Smt Sunitha Peddappa , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

ITA 2250/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4309 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H L SOUMYA ACHAR
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 234B; 147; 148; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC - C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2 250 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 - 11 SMT. SUNITHA PEDDAPPA, NO.38/B, 3 RD BLOCK, THYAGARAJA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 028. PAN : AKEPP 7294 H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5[2][5], BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. H. L. SOUMYA ACHAR, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 20 . 09 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 10 .201 8 O R D E R PER JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE DATED 07.05.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED HER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 04.10.2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,85,640/- AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 07.03.2012 WITH NO CHANGE IN THE TOTAL INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTICED THAT ITA NO. 2250/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 9 THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 2 ADJACENT SITES IN THE YEAR 2003 IN RESPECT OF WHICH A JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (JDA) WAS ENTERED INTO ON 10.09.2009 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. G. I. DEVELOPERS. AS PER THE TERMS OF THE JDA, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO 10% OF THE BUILT-UP AREA IN THE FORM OF 4 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE DEVELOPER WAS ENTITLED TO 90% OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND. 2.2 BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. T. K. DAYALU (202 TAXMAN 531) (KARN), THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 28.04.2016 FOR TAKING UP RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, I.E., THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT UPON ENTERING THE JDA WITH G.I. DEVELOPERS, TRANSFER U/S 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT HAS OCCURRED AND THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) ARISING THEREON, NOT BEING DECLARED BY ASSESSEE, HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN THE CASE ON HAND, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D. K. DAYALU (202 TAXMAN 531) (KARN), THE AO COMPLETED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2016 DETERMINING ASSESSEES INCOME AT RS.36,34,200/-; WHEREIN THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.31,13,360/- AS LTCG. THE LTCG WAS COMPUTED BY ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE FOUR FLATS AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AT RS.40,67,950/- LESS COST OF LAND TRANSFERRED AT RS.9,54,594/- AND THE DIFFERENCE THEREOF OF RS.31,13,356/- (VIZ., RS.40,67,950/- LESS RS.5,94,594/-) WAS DETERMINED AS LTCG. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 26.12.2016, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE, ITA NO. 2250/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 9 CHALLENGING, INTER ALIA, THE ADDITION OF RS.31,13,356/- AS LTCG. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.05.2016 BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. T. K. DAYALU (SUPRA) TO HOLD THAT THE JDA DATED 10.09.2009 WOULD RESULT IN TRANSFER U/S 2(47)(V) R.W.S. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LTCG HAS TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING THE CONSTRUCTED VALUE OF THE CONSTRUCTED SUPER BUILT UP AREA TO BE RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE OF LAND AS SALE CONSIDERATION. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF REINVESTMENT, RESTRICTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT TO ONE OUT OF THE FOUR FLATS WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN VIDE THE TERMS OF THE JDA. 3. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE DATED 07.05.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID-AB-INITIO FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION ESPECIALLY, THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S 148 OF THE ACT DID NOT EXIST AND HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE RE-ASSESSMENT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT OF RS.31,13,356/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH IS ON THE ERRONEOUS APPRECIATION OF POSITION OF LAW AND FACTS OBTAINING IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT[A] OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF 4 FLATS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT UPON ITA NO. 2250/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 9 DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE FACT AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WITH THE HON'BLE CCIT/DG, THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 6. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS. 4. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 6 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, AND NOT URGED BEFORE US, ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 5. GROUND NO. 2 THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND IS NOT BEING PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND IS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. GROUND NO. 5 CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT 6.1 IN THIS GROUND (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND MANDATORY AND THE AO HAS NO DISCRETION IN THE MATTER. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ANJUM H. GHASWALA IN 252 ITR 1 (SC) AND I THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CHARGING THE SAID INTEREST. THE AO IS, HOWEVER, DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, IF ANY, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. ITA NO. 2250/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 9 7. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. 7.1 THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED ON THIS ISSUE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A JDA WITH M/S. G. I. DEVELOPERS ON 10.09.2009 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT PALLANAGERE, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE. AS PER THE TERMS THEREOF, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO 4 RESIDENTIAL FLATS; IN LIEU OF TRANSFER OF 90% UNDIVIDED SHARE OF THE LAND TO THE DEVELOPER; FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AR, THE CIT(A)S ACTION IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE FLAT WAS ERRONEOUS AS IN DOING SO, HE FAILED TO FOLLOW THE BINDING DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. K. G. RUKMINIAMMA (2011) 331 ITR 211 (KAR). THE LEARNED AR CONTENDS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THE CASE ON FACTS WAS ERRONEOUS AS HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE 4 UNITS INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION TO ONE FLAT ONLY. IT IS THE LEARNED ARS CONTENTION THAT IN THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA), THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE MEANING OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN SECTION 54 OF THE ACT MEANT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF MULTIPLE UNITS IN THE SAME RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. K. G. RUKMINIAMMA (2011) 331 ITR 211 SQUARELY APPLIES ON ALL FOURS TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL 4 UNITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAME RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS. SARITHA ANAND SHETTY VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1886/BANG/2018 DATED 10.08.2018, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. ITA NO. 2250/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 9 7.2 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DR FOR REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAVE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AND THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DR, THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 54F OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015, WHERE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WAS TO BE ALLOWED ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE UNIT AND NOT MULTIPLE UNITS. THEREFORE, THE ACTION/FINDING RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CANNOT BE FAULTED IN RESTRICTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT TO ONE UNIT ONLY. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD; INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED. THESE GROUNDS (SUPRA) ARE DISPOSED OFF HEREUNDER: 9. GROUND NO. 3 IS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAINS UPON ENTERING INTO A JDA/DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IN THE CASE ON HAND, AS PER THE DETAILS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A JDA ON 10.09.2009 WITH M/S. G. I. DEVELOPERS AND THE SAME, I FIND, IS A REGISTERED DOCUMENT. AS PER THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DR. T. K. DAYALU (202-TAXMAN 531) (KAR); IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ON ENTERING INTO A JDA, THERE IS A TRANSFER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY CAPITAL GAINS IS ATTRACTED. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA), THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION (SUPRA), GROUND NO. 3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10.1 GROUND NO. 4 (SUPRA) IS RAISED WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF 4 RESIDENTIAL UNITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 2250/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 9 IN LIEU OF ENTERING INTO A JDA ON 10.09.2009 WITH THE DEVELOPER M/S. G. I. DEVELOPERS. IN THIS REGARD, I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED (SUPRA). AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE ON HAND, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ISSUE BEFORE ME I.E., THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54/54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF 4 FLATS IN THE SAME APARTMENT BUILDING, IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. K. G. RUKMINIAMMA (2011) 331 ITR 211 (KARN). 10.2 I ALSO FIND THAT A DECISION OF ITAT, BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF MS. SARITHA ANAND SHETTY VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 1886/BANG/2018 DATED 10.08.2018, ON ALMOST SIMILAR FACTS, HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON MULTIPLE UNITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAME BUILDING ON ENTERING INTO JDA WITH THE DEVELOPER. IN COMING TO THIS FINDING, THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH, FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. K. G. RUKMINIAMMA (SUPRA). 10.3 ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE SAME VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V. R. KARPAGAM (ITA NO. 301 OF 2014 DATED 18.08.2014). IN THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT, THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE WORD A BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 WAS OPERATIVE W.E.F. ONLY 01.04.2015, WHEREBY DEDUCTION FOR MORE THAN ONE FLAT (RESIDENTIAL HOUSE), IS TO BE WITHDRAWN. HOWEVER, PRIOR TO THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT (SUPRA), A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WOULD INCLUDE MULTIPLE FLATS/RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE SAME MULTI-STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING. 10.4 THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED DR THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 01.04.2015 IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND HAS TO BE READ RETROSPECTIVELY SINCE THE INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE WAS THAT DEDUCTION WAS TO ITA NO. 2250/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 9 BE ALLOWED ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE UNIT/FLAT IS NOT TENABLE AS IT GOES CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V. R. KARPAGAM (SUPRA) AT PARA 10 THEREOF. IN THIS REGARD, THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P. LTD., (367 ITR 466) HAS OBSERVED THAT WHEN A LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN APPLICABILITY OF A SECTION FROM A PARTICULAR DATE, IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE FOR THE AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE SAME RETROSPECTIVELY FOR EARLIER YEARS. 10.5 IN THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. K. G. RUKMINIAMMA (SURPA) AND OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V. R. KARPAGAM (SUPRA) AND OTHER JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE ON HAND IS ELIGIBLE TO BE ALLOWED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF MULTIPLE FACTS, I.E., THE 4 FLATS IN THE SAME APARTMENT BUILDING RECEIVED BY HER UPON ENTERING INTO THE JDA ON 10.09.2009 WITH M/S. G. I. DEVELOPERS. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 31 ST OCTOBER, 2018. /NS/* ( G. MANJUNATHA ) ( JASON P BOAZ ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2250/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.