M/s Saravana Developers, Bangalore V. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 620/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 62021114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Revised return; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 234B; 263

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 I.T. A. NO.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S. SARAVANA DEVELOPERS, NO.357, 3 RD CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008. . APPELLANT. PAN ABBFS 8071R VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. SHANKAR. RSPONDENT BY : SMT. PRISCILLA SINGSIT. DATE OF HEARING : 17.7.2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6.9.2013. O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, A.M . : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN RESPECT O F ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.620/BANG/2011 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT ') PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I, BANGALORE DT.21.3.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE APPEALS IN ITA NO.48/BANG/2013 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(APPEALS) I, BANGALORE DT.30.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, BEING AN APPEAL AGAINS T THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT DT.21.3.2011. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE AS UNDER : 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL LAYOUTS AND SALE OF SITES. FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.37,34,014. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED 2 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS TA KEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.3.2 008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,77,39,713. IN THE SAID REVISED RETURN THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IN CREASED BY RS.2,40,05,699 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,58,70,699 AND CLAIM FOR ALLOWING OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.18,65,000 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH WAS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN TH AT YEAR. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT.24.12.2008 FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF RS.37,34,014. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY AN O RDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DT.31.12.2008 WHEREIN THE INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AT R S.37,34,014. 2.2 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CIT-I, BANGALORE ON EXAMINATI ON OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DT.31.12.2008 AND THE RECOR DS OF ASSESSMENT, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PROPOSED TO REVISE THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESS MENT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AS HE FOUND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 31.12.2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE CIT ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE DT.25.2.2011 CITI NG THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR HIS PROPOSED ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT :- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMEN T BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S VALUATION OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT RS.1,09,29 ,625 (TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DEVELOPMENT CHARGES OF RS.60,03,501), WHEREAS THE W ORK-IN-PROGRESS ACTUALLY WORKS OUT TO RS.3,01,65,044 (TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DEVELOP MENT CHARGES PROPORTIONATELY AT RS.2,52,38,920), THEREBY RESULTING IN UNDER ASSESSM ENT OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,92,35,419. 2.3 AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE/LEARNED A.R. OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DT.14.3.2011 FILED BY THE ASSES SEE, THE CIT PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DT.21.3.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 WHEREIN HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR TH E SAID PERIOD IN THE LIGHT OF HIS OBSERVATIONS WHICH ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CO NSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT RECORDS INCLUDING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING ON THE VALUATI ON OF THE WORK IN PROGRESS AS ON 3 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 31.03.2006 WHILE ACCEPTING THE VALUATION AS DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE INFORMATION AS AVAILABLE IN THE RECORDS DOES NOT IN DICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PROPERLY APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE MATTER AND HAD NOT EXAMINED IN DETAIL AND ASCERTAINED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS WHILE ACCEPTING THE VALUE OF THE WORK IN PROGRESS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMI NE IN DETAIL AND ASCERTAIN ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND VERIFY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS WHILE DETERMINING THE AMOUNT O F DEVELOPMENT CHARGES REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO A CONSIDERATION AS A PART OF THE C LOSING WORK IN PROGRESS AS ON 31.3.2006. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IS S ET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF MY OBSERVATIONS ABOVE, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. ITA NO.620/BANG/2011 (ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AGAINST ORD ER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DT.21.3.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE CIT-I, BANGALORE DT.21.3.2011, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT IN SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WE IGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THER E WAS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WARRANTING REVISION U/S.263 OF T HE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER BY THE LEARNED CIT IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACT S OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE VARIOUS ISSUES POINTED OUT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.263 OF THE ACT AS CONSTITUTING ER RORS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WERE IN FACT EXAMINED IN DETAIL BY THE LEAR NED A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED CIT THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND AMOUNTS TO A DIFFERENT OPINION OF THE LEARNED CIT FOR WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOK ED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEING UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASI DE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE A FRESH ASS ESSMENT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. HE FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DIRECTION TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO MAKING FISHIN G AND ROVING ENQUIRIES WITHOUT 4 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND CONSEQUENTLY, T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BEING BAD IN LAW IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 5. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAYBE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAYBE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED. 4.1 PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT-I, BANGAL ORE IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DT.21.3.2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, AND PASSED AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SE CTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DT.30.12.20111 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,29,69,433 AS AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS.37,34,014. IN THIS ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,93,35,419 AS UNDER VALUATION OF WORK- IN-PROGRESS HOLDING AS UNDER IN PARA 4 THEREOF :- 4. THE DETAILS FURNISHED AND THE ARGUMENTS MADE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ALONG WITH THE INFORMATION FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY SEPARATE EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR SITES SOLD AND SITES UNSOLD . THE DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES CLAIMED HAVE BEEN ON ESTIMATE BASIS FOR THE SITES S OLD. IN SUCH SITUATION, THE CLAIM CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR ARRIVING AT THE PROFIT. THE PROJECT TAKEN UP BY THE ASSESSEE IS A SINGLE ONE AND ON A CONTINGUOUS LAND AREA. THE DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES WHATEVER INCURRED NEEDS TO BE MADE ON THE ENTIRE PR OJECT UNLESS THE PROJECT IS DEVELOPED IN A PIECE MEAL. IF THE PROJECT IS TAKEN AS A SINGLE UNIT, THE MAIN DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES LIKE ROADS, DRAINAGE, ELEC TRICITY ETC., NEEDS TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE ENTIRE SITE. FURTHER, IN THE LINE OF BUSINE SS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CUSTOMERS WILL SELECT THE PLOTS AS PER THEIR CHOICE AND THE P LOTS WHICH ARE IN DEMAND WILL BE SOLD OUT FIRST. THESE PLOTS NEED NOT BE ON ANY PART OF THE PROJECT BUT WILL SPREAD ACROSS THE PROJECT. THE DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES ARE ALSO MA INLY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES LIKE ROADS ETC AND EXPENDITURE ON INDIVI DUAL PLOTS IS MINIMAL. THEREFORE, AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS TO BE CONCLUDED THAT THE DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES NEEDS TO BE PROPORTIONATELY DISTRIBUTED FOR SITES SOLD AND SITES UNSOLD FOR ARRIVING AT THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS. THE SAME IS WORKED AS UNDER : TOTAL AREA DEVELOPED DURING THE YEAR 3,61,600 SQ. FT. TOTAL DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES INCURRED. RS. 4,12,60,000 RATE PER SQ. FT. INCURRED. 4,12,60,000 / 3,61,000 = RS.114.10 PER SQ. FT. AREA OF UNSOLD SITES IS 2,2 1,200 SQ. FT. DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES RELATING TO UNSOLD SITES TO BE TAKEN AS CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS 2,21,200 X 114.10 = RS.2,52,38,920 5 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 LAND COST OF UNSOLD SITES TOTAL COST / TOTAL LAND 85,55,060 / 3,84,000 X 2,21,200 = RS.49,26,124 CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS LAND COST + DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES 49,26,124 + 2,52,38,920 = RS.3,01,65,044 THE ABOVE IS ADOPTED AS CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS AN D THE UNDER VALUATION OF RS.1,92,35,419 (RS.3,01,65,044 RS.1,09,29,625) RE SULTS IN INCOME AND IS ADDED TO INCOME RETURNED. 4.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECT ION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DT.30.12.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) I, BANGALORE. THE LEARNED CIT (APPE ALS) BY ORDER DT.17.10.2012 DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. ITA NO.48/BANG/2013 ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AGAINST ORD ER OF CIT(APPEALS) I, BANGALORE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) I, BANGALORE DT.17.10.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ARISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW I N SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVID ENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.1,92,35,419 AS THE UNDER VALUED WORK-IN-PROGRESS FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHICH REQUIRES TO BE DELETED UNDE R THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW GROSSLY ERRED IN ERRONEOUSLY HOLDING THE APPELLANTS CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS AT RS.3,01,65,044 AS AGAINST THE FACTUAL WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.1,09,29, 625 RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT CASE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DEV ELOPMENT CHARGES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS LARGELY ATTRIBUTABLE TOWA RDS THE SITES SOLD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND PROPORTIONATELY HOLDING THESE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES INCURRED TOWARDS UNSOLD SITES ALSO ARE ARBITRARY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT CASE. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIS--VIS THE OPENI NG AND CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS AND ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES INCURRED DURING WH ICH ASSESSMENTS WHICH WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) SUBSEQUENT TO THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER 6 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 APPEAL WHICH RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL REQUIRES TO BE DELETED IN FULL. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER B EFORE THE HON'BLE CCIT, THE APPELLANT DENIES HIMSELF LIABLE TO BE CHARGED TO IN TEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED UND ER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE RATE OF INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 234B LEVIED IS ALSO NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE ORDERS AND BOTH THE RATE AND P ERIOD ARE PRIMA FACIE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE SAID LEVY IS CONTRARY TO THE REASONING OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T.P. INDIRA KUMAR IN 29 D TR 311. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR AND WAS ALLOWED C LUBBING OF BOTH THE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I.E. ITA NO.620/BANG/2011 ( ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AGAINST ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DT.21.3.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) AND THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.48/BANG/2013 ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AGAINST ORDER O F CIT(APPEALS) I, BANGALORE DT.17.10.2012 RENDERED IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2011. ITA NO.620/BANG/2011 7. FIRST WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP THE ASSESSEE'S AP PEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF TH E ACT PASSED BY THE CIT-I, BANGALORE ON 21.3.2011. 8. FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSION M ADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS IN THE BUSINESS OF F ORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAYOUTS AND SALE OF SITES. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LANDS MEASURI NG ABOUT 16.07 ACRES IN VARIOUS SURVEY NOS.52,103 AND 106 AT NERALUR, BALEGARANAHALLI VILL AGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK AND UNDERTOOK THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAYOUTS / SITES. THE FIRM IS STATED TO HAVE DEVELOPED A PORTION OF THE LAND OF ABOUT 22,407 SQ. FT. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMEN T WITH M/S. BEST CONSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKETING THE SITES. THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY B MRDA TO AN EXTENT OF 3,84,000 SQ. FT. OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DEVELOPED AND SOL D SITES TO THE EXTENT OF 22,400 SQ. FT. IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 1,40 ,400 SQ. FT. IN THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 7 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 8.1.1 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, BANGALORE IN INVOKING THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND APPLICATION OF MIND. HE C ONTENDED THAT THE TWIN CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT I.E. THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED MUST BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE, HAVING NOT BEEN SATISFIED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION ITSELF IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. I N SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHICH ARE AS UNDER : I) CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. 295 ITR 282 (SC). II) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). III) CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD. 203 ITR 108 (SC). IV) CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. 332 ITR 167 (DEL) V) CIT & ANOTHER V D.G. GOPALA GOWDA (ITA NO.1422 /2006 DT.5.3.2013 UNREPORTED DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA). 9.1.2 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTEND ED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED TO THE QUERIE S RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILED A DETAILED REPLY WHICH IS AT PAGES 7 TO 10 OF THE ASS ESSEE'S PAPER BOOK COMPILATION. THIS SUBMISSION INTER ALIA ALSO CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE CLOSING WORK-IN- PROGRESS AS ON 31.3.2006 AT RS.1,09,29,625 AS BEING OUT OF THE COST OF LAND AREA UNSOLD VIZ.2,21,200 SQ. FT. @ RS.22.27 PER SQ. FT. I.E. RS .49,26,124 AND DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES INCURRED AND IN PROGRESS DURING THIS YEAR AMOUNTING TO RS.60 ,03,501. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DID NOT DISPUTE THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT RS.1,09,35,419 AS DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUS E THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE REASONS FOR ACCEPTING THE VALUE OF CLOS ING WORK IN PROGRESS, THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT GIVE ANY SCOPE FOR REVISION OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSM ENT. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE MATTER WAS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAD THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DISPUTED THE QUANTIFICATION AND DETAILS OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS AT RS.1,09,35,4 19 IT WOULD HAVE INVARIABLY FOUND MENTION IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INV OKING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE 8 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 ACT, IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE ON HAND, AMO UNTS TO FISHING / ROVING ENQUIRIES ON AN ALREADY CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT IN WHICH THE DETAILS O F CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THIS POSITION OF THE MATTER, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED, DI D NOT CONSTITUTE EITHER AN ERRONEOUS ORDER OR ONE THAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVEN UE. 9.1.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TWO PAPER BOOKS BEFORE US; ONE FOR THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IN ITA NO.620/BANG/2011 AND ONE IN THE A PPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT IN ITA NO.48/BANG/2013 . DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 33 & 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK COMPILATION THE LEARNED AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THESE PAGES, WHICH ARE A COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DT.6.5.2009, THE VERY NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR, INDICATE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THEREIN WITH RESPECT TO THE VALUE OF OPENIN G WORK-IN-PROGRESS (WHICH IS THE CLOSING WORK- IN-PROGRESS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07). THE LEAR NED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FILED A STATEMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IF THE STAND OF REVEN UE IS TO BE ADOPTED, THEN THIS WOULD RESULT IN ABSURD FIGURES OF PROFIT. AS PER THIS STATEMENT , IF THE CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS IS TAKEN AT RS.3,01,65,044 AS ADOPTED BY REVENUE AS AGAINST CLO SING WORK-IN-PROGRESS OF RS.1,09,29,625 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE PROFIT WOULD BE 3 1.80% AS AGAINST THE NET PROFIT OF 8.02% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 35 & 36 OF THIS PAPER BOOK FILED FOR THE APPE AL IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 WHICH REFLECTED THE WORKINGS OF W ORK-IN-PROGRESS FOR THE PERIODS RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2008-09 WHICH HE SUBMIT TED WERE ALL PART OF THE RELEVANT RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS ON RECORD AS BROUGHT OUT ABOVE, THE REVIS ION OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT IS BAD IN LAW AND THE ACTION OF THE CIT IN DOING SO AMOUNTS TO CHANGE OF OPINION AND PLEADE D FOR CANCELLATION OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DT.21.3.2011. 9.2 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE CIT DT.21.3.2011 AND SUBMI TTED THAT IT IS IN ORDER SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DT.31.12.2008 HAD NOT 9 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 BROUGHT OUT ANYTHING IN THE ORDER IN REGARD TO THE EXAMINATION / VERIFICATION OF THE CALCULATION OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD . IN VIEW OF THIS, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT ON 21.3.2011 BE UPHELD. 9.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07 WERE CALLED FOR AND WERE PLACED BEFORE US FOR PERUSAL. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT AND THE ORDER SHEET NOTINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AS PLACED BEFOR E US. W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS BY QUESTIONNAIRE I ALONG WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT DT.11.9 .2008 AND ADDITIONAL OF DETAILS VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE 2 ISSUED ON 16.12.2008 AND THERE ARE CORRESPONDING ENTRIES TO THIS EFFECT IN THE ORDER SHEET APPENDED TO THIS FILE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE'S REPLIES THERETO BY UNDATED SUBMISSIONS AT PAGES 106 TO 112 OF THE ASSESSMENT F OLDER FOR 2006-07 AND VIDE LETTER DT.24.12.2008 ON PAGES 114 TO 206 WHICH ARE ALSO O N THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER AND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE DETAILS OF THE ORDER SHEET NOTINGS DT.11.9.2008 AND THE QUESTIONNAIRE NO.1 ISSUED ALON G WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ARE EXTRACTED AND REPRODUCED HEREUNDER TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INTER ALIA REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS SUBSTANTIATIN G CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11.9.2008 NOTICE U/S. 142(1) PUT UP WITH QUESTI ONNAIRE. D/H 18.9.08. SD/- QUESTIONNAIRE I M/S. SARAVANA DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2006-07 DATE : 11/09/2008 1. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. 2. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL THE BUSINESS CONCERNS AN D BUSINESS PREMISES. 3. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4. SOFT COPY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IF MAINTAINED IN COMPUTER, (TALLY DATA ETC. PREFERABLY ON CD) 10 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 5. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDING COMPUTATION OF INCOM E AND TAXES THEREON, BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, TRIAL BALANCE AND S TATUTORY AUDIT REPORTS (IF NOT FURNISHED WITH THE RETURNS.) 6. BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENTS AND THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS SUBSTANTIATING THE BANK CHARGES. 7. DETAILS SUBSTANTIATING EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN P & L ACCOUNT. 8. DETAILS SUBSTANTIATING CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 9. DETAILS SUBSTANTIATING UNSECURED LOANS ALONG WITH T HE DETAILS JUSTIFYING THE DRAWINGS. 10. DETAILS SUBSTANTIATING CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS. (SD/-) (K. RAMANA BABU) DY . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE. 9.3.2 FROM THE DETAILS AS LAID OUT IN PARA 9.3.1 OF THIS ORDER (SUPRA), IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR DETAILS AND EXPLAN ATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING SUBMITTED DETAILS / EXPLANATION S THERETO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE VALUE OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS ARRI VED AT BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CITS FINDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE OF CLOSI NG WORK-IN-PROGRESS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. 9.3.3 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD AT PAGES 33 & 34 OF THE ASSESSEE'S PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT FOR THE NEXT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE FIGURE OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT BY ORDER UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE ACT DT.6.5.2009. THIS, IN OUR OPINION, GIVES CREDENCE TO AND FORTIFIES THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE FIGURE OF CLOSING WORK-IN- PROGRESS AT RS.1,09,29,625 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ONLY AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE SAME WHI CH IMPLIES APPLICATION OF MIND IN THE MATTER. 9.3.4 FURTHER, AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, IF THE VA LUE OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS IS ADOPTED AT RS.3,01,65,044, IT WOULD LEAD TO ABSOLUTELY HIGH NE T PROFIT MARGINS OF 31.8% IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS AS AGAINST 8.03% OF PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSEINFERENCE DRAWN 11 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 OR FINDING RENDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RES PECT OF THE SAME. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME BASIS OR GOOD REASON FOR THE C IT TO REJECT THE WORKING OF CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WE DO NO T FIND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION HE DID WITHOUT A PROPER APPRECIATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS ON RECORD, I NCLUDING THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE SAME FIGURE OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCE EDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE CIT S INVOKING HIS REVISIONARY POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W. 9.3.5 THE CIT ON PAGE 3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAS A LSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND PROPERLY TO THE ISSUE OF T HE VALUATION OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS AND THEREFORE THIS ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED IN DET AILS. IN FACT, WE HAVE, IN THIS REGARD, CALLED FOR THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 AND AS OBSERVED BY US AT 9.3.1 OF THIS ORDER (SUPRA) WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAME AS ALSO THE ORDER SHEETS APPENDED THERETO AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS, IN FACT, CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS AS PER THE QUERIES RAISED IN QU ESTIONNAIRE ISSUED AND THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE THERETO FIND PLACE IN THE RECORDS OF ASSES SMENT WHICH INCLUDE THE DETAILS / SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS. IN FACT THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION OF THE CIT, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE AND THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED IN DETAIL, IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT, AS OBSE RVED BY US ABOVE. IT ALSO GOES AGAINST THE VIEW OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (203 ITR 108) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE SET ASIDE TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRY. 9.3.6 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D. G. GOPALA GOWDA (SUPRA) HELD THAT . THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR EXERCISI NG THE REVISIONARY POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS THAT THE ORDER UNDER REVISION SHOULD NOT ONLY BE ERRONEOUS, BUT SUCH ERRONEOUS ORDER SHOULD RESULT IN PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. MERE ERROR WOULD NOT CONFER JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE REVISIONAL POWERS UNDER SE CTION 263 OF THE ACT.. IN THE CASE ON HAND, 12 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT IN THE OR DER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2008 BOTH THE CONDITIONS PRECED ENT REQUIRED FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE CIT AND FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 263 OF THE ACT ARE NOT PRESENT. 9.3.7 THE SETTLED POSITION IN LAW AS LAID DOWN AND HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V MAX INDIA LTD. (295 ITR 282) IS THAT . WHE N THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTS ONE OF THE TWO COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A VIE W WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAI NABLE IN LAW. IN THE CASE ON HAND, WE FIND FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFT ER EXAMINING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION ON CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE FIGURE / VALUATION OF WORK-IN-PROGRESS. THUS, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS BEING BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 9.3.8 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION FROM PAR AS 9.1 TO 9.3.7 OF THIS ORDER (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED UND ER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT ON 21.3.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, IS WITHOUT P ROPER ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AS IT DOES SATISFY THE TWIN REQUISITE CONDITIONS OF THE ORDER REVISED BEING BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATT ER, WE HOLD THAT THE VERY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS, MADE WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF TH E FACTS ON RECORD, IS BAD IN LAW AS IT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DT.21.3 .2011 PASSED BY CIT-I, BANGALORE IN THE CASE ON HAND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 620/BANG/2011 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.48/BANG/2013 ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AGAINST ORD ER OF CIT(APPEALS)-I, BANGALORE. 11. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, BANGALORE DT.17.10.2012, WHEREBY HE HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DT.30.12.2011 GIVING E FFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT-I, BANGALORE PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DT.21.3.2011. SINCE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT 13 ITA NOS.620/BANG/2011 & 48/BANG/2013 DT.21.3.2011 PASSED BY THE CIT-I, BANGALORE FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS BEEN CANCELLED BY US IN OUR ORDER IN ITA NO.620/BANG/2011, ALLOWIN G THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL THEREON, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE ACT DT.30.12.2011 AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) I, BANGALORE THEREON DT.17.10 .2012 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS APPEAL ARE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS WOULD NOW NOT SURVI VE FOR CONSIDERATION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN ITA NO. 48/BANG/2013 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH SEPT., 2013. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE .