3M India Limited, Bangalore V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

ITA 654/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7453 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Search and seizure; International transaction; Assessment record; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 144C; 92CA; 263; 63

Judgement Text

ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CBENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 3M INDIA LIMITED CONCORDE BLOCK, UB CITY 24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BENGALURU 560 001 PAN NO :AAACB5724H VS. CIT (LTU) BANGALORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHARATH RAO, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF H EARING : 11.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.08.2021 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE REVISION ORDER DATED 19.1.2017 PASSED BY LD. CIT(LTU), BANGA LORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT,1961 ['THE ACT' FOR SHORT]. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OF SAME. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF PRESSURE SENSITIVE ADHESIVE TAPES, RESPIRATORS, 3D GRAPHICS FOR AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY AN D CORROSION PROTECTION PRODUCTS. THE A.O. PASSED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER FOR THE ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE PAGE 2 OF 9 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT ON 21.5.2014. 3. THE LD. CIT INITIATED REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT, AFTER EXAMINING THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ERRO NEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST ON THE REVENUE ON THE F OLLOWING POINTS: 1. THE SCRUTINY OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD REVEALS THAT THE INCOME COMPUTATION STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,42,49,381/- BEING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) IN E ARLIER YEARS WAS CLAIMED IN THE AY 2010-11 ON PAYMENT BASIS. THE AB OVE AMOUNT INCLUDES RS.2,80,00,000/- BEING CORPORATE MANAGEMEN T FEES DISALLOWED IN AY 2009-10. 2. AS PER RECORDS OF AY 2009-10 CORPORATE MANAGEMENT F EE WAS ADDED BACK U/S 40(A)(I) IN THE INCOME COMPUTATION S TATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAD BEEN DISALLOWED IN ASSESSME NT ORDER DATED 10.5.2013 R.W.S. 92CA DATED 29.1.2013 AS TRANSFER P RICING ADJUSTMENT. WHILE COMPUTING TP ADDITIONS OF THAT A .Y. AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,80,00,000/- WAS NOT ADDED TO THE TP ADJUSTM ENT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS ALREADY DISALLOWED U/S 4 0(A) AS SPECIFIED IN TPOS ORDER. HENCE, THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED BACK TO INCOME AS TP ADJUSTMENT AND NOT U/S 40(A). AS THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT HAD BEEN DISALLOWED AS A TP ADJUSTMENT AND NOT U/S 40(A), THE ALLOWANCE OF THE SAME ON PAYMENT BASIS I N AY 2010-11 IS NOT IN ORDER AND RESULTED IN SHORT COMPUTATION OF I NCOME BY RS.2,80,00,000/- AND THERE IS A SHORT LEVY OF TAX T O THE EXTENT OF RS.1,42,75,800/-. 3. FOREIGN SERVICE EMPLOYEE EXPENSE WHICH WAS AN INTER NAL PART OF THE SUPPORTING SERVICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING ALP. THIS HAS RESULTED IN SHORT COMPUTAT ION OF TP ADJUSTMENT BY RS.2,56,46,834/- AND SHORT LEVY OF TA X TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,30,76,547/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE REVISION PROCEEDING S BY CONTENDING THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE , THE LD. CIT PASSED THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.5.2014 PASSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE PAGE 3 OF 9 ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ISSUES AND REMITTED T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR CONSIDERING THEM AFRESH. AGGR IEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. POINT NO.1 & 2 MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 3 SUPR A RELATE TO SINGLE ISSUE. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICE S PAID TO ITS AE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, I.E., AY 2009-10. THE CL AIM SO MADE INCLUDED YEAR-END PROVISION MADE FOR AN OUTSTANDI NG AMOUNT OF RS.2.80 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWE D ABOVE SAID AMOUNT U/S 40(A)(I) OF THE ACT, SINCE NO TAX WAS DE DUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES SO MADE. THE TPO D ETERMINED ALP OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT NIL. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT, HE REDUC ED THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.80 CRORES VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED U/S 40(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE FOR THE BALANC E AMOUNT ONLY. 6. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E., IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS .2.80 CRORES U/S 40(A), SINCE IT HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE DURING THIS YEAR. IT WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, LD CIT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IN AY 2009 -10 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN MADE U/S 92CA AS TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT (AND NOT U/S 40(A)) AND HENCE THE SAID A MOUNT CANNOT BE DEDUCTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 7. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.80 CRORES REPRESENTED PROVISION FOR EXPENSES MADE BY THE AS SESSEE IN AY 2009-10 FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES. SINCE NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED FROM IT, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED THE SA ME U/S 40(A) OF THE ACT. IN AY 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TDS AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMENT AND HENCE THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED I N THE ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE PAGE 4 OF 9 PRECEDING YEAR WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF SEC.40(A) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE TPO HAD DETERMINED ALP OF MANAGEMEN T SERVICES AT NIL IN AY 2009-10, YET HE DID NOT MAKE ANY SEPAR ATE T.P ADJUSTMENT U/S 92CA IN RESPECT OF ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2.80 CRORES, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY DISALLOW ED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT U/S 40(A) WHILE COMPUTING RETURNED INCOME. THE A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE TPO/AO HAS NOWHERE STATED THAT T HE ADDITION OF RS.2.80 CRORES WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF T.P ADJUSTMEN T, I.E., THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ABOVE SAID AMO UNT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 40(A) OF THE ACT. THE LD A.R SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2. 80 CRORES IN THIS YEAR, SINCE THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE WHI LE MAKING PAYMENT THIS YEAR. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGL Y, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE AS SESSEE IN THIS YEAR, I.E., IN AY 2010-11. 8. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE T.P AD JUSTMENT MADE BY THE TPO DETERMINING ALP OF MANAGEMENT CHARGES AT NI L IN RESPECT OF REMAINING AMOUNT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITT ED THAT,IN AY 2005-06, THE TPO HAS ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF ON MANA GEMENT CROSS CHARGES, MEANING THEREBY, ALP WAS NOT DETERMINED A T NIL IN THAT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ER ROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AND HENCE THE LD CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING REVISION ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER PASSED BY LD CIT. ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE PAGE 5 OF 9 10. WE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE DETAILS RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES ARE GIVEN IN PAGE 287 OF THE PAPE R BOOK AS UNDER:- TABLE-A BREAKUP OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUSINE SS SUPPORT SERVICES PARTICULARS EXCHANGE RATE AMOUNT IN RS. 3M APAC GROSS AMOUNT 46.64 1,15,72,393 3M COMPANY US GROSS AMOUNT 46.64 17,41,46,933 WITHHOLDING TAX 46.64 4,20,508 SERVICE TAX 1,91,29,089 TOTAL EXPENSES 20,48,48,415 PROVISION AS ON MARCH 2010 5,61,02,611 OTHERS 41,94,041 PROVISION AS ON MARCH 2009 (2,80,00,000) AMOUNT DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT 23,71,45,067 A PERUSAL OF THE SAME WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING YEAR END PROVISION EVERY YEAR. THE PROVISION MADE IN ON E YEAR IS REVERSED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. THERE IS NO DISPU TE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED THE YEAR END PR OVISION U/S 40(A), SINCE NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THE PROVISION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES ALSO, WHEN T HE ACTUAL PAYMENT IS FULLY DEBITED TO THE EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT , THE PROVISION MADE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR SHALL BE CREDITED, SO TH AT ACTUAL PAYMENT IS OFFSET AGAINST THE PROVISION SO CREATED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE PROVISION FOR EXPENSES SO CREATED IS ALL OWABLE AS DEDUCTION IN THE NORMAL COURSE. HOWEVER, DUE TO NO N-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY DISALLO WED THE SAME U/S 40(A) OF THE ACT IN AY 2009-10. WHEN THE TDS WAS D EDUCTED ON THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED IN THE I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AS DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.40(A) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE PAGE 6 OF 9 11. IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD CIT THAT, IN AY 20 09-10 NO SEPARATE ADDITION DUE TO TP ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE IN RESPECT O F RS.2.80 CRORES (EVEN THOUGH THE TPO HAD DETERMINED THE ALP AT NIL), SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY DISALLOWED THE SAME U/ S 40(A) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD CIT THA T THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 92CA ALS O. 12. WE ARE AFRAID THAT THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY LD CIT ON THIS ISSUE MAY NOT BE CORRECT. WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME, T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A) HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN AY 20 09-10. THE VIEW OF LD CIT IS STATED AS UNDER IN THE REVISION O RDER PASSED FOR AY 2010-11:- WHILE COMPUTING TP ADDITIONS FOR THE AY 2009-10 AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,80,00,000/- WAS NOT INCLUDED TO THE TP ADJU STMENT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAME WAS ALREADY DISA LLOWED U/S 40(A) OF THE IT ACT WHICH IS SPECIFIED IN TPOS ORDE R. THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED BACK TO INCOME AS TP ADJUSTMENT AND NOT U/S 40(A) OF THE IT ACT. AFTER MAKING THE ABOVE SAID OBSERVATIONS, THE LD CI T HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ACCORDINGLY, THE ALLOWANCE OF THIS AMOUNT ON PAYME NT BASIS IN AY 2010-11 IS NOT IN ORDER AND RESULTED IN SHORT COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF RS.2,80,00,000/- RESULTED IN SHORT LEV Y OF TAX TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,42,75,800/-. IT CAN BE NOTICED THAT THE LD CIT IS TAKING A PARTI CULAR VIEW ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR AY 2009-10, MEANING THE REBY, HE IS FINDING FAULT WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR AY 2009-10. AFTER OBSERVING SO, HE IS REVISING THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED FOR AY 2010-11. THESE ASPECTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE LD CIT HAS NOT ACTUALLY POINTED OUT ANY ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED FOR AY 2010-11. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40(A) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE PAGE 7 OF 9 13. WE NOTICE THAT, UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 92(1) OF THE ACT, THE ALLOWANCE FOR ANY EXPENSE SHALL ALSO BE DETERMI NED HAVING REGARD TO ARMS LENGTH PRICE. SINCE THE TPO HAS DET ERMINED THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE AT NIL IN AY 2009-10, THE ENTIRE CLAIM MADE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSID ERED AS TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT. HOWEVER, THE TPO HAS REDUCED TH E AMOUNT DISALLOWED U/S 40(A) AND MADE TRANSFER PRICING ADJU STMENT FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT ONLY IN AY 2009-10. THE QUESTION OF MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) SHALL APPLY, ONLY IF THE REL EVANT EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND TO BE ALLOWABLE, BUT FOR THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.40(A). HENCE THE ACTION OF TPO IN REDUCING THE T.P ADJUSTM ENT AMOUNT BY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40(A) MAY NOT BE RIGHT AN D IN THAT CASE, THE ERROR LIES IN AY 2009-10. HAVING NOT DONE SO, THE LD CIT SHOULD NOT FIND FAULT WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MADE U/S 40(A) OF THE ACT ON THE REASONING THAT THE TDS HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS YEAR, I.E., IN AY 2010-11. 14. FOR THE ABOVE SAID REASONING, THE ORDER PASSE D BY LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE REVISED RELATES T O FOREIGN SERVICES EMPLOYEES EXPENSES. THE TPO HAD DETERMINED ALP OF INTRA GROUP SERVICES AT NIL. IN THE ANNUAL REPORT, THE ASSESSE E HAD FURNISHED DETAILS OF SUPPORT SERVICES/CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SE RVICES AS NOTE NO.16 IN NOTES TO ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN A NOTE AS FOREIGN SERVICES EMPLOYEES EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,56,47,834/- ARE INCLUDED IN EMPLOYEES COST. THE LD CIT HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ABOVE EXPENDITURE IS PART OF S UPPORT SERVICES/MANAGEMENT FEES AND HENCE ITS ALP SHOULD BE TAKEN AS NIL, WHICH WILL RESULT IN AN ADDITION OF RS.2,56,47 ,834/-. ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE PAGE 8 OF 9 16. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT SOME OF THE SECONDE D EMPLOYEES HAVE DRAWN FULL/PART OF SALARY IN THEIR HOME COUNTR Y AND THE ASSESSEE HAS REIMBURSED THE SAME TO THE AE. HENCE THOSE PAYMENTS, IN EFFECT, ARE SALARY ONLY AND ACCORDINGL Y INCLUDED IN THE SALARY EXPENSES. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD ADOPTED TNM METHOD TO BENCHMARK OTHER INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED TO BE A T ARMS LENGTH BY THE TPO. DURING THE COURSE OF TP PROCEEDINGS, T HE TPO HAD ASKED QUERY ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, I.E, WHETHER ANY OF REIMBURSEMENTS HAVE BEEN CLAIMED WITHOUT ROUTING TH E SAME THROUGH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND IT WAS DULY REP LIED. HENCE THE TPO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON THIS ISSUE, ACCEPTED TH E SAME AS PART OF TNM METHOD EXERCISE AND FOUND THE SAME TO BE AT ARMS LENGTH. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONTENDED THAT THE LD CIT WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN PASSING REVISION ORDER ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 17. WE HEARD LD D.R ON THIS ISSUE AND PERUSED T HE RECORD. THE LD AR ALSO TOOK US THROUGH THE QUERY POSED BY THE T PO DURING THE COURSE OF TP PROCEEDINGS. THE TPO HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING ANY REIMBURSEMENTS AS EXPE NSES WITHOUT ROUTING THOUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT? THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED REPLY TO THE SAME STATING THAT REIMBURSEM ENT CLAIMS HAVE BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, ME ANING THEREBY, THE TPO HAS SPECIFICALLY APPLIED HIS MIND ON THIS I SSUE. HENCE THE TPO HAS EXAMINED THIS ISSUE AND HAS TAKEN A POSSIBL E VIEW, IN WHICH CASE, THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT ON THIS ISSUE IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 18. IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO LTD VS. CIT (243 ITR 83), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPRESSED THE VIEW TH AT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, IF THE AO HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIB LE VIEW. ITA NO.654/BANG/2017 3M INDIA LIMITED, BANGALORE PAGE 9 OF 9 19. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED REVISION ORDER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN L AW. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE SAME. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH AUG, 2021 SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 24 TH AUG, 2021. VG/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.