M/s Vinayaka Enterprises, Bangalore V. CIT (III), Bangalore

ITA 548/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2047 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PREETHI GARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 80HHC; 143(1); 148; 263; 63; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI K.P.T. THANGAL, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM ITA NO.548/(BANG.)/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S. VINAYAK ENTERPRISES, NO.37, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, BANGALORE-560 020. : APPELLANT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PREETHI GARG. O R D E R PER SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT, B-III, BANGALORE U/S 263 OF THE ACT FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT EXHAUSTIVE GROUND S. ON A PERUSAL, THE GROUND NOS: 1, 7 AND 8 ARE GENERAL AND NO SPECI FIC ISSUES INVOLVED WHICH, IN OUR VIEW, THEY ARE NON-CONSEQUENTIAL AND THUS DISMI SSED AS SUCH. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS, THE SUBSTANCES OF THE ISSUES RAI SED ARE REFORMULATED IN A CONCISE MANNER AS UNDER: (I) THE LD.CIT HAD, WITHOUT PROPER JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, FAILED TO PROPOSE TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH WAS NEITHER PREJUDICIAL NOR ERRONEOUS; ITA 548(BNG)/09 2 - THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUC TION U/S 80HHC - BY THE CIT WAS BAD IN LAW AS THERE WAS NO NEGATIVE BUSINESS PROFITS AS ATTRIBUTED BY HIM; (II) NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, THE CIT HAD PASSED AN ORDER ON DIFFERENT GRO UNDS; & (III) THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT WAS BARRED BY LIMITAT ION. 3. THE HISTORY OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM MANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS OF READYMADE GARMENTS FURNISHED ITS ROI, ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.49.91 LAKHS WHICH WA S DULY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ITS ROI WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE AO TO RE-COMPUTE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE ROI ALREADY FURNISHED AS IN PURSUAN CE TO THE SAID NOTICE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO S.80HHC BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 W.E.F. 1.4.1998. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCLUDED, ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETU RNED AND ALSO THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD.CIT, B-III, IN SUO MOTU, INITIATED THE P ROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT 2..THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM OF RS.20.75 LAKHS AS DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. THE SAME WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO WRONGLY WITHOUT CONS IDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A NEGATIVE PROFIT IN THE BUSINESS. 3THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF WAS PAID BEL ATEDLY IN THE MONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST & SEPT. 2003 AND DECEMBER 04. THE AO DID NO T CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT PAID BELATEDLY BECOMES PART OF THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE AS PER S.2(24) R.W.S.36(VA). THE AO DID NOT ADD THIS AMOUNT IN THE ASST. ORDER PASSE D 5.1. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSEE REFUTED THE CITS CLAIM WHICH IS SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: ITA 548(BNG)/09 3 (I) THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6994964/- WAS ADMITTED IN THE ROI AND THAT THIS INCOME WAS A POSITIVE INCOME IN AS MUCH AS THE INCO ME WAS DECLARED AND TAXES PAID; (II) THERE WAS NO NEGATIVE PROFITS IN THE BUSINESS AS AL LEGED IN THE IMPUGNED NOTICE, ON THE CONTRARY THERE WAS A POSITIVE INCOME WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX; - FOR AN ARGUMENT SAKE, HAD THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED LOS S IN BUSINESS, EVEN THEN IT WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC AS THE HONBLE KER ALA HIGH COURT, IN CIT V. A.V.THOMAS & CO. LTD. (1997) 225 ITR 29, HAD IN ITS WISDOM RULED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC EVEN IF IT HAD SUFFERED LOSS IN ITS BUSINESS OF EXPORTS. (III) WITH REGARD TO DELAY IN PAYMENT OF PROVIDENT FUND DUES, THE SAME MAY BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 5.2. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE LD. CITS OBSERVATIONS WERE THAT (I) ON A PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION U/S 80HHC, THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED ADJUSTED PROFITS OF THE BUSIN ESS AT (-) RS.10723015.43, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAD WORKED OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AT RS.2075626/- TOTAL TURNOVER RS.169729359.02 EXPORT TURNOVER 167880121.01 PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS (-) 10723015.43 ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC: (1) ADJUSTED PROFITS OF BUSINESS X EXPORT TURNOVER = (-) RS.10606185.87 TOTAL TURNOVER (2) 90% OF DUTY DRAWBACK X EXPORT T URNOVER = RS.17524938.78 TOTAL TURNOVER RS. 6818752.92 (SIC) 6918752.91 DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC AT THE RATE OF 30% OF RS.6918752.91 = RS.2075626 - HOWEVER, THE CIT HAD WORKED OUT THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AT RS. NIL TOTAL TURNOVER RS.169729359.02 EXPORT TURNOVER 167880121.01 PROFITS OF THE BUSINESS (-) 10723015.43 ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC: (1) ADJUSTED PROFITS OF BUSINESS X EXPORT TURNOVER TOTAL TURNOVER = (-) 107230 15 X 167880121 = (-) 10723014 169729359 ITA 548(BNG)/09 4 (1) 90% OF DUTY DRAW BACK X EXPORT TURNOVER (I.E. 90% OF RS.3903399) TOTAL TURNOVER = 3513059 X167880121 = 34747 83 169729 359 103 75531 DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC = RS.NIL - THE CIT ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLEARLY MENTIONED AS TO HOW HE HAD ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS.17524938.78 IN THE WORKING OF C LAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC (BEING 90% OF DRAW BACK X ETO/TTO). HOWEVER, A PER USAL OF THE P & L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THE FOLLOWING RECEIPTS UNDER T HE HEAD OTHER RECEIPTS DRAW BACK RECEIPTS RS. 39,03,9 99 DEPB LICENCE RECEIPTS 1,55,32,718 THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED DEPB LICENCE RECEIPTS IN THE DRAW BACK WHILE WORKING OUT THE ABOVE FIGURE WHICH WAS NOT CORRECT AS PER LAW. AS PER THE PROVISO TO S.80HHC(3), THE PROFITS COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION 3 OF S.80HHC SHALL BE FURTHER INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO 90% OF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIIA) (NOT BEING PROFITS ON SALE OF LICENCE ACQUIRED FROM ANY OTHER PERSON) OR CLAUSE (IIIB) AND (IIIC) OF S.28, THE SAME PROPORTI ON AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER BEARS TO THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE A SSESSEE. CLEARLY THE DEPB LICENCE RECEIPTS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE SAID PROVISO AS THE SAME IS COVERED BY CLAUSE (IIID) OF S.28 AND, THUS, THE DEDUCTION AVAILABLE U/S 80HHC WAS RS .NIL. (II) WITH REGARD TO DELAYED PAYMENTS OF EMPLOYEES CONTRI BUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND WERE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 2( 24) R.W.S. 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PR ESENT APPEAL. FURTHERANCE TO THE REITERATIONS MADE DURING THE COU RSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IT WAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED BY THE LD. A R THAT (I) THE NOTICE U/S 263 ISSUED TO DENY THE CLAIM U/S 80H HC OF THE ACT THAT THE ENTITY WAS HAVING NEGATIVE PROFIT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING POSITIVE INCOME WHICH WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THIS HAS BEEN VOUC HED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; (II) EXPORT TURNOVER WAS RS.17.12 CRORES; THE TOTAL TURN OVER INCLUDING THE EXPORT WAS RS.17.26 CRORES AND THE PROFIT AS PER P & L ACC OUNT WAS RS.70.28 LAKHS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF 80HHC, THE ADJUSTED PROFIT OF TH E BUSINESS AS CERTIFIED BY THE CA IN F 10CCAC WAS (-) RS.1.07 CRORES, ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS CLAIMED AT RS.20.75 LAKHS; - THE CIT CONSIDERED THE ADJUSTED PROFIT AS DEFINED I N S.80HHC AS ACTUAL PROFIT OF BUSINESS WHICH WAS NEGATIVE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC; - IN FACT, PROFIT AS PER P & L ACCOUNT AND ADJUSTED P ROFIT AS PER S.80HHC WERE TWO INDEPENDENT TERMS AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION AND HA VE SEPARATE CONCLUSION CRITERIA; - THE CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE RECEIPTS OF DEPB L ICENCE CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION AS PER LAW. HOWEVER, HE HAD FAILED TO SEE AS PER THE THIRD PROVISO OF ITA 548(BNG)/09 5 SECTION WHICH WAS INSERTED WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFEC T FROM 1.4.1998, IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT RECEIPTS OF DEPB LICENCE TO BE INCLU DED IN THE CALCULATION; - FURTHER S.80HHC ITSELF PROVIDES HOW TO GET DEDUCTIO N FOR TAKING DEPB INTO CONSIDERATION UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (A) HE HAD AN OPTION TO CHOOSE EITHER THE DUTY DRAWBACK OR THE DUTY ENTITLEMENT PASS BOOK SCHEME BEING THE DUTY REMISSI ON SCHEME; AND (B) THE RATE OF DRAWBACK CREDIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CUS TOMS DUTY WAS HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF CREDIT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE DUTY EN TITLEMENT PASS BOOK SCHEME BEING THE DUTY REMISSION SCHEME 6.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL HAD FURNISHED A BUNCH OF DOCUMENTS WHICH INTER ALIA CONTAINING OF T HE COPIES OF (I) STATEMENT OF INCOME; (II) P & L ACCOUNT; (III) FORM 10CCAC; (IV) FORM NO.3CD ETC., 6.2. ON HER PART, THE LD. D R WAS VERY EMPHATIC I N HER RESOLVES THAT (I) AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT IN F NO:10CCAC THE CA HAD W ORKED OUT THE ADJUSTED PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS AT (-) RS.1.07 CRORES AS SUCH, THE ASS ESSEES CLAIM THAT THERE WAS NO NEGATIVE PROFIT WAS INCORRECT; (II) AS PER THE PROVISO TO S.80HHC(3), THE PROFITS COMPU TED UNDER CLAUSE (A)( OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION 3 OF S.80HHC SHALL BE FURTHER INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT WHICH BEARS TO 90% OF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (IIIA) (NOT BEING PROFITS ON SALE OF LICENCE ACQUIRED FROM ANY OTHER PERSON) OR CLAUS E (IIIB) AND (IIIC) OF S.28, THE SAME PROPORTION AS THE EXPORT TURNOVER BEARS TO THE TOTA L TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. CLEARLY THE DEPB LICENCE REC EIPTS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE SAID PROVISO AS THE SAME WAS COVERED BY CLAUSE (IIID) OF S.28; (III) AS THE LD.CIT HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S.263 O F THE ACT TO UNDO THE ACTION OF THE AO WHICH WAS ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF REVENUE, THE STAND OF THE CIT REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, DULY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALSO THE EVIDENCES PRODUC ED BY EITHER PARTY DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 7.1. AT THE OUT-SET, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TH AT (I) THE CIT WAS WITHIN HIS DOMAIN TO ISSUE A SHOW-C AUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE CIT, IN HIS OPINION, THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. T HE STAND OF THE LD. CIT IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.263 OF THE ACT, IN OUR VIEW, WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RELEVANT LAW AND, HENCE, THE AP PREHENSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT SUFFERS FROM INCURABLE DEFECT IS REJECTED; ITA 548(BNG)/09 6 (II) THE OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE C IT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN SERVING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS O F THE SECTION WHICH SAYS: 263.(2) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 1) AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE AO WAS DATED: 19.9.2006 A ND, THUS, THE CIT WAS EMPOWERED BY THE S.263(2) OF THE ACT TO REV ISE THE ORDER OF THE AO BY 31.3.2009. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT WAS DATED: 20.2.2009 AND, THUS, THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY WHICH R EQUIRES OUR INTERVENTION. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS COUNT TOO ; (III) WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE THAT IT WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THAT THE LD. CIT HAD PASSED AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT ORDER ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS ON THE GROUND THAT (A) THE CIT IN HIS COMMUNICATION DT: 24.10.07 HAD SOUGH T THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF (I) DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED WITHOUT VER IFYING THE ENTITLEMENT OF SUCH A DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE AC T; & (II) THERE WERE BELATED PAYMENTS OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTI ONS TO PF FOR FOUR MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ITS OBJECTI ON BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 5.1.09 AND THAT ITS LD. COUNSEL HAD REPRESENTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THUS, THE ASSESSEES ALLE GATION DOESNT HAVE LEGS TO STAND. WITH REGARD TO BELATED PAYMENTS OF PF, THE ASSE SSEE, IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT:5.1.09, HAD CONCEDED TH US WITH REGARD TO POINT NO.3, DELAY IN PAYMENT OF PRO VIDENT (FUND) DUES, THE SAME MAY BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 AND THERE MAY NOT BE ANY NEED FOR PROCEEDINGS U/S 263. THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE NOTICE U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT WERE ONLY DELIBERATED ITA 548(BNG)/09 7 AND DECIDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND , HENCE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS RATHER WANTING. HENCE, TH IS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 7.2. COMING TO THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE, WE FIND THA T THE LD. CITS STAND WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A NEGATIVE P ROFIT AND THUS IT WAS DISENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. O N THE OTHER HAND, THE FORCEFUL ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD A POSITIVE INCOME. 7.3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE P & L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR- ENDED 31.3.2004 WHEREIN THE NET PROFITS TRANSFERRED TO PARTNERS CAPITALS AT RS.7028371.07. DURING THE HEARING, IT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT AS PER THE THIRD PROVISO OF THE SECTION WHICH WAS INSE RTED BY THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FRO M 1.4.1998 WHEREIN IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT RECEIPTS OF DEPB LICENCE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION TO DETERMINE THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE ASSERTION AND ALSO TO CLEAR THE AIR OF CONFUSION CREATED BY THE LD. CI T HIMSELF WHO HAD RAISED A DOUBT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT 5.1. I MAY MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLEARLY MENTIONED AS TO HOW HE (SIC) IT HAS ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS.17524938.78 IN THE WORKING OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ABOVE (BEIN G 90% OF DRAW BACK ETO/TTO).. WE ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT WITH SPECIFIC DIREC TIONS TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD INDEED A POSITIVE PROFIT AS CLAIMED (A S PER ITS P & L ACCOUNT) AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT SHALL KEEP IN VIEW THE RULING OF HO NBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN THE CASE OF CIT V. A.V.THOMAS & CO. LTD. REPORTED IN (1 997) 225 ITR 29. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THROUGH ITS COUNSEL, IS ADVISED TO FURNISH ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS IN ITS POSSESSION TO THE CIT W HICH WOULD FACILITATE HIM TO FINALIZE THE ISSUE EXPEDITIOUSLY. IT IS ORDERED AC CORDINGLY. ITA 548(BNG)/09 8 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE FIRMS APPEAL IS TR EATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (K.P.T. THANGAL) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, D A T E D : 30 TH DEC., 2009. DS COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. CIT(APPEALS) 4. CIT 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE, ITAT, BANGALORE. 7. GUARD FILE, ITAT, NEW DELHI. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, B ANGALORE