M/s. Samrudha Souharda Credit Co-operative Limited, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(4), Bangalore

MA 64/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7221 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GURUPRASAD K S
• Keywords: Business income; Question of law
• Section: 80P; 194A; 13; 22; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC C BENCH : BANGALORE ` BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER MP NO.64/BANG/2021 [IN ITA NO. 129/BANG/2020] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 13 - 14 M/S. SAMRUDHA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO- OPERATIVE LTD., 518, 3RD MAIN, BSK I STAGE, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019. PAN : ABDFS 2968 A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5[2][5], BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI GURUPRASAD K. S., CA RESPONDENT BY : SHR I GANESH R. GH ALE, STANDING COU NSEL F O R DEPT. DATE OF HEARING : 03 . 0 9 .20 2 1 D ATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 . 0 9 . 2 0 2 1 O R D E R THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BY THE ASSESSEE SEEK S RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 9.4.2021 STATING AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL I.E. ITA NO. 129/BANG/2020 WA S DISPOSED OF BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER APPEAL ITA NO. 128/BANG/2020 VIDE ORDER DATED 9TH OF APRIL 2021. THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND T HE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW INVOLVED IN THE MATTER, WHICH WAS C OMMON TO BOTH AYS WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. HO WEVER, ONE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED AND ARGUED BEFORE T HE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AS REGARDS ITA NO. 129/BANG/2020 HAS NOT B EEN ADJUDICATED. THIS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT INA DVERTENTLY. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT BEGS TO PRESENT THIS MISCE LLANEOUS MP NO.64/BANG/2021 PAGE 2 OF 9 APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICATION OF ONE OF THE GROUNDS URGED AND ARGUED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 2. FOR THE SAKE OF EASY REFERENCE GROUND NO. 3, URG ED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 129/BANG/2020 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED, IS REPRODUCED HERE BELOW: '3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIG IBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80P(2)(A)(I). CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO RE COGNISE THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THAT ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISH ABLE FROM THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT RELIED UPON FOR AD JUDICATIO N.' 3. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE (AR) APPEARED ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 07.04.2021, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AND HAD URGED THE ABOVE GROUNDS BEFORE T HE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. FURTHERMORE, ARGUMENTS WERE PREVIOUSLY SU BMITTED IN THE FORM OF A DETAILED WRITTEN REPRESENTATION BEFOR E THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ABOVE GROUND BE ADJ UDICATED AND REVISED ORDER BE ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AS PER PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE RULE-34A, INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALES SOCIETY, 395 ITR 611 (SC) AND ON THE REASON THAT INTEREST ON DEPOSITS IS NOT RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. 3. IN REPLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT INTEREST WA S RECEIVED ON DEPOSITS RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFOR E ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALES SOCIETY , 322 ITR 283 (SC) HELD THAT INTEREST ON SECURITY A ND DEPOSITS NOT RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION MP NO.64/BANG/2021 PAGE 3 OF 9 U/S.80P(2)(D) OR 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT WHEREAS TH E SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, INTEREST WA S RECEIVED ON DEPOSITS RELATABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS T HEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P OF THE ACT. 5. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VS. TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY 395 ITR 0611 (KARN) TOOK A VIEW AND HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON DEPOSITS WHETHER WITH ANY OTHER BANK WILL BE IN THE NATURE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT INCOME FROM BUSIN ESS AND THEREFORE THE DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ALLOWE D TO THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE COURT FOLLOWED DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SBI VS. CIT 389 ITR 578 (GUJ.). THE HONBLE COUR T HAD TO DEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW: '(I) WHETHER THE ASSESSEE, TOTGAR CO-OPERATIVE SAL E SOCIETY, SIRSI, IS ENTITLED TO 100% DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT') IN R ESPECT OF WHOLE OF ITS INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST EARNED BY IT DURIN G THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 2007-2008 TO 2011-2012 ON THE DEPOSITS OR INVESTMENTS MADE BY IT DURING THESE YEARS WITH A COOPERATIVE BANK, M/S. KANARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BAN K LIMITED? (II) WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, TOTGAR CO-OPERATIVE SA LE SOCIETY LIMITED ITSELF RENDERED ON 08TH FEBRUARY 2010, IN T OTGAR'S COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFI CER, REPORTED IN (2010) 322 ITR 283 SC : (2010) 3 SCC 22 3 FOR THE PRECEDING YEARS, NAMELY ASSESSMENT YEARS 1991-1992 TO 1999- 2000 (EXCEPT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-1996) HOLDING THA T SUCH INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TAXABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' UNDER SECTION 56 O F THE ACT AND WAS NOT 100% DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE GROSS TOTAL IN COME UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT, IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-2008 TO 2011-2012 INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS AND THEREFORE, WHETHER THE INCOME T AX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS CIT (APPEALS) WERE JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT MP NO.64/BANG/2021 PAGE 4 OF 9 SUCH INTEREST INCOME WAS 100% DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECT ION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT?' 6. THE HONBLE COURT HELD THAT SUCH INTEREST INCOME IS NOT INCOME FROM BUSINESS BUT WAS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO QUESTION O F ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. THE FOLLOWING POINTS CAN BE CULLED OUT FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION: (1) WHAT SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS TH OUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED AND CANVASSED BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT, ENVISAGES IS THAT SUCH INTEREST OR DIVIDEND EARNED BY AN ASSESSEE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY SHOULD BE OUT OF THE INVESTMEN TS WITH ANY OTHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE WORDS 'CO-OPERATIVE BANKS ' ARE MISSING IN CLAUSE (D) OF SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. EVEN THOUGH A CO- OPERATIVE BANK MAY HAVE THE CORPORATE BODY OR S KELETON OF A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY BUT ITS BUSINESS IS ENTIRELY DI FFERENT AND THAT IS THE BANKING BUSINESS, WHICH IS GOVERNED AND REGULAT ED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKING REGULATION ACT, 1949. ONL Y THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES WITH THEIR LIMITED WO RK OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITY TO ITS MEMBERS CONTINUED TO BE GOVERNED BY THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. (P ARAGRAPH 13 OF THE JUDGMENT). (2) THE BANKING BUSINESS, EVEN THOUGH RUN BY A CO-O PERATIVE BANK IS SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFICIAL PROVISION S OF EXEMPTION OR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. THE PURPOSE OF BRINGING ON THE STATUTE BOOK SUB-SECTION (4) IN SECTION 80P OF THE ACT WAS TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT ALTOGETHER TO ANY CO-OPERATIVE BANK AND TO EXCLUDE THE NORMAL BANKING BUSINESS INCOME FROM SUCH EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION CATEGORY. THE WORDS USED IN SECTION 80P(4) ARE SIGNIFICANT. THEY ARE: 'THE PROV ISIONS OF THIS MP NO.64/BANG/2021 PAGE 5 OF 9 SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY CO-OPERA TIVE BANK OTHER THAN A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY ..'. TH E WORDS 'IN RELATION TO' CAN INCLUDE WITHIN ITS AMBIT AND SCOPE EVEN THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, A COOPERATIVE SO CIETY FROM A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THIS EXCLUSION BY SECTION 80P(4) OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENT IN SECTION 80P(2)(D) O F THE ACT IS SUFFICIENT TO DENY THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT ASSE SSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. THE ONLY EXCEPT ION IS THAT OF A PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY. (PARAGRAPH-14 OF THE JUDGMENT) (3) THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 194A(3)(V) OF THE ACT EXCLUDING THE COOPERATIVE BANKS FROM THE DEFINITION OF 'CO- OPERA TIVE SOCIETY' BY FINANCE ACT, 2015 AND REQUIRING THEM TO DEDUCT INCO ME TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194A OF THE ACT ALSO MAKES THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT CLEAR THAT THE CO-OPERATIVE BANKS ARE NOT TH AT SPECIE OF GENUS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, WHICH WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EX EMPTION OR DEDUCTION UNDER THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER V IA IN THE FORM OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. (PARAGARPH 15 OF THE JUDGME NT) (4) IF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS SO CLEAR, THEN IT CANNOT CONTENDED THAT THE OMISSION TO AMEND CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 80P(2) OF T HE ACT AT THE SAME TIME IS FATAL TO THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS COURT AND SUB SILENTIO, THE DEDUCTION SHOULD C ONTINUE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM THE CO-OPERATIVE BAN K, EVEN THOUGH THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF RESPONDENT ASSESSEE ITSELF IS OTHERWISE.(PARAGRAPH 16 OF THE J UDGMENT) (5) ON THE DECISION OF THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER , THE COURT HELD THAT IT DID NOT FIND ANY DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE FACTS A ND LAW PRONOUNCED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THE RES PONDENT MP NO.64/BANG/2021 PAGE 6 OF 9 ASSESSEE (TOTGARS SALES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY) AND H ENCE UNABLE TO FOLLOW THE SAME IN THE FACE OF THE BINDING PRECEDEN T LAID BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THE HONBLE COURT OBSERVED T HAT IN PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY A CO- ORDIN ATE BENCH THAT THE LEARNED JUDGES HAVE OBSERVED THAT:- 'THE ISSUE WHETHER A CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS CONSIDER ED TO BE A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS NO LONGER RES INTEGRA, FOR THE SAID ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I TSELF IN DIFFERENT CASES..'. (6) NO OTHER BINDING PRECEDENT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT. OF COURSE, THE BENCH HAS OBSERVED THAT A CO-OPERATIVE BANK IS A SPECIE OF THE GENUS CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY, WITH WHI CH WE AGREE, BUT AS FAR AS APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 80P(2) OF THE AC T IS CONCERNED, THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION CANNO T BE RESTRICTED ONLY IF THE INCOME WAS TO FALL UNDER SECTION 80P(2) (A) OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT.(PARAGRAPH-1 8 OF THE JUDGMENT) (7) THE COURT FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT IT WOULD NOT M AKE A DIFFERENCE, WHETHER THE INTEREST INCOME IS EARNED FROM INVESTME NTS/DEPOSITS MADE IN A SCHEDULED BANK OR IN A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS DISTINGUI SHABLE AND CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, IN VIEW OF THE B INDING PRECEDENT FROM THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. (PARAGRAPH 19 OF T HE JUDGMENT). 7. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE AFORESAI D DECISION ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARA T HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA (SBI) VS. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX 389 ITR 0578 (GUJ) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE LTD. ( SUPRA) THAT THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY MP NO.64/BANG/2021 PAGE 7 OF 9 (SUPRA) IS RESTRICTED TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED F ROM MARKETING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS WHICH WAS RETAI NED IN MANY CASES AND INVESTED IN SHORT TERM DEPOSIT/SECURITY AND THAT TH E SAID DECISION WAS CONFINED TO THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE AND DID NOT LAY DOWN ANY LAW. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA) DECIDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE COURT WAS DEALING WITH TWO KINDS OF ACTIVITIES: INTEREST INCO ME EARNED FROM THE AMOUNT RETAINED FROM THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE MEMBERS FRO M WHOM PRODUCE WAS BOUGHT AND WHICH WAS INVESTED IN SHORT-TERM DEPOSIT S/SECURITIES; AND THE INTEREST DERIVED FROM THE SURPLUS FUNDS THAT THE AS SESSEE THEREIN INVESTED IN SHORT-TERM DEPOSITS WITH THE GOVERNMENT SECURITI ES. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THIS REGARD REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FROM WHICH THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE SUPREM E COURT WHEREIN IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS CARRYING ON TH E BUSINESS OF PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT-SOCIETY BEING AN ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS, THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON DEPOSITS IN BUSINESS AND SECURITIES IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AS ITS JOB IS TO PROVIDE C REDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS AND MARKETING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OF ITS MEMBERS. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THEREFORE HELD THAT DECI SION IN THE CASE OF TOTGAR CO-OPERATIVE SALES SOCIETY RENDERED BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IS NOT RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE THEREIN FROM THE RETAINED AMOUNT WHICH WAS PAYABLE TO ITS MEMBER S BUT ALSO IN RESPECT OF FUNDS NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS PURP OSES. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT INTEREST ON SUCH INVESTMENTS, C ANNOT FALL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS' AND THAT SUCH INTEREST INCOME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE T O THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY, NAMELY, CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF PROVID ING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS OR MARKETING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF ITS MEMBERS. THE COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY PROVIDES CR EDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MP NO.64/BANG/2021 PAGE 8 OF 9 MEMBERS, IT EARNS INTEREST INCOME. THE INTEREST WHI CH ACCRUES ON FUNDS NOT IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS BUSINE SS PURPOSES AND WHICH HAS BEEN INVESTED IN SPECIFIED SECURITIES AS 'INVES TMENT' ARE INELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. (P ARAGRAPH-13 OF THE JUDGMENT) 9. IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT THE RATIO LAI D DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TOTGARS COOPERA TIVE SALES SOCIETY IN 395 ITR 611 (KARN) IS THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRIN CIPLES ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY (SUPRA), IN CASE OF A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO I TS MEMBERS, INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS MADE IN BANKS DOES NOT FALL WITHIN ANY OF THE CATEGORIES MENTIONED IN SECTION 80P(2)(A) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS INTEREST EARNED FROM F UNDS INVESTED IN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES. THEREFORE, TO THE EXTENT OF THE INTEREST EARNED FROM INVESTMENTS MADE BY IT WITH ANY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIET Y, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION OF THE WHOLE OF SU CH INCOME UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(D) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, INTEREST EARNED FROM INVESTMENTS MADE IN ANY BANK, NOT BEING A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. THUS, PARA NO.8 OF THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 9.4.2021 IS MODIFIED AND SUBSTITUTED TO READ AS FOL LOWS:- 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ITA NO.128/BANG/2020 IS A LLOWED AND ITA NO.129/BANG/2020 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- ( C HANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. / DESAI SMURTHY / MP NO.64/BANG/2021 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FIL E BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.