ACIT, Bangalore V. M/s JSW Steel Ltd., Bellary

ITA 848/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8518 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JASON P BOAZ
• Assessee Lawyers: KANCHUN KOUSHAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Rectification of order; Revised return; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 244A; 139(5); 32; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI K.P.T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.L. KALRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.848/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 11(5), BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. M/S J S W STEEL LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JINDAL VIJAYNAGAR STEEL LTD.,), P.O. TORNAGALLU 583 123. BELLARY DISTRICT. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI JASON P. BOAZ RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KANCHUN KOUSHAL & SHRI DHANESH BAFNA O R D E R PER K.P.T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 12.6.2009. 2. GROUND NOS. 1, 7 & 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, AS S UCH IT IS NOT CALLED FOR SPECIFIC DEALING AND THEY ARE DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NOS. 2, 3 & 4 ARE IN FACT CONFINED TO ONE ISSUE AND IT IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN HOLDING TH AT THE AO WAS NOT ITA NO.848/BANG/09 PAGE 2 OF 8 EMPOWERED TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION WHICH WAS NOT C LAIMED IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MAHENDRA MILLS REPORTED IN 243 ITR 56. IT IS THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHENDRA MILLS (SUPRA) RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1974-75 PRIOR TO THE DELETION OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 34 B Y THE TAXATION LAWS (AMENDMENT AND MISC. PROVISIONS) ACT, 1986 W.E.F. 1 .4.1988 AND THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THE CONCERNED DECISION IS NOT APPLICAB LE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE AY 1999-2000. 4. FACTS LEADING TO THE DISPUTE AS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE FILED ON 30.12.99 (EXTENDED DATE) DE CLARING A TOTAL LOSS OF RS.62,34,39,507 AND CLAIMING A REFUND OF TDS OF RS.31,52,550. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FINALIZED U /S. 143(1)(A) ON 18.12.2000 AND A REFUND OF RS.28,87,583 WAS FINA LIZED OF INTEREST U/S 244A OF RS.46,953. THE REDUCTION IN R EFUND GIVEN WAS DUE TO CERTAIN DEFECTS IN TDS CERTIFICATES. BU T THE REFUND VOUCHER WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON REASONS THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTEMPLATING FILING A REVISED RETURN. ACCORDINGLY, ANOTHER RETURN CAPTIONING IT AS REV ISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 30.3.2001. IN THIS RETURN, THE ASSESSEE SHOWED AN INCOME OF RS.59,23,709 (BUT WRONGLY PRINTED AS C LAIMING A REFUND OF EXCESS TDS OF RS.10,79,252 THE REASONS F OR FILING THE RETURN (CLAIMED AS RETURN REVISED) ARE STATED IN THE NOTES AT SL.NO.10. ONE OF WHICH WAS CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER R ETURN FILED ON 30.12.1999. IN SO OPTING NOT TO CLAIM THE DEPRECIA TION, THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE CASE LAWS. A REVISED STATEM ENT OF DEPRECIATION FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND SHOWING BROU GHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1998-9 9. THE EARLIER RETURN FILED ON 30.12.1999 SHOWED THE UNABS ORBED DEPRECIATION OF ADDITIONS DURING THE YEAR WHICH ARE RS.1,87,25,57,637 AND RS.1,89,69,48,814 RESPECTIVEL Y IN THE FIRST AND SECOND RETURN FILED. THE DIFFERENCE REPRESENTS AMOUNTS SOUGHT TO BE CAPITALIZED. ITA NO.848/BANG/09 PAGE 3 OF 8 THE TWO STATEMENTS OF INCOME WITH THE RETURN SHOW THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS UNDER: RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.12.99 RETUR N OF INCOME FILED ON 30.3.2001 TOTAL INCOME RS.2,02,29,082 TOTAL INCOME RS.59, 23,709 TAX PAYABLE NIL TAX PAYABLE RS.20,73,298 REFUND CLAIM RS.31,52,550 REFUND CLAIM RS.10,7 9,252 IT LOOKS FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE BY FILIN G A SECOND RETURN OF INCOME LIMITS HIS REFUND CLAIM TO THE DIF FERENCE BETWEEN THE SAME, WHICH APPARENTLY, IT WANTS TO BE IN FAVOU R OF REVENUE. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE TWO RETURNS FILED AS ABOVE. THE SECOND RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.3.2001 IS CLAIM ED TO BE A REVISED RETURN. SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- IF ANY PERSON HAVING FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER SUB -SECTION (1), OR IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, DISCOVER ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STA TEMENT THERE IN, HE MAY FURNISH A REVISED RETURN AT ANY TIME BEF ORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS E ARLIER. THUS A REVISED RETURN CONTEMPLATE IN SEC 139(5) C OULD BE FILED FOR REASONS THAT THERE WAS A WRONG STATEMENT OR OMISSION DISCOVERED AFTER FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN. SUCH AN OMISSION IS REQUIRED TO BE AS A RESULT OF AN UNINTENTIONAL ACT WHEREAS A WRONG STATEMENT SHOULD BE NOT BE A FALSE STATEMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE OMISSION OR WRONG STATEMENT SHOULD BE A BONA FIDE I NADVERTENCE OR A MISTAKE AND IT WOULD ALSO NOT MEAN THAT EVERY INCORRECT STATEMENT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN WOULD ENABLE THE A SSESSEE TO FILE A REVISED RETURN. INSTANCE OF SUCH OMISSION OR WRONG STATEMENT W OULD BE NOT CLAIMING A BONA FIDE DEDUCTION, OR OMITTING TO INCLUDE AN INCOME PURELY UNINTENTIONAL, ETC., HERE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AS REASONS AS TO 1) WITH DRAW THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES FOR THE YEAR, ANOTHER GRANT THAT HE HAS SUCH AN OPTION. 2) SHIFTING CERTAIN INCOMES TO CAPITAL/REVENUE, THEREB Y INTENDING TO CAPITALIZE THE SAME AND ADDING THE CERTAIN ASSET S TO FORM BASIS FOR DEPRECIATION IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ITA NO.848/BANG/09 PAGE 4 OF 8 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED REVISED RET URN OF INCOME INDICATE THE FOLLOWING. A) THE ASSESSEE HAD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION RIGHT F ROM A.Y. 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 AGGREGATING TO RS.1,97,28,66,3 30 AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.12.1999, OUT OF WHICH FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 IT IS RS.61,68,68,632/-. BECAUSE OF NO P OSITIVE INCOME AVAILABLE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE CAPITAL A SSETS THAT ARE ACQUIRED, THERE COULD BE NO POSSIBILITY OF GETTING DEPRECIATION ADJUSTED IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEARS, VISUA LIZING THE REMOTE CHANCES OF GETTING THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATI ON IN THE SUCH SUBSEQUENT YEARS, IN VIEW OF THE LIMITATION OF 8 YE ARS FIXED, THE SO CALLED PLANNING DEVICE ON AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND A TAX PLANNING DEVICE. SUCH A TAX PLANNING DEVICE ON AN AFTERTHOU GHT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO ANY OMISSION OR WRONG SO LONG AS IT IS NOT A SCHEME OF AVOIDANCE OR EVASION, BUT UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F SEC 139(%0 (SIC) 139(5) SUCH A DEVICE CANNOT BE AVAILED OF. THE ASSESSEE HAS, VIDE LETTER DT. 28.3.2002 HAS RE LIED ON CONCEAL (SIC) NO.68 DT. 7.11.1971 OF THE CBDT. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS ACCEPTABLE SO FAR AS A RECTIFICATION U/S 154 IS CONCERNED IF SUCH A MISTAKE IS TAKEN AS APPARENT UP ON RECORDS CONSEQUENT TO A JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT. IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS WITH REGARDS TO THE FILING A REVI SED RETURN U/S 139(5) AND NOT A RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S 154, TH EREFORE, THE FACTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND THE CBDT CIRCULAR WILL NOT COVER THE INSTANT CASE. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO HUGE DE PRECIATION WAS VERY MUCH KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF FILING THE FIRST RETURN AND THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE AN DISC OVERY OF ANY OMISSION OR WRONG STATEMENT WHICH WAS EXISTENT NE CESSITATING A SECOND RETURN IN OTHER WORDS TAX PLANNING IS NOT AN OMISSION OR WRONG STATEMENT THAT COULD BE AVAILED U/S 139(5), I , THEREFORE IGNORE THE SO CALLED REVISED RETURN FILED ON 30.3.2 001 AND FIX THE TOTAL INCOME/LOSS AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED 30. 12.1999. 5. AMONG OTHERS, ONE OF THE CONTENTIONS TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS OPTIONAL AND AME NDMENT TO SECTION 32(5) W.E.F. 1.4.2002 DENOTES PRIOR TO SUCH INSERTION THE RE WAS NO EXPRESS PROVISION BY WHICH DEPRECIATION COULD BE FICTIONALL Y DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AND GRANTED. IN OTHER WORDS, EXPLANATION 5 ENSURED THAT IT WAS NO LONGER DISCRETIONARY BUT MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ITA NO.848/BANG/09 PAGE 5 OF 8 W.E.F. 1.4.2002. THE ASSESSEE MADE FURTHER SUBMISS IONS WHICH IS RECORDED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) VIDE PAGES 6 & 7, WHICH READS A S UNDER: F) RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON CBDT CIRCULAR NO.68 DATED NOVEMBER 16, 1971 WHEREIN THE BOARD HAD CLARIFIED T HAT UPON SUBSEQUENT INTERPRETATION OF LAW BY THE SUPREME COU RT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE TREATED AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THEREFORE, A PETITION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE U/S 154 SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS ALSO P LACED ON HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF NARAY ANA ROW (S.A.L.), CIT VS MODEL MILLS NAGPUR LTD. (64 ITR 67 ). ACCORDINGLY, A MISTAKE WHICH WAS APPARENT FROM RECO RD WOULD CONSTITUTE AN ERROR/OMISSION ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL R/I AND THEREFORE, FILING OF REVISE D R/I WAS JUSTIFIED. FURTHER, EVEN IF THE APPELLANT HAD NOT COMPUTED INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPR EME COURT, THE AO WAS OBLIGED TO COMPUTE THE TAXABLE IN COME IN ACCORDANCE WITH CORRECT PRINCIPLES OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISED R /I FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS A VALID ONE RELYING ON THE DECISI ON OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAMPUR SUGAR (90 ITR 236) WHICH HELD AS UNDER: THE EFFECTIVE RETURN FOR PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT IS THUS THE RETURN WHICH IS ULTIMATELY FILED BY AN ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE WANTS HIS INCOME TO BE ASSESSED . BUT, WHEN AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN A R IGHT TO FILE A CORRECT AND COMPLETE RETURN IF HE DISCOVERS AN ER ROR OR OMISSION IN THE RETURN FILED EARLIER. THE ASSESSME NT CAN BE COMPLETED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE CORRECT AND COMP LETE RETURN .. ONCE A REVISED RETURN IS FILED, THE ORIGINAL RE TURN MUST BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AND TO HAVE BEEN SUBST ITUTED BY A FRESH RETURN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. G) THE APPELLANT FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT WHEN AN APPELL ANT WAS ENTITLED TO PREFER A CLAIM DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS AND EVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AS REGARDS CAPITALIZATION, NON-CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N AND INTEREST RE-CLASSIFICATION WAS ABSOLUTELY TENABLE I N LAW. FURTHER, BASED ON THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL P RECEDENTS, ONCE A VALID REVISED R/I WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT , THE ORIGINAL R/I FILED BY THE APPELLANT MUST BE TAKEN A S HAVING BEEN WITHDRAWN. IN THIS CONNECTION, RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WH EN A REVISED R/I WAS FILED, IT COMPLETELY AFFECTED AND O BLITERATED ITA NO.848/BANG/09 PAGE 6 OF 8 THE ORIGINAL R/I AND THEREFORE, IT WAS ONLY THE REV ISED R/I THAT HAD TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAK ING ASSESSMENT. - SHREE VALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD. (212 ITR 433)(GUJ) - MACHINE TOOL CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (201 ITR 101)(KAR) IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT ASSERTED THAT IT HAD FILED A VALID REVISED R/I WHICH WAS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF LAW. 6. AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTS AND ARGUMENT S, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ( I) CIT VS ARUN TEXTILE C 98 CTR 117 (GUJ) (II) CIT VS SHRI SOMESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHARE KARKHAN A LTD. 177 ITR 443(BOM) (III) BECO ENGINEERING CO. LTD. VS CIT 41 CTR 249 (P&H) (IV) CCIT & ANR. VS. MACHINE TOOLS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 108 CTR 110 (KAR) (V) CIT VS SREE SENHAVALI TEXTILES (P) LTD. (183 C TR 453)(MAD) (VI) PARKSONS PRESS LTD. VS ITO (2007) 12 SOT 128 (MUM TRI) (VII) CIT VS KERALA ELECTRIC LAMP WORKS LTD. 261 IT R 721 (KER) (VIII) ITO V. ROYAL DIAM 88 TTJ 268 (SMC) (IX) RAM NATH JINDAL V. CIT 170 CTR 251 (P&H) 7. THE CIT(APPEALS) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR HOLDING THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 32 W.E.F. 1.4.2002 IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE SITUATION PRIOR TO INSERTION OF E XPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 32 WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF PARKSONS PRESS LTD. (2007) 12 SOT 128 (MUM), THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 32 TAKE S EFFECT ONLY FROM 1.4.2002 AND IN RESPECT OF THE EARLIER YEARS, THE S ITUATION COULD NOT BE THRUSTED UPON THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAD WITHDRAWN THE C LAIM BY REVISED ITA NO.848/BANG/09 PAGE 7 OF 8 RETURN. THE SAME VIEW IS EXPRESSED BY THE AHMEDABA D BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF UVIFORT METALIZERS V. DCIT 73 TTJ (MUM) 381 . IN THE CASE OF CCIT & ANR. V. MACHINE TOOLS CORPORATION OF INDIA L TD. 201 ITR 101(KAR), THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT ALLOWI NG OF DEPRECIATION IS SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 34 AND IF THE ASSESSEE CHOOSES NOT TO FURNISH PARTICULARS, IT IS NOT MANDA TORY FOR ITO TO IMPOSE THE BENEFIT. IF THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW CLAIM OF DEPREC IATION IN REVISED RETURN, ITO CANNOT ALLOW DEPRECIATION ADVERTING TO PARTICUL ARS FURNISHED IN ORIGINAL RETURN. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE GROUNDS FAIL AND ARE DISMISSED. 9. COMING TO GROUNDS 4 & 5, ACCORDING TO REVENUE, T HE CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS .18,62,545 DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE REVISED RETURN AS AGAINST RS.1,61,68,218 DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. FURTHER, THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST OF RS.1,2 5,61,464 ON MARGIN MONEY PLACED WITH BANKS FOR OPENING LETTERS OF CREDIT, FR OM THE PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES IN THE REVISED RETURN WAS ALSO NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. 10. THE FACTS HAVE BEEN NARRATED BY THE CIT(APPEALS ) VIDE PARA 2.1 OF HIS ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING LINES: IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT RAISED TH E CONTENTION THAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN REJECTING THE R EVISED R/I AND THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT CON SIDERING THE REVISED R/I FILED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN THRUSTING THE DEPRECIATION CLAI M ON THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND THAT THE ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECI ATION CLAIM BE DELETED. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT RAISED THE ISS UE THAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN TREATING INCOME OF RS.17,44,309 AS INC OME FROM ITA NO.848/BANG/09 PAGE 8 OF 8 OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME AND IN TRE ATING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.1,25,61,464/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF HOLDING IT TO BE DEDUCTIBLE FROM PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES PENDING CAPITALIZATION. THE APPELLANT PLE ADED THAT THE AO BE DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE CLASSIFICATION OF INTER EST INCOME AS DONE BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. AT THE APPELLATE ST AGE, VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 18-02-2009, THE APPELLANT S AR DID NOT PRESS THE GROUNDS RAISED AT 3(A), 3(B) & 3(C) RELAT ING TO THE TREATMENT OF INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING DEALT WITH HERE . 11. SINCE THERE IS A SPECIFIC FINDING BY THE CIT(AP PEALS) THAT AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE ABO VE ISSUES VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 18.2.2009 AND THUS THE SAME WERE NOT DEALT WITH BY HIM. HERE ALSO, THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT BY THE R EVENUE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THES E GROUNDS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (N.L. KALRA ) ( K.P.T. THANGAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2010. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. C IT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.