DCIT, V. M/s E4E Business Solutions P. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 1763/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8434 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI AK GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMB ER SN IT (TP) A NO. & ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 1763/BANG/2013 (2004-05) THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11(3) BANGALORE. M/S E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MARUTHI CHAMBERS, 17/4C, RUPENA AGRAHARA, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE. 2 1781/BANG/2013 (2004-05) M/S E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MARUTHI CHAMBERS, 17/4C, RUPENA AGRAHARA, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE. PAN AAACI6324A. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11(4) BANGALORE. AND THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE. 3 1764/BANG/2013 (2005-06) THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11(3) BANGALORE. M/S E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MARUTHI CHAMBERS, 17/4C, RUPENA AGRAHARA, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE. 4 1782/BANG/2013 (ASST. YEAR 2005-06) M/S E4E BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY ISEVA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., MARUTHI CHAMBERS, 17/4C, RUPENA AGRAHARA, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-11(4) BANGALORE. AND THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE. REVENUE BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHARATH RAO, CA DATE OF HEARING : 22-2-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-3-2017 IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 2 O R D E R PER SHRI AK GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS BUNCH OF 4 APPEALS INCLUDES CROSS APPEALS BY T HE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 004-05 AND 2005-06 WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMBINED ORD ER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) 1V BANGALORE DATED 8/10/2013. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004- 05 BEING IT(TP)A NO.76383/BANG/2013 (REVENUES APP EAL) AND IT (TP)A NO.1781/BANG/2013 (ASSESSEES APPEAL). 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO .1763 ARE AS UNDER: IT(TP)A NOS. 1763, 1764, 1782/B/13 3 1763, 1764, 1781& IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 4 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA N O.1781 ARE AS UNDER: IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 5 IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 6 5. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEAR NED DR OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO TP ADJUSTMENT HA S BEEN RESTORED BACK BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) TO THE FILE OF THE AO A ND IN THIS REGARD, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA NO.7 OF PAGE NO.22 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). 6. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ENTIRE MATTER OF TP ISSUE IN THIS ASST. YEAR SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AT HIS LEVEL INS TEAD OF RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO/TPO. 7. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO AGREED TO THIS P ROPOSITION PUT FORWARD BY LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. 8. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSEES APPE AL, APART FROM TP ISSUE, THERE ARE SEVERAL GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF C ORPORATE TAX ISSUE ALSO AS PER GROUND NOS. 6 TO 10. 9. REGARDING GROUND NOS.6 TO 9 AND 10(A), 10(B), HE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTION WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT (A). REGARDING GROUND NO.10(C), HE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S HEWLETT-PACKWARD GLOBAL SOFT PVT. LTD., VS. ACIT IN IT(AP)A NO.1455/BANG/2010 DA TED IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 7 11/1/2017. HE SUBMITTED COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDE R AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA NO.13 OF THE TRIBUNAL O RDER, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ACTUAL BUSINESS INCOME WAS THE INCOME ASSESSED AFTER MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABL E U/S 10A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 10. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN RESPECT OF CORPORATE-TAX ISSUE. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION. REGARDING THE TP ISSUES RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND IN ASSESS EES APPEAL, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE THAT LEARNED CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE TP ISSUE AT HIS LEVEL INSTEAD OF RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE TPO FOR A DECISION AS HAS BEEN DONE BY HIM AS PER PARA 7 OF T HE ORDER BEING REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 12. SINCE CIT (A) IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REMIT THE MAT TER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO, WE SET ASIDE ORDER OF THE CIT ( A) ON TP ISSUES IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 8 AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE TP MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE F OR A DECISION AT HIS LEVEL INSTEAD OF REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE AO/TPO. THE LEARNED CIT (A) SHOULD PASS FRESH ORDE R AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO BOTH SIDES. 13. NOW WE DECIDE THE CORPORATE-TAX ISSUES RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL. 14. THE FIRST ISSUE AS PER GROUND NO.6 IS REGARDING CONFIRMING OF PART DISALLOWANCE OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES: 15. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE LEAR NED CIT (A) AS PER PARA NO.5.6 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 16. IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS I S NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY MAINTAIN ED SELF MADE INTERNAL VOUCHERS AND COULD NOT PRODUCE PROPER BILL S SUPPORTING THE IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 9 GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS. WE ALSO NOTED THAT TH E AO OPINED THAT CERTAIN HEADS OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTED TO ENTER TAINING EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH SECTION 37(2A) PRESCRIBED LIM IT FOR ALLOWANCE. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, THE LEARNE D CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF SUCH EXPENSES AS AGAINST 100% DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. CONSI DERING THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.6 OF THE ASSESSEES A PPEAL IS REJECTED. 17. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED IN RESPECT OF CORPORATE -TAX MATTER IS AS PER GROUND NO.7. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THAT TH IS DISALLOWANCE WAS UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BROOKE B OND INDIA LTD. VS. CIT, 225 ITR 798. IT IS NOTED BY THE AO/ CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PAID FEES TO THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE APEX COURT NOTED ABOVE. HENCE, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.7 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALSO REJECTED. IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 10 18. REGARDING GROUND NOS.8 AND 9, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY 50% OF TELECOMMUNICATION EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM EXPORT TURNOVER FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S 10A OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT BECAUSE AS PER EXPLANATION BELOW SUB SEC. 9(A) OF S EC. 10A, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ACCOUNT OF TELECOMMUNICATION CHARGES ETC. ATTRIBUTABLE TO T HE DELIVERY OF ARTICLE/THINGS HAVING INCURRED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM EXPORT TURNOVER. 19. IN VIEW OF THIS CLEAR PROVISION OF THE ACT, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THESE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, GROU ND NOS. 8 AND 9 ARE ALSO REJECTED. 20. REGARDING GROUND10A AND 10B, NOTHING COULD BE P RODUCED BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THERE IS ANY DOUBLE ADJUSTME NT OR ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 10A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THEREFORE, THESE GROUNDS OF ASSE SSEES APPEAL BEING GROUND NO.10(A) AND 10(B) ARE ALSO REJECTED. 21. IN GROUND NO. 10C OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, WE FIND MERIT BECAUSE AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED BY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN PACKWARD GLOBAL SOFT PVT. LTD., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A HEREIN BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE. 22. RESPECTFULLY , THE PRESENT CASE ALSO AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELIEF OR BY THE TRIBUNAL, SH QUANTIFYING THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE 10A OF THE INCOME - 23. THIS MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE DECISION IN THE LIGHT O REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING IT(TP)A NOS. 1763, 1764, 1782/B/13 11 HAVING BEEN RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S HEWLETT PACKWARD GLOBAL SOFT PVT. LTD., HP (SUPRA), T HIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE A S PER PARA NO .13 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE. , FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE HOLD THAT THE PRESENT CASE ALSO , THE PROFIT COMPUTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELIEF , IF ANY, ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) OR BY THE TRIBUNAL, SH OUL D BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTIFYING THE DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION - TAX ACT. THIS MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 1763, 1764, 1781& M/S HEWLETT - HIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED .13 WHICH IS REPRODUCED TRIBUNAL ORDER, WE HOLD THAT IN COMPUTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) D BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDER SECTION THE AO FOR FRESH THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 12 24. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL ALSO, SOME GROUNDS ARE RAISED ON RESPECT OF CORPORATE TAX ISSUES AND THE SAME ARE AS PER GROUND NO.4 TO 6 AND WHICH ARE INTERCONNECTED WITH GROUND NO.6 RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE AOS ACTION WAS NOT CORRECT IN D ISALLOWING THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE WITHOUT GIVING A FINDIN G THAT THE EXPENSES ARE NOT GENUINE OR THAT THE EXPENSES ARE N OT LAID OUT EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 25. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ALREADY CONFIRMED THE D ISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF SUCH EXPENSES BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THOSE EXPENSES AND CONSIDERING FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 26. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS.4,5,6 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 27. REGARDING THE GROUND NO.7 OF THE REVENUES APPE AL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH IS GROUND OF THE REVENUE MAY BE ALLOWED BUT THE AO SHOULD BE DIRECTE D TO CONSIDER THE ENHANCED INCOME AFTER VARIOUS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASS ESSEE U/S 10A AS PER GROUND NO.10(C) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN IT S APPEAL. IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 13 28. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE 3 IN GREDIENTS REQUIRED FOR SECTION 68 I.E. IDENTIFY AND CREDIT WO RTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, WE REV ERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THAT OF THE A. O. 29. GROUND NO.7 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 30. REGARDING THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ENHA NCED INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE U/S 10 A OF THE INCOME-TAX, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT THIS ASPE CT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO.10(C) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL. HENCE, NO SEPARATE DIRECTIO N IS REQUIRED. 31. REGARDING GROUND NO.8 AND 9 RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IN ITS APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF TATA ELXSI AS REPORTED IN 3 49 ITR 98 AND SINCE THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE IS IN LINE WITH THIS JUDGMENT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDING LY, GROUND NOS.8 AND 9 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 32. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A Y 2004-05 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, WHEREAS TH E APPEAL OF THE IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 14 REVENUE FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-05 IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 33. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. ITA NO.1782/BANG/2013 34. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEA L FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ARE AS UNDER:- IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 15 35. SIMILARLY, IN IT(TP)A NO.1764/BANG/2013, THE AP PEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS YEAR ARE AS UNDER:- IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 16 36. BOTH THE SIDES AGREED THAT ALL THE GROUNDS AND ARGUMENTS IN BOTH YEARS ARE SIMILAR AND THEREFORE, THE APPEALS I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 MAY BE DECIDED ON SIMILAR LINE AS PER THE D ECISION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 37. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONLY ISSUE RA ISED IS REGARDING TP ADJUSTMENT AND AS PER GROUND NO.1,2 AND3, IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ALSO, ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS REGARDING TP A DJUSTMENT AND SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) REMITTED THE MATTER BACK T O THE FILE OF THE AO/TPO REGARDING TP ADJUSTMENT, WE SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF CIT (A) ON TP ISSUE AND RESTORE TP MATTER TO THE FILE O F THE CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION WITHOUT REMITTING THE MATER BACK T O THE FILE OF THE AO/TPO AS DECIDED BY US IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE CIT (A) SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PR OVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 17 38. REGARDING GROUND NO.4 OF REVENUES APPEAL, IT I S SEEN THAT IN THIS YEAR ALSO, THE AO MADE 100% DISALLOWANCE OF STAFF WELFARE AND OTHER EXPENSES OF RS.1,98,376/- AND RS.9,33,184 /- RESPECTIVELY WHICH WERE RESTRICTED TO 25% BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS AND BILLS ETC. IN LINE WITH OUR ORDER ON THIS ISSUE FOR ASST. YEAR 20 04-05, IN THIS YEAR ALSO, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 39. AS PER GROUND 5 AND 6 OF REVENUES APPEAL, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS REGARDING REDUCTION OF TOTAL TURNOVER A LSO BY THE SAME AMOUNT BY WHICH EXPORT TURNOVER WAS REDUCED BY THE A.O. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION ALLOWED U/S 10A OF T HE IT ACT. THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF TATA ELXSI, 349 ITR 98, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT TO TAL TURNOVER IS SUM TOTAL OF EXPORT TURNOVER AND DOMESTIC TURNOVER AND THEREFORE, IF AN AMOUNT IS REDUCED FROM EXPORT TURNOVER THEN T HE TOTAL TURNOVER ALSO GOES DOWN BY THE SAME AMOUNT AUTOMATI CALLY. SINCE DECISION OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS IN LINE WITH TH IS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF IT(TP)A NOS.1763, 1764, 1781& 1782/B/13 18 THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO S.5 AND 6 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 40. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE 2005-06 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 41. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AN D REMAINING THREE APPEALS BEING ONE OF THE ASSESSEE AND 2 OF TH E REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MARCH, 2017. SD/- SD/- (LALIET KUMAR) (A K GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 17/03/2017 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, IT AT, BANGALORE.