Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bangalore V. M/s. Brundavan Construction, Bangalore

ITA 2242/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4279 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: G SATHYANARAYANA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Tax effect; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 113; 48; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JM ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 : ASST.YEAR 2010-2011 THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1) BANGALORE. V. M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION NO.167, NEW SHANTHI UPHAR, 1 ST FLOOR, 36 TH CROSS, 18 TH MAIN 4 TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560 041. PAN : AANFM1946N. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SRI.PRIYADARSHI MISHRA, ADDL.CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SRI.G.SATHYANARAYANA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 15.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.02.2021 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM : THIS APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 08.08.2019. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2010-2011. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THOUGH THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED VIDE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 8.8.2019, THE CASE IS COVERED UNDER THE EXCLUSIONS TO THE MONETARY LIMITS PROVIDED UNDER PARA 10(C) OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.3/2018 AND HENCE THIS ISSUE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IS NOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT RECORD ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED IN LETTER DT.07.01.2013 THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS TAKEN AS 20% FOR ALL THE YEARS DESPITE THE FACT THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS TAKEN AS 61.39% ONLY, AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL THE ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION. 2 MATERIAL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY. ACCORDINGLY, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEYOND 6 YEARS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS THE UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING INVENTORY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE VALUATION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS AND INVENTORY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR TO DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOW: THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 23.09.2010 DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.3,21,64,760. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 21.02.2013, ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, CONSEQUENT TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE REVENUE AUDIT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 148 OF THE I.T.ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WHILE ARRIVING AT THE COST OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS, HAS ADOPTED GROSS PROFIT AT 16.39% AS AGAINST CONSISTENTLY ADOPTED PERCENTAGE OF 20%, RESULTING IN AN UNDERSTATEMENT OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS VALUE BY RS.87,94,203. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE ABOVE ALLEGED UNDERSTATEMENT OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF RS.87,94,203 AS ADDITIONAL INCOME AND CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T.ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2017, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION. 3 CONTENDED THAT THE REOPENING IS BEYOND FOUR YEARS PERIOD AND ASSESSEE HAD MADE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, HENCE, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. ON MERITS, IT WAS STATED THAT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, ACTUAL NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS 18.14%, AND THEREFORE, THE GROSS PROFIT COULD NOT BE 16.39% AS ALLEGED BY THE A.O. THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE ISSUE RAISED ON MERITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED, HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE GROUNDS RAISED. THE LEARNED AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T.ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23.03.2017, I.E., BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 21.02.2013. DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE I.T.ACT ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS :- (I) COMPLETE SET OF RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH P&L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE AYS 2009-2010 AND 2010-2011. (II) STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.03.2009 AND 31.3.2010 (III) COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT HELD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FY 2009-2010. ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION. 4 (IV) ANY OTHER EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. (V) NOTE ON INCOME EARNED DURING THE FY 2009-2010. 6.1 FURTHER NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON 31.12.2012 REQUIRING THE FOLLOWING COMPLIANCE:- (I) PARTY WISE BREAK UP OF SALES CREDITED TO P&L ACCOUNT. EXPLAIN THE PROJECT TO WHICH THIS SALES RELATE TO AND METHOD OF ACCOUNTING THE SALES. (II) LEDGER EXTRACTS OF PURCHASES ACCOUNTS. (III) DETAILS OF SUB-CONTRACT CHARGES PARTY WISE AND TDS PARTICULARS. (IV) BREAK UP OF COMMISSION PAID AND TDS PARTICULARS. (V) DETAILS OF LAND COMPENSATION EXPENSES AND SUBMIT A BRIEF NOTE ON CONTEXT AND NECESSITY OF PAYING THE LAND COMPENSATION. (VI) TDS PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF OTHER EXPENSES DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT. 6.2 IN REPLY TO THE ABOVE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 07.01.2013 EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE ADOPTED, THE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES, SUB-CONTRACT CHARGES PAID, TDS DETAILS AND DETAILS OF VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES. PURSUANT TO THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE A.O. HAD OBSERVED AT PARA 2 OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AS FOLLOWS:- IN THE YEAR UNDER DISCUSSION, SOME MORE FLATS IN THIS PROJECT HAVE BEEN SOLD AND REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE SALES OF RS.24,34,79,700/- HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. ONLY FEW FLATS HAVE BEEN LEFT UNSOLD. NET PROFIT SHOWN ON THE ABOVE SALES BEFORE CLAIMING PARTNERS REMUNERATION IS RS.4,41,64,756/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO N.P. OF 18%. AFTER CLAIMING PARTNERS REMUNERATION OF RS.1,20,00,000/-, THE PROFIT SHOWN IS RS.3,21,64,756/-. 6.3 FROM THE ABOVE NOTICES AND FINDINGS OF THE A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DETAILS REGARDING ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION. 5 INCOME / PROFITS FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. HAD CONSIDERED THE SAME AND CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ON THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, THE REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN INITIATED ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT PERMITS THE A.O. TO ASSESS / REASSESS THE INCOME OF AN ENTITY ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME THAT HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE I.T. ACT CANNOT INVOKED ROUTINELY UNLESS THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED : (I) THERE SHOULD BE `REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT REASON TO BELIEVE CANNOT BE CHANGE OF OPINION; AND (II) AO IS BARRED FROM TAKING ANY ACTION UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (A) WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR 147 HAS ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR; AND (B) THERE IS NO FAILURE FROM THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO: MAKE A RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT.6.4 6.4 THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DELHI TELEVISION V. DCIT [(2020) 116 TAXMANN.COM 151 (SC)] HAD HELD THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEYOND FOUR YEARS IS BAD IN LAW ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION. 6 WHEN THE TAX PAYER HAS DISCLOSED THE FACTS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE A.O. DID NOT DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE REGARDING THE SAME. 6.5 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF L & T LIMITED [(2020) 113 TAXMANN.COM 48 (SC)] OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO ELEMENT OF LACK OF TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH RESULTED INTO ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PROCEEDING ON THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS ALREADY ON RECORD. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAVE BEEN ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DUE TO THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS BEEN SATISFIED, THE TRIBUNAL CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE NOTICE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS INVALID. 6.6 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KARNATAKA BANK [(2014) 52 TAXMANN.COM 526 (KARNATAKA)] HAD HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO CASE OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND FURTHER, WHERE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY APPLIED ITS MIND AND BEING SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM, ALLOWED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT HAVE INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT, AFTER THE END OF 4 YEARS. 6.7 THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI SHAKTHI TEXTILES LTD. V. JCIT [(193 TAXMAN 216 (MADRAS)] HAD HELD THAT INDICATION OF ASSESSEES FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ANY MATERIAL FACTS IN THE REASONS RECORDED IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION. 7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE WERE REASONS FOR HIM TO BELIEVE THAT THE ESCAPEMENT WAS DUE TO THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO MAKE TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE INCOME OR NOT. IN THE EVENT OF ARRIVING AT SUCH A BELIEF THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE PETITIONERS FAILURE, HE SHOULD HAVE RECORDED THE SAME IN THE ORDER. THAT IS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT. ONLY IF THE TWIN CONDITIONS, AS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT, ARE SATISFIED BY WAY OF RECORDING REASONS FOR BOTH THE CONDITIONS IN THE ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GET JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN DONE THE IMPUGNED NOTICES WERE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 6.8 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE I.T.ACT THAT ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WAS DUE TO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF INCOME. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SINCE THE A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAS CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE ISSUE AND CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT, THE REASSESSMENT INITIATED AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ON ACCOUNT OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONING AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED SUPRA, WE CONFIRM THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 7. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE ON MERITS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CATEGORICALLY FOUND NET PROFIT IS AT THE RATE OF 18.13% OF THE SALES FOR THE YEAR, AND THEREFORE, FOR GROSS PROFIT OF 16.29% ARRIVED AT BY THE A.O. IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT WAS ALSO FOUND BY THE CIT(A) THAT N.P. OF 18.13% IS HIGHER THAN NP DECLARED FOR THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON MERITS READS AS FOLLOW:- ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION. 8 6.2 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A COPY OF ITS STATEMENT OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET AND P&L ACCOUNT AND FORM 3CD REPORT DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. IT IS FOUND FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO FILED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TOTAL SALES AS PER P&L ACCOUNT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS SHOWN AT RS.24,34,79,700/-, THE WIP IS SHOWN AT RS.1,64,34,883/- AND THE NET PROFIT IS SHOWN AT RS.44,164,756/-. THUS, THE NET PROFIT WORKS OUT TO 18.13% OF SALES FOR THE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE GROSS PROFIT FOR THE YEAR SHOWN AT 16.39% IS NOT CORRECT. IN FACT THE NET PROFIT FOR THE YEAR IS FOUND TO BE BETTER THAN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEAR AS UNDER: A.Y. NET PROFIT(%) 2009-10 12.15 2010-11 18.13 2011-12 12.67 6.3 AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED TAKING GROSS PROFIT AT 20% THOUGH FOR THE YEAR GP IS TAKEN AT 16.36% ONLY, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED DURING HEARING THAT THE ABOVE WORKING WAS NOT CORRECT AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO VIDE A LETTER COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE HEARING. A COPY OF THE WORKING HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 15.11.2018 AS PR WHICH THE GP IS AT RS.6,03,17,700/- WHICH IS AT 24.77% OF THE SALES. FURTHER, THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT UNDERSTATEMENT OF WORK IN PROGRESS WILL ONLY HAVE A SPILLOVER EFFECT AS THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS AS AT 31.03.2010 AS THE OPENING BALANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND PAID THE DUE TAXES ON SUCH ALLEGED UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE WORK IN PROGRESS AND HENCE THERE IS NO TAX EVASION. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE NET PROFIT OF RS.4,41,64,765 SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN DISPUTE WHICH IS 18.13% OF THE SALES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS.87,94,205/- MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 8. THE ABOVE CATEGORICAL FINDING OF THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRA EVIDENCE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.2242/BANG/2019 M/S.BRUNDAVAN CONSTRUCTION. 9 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021 . SD/- SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE; DATED : 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2021. DEVADAS G* COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-7, BANGALORE 4. THE PR.CIT-7, BANGALORE. 5. THE DR, ITAT, BENGALURU. 6. GUARD FILE. ASST.REGISTRAR/ITAT, BANGALORE