M/s Epson India Private Limited , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2509/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8949 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Transfer pricing; Opportunity of being heard; International transaction
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A NO. 2509 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 4 - 1 5 M/S. EPSON INDIA PVT. LTD., 12 TH FLOOR, THE MILLENIA, TOWER A, NO. 1, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR, BANGALORE 560 008. PAN: AAACE7858F VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2 (1) (2) , BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PADAM CHAND KHINCHA , CA RE VENUE BY : DR. P.V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT(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 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON 27.07.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF IT ACT, 1961 AS P ER THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, EPSON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ('EPSON INDIA' OR THE 'ASSESS EE' OR THE 'APPELLANT') RESPECTFULLY CRAVES LEAVE TO PREFER AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ('ACT') AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CIRCLE - 2(1)(2) ('AO') DATED 27TH JULY 2018 IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIR ECTIONS ISSUED BY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ('DRP'), BANGALORE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. GENERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1.1 THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AO/ TRANSFER PRICING O FFICER ('TPO') AND DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE DRP ARE BASED ON INCO RRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND FACTS, THEREFORE ARE BAD IN LAW. IT(TP)A NO. 2509/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 7 1.2 BASED ON DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE DRP, THE LEA RNED AO ERRED IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 94,55,70,790/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 49,21,79,885/-. 2. GROUNDS RELATING TO ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RESPECT T O ADVERTISEMENT MARKETING, PROMOTION ('AMP') EXPENSES INCURRED BY T HE APPELLANT AMOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT 45,15,81,835/-. 2.1 THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERR ED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED AMP EX PENSES WITH THIRD PARTIES AND THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSOC IATED ENTERPRISE ('AE'). 2.2 THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERR ED IN LAW AND IN FACTS, IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE EXISTS INTERNATI ONAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND ITS AE RELYING ON THE MET HODOLOGY OF BRIGHT LINE TEST ('BLT'). IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, THERE EXIST NO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF AMP IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERRED IN SELECTING THE INAPPROPRIATE COMPA RABLES FOR COMPUTING BLT EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT COMPARABLE I N TERMS OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, ASSETS UTILIZED, RISKS ASSUMED ETC. 2.4 THE HON'BLE DRP HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTI ON OF THE TPO/ AO OF SEGREGATING THE AMP EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT INTO ROUTINE AND NON-ROUTINE AND OBSERVING THAT NON-ROUT INE AMP EXPENDITURE IS TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT, ENHANCEMENT, MA INTENANCE, PROTECTION AND EXPLOITATION ('DEMPE') FUNCTIONS REQ UIRING COMPENSATION FROM AE WITHOUT PLACING ANY EVIDENCE O N RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS A TRANSACTION AS ENVISAGE D IN SECTION 92F(V) OF THE ACT. 2.5 WITH RESPECT TO DIRECT SALES MADE BY THE AE TO THE CUSTOMERS IN INDIA, THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERRED, IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS/ COMM ERCIAL EXPEDIENCIES OF THE ARRANGEMENT, THE MINIMAL QUANTUM OF SUCH SAL ES AND ALSO THE FACT THAT EVEN IN RESPECT OF SUCH SALES THE APPELLA NT IS ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED. 2.6 THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERR ED, IN LAW AND IN FACTS, BY NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ALLEGED TRAN SACTION OF ENHANCEMENT OF MARKETING INTANGIBLES IS CLOSELY LIN KED TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN THE DISTRIBUTION SEGM ENT AND WHEN DONE SO, IT IS DISCERNABLE THAT AN APPROPRIATE QUANTUM O F PROFITS IS OFFERED TO TAX IN INDIA. 2.7 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE H ON'BLE DRP HAVE ERRED, IN LAW AND IN FACTS, BY NOT APPRECIATIN G THAT THE PREMIUM IT(TP)A NO. 2509/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 7 PROFITS IN THE DISTRIBUTION SEGMENT COMPENSATES MOR E THAN ANY EXCESS AMP EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.8 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE H ON'BLE DRP HAVE ERRED, IN LAW AND IN FACTS, BY NOT APPRECIATIN G ONCE THE NET PROFIT MARGIN IS TESTED ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF ARM'S LENGTH PRICE UNDER TNMM, IT PRE-SUPPOSES THAT THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF INCO ME AND EXPENDITURE CONSIDERED IN THE PROCESS OF ARRIVING A T THE NET PROFIT ARE ALSO AT ARM'S LENGTH. 2.9 THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERR ED, IN LAW AND FACTS, BY: A) CONSIDERING CERTAIN PURE SELLING EXPENSES AS PAR T OF AMP EXPENSES, THEREBY RESULTING IN ADOPTING INCORRECT B ASE FOR COMPUTING AMP; B) ADOPTING OTHER METHOD PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 10AB AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD; C) SELECTING THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AS COMPARABLES TO COMPUTE MARK-UP, WHICH ARE NOT APPROPRIATE COMPARABLES TO B ENCHMARK THE ALLEGED INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF ENHANCING THE MARKETING INTANGIBLES: SCARECROW COMMUNICATIONS LTD KILLICK AGENCIES & MARKETING LIMITED CYBER MEDIA INDIA LTD D) CONSIDERING NET GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS AS O PERATING IN NATURE AND NOT CONSIDERING DEPRECIATION AS OPERATING IN NA TURE WHILE COMPUTING THE MARGIN OF PRESSMAN ADVERTISING LTD; A ND E) CHARGING MARK-UP ON EXCESS AMP EXPENSES, WHICH I S NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY PROVISION UNDER THE ACT OR RULES. 2.10 THE LEARNED AO/TPO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ER RED IN CONCLUDING THAT MARKETING NETWORK CONSTITUTES INTAN GIBLE ASSET WHICH BENEFITS THE AE OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE FACTUAL POSITION, BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL REALITIES. 3. GROUNDS RELATING TO TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RELATION TO PRE-SALES SUPPORT SERVICES RENDERED BY THE APPELLAN T AMOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT INR 18,09,097/-. 3.1 THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERR ED, IN LAW AND IN FACTS, IN UNDERTAKING FRESH BENCHMARKING ANALYSI S DISREGARDING THE TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION/ANALYSIS MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF RENDERI NG OF PRE-SALES SUPPORT SERVICES; IT(TP)A NO. 2509/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 7 3.2 THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERR ED, IN LAW AND FACTS, IN SELECTING COMPARABLES WHICH ARE NOT COMPA RABLE IN TERMS OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, ASSETS EMPLOYED, RISKS ASSUMED , SIZE, TURNOVER ETC TO THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF RENDERING O F SUPPORT SERVICES ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT. THE LOWER INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN ADOPTING THE FOLLOWING COMPANY AS A COMPAR ABLE: A. BVG INDIA LIMITED 3.3 THE LEARNED TPO/AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAVE ERR ED, IN LAW AND FACTS, IN NOT MAKING ADJUSTMENT FOR ENTERPRISE LEVE L AND TRANSACTIONAL LEVEL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COMPARABLES AND THE P RE-SALES SUPPORT SERVICES SEGMENT OF THE APPELLANT. 4. GROUNDS RELATING TO LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTI ON 234B OF THE ACT 4.1 THE LEARNED AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST OF RS. 8,41,50,572/-UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITS LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B. EVEN OTHERWISE INTEREST COMPUTED IS EXCESSIVE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUND S ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, VA RY, OMIT OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL A T ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, SO AS TO ENAB LE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE ON THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS BUT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE ONLY TWO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS REG ARDING ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RESPECT TO AMP EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ADJUSTMENT MADE IS RS. 45,15,81,835/- AND THE SECOND ISSUE IN DISPU TE IS REGARDING TP ADJUSTMENT MADE IN RELATION TO PRE-SALES SUPPORT SE RVICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT OF ADJUSTMENT IS OF RS. 18, 09,097/-. REGARDING THE FIRST ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF AMP EXPENSES, HE SUB MITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DE CISION IN LINE WITH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER TW O YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14 IN IT(TP)A NOS. 293 & 247 9/BANG/2017 DATED 27.07.2018. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL O RDER AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA NO. 8 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND POINTED OU T THAT AS PER THIS PARA OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF TPO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IF THE TPO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE EXISTE D AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN THE FORM OF AMP FUNCTIONS, THEN, TO UNDERTAKE THE E XERCISE OF DETERMINATION OF IT(TP)A NO. 2509/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 7 ALP BY ADOPTING A SUITABLE METHOD OF COMPENSATION T O THE ASSESSEE FOR PERFORMING THE AMP FUNCTIONS OF ITS AE. HE SUBMITT ED THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, THIS ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE O F AO/TPO FOR FRESH DECISION WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 4. REGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE I.E. TP ADJUSTMENT MA DE BY THE AO OF RS. 18,09,097/- IN RESPECT OF PRE-SALES SUPPORT SERVICE S, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT AT PER PAGE NO. 30 OF THE ORDER OF TPO, THERE ARE TWO COMPARABLES SELECTED BY THE TPO 1) ICRA MANAGEMENT CONSULTING S ERVICES LTD. AND 2) BVG INDIA LTD. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WAS POINTED OU T BY THE BENCH THAT IF ON EXAMINATION, IT IS FOUND THAT IF THE ASSESSEES REQ UEST FOR EXCLUSION OF ONE COMPARABLE I.E. BVG INDIA LTD. IS TO BE ALLOWED THE N THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE REMAINING COMPARABLE. THE BENCH PUT FORWARD A PROP OSITION THAT SINCE THE MAJOR ISSUE IS GOING BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DECISION, THIS SMALLER ISSUE MAY ALSO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/T PO FOR FRESH DECISION BECAUSE AS PER PAGE NO. 168 OF THE APPEAL MEMO, THE ASSESSEE HAS SELECTED FOUR COMPARABLES I.E. 1) ICRA MCS LTD., 2) CAMEO CO RPORATE SERVICES LTD., 3)MURUGAPPA MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND 4) INFORMED TEC HNOLOGIES INDIA LTD. BUT THE TPO HAS SELECTED ONLY TWO COMPARABLES AND O UT OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING EXCLUSION OF ONE COMPARABLE AND THEREFORE, IT WILL BE PROPER IF FRESH TP ANALYSIS IS MADE BY THE TPO AFTE R PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE SO THAT THERE MAY BE MORE NO. OF COMPARABLES WHICH ARE REASONABLE IN THE FACTS OF TH E PRESENT CASE. IN REPLY, BOTH SIDES AGREED THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER MAY BE RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DECISION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT ADMITTEDLY, OUT OF TWO ISSUES INVOLVED IN PRESENT YEAR, ONE MAJOR ISSUE IS REGARDING AMP ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 45,15,81,835/- AND IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE, THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DECISION IN LINE WITH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AN D 2013-14 BECAUSE NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY ANY SID E. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER BEING PARA 8 IS REPRODUCED HEREINBEL OW FOR READY REFERENCE. 8. WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WH ETHER THE TPO WASJUSTIFIED IN MAKING ALP ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED IT(TP)A NO. 2509/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 7 EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AMP FUNCTIONS. IT IS UNDISP UTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTOR OF ITS AE I.E. EPSON SINGAPORE PTE IN INDIA. THAT APART, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS ALSO EARNING INCOME IN THE FORM OF COMMISSION BY ARRANGING DIRECT CUSTO MERS TO ITS AE. THE IMPORTANT FACT TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION I S THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSURED OF MINIMUM RETURN ON DISTRIBUTION BUSIN ESS. THESE FACTS, NO DOUBT, TRIGGER AN ENQUIRY INTO THE REAL NATURE O F RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND ITS AE I.E. WHETHER IT IS DIST RIBUTOR OR A TRADER. THE REAL ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE OF TRANSACTION IS REQUI RED TO BE FOUND OUT HAVING REGARD TO THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE PART IES. FURTHER HAVING REGARD TO THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES AND THE REAL ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTION, IT REQUIRES TO BE EST ABLISHED WHETHER THERE IS ANY INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF AMP EXPEN DITURE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN A SERIES O F JUDGMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO DECISION OF THE SONY ERICSSON MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INDIA P LTD. VS. CIT (35 TAXMANN.COM240) (DEL) LIKE YUM RESTAURANTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (380 ITR 637) HELD THAT A MP EXPENDITURE IS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION BUT DETERMINATION OF ALP WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETAILED EXAM INATION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITS AE TO ASCERT AIN WHETHER ANY PART OF AMP EXPENDITURE IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREAT ING MARKETING INTANGIBLES FOR AE OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN. IF IT IS SHOWN THAT AMP EXPENDITURE IS AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION, THEN F URTHER QUESTION OF DETERMINATION OF ALP OF SUCH INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT ION WOULD ARISE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO TPO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANYTHI NG ON RECORD TO SHOW EXISTENCE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO INCUR AMP EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING BRAND, INTANGIBLE OF ITS AE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSE E-COMPANY ALSO HAS NOT FURNISHED FAR ANALYSIS OF AMP FUNCTIONS IN ITS TP STUDY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE MATTER REQUIRES REMISSION T O THE TPO FOR UNDERTAKING FRESH ANALYSIS TO ESTABLISH EXISTENCE O F INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF AMP EXPENDITURE AND TRUE NATURE OF TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND ITS AE. AFTER DUE ANALYSIS OF FAR OF THE AMP FUNCTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLA NT AND HAVING REGARD TO THE ACTUAL CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT VIS- -VIS ITS AE AND ECONOMIC SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND ITS AE, IF THE TPO IS OF OPINION THAT THERE EXISTED AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IN THE FORM OF AMP FUNCTIONS, THEN, TO UNDERTAKE THE EXERCISE OF DETERMINATION OF ALP BY ADOPTING A SUIT ABLE METHOD OF COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT FOR PERFORMING THE AM P FUNCTIONS OF ITS AE. 6. HENCE IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO, WE RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DECISION WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND ISSUE ALSO I.E. TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 18,09,097/- IN RESPECT TO PRE-SALES SUPPORT SERVICES SEGMENT OF ASSESSEE, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DECISION BECAUSE IN TH E TP ANALYSIS FOR THIS SEGMENT, THE ASSESSEE SELECTED FOUR COMPARABLES BUT THE TPO SELECTED ONLY IT(TP)A NO. 2509/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 7 TWO COMPARABLES AND THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING EXCLUSI ON OF ONE COMPARABLE OUT OF THOSE TWO COMPARABLES AND IF THE ASSESSEES REQU EST IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE, THEN ONLY ONE COMPARABLE WILL BE LEFT A ND THEREFORE, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE BACK THIS MATTER ALSO TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DECISION PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THIS THAT THE MAJOR ISSUE H AS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TPO FOR FRESH DECISION AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN EARLIER YEARS. HENCE WE RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO/TP O FOR FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 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.