M/s The Capuchin Friar Services Society, Bangalore V. DDIT, Bangalore

ITA 367/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1484 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA JT
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Benefit of exemption; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S. THE CAPUCHIN FRIAR SERVICES SOCIETY, R.V. VIDYANIKETAN POST, KENGERI, BANGALORE 560 069. PAN : AAATC 0878L VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, CA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA, JT.CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2015 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 19.01.2015 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-14, LTU, BANGALORE RELATING TO AY 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE CUM PUBLIC R ELIGIOUS INSTITUTION REGISTERED UNDER THE MYSORE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960. IT IS ENGAGED ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 2 OF 11 IN CARRYING ON EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE NATURE OF RUNNING OF SCHOOLS AND PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGES. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE DISPUTED IN THIS APPEAL IS THE CA LCULATION OF THE DEDUCTION OF 15% U/S. 11(1)(A) ON NET RECEIPTS BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPARED TO THE CALCULATION ON GROSS RECEIPTS BY TH E ASSESSEE. 4. THE AO COMPUTED THE ACCUMULATION AT 15% OF THE N ET INCOME OF THE TRUST HOLDING THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF AN EDUCATI ONAL INSTITUTION WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FULLY FOR APPLICATION TO CHARITABLE PURPO SES IN INDIA SINCE THE EXPENDITURE FOR RUNNING THE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR EARNING SUCH INCOME, WOULD HAVE TO BE FACTORED IN. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF ACCUMULATION AT 15% OF GROSS RECEIPT HAS NOT BEE N FOLLOWED SINCE THE AO HELD THAT THIS METHOD IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO A TR UST WHICH IS RUNNING PURELY ON DONATIONS AND WHERE NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN SP ENT FOR GETTING SUCH DONATIONS. 5. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HO NBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 248 ITR 1 TO EMPHASIZE ITS STAND THAT THE ACCUMULATION OF INC OME PROVIDED FOR AFTER APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES U/S 1 1(1)(A), SHOULD BE WITH REFERENCE TO GROSS AND NOT NET INCOME. 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASS ESSEES READING OF THE SAID JUDGMENT WAS INCORRECT SINCE THE DECISION DEALS WITH A CASE WHERE ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 3 OF 11 ONLY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS WERE RECEIVED AND UTIL IZED FOR RENDERING CHARITABLE/RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES FREE OF COST AND TH ERE WAS NO .INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITY PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO EARLIER RULING OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.R.M. M.C.T.M. TIRUPPANI TRUS T VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1998) REPORTED IN 230 ITR 636 (SC) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS ALN RAO CHARITABLE TRUST (1995) REPOR TED IN 216 ITR 697 (SC) WHICH HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE WHEREIN IT WA S HELD THAT THE DEDUCTION OR EXCLUSION ON ACCOUNT OF ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U NDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS TO BE GRANTED AT 25% (NOW REDUCED TO 15%) OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OR 25% (NOW REDUCED TO 15%) OF THE I NCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. THE CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE C ITED DECISIONS WERE DELIVERED ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS AN D LEGAL ISSUES. 8. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 3.7 I FIND FROM THE APPELLANTS INCOME AND EXPEND ITURE ACCOUNT THAT DIFFERENT KINDS OF RECEIPTS ARE AVAILA BLE TO IT WHICH INCLUDE SOURCES DIRECTLY RELATED TO ITS EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY SUCH AS ADMISSION FEES, TUTITION FEES, MANAGEMENT FEES, SCH OOL DEVELOPMENT FEES ETC. WHILE OTHER SOURCES FROM BANK INTEREST, VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION, DONATION, ARE ALSO REFLECTE D THEREIN. THE PRINCIPLE OF 15% OF NET INCOME IS TO BE APPLIED ONL Y TO RECEIPTS FROM ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH A CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN CHARGED AND NOT TO THE ENTIRE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT. TO THE EXTENT THE APPELLANT RECEIVES DONATIONS, THE ACCUMULATION FROM SUCH RECEIPTS ARE TO BE TREATED IN TERMS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURTS DECISION IN CASE OF PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZ ATION (SUPRA). THE RECEIPTS FROM THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUT IONS, EVEN IF FIXED AT NON COMMERCIAL RATES (SUBJECT TO VERIFICAT ION AND ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 4 OF 11 RECORDING CLEARLY BY THE AO) COULD BE EARNED ONLY T HROUGH THE INCURRING OF OPERATIONAL EXPENSES RELATING TO SALAR Y, ACADEMIC MATERIAL, MAINTENANCE ETC. FOR THESE ACTIVITIES. TH EREFORE, THE APPLICATION OF INCOME AND ACCUMULATION ARE BOTH TO BE RECKONED FROM THE NET INCOME AVAILABLE FOR THESE PURPOSES. T HE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO BIFURCATE THE RECEIPTS FROM THE CONSIDERATION CHARGING ACTIVITIES AND THOSE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION SUCH AS DONATION ETC., AND TREAT THE ACCUMULATION IN THE FO RMER IN TERMS OF NET RECEIPT AND IN THE LATTER IN TERMS OF GROSS REC EIPTS. IN VIEW OF THIS DISCUSSION, THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE PARTLY ACCE PTED. 9. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, W EIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDIN G THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT GRAN TING THE ACCUMULATION OF INCOME U/S.11[1][A] OF THE ACT AT 1 5% OF THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST AS AGAINST A SUM OF RS.30,62,529/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETU RN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDIN G THE COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT ACCUMULATED U/S.11[2] OF THE ACT AT RS.33,61,725/- AS AGAINST A SUM OF RS.NIL COMPUTED BY THE APPELLANT AFTER RECKONING 15% OF THE ACCUMULATION I N TERMS OF SECTION 11[1][A] OF THE ACT, ON THE NET SURPLUS AFT ER DEDUCTING REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT, INST EAD OF COMPUTING THE SAME AT 15% OF THE GROSS INCOME FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST, AS DONE BY THE APPELLANT UNDER TH E FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. 4. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBL Y PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLANT ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 5 OF 11 MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE C OSTS. 10. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST IN ITA NO.66 2/BANG/2015. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 15. THE THIRD ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER 15% ACCUMULATION FOR APPLICATION IN FUTURE HAS TO BE CALCULATED ON GROSS RECEIPTS OR NET RECEIPTS AFTER DEDUCTION OF REVENUE EXPENDIT URE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED ACCUMULATION OF INCOME FOR APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE AT 15% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ACCUMULATION WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF 15% OF THE INCOME AFTER REVENUE EXPENDITURE. IN OTHER WORD S INCOME TO BE SET APART U/S.1 1(1)(A) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE COMPUTED AT 15% OF THE NET INCOME I.E., GROSS RECEI PTS MINUS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AND NOT ON THE GROSS RECE IPTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER REVENUE EXPENDITURE WAS NIL, THE AO DENIED THE BENEFIT OF ACCUMULATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. HENCE GROUND NO-4 RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 6 OF 11 17. THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS THEREFORE AS TO WHET HER FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING ACCUMULATION OF INCOME OF 15% UNDER SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, ONE HAS TO TAKE THE GROSS RECEIPTS OR GROSS RECEIPTS AFTER EXPENDITURE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSE I.E., THE NET RECEIPTS. THIS IS ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA AND HAS BEEN DECIDED BY TH E SPECIAL BENCH MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF BAI SONABAI HIR JI AGIARY TRUST VS. ITO 93 LTD 0070 (SB). THE FACTS IN THE AFORESAID CASE WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST ENJOYING EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11 OF THE IT ACT. AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 11(1 ) OF THE IT ACT, AS IT PREVAILED AT THAT POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO APPLY 75 PER CENT OF ITS INCOME FOR THE OBJE CTS AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PERMITTE D TO ACCUMULATE OR SET APART UP TO 25 PER CENT OF ITS IN COME, WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER CONDITION S. WHILE CALCULATING THE AFORESAID 25 PER CENT, THE IMPORTANT QUESTION WHICH AROSE WAS AS TO WHETHER FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE GROSS INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RELEVANT OR THE INCOME AS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER OUTGOINGS FROM OUT OF GROSS INCOME WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME, SHOULD BE FIRST DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS INCOME AND 25 PER CENT OF ONLY THE REMAINING AMOUNT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE ACCUMULATED OR SET APART. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT ON THE ISSUE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 9. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME IS CLEARLY COVERED BY THE DECISI ON OF ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 7 OF 11 THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION (SUPRA). IN THE DECISION, THEIR LORDSHIPS, AFTER TAKING NOTE OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 11(L)(A), HAVE HELD AS UNDER: 'HAVING REGARD TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE ABOVE PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT A CHARITABLE OR R ELIGIOUS TRUST IS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE TWENTY-FIVE PER CEN T OF ITS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST. FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSES, THE DONATIONS THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED, IN THE SUM OF RS. 2,57,376, WOULD CONSTITUTE ITS PROPERTY AND IT IS ENTITLED TO ACCUM ULATE TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT THEREOUT. IT IS UNCLEAR ON WHA T BASIS THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO ACCUM ULATE ONLY TWENTY FIVE PER CENT OF RS.87,010. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE CIVIL APPEAL IS DISMISSED.' IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT DEDUCTION OF TWENTY -FIVE PER CENT WAS HELD TO BE ALLOWABLE NOT ON TOTAL INCO ME AS COMPUTED UNDER THE IT ACT. ANY AMOUNT OR EXPENDITUR E, WHICH WAS APPLICATION OF INCOME, IS NOT TO BE CONSI DERED FOR DETERMINING TWENTY FIVE PER CENT TO BE ACCUMULATED. THEIR LORDSHIPS, AS NOTED EARLIER, AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN (1997 ) 141 CTR (KER) 502 : (1997) 228 ITR 620 (KER) (SUPRA ) WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER: 'AT THE OUTSET, THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF S. U(I)(A ) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, RELATES TO THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE TRUST FROM PROPERTY. THE TRUST IS REQUIRED TO B E ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 8 OF 11 WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, AND THE INCOME IS EXPECTED TO HAVE RELATION TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED TO SUCH PURPOSES IN INDIA. IT IS THEREAFTER THE STATUTORY PROVISION PROCEEDS FURTHER THAT SUCH INCOME IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE IN EXCESS OF 25 PER CENT OF THE INCOME FROM SUCH PROPERTIES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE VE RY LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION UNDER CONSIDERA TION SETS APART 25 PER CENT OF THE INCOME FROM THE SOURC E OF PROPERTY WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH INCOME IS APPLIED FOR SUCH PURPOSES, CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS. IN OTHER WORDS, FOR THE PU RPOSE OF S. II(I)(A) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME IN TERMS OF RELEVANCE WOULD BE THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FROM AND OUT OF WHICH 25 PER CENT IS SET APART IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISION.' THIS MEANS THAT, WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT TRUST IS ENTITLED TO FULL BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER S. 11(1 ), THE SAID TRUST IS TO GET THE BENEFIT OF TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT AND THIS TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS INCOME OF THE TRUST UNDER THE RELEVANT HEAD OF S. 1 1(1). IN OTHER WORDS, INCOME THAT IS NOT TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME WOULD BE THE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR PURPOSES OF TRUST IN INDIA. THE IR LORDSHIPS IN THE ABOVE CASE HAVE EMPHASIZED ON THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF S. 11(1)(A) AND DECIDED THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AS PER THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE OF THE ABOV E SECTION THE INCOME WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN FOR PURPOSE OF ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 9 OF 11 ACCUMULATION IS THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE TRUST FRO M PROPERTY. IF BOTH THE DECISIONS ARE CAREFULLY READ, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH IS IN TH E SHAPE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME IS NOT TO BE TAKEN I NTO ACCOUNT. HAVING FOUND THAT TRUST IS ENTITLED TO EXE MPTION UNDER S. 11(1), WE ARE TO GO TO THE STAGE OF INCOME BEFORE APPLICATION THEREOF AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 25 PER CENT OF SUCH INCOME. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE POINTED T HAT THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKEN ON 'COMMERCIAL' BASIS AND NOT 'TOTAL INCOME' AS COMPUTED UNDER THE IT ACT. TH EIR LORDSHIPS IN THE DECIDED CASE REJECTED THE CONTENTI ON OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SUM OF RS 1,70,369 WHICH WAS SPENT AND APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FOR PURPOSE OF TAKING AMOUNT TO BE ACCUMULATED. HAVING REGARD TO THE CLEAR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE SUPREME COURT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT OUTGOINGS WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATI ON OF INCOME ARE TO BE EXCLUDED. THE INCOME AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT WAS APPLIED IS DIRECTED TO BE TA KEN AND THE SAME IN THE PRESENT CASE IS RS. 3,42,174. TWENTY FIVE PER CENT OF THE ABOVE INCOME IS TO BE A LLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN PARSI ZORASTRIAN ANJUMAN TRUST VS. CIT (SUPRA). NO REASON WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIE S FOR DEDUCTING RS. 2,17,126 IN THIS CASE FOR PURPOSE S OF S. I 1(1)(A). THE DECISION CITED ON BEHALF OF THE REVE NUE DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION OF THE SUPRE ME ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 10 OF 11 COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT HAS A LSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.' 18. THE AFORESAID DECISION CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE ACCUMULATION U/S 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.4 RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 11. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 9 TH OCTOBER, 2015. /D S/ ITA NO.367/BANG/2015 PAGE 11 OF 11 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENTS 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.