Rajan Srinivasan HUF, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 470/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8947 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 470 / BANG/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 06 - 07 SHRI RAJAN R. SRINIVASAN (HUF), NO. 2965, 4 TH CROSS, 12 TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 008. PAN: AAJHR1684Q VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7 (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE RE VENUE BY : DR. P.V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 04 . 10 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 . 10 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-LTU, BANGALORE DATED 28.07.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESSE D AT RS. 7,37,884/- AS DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT[A], AS AGAINST THE DECLARED TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 76,25,431/-BY THE APPELL ANT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING A SUM OF RS.83,63,315/- AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'O THER SOURCES' ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ITA NO. 470/BANG/2015 PAGE 2 OF 8 DISALLOWANCE OF RS.83,63,315/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AG RICULTURAL LAND AS RECEIPTS FOR OTHER EXPENSES OTHER THAN THE CONSIDERATION FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS ONLY FOR THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NO PART OF THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD 'OTHER SOURCES' AS THE EN TIRE AMOUNT IS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF R S. 83.63 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS THE SAID SUM INCLUDED THE COST OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSION AND THE NET CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS . 81.04 LAKHS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 7. WITHOUT FURTHER PREJUDICE THE LEARNED AUTHORITIE S ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REDUCING THE A MOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND OF RS. 4,95,000/- FROM THE SUM OF RS. 83.63 LAKHS TO ARRIVE AT THE TAXABLE INC OME, AND FURTHER CONSIDERING THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 4,95,000 /- AS CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AGAIN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDI TION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER OF INTEREST THE APPELLANT DENIES ITSELF TO BE LIABLE FOR INTERE ST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234D OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY , DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS AND TO FILE A PAPER BOOK AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING THE APPEAL, THE AP PELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF AS SESSEE THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER A DELAY OF 108 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF THIS DELAY. HE S UBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS CAUSED FOR THE TIME CONSUMED IN SEEKING PROFESSIONA L OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER THE APPEAL SHOULD BE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL OR NOT AND FURTHER ITA NO. 470/BANG/2015 PAGE 3 OF 8 BECAUSE OF THIS REASON ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEES KAR TA WAS A PRACTICING PROFESSIONAL WHO HAD TO TRAVEL INTENSELY IN CONNECT ION WITH THE PROFESSION CARRIED ON BY HIM AND THIS HAS ALSO CAUSED SOME DEL AY IN FILING OF APPEAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON J UDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS AS REPORTED IN 167 ITR 471. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF DELAY BUT IN THE FACTS O F PRESENT CASE AS DISCUSSED AND BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGME NT OF HONBLE APEX COURT, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 4. REGARDING THE MERIT OF THE CASE, IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE CIT (A ) IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 1 TO 5 OF PAPER BOOK AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDE RED BY TRIBUNAL ALSO FOR DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL. HE POINTED OUT TH AT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS . 83.63 LAKHS TOWARDS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ALTHOUGH AS PER THE SALE DEED AVAILABLE ON PAGE NOS. 6 TO 16 OF PAPER BOOK, THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN STATED TO BE RS. 4.95 LAKHS ONLY. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NO . 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS LETTER OF THE BUYER SHRI P.H. RAMASWAMY WHICH IS DATED 23.12.2008 AND IN THIS LETTER, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY HIM THAT HE H AS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IN NOVEMBER 2005 FOR A SUM OF RS. 83.63 LAKHS AND THIS SUM WAS PAID BY TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER DIRECTLY BY HIS DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW IN AMERICA ON TWO DATES I.E . 22.09.2005 AND 07.11.2005. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS CERTIFICATE OF THE BUYER WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT BOTH THESE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. IN THIS REGARD, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA NO. 9 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE CIT(A) AS AVAILABLE IN PAGE NO. 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 83.63 LAKHS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. ITA NO. 470/BANG/2015 PAGE 4 OF 8 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. A) CIT VS. BALBIR SINGH MAINI, [2017] 86 TAXMANN.COM 94 (SUPREME COURT) B) SHAGAN LAL VS. ITO, (2018) 89 TAXMANN.COM 177 (AMRI TSAR -TRIB) C) CIT VS. JUMRAMAL SONS. (1986) 25 TAXMAN 242 (ALL) 6. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RELIANCE ON THESE JUDICIA L PRONOUNCEMENTS IS MADE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE SALE PRO CEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CAN ONLY BE TO THE EXTENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION NOT ED IN THE SALE DEED AND THE EXTRA AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER PARA NO. 9 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE CIT(A), IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE LETTER O F BUYER SHRI P.H. RAMASWAMY BEFORE THE AO IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED BY HIM THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 83.63 LAKHS IS FOR THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND AND THIS COPY OF LETTER FROM THE BUYER WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CIT(A) ALSO. THE DECISION OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS AVAILABLE IN PA RA NOS. 7 TO 7.3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR READY R EFERENCE. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE AO'S CONCLUSIONS, THE EVID ENCES AVAILABLE TO HER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT BEFORE ME. THE NATURE OF THE TRANSFERRED LAND AS BEING `AGRICULTURAL' IN CHARACTER IS UNDISPUTED. THE CENT RAL GROUND TO BE ADJUDICATED, THEREFORE, IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT RECEIVED A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 83.63 LAK H OR RS. 4,95,000 AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SALE. GOING STRICTLY BY LAW AND THE DECLARATIONS MA DE IN A SALE DOCUMENT REGISTERED BEFORE A STATUTORY AUTHORI TY, BEING THE SUB-REGISTRAR, HOSUR, THE AO'S CONCLUSIONS ARE CLEARLY SUPPORTED. THE RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION IN THE SALE DEED DT. 10.11.2005 IS MENTIONED AS BEING IN CASH AND IT HAS BEEN ATTESTED IN FRONT OF TWO WITNESSES. IF THE SALE CON SIDERATION IS TAKEN AS RS.83.63 LAKHS AS PER THE APPELLANT'S VERS ION BOTH ITA NO. 470/BANG/2015 PAGE 5 OF 8 THE AMOUNT AS WELL AS THE MODE MENTIONED BEFORE A STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND WITNESSES WOULD HAVE TO BE THROWN ASIDE AS INCORRECT. THIS CANNOT BE LEGALLY ACCEPTED , ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VENDOR AND THE PURCHASER HAVE B OTH MADE A STATUTORY DECLARATION UNDER THE TAMILNADU ST AMP (PREVENTION OF UNDERVALUATION OF INSTRUMENTS) RULES , 1968 THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAID LAND WAS RS.8,78, 976. TO THINK THAT AGAINST THIS MARKET VALUE, A TRANSACTION WOULD BE AFFECTED AT RS.83.63 LAKHS IS TO CROSS ALL BOUNDS O F CREDULITY AND LEGALITY. 7.1 THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE A CATEGORICAL ASSERT ION THAT IT HAD UNDER-VALUED THE TRANSACTION FOR ANY ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL PURPOSES SUCH AS PAYING LOWER THAN MANDAT ED STAMP DUTY, AND HAS INSTEAD SOUGHT TO PUSH THE RESPONSIBILITY ON TO THE SUB-REGISTRAR BY STATING T HAT HE REFUSED TO REGISTER THE SALE AT RS.83.63 LAKHS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED FOR THIS CLAIM. IT IS ALSO IMPROBA BLE GIVEN THAT IF THE SUB-REGISTRAR COULD PERMIT A DOWN WARD VARIATION (RS.4,95,000) FROM THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE (RS.8,78,976) AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO BE REGIS TERED THERE WAS NOTHING TO PREVENT AN UPWARD VARIATION (R S.83.63 LAKH). IN FACT, REGISTERING THE PROPERTY AT RS.83.6 3 LAKH WOULD'VE FETCHED MUCH HIGHER REVENUE FOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHICH CANNOT CONCEIVABLY HAVE BEEN PREVE NTED BY ANY LAWFULLY INCLINED SUB REGISTRAR. 7.2 THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE AO'S CONCLUS IONS ARE NOT FOUNDED ON THE RATIONAL BEHAVIORAL EXPECTATIONS FROM RAMASWAMY. THE ISSUE OF RATIONALITY OR OTHERWISE OF SRI RAMASWAMY IS NOT TO BE ADJUDICATED BY ME IN THIS AP PEAL. AS MENTIONED, THE CONDUCT OF SRI RAMASWAMY IN DECLA RING LAWFULLY IN A STATUTORILY APPROPRIATE MANNER ABOUT THE GIVING OF RS.4,95,000 IN CASH AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED SIGNED BY HIM IN FRONT OF WITNESSES AND A STATUTORY AUTHORITY (AKIN TO THE RATIONALITY OF THE APPELLANT) IS LEGAL LY VALIDATED AND I HAVE NO GROUND TO QUESTION THE SAME. AS TO WH Y SRI RAMASWAMY PREFERRED TO SPEAK IN A FORKED TONGUE IN A LATER 'CONFIRMATION' GIVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS FOR HIM TO EXPLAIN, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BEFORE ME. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY O F FACTS, THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS NOT LEGALLY CREDIBLE AND I FIND NO REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE AO 'S CONCLUSIONS ITA NO. 470/BANG/2015 PAGE 6 OF 8 7.3 EVEN ON FACTS, THE AO'S CONCLUSION THAT THE AMO UNT OF RS.83.63 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN LAND SALE CONSIDERATION IS BORNE OUT FROM THE EXTRACT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLOVER ESTATES AND P.H. RAMASWAMY REPRODUCED AT PARA 4 SUPRA. THE RECITAL DOES NOT ST ATE THAT THE SUM OF RS.83.63 LAKHS REPRESENTS CONSIDERATION FOR LAND SALE. IT IS ONLY DESCRIBED AS A CONSIDERATION FOR THE 'DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE' IN PARA 2 AND I N PARA 3 CLARIFIES THAT ONLY 'A PORTION OF THIS AMOUNT' WAS MEANT FOR PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL UNIT. SINCE THE PORTIO N HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED AND THE CONSIDERATION IS ALREADY FOU ND TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH ATTESTED BY TWO WITNESSES AS RECORDED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE AO HAS CO RRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS RECEI VED THROUGH TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER FOR PURPOSES OTHER THA N LAND SALE. ONCE THIS IS ACCEPTED, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACC EPT THE APPELLANT'S GROUND NO.6 THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE RED UCED THE AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO AGRICULTURAL LAND SALE O F RS.4,95,000 FROM THE AMOUNT OF RS.83.63 LAKHS. THE MATTER RAISED IN GROUND NO. 5 THAT THE NET CONSIDERATION R ECEIVED WAS ONLY RS 81.04 LAKH, AFTER DEDUCTING COMMISSION AND REGISTRATION COST, ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE VERY SAME REASON. IN GROUND NO. 7 IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE CO ST INCURRED IN EARNING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES S HOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO. THE DETAILS OF THESE E XPENSES WITH EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED AND, HENCE, THE GROUND CANNOT STAND. THESE GROUNDS, THEREFORE, ARE DISMISSED AND THE AO'S CONCLUSION IN THE MATTER IS AFFIRMED. 8. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER O F CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT THIS CERTIFICATE FROM THE BUYER IS CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED BY CIT(A) AND DECISION OF CIT(A) IS AFTER CONSIDERING THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. IN FACT, LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE EXTRACT OF AGREEMENT BET WEEN THE CLOVER ESTATES PVT. LTD. AND P.H. RAMASWAMY REPRODUCED IN PARA NO. 4 OF HIS ORDER AND A CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT AS PER PARA 2 OF THIS AGREEMENT, IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT ONLY PORTION OF THIS AMOUNT WIL L GO TOWARDS THE COST OF PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL UNIT BUT SINCE THE POR TION HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED AND ITA NO. 470/BANG/2015 PAGE 7 OF 8 THE BUYER ALREADY PAID CASH AS RECORDED IN THE R EGISTERED SALE DEED, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 83.63 LAKHS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN AD DITION TO RS. 4.95 LAKHS. 9. IN PARA 13 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFO RE CIT (A) AS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK, RELIANCE HAS BEEN PL ACED ON A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF E. D. SA SSOON & CO. VS. CIT, 26 ITR 27. WE FIND THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE DISPUTE & FACTS IN THAT CASE WERE DIFFE RENT. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS MANAGING AGENTS OF A COMPANY AND THE CO MMISSION WAS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR BUT MANAGING AGENCY RIGHTS W ERE TRANSFERRED DURING THE YEAR AND THIS WAS THE DISPUTE AS TO WHETHER THE MAN AGING AGENCY COMMISSION UP TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER ACCRUED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON THAT. IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE M ANAGING AGENCY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BY MANAGING AGENTS TO ANOTHER COMP ANY DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, THE WHOLE OF THE AGENCY COMMISSION IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSIGNEE-COMPANY AS RIGHT TO RECEIVE THE COMMIS SION IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ACCRUES ONLY AT THE END OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. 10. HENCE, THIS JUDGMENT DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THIS CATEGORICAL FINDING OF CIT (A) THAT THIS RE CEIPT OF RS. 83.63 LAKHS IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SINCE T HE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS CATEGORICAL FINDING OF CIT (A), WE HOLD THAT NO INTERFERE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 12 TH OCTOBER, 2018. /MS/ ITA NO. 470/BANG/2015 PAGE 8 OF 8 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.