DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Akshay Eminence Developers P. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 388/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5559 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JACINTA ZIMIK VASHAI
• Keywords: Competent authority; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 387, 388 & 822/BANG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2007-08 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. M/S. AKSHAY EMINENCE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NO.39/8, 1 & 2 ND FLOOR, 7 TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 038. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. JACINTA ZIMIK VASHAI, ADDL.CIT( DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BALRAM R. RAO, ADVOCATE O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A)-I, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.256/AC- 11(1)/CIT(A)-I/07-08, NO.194/DC-11(1)/CIT(A)-I/08-0 9 & NO. 211/DC- 11(1)/CIT(A)-I/09-10 DATED 14.12.2009, 15.12.2009 A ND 6.4.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF M/S. ASKSHAY EMINENCE DEVELOPERS PVT. LIMITED. ITA NOS. /BANG/ 387, 388 & 822/B/10 PAGE 2 OF 9 I. ITA NO.387/10 A.Y 2005-06 : 2. THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS IN ITS G ROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS CONFINED TO A LON E ISSUE THAT (I) THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB (10) WAS ALLOWABLE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE CONDITI ONS LAID DOWN IN S.80IB (10) WERE NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. II. ITA NO.388 & 822/10 A.Y 2006-07 & 2007-08: 2.1. FOR THESE A.YS TOO, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ALMOST I DENTICAL GROUNDS, HOWEVER, THE ESSENCE OF THE ISSUE IS THAT (I) THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB (10) WAS ALLOWABLE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM;. 3. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE PERTAINING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE COMPANY, FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD, CONSIDERED A ND DISPOSED OFF IN THIS COMMON ORDER. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY [THE ASSESSEE HENCEFORTH] BEING BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS HAD FURNI SHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2005-06 BY CLAIMING RS.38.75 LAKH S AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE A SSESSEES EXPLANATION AS RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. AO HAD TURN ED DOWN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB ON THE GROU NDS THAT (I) THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION W.E.F. 4. 4.2005 BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES; THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED T O BEING THE ITA NOS. /BANG/ 387, 388 & 822/B/10 PAGE 3 OF 9 CONSTRUCTION ONLY AFTER OBTAINING THE APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND THAT IF THE ASSESSEE BEGUN THE CONS TRUCTION WORK WHICH WAS NOT RECOGNIZED U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT; (II) THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE WORK WAS COMMENCED IN ANTICIPATION OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A RE ASON AS DEDUCTION U/S 80IB CANNOT BE CLAIMED ON THE BASIS O F ANTICIPATION OF APPROVAL. 4.1. FOR THE AY 2006-07 , THE LD. AO DID DENY THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AO, DUE TO NON- PRODUCTION OF PROOF OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION AND FOR T HE AY 2007-08, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT WAS DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION WAS APPROVED BY THE L OCAL AUTHORITIES ONLY W.E.F. 4.4.2005 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE ING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AFTER OBTAINING THE APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL AU THORITIES AND IF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS COMMENCED, SUCH PROJE CT IS NOT RECOGNIZED U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT; AND IF SUCH WO RK WAS CARRIED OUT ON OR BEFORE THE APPROVAL IS NOT RECOGNIZED U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT AND THE PROFIT EARNED ON THE WHOLE PROJECT DOES NOT ENTITLE FOR EXEMPTION; 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUES FOR ALL THE AYS UNDER CHALLENGE WITH THE LD. CIT (A) FOR SOLACE. TH E LD. CIT (A) HAD, AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES VERSION AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE LD. A.O AND THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE, IN A CONCURRENT VIEW FOR ALL THE AYS UNDER CHALLENGE, OBSERVED THUS 6. THE BASIC ISSUE INVOLVED IS WHAT IS THE DATE O F APPROVAL, I.E., 4.4.2005 (AY 2006-07) OR 28.3.2005 (AY 2005-06)? OR ALTERNAT IVELY, WILL THE DATE OF APPROVAL BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION F OR APPROVAL I.E., 8.10.2004 I.E., AY 2005-06? 7. IT HAS NOWHERE BEEN DOUBTED BY THE AO THAT THE APPROVAL WAS NOT GENUINE OR IT WAS NOT THERE. HE ONLY EMPHASIZES TH AT THE COMMUNICATION LETTER SHOWING THE APPROVAL DATED 4.4.2005 BE CONSI DERED AS THE DATE OF APPROVAL AND, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM U/S 80IB IS NOT ALLOWABLE. HOWEVER, ITA NOS. /BANG/ 387, 388 & 822/B/10 PAGE 4 OF 9 A.RS ARGUMENT IS TWO PRONGED. HE POINTS OUT THAT THE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 4.4.2005 ONLY A COMMUNICATION WHILE THE APPRO VAL OF THE COMMISSIONER HAD ALREADY BEEN GIVEN ON 28.3.2005 IN NO.9934 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GROUND FLOOR PLUS 12 UPPER FLOORS O F RESIDENCE VIJANAPURA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI 1 ST STAGE, BANGALORE, IN SURVEY NO.85(P) AND 86(P). IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION, I HAVE NO OTHER GO BUT TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF APPARENT (SIC) APPELLANT U/S 80IB OF I.T. ACT. HOWEVER, I ALSO AGREE WITH THE LEGAL EXPOSITION OF AR THAT SECTION 80IB O NLY SPEAKS OF APPROVAL AND PRESCRIBES TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PRO JECT AND IS SPECIFICALLY SILENT ABOUT TREATING THE DATE OF APPROVAL AS THE D ATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT. INTERPRETING THE SPECIFIC ABSENCE OF SUCH A CLAUSE, THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RADOMIR DZELATOVI E (1994) 206 ITR 320 HAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF THE EXEMPTION FOR THE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND ONCE THE APPROVAL WAS ACCORDED, IT RELATES BACK TO THE DATE OF APPLIC ATION AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. THUS, LEGALLY ALSO THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 7.1. FROM THE ANGLE OF PRACTICALITY ALSO, A PRUDE NT BUSINESSMAN WILL NOT KEEP HIS OWN OR BORROWED FUNDS IDLE WITHOUT USING T HE SAME IN COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECT/BUI LDING WAITING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE APPOSITE AUTHORITY FOR A LONG PERIO D WHEN THERE IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION THAT AFTER A LAPSE OF SUCH PERIO D FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION, THE APPROVAL IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN GI VEN. 6. DISILLUSIONED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) REFERRED SUPRA, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APP EALS. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT (I) DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE WHEN THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN S.80IB (10) WERE N OT FULFILLED; (II) AS THE APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT ITSELF WAS GIVEN ONLY ON 4 .4.2005, DEDUCTION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR THE AY 2005-06 (III) THE DEDUCTIO N WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT DET AILS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2006-07; AND (IV) THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT ALLOWABL E FOR THE AY 2007-08 AS THE APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT WAS GIVEN ON 4.4.20 05 WHILE THE PROJECT ITSELF HAD ALREADY COMMENCED ON 3.8.2004 WHICH WAS MUCH EA RLIER TO THE ITA NOS. /BANG/ 387, 388 & 822/B/10 PAGE 5 OF 9 APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION GIVEN BY THE LOCAL AUTHOR ITIES. THE LD. D R HAD, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE LD. AOS HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION JUDICIOUSLY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A), ON THE OTHER HAND, W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE WELL DESERVED REASONS RECORDED IN THE RESPECTIVE AS SESSMENT ORDERS, HAD DECIDED THE ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT W AS, THEREFORE, FERVENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY REQUIRE TO BE ANNULLED. 6.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A R WAS PASSIONATE IN HIS URGE THAT SINCE THE LD. CIT (A) TOOK A STAND WITH JUDICI AL BACKING WHICH REQUIRES NO INTERVENTION BY THIS BENCH AT THIS JUNCTURE. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S, DILIGENTLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS ON WHICH EITHER PARTY HAD PLACED UNSTINTED FAITH. 7.1. IT WAS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD FURNISHED AN APPLICATION WITH SUPPORTING NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES, NAMELY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BDA) ON 8. 10.2004 SEEKING APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT. THE COMMISSIONER, BDA, BEING THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY VIDE HIS ORDER NO.9934 DATED 28.3.2005 HAD GRANTED THE APPROVAL OF THE HOUSING PROJECT AS EVIDENCED BY THE COMMUNICATION OF THE BDA DATED: 4.4.2005. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE TOOK A DIVERGENT VIEW THAT ONCE THE WORK CARRIED OUT ON OR BEFORE THE APP ROVAL IS NOT RECOGNIZED U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT AND, THUS, THE PROFIT EARN ED ON THIS CONTRACT WORK ITA NOS. /BANG/ 387, 388 & 822/B/10 PAGE 6 OF 9 DOES NOT ENTITLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE PROVISIONS OF S.80IB (10)(A)(II) OF THE ACT SUBSCRI BE THAT (II) IN A CASE WHERE A HOUSING PROJECT HAS BEEN, O R, IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004, WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE HOUSING PROJ ECT IS APPROVED BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION SHALL BE HUNDRED PER CENT O F THE PROFITS DERIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR F ROM SUCH HOUSING PROJECT. 7.2. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 80IB (10) OF THE ACT HAV E NOT SUBSCRIBED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BEGIN THE CONSTRU CTION WORK AFTER OBTAINING THE APPROVAL FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES A ND THAT BEFORE GETTING SUCH APPROVAL IF THE ASSESSEE BEGINS THE CONSTRUCTI ON WORK, SUCH CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT RECOGNIZED UNDER THE SAID SECT ION AS FORTIFIED BY THE LD. AO. IT WAS AN UNDENIABLE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD, IN FACT, SOUGHT APPROVAL OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NAMELY, BDA, V IDE ITS APPLICATION DATED 8.10.2004 WHICH WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BDA IN ITS COMMUNICATION DATED 4.4.2005 AND ALSO IT WAS A FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER, BDA HAD APPROVED THE PLAN ON 28.3.2005 VIDE NO. 9934 . THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTRADICTED BY THE REVENUE EITHER. THE REVENUE HAS BEEN CLINGING ONLY ON THE POINT THAT THE PROJEC T WAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION W.E.F. 4.4.2005. NONETHELESS, THE AP PROVAL WAS ACCORDED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY -COMMISSIONER, BDA ON 28.3.2005 ITSELF VIDE NO.9934 WHICH WAS, OF COURSE, COMMUNICATED ON 4.4.2 005. WHAT REALLY MATTER HERE IS THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THE PLAN , BUT, NOT THE DATE ON ITA NOS. /BANG/ 387, 388 & 822/B/10 PAGE 7 OF 9 WHICH IT WAS COMMUNICATED ? IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO RECALL THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON SIMILAR ISSUES. (I) THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT V. BHAICHAND AMOLUK CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD. (1994) 208 ITR 01 (BOM ) HAD RULED THUS - IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE FACT THAT THE APPLICATIO N FOR APPROVAL COULD BE MADE TO THE BOARD ANY TIME BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RELATION TO WHICH THE APPROVAL IS FIRST SOU GHT. THUS THE APPLICATION CAN BE FILED MUCH AFTER THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEA R DURING WHICH THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED. ONCE THE AGREEMENT IS APPRO VED BY THE BOARD, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 80-O OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE INCOME-TAX OR ANY OTHER AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT TO GO INTO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL BE CAUSE NONE OF THEM ACTS AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY OVER THE BOARD IN THE MAT TER OF GRANT OF APPROVAL. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE APPRO VAL ACCORDED TO THE AGREEMENT BY THE BOARD ON ITS FACE VALUE AND TO ACT ACCORDINGLY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DID JUST THE CONTRARY. THE TRIBUNAL WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING THEIR ORDERS AND ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 80-O OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. (II) YET ANOTHER RULING THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RADOMIR DZELATOVIC REPORTED IN (1994) 206 ITR 32 0 (BOM) ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, RULED THAT - THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EVERYTHING WA S DONE BY THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE WELL WITHIN TIME. THE DELA Y IN GRANTING APPROVAL WAS FOR NO FAULT OF THEIRS. THE APPROVAL, ONCE ACCORDED, SHOULD RELATE BACK TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION. THE TRIBUNA L, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT. THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY ON THE PART OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN ACCORDING APPROVAL WHEN THE EMPLOYER HAD DONE EVERY THING NECESSARY. WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. WE HAVE CARE FULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE OF THE CLEAR OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING ELIGIBLE TO GET THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECT ION 10(6)(VIIA)(I)(B) OF THE ACT AND THE EMPLOYER OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING COM PLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE BENEFIT CANNOT BE DENIED TO HIM BECAUSE OF DELAY ON THE PART OF THE C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN ITA NOS. /BANG/ 387, 388 & 822/B/10 PAGE 8 OF 9 ACCORDING APPROVAL. IN SUCH CASES THE APPROVAL, ONC E ACCORDED, HAS TO RELATE BACK TO THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION. IT IS T HE ONLY JUST AND REASONABLE INTERPRETATION THAT CAN BE GIVEN TO SUCH A PROVISION. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CLEAR OPINION THAT THE TR IBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO RELIEF UN DER SECTION 10(6)(VIIA)(I)(B) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 1975-76. WE, THEREFORE, ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 7.2.1 . WITH DUE RESPECTS, WE HAVE PERUSED THE R ULING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CITED SUPRA AND OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT RATIOS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURT ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE T O THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ON HAND. 7.2.2. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AS DELIBERATED UPON IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS AND A LSO IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULINGS OF THE HONBLE COURT REFERRED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HIS ENDEVAOUR THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB (10) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS UNDER CHALLENGE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7.3. BEFORE PARTING WITH, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE DULY PERUSED THE CASE LAW ON WHICH THE LD. D R HAD PLACED HER FAITH I.E., IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BRAHMA ASSOCIATES REPORTED IN (2 011) 239 CTR (BOM) 30 AND RECORD OUR VIEW THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE CANNOT COME TO ITS RESCUE AS THE ISSUE DEALT BY THE HONBL E COURT IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE TO THE ISSUE ON HAND. 8. IN THE RESULT , THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CHALLENGE ARE DISMISSED . ITA NOS. /BANG/ 387, 388 & 822/B/10 PAGE 9 OF 9 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND JUNE, 2011. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.