M/s Way 2 Wealth Brokers (P) Ltd., Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 758/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7585 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C RAMESH
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 142(1); 32; 147

Judgement Text

ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NOS.758 & 759/BANG/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2007-08) M/S. WAY2WEALTH BROKERS P. LTD, FRONTLINE GRANDEUS, GROUND FLOOR, NO.14, WALTON ROAD, BENGALURU .. APPELLANT PAN : AAACW3290M V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -12(5), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. C. RAMESH, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. B.R RAMESH, JCIT HEARD ON : 27.07.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 06.10.2017 O R D E R PER LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT (A), DT.19.02.2016, FOR THE AYS 20 06-07 AND 2007- 08. ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 02. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH ARE COMMON TO BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE AS UNDER : AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR HAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTE D THE GROUND OF REOPENING CONTAINED IN GROUND NOS.4 TO 6, AND LEFT IT TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE BENCH. ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 03. THE CIT (A) IN PARA 4 HAS REPRODUCED THE STATEM ENT OF FACT AND OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AS UNDER : ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 4 04. THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE CIT (A) IS AS UND ER : ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 5 05. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD AND HEARD THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS. CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS F ILLED BEFORE US AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO FOR REOPENING, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION ON STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBERSH IP CARDS CONSIDERING THEM AS INTANGIBLE ASSETS. HOWEVER, TH E SAID INVESTMENT QUA MEMBERSHIP OF NSE AND BGSE SHOWN IN SCHEDULE VI OF P&L ACCOUNT WHERE IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN AS FIXED ASSE T. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME HAS CLAIMED THE DEPRECI ATION ON THE SAID CARDS. HITHERTO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED DEPRE CIATION THOUGH THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSE SSEE WITH RESPECT TO BGSE ON 01.10.2001 AND WITH RESPECT TO NSE, THE SAM E WAS GRANTED ON 09.09.2009 AS PER DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE. FURTHE R, WE HAVE LOOKED INTO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSMENT YEARS, WHERE WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO DESCRIPTION ON THE ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEPRECIATION ON THESE INVESTMEN TS. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREIN BELOW THE ORDE R PASSED U/S.143(3) ON 30.12.2008, WHICH IS AS UNDER : THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2006 DECLARING A TOTAL LOSS OF RS.74,38,928/-. THE RETU RN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 08.09.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RETURN WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUE D AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF STOCK BROKING & FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, VARIOUS DETAILS AS TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PROFIT & LOSS A/C, BALANCE ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 6 SHEET, NOTES TO ACCOUNTS ETC., WERE EXAMINED. AFTE R EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FILED, THE INCOME RETUR NED IS ACCEPTED. 06. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE ISSUE OF DEPRECIATION HAS NEITHER BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO NOR ANY QUESTION WAS RAISED NOR ANY ADJUDICATION HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE AO TO FORM AN OPINION. IN OUR VIEW, THE SITUATION BEFORE US CLEARLY FALLS WIT HIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF SECTION 147 R.W.S.148, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED T O DISCLOSE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT AND THEREFO RE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW THEREOF, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY OR IRREGULARITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE DISMISSED. 07. COMING TO MERITS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE US HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTMENT IN THE F ORM OF BGSE / NSE CARDS WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE MEMBERSHIPS, THE ASSESSEE GETS A RIGHT TO TRA DE IN NSE AND BGSE. AS PER SECTION 32 OF THE IT ACT, THE DEPRECI ATION IS ALLOWABLE ON BLOCK ASSETS AND THE BLOCK OF ASSETS IS DEFINE D IN SECTION 2(11) OF THE ACT, WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.1999 WHICH INCLUDES INTANGIBLE ASSETS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMME RCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATURE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR THAT T HE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF BLOCK ASSET S FROM AY 1999- 00 ONWARDS AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY C LAIMED THE ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 7 DEPRECIATION ON THESE TWO STOCK EXCHANGE MEMBERSHIP S. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW S : I) RALLIES INDIA LTD V. ACIT[(2010) 323 ITR 54 (BOM); II) CIT V. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD & EICHER LTD [(2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)] III) ASIAN PAINTS LTD V. DCIT [(2009) 223 CTR 141 (BOM); AND IV) CIT V. YOUNUS KUNJU [(1997) 228 ITR 147 (KERALA)] ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E DEPRECIATION IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED ON THE WDV OF THESE STOCK EX CHANGE MEMBERSHIP CARDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS DEALING WITH BGSE AND NSE AS THAT OF BGSE CARD, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD V. CIT [(2010) 327 ITR 323]. 08. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS ON THE FACTS OF TH AT CASE AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AS PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. O UR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH : WE WISH TO CLARIFY THAT OUR PRESENT JUDGMENT IS STR ICTLY CONFINED TO THE RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP CONFERRED UPON THE MEMBER UNDER THE BGSE MEMBERSHIP CARD DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR S. WE HOLD THAT THE SAID RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP IS A BUSINESS OR COMM ERCIAL RIGHT WHICH GIVES A NON-DEFAULTING CONTINUING MEMBER A RIGHT TO ACCESS THE ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 8 EXCHANGE AND TO PARTICIPATE THEREIN AND IN THAT SEN SE IT IS A LICENCE OR AKIN TO LICENCE IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1)(II) OF TH E 1961 ACT. THAT, SUCH A RIGHT VESTS I THE EXCHANGE ONLY ON DEFAULT / DEMISE IN TERMS OF THE RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF BGSE, AS THEY STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME. OUR JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THEY EVER Y BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHT WOULD CONSTITUTE A LICENCE OR A FRANCHISE IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1)(II) OF THE 1961 ACT. 09. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ANY PERSON AF TER DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT CAN BECOME THE MEMBER OF BGSE / NSE AND THEREFORE BGSE / NSE MEMBERSHIPS STAND ON A DIFFERENT PREMISE S AND THEREFORE THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS NOT AP PLICABLE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MEMBERSHIP, IF ANY, GETS A PREMIUM ON RESELLING THE SAME. THE MEMBERSHIP CARD INSTEAD OF DEPRECIATING WILL APPRECIATE IN VALUE WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME AND IT CARRIES THE GOODWILL, CLIENTS ETC., THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF DEPRE CIATION, THE CARD VALUE WILL APPRECIATE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD, AS ALSO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE US. IT I S BEYOND CAVIL THAT THE BLOCK ASSETS INCLUDED INTANGIBLE ASSETS, LICENCES, FRANCHISES OR ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHTS OF SIMILAR NATU RE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE PARAS 11 AND 24 OF THE JUDGMENT ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 9 DELIVERED IN THE MATTER OF TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS L TD (SUPRA) TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : 11. AT THE OUTSET WE WISH TO CLARIFY THAT OUR PRESENT JUDGMENT IS CONFINED TO THE RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF BGSE, AS THEY STOOD DURIN G THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 24. BEFORE CONCLUDING, WE WISH TO CLARIFY THAT OUR PRE SENT JUDGMENT IS STRICTLY CONFINED TO THE RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP CONFER RED UPON THE MEMBER UNDER THE BGSE MEMBERSHIP CARD DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS . WE HOLD THAT THE SAID RIGHT OF MEMBERSHIP IS A BUS INESS OR COMMERCIAL RIGHT WHICH GIVES A NON-DEFAULTING CONTINUING MEMB ER A RIGHT TO ACCESS THE EXCHANGE AND TO PARTICIPATE THEREIN AND IN THAT SENSE IT IS A LICENCE OR AKIN TO LICENCE IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1)(II) OF TH E 1961 ACT. THAT, SUCH A RIGHT VESTS IN THE EXCHANGE ONLY ON DEFAULT/DEMISE IN TERMS OF THE RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF BGSE, AS THEY STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIM E. OUR JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN THAT EVERY BUSINESS OR CO MMERCIAL RIGHT WOULD CONSTITUTE A LICENCE OR A FRANCHISE IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(1)(II ) OF THE 1961 ACT. 11. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY T HE COURT WAS CONFINED TO THE RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF THE BGSE AS T HEY STOOD DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. KEEPING THE ABOVE S AID OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE BENCH HAS DIRECTED T HE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF NSE AS WELL AS OF THE BGSE, PERTAINING TO THE CATEGORY OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE ASS ESSEE, AS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007- 08. AS DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED SOME EXTRACTS O F THE NSE / BGSE RULES. ON A PERUSAL OF THE NSE LITERATURE FILED ON RECORD, WE NOTICE THAT THERE ARE THE FOLLOWING FOUR CATEGORIES OF MEM BERSHIPS : ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 10 I) CORPORATE ENTITIES II) LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP III) PARTNERSHIP IV) INDIVIDUALS THUS THERE ARE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF NORMAL MEMBE RSHIPS AVAILABLE I) CASH SEGMENT II) FUTURE OPTION SEGMENT III) CURRENCY DERIVATIVES SEGMENT IV) DEBT SEGMENT THE TYPE OF MEMBERSHIP IS TRADING MEMBERSHIP, TRADI NG CUM SELF CLEARING MEMBERSHIP, TRADING CUM CLEARING MEMBER. 12. UNDER THE ALPHA MEMBERSHIP, THE FOLLOWING DESCR IPTION IS GIVEN: ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 11 13. THE ELIGIBLE CRITERIA FOR THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, LLP AND CORPORATE COMPANY INSTITUTION IS GIVEN, AND THEN THE OTHER EL IGIBILITY CRITERIA ARE MENTIONED AS UNDER : ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 12 14. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT A NY PERSON WHO IS FULFILLING THE CRITERIA AS LAID DOWN IN THE NORMS S TATED HEREIN ABOVE AND IS HAVING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS FULFILLING THE BAS IC CASH DEPOSIT, CAN BECOME THE MEMBER OF THE EXCHANGE. THERE ARE NO RU LES POINTED OUT TO US BY THE AR THAT THE MEMBERSHIP IS A PERSONAL P RIVILEGE OR IT IS NOT INALIENABLE OR THERE IS A RIGHT OF NOMINATION OR AN Y OTHER PROVISIONS WHICH MAKE THE RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF NSE AS APPLICA BLE TO THE BUSINESS. 15. FOR THE PURPOSE OF BGSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVI DED THE RULES OF BGSE BUT HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY RULES PERTAINING TO B GSE IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RULES PERTAINING T O TRADING MEMBERSHIP BUT NO RULES HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH RESPECT TO BGSE. EVEN THE RULES WHICH WERE FILED WITH RESP ECT TO NSE WERE INCOMPLETE AS THE PAGE NOS.14, 15, 18 TO 20, 22, 24 TO 42 ARE MISSING. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE RULES, IT IS DIFF ICULT TO CONCLUDE WHETHER THE RULES OF THE NSE WERE SIMILAR TO THAT O F BGSE OR NOT . 16. COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE PRODUCED B EFORE US IS AS UNDER, ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 13 IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE AS TO WHEN THIS CERTIFICATE O F REGISTRATION WAS GRANTED, WHEN WAS THE CONSIDERATION, IF ANY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 14 BECOMING THE MEMBER OF NSE AND WHAT WERE THE RULES APPLICABLE AT THAT POINT OF TIME. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE INFORM ATION IT IS DIFFICULT TO DECIDE THE ISSUES BASED ONLY ON JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 17. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED AT PAGE 26, THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN RESPECT OF BGSE, DT.01.10.2001, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF THE CONSI DERATION PAID FOR ACQUIRING THIS REGISTRATION FROM BGSE BUT ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE APPLICA BLE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE AS WELL AS AT THE TIME OF C LAIMING DEPRECIATION IE., AYS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08. FURTHER WE MAY NOTI CE THAT IN THE ABGSENCE OF RELEVANT RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS A T THE TIME OF ACQUISITION OF MEMBERSHIP, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CO NCLUDE WHETHER THE PRIVILEGE WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE PRIVILEGE AS AVAILABLE TO BGSE MEMBERSHIP DURING TH AT PERIOD. IN OUR VIEW IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS INFORMATION, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE BENCH TO CONCLUDE ANYTHING FOR OR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 18. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IN SCHEDULE VI CLAIMED THE SAME INVESTMENT, WHEREAS NOW THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING DE PRECIATION BY TREATING THE INVESTMENT AS FIXED ASSETS. IT IS TO BE ANALYSED BY THE AO IF THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING IT TO BE A FIXED ASSET , THEN WHAT WAS THE VALUE OF ACQUISITION AT THE TIME OF ACQUIRING THE M EMBERSHIP AND HOW THE WDV OF THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AFTER IT S ACQUISITION AND ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 15 ALSO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE AFTER ACQUIRING IT AS INV ESTMENT HAS CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE / DEDUCTION / CLAIM AGAINST THE SAI D ACQUISITION OR NOT. 19. THE BENCH IS TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACT THAT BGSE, HAS SURRENDERED ITS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND IS NOW REGISTERED AS A COMPANY DEALING IN PROPERTIES UNDER THE COMPANIES A CT . FURTHER, RECENTLY THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PAVAK S ECURITIES P. LTD V. ITO [(2011) 38 TAXMANN.COM 387], AND SINO SECURITIE S P. LTD V. ITO [ 38 TAXMANN 387] HAS EXAMINED RIGHTS OF A MEMBER AND THE RIGHTS OF THE TRADING MEMBER OF BGSE STOCK EXCHANGE AND THER EAFTER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PERSON WHO HAS A RIGHT T O TRADE IN BGSE LTD, IS NOT AKIN TO LICENCE AND THEREFORE NOT ENTIT LED TO ANY DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, ALL THESE ASPECTS AS MENTIO NED HEREINABOVE ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO AFTER AFFORDI NG THE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 19. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SAID ADJUDICATION, WE REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ADJUDICATE AFTER CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING : I) THE DATE OF ACQUISITION OF THE MEMBERSHIP WITH NSE / BGSE II) THE CONSIDERATION, IF ANY, FOR WHICH THE MEMBERSHIP WAS ACQUIRED III) WHAT WERE THE RIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE STOCK EX CHANGE AS PER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS PREVALENT AT THE T IME OF ACQUISITION AND AT THE TIME OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATI ON ITA.758 & 759/BANG/2016 PAGE - 16 IV) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ANY EXPENDITURE / DEDUCTION / CLAIM ETC., ON THE INVESTMENT MADE IN N SE / BGSE MEMBERSHIP CARDS V) EFFECT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN P AVAK SECURITIES P. LTD (SUPRA) AND SINO SECURITIES P. L TD (SUPRA) VI) WHETHER THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF BGSE / NSE REL EVANT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE SIMILAR TO T HE RULES AND BYE-LAWS OF BGSE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLV ED IN THE JUDGMENT OF TECHNO SHARES & STOCKS LTD (SUPRA). 20. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6TH DAY OF OC TOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BENGALURU DATED : 06.10.2017 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY