UAE Exchange & Financial Services Limited , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2788/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4858 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A NO. 2788/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 UAE EXCHANGE & FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, NO.12 & 13, GROUND FLOOR, NORTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTER, DICKENSEN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 042. PAN: AAACU 2040F VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE. APP ELLANT RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : SMT. SUSAN MATHEW, CA RE SPOND ENT BY : MS. NEERA MALHOTRA, CIT(DR), ITAT, BENGALURU DATE OF HEARING : 10 . 0 4 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 . 0 4 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED TPO / AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP GRIEVO USLY ERRED BY DETERMINING AND SUSTAINING THE TRANSFER PR ICING ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 6,94,98,484/- AND NOT FOLLOWING T HE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN YOUR AP PELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR AY 2010-11 AND AY 2011-12 AND ALSO NOT APP RECIATING IT(TP)A NO.2788/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 9 THAT THE HON'BLE DRP IN YOUR APPELLANT'S OWN CASE F OR AY 2010- 11, AY 2011-12 AND AY 2012-13 HAS ADJUDICATED THE M ATTER IN FAVOUR OF YOUR APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED TPO / AO ERRED IN HOLDING AND THE HO N'BLE DRP GRIEVOUSLY ERRED BY UPHOLDING THAT YOUR APPELLA NT MUST MANDATORILY APPLY RESERVE BANK OF INDIA'S REFERENCE EXCHANGE RATES WHILE SELLING FOREIGN CURRENCY, ALTHOUGH IT I S ITSELF AN AVERAGE RATE OF THE PREVIOUS DAYS TRANSACTIONS MADE BY MAJOR FOREX DEALERS AND ANNOUNCED ON A DAILY BASIS DURING THE DAY AND NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE BUSINESS COMMENCES IN THE MO RNING; 3. THE LEARNED TPO / AO AND THE HON'BLE DRP GRIEVOU SLY ERRED BY NOT GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF PLUS OR MINUS THREE PERCENT FOR ADJUSTMENTS TO ALP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SECON D PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2); 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DEPUTY CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE, MAY BE SET A SIDE TO THE EXTENT APPEALED AGAINST AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FO R THE AY 2010-11 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT RBI RATES OF FOREIGN EXCHANG E WERE ALSO BASED ON AVERAGING. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES PRICES WERE W ITHIN +/- 5% RANGE OF THE RBI RATES AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR TP ADJUSTMENT. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PLACED ON RECO RD. 3. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE OR DER OF THE AO AND THE DRP. IT(TP)A NO.2788/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 9 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN FOREIGN INWARD MONEY TRANSFERS, BUYING AND SELLING OF FOREI GN CURRENCIES AND TRAVELERS CHEQUES, AIR TICKETING, CORPORATE AGENCY FOR INSURANCE AND PROVISION OF OTHER EXCHANGE HOUSE SERVICES. THE AS SESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,99,10,050 AND CLAIMED A REFUND OF RS.46,34,430. THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE T PO AND THE TPO VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2016 DIRECTED THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.6,94,98,484 BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TP ADJUSTMENT. THE ADJUSTMENT W AS PROPOSED CONSEQUENT TO THE TPO HOLDING THAT THE CUP METHOD U SING INTERNAL COMPARABLES CANNOT BE APPLIED AS ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXPORT FOREIGN CURRENCY TO ITS AE EXACTLY AT THE REFERENCE RATE AN NOUNCED BY THE RBI AND THAT BENEFIT OF PERMISSIBLE RANGE OF +/- 3% PRESCRI BED UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. C ONSEQUENTLY, THE AO PASSED DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER PROPOSING TO DETERMIN E THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.21,94,08,530 BY MAKING THE TP ADJUSTMENT OF RS.6 ,94,98,484 AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.14,99,10,050. THE AS SESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE DRP AND THE DRP CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS PRIMARILY ON THE CONTENTION THAT REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE EAR LIER YEARS. 5. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND HAVING RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE MUMBAI BENC H, ACCEPTED THE IT(TP)A NO.2788/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 9 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS HELD THAT ASSESS EE WAS JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING THE BENEFIT AVAILABLE TO IT UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- 05. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER SECOND PROVISO TO SEC TION 92C(2) WHICH ALLOWS +/- 5% RANGE TO AN ASSESSEE COULD BE APPLIED EVEN IN A CASE WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVED WERE ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE, WHERE RBI RATES WERE CONSIDERED TO BE A B ENCH-MARK FOR THE ARMS LENGTH STUDY. IN THE CASE OF DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SINGAPORE V. DDIT (SUPRA) THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE QUE STION WHETHER THE +/- 5% RANGE WOULD BE AVAILABLE WHEN LIBOR RATE WAS CONSIDERED FOR BENCH MARKING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICING WITH RESPECT TO INTEREST CHARGES ON LOANS. AT PARA 11 TO 13 OF ITS ORDER, THE COORD INATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER:- 11. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO NOTE THAT THE ABOVE QUOTED PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) HAS BEEN SUB STITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 1.10.2009 WITH TWO PROVISOS. THE FIRST PROVISO STATES THAT : ` PROVIDED THAT WHE RE MORE THAN ONE PRICE IS DETERMINED BY THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD, THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF SUCH PRICES. AS PER THE SECOND PROVISO IF THE VARIATION BETWEEN THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE SO DETERMINED AND PRICE AT WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN UNDERTA KEN DOES NOT EXCEED THE SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE LATTER, THE PRICE AT WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN UND ERTAKEN SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE ARM'S LENGTH PRICE. MAIN SUB-SECTI ON (2) PROVIDES THAT THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD AS PER SU BSECTION (1) SHALL BE APPLIED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ALP. AS P ER THE FIRST PROVISO WHERE MORE THAN ONE PRICE IS DETERMINED BY THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD, THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF SUCH PRICES. PER CONTRA, I F THERE IS ONLY ONE PRICE WHICH IS DETERMINED BY THE MOST APPROPRIA TE METHOD, THEN AS PER THE MAIN SUB-SECTION (2) WITHOUT THE AI D OF PROVISO, THAT PRICE SHALL CONSTITUTE THE ALP. THE SECOND PRO VISO COMES INTO PLAY TO DEEM THE ACTUAL TRANSACTED PRICE AS TH E ALP. IT IT(TP)A NO.2788/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 9 PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE VARIATION BETWEEN THE ALP ` SO DETERMINED DOES NOT EXCEED THE SPECIFIED PERCENTAG E, THE PRICE AT WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION HAS ACTUALLY BE EN UNDERTAKEN `SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE WORDS `SO DETERMINED AS EMPLOYED IN THE SECOND PROVISO ASSUM E SIGNIFICANCE. AS THESE HAVE BEEN USED IN THE SECOND PROVISO DISTINCT FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE FIRST PROVI SO, NATURALLY THESE WILL APPLY TO THE ALP DETERMINED UNDER SUB-SE CTION (2) CONSISTING OF THE MAIN PROVISION AND ALSO THE FIRST PROVISO. RESULTANTLY, THE OPTION OF `DEEMED ALP SHALL EXTEN D NOT ONLY TO A SITUATION WHERE MORE THAN ONE PRICE IS DETERMINED AS ALP BY THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD BUT ALSO WHERE ONLY ONE PRICE IS DETERMINED AS ALP. THE NET RESULT IS THAT THE OPTIO N TO THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AVAILABLE IN BOTH THE SITUATIONS, COVERED UNDER MAIN SUB-SECTION (2) AND ALSO THE FIRST PROVISO. 12. WE REVERT TO THE POSITION OF LAW GOVERNED BY TH E SINGLE PROVISO BEFORE SUBSTITUTION BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) A CT, 2009 WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS LAYING D OWN THAT IF THERE IS ONLY ONE PRICE DETERMINED BY THE MOST APPR OPRIATE METHOD, THEN THIS OPTION OF PLUS MINUS 5% IS NOT AV AILABLE FOR DETERMINATION OF ALP. NOW THE MOOT POINT FOR OUR DE TERMINATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE LIBOR RATE SHOULD BE CONSIDERE D AS A SINGLE INTEREST RATE OR THE ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF MORE THAN ONE INTEREST RATE. IN ORDER TO FIND ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, IT IS SINE QUA NON TO UNDERSTAND THE CONNOTATION AND IMPORT OF LIBOR. IN THIS REGARD, BOTH THE SIDES HAVE PLACED ON RECORD SOME LITERATUR E THROWING LIGHT ON LIBOR. WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA DE FINE THE LONDON INTER BANK OFFERED RATE (LIBOR) AS `THE AVER AGE INTEREST RATE ESTIMATED BY LEADING BANKS IN LONDON THAT THEY WOULD BE CHARGED IF BORROWING FROM OTHER BANKS. IT HAS FURT HER BEEN EXPLAINED THAT LIBOR IS A BENCHMARK GIVING AN INDI CATION OF THE AVERAGE RATE AT WHICH A LIBOR CONTRIBUTOR BANK CAN OBTAIN UNSECURED FUNDING IN THE LONDON INTERBANK MARKET FO R A GIVEN PERIOD. INDIVIDUAL BBALIBOR RATES ARE THE END-PROD UCT OF A CALCULATION BASED UPON SUBMISSIONS FROM LIBOR CONTR IBUTOR BANKS, WHICH ARE THEN AVERAGED UNDER A `TRIMMED MEA N METHODOLOGY. LIBOR RATES ARE CALCULATED FOR TEN CU RRENCIES AND 15 BORROWING PERIODS RANGING FROM OVERNIGHT TO ONE YEAR AND ARE PUBLISHED DAILY AT 11.30 A.M. (LONDON TIME) BY THOM SON REUTERS. CURRENTLY 18 BANKS CONTRIBUTE TO THE FIXIN G OF THE US $ IT(TP)A NO.2788/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 9 LIBOR. MODUS OPERANDI FOR CALCULATION OF LIBOR IS E XTRACTED AS UNDER :- LIBOR IS CALCULATED AND PUBLISHED BY THOMSON REUTE RS ON BEHALF OF THE BRITISH BANKERS ASSOCIATION (BBA). IT IS AN INDEX THAT MEASURES THE COST OF FUNDS TO LARGE GLOBAL BANKS OP ERATING IN LONDON FINANCIAL MARKETS OR WITH LONDON-BASED COUNT ERPARTIES. EACH DAY, THE BBA SURVEYS A PANEL OF BANKS (18 MAJO R GLOBAL BANKS FOR THE USD LIBOR), ASKING THE QUESTION, AT WHAT RATE COULD YOU BORROW FUNDS, WERE YOU TO DO SO BY ASKING FOR AND THEN ACCEPTING INTER-BANK OFFERS IN A REASONABLE MARKET SIZE JUST PRIOR TO 11 AM? THE BBA THROWS OUT THE HIGHEST 4 AND LOW EST 4 RESPONSES, AND AVERAGES THE REMAINING MIDDLE 10, YI ELDING A 23% TRIMMED MEAN. THE AVERAGE IS REPORTED AT 11:30 A.M. 13. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT EACH LIBOR CONTRIBUTOR PANE L BANK FORMULATES ITS OWN RATE FOR A DAY WHICH IS PUT INTO THE APPLICATION WHICH LINKS DIRECTLY TO A RATE SETTING TEAM AT THOM SON REUTERS. THEN TRIMMING IS DONE OF SUCH RATES SUBMITTED BY DI FFERENT CONTRIBUTOR BANKS. AFTER EXCLUDING FOUR HIGHEST AND LOWEST RATES, AN AVERAGE IS WORKED OUT, WHICH BECOMES LIBOR RATE. THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT LIBOR IS NOT A RATE IN ITSELF WHICH IS CHARGED OR PAID FOR THE USER OF INTER BANK DEPOSITS. IT IS ONLY AN `AVERAGE OF THE RATES SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS PANEL BANKS, AFTER EXCLU SION OF FOUR EACH OF HIGHEST AND LOWEST RESPONSES, WHICH IS DAIL Y REPORTED AT 11:30 A.M. ALBEIT, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING IT IS ONLY ONE RATE, BUT IN REALITY, IT IS AN AVERAGE OF RATES AT WHICH VARIOUS BANKS BORROW OR LEND INTER BANK DEPOSITS. RETURNING TO OUR CONTEXT OF RULE 10B(1)(A) READ WITH SECTION 92C(2) PROVISO, IT CAN BE EASILY DEDUCED THAT THE LIBOR IS NOTHING BUT ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF RATES OF INTEREST CHARGED OR PAID ON INTER BANK DEPOSITS BY A NUMBER OF PANEL BANKS REPRESENTING DIFFERENT COMPARABLE UNCON TROLLED TRANSACTIONS. CONSIDERING THE LIBOR AS ONE COMPARAB LE UNCONTROLLED INTEREST RATE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINI ON IS A RESTRICTED AND NARROW APPROACH INCAPABLE OF ACCEPTANCE. FURTHE R, SINCE THE LIBOR IS NOT A RATE IN ITSELF AT WHICH SOME BANK IS WILLING TO BORROW OR LEND, BUT AN AVERAGE OF RATES AT WHICH VA RIOUS PANEL BANKS OFFER TO BORROW OR LEND INTER BANK OFFERS, TH E SAME CANNOT BE CHARACTERIZED AS ONE PRICE DETERMINED UNDER THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE METHOD. IT IS REQUIRED TO BE CON SIDERED AS ARITHMETICAL MEAN OF SUCH PRICES, THEREBY MAKING AV AILABLE THE IT(TP)A NO.2788/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 9 OPTION OF PLUS MINUS 5% VARIATION TO THE ASSESSEE. AS THE PRESENT ADDITION OF ITA NO.6631/M/2006 & CO 248/M/2009. THE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SINGAPORE. 14 `50,476 MADE BY T HE AO WAS THE OUTCOME OF NOT ALLOWING PLUS MINUS 5% CUSHI ON, WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IS RICHLY DUE TO THE ASSE SSEE, WE HOLD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING T HIS ADDITION. 06. MUMBAI BENCH HAD HELD THAT LIBOR RATES WERE ALS O AN AVERAGING OF RATE OF INTEREST CHARGED OR PAID ON INTER-BANK DEPO SITS BY A NUMBER OF PANEL BANKS. OF COURSE, HERE FOR THE ALP ANALYSIS WHAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WAS THE RBI EXCHANGE RATES. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT RBI IN ITS PRESS RELEASE DT. 06.08.2008 HAS MENTIONED AS U NDER:- AUGUST 6, 2008. COMPUTATION AND DISSEMINATION OF RBI REFERENCE RAT E THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA COMPLIES ON A DAILY BASIS AND PUBLISHES REFERENCE RATES FOR SPOT USD/INR AND SPOT EUR/INR. THE RATES ARE ARRIVED AT BY AVERAGING THE MEAN OF T HE BID/OFFER RATES POLLED FROM A FEW SELECT BANKS AMONG 12 NOON EVERY WEEK DAY (EXCLUDING SATURDAYS). THE CONTRIBUTING BANKS ARE SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR STANDING, MARKET SHARE IN THE DOMESTIC FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKET AND REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTE R. THE RESERVE BANK PERIODICALLY REVIEWS THE PROCEDURE FOR SELECTING THE BANKS AND THE METHODOLOGY OF POLLING SO AS TO ENSUR E THAT THE REFERENCE RATE IS A TRUE REFLECTION OF THE MARKET A CTIVITY. G. RAHGURAJ DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER PRESS RELEASE: 2008 2009/163 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE RBI RATES OF FO REIGN EXCHANGE WERE ALSO BASED ON AVERAGING. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, THE PRINCIPLE EVOLVING OUT OF THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI IN DEVELOPMENT BANK OF SINGAPORE (SUPRA) WILL APPLY HE RE AS WELL. ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE WELL JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING T HE BENEFIT AVAILABLE TO IT UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT. DRP, IN OUR OPINION, WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEES PRICES WER E WITHIN +/- 5% RANGE OF THE RBI RATES AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NECESSI TY FOR TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. IT(TP)A NO.2788/BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 9 6. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED SO FAR, THEREFORE IT HOLDS THE FIELD. SO LONG AS THE TRIBUNALS ORDER H OLDS THE FIELD, THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE SAME IN ITS LETTER AND SPIRIT. THE DRP CANNOT IGNORE THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL UNDER THE GARB THAT REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ACTION OF THE DRP IS QU ITE CONTEMPTUOUS BY NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICAT ING AN ISSUE. WE ACCORDINGLY HAVE NO HESITATION IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP. ACCORDINGL Y WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT AVAILABLE TO IT UNDER P ROVISO TO SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE HEREBY DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 13 TH APRIL, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / IT(TP)A NO.2788/BANG/2017 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.