ITO, Bangalore V. M/s Shashi Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 930/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 93021114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ETWA MUNDA
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 194C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.930/BANG/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(2), BANGALORE. . APPELLANT. VS. M/S. SHASHI DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD., NO.501/A/4, 9 TH MILE STONE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076 .. RESPO NDENT. PAN AAJCS 0724P APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. SRIDHAR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ETWA MUNDA. DATE OF HEARING : 3.9.2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7.9.2012. O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P. BOAZ : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, BANGALORE DT.12.7.2011 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE AS UNDER : 2.1 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S ASSESSEE) ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF IMFL PRODUCTS FILED ITS RETURN OF IN COME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 30.10.2007 DECLARING NIL INCOME AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS AGAINST CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.64,25,253 UNDER NORMAL P ROVISIONS AND A BOOK PROFIT OF RS.6,16,081 UNDER SECTION 115J OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS 2 ITA NO.930/BANG/11 'THE ACT'). THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UND ER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U NDER SECTION 143(2). THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE CASE COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT BY AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 10.12.2009 DETERMINING THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,25,63,930 AFTER SETTING OFF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.87,3 8,824. THE ISSUE INVOLVED RELATED TO THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,48,31,501 BY THE ASSESSEE TOWAR DS THE PROCUREMENT OF PRINTED LABELS, PRINTED CARBON BOXES, PRINTED BOTTLE CAPS, ETC TO V ARIOUS AGENCIES WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND CONSEQUENT DISALLOWANCES OF THE S AID EXPENDITURE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DT.10.12 .2009, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER EXAMIN ING THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE HELD THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,48,31,501 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PROCUREMENT OF PRINTED LABELS, ETC TO VARIOUS AGENCIES WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTIONS 194C AND 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT A ND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE OPERATIVE PORTI ON OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER AT PARA 4.0 TO 4.1 ON PAGES 6 TO 8 OF HIS ORDER IS E XTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS AND F ACTS OF THE CASE. FOR DECIDING WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIE D IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,48,31,501 BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 40(A)(IA), THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TO BE VIEWED IN THE CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND VENDORS IS FOR MAN UFACTURE AND SUPPLY OF CARTOON BOXES/CAPS/ LABELS AS PER THE SPECIFICATION S OF THE COMPANY. ALL THE RAW MATERIALS REQUIRED MANUFACTURING CARTOON BOXES, CAPS AND LABELS ARE PRODUCED BY THE VENDORS ON THEIR OWN AND MANUFACTUR ED THE PRODUCTS AS PER THE SPECIFICATION OF THE COMPANY. THE PROPERTY OF BOXES, CAPS OR LABELS PASSES 3 ITA NO.930/BANG/11 TO THE COMPANY ONLY AFTER SUCH ARTICLE IS DELIVERED AS PER THE SPECIFICATION. THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT IS FOR SUPPL Y AND NOT PRINTING. IN THIS CONNECTION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUD ICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHICH ARE DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DY. CHIEF ACCOUN TS OFFICER, MARKFED, REPORTED IN 304 ITR 17 (P & H), THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HELD THAT TDS UNDER SECTION 194C SUPPLY OF PRIN TED PACKING MATERIAL PURCHASE OF PRINTED PACKING MATERIAL FOR WHICH RAW MATERIALS WAS NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND OUTSIDE THE PREVIEW OF SECTION 194C FACTUM OF SUCH PACKING MATERIAL CARRYING SOM E PRINTED WORK CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE SUPPLIER INCID ENTAL TO THE SALE TO THE ASSESSEE NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE. H ELD : THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PACKING MAT ERIAL IS TO OBTAIN GOODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PACKING OF ITS FINISHED PRODUCTS. T HE FACTUM OF SUCH PACKING MATERIAL CARRYING SOME PRINTED WORK CAN ONLY BE REG ARDED AS THE WORK EXECUTED BY THE SUPPLIER INCIDENTAL TO THE SALE TO THE ASSES SEE. THIS FACT OF SOME PRINTING BEING DONE AS A PART OF SUPPLY IS OF NO CO NSEQUENCE TO THE CONTRACT BEING ESSENTIAL OF A SALE OF CHATTEL. THE PREDOMIN ANT OBJECT UNDERLYING THE CONTRACTS WAS SALE / PURCHASE OF GOODS AND ONLY IN TENTION OF THE RESPONDENT WAS TO BUY PACKING MATERIALS. ADMITTEDLY, THE RAW MATERIALS FOR THE MANUFACTURING OF SUCH PACKING MATERIAL WERE NOT SUP PLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT WAS A CASE OF SALE AND NOT A CONTRACT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK. PURCHASE OF PRINTED PACKING MATERIAL BY THE ASSESSE E WAS A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN BDA LTD VS. ITO (2006) 201 CTR (BOM) 413 : (2006) 281 ITR 99 (BOM) HELD THAT M IS AN IN DEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING PRINTED PACKAG ING MATERIAL TO VARIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND IT IS NOT A CAPTIVE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED A PURCHASE ORDER IN FAVOUR OF M FOR SUPPLY O F PRINTED LABELS AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY IT, AND THE RAW MATERIAL S REQUIRED FOR THE SAME WERE NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. M HAS BEEN SUPPLYING SUCH PRINTED LABELS TO OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS AS PER THEIR RESPECTIVE SPECIFICATIO NS. THE PRINTING WORK WAS NOT BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE. THIS SUPPLY OF PRINTED LABELS CANNOT BE COMPARED AND EQUATED WITH THE SUPP LY OF PRINTED QUESTION PAPERS TO UNIVERSITIES AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS . M WOULD NOT PRINT SUCH LABELS WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEYO ND THE QUANTITY SPECIFIED IN THE PURCHASE ORDER, AND THEREFORE, IT WAS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO HOLD THAT THE LABELS PRINTED BY M TO SUPPLY TO THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SOLD TO ANY OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE MARKET. THIS FINDI NG REGARDING NO MARKETABILITY IS BASED ON A FALLACIOUS PREMISE THAT M WAS PRINTING AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF LABELS. WHEN THE PRINTING WORK WAS BEING CARRIED IN THE PREMISES OF 4 ITA NO.930/BANG/11 M, THOUGH AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE , THE SUPPLY WAS LIMITED TO THE QUANTITY SPECIFIED IN THE PURCHASE ORDER AND IT WOULD NOT DO SUCH PRINTING BEYOND THE NUMBERS SPECIFIED IN THE SAME. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT ALL OTHER ANCILLARY COSTS LIKE THAT LABELS, IN K, PAPERS, SCREEN PRINTING, SCREENS, ETC WERE BEING SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M. IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE SUPPLY OF PRINTED LABELS BY M TO THE ASSE SSEE WAS A CONTRACT OF SALE AND IT COULD NOT BE TERMED AS A WORKS CONTRACT. IN CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LIMITED, THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT OF DELHI HELD THAT : SUPPLY OF CORRUGATED BOXES WITH PRINTED LABELS PR EDOMINANT OBJECT UNDERLYING THE CONTRACT WAS SALE OF GOODS NO SPECIAL SKILL I S REQUIRED FOR PRINTING OF LABELS CONTRACT WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTIO N 194C. (2005) 198 CTR (DEL) 375 (2006) 283 ITR 197 (DEL). 4.1 RELYING ON THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S, I HEREBY CONCLUDE THAT PAYMENT OF RS.1,48,31,501 TOWARDS PROCUREMENT OF PR INTED LABELS, PRINTED CARTOON BOXES, PRINTED BOTTLE CAPS, ETC TO VARIOUS AGENCIES WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 194C AND 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AN D DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,48,31,501 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED, REVENUE HAS CONTENDED AS UNDER : 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE FOLLOWING GROUND IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,48,31,501 BEING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) BEING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR PROCUREMENT OF PRINTED LABELS, PRINTED CARTON BOXES , PRINTED CAPS, ETC., FROM VARIOUS PARTIES WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT MADE WAS INCLUSIVE OF CHARGES FOR PRINTING ON THOSE ITEMS AS PER ASSESSEES SPECIFICATIONS. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) OU GHT TO HAVE TO SUSTAINED DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF E XPENDITURE OTHER THAN THE COST OF THE MATERIAL SUPPLIED. 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MAYBE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AM END AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED. 5 ITA NO.930/BANG/11 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS.1, 4 AND 5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE DO NOT CALL ANY ADJUDICATION THEREON. 5.1 THE ONLY MATERIAL ISSUE OF DISPUTE IN THIS A PPEAL IS AT GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 . THEY CHALLENGE THE LEARNED CIT(A)S FINDING IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,48,31,501 MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, BEING EXPENSES INCURRED FOR PROCUREMENT OF PRINTED LABELS, ETC FROM VARIOUS PARTIES WITHOUT MAKING TDS , WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT MADE WAS INCLUSIVE OF CHARGES FOR PRINT ING ON THOSE ITEMS AS PER THE ASSESSEES SPECIFICATIONS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE PLEA MADE IN THE GROUNDS RAISED AND SUPPORTED THE FINDIN G IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH REVENUE SOUGHT TO BE RESTORED AFTER REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER. 5.2 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OT HER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH HAD BEEN EXAMINED IN DETAIL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PARA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER. IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE VENDORS WAS FOR MANUFACTURE AN D SUPPLY OF LABELS, CARTON BOXES, BOTTLE CAPS, ETC AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS THIS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT I T IS THE VENDOR WHO PURCHASES ALL THE MATERIAL ON HIS OWN AND MANUFACTURES THE PRODUCTS A S PER REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY MATERIALS TO THE VENDOR FOR SUPPLY / MANUFACTURE OF THE BASIC PRODUCT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY 6 ITA NO.930/BANG/11 COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. I) BDA LTD VS. ITO (2006) 261 ITR 99 (BOM) II) WADILAL DAIRY INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. ACIT (2001) 70 TTJ (PUNE) 77 III) CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LTD (2006) 283 ITR 197 (DEL) IV) WHIRLPOOL INDIA LTD VS. JCIT (2007) 109 TTJ (DEL) 9 94 V) CIT VS. DY. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, MARKFED 304 IT R 17 (P & H) 5.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS A PART OF RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYM ENT OF RS.1,48,31,501 TO VARIOUS AGENCIES FOR PURCHASE OF LABELS, CARTON BOXES, BOTT LE CAPS, ETC WHICH WERE MANUFACTURED AND SUPPLIED BY THE VARIOUS VENDORS AS PER SPECIFIC ATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINE D THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL AND OBSERVED THAT ALL THE RAW MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR MANUFACTURIN G LABELS, CARTON BOXES AND BOTTLE CAPS ARE NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT ARE PROCURED B Y THE VARIOUS VENDORS ON THEIR OWN. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE VENDORS MANUFACTURED THE PROD UCTS AS PER THE SPECIFICATION OF THE COMPANY VIZ. EMBOSSMENT OF LOGO, BRAND NAME AND PRI NTING THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE ON LABELS, CAPS AND BOXES SUPPLIED BY THEM . THE PROPERTY OF BOXES, CAPS OR LABELS PASS ON TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER SUCH ARTICLE IS DELIVERED AS PER SPECIFICATION AND THE MAIN OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT IS FOR SUPPLY OF ARTICL ES NOT PRINTING. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C AND 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN COMING TO THIS FINDING, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE FO LLOWING JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF HON'BLE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS. 7 ITA NO.930/BANG/11 I) BDA LTD VS. ITO (2006) 261 ITR 99 (BOM) : IN THIS CASE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY HELD THAT THE SUPPLY OF PRINTED LABELS BY AN INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER SPECIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEE USING ITS OWN RAW MATERIALS AND CARRYING OUT ITS PRINTING WORK IN ITS OWN PREMISES AND THE RAW M ATERIAL REQUIRED FOR THE SAME WERE NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE SUPPLY OF PRINTED LABELS ETC BY THE INDEPENDENT PARTY WAS A CONTRACT FOR SALE AND NOT A WORKS CONTRACT. II ) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DY. CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFF ICER, MARKFED , REPORTED IN 304 ITR 17 (P & H) THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DISP UTE THAT THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PACKING MATERIAL WAS TO OBTAIN GOOD S FOR THE PURPOSE OF PACKING ITS FINISHED PRODUCTS. THE FACT THAT SUCH PACKING MATER IAL CARRIED SOME PRINTED WORK CAN ONLY BE REGARDED AS WORK EXECUTED BY THE SUPPLIER INCIDE NTAL TO THE SALE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PREDOMINANT OBJECT UNDERLYING THE CONTRACTS WAS THE PURCHASE OF PACKING MATERIAL AND THE RAW MATERIALS THEREOF WERE NOT SUPPLIED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THUS IT WAS A CASE OF PURCHASE OF PRINTED PACKING MATERIAL WHICH WAS OUT OF THE PU RVIEW OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT. III) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DABUR INDIA LTD REPORTED IN 283 ITR 197 (DEL), THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT THE SUPPLY OF CORRUGATED BOXES WITH PRIN TED LABELS PREDOMINANT OBJECT UNDERLYING THE CONTRACT WAS SALE OF GOODS NO SPEC IAL SKILL WAS REQUIRED FOR PRINTING OF LABELS CONTRACT WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTI ON 194C. IV) THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD (109 TTJ (DEL) 994) AND WADILAL DAIRY INTERNATIONAL (2001) 70 TTJ (PUNE) 77 ALSO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE VENDOR PROCURED RAW MATERIAL ON HIS OWN AND MANUFACTURES PRODUCTS AS 8 ITA NO.930/BANG/11 PER THE SPECIFICATIONS/REQUIREMENTS OF A SPECIFIC C USTOMER, IT IS A CASE OF SALE AND NOT A JOB WORK OR CONTRACT FOR CARRYING OUT ANY WORK. 5.4 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,48,31,501 INCURRED BY THE ASSES SEE TOWARDS PURCHASE / PROCUREMENT OF PRINTED LABELS, PRINTED CARTON BOXES, PRINTED BO TTLE CAPS, ETC FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19 4C AND 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) O N THIS POINT FINDING NO REASON TO INTERFERE THEREIN. REVENUES GROUNDS ARE ACCORDING LY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH SEPT., 2012. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (JASON P BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, - B BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDE R SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE