Sri. Suresh Sharma, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 297/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 29721114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIJOY KUMAR
• Keywords: Depreciation; Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 90; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO . 297 / BANG /20 1 4 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 ) SHRI SURESH SHARMA, NO.328, SANGEETHA BHAVAN, TIPPU SULTAN ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE. . APPELLANT PAN ABXPS 2091M VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), BA NGALORE . .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SMT. SHEETAL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : S HRI BIJOY KUMAR PANDA, ADDL.CIT, (D.R) DATE OF H EARING : 20.11.2014. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2015 . O R D E R PER S HRI JASON P. BOAZ : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, BANGA LORE DT.2.12.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER : - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, PROP. OF SHARMA TRANSPORTS, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ON 30.11.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,84,79 ,211. THIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS ITA NO. 297 /BANG/ 2014 2 'THE ACT') AND THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ORDER DT.29.11.2011 , WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,91,35,710 AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2,84,79,211 IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES : - (I) DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON VEHICLES : RS.4,04,220. (II) DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) : RS.1,02,279. 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 DT.29.11.2011, ON THE ISSUE OF INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR RECTIFICATION THEREOF TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DT.15.12.2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DT.18.5.2012 REJECTED THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE REJECTION OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BY ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF T HE ACT DT.18.5.2012, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGAINST THE QUANTUM OF INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT, HIS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WHICH IT WAS CONTENDED WAS EXCESSIVE AND THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V PRANAY ROY REPORTED IN 309 ITR 231. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.2.12.2013. ITA NO. 297 /BANG/ 2014 3 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) II, BANGALORE DT.2.12.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT P ROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT S PLEA ALL ALONG WAS THAT INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT WAS EXCESSIVE AND IT WAS NEVE R THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT CHARGEABLE AND THEREFORE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED ON THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE IN TEREST WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B WAS CORRECT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRANNOY ROY (309 ITR 231) (SC) A ND BHARATBHAI B SHAH VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 34 WERE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING O F THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 5. THE GROUNDS AT S.NOS.1 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NOT BEING URGED BEFORE US, ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 6. CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234A AND 234 B OF THE ACT . 6.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS.2 TO 4 CONSTITUTE THE ONLY ISSUE OF DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL. IN THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) S ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CHARGED INTEREST U NDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT EXCESSIVELY AND NOT THAT THE SAID INTEREST WAS NOT CHARGEABLE AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASES OF PRA N NOY ROY (SUPRA) AND THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN BHARATBHAI B SHAH V ITO REPORTED IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/ 2014 4 (2007) 31 TAXMAN.COM 34 WERE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HE AR D IN THE MATTER AND SHE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH IN THE GROUNDS RAISED ; WHICH WERE ALSO PUT FORTH BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS PLEADED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE'S WORKING OF INTEREST CHARGEABLE UN DER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT AT RS.34,116 AND RS.4,99,921 RESPECTIVELY OUGHT TO BE FOLLOWED AND THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL ALLOWED. 6.2 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN DETAIL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REFERRING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEFORE DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL HAS CONSIDERED BOTH THE ASSESSEE'S WORKING OF INTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT VIS - A - VIS THAT OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER S COMPUTATION THEREOF IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, AS WELL AS DISTINGUISHING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ. PRA N NOY ROY (SUPRA) AND BHARATBHAI B SHAH (SUPRA). IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE T HAT SINCE THE GROUNDS AND THE ARGUMENTS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ONLY A REITERATION OF WHAT WAS PUT FORTH AND REJECTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SINCE NO FRESH MATERIAL HAS BEEN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/ 2014 5 BROUGHT ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED C IT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL OUGHT TO BE DISMISSED. 6.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON. ON AN APPRECIATION OF T HE FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF INTEREST IT IS CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT , AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S CALCULATION AT RS.34,116 AND RS.4,99,921 RESPEC TIVELY VIS - A - VIS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT RS.2,86,932 AND RS.5,51,822 RESPECTIVELY , HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ALSO CONSIDERED AND DISTINGUISHED T HE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E. PRAN N OY ROY (SUPRA) AND BHARATBHAI B SHAH (SUPRA). THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 1.2 AS THE APPELLANT WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234A A ND 234B, HE APPLIED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE SAME UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DT.15.12.2011 BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DT.18.5.2012 REJECTED THE APPELLANT S APPLICATION. IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT / RECTIFICATION ORDER SO MADE, THE APPELLANT IS NOT AGITATING THE QUANTUM OF INCOME ASSESSED BUT IS QUESTIONING THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. ; THE APPELLANT S GROUND IS THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A I S NOT LEVIABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAID AFTER THE DATE OF PAYMENT UP TO THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT, INSTEAD OF THE INTEREST OF RS.2,06,932 AND RS.5,51,822 LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B RESPECTIVELY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF INTEREST LEVIABLE IS ONLY RS.34,116 AND RS.4,99,921. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS HIS GRIEVANCE AGAINST EXCESSIVE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B. TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT HE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRANNOY ROY REPORTED IN 309 ITR 231. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS HE HAS ALSO ITA NO. 297 /BANG/ 2014 6 RELIED ON THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATBHAI B. SHAH VS. ITO REPOR TED IN (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 34. LET US LOOK AT THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS CASE IN TERMS OF RELEVANT DATES AND PAYMENT : TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE 21,05,330 ADVANCE TAX ON 14.3.2009 25,00,000 SELF ASSESSMENT TAX ON 29.7.2009 10,00,000 29.08.2009 20,00 ,000 29.09.2009 10,00,000 3.11.2009 10,00,000 50,00,000 TAX ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT 9,60,000 IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID 10 LAKHS ON 3.11.2009 MUCH AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER QUESTION. THIS CARDINAL FACTUM DISTINGUISHES THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FORM THAT OF PRANNOY ROY (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF PRANNOY ROY, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME LATE, HE HAD TAKEN CARE TO PAY THE DUE TAXES WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING R ETURN OF INCOME THEREBY FULFILLING THE STATUTORY STIPULATION. AS NOTED ABOVE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME LATE BUT ALSO PAID THE TAXES LATE. THUS GROUND NO.2 & 3 IS DISMISSED AS THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLI CABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THAT LEAVES THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATHBAHI B SHAH (SUPRA). AT THE OUTSET, THE DECISION IS GIVEN BY GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHICH IS NOT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THAT APART, EVEN IN THIS CASE THE A SSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES BEFORE DUE DATE THOUGH BELATEDLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS BOTH PAID THE TAXES AND FILED RETURN BELATEDLY WHICH MAKES BOTH DECISIONS IN - OPERATIONAL FOR ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT A DETAILED WORKING OF THE TAX COMPUTATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DT.5.7.2013 AND 17.10.2013 WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ON 11.11.2013, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHEREIN H E HAS ANNEXED A COMPUTATION AS PER SC S DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRANNOY ROY (SUPRA). I HAVE ALREADY HELD VIDE PARA THAT THE SAID CASE BEING FACTUALLY DIFFERENT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 297 /BANG/ 2014 7 AS REGARDS ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION AT PARA 4 OF THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSION REGARDING THE WORKING OF INTEREST, I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER S WORKING TO BE CORRECT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : (I) THE ACT UNDER SECTION 234A(1) PROVIDES FOR GIVING CREDIT TO ADVANCE TAX PAID AND TAX DEDUCTED / COLLECTED AT SOURCE. 1) WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, IS FURNISHED AFTER THE DUE DATE, OR IS NOT FURNISHED THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF ONE PER CENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH COMPRISED IN THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE DATE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE DUE DATE, AND A) WHERE THE RETURN IS FURNISHED AFTER THE DUE DATE, ENDING ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF THE RETURN; OR B) WHERE NO RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED, ENDING ON THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144. ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME AS DETERMINED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143, AND WHERE A REGULAR ASSESSMENT IS MADE, ON THE AMOUNT OF TH E TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED UNDER REGULAR ASSESSMENT, AS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF : - (I) ADVANCE TAX, IF ANY, PAID; (II) ANY TAX DEDUCTED OR COLLECTED AT SOURCE; (III) ANY RELIEF OF TAX ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 90 ON ACCOUNT OF TAX PAID IN A COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA ; (IV) ANY RELIEF OF TAX ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 90A ON ACCOUNT OF TAX PAID IN A SPECIFIED TERRITORY OUTSIDE INDIA REFERRED TO IN THAT SECTION; (V) ANY DEDUCTION, FROM THE INDIAN INCOME TAX PAYABLE, ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 91, ON ACCOUNT OF TAX PAID IN A COUNTRY OUTS IDE INDIA, AND (VI) ANY TAX CREDIT ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JAA (OR SECTION 115JD). (II) ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID TAXES AND NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN DUE TIME, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHOOSE A WORKING THAT IS MOST SUITABLE TO HIM OVERRIDING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. (III) OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLE OF CASSUS OMISSUS WHEREIN WHAT IS NOT PRESENT IN THE LAW CANNOT BE READ INTO IT, THE ASSESSEE'S CALCULATION IS UNACCEPTABLE AS THE ASSESSEE IS READING AN INTENT THAT I S ABSENT IN THE ACT ITSELF WHICH IS TO CALCULATE 234A ONLY ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS. ITA NO. 297 /BANG/ 2014 8 (IV) IN FISCAL POLICY, INTEREST IS CHARGED TO COMPENSATE THE LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE EXCHEQUER. TO THAT EXTENT BY NOT PAYING HIS TAXES IN TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BEAR THE CO NSEQUENCES IN TERMS OF COMPENSATORY INTEREST. THIS CANNOT BE TREATED AS PENAL IN NATURE BUT ONLY COMPENSATORY. IN SUPREME COURT S ORDER IN THIS CASE OF CIT VS. ANJUM M H GHOSWALA AND OTHERS DELIVERED ON 18.10.2001 IN APEX COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO DELIBER ATE ON THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A/234B/234C. THEIR WISDOMS ARE FOUND AS BELOW : WE WILL HAVE TO EXAMINE THE CHARACTER OF INTEREST PAYABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C. A PERUSAL OF THESE SECTIONS SHOWS THAT THE INTERE ST FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME, DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AND INTEREST FOR DEFERMENT OF ADVANCE TAX ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.3.2 FROM A PERUSAL OF THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER EXTRACTED ABOVE (SUPRA), THE GROUNDS RAISED AND ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH IN THIS APPEAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ADDRESSED BOTH THE ISSUE S OF EXCESSIVE CALCULATION OF CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AN D 234B OF THE ACT, AS WELL AS BY DISTINGUISHING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. BEFORE US, EXCEPT FOR REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT WAS EXCESSIVE AND THAT THE SAME TWO JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF PRAN N OY ROY (SUPRA) AND BHARATBHAI B SHAH (SUPRA) WERE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) EITHE R ON FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT OR IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ITA NO. 297 /BANG/ 2014 9 THEREFORE UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS.2 TO 4 STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JAN., 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( JASON P BOAZ ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE