1362 & 13 67/BANG/2013 DATED 20.02.2015 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REV ENUE IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. THE RELEVANT PARA IS EXTRACTED AS UN DER. '25 IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PROVISIONS OF S.170(1) THAT IF THERE IS A SUCCESSION IN THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE, THE PREDECESSOR HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCCESSION TOOK PLACE UP TO THE DATE OF SUCCESSION. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITI ON IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THE CONVERSION OF TRISHUL DEVELOPERS THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS AS LIMITED COMPA NY BY NAME TBIPL TOOK PLACE ON 1.2.2010. THEREFORE, FO R A.YS 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08, ONLY TRISHUL DEVELOPERS WILL HAVE TO BE ASSESSED. THE PROVISIONS OF S.170(2) CANNOT BE INVOLVED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON T HAT THE ERSTWHILE FIRM FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND W AS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE. S. 170(2) IS ATTRACTED ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE PREDECESSOR 'CANNOT BE FOUND'. IN OU R OPINION, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CONTEN TIONS IN THIS REGARD PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE.' 10. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INTEL TECHNOLOGY (2015) 57 TAXMANN.COM 159 AND HON'BLE ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S. GE MEDICAL SYSTEM S (INDIA) PVT. LTD., (SINCE MERGED WITH WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PVT. L TD.) IT(TP)A. IT(TP)A NOS. 277/BANG/2014 & 176/BANG/2016 PAGE 6 OF 7 NO.328/BANG/2015 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. BECAUSE, IN THOSE CASES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED IN THE NAME OF NONEXISTENT COMPANIES WITHOUT CONSIDERING T HE EVENT OF MERGER AND EVEN WHEN THERE WAS INTIMATION OF SUCH M ERGER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS MENTIONED IN EARLIER PARAGRAPHS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE NAME OF M/S AZTECH SOFT LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH MINDTREE L IMITED) DULY CONSIDERING THE EVENT OF MERGER AND CLEARLY BRINGIN G THE FACT OF MERGER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 11. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION BROUGHT OUT IN ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE A SSESSEE'S ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE LD. DR OF REVENUE AS REPRO DUCED ABOVE, THIS IS THE MAIN CONTENTION THAT SINCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ALONG WITH THE NAME OF THE MERGED COMPANY, THE NAME OF THE SUCCESSOR COMPANY I S ALSO MENTIONED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED IN THE NAME OF THE MERGED COMPANY. REGARDING THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR O F REVENUE, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT VS. MARUTISUZUKI INDIA LT D. (SUPRA) ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE NAME OF M/S. SUZ UKI POWERTRAIN INDIA LTD. (AMALGAMATED WITH MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.) AS NOTE D BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CITED JUDGMENT. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THA T IN THAT CASE ALSO, FACTS ARE SAME AND STILL THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE BY FOLLOWING ANOTHER JUDGME NT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LT D. VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN 247 CTR 500 (DELHI). THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT. HENCE IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, WE HOLD BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REVISIONARY ORDER U/S 263 FRAMED IN THE PRESENT CASE IN THE NAME OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY ARE BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME ARE QUASHED ALTHOUGH WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE DEPARTME NT MAY PROCEED FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF MERGED COMPANY I.E . MINDTREE LTD. IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THE I T ACT, 1961, AS WAS HELD BY IT(TP)A NOS. 277/BANG/2014 & 176/BANG/2016 PAGE 7 OF 7 HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. M/S . INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). 7. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN ONE APPEAL AND GROUND NO. (III) IN THE SECOND APPEAL, O THER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL MEMO ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS QUASHED, NO FURTHER ISSU E REMAINS TO BE DECIDED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (LALIT KUMAR) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 08 TH DECEMBER, 2017. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.