Sh.Kadambi Narahari, Bangalore V. ITO Ward 15(2), Bangalore

ITA 667/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9232 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARATH L ACS
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.667/BANG/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI. KADAMBI NARAHARI, NO.1605, 16 TH FLOOR, MARYGOLD BLOCK, THE GARDENS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU 560 025 .. APPELLANT PAN : AAKOB1690K V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 15(2), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. BHARATH L, ACS REVENUE BY : SMT. SWAPANA DAS, JCIT HEARD ON : 27.09.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 09.12.2016 O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-5, BENGALURU, DT.10.02.2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 02. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNI NG INCOME FROM SALARY, E-FILED HIS RETURN FOR A Y . 2011-12 ON 29-07-2011 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,70,550/- . ON 25-05-2010, HE SOLD A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF 10477 SQ.FT. SITUATED AT NO.7/232/41 5, DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGAL ORE SOUTH TALUK, ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 TOGETHER WITH A BUILDING MEASURING ABOUT 500 SQ.FT. HAVING RCC ROOFING, MOSAIC FLOORING WITH JUNGLE WOOD DOORS AND WINDOWS, TOGETHER WITH ALL RIGHTS, APPURTENANCES, FOR A CONSIDERATIO N OF RS. ONE CRORE TO SHRI P.R. SINGHVI, BANGALORE. HE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY THROUGH TWO REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, ONE ON 03-06-2006 , WHEREIN 50% OF THE UNDIVIDED SHARE, RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE S CHEDULE PROPERTY WORKING OUT TO 5238.50 SQ.FT. OF LAND & 150 SQ.FT. OF BUILD ING AND THE ANOTHER ONE BY THE SALE DEED DATED 01-07-2006 WHEREIN THE R EMAINING 50% OF THE UNDIVIDED SHARE I.E. 5238.50 SQ.FT. OF LAND & 1 50 SQ.FT. OF BUILDING, THUS, THE ENTIRE 10477 SQFT. OF LAND & 300 SQ FT OF BUILDING WAS PURCHASED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.15,00,000/- EX CLUDING STAMP DUTY & REGISTRATION CHARGES. 03. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E FILED A COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME DATED 24-10-2013, CLAI MING DEDUCTION U/S.54 IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN TWO APARTMENT S, ONE AT RESIDENTIAL FLAT D-1407, BRIGADE GATEWAY, CYGNUS WI NG, BANGALORE, THROUGH A SALE DEED DATED 16-10-2009 ( LONG BEFORE THE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET DT 25-05-2010) FOR A CONSIDERATION O F RS.20,62,740/- & THE ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL FLAT AT F 1605, 16 TH FLOOR, 'MARIGOLD' BLOCK, THE GARDENS, BINNYSTON GARDEN, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE, THROUGH A SALE DEED DATED 16-06-2010 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS 57, 77, 137/- AND ARRIVED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT NIL. ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 04. WHEN THE AO BY HIS LETTER DATED 03-12-72013 , INTER ALIA, INFORMED HIM THAT THE WORDINGS USED IN SECTION 54 (1)(I) & (II) IS A SINGULAR HOUSE, I.E. 'NEW ASSET' AND 'A RESIDENTIA L HOUSE' AND AS SUCH THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 WILL HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY ONE HOUSE ETC, THEN ON 20-01-2014 , THE ASSESSEE MADE A FRE SH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 ON ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL FLAT I.E. AT D 1407 , BRIGADE GATEWAY, BANGALORE, ON AN INVESTMENT AT RS.99,28,616 WHILE ITS REGISTERED SALE DEED HAD SHOWN THE VALUE AT RS.16,40,000/- ONL Y. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE FLAT WAS ORIGINALLY B OOKED BY MS. PRIYA BHAT , AN NRI AND THROUGH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTAN DING ENTERED WITH HER ON 01-09-2009, THE RIGHT OVER THE FLAT WAS AS SIGNED TO HIM FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.74,49,359/-AND FURNISHED THE B REAK UP FOR THE TOTAL INVESTMENT AT RS.99,28,616/- AS UNDER: 05. THE AO , INTER ALIA , HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT NO RENTAL INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY SOLD. THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSET TRANSFERRED AT UTTARAHALH I HAD A 500 SQ.FT. OF ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 BUILDING, IT WAS HABITUATED BY A FAMILY, ENCLOSED TWO XEROX COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN EVIDENCING THEREIN THE ELECTRICIT Y METER, FILED COPIES OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS PAID FOR THE F.YS. 2004-05, 2 005-06 AND 2006-07 WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT TAX HAS BEEN PAID FOR BUILDING AND LAND ALSO. WHEN THE ASSESSEES ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL SALE DEEDS BY WHICH HE HAD ACQUIRED 10477 SQFT. OF LAND & WITH 300 SQ FT OF BUILDING ONLY, HE STATED THAT THE HOUSE WAS RE NOVATED. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY COST OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE COMPUTATION NOR FILED ANY EVIDENCE FOR ANY PLAN APPROVAL FOR DEMOLI TION AND RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING BUI LDING FROM THE BBMP. THERE IS NO RENTAL INCOME DECLARED FROM THE SAID PR OPERTY ALSO. THE BBMP TAX PAID RECEIPTS PERTAIN TO THE FINANCIAL YEA RS BEFORE WHICH THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE ASSET, WHEREIN A 300 SQ. FT. BUILDING IS SAID TO HAVE EXISTED . THE LATEST TAX PAID RECEIPT IS RE LATED TO F.Y. 2010-11 WHICH SPECIFIES THE LAND TAX ALONE. IN ORDER TO QUA LIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54, THE TRANSFERRED ASSET SHOULD BE A RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE. GENERALLY A HOUSE MEANS A DWELLING UNIT, ABODE WHICH IS IN A HA BITABLE CONDITION WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE, I.E. WITH A COMPOUND WALL, A WASH ROOM, KITCHEN, SEWERAGE CONNECTION ETC., IN WHICH AN ORDINARY PERSON CAN MA KE A LIVING. WHEN THESE BARE MINIMUM FACILITIES ARE NOT PROVIDED IN A BUILD ING, THEN IT IS CONSIDERED THAT IT IS NOT FIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 54 COMPREHENDS THAT THE ASSET TRANSFERRED S HOULD BE PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WHICH MAY HAVE L AND APPURTENANT THERETO, BUT NOT AN OPEN PLOT OF LAND HAVING SOME I NSIGNIFICANT ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 5 STRUCTURE WHICH MIGHT UNDER SOME CONSTRAINTS BE USE D FOR RESIDENCE, OR WHICH MIGHT ACTUALLY BE USED BY SOME CARETAKER OR WATCHMAN FOR TAKING CARE OF THE PLOT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED HOUSE WAS IN A HABITABLE CONDITION A ND IT WAS OCCUPIED BY SOMEONE. HENCE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSET ORIGINAL LY TRANSFERRED AT UTTARAHALLI CANNOT BE TREATED AS A 'RESIDENTIAL HOU SE' FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING BENEFIT U/S. 54 BUT IT COULD BE TREATE D AS LAND WHICH QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCTION U/S.54F . 06. THEREAFTER, THE AO EXAMINED AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A FLAT AT BRIGADE GATE WAY ON 16-10-2009 I.E. LONG BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE OF TH E ORIGINAL ASSET DT 25-05-2010. FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.54F , TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT PURCHASE ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OTHER TH AN THE NEW ASSET FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TR ANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET , I.E. SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSET IS T RANSFERRED ON 25- 05-2010 , NO RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS TO BE PURCHASED WITHIN TWO YEARS I.E. WITHIN 25-05-2012. IN THIS CASE, THE AS SESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISO STIPULATED U/S. 54F(1) PR OVISO (A)(II) & (III) BY PURCHASING THE APARTMENT AT F 1605, 16 TH FLOOR, 'MARIGOLD BLOCK', THE GARDENS, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALO RE, ON 16- 06-2010. HENCE HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54F ALSO. 07. ON AN APPEAL, THE CIT (A) -5, BENGALURU, INTER ALIA , HELD THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FURN ISHED THE ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 6 VERY SAME DOCUMENTS AND ALTERNATIVELY PLEADED THAT ASSUMING BUT NOT ADMITTING WHAT THE APPELLANT SOLD WAS A RES IDENTIAL PLOT AND NOT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, THE APPELLANT SHOUL D BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 54F IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MA DE IN THE MAGADI ROAD FLAT. SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSET SOLD IS NOT FOUND TO BE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, BECAUSE THE MERE PRODUCTION OF BILLS FOR ELECTRICITY BILLS FOR CONNECTION AND WATER CONNECTI ON WILL NOT BE A PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL BUIL DING. FURTHER, NO RENT WAS ADMITTED FROM THE PROPERTY STATED TO BE A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN THE RETURN OF APPELLANT. THEREFORE, IT IS VERY C LEAR THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM DEDUCTIONS U/S.5 4. AFTER THE PERUSAL OF THE RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE SPECIFIED IN SECT ION54F, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT HAVE PURC HASED ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE O F SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. THUS, THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPELLANTS APPEAL. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL WITH FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL : ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 7 08. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE A O DENIED RELIEF UN DER SECTION 54 INCORRECTLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD I S NOT 'PREDOMINANTLY' A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, BUT A LAND. HE DID NOT CONSID ER THAT: A. SECTION 54 PROVIDES EXEMPTION ON PROFIT ON SALE OF PROPERTY USED FOR RESIDENCE. THE PROPERTY WAS (AND STILL IS) USED FOR RESIDENCE BY A FAMILY. B. PHOTOGRAPHS IN P. 64 AND P. 65 OF THE PAPER BOOK SH OW THAT THE HOUSE IS HABITABLE WITH A PERMANENT STRUCTURE, ROOFING AND FURNITURE. C. SECTION 54 CONTEMPLATES TRANSFER OF BUILDING AND LA NDS APPURTENANT THERETO, WITH THE SAME BEING A RESIDENT IAL HOUSE. THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED WAS A BUILDING USED AS A H OUSE AND THE LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO. D. MERELY BECAUSE THE HOUSE WAS 'SMALL' VIS--VIS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY DID NOT RENDER THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AS A *LAND'. THE ENTIRE PROPERTY WAS USED AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPE RTY. THE LAO DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE P ROPERTY WAS USED AS A VACANT LAND. E. PROPERTY TAX PAID AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NOT AS LAN D TAX AND ELECTRICITY BILLS INDICATE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS US ED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES; NOTHING IN THESE BILLS INDICA TED THAT THE SAME WAS FOR A LAND. F. WATER CONNECTION AND ELECTRICITY CONNECTION WAS PRO VIDED BY THE UTILITY AUTHORITIES FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. 2. THE AO INCORRECTLY NOTES THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID LAND TAX AND NOT ANY TAX ON BUILDING; THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDE RED THAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX HAS BEEN PAID IN PRIOR YEARS AS BEING TOWARDS BUILDING TAX AND THE FACTS HAVE NOT C HANGED (SEE P. 40-P. 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK). 3. THE AO ALSO INCORRECTLY NOTES THAT NO UTILITY B ILLS HAVE BEEN SHOWN; THE SAME WERE DULY SHOWN TO THE AO. THE AO ALSO ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 8 ALLEGES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY PROOF T OWARDS OCCUPANCY OF THE HOUSE, WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD SHOW N THE PHOTOGRAPHS (AS ABOVE) AND HAD MENTIONED THAT A FAM ILY IS RESIDING IN THE HOUSE. 4. THE AO INCORRECTLY INDICATES THAT FOR A CLAIM UNDE R SECTION 54, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY SHOULD BE DE CLARED. THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 5 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION FOR THE AO WA S TO DETERMINE INCOME, IF ANY, THAT WAS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. 5. THE AO NOTES THAT THERE IS NO COST OF IMPROVEMENT; NOR ANY PLAN APPROVAL FOR DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUC TION. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THESE ASPECTS ARE RELEVANT W HEN THE APPELLANT STATES THAT THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IS A HOUSE WHICH IS USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE AND NOT ANY O THER PURPOSE OR EVEN LEFT VACANT. THE FAMILY THAT IS RES IDING IS NOT THAT OF A WATCHMAN OR SECURITY GUARD. THE AO HA S MENTIONED THESE ASPECTS WITHOUT ANY FACTUAL EVIDENC E. 6. THE HON. CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 SINCE: A. MERE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY BILLS WILL NOT BE PR OOF OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEING SITUATED; B. THERE WAS NO RENTAL INCOME OFFERED TO TAX. 7. THE HON. CIT (A) DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A FAMILY USING THE PROPERTY FOR RESI DENCE AND THE PROPERTY TAX AND UTILITY BILLS PAID ONLY EV IDENCE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES, S UCH THAT ITS TRANSFER IS ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54. 8. THE AO AND HON. CIT (A) ALSO ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW DENYING RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54F BY HOLDING THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED A NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, I.E., THE MAGADI ROAD PROPERTY WITHIN 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANS FER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET WHICH VIOLATED THE STIPULATION UNDE R SECTION 54F. 9. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE AO AND THE CIT (A ) HAVE MISCONSTRUED THE FACTS AND THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 9 54F. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 F FOR HAVING PURCHASED THE MAGADI ROAD PROPERTY ITSELF ( P. 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE AO AND THE CIT (A) HAVE ERRONEOUSL Y CONSIDERED THAT AS IF THE CLAIM IS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AT BRIGADE GATEWAY . THE AO AND THE CIT ( A) HAVE ERRONEOUSLY STATED THAT THE APPELLANT OWNS 2 RESIDE NTIAL HOUSES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION I S MADE ON THE MAGADI ROAD PROPERTY. AFTER THE PURCHASE OF THE BRIGADE PROPERTY, THE APPELLANT OWNS 2 RESIDENTIAL HOUSES, THEREBY SATISFYING THE CLAUSE (A) TO PROVISO TO SEC TION 54F OF THE ACT. THUS, THE AR SUBMITTED AN ALTERNATE PLEA THAT ASSUM ING BUT NOT ADMITTING THAT WHAT THE APPELLANT SOLD WAS A RESIDENTIAL PLOT AND NOT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, THE APPELLANT PUT FORTH THE ARGUMENT THAT HE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT MADE THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT AT MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION D T.27.03.2014, ANNEXURE -3. SURPRISINGLY, THE AO COMPLETELY IGNOR ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ANNEXURE-3. HE NOT ONLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING THUS DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54. B UT ALSO MISTOOK THE INVESTMENT MADE IN BRIGADE GARDENS AS THE ONE FOR T HE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54F ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY MADE THE CLAIM ON THE INVESTMENT MADE AT MAGADI ROAD PROPERTY U/S 54F. 08. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED RELE VANT MATERIAL. THE FACTS REMAIN THAT AS ON 01.4.2010, THE ASSESSEE HAD THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SITUATED AT NO.7/232/415, DODDAKALLASANDR A VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK WHICH WAS PURCHASED ON 03.6 & 01.7.2006 AND A FLAT AT BRIGADE GATEWAY WH ICH WAS PURCHASED ON 16-10-2009. HE SOLD THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY S ITUATED AT ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 10 NO.7/232/415, DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. ONE CRORE ON 25-05-2010. THE A O HAS HELD THAT THE BUILDING AT UTTARAHALLI CANNOT BE TREATED AS A 'RESIDENTIAL HOUSE' FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING BENEFIT U/S. 54 BUT T HE PROPERTY COULD BE TREATED AS LAND WHICH QUALIFIES FOR DEDUCT ION U/S.54F. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL FLAT AT F 1605, 16 TH FLOOR, 'MARIGOLD' BLOCK, THE GARDENS, BINNYSTON GARDEN, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE, ON 16-06-2010 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.57,77,137/-. T HUS, AS ON 16.06.2010, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET AT MAGADI ROA D, THE ASSESSEE HAS A FLAT AT BRIGADE GATEWAY. SO, HE IS ENTITLED FOR A DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON THE INVESTMENT MADE AT MAGADI ROAD PROPERTY . AL THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SUCH BENEFIT BEFORE THE AO & ALSO BEFORE TH E CIT (A), AS MENTIONED SUPRA, HIS CLAIM IS NOT CONSIDERED. THUS, HIS ALTERNATE PLEA IS FOUND MERITORIOUS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECT ED TO GRANT DEDUCTION ON THE INVESTMENT MADE AT MAGADI ROAD PROPERTY U/S 54F. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED TO THAT EXTENT. 09. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (S. JAYARAMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN* ITA.667/BANG/2016 PAGE - 11 COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR