Public Education Society, Bangalore V. Dy.DIT, Bangalore

ITA 664/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 66421114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SREEHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: P PRATHIK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 12A; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY, C/O. ST. MIRAS HIGH SCHOOL, NO.201, 6 TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010. PAN : AABTP 1260A VS. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 17(2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. PRATHIK, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. SREEHARI, ADDL. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.08.2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-14, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, BANGALORE AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND IT OB TAINED REGISTRATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A OF THE I.T. ACT VIDE REGISTRATION DATED ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 PAGE 2 OF 9 27.5.2009. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT FI LED ITS RETURN OF INCOME WHEREIN NIL INCOME WAS DECLARED AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 OF THE ACT. 3. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.2,96, 29,585 IN THE FORM OF TUITION FEES FROM STUDENTS, INTEREST ON DEPOSITS AN D MISCELLANEOUS INCOME. OUT OF THE SAID RECEIPTS, A SUM OF RS.2,39,10,198 W AS APPLIED TOWARDS OBJECTS OF THE SOCIETY IN THE FORM OF SALARIES TO T EACHERS AND STAFF AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO APPLIED A SUM OF RS.38,75,370 TOWARDS ACQUISITION O F FIXED ASSETS. THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REF ERENCE TO GROSS AMOUNT RECEIVED SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY APPLIED TH E FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF 93.77% AND THE BALANCE 6.23% WAS ACCUMULATED OUT OF THE GROSS FUNDS RECEIVED. SINCE IT IS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT S OF ACCUMULATION CONTAINED IN SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, ACCORDING TO ASSESS EE, NO TAX WAS PAYABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, HOWEVER, OF THE OPINI ON THAT GROSS RECEIPTS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE T AKEN INTO CONSIDERATION SINCE AS PER THE COMMERCIAL PRINCIPLES, THE EXPENDI TURE INCURRED FOR RUNNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST HAVE TO BE REDUCED FROM GROSS RECEIPTS AND FROM THE BALANCE AMOUNT, IT HAS TO BE SEEN AS TO WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF INCOME THAT WAS APPLIED FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, THE ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 PAGE 3 OF 9 ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE APPLIED MORE THAN 8 5% FOR CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SURPLUS AVAILABLE WITH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS MORE THAN 15%. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT GROSS RECEIPTS CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY WHEN THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS AR E IN THE FORM OF DONATIONS SINCE AN ASSESSEE NEED NOT SPEND ANYTHING ON GETTI NG DONATIONS, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, THE ASSE SSEE HAS TO BEAR THE REVENUE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE INCOME IN WHICH EVENT, ONLY THE NET INCOME HAS TO BE TAKEN BY APPLYING COMMERCIAL PRINC IPLES. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KE RALA HIGH COURT IN PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION, 228 ITR 620 ( KER) , WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN 240 ITR 1 (SC) , THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID CASE LAW IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF DONATIONS AND NOT THE AMOUN T RECEIVED BY CARRYING ON THE ACTIVITY SUCH AS IMPARTING EDUCATION. AS PE R THE COMPUTATION OF THE AO, THE BALANCE AMOUNT WORKS OUT TO RS.57,19,387, O UT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.38, 75,380 AND, TO THE EXTENT OF 15%, WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.8,57,908 THE A SSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE/SET APART FOR APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES U/S. 11(1)(A) AND THE BALANCE WAS TREATED AS TAXABLE INCOME. 5. IN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(APP EALS) HAS ADOPTED THE SAME VIEW AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 PAGE 4 OF 9 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT DATED 19.6.1968, N O DOUBT, SPEAKS OF THE AMBIT OF THE EXPRESSION INCOME, BUT IT HAS NO APP LICATION IN THIS CONTEXT INASMUCH AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1)(A) USES THE EXPRESSION SUCH INCOME, WHICH IN TURN REFERS TO GROSS INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, HE FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED B ELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE:- 9. IT IS ALSO STATED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER T HAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CIRCULAR TO INDICATE THAT EVEN REVEN UE EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ADDED BACK IN THE CASE OF CHARITABLE OR R ELIGIOUS TRUSTS RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR HOSPITALS. EFFE CTIVELY, IT IS STATED THAT REVENUE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY EDUCATI ONAL INSTITUTIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPLICATIONS THER EOF TOWARDS THE PURPOSES OF THE TRUST AS CLARIFIED BY THE CIRCULAR , A VIEW WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE CA LCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BIRLA JANAHIT TRUST (208 ITR 372) WHERE THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN OUR VIEW, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE ON SALARIE S AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST MUST BE CONSI DERED AS APPLICATION FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE QUANTUM OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR CARRYING OU T THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST AND THE EXPENDITU RE MADE TO EARN THE INCOME HAD NOT BEEN SEPARATELY ALLOCATED OR DETERMINED. WE, THEREFORE, ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION BY SAYING THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN H OLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT O F THE EXPENDITURE MADE ON SALARIES AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPE NSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTS AND PUR POSES OF THE TRUST ONLY; BUT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EA RNING THE INCOME FROM DIVIDEND WILL NOT QUALIFY AS AMOUNT S SPENT FOR CARRYING OUT THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 PAGE 5 OF 9 THE SAID DECISION WAS CITED DURING THE COURSE OF TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS REFUS ED TO ACCEPT THE SAME ALLEGING THAT THOUGH THE DECISION WAS REND ERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REASON GIVEN BY THE BENCH WAS THAT THE SAID EXPENSES HAD BEEN EARNED NOT ONLY FOR THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BUT ALSO FOR THE OTHER PURPOSES OF THE TRUST . YOUR LORDSHIPS WILL READILY APPRECIATE THAT THE SLIGHT I NCONSEQUENTIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE FACTS GOVERNING THIS CASE WILL NO T ALTER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RATIO OF THE SAID JUDGEMENT TO THIS CASE. ALL THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT WAS FOR T HE PURPOSES OF THE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, AND NO FAULT HAS BEEN FOU ND WITH THAT. THAT WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TRUST ARE CHARIT ABLE IN NATURE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN QUESTIONED OR DOUBTED BY EITHER T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOTHING COUL D THEREFORE BE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN TO REGARD THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE TRUST AS HAVING BEEN INCURRED FOR CHARITABLE PU RPOSES. 10. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION [248 I TR 1] WHICH WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE, HAD HELD THAT A CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST IS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE TWENTY-FI VE PER CENT OF ITS GROSS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER TRUST , WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ). THERE, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD ELUCIDATED THEIR VIEW BY STATING THAT THE LIMIT OF 25% (AS APPLICABLE THEN) WAS TO BE CONSTRUED WITH R EFERENCE TO THE GROSS DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE TRUST AND NOT T HE NET SUM AVAILABLE AFTER THE APPLICATION FROM OUT OF SUCH DO NATIONS. BUT THIS DECISION WAS ALSO DISTINGUISHED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON THE GROUNDS THAT SUCH DECISION WAS RENDERED ONLY THE CONTEXT OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION RUNNING PURELY ON DONATIO NS AND WILL THEREFORE NOT APPLY TO AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION W HICH ACCEPTED FEES AND HAD TO INCUR EXPENSES TO EARN SUCH FEES. I T IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO A TRUST OR INSTITUTION RUNNING PURELY ON DONATIONS, AND NOT IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER CHARITABLE INSTITUTION IN RECEIPT OF ANY OTHE R INCOME. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER HAS REITERATED THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHEREAS IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NO EXP ENDITURE IS REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED IN ORDER TO EARN DONATIONS, RUNNING OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED IN ORDER TO EARN THE INCOME, AND THEREFORE IT IS ONLY THE NET SURPLUS AVAILABLE AFTER DEDUCTION OF ALL EXPENS ES, IF AT ALL, THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN COMPUTING THE PERMISSIBLE A CCUMULATION. ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 PAGE 6 OF 9 11. THE HONBLE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE INCOME-TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITH I [131 ITD 335] WHILE DEALING WITH AN APPELLANT WHO WAS IN REC EIPT OF INCOME OTHER THAN DONATIONS, AND WHICH HAD TO INCUR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR ITS FUNCTIONING, HAS HE LD IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE A PEX COURT IN 248 ITR 1 (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE, AND TH AT THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 15 PERCENT OF ITS GROSS RECEIPTS AND NOT 15% OF THE INCOME WORKED OUT FOR TAX PURPOSES. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN REJECTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ON GROUND S THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON WHETHER THE SOURCE OF THE RECEI PTS WERE DONATIONS OR SOME OTHER SOURCE. THE SAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS ALSO INTERPRETED BY A SPE CIAL BENCH OF THE BOMBAY ITAT IN BAI SONABAI HIRJI AGIARY TRUS T VS. FIFTH INCOME-TAX OFFICER [272 ITR (AT) 67], WHERE ON A CO MBINED READING OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION (SUPRA ) AND THE EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE SAME APPELLANT BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT, THEIR LORDSHIPS OPINED AS FOLLOW S: .... IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AS PER THE STATUTORY LA NGUAGE OF THE ABOVE SECTION THE INCOME WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN F OR THE PURPOSE OF ACCUMULATION IS THE INCOME DERIVED BY TH E TRUST FROM PROPERTY. IF BOTH THE DECISIONS ARE CARE FULLY READ, IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH IS IN THE SHAPE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME IS NOT TO BE TAK EN INTO ACCOUNT. HAVING FOUND THAT THE TRUST IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11(1), WE ARE TO GO TO THE STAGE OF INCOME BEFORE APPLICATION THEREOF AND TAKE INTO ACC OUNT 25 PER CENT, OF SUCH INCOME. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE P OINTED THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE TAKEN ON COMMERCIAL BASIS AND NOT TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE DECIDED CASE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SUM OF RS. 1,70, 369 WHICH WAS SPENT AND APPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CHA RITABLE PURPOSES WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOS E OF TAKING AMOUNT TO BE ACCUMULATED. HAVING REGARD TO T HE CLEAR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE SUPRE ME COURT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT OUTGOINGS WHIC H ARE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME ARE TO BE EXCLU DED... ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 PAGE 7 OF 9 7. IN PARTICULAR, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE UPO N THE ITAT MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF BAI SONABAI HIRJI AGIARY TRUST [272 ITR (AT) 67] WHEREIN, ON IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS UNDER:- FROM THE ABOVE, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE DISPUTE I S LIMITED TO CORRECT AMOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, WHETH ER IT SHOULD BE GROSS RENT OF RS.2,63,675 OR THE NET INCOME AFTE R DEDUCTING OUTGOINGS AND DEPRECIATION. SHRI V.H. PATIL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE KERALA HIGH COURT (SEE [1997] 228 ITR 620), IN THE SAME CASE, HAS REFERRED TO THE BOARDS CIRCULAR DATED JUNE 19, 1968, ON THE SAME S UBJECT AND OBSERVED THAT INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 11(1), SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN ITS COMMERCIAL SENSE. IT WAS HELD BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT THAT 25 PER CENT OF GROSS AMOUNT OF RS. 2,57,376 SHOULD BE ACCUMULATED, AND THIS FINDING HAS BEEN CO NFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. SHRI V. H. PATIL ALSO C ONTENDED THAT ALL OUT-GOINGS INCLUDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE NA TURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR THE OBJECTS AND PURPOSES OF THE TRUST. IT IS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT 25 PER CENT OF THE GR OSS INCOME AS REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST SHOU LD BE ALLOWED TO BE ACCUMULATED UNDER SECTION 11(1). HAVING REGARD TO THE CLEAR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE SUPREME COURT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT OU TGOINGS WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF APPLICATION OF INCOME ARE TO B E EXCLUDED. THE INCOME AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT WAS APPL IED IS DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN AND THE SAME IN THE PRESENT CASE IS RS. 3,42,174. TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF THE ABOVE INCOME IS TO BE A LLOWED AS A DEDUCTION. SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN PARSI ZORASTRIAN ANJUM AN TRUST MHOW V. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 832. NO REASON WHATSOEVE R HAS ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 PAGE 8 OF 9 BEEN GIVEN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR DEDUCTING RS. 2,17,126 IN THIS CASE FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 11(1)(A). THE DECISION CITED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE CIRCULAR O F THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY T HE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ITS DECISION REFERRED TO ABOVE . ACCORDINGLY, THE QUESTION REFERRED TO US IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFI RMATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY RELIED U PON THE ORDERS OF TAX AUTHORITIES AND CONTENDED THAT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUT IONS ARE RENDERING AN ACTIVITY OF PROFIT AND IN THOSE CASES, EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR EARNING INCOME SHOULD FIRST BE DEDUCTED AND ONLY ON THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT, IT HAS TO BE SEEN AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED THE SAME FOR CHARITABLE OBJECTS OR NOT. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE HEREIN IS WITH REGARD TO THE MEANING OF EXPRE SSION SUCH INCOME IN SECTION 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT. IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS C ONSIDERED BY THE APEX COURT ( SUPRA ) WHICH WAS ALSO APPLIED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TH E ITAT MUMBAI BY HOLDING THAT THE EXPRESSION SUCH INCOME MEANS GROSS INCOME AND NOT THE NET INCOME AFTER DEDUCTING THE ADMINIST RATIVE EXPENDITURE. SUCH BEING THE CASE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH, I HOLD THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE T HAN 93% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS, NO PART OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS ARE LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SINCE THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS S ET APART FOR ITA NO.664/BANG/2015 PAGE 9 OF 9 APPLICATION IN THE NEXT YEAR. WITH THESE OBSERVATI ONS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015. SD/- ( D. MANMOHAN ) VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 25 TH AUGUST, 2015. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENTS 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.