M/s Jindal Aluminium Ltd., Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 64/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68353 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BIJOY KUMAR PANDA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.39 AND 64 OF 2013 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD BANG ALORE PAGE 1 OF 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE ABENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. BARTHVAJASANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.39/BANG/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5), NO.14/3, 5 TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 017 VS. M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD JINDAL NAGAR, TUMKUR, BANGALORE 560073 PAN: AAACJ 4324 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.64/BANG/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD JINDAL NAGAR, TUMKUR, BANGALORE 560073 PAN: AAACJ 4324 M VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5), NO.14/3, 5 TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560 017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI BIJOY KUMAR PANDA, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SHEETAL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 27/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/11/2013 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K. J.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE CIT (A) S ORDER DATED 26.10.2012 IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10. SINCE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHE R AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. IN REVENUE APPEAL, THE CHALLENGE IS TO THE CIT ( A)S ACTION IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ITA NOS.39 AND 64 OF 2013 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD BANG ALORE PAGE 2 OF 8 INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A AMOUNTING TO RS.25,55,750/- WHEREAS IN ASSESSEE S APPEAL THE CH ALLENGE IS WITH REGARD TO THE SUSTENANCE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 14A TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,59,9 29/- (WRONGLY THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN ASSESSEES GROUND IS RS.50,05,6 79/- INSTEAD OF RS.24,49,929/-). 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF ALUMINIUM EXTRUSION AND GENERATION AND SALE OF ELECTRICITY GENERATED FROM WIND ENERGY. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED ON 25.09.200 9 DECLARING THE INCOME OF RS.60,90,62,725/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.61,47,58,584/-. IN THE SAID ASSESSM ENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEND ITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS.50,05,679/-. 3.1 THE BACKGROUND FOR MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE IS RECAPITULATED BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE C OURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D A HUGE WORKING CAPITAL LOAN OF RS.47,38,15,166/- AS ON 31. 03.2009 AND INVESTMENTS AS ON 31.03.2009 INCREASED TO RS.60,62, 11,818/- FROM RS.37,37,59,796 AS ON 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY INTERESTS AND OTHER EXPENSES RELATED TO THE TAX FREE INCOME SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BY INVOKING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D(2)(II) AND (III). THE ASSES SEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD INVESTMENT OF RS.60.62 CRORES IN ASSETS YIEL DING TAX FREE INCOME OUT OF GENERAL RESERVE FUND OF RS.116.17 CRO RES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACEPTED THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION, SINCE ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED THE FUNDS FROM ITA NOS.39 AND 64 OF 2013 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD BANG ALORE PAGE 3 OF 8 INVESTMENTS IN BUSINESS TO INVESTMENTS YIELDING TAX FREE INCOME AND HAD TAKEN HUGE WORKING CAPITAL LOAN OF RS.47.38 CRORES APART FROM OTHER SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R .W.R 8D FOR INDIRECT INTERESTS EXPENSES AND OTHER EXPENSES RELA TED TO TAX FREE INCOME IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: DISALLOWNACE ATTRACTED U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D A TOTAL AMOUNT OF DIRECT INTEREST/OTHER EXPENSES PERTAINING TO TAX-EXEMPT INVESTMENTS N.A. B TOTAL AMOUNT OF INDIRECT INTEREST PERTAINING TO T AX- EXEMPT INVESTMENTS RS.4,90,97,736 A.Y 09-10 (RS.) A.Y 08-09 (RS.) AVERAGE (RS.) C. AVERAGE AMOUNT OF TAX EXEMPT INVESTMENTS 60,62,11,818 37,37,59,796 48,99,85,807 D AVERAGE AMOUNT OF TOTAL ASSETS 884,84,23,387 997,75,14,354 941,29,68,871 E PROPORTIONATE INDIRECT INTEREST TO BE DISALLOWED B X C D 4,90,97,736 X 48,99,85,807 941,29,68,871 = 25,55,750 F 0.5% OF AVERAGE AMOUNT OF TAX EXEMPT INVESTMENTS RS.24,49,929 G TOTAL DISALLOWANCE ATTRACTED U/S 14A R.W.R 8D A+E+F RS.50,05,679 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE DI SALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY APPLYING SECTION 1 4A R.W.R. 8D(2)(II) AMOUNTING TO RS.25,55,750/- (INDIRECT INT EREST EXPENSES RELATED TO TAX FREE INCOME) WAS DELETED BY THE CIT (A). THE CIT (A) HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,49,929 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W.R 8D(2)(III) (OTHER EXPENSS FOR EARNING TAX FRE E INCOME). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) FOR DELETING THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.25,55,750/- READ AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS.39 AND 64 OF 2013 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD BANG ALORE PAGE 4 OF 8 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,05,669/- CONSISTING OF RS.25,55,715/- IN RESPECT OF THE INDIRECT INTEREST EXPENDITURE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE IT RULES AN D RS.24,49,929/- IN RESPECT OF OTHER EXPENDITURE INCU RRED IN RESPECT OF TAX-FREE INVESTMENTS UNDER RULE 8(2)( III) OF THE IT RULES. THERE IS NO DIRECT EXPENDITURE DISALL OWED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(I) OF THE IT RULES. IT IS THE CONT ENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ENTIRE INTEREST WAS ON ACCOU NT OF BUSINESS NEEDS AND NO BORROWALS WERE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN TAX-FREE FUNDS. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE LOAN LIAB ILITY WAS RS.57,62,75,140/- AS ON 31/03/2008 WHICH WAS REDUCED TO RS.51,48,15,166/- AS ON 31/03/2009. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BALANCE WITH THE SCHEDU LED BANKS AS ON 31/03/2009 WAS RS.61,81,23,677/- WHICH IS MORE THAN THE TOTAL LOAN LIABILITY. THERE WAS A NET INTEREST INCOME OF RS.1.22 CRORES DUIRING THE Y EAR WHICH WAS OFFERED FOR INCOME-TAX. IN VIEW OF THIS F ACTUAL POSITION, IT WAS ARGUED THAT NO PORTION OF THE INTE REST CAN BE ATRIBUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN T AX- FREE FUNDS AND THE ENTIRE INTEREST LIABILITY WAS FO R THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLA NT CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS THERE IS NO FINDING ON RECOR D THAT THE INTEREST PAYMENTS ARE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR SOURCE OF INCOME OR RECEIPT AS CONTEMPLA TED IN RULE 8D(2)(II) OF THE RULES. THUS THE ENTIRE INTERE ST LIABILITY IS ON ACCOUNT OF PARTICULAR SOURCE OF INC OME OR RECEIPT OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THIS ASPECT IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS, WHICH ARE ACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AM OUNT OF RS.25,55,750/- DISALLOWED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) I N RESPECT OF INDIRECT INTEREST CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AN D, HENCE, DELETED. 4.1 THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) FOR SUSTAI NING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,49,929/- READ AS FOLLOWS: 3.4 AS REGARDS THE OTHER EXPENDITURE OF RS.24,49,929/- IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLAN T THAT NO EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED IN RELATION TO THE TAX- ITA NOS.39 AND 64 OF 2013 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD BANG ALORE PAGE 5 OF 8 FREE INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY SEPARATE ACCOUNT REGARDING THE EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF TAX-FREE INVESTMENTS. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO THE EXEMPT INCOME. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF TAX FREE SECURITIES IS RS.60,62,11,880/- AS AGAINST THE INVESTMENT OF RS.37,37,59,796/- AS ON 31/03/2008. SUCH A HUGE INVESTMENT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE OR MAINTAINED WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE BUSINESS INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE OTHER RESOURCES. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THERE IS NO EXPENDITURE INCUR RED IN RESPECT OF THESE INVESTMENTS. AS THE OTHER EXPEN SES CANNOT BE CALCULATED EXACTLY, RULE 8D(2)(III) GIVES A FORMULA FOR WORKING OUT THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE O N ACCOUNT OF OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO T HE EXEMPT INCOME. EVEN UNDER THE ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES , THE INDIRECT EXPENDITURE IS ESTIMATED AND, ON THE S AME LINES, RULE 8D PRESCRIBES A PERCENTAGE OF TAX-FREE INVESTMENTS, AS REGARDS OTHER EXPENDITURE. SINCE TH E PERCENTAGE IS FIXED UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II), THE ASSES SING OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE ANY DISCRETION TO INCREASE OR DECREASE THE SAID PERCENTAGE. ONCE THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 14A ARE INVOKED, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D OF THE IT RULES. SI NCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.24,49,929/- WAS WORKED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D(2)(II) THE SAME HAS TO BE SUSTAINED. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U /S 14A IS RESTRICTED TO RS.24,49,929/- AS AGAINST RS.50,05,679/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THE REVENUE, BEING AGGRIEVED, BY THE RELIEF GRAN TED BY THE CIT (A) IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN ITA NO.39/BANG/20 13 AND THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SUSTENANCE OF DISAL LOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,49,929/- IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN ITA NO.64/BANG/2013. AT THE VERY OUTSET BOTH THE LEARNE D AR AND THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THE REVENUES AND THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIA TELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IN ITA NO.799/BAN G/2012 & ITA NO.864/BANG/2012, DATED 30.04.2013. IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY ITA NOS.39 AND 64 OF 2013 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD BANG ALORE PAGE 6 OF 8 BOTH THE SIDES THAT SINCE THE FACTS FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE DECISION TAKE BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 MAY BE FOLLOWED FOR THI S ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS PLACED ON RECORD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) HAS DISMISSED THE REVEN UE APPEAL (RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT (A) FOR THE EXPENSES DIS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 14A R.W.R 8D(2)(II). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL RE AD AS FOLLOWS: 25. WE SHALL FIRST CONSIDER THE DISPUTE IN REVENUES APPEAL. A READING OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE (SUPRA) AND RULE 8D WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FI RST TO MAKE ITS CLAIM REGARDING THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX EXEMPT INCOME AND THE AO HAS TO GIVE HI S FINDINGS ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ONLY AFTER GIVING SUCH FINDING REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CA N THE AO PROCEED TO APPLY RULE 8D. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BEFORE THE AO ON APPLICABILITY OF RULE 8D(2)(II) WA S THAT AS ON 1-04-2007, THE PAID UP EQUITY CAPITAL WAS RS. 21 .01 CR. AND GENERAL RESERVE WAS RS. 84.37 CR. FURTHER DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08, RS. 31.80 WAS TRANSFERRED FROM PROFIT AND LOSS A/C TO GENERAL RES ERVE WAS AT RS. 137.18 CR. (RS. 21.01 CR+ RS. 116.17 CR) . THUS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INVESTMENT OF RS. 37.37 C R. WAS MADE OUT OF ITS OWN FUNDS ON WHICH THERE WAS NO INTEREST LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ITS LOAN FUNDS AS ON 1-04-2007 WAS RS.65.76 CRORES. DUR ING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 IT HAD REPAID RS. 8.13 C RORES. THUS, LOAN FUNDS AS ON 31-03-08 STOOD REDUCED TO RS.57.62 CRORES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT TH ERE WAS NO QUESTION OF USING LOAN FUND IN INVESTMENT. ITA NOS.39 AND 64 OF 2013 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD BANG ALORE PAGE 7 OF 8 26. THE AO ACCEPTED THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT HOWEVER PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT FROM ASST. YEAR 07-08 TO ASST. YEAR 08-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS SH IFTED THE INVESTMENTS WHICH WOULD YIELD INCOME WHICH IS TAXABLE TO INVESTMENTS WHICH WOULD YIELD INCOME WHI CH IS TAX EXEMPT. THIS CANNOT BE THE BASIS ON WHICH T HE AO CAN MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE SECOND REASON GIVEN BY THE AO WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN WORKING CAPITAL LOAN OF MORE THA N RS.50 CRORES AND PAID INTEREST THEREON. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT LIQUIDATED INVESTMENTS WHIC H WOULD YIELD INCOME WHICH IS TAXABLE, IT OUGHT TO HA VE USED THE PROCEEDS ON SUCH LIQUIDATION TO FUND THE WORKING CAPITAL INSTEAD OF INVESTING SUCH PROCEEDS IN INVESTMENTS WHICH WOULD YIELD INCOME WHICH IS TAX EXEMPT. THIS CANNOT ALSO BE THE BASIS ON WHICH TH E AO CAN REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO INTERE ST EXPENSES WERE INCURRED TO EARN TAX FREE INCOME. T HE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE AO CANNOT SIT IN JUDGMENT OVER THE MANNER IN WHICH A BUSINESSMAN HAS TO ARRANGE HIS BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND DECIDE AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE TH E MANNER IN WHICH A PARTICULAR DECISION HAS TO BE MAD E. HE CAN INVOKE JURISDICTION TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE U/S .14A OF THE ACT ONLY ON A FINDING THAT INTEREST EXPENDIT URE WERE INCURRED FOR EARNING TAX FREE INCOME. IN OUR VIEW THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ACCEPTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESS EE THAT NO INTEREST EXPENSES WHATSOEVER WERE INCURRED IN RE SPECT OF FUNDS WHICH WERE USED TO MAKE INVESTMENTS WHICH YIELDED TAX FREE INCOME. WE DO NOT FIND ANY GROUND S TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). CONSEQUENT LY, GROUNDS NO. 5 TO 7 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6.1 SIMILARLY, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE FIN DINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES APPEAL (SUPRA) READ AS FOLLO WS: 27. AS FAR AS GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE CONCERNED, THE DISALLOWANCE IS U/S.14A READ WIT H RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY SPECIFIC STAND REGARDING EXPENSES CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING ITS INCOME IS ONLY IN REL ATION TO EARNING SUCH INCOME AND THAT NO INDIRECT EXPENSES C AN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE EARNING OF TAX FREE INCOME. I N THIS REGARD IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD POI NT OUT AS TO HOW EACH ITEM OF EXPENSE DEBITED TO PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT IS WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING INCOME WHICH IS TAXABLE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ITS CLAIM IN THIS REGARD. THE AO WILL EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF T HE ITA NOS.39 AND 64 OF 2013 JINDAL ALUMINIUM LTD BANG ALORE PAGE 8 OF 8 ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW AS EXPLAINED IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS. FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 6.2 SINCE IT IS ADMITTED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FA CTS OF THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE FOLLOW THE COORDINATE B ENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND DISMISS THE REVENUE APPEAL AND ALL OW THE ASSESSEE APPEAL FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT IS OR DERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (N. BARTHVAJASANKAR) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE DATED 27 TH NOVEMBER,, 2013. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE