MsourcE (India) Private Limited, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 397/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63788 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, J.M ITA NO.397 & 1425/BANG/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) M/S MSOURCEE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., BAGAMANE TECH PARK, BYRASANDRA, C V RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-93. PAN :: TAN AACCM 2097 G :: BLRMO 5590 E VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 08.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11.2012 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PADAMCHAND KHIN CHA, C.A. REVENUE BY : SHRI BIJOY KUMAR PA NDA, ACIT ORD ER PER BENCH : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)-II, BANGAL ORE, DATED 6.1.2012. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. I. ITA NO.397/B/12 BY THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS , HOWEVER, ALL THE GROUNDS RELATE TO A SOLITARY ISSUE, NAMELY, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 2 UPHOLDING THE STAND OF THE DCIT (TDS) THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX U/S 194J OF THE ACT FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE TO AN INTERIOR DECORATOR. II. ITA NO.1425/B/12 BY THE ASSESSEE: 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS MAIN OBJE CTION WAS THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE D ICT (TDS) IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 4. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS PERTAININ G TO THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ALSO INTER-LINKED, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD, CONSIDERED TOG ETHER AND DISPOSED OFF IN THIS COMMON ORDER. 5. BEFORE VENTURE TO LOOK INTO THE GRIEVANCES OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY HAD COMBINED BOTH THE ISSUES WHICH WERE DEALT WITH U/S 201(1) AN D U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AGITATED THE SAME BY PRE FERRING IN ONE APPEAL [ITA NO.397/B/12] BEFORE THIS BENCH. DURING THE CO URSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO FILE A SEPARATE APPEAL IN R ESPECT OF THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. IN COMPLIANCE, TH E ASSESSEE CAME UP WITH A SEPARATE APPEAL UNDER ITA NO.1425/B/12 WITH A SPECI FIC REQUEST TO CONDONE THE DELAY, IF ANY, IN FILING THE SAID APPEAL AS PER T HE DIRECTIONS OF THIS BENCH. 5.1. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. AS TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES U/S 194J OF THE ACT AS WELL AS U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT WERE DEALT WITH BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE ASSES SEE WAS ADVISED TO FILE PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 3 TWO APPEALS SO AS TO CURE THE TECHNICAL FLAW IN FIL ING A COMBINED APPEAL. THOUGH THE APPEAL NOW FILED U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A BELATED ONE, BUT , NOT INTENTIONAL ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THIS BENCH TO REMOVE THE TECHNICAL FLAW IN FILING A SINGLE APPEAL INSTEAD OF TWO APPEA LS. ACCORDINGLY, THE FILING OF APPEAL ITA NO.1425/BANG/2012 IS CONDONED AND WE PRO CEEDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 6. REVERTING BACK TO THE MAIN ISSUE, WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO SEPARATE APPEAL S (SUPRA) FOR ADJUDICATION CHRONOLOGICALLY AS UNDER: I. ITA NO.397/B/12 BY THE ASSESSEE: THE ISSUE, IN BRIEF, IS AS BELOW: 7. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY [THE ASSESSEE HENCEFORTH] IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING AND CALL CEN TRES WITH ITS BPO UNITS LOCATED AT BANGALORE, PONDICHERRY, PUNE AND MANGALO RE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HA D ENGAGED M/S. SUKRAL DCOR FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK IN ITS BUSINESS PREMISES. HO WEVER, THE DCIT (TDS) THE AO HAD NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194C OF THE ACT FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO SUKRAL DCOR BY TREATING IT AS A CONTRACT. REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION , THE AO HELD THAT SINCE THE DESIGNING WAS PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE; THE PAYMEN TS MADE TO THE PAYEE CAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 194J OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH THERE WAS A SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO PASSED AN ORDER U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT, RAISING A DEMAND OF RS.9.39 LAKHS. PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 4 8. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE WITH THE CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE STAND OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. THE R ELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE REASONING RECORDED BY THE CIT (A) ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 3.THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PAYMENT IS FOR CIVIL WORK FOR WHICH SECTION 194C IS ATTRACTED AND NOT TECHNICAL FEE U/S 194J AS IS APPL ICABLE TO INTERIOR DECORATOR. AS PER THE COPIES OF BILLS FURNISHED, THE LETTER HEAD READS, SUKRAL DCOR INT ERIOR DESIGNER & DECORATOR. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS SHOW THAT THESE ARE PRIMARILY FOR INTERIOR DECORATION WOR K WHICH MAY INCLUDE SOME FALSE CEILING, WOODEN PARTITI ONS, SOME PLASTERING, SOME TOILET FIXTURES, SOME TILE WO RK, SOME DEMOLITION AND REDOING I.E., SOME CIVIL WORK J OBS INTERLACED WITH THE INTERIOR DECORATING JOB ETC., .. 3.1. INTERIOR DECORATING WORK DOES NOT MEAN ONLY RED OING THE TAPESTRY, IT INVOLVES REMODELING AND REDOING WHI CH WILL ALSO ENTAIL SOME CIVIL WORK. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT A CIVIL CONTRACT. THE WORK EXECUTED AND SERVICES RENDERED HAVE TO BE SEEN IN THEIR ENTIRETY. SEEN AS A WHOLE, THES E PAYMENTS ARE CLEARLY FOR INTERIOR DECORATION PROJECT WHERE DEMOLITION AND REDOING, PARTITIONS, FALSE CEI LING, PAINTING, FURNITURE I.E., REDECORATION INCLUDING TH AT OF A TOILET ETC., SEEM TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. I, TH EREFORE, HOLD THAT SERVICES RENDERED ARE COVERED U/S 194J AN D NOT 194C AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT.. 8.1. ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 194J OF THE ACT , THE CIT (A) HAD OBSERVED THUS: PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 5 3.2. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NATURE OF SERVICES REND ERED FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT AS REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE BEEN MADE, ARE IN THE NATURE OF INTERIOR DECORATION COVERED BY SECTION 194J. THE ACTION OF T HE AO IN THIS REGARD IS, THEREFORE, UPHELD. 3.3. ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AN ALTERNATIV E ARGUMENT THAT, IF THE PAYEE HAS PAID TAXES, NO DEMAN D U/S 201(1) NEED BE RAISED ON IT, YET NO SUCH DETAILS OR EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH BEFORE ME SUCH AS TO WHETHER THE PAYEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID TAXES ON THE AMOU NTS RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE APPELLANT AND SO I AM UNABLE TO CONSIDER THE SAME. 9. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARN ED A R SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE DCI T (TDS) MERELY ON THE CONTENTION THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE INTERI OR DECORATOR AND, HENCE, THE SAME ARE SUBJECTED TO DEDUCTION OF TAX U /S 194-J OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXACT NATURE OF WORK BEING CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK UNDERTAKEN BY THE PAYEE AGAINST WHICH PAYMENTS WERE MA DE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PAYEE HAD ALREADY PAID THE APPROPRIATE TAXES AND, ACCORDINGLY, ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AOS STAND THAT THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEF AULT FOR THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS, THE LEARNED A R DREW THE ATTENTION OF THIS BENCH TO THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NOS.681, 715 AND 720 AND ALSO THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN (2011) 43 SOT 215 (MUM). ON A SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THIS BENCH, THE LEARNED A R HAD FURNISHED A COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE PAYEE M /S. SUKRAL DCOR. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INTERIOR DESIGNI NG WORK WAS DONE BY DWP PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 6 INTERICS PRIVATE LIMITED FOR WHICH SEPARATE PAYMENT S HAVE BEEN MADE TO THEM AND THAT APPROPRIATE TAXES U/S 194J OF THE AC T WERE DEDUCTED ON THE SAME. 9.1. IN CONCLUSION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDU CTOR CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IF DEDUCTEE HAD PA ID THE TAX AND THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, IF ANY, CANNOT BE REALIZED FROM THE DEDUCTOR. RELIES ON THE CASE LAWS : JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LTD V. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 345 ITR 2 88 (ALL); BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.275; & HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BEVERAGE P. LTD V. CIT (2007) 2 93 ITR 226 (SC) 9.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D R SUPPORTED THE STAND OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT WA S, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW REQUIRE TO BE SUSTAINED. 9.3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS O F EITHER PARTY, DULY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON THE CASE RECO RDS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS ON WHICH THE LEARNED AR HAD PLACED STRONG RELI ANCE. 9.3.1. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TE RM INTERIOR DECORATION HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENT WAS FOR CIVIL WORK FOR WHI CH S. 194C OF THE ACT WAS ATTRACTED. HOWEVER, IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT TH AT THE RECIPIENT M/S. SUKRAL DCOR WAS AN INTERIOR DECORATOR WHICH HAS BE EN EXPLICITLY ESTABLISHED FROM THE COPIES OF BILLS, ITS LETTERHEADS ETC. THE CIT(A) HAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS SHOW THAT THOSE WERE PR IMARILY FOR INTERIOR PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 7 DECORATION WORK. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER CHALLENGES T HIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDING TO LEARNED AR, THE INTERIOR WORK WAS ENTRUSTED WITH INTERIOR DECORATOR DWP INTERICS PVT, WHO IN TURN EN TRUSTED THE CIVIL WORK TO M/S SUKRAL DCOR. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED A R THAT THE PAYMENT TO DWP INTERIC POT WAS SUBJECTED TO TDS UNDER SECTION 194J, WHEREAS FOR PAYMENT MADE TO M/S SUKRAL DCOR, TDS UNDER SECTION 194C WAS EFFECTED. TO DRIVE HOME ITS POINT, THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ST RONG RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL OF THE MUMBAI BENC H IN THE CASE OF TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD V. ITO REPORTED IN (2 011) 43 SOT 215 (MUM). 9.3.2. AT THIS POINT OF TIME, WE WOULD LIKE TO REC ALL THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S. SUKRAL DCOR HAD, IN ITS RET URN OF INCOME, INCLUDED THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE ETC., AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS ALSO MORE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.2 75/201/95-IT(B) DATED 29.1.1997 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT NO DEMAND VISUALIZED U/S 201(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS SATISFIED THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF TDS THAT TAXES D UE HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE 9.3.3. THIS VERY FACT HAS BEEN EMPHASIZED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS RULING IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA C OLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD V. CIT REPORTED IN (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC). FOR APPRECIAT ION OF FACTS, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RULING OF THE HONBLE COURT IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 10. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95- IT(B) DATED 29.1.1997 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIREC T TAXES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SHOULD PUT AN EN D TO PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 8 THE CONTROVERSY. THE CIRCULAR DECLARES NO DEMAND VISUALIZED U/S 201(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS SATISFIED THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF TDS THAT TAXES DUE HAVE BEEN P AID BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT AL TER THE LIABILITY TO CHARGE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1 A) OF THE ACT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE. 9.3.4. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS VITAL PIECE OF INF ORMATION / EVIDENCE HAD NEITHER BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE DCIT (TDS) NOR AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS BEEN HIGHLIGH TED BY THE CIT (A) IN HER FINDINGS. FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND CLARIT Y, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER (AT THE COST OF REPETIT ION) AS UNDER: 3.3. ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN AN ALTERNATI VE ARGUMENT THAT, IF THE PAYEE HAS PAID TAXES, NO DEMAN D U/S 201(1) NEED BE RAISED ON IT, YET NO SUCH DETAILS OR EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH BEFORE ME SUCH AS TO WHETHER THE PAYEE HAS ACTUALLY PAID TAXES ON THE AMOU NTS RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE APPELLANT AND SO I AM UNABLE TO CONSIDER THE SAME. 9.3.5. THE BOARD ALSO EMPHASES IN ITS CIRCULAR PR ESCRIBED THAT (AT THE COST OF REPETITION) THAT NO DEMAND VISUALIZED U/S 201(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT SHOULD BE ENFORCED AFTER THE TAX DEDUCTOR HAS S ATISFIED THE OFFICER-IN- CHARGE OF TDS THAT TAXES DUE HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE D EDUCTEE - ASSESSEE WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DCIT (TDS) WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER THE RECIPIENT [M/S. SUKRAL DCOR] OF THE PAYMENTS HAD REFLECTED THE SAME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND PAID THE TAXES AND IF SO, PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG/ 2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 9 THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN D EFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH ITS L EARNED A.R, IS ADVISED TO FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCES AT I TS POSSESSION BEFORE THE DCIT (TDS) WHICH WOULD FACILITATE HIM TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS BENCH (SUPRA) EXPEDITIOUSLY. SINCE THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVA CONSID ERATION, WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE WHETHER THE PAYMENT MADE TO M /S SUKRAL DCOR CALL FOR TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194C OR 1 94J OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. II. ITA NO.1425/B/12 BY THE ASSESSEE: 10. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION WAS T HAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE DICT (TDS) IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 10.1. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE TH AT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA C OLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD (SUPRA), MADE IT ABUNDANTLY EXPLICIT THAT 10. ... HOWEVER, THIS WILL NOT ALTER THE LIABILITY TO CHARGE INTEREST UNDER SECTIO N 201(1A) OF THE ACT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE DEDUCTEE-A SSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE RULING OF THE HONBLE COURT, THIS ISSU E IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE DCIT (TDS) WITH A PRECISE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE RECIPIENT HAD ADMITTED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME THE PAYMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND, ACCORDINGLY, PAID THE TAXES. IF SO, THE INTEREST PAYABLE U/S 201(1A) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE WORKED OUT PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA NO.397/BANG /2012 & 1425/BANG/2012 10 (RESTRICTED) TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF TAXES [ON T HE SAID AMOUNTS] BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE. THIS DIRECTION OF THE BENCH IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULING OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA). IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT: THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 16 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (N BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO : 1. THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE C IT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF MSP/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BAN GALORE.