M/s Namdhari Seeds Pvt Ltd , Bangalore V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income TAx Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 830/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5396 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Benefit of exemption; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 14A; 12; 10; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.830-831/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 & 2012-13 NAMDHARI SEEDS PVT. LTD., SRI SAI ARCADE, NO.8, 12 TH CROSS, 1 ST PHASE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. PAN AAACN 6725 E VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. SUMAN LUNKAR, C.A REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 10-08-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-09-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEALS ARISES OUT OF SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 31/01/2018 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A)-5, BANGALORE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ON FOLLOWING GR OUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NO. 831/B/2018 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN PASSI NG THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN PARTIALLY CONFIRMING THE SAM E. THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BEING BAD IN LAW ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 2. 1 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DIS ALLOWING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S._10(1) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTE NT OF RS. PAGE 2 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 10,16,14,493.00 AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS TO BE ALLOWED AS CLAIMED FOR. 2.2 IN ANY CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED I N NOT FOLLOWING THE BINDING DIRECTIONS OF THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT AND ERRED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(1) OF THE ACT B Y THE APPELLANT. ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL DECIS ION RENDERED BY THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SAME IS TO BE GR ANTED TO THE APPELLANT. 2.3 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE/CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BEI NG TOTALLY CONTRARY TO AVAILABLE FACTS AND THE LAW APPLICABLE ARE TO BE IGNORED. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S. 234B AND INTEREST U/S. 234D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE INTEREST HAVING BEEN LEVIED ERRONEOUSLY HAS TO BE DELETED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE EXEMPTION / DE DUCTION U/S. 10(1) BE ALLOWED, RELIEF AS GRANTED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH C OURT BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT AND INTEREST LEVIED BE ALSO DELETED. ITA NO. 831/B/2018 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN PASS ING THE ORDER IN THE MANNER PASSED BY HIM AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE IMP UGNED ORDERS BEING BAD IN LAW ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 11 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DISAL LOWING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S. 10(1) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,61,47,901.00 AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS TO BE ALLOWED AS SUCH. 2.2 IN ANY CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED I N NOT FOLLOWING THE BINDING DIRECTIONS OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT AND ERRED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(1) OF THE ACT B Y THE APPELLANT. ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL DECIS ION RENDERED BY THE HOOURABLE HIGH COURT, THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SAME IS TO BE GR ANTED TO THE APPELLANT. 2.3 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS MADE/CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BEI NG TOTALLY CONTRARY TO AVAILABLE FACTS AND THE LAW APPLICABLE ARE TO BE IGNORED. 3.1 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN MAKI NG DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO THE EXTEN T OF RS. 44,33,206.00 AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 3.2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLAN T. THE DISALLOWANCE AS PAGE 3 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 MADE BY APPLYING PROVISION OF SECTION 14ABEING ERRO NEOUS IS TO BE DELETED. 3.3 IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE DISALLOWA NCE IS EXCESSIVE. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S. 234B AND INTEREST U/S. 234D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE INTEREST HAVING BEEN LEVIED ERRONEOUSLY HAS TO BE DELETED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE SUITABLE EXEMPTIO N / DEDUCTION U/S. 10(1) BE ALLOWED AND DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A OF I.T. AC T, 1961 BE DELETED AND CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF AS GRANTED BY THE HONOURAB LE HIGH COURT BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT AND INTEREST LEVIED BE DEL ETED. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CULTIVATION, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HYBRID SEEDS. IT EARNS REVENUE FRO M FOLLOWING 3 KINDS OF ACTIVITIES: 1. GROWING, PROCESSING AND SALE OF SEEDS FROM OWNED LA NDS AND LEASED LANDS; 2. GROWING, PROCESSING AND SALE OF SEEDS FROM CONTRACT FARMING AND 3. PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMPORTED SEEDS PURCHASED FROM THE MARKET. 2.1 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, IDENTI CAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. SHE SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT FOR THE QUA NTUM OF DISALLOWANCE, FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SAME AN D THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(1) WAS T HE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL , WHICH TRAVELLED TILL HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND PENDING BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AT THE BEHEST OF ASSESSEE. SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE FACTS NARRATED BY COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL BY ORDER DATED PAGE 4 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 29/10/2018 IN ITA NO.1949/BANG/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE ARE REPRODU CING THE FACTS NARRATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AS UNDER: AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NECESSARY TO RECORD THE BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH IS AS UNDER: 1. LD.AO PASSED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 29/03/2004 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.3,84,13,288/- BY DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM CONTRACT FARMING. LD.AO ALSO DISALLOWED PROVISION FOR GUARANTEE AMOUNTING TO RS.16,21,8/-. RELEVANT ORDER PLACED AT PAGE 21-36 OF APPEAL MEMO 2. AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD.AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) DISPUTED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD.AO IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,84,13,288/-. LD.CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. RELEVANT ORDER IS PLACED AT PAGE 92-96 OF PAPER BOOK FILED ON 10/07/2019. 3. REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEES OBSERVED THAT 10% OF THE SAID INCOME IS ONLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE 90% AMOUNTS TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS TRIBUNAL THUS RESTRICT ED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF RS.3,84,13,288/- IN ITS ORDER DATED 14/07/2006. RELEVANT ORDER IS PLACED PAGE 5 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 AT PAGE 99 TO 133 OF PAPER BOOK FILED ON 10/07/2019. 4. REVENUE AND ASSESSEE FURTHER CARRIED THE ISSUE BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT. REVENUE ALLEGED TREATMENT OF RS.3,84,13,288/- BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE QUESTION RAISED BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT BY REVENUE WAS AS UNDER: WHETHER THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WERE CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE BY TRADING IN IMPORTED SEEDS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON LAND TAKEN ON LEASE AND CONTRACT FARMING CONSIDERED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10 (1) OF THE ACT 5. HONBLE HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 75/2007 (BEING REVENUES APPEAL) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 HAS SUMMED UP THE ISSUE ALLEGED IN PARA 3-6 OF ITS ORDE R AT PAGE 198 OF PAPER BOOK. HONBLE COURT FRAMED THE QUESTION OF LAW TO BE ANSWERED AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT INCOME DERIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MANUFACTURING OF SEEDS AND SALE OF THE SAME WOULD AMOUNT TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WOULD BE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10 (1) OF THE ACT? PAGE 6 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 2. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE HAD AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 79-A OF KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT? 6. IN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO. 284/2007 FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW WAS ADMITTED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT: WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAVING HELD THAT HYBRID SEEDS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WAS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND INCOME THERE FROM THESE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN HOLDING THE PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION OF HYBRID SEEDS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO MAKE IT MARKETABLE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE A PROCESS ORIGINALLY EMPLOYED BY THE CULTIVATOR AND TO THAT EXTENT THE INCOME DERIVED COULD NOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2 (1A) OF THE ACT? 7. HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE 1 ST QUESTION IN REVENUES APPEAL AND THE QUESTION ADMITTED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL OPINED THAT, ENTIRE AMOUNT EARNED BY ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAID SUM AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD PAGE 7 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 BUSINESS INCOME. CATEGORICAL OBSERVATION BY HONBLE HIGH COURT IS IN PARA 58 AT PAGE 280 OF PAPER BOOK. 2.2 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 TO 2004-05 REPORTE D IN (2012) 341 ITR 342 HAD HELD THAT CONTRACT FARMING D ONE BY ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME A ND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER S ECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF REVENUE GENERATED FROM CON TRACT FARMING. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REPRODUCE P ARA 58 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY ORDERABLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THIS REGARDS: 58. THEREFORE THE VIEW OF THE 1 ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE OPERATIONS UP TO CONVERSION OF THE FOUNDATION SEED AS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CONDUCTE D BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THEREFORE INCOME DESERVES TO BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS. SIMILARLY EXEMPTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNA L FOR 90% OF THE INCOME IS ALSO ERRONEOUS. WE OPINE THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING 10% OF THE INCOM E AS BUSINESS INCOME WHICH INVOLVED IN PROCESSING FOUNDA TION SEEDS TO CERTIFIED SEEDS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTE R, WE HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME AMOUNTS TO BUSINESS INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE TOTAL INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME. .. 2.3 ADVERTING TO THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE MADE CATEGORICAL OBS ERVATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY DETAILS REGARDING ABO UT THE REVENUE GENERATED OUT OF EACH STREAMS OF LAND. ADMI TTEDLY, PAGE 8 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 ASSESSEE STILL CARRIES OUT THE ACTIVITIES UNDER THE SAME 3 CATEGORIES, AS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS BY HONBLE HIGH COURT . THE ONLY INCOME UPHELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT TO BE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, IS THE REVENUE GENER ATED FROM CONTRACT FARMING. 2.4 WE NOTE THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REMANDED TO THE LD. AO FOR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR CATEGORISING T HE INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE UNDER THE 3 CATEGORIES. FOR THAT ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE THE BIFURCATION OF INCOME GENERATE D FROM GROWING, PROCESSING AND SALE OF SEEDS FROM OWNED AN D LEASED LANDS AS WELL AS CONTRACT LANDS. THE LD. AO IS THEN DIRECTED TO DISALLOW OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10 (1) IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME EARNED FROM GROWING, PROCESSI NG AND SALE OF SEEDS FROM CONTRACT LANDS AS PER THE OBSERV ATIONS OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA)IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE REMAND GROUNDS 2.1-2.2 AND 4 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AND GROUND 2.1, 2 .2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 BACK TO THE LD.AO FOR RECOM PUTING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10(1), KEEPING IN VI EW THE RATIO OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE 2.5 WE NOTE THAT GROUND NO.3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 11- 12 IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO. 3.1-3.2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3: PAGE 9 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 3.1 THE ASSESSEE RAISED ISSUE IN RESPECT OF DISALLO WANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D(III) OF THE ACT . IT IS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION ASSESSEE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.9,20,744/-. A SSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF THE DIVIDEND EARNED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE LD.AO ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE V ALUE OF INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 3.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.AO, ASSESSEE PREFE RRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 3.3 THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD ORDER OF THE LD.AO BY OBSE RVING THAT, ASSESSEE DID NOT DETERMINE ANY EXPENDITURE AG AINST THE DIVIDEND INCOME FROM THE INVESTMENT, AND THAT THE I NVESTMENT WAS EARNED ON SHARE FROM A SIGNIFICANT SHARE OF THE TOTAL ASSET OF ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3.4 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, THE DISALL OWANCE TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY A SSESSEE AS THESE INVESTMENTS ARE OLD INVESTMENTS AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY FRESH INVESTMENTS DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. 3.5 ON THE CONTRARY THE LD.CIT.DR PLACED RELIANCE O N OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3.6 WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 3.7 WE NOTE THAT NO SUO MOTO DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME. IT I S ALSO PAGE 10 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY FRESH INVE STMENTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT HAS YIELDE D ANY DIVIDEND INCOME. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D SH ALL NOT EXCEED EXEMPT INCOME EARNED FOR THE YEAR. THIS PRIN CIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2015) 378 ITR 33 , WHERE IT WAS CLEARLY HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NDITURE U/S 14A SHALL NOT EXCEED EXEMPT INCOME EARNED FOR THE Y EAR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME WE DIRECT THE LD. A O TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8 D TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS P ARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPT, 2021 SD/- SD/- (B.R BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 23 RD SEPT, 2021. /VMS/ PAGE 11 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE PAGE 12 OF 12 ITA NO.830 & 831/BANG/2018 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -9-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -9-2021 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -9-2021 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -9-2021 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -9-2021 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -9-2021 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -9-2021 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS