Sri. K.N. Raghavendra, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 76/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63632 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: S R KIRON
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.76/BANG/2011 (ASST. YEAR 2006-07) SRI K N RAGHAVENDRA, PARTNER : SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA FLOUR MILLS, NO.33-35, SAURASHTRAPET, BANGALORE. PA NO.ABGPR1125C VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3), BANGALORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 17.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.08.2012 APPELLANT BY : SHRI S R KIRON, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE, JCIT OR DER PER GEORGE GOERGE K : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-I, BANGALORE, DATED 4.11.2010. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CONCISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS RAISED A SOLITARY GROUND, NAMELY: THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN BRINGING TO TAX THE INCOME OF RS.8,49,395/- BELONGING TO THE HUF AS THAT OF THE INDIVIDUAL. PAGE 2 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 2 3. BEFORE WE VENTURE TO ADJUDICATE THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS TO BE OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF FIVE DAYS IN PREFERRING THIS APPEAL. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHE D AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.1.2011 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN AVERRED THAT HIS AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS REQUESTED TO PREFER AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBL E TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE TIME FRAME PRESCRIBED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED A R, A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT S UCH AN APPEAL HAS TO BE PREFERRED ON OR BEFORE 23.2.2011 AS AGAINST 22.1.20 11. THE ASSESSEE ENQUIRED ON 19.1.2011 REGARDING THE STATUS OF APPEA L AND REALIZED THAT NO APPEAL WAS FILED. ACCORDINGLY, EFFORTS WERE MADE TO FILE THE APPEAL WHICH RESULTED IN DELAY OF FIVE DAYS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE DELAY OF FIVE DAYS BE CONDONED AS THE SAME WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND BEYOND HIS CONTROL. 3.1 CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE DELAY OF FIVE DAYS IN PREFERRING THIS APPEAL WAS CONDONED AND WE P ROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE MATTER ON MERITS. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE AS U NDER: THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS THE PROPRIETOR O F LAKSHMINARAYANA FLOUR MILLS AND ALSO A DIRECTOR OF A COMPANY, CALLED M/S. OCEAN PARK MULTITECH LIMITED, HYDERABAD. FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.4,00,635/- WHICH WAS INITIALLY PROCESSE D U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO CAME INTO POSSESSION OF AIR INF ORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.8,49,395/- IN OCE AN PARK MULTITECH LTD IN AN INDIVIDUAL STATUS. BEING QUERIED DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PAGE 3 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 3 PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT NOR THE BALANCE SHEET FURNISHED CONTAINE D PARTICULARS OF SUCH AN INVESTMENT IN THE SAID COMPANY. HOWEVER, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAD WRONGLY ISSUE D A TDS CERTIFICATE IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY INSTEAD OF HUF STATUS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN THE STATUS OF HUF EITHER, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS REJECTED AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.8,49,395/ - WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE (IN DIVIDUAL). 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE CIT (A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, I T WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX IN THE STAT US OF HUF. THE HUF OWNS CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, WHICH WERE ALLOT TED IN PARTITION. ONE OF THE SAID IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IS GIVEN AS COLLAT ERAL SECURITY AGAINST LOANS RAISED BY THE SAID COMPANY FROM A FINANCIAL INS TITUTION. ON THE VALUE OF THE LOAN OBTAINED FROM THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION , THE COMPANY HAS AGREED TO PAY CERTAIN AMOUNT AS CHARGES ON COLLATER AL SECURITY TO THE HUF, AND ALSO THE SAID CHARGES BEARS INTEREST ON THE UNPAID BALANCE AS DEPOSIT. THIS INCOME ARISING ON COLLATERAL SECURIT Y OF THE HUF PROPERTY IS ADMITTED AS INCOME IN HANDS OF THE HUF, WHICH IS BE ING ASSESSED SEPARATELY. THE TDS IS ALSO BEING MADE BY THE COMPAN Y. THE ASSESSEE IS NEITHER BOUND TO ADMIT THE SAID INCOME NOR TO CLAIM TDS IN INDIVIDUAL STATUS. EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY HAS WRONGLY ISSUED T HE TDS CERTIFICATE WITH THE PAN BELONGING TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATUS, TH E ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY ADMITTED THE INCOME IN HUF AND CLAIMED THE CORRESPO NDING PAGE 4 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 4 TDS IN HUF. THE COMPANY, HAS SUBSEQUENTLY, CORRECTLY ISSUED THE TDS CERTIFICATE WITH THE HUF PAN. HENCE, THE SAID INCO ME, WRONGLY CALLED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT REFLECT ED IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT. THE ERRONEOUS TREATMENT GIVEN TO THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN AND ADDITION BE DELETED. THE LEARNED AR HAD FURNISHED COPIES OF (A) REGISTERED PARTITION DEED DT.17.6.1999; (B) RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE HUF ON 18.12.2008 FOR AY 2006-07, DISCLOSING TH E RELEVANT INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE SAID COMPANY. SINCE NO SUCH DETAI LS/EVIDENCES MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE CIT (A) HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT ON THE BASIS OF NEW EVIDENCES PRODUCED NOW BEFORE HIM. THE AO, AFTER HAVING HEAR D THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE, FURNISHED A LENGTHY REMAND REPORT TO THE CIT (A). THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR OBJECTION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO TH E REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES CONT ENTIONS, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE REJOINDER TO THE REMAND RE PORT ETC., THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELE VANT OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) READ AS FOLLOWS:- 8.THE ROOT OF DISCORD LIES IN THE FACT TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THE MODE IN WHICH PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO M/S OCEAN FOR PLEDGING IT AS COLLATERAL SECURITY SO THAT M/S OCEAN PAID INTEREST TO APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE A O HAS STRUCK AT THE ROOT WHEN HE ASKED FOR THE COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT OR APPELLANTS HUF WITH M/S. OCEAN. THE AR STATES THAT THERE EXISTS NO SUC H AGREEMENT. NO DOUBT, THE APPELLANT IS A DIRECTOR O F M/S. OCEAN BUT HE IS DIRECTOR IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUA L. PAGE 5 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 5 THEREFORE, HE IS NOT EXPECTED TO THROW THE ALLEGED HUF PROPERTY TO M/S. OCEAN AT HIS SWEET WILL AND TO BIND THE ALLEGED HUF WITH M/S. OCEAN. FOR CONVEYING SUCH PROPERTY LEGALLY, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HUF OF SHRI K. RAGHAVENDRA AND M/S. OCE AN WHICH THE AR BLATANTLY DENIES TO EXIST AT ALL. THIN K OF A SITUATION, WHEN M/S. OCEAN GOES INTO LIQUIDATION AN D THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AUCTIONS THE PROPERTY KEPT AS COLLATERAL SECURITY WITH IT. SINCE ADMITTEDLY THERE EXISTS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HUF AND M/S. OCEAN, LEGAL BATTLE IN SUCH CASE IS DEFINITE NOT ONLY AS TO THE N ATURE OF PROPERTY AND HOW IT CAME TO THE PROCESSION OF M/S. OCEAN. THUS, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT HAS TO B E PRESUMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DELIVERED THE PROPE RTY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. PROBABLY THIS IS WHY ALSO M/S. OCEAN ISSUED THE ORIGINAL TDS CERTIFICATE ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO THE APPELLANT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACIT Y AND THE AO ALSO TAXED THE INTEREST INCOME IN THAT CAPACITY . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CLAIMS ARE MANUFACTURED AND NOT GENUINE. THE MATTERS AND PLANNING WOULD NOT HAVE SEEN THE DAY LIGHT HAD THERE BEEN NO AIR INFORMATION. SINCE ALREADY THE APPELLANT INDIVIDUAL RETURN HAD BEEN FILED AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION OF THE AIR INFORMATION, THE APPELLANT H AS TO CARVE OUT A WAY TO WRIGGLE OUT OF THE SITUATION BY INVENTING THE PLEA OF ALLEGED HUF PROPERTY GIVEN BY T HE NON-EXISTENT HUF TO M/S. OCEAN AND FILING THE RETUR N OF HUF OF SRI K.N. RAGHAVENDRA OF EARLIER YEARS EVEN IF SHOWING TAXABLE INCOME GIVEN IN THE TABULAR FORM IN THE REMAND REPORT VIDE SUPRA PARA 4 PAGE 5 OF THIS ORDE R. IT MAY BE SEEN THAT RETURNS OF AY 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 HAVE BEEN FILED IN ONE GO ON 24.6.2010 WHIL E THE RELEVANT RETURN HAS BEEN FILED ON 19.12.2008 I.E., THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THIS ASSESSMENT. BESIDES AO IN PARA 5 OF THE REMAND REPORT HAS BEAUTIFULLY AND COHERENTLY ARGUED THAT THE PARTITION REGISTERED DEED DATED 17.06.1999 WAS OF NO HELP BECAUSE IT DID NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF HUF OF SRI K N RAGHAVENDRA AT ALL. PAGE 6 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 6 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE P RESENT APPEAL. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED A R ARE SUMMED UP AS UNDER: (I) THAT BASED ON THE AIR, THE AO HAD PROPOSED TO ADD RS.8.49 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM INTEREST OTHER THAN SECURITIES. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED ADDITION, IN FACT, BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEES HUF AS IT WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. OCEAN PARK MULTITECH LIMITED AS CHARGES AGAINST THE MORTGAGE OF PROPERTIES BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEES HUF; - THAT THE INCOME OF RS.8.49 LAKHS BELONGS TO THE H UF AND IT HAS TO BE TAXED ONLY IN THE HANDS OF HUF (II) THAT THE TWO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE ENTIRE EDIFICE OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS FOUNDED: (A) THAT THE REAL INCOME ALONE SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO TAX; (B) INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED IN THE CORRECT STATUS HOWEVER, THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN GROSSLY FLOU TED BY THE AO BY TAXING THE HUF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE (INDIVIDUAL) 7.1 TO STRENGTHEN HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED A R HAD FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 58 PAGES WHICH CONSIST OF , INTER ALIA, COPIES OF (I) FORM NO.16A ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE HUF FO R THE AY 2006-07; (II) RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE HUF FOR THE AYS 2004- 05 TO 2008-09; (III) REGISTERED PARTITION DEED DATED 17.6.1999 ETC. THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS ARE RELIED UPON : CIT V. SATYENDRAKUMAR (1998) 232 ITR 360 (SC); SURJIT LAL CHHABDA V. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 776 (SC); PAGE 7 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 7 N.V.NARENDRANATH V. CWT (1969) 74 ITR 190 (SC); GOWLI BUDDANNA V. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 293 (SC); CIT V. RM. AR. AR. VEERAPPA CHETTIAR (1970) 1 SCC 1 74/(1970) 76 ITR 467 (SC); & CIT V. GETTI CHETTIAR (1971) 82 ITR 599 (SC) 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D R HAD SUPPORT ED THE ORDERS OF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF HUF OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASS ESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH AIR INFORMATION, HE CAME UP WITH THE EXPLANATI ON THAT THE INTEREST PERTAINS TO HUF PROPERTY WHICH DEVOLVED ON HIM AFTER THE PARTITION OF HIS FAMILYS JOINT PROPERTY ETC. EVEN AT THE APPELLATE ST AGE ALSO, IT WAS SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME UP WITH ANY EVI DENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY GIVEN AS COLLATERAL FOR OBTAINING LOAN WAS HUF PROPERTY. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE CI T (A) REQUIRE NO INTERVENTION OF THIS BENCH. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS ON WHIC H THE LEARNED AR HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE. 9.1 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT A PARTITION TOOK PLACE OF THE BIGGER HUF OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH A PARTITION D EED REGISTERED ON 17-6- 1999 AND THE IMPUGNED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DEVOLVED ON THE SMALLER HUF CONSISTING OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN. THE SAID HUF PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO THE COMPANY-M/S.OCEAN FOR PLEDGING THE SAME TO OBTAIN LOAN. THE COMPANY-M/S.OCEAN, IN RETURN PAID RS.8,49,395/- FOR GIVING THE PAGE 8 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 8 IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS SECURITY. THE COMPANY MISTOOK IT AS THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE-INDIVIDUAL AND DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE WRONGLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE-INDIVIDUAL. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSES SEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE COMPANY-M /S.OCEAN. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS MISTAKE WAS DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSEE- INDIVIDUAL AND HE REQUESTED FOR RECTIFICATION OF TH E TDS CERTIFICATE BY THE COMPANY-M/S.OCEAN, CAUSING DELAY IN FILING THE RETU RN OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF. IT WAS STATED THAT THE HUF WAS A REALI TY SINCE 17-6-1999 EVIDENCED BY THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED AND NOT A N AFTERTHOUGHT OR PLAN TO EVADE TAX. 9.2 ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PARTITION DEED D ATED 17.6.1999 EXECUTED AMONG THE ASSESSEE, HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS, IT HA S BEEN OBSERVED THAT THEY TOGETHER CONSTITUTED A JOINT HINDU FAMILY AND SU BSEQUENT TO THE DEATH OF THEIR MOTHER, DECIDED TO DIVIDE THE JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES REFERRED TO IN THE SAID DEED AMONG THE BROTHERS THEMSELVES AND THE IR SISTERS HAVE BEEN GIVEN CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS A FINAL SETTLEMENT. THE A SSESSEE (HUF) OWNS CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE ALLOTTED IN PARTITION. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE INCOME OF THE HUF WAS BELOW TAXABLE MINIMUM LIMIT AND, HENCE, NO RETURN WAS FILED EARLI ER; THAT IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE PROPERTY OF THE HUF WAS MORTGAGED, THE INTEREST INCOME WHICH AROSE THERE-FROM RESULTED IN THE INCOME CROSSING THE THRE SHOLD OF THE MINIMUM TAXABLE INCOME. 9.3 THE JOINT FAMILY PARTITION DEED WAS EXECUTED O N 17.6.1999 AND GOT REGISTERED BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR, RAJAJINAGAR, B ANGALORE(DOCUMENT PAGE 9 OF 10 ITA NO .76/BANG/2011 9 NO.2693/99-00). SINCE THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEE D IS MUCH PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, GENUINENESS CANNOT BE DOUBT ED. NOW, FOR ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED, THE FOLLOWING QUESTION REQUIRES TO BE ANSWERED: ON PARTITION EFFECTED IN THE YEAR 1999, THE IMPUGNE D PROPERTY WHETHER IT DEVOLVED ON THE ASSESSEE-INDIVID UAL OR THE SMALLER HUF CONSISTING OF ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE AN D CHILDREN THE ABOVE QUESTION, ACCORDING TO US, HAS NOT BEEN P ROPERLY ADDRESSED BY THE AR IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. ON PARTITION OF THE BIGGER HUF OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AUTOM ATICALLY DEVOLVES ON THE SMALLER HUF, DEPENDS UPON THE HINDU LAW WHICH B INDS THE ASSESSEE. EXISTENCE OF SMALLER HUF CONSISTING OF ASSESSEE, HI S WIFE AND CHILDREN WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. THE OB JECTION OF THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 7-7-2010 THAT PROPERTIES REFERR ED TO IN THE PARTITION DEED DATED 17-6-1999 ARE MAINLY SELF-ACQUIRED, IS WI THOUT ANY BASIS. THE SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY, IF THE SAME IS THROWN INTO C OMMON HOTCH-POT OF THE HUF, IT LOSES ITS STATUS AS A SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERT Y AND PARTAKES THE STOCK OF HUF PROPERTY. IN THE PARTITION DEED DATED 17-6-1 999, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY IS THROWN INTO COMM ON HOTCH-POT OF THE FAMILY AND TREATED AS JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY AND AS SU CH THE PROPERTIES WERE DIVIDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 9.4 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ABOVE FACTS INTO C ONSIDERATION AND IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND E QUITY, THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTIO N TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER (I) THE PARTITION TOOK PLACE OF THE BIGGER HUF OF THE FATHER OF THE PAGE 10 OF 10 ITA N O.76/BANG/2011 10 ASSESSEE THROUGH A PARTITION DEED DATED 17.6.1999 ; AND (II) THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING NO.33-35, SAURASHTRAPET, BANGALORE, AD-MEASURING 4425 SFT WITH CONSTRUCTIONS THEREON DEVOLVED ON THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE ETC., AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AFFORDED REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO : 1. THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT CONCERNE D. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF MSP/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.