Shri K. Rajesh Shetty, Puttur V. ACIT, Mangalore

ITSSA 98/BANG/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8365 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FARHAT HUSSAIN QURESHI
• Assessee Lawyers: R CHANDRASHEKAR
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Procedural lapse; Block assessment; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 6; 132; 144; 15; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.98 /BANG/2004 IT(SS)A NO.11 /BANG/2010 (BLOCK ASST. YEAR 01-04-1988 TO 39-10-99) 1) SRI K RAJESH SHETTY, SEETHALAXMI COMPOUND, KOMBETHU, PUTTUR. IT(SS)A NO.44 /BANG/2005 IT(SS)A NO.09 /BANG/2010 (BLOCK ASST. YEAR 01-04-1988 TO 39-10-99) 2) SMT. LAXMI AMMA, SEETHALAXMI COMPOUND, KOMBETHU, PUTTUR. . APPELLANTS VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1) AND 1(1), MANGALORE. . RESPONDENTS APPELLANT BY : SHRI R CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI FARHAT HUSSAIN QURESHI, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 10-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-09-2012 ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 2 O R D E R PER P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. THE RELEV ANT BLOCK PERIOD IS 01/04/89 TO 29/10/99. THE APPEALS ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - (APPEALS ) AT MANGALORE DATED 31.03.2004, 30.03.2005, 16.12.2009 & 21.12.20 09. THE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 158BC/158 BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. K RAJESH SHETTY IT(SS)A NO.98/2004 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER DISPOSED OFF BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDERS DATED 28/07/2010. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN M.P STATING THAT THE GROUND NO.4 CHALLENG ING THE VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION U/S 158BC OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THA T NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED, WAS NOT ADJUDICATED B Y THIS TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECALLED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ONLY AS FAR AS GROUND NO.4 IS CONCERNED. THUS, THE APPEAL HAS COM E FOR HEARING BEFORE US AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 4 ONLY. ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 3 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC WERE INITIATED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 158BC ON 1.2.2000. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 14.8.2001. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISS UED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT BUT DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE, HOWEVER PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES AND C ONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) INCLUDING A GROUND CHAL LENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC WITHOUT ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HA S UPHELD THE VALIDITY AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THE CIT(A) ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 158BC WITHOUT ISSUING NOTI CE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS INVALID, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COUR T IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON REPORTED IN 321 ITR 362 (SC) AND AL SO THE DECISION ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 4 OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PAWA N GUPTA IN ITA NO.200 OF 2008 DATED 15.4.2009. 4. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PARTI CIPATED IN THE PROCEEDING, AND, THEREFORE, NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON IS DISTINGUISHABLE IN FACTS , AS IN THAT CASE NO NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THEREI N WHILE IN THIS CASE, NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED. 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSID ERED THEIR RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED BUT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE BLOCK ASST. PROCEEDINGS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DR THAT T HE AO HAVING ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) HAS VALIDLY INITIATED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE EXAMINED. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE SCOPE AND EXTENT OF SEC. 142(1) OF THE ACT VIS--VIS SEC. 143 (2) HAS TO BE EXAMINED. SEC. 142 DEALS WITH THE ENQUIRY BEFORE A SSESSMENT. SUB SEC.(1) OF SEC. 142 PROVIDES THAT FOR THE PURPOSE O F MAKING AN ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 5 ASSESSMENT, THE AO MAY SERVE ON ANY PERSON WHO HAS MADE A RETURN U/S 139 OR IN WHOSE CASE THE TIME ALLOWED U/S 139(1 ) FOR FURNISHING HAS EXPIRED, A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM, ON A DATE SPEC IFIED THEREIN. (A) WHERE A PERSON HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN U/S 139(1 ) TO FURNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF ANY PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT IN THE PRESCRIBED FROM ETC. OR (B) TO PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED SUCH ACCOUNTS O N THE DOCUMENTS AS THE AO MAY REQUIRE, OR (C) TO FURNISH IN WRITING AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBE D MANNER INFORMATION IN SUCH FORM AND ON SUCH POINTS OR MATT ERS AS THE AO MAY REQUIRE. 6. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) IS TO ENABLE THE AO TO MAKE SUCH INQUIRIES IN ORDER TO BE SATISFIED AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RETURN FILED OR OTHER CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE AO COMPLETES THE ASSESSMENT. THUS IT EMPOWERS THE AO TO COLLECT THE INFORMATION FROM THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR MAKING TH E ASSESSMENT. THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE U /S 142(1) MAY RESULT IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 6 7. SECTION 143 AND 144 DEAL WITH THE MAKING OF THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TO FIND OUT THE TAX, IF ANY PAYABLE. SEC. 1 43 DEALS WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSES WHO ARE COMPLY ING WITH THE NOTICES BY PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL WHIL E SEC. 144 DEALS WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF DEFAULTING ASSESSEES AS PER THE OFFICERS BEST JUDGMENT. THUS SEC. 143(2) ENVISAGES THAT AN OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING T HE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE SPECIFYING THE DATE AND TIME OF HEAR ING. SUB SEC. (2) OF SEC. 143 PROVIDES THAT WHERE RETURN HAS BEEN FURNIS HED U/S 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S UNDER SUB SEC. (1) OF SEC. 142 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS INADMISSIBLE, HE SHALL SERVE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSE E SPECIFYING PARTICULARS OF SUCH CLAIM AND REQUIRING HIM TO PRODUCE ANY EVID ENCE OR PARTICULARS SPECIFIED THEREIN OR ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN DETERM INE THE TAX LIABILITY ONLY AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND NOT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE CASE BEFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PAWAN GUPTA (CITED SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 7 TO THE ASSESSEE THEREIN BUT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WA S ISSUED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ISSUES AT LENGTH AND ALSO THE DECIS IONS OF THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BANDANA GOGAI REPORTED IN 289 ITR 28, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ISSUANC E OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS PRE-REQUISITE FOR FRAMING THE BLOCK ASSES SMENT ORDER UNDER CHAPTER XIV OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND IF AN ASSESSM ENT IS COMPLETED WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2), IT WOULD BE INVALID AND NOT MERE IRREGULARITY. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON HAS ALSO CONSIDERED SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND HAS HELD THAT OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORIT Y TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) CANNOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE AND, THEREFORE ,THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. AS THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECIS ION O THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE BL OCK ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC R.W.S 143(3) WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) OF THE ACT IS INVALID. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. IT(SS)A 11 OF 2010 ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 8 10. AS THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ITSELF HAS BEEN HELD T O BE INVALID BY US IN IT(SS)A 98 OF 2004, THIS APPEAL WHICH IS FILED A GAINST THE CIT(A) ORDER CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN TH E SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. SMT. LAXMI AMMA - IT(SS)A 44 OF 2005 11. THIS APPEAL IS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1/4/89 TO 29.10.1999. 12. THIS APPEAL EARLIER HAS BEEN HEARD AND DISPOSE D OFF VIDE ORDERS DATED 28.7.2010. HOWEVER ORDER DATED 28.7.2010 IN THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL H AS BEEN RECALLED AS FAR AS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.7 IS CONCERNED AND T HE APPEAL IS BEFORE US FOR HEARING. 13. THE GROUND NO.7 IS THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN MAKING THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN. ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 9 14. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED AND SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI RAJESH SHETTY AND SHRI P SEETHARAM SHETTY. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 158BC IN THE HANDS OF THE SHRI SEETHARAM SHETTY, R S.14,43,500/- WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTM ENTS AND DEPOSITS AND SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE IN HIS HANDS. SU BSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHO IS THE WIF E OF SHRI SEETHARAM SHETTY AND WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMEN T U/S 158BD R.W.S 158BC OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS M ADE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF RS.14,43,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT AND DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE ONLY INCOME ASSE SSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 15 8BD OF THE ACT, REQUIREMENT OF LAW IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MU ST RECORD A SATISFACTION THAT THE SAID INCOME BELONGS TO THE PE RSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS MADE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HAND OF THE PERSON SEAR CHED I.E SHRI SEETHARAM SHETTY AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF AND, THEREFORE, THE PRESUMPTION TO BE DRAWN IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDING ANY FINDING THA T THE SAID INCOME BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON SUCH PRESUMPTION BEING ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 10 DRAWN, IT IS CLEARLY A CASE OF NON RECORD OF ANY SA TISFACTION AND, THEREFORE, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD ITSELF IS NOT WARRANTED AND THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD R.W.S 158BC IS INVALID. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1) MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 289 ITR 341 (SC) 2) DAWN VIEW FARMS PVT. LTD IN ITA NO.1187 OF 2008 DA TED 16.10.2008 3) CIT VS. ANUPAM SWEETS, 221 ITR 485, DEL 15. THE LEARNED DR, HOWEVER STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY MADE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON S EARCHED AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION HAS TO BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF EITHER PERSONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IN THE HAN DS OF SHRI SEETHARAM SHETTY HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY AND, TH EREFORE, THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 11 16. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSI DERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER A PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSE SSEE U/S 158BD CAN BE SUSTAINED. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS FAIRL Y COVERED BY THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHW ARI (CITED SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR M AKING BLOCK ASSESSMENT ARE MANDATORY AND SHOULD BE SATISFIED. IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE PREMISES OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY A ND HIS WIFE WAS SEARCHED U/S 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND BLOCK AS SESSMENT HAD TO BE DONE IN RELATION TO THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD TO 1) RECORD HIS SATISFACTION THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INC OME BELONGED TO THE COMPANY AND 2) HAND OVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUME NTS AND ASSETS SEIZED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURIS DICTION AGAINST THE COMPANY. 17. IN THE CASE OF DAWN VIEW FARMS PVT. LTD., THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE APEX CO URT IN THE CASE OF ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 12 MANISH MAHESHWARI AND HAS HELD THAT THE PLAIN READI NG OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 158BD MAKES IT CLEAR THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO W HOM SEARCH WAS MADE U/S 132, NO FURTHER STEP CAN TAKE PLACE. IT W AS FURTHER HELD THAT THE FURTHER STEPS ARE PROVIDED IN SEC. 158BD ITSELF AND THEY ARE THAT SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER BEING SATISFIED THAT THERE IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO SUCH OTHER PERSON, IS REQUIRED TO HANDOVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED O R REQUISITIONED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND IT IS FROM THAT POINT ON, THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IS REQUIRED TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E OTHER PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV AND ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ALSO, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS WERE EXACTLY THE SAME.. IN THE SAID CASE ALSO THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON SEARCHED HAS MADE AN A DDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN HIS ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF I NVESTMENT. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THIS INDICAT ES SATISFACTION THAT THE INVESTMENT DID NOT BELONG TO SOME OTHER PERSON AND, THEREFORE, NO SATISFACTION IS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E I.E OTHER PERSON FOR INITIATING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD R.W.S O F THE INCOME-TAX ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 13 ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE FACTS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN THE CASE BEFORE US. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE SAME, WE DECIDE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEES GROUND OF APPEAL IN GROUND NO. 7 IS ACCO RDINGLY ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IT(SS)A NO.9/2010 19. WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO CONSEQUENT TO THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDERS DATE 28.07. 2010. 20. AS THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ITSELF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INVALID, THE CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION S ALSO GETS WIPED OUT AND, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS . IT IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH SEPT, 2012. SD/- SD/- (JASON P BOAZ) (MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 14/09/2012 ITA(SS) NOS.98, 44, 11 & 9 14 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETA RY, ITAT, BANGALORE.