M/s. Dell Intenational Services India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru V. Additonal Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, Bengaluru

ITA 777/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1920 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PREMI
• Assessee Lawyers: T SURYANARAYAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Assessment record; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 250; 191; 13

Judgement Text

ITA NO.777(B)/2018 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : C, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT.BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER IT(TP)A NO.777(BANG)/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09) M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT.LTD., DIVYASHREE GREENS, SY.NOS.12/1, 12/2 A ,13/1A, CHALAGHATTA VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 0 7 1 PAN NO.AABCS8847D APPELLANT VS THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. SURYANARAYAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SMT. R.PREMI, J CIT DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 09 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 10 - 2019 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : P RESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 28/11/17 PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) - 5, BANGALORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO.777(B)/2018 2 I CORPORATE TAX 1. ORDER BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIT, LTU, UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 5, UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, ARE BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY - RS. 189,686,000 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 189,686,000 WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY COGENT REASONS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING THE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT I N THIS REGARD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ('ITAT') FOR AY 2002 - 03, AY 2003 - 04 AND AY 2005 - 06 IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE ORD ER PASSED BY HIS OFFICE FOR AY 2012 - 13 IN THE APPELLANT'S OWN CASE. 3. DISALLOWANCE OF PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES RS.30,584,000 THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('AO') HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING THE PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,584,000 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE AS CAPITAL IN NATURE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AFORESAID EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR EXPANDING EXISTING BUSINESS AND THAT THERE IS NO DIVERSIFICATION OF BUSINESS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE LEARNED AO OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FAC T THAT THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE ANY NEW ASSET OR ADVANTAGE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONTENDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THE VERACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE SAID EXPENDITURE, WITHOUT PROVIDI NG ANY COGENT REASONS. ITA NO.777(B)/2018 3 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, RESCIND AND MODIFY THE GROUNDS PROVIDED HEREIN ABOVE OR PRODUCE FURTHER DOCUMENTS, FACTS AND EVIDENCE BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. FOR THE ABOVE AND ANY OTHER GROU NDS WHICH MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT NECESSARY RELIEF MAY BE PROVIDED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : A SSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INCLUDING PROVIDING SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 28/09/08 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) OF THE A CT AND NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143 (2) AND QUESTIONNAIRE ALONG WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO STATUTORY NOTICES, REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE LD. AO AND FILED REQUISITE DET AILS. 2.1 LD. AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AMOUNTING TO RS.38,33,00,000/ - . ASSESSEE PROVIDED BREAKUP OF PROVISION TO LD. A SSESSING O FFICER WHEREIN IT HAD ADDED BACK SUM OF RS.99,93,17, 000/ - BEING PROVISION MADE DURING THE YEAR. 2 .2 LD. AO HOWEVER NOT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY ASSESSEE DISALLOWED CLAIM. 2.3 LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES AS REV ENUE , AMOUNTING TO RS.3,05, 84, 0 00/ - WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY LD. AO BY HOLDING IT TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE , AS ACCORDING TO LD. AO THESE WERE PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES AND NEEDED TO BE CAPITALI Z ED. ITA NO.777(B)/2018 4 CORY 2.4 LD.AO DISALLOWED FOREIGN EX CHANGE LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,44,66, 000/ - AS ASSESSEE HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THE SAME. 3. AGGRIEVED BY ADDITIONS MAD E BY L D. AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A ), WHO PARTLY ALLOWED CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ADD ITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED V IDE APPLICATION DATED 31/07/19 BEFO RE THIS T RIBUNAL REGARDING ALTERNATE GROUND FOR NON - GRANT OF DEPRECIATION ON DISALLOWANCE OF EXCHANGE LOSS PERTAINING TO CAPITAL GOODS. ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT, RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ADMISSION BEFORE YOUR HONOURS: CORPORATE TAX GROUND NO. 4 - NON - GRANT OF DEPRECIATION ON DISALLOWANCE OF EXCHANGE LOSS PERTA INING TO CAPITAL GOODS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ('AO') HAS ERRED IN NOT GRANTING APPROPRIATE DEPRECIATION ON DISALLOWANCE OF EXCHANGE LOSS PERTAINING TO CAPITAL ITEMS. ME SAID GROUND IS INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL PR EFERRED BY THE APPELLANT. S UBSTITUTE OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL, AT ANY T IME BEFORE OR AT, THE TIME OF HEARING, OF THE APPEAL, SO AS TO ITA NO.777(B)/2018 5 ENABLE THE HONORABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL ACCORDING TO LAW. THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE A MANAGING DIRECTOR AND HENCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . 5.1. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND WAS INAD VERTENTLY NOT RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT ( A) AND HENCE ASSESSEE WISHES 2 RAISES ISSUE BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE EMANATES FROM THE RECORDS AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED. LD.AR PLACED RELIANCE UPON DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS CIT AN D NTPC LTD., VS CIT REPORTED IN 53 TAXMANN 85 & 229 ITR 383 RESPECTIVELY. LD. DR THOUGH , OPPOSED ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT THE SAME EMANATES FROM ASSESSMENT RECORDS RECORDS. 5.2 WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS CLAIMED AMOUNTING TO RS.2,44,66,000/ - ,. LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SUM OF RS.2,34,42,910/ - PERTAINS TO FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS ON RESTATEMENT/SETTLEMENT OF C REDITORS FOR REVENUE ITEMS AND BALANCE IS CAPITAL IN NATURE. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT LD.AO DISALLOWED FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,34,42,910/ - ON ACCOUNT OF REVENUE TRANSACTION BY CONTENDING THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH CLAIM OF LOSS. LD.CIT (A) WHILE CONSIDERING ISSUE OBSERVED TH AT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN FINDING THAT EXCHANGE LOSS DUE TO ITA NO.777(B)/2018 6 CREATION OF CAPITAL GOODS AMOUNTS TO RS.10,23,09,000/ - WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD BASED UPON REMAND REPORT , THAT LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,34,42,910/ - ONLY COULD BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED. ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE APPEAL HAS NOT RAISED ANY CLAIM REGARDING DEPRECIATION ON FOREX LOSS DISALLOWED AMOUNTING TO RS.10,23,090/ - BY THE LD.CIT(A). AS T HIS ISSUE EMANATES FROM THE RECORDS AND FORMS PART OF ISSUE CONSIDERED BY LD.CIT (A), WE A RE ADMITTING THE GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE VIDE APPLICATION DATED 31/07/19 STANDS ADMITTED. 6. GROUND NO. 1 IS IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY AMOUNTING TO RS.18,96,86,000/ - . 6.1 LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE MADE PROVISION FOR WARRANTY EXPENDITURE ON A SCIENTIFIC BASIS IN RESPECT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND OTHER PEREFERRALS SOLD AND WHICH ARE UNDER THE WARRANTY PERIOD AS ON 31/03/08. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT FOR PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING WARRANTY PROVISION MODEL FOR ASCERTAINING WARRANTY COST TAKES INTO ACCOUNT , ONLY THO SE UNITS IN RESPECT OF WHICH WARRANTY PERIOD HAS NOT EXPI RED AS ON D ATE OF ESTIMATING THE PROVISION . H E SUBMITTED THAT PROVISION FOR WARRANTY IS ALWAYS MADE BY ASSESSEE ON NET BASIS AND NOT ON GROSS BASIS. HE THUS EMPHASIZ ED THAT ADDITIONAL PROVISION REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR NEWLY SOLD UNITS WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GET NET OF WITH UNAVAILED PROVISION ON UNITS IN RESPECT OF WHICH WARRANTY P ERIOD EXPIRED ITA NO.777(B)/2018 7 DURING THE YEAR. THUS IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT NO SEPARATE REVERSAL OF UNAVAILED PROVISION IN RESPECT OF UNITS FOR WHICH WARRANTY PERIOD AUTOMATICALLY GET ADJUSTED A GAINST ADDITIONAL PROVISION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, IN RESPECT OF NEWLY SOLD UNITS DURING THE YEAR. REFERRING TO PAGE 191 AND NOT E 16 AT PAGE 221 OF PAPER BOOK, HE SUBMITTED THAT, ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ENTIRE CLOSING BALANCE AS EXPENSE DURING THE SAID P ERIOD AND TOTAL DEBIT TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY WAS ONLY AMOUNTING TO RS.18,96,86,000/ - . LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6.2 WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS B EEN CONSISTENTLY ARISING IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IN ITA NO. 85/B/2014 AND CO NO. 21/B/2016 HE SUBMITTED THAT SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVISION FOR WARRANTY HA S NOT CHANGED. WE HAVE PERUSED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A TABLE WHICH SH OWS THE ACTUAL PROVISION MADE DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTS TO RS.99,93,17, 000/ - WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED TO OPENING BAL A NCE FROM WHICH A SUM OF RS. 88,14,99, 000/ - HAS BEEN WRITTEN BACK DURING THE YEAR BEING UTILISED. THE CONSISTENT METHOD FOLLOWED BY ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS T RIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 13/10/17 ANALYSED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF EST IMATING LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF WARR ANTY CLAIMS. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT PARITY OF BASIS OF PROVISION F OR WARRANTY IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ITA NO.777(B)/2018 8 SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO. 3 IS IN RESPECT OF PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES BEING DISALLOWED AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,05, 84, 000/ - . IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD.AR THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE PRODUCT AND PROVIDING PRE - SALES AND POST - SALES SERVICES FOR MANY YEARS IN INDIA. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS A PART OF EXPANSION PLAN OF EXISTING BUSINESS , IN SALE OF INFORM ATION TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE PRODUCT DU RING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 , ASSESSEE DECIDED TO SET UP NEW FACILITY/PROJECT TO ASSEMBLE/MANUFACTURE COMPUTER SYSTEM AND COMPUTER SYSTEM RELATED PERIPHERALS. H E SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO DIVERSIFICATION OF BUSINESS , B UT IT WAS ONLY AN EXPANSION OF EXISTING BUSINESS AND COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND CUSTOM COMPUT ER SYSTEMS RELATED PERIPHERALS. I T HAS BEEN S UBMITTED THAT A S SESSEE INCURRED ADMINIST RATIVE EXPENSES LIKE SALARY, WAGES AND CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND , REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE , COMMUNICATION AND CONVEYANCE , AS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND DISCLOSED IN THE NOTES OF ACCOUNT , THUS PRE - OPERATIVE EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . H E ALSO EMPHASI Z ED THAT IN NOTES TO ACCOUNT AT PAGE 221 OF PAPER BOOK IT HAS BEEN INDICATED THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE IDEN TIFIED IN NATURE OF REVENUE EXPENSES AS A PART OF CONTINUATION OF SAME BUSINESS. ITA NO.777(B)/2018 9 7.1 LD. AR THUS SUBMITTED THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THESE WER E PREOPERATIVE EXPENSES BEING CAPITAL IN NATURE RELATED TO NEW BUSINESS. 7.2 LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED B Y BOTH SIDES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIAN CE UPON DECISIONS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS R ELIANCE S UPPLY C HAIN S OLUTIONS IN ITA NO. 892 OF 2014 AND 948 OF 2014 , WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 05/07/17 HONBLE COURT HELD THAT, EXPENSES THAT ARE IDENTIFIABLE AS DIRECTLY LINKED TO OPERATI ONS AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING BUSINESS, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE CAPITAL IN NATURE. LD.AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN (2008) 166 TAXMANN 115 , WHEREIN HONBLE COURT OBS ERVED THAT WHEN A NEW VENTURE WAS MANAGED FROM COMMON FUNDS WITH A UNITY OF CONTROL, LEADING TO AN INTERCONNECTION, INTERDEPENDENCE AND INTERLACING OF 2 VENTURES, THEN, IN SUCH A CASE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SUCH PROJECT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 8.1 IN FACTS OF PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTE D THAT A SSESSEE EXPANDED ITS BUSINESS BY PROVIDING FACILITY OF ASSEMBLING COMPUTER SYSTEM AND COMPUTER SYSTEM RELATED PERIPHERALS TO ITS CLIENTS , WHICH WAS MANAGED FROM COMMON FUNDS . ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY WAS IN SALE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE PRODUCTS AND THEREFORE , SUCH EXPANSION CANNOT BE TREATED AS A NEW SET UP , RATHER IT IS MERE CONTINUATION OF EXISTING BUSINESS AND THEREFORE , EXPENDITURE ITA NO.777(B)/2018 10 INCU RRED TOWARDS SUCH EXPANSION CANNOT BE TR EATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. RESPECTFULLY , FOLLOWING RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT CITED HEREINABOVE , WE DELETE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD.CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 8.2 ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY ASSE SSEE: A SSESSEE RAISED GROUND RELATING TO NOT PROVIDING OF DEPRECIATION ON FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS PERTAINING TO CAPITAL ITEMS. AS QUANTUM OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS PERTAINING TO CAPITALI Z ED GOODS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW TO BE RS. 10,23,09,000/ - , LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO BE GRANTED DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME. HAS THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD.AO, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED B Y ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO LD.A O WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. ACCORDINGLY , THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 - 10 - 2019 SD/ - SD/ - (B.R.BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 - 10 - 2019 *AM ITA NO.777(B)/2018 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5. DR 6. ITO (TDS) 7.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST.REGISTRAR