M/s Tayana Consult (P) Ltd., Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 423/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7746 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APPELLATE
• Assessee Lawyers: C RAMESH C A SHRI S K AMBASTHA
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 37; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 423/BANG/2011 (ASST. YEAR 2006-07) M/S TAYANA CONSULT PVT. LTD., NO.642, 4 TH MAIN, 2 ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038. . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(2), BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.673 /BANG/2011 (BY REVENUE) APPELLATE BY : SHRI C RAMESH, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K AMBASTHA, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 04-06-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-06-2012 O R D E R PER P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE. THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) III AT BANGALORE DATED 10 .2.2011. THE ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 2 CROSS APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR ON 30.11.2006 RETURNING NIL INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.7,53,55,636/- AS A DVANCES WRITTEN OFF IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS. THE DETAILS OF TH E SAID EXPENDITURE WERE CALLED FOR AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS THE SAM E IS IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT AND NOT A TRADING LOSS. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 8.12.2008 SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF OF RS.7,53,55,636/-, WHICH IS AS UNDER : S.N PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. BPL LTD., 327,45,842/- 2. BPL DISPLAY DEVICES 24,000/- 3. BPL DISPLAY DEVICES 255,34,783/- 4. BST LIMITED 170,51,011/- TOTAL 753,55 ,636/- ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 3 3. FURTHER VIDE LETTER DATED 12.12.2008, IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TRADE ADVANCES TO BPL CELLULAR HO LDINGS LTD. FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND ALSO DURING THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF OF AN AMOU NT OF RS.7.30 CRORES, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS EXITING BY SALE OF ITS INVESTMENT IN THAT COMPANY AND AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT, THE DUES WE RE WRITTEN OFF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BPL COMMUNICATION HAS ACCOUNTED FOR THE CESSATION OF ITS LIABILITY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAX, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN AN INCREASE OF THE NET WORTH OF BPL COMMUNICATIONS AND THERE BY ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO GE T BETTER PRICE FOR ITS SHARE. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE LETTER DATED 19.1 2.2008, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD MADE TRADE ADVANCES TO BPL CELLULAR HOLDINGS LTD., AND AS PART OF THE SETTLEM ENT PROCESS AND SALE OF EQUITY, THE COMPANY ASSUMED THE ADVANCES MADE BY BPL COMMUNICATIONS AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, WHICH HAS RESU LTED IN INCREASE IN THE NETWORTH OF ALL THE BPL COMMUNICATIONS AND THER EBY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO GET BETTER PRICE FOR ITS SHARES. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WROTE OFF AN AMOUNT OF RS.7.54 CRO RES BECAUSE BST LTD. AND BPL DISPLAY DEVICE LTD., WERE UNDER WI NDING UP AND BPL LTD. WAS IN A DEBT RESTRUCTURING PROCESS WHEREB Y THE LENDERS AND CREDITORS HAD TO WRITE OFF OF THEIR DUES. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 4 RESTRUCTURING WAS APPROVED BY THE COURTS AT KERALA. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND ALSO THE PROVISION OF LAW U/S SEC. 36(I)(VII) AND 36(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE AO HELD THAT ALL DEBTS INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE DO NOT QUALIFY FOR A DEDUCT ION UNLESS THE DEBTS INCURRED BY HIM WERE ON REVENUE ACCOUNT AND THEY HA VE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESS EE FOR AN EARLIER YEAR. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFIED A NY OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SEC.36(1)(VII) READ WITH SEC. 36(2) TH EREOF BEFORE WRITING OFF OF THESE ADVANCES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THESE AMOUNTS CONSTITUTED ADVANCES AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS EXITING BY SA LE OF ITS INVESTMENT IN THE COMPANIES AND, THEREFORE, THIS DO ES NOT CONSTITUTE A TRADING LOSS BUT PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF A CAPITA L LOSS. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF B AD DEBTS OF 7,53,55,636/- DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND COMPUTED THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A) STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON THE BUSINE SS IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR AND HAS WRITTEN OFF THE AMOUNTS DUE FROM THE GROUP COMPANIES ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 5 AS NOT RECOVERABLE AND AT THE SAME TIME HAS ALSO WR ITTEN BACK AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,01,15,902/- AS LIABILITIES NO LONGER PAYABLE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF OF RS.7,53,55,636/- ARE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 28 OF THE ACT ITSELF OR AS PER THE EXPLANATION U/S 36 OR 37 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THEN THE LIABILITIES WRITTEN BACK SHOULD ALSO NOT BE CONSIDE RED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AT LENGTH, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO TH AT THE ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF ARE NEITHER ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBTS U/S 36(2)(VII) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT NOR ARE ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 28 OR SEC. 37 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HOWEVER, HE CONSIDE RED THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATE CLAIM THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 5,01,15,902/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,88,88,278/- HAS NEVER BEEN CLAIMED A S EXPENDITURE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A S INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER PROVISION OF SEC. 41(1) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY GRANTED A RELIEF OF RS.4,88,88,278/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,53,55,636/- IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BAD DEBTS OR BUSINESS LOSS U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT OR SUB SE C. (2) OF SECS. 36 OR 37 OR SEC. 28 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 6 US, WHILE ON THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,88,88,278/-, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 6. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENTS AND THAT IT HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 30.11.2006 DECLARING A LOSS OF RS.3,11,25,120/-. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURTHER REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR AND, THEREFORE, THE ADVANCES MADE WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS AND ARE ALLOWABLE U/S 36(2)(VII) R EAD WITH SEC. 36(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 7. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS LONG AS THE DEBTS H AVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBTS, THEY HAVE TO BE ALLOWED SUBSEQUEN T TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE SAID PROVISION AND PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F TRF LTD. VS CIT REPORTED IN 323 ITR 397 (SC) FOR THIS PROPOSITI ON. ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 7 8. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF TH E CLAIM OF ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF IS CONCERNED AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCIAL SECTOR BUT NEITHER OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE CONSIDERED AS TO WHAT IS THE NATUR E OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS OR THE NATURE OF ADVANCES. HE SUBMITTED T HAT EVERY ADVANCE CANNOT BE TREATED AS A TRADING DEBT. HE SUBMITTED THAT AT SOME PLACES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF STATED TO BE AN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND, THEREFORE, IF THERE IS ANY LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF INVES TMENT , THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL LOSS AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT OR BUSINESS EXPENDITURE U/S 36 OR 37 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCES TO M/S BPL C OMMUNICATIONS LTD., HAS ALSO NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING AND THEREFORE, APPLYING T HE PROVISION S OF THE SEC. 36(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT READ WITH SEC. 36(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE AMOUNT ADVANCED ARE TO BE TREAT ED AS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF OR AS BUSINESS LOSS. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE BASIC QUESTION WHICH REQUIRES ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 8 CONSIDERATION IS THE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSIN ESS. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS IN THE FINANCIAL SECTOR, WHEREAS IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT IS IN THE INVESTMENT CO MPANY. IF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING, THEN AS PROVIDED UNDER SUB SEC. (2) OF SEC. (36), FOR ADVANCES MADE BY IT IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS AND SUBSEQUENTLY WRITTEN OFF U/S 36(2)(VII ) AS BAD DEBTS, THEY ARE TO BE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, IF IT IS FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTMENT COMPANY AND THE ADVANCES MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE TO M/S BPL LTD., AND ITS SISTER CONCERNS ARE FOR THE PURPO SE OF INVESTMENTS IN SHARES, THEN THE ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESS EE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A TRADING LOSS OR BAD DEBT BUT HAS TO BE TREATED AS CAPITAL LOSS WHICH IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 36 OR 37 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS U/S 28 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. WE FIND THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT(A ) HAS ACTUALLY GONE INTO THIS ASPECT OF THE ISSUE NOR HAVE THEY EX AMINED THE CORRECT NATURE OF ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE PURP OSE OF SUCH ADVANCES. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF T.R.F LTD., VS. CIT REPORTED IN 323 ITR 397, WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 36(1)(VII), IT IS NO LONGER REQUI RED TO PROVE THAT THE ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 9 DEBT WAS A BAD DEBT, BUT IT WAS SUFFICIENT IF IT WA S WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BUT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF A.V THOMAS AND CO. LTD., 48 ITR 67 (SC) IF THE DEBT HAS TO BE CLAIMED AS A BAD OR DOUBTFUL DEBT, IT MUST FIRS T BE SHOWN TO BE A PROPER DEBT. NOW THE QUESTION WHICH ARISES IS WHAT IS A DEBT? AS MENTIONED BY VARIOUS COURTS, A DEBT IS OUT STANDI NG WHICH IF RECORDED WOULD HAVE SWELLED UP THE PROFITS. IT MEA NS SOMETHING MORE THAN THE MERE ADVANCE AND SOMETHING WHICH IS RELATE D TO BUSINESS OR RESULTS FROM IT. A DEBT IS THAT WHICH ONE OWES TO OTHERS; ANY MONEY; GOODS OR SERVICES THAT ONE IS BOUND TO ANOTHER ; A PECULIAR DEMAND; LIQUID DEMAND; ETC. THUS EVIDENCE OF AN OBLIGATION TO REPAY IS THE FIRST FACTOR TO BE SINGLED OUT OF THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO CALL IT A DEBT. 10. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE A DVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF BP L LTD. EVEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT SEEMS SO. IN V IEW OF THE SAME , WE CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE EXACT NATURE OF ASSESSEES BU SINESS AND ALSO WHETHER THE ADVANCES WHICH ARE WRITTEN OFF WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDIN G OR FOR TRADING ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 10 PURPOSES AND IF IT IS FOUND TO BE SO, THEN SUCH ADV ANCES WRITTEN OFF WILL HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF U/ S 37(1)(VII) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT READ WITH SEC. 36(2) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT. IF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE NOT CARRYING ON THE MONEY L ENDING BUSINESS THEN THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE NATURE OF THE DEBT AND IF IT IS FOUND TO BE A TRADING DEBT, THEN HE IS ALSO DIRECTE D TO VERIFY IF THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE SAME IN ANY OF THE PREVIOU S YEAR SATISFYING THE CONDITION LAID DOWN U/S 36(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND ALLOW THE SAME ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE SATISFIES THE SAID CONDIT ION. THE AO MAY ALSO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE U/ S 28 AND 37 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS BUSINESS LOSS. THIS GROUND OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL, WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF OFFERED AN INCOME OF RS.5,01,15,902/- AS LIA BILITIES NO LONGER PAYABLE. HOWEVER, IT HAS TAKEN THE GROUND BEFORE T HE CIT(A) THAT THE SAME COULD BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY IF IT HAD BEEN CLAIMED AS EXPE NDITURE IN THE EARLIER YEARS U/S 41(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AS CE SSATION OF LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED THAT IF THE ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, THEN THE ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 11 LIABILITY WRITTEN BACK ALSO CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A S INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE NATURE OF THE LIABILITY AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT IS WRITTEN BACK HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR HAVE THEY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND, THEREFORE, IT NEEDS RECONSIDERATION BY THE AO . THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). 13. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSID ERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE CLAIM OF ADVANCE WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED, THE SAME ANALOGY HAS TO BE APPLIED TO THE LIABILITIES WRITTEN BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. EACH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE H AS TO BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AS RIGHTL Y POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR, THE NATURE OF THE LIABILITY AND THE CONDITION UNDER WHICH THE LIABILITY HAS BEEN WRITTEN BACK HAS NOT B EE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN FACT IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS T REATED THE SAME AS ITS INCOME. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO SET OFF INCOM E OFFERED AGAINST ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 12 THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) ALSO I S NOT PERMISSIBLE UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE IS CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE T WO. IN THE ABSENCE OF NEXUS BETWEEN THE ADVANCES WRITTEN OFF AND THE L IABILITIES WRITTEN BACK, THE SET OFF IS NOT ALLOWABLE. AS THE NATURE O F THE LIABILITY WRITTEN BACK HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAME NEEDS RECONSIDERATION BY THE AO. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE NATURE OF THE LIABILITY WRITTEN BACK AND ALSO A S TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 41(1) IS APPLICABLE TO THE CA SE ON HAND. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE R EVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12TH JUNE , 2012. SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 12/06/2012 ITA NOS.423 & 673/B/011 13 COPY TO : 1.THE ASSESSEE 2.THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.