M/s Turbotech Precision Engineering Private Limited , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-(7)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2252/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5052 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINANDINI DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: LOKESH JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2 252/ BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 1 4 M/S. TURBOTECH PRECISION ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., SURVEY NO. 8/2, HONNASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE 562 123. PAN: AAACT6674J VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7 (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI LOKESH JAIN, CA RE VENUE BY : SMT. SRI NANDINI DAS, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 . 0 9 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 . 10 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-7, BANGALORE DATED 20.06.2018 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)('CIT(A)') IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER IS PASSED IN HASTE, WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. THE ORDER IS PASSED AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NAT URAL JUSTICE AND THUS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 6,44,026/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 2252/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 7 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE PENALTY OF RS. 6,44,026/-LEVIED BY THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED/DELETED. 6. THE LD. AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME, ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT STATIN G THAT THE APPELLANT HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISH ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME AND CONCLUDED BY LEVYING THE PENALTY ON RS. 20,84,229/- STATING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 7. THE LD. AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN AN AR BITRARY MANNER AND HAS NOWHERE IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER PROVIDED HI S SATISFACTION REGARDING THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE APPELLANT AND HAS THEREBY FAILED TO PROVE THE APPELLANT GUILT Y OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8. FURTHER, THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLO WING THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 20,84,229/- AND IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(III) UNDER THE CLAIM THAT THE BORROWE D FUNDS WHERE ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT TO ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSI DIARIES AS THE INTEREST FREE FUNDS. 9. THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THA T THE BORROWED FUNDS WHERE DIRECTED TOWARDS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIAR IES OF THE APPELLANT AS A MEASURE OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE APPELLANT SEEKS YOUR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271 OF IT ACT ON 07.03.20 16 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE POIN TED OUT THAT AS PER THIS NOTICE, THE AO HAS NOT MADE IT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO IS REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON' BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY AS REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 (KARNATAKA) IN SUPPORT OF H IS CONTENTION THAT WHERE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO FOR LEVY OF PENALTY DOES NO T SPECIFY THE ALLEGATION, PENALTY ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND THE SAME CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON ANOTHER JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO. 38 0 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 COPY AVAILABLE ON PAGES 108 TO 111 OF PA PER BOOK. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE ALSO, HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COUR T DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE ON ITA NO. 2252/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 7 SAME LINE AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTT ON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST THIS JUDGE MENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, REVENUE FILED SLP BEFORE HONBLE APEX C OURT AND AS PER THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2016 AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 107 OF PAPER BOOK, THE SAID SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE A PEX COURT. 4. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA NO. 16 ON PAGE NO. 6 OF THE PENALTY ORDER, THE AO HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE HAS IMPOSED PENALTY U/ S. 271(1) (C) OF IT ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF ASSES SMENT ORDER FOR PRESENT YEAR IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 5 TO 24 OF PAPER BOOK FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN PARTICULAR, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PAGE NO. 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 23 OF PAPER BOOK AND IT WAS P OINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT PENALTY U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF IT AC T IS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SHE SUBMITTED TH AT IN VIEW OF THIS CATEGORICAL FINDING OF AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS PAS SED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 07.03.2016 ON WHICH NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271 WAS ISSUED BY HIM, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY AO IS BAD IN LAW AND PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF U.P. MATSYA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. VS. CIT AS REPORTED IN [2014] 41 TAXMANN.COM 447 (ALLAHABAD) IN SUPPORT OF THE MERIT OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE. 5. IN THE REJOINDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT EVEN AS PER PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN PARA NO. 14 OF TH E SAME, THE AO HAS NOT MADE IT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER HE IS IMPOSING PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME BECAUSE THE WORDS USED BY THE AO ARE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONCEALED ITS PARTICULARS OF INCOME / HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. H E ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NOS. 554 & 555/ASR/2014 DATED 07.05.2018. HE S UBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 25 O F THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THAT CASE ALSO, THIS WAS THE CO NTENTION OF LD. DR OF REVENUE WAS THIS THAT USE OF A PARTICULAR GRAMMATICAL SIGN / IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE ITA NO. 2252/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 7 CHARGE AND IT CANNOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS . HE POINTED OUT THAT IN SPITE OF CONSIDERING THIS ARGUMENTS OF LD. DR OF RE VENUE, HONBLE THIRD MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE HAS HELD IN SUBSEQUENT PARAS I.E. 26 AND 27 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT THE DEFAULTS IN THE PENALTY NOT ICES / ORDERS ARE SO FUNDAMENTAL THAT THEY CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS ELEMEN TARY OR BASIC MISTAKES ETC. SO AS TO LEAVE THEM IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND SECTION 292B CANNOT BE I NVOKED AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). THE C ONCLUSION OF THIS JUDGEMENT ARE SUMMARIZED BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN PARA 63 OF THIS JUDGMENT AND HENCE, FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE , THIS PARA IS REPRODUCED FROM THIS JUDGEMENT AVAILABLE ON PAGES 135 TO 137 O F PAPER BOOK. CONCLUSION 63. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, WHAT EMER GES IS AS UNDER: A) PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A CIVIL LIABI LITY. B) MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR IMPOSIN G PENALTY FOR BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES. C) WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIE NT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. D) EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 27 1(1)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC TION 271. E) THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONDITIONS SHOULD BE DISCE RNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. F) EVEN IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING T HE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), AT LEAST THE FACTS SET OUT IN EXPLANATION 1(A) & (B) IT SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FRO M THE SAID ORDER WHICH WOULD BY A LEGAL FICTION CONSTITUTE CONCEALME NT BECAUSE OF DEEMING PROVISION. G) EVEN IF THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED, AT LEAST, A DIRECTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR THE ASSESSMENT OFFI CER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE OF THE DEEMING PROVISION CONTAI NED IN SECTION ITA NO. 2252/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 7 1(B). H) THE SAID DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE T O THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS AND THE COMMI SSIONER. I) THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. J) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EVEN IF THE TAX LIABILITY IS ADMITTED IS NOT AUTOMATIC. K) EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDE R OF ASSESSMENT LEVYING TAX AND INTEREST AND HAS PAID TAX AND INTER EST THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE AUTHORITIES EITHER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IMPOSE PENALTY, UNLESS IT IS DISCERN IBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH UNE ARTHING OR ENQUIRY CONCLUDED BY AUTHORITIES IT HAS RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX OR SUCH TAX LIABILITY CAME TO BE ADMITTED AND IF NOT IT WOU LD HAVE ESCAPED FROM TAX NET AND AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. L) ONLY WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED OR THE EXPLA NATION OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PRO VE THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT BONAFIDE, AN ORDER IMPOS ING PENALTY COULD BE PASSED. M) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, EVEN THOUGH NOT SUBS TANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE AND ALL FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAV E BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED. N) THE DIRECTION REFERRED TO IN EXPLANATION 1B TO S ECTION 271 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY. O) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SA TISFACTION OR HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDING S, IN APPEAL, IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY RECORDS SATISFACTION, THEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE INITIATED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND NOT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. P) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECI FICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETH ER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORREC T PARTICULARS OF INCOME Q) SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIO NED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. R) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HA S TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ITA NO. 2252/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 7 ASSESSEE. S) TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. T) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY THOUGH EMANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, IT IS INDEP ENDENT AND SEPARATE ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS. U) THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS IN SO FAR AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INCORREC T PARTICULARS WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS. IT ISOPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE SAID PROCEEDI NGS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESS MENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT M ATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED AS INVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 7. FROM THE ABOVE CONCLUSION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT, IT IS SEEN THAT IT WAS HELD IN THIS CASE THAT NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE A CT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 (1) (C) I.E. WHETH ER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS O F INCOME AND IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MEN TIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY AND OTHERWISE, PR INCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO P ENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE FACTS O F PRESENT CASE AND AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, PENALTY ORDER PASSED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BAD IN LAW BECAUSE NOT ONLY IN THE PENALTY NOTICE BUT IN PENALTY ORDER ALSO, THE AO IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ALLEGAT ION IS REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE PARA 14 OF PENALTY ORDER WH ICH IS AS UNDER. 14. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION HELD ABOVE, AND, IN T HE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS PRONOUNCED BY THE JUDICIAL BODIES MENTIONED SUPRA, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS C ONCEALED ITS PARTICULARS OF INCOME / HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME.THEREFORE, IT IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HENCE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 2252/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 7 8. THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT CIT ED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE HAS NO RELEVANCE IN RESPECT OF DEFECTS IN THE PENALTY N OTICE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE, THIS JUDGMENT HAS NO APPL ICABILITY. EVEN IF IT IS FOUND APPLICABLE, WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. NO CONTRARY JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT O R OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CITED BEFORE US B Y LD. DR OF REVENUE AND HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA CO TTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA), WE QUASH THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE A O BECAUSE THE SAME IS NOT AS PER LAW IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO IN THE PENALTY NOTICE AND PENALTY ORDER IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE AL LEGATION IS REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 12 TH OCTOBER, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.