U.S. Siddalingappa, Mysore V. ACIT, Mysore

ITA 23/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57553 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: SUKESH S PATIL
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, J.M AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) SRI U S SIDDALINGAPPA, 475, E BLOCK, 11 TH MAIN, 8 TH CROSS, J P NAGAR, MYSORE. PA NO.AVVPS5657H VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 28.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.03.2012 APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUKESH S PATIL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE, JCIT, (ITAT), BANGALORE. OR DER PER GEORGE GEORGE K : THIS APPEAL INSTITUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), MYSORE DATED 03.11. 2010. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READS AS FOLLOWS :- I) THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED FOR DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 2 INCOME WITHOUT CONFRONTING WITH THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE EXTENT OF LAND HOLDING AND ALSO WITHOUT PUTTING THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ON THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT, BEFORE THE APPELLANT TO REBUT THE SAME. III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ACTION OF THE HONBLE CIT(A), MYSORE IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.13,00,000/- BASED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE 2004-05, WITHOUT ACCEDE THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT FOR PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE LAND, CROPS GROWN AND YIELD THE APPELLANT IS GETTING, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IV) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ACTION OF THE HONBLE CIT(A), MYSORE IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.13,00,000/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INCREASE IN RATES AS WELL AS INCREASE IN YIELD OVER THE PASSAGE OF TIME IN PLANTATION CROP. V) FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS WHICH MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE HONBLE BENCH IS REQUESTED TO HOLD THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.21,50,000/- IS GENUINE AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS :- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS IN THE BUSI NESS OF REAL ESTATE, FERTILIZERS ETC. FOR THE CONCERNED AS SESSMENT YEAR, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 12/7/2006 DECLARING A N INCOME OF RS.12,29,177/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.21,50, 000/-. A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.11. 2005, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE SURVEY; THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 9/11/2006. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 3 OF CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 14,01,071/- AND TREATED IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY WHO ALLOWED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT O F RS.13 LAKHS. 5. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) READS AS FOL LOWS :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. I MUST POINT OUT THAT IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY DETAILS OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY VOUCHERS, SALE BILLS OR ANY OTHER DETAILS WHATSOEVER OF HIS AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE APPELLANTS CASE IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE LAND OWNED BY HIM AND FURTHER ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM SUCH LANDS. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN NAMES OF CROPS GROWN ON THESE LANDS THOUGH THE INFORMATION IS GENERAL IN NATURE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ACTUALL Y PRODUCED IN THE FORM OF SALE/PURCHASE VOUCHERS, EXPENDITURE BILL ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO VARIOUS REPORTS ETC. AND BASED HIS ESTIMATE ON THE SAME. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPELLANT. THUS THE WHOLE APPEAL IS REGARDING WHOSE (THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OR THE APPELLANTS) ESTIMATE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, I FIND THAT THE BEST ESTIMATION IN THIS CASE CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 4 AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. I FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE APPELLANT HAD DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,93,000/-. SINCE THEN THE APPELLANT ACQUIRED FURTHER LANDS TOTAL COST OF WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT RS.5 LAKHS. IT IS ANYBODYS GUESS HOW MUCH INCOME THESE ADDITIONAL LANDS WOULD HAVE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. STILL ON THE PRETEXT OF ADDITIONAL AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE APPELLANT INCREASED HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME MANY TIMES AND DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.15,00,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING A VERY RECONCILIATORY APPROACH ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.13,00,000/- AND THE BALANCE OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THIS PAST HISTORY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, I FEEL THAT A VERY REASONABLE AND LIBERAL ESTIMATE WOULD BE TO ACCEPT THE SAME AGRICULTURAL AMOUNT AS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 I.E. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY FACTS WHICH CAN SATISFY ANY FURTHER PHENOMENAL INCREASE IN HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS MANY TIMES MORE THAN WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO BE UNDER AN IMPRESSION THAT HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD ALSO INCREASE ALONG WITH HIS BUSINESS INCOME. THERE IS NO SUCH CORRELATION BETWEEN THE TWO. THE APPELLANT HAS DONE VERY WELL IN HIS BUSINESS AND ALS O IN PUBLIC LIFE BUT THAT CANNOT BE THE REASON FOR ACCEPTING MORE THAN 100% GROWTH IN HIS PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 5 AGRICULTURAL INCOME YEAR AFTER YEAR. CONSIDERING AL L THESE FACTS, I FEEL THAT THE APPELLANTS AGRICULTUR AL INCOME SHOULD BE ADOPTED AT RS.13 LAKHS AS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THIS WILL ALSO TAKE CARE OF THE APPELLANT S ARGUMENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER HIS ENTIRE LAND HOLDINGS WHILE ESTIMATING HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. 6. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 7. THE LEARNED ARS ARGUMENTS ARE SUMMARIZED AS FO LLOWS :- (I) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED ONLY 15.12 ACRES OF LAND AS OWNED AND CULTIVATED FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE APPELLANT HAS OWNED 46 ACRES 14 GUNTAS AND 30 CENTS OF CULTIVATED LAND FOR WHICH RTCS ARE AVAILABLE (COPY OF RTCS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH). THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGFULLY TAKEN AS ONLY 15.12 ACRES OF LAND, WHEREAS, THE PRECEDING ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE HOLDING OF LAND OF THE APPELLANT, TO THE EXTENT OF 46 ACRES VIDE THE SCHEDULE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE RTCS WE HAVE PRODUCED IS FOR ONLY 15.12 ACRES OF LAND AND THE REMAINING AREA RTCS WERE NOT PRODUCED. IF THE APPELLANT HAD KNOWN THE FACT HE COULD HAVE PRODUCED ALL THE RTCS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (II) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE ONLY 4 CROPS GROWN I.E. BANANA, VANILLA, COCONUT, PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 6 SUPOTA AND COTTON, WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN RTCS BUT IN PRACTICE THE FARMER GROW MORE CROPS IN LAND EITHER AS THE INTER CROP OR MAIN CROP. IN SOME OF THE RTCS THE CROP GROWN HAS NOT MENTIONED. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GROWN ANYTHING ON THAT LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND MADE HER OWN GUESSING AND APPLIED HER MIND TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ONLY 4 CROPS ARE GROWN. BUT, IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GROWN ALL THE CROPS AS SUBMITTED BY HIM. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF TAKING THE 4 CROPS IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WITHOUT CONFRONTING WITH THE APPELLANT. (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE YIELD, RELIED ON SOME PUBLISHED REPORTS IN HINDU, BUSINESS LINE, REPORT OF THE ADIT INVESTIGATION, COIMBATORE, WEBSITE WWW.DES.KAR.NIC.IN AND ECONOMIC SURVEY PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RELYING ON THESE SOURCES VIOLATED UNDER SECTION 142(3). SECTION 142(3) STATES THE ASSESSEE SHALL, EXCEPT WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE UNDER SECTION 144, BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN RESPECT OF ANY MATERIAL GATHERED ON THE BASIS OF ANY ENQUIRY AS PER SECTION 142(2). IN THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER DISCUSSED WITH THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND NATURE OF INFORMATION WHICH SHE GATHERED. THE INFORMATION SHE GATHERED IS ALL ABOUT AVERAGE YIELD, WHICH MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE FOR PARTICULAR CASE, WHEREIN THE PERSON EMPLOYED SCIENTIFIC AND NATURAL MANURE METHOD FOR CULTIVATION. HERE ALSO THE PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 7 ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IS NOT AS PER THE LAW AND NOT AS PER THE FACT BUT AS PER THE BOOK KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS NOT REALISTIC IN PRACTICAL SITUATION. (IV) REGARDING THE PRICE AND EXPENDITURE SHE ADOPTED THE RATE TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE SHE PROPORTIONALLY TAKEN THE EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF LAND CULTIVATED. BUT IN FACT THE LAND CULTIVATED IS MORE THAN WHAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED. (V) DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE PRECEDING THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA NO.3 OF PAGE 4 STATED THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING LAND HOLDING, CROP GROWN APPEARS TO BE TRUE. THE SAME LAND HOLDING AND THE SAME CROP GROWN HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PRESENT ASSESSING OFFICER BUT APPLICATION OF MIND IS DIFFERS. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE PRECEDING ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.13,00,000/- BUT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ACCEPTED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.7,48,929/- WHICH IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE TO THE FACT OF THE CASE AND BASED ON THE WRONG PERCEPTION REGARDING LAND HOLDINGS, CROP GROWN AND YIELD PER ACRE. SUPPOSE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN DISCUSSED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED AND SUBMITTED THE SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION THEN AND THERE ITSELF FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ASSUMPTION, PRESUMPTION, IMAGINATION AND THE SOURCES ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RELIED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 8 RS.14,01,071/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS ONLY BASED ON THE WRONG PERCEPTION AS SAID SUPRA, FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (VI) THE HONBLE CIT(A), MYSORE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE LAND HOLDING OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE LAND HOLDING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ALLOWED AGRICULTURE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,00,000/- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. THE HONBLE CIT(A), MYSORE COULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ENTIRE LAND HOLDING. (VII) DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED THE HONBLE CIT(A), MYSORE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VISIT THE LAND TO ASCERTAIN CROP GROWN AND EXTENT OF LAND USED FOR CULTIVATION AND TO ASCERTAIN AFTER PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE LAND HOLDING, AGRICULTURE INCOME CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS GENUINE OR NOT. THE HONBLE CIT(A), MYSORE WITHOUT ACCEPTING THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT, ADOPTED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.13,00,000/-, WHICH IS ARBITRARY, NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCES. THE HONBLE CIT(A), MYSORE WHILE DOING SO NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE INCREASE IN THE YIELD OVER PASSAGE OF TIME IN PLANTATION CROP AND ALSO INCREASE IN THE RATES OF CROPS GROWN. (VIII) OR THE INFORMATION OF THIS HONBLE BENCH AND TO DRAW THE FACTUAL INFERENCES HEREWITH I AM ENCLOSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 9 INSPECTOR AND FULLY SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 8. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER MAINTAINED ANY DETAILS OF INCO ME AND EXPENDITURE NOR MAINTAINED ANY VOUCHERS, SALE BILLS OR ANY DETAILS WHATSOEVER WITH REFERENCE TO HIS AGRICULTURAL OPERA TIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN THE ESTIMATE OF YIELD OF VARIOUS CROPS THAT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GROWN/CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BY TAKING THE AVERAGE YIELD PUBLISHE D FOR VARIOUS CROPS FROM RELIABLE SOURCES. IT WAS ARGUED THAT TH E CIT(A) HAD INCREASED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM RS.7,48,929/ - ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RS.13 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, THE RE WAS NO NECESSITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE C IT(A), NO DETAILS ARE FORTHCOMING WITH REFERENCE TO INCOME AND EXPEND ITURE STATEMENT, VOUCHERS, SALE BILLS AND ANY OTHER DETAIL S WHATSOEVER WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. THE ESTIMATE OF CROPS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT TH E AVERAGE YIELD PER ACRE FROM RELIABLE SOURCES. THE CIT(A) HAS INC REASED THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE TO RS. 13 LAKHS FROM RS.7.48 LAKHS FIXED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) HAS INCREASED THE AG RICULTURE INCOME FOR THE REASON THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.13 LAKHS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, NAMELY ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NO.23/BANG/2011 10 PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL, WE FEEL THAT INTERFERENCE WIT H THE CIT(A)S ORDER MAY NOT BE REQUIRED. HOWEVER, SINCE THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT RS.13 LAKHS AND ALSO COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLA IMED AT RS.29,50,000/-, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, THERE SHOULD BE A FURTHER INCREASE IN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE THEREFORE INCREASE TH E AGRICULTURE INCOME TO RS.16 LAKHS INSTEAD OF RS.13 LAKHS ADOPTE D BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012 SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO : 1. THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT CONCERNE D. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF MSP/ BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE .