Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0361 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
04-08-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
30-03-2022
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2013-14 M/s. Mindtree Limited, Global Village, RVCE Post, Mysore Road, Bengaluru – 560 059. PAN: AABCM 8839K Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the CIT(Appeals)-11, Bangalore dated 31.01.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised 5 main grounds pertaining to the following issues:- ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 19 (i) Exclusion of insurance charge of Rs.1,17,87,049 from export turnover while computing 10AA deduction (Grounds 2 to 2.8) (ii) Exclusion of 20% Travelling expenses on adhoc basis as incurred in foreign currency (Grounds 3 to 3.8) (iii) Restricting benefit of 10AA deduction to the extent of export revenue brought into India in foreign currency (Grounds 4 to 4.6) (iv) Treating expenses incurred towards brand launching as capital in nature (Grounds 5 to 5.3). 3. Ground No.1 is general and does not warrant separate adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of software development and allied activities. The assessee filed return of income on 29.11.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.288,49,27,710 after claiming deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act of Rs.166,14,02,409. The case was selected for scrutiny and the notices u/. 143(2) was issued. The AO completed the assessment by making the following adjustments:- (i) Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill of Rs.38,22,993. (ii) Disallowance of provision for discounts of Rs.1,44,00,000. (iii) Exclusion of insurance charges of Rs.1,17,87,049 from export turnover in computing deduction u/s. 10AA. (iv) Exclusion of telecommunication charges of Rs.4,71,19,750 from export turnover in computing deduction u/s. 10AA. (v) Exclusion of travelling expenses of Rs.7,58,80,369 (20% of total traveling expenses taken as incurred in foreign currency on adhoc basis) from export turnover in computing deduction u/s. 10AA. (vi) Non-consideration of actual revenue from export activity of Rs.1336,90,45,871 (i.e. before exclusion of aforesaid expenditure) as export turnover (vii) Not recomputing MAT credit u/s. 115JAA. ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 3 of 19 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) partially allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee by giving relief towards issues (i), (ii) & (iv) listed above. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Exclusion of insurance charges from export turnover 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO reduced a sum of Rs.1,17,87049 from export turnover stating that the same is excluded as per Explanation to section 10AA. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that insurance charges are incurred in respect of property, business liability and overseas travel and not attributable to delivery of computer software outside India. The assessee also submitted that the expense incurred is not charged separately to customers and these expenses are not part of export turnover as recovered from customers. Therefore, the assessee submitted that the exclusion of insurance charges is not warranted. The assessee relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. v. ACIT in ITA No.398, 1074, 1410/Bang/2012 dated 20.3.2015 for AYs 2006-07 to 2008-09. The CIT(Appeals) was of the view that in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra), the matter was sent back to the AO to verify whether the said expenses were recovered and included in export turnover; whereas in the asse’s case nothing is brought on record to show that the said expenses were not recovered and not included in export turnover. The CIT(Appeals) therefore held ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 19 that the decision of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied to the assessee’s case and that insurance charges cannot be excluded from export turnover. 7. The ld. AR submitted additional evidence in support of the claim that the insurance charges incurred are not billed to customers and not part of export invoices. The ld AR prayed for admission of additional evidence. The ld. DR objected to the admission of additional evidence on the ground that the assessee was provided sufficient opportunities before the lower authorities to submit the evidences in support of the claim and that the assessee failed to do so. 8. After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the additional evidence goes to the root of the issue and the core reason for disallowances made by the lower authorities. Therefore for a proper adjudication of the issue and for substantial cause, the additional evidence is admitted and taken on record. 9. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that insurance charges are incurred in respect of property, business liability and overseas travel and not attributable to delivery of computer software outside India. The ld AR also submitted that the principle laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case for AY 2008-09 in Mindtree Ltd vs ACT (2020) 427 ITR 338 (Kar) with regard to exclusion of telecommunication charges should be made applicable to insurance charges also as according to the definition of ‘export turnover’, freight, telecommunication charges or insurance are to be ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 19 excluded provided it is attributable to the delivery of the articles or things outside India. Hence the decision rendered in assessee’s own case (supra) with regard to telecommunication expenses should be applicable to insurance charges also since the same is not incurred towards delivery of article or thing outside India. Without prejudice to this submission, the ld AR also submitted that the expense incurred is not charged separately to customers and these expenses are not part of export turnover as recovered from customers. This according to the ld AR can be substantiated from the additional evidences now submitted and therefore prayed that no exclusion should be done towards insurance charges. 10. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) where the CIT(Appeals) has given detailed reason for rejecting the claim of the assessee by stating that assessee has not substantiated the claim that insurance charges are not billed to the customers and does not form part of export turnover. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Explanation 2 to section 10AA of the Act defines ‘export turnover’ as under:- “Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "export turnover" means the consideration in respect of export by the undertaking, being the Unit of articles or things or services received in, or brought into, India by the assessee but does not include freight, telecommunication charges or insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things outside India ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 19 or expenses, if any, incurred in foreign exchange in rendering of services (including computer software) outside India;” 12. The above provision excludes freight, telecommunication charges or insurance, provided it is attributable to the delivery of the articles or things outside India. In the present case, the ld AR is contending the reduction of insurance charges from export turnover on the following two counts:- (i) That insurance charges that are not billed to the customers is not forming part of the export turnover and hence it cannot be reduced from export turnover as the wording used in Explanation 1 to section 10AA is ‘does not include’ and not ‘reduced by’. (ii) That the insurance charges are not attributable to the delivery of the articles or things outside India. 13. The additional evidence submitted has to be factually verified to check whether the assessee is billing the customers towards insurance charges or not in order to determine whether the before insurance charges are to be excluded. Further whether the insurance charges incurred are attributable to delivery of the articles or things outside India also needs to be verified based on facts and evidences. We therefore remit this issue back to the AO for verification of the facts afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO is directed to consider the ratio laid down by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd. (supra) in this regard. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 7 of 19 Exclusion of 20% of traveling expenses from export turnover 14. The AO during the course of assessment has considered 20% of the travelling expenses incurred by the assessee as incurred in foreign exchange and excluded the same in accordance with Explanation 1 to section 10AA of the act. 15. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee contended that the expenses shall be excluded only if the same is incurred in rendering services outside India and not when the assessee is exporting computer software. It was also submitted that the assessee is in the business of development of computer software and the use of the words “(including computer software”) would apply only in respect of rendering of services and not for development of computer software. However, the CIT(Appeals) held that development of computer software includes rendering of services as is evident from Explanation 2 to section 10AA and the differentiation made by the assessee does not alter the situation. Further, the onus was on the assessee to provide complete details of travelling expenses and whether the same were incurred in foreign currency or in INR, which the assessee failed to do so. The CIT(Appeals) therefore confirmed the action of the AO in the absence of evidence by the assessee to support the claim. 16. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the travel expenditure incurred includes pre-location expenses, travel fare, hotel & boarding relating to travel, visa charges, domestic travel fare, bus charges etc which are routine ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 8 of 19 expenses incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee. The ld AR therefore submitted that these expenses are not attributable to delivery of the articles or things outside India and should not be excluded. The ld. AR also contended that the AO ought not to have disallowed the travelling expenses on adhoc basis without verifying the details of in which currency the expenses are incurred. 17. The ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(Appeals) and submitted that since the assessee has not submitted the details, the adhoc disallowance is justified. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The reason for adhoc disallowance made by the AO and CIT(A) is that the assessee has not submitted the required details to substantiate the claim that export turnover does not include the travel expenses as the assessee has not charged the customer and also that the travel expenses are largely incurred in INR. There is also a contention of the assessee that the travel expenses incurred in the course of business and not attributable to delivery of the articles or things outside India. In our considered view these contentions need to be factually verified and the lower authorities have not carried out the verification based facts and evidences. We therefore remit this issue to the AO for fresh consideration, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to submit the relevant details to substantiate its claim and cooperate with the proceedings. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 9 of 19 Restricting benefit of 10AA deduction to the extent of export revenue brought into India in foreign currency 19. The AO while computing deduction u/s. 10AA had considered only the export revenue realized upto the date of filing of return for the purpose of section 10AA admissibility. The assessee argued before the CIT(Appeals) that no such condition is provided in section 10AA unlike in section 10A(3) where the period by when the amount has to be received in convertible foreign exchange is specified. The assessee also submitted that convertible foreign exchange has not been defined in section 10AA of the Act and even the SEZ Act does not mandate that the consideration in respect of export has to be brought into India in convertible foreign exchange within a specified time limit. 20. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO on the basis that Explanation 1 to section 10AA defines export turnover as “consideration in respect of export by the undertaking received in or brought into India by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange” and therefore benefit of section 10AA would be available only to the extent of consideration which is brought into India. 21. The ld. AR submitted that subsection (3) to section 10A specifies that the section 10A deduction is applicable only to those undertakings, which realizes the export proceeds that are received or brought into India within the specified period. Whereas there is no such mandate for the purpose of applicability of section 10AA. The definition of ‘export turnover’ to mean that the consideration in respect of export by the undertaking, being the Unit of articles or things or ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 10 of 19 services received in, or brought into, India by the assessee and the section neither talks of ‘convertible foreign exchange’ nor the time limit by when the consideration should be received or brought into India. The ld AR also contended that even FEMA regulations for the year under consideration does not stipulate any period of realization and repatriation to India of the full export value of goods or software, if exported by the unit in SEZ. The ld AR in this regard placed on the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gokul Overseas v. ACIT [2016] SCC Online ITAT 10328 and the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BT e-Serv (India) Pvt Ltd., vs ITO (ITA No.565/Del/2015). 22. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals). 23. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The definition of ‘export turnover’ as per Explanation 1 to section 10AA which is extracted below is different from definition contained in sections 10A and 10B:- “Explanation 1. : For the purposes of this section, - (i) "export turnover" means the consideration in respect of export by the undertaking, being the unit of articles or things or services received in, or brought into, India by the assessee but does not include freight, telecommunication charges or insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things outside India or expenses, if any, incurred in foreign exchange in rendering of services (including computer software) outside India." (Emphasis supplied) ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 11 of 19 24. In sections 10A and 10B the Act stipulates receipt in convertible foreign exchange within a specified time limit. Therefore in these sections there is a nexus of export turnover with the amount received in convertible foreign exchange within the time specified i.e. within a period of six months from the end of the relevant financial year or within such further extended period as may be granted by the competent authority. In the absence of any time limit specified u/s.10AA for receipt of consideration, the export turnover and the consideration received would be equal / same unless the receivables become not recoverable. Any other interpretation may lead to anomaly since the exemption in respect of exports made in a particular year may be denied to the exporter assessee in the year of export itself to the extent of shortfall in repatriation of money and may also be denied even afterwards when the proceeds are repatriated in a subsequent year since there is no enabling provision to claim the deduction on subsequent receipt. This would not be the intention of legislature as the provisions of section 10AA was formulated with an intention to promote export of goods and services, investment from domestic and foreign sources and creation of employment opportunities. We also see merit in one of the arguments put forth by the ld AR that the Parliament was aware of the existence of provisions similar to subsection 3 to section 10A/10B despite which decided not to have similar provisions in section 10AA and therefore the AO could not add or mend what is consciously left out by the parliament which otherwise would amount to adding or mending casus omissus. ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 12 of 19 25. Further we notice that the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Gokul Overseas (supra) has held as follows:- “5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The issue in the present case is whether the export sales as supporting manufacturer, Sales to EOUs and SEZs are eligible for deduction u/s.10AA of the Act. Section 10AA of the Act provides for deduction of 100% of the profits and gains derived from export of articles or things or from services for a period of five consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the unit begins to manufacture or produce such articles or things or provides services, as the case may be. It also provides for 50% of profits and gains for five assessment years thereafter. As per clause (7) the profits derived from the export of article or things or services shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, being the unit, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or services bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking. As per Explanation 1(1) to s. 10AA, "export turnover" means the consideration in respect of export by the assessee but does not include freight, telecommunication charges or insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things outside India or expenses, if any, incurred in foreign exchange in rendering of services outside India. In our understanding, on reading of sub section 7 along with the Explanation 1, the deduction u/s 10AA, apart from fulfilling of the other required conditions stipulated, the deduction of profits from exports u/s 10AA will be in the ratio of export turnover to the total turnover of the undertaking. We further find that the bringing in India the foreign currency on sale of goods has not been stipulated in "export turnover" though as per provisions of s. 10A, which in respect of special provision in respect of newly established undertaking in Free Trade Zone, Explanation 2(iv) the "export turnover" specifies the condition of bringing into India convertible foreign exchange. Similarly we find that "export turnover" in s. 10B (which is special provision in respect of newly established hundred percent export oriented undertaking) and in S.10BA (which is Special provision in respect of export of certain articles or things) stipulates the bringing into India by the Assessee of convertible foreign exchange. ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 13 of 19 5.1 In the present case, the goods have left India and consideration on sale of such goods having being received in India is not in dispute and in such a situation we are of the view that denial of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act is uncalled for more so, when as S.10AA of the Act does not provide for export of own goods or bringing in of foreign currency of the goods exported. We further find that Ld CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Electronics Control and Discharge Systems Pvt. Ltd. 245 CTR 465 in coming to the conclusion that only direct exports where the assessee brings foreign convertible exchange into India qualifies for being eligible export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction u/s 10AA of the Act. We find that Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the aforesaid case was dealing with the provision of s. 10A and not with respect to s.10AA and in view of the difference in the definition of "export turnover" in both the sections, we are of the view that the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court cannot be relied by the Revenue authorities for denying the deduction to assessee. Before us, Revenue has not placed any other direct decision where the issue related to provisions of S.10AA in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and thus allow the ground of Assessee.” 26. A similar view is expressed in the case of BT e-Serve (India) Pvt ltd (supra) where the Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal has held that – “26. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. According to section 10 AA of the act the profits derived from the export of articles or things or services (including computer software) shall be the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, being the Unit, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or services bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking. Explanation 1(i) For the purposes of this section, defines "export turnover", it means the consideration in respect of export by the undertaking, being the Unit of articles or things or services received in, or brought into, India by the assessee but does not include freight, telecommunication charges or insurance attributable to the delivery of the articles or things outside India or expenses, if any, incurred in foreign exchange in rendering of services (including ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 14 of 19 computer software) outside India . Explanation 1 (ii) defines export as "export in relation to the Special Economic Zones" taking goods or providing services out of India from a Special Economic Zone by land, sea, air, or by any other mode, whether physical or otherwise. Therefore primarily there should be export and consideration for export should be brought in to India. The Ld. assessing officer as well as the Ld. DRP has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the sum of Rs. 75085404/. The above sum comprises of a sum of Rs. 480000000/-being foreign currency received of the export amount received by the assessee on 04/02/2011 and 24/2/2011. A sum of Rs. 27085404/- is unbilled revenue of the assessee. The unbilled revenue is like work in progress in case of ITES industries. The explanation 1(ii) defines export means taking goods or providing services out of India from SEZ by land, sea, or by any other mode whether physical or otherwise. Regarding the unbilled revenue the assessee has not exported the goods and therefore such sum do not fall in the definition of export and therefore it cannot fall into the definition of export turnover. Hence, according to us the deduction under section 10 AA of the income tax act cannot be allowed on this sum as it does not qualify the definition of export and export turnover. Even otherwise assessee has not given any details of receipt of foreign exchange and therefore the consideration in respect of that is either received in or brought into India by the assessee. Hence, we confirm the finding of the lower authorities regarding disallowance of deduction under section 10 AA of the income tax act on this sum. With respect to the other sum of Rs. 4.80 crores The assessee has given foreign inward remittance certificates and such sum has also been received in India on 04/02/2011 and 24/2/2011. The provisions of section 10 AA does not provide any time- limit of bringing such consideration into India like section 10 A (3) which provides for receipt of consideration or sale proceeds in India in convertible foreign exchange within a period of 6 months from the end of the previous year, or within such further period as the competent authority may allow in this behalf. Further the contention of the revenue that provision of section (5) and (6) of section 10A shall apply by virtue of the provision of section 10AA (8) of the act. The provision of section 10A (5) speaks about the audit of the accounts and submission of report of an accountant in specified Performa. In this ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 15 of 19 case same has been complied with by the assessee. Further section 10A (6) speaks about the restrictions of other deduction during the holiday period, which is not the dispute in this case. In view of this it is apparent that there is no time-limit prescribed for bringing the consideration of export into India. Admittedly, the consideration has been received in India, albeit Subsequent to filing of the return by the assessee. However, merely because the consideration has been received after 6 months from the close of the financial year the deduction cannot be denied to the assessee on the sum. In view of this we direct the Ld. assessing officer to consider a sum of Rs. 4.80 crores as export turnover of the assessee and accordingly grant deduction to the assessee under section 10 AA of the income tax act. Accordingly, Ground No. 14 to 22 of the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed.” 27. In the light of the above discussion and considering the decisions of the Tribunals, we see no reason to uphold the decision of the lower authorities in restricting the export turnover to the consideration received up to the date of filing of the return. In our considered view, the export turnover for the purpose of deduction u/s.10AA should not be restricted to the actual receipt since the legislature has not prescribed any time limit for the receipt in order to be eligible for deduction. We therefore remit the issue back to the AO to take into account the subsequent receipt and consider the entire export turnover to recompute the deduction u/s.10AA accordingly after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Expenses incurred towards brand launch 28. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed Rs.5,25,19,236 towards brand building expenses. Out of this, a sum of ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 16 of 19 Rs.3,37,87,510 is debited as provision towards brand launch. The AO treated the same as capital in nature on the ground that brand launch is done only once and the brand name or logo is in the nature of capital expenditure. The AO treated the expenditure of Rs.3,37,87,510 incurred towards brand launch as intangible asset and allowed depreciation on the same @ 12.8% resulting in a disallowance of Rs.2,95,64,071. 29. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that the said expenditure was incurred towards advertisement and publicity in respect of its brand and that the expenditure had neither created any asset nor any enduring benefit to the assessee. The provisions created during the year under consideration has already been reversed in the subsequent year and therefore disallowance, if any, would result in double disallowance. 30. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that expenditure on design, creation and launch of brand is capital in nature and hence not allowable as revenue expenditure. The CIT(Appeals) also held that the reversal of expenditure in subsequent year will not have any effect in the year under consideration as the dispute is not on the year of allowability, but the nature of expenditure. 31. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has incurred the impugned expenditure towards re-branding such as logo design creation, advertisement and publicity which is for the purpose of business promotion of the assessee’s business and is revenue in nature. ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 17 of 19 It is also submitted that the advertisement expenditure is incurred for the effective running of business by promoting its products which build the image of the assessee and therefore to be considered as expended wholly for the purpose of business. Without prejudice the ld AR submitted that the amount of Rs.3,37,87,510 is reversed in the subsequent year. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ebersepeacher Suetrak Bus Climate Control Systems Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (2022-TIOL-807-ITAT-Del) where it is held that merely because the assessee had written back the provision in the subsequent year cannot be a basis for disallowing the assessee’s claim in the current year. The ld AR drew our attention to the additional evidence submitted before the Tribunal that contains journal entry of reversal of the provision brand launch in the subsequent year. The ld AR submitted that that the disallowance of expenditure in the year under consideration would result in double disallowance. The ld AR further submitted that there is no loss to the revenue as the assessee is assessed at uniform rate of tax and the entire excise of seeking to disturb the year of allowability of the said expenditure would in any case be revenue neutral. The ld AR alternatively prayed that if the disallowance is upheld in the year under consideration, then the same should be allowed as expenditure in the subsequent year in which the expenses are reversed and offered to tax. 32. The ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(Appeals). ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 18 of 19 33. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the assessee has submitted the details of entries pertaining to reversal of the provision made towards brand launch expenses in the subsequent financial year. We see merit in the submission of the ld AR that the disallowance of expenditure in the year under consideration would result in double disallowance since the entry is claimed to be reversed in the subsequent year and offered to tax. In this regard it is important to verify the entry pertaining to the reversal of brand expenses in the subsequent year and the additional evidence substantiating the same is not verified by the lower authorities. We therefore remit this issue to the AO with a direction to verify and allow the expenditure so that there is no double disallowance on this count. Needless to say that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 34. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( PADMAVATHY S. ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 5th August, 2022. /Desai S Murthy / ITA No.213/Bang/2022 Page 19 of 19 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore.
