ITO, Bangalore V. Smt. Jyothi K Mehta, Bangalore

ITA 664/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0679 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JASON P BOAZ
• Assessee Lawyers: H V GOUTHAMA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Capital asset; Additional evidence; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 54EC; 69; 54

Judgement Text

ITA NO.664/B/09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.664/BA NG/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. SMT. JYOTHI K MEHTA, C/O INSULATED CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD., 14, K M TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI JASON P BOAZ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H V GOUTHAMA O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) - V, BANGALORE DATED 14.05.2009. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR CON CERNED IS 2006-07. 2. THREE ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL, THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANC E OF RS.87,90,216/- U/S 54(1) AND RS.84.57 LAKHS U/S 54(2) OF THE IT ACT. ITA NO.664/B/09 2 II. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS.50,000/- AND TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. III. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESEE U/S 80D. 3. THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLO WS : THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVING INCOME FR OM CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.10.2006, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.8,60,069/-. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS COMPLETED THE A SSESSMENT U/S 143(3), DETERMINING AN INCOME OF RS.1,81,97,570/-. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESEE S OLD ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING, FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.5 CRORES. THE ASSESSEE H OLDS 50% OF THE SHARE IN THIS PROPERTY AND THE BALANCE 50% IS HELD B Y THE ASSESSEES SON, MR. KSHITJI K MEHTA. WHEN THE RETUR N OF INCOME WAS FILED, AFTER DEDUCTING THE DEEMED COST, THE ASS ESSEES SHARE OF CAPITAL GAINS, WAS DETERMINED AT NIL. WHILE DET ERMINING THE TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTED A SUM O F RS.40 LAKHS, BEING INVESTMENT U/S 54EC AND FURTHER CLAIMED BALAN CE AMOUNT OF RS.1,72,47,500/- AS DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF IT ACT. OUT OF RS.1,72,47,500/- A SUM OF RS.87,90,216/- WAS PAID A S ADVANCE TO PURUVANKARA PROJECTS LTD. TOWARDS ONE RESIDENTIAL A PARTMENT AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK OF BARODA, UNDER DESIGNATED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT TO BE UTILIZED WITH IN A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS, AS PROVIDED U/S 54(2) OF IT ACT. ITA NO.664/B/09 3 4. THE LEARNED A.O. IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER U/S 143 (3) HAS DENIED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54, BY HOLDING THUS , I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADDUCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SECTION 54 OF THE ACT MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH MEANS NOT MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. BESIDES, THE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE IF K C KAUSHIK (84 CTR (BOM) 62) (1990) IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES U/S 54 OF THE I T ACT. BESIDES, THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE IN ITS ORDER ITA NO.530/BANG/2007 DATED 30.4.2008 IN THE CASE OF ITO, W - 4(3),BANGALORE V RAJALAKSHMI HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 FOR BOTH THE HOUSE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY HER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, I HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE I T ACT FOR BOTH THE HOUSES. THEREFORE I TREAT THAT INVESTMENT MADE IN ONE OF THE HOUSES AS INCOME FROM OTHER THAN CAPITAL GAINS . ITA NO.664/B/09 4 5. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION TOWARDS LEGAL FEES PAID AMOUNTING TO RS.50,000/- AS EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OF PROPERTY WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF CA PITAL GAINS TAX. THE LEARNED AO HELD ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE PROOF WITH REGARD TO LEGAL EXPENSES CLAIMED OF RS.50,000/ - AND HE DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.50,000/- AND ALSO BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.15,000/- TOWARDS MEDICLAIM U/S 80D. THE AO DID NOT ALLOW THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE, SINCE ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRO DUCED ANY PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THE DEDUCTION U/S 80D. 6. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE RESIDENCE IN BANGALORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVEST ED ONLY IN ONE RESIDENCE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54(1) AND 5 4(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE FLA TS PURCHASED WERE INTENDED FOR USE AS A SINGLE UNIT OF RESIDENCE AND THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. WI TH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF A SUM OF RS.50,000/- P AID AS LEGAL FEES, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS PAID BY CHEQUE AND WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITT ED, EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT IS NOT GIVEN; IT COULD ONLY B E DISALLOWED AND CANNOT BE ADDED BACK AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE . WITH REGARDS TO THE LIABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80D, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AND IS ENTITL ED FOR DEDUCTION OF RS.15,000/- U/S 80D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE AO HAD NOT ITA NO.664/B/09 5 ASKED FOR THE PROOF OF THE DEDUCTION, HENCE, SAME W AS NOT PRODUCED. IF REQUIRED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, THE E VIDENCE OF PAYMENT COULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. THE CIT(A) FOR T HE REASONS MENTIONED IN PARA 8 TO 8.3 OF HIS ORDER ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID THREE ISSUES . 6. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THE CIT OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS OWNING MORE T HAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND INVESTED IN TWO APARTMENTS. THEREFORE HE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 IN RESPECT OF THE ONE OF THE TWO APARTMENTS. HE ALSO HEAVILY RELIVED ON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K C KAUSHIK V P B RANE 185 ITR 499 AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF ITO, W -4(3) V RAJALAKSHMI IN ITA NO. 530/BANG/2007 DATED 30.4.08. WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.50,000/- AND 15,000/-, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE SAID DEDUCTI ONS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PR ODUCED WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WERE NOT FURNIS HED WITH THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS AND HENCE, THESE TWO ISSUES SHO ULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILES OF THE AO FOR FRESH EXAMINATI ON. 8. PER CONTRA, THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS P ER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 54(1) AND 54(2). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONL Y ONE UNIT OF ITA NO.664/B/09 6 RESIDENCE IS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE AND THAT OF JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V D ANANDA BASAPPA 309 ITR 329 ARE IDENTICAL AND CONTENDED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE D ECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF SUM OF RS.50, 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 OF T HE ACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT RS.50,000/- WAS PAID AS LEGAL FEES B Y CHEQUE AND SAME WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE IN CONNECTIO N WITH THE SALE OF PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED EVEN PRESUMIN G THAT THE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT IS NOT FURNISHED , THE EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ADDED BACK AS UN EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. W ITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80D OF THE ACT, IT WAS ARGUED, THAT THE EVIDENC E WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AMOUNTING TO RS .13,131/- FURNISHED TO THE CIT(A), AND HE WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION TO THAT EXTENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CI T(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE THREE ISSUES AND THE LEARNED DR IS NOT CORRECT IN SAYING T HAT THE COMMENTS OF THE AO IS NOT CALLED FOR. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS ARE, ASSESSEE SOL D HER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE TWO ADJOINING FLATS NO.903 AND 904 IN BLOCK-A, PURVA AT RIYA, SANJAYNAGAR, RMV 2 ND STAGE, BANGALORE COVERING 3860 SQ FT. SHE HAD PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS.87,90,216/- AND HAD ALSO DEPOSITED A ITA NO.664/B/09 7 SUM OF RS.84,57.284/- IN CAPITAL GAINS BANK ACCOUNT FOR FURTHER INVESTMENT INTO THE SAME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THES E TWO FLATS ARE ADJOINING PROPERTY, WHEREIN THE ASSESEE IS INTENDING TO ENCLOSE IT AND USE IT AS ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BECAUSE, ONE FLAT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ALL ALONG SHE HA D BEEN RESIDING IN BIGGER PROPERTY AND BECAUSE OF THIS FACT, THE ASS ESEE CHOSE TO BUY TWO ADJOINING FLATS, WHICH WILL ALLOW THEM TO ST AY WITH THE ENTIRE FAMILY. 10. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT, IN CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, CAPITAL GAINS ARISES FROM THE LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSETS, BEING LAND AND BUILDING AND BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS CONS TRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THEN INSTEAD OF CAPITAL GAINS BEING CHARGED TO INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TO OK PLACE, THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. AS PER SUB SEC. 2 OF SEC 54 OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNT NOT UTILIZED BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN, IS REQUIRED TO BE DEPOSITED IN A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID DEPOSITS TO PUR CHASE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND HAS PAID RS.87,90,216/- AS INITIAL DEPO SITS, WHICH IS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION U/S 54(1). SHE HAS ALSO DEPOSI TED RS.84.57 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54 (2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. AS PER THE PROVISION OF SEC. 54(2) THIS AMOUNT ALSO SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR DEDUCTION AND ANY EXCES S AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT UTILIZED FOR ONE PROPERTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERE D AS TAXABLE AFTER THE END OF THREE YEARS. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD B E GIVEN ITA NO.664/B/09 8 DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR THE INVE STMENT MADE AND EXCESS IF ANY SHOULD BE TAXED AFTER THE END OF 3 6 MONTHS. 11. WE ARE ALSO OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE MORE OR LESS IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS NARRATED IN THE CASE OF CIT V D ANANA BASAPPA CITED SUPRA 309 ITR 329. IN THAT CAS E, THE ASSESSEE, A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, SOLD A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE FOR RS.2,12,50,000/- IN OCTOBER, 1995. THE ASSESSEE PUR CHASED TWO RESIDENTIAL FLATS ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER FROM TAKIN G TWO SEPARATE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS IN RESPECT OF THE TWO FLATS S ITUATED SIDE BY SIDE PURCHASED ON THE SAME DAY. THE VENDOR HAD CERT IFIED THAT IT HAD EFFECTED NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS TO THE TWO FLAT S TO MAKE IT ONE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT EXE MPTION U/S 54. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY GAVE EXEMPTION FOR CAPITAL G AINS TO THE EXTENT OF PURCHASE OF ONE RESIDENTIAL FLAT. IT WAS FOUND BY THE INSPECTOR THAT, THE RESIDENTIAL FLATS WERE IN THE O CCUPATION OF TWO DIFFERENT TENANTS. THE AO HELD THAT SECTION 54(1) OF THE ACT DOES NOT PERMIT EXEMPTION FOR THE PURCHASERS FOR MORE TH AN ONE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) C ONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND HELD THAT THE FLA TS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD TO BE TREATED AS ONE SINGLE RESI DENTIAL UNIT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO FULL EXEMPTION. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT, HELD AS FOLLOWS:- THAT IT WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE APARTMENTS WERE SITUATED SIDE BY SIDE. THE BUILDER HAD ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD EFFECTED MODIFICATION OF THE FLATS TO MAKE THEM ONE UNIT BY ITA NO.664/B/09 9 OPENING THE DOOR IN BETWEEN THE TWO APARTMENTS. THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME WHEN THE INSPECTOR INSPECTED THE PREMISES, THE FLATS WERE OCCUPIED BY TWO DIFFERENT TENANTS WAS NOT A GROUND TO HOLD THAT THE APARTMENT WAS NOT ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PURCHASED BOTH THE FLATS IN ONE SINGLE SALE DEED OR COULD HAV E NARRATED THE PURCHASE OF TWO PREMISES AS ONE UNIT IN THE SALE DEED WAS NOT A GROUND TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO PURCHASE TWO FLATS AS ONE UNIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION U/S 54. 12. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FACTS THAT ARE CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INTENDING TO ENCLOSE T WO FLATS PURCHASED AND USE IT AS A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT A ND THIS FACT REMAIN UNCONTROVERTED. 13. IN RESPECT OF THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LEAR NED DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAME DOES NOT HAVE APPLICA TION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN T HE CASE OF ITO V RAJALAKSHMI, THE FACTS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND HAS NO INTENTIO N OF USING THE SAME AS SINGLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. IN FACT, IN THAT C ASE, THE FLATS PURCHASED ARE INDEPENDENT APARTMENT IN DIFFERENT LO CALITY. SIMILARLY IS THE FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOMBAY H IGH COURT JUDGMENT RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED DR. THEREFORE, RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V D ANANDA BASAPPA 309 ITR 329, WE DECIDE FIRST ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO.664/B/09 10 14. AS REGARDS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, SUM OF RS.50,000 /- AS LEGAL EXPENSES AND SUM OF RS.15,000/- U/S 80D OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF THE AO FOR BELOW SAID REASONS : A) NO MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO FOR CLAIM ING DEDUCTION OF THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNTS. B) BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT IS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HA D FURNISHED PROOF OR EVIDENCE FOR SUCH DEDUCTION. TH E CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SAME WAS FURNI SHED. IN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THERE IS NO MENTION WITH R EGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.50,000/- AND RS.15,000/-. THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS.50,000/- WITHOUT BRINGI NG IT ON RECORD THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AR, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN ADDING THE ABOVE AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 OF THE ACT, SINCE THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUE. IN THAT SENSE OF MATTER, EVEN PRESUMING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT IS GIVEN, IT CAN ONLY BE DISALLOWED AS AN EXP ENDITURE AND CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. C) AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80D, THE CIT(A) HAD STATED IN PARA 8.3 OF THE ORDER THAT THE COPY OF RECEIPT WITH REFERENCE TO THE CLAIM U/S 80D HAS BEE N ENCLOSED (RS.13,131/-). THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE R ECEIPT PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS E. ITA NO.664/B/09 11 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOV, 2009. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER BANGALORE DATED : 27/11/09 VMS. COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF 7. GF, ITAT, NEW DELHI. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGAL ORE.