Sri K Kishore Kumar, Bengaluru V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 519/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5425 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L V BHASKAR REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIB H
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 234B; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 517 TO 519 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 201 0 - 11, 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 SRI K. KISHORE KUMAR, #12, 2 ND FLOOR, GOLLARA GANAGANNA LANE, NAGRATHPET CROSS, BANGALORE 560 002. PAN: AKOPK5734B VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (2) (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. PRATIB H A R , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L.V. BHASKAR REDDY, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 . 0 3 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 . 0 3 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE ALL DATE D 14.12.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010-11.ALL THESE APPEAL S WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 518/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING THE NO TICE U/S.148 WAS OPPOSED TO LAW AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT AS MA DE IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT BEING ABSENT, THE REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THERE BEING NO OMISSION MUCH LESS AN OMISSION OF DECLARATION OF INCOME IN THERELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 WAS WITHOUT ITA NOS.517 TO 519/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 7 JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSMENT IS L IABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND MAKING ADDITION O F RS.22,71,901/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE 'TRANSACTION DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT INDIVIDUALLY AND TH E TRANSACTIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF AOP IN WH ICH THE APPELLANT WAS A MEMBER WITH 1/7 TH SHARE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING PERUSED THE AGREEMENT OF AOP OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS A VALID AOP IN EXIS TENCE WHICH CARRIED ON THE TRANSACTION AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION/ ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AOP ALONE WAS L IABLE TO TAX AND NO PART OF THE INCOME IF ANY OF THE AOP WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 7. ON THE FACTS THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AP PRECIATED THAT THE TRANSACTION DID NOT YIELD INCOME WHICH HAD ENDED UP IN LOSS AND EVEN IF THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED ON HIS S HARE IT WAS LOSS, WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SET OFF AGA INST HIS OTHER INCOME. 8. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT REGARDING THE HONBLE ITAT, THE APPEAL OF THE OTHER CO- PARCENERS HAS SENT BACK TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIO N THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED HAS TO BE ALLOWED PROPORTIONAT ELY. 9. THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES FILED WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR D EVELOPMENT OF LAND, OR GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO FOR EXP LANATION. THUS, THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FULL 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CONFI RMED ARE OPPOSED TO LAW IN THAT NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE FI NANCIAL RESULTS THERE FROM BESIDES THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. 11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND OUGHT TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTE REST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 13. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. ITA NOS.517 TO 519/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 7 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO. 519/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING THE NO TICE U/S.148 WAS OPPOSED TO LAW AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT AS MA DE IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT BEING ABSENT, THE REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THERE BEING NO OMISSION MUCH LESS AN OMISSION OF DECLARATION OF INCOME IN THERELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSMENT IS L IABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND MAKING ADDITION O F RS. 7,36,466/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE 'TRANSACTION DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT INDIVIDUALLY AND TH E TRANSACTIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF AOP IN WH ICH THE APPELLANT WAS A MEMBER WITH 1/7 TH SHARE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING PERUSED THE AGREEMENT OF AOP OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS A VALID AOP IN EXIS TENCE WHICH CARRIED ON THE TRANSACTION AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION/ ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AOP ALONE WAS L IABLE TO TAX AND NO PART OF THE INCOME IF ANY OF THE AOP WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 7. ON THE FACTS THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AP PRECIATED THAT THE TRANSACTION DID NOT YIELD INCOME WHICH HAD ENDED UP IN LOSS AND EVEN IF THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED ON HIS S HARE IT WAS LOSS, WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SET OFF AGA INST HIS OTHER INCOME. 8. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT REGARDING THE HONBLE ITAT, THE APPEAL OF THE OTHER CO- PARCENERS HAS SENT BACK TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIO N THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED HAS TO BE ALLOWED PROPORTIONAT ELY. 9. THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES FILED WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR D EVELOPMENT OF LAND, OR GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO FOR EXP LANATION. THUS, THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FULL ITA NOS.517 TO 519/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 7 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CONFI RMED ARE OPPOSED TO LAW IN THAT NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE FI NANCIAL RESULTS THERE FROM BESIDES THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. 11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND OUGHT TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTE REST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 13. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11 IN ITA NO. 517/BANG/2018 ARE AS UNDER. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING THE NO TICE U/S.148 WAS OPPOSED TO LAW AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT AS MA DE IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT BEING ABSENT, THE REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.147 IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THERE BEING NO OMISSION MUCH LESS AN OMISSION OF DECLARATION OF INCOME IN THERELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REASSESSMENT IS L IABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND MAKING ADDITION O F RS. 15,20,697/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE 'TRANSACTION DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT INDIVIDUALLY AND TH E TRANSACTIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF AOP IN WH ICH THE APPELLANT WAS A MEMBER WITH 1/7 TH SHARE. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING PERUSED THE AGREEMENT OF AOP OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS A VALID AOP IN EXIS TENCE WHICH CARRIED ON THE TRANSACTION AS BUSINESS TRANSACTION/ ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND ACCORDINGLY THE AOP ALONE WAS L IABLE TO TAX AND NO PART OF THE INCOME IF ANY OF THE AOP WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NOS.517 TO 519/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 7 7. ON THE FACTS THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AP PRECIATED THAT THE TRANSACTION DID NOT YIELD INCOME WHICH HAD ENDED UP IN LOSS AND EVEN IF THE APPELLANT WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED ON HIS S HARE IT WAS LOSS, WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SET OFF AGA INST HIS OTHER INCOME. 8. THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED TH E SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT REGARDING THE HONBLE ITAT, THE APPEAL OF THE OTHER CO- PARCENERS HAS SENT BACK TO THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIO N THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED HAS TO BE ALLOWED PROPORTIONAT ELY. 9. THE LD CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCES FILED WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR D EVELOPMENT OF LAND, OR GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO FOR EXP LANATION. THUS, THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN FULL 10. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CONFI RMED ARE OPPOSED TO LAW IN THAT NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THE FI NANCIAL RESULTS THERE FROM BESIDES THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. 11. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES WERE EXCESSIVE, ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND OUGHT TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 12. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTE REST U/S.234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 13. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GROUND NOS. 1 TO 6 ARE NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED IN ALL THE THREE YEARS.REGARDING MERIT OF THE CASE I.E. GROUND NOS. 7 TO 10, SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNERS I.E. SMT. M. LAKSHMI VS. ITO IN ITA NOS. 539 & 542/BANG/2017 AND SMT. H. GAYATHRI VS. ITO IN ITA N OS. 575, 540 & 541/BANG/2017 DATED 26.05.2017, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RE STORED BACK THE MATTER TO AO FOR FRESH DECISION. SHE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THI S COMBINED TRIBUNAL ORDER AND DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO PARA 7 OF THIS TRIBUNAL O RDER IN THIS REGARD. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION ON THIS BASIS THAT AO HAD NOT TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CARVING OUT 90 PLOTS O UT OF THE TOTAL LANDS PURCHASED AND FOR THIS CARVING OUT, SOME EXPENDITUR E IS BOUND TO BE INCURRED. ITA NOS.517 TO 519/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 7 SHE SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NO. 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE DETAIL OF YEAR-WISE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF COST OF DEVELOPMENT INCUR RED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. AMOUNTS OF RS. 74,45,632/- IN THE YEAR 2004-05, RS. 16,01,685/- IN THE YEAR 2005-06 AND RS. 1,06,73,876/- IN THE YEAR 2006-07. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SAME LINE, IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DETA ILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED NOW BEING FILED WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AND THEREFORE, THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS SEEN THAT IN PARA 6.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS PER THE ANNEXURE-1, IT IS NOTED BY THE AO THAT ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED AT TH E OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, KENGERI AND ALSO AT BANASHANKARI TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH INVESTMENTS MADE IN IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES ALONG WITH SIX OTHERS AND THE DETAILS OF THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ALSO MENTIONED IN THE SAME PARA IN WHICH ASSESSEES SHARE IS WORKED OUT A T 1/7 TH OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF SUCH LAND. HENCE THIS IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSE E IS CO-OWNER OF THESE LANDS. NOW I REPRODUCE PARA NO. 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SMT. M. LAKSHMI VS. ITO (SUPRA) AND SMT. H. GAYATHR I VS. ITO (SUPRA). THE SAME IS AS UNDER. 7. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER A UTHORITIES, I FIND THAT THE AO HAS COMPUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N, BUT WHILE DOING SO, HE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPENDI TURE INCURRED IN LEVELLING THE PLOT. UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS C ARVED OUT 90 PLOTS OUT OF THE TOTAL LANDS PURCHASED AND FOR ITS CARVIN G OUT, SOME EXPENDITURE IS BOUND TO BE INCURRED. BUT THE AO DID NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THIS REGARD AND HE HAS COMPUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AFTER THE PURCHASE OF PLOT. TH IS APPROACH OF AO IS INCORRECT AS FOR DEVELOPING A PLOT, SOME EXPE NDITURE IS BOUND TO BE INCURRED. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT TH IS ISSUE REQUIRES READJUDICATION BY THE AO AND I ACCORDINGLY SET ASID E THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO REEXAMINE THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE INC URRED IN LEVELLING OF THE PLOT OR OTHERWISE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE O F COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ITA NOS.517 TO 519/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 7 7. FROM THE ABOVE PARA REPRODUCED FROM THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT COMES OUT THAT IT IS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THESE TWO CASES THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF CARVING OUT 90 PLOTS OUT OF THE TOTAL LAND PURCHASED. IT IS ALSO HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT SO ME EXPENDITURE IS BOUND TO BE INCURRED FOR THIS PURPOSE. BUT THE AO HAS NOT TAKE N INTO CONSIDERATION THOSE EXPENSES. THEREFORE, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK T O THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE E XPENDITURE INCURRED IN LEVELLING OF THE PLOT OR OTHERWISE RELEVANT SHOULD BE RE-EXAM INED AND THE MATTER MAY BE DECIDED AFRESH. IN THE PRESENT CASE WHICH IS OF A CO-OWNER, I RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNERS AND SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO IN ALL THE THREE YEARS AND RE STORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION WITH THE SAME DIRECTI ONS AS WERE GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH IS R EPRODUCED ABOVE.THE AO SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 23 RD MARCH, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.