Smt Madhu Solanki, Mysore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 974/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8896 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Gift; Question of law; Set aside
• Section: 133A; 147; 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ABENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.974/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENTYEAR:1998-99 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI W/O SRI SHANTILAL SOLANKI C/O RAJENDRA METALS NO.2, KRS ROAD MYSORE PAN NO :ACGPS0670L VS. ITO WARD-1(3) BANGALORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KANNAN NARAYANAN, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.08.2021 O R D E R PERB.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 4.8.2009 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-2, BANGALORE AND IT R ELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. THIS IS SECOND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS. THIS APPEA L WAS ORIGINALLY DISPOSED OF BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, VID E ITS ORDER DATED 29.3.2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE HO NBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CHALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TR IBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 13.11.2018 PASSED IN ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE PAGE 2 OF 9 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.283/2010 HAS RESTORED ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ADJUDICATING THEM AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL CAME TO BE PLACED BEFORE US FOR ADJUDICATION . 3. ALL THE GROUNDS URGED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES: A) VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. B) ADDITION OF TRADE CREDITORS AGGREGATING TO RS.46,61 ,745/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 4. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. TH E ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN IRON & STEEL. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.76,685/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS INITIALLY COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29.12.2000 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,27,940/ -. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE A.O. HAD SENT A LETTERS TO SOME OF THE TRADE CREDITORS ASKIN G THEM TO CONFIRM THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO ALSO C ONDUCTED SURVEY OPERATIONS U/S 133A OF THE ACT. LATER, THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE ON 9.2.2001 AND THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER CAME TO BE PASSED BY HIM. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. EXAMINED OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES TO TRADE CREDITORS . HE EXAMINED, INTER ALIA, FOLLOWING PARTIES:- A) MAGNUM TRADING COMPANY RS.18,89,884/- B) M/S. SHARDA ENTERPRISES RS.27,71,861/- THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ADDRESSES OF BOTH THE CREDITORS REFERRED ABOVE AND SENT NOTICES TO BOTH T HE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE LETTERS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE NOTE LEFT. HENCE, THE A.O. CAUSED ENQUIRIES ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE PAGE 3 OF 9 THROUGH HIS INSPECTOR. IN RESPECT OF MAGNUM TRADIN G COMPANY, THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT THE SAID PARTY IS NOT A VAILABLE IN THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND FURTHER THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT OCCUPIED BY M/S. MAGNUM TRADI NG COMPANY. WITH REGARD TO M/S. SHARDA ENTERPRISES, T HE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT THE ADDRESS ITSELF COULD NOT BE LOCAT ED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE A.O. CONDUCTED A SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF T HE ACT. IN THE STATEMENT TAKEN FROM THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SU RVEY OPERATIONS, HE ADMITTED THAT BOTH THE ABOVE SAID CREDITORS ARE BOGUS AND THERE IS NO AMOUNT DUE TO THEM. ACCORDINGLY, HE AGREED T O VOLUNTARILY OFFER THE AGGREGATE SUM OF RS.46,61,745/-, BEING TH E OUTSTANDING BALANCES STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE ABOVE SAID TWO CREDITORS AS HIS INCOME. 6. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A LETTER STATING THAT BOTH M/S. SHARDA ENTERPRISES AND M/S. MAGNUM T RADING COMPANY ARE REGISTERED WITH SALES TAX AUTHORITIES A ND THEY HAVE ISSUED ALL STATUTORY FORMS AS REQUIRED BY LAW IN RE SPECT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THEM. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THEM BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE A.O. HOWEVER DID NOT AC CEPT THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING IN THEIR NA ME IS BOGUS IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ASSESSED THE AGGREGATE AMO UNT OF RS.46,61,745/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ABOVE SAID ADDITION AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APP EAL BEFORE US. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS, INTER ALIA, CHALLENGED THE VAL IDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND ALSO THE ADDITION RELAT ING TO THE TWO TRADE CREDITORS MENTIONED ABOVE. ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE PAGE 4 OF 9 8. WE HEARD THE PARTIES FIRST ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING IN T HE NAME OF M/S. SHARDA ENTERPRISES AND M/S. MAGNUM COMPANY REL ATE TO THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THEM AND HENCE, THEY ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE CREDITORS. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS RELATABLE TO THE CASH CREDITS. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE OUTSTA NDING TRADE CREDITORS COULD NOT BE ASSESSED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O., HAVING ACCEPTED TH E PURCHASES, COULD NOT HAVE DOUBTED THE LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID PURCHASES. 9. WITH REGARD TO THE MAGNUM TRADING COMPANY, THE L D. A.R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT PLACED IN PAGES 4 TO 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM THE ABOVE SAID CONCERN AGGREGATING T O RS.38.09 LAKHS AND HAVE ALSO MADE PAYMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 19.20 LAKHS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AS AT THE YEAR END WAS RS.18.89,885/-. THE A.O. HAS ADDED THE OUT STANDING BALANCE ONLY, I.E., HE HAS ACCEPTED THE ENTIRE PURC HASES AND ALSO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ABOVE SAID PARTY THROUGH B ANKING CHANNELS. THE AO IS DOUBTING ONLY THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O., HAVING ACCEPTED T HE ENTIRE PURCHASES AND ALSO THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ABOVE S AID PARTY, IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISBELIEVING THE CLOSING BALANCE O F OUTSTANDING AMOUNT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. CANNOT DISBELIE VE PART OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND ACCEPT OTHER PART OF THE TRANSACTI ONS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAME PARTY. 10. THE LD. A.R. ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO TH E LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S. SHARDA ENTERPRISES PLACED AT PAGES 9 & 10 OF T HE PAPER BOOK. ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE PAGE 5 OF 9 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES F ROM THE ABOVE SAID CONCERN IN THE LAST MONTH OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LD. A.R. ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.8 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A COPY OF CERTIFICATE OB TAINED FROM M/S. INDIAN BANK, WHEREIN THE BANK HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. SHARDA ENTERPRISES I N THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.11 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHEREIN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT COPY OF M/S. SHARDA ENTERPRISES FOR THE SUCCEEDING YEAR I.E. FROM 1.4.1 998 TO 31.3.1999 IS FURNISHED. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLEARED OFF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO SUSPECT THE OU TSTANDING BALANCES WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT BY WAY OF CHEQUE TO THE ABOVE SAID PARTIES. 11. THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ONL Y FOR THE REASON THAT THE SUPPLIERS DID NOT CONFIRM THE OUTST ANDING BALANCE AND FURTHER THEY DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISS UED TO THEM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED PURCHASES AN D ALSO PROVED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CH ANNELS. HENCE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PENALIZED F OR THE FAILURE OF THE CREDITORS TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY T HE AO. 12. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HA S MADE ADDITION OF OUTSTANDING TRADE CREDITORS U/S 68 OF THE ACT, W HICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT, AS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC .68 RELATE TO CASH CREDITS ONLY. 13. THE LD. D.R. ON THE CONTRARY, SUPPORTED THE ORD ER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A).BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION REND ERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SURESH KUMAR T. JAI N (2019) 101 ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE PAGE 6 OF 9 TAXMANN.COM 164, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN T RADE CREDITORS CAN BE ASSESSED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 14. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON THIS ISS UE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF OUTSTANDING TRADE CREDITORS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE QUESTION WHETHER UNPAID TRADE CREDITORS COULD BE AD DED U/S 68 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY VARIOUS COURTS. THE F IVE MEMBER SPECIAL BENCH OF ITAT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF MANOJ AGARWAL VS. DCIT (113 ITD 377) AS UNDER ON THIS ISSUE:- THE ARGUMENT THAT SECTION 68 IS NOT APPLICABLE WHE RE AN ASSET IS SOLD AND THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED HAVING REGARD TO THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT IT IS ALWAYS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SUMS CREDIT ED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SECTION DOES NOT RECOGNIZE ANY DISTINC TION BETWEEN AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS AS GIFTS OR LOANS OR PURE REC EIPTS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND AMOUNTS CREDITED AS SALE PROCEEDS. IN EITHER CA SE, WHEN CALLED UPON, THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOU RCE OF THE AMOUNTS CREDITED. THERE MAY BE A FEW EXCEPTIONS TO THIS GEN ERAL RULE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF CREDIT PURCHASES, THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER IS CREDITED WITH THE AMOUNT PAYABLE. IN SUCH A CASE, WHERE THE PURCHASE IS ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE, IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO AGAIN CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDIT, FOR THE REASON THAT THE PURCHASE ITSELF WAS ALLOWED AS EXPE NDITURE ONLY ON BEING SATISFIED THAT IT WAS A GENUINE PURCHASE ON CREDIT. IMPLICITLY, THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED HAS ALSO TO BE TA KEN AS HAVING BEEN EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY. ANOTHER POSSIBLE ARGUMENT CAN BE THAT IN SUCH A CASE, THE AMOUNT CREDITED IS NOT A CASH CREDIT IN T HE SENSE THAT SOME MONIES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE CREDIT REPRESENTS A MERE LIABILITY PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE. UNDER ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, A LIABILITY CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT INTO AC COUNT BY MAKING A CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THE PERS ON TO WHOM THE MONEY IS PAYABLE. THUS, THERE IS MARKED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CREDIT REPRESENTING A LIABILITY PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AND A CREDIT REPR ESENTING MONIES RECEIVED FROM ANOTHER PERSON. IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS DISTINCT ION, A LIABILITY FOR PURCHASE WHICH HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE SUPPLIER CANNOT BE ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, MORE SO WHEN THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND A DEDUCTION THERE FOR HAS B EEN ALLOWED. IN ALL OTHER CASES INCLUDING THE CASE OF A CREDIT REPRESEN TING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AN ASSET, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ARE APPLICAB LE AND IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE SATISFACTORILY THE NATURE AND SOU RCE OF THE MONIES.. ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE PAGE 7 OF 9 12. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RITU ANURAG AGARWAL REPORTED IN 2009 (7) TMI 1247 AS UNDER:- 'THIS FINDING OF AO REMAINED UNDISTURBED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. PROCEEDING ON THIS B ASIS, THE ITAT OBSERVED THAT THE SOLES, PURCHASES AS WELL AS GROSS PROFITS AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ONCE THIS IS ACCEPTED, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPROACH O F THE ITAT WAS CORRECT INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THIS ASPECT WHILE MAKING ADDITIONS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. AS THERE WAS NO CASE FOR DISALLOWANCE FOR CORR ESPONDING PURCHASE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 68 INASMUCH AS IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CREDITORS OUTSTANDING RELATED TO PURCHASES AND THE TRADING RESULTS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE AO. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATIO N IN THIS CASE. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 13. THE LD D.R PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE DECISI ON RENDERED BY THE BANGALORE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SURESH K UMAR T. JAIN (SUPRA), WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY HONBLE KARNAT AKA HIGH COURT, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20-11-2018 PASSED IN IT A NO.160 OF 2010. THE LD D.R CONTENDED THAT THE OUTSTANDING TR ADE CREDITORS COULD BE ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. WE HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE ABOVE SAID DECISION AND NOTICE THAT THE FACTS PREVAILING IN THAT CASE WERE DIFFERENT. IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE, MOST OF THE CRED ITORS CONFIRMED THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES AS PER THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , WHICH WERE MUCH LESSER THAN THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. COPIES OF CONFIRMA TION LETTERS RECEIVED FROM THE CREDITORS WERE ALSO FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATION. HENCE, IT WAS CO NSIDERED TO BE A CASE OF EITHER PAYMENT OUTSIDE BOOKS OR CESSATION O F LIABILITY. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION M ADE U/S 41(1) AND 68 OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED. 14. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTS ARE TOTALLY D IFFERENT. FIRST OF ALL, THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES RELATED TO THE PURCHASES M ADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NOT BROUGHT FORWARD BA LANCES. THE ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE PAGE 8 OF 9 AO DID NOT GET REPLY FROM BOTH THE TRADE CREDITORS AND HENCE HE PROCEEDED TO ASSESS THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES, WHILE ACCEPTING THE PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR & PAYMENTS MADE DURI NG THE YEAR. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND DID NOT INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 41(1) OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTRA RY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE S UCCEEDING YEAR THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. ACCORDINGLY, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE COULD NOT RELY UPON THE DECISION R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF SURESHKUMAR T JAIN. UNDER THESE SET OF FA CTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE ADDITION O F TRADE CREDITORS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 15. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED B Y LD CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF TR ADE CREDITORS. 16. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LEGAL GROU ND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, THE LD A.R SAID THAT HE WILL NOT PRESS THE SAME, IF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED ON MERITS. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO ADJUD ICATE THE LEGAL GROUND. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH AUGUST, 2021 SD/- (BEENA PILLAI) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2021. VG/SPS ITA NO.974 /BANG/2009 SMT. MADHU SOLANKI, MYSORE PAGE 9 OF 9 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.