Smt. Veena N., V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 271/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 27121114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L V BHASKAR REDDYDR
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK PADMANABHANCA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Additional evidence
• Section: 54B; 69; 63

Judgement Text

ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE B BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.271/BANG/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SMT. VEENA N NO.826, 2BC 8 TH E MAIN, R.P. BHAVAN, 1 ST BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYANNAGAR BANGALORE 560043 PAN: ACFPV 8371 C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(4) NRUPATHANGA ROAD BANGALORE 560001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DEEPAK PADMANABHAN,CA DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI L.V.BHASKAR REDDY,(DR) DATE OF HEARING: 21/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/07/2014 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), DATED 04.09.2012, PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THO UGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SEVEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT HER GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND TWO ISSUES NAMELY: A) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRRED IN DISALLOWING EXEMPTI ON U/S 54B OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 B) ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I N THE PURCHASE OF LAND. ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 2 OF 10 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. SHE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 1 9.05.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.2,03,680/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUE D AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOU NT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 5 4B OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND ON 05.02. 2005 COMPRISED SURVEY NO.112/2 MEASURING 9 GUNTAS. THIS LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPME NT BOARD (KIADB) ON 18.06.2007. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CO MPENSATION OF RS.14,62,500/-. SHE HAS COMPUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UNDER: COST OF LAND AS ON 5.2.2005 AS PER FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RS. 4,50,000 ACQUISITION COMPENSATION AS PER FORM NO.16A, 18/06/2007 RS.14,62,500 CAPITAL GAINS (SHORT TERM) RS.10,12,500 THIS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.10,12,500 IS TAX ED ACCORDINGLY. 3. DURING THE YEAR SHE HAD PURCHASED LAND BEARING S URVEY NO.62 MEASURING 6 GUNTAS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 13,14,575/-. THIS LAND WAS PURCHASED ON 17.03.2008. SIMILARLY, S HE ALSO MADE INVESTMENT IN A SITE BEARING NO.4C-1008 SITUAT ED AT HENNUR ROAD BANASWADI LAYOUT, 1 ST BLOCK, BANGALORE. THIS WAS PURCHASED ON 13.06.2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 4,03,120/-. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT EXEMPTION U/S 54B BE GI VEN, BECAUSE OUT OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY HER, SH E HAD PURCHASED THE LAND. ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 3 OF 10 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT AS PER SECTION 54B, THE OWNER OF THE LAND OUGHT TO HAVE USED THE LAND FOR AGRICULTUR AL PURPOSE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS. THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THE LAND ACQUIRED BY K IADB WAS EVER USED BY HER FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. IN THIS WAY, HE DECLINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54B OF THE A CT. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A COMPENSATION OF RS.14,62,500/-, WHER EAS SHE HAD MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.47,17,695/-. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE EXPLANATION OF RS.32,55,195/-. THUS ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO DISCLOS E THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.32,55,195 WHICH IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ULTIMATE INVEST MENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TWO PROPERTIES, MINUS THE CO MPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. APPEAL TO THE CIT (A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO LEAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SHE SOUGHT TO PLACE ON RECORD COPIES OF THE REVENUE RECORD AND COPIES OF A CHEQUE RECEIV ED FROM M/S EXORA BUSINESS PARK (P) LTD. SHE ALSO INTENDED TO P LACE ON RECORD A CERTIFICATE FROM THE GRAMOTHAN RESOURCE CE NTRE INDICATING THAT THE WILD GRASS STANDING IN THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED BY THE KIADB IS AN AGRICULTURAL P RODUCT, WHICH IS TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CATTLE FEED IN AND AROUND ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 4 OF 10 BANGALORE. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER AFFIDAVIT IN SUPP ORT OF HER APPLICATION. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE IMPUG NING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D FILED COPIES OF THE REVENUE RECORD AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAD C ALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE RE MAND REPORT HAS BEEN PLACED ON PAGE (1) OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN T HIS REMAND REPORT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ANALYZED THE RECORDS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE STATE REVENUE AUT HORITIES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CROP GROWN HAS BEEN SHOWN AS HALLU (IN KANNADA). IT MEANS THAT IT IS A WILD GRASS GROWN WITHOUT ANY ASSISTANCE AND IT DOES NOT FALL W ITHIN THE MEANING OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT ON THE LAND IN DISPUTE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE PLEA THAT THE LAND IS AGRICULTURE AND PRODUCED THE RELEVANT D OCUMENTS, BUT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE I SSUE ANALYTICALLY. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIFABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, REPORTED IN 204 ITR 631 HAS LAID DOWN C ERTAIN TESTS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED ON THE FACTS WHILE DETERMINI NG WHETHER A LAND IS AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT. THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MINGUEL CHANDRA PAIS AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 282 ITR 618. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT INVESTMENT IN THE LAND WAS MET OUT OF THE COMPENSAT ION RECEIVED FROM M/S EXORA BUSINESS PARK (P) LTD. HE ALSO CONTE NDED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.32,55,195/- HAS BEEN MADE U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT BUT THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 69 HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED ON ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 5 OF 10 THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY SUCH ADDITION. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY MENTION OF SECTI ON 69. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY E XPLANATION WHAT TO TALK OF PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOU RCE OF RS.32,55,195/-. AS FAR AS THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U /S 54B IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LAND IN DISPUTE WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING TWO YEARS FROM ITS ACQUISITION. 9. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 54B OF THE I .T. ACT PROVIDES A MECHANISM, WHERE A CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LA ND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CERTAIN C ASES. UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION 2 WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND WHICH, I N THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFE R TOOK PLACE, WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR A PARENT OF HIS F OR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THEN THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT WILL BE GOVERNED UNDER SUB-CLAUSE I & II AND SUB- SECTION 2 OF SECTION 54B. SINCE THE MEANING OF OTHE R PROVISIONS ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 6 OF 10 ARE NOT IN DISPUTE OR NOT RELEVANT FOR THE CONTROVE RSY IN HAND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TAKE NOTE OF THE OTHER CLAUSES. THE DISPUTE BEFORE US IS, WHETHER THE LAND WHICH WA S ACQUIRED BY THE KIADB WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY P RECEDING TWO YEARS BEFORE ITS ACQUISITION FOR AGRICULTURAL P URPOSE OR NOT? AND SHE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHIN TWO YEARS. IF IT WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE, THEN THE EXEMPTI ON U/S 54B WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PR ODUCE THE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE USER OF THE LAND. ON THE OT HER HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF THE REVENUE RECORD M AINTAINED BY THE REVENUE OFFICERS OF THE STATE GOVT. THIS REC ORD APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A), BECAUSE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUCH REPORT WAS SUBMITTED VID E LETTER DATED 17.03.2012. COPY OF THE REPORT IS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD. IN PARAGRAPH NO.4 OF THE REMAND REPORT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE. ON DUE CONSIDERAT ION OF THE REMAND REPORT VIS--VIS THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER FAILED TO MAKE AN ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION ON THIS ISSUE. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MINGUEL CH ANDRA PAIS (SUPRA) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF TESTS PROPOUNDED BY THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHILE JUDGING THE STATUS OF A LAND. T HESE TESTS ARE AS UNDER: (A) WHETHER THE LAND WAS CLASSIFIED IN THE REVENUE RECORDS AS AGRICULTURAL AND WHETHER IT WAS SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF LAND REVENUE? ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 7 OF 10 (B) WHETHER THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY OR ORDINARILY USE D FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AT OR ABOUT THE RELEVANT TIME? (C) WHETHER SUCH USER OF THE LAND WAS FOR A LONG PE RIOD OR WHETHER IT WAS OF A TEMPORARY CHARACTER OR BY WA Y OF A STOPGAP ARRANGEMENT? (D) WHETHER THE INCOME DERIVED FROM THE AGRICULTURA L OPERATIONS CARRIED ON IN THE LAND BORE ANY RATIONAL PROPORTION TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHASING THE LAND? (E) WHETHER, THE PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 65 OF THE BOMBAY LAND REVENUE CODE WAS OBTAINED FOR THE NON-AGRICULTURAL USE OF THE LAND? IF SO, WHEN AND B Y WHOM (THE VENDOR OR THE VENDEE)? WHETHER SUCH PERMISSION WAS IN RESPECT OF A PORTION OF THE LAND AND IF IT WAS OBTAINED IN THE PAST, WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE USER OF THE SAID PORTION OF THE LAND ON THE MAT ERIAL DATE ? (F) WHETHER THE LAND, ON THE RELEVANT DATE, HAD CEA SED TO BE PUT TO AGRICULTURAL USE? IF SO, WHETHER IT WA S PUT TO AN ALTERNATIVE USE ? WHETHER SUCH CESSER AND/OR ALTERNATIVE USER WAS OF A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY NATURE ? (G) WHETHER THE LAND, THOUGH ENTERED IN REVENUE RECORDS, HAD NEVER BEEN ACTUALLY USED FOR AGRICULTU RE, THAT IS, IT HAD NEVER BEEN PLOUGHED OR TILLED? WHET HER THE OWNER MEANT OR INTENDED TO USE IT FOR AGRICULTU RAL PURPOSES ? (H) WHETHER THE LAND WAS SITUATE IN A DEVELOPED ARE A? WHETHER ITS PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS, SURROUNDING SITUATION AND USE OF THE LANDS IN THE ADJOINING ARE A WERE SUCH AS WOULD INDICATE THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL ? (I) WHETHER THE LAND ITSELF WAS DEVELOPED BY PLOTTI NG AND PROVIDING ROADS AND OTHER FACILITIES ? (J) WHETHER THERE WERE ANY PREVIOUS SALES OF PORTIO NS OF THE LAND FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL USE ? ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 8 OF 10 (K) WHETHER PERMISSION UNDER SECTION 63 OF THE BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948, WAS OBTAINED BECAUSE THE SALE OR INTENDED SALE WAS IN FAVOUR OF A NON-AGRICULTURIST? IF SO, WHETHER TH E SALE OR INTENDED SALE TO SUCH NON-AGRICULTURIST WAS FOR NON- AGRICULTURAL OR AGRICULTURAL USER ? (L) WHETHER THE LAND WAS SOLD ON YARDAGE OR ON ACREAGE BASIS ? (M) WHETHER AN AGRICULTURIST WOULD PURCHASE THE LAN D FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AT THE PRICE AT WHICH THE LAND WAS SOLD AND WHETHER THE OWNER WOULD HAVE EVER SOLD THE LAND VALUING IT AS A PROPERTY YIELDING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON THE BASIS OF ITS YIELD?' THUS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT EXAMINED PROPE RLY. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE COLLECTED R EVENUE RECORD FROM THE REVENUE OFFICER, WHICH COULD INDICATE THE STATUS OF LAND IN THE PAST. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT END S OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET, IF WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH INQUIRY. 10. WITH REGARD TO THE 2 ND ISSUE, WE DO NOT FIND MUCH DISCUSSION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, M/S EXORA BUSINESS PARK (P) LTD HAD PAID A SUM OF RS.32,41,981/- VIDE CHEQUE DATED 24.04.2007. THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS CONCERN IS THE POWER OF A TTORNEY HOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THIS PLEA BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT (A). IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD WRITTEN A LETTER TO THIS CONCERN AND SOUGHT ITS EXPLANATION. THE LETTER WAS RETURNED BACK WITH THE POSTAL DEPART MENTAL REMARK NO SUCH OFFICE ON THIS ADDRESS. THUS THE A SSESSING ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 9 OF 10 OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO FILE COPY OF THE CHEQUE WHIC H WAS RECEIVED FROM THIS CONCERN. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE E VIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS T O BE INVESTIGATED AS TO WHY THIS CONCERN HAS PAID THIS MUCH OF AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED ON T HIS ISSUE. IF IT IS PART OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND WHICH WAS ACQU IRED BY KIADB, THEN NO ADDITION PROBABLY WOULD BE MADE, BUT THE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT COMPLETE ON THE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CO NTENTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE LETTER WRITTEN BY HIM RETURNED UNSERVED ON THE PAYER. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE USED HIS ST ATUTORY POWERS FOR COLLECTING THE INFORMATION FROM THE KIAD B. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO COMPLETE THE CHAIN FROM WHERE THIS AMOUNT CAME TO HER. IT APPEARS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED LITTLE NEGLIG ENTLY. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COLLECTED THE COMPLETE INFORMATION. HE SHOULD HAVE COLLECTED THE COPY OF T HE AWARD FROM THE KIADB AND THE OTHER TERMS OF ACQUISITION AND HO W THIS LAND WAS GIVEN TO OTHER CONCERN FOR DEVELOPMENT ETC. NO ONE WOULD PAY A SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF RS.32,41,981/- WITHOUT ANY REASON. THE PUNISHMENT IN THE SHAPE OF TAX LIABILITY IS DIS PROPORTIONATE TO THE ULTIMATE NEGLIGENCE IF ANY COMMITTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR KEE PING IN VIEW THE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET, IF WE SET ASIDE BOTH THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- INVESTIGATION AND RE-ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR EXPLANATION IN HER DEFENSE. IT IS NEEDL ESS TO SAY THAT ITA NO.271 OF 2013 VEENA N BANGALORE PAGE 10 OF 10 THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US WILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJU RE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUD ICE TO THE DEFENSE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 25 TH JULY, 2014. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE