M/s Prestige Garden Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

ITA 806/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0351 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINDHA
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.806/BANG/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) M/S. PRESTIGE GARDEN CONSTRUCTIONS P. LTD, THE FALCON HOUSE NO.1, MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD, OFF INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 .. APPELL ANT PAN : AABCP2901E V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5(1)(2), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. PADAMCHAND KHINDHA, CA REVENUE BY : DR. SIBICHEN K. MATHEW, CIT HEARD ON : 25.05.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.06.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE ASSAILS AN ORDER, DT .23.03.2015, PASSED BY THE PR. CIT, U/S.263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT). GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER : ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 2 1.1 THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE 5, BANGALORE HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT INCOME / LOSS FROM BUSINESS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FORUM VALUE MALL, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY.' 1.2 THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, BANGALORE 5, BANGALORE HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATIN G THAT (A) IN THE INSTANT CASE LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH PROVISION OF OTHER SERVICES, AMENITIES A ND FACILITIES CONSTITUTED THE BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY T HE ASSESSEE; (B) THERE WAS A COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF THE PROPERTY IN DISTINCTION TO MERE LETTING OUT, LEADING TO THE INCOME BEING CHARACTERIZED AS BUSINESS INCOME. 1.3 THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPA L COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE 5, BANGALORE IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON BOTH FACTS AND LAW. 1.4 ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND LAW APPLICABLE, INCOME / LOSS FROM THE BUSINESS OF OPER ATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FORUM VALUE MALL, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS' AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME AND AS ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2.1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE 5, BANGALORE, HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 3 2.2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND LAW APPLICABLE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCI PAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE 5, BANGALORE IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE 5, BANGALORE UNDER SECTION 263 BE QUASHED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE INCOME /LOSS F ROM THE BUSINESS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FORUM VALU E MALL, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE BE HELD AS ASSESSABLE U NDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS'. 02. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE DOING THE BUSIN ESS OF REAL ESTATE AND COMMERCIAL SPACE HAD FILED RETURN OF INC OME ON 14.10.2010, DECLARING BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.19,00,83, 981/-. NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE O N 27.09.2011 AND THIS WAS RESPONDED TO BY THE ASSESSEE. REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO. AO STATES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE HAD FURNISHED RELEVAN T DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE LOSS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 03. ON 05.03.2015, NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT, WAS I SSUED TO THE ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 4 ASSESSEE BY THE PR. CIT. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSE E HAD ADMITTED INCOME FROM RENTALS UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAI NS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, WHEREAS THE PROPER HEAD WAS INCOME FR OM HOUSE PROPERTY. BY CONSIDERING THE RECEIPT OF BUSINESS INCOME, ASSESSEE, IN THE OPINION OF PR. CIT, HAD CLAIMED HUGE DEPREC IATION AND CONSEQUENT LOSS. AS PER THE PR. CIT, ACCEPTANCE OF THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. TO THE ABOVE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY STATING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS LET OUT ALONG WITH SE RVICES AND AMENITIES. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, INCOME RECEIVED FR OM LETTING OUT THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY PROVISION OF SERVICE AMENITIES AND FACILITIES WOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM TRADING OPERATION AND NOT FROM EXERCISE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. 04. HOWEVER THE PR. CIT WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE AB OVE REPLY. ACCORDING TO HIM, BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENT P. LTD, V. CIT [263 ITR 143], A PROPERTY ONCE LET OUT, WHETHER IT WAS FURNI SHED OR UNFURNISHED, IF THE INTENTION WAS TO RECEIVE RENTAL INCOME THEN SUCH INCOME WOULD BE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME F ROM HOUSE ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 5 PROPERTY. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE AO WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST S OF REVENUE. AS PER THE PR. CIT, ASSESSEES INCOME HAD TO BE ASSESS ED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. HE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO DO THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFT ER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 05. AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS NOW B EFORE US IN APPEAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD ISSUED A NOTIC E DT.24.12.2012, U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT, PLACED AT PAGE 25 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. ACCORDING TO HIM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING BREAK -UP OF RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, PARTY-WISE BREAK U P OF THE LEASE DEPOSITS, DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND DETAI LS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE RAISED. AS PER THE LD. AR, THROUGH ITS REPLY PLACED AT PAGE 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN AL L THE ABOVE DETAILS INCLUDING SAMPLE LEASE DEEDS. FURTHER AS P ER THE LD. AR, SAMPLE LEASE DEEDS, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACE D AT PAPER BOOK-II, PAGES 1 TO 266, CLEARLY PROVED THAT IT W AS AN INSEPARABLE RENTING OF THE PROPERTY AND FACILITIES. SPECIFICAL LY PLACING RELIANCE ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 6 ON PAPER BOOK PAGE 45, VIZ., SCHEDULE 3 TO THE LEAS E AGREEMENTS, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT FASTENED ON THE ASSESSEE, DUTY TO PROVIDE HOUSE-KEEPING, MAINTENANCE, CLEANING, MAINTENANCE O F SEWERAGE, MANAGEMENT OF SECURITY SERVICES, AIR-CONDITIONING, PROVISION OF ELECTRICITY TO COMMON AREAS, PEST CONTROL AND EVEN POWER BACK-UP. ACCORDING TO HIM THESE WERE INSEPARABLE FROM THE CO NTRACT OF RENTING OUT OF THE PREMISES. LEASE WAS A COMPOSITE ONE. AS PER THE LD. AR, AO WAS VERY WELL AWARE OF THIS POSITION. I T WAS AFTER VERIFYING THE LEASE DEEDS, THAT THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION REGARDING THE NATURE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES INCOM E WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AN D NOT INCOME FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THUS AS PER THE LD. AR, AO HAVING TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW WHICH WAS A LAWFUL ONE , PR.CIT COULD NOT INVOKE THE POWERS VESTED ON HIM U/S.263 OF THE ACT. AO HAD CARRIED OUT ENQUIRIES, HE HAD RECEIVED REPLIES, AN D HE HAD CONSIDERED SUCH REPLIES. THEREAFTER HE HAD PASSED SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE LD. AR, T HERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER MUCH LESS ANY ORDER WHICH CAUSED PREJU DICE IN THE ORDER OF THE AO. LD. AR PLACED SPECIFIC RELIANCE O N ONE JUDGMENT ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 7 OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD [ITA.119/2014, DT.03.06.2014]. AS PER THE LD. AR IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT RENTAL INCOME BASED ON LEASE DEEDS, THROUGH WHICH FACILITI ES WERE ALSO TO BE PROVIDED TO THE LESSOR, WHERE SUCH FACILITIES WE RE INSEPARABLE WOULD FALL ONLY UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS F ROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. AS PER THE LD. AR ASSESSEE IN THE ABO VE CASE WAS A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE HERE AND THE SAID DE CISION WAS ALSO RELATED TO RENTING OUT A SIMILAR MALL CALLED FORUM MALL AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE HERE. THUS ACCORDING TO HIM, VIEW TAKEN B Y THE AO WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND LAWFUL. 06. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF P RESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE ASSESS EE WAS CLEARLY DIFFERENT, SINCE PRESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD WAS A CTING THROUGH AN AGENT. ON THE OTHER HAND ASSESSEE HERE HAD DIRECTL Y LEASED OUT THE AREAS TO VARIOUS TENANTS. ACCORDING TO HIM, JUDGME NT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBU INVESTMENTS P. LTD (SUPRA) CLEARLY APPLIED. FACILITIES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESS EE WERE BASIC ESSENTIAL FACILITIES THAT WAS SINE QUA NON FOR RENT ING OUT THE ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 8 PROPERTY. AS PER THE LD. DR THERE WAS NOTHING SPEC IAL IN PROVIDING SUCH SERVICES AND THE AO HAD TAKEN A PATENTLY UNLAW FUL VIEW. AS PER THE LD. DR AO HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AND NEVE R MADE ENQUIRIES THOUGH HE HAD RECEIVED THE COPIES OF THE LEASE DEEDS FROM THE ASSESSEE. ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY, RENDERED THE ORD ER OF THE AO ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVEN UE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD [(2015) 266 IT R 685], THAT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KEYARAM HOTELS LTD V. DCIT [ 373 ITR 494], THAT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAITHAN INTERNATIONAL [375 ITR 123] AND THAT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ACTIVE TR ADERS P. LTD [214 ITR 583]. 07. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIALS AND HEARD THE RIV AL CONTENTIONS. NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO DURING THE CO URSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAPER BOO K PAGE 25 AND 26. PAGE 26 BRINGS OUT THE DETAILS THAT WERE CALLE D FROM THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS EXTRACTED BELOW FOR BREVITY : ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 9 08. ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A REPLY TO THE ABOVE AND FIL ED COPIES OF THE LEASE DEEDS. A PERUSAL OF ONE OF THE LEASE DEE DS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 1 TO 15 DOES SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAD TO G IVE A NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES TO THE LESSEES WHICH INCLUD ED THE FOLLOWING : ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 10 ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 11 09. RENT PAYABLE BY THE LESSEES IS GIVEN IN SCHEDUL E 2 OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH READS AS UNDER : ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 12 10. THERE IS NO BREAK-UP OF THE RENT BETWEEN FACILI TIES AND SHOP AREA RENTED OUT. OBVIOUSLY THE LEASE DEEDS WERE COMPOSI TE. NO DOUBT CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING H ONBLE APEX COURT IS THAT AN ASSESSEE, EVEN IF IT WAS IN THE BUSINESS O F REAL ESTATE, INCOME EARNED FROM LETTING OUT OF PROPERTY WAS TO BE ASSESSED UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE IS WH ERE LETTING OF THE BUILDING WAS INSEPARABLE FROM LETTING OF THE PLANT, MACHINERY AND FURNITURE IN WHICH CASE CIRCUMSTANCE ALONE, IT COULD BE TREAT ED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THIS POSITION OF LAW HAS BEEN CLEARLY EN UNCIATED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KEYARAM HOTELS (SU PRA), AFTER CONSIDERING ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD, (SUPRA). AO WAS AWARE THAT ASSESS EE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND LEASING OF COMMERCIA L SPACE. THIS ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 13 MENTIONED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REVISI ONARY PROCEEDINGS. SO IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE AO HAD NOT MADE ENQUIRIES. HE WAS AWARE THAT ASSESSEE WAS INTO REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND LEASI NG OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE COPIES OF LEASE DEEDS , SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING THE TYPES OF SERVICES TO BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AO THEREAFTER ASSESSED THES INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE CONSIDERED UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. WE CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS AN ILLEGA L OR UNLAWFUL VIEW WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 11. THE QUESTION WHETHER RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED F ROM A MALL SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR HOUSE PROPERTY H AD COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P RESTIGE ESTATE PROJECTS LTD, (SUPRA). SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW RAISED B EFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FRO M FORUM MALL. EVA MALL AND UB CITY SHOULD BE TREATED AS 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' AN D NOT AS 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' DESPITE A SPECIFIC AGREEMENT B ETWEEN THE LANDLORD AND TENANT CONTEMPLATING A LANDLORD TENANT RELATION SHIP AND RENTAL INCOME BEING PAID EVERY MONTH AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SHAMBHU INVESTMENTS (263 ITR 143)? ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 14 12. THEIR LORDSHIP HAD FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VELANKANI INFORMATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD [(2013) 218 T AXMAN 88], AND HELD THAT WHEN THE INTENTION WAS TO CARRY ON THE BUSINES S OF LETTING OUT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND COMPLEX COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY RESULTING IN RENTAL INCOME, THEN SUCH RENTAL INCOME WOULD FALL UNDER TH E HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OF PROFESSION. THUS WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO WAS ONE WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER LAW. 13. COMING TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAITHAN INTERNATIONAL (SUPRA), RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR, QUESTION THERE WAS WHETHER THERE WAS INADEQUATE ENQUIRY WHICH LED THE AO TO ASSUME INCORRECT FACTS THAT RENDERED THE ORDER ERRONEOUS A ND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW HERE AS TO WHAT FACT WAS ERRONEOUSLY ASSUMED BY THE AO DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 14. AS FOR THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ACTIVE TRADE RS P. LTD (SUPRA), THE QUESTION THERE WAS WHETHER AO HAD FAILED TO ENQUIRE ON THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. FACTS WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IN THE SAID CASE. ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 15 15. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO DID NOT SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR SINCE HE HAD TAKEN A VIEW WHI CH WAS A POSSIBLE AND LAWFUL ONE. MAY BE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO WAS DE BATABLE BUT IT WOULD NOT RENDER THE ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF PR . CIT. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER 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 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA.806/BANG/2015 PAGE - 16